• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.233-258
• /
• 2011

This paper is about Zhuzi(朱子) writings entitled Yixueqimeng("易學啓蒙"). There are only four research articles on Yixueqimeng("易學啓蒙"), although it had taken important role in the process of formation of Zhuzi(朱子) study of changes, comparing with 30 different kinds of research on his works after this Yixueqimeng("易學啓蒙"). In line with this, the author intends to make this paper as a full-scale research article on Zhuzi(朱子) work - Yixueqimeng("易學啓蒙"). Zhuzi(朱子) exposes the meaning of the Xiangshuyixue(象數易學), to wit, the emblem and numerology of Emblem and Numerology in interpreting Zhouyi("周易") again by accepting Hetu("河圖") and Luoshu("洛書"). When discussing the Zhouyi("周易"), Yiliyixue(義理易學) had drawn supports from Wangbi(王弼) Deyiwangxianglun(得意忘象論). Likewise, Zhuzi(朱子) tried to ruminate upon the meaning of the Hetu("河圖") and Luoshu("洛書") through the Yixueqimeng("易學啓蒙"). As he interprets all things through Hetu("河圖") and Luoshu("洛書"), these two systems of emblem have become essential. Even in Shifa(筮法), he elicited Dayanzhishu(大衍之數) from Hetu("河圖") and Luoshu("洛書") so that he related the divination rule to Hetu("河圖") and Luoshu("洛書"). By doing so, Zhuzi(朱子) concatenates Dayanzhishu(大衍之數) to Hetu("河圖") and Luoshu("洛書") too. Furthermore, by interpreting Yongjiu(用九) and Yongliu(用六), which belong to Qiangua(乾卦) and Kungua(坤卦) as prognostication that will be referred to when all six-line symbols are changed, he had made a great contribution to the history of Zhouyi("周易") study. Zhuzi(朱子) is responsible for a sizable part of the history of Zhouyi("周易") study as much as Wangbi(王弼) and Chengyi(程?). Of course, there are some parts where efforts were made in vain, however, the method to interpret the Zhouyi("周易") have developed day by day owing to the efforts of Zhuzi(朱子).

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.48
• /
• pp.225-252
• /
• 2012

In this paper, the writer examined the procedural changes of Zhuzi(朱子)'s theory of ZhongHe(中和), and also investigated the evaluations thereof made by the later generations. In the stage of ZhongHeJiuShuo(中和舊說), Zhuzi(朱子) ignored the theory of Lidong(李?), which was traditional theory argued by DaoNam School(道南學派). He met Zhangshi(張?) of HuXiang School(湖湘學派) and followed the school's philosophy, 'XianChaShiHouHanYang(先察識後涵養)', meaning what you should do first prior to making great efforts in self-cultivation is to examine the past, when desiring to know yourself. Even though Zhuzi(朱子) had learned the method of moral cultivation from Lidong(李?), he was fascinated by such method of moral cultivation as 'XianChaShiHouHanYang(先察識後涵養)' advocated by HuXiang School(湖湘學派) through discussion with Zhangshi(張?). This tells that he only recognized the fact that there were no achievements WeiFa(未發), but only the achievements YiFa(已發). In the stage of ZhongHeXinShuo(中和新說), he realized the mistakes committed in the time of ZhongHeJiuShuo(中和舊說), and put emphasis upon the achievements in the time WeiFa(未發). Zhuzi(朱子) had explained the relationships among mind, nature, and emotional bond as by his theory, 'XinTongXingQing(心統性情)', meaning that mind controls humans' original nature. Also he followed self-cultivation of Respect, no longer believing the Huhong(胡宏)'s XianChaShiHouHanYang(先察識後涵養). Such a method of self-cultivation means that his method of moral cultivation centered on the achievements YiFa(已發), which was originated from HuXiang School(湖湘學派), had been changed into the method of moral cultivation with a focus on the achievements WeiFa(未發), which was theory argued by DaoNam School(道南學派). However, Zhuzi(朱子)'s theory of ZhongHe(中和) that had seemed perfect began to be discussed and polished again during Joseon Period through the debates between Ligu(栗谷) and Niuxi(牛溪) in the 16th century, and through the debates between Youan(尤庵) and Yuxuan(寓軒) in the 17th century, also through the HuLuoLunZheng(湖洛論爭) represented by Nantang(南塘) and Weiyan(巍巖). Since Zhuzi(朱子)'s theory of ZhongHe(中和) had some flaws, it had to put through such debates as mentioned above. Those debates were generated because imperfections were found in the theory of ZhongHe(中和) by Zhuzi(朱子).

