Abstract
In sixteenth-century Korea, the Four-Seven Debate was a very important topic for many leading Neo-Confucians, such as Yi Hwang (T’oegye, 1501–1570), Yi I (Yulgok, 1536–1584), and their debaters. It played a powerful role in contributing to the distinctive development of Korean Neo-Confucianism, thereby producing the focused yet divergent interpretations of Sŏngnihak (Cheng-Zhu school/philosophy; literally, “learning of principle and human nature”) in the Chosŏn dynasty (1392–1910). Overall, it established an intellectual agenda for many thinkers and scholars until the late nineteenth century. Part I below is a textual and historical introduction to the Four-Seven issues.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The English term “emotion” refers to “a moving, stirring, agitation and perturbation,” whereas the term “feeling” means “the sense of touch in the looser acceptance of the term, in which it includes all physical sensibility not referable to the special senses of sight, hearing, taste, and smell” (The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary). The Confucian term chŏng/qing usually means both feeling and emotion, engaging the body as well as the mind. Emotion, as in the case of the “Seven Emotions,” refers to an aroused physical or psychological state, often the result of a stimulation of the mind.
- 3.
An excellent discussion of the Doctrine of the Mean is Tu 1989.
- 4.
See Mengzi jizhu daquan (Great compendium of commentaries on the Book of Mencius), in Kyŏngsŏ (Four Books), 516. See also ZZYL 53: 9a.
- 5.
In short, i means metaphysical “principle,” “reason for existence,” “the ground of being” present in each thing in its fullness; it is the ultimate principle of all things in full goodness and truth. In relation to human nature, i also represents the original human nature or the moral essence of human nature that is purely good. By contrast, ki/qi refers to the “material force,” “ether,” or “vital energy” that actually brings each phenomenon into concrete existence, and also determines its transformation that may lead to either good or evil. In relation to human beings, ki represents physical and psychological dispositions and feelings as well. See other related points in my Note on Transliteration, Citation, and Translation Style at the end. For this topic, see Chan 1963, 1967, 1986; de Bary 1981, 2004; Gardner 1990; Ching 2000; Chung 1995, 2016: 22–26; etc.
- 6.
According to Zhu Xi, Mencius and Cheng Yi referred to “human nature in itself,” unmixed with the physical dispositions of ki, so they specifically meant the “original human nature” before it is disturbed by external stimuli involving ki. But when it is “mixed with ki” in concrete things, it is what Zhang Zai called the “physical human nature.” As Zhu stated:
Original human nature is purely good. This is the nature described by Mencius as “good.” Master Zhou [Dunyi] described it as “pure and perfectly good” [Tongshu (Penetrating the Book of Changes), chapter 1], and Master Cheng Yi called it “the fundamental character of our nature” [Yishu (Surviving works of the two Chengs), 18: 19b]….“If one learns to return to the original human nature endowed by Heaven and Earth, one will preserve it” [Zhangzi quanshu (Complete works of Master Zhang), 2: 18b]. Accordingly, any discussion of human nature must include physical human nature, so that the discussion can be complete. (ZZYL 4: 11a–b; my translation with added citation in brackets)
For more original sources, see also ZZQS 42: 4b, 42: 6b–7a, 42: 9b–10a, 43: 2b–4a (Chan 1963: 613, 616–617, 623–624); for more discussion, see Chung 1995: 47–48, 60–61, 66–69, 104–106 or Chung 2016: 26–29.
- 7.
Quoted from Zhu’s preface to the Zhongyong zhangju (Commentary on the words and phrases on the Doctrine of the Mean). This doctrine originates from the Book of History, which reads as follows: “The human mind is precarious; the moral mind is subtle. Remain refined and single-minded: hold fast the Mean” (Legge 1970: 61). This instruction contrasts the “precariousness” of the human (ordinary) mind with the “goodness” of the moral mind. Zhu Xi also identified the daoxin with “Heaven’s principle,” and the renxin with the “selfishness” of human cravings (ZZYL 61: 5a–b or ZZWJ 76: 21b). These passages were also quoted by Zhen Dexiu (1178–1235) in his Xinjing (Classic of the mind-heart), 1a; a good discussion of the Xinjing is de Bary 1981: 73–82. In fact, this text influenced T’oegye’s mature thought because it was an important text for his moral-spiritual cultivation; for details, see Chung 1995, 2010a, 2016: 26–45.
- 8.
- 9.
Ki Taesŭng is best known as Kobong, his literary name, for which reason I have referred to him as “Kobong” in this paper. He was a brilliant young thinker who wrote a few commentaries on Zhu Xi’s thought, and his writings are collected in the Kobongjip. He occasionally interacted with T’oegye’s academy and philosophy from age 32 onwards. Of course, this debate with T’oegye is the most famous example of Kobong’s philosophy and scholarship.
- 10.
- 11.
