Skip to main content

Yi Yulgok’s Life and His Neo-Confucian Synthesis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Dao Companion to Korean Confucian Philosophy

Part of the book series: Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy ((DCCP,volume 11))

Abstract

This chapter highlights the significance of Yi I 李珥 (pename: Yulgok 栗谷, 1536–1584) and his contribution to the development of Korean Neo-Confucianism. Yulgok was a “synthesizer” in his approach to the some fundamental issues and controversies that dominated the sixteenth century Joseon Neo-Confucianism. Some of most controversial issues that Yulgok dealt with were the relationship between “principle” or i/li 理 and “vital force” or gi/qi 氣, the famous “four-seven” debates, the problem of relating the “human mind” (the human selfish mind) and the “dao-mind” (the mind of the Way or the moral mind), and the idea of understanding the human in relation to the cosmos. Yulgok dealt each of these vital issues with his unique non-dualistic approach which synthesized the conceptual polarity that caused serious debates in the Korean Neo-Confucian circle. The concepts such as i/li and gi/qi, eum/yin and yang, the “human mind” and the “dao-mind,” for example, were understood by some leading Confucian scholars including Yi Hwang 李滉 (pename: Toegye 退溪, 1501–1570) structured dualistically. Yulgok thought that although these ideas appeared to be conceptually dualistic, they were, in fact, related to each other with an intrinsic ontological unity based on the same reality. However, Yulgok made a clear distinction between different manifestations of the same ontological substance. For example, Yulgok discussed about the mysterious relationship of i and gi: “The mystery of i and gi is difficult to see or to talk. The origin of i is one, the origin of gi is also one…. gi does not part from i, and i does not part from gi. This being the case, i and gi are one.” It is essential to understand Yulgok’s non-dualistic view of reality. For Yulgok, reality was profoundly relational. For him relation was not simply a connection or an external binding but it was fundamentally an intrinsic unity of beings or entities by stating that one cannot exist without the other. In this respect, Yulgok was a non-dualistic thinker who understood reality not in the framework of dichotomy but in the intrinsic unity of i and gi and the “four beginnigs” and the “seven feelings” (or “seven emotions”), etc. Yulgok’s anthropology (understanding of the human), ontology (understanding of beings), and cosmology (understanding of the universe) were based on his synthetic and comprehensive approach to the critical issues of Korean Neo-Confucianism. This chapter is a brief summary of Yulgok’s life and thoughts in relationship to each other to observe his intellectual development in light of his personal growth.

This chapter is a revised and extended version of my previously published essay, “Yi Yulgok and His Contributions to Korean Neo-Confucianism: A Non-dualistic Approach” Traditional Korean Philosophy: Problems and Debates. (ed. Youngsun Back and Phillp J. Ivanhoe). 2017. London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 69–83.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more discussion on this issue, see Yulgok Jeonseo1971. Seoul: Sungkyunkwan University Press. Gwon 10. 17b–18a.

  2. 2.

    The term, epistemology, means “ways of knowing” or ways of understanding reality or “being.” For Yulgok the movement of the universe can be the foundation for understanding all other beings including human beings.

  3. 3.

    For more discussion on Yulgok’s cosmology and ecology, Young-chan Ro, “Ecological Implication of Yi Yulgok’s Cosmology,” in Evelyn Tucker and John Berthrong, eds. 1998. Confucianism and Cosmology Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 169–86.

  4. 4.

    For more discussion on whether Toegye’s interpretation of Zhu Xi was an original and creative interpretation of Zhu Xi or not, see Yung Sik Kim “Another Look at Yi Hwang’s Views about Li and Qi: A Case of Time Lag in the Transmission of Chinese Originals to Korea” Traditional Korean Philosophy: Problems and Debates. (ed. Youngsun Back and Phillip J. Ivanhoe). 2017. London and New York: Roman & Littlefield. 25–47.

  5. 5.

    Chinese Huayan Buddhism employed the notions of “principle” and “phenomenon” and the relationship between these two in explaining the Buddha-Nature” in all beings. In a similar way Chinese Neo-Confucianism used the concepts, “principle” and qi in explaining the constitutive nature of every being.

