• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.63
• /
• pp.141-168
• /
• 2016

This paper studies Zhu Xi's critical comprehension about the theories of gewu zhizhi of senior Confucian scholars, focusing on the Daxue Zhangju, Daxue huowen, and Daxue huowen yulei of Zhuzi yulei. Zhu Xi described in depth the theory of gewu zhizhi of Sima Guang, disciples of the Cheng Yi(Lu Dalin, Xie Liangzuo, Yin Ch'un, Yang Shi), scholars of Hu-Xing province(Hu An-guo, Hu hong), Li Dong in the Daxue huowen and Daxue huowen yulei, by his understanding through a criticism of the theory of gewu zhizh, thereby formulating a theory of gewu zhizhi on the basis of Cheng Yi's theory. Through this criticism of senior Confucian scholars, Zhu Xi explained that the theory of gewu zhizhi was departed from a positive affirmation of things. Zhu Xi claimed that the crux of gewu zhizhi was a thorough understanding like a sudden release achieved by accumulating Li of things. This plan of Zhu Xi with respect to "Supplementary Chapter on the Gewu Zhizhi" showed that the theory of gewu zhizhi which was set up by himself corresponded to the theory of Cheng Yi's, and it was based on the Confucian tradition firmly.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.37
• /
• pp.159-195
• /
• 2013

A dispute between Zhu Xi(朱熹) and Lu Jiuyuan(陸九淵) is important on Neo-confucianism's development. The dispute causing from difference between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's Philosophy had effected Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's each school's philosophical dispute. From Song dynasty to Ming Dynasty's most philosophers continuous disputed about Same & Difference on Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's Philosophy, but did not appreciate it because of school's prejudice. On Qing dynasty, there appeared philosophers being free or less from school's prejudice. they looked at Same & Difference on Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's Philosophy objectively. One of them was Li Fu(李?) philosopher of Lu Jiuyuan & Wang Yangming's school. He wrote Zhuziwannianquanlun("朱子晩年全論") objective investigation of Same & Difference on Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's Philosophy and reaction of Zhu Xi's school criticizing Wang Yangming's Zhuxiwannianzhunglun. Li Fu was Philosopher Lu Jiuyuan & Wang Yangming's school, but objectively compared between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's philosophy, analysed same of Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's philosophy and attempted philosophical agreement. Li Fu's this approaching is new interpretation and isn't uncritical admission from prejudice of Lu Jiuyuan & Wang Yangming's school.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.239-262
• /
• 2020

Reacting to Lu Jiu-yuan's teachings on "Wuji-Taiji," Zhu-Xi explicitly outlined his own viewpoints on the concept of "Taiji." Furthermore, he established a system of cosmological ontology based on them. Zhu-xi's main viewpoints and arguments on "Taiji" were fully understood and accepted by Lee Eon-jeok, who inherited and developed them even further. Lee Eon-jeok argued with Cho Han-bo, a thinker who contended against Lu Jiu-yuan (Son Sook-don) on the interpretation of "Wuji er Taiji" by deftly quoting Zhu-xi's point of view from Zhu-xi's standpoint. In modern times, Daesoon Thought has borrowed the concept of "Wuji" and "Taiji," and interpreted the original body of the "Dao" as "Wuji" to reveal a stationarity of the "Dao." This is interpreted as the specific creation of all things and the process of change, wherein Taiji represents the revealed activity of the "Dao." This development can be seen as an attempt by Daesoon Thought to clear away all suffering and enmity and open up a Later World of love and justice through an omnipotent Supreme God (Sangje) in times of desperate crisis of internal and external troubles.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.52
• /
• pp.311-340
• /
• 2017

This research focuses on the theory of Zhi-jue(知覺) by Kim Chang-Hyup(金昌協) through comparison between Kim Chang-Hyup's and Zhu Xi(朱熹)'s. In the point of supervision, Zhu Xi considered that Zhi-jue is one of the conditions caused by supervision, one the other hand, it is the action that make possible supervision. Kim Chang-Hyup emphasize the concept of Zhi-jue itself, he considered that Zhi-jue is the action that make possible supervision, and separate Zhi-jue from Xing(性) or Qing(情). In this process, Zhi-jue became the subject itself about supervision, so the mix about relation between Zhi-jue and supervision is solved. But there is a problem about gap between Zhi-jue and the nature from separate between Zhi-jue and Xing. Kim Chang-Hyup intend to separate Zhi-jue and Qing as subject and object, so he considered that Xing is not a reason of Zhi-jue, but rules. It's not a answer about what is the reason of Zhi-jue. Yet Zhu Xi also considered that Xing is the rules of Zhu-jue, only in the case that Zhi-jue means the resulf of supervision, Zhi-jue is considered as the effect of Zhi(智). So the relation problem about Zhi-jue as a subject and the nature is brought up by Joseon scholar who attempted to arrange the concepts of neo-confucianism. Eventually, in case of the relation about Zhi-jue and Xing, King Chang-Hyup and Zhu Xi has a common point, only in case of the relation about Zhi-jue and supervision, Definding Zhi-jue as the subject of supervision is the character of Kim Chang-Hyup's theory of Zhi-jue.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.52
• /
• pp.281-310
• /
• 2017

This paper is a reflective study of contemporary Korean scholars' claims that they criticize the explanation of Zhu Xi(朱熹, 1130-1200)'s psychology in which he explains that the 24th Hexagram of $F{\hat{u}}$[復卦] shows the state that the mind has not happened yet[未發]. Zhu Xi explains the 24th Hexagram of $F{\hat{u}}$[復卦] with the theory of no mind yet[未發說]. Several scholars in modern Korea, however, raise the question of whether "thoughtless[思慮未萌] but being not dark to perception[知覺不昧]" of the 24th Hexagram of $F{\hat{u}}$ is enough to explain the state of no mind yet. And they think that "thoughtless[思慮未萌]" is appropriate to explain the state in which the mind has not yet occurred, but it is not to "being not dark to perception". In this study, we would like to show that Zhu Xi's interpretation of the 24th Hexagram of $F{\hat{u}}$[復卦] fully explains the fact that "thoughtless[思慮未萌] but being not dark to perception[知覺不昧]" explain the theory of no mind yet[未發說]. Zhu Xi's 'the theory of no mind yet[未發說]' is divided into two periods, a period of 'old theory on $zh{\bar{o}}ngh{\acute{e}}$[中和舊說]' and a period of 'new theory on $zh{\bar{o}}ngh{\acute{e}}$[中和新說]'. He develops 'the theory of no mind yet[未發說]' on the basis of 'the theory that nature is body and mind is action[性體心用說]' during the period of old theory, and develops the theory[未發說] based on 'the theory that mind controls nature and feelings[心統性情說]' during the new theory. Between the two periods, the status of the mind changes from "the mind has already happened[已發]" to "through which the mind has not yet arisen and the mind has already risen[未發已發]". And its role also changes from 'what nature is happened' to 'presiding on nature and emotion.' This change affects the interpretation of the idea that the mind has not yet happened, that thoughts have not budged yet[思慮未萌], perception is not dark[知覺不昧].

• Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology
• /
• v.8 no.8
• /
• pp.793-803
• /
• 2018

Since Confucius presentied 'zhong-yong' and Zi Si wrote Zhong-Yong (The Doctring of the Mean), specially since Zhu Xi edited Zhong-Yong as one of Si-Shu (The Four Books) and interpreted it, zhong-yong was not only recognized as the extreme of morality but also as a significant category of Confucianism. The purpose of this paper is to clarify how Jeong Yak-Yong criticized Zhu Xi's interpretation of zhong-yong, and furthermore, to search how Jung Yak-yong explain the zhong-yong by tree concepts of 'grasp', 'moral behavior', and 'habit'. Zhu Xi interpreted zong as a measured absolute middle of two-side and a non-launched original nature. Interpreted yong as a common truth. Therefore he interpreted zhong-yong as a common truth of neither excessive nor enough. Accordingly, Zhu Xi's zhong-yong can be understood as absolute zhong-yong without human's reflection and moral behavior. But Jeong Yak-Yong interpreted zhong as the state of a man's very hard-concentrate and grasp of situation, and interpreted yong as the state of a man's very hard-effort moral behavior and it's habit. Therefore he explained zhong-yong as a habit of moral behavior through grasp.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.58
• /
• pp.307-336
• /
• 2018

This paper traces the historical genealogy of the subjectivity and the silsim (實心, true mind) that appear in Jeong In-Bo's "gukhak" (國學, the national learning) thought and illuminates its characteristics. In the modern East Asian history of thought, the beginning of the emergence of subjectivity and the silsim as the main philosophical topic comes from the Neo-Confucianism of Song Dynasty in China. Cheng Yi is the first thinker to emphasize subjectivity and consciousness. Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming inherit the Neo-Confucian thought based on Cheng Yi's principle of subjectivity, but only show difference in methodology. In the Chosun Dynasty, Jeong Je-Doo and his School were one example of the Neo-Confucian spirit of subjectivity and the silsim. Although Jeong In-Bo (鄭寅普) belongs to Jeong Je-Doo's school of Ganghwa in the school curriculum, he has only used it methodologically since he believed that Yangming's learning is more effective in the awareness and practice of the silsim. Especially noteworthy is that the principle of subjectivity led Jeong In-Bo to follow the frame of Zhu Xi's moral theory. Jeong's claim that selfish desire (jasasim 自私心) should be controlled by a conscious mind (silsim) being aware of the right and 'ought to do' corresponds to Zhu Xi's view that the moral mind (dosim 道心) should be selected in the conflict situation between sensual desire (insim 人心) and moral consciousness so that the insim should be supervised by the dosim. Such ethics is a position to emphasize the inner motive and the sense of duty of conduct, and there is no fundamental difference in Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming. At least on this point, it is necessary to look at modern and contemporary Korean studies from the perspective of continuity, not discontinuity from Confucian tradition.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.38
• /
• pp.63-96
• /
• 2013

