• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.229-264
• /
• 2009

This paper aims for a study on the theory that mind is Li(principle). The method of research is laid emphasis on searching for the historical development of the perception Theory in late Cho-Sun. First of all, I investigated a meaning of the perception theories of Ho-Rak school, that were criticized in the Cho-Sun academic world. The next, I investigated the theory of Li-ju-Ki-ja that was raised by Yi Sang Jung. He thought that Li is supervisor and Ki is assistance. And he put a construction on the Perception Theories of Toegye school. Yi Jin sang's theory of perception is the result of criticism against Ho-Rak school, and a fresh and in-depth construction of Yi Sang Jung's perception theory. His viewpoint was contradiction to the theory of Sim si Ki(the theory that Mind is made of Ki). And he rediscovered the human conscience that was born endowed from Heaven.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.121-153
• /
• 2018

The eight most prominent students of Lee Jin Sang discussed and developed the doctrines of the Master while discussing with the surrounding Toegye scholars. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between the doctrines of Toegye and the doctrines of Hanju in their discussions. First, the two were originally aimed at the same scholarship, so they discussed in a friendly atmosphere and some of the Toegye scholars participated in Hanju group. but at a certain point, they were a violent atmosphere of confrontation. Next, I tried to clarify the confrontation between Juli and Jeugli. And I tried to explain that they had different thoughts about domination of li. In addition, I looked at the meaning of excessiveness and compromise, the key words to criticize others and defend oneself. Finally, I explained that the ultimate difference between the two schools is in the methods of mind cultivation.

• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2013

Two schools represent the Li theory of nature in the 19th century. They are the Li's superintendence school of Lee Hangno, Ki Jungchin and Lee Jinsang and the Li and Ki's mutual superintendence school of Chun Woo. They share a theoretical concern about the blockage of Ki's free rein. However, their concepts of superintendence are very different. Thus, various disputes arise among them and consequently different solutions are proposed. The Li's superintendence school applies Li's power even in the actual world, which has completely dominated Ki by conferring dynamic power on Li. However, Chun Woo, a representative theorist of Li and Ki's mutual superintendence, accepts only Ki's dynamic power. By denying Li's dynamic power, he argues that there is no other thing than Ki which takes the lead in reality. His solution to block Ki's free rein is to make Ki(mind) a disciple of Li(standard or nature) and to make Ki follow Li's lead.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.142
• /
• pp.241-263
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this paper is to investigate Toegye's simhak in relation to spiritualism. In general, we call Chu Hsi's learning "lihak" (the learning of principle) while Wang Yangming's learning is described as "simhak" (the learning of mind). However, we sometimes call Toegye's learning "simhak" in spite of his respect for Chu Hsi's philosophy of li. Toegye's simhak is different from Wang Yangming's. Nonetheless, Toegye too, highlighted the existential meaning of truth. Toegye regarded simgyung (the book of mind) as one of the most important classics for self-cultivation. As is well known, Toegye's main concern was concentration on mind and heart cultivation. Toegye understood li as a spiritual being, which can actualize itself. The goal of simhak is to become a sage. For a sage, there is no contradiction between moral norm and human desire. To become a sage, Toegye developed the theory and practice of mind cultivation. Toegye's simhak has some common characteristics with Louis Lavelle's philosophy of spiritualism. Both Toegye and Louis Lavelle lay great emphasis on self reflection and spiritual life. In particular, Toegye developed the concrete method of mind cultivation. In the 21st century, human beings are confronted with spiritual crisis in many aspects. Toegye's simhak can be advanced as useful wisdom to keep one's mind in a peaceful and harmonious state.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.23
• /
• pp.181-216
• /
• 2008

This thesis is based on two points in Min-yisheng's idea: 1, knowing, consciousness, and differentiation of mind, according to which 2, Zheng-jidou's dividually observe to the same and different points of liangzhi and consciousness. Min-yisheng and the scholar on Yangming Theory named Zheng-jidou are arguing about the rights and wrongs of the Yangming Theory, the key concept of which is the same and different points of liangzhi and consciousness. At the extension of this argument, Min-yisheng also argues with Jin-chagnxie about the same and different points of knowing and consciousness. When argue with Zheng-jidou about Yangming Theory, Min-yisheng disproves the saying of "mind is principle" and "syncretism of consciousness and behavior" as well as defines liangzhi, which is the key concept of Yangming Theory, as a consciousness different from the natural principle. While disputing with Zheng-jidou about the relation between liangzhi and consciousness, Min-yisheng begins to pay attention to the relation between knowing and consciousness focused in the academy at that time. And as a result of that he also has a dispute with Jin-chagnxie about the same and different points of knowing and consciousness. The dispute between Min-yisheng and Jin-chagnxie is actually about how to look at the relation of knowing and consciousness, from the point of "non-mixed" or the point of "inseparable". Jin-chagnxie emphasizes on the un-mixed of knowing and consciousness while Min-yisheng, from the point of "inseparable", sees the consistency of the two. This thesis focuses on the argumentation of "the same and different points of liangzhi and consciousness" and "the same and different points of knowing and consciousness", the difference of the two positions and the historical meaning of this argument in ideologies.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.62
• /
• pp.177-207
• /
• 2016

