40 Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate
soft and the hard are spoken of; in establishing the Tao of
man humanity and righteousness are spoken of."7 And again, "[The
Book of Changes] traces things to their origin in the
beginning and back again to their final end; therefore it
understands life and death.8 Great indeed is the Book of
Changes!9 And herein lies its highest excellence!
Chu Hsi's Comments
Chu Hsi says: "In [Chou Tun-i's] explanation of the
Diagram, first he describes the origin of yin and yang,
change and transformation; then he clarifies the matter, namely
in terms of [the corresponding] endowment and constitution of
human beings. When he says, `Man alone receives [the Five Agents]
in their highest excellence and so is endowed with the fullest
spiritual potential,' [a reference to] man's pure and
perfectly good nature, what he is speaking of is the Supreme
Ultimate. `His physical form is produced and his spirit manifests
[intelligence]' is the doing of the activity of yang and the
quiet of yin. `His five-fold nature is stirred and acts' is
the nature of Water, Fire, Wood, Metal, and Earth produced when
yang changes and yin corresponds. `The distinction of good and
evil arises' is the likeness of the male and the female
elements. `Human affairs take place' is the likeness of the
production and transformation of the myriad creatures. And
finally when we come to, `The Sage properly orders these
[affairs] according to the mean, correctness, humanity, and
righteousness, taking quiet as the essential; in this way he
establishes the ultimate standard for man.' This again refers to
man's having received the integral substance of the Supreme
Ultimate, with the result that he is conjoined with Heaven and
Earth in a perfect unity. Therefore the text goes on to say that
with regard to Heaven and Earth, the sun and
Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate 41
moon, the four seasons, and the spirits, there is none with
which he is not at one."10
And again [Chu Hsi] says: "The sage has no need to cultivate
these qualities but possesses them naturally. Not yet having
attained such perfection but cultivating it is that wherein the
superior man finds his good fortune; being ignorant of this
[perfection] and violating it is that wherein the inferior man
suffers misfortune. Whether one cultivates it or violates it is
simply a matter of the difference between practicing mindfulness
and licentiousness. If one is mindful one's desires will be few
and principle will be clear. If one reduces one's desires and
then reduces them yet further until he approaches the condition
in which they are totally absent, then in quiet [one's mind and
heart] will be empty [of self-centered impulses] and in
activity [one's conduct] will be correct; one will thus be fit to
learn to become a sage."11
T'oegye's Comments
This diagram and its accompanying explanation are both the
work of Chou Lien-hsi [Tun-i]. Yeh Ping-yen12
spoke of this diagram as follows: "It takes the words of the
Appended Remarks [of the Book of Changes], 'The Book of
Changes has the Supreme Ultimate; this produced the Two
Modes; the Two Modes produced the Four Forms,"13 and expands and
clarifies its meaning. The only difference is that the Book of
Changes speaks in terms of the hexagrams and their lines,
while the Diagram speaks in terms of the creation and
transformation [of the physical universe]."14 Master Chu
called it, "the great fountainhead of moral principle,"15 and
again referred to it as "the source of proper understanding of
the Tao through all ages."16
This diagram has been placed at the very beginning of
42 Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate
this work for the same reason that its explanation was placed
at the beginning of [Chu Hsi's] Reflections on Things at
Hand. That is, one who would learn to be a sage should seek
the beginning here in this [diagram] and apply his efforts to the
practice of [what is presented in] such works as the
Elementary Learning and the Great Learning.17
When the day of reaping the fruits arrives and one
completely returns to the Single Origin, he will have
arrived at the condition described as having "exhaustively
comprehended principle, fully realized his nature, and so
completely fulfilled the Mandate";18 he will have become "the
person of perfectly accomplished virtue who exhaustively
comprehends the realm of the spirit and understands the
transformations [of the universe]."19
Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate 43
COMMENTARY
On Beginning with the Diagram of the Supreme
Ultimate
When T'oegye was nineteen years old he first obtained a copy
of the first chüan of the Hsing-li to
ch'iian, which presents this material along with Chu Hsi's
commentary on it and extensive annotations from other sources;
this, he says, first opened his eyes and provided him a real
entree to the Neo-Confucian path.20 Although he
was criticized by some for engaging his students in such lofty
matters rather than concentrating on the basics of moral
cultivation such as are found in the Elementary Learning
(see below, ch. 3), he considered this material as basic and
frequently lectured his students on it.21 We shall see
that fundamental moral cultivation rather than philosophical
theory is the essence of his approach to learning; but his own
mind needed the support of grasping the overall framework, and he
assumed the same for others:
[T'oegye] said: "Studying things on the lower level to arrive
at the higher is certainly the constant order [of learning].
