• 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).