This is T’oegye’s “First Letter to Kobong on the Four Beginnings and the Seven Emotions,” TC 16: 8a–12b (vol. 1, 405–407); a full translation of this letter is in Kalton et al. 1994: 7–15 and Chung 2016: 125–129. I also note that T’oegye revised his original first letter in response to Kobong’s reply, and this revised version (TC 16: 19a–24a; vol. 1, 411–413) is attached to the beginning of his second letter (TC 16: 24b–45a; vol. 1, 413–424). His third (final) letter (TC 17: 3a–6a; vol. 1, 429–430) follows the text of the second letter. See Chung 1995 for my earlier detailed discussion of T’oegye’s Four-Seven thesis in relation to his metaphysics, ethics and spirituality; see also Chung 2016: 26–29.
- 12.
I added this title in brackets for further textual description. Chŏng Chiun (Ch’uman, 1509–1561), 7 years younger than T’oegye, occasionally communicated with T’oegye for scholarly work. He was known for his Ch’ŏnmyŏng to (see TC, 41: 10b). T’oegye revised it and gave his interpretation of it; the revised Ch’ŏnmyŏng sindo (New diagram of Heaven and destiny) appears in TC, 41: 11a. As T’oegye claimed, the Four-Seven statement in Chŏng’s original diagram initiated T’oegye’s debate with Kobong who asked him to clarify the statement further. So this was the preliminary beginning of the Four-Seven debates in Korea.
- 13.
TC 16: 8b (vol. 1, 405). I revised this translation after adopting it from Chung 1995: 58–59.
- 14.
TC 16: 9a–b (vol. 1, 406); revised version of translation from Chung 1995: 60.
- 15.
For more relevant Chinese sources, consult ZZYL 4: 11a–13b and ZZQS 42: 4b, 42: 6b–7a, 9b–10a, 43: 2b–4a (Chan 1963: 613, 616–617, 623–624). As I discussed in part I, section 2, Zhu did not clarify this topic in terms of the Four and the Seven.
- 16.
TC 16: 9b (vol. 1, 406).
- 17.
TC 16: 9b (vol. 1, 406); revised version of translation from Chung 1995: 60–61.
- 18.
T’oegye’s Sim t’ong sŏngchŏng tosŏl presents a moral and psychological philosophy of human nature and feelings, which consists of three sub-diagrams with his comments. The third diagram is a basic summary of his Four-Seven thesis; for my discussion of this diagram in English, see Chung 1995 (appendix 1); for the original diagram in Chinese, see TC 7: 22b–25a (vol. 1, 204–206). T’oegye compiled the Sŏnghak sipto (TC 7: 4b–35a; vol. 1, 195–211) during his late 60s, several years after his Four-Seven debate ended. Consult Kalton 1988 for a complete English translation of it with notes and comments.
- 19.
This second letter was written as a response to Kobong’s second letter in the fall of 1560. It is comprehensive and systematic and consists of 46 pages of T’oegye’s careful reflections on Kobong’s brilliant points. For a full translation of this letter, see Kalton et al. 1994.
- 20.
TC 16: 29a–30a (vol. 1, 416); revised version of translation from Chung 1995: 71.
- 21.
TC 16: 30a (vol. 1, 416).
- 22.
This final letter (TC 17: 3a–6a; vol. 1, 429–430) was sent to Kobong in 1566, about 7 years after the beginning of the debate. See Kalton et al. 1994 for a full translation of this letter.
- 23.
TC 16: 10a (vol. 1, 406).
- 24.
TC 16: 8b–9a (vol. 1, 405–406).
- 25.
TC 16: 10a (vol. 1, 406).
- 26.
T’oegye and Kobong probably used Zhu Xi’s key statement about the mutual inseparability of i and ki; see ZZYL 1: 2b (or ZZQS 49: 1a; see Chan 1963: 634).
- 27.
TC 16: 10b (vol. 1, 406); revised version of translation from Chung 1995: 62–63.
- 28.
See ZZYL 1: 2b or ZZQS 49: 1a (Chan 1963: 634).
- 29.
ZZYL 1: 1a–3a or ZZWJ (Collected literary works by Master Zhu Xi), 46: 24a–b, 59: 45b.
- 30.
TC 16: 30b (vol. 1, 416).
- 31.
Kobong’s Sach’il iki wangbok sŏ (Exchange letter on the Four-Seven and i-ki), 2: 10a; see Kalton et al. 1994 for a full translation of this letter.
- 32.
Sach’il iki wangboksŏ, 2: 8a.
- 33.
Sach’il iki wangboksŏ, 2: 10a.
- 34.
Luo was the most prominent scholar of the Cheng-Zhu school in Ming China. His Kunzhi ji (Knowledge painfully acquired) became a popular text among some Korean thinkers including Yi Yulgok. See Chung 1995 or 2016: 25 for this topic. For Luo’s biography and philosophy, consult Bloom 1987, a full translation of Luo’s Kunzhi ji.
- 35.
See TC 16: 11a (vol. 1, 407).
- 36.
TC 16: 12a (vol. 1, 407); revised version of translation from Chung 1995: 63.