Nevertheless if those who pursue Teaming practice for a long time
without attaining much, they easily reach the point of giving up
in the middle. It is better to show them the basic foundation [of
this whole endeavor]." Thus in guiding his students he showed
them the fundamental well-springs. (ŎHN
1.21a,B, p. 799)
On the Relationship of Principe and Material Force
Li and ki (Chinese: li and ch'i,)
principle and material force, are the two essential constituents
of existence. They are ex
Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate
plained in the Appendix on Terminology. The following passage
summarizes the basic aspects of their relationship that are
critical in the interpretation of this diagram:
Someone asked Master Chu, "What is the meaning of saying there
must be principle and only then can there be material force?"
[Master Chu] replied: "Fundamentally this cannot be spoken of in
terms of prior and posterior; nonetheless if one must pursue the
question of whence comes material force, then it is necessary to
say that first there is this principle. But principle is not a
separate thing: it exists in the midst of material force, and
without this material force principle would have nothing to which
to adhere."22 Now if one considers the matter in terms of these
three statements, then principle and material force fundamentally
are not mixed together and likewise are not separate from each
other. If one does not speak of them separately, they flow
together as a single thing and one fails to understand that they
are not mixed; if one does not speak of them together, they
become divided as two things and one fails to realize that they
are not separate. (ŎHN 4.5a, B, p. 838)
The emphasis upon the separateness but inseparability of
principle and material force reflects a critical balance
necessary to a vision which might be described as a dualistic
monism. In the monistic direction, there is a tendency to a
monism of material force in which principle is reduced to the
order inherent in material force, an interpretation instanced by
the philosophies of Chang Tsai and Lo Chin-shun
(1465-1547)23 in China and Sŏ Kyŏngdok24 in Korea.
T'oegye was acutely aware of this tendency and criticized it
strongly;25 the dualism which he defends separates principle and
gives it priority, as reflected in this passage. As the inborn
norm of everything in the universe principle has a clear value
priority; as the inborn nature of things it has a logical
priority over any concrete instance of that nature. A third kind
of priority, priority in the existential order of causality, is a
vexatious issue in Chu Hsi's writings that has led historically
to quite varied interpretations and developments of his thought.
26
-
Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate 45
Principle as the Indeterminate and the Supreme
Ultimate
Chou's diagram was derived from Taoist sources. The phrase,
wu-chi, in the first line of his Explanation
would be translated as "the Ultimate of Non-Being" in a
Taoist context, a reflection of that tradition's derivation of
being from non-being. Chu Hsi, in adapting this work to his
own purposes, could not accept such an interpretation and
strongly argued against it in his famous debate with Lu
Hsiang-shan.27 He disarms the Taoist implications of
wu-chi by interpreting the phrase as a
qualification of the Supreme Ultimate clarifying its unlimited
and non-concrete nature. Thus I have rendered wu-chi
as "the Indeterminate." T'oegye presents the rationale of this
interpretation as follows:
Master Chu in discussing the Indeterminate and the Supreme
Ultimate says: "If one does not say `the Indeterminate,' then the
Supreme Ultimate would become the same as a single thing and
would not suffice as the root of the ten thousand
transformations; if one does not say `supreme ultimate' then the
Indeterminate would be confused with a quiescent emptiness and
would not be able to serve as the root of the ten thousand
transformations."28 Ah! Ah! This saying can be said to perfectly
encompass the matter in every respect. (A, 16.40b, p. 421, Letter
to Ki Myŏngŏn)
The Supreme Ultimate is identified as principle, or the total
sum of all specific principles. As the above passage indicates,
it is in itself nonspecific, not concrete, not a thing,
but nonetheless real. In the following discussion of
principle T'oegye elaborates further on these qualities:
The differences between the ancients and people nowadays with
regard to the learning and understanding of the Tao are simply
due to the fact that the word "principle" is hard to understand.