  6. 6.

    For more information and fuller understanding of this debate, see Michael C. Kalton with Oak-sook C. Kim, Sung Bae Park, Youngchan Ro, Tu Wei-ming, Samuel Yamashita. 1994. The Four-Seven Debate: An Annotated Translation of the Most Famous Controversy in Korean Neo-Confucian Thought (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

  7. 7.

    For English translation, see The Four-Seven Debate: An Annotated Translation of the Most Famous Controversy in Korean Neo-Confucian Thought. Michael Kalton with Oaksook Kim, Sung Bae Park, Youngchan Ro, Tu Wei-ming, Samuel Yamashida. 1994. Albany: State University of New York Press. 126.

  8. 8.

    Quoted in Hwang Junyeon 황준연 1995. Yulgok Cheolhakeui Ihae 율곡철학의 이해 [Understanding of Yulgok’s Philosophy]. Seoul: Seogwangsa. 132

  9. 9.

    The Doctrine of the Mean, ch.1 (Wing-tsit Chan’s translation, see Chan Wing-Tsit. 1963. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 98.

  10. 10.

    This statement shows how Yulgok understood the relation between “four” and “seven” not in a dualistic dichotomy. For more and fuller explanation, see Ro, Young-chan. 1989. The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi Yulgok, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 50–63.

  11. 11.

    Seo Gyeong-deok was the most well known Korean advocator of gi monism who was deeply influenced by the Chinese Neo-Confucian scholar Zhang Zai 張載 (1020–1077). For more information about Zhang Zai and Seo Gyeong-deok, see Jung-Yeup Kim, Zhang Zai’s Philosophy of Qi: A Practical Understanding. Lanham. Boulder. New York. London: Lexington Books. 2015. 95–103.

References

  • Chan, Wing-Tsit. 1963. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, Junyeon 황준연. 1995. Yulgok Cheolhakeui Ihae 율곡철학의 이해 [Understanding of Yulgok’s Philosophy]. Seoul: Seogwangsa

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalton, Michael C. with Kim, Oak-sook C., Park, Sung Bae, Ro, Youngchan, Tu Wei-ming, Yamashita, Samuel. 1994. The Four-Seven Debate: An Annotated Translation of the Most Famous Controversy in Korean Neo-Confucian Thought. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Jung-Yeup. 2015. Zhang Zai’s Philosophy of Qi: A Practical Understanding. Lanham. Boulder. New York. London: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Yung Sik. 2017. “Another Look at Yi Hwang’s Views about Li and Qi: A Case of Time Lag in the Transmission of Chinese Originals to Korea.” In Youngsun Back and Phillip J. Ivanhoe, eds., Traditional Korean Philosophy: Problems and Debates. London and New York: Roman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ro, Young-chan. 1989. The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi Yulgok. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ro. Young-chan.1998. “Ecological Implication of Yi Yulgok’s Cosmology.” In Evelyn Tucker and John Berthrong, eds., Confucianism and Cosmology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 169–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ro, Young-chan. 2017. “Yi Yulgok and His Contributions to Korean Neo-Confucianism: A Non-dualistic Approach.” In Youngsun Back and Philip J. Ivanhoe, eds., Traditional Korean Philosophy: Problems and Debates. London and New York: Roman and Littlefiled.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, Wei-ming. 1985a. The Way, Learning, and Politics in Classical Confucian Humanism, Occasional Paper and Monograph Series No. 2, The Institute of East Asian Philosophies (Singapore).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, Wei-ming. 1985b. “Yi Yulgok’s Perception of Sagely Learning,” The Proceedings of the 3rd. International Korean Studies Conference. 제 3회 국제 학술회의 논문집. 한국정신문화연구원Seoul: Academy of Korean Studies. 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yulgok Jeonseo 栗谷全書. 1971 Sungkyunkwan Universty Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-chan Ro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature B.V.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ro, Yc. (2019). Yi Yulgok’s Life and His Neo-Confucian Synthesis. 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_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics