• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.55-80
• /
• 2014

Park, Se-dang criticized or accepted Zhuxi's annotation with his own way of understanding Confucian classics. His way of understanding Zhuxi can explain through the motive of writing his book, sabyeonrok and his basic view of scripture interpretation in the book. He thought one can achieve learning from lower to upper level. That means it is good for one to study from text easy to reach and attain, grasp. But if one begin to study from text or contents hard to understand, that will make to lose the proper way or province to the value of learning. This is what Park, Se-dang's basic point of interpreting Confucian classics, called 'learning from lower to upper level.' Park, Se-dang gave high praise Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi and Zhuxi who recreated confucianism into world from darkness. He thought Cheng-Zhu school corrected confucian's ways of learning went wrong from Chinese Han. So we need to reconsider the assessment of his view as anti?post-Zhuxi. He also thought there were a lot of way to understand Confucian classics. He insisted Zhuxi's way of annotating Confucian classics was one of them, and so as his. He understood Zhuxi's thought in this way of thinking and his academic method of 'learning from lower to upper level.' Therefore to interpretate Confucian classics new way he criticised or accepted Zhuxi's way of annotating scripture though his own way of understanding Confucian classics and academic method of 'learning from lower to upper level.'

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.28
• /
• pp.297-329
• /
• 2010

This article is a preliminary essay for comparative study on Lao Zi Note of Park Sae Dang who lived Lee Dynasty in 17C and Hayashi La Zan who lived Doku Kawa Bakuhu in 17C. This article have two points at issue. First one is the their challenge that resisted the dogma of their own age. And the other one is their challenge of thaught had the academic background of the Lao Zi Note. They had a their own Lao Zi Note, Park Sae Dang朴世堂 had a New Note of Lao Zi 新註道德經 and Hayashi La Zan 林羅山 had a Selection Note of Lao Zi 老子抄解. However there are some different points between Park Sae Dang and Hayashi La Zan. The Hayashi La Zan's comprehension of Lao Zi followed in Lao Zi Note of Lin Xi Yi 林希逸 who had a point of Confucian comprehension of Lao Zi, so the study of Taoism of Hayashi La Zan excepted Zhuang zi. Hayashi La Zan concentrated on only Confucian comprehension of Lao Zi because Lin Xi Yi's Note of Zhuang Zi had a point of Zen Buddhism. However Park Sae Dang's the study of Taoism has Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi. He understood Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi in a base on Confucian comprehension. He indicated Confucian moral principle 修身治人 for a equal point of between Confucianism and Taoism. And he understood Cheng Xin成心 in Qiwulun in Zhuang Zi is similar to Xing性 of Xing Shan性善 in Meng Zi. Park Sae Dang analyzed not simply Lao Zi but also Zhuang Zi in a base on Confucian comprehension.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.42
• /
• pp.71-103
• /
• 2014

Park Se-dang (朴世堂, 1629-1703) is a figure rebuked as a "disturbing enemy of the Confucian canon" (斯文亂賊), having composed the Namhwagyeong Joohaesanbo (南華經註解刪補), the sole commentary on every chapter of the Zhuangzi (莊子) in Joseon Dynasty. This article purports to articulate the significance of Park Se-dang's composition of the Namhwagyeong Joohaesanbo within Joseon Dynasty in the 17th century, through the comparison between him and Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130-1200), the founder of Neo-Confucianism, the mainstream ideology of Joseon Dynasty, in their recognition of the Zhuangzi. Since Neo-Confucianism attained an absolute status as the canonical doctrine in Joseon Dynasty, the other thoughts, including the thoughts of the Laozi and the Zhuangzi, could not be discussed without their relationship with it. Park Se-dang's recognition of the Zhuangzi does not deviate far from Zhu Xi's recognition of it. While his composition of the Namhwagyeong Joohaesanbo might be said to have inherited and deepened Zhu Xi's recognition, it can also be seen as an attempt to escape from Neo-Confucianism in some aspects. Due to this complication, when the faction of the Noron (老論, a faction separated from the Seoin in the Joseon Dynasty, the hard-liners) rebuked him as a "disturbing enemy of the Confucian canon," they did not mention neither his Shinjoo Dodeokgyeong (新註道德經, New Commentary on the Laozi) nor his Namhwagyeong Joohaesanbo. In his Namhwagyeong Joohaesanbo, Park Se-dang does not think that the Zhuangzi is in diametrical opposition to Confucian thoughts. Firstly, he emphasizes that Zhuangzi faces the actual world with ultimately positive concern, though from a critical perspective. Secondly, he seeks common grounds between the thoughts of Zhuangzi and Confucians, proving that Zhuangzi emphasizes human relationships between father and son or between king and subject. Thirdly, he illuminates Zhuangzi's theory of human nature from a new perspective in order to reestablish Confucian theory of human nature. Fourthly, he attempts to apply Zhuangzi's thoughts in order to overcome contemporary consumptive political feuds, including the splits of political factions or the disputes about ritual proprieties (禮訟論爭). Park Se-dang's composition of Shinjoo Dodeokgyeong and Namhwagyeong Joohaesanbo was a complementary measure for Confucianism, his proper mainstay being Confucianism. He attempted to escape, not from Confucianism itself, but from the absolutism of Neo-Confucianism. In the 17th century Joseon Dynasty, when Neo-Confucianism was becoming dogmatized and absolutized as a canonical doctrine and a dominant ideology, Park Se-dang's composition of Namhwagyeong Joohaesanbo was a very innovative attempt, which shows that he established himself as a pioneer to escape Neo-Confucianism, having consolidated his own unique and progressive academic province, differentiating himself from traditional Confucian scholars in his objective.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2014