What I mean by saying the word "principle" is hard to understand
is not that a general understanding is difficult, but that truly
knowing it with a wondrous understanding that reaches 100 percent
is difficult. If one is able to exhaustively investigate all
principle with 100 percent penetration, he will clearly perceive
that it is perfectly empty but perfectly real, perfectly nonbeing
but perfectly being; it acts but
46 Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate
does not act, it is quiescent but not quiescent; it is so pure
and clear that not the slightest bit could be added to it nor the
slightest bit taken from it; it is able to be the foundation of
yin and yang, the Five Agents, and of all things and all affairs,
and yet it is not encompassed within yin and yang, the Five
Agents, or all things and affairs. How could one mix it with
material force and consider them as a single substance or see
them as just one thing? (A, 16.46b, p. 424, Letter to Ki
Myŏngŏn).
The negations reflect what is implicit in the "indeterminate"
side of principle and establish its transcendence; the
affirmations indicate the reality of the "supreme ultimate" side,
based upon its function as immanent within the concrete beings of
the universe. One cannot seek it out as a thing in itself apart
from its manifestation in concrete existence, and yet it
transcends any of its particular manifestations. The essential
message to be drawn from this vision is not mystical absorption
in the Supreme Ultimate, which in itself is nothing, but
concentration on responsiveness to principle as it is immanent
and real in the affairs of daily life. Thus T'oegye says:
In the Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme
Ultimate, two phrases are the most important points for
application by one who pursues teaming: "The superior man in
cultivating these qualities enjoys good fortune. The inferior man
in violating them suffers misfortune." It is only the difference
between being mindful and being licentious; can one but be
fearful! (ŎHN, 1.20b, B, p. 798)
The Supreme Ultimate and Material Force
Yin and yang, representing quiet and activity, are the most
fundamental characteristics of concreteness, i.e., material
force. When Chou Tun-i said in his explanation, "The
Supreme Ultimate through movement produces yang .... Through
quiet [the Supreme Ultimate] produces yin," the statement was not
problematic, for his thought was not formed in the context of the
philosophy of principle
Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate 47
elaborated by his younger contemporaries, the Ch'eng brothers
(especially Ch'eng I), and he was probably thinking of the
Supreme Ultimate in terms of material force. But when the
statement is viewed in the light of the assumption that the
Supreme Ultimate is principle, it becomes exceedingly
problematic: it seems to indicate that material force is produced
by principle and to attribute a kind of activity to principle
that belies its condition of being above all concreteness and
hence action. On a deeper level, it poses the question of how one
can conceive the causal function of principle at all, since
material force is the single concretizing and energizing element
in the universe.
Chu Hsi responds to this problem in a variety of ways which
have in common the tendency to avoid giving existential
independence to principle while at the same time giving it
some kind of non-temporal priority. T'oegye picks up one of
his main leads in this matter as follows:
Master Chu once said: "Principle has motion and quiet and
therefore material force has motion and quiet; if principle did
not have motion and quiet, whence would material force have
motion and quiet?"29 For principle moves and material force
accordingly arises (saeng); material force moves and
principle accordingly is manifested. Lien-hsi [Chow
tun-i] says, "The Supreme Ultimate through movement
produces (saeng) yang." This means principle moves and
yang arises (saeng). (A, 25.35a, p. 608, Letter to
Chŏng Chajung)
Logically and causally there must be a principle of motion
before there can be motion. T'oegye's analysis addresses the
casual question by moving the verb "saeng" (Chinese, `sheng')
from the SVO position where it reads subject "produces" object,
to an SV position where it may mean subject "arises," i.e.,
arises of itself in accord with, but not actually produced by,
what is contained in principle. In the last years of his
life T'oegye accepted a current of thought among the younger
generation of Korean scholars that made him feel this
rearrangement to be somehow superfluous:
[Question:] The Supreme Ultimate through movement produces
yang and through quiet produces yin. Master Chu says, "Principle
has no feelings or intent, no productive activity."30 If it has
no feelings or intent, no productive activity, then I fear it
could not produce yin and yang. And if one says it
48 Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate
can produce them, would it not mean that at the beginning
originally there was no material force-that there would be
material force only after the Supreme Ultimate produced yin and
yang? [Huang] Mien-tsai3l says, "producing yang,
producing yin" is the same [as saying] "yang arises, yin
arises";32 but is this not also going too far in disliking [any
attribution of] activity [to principle]?
