• 유학연구
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.165-192
• /
• 2018

이 논문은 『주역참동계고이(周易參同契考異)』를 주희의 철학에서 고립된 영역으로 간주하는 대신, 주희의 삶의 후반기에 있어 그의 사유, 특히 그의 철학의 핵심 개념 인 리(理)에 관한 사유와 관련하여 고찰했다. 『참동계』는 우주론이나 선천역학(先天易學)과 관련이 있지만, 『참동계』의 저자인 위백양(魏伯陽)은 『주역』의 해석이 아니라, 연단술의 기초를 확립하기 위해 음양 개념과 선천역학의 괘상 형성 원리를 빌렸을 뿐이다. 그러므로 우주론과 선천역학과의 관계는 간접적인 것이다. 주희에 따르면, 연단술이 근거하고 있는 『참동계』는 과학과 자연학의 공통 기반으로서 리에 기초하고 있다. 이런 맥락에서, 그는 리의 기초 위에서 자연학으로서의 외단술과 내단술을 정립하려고 했다. 주희에 따르면, 외단술은 도가의 일원론에서 일자(一者)와 같은 종류의 물질로 만들어진 단약을 찾는 방법이다. 주희는 단약이 영원한 존재와 동류로 구성되어야 함을 인정하지만, 기본적으로 외단술과 일원론을 이기이원론의 관점에서 비판한다. 또한 주희는 이기이원론에 기초하여 내단술을 재해석한다. 당시 내단을 수행함으로써 불사의 존재로 인정되던 선인(仙人)은 사실 불사의 존재가 아니라고 한다. 주희는 수명의 한계 내에서 내단의 호흡술을 통해 기의 발산을 조금 지연시킬 가능성은 인정하지만, 내단은 외단과 마찬가지로 기의 양생(養生)에 지나지 않는다고 주장한다. 그러나 양심(養心)은 마음속 리에 기초한 불사관의 새로운 전망을 가능하게 한다. 말하자면, 기의 양생과 달리 리와 관련된 자기수양은 일종의 불사와 영생에 관련된다.

• (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.38
• /
• pp.275-302
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to investigate Chu Hsi's theory of Ge Wu by analyzing the $L{\ddot{u}}$ shi daxuexie (呂氏大學解) in the Critique of Adulterated Learning (雜學辨). Critique of Adulterated Learning was written by Chu Hsi(朱熹) for the purpose of criticizing the confucian scholars who inclined to Taoism and Buddhism. Chu Hsi criticized $L{\ddot{u}}$ Pen-chung(呂本中)'s theory of Ge Wu Zhi Zhi, especially focusing on his understandings based on the Buddhist tendency. $L{\ddot{u}}$ Pen-chung considered Ge Wu Zhi Zhi as the processes of emerging Liang Zhi of the Subject to discipline by investigating the Li of things. He said "Regard an awakening as the standard of Ge Wu Zhi Zhi", as he payed more attention to the mind of the Subject rather than a long process of accumulation of Li. In comparison with him, Chu Hsi considered enormous each step to accumulate Li as more important to reach the completions of knowledge. Especially, while grasping Li, he considered they should have an understandings of things from the routines to the origins of the principles - that is from the principles of things to the reasons of things are. Chu Hsi approached to the Ge Wu in the meaning of political theory in his early days. However, Chu Hsi expands the width of his thought with a theoretical tool of 'Li-i fen-shu (理一分殊)' in the course of criticizing $L{\ddot{u}}$ Pen-chung's theory of Ge Wu Zhi Zhi. In that sense, His criticism of $L{\ddot{u}}$ Pen-chung(呂本中)'s theory was not only the process of struggling against Buddhist philosophies, but also the process of deepening of his philosophy.

