Search | Korea Science

The Dialogue of Gi-Hak and Sim-Hak (기학(氣學)과 심학(心學)의 횡단적 소통구조에 관한 연구 - 장횡거(張橫渠)와 왕양명(王陽明)의 이론을 중심으로 -)

Jang, Yun-su
- Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
- /
- v.130
- /
- pp.247-276
- /
- 2014
The purpose of this paper is to explore how Zhang Zai(張載)''s Gi-Hak(氣學) and Wang Shou-Ren(王守仁)''s Sim-Hak(心學) are interrelated, which differs from prior positions viewing the two as separate, unrelated philosophies or ones standing in contrast to each other. By direct comparing the notions Tae-Heo(太虛) and Yang-Ji(良知), I tried to explain that ontological structures of Gi-Hak and Sim-Hak are interrelated ; and by comparing Dae-Sim(大心) and Chi-Yang-Ji(致良知), I made an argument that Gong-Bu-Ron(工夫論) of Gi-Hak and Sim-Hak corresponds to each other. Zhang Zai''s the doctrine of Tae-Heo can be seen as a respond to Jeok-Myeol-Ron(寂滅論) in Buddhism ; therefore, understanding Sim-Hak in terms of Gi-Hak, that is, interpreting the fundamental meaning of Yang-Ji as Tae-Heo, can free Yang-Myeong-Sim-Hak(陽明心學) from the unceasing criticism by Ju-Ja-Hak(朱子學) that it is a 'Buddhistic heresy'. This study could be highly significant in that it enables us to read the tradition of Zhang Zai not only from the viewpoint of u-Ja-Hak, but even from ang-Myeong-Sim-Hak tradition. I interpreted Yangming School of Mind as a developmental succession of Neo-Confucianism, and understood Zhang Zai''s Gi-Hak as a theoretical pioneer of Wang Shou-Ren''s Sim-Hak.

The research about difference between Sangsan-Simhak and Yangming-Simhak - from a different point of view between 'Song-Hak' and 'Ming-Hak'- (상산심학과 양명심학의 차별성 연구 - '송학'과 '명학'의 차별적 관점에서 -)

Lee, Sang-Ho
- Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
- /
- v.105
- /
- pp.321-350
- /
- 2008
The purpose of this paper is to identify the difference between Sangsan-Simhak(象山心學) and Yangming-Simhak(陽明心學). This means that the whole history of Sung Confucianism needs to be understood based on changing philosophical paradigm according to the times, not general perception which regards the whole history of Sung Confucianism as Li-Hak (理學) and Sim-Hak(心學). This kind of perception is caused by the general perception which divides Sung Confucianism into Sim-Hak and Li-Hak. We regard the former as Chung-Chu study and the latter as Liu-Yang study. Because of this, Sangsan study is recognized as the former stage study of Yangming study and can not be placed in independent position in whole history of Sung Confucianism. And Sang is regarded that it takes diametrical opposition with Chuhsi study. So it is said that there is no point of sameness among them. But Sangsan study was generated from 'Song-Hak(宋學)' based on paradigm of Li-Hak and Yangming study was generated from 'Ming-Hak(明學)' based on paradigm of Sim-Hak. The difference between 'Song-Hak' and 'Ming-Hak' is generated from proposition called 'Sim is Li (心卽理)' that most research has overlooked. To identify these things, this paper examine the philosophical difference between 'Song-Hak' and 'Ming-Hak' and analyze the proposition 'Sim is Li(心卽理)' that regards Sangsan study and Yangming study as same philosophical system. And this paper identify the philosophical difference between Sangsan study and Yangming study by examining the method that the concept of 'Sim is Li(心卽理)' is applied in moral cultivation. This paper shows that the difference of interpretation about the concept of Li(理), between 'Song-Hak' based on Li paradigm and 'Ming-Hak' based on Ki-Hak(氣學) paradigm, causes different meaning in 'Sim is Li(心卽理)'. Through these, this paper demonstrate the difference between the paradigm of 'Song-Hak' that Chuhsi study and Sangsan study have and the paradigm of 'Ming-Hak' that Yangming study has and the fact which Sangsan study is systematic philosophy of Sung Confucianism in itself not former stage of Yangming study.