T'oegye replies as follows:
Master Chu once said: "Principle has motion and quiet and
therefore material force has motion and quiet; if principle did
not have motion and quiet whence would material force have motion
and quiet ?"33 If you understood this you would not have this
question. For the "having no feelings or intent" passage refers
to [principle's] original substance; being able to activate and
being able to produce is its extremely wondrous function. [Huang]
Mien-tsai's explanation need not be like that, for
principle itself has function and therefore naturally
(spontaneously) there is the production of yang and the
production of yin. (A, 39.28a-b, p. 889, Letter to Yi
Kongho)
There are ambiguities in this passage that call for more
discussion than would be appropriate here. Suffice to say that
two of the leading contemporary Korean scholars who have devoted
lengthy analyses to this aspect of T'oegye's thought concur in
the opinion that he ultimately still assumed a material
force that is self-originating and hence without
beginning.34 But it is notable that he now dispenses with Huang's
interpretation, which is virtually identical with his own earlier
position. One can only conclude that he is now seeing in
principle's "extremely wondrous function" a more active sort of
role for principle than he had hitherto envisioned, and hence
sees a more dependent role for material force which leads him to
want to avoid expressions that too clearly point to its
self-origination. While it is still a matter of material
force naturally originating itself in dependence upon
principle, he is now seeing the casual function of principle
in a way that is leading him to stress the dependence side and
play down the self aspect of that origination.
T'oegye's application of "the extremely wondrous function" of
principle to this question is related to a discussion which was
really focused on seeing a more active role for principle in "the
investigation
Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate 49
of things" as presented in the Great Learning. This
will be taken up in our discussion of the fourth diagram.
Although the emphasis on the active function of principle
comes only at the very end of T'oegye's life-instigated by
Ki Taesüng,35 his friend and disciple-it is
congruent with an emphasis on principle that is present in all of
his thought. At the same time, in Ki's generation, which
succeeded T'oegye's, there was present Yi I (Yulgok),36 who came
to stand with T'oegye as one of the two greatest Korean
Neo-Confucian thinkers. While T'oegye and his disciples
tend to grant ever more priority to principle, Yulgok emphasizes
more the strict interdependence and mutuality of principle and
material force and, by contrast to T'oegye's school, the school
of Yulgok is often characterized as "the school of material
force." These differing emphases become the source of the
two major currents which run throughout the remainder of Yi
dynasty Neo-Confucian thought.
The One and the Many
The multiple circles of the Diagram of the Supreme
Ultimate are really an analysis of a single phenomenon,
the universe. Read from the top down it is an unfolding of the
Supreme Ultimate to its diversified manifestation in the many
creatures; considered from the bottom up, it is a revelation of
the ultimate unity within the manifest plurality of those
creatures. In Chu Hsi's analysis of the graphics of the
Diagram which T'oegye has added to it, the final sentence
deals with the bottom-most circle, which represents the
multiple creatures of the universe. It says: "Each has its
own nature and all things are the one Supreme Ultimate." The
following passage addresses the basic question implicit in this
statement:
Question: In the commentary on the Diagram an
annotation containing the explanation of Huang Mien-tsai
says that the expressions, "the total sum of all principles" and
"the fundamental origin of all transformations" refer to the
Supreme Ultimate.37 As for the statement that all creatures are
each endowed with the one Supreme Ultimate, can one then also say
[each is endowed with] the total sum of all principles and the
fundamental origin of
50 Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate
all transformations? Persons indeed are endowed with all
principles; but as for things, each is endowed with the single
principle suited to its use and that is all. How could they be
fully endowed with all principles?
[T'oegye] said: In the case of a single thing, it seems one
could not call it the total sum of all principles. Nevertheless,
that with which it is endowed is the principle of the Supreme
Ultimate, so why can one not say that each is endowed with the
one Supreme Ultimate? How could [one regard] the Supreme Ultimate
as a collection of the total sum of all principles, [as if] it
cuts off single principles and applies each to one thing? It is
like a single ray of moonlight which shines all around: whether
it be the vastness of a river or the sea, or a single cup of
water, it shines in all. In the case of the moonlight in a single
cup, how could one, because of the small amount of water, go on
to say it is not the moon shining? (ŎHN,
l.llb-12a, B, p. 794)
This is further clarified when one is reminded not to transfer
the specificity of principle as encountered in the nature of
concrete beings to considerations related to principle as such,
which transcends form and specificity:
Question: The principles of ruler and subject are certainly
endowed in my person; but are the principles of plants and trees
likewise the same as [the principle of my] person? [T'oegye]
said: One should not use the word "same": it is just one and that
is all. In the case of things which have form, there is
necessarily a difference between this and that. But principle is
something without form, so how could it ever be divided as this
and that? Tzu Ssu in the Doctrine of the Mean [ch. 1] only
speaks of "the great foundation of the world." Among all those
seated here, I have the great foundation, you have the great
foundation, and besides us however many millions of persons there
may be, they all have the great foundation. They do not borrow it
from me and I do not borrow it from them. In the case of things
with form, one having more of something means another is lacking;
if I have it then you do not have it. But this is a thing without
form; how could there be distinctions between this and that,
others and myself? (ŎHN, 4.5a-b, B, p. 838)
The one principle, then, transcends distinctions; its diverse
manifestation as the specific natures of different creatures
is due rather to differentiations, typically expressed in terms
of purity and fineness versus turbidity and coarseness, that
arise in material force, the vehicle of its manifestation.38
NOTES
Notes to pp. 37-41 225
1. Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate
1. The Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate (T'ai chi t'u),
and Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate
(T'ai chi t'u shuo) may be found, together with Chu Hsi's
commentary and a lengthy compilation of further annotation, in
the Hsing-li ta-ch'üan (hereafter, HLTC, ) ch.
