• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.38
• /
• pp.39-62
• /
• 2013

Zhuxi explains that the relationship between weifa已發 and yifa已發, is basically that between the homogenious whole and the brilliant tiaoli條理; the nature in its weifa state exists as an undifferentiable entirety, while its respective tiaoli is brilliant but inherent. According to this idea, we will find that the core of the self cultivating theory in Zhuxi's philosophy is cunyang存 養 and xingcha省察. Cunyang is the gongfu工夫 of the jingshi靜時 or weifa; applying the means to the extremes; it is a perfecting the whole of the substance, its contents is to preserve the heavenly principles and the method is keeping oneself gravely as if think carefully. Xingcha is the gongfu of the dongshi動時 or yifa, applying he和 to the extremes; it is a contemplation of ji幾, its contents is to curb human desires and the method is in not deceiving oneself.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.7-44
• /
• 2014

왕양명 철학의 개념과 구조는 "대학"과 밀접한 관계를 맺고 있다. 왕양명은 "대학"에 대한 새로운 해석을 시도하여 마침내 주희의 "대학" 해석과는 다른 자신만의 학문 체계를 형성하기에 이른다. 이와 더불어 그는 "중용"에 대한 해석에 있어서도 희노애락 등 감정의 미발이발과 중화 등 "중용"의 개념 설명에서 주자와는 다른 견해를 제시하고 있다. 왕양명은 "대학"과 "중용"의 관계에 대해 "자사가 "대학" 전체의 뜻을 총괄하여 "중용"의 첫 번째 장을 지었다."고 평가할 만큼, 왕양명 사상에 있어 "대학"과 "중용"은 매우 긴밀한 관계를 맺고 있다 하겠다. "대학"과 "중용"은 공부 방법에 있어 같은 목적을 추구하고 있으니, "대학"은 성의 공부를 통하여 지선한 경지에 오르는 것을 추구하고 있으며, "중용"은 성신 공부를 통해 지성의 경지에 도달하는 것을 추구하고 있다. 이와 같이 "대학"과 "중용"은 성실하게 한다[성(誠)]는 하나의 공부를 통해 지극한 경지에 오르는 것을 공동의 목표로 삼고 있는 것이다. 이처럼 양명에게 있어 "대학"과 "중용"은 서로 분리하여 말할 수 있는 대상이 아니다. 양명의 "중용" 관련 언급 가운데 가장 많은 분량을 차지하고 있는 것은 "중용"1장에 관해서이다. "중용" 1장은 "대학"의 전체 의미를 포괄하고 있기 때문이다. "중용"에서는 성(誠)이라는 개념을 통해 본체와 공부를 설명하고 있다. 양명은 "중용" 1장을 풀이하면서 본체에 대한 깨달음보다는 수도 공부를 통해 본체를 파악하는 공부를 중시하는 입장을 취하고 있다. 그는 이러한 수도 공부로 '경계하여 삼가면 두려워한다'는 계신공구를 제시하고 있으니, 양명에게 있어 계신공구는 신독이고 치중화이며 치양지 공부에 다름아니다. 여기에서 양명은 "중용"의 공부 방법을 "대학"의 그것과 연관시키고 있음을 알 수 있다.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.42
• /
• pp.233-258
• /
• 2014

This article investigates the concept of the xing(性) used by Hu Hong. Hu Hong's philosophical system considered to top priority for xing is called xingbunlun(性本論), and he suggested the characteristics of xing as follows. First, Hu Hong regarded xing as the fundamental of whole world and related to the specific individual things, so he constructed the concept of xing in the perspective of ontology. Namely while xing is ti(體) the root of all the world, it is the realization of the uniqueness of the individual things. Also he considered xing which of the ontological aspect developed various psychological aspect contained xin (心), qing(情), yu(欲), etc. Seond, As Hu Hong regulated that wei fa(未發) is xing and yi fa(已發) is xin, he defined the ideal relation between xing and xin as xingtixinyong(性體心用). And he considered that the sage and the ordinary peoples are equal in the xing's aspect of wei fa, but they are not equal in ability of the xin in the aspect of wei fa. Hu Hong thought that the only sage realized the ideal relation between xing and xin in this world, because he keep his mind silent. So Hu Hong suggested the possibility of moral cultivation to the ordinary peoples, expressing that human nature realized the function of the mind(成性), in order that they realized ideal relation by following ren(仁). Third, unlike the traditional notion, Hu Hong understood the meaning of xing in the aspect of ontology. He interpreted the shan(善) of xingshan(性善) as the meaning of exclamation, which implied that "the innate goodness of human nature(性善)" meant "Human nature is good." Because Hu Hong thought that the meaning of xing transcended the relative concept of good and evil, and accepted the whole world affirmatively. In the opinion of Hu Hong, as the concept of xing had two ways of intentionality; likes and dislikes(好惡), things formed relationship with other in this world. Then the concept of good and evil of the ethical value judgement occurred.

• 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].

