• The Journal of Internal Korean Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.144-156
• /
• 1998

This study has been carried out to investigate the cause, pathological mechanism and treatment of symptoms regarded as the ischemic heart disease in Nei-jing(內經). I've got the following conclusions. 1. From the side of xing-bi(胸痺), the ischemic heart disease(IHD) was caused by that the energy in one's heart wasn't extended in the way of Yin-xie(飮邪), namely waste matter of human body and symptoms and treatment wern't written. 2. From the side of xin-bi (心痺), HID was catched by the mechanisms that the blood vessel is blocked. or the heart's blood was deficient owing to the mutation of mo-bi(脈痺), the lack of yang-ming(陽明) and excessive thoughts and worry and others. The symptoms were feeling oppressed in one's brest, palpitating, sudden dyspnea, the dryness of thorat, frequent belching and the fear by the inverse flow of the energy(氣). The treatment was that the yin(陰) was cured immediately, but the yang(陽) mustn't be attacked. 3. From the side of xing-tong(心痛), IHD was suffered from by mechanisms that following the han-sa(寒邪), namely the cold makes a invasion on humanbody, the vessel was blocked, spasm, filled and the amount of blood flow was poor, or caused by injury of vessel, the inverse flow and the disease of shi-dong(是動病) of shou-shao-xin-jing(手少陰心經) and so on. The pain was cramped into the upper and lower back or lower abdomen or throat and accompanied with nausea, abdominal dropsy, constipation, the impending of breathing and so on. The cure was mainly that acupuncture was applied at the jin-su(筋縮) region or meridian in relation to symptoms, but if the pain were severe, acupuncture mustn't be applied. The prog nosis was worse. 4. From the side of xing-tonge(心痛), IHD was divided into zhen-xing-tong(眞心痛) and jue-xing-tong(厥心痛), but pi-xiog-tong(脾心痛) and wei-xing-tong(胃心痛) out of jue-xing-tong(厥心痛) also included the symptoms of the digestive disease.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.9-38
• /
• 2018

Joseon Neo-Confucianism had important disputes throughout its hundred years of history. Starting in mid-16th century, Four-Seven Dispute focused on 'Qing (情, emotion)' while Horak Dispute that emerged in early 18th century put emphasis on whether people and things have the same 'Xing (性, nature).' These two disputes lasted until late Joseon. In that process, their issues were clearly recognized and consequently, characteristics of Joseon Neo-Confucianism were well demonstrated. With Western power surging in since mid-18th century, Joseon Neo-Confucianism should develop logic to cope with the Western power. One of responding logics was Zhulilun (主理論, theory of reason) in Neo-Confucianism. Diverse discussions particularly on 'Xin (心, mind)' were expansively made. From the notion of Xin Tong Xing Qing (心統性情) that Xin converges with Xing and Qing, an argument that Xin should be seen as 'Li (理, reason)' and another that Xin is basically 'Qi (氣, force of nature)' were up against each other. The academia heated up with issues raised such as whether Xin and Mingde (明德, bright virtue) are the same notion and whether Mingde should be seen as 'Li' or 'Qi', etc. Defining morality dispute in the late Joseon along with Four-Seven Dispute and Horak Dispute as 'three major disputes in Joseon Neo-Confucianism,' this paper focuses on clarifying their status, actuality and significance. Morality dispute was not only a theoretical dispute. It has significance in the aspect of 'topicality.' It directly and indirectly affected movements against Western and Japanese power, loyal troop's activities and independence movement as well. Compared to Four-Seven Dispute and Horak Dispute, morality dispute is more complex and expansive. In addition, it requires systematic organization of data. Intercomparison of three major disputes is one of key topics to determine characteristics of Joseon Neo-Confucianism.

• (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).