The Challenge of Neo-Confucianism

Chapter 3 The Challenge of Neo-Confucianism istoriographically, the establishment of the Chosŏn has been inextricably linked Hto the adoption of Neo-Confucianism as the new dynasty’s founding ideology. It may therefore be a moot point, whether or not dynastic change would have occurred without the incentive of Neo-Confucian thought. Yet looking back at the violent power struggles taking place during the last decades of Koryŏ, it seems likely that without the active partnership of scholars inspired by a compelling vision of renovating state and society, Yi Sŏng-gye, the military leader, would have established simply another military dictatorship. That this did not happen was singularly due to this alliance between the triumphant general and a few Neo-Confucian activists—a truly historic conjunction of diverse forces and interests that ushered in an entirely new era in Korea’s history. What enticed Yi Sŏng-gye (the future T’aejo) to take advice from a number of powerless scholar- officials and make an unfamiliar creed the basis of his policy preferences? And what kind of Neo-Confucianism did the scholar-officials think suitable for shifting the military-dominated tradition of late Koryŏ to a civilian-ruled Chosŏn? The Twofold Approach to Neo-Confucianism In this study, Neo-Confucianism refers to “learning of the Way” (Daoxue; Kor. Tohak) as propagated by the two Song Chinese scholars Cheng Yi (1033–1107) and Zhu Xi (1130–1200), usually called the Cheng-Zhu school. They and their Tang-Song forebears developed Dao learning during an extended process of recovering and rethinking Confucianism, supposedly lost since the time of Mencius (371–289 BCE), into a comprehensive moral philosophy that offered universal guidelines for restoring state and society after centuries of Buddhist “misrule.” Though they did not work out a systematic exposition of their new discourse on “nature and principle” (Chin. xing li xue; Kor. sŏngnihak, an alternative The Challenge of Neo-Confucianism 65 name for Tohak), they did write lengthy commentaries in which they detailed how their readings unlocked the often obscure meaning of classical literature and translated it into an updated and coherent ideology of moral renovation—from individual self-cultivation to renewal of state and society. The core literature that was to guide the Daoxue learner were the texts that Zhu Xi collected into the famed Four Books: the Analects (Lunyu), the Mencius (Mengzi), the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong), and Great Learning (Daxue); the latter two were extracted by Zhu Xi from the Records of Rituals (Liji). Together with the Five (sometimes Six) Classics,1 the Four Books formed what was to be declared as the orthodox Confucian canon in 1241. After the early fourteenth century, this canon pro- vided the materials on which aspiring civil officials were tested.2 In short, it was with the mastery of this classical corpus of knowledge that every learner—whether Chinese or non-Chinese—could participate in the Confucian ecumene. In Korea, some basic Confucian literature, especially the Analects, the Classic of Filial Piety (Xiaojing), and a selection of the Five Classics had been studied since late Silla times,3 and during Koryŏ these works served as mandatory examination materials for the classics examination (myŏnggyŏngkwa). For various reasons, however, the peninsula was cut off from the intellectual developments in Southern Song China,4 and it was only with the rise of the Mongol empire that Korea became part of a vast, multinational network that connected Korean scholars with Neo-Confucianism. In 1289, the Mongols established an Office for the Promotion of Confucian Studies in Korea (Koryŏguk yuhak chegŏsa) with a rank-five head,5 but because of the Mongols’ own initial ambivalence toward the value of Neo-Confucian studies, it is unlikely that this office functioned as a conduit of Daoxue to Korea. Rather, it was through personal encounters with Chinese Zhu Xi scholars in Beijing that a few Korean scholars, who visited the Mongol capital as members of royal retinues, came first to appreciate the appeal of Daoxue. One of the first to do so was the famous scholar An Hyang (1243–1306), who in 1289 accompanied the later King Ch’ungsŏn on one of the prince’s frequent trips to Beijing and returned home with the “new books” of Master Zhu. Though subsequently promoted to high office, An’s foremost concern was the stimulation of Confucian scholarship. Yet, given the unaccom- modating social and political environment in Kaesŏng at that time, his teaching efforts were likely confined to a small group of devoted disciples who made Cheng-Zhu Daoxue their exclusive study domain.6 For sustaining and deepening initial enthusiasm, however, continued personal con- tact with Chinese scholars proved crucial, and King Ch’ungsŏn created an ideal venue for intensified Sino-Korean scholarly exchanges. Renouncing the throne in Kaesŏng to “enjoy himself by studying” with such outstanding literati as Yao Sui (1238–1313), Zhao Mengfu (1254–1322), and Yu Ji (1272–1348), he founded the famous library, the “Hall of the Ten Thousand Scrolls” (Man’gwŏndang).7 It was there that Yi Che-hyŏn and others of his generation came to realize fully the reformatory potential of Neo-Confucianism. Young Yi eagerly absorbed the teachings of Xu Heng (1209–81) conveyed to him by Xu’s disciples present in the hall. As the major proselytizer of Cheng-Zhu Confucianism in Yuan China and the teacher of Khubilai Khan, Xu not only insisted on universal moral education on the basis of Zhu Xi’s Elementary Learning (Xiaoxue) and the Four Books; he also advocated an activist approach to public affairs as outlined in the Great Learning and .

Load more