• 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.37
• /
• pp.473-507
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study is to understand Zhuxi's Taoxuezhengzhi(道學政治) by reorganizing both his political opinion in each different political situation and his consistent political consciousness appeared in his whole political career. He concluded that the politics was the real problematic in Southern Sung, which made its structure distorted. This distorted structure of politics had widely rooted in whole sphere of society. In order to cure this political problematic, Zhuxi had focused on huangdi(皇帝) and chaoting(朝廷). That is why people is the basis of State and the result of politics, while huangdi and chaoting is the basis of politics and the beginnig of politics. According to Zhuxi, forming their political power group of their own will by using huangdi's power, the political elites close to only to huangdi made the function of chaoting unstable, with the result that the political decay produced. In chaoting, it resulted in the weakness of huangdi's power, the collapse of official discipline(紀綱), and the absence of public opinion(公論) and public aggreement(公議). Beyond chaoting, it resulted in the absence of political trust and the degeneration of public morals(風俗). In the Southern Sung were not altered the political orientation and culture based on the political decay, but only political orientation and characteristics of political elite only altered. This proves Zhuxi's approach that all problems in Southern Sung could resolve by the political approach. Zhuxi had suggested political issues in office. The alternatives for those political issues had basis of the theme, the one that saving people(恤民) is the purpose of politics. However his political ideas and the execution of them had been occsionally collapsed by the complex political structue, the mechanisms of political power, and the sameness and privatization of political geography in Southern Sung. Qingyuandanghuo(慶元黨禍) was the final stage of his political frustration, with the result that it led to the failure of Zhuxi's taoxuezhengzhi and interrupted the tradition of taoxue(道學) for the time being.

• 유학연구
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.265-290
• /
• 2019

This paper examined the understanding of the laws and punishments of Zhu Xi School. Zhu Xi of Nan-song(南宋) is a scholar who influenced many later East Asian countries, including Joseon. When limited to Joseon, various academic and political thought used Zhu Xi's interpretation as a standard. Thus it is necessary to study Zhu Xi's thought of law to comprehend the Confucian countries. However, there are a few previous studies that deal with the legal ideas of Zhu Xi. In order to understand Zhu Xi's perception of the law, this paper will analyze the Book of History(書經) as a central text. The Book of History describes the system and the law of ancient China. It also deals with the origin and development of punishment and legislation, unlike other scriptures. However, Zhu Xi died before he finished his work, making a footnote of the Book of History. Following his work, Cai Shen(蔡沈) completed the interpretation of the Book of History. Therefore, it would be natural to think Zhu Xi and Cai Shen were in continuity. This paper figures out the recognition of Zhu Xi School on punishment and law by organizing the history of punishment and law in the Book of History. Furthermore, analyzes other papers of Zhu xi to know his perception of law and punishment.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.141
• /
• pp.167-185
• /
• 2017

Chu Hsi inherited the proposition of Cheng Yi, and it spent him over ten years to finish writing the works of Xi Ming Jie, thus, making the thought of "Li Yi Fen Shu" bethe explanatory model of Xi Ming, therefore, playing the role to determine the tone of Xi Ming. At first, the thought of "Li Yi Fen Shu is a concept to embody the ethical significance of Xi Ming. But in terms of all the discussion about "Li Yi Fen Shu" of Chu Hsi in his life, this proposition is not only for the ethical significance of Xi Ming, but also includes much more general philosophical significance, revealing the general and special relationship of things. The former is the narrow "Li Yi Fen Shu", but the latter is the generalized one. This article won't discuss the generalized one, and it will take the narrow one as the research object. In the past research in academic circles, some scholars thinks that the proposition of "Li Yi Fen Shu" accords with the aim of Xi Ming, some others don't think so. Contrary to both of the two views, this article thinks that there is some conformity and inconformity between the explanatory model of "Li Yi Fen Shu" of Chu Hsi and the aim of Xi Ming. In other words, Contributions and limitations coexist when Chu Hsi explains Xi Ming in the model of "Li Yi Fen Shu", and there is not only the development to the intention of Xi Ming, but alsothe far meaning away from the aim of Xi Ming.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.55-80
• /
• 2014

Park, Se-dang criticized or accepted Zhuxi's annotation with his own way of understanding Confucian classics. His way of understanding Zhuxi can explain through the motive of writing his book, sabyeonrok and his basic view of scripture interpretation in the book. He thought one can achieve learning from lower to upper level. That means it is good for one to study from text easy to reach and attain, grasp. But if one begin to study from text or contents hard to understand, that will make to lose the proper way or province to the value of learning. This is what Park, Se-dang's basic point of interpreting Confucian classics, called 'learning from lower to upper level.' Park, Se-dang gave high praise Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi and Zhuxi who recreated confucianism into world from darkness. He thought Cheng-Zhu school corrected confucian's ways of learning went wrong from Chinese Han. So we need to reconsider the assessment of his view as anti?post-Zhuxi. He also thought there were a lot of way to understand Confucian classics. He insisted Zhuxi's way of annotating Confucian classics was one of them, and so as his. He understood Zhuxi's thought in this way of thinking and his academic method of 'learning from lower to upper level.' Therefore to interpretate Confucian classics new way he criticised or accepted Zhuxi's way of annotating scripture though his own way of understanding Confucian classics and academic method of 'learning from lower to upper level.'

• 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.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.