• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.387-416
• /
• 2014

This article explored the duplicity relation between the Daxue/Zhongyong of Confucianism and the Yonghobigyeol of Taoism, which was advocated by Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon, who was a Confucian scholar and the progenitor of Sundoism. The view of Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon was that the Confucian scriptures that contain the mind control method handed down from Confucius are Daxue, Zhongyong and Zhouyixicichuan (周易繫辭傳). His another view was that Zhuzi (朱子) intentionally did not expose the original object of Confucian mind control method in the interpretation of Sangangling (三綱領) of Daxuezhangju (大學章句) annotated by him, since he was invoked by the contemporary logic of Sung Period (宋代). Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon added a new annotation on Daxue Sangangling and tried to disclose the original object of Confucian mind control method through new interpretation by explaining the implied meaning of character '中' (zhong) of Zhongyong Yunzhijuezhong (允執厥中) by way of Iljungron (一中論). In addition to this new interpretation, Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon took the Yuanxiangfa (原象法), which Confucius compiled as the extract of Yijing (易經) from Zhouyixicichuan (周易繫辭傳), as the core of Confucian metaphysical philosophy study. He suggested Yuanxiangfa as a methodology to reach the ultimate target of study together with the Yonghobigyeol of Taoism and paid attention to the close relationship between the two. Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon verified the original object of Daxue by new interpretation on Daxue Sangangling, left an analytical thought on the consistency among Daxue, Zhongyong and Xicichuan (繫辭傳) and the study method of Igyohabil (異敎合一), where he integrated the principle of Taoism and Confucianism. Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon left a new topic to Korean world of thought, which is as important as the Seondanhosuron (禪丹互修論) of Cheonghaja Gwon Geuk-jung (靑霞子 權克中) in Joseon Period.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.34
• /
• pp.39-62
• /
• 2009

In this paper, the researcher investigated the standpoint of Lee EonJeok(李彦迪), also known as HoeJae(晦齋), with regard to interpretation of Daxue("大學"), through Daxuezhangjubuyi("大學章句補遺") and XuDaxuehuowen("續大學或問"). It is true that HoeJae accommodates a fairly large portion of interpretations made by Zhuzi, however, he strived to pass over Zhuzi's Daxuezhangju by attempting a new interpretation on the Gewuzhizhi(格物致知). The greatest reason that HoeJae couldn't admit Zhuzi's view was derived from the differences in interpretation of Gewuzhizhi. The differences between Zhuzi and HoeJae concerned with Gewuzhizhi is that, while Zhuzi perceived the objects thereof from the perspective of Li(理) of things(事物), HoeJae considered the root and branch, the beginning and end of the physical world(萬物) and also all events(萬事) as the subjects of Gewuzhizhi. Meanwhile, having the chapter, dubbed, 'Weyoubenmo'(物有本末), and the chapter, 'ZhiZhi'(知止) also as expositions of Gewuzhizhi, HoeJae was able to avoid such critiques as that he complemented or added new topics to the sutra. In addition, he could have clarified the stepwise elucidations of Sangangling(三綱領) and Batiaomu(八條目) edited and compiled by Zhuzi(朱子). And the issues in the chapter of Tingsong(聽訟) lies on the extended line of theory of Gewuzhizhi. In the end, it suggests that the differences between Zhuzi and HoeJae are arisen from the discrepancies of interpretation on Gewuzhizhi. HoeJae proposed his ideology concerned with Zhizhizhuyi(至治主義) through his book, XuDaxuehuowen, and he stressed that Ren(仁) must be foundation in order to Pingtianxia(平天下). Furthermore, HoeJae emphasized that Ren which is the founding virtue in order for Pingtianxia must be begun with such very basic behavioral practices, known as, Xiao(孝), Ti(弟), and Ci(慈), and that such desirable states would be accomplished through relationships with others, not merely through self-endeavors or by self-ego.

• 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).