$L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) was one of the famous philosophers during the Southern Song period, and is called one of DongNamSanXian(東南三賢) together with ZhuXi(朱熹) and ZhangShi(張?). With his profound knowledge transmitted and uphold by JiaXue(家學), $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) established his learning system, interacting with scholars of those days. Principally, $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙)'s XinLun(心論) was based on Mengzi(孟子)' theory of LiangXin(良心) and BenXin(本心). $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) explained the meaning of such a conscience through ChuXin(初心) and Inner NeiXin(內心). According to $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙), ChuXin(初心) arouses when one encounters external things, and this one's intention enables us to make the right judgments over the outside objects. NeiXin(內心) means LiangXin(良心) and BenXin(本心) that recovered the ability of moral awareness. The important significances of $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙)'s XinLun(心論) are XinWai WuDao(心外無道), and XinWaiWuTian(心外無天). Through these, $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) emphasized that Tian(天), Dao(道), and Li(理) are one. $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) arranged a meeting of EHuSi(鵝湖寺), and exerted efforts to negotiate the academic differences between ZhuXi(朱熹) and LuJiuyuan(陸九淵). However, compared with LuJiuyuan(陸九淵) who asserted FaMingBenXin(發明本心), $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) put the emphasis on DaoWenXue(道問學) with self-awareness of conscience. Meanwhile, $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) valued much of Jing(敬) like ZhuXi(朱熹). But, to $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙), Jing(敬) meant WuJianDuan(無間斷) of ChunYiBuZa(純一不雜) DaoDeXin(道德心), and implied the same as Cheng(誠). $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) stressed the reading and pursuit of study, however, he also asserted that Li(理) could be understood and realized through self-awareness of one's mind and its reflection, and working without interruption. $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙)'s academic tradition of the XinXueDe XueFeng(心學的 學風), which reveals through compromise and confrontation with ZhuXi(朱熹), can be said that it will have a significant meaning of idealism of dispute in the Southern Song period.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.295-317
• /
• 2014

This is the issue of this paper: What was the reason for Daoxuejia(道學家) in Song Dynasty to interpret 'ke-ji(克己)' as 'removing private desire'? 'ke-ji-fu-li'(克 己復禮)' is a phrase presented by Confucius as a way of practicing Ren(仁). The interpretations of Ren(仁) concept by Daoxuejia(道學家) have been reviewed. They interpreted Ren(仁) as Tian-li(天理) and thought its contents as 'Tian-di-shengwu-zhi-xin(天地生物之心)'. Zhu xi(朱熹) associated the concepts of sheng-sheng (生生), Xu(虛), Rou(柔), etc. and provided philosophic explanations on the interpretation of Ren(仁) raised newly by Ercheng(二程) and the interpretation of 'ke-ji-fu-li' (克己復禮). It is fact that Zhu xi criticized ardently Daoism but did not think nothing was worth taking from it. The stands of Daoxuejia(道學家) scholars in Song Dynasty on "removing private desire(去私欲)" presented in this paper could be the grounds supported such opinion.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.33
• /
• pp.385-411
• /
• 2008

This thesis aims at examining his understandings about the The Great Learning centering on the of the founder of the YiYongHuSaeng School (利用厚生學派: A school who pursued prosperous economy and welfare of people) orthe BukHak School(北學派: A positive school that pursued mercantilism) from the Joseon Dynasty, Dam-Heon Hong Dae Yong (1731-1783). 1) From what is indicated in the , his studies mainly focused on the annotations from DaeHakJangGuDaeJeonJipJu ("大學章句大全集註": A book that edited different phrases from the Great Learning into chapters and paragraphs), Questioning of the Great Learning", and "JuJaUhRyu (朱子語類: A book of Confucian literature written by Yeo Jung Deok" of Zhu Xi who was a representative scholar of the Neo-Confucianism in the Song Dynasty. 2) Acknowledging entirely the arguing points of Zhu Xi, he is taking a critical position in a way that partial doubts are divided into seven chapters and questioned. 3) For the main characteristic and direction of the questioning, he is estimating that Zhu Xi only stressed the 'means' and 'interior' out of the world of 'means and ends' and 'interior and exterior' in Zhu Xi's recognizing and handling cases; instead, he emphasized putting equivalent value on the 'ends' and 'exterior' as well. 4) In fact, such questions raised partially were misconceived since they were not carried out through profound understanding nor systematic logic expansion of what Zhu Xi insisted. 5) Despite this, at the point where Neo-Confucian thoughts were fixed and weakened only with its form left in the late Joseon Dynasty, his perspective on the study of Confucian classics that the 'ends' and 'exterior' should be as equally valued as the 'means' and 'interior' by examining through the core text of the Neo-Confucianism, The Great Learning has its significance in his YiYongHuSaeng dogma that says politicians, by all means, should provide the ruled with economic convenience and welfare and this is their very right virtue.