• (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.41
• /
• pp.93-127
• /
• 2014

Toegye and Yulgok both tried to obtain the extent of goodness from the emotion they feel in reality. Toegye thought the extent of goodness is being obtained by Li[理], Yulgok thought it by Chi[氣]. But Four Bases[四端] as goodness from Li[理] would possibly threat the human identity, and the emotion of appropriateness as goodness from Chi[氣] doesn't even prove itself that it is appropriate. They explain the problems and answers through Theory of Human Mind?Moral Mind. Toegye explains that Moral Mind is meaningful as it make people identify themselves as moral existence, Yulgok explains Moral Mind is meaningful that it satisfies standard of appropriateness. While Toegye and Yulgok define Moral Mind and Human Mind as emotion of Yi-fa[已發], Chutzu defines Moral Mind and Human Mind as consciousness. and he defines consciousness as 'preparing Li(理) and practicing the emotion'. So according to Chutzu, Moral Mind and Human Mind derives the reaction from the Li(理) in order to respond to the external stimulation. Supervision of mind is completed by consciousness of Moral Mind. It means that mind not limited to Yi-fa[已發]. Then we should think that Toegye and Yulgok's Theory of Human Mind?Moral Mind is something newly resulted from their own philosophic problem. Toegye and Yulgok's Theory of Human Mind?Moral Mind is commonly explaining human mind in experiential aspect, and it will be esteemed as definite and realistic theory of Mind because it emphasizes willingness which motivates an essential activity.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.31
• /
• pp.289-319
• /
• 2011

Chutzu has established a theory of human mind and moral mind(人心道心說) by quoting the key of cultivation of mind comprised of sixteen letters(十六字心法) to a preface of Zhongyong(中庸章句序) and making comments on the key. Chutzu's theory of human mind and moral mind explains the supervision of mind that materializes chung-ho(中和), which is the core theme of Zhongyong(中庸). Supervision of mind is completed by consciousness. Chutzu defines consciousness as 'preparing the principle(理) and practicing the emotion(情)'. So, consciousness derives the reaction from the principle(理) in order to respond to the external stimulation. By being conscious, mind(心) reveals original nature(性) into emotion(情). An aspect that mind(心) keeps original nature prior to the external stimulation is un-awakened(未發). Once stimulation occurs, mind(心) becomes conscious of the principle which is proper to the situation. In sympathetic situation, sympathetic emotion is revealed by being conscious of benevolence(仁). In judgment situation, the emotion which judges right or wrong is revealed by being conscious of wisdom(智). An aspect of revealing the proper emotion relevant to the situation is wakened(已發). Mind(心) keeps all the original nature of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom(仁義禮智). It supervises original nature and emotion, and reveals chung-ho(中和) by being conscious of the proper principle(理). Moral mind must supervise to accomplish chung-ho(中和), and gewuzhizhi(格物致知) must be done first to enhance the supervision of moral mind. By establishing a theory of human mind and moral mind(人心道心說), Chutzu completes a theory of mind that covers both theories of chung-ho(中和說) and gewuzhizhi(格物致知說).

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.31
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2011

This study intends to understand Kobong's thought, especially the problem of Self-cultivation. Kobong, along with Toegye(退溪), is a major figure to understand Confucian ideas of Chosun in the 16th century. There has been a lot of research centered on Kobong's Four-beginnings(四端) and Seven-emotions(七情), but not much on the Self-cultivation of Kobong. Confucianism is basically to seek after actualization of Perfect Virtue(仁) and the way to be a sage, through the pursuit of self-discipline(修己 明明德) and social practice(安人 新民). The problems of Confucianism might be summarized as follows: interest and appreciation for the source of existence(知天/事天); harmony in relationships and practices(愛人/愛物); both of the above together. Therefore, Self-cultivation is to change the self, the subject of one's life, through the relationship between man and heaven. Kobong and Toegye had debated for about eight years(1559-1566) over the problem of human nature, especially emotion(情), and virtue and vice(善惡) fundamental position of Toegye is that the difference between Four-beginnings(四端) and Seven-emotions(七情) can be understood as emotion with qualitative distinction. By contrast, Kobong sees the relationship between Four-beginnings(四端) and Seven-emotions(七情) as that of total and partial. Discussion on the Four-beginnings(四端) and Seven-emotions(七情) is not restricted within the problem of logical analysis of concepts or theoretical validity, but come to a conclusion with the problem of Self-cultivation(修養). In this sense, Kobong tried to follow Neo-Confucian theory of human nature and self-cultivation, on the assumption of Confucian self-discipline and social practice.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.7-35
• /
• 2010

Jang Hyungang(張顯光, 1554~1570) was one of the very famous Neo-Confucianists of T'oegye School in the Chosun dynasty. Jang, nevertheless, refused to accept Toegye's theory and had developed his own theory called li-qi-gyeong-wi-seol(理氣經緯說). So the theory was very unique in the history of Korean Neo-Confucianism. He matained that Tao(道), meaning the universal process which all beings including the human must follow, is accomplished by the unity of li(理, principle) and qi(ch'i, 氣, material force). He compared li and qi to warp(經) and woof(緯). According to his explanation, Tao is fulfilled by combining li and qi, as a textile is woven the combination of warps and woofs. He could, for I know, succeed to emphasize the unity of li and qii through this theory. Lots of Scholars in the Chosun dynasty criticized Jang's theory of li and qi for regarding li and qi as one, and thought that the theory originated from Luo Ch'inshun(羅欽順, 1465~1547), a famous Neo-Confucianist of in Early Ming China. Luo Ch'inshun maintained li-qi metaphysical monism that li and qi is united entity. In this respect, it seems that Jang's theory is similar to Luo's. However, I think that there are very important differences between the two. It is true that the main characteristics of Jang's theory is the unified relations between li and qi in this world. In the system of his philosophy, nevertheless, the topological position of li and qi are different in grade each other. Jang insisted that li is a supreme being to be materialized and realized through the movement of qi'in the process of universal development. Qi is accordingly only a kind of matter which completes li. In this sense, Jang's theory can be regarded as li metaphysical monism that li is the only substance. It means that Jang Hyeongwang's theory is a great contrast to Luo Ch'inshun's li-qi metaphysical monism.