1. The Diagram and Explanation have been translated by Derk Bodde
in History of Chinese Philosophy, by Feng Yu-lan,
vol. 2, pp. 435-438. A Source Book in Chinese
Philosophy, by Wing-tsit Chan, pp. 463-464>
contains a translation of the Explanation. Both
translations are in substantial agreement, and my own owes much
to theirs. For a further discussion of the origin and nature of
the Diagram, see Feng Yu-lan, ibid., pp.
438-442.
2. The Chin ssu lu, compiled by Chu Hsi and Lü
Tsu-Ch'ien, is the earliest compilation of the
thought of the early masters and has been extremely influential.
It has been translated by Wing-tsit Chan as Reflections on
Things at Hand. On the HLTC, see above, Introduction,
n.26.
3. See HLTC, l.lb-3a.
4. Ch'ien and K'un are the names of the first
two hexagrams of the Book of Changes (hereafter,
Hsing-li ta-ch'üan). Ch'ien is entirely
composed of yang lines and symbolizes Heaven and the male;
K'un is composed entirely of yin lines and symbolizes
Earth and the female.
5. For a complete elaboration of the correlation of the Five
Agents and the constituent principles of human nature as well as
the psychological theory developed on this basis, see below, ch.
6.
6. Changes, commentary on Ch'ien hexagram.
7. Ibid., Remarks on Certain Trigrams, ch. 2.
8. Ibid., Appended Remarks, pt. 1, ch. 4.
9. The Book of Changes was an ancient divination text
held in high esteem by both Confucians and Taoists. It is based
upon eight trigrams which represent the possible combinations of
unbroken (yang) lines and broken (yin) lines; these
in turn were combined into hexagrams, thus making a total of 64
symbolic graphs representing different combinations of yin and
yang. The 8 trigrams were attributed to the lengendary sage
Fu Hsi, while the hexagrams were held to be the work of King Wen
(1171-1122 B.C.); the texts accompanying the hexagrams were
attributed to King Wen and the Duke of Chou (d. 1094 B.C.). As
important as the text itself were seven commentaries which were
incorporated into the work and ascribed to Confucius
(551-479 B.C.). Originally a divination text, the Book
of Changes came to be used as the fundamental source for
virtually all Chinese cosmological speculation and was also an
important source of ethical teachings. Modem scholars generally
hold the commentaries to be the work of diverse authors and
composed sometime between the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.
10. Chu-tzu Yü-lei (hereafter, YL),
94.17b-18a.
11. HLTC, 1.45b-46a, slightly abridged. T'oegye
sees the doctrine of mindfulness as a central theme running
throughout his Ten Diagrams and deliberately introduces
this comment to show how Chu Hsi supplements Chows more
one-sided emphasis on tranquility with the doctrine of
mindfulness (see the annotation he appends to ch. 4).
12. The honorific name of Yeh Ts'ai (fl. 1248). Yeh was a
disciple of Chu Hsi's pupil, Ch'en Ch'un (1153-1217) and
the author of the earliest commentary on the Chin ssu
lu.
13. Changes, Appended Remarks, pt. 1, ch. 11.
14. A slight paraphrase of Yeh's remark as found in
HLTC, 1.59b-60a.
15. HLTC, 1. 596-60a.
16. Chu-tzu ta ch'üan (The Complete Works of
Chu Hsi, hereafter CTTC), 71.4b (Chi Lien-hsi
ch'uan).
17. The Elementary Learning (Hsiao hsüeh) and the
Great Learning (Ta hsieh) are the subjects of the third
and fourth chapters of the Ten Diagrams.
