• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.129-154
• /
• 2014

The study examined Daxuezhalu written by ShiTan Li Shen-Yi. Three different editions of Daxuezhalu were looked into, one of which in Shitanji("石灘集") could be considered methodical, if not perfect. In addition, Guojirucangben("國際儒藏本" as goudou(句讀) and correction was made on its wrong contents through dainjiao(點校) by WangXinzhu(王心竹). For these reasons, Daxuezhalu in Shitanji was used as the basis for the study and Guojirucangben as a supplement. Explanatory notes were added to Daxuezhangjuxu("大學章句序") in Daxuezhalu, but consent cannot be given to some of them, which include the author's opinion that views Jing(敬) as essence of Xiaoxue("小學") and Daxue("大學"), and the unique interpretation of Zhangju(章句), which can be attributed to the fact that the author didn't revise Daxuezhalu after writing it at the age of 37. However, the explanatory notes on xin(心), xing(性), qing(情), zhi(志) and yi(意) in An(按) toward the end of Daxuezhangjuxu are considered unique. The followings in Jingwen(經文) were examined as questionable. ShiTan(石灘) reflected on the ways to reach zhishan(至善) as in the table that shows Sangangling(三綱領), which may be viewed as distinctive. The review of zhizhijie('知止'節) reveals that ShiTan(石灘) followed Zhuzi(朱子) on the issue of whether to relocate zhizhijie('知止'節) through his interpretation for leaving it where it was. The same was applied regarding tizhi(體制) in chuanwen(傳文) by following Zhuzi(朱子)'s argument on Daxuezhangju("大學章句"). While the tendency to divide it into zhi(知) and hang(行) was seen, there was difficulty in thorough understanding with all the comments being in goujie(句節). It is considered overreaction that he argued in favor of shen(?) without any comments on Gewuzhizhibuwangzhang("格物致知補忘章"), although he mentioned characters, jin(謹) and shen(?) unlike Zhuzi(朱子).