This research is an attempt to newly interpret his academic evaluation and understand Seo Kye Bak Se-Dang's Sa Byeun Rok The Doctrine of the Mean. In academic world, his academic Characteristic was considered as anti-Neo-confucianism, out of Jung Ju Hak, out of Seong Ri Hak, and Sil Hak. His understanding of The Doctrine of the Mean was pretty critical, because he had unique academic characteristic to interpret Chinese classics rather than anti-Neo-confucianism, out of Jung Ju Hak, out of Seong Ri Hak, and Sil Hak. Especially, he took practical study with six Chinese classics as the central figure and it was a creative thing with philosophical method. He tried to find out original meaning which was essential thought of Confucianism, and pointed out disharmony for consistency about meaning of The Doctrine of the Mean when Jung Ja and Ju Ja interpreted The Doctrine of the Mean. It appeared as an effort of trying agreement between name and its duty, and role and function in things and act. In addition, he thought The Doctrine of the Mean as trying to follow nature, and it was the way of people to practice in bright side of mind. It is different from Ju Ja's thought which explains principle about people and things, and it has strong reality which is foundation of practice and allows dynamic energy of human life. Therefore, practice style of The Doctrine of the Mean develops filial duty as center of mass and appears manifestation of human's independence through how people pracice it. To sum up, he traced The Doctrine of the Mean as reality, practice, and physical science rather than ideal, theoretical, and metaphysical philosophy. It developed the spirit of study as understanding world as the center of human, thinking over the way of people, and studying the essence of Confucianism with practice of thought.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.34
• /
• pp.89-112
• /
• 2009

Park Se-dang who has the pen name of Seogye is a man in the 17th century. Then, Joseon Dynasty is try to restore the state which became impoverished by two wars. When Sung Confucianism of Chu-tz was dogmatized, Seogye analyzed independently the scriptures and was regarded as a traitor against Sung Confucianism. Therefore, this paper discussed the understanding of Seogye's works and its social reflection through the research data about Seogye. Although Seogye has blue blood in his veins, he belonged to a non-mainstream group in the faction of Seo-in and had a liberal inclination. That he has shuned in the school of Sung Confucianism owed to Sabyeunrok of his work, and its main reason is his criticism against Song Si-yeul. He argued the two principles different from Chu-tz's three principles. Also, he not accepted the Chu-tz's theory and was similar to the Wang Yangming school in the issue of gaining knowledge by the study of things Now to conclude, Seogye outstretched the liberal inclination in Sung Confucianism apart from the interpretation of scriptures. He was not indulged in Sung Confucianism of Chu-tz that was gradually ossifying at that time and took his own line. And he devoted himself to the study of practical learning and the education for younger scholars, and had acted as mediator between the Sung Confucianism of Chu-tz and the Practical Science that was in full bloom in the period of King Young-jo and King Jeong-jo.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.121-156
• /
• 2015