- 37.
TC 16: 31a (vol. 1, 416).
- 38.
TC 16: 30a (vol. 1, 416).
- 39.
TC 16: 30b–31a (vol. 1, 416).
- 40.
TC 16: 32a–b (vol. 1, 418); revised version of translation from Chung 1995: 75–76.
- 41.
TC 16: 34a (vol. 1, 418).
- 42.
Kobong’s Sach’il iki wangboksŏ, 2: 10a.
- 43.
- 44.
TC 16: 37b (vol. 1, 419).
- 45.
TC 16: 12a (vol. 1, 407).
- 46.
This topic was first mentioned by Chinese scholars such as Zhu Xi and his late Song follower, Zhen Dexiu (1178–1235). An excellent study of Zhen’s life and thought is de Bary 1981.
- 47.
See TC 7: 29a (v. 1, 208); see also Kalton 1988: 160–64.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
These letters are collected in YC 9: 32b–10: 40a (vol. 1, 192–216); they are fully translated in Kalton et al. 1994: 109–183.
- 51.
- 52.
YC 19: 37a (vol. 1, 193). See also TC 7: 24b (vol. 1, 205).
- 53.
YC 9: 37b–38a (vol. 1, 193–194).
- 54.
A complete translation of this letter is Kalton et al. 1994: 113–116.
- 55.
YC 10: 7b (vol. 1, 199).
- 56.
YC 9: 34b (vol. 1, 192); translation from Chung 1995: 97.
- 57.
YC 9: 34b (vol. 1, 192).
- 58.
YC 9: 35b–36a (vol. 1, 192).
- 59.
YC 9: 35b (vol. 1, 192).
- 60.
See CTYL 87: 16a–b. As I pointed out in part I (section 2), Yulgok, as well as T’oegye and Kobong, were not familiar with these statements by Zhu Xi.
- 61.
See Kalton et al. 1994: 117–120 for a complete translation of this letter.
- 62.
YC 9: 38b (vol. 1, 195).
- 63.
YC 9: 38b (vol. 1, 195).
- 64.
YC 9: 38a (vol. 1, 195).
- 65.
This point is similar to Kobong’s original view; see TC 16: 13b (vol. 1, 408).
- 66.
For a complete translation of this letter, see Kalton et al. 1994: 125–138.
- 67.
YC 9: 35b (vol. 1, 192).
- 68.
YC 10: 5a (vol. 1, 198).
- 69.
YC 20: 56b (vol. 1, 455). Yulgok’s Sŏnghak chipyo was compiled in 1575, almost 3 years after the Yulgok-Ugye debate which began in 1573.
- 70.
YC 10: 7a–b (vol. 1, 199); translation from Chung 1995: 101–102.
- 71.
TC 16: 9b (vol. 1, 406).
- 72.
YC 9: 35b (vol. 1, 192); revised version of translation adopted from Chung 1995: 102.
- 73.
Regarding the Cheng-Zhu doctrine of “original human nature” and “physical human nature,” see pt. I, sec. 2 (Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucian Texts and Korean Issues).
- 74.
YC 10: 7b (vol. 1, 199).
- 75.
YC 10: 22a (vol. 1, 207).
- 76.
Luo Qinshun was a leading scholar in the Cheng-Zhu school during the Ming period. A good study of his life and thought is Bloom 1987, which presents a full translation of his Kunzhi ji (Knowledge painfully acquired).
- 77.
YC 10: 22b (vol. 1, 207); modified version of translation from Chung 1995: 105.
- 78.
YC 10: 29b–30a (vol. 1, 210–211).
- 79.
See YC 19: 37a (vol. 1, 193). For T’oegye’s hobal theory, see TC 7: 24b (vol. 1, 205).
- 80.
YC 9: 37b (vol. 1, 193).
- 81.
YC 9: 36a (vol. 1, 192).
- 82.
YC 10: 5a (vol. 1, 198).
- 83.
YC 10: 5a (vol. 1, 198); translation from Chung 1995: 107.
- 84.
YC 10: 5a (vol. 1, 198); modified version of translation from Chung 1995: 107.
- 85.
YC 10: 5a (vol. 1, 198).
- 86.
YC 10: 12a (vol. 1, 202).
- 87.
YC 10: 13a (vol. 1, 202).
- 88.
YC 9: 39a (vol. 1, 195). In saying that “i-in-itself is purely good,” Yulgok likely meant that the original essence of i is always pure and morally good, but this goodness is not revealed in moral feelings unless the mind is stimulated by ki.
- 89.
YC 9: 39a (vol. 1, 194). For Zhu Xi and this doctrine, see CTYL 1: 2a.
- 90.
YC 9: 36a (vol. 1, 192).
- 91.
YC 10: 2a (vol. 1, 197); translation from Chung 1995: 111.
- 92.
YC 10: 2a–b (vol. 1, 197); translation from Chung 1995: 111.
- 93.
Luo criticized Zhu’s philosophy of i and ki by emphasizing the “oneness of i and ki.” He opposed Zhu’s dualistic statements like the following: “I and ki are definitely two” (ZZWC 46: 24a). For Luo, “principle (i) is not a separate entity” because it always “depends on material force (ki) in order to exist” (Bloom 1987: 58). As I said in pt. 3, sec, 3, in his debate with Kobong, T’oegye strongly criticized Luo’s monistic philosophy, as well as Kobong for being influenced by Luo; see T’oegye’s first Four-Seven letter, TC 16: 11a (vol. 1, 407).
- 94.
YC 10: 25b (vol. 1, 208).
- 95.
YC 10: 25b (vol. 1, 208).
- 96.
YC 10: 26a (vol. 1, 209).
- 97.
Yulgok probably formulated his theory under some influence from the Zhuangzi; in fact, he was well-versed in the Daoist texts such as the Zhuangzi.
- 98.
This is partly why T’oegye had politely criticized Yulgok for having studied Huayan and Zen scriptures. In his follow-up letter to Yulgok during the same year, T’oegye strongly advised Yulgok against being interested in and influenced by Buddhism and therefore encouraged the junior scholar to focus on Sŏngnihak (Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism). Details on this topic, see Chung 2016: 20–21, 29, 201, 203. According to Huayan thought, “principle” represents the transcendent reality and the formless, whereas “facts” pertain to the manifestations of the mind making up the physical world of concrete phenomena. Principle and phenomena ought to be in harmony through their mutual interaction (see Chan 1963: 411–413). Anyhow, Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism was originally influenced by Buddhism, so the issue here is not as simple as it appears to be.
- 99.
YC 10: 37b–38a (vol. 1, 214–215).
- 100.
Chisan munjip (Collected literary works of Chisan), kwŏn 6, “Iki pyŏn” (Essay on i and ki).
- 101.
See Karam sŏnsaeng munjip (Collected literary works of Master Yi Karam), 18: 1a–20b.
- 102.
Karam sŏnsaeng munjip, 18: 16a.
- 103.
This is found in Udam sŏnsaeng munjip (Collected literary works of Master Chŏng Udam), 7: 1a–6b; cited in HYCC 1: 668–670.
- 104.
Udam sŏnsaeng munjip, 9: 29b; see also HYCC 1: 684.
- 105.
See Taesan sŏnsaeng munjip, 39: 15a–22b (HYCC 2: 1181–1190).
- 106.
Taesan sŏnsaeng munjip, 39: 10b–12a (HYCC 2: 1179–1180). Yi’s other major writings include the Iki tongjŏng sŏl (Essay on the movement and tranquillity of i and ki), Taesan sŏnsaeng munjip, 39: 5b–6a (HYCC 2: 1176–1177).
- 107.
For his metaphysics of i and ki, see Taesan sŏnsaeng munjip, 39: 5b–10b.
- 108.
Chŏngjae sŏnsaeng munjip (Collected literary works of Master Yu Chŏngjae), 19: 3b (HYCC 2: 1444).
- 109.
Chŏngjae sŏnsaeng munjip, 19: 4a (HYCC 2: 1444).
- 110.
Sagae chŏnsŏ (Complete works of Kim Sagae), 17, “Reply to Han Saang’s Letter”; cited in Yi Pyŏngdo 1986: 177.
- 111.
Hansu jip (Collected works of Kwŏn Sangam), 21, “Sach’il hobal pyŏn” (Essay on the alternating manifestation of the Four and the Seven).
- 112.
Namdang sŏnsaeng munjip (Collected literary works of Master Han Namdang), 3: 1a–7a; see also HYCC 1: 1010–1013.
- 113.
Namdang sŏnsaeng munjip, 7a–10b (HYCC 1: 1013–1014). His other major works include I ch’eyong sŏl (Essay on the substance and function of principle), in Namdang sŏnsaeng munjip, 30: 11b–12a (HYCC 1: 1015).
- 114.
See Yŏhŏn sŏnsaeng munjip (Collected literary works of Master Chang Yŏhŏn), 5: 11b–14b; cited in HYCC 1: 445–446.
- 115.
This is included in his Cholsujae sŏnsaeng munjip (Collected literary works of Cho Cholsujae), 11: 1a–9a; HYCC 1: 715–719.
- 116.
Cholsujae sŏnsaeng munjip, 11: 1a.
- 117.
Noju jip (Collected works of O Noju), 24: 6b; see HYCC 2: 1400.
- 118.
Noju jip, 7: 40a–b; HYCC 2: 1359.
- 119.
Bibliography
I. Primary Sources for Translation and Citation
Pae, Chongho 裴宗鎬, ed. 1980. Han’guk Yuhak charyo chipsŏng 韓國儒學資料集成 (Collected Source Materials on Korean Confucianism), 3 vols. Seoul: Yŏnsei University Press. Abbreviated as HYCC.