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.37
• /
• pp.47-70
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to figure out T'oegye's philosophy and its characteristics in comparison with Zhuzi's. T'oegye is well-known as the representative of Neo-confucianism in Korea. But his posterior scholars and even contemporary scholars have various viewpoints about his philosophy. So they give him some different evaluation. After Zhuzi's death 300 years later, T'oegye has accepted Zhuzi's philopophical thoughts. In addition, he has added his own philosophical insights on them. First, he indicates concretely the metaphysical activity of li through lidong that Zhuzi has mentioned in some measure. Second, under the ontological aspect of li, he explains that Four beginnings come from li. It implies that li manifests and qi follows. Finally he points out lidao--i.e. li manifests itself, about wuge in his epistemology. Here we can say that whatever his metaphysics/the theory of mind and heart, and epistemology, the whole system of T'oegye's philosophy has its theoretical coherence. He has succeeded Zhuzi's philopophical thoughts thoroughly and furthermore developed Neo-confucian theory in East Asia that has not made before.

• (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)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.33
• /
• pp.359-384
• /
• 2008

Making Daxue("大學") which was originally the 43rd chapter of Liji("禮記") independent, Zhuzi(朱子) had reedited it into Daxuezhangju("大學章句") and in this process, he had added 134 letters thereto. Those 134 letters that added were concerned with gewuzhizhi(格物致知) and Zhuzi(朱子)'s such interpretation had made a great deal of contribution to the later interpretations of Daxue("大學") conducted by those scholars who followed him in a later age. Zhuzi(朱子) had interpreted gewu(格物) as to make a exhaustive study on principles of things or noumena that exist between heaven and earth. If gewu(格物) taking it for granted, denotes thorough investigation of the principles of things, it is considered that qiongli(窮理) is a more appropriate expression. Meanwhile, however, Zhuzi(朱子) argues that the reason for dubbing it gewu(格物), not calling it qiongli(窮理), is to see a thing as it is in itself. This is to emphasize that investigation of things and extension of knowledge gewuzhizhi(格物致知) is shixue(實學), not a xuxue(虛學). Zhizhi(致知) is a step through which my knowledge is being culminating in the most comprehensive and profound fashion. Specifically, Zhizhi(致知) is the phase to seek zhenzhi(眞知) having put together all knowledge gained through gewu(格物). In this true understanding, there is no room for one's own free will to intervene; zhenzhi(眞知) becomes the same as universal knowledge. The things accumulated in quantity through gewuzhizhi(格物致知) are to be changed by means of huoranguantong(豁然貫通). If we put gewuzhizhi(格物致知) as the quests of basic and general subjects, meanwhile, huoranguantong(豁然貫通) corresponds to more profound and sophisticated learning. Huoranguantong(豁然貫通) is a phase in which my principle and the universal principle become unified, and so, this is the phase where the standards in my mind will attain universality. That is to say, this means that the standards in my mind and the universal standards grow into one. Then, what is the ultimate purpose of gewuzhizhi(格物致知)? The ultimate purpose of gewuzhizhi(格物致知) is to reach zhishan(至善). If gewuzhizhi(格物致知) seeks zhishan(至善), those universal standards in my mind that attained through huoranguantong(豁然貫通) shall also be the criteria of that zhishan(至善). Viewing it from this perspective, it can be said that Zhuzi(朱子)'s gewuzhizhi(格物致知) contains both epistemological and logical aspect.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.68
• /
• pp.209-235
• /
• 2017

This study was conducted for a review of Park Se-chae's Theory of Rituals and eclectic features. He was in agreement with Song Si-yeol's allegation and Seoin's theory of rituals(西人禮論) in the 1659 controversy over propriety(己亥禮訟) and the 1674 controversy over propriety(甲寅禮訟). After that, he was cautious and criticized for Song's claims in 1683 discussion of Hyojong's sacrifices and Taejo's posthumous name. This tendency can be seen in his paper of rituals. He wrote "服制私議"(Private opinion of mourning clothes) etc. in his early life and wrote "關西昏喪契約束"(Covenant on wedding ceremonies and mourning ceremonies in the Gwanse province), "喪祭値疫痘說"(Mourning ceremonies and sacrifice when there is an epidemic) etc. in his later life. By comparing the books, we can identify changes in Park Se-chae's eclectic features. Early in life, he reviewed Gorye(古禮, Rituals of the old such as Liji) and the timely institutions(時制) on the "朱子家禮"(A book written by Zhuzi about family rituals). However, later in life, he reviewed Gorye and the Zhuzi Jiali on the timely institutions. The following is a summary of the above. His theory of rituals can be said that the eclectic features have changed from 'on Zhuzi Jiali' to 'on the timely institution'.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.63
• /
• pp.169-193
• /
• 2016

This thesis aims at examining the world of pacification in Zhuzi(朱子)'s Daxuezhangju("大學章句"). He said that it was necessary to understand others through Xiejuzhidao(?矩之道) as Shu(恕) for the completion of pacification. The Shu(恕) in it is not an active one but a passive one. It's because one doesn't need to be very active in order to realize the world of pacification. Too much initiative can rather cause loss. Then Shijing("詩經") was quoted, all of which told about that it should be properly followed to understand others through Xiejuzhidao(?矩之道) as Shu(恕). Zhuzi(朱子) explains the reasons for frugality. The modern society is a capitalistic. Yet, not all kinds of capitalism are right. Think about the trash island on the Pacific Ocean. In Daxuezhangju("大學章句"), frugality is suggested as a good way. As the way of frugality, the most important goal of a king is to get rid of the vassals who exploit people. And at the last part, there's warning that petty and crafty men should be appointed. It says that even when everything has been fulfilled, if a petty and crafty man is appointed to take charge of it, the nation can be lost, so a king must give noble men important positions. The world of pacification in Daxuezhangju("大學章句") has not been studied as much as Gewuzhizhi(格物致知). This thesis is expected to offer the chance for more researches on it.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.32
• /
• pp.161-183
• /
• 2011

Lee Ik(李瀷) had put emphasis on the achievements by self-regulated academic learning through doubts, and at the same time that it was all-embracing. His academic attitude had set an example among the members of Seongho school(星湖學派), and his disciples had strived to emulate his style. The greatness of Seongho(星湖)'s study had been revealed by development of Seongho school(星湖學派) right after his death. He had argued that the six strokes of I-Ching should be read having it divided into inward and outward divine signs. He had stated his view clearly that the divine signs ranging from one stroke to six strokes were not connected, same as Shao yong(邵雍)'s method, but, the three strokes of inward divine sign as well as the three strokes of outward divine signs were independent from each other. Seongho(星湖) also had raised many questions about Shifa(筮法), and Bianyao(變爻) and Zhuzi(朱子)'s Shifa(筮法), or Yixueqimeng("易學啓蒙") "Kaobianzhan("考變占")". In view of the Shifa(筮法), Seongho(星湖) had helped Dasan(茶山) to present 'Shiguafa(蓍卦法)' by proposing different divination rule from Zhuzi(朱子)'s Method of Divination by Shiyi("筮儀"). Seongho(星湖) had not professed something significantly different from Zhuzi(朱子) in his I-xue. His study on I-xue had been accomplished under his goal of achievements by self-regulated academic learning through doubts. "Shiguakao("蓍卦攷")" is also same. I-xue of Seongho(星湖) had made a great contribution to form Dasan(茶山)'s I-xue in the later years.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.42
• /
• pp.9-37
• /
• 2014

This article is to review academic aspects of Iljae Lee Hang through Toegye Lee Hwang's comments. Iljae Lee Hang (一齋 李恒: 1499~1576) is a representative Neo-Confucian scholar in Honam area in 16th century. His Sung Confucianism was known to Toegye Lee Hwang by Gobong Gi Dae Seung and consequentially received attention from academic world. Lee Hang's Sung Confucianism, however, has hardly drawn attention since 17th century due to Lee Hwang's negative assessment. Impeaching Lee Hang's academic attitude and methods, Lee Hwang evaluated him as having many problems. Lee Hwang criticized that Lee Hang studied Neo-Confucianism with no great effort and he was so much confident to say 'Logic of the world does not deviate from this' based on Chengzi and Zhuzi's saying which was only appealing to his ideas. Lee Hang actually cited theories of Chengzi and Zhuzi and stressed self-complacency when necessary, which therefore made him fail to exhibit consistency. Iljae partly brought Lee Hwang's criticism upon himself. Lee Hwang's negative assessment is not to be literally accepted but his assessment is helpful indeed to critically examine Lee Hang's Neo-Confucianism.

• 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).