Memorials in Joseon Dynasty created a arena where the intellectual and political power met. This thesis traces the process of a certain political faction's rebuilding of the political structure of the elite groups by leading the intellectual controversies through memorials, especially those about the evaluations of Pak Setang(朴世堂) and I Gyeongseok(李景奭). This is what happened: Song Siyeol(宋時烈) submitted a memorial which disputed I Gyeongseok's petition, which provoked complete controversies around the memorials between Noron(老論) and Soron(少論). This led to the academic censorship against Sabyeonrok written by Pak Setang. The analysis of act of writing and submission of memorials by Noron and the role of the Kim Family of An-dong(安東 金門) specifically is the main topic here. The members of Soron ceaselessly criticized Song Siyeol, while the Kim Family strongly defended him. The trigger of the strife was a letter written by Kim Chang-Heup(金昌翕), a member of the Kim Family and the Kims played a significant role in the background during the process of political fights using memorials. The series of memorials criticized or supported certain political figure or his writings, but the opinions of Noron and Soron were directly opposite to each other. Even though the expressed difference was the result of the existing political factions, however, it also caused the new power structure of elite groups. The expressions and logics used in the arguments also have its significance. The Noron's memorials evaluated the contemporary people and their writings based on Chu-Hsi and Song Siyeol, who was regarded as a identical figure of Chu-Hsi. The arguments and writing strategies in this regard gained political strength enough to reorganize the intellectual society by changing alignment of political parties, and this led to the rebuilding of academic environment afterward.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.76-87
• /
• 2015

The present study examines the Saekgyeong (Classic of Husbandry; 1676), an agricultural manual dating from the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910), and the agricultural thought of its author by Park Se-dang (pen name: Seogye; 1629-1703), a scholar. Its purpose lies in exploring the value of contemporary urban agriculture based on an examination of the attitudes toward agriculture, the values pursued through agriculture, and the ways of dealing with and using land as evinced by the classic and its author. Confirmed through an examination of Park's agricultural philosophy and the Saekgyeong, the results of the present study are as follow. First, there is the socioeconomic value of pursuing the stability of and promoting the economic independence of indigent petty peasants through productivity improvement. Second, there is the experiential value of exploration through experience and agricultural field practice for study. Third, there is the environmental value of endeavoring to overcome an infertile natural environment through agricultural methods that sought to accommodate the land by reading the flow and phenomena of nature. Fourth, there is the practical value of compiling the Saekgyeong and seeking to broaden its use as a guidebook containing agricultural methods appropriate to the land and the wisdom for life.8) When examined in terms of contemporary urban agriculture, the significance of the four values above is as follows: the socioeconomic effect of encouraging urban agricultural activities as a means of welfare for socially alienated classes and promoting the creation of jobs; the enhancement of the significance of study through hands-on activities from an educational perspective; the recycling and recovery of resources and the enhancement of environmental consciousness for the recovery of urban ecology; and a practical spirit that seeks to contribute directly to society through academic research that contributes to practical life and approaches familiar to the populace. The present study sought to find the value of urban agriculture, under discussion in diverse ways in recent years, in the thoughts of our ancestors, who pondered on agriculture. Despite differences in the periodic background, the significance of the present study lies in its in-depth reexamination of the fundamental significance of diverse agricultural values that are being pursued today.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.265-299
• /
• 2009

The Great Learning is an essential scripture of Confucianism that has had great influence on the politics, thoughts, society and culture of the East Asia which contains Korea, Japan and China. In case of Japan, the doctrine of Toegye(退溪) is flown into pre-Tokugawa era, and as the doctrine of Zhu Xi(朱熹) exercise influences over the other thoughts, the importance of the Great Learning is embossed relatively in Tokugawa era. The characteristic of Japanese confucianism of Tokugawa era is to lay weight on real world as such, and the Japanese confucianism has grown up academically centers on exhaustive reinterpretation about some Confucian classics. And Backho-Yoon Hyu(白湖 尹?), Seokye-Park Sedang(西溪 朴世堂) who lived in 17th century of Joseon dynasty attempt new interpretation about the Great Learning and they have an objection to the explanatory notes of Zhu Xi. In the same period of China, there are similar academic trends around Whang Jong Hi(黃宗羲), Ko Yeom Mu(顧炎武), Wang Fu Chi(王夫之). In other words, new views of real scholarship which reject emptiness and put much value on reality were current of thoughts that have been common to the oriental three countries in early and middle 17th century. The main object of this paper is to understand the attitude and understanding about the Confucian classics especially the Great Learning of the scholars who lived in early and middle Tokugawa era. It will be a decisive clue to understand the ninucture of thoughts system of them. Through these work, we understand how it has had influenced to thinking-ninucture and lives of the Japanese. And the other purpose of this paper is to understand characteristics of them when we compare that vking-ninucture and lives of the Japanese Confuciang-ninearly and middle Tokugawa era with in the same period of Jeseon and the later Ming(明) and early Ching(淸) dynasty.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.32
• /
• pp.113-159
• /
• 2011