Yi, T’oegye 李退溪. 1986. T’oegye chŏnsŏ 退溪全書 (Complete Works of Yi T’oegye), Enlarged Edition, 5 vols. Seoul: Sŏnggyun’gwan University Press. Abbreviated as TC.
Yi, Yulgok 李栗谷. 1985. Yulgok chŏnsŏ 栗谷全書 (Complete Works of Yi Yulgok), 3 vols. Seoul: Sŏnggyun’gwan University Press. Abbreviated as YC.
II. Confucian and Neo-Confucian Texts
1. Original Sources
Cheng, Hao 程顥 and Cheng, Yi 程頤. ErCheng quanshu 二程全書 (Complete Works of the Two Chengs). SBBY (Sibu beiyao) edition.
Cheng, Hao 程顥 and Cheng, Yi 程頤. Yishu 遺書 (Surviving Works of the Two Chengs). In the ErCheng quanshu.
Kyŏngsŏ 經書 (Collected Commentaries on the Four Books). 1972. Seoul: Sŏnggyun’gwan University Press.
Zhang, Zai 張載. Zhangzi quanshu 張子全書 (Complete Works of Master Zhang Zai), SBBY edition.
Zhu, Xi 朱熹. Mengzi jizhu daquan 孟子集註大全 (Great Compendium of Commentaries on the Book of Mencius), in Kyŏngsŏ.
Zhu, Xi 朱熹. Zhongyong zhangju 中庸章句 (Commentary on the Words and Phrases of the Doctrine of the Mean), in Kyŏngsŏ.
Zhu, Xi 朱熹. Zhuzi daqaun 朱子大全 (Great Compendium of Works by Master Zhu Xi). SBBY edition. Abbreviated as ZZDQ.
Zhu, Xi 朱熹. Zhuzi quanshu 朱子全書 (Complete Works of Master Zhu Xi). Abbreviated as ZZQS.
Zhu, Xi 朱熹. Zhuzi wenji 朱子文集 (Collection of Literary Works by Master Zhu Xi). In Zhuzi daquan (Great Compendium of Works by Master Zhu Xi). SBBY ed. Abbreviated as ZZWJ.
Zhu, Xi 朱熹. Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類 (Classified Conversations of Master Zhu Xi). Comp. by Li Jingde (1880). Abbreviated as ZZYL.
2. Translations
Bloom, Irene, trans. 1987. Knowledge Painfully Acquired: The K’un-chih chi of Lo Ch’in-shun. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chan, Wing-tsit. 1963. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chan, Wing-tsit, trans. 1967. Reflections on Things at Hand: the Neo-Confucian Anthology by Chu Hsi and Lü Tsu-Ch’ien. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 2016. A Korean Way of Life and Thought: The Chasŏngnok (Record of Self-Reflection) by Yi Hwang (T’oegye). Translated and annotated with an introduction. Korean Classics Library: Philosophy and Religion Series. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.
Gardner, Daniel K., trans. 1990. Chu Hsi: Learning to Be a Sage: Selections from the Conversations of Master Chu. Berkeley and LA: University of California Press.
Kalton, Michael C., trans. 1988. To Become A Sage: The Ten Diagrams on Sage Learning by Yi T’oegye. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kalton, Michael C., Tu Wei-ming, Young-chang Ro, and Ook-soon Kim, trans. 1994. The Four-Seven Debate: An Annotated Translation of the Most Famous Controversy in Korean Neo-Confucian Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lau, D. C., trans. 1970. Mencius. New York: Penguin Books.
Legge, James, trans. 1970. The Chinese Classics, 5 vols. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, reprint.
III. East Asian Works: Anthologies, Translations, and Modern Studies
Abe, Yoshio 阿部吉雄. 1965. Nihon shushigaku to Chōsen 日本朱子學と朝鮮 (Japanese Zhu Xi School in Relation to Korea). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
Abe, Yoshio 阿部吉雄. 1977. Chōsen no Shushigaku Nihon no Shushigaku 朝鮮の朱子學, 日本の朱子學 (Korean Zhu Xi School and Japanese Zhu Xi School), Abe Yoshio, et al. Shushigaku taikei 朱子學大系 (Great Compendium on the Zhu Xi School), vol. 12. Tokyo: Meitoku shuppansha.
Kŭm, Changt’ae (Keum, Jangtae) 琴章泰. 1998. T’oegye-ŭi sam-gwa ch’ŏrhak 퇴계의 삶과 철학 (T’oegye’s Life and Thought). Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
Pae, Chongho 裴宗鎬, ed. 1973. Han’guk Yuhaksa 韓國儒學史 (A History of Korean Confucianism). Seoul: Yŏnsei University Press.
Tomoeda, Ryūtarō 友枝竜太郎. 1969. Shushi no shisō keise 朱子の思想形成 (The Formation of Zhu Xi’s Thought). Tokyo: Shunjūsha.
Yi, Pyŏngdo 李丙燾. 1986. Han’guk Yuhak saryak 韓國儒學史略 (An Outline History of Korean Confucianism). Seoul: Asea munhwasa.
Yun, Sasun 尹絲淳. 1980. T’oegye ch’ŏrak-ŭi yŏn’gu 退溪哲學의 硏究 (A Study of T’oegye’s Philosophy). Seoul: Korea University Press.
IV. Modern Works in Western Languages
Abe, Yoshio. 1970. “Development of Neo-Confucianism in Japan, Korea, and China: A Comparative Study,” Acta Asiataca 19.
Chan, Wing-tsit. 1985. “How T’oegye Understood Chu Hsi.” In Wm. T. de Bary and J. Kim Haboush, eds. The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea.
Chan, Wing-tsit, ed. 1986. Chu Hsi and Neo-Confucianism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Ching, Julia. 1974. “The Goose Lake Monastery Debate (1175).” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 1:161–178.
Ching, Julia. 1985. “Yi Yulgok on the Four and the Seven.” In de Bary and Kim Haboush, eds. The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea.
Ching, Julia. 2000. The Religious Thought of Chu Hsi. Toronto and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 1992a. “The Wang Yang-ming School of Neo-Confucianism in Modern Korean Intellectual History.” Korean Culture 13.3 (Fall): 14–23.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 1992b. “Yi T’oegye on the Learning of Reverential Seriousness (Kyǒnghak): A Korean Neo-Confucian Spirituality.” Korea Journal 32.1 (Spring): 61–72.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 1995. The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi T’oegye and Yi Yulgok: A Reappraisal of the Four-Seven Thesis and Its Practical Implications for Self-Cultivation. Albany: SUNY Press.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 1998. “Yi Yulgok on Mind, Human Nature, and Emotions: A Korean Neo-Confucian Interpretation Revisited.” Monumenta Serica – Journal of Oriental Studies 46 (December): 265–290.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 2004. “Confucian Spirituality in Yi T’oegye: A Korean Interpretation and Its Implications for Comparative Religion.” In Tu Weiming and Mary Evelyn Tucker, eds., Confucian Spirituality, vol. 2B, 204–225.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 2009. “Sagehood and Religious Practice in Yi T’oegye’s Neo-Confucianism.” In Literature and Thought of Yi T’oegye: Program for the 22nd International Conference on T’oegye Studies (Aug. 27–30, 2009), The International T’oegyehak Society, 263–291.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 2010a. “T’oegye’s Religious Thought: A Neo-Confucian and Comparative Perspective.” In East Asian Confucianisms: Interactions and Innovations. New Brunswick: Confucius Institute and Rutgers University Press, 193–210.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 2010b. “Yi T’oegye (1501–1570) on Self-Transcendence. Acta Koreana 13.2 (December): 31–46.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 2011a. “Self-Transcendence as the Ultimate Reality in Interreligious Dialogue: A Neo-Confucian Perspective.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 40.2 (June): 152–178.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 2011b. “Yi T’oegye on Reverence (Kyŏng) for Nature: A Modern Neo-Confucian Ecological Vision” 14.2 (December): 93–111.
Chung, Edward Y. J. 2015. Korean Confucianism: Tradition and Modernity. Seongnam, Korea: The Academy of Korean Studies Press.
de Bary, William T. and Irene Bloom, eds. 1979. Princple and Practicality: Essay in Neo-Confucianism and Practical Learning. New York: Columbia University Press.
de Bary, William T. 1981. Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart. New York: Columbia University Press.
de Bary, William T. 1989. The Message of the Mind in Neo-Confucianism. New York: Columbia University Press.
de Bary, William T. 2004. “Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucian Spirituality.” In Tu and Tucker, eds. Confucian Spirituality.
de Bary, William T., ed. 1975. The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism. New York: Columbia University Press.
de Bary William T. and JaHyun Kim Haboush, eds. 1985. The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gardner, Daniel K. 2007. The Four Books: The Basic Teachings of the Later Confucian Tradition. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
Keum, Jang-tae. 1998. Confucianism and Korean Thoughts, 2 vols (translated from the original Korean edition). Seoul: Jimoondang Publishing Co.
Lee, Peter H. and Wm. T. de Bary, eds. (with Yongho Ch’oe and Hugh H. W. Kang). 1997. Sources of Korean Tradition, vol. I: From Early Times through the Sixteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press.
Masao, Maruyama. 1975. Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ro, Young-chan. 1989. The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi Yulgok. Albany: SUNY Press.
Tomoeda, Ryūtarō. 1985. “Yi T’oegye and Chu Hsi: Differences in Their Theories of Principle and Material Force.” In de Bary and Haboush, eds. The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea.
Tu, Weiming. 1979. Humanity and Self-Cultivation: Essays in Confucian Thought. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1979.
Tu, Weiming. 1985. “T’oegye’s Perception of Human Nature: A Preliminary Inquiry into the Four-Seven Debate in Korean Neo-Confucianism.” In de Bary and Haboush, eds., The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea.
