• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.52
• /
• pp.37-67
• /
• 2017

This article is to examine the characteristics of Habin Sin Hu-Dam's method of interpreting Zhouyi and to review its position in Zhouyi history of Joseon Dynasty. Especially, there has been drown attention to the connection both Habin and Tasan Cheong Yagyong. Habin is a philosopher who consistently interprets Zhouyi through the inner logic of it, not through Neo-confucian framework of it. The inner logic is yaobian theory, which is found through investigating the auguries in the old Books of Confucianism. It could be said that this discovery is the Habin's original one, although there may be historically connections between him and Seong-Ho School in the interpreting methodology about Zhouyi. However, at a future date this logic is found in Tasan. There are no connections between two philosophers, but it may be said that they arrive at the common method of interpreting Zhouyi through investigating the auguries in the old Books of Confucianism. We find that their common methods of interpreting Zhouyi do not keep to authoritative interpretation, but there is the passion of searching for Zhouyi the way as it is.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.35-61
• /
• 2017

The formation process of Dasan(茶山)'s Yi Xue(易學) in Xinghuxuepai(星湖學派) was examined. Dasan(茶山)'s Yi Xue(易學) succeeded to the methods of Huti (互體) and Yaobian(爻變) from Seong-ho(星湖) and Ha-bin(河濱), and Dasan(茶山) thought that he couldn't cover Zhouyi("周易") just with this one method. So he suggested the four methods called Yilisifa(易理四法), and supplemented it with 18 methods through Duyiyaozhi(?讀易要旨?). Accordingly, the process of how Dasan(茶山)'s Yi Xue(易學) was established was examined one by one. Dasan(茶山) succeeded to the method of Huti(互體) from Seong-ho Lee Ik(星湖李瀷), the leading master of Xinghuxuepai(星湖學派). Nevertheless, Dasan(茶山) argued that the method of Huti(互體) had been from Zhu Xi(朱子). However, this argument of Dasan(茶山)'s seems to have resulted from Zhengzu(正祖)'s academic research policy. As a way to interpret Zhouyi(?周易?), Dasan(茶山) succeeded to the method of Yaobian(爻變) from Ha-bin(河濱). However, Dasan(茶山) argued that Yaobian(爻變)was Zhu Xi(朱子)'s intention. He had no choice but this because of Zhengzu(正祖)'s academic research policy. Dasan(茶山) succeeded to the method of Huti(互體) from Seong-ho(星湖) and Yaobian(爻變) from Ha-bin(河濱), but Dasan(茶山) proposed the four key methods called Yilisifa(易理四法). Many researchers have argued that, as for Dasan(茶山)'s modern viewpoint, Dasan(茶山) developed Yi Xue(易學) in a similar way as Xihe Mauqiling(西河 毛奇齡). However, this viewpoint cannot be judged to have been similar as it was expressed when Dasan(茶山) himself criticized Xihe(西河)'s Jingxueguan(經學觀).