The self-segmentation of Seoin(西人) School and the appearance of Soron(少論) School in the 17th century Joseon society has an important meaning in the political history. Soron School(少論學派) had quite different line in their thought and public position from the Noron(老論) School represented by Song Shi-yeol. With such thought and position, Soron School added a vitality to the barren climate of Joseon intellectual society and soon became an important school of it. Especially, the senior leaders of early Soron School shared the culture of discussion and dialogue which was represented by the phrase, "the forest of debate and the hill of argument". Accordingly, Soron School could form an unique academic tradition which was different from other schools. For instance, Park Se-dang(朴世堂), Nam Gu-man(南九萬), Yoon Jeung(尹拯) and Park Se-chae(朴世采) had relatively flexible Conception of Heresy; which was in the same context with the academic position of Soron School that allowed diverse approaches to truth each as the path of justice. Furthermore, the leaders of Soron School continued dialogue and discussion on the wide range of current issues. They deeply sympathized with the Tangpyeong-ron(蕩平論), which was to appoint important government positions equally from multiple schools. They thought that the Tangpyeong-ron(蕩平論) was to avoid the harmful influence of conflicts between schools, the Bungdang(朋黨), and tried to tune and compromise the different opinions of different schools. In fact, the "Hwanggeuk Tangpyeong-ron" (皇極蕩平論) submitted by Park Se-chae was the summarization of the discussions shared by the Soron School leaders. Consequently, the seniors of Soron School practiced their philosophy that "the true academic practice is the communication" by keeping the dialogue with other schools while respecting the difference of each other, rather than staying comfortably in the closed academic fence of uniformity. Such communicative academic practice adopting discussion and dialogue had been succeeded to the second generation of Soron School and it remained as an unique academic tradition of Soron School.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.31
• /
• pp.241-262
• /
• 2011

In this paper we show how the perception of heavenly principle(天理) and definition of individual desires(私慾) in the five commentaries on Daodejing(道德經) was changed over time. The five commentaries on Daodejing(道德經) composed during $Chos{\breve{o}}n$ are 'Sooneon(醇言) by Lee, Yul-gock (李珥,1536~1584), 'SinJoo-DoDuckKyung (新註道德經) - or New Commentary on Daodejing(道德經) - by Park, Se-dang(朴世堂,1629~1703), 'Dodukjigi(道德指歸)' by Suh, Myoung-euing(徐命膺,1716~1787), 'Chowondamro (椒園談老)' by Lee, Chung-ik(李忠翊,1744~1816), and 'Jungro(訂老)' by Hong, Suk-joo (洪奭周,1774~1842). The course of history in understanding the book, "Daodejing(道德經)," demonstrated that by the late of $Chos{\breve{o}}n$ Dynasty in the 18th century, the notion of 'the moral law for the community' has changed. Neither Suh, Myoung-euing nor Lee, Chung-ik emphasized 'the necessity for the truth of the heavens.'Instead, they focused more on the 'individuals' who followed the moral law than the moral law itself. They did not see the individual desire as the object that had to be discarded. Within the context of this framework, the individual's role had changed from the person who had to be obedient to the law to the subject who judged the moral law all by him/herself. This process of breaking up 'the goodness of the community' led the $Chos{\breve{o}}n$ Dynasty of the 18th century in the transition period to the modern era. In other words, it was the time when the introspection of the 'moral law' prevailed in the $Chos{\breve{o}}n$ Dynasty occurred naturally and spontaneously among the Confucian scholars, which implied the reconceptualization of the 'self-awareness' or 'the point of view on the individual's self-desire' was occurred in the context of academic development during the late $Chos{\breve{o}}n$ Dynasty.