Tu, Weiming. 1989. Centrality and Commonality: An Essay on Confucian Religiousness [A revised and enlarged edition of Centrality and Commonality: An Essay on Chung-yung]. Albany: SUNY Press.
Tu, Weiming and Mary Evelyn Tucker, eds. 2004. Confucian Spirituality, vol. 11b. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company.
Yao, Xinzhong. 2000. An Introduction to Confucianism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Youn, Sa-sun (Yun, Sasun). 1985. “T’oegye’s Identification of ‘To Be’ and ‘Ought’: T’oegye’s Theory of Value.” In de Bary and Haboush, eds. The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea.
Yun, Sa-soon (Yun, Sasun). 1991. Critical Issues in Neo-Confucian Thought: The Philosophy of Yi T’oegye. Translated by Michael Kalton from the 1980 Korean edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
For details on these primary sources (in literary Chinese), see the bibliography, parts I and II.
Note on Transliteration, Citation, and Translation Style
Korean terms, names, and titles are romanized according to the standard McCune-Reischauer system, my ongoing preference, and Chinese counterparts according to the more popular Pinyin system. In romanizing the Korean given or literary name, I follow the accepted style of excluding a hyphen between the two characters (syllables) of one’s name: for example, Yi T’oegye (not T’oe-gye); Yi Pyǒngdo (not Pyŏng-do); and so on. In traditional East Asia Confucian and other scholars referred to each other by using given name (myŏng/ming) and literary (pen) name (ho/hao) according to appropriate standards or situations. So whenever a Korean Confucian scholar is mentioned for the first time, the form given is the family name and then the literary name, together with his years in parentheses: e.g., Yi Hwang (T’oegye, 1501–1570), Yi I (Yulgok, 1536–1584), and so on. Names listed in the glossary indicate the name category. I use the literary name if it is better known nationally and globally; e.g., T’oegye for Yi Hwang, and Yulgok for Yi I. Throughout this chapter, we therefore refer to them as “T’oegye” and “Yulgok,” respectively.
For the primary and secondary Korean sources cited, only the Korean titles are given, as is the standard style. To avoid confusion, however, the titles of Chinese sources such as early classics and leading Neo-Confucian writings are given in Chinese only. With some exceptions, the romanized philosophical terms are provided in both languages in parentheses. I give the Korean pronunciation first followed by the Chinese with a slash between them: for example, i/li ([metaphysical] principle), chŏng/qing (emotions, feelings, or emotions and feelings), and sadan/siduan (Four Beginnings).
As is well known, consistency in the translation of Confucian and Neo-Confucian philosophical terms is an elusive goal due to their subtlety or flexibility of meaning, involving diverse implications according to the context. Therefore, my approach to this task is to maintain the standard English renderings of most terms as much as possible. For example, the term i/li is translated as “principle,” which is generally accepted as the best English equivalent in current scholarship. In the Zhu Xi school, it is conceived as the ground of being” or “pattern” that underlies all concrete things and phenomena. However, we need to keep in mind that there are other translations with their corresponding meanings: for example, regarding self-cultivation, the term i/li also signifies moral essence and/or virtues as a set of “guidelines for moral practice,” as was often emphasized by many leading Neo-Confucians such as Zhu Xi and Yi T’oegye.
Finally, on account of the complexity of translating certain terms, I use the following romanized forms when appropriate extensively: i (principle) and ki (material force or vital energy). The glossary offers a list of the key philosophical terms, personal names, and textual titles mentioned in the text or translation. Their Chinese characters (hancha) are not given in the glossary.
All of my quotations translated from the Korean Four-Seven Debate letters are fully documented in the footnotes for the sake of the reader’s convenience and for my preference not to give this frequent citation directly within in the text. I use my own translation unless indicated otherwise; however, I also inform specifically if the translated passages are also available in other books (e.g., Kalton et al. 1994 or Chung 1995). For the sake of textual or translation clarification, the reader will notice a few descriptive words added; for all interpolations, I use square brackets. Furthermore, when any Chinese primary source, classical or Neo-Confucian (e.g., Mencius, Doctrine of the Mean, Zhu Xi, etc.), is quoted or paraphrased, my guiding principle is to cite the Sibu beiyao, as listed in my bibliography. If the quoted passage is already available in English and if it is translated accurately or properly, I adopt it and document its source (e.g., Chan 1963, 1967; Lau 1970; Legge 1970) in the notes; otherwise, I use my own translation.
My annotation of certain primary Korean or Chinese sources includes a few detailed but useful comments in the notes. This is provided for more textual or philosophical discussion, so I encourage the reader to consider them for his/her further reflection beyond my writing or interpretation. I also cite leading modern (secondary) sources in English and other languages, most of which are documented within the text because this format is more convenient without requiring many more additional footnotes. Overall, I use both in-text and footnote citation styles comprehensively in all parts and sections, and this chapter maintains the same styles with convenience and consistency.
Abbreviated Titles Used in the Footnotes and Quotations
For details on these primary sources (in literary Chinese), see the bibliography, parts I and II.
- HYCC: :
-
Han’guk Yuhak charyo chipsŏng
- TC: :
-
T’oegye chŏnsŏ
- YC: :
-
Yulgok chŏnsŏ
- ZZDQ: :
-
Zhuzi daqaun
- ZZQS: :
-
Zhuzi quanshu
- ZZWJ: :
-
Zhuzi wenji
- ZZYL: :
-
Zhuzi yulei
Glossary: Key Terms and Phrases, Textual Titles, and Personal Names Cited
Abbreviations: [g.n.] – given name; [l.n.] – literary name
-
Cheng Hao (Mingdao) 程顥 (明道)
-
Cheng Yi (Yichuan) 程頤 (伊川)
-
ch’ilchŏng/chiqing 七情
-
ch’ŏlli/tianli 天理
-
chŏng/qing 情
-
Chŏng Chiŭn [g.n.] Ch’uman [l.n]) 鄭之雲 (秋巒)
-
ch’ŏnmyŏng chi sŏng/tianming zhi xing 天命之性
-
Ch’ŏnmyŏng sindo 天命新圖
-
Ch’ŏnmyŏng to 天命圖
-
Ch’ŏnmyŏng tosŏl 天命圖說
-
chugi 主氣
-
Chugip’a 主氣派
-
churi 主理
-
Churip’a 主氣派
-
ho/hao 號
-
i/li 理
-
ibal/lifa 理發
-
i chi ponyŏn/li zhi benran 理之本然
-
iil punsu/liyi fenshu 理一分殊
-
in/ren 仁
-
insim/renxin 人心
-
inyok/renyu 人慾
-
ki/qi 氣
-
Ki Taesŭng [g.n.] (Kobong [l.n.]) 奇大升 (高峯)
-
kijil/qizhi 氣質
-
kijil chi sŏng/qizhi zhi xing 氣質之性
-
Kobong 高峯 (see also Ki Taesŭng above)
-
Kunzhi ji 困知記 (Luo Qinshun’s work)
-
li (i in Korean; see i/li)
-
Lu Xiangshan 陸象山
-
Luo Qinshun [g.n.] (Zhengan [l.n.]) 羅欽順 (整菴)
-
Mengzi jizhu 孟子集註
-
pal/fa 發
-
palcha/fazhe 發者
-
ponyŏn chi i/benran zhi li 本然之理
-
ponyŏn chi sŏng/benran zhi xing 本然之性
-
pulsŏn/bushan 不善
-
qi (ki in Korean; see ki/qi)
-
renyu (inyok in Korean) 人慾
-
sa/shi 事
-
sach’illon 四七論
-
sadan/siduan 四端
-
sayok/siyu 私欲
-
Shushigaku 朱子學
-
sim/xin 心
-
simhak/xinxue 心學
-
Sim t’ong sŏngjŏng tosŏl 心統性情圖說
-
sodangyŏn/sodangran 所當然
-
soiyŏn/soiran 所以然
-
soi palcha/soyi fazhe 所以發者
-
Sŏng Hon [g.n.] (Ugye [l.n.]) 成渾 (牛溪)
-
Sŏnghak sipto 聖學十圖
-
Sŏnghak chipyo 聖學輯要
-
sŏngnihak/xingli xue 性理學
-
sŏng chi ponsŏn/xing zhi benshan 性之本善
-
sŏng chi ponyŏn/xing zhi benran 性之本然
-
tianming zhi xing 天命之性
-
T’oegye [l.n.] (退溪; see also Yi Hwang [g.n.])
-
tosim/daoxin 道心
-
Wang Yangming 王陽明
-
Yi Hwang [g.n.] (T’oegye [l.n.]) 李滉 (退溪)
-
Yi I [g.n.] (Yulgok [l.n.]) 李珥 (栗谷)
-
Yi T’oegye [l.n.] (see Yi Hwang above)
-
Yi Yulgok (see Yi I above)
-
Yulgok [l.n.] (see Yi Yulgok or Yi I above)
-
Zhen Dexiu [g.n.] (Xishan [l.n.]) 眞德秀 (西山)
-
Zhongyong 中庸
-
Zhongyong zhangju 中庸章句
-
Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤
-
Zhu Xi [g.n.] (Huian [l.n.]) 朱熹 (晦庵) (also known as Zhuzi 朱子)
-
Zhuangzi 莊子
-
Zhuzi 朱子 (Master Zhu; see also Zhu Xi above)
-
Zhuzi daqaun 朱子大全 (see also Bibliography)
-
Zhuzi quanshu 朱子全書 (see also Bibliography)
-
Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類 (see also Bibliography)
-
Zisi 子思
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chung, E.Y.J. (2019). “History, Philosophy, and Spirituality of the Four-Seven Debate: The Korean Neo-Confucian Interpretation of Human Nature, Emotions, and Self-Cultivation”. In: Ro, Yc. (eds) Dao Companion to Korean Confucian Philosophy. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2933-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2933-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2932-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2933-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)