This essay is dealing with Yang-Ming Studies' fundamental ideas, which are the goal of learning, the cultivation theory, and the ultimate goal in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue. The first, what is the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue: It is generally accepted idea that the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue is to be a sage. But there are different suggestions about the ideas above. The reason is like this: Zhu-Zi-Studies was eager to be a sage through its cultivation theory. Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue criticized the cultivation theory in Zhu-Zi-Studies. Therefore, some people don't agree with the idea that the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue is to be a sage. In this essay, I try to demonstrate that the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue is to be a sage. The second, What is the major cultivation theory in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue: The core cultivation theory is the Zhi-Ling-Zhi(Fulfillment Innate Knowledge of Goodness). For this, there is no question, but it is difficult how to learn and practice Zhi-Ling-Zhi in the daily life. I try to explain the right meaning and practice over Zhi-Ling-Zhi. The third, what is the ultimate goal in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue: It is general method in examine Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue that is comparing with Zhu-Zi-Studies. So there is a natural tendency focusing on the differences and similarity between Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue and Zhu-Zi-Studies. But If I say, what is the ultimate goal in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue? That is the realization of Ren, Which is the harmony with all things in heaven and earth.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.63-100
• /
• 2017

In this article, I researched Nam Dae-nyeon's(1887~1958) thought of Neo-confucian theories, interpretation of confucian canons, and evaluation of historical figures. First, from the side of Neo-confucian theories, he asserted that Qi(氣) had behaviors and Li(理) had not. About his teacher Jeon Wu's(田愚) theories, he thought that those were in tradition of Confucius(孔子) and Mencius(孟子), but not emphasized presidence of mind. And he criticized the theory of mind was Li(理). Second, from the side of interpretation of Confucian canons, Nam Dae-nyeon's study centered on Four Books(四書). This showed he was in tradition of Neo-confucianism. Through this studies he emphasized the importance of Confucian Ren(仁) and Filial piety(孝), self-consciousness as gentry(士). Third, from the side of evaluation of historical figures, Nam Dae-nyeon evaluated many Chinese and Korean scholars, for example, Qu Yuan(屈原), Lu Zhong-lian(魯仲連), Zhen De-xiu(眞德秀), Lu Long-qi((陸?其), Zhang Lu-xiang (張履祥) of China, and Jeong Mong-ju(鄭夢周), Zho Kwang-jo(趙光祖), Yi Hwang(李滉), Yi Yi(李珥), Jeon Wu(田愚) of Korea. And his criteria for evaluation of historical figures was fidelity and insight.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.35
• /
• pp.329-358
• /
• 2009

A general idea and the structure of Wangshouren's philosophy is intimately associated with "Daxue". Systemicity of Wangshouren's Xinxue stand on the basis of a mind, intention, innate knowledge and things. "Daxuewen" is a series of a process of gongfu. It stand on the basis of a mind, intention, innate knowledge and things, same as Four-Sentence Teaching. Wangshouren's gongfu theory of "Daxue" changes from gewu to chengyi, from chengyi to zhizhi again. It is deepening of Wangshouren's philosophy and is the change of education. It is also that Wangshouren's gongfu theory internalize anything. He spent his younger life in pursuit of Zhuxi's gewu. Through a lecture of LongChang, Wangshouren's gongfu theory of "Daxue" changes from extroversion to introversion. According to Wangshouren' opinion, "Daxuewen" is the tenet of the XinXue, same as Four-Sentence Teaching. This papers mainly emphases two points: one, to analyze the thinking system of Wangshouren's "Daxuewen", make a comparative study of befour "Daxuewen" and after "Daxuewen". another, through this work we can understand thoroughly Wangshouren's viewpoint of "Daxue".

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.48
• /
• pp.91-116
• /
• 2012

Writing is a process and work of expressing one's own feelings and thoughts that are not contained in rigid forms; however, the literary trend and environment during the Late Joseon was not so tolerant. A revivalist approach to writing was dominant during this period, which was summarized in the expression that "Prose must be written in the style of Qin and Han; and Poetry in that of High Tang. "Hence, it was practically a taboo to express one's raw emotions and disregard the custom and regulations of writing. Nevertheless, literati, who got tired of the dogmatic rule of Neo-Confucianism at the time that refused to see the changing world and the pseudo-archaic writing that merely imitated the outside and was empty inside, attempted new styles of writing to escape from the model or example and what was familiar. Lee Yong-hyu, who was in the middle of such transformations, learned the trends of Late Ming and Early Qing through the newly imported Chinese books and created his own style that reflected his personality. His writings refused the Neo-Confucian system of thoughts, which was a dominant ideology of the time, paid attention to the human nature and emphasized the restoration of the self. His writing could be described as being anti-pseudo-archaic and criticized the pretentious trend of the time. He argued that in order to restore the true self, one must recover the innocent mind that was bestowed on human by heaven/nature (cheon-li, 天理), and for this purpose, one must straighten out one's mind (sim, 心). His argument is similar to that of "Yangming School of Mind," which could be represented by the phrase, "Mind is the Principle (心卽理)." Yangming School claimed that moral principle existed within one's mind; and this was in stark contrast with the Neo-Confucian idea that "principle (li)"was external and transcendent, and was spoken by the great Confucian masters and written down in Confucian Classics. By denying the externality of the principle and underscoring its immanence, the idea that centralized Confucian Classics and canons was dismantled. Lee Yong-hyu's writing styles that denied the model and emphasized the restoration of the self was influenced by such thoughts. However, one must neither hastily judge that he is an advocate of Yangming School of Mind, nor determine the anti-pseudo-archaic writers' ideological basis as the philosophy of Yangming School. Once it is rigidly defined, be it Zhu Xi's philosophy or Wang Yangming's philosophy, it becomes another model that one must abide by, and again the self disappears. Thus, Lee Yong-hyu defied any kind of model that claimed authenticity or precedence and wished that people would live independently as oneself, and left such claims and wishes in writing. That is the reason, after more than two hundred years later, we still read his writings.