18. Changes, Remarks on Certain Trigrams, ch. 1.
19. Changes, Appended Remarks, pt. 2, ch. 3.
20. ŎHN, l.lb, B, p. 789; 1.20b, B, p. 798.
21. ŎHN, 1.20b, p. 798.
22. YL, 1.2b.
23. There were sharp differences in the orientations
underlying the monistic philosophies of Chang and Lo. For an
excellent study of Lo's thought that clearly distinguishes him
from Chang, see Irene Bloom, "On the `Abstraction' of Ming
Thought: Some Concrete Evidence from the Philosophy of Lo
Chin-shun," in Principle and Practicality, ed.
by Wm. Theodore deBary and Irene Bloom, pp. 69-125.
24. The courtesy name of Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk
(1489-1546) was Kagu, but in Korea he is best known by his
honorific name, Hwadam; he is popularly regarded, along with
T'oegye and Yulgok (Yi I), as one of the three outstanding
philosophers of the Yi dynasty. He strongly asserted the absolute
independence and originality of his ideas, though they bear a
close resemblance to the monistic philosophy of ch'i
developed in China by Chang Tsai, to whom his followers
constantly likened him. He refused to take office and lived an
impoverished life in retirement devoted to study and teaching.
T'oegye had contact with a number of Hwadam's students, and
frequently expressed his impatience with what he regarded as
their misplaced enthusiasm and exaggerated claims for their
master. Hwadam claimed his teaching and insights would endure
through the ages, but unfortunately the slim volume of his
writing which survived-perhaps his only writing-the
Hwadamjip, contains only a sketchy exposition of his
philosophy, making it impossible, in spite of his high repute, to
assess the full range and depth of his ideas.
25. See, for example, his Pi i ki wi il mui
pyŏnjung (An Evidenced Argument That Li and
Ki Are Not One Thing), TGCS, A, 41.20b-23a,
pp. 920-922, in which he attacks the monism of Lo
Chin-shun and Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk.
26. For T'oegye's handling of this question and its
ramifications See below, Commentary, "The Supreme Ultimate and
Material Force," and chapter 4, Commentary, "Can Principle
`Approach'?"
27. On Chu Hsi's adopting and interpreting Chou's
Diagram, which was before that relatively unknown, see
Wing-tsit Chan, "Chu Hsi's Completion of
Neo-Confucianisml," pp. 67-72.
28. This remark appears among the passages appended to Chu
Hsi's commentary on the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate,
HLTC, 1.4a; I have not been able to locate its original
source.
29. CTTC, 56.33b (Letter to Ch'eng Tzu-shang)
30. YL, 1.3a.
31. Mien-tsai was the honorific name of Huang Kan
(1152-1221), Chu Hsi's son-in-law and one of
his leading disciples. He has generally been considered the
orthodox interpreter and transmitter of Chu Hsi's thought.
32. HLTC, 1.23b.
33. See above, n. 27.
34. See Yun Sasun, T'oegyeŭi ch'ŏrhak
yŏn'gu (Research on T'oegye's Philosophy), pp.
59-66, and Chŏn Tuha, "T'oegyeŭi ch'ŏrhagui
haeksim," (The Heart of T'oegye's Philosophy), pp. 135-170,
(esp. pp. 135-145). The two scholars differ insofar as Yun
is inclined to emphasize the implicit contradictions in this
monistic dualism while Chŏn, who is deeply influenced by
Hegel, is inclined to see it in a dialectical framework.
35. On Ki Taesŭng, see above, Introduction, n. 32. He is
famous for his role in the Four-Seven Debate with T'oegye,
the most famous and important intellectual controversy in
the history of Yi Dynasty thought (see below, chapter 6, for a
discussion of the debate).
36. The courtesy name of Yi I (1536-1584) was
Sukhŏn, but he is universally known in Korea by his
honorific name, Yulgok. He rivals T'oegye for the title of the
finest thinker of the Yi Dynasty, and the Korean intellectual
world became permanently divided into schools which trace
their intellectual descent from one or the other. Yulgok had an
illustrious official career, holding posts such as Censor
General, Inspector General, and Minister of the Board of
Personnel, and has a high reputation not only as a philosopher
but as a man of practical affairs.
37. Cf. HLTC, p.106.
38. On the differentiation of principle according to the
relative purity or turbidity of material force, see below,
chapter 3, Commentary, "Material Force and the Difference Between
the Sage and the Ordinary Man."
