PALGRAVE STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE EAST-WEST PHILOSOPHY

# **Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion**

Confucian, Comparative, and Contemporary Perspectives

*Edited by*  Edward Y. J. Chung Jea Sophia Oh

# Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy

Series Editors Chienkuo Mi Philosophy Soochow University Taipei City, Taiwan

Michael Slote Philosophy Department University of Miami Coral Gables, FL, USA

The purpose of Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy is to generate mutual understanding between Western and Chinese philosophers in a world of increased communication. It has now been clear for some time that the philosophers of East and West need to learn from each other and this series seeks to expand on that collaboration, publishing books by philosophers from different parts of the globe, independently and in partnership, on themes of mutual interest and currency.

The series also publishs monographs of the Soochow University Lectures and the Nankai Lectures. Both lectures series host worldrenowned philosophers offering new and innovative research and thought.

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/16356 Edward Y. J. Chung • Jea Sophia Oh Editors

# Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion

Confucian, Comparative, and Contemporary Perspectives

*Editors* Edward Y. J. Chung Asian Studies and Religious Studies University of Prince Edward Island Charlottetown, PE, Canada

Jea Sophia Oh Department of Philosophy West Chester University of Pennsylvania West Chester, PA, USA

ISSN 2662-2378 ISSN 2662-2386 (electronic) Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy ISBN 978-3-030-94746-0 ISBN 978-3-030-94747-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022. This book is an open access publication.

**Open Access** This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affliations.

Cover illustration: © Korean Painting / Alamy Stock Photo.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

*Dedicated to scholars and students in East Asian thought and the comparative study of philosophy and religion.*

# Preface

This book presents emotions (*jeong*/*qing* 情) in Korean philosophy and religion. It is a pioneering and interesting discussion of this important topic. With its subtitle "Confucian, comparative, and contemporary perspectives," the book consists of the introductory and concluding chapters as well as three main parts consisting of eleven specialized scholarly chapters.

The topic of emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) in Korean philosophy and religion warrants the close attention of Western and East Asian scholarship. Although we have a very impressive long list of modern scholars' works on East Asian and Korean philosophy and religion especially Confucianism and Buddhism,1 the current Western literature on this particular topic on emotions in the Korean traditions and developments is extremely limited with only a few books, book chapters, and journal articles.2 In fact, some of this book's editors and chapter contributors have written articles in English on the Korean Confucian philosophy of human nature and

1The introductory and other chapters of this book cite or discuss a good number of the primary sources, translations, and secondary sources in the feld of Korean and East Asian religion and philosophy. For these examples, see the lists of reference in the introductory and other chapters.

2Current scholarship on the *Korean* Confucian philosophy of human nature and emotions includes Kalton et al. 1994; Chung 1995, 1998, 2019b; Ivanhoe 2015, 2016; Seok 2018; and H. Kim 2015. The current literature on emotions in *Chinese* and Asian religion, thought, and literature includes two books and a few articles: e.g., Marks and Ames (1995; edited), Virág 2017, Eifring 2004, De Silva 1995, Hansen 1995, Harbsmeier 1995, and Puett 2004. For publication details, see the list of references in Chap. 1 by the editors.

emotions.3 However, we greatly need a full-length, in-depth study of this topic as a good source book that will broaden, deepen, and enrich our understanding of emotions not only from Korean Confucian, comparative, Buddhist, and contemporary perspectives (representing this book's subtitle), but also in the wider context of emotions and comparative ethics.

Accordingly, this inspired us to choose that topic as the key theme for our interdisciplinary and integrated study of Korean philosophy and religion. Each main part of this book has its focus and scope with three to four individual chapter contributions. Each individual chapter begins with a brief introduction and ends with a concluding section; it also provides its own topic, original quotations, annotated notes, interpretive comments (textual, historical, philosophical, religious, and/or comparative), and an updated, list of references.

Chapter 1 is the book editors' detailed, comprehensive introduction to four related topics.4 This chapter will effectively serve as a textual, philosophical, ethical, and religious background of our studies of Korean *jeong*. Chapter 13, the concluding chapter by the editors, discusses "the diversity, dynamics, and distinctiveness of Korean *jeong* emotions." It complements the introductory chapter, presents thought-provoking insights into eleven main chapters, and concludes the book with an engaging discussion of the modern relevance and signifcance of the topic.

The eleven main chapters individually contribute to discussing the manifold and multilevel nature of emotions (*jeong*) in Korean philosophy and religion from our diverse yet integrated perspectives. Each chapter is written by a specialist whose expertise focuses on a particular tradition, theme, thinker, or aspect of the topic, although each may also relate to special features of the other chapters' key doctrines and ideas from Korean Confucianism, Buddhism, and/or its comparative or contemporary thought. In short, Chaps. 2–5 in Part I discuss Korean Confucian perspectives, Chaps. 5–7 in Part II deal with comparative Confucian and related perspectives, and Chaps. 8–12 present Korean Buddhist and contemporary perspectives including *jeong* and women. We collectively endeavor to

3The current list of published works on this topic has several sources listed above in n. 2. See also Joh 2006, A. Park 1993, and some others regarding the (liberation or post-colonial) Christian *theological* study of Korean *han* emotion (suffering; deep resentment); for publication details, see the lists of references in Chap. 1 as well as Chaps. 8, 11, and 12.

<sup>4</sup> Such as "emotions West and East," "emotions in the Chinese tradition," "emotions in the Buddhist tradition," and "emotions (*jeong*) in Korean philosophy and religion."

address this unifying theme in relation to the distinct Korean experience and understanding of human life and emotionality.

Overall, we hope that the reader will fnd this book a ground-breaking study of Korean philosophy and religion through our diverse yet integrated discussions of this dynamic and fascinating topic on the *holistic* nature, role, and problem of *jeong* emotions, which we consider the heart of Korean thought. What the reader can discover through this pioneering study is a healthy philosophy and spirituality of emotions, East and West.

In our view, the scholarly merit of this holistic approach and theme broadens and enriches the horizon of existing full-length studies in English of Korean philosophy and religion. It is therefore our multi-talented team's anticipation that readers will be satisfed with the originality, quantity, and quality of book. We hope to provide an important source for Korean thought and the comparative study of emotions and ethics and, at the same time, to have made a worthwhile contribution to the new Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy.

Charlottetown, PE, Canada Edward Y. J. Chung West Chester, PA Jea Sophia Oh

# Acknowledgments

#### **Editor Edward Y. J. Chung:**

I, Edward Y. J. Chung, wish to express my sincere gratitude to the institutions and people who have enabled, facilitated, or inspired us during our research and writing of this book. First of all, I am sincerely grateful to all eleven colleagues in the study of Korean philosophy and religion who have enthusiastically contributed their eleven scholarly chapters to this edited volume. In particular, my warm thanks go to Jea Sophia Oh for her contribution to organizing, editing, and completing this book manuscript for publication; she has worked diligently and patiently since the beginning of this project in late March, 2019. Each of these individual chapters has its own focus, context, and strength, thereby making a worthwhile individual contribution to this volume. Without their scholarly expertise and collegial support, we would have not come to the fruition of this pioneering book consisting of these chapters.

I am also very pleased to acknowledge and thank the powerful open access (OA) publication of this book, fully supported by my Korean Studies Seed Program grant (AKS-2017-INC-2230001) at the University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI), Canada through the Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea and Korean Studies Promotion Service (KSPS), and Academy of Korean Studies (AKS). I am grateful for this special grant, which included funding for research travel to Seoul, Korea and to Toronto, Canada. It provided me with a good deal of funding for research, scholarly consultation, writing, manuscript preparation, and editing that I have conducted since early 2019. I had the beneft of research trips to the University of Toronto for my library work at the EAS Library, which holds one of the world's leading collections of primary and secondary Korean and other East Asian sources. I am happy at the end of these research endeavors to offer an edited manuscript for this book to scholars, students, and the general reader alike.

My sincere thanks go to Philip Getz, the senior acquisitions editor at Palgrave Macmillan and his offce staff for initially soliciting a proposal for this book and then looking after the review, publication, and marketing of this book. I also wish to thank the series editors Professor Michael A. Slote (University of Miami) and Professor Chienkuo Mi (Soochow University, Taiwan) for agreeing to include this book in the new Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy.

I am also grateful to my institution, UPEI (Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada) for facilitating this book project since early 2019. This book was also assisted by my previous scholarly works on Korean Confucianism and comparative thought and religion, some of which were funded by research and conference travel grants I received from the university. My warm thanks go to UPEI president Dr. Alaa Abd-El-Aziz, UPEI vice-president of academics and research (interim) Dr. Katherine Gottschall-Pass, UPEI dean of arts Dr. Neb Kujundzic, and my Asian Studies Program for their continuous academic and administrative support during the composition and publication of this book. I wish to thank UPEI staff members in Research Services and Financial Services for their administrative support on behalf of my Korean Studies project.

Lastly, I also appreciate the anonymous reviewers of this book project proposal and its completed manuscript for their critical comments and encouraging suggestions and insights, many of which guided others and me in completing this fnal version.

My thanks also go to the publisher's book project coordinator Mr. Vinoth Kuppan, project manager Mr. NirmalKumar GnanaPrakasam, Ms. Sylvia Anand, and their entire production team for their excellent services in fnalizing the manuscript for publication.

Thank you very much everyone!

### **Editor Jea Sophia Oh:**

I, Jea Sophia Oh, express the most convivial of gratitude to all the authors included in this volume for their patience and endurance throughout the various stages of this process. I also offer our profound appreciation to the publisher, Palgrave Macmillan, and especially to the senior editor, Philip Getz and his editorial team, for all of their steadfast efforts and persevering energy in seeing this book to the press. Edward Y. J. Chung should be thanked for enthusiastically lighting the fre under this project. Without his sacrifce, we would never have been able to complete this project.

# Note on Transliteration, Translation, and Citation Style

Korean names, terms, and titles are transliterated according to the updated Revised Romanization of Korean System (National Academy of the Korean Language, Ministry of Education), which we prefer over the conventional but outdated McCune-Reischauer system. Chinese counterparts are according to the standard Pinyin system. In romanizing Korean given names and literary (pen) names, we follow the accepted style of dropping the hyphen between two characters (syllables), for example, "Toegye" not "Toe-gye." In traditional East Asia, Confucian and other thinkers and scholars often referred to each other by given name (abbreviated here g.n.), literary name (abbreviated here l.n.), or courtesy names interchangeably. Unless otherwise noted, the standard format we use is family name frst and then other names.

More importantly, we use the literary (pen) names if they are better known nationally and internationally; for example, "Toegye" 退溪 [l.n.] for Yi Hwang 李滉 (1501–1570), "Yulgok" 栗谷 [l.n.] for Yi I 李珥 (1536–1584), and "Dasan" 茶山 [l.n.] for Jeong Yagyong 丁若鏞 (1762–1836), the three most eminent Confucian thinkers of Korea. For eminent Korean Buddhist monks, we go by their Buddhist names; for example, Wonhyo (元曉; 617–686) and Jinul (知訥; 1158–1210). Regarding the famous Song Chinese thinker Zhu Xi who is frequently cited or discussed in certain chapters and appended notes of this book, we will refer to him as "Zhu Xi" (朱熹; 1130–1200), "Zhu" (family name), or "Master Zhu" (Zhuzi 朱子) and we refer to his philosophy or school of thought as "Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism" or "the Zhu Xi school" insofar as this is the accepted standard in East Asian as well as North American scholarship.

For primary Korean Confucian and Buddhist sources cited in the introductory and other chapters, we provide only the Korean titles as is the standard style; for example, Yulgok's *Yukjogye*, Dasan's *Yeoyudang jeonseo*, Wonhyo's *Ijang eui*, and Jinul's *Susim gyeol*. 1 To avoid confusion, we indicate the titles of Chinese sources such as Neo-Confucian writings in Chinese only; for example, Zhu Xi's *Zhongyong zhangju* and Wang Yanming's *Chuanxi lu* (abbreviated as *CXL*).2 With some exceptions, the romanized philosophical terms are provided in both languages with an English translation in parentheses. The Korean pronunciation appears frst followed by the Chinese with a slash between them; for example, "*jeong*/*qing*" (emotions and feelings); "*i*/*li*" (principle, pattern, order, ground of being); "*gi*/*qi*" (vital/physical energy or material force); and "*sim*/*xin*" (heart-mind, mind, or heart).

When a primary source is cited, we translate it in such a way that each sentence or word is rendered as literally and as meaningfully as its original author had originally intended it to be. On the other hand, however, it is the style of each chapter contributor's translation that should make clear to the reader why the original primary works are interesting or worth reading both philosophically and religiously. Accordingly, those of us who do translation in their chapters take occasional liberties with the translation in order to enhance textual clarity and enrich readability and rhetorical fow.

<sup>1</sup>*Yukjogye* (六條啓; Six-article memorial for current national affairs) is one of Yulgok's famous political essays; Dasan's *Yeoyudang jeonseo* (與猶堂全書; Complete works of Yeoyudang Jeong Yagyong [Dasan]) is a huge collection of Dasan's writings; Wonhyo's *Ijang eui* 二障義 *(Doctrine of the two hindrances*) is a major work on his Maha¯ya¯na philosophy, psychology, and spirituality of mind and emotions; and Jinul's *Susim gyeol* 修心訣 (Secrets on cultivating the mind) is his leading work on Korean Seon (Zen) teaching and practice (emotional control). The *Yukjogye* is discussed in Edward Chung's Chap. 4, the *Yeoyudang jeonseo* is cited or discussed in Chap. 1 and Don Baker's Chap. 5, and the *Ijang eui* and Jinul's *Susim gyeol* are translated by Muller and Nguyen (2012) and Buswell (1991), respectively and also cited and discussed in the editors' introductory chapter, Sect. 1.4.3 (Korean Buddhist and Contemporary Perspectives).

2Zhu Xi's *Zhongyong zhangju* 中庸章句 (Commentary on the words and phrases on the *Doctrine of the Mean*) and Wang Yangming's famous *Chuanxi lu* 傳習錄 (Instructions for practical living) (translated by Chan 1963a) are discussed in Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.3 (Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism on Emotions…) and Sect. 1.2.4 (Wang Yangming on Selfsh Emotions…).

We also consider ourselves philosophical or religious-studies interpreters and scholars. The literary genres as well as their philosophical or moral meanings and spiritual implications embodied within the primary sources motivated some of us to present some commentary and interpretation both in their chapters and the footnotes appended to each chapter. These contributors made some good effort to explain the way in which the original thinker, writer, and moral-spiritual practitioner defended the basic doctrines of Confucianism, Buddhism, or something else while developing a holistic ethics and spirituality of emotions.

When suitable, some of us include textual, historical, philosophical, or religious comments and cross-referenced citations. Furthermore, we discuss similarities and differences between Korean and Chinese Neo-Confucians or among Korean, Chinese, and Indian Buddhist doctrines. Especially in Chaps. 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, we develop comparative points on the compatibility, convergence, or differences among East Asian perspectives and Western and contemporary philosophers or religionists.

Consistency in the translation of Confucian, Buddhist or other related terms can be diffcult because they are often both subtle and fexible in meaning, involving different implications according to their literal, philosophical, or spiritual context. We therefore maintain the standard English rendering of most key terms as often as possible. Whenever appropriate, in the relevant notes, we give these *standard* but fexible English renderings.

We translate and explain certain key words according to their different contexts. For example, the key term *jeong*/*qing* in this book is translated as "emotion(s)," "feeling(s)," or more inclusively "emotions and feelings."3 This Confucian idea generally refers here to "emotions" or "feelings," so we use both English words interchangeably. Furthermore, the same term can *positively* mean "affection," "sentiments," or "sympathy" and also *negatively* denote or relate to such emotions as suffering, craving, resentment, anger, fear, and hatred. Overall, it is a dynamic engagement of both the body and the heart-mind. Emotion (*jeong*/*qing*), as in the case of the Korean Four-Seven philosophy and moral psychology, therefore refers to an aroused physical or psychological state, often the

<sup>3</sup>For details on the fexible translation of the term "*jeong*/*qing*," see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.1.4 (Diversity of Emotions) and Sect. 1.2.1 (Emotions in Early [Pre-Buddhist] China). The concluding chapter also discusses the translation and interpretation issue.

result of a stimulation of the mind.4 The editors and most chapter contributors generally use the English word "emotion(s)" for the key term *jeong*/*qing*.

In the introductory and other chapters, the term *sim*/*xin*, one of the most important terms in Confucianism, is translated sometimes as "mind" or as "heart" or even better as "heart-mind" (or "mind-heart"), thereby using the three terms interchangeably. This in itself begins to capture the Confucian belief in the intellectual, ethical, psychological, and spiritual interaction of the heart-mind as a whole. The term *seong*/*xing* is rendered most frequently as "human nature," which the Korean and Chinese Confucian tradition considered to be full of truth and goodness though the term can also mean "humanity" or "human goodness." Leading Neo-Confucians such as Zhu Xi, Toegye, and Yulgok discuss *seong*/*xing* in relation to *sim*/*xin*, *jeong*/*qing*, *i*/*li* (principle), and *gi*/*qi* (vital energy or material force).

Eminent Neo-Confucians such as Zhu Xi and his Korean interpreters often mention two interrelated concepts: *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*. As is commonly done, we translate the term *i*/*li* as "principle [of being]" or as "the [moral] pattern/ground of being" (as that which underlies all concrete phenomena). The term can also be taken to mean the reason for existence, an omnipresent governing "pattern," or the moral "order" of all phenomena in full goodness. In relation to human nature and emotions, it represents the ideal moral essence of human nature that is purely good, thereby emphasizing self-cultivation. The term *gi*/*qi* is translated as "vital energy" or "material force"—its standard rendering in English. In contrast to *i*/*li*, *gi*/*qi* brings each phenomenon or being into concrete existence and also determines its transformation, which may lead to either good or evil. Regarding human nature and emotions, *gi*/*qi* also represents physical dispositions and psychological feelings and desires.5

4For the editors' discussion of the idea and role of *jeong*/*qing* according to the Korean Four-Seven debate on emotions, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.1 (Korean Confucian Perspectives) as well as Chaps. 2, 4, and 6 by Seok, Chung, and Harroff, respectively. For the original Chinese doctrines, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.2 (Emotions in Classical Chinese Confucianism) and 2c (Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism on emotions…).

<sup>5</sup> See n. 39 in Chap. 1 for some good examples of books and articles on Zhu Xi's philosophy ethics of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*. See also Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.1 (Korean Confucian Perspectives) as well as Chaps. 2, 4 for Toegye's and Yulgok's Korean Neo-Confucian interpretations of this topic in relation to the mind and emotions.

References and cross-references to relevant primary texts are cited in the text or appended footnotes. Some of us enrich our interpretation in these footnotes by providing annotated comments in our chapters. Some of these notes are necessarily lengthy because they include important quotations, most of which are provided for further textual description or interpretive discussion. We use a footnote format throughout the book, in addition to providing in-text citation (author year: page number) for short and quick references.

In the introductory chapter, the editors discuss certain Confucian and Buddhist masters or their teachings directly or indirectly; for example, Confucius, Mencius, Chinese and Korean Neo-Confucians, the historical Buddha, Theravada scriptures, and some leading Mahāyāna, Chinese, or Korean texts. Many of our eleven individual chapters cite one specifc example or another or a combination of these primary sources. Therefore, our commentary in the text or appended notes provides a balanced method of description and interpretation. In this book, we have consulted the following Korean, Chinese, and Indian works: the Five Classics (especially the *Book of Rites*); the Four Books (*Analects*, *Great Learning*, *Doctrine of the Mean*, and *Mencius*); the standard Chinese or Korean Neo-Confucian commentaries by Zhu Xi, Wang Yangming, Yi Toegye, Yulgok, Dasan and others; the Buddha's teaching and Indian Theravada and Mahāyāna scriptures; Chinese Buddhist texts by Tiantai, Pure Land, and Chan monks (e.g., Huineng); and eminent Korean commentaries by Wonhyo and Jinul.6

When any of these primary references is quoted or paraphrased or whenever we annotate it in the notes, we assist the reader by indicating both the accuracy and reliability of modern Koreana or East Asian sources. If the quoted passage is already available in English and if it is translated properly, we adopt it and fully document its source: e.g., Chan (1963a, 1963b, 1967), Lau (1970, 1975, 1979), Legge (1970), Van Norden 2008, and Slingerland 2003 for translations of Chinese classical and Neo-Confucian texts; Kalton (1994) and Chung (2016, 2020) for Korean Neo-Confucian texts; and de Bary (1969), Yampolsky (1967), Buswell (1991, 2007), and Muller and Nguyen (2012) for selected translations of Indian, Chinese, and Korean Buddhist scriptures.7 Otherwise, we indicate that we use the chapter author's own translation.

<sup>6</sup>For these primary sources and their translations, see especially the list of references in the editors' introductory chapter; see also the references lists in other relevant chapters (e.g., Chaps. 4, 5, 10, 11).

<sup>7</sup> See Chap. 1, references for details of these translations; see also the references list of Chap. 5 for Van Norden (2008) and Slingerland (2003).

For the introductory chapter in particular, the editors acknowledge the pioneering translations of Chinese Confucian and Neo-Confucian texts by D. C. Lau (1921–2010) and Wing-tsit Chan (1901–1994). In discussing Korean quotation of Chinese Confucian classics and Neo-Confucian works, we occasionally adopt or assimilate to Chan's translations (Chan 1963a, 1963b). In discussing Korean ideas, we do so by relating them to Zhu Xi's and another thinker's original saying and Chan's translation. We have benefted from D. C. Lau's translations of the *Analects* (1979) and the *Mencius* (1970). We are also indebted to de Bary (1969) for quoting or discussing selected translations of Indian and Chinese Buddhist scriptures and texts. We also thank Buswell (1991, 2007) and Muller and Nguyen (2012) for using some selected translations of key sentences from several Korean Buddhist texts.

The editors and many of chapter contributors use both in-text and footnote citations in order to quote or discuss primary or secondary sources. This blended citation style allows us convenience and consistency in citing and cross-referencing primary texts, modern Korean and other East Asian scholars, and relevant Western translations and studies. In certain cases when appropriate, comments are added and treated separately in the appended footnotes for further information or discussion.

Supplementary information is also provided in every chapter. No separate glossary is provided at the end of a chapter or the book because each chapter offers its own list of the key Korean and Chinese philosophical terms, personal names, and textual titles that are mentioned there. The reader will fnd these Chinese and/or Korean characters directly within the text or the appended footnotes. We believe that this is a better format for both convenient composition and reading.

Every chapter in this book provides both specialists and generalists with a helpful and updated catalog of primary sources and modern secondary works in Korean and Chinese (and Japanese) in addition to a good number of existing English works including translations, general studies, comparative studies, and journal articles. Although we personally preferred to give a single, comprehensive bibliography for the entire book immediately following the concluding chapter, we have to follow the publisher's recommended "in-house" format by presenting a shorter and more focused list of "references" at the end of each chapter, which will facilitate readers in quickly fnding any sources quoted or discussed in that particular chapter.

Edward Y. J. Chung

# Praise for *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*

"This compelling, thoroughly well-researched collection of essays extends—in invaluable ways—the advancing cross-cultural, transdisciplinary dialogue among philosophers and theorists of emotion. The insights found in the pages connect and enrich a broad range of interrelated felds."

> —Donovan O. Schaefer, *Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania, USA*

"This anthology is a tour de force, offering penetrating insights on the quintessential nature of the Korean way of emotions in the context of philosophy and religion. I highly recommend it."

—Halla Kim, *Professor of Philosophy, Sogang University, Korea* 

"With nuanced explorations of *jeong* (emotion) in the Korean tradition and its social, political, and ethical ramifcations, the volume opens a new horizon in our understanding of emotion and its relevance to Asian and intercultural philosophy."

> —Jin Y. Park, *Professor of Philosophy and Religion, American University, USA*

"This book takes 'emotions' as a key to understanding Korean philosophy and the East Asian intellectual and religious traditions. While reason and rationality have taken the most prominent place in the Western philosophical and intellectual traditions in the West, the Korean and the East Asian traditions have viewed 'emotions' as an integral part of understanding human beings. This book is a comprehensive discussion investigating the dimension of '"emotion' in Korean philosophy and religious traditions."

> —Young-chan Ro, *Professor of Religious Studies, George Mason University, USA*

"This pioneering and exciting volume offers fascinating insights concerning emotions from the perspective of diverse Korean philosophies/religions. This work will be of great interest to those who study Korean, Asian, comparative philosophy/ religion, and also to those who wish to gain a broader philosophical understanding of emotions."

> —Jung-Yeup Kim, *Associate Professor of Philosophy, Kent State University, USA*

# Contents







### **Index** 347

# Notes on Contributors

**Don Baker** is Professor of Korean civilization in the Department of Asian Studies at the University of British Columbia. His research focuses on the role of philosophy and religion in Korean history, with a special focus on relations between religious communities and the state. He is currently researching the role played by religious communities during the Gwangju Democratization Movement of May 1980. He is the author of *Korean Spirituality* and *Catholics and Anti-Catholicism in Chosŏn Korea*, in addition to numerous articles on Korean history, religion, philosophy, and traditional science and medicine. He will soon publish an annotated translation of two of Dasan Jeong Yagyong's commentaries on the *Zhongyong.* He is also the general editor of a forthcoming multi-volume *Cambridge History of Korea.*

**Suk Gabriel Choi** is Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Towson University in Maryland, U.S.A. He received his B.A. and M.A from Seoul National University (South Korea) and a PhD in philosophy from University at Buffalo, the State University of New York, with a dissertation on Zhu Xi. He is the president of ACPA (The Association of Chinese Philosophers in America). His primary research interests lie in East Asian philosophy, especially Neo-Confucianism in China and Korea, comparative philosophy, and (both Asian and Western) aesthetics. He has been publishing his work in Chinese, Korean, and English, and recently co-edited with Jung-yeup Kim *The Idea of Qi/Gi: East Asian and Comparative Perspectives*.

**Edward Y. J. Chung** is Asian Studies Director and Professor of Religious Studies at UPEI, Canada. His four latest monograph books are *The Moral and Religious Thought of Yi Hwang (Toegye): A Study of Korean Neo-Confucian Ethics and Spirituality* (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021); *The Great Synthesis of Wang Yangming Neo-Confucianism in Korea: The* Chonŏn *(Testament) by Chŏng Chedu (Hagok)* (2020); *A Korean Confucian Way of Life and Thought: The* Chasŏngnok *(Record of Self-Refection) by Yi Hwang* (T'oegye) (2016); and *Korean Confucianism: Tradition and Modernity* (2015). *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* (1995) was Chung's frst book. For details: https:// islandscholar.ca/people/chung.

**Chung Nam Ha** is Associate Professor at Won Institute of Graduate Studies in Philadelphia and received her MA degree from Western Michigan University in 1995, majoring in comparative religious studies. She received her doctorate degree from Won Kwang University, South Korea, majoring in feminist thought in Korean new religions with her dissertation "Han'guk sinjonggyo ŭi namnyŏ p'yŏngdŭng sasang e kwanhan yŏn'gu" (A study on the thought of equality of men and women in the Korean new religions) in 1997. She was a visiting scholar at the University of Delhi (India) and the Union Theological Seminary (USA). Her published work includes the Yŏsŏng chonggyo saengmyŏng kongdongch'e (Women, Religion, and Life Community, 1999).

**Joseph E. Harroff** received his Ph.D. in comparative philosophy from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa and an MA in Chinese Philosophy from Shandong University. He teaches philosophy and religion at American University. His research engages with the creative interpretive horizons made possible for ethical and political theorizing via responsible inter-cultural contextualization, a world-encompassing hermeneutic phenomenology of relationally constituted persons, and philosophical translation as method. He teaches courses in philosophy, religion, and Asian studies and has recently translated Zhao Tingyang's *All Under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order* (2021).

**Lucy Hyekyung Jee** holds a PhD in philosophy from Yonsei University and is a researcher in the Humanities research center of Yonsei University. She has team-taught Korean religion in the University of Virginia in 2013 and teaches introductory courses on Korean culture, Buddhism, and philosophy at Kyunghee University. Her research interest includes Buddhism in East Asia, modern Korean Buddhism, engaged Buddhism, Buddhism as a therapeutic philosophy, and the role of Buddhism in modern Korea. She wrote Application of Zen Rhetoric to Daily Issues: The Case of "Conversation with Pŏmnyun" in English and more articles in Korean regarding her interest area. She contributed "Korea, Buddhist Philosophy" to the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Religion.

**Hyo-Dong Lee** is Associate Professor of Comparative Theology at Drew University Theological School. A native of South Korea, he holds a PhD from Vanderbilt University and is the author of *Spirit, Qi, and the Multitude: A Comparative Theology for the Democracy of Creation* (2014) and numerous articles, including "Ren and Causal Effcacy: Confucians and Whitehead on the Social Role of Symbolism" (in *Rethinking Whitehead's Symbolism*, 2017) and "Confucian Democracy and a Pluralistic Li-Ki Metaphysics" (*Religions* 9, no. 11).

**Jea Sophia Oh** is Associate Professor of Philosophy at West Chester University of Pennsylvania, teaching Asian and comparative philosophies, religion and ecology, and environmental ethics. Her book *A Postcolonial Theology of Life: Planetarity East and West* (2011) is a path-making work in ecofeminist theology and comparative philosophy. She is co-editor of *Nature's Transcendence and Immanence: A Comparative Interdisciplinary Ecstatic Naturalism* (2017). She is the chair of 'Comparative Religion and Ecology' at American Academy of Religion (MAR-AAR). At American Philosophical Association, she is the chair of the 'Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy (Central),' the 'Society of Study of Process Philosophy (Central and Eastern),' and the 'International Society of Chinese Philosophy (Eastern).'

**Iljoon Park** teaches at Institute for Northeast Asian Humanities & Social Science, Wonkwang University, Iksan, South Korea. He was a visiting professor of Christian Research Institute for Integral Studies at Methodist Theological University, Seoul and a lecturer at Yonsei University. His research interests have focused on the subjects of being human in contemporary philosophies, cognitive science, evolutionary theories, evolutionary psychology, artifcial life, and so on. His main published works include, "Betweenness, the illusory self, and the disruptive subject: In evolutionary biology and cognitive science," Tran-Humanities, vol.1 (2009), 177–199; "Betweenness and the authentic self: a comparison of Daoist thought with Heidegger within the context of living with an authentic selfhood," Madang, vol.11 (2009), 95–117; "Rereading of the Whiteheadian understanding of organism in a trans-human age: a critical review of the 'extended mind theory,'" Trans-Humanities, vol.8, no.1 (2015), 111–130.

**Bongrae Seok** is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Alvernia University in Reading, Pennsylvania, USA. His primary research interests lie in cognitive and comparative philosophy of mind and moral psychology, philosophy of neuroscience, moral neuroscience, neuroethics, and neuroaesthetics. In his recent books, *Naturalization, Human Flourishing, and Asian Philosophy: Owen Flanagan and Beyond* (2020), *Moral Psychology of Confucian Shame: Shame of Shamelessness* (2016), and *Embodied Moral Psychology and Confucian Philosophy* (2013), he develops an interdisciplinary approach to moral psychology from the viewpoint of embodied moral emotions (empathy, shame, and fourishing) and Asian philosophy. His current work focuses on interdisciplinary topics (including embodied cognition and emotion, affective moral intuition) that bring comparative philosophy and neuroscience to the forefront of cognitive science**.**

**Sharon A. Suh** is Professor of Buddhism in the department of Theology and Religious Studies at Seattle University. She received her PhD in Buddhist Studies from Harvard University. She is the author of *Being Buddhist in a Christian World: Gender and Community* (2004); *Silver Screen Buddha: Buddhism in Asian and Western Film* (2015); and *Occupy This Body: A Buddhist Memoir* (2019). She is President of Sakyadhita International Association of Buddhist Women and serves on the board of directors of the Center for Mindful Eating and most recently served on the board of directors of Yoga Behind Bars. She is also a certifed Mindful Eating-Conscious Living teacher through the UCSD Center for Mindfulness.

# List of Figures


# Introduction: Emotions (*Jeong*/*Qing* 情) in Korean Philosophy and Religion

*Edward Y. J. Chung and Jea Sophia Oh*

The nature of emotions was generally criticized in the Western tradition of philosophy. This criticism of the emotional part of human nature and experience is known to have its root in the mainstream Platonic tradition. In other words, it has championed rationality/reason against emotionality/emotion, especially from certain scholarly standpoints. The Western dualism of reason and emotion is Platonic in the sense that it endorses the antagonism between reason and emotion, as Plato in the dialogue *Phaedrus* described emotion and reason as two horses pulling us in opposite directions. Plato and Neo-Platonism clearly placed the highest value on reason/thinking over emotion/feeling based on the mind-body dualism.

E. Y. J. Chung (\*) Asian Studies and Religious Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE, Canada e-mail: chung@upei.ca

J. S. Oh

Department of Philosophy, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA, USA e-mail: JOH@wcupa.edu

© The Author(s) 2022

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_1

1

The philosophical and spiritual traditions of Asia have been described to embody a common emphasis on the suppression of or detachment from the emotional side of the self. For about twenty-fve centuries, the Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist traditions variously taught against the "precarious," "disturbing," "afficting," "self-damaging," or "poisonous" nature/potential/danger of most (ordinary) emotions, feelings, sensations, desires, or inclinations.

We have recently seen an increasing interest in the discussion of emotions by many scholars in various academic disciplines, which resulted in an impressive number of studies on emotion-related topics. It appears that in critical reaction to Platonic philosophy, theological ethics, the conventional wisdom of Asian religion and thought, or other related factors, contemporary philosophers and ethicists tend to pay more attention to the philosophical, psychological, or cognitive nature and role of emotions in personal cultivation, ethics, socio-political development, and so on. In other words, these scholars encourage the study of emotions for human knowledge, action, and experience.

What we call "emotion" in English can have several meanings, as articulated by various theorists and scholars. Its interrelated words are said to be "desire," "feeling," "sensation," "sentiment," "passion," "affection," "attitude," "belief," "judgment," and so on, most of which will be discussed from various angles in the next section on emotions in general, East and West. As we know, emotions are universally what all human beings feel, experience, and/or know: hence, they enjoy or suffer; be compassionate or cruel; be pleased or angry; be happy or unhappy; be afraid or brave; be joyful or sorrowful (resentful); be proud or shameful; love or hate; like or dislike; be generous or greedy; believe or disbelieve; or hope or despair. Many of these emotional things also infuence us to do or not to do good for someone or something, although people's social and emotional lives are highly fuid because their emotions are intricate and dynamic.

Accordingly, the study of emotions is not just a branch of psychology or its similar feld but, more importantly, a branch or even the heart of ethics as well as a vital component of comparative philosophy and religion for us. In this regard, the neglect of East Asia and especially Korea in emotion studies has inspired us to compile this book on the fascinating topic of emotions in Korean philosophy and religion.

In discussing the question "What is emotion?" Western scholarship has often underestimated other important questions about emotions: Why is an emotion aroused; why are emotions diverse; why nourish some emotions and suppress others; and how different groups/types of emotions relate to the heart-mind, the self, and the world? This introductory chapter and other chapters of this book will fexibly address these related questions in the interdisciplinary context of philosophy, religion, and culture.

The Korean and East Asian notion of "emotions" (feelings; *jeong*/*qing* 情)1 is a manifold topic textually, historically, philosophically, ethically, and religiously. It is diverse, dynamic, and sophisticated in terms of meaning, experience, role, problem, and so forth. It is therefore important to study the way in which emotions are expressed, understood, accepted, promoted, or repudiated in all philosophical and spiritual traditions in general as well as by each particular tradition.

The multilayered and interdisciplinary meanings of emotions can generate certain theoretical and methodological questions that seem to have developed recent Western scholarship on various philosophical, religious, psychological, social, or cultural theories and defnitions of emotions. Obviously, one single book like this one or another cannot satisfy all of the aspects of emotions. We, nonetheless, the authors in this volume are mindful of these issues centering around the dynamic and distinctive fow of emotions in the Korean framework of Confucian, comparative, Buddhist, and contemporary perspectives.

This introductory chapter therefore consists of four sections. The frst section presents the general topic of emotions, East and West by briefy covering current scholarship in emotion studies. Several leading theories and perspectives and their related issues are discussed in terms of Western scholarship and East Asian thought. It also addresses the dichotomy of reason and emotion and the diversity of emotions according to the standard categories of emotions and feelings.

1The word "emotion" basically refers to "a moving, stirring, agitation and perturbation," whereas "feeling" basically 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* 1971, s.v. "emotion"). Note that the East Asian term *jeong*/*qing* generally means "emotions" as well as "feelings." We, therefore, use two English words, "emotions" and "feelings" interchangeably. Overall, the term *jeong*/*qing* refers to emotion, feeling, sensation, and other related words, engaging the body as well as the heart-mind in the Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist traditions of philosophy and religion.

The second section discusses the Chinese Confucian and related traditions of philosophy and religion by covering their essential textual, ethical, and religious development with respect to the holistic notion, role, and problem of emotions and its related words. The third section presents emotions in the Buddhist tradition by covering Buddha's teaching and Theravada, Indian Mahāyāna, and Chinese and Korean perspectives. The frst three sections of this chapter are organized as follows:

	- 1.1.1. Theories of Emotions
	- 1.1.2. A Fundamental Issue with Conventional Theories
	- 1.1.3. Dichotomy of Emotion and Reason
	- 1.1.4. Diversity of Emotions
	- 1.2.1. Emotions in Early (Pre-Buddhist) China
	- 1.2.2. Emotions in Classical Chinese Confucianism
		- 1.2.2.1. Confucius: True Emotions and Human Character
		- 1.2.2.2. The *Book of Rites* and the *Doctrine of the Mean* on the Seven Emotions
		- 1.2.2.3. Mencius: Four Beginnings, Moral Emotions, and Self-cultivation
	- 1.2.3. Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism on Emotions, Human Nature, and the Four-Seven Relationship
	- 1.2.4. Wang Yangming on Selfsh Emotions, Essence of Heart-Mind, and Moral Practice
	- 1.3.1. Buddha's Teaching and Theravada
	- 1.3.2. Indian Mahāyāna Perspectives: Great Compassion and Ultimate Joy
	- 1.3.3. Chinese and Korean Mahāyāna Perspectives: Tiantai, Chan, Pure Land, Wonhyo, and Jinul

This structure and scope of our discussion are indeed necessary for this introductory chapter because of China's strong infuence on Korean Confucianism and Buddhism, which will effectively serve as a textual, philosophical, and religious background of Korean traditions and ideas. This section also considers certain comparative and cross-cultural perspectives as well.

As indicated above, this chapter does not offer a separate section on emotions in the Chinese Daoist tradition because this topic is historically and religiously beyond the key theme and scope of our book that focus on Korean Confucian, comparative, contemporary, and Buddhist perspectives.2 However, we also note that some interesting Chinese Daoist perspectives are briefy mentioned here and there in Sect. 1.1 (Emotions in General, East and West) and Sect. 1.2.1 (Emotions in Early (Pre-Buddhist) China) of this chapter.

The fourth and fnal section of this chapter focuses on the topic of "Korean" *jeong*/emotions according to its philosophic, religious, and cultural contexts, traditions, and ideas. It is an integrated introduction to and summary of all three parts of the book as well as all chapters of each part. Each subsection of this section consists of two or three discussion items as follows:

	- 1.4.1.1. The Holistic Nature, Role, and Problem of *Jeong*: Emotions, Self-cultivation, Human Relationships, Ethics, and Beyond
	- 1.4.1.2. An Introduction to Part I, Chaps. 2–5: Korean Confucian Perspectives
	- 1.4.2. Comparative Korean Confucian Perspectives

2To be specifc, there are three related historical, thematic, and editorial reasons. First, Daoism historically did not become an established or independent religion or a competing school of thought in traditional Korea. This was mainly due to the well-known fact that Korean religion, philosophy, and culture were dominated by Buddhism in the Goryeo dynasty (918–1392) and then by (Neo-)Confucianism during the Yi Joseon dynasty (1392–1897). However, Daoism has infuenced the Korean traditions of *yin*-*yang* philosophy, herbal medicine, *qigong* meditation, geomancy and fortunetelling system, nature poetry and landscaping, traditional burial funeral, and so on. Second, early China's leading Daoists such as Laozi (sixth century BCE) and Zhuangzi (late fourth century BCE) strongly repudiated the mundane problem and danger of selfsh desires (*yok*/*yu* 欲) and emotions (*jeong*/*qing* 情) by emphasizing Dao, natural freedom, and mystical (tranquil/ascetic) life. Unlike the Confucian tradition, however, Daoism did not *directly* shape or infuence the Korean moral philosophy and social ethics of *jeong* in terms of what this book as a whole presents. Third, for these two historical and thematic reasons, this introductory chapter does not need to include a separate section to discuss the Chinese Daoist philosophy of emotions. This is also because the goal of this book on Korean emotions cover the Korean Confucian, comparative, contemporary, and Buddhist perspectives.

	- 1.4.3.1. Wonhyo and Jinul on Emotions and Emotional Control
	- 1.4.3.2. Great Compassion and Joy
	- 1.4.3.3. An Introduction to Part III, Chaps. 9–11: Emotions in Won Buddhism, Modern Buddhism, and Korean Buddhist Cinema

We present all of this introductory discussion in terms of the *holistic*, manifold, and dynamic nature, roles, and problems of Korean *jeong*. It also outlines the thematic scope and relevance of each part, summarizes the common or different aspects of all chapters in each part, and then emphasizes each chapter's unique contribution to the discussion of "Korean" emotions. Key aspects of this holistic theme will be elaborated further in the concluding Chap. 13 of this book.

As indicated above, this introductory chapter does not offer a *separate* section on emotions in the Korean traditions of Christianity, shamanism, and "new religions" because this topic is beyond the key theme and scope of our present volume. The book therefore does not provide chapters on these other Korean perspectives.3 However, we also note that some interesting points about Korean theological, shamanistic, and Daoist perspectives are briefy mentioned in this introductory chapter, some other chapters (e.g., Chaps. 8, 11, and 12), and the concluding chapter.

3Note 2 already explains why we have no section on Chinese Daoism in this introductory chapter and, thus, why Sect. 1.4 on emotions in Korean philosophy and religion provides no subsection on Korean Daoist perspectives. In the near future, we can certainly consider a new project as the *second* volume of this book dedicated to Korean Christianity, shamanism, "new religions" (e.g., Cheondogyo; formerly known as Donghak [Eastern learning]), and Daoist culture.

### 1.1 Emotions in General, East and West

What is emotion? As the Asian and Western histories of "emotions studies" tend to indicate, we have no absolute or universal answer to this question. Both traditions of philosophy or religion have developed various perspectives and insights, each of which embodies its own context, emphasis, or examples. Whether we talk about Korean, Eastern, Western, or cross-cultural perspectives, the term "emotion(s)" would pertain to the many dynamic and related aspects of human existence and experience.

As Robert C. Solomon, an American continental philosopher, points out, in the Western tradition "the word *emotion* shifts its meaning from age to age, culture to culture …. The word emotion itself has been in common use (as opposed to the older word, *passion*) for only a few hundred years, and what counts as an emotion (and what does not) also changes" (Solomon 1995b: 257).4 Indeed, no particular philosophical, religious, or psychological category can suffciently help us explain all (types of) emotions, including Chinese and Korean *jeong*/*qing* as well. In the West, emotion is fexibly defned or discussed according to different theories and approaches, whether classical or contemporary.

From a comparative and cross-cultural standpoint, we believe that "emotion" is not necessarily a uniformly one category like what Aristotle (1926) called a "natural" kind or does not pertain only to what the Buddha and Theravada Buddhism called *venada* ("sensation" or "feelings').5 Nor is emotion something that is limited only to what William James, an eminent psychologist (of religion), calls physiological "sensations" (or the feelings of bodily changes) (1984, 1990)6 or what the Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith calls "sentiments" (A. Smith 2009).7

<sup>4</sup> See Marks's and Ames's edited volume (1995). See also Solomon (2001, 2003) and Rorty (1980) for the history of Western theories and interpretations of emotion.

5For more on the Buddhist notion of *venada* ("sensation") as the word for "emotion" in English, see Sect. 1.3.1 (Emotions in the Buddhist Tradition: Buddha's teaching and Theravada.

<sup>6</sup> James asked his famous question, "What Is an Emotion?" What he attempted to convince us rather unsuccessfully is that the answer to this question should fundamentally be how to identify the general category of emotions as none other than physio-psychological changes (phenomena).

<sup>7</sup> Smith emphasized that certain emotions are moral sentiments. Human nature includes these sentiments such as sympathy toward fellow human beings. This therefore identifed "sympathy" as an essential motivation for the virtue of "universal benevolence." See Adam Smith (2009: 10–13 (sect. I, chapters I and II), 345–349 (sect. II, chapter III)).

It is therefore important to be open-minded to using an integrated, broad approach to the study of emotions, one that can handle not just a particular, specifc theory or idea but also multi-philosophical, interreligious, or cross-cultural perspectives.

#### *1.1.1 Theories of Emotions*

One theory of emotions focuses on the link between emotions and the human body, according to which basic human emotions are identical or similar because of their common physiological functions. This commonality of emotions is therefore based on the human biological condition that human nature is basically shaped by our natural tendency of emotions and feelings. From a philosophical standpoint, this "natural theory" resonates with what Aristotle called the "natural" kind or even the Rousseauian view of "natural" emotions and feelings as the moral foundation of human life.8 Similarly, it is also somewhat compatible with the Confucian teaching of moral feelings that are innate in the human heart-mind. According to Mencius (372–289 BCE), this "innate goodness" makes human nature universally good and naturally enables all human beings "love their parents" and "be compassionate" to others (*Mencius*, 2A: 6; 6A: 6).9

On the whole, however, we know that emotions are not always limited to the category of being biologically natural/innate. As outlined below, there are certain emotions that appear to be morally motivated, socially shaped/constructed, culturally informed, or educationally learned. Overall, different moral, philosophical, and religious traditions have developed and still talk about different types of emotions. For example, some of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese *jeong/*emotions are based on their moral

8According to Aristotle (1926), *Nicomachean Ethics*, "desire," "temper," and "pleasure" are "natural" (book 3, chapter 11; book 7, chapters 5, 12); see also Aristotle 1954 (1924), *Rhetoric*, book 2, chapters 1–11. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) believed that human beings like their natural desires for "self-preservation" and are naturally self-contended. Human emotions are therefore the natural source of morality. Rousseau affrmed emotions as *morally* legitimate, thereby identifying the principle of moral good with emotions, which made him an important thinker in the "romantic" philosophical movement. See Rousseau's *Discourse on the Origin of Inequality* (2011); see also Gauthier (2006), Neidleman (2017), and Neuhouser (2014).

9For details on this topic, see this introductory chapter, Sect. 1.2.2.3 (*Mencius*: Four Beginnings …); see also Chaps. 2 and 4 of Part I (Korean Confucian Perspectives).

principles, human relationships (e.g., fve human relationships in the Confucian tradition), social values, or cultural norms and expectations.

In some cases, emotions are also interpreted as "patterns of behavior" so "behaviorism" is claimed to be another contemporary theory of emotions. Behavioral expression is important because it is experienced or understood by the participants themselves. It is also argued that emotions are independent on the established cultural context of certain rules, norms, or expectations. To some extent, this theory does not contradict, for example, some moral emotions promoted by Confucianism in Korea and elsewhere in East Asia. Confucian culture informs, for example, the moral virtue of flial piety—or family love which includes both flial piety and parental love. Chinese or Korean moral culture therefore expects this kind of moral emotions from children in their proper behavior: Another key example is Confucian emphasis on the moral emotion of propriety (*ye*/*li* 禮), one of "the four cardinal virtues of Confucianism."10

Human beings participate in society. All of us do this more or less, for which reason our emotions, feelings, desires, or inclinations assimilate to group (social) things and can eventually become socially conditioned or "constructed." In other words, emotions are basically "the product of society," which concurs with the behavioral theory as well. We can suggest that this theory is somewhat compatible with the Confucian emotion of shame, which tends to depend on established Confucian morality and social relationships as well. East Asian shame is not exactly the same as what a Westerner might personally feels shameful. The Korean emotion of shame is rooted in the Mencian Confucian doctrine on the innate "moral heart-mind (feeling) of shame-and-aversion" (*suo ji sim*/*xiuwu zhi xin* 羞 惡之心), one of the so-called Four Beginnings that is identifed as the moral root of justice (righteousness; *eui*/*yi* 義), another cardinal virtue (*Mencius*, 2A: 6; 6A: 6).11 This tradition is still relevant or infuential among contemporary East Asian people, including many Koreans.

We can argue that the social constructionist theory of emotions underestimates those emotions that are expressed through ethical thinking (reasoning) or one's subjective intellectual motivation. It also tends to ignore the subjective or spiritual experience of certain emotions that are deeply rooted in religious faith (beliefs), for example, compassion in Buddhism. We will further discuss this below, as well as in Sect. 1.2.2 (Emotions in

<sup>10</sup>For more on this topic, see Sect. 1.2.2 of this chapter.

<sup>11</sup>For other details on this topic, see n. 9 above.

Classical Chinese Confucianism) and Sect. 1.3.2 (Indian Mahāyāna Perspectives) of this introductory chapter.

Another interesting (contemporary) theory of emotions is developed by Joel Marks, a specialist in the Western ethics of emotions, whose analysis of emotions focuses on what he calls the "strong desire component" of emotion. As he says, "emotions … are *strong* feelings" and "emotions or passions have a strong desire component" (1995b: 140, 2013).12 Marks therefore theorizes emotions as desires and supports the "cognitive nature" of emotions. This is partly why he defends dispassion for one's ethical life from his comparative Buddhist standpoint (1995b: 143).13 In Sect. 1.3.1 (Buddha's Teaching and Theravada), this view is articulated a little further and also criticized by those ethicists of emotions who support passions for the ethical meaning of life.

In our comparative and cross-cultural view, even though some emotions may be desires or desire-based feelings, it does not follow that *all* emotions themselves are desires or have a "strong desire component" (Marks's phrase). This theory can work with, for example, the Confucian emotion of compassion (sympathy), one of the Four Beginnings because according to Mencius, the moral heart–mind of compassion is basically an innate intuition and desire "to do good." However, there are also good desires and bad desires. In our view, certain emotions are not considered as desires at all. For example, although everyone desires (wishes) to be happy or pleased, nobody ever desires sorrow (or suffering), a major emotion, and no one desires to suffer or to be sorrowful for no unfortunate or unavoidable reasons such as death, sickness, or similar tragedies. Likewise, no one desires (wishes for) anger, another strong emotion East and West, or desires to be angry without any good or justifed reason.

Another contemporary theory of emotions emphasizes emotions as "judgments." Its leading spokesperson is Solomon who argues that "emotion consists, at least in part, of ways of consciously being in the world, which I call 'judgments.' Judgments require concepts" (1995b: 253).14 In other words, emotions are aroused through reasoning and judging and

<sup>12</sup>For this topic on Marks's ethics of emotions and "desirism," see also Marks's full-length book (2013).

<sup>13</sup>This article is Marks's "Dispassion and the Ethical Life," a chapter in Marks and Ames (1995).

<sup>14</sup> See also Solomon's other works (1993, 1995a, 2001) for more details on his ethics of emotions as "judgments."

thus can work with the human intellect (i.e., cognition) while engaging with subjective and personal experience. Furthermore, an emotional judgment is not a desire or belief; this is why Solomon opposes Marks's desire theory. As Solomon writes: "[Emotions] are modes of construal ways of viewing and engaging in the world …. Like most judgments … they are culturally taught, cognitively framed, but implemented by the individual. They are … constitutive of the world, *our* world, as fearsome, offensive, appealing, hopeful, painful" (Solomon 1995b: 276).

This theory is interesting but also a naïve academic assumption. To some extent, it can be applied to some of East Asian emotions such as Confucian righteousness (*eui*/*yi*) and Buddhist wisdom that are both based on the moral discernment and judging of "right and wrong." However, *not all e*motions are subjective emanations arising from cognitive judgments. For example, the heart-mind (moral emotion) of Confucian compassion, according to the idealist Mencius, is naturally "inborn (innate)" in the original "goodness of human nature"; in other words, it is not socially "constructed" or culturally contextualized or learned. It is rather a spontaneous moral intuition/emotion to do good for other human beings "without having to learn" or without cognitively "judging" others or their situations. In this regard, Solomon's theory of emotions as nothing but judgments is certainly narrow and limited and does not accommodate these moral and spiritual kinds of emotions.

### *1.1.2 A Fundamental Issue with Conventional Theories*

All of the theories of emotions we have outlined so far have more or less contributed to the ongoing development of emotion studies. Each of them is distinctive in its own way and can also apply to *some* of Korean East Asian emotions in relation to their Confucian, Buddhist, and related traditions and interpretations. On the whole, however, emotions are not just judgments, desires, natural innate feelings, physiological sensations, feelings of bodily changes, or certain behavioral patterns that are socially constructed or culturally contextualized. What we call emotions from a global standpoint or an anthropocosmic worldview exists at and also shapes the very heart of human life and experience in harmony or confict with the mundane or transcendent dimension of the self and the universe.

In our view, these theories and opinions have a lingering tendency to neglect or underestimate the moral-spiritual experience of certain emotions that are deeply rooted in religious faith or spiritual practice. For example, "(great) compassion" in Mahāyāna Buddhism (Indian, East Asian, or international)—like Christian *agape* (love)—is ultimately not just human but also divine. It cannot be passionately practiced without religious faith in the Mahāyānist doctrine of *karuna*, the selfess and unlimited compassion of bodhisattvas. Likewise, the "ultimate joy" of Mahāyāna Buddhism cannot be attained without having this faith.15

Ancient Chinese Daoist masters such as Laozi and Zhuangzi harshly repudiated the selfshness and danger of worldly concepts, emotions, and desires for ruining the true self as well as natural order and harmony. For Laozi, the Daoist attainment of emotionlessness and desirelessness (*mujeong*/*wuqing* 無情) means the transcendent enjoyment of what Zhuangzi calls the utmost "joy" (*rak*/*le* 樂) of spiritual "freedom" and "supreme being."16 This is not an ordinary emotion but rather a *religious* type of spiritual experience that engages a this-worldly type of mysticism. In other words, transcendence *beyond* the mundane world of ordinary knowledge and rationality is emphasized here in a religious, mystical context.17

In short, classical Chinese or later Korean debates—whether Confucian, Daoist, or Buddhist—on emotions were very interested in understanding and teaching the quality, role, and problem of emotional experiences not just morally, psychologically, or socially but also *spiritually* and *religiously* in search for the transcendent (i.e., sagely or enlightened) reality of human existence.

15For our detailed discussion of this topic, see Sect. 1.3.2 (Indian Mahāyāna Perspectives) and Sect. 1.3.3 (Chinese and Korean Mahāyāna Perspectives).

<sup>16</sup> See Zhuangzi (2000), *A Concordance to the Zhuangzi*, 5/15/20–25, 18/48/9–13; Watson's translation (2013: 40–41, 140–141).

17Laozi's *Daodejing* (Lau 1979) emphasizes "no desires" (*muyok*/*wuyu* 無欲) and *muwi*/*wuwei* (無為; non-action) to become united with the mystical world of Dao by pursuing a simple, natural course of life. The *Zhuangzi* in its seven "inner chapters" strongly condemns desires as that which potentially contaminate one's true mind and damage one's spiritual being. It calls for a mystical (religious) way to transcend worldly concepts, emotions, and desires and enjoy "formless" being and spiritual (mystical) "joy." See Zhuangzi (2000), 5/15/20–25, 18/48/9–13; Watson (2013: 40–41, 140–141). For a good historical and textual discussion of emotions in the *Daodejing* and *Zhuangzi*, see also Virág (2017: 75–100, 133–162).

#### *1.1.3 Dichotomy of Emotion and Reason*

In the Western tradition of philosophy, emotion (passion) was said to be the antithesis or opponent of reason. In other words, the emotional tendency of feelings and passions goes against or deviate from the intellectual (philosophic) enterprise of rationality. This century-old conventional criticism of emotions endeavored to defend the ultimate meaning of philosophy itself as the love of reasoning, not feeling.18 Notheless, philosophy (*φιλοσοφία*) means the love of wisdom (*σοφία*) in Greek etymology, and wisdom is not merely reason alone but also the creative outcome of experience that has become integrated together with our emotions enabling this process. Considering the fuidity of wisdom between feeling and thinking as an acquired outcome via balancing emotional and logical thinking, what has challenged the contemporary ethics of emotions seems to center around the so-called Neo/Platonic dichotomy of emotion *versus* reason.

Certain theorists of emotions have argued that emotion and passion are not in confict with reason or cognition. For example, in his study of emotive rationality, Ronald de Sousa (1987), a leading philosopher of emotions, notes that the power of emotions enables the core purpose of philosophy with respect to our rational thinking about human nature life and experience (1987: 1–20). Furthermore, Marks's theory of emotions as desires and Solomon's theory of emotions as judgments all support the cognitive nature of emotions: in Marks's case, desiring means cognitively knowing what to desire for; and in Solomon's case, judgments "need concepts," so one's judging assimilates to some level of one's reasoning (i.e., cognition).

These endorsements of the rationalistic relevance of emotions relatively ft in with the Korean and East Asian traditions of philosophy and religion that played an important role in developing the intellectual (cognitive), moral, emotional, and *spiritual* (religious) faculties of the entire human self. This topic will be addressed further in the next sections of this

<sup>18</sup> Some prominent thinkers defended passion against this criticism. For example, David Hume (1978) proclaimed reason as "the slave of the passions." We also know G. W. F. Hegel's eloquent saying (1956), no great accomplishment in the world "without passion." Theologically (specifcally, given the theology of John's Gospel and Letters), Christ is known as logos (λόγος) incarnated while the divine wisdom (*σοφία*) has often been interpreted as the divine feminine, "compassion" that cannot be designated merely in the realm of thinking. According to Elizabeth Johnson, sophia (*σοφία*) is self-giving love and empowering love to and in all of Her creation. See Johnson's *She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse* (2002).

introductory chapter on the diversity of emotions, emotions in the Chinese traditions, and emotions in Korean philosophy and religion. The Chinese and Koreans have addressed whether emotions are morally good or bad (evil), human or inhuman, honorable or precarious, altruistic or selfsh, or acceptable or unacceptable. In discussing human nature and the world, the Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist masters therefore articulated why emotions arise and how the emotions function in interaction with the body and heart-mind as well as in response to external stimulus by things and phenomena.

Commenting on emotions (*qing*) in early (pre-Buddhist) Chinese thought, Hansen argues that instead of having any serious interest in the confict between reason and emotion, early Chinese thinkers focused more on the nature and role of *qing*, the "single faculty/organ," the *xin* heartmind … rather than separate faculties of heart and mind" (Hansen 1995: 183).19 Likewise, in her book, *The Emotions* 情 *in Early Chinese Philosophy*, Curie Virág keenly points out that early (pre-Buddhist) Chinese thinkers—including Mencius (372–289 BCE), Laozi (sixth century BCE), and Zhuangzi (late fourth century BCE)—believed that "emotion and cognition … were the domain of a single faculty—the mind/heart (*xin* 心) … accordingly, regarded the cognitive and emotive faculties as part of a fully integrated whole … emotions are indistinguishable from what one might, in the 'West,' refer to as 'thinking' or 'reasoning'" (Virág 2017: 2).

This is also why in Korea eminent Neo-Confucians such as Yi Toegye (1501–1570) and Yi Yulgok (1536–1584) and famous Buddhist thinkers like Wonhyo (617–686) and Jinul (1158–1210) did not distinguish emotion from reason (cognition), and vice versa because they were informed by and used to their traditional belief and teaching that the heart-mind (*sim*/*xin* 心) is one single holistic faculty that coordinates, apprehends, or commands the entire self with respect to rationality, emotionality, morality, and spirituality.20 Accordingly, Korean *jeong*/emotions are said to engage the entire self, including the body as well as the heart-mind, as in the case of Confucian or Buddhist philosophy and spirituality.

<sup>19</sup>Paul Hansen's article "*Qing* (Emotions) in Pre-Buddhist Chinese Thought" is a book chapter in Marks and Ames (1995).

<sup>20</sup>For details on this topic regarding eminent Korean Buddhist monks, see Sect. 1.4.3.1 on Wonhyo and Jinul. For Korean Neo-Confucian perspectives, see Sect. 1.4.1; for Toegye, see Chap. 2 and 3; for Yulgok, see Chap. 4.

#### *1.1.4 Diversity of Emotions*

In many traditions of philosophy, religion, or culture, certain emotions are admired as moral and recommended to be cultivated, while some other emotions are repudiated, feared, or avoided. Some emotions are cherished as essential social virtues, whereas other emotions are believed to be selfsh or potentially evil and therefore require to be controlled or eliminated.

Due to their manifold diversity and multilevel integration as experienced by human beings, we need to study how emotions arise and are understood. This study seriously considers textual, philosophical, and spiritual (religious) perspectives. As mentioned before, the term "emotions" would refer to an entire spectrum of interrelated emotive phenomena. Emotions are or related to: physiological sensations, physical responses to external stimuli, natural or biological feelings and inclinations, passions, affections, beliefs, desires, judgments, attitudes, behavioral patterns, innate moral feelings, moral sentiments/intuitions, and even "emotionless" ("desireless") tranquility (emotion) in Daoism.

In current studies of emotions, we know that emotions like anger, hated, and fear usually get more attention probably because of their distinctive characteristics. Desire and love are also mentioned from different angels. Other emotions such as hatred, jealousy, and craving are repudiated negatively. Righteous anger or justifed hatred is rather interesting but considered a little more ethically complicated as "moral indignation." This topic will be discussed in Chaps. 4 and 5 of this book by Edward Chung and Don Baker according to Yi Yulgok and Jeong Dasan (1762–1836), respectively, two of the most eminent Confucian thinkers in traditional Korea.

Ironically, however, it is worthwhile to note that sorrow (grief), resentment (or lamentation), and gratitude are often ignored or get much less attention in Western scholarship without any clear reason. Nonetheless, these emotions are commonly experienced and talked about in other cultures such as Korea; this is partly why Chungnam Ha's Chap. 10 of this book discusses the two religious and ethical emotions of "resentment and gratitude" according to modern Korean Won Buddhism.

By contrast, compassion and sympathy are frequently discussed with admiration or care, and other moral sentiments and virtues are regularly included in the Western or Asian category of emotions for their obvious signifcance in the study or practice of ethics and spirituality. As we know, Confucianism and Mahāyāna Buddhism are well known for these related virtuous emotions in two distinctive ways. Particularly in the West, the emotions of sympathy and compassion are also academically emphasized in the study of "virtue ethics" (e.g., Slote 2007, 2010).21 This is somewhat compatible with the Mencian and Korean Neo-Confucian interpretation of compassion (sympathy) as the emotive-moral root of the universal virtue of benevolence (*in*/*ren*).

In three parts of this book, we collectively address all these kinds of human emotions and feelings22 according to Korean Confucian, comparative, Buddhist, and contemporary perspectives, many of which are more or less related to Chinese origin or infuence. Particular "regular" emotions and feelings are: pleasure (happiness; *hui*/*xi* 喜), anger (*no*/*nu* 怒), sorrow (*ae*/*ai* 哀), joy (delight; *rak*/*le* 樂), fear (*gu*/*ju* 懼), love (*ae*/*ai* 愛), hatred (dislike; *o*/*wu* 惡), and desire (*yok*/*yu* 欲).

Other Korean emotions such as resentment (*won*/*yuan* 怨), suffering (deep resentment/lamentation; *han*/*hen* 恨), and utmost joy (exhilaration; *heung* 興) are often noted, especially in Korean emotion talks regarding Confucian ethics, Won Buddhism, or "social emotions" in Korea. Don Baker's Chap. 5 on Jeong Dasan's ethics of emotions mentions resentment (*won*/*yuan*), an important but rarely discussed emotion in the orthodox Neo-Confucian literature. Chungnam Ha's Chap. 10 presents the Korean Won Buddhist teaching of resentment and gratitude. Iljoon Park's Chap. 8 on "[Korean] social emotions" discusses *han* suffering and *heung* exhilaration, two common psychological-social emotions in modern Korea.

As mentioned in the next sections on Chinese and Korean emotions, all chapters of this book discuss Confucian-infuenced Korean moral feelings such as "compassion" (*cheugun*/*ceyin* 惻隱), "shame and aversion" (*suo*/*xiu* 羞惡), "courtesy and modesty" (*sayang*/*cirang* 辭讓), and

21For example, according to the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), certain emotions embody moral priority (essence) and are therefore important for human nature and moral virtues (Hume 1978, 1998). Adam Smith (1723–1790), another Scottish moral thinker, emphasized the virtuous signifcance of "sympathy" (or "mutual sympathy") in direct relation to "universal benevolence" (Smith 2009: 10–13, 345–349), which is the most important cardinal virtue of Confucianism as well. More recently, Michael Slote's interpretation of "virtue ethics" is based on the moral power of "empathy" and "care" (Slote 2007, 2010).

<sup>22</sup> In the Confucian, Daoist, or Buddhist tradition, the term *jeong*/*qing* generally refers to emotions, feelings, passions, sensations, or related words, engaging the body as well as the heart-mind.

"discernment of right and wrong" (*sibi*/*shifei* 是非), all of which are commonly known as the Four Beginnings of virtue (*sadan/siduan*) in the Confucian textual and Neo-Confucian commentary tradition.23 In the Korean Confucian tradition, compassion (sympathy; empathy) is an innate virtuous feeling, which is variously discussed in Part I of this book by Bongrae Seok (Chap. 2), Gabriel S. Choi (Chap. 2), and Edward Chung (Chap. 4), as well as in two comparative-theme chapters of Part II by Joseph E. Harroff (Chap. 6) and Hyo-Dong Lee (Chap. 7).

Other virtuous emotions such as *gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence; mindfulness; respect) and *xiao* 孝 (flial affection) are honored and encouraged, especially by the Confucian tradition. Choi's Chap. 4 in particular deals with Yi Toegye's Korean ethics of *gyeong* reverence and emotions. Other moral virtues, including *ren* 仁 (benevolence; human-heartedness) and *li* 禮 (ritual propriety), are also mentioned in the next sections on Chinese and Korean emotions and frequently discussed in many other chapters.

The Buddhist practice of compassion is also very signifcant in Korea and East Asia, insofar as it is based on the Buddha's teaching of *nirvana* and the Mahāyāna Bodhisattava's doctrine of self-sacrifcing compassion (*karuṇā*) for universal enlightenment. This is fexibly discussed in three chapters by Ha, Lucy H. Jee, and Sharon Suh on modern Korean Buddhist perspectives in Part III of this book.

Bad, selfsh, or precarious emotions are repudiated and therefore required to be controlled or eliminated in accordance with moral principles and practice. For all Chinese and Korean traditions of philosophy and religion, this is an essential part of self-cultivation for the full realization and practice of human goodness. Confucianism and Buddhism each provided a well-known system of moral-spiritual practice as well. Daoism and Buddhism each emphasized its own distinctive way of detachment from all selfsh emotions, desires, and cravings, thereby encouraging a naturalistic (or mystical) Daoist life away from society or a monastic Buddhist discipline.

<sup>23</sup>For the Korean Four-Seven debates on emotions, see Kalton et al. 1994; Ching 1985; Ivanhoe 2015, 2016; Hyoungchan Kim 2015; Seok 2018; Tu 1985b. See also Chung 1995, 2016, 2020, 2021 (a new book on Toegye's moral and religious thought), each of which has a specifc chapter on the Korean Neo-Confucian ethics and spirituality of emotions according to the Four-Seven debate.

# 1.2 Emotions (*Jeong*/*Qing* 情) in the Chinese Tradition: Textual, Philosophical, Ethical, and Religious

### *1.2.1 Emotions in Early (Pre-Buddhist) China*

The Chinese word *qing* (情 emotions) has changed its meanings over many centuries in East Asia as its counterpart did in the West. Its manifold and multilevel meanings infuenced recent scholarship on emotions in early China. The study of this topic therefore warrants an integrated approach that is not restricted to a specifc philosophical or religious concept or one particular school of thought.

"Emotion" (*qing*) was a major topic of discussion among leading thinkers and spiritual practitioners in early, pre-Buddhist China prior to the Han dynasty (202 BCE–220 CE). For example, Confucius and Mencius in the Confucian tradition and Laozi and Zhuangzi in the Daoist school all talked about emotions in their ethical and spiritual discourses and texts. Various interpretations eventually developed competing insights, ideas, or recommendations regarding sagehood, self-cultivation, moral action, and the ultimate meaning of life.

Current scholarship on the semantic origin of the term *qing* is quite interesting but not surprising. In his essay "*Qing* (Emotions) in Pre-Buddhist Chinese Thought," Paul Hansen points out that the concept of *qing* had two kinds of original meanings in early China: frst, "circumstances" and "facts of a case" (we can add "reality" and "situation" as well); and second, "affections, the feelings, desires" and "emotion and sentiment" (Hansen 1995: 182). Hansen's study relied on and concurs with Graham's pioneering work on the semantic origin of *qing*, according to which the meaning of this word as emotion (or passion) did not exist approximately until the Han dynasty (1986: 59–65),24 and *qing* never meant "passions" in pre-Han (500 BCE–200 CE) literature because it rather referred to "facts" (as a noun), "genuine" (an adjective), and "genuinely" (an adverb) (Graham 1990: 59).25

However, Christoph Harbsmeier (2004: 69–148) and Michael Puett (2004: 37–68), two more recent scholarly works, counter-argue that the

<sup>24</sup>This is Graham's "The Meaning of *Ch'ing* [*Qing*]" in his "The Background of the Mencian Theory of Human Nature."

<sup>25</sup> See Graham's *Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature* (1990)*.*

very idea of *qing* did have a various range of meanings prior to the Han period, including emotions in this semantic range.26 In tracing the emotive and other meanings of *qing* in pre-Buddhist Chinese literature, Harbsmeier also points out that classical Chinese thinkers updated an extensive list of semantics from facts and reality to emotions, feelings, and desires (2004: 69–148).27 According to Virág's study as well, the historical signifcance of this topic in early China means:

The mainstream vision of emotions … represented the characteristic patterns or dispositions within human beings, giving genuine access to the workings of the world …. When the mainstream thinkers argued that human emotions—*qing* 情—represented the characteristic inclinations of human beings, they were already taking for granted that nature itself functioned in certain intelligible ways. (Virág 2017: 4)

In other words, emotions ought to be harmonized with self-cultivation and one's true understanding of the world. The ultimate meaning of life unfolds through the proper experience of emotions.

Confucian masters articulated the nature of emotions and its positive or negative roles in thinking, self-cultivation, or spiritual practice. They also criticized the potential selfshness and trouble of certain emotions while cherishing virtuous emotions in ethics, most of which inspired later generations of thinkers, including the Korean Neo-Confucians. The Confucian literature in particular began to develop its distinctive context and scope of *qing* 情 as emotions. An extensive vocabulary of its examples includes: pleasure (happiness; *heui*/*xi* 喜), anger (*no*/*nu* 怒), sorrow (*ae*/*ai* 哀), joy (delight; *rak*/*le* 樂), fear (*gu*/*ju* 懼), love (*ae*/*ai* 愛), hatred (dislike; *o*/*wu* 惡), desire (*yok*/*yu* 慾), and so on. Moral emotions such as "compassion" (*cheugun*/*ceyin*), "shame" (*suo*/*xiu*), "courtesyand-modesty" (*sayang*/*cirang*), and "discernment of right and wrong" (*sibi*/*shifei*) are also emphasized in Confucian classics and ethics.

These types of *qing* were thought to be common to all human life and experience in relation to the world. Confucian thinkers in particular addressed them with respect to human nature (*seong/xing*), heart-mind

<sup>26</sup> See Christoph Harbsmeier's "Semantics of *Qing*" and Michael Puett's "The Ethics of Responding Properly: The Notion of *Qing* in Early Chinese" in Eifring's edited *Love and Emotions in Traditional Chinese Literature* (2004).

<sup>27</sup>For this and related points on the original semantics of *qing* in early China, we are indebted to Virág's discussion (2017: 6–7) as well.

(*sim*/*xin*), and innate physical and psychological dispositions. The goal was to articulate the totality of the self in terms of its intellectual, physical, emotive, and moral-spiritual faculties and dimensions. This is why the "holistic" reading of East Asian thought—whether Confucian, Daoist, or Buddhist—is helpful also because of the integrated meanings of *qing.* Confucius and Mencius recommended the Confucian way to cultivate virtuous *qing* and regulate and transcend selfsh and harmful ones through self-cultivation. Daoists emphasized why human beings should return to the natural freedom and creativity of Dao. Laozi recommended fewer desires, and Zhuangzi called for "no emotions/desires" (*mujeong*/*wuqing* 無情) and both emphasized a "non-active" (*muwi*/*wuwei* 無為), naturalistic, and tranquil (mystical) life beyond the ordinary.

### *1.2.2 Emotions in Classical Chinese Confucianism*

### *1.2.2.1 Confucius: True Emotions and Human Character*

Confucius's talk of emotions is an essential component of the Confucian ethics and spirituality of self-cultivation. His ultimate vision of selfperfection (sagehood) points to the person who has not only perfected the cardinal virtues such as universal benevolence (human-heartedness; *in*/*ren* 仁) to the highest level but also attained the utmost emotional-spiritual fulflment and harmony between oneself and the world.

In the *Analects*, Confucius discussed an ideal role model for the selfcultivated (authentic) person (*gunja*/*junzi* 君子) in terms of learning, moral practice, and emotional harmony. Regarding learning, Confucius says: "At ffteen I set my heart on learning …; at ffty I understood the Decree [Mandate] of Heaven; at sixty, my ear was attuned; at seventy I followed my heart's desire [*yok*/*yu* 欲] without overstepping the line [propriety]" (*Analects*, 2: 4; Lau 1975: 63). As Confucius testifed, selfcultivation makes one to follow the mandate of Heaven in order to fulfl one's sincere desire in emotional harmony with the transcendent reality of human existence. For Confucius, then, truthful emotionality should be harmonized with moral life by properly integrating the body, heart-mind, and intellect.

As mentioned in the foregoing section (diversity of emotions), desire (*yok*/*yu* 欲) is a major example of emotions in Confucianism and other philosophical and religious traditions; in the Confucian literature, it is also one of the so-called Seven Emotions that all human beings have "without having to learn."28 As indicated above, the *Analects* portrays Confucius's affrmation, if not appreciation, of the heart-mind's desire as a good emotion when it is sincere and properly harmonized.

Confucius taught that true emotions are essential to human experience because they play a vital role in moral self-cultivation, personal conduct, social relationships, and even political ethics. He, therefore, recommended to make one's emotions and feelings absolutely truthful to oneself and others while harmonizing the inner and outer aspects of one's life. This insight consistently inspired later generations of eminent Confucians and Neo-Confucian thinkers, including Mencius, Zhu Xi (1130–1200), and Wang Yangming (1472–1529) in China and Yi Toegye (1501–1570) and Yi Yulgok (1536–1584) in Korea.

For Confucius, proper emotions should accord with the virtuous action. For example, if one does not truly feel sorrowful29 when in mourning, this is unfortunately a moral failure in ritual conduct. As Confucius says, "What can I fnd worthy of note [at all] in a human being who lacks in … sorrow (*ae*/*ai* 哀) while performing a mourning rite?"30 Furthermore, according to his disciples, "On a day he had wept, the Master did not sing [all day]."31 Being true to human emotions such as sorrow points to an exemplary feature of Confucius's (sagely) character. The *Analects* emphasizes Confucius's "emotional engagement" as a sign of virtue: "For Confucius … having emotions that are characterized by both appropriateness and depth is an essential attribute of the perfected individual" (Virág 2017: 41). One's true human character is therefore represented by one's genuine experience of emotions. The *Analects* tells us about Confucius of being deeply saddened by and mournful for losing someone he has loved. He is also portrayed of experiencing the emotion of joy (delight; *rak*/*le* 樂)32 with something or someone he really respected and cared about.

28For details on this and related points, see the next section on emotion in the *Book of Rites* and the *Doctrine of the Mean.*

29Note that sorrow (grief), like desire, is a major example of emotions in Confucianism and other philosophical and religious traditions, including Buddhism. In the Confucian and Neo-Confucian literature, it is also one of the Seven Emotions that all human beings have "without having to learn." For details on this and related points, see the next section on emotion in the *Book of Rites* and the *Doctrine of the Mean.*

<sup>30</sup>*Analects*, 3: 26; my (Chung) translation.

<sup>31</sup>*Analects*, 7: 10; Lau 1975: 87.

32Note that joy, like desire and sorrow, is another major example of emotions in Confucianism and other spiritual traditions such as Daoism and Mahāyāna Buddhism; in the

The opening passage of the *Analects* also tells us about Confucius's pleasure of learning and his joy of having friendship: "The Master said, 'Is it not a pleasure, having learned something, to try out at due intervals? Is it not a joy [delight; *rak*/*le* 樂] to have friends come from afar?'" (1: 1; Lau 1975: 59). In other words, it is the good character of an authentic person (*gunja*/*junzi*) to be pleased with daily self-cultivation and to truly delight in the joy of welcoming the best friends from far away (friendship is one of the fve human relationships in Confucian social ethics). The true feeling of joy is therefore emphasized here. No doubt, Confucius's passionate experience of joy to learn strongly inspired the later generations of East Asian peoples in the great development of self-cultivation and education for many centuries. As the German thinker Hegel said, "nothing great in the world has been accomplished without passion" (1956: 23). From a comparative perspective, Confucius's passionate desire for and true joy of learning and ethical life somewhat fts in with Marks's theory that "emotions or passions have a strong desire component" (1995b: 140, 2013) and also supports Solomon's thesis of "passions and [for] the meaning of life" (Solomon 1993, 1995b: 288–293).

Confucius subtly told his disciples how he wishes to be known to other people: "He is the sort of man … who is so full of joy (*rak*/*le* 樂) that he forgets his worries and who does not notice the onset of old age."33 This famous saying certainly concurs with his emotional joy of learning and good friendship. On a related note, we can also argue here that Confucius's joy culturally resonates with Korean social emotion *heung* (utmost joy/ excitement), one of "social emotions" in traditional and contemporary Korea.34

It is interesting to note that when Confucius was asked about negative feelings like resentment (*won*/*yuan* 怨) and selfsh craving (*yok*/*yu* 欲), Confucius simply confrmed his disciples that it is necessary but diffcult to control such emotions (*Analects*, 5: 19, 14:1). Despite his positive recognition of the genuine emotions of sorrow and joy, Confucius basically taught a way of physical and mental self-control by means of following virtuous propriety and ritual conduct (*Analects*, 12: 1). In her study of

Confucian literature, it is also one of the Seven Emotions that all human beings naturally have.

<sup>33</sup>*Analects*, 7: 19; Lau 1975: 88.

<sup>34</sup> Iljoon Park's Chap. 8 in Part II of this book discusses Korea's "social emotions," including *heung*.

Confucian emotions in relation to *li* ritual propriety, Mary Bockover points out that the virtue of ritual propriety (*li*) is not something that is merely "expressed" outside but it should rather be harmonized with one's ritualistic, moral, and emotional behavior both internally and externally (1995: 168–174).35

To conclude, the self-cultivated person's moral worth is revealed when their heart-mind's emotions such as sorrow, pleasure, and joy are naturally genuine in thinking and acting. Confucius confessed that at age seventy he has discovered his heart-mind's desires and emotions in perfect harmony with his true self and the mandate of Heaven. The ultimate goal of selfcultivation is therefore fulflled through one's intellectual, moral, and emotional harmony with the transcendent reality of human nature and experience.

#### *1.2.2.2 The* Book of Rites *and the* Doctrine of the Mean

#### *on the Seven Emotions*

The *locus classicus* for the Confucian term "Seven Emotions" (*chiljeong*/*qiqing* 七情) is the *Book of Rites,* one of the Five Classics: "pleasure (happiness; *hui*/*xi* 喜), anger (*no*/*nu* 怒), sorrow (*ae*/*ai* 哀), fear (*gu*/*ju* 懼), love (*ae*/*ai* 愛), hatred (dislike; *o*/*wu* 惡), and desire (*yok*/*yu* 欲)" are basic human emotions that "are not acquired through learning from the outside" (Legge 1970: [1] 379). So nobody learns these feelings and emotions externally or "acquires" them from external things or phenomena. In other words, they are innate physical and psychological *jeong*/*qing* of human nature.

As the list of the Seven is somewhat lengthy, the *Doctrine of the Mean* (Chap. 1), one of the Four Books of Confucianism, gives special attention to the frst three and added joy, representing the Seven as follows:

Before [the emotions of] pleasure (happiness; *hui*/*xi* 喜), anger (*no*/*nu* 怒), sorrow (*ae*/*ai* 哀), and joy (delight; *rak*/*le* 樂) are aroused (*bal*/*fa*), it is called equilibrium (centrality; *chung*/*zhong*). After they are aroused and each and all attain due measure and degree, it is called harmony (*hwa*/*he*). Equilibrium is the great foundation of the world, and harmony is its universal way. When equilibrium and harmony are realized to the highest degree, heaven and earth will attain their proper order and all things will fourish.36

35This is Mary Bockover's "The Concept of Emotion Revisited: A Critical Synthesis of Western and Confucian Thought," a chapter in Marks and Ames (1995).

36Chung's translation; see also Chan (1963b: 98).

The *Book of Rites* and the *Doctrine of the Mean* confrm that emotions arise from within the self. According to both texts, the Seven refer to common physical-psychological emotions and are understood as the aroused states of the mind in response to external things or phenomena. As mentioned in the *Doctrine of the Mean*, 37 mind cultivation therefore requires a measure of control over emotions, including the Seven. Leading Chinese Neo-Confucians such as Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming agreed on this point. According to this ethics of emotions, the goal of self-cultivation is to attain the state of "harmony" after emotions are aroused (*bal*/*fa*). This topic became a key topic in the Korean Four-Seven debate, which began in the mid-sixteenth century and lasted for three centuries.38

Yi Toegye, Yi Yulgok, and other Korean Neo-Confucian basically confrmed that if the Seven are properly expressed or harmonized according to moral principles, they are *potentially* good emotions. However, as Toegye emphasized, any of these emotions like hatred can lead to evil due to selfsh cravings. Sections 1.2.3 (Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism on Emotions …) and 1.4.1 (Korean Confucian Perspectives) present this topic further in terms of Zhu Xi's system of *i*/*li* 理 (principle/ground of being; pattern) and *gi*/*qi* 氣 (vital/physical energy; material force) and good and evil. This part of Zhu's philosophy is extensively discussed in current scholarship, so it does not need to be rehearsed here.39

Overall, the key question was: How do the Seven Emotions relate to *jeong*/*qing* in general or differ from what Mencius emphasized as the Four Beginnings of virtue (*sadan*/*siduan* 四端) such as compassion? And how should they be understood in terms of the heart-mind (*sim*/*xin*)? The Korean Four-Seven debate rigorously discussed these key questions and issues regarding the Four-and-Seven relationship as well as its implications

38For current scholarship on the Korean Four-Seven debate, see Kalton et al. 1994; Chung 1995, 2016 (Introduction), 2019b (in Ro 2019), 2021. For various articles, see Ching 1985; Ivanhoe 2015, 2016; Hyoungchan Kim 2015; Seok 2018; Tu 1985b. Chung (1995) is a full-length comparative discussion of Toegye and Yulgok in terms of the Four-Seven thesis.

39The current literature on Zhu Xi's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* includes Angle and Tiwald 2017; Chan 1963b, 1967, 1986; Ching 2000; de Bary 1981, 2004; Gardner, 1990; Huang 2014; Tu 1985a, 1985b, and so on. For Yi Toegye, Yi Yulgok, and Korean Neo-Confucianism on this topic, see Ro 1989, 2019; Chung 1995, 2016, 2019a (in Choi and Kim 2019), 2021; Chan 1985; Kalton 1988, 2019; Hyoungchan Kim 2018. Chung (2020: 38–44, 52–56) presents a detailed discussion of Jeong Jedu's (Hagok 1649–1736) systematic critique of Zhu Xi's and Toegye's philosophies of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* according to Hagok's creative synthesis of Wang Yangming Neo-Confucianism in Korea.

<sup>37</sup>An excellent discussion of the *Doctrine of the Mean* is Tu (1989).

for moral cultivation, most of which were not explained clearly in the Chinese classics and Neo-Confucian commentaries.

### *1.2.2.3 Mencius: Four Beginnings, Moral Emotions, and Self-cultivation*

Mencius was unaware of the idea of the Seven mentioned in the *Doctrine of the Mean*. Nor did he relate the moral signifcance of the Four to the nature of the Seven. In our view, the *Doctrine of the Mean* deals more with emotional control and harmony—as discussed above, whereas the Mencian ethics of emotions focuses on a theory of human goodness and moral practice.

The famous Mencian theory of original human goodness (*seongseon ji seong*/*xingshan zhi xing* 性善之性) emphasizes universal access to the virtuous practice of innate intuitions and emotions such as compassion (*Mencius*, 2A: 6; 6A: 6). This central doctrine believes in the foundation of natural moral knowledge and action, insofar as Mencius talked about moral emotions and especially in terms of the human "heart-mind" (*sim*/*xin* 心). It is a debatable but bold ontological and ethical claim on the innate goodness of human beings in the heart-mind, which, according to Mencius, universally justifes self-cultivation and self-perfection for everyone, as mandated by Heaven.

Mencius did not specifcally explain what he meant by the heart-mind (*sim*/*xin* 心) in relation to moral emotions in particular. For example, the following passage from the *Mencius* (6A: 6) illustrates this ambiguity:

Regarding what is genuine in our emotions and feelings (*jeong*/*qing* 情), we are capable of being good. This is what I mean by [saying human nature is] good …. All human beings have the heart-mind (moral emotion; *sim*/*xin* 心) of compassion (*cheugeun*/*ceyin* 惻隱), the heart-mind of shame and aversion (*suo*/*xiuwu* 羞惡), the heart-mind of courtesy and modesty (*sayang*/*cirang* 辭讓), and the heart-mind of right and wrong (*sibi*/*shifei* 是 非). The heart-mind [moral emotion] of compassion is [the beginning of] human-heartedness (benevolence; *in*/*ren* 仁); the heart-mind of shame and aversion is [the beginning of] righteousness (*eui*/*yi* 義); the heart-mind of courtesy and modesty is [the beginning of] propriety (*ye*/*li* 義); and the heart-mind of right and wrong is [the beginning of] wisdom (*ji*/z*hi* 智). Human-heartedness, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom …. originally exist in me [my nature].40

<sup>40</sup>Chung's translation; see also Lau 1970: 163 or Chan 1963b: 54.

Compassion, shame and aversion, courtesy and modesty, and discernment of right and wrong do not come from the outside because these moral intuitions and emotions are originally innate in the heart-mind. Mencius referred to these "Four Beginnings [roots]" (*sadan*/*siduan* 四端) as the fourfold foundation of what Confucius emphasized as the cardinal virtues of human-heartedness (benevolence), righteousness, ritual propriety, and wisdom. For Mencius, the heart-mind of compassion and three other beginnings are indeed moral emotions (*jeong/qing* 情) as well. They are the origin of original human goodness and the starting point of our innate moral virtues.

In light of Confucius's teaching of genuine human emotions, the Mencian doctrine of original human goodness is a bold moral-spiritual belief in the heart-mind of innate intuitions toward fellow human beings. As Mencius said, every human being naturally possesses "the heart-mind of compassion" that "cannot see the suffering of others" (*Mencius*, 2A:6). With this good heart-mind (*sim*/*xin*), all human beings spontaneously and immediately feel compassionate to save "a little child who was on the verge of falling into a well" (*Mencius*, 2A:6).

For Mencius, the "original goodness of human nature" consisting of the Four should therefore be "fully developed" for self-cultivation; "neglecting your own potentials is to destroy yourself." (*Mencius*, 2A: 6).41 Mencian belief is that the Four are innate moral emotions in the heart-mind for self-cultivation and the ethical life. Furthermore, this bold ontological-ethical claim is also backed up by the child metaphor of the pure heart-mind regarding the Mencian doctrine of "innate knowledge [of good]" (*yangji*/*liangzhi* 良知) and "innate ability [to do good]" (*yangneung*/*liangneng* 良能).42

This teaching is *religiously* grounded as well. Original goodness in the human heart-mind is bestowed by Heaven's will (*cheonmyeong*/*tianming*

what human beings are able to do without having to learn it is innate ability [to do good] (*yangneung*/*liangneng*); what they know without having to refect on it is innate knowledge [of good] (*yangji*/*liangzhi*). All young children [innately] know loving their parents. As they grow up, they will know respecting their elder siblings. Loving one's parents is human-heartedness (*in*/*ren*), and respecting one's elders is righteousness. We have to extend these virtues to the world; that's all. (7A: 15; Chung's translation; see also Lau 1970: 184 or Chan 1963b: 80)

<sup>41</sup>Chung's translation; see also Lau 1970: 82–83.

<sup>42</sup>As Mencius states,

天命). As Mencius confessed, "To preserve the heart-mind (*sim*/*xin*) and to nourish human nature (*seong*/*xing*) is the way to serve Heaven (*cheon*/*tian* 天)," a sagely human way (*Mencius*, 7A: 1),43 which therefore accords with Confucian religious belief in the harmony [unity and oneness] between Heaven and human beings (*cheonin habil*/*tianren heyi* 天人 合一). "To serve Heaven" and other human beings faithfully is simply to follow moral feelings (the heart-mind of the Four) and practice heavenly mandated innate knowledge and ability to do good.

Leading Chinese Neo-Confucians such as Zhu Xi and the eminent Korean thinker Yi Toegye discussed Mencius's teaching of self-cultivation. In particular Toegye frequently quoted not only Mencius's doctrine of original human goodness and the Four but also his moral-spiritual talk of "Heaven" and "serving Heaven"; this is what Toegye emphasized in developing a sophisticated "religious" style of Neo-Confucian ethics and spirituality (see Chung 2016, 2019c, 2021 for details).

In Ming China, Wang Yangming (1472–1529), the founder of the School of the Mind (*simhak/xinxue* 心學), also cherished and polished the Mencian teaching to the extent that his entire ethics and spirituality of mind cultivation were largely based on the original Mencian thinking.44 For Wang, the Four Beginnings as virtuous emotions confrm the innate knowledge and ability to be sincere and do good, which universally enables the spiritual path to sagehood (for more discussion, see Sect. 1.2.4 of this chapter on Wang Yangming).

Given our discussion of Mencius thus far, the conventional dichotomy between cognition (reason) and feeling (emotion) in Western thought does not apply to the Confucian case either directly or effciently. Mencius, like Confucius, was not interested in such dichotomy, insofar as traditional Chinese thought—whether Confucian or Daoist prior to the coming of Buddhism from India—had not known or developed it. In discussing the Four as genuine moral emotions, Mencius intended to mean natural, innate feelings as well as one's "knowledge" and "ability" to do good

<sup>43</sup>Chung's translation; see also Chan 1963b: 78; Lau 1979: 182.

<sup>44</sup>For Wang's comment on the Mencian doctrine of the Four Beginnings, see his *Chuanxi lu* (Instructions for practical living) (hereafter abbreviated *CXL*), *part* II, sect. 150; Chan's complete translation 1963a: 131. For details on Wang's doctrine of *yangji*/*liangzhi* and *yangneung*/*liangneng*, see *CXL* pt. I, sect. 8 and pt. II, sect. 152; Chan's translation 1963a: 15, 132. See also Wang's famous essay "Inquiry on the Great Learning" (*Daxue wen*) in Chan 1963b: 665.

based on some level of cognitive awareness and judgments regarding one's discernment of right (good) and wrong (evil).45

In this regard, Mencius saw no strict division between emotion and reason; that is, both are fully expected to be integrated and harmonized because of *holistic* Confucian belief in the rational, moral, psychological, and spiritual interaction of the *sim*/*xin* heart-mind as a whole. Furthermore, this dichotomy issue also becomes irrelevant if we care about the spiritualreligious dimension of the Mencian teaching in terms of original human goodness, sagehood, and Heaven as discussed above.

At this point of discussion, we can make some comparative refection on this topic. As mentioned in Sect. 1.1.4 (Diversity of Emotions), one branch of emotion studies in the West has treated compassion and related moral sentiments with repect to "virtue ethics." In our view, Mencius established the foundation and rationale for the Confucian virtue ethics of emotions. Likewise, two eighteenth-century Scottish thinkers, David Hume (1711–1776)46 and Adam Smith (1723–1790), keenly argued that human nature embodies certain moral essence (or inclination) such as sympathy (compassion), a moral feeling with/for others.47 This Western ethical view basically resembles the Mencian view of compassion. Nor does it contradict the Mahāyāna Buddhist *karuna* (compassion), an interesting topic we will discuss in Sect. 1.3.2 (Indian Mahāyāna Perspectives) and Sect. 1.4.3 (Korean Buddhist and Contemporary Perspective). For both Hume and Smith, sympathy—or compassion or whatever we call it (like empathy or altruism)—is an innate and universal feature of moral inclination. In particular, Smith identifed the virtuous signifcance of "mutual sympathy" with "universal benevolence,"48 which also happens

45This partly concurs with Solomon's theory that "emotions are judgments" or based on rational judgments (1995b: 253, 276); for details, see Sect. 1.1.1 of this introduction on the theories of emotions. See also Solomon (1993, 1995a, 2001) for more details on his ethics of emotions as "judgments."

46For his moral philosophy of human nature, moral principles, and emotions, see Hume (1978, 1998).

47We can debate this further in terms of altruism as well. In his "The Emotions of Altruism, East and West," Joel Kupperman points out that "altruism can involve emotions" with "motivational elements" that are common among Western utilitarian altruism, Confucianism, and Buddhism (1995: 126–129). The Mencian ethics of compassion is therefore a form of altruism. However, Kupperman mistakenly over-generalizes Mencian altruism from a Western standpoint. We need to be mindful of the uniqueness of Mencius's moral and spiritual (religious) doctrine of compassion, the heart-mind, and Heaven's mandate.

48Adam Smith 2009: 10–13 (chapters I and II), 345–349 (chapter III).

to be the most important among the four cardinal virtues of Confucianism. More recently, Michael Slote interpreted "virtue ethics" on the basis of the moral and psychological power of "empathy" and "care."49

Smith's and Slote's insights into sympathy and empathy relatively resemble the Mencian and Korean Neo-Confucian interpretation of compassion (one of the Four) as the emotive foundation of universal virtue *in*/*ren* (benevolence; human-heartedness). On the whole, however, our comparative opinion on the ethical link between Mencius, on the one hand, and Hume, Smith, and Slote, one the other hand, would be less meaningful or insightful if we ignore the spiritual-religious dimension of the Mencian doctrine of compassion, the heart-mind, and Heaven as discussed above.

### *1.2.3 Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism on Emotions, Human Nature, and the Four-Seven Relationship*

Neo-Confucian masters in Song China transmitted and expanded the Confucius and Mencian line of classical Confucianism by articulating its philosophy of human nature, emotions, and self-cultivation. They also developed new metaphysical and ethical ideas and concepts partly in criticism of and competition with Daoist and Buddhist infuence. The idea of *jeon*g/*qing* (emotions and feelings) continued to receive some more sophisticated discussion as well as new interpretation at an advanced level.

For example, Cheng Yi (1033–1107) briefy said that love (affection; *ae/ai* 愛), one of the Seven, is an emotion (*jeong*/*qing*), whereas benevolence (human-heartedness; *in*/*ren* 仁) is human nature (*seong*/*xing* 性).50 He generally meant in the Mencian sense that "the mind-and-heart of compassion" is an innate moral beginning (sprout) of benevolence inherent in what Mencius calls the "original goodness of human nature" (*seongseon ji seong*/*xingshan zhi xing*). However, Cheng Yi did not explain it further. For example, he made no comments on the Four Beginnings and/or the Seven Emotions specifcally; neither did he clarify any connection, compatibility, or confict between the Four and the emotions like love. However, one noticeable statement Cheng Yi made is: "In human nature there are only the Four Beginnings without any form of evil …. Similarly, without human nature, how can there be emotions (*jeong*/*qing*

<sup>49</sup> See Slote (2007, 2010) for details on this stimulating "ethics of care and empathy."

<sup>50</sup> See Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi (n.d.), *Yishu* (Surviving works of the two Chengs) (hereafter abbreviated *Yishu*), 18: 1a, in the *Sibu beiyao* (1920–1936) edition. See Chan's translation 1963b: 559.

情)?"51 This passage implies that the Four are the defning moral characteristics of human nature. So self-cultivation involves the Mencian teaching of nurturing the Four and has to maintain "[emotional] harmony after pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused," as taught in the *Doctrine of the Mean* and quoted by Cheng Yi.52 This line of reasoning became an important topic in the Korean Four-Seven controversy.

The whole subject matter became more complicated in Zhu Xi's thought. The great Neo-Confucian synthesizer Zhu Xi (1130–1200) commented on Mencius's notion of the Four (*Mencius*, 2A: 6) as follows:

Compassion (*cheugeun*/*ceyin* 惻隱), shame and aversion (*suo*/*xiuwu* 羞惡), courtesy and modesty (*sayang*/*cirang* 辭讓), and [discernment of] right and wrong (*sibi*/*shifei* 是非) are emotions (*jeong*/*qing* 情)*.* Benevolence (human-heartedness; *in*/*ren* 仁), righteousness (*eui*/*yi* 義), propriety (*ye*/*li* 義), wisdom (*ji*/z*hi* 智) are human nature. (*seong*/*xing* 性)53

In other words, the Four represent our innate moral "emotions" aroused from human nature; they are therefore "illuminating virtues."54 Zhu Xi also mentioned that "the Seven Emotions cannot be separated from the Four Beginnings," and "the Four Beginnings can be understood from the standpoint of the Seven Emotions."55 So Zhu Xi probably meant that the Four do not belong to an entirely independent group of human feelings and emotions (*jeong*/*qing* 情). Interestingly, Toegye, Yulgok, and others in Korea did not quote these two statements at all in their Four-Seven philosophies. One key issue in their debates was whether or not the Four such as compassion belong to a special group of moral emotions independent of the Seven.

Zhu Xi did not articulate the Four and the Seven specifcally. His *Zhuzi yulei* (Classifed conversations of Master Zhu) gives a brief statement in terms of their origins: "The Four Beginnings are manifestations of *i*/*li* (moral principles); the Seven Emotions are manifestations of *gi*/*qi* (vital

<sup>51</sup>*Yishu* 18: 1a; Chan 1963b: 559.

<sup>52</sup>*Yishu*, 18: 14b–15a.

<sup>53</sup> See *Mengzi jizhu daquan* (Great compendium of commentaries on the *Book of Mencius*), in *Gyeongseo* (Four Books) (1972), 516; Chung's translation. See also Zhu Xi (1880), *Zhuzi yulei*  (hereafter abbreviated *ZZYL*), 53: 9a.

<sup>54</sup>*ZZYL* 53: 20a.

<sup>55</sup>*ZZYL* 87: 16a–b; Chung's translation.

energy; material force)."56 It can also be translated as follows: "The Four Beginnings are aroused by *i*/*li*; the Seven Emotions are aroused by *gi*/*qi*." Does this unexplained statement imply some ontological and conceptual distinction between the Four and the Seven? This question was rigorously debated by Korean scholars. Zhu's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* is a wellresearched topic that does not need to be rehearsed here.57

Zhu Xi's ambiguous comment on the Four-Seven relationship was discussed by Korean Neo-Confucians in terms of moral "purity," *distinction,* or *continuum* between the Four and the Seven. Toegye emphasized that the Four are aroused by moral *i*/*li*, whereas the Seven are aroused by *gi*/*qi* because they are our ordinary emotions and feelings that can potentially lead to evil due to selfsh cravings. According to Yulgok, however, Toegye misinterpreted the Four and the Seven as two distinctive and separate groups of feelings.58 Yulgok insisted that in the arousal of all emotions and feelings, including the Four and the Seven, *gi*/*qi* is what actually becomes manifested.59 These aspects of the Four-Seven relationship in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* are discussed in Seok's Chap. 3, Chung's Chap. 4, and Harroff's Chap. 6.

Another controversial Four-Seven issue focused on the Song Neo-Confucian doctrine of "original human nature" (*bonyeon ji seong*/*benran zhi xing* 本然之性) and "physical human nature" (*gijil ji seong*/*qizhi zhi xing* 氣質之性). In short, Zhu Xi explained the original human nature with respect to *i*/*li*, and the physical human nature as that which is

#### <sup>56</sup>*ZZYL* 53: 17b.

<sup>57</sup> In short, *i*/*li* means the "ground of being" or metaphysical "principle" present in each thing or phenomenon in its fullness. We can also consider it the ultimate or omnipresent principle (or "pattern" or "order" of nature) of all things in full goodness and truth. In relation to human nature and feelings, *i*/*li* represents moral order or the original human nature that is purely good. By contrast, *gi*/*qi* refers to the "material force" or "vital energy/stuff" that actually brings each phenomenon into concrete existence and also determines its transformation, which may lead to either good or evil. In relation to human nature and feelings, *gi*/*qi* represents physical dispositions and psychological matters as well. For current scholarship on Zhu Xi's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, see n. 39 in Sect. 1.2.2.2 of this chapter.

<sup>58</sup> See Yi Yulgok (1985), *Yulgok jeoneso*, 9: 35b; I, 192. Hereafter this primary source is abbreviated *YJ*. See Chung 1995, 2019b; for a full translation of Toegye's and Yulgok's Four-Seven letters, see Kalton et al. 1994.

<sup>59</sup>*YJ* 10: 5a; I, 198. For articles on the Korean Four-Seven debates, see Ching 1985 (on Yulgok); Ivanhoe 2015, 2016; Hyoungchan Kim 2015; Seok 2018; Tu 1985b (on Toegye). For Chung's comprehensive discussion, see Chung 1995 (both Toegye and Yulgok), 1998 (on Yulgok), 2019b (updated on Toegye, Yulgok, and their schools of thought), and 2021 (Toegye's religious thought).

conditioned by *gi*/*qi*; therefore, the former is purely good, whereas the latter can lead to good or evil. There are just two different "names," *not* two "separate" natures having their own ontological grounds.60 According to Zhu Xi, then, Mencius and Cheng Yi referred to "human nature in itself," unmixed with the physical dispositions of *gi*/*qi*, so they specifcally meant the "original human nature" before it is disturbed by external stimuli involving *gi*. However, when it is "mixed with *gi*/*qi*" 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,"61 and Master Cheng Yi called it "the fundamental character of our nature".62 … If one learns to return to the original human nature endowed by Heaven and Earth, one will preserve it.63 Accordingly, any discussion of human nature must include physical human nature, so that the discussion can be complete.64

However, Zhu Xi did not apply this topic to the Four and the Seven. As a result, this part of his thought became a key issue in the Four-Seven debates, insofar as Korean scholars endeavored to interpret the Four and Seven in terms of the two interrelated realms of human nature, respectively. Toegye and his followers generally agreed that original human nature means innate moral virtues (e.g., human-heartedness/benevolence) and moral emotions (e.g., compassion), whereas physical human nature pertains to our ordinary physical or psychological feelings, sensations, emotions and desires.

Another key component of Zhu Xi's philosophy that stimulated Korean emotion talks is about the "[*Dao*] moral mind" (*dosim/daoxin* 道心) and "[ordinary] human mind" (*insim/renxin* 人心) in detail. Zhu Xi explained

<sup>64</sup> See *ZZYL* 4:11a–b; Chung's translation. For more original sources, see also Zhu Xi (1714), *Zhuzi quanshu* (hereafter abbreviated *ZZQS*), 42: 4b, 42: 6b–7a, 42: 9b–10a, 43: 2b–4a (Chan 1963b: 613, 616–617, 623–624); for more discussion on this topic in relation to the Korean Four-Seven debate, see Chung 1995: 47–48, 60–61, 66–69, 104–106 or Chung 2016: 26–29.

<sup>60</sup>*ZZYL* 4: 12b.

<sup>61</sup> See Zhou Dunyi's essay *Tongshu* (Penetrating the *Book of Changes*), chapter 1.

<sup>62</sup>According to *Yishu* (Surviving works of the two Chengs), 18: 19b.

<sup>63</sup>This is originally Zhang Zai's saying. See Zhang Zai (1935), *Zhangzi quanshu* (Complete works of Master Zhang), 2: 18b.

that the moral mind is aroused from "the correctness of Heaven's principle (*cheolli*/*tianli* 天理)," and the ordinary human mind from "selfshness (*sa*/*si* 私) identifed with physical form (*hyeonggi*/*xingqi* 形氣)": accordingly, the former is "impartial" and "good," whereas the latter is "partial" and "prone to error," involving both good and evil.65 The moral mind pertains to moral virtues such as benevolence, whereas the human mind pertains to our ordinary physical desires and cravings.66

However, Zhu did not articulate this topic in terms of the Four-Seven relationship. Can emotions such as the Four and the Seven be understood according to these two related aspects of the mind? This issue became important in the Korean debate. Korean thinkers eventually debated questions regarding Zhu Xi's conception of emotions, his metaphysics of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, his ethics of good and evil, and his dualism of the moral-andhuman mind. They developed creative ideas and insights and thereby accomplished a highly advanced and sophisticated philosophy of Four-Seven emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) and its implications for Confucian ethics and spirituality.

### *1.2.4 Wang Yangming on Selfsh Emotions, Essence of Heart-Mind, and Moral Practice*

Like masters of the rival Cheng-Zhu school, Wang Yangming (1472–1529), the leading Neo-Confucian of Ming China, addressed the essential topic of emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) in his own way by discussing the aroused mind and the Four and the Seven. Wang's Four-Seven thesis is a key to understanding his doctrines of the heart-mind, innate knowledge, *simhak* 心學 mind cultivation, and moral practice.

65 Zhu Xi (1930), *Zhuzi wenji*, 76: 21b; hereafter this source is abbreviated *ZZWJ*. Quoted from Zhu Xi (1972), preface to the *Zhongyong zhangju* (Commentary on the words and phrases son 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 refned and single-minded: hold fast the Mean" (Legge 1970 [I]: 61). This instruction contrasts the "precariousness" of the human (ordinary) mind with the "goodness" of the moral mind. Zhu Xi also identifed the *daoxin* with "Heaven's principle," and the *renxin* with the "selfshness" of human cravings (*ZZYL* 61: 5a–b or *ZZWJ* 76: 21b).

<sup>66</sup>*ZZYL* 61: 5a–b.

In his most famous work, *Chuanxi lu* 傳習錄 (Instructions for practical living),67 Wang states that cardinal virtues such as "benevolence (humanheartedness), righteousness, propriety, wisdom" are "the [moral] qualities of the heart-mind after the feelings [*jeong*/*qing*] are aroused." The heartminds of compassion (*cheugun*/*ceyin*), shame and aversion (*suo*/*xiuwu*), courtesy and modesty (*sayang*/*cirang*), and [discernment of] right and wrong (*sibi*/*shifei*) are therefore "manifestations of human nature."68 In other words, Wang, like Zhu Xi, basically confrmed the Mencian doctrine that the Four Beginnings are the emotive moral expression of four cardinal virtues: for example, the moral emotion (*jeong*/*qing*) of compassion is the beginning of human-heartedness (benevolence).

According to Wang, "the equilibrium [*jung*/*zhong*] before the feelings [*jeong*/*qing*] are aroused involves the harmony after the feelings are aroused and each and all attain due measure and degree."69 By quoting the *Doctrine of the Mean* (Chap. 1) here, Wang, like Zhu Xi and Korean thinkers, pointed out that emotions refer to the "aroused" (*bal*/*fa*) states of the mind. Self-cultivation therefore requires a measure of control over these emotions after their arousal.

Wang was asked whether the joy (delight; *rak*/*le* 樂) of Confucius's and his beloved disciple Yan Hui's learning is the same as "the joy (*rak*/*le*) in the seven feelings [Seven Emotions]" and "if … there is a true joy, then is it present when sages and worthies meet with [other emotions such as] great sorrow, great anger, great terror, and great fear?" Wang eloquently replied:

Joy [*rak*/*le* 樂] is characteristic of the *original substance* of the mind [*sim ji bonche*/*xin zhi benti* 心之本體]. Though it is not identical with the joy of the seven feelings [Seven Emotions; *chiljeong*/*qiqing*]. Sages and worthies have another true joy, it is true, but it is shared by ordinary people except that these people do not realize it though they have it. Instead they bring upon themselves a great deal of sorrow [*ae*/*ai* 哀] and grief and, in addition, confusion and self-abandonment.70

<sup>67</sup>Chan (1963a) is a full English translation of Wang's *Chuanxi lu* (abbreviated as *CXL*) with annotation and commentary.

<sup>68</sup> See *CXL* pt. I, sect. 38; Chan 1963a: 34.

<sup>69</sup>*CXL* pt. II, sect. 158; Chan 1963a: 139.

<sup>70</sup>*CXL* pt. II, sect. 166; Chan 1963a: 147–148.

This passage is self-explanatory and also creatively stated. Note that sorrow and joy belong to the Seven Emotions, as mentioned in the *Book of Rites* and the *Doctrine of the Mean*. Here Wang positively affrms Confucius's true joy of "learning" or of "[having] friends come from far away"; his "joy of knowing …"; and his character "full of joy that he forgets his worries and does not notice the onset of old age."71 Wang also reconfrms Confucius's highest praise of his beloved disciple Yan Hui's "joy of learning" and self-cultivation despite Yan's "hardship" and impoverished life. As confrmed by Wang in the quoted passage above, Confucius's and Yan's virtuous emotion of joy represents the ultimate goodness of the heart-mind's "original essence" (*bonche*/*benti* 本體). In other words, this is not the same as ordinary emotional joy partly because ordinary people's selfshness eventually generates more delusion, sorrow, and grief. Self-cultivation is therefore emphasized.

The problem of the Seven Emotions is mainly "excessiveness. "As soon as it is excessive, it is not in accord with the original substance [*bonche*/*benti*] of the mind."72 If any of the Seven like anger or desire is excessively expressed, it is unstable and needs to be controlled and harmonized. Wang introduced his innovative idea of the mind-in-itself ("original essence of the mind") and argued that selfsh emotions neglect the original purity of the mind. Therefore, the idea of controlling and overcoming *selfsh* emotions is strongly embedded in Wang's ethics of the mind and emotions. As he states,

How can the human mind be free from anger [*no*/*nu* 怒], and so forth? But it should not have them. When one shows a little bit of feeling of wrath, his anger is excessive, and his mind is no longer the original substance [*bonche*/*benti*] that is broad and extremely impartial [quoting Cheng Hao]. Therefore, whenever one is affected by wrath to any extent, his mind will not be correct … [even though] we all feel angry in our minds at the party who is wrong.73

Wang writes further:

<sup>71</sup> See *Analects*, 1: 1, 6: 20, and 7: 19, respectively. See Sect. 1.2.2.1 of this chapter for our detailed discussion of these statements about Confucius's utmost pleasure and joy in this regard.

<sup>72</sup>*CXL* pt. I, sect. 44; Chan 1963a: 38. For more statements on Wang's doctrine of the mind-in-itself (original substance of the mind), see his *CXL* pt. I, sect. 3; Chan 1963a: 7.

<sup>73</sup>*CXL* pt. II, sect. 167; Chan 1963a: 205.

Pleasure [*hui*/*xi* 喜], anger [*no*/*nu* 怒], sorrow [*ae*/*ai* 哀], fear [*gu*/*ju* 懼], love [*ae*/*ai* 愛], hatred [dislike; *o*/*wu* 惡], and desire [*yok*/*yu* 欲] are also natural to the mind. But you should understand innate knowledge [of good; *yangji*/*liangzhi* 良知] clearly …. When the seven feelings [Seven Emotions] follow their natural courses of operation, they are all functions of innate knowledge, and cannot be distinguished as good or evil. However, we should not have any selfsh attachment to them. When there is such an attachment, they become selfsh desires and obscurations to innate knowledge.74

In this passage, Wang gives a complete list of the Seven Emotions and confrms the *Book of Rites* that they are the "natural" innate emotions that we all have and "do not learn from the outside." However, the Seven can become bad when they have "any selfsh attachment." For example, anger, one of the Seven, is a natural human emotion but the excessive anger that is not properly controlled by the mind can certainly become "selfsh" and lead to evil. It is the negative emotion of wrath deviating from the original essence (*bonche*/*benti*) of the heart-mind. In this case, one's mind has to be rectifed.

Wang's disciple asked for his master's advice on Cheng Hao's (older brother of Cheng Yi) saying that "The feelings [emotions] of the sage are in accord with all creation and yet he has no feelings of his own" and the claim that "If learning is to stress having no feelings … it ceases to be Confucian and will become Buddhist. Is that all right?" As Wang advises:

The sage's effort at extending knowledge is characterized by his absolute sincerity which never ceases. The substance of his innate knowledge [of good] (*yangji*/*liangzhi* 良知)) as clear as a bright mirror without any slight obscuration …. This is what is meant by saying that the feelings [emotions; *jeong*/*qing*] of the sage are in accord with all things and yet himself he has no [selfsh] feelings [*mujeong*/*wuqing* 無情]. The Buddhists have a saying, "One should have no attachment to anything and thus let the mind grow." This is not correct.75

As far as Wang is concerned, sages have basic human emotions. However, they not only control and overcome selfsh emotions and desires but also perfect their heart-minds as the "bright mirrors" without any impurity or

<sup>74</sup>*CXL* pt. III, sect. 290; Chan 1963a: 229.

<sup>75</sup>*CXL* pt. II, sect. 167; Chan 1963a: 148.

selfshness. In other words, they practice virtuous emotions like Confucius's true joy in harmony with the original essence (goodness) (*bonche*/*benti*) of the heart-mind; therefore, sagely moral emotions are in cosmic harmony with heaven, earth, and all things.

In the quoted passage above, Wang concisely interprets his entire philosophy of the mind in terms of its three key doctrines: innate knowledge [of good], the extension of innate knowledge, and absolute sincerity. He emphasizes the "original substance/essence" (*bonche/benti*) of the mind *as well as* the Mencian teaching of "innate knowledge [of good]" (*yangji*/*liangzhi*) and "innate ability [to do good]" (*yangneung*/*liangneng* 良能).76 Wang certainly liked Mencius's ontological moral belief in original human goodness in the heart-mind of virtuous emotions. The Four Beginnings refer to as the mind-in-itself and thereby confrm its innate knowledge of good, which *universally* enables moral self-cultivation and the path to sagehood.

Overall, Wang's ethics of emotions emphasizes self-cultivation as moral awakening and practice; that is, extend the good heart-mind (*yangsim*/*liangxin* 良心) to others by "making the will sincere" to "do good and remove evil."77

Unlike the orthodox Zhu Xi (Cheng-Zhu) school, Wang Yangming did not have a major impact on the Korean philosophy of emotions mainly because the Yangming school in Korea was effectively opposed by the orthodox Zhu Xi school (known as Seongnihak) and offcially persecuted by the Joseon dynasty for centuries. However, Jeong Jedu 鄭齊斗 (Hagok 霞谷; 1649–1736) was a prominent thinker who accomplished his "great synthesis of Wang Yangming Neo-Confucianism in Korea" (Chung 2020). Hagok articulated the Four-Seven philosophy of emotions but focused his creative interpretation more on the Mencian and Yangming doctrines. This topic is discussed further in Sect. 1.4.1 on Korean Confucian perspectives.

76For more details on Wang's doctrine of *yangji*/*liangzhi* and *yangneung*/*liangneng*, see *CXL* pt. I, sect. 8 and pt. II, sect. 152; Chan 1963a: 15, 132. See also Wang's famous essay "Inquiry on the Great Learning" (*Daxue wen*) in Chan (1963b: 665). Furthermore, for the original Mencian doctrine of *yangji*/*liangzhi* and *yangneung*/*liangneng*, see *Mencius*, 7A:15; Lau 1970: 184 or Chan 1963b: 80.

<sup>77</sup> See *CXL* pt. I, sect. 129 and pt. III, sect. 315; Chan 1963a: 86, 244. See also "Inquiry on the Great Learning"; Chan 1963b: 664, 666. Furthermore, Ching (1976) is a good book on this topic, and consult Chung (2020) for my detailed discussion of this topic in the Korean and comparative context of Jeong Jedu's (Hagok) Yangming Neo-Confucianism.

### 1.3 Emotions in the Buddhist Tradition

### *1.3.1 The Buddha's Teaching and Theravada*

The word "emotion" variously appears in the Buddhist scriptures of Theravada or Mahāyāna. We see its related words and concepts more often: for example, "sensations (Pāli *vedana*)," "feelings (*vedana*)," "craving (or desires)" (*taṇhā*)," "moods," "psychic dispositions," "consciousness (mind)," "mental distraction," "clinging," "attachment," and so on. It is also important to note that specifc examples of human emotions and feelings are frequently mentioned either negatively or positively in certain scriptures and discourses of Indian Buddhism: for example, "sorrow" (suffering; *duhkha*), "ill-will," "hatred," "pride," "passion," "depression," and so on in the negative cases; and "equanimity," "calmness," "compassion," "joy," "love," "extreme joy" in the positive cases.

Some Mahāyāna scriptures repudiate "unwholesome" emotions and desires such as "craving," "desire," "anger," "happiness," "greed," "fear," "hatred," "pride," and "jealousy" and, more importantly, encourage or praise "compassion," "great compassion," "love," "courage," "generosity," "utmost joy," "joy of omniscience," "humbleness," and so forth.

According to the Buddhist tradition, after attaining his enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, the Gautama Buddha preached the famous First Sermon on the Middle Way, the Four Noble Truths, and the Noble Eightfold Path. He explains the Middle Way as follows:

The pursuit of desires and of the pleasure which springs from desire, which is base, common, leading to rebirth, ignoble, and unproftable; and the pursuit of pain and hardship, which is grievous, ignoble, and unproftable. The Middle Way of the Tathāgatha avoids both these ends. It is enlightened, it brings clear vision, it makes for wisdom, and leads to peace, insight, enlightenment, and Nirvana.78

This passage is self-explanatory on why the historical Buddha negatively viewed several examples of common emotions: self-indulging desire and

<sup>78</sup> *Samyutta Nikāya* 5: 421 ff; de Bary 1969: 16. In this section, this and other excerpts on the historical Buddha's teaching come from several scriptures in the *Sutta Pitaka*, one of the Pali *Tipitaka* of Theravada Buddhism. See selected translations in de Bary's edited *The Buddhist Tradition in India, China, and Japan* (1969). Another good primary source is Conze (1963).

pleasure and self-damaging pain and grievance (sorrow). His message about the Middle Way is to gain peace and *nirvana* by suppressing and transcending these two extremes of life.

As the Buddha taught, sorrow (suffering; *duhkha* in Pāli) is universal human suffering not only physically but also emotionally, and it is ultimately caused by craving (desires, greed; *taṇhā*). These are the frst two items of his teaching of the Four Noble Truths:

This is the Noble Truth of Sorrow [*duhkha*]. Birth is sorrow, age is sorrow, disease is sorrow, death is sorrow, contact with the unpleasant is sorrow … in short, all the fve components of individuality [forms, sensations, perceptions, psychic dispositions, and consciousness] are sorrow. And this is the Nobel Truth of the Arising of Sorrow. It arises from craving [*taṇhā*], which leads to rebirth, which brings delight and passion, and seeks pleasure now here, now there—the craving for sensual pleasure, the craving for continued life, the craving for power. And this is the Noble Truth of the Stopping of Sorrow. It is the complete stopping of that craving, so that no passion remains, leaving it. Being emancipated from it, being released from it, giving no place to it. And this is the Noble Truth of the [Middle] Way which leads to the Stopping of Sorrow.79

This self-explanatory passage articulates the Buddha's repudiation of negative emotions and inclinations such as self-pleasing craving, sensations (feelings), passion, and pleasure because all of them ultimately cause universal suffering (*duhkha*). Thus, the Eightfold Path means to eliminate all kinds and levels of selfsh or self-indulging emotions, passions, and desires and to eventually become completely "emancipated" and gain *nirvana*.

Selfsh feelings of attachments are the result of *taṇhā* (craving) that causes more *duhkha* (suffering). This inevitable condition of life is the fundamental reason for moral-spiritual discipline known as the Eightfold Path. Human beings need to constantly practice "non-attachment" in order to control self-indulging thoughts, desires, and emotions, all of which can be extinguished only when *nirvana* is attained. Emotional experience is therefore closely linked to human sufferings. Suffering is the reality of existence that is further entrenched by bad attitudes of selfshness, clinging, or deflement. The Buddha taught a true understanding of the existential human conditions of suffering, including emotions and desires in their interdependent, dynamic nature.

<sup>79</sup> *Samyutta Nikāya* 5: 421 ff; de Bary 1969: 16.

In articulating the "the arising of the whole body of ill [suffering]" (also known "the twelve interdependent chain of causation"), the Buddha includes emotions and sensations such as craving, grief, lamentation, sorrow, and despair as follows:

Ignorance is the cause of psychic constructions, hence is caused by consciousness, hence physical form, hence the six senses, hence contact, hence sensations, hence craving, hence attachment, hence becoming, hence birth, hence old age and death with all the distraction of grief and lamentation, sorrow, and despair. This is the arising of the whole body of ill [suffering]. So we agreed that by the complete cessation of ignorance, the whole body of ill [suffering] ceases.80

Craving (desire), grief, and sorrow as mentioned in this passage are three common emotions that are compatible with Chinese and Korean *yok*/*yu* 慾 (desire; craving) and *ae*/*ai* 哀 (sorrow; grief). The Buddhist emotion of lamentation is also similar to the Chinese and Korean *won*/*yuan* (怨) or *han*/*han* (恨). The Buddha recommends the suppression of these kinds of self-afficting emotions, as articulated in his discourse on rejecting conventional Hindu belief in the eternal soul:

If one experiences a happy sensation, and thinks "this is my soul," when the happy sensation ceases he will think "My soul has departed." One who thinks thus looks on his soul as something impermanent in this life, a blend of happiness and sorrow with a beginning and end, and so this proposition is not acceptable …. When a monk … refrains from such views and clings to nothing in the world; and not clinging he does not tremble, and not trembling he attains Nirvana.81

In this passage, the Buddha rejects belief in the permanent self by affrming only one's temporary existence consisting of sensations, happiness, sorrow, and other physical and mental components. The emotions of happiness and sorrow are highlighted here.

When the Buddha taught the monk Rāhula (formerly his son) on "right mindfulness," the seventh stage of the Noble Eightfold Path, he emphasizes: "Develop the state of mind of friendliness, Rāhula, for, as you do so, ill-will will grow less; and of compassion, for thus vexation will grow less;

<sup>80</sup>*Majjhima Nikāya* 1: 256 ff; de Bary 1969: 19.

<sup>81</sup>*Dīgha Nikāya* 2: 64 ff; de Bary 1969: 21.

of joy, for thus aversion will grow less; and of equanimity, for thus repugnance will grow less."82 A good number of emotions are mentioned here. The Buddha praised compassion, joy, and equanimity/calmness as the wholesome emotions that will "grow" as one cultivates right mindfulness. Note that these emotions and friendliness are also known as the four cardinal virtues of Buddhism. By contrast, vexation (displeasure), aversion (hatred), and repugnance are negatively viewed, respectively.

The Buddha's perspectives on the relationship between the emotions and the doctrine of selfessness (*anatta*) can provide a rich array of philosophical and spiritual resources to help us to distinguish selfsh emotions from self-less (or self-emptying) emotions. The so-called three poisons of clinging attitudes are greed, hatred, and delusion. These are classifed as unwholesome states of the mind, and suffering is generated by these afficting emotions and their concomitant psychic states. Padmasiri de Silva, a scholar of Indian Buddhist philosophy and psychology, points out that "non-egoistic" and "self-transcending emotions" in the Buddhist context include "loving kindness (*metta*), compassion (*karuṇā*), gladness at the success of others (*mudita*), and equanimity (*upekkha*)" (de Silva 1995: 110).83 These wholesome emotions are gained through the process of realizing enlightened selfessness (*śūnyatā*).

In the Discourse of the Great Passing-away (*Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta*), we also read the last instructions of the Buddha to his beloved disciple Ānanda: "A monk becomes his own lamp and refuge by continually looking on his body, feelings, perceptions, moods, and ideas in such a manner that he conquers the cravings, and depressions of ordinary men and is always strenuous, self-possessed, and collected in mind."84 The Buddha's fnal teaching therefore reiterates the practice of self-control by controlling all ordinary feelings and removing all selfsh emotions. That is to say, moods and ideas are also highlighted here in relation to cravings.

On a comparative note, Marks argues that since the Buddhist teaching on the universal cause of suffering disparages strong *desires* (craving; *taṇhā*), it requires "the elimination of strong desires" (1995b: 143).85 This is partly why Marks defends the Buddhist admiration of dispassion for

<sup>82</sup>*Majjhima Nikāya* 1: 256; de Bary 1969: 27.

<sup>84</sup>*D*ī*gha Nikāya*, Sutta 16; de Bary 1969: 29.

85Marks (1995b) is "Dispassion and the Ethical Life," a book chapter in Marks and Ames (1995).

<sup>83</sup> See de Sila's article "Theoretical Perspectives on emotions in Early Buddhism" in Marks and Ames (1995).

the ethical life. On the other hand, in his "The Cross-cultural Comparison of Emotion" (1995b),86 Solomon criticizes Marks by arguing that the latter's support for "the goodness of dispassion" is not convincing because Marks was infuenced by Buddhism. From a non-Buddhist (Western) perspective, Solomon himself prefers to support passions for the ethical life.87

Buddhist morality, the second part of the Eightfold Path (right speech, conduct, and livelihood), also represents Gautama's role model as follows:

The Monk Gautama … lives modestly, full of mercy, desiring in compassion for the welfare of all things living. He has given up taking what is not given, he has lost all inclination to it … he lives in honesty and purity of heart …. His pleasure is in peace, he loves peace and delights in it …. He speaks only words that are blameless, pleasing to the ear, touching the heart, cultured, pleasing the people, loved by the people.88

This passage stresses Buddhist virtuous emotions such as compassion, modesty, and mercy for all beings and also positively affrms the three common emotions of delight (joy), pleasure, and love in the Buddhist context of seeking holistic peace. It is also worthwhile to note that the Buddhist discipline of detachment should not be completely identifed with "the destruction of emotion." This is because "wholesome emotions are an integral part of refned sensibility and provide fertile soil for clear judgment and the generation of moral and spiritual insights" (de Silva 1995: 112).

The Buddha's thought-provoking teaching of pure mind and righteousness therefore emphasizes love over hatred and sorrow:

Never in this world is hate Appeased by hatred; It is only appeased by love— This is an eternal law. Victory breeds hatred For the defeated lie down in sorrow. Above victory or defeat The calm man dwells in peace.89

<sup>86</sup>This work is the concluding chapter in Marks and Ames (1995).

<sup>87</sup>For Solomon's ethics of passions, an interesting and important topic, see Solomon (1993, 1995a, 1995b).

<sup>88</sup>*Dīgha Nikāya*, 1: 4 ff; de Bary 1969: 29.

<sup>89</sup>*Dhammapada*, 3–5, 201: de Bary 1969: 39.

The following excerpt also explains Gautama's experience of *nirvana* through self-awakening and complete emotional liberation at the conclusion of his seven-day meditation just prior to attaining his enlightenment:

Having acquired the concentration of mind which springs from solitudes, the price was flled with extreme joy and bliss [of enlightenment] …

Alas, wretched is he who, out of ignorance and blindness of pride, ignores others who are distressed by old age, sickness, or death …

He became neither excited nor distressed; free from pleasures; and untouched by hatred for contempt of others.

While this passionless, pure insight of that great-souled one grew …

I am free from the evils of passion arising from objects of sense.90

One has to abandon negative emotions like selfsh pride, pleasure, and hatred and remain "passionless" in order to seek true insights and ultimate peace and joy in attaining *nirvana*. In other words, Buddhists endeavor to suppress emotions and desires, but this would never mean that their entire lives are absolutely empty of all motivational elements (Kupperman 1995: 128). They have ethical and spiritual motives: that is, a religious faith and desire to seek peace, "love," and, ultimately, enlightenment "with extreme joy and bliss."

In our view, despite their psychological and ethical context, the Buddhist emotions of compassion, pleasure (happiness), delight (joy), love, and hatred are basically compatible with the Korean and East Asian Confucian counterparts. The Buddhist emotion of modesty also resonates with the Confucian and Neo-Confucian teaching that the moral emotion (heart-mind) of modesty is one of the Four Beginnings of virtue. "Mercy" and "dispassion" appear to be more or distinctively Buddhist, which is discussed further in the next two sections on Indian and Chinese Mahāyāna perspectives.

### *1.3.2 Indian Mahāyāna Perspectives: Great Compassion and Ultimate Joy*

The Mahāyāna doctrine of the bodhisattva provides both clergy and laity with its ideals of religious faith and practice. It emphasizes that all good Buddhists are bodhisattvas in the making and should work endlessly

<sup>90</sup> de Bary 1969: 64–65.

toward the universal goal of complete enlightenment. One of the most important virtues of the bodhisattva is therefore compassion (*karuṇā*) to help and save all beings from suffering to ultimate *nirvana*.

The *Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines Sūtra*, a famous Mahāyāna scripture, articulates it as follows:

And immense compassion grips him [the bodhisattva]. His Divine eye sees numerable beings, and he is flled with great distress at what he sees, for many bear the burden of punished in purgatory, others will have unfortunate rebirths. So he pours out his love and compassion upon all beings, and attends to them, thinking, I shall become the saviour of all beings.91

Here Mahāyāna faith in the bodhisattva power is emphasized for universal salvation (enlightenment). The virtuous emotions of "love" and "compassion" are not just ordinarily human but also selfess and transcendent (divine). Many passages of the Mahāyāna texts talk about the bodhisattva's solemn religious vow of self-sacrifcing compassion to endlessly assist all beings from suffering to enlightenment and peace. For example, the *Śikṣāsamuccaya* (*Compendium of doctrine*)92 states:

The bodhisattva …. The virtue of generosity is not my helper …. It is I who help them. For all beings are caught in the net of craving, encompassed by ignorance, held by the desire for existence; they are doomed to destruction, shut in cage of pain …. I must so bring to fruition the root of goodness that all beings fnd the utmost joy, unheard of joy, the joy of omniscience. (de Bary 1969: 83–85)

All bodhisattvas must always practice moral and spiritual precepts such as supreme "generosity" for the utmost joy of all beings. Furthermore, the same text emphasizes the bodhisattva's full "happiness" even under the most painful or self-sacrifcing circumstances. The bodhisattva must bring about "the joy of complete enlightenment":

So the bodhisattva … is happy even when subjected to the tortures of hell …. For this was the resolve of the Great Being, the bodhisattva: "… And those who revile me, affict me, beat me … or take my life—may they

92This work is written by the seventh-century Mahāyāna master Śāntideva; see Barbra Clayton (2006): *Moral Theory in Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya: Cultivating the Fruits of Virtue*.

<sup>91</sup>*Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñ*ā*pāramitā Sūtra*, 22: 402–403; de Bary 1969: 81–82.

all obtain the joy of complete enlightenment … he cultivates and develops the consciousness of joy in his relations with all beings, and so he acquires a contemplative spirit feld with joy in all things.93

Here the bodhisattva's joy is not just an *emotional* joy but, more important, "joy in all things" in a spiritual and religious sense. Joy and compassion are two of the four cardinal virtues of Buddhism. From a similar standpoint, another Mahāyāna sūtra emphasizes the bodhisattva's ten "perfections" (perfect virtues; *pāramitā* [Skt.])94 "by which a bodhisattva gains her strength." Five of these perfect virtues are: the bodhisattva

"bows humbly to all beings, and does not increase in pride"; "has compassion on the weak and does not dislike them"; "protects those who are afraid"; "delights the poor with his riches"; and "speaks to all beings pleasingly."95

Note that these virtues are also associated with common emotions such as humbleness and pride, compassion, fear, delight (joy), and pleasure, respectively. General speaking, compassion, humbleness (modesty), altruism, and joy (delight) are emphasized as moral-spiritual emotions in the Confucian tradition as well. As we have seen in the foregoing sections, anger, sorrow, fear, love, hatred (disliking), and desire (craving) are the common emotions that are also discussed in Chinese Confucian texts as well.

No wonder why most of these emotions that the Buddha and Indian Mahāyāna mentioned are therefore articulated in the Chinese and Korean Buddhist texts as well.

<sup>93</sup> *Śikṣāsamuccaya*, 181 f; de Bary 1969: 90–91.

<sup>94</sup> In Mahāyāna Buddhism the bodhisattva's six *pāramitās* (virtues) are generosity (*dāna*), morality (*śīla*), patience (*kṣānti*), vigor (*vīrya*), concentration (*dhyāna*), and wisdom (*prajñā*). This list became expanded to promote the ten perfect stages (*bhūmi*) of a bodhisattva in the process of attaining full enlightenment. The ten perfections of the bodhisattva are (1) generosity, (2) morality, (3) renunciation (*nekhamma*), (4) insight (*pañña*), (5) energetic diligence (*viriya*), (6) patience, (7) truthfulness (*sacca*), (8) resolution (*adhiṭṭhāna*), (9) loving-kindness (*metta*), and (10) equanimity (*upekkhā*).

<sup>95</sup>*Tathāgataguhya Sūtra*, *Śikṣāsamuccaya*, 274; de Bary 1969: 91.

### *1.3.3 Chinese and Korean Mahāyāna Perspectives: Tiantai, Chan, Pure Land, Wonhyo, and Jinul*

The Tiantai school of Mahāyāna Buddhism in China developed an important doctrine that infuenced both Chan (Zen) and Pure Land Buddhism. According to its doctrine of the "perfectively harmonious threefold truth," all beings and dharmas are generated by interdependent causation, so they are ultimately "empty" for having no permanent self-nature. However, each of them has a temporary existence as well. In other words, "the truth of emptiness" and "the truth of temporariness" also mean the "truth of the Mean" regarding all dharmas.

In his famous work *the Profound Meaning of the Scripture of the Lotus of the Wonderful Law*, Zhikai, the founder of Chinese Tiantai Buddhism, articulated the harmonious threefold truth:

The present scripture uses ten dharmas to comprise all dharmas, namely the such-like character, such-like nature, such-like substance, such-like power, such-like activity, such-like causes, such-like conditions, such-like effects, such-like retributions, such-like beginning-and-end-ultimate, and the like of the dharmas …. Distinction makes it easier to understand, hence we specify Emptiness, Temporariness, and the Mean. (de Bary 1969: 164)

Emotions and feelings are indeed included in and interdependent on what Zhikai calls "such-like" character, nature, activities, conditions, and effect; therefore, they are physical and mental phenomena that do not have any permanent self-existence. The Tiantai teaching basically resonates with the historical Buddha that emotions and desires have to be "emancipated" for self-awakening *nirvana* because the "deluded" self generates selfsh emotions, feelings, and desires and thereby continue causing more suffering.

In section 17, one of the most frequently quoted sections of the *Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch*, the most eminent Chan maser Huineng says:

No thought is not to think even when involved in thought …. If one instant of thought is cut off, the Dharma body separates from the physical body, and in the midst of successive thoughts there will be no place for attachment to anything …. If you stop thinking of the myriad things and cast aside all thoughts …, you will be reborn in another realm …. The deluded man, however, does not himself see and slanders the teaching of the sūtras. (de Bary 1969: 218–220)96

By "no-thought" and "stop thinking," Huineng also means no "craving", no "abiding" attachments, and, of course, no more emotions, desires, or passions. And one's "physical body" must be controlled and regulated accordingly. As Huineng says, "Because man in his delusion has thoughts in relation to his environment, heterodox [wrong] ideas stemming from those thoughts arise, and passions [emotions] and false views are produced from them" (de Bary 1969: 220). From another angle, awakening is gained by actual practice.

Richard Shusterman, an American pragmatist philosopher, calls Zen "practical somaesthetics," for it involves disciplined, refective practice aimed at "somatic" self-improvement (Shusterman 2012: 45). Chan (Zen) Buddhism warns against the distracting nature and afficting role of emotions and passions. Christoph Anderl, a Buddhist scholar, points out that *jeong*/*qing* doesn't mean the "real state of affairs or feelings" but refers to the activities of the "unenlightened mind" and thus has a rather negative connotation (2004: 149).97 The failure to overcome the deluded self can result in "attachment" to the mental processes of conceptualizing the deluded perspectives of the world.

Section 36 of the *Platform Sutra* also states: "Crush the passions and destroy them." This concurs with the Gautama Buddha's experience of *nirvana* through self-awakening and complete liberation; that is, having "passionless, pure insights" and being freed from "the evils of passion" arising from objects of sense (de Bary 1969: 64–65). In discussing Chan, Huineng, and emotions, Parkes points out that for Huineng, "deluded ideas or delusive emotions" are viewed as "clouds and mists," so one's "mastery over the passions and emotions" is demanded for enlightenment (1995: 217).98 Huineng's teaching is self-explanatory on the question of why Chan Buddhism, the most ascetic (meditative) and rigorous form of East Asian Mahāyāna, like the historical Buddha, strongly repudiates emotions and thoughts for their self-indulging delusion and self-damaging

<sup>96</sup>This and other excerpts on Huineng come from de Bary (1969), all of which were originally taken from Yampolsky's translation (1967).

<sup>97</sup>Anderl's article "*Qing* in Chan Buddhist Chinese" is in *Love and Emotions in Traditional Chinese Literature* edited by Halvor EIfring (2004).

<sup>98</sup> See Parkes's comparative essay on emotions and passions in Zen and Nietzsche in Marks and Ames (1995).

craving that ultimately cause suffering. Selfsh emotions, passions, and desires have to be completely "transcended" in the process of "selfemptying" and for the fnal goal of enlightenment.

The eminent, ecumenical Korean monk Wonhyo 元曉 (617–686) strongly criticized the problem of emotions from a similar standpoint. In his famous work *Ijang eui* 二障義 (*Doctrine of the two hindrances*),99 Wonhyo writes: "The greed, hatred, delusion, and so forth … are all of unwholesome quality" (Muller and Nguyen 2012: 78). The affictions of emotions such as craving, anger, and pride should be rejected because they cause delusion and suffering. "Eliminated in the Path of Cultivation are the anger of the desire realm and the three affictions of greed, pride, and nescience."100 These emotions are harmful (unwholesome) and should therefore be eliminated in "the path of cultivation." Wonhyo's teaching therefore concurs with early Buddhism; that is, certain forms of suffering are dependent on emotions like craving and hatred, two of the so-called three poisons (Muller and Nguyen 2012: 54). Both poisons originate from the frst poison nescience that conditions negative emotions. Affictive (Skt. *kleśa*) emotions are the reason for suffering.

Similarly, Jinul 知訥 (1158–1210), the most infuential Seon (Chan) master in the formation of Korean Buddhism, harshly repudiated "the deluded mind" for engendering poisonous emotions such as "greed" and "hatred" and thus their continuous affictions.101 By contrast, "the true mind" "does not give rise to [afficting] feelings of hatred or lust" (Buswell 1991: 135). Jinul's message, like the Buddha's and Huineng's teachings, is that the (Seon) Buddhist way of enlightenment means to eliminate all unwholesome ("poisonous") emotions, passions, and desires, thereby discovering "the true mind (self)."

Mahāyāna contains a *soteriological* paradox in regard to Pure Land doctrine and practice. Pure Land Buddhism, the unique school of East Asian Buddhism, stresses the Mahāyāna doctrine of universal enlightenment through faith in the divine power of the Amitabha Buddha. It praises "compassion" and "love" as not only virtuous moral emotions but also the Amitabha's universal divine virtue and grace. In his *Compendium of the* 

99This text is fully translated with annotation by Charles Muller in Muller's and Nguyen's edited *Wŏnhyo's Philosophy of Mind* (2012).

<sup>100</sup> *Ijang eui* 4.2; Muller and Nguyen 2012: 107.

101For the life and thought of Jinul, see Buswell's *Tracing Back the Radiance: Chinul's Korean Way of Zen* (1991). Consult Buswell (1992) for his experience and interpretation of Korean Zen pracitce as well.

*Happy (Pure) Land*, Daocho (562–645), one of the greatest masters of Pure Land Buddhism in China, explained the recitation of the Amitabha's name as the most effective universal way of salvation by emphasizing the Amitabha's "great compassion" and his "compassionate mindfulness of the beings" (de Bary 1969: 202). The Pure Land teaching uniquely emphasizes the bodhisattva path of "great compassion" for its universal salvation of "complete enlightenment."

In this regard, Wonhyo and Jinul strongly support the bodhisattva path of Korean Mahāyāna. Wonhyo highlighted the cultivation and practice of "great compassion" (Buswell 2007: 253) as the most important virtue for universal salvation. In his infuential *Jinsim jikseol* 眞心直說 (Straight talks on the true mind),102 Jinul talks about what he calls "the heart-mind of great compassion" (Buswell 1991: 135). As represented by Wonhyo and Jinul, then, Korean Buddhism emphasizes universal enlightenment for "all sentient beings": "great compassion" is the virtuous-spiritual emotion of the bodhisattva.103 In this book, Sharon Suh's Chap. 11 on *jeong* and interrelationality in Korean Buddhist cinema discusses the modern Buddhist meaning and role of "bodhisattvic compassion" in relation to Confucian-infuenced Korean *jeong e*motions.

# 1.4 Emotions (*Jeong*/*Qing* 情) in Korean Philosophy and Religion

What has been discussed in this introductory chapter so far is the editors' detailed introduction to three related topics: "Emotions in General, East and West" (Sect. 1.1); "Emotions (*Jeong*/*Qing* 情) in the Chinese Tradition " (Sect. 1.2); and "Emotions in the Buddhist Tradition" (Sect. 1.3). All of these sections will effciently serve as a helpful textual, philosophical, ethical, and religious background of Korean *jeong* 情 studies. We are now ready to introduce Korean perspectives according to their leading traditions and doctrines and their comparative and contemporary meanings and implications in harmony with the Korean way of human experience, rationality, and emotionality.

<sup>102</sup>This text is fully translated in Buswell (2007): *Cultivating Original Enlightenment: Wŏnhyo's Exposition of the* Vajrasamādhi-Sūtra (Kŭmgang Sammaegyŏng Non).

<sup>103</sup>For more details on Wonhyo's and Jinul's teachings of "great compassion," see Sect. 1.4.3.2 (Great Compassion and Joy).

This last section of the introductory chapter introduces and outlines all three main parts of the book as follows:

### *1.4.1 Korean Confucian Perspectives*

### *1.4.1.1 The Holistic Nature, Role, and Problem of* Jeong*: Emotions, Self-cultivation, Human Relationships, Ethics, and Beyond*

Korean Confucianism greatly contributed to articulating the nature of emotions (*jeong*/*qing* 情) and its manifold and multilevel roles in selfcultivation and ethics. It championed virtuous emotions while repudiating the potential problem or selfshness of negative emotions, and this mode of reasoning consistently infuenced many generations of Confucian thinkers and ordinary Koreans. As a result, the Korean Confucian tradition has developed its comprehensive context and scope of *jeong*/*qing* emotions common to all human life and experience in relation to human nature (*seong/xing*), heart-mind (*sim*/*xin*), and physical and psychological dispositions. Its extensive vocabulary of *jeong* includes the Four Beginnings of virtue and the Seven Emotions as well.

We cannot deny the essential infuence of Chinese Confucian texts, doctrines, and ideas on Korean emotion talks with respect to the Four and the Seven, the *Book of Rites*, *Zhongyong*, Mencius, and Zhu Xi. However, it is also wrong to argue that Korean Confucians merely followed the Chinese tradition because Yi Toegye (1501–1570), Yi Yulgok (1536–1584), Jeong Hagok (1649–1736),104 and Jeong Dasan (1762–1836) not only discovered the fundamental ambiguity and limitation of these Chinese classics and Neo-Confucian commentaries but also creatively developed their original ideas, interpretations, and insights. This became a key topic in the Korean Four-Seven debate, which began in the mid-sixteenth century and lasted for three centuries.105

<sup>104</sup> See Chung (2020: 46–52) for Jeong Jedu's (Hagok) Four-Seven ethics of emotions. This book is a full-length study of Hagok's "great synthesis" of Wang Yangming Neo-Confucianism in Korea, including his critical reinterpretation of Zhu Xi's and Toegye's philosophies. Hagok was the leading Korean thinker and scholar of Yangming Neo-Confucianism.

105For current scholarship on the Korean Four-Seven debate, see Kalton et al. 1994; Chung 1995, 2016 (Introduction, Part II, Sect. 1.2), 2019b, 2021 (a new book on Toegye's ethics and spirituality). For various articles, see Ching 1985; de Bary and Haboush 1985; Ivanhoe 2015, 2016; Hyoungchan Kim 2015; Seok 2018; Tu 1985b. Furthermore, Toegye's Four-Seven letters are included in Yi Toegye (1985), *Toegye jeonseo* (hereafter abbrevi-

Their unique common goal was how to understand and explain the self rationally, psychologically, morally, and spiritually. This is why the holistic nature of Korean *jeong* seems to be more associated with or infuenced by the *Confucian* tradition of language, philosophy, moral psychology, and social relationships. In this regard, one can say that the foundational meaning and implication of Korean *jeong* are more Confucian in teaching and practice than Buddhist or another. In fact, it is historically true that Korea was comparatively the most "Confucianized" country and culture in East Asia.106

In the Joseon dynasty (1392–1910), Korean Neo-Confucians comprehensively discussed various textual and philosophical questions about *jeong*. In particular, they rigorously debated those regarding the Four-Seven relationship as well as its implications for moral-spiritual selfcultivation, most of which had not been explained clearly in the Chinese tradition of classics and Song Neo-Confucian commentaries. Part of their common practice was to interpret a conceptual, moral, and psychological distinction or connection between the Four and the Seven in terms of emotions (*jeong*/*qing*), sentiments, passions, desires, and related emotive phenomena.

For example, how do the Four and the Seven all relate to *jeong*/*qing* feelings and emotions in general? This quickly became a major issue in the Korean Four-Seven debates. One critical issue was about whether the Four and the Seven are only different "names" for emotions or actually have two distinctive conceptual and moral meanings and roles. What about ordinary physical or psychological feelings or desires? Another key question was why Mencius described the Four as "emotions" (*jeong*/*qing*) and especially in terms of the "heart-mind" (*sim*/*xin*). What about the question of why the Four are moral willing, emotions, or intuitions? This ambiguity existing at the heart of Mencius's moral philosophy and psychology and Song Chinese Neo-Confucian commentary was one of the most important issues in the Korean Four-Seven and Horak debates. These kinds of issues regarding the orthodox, mainstream line of interpretation

ated *TJ*), 16: 8a–30a, and Yulgok's letters in *YJ* 9: 32b–10:40a (vol. 1, 192–216); for a full translation of these letters, see Kalton et al. 1994, 7–104, 109–183. Chung (1995) is a comparative, comprehensive discussion of Toegye and Yulgok and the practical implications of each thinker's Four-Seven thesis.

106For this topic on the "Confucianization" of Korean language, culture, and society from historical or socio-institutional angels, see Haboush (1991), Deuchler (1992), Rozman (1991), Duncan (2002), Elman et al. (2002), and Chung (2015).

are variously discussed in Chaps. 2, 4, and 6 of this volume by Seok, Chung, and Harroff, respectively. Chapter 5 by Baker is unique in discussing Jeong Dasan's own unorthodox interpretation of emotions and "the pursuit of sagehood."

Korean Neo-Confucians Toegye and Yulgok—like Korean Buddhist thinkers such as Wonhyo and Jinul—did not fully distinguish emotion from reason (cognition), and vice versa. In other words, they traditionally viewed the heart-mind (*sim*/*xin* 心) as one integrated holistic faculty that unites, coordinates, or apprehends the entire self with respect to rationality, emotionality, morality, and spirituality. *Jeong*/*qing* emotions engage the entire self, including the body as well as the heart-mind, as in the case of Confucian or Buddhist philosophy and spirituality.107 This issue of emotion-and-reason continuum is discussed by Seok in his Chap. 2 on the Korean Four-Seven and Horak debates; it is also mentioned in Chung's Chap. 4 on Yulgok's ethics of emotions, and see Harroff's Chap. 6 on his Western comparative views of the Four-Seven relationship.

Korean thinkers cited the Confucian term "Seven Emotions" (*chiljeong*/*qiqing* 七情) according to the *Book of Rites,* one of the Five Classics: "pleasure (happiness; *hui*/*xi* 喜), anger (*no*/*nu* 怒), sorrow (*ae*/*ai* 哀), fear (*gu*/*ju* 懼), love (*ae*/*ai* 愛), hatred (dislike; *o*/*wu* 惡), and desire (*yok*/*yu* 欲)" are basic human emotions that "are not acquired through learning from the outside" (Legge 1970: [1] 379). They also discussed the *Doctrine of the Mean* (Chap. 1), which gives attention to the frst three together with joy (delight; *rak*/*le* 樂) and emphasizes "equilibrium" and "harmony" in terms of "before arousal" and "after arousal," respectively.108 In other words, these are innate physical and psychological *jeong*/*qing* of human nature. The cultivation of mind therefore requires a measure of control over emotions, including the Seven, as clearly taught in the *Zhongyong*. According to this ethics of emotions, the goal of selfcultivation is to attain the state of control and "harmony" after the Seven or related emotions are aroused (*bal*/*fa* 發).

This topic of emotions is discussed in Chaps. 2 and 4 of this book by Seok and Chung, respectively. Seok gives a general overview according to

<sup>107</sup>For this topic regarding top eminent Korean Buddhists such as Wonhyo and Jinul, see Sects. 1.3.3 and 1.4.3 of this introductory chapter.

<sup>108</sup>For our discussion of the Seven Emotions according to the *Book of Rites*, Sect. 1.2.2.2 (The *Book of Rites* and the *Doctrine of the Mean* …) of this introductory chapter. See also Sect. 1.1.4 on the diversity of emotions.

the Korean Four-Seven debate, and Chung focuses on Yulgok's interpretation. As discussed in Chap. 5 by Baker, Dasan seriously doubted this mainstream orthodox line of interpretation by giving his own opinions on human emotions. For example, Baker keenly argues that Dasan went beyond the conventional Confucian list of the Seven by discussing other signifcant emotions (*jeong*/*qing* 情) according to his creative reading of the classics: resentment (lamentation; *won*/*yuan* 怨), remorse (regret; 悔 *hoe*/*hui*), suffering/grievance (恨 *han*/*hen*), and resentful suffering (怨恨 *wonhan*/*yuanhen*).

Many chapters of this book discuss Confucian moral emotions such as "compassion" (*cheugun*/*ceyin* 惻隱), "shame and aversion" (*suo*/*xiu* 羞 惡), "courtesy and modesty" (*sayang*/*cirang* 辭讓), and "discernment of right and wrong" (*sibi*/*shifei* 是非), all of which are known as the Four Beginnings of virtue (*sadan/siduan* 四端) according to the *Mencius* (2A: 6; 6A: 6) and Chinese Neo-Confucian commentaries.109 In the Korean tradition, the moral emotion of compassion (sympathy; empathy) is an innate virtuous feeling. This topic is variously discussed by Seok (Chap. 2), Choi (Chap. 4), and Chung (Chap. 5) and two comparative-theme chapters of Part II by Joseph E. Harroff (Chap. 6) and Lee (Chap. 7).

Other virtuous emotions such as *gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence; mindfulness; respect) are also emphasized and encouraged, especially by the Toegye school. Moral virtues, including *in*/*ren* 仁 (benevolence; humanheartedness), *ye*/*li* 禮 (ritual propriety), and *xiao* 孝 (flial affection), are also honored. Choi's Chap. 3 in particular deals with Toegye's ethics of *gyeong* reverence and emotions. Choi makes an important point that Toegye's way of self-cultivation and moral practice stresses *gyeong* to control selfsh emotions and cravings internally and externally.110

With respect to these moral virtues, Confucius also believed that true emotions are essential to sincerity and virtuous human experience and should therefore play a vital role in the process of self-cultivation.111 This insight inspired later generations of eminent Confucians and Neo-Confucian thinkers, including Yi Toegye and Yi Yulgok in Korea.

109For the Four, see Sect. 1.2.2.3 on Mencius; regarding Zhu Xi's and Wang Yangming's views of the Four, see Sects. 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, respectively.

110For more discussion of this topic from a moral and religious standpoint, see Chung 2016, 2021 (a new book on Toegye's ethics and spirituality).

111For details, see Sect. 1.2.2.1 (Confucius: True Emotions and Human Character). Furthermore, consult Ames (2020) for an interesting discussion of "role ethics" and human "becoming."

The Korean Four-Seven debates rigorously discussed textual, conceptual, ethical, or psychological issues regarding the Four-and-Seven relationship or difference as well as its implications for moral cultivation, most of which were not explained clearly in the Chinese classics and Neo-Confucian commentaries. For example, how the Four and the Seven differ from each other, and why they should be understood in relation to the heart-mind (*sim*/*xin*). Toegye and Yulgok similarly confrmed that the Four Beginnings, including compassion, are indeed moral emotions (*jeong*/*qing*). For Mencius, the "original goodness of human nature" consisting of the Four should therefore be "fully developed" for selfcultivation; "neglecting your own potentials is to destroy yourself." (*Mencius*, 2A: 6).112 Self-cultivation not only involves the Mencian teaching of nurturing the Four as the moral essence of human nature but also has to maintain what the *Zhongyong* calls "[emotional] harmony after [the Seven such as] pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused." Chapter 2 (Seok) generally discusses this part of the Korean Four-Seven debate on emotions, and Chap. 4 (Chung) focuses this discussion on Yulgok's ethics of emotions and political reform.

The Mencian doctrine of compassion and other moral emotions was discussed by Korean Neo-Confucians with admiration and care for their signifcance in self-cultivation and ethics. It is also important to note that Toegye emphasized the Mencian teaching in his ethics and spirituality of emotions and self-cultivation. Toegye frequently quoted not only Mencius's doctrine of original human goodness and the Four but also his spiritual talk of "Heaven" and "serving Heaven," which seemingly contributed to Toegye's Korean religious thought.113

Another issue was whether or not the Four and the Seven are two separate or distinctive types of *jeong* emotions. Toegye emphasized that the Four such as compassion and the discernment of right and wrong defnitely belong to a special, separate group of moral emotions. By contrast, Yulgok insisted that the Seven represent the "totality" of emotions and feelings that includes the Four as their "good side [subset]." The Four-Seven debates also addressed questions regarding Zhu Xi's Four-Seven statements, his dualism of the moral-and-human mind, and his ethics of self-cultivation. Toegye, Yulgok, and their debaters built the constructive meaning of the Four-Seven relationship by covering various texts,

<sup>112</sup>Chung's translation; see also Lau 1970: 82–83.

<sup>113</sup>For details on this topic, see Chung 2016, 2019c, 2021.

thinkers, and ideas comprehensively and systematically. This was indeed necessary to understand and practice the vital role of human emotions in moral and spiritual self-cultivation.

To Toegye and his followers, Zhu Xi's unexplained statement that "the Four Beginnings are manifestations of *i*/*li* (理; principle), and the Seven Emotions are manifestations of *gi*/*qi* (氣 vital/physical energy)"114 implied an ontological and conceptual distinction between the Four and the Seven. This issue was also discussed by Yulgok and other Korean scholars in relation to Zhu's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*. 115 Chapters 2 (Soek), 4 (Chung), and 6 (Harroff) of this book discuss this topic from various angles. Choi's Chap. 3 deals more with Toegye's ethics of *gyeong* reverence and emotional control in relation to Zhu Xi's teaching of *gyeong*. Chapter 5 (Baker) articulates why Dasan opposed the orthodox line of Korean interpretation in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*.

Korean thinkers argued that Zhu Xi's ambiguous comment on the Four-Seven relationship is to be understood in terms of "[moral] purity," and there must be moral distinction or continuum between the Four and the Seven. For Toegye, the Four and the Seven are different ontologically, conceptually, and morally; this is why Zhu Xi meant that the Four are aroused by *i*/*li* whereas the Seven are aroused by *gi*/*qi*. In other words, Toegye emphasized that one should overcome dehumanizing tendencies such as the potential selfshness of the Seven stimulated by *gi*/*qi*; this can be done by practicing our moral virtues backed up by *i*/*li*. According to Yulgok, however, there is moral-emotive continuum between the Four and the Seven, for which reason Toegye misinterpreted the Four and the Seven as two distinctive and separate groups of feelings.116 As Yulgok states, "what is manifested is *gi*/*qi*, and the reason for its manifestation is

<sup>114</sup>*ZZYL* 53: 17b.

<sup>115</sup> See n. 57 in Sect. 1.2.3 (Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism) for details on Zhu Xi's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*; *f*or current scholarship on Zhu Xi's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, see also n. 39 in Sect. 1.2.2.2. For more on this topic in relation to emotions, see Chaps. 2, 4, and 6 of this book by Soek, Chung, and Harroff, respectively. See Sect. 1.2.2.2, n. 39 for the current literature on Zhu Xi's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*.

<sup>116</sup>*YJ* 9: 35b; I, 192 (see Chung 1995, 2019b for my discussion of Yulgok's critique of Toegye's four-Seven thesis). For a full translation of Toegye's and Yulgok's Four-Seven letters, see Kalton et al. 1994.

*i*/*li*." In the arousal of all emotions and feelings, including the Four and the Seven, *gi*/*qi* is therefore what actually becomes manifested.117

Toegye, Yulgok, and other Korean Neo-Confucians all confrmed that the Four Beginnings such as compassion are purely good because they are backed up by the original goodness of human nature inherent in the heartmind. They basically agreed that ordinary human emotions and feelings such as the Seven are *potentially* good if they are properly expressed or harmonized according to moral principles (*i*/*li* 理). However, as Toegye, in particular, argued, any of these emotions like anger, hatred, or desire can easily become precarious or evil because they are stimulated by impure *gi*/*qi* (氣) in response to daily things or phenomena (Chung 1995, 2021 [Chaps. 4 and 8]).

Another controversial issue of the Korean Four-Seven debate dealt with Zhu Xi's doctrine of "original human nature" (*bonyeon ji seong*/*benran zhi xing* 本然之性) and "physical human nature" (*gijil ji seong*/*qizhi zhi xing* 氣質之性) in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, respectively.118 Toegye and his followers generally argued that by original human nature Zhu Xi meant the Mencian notion of "original human goodness," including innate moral virtues like human-heartedness (benevolence) as well as moral emotions such as the Four Beginnings (e.g., compassion). By contrast, the Seven belong to physical human nature that includes all ordinary physical or psychological feelings, sensations, and desires; in other words, the Seven Emotions of the physical human nature are conditioned by *gi*/*qi* and can therefore lead to good or evil. Chapters 2 (Seok) and 4 (Chung) discuss this part of the Four-Seven debate on emotions.

Furthermore, Yulgok in particular became interested in discussing Zhu Xi's doctrine of "[Dao] moral mind" (*dosim/daoxin* 道心) and "[ordinary] human mind" (*insim/renxin* 人心): the moral mind is "good" because it is aroused from heavenly moral principles (*cheolli*/*tianli* 天理), whereas the ordinary human mind is "precarious" and involves both good and evil because it is aroused from "the selfshness (*sa*/*si* 私) of physical

<sup>118</sup> See Sect. 1.2.3 (Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism …) for details of this topic on the *bonyeon ji seong* and *gijil ji seong*.

<sup>117</sup>*YJ* 10: 5a; I, 198. For articles on the Korean Four-Seven debates, see Ching 1985 (on Yulgok); Ivanhoe 2015, 2016; Hyoungchan Kim 2015; Seok 2018; Tu 1985b (on Toegye). For Chung's comprehensive discussion, see Chung 1995, 1998 (on Yulgok), 2019b, 2021 (chapter 4).

form."119 However, Zhu did not explain this topic in terms of emotions and the Four-Seven relationship, so it was a major issue in the Korean debate. Chapter 2 (Seok) discusses the moral/human mind issue in the Four-Seven debate, Chap. 3 (Choi) presents the same issue from the standpoint of Zhu Xi's and Toegye's ethics of reverence (*gyeong*).

Yulgok emphasized "the oneness of the mind" ontologically and ethically. There is a "mutual relationship" of continuum between them: the mind is one, even though there are just "two names" used in explaining it. As good moral emotions, the Four are included in the Seven.120 Yulgok states: "Mencius selected good [moral] emotions out of the Seven Emotions, thereby calling them the Four Beginnings."121 When love, one of the Seven, is expressed properly, then it is a moral emotion that is no different from compassion, one of the Four.122 The Four do not exist outside the Seven, the "totality" of emotions: it is impossible for the "good side" (the Four) and the "totality" (the Seven) to be divided into two kinds of emotions.123 Accordingly, the moral and human minds should be understood in terms of the oneness of *jeong* emotions. "The Four Beginnings refer to the moral mind in particular; the Seven refer to the moral-and-human mind combined as a whole."124 Just as the reality of the heart-mind is "one," the wholeness of emotions and feelings is also one and not divided into the Four and the Seven. In this regard, Yulgok also criticized Toegye for dualistically misinterpreting the Four and the Seven as two distinctive groups of emotions.

Jeong Jedu 鄭齊斗 (Hagok 霞谷; 1649–1736), the most eminent thinker in Korean Yangming Neo-Confucianism,125 discussed the

<sup>119</sup>*ZZWJ* 76: 21b; quoted from Zhu's preface to the *Zhongyong zhangju*. More details on this topic and quotations from Zhu's *ZZYL* and *ZZWJ*, see Sect. 1.2.3 (Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism …), nn. 65, 66. Furthermore, Zhu's moral psychology of the dual nature of the mind strongly infuenced Toegye's advanced moral-religious thought (Chung 2016: 26–45, 2021 [chapter 6]).

<sup>120</sup>*YJ* 9: 34b; I, 192. This statement is almost identical to the original thinking of Gi Daeseung (Gobong; 1525–1572) who rigorously debated with Toegye.

<sup>121</sup>*YJ* 20: 56b; I, 455; Chung's translation.

122This opinion basically corresponds to Gobong's original view; see *TJ* 16: 13b; I, 408.

123Yulgok's argument indirectly concurs with Zhu Xi's unquoted statement that "the Four can be understood in the context of the Seven." See *ZZYL* 87: 16a–b. Note that Yulgok, as well as Toegye and Gobong, were not familiar with this statement by Zhu Xi.

<sup>124</sup>*YJ* 10: 7b; I, 199; Chung's translation.

<sup>125</sup> In Korea, this tradition is also known as the school (learning) of the mind (*simhak/ xinxue* 心學). Hagok is as important as Korea's three famous Confucian thinkers: Yi Toegye, Four-Seven philosophy of emotions by criticizing Cheng-Zhu thought through his creative reading of the Mencian and Yangming doctrines. Like Wang, Hagok said that the Four as virtuous emotions represent "the original essence (*bonche*/*benti* 本體) of the heart-mind."126 This ontologicalethical claim is backed up by the Mencian teaching of "innate knowledge [of good]" (*yangji*/*liangzhi* 良知) and "innate ability [to do good]" (*yangneung*/*liangneng* 良能) (*Mencius*, 7A: 15). Hagok's thought reconciles Wang Yangming, Zhu Xi, and Seongnihak Neo-Confucianism in Korea. Like Wang, he interpreted emotions in terms of emotional control, *yangji*/*liangzhi*, and moral practice. Moral emotions such as the Four, including compassion, refer to as the innate knowledge and ability of the mind-in-itself. Hagok's ethics of emotions, therefore, posits moral practice "to do good and remove evil."127 Wang's and Hagok's ideas of "innate heart" (conscience; *yangsim*/*liangxin* 良心) and "essential heart-mind" (*bonsim*/*benxin* 本心) positively contributed to Korean emotive and ethical language, to the extent that contemporary Koreans often talk about what they call *yangsim*/良心 and *bonsim*/本心 as the true [good] heart with emotive emphasis on everyday human relationships.

Jeong Yagyong 丁若鏞 (Dasan 茶山; 1762–1836), a leading Korean Confucian scholar, criticized and opposed the orthodox Korean school (Seongnihak) of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism in many ways. For example, in his view the mainstream Neo-Confucian theories of emotions in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* do not represent the original teaching of Confucius and Mencius. This is why Dasan concluded that the Seongnihak's theoretical and practical discussion of emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) is limited and unsuitable for the sagely Confucian way of ethics. As discussed by Baker in Chap. 5, Dasan's reading of various classics such as the *Book of Rites*, *Analects,* and *Mencius* inspired him to discuss more types of common emotions (*jeong*/*qing*), including resentment (lamentation; *won*/*yuan* 怨), remorse (regret; 悔 *hoe*/*hui*), suffering/grievance (恨 *han*/*hen*), and

Yi Yulgok, and Jeong Dasan. The Korean Yangming school was effectively opposed by the orthodox Zhu Xi school (known as Seongnihak) and offcially persecuted by the Joseon dynasty for centuries.

<sup>126</sup>A comprehensive discussion of Hagok's life and thought is Chung (2020): *The Great Synthesis of Wang Yangming Neo-Confucianism in Korea*.

<sup>127</sup>Consult Chung (2020) for Hagok's discussion of this topic. For Wang's sayings, see *CXL* pt. I, sect. 129 and pt. III, sect. 315; Chan 1963a: 86, 244. See also "Inquiry on the Great Learning"; Chan 1963b: 664, 666.

resentful suffering (怨恨 *wonhan*/*yuanhen*). These emotions were ignored by the orthodox Zhu Xi school of Neo-Confucianism.128

As Baker points out, Dasan wrote an essay on *won*/*yuan* 怨 (resentment; lamentation), in which he insightfully quotes the *Mencius* (5A: 1–2; 6B: 3) and *Analects* (17: 9) for directly addressing the emotion of resentment (*won*/*yuan*).129 For Dasan, then, resentment is something that even the sages and wise persons would feel as a genuine human emotion. Dasan was arguably the frst Korean Confucian thinker who formally talked about these "signifcant" emotions textually and ethically.

It is also important to note that Dasan's discussion closely resonates with three of the most common "Korean" emotions such as *won* (怨), *han* (恨), and *wonhan* (怨恨) that continue to engage the contemporary Korean repertoire of emotion (*jeong*/*qing*) talks morally, socially, and psychologically.

What follows hereafter is our overall, integrated introduction to four main chapters of Part I on the Korean Confucian perspectives of emotions.

### *1.4.1.2 An Introduction to Part I, Chaps. 2 –5: Korean Confucian Perspectives*

Chapter 2 by Bongrae Seok is titled "Moral Psychology of Emotion (*Jeong*/*Qing* 情) in Korean Neo-Confucianism and Its Philosophical Debates on the Affective Nature of the Mind." This chapter discusses the so-called Four-Seven debate (1559–1572) and the Horak debate (*Horak nonjaeng* 1709–1715)—the two major philosophical debates of Korean Neo-Confucianism—and analyzes how Korean Neo-Confucians in the Joseon dynasty explained *jeong*/*qing* "emotions in relation to the heartmind (*sim*/*xin* 心), human nature (*seong*/*xing* 性), and morality." Although these thinkers respected the philosophical framework of orthodox Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, they also developed their own theories of emotions "by focusing on the affective foundation of morality in the heart-mind." Seok applies what he calls the onto-directive and the psycho-affective approaches to this topic and discusses the Korean Neo-Confucian understanding of emotions. The chapter concludes that Korean Neo-Confucianism coherently developed "a unique form of moral

<sup>129</sup> Jeong 2012: I, 10: 4a–b (2, 205–206).

<sup>128</sup> See *Yeoyudang jeonseo* (Complete works of Yeoyudang Jeong Yagyong [Dasan]); Jeong 2012: I, 8: 27b (2, 72).

psychology," the moral psychology of "the emotional mind rooted in the ethical and devotional nature of human beings."

Seok's basic insight concurs with the *jeong*/*qing* chapter of his *Embodies Moral Psychology and Confucian Philosophy*, according to which Confucian *jeong* is more than "subjective" emotions as extended and shared experience of human experience and the foundation of the moral heart-mind (Seok 2013).130

Seok's Chap. 2 is a helpful historical and philosophical introduction to the Korean Confucian philosophy of emotions according to the Four-Seven and Horak debates. It specifcally explains the Four-Seven relationship in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* and other related issues such as "before arousal" (*mibal*/*weifa* 未發) and "after arousal" (*ibal*/*yifa* 已發) from a conceptual and analytic standpoint. This chapter will also facilitate the readers' understanding of the three other chapters in Part I. For Toegye, Yulgok, and their debaters, the Four and the Seven are all aroused (*ibal*) emotions. One can question the extent to which Seok's detailed discussion of the Horak debate's *mibal* concept explains the nature and role of emotions. Furthermore, one key aspect of their Four-Seven debates highlights the issue of good and evil. Toegye persistently articulated the fundamental Four-Seven difference in this regard: that is, potential moral evil of the Seven regarding uncontrolled or selfsh emotions and desires. This is precisely why Toegye passionately emphasized the virtuous and transcendent reality of human nature as the Four [moral emotions] backed up by *i*/*li*. We need to be mindful of this vital moral-religious dimension of Korean Four-Seven philosophy,131 although this topic is beyond the scope of Seok's chapter due to its limited space. The reader will see that to some extent the next chapter by Choi covers Toegye's attention to the moral and transcendent goodness of human nature in terms of *gyeong* (reverence).

Chapter 3 by Suk Gabriel Choi is titled "The Idea of *Gyeong/Jing* 敬 in Yi Toegye's Korean Neo-Confucianism and Its Availability in Contemporary Ethical Debate." It presents the Confucian doctrine of *gyeong* in relation to emotions according to Zhu Xi's and Toegye's interpretations, as well as its distinctive implication for contemporary Western virtue ethics. *Gyeong*

<sup>130</sup> Seok points out that *jeong* in the Korean Confucian context is "a resonating affective state that can be sensed by and expressed through the body, and that can be shared with others and the community, but not exclusively, necessarily, or always felt as inner personal feelings" (Seok 2013: 168).

131For this topic, consult Chung 1995, 2019b, 2019c, 2021 (a new book on the religious thought of Yi Toegye with comparative perspectives).

敬 (C. *jing*; translated as "seriousness," "reverence," "reverential concentration," "reverential seriousness," "mindfulness," etc.) is one of the most signifcant ideas in the Confucian tradition. Choi examines the meaning and cultivation of *gyeong* according to Zhu Xi and then discusses its relation to the topic of emotions and emotional control in the Korean Neo-Confucian context. In particular, Choi explains how Toegye understood Zhu Xi's idea of *gyeong*/*jing* and also systemized his own ethics of *gyeong* and self-cultivation. Furthermore, this chapter articulates how Toegye's Korean notion of *gyeong* can play "a distinctive role" in contemporary Western debates "on emotion, morality, and virtue."

Choi's chapter contributes to explaining Toegye's philosophy of *gyeong* from the contemporary Western standpoint of virtue ethics pertaining to Sher (1998), Montague (1992), and other ethicists' comparative views in terms of virtuous dispositions, motivations, habits, and so on. Overall, it makes an important point that "*gyeong*/*jing* is a crucial practice of selfcultivation," including an appropriate control of emotions and feelings. It keenly identifes *gyeong* as "the emotion of reverence" [and] self-refection that is essential in the practice of self-cultivation. The phrases "being mindful," "clear from obscurity," and "self-examination" are rightly cited. In other words, according to both Zhu Xi and Toegye, *gyeong* plays a vital role in the practice of moral virtues and emotions such as the Four Beginnings.

A related question Toegye himself would ask us is: what about the role of *gyeong*, "the master of the unifed self," in controlling or transcending (eliminating) "selfsh cravings" (*sayok*), the potential origin of moral evil? This is because Toegye emphasized *gyeong* in terms of contemplative "selfrefection," emotional control, and "self-rectifcation." In other words, there is something important about his *gyeong* beyond Choi's textual and ethical analysis. Toegye's notion of *gyeong* is not just a philosophical theory or moral practice but, more importantly, a holistic system of ethics and spirituality based on his own experience engaging in contemplation, spiritual cultivation, and Confucian belief in the transcendent reality of human existence.132 Some discussion of this topic could have been given if more space with a slightly deeper analysis was allowed for this chapter.

Chapter 4 by Edward Y. J. Chung is titled "Yi Yulgok on the Role of Emotions in Self-cultivation and Ethics: A Modern Korean Neo-Confucian

<sup>132</sup>For the religious nature of Toegye's life and spirituality of *gyeong* reverence, see Chung 2004, 2010, 2011, 2016 (introduction), or 2021 (chapters 5, 6).

Interpretation." It presents Yi I 李珥 (Yulgok 栗谷; 1536–1584), a leading Neo-Confucian thinker and one of the greatest statesmen in Joseon Korea (1392–1910), by focusing on Yulgok's philosophy of emotions (*jeong*/*qing* 情) and statecraft. It covers his Four-Seven debate letters and *Seonghak jibyo* (聖學輯要; *Collected essentials of sagely learning*) as well as his major political essays such as *Yukjogye* (六條啓; *Six-article memorial for current affairs*). The second and third sections articulate the holistic nature and roles of emotions and briefy compare Yulgok's interpretation with some leading Western theories. These sections also discuss Yulgok's ethics of "the transformation of *gi*/*qi*" (氣; vital energy),133 and why it supports his political reform ideas. The concluding section comments on the modern relevance of Yulgok's insights for a comparative and crosscultural study of emotions.

Chung argues that Yulgok's view of emotions (*jeong*) as "desires" (*yok*/*yu* 欲) to fulfl the specifc "needs" of the human body resonates with what William James emphasized as physiological "sensations" (1984, 1990) and concurs with Joel Marks's theory of emotions as desires (1995a, 2013). Yulgok's theory that moral emotions like flial piety and compassion involve moral awareness and conscious judgment is compatible with Robert Solomon's emphasis on emotions as "judgments" (1993, 1995a, 2001). Furthermore, we can compare Yulgok's practical ethic of compassion with Michael Slote's virtue ethics of "empathy" and "moral motivation" (2007, 2010, 2020). Chung also notes that Solomon's theory of "passion," "justice," and "the ethical life" (1993, 1995a, 1995b) resembles Yulgok's moral passions for political justice and social wellbeing.134 Beyond this compatibility and resemblance, the sixteenth-century Korean thinker not only passionately emphasized real *actions* but also actively *participated* in the development of political reform and social improvement, for which reason this combination of passion, action, and contribution represents the Korean distinctiveness of Yulgok's Neo-Confucian virtue ethics.

<sup>133</sup> See Chung 1995 (Chapter 5) or 2019a (in Choi and Kim 2019) for details on Yulgok's philosophy of *gi*-transformation and self-cultivation.

134A good question beyond the focus and limited scope of this chapter is to discuss the differences among Yulgok's theory and these contemporary Western theories in a new detailed comparative study. In the coming years, I (Chung) plan to prepare a new book manuscript on Yulgok's Neo-Confucian thought that will likely include such a study (chapter). This will be based on Chung's translation and interpretation of Yulgok's famous philosophical and political essays.

Yulgok strongly advocated political reform actions to bring about economic and cultural benefts to a changing society at large. Chung concludes that the modern spirit of democracy, political responsibility, and social justice remarkably resembles Yulgok's ethical passions for government "for people," "by public opinion," and "people-based policies."135 This is another key reason for recognizing the distinctiveness and contemporary relevance of Yulgok's Korean Neo-Confucian ethics of passions (*jeong*). Chung hopes to have provided a thought-provoking chapter for Korean Neo-Confucianism and the comparative ethics of emotions and, at the same time, to make a worthwhile contribution to the feld of Comparative Philosophy.

Chapter 5 by Don Baker is titled "Jeong Dasan on Emotions and the Pursuit of Sagehood." Jeong Yagyong (Dasan [l.n.]; 1762–1836) is said to have spent much of his life trying to understand the role emotions play in motivating both moral and immoral behavior. This chapter discusses why Dasan "did not limit his investigation of moral psychology to the standard list of Seven Emotions" but also looked at other essential emotions such as "resentment" (*won*/*yuan* 怨) and "apprehension" (*gonggu/ kongju* 恐懼). Dasan concluded that, in order to ensure our emotions direct us to "act appropriately," we need to cultivate an attitude of caution and apprehension. As mentioned in the chapter, this includes one's emotional apprehension of (god) Sangje/Shangdi 上帝, the Lord on High, as well as the moral emotion of empathy for fellow human beings. Grounded in such an attitude, the heart-mind will control and integrate "the inclinations (which Dasan believes constitutes human nature) and emotions which inspire us to act selfessly."

Baker's chapter presents one remarkable aspect of Dasan's Korean ethics by discussing several unconventional emotions that rarely appear in the orthodox Zhu Xi or Seongnihak Neo-Confucian repertoire of emotion (*jeong*/*qing*) talks: resentment (*won*/*yuan*), remorse (regret; 悔 *hoe*/*hui*), suffering/grievance (恨 *han*/*hen*), and resentful suffering (怨恨 *wonhan*/*yuanhen*). Even the sages and wise persons would feel these

135The notion of "Confucian democracy" (S. Kim 2014, 2016) is also relevant here. Another interesting point that emerges out of the focused context of Chap. 4 is to develop a new comparative study that will articulate this part of Yulgok's moral and political thought, especially in terms of Confucian moral-political thinking, human dignity and equality, political justice, modern democracy, and so on. In the coming years, Chung hopes to prepare a full-length book manuscript on Yulgok's life and thought, which will likely include a chapter on this topic.

human emotions, for which reason Dasan discussed them as "signifcant" emotions. Another interesting point discussed in this chapter is that certain emotions and inclinations inspire one's effort to overcome selfshness and act morally. Dasan's phrase "be cautious and apprehensive" is a key teaching of self-cultivation originating in the *Doctrine of the Mean* (*Zhongyong*). Baker quotes an important passage from Dasan:

It is the fear that our misbehavior will be noticed. Noticed by whom? … We are cautious (*gyesin/jieshen* 戒愼) and apprehensive (*gonggu/kongju* 恐 懼) … because we know our sovereign can punish us if we behave improperly. What makes us behave properly even in the privacy of our own room and make sure that even our thoughts are appropriate thoughts? The only reason why a moral person is watchful over his thoughts and behavior even in the privacy of his own room is that he knows that the Lord on High [*Sangje*/*Shangdi*] is watching him.136

The self-cultivation of the Way requires self-control by "being cautious [over what one does not see] and apprehensive [over what one does not hear]."137 It appears that Dasan intended to integrate the *Zhongyong*'s teaching with classical religious belief in Sangje *vis-à-vis* one's moral or immoral thoughts and actions. Does this not mean the religious emotion of fearing Sangje's spiritual (divine) power and judgment?138 Fear is one of the Seven Emotions, so one's apprehension of Sangje certainly resonates with the emotion of fear (worry) belonging to the general Confucian list of the Seven Emotions.139

<sup>136</sup> Jeong 2012: II, 3: 4b–5a (6, 232–233).

137This teaching was also frequently quoted by the leading Neo-Confucians such as Zhu Xi, Wang Yangming, Toegye, and others.

138We make this interesting point here from a religious standpoint of Shangdi and early Confucianism, although Baker does not mention it in this chapter partly due to its limited scope.

139Another further question beyond the focus and scope of this chapter is about any possible infuence of Catholic Christian beliefs on Dasan's talk of the apprehensive fear of Sangje's anthropomorphic and transcendent power in an emotive yet religious way. This question is interesting from a comparative religious standpoint. It is historically true that while interacting with early Catholic missionaries from Europe and their Korean Christian converts, including his older brother and his friends during the late eighteenth century, Dasan became familiar with Christian doctrines, including faith in heavenly God as the supreme being (lord). In other words, it would be more interesting to know if Dasan's talk of religious fear of the Heavenly Lord (Shangje) was directly or indirectly infuenced by the Christian fear of God as the divine watcher, judger, or punisher. Dasan himself did not for-

According to this chapter, another emotion Dasan passionately discussed is desire (*yok*/*yu* 欲): all human beings desire to feel good and have the desire for that which is good. For Dasan, those who desire to follow the moral good will "live a righteous life" by "acting appropriately" [morally] in private as well as in public.140 Dasan likely did not confrm either desire as one of the Seven Emotions or the mainstream Neo-Confucian view that the desire is a potentially "precarious" [selfsh] emotion that should be suppressed. However, unlike other Neo-Confucians, including Toegye, Dasan strongly affrmed desire as a positive and engaging emotion that can contribute to the Confucian way of self-cultivation.

#### *1.4.2 Comparative Korean Confucian Perspectives*

The second part of the book presents three interesting chapters in order to enrich our comparative discussion of key Korean Confucian doctrines and views of emotions. This is to be done from our three contributors' comparative ethical, political, or social perspectives. Many essential aspects of the Korean Confucian perspectives that we have presented in the foregoing sections also apply more or less to all three chapters of Part II of this book. These three specialized chapters are organized as follows, and their abstracts and our comments are discussed below.

In summary, Harroff's Chap. 6 presents the Four-Seven debate while assimilating this topic with some aspects of Western philosophy. From a comparative moral-political angle, Lee's Chap. 7 discusses *jeong* (emotions) as "a core political notion" that ethically and politically infuenced the development of "Confucian democracy" and "public culture of civility" in South Korea. Iljoon Park's Chap. 7 will be treated separately along with Jea Sophia Oh's Chap. 12 (fnal chapter) of Part III because their shared views of Korean *jeong* (情; emotions)" and *han* (恨; resentment/ suffering) from contemporary Confucian, social, or related angles.

mally or directly testify so in any of his writings, partly due to his own fear of being persecuted by the Joseon dynasty that politically oppressed and religiously prohibited Catholic missions and converts. Nonetheless, the current Korean and Western literature on Dasan's life and thought basically confrms the subtle theistic dimension of Dasan's thought as something that not only relates to the religious dimension of early Confucianism but also was likely infuenced by his early private study of Catholic Christianity (known as *seohak* 西學 [literally Western learning]) or his basic familiarity with its theistic moral beliefs.

<sup>140</sup> Jeong 2012: II, 2: 170 (6, 219–220).

### *1.4.2.1 An Introduction to Part II, Chaps. 6 and 7: Comparative Confucian Perspectives*

Chapter 6 by Joseph E. Harroff is titled "Thinking Through the Emotions with Korean Confucianism: Philosophical Translation and the Four-Seven Debate." It attempts to articulate a method for engaging in responsible cross-cultural comparative philosophy via what Harroff calls "translingual practice and hermeneutically transformative re-description." Emotional experience and embodied moral subjectivity are said to be engaged via this method in the context of the Four-Seven debate. Harroff wants to render "foregrounding uncommon assumptions and remaining hermeneutically open to translational in-betweeness," while arguing for some fruitful ground for more philosophical research regarding the uniqueness of Korean Neo-Confucian thinking through emotions and embodied ethical cultivation. Considering Yi Toegye on the importance of "reverent attention" (*gyeong*/*jing* 敬) as cultivated *habitus*, "the importance of somaesthetic culture" generally in transforming "sedimented structures of emotions in order to become more inclusive and appreciative of diverse values is appealed to in a cosmopolitan horizon as a source of melioristic hope and creative intelligence."

After a detailed introduction, the second section of this chapter covers "*Ars Contextualis* as philosophical translation," the third section discusses "the Four-Seven debate as translingual practice," and the fnal section gives some comparative conclusion. Only the Toegye-Gobong part of the Four-Seven debate is highlighted in terms of "the dual or non-dual nature of *i* 理 and *gi* 氣." This chapter also confrms the common argument that the Four and the Seven "are all human emotions (*jeong*)." Harroff keenly points out that the debate was about self-cultivation and ethical practice more than metaphysics and abstract epistemology.141 Toegye's idea "reverential attention" (*gyeong*/*jing*) is mentioned as an important aspect of the Toegye-Gobong debate, although it needs further clarifcation.142

<sup>141</sup> In this regard, Harroff concurs with other scholars' works on Toegye's Four-Seven thought; see Kalton (1994), Ivanhoe (2015, 2016), and Chung (1995, 2019b, 2021).

<sup>142</sup> In regard to translating *gyeong*/*jing* (敬) as "reverential attention," Harroff emphasizes the non-dualistic aspect of *gyeong* as "somaesthetically embodied ethical practice" by saying *gyeong* is rather "a transformation of the very kind of ethical subjectivity as an embodied attentional economy that one brings to the act of constituting a world of value." In this regard, Halla Kim calls *gyeong* "reverential seriousness" a *li*-oriented therapy of mind-body and argues that "Toegye stressed the role of *li* in the path to self-cultivation" (Kim 2017: 602). In Choi's Chap. 3, we can read more about the literal, moral, and philosophical nature

Regarding the issue of philosophical translation, Harroff makes an interesting argument that it is important to talk about Freud, Marx, Dewey, and Wittgenstein in "employing a hermeneutics of suspicion regarding dominant epistemologies." A good question beyond the limited scope and length of this chapter is to discuss why or how this kind of hermeneutics applies to the Korean Four-Seven debate on emotions. A worthwhile part of Harroff's discussion is also about the joint work of Ames and Hall on the philosophical translation and glossary problem of Confucian classics and especially the *Zhongyong* (Ames and Hall 2001). This chapter concludes that translingual practice is suitable for discussing the "ethical subjectivity and cosmopolitan universalism" of a "recontextualized" Four Seven debate. The Four-Seven debate makes a "uniquely Korean Neo-Confucian contribution" to Asian and comparative philosophy and (post)modernity.

Chapter 7 by Hyo-Dong Lee presents "*Jeong* (情), Civility, and the Heart of a Pluralistic Democracy in Korea." It seeks to interpret the Confucian concept of emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) as a core political notion of what might be called "Confucian democracy" within the traditional Korean context. This chapter examines the philosophical underpinnings of the Mencian *seongseon*/*xingshan* (性善) thesis (human nature is good) in terms of the Four Beginnings (Sprouts) of virtue (*sadan*/*siduan*), and its potential to support a "Confucian theory of democracy." For reinterpreting the "politicality of the Four Beginnings," this chapter focuses on *jeong*/*qing* emotions as the core notion of Neo-Confucian moral psychology, as a kind of "affectionate and moral solidarity," and as an innate human potential which confers upon us political equality. By understanding *jeong* as a kind of "political and social glue" that holds together diverse groups of Korean people with competing visions of human fourishing, Lee's study attempts to lay the basis for envisioning a thriving "pluralistic democracy" sustained by a public culture of civility in modern Korea.

Following the introductory section, the second section of this chapter presents the Confucian teaching of "*jeong* and the heart-mind: the affective basis of moral equality," which includes some essential points about "empathetic" *jeong* emotions according to the Korean Four-Seven debate

of *gyeong* and its vital role in self-cultivation according to Zhu Xi's and Toegye's virtue ethics of *gyeong*/*jing*. Furthermore, the spiritual and religious signifcance of Toegye's *gyeong* is comprehensively discussed in Chung's recent books on Toegye (2016, 2021) or see his articles Chung 2004 (in Tu and Tucker 2004), 2011.

as well. The third section discusses "from moral equality to political equality: a Confucian theory of civil democracy." Lee makes an important concluding remark that the Korean Confucian form of *jeong* has contributed to moral-political equality and civility.143 For example, the Four Beginnings of virtue—the humane heart of compassion and empathy—intrinsically animate "the moral public culture of a Confucian democracy."

Lee has envisioned this chapter as a political-philosophical discussion of emotions from a Korean Neo-Confucian perspective and hence examined its possible implication for modern politics. It is written as a good theoretical, analytic topic on Confucian emotions and ethics and modern democracy.144 However, an important question beyond the limited focus and scope of this chapter is to discuss the distinctively Korean patterns of interplay between empathetic *jeong*, moral equality, Confucian civility, and political democracy in South Korea today.

### *1.4.2.2 An Introduction to Part II, Chap. 8 and Part III, Chap. 12: Confucianism and Social Emotions:* Jeong*,* Han*,* Heung*, and Women*

The Korean (Confucian) concept of *jeong* closely relates to other common emotions such as *han* (恨; suffering; deep resentment/lamentation) and *heung* (興; exhilaration, utmost joy), both of which are said to be Korean "social emotions." Furthermore, the *jeong* and *han* are also associated with Korean women's experiences in their traditional gender roles according to Confucian-infuenced social norms. The inevitable connection between *han* and *jeong* is also discussed along with other related emotions or concepts such as *heung* in Iljoon Park's Chap. 8 and *uri* (we/our) and *salim* (enlivening/power of life) in Jea Sophia Oh's Chap. 12.

Park seeks to discover some positive, powerful elements of Korean emotions in a contemporary Korean context of socio-cultural *jeong* and *heung*. He argues that the basic message of the Korean Four-Seven debate emphasizes the moral and emotional essence of being genuinely human.

143Lee briefy mentions the uniquely Korean form of *jeong* in relation to Sungmoon Kim's (2014, 2016) discussion of Korean *jeong*, *uri* (our)-responsibility, and political democracy.

144The detailed third section of this chapter carefully analyzes several theorists of Confucian moral politics and modern democracy, including Sungmoon Kim, Joseph Chan, and Edward Shils. Its key words and phrases include "the empathetic heart," moral equality, political authority/equality, Confucian civility/democracy, democratization, and so on. Thus, a good thinking question is also to ask how these political theories specifcally apply or relate to the trends of Confucian infuence on Korean people's *jeong* emotions, moral culture, and political democracy in South Korea.

Korea's social-emotive culture of *han*, *heung*, and *jeong* cannot be separated from this "Confucian understanding" of emotions. Oh addresses a similar theme of *jeong* and *han* from her "Korean-American" standpoint of understanding Korean family life and women's experience. Despite traditional Korea's patriarchal gender roles, Korean women are said to have transcended their emotion of *han* (suffering) and played their leading roles as wise wives and mothers, compassionate caregivers, educators, colleagues, business women, public offcials, and so on.

On a related note, the Korean phenomenon of *han* (resentment) has been studied from several angles: historical, sociological, religious, theological, feminist, and so on. For example, Andrew Sung Park, a Korean theologian of *han*, explained the *han* as the relational consequence of sin that is the pervasive reality of victims' suffering and the scars left from the sins of others who have wronged them (1993).145 Park also argued that the *han* of women, *han* of nature, and *han* of God are all characterized by such embodied emotional trauma. From this liberation theology viewpoint, subordinated groups, *minjung* (the oppressed), and women are said to be depicted as *han*-bearers. In a similar vein, Wonhee Anne Joh, a postcolonial theologian, combined *han* and *jeong* together in formulating her Christological arguments from a Korean-American postcolonial perspective. Joh offered a hybrid Christology of *han* and *jeong* by dealing with native Korean concepts as lived and understood (2006). *Jeong* makes relationships "sticky" (xiv) and is therefore an "adhesive bond" that gives rise to hopefulness in the midst of *han* suffering.146 Examining the

145The thematic title of this book is sophisticated and outside the Confucian context with a liberation theological approach: *The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin*. It is important to note Park's bold approach to deconstruct the traditional Western-oriented theology and to introduce a Korean contextualized theology of *han* (suffering) by comparing the Christian doctrine of sin with Korean *minjung* people's *han* from his comparative process theological perspective. However, it is a limited interpretation of Korean emotions (*jeong*) that only partially tells about the integrated dynamics of *jeong*, *han*, authoritarian society, and moral psychology in the Korean context.

<sup>146</sup> See Joh's *Heart of the Cross: A Postcolonial Christology* (2006), which not only provides postcolonial-liberationist-feminist insights into the area of theology but also achieves its distinctiveness as a narrative theology by using the Korean notion of *jeong* and *han.* Her theological interpretation of *jeong* and *han* is said to appeal to Asian/Korean American women's experience. Since our volume does not include the Korean Christian interpretation of *jeong*, readers may fnd some interest in Joh's postcolonial theological work. Joh's fnal chapter seeks to answer a Christology of *jeong* by comparing it with the Buddhist concept of the noself": "Jesus is awakened to no-self through *jeong*" (2006: 123). Nonetheless, Joh's insights Korean-American experience of *han* and *jeong*, Joh therefore atempted to construct a postcolonial theology of the Cross by suggesting the power of *jeong* as compassion.

In Chap. 8, "Korean Social Emotions: *Han* (한 恨), *Heung* (흥 興), and *Jeong* (정 情)," Park deals with Korean social emotions such as *jeong*, *han* (resentment, suffering)*, heung* (exhilaration, utmost joy), and *musim* (non-attachment, no heart-mind). The South Korean dynamics of emotions through *"*the coupling of *heung* and *han"* or that "of *musim* and *jeong*" is called *pungnyu* (also spelled *poong-ryu*; 풍류 風流), the Korean aesthetic tradition of "enjoying the fow of life and nature." Park argues that *jeong* emotions may serve as a "social interface to optimally exchange personal feelings with others," so that human beings and things achieve an affective way to interact with one another. The *pungnyu* may be an "ideal stabilizer to balance emotional instability" and promote emotional harmony in the contemporary world.

Following a short introduction, the second section of this chapter briefy presents emotions in the Korean Confucian tradition, including the textual and philosophical meanings of emotions (*jeong*) according to the Four-Seven debate as a theoretical background. This provides a good foundation for Park's discussion of Korean social emotions. The third and fourth sections present "dangers of unstable emotions in the internet connected world" and "precarious conditions for social emotions" in Korea by citing some Western scholars and their relevant views. The detailed ffth section discusses social emotions such as *jeong*, *han*, *heung*, *musim*, *miunjeong* (미운정; hateful *jeong*), *wonsugatun jeong* (원수같은 정; "enemylike *jeong*"), and *injeong* (인정 人情; human[e] *jeong*).

The concluding section offers Park's thoughtful comments. For example, the Korean Four-Seven debate motivates us "pay more attention to the emotional and ethical feature of what it means to be truly human" because it teaches that "the core way of being human is the self-cultivation of emotions/feelings, and this insight [possibly] corresponds to the contemporary scientifc understanding of emotions." Park keenly concludes that Korea's emotive-social culture of *han*, *heung*, and *jeong* has become

hardly address profound Confucian infuence on Korean *jeong*; that is, the linguistic, humanistic, moral, and socio-cultural infuence—both positive and negative—of Confucian human relationships, values, bonds, and emotions and feelings (*jeong*).

"a matrix to accept the Confucian understanding of being human."147 During the pandemic world of non-contact culture, the Korean spirit of *pungnyu* and *heung* is "to respect differences among people and to beneft all humans accordingly." Emotions seek to fnd a balance, so Park concludes that we can appreciate "this transformation as an art that shows a harmonized beauty of *han*, *heung*, and *jeong*."

Chapter 12, the second fnal chapter by Jea Sophia Oh, is titled "Emotions (*Jeong* 情) in Korean Confucianism and Family Experience: An Ecofeminist Perspective." It "critically reimagines the dynamics between Korean Confucianism and family life. In doing so Oh rediscovers constructive meanings and functions of emotions (*jeong* 情) as sites of ethical and political transformation. This chapter introduces the Korean concept of *jeong* in relation to the closely related concepts of *uri* (we/us) and *han* (resentments). By examining Korean women's gender roles in their staunchly patriarchal Confucian society of the *Joseon* dynasty (1392–1897) to the present time, it attempts to deconstruct the traditionally prejudicial misogynic images of Korean women who have been mystifed as passive and compliant housewives while at the same time sexually objectifed and fetishized along with other Asian women."148

147Park also makes another interesting concluding remark: "the emotion of *heung* is associated with Confucian *rak* (락 樂; joy) and *hui*/*xi* (희 喜; happiness, pleasure), two of the Seven Emotions, and *han* closely relates to Confucian *ae*/*ai* (애 哀; sorrow, grief), another example of the Seven." However, the question is whether this makes the emotions of *han* and *heung* more Confucianized or more Korean. This relevant point needs further research and discussion in terms of the dynamic interplay between the social emotions of *han* and *heung* and the Confucian ethical and psychological culture of emotions in today's Korea.

148As Oh carefully points out in this chapter, "feminist philosophers in the East and West tend to be anti-Confucian and to criticize Confucianism as a primary instigator that legitimizes women's oppression." Although historically bound up with oppressive practices in some societies, Confucian philosophy is not inherently sexist. Thus, feminist critics of Confucianism and Confucian societies must do further researches to clearly justify or explain what specifcally the *politicized* criticism (or tradition) of Confucian "misogynic" patriarchy has to do with the essential Confucian teaching and practice of "fve human relationships" or its ethics and education of moral emotions such as the Four Beginnings as well as love (*ae*/*ai* 愛) [one of the Seven Emotions], including reciprocal compassion or affection, conjugal intimacy, and *yin*-and-*yang* gender harmony. For this topic on Confucianism and women in modern Korea and especially women's enormous contributions to family, education, social ethics, and economic development, see Chung 1994, 2015 (chapter 8: "Korean Women and Confucian Values: Change and Assimilation"). See also Kim and Pettid, eds. *Women and Confucianism in Choson Korea* (2012). From Chinese Confucian feminist perspective, Robin R. Wang wrote a constructive scholarly work to discover the egalitarian origin of gender:

On the other hand, Oh keenly "recognizes Korean women's leading roles in traditional Confucian families as advisors, educators, and caregivers." "Korean women have been recognized as icons of the uniquely Korean feelings of *jeong* and *han*. Unlike general assumptions that Korean society has been described as essentially an extreme form of patriarchy, Korean women's role in the Confucian family can be predominant and perhaps even more integrally powerful than the role typically proscribed for women in the liberal Western family." This chapter "analyzes multiple degrees of *jeong* as consisting of more than just essentially genderized emotions, but more importantly as being composed of transformative affects that elicit compassion and care with and for others despite its inherent potential for destructiveness and oppression. Korean women have thrived through *han* by dealing with *salim* (enlivening) as the subject of *life.* Oh's ecofamilial extension of *jeong* broadens the horizon of care and compassion to our planetary living with more than humans beyond any reductionistically biological ties grounded in anthropocentrism."

An interesting question emerges out of Oh's chapter for our further consideration beyond the focus and scope of this chapter. What is unique or distinctively "Korean" about this historical, ethical, and/or social pattern of emotions, Korean Confucianism, family, and women?149 It appears that the Korean-ness of *jeong* or the Korean distinctiveness of *jeong* and women has something to do with the traditional Korean context of *uri* (we or our) relationship and interaction, *han* emotive culture, and *salim* "enlivening." In fact, the uniqueness of *han* (resentment, suffering) and *jeong* is also more or less confrmed by Park's Chap. 9 in relation to the emotive Korean spirit of *pungnyu and heung* as well as by Baker's Chap. 5 in terms of Dasan's unique Confucian discussion of *wonmang* (resentment, lamentation) and *han*. The distinctiveness of Korean *jeong* and its

*Yinyang: The Way of Heaven and Earth in Chinese Thought and Culture* (2012), and Ann A. Pang-White excavated Confucian empowerment of women in her book *The Confucian Four Books for Women: A New Translation of the Nü Sishu and the Commentary of Wang Xiang* (2018).

<sup>149</sup> In Chap. 12, the phrases "Korean women and gender roles" and "Korean society" are frequently mentioned for criticizing the misogynic practice of Korean Confucian society at the same time while discovering the positive and constructive aspects of Korean women in their Confucian family and society. In this regard, a related question or topic for further discussion in another research project is the distinctiveness of the Korean case in comparison with the Chinese (or Japanese) tradition that went through the similar historical, institutional, or social patterns of the past.

diversity and dynamics will be discussed further in our concluding Chap. 13.

#### *1.4.3 Korean Buddhist and Contemporary Perspectives*

#### *Wonhyo and Jinul on Emotions and Emotional Control*

The Buddha's teaching, Indian Mahāyāna, and Chinese Buddhism generally infuenced key Korean Buddhist doctrines and ethics of the mind and emotions and therefore contributed to the contemporary Korean Buddhist notion of *jeong* emotions morally and religiously.

Wonhyo 元曉 (617–686) and Jinul 知訥 (1158–1210) were the two most eminent Buddhist masters in Korea.150 Korean Buddhism is infuenced by Wonhyo's great works on Mahāyāna scriptures and especially the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* (Treatise *on the foundation for yoga practitioners*) and *Avatamsaka Sūtra* (Flower Garland sūtra). Hwaeom (Huayan) Buddhism emphasizes its central doctrine of the "interdependence" and "interpenetration" of all beings, things, and phenomena in the universe. Similarly, Wonhyo highlighted the teaching of "all-in-one, one-in-all" through its image of a net of jewels refecting one another. He reformed Buddhism to be more open to the common people and lived the life of a secular monk, emphasizing the need to harmonize spiritual ideals with the realities of everyday life. According to Wonhyo's central teaching, original human nature is the Buddhanature (*bulseong*/*foxing* 佛性) as one heartmind (*ilsim*/*yixin* 一心). Chapter 9 by Hyekyung Lucy Jee articulates that Wonhyo's *ilsim* doctrine provides a Buddhist philosophical foundation for understanding Korean *jeong* emotions.

Jinul, another prominent fgure in Korean Buddhism, successfully reformed Buddhism by refocusing on Seon (Zen) meditation and by providing its doctrinal foundation from the scriptures. He taught that the cultivation of one's mind is what will bring enlightenment. As Huineng, the greatest mater of Chinese Chan, said, enlightenment could be found by looking inwardly and directly into one's self-nature. A sudden enlightenment cannot be sustained unless all unwholesome thoughts and habits are eliminated. Like a newborn baby, the enlightened mind is born with all of the tools and capabilities it needs but also has to cultivate them

<sup>150</sup>For the life and thought of Wonhyo, see Muller and Nguyen (2012) and Buswell (2007). For Jinul as well, see Buswell (1991).

(Addiss et al. 2008: 138). For Jinul, then, one must apply this insight to cultivating a lifestyle that is aligned with the Seon Buddhist standards and similar to the Confucian teaching of self-cultivation.

Wonhyo's major work *Ijang eui* 二障義 (*Doctrine of the two hindrances*) occasionally criticizes the "affictive hindrances within the three [karmic moral] qualities" and explains the moral problem of emotions: "The greed, hatred, delusion, and so forth … are all of unwholesome quality."151 In discussing Wonhyo's philosophy and spirituality of mind, Charles A. Muller points out that the *Śrīmālā-sūtra* (Sūtra of Queen Śrīmālā), a key Mahāyāna text, lists "the entrenchment of emotion toward objects in the desire" as one of the four entrenchments. The Buddhist notion of "four entrenchments" is taught in other *Tathāgatagarbha* (Embryo of the Buddha) Mahāyāna scriptures (Muller and Nguyen 2012: 59). The basic nature of particular emotions such as desire, craving, anger, and pride is therefore condemned for causing continuous suffering.

For Wonhyo, one of the two hindrances that are mentioned in Mahāyāna scriptures is the affictive hindrances (*kleśa-āvarana*), according to which suffering is caused by certain phenomena that delude the mind to see things untruly. These affictions (*kleśa*) are believed to involve all mental activities associated with nescience, delusion, anxiety, and so forth. The term *kleśa* also means pain, trouble, or deflement. The so-called six affictions (*upakleśa*) are craving, anger, ignorance, pride, doubt, and wrong views (Buswell 2007: 367).

Wonhyo quotes his favorite Mahāyāna scripture, *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* (Treatise on the foundation for yoga practitioners)152 as follows:

Each of [the ten derivative affictions of] anger, enmity, hypocrisy, vexation, jealousy, parsimony, deceit, guile, conceit, and hostility arises separately in unwholesome states of mind … these ten are all limited in their function to the desire realm …. This summarizes the characteristics of the affictive hindrances.153

<sup>151</sup> *Ijang eui* 2: 1.2.1.2; Muller and Nguyen (2012: 78).

152Wonhyo liked Yogācāra Mahāyāna and especially the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, a scripture that he frequently quoted in his commentaries. For him, it was considered as the most important source for the Buddhist philosophy and psychology of the mind and emotions. The *Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith* also infuenced Wonhyo's Buddhist philosophy. For this topic, see Muller and Nguyen (2012).

<sup>153</sup> *Ijang eui* 2: 1.2.1.2; Muller and Nguyen 2012: 80.

Wonhyo continues to articulate: "The confusions in regard to the Truth of Suffering within the desire realm include the ten affictions …. Eliminated in the Path of Cultivation are the anger of the desire realm and the three affictions of greed, pride, and nescience in all three realms."154 Certain examples of these affictions are, therefore, the harmful (unwholesome) emotions of anger, desire, greed, and pride that must be eliminated in "the [Buddhist] path of cultivation."

*Geumgang sammaegyeong non* 金剛三昧經論 (Exposition of the *Vajrasamādhi-sūtra*)155 is another major work by Wonhyo. In this text, however, Wonhyo occasionally talks about specifc emotions. When he does, he repudiates certain emotions that hinder contemplative practice. For example, he explains the affictions of the mind as follows:

The mind that is startled is not at rest … "[This panting] is driven both internally and externally": the four drivers … have the sense of a personal self as their internal conditions; the six drivers of the mind-consciousness [that is, the *upakleśa* (six affictions) of craving, anger, ignorance, pride, doubt, and wrong views] have sense-objects as their external conditions. "[The affictions] fow along and form, following those drivers". (Buswell 2007: 194, 367)

Here Wonhyo highlights several afficting emotions: craving, anger, pride, and enmity (hatred) in particular. This is what he said in his *Ijang eui* as well: various affictions of the mind are caused by these unwholesome emotions and passions. In discussing "entrenchments" and "the entrenchments of emotion," Wonhyo also writes: "the emotive attachments are … included in the category of emotive mental functions. Therefore, they are also known as the entrenchments of the emotive category."156 Wonhyo basically means that these emotive attachments are "deluded" mental activities. Unwholesome emotions such as craving, anger, greed, hatred, jealousy, and pride therefore cause harmful affictions (*kleśa*), so one has to eliminate them in one's path of moral-spiritual cultivation.

In his *Susim gyeol* 修心訣 (*Secrets on cultivating the mind*), an infuential introduction to Korean Seon (Zen) practice, Jinul rarely discusses the problem of emotions or emotive attachments. He briefy mentions feelings (*jeong*) in relation to *deflements* and emotional suppression (Buswell

<sup>154</sup> *Ijang eui* 4: 2; Muller and Nguyen 2012: 107.

<sup>155</sup>An annotated English translation of this text with an introduction is Buswell (2007).

<sup>156</sup> *Ijang eui* 4: 6; Muller and Nguyen 2012: 114.

1991: 111). However, in his another major writing, *Jinsim jikseol* 眞心直 說 (Straight talks on the true mind), Jinul specifcally discusses the problem of emotions by pointing out that "the deluded mind" creates poisonous emotions such as "greed" and "hatred" and thus the affictions of the self. He writes:

When the deluded mind is in contact with the sense-spheres it knows through discriminative awareness: it gives rise to greedy or hateful states of mind depending on whether pleasant or unpleasant objects are present. . . . Since the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion are produced because of these objects, it is easy to see that the mind is deluded. (Buswell 1991: 138)

By contrast, "the true mind" (*jinsim*/*zhenxin* 眞心) is "impartial, quiet, and utterly radiant" and "since it does not give rise to [afficting] feelings of hatred or lust, it is different from the deluded mind." The true mind is "neither hateful nor lustful" (Buswell 1991: 135).

The practical meaning of Jinul's and Wonhyo's teachings is that the Korean Buddhist way of enlightenment is to be detached from and eliminate all unwholesome ("poisonous") emotions, passions, and desires, conquer the "deluded (impure) mind," and cultivate and then discover the enlightened self (buddha-nature). These "unwholesome" types of emotions are discussed by Chinul and Wonhyo in the traditional Buddhist context. Nonetheless, it is quite relevant to note that the Korean Buddhist teaching and practice of suppressing and eliminating these negative [selfish or potentially harmful] emotions is compatible with—or at least does not contradict—the Confucian way of emotional control and self-cultivation.

 Korean Buddhist monks are required to make a "departure" known as *chulga* (출가 出家). This Korean word literally denotes leaving one's family according the Confucian tradition. Some possible confict between Buddhist *monastic* practices and Confucian *family* values can exist; nonetheless, the act of *chulga* actually emphasizes Buddhist "detachment," the practice of *danjeong* 斷情or "cutting off" (eliminating) one's mundane attachments. This central teaching in Korean *Seon* Buddhism means "no thought" (*munyeom*/*wunian* 無念) and signifes the state of being "unstained" (*buran*/*bulyeom* 不染). It is to transcend one's selfsh thoughts, desires, and emotions so that one is no longer *deluded* by them. However, the great departure in the Mahāyāna context is neither a *completely* ascetic denial of reality nor a radically reactionary renunciation from the world. It is rather to realize the buddha-nature as the enlightened self by "emptying" selfshness and detaching oneself from worldly cravings and affictions in the endless cycle of suffering.

### *1.4.3.2 Great Compassion and Joy*

As a leading Korean Mahāyānist, Wonhyo liked the bodhisattva ideal of universal enlightenment, for which reason he highlighted the bodhisattvic emotion and virtue of "great compassion." For example, his *Geumgang sammaegyeong non* states that "the joint practice of concentration and wisdom" cannot be completed without compassion and

the cultivation of great compassion … inspires both oneself and others …. This is because, if one cultivates *samādhi* and wisdom directly but is devoid of great compassion, one will fall into the stage of two-vehicle adherents and fnd the bodhisattva path blocked. (Buswell 2007: 253–254)

Unlike the *Ijang eui*—which focuses on the Yogācāra school's interpretation of the mind, emotions, and affictive hindrances—Wonhyo's *Geumgang sammaegyeong non* emphasizes the cultivation and practice of "great compassion" as the most important moral-spiritual emotion for the bodhisattva path of Mahāyāna universal salvation. For Wonhyo, then, wisdom may be gained through meditation but enlightenment is to be found in the practice of compassion. Great compassion as a supreme moral virtue enriches one's wisdom and *inspires* one's holistic realization of the interconnectedness and interdependency of all beings and phenomena in light of the Buddha's universal teaching as well.

Jinul's *Jinsim jikseol* also emphasizes the practice of stopping "the deluded mind" and realizing "the true mind" as "the mind of great compassion":

The dust is deflement; the force of the polishing hand is the practice of no mind …. As it is said in the *Awakening of Faith*: "… the mind of great compassion … aims to establish the sufferings of all sentient beings." According to this explanation, bringing the deluded mind to rest is the primary practice and cultivating all wholesome dharmas is the secondary aid. (Buswell 1991: 135)

Note that like Wonhyo, Jinul emphasizes the bodhisattvic heart-mind (*sim* 心) of "great compassion" for the Korean Mahāyāna ideal of universal enlightenment for "all sentient being." The practice of "great compassion" is therefore the essential virtuous emotion for all.

Jin Y. Park points out that according to Korean Buddhist ethics, the noumenal requires wisdom, but to understand the phenomenal, one must cultivate "compassion" (2008: 219). In other words, compassion is the bodhisattvic recognition and practice of moral-spiritual love for others. The Latin etymology of the term "compassion" literally means "feeling with [others]." In accordance with the bodhisattva path of Mahāyāna and Chinese Buddhism, compassion in Korean Buddhism is also a selftranscending *jeong* to transform the world. In this regard, Sharon Suh's Chap. 11 makes some interesting point about bodhisattvic compassion and "interrelationality."

We are talking about the moral-spiritual emotion of compassion *jeong* in the Buddhist context. By removing selfshness, the heart-mind is flled with compassionate love and the individual self becomes an extensively interconnected self as "we" (K. *uri* 우리). Under Confucian infuence as well, Buddhist compassion is a shared *jeong* among and beyond Korean Buddhists. It heals *han* suffering and brings about utmost joy.

As Wonhyo and Jinul taught, *jeong* emotions can be poisons when defned by selfsh clinging and attachment. Emotional life can be turned into anger, greed, hatred, ignorance, or delusion. However, *jeong* can also be transformed and made sublime as the bodhisattva's selfess compassionate and caring responsiveness heals not only the self but also others in an entirely *enlightened* community with the *transcendent* power of life. Furthermore, this also points to the spiritual, religious signifcance of bodhisattvic compassion in Mahāyāna Buddhism and the mainstream Korean Buddhist tradition.

### *1.4.3.3 An Introduction to Part III, Chaps. 9 –11 : Emotions in Won Buddhism, Modern Buddhism, and Korean Buddhist Cinema*

Part III of this book contains three chapters on emotions according to Korean Buddhism. These chapters are more interested in the contemporary Buddhist notion of *jeong* emotions by focusing on the idea of "one heart-mind" (*hanmaeum*) in the famous monk Wonhyo and the twentiethcentury nun Daeaeng (Jee's Chap. 9), the Won Buddhist teaching and practice of "resentment and gratitude" (Ha's Chap. 10), and "*jeong* and interrelationality "in modern Korean Buddhist cinema (Suh's Chap. 11).

Chapters 9–11 of this book endeavor to present this contemporary and socially engaging Buddhist theme as well as its implications for Buddhist self-realization, the interconnected self, and the transformative dynamics of *jeong* in Korean society and beyond.

In Chap. 9, "*Hanmaeum* (One Mind): A Korean Buddhist Philosophical Basis of *Jeong* Emotion (情)," Hyekyung Lucy Jee introduces Wonhyo's notion of "one heart-mind" (*ilsim* 일심 一心) and compares it with Daehaeng's (1927–2012) teaching of *hanmaeum* (한마음), an indigenous Korean word for "one heart-mind." Jee emphasizes that the Buddhist philosophical concept of "interconnectedness" can best be understood through the combination of *jeong* and *hanmaeum*. This is how Korean Buddhists share their *jeong* together. This chapter articulates that the concept of *hanmaeum* can provide a "Buddhist foundation of *jeong*." The non-dualistic notion of one heart-mind may indeed be the greater self extended to others according to Daehaeng's doctrine of *juingong* (주인공 主人空; emptied self or *sūnyatā* of the self). In cultivating and practicing *hanmaeum* and *juingong*, *jeong* is a crucial element as well as a collective power in the practice of sharing activities.

The frst section of this chapter deals with the basic notion of *jeong* according to some Korean psychological and Korean-American psychiatric works. It includes a detailed discussion of popular Korean words such as *jeong*, *miunjeong* (미운정; bad *jeong* or *jeong* from hatred), *gounjeong* (고 운정; good *jeong* or *jeong* with love), *mujeong* (무정 無情; no *jeong or* heartlessness), and *uri* (우리; we or our) "we-ness" and "we-ism." The second section presents a long list of *jeong*-related Korean words by relating it to Confucianism, thereby seeking a meaningful connection between the Korean idea of *hanmaeum* (one heart-mind) and the Confucian language and ethics of *jeong* emotions. The third section represents the focus of this chapter, gives a detailed discussion of Daehaeng's doctrine of *hanmaeum*, 157 and briefy mentions Wonhyo's teaching of *ilsim*. 158

157A good question beyond the focus and scope of this chapter is to ask what Deahaeng meant by *hanmaeum* specifcally in terms of *jeong* or whether she made any comments on *jeong* in the (Mahāyāna) Buddhist context of emotions, desires, attachments, affictions, and so on. This might possibly be a good research topic in the future.

<sup>158</sup> It would be helpful to articulate Wonhyo's notion of *ilsim* (one mind; enlightened mind) further in close relation to his ethics and spirituality of emotions (*jeong*). Accordingly, editor Chung adds a supplementary point that regarding mind cultivation and self-control, Wonhyo rigorously discussed "affictions" (*kleśa*) and "the entrenchment of emotions (*jeong*)" and repudiated the psychological and moral problem of "unwholesome" [bad] emotions—such as craving, anger, greed, hatred, pride, and so on—for causing *continuous* suffering. This discussion appears in Wonhyo's two leading works: *Ijang eui* (*Doctrine of the two hindrances*), a detailed commentary on the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* and other Mahāyāna

Jee makes a thoughtful point that *jeong*, "a moral, social, and cultural emotion of the Korean people," is strongly associated with the Korean Confucian notion of *uri* we-ness (our-ism), which concurs with Daehaeng's *hanmaeum* and Wonhyo's *ilsim* as well. Jee concludes that this Buddhist understanding of *ilsim* and *hanmaeum* supports the Korean culture of *jeong* in order to overcome the problems of our interconnected world and promote the present and future wellbeing of Korean and global society.

Chapter 10 by Chung Nam Ha is titled "Resentment and Gratitude in Won Buddhism." It presents the Won Buddhist ethics and spirituality of "resentment" (*wonmang* 원망) and "gratitude" (*gamsasim* 감사심). This chapter starts with the Won founder Sotaesan's teaching that the emotion of resentment is "the cause of all human suffering," individual and collective, and discusses why its religious ethics teaches the "removal of resentment" by practicing the virtuous emotion of gratitude through "benefcent requital." Ha explains how Sotaesan's doctrine of gratitude embodies a soteriological solution to heal suffering. Sotaesan strongly endorsed the Confucian teaching and practice of virtuous emotions such as benevolence. Ha also envisions that the Won Buddhist practice of gratitude can heal the illness of the world. She concludes that it can provide a possibly universal foundation of morality for the mutual beneft of the entire world. Specifcally, the frst section of this chapter introduces the emotion of resentment as "the main cause of discord and troubles."

As Sotaesan said, "money illness" and "illness of resentment" are the most serious moral evil. The second section makes a thoughtful point that Sotaesan appreciated the Confucian moral-social teaching of benevolence (*in*/*ren*) and righteousness. Ha points out that Sotaesan's teaching also concurs with the original Buddhist doctrines of "three poisonous minds" (greed, anger*,* delusion) and "two hindrances." Craving and resentment are caused by delusion or ignorance and represent the so-called affictive (emotional) hindrance.159

texts, and *Geumgang sammaegyeong non* (Exposition of the *Vajrasamādhi-sūtra*). For more details on this topic, see Sect. 1.4.3.1 of this chapter: the editors' introduction to Wonhyo and Jinul on emotions and emotional control. Furthermore, the reader is also invited to relate this topic to the Korean Won Buddhist teaching of "resentment" and "gratitude," as presented by Ha in Chap. 10.

159Resentment is an emotion as affrmed in this chapter. However, the question for our further refection is how it pertains to the general nature and role of *jeong*. Resentment is said to be caused by mental delusion (pollution) and *kleśa* (affiction), so bad (unwholesome) resentment causes unjustifed blaming ("fnd fault with others") or hatred (a related emotion). However, is resentment always a bad emotion? Not always; it depends on *why* resent The third section discusses "how to recover moral sensitivity and friendliness." Proper moral actions should follow Sotaesan's teaching of "fourfold benefcence." The fourth section focuses on the life of gratitude and Won faith. This chapter thoughtfully concludes that Confucianism deeply inspired Won Buddhist ethical teaching, insofar Sotaesan emphasized the convergence between Confucianism and Buddhism and that Won Buddhism offers a moral foundation for universal wellbeing by transforming "the life of resentment" into "the life of gratitude."

There are two interesting questions for our further consideration beyond the limited scope and length of this chapter. Sotaesan's doctrine of resentment and gratitude is Buddhist and integrated with classical Confucian moral teaching. The frst question is how the Won Buddhist practice of gratitude as a virtuous emotion relates to the supreme Mahāyāna compassion that both Wonhyo and Jinul emphasized.160 It seems that to express gratitude is a way of being grateful or compassionate to others. Accordingly, the related second question is: What makes the Won Buddhist way of gratitude distinctively Korean? The Korean-ness of Sotaesan's teaching has something to do with the traditional Korean notion of resentment as *han or wonmang*—which is also more or less indicated in Chaps. 5, 8, and 12 by Baker, Park, and Oh, respectively. Similarly, the Won Buddhist practice of gratitude arguably concurs with the common historical and religious trend of Korean religion and philosophy that emphasizes the actual holistic practice of faith or spiritual teaching over abstract thinking or theoretical argumentation.161

In Chap. 11, "*Jeong* and the Interrelationality of Self and Other in Korean Buddhist Cinema," Sharon Suh discusses the role of *jeong* in

or what kind of resentment. For example, someone's wholesome (good) resentment may well be a moral passion (concern) for justice or respect when this suffering of resentment is caused by another person's immoral or wrong action. In other words, this would be the moral emotion of "justifed" resentment (or anger) or we call it moral indignation. As mentioned earlier in Sects. 1.1.1 and 1.1.4 of this introductory chapter, justice is a moral emotion of discerning right and wrong.

<sup>160</sup> It seems that Sotaesan did not specifcally talk about "great compassion," the most important Mahāyāna virtue and emotion, insofar as it is not mentioned in this chapter.

<sup>161</sup> In this regard, one's practice and experience of spiritual teaching is a unique and important feature of Korean religion and philosophy as a whole, regardless Confucianism, Buddhism, shamanism, or Christianity. For this theme of Korean religion and thought, see Buswell's edited *Religions of Korea in Practice* (2006); see also Buswell 1992 (a book about his experience of Zen monasticism in Korea) and Chung 2016, 2021 (a new book on Toegye's moral-religious Neo-Confucian thought).

Korean Buddhist flms to explore the Mahāyāna premise that "ultimate freedom (*nirvāṇa*) is not to be found in an escape from the world of suffering (*saṃsāra*), but rather in its compassionate embrace." Focusing on Im Kwon-taek's flm *Aje Aje Bara Aje* (아제 아제 바라 아제 [Come, Come, Come Upward]), this chapter argues that *jeong*/*qing* (정 情; affection) fused spiritual kinship facilitates "the Buddhist disciple's recognition and embrace of the abject as none other than the self." Suh frst relies signifcantly on a post-colonial Christian theological interpretation of *jeong* and then explores Im's flm about "Buddhism's responsiveness to the embodied suffering of *han* (resentment) through the affective dimensions of *jeong* and Buddhist compassion." The chapter also suggests "*jeong* as an ethical response to the other that fnds striking resonance with the Buddhist teaching of emptiness and interdependence."

 Following an introduction, the second section assimilates "the expression of *jeong* in Korean Buddhist flms" with W. Anne Joh's postcolonial *theological* (Christological) analysis of Korean *jeong* as "stickiness," "affection," "affective … relatedness," and "deeper adhering" (Joh 2006, 2007, 2011)162 as well as with the Korean notion of monastic life as a new "dharma family." The detailed third section is titled "A Buddhism for the People—*Aje Aje Bara Ajei*." It is an interesting story-telling analysis of two young nuns' experiences and especially Sun Nyeo's "*han*-flled suffering," "grief," and "somatic compassion" in dealing with her men outside her monastery. The next section discusses "Buddhism, *han*, and *jeong*" by covering Korean Buddhist ability to manage *han* vis-à-vis Sun Nyeo's "bodhisattvic compassion." It also affrms her *jeong* as an "affection," "empathy," "adhesive bond," and "relational attachment." *Jeong* is "a relationality that has the power to transform relationships and fnds striking resonance with the Buddhist concepts of emptiness and interdependence." Suh thoughtfully concludes that *jeong* is "Confucian in origin" but "not a discrete emotion that runs parallel to the Buddhist ethic of compassion."

For our further discussion, three engaging, related questions emerge out of this chapter within or beyond its intended focus and scope. The notion of "somatic compassion" is repeatedly mentioned in describing Sun Nyeo's experience of "*han*" and "grief." The question is whether the deeper meaning of the Korean nun's experience is not merely a form of somatic compassion but, more likely (signifcantly), her selfess and

<sup>162</sup>For details on Joh's analysis of this topic, see Suh's Chap. 11.

self-sacrifcing compassion on a spiritual and religious level. This supreme compassion represents the key Mahāyāna vow of *karuṇā* with its spiritual and religious faith. Suh's chapter mentions the Mahāyāna teaching of *karuna*163 as "bodhisattvic compassion" briefy (in the third and fourth sections); therefore, we can ideally elaborate this key point further with its scriptural support by citing some primary Buddhist sources.164 In this introductory chapter,165 the reader will therefore fnd the editors' discussion of Mahāyāna and Chinese and Korean texts on the bodhisattva's "great compassion" and "joy."

Dealing with Sun Nyeo's *han* suffering and grief in relation to *jeong* emotions, we need to think of this following question for further refection: Is the Korean nun's experience compatible with the term *jeong/qing* (情) as discussed in relevant Buddhist scriptures? As this introductory chapter and many chapters of this book indicate, *jeong* or Korean *jeong* as a whole is not necessarily positive (good) emotions. As far as the entire Buddhist tradition is concerned, *jeong* emotions, except boddhisattvic compassion and utmost joy, are mostly negative in relation to selfsh attachment and craving unless they are overcome and transformed into "compassion": Theravada, Mahāyāna, and Chinese and Korean texts strongly repudiate most emotions as "unwholesome," including desire (craving), suffering, grief, anger, greed, fear, hatred, passion, pride, jealousy, attachment, and on.166 Chapter 10 by Ha mentions some of these examples according to Theravada. In fact, the word *jeong* occasionally

<sup>163</sup> It might also be more interesting to relate the scriptural doctrine of *karuna* compassion to the six *pāramitās* (virtues) or ten perfections of being a bodhisattva, especially generosity, patience, and loving-kindness that seem to resonate with the Korean nun's moral dilemma and religious experience. Regarding philosophical research on Korean Buddhist nuns' life, Jin Y. Park's *Women and Buddhist Philosophy: Engaging Zen Master Kim Iryop* (2017) articulates Korean Buddhist nuns' *karma* in relation to contemporary issues in the particularly Korean Buddhist context of practices. This is discussed in a comparative philosophical and dialogical way.

164Chung supplements this point by providing the following examples: Mahāyāna scriptures such as the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā*; *Tathāgataguhya S*ū*tra*; *Śikṣāsamuccaya* [Compendium of doctrine]; *Lotus Sūtra*; Chinese commentaries on the *Lotus Sūtra* or *Pure Land Scripture*; and leading Korean texts written by Wonhyo and Jinul, such as the former's *Ijang eui* and *Geumgang sammaegyeong non* and the latter's *Jinsim jikseol*.

165For example, see Sects. 1.3.2 (Indian Mahāyāna Perspectives), 1.3.3 (Chinese and Korean Mahāyāna Perspectives), and 1.4.3.1 (Wonhyo and Jinul on Emotions and Emotional Control).

166For details on this point, see the editors' discussion in all parts of Sect. 1.3 (Emotions in the Buddhist Tradition) of this introductory chapter.

appears along with these examples of emotions in leading Korean Buddhist texts compiled by Wonhyo and Jinul (see Sects. 1.3.3 and 1.4.3.1).167

The end of Chap. 11 briefy comments that, although Korean *jeong* is "Confucian in origin," it compatibly works with the Buddhist doctrine of compassion. It would be more engaging to elaborate this interesting point further. Throughout the history of Buddhism in Korea, the nature of Korean *jeong* gradually accommodated the Mahāyāna teaching of compassion and interdependence that continues to inspire contemporary Korean Buddhists. The Korean Buddhist notion of monastic life as a "dharma family" or family bond also accords with the Confucian tradition of family life and group relationships. Suh's "socially engaged Mahāyāna" approach and Joh's Asian or "postcolonial" theological theorization of *jeong* emotion as "affection," "empathy," "adhesive bond," and "relational dependence" remarkably echo the Korean *Confucian*-based talk of human values, relationships, and bonds in terms of universal benevolence (humanheartedness; *in*), sympathy (compassion) and moral *jeong*, affective heartmind (*sim* 心), emotional bond/intimacy, and reciprocal respect/role in traditional and contemporary Korea. This echoing therefore confrms the humanistic, moral, and social context of Korean *jeong* expression and experience, thereby pointing to holistic Confucian infuence on Korea's moral language, humanistic culture, and social and psychological interdependency. This point is discussed further in our (editors') concluding chapter at the end of the book.

### References

#### Abbreviations


<sup>167</sup>For the Korean Buddhist texts, see also n. 164 above.


Primary Sources and Translations: Confucian, Buddhist, and Other Texts


Conze, Edward, trans. 1963. *The Buddhist Scriptures.* Penguin Classics.


Zhuangzi. 2000. *A Concordance to the Zhuangzi*, edited by D. C. Lau, Ho Che Wah, and Chen Fong Ching. ICS Series. Hong Kong: Commercial Press.

Secondary Sources and Modern and Comparative Studies


*The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary*. 1971.


De Sousa, Ronald. 1987. *The Rationality of Emotion*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Theodore De Bary and JaHyun Kim Haboush, eds., *The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea*. Columbia University Press.


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Confucian Perspectives

# Moral Psychology of Emotion in Korean Neo-Confucianism and Its Philosophical Debates on the Affective Nature of the Mind

# *Bongrae Seok*

### 2.1 Introduction

Korean Neo-Confucian philosophers in the Joseon dynasty (1392–1910) discussed the nature of the mind and emotions. Although they were deeply infuenced by the Chung-Zhu school of Chinese Neo-Confucianism, their approach is distinctively moral psychological and their stance is thoroughly analytic.1 They developed stimulating philosophical interpretations of *seong/xing* (性 human nature or nature), *i*/*li* (理 principle, order, or coherent pattern), and *gi*/*qi* (氣 vital energy or material force) in their theories of *sim/xin* (心 the heart-mind or mind-and-heart) and *jeong/qing*

1The Cheng-Zhu school of Neo-Confucianism systematized a cosmological and metaphysical version of Confucian moral philosophy through the teachings of Confucian masters such as Cheng Yi (程頤1033–1107) and Zhu Xi (朱熹 1130–1200) in the Song (宋) Dynasty (960–1279) China.

B. Seok (\*)

Alvernia University, Reading, PA, USA e-mail: bongrae.seok@alvernia.edu

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022 97

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_2

(情 emotions, feelings, or interactive senses). This chapter discusses how Korean Neo-Confucians understood emotions in their philosophical debates by focusing on the two major philosophical debates in the Joseon dynasty (Four-Seven Debate [*Sachil nonjaeng* 四七論爭 1559–1572] and the Horak Debate [*Horak nonjaeng* 湖洛論爭 1709–1715]), and how they explained emotions from the perspectives of the mind, morality, and human nature through the governing principle (*i/li*) and the generative force (*gi/qi*) of the Neo-Confucian universe.

In Western psychology, emotions are defned as inner subjective feelings that are contrasted with reason (rational thinking or reasoning). In Neo-Confucianism, however, emotions (*jeong/qing* 情) are not understood exclusively as inner subjective feelings. Unlike Western notions, the Neo-Confucian notions of emotions include one's responsiveness to external simulation, one's refection of the moral nature of human beings, as well as one's subjective feelings toward others. Specifcally, Neo-Confucian philosophers understood emotions broadly to include not only one's affective expressions but also one's pure and undisturbed states of the mind that can refect on and represent the original nature of human beings.2 In this chapter, I will discuss the Korean Neo-Confucian notions of emotions that integrate the psychological (responsive to external stimulation), ontological (resonating with the inherent human nature), and moral (following the order of goodness) dimensions of the mind. I will argue that, although many comparative scholars approach Korean Neo-Confucianism from the perspective of its abstract metaphysics, Korean Neo-Confucians develop a unique form of moral psychology founded upon the emotional sensitivity of the mind and the moral nature of human beings.3

2There are two important Neo-Confucian principles of the Cheng-Zhu school regarding the nature of the mind (Zhu 1986, 1997). The mind runs through human nature and emotions (*simtongseongjeong/xingtongxingqing*心統性情) and nature (*seong/xing* 性) is *i/li* (*seongjeukri/xingjili* 性卽理). As an activity or function of the mind, emotions have a similar dual dimension of affectivity/reactivity (*jeong/qing* 情) and nature (*seong/xing* 性). It is also important to note that Korean Neo-Confucians (specifcally Toegye and his followers) focused on the broad and idealistic scope (i.e., cosmic, moral, self-developmental, and devotional dimensions) of emotional experience. The uniqueness of Korean Neo-Confucian approach to emotions can be found in this intriguing combination of nature and affectivity.

3For example, Choi (2009) discusses the mentalizing tendencies of Korean Neo-Confucianism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and Jeong (2016) argues that Korean Neo-Confucianism does not necessarily or blindly follow the Cheng-Zhu school of Neo-Confucianism.

This chapter discusses emotions in two different ways. First, I will explain how the mind and emotions are understood in the philosophical debates of the Joseon dynasty. The Four-Seven Debate is a philosophical debate on the moral psychological nature of the Four Beginnings (*sadan/ siduan* 四端, the four innate moral emotions) and the Seven Emotions (the seven ordinary emotions; *chiljeong*/*qiqing* 七情). The Horak Debate is a philosophical debate on the nature of human beings as refected in the unaroused and pure state of the mind. They are the two well-known and infuential debates that set the philosophical direction and culminate the intellectual rigor of Korean Neo-Confucianism in the Joseon dynasty. In the context of the two major philosophical debates, I will discuss the moral psychological signifcance of emotions in Korean Neo-Confucianism.

Second, I will discuss the two philosophical approaches the Korean Neo-Confucians developed in their debates. The frst approach is the *psycho-affective* approach. According to this approach, emotions affect and motivate us in our reaction to external stimulation. They are aroused and activated states of the mind caused by the interactive fow of material force (*gi*/*qi*) and governed by the regulative order of principle (*i/li*). The second approach is the *onto-directive* approach. According to this approach, emotions are affective moral awareness and devotional self-cultivation. They reveal and refect the underlying nature of moral goodness in one's mind and represent what a person truly is and what she/he should become in a broad philosophical context of Confucianism.

The contrast or confict between the onto-directive and the psychoaffective approaches to emotions can be witnessed in many philosophical debates in Korean Neo-Confucianism.4 Among those debates, the chapter focuses on the two exemplary ones to discuss how the Korean Neo-Confucians distinguished the onto-directive and the psycho-affective dimensions of emotions, how they developed the unique notions of emotions (*jeong/qing* 情), and how they advanced their philosophical theories on the moral goodness of the mind and the holistic and inclusive nature of emotions.

4For example, the Simseol Debate (*Simseol nonjaeng*心說論爭) in the nineteenth century, that is, the debate on the mind (心), nature (性), emotions (情) among Jeon Wu (田愚 1841–1922), Yu Junggyo (柳重敎 1821–1893), Gim Pyeongmuk (金平默 1819–1891), and Yi Jinsang (李震相1818–1886) show the similar pattern of confict between the two approaches.

# 2.2 The Four-Seven Debate and the Moral Emotions

The Korean Neo-Confucians in the Four-Seven Debate discussed the moral, psychological, and metaphysical nature of the two sets of emotions. The Four Beginnings (*sadan/siduan* 四端) are four intrinsically moral emotions: the mind-and-heart of pity and compassion (*cheugeunjisim*/*ceyinzhixin* 惻隱之心), the mind-and-heart of shame and dislike (*suojisim/xiuwuzhixin* 羞惡之心), the mind-and-heart of deference and compliance (*sayangjisim/cirangzhixin* 辭讓之心), and the mind-andheart of right and wrong (*sibijisim/shifeizhixin* 是非之心) that are listed and discussed in the *Mencius* (2A: 6, 6A: 6).5 Mencius states that if one, for example, does not feel pity and compassion [*cheugeunjisim*/*ceyinzhixin* 惻隱之心] toward others who are in pain and suffering, one is not a human being (2A: 6). The Seven Emotions (*chiljeong/qiqing* 七情) are seven ordinary emotions: joy, anger, grief, fear, love, hate, and desire (*huinoaeguaeoyok*/*xınuaijuaieyu* ̌ 喜怒愛懼哀惡欲) that are listed in the *Book of Rites* (*Yegi/Liji* 禮記). They are not intrinsically good but can become good and virtuous by careful self-cultivation and refection. The goal of the debate, therefore, is to explain the moral psychological difference between the two sets of emotions (the morally intrinsic Four Beginnings and the morally contingent Seven Emotions) in terms of the Neo-Confucian *i-gi*/*li-qi* metaphysics.6

<sup>5</sup> "When I say that all men have the mind which cannot bear to see the suffering of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: Now when men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they all have a feeling of alarm and distress, not to gain friendship with the child's parents, nor to seek the praise of their neighbors and friends, nor because they dislike the reputation [of lack of humanity if they did not rescue the child]. From such a case, we see that a man without the feeling of commiseration is not a man; a man without the feeling of shame and dislike is not a man; a man without the feeling of deference and compliance is not a man; and a man without the feeling of right and wrong is not a man. The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of righteousness; the feeling of shame and dislike is the beginning of propriety; and the feeling of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Men have these Four Beginnings just as they have their four limbs" (*Mencius* 2A: 6, Chan 1963: 65).

<sup>6</sup> *I-gi/li-qi* metaphysics is a philosophical explanation of the nature of the universe through the two complementary and interactive elements, *i/li* and *gi/qi*. For a general survey of *i-gi/ li-qi* metaphysics and Neo-Confucian philosophy, please refer to Angle (2009), Angle and Tiwald (2017), and Makeham (2010). For a broad comparative context of the Song Neo-Confucianism and the Four-Seven Debate, please refer to Chung (1995, 2019), Ivanhoe (2015), Ro (1989) and Seok (2019).

The participants of the debate, Toegye (退溪, Yi Hwang 李滉 1501–1570), Ugye (牛溪, Seong Hon成渾, 1535–1598), Gobong (高峰, Gi Daesung 奇大升 1527–1572) and Yulgok (栗谷, Yi I 李珥 1586–1584) recognized the nominal difference between the Four and the Seven but explained and analyzed them from two different viewpoints.7 Toegye and Ugye explained and justifed the difference between the Four and the Seven but Gobong and Yulgok raised doubts on the full justifcation of the difference.8 Toegye and Ugye took a philosophical approach where the intrinsic moral nature of the Four is found in the onto-directive side of emotion, that is, the aspect of emotion that reveals the original nature of human being and the moral mind. They followed Mencius's view (2A: 6, 6A: 6) that the Four are affective moral senses that derive from the innately given moral sprouts of the mind rooted in human nature. The Seven, however, are only contingently moral (or possibly evil) and, therefore, do not necessarily refect the underlying goodness of the moral mind.

In his second letter to Gobong, Toegye explains the difference between the Four and the Seven in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, the two foundational concepts of Neo-Confucian metaphysics.

although the neither of the two [the Four and the Seven] is separable from principle [*i/li*] and material force [*gi*/*qi*], on the basis of their point of origin, each points to a predominant factor and emphasis, so there is no reason why we cannot say that the one [the Four] is a matter of principle and the other [the Seven] a matter of material force. (Kalton et al. 1994: 11)

In this letter to Gobong, Toegye explained that although both *i/li* and *gi*/*qi* are involved in the arousal and expressions of emotional states, some emotions such as the Four predominantly or essentially derive from *i*/*li*, whereas other emotions such as the Seven derive mainly from *gi*/*qi*. He focused on *i*/*li* to explain the intrinsic moral nature of the Four but discussed *gi*/*qi* to explain the contingent moral nature of the Seven. The distinction between the Four and the Seven through the consistent nature of *i*/*li* and the contingent process of *gi*/*qi*, therefore, is the main thesis of Toegye and Ugye's view in the Four-Seven Debate.

7Hereafter, the Four refers to the Four Beginnings and the Seven refers to the Seven Emotions.

<sup>8</sup>For example, please consider Yulgok's response to Ugye's third letter where he argued against the dichotomous division between the Four and the Seven (Kalton et al. 1994: 134–136).

To understand the conficting views developed in the Four-Seven Debate, it is important to discuss the broad philosophical signifcance of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*. In Neo-Confucian metaphysics, *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* play different roles in the explanation of the nature and the process of physical and psychological phenomena. *Gi*/*Qi* is a physical force behind the concrete, variable, and active processes in the universe but *i*/*li* is a penetrating and integrating pattern of the invariable, consistent, and universal coherence of the universe. The former is effcacious and tangible but the latter is ineffcacious and intangible. However, as foundational elements of the Neo-Confucian universe, *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* are always together (*bulsangli/buxianli* 不相離) even though they are different from each other (*bulsangjap/buxiangza* 不相雜). With this contrastive but integrative relation between *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, Toegye approached and explained the intrinsic moral nature of the Four through *i*/*li*. 9

Since *i*/*li* and *gi/qi* are always together and *gi*/*qi* is necessary for the active arousal of emotions, Toegye's exclusive emphasis on *i*/*li* in his explanation of the intrinsically moral nature of the Four does not seem to be consistent or convincing. Given the inseparability of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, it is not easy to understand that the Four is mostly *i*/*li* and the Seven is mostly *gi*/*qi*. 10 However, Toegye argued that the distinction between the Four and the Seven should be maintained because the intrinsic moral goodness of the Four following the orderly principle of *i/li* should not be confused with the unrestraint activity of *gi/qi* in human desires that can be evil. He stated that "to pursue learning while disliking distinctions and concentrating on explanations" is a highly problematic approach, and adds that "if one goes on like this, without even being aware of it, one may ineluctably slip into the abuse of discussing the nature in terms of material force and

9He clearly understood the intriguing relation between *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* and was fully cognizant of Gobong's argument that the Four and the Seven are not different from each other because of the inseparability and interdependence of *i/li* and *gi/qi*. In his third letter to Gobong, Toegye states, "You [Gobong] have profound insight into the interdependence and inseparability of principle [*i/li*] and material force [*gi/qi*], and are very forceful in advocating this kind of explanation. Therefore, you look to the fact that there has never been material force without principle or principle without material force, and say that the Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings do not mean something different" (Kalton et al. 1994: 53).

10Korean Neo-Confucians such as Yi Hyeonil (李玄逸1627–1704) and Gwon Sangil (權 相一1679–1759) explain *li*'s activity by adopting the distinction between *che/ti* (體 substance) and *yong/yong* (用 function, activity) of *i/li* and emphasizing *i/li*'s *yong* in their explanation of *li*'s *bal/fa* (發 issuance or generation) of the Four.

fall into the calamity of thinking of human desires as Heavenly principle. How could that be allowed!" (Kalton et al. 1994: 56).

Against Toegye's *i/li*-based explanation of the Four, Gobong focused on the interactivity and inseparability of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*. He argued that emotions (whether they are the Four or the Seven) are all aroused by *gi*/*qi*'s activity because *i*/*li* does not have any particular form/shape (*muhyeong/wuxing* 無形). Nor does it have any physical action (*muwi/ wuwei* 無爲) with causal effcacy.11 Although *i*/*li* supports the governing order and the intrinsic goodness of the moral emotions, *gi*/*qi* is still necessary for their arousal and manifestation. That is, from the perspective of the inseparability of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* in human emotions, the Four and the Seven are not inherently different: They are all aroused and active states of the mind with the inseparable combination of *i/li* and *gi/qi*. 12 In his frst letter to Toegye, Gobong argued that "The two [*i/li* and *gi/qi*] are certainly distinct, but when it comes to their presence in actual things, they are certainly mixed together and cannot be split apart. It's just that principle is weak while material force is physically in evidence… This is what I describe as the Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings from the start not meaning two different things" (Kalton et al. 1994: 6). He added, in his second letter to Toegye, that "Both the Four Beginnings and the Seven Feelings issue from the mind-and-heart. Since the mind-and-heart is a conjunction of principle [*i/li*] and material force [*gi/qi*], feelings certainly combine both principle and material force. It is not the case that there is a particular distinctive kind of feelings that only issues from principle and not from material force" (Kalton et al. 1994: 32). What Gobong argued in these letters to Toegye is that, although the Four and the Seven have different moral psychological characteristics, they are all aroused states with *gi*/*qi*'s causal energy and *i/li*'s regulative order. One cannot say, as

11According to Yulgok (Yi 1960), *i*/*li* takes no physical form (*muhyeong/wuxing* 無形) and no active work (*muwi/wuwei* 無爲) but *gi/qi* takes both (Yi 1960; *Yulgok jeonseo*, vol 1, book 10, Dapseonghowon).

12For full English translation of the letters and other documents of the Four-Seven Debate, please refer to Kalton et al. (1994). For full explanation and analysis of the Four-Seven Debate, please refer to Ahn (2009a, b), Ahn (2015), Chung (1995), and Kim Hyoung-chan (2015a). For recent publications of the Four-Seven Debate, please refer to Chung (2019), Hong (2014, 2016, 2018), Ivanhoe (2015), Jin (1987), Kim (2007), Kim Sung Won (2015c), Lee (2002, 2010), Liu (2019), Moon (2001), Ro (1989, 2019), Seok (2018, 2019), Tan (2006), Yang (2016), and Yoo (2012, 2016).

Toegye does, that the Four are exclusively *i*/*li*-driven states and therefore different from the Seven.

Yulgok's view comes out of this unifed interpretation of emotions: whether the Four or the Seven, all emotions are affective states that are aroused by *gi*/*qi* and regulated by *i*/*li*. He presented two arguments. First, everything, whether it is Heaven and Earth or the mind-and-heart, changes with a uniform fashion. Yulgok, in his response to Ugye's third letter, stated that "the transformative process of Heaven and Earth is completely a matter of material force [*gi/qi*] transforming and principle [*i/li*] mounting it…Heaven and Earth's [natural] process of transformation is identical with the issuing of our minds-and-hearts…If someone were to say that our minds-and-hearts are different from the transformative process of Heaven and Earth, that's not something I could understand" (Kalton et al. 1994: 132). That is, the Four and the Seven should follow the same pattern of the transformative change in the universe (the inseparable integration of *i/li* and *gi*/*qi*, i.e., *qi*'s arousal followed by *i*/*li*'s guidance). Second, although the *Dao* mind (*dosim/daoxin* 道心, the mind of ideal moral goodness) and the human mind (*insim/renxin* 人心, the mind of ordinary human beings) can be differentiated as the intrinsically moral mind and the potentially evil mind, the Four and the Seven are not distinguished in such a way because the Four are included in the Seven. The Seven exhaust the whole spectrum of emotions including the Four. Yulgok, in his reply to Ugye's third letter, stated,"In general, the human mind and *Tao* mind are terms set up in contrast with each other. When one says, '*Tao* mind,' the human mind is excluded; when one says, 'human mind,' the *Tao* mind is excluded. Therefore, one can explain them dichotomously. But when it comes to the Seven Feelings, they already include the Four Beginnings" (Kalton et al. 1994: 134). He added, "the feelings comprise pleasure, anger, sorrow, fear, love, hatred, and desire — these seven and that is all. Beyond these seven, there are no other feelings…if one says, 'the Seven Feelings,' the Four Beginnings are included in them" (Kalton et al. 1994: 134). With the two arguments, Yulgok explained the nature and the arousal of emotions through his theory of *gibaliseungildoseol*/*qif alichengyitushuo* (氣發理乘一途說): all emotions are *gi/qi* issued, *i/li* mounted states of the mind.13

<sup>13</sup> In his response to Ugye's third letter, Yulgok wrote that "What he [Toegye] says about material force giving issue and principle mounting it is permissible. But this is not the case

# 2.3 Two Approaches to Emotion in the Four-Seven Debate

One can describe and analyze the Four-Seven Debate as a philosophical confict between the two different ways of understanding emotions. First, emotions refect and represent the true nature (*seong/xing* 性) of the mind and human beings. When they are pure and clear, emotions are not *just* subjective feelings but a conduit of the order and generative process of the universe. While some emotions are spontaneous, inconsistent, variable, and distracting, other emotions, such as the Four, arise directly from the intrinsic moral goodness of human nature and the governing principle of the universe. Toegye's view follows this line of thinking. He differentiated the Four from the Seven and focus on the Four's intrinsically moral nature from the perspective of *i*/*li*. Because of this connection between emotions and the underlying nature of the mind and human beings, Toegye stressed the inner cultivation through *gyeong/jing* (敬 reverential piety, reverential seriousness, or mindfulness), and *sindok/shendu* (愼獨 careful selfregulation in one's solitude). *Gyeong/jing* (敬) is the careful monitoring of the mind with reverential piety, seriousness, or mindfulness toward the underlying human nature in one's inner self that is resonating with the regulative order of the universe.14 *Sindok/shendu* (愼獨) means sustained self-regulation in one's solitude when one is vulnerable to temptations and deviances. In his *Jaseongnok* (自省錄), Toegye stated, "when people study they just have to follow reverence as the master of learning and should not lose it while being active or tranquil."15 In his *Seonghaksipdo* (聖學十圖), he states that "reverential seriousness is the beginning and end of the learning for sagehood [*seonghak/shengxue* 聖學]" and "The method [of *simhak/xinxue* 心學] is to be gravely cautious and watchful over what is not seen and heard, as well as to be more reverential and serious. It is to practice self-watchfulness and self-refection in a more refned way where

15Chung 2016: 87.

only with the Seven Feelings; the Four Beginnings are likewise a case of material force giving issue and principle mounting it" (Kalton et al. 1994: 132).

<sup>14</sup>Chung (2016: 41) interprets *gyeong/jing* (敬) as one of the central themes of Toegy's philosophy. He states that Toegye's letter to Kwon Homun "explains the true meaning of teaching to be understood by 'preserving the mind through reverence [敬],' a point he liked to discuss in many of his works [Yi 1997b], including the *Chasongnok* ̆ , the Four-Seven Letters, and the *Songhak sipto* ̆ ."

things are invisible or subtle and when one is alone."16 All these methods of Confucian cultivation help one to refect upon, regain, and cultivate the original nature of human beings and its foundational connection to the universe, specifcally to the governing order and the consistent coherence of *i*/*li*. Toegye saw the ontological and moral side (i.e., the onto-directive side) of emotions in the Four and emphasized the cultivation of its full potential in the virtuous mind.

Second, emotions refect the psychological reality of the mind. Gobong understood emotions as an aroused state from the perspective of the physical activity and psychological expression of the mind and Yulgok understood emotions as a reactive state to external stimuli from the perspective of the interactive nature of the mind (Kalton et al. 1994: 6, 28, 133–134). On the basis of these psychological tendencies of the mind, they argued that *gi/qi*'s energy is needed for emotions' affective arousal and reactive feeling. They emphasized *gi/qi*'s contribution to emotions (whether they are the Four or the Seven). Gobong stated that "It's just that principle [*i/ li*] is weak while material force [*gi/qi*] is strong; principle has no concrete sign, but material force is physically in evidence" (Kalton et al. 1994: 6). Yulgok stated, "Generally speaking, that which gives issuance is material force; that whereby there is issuance is principle. Without material force, there would not be the power of issuing; without principle, there would not be that whereby it issues" (Kalton et al. 1994: 131). The moral goodness of emotions, therefore, should start with *gi*/*qi*'s activity followed by *i*/*li*'s guidance.

Although Gobong and Yulgok focused on different aspects of emotions, they took emotions primarily as aroused, affective, and reactive states of the human mind (*insim*/*renxin* 人心) that are often uneven, unbalanced, and unregulated. For this reason, careful balance and harmony are necessary to regulate and guide the aroused states to become moral and virtuous by developing the *Dao* mind (*dosim/daoxin* 道心). However, Yulgok did not distinguish the Four and the Seven from the perspective of the *Dao* mind and the human mind. He stated, "one can explain them [the *Dao* mind and the human mind] dichotomously. But when it comes to the Seven Feelings, they already include the Four Beginnings" (Kalton et al. 1994: 134). According to him, the Four and the Seven, from the perspective of psycho-affectivity, are all affectivereactive states. Therefore, the Four and the Seven are not sharply

<sup>16</sup>Chung 1995: 134.

distinguished as the *Dao* mind and the human mind. Gobong developed a similar argument in his brief discussion of the two minds. He asked, "could it be permissible to take the Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings as mutually contrasting expressions and speak of them as [respectively] 'pure principle' and 'including material force'?" Then he answered, "In discussing the human mind and the *Tao* mind, perhaps one may use such an explanation, but when it come to the Four Beginnings and the Seven Feelings, I suspect one may not explain it in such fashion" (Kalton et al. 1994: 5–6). Although the *Dao* mind and the human mind can be characterized by their associations with *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* respectively, the Four and the Seven cannot be differentiated in this way because all emotions, whether they are the Four or the Seven, are aroused by *gi*/*qi* and guided by *i*/*li*.

The Four-Seven debate, therefore, is a philosophical confict between the two different ways of understanding emotions. Although emotions have both dimensions in the Confucian mind-and-heart, Toegye and Ugye focused on the onto-directive side of emotions that refects the foundational goodness of human nature, whereas Gobong and Yulgok focused on the psycho-affective side of emotions. Toegye and Ugye argued that there exists a special category of moral emotions (the Four) from the perspective of the innate moral tendencies and their regulative functions through *i*/*li*'s governing order. For them, emotions are not just subjective senses or feelings. They can include deep personal refection and careful awareness of one's true nature in the broad context of Confucian selfcultivation including reverential piety and self-regulation.17

In contrast, Gobong and Yulgok believed that the activity of *gi/qi* provides a better understanding of emotions because all emotions, whether they are the Four or the Seven, are psychological states aroused by *gi*/*qi*. Although the mind can refect the original nature of human beings and the governing order of *i*/*li* in the universe, the psychological reality of aroused emotions can be explained by the causal effcacy of *gi/qi.* Once aroused, emotions can become good and virtuous by following the guidance of *i*/*li*, but regarding the arousal and activity of emotions, "the predominant factor lies with material force [*gi/qi*]" as Yulgok pointed out (Kalton et al. 1994: 181).

<sup>17</sup>For example, Yang (2007) interprets Toegye's view from this perspective.

# 2.4 The Horak Debate and the Unaroused Emotions

Two groups of Korean Neo-Confucians within the Yulgok school (generally known as the *Gi*/*Qi* school [*jugipa* 主氣派] or the Western Party [*seoin* 西人] in its rivalry with Toegye's *I*/*Li*-school [*juripa* 主理派] or the Eastern Party, [*dongin* 東人]) started a philosophical debate in the eighteenth century over the nature of human beings (*seong/xing* 性) and the mind (*sim/xin* 心). The discussants of this debate were Han Wonjin (韓元 震 1682–1751, pen name Namdang, 南塘) and Yi Gan (李柬 1677–1727, pen name Oeam 巍巖). Han and Yi discussed the distinction between human nature and the nature of other things (such as animals). Hence, this debate is called the debate on the similarity and difference between human nature and nature of things (*inmulseong dongi nonjaeng* 人物 性同異論爭).

In this debate, Han and Yi asked two questions about the nature of human beings and the ideal moral mind of the Confucian sages: Is the nature of human beings the same as that of other things (such as [nonhuman] animals) (*inmulseongdongi/renwuxingtongyi* 人物性同異)? Is the mind of the Confucian sages the same as that of ordinary people (*seongbeomsimdongi/shengfanxintongyi* 聖凡心同異)?18 Yi answers positively: Humans and animals share the same nature and the sages and ordinary people are not different on their moral minds. Han, however, disagreed with Yi and answered negatively to the two questions: Human beings and animals have different natures and the sages and ordinary people have different types of the mind. Specifcally, Yi and Han developed conficting views on the nature *mibal/weifa* (未發) in their explanations of the nature of human beings and the moral mind. *Mibal/Weifa* refers to an unaroused and inactive state of the mind (i.e., a state of mental equilibrium) that may refect the original nature of human beings.

As a way to answer the philosophical questions about nature (*seong/ xing* 性), Yi and Han discussed how nature is refected in the mind in its *mibal/weifa* state. Yi stated, "Regardless of whether one is a sage or an ordinary person, the original substance of the mind-and-heart is tranquil

<sup>18</sup>Please refer to the following articles on the historical and philosophical contexts and the main debating points of the Horak Debate (Kim [Richard] 2015b; Lee [Kyungku] 2011b; Lee [Cheon Sung] 2011a; Choi 2011; Hong 2011; Cho 2011; Moon 2006, 2008; Moon and Kim 2011).

and static."19 However, Han stated, "The mind-and-heart of an ordinary person is characterized by unevenness in the [*gi*] *qi* of temperament. Therefore, although substantial equilibrium is established in the mindand-heart during the short instance when [*gi*] *qi* does not work itself up ([*yongsa*] *yongshi* 用事), this equilibrium is lost once the mind-and-heart becomes darkened and distracted right away."20 In fact, many Neo-Confucian philosophers carefully analyzed this inactive yet pure conscious state of the mind because of its close relation to the ultimate principle and the governing order of the universe and human nature.

In the beginning chapter of the *Doctrine of the Mean* (*Zhongyong* 中庸), *mibal/weifa* is described as a quiet and resting but pure state of the affective mind that stays in equilibrium (*jung/zhong* 中).

Before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused it is called equilibrium (*chung* [*jung/zhong* 中], centrality, mean). When these feelings are aroused and each and all attain due measure and degree [*jungjeol*/*zhongjie* 中節], it is called harmony [*hwa/he* 和]. Equilibrium is the great foundation of the world, and harmony its universal path. When equilibrium and harmony are realized to the highest degree, heaven and earth will attain their proper order and all things will fourish. (Chan 1963: 98)

Although the passage can be interpreted in many different ways, it can be understood as a description of the two states of emotions or the two modes of the affective mind and their foundations and projections in the Neo-Confucian universe.

When an emotion is unaroused, it is in equilibrium (*jung*/*zhong* 中): It is not biased, deviant, or uneven. When it is aroused with due measure and degree, it becomes harmonized. Zhu Xi, from the perspective of Neo-Confucian metaphysics, commented on this passage in the following way: "joy, anger, sadness, pleasure are *jeong*/*qing* (情 aroused or expressed emotions). When they are unaroused, they are *seong*/*xing* (性 inherent nature)."21 He contrasted the aroused and unaroused states as *jeong*/*qing* and *seong*/*xing*, respectively. That is, an emotion can be aroused with its particular content and feeling or unaroused with its inherent nature. The discussion of *mibal/weifa* in the Horak Debate, therefore, helps us to understand how the Korean Neo-Confucians explained emotions in their

<sup>19</sup>Yi 1997a: book 4; Moon and Kim 2011: 207.

<sup>20</sup>Han 1998: book 7, 11; Moon and Kim 2011: 211, 212.

<sup>21</sup>Zhu 2006; *Zhong yong zhang jue*, ch.1.

aroused and unaroused forms in the broad context of the mind, moral goodness, and the underlying affectivity of the universe.

One way to understand an emotion in a *mibal/weifa* state is to take it as the quiet and resting state of the mind in its pre-active readiness. In this context, equilibrium (*jung*/*zhong* 中) means an undecided, unarticulated, or unspecifed state of affectivity. Before an emotion is aroused, it is not a particular feeling of joy, anger, sadness, or pleasure but it is still an affect that can be aroused and expressed. The other way to understand an emotion in a *mibal/weifa* state is to take it as a pure state of consciousness (a state unaffected by variable degrees of clarity and refnement of the mind). It is not simply a quiet state but a transcendental state of the mind that illuminates the underlying nature of the mind and human beings.22 It is important to note that, in the Horak Debate, the *mibal/weifa* state is understood as a *gi*/*qi*-flled or *gi*/*qi*-charged state of affectivity. For this reason, the *mibal/weifa* state, although not a fully aroused state, can be thought of as a quiet and recessed but pre-active potential of emotions.

The two interpretations of *mibal/weifa* play a critical role in the Horak Debate. Han developed the frst interpretation. He stated that "Although the *weifa* [*mibal*] state of the mind-and-heart can be described as clear, empty and bright, there has never been a moment when degrees of purity and clarity, an original condition of [*gi/qi*'s] temperament, failed to exist in it."23 That is, the equilibrium does not necessarily prevent the variability and unevenness of *gi/qi* from affecting the mind in its *mibal/weifa* state. Specifcally, the *mibal/weifa* state of the ordinary people is unstable and easily disturbed by *gi/qi*'s uneven and biased temperament.24 In contrast, Yi argued for the second interpretation. He explained the *mibal/weifa* state and its equilibrium in the following way: "in its original substance, *gi/qi* possesses ultimate clarity and purity—this is the original state of *gi/ qi*. The proper and ftting original substance in equilibrium that is neither partial nor one-sided comes to take its stance, and this is the great origin of all."25

22The two interpretations are similar to Lee's (2009) psychological and Son's (2011) ontological interpretations of *mibal/weifa*. Son (2011) criticizes Lee's psychological interpretation of *mibal/weifa* (a minimum or reduced state of consciousness) and argues for his ontological interpretation of *mibal/weifa* (a state that refects the original nature [性]).

<sup>23</sup>Han 1998: book 7; Moon and Kim 2011: 211.

<sup>24</sup>Han 1998: book 11; Moon and Kim 2011: 212.

<sup>25</sup>Yi 1997a: book 4; Moon and Kim 2011: 207–208.

The frst (Han's) interpretation takes the *mibal/weifa* state as a particular psychological state, but the second (Yi's) interpretation takes the *mibal/weifa* state as a pure transcendental state.26 On the basis of their interpretations of the *mibal/weifa* state, Han and Yi developed distinctive theories of the mind and nature. According to Han, the mind, in its *mibal/ weifa* state, is still under the infuence of *gi/qi* with the varying degrees of clarity and refnement (*cheongtaksubak/qingzhuocuibo* 淸濁粹駁). For this reason, he believes that the mind, even in its quiet, unaroused state, can be affected and clouded by the fuctuating temperament of *gi/qi*. He states, "although it [the mind in *mibal/weifa* state] is quiet, empty, and clear, its varying degrees of clarity and goodness cannot be avoided."27

According to Yi, however, the *mibal/weifa* is a state where *gi*/*qi* is pure and transparent. Since the *mibal/weifa* is an unaroused state, the unevenness of *gi*/*qi* does not come to the surface and disturb the clear refection of the original nature in the mind. If *gi*/*qi* is pure and transparent, the mind can reveal the intrinsic nature (*bonyeonjiseong/benranzhixing* 本然之 性) and illuminate the bright virtue (*meyongdeok/mingde*明德, *myeongdeokbonche/mingdebenti* 明德本體) of the foundational *i*/*li*. To explain the purity of *gi*/*qi* in *mibal*, Yi distinguishes pure *gi/qi* and blood *gi*/*qi* (*hyeolgi/xueqi* 血氣, *gi*/*qi* of the active body) and states that "inside the limited space occupied by an ordinary person, the [*gi*] *qi* of fesh and blood [*hyeolgi/xueqi* 血氣] and outer bodily matter are physical residues, and only the [*gi*] *qi* of the mind-and-heart consists of pure and invigorating material. The [*gi*] *qi* of fesh and blood and the outer body are characterized by myriad degrees of purity and clarity, but the mind-and-heart is an essentially illuminating substance that is equal for both the sage and the ordinary person."28 By distinguishing different types or conditions of *gi/ qi*, Yi made it clear that emotions in the *mibal/weifa* state can transparently refect the underlying nature of human beings. He argued that his view of *mibal/weifa* is different from Han's because he focused on the

26A similar interpretation of the two contrastive viewpoints is proposed by Kim (1995). According to Kim (1995: 221–222), Han and Yi interpreted *mibal/weifa* from the two different viewpoints. Yi understood *mibal/weifa* from the perspective of *gi/qi*'s pure and transparent state that reveals the common and foundational nature of human beings and things but Han understood *mibal/weifa* from the perspective of *gi/qi*'s varying degrees of clarity and refnement that reveal different forms of nature for humans, animals, ordinary people, and the sages.

27Han 1998; *Namdangjib*, book 11, Uidabigonggeo.

28Yi 1997a: book 19; Moon and Kim 2011: 209.

pure, not just quiet, *mibal/weifa* state that is not affected by blood *gi*/*qi*. Unlike Han, he pursued a transcendental interpretation of the mind and emotions at the foundation of human nature that ordinary people and the sages commonly share.

# 2.5 Two Approaches to Emotions in the Horak Debate

Han's and Yi's conficting views in the Horak Debate can be explained by the two contrastive understandings of the mind and emotions.29 Han took the psycho-affective approach and interpreted *mibal/weifa* as an unaroused state that reveals the resting psychological latencies of the mind. However, the *mibal/weifa* state is not completely transparent and does not fully refect the original human nature (*bonyeonjiseong/benranzhixing*本然之 性) and its underlying goodness because the *mibal/weifa* state can be disturbed by *gi*/*qi*'s uneven and deviant properties and immoral tendencies. That is, the *mibal/weifa* is a psychological state that can be constrained by the physical conditions and temperaments of *gi/qi*. This does not mean that the mind is completely evil and its emotions are always disturbing. The mind and emotions can become virtuous by careful self-cultivation but the *mibal/weifa* state is not completely free of *gi*/*qi*'s deviant and uneven tendencies.

Yi, however, took the onto-directive stance and interpreted *mibal/ weifa* as a state that can reveal the original nature of the mind and human beings. According to him, *mibal/weifa* is not simply a psychological state. It is a pure and tranquil state of the mind that will light up the original nature and the illuminative essence of bright virtue (*myeongdeokbonche/ mingdebenti* 明德本體). It is an unaroused state that lets the mind to represent and resonate with its intrinsic goodness through the transparent illumination of equilibrium. Because the *mibal/weifa* state is a transparent and revealing state of the mind, Yi believed that *myeongdeokbonche*/*ming debenti* is equally available to the sages and ordinary people in their *mibal/*

<sup>29</sup>Moon (2008: 411n4) presents a similar interpretation of Yi's and Han's approaches to *mibal/weifa*. According to Moon, Yi focused on whether the *mibal/weifa* state reveals the goodness or the foundational nature of the mind but Han concentrated on whether *gi/qi*'s disposition exists in the *mibal/weifa* state.

*weifa* states.30 In the pure states of the mind, anyone can cultivate the bright virtue of the original nature. Yi's approach to *mibal/weifa*, therefore, is onto-directive and his explanation of emotions is moral and transcendental: emotions in their *mibal/weifa* states can stay unaffected by the fuctuating psychological conditions of the mind to refect the original goodness of human nature.

The same pattern of confict can be observed in the Four-Seven Debate with the aroused emotions. Toegye and Ugye took the onto-directive approach and distinguished the Four and the Seven on the basis of their moral and metaphysical differences. Unlike the Seven, the Four is intrinsically good and reveals the original nature of human beings. However, Kobong and Yulgok took the psycho-affective approach and argued for the *gi/qi* driven *psychological* nature of emotions. They believed that both the Four and the Seven are aroused and affective states of the mind.

Although the Four-Seven Debate and the Horak Debate focused on the different aspects of emotions, they highlighted the moral psychological and moral metaphysical signifcance of emotions and developed the two contrastive philosophical approaches in their discussions of the moral goodness of the mind and human nature.31 Specifcally, in the Horak Debate, Yi and Han discussed the *mibal/weifa* state and argued for their theories of emotions at the foundation of the moral mind and human nature. According to them, even in the *mibal/weifa* state, emotions play an important philosophical role in Neo-Confucian discourse of *seong/xing* (性 nature) and *sim/xin* (心 the mind-and-heart). The *mibal/weifa* state is a quiet and static but inspiring and inspirational state of the mind that can refect the genuine nature of human beings and the goodness of the mind and cultivate the bright and illustrious virtue (*myeongdeok/mingde* 明德). The Korean Neo-Confucians broke the boundary of emotions as personal

<sup>30</sup> "Therefore, I state that the original essence of bright virtue is equally shared by the sages and ordinary people but the clarity and turbidity of blood *gi/qi* is differently distributed to the sages and ordinary people. The bright virtue is Heavenly Prince and the bloody *gi/qi* is the temperament of *gi/qi*" (Yi 1997a; *Oeam Yugo*, Book 12, Mibalbyeon).

31Here, I do not I argue, for example, that Toegye and Yi proposed the same theory of the mind and emotions. They only shared the same approach or interpretational framework. From the perspective of *i-gi/li-qi* metaphysics, they developed different theories. Toegye explained the intrinsic moral nature of the mind through the predominant presence and involvement of *i/li* in the Four but Yi explained the original nature of the mind through pure and transparent *qi* in the *mibal/weifa* state.

feelings to reach out to the foundational nature of our caring heart for others.

### 2.6 Conclusion

In this chapter, I discussed the Four-Seven Debate and the Horak Debate from the perspective of how Korean Neo-Confucians understood and explained the moral psychological nature of the mind and emotions. Specifcally, the chapter focused on the philosophical conficts between Toegye-Ugye and Gobong-Yulgok in the Four-Seven Debate and between Yi Gan and Han Wonjin in the Horak Debate. These thinkers developed their unique moral psychological views on emotions that include not only inner and subjective feelings but also the moral, psychological, and metaphysical nature of human beings. According to them, emotions have the broad dimensions of the reactivity, sensitivity, morality, and ontology of human beings. They also developed a comprehensive notion of the moral mind that is inclusively affective, conative, and self-transformative rather than exclusively rational or cognitive. In this regard, Korean Neo-Confucianism offers a unique philosophical interpretation of emotions and provides stimulating theories of the mind and the affective foundation of moral experience from the onto-directive and the psycho-affective viewpoints.32

The moral sense of goodness and rightness, according to this interpretation, is fundamentally emotional, intrinsically psychological, and deeply

32One of the reviewers of the chapter points out that Korean and Japanese Neo-Confucian scholars developed comparable, if not completely identical, views on emotions that need to be discussed and distinguished. Many Japanese Confucian scholars such as Ito Jinsai (伊藤仁 斎 1627–1705), Kaibara Ekken (具原益軒 1630–1714), and the scholars of the Ancient Learning school (*kogaku* 古學) such as Yamaga Soko (山鹿素行 1622–1685) and Ogyu Sorai (荻生徂徠 1666–1728) develop a philosophical tendency to minimize the metaphysical and cosmic dimension of emotions and focus, instead, on personal feelings in particular contexts and scenes of life. Although other Japanese scholars (e.g., Fujiwara Seika [藤原惺窩 1561–1619] and Yamazaki Ansai [山崎闇齋 1618–1682]) adopted Toegye's broadly metaphysical or transcendental aspects of emotions, many Japanese Neo-Confucians in the later centuries (specifcally Ito Jinsai) took the individual dimension of the psycho-affective side of emotions as a foundation of genuine moral awareness and autonomy (perhaps following Wang Yangming's [王陽明 1472–1529] *yangji/liangzhi* [良知]) residing in the individual mind outside of the external doctrines or formal conventions. Chung (2006: 255, 269) and Tucker (2006) provide stimulating discussions of Japanese Neo-Confucianism and its approaches to emotions.

transformational. It not only moves the heart of a moral agent but also reveals the original nature of human beings and the innate moral tendencies of the mind. It also has the energy to motivate moral actions and cultivate virtuous dispositions. In their theories of emotions, therefore, the Korean Neo-Confucians explained the two contrastive forms of the mind (*insim/renxin* and *dosim/daoxin*) and endeavored to integrate them in the two dimensions of emotions: the psycho-affective and onto-directive dimensions.33 Although the Cheng-Zhu school's moral metaphysics of human nature (*seong/xing*) and principle (*i/li*) exerted deep infuence in Korean Neo-Confucianism, the Korean Neo-Confucians in these debates advanced their own theories of affective moral psychology and emphasized the stimulating, inspiring, and transformative role of emotions in the cultivation of the moral mind and virtuous human life. I conclude that their rigorous analyses of the Four and the Seven and of the unaroused affective state of the mind provide a holistic and inclusive way of understanding the affective nature of humanity: emotions are not only the aroused and felt states of the mind and/or the body but, more importantly, the profound refection or representation of the morally devotional, psychologically transformational, and metaphysically reverential nature of human beings. This is a uniquely Korean contribution to Confucian philosophy and comparative moral psychology of emotions.

### References


33Kim (2018), for example, discusses the distinction between the Four and the Seven from the perspective of the goodness of the mind in its original nature and its *gi/qi* affected nature. The two notions of goodness should be explained and unifed in Neo-Confucian tradition but the unifcation was not fully established in the Chinese schools of Neo-Confucianism. According to him, Korean Neo-Confucians in the Joseon dynasty took this philosophical task of integrating the two notions in the Four-Seven Debate.


#### Further Reading


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# The Idea of *Gyeong*/*Jing* 敬 in Yi Toegye's Korean Neo-Confucianism and Its Availability in Contemporary Ethical Debate

# *Suk Gabriel Choi*

# 3.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to examine the meaning of the word *gyeong/jing* 敬 within Korean Neo-Confucian philosophy, especially that of Toegye Yi Hwang (退溪 李滉 1501–1570), to discuss its implication for his ethics of *gyeong/jing* and emotions (*jeong*/*qing* 情) and self-cultivation, and to incorporate it into contemporary debates on emotions, moral virtues, and actions. The idea of *gyeong*/*jing* is a key concept of Zhu Xi's "new view of equilibrium and harmony (*junghwasinseol/zhonghexinshuo* 中和新說)" and Toegye inherits and re-consolidates Zhu Xi's thought into his own *gyeonghak* 敬學 (learning of *gyeong/jing*).

For the topic of this volume, emotions in Korean philosophies and religions, I intend to highlight two points that are mutually related to each

S. G. Choi (\*)

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA e-mail: suchoi@towson.edu

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022 121

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_3

other: (1) while this chapter will not directly analyze *gyeong*/*jing* as an emotion such as joy, anger, sorrow, pleasure, and so on, it should be noted that an accurate analysis and understanding of *gyeong/jing* is required to advance discussion on the Korean interpretation of emotion; (2) Korean philosophy should be considered and accepted as a meaningful contribution to the history of both world philosophy and East Asian philosophy.

One can critically argue that Toegye's *gyeonghak* is, after all, no different from Zhu Xi's and/or other Chinese Neo-Confucian ideas of *gyeong/ jing*. However, as I discussed elsewhere (Choi 2019), although there is no doubt that one of the major and common concerns of Korean Confucians was to understand Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucianism (*Jujahak* 朱子學), Korean Confucians have had numerous debates in their own ways, through which they analyzed, extended, and clarifed Neo-Confucian philosophical ideas. In doing so, they advanced Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucianism with novelty and nuance. Although the scope of this chapter will not fully discuss such nuances,1 I hope that the passages I select, translate, and introduce, mainly from Toegye's work *Seonghaksipdo* 聖學十圖 (*Ten diagrams on sage learning*),2 can demonstrate, within certain limitations, how Toegye contributed to Korean Neo-Confucianism through his re-affrmation and reemphasis of the idea of *gyeong/jing* in his own delicate and systematic approach. This is one of the reasons why I must frst introduce Zhu Xi's understanding of *gyeong/jing* which was accepted and quoted by Toegye.

The word *gyeong/jing* has been translated as "seriousness" (Bruce 1922; Chan 1966), "composure" (Graham 1958), "reverential concentration" (Munro 1988), "mindfulness" (Kalton 1988), "inner mental attentiveness" (Gardner 1990), "concentration" (Wittenborn 1991), "reverential seriousness" (Chung 1992), "reverential attention" (Ivanhoe 2000), and "reverence" (Ching 2002; Angle 2009; Chung 2016). As the varying translations by different commentators suggest, addressing the question of how to interpret *gyeong/jing* is far from simple, not only because this single term embraces many connotations, but also because it demands the understanding of Zhu Xi's and Toegye's Neo-Confucian

1Further and advanced refections upon the question of Toegye's meaningful contribution is defnitely required.

2My attempt to translate Toegye's work was completed while keeping in mind that an introduction to Korean philosophy should be intelligible and accessible to participants in contemporary discussions in the feld of philosophy. I also learned much from Michael Kalton's translation and commentary on Toegye's *Seonghaksipdo*, *To Become a Sage: The Ten Diagrams on Sage Learning by T'oegye* (1988).

framework of human nature, mind-heart, and self-cultivation. It seems that many commentators share the views that (1) there is a difference between the meaning of the word *gyeong/jing* in Classic Confucianism and that in the Neo-Confucian philosophical system3; and (2) the meaning of *Gyeong/jing* is closer to a state of mind of both concentration on one thing, which was presented in Cheng Yi's doctrine, and the emotion of reverence, which means "respecting something like another person or a set of moral rules." However, while I agree that this interpretation is almost appropriate for some passages of Zhu Xi's and Toegye's works, it fails to adequately explain what they intended to claim with the notion of *gyeong/jing*.

For an accurate interpretation of this notion, I will frst explore the meaning of *gyeong/jing* within the texts of Zhu Xi's philosophy, especially selected to advance to examine Toegye's understanding of the idea in his *Seonghaksipdo*. *Gyeong/jing* is not only a means of self-cultivation that is demanded for an appropriate control of emotions, which is closely related to other methods of cultivation. It is also a virtue as a basis of action, although it operates differently from other Confucian core virtues such as *in/ren* 仁 (human-heartedness), *eui/yi* 義 (righteousness), *ye/li* 禮 (propriety), and *ji/zhi* 智 (wisdom) do.

Secondly, I intend to demonstrate that the notion of *gyeong/jing* plays a distinctive role in contemporary debates on virtue and action. It can be interpreted as a mental state which embraces both the moral will to do what is morally right and the emotion of reverence to honor and maintain the human moral nature (*deokseong/dexing* 德性). Although it is not simply a disposition to issue in a pattern of action, it can always make inner desires and emotions virtuous.

3Although it may be claimed that in most passages in ancient Confucian texts, *gyeong/jing* means "respect" or "reverence," A. C. Graham interprets that *gyeong/jing* in the *Analects* also has multiple meanings. See Graham (1992: 68–69). Kwong-loi Shun (2013) claims that the idea of *gyeong/jing* is closer to the contemporary concept of traits such as modesty and humility than that of respect for others. See Shun (2013). Recently, Sin Yee Chan examines the concept of *jing* mainly from early Confucian texts such as the *Analects*, *Mencius*, and *Xunzi*. Chan deals with *jing* as a frame of mind and an intentional state, and compares it with the Western ethical concept of respect. Chan's analysis on the difference between respect in the Western ethical discourses and *jing*, while insightful, is mostly limited to the concept in early Confucian texts. It cannot work with the concept of *jing* in the Neo-Confucian tradition, and does not extend far enough to analyze the relationship between the idea and its importance for self-cultivation. See S. Y. Chan (2006).

# 3.2 Zhu Xi and the Neo-Confucian Connotations of the Word *Gyeong/Jing*

This single word *gyeong/jing* is understood to have multiple meanings. There are numerous passages that include Zhu Xi's notion of *gyeong/jing* and thus different commentators may have different lists of the meanings of *gyeong/jing*. Below are selected interpretations of the word *gyeong/jing*, mainly to demonstrate later on how Toegye actively inherits and supports the Neo-Confucian understanding of the notion, especially that of Zhu Xi.

*Gyeong/jing* means "to remove any selfsh desire and to concentrate on single-mindedness and freedom from distraction (*juilmujeog/zhuyiwushi* 主一無敵)" (*Zhuzi yulei*: 3714). Zhu Xi understood that Cheng Yi used the word *gyeong/jing* to interpret Zhou Dunyi's statement, "Singleness means to be free of desires (*yok*/*yu* 欲)," so that people could work it out and have a pretty frm grasp of it (*Zhuzi yulei*: 209; Gardner 1990: 169–170). As Zhu Xi said, it is to be "apprehensive and careful and to dare not give free rein to oneself. In this way both body and mind-heart will be collected and concentrated as if one is apprehensive of something" (Zhu Xi 2002, *Zhuzi quanshu* 2: 22a; Chan 1966: 607).

*Gyeong/jing* means "to always keep mindful alertness (*sangseongseong/ changxingxing* 常惺惺)" (*Zhuzi yulei*: 1503). It is a state in which the mind-heart is always attentive and observant. In this state, the mind-heart is always clear from obscurity. This means to keep one's moral perception consistent and clear. The notion of *seongseong/xingxing* comes from Chan Buddhism, but Zhu Xi criticized that Chan Buddhists simply alert and awaken the mind without any goal of doing something (*Zhuzi yulei*: 373).

*Gyeong/jing* means "to always examine yourself." To elaborate this idea, Zhu Xi made a distinction between dead *gyeong/jing* and living *gyeong/jing*:

There is a dead *gyeong/jing*, and there's a living one. If you simply hold on to *gyeong/jing*, concentrating on one matter, but fail, when some other matter arises, to rescue it with righteousness and to discriminate between right and wrong—this isn't living *gyeong/jing*. Once you are good at it, *gyeong/ jing* will always be accompanied by righteousness and righteousness always by *gyeong/jing*. In quiescence, you'll examine whether you're mentally

4This number 371 is a page number as indicated in the Zhonghua shuju 中華書局 edition of Zhu Xi (1986), *Zhuzi yulei* 朱子語類 (*Classifed conversations of Master Zhu Xi*).

attentive or not; in activity, you'll examine whether you are righteous or not. (*Zhuzi yulei*: 216; Gardner 1990: 174–175)

Although *gyeong/jing* is a necessary mental state for dealing with moral questions, it is not suffcient alone. It should always be kept with the sense of righteousness (*Zhuzi yulei*: 216). In this sense, *gyeong/jing* is a process in which inner mental states issue in proper actions. Thus, "to be *gyeong/ jing* does not mean to sit still like a blockhead, with the ear hearing nothing, the eye seeing nothing, and the mind thinking of nothing, and only then it can be called *gyeong/jing*" (*Zhuzi quanshu* 2: 22a; Chan 1966: 607).

*Gyeong/jing* means "to be attentive." Zhu Xi said, "Don't think of it as some matter (outside of yourself). It is simply to collect your own mental energy and concentrate it on a certain spot. Now it seems to me the reason none of you are making progress is that you only know how to talk about 'investigating things (*gyeokmul/gewu* 格物)' but are lacking in the fundamentals" (*Zhuzi yulei*: 215; Gardner 1990: 174).

*Gyeong/jing* means "an attitude to be orderly and solemn (*jeongjaeeomsuk/zhengqiyansu* 整齊嚴肅)." Zhu Xi said:

We don't need many words about the idea of holding on to *gyeong/jing* (*jigyeong/chijing* 持敬). One can thoroughly appreciate and practice these sayings (of Cheng Yi), "Be orderly and solemn," "Be grave and austere," "Be correct in movement and appearance and be ordered in thoughts and deliberations," "Be correct in your dress and dignifed in your gaze," and make real effort. Then what Cheng called straightening the inner part of oneself and concentrating on one thing will naturally need no more manipulated method, one's body and mind-heart will be serious, and the inner and the outer part of oneself will be unifed. (*Zhuzi yulei*: 211; *Zhuzi quanshu* 2: 22a-b; Chan 1966: 607)

More concretely, he advised:

Sit as though you were impersonating an ancestor, stand as though you were performing a sacrifce. The head should be upright, the eyes looking straight ahead, the feet steady, the hands respectful, the mouth quiet and composed, the bearing solemn—these are all aspects of *gyeong/jing.* (*Zhuziyulei*: 212; Gardner 1990: 172)

*Gyeong/jing* is an inner mental state, but that is not to say that a way of achieving it is not related to an external bodily attitude. Inner mental states and external bodily attitudes are interdependent.

*Gyeong/jing* means "to stand in awe (*oe/wei* 畏)" (*Zhuzi yulei*: 211). Confucius said, "there are three things of which the exemplary men stand in awe. He stands in awe of the ordinances of Heaven (*cheonmyeong*/*tienming* 天命), he stands in awe of great men. He stands in awe of the words of the sages" (*Analects*, 16: 8; Legge 1972: 313). According to Zhu Xi's commentary on these statements, what is meant by "to stand in awe" is "to be strictly cautious and to fear." Here the ordinance of Heaven means the very moral nature of human beings conferred by Heaven. In the sense that the exemplary men are the ones who understand the human moral nature as the ordinance of Heaven, it is natural for them to stand in awe of great men and the words of the sages, who demonstrate a complete realization of the moral nature. By this state of standing in awe of the three, we could, in turn, keep our moral nature as the right *li*.

To preface the next section where I introduce Toegye's idea of *gyeong/ jing* in his *Seonghaksipdo*, Zhu Xi's idea of *gyeong/jing* needs to be understood in the context of his philosophical system of *i*/*li, gi*/*qi*, human nature, mind-heart, and emotion. Zhu Xi, in one of his letters, cited Cheng Yi's claim that "self-cultivation requires *gyeong/jing* and the pursuit of learning depends on the extension of knowledge" (*Zhuzi wenji* 64: 28b–29b; Chan 1966: 600–602). He also claimed that this *gyeong/jing* is of greatest importance to the Confucian school (*Zhuzi yulei*: 210; Gardner 1990: 171). What is this claim based on? What is the signifcance of *gyeong/jing* as a mental state within Zhu Xi's philosophical system? How does this single term *gyeong/jing* come to have such rich connotations, and what is the relationship between *gyeong/jing* and other emotions?

*Gyeong/jing* is clearly part of Zhu Xi's philosophy of *i*/*li* 理 (principle) and *gi*/*qi* 氣 (material force). Human emotions and desires as *qi* do not always realize their *li* to the fullest. The mind-heart may be moral, but is not necessarily so. This is the reason why the practice of *gyeong/jing* is necessary.

In terms of human beings and especially the human mind-heart, *li* is considered to be the human nature conferred by Heaven, and *qi* constitutes human psycho-physical form. For him, the nature (*seong*/*xing* 性) is the same as *li*. In relation to the mind-heart, it is called the nature, and in relation to events, it is called *li* (*Zhuzi quanshu* 42: 6a; Chan 1966: 614). This way of identifying human nature with *li* is a result of his attempt to fnd the foundation of moral goodness, not in externally developed moral rules, but within human nature. Human nature as *li* necessarily implies that it is complete with Confucian virtues such as *ren* (human-heartedness), *yi* (righteousness), *li* (propriety), and *zhi* (wisdom).

The mind-heart itself originally contains moral goodness. However, as Zhu Xi's distinction between *dosim*/*daoxin* 道心 (moral mind) and *insim/ renxin* 人心 (human mind) implies, the mind-heart has the potential for being morally wrong, or evil, because for Zhu Xi, the mind-heart is *qi*. On the other hand, because the mind-heart is a special kind of *qi*, that is, the essential and refreshing (*jeongsang/chingshuang* 精爽) or numinous (*young/ling* 靈) part of *qi*, he couldn't charge the mind-heart for any type of moral failures.

This theoretical diffculty made him refect extensively on the question of the *mibal/weifa* 未發 (unaroused) and *ibal/yifa* 已發 (aroused) states of the mind-heart.5 Zhu Xi struggled to understand these two phases of *mibal/weifa* and *ibal/yifa* and the notions of *jung/zhong* and *hwa/he*, and thus set up to create his own theory.6 In his "old view of *junghwa/zhonghe*" (中和舊說), he strongly believed that the *mibal/weifa* state is identifed with nature and the *ibal/yifa* state with the mind-heart. However, as Zhu Xi himself examined, in this structure of the *mibal/weifa* and *ibal/yifa* states there is no found reason for why the notions of *jung/zhong* and *hwa/he* must be mentioned. He needed a solid foundation for selfcultivation by which moral goodness can be realized.

It is only after Zhu Xi set up the fnal version of his view on the *mibal/ weifa* and *ibal/yifa* states that the notion of *gyeong/jing* emerged as a key for realizing human nature as the original mind-heart. Zhu Xi understood the *mibal/weifa* state as the substance of the mind-heart and the *ibal/yifa* state as the function of it. *Jung/Zhong* and *hwa/he* are understood to be the ideal states of the two respective phases of the mind-heart. In this

5These two terms are found in *Zhongyong* 中庸 (the *Doctrine of the Mean*): "Before the feelings of pleasure, joy, anger, sorrow, and joy pleasure are aroused, it is called equilibrium [*jung/zhong* 中]. When these feelings are aroused and each and all attain due measure and degrees, it is called harmony [*hwa/he* 和]. [This] equilibrium is the great foundation of the world; [this] harmony is its universal path. When equilibrium and harmony are realized to the highest degree, heaven and earth will attain their proper order and all things will fourish" (*Zhongyong*, chapter 1; W. Chan 1996: 98, slightly altered).

6For the question of how Zhu Xi's view on the *mibal/weifa* and *ibal/yifa* states has been changed, see Liu (1998: 131–154).

context, *jeong/jing* (情 feeling or emotion) comes to take its theoretical place as the state or condition of the mind-heart, which is manifested after the mind-heart has been stimulated and issued forth.7

It is important to note here that the mind-heart as one reality is always discussed by Zhu Xi with the dual structure of two notions; for example, nature and emotions, *mibal/weifa* and *ibal/yifa*, substance and function, what is hidden and what is manifested, tranquility and activity. Through this theoretical framework, Zhu Xi demonstrated not only the ontological structure of the mind-heart, but also the unique position of it as both a safe residence of moral goodness and a potential of being prone to error.

How can the mind-heart be preserved and nature be nourished? This question is the very reason why Zhu Xi emphasized "abiding in *gyeong/ jing* (*geogyeong/jujing* 居敬)"; "if one succeeds in preserving *gyeong/jing*, one's mind-heart will be clear and Heaven's *li* (*cheonlli/tienli* 天理) will be bright. One should not stop the slightest effort at any moment" (*Zhuzi quanshu* 2: 22a; Chan 1966: 606–607). Here we understand the role of *gyeong/jing*. *Gyeong/jing* not only keeps the substance of the mindheart as moral goodness, but also makes itself manifest fully and properly in the activity of the mind-heart. In this respect, Zhu Xi claimed that *gyeong/jing* means "the master of the mind-heart" (*Zhuzi quanshu* 2: 22a). It can be understood as a necessary condition for achieving the moral mind-heart, so that all achieve the golden mean even when the emotions are issued forth.

### 3.3 Toegye on *Gyeong/Jing*

My brief description of *gyeong/jing*'s role in Zhu Xi's philosophical system is more briefy but precisely resonated in Toegye's explanatory Diagram of the Statement, "The Mind-Heart Embraces and Commands Nature and Emotions (*simtongseongjeon/xintongxingqing* 心統性情圖)," chapter 6 of *Seonghaksipdo*. This diagram also discusses what the statement *simtongseongjeong/xintongxingqing* means, by which Toegye claims the importance of *gyeong/jing* practice:

<sup>7</sup> In this respect, although *jeong/qing* is usually translated as "feeling" or "emotion," this seems to be insuffcient. As Lik Kuen Tong points out, *jeong/jing*, as a technical term in Zhu Xi's philosophy, refers to all mental acts or "intentional" expressions of sensitivity. See Tong (1982).

It is the mind-heart that embraces both *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* and commands both nature and emotion. The time when nature is issued to be emotion is a subtle moment, which is the center of ten thousand transformations and the moment of separation between good and evil. If learners truly make their efforts to hold on to *gyeong/jing* (*jigyeong/chijing* 持敬) and are not confused between *i*/*li* and human desires, and if learners more cautiously preserve and nurture (the moral nature) when the mind-heart is not aroused and are well acquainted to examination and correction when the mind-heart is aroused, and if learners accumulate truth and maintain strenuous effort for a long time and do not stop, they will not need to seek elsewhere and be able to accomplish the state of sage learning which means the state of "carefully examine and hold fast to the mean (*jeoniljipjung/jingyizhizhong* 精一 執中)" and the cultivation method of the mind-heart which makes possible preservation of substance and [appropriate] response when it functions. (*JTJ* vol. 11: 138; my translation)

Toegye consistently provides not only a theoretical supporting the idea of *gyeong/jing*, but also concrete teachings for his disciples. For example, in one of his letters to his disciples, he emphasizes the importance of *gyeong/jing* with an example of Confucius:

[Toegye cited a passage of the *Analects*]: When Confucius was summoned by his lord to act as usher, his face took on a serious expression and his step became brisk. When he bowed to colleagues, stretching out his hands to the left or to the right, his robes followed his movements without being disarranged.8 [Toegye comments] This saying emphasizes especially "thinking to act with *gyeong/jing*." It does not necessarily combine one's "facial expression," "personal appearance," and hands and feet simultaneously, but each naturally corresponds to its "due degree and measure" while acting. This is not so for the sages only; hence we cannot say that it does not apply to "those people below average." There are certain differences between the pure and the polluted or between the shallow and the deep depending on our inborn and *cultivated* dispositions. (*Jaseongnok*, section 13: Chung's translation 2016: 89)9

In such a broad range of discussion on *gyeong/jing* from its theoretical support to his guideline for its external and behavioral expression, Toegye consistently and systematically constructs his philosophy of *gyeong/jing*.

<sup>8</sup>*Analects*, 10:3, Lau (1979: 101).

<sup>9</sup> Slightly altered. The *italic* is mine.

In this section, I will introduce a few selected passages on *gyeong/jing* mainly from Toegye's *Seonghaksipdo* to demonstrate the way he develops, re-organizes, re-affrms, and re-emphasizes Zhu Xi's discussion on *gyeong/ jing*. While Toegye accepts, supports, quotes, and adds his commentary on numerous passages from Zhu Xi, he intends to claim, throughout *Seonghaksipdo*, that *gyeong/jing* is "the beginning and end of the sage learning" and that *gyeong/jing* means "the master of the mind-heart."

Toegye inherits Zhu Xi's understanding of *gyeong/jing*, which is well demonstrated in his description of *gyeonghak* in his famous essay *Cheonmyeongdoseol* 天命圖說 (*Diagrammatic Treatise on the Mandate of Heaven*), section 10:

When mind-heart is tranquil, an exemplary man preserves and nourishes (*jonyang/cunyang* 存養) its *che/ti* (substance). When emotions and intentions (*eui/yi* 意) are aroused, one [should] examines and corrects oneself (*seongchal/shengcha* 省察) and rectifes their usefulness. If one does not consider *gyeong/jing* as the frst principle for learning, how one can maintain one's original mind-heart? … Therefore, before the mind-heart is aroused, [what is meant by] the learning of exemplary men is to take *gyeong/jing* as the frst principle and make strenuous effort to "preserve and nourish." After the mind-heart is aroused, one should also take *gyeong/jing* as the frst principle and add one's effort to "self-examination and self-correction." (*JTJ* vol. 12: 121–122; my translation)

Toegye clarifes that even when emotions are aroused, one should take the practice of *gyeong/jing* as the frst principle and additionally make an effort to "examine and correct" oneself. What Toegye means when he says "one examines and correct oneself and rectifes their usefulness" is that one can control selfsh emotions and desires, which results in reducing desires. In this way of cultivation one learns the way of sagehood. In the "Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate" (太極圖), chapter 1 of *Seonghaksipdo*, Toegye cites Zhu Xi's statements:

The sage does not need to cultivate himself, but naturally becomes so as he is. The exemplary men cultivate themselves because they do not attain such a level, but cultivating themselves is the reason why they acquire good fortune. The inferior men do not know this and further violate the way, which is the reason why they will face misfortune. The difference between cultivating and violating depends only on whether one practices *gyeong/jing* or acts recklessly. When one practices *gyeong/jing*, one can reduce one's desires and the principle will be illuminating. When one can reduce more of one's desires so that one can arrive at the state where there is no desire, one's mind-heart will be empty when it is in tranquility, and it will be corrected when it is in activity. In this way one can learn the way of sagehood. (*TJT* vol. 11: 121; my translation)

Toegye comments on this passage that to become a sage is "to thoroughly comprehend the inscrutable and spirit-like, and know the processes of transformation, which means to become a person with the fulness of virtue."10 Regarding such a process, he emphasizes that when emotions are both not aroused and aroused, the practice of *gyeong/jing* is required and makes the way of self-cultivation for each state to properly and effectively function.

In his introduction and diagram (*chado/zhatu* 箚圖11) for submitting the *Seonghaksipdo* (to King Seonjo), Toegye clearly concludes that *gyeong/ jing* is the essential and main focus of all ten diagrams. After he recommends Shun as an exemplar for learning, he emphasizes strenuous efforts for both thinking and learning to become like him. For thinking and learning, Toegye explains *gyeong/jing* as the most signifcant and required practice:

Keeping the practice of *gyeong/jing* (*jigyeong/chijing* 持敬) is the way of making possible both thinking and learning, going through both active and quiet (state), combining inner and outer (state), and making what is manifested to be one with what is hidden. (*JTJ* vol. 11: 117; my translation)

Toegye continues to recommend concrete methods of practicing *gyeong/ jing* as follows:

One should [1] preserve one's mind-heart by practicing strict composure and quiet recollection (*jaejangjeongil/zhaizhuangjingyi* 齋莊精一), [2] investigate principle by studying, inquiring, thinking, and discerning, [(3)] practice admonishment and caution (*gyegu/jieju* 戒懼) strictly even when one does not hear or see, and [(4)] perform self-examination and self-

11The word *cha/zha* (箚) means a form of document which subjects submit to their king or offcials submit to higher-ranking offcials.

<sup>10</sup>Teogye is citing this statement from the *Book of Changes*, the appendixes, part II, chapter 5. I adopted Legge's translation (Legge 1966: 390).

correction even more accurately when alone in a hidden, secretly solitary place. (*JTJ* vol. 11: 117; my translation)

Concerning these methods of *gyeong/jing* with the ten diagrams, he goes on to advise:

When one thinks about one diagram, one should pay special attention to the diagram as if one does not know the fact that there is another diagram. When one deals with one thing/affair, one should pay special attention to the thing/affair as if one does not know that there is another thing/affair. (*JTJ* vol. 11: 117; my translation)

Toegye concludes his advice to the king by explaining the practice of *gyeong/jing* as a requirement to fully realize the Confucian vision:

If one accumulates truth and keeps practice (of *gyeong/jing*) for a long time, the mind-heart and principle (理) will be naturally permeated to each other (such that) one does not recognize that they are integrated and penetrated. Practice and things/affairs will ripen each other, and thus it will be gradually seen that they will be easily and safely done. Although one has to pay attention only to one in the beginning, one will now combine all things/affairs into unifed one. This is exactly the state of "steeping oneself (in the Way, what one is learning) and fnding it in oneself,"12 which is the very experience of "grow then can't stop it"13as discussed by Mencius. If one diligently practice and develop what one is endowed with, one will have Yen Hui's mind-heart of "not lapse from human-heartedness"14 which is good for the government of a state15 or one will be like Zengzi 曾子 who knew (the virtue of) *chungseo*/*zhongshu* 忠恕 (wholeheartedness and reciprocity) as one thread (*ilgwan/yiguan* 一貫)16 (of the Confucian *Dao*) and possessed duty of transmitting the *Dao* in his body. (*JTJ* vol. 11: 118; my translation)

Here we can read Toegye's interpretation of the key concepts of Confucian philosophy and how he claims *gyeong/jing* as the essential means of cultivation toward the ideal Confucian status.

<sup>12</sup>*Mencius*, 4B: 14; Lau (1970: 130).

<sup>13</sup>*Mencius*, 4A: 27; Lau (1970: 127).

<sup>14</sup>*Analects*, 6: 7; Lau (1979: 82), slightly modifed.

<sup>15</sup>*Analects*, 15: 11; Lau (1979: 133).

<sup>16</sup>*Analects*, 4: 15; Lau (1979: 74), modifed.

Toegye ends his introduction by relating the result of practicing *gyeong/ jing* to other key ideas of the Confucian classic, *Zhongyong.* If (one's practice of) reverential fear and *gyeong* (*oegyeong/weijing* 畏敬) does not part from everyday life, one can complete "the state of *junghwa/zhonghe* 中和 (centrality and harmony), by which (heaven and earth) attain their proper order and (all things) fourish (*Zhongyong*, chapter 1). Then, as Toegye continues to draw from the text, one can arrive at the state in which virtuous behaviors are only performed within proper human relationships, through which one can attain the subtle unity of heaven and humans (*cheonilhapil/tianrenheyi* 天人合一). As is commonly understood, the unity of heaven and humans is one of the expressions used to show the ideal state according to the Confucian perspective. Here, Toegye claims that *gyeong/jing* is the beginning and end of *seonghak*, and intends to show how the idea of *gyeong* is systematically related to all ten diagrams and lessons from *seonghak*.

In many parts of *Seonghaksipdo*, there is a clear intention to organize and understand the ten diagrams in terms of *gyeong/jing*. In the "Diagram of the *Great Learning*" (*Daehakdo* 大學圖), chapter 4 of *Seonghaksipdo*, Toegye cites Zhu Xi's discussion on *gyeong/jing* from the "Questions and Answers on the *Great Learning* (*daehakhokmun*/*daxuehuowen* 大學或 問)": when someone asked, "How does one practice *gyeong/jing*?," Master Zhu answers with the major points we examined earlier such as "concentrating on single-mindedness and freedom from distraction," "be well orderly and solemn," "always keep mindful alertness and "[keep] one's mind-heart recollected and [do] not [allow] anything" (*JTJ* vol. 11: 131).

Toegye re-notes that Zhu Xi continued to relate the value of *gyeong/ jing's* practice to the teachings of a few Confucian classics:

If one's mind-heart is established in the state of *gyeong/jing*, one will go toward the work of investigation of things and extension of knowledge through which one will understand the principle of things and affairs. This process is what is meant by "honoring the moral nature and following the path of question and learning." From this process, one cultivates oneself by making their will sincere and by rectifying their mind-heart. This is exactly what Mencius means when he says, "if one makes one stand on what is of greater importance in the frst instance, what is of smaller importance cannot usurp its place."17 From this notion, when one proceeds to regulate their family and to bring order to their state, then there will be peace

<sup>17</sup>*Mencius*, 6A: 15; Lau (1970: 259).

throughout the world. This process is what Confucius meant when [to the question on "cultivating oneself by practicing *gyeong/jing*] he said, "One cultivate oneself, and thereby bring peace and security to one's fellow people."18 The state is also what is meant by "[when the superior man] is sincere and reverent, the world will be in order and at peace" (*Zhongyong*, chapter 33). All of these processes and states cannot be completed if one does not practice *gyeong/jing* even for a single day." (*JTJ* vol. 11: 131–132; my translation)

Given these desirable states and processes of cultivation, Zhu Xi claims that the one word, *gyeong/jing*, is the essential and main point of *seonghak*. Following up Zhu Xi's passage on *gyeong/jing* as an essential way of selfcultivation, Toegye emphasizes that one should understand the diagram of the *Great Learning* in the context of not only the "Diagram of the *Elementary Learning* (小學)," but also all other diagrams, and adds his comments to support Zhu Xi's answer as follows:

*Gyeong/jing* runs throughout both "upper and lower,"19 so one should not lose one's practice of *gyeong/jing* both when one starts one's practice and when one collects the effect of practice. (*JTJ* vol 11: 132; my translation)

In chapter 8, "Diagram of the Study of the Mind-Heart" (*simhakdo* 心 學圖), Toegye cites once again these main pillars of *gyeong/jing* to support that *gyeong/jing* means "the master of one's mind-heart (心之主宰)" and the foundation of all affairs (*JTJ* vol. 11: 144):

[The lower part of the diagram, which is about *gyeong/jing*] from "be discerning and undivided, and select [what is good] and hold on to it frmly," and below, is all about the cultivation for blocking [selfsh] desires and preserving the principle of Heaven. [The lower-left part of the diagram] from "be watchful when alone," and below, is all about blocking selfsh desires. When one attains the state that one's mind-heart does not move, wealth and high position cannot make him corrupted. Poverty and low position cannot move him. Mighty power cannot bend him. At this stage one will be able to observe that his *dao* is illuminating and his virtue is established. [the lowerright part of the diagram] "Cautious and apprehensive," and below, is all about the cultivation for preserving the principle of Heaven. When one

<sup>19</sup> I understand that this means the teaching of the books and diagrams of "*Great Learning* and *Elementary Learning*."

<sup>18</sup>*Analects*, 14: 42; Lau (1979: 147).

attains the state that one can follow one's mind-heart, the mind-heart will be its substance and desires will be its function. The substance is the *dao* and the function is righteousness. Then, one's voice [naturally] follows rules and one's bodily movement is performed according to its proper code. At this stage one can see that one can understand without thinking and attain without effort. In sum, the essential point of applying [all these ideas] for cultivation is that anything is not departing from *gyeong/jing*. (*JTJ* vol. 11: 143–144; my translation)

Toegye clarifes the practice of *gyeong/jing* as a required way of cultivation for controlling selfsh emotions and desires so that they can be issued, preserving their principle. What he means by "preserving the principle or the principle of Heaven" is that when one successfully cultivates oneself by *gyeong/jing*, one will be able to make all emotions as function of the mindheart naturally aroused virtuous and lead attitude and behaviors to follow proper order without any deliberate effort.

Finally, in chapter 9, "Diagram of the Admonition for *Gyeong/Jing* Studio" (*gyeongjaejamdo* 敬齋箴圖), Toegye quotes Zhu Xi's "Admonition for *Gyeong/Jing* Studio" to fnalize his treatise on *gyeong/jing* and sage learning through all ten diagrams which he organized using the teachings of *gyeong/jing*. The Admonition contains numerous guidelines on how and what one should actually do while they practice *gyeong/jing*. I do not have to recite the passage of the Admonition here because we examined concrete rules for practicing *gyeong/jing* earlier in this chapter. It is unsurprising to learn that Toegye himself does not add much of his own commentary. Toegye evaluates the excellence of this Admonition as a summary of the meanings of *gyeong/jing*, quoting the statement by Zhen Dexiu 眞 德秀 (1178–1235)20: "there is nothing left that could be talked about the meanings of *gyeong/jing*" (*JTJ* vol. 11: 148). Toegye also emphasizes the role of such diagrams for *gyeong/jing* practice and concludes once again that *gyeong/jing* is the very beginning and end of *seonghak*.

20The *Book of the Mind-heart* (*simgyeong/xinjing* 心經) complied by Zhen Dexiu was one of the main resources for Toegye's lifelong study.

# 3.4 *Gyeong/Jing* in Contemporary Ethical Debate

The recent debates on the concept of virtue and the revival of virtue ethics help us recognize that it is time to stop the wrestling between teleological and deontological theories. Infuenced by recent debates, many commentators attempt to interpret Confucianism and/or Neo-Confucianism as a version of virtue ethics. Indeed, discussing the issues that arise from the revival of virtue ethics as an alternative to the two dominant moral theories, as well as the interpretation of Confucian and/or Neo-Confucian ethics as virtue ethics, is ongoing meaningful work; but beyond the scope of this chapter.21 In this limited section, I assume that Toegye's ethical perspective can be characterized as virtue ethics in the sense that virtue ethics, unlike action-centered theories such as deontology and consequentialism, is concerned with the question of virtue/vice, character trait, and/ or one's whole life as primary. I intend to support that Toegye's philosophy presents a unique version of virtue theory by providing the distinctive role of *gyeong/jing*. For this chapter, I attempt to approach selected problems that arise in the milieu of contemporary ethical debates on the revival of virtue ethics, from Toegye's ethical perspective on *gyeong/jing*. Although it is widely accepted that the idea of *gyeong/jing* has a very signifcant place within both the Chinese and the Korean Confucian tradition, the questions of whether and how the idea can be applied to modern life beyond the Confucian tradition are seldom discussed.22

Virtue ethics is not a new idea. In contemporary ethics discourse, virtue ethics is, as Gary Watson would have it, not a code or a general moral claim, but a set of abstract theses on how certain concepts are best ftted together for the purpose of understanding morality (Watson 1990: 451). Thus, virtue ethics cannot but meet with diverse objections from different perspectives. One of the most prevailing objections against virtue ethics, which Walter Schiller calls the Standard View (Schiller 1990), is that moral virtues are, fundamentally and essentially, dispositions to obey moral rules, that is, to perform or omit certain actions. In other words, to have a moral virtue is to be disposed to act as moral rules direct, on the grounds that "moral virtues derive their contents from the requirements set by moral rules" (Schiller 1990: 2).

<sup>21</sup>Regarding both questions, see Angle and Slote (2013).

<sup>22</sup>For an example of exception, see Chung (2011).

Against this objection, two responses are possible. First, the main interest of virtue ethics is neither the act nor its consequences, but rather the agent. This, of course, does not mean that a notion of action should be excluded in the debate of morality. Virtue ethics is not interested in one particular act under certain conditions or within a moral quandary, but rather in long-term characteristic patterns of actions. Second, Michael Slote's recent article about agent-based virtue ethics attempts to evaluate actions in terms of inner states of the persons who perform them (Slote 1995: 83–101). This claim seems to be radical within the contemporary view of ethics. He claims that an agent-based approach to virtue ethics treats the moral or ethical status of acts as entirely derivative from independent and fundamental *aretaic* ethical characterizations of motives, character traits, or individuals (Slote 1995: 83–84).

However, I note that both the Standard View and virtue ethicists' responses to it are limited to the debates on the relationship between action and virtue (or character). All of them presuppose that, as George Sher claims, action seems to be conceptually prior because, while we must understand character in terms of action, a particular or long-term pattern, we may be able to understand action without reference to character (Sher 1998: 4). However, although it seems to make sense that any plausible analysis of character traits makes essential reference to various types of actions (Sher 1998: 4–5), it is not necessarily true. Not only can we act virtuously from a particular virtuous disposition, but we can also have virtuous motivations, habits of thought (Montague 1992) will, desires, and emotions that do not always issue in action, but constitute one's character (Premise #1). Action's conceptual priority in *analysis* cannot warrant its priority in ethical and *practical* value and the basis of morality.

I will now introduce my second premise, comparing the common formulas of the fundamental claims of act utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics on right action23:


23Although there are many different formulas of these major moral theories, I adopt them from Hursthouse (1999: 25–42).

3. Virtue ethics: An action is right if and only if it is what a *virtuous agent* world characteristically [decide to] do in the circumstances.

It seems that virtue ethicists need to provide their defnition of "virtuous agent." Let me attempt this: A virtuous agent is one who has certain virtues. Then, virtue ethicists can offer the list of virtues which are character traits.24 At this point, if the concept of virtue is defned simply in terms of particular actions and moral rules in order to respond to epistemological questions, the attempt results in the typical critique that virtue ethics is, at best, a version of (can be reduced to) deontological theory. My premise #2 is that, in order for virtue ethics to be established as a signifcant alternative to the major moral theories and to properly respond to their opposers, virtue ethicists must answer questions such as "what has the priority in both *conceptual and practical* understanding of morality" and "what makes an agent a virtuous one, no matter whether the agent indeed performs a particular action/obeys a moral rule." These answers should demonstrate the priority of virtues/character traits of an agent without excluding the conceptual priority of action.

From my premises 1 and 2, I would like to suggest that the idea of *gyeong/jing* systematized by Zhu Xi and Toegye can respond to these demands. I would name this philosophical perspective virtue ethics of *gyeong/jing*. As we have examined, *gyeong/jing* is one's respect for one's goodness as human nature and effort for maintaining it. It is not simply the act of following a set of given concrete moral rules under a situation, but honoring the moral nature and embodying *li* (理) in all actions. When it is expressed externally, it may come to frstly possess the appearance of respect (*gong/gong* 恭). But the essential role of *gyeong/jing* is to make specifc virtuous emotions possible and to keep them virtuous.

It is not simply a disposition to perform a certain pattern of action and to obey a certain moral rule that involves a particular judgment or evaluation; rather, as I demonstrated earlier from Toegye's passages, *gyeong/jing* is a complex25 of dispositions such as "preserving one's mind-heart," "strict

24This is a common way to defne virtues that has been adopted by commentators who interpret Confucian ethics as virtue ethics.

<sup>25</sup> I thank Dr. Halla Kim for his comment on this point at the Annual Conference of the Korean Philosophical Society, Kyungpook National University, Korea, November 2019, where I presented an early version of this chapter. He also suggested the possibility of Yulgok's virtue ethics of *seong* 誠 (sincerity) and Dasan's virtue ethics of *sindok* 愼獨 (watchfulness when alone) and *seo* 恕 (reciprocity)*.*

composure and quiet recollection," "admonishment and cautions," and so on. It is also an even higher level of disposition such as self-examination that controls those dispositions to properly act and continuously make other forms of cultivation like investigation of principle possible. It is also a moral attitude that always leads us in maintaining awareness of human goodness as human nature. In this sense, *gyeong/jing* should be understood as a key for representing and cultivating one's moral character. Relating to action, it is not only a basis from which moral action can be performed, but also a standard by which a given action can be evaluated.

### 3.5 Conclusion

As Toegye explains in the "Diagram of Learning of the Mind-Heart," chapter 8 of *Seonghaksipdo*, the mind-heart is the master of one's body and *gyeong/jing* is the master of the mind-heart. *Gyeong/jing* is not simply a disposition which has a tendency to act in a pattern as contemporary opponents of virtue ethics defne virtue. Practicing *gyeong/jing* entails one's practice of admonishment and caution, single-mindedness and freedom from distraction, being orderly and solemn, keeping recollected, and keeping mindful alertness. *Gyeong/jing* is not only the emotion of reverence but also of self-examination, self-refection, and self-awareness, for which the serious attitude of honoring the originally good moral nature is always implied.

The aim of Toegye's *gyeonghak* is to be a virtuous person, like an exemplary person or a sage who maintains the practice of *gyeong/jing*, so that even when one simply follows an aroused emotion, their character ensures that a consequent thought, speech, or action will not violate the *Dao*, but "hit upon what is right without deliberate effort and apprehend without deliberate thinking" (*Seonghaksipdo*, chapter 8).26 As a representative scholar of Korean Neo-Confucianism, Toegye did not stop at inheriting Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucianism, but advanced to clarify and systematize the idea of *gyeng/jing*. In doing so, he re-consolidated the philosophy of *gyeong/jing* as a holistic approach to self-cultivation, which embraces *both* honoring the moral nature and following the path of question and learning, at *both* the theoretical and the practical level, and performs emotional control in *both* tranquility and activity of the mind-heart.

<sup>26</sup> *Seonghak sipdo*, chapter 8, originally from *Zhongyong*, chapter 20.

### References


Legge, James. trans. 1966. *I Ching: Book of Changes*. New York: University Books.


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Yi Yulgok on the Role of Emotions in Selfcultivation and Ethics: A Korean Confucian and Comparative Interpretation

# *Edward Y. J. Chung*

# 4.1 Introduction

Yi I 李珥 (Yulgok [literary name] 栗谷; 1536–1584) was a leading Neo-Confucian thinker and one of the greatest statesmen in Joseon Korea (1392–1897). He explained certain ambiguity and questions about the textual orthodoxy of Confucianism by presenting his own opinions and

© The Author(s) 2022

I am pleased to acknowledge that my immense work on researching and writing this chapter as well as organizing, editing, completing, and publishing this book from the beginning (early 2019) to the end (winter 2021/22) was supported by a Korean Studies Seed Program grant (AKS-2017-INC-2230001) through the Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea and Korean Studies Promotion Service (KSPS), Academy of Korean Studies (AKS). I am grateful for this special grant, which included full funding for my research travel and activities and scholarly consultation. Furthermore, it fully funded the publisher's powerful open access (OA) publication of the entire book.

E. Y. J. Chung (\*)

Asian Studies and Religious Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE, Canada e-mail: chung@upei.ca

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_4

insights. One key idea in the Confucian and Neo-Confucian tradition is *jeong*/*qing* (情; emotions or feelings) and its vital role in self-cultivation. Yulgok developed an engaging philosophy of emotions and discussed its implications for ethics and political reform according to his original, creative study of classical and Neo-Confucian doctrines. As far as I know, this interesting topic is insuffciently discussed in current scholarship on Korean Confucianism.1

This chapter therefore presents such a topic by focusing on Yulgok's interpretation of the holistic nature of emotions in self-cultivation and statecraft. It covers his famous Four-Seven debate letters and *Seonghak jibyo* (聖學輯要; Collected essentials of sagely learning) as well as his major political essays such as *Yukjogye* (六條啓; Six-article memorial for current affairs) and *Dongho mundap* (東湖問答; Dongho questions and answers [regarding sagely rulership]). The second and third sections articulate the basic nature, role, and problem of emotions and briefy compare Yulgok's views with some Western theories of emotions. I discuss Yulgok's theory that emotional harmony and virtuous action require "the transformation of *gi*/*qi* (氣; vital energy; material force)"2 for self-cultivation and ethics, and why this theory supports his practical ideas of political reform as well.

1For current scholarship focusing on Yulgok and Korean Neo-Confucianism, consult Ro (1989) and (2019) (a new anthology including two articles on Yulgok), Kalton et al. (1994) (includes Yulgok's Four-Seven debate letters), Lee (2006), H. Kim (2018), Chung (1995; (chapters on Yulgok's Four-Seven debate and self-cultivation), 1998, 2019a). The current literature on Korean Neo-Confucianism, Yi Toegye (李退溪, 1501–1570), and Yi Yulgok includes Kalton (1988, 2019a, 2019b), Kalton et al. (1994), Ro (2019), H. Kim (2015), Ivanhoe (2015, 2016), Seok (2018), de Bary and Kim Haboush (1985), Keum (1998), Chan (1985), Ching (1985), Tu (1982, 1985b), and Chung (1995, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2015, 2016, 2019a, 2019c), Chung (2020; on Korean Yangming Neo-Confucianism), Chung (2021; a new book on Yi Toegye's moral-religious thought). For works in East Asian languages, see Abe (1977), Song (1987), Hwang (1987), Geum (1980, 1989, 1998), Yi (1986), and so on. See also the list of references in Chap. 1 of this book for more relevant primary sources and other translations and secondary sources I have listed and cited regarding the Chinese and Korean Confucian traditions.

2On account of the complexity of translating some key Confucian concepts comprehensively and fexibly, we use some romanized forms when appropriate as follows: *gi/qi* (氣; vital energy or material force), *i*/*li* (理; principle [of being], pattern, order), and *gijil/qizhi* (氣質; physical and psychological dispositions). For details on the translation of these and other terms, see my (editors') Note on Transliteration, Translation, and Citation Style at the beginning of this book.

The concluding section presents some further comments. For example, it briefy compares Yulgok's interpretation of moral emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) with some compatible aspects of Western virtue ethics. It also concludes that the modern relevance of Yulgok's insights emphasizes ethical passions to promote political justice and social wellbeing. His passion for government "people-based policies" and national prosperity strongly resonates with the contemporary spirit of democracy and political responsibility. By putting fresh light on the breadth and depth of Yulgok's thought, I wish to provide an interesting chapter on Korean Neo-Confucianism and the comparative study of emotions and, at the same time, to make a worthwhile contribution to the new Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy.

### 4.2 Emotions: Basic Nature and Types

Emotion (*jeong*/*qing* 情) is a central idea in Yulgok's interpretation of self-cultivation and ethics. I translate and explain this key term according to its different contexts. Throughout this chapter, it is translated as "emotion(s)," "feeling(s)," or more inclusively "emotions and feelings." So we use both English words interchangeably. As I have thoroughly discussed in the introductory chapter, the same term can *positively* mean affection, sympathy, or sentiments or also *negatively* denote or relate to such emotions as pleasure, anger, sorrow, fear, and hatred.3 For Yulgok, *jeong*/*qing* is therefore a dynamic interplay between the body and the heart-mind. As in the case of his Four-Seven ethics, it also refers to an aroused physical or psychological state, often the result of a stimulation of the mind.4 In this book, the editors and most chapter contributors generally use the word "emotion(s)" for the Korean term *jeong*/*qing*.

This topic is one of the most important contributions Yulgok made to Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism and its Korean school (*Seongnihak*). In addressing Confucian orthodoxy, Yulgok pointed out that there are certain

<sup>3</sup> I also discuss other points about the dynamic and fexible translation of the term *jeong*/*qing* in the introductory chapter, Sects. 1.4 (Diversity of Emotions) and 2.1 (Emotions in Early (Pre-Buddhist) China). The beginning of the concluding chapter also discusses the translation issue.

4For my discussion of the idea and role of *jeong*/*qing* according to the Korean Four-Seven debate on emotions, see also Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.1 as well as Chaps. 2 and 6 by Seok and Harroff, respectively. For the original Chinese doctrines, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.2 (Emotions in Classical Confucianism) and Sect. 1.2.3 (Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism on Emotions…).

ambiguities at the heart of classical texts and Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucian writings, so it is important to clarify their "intended meanings" through one's experience and thoughtful refection.5

In his famous Four-Seven debate,6 Yulgok rigorously discussed the basic nature and types of emotions (*jeong*/*qing*). Like Toegye, he debated various questions and issues about the Four Beginnings of virtue (*sadan*/*siduan* 四端) and the Seven Emotions (*chiljeong*/*qiqing* 七情), as I have discussed in Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.1 (Korean Confucian Perspectives).7 This debate also articulated the vital implication of the Four-Seven interplay for self-cultivation and ethics, most of which was not explained clearly in the Chinese tradition. Yulgok's goal was therefore to interpret a moral, conceptual, and psychological link between the Four and the Seven. The key question was whether the Four should be viewed as moral emotions, intuitions, knowing, or willing that are independent or dependent of the Seven and whether the Seven are to be identifed as physical or psychological phenomena, the aroused states of the human body and mind.

According to Yulgok, ordinary emotions, feelings, sensations, and desires all belong to the physical and psychological part of human nature and experience, although they are not necessarily moral *jeong*/*qing*. 8 In his Four-Seven debate letter, Yulgok states: "In some cases, our mind (*sim*/*xin* 心) is aroused in favor of moral principles (*i*/*li* 理); in other cases, it is aroused in favor of eating and sexual desires (*yok*/*yu* 欲)."9 In other words, he concurs with Mencius and Zhu Xi's interpretation that all human beings have a common tendency to be virtuous according to the moral essence of human nature backed up by *i*/*li*

5Yi I (Yulgok) (1985), *Yulgok jeonseo* (栗谷全書; *Complete works of Yi Yulgok*), 2 vols., 10: 13a; I, 202. Hereafter, this primary source is abbreviated as *YJ*.

6The Four-Seven debate was a very important and challenging topic for eminent Korean Neo-Confucians such as Toegye and Yulgok, as well as among their debaters and followers. It played a powerful role in contributing to the distinctively Korean development of Neo-Confucianism, thereby producing the focused interpretations of Seongnihak thought. It established a major intellectual agenda for many scholars until the late nineteenth century (Chung 1995). Current scholarship on this topic includes: Kalton et al. (1994; a complete translation of the Four-Seven letters), Ching (1985), Tu (1985b), Ivanhoe (2015, 2016), Seok (2018), Kim (2015), Chung (1995: a comparative study of Toegye and Yulgok) Chung (1998), Chung (2019b: on the history, philosophy, and spirituality of the Four-Seven debate), Chung (2021: chapter 4).

7For the *locus classicus* listing of the Four and the Seven, see nn. 17, 21 below.

<sup>8</sup>*YJ* 20: 57a; I, 455. This point appears in Zhu Xi (1880), *Zhuzi yulei*, 61:5a-b as well.

<sup>9</sup>*YJ* 10: 4a-b; I, 198.

([metaphysical] principle, ground of being, or pattern).10 However, this innate goodness is also subject to the daily reality of things and phenomena that are stimulated and conditioned by *gi*/*qi* (氣 vital/physical energy or material force) as well.

*I*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* are two key Neo-Confucian ideas. Song Chinese Neo-Confucians, especially Zhang Zai (張載 1020–1073) and Cheng Hao (程 顥 1032–1085), developed their philosophies by focusing on the idea of *gi*/*qi.* Cheng Yi (程頤; 1033–1107) and Zhu Xi (朱熹; 1130–1200) articulated their metaphysics and ethics in terms of *i*/*li*, human nature, and self-cultivation. Yulgok's interpretation is therefore based on Zhu Xi's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, a well-researched topic that does not need to be rehearsed here.11

In Yulgok's view, sages and ordinary people share basic human feelings and desires that are associated with their physical disposition and functions. For example, all human beings "want (desire; *yok*/*yu* 欲) to eat when hungry."12 "Like uncultivated inferior people, the sages cannot avoid eating when [feeling] hungry or drinking when [feeling] thirsty."13 However, Yulgok argues that these are not moral emotions. We all "desire to wear clothes when cold," "desire to scratch when itchy," and have "the four limb's desire for comfort." Two other examples are "desire to relax when tired" and "desire to have sex when one's semen is abundant."14

Accordingly, these feelings (*jeong*/*qing* 情) are aroused as desires (*yok*/*yu* 欲) or sensations to satisfy what Yulgok calls the specifc

<sup>10</sup> See *Mencius* 2A: 6, 6A: 2, 6; see also *Gyeongseo* (1972). For Zhu Xi's view, see my discussion of his Four-Seven philosophy in Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.3.

11For the translation of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi, s*ee the Note on Transliteration, Translation and the Citation Style that I have provided at the beginning of this book. For more discussion on Yi Yulgok's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, see Ro (1989, 2019) and Chung (1995, 1998, 2019a). The current literature on Zhu Xi's philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* includes Angle and Tiwald (2017), Chan (1963, 1967, 1986), de Bary (1981, 2004), Gardner (1990), Ching (2000), Tu (1985a, 1985b), Tu and Tucker (2004), Tang (1973), Tomoeda (1969), and so on. For Toegye, Yulgok, and Korean Neo-Confucianism on this topic, see Kalton (1988), Hyoungchan Kim (2018), Chung (1995, 2016, 2020, 2021). Chung (2020) presents a detailed discussion of Jeong Hagok's (1649–1736) systematic critique of Zhu Xi's and Toegye's philosophies of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* according to Hagok's creative synthesis of Yangming Neo-Confucianism in Korea.

<sup>14</sup>*YJ* 14: 4a; I, 282.

<sup>12</sup>*YJ* 10: 3b; I, 197.

<sup>13</sup>*YJ* 10: 15b; I, 203.

"individual needs" of the human body and mind.15 In other words, they are the Aristotelian "natural kind" of feelings (instincts) constituting human nature. This part of Yulgok's theory also resembles what William James, an eminent psychologist (of religion), calls physiological "sensations" (or the feelings of "bodily changes") (1984, 1990).16

In relation to desire, Yulgok, like other Korean Neo-Confucians such as Toegye, also talked about the so-called Seven Emotions (*chiljeong*/*qiqing* 七情): "pleasure (happiness; *hui*/*xi* 喜), anger (*no*/*nu* 怒), sorrow (*ae*/*ai* 哀), fear (*gu*/*ju* 懼), love (*ae*/*ai* 愛), hatred (dislike; *o*/*wu* 惡), and desire (*yok*/*yu* 欲)" are basic human emotions that "are not acquired through learning from the outside."17 Yulgok affrmed that all of the Seven belong to the ordinary group of physical and psychological feelings that are understood as the "aroused" (*bal*/*fa* 發) states of our mind and body. The Seven are therefore not necessarily moral emotions, so self-cultivation requires a measure of control over them; that is, emotional harmony.

In his Four-Seven letters, Yulgok also emphasizes that human beings have the moral type of emotions: desire "to be flial to parents," desire "to be loyal to a ruler," and other desires based on their moral principles (*i*/*li*)*.* 18 Here it is quite interesting and important to note that Yulgok affrmed "desire" (*yok*/*yu* 欲), one of the Seven Emotions, as a moral emotion if it follows or is based on *i*/*li* (principle; moral pattern/order). In other words, one's genuine desire to love one's parents is certainly a moral emotion in accordance with the moral principle (*i*/*li*) of flial piety.19 From a comparative perspective, Yulgok's notion of emotions as "desires"

<sup>15</sup>*YJ* 10: 3b-4a; I, 197–99 and 14: 4a; I, 282.

<sup>16</sup> I mentioned these two Western theories of emotions by Aristotle and James in Sect. 1.1.1 (Theories of Emotions) of Chap. 1 of this book.

17For the locus classicus for "the Seven Emotions," see the *Book of Rites* (Legge 1970: [1] 379) and *Doctrine of the Mean*, chapter 1 (see Chan 1963: 98). The latter text pays special attention to the frst three of these emotions and adds "joy," representing the Seven Emotions as follows:

Before *pleasure*, *anger*, *sorrow*, and *joy* (*rak*/*le*; 樂) are manifested (*bal*/*fa* 發; aroused) it is called centrality (the Mean). After they are manifested and each and all attain due measure and degree, it is called harmony. Centrality is the great foundation of the world, and harmony is its universal Way. When you realize centrality and harmony to the utmost, Heaven and Earth will sustain their proper order and the myriad things will fourish. (My translation and *italics*)

For more details on this topic, see Sect. 1.2.2.3 (Mencius: Four Beginnings…) of Chap. 1 of this book as well as Bongrae Seok's Chap. 2 on the essential features of Korean Four-Seven debates.

<sup>18</sup>*YJ* 10: 6b; I, 198.

<sup>19</sup> I discussed this point in Sect. 1.1.4 (Diversity of Emotions) of Chap. 1 of this book.

seems to concur with a contemporary Western theory of emotions as "desires" according to Joel Marks (1995, 2013).20

For Yulgok, other virtuous emotions include what Mencius called the Four Beginnings [of virtue] (*sadan/siduan* 四端): namely, "the heartsminds (*sim*/*xin* 心; moral feelings) of "compassion" (*cheugeun*/*ceyin* 惻 隱), "shame and aversion" (*suo*/*xiuwu* 羞惡), "courtesy and modesty" (*sayang*/*cirang* 辭讓), and "discerning right and wrong" (*sibi*/*shifei* 是 非).21 These emotions are therefore associated with moral rightness. Regarding the Four Beginnings as moral emotions (*jeong*/*qing*), Yulgok then interprets the *Mencius* 6A:6 as follows: the moral heart-mind of compassion—which Mencius refers to as "the beginning of human-heartedness (*in*/*ren* 仁; benevolence)," one of the Four—is aroused after, for example, "suddenly seeing a child about to fall into a well." In this particular case, the child is an apparent external stimulus; otherwise, this compassion would not be a "real emotion."22 In other words, there are no "aroused emotions/feelings" without being conscious of the world of concrete phenomena. Yulgok writes:

20Marks's theory of emotions as "desires" is also discussed in Chap. 1, Sect. 1.1.1 (Theories of Emotions).

21The locus classicus for "the Four Beginnings" is Mencius, who emphasized the Four as both the heart-mind (*sim*/*xin*) and innate emotions (*jeong*/*qing*). According to the *Mencius* 2A: 6,

A person without *the heart-mind of compassion* is not human; a person without *the heartmind of shame and aversion* is not human; a person without *the heart-mind of courtesy and modesty* is not human; and a person without *the heart-mind of right and wrong* is not human. … All human beings have these Four Beginnings [of virtue] just as they have their four limbs. For those possessing the Four Beginnings to neglect their own potentials is to destroy themselves. (My translation and *italics*; see also Lau 1970: 82–83 or Chan 1963: 65)

We also read in the *Mencius* 6A:6:

The heart-mind [moral emotion] of compassion is [the beginning of] *human-heartedness* [benevolence]; the heart-mind of shame and dislike is [the beginning of] *justice [righteousness]*; the heart-mind of courtesy and modesty is [the beginning of] *propriety*; and the heartmind of right and wrong is [the beginning of] *wisdom*. Human-heartedness, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom do not come from the outside; they originally exist in me. (My translation and *italics*; see also Lau 1970: 163)

For further details on this topic, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.2.3 (Mencius: Four Beginnings…) as well as Seok's Chap. 2 on the Korean Four-Seven debates.

<sup>22</sup>*YJ* 10: 6b; I, 198.

Even the sagely *heart-mind* cannot act on itself with nothing felt (*gam/kan* 感).23 The heart-mind moves only when it feels something. What is felt involves an external phenomenon. This is because flial piety is generated when one feels for one's parents; loyalty is aroused when one feels for one's king. … How can there be any emotion (*jeong*/*qing*) aroused only from the inside without [the self] being conscious of the external world?24

When one is aware of human relationships, one wants to "abide in humanheartedness (benevolence)," "be flial to parents," and so on.25 Regarding these moral emotions, "What is felt or what moves is certainly physical form."26 Emotions are aroused in response to the reality of "physical form (*hyeonggi*/*xingqi* 形氣)."27 Yulgok's interpretation therefore confrms the Cheng-Zhu idea of physical form in relation to the idea of *gi*/*qi*, the human body, and the external world. The mind is "aroused by physical dispositions (*gijil*/*qizhi* 氣質)."28 By the term *gijil*, Yulgok meant not only its standard rendering of "physical dispositions"29 but, more broadly, various physical and psychological factors. This is why emotions are therefore diverse due to the dynamic activity of *gi*/*qi* with respect to human life and experience.30

For Yulgok, then, emotions are aroused as the consciousness of the self responds to concrete things or phenomena, insofar as the human body and mind are aware of and participate in the external world. For example, moral emotions entail some awareness of established human-social relationships. In other words, Yulgok does not distinguish emotion from

23The Korean-Chinese verb *gam*/*kan* 感, used in this passage, has other related meanings such as "to be conscious of," "to be moved [stimulated] by," or "to perceive" as well.

27The term *hyeong*/*xing* 形 represents the body as well; in classical Chinese thought, it was a common character frequently used to represent the human body (as noted by Ames 1993). In Neo-Confucian writings, the same term signifes "form," "shape," or "disposition." The second character *gi*/*qi* means vital energy or material force; accordingly, the combined Neo-Confucian term *hyeonggi*/*xingqi*, as explained by Yulgok (and others), refers to physical and psychological forms, as well as the phenomenal world of things.

<sup>28</sup>*YJ* 10: 4b; I, 198.

29The Neo-Confucian term *gijil*/*qizhi* is usually translated as "physical dispositions" (Chan, de Bary, and others), but Yulgok's interpretation also encompasses psychological dispositions and characteristics, in relation to human emotions. For my further discussion of this topic, see Chung (1995, 1998, 2016, 2019a).

<sup>30</sup>*YJ* 10: 7b; I, 199.

<sup>24</sup>*YJ* 10: 6b; I, 198.

<sup>25</sup>*YJ* 10: 4a; I, 198.

<sup>26</sup>*YJ* 10: 4a; I, 198.

reason (cognition), and vice versa because the heart-mind (*sim*/*xin* 心) is one single holistic faculty that coordinates and apprehends the entire self with respect to rationality and emotionality. This is compatible with Marks's theory of emotions as "desires" (1995, 2013) and Robert C. Solomon's theory of emotions as "judgments" (1993, 1995a, 2001), both of which support the cognitive nature of emotions: in Marks's case, desiring means cognitively knowing what to desire for; and in Solomon's case, judgments "need concepts," so one's judging assimilates to some level of one's reasoning (i.e., cognition).31

In his famous *Seonghak jibyo* (聖學輯要; Collected essentials of sagely learning),32 Yulgok's most extensive and systematic work of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucian metaphysics, ethics, and statecraft, Yulgok points out that the essence of human nature is "the unmanifested state of the mind" that is always pure and good, whereas aroused emotions and feelings, "the manifested state of the mind," give rise to either good or evil.33 According to his second Four-Seven letter as well, evil can become apparent in the Seven Emotions or other ordinary feelings or desires if they are not properly *harmonized*. Bad or good emotions depend on whether or not one's *gi*/*qi* is "impure."

The following section discusses how Yulgok therefore emphasized the active role of emotions in the practice of self-cultivation.

# 4.3 The Meaning and Role of Emotions in Self-cultivation

The mind (*sim*/*xin*) coordinates all dimensions of human life and experience because human nature is conditioned by *gi*/*qi* through the dynamic reality of external things and phenomena. Yulgok states in his Four-Seven letter: "the physical [and psychological] conditioning of human nature can have both good and evil."34 In other words, when stimulated by external

<sup>31</sup> I discussed this topic in Sect. 1.1.1 (Theories of Emotions) and Sect. 1.1.3 (Dichotomy of Emotion and Reason) of the introductory chapter.

32Yulgok's *Seonghak jibyo* is found in *YJ* 20: 1a–20:38b; I, 428–527 and II, 1–81. This major work consists of eight lengthy volumes that are divided into 26 fascicles on many ideas and topics. It is a superb Korean systematization of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism. For my translation and discussion of a few selected passages from the *Seonghak jibyo*, see Chung (1995: especially chapter V and appendix 4) and (2019a).

<sup>33</sup>*YJ* 20: 57b; I, 455.

<sup>34</sup>*YJ* 9: 39a; I, 195.

factors, either good or evil arises, depending on whether or not the self *harmonizes* daily emotions and desires properly.35 In his *Seonghak jibyo*, 36 Yulgok explains good and evil (bad) from a similar perspective as follows:

To be joyful when one should be joyful and to be angry when one should be angry refer to good emotions [of joy and anger], whereas to be joyful when one should not be joyful and to be angry when one should not be angry refer to evil emotions [of joy and anger].37

Note that joy and anger in this quoted paragraph are two of the so-called Seven Emotions. In other words, if an emotion like joy or anger is expressed according to its proper ground or context, then it is as good as moral emotions like the Four Beginnings. In other words, the Seven are good emotions when they are harmonized by attaining what the *Doctrine of the Mean* (chapter 1) calls their "due measure and degree." The following statement from Yulgok's Four-Seven letter also articulates the same point further:

We are joyful when we should be joyful, we are sorrowful on account of bereavement, we are pleased in seeing those we love, we desire to study principles when we encounter them, and we desire to be equal to the worthies when we meet them: these are the emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) of joy, sorrow, love, and desire [four of the Seven Emotions], all of which refer to the beginnings of [the virtue of] human-heartedness (benevolence). [Similarly,] we are angry when we should be angry, and we hate something when we should hate it: these are the emotions of anger and hatred [two of the Seven], both of which refer to the beginnings of [the virtue of] justice.38

In short, Yulgok basically means that the Four Beginnings, including compassion, are none other than "the good side" of the Seven Emotions. It is rationally and ethically justifed (or appropriate) to be angry at (or hate) evil things such as injustice and violence. If expressed properly, anger is a good emotion indistinguishable from "the heart-mind (moral feeling) of shame and dislike," that is, "the beginning of justice," one of the Four.

<sup>35</sup>*YJ* 9: 38a: I, 195.

<sup>36</sup> See the frst and most important part on "Self-cultivation," *YJ* 20: 1a–29b; I, 427–499. This part of the *Seonghak jibyo* has three main major chapters consisting of thirteen sections that are divided into short subsections on various themes about Confucian self-cultivation.

<sup>37</sup>*YJ* 20: 57a; I, 455; translation from Chung (1995: 146).

<sup>38</sup>*YJ* 10: 7a–b; I, 199, translation, with slight modifcation, from Chung (1995: 101–102).

Yulgok means that this justifed anger (hatred) is a kind of moral indignation; that is, an ethical passion to love and support justice. In my comparative opinion, it somewhat concurs with what Solomon (1993, 1995a, 2001) calls "passion for justice" and "the meaning of life."

Regarding the role of emotions in self-cultivation, Yulgok confrms the self in its interaction with the external world. In the *Seonghak jibyo*, he states that "evil comes from one's own nature that is conditioned by *gi*/*qi* and physical and material desires."39 So evil emotions can occur when you remain selfsh or ignorant, as disturbed by your "impure *gi*/*qi*." This is why Yulgok's other major writings40 all emphasize the practice of selfcultivation. According to his Four-Seven letter, "The sages' physical and psychological dispositions (*gijil*/*qizhi*) are clear and pure … and their desires have no selfshness and are always controlled properly.41

By contrast, inferior (uncultivated) people's *gijil* are "turbid" and "impure," so their moral nature is neglected or lost. This is because their self-cultivation is "incomplete." Selfsh emotions or desires make one's selfcultivation a diffcult task when moral principles (*i*/*li*) are ignored. Nonetheless, Yulgok emphasizes: "That which is turbid can be transformed to become clear; that which is impure can be transformed to become pure. This is because only human beings work at self-cultivation."42

Yulgok's *Seonghak jibyo* therefore concludes that self-cultivation requires to harmonize emotions and desires by "nourishing your *gi*/*qi* (氣)" and "transforming your distorted *gijil*/*qizhi*." The way of nourishment and transformation means "to recover the fundamental moral nature."43 As Yulgok articulates in his Four-Seven letter, it cannot be done without following moral principles (*i*/*li*). This is why one has to be "compassionate" to others, "flial to parents," and "loyal to a ruler" on the basis of their moral principles (*i*/*li*)*.* 44 In the context of Mencius and Zhu Xi's interpretation, Yulgok means that all human beings can be virtuous according to the moral essence of human nature backed up by *i*/*li* (principle).

<sup>39</sup>*YJ* 20: 60a; I, 457.

<sup>40</sup> Including the *Gyeongmong yogyeol* (擊蒙要訣; Essential instructions of Gyeongmong), *YJ* 27: 3b; II, 82 and *Hakgyo mobeom* (學校模範; An academic model), *YJ* 15: 34a; I, 330. For my brief annotated discussion of these essays, see Chung (1995), especially chapter VI, sect. 4 as well as appendix 4.

<sup>41</sup>*YJ* 10: 14b-15a; I, 203.

<sup>42</sup>*YJ* 10: 3a; I, 197.

<sup>43</sup>*YJ* 21: 6a-b; I, 465.

<sup>44</sup>*YJ* 10: 6b; I, 198.

# 4.4 Yulgok's Ethics of Emotions: Passion for Political Reform

As we've seen above, Yulgok endeavored to articulate the positive role of emotions and the transformation of *gi*/*qi* in ethics. Regarding established human-social relationships, Yulgok says: one wants to "be faithful to friends," "be flial to parents," "follows justice," and so on.45 These moral emotions confrm Confucian belief in the virtuous heart-mind, i.e., the original goodness of human nature. The virtuous emotion of flial piety or "family reverence" (*hyo*/*xiao*) particularly confrms what Roger Ames (2010, 2020) and Henry Rosemont and Ames (2016) call "Confucian role ethics." Furthermore, it is also important to recognize the extension and application of family reverence as well as justice to society and politics.

In late sixteenth-century Korea, Yulgok provided a new set of passionate ideas and guidelines to reform the Joseon dynasty's institutions. His major political essays, all of which were directly addressed to the Korean king, articulated specifc political, social, and economic strategies. Yulgok emphasized this reform as a virtuous and righteous path to "cultivate the self" and "govern the nation" according to the basic teaching of the *Great Learning*, one of the Four Books of Confucianism.

Yulgok's renowned political career reveals a pro-active commitment to this path. In 1569 he submitted to the king the famous *Dongho mundap* (東湖問答; Dongho questions and answers)46 and proposed eleven new articles on political reform, including two policies for "securing people's welfare" and "education of people." Yulgok meant that this reform will bring about the joy of benevolent rulership, social harmony, economic wellbeing, and political justice. Note that he was aware of "joy" as one of the Seven Emotions according to the *Doctrine of the Mean* (one of the Four Books).

In his *Yukjogye* (六條啓; Six-article memorial for current affairs),47 another inspiring ethical-political essay submitted to the king, Yulgok criticizes the Joseon dynasty's persistent discrimination based on birth and social status by addressing the true Confucian way of leadership, responsibility, and harmony. In an emotionally and ethically rigorous style, six

<sup>45</sup>*YJ* 10: 4a: I, 198.

<sup>46</sup>This political memorial is included in *YJ* 15: 2a-33b; I, 313–329.

<sup>47</sup>For this essay, see *YJ* 8: 18a–23a; I, 172–189. For some further discussion of Yulgok's *Yukjogye*, *Dongho mundap*, and *Maneon bongsa* 萬言封事 (Ten-thousand character memorial) (*YJ* 5:10b–39a; I, 95–109), see Chung (1995: appendix 4).

urgent reform policies are recommended: e.g., the liberation of talented slaves, and the recruitment of skilled people from the commoners and servants. A reformist egalitarian vision for the people's rights, needs, and concerns is revealed through this and other political essays.48 Yulgok also emphasizes "people-based" policies and government "for people" and "by public opinion," most of which are, in my view, fairly reminiscent of the basic spirit of modern democracy as well.

These and other political essays reveal Yulgok's passion to transform the practical and socio-political world of *gi*/*qi*, thereby advocating an egalitarian and prosperous nation. This passion (*jeong*) was not just personal but also ethical and political. In my view, it certainly points to the fundamental spirit of moral equality and what Sungmoon Kim calls "Confucian democracy" (Kim 2014, 2016). In light of the *Great Learning* (one of the Four Books of Confucianism), Yulgok argues that the ethical virtues and passions one develops through personal cultivation ought to be extended and applied to political ethics. In other words, this Confucian way of harmony emphasizes the unity of the self and the public, which also reveals a healthy implication for the promotion of political and social justice in our world.49 The contemporary relevance of Yulgok's ethics of emotions and politics is commented further in the next concluding section.50

<sup>48</sup> In early nineteenth-century Joseon Korea, Yulgok's reformist political thought likely infuenced the greatest Silhak scholar, Jeong Yagyong 丁若鏞 (Dasan 茶山; 1762–1836) and especially his practical learning (*silhak*) and ethics. So, it is necessary to consider the intellectual and historical continuum between Yulgok and the Silhak school because the latter's reformist background echoes the former's practical and political thinking. The empirical and practical nature of Yulgok's philosophy and his political reform thought likely infuenced such leading Silhak thinkers such as Yi Ik 李翼 (Seongho 星湖; 1681–1763) and Dasan. We can call Yulgok a sixteenth-century pioneer in the early legacy of Silhak thought. For details on this topic, see Chung (2019a). Furthermore, see Chap. 5 of this book for Don Baker's interesting discussion of Dasan's ethics of emotions.

49Note that justice or righteousness (*eui/yi* 義) is one of the four cardinal virtues of Confucianism and its virtuous beginning (foundation) is the moral emotion (heart-mind) of "shame and aversion," one of the Four Beginnings (*Mencus* 2A: 6 and 6A:6); see also n. 21.

50From a broader comparative standpoint, we can discuss this issue here a little further, although it is beyond the main focus and scope of my chapter. Yulgok's political ethics concurs with, for example, Hyo-Dong Lee's Chap. 7 of this book on the empathetic heart (*jeong*), Confucian civility, and modern Korean democracy: Lee interprets the Confucian concept of emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) as a core moral-political value for "Confucian democracy" within the Korean context. Lee concludes that Confucian empathy (compassion) as "moral equality" has contributed to the promotion of political civility and "Confucian democracy" in Korea. From a similar angle, Sungmoon Kim already articulated the cross-cultural signifcance of Confucian ethical politics in terms of moral equality, "Confucian democracy," and

### 4.5 Conclusion: Confucian and Comparative

Yulgok's thought is both comprehensive and systematic. From a historical and philosophical standpoint, he believed that the continuity or justifcation of orthodoxy empowers a reasonable process to clarify, update, and/ or enrich existing teachings and norms. No wonder why he developed an original and creative interpretation of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism by means of articulating a practical ethics of self-cultivation and statecraft along with the notion of emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) and the idea of *gi*/*qi*. In this regard, we see some similar patterns among several well-known Cheng-Zhu scholars of East Asia: Yulgok (1536–1584) in Korea, Qing Chinese Neo-Confucians such as Wang Fuzhi (1613–1692), Yan Yuan (1635–1704), and Dai Zhen (1724–1777), and Tokugawa Japanese scholars, especially Kaibara Ekken (1630–1714).51 In recognizing the fundamental need for a reinterpretation in order to address the practical ethical or political relevance of Neo-Confucianism, they formulated similar philosophies by emphasizing the factual and social world of *gi*/*qi*. This historical and philosophical pattern of change among these parallel wings of the Cheng-Zhu school certainly points to an important topic for more scholarly research in the future.

This part of Yulgok's thought grew partly out of his critique of Toegye's philosophy of *i*/*li* (principle). In his "Four-Seven debate letters," Yulgok indirectly criticized Toegye for strictly distinguishing the moral and transcendent order of *i*/*li* from the material, physical, and emotional reality of *gi*/*qi*. For Yulgok, Toegye was wrong in emphasizing the priority of *i*/*li* (principle) as well as its self-manifesting moral power because Zhu Xi's original philosophy assigned actual dynamism to *gi*/*qi* only.52 This is partly why Yulgok appears to have innovated a *new* direction within the Korean Cheng-Zhu school (Seongnihak) by offering concrete ideas and actions for political ethics and reform. In my opinion, it is therefore a key

political democracy (Kim 2014, 2016), which, in my view, resonates with Yulgok's political ethics in sixteenth-century Korea.

<sup>51</sup> See Brasovan (2017) and Tan (2021) for Wang Fuzhi's life and thought; Yang (2016) for Yan Yuan's; Hu (2015) for Dai Zhen's; and Tucker (1989) for Ekken's.

52Elsewhere I discussed Yulgok's critique of Toegye's Four-Seven thesis and his philosophy of *i*/*li*; see Chung (1995, 1998, 2019a, 2019b). However, we should also note that Yulgok did not *fully* grasp the inner, spiritual dimension of Toegye's Four-Seven philosophy that emphasizes the moral and transcendent reality of *i*/*li* and human nature. Regarding Toegye's ethics and spirituality of *i*/*li*, *gyeong* (reverence)*,* and spiritual cultivation, consult Kalton (1988), Chung (2004, 2010a, 2011b, 2016, 2019c), Chung (2021; a new book on Toegye's religious thought).

landmark in the Korean development of Neo-Confucianism, which also reveals the signifcant distinctiveness of Yulgok's thought in sixteenthcentury Korea.

In the West, emotion is fexibly defned or interpreted in terms of feeling, sentiment, affection, sensation, desire, inclination, belief, and judgment according to different theories and approaches, whether classical or contemporary.53 Despite some fundamental differences, certain modern Western theories of emotions are similar to Yulgok's Korean Neo-Confucian interpretation that the causes or reasons of emotions are within the world of human life, experience, and knowledge, regardless of how our emotions and feelings are aroused, expressed, learned, contextualized, cherished, or criticized.

For Yulgok, certain emotions (*jeong*/*qing*) are aroused as desires (*yok*/*yu* 欲) to fulfl the specifc "individual needs" of the human body and mind. This Neo-Confucian theory apparently resonates with what James emphasized as physiological "sensations" (or feelings of "bodily changes") (1984, 1990). From a related comparative angle, Yulgok's notion of emotions (*jeong*) as "desires" also concurs with Marks's theory of emotions as "desires" (1995, 2013).54 Furthermore, "desire to be flial to parents" and the Four Beginnings of virtue engage some level of one's moral awareness and conscious judgment. As I mentioned in the foregoing sections, despite some fundamental difference of philosophical standpoint, Yulgok's interpretation is compatible with Solomon's emphasis on emotions as "judgments" (1993, 1995a, 2001). Furthermore, we can also compare Yulgok's humanistic ethics of compassion with Michael Slote's virtue ethics of "empathy" (Slote 2007, 2010) because empathy is a "moral motivation" and moral virtues like "compassion and benevolence are best understood in relation to empathy" (Slote 2020: 61).55 A good question beyond the limited focus and scope of this chapter is to discuss the differences among

<sup>53</sup> I discussed this topic in Sect. 1.1.1 (Theories of Emotions) and Sect. 1.1.4 (Diversity of Emotions) of the introductory chapter. See also Solomon (1995b, 2003) and Marks and Ames (1995).

<sup>54</sup> See also Marks's well-known book *It's Just a Feeling: The Philosophy of Desirism* (2013), according to which most emotions tend to be the natural feelings of "wanting" or "desire," although certain emotions are not necessarily moral.

<sup>55</sup> Slote emphasizes this point in chapter 5 ("Many Roles of Empathy") of his new book, *Between Psychology and Philosophy: East-West Themes and Beyond* (2020: 61–92). This chapter presents a comparative discussion of empathy in Chinese (Confucian) and Western thought, especially from an ethical and psychological standpoint.

Yulgok's interpretation and these contemporary Western theories more specifcally in a new detailed, comparative study.56

Furthermore, what we can discover here is that unlike Marks's, Solomon's, and Slote's modern theories/ethics of emotions, the sixteenthcentury Korean thinker's philosophy not only emphasizes real *actions*, not just theoretical ideas, but, more importantly, *actively* inspired and *participated* in a development of political reform, social improvement, and cultural prosperity. In other words, this represents the Korean distinctiveness/ excellence of Yulgok's Neo-Confucian virtue ethics.

According to Yulgok, evil can happen if one's body or mind remains attached to "selfsh" desires. This is why he calls for a way of selftransformation to harmonize our emotions, feelings, and thoughts. In my opinion, it is about the question of how we can positively integrate the emotional and other interconnected dimensions of human life and experience. This integration would inspire our ideas and passions; guide our beliefs, values, and judgments; and determine the ultimate meaning to life. Not only does this represent the heart of Yulgok's interpretation in the practical spirit of the Confucian Way, but it also has a potentially engaging implication for the comparative and cross-cultural study of emotions.

Yulgok saw our emotional dynamics as conditioned by material, physical, social, moral, and other related factors. Accordingly, the true understanding of emotions is not just a conceptual, theoretical, or psychological matter but, more importantly, *inspires* the holistic practice of selfcultivation and ethics. Yulgok passionately advocated political reform actions to bring about economic and cultural benefts to a Confucian society at large. His emphasis on moral emotions for political justice and social wellbeing also seems to support Solomon's ethics of "passion," "justice," and "ethical life" (1993, 1995a, 1995b).

In this regard, Yulgok must have captured certain insights into the humanistic and political role of emotions in dealing with the core teaching of Confucianism. We can conclude that the modern spirit of democracy, political responsibility, and social justice resembles Yulgok's ethical passions for good government "for people" and "by public opinion,"

<sup>56</sup> In the coming years, I hope to prepare a book manuscript on Yi Yulgok's life and thought that will likely include such a detailed study (chapter). It will be based on my translation and interpretation of Yulgok's famous philosophical and political essays.

"people-based policies," and national prosperity.57 This is another key reason for us to recognize the contemporary relevance of Yulgok's Korean Neo-Confucian ethics and politics of passions (*jeong*).

Overall, according to Yulgok, emotional harmony plays an essential role in self-cultivation, virtuous action, and politics. It ought to be done through the regulation and harmonization of our physical, emotional, intellectual, and ethical faculties in interaction with the daily reality of things and phenomena. In other words, human emotionality can indeed inspire personal cultivation, human relationships, and socio-political development.

The contemporary signifcance of Yulgok's thought emphasizes the *positive* role of our passions in personal development and cultural wellbeing. In my opinion, this is the signifcant distinctiveness of Korean Neo-Confucianism, which has some vital implication for our cross-cultural study of emotions as well. To conclude, I hope to have provided a thoughtprovoking chapter for Yulgok's thought and the comparative ethics of emotions, thereby making a worthwhile contribution to this book.

### References

#### Abbreviations

*YJ* Yi I (Yulgok) 李珥 (栗谷). 1985. *Yulgok jeonseo* 栗谷全書 (Complete works of Yi Yulgok), 2 vols. Seoul: Seonggyungwan University Press.

#### Primary Sources and Translations

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

Chan, Wing-tsit, trans. 1967. *Refections 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 Confucian Way of Life and Thought: The Chasŏngnok (Record of Self-Refection) by Yi Hwang (T'oegye)*. Translated, annotated, and

57The contemporary notion of "Confucian democracy" (Kim 2014, 2016) is also relevant here. Another interesting point that emerges out of my chapter is to develop a new comparative study that will articulate Yulgok's moral-political thought, especially in terms of human dignity and equality, social harmony, political justice, Confucian political thinking, and so on. In the near future, I hope to prepare a book manuscript on Yulgok's Neo-Confucian thought, which will likely include such a study.

with an introduction. Korean Classics Library: Philosophy and Religion. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.


Secondary Sources: Western and East Asian Works


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Dasan Jeong Yagyong on Emotions and the Pursuit of Sagehood

*Don Baker*

### 5.1 Introduction

In November 1801, Dasan Jeong Yagyong (1762–1836), a promising Confucian scholar-offcial, was sent into exile in Gangjin, along Korea's southwestern coast. He did not return to his home near Seoul until August 1818. For those seventeen years, Dasan was away from both his family and any offcial administrative duties and therefore had a lot of free time on his hands. He used that free time to read and write on a wide range of subjects, including but not limited to commentaries on the Confucian Classics. If we look in the most recent compilations of his complete works, we can fnd ten volumes on the *Analects*, nine volumes on *Mencius*, nine volumes on the *Zhongyong* (*Doctrine of the Mean*), four volumes on the *Daxue* (*Great Learning*), and one volume on the *Xinjing* (*Classic of the Heartmind*). That's in addition to the thousands of pages he wrote on the *Book of Odes*, the *Book of History*, the *Book of Changes*, and ancient ritual texts. (Jeong 2012, I, 16: 12a–13a [3, 268–69]) Since he wrote so many

D. Baker (\*)

Department of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada e-mail: don.baker@ubc.ca

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022 165

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_5

commentaries on Confucian texts, it is not surprising that he had a lot to say on the subject of emotions.

Dasan did not confne his discussion of emotions to the usual list of seven emotions: desire, dislike, love, fear, sorrow, anger, and joy, frst enumerated in the *Book of Rites*. (Legge 1967: I, 379) He discussed those important emotions, but he also discussed many more. He even wrote a short essay on the subject of the emotion of resentment, *wonwon/ yuanyuan* (原怨). That essay is rarely discussed, even though it sheds a lot of light on Dasan's attitude toward emotions. A translation of that essay would be a good way to start exploring how Dasan conceived of emotions and what role they played in his moral philosophy.

If a father does not show that he cares for his son, would it be acceptable for that the son to resent (*won/yuan* 怨) the way his father was treating him? Of course not! However, if that son has displayed flial devotion to the fullest and yet his father still does not show any affection for him, such as the way Go Sou treated Shun (ChinaKnowledge 2020), then he has a right to resent the way he is treated. If a ruler does not show any concern for an offcial's wellbeing, would it be acceptable for that offcial to resent the way his ruler was treating him? Of course not! However, if that offcial had been completely devoted to serving that ruler, and yet that ruler does not show any concern for his well-being, such as the way King Huai treated Qu Yuan (c. 340–278 BCE), then he has a right to resent the way he is treated. (Hawkes 1959: 11–15)

[Wan Zhang asked Mencius,] "though his parents did not like him, he worked hard to please them and was not resentful. Was it not acceptable for Shun to resent the way they treated him?" (*Mencius* 5A: 1; Van Norden 2008: 116) In both this Wan Zhang chapter and in the Gongsun Chou chapters [in *Mencius*], there are some puzzling passages. Zou Yan (305–240 BCE) has already pointed this out. Though Go Sou tried to kill Shun, Shun did not appear to be upset or depressed about that at all. Instead, he said, "I will put all I have into working the felds, showing that I respect my obligations as a son. I do not know what I have done to make my parents not love me." Shun did not let his emotions get the better of him in public. He did not treat his parents poorly. However, [when he was alone], "he would look up toward Heaven and weep" (Mencius 5A: 1–2; Van Norden 2008: 116). He both resented the way they treated them and longed for their affection. That is a natural reaction!

Bao Si, the secondary queen of King You of Zhou (r. 781–771 BCE), tried to get rid of the crown prince Yijiu. Yijiu did not appear to be upset or depressed about that at all. Instead, he said, "I cannot think of anything I have done wrong. I do not know what I have done to make my parents not love me." Yijiu did not let his emotions get the better of him in public. He did not treat his parents poorly. However, [when he was alone] he cried out, "this isn't like the person who had some person from Yue he did not know shoot an arrow at him." (Mencius 6B:3; Van Norden 2008: 161) That is a natural reaction.King Huai of Chu (r.328–299 BCE) was tricked by his wily concubine into expelling Qu Yuan from his court. Qu Yuan did not appear to be upset or depressed about that at all. Instead, he said, "I have nothing to be ashamed of. All I did was respectfully fulfll my duties as an offcial. Is it my fault that my sovereign is not aware of that?" Qu Yuan did not let his emotions get the better of him in public. He did not act badly toward his sovereign. Then he saw that Chu was going to disappear, like a piece on a chess board. Worried and not sure what he should do, he expressed his concern for Chu in three poems: "the Lament," "Nine Songs," and "Far-off Journey" (Hawkes 1959: 21–44, 81–87). He could not keep from writing those poems. That is a natural reaction.

Confucius pointed out that "poetry can help you express resentment" (*won/yuan* 怨) (Analects 17: 9; Slingerland 2003: 204). The sages knew that there were times when they should feel resentment but were unable to do so openly. Worried about this, they turned to poetry, knowing that it provided a way to express resentment indirectly. Sima Qian (145–86 BCE) [in the Records of the Grand Historian] noted, "the Minor Odes in the *Book of Odes* are full of anger and censure but never of insubordination" (Watson 1971. I: 500).

Mencius said, "if you fail to resent it when your family members have slighted you, then you do not feel as close to them as you should and will become estranged" (Mencius 6B: 3: Van Norden 2008: 161). A situation that causes legitimate resentment is something a sage can handle, but for a conscientious offcial or a devoted son such a situation arouses deep emotions. If you want to talk about how such a situation should be dealt with, you should start by reading the *Odes*. If you want to know when it is appropriate to resent mistreatment, then you should start by talking about the emotions of those who are conscientious offcials and devoted sons. [However, there are some who criticize those they should not criticize.] In doing that, they are like a husband who cares more about money than he cares about his family, and who favors his concubine over his wife and even mocks his wife in the boudoir. A person who lacks ability and virtue in this way will pollute what should be a beautiful world and causes all kinds of disorder and upheavals. We should not bother discussing legitimate resentment with such people. (Jeong 2012, I, 10: 4a–b [2, 205–6])

# 5.2 The Ambiguity of Emotions

Dasan in this short essay is grappling with a problem that scholars who sought to follow the Confucian path to sagehood have wrestled with for centuries: the ambiguity of emotions (*jeong/qing* 情). Human beings, as human beings, all have emotions. Human beings, as human beings, also all have an innate ability to be perfectly moral, to be sages (or so Confucian tradition taught). Yet the emotions which are an inescapable part of the human condition all too often place obstacles along that path to sagehood by stimulating us to act in a self-centered manner, in other words, to interact with our fellow human beings inappropriately. A question that bedeviled those who tried to heed the advice provided by Confucian moral philosophy was how much could emotions be trusted and, if they could be trusted sometimes, how can we be sure when to let them guide our actions and when not to do so. A related question was how we could tell the difference between helpful emotions and harmful emotions, and, moreover, if there were emotions that could, depending on the circumstances, stimulate more appropriate interactions or instead cause us to engage in more self-centered and therefore inappropriate interactions.

For Dasan, this was not just an abstract philosophical question. He was dedicated to cultivating a moral character, yet he also felt some strong emotions. One such strong emotion Dasan was concerned about was resentment (won/yuan 怨). After all, he thought he had been a loyal and conscientious offcial, yet he had been expelled from court and sent into exile for almost two decades. He had good reason to resent the way he had been treated by his government. However, he made sure his resentment did not turn him into a disloyal subject. He accepted feelings of resentment at unfair treatment as natural (the word he uses for a "natural reaction" is "*cheolli/ tianli* 天理," the patterns defning appropriate behavior which he believed Heaven instilled in every human being at birth). However, he also believed such natural reactions to mistreatment must be contained so that they do not lead to inappropriate interactions with others. He insisted that we must deal with mistreatment the way Shun, Yijiu, and Qu Yuan did, expressing our emotion privately rather than lashing out at those who have mistreated us. After all, as a Confucian, Dasan believed that human beings become the human being they should become by playing the roles they should play in society, and by interacting with others the way they should interact with them in order to promote the common good. Emotions, no matter how justifable, should not be allowed to push us into inappropriate interactions. That would be contrary to the Confucian preference for cooperation over confict, and would interfere with the promotion of the social harmony that is a prime Confucian goal.

Resentment was not the only emotion that concerned Dasan. He had been brought up in the Toegye approach to Neo-Confucianism, which emphasized the need to carefully distinguish those feelings which were manifestations of *i/li* (理; the patterns defning and directing appropriate interactions) from those emotions which were generated by our *gi*/*qi* (氣; psychophysical constitution). Dasan was, therefore, particularly interested in moral psychology. This is clear in his commentaries on such classic Confucian texts as the *Zhongyong*, in which Dasan addresses the traditional Confucian concern for the connection between emotions and morality but did so in original and creative ways. He did that by arguing that it was not emotions per se that were the problem. As human beings, we could not avoid experiencing emotions, including potentially harmful emotions such as resentment. In fact, we would not be truly human if we did not experience such emotions. After all, even the sage Shun felt such emotions. The problem lay in how we dealt with our emotions, whether we controlled our emotions or let our emotions control us, as in the case of the misbehaving husband mentioned in Dasan's short essay on resentment. The solution to that question of how to relate emotions to the cultivation of a moral character, Dasan insisted, lay in using some emotions to control other emotions.

The traditional Neo-Confucian notion is that the heart-mind (*sim/xin* 心) controls and integrates human nature and the emotions (*simtong seongjeong/ xintong xingqing* 心統性情). But in Dasan's view, that formula is incomplete because it does not tell us how we can ensure our heartmind can do that. To understand why Dasan was dissatisfed with the mainstream Neo-Confucian approach to explaining the connection between emotions and proper behavior, we frst have to look at how emotions were generally understood in his Confucian tradition. Then we can identify the original elements in Dasan's thinking about what emotions were, and what roles they could and should play.

Having spent his whole life on the Korean peninsula, Dasan can be considered a thinker working within an "Eastern tradition." Generalizations about differences between "Eastern" and "Western" ways of thinking are inevitably over-generalizations, since they rely on essentialized stereotypes and overlook the complexity and contradictions inherent to any major worldview, in addition to ignoring overlapping beliefs and assumptions among the world's many great philosophies and religions.

Nevertheless, generalization can contain a germ of truth. For example, it is an overgeneralization to say that philosophers in Europe and the America have tended, especially in traditional times, to think of philosophy as a search for a better way to understand the world. However, it would not be unfair to say in the West philosophers have often been guided by the assumption that reason is the best tool to use in such a search, though sometimes, especially in medieval times, reason was accompanied by divine revelation. In East Asia, on the other hand, philosophy has commonly been conceived of as a search for a way to become a better person. Reason has been an important tool in East Asian philosophy, of course, but at least as important has been reliance on perceived models of appropriate behavior (such as Shun, Jiyiu, and Qu Yuan provided) and on personal experience with attempts at following the examples those models are believed to have provided. We could say that Western philosophy can usually be characterized as rational philosophy while East Asian philosophy can be characterized as moral philosophy, though in do so we risk overgeneralizing.

A concrete example of how that difference is manifest would be the frequent emphasis in mainstream European and North American thought on the mind, conceived of as separate from the body and its emotions. In East Asian thought, on the other hand, particularly with Confucian and Buddhist thinkers, the emphasis has been on the heart-mind (*sim/xin*). The heart-mind, as its name tells us, unites the reasoning mind with emotions generated by the heart and the body.

The heart-mind has two important moral functions: cognition and volition. It is the heart-mind that recognizes the specifc *i* (理) that tell us how to act appropriately in any given situation, and it is the heart-mind that generates the emotions which stimulate us to act in accordance with those *i*. Both cognition and volition are essential activities for the *i* that we are endowed with as human beings to be actualized. However, cognition was less problematic for Confucians, since they assumed that human beings have an innate ability to recognize *i* when they are determined to do so, and they focus with a calm and clear mind on achieving that cognitive goal (Ivanhoe 2019, 30–31; *Zhuzi yulei* 1986, 12: 200).

Emotions, however, merited greater concern, since emotions can motivate us to act appropriately or stimulate us to act inappropriately. Given the importance of these functions of the heart-mind, it is therefore not surprising that much more philosophical cogitation has been devoted to the heart-mind and its emotions by Confucian philosophers than we see in mainstream philosophy in the West.

Western philosophers have instead paid more attention to how the mind operates, particularly on how we know, and how we can determine if what we know is accurate or not. Epistemology is an important part of Western philosophy. Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese have usually been less concerned with how we know than with how we can translate our knowledge of the right way to behave into actually acting appropriately. As a result, they dove more deeply into moral psychology, into the role of emotions in directing behavior, and into identifying which emotions should be cultivated and which should be curtailed, rather than devoting a lot of time to issues of epistemology and logic. A philosophy of reason can lean toward the analytical, toward analyzing things, events, and processes, into their various individual components so that they can be more easily understood rationally. A moral philosophy, however, is less interested in analyzing individual components than it is in understanding how various things, events and processes interact so that better understanding can promote appropriate interactions and minimize inappropriate interactions. Since emotions are crucial motivating components of interactions, determining what emotions are and what role they play in human behavior is crucial to understanding the interactions we, as human beings, cannot avoid engaging in.

In trying to grasp the role of emotions as understood in traditional Korean thought, we have to keep in mind the ambiguity of the term "emotion." In a narrow sense, emotions have the potential to lead us astray, as in the case of the classic list of "Seven Emotions" (*chiljeong/ qiqing* 七情; pleasure, anger, sorrow, fear, love, hatred, and desire). That is the way they were understood in Korea's famous Four–Seven debate about the relationship between the Four Beginnings (*sadan/siduan*; four selfess instincts) contrasted with the Seven Emotions (seven self-centered emotions), on the one hand, and principle (defning and directing normative patterns; *i*) contrasted with vital energy (the animating stuff which those patterns should defne and direct; *gi* 氣), on the other.

However, in a broader sense, it can refer to all the emotions human beings can feel, including such positive emotions as love for our parents, compassion for those who deserve our compassion, disdain for the immoral, and so on. This double reference to the term "emotions" can cause confusion. When Mencius said, "For cultivating the heart-mind (*sim/xin*), nothing is better than having fewer desires" (*Mencius* 7B: 32; Van Norden 2008: 193), he appears to treat desires and emotions in a somewhat negative light, since he does not add "except, of course, for the desires that your parents live a long and healthy life, that all the people in your community live together harmoniously, and so on." And when Zhu Xi wrote that Yan Hui, a favorite disciple of Confucius, "took it as his imperative to restrain his feelings so that they accord with that which is within, and to exclusively overcome his self-centeredness," (Ivanhoe 2019: 46; *Zhuzi yulei*, 30: 776), he appears to imply that "feelings" by their very nature are self-centered.

However, Mencius also talked about our four selfess instincts as emotions (*Mencius* 2A:6; Van Norden: 46–47). He refers to our "heart-minds" of compassion, disdain, deference, and approval and disapproval, but he clearly means here the emotions such heart-minds generate." And in the frst introductions of Neo-Confucian psychology to Korea, we see graphic evidence that emotions can be seen as both good and bad.

For example, just before the emergence of the Joseon dynasty, Gwon Geun (1352–1409), in his introduction to Neo-Confucianism, *Ipak doseol* [Diagrammatic Explanations for Beginning Learners], provided a chart explaining how human beings can become the moral actors they should be but can also fail to fulfl that potential and instead become not much different from amoral animals. He drew that chart to resemble a human being, with a head, a heart-mind, and two legs. In the heart-mind, he placed human nature along with fve fundamental virtues of righteousness, benevolence, propriety, fdelity, and wisdom as well as the Seven Emotions. In the right leg, under the heading "emotions" he has the emotions (*jeong/qing)* manifesting as the four selfess instincts. In the left leg, instead of "emotions" he has "desires," which he shows leading to the degradation of our full moral potential as human beings (Kalton 1985: 109). Here emotions have a positive rather than a negative connotation.

Almost two centuries later, when Neo-Confucianism had been fully absorbed by Koreans, Toegye Yi Hwang (1501–1570) drew a much more complex chart, one that makes clearer the ambiguity of the term "emotion" (*jeong/qing*). In the sixth chart of the ten charts in his *Seonghak sipdo* [Ten diagrams on sage learning], Toegye explains what is meant by the axiom "the heart-mind controls and integrates human nature and the emotions." In the frst part of that tripartite chart, he puts the heading "emotions" above the fve fundamental virtues and their associated four selfess instincts. However, in the second part of that chart, he has the Seven Emotions joining the Four Beginnings of virtue (the four selfess instincts) under the same "emotions" heading, going on to explain in the third part of that chart that the difference between those two groups lies in whether they are manifestations of the universalizing patterns of appropriate interactions (*i*) or are manifestations of the individualizing material stuff that forms and animates our bodies (*gi*) (Kalton 1988: 120–23).

### 5.3 Addressing the Dual Nature of Emotions

To understand this ambiguity, and to understand why it bothered Dasan, we need to unpack what the phrase "the heart-mind controls and integrates human nature and the emotions" means, in mainstream Neo-Confucianism. Originally coined by Zhang Zai (張載 1020–1077), in the hands of Zhu Xi this became a core teaching of his more metaphysical version of Confucianism (de Bary and Bloom 1999: I, 689). Human nature, as Zhu Xi and his followers understood it, refers to the human potential to respond appropriately to people, things, and situations around us so that we interact with them selfessly and harmoniously. One way Zhu Xi expressed this notion of human nature as moral potential was to say that human nature was *i*. In other words, human nature was composed of the dynamic patterns defning and directing appropriate interactions. The emotions, on the other hand, are the actualizations of human nature. That is why the four selfess instincts, such as compassion, are called literally "the Four Beginnings [sprouts] of virtue." They are the budding sprouts of our innate moral tendencies to act, and interact, appropriately. However, and this is where the ambiguity of the term "emotion" become apparent, those emotions can only be expressed through our bodies and minds. Since our bodies are composed of *gi*, and *gi* is what coagulates into separate and distinct entities, making harmonious cooperation more diffcult, those emotions can veer off into an anti-social selfsh direction. That is when the heart-mind needs to play its role of controlling and integrating human nature and the emotions. The heart-mind is therefore the integrated physical, mental, and moral entity through which human nature is actualized as emotions and therefore it is the heart-mind which is responsible for ensuring that our emotions are faithful actualizations of our innate moral nature rather being distorted by the individualizing infuence of *gi* (Ivanhoe 2019: 42–46; Lee 2020).

Dasan found Zhu Xi's concepts of human nature, the heart-mind, and emotions, and the relationships among them, to be oversimplifed (he believed they implied that misguided emotions were merely distorted versions of moral emotions). Dasan also believed that Zhu Xi failed to clearly distinguish between inclinations and emotions. Moreover, Dasan found Zhu Xi too optimistic. In his opinion, Zhu Xi made consistently acting appropriately appear easier than it actually was by suggesting that human beings were naturally virtuous because human nature itself was *i* (Jeong 2012, II, 5: 59a–b [7, 145]). Not only did Dasan conclude that Zhu Xi's explanation of the relationship between human nature and emotions was oversimplifed and overly optimistic, he also deemed it detrimental to achieving the prime goal of Confucianism. The purpose of Confucian philosophy was to show human beings how to live the moral lives they were supposed to live. Unfortunately, Dasan argued that Zhu Xi's mistakes made it more diffcult to achieve that goal.

In Dasan's opinion, Zhu Xi's harmful ideas were not limited to his moral psychology. The entire foundation of Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucianism was faulty and caused those who wished to live moral lives to misdirect their efforts to do so. Dasan argued that there are three reasons humans in his day are unable to live up to their full moral potential and become the sages Confucians aspired to become.

First of all, they mistakenly assumed that Heaven (*cheon*, 天) was *i/li*. Second, they thought being fully human (*in*, 仁) was the *i/li*, the core defning and directing principle (pattern), of all living things. Third, they thought that *yong* [庸] [the second syllable in the title of the *Zhongyong*, The Doctrine of the Mean] meant ordinary. [In other words, they thought that virtuous behavior was normal rather than result of strenuous effort]. They did not realize that they needed to show respect for Heaven by keeping a close watch on their every thought and action, needed to pursue becoming fully human through a very strong sense of empathy, and needed to do this consistently without ceasing. That is how they could have become sages. (Jeong 2012, II, 2: 40a [6, 220])

Dasan shared Zhu Xi's assumption that human beings have an innate capacity to act appropriately. However, he disagreed that virtue itself was innate. He understood virtue as more of a way of acting than as a way of being. He argued that it would be fair to say that we were born with the ability to become virtuous. However, we cannot say we were born virtuous. Instead, we have to cultivate the ability to consistently act in accordance with that innate moral potential. Only after we have done so to the extent that we actually act appropriately on a consistent basis can we be called virtuous. (Jeong 2012, II, 5: 22a–b [7, 68–69]) This includes the virtue of acting in a fully human manner. Rather than serving as a defning pattern of all living things, Dasan argued that being fully human is not something we are from birth. Rather, we can only be said to be fully human when we regularly appropriately interact with our fellow human beings in a fully human manner (Jeong 2012, II, 7: 9b–10b [8, 34–35]).

To justify his rejection of the notion that acting consistently in a virtuous manner is normal and of its associated notion that being fully human is the core defning principle of human beings, Dasan proposed a new understanding of what makes human beings human beings. In mainstream Neo-Confucianism, human beings are a combination of *gi*, the vital energy (animating stuff) that forms their psychophysical constitution, and *i*, the immaterial patterns defning and directing appropriate interactions. Dasan proposed thinking of human beings instead as formed through a joining of material force/energy (*gi*) with the immaterial. However, for Dasan, the immaterial component of human beings is not *i*. He wrote, "Human beings are formed through a mysterious union of spirit and physical form. What the ancient classics call the self is nothing other than consciousness (*heolyeong jigak/ xuling zhijue* 虛靈知覺…to which later generations gave the names heart-mind and spirit" (Jeong 2012, II, 2: 25a–b [6, 195]).

What does Dasan mean by consciousness? He means the ability to evaluate situations we fnd ourselves in so that we can determine how we should act (Baek 2016). But that is not suffcient for us to live moral lives. Once we determine how we should act, we have to be motivated to act accordingly. Principle cannot provide that motivation. After all, *i* is not a conscious entity. It feels no emotions itself, so how could it inspire the emotions needed to motivate us to act the way we know we should act? (Jeong 2012, II, 6: 38a–b [7, 227–228]).

Human nature, that which enables us to live moral lives, therefore cannot be *i*. Human nature must provide the motive power that stimulates us to act. Dasan decided that, in order to do that, human nature must consist of inclinations (嗜好 *giho/shihao*) (Jeong 2012, II, 2: 25b-26b [6, 196–98]). It is important to note here that inclinations are not the same thing as emotions. Inclinations are what draw us *toward* something. Emotions, on the other hand, are our responses *to* something (Shun 2010: 179). Dasan noted that there are two types of inclinations. There is an inclination toward something pleasurable, "like a pheasant being drawn toward a hill, a deer drawn toward a feld, or an orangutan being draw toward some wine." And there is an inclination toward something needed for the realization of something's full potential, "like millet needing a dry feld or rice sprouts needing water" (Jeong 2012, II, 2: 26a [6, 196–97]).

Every human being has both types of inclinations, an inclination toward what feels good, and an inclination toward what is good. Lessor human beings let their inclination for pleasure and personal beneft infuence their actions and end up acting inappropriately. However, those who allow their inclination for the moral good direct their interactions with others end up living a righteous life. It is impossible to eliminate all inclinations and still live as a human being should. After all, the inclination for the moral good, a desire to act appropriately, is still an inclination.

Dasan adds that the line in *Mencius* telling us, "For cultivating the heart, nothing is better than having fewer desires" (*Mencius* 7B: 35; Van Norden:193) is asking us to reduce our desires for personal beneft, not to suppress all our desires and inclinations (Jeong 2012, II, 2: 170 [6, 219–220]). Dasan says he once heard of a very simple-minded man who had no desires (無欲 *muyok/wuyu*) at all. He was unable to act morally. And he was unable to act immorally. He was unable to write anything decent. And he was unable to earn a living. So, he was of no use to anyone. How can a human being have no desires or inclinations at all and still be a true human being?

Just as human beings cannot eliminate all their desires and inclinations, they cannot eliminate their emotions, either. Inclinations direct us toward something. Emotions are our response to what we fnd when we get there. Dasan, in order to overcome the ambiguity in the Confucian notion of emotions, an ambiguity which he believed made it more diffcult to cultivate the ability to consistently act appropriately, drew a clear line between inclinations (which he said constituted human nature) and emotions (which he said can be generated by either the mind or the body).

Emotions, when discussed in a Neo-Confucian context, should not be thought of as discrete mental or physiological states only. Instead, they should be viewed as both ways of responding to the world around us as well as stimuli to interacting with that world. They are verbs, not nouns. They are functions and processes, not things. "Hate" is actually "hating." "Enjoy" is actually "enjoying." Moreover, in Neo-Confucian psychology, emotions are emotions only when they are activated. Before that, they are only potential (unaroused; *mibal/wiefa* 未發) emotions. Therefore, compared to inclinations, in Dasan's view, emotions can be more easily controlled. When they are still inchoate processes, they can be managed so that they operate properly rather than improperly. Our heart-mind is capable of ensuring that our emotions function in such a fashion as to stimulate us to act in appropriate rather than inappropriate ways. How can our heart-mind do that? Dasan argued that the heart-mind can successfully control emotions only if it used one type of emotions, those pushing us to act appropriately (*jeong/zheng* 正), to control another type of emotions, those which can led us to act selfshly (*sa/si* 私).

Dasan points out that emotions (here he names four of them: feeling happy, feeling angry, feeling afraid, and feeling worried) are not bad in themselves but are only bad if they are generated by selfsh thoughts of fnancial rewards, sensual pleasure, avoiding misfortune or obtaining good fortune. If they are instead generated by the conscience heaven has endowed us with, which tells us we should work with our fellow human beings to promote the common good, then they are selfess emotions and are no danger to the actor or to anyone else (Jeong 2012, II, 2: 30a [6, 118]).

Not only can our emotions stimulate us to either become better human beings or lead us astray, they can also be generated by our heart-minds as well as by our bodies. Dasan argued that the possibility that our heartminds can also generate dangerous emotions is downplayed by the mainstream Neo-Confucian emphasis on the distinction between the physical (*gi*)–body and the principle (*i*)–heart-mind. After all, when the heartmind is conceived of as *i*, it is diffcult to conceive of it leading us astray. However, when we realize that we are not composed of *i* and *gi* and are instead a combination of immaterial and material components, then we can more easily notice that it is not just our bodies that can lead us astray. Dasan decries the common tendency among Confucians to blame all our faults on our bodies and the physical urges for food, sex, and comfort they generate. He points out that our immaterial minds are not completely blameless. His evidence is the time he spent working at the Board of Punishments. He looked over a lot of fles and discovered that there were many crimes which occurred because of anger or injured pride, which originate in the heart-mind, not the body. We cannot blame our bodies when we get angry because someone has criticized our scholarship or our writing skills. It is our pride originating in our heart-mind, he insists, that causes us to get angry in such a situation (Jeong 2012, II, 2: 27b [6, 199]).

Moreover, if all evil comes from things material, then, he asks, how can we explain the existence of troublesome and even malevolent spirits? Dasan notes that ghosts and spirits do not have bodies, but they, too, can behave in inappropriate ways, proving that not all our moral mistakes are caused by fact that our heart-minds are encased in a physical shell (Jeong 2012, II, 2: 27b-28a [6, 199]).

Even though emotions as emotions are not intrinsically morally dangerous, because emotions involve both the psychological and the physiological sides of our human nature, they can be diffcult to control. Because they are rooted in desires which are an inescapable part of the human condition, and they are a natural reaction to the frustration or realization of those desires, they often complicate our attempt to live a moral life. They can push us toward the easier pursuit of personal beneft rather than toward the more diffcult path of selfess dedication to the common good. This is why, Dasan says, the Neo-Confucian assumption that human people are naturally moral is far too optimistic.

Mencius had said that, "human nature being good is like water fowing downward" (Mencius 6A: 2; Van Norden: 144). Dasan saw it differently. He wrote that doing the right thing, putting moral considerations ahead of personal beneft, was as hard as climbing a steep hill. Pursuing personal advantage without considering the common good, on the other hand, is as easy as tumbling down that same hill (Jeong 2012, II, 2: 28a [6, 199]).

### 5.4 Emotions in The Pursuit of Sagehood

The reason it is so diffcult to live the moral life Confucians demanded of its adherents is that human beings have inclinations for both the moral good and the personal good, and there are more emotions pushing us toward the pursuit of the personal good than there are emotions supporting the pursuit of the moral good. Dasan argued that there are many more emotions than the seven named in the classic list from the *Book of Rites* (Legge 1967: I, 379). He did not go as far as the Western philosopher P.M. S. Hacker has done in providing a long list of problematic emotions: "fear, anger, gratitude, resentment, hatred, indignation, envy, jealousy, pity, compassion, grief, hope, excitement, pride, shame, humiliation, regret, remorse, and guilt" (Hacker 2018: 22). Nevertheless, Dasan insisted that there were plenty of emotions to worry about.

We talk of seven emotions because the "Evolution of Propriety" [*Liyun*] chapter of the *Book of Rites* mentions seven specifc emotions. However, that is not a number set in stone. There are emotions that do not appear in that list of seven. For example, shame (*goe/kui* 愧) is not on that list. Neither is regret (*hoe/hui* 悔). And both envy (*gi/zhi* 忮) and frustration (*han/hen* 恨) are left off that list. These are all different from the seven emotions listed in the *Book of Rites* and can't be subsumed under them. It's clear, therefore, that the list of seven emotions listed in the *Book of Rites* is not an exhaustive list. (Jeong 2012, I, 8: 27b [2, 72]) … How could Heaven have set the number of emotions at only seven? There are also other various emotions such as remorse (*goehoe/kuihui* 媿悔), resentment (*wonhan/yuanhen* 怨恨), arrogance (gigi/jizhi 懻忮), and fastidiousness (*gangman/keman* 恪慢) that are not on that list of seven. How can we say there are only seven emotions? (Jeong 2012, II, 4: 9b [6, 296])

Among that multitude of emotions, some are helpful rather than harmful. Love (one of the Seven Emotions) for parents, respect for elders, and compassion (the frst of the Four Beginnings) for fellow human beings are just some of the emotions human beings should welcome and even cultivate. Moreover, there were two emotions in particular which Dasan believed which we should not be wary of but should nurture instead. They are the emotions of feeling cautious and feeling apprehensive.

As already noted, Dasan felt that, because individual human beings had competing sets of inclinations, with the inclination toward the moral good wrestling with the inclination toward personal gain for control over what those human beings did, it was more diffcult to follow the moral path than mainstream Neo-Confucianism, with its confdence in innate virtue, assumed. It was therefore necessary, Dasan believed, to fnd a way to motivate human beings to choose the more diffcult course of morality. If the right emotions were cultivated, then human beings would be strongly motivated by those emotions to control the selfsh side of their nature and choose to act in accord with the selfess side instead. He decided the most effective emotions for motivating us to act appropriately no matter what situations we found ourselves in were feeling cautious and feeling apprehensive. Here is how Dasan justifed that decision:

There is no human being born on this earth without base desires (*yok/yu* 慾). What keeps us from following those desires and doing whatever we feel like doing? It is the fear that our misbehavior will be noticed. Noticed by whom? Whose gaze keeps us in a state of constant caution and apprehension? We are cautious (*gyesin/jieshen* 戒愼) and apprehensive (*gonggu/ kongju* 恐懼) (*Zhongyong* I: 2) because we know there are enforcement offcers responsible for making sure rules are followed. We are cautious and apprehensive because we know our sovereign can punish us if we behave improperly. If we did not think there was someone watching us, would we not simply abandon all sense of moral responsibility and just do whatever we felt like doing? … But what makes us behave properly even in the privacy of our own room and make sure that even our thoughts are appropriate thoughts? The only reason why a moral person is watchful over his thoughts and behavior even in the privacy of his own room is that he knows that the Lord on High [*Sangje/Shangdi* 上帝] is watching him. If we think that the term *Lord on High* is nothing by a metaphor for *i*, then we wouldn't be cautious and apprehensive. Principle (*i*), after all, is not a conscious entity. It is unable to inspire caution and apprehension. (Jeong 2012. II: 3, 4b-5a: [6, 232–33.])

Dasan's insight is that a heart-mind governed by an attitude of apprehension needs an object for it to be apprehensive about. A cautious and apprehensive heart-mind cannot be cautious and apprehensive of nothing. What should they be cautious and apprehensive about? Dasan argued that they should always keep in mind that the Lord on High (Sangje) is aware of everything they think, say, or do. Rejecting impersonal *i* as the absolute because of its emotional impotence, Dasan insisted that there was an actual supernatural personality above who oversaw everything down below. He did not say that the Lord on High would condemn us to eternal damnation if we misbehaved, or reward us with eternal glory if we acted appropriately. Fear of the disapproving gaze of the Lord on High was enough, Dasan argued, to motivate us to resist our selfsh impulses.

### 5.5 Conclusion

With his injection into Neo-Confucianism of an ever-watchful supernatural personality, Dasan went a step beyond Zhu Xi. Zhu Xi agreed that there were good emotions and that such emotions were necessary for a moral life. But he did not explain how those emotions did that. Therein lies Dasan's contribution to Confucian moral psychology. Dasan identifed two specifc emotions, feeling cautious and feeling apprehensive, that can help our mind-heart moderate and control our emotions to ensure our moral potential, our potential to interact appropriately, is manifest in our behavior instead of our potential for selfshness. And he provided an object for those emotions, the Lord on High.

This brings us back to the Neo-Confucian axiom that the heart-mind controls and integrates human nature and the emotions. Dasan accepted that axiom, with the caveat that human nature, because it consists of competing desires, can manifest either as appropriate behavior or as inappropriate behavior. Which type of behavior dominates is shaped by the emotions that motivate that behavior. Human beings will be pulled this way and that by a variety of selfsh and selfess emotions but the behavioral chaos that can produce can be avoided by reminding ourselves that the Lord on High is watching us. Aware that we are being watched by a superior power, we will be cautious and apprehensive of failing to think and act the way we are supposed to act and think. Motivated by the powerful emotion of concern for how we will be perceived by the Lord on High, we will exert the necessary effort to overcome our selfsh impulses and become the sages, the human beings dedicated to the common good, Confucianism told us we are meant to be.

### Glossary

Analects 論語 Bao Si 褒姒 Book of Changes 周易 Book of History 書經 Book of Odes 詩經 Book of Rites 禮記 Cheon/tian 天 Cheolli/ tianli 天理 Chiljeong/ qiqing 七情 Classic of the Heart-mind 心經 Dasan Jeong Yagyong 茶山 丁若鏞 Daxue 大學 gangman/keman 恪慢 Gi/qi 氣 gi/zhi 忮 gigi/jizhi 懻忮 giho/shihao 嗜好 goe/kui 愧 goehoe/kuihui 媿悔 gonggu/kongju 恐懼 Gongsun Cho 公孫丑 Go Sou 瞽瞍 Gwon Geun 權近 gyesin/ jieshen 戒愼 han/hen 恨

heolyeong jigak/ xuling zhijue 虛靈知覺 hoe/hui 悔 Huai, King of Chu 楚懷王 In/ren 仁 jeong/zheng 正 i/ li 理 Liyun 禮運 Mencius 孟子 Mibal/ weifa 未發 Muyok/wuyu 無欲 Qu Yuan 屈原 sa/si 私 Sadan/siduan 四端 Sangje/ Shangdi 上帝 Seonghak sipdo 聖學十圖 Sima Qian 司馬遷 Shun 舜 Toegye Yi Hwang 退溪 李滉 Wanzhang 萬章 wonhan/yuanhen 怨恨 Wonwon 原怨 Xinjing 心經 yok/yu 慾 You, King of Zhou 周幽王 Zhang Zai 張載 Zhongyong 中庸 Zhu Xi 朱熹

### References

Baek, Min Jeong. 2016 "Moral Success and Failure in the Ethical Theory of Dasan Jeong Yagyong." *Acta Koreana* 19:1, 241–266.


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Comparative Perspectives

# Thinking Through the Emotions with Korean Confucianism: Philosophical Translation and the Four-Seven Debate

# *Joseph E. Harroff*

### 6.1 Introduction

*Experience is emotional but there are no separate things called emotions in it.* —John Dewey, *Art as Experience*<sup>1</sup>

*Distinguishing things as two does not necessarily prevent their never being separated, and when they are combined as a unity, it may actually come down to their not being muddled with one another.*

—Yi Toegye, *Reply to Kobong's Critique*<sup>2</sup>

The Korean Confucian concept of *jeong* 情 has played a profoundly signifcant role in the context of the Four-Seven philosophical debate occurring

1Dewey (1934: 43).

2Kalton et al. (1994: 55); translation slightly modifed.

J. E. Harroff (\*)

Department of Philosophy & Religion, American University, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: jharroff@american.edu

© The Author(s) 2022

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_6

187

throughout the Joseon Dynasty and continues to shape a distinctively Korean cultural politics of emotion into the present. Foregrounding the transformative philosophical potentials of *jeong* as an embodied and relational affective experience via translingual practices of cross-cultural comparative thinking is a good place to begin collaborative and sustained philosophical projects aimed at unraveling and dismantling a host of pernicious dualisms still casting a long orientalist-imperialist shadow over so much philosophizing about the emotions and ethical-political subjectivity formation. This is particularly true when taking seriously the continued signifcance of Confucian texts and cultural contexts within diverse Asian modernities unfolding in a rapidly transforming cultural, economic, and political world order.

Much contemporary moral philosophy tends to operate within a dichotomous cognitive/conative framework of a specious folk psychology which can be genealogically traced to certain deep and pervasive dualistic metaphysical assumptions stemming from a Western-centric philosophical canon. I am referring primarily to certain assumptions that presuppose an ontological chasm between pure and distinct faculties of Reason on the one hand, and a relatively messy feld of emotions on the other. Given this traditional view of practical agency, a view that Antonio Damasio has dubbed "Descartes' Error,"3 emotions and desires can only serve to provide the raw materials or motivational impetus for engaging in rationally determined action. Whether or not we conceive of the effective use of reason as being the provenance of deliberative standards of historically contingent communities, or as the deployment of a supposedly universal and transcendentally constituted rationality, the very idea that moral objectivity must be tethered to a dispassionate reasoning capability in order to be effective, as some kind of *a priori logos* or as a working ensemble of "frst principles" operating in sharp contrasts to our historically constituted embodied subjectivities and affective sensibilities, remains a deeply sedimented notion for many. It is by no means a stretch to suggest that this bifurcation of Reason/Emotion still operates as a dominant component of an ongoing residual "common sense" inherited from our perhaps not all that "exceedingly remote" Platonic-Christian-Kantian ancestors.4

<sup>3</sup>Damasio (2005).

<sup>4</sup> See James (1907: 79) for more on this idea of a deeply sedimented philosophical grammatology as "common sense" always already shaping our thinking and perceiving in a historically constituted cultural-linguistic ground.

Current tendencies to maintain a healthy skepticism regarding "gut feelings" and other viscerally experienced emotions guiding so many moral orientations and immediate intuitions might indeed derive from entirely noble intentions—for instance, in recognizing that forms of implicit bias operate as basic enabling conditions for systemic racism and other forms of institutional oppression and cultural hegemony, which in turn depend largely upon the creation and maintenance of relatively subconscious customs and habits of perception rendered latent or made explicit within individual and social bodies, are very good reasons to challenge the inertia of sedimented structures of feeling.5

To what degree the major theoretical traditions of Western moral philosophy (consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, to name the usual suspects) are in part responsible for maintaining and reinforcing such a devaluing of emotional life, as just so much inert material to be conquered with rational clarity is a complicated issue. But taking a cue from thinkers, such as Freud, Marx, Dewey, and Wittgenstein, who apply a hermeneutics of suspicion to dominant epistemologies privileging a hyper-individualized quest for rational certainty over the recognition of intersubjective values of shared social living, we might come to realize that that so much of the received canonical histories of Western philosophy are a *refection* of deeper and more expansive social antagonisms and contradictions marking the various "conceptual personae" and "planes of immanence" shaping the horizons of intelligibility that animate possible interpretations of philosophical texts in an always provisional process of traditional (re)authorization.6 It is vital then to be responsibly foregrounding and (re)contextualizing Asian texts and philosophical contexts, such as the classical Korean Confucian debates regarding moral metaphysics and non-dualistic, relational and intersubjective psychology

<sup>5</sup> See Nussbaum (2004) for a disturbingly wide variety of ways that visceral emotions like shame and disgust, perhaps even more so than anger and fear, can be morally misleading to put it mildly. And Sullivan (2015: 162–184) for creative and critical ways to be pragmatically foregrounding our embodied emotional selves for engaging in anti-racist praxis and ameliorative sociocultural transformation more generally.

6For the fecund idea of "conceptual personae" and "planes of immanence" as a nondualistic way of thinking through conceptual creation and the history of philosophy, see Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1994: 24, 36) And for a recent classic example of enacting a paradigm shifting conversation in Western analytic philosophy of mind and epistemology, see Rorty (2009: 45ff.) for a deconstructive account of the predominantly received narratives of Western philosophy regarding Mind as a immaterial and potentially disembodied "glassy essence."

of persons, in order to be moving away from any overly reductionistic or dualistic accounts of emotion. Intercultural comparative philosophy might begin in a hermeneutics of suspicion but can also disclose potentials for more encompassing and creative practices of cultivating translingual trust. Such a regulative ideal as ends-in-view involves an ethical aim of reconstructing a Confucian thinking through affective experience, a kind of embodied *habitus* drawn from "non-Cartesian" traditions—a real attempt to be thinking and feeling otherwise.

Regarding the philosophical salience of emotions, Roger Ames has related that "with occasional although important respite, emotion—like rhetoric, imagination, experience, and woman—has, by and large, been on the wrong side of an entrenched dualism in the history of Western philosophy" (Ames and Marks 1995: xi). Wanting to reverse and transform the pernicious effects of this long-standing dualism that systematically devalues the "affective aspect of human fourishing … in celebration of the more cognitive aspects of personal realization," we should be continuing to be strive with hermeneutic sensitivity and moral imagination to draw out the implications of certain paradigm shifting "sea changes" in (post)modern philosophy (e.g., feminist care ethics, phenomenology, psychoanalysis, process metaphysics, critical theory and pragmatism) while also recontextualizing the important contributions that classical sources from non-Western traditions offer in expanding the horizons of our interpretive possibilities and cultural self-understandings. Such comparative philosophy as translingual practice creates real possibilities for epochal cultural transformation via redescriptions and reimaginings of inherited "common sense."7

### 6.2 *Ars Contextualis* as Philosophical Translation

Ludwig Wittgenstein's provocative claim that the limits of one's language are isomorphic with the hermeneutic possibilities of their worldviews8 can perhaps best be understood as a claim about the cultural *habitus* of diverse forms of life. Rather than appealing to a transcendental reason or an ideal

7For a more expressly critical account of "common sense" and its double-edged potential to uphold cultural hegemony and class-based oppression or to aid in epochal cultural transformation by making explicit the affective life of the subaltern as organic intellectual knowledge, a Gramscian-inspired perspective that arguably goes much further than a classically pragmatist-liberal Jamesian advertisement of maintaining a "healthy skepticism" toward common sense, see Crehan (2016: 52–58).

8Wittgenstein (1922: 151): "That the world is *my world*, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (*the* language which I understand) mean the limits of *my world*" (5.62)

of a homogenous enlightenment universalism, we do better to be striving with imagination to be more effectively engaging in transformative communicative praxis within the interstices of received cultural *habitus* and the interpretive in-between spaces of translingual practices. Such interpretive ethical practice can help in achieving forms of universality that are more encompassing and conducive to forms of social solidarity and creative democracy that hold open real possibilities of worlds to come. Moreover, resisting and reversing the historical asymmetry of a Eurocentric philosophical hegemony, wherein a dominant canon has been taken as a universal "gold standard" for what counts as legitimate philosophical texts and contexts, we can be challenging and dismantling, piecemeal if not wholesale, the machinations of ethnocentric cultural arrogance that make such philosophical double-standards possible. To do this, it is important to facilitate transformative intercultural conversations as part of a caring hermeneutic that mindfully dwells in *communicative in-betweeness*—an ongoing relational and deliberative communicative praxis that engages unfamiliar philosophical traditions and patiently foregrounds the uniquely persistent cultural grammatologies in the interest of possible worldtransforming understanding without rushing to reach a fnal vocabulary.

Talal Assad has argued that the very *untranslatability* of certain traditional religious idioms and iterative embodied practices into a modern discourse of secular values championing liberal neutrality and foundational individualism offers a powerful resource for unsettling the pernicious forms of ethnocentrism hiding under the guises of a supposedly rational necessity and paraded as part of a depoliticized "end of history."9 Destabilizing the cultural imperialism at the heart of such views of secular modernity, Assad takes an "indirect" approach to locating *secularism* as an entangled and contested set of practices by "being aware that the object to be reached is not fully known" and recognizing that "secularism is not only an abstract principle of equality and freedom that liberal democratic states are supposed to be committed to" but also references "a range of sensibilities—ways of feeling, thinking, talking—that make opposites only by excluding affnities and overlaps" (Assad 2018: 3).

9Assad (2018: 91–96). Here the productive slippage between linguistic registers and traditions (namely secular modernity and Al-Ghazali's writings on the embodied practice of prayer) generates an "anxiety about authenticity," resulting in an untranslatable tension that yet demands "resolution." The idea that "genealogical critique is not a rejection of *all* grounding" but rather returns us to the ground as "this moment" can also, I suggest, provide a powerful heuristic for approaching the moral phenomenology of emotional experience as articulated in the Four-Seven debate.

This chapter will also take a somewhat indirect approach to engaging the Four-Seven debate in Korean history and appreciating its ongoing signifcance for fostering more convivial and transformative cosmopolitical possibilities. It is my contention that by returning to this debate as part of an important history of the present, namely as a translingual practice or pragmatic method for doing comparative philosophy, we can destabilize the arrogantly secular and perniciously ethnocentric aspects of Western philosophical modernity. With this more general methodological interest in view then, here we will be taking up aspects of the Korean philosophical tradition of "Learning of Nature and Coherence" (*songnihak* 性理学)10 in one of its major consummatory events—the Four-Seven debate, a debate regarding the optimal way to conceive of cultivating a moral heartmind and the sources of a *Dao*-focused ethical awareness (*dosim* 道心). An important part of approaching this debate is the foregrounding of an ensemble of Confucian bodily-spiritual practices engaged in for the purposes of *somaesthetic cultivation*, which in turn contributes to the ongoing religious project of contributing to the preservation and meliorative transformation of an intergenerational communicating community of ritual interpretation that promotes life- and world-affrming cosmopolitical subjectivity.11

The debate was carried out via a series of letters between four major philosophers—Toegye (Yi Hwang, 1501–1570), Kobong (Ki Taesung, 1527–1572), Yulgok (Yi I, 1536–1584), and Ugye (Song Hon, 1535–1598), and many other subsequent commentators and interlocutors spanning into the present. It is signifcant that the debate is a continuation and fne-tuning

<sup>10</sup> I would like to thank Bongrae Seok for pointing out the term "Way Learning" (*dohak* 道学) that I originally used here to refer to "Neo-Confucianism," which is a modern European moniker for a metaphysical systematization carried out over several generations, with the philosophical corpus of Zhu Xi in particular playing a major role. But this term can be confusing in a Korean context, as it was later used by Jo Guangjo's (趙光祖 1482–1520) political philosophy of Neo-Confucianism. A thinker that in early Joseon Dynasty triggered a major political struggle and subsequent literati purge due to its being associated with a rather rigid and uncompromising vision of "way-focused political order" stemming from a rather idealistic Neo-Confucian political philosophy. So *songnihak* is a more apt designator for the "orthodoxy" that was being translingually "practiced" by the Four-Seven interlocutors.

11The neologism "somaesthetics" was coined by Richard Shusterman to talk about a type of neo-pragmatist thinking that takes seriously the body as foregrounded in a post-linguistic turn set of questions and issues involving how to better perceive and appreciate (*aesthesis*) in order to better appreciate and ameliorate (*aesthetics*) the lived body (*soma*). Shusterman's work serves as an exemplary model for engaging in translingual philosophical practice that pays heightened attention to bodily experience and practices of self-cultivation involving the visceral affects and moral emotions. For a tour-de-force statement of this path-blazing feld of philosophical research, see Shusterman (2012).

of some of the themes and questions raised in a Song Dynasty philosophical vernacular that at the time of Zhu Xi's (1130–1200) writing was deemed heterodox and banned by a repressive Court-Literati faction that had many Northern "barbarian" incursions to worry about. The suppressing of Zhu's writings was likely due in part to a perception, from a certain standpoint within the ruling Southern Song aristocracy, that they produced an overly idealistic and "metaphysical" interpretation of the Confucian classics, and moreover harbored uncomfortably "democratic" interpretations of the Confucian persuasion that gave precedence to transformative education as (inter)personal cultivation applicable to all alike from the Son of Heaven to every commoner.

In approaching the Four-Seven debate we are faced with many complicated issues of translation in both a political register and a linguistic one. For the Korean Neo-Confucians were writing and reading often in *hanja* 漢字, but also thinking with an indigenous Korean language that in many ways creatively reorients any supposedly fxed or sacrosanct cultural "centers" of Confucian world-civilizing projects promoting an ideal of ethical universality as "all-under-heaven" (*cheonha* 天下).

The initial Four-Seven debate occurred immediately after the reign of King Yeonsangun (1495–1506) who descended from paranoia into actual madness and carried out one of the most extensive and violent "literati purges" in Korean history. Hence, the move to seemingly more esoteric or "scholastic" concerns in clarifying the terms and concepts of the Four-Seven debate becomes more understandable employing as it does sophisticated metaphor, analytic rigor, and existential-pragmatic reasoning to justify one position in terms of not only its conceptual clarity, but also its ability to lead to a transformative ethical truth as confrmed by cultivating a ethico-political subjectivity in a ritual communicating community of interpretation. In the back and forth inquiry of the Four-Seven interlocutors we can detect a real urgency felt at the time to be defning their terms and glossing effective vocabularies for ethical-political Neo-Confucian *praxis*; which is so much more than just metaphysical "scholasticism" brought about by a retreat from engaged transformative inquiry as a result of the "literati purges" and subsequent fallouts in the then recent histories of Confucian political cultures.

In any event, due to the complicated hybridity of the historical Four-Seven debate and its ongoing signifcance for the present as a philosophical conversation that calls for recontextualization in so many ways, the importance of revisiting the debate with an intercultural hermeneutic should be readily obvious. A signifcant task for the "philosophical translation" of the Four-Seven discourse then is the methodological abjuring of conceptual clarity and the intentional embrace of the fecund ambiguities found in the "in-between" spaces of translingual practice. Learning to live with this philosophical "in-betweenness" and even untranslatability, is part of what is entailed in appreciating the radical alterity and uncommon assumptions of distinctive philosophical grammars when it comes to theorizing persons and the diverse cultural worlds of value that they inhabit. If we want to be ethically expanding the limits of our world into a more encompassing cosmopolitan sensibility, then we need to keep unsettling ourselves from the stifing limits of our inherited vocabularies and persistent philosophical grammars.

A touchstone for the type of philosophical translation I have in mind here can be found in Roger Ames and David Hall's collaborative translation and glossary of the Confucian classic *Focusing the Familiar: A Philosophical Translation of the Zhongyong*. 12 Ames and Hall identify a basic problem of recognizing classical Chinese texts (both traditionally received and more recently archeologically excavated) as distinctively philosophical as opposed to say merely literary, religious, historical, scientifc, or any other genre. In discussing this problematic, they locate a pervasive double obfuscation in much previous translations of Chinese "philosophy" into Western languages: namely, the often wholesale, and usually unacknowledged, "Christianization" of classical Chinese texts, in many cases thanks be to the pioneering work of Sinologically trained Jesuits and the Presbyterian missionary-translator James Legge. The common method here is to use familiar terms from an Abrahamic tradition in making sense of the unfamiliar conceptual clusters in pre-Qin Confucian, sources—leading to a depiction of Confucius as a kind of second-rate Messiah at best or a hopelessly naive and muddle-headed moral educator at worst. They also highlight the uncritical reliance upon a kind of Eurocentric philosophical sensibility grounded in an inherited contextualizing grammar of *substance ontology*. When "theologically freighted" terms of translation are coupled with "substance-oriented conceptions of "discreteness, objectivity, and permanence," we get such renderings of *tian* 天 as "Heaven" *yi* 義 as "Righteousness," *li* 禮 as "Rites," and *de* 德 as "Virtue," while more relationally dynamic process-oriented sensibilities are entirely lost to the uninitiated English reader.

<sup>12</sup>Ames and Hall (2001: 61–87).

Ames and Hall's work reminds us that so many heretofore existing translations of Confucian texts have tended to promote a fxed and univocal characterization of "objects or essences emergent from a language rooted in a substantialist perspective" (Hall and Ames 1998: 6). So it is always incumbent upon any hermeneutically responsible philosophical translator to be striving with imagination and rigor to provide a more context sensitive set of interpretive glosses as part of a conceptual constellation that nudges readers away from a language of quantitative and fxed discreteness, toward a dynamic process-oriented vocabulary more capable of letting the texts "speak" to present concerns on their own terms.

Indeed, the translational method of *ars contextualis* suggests a "thisthat" or focus-feld rather than a "one-many" or "part-whole" model of interpretation. Drawing inspiration from A.N. Whitehead's distinction between rational and aesthetic orders, Ames and Hall argue that the very idea of an *arche* or *principium* as ontological or metaphysical "First Principle" is a daunting roadblock to inquiry indeed for achieving any effective intercultural translation. And since there can "be no overarching context determining the shape of other contexts, the world is an openended affair comprised by "thises" and "thats" construable from any number of distinct perspectives" there should be no appeal made to an all-encompassing One behind the many. Rather there are only so many plurisingularities of radical becoming as "many particular foci that organize the felds about them." In a world of pure becoming the myriad things can only be experientially "mapped" (as opposed to re-presented for consciousness) in terms of "patterns of deference" (*shu* 恕), "relational caring" (*ren* 仁), and "optimal symbiosis" (*he* 和). The vital function of moral imagination cannot be overemphasized in achieving a plurisingular, yet resolutely role-focused ethical agency, in an always changing and precarious world. For the Confucians, exemplary persons are simply those paying suffcient reverential attention to the tasks at hand that require somaesthetic cultivation of embodied virtuosities, and the caring "bodyheartminding" as part of an affective disposition that emerges *pari passu* with the effcacious performance of ritual practice in an ongoing and open-ended communicating community of interpretation.13

13The terms "bodyheartminding" and "vital bodyminding," though perhaps prone to confuse any word processor, are most translingually transformative renderings for referencing the non-dual continuity of "mind/feelings" *xin* 心 as a fully gerundive process wherein the lived and performative body (*soma*, *shen* 身) is the dynamic center of the feld of ritually communicative praxis. See Ames (2015: 167–180).

Indeed, the perennial philosophical problem of the "self" might not even be thematized at all as something to be overcome in pre-Buddhist Chinese philosophy. And this deeply relational and correlative cosmology animating the philosophical grammatology of the early Confucians requires a gerundive sense of *Dao* entailing a way-making wherein *Dao* is "both '*what* is' (things and their various attributes) and '*how* things are' (their actions and various modalities), and since there is no clear line between what we might take to be putative things and events: a 'thing' is a distinctive, dynamic focus located within an unbounded feld of experience that is holographically implicated within this focus, requiring a focusfeld rather than a part-whole language to give it expression."14 Bongrae Seok, in a recent work on embodied moral psychology, has coherently situated Confucian thinking through the emotions within a language of dynamic holism and focal-feld discourse:

Qing [cheong 情] is an open space (feld) where the world is felt directly and engaged interactively. It is not an enclosed theater where the world is only translated or, at best, transplanted. As qing is cultivated and properly governed, it is tuned to the world and it presents the world to us because it is the embodied feeling that gives us the direct sense of what the given situation really means to us. As far as we live in this world, we cannot be neutral and cool to the world; we are inescapably emotional to and interactive with the world because the world is not a physical location but a meaningful place to us.15

Philosophical translation as *ars contextualis* then doesn't just seek semantic equivalency across clear and distinct linguistic and cultural registers, nor need it posit a fusion of horizons wherein seemingly incongruous or incommensurable grammars of experience are shoe-horned into an overarching and homogenizing mediating hermeneutic framework. Of course, *translation* as a "carrying across," a true *meta-phorein* as it were, conceptually and practically requires more than just moving from a source to target languages of expression, but nevertheless, it must be carefully concerned with accuracy and truth of re-presentation. Indeed, the very idea of a "source" and "target" language governing translation schema might be more obfuscating than we think. Lydia Liu has suggested that we operate with the conceptual metaphors of a "host language" and

<sup>14</sup>Ames and Rosemont (2016: 161).

<sup>15</sup> Seok (2012: 139).

"guest language" rather than the fxed identity implicit in the territorialized and teleological notions of "source" and "target":

The idea of source language often relies on concepts of authenticity, origin, infuence, and so on, and has the disadvantage of re-introducing the age-old problematic of translatability/untranslatability into the discussion. On the other hand, the notion of target language implies a teleological goal, a distance to be crossed in order to reach the plenitude of meaning; it thus misrepresents the ways in which the trope of equivalence is conceived in the host language, relegating its agency to secondary importance.16

Philosophical translation then can best be conceived of as a practice that seeks to responsibly foreground the uncommon assumptions of distinctive cultural grammars thereby creating the conditions for the possibility of a transformation of any received common sense.

So what I am suggesting is that we need a hermeneutic of translingual practice to be reimagining optimal translation schema for the present that challenge any easy one-to-one correspondence theory of meaning conveyance, with more nuanced debates regarding moral perception, the emotions and the mind as mirror in the Platonic-Cartesian-Lockean canon of Western philosophy. Without challenging any preexisting translation schema directly, I want to suggest a cluster of concepts with associated glosses that will help considerably in approaching the Four-Seven debate on its own complex terms of philosophical hybridity and process-relational thinking. In fact, I fully appreciate the work of pioneering translators who all have reasons for preferring one "standard" or another. And just as we are free to put new wine in old wineskins with terms like "principle" or "reason," I fnd Edward Chung's strategy of beginning with a received standard translation schema only to rely less frequently on these terms after they are introduced, deploying instead transliterated Korean concepts. This can best help make the adjustment to a more dynamic understanding of the concepts animating the debate about the status and signifcance of natural and moral emotions in a life project of Confucian self-cultivation.17

The following brief glossary of select terms is a good place to start unravelling and unsettling the problematic inheritance of substance ontological assumptions undergirding a transcendental-rational universalist rendering of Neo-Confucian thinking about persons and their moral

<sup>16</sup>Lydia Liu (1995: 27).

<sup>17</sup>Chung (2019: 78–80).

potentials to be overcoming selfsh desires in achieving a kind of attentive clarity marked by embodied "reverence" (*gyeong* 敬) as *Dao*-focused heartminding (도심 *dosim*):18

*I* 理 as 'coherence' or 'coherent values' rather than 'principle' or 'reason'. This is an important translational choice, because of the repeated non-dual claims made regarding coherent value patterning that is understood gerundively in shaping possibilities for realizing valuable worlds as creative ethical agents *and* references our always provisional achievements as contributing to historically constituted communities of interpretation.

*Ki* 气 as "vibrant matter", a term I borrow from a New Materialist thinker Jane Bennett.19 Terms like 'vital force' or 'psychophysical stuff,' although both of these standards might provide less anxiety as viable translations than thinking of *i* as non-material "principle." The idea that mind and matter could be ontologically juxtaposed makes little sense in a cosmos animated by always shifting *ki* confgurations, rhythmically punctuated one hopes by life-affrming ritual and music. Even the animate/inanimate ontological difference can be elided altogether with a "vibrant" conception of matter mattering.

*Sim* 心 as "heartminding" without a hyphen and understood as a process continuous with the whole of nature and so many insistently particular human natures coming to realize their non-fungible valuable worlds. In any event, as an emotional and cognitive core of embodied experience *sim* does not depend upon any mind/body substance or reason/ emotion dualistic binary, and is the faculty that when properly attuned with "reverential attention" makes possible an integral unifcation of moral "nature" and the "emotions" (心統性情).

*Seong* 性 as "nature" but not as a fxed metaphysical given, totalizing or transcendental entity, but as a way of referring to the nature-culture eventful process of becoming more fully human. It is both what is *aspirational* in experience and *inspirational* insofar as the ideals as "ends-in-view" always come back to circulation within experience to call us out of ourselves—indeed, what Heaven invokes is called "nature" (天命之谓性).

<sup>18</sup> I will say more about *gyeong* as "reverent attention" and an affective-somaesthetic style of ethical comportment. For a detailed and lucid overview of the role of *gyeong* in Confucian agent-based virtue ethics, see Suk Choi's chapter in this volume.

19Bennett (2010: 20–24). The perspective of vital materialism allows for us to get past anthropocentric conceptions of foundational agency and imagine a more inclusive assemblage of creative energies as distributed agential becomings as an ecological humanism. It is my contention that this fts quite well with the ontology of the Korean Neo-Confucians.

I will say more about the non-linear temporal and circulatory dimensions of this conceptual constellation in the conclusion.

*Jeong* 情 as "emotion" or "feeling" but not a static sentiment or mental state, but referencing the relatively immediate experience not yet fltered through rational deliberation or. Although we can see from the *Mengzi* and other early excavated texts that "emotionally integrative thinking" *sa/ si* 思—an embodied activity to be sure—is key to "getting it" (*deok/de* 得) in terms of cultivating a transformative ethical agency within one's roleencumbered patterns of *qi* confguration and nature-culture, the Korean Neo-Confucians tended to expand the Mengzian notion of "situational characteristics" into an expression of an immanent ethical transcendence.

*Gyeong* 敬 as "reverential attention" not just "seriousness" or "reverence" because for the Neo-Confucians it is not just a sense of religious awe or respect for ghosts and spirits, but a transformation of the very kind of ethical subjectivity as an embodied *attentional economy* that one brings to the act of constituting a world of value patterning in a ritually generated deliberative space.

# 6.3 The Four-Seven Debate as Translingual Practice

I cannot possibly hope to provide a comprehensive overview of the cultural, political and religious history and philosophical signifcance of the Four-Seven debate in Korean Confucianism, so I will only be focusing on aspects of the debate that I see as particularly poignant in terms of calling into question certain forms of prevailing "common sense" regarding the ethical salience of emotional experience.20

Imagine, using your currently embodied *habitus* as a somaesthetic schema of sensibility, that you suddenly encounter a situation in which a toddler is crawling toward an open well. The immediate affective reaction that you surely have (and the intensity will vary depending upon how vividly your imaginative efforts function here), is likely a mixture of shock, fear, and anxious concern coupled with an overwhelmingly action-driving motivation to immediately, without having "one thought too many," be

<sup>20</sup>For a good place to get an overview there is the translated and annotated *The Four-Seven Debate* by Michael Kalton et al. (SUNY, 1994). And for thought-provoking detailed discussions of the historical and ongoing philosophical signifcance of the debate, see Philip J. Ivanhoe (2016) and Edward Chung (2019).

moving to save the child from looming danger. One can also imagine that in certain precarious situations giving rise to such immediate affectivedriven ethical action, that defciencies and excesses in the emotional networks of communication could lead to various forms of *akrasia* or to other ethically debilitating conditions—for example, what if one faints or goes into cardio-pulmonary arrest as a result of the initial shock of such dramatic ethical encounters? So as far as the "logic of imagination" style argument in *Mengzi* 2A6 makes abundantly clear in thinking through the normatively universal category of "human becoming" it is important to fully countenance the vast breadth and complexity of emotional experience and consider ways that immediate affective perceptions can be both truth-tracking and action-guiding when appropriately "patterned" as heavenly-coherent (*tianli* 天理) confgurations of *qi* energy.21

The Four Beginnings (*sadan*) come from the *Mengzi*, wherein the text insists that the moral nature of persons, as long as given the proper environing conditions in family-born feeling and non-coercive and non-violent ethical development can take shape as robust ethical virtuosities—*ren* as "consummate conduct," *yi as* "optimal appropriateness," *li as* "ritual deference," and *zhi* as "wisdom." Although the root-and-branches (*ben/mo*) concept is certainly applicable to the notion of moral expansion of spontaneous sensibilities and biological affect, as found in the *Mengzi*, but such root-and-branches analogical thinking should be situated in a larger context of the frequent Mengzian reliance upon botanical metaphors, and not read as signaling some reifed "substance" or metaphysical given as experiential "sprouts" of pure ethical consciousness. In any event, the Mengzian claim that without the appropriate spontaneous affective responses induced by environing conditions one is not human is taken as basic in all subsequent Neo-Confucian debates. To not immediately experience the heartminding of empathy and commiseration (*ciyinzhi xin*), shame and disgust (*xiu e zhi xin*), yielding and deference (*cirang zhi xin*), and a sense of right and wrong (*shi fei zhi xin*) in situations which quite viscerally "command" such an affective response is to be beyond the pale of humanity for the ethical vision as articulated in the *Mengzi*.

<sup>21</sup> In *Mengzi* 6A6 we also get a phenomenal description of the Four Sprouts and the phrase "when it comes to the emotions, natural capacities can't be to blame" (乃若其情, 非才之罪 也) in the context of differential accomplishments and outright failures to develop or thrive as moral agents. For more on the unique style of logic grounded in affective experience animating the *Mengzian* approach to thinking about ethical universality, see Chen Shaoming (2017: 68–79).

The Seven Feelings (*chil cheong*) are derived from the *Book of Rites* "Ritual Flow" chapter, wherein the authors list seven basic emotions to describe the basic characteristics of human persons:

What is the basic characteristics of persons in terms of emotional experience? Happiness, anger, sadness, fear, love, hate, and desire. These seven as capabilities don't require any study to be realized."22

The Four-Seven debate in picking up with the Cheng-Zhu dynamic of thinking places these seven alongside another chapter of the *Book of Rites*, the "Focusing the Familiar" (*Zhongyong*), opening chapter that has:

What Heaven commands is called our nature, following this nature is a path of education, and refning this path is called Way-making. … The condition before happiness, anger, grief, joy (*le*) are aroused is called nascent equilibrium (*zhong*); after they are aroused and each is appropriately rhythmically stylized, it is called harmony/optimal symbiosis. This notion of equilibrium and focus (*zhong*) is the great root of the world; harmony then is the advancing of the proper way (*dadao*) in the world. (Ames and Hall 2001: 89)

In addition to problematizing a condition of heartminding that would be in some sense unaroused or unexpressed by external ethical conditions, this and related passages raised many complex questions for Neo-Confucian thinkers working within a dipolar "root body-gesture" *che-yong* 體用 modality of thinking of a complementarity between coherent values and vibrant matter. The debate enters into many different philosophical registers from the ethico-political to the psychological, semiotic and religious, but perhaps it can be optimally approached as being concerned primarily the "sources of normativity" in interpersonal experience. Is it possible to attune oneself to a

<sup>22</sup>《礼记·礼运》: "何谓人情?喜、怒、哀、惧、爱、恶、欲, 七者弗学而能. The very idea of translating *qing/cheong* simply as "emotion" or "feeling" is far from an obvious choice in many contexts in pre-Buddhist Chinese philosophical texts. Although there are some cases, in the *Book of Rites* in particular and in several passages in the *Mengzi*, that would seem to call for such an interpretative move. However, the term is semantically expansive in a way that elides any easy subjective/objective dichotomy of experience. *Qing* is as much the way "situations" are unfolding as it is how we "experience" them. On the non-analytic and situationally contextualized semantic evolution of *qing* 情 as can be read from pre-Buddhist texts and creatively through to Neo-Confucian metaphysics, see Michael Puett's "The Ethics of Responding Properly: The Notion of *Qing* 情 in Early Chinese Thought" in Eifring (2004: 37–68).

transcendent ethical source? Or are the ideals of an "pre-expressed nascent equilibrium of emotional experience" something that should be sought in an ethical consciousness embedded in concrete situations, historical dialectic, a world of entangled affects and vibrant materialism?

Philip Ivanhoe has offered a helpful heuristic in thinking about a *developmental* model found in *Mengzi* 2A6 versus a *recovery* or *discovery* model found in the moral metaphysics of Cheng-Zhu *dohak* 道学and Lu-Wang *simhak* 心学, respectively.23 I think that taking a certain pragmatistinfected "existentialist" approach and following Huang Zongxi's cue that "cultivated experience just is root-nature" (*gongfu jishi benti* 功夫即是本 体) we can better grasp Toegye's promotion of "reverent attention" as a way of talking about the correlative constitution of "nature and *cheong*" can function as a "mutual issuance" (*hobal* 互發) stemming simultaneously from *i* 理and *ki* 氣sources. Simply put, thinking about relationally constituted ethical agents requires that we foreground the embodied *moral imagination* rather than any form of rationally foundational universalism. The somaesthetic moral imagination both as an individual capability of subjective moral agency and as a ritually generated critically refective *habitus* lets us think again about source, root, and potential in a more communicative framework of ritual and role enactment rather than as dependent upon some transcendent or supernatural framework. Perhaps we should think here of a *disclosure* model within a hermeneutic framework of pragmatist existentialism that is capable of integrating the ethical insights and lures for feeling found in a dynamic symbiosis of both a *developmental* and *recovery* model of moral experience.24

The initiation of the Four-Seven philosophical debate is historically located at the moment when Toegye decided to amend an anthropocosmic moral psychology diagram of Chong Chiun's (1509–1561) depicting the temporalization and spatialization of the "Heavenly Invoked Order Diagram" (天命圖). Part of the diagram involved an experiential and practical distinction drawn between the Four Beginnings and the Seven Feelings as basic ways of describing an embodied moral psychology as emerging within the *Tohak* lineage of Neo-Confucian thinking.

<sup>23</sup> Ivanhoe (2016: 73).

<sup>24</sup>For more on the idea of moving from potted "doctrines" (orthodoxy) to enacted "roles" (orthopraxy) in Confucian theorizing about persons, that is, moving from moral frst principles to imaginative narratives of "becoming [more fully] human," see Ames (2020: 94–106).

Chon Chiun's diagram of the heavenly mandate. (Cf. http://db.history.go.kr/item/ bookViewer.do?levelId=ma\_**013**\_**0160**\_**0060** [Accessed December 30, 2020])

The diagram as originally composed had language that Toegye found too dualistic in terms of splitting apart a "Heavenly" constitution of the moral potential of human persons (*daoxin* 道心) and the more mundanely materialistic composition of persons as desiring subjects (*renxin* 人心). In order to temper the possibility of deriving a dualist understanding from the diagram, Toegye suggested that it be emended to say only that "pure goodness" "issues" (*bal* 發) from "valuing coherence" (*i* 理). This diagram involves both temporality and spatiality in representing the emergence of moral consciousness and transformative ethical agency. The outermost part of the circle has the twelve "earthly punctuations" used to mark seasonal transformation and daily fuctuations of *ki*-based confgurations and patterns of vital energy condensation. The outer circle is mixed between the bright *yang* 阳 and the dark *yin* 阴 blending and the four circles has four of the fve basic elements (water, fre, wood, and metal) corresponding with the four primordial virtuosities marking the "frst sentence" of the *Great Treatise* 系辞大专of the *Book of Changes* 易经: all-encompassing, sustainable, profting, secure元亨利贞. 25 "Earth" (*to/tu* 土) as an elemental *ur*-ground is conspicuously absent in the spatializedtemporalization of ethical consciousness here, but appears as a centering agency wherein the transformations of nature coalesce to create a novel subjectivity. The elemental soil of ethical subjectivity is recognized at the bottom of the graph with the phrase "earthly location," which is correlated with "heavenly mandate" at the top of the graph that also articulates the non-dual intertwining of the "wondrous cohering value" (*cheonli/ tianli* 天理) and the "condensation of vibrant matter" (*qining* 气凝). As we move into the center of the graph the space of "human appearance" (*renxing* 人形) is situated as the "*yang* space" between the two *yin* poles of a vertically growing "nature" (*xing* 性) on the left that is a "stable equilibrium and straightforward uprightness" (平正直立) characteristic of botanical growth toward a heavenly light source, and on the right an expanding "nature" that analogically resonates with the fecund, more horizontal vital proliferation, of "birds and beasts" (禽兽横生).

At the center of this graphic depiction of the emergence of an ethically focused human subjectivity are again a clearly non-dual contrasting of two distinct circles with a chiasmatic connecting center of *cheong* 情. Above there are the four virtuosities of Mengzian moral psychology: "relational virtuosity" *ren* 仁, "optimal appropriateness" *yi* 義, "ritual practice" *li* 禮, and "wisdom" *zhi* 智. At the center is "nature made reverent" (*xing jing* 性敬) which through the *gongfu* practice of bringing "pragmatic investigation" (*cha* 察) and "phenomenological introspection" (*sheng* 省) to the somaesthetic feld of 'emotional experience' (*cheong*) there is realized a possibility of recognizing "right and wrong" (*shifei* 是非) conduct in situations. Moreover, at the consummation of this *gongfu* process the arising of the "seven natural emotions" can be rendered as so many "effcacious triggers" (*shanji* 善機) for realizing the virtuosic development of the "four sprouts" of Mengzian moral psychology with "reverent attention" (*gyeong* 敬) at the center. And it was precisely this part of the diagram that initiated the Four-Seven debate as the right half of the lower circle has the

25For more on the idea of a "frst sentence" that might stand in productive contrast with cosmogonical *logos* in Western (Greek and Abrahamic) traditions, see Jullien (2015: 24–30) for the provocative translingual claim that this open-ended and productively ambiguous grammatical sentence (as certainly no clear and distinct punctuation could exist in the original text) points to a vision of conceptual *coherence* rather than fxed *meaning* in making sense of human experience.

expression "the four sprouts are an issuance of *i*" and the left half "the seven feelings are an issuance of *ki*."

It was here that Toegye emended Chon Chiun's diagram to sound less dualistic, and this provoked Kobong to put forth his critique that the commitment to non-dualism was not suffciently strong. The frst letter that Toegye wrote to Kobong was somewhat self-deprecating in setting the stage for a conversational inquiry aiming at a closer approximation of truth:

I have heard from scholar friends something of your discussion of my thesis regarding the Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings. I was already dissatisfed myself with the imprecision of the wording, and, having gotten word of your helpful critique, I am even more aware of its error. So I have revised it to read: "The issuance of the Four Beginnings is purely a matter of principle and therefore involves nothing but good' the issuance of the Seven Feelings includes material force and therefore involves both good and evil." I am not sure whether or not this way of putting it is acceptable.26

Toegye presents many reasoned responses to overcoming any dualistic assumptions inherent in a naïve naturalism or "*ki* monism" that would have the four purely good moral sprouts emerging from some incorrigible and immediately intuited set of innate feelings. For Toegye the importance of "reverent attention" 敬as a daily *gongfu*—involving practices like quiescent sitting (静坐) and collaborative philosophical research (读书) was key to realizing the "predominant elements" (*sochu* 所主) within emotional experience. Kobong recognizes the need to differentiate between types of feelings, as Mengzi's Four Sprouts represent an instance of "singling out" from a manifold of expressed emotions. For Mengzi and Zisizi each had a "predominant element, and it is up to the scholar to be subtle in discerning." Kalton highlights the fecund ambiguity of this expression, "Chu is ambiguous, since its meaning can shift in differing contexts from something that one makes the "main or controlling thing" (chu) to something that is the "main or controlling thing" (Kalton et al. 1994: 26). This is an important point, as like the term "practice" *gongfu* 功夫 in Neo-Confucian discourse, *so chu* is a "double-barreled" concept insofar as it refers *both* to the process of cultivation *and* to any aspirational telos of ethical practice. *So chu* is a non-analytic and non-dualistic way of talking

<sup>26</sup>Kalton et al. (1994: 1). Here we can see the exemplary attitude of Toegye in promoting a kind of falliblism and willingness to learn from junior scholars in conversational inquiry. The rest of the debate from this frst 1519 letter is indeed still living history.

about experience that also elides any clear and distinct inner/outer dichotomy of mind and world. We do best to contextualize the Four-Seven debate within the living tradition of Confucian theorizing of persons as gerundive processes and potentially consummatory events (that in turn return to the community of ritual interpretation for as ongoing catalysts of epochal cultural and ethico-political transformation. Hence, it is being suggested here that the intercultural comparative hermeneutic horizon of pragmatic somaesthetics should replace reductive paradigms of anatomical neuroscience and otherwise foundationally individualistic notions of moral psychology for optimally theorizing emotional experience.

At one point in the conversation, Toegye "recklessly ventures" that "root nature" (本然之性) and "*ki* material nature" (氣質之性) are similar in kind to the Four Sprouts and Seven Feelings conceptual distinction in terms of the relative issuance from distinct *yi* and *ki* sources—the lived experience of having one nature but the conceptual distinction between two. According to Kalton, Toegye's approach to the debate "could be viewed as a search for the consequences of the original nature in the phenomenal realm of the life of the feelings" (Kalton et al. 1994: 9). I think that if we opt for a phrasing of "root nature" rather than some ontologically pristine concept of "originality" and think about *ki* confgurations as issuing from the same experiential milieu then the importance of the sustaining of an ontologically weak but ethically strong cosmopolitical ideals in a non-ideal and radically contingent and precarious world becomes clear that this is much more than an abstract "scholastic" debate. Kobong deploys Zhu Xi's distinction between the "nature of Heaven and Earth" and "physical nature" to articulate the necessity of *ki* for realizing any value coherence: "That whereby Heaven and Earth produce creatures is coherence; its [actually] producing the creatures is a matter of vibrant matter. Human's and other creatures must receive this psychophysical endowment in order to have concrete form, and coherence being in its midst is thereby called 'the nature'" (trans. modifed from Kalton et al. 1994: 28). And Toegye comes to endorse this non-dual stance in highlighting the role of reverential attention in not just selecting, but *constituting* the very order of normative coherence that comes to be recognized as a heavenly lure for feeling: "from this perspective, although neither of the two is separable from value patterning and vibrant matter, on the basis of their point of origin, each points to a predominant factor and emphasis (so chu 所主), so there is no reason why we cannot say that the one is a matter of value patterning and the other a matter of vibrant matter" (Kalton et al. 1994: 11, trans. modifed).

In an early letter of the initial debate Toegye takes on Kobong's challenge to defne clearly the difference between the Four and the Seven in terms of their phenomenology and orientation toward the good. And since former Confucians "only spoke indiscriminately of "feelings" (*cheong*) but no one has as yet differentiated the four sprouts and seven feelings in terms of "coherence and vibrant matter" it is important that they be avoiding a muddled approach to emotional experience here. In a follow-up letter Kobong sought to clarify, if not analytically defne, "heartmind," "nature," and "feelings" using Zhu Xi's *Collected Sayings*: "As soon as the nature activates, then it is the feelings. The feelings have both good and evil, but as for the nature, it is entirely good. And the heartmind is how the nature and the feelings are creatively integrated (*xin tong xing qing* 心統性情)." He also points out that Mencius and Zisizi had a different approach to conceptualizing moral psychology: "Mencius approached the wondrous combination of coherent values and vibrant matter and exclusively referred to what issues from coherent values as nothing but good"—that is, the Four Beginnings, while Zisizi "approached the wondrous combination of principle and material force and spoke in an undifferentiated way, so the feelings defnitely combine principle and material force and have both good and evil—that is, the Seven Feelings. He suggests that the Four Beginnings are "within as pure value patterning" and at the "moment of issuance are not muddled with vibrant matter," while the "Seven Feelings are stimulated externally by physical form, and their issuance is not the original body (*ti* 體) of coherence" (Kalton et al. 1994: 21 modifed). Kobong goes on to argue that the "perfectly measured" issuance of the Seven Feelings express a "nature" conferred by "Heavenly Invoked Order and the root body" and are as such but the "same reality with a different name" with the Mencian Four Beginnings. This is similar to how Yulgok later argued that the Seven Feelings can be "comprehending" of the Four Beginnings, but the Four Beginnings cannot comprehend the Seven Feelings.

Toegye also mobilizes "mutual issuance" *hobal* 互發 as a conceptual strategy for thinking about the interdependent entanglement of *yi* and *ki* without presupposing a transcendent monism or an undifferentiated feld of experience and potential for ethically transformative cultivation. Indeed, in an explanatory note regarding a reply letter from Toegye to Kobong, Kalton highlights the productive "ambiguity" in the phrase *hobal* translated as "mutual issuance" because it is not clear whether it means both vibrant matter and cohering value "have an issuing function, albeit they are interdependent in carrying it out, or whether 'mutual' is just another way of saying 'interdependent,' that is, that they jointly have a role in the issuing function" (Kalton et al. 1994: 63). The phrase found in many Cheng-Zhu writings, of Chan Buddhist provenance, "not separate yet not muddled" 不離不雜, is a very fecund expression for thinking about the non-dual yet differentiated felds and folds of emotional experience. The relatively unfocused and natural-mechanistic-like fuctuations of *ki* modalities as contrasted with the heightened somaesthetic awareness made possible by realizing "reverent attention" in daily routine and social *habitus* calls for emobided refection upon the subtle inner workings of the "triggers" expressing the latent moral potentials of the unexpressed heartmind. For Toegye, the "distinguishing things as two does not necessarily prevent their never being separated, and when they are combined as a unity, it may actually come down to their not being muddled with one another" (12). Toegye calls this an "all-encompassing approach that avoids one-sidedness" or in other words, a way of preserving a universality of dynamic ethical principle without reliance upon a monistic reduction to material force or some supernatural principle as a myth of the metaphysically given. So, in an important sense Toegye is able to respond to Kobong's challenge that Mengzi's "singling out" and Zisizi's "speaking of [feelings] in their entirety" led to a dualistic orientation in certain Neo-Confucian circles. For Kobong, the Four and the Seven are just the "same reality with a different name" (21). Kobong's "humble position" is that

[b]oth the Four Beginnings and the Seven Feelings issue from the mindand-heart. Since the mind-and-heart is a conjunction of principle and material force, feelings certainly combine both principle and material force. It is not the case that there is a particular distinctive kind of feelings that only issues from principle and not from material force. The point truly calls for one to distinguish the genuine from the false. (32)

However, in abjuring the language of substance ontology presupposing at it does discrete, permanent things and working instead with a process-oriented vocabulary that takes seriously change and contingency, how might these debates about the relative independence of *yi* and *ki*, the Four and the Seven, and related questions be taken up in our present? We do well to recall Roger Ames and David Hall's promotion of a deferential (*shu* 恕) conception of language beyond rigid designation as static reference. Truth then, as a trait of communicative practice and somaesthetic self-cultivation is not fxed in some representational order of being, but is always a more or less provisional affair of learning how to better cultivate *trust* (*xin* 信) in the context of our always transforming social roles and interpersonal relationships. Ethical transcendence then is an ongoing embodied activity, not a return to some pristine state of unencumbered freedom or a return to some ontological given; and engaging in creative philosophical redescription within translingual practices and holding space open for intercultural comparative conversations can be a real means for cultural transformation.

### 6.4 Conclusion

What I have humbly attempted to do here is merely to present a few key aspects of an ongoing conversational inquiry that effectively foregrounds a unique philosophical "common sense" that can help engage us in a translingual in-betweenness because it doesn't sit well with the received dominant tradition of mind/body dualism and the prioritizing of rationality at the expense of emotional experience. By making space for a Joseon philosophical vocabulary speak for itself, more creatively democratic and postcolonial imaginings of ethical subjectivity and transformative agency can be realized drawing from this uniquely Korean Neo-Confucian philosophical contribution to Asian (post)modernities. Many postcolonial and de-Orientalizing forces shaping nationalist discourses tend to operate with sharp conceptual dichotomies between the supposedly instrumentalistrationalist aspects of highly centralized state bureaucracies and can result in law-and-order campaigns rhetorically positioned to be seen by certain segments of publics as heroically preserving institutions from the chaotically swarming masses of emotionally charged, and therefore volatile subjectivities, threatening the status quo. Such dualistic thinking about political subjectivity can be further "provincialized" and transformed by engaging carefully with the highly nuanced and meticulous embodied moral psychology of relational persons found in the Joseon Korean interlocutors and can help us further the project of dismantling via a new way of seeing and destabilizing the thoroughly contingent projection of Occidental arrogance as the byproduct of a Western imperialist imagination.

In his rethinking of most central concepts of transcendence, universality, and sustainability with Asian traditions, Prasenjit Duara has rearticulated a conception of "circulating history" that I think is helpful in imagining ways to be engaging with a philosophical periodization as signifcant as the Four-Seven debate in Joseon Korea. Duara suggests that, in a post-Cold War era, "the growing collusion between transnational capital and the nation-state means that the latter is not as capable of protecting the interests of the community and the natural world in their territories," but this is untenable for imagining a sustainable global order, as this would require a [ethically universal] "cosmopolitanism" that is able to transcend the zero-sum competitive and imperialist logics of nation-states.27

By returning to the Four-Seven debate with a renewed hermeneutic sensititivity informed by translingual practices appreciating the hybrid becoming or intimate "betweenness" of initially unfamiliar thinking about moral psychology and emotionally charged subjectivity, the very cosmopolitan ideals of a Confucian moral subjectivity opening the possibility of a universal *cheonha* 天下 ethical order as a "circulating" historical ideal can be affectively countenanced as a live option for the moral imagination. For as Duara notes, it is not just the material fows of capital and "Asiatic modes of production" that shape our history of the global present:

The Asian maritime networks of the pre-colonial era … involved a wide variety of merchant communities at different points who did not speak the same languages or trade in the same currencies … In many ways, contemporary Asian regional interdependence resembles the maritime Asian trade networks, because of the separation of political, economic and military levels and power …. Although the actual products fowing through the Asian maritime networks were miniscule compared to today's fgures, the cultural fows they enabled–packaged in Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Islam—were nothing short of world-transforming … the older Asian models of cultural circulation without state domination of identity presents us with a historical resource to explore new possibilities.28

So, just as some are interested in exploring concepts like Henri Bergson's *duree*, William James' "stream of consciousness," or Edmund Husserl's phenomenology of "internal time consciousness" in order to reimagine possible subjectivities outside of imperialist logics of domination and colonized consciousness, we should be equally able, given enough collaborative research and ongoing translingual practice be more readily countenancing the varieties of approaches to theorizing ethical subjectivity and cosmopolitan universalism on offer in a recontextualized Four-Seven debate. It is my hope that this chapter can make a small contribution in this direction as part of this most important volume urging us to be taking seriously the rich legacy of Korean philosophies of emotion in the present age.

<sup>27</sup> See Duara (2014: 241).

28Duara (2014: 277).

### References


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# *Jeong* (情), Civility, and the Heart of a Pluralistic Democracy in Korea

*Hyo-Dong Lee*

# 7.1 Introduction

The relationship between Confucianism and democracy is an intensively debated issue these days. This debate takes on many forms, and the most prominent one is between the advocates of Confucian meritocracy and the advocates of Confucian democracy.1 At the center of this debate stand the ideas of political equality and popular sovereignty. Confucian meritocrats reject political equality and popular sovereignty on the grounds that, according to Confucian political philosophy, a good government promotes the material and moral well-being of people and is best run by elites who have proven themselves to be virtuous and wise enough to serve (Bell 2006; Qing 2013; Bai 2012). By contrast, Confucian democrats emphasize the universal moral equality of all human beings according to the

1For a succinct overview of this debate, see S. Kim 2018: 1–5.

H.-D. Lee (\*)

Graduate Department of Religion, Drew University Theological School, Madison, NJ, USA e-mail: hlee5@drew.edu

© The Author(s) 2022 213

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_7

Mencian doctrine of *seongseon*/*xingshan* (性善)2 that human nature is intrinsically good, thereby constructing a modern Confucian idea of political equality and popular sovereignty (Ames and Hall 1999; Tan 2004; Kim 2014). Here the crux of the matter lies in the attempted transition from moral equality to political equality.

This chapter examines the notion of the Four Sprouts (Beginnings) of virtue (*sadan/siduan* 四端) at the basis of the Mencian *seongseon* thesis and explores its potential to support a Confucian theory of democracy. I develop a political reinterpretation of the Four Sprouts in terms of *jeong* 情 (emotions), which is one of the core notions of Korean Neo-Confucian moral psychology, and reconstruct it as a kind of affectionate and moral solidarity that exists in all of us as the defning human potential. I argue that this defning human potential confers upon us political equality as the basis of our right to self-rule. Further, by understanding *jeong* as a kind of political and social glue that holds together diverse groups of people with diverging interests and competing visions of human fourishing, this chapter attempts to lay the basis for envisioning a thriving pluralistic democracy sustained by a public culture of civility in Korea.

# 7.2 *Jeong* and the Heart-mind: The Affective Basis of Moral Equality

As is well known, the Mencian theory of the intrinsic goodness of human nature has its roots in his notion of the Four Sprouts of the heart-mind (*sim*/*xin* 心) (*Mencius*, 6A: 2, 6A: 6, 2A: 6). According to Mengzi, human nature (*seong*/*xing*性) consists in the virtue of "humanity" or "humaneness" (*in*/*ren*仁), which Confucius (Kongzi), the founder of Confucianism, taught as a universal moral capacity for empathetic response to—or sympathetic understanding of—other human beings (*seo*/*shu* 恕) that is ritually articulated as virtuous propriety (*ye*/*li* 禮) (*Analects* 12: 1–2; 15: 24).3 Being human, for Kongzi, means to be a virtuous person of humanity. He emphasized it as the universal virtue, which is tantamount to possessing a

<sup>2</sup> I provide both Korean and Chinese romanizations of classical Chinese characters when the pronunciations diverge.

<sup>3</sup> I use Zhu 1983 for the *Analects*. "Yan Yuan asked about humanity (*ren*). The Master said: 'To restrain oneself and to return to ritual propriety constitutes humanity'" (131); "Zigong asked: 'Is there a single word which one could practice throughout one's life?' The Master said: 'It is sympathetic understanding (*shu* 恕). What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others'" (166). For an English translation, see Chichung Huang 1997: 125, 156.

cultivated self that is open, empathetic, and therefore relational (Tu 1985: 51–56). As fundamentally relational beings, humans come to be truly human as they cultivate and practice their virtue of empathy to one another in embodied moral and social actions, namely, ritual propriety (*ye*/*li* 禮). Ideally, ritual propriety is permeated by a spirit of mutuality and reciprocity, for humans are empathetic beings capable of being in tune with one another and hence appropriate—right (*ui*/*yi* 義)—in their ritualized social interactions.

Kongzi's famous defnition of humanity, "Restraining the [selfsh] self and returning to ritual constitutes humanity" (*geukgibokryewiin*/*kejifuliw eiren* 克己復禮爲仁), captures the capacity of ritual propriety, when enacted correctly, to produce social concord and harmony (*Analects*, 12: 1). It is for this reason that the rites of honoring and venerating one's ancestors, including one's parents, function as the most signifcant touchstone for one's possession of humanity (*in*/*ren*) as the virtuous emotion (*jeong*) of empathy**.** These rites are supposed to manifest flial piety (*hyo*/*xiao* 孝) as an expression of the virtue of humanity present in the parent-children relationship; that is, the most fundamental of all human relationships. Hence the symbolic action of honoring parents and ancestors formed the very frst, foundational component in Kongzi's educational program of learning to govern by means of ritual propriety.

Mengzi took over this idea of humanity as empathy and gave it a moralpsychological grounding in his theory of human nature and heart-mind. For Mengzi, human nature is universally endowed by Heaven as a kind of "seed" that sprouts and grows, to use Mencius' beloved agricultural moral metaphor (*Mencius* 6A: 7).4 From within the human heart-mind (*sim*/*xin* 心) there emerge four "sprouts" (or "beginnings") (*dan*/*duan* 端) of moral virtues, namely, the "heart-mind of sympathy (or compassion)," "heart-mind of shame and dislike," "heart-mind of deference and compliance," and "heart-mind of approval and disapproval," all of which are affrmed by Mencius as *jeong/qing* (emotions). When these innate empathetic emotions are nurtured in and through ritual propriety and not neglected, they culminate in the four (cardinal) virtues of benevolence, rightness, ritual propriety, and wisdom (*inuiyeji*/*renyilizhi* 仁義禮智), respectively (*Mencius* 2A: 6; 6A: 6). In other words, the Four Sprouts testify to an open and mutually empathetic selfhood that exists as the core innate human potential to be developed and perfected by everyone. In this

<sup>4</sup> I use Zhu 1983 for the *Mencius*. See 329. For an English translation, see Lau 2003: 126.

way, Mengzi affrms the intrinsic presence of what may be called universal moral sentiments that confers upon all humans moral equality *de jure*, while acknowledging their moral inequality de facto because in reality this shared moral potential can be developed to varying degrees (*Mencius* 6A: 7; 6A: 8). This is why Mengzi declares that if people simply put in enough effort and do not give up, they can potentially all become sages like Yao or Shun (*Mencius* 6B: 2; 6A: 7; 3A: 1).

Neo-Confucianism took up Mengzi's theory of the innate goodness of human nature and formulated a moral-metaphysical5 account of the human being at the center of what appears to be a reciprocal and affective ontology of the human self. The frst—and historically dominant—school of Neo-Confucianism, the Cheng-Zhu school, captured the essence of this ontology of the self with the celebrated dictum, "The heart-mind unites and commands human nature and emotions (*simtongseongjeong*/*xi ntongxingqing* 心統性情)." The heart-mind here functions as a synecdoche for the self which, like any other being, consists in a union of pattern (*i*/*li* 理; principle) and vital energy (*gi*/*qi* 氣; material or psychophysical force); that is, *i*/*li* is the normative metaphysical principle and structure of reality whereas *gi*/*qi* is the actual energy and "stuff" that actually brings each phenomenon into concrete existence and also determines its transformation.6 The (human) nature stands for the pattern/principle of being (*i*/*li*) as it is "incarnate" in and among human beings, namely, insofar as it mandates the way psychophysical energy (*gi*/*qi*) individuates to form human persons—their bodies and heart-minds—as they come into being in relation to one another. True to the Mencian heritage, the Neo-Confucians identify human nature and *i*/*li* with *in*/*ren* (仁) and accordingly regard the human heart-mind as in principle empathetic and responsive. Emotions (*jeong*/*qing* 情), on the other hand, designate the dynamic manifestations of psychophysical energy within the heart-mind that function as the structuring force in concrete human relations, which may or may not follow the harmonizing mandate of human nature. Because psychophysical energy's spontaneous movements are bound to

<sup>5</sup>The phrase "moral metaphysics" was coined by Mou Zhongsan to highlight the Neo-Confucian attempts to provide a metaphysical basis of human existence as moral agents. See Tu 1982: 10.

<sup>6</sup> See the succinct description of the Neo-Confucian moral psychology in Kalton 1994: xxii–xxv. For the relationship among the heart-mind, the human nature, and feelings, see Zhu 1986, 1: 89, 92, 94–5. A helpful summary of Zhu Xi's positions is given in Chung 1995: 46–7.

have excesses and defciencies, they inevitably give rise to individual psychophysical confgurations that are opaque, impure, turbid, indolent, and therefore less open and communicative. When human beings are born with these kinds of psychophysical confgurations—that is, psychophysical endowments (*gipum*/*qibing* 氣禀 or *gijil*/*qizhi* 氣質) in the sense of physical, dispositional, and intellectual endowments—their emotional dispositions are prone to be less empathetic and therefore more self-centered.7 In other words, in contrast to human nature, emotions by themselves are morally neutral or ambiguous—they can be either good (moral) or evil (selfsh) depending on the kind of psychophysical endowments from which they emerge.

This morally ambiguous account of emotions, however, calls into question the intrinsic goodness of the Four Sprouts of virtue at the basis of the Mencian *seongseon*/*xingshan* thesis. The signature contribution of Korean Neo**-**Confucianism is its development and articulation of the precise role of emotions in manifesting and sustaining inherent human goodness. Zooming in on the Cheng-Zhu distinction between the Four Sprouts and the Seven Emotions (*chiljeong*/*qiqing* 七情), Korean Neo-Confucians led by one of its most prominent spokespersons, Toegye, argued that the Four Sprouts of virtue constituted inherently moral emotions, namely, the affective responses of the heart-mind to others that do not deviate from the innate goodness of human nature.8 Toegye insisted that, while the Four Sprouts of virtue are always mixed in with and hard to distinguish from other ordinary human emotions—here represented by the notion of the Seven Emotions of pleasure, anger, sorrow, fear, love, hatred, and desire—they are distinct in terms of their origination. In the case of the Seven Emotions, it is psychophysical energy (*gi*/*qi*) that "issues (*bal*/*fa* 發)" in those ordinary human emotions that may or may not follow the

<sup>7</sup> See Zhu 1986, 1: 69: "Human nature is always good, yet there are some who are good from the time of their births, and there are those who are evil from the time of their births. This is due to the differences in their psychophysical endowment …. The goal of learning is to transform the psychophysical endowment, although such transformation is very diffcult." For Zhu Xi, desires are intensifcations of emotions; and people have evil desires when their emotions become excessive and unbalanced to the point of being uncontrollable (93–94). See also Ching 2000: 98–101.

8The Four Sprouts and the Seven Emotions have their respective roots in *Mencius*, 2A6 and the *Liji* (*The Book of Rites*), chapter 9. See the distinction found in Zhu 1986, 4: 1297. For Toegye's innovative formulation of the same distinction, see Yi 1989–1994, 5: 24, 63–4; 9: 21. For a detailed look into the history of the distinction and the whole debate surrounding it, see Chung 1995: 37–52 and Ivanhoe 2015: 403–13.

harmonizing mandate of human nature. By contrast, in the case of the Four Sprouts it is pattern or principle (*i*/*li*) as human nature that actively manifests itself and issues in those four special emotions unconditioned by the dynamism of psychophysical energy, although psychophysical energy is still involved in the sense of it following pattern's initiative and guidance.9 According to this thesis of "mutual issuance (*hobal* 互發)," the Four Sprouts are intrinsically and unambiguously good, as they issue forth directly from human nature without being conditioned by psychophysical endowments at the point of their origination.10 As intrinsically empathetic emotions or moral sentiments that are other-oriented, and therefore relationally measured and appropriate, the Four Sprouts excel in structuring harmonious human relations as they issue forth in the form of ritually correct actions. The task of self-cultivation, as Korean Neo-Confucians saw it, was to nurture the Four Sprouts of empathetic emotions, while bringing under control the non-empathetic ones by means of intentional deliberation and judgment, so that one could act in a ritually appropriate manner toward others with a spirit of mutuality and reciprocity.

By putting up a robust philosophical defense of the existence of intrinsically moral emotions unconditioned by individual psychophysical endowments, Korean Neo-Confucianism renewed and revitalized the Mencian

9Toegye's precise formulation of the distinction between the Four Sprouts and the Seven Emotions is found in Yi 1989–1994, 5: 63: "If we contrast the Seven Emotions with the Four Sprouts and discuss each in terms of its distinctiveness, then the Seven Emotions are connected to psychophysical energy just as the Four Sprouts are connected to pattern. Their issuances each have their own systematic framework; and their names each have their respective points of reference. It is possible, therefore, to follow their respective predominant factors and classify them accordingly, that's all …. And the Four Sprouts move in response to things, and in that sense are defnitely no different from the Seven Emotions. It's only that, as for the Four, pattern issues them and psychophysical energy follows; as for the Seven, psychophysical energy issues and pattern mounts them." Toegye adds that, although there can be no Four Sprouts outside of the Seven Feelings, there is a difference in their respective meanings according to their respective origination (Yi 1989–1994, 5: 64). See also his *Seonghak sipdo* (*The ten diagrams on sage learning*) in Yi 1989–1994, 3: 46–7. For English translations and commentaries, see Kalton 1988: 126–7, 132–141, 1994: 65–6.

10Toegye's "mutual issuance" thesis is found in Yi 1989–1994, 5: 62: "In general, pattern and psychophysical energy combine and produce the human body. The two, therefore, mutually have an issuing function, and their issuing adhere to each other. Because it is a mutual issuance, one can see that each has its predominant role; because they adhere to each other, one can see that they are included in each other's issuing. Since they are included in each other's issuing, one can certainly speak of them as mixed; since they each have their predominant role, it is not impossible to speak of them separately." See Kalton 1994: 63–64.

affrmation of the moral equality of all human beings. Furthermore, its historical reinforcement of the Confucian idea of moral equality strengthens the case for its potential contribution to developing a Confucian notion of political equality today, given the organic interconnection between morality and politics that is a hallmark of the Confucian political tradition. As outlined in the *Great Learning*, the path of Confucian selfcultivation runs through a series of ever-enlarging concentric circles of human relations that starts from familial relations and—expanding through the larger human community or the state—comes to rest at the entire world or "all under Heaven (*cheonha*/*tianxia* 天下)."11 One who is on this path simply needs to extend to others one's familial moral sentiments (such as one's natural love of the parents and one's spontaneous respect for the elder siblings), as Mengzi taught, and do so in ritually appropriate manners predicated on sympathetic understanding of others (*Mencius* 1A: 7; 7A: 15; 7A: 45). This is in fact no other than nurturing to the fullest the Four Sprouts of empathetic emotions until one's humane heart of empathy, which initially was just enough to serve one's parents, becomes large enough to care for the entire world, like the sage's (*seongin*/*shengren* 聖 人), often called "the heart-mind of the Way" (*dosim*/*daoxin* 道心).12 The sagely learning of the Confucian tradition serves as an unerring guide here, because the sages found and instituted the most unsullied ethicopolitical articulation—patterning (*li*)—of the humane heart of empathy and also entrusted it to the care of the morally cultivated "superior persons" (*gunja*/*junzi* 君子) who are expected to employ it as the blueprint for benevolent socio-political organizations.

The one constant aspiration that runs through the entire tradition of Confucian political thought and practice has been a rule by such superior persons or sages—self-cultivated human beings—who possess the unobstructed moral capacity to manifest and extend the humane heart of empathy to all beings. The Confucian program of classical learning and moral-ritual cultivation has aimed at educating rulers to become "sagely

12Originating in the *Dayumo* (Counsels of Great Yu) chapter of the *Shujing* (*Classic of history*), "The heart-mind of the Way (*daoxin*)" became a widely used term among the Neo-Confucians to designate the human heart-mind fully enacting the human nature within and therefore fully in control of ordinary selfsh cravings and emotions. See Zhu Xi' preface to *Zhongyong zhangju* (*The chapters and sentences of the Doctrine of the Mean*) in Zhu 1983: 14. For a discussion of the distinction between the human heart-mind and the heart-mind of the Way, see Chung 1995: 85–87.

<sup>11</sup> See Zhu 1983: 4–5. For an English translation, see Gardner 2007: 4–5.

inside, kingly outside" (內聖外王 *naeseong oewang*/*neisheng waiwang*),13 who could earn, by means of their benevolence and empathetic care, the allegiance and voluntary submission not only of people but also of all creatures so that the world may be at peace.14 Equally important, it has endeavored to produce the minister-cum-ritual masters who are versed in the ethico-political patternings of human-heartedness as instituted by the ancient sages and who can therefore ably assist the sage-kings in the task of helping "all under Heaven" fourish. In light of this organic integration of morality and politics found in the Confucian political tradition, the fact that the Confucian program of ethical self-cultivation has always in principle been open to all people regardless of their social station becomes a salient point in the debate on Confucian democracy today, together with the underlying belief in the moral equality of all *de jure*. 15 Can the Confucian affrmation of the nascent moral equality of all be translated into a Confucian idea of political equality? If yes, how? In answering these questions, Korean Neo-Confucianism's philosophical articulation of the role of innate moral emotions in making moral equality possible could provide important conceptual resources.

# 7.3 From Moral Equality to Political Equality: A Confucian Theory of "Civil Democracy"

It is important to note that, like Kongzi and Mengzi, Chinese and Korean Neo-Confucians faithfully followed and did not question the traditional system as well as the prevailing norms and customs of their times. They are well known for developing, systematizing, and institutionalizing clan law (*jongbeop*/*zongfa* 宗法) and family rituals (*garye*/*jiali* 家禮) that refected and reinforced the traditional social hierarchy and gender division.16

13The term frst appears in the 33rd (*tianxia*) chapter of the Daoist text *Zhaungzi* (Zhuangzi 1961: 1064), although the idea may have originated earlier. See Angle 2009: 182.

<sup>14</sup> See *Analects* 2: 1, where Kongzi describes a virtuous ruler: "He who conducts government with virtue may be likened to the North Star, which, seated in its place, is surrounded by multitudes of other stars."

15The Confucian principle that the path to moral learning and sagehood is to be open to all regardless of one's social station or background goes back to Kongzi himself who says, "To anyone who spontaneously came to be with a bundle of dried pork, I have never denied instruction (*Analects* 7: 7; Chichung Huang 1997: 87).

<sup>16</sup> Joseon-Dynasty Korea—perhaps the most Confucianized country in East Asia historically—is a showcase for this Neo-Confucian social conservatism (Deuchler 1992).

Nonetheless, they carried forward the Mencian affrmation of the intrinsic moral equality of all, thereby acknowledging the potential of anyone to become a sage regardless of one's physical endowment or socio-political status. They did so despite the fact that the *li-qi* metaphysics that undergirded their relational and affective ontology of the human self was prone to obscuring the seminal ideal of moral equality. It tended to devalue the "turbid" and "impure" psychophysical endowments, with which the vast majority of people were understood to be born, as non-conducive and even resistant to a proper nurturing of the innate moral sentiments.17 Such a metaphysical construction was indeed prone to disparage the moral potential of women, the working mass of commoners, and the nomadic tribes of "barbarians." Nevertheless, the Neo-Confucians assigned to the category of the "stupidest" who "do not change" (*Analects* 17.2)—that is, those without a hope of moral advance—only the two categories of people named by Mengzi: "those who do violence to themselves" and those who "throw themselves away" (*Mencius* 4A: 10), the former designating ones who reject that such moral potential exist, and the latter those who give up without trying.18 In other words, the Neo-Confucians insisted that, as long as people believe in their moral capacity and keep making an effort, all of them may hope to become a superior person or even a sage one day.19 By laying out a metaphysical and moral-psychological argument for innate moral emotions unconditioned by psychophysical endowments, Korean Neo-Confucianism in particular strengthened the Confucian case for the inherent moral capacity of all people.

<sup>17</sup> See the Zhu Xi's commentary on the *Analects* 16: 9, where he interprets Kongzi's four categories of people's capacity for moral self-cultivation as four kinds of psychophysical endowments (Zhu 1983: 173). Zhu Xi observes that transforming one's physical endowment is very diffcult if not impossible (Zhu 1986, 1: 69). Toegye distinguishes three types of people (the wisest, the middling, and the stupidest) and explicitly assigns to the stupidest those who have received their psychophysical endowments that are "from the earth," that is, both turbid and mixed (Yi 1989–1994, 8: 94–5).

18This is how Cheng Yi (1033–1107), perhaps the most infuential of Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucian predecessors, interpreted the two categories of people named by Mengzi in *Mencius* 4A: 10. See Zhu 1983: 175.

<sup>19</sup> Some later Neo-Confucians such as Li Zhi (1527–1602) in China and Yi Sangjeong (1710–81) in Korea, and female Neo-Confucians such as Madame Liu (Liu Shi; *c.* sixteenth century) in China and Im Yunjidang (1721–1793) and Kang Cheongildang (1772–1832) in Korea particularly stand out in vocally espousing moral and spiritual equality between men and women, tracing women's inferiority back not to their physical endowments but to their limited opportunities. See Lee 2012; Kim 2011.

When paired with the extremely porous nature of the boundaries between the moral and the political in the Confucian tradition, this longstanding and remarkably persistent Neo-Confucian affrmation of the intrinsic moral equality of all enables us today to see a path leading from it toward a Confucian theory of political equality: anyone who treads the path of self-cultivation to be a sage can aspire to be a political agent and participant, including serving in the government to work for people's material and moral well-being. No matter what concrete form it takes, insofar as the path of self-cultivation consists in nurturing one's empathetic feelings, such as extending one's familial affections and care to others within the larger polity, it entitles those who tread it to the right of political participation. In short, if the Mencian thesis of intrinsic moral equality could be named the democratization of the ideal of *sagehood* (Kim 2016: 220), its meaning could be expanded to imply the democratization of the ideal of *sage-ruler* as well.20

The democratization of the ideal of sage-ruler can be envisioned in two steps. First, the moral equality thesis could serve as an incipient affrmation of popular sovereignty when combined with the double Mencian affrmation of the ruler's political accountability to Heaven and the people's vicarious manifestation of the will of Heaven (*Mencius* 5A: 5; 4A: 9). In a celebrated passage in *Mencius*, Mengzi grounds the political legitimacy of the Son of Heaven (king) in his double acceptance by Heaven (the unspeaking ultimate cosmic power) and by the people (his subjects), and clarifes the meaning of the people's "acceptance" of him as their being desirous of and being content with his governance. Whereas for Mengzi it is only Heaven that has the power to bestow the throne, people's acceptance can stand in for the will of Heaven, as Mengzi's quote from the *Classic of History* indicates: "Heaven sees through the eyes of my people; Heaven hears though the ears of my people" (5A: 5). Even if the idea of the ruler's direct political accountability to the people is neither explicitly formulated by Mengzi nor found within the traditional Confucian political discourse, as long as the ultimate political authority, Heaven, can be said to display its will in and through the sentiments and actions of the people, it falls within the orbit of the Confucian political tradition to speak of the ruler's political accountability to the ruled.

<sup>20</sup> Sungmoon Kim argues that, in order to confer potential sagehood on all people, Mengzi decoupled the ideal of sage from the ideal of sage-ruler. What he and I attempt to do, in our own ways, is to reconnect the two ideals so that the latter could be democratized also.

Certainly, the ruler's political accountability to the ruled, as expressed in the idea of the people's acceptance of the ruler's governance, does not by itself translates into popular sovereignty as a principle or democracy as an institution, since it could simply mean that the political legitimacy of a monarchy rests on how satisfed the people are with its rule—a common sentiment featured within the traditional Confucian political discourse.21 Nevertheless, if the moral proposition that everyone can become a sage implies the moral-political proposition that everyone can become a sageruler, the ruler's political accountability to the ruled can be reconstructed to mean the people's political accountability to one another. Anyone who has trodden the path of moral self-cultivation to participate in government must obtain the recognition and assent of the very people whose material and moral interests one is to serve, because the people themselves are potential sages who form a reserve army of candidate co-rulers. The road to rulership passes through—and is made up of— successive encounters with ever-less-familial and therefore ever-less-familiar others, who relentlessly present one another with the task of extending the empathetic heart within. Put differently, the path of moral self-cultivation, as outlined in the tradition of Confucian moral politics, points to the possibility of reimagining it as the path of affective co-constitution of virtuous people entitled to rule one another and therefore to rule themselves, collectively speaking, and in so ruling answerable to one another and therefore to themselves. This fuid and reciprocal construction of the ruler-subject relation enables us to venture what may be called a *Confucian theory of popular sovereignty*, on the basis of the spirit of mutual affection and accountability present in the idea of the people as virtuous co-rulers.

Joseph Chan, who advocates combining elements of Confucian meritocracy and of Confucian democracy (what he calls "moderate Confucian perfectionism"), grounds his political vision in a similar reciprocal construction of the ruler-subject relation, while rejecting the ideas of political equality and popular sovereignty on that very reasoning. His "service conception" of political authority (Chan 2014: 30) decouples the institution of democracy from the moral-political principles of political equality and popular sovereignty, which he sees as based on the misguided liberal notion of people's natural right to rule, and connects it to the Confucian political ideal of mutual commitment and trust between the ruler and the people (Chan 2014: 34–45). Political authority, he argues, should not be

<sup>21</sup>This is also Joseph Chan's reading of the *Mencius* 5A5 and 4A9 (Chan 2014: 230–231).

understood as deriving from the people's ownership of any natural fundamental right to rule, but as conditional upon the ability of the rulers to safeguard and promote the people's well-being on the one hand and the people's willing endorsement and approval of the rulers on the other (Chan 2014: 29). A Confucian democracy should be one that expresses such a conception of political authority by establishing itself on the constitutive relation of mutual responsibility and care between the governing and the governed. Democratic elections, being the paramount institutional mechanism of a Confucian democracy, accordingly, have the dual function of selecting the "rulers" who are committed to serve the wellbeing of the people and of demonstrating the people's trust of those who are so selected and commitment to support them. As the indispensable cornerstone of democratic elections, the right to vote then is to be justifed not by being the people's natural and inalienable possession, but by the critical role it has in allowing the people a chance to found together and share in political authority that is conceived frst and foremost as a responsibility to one another (Chan 2014: 85–86).

Chan's proposal for a Confucian democracy, founded upon a service conception of political authority, offers groundbreaking insights that resonate with and augment the reciprocal construction of the ruler-subject relation attempted in this study and the concomitant idea of the people as virtuous co-rulers who are politically accountable to one another. I would like, however, to question the necessity of his rejection of the notions of political equality and popular sovereignty, because I do not think that those notions are incompatible with the Confucian political ideal of mutual commitment and trust between the ruler and the people, which his service conception of political authority brings to light so adroitly. I agree with his rejection of the liberal justifcation of political equality and popular sovereignty, but would like to argue at the same time that it is possible to establish those principles on a specifcally Confucian basis. In other words, the Confucian theory of political equality and popular sovereignty suggested in this study has as its cornerstone the Mencian and Neo-Confucian theory of innate moral sentiments, that is, the Four Sprouts as the humane heart of empathy, from which the idea of the people as mutually accountable co-rulers is derived. Let me explain in more detail.

While the Confucian theory of democracy proposed here is at variance with the dominant liberal theory on many points, particularly noteworthy is the relational and affective register in which it could construct the idea of citizenship. In the liberal democratic theory, the twin core democratic concepts of political equality and popular sovereignty are based on the notion of individual human beings as rational and autonomous subjectagents naturally endowed with the right to self-determination and selfrule. By contrast, in the Confucian theory of democracy adumbrated in this chapter, the idea of equal and sovereign citizens is to be grounded in the intrinsic capacity of people to relate to one another in sympathetic understanding—that is to say, people's natural possession of mutual empathy that potentially enables them to be "civil" to one another, even across deep differences. People have the capacity to connect with one another and co-exist in peace because their possession of the moral emotions of sympathy and compassion is not conditional upon their sex, gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, educational level, and physical or mental disability—that is, their physical, dispositional, and intellectual endowments. The right to vote in elections, which is the minimal right of political participation in a democracy, could be premised on this inherent potential to be civil held by everyone.

Furthermore, when cultivated and expressed in multiple overlapping contexts, ranging from the domestic context to the political context of the state, this capacity for civility could serve as the ground of the right to deeper and more intensive levels of political participation, such as working in the government as public servants, running for public offces, taking part in public policy-making processes, even taking to the streets for rallies and public protests. The second step of envisioning the democratization of the ideal of sage-ruler consists precisely in articulating this right to deeper levels of political participation which, like the right to vote, bases itself on the intrinsic potential to be civil and together with the latter right buttresses the idea of political equality and popular sovereignty.

The reason for civility so being able to serve as the basis of political equality and popular sovereignty lies in the fact that, as a public and political expression of the empathetic heart, civility is much more than mere etiquette and courtesy. While politeness, with its pacifying function especially in situations of rancorous contention, would certainly be an important feature of civility, it would lose its political signifcance without the animating core of civility, namely, the concern for the common good, as Edward Shils has argued (Shils 1996: 43, 1997: 4). To say that civility is a public expression of one's heart of empathy is tantamount to saying that civility is a public expression of one's empathetic concern for the wellbeing and fourishing of all, that is, one's concern for the common good, as articulated through ritual or symbolic action. As such, civility stands for civic virtue, that is, civic-mindedness (*gong*/*gong* 公 in traditional Confucian terminology), or what today's so-called New Confucians such as Xu Fuguan and Mou Zongsan call "concerned-consciousness" (*uhwanuisik*/*youhuanyishi* 憂患意識), a central notion of Confucian political thought in their reckoning (Huang 2009: 149–167).22 It is in this sense that people's possession of the intrinsic potential for civility can be understood to provide the basis of political equality and the minimal right of political participation, since such intrinsic potential is no other than people's natural predisposition to be concerned about the common good, however undeveloped and unarticulated it may be. The presence of such a natural disposition in people would justify faith in their capacity to form themselves into a collective political actor in the spirit of mutuality and reciprocity and hence provide rationale for their intrinsic entitlement to the right to vote. By the same token, civility, when cultivated and enacted in social interactions, serves as the barometer of one's readiness or qualifcation for political participation on deeper levels as mentioned above, because it serves as a witness, to the presence within oneself, of actively functioning concern for the well-being and fourishing of all. The features commonly associated with cultivated civility—that is, trustworthiness, humility, respect, deference, fexibility, tolerance, and so on23—can all be understood as outward expressions of an all-embracing and resolute concern for the common good fully in force.

At this juncture, a question needs to be posed: what is the common good in the context of value pluralism—a prominent feature of the landscape of many modern democracies? If citizens live according to various ways of life, holding divergent sets of beliefs and values, as is the case in modern pluralistic democratic societies, what does it mean for the citizens to be concerned about the common good? How is civility, as concern for the common good, to be practiced when there are competing visions of what constitutes the well-being and fourishing of all? Sungmoon Kim, a pioneer theorist of Confucian democracy, makes an innovative and provocative claim that Confucian civility would necessarily involve incivility,

22Chun-chieh Huang notes that, lacking the idea of and institutionalization of the people as the collective political actor despite the seminal insight of the people as the foundation of the country (*minbon*/*minfun* 民本) classical Confucianism mainly focused on the presence of concerned consciousness in the ruler as the sole political actor. This faw can be remedied, he adds, if democratic elections are introduced into the discussion of concerned consciousness (174–5; 181–2).

<sup>23</sup> See Shils 1996: 67–9.

like the two sides of the same coin. The primal expression of the humane heart of empathy in which Confucian civility has its basis, namely, familial moral emotions (such as flial piety), encompass not only affections but also *affective resentments* (Kim 2014: 67). A family is often flled with psychological tensions and moral disagreements because included in the family members' love of one another is not only their love of the virtues they observe in one another but also their dislike of the injustices they wittingly or unwittingly commit to one another (Kim 2014: 149). The classical Confucians, Kim argues, saw flial and fraternal responsibility to include gentle remonstration and admonition, and when extended to the political sphere of the ruler-subject relation, the subjects' "loyal and faithful incivility," that is, their practice of moral-political remonstrations (2014: 68). A Confucian family, as well as the Confucian family-state (*gukga*/*guojia* 國 家) as its public extension and mirror image, "is not a static haven of enlarged affection but a dynamic ethical arena in which each member experiences personal moral growth through dialogic interactions" (Kim 2014: 67). Kim contends that in the context of a modern pluralistic democratic society, Confucian civility-cum-incivility could be translated into a kind of "critical affection" (2014: 132) or "critical familial affection" (2014: 137) that forms the core of public culture. Critical familial affection empowers the citizens to regard one another as members of a quasifamily even when disagreeing with one another, often passionately (Kim 2014: 150). In the presence of a plurality of dearly held beliefs, values, and practices, Confucian civility, as critical affection, serves as *bridging capital* that "bonds citizens horizontally across their deep differences" rather than *bonding capital* that "cements the existing social fabric of moral community" (Kim 2014: 148).

Relating this notion of Confucian civility to the specifc context of South Korea, Kim highlights the Korean notion of *jeong* as a case of critical familial affection. *Jeong* points to the sense of closeness and mutual affection which the deeply Confucianized Koreans feel toward one another as if they were all members of one big family. Since *jeong* enables Koreans to regard the Korean nation as one extended family, it serves as the bridging capital for Koreans who hold and are beholden to different sets of beliefs, values, and practices in the pluralistic-democratic context of South Korea today. More specifcally, it nurtures in them a sense of ethical responsibility toward one another, which Kim calls "*uri* (we)-responsibility." Like the sense of mutual responsibility and care which family members have towards one another despite all the psychological tensions and moral disagreements, *uri*-responsibility allows Koreans to maintain bonds of affection even when disagreeing with one another across deep differences. As a moral-political expression of the Korean *jeong*, *uri*-responsibility is a Korean form of Confucian civility as a concern for the common good articulated across differences and as such is "a uniquely Korean-Confucian mode of general will" (Kim 2014: 222).

Sungmoon Kim's keen analysis of familial moral sentiments and creative reconstruction of Confucian civility on its basis point to an effective resolution to the dilemma of envisaging civility as concern for the common good in the context of value pluralism. Civility need not be predicated on the presence of a single common good agreed upon by all parties; rather, it emerges from the moral sentiments—the empathetic and otheroriented heart—intrinsically in all humans as the defning human potential. The development of the moral sentiments, in and through the extension of familial affections to strangers, takes the concrete form of the *ritual practice of humility, respect, and deference*, precisely because the empathetic heart works as a restraint on the passion with which one's interests, values, and cherished ideals are pursued.24 This is the political meaning of one of the most famous of Kongzi's defnitions of humanity as empathy quoted earlier, "Restrain oneself and return to ritual" (*Analects* 12: 1).

Civility enunciates one's concern for the common good in the form of a steadfast commitment to search for the common good *in concert with others*—a form of cooperative or social inquiry, to quote Sor-hoon Tan (2004: 91–2)—that is sustained by unwavering patience and readiness to yield when one is wrong. As a civic virtue that "relaxes what counts as an assault upon the sacred," civility would foster an "ethos of sovereignty" that "pluralizes the number of legitimate existential faiths" and instills into the institutions of popular sovereignty "agonistic respect between diverse constituencies," as the political philosopher William Connolly admirably put (Connolly 2005: 145, 147). This is why, to quote Sungmoon Kim's felicitous phraseology one more time, civility functions not only as *bonding capital* that reinforces the organic fabric of a moral community, but also as *bridging capital* that holds together the citizens of a pluralistic society horizontally, across chasms of differences, by fostering a sense of solidarity. In this sense, when Kongzi says that "the superior person seeks

<sup>24</sup>The idea of civility as the practice of self-restraint is advocated by Edward Shils (Shils 1997: 4).

harmony, not sameness" (*Analects* 13.23), the teaching can be interpreted today in a way particularly relevant to the context of modern pluralistic democracies: "harmony" here would mean not the kind of organic harmony in which the differences among competing beliefs, values, and ways of life are minimized and resolved, but a sense of affectionate and moral solidarity that does not give up on the long, arduous, and often quarrelsome task of seeking the common good, even across what might seem to be unbridgeable divides.25 Here Joseph Chan's ruminations on the civic virtue of civility, his rejection of popular sovereignty notwithstanding, offers a helpful summary:

Civility is the attitude of fellow citizens toward each other that shows a concern for the *common bond* despite differing opinions or conficts of interest. Civility tries to diminish confict by seeking *common ground* underlying opposing opinions and a *common good* transcending partisan interests. (Chan 2014: 201)

### 7.4 Conclusion

What I have attempted in this chapter is to derive an idea of political equality (and the concomitant notion of popular sovereignty) from the historical Confucian affrmation of moral equality based on the alleged presence of intrinsically moral emotions or sentiments in all humans. I am aware of a possible criticism that, while there is strong evidence in the traditional literature for Confucian affrmation of moral equality—that anyone can be a sage, the same is not the case for the idea of political equality.

My effort is analogous to the liberal constructionist undertaking in the legal sphere to derive contemporary legal principles from the text of the US Constitution in contrast to the strict constructionist adherence to the legal meaning of the same text in the historical context of its original framing. I have tried to avoid the pitfalls of eisegesis by showing that there is no necessary logical relation between the Confucian principle of moral equality and the hierarchical political ideas and institutions in and through which the aforementioned moral principle was historically realized. Differently put, my argument is that the Confucian principle of moral

<sup>25</sup>Both Joseph Chan and Sungmoon Kim offer similar readings of this passage from the *Analects* (Chan 2014: 91–2; Kim 2014: 60–2).

equality can *remain Confucian* even if decoupled from the traditional hierarchical socio-political ideas and institutions and made to serve as a basis for egalitarian socio-political ideas and institutions. A case in point is my translation of the Four Sprouts—the humane heart of empathy—into the intrinsic moral sentiments animating the public culture of a Confucian democracy in order to justify the compatibility of the notion of popular sovereignty with it.

What is then the point of it all, namely, the signifcance of sketching such a vision of what might be called Confucian civil democracy in the contemporary global context? In a pluralistic democracy like the United States today, "we the people" are heterogeneous, refecting the nation's tumultuous, dynamic and often violent history of immigration, displacement, and transplantation. Nevertheless, even with all their genuine differences from one another, the American people are still charged by the founding spirit of the nation with the hard work of "forming a more perfect union," to quote the preamble to the Constitution. As Martin Luther King Jr. reminds them, they "are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny" (King 2000: 87). President Barack Obama, in one of his memorable speeches to the nation, called for "bonds of affection," quoting Lincoln—the bonds based on the "common creed," that consists in the values of "honesty and hard work, kindness and courtesy, humility, responsibility, helping each other out," (Full Text 2016) which the American people share across their differences. Such a clarion call has become all the more urgent in the present age of Trump, in which the American people fnd themselves living under a white nationalist government, which has made an us-vs.-them mindset, a Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, the defning category and *modus operandi* of the political.26

In some aspects, the political scene in South Korea resonates with the US one. Whereas South Korea today enjoys the benefts of robust forms of democratic institutions and public culture, the Korean people are increasingly divided along the frontlines of the ideological politics of the Left and the Right. Civic groups, public institutions, and the press and media are all engaged in daily wars, involving rhetorical battles, institutional power plays, and mostly—and fortunately—non-violent street

<sup>26</sup>Carl Schmitt defnes the essence of the political as consisting in a friend-enemy distinction, publically conceived, and the existential struggle of the people to survive against external and internal threats (Schmitt 2007: 26–7).

confrontations, to infame the passions, prejudices, and mutual loathing of the antagonists. Those who simply have ideological differences do not hesitate to label each other enemies, hurling the labels of "lefty-zombies," "fascists," "femi-nazis," and "reactionary idiots," to name a few, in order to score a hit and to gain a political advantage, especially in online battles for public opinion. While all this could be seen as signs of a healthy and well-functioning pluralistic democracy, one is also driven to wonder what could sustain South Korea as a polity and commonwealth once the nationalistic myth of one consanguineous Korean nation, whose grip on Korean people has been loosening for quite some time now, is largely and irrevocably dispelled.

I would like to suggest, in closing, that given the deep-seated Confucian heritage of Korea, my modest attempt at theorizing the affective grounds of a pluralistic Confucian democracy offers a way of distilling a cardinal civic virtue, namely, civility, from the Confucian moral virtues still widely accepted and practiced by the Korean people, such as flial piety, respect for the elderly, humility and deference, loyalty and trustworthiness, and social harmony, among others. If one may offer a Confucian philosophical interpretation of these moral virtues, they are communal-social articulations of the empathetic heart— that is, the universal moral emotions of sympathy and compassion—that is nascently present in all Koreans as part of the human race. Insofar as the empathetic heart takes the form of *critical* familial affection, as Sungmoon Kim argues, the aforementioned moral virtues would not simply reinforce the existing organic fabric of Korean society based to a large degree on kinship ties and group/ regional loyalties that tend to breed corruption (e.g., favoritism, nepotism, and cronyism) when elevated above public norms of fairness or even the rule of law. On the contrary, those moral virtues would have the potential to coalesce into the civic virtue of civility that would enable Koreans to dispute and contend with one another on the public norms of fairness and justice while maintaining affective solidarity across socio-political and cultural divides. At the same time, since my Confucian reconstruction construes civility as the moral-political articulation of the heart of empathy found at the core of our common humanity, not just rooted in the sense of a shared national history (whether Korean or American), it could serve as a helpful interlocutor for those of us here in the US who endeavor to theorize the "bonds of affection," to which both Lincoln and Obama appealed, in order to hold together this fractious democratic commonwealth.

### References


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Korean Social Emotions: *Han* (한 恨), *Heung* (흥 興), and *Jeong* (정 情)

*Iljoon Park*

### 8.1 Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic seems to actualize a digitally extended society without physical contact. It has led to an inevitable surge in the use of digital technologies due to the ongoing phenomenon of social distancing norms and nearly worldwide lockdowns. People and organizations including religious and academic ones—all over the world have had to adjust to new ways of living. The digital network has become a main means to maintain many aspects of global society and economy. The digitalization of educational institutions is leading teachers and students to work from home rather than classrooms. For now, human civilization has transformed itself from an in-person contact society to a digitally extended society. This transition to the networked world of human relations can cause a polarization of sensibility and sensitivity that might lead to people's lack of compassion (human-heartedness) or *jeong*/*qing* (정 情; emotional affection/bond/relationship). Thus, the recovery of these kinds of

I. Park (\*)

Institute for Northeast Asian Humanities & Social Science, Wonkwang University, Iksan, South Korea

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022 235

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_8

social emotions through universal sympathy is urgently needed in our semiocapitalist society.

This chapter deals with the Korean social emotions of *han* (한/恨; resentment, suffering), *jeong* (정/情), *musim* (무심 無心; non-attachment, no heart-mind), and *heung* (흥/興; exhilaration, utmost joy). The Korean dynamics via the coupling of *heung* and *han*, of *musim* and *jeong* is called *pungnyu* (also spelled *poong-ryu*; 풍류/風流), which is the Korean aesthetic enjoyment of the fow of life and nature. The argument is that emotions are social interface to exchange personal feelings with others so that people and things correspond to each other (*gamjeong* 감정/感應). *Pungnyu* may be a stabilizer to balance emotional instability in the contemporary world.

# 8.2 Emotions in the Korean Confucian Tradition

Emotion or feeling is diffcult to defne, given that its defnition can vary from culture to culture. In Northeast Asian countries, the keyword for emotions/feelings would be *jeong*/*qing* (情) or *gamjeong* (感情), but the English word "emotions" cannot fully capture the fexible meaning of Korean *jeong*. The Chinese character *jeong*/*qing* (情) means emotions/ feelings in general; however, in the Korean cultural context, it also has another dimension of meaning. The Korean postcolonial theologian Wonhee Joh describes *jeong* as "a Korean way of conceiving a complex constellation of relationality of the self with the other that is deeply associated with compassion, love, vulnerability, and acceptance of heterogeneity as essential to life" (Joh 2006: xxi). Korean *jeong* therefore presupposes a long-term relationship associated with various emotions and feelings, which may be good or bad socially or morally. It is therefore said that "time makes people friends." Over-layered and over-determined emotions through a long-term relationship can make people not to avoid friendly relationship. Thus, Korean *jeong* also has its fascinating history of various emotions shared among the Korean people.

Whether it is Chinese or Korean, *jeong* has its signifcant role in being human. Instead of the duality of heaven and earth, and of *yin* and *yang*, traditional Korean culture has emphasized the threefold foundation (*samjae* 三才) of heaven, earth, and humanity (Heo 2020: 153–166). The Chinese term *jeong*/*qing* itself derives from the *Book of Changes*, but Korean thought emphasizes its unique role in being human morally and emotionally. This can be found especially in the so-called Four-Seven debate (*sadanchiljeongron* 사단칠정론 四端七情論), which provides "a unique window on the complex 'study of the nature and principle' of the dominant Ch'eng-Zhu tradition of Neo-Confucianism" (Kalton 1994: xvii–xviii). Here, the Seven refers to the Seven Emotions (feelings) (*chiljeong* 七情): joy (*hui* 희 喜), anger (*no* 노. 怒), grief (*ae* 애 哀), fear (*gu* 구 懼), love (*ae* 애 愛), hatred (*o* 오 惡), and desire (*yok* 욕 欲), which are listed in a passage of the *Book of Rites* that "symbolized the feelings (emotions) in general" (Kalton 1994: xxvii).

In *Mencius*, one of the Four Books of Confucianism, the Four refers to the "Four Beginnings" or four moral sprouts (*sadan* 四端): the heartmind of compassion (*cheugeunjisim* 惻隱之心), the heart-mind of shame and dislike (*suojisim* 수오지심 羞惡之心), the heart-mind of yielding and deference [courtesy and modesty] (*sayangjisim* 사양지심 辭讓之心), and the heart-mind of discerning right and wrong (*sibijisim* Adobe Myungjo Std 是非之心). These mind-hearts (*sim*/*xin* 心) are the beginnings of humanity (*in*/*ren* 仁; human-heartedness or benevolence), righteousness (*ui/yi* 의 義), propriety (*ye/li* 예 禮), and wisdom (*ji/zhi* 지 智), respectively (*Mencius*, 2A: 6 and 6A: 6; see Kalton 1994: xxvii–xxviii). The debate centers around whether emotions/feelings in general include the Four Beginnings or the latter have their different origins from emotions/ feelings in general. Later, it is extended over the nature of the relationship between *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* between essential (original) human nature and (biological) human nature, and between the *Dao* mind and the ordinary human mind (Kalton 1994: xxix).

Toegye (Yi Hwang; 1501–1570), the most eminent Confucian tinker in Korea, argued that the Four Beginnings are "the issuance of *i*/*li* (principle)," whereas "the seven emotions are the issuance of *gi*/*qi* (vital energy)." By contrast, Gobong (Gi Daeseung; 1527–1572), Toegye's Four-Seven debater, argued that both the Four Beginnings and the Seven Feelings belong to feelings in general and they cannot be separated because *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi* are not be separate (Kalton 1994: 4). Although Toegye accepted Gobong's criticism, he still argued that the Four Beginnings can be regarded as essential human nature (*bonjiljiseong* 本質之性, substance) which is purely good, while the Seven Emotions refer to physical nature (*gijiljiseong* 氣質之性, function) which can lead to either good or evil. In this way, Toegye emphasized the moral priority of the Four Beginnings such as compassion over the seven ordinary emotions such as joy, anger, and desire. The reason why Toegye insisted on the Four-Seven dualism is that emotions and feelings can be good or evil depending on whether or not they are properly controlled. However, the Four Beginnings as moral emotions, according to Mencius, refer to "the four inherently good dispositions" which confrms the innate goodness of human nature (Kalton 1994: xxv).

As a matter of fact, the Confucian texts are not clear about the relationship between the Four and the Seven. In Confucian texts, the feelings such as joy, anger, fear or desire were "viewed as the mind-and-heart's most fundamental form of activity" (xxii). In this train of thought, the Four Beginnings and the Seven Feelings cannot be separated, although they can be distinguished. The conclusion of the debate is not so important for the purpose of this chapter, but what highly interests us here is that beinghuman in its most genuine sense can be achieved through the right training of the mind-heart. This training is not an intellectual one but focuses on the right way of controlling our emotions/feelings, that is, establishing good will and making the mind-heart right. In this sense, being-human is about the right expression of emotions/feelings. How to perceive the will of heaven and to embody it within our daily lives is fundamentally the matter of practicing the good mind-heart such as the Four Beginnings through harmonizing emotions/feelings (Seven Feelings).

Note that the Four Beginnings such as the heart-mind of compassion, the heart-mind of shame and dislike, the heart-mind of yielding and deference, and the heart-mind of (discerning) right and wrong are also social emotions beyond the moral Confucian notion of inner feelings, although distinguishing emotion from feeling is not easy in this context. The Four Beginnings can arise from and through our social relations with others. To practice cardinal virtues such as humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom, one has to cultivate one's mind and body. Feelings such as desire, hate, love, fear, grief, anger, and joy should be cultivated into good affects, so that society can follow *Dao* as these social emotions are well established.

The Western conceptual defnitions of emotion do not exactly ft into this kind of understanding, especially when emotion/feeling in the Western culture refers to the psychological process of the inner mind. Especially since the Enlightenment, "being-human" has always referred to "individual." Thus, psychology has dealt within the inner state of an individual person. However, Confucian self-cultivation is more than governing the mind and it usually accompanies bodily praxis. As a matter of fact, emotion accompanies bodily responses and it thus cannot be separated from the body. Also, emotional responses have an important role in our conscious decision-making process. In this sense, emotions are an interface in connecting the mind, the body and the world (Ledoux 2006: 55–57).

Emotions, such as the Seven Emotions ought to be cultivated into the mind-heart with the Four Beginnings of virtue. In this Korean Confucian train of thought, emotions/feelings therefore not only relate to the interplay between *i*/*li* (principle) and *gi*/*qi* (vital energy) but are also a moral and socio-psychological medium or interface between the self and others, between heaven and world for achieving the good nature.

# 8.3 Dangers of Unstable Emotions in the Connected World

We are living in the world of brilliant technologies that seem to connect everything. Human brain has the ability "to adapt to different operating conditions as the physical, ecological, and social environment changes, and to alter its structure so that it will respond appropriately to specifc environments in the future ('learning')" (Ellis and Solms 2018: 49), and it is called neuroplasticity or plasticity. With the plasticity, the mind can extend over the world through artifcial devices. Bodily functions can be coupled with artifcial devices and extended. Clark calls it the extended mind, according to which human mind can extend over the world through its bodily extensions of technological equipment and artifcial prostheses such as eyeglasses, smartphone, digital networks and so on. Indeed, all technologies are the extension of human being and, in fact, of the human body, according to Marshall McLuhan, and the extensions act according to its mind, which is a different dimension of the sum of the bodily parts and their extensions (McLuhan 2011). The mind is the emergence of the extended body. In this sense, Andy Clark talks of "supersizing the mind" (Clark 2011).

However, all the human technologies are also the product of autoamputation (McLuhan 2011: 37). In other words, they are our human failure to recognize them as the extensions of human beings. The human central nerve system cannot stand the stress from the new extension (or new technological invention) of the body because the new extension requires the new balance and intensity of the body. So, it anaesthetizes its sense of the self by otherizing the extension as different from one's self. In this way, humans can exploit and manipulate technological products at their wills. This anesthesia of senses is like "psychological rigor mortis" or a symptom of "somnambulism" (McLuhan 2011: 62). It works by causing psychological rigor mortis to protect the central nerve system. Thus, the existing perspective of the system regards the new extension as the other to itself. In this context, new technology can be the stimulus for invention because the central nerve system (CNS) has to fnd out a way to live with the new technology as the other. The sensual anesthesia is a midpoint for the selfbased upon the CNS to incorporate the extension as part of itself.

Notwithstanding, autoamputation can cause problems to the mind in that it is generated by the failure of the emotion/feeling with its existing boundary of the body/self. The hybridization of human mind and body with other media generates new kinds of stress for the central nerve system, which in turn amputates the extension by the hybridization, falling into the state of psychological rigor mortis in order to prevent its mental collapse. Blocking or paralyzing the senses from the extension, that is, doing the autoamputation, the central nerve system can maintain its homeostasis, which marks its boundary between the inner and the outer bodies. Thus, autoamputation can indicate the anxiety and embarrassment of the mind. That is, it can be the emotional problems for us. As a matter of fact, "humans" can be said as media or as interface between the mind and the world. When our human brains are connected to digital machines, our emotions and feelings, which make us feel being human, cannot be stable, because the emotions are part of the homeostasis system of the biological human body. What would it be like when human body as an interface will couple itself with a machine body and a digital network? Can emotions work as they were?

Franco Berardi warns of the danger of the polarization of sensibility and sensitivity in the semiocapitalist society. A digitally all-connected environment causes "desensitization," which does not derive from the content of what people do but from the stimulus they receive (Berardi 2013: 63). The human mind works with the body equipped with senses and emotions. Our bodily senses consist of fve types, but the digital environment mainly stimulates visual and auditory senses. The tactile functions at the tips of fngers on the keyboard. The digital generation learns things from the machines rather than from parents. It causes them a "polarization of sensibility and sensitivity" (2013: 43). Sensitivity refers to the capacity of human senses to process information, while sensibility does to human capacity to understand and to sympathize with others (43). Due to sensibility, humans can understand what cannot be expressed in language and grasp the sense of continuity, the fow of sympathy, and non-verbal signs. In normal situations, sensitivity and sensibility work together. However, the desensitization brings about the polarization of sensitivity and sensibility. These days, under the pandemic situation, the transition from contact to connection in human relations has been accelerated. Humans in this networked world can process information, but they lose their ability to understand and sympathize with others. In the digital world, the human capability of sensibility seems to be disappearing.

Sensibility is based upon the exchange or sympathy among human beings. It is none other than the exchange of social emotions. In other words, human contact is not just a meeting but, more importantly, an event to transform for the self to be transformed into a becoming-other by sympathizing other people's emotions and feelings. It is more than a mechanical processing of information from stimulus from the outside. When our lifestyle undergoes a transition from contact to connection, it would be more diffcult to understand and sympathize with the others. Understanding of and sympathy with others work within the social matrix of emotions, which is more than personal emotion and feeling.

# 8.4 The Precarious Condition for Social Emotions

The brain does not directly contact the world, but it rather experiences the world through the body and its senses as interfaces. Bodily senses convert external stimulus into the activity of neurons. This conversion is not based on one-to-one correspondence between the external and the internal, but it rather transmutes the external stimulus according to the receptive structure and characteristics of the senses. Thus, the information of the external world, which the brain constructs, is not an objective one but the one that an organism needs to know for its own survival, fourishing, and reproduction. Then, the brain stores important information for later purposes in terms of memory. The main function of the memory is to prevent the danger in the future. Emotions are accompanying with this memory process. They are like indexes or underlines to mark important information or passages for a later purpose. When an organism encounters the same kind of event or danger or object, its emotion is summoned before its consciousness arises to recover the memory. The emotion as the index for the danger in the experience often has a negative tone. Thus, our memory is often full of negative experiences and feelings rather than of happy and joyful ones.

To the contrary, the contemporary social structure of semiocapitalism has given birth to a very precarious condition for the minds of the people, especially of laborers. Under the labor condition of the fractalization of time, the minds of workers are always on alert to get a work order from the network through email, SNS, website, or apps on the cellular phone. They are called the precariats, which means precarious proletariats, existing without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. They do not have time to take care of their unstable minds and emotions. The top priority for the precariats under the pressure of infnite competition is to be the winner, no matter what.

What is problematic is that there is no winner under this chain of infnite competition, because the expected winner must sacrifce what is precious for themselves: emotions and feelings, that is, the emotional life of the self. Being a winner does not mean that competition is over and that the winner is decided. Rather, winning simply means getting a temporary job or project, and the game of the roulette of selection will be spun after the job is done. In the classic times of the industrial capitalism, work and leisure were separated because workers had to go to work in the morning and come home in the late afternoon.

For all that, in the contemporary world of semiocapitalism, there is no distinction between work and leisure because the digital network turns home into an offce or workplace: working from home, which means that there is no chance to leave the offce and there is no emancipation from our cellular phones. Indeed, everywhere is our workplace. You can work even during your sleep; your cellular and computer will help you out!

Under the semiocapitalist social environment where our nerves become extremely sensitive due to excessive attention to any stimulus, that is, where things literally get on "my" nerve, not only the personal but also the social dimensions of our emotions are now on the verge of collapse. In this context, in which our social relations are now turned into contactless ones through digital networks, the collapse of our mental health has been expressed with violent and perverted expressions of our personal and social emotions.

According to Antonio Damasio, emotion is part of the "homeostasis" of organism to maintain and control the state of its mind and body (Damasio 1999, 40). This means that emotions play a key part in the process of life, of which the organism in question takes control. Damasio distinguishes emotion that senses the external environment from feeling that constructs the subjective experience of the external stimulus, accompanying the emergence of consciousness. In this process, consciousness publicly or externally expresses its inner (subjective) feelings, disclosing the will and intention of the self. The modern division of consciousness and emotions/feelings cannot be maintained any longer. What is problematic for us is that, although the emotional process is almost unconscious, the semiocapitalist environment presses and accelerates the polarization of sensibility and sensitivity, and it in turn will make not so little impact upon our emotional structure. The polarized emotion would lack its capacity for sympathy and thus trap in some violent emotional energy seeking out its exit. However, when it lacks the sensibility, which is human ability to understand and sympathize with others, it can lead to violent expression or tragic suicidal attempt.

The point here is that this condition of unstable emotions is not just a personal condition but rather a social condition, in which we can communicate through emotions. One needs to remind that emotion is not only to perceive the *Umwelt* each organism senses as its surroundings but also to express and communicate its inner feelings with other beings in the world. Thus, emotions work on the social dimension and when the semiocapitalist condition of living causes the social matrix of emotional expression to be faulty, our social emotions become precarious, unstable, volatile, and negative. Indeed, emotions are the social matrix in which human organisms can understand and communicate with each other in a way to build up their society, rather than being "secondary" or "background" ones (Damasio 1999: 51).

Indeed, human beings are social animals sharing and communicating their feelings through emotions. When the power of semiocapitalism brings about excessive overload upon the mind, causing fatigue, exhaustion, a sense of helplessness, and thus a sense of impotence, leading to depression, rage, violence, terror, or even suicidal attempts, we know the healthy social matrix of emotions can collapse.

Although the basic expressions of emotions follow their genetic pathways, learning and culture can offer individuals a chance to have their expressive differences and to add a new dimension of meaning. That is, one can construct the expressive horizon of social emotions, depending on one's social context. In doing so, one may heal the social disease that the socio-economic structure of semiocapitalism has brought about, especially the social collapse of mental health in a way to express social empathy and to share each other's pain and suffering. Especially, Christian theology expresses one of such emotions as compassion or com/passion (cf. Keller 2008: 115–116). Can we change the social matrix for emotional expressions in a way to encourage and heal each other?

# 8.5 *Han* (恨), *Heung* (興), and *Jeong* (情): Unique Feelings in Korean Culture

Emotions have social dimensions to share and communicate with other people through diverse expressions. Social emotions include embarrassment, guilt, shame, jealousy, envy, elevation, empathy, pride, and so on. Also, these social emotions would have cultural patterns to express them, depending on their cultures, areas, climate, and so on. When one calls "Korean emotions," it does not refer to individual patterns of emotions but to the social patterns unique to Korean culture. Korean social culture can be characterized with drinking, dancing, singing, and eating. Some groups of Koreans notoriously drink a lot, even all night long. They enjoy singing and dancing in the so-called *Noraebang*, Korean *Karaoke*. Also, they like good heavy eating, as their eating scenes are broadcasted by the *Meokbang* (먹방) television program, which is now becoming world-famous.

Nonetheless, this culture is not a contemporary phenomenon. The *Records of Three Kingdoms* (*samgugji* 三國志) by Jinsu (陳壽 233–297) includes the *Book of Wei* (*weiseo* 魏書) consisting of thirty chapters and calling it the 30th chapter titled as the *Stories of Dongi* (*dongijeon* 東夷傳). The term *Dongi* does not refer to a particular tribe, but it can be translated as barbarians in the East, including Koreans. In the stories, it describes the *Dongi* cultures as following: "There is huge gathering, people eat food, drink, sing and dance several days" (Choi 2012: 62). The Korean popculture of eating, drinking, singing, and dancing has originated in the ancient religious events for revering heaven. Although the ancient religious ritual did not survive today, our contemporary pop culture maintains its practices. Through eating, drinking, singing, and dancing together, people pile their shared emotions and build *jeong* between them. In this culture, people emit exhilaration (*heung* 흥/興), dissolve negative feelings (*han*한/恨), and build up intimacy and mutual bond (*jeong*정/情).

Recently, some Korean scholars have paid their attention to the emotional sensibility of Koreans. It is about what is Korean or Korean uniqueness. Sim Gwanghyeon (2005) suggests the dynamic coupling structure of *han* and *heung* and Shin Eungyeong (1999) articulates the triadic structure of Korean sensibility in terms of *han*, *heung*, and non-attachment (*musim* 무심/無心; literally "no heart-mind"). Especially, Sin includes them under the ethos of *pungngyu* (also spelled *poong-ryu* 풍류 風流; aesthetic entertainment of life). *Pungnyu* literally means "fow of wind," but it refers to a way to attain *Dao* or truth according to our human nature. While enjoying some beautiful landscapes, the *seonbi*—Korean noble intellectuals—can write a poem or draw a picture or sing a song, and, in this way, the noble come close to the Way. It is an aesthetic sublimation of life through their plays.

Korean sensibility has been well known as *han*. A Korean American theologian Andrew Sung Park introduces *han* as "the critical wound of the heart generated by unjust psychosomatic repression, as well as by social, political, economic, and cultural oppression" (Park 1993, 10). In fact, according to Park, *han* has revealed many diverse aspects in Korean life, especially in the late twentieth century. There is no doubt that *han* is not a monolithic feeling but rather a complex, overlayered and abundant emotion. However, Korean emotions also include *heung*, *musim*, and *jeong*. Although we can characterize one of Korean affects as *han*, these Korean social emotions have a lot more meaning and implication.

Korean people's pattern of emotional expression has its collective social dynamics among various emotions such as *han*, *heung*, *musim*, and *jeong*. For example, as *han* deepens, it can reach at a point of reversal to be a potential energy to exhilarate. This is why Sim (2005) talks of the coupling structure of *han* and *heung*. Again, here one needs to remind that emotion is part of the homeostasis system, and it is the same case in the social minds (Damasio 2018: 169–170). Given Damasio's theory of homeostasis, emotions do not work alone. To maintain the state of homeostasis, each emotion has to be coupled with opposite one for an organism to maintain psychological and physiological balances. For example, when a sad emotion goes to an extreme, the homeostasis system seeks for a way to balance it with the opposite emotion, for example, joy. If this system of homeostasis does not work, the person with sad emotion can fall into an extreme state of the emotion and make up their mind in an extreme act like suicide. Here, feelings, which are the subjective constructions of the emotive responses to the stimulus from the outside, play a crucial role. When an organism is "forced to operate outside the well-being range and they drift into disease and toward death, feelings inject into the thinking process a striving for a desirable homeostatic range" (Damasio 2018: 171). As Damsio also states,

Situations of loss result in sadness and despair, whose presence solicits empathy and compassion, which stimulate the creative imagination to produce counters to the sadness and despair …: a song or a poem. The ensuing resumption of homeostatic conditions opens the way for recruiting more complex feeling states—gratitude and hope, for example—and a subsequent reasoned elaboration over those feeling state. (172–173)

In this aspect, emotions, feelings, and reasons cooperate to maintain homeostasis for organism. However, one needs to remember that feelings "result from engaging emotions that release not just to the isolated individual but to the *individual in the context of others*" (172). These inner feelings are expressed with emotive expressions outside to signify and/or communicate things to others. Thus, emotions are social and counterbalanced for homeostasis. Sim's (2005) idea of the coupling of *han* and *heung* works in this context. Even so, emotional coupling relations are not fxed but dependent upon the context of homeostasis. For instance, when the despair situation of *han* needs a warm encouragement, it will couple with *jeong.* Likewise, when it needs cheering up, it will do with *heung*.

With regard to the Korean dynamics of emotion, both Sim (2005) and Shin (1999) refer to *pungnyu* culture, in which "our ancestors revere and enjoy the web of life, they tie heaven, earth, and human beings together," and they "apprehend mountain, water, points of the compass, and human being as one web of life" (Sim 2005: 45). Further Sim presents it as the "original aesthetic categorical system of North-East Asian culture" (Sim 2005: 65).

The frst record of *pungnyu* appeared the *Nangnang* inscription by Choe Chiwon, and the book *The History of Three Kingdoms* transmitted part of the inscription: "There is a subtle *Do*/*Dao* (Way) being passed down to generations in the nation, and it is called *pungnyudo* (風流道)." The group of people practicing this *Dao* is called *pungnyudo* (風流徒) or *hwarangdo* (화랑 花娘徒)" (Shin 1999: 41). The core teaching of *pungnyudo* is summarized as "the inclusion of three teachings" (*pohamsamgyo* 포함삼교, 包含三敎) and "making-friends-and-living-together" (*jeophwagunsaeng* 접화군생, 接化群生) (Shin 1999: 42). The inclusion of three teachings means that Korean spirituality subsumes the teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism under the original Korean spirituality of *pungnyu.* "Making-friends-and-living-together" means the edifcation of all living beings, including plants and animals, by making friendship. On the basis of these principles, *hwarang* disciples practice *pungnyu*, and this includes emotional trainings like enjoying songs as well as intellectual, personal, and moral practices. Interestingly, dressing up and making up oneself is part of practicing *pungnyu*, and this means that the cultivation of appearance is connected to the cultivation of the inner mind. In this sense, *pungnyudo* involves the cultivation of artistic or aesthetic sense (Shin 1999: 42).

According to Shin, *pungnyudo* is actualized with one of three types of *heung*, *han*, and *musim*. Given Shin's notion of *pungnyu* as an aesthetic categorial system, the three types of emotions respectively appear when the subject encounters aesthetic objects. *Heung* arises when the subject makes a positive relationship with objects and actuality and positively apprehends them. Thus, it gives the subject a bright feeling. *Han* accumulates when the subject experience alienation in their actual life. *Han* basically implies the passive and negative perspectives. *Musim, non-attachment*, points to a transcendental aesthetic feeling beyond the binarism of positive/negative, good/evil, joyfulness/sadness, and so on, which dominates our quotidian minds. Each type of the spirit of *pungnyu* leads to the extinction of the self, but each way to extinguish the self is different. *Musim* realizes the elimination of self through its transcendence of the discriminating self; *han* does it by creating a vacuum of self-consciousness; *heung* does it through the release of self-consciousness (Shin 1999, 591).

Sim's (2005) main contribution lies in his discovery that Korean sensibility has a coupling structure of *han* and *heung*. As I mentioned above, emotions are a part of the homeostasis system of the body for its survival and reproduction. In other words, the purpose of any emotion is not for feeling itself but for stabilizing the poise of mind and body. Just as the feeling of joyfulness is balanced with that of sadness, the collective emotion of *han* is always poised with that of *heung*, which is the feeling of joyfulness and fun. As a matter of fact, *pungnyu* refers to an "art of play with taste and elegance in a withdrawal from secular works" and thus to "artful plays of writing poems, singing, drinking and dancing" (Shin 1999, 19).

In other words, *pungnyu* is a cultural art to recover the balance between *han* and *heung*, like the relationship between *yin* and *yang*. However, it does not seek for a simple equilibrium but a relationship of dynamic circulation: "*heung* accumulates into *han* when it cannot be released. When the repressed *han* gets loose, *heung* soars to the high with great intensity and magnitude" (Sim 2005: 77). Indeed, when the repressed *han* is released like a blast, *heung* fies high like a spring. Sim's observation on the dynamic relationship between *han* and *heung* corrects the existing conceptual coupling of *jeong* and *han*. For example, The Korean people's cheering gathering for their national team's soccer game during the World Cup 2002 showed the national dimension of *heung*. Street demonstrations such as the protest against the import of US beef in 2008 and the protest for the impeachment of President Park Geun-Hye in 2016 exemplifed this dynamic relationship of *han* and *heung*. Although people gathered to protest against political oppressions, these street demonstrations were full of people singing songs, concert festivals, and plays and snacks the repressed *han* of the people in the street demonstrations burst forth into singing and shouting out rallying words together. They were indeed festive movements. The people enjoyed the protests like feasts.

The dynamic circulation of *han* and *heung* is sublimated into nonattachment (*musim* 無心), according to Shin (1999). The exhilaration in singing the campaign songs and shouting out the rallying words lets the repression of the minds discharge through the collective emotions of anger expressed with tears. In fact, any emotional expression has a discharging effect. This emotional discharge leads to a state of sublimation giving birth to "a transcendental aesthetic feeling beyond the binarism of positive/negative, good/evil, joyfulness/sadness, and so on, which dominates our quotidian minds." Non-attachment is a passive translation of the word *musim* (무심/無心). As a matter of fact, the discharging state can be described as transcendence, detachment or aloofness, or rising above the ways of the mundane world. In this regard, *musim* is a way of *chotal* (초 탈/超脫), which means a state of de/constructive transcendence. *Chotal* is not an exoteric transcendence state, but a state of not clinging to any quotidian matters. Therefore, both *musim* and *chotal* mean "nonattachment." Literally, it implies a state of transcendence and escape. It means a certain state of getting away from the emotional fuctuation in daily lives. In this sense, Shin (1999) describes *pungnyu* as the triadic structure of East Asian aesthetics. From the aesthetic perspective, one can say that the dynamic circulation of *han* and *heung* has an exit to sublimation. It is an exit from the respectively extreme states of *han* and *heung*. Thus, in this triadic constitution of *pungnyu*, the non-attachment works as a stopper or stabilizer to cap the climax of *han* and *heung*. Thus, the East Asian aesthetics of *pungnyu* seeks for the homeostatic equilibrium in the emotional fuctuation on the level of the collective.

Regardless of her creative insights of the aesthetic triad of *han*, *heung*, and *musim*, Shin fails in fnding that those three cultural elements of Korea are "emotions" on the collective level. Her model of *pungnyu* is *seonbi* who were a noble intellectual class. They are not vulgar people, and this is why she emphasizes the sublime dimension of non-attachment. The triadic structure of *pungnyu* through *han*, *heung*, and *musim* really makes sense when one talks of aesthetics. However, for Shin (1999), aesthetic only means a sublime play of noble men, not vulgar people or women. The ancient tradition of the festivals for revering Heaven was "Dionysian," and, in this sense, it was the festival of *jeong* (Choi 2012, 70). In this sense, Shin's focus on *pungnyu* may refect destructive parts of the Korean Confucian cultural heritage, noblemen-centered culture. Sin's description of *pungnyu* culture seems to violate its spirit to beneft people all over the world (*jeophwa gunsaeng* 接化群生). Thus, one needs to apply the coupling structure here. Non-attachment does not work alone, as it functions as a social emotion. Rather, I would argue that non-attachment needs to be coupled with *jeong*, as *heung* and *han* are coupled.

Without talking about *jeong*, Shin's triadic aesthetic structure falls short of describing the Korean emotion/feeling. Without talking about *jeong* it is impossible to understand Korean sensibility. Sensibility basically works through bodily emotional states—although it includes moral and ethical dimensions on a higher state—as the interface to other beings and the world, and thus, without *jeong*, one cannot fully describe the Korean sensibility, especially when our human sensibility is on the verge of collapse under the semiocapitalistic structure.

The Korean culture of eating, drinking, singing, and dancing can be summarized as the culture of *jeong*, in which *heung* and *han* creatively interact and complement each other. In the culture of *jeong*, ideally, the oppressor and the oppressive can eat, drink, sing, and dance together, and they can play as friends. Of course, play itself does not refer to *jeong*, but it can be an occasion to build up the relationship of *jeong*. Koreans cannot stand a solemn, calculative, emotionally neutral relationship, as the ancient text witnesses. This national collective disposition naturally seeks for a group culture, in which people plie *jeong* through eating, drinking, singing, and dancing. *Jeong* is formed between humans, especially when they have long-term relationships, in which all kinds of relational feelings such as bitterness, friendliness, mutualism, manipulation, betrayal, commitment, and so on have experienced and shared together. In this *jeong*-centered cultural ethos, confict is not a necessary process toward justice. Rather, before the fulfllment of justice, confict ought to be dissolved. *Jeong* does not forget complex emotional conficts, but it embraces them in a form of hateful *jeong* (*miunjeong* 미운정). It is reasonable to say that *Jeong* goes beyond any conficts.

In some cases Korean *jeong* can appear in the form of paternalism or favoritism, which excessively emphasizes *injeong* (인정/人情) that can be translated as "sticky friendship" in this case, and this ethos of *injeong* prefers situational considerations over principle and justice in human connections and relations. Literally, *injeong* means "human(-hearted) emotions" or *jeong* between people. However, it may turn into a form of paternalism, and, in this case, it can lead to a paternalistic consequence disregarding the principle of justice in the matters of judgment. Thus, *jeong* is often called "enemy-like *jeong*" (*wonsugatun jeong* 원수같은 정) because it is often beyond enemy relationship and beyond revenge feeling. In this context, *jeong* can be manipulated as the logic of a cover-up of injustice. With an excuse to avoid confict between friends, injustice or corruption is overlooked.

*Musim*/non-attachment seems to be a stabilizer to this *jeong*-centered mind and society. Getting away from the emotional cling to friendly relations, one with non-attachment takes a step back from the emotionally charged judgment and relationships. This detached attitude has its origin in the Chinese Daoist philosophy of Laozi (BC 604[?]–unknown) and Zhuangzi (BC 369–BC 286[?]), which is also called the Lao-Zhuang thought (*No-Jang sasang* 노장사상) in Korea. The Korean word *musim* does not mean no-attachment but attachment without clinging. Nonattachment rejects any kind of simple judgment and unilateral criterion because identities are constructed, fuid, and multiple. Thus, it asks one to step back from things in interest. The stepping back means forgetting the distance between subject and object, between being and non-being. It is none other than emptying, which is even beyond discernment of being and non-being. It is forgetting of any discrimination, and further of oneself. It can motivate a realization of one's self on a wider horizon because *musim* shows the play of nature. When one's self can be one with nature, one now can see things from the eyes of nature, from which everything is a play of "self-so-ing" (*jayeon*/*ziran* 자연/自然), which refers to nature in English. Everything is just a play of self-so-ing, in which there is no-I, no-you, and no-it in that nature's self embraces all beings without discrimination. In other words, it is "thingifcation" in the sense of materialization (*mulhwa* 物化). One can see life in general from the eyes of a thing or things. In this aspect, things and I are not different. Every "thing" is part of "thingifcation" as the "self-so-ing." In this mind of non-attachment and thingifcation, *han* is resolved, and *heung* exhilaratingly turns into the vitality of life. In this way, non-attachment is another way to pile up *jeong* with every other being, including non-human beings and non-organic things.

At the center of Korean sensibility, there are two coupled emotions, *heung*-*han* and *jeong*-*musim* through which life becomes a *jeong*-ful playground rather than a feld of competitions under the pressure of natural selection. As Jesper Hoffmeyer recognizes life process not as the process of natural selection but as "natural play" (2008: xiii), Korean sensibility fnds life as play, in which natural feelings such as joy, anger, sorrow, and happiness (*huinoaerak* 喜怒哀樂) are entangled and play together. Life at least on the human level is not just about infnite competition for reproduction and survival. Indeed, nature shows play-like behaviors, which gives birth to the creative dimension in natural selection, and it is "natural play" that adds the *heung* of life to the evolutionary process. These dimensions of play and *heung* are obliterated from the evolutionary discourse because they only see the competition of individual organisms. However, on the level of the collective, one's sadness ironically can be the other's joy, one's anger the other's happiness. Even sharing the sadness with others can form solidarity, and pain begins to turn into the ignition of love by sharing it with others.

# 8.6 *Jeong* (情): Emotions to Heal the Semiocapitalist Trauma

*Jeong* can be a resistance against contemporary semiocapitalist societies under the pressure of infnite competition and the winner-takes-it-all mind. We are living in the world of on-going competition, and although everyone already has their chance to be a loser, they never imagine that they can be one of losers. Any imagination of being a loser can make me weak, so that they tend to disregard any possibility of it. However, by the fip side of the same token, everyone is afraid of being a loser on the track of competition. Thus, instead of trying to be a winner, which is almost im/possible dream for everyone because the chances are really slime due to class differences and social discriminations, they try to suppress and trap possible competitor around them.

*Jeong* as a collective emotion resists this competitive ethos of capitalism. We live with *jeong*, whether they are enemy or friend. A friend once can turn into an enemy someday, and *vice versa*. One can say that there is no reliable friend. However, one can also talk about the fip side that everyone has a possibility to be friends. *Jeong* lures people into a relationship of friend in a way it "not only smooths harsh feelings, such as dislike or even hate, but has a way of making relationships richly complex by moving away from a binary, oppositional perception of reality, such as oppressor and oppressed" (Joh 2006: xxi). In her book *Heart of Cross*, Joh calls *jeong* "the power embodied in redemptive relationships" (xxi). She goes on to say that "*jeong* makes relationship sticky" (xxii):

When *jeong* is present in a relationship, a person might appear as an "enemy" because of structural impositions, but in one-to-one relationality, the relation between self and the same enemy could be fraught with compassion, recognition, and even acceptance and eventual forgiveness. Ultimately, it is this intimate existential recognition of the self mirrored in the other that leads to transformation of the heart (Joh 2006: 97). Moreover, Joh sees *jeong* as what overcomes *han* (41). She fnds the "transgressive power" in the coupling of *jeong* and *han* (97). Thus, the Korean government has attempted to sort out the communist betrayers, sadly covering up the pro-Japanese traitors, who have taken up the political power of the right conservatives. The very tragic and complex history of Korea in the twentieth century has made us inappropriate to sharply distinguish the victims from the perpetrators.

The real transgressed power of *jeong* lies in its power to thrust itself between victims and perpetrators, deterritorializing the binary structure of "us" versus "them" and subverting them with compassion. Joh emphasizes that *jeong* is not based upon the logic of "either-or" but that of "both/and" (Joh 2006: 97). One often realizes that the perpetrator is not always a winner of their game but also another victim of the system. As a matter of fact, in the winner-takes-it-all game, no one will become a winner because one has to sacrifce something important for their life to win the game. There is no game without any sacrifces. That is, everyone is already a loser in that one already sacrifced the very precious for one's life. The power of *jeong* lies in its recognition of this loss in everyone. That is why a Christian as a follower of Jesus can hug even the enemy because they already saw the pain and suffering in the perpetrator's heart without forgetting the fact of their crime. In this sense, *jeong* is a power to deterritorialize the binary logic of perpetrator/victim and of winner/loser in the semiocapitalist actuality.

Living is always already entangled living. That is to say, life means living and dying with other beings in relationships. In other words, "I" is to be affected by other beings and *vice versa*. The "we" are always entangled in relations and multiply located. One can be a victim at a certain time and space as well as a perpetrator at other situations. In this intricated relationality, one forms a *jeong* with the other(s). Joh notes that "*jeong* makes relationships sticky" (xiv). It is a kind of love anticipating its failure. One's entry into a relationship of love with the other means risking oneself. Failure would accumulate into the fold of *han*, and, when *han* is ripened in ongoing relationships, it has a chance to be emancipated from the oppressive structure. It means that *jeong* enable the subject to overcome anxiety, enmity, and revenge feeling. It is not a kind of abandonment under the enormous structure of the oppression, but a resisting will against the oppressive structure in order to re/construct relationship in an emancipatory way. It is a reconstruction of the past not from the memory of the victimized self but from that of the emancipated self.

Love is destined to fail because there lies an abyss between the subject and the object, although one is the subject and at the same time the object, depending on the angle one sees the other. However, as a loser, one knows what the failure means for the self. Through the sympathy of failure or through one's experiences of pain and suffering as losers, we can be with others. A feminist constructive theologian, Catherin Keller, calls this feeling of sympathy *com/passion* following the Greek etymology of *ευσπλαχνία* (suffer with): "For compassion is literally *passion-with* the other" (Keller 2008: 115). She goes on to say that "passion is only sustainable in as much as it modulates into *com/passion*" (116). To be with the other's pain and suffering requires one's passion of love towards the other because any pain, even the other's, still hurts. However, this *jeong* or *com/passion* is need for us to live in the semiocapitalist society.

### 8.7 Conclusion

In closing, the Korean notion of emotions/feelings is based upon their understanding of being human. Although the term *jeong*/*qing* comes from Chinese Confucian texts, the Korean Four-Seven debate makes one pay more attention to the emotional and ethical feature of what it means to be truly human. From a perspective of the Four-Seven debate, the core way of being human is the self-cultivation of emotions/feelings, and this insight corresponds to the contemporary scientifc understanding of emotions that accompanies bodily response to external stimulus and the formation of feelings inside. In other words, when emotions and feelings are not cultivated well, one cannot fulfll the cardinal virtues of humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom.

Arguably, the contemporary connected world provides a powerful condition in which our emotional harmony can collapse and our sensibility and sensitivity are polarized and broken down. The rapid development of brilliant technologies has caused our central nerve system to autoamputate the body. Under this emotionally unstable condition, Koreans continue enjoying a culture of eating, drinking, singing, and dancing, the culture of *heung*, *han*, and *jeong*, since the ancient times. As a matter of fact, Korean culture of *han*, *heung*, *musim*, and *jeong* has become a matrix to accept Confucian understanding of being human, as the Four-Seven debate shows. We can note that the Korean Four-Seven interpretation of emotions resonates with Korean social emotions, insofar as the emotion of *heung* (흥/興; exhilaration or utmost joy) seems to be associated with Confucian *rak* (락/樂; joy) and *hui*/*xi* (희/喜; happiness, pleasure) and two of the Seven Emotions, and *han* (한/恨; resentment, suffering) is closely related to Confucian *ae*/*ai* 哀 (애/哀; sorrow, grief), another key example of the Seven.

When the pandemic has changed our global culture from contact to non-contact ones, can these Korean socio-cultural emotions of *heung*, *han*, and *jeong* offer positive alternatives? I suggest that the Four-Seven debate gives us a clue: to be human means to be cultivated through our emotional and relational practice. Our neuroplasticity is based upon "the ability of the brain to adapt to different operating conditions as the physical, ecological, and social environment, and to alter its structure" (Ellis and Solms 2018: 49) and, as we know, emotions play very crucial roles in cognition, decision-making, memory, the will, and so on. The spirit of *pungnyu*/*heung* is to respect differences among people and to beneft all humans accordingly. Emotions as a part of the homeostasis of the body seek to fnd a balance, for example, fnding *heung* when the *han* of the pandemic deepens. To conclude, we can appreciate this transformation as an art that shows a harmonized beauty of *heung, han,* and *jeong*, as much as when the popular Korean signing group BTS (Bang Tan Sonyeondan) sings their songs to bring comfort to the people with despair and helplessness:

*You know it all you're my best friend the morning will come again. Because no darkness, no season will last forever*. (*Bomnal* 봄날, *Spring Day*)

### References


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Contemporary Perspectives

# *Hanmaeum*, One Heart-mind: A Korean Buddhist Philosophical Basis of *Jeong* (情)

# *Lucy Hyekyung Jee*

# 9.1 What Is *Jeong*? Some Psychological Social Perspectives

*Jeong* (情) is known as a representative cultural emotion of the Korean people. Its literal meaning is emotion, but the practical meaning of *jeong* in Korean refers to specifc feelings in human relationships with others. It implies affection, usually in combination with words for friendship (*ujeong* 우정 友情), lover (*jeongin* 정인 情人), or love (*aejeong* 애정 愛情). It is similar to love and affection in other cultures, but it involves a deeper attachment than affection, is more tender than passionate romantic love, and is more slowly accumulated than attachment.

Korean American psychiatrists Christopher Chung and Samson Cho made a noteworthy comparison table between *jeong* and love. It says, "*Jeong* is inter-individual, centrifugal, slow-paced, passive, and pre-oedipal, whereas love is intra-individual, centripetal, ranging in pace from instant to slow, active, and oedipal" (Chung and Cho 2006: 47). The word *"*interindividual" means that *jeong* exists not only in the individual's mind but also in the relationship between people. Thus, Chung and Cho call *jeong*

L. H. Jee (\*)

Humanities Research Center, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022 259

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_9

"extra-psychic and inter-psychic emotion" (Chung and Cho 2006: 48). "Centrifugal" means that it moves toward others rather than oneself. "Pre-oedipal" means that *jeong* is more primordial than the formation of the Oedipal complex.1 *Jeong* is therefore formed slowly in our daily lives knowingly or unknowingly. To be exact, it cannot be a pure individual emotion but always relational feelings. Emotions arises when one contacts objects. For example, when one meets an attractive object, one might feel pleasure, delight, and love. When one experiences a bad event, one feels sadness or anger. But *jeong* does not work in that way.

In the relational context, a Korean psychologist, Choi Sang-Chin, lists four elements for developing the feelings of *jeong*: "shared history, time spent together, tenderness, and intimacy" (Choi and Kim 2002: 32). The frst two are external conditions and the latter two are internal ones. People share histories by experiencing life stories and overcoming obstacles together. Spending time together means doing things together on a daily basis, usually over a long period. Tenderness means taking care of each other without expecting a reward. Intimacy means lowering personal boundaries and opening oneself with trust. Sharing time, experience, and a common fate, and caring slowly make people soak into *jeong*. The Korean language expresses this state with the phrase "*Jeong* permeates me" (정들 다 *Jeong deulda*). The permeation of *jeong* happens unnoticeably and spontaneously; people usually do not realize it until the object is gone. Human feelings are also spontaneously related to desire. When one loves something, one wants to have it. When one dislikes a thing, one wants to get rid of it. *Jeong* does not involve such selfsh desires. It is more closely associated with sacrifce and sincerity and less with self-interest and beneft.

*Jeong* as relational feelings can exist in all kinds of relationships. People usually talk about *jeong* toward other humans, but some feel *jeong* toward dogs or cats, or even inanimate objects. For example, a needle is a famous object of *jeong*. Sewing was an important task and a virtue for Korean woman in the past. They sewed whenever they had time, whether to make garments or household goods or to mend them. Even at night, women sewed while waiting for their husbands. That means that a needle was a woman's companion throughout her life and became an important object of affection.

1The Oedipal complex is a psychoanalytic theory explaining the frst sexual desire that a child feels for the affection of the parent of the opposite sex. This stage begins at around three years old. However, a baby develops *jeong* at the beginning of latching onto the breast.

*Jeong* can also be formed in love-hate relationships, such as between a husband and a wife, a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law, or rivals. In those relationships, people have two opposite kinds of *jeong*, called *miunjeong* (미운정; *jeong* from hatred) and *gounjeong* (고운정; *jeong* from love). When people spend time together, and especially undergo turmoil together, they encounter both the good and the bad sides of each other, and they can come to understand each other deeply over time and develop sympathy and even a feeling of shared humanity. Because *jeong* is an emotion in relationships, it can encompass opposing emotions and varied objects.

Choi's research also proves that *jeong* has been used a standard for evaluating personality as well (Choi et al. 1997: 560–563). In accumulating and sharing *jeong*, people's personal characteristics are crucial. Caring, kind, sympathetic, self-sacrifcial, optimistic, and honest people more easily establish *jeong* in relationships with others. Those people who have the full of potential of *jeong* are normally considered good, even ideal in Korean society. According to survey research by Choi, Korean people think that a person with *jeong* is caring, warm, reliable, considerate, and humble. On the other hand, self-centered, self-righteous, and condescending people are categorized as *moojeong* (무정 無情; heartless) (Choi et al. 1997: 567–568). These standards show that considering others is viewed to be more valuable than focusing on oneself in Korea people's relationship.

*Jeong* is considered to be closely related to "we-ness," We, *uri* (우리) in Korean, is a cultural concept with a strong sense of homogeneity. "We" is not just a plural form of "I" for the Korean people, but rather an extended "I." In a family, the basic model of a *jeong* relationship, the members are not independent individuals but all part of the family. Other family members are also an extension of one's "I." This kind of we-ness is refected in the language, too: When Korean people refer to their possessions, they use the word *uri* (we) instead of "my" or "our." They use expressions such as "our car," "our house," and "our country" instead of "my car," "my house," and "my country." This applies to other we-groups as well. School we-groups, company we-groups, and circle we-groups all become extensions of one's family. "We-ness" means being part of a family.

According to Choi, Korean we-ness is different from Western countries we-ness:

College students in Canada experience we-ness when they work together with the people who share a same objective, interest, or concerns. We call it distributive we-ness. But Korean college students sense we-ness when they experience connectivity and interdependence rather than when they share commonalities of work, interest, or concerns. They also feel that such a wegroup is a genuine we-group. We call it relational we-ness. … Korean people believe that frst they form we-group, and then they can do anything together. (Choi et al. 2000: 205)

Because Korean we-group focuses more on who belongs to it than on the purpose of the group, Korean people like to do things with others and to belong to a group. For example, they prefer to go to lunch together instead of going alone. They tend to feel more comfortable in a group and even to pity a person who does not belong to a group. This kind of strong relational we-ness can be named "we-ism."2

For Koreans, "we-ness" has strong nuances of oneness and solidarity. The deeper a *jeong* relationship goes, the more the boundaries of the individual are blurred in this we-ness mechanism. Once a person joins a wegroup, the others in the group care about the person like themselves. They even think they can know what the person needs because they are one they have one and the same mind as human beings. For example, a boarding-house landlady might prepare a cake for a new foreign boarder's birthday even when they are not close yet because she guesses the boarder feels lonely celebrating a birthday alone in a foreign country. The merit of this kind of we-ness is easily sympathizing with others in the we-group because their/our pleasure is my own pleasure, their/our happiness is my happiness, their/our pain is my pain and their/our sorrow is my sorrow. This kind of mind-reading based on oneness is a distinctive mark of *jeong*. A theme song in an advertisement for *Chocopie*, a popular Korean cake snack, captures this trait well:

You don't have to say, I know. Through your eyes, I understand. By just looking at you, I know it in my heart. [*Orion Chocopie*], *Jeong* (情)3

2The Korean notion of we-ness discriminates "we" from others. We-group members are very intimate and kind to each other, but treat others differently. The barrier of the we-group varies with the group. The exclusivism of we-ness among Korean people is another subject to discuss.

<sup>3</sup> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lujrJt8O0Zg (accessed July 10, 2020). When this advertisement came out in 1989, it stimulated the nostalgia of the Korean people and remind The advertisement displays *jeong* relationships well as people express their *jeong* to others by giving *chocopies* instead of words. For example, an elementary student leaves an apology letter for his teacher along with a *chocopie* to express regret for his bad behavior; a niece sends her uncle off to military service with a *chocopie*; and a daughter leaves a thank-you card with a *chocopie* for her father. In this context, *jeong* is identifed with the heart; *jeong* is sharing hearts beyond words. This advertisement shows what *jeong* is in condensed form. *Jeong* is more than an individual emotion. It does not occur merely in the individual's heart, but in relationships among people. It is not only an emotion; it is an important value in Korean culture. It is tightly intertwined we-ness, even solidarity.

Scholars have different views of the dynamism between *jeong* and weness ("we-ism"). Christopher Chung and Samson Cho, state, "As *jeong* expands, a Korean culture-specifc 'we-ness' develops" (Chung and Cho 2006). Similarly, Choi Sang-Chin uses an analogy of frame and cement in a structure to explain this relationship: "We-ness gives a frame to a relationship, and *jeong* flls the empty areas so that the relationship can be built frmly" (Choi et al. 2000: 206). On the other hand, Choe Bongyeong, a scholar of Korean Studies, gives a compromise explanation. Though he emphasizes *jeong* as the way of being, he cannot ignore the strong we-ness in intimate relationships. In fact, the relationship between we-ness and *jeong* is like the problem of which came frst: the chicken or the egg. A strong sense of we-ness commonly makes it easier for *jeong* to arise; people open themselves up to one another and help one another without calculating benefts to themselves. This kind of action waters *jeong*, and as *jeong* slowly permeates people and their relationships, the sense of we-ness also grows stronger. Therefore, *jeong* and *we-ness* interact and grow mutually.

### 9.2 The *Jeong* World and the *Hanmaeum* World

Although many people agree that *jeong* is a crucial concept to understand Koreans, there are few works discussing *jeong* in Korean philosophical traditions. Choe Bongyeong states that Koreans live in a world of *jeong* where everything makes *jeong* relationship (Choe 1998: 40). Lee Gidong holds

the idea of a mind-reading characteristic of *jeong*. In 2002, however, the company twisted the advertisement. After the singing of "You don't have to say, I know," the advertisement says that "Nobody will know, if you don't say anything." This refects the change of relationship in Korea.

that *jeong* is warm-heartedness based on the thought of identifying oneself with others (Lee 2015: 103–104).

Choe has tried to explain *jeong* through linguistic analysis and Neo-Confucian philosophy. The linguistic evidence, the diverse *hanja* (漢字) characters with *jeong*, is used to support his argument that Koreans live in the world of *jeong*. He found terms such as 情況 정황 *jeonghwang* (circumstance), 情勢 정세 *jeongse* (situation), 同情 동정 *dongjeong* (sympathy), 情趣 정취 *jeongchui* (sentiment), and so on, and classifed words for the various characteristics of *jeong*: *yujeong* (유정有情; warm-heartedness) and *mujeong* (무정 無情; heartlessness); *sangjeong* (상정 常情; common feeling) and *bijeong* (비정 非情; ruthlessness); and *onjeong* (온정 溫情; tenderness) and *naengjeong* (냉정 冷情; cold-heartedness) (Choe 1998: 43–44). He explains the *jeong world* as follows:

This world consists of *mul-jeong* (물정 物情 thing-*jeong*) and s*a-jeong* (사정 事情 work-*jeong*). In this world, the principle of things (*muli* 물리 物理) becomes the innate nature (*bonseong* 본성 本性) of each thing, combines with matter (*mulgeon* 물건 物件), and manifests as a thing-jeong. The principle of case (*sali* 사리 事理) is embodied in a concrete case (*sageon* 사건 事 件) and becomes case-*jeong*. … In thing-*jeong* and case-*jeong*, human-*jeong* (*in-jeong* 인정人情) is the crucial element. Human-*jeong* is *jeong* expressed through humans. That is a part of thing-*jeongs*. Human-*jeong* has a special attribute, a distinguished ability to communicate with the world and have a subjective mind. Human can understand the nature of things and know how to use things in ways corresponding to their nature. On the basis of this knowledge, humans achieve goodness by expressing jeong properly in the situation. (Choe 1998: 44)

The world is classifed into things (物 *mul/wu*) and work or circumstances (事 *sa/shi*), and humans (人 *in/ren*), which belong to things. Interestingly, the Korean language adds the word *jeong* to those notions. Each word with *jeong* refers to a kind of emotion expressed through all sort of things, work, and humans. *Sajeong* is more like atmosphere or circumstance. Choe noticed this distinctive suffx and used it to support his argument that all beings have *jeong* and share it each other. Therefore, *Jeong* becomes the way of existence of all beings.

Further, Choe looked for its logical foundation in Neo-Confucian doctrines, especially *cheonin seongmyeong* (天人性命) and *igi seongjeong* (理氣 性情) (Choe 1998: 43). Though he proposes two sets of Neo-Confucian concepts, they originate from slightly different philosophical traditions. *Cheonin seongmyeong* (天人性命) is a phrase from the traditional Korean medical theory of *sasang euihak* (四象醫學; *Four constitutional medicine*), which was developed by Yi Jema 이제마 (1837–1900), a Neo-Confucian scholar.4 According to Yi Jema's "Seongmyeonglon 성명론 性命論," *heaven* (天*cheon/tian*) means fate given by heaven, *human* (人*in/ren*) refers to human works, *nature* (*seong/xing* 性) refers to the innate nature that human beings should acknowledge, and *life* (*myeong/ming*命) refers to deeds that human beings should practice. *Yigi seongjeong* (理氣性情), on the other hand, is an essential Neo-Confucian theory to explain the world and human beings (Yi, Seongmyeonglon). According to it, all beings are combinations of principle (理 *i/li*) and material force (氣 *gi/qi*). The basic Neo-Confucian doctrine is that "the human mind (*sim*/*xin*) integrates and commands human (innate) nature (性 *seong*/*xing*) and emotions (情 *jeong*/*qing*)." As for the relationship between the mind, the innate nature, and emotions, two leading Chinese Neo-Confucians developed different perspectives: Zhu Xi (朱熹; 1130–1200) argued that "human nature (性 *seong/xing*) is principle (理 *i/li*)" and the heart-mind (心 *sim/xin*) "integrates and commands" human (innate) nature and emotion (情 *jeong*/*qing*). By contrast, Wang Yangming (王陽明; 1472–1529) said that "the heart-mind (心 *sim/xin*) is principle" and emphasized its "innate knowledge of good" and its "innate ability to do good." For both thinkers, however, emotions/feelings (*jeong*/*qing*) such as joy, anger, sorrow, love, and desire represent "the aroused" state of the heart-mind."

So how do those neo-Confucian notions support the concepts of *jeong* and logically organize the world of *jeong*? Unfortunately, Choe does not explain this. From my point of view, those two sets of concepts show the connectedness and interactive relationship between the outer world and humans. In other words, humans and all other beings contain innate nature given by heaven and interact with each other. *Seong* and *jeong* are the common element that makes this interaction possible according to Neo-Confusion philosophy, but Choe seems to keep only *jeong* in that spot. Therefore, Choe argues, all beings have *jeong* and exchange *jeong* in their relationships.

4Yi Jema's Sasang Uikhak categorizes humans into four types: *teayangin* (太陽人; Greater yang person), *taeeumin* (太陰人; Greater yin person), *soyangin* (少陽人; Lesser yang person), *soeumin* (少陰人; Lesser yin person), and diagnoses disease and cure systems. This theory is the basis of traditional Korean medicine.

Unlike Choe, Lee Gidong, a scholar in Neo-Confucian studies, explains *jeong* in the context of *hanmaeum* world.

The *Jeong* culture is a phenomenon derived from Korean people's warmhearted mind. … Korean people's emotion places on the basic thought that you and I are oneness. A person who has this thought cares you more than oneself. Therefore, he/she feel the other's pain like his/hers, and the other's sorrow as his/her sorrow. … That person's mind is warmhearted. (Lee 2015: 103–104)

In Lee's explanation, *Jeong* is not a world but a culture. *Jeong* culture is based on warmhearted mind, and the warmhearted mind is based on the thought of oneness. The thought of oneness is another expression of "weism" and *hanmaeum*. The Korean people would express their strong weness status with the phrase "We are one" or "We are *hanmaeum"*; *Hanmaeum* (한마음) is a Korean translated term for *ilsim* (一心, one heart-mind) in classical Chinese. *Han* (한) means "one" and *maum* (마 음) means "heart-mind." "We are *hanmaeum*" means being different individuals but also one collective of human beings.

To highlight the Korean people's *hanmaeum* idea, he frst classifes people by two types as *hyangnae* (向內; inward) and *hyanwoe* (向外; outward). He, of course, stated Korean people in general are the inward type. Inward-type people are more interested in inward things like the mind whereas outward-type people are interested in outward things like the body. The inward type and the outward type have different perspectives of the way of beings. The body is the substantial part of existence to the outward type. Body is prior to mind. But *hanmaeum* (한마음, one heartmind) is the essence of being to the inward type. Body attaches to mind. Each person has a mind because one mind primarily exists (Lee 2015: 20). Because of those different views, outward types see each being as a separate individual, but inward types think strongly that we, human beings, are one, originating from one mind, as shown in Fig. 9.1.

**Fig. 9.1** Outward type. (Source: Lee 2015: 20, translated)

This diagram depicts human beings that each type views. Because people originally from one heart-mind, inward types have tendency to pursue this invisible root of the phenomenal world. Lee calls also one heavenly heart-mind (*Haneul-maum* 하늘마음) based on the thought that humans are not different from heaven (Lee 2016). Human mind contains the principle of heaven. This would be the reason Lee put one heart-mind on top instead of bottom in the diagram though he said one heart-mind is the root linking everyone's mind. In addition, he claims to recover the thought of one heart-mind. With returning to one heavenly heart-mind, we-ism will go to broader direction, and we-group becomes inclusive to outsiders of the group. This inclusive oneness and we-ism will improve the good aspect of *jeong,* an invisible hug as Daniel Tutor, a British journalist, praised (Tutor 2012).

Regardless of its limit of generalizing Korean characteristic, Lee's argument gives good picture to understand *jeong* in the relationship of we-ism, oneness, and one heart-mind: *Jeong* is caused by we-ism that comes from the idea that we share one heart-mind.

As mentioned above, when we discuss *jeong*, it always relates to Korean belief in "we-ism." Choe Bongyeong and Lee Gidong view the relationship among *jeong*, we-ness, and *hanmaeum* differently. Choe basically thinks that the *jeong* world is basis of the we-ness spirit of *hanmaeum,* while Lee believes that the idea of *hanmaeum* can form we-ness and *jeong*.

According to Choe, *Jeong* helps people construct a community of "we" or "we-ness." But there is an exception to this dynamism: "we" as a relational tie caused by *inyeon* (因緣) that could also form *jeong*. Choe borrows the Buddhist term *inyeon* to explain how family, the basic model of *jeong* relationships, can establish a we-community or a sense of we-ness prior to *jeong*.

In Buddhism, *inyeon* has been used to explain the patterns of existence of all beings. *In* (因) refers to "direct cause" and *yeon* (緣) to "indirect cause," the conditions of the cause. Apple trees produce apples because they originally come from apple seeds (the cause), but also because of other conditions such as dirt, sunlight, and water that they need to bear fruit. Likewise, everything exists or disappears because of its cause and conditions. *Inyeon* can give a comprehensible answer to why certain beings meet in certain places and times. In Korean culture, the concept of *inyeon* and the related term *karma* (self-determination) have slightly twisted meanings and connote a destined relationship. So *inyeon* could be used to explain the relationships given by heaven, which exist before *jeong*. Not only does *jeong* form we-ness, as Choe argues, but *inyeon* also forms communities of we-ness: families (because we can't choose our parents) in which *jeong* is activated.

Choe's approach defnes *jeong* not only as an emotion but also as a world where Korean people live in. Choe's argument is quite persuasive, but it is still controversial whether we can call the way of existence of all beings *jeong*.

On the other hand, Lee fnds the origin of *jeong* from *hanmaeum*. If we limit *jeong* to being cultural emotions among the Korean, Lee's view is more acceptable. Emotion arises from a certain faith or idea. Even though you and I are different individuals, we both have *hanmaeum* as human beings. That gives us the feeling that connects us to one another. In this sense, Lee calls Korea the nation of *hanmaeum*. He made a connection between *hanmaeum* and Confucianism without explaining where this idea came from. Then, where does the *hanmaeum* belief come from? I believe that Buddhism gives a clue to answering this question.

# 9.3 *Hanmaeum* (한마음; One Heart-mind) as the Foundation of *Jeong*

The term *hanmaeum* (한마음, one heart-mind) appears in the Buddhist scriptures to explain the original and fundamental basis of the human mind. However, this term was not used to explain the oneness of all beings until the contemporary period. In the 1980s, the Korean Buddhist nun Daehaeng (大行; 1927–2012) creatively constructed her *hanmaeum* thought, which is similar to but distinctive from Wonhyo's (元曉) notion of one heart-mind (*ilsim/yixin* 一心*)* by articulating the indigenous Korean term *hanmaeum* (한마음, one heart-mind). Her unique notion of *hanmaeum* provides deeper understanding of the foundation of *jeong* (정).

Daeheang is one of the most infuential Buddhist nuns in the popularization of Buddhist teachings in Korea. She introduced *hanmaeum* (one heart-mind) and *juingong* (주인공/主人空; the *sunyata* ̄ of self) as the two ̄ crucial terms in her teaching. Instead of using the Chinese word 一心 *ilsim/yixin* (one mind), Daehaeng uses the Korean translated word for 一 心 *ilsim/yixin*, *hanmaeum* (한마음) and explains it directly and simply. In *No River to Cross*, she defnes *hanmaeum* more specifcally: "*Han* means 'one, 'infnite, and 'combined,' and *maum* means 'mind.' *Hanmaeum* means 'the fundamental mind that is intangible, invisible, beyond time and space, and has no beginning or end'" (Daehaeng 2007: 9). On combining with the word "One (한 *han*)," *maum* comes to have the meaning that this mind is the one ground of beings. *Hanmaeum* is the fundamental mind that exists equally in all beings, and all beings are derived from it. To explain the concept, Daehaeng uses the analogy of a radish and the ocean:

With a radish, you can make soup, kimchi, and other dishes. The radish in those dishes is still radish. Like this, the origination of all dharmas is *hanmaeum* (Daehaeng 1993: 350). … All things in this world are subsumed into one heart-mind, like all streams become one in the ocean. *Hanmaeum* is the origination of all things and the home for them to come back to. (Daehaeng 1993: 314)

Similarly, all beings have *hanmaeum* and eventually return to it. *Hanmaeum* is infnite because it is not limited to time, space, or a single being. *Hanmaeum* exists beyond all kinds of limits and distinctions, as we see in the one mind discourse above, because it is the unconditioned one needed to support conditioned beings:

*Hanmaeum* is not a mind of this side or of that side. It is too enormous to say this side or that side. It exists obviously, but ineffably. One never can see *hanmaeum* if he/she sees it dividing into two categories such as this and that, a favorite thing and a disliked thing, and a great thing and a teeny thing. A practitioner should not look for the *hanmaeum* keeping on dividing things. He/she can become close to *hanmaeum* when he/she can embrace both sides. (Kim, 1986: 18)

Daehaeng instructs that *hanmaeum* exists beyond dualistic schemes, and a practitioner can perceive it only when ceasing dualistic thought. Distinction and separation are the basic brain functions of humankind. Minds discern all things through comparison and differentiation. For example, perceiving white paper against a whiteboard is more diffcult than perceiving white paper against a blackboard. If I cannot fnd the difference between my body and the outer world, then I cannot recognize myself. Without comparison, I cannot perceive what is big or small. Though that is the thought process of humans, Daehaeng suggests overcoming it and embracing both sides, as it is the characteristic of *hanmaeum* to be combined. *Hanmaeum* is interconnected wholeness, rather than an independent entity. All beings are combined with each other in *hanmaeum*, which is intangible and invisible. It also prevails in everything: "No one owns *hanmaeum* by oneself alone. *Hanmaeum* is for all living things and is all sentient beings' mind. *Hanmaeum* is wholeness. It is immense and spacious like space" (Daehaeng 1993: 664).

All beings are originated from *hanmaeum*. That means all beings are sharing *hanmaeum* with each other and are interconnected like in Lee's *hanmaeum* world. Though Lee's theory only explains human relationship, Daehaeng embraces all beings' relationship. The term *juingong* in her teaching reveals this relationship more clearly.

When *hanmaeum* is embodied and realized in oneself, it becomes *juingong* (주인공/主人空; the *sunyata* ̄ of self), one person's ̄ *hanmaeum*. In Seon Buddhism, *juingong* refers to the true self, the master of oneself5:

Why is it called *juingong*? It is the doer, so it is called *juin* (主人, master/ subject of actions), and it is empty, always changing with no fxed shape, so it is called *gong* (空, emptiness). Thus, *juingong* means your fundamental, profound, which is always changing and manifesting. (Daehaeng 2014: 10)

She uses the term *juin* (the master) not only because it is the doer but also because one's body is a community of all its cells, and *juingong* is the subject who leads them (Daehaeng 1993: 380). Therefore, we can translate *juingong* into "empty-doer" or "changing-doer (impermanent self)." In Daehaeng's teachings, the meaning of emptiness is fexibility and freedom. As water changes its shape to fll the space of its container, so does *juingong*. Indeed, *hanamaum* and *juingong* are essentially identical. So, *juingong* shares traits with *hanmaeum*:

*Juingong* is bright, eternal and ultimate. *Juingong* exists before the beginning of the world, and it does not perish even though the universe collapses and space disappears. *Juingong* is also called *hanmaeum* (Daehaeng 1993: 318). Both *hanmaeum* and *juingong* are the fundamental mind; but, unlike *hanmaeum*, *juingong* plays a role as the hub to connect all beings: "*Juingong* is the fundamental mind with which each one of us is inherently endowed and the mind that is directly connected to

<sup>5</sup> *Juingong* is a concept calling the true self in *Seon* Buddhism. The conventional meaning of the Korean word 주인공 is *juingong* (主人公), with the *hanja* 公 meaning fairness or public, often used as suffx to respect. The term 주인공 *juingong* (主人公) with 公 means protagonist in English. Daehaeng replaced the hanja 公 with a homonym 空 (*gong/sunyata* ̄ , ̄ emptiness), in order to emphasize its empty nature. Her genius neologism of playing with two homonyms transforms the meaning of the Korean word *juingong* (주인공) from a fxed being/attached self to a true self, by emptying practice.

every single thing (Daehaeng 2007: 10)." *Hanmaeum* is the metaphysical basis while *juingong* is the subject of practice within with individuals. Daehaeng metaphorically compared *Hanmaeum* with the moon on the sky, and *juingong* with the moon refected on the thousand rivers.

The basic structure of *hanmaeum* and *juingong* is similar to Lee's "one heart-mind" and "mind" in Fig. 9.2 (inward type), which shows each human being has a mind that is derived from one mind. With this universal one mind, each being is connected to the other. However, *hanmaeum* thought offers a more delicate analysis. It subdivides an individual's mind into *juingong* and consciousness. "A human being is the result of three things: the eternal foundation, consciousness, and the fesh" (Daehaeng 2007: 12). "Eternal foundation" refers to *juingong* as the source of life; "consciousness" is the mind, for discernment and discrimination; "fesh" is the body. The three aspects work together harmoniously, causing life. Daehaeng explains this using the analogy of a cart pulled by a cow (Daehaeng 1993: 386). The cart is fesh. The coachman is consciousness. The cow is *juingong*. What we think of as "self" is the combination of consciousness and fesh. Ordinary people feel that consciousness—the coachman—is the center of the self and leads the cart. However, the real master is the cow—*juingong*, eternal foundation. The cow knows best where it should go; therefore, letting the cow lead is the best way to live. *Juingong* as the shared *hanmaeum*, is the master of self. This thought emphasizes the intimate connections of *hanmaeum* and the individual.

The *Hwaeom* (*Huayan* 華嚴; *Flower Garland*) Buddhist teaching, "one is in all; all are in one," supports the intimate connections of *hanmaeum* and individual. This tenet is based on a dependent arising worldview of Buddhism. Everything and everyone is interconnected, interdependent, and interrelated like Indra's net. Indra is a thunder god who owns a vast net in which the strands are joined together by jewels. When light refects onto one of the jewels, the same light is refected and re-refected endlessly

throughout the expanse of the net. We can apply this to the example of a fower and the whole universe. A fower is interconnected with the whole universe, and the whole universe is within one fower. How could this be? We just see one fower, but there are unrevealed factors and efforts that allowed it to exist. A blooming fower needs a seed, soil, water, the light of the sun, time, a farmer's labor, and so on. *Hanmaeum* is manifested in each being as *juingong*, and *juingong* in individuals is within *hanmaeum.* Like the metaphor of Indra's net, all beings are interconnected through *juingong* and *hanmaeum*. So, they are one connected becoming rather than separated beings.

This interconnection through *hanmaeum* can strengthen the sense of we-ness and further *jeong*-relationship. As we see in the Lee Gidong's arguments, *jeong* is a result of we-ism (we-ness) and we-ism roots into the thought of one heart-mind. Adding Daehaeng's explanation to this structure is like watering a plant called *hanmaeum* idea.

Daehaeng's unique *hanmaeum* teaching with fve commensal teaching (*ogongbeop* 오공법五共法) presents the world as the *hanmaeum* world. *Ogongbeop* elucidates the meaning of *hanmaeum* by using fve aspects. I would call it "the together teaching": living together (*gongsaeng* 공생 共 生), mind together (*gongsim* 공심 共心), essence/body together (*gongche* 공체 共體), function together (*gongyong* 공용 共用), and eating together (*gongsik* 공식 共食).

Living together means a sentient being does not live by itself; it lives together with others. Mind together means all sentient beings are from *hanmaeum*, and shares the same universal mind. With this "mind together," no discrimination occurs between my mind and others—in other words, the self and others. Essence and function are a paired category of the concept of mind. Sentient beings' essence is the same as *hanmaeum*, and they manifest together. Belonging to the same essence together denotes also sharing its body together as one body, because its character, *che* (체 體), means body as well. Daehaeng sees all cells as sentient beings, and says that each person's body is full of sentient beings (Daehaeng 1993: 380), which means that beings share one body together. Function (*yong* 용 用) in functioning together (*gongyong* 공용 共用) means actions and their effects. Sentient beings are based on the same mind and the same essence, so their actions infuence each other. For instance, my action of drinking infuences others as well as myself. If I do good to others or to myself, it affects all beings including myself. This is because all beings are interconnected. Functioning together also means working together.

The meaning of functioning together is clearer when looking at it in relation to sharing together. The word she uses for sharing is "eating" (*sik* 식 食). Eating has several connotations. The action of eating is that of obtaining energy from other sentient beings' lives. We live in a world of many food chains. From the perspective of the food, food is eaten and feeds people. Among interconnected relationships, all sentient beings feed each other. In addition, when one eats a meal with others, one is sharing. The word *sik* gives a more vivid picture of interconnection in the world than the picture that is offered by traditional Buddhist terms such as "*dharma* realm" and "dependent arising." Daehaeng explains this interconnected existence mechanism as follows:

The universal dharma realm always turns around without discrimination between Self and others.6 All things in the one *dharma* web work relatively. Therefore, all things that I do were not done by myself but done with all others in the universal dharma realm. For example, I earn money not all by myself but with all other beings in the universe. If there were no one, could I earn even a penny? I can do something because all things work together. Therefore, I naturally save others' lives by living my life. I do not live and eat by myself, but live and eat together with others and the universe. (Daehaeng 1993: 577–578)

This "together teaching" clarifes Daehaeng's *hanmaeum* world. The key point of the *hanmaeum* world is "togetherness." Living together gives the big picture of togetherness. Then, the next three aspects—mind, essence, and function—are analyzed in conjunction from three perspectives. Sharing together wraps up Daehaeng's together teaching. Sentient beings live together and are originated equally from *hanmaeum*. They share mind and body together and work with all others. This mechanism is called "sharing together." Others and I are one, and live together in an interconnected relationship.

In Daehaeng's *hanmaeum* world, all beings live together based on *hanmaeum*. It is similar to Choe Bongyeong's "*jeong* world," where all beings live by sharing *jeong* together. Both worlds emphasize the intimate

<sup>6</sup>The dharma realm is the true world behind phenomena. The 'dharma web' is a different expression for the dharma realm. It is a web because the world is interconnected in complicated ways.

interaction among all beings. Of course, they have differences. *Hanmaeum* is the origination of all beings, while *jeong* is the way of existence of all beings. Daehaeng's *hanmaeum* thought supports the sense of we-ness and the *jeong* relationship vertically and horizontally. Vertically, *hanmaeum* is the root of all beings who share it as the same foundation. So, they are not separated from one another but have a connected "we." Horizontally, all beings who live in the world of *hanmaeum* exist interdependently but they share the same fundamental mind, live as a connected body, work together, infuence each other, and live together. The *hanmaeum* world is one intertwined whole, and individual beings are the parts of this web-like we-world.

Although Daehaeng started her unique notion of *hanmaeum*, it originated from the traditional Buddhist teaching of "one heart-mind" (一心) in *The Awakening of Mahaya*̄ *na Faith* ̄ (*Daeseunggisillon* 대승기신론 大乘 起信論), a crucial treatise in Chinese Buddhism.7 The concept of one heart-mind was noted by Wonhyo, a prominent Korean Buddhist scholar in the *Silla* Dynasty (57 BCE–935 CE). Contemporary Buddhist scholars claim that the concept of one mind is one of the most important terms to understand in Wonhyo's philosophy. This indirectly shows how deep the *hanmaeum* idea is rooted in Korean people's thought.

Like Daehaeng's *hanmaeum,* one heart-mind is the metaphysical basis of all beings. The innate nature of all beings. In his commentary on *The Awakening of Faith in the Mahaya*̄ *na,* ̄ Wonhyo states: "all phenomena do not have innate nature (*seong/xing* 性) separately and [take] the one mind for their innate nature" (Wonhyo, T44: 206).

"All phenomena" is another way to express "all beings" in Buddhism. To understand it, think about the relationship between the metaphysical basis and all beings. All beings are conditions of others' existences. "I" exists because there is "you." We can recognize white, because there is black. If there is no "you," and all being is "I," then "I" cannot be

<sup>7</sup>*The Awakening of Mahaya*̄ *na Faith* ̄ (大乘起信論) is a book discussing the essential teachings of Mahāyāna Buddhism. It was written by Asvaghos ́ a, an Indian Buddhist scholar. It ̣ explains the aspects and attributes of one mind, the original status of being, and instructs the reader on the way to attain enlightenment, which means restoring the Buddha-mind, the original status of one mind. The one mind has an untainted part and tainted parts, and the untainted part should be purifed. To do that, the book proposes four faiths, *bodhisattva* practices, and chanting *Amitabuddha*. The four faiths are the belief in the original status, Buddha, Buddhist teaching, and Buddhist practitioners. The *bodhisattva* practices include generosity, proper conduct, endurance, wisdom, and meditation. Wonhyo's two books are the most popular commentary on this text.

recognized. If there is only the color white in the world, we cannot conceptualize white. We recognize X because of not-X, and the borderline between X and not-X. Therefore, all beings are limited and conditioned. In this limited world, humans look for unlimited and unconditioned things, because logically conditioned beings, including humans, can exist when the unconditioned exist. That is the metaphysical basis. Depending on philosophical tradition, philosophers look for it outside the limited world, inside the limited world, or in human beings. They call it God, Dao, Buddha nature, or one mind. This unlimited "one" manifests through conditioned beings, because the unlimited and the unconditioned cannot be perceived.

The interdependent relationship between the conditioned beings and the unconditioned is another expression of *juingong* and *hanmaeum*. Like their connected relationship added water to the *hanmaeum* idea, Wonhyo's arguments proves how deep the source of water. Wonhyo holds that one heart-mind is the innate nature of all beings as well as the original mind of human beings.

The term "one heart-mind" unifes and sums up all discourse on the metaphysical basis Buddhism. Wonhyo equates one heart-mind with several Buddhist terms such as "real states of beings," "suchness," "Buddha nature," "storehouse consciousness," "pure consciousness," and "Buddha womb" (T45 227c-228a). The unconditioned is the real states of all phenomena. It can be considered as emptiness (*sunyata* ̄ , ̄空 *gong*), because in Mahāyāna Buddhism, emptiness is a major term used to explain the metaphysical basis of existence. Wonhyo holds that it is not the same as emptiness, because the unconditioned has the faculty of inexplicable intelligence. So, it is called "mind" instead of emptiness.

In the early stage of Buddhist teachings, "non-self" (*anatta*) was put ̄ forth. "Non-self" means that nothing can exist independently or have any fxed, separated substance apart from others. Emptiness is another expression for non-self. Designating emptiness for the unconditioned thing is good for healing the suffering caused by strong attachment to objects and to self. If all beings' innate nature, including self, is empty, there is nothing to cling to, causing good or bad emotions/feelings. Then, there is no way to suffer. However, the unconditioned thing manifests through conditioned things, so it cannot be totally empty. The Yogācāra school acknowledges this ineffable function of the unconditioned and calls it "storehouse" or "pure" consciousness. Both emptiness and consciousness are two faces of the unconditioned one.

*The Awakening of Faith in Mahaya*̄ *na*̄ integrates these discourses into a structure made up of one heart-mind and its two aspects. One heart-mind has the aspect of "suchness" and the aspect of rising and ceasing. The aspect of suchness refers to the emptiness of the unconditioned thing. The aspect of rising and ceasing refers to the consciousness part, which has ineffable function.

The discourse on one heart-mind gives us an idea of how to see the world and individuals as "one connected being." One heart-mind is the metaphysical basis of all beings. It means that all beings including humans are originated from one heart-mind, though they all appear to be separate. However, people do not acknowledge that they are from one origin, and fght each other, thinking they are separate beings. Therefore, Wonhyo given the philosophy of *The Awakening of Faith in Maha*̄*ya*̄*na* teaches people to return to one mind, and then to beneft others. Likewise, Buddhist doctrine of one heart-mind offers more densely interconnected world view on the world as well as supports Korean people's mind longing for oneness. Korean's *jeong* culture is established on this world view.

### 9.4 Conclusion

*Jeong*, a moral, social, and cultural emotion of the Korean people, is based on the Korean Confucian notion of "we-ness (we-ism)" and this we-ness is derived from their common belief that "we are *hanmaeum* (one heartmind)." The idea of *hanmaeum* originated from Korean Buddhism such as Wonhyo's thought and Daehaeng's contemporary teaching though it has not been noticed.

The Buddhist understanding of *hanmaum* frms the ground of *jeong and makes the jeong relationship more inclusive*. *Hanmaeum* is the origin and foundation of all beings that root on. This one universal mind prevails throughout the whole world, exists in all beings, and makes them connected and interdependent. The whole world's interconnecting of all beings through *hanmaeum* is like an intertwined web. Daehaeng's *hanmaeum* thought explains it through her teaching of togetherness. All beings live together, share the mind and body, work together, and feed one another in the web of life relationships. In this interaction, the meaning of "we-ism" can be strengthened, and the *jeong* relationship can be expanded to all beings.

Along with changing with time, *jeong* culture has been dimmed and redefned today to mean emotions in an old-fashioned relationship. It is because, in my view, the jeong relationship has been narrowed down to its signifcance of oneness or intimate relationships, and its problematic aspect of exclusivism is often noticed. However, with the Buddhist understanding of hanmaeum, the culture of jeong could overcome the exclusiveness of "we-groups" by sharing the one universal mind with all beings and promote the present and future welling of Korean and global society.

### References

Yi Jema李濟馬, Donguisusebowon東醫壽世保元 Vol.1 Seongmyeonglon性命論. Wonhyo, 元曉, *Gisinlonso*起信論疏 T44, No.1844.


#### Further Reading


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Resentment and Gratitude in Won Buddhism

### *Chung Nam Ha*

### 10.1 Introduction

This chapter attempts to show how the emotion of resentment is the ground for the morality of Won Buddhism.1 The main point of the chapter is to show how resentment is the cause of all suffering, individual and collective, and to show how the ethics of Won Buddhism teaches to remove the resentment by the morality of benefcence requital.

Sotaesan looked around with his enlightened eyes and diagnosed that human sufferings were caused by expansion of material civilization stimulating one's selfsh craving for material things so that one lost the moral sense and endured shame. Further, he focused on the emotion of "resentment" (*wonmang* 원망) as the main cause of discord and troubles in family, society, and nation. He stated:

1For the introduction to Won Buddhism, see Bongkil Chung, trans. *The Scriptures of Won Buddhism* (2003).

C. N. Ha (\*)

279

Won Institute of Graduate Studies, Won Buddhist Studies Institute, Won Buddhist Studies Institute, Warminster, PA, USA e-mail: chungnam.ha@woninstitute.edu

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_10

First, people are ill with money. For those who feel it necessary to have money to satisfy all their desires for pleasure, money is more precious than integrity and honor so that they lose their moral sense and friendliness. This is indeed a serious moral illness. Secondly, people are afficted with the moral illness of resentment. People as individuals or as members of a family, a society, or a nation fnd fault with others without recognizing their own faults. They forget indebtedness to others without forgetting their favors to others, hating and resenting each other with no end to minor and serious conficts. This is indeed a serious illness. (Chung 2003: 192–193)

As Sotaesan said, moral sensitivity and friendliness (*jeongui* 情誼) in the family and society can be destroyed by selfsh craving and resentment that can lead people in human societies to suffering and misery. Resentment means that people fnd fault with others without recognizing their own faults. Thus, the moral illness of resentment can be the cause of conficts and wars between individuals and nations.

In the above passage, Sotaesan pointed out "ill with money" and the "illness of resentment" as the most serious moral illness. To overcome two main moral illnesses is to save people from ailing societies by recovering benevolence (*in* 仁) and righteousness (*ui* 義). By recovering benevolence and righteousness the human societies can recover the moral sensitivity and friendliness in family life and among other social groups. Sotaesan said,

Benevolence (仁) and righteousness (義)2 are the main principles of morality; trickery is not. It is a matter of necessary course, therefore, that human spirit should rule over all material things and that the moral principles of benevolence and righteousness should rule human conduct. Recently, however, the main moral principles have been ignored, and trickery is rampant. Thus, the supreme morality has been abnegated. At this critical time, we ought to act in concert and agreement in order to rectify the public morality, which is declining daily. You should understand this point and thereby prepare to be the founders of a great new religious order. (Chung 2003: 168)

Jeungsan Kang Ilsun (증산 강일순, 1871–1909), one of the founders of new religions in Korea, also focused on resentment (*wonmang* 원망) as the main problem of all human societies. According to Jeungsan, the

<sup>2</sup>Benevolence and righteousness are the core values of morality in Confucianism. According to Mencius "Benevolence (*in* 仁) is the tranquil habitation of man, and righteousness (*ui* 義) is his straight path" (Legge 2020: 418).

resolution of grudges was an important goal of his new religion, *Jeungsangyo* (증산교). He pointed out that resentment was caused by discriminations between men and women, between nobles and commoners, and so on. He pointed out that the suppressed ones like women, commoners, or illegitimate sons kept resentment in their heart for a long time. Because all human societies were covered by resentment, the future human societies, without resolution of grudges, would not be safe or in peace (Chung 2003: 25).

Sotaesan seriously considered the Buddhist teaching of the law of causality that helps sentient beings to seek liberation and accomplishing Buddhahood. According to Buddhism, one's own happiness or unhappiness depends on having right views of life and the world and cultivating one's moral-spiritual ability. Sotaesan emphasized the essential Buddhist teaching as the important method to help people while he criticized the other worldly teaching of the Buddhist tradition. He had a plan to open a new order with the basic tenet of the Buddhist teaching.

The general doctrine of Won Buddhism is outlined according to its four general principles: "correct enlightenment and right practice, awareness and requital of benefcence, practical applications of Buddha-*dharma*, and selfess service for the public" (Chung 2003: 118). Sotaesan aimed at two goals through the general doctrine: delivering all sentient beings and remedying the world's illness. Correct enlightenment and right practice is the essential way for delivering all sentient beings; awareness and requital of benefcence is the essential way for remedying the world's illness (Chung 2003: 65–101).

# 10.2 The Mind and the Emotions of Resentment and Gratitude in Won Buddhism

To elucidate the role of emotions according to Won Buddhism, it is therefore crucial to understand the ideas of human nature in Buddhism and other religion like Confucianism which have great infuence on Won Buddhism. Won Buddhism is known as a reformed Buddhism that maintains the essential Buddhist teachings. This study focuses on how Won Buddhism deals with the emotions of craving (*tamyog* 탐욕) and resentment (*wonmang* 원망) and how Sotaesan's teaching of delivering all sentient beings and healing the sickness of society. Even though Won Buddhism also emphasizes the main Buddhist teaching, its doctrine of "gratitude" (*gamsasim* 감사심) helps one realize the fundamental benefcence of all beings in the world. Gratitude is a unique, emotional, and moral-religious element in Won Buddhism, which distinguishes this new Buddhism from mainstream Buddhism.

The beginning chapter of the *Doctrine of the Mean* also talks about emotions (Legge 2020: 15) by emphasizing the "arousal" of emotions/ feelings (*jeong/qing* 情) and the importance of emotional control and harmony for the Confucian path of self-cultivation.

Confucius also said, "By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart" (Legge 2020: 237–238). This verse means that since human nature is conferred by Heaven, it is common among all human beings. Both Confucius and Sotaesan viewed the relationship between human nature and emotions non-dualistically. The Confucian way of the exemplary person (*gunja*/*junzi* 君子) makes human nature function timely through self-cultivation. It is the way of benevolence and righteousness. Benevolence means to serve family and relatives, which means love between husband and wife, between parents and children, between siblings, and between sovereign and minister. Righteousness means venerating the virtuous and the wise, which means it is the essential way to govern the nation.

Won Buddhism shares the principle of human nature with Confucianism. As I stated above, both teachings focus on how to discipline and transform one's mind to develop one's virtues like benevolence and wisdom; practice moral emotions such as benevolence; and to maintain one's life better or more meaningfully with others and society. Neo-Confucianists further developed the nature (*seong* 性) and emotions (*jeong* 情) in the *Doctrine of the Means* into *Four-Seven debates* (*sadanchiljeong* 四七論爭),3 the principle (*i* 理) and the dynamic force (*gi* 氣), and the nature and emotions. In this chapter, I will not treat these issues in detail. Four-seven debates and the theory of the principle and the dynamic force are different from Buddhist teaching.

Won Buddhist teachings were infuenced by Buddhist essential teaching as well as by Confucianism. Sotaesan was deeply impressed with the excellent method of Buddhism for seeing the problems of the human mind and the way to discipline the mind. He focused especially on the *Diamond* 

<sup>3</sup>An excellent source for the Four-Seven Debate, See Michael C. Kalton, et al. *The Four-Seven Debate* (1994).

*Sutra* as the most essential Buddhist teaching to remove one's mental delusion and affictions and to reach enlightenment (*nirvan*̄ *a*̧ ).

In Buddhist psychology, the main cause of the human predicament is the three poisoned minds or the three roots of evil (Sanskrit, *akusalamula*̄ or *kilesa*́), greed (*raga*), anger (*dvesa*̣ ), and delusion (*moha*). On the other hand, three roots of good (*kusala-mula*̄ or *akilesa*́) are being nongreed (*araga*̄ ), non-hatred (*advesa*̣ ), and non-delusion (*amoha*). *Kusala* and *akusala* mean wholesome and unwholesome: *kilesa* and *akilesa* mean deflement and un-deflement. *Kilesa* (deflement) is negative psychological term. Three roots of good are expressed in a positive form which corresponds to unselfshness, benevolence, and understanding.

Craving and resentment which Sotaesan focused on as the main cause of human predicaments belonged to main poisoned minds with delusion in Buddhism. According to Yogacara Buddhism, there are two hindrances (*avaran* ̄ ̣*a*) such as affictive hindrances (*klesa-a* ́ *varan* ̄ ̣*a*) and cognitive hindrances (*jñeya- avaran* ̄ ̣*a*). For example, craving and resentment are the affictive (or emotional) hindrance and delusion or ignorance is the cognitive (intellectual) hindrance. Craving and resentment are based on delusion or ignorance.

If one does not overcome the three poisoned minds which will infuence one's personality, one cannot escape twelve dependent originations, namely the rebirth cycle (*sam*̣*sara*̄ , suffering sea). To overcome the three poisoned minds one has to practice the eight-fold noble path, which are right view, right intention, right speech, right activity, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. The Eight-fold Path is summarized as the three-fold practice, *S*́ *ıla*̄ (*gye* 戒), *Samadhi* ̄ (*jeong* 定), and *Prajña* (̄ *hye* 慧). Delusion (*moha*) (or ignorance*, avidya*) is ̄ the most fundamental root cause of continued involvement in *sam*̣*sara.* ̄ Craving and aversion are considered as emotions rooted in ignorance. 'Ignorance' is the erroneous attachment to the notion of 'self'.

According to Buddha's teaching, there is 'no-self' (Sanskrit, *asvabhava*̄ ), and self is no other than fve aggregates (五蘊: Sanskrit, *pañca skandha*) which are form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, and consciousness. *Svabhava*̄ means intrinsic nature or self-being or own-self and *asvabhava*̄ means no-self. What one imagines the idea of 'self' is dependent originations of fve elements, and it is not fxed and just eternal fows which one cannot grasp self. In *Abhidharmakosa*, fve aggregates are analyzed into seventy-fve elements (*dharmas*) and mental faculties divided into general functions, general functions of Good, general functions of deflement, general functions of evil, minor functions of deflement, and indeterminate functions (Stcherbatsky 2001: 100; Takakusu 1956: 73). In Mahayana Buddhism, ignorance or delusion is considered as the hidden and fundamental cause of all human problems. It is said that Buddha and high-level Bodhisattvas can break through intellectual hindrance only through *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ (perfection of wisdom). Therefore, masters of Zen ̄ Buddhism emphasize enlightenment.

Sotaesan agreed with the essential Buddhist teaching of "no-self" and "impermanence." He also saw three poisoned minds as the root of human sufferings and the fundamental root as the misconception of "self." Thus, he adapted the Buddhist teachings while he emphasized on "correct enlightenment and right practice." Sotaesan's concern on the heart of Buddhist teaching was *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ which is the most important idea ̄ in Mahayana Buddhism. He admired greatly on *Diamond Sutra*, one of *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ literatures. ̄ *Heart Sutra* (반야심경, Sanskrit; *Prajñapa*̄ *ramita* ̄ *hr*̄ ̣*daya Sutra)* ̄ and *Diamond Sutra*̄ (금강경, Sanskrit; *Vajracchedika Prajña* ̄ *pa*̄ *ramita* ̄ *Su* ̄ *tra*̄ ) are the most popular sutras in all Mahayana Buddhist schools including Won Buddhism. According to *Diamond Sutra*, "by detachment from appearances, remain none attachment. You should see all compounded dharmas are like a dream, a mirage, a bubble, and a shadow; they are like dew and like lightening" (*Diamond Sutra* 32). If one understands that all things are not real and may not attach to any situations, one's craving and resentment will disappear naturally. One's ignorance comes from misunderstanding or misconception of self (*a* 我 as subject) and things (*beop* 法, appearance as objects). Through *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ practice, one should be free from two attachments of self ̄ and things, and then one can be free from rebirth cycle.

While the theory of mind and human nature (*simseongnon* 심성론) in Confucianism focused on how to be moral men, Buddhist teachings focused on how to achieve *nirvan*̣̄*a* from rebirth cycle or sea of suffering (*sam*̣*sara*̄ ). Confucianism aimed at the ideal nation with moral virtues through the rectifcation of names: "There is government, when the prince is prince, and minister is minister; when the father is father, and the son is son" (Legge 2020: 168). Therefore, Confucian scholars criticized Buddhism because Buddhist practitioners, to pursue their own *nirvan*̣̄*a*, renounced family duties and worldly duties.

However, Sotaesan thought Buddhism as the important teaching to discipline one's mind and emotion and *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ as the excellent ̄ wisdom to destroy all delusions such as individual and collective egoisms while he focused on the ideal man and society with moral virtues in *Confucian* teachings. He tried to synthesize two teachings for delivering sentient beings and remedying ailing society.

Without controlling one's three poisons of mind, one cannot expect the ideal society with moral virtues such as benevolence and righteousness. Sotaesan taught that Won Buddhists must learn Buddha *dharma* to apply in our daily life. Whenever one faces adverse conditions, one must discipline one's mind with *samadhi*, *prajna*, and *sila*. "Practical application of Buddha *dharma*" (Chung 2003: 118–119) in Won Buddhism is to change the other world centered Buddhism into this world centered Buddhism.

# 10.3 How to Recover Moral Sensitivity and Friendliness (*Jeongui* 情誼)

Sotaesan foresaw, that given the continuing expansion of scientifc civilization and modern conveniences, human craving and competition become increasingly serious. Even though humans enjoy material blessing and convenience, their anxiety and stress increase and escalate. Sotaesan, with his enlightened eyes, observed the human society in the world and thus said to his disciples, "As material power is unfolding, let us unfold our spiritual power accordingly" (Chung 2003: 114). This teaching became the founding motto of Won Buddhism for the new world order. "Spiritual power" means the power of morality which humans must develop not to be blinded by our selfsh desire to obtain whatever we wish. Sotaesan worried that the human spirit and moral principles become weakened by the material power and, as a result, more serious problems could arise in human societies. He said:

As a result of scientifc advancement, the ability of human spirit to make use of material things has gradually weakened while the power of material things that human beings make use of has daily grown stronger, conquering the weakened spirit of humankind and thereby bringing the latter under its rule. With human beings enslaved to material things, how can they avoid suffering in the bitter seas of misery? The founding motive of this religious order is to lead all sentient beings suffering in the bitter seas of misery to a vast immeasurable paradise by expanding spiritual power and thereby subjugating the material power through faith in truthful religion and training in sound morality. (Chung 2003: 117–8)

Sotaesan pointed out two causes of resentment in human societies. First, resentments are caused by discrimination between nobles and commoners, between a legitimate child and illegitimate one, between the aged and the young, between man and woman, and between races. Discriminations were the most serious problems in past societies and cultures including the past Korean society. Secondly, antagonism between the strong and the weak was the important causes of resentments. Sotaesan further pointed out resentments as cause of the world war,

For a long time, the strong and the weak have developed antagonism against each other, and there have been severe discriminations among people, so that countless people have built up grudges and resentments against oppression and humiliation. As a result, a great war will break out, and, thereafter, human intelligence will gradually advance so that individuals and nations will help each other, become friends and understand each other; they will not infringe on each other's sovereignty. (Chung 2003: 308)

Sotaesan, on the other hand, explicated the "Way of Progress for the Strong and the Weak":

The strong can remain strong forever by helping the weak grow strong on the principle of mutual beneft when the strong treat the weak. The weak can grow strong, improving themselves from the position of the weak to the position of the strong, by taking the strong as their guide and patiently coping with hardships of any kind. (Chung 2003: 160–161)

At this point, one can recall Reinhold Niebuhr, the American Reformed theologian and ethicist, in comparison with Sotaesan. In his *magna opus*, *Moral Man and Immoral Society* (1960: xi–xii), Niebuhr pointed out collective egoism as more serious moral problems than individuals' egoism. Individuals might be selfsh by one's egoism but can recover one's moral sensitivity when one could be aware of one's immoral action. Moral sensitivity is to consider the other's needs with one's own needs. "Moralists, whether religious or rational, did not understand the brutal character of the behavior of all human collectives, and the power of self-interest and collective egoism in all inter group relations" (Niebuhr 1960: xx). And he saw that inter-group conficts could not be solved by ethics.

This relationship between groups must therefore always be predominantly political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proportion of power which each group possesses at least as much as by any rational and moral appraisal of the comparative needs and claims of each group. (Niebuhr 1960: xxiii)

In the contrast to Niebuhr, Sotaesan had a vision to remedy ill society with benevolence and righteousness: his vision was to recover organic relations to our fellow beings by awakening the four benefcences (*saeun* 四 恩). While Niebuhr was neglected to solve the inter-group conficts by ethics, Sotaesan had a great prescription to recover from social illnesses by awakening the fundamental benefcences.

Sotaesan's main concern was how to recover moral sensitivity and friendliness in human societies. He was thinking that moral illnesses in human societies should be cured by proper moral methods. That is why Sotaesan planned to open a new order for the beneft of all humanity as human beings. He did not give up people to lament for their misfortunes without knowing the reasons and to be frustrated in the face of their bad fates. He emphasized to his followers that one had the responsibility for one's fate and one's fate depended on functions of one's mind and body. He encouraged people to recover moral sensitivity and friendliness in human societies.

While Niebuhr revealed all problems between social groups in *Moral Man and Immoral Society*, Sotaesan pointed out resentment as the fundamental cause of human predicaments. Sotaesan suggested the prescription to solve conficts of individual and inter-group relations among human societies. The prescription is "correct enlightenment and right practice" and "awareness and requital of benefcence," which show Sotaesan's two goals, namely "delivering sentient beings and curing the world of illness" (Chung 2003: 65, 218). While "correct enlightenment" is for "delivering sentient beings," "awareness and requital of benefcence" is for "curing the world of illness."

According to Jeungsan, the teaching of the four-fold benefcence was not just to cure the moral illness caused by resentment. Sotaesan's intention was also to reveal mainly "the way of reciprocal benefaction among the various truths of the universe and thereby elucidated the fact that we owe our lives to the four-fold benefcence" (Chung 2012: 137). Hence, one should realize that the tenet of the four-fold benefcence, Grand Master Sotaesan's way of reciprocal benefaction, is the greatest way to deliver all sentient beings, and that the principle of requital of the four-fold benefcence is the greatest fundamental power by which the world may be kept in peace (Chung 2012: 136–137).

The four-fold benefcence means benefcences of heaven and earth (*cheonjieun* 천지은), parents (*bumoeun* 부모은), fellow beings (*dongpoeun* 동포은), and laws (*beoblyuleun* 법률은) in Won Buddhism (Chung 2003: 124–131). Fellow beings cover not only human beings but also all beings in the universe like animals and plants. Laws mean "the principle of fairness for the sake of morality and justice" and include religious and moral principles as well as social institutions, legislation, and all civil laws (Chung 2003: 130).

If people do not understand the principle of the four-fold benefcence, they can be afficted with the moral illness of resentment. Daesan (大山, 1914–1998), said, "All things in the universe can exist by the four-fold benefcence; by understanding the principle of 'benefcence' one can maintain friendly feeling and by friendly feeling one can keep moral sense."4 We therefore need to note that Won Buddhism emphasizes beneficence as the ground of a good moral emotion like friendliness and gratitude.

However, even though one understands that one cannot exist without the four-fold benefcence, one may not feel motivated to do something out of the duty to requite benefcence. How does Won Buddhism help people to feel grateful to the four-fold benefcence and to requite them? Sotaesan revealed four benefcences of heaven and earth, parents, fellow beings, and laws through the principle of indebtedness, the details of indebtedness, the principle of requiting benefcence, and the details of requiting the benefcence. Let's see the "benefcence of fellow beings" (or brethren, 동포은) in *the Canon* as one example:

In "the principle of indebtedness to brethren," Sotaesan said,

the easiest way to know how one is indebted to brethren is to consider whether one could live where there are no other human beings, birds, beasts, grass, or trees. Anyone would admit that one cannot live without them. What could be a greater benefcence than that of brethren if one cannot live without depending on their help and on things they provide? (Chung 2003: 128)

<sup>4</sup>*Daesan Jongsa Beobeo* 대산종사법어 [Dharma Words of Master Daesan], Kim D. G. 2014, 28. This book is not translated into English yet. Daesan was the third head dharma master. His personal name is Kim Dae Geo (金大擧, 1914–1998).

And, in the "detail of indebtedness to brethren" he gave evidences such as "scholar educate and direct us," "farmers provide us with materials for clothing and food," "artisan provide us with shelter and commodities," "merchants provide us with convenience for living by exchanging myriad goods" and "birds and beasts and trees, too, are of help to us." In "the principle of requiting the benefcence of brethren," Sotaesan convinced, "since one is indebted to brethren through the principle of mutual beneft, one ought, either as a scholar, farmer, artisan, or merchant, to honor the principle of mutual beneft, to requite the benefcence." "This one does when one exchange myriad types of learning and goods with others, modeling oneself on the principle." In "the details of requiting the benefcence of brethren" Sotaesan guided, "a scholar-offcial ought to follow the principle of fairness for mutual beneft while educating others," "a farmer ought to follow the principle of fairness for mutual beneft while providing materials," "an artisan ought to follow the principles of fairness for mutual beneft while exchange myriad goods," and "one ought not to destroy grass or trees or take the life of birds or beasts without justifable reason" (Chung 2003: 128–129).

Sotaesan further explained ingratitude and the effect of requiting the benefcence, and the consequence of ingratitude. By comparing the effect of requiting the benefcence and the consequence of ingratitude based on the law of causality, he could convince his followers to practice the way of benefcence requital. In "ingratitude to fellow beings," Sotaesan criticized, "if one does not know indebtedness to, requital of benefcence of, and ingratitude to brethren and if one does not practice the details of requiting the benefcence even of one knows them, then one is ungrateful to brethren." In "the effect of requiting the benefcence of brethren," he convinced,

if we are grateful to brethren, the following will be the effect. All the brethren infuenced by mutual beneft will love and rejoice in one another. One will be protected and received with honor by brethren; individuals will love one another. There will be friendship between families, mutual understanding between societies, and peace between nations so that, eventually, an unimaginable utopia will be realized. (Chung 2003: 129)

In "the effect of requiting the benefcence of brethren" he encouraged,

If we are grateful to brethren, the following will be the effect. All the brethren infuenced by mutual beneft will love and rejoice in one another. One will be protected and received with honor by brethren; individuals will love one another. There will be friendship between families, mutual understanding between societies, and peace between nations so that, eventually, an unimaginable utopia will be realized. (Chung 2003: 129)

Finally, in "the consequence of ingratitude to brethren" he expressed concern,

If people are ungrateful to their brethren, all brethren will hate and dislike one another, becoming enemies. There will be quarrels among individuals, hatred between families, antagonism between societies, and no peace between nations so that the world will be at war. (Chung 2003: 129)

According to Sotaesan's teaching of benefcence, we should know we are indebted to heaven and earth, parents, fellow beings, and laws. And one should feel grateful to them for their benefcence, modeling on the way we are indebted to them. "Even if one has something to resent, one ought to fnd out how one is indebted to the benefcence and thereby be grateful rather than resentful so that one can requite to the benefcence" (Chung 2003: 118).

# 10.4 Religious Ethics of Gratitude

In Niebuhr's words, we can fnd that his insights are similar to Sotaesan's thought of benefcence. He said, "Human nature is not wanting in certain endowments for the solution of the problem of human society" (Niebuhr 1960: 2). He continued,

Man is endowed by nature with organic relations to his fellowmen; and natural impulse prompts him to consider the needs of others even when they compete with his own. With the higher mammals man shares concern for his offspring; and the long infancy of the child created the basis for an organic social group in the earliest period of human history. (Niebuhr 1960: 2)

However, Niebuhr saw, by the process of one's socialization, human beings' identity moved from individual ego to collective ego.

Gradually intelligence, imagination, and the necessities of social confict increased the size of this group. Natural impulse was refned and extended until a less obvious type of consanguinity than an immediate family relationship could be made the basis of social solidarity. Since those early days the units of human cooperation have constantly grown in size, and the areas of signifcant relationships between the units have likewise increased. (Niebuhr 1960: 2)

Niebuhr confessed that conficts between the national units could not be solved permanently and to maintain either peace or justice within its common life in each national unit is increasingly diffcult (Niebuhr 1960: 2–3). But, he still pointed out a possibility of benevolent impulse to consider other's needs. He continued,

While it is possible for intelligence to increase the range of benevolent impulse, and this prompt a human being to consider the needs and rights of other than those to whom he is bound by organic and physical relationship, there are defnite limits in the capacity of ordinary mortals which makes it impossible for them to grant to others what they claim for themselves. (Niebuhr 1960: 3)

Thus, Niebuhr was skeptical to solve conficts of inter-group relations affected by collective egoism with morality, whether religious or rational. On the other hand, Sotaesan planned to solve inter-group conficts with religious ethics based on 'awareness and requital benefcence,' and he expounded 'the way of progress for the strong and the weak' (Chung 2003: 160–161).

As the world in the past was immature and dark, those who had power and knowledge could live by exploiting the weak and innocent people. Since the people in the coming world are bright and intelligent, no one of high or low rank will be able to exploit other people. Consequently, vicious and dishonest people will become poorer while upright and truthful people will become richer. (Chung 2003: 343)

By revealing gratitude and ingratitude for the four-fold benefcence, Sotaesan taught that people would understand the importance of the life of gratitude and practice the way of gratitude. In short, according to the law of causality the life of gratitude and the life of ingratitude divide people's lives into fortune or misfortune, respectively. While providing guidance with detail items in practicing the requital of the four-fold beneficence, Sotaesan spelled out the ways of requiting the four-fold benefcence for people to remember the general point of benefcences and apply those ways in their practice. The essential principles of requiting benefcences are the way of harboring no false idea after rendering favors for the benefcence of Heaven and Earth, the way of protecting the helpless for the benefcence of parents, the way of mutual beneft for the benefcence of fellow beings, and the way of doing justice and eradicating injustice for the benefcence of laws.

In the details of requiting the benefcence of Heaven and Earth, Sotaesan explicated the eight ways of Heaven and Earth, and by modeling after the eight ways one ought to cultivate the way within oneself. The eight ways of Heaven and Earth are the brightness of sun and moon, sincerity, fairness, reasonableness and naturalness, their vast, great, and limitless, the eternity and immortality, neither good nor evil fortunes, and their no harboring the idea of bestowing favors.

By modeling after the eight ways (1) one ought to attain wisdom; (2) one has to do until one attain the goal; (3) one ought to keep the Mean in handling all affairs without being attached to remoteness, closeness, intimacy, or estrangement; or to such feelings as pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy; (4) one ought to take what is reasonable and forsake what is unreasonable by separating reasonable from unreasonable; (5) one ought to do away with partiality and attachment; (6) one ought to emancipate oneself from the transformation of all things and birth, aging, illness, and death; (7) one ought to be detached from good or evil fortunes, fnding good fortune in evil fortune and ill fortune in good fortune; and (8) one ought not to hate anyone who is indebted but, perchance, ungrateful. (Chung 2003: 125)

When one disciple asked, "how could it be enough for us to act by simply modeling ourselves after their ways of Heaven and Earth in order to recompense them for their benefcence?" Sotaesan answered,

To explain the point by an illustration, suppose that the disciples in the orders of buddhas and bodhisattvas or of other sages and superior men, upon being bestowed with great benefcence, inherit and develop the holy enterprise by learning what their masters knew and practicing what their masters did though they were not recompensed with material rewards. Should we say that they recompense their teachers for the benefcence? Or should we say that they acted ungratefully? From this we can infer that acting by modeling oneself after the way of heaven and earth amounts to recompensing them for their benefcence. (Chung 2003: 259)

The details of requiting the benefcence of parents are four: "(1) One ought to follow the essential ways of practice, namely, threefold practice and eight articles,5 and the essential ways of humanity, namely, four-fold benefcence and four essentials.6 (2) When one's parents become helpless, one ought to serve them faithfully to ensure their mental and physical comfort. (3) While one's parents are alive or after they have passed away, one ought to protect even the helpless parents of others to the best of one's ability as if they were one's own parents. (4) After one's parents have passed away, one ought to enshrine their biographical chronicles and their portraits to commemorate them for a long time" (Chung 2003: 121).

The details of requiting benefcence of fellow beings are fve, mentioned already in this paper. The details of requiting benefcence of laws are fve:

(1) As an individual, one ought to learn and practice the principle of moral cultivation. (2) As a member of the family, one ought to learn and practice the principle of regulating the family. (3) In a society, one ought to learn and practice the principle of social regulations. (4) In a country, one ought to learn and practice the laws governing the country. (5) In the world, one ought to learn and follow the laws for realizing peace in the world. (Chung 2003: 130)

The awareness and requital of the four-fold benefcence is not just to express feelings (*jeong*) of gratitude but also to require the religious and moral activities of Won Buddhism. Heaven and earth cover and support all beings in the universe without partiality and attachment: if we offer people generosity without expectation of return, there will be loads of love in our

5There are eight articles necessary for carrying out the three-fold practice: four articles to keep and four articles to forsake. Four articles to keep are faith, zeal, inquiry, and sincerity: four articles to forsake are disbelief, greed, laziness, and delusion (Chung 2003: 137–138).

<sup>6</sup> Sotaesan criticized unreasonable social discriminations and recommended reasonable social relations between human beings which are four essentials. Unreasonable discriminations are already mentioned such as discrimination between woman and man. Four essentials are cultivation of self-reliance, the wise one as the standard, the education of children of others, and veneration for those dedicated to the public (Chung 2003: 131–134).

society.7 If people practice the way of protecting the helpless, they will be protected when they are helpless. If people practice the way of mutual beneft for fellow beings, they can trust their fellow beings in various work felds. If people practice the way of doing justice and eradicating injustice, they will be protected by the power of justice. By showing the law of causality, Sotaesan helped people practice voluntarily the way of requiting the benefcence. Depending on one's reaction to the four-fold benefcence it can become either the feld of blessing or the feld of misfortune (Chung 2003: 131).

In each Won Buddhist temple, *Irwonsang* (*Irwonsang* ̆ 一圓相, a circular form) is enshrined as the object of faith instead of a Buddha statue; it symbolizes the essence of Buddha mind. The essence of Buddha mind is vast and infnite and includes being and non-being and penetrates our past, present, and future. It is the fundamental source of all beings in the universe and the realm of *samadhi* beyond words. "Therefore, we enshrined *Irwonsang* ̆ as the standard for relating our daily life to the essence of Buddha mind, and we are related to *Dharmakaya*̄ 8 Buddha through the two ways of religious faith and practice" (Chung 2003: 179). Won Buddhists can know the way to pursue blessings and happiness by taking *Irwonsang* as the object of religious faith and believing in its truth:

It stands, as a symbol, for the origin of the four-fold benefcence, which, in turn, is a four-fold categorization of all things in the universe. Heaven and earth, all things, the dharma realm of empty space-all these are none other than the universal Buddha. Therefore, we should always treat all things everywhere with the same sense of respect and awe and a pure heart and pious attitude as we have when we respect the Buddha. (Chung 2003: 179)

*Irwon*, as a symbol, in Won Buddhism identifes with the four-fold benefcence and all beings. While faithful activity in Buddhism is called as offerings to Buddha, offering Buddha in Won Buddhism means to practice the way of requiting the benefcence, the four essential principles of

<sup>7</sup> Jeungsan emphasized the impartiality of heaven and earth so that we learn the way of heaven and earth and practice heavenly and earthly generosity (see Chung 2012: 136). The principle of benefcence requital of heaven and earth is identical with the non-abiding charity of Buddhism.

8The term *Dharmakaya*̄ means the "body of Truth." '*Dharma*' in Sanskrit has several meanings: Truth, Buddhist teaching, and phenomena or elements. '*Dharmakaya*' is one of the three bodies of the Buddha in Yogacara Buddhism.

benefcence requital (Chung 2003: 116), which are the way of harboring no false idea after rendering favors, the way of protecting the helpless, the way of mutual beneft, and the way of doing justice and eradicating injustice. These four essential principles are the way of offering Buddha (*bulgong* 佛供) as the way of faith and the religious moral practice in Won Buddhism.

### 10.5 Conclusion

This chapter discussed how the emotion of "gratitude" becomes the foundation of religious ethics through transforming the emotion of "resentment" in Won Buddhism. Buddhism and Confucianism have infuenced Won Buddhist teachings to cultivate morality and humanity through cultivating the mind with different theories and methods. Sotaesan pointed out "illness with money" and "resentment" as the serious roots of human predicaments. While Buddhism illuminates three poisoned minds of craving, aversion, and delusion as the roots of all human problems, Buddhism reveals the path of suffering and stopping suffering. On the other hand, Sotaesan deeply agreed with Confucianism which teaches benevolence and righteousness as the moral value.

Sotaesan with his enlightened insight focused on resentment and foresaw that to resolve resentment between individuals and inter-social groups is the most urgent problem. Sotaesan's vision for his new religious order was to remedy resentment and to cultivate gratitude and to recover benevolence and righteousness, namely moral sensitivity and friendliness between human beings. Through this chapter, I tried to explain the Won Buddhist teaching that to change the life of resentment into the life of gratitude is to be the foundation of morality for mutual beneft and equal society.

### Further Readings

Chung, Bongkil. 2013. *Lectures on the Ethics of Won Buddhism*. Philadelphia: Won Publication.

Chung, Bongkil, trans. 2003. *The Scripture of Won Buddhism: A Translation of the Wonbulgyo Kyojo* ̆ *n with Introduction* ̆ . Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

#### References


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# *Jeong* and the Interrelationality of Self and Other in Korean Buddhist Cinema

*Sharon A. Suh*

### 11.1 Introduction

Movies, according to feminist theorist and cultural critic bell hooks are "the perfect cultural texts" that, on the one hand, teach us things about the unfamiliar and, on the other hand, "give the reimagined, reinvented version of the real" (Hooks 2009: 1). Francisca Cho observes, "Film instantiates the Buddhist lesson that life itself is an illusory projection of our own minds, and it provides the means for exploring the features of this projection" (Cho 2009: 163). By reimagining the world and our place in it, flm can alter our understandings of self and other, push us to question our epistemological assumptions, and reacquaint us with our present moment experience. In this way, flm also functions as a spiritual technology that, like a Buddhist *sutra*̄ , hones a refned vision of the relationship of self and other (Suh 2015).

S. A. Suh (\*)

Department of Theology and Religious Studies, Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA e-mail: suhs@seattleu.edu

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022 297

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_11

Korean Buddhist cinema has largely addressed the ever-present dilemma of an individual's responsibility to the other to promote a decidedly thisworldly affrmation that echoes the Mahayana proposition that ultimate freedom (*nirvan*̣̄*a*) is not found in an escape from the world of suffering (*sam*̣*sara*̄ ), but rather in its embrace. This chapter concerns one such Korean Buddhist flm—Im Kwon-taek (임권택) — *Aje Aje Bara Aje* (아 제 아제 바라 아제, "Come, Come, Come Upward"; 1989) whose title is a direct translation of the fnal verse or *gatha* of the beloved Mahayana *Heart Sutra*̄ , which conveys the Buddhist teaching of emptiness (*sun*́ ̣*yata*̄ ) as the ontological basis of reality. *Mandala* (1981), Im's frst Buddhist flm, features the religious lives of two monks struggling with desire and in *Aje Aje Bara Aje*, the director once again focuses on modern Buddhism to consider how a religious tradition that explicitly exhorts its monastic practitioners toward non-attachment can adequately respond to the suffering of others. The tension between monastic life and social responsibility is certainly no stranger to Buddhism and I suggest that an examination of *jeong*/*qing* (정 情; affection) as the adhesive that attaches people together in relationship may prove fruitful for understanding how this dilemma gets resolved.

It makes good sense then to query the interrelationality at the heart of *jeong* that mutually constitutes beings, for the *jeong* between the protagonist, a Buddhist nun, and her superior facilitates the disciple's spiritual awakening and draws her back down the mountain to immerse herself in the world of suffering. Because I have written extensively about this flm with respect to gender and enlightenment in an earlier work (Suh 2015), I take a different approach here by focusing on the dynamics of *jeong* that bind *Seon* Buddhist masters and disciples in spiritual kinship.

As we shall see, the *jeong* between wise masters and their fedgling disciples propels students along the path, but even these relationships must be abandoned to recognize the truth of emptiness and the ultimate commensurability of *nirvan*̣̄*a* (liberation) and engagement in the world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ (suffering).

# 11.2 The Expression of *Jeong* in Korean Buddhist Films

Wonhee Anne Joh's theorization of *jeong* as the "stickiness" between individuals that "saturates daily living and all forms of relationships," proves useful to understanding *Aje Aje Bara Aje's* presentation of an ethical Buddhist life that embraces the abject as the self (Joh 2007: 145). In what follows, I provide a synopsis and thematic overview of *Aje Aje Bara Aje* to show how the flm's protagonist Sun Nyeo (순녀) learns to embrace the abject and dissolve the fault line between self and other through the relational pull of *jeong*. Although I do not make the claim that *jeong* is necessarily a Buddhist term, the separation between Buddhist and Confucian ideologies is far less porous than it may seem from an outside perspective.

While the explicit language of *jeong* may not appear literally in this flm, we witness its relational force as it draws teacher and student together into a spiritual bond. Affection and monastic kinship emerge between master and disciple to create a familial intimacy that renders students the charges of their respective mentors. Several Korean Buddhist flms such as Bae Yong-kyun's *Why has Bodhidharma Left for the East* (*Dalmaga dongjjokeuro gan ggadalkeun?*; 1989), Ju Kyung-jung's *A Little Monk* (*Dongseung* 2003), and Kim Ki-duk's *Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring* (봄 여름 가을 겨울 그리고 봄 …; 2004) feature orphaned boys adopted into the order and raised by senior monks as their own spiritual children. The fatherly monks attend to their religious training as well as their more secular needs such as feeding, dressing, and even pulling their loose baby teeth. In his study of Korean monastic life, Robert Buswell notes, "There is a deep affnity among monks from the same monastery," who share a common family lineage (Buswell 1992: 77). Ordination into temple life thus symbolizes the adoption of a new monastery family. Buswell explains, "One of the euphemisms Buddhists have always used for ordination is 'to leave home'" (出家 *chulga*; *pravrajita*). For the majority of monks, most of the functions of their secular families are effectively served by the new "*dharma* family" (Buswell 1992: 91).

When aspirants enter the monastic order, they enter into *jeong*-infused relationships with their fellow practitioners and the mentors who guide them. Buddhist teachers ferry their students along the path, but senior monastics also know that overreliance on their guidance and the ties of *jeong* can become obstacles if their students fail to recognize that enlightenment is something that they already have within them. *Jeong* binds students to their Buddhist masters, but as I show in this chapter, these bonds of affection seem to function like the 'skillful means' or *upaya* of the Buddha who taught through whichever methods were most conducive to his disciples.

Buddhist tradition maintains that if the teachings were to remain relevant beyond their original birthplace in India, they would naturally need to adapt "according to the needs of his hearers" (Williams 1989: 143). The Mahayana method of *upaya* proved benefcial in the transmission of Buddhism to new locales precisely because it acknowledged that different methods based on the needs of the student were legitimate methods to deliver students along the path to liberation. For Sun Nyeo, the affective dimensions of *jeong* become the very push that she needs in order to let go of her misperception of *nirvan*̣̄*a* as separate from *sam*̣*sara*̄ . But just as one cannot cling too tightly to the doctrine (*dharma*) lest it become a hindrance, neither can the student grasp too tightly to her teacher lest she risk obscuring her own ability to awaken to their own Buddha nature.

Comparing his teachings to a raft to cross over river, the Buddha admonished his disciples: "O' *bhikkhus*, even this view, which is so pure and so clear, if you cling to it, if you fondle it, if you treasure it, if you are attached to it, then you do not understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, which is for crossing over, and not for getting hold of" (Rahula 1974: 11). The student ought therefore to depend on the teacher and doctrine as provisional guides pointing to enlightenment. That is to say, the point of practice is to wake up to the Buddha within oneself and remove the mental hindrances that obscure one's recognition of emptiness.

### 11.3 A Buddhism for the People: *Aje Aje Bara Aje*

In the introduction of *Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism*, Jin Y. Park writes,

Korean Buddhist efforts to bring Buddhism to the milieu of people's daily lives by actively engaging themselves in the social and political situations of the time re-emerged in the 1970s and 1980s in the form of *Minjung* Buddhism. Buddhist reformists adapted the term *minjung* (민중; the multitude) during the frst half of the twentieth century to emphasize the importance of the religion's rapport with society and the people. *Minjung* Buddhism during the second half of the twentieth century takes visibly political stances, directly responding to the military dictatorship in Korea. By its founding principles, *Minjung* Buddhism is Buddhism for the politically oppressed, economically exploited, and socio-culturally alienated. Philosophically, *Minjung* Buddhists appeal to the *bodhisattva* ideal and compassion. Adherents of *Minjung* Buddhism emphasize the liberation from all forms of oppression including social and political constraints. (Park 2010b: 5)

Im's flm subscribes to a vision of Buddhism that aligns closely with the modern reform efforts studied by Park (2010a) and with the reformist monk Manhae's contention that "social salvation" was deeply connected to traditional Buddhism (Park 2010b: 43). Manhae insisted that "Buddhists neither abandon human society nor deny close, loving relationships with people. They instead attain enlightenment through deflement and achieve in the midst of the stream of life and death. Being aware of this truth and getting involved in action are the practices" of Buddhist monastics (48). Pori Park explains, "By juxtaposing the principle of saving the world with the principle of absolute equality, Manhae was able to demonstrate social salvation as a fundamental principle of Buddhism not as its contingent aspect" (50). Accordingly, *Aje Aje Bara Aje* is in many ways a flmic version of Manhae's vision that identifed the absolute with the relative.

While *Aje Aje Bara Aje* valorizes the spiritual trajectory of a noncelibate former nun, it also introduces viewers to another Seon Buddhist nun named Jin Seong (진성) who represents a strict ascetic monasticism far removed from the struggles of the laity. In Im's narrative of the Buddhist path to *nirvan*̣̄*a*, Jin Seong's asceticism is rendered impotent because of her dogged refusal to engage in the suffering of humanity. Instead, she clings rigidly to a code of discipline that cuts her off from the world. In an effort to draw the nun away from her exclusive attachment to asceticism, purity, and orthodoxy, her abbess then requires the young nun to enroll in university. In the secular world, she is confronted by a prodemocracy student activist named Jong Nam (종남) who continually pushes her to confront Buddhism's lack of participation in the world of suffering. Im's camera provides footage of tear-gas cannisters exploding amidst student pro-democracy protests as Jong Nam confronts her narrow vision of liberation:

You said that all beings serve different purposes. Then, what is your purpose? Is it to ignore the poor, hide deep in the mountains, and discipline yourself? For Buddhism to build a stronghold today, you have to get together with the poor farmers and city laborers to lead their spiritual ways. That's the only road to salvation.

Unmoved by the protests around her and the challenges to her belief that only reliance on Buddhist doctrine and ascetism can liberate her, Jin Seong ignores his critique and returns to her temple even more committed to her pursuit of enlightenment. In her sole reliance on the Buddhist *sutras* ̄ and *Seon* practice, she eventually burns all of her university books as distractions from her religious dedication to focus on the *hwadu* (화두, 話頭**,** a short phrase for meditation) given to her by the abbess, "Why has Bodhidharma been painted without a beard?"

Jin Seong's story refects Im's view that Korean Buddhism must come down from the mountains in order to remain relevant to society. Im explains, "If reality is painful for most people, then it is necessary to share ordinary people's pain and struggle by following Mahayana Buddhism. I made *Come, Come, Come Upward* to ask how the monks could separate themselves from ordinary life and follow Hinayana ways" (James 2007:152). Im's vision of a socially engaged Buddhism thus concurs with the reformist monk Manhae's belief that "monks and nuns would have to abandon their cherished abodes in the remote mountains, and enter the cities in order to perform their religious duty to the general public" (Sorensen 1999: 121). Jin Seong clings to a dualistic and erroneous vision of reality that posits a distinction between the 'impure' world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ and its suffering people and the purity of *nirvan*̣̄*a*. Her refusal to relinquish her ascetic fervor is clearly noted in her exchange with Sun Nyeo over carvings of the Buddha made to resemble the humble visages of farmers and peasants. Jin Seong dismisses the folk features of the statues as ugly and therefore incapable of refecting the purity of the Buddha. When challenged by Sun Nyeo to see the humanity of the images refected and the Buddha nature in all beings, the ascetic nun simply replies, "You must not desecrate the holiness of our religion."

Despite her best efforts, Jin Seong's pursuit of enlightenment and solution to her *hwadu* come to an impasse in the monastery. With her abbess's consent, she resolves to leave the mountain top and embark on a pilgrimage seeking out meditation caves even further away from worldly entanglement. It is in one such cave that she literally meets face to face with the impotence of her asceticism as she prepares for her intensive meditation. As she lights a candle to brighten the dank space, she immediately is preyed upon by a degenerate monk who, in a symbolic act of sexual aggression, whips down his pants and forces her to gaze upon his self-castrated genitals as an object lesson in the shortcomings of monastic purity. In an effort to teach the young nun about the relentless nature of desire despite his fervent meditations, he shouts, "Look carefully! Tens, even hundreds of times a day, a great pillar that used to be here rose up uncontrollably! Now look at what happened to that place! Look with your own eyes! Look! Look! Look! I said look at it!" The monk's admonishment to look acts as a cautionary tale safeguarding against the follies of over ascetism which ironically highlights the very thing that one tries to avoid. Thus, the monk's embodied lesson refects the Buddha's exhortation to his disciples to come and see into the nature of reality as it truly is rather than as one's mental projections. Here, Jin Seong is forced to reckon with her own ravenous desire not for sex but for purity, both of which prove to be fip sides of the same coin. Unwilling to engage with this depraved monk, Jin Seong stoically responds, "You should've cut the root of your heart… not that. What pointless act is that?" Much like the monk struggled with his attachment to the world of sensual desire to no avail, Jin Seong's path to enlightenment will also be plagued by attachment to an unattainable purity that will take her further and further from the world of compassionate engagement with others who, in the *Mahayana* vision of reality, are none other than a part of oneself. She is obsessed with the quest for a purifed self that can experience enlightenment only after cutting off attachments to the world, yet it is precisely this obsession that keeps her from resolving her *hwadu*.

Sun Nyeo's story runs parallel to Jin Seong to provide an alternative view of the Mahayana pathway that validates the mundane world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ as the most appropriate training ground for monks and nuns to uproot the suffering that comprises human existence. According to Ronald Green and Chanju Mun, *Aje Aje Bara Aje* addresses themes critical of the previous military regime of Chun Doo-Hwan which ended in 1988 (Green and Mun 2016). Im's flm takes up signifcant political issues such as the Vietnam War, the Gwanju Democratization Movement, and government discrimination against Communist sympathizers and family members (233). Sun Nyeo's own ministry, which I have referred to elsewhere as a "radical act of somatic compassion" (Suh 2015: 96), focuses on the lives of several *dukkha-*flled men who embody *han* (한 恨; resentment).

Her own estranged father is a veteran of the Vietnam War who returned to Korea and entered the monastic order to escape his own war-related *han* and trauma. Although he sought to escape the world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ through ordination, he explains to his daughter that, similar to Jin Seong, he erroneously sought out the monastic life as a way to cleanse himself (presumably from war-related trauma):

Your father failed in his mission. He wanted to go live in the mountain, to learn from Buddha. He wanted only to make himself clean and receive a revelation. That was his mistake. He failed to see that, in living among the poor and the suffering, and in sharing their pain, there is something to be gained. When he realized that this something is the most valuable his illness had already affected his body deeply.

The ailing monk as an emblem of *han* (which is an example of *dukkha)* parts ways with his daughter as he imparts this lesson that foreshadows her own *bodhisattva* career.

Prior to her arrival at the Buddhist nunnery, Sun Nyeo develops a schoolgirl crush on her high school history teacher who participated in the Gwanju uprising and lost his wife and unborn child during the military crackdown and massacre. Like her father's regret and suffering, the teacher's deep loss and remorse also shapes Sun Nyeo's decision to enter the nunnery, albeit for less spiritual reasons. Compelled to follow him on his annual visit to Daejeon during holiday, they share a room together and are subsequently accused of having an illicit affair which leads to her expulsion from school. Sun Nyeo thus arrives at the temple infuenced by her father's own failings as a monk isolated on a mountain top and deeply pulled toward the suffering of her former teacher, and perhaps even chastened by this crush gone awry.

It is not, however, until she meets the third man in her life that she becomes an earthly *bodhisattva* engaging in acts of embodied compassion by becoming a wife and salvifc fgure to this *han*-flled man. After her tonsure ceremony, Sun Nyeo saves a man named Hyun Woo from committing suicide off the mountainside near her temple. Green and Mun note that the desperate man "had been a student activist for democracy and that his father was a Communist during the Korean War. Because he could not get a good job because of his father's affliation, he became destitute and suicidal" (Green and Mun 2016: 235). The nun saves this drunken man and she is unwittingly expelled from the monastery due to his relentless pursuit of her. In his despair, he cries for her to help straighten out his life as a petty criminal. He beseeches her, "I have no strength or confdence to fnd my own way!" Hyun Woo's parents were killed during a Communist round up and because of his parent's affliations, he could not fnd decent work and turned to crime and gang activity. "But," he explains to Sun Nyeo, "I have been saved by your hands." Sun Nyeo does pull him from his death, but the hands are also a reference to the salvifc qualities of Kuan Yin *bodhisattva* who is also referred to as a mother and envisioned with a thousand hands to reach out compassionately to all beings (Yü 2001). Later, as he is arrested a second time for harassing the nun, he shouts, "You allowed me to be born again! You must become my mother! My friend! My wife!" Thus, he becomes one of the many beings suffering in *sam*̣*sara*̄ who cry out and inspire the *bodhisattva*'s vow to save all sentient beings.

While shaving the head signifes her cutting ties with the ordinary world, it seems that the world is not ready to let go of her. Sun Nyeo is duly dismissed from the temple by the abbess due the temple nuns' constant complaints about her impurity, but on the eve her departure, Eunseon urges her to "kill the immature Buddha" inside her and gives Sun Nyeo her *hwadu*, "Between your spirit that stays here and your body rambling around the world, which one is real?" Although she is expelled from the temple, the abbess wisely acknowledges that there is more than one way to become enlightened and implies that, unlike Jin Seong Sun Nyeo's enlightenment will come only through her compassionate interactions with the suffering people below.

Seon Buddhist masters regularly present their students with a *hwadu* (known as *koan* in Japanese Zen; meditational question) as an object of intensive inquiry that will, if correctly understood, convey to the meditator what lies beyond form. Buswell explains, "The [*hwadu*] is a question, particular to the Seon school, that promotes spiritual inquiry" (Buswell 1992: 150) and plays a critical role in our disciple's training. Sun Nyeo is expected to focus on this meditation riddle to rid herself of the distracting thoughts and delusions that have mired her progress and, when solved, will enable her to exchange her own limited understanding for what the Buddha saw (Cho 2017). She does not, however, progress swiftly in solving her *hwadu* while living as an ascetic nun engaged in meditative contemplation day and night; instead, it is only when she is sent down the mountain and engages in emotional and physical relationships with others that she begins to recognize that ultimately self and other are one. As we shall see, the culmination of her spiritual journey will not be fnished until she visits with her abbess one last time and the bonds between them are loosened when her teacher passes away.

The abbess predicts that she will see Sun Nyeo again and indicates that her disciple will succeed in understanding her *hwadu*. The young nun has no choice but heed the decision of the abbess and is greeted by her future husband as she descends the mountain. Sun Nyeo's earthly ministry unfortunately begins when he rapes her immediately after she vows to transform him over a few drinks, "Mark my words. I'm going to make a human being out of you." Hyun Woo drags the inebriated Sun Nyeo to an inn where he proceeds to undress her and then restrains her arms by pinning her limbs under her outer garment that he has wrapped around her body as a bind. His deft maneuvers indicate that he has some skill in restraining and raping women and as Sun Nyeo regains consciousness, she tries in vain to escape and fght back. Hyun Woo then strikes and rapes her as she struggles to cover her tonsured head with her knit beanie as if shrinking away in shame and anguish. Sun Nyeo is forcibly laicized and no longer a Buddhist nun.

We next encounter Sun Nyeo and Hyun Woo as a happily married couple living in a tin-roofed shack outside the coal mine where the soon-to-be father has found work. He arrives home after a full day's work in the mines exhausted but with a renewed sense of purpose and fulfllment. Sun Nyeo appears as a devoted housewife who breaks the joyful news that they will soon have a baby. Thus, her mission is accomplished in that she has cleansed Hyun Woo of his negative *karma* and made this *han*-flled man whole again. Unfortunately, as he had predicted, Hyun Woo eventually meets his death in a mining accident and Sun Nyeo miscarries their child. We only learn of these tragic events as she recounts them years later to Jin Seong whom she briefy encounters on her way to Bigeum island to work as a nurse's assistant. Her long hair wrapped in a scarf and her ordinary clothing indicating her complete transition to lay Buddhist life strikes a sharp contrast to Jin Seong's gray robes and shaved head. Sun Nyeo shares that after her frst husband's death, she married a double amputee who subsequently died, and that now she is on her way to a new location for work. We get a glimpse into her earthly ministry and acts of embodied compassion for the *han*-flled men she makes whole when she explains, " I don't regret my life in which I gave my heart and my body to such people. Living, happiness, and unhappiness are all the same in essence … I never gave up … Whenever I met a new man I did my best as if I was a virgin. I hope that it might be asceticism." Sun Nyeo's acknowledgment that happiness and unhappiness are of the same essence indicates that she has already come to recognize that there is no difference between the self living up on the mountain and the self wandering in the world for they are of the same essence—empty. In contrast, Jin Seong remains staunchly in pursuit of enlightenment and struggles to answer her *hwadu* throughout the remainder of flm to little success.

Sun Nyeo's third husband is a widowed ambulance driver with a young son whom she meets while working on the island. Much like she does with the other men in her life, she becomes his wife and sexual partner, but he too meets an untimely death during a particularly graphic love-making scene. In her extensive study of the feminine forms of *Kuan Yin*, Chünfang Yü points out because the *bodhisattva* realizes nonduality, she can appear in a variety of forms without worrying about "evil" activities such as sexual activity: "She would use sexual desire as a skillful means, a teaching device to help people reach goodness" (Yü 2001:421). Similarly, the *bodhisattva* appears in the form of the prostitute Vasumitra in the *Gandhavyuha Sutra*̄ and "tells the young pilgrim Sudhana that she teaches all men who come to her full of passion in such a way that they become free from passion. Without discrimination, she will offer whatever they want and in doing so, enable them to become dispassionate" (Yü 2001: 424). The Mahayana texts certainly allow us a Buddhist spin on Sun Nyeo's sexual relationships with *han*-flled men and perhaps their early deaths are an indication of their liberation from the world of suffering. According to David E. James, her sexual companionship is also "metonymic for her general ministry, and is the source of her own spiritual development. This allows the flm to assert a redemptive humanism founded in female sexuality" (James 2001: 28).

Following the ambulance driver's death, Sun Nyeo returns to the nunnery to visit with her abbess one last time before her master passes away. The abbess's prediction that the two would meet again rings true as does her prediction that Sun Nyeo will understand the true nature of herself by immersing herself in the world of suffering. On her deathbed, the abbess advises the resident nuns to allow a small space for Sun Nyeo to live on the temple property and to eventually re-ordain her.

The abbess dies after her student returns and preparations are quickly made for her cremation. She is soon set ablaze on a funeral pyre as her disciples circumambulate their master while chanting *sutras* ̄ . Sun Nyeo must observe the cremation from afar, for the nuns still revile her as a "disgusting creature" for her dalliances with men, which refects monasticism's failure to wet its feet in the world of the abject by clinging to puritanical views that only heighten their isolation. Undeterred, Sun Nyeo returns later to sift through the smoldering ashes to collect her teacher's relics. In this heightened moment of grief and loss, Sun Nyeo suddenly reveals the answer to her *hwadu*: "Seunim [master] between my soul left with you and the body out in the world, neither is my substance. I knew too late that I fnally have the real self when and only when the two are in the same boundary." That is, Sun Nyeo has understood the *Heart Sutra*̄ 's most famous teaching that form is emptiness and emptiness is form (색즉 시공 공즉시색; 色卽是空空卽是色). It is emptiness that fuses the purported gap between *nirvan*̣̄*a* and *sam*̣*sara*̄ and self and other into a network of interdependence. Recognizing that "Something that is in the rough may be more pure as the lotus blooms in the mud," Sun Nyeo makes a vow to "grind these bones into a thousand pieces. And at every place I stay, I'll put a piece in a stone pillar. To every heart in this world, [t]hese will be a source of light. I'll build a thousand such pillars." The flm concludes with Sun Nyeo fading into the distance as she follows the pathway back down the mountain to continue her *bodhisattva* activity with her master's relics to serve as a beacon of hope and compassion for all beings. Jin Seong remains behind still grappling with her own *hwadu* and clinging to her purity.

*Aje Aje Bara Aje* fts squarely into a Mahayana philosophical vision that rejects the absolute distinction between *sam*̣*sara*̄ and the ultimate goal of *nirvan*̣̄*a*. Rather than claiming that *nirvan*̣̄*a* can only be attained through monastic pursuits high in the mountains above the realm of *sam*̣*sara*̄ , Mahayana valorizes *sam*̣*sara*̄ as something to be embraced rather than rejected, for both are "absent of inherent existence" anyway (Williams 1989: 69). And yet it is not just the flmic portrayal of the Buddhist path that conveys this ontological message, it is flm itself that also imparts this wisdom onto its viewers. In her study of the Buddhist semiotics operative in flm, Francisca Cho remarks that "the weight of Buddhist tradition rejects the distinction between signifers and signifed, sanctioning the conclusion that cinematic illusion is ontologically no different from life itself" (Cho 2009: 163). Thus, viewers receive the lesson of emptiness from the main characters' trajectories as well as through the simple act of seeing. In this way, they see what and how the Buddha saw reality (Cho 2017). Im's flm engages viewers in "the dialectics of liberation" that casts a Mahayana interpretive lens on monasticism and its perceived limitations (Cho 2009: 167). If, as the famed Mahayana philosopher Nagarjuna proclaims, "Between the two [*nirvan*̣̄*a* and *sam*̣*sara*̄ ] there is not the slightest bit of difference," then they are not ontologically distinct. It then follows that monasteries and the worldly life cannot be so far apart either and that the muddy world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ can be just as potent a source for enlightenment (Williams, 1989: 69).

### 11.4 Buddhism, *Han*, and *Jeong*

Because it problematizes the separation of spiritual pursuits in distant monasteries and direct social engagement in the world, *Aje Aje Bara Aje* also addresses Korean Buddhism's responsiveness to *han*, a particularly Korean embodiment of suffering (*dukkha)*. David E. James notes that *Aje Aje Bara Aje* addresses Buddhism's ability to adequately respond to the embodied suffering of *han* to ask, "How can traditional culture be used to confront the *han* of present-day Korea and what part can Buddhism play in that confrontation?" (James 2001: 26). *Aje Aje Bara Aje* is notably replete with men who are emblematic of *han*, a kind of trauma they embody through their spiritual angst, illness, disability, and premature deaths. James writes:

Taken by Koreans to be the essential national experience, *han* is constituted from the sentiments of loss and rage at the severance of wholeness and continuity between self and history. The accumulated emotions of sufferers …, *han* may be projected onto any political ordeal, but in this century it has been primarily experienced as the response to devastating colonization and political division. (19)

The *han*-flled men in Im's flm are hungry for the salve and tonic of the *bodhisattvic* compassion of Sun Nyeo who becomes a wife, mother, and sexual partner to each of them. In so doing, she refects the emanations of *Kuan Yin bodhisattva*, "a compassionate universal savior who responds to another's cry for help regardless of class, gender, or even moral qualifcations" (Yü 2001: 5).

In her work, *Heart of the Cross: A Postcolonial Christology*, Joh writes, "As a concept, *jeong* encompasses but is not limited to compassion, affection, solidarity, relationality, vulnerability, and forgiveness" (Joh 2006: xiii). Connecting Korean *jeong* to the Chinese character 情 (*qing)* that expresses "heart" and "arising," Joh further notes that "*Jeong* makes relationships "sticky." (xiv). In her approach to *jeong* as an adhesive bond that gives rise to hopefulness in the midst of *han*, Joh argues that the "profound sense of collective interconnectedness and the relational power of *jeong*…promote communal healing and sustaining and make way for the presence of a deep, life-affrming power" (Joh 2006: xvi). Joh's theological approach to *jeong* bears a striking resemblance to the Mahayana *bodhisattva* vow to save all sentient beings that inspires the protagonist of *Aje*  *Aje Bara Aje*; in both instances, suffering is to be transformed through the intrapersonal bonds with and among the people.

Although writing from a Christian perspective, Joh's analysis of *jeong* and *han* proves instructive for locating similar instances of *jeong* and *han* within a Korean Buddhist framework of emptiness, compassion, and suffering. Similarly, if, as Andrew Sung Park contends, "*han* can be defned as the critical wound of the heart generated by unjust psychological repression, as well as by social, political, economic, and cultural expression," then the suffering that *han* entails can also be approached as a culturally specifc instance of *dukkha* or suffering from Buddhist perspectives (Park 1993: 10). If *han* is deep trauma and suffering on an individual and collective level, it is *jeong* that gives hope through relational attachments and love that "transforms relationships, thereby transforming systems of oppression" (Joh 2006: 121). Despite her critique of a biologically oriented meaning of *han* Sandra So Hee Chi Kim argues, "The word *han* carries with it a history of unmitigated collective traumas in Korea, which have created a very specifc social and national imaginary in Korea and Korean diasporas" (Chi Kim 2017: 274). For Chi Kim, *han* signifes a sorrow and woundedness that is both individually manifest and "at the same time creating horizontal connections of empathy and identifcation" (Chi Kim 2017: 274). It is these horizontal connections and ties that stem from the historical trauma of *han* that concerns this study.

Complementing Joh's study of the theological implications of *jeong*, Angela Son examines the psychological dynamics behind *jeong*, which she sees as "the outward manifestation of the self-selfobject relationships can facilitate the development of the self and can be seen as developing from an immature to a mature state" (Son 2014: 745). Both the theological and psychodynamic interpretation of *jeong* prove invaluable to this present study of *jeong* as the relational ties that can mature fedgling monastics who seek to escape the very world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ . One does not need to leave the world in order to become enlightened; rather, one enters into the *han*flled realm to help transform it.

Sun Nyeo's compassion refects an ideal Buddhism that has resolved the tension between a socially responsible Buddhism infused with ideals of *jeong*, and a detached ascetic and formal religion that does little for society. *Jeong* as the bonds of affection and emotion that adheres between people certainly plays a signifcant role in Sun Nyeo's story, for it is through *jeong* that Sun Nyeo transcends the false dichotomy between *sam*̣*sara*̄ and *nirvan*̣̄*a* and enters the world of *han*-flled men in order to liberate them.

We would be remiss if we viewed Im's flm without recourse to a discussion of *han* as the woundedness and abjection that *jeong* can transform. *Jeong*ful people are those who are able to experience others' suffering and pain as if it is their own because, ultimately it is. Joh notes, "Experience of *jeong* between the self and the other opens a space in which we begin our journey of awakening to the other and to the self" (Joh 2011: 169). She further notes that "When we realize that who we are is always constituted through and in relation to the other, and when we begin to really "see" and "hear" the other, we cannot help but become aware that the other's well being is my well being, the other's pain becomes my pain" (Joh 2011:178). *Jeong* thus awakens in the self the realization of the other as a deep part of the self and, in so doing, it becomes the catalyst for deep compassion and co-experience between beings.

Im's flm critiques the monastic impetus to remain isolated on mountaintops as a rejection of humanity precisely because it does not engage in taking on the pain of the other as the self. Mahayana Buddhism promotes interdependence as the existential relationship between all phenomena; thus, we are mutually constituted. Jin Seong fails in her spiritual quest because she aligns herself with a form of asceticism considered ineffectual because it only focuses on the meditator herself and not on the abject. Im's Buddhism embraces the Mahayana image of "the Jewel Net of Indra (Lord of the *deva* realm)" that appears in the *Avatamska Sutra*̄ where each node of Indra's net contains a multi-faceted jewel that refects each and every other jewel to convey that all beings are deeply intertwined, entangled, and co-related.

*Jeong* can be understood as empathy, affection, and emotion between relational beings. The affection that Sun Nyeo has for her abbess is a form of love and relational attachment whose bonds are severed upon the teacher's death and cremation. Buddhists do not talk much of the love between teachers and their disciples, yet, as Joh reminds us, *jeong* saturates relationships. Despite the Buddha's teachings about non-attachment and no self, it would be unwise to imagine that the relationality and mutuality of *jeong* have somehow been bypassed or entirely separated from everyday social life in the monastery. The monks and nuns of their respective monastic complexes function like a family, albeit a *sangha* family whose shared experiences of daily living, sleeping, and eating depend on the other. Thus, the *sangha* family has the stereotypical father and mother fgures in the abbot and abbess and their students are akin to their spiritual children.

Much like the Buddhist discourses of *karuna* or compassion, *jeong* also connotes compassion which Joh notes "has a way of making diffcult our desire for easy boundary-making" (Joh 2011: 178) There is much consonance between Sun Nyeo's *bodhisattvic* compassion and *jeong* which recognizes the indebtedness to the other as none other than the self and, like compassion, it is a practice in unboundedness and relational fow between beings.

Although not writing specifcally about Buddhism, Joh's theorization of *jeong* bears striking similarities and resonance with Buddhist emptiness and the *bodhisattva* vow of compassion. It is precisely this disposition of the subject toward the other that makes it possible to see Sun Nyeo's embodied compassion as an enactment and embodiment of *jeong*. Joh's deciphering of *jeong* forged at the contact zone between self and other enables us to see that Sun Nyeo's somatic compassion is compelled also by the interrelationality of *jeong*. She descends the mountain and practices her Buddhist compassion immersed in the world of suffering individuals precisely because that is what *jeong* entails. It is a care and regard for the other and it is the antagonistic relationships that perhaps require the most care and regard. While Sun Nyeo's fellow nuns cling to purity and reject Hyun Woo's suffering, she herself reaches out to him because, as a *jeong*ful person, she understands its healing power. Much like Buddhism's nondualism and deep recognition that we are mutually constituted, *jeong* becomes a force that ties the two together and renders the fabricated relation of verticality into a horizontal relationship.

### 11.5 Conclusion

Approaching *jeong* as an ethical response to the other is nearly interchangeable with Buddhist understandings of no self and interdependence that comprise the *bodhisattva* path. Buddhist ethics and *jeong* go hand and hand in their valorization and cultivation of the impulse toward the other as if their deep needs and cries become our own. It is this relational fow that comprises *jeong* and allows for the fuidity of its conceptualization. *Jeong* is thus a relationality that has the power to transform relationships and fnds striking resonance with the Buddhist concepts of emptiness and interdependence introduced in *Aje Aje Bara Aje*. *Jeong* fosters bonds of love, heartfulness, and relationality between beings and delivers them to a deeper vision of the phenomenal world as ontologically co-created, corelated, and interdependent. Thus, *jeong* and Buddhist compassion go hand in hand as the ethical pull to the other. Although Confucian in origin, *jeong* is not a discrete emotion that runs parallel to the Buddhist ethic of compassion; on the contrary, the two intertwine in the lived experiences of Buddhist monastics to fulfll the Mahayana vision of the interdependence of all phenomena.

### References


Park, Pori. 2010b. "A Korean Buddhist Response to Modernity: Manhae Han Yongun's Doctrinal Reinterpretation for His Reformist Thought." In *Makers of Modern Korean* Buddhism, edited by J. Y. Park. New York: State University of New York Press.

Rahula, Walpola. 1974. *What the Buddha Taught*. New York: Grove Press.


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Emotions (*Jeong* 情) in Korean Confucianism and Family Experience: An Ecofeminist Perspective

*Jea Sophia Oh*

### 12.1 Introduction

This chapter critically reimagines the dynamics between Korean Confucianism and family and rediscovers constructive meanings and functions of emotions (*jeong* 情). First, this chapter introduces the Korean concept of *jeong* in relation to the closely related concepts of *uri* (we/us) and *han* (resentments). Korean women have been recognized as icons of the uniquely Korean feelings of *jeong* and *han*. Unlike general assumptions that Korean society has been described as an extreme form of patriarchy since *Joseon* dynasty (1392–1897), Korean women's role in the Confucian family is predominant and even more powerful than women's in the Western family on some points. This chapter analyzes multiple degrees of *jeong* as more than genderized emotions but transformative affects to

J. S. Oh (\*)

Department of Philosophy, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA, USA e-mail: JOH@wcupa.edu

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022 315

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_12

bring compassions and care for others despite its destructiveness and dangers. This chapter recognizes Korean women's leading roles in traditional Confucian families as advisors, educators, and caregivers. Korean women have thrived through *han* by dealing with *salim* (enlivening) as the subject of *life*. Finally, this chapter suggests its familial expansion to the holistic planetary 'eco- family' beyond biological ties and anthropocentrism for which *jeong* is a crucial element to interconnect humans and more than humans.

# 12.2 The Familial Dynamics of *Uri*, *Han*, and *Jeong*

What is it about *jeong* that makes it so uniquely Korean? *Jeong* is closely related to the term we (*uri* 우리) by asking, "Are we strangers, others? (*uriga naminga*? 우리가 남인가?)", which means *jeong* is a main factor that draws a line between us and them or others. Basically, *jeong* refers to the emotional and psychological bonds that join persons in a Korean cultural context; it permeates all levels, dividing the world into different degrees of us (*uri* 우리) *versus* them (*nam* 남). With *jeong*, people in a community become like a family and share communal feelings *via* solidarity and compassion. In this sense, *jeong* can be actually practiced and is realized as a familial attachment amongst Koreans that it can potentially be and is often extended to strangers beyond actual biological ties of kinship.

Koreans' familial relationship is connected by the term *uri* (우리 our/ us). It is always, *uri jib* (우리집 our home), *uri ddal* (우리딸 our daughter), *uri sengmyeong* (우리생명 our life), and *uri nara* (우리나라 our nation). *Uri* is far more than a word that connotes togetherness or possession, it is a word embedded with one organismic communal body of peoplehood. *Uri* encompasses what it means to cultivate a care community that gives birth to a selfhood not the other way around. A selfhood is shaped and defned by the community of which we are a part. Western modernity and the cultural transformations that has engendered are typically more individualistic while traditional Asian, African, and indigenous cultures tend to be more convivial. The scholar of comparative political theory, Sungmoon Kim, argues that the social-psychologically constituted *uri* in Korean society is qualitatively different from social groups in Western liberal society because the Korean *uri* is accompanied by the group-specifc self-transformation of individual participants, generating a unique group dynamic that is rarely found in liberal associations (Kim 2014: 213–214). This difference is from how they recognize the self. An individualistic sense of self is defned more by who they are on the inside, minimizing the infuence of factors, contexts, and people outside the individual. A convivial sense of self is defned more by who they are with other people, or by their membership in a group. In this regard, *uri* is intersubjective self (I) in the community we belong to *via* recognition of empathetical affection and familial relationality beyond biological ties. Maintaining social harmony, getting along with others, and meeting social expectations are more important in convivial cultures. In Korean social psychology, *uri* is indistinguishably interwoven with 'I.' This is evident in the way that Koreans refer to their mothers not as 'my mother', but as 'our mother' (*uri eomma* 우리엄마). Mothers in Korea act like a mother to everyone, not just their children. This extent of attention and concern can seem burdensome, or even an invasion of privacy, but in a world where society is becoming more fragmented and individualized, the care for those around you expressed through *jeong* becomes increasingly valuable. *Jeong* ties people together in the category of *uri* regardless if they are family or friends or not.

*Jeong* is formed through relationships while at the same time relationships are consolidated via *jeong*. Due to this mutual relationality of *jeong*, Korean people say that *jeong* is piled up and is accumulated (*jeongi ssaida* 정이 쌓이다). Like an old grandmother piling plate upon plate of food in front of their grandchildren to the point they feel they might burst. *Jeong* is largely related to love, a deep-seated love. There is a *cliché* in Korean, *ireoda jeongdeulgeteo* (이러다 정들겠어, someone may grow on you), which means that you feel close to the person as a good friend. The relationality of *jeong* is extensive beyond one's family or human relationships. One can feel *jeong* for their family, friends, lovers, colleagues, and even for places like their house and objects such as hometown or their car. *Jeong* is more easily felt than verbally described. Koreans often express *jeong* through unspoken actions. *Jeong* can be seen in the Korean custom such as sharing food with people including strangers, helping each other, taking baths together as friends, and so on.

As a unique cultural feeling for Koreans *jeong* is deeply related to *han* ( 한/恨, deep resentment) that is also a representative sentiment feeling of Koreans. Both *jeong* and *han* are expressed as something formed with a verb, 맺다 (*maetda*, form). While the term *jeong* is combined with an active verb 맺다 (*maetda*), for example, I and my husband have formed *jeong* (i.e. I and my husband fell in love). The word *han* is combined with a passive verb 맺히다 (*maechida*, being formed), for example, in my heartmind *han* has been formed. *Jeong* is more like an active emotion and motion by oneself via mutual relationships while *han* occurs in one's heart-mind by external causes such as violence, oppression, exploitation, invasion, coercion, and colonization without a right reciprocity. A Korean American constructive theologian, Andrew Sung Park, defnes *han* as the critical wound of the heart formed by unjust psychosomatic repression, as well as by socio-political, economic, and cultural oppressions such as Holocaust, racial discriminations, child-molestation, exploitation of labors, and patriarchy (Park 1993: 10). Park describes *han* from victims' perspectives as not only the abysmal experience of pain but also as being dominated by feelings of abandonment and helplessness (15). He names *han* "the wounded heart": "When the aching heart is wounded again by external violence, the victim suffers a yet deeper pain. The wound produced by such repeated abuse and injustice is *han* in the heart" (20). Park has highlighted the link between women's experiences of *han* and patriarchal violence.

Along with *uri* (we), *han* (resentment) and *jeong* (attachment) are closely related as uniquely Korean feelings at the same time they have been generally recognized as feelings of femininity in relation to Korean women and patriarchy. Korean Christian theologian Jaehoon Lee compared women and men in dealing with *han*; Most often women's experiences are allowed by patriarchy to experience *han* as *jeonghan* (정한/情恨, lovehate resentment/love from *han*) whereas men are dictated by the norms of patriarchy to experience *wonhan* (원한/怨恨, vengeful resentment/ hate from *han*) that is often encouraged to lead to the practice of *dan* (斷, cutting off forms of oppression) (Lee 1994: 37). There is inevitable coexistence of *han* and *jeong* as *jeonghan*. Given this dichotomy of *han* and *jeong* and their ironical combinations of both, both *han* and *jeong* have been understood as depressive and negative while *jeonghan* has been interpreted as passive, ineffective, compromised, and essentially domesticated as gendered. Wonhee Anne Joh, a Korean postcolonial theologian, powerfully advocates that we need to always be creatively seeking a positive and transformative nature of *jeong* in overcoming oppressive *han* (Joh 2006: 23).

As I mentioned above, three very intensive and intimate concepts in Korean, 우리, 한, and 정: *uri* (we/us/our), *han* (wounded heart/resentment), and *jeong* (caring heart/attachment feelings) connect the Korean people with a silent force, cultivating shared culture and kinship. While *han* can be compared to the dark cloud that hangs over modern Korea and the promise of clear skies on the horizon, *jeong* can be metaphorically likened to the enormous umbrella that embraces everyone in terms of *uri*. Korean people regard Korea as one extended family by calling *uri nara* ( 우리나라, our country) a nation family (*gukga/guojia* 國家). Kim calls *jeong* an "*uri*-building familial relationality" that induces "*uri*responsibility" to perform social actions for a unique Korean-Confucian democracy (Kim 2014: 213 and 217). I agree with his critical point that "*uri*-responsibility works through *jeong* (212)," especially *miun jeong* (미 운정, affectionate hatred, so-called, *han*), which can be and have been constructively transformed into people's democratic movements against oppressive systemic evil with collective moral responsibility. There are some shared *han* and *jeong* in the category of *uri* as Korean people today regardless of gender identity have via the historical traumas (*han*) persisting from the period of Japanese colonial rule over Korea (1910–1945), the Korean war (1950–1953), the division of Korea (1953–), the military dictatorship (1963–1979), the *Gwangju* uprising and massacre (May 18, 1980), the IMF crisis (1997–2001) and the *Sewol* ferry disaster (April 16, 2014). Throughout this *han*-ridden history of modern Korea, Korean people gather still can together as one organic body of *uri nara* (our country) under the name of a nation family actively participating in creative democratic movements such as the "enlivening" *salim* movements (Korean environmental activism) for responding to the IMF crisis and the post-*Sewol* candlelight protests of 2016–2017.

Regardless of the prejudicial assumptions that Korean women are apolitical and excluded from the patriarchal national politics, many Korean women have actively participated in the Korean democratic struggles. The *salim* movement is also predominantly carried out by Korean women in the everyday practice of caring for their homes. Ironically, this politicization arising from Korean women's traditional gender roles deconstructs the patriarchal designation between the public domain of politics and the private space of the family. The entanglement of *jeong*, *han*, and *uri* in contemporary Korean political experience might run deeper and broader than a similar triadic affective entanglement as relates to the complex issues of gender oppression and violence in the Korean Confucian patriarchy. Nevertheless, in order to discover the positive elements of *jeong*, it is imperative that we need to know how *jeong* has been consistently genderized and feminized, and how women's roles in the traditional and contemporary Korea function in the dynamics of *jeong*, *han*, and *uri*.

# 12.3 *Jeong* and Korean Women

*Jeong* as a Korean concept of affection has been interpreted as a complicated feeling of human relationships but somehow practiced as a gendered concept that enforces women to accept and justify their sufferings rendered by a patriarchal society. Despite the constructive and positive elements of *jeong* in human relationships, *jeong* can also be a most vulnerability-inducing and dangerous concept when practiced as part of a psychological suppression strategy to overlook the transgressions of perpetuators. *Jeong* has been essentialized and feminized within the patriarchal culture in Korea. *Jeong* is like a double-edged sword that allows vulnerability and acceptance of heterogeneity and differences. Joh utilizes *jeong* and constructs a love-centered theology of the cross. She understands *jeong* (love) in relation to *han* (suffering). She understands the Christian act of atonement as the *han* of Jesus' crucifxion and the transformative power of *jeong*/love in Jesus' life and death. She argues that the cross performs a double gesture of *han* and *jeong* (xxii). Joh's juxtaposition of *han* and *jeong* makes her postcolonial Christology a Korean contextual theology since *han* and *jeong* are highly representative words describing historical and cultural feelings of Koreans. Beyond a passive and reductively feminized form of relationality, she suggests a powerful women's embodiment of *jeong* as dynamic, empowering, and oriented toward sustaining forms of life that could possibly unravel *han* (Joh 2006: 127).

As Joh warns, patriarchal domestication of *jeong* has often justifed unhealthy relationships. In many cases, a woman couldn't divorce from her abusive spouse 'because of *jeong* (*jeong ttaemune* 정때문에).' When an unhappy married woman says 'because of *jeong* I live-with my spouse- (*jeong ttaemune sanda* 정때문에 산다), *jeong* can be interpreted as a negative comment. In other words, even if the wife wants to divorce with her abusive husband, she shouldn't because of *jeong*. For instance, imagine an unhappy married woman who has grown sick of her husband over the years due to his mistreatments, but she stays married to him because either she doesn't have any other sources to get out of her marriage or she can bear with him just enough to live under the same roof. It can be interpreted as a blind loyalty, or a hopeless faith. In any case, *jeong* doesn't mean an erotic love at all. It is more like a habitual and unrefective 'attachment' to relationships even in unwanted situations of living. Indeed, what she needs is a defnitive *dan* (斷, cutting off forms of oppression) and *danjeong* (斷情, cutting off attachment) to free her from the oppression of her marriage. However, there is a fear of being a single woman due to social prejudice against divorced women, which seems to be far from an idealized traditional role for women, the so-called wise-mother good-wife (*hyeonmoyangcheo/xianmuliangqi* 賢母良妻)1 model in traditional Korean Confucian society. This model represented the ideal for womanhood in East Asia in the late 1800s and early 1900s and its effects continue to the present. Women were expected to master domestic skills such as sewing and cooking, as well as to develop the moral and intellectual skills requisite to raise strong, intelligent sons for the sake of the nation. Even in my college days in the late twentieth century in Korea, some of my classmates expressed their dream occupation as being a devoted 'wise-mother and good-wife.'

This idealized womanhood as 'wise-mother good-wife' has been enforced by patriarchal society and has become a barometer to judge women as qualifed or as relatively worthless. In this binary stereotypical gender bias, women have been enforced to embrace even their unjust and abusive relationships in the name of *jeong*. If one rejects this traditional model of womanhood, she might easily receive adjectives in front of her name such as selfsh, unwomanly, unruly, disobedient, opinionated, useless, tough, butch, and so on. Having grown up in Korea, I was also taught to comply with male authorities and often trained to be hiding my feelings and opinions. For Korean women in general, quietness (*jeong/jing* 靜) and caring love (*jeong/qing* 情) are virtually kin concepts. Women have no way of venting or letting out frustrations when scolded by in-laws, elder siblings, or teachers because of the prohibitions involved in the rigid hierarchy of traditional Korean society. Even today, the Korean patriarchy still demands that the younger generation fnd ways to ft into the structure of the old (Son 2013:23). For instance, in a famous Korean drama, *My Mother Is Having An Affair* (SBS May 4–October 23, 2020), it is very typical that a mother-in-law scolds and even slaps her daughter-in-law when the daughter-in-law talks back and presents an opinion against her. It is an irony then that I grew up in a cultural context wherein women's

<sup>1</sup>The four-character phrase "wise mother and good wife" (*humor yangcheo* 賢母良妻, Japanese: *ryosai kenbo* 良妻賢母, Chinese: *xianqi liangmu/xianmu liangqi* 賢妻良母/賢母 良妻) was coined by Nakamura Masanao in 1875. See Sievers (1983: 22).

emotions were suppressed while at the same time being labeled as a gender that was by nature more emotional than men were. Both *jeong/jing* (靜, quietness) and *jeong/qing* (情, caring love) have been expected from women as cultural values and virtues. Hiding women's feelings has become a virtue under the traditional gender binaries. Women's sacrifce, selfessness, the motivation to internalize women's opinions and desires, and the humility to minimize their agency are considered virtuous and normalized.

The silencing and mutilation of women's voices has become usual given some popular Korean proverbs such as "when hens crow, the house is ruined," "Loud women will be kicked out of family" and "Arguing with a woman in the morning and your entire day will be ruined." In this regard, a Korean marriage therapist Chul Woo Son listed twelve particular proverbs (to me they sound disgustingly familiar since I have heard throughout my lifetime) made by "men for men" shows the distinct trait of placing women in the role of submission and muting their voices (26–28):


Those listed proverbs above seem to be extremely misogynic. However, I can't deny my embodied experiences that I have been going through due to my biological sex in a patriarchal culture. Nevertheless, in order to transform the traditional values which are still widely used even today, I need to return to the text again and revisit the context once more to say neither the one nor the other, but something else, something totally new and constructive that will bring forth a renewed power of life.

Suppressing women's feelings by silencing them is justifed by the patriarchal paradigm of *namjon yeobi* (男尊女卑, men are superior/women are inferior) which can be easily summed by *samjong ji do* (三從之道, the way of three obediences). Before marriage, a woman should obey her father. After marriage, she should obey her husband. In the event of the husband's death, *she should obey her son*. The idea of the three obediences came from the *Book of Rites* also written in *Naehun* (內訓, *Teaching Women*, 1522) by Queen Sohye (소혜왕후/昭惠王后; 1437–1504).2 *Naehun* elaborates on the various scripted roles that a married woman had to perform successfully in order to be an obedient wife and a daughter-in-law, and a caring mother. In the chapter of Marriage (*Hollyejang* 婚禮章) in *Naehun*, Queen Sohye seemed to embrace the way of triple obediences (*samjongjido* 三從之道) along with the seven deadly sins (*chilgeojiak* 七去 之惡) that justify divorce:

According to Confucius, a wife should be submissive to her husband, not handle affairs by herself, and fulfll 'three obediences (*samjong* 三從)': Obey her father when unmarried, obey her husband when married, and obey her son after her husband dies. This means that a woman should never handle things alone. (*Naehun*; trans. Lee 1976: 154)

The seven valid causes for divorce are: (1) disobedience to the parents-inlaw, (2) inability to give birth to a son, (3) adultery, (4) jealousy, (5) genetic disease, (6) a lot of talk, (7) and kleptomania (Lee 1976: 153).

All of the above are extremely preposterous and terribly oppressive based on the double standards pervasive in this binary understanding of sex and gender. However, Queen Sohye listed three anti-divorce facts (*sambulchul* 三不出) to protect women from being kicked out, even if they fall under the seven sins listed above: You could not abandon your wife for three facts, the fact that the wife has spent three years of mourning

<sup>2</sup>*Naehun* 内訓 (*Instructions for women* [literally 'inner instructions'], 1522) by Queen Sohye (소혜왕후 昭惠王后, 1437–1504) is a Confucian morality guidebook for women written by a woman. The book is one of the most representative books that refects social construction of gender and sexuality based on Confucian ideals in pre-modern East Asia. It has a modern value in that it offers a historical window into uniquely Korean history with various Korean royal court vocabularies describing appropriate behavior for a woman in accordance with Confucian cultures.

for her parents-in-law's deaths, or she has no place to return, or you became rich after your marriage (153). There is undeniable sexism in the patriarchal paradigm of gender relations throughout Queen Sohye's *Naehun* as she started the chapter of 'Husband and Wife (*Bubujang* 夫婦 章)' as follows:

The husband is the heaven of his wife. The wife should respect him as if she serves her father…. If your husband is angry, you must not say words until he calms down. Even if he beats you, how dare you bear a grudge? Men are superior to women while women are inferior to men (*namjonyeobi* 男尊女 卑). It is absolutely fair given the relationship, if your husband hits and scolds you. How could you talk back and show your anger? (Lee 1976: 155–156)

Historically in practice, Confucianism has contributed to gender inequality and oppression of women in Korea. Although the contemporary Koreans are not obviously Confucians, they are still deeply permeated and guided by Confucian values. Confucianism was the offcial philosophy and the way of life throughout the *Joseon* dynasty (1392–1910) in Korea. Confucianism has most greatly infuenced Korean culture than any other philosophies of Asia. It is not really wrong to say that Neo-Confucianism has been institutionalized and systemically proliferated in every part of life of the Korean people through to the present. In this aspect, Queen Sohye's quotes and summaries with her own commentaries of Confucian classics by extracting the key points of the women's discipline from four books of Chinese classical books for women such as *Biographies of Exemplary Women* (*Lienu* 烈女), *Lesser Learning* (*Xiaoxue* 小學), *The Precious Mirror of Bright Heart-Mind* (*Mingxinbaojian* 明心寶鑑), *Chinese Introduction for Women* (*Liexiao* 列校), followed and introduced Confucian philosophies and social orders. Considering the social construction of Confucian hierarchy in her time, it is not so surprising.

Confucianism in historical practice was used from elitist and hierarchical viewpoints. And a complete education was not always accessible to every human person. Only those with access to the knowledge gained respect and established themselves as part of a ruling legitimacy. The actual cause of composing *Naehun* was indeed from her *jeong* (caring heartmind/compassion) to encourage women who couldn't read Confucian classics (in *hanja*) to teach them how to become 'an exemplary person (*gunja/junji* 君子).' In the traditional Confucian Korea and China, the *junzi* as a Confucian term often translated as 'gentleman' was not gender neutral. Nevertheless, it is neither suffcient nor generous to say that becoming *junzi* is open to women *too*. Nonetheless, Confucianism in reality was used from the elitist and hierarchical viewpoints. Queen Sohye regretted that there were no educational books that women could read easily at that time. She explained how she came to write the book in the introduction of *Naehun*:

Humans are born with the sacred energy of heaven and earth, and contain the fve virtues of human relationships. In theory, beads or stones are not different. But why are orchids and wormwoods different? It depends on whether or not you have done your best to cultivate yourself. The enlightenment of the king *Zhou* of *Shang*, was further expanded by the wisdom of his wife, *Daji*. The king *Yu* of *Zhou* dynasty's supremacy was derived from the power of his wife, *Bao Si*. Who could be better than these women to serve the king and serve the husband? Politics is ruling or dizzying, and the rise and fall of the country depends on the brightness and stupidity of the kinghusbands, but also on the good and bad performance of their wives. Therefore, *we must teach women as well* (37–40).

Queen Sohye presents an active goal of the education of women as the cultivation of one's inner self, a self that possesses innate moral goodness and the virtues of the fve relations endowed by the spirit of heaven and earth. Queen Sohye envisioned a female *gunja/junzi* (君子, exemplary person) via learning through her inspiration from Mengzi in *Naehun*. Confucianism emphasizes *ren* (仁, human-heartedness) and confrms that every individual feels sympathetic when others are suffering (*ceyin zhi xin* 惻隱之心) that is one of four sprouts according to Mengzi. For Mengzi, the heart-mind's endorsement of all virtues is based on its sympathetic ability. Queen Sohye justifes her calling for educating women: "*I feel deep regret* that women are not allowed to learn classics and exemplary moral conduct but are only expected to learn household works such as weaving. Women should learn the wisdom of the sages. The rise and fall of a country are not only related to the wisdom and ignorance of men, but also intimately tied to the good and bad qualities of women; thus, *women must be taught*" (9). Providing education for women, Queen Sohye expanded the objects of cultivation of one's inner self for all. Inclusion of vernacular *hangul* translations in the *Naehun* helps a reader who lacks suffcient knowledge of classical Chinese to comprehend Chinese classics.

In this regard, Queen Sohye did not place flial piety (*hyo/xiao* 孝) as the most important virtue of women, but instead emphasized wisdom (*ji/ zhi* 智) and righteousness (*eui/yi* 義). Within the Confucian constructed gender norms, she emphasized the importance of education for women through her text and provided a space in which women could exercise some agency. Queen Sohye presented the role of woman as a competent state counselor, emphasizing the role of a mother who takes the responsibilities of education for her children, and securing the position of matriarchs within the patriarchal Confucian social order.

Indeed, she invited women to sagehood as exemplary persons (*gunja*/*junzi*). There are gender-neutral teachings for becoming *junzi*, which are diffcult to be designated as separate teachings according to gender identity. Given the belief that everyone can become a sage, the goal of *Naehun* is a completion of moral personhood. Thus, these educated women were morally as great as any moral man. Their men might make mistakes, but these educated women provided advice and counsel for them. Queen Sohye recognized education as a path to become sages via their compassionate heart-mind shared with people who suffered from illiteracy. Women in Sohye's view were indeed *junji*-to-be.

As I showed dual aspects of women in *Naehun*, discovering/uncovering the positive and hidden elements is a critical step toward a constructive and creative reading of the traditional classics. Feminist philosophers in the East and West tend to be anti-Confucian and to criticize Confucianism as a primary instigator that legitimizes women's oppression. Nevertheless, the homogeneous aspects of seeing Korean women as merely passive victims of Korean history and Confucianism as an extremely misogynistic, patriarchal ideology throughout the history are overly pessimistic as well as largely destructive for the future of Asian feminism. This is precisely because recognizing only these aspects tends to Orientalize Asian philosophies as despotic as well as overly fetishize the weakness inherent in the hyper-feminized Asian woman. I am not trying here to romanticize the Korean women's gender roles in the traditional Korean Confucian households. If so, it would simply become an epistemic denial of women's suffering, including my own experience in the patriarchal history of Korea. In spite of the general history of women's oppression, it is extremely crucial to be excavating largely forgotten or ignored stories of women's active roles and to discover women's subaltern *salim*-power (a biopolitical power operating from "below" or from the "margins") in order to deconstruct the traditional male/female dichotomy that has been normalized as a fxed, natural, and unchanging natural duality. The most positive and familiar word for Korean women must be *salim* (enlivening). I would like to feel a more enlivened and egalitarian *jeong* particularly in the context of thinking and feeling through the historical and current connection between women and *salim*.

# 12.4 *Jeong*, *Salim*, and an Expansive Planetary Family

I can say that *han* (suffering) is a shadow side of *jeong* while *salim* (enlivening) is the sunny side of *jeong* for Korean women. *Jeong* for Koreans symbolically signifes motherly love and care in their familial settings. Although family and familial care can be the most positive and constructive part of Korean *jeong*, both family and care can be the very location of oppression and psychological imprisonment for Korean women producing more *han* (resentment) in the name of *jeong*. Korean women are often expected to be primary caregivers within their household and primarily responsible for taking care of day-to-day household tasks (*salim* 살림). The broader meaning of *salim* is enlivening of all things while the narrow meaning of *salim* is mundane household tasks. There is an inseparable sticky relation among *salim, jeong*, and women in Korean households. Traditionally, household tasks and familial care have almost always been assigned to women, especially to mothers given the traditional gender binary. Why should women alone have to do all these caring labor in the name of love? Although *salim* as nurturing, feeding, and educating the family is indeed foundational for our living well with and for each other in family and society, both *salim* and women have been largely disregarded as inferior realms inappropriate to men's activities and models of selfactualization. A systemic level of evil banality permeates our everyday carelessness in patriarchal society. Women have suffered from unpaid and under-recognized care work in their households and barely receive thanks from their family members. When *jeong* is transformed into a more egalitarian and democratic model of familial caring, everyone in the household could be embraced and enlivened. However, if it is only expected from women only, such an exclusive gender binary becomes a form of oppression and *han*. Thus, it is really important to re-cognize, re-interpret, and re-imagine women's roles in their family in order to re-construct a true harmony (*hwa/he* 和).

When we talk about familial care/*jeong* and harmony, understanding the importance of family ethics in East Asian Confucian culture is a best way of learning about East Asian Confucian society. In Confucian philosophy, the family is enshrined as a sacred community as the famous proverb in Korea: "If the family lives in harmony, all affairs will prosper (*gahwa mansa seong/jiahe wanshi xing* 家和萬事成)." The family is considered the natural basis for all moral and political behavior and the most biologically rooted of all human institutions. Mengzi states that "The root of the world lies in the state; the roof of the state lies in the family; the root of the family lies in oneself (Van Norden 2008: 4A: 5)." Similarly, as the *Great Learning* states,

Those of antiquity who wished that all people throughout the empire would let their inborn luminous virtue shine forth put governing their states well frst; wishing to govern their states well, their frst established harmony in their household; wishing to establish harmony in their households, they frst cultivated themselves.3

The family is considered to be a model for all human social organization, extensively including the nation/state (*gukga/guojia* 國家). *Gukga* 國家 is a combination of *nara* 나라 (country 國) and *jib* 집 (household or *ga* 家) which means that your nation is your extended home and all the people in your country is your family.

The patriarchal dimensions of household management serve to promote male members of families as the heads of the household and maintain primary power and predominance in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege, and control and distribution of family property. In East Asian Confucian societies, there is a legacy of traditionally patrilineal family order, by which titles and rituals are inherited by male family lineage. The central Confucian virtues of family are flial piety (*hyo/xiao* 孝) and family harmony (*gahwajiahe* 家和), but these have been historically misogynistically practiced. In such a gender hierarchy, a woman's roles in a family are at various times conceived to be subordinated to her father, husband, and also male siblings. The patrilineal societies have minimized women's contribution to their family and enforced women's sacrifce for other family members. Even when people glorify mother's

<sup>3</sup> See the translation by Gardner, *The Four Books*, *Daxue* (大學, *Great Learning*), Classic 4 (2007: 4–5).

*jeong* there is a conventional belief based on the sexiest double standard that being a mother is an endless sacrifce. It is wrong to consider mother as an icon of sacrifce.

Notwithstanding all the dangers and destructive practices of patriarchal family structures, a wife's leadership role in a typical Korean household has indeed been much greater than it has been characteristically misunderstood as in terms of the Orientalized and misogynized 'submissive wife'. *Salim*, in a narrow and traditional sense refers to women's everyday embodied tasks such as cooking, educating children, cultivating gardens, and managing household economics and affairs. *Salim*, in a more expansive sense though can also include all of the diverse ecological activities that enliven and sustain all of planetary living. Beyond managing a household, for keeping a sustainable living of this planet, Korean women have consistently been at the frontlines of Korean ecological movements for eco-justice and sustainability that are referred to as *salim* movements. The Korean *salim* movements (ongoing since 1997) are a radical collective or expressive collaborative community of ecological resistance movements that initially formed as responses seeking to resist and remedy the destructive consequences of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) crisis. When the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and South Korea negotiated the largest IMF rescue package in early December 1997, of approximately US \$57 billion, it came as a shock to most Koreans. The situation became popularly known as the IMF crisis. Confronting the IMF crisis, Korean women mostly mothers and wives led the *salim* movement to save their family, children, and the country as an extended family. The *salim* movement functions as an ecological movement in saving the economy and ecology as a valuable *oikos*  (home in Greek) our living organism, the household. Recovering is an important activity of recycling as healing and mending the creation—as such exemplary Korean women have been and continue to be the agential subjects and forerunners of the *salim* movement.

Amidst the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Korean women in their households have been working at the frontline to save their families by taking care of family members while at the same time often working outside the home in all different occupations. 70% of the world's health and medical workers who are active at the forefront of COVID-19 are women. Women are showing their capabilities as agents in overcoming this pandemic and incumbent geopolitical crisis. On the one hand, problems such as inequality, discrimination, alienation, and violence experienced by women in their daily life have been intensifed due to the spread of COVID-19 and are becoming more accelerated. With this dynamic in mind, it is understandable how the pandemic is leaving working mothers feeling particularly fraught. Due to the social and economic lockdowns, women are doubly suffering from the enforced exclusivity of the binary gender roles. Mothers do most childcare and household chores in lockdown and domestic violence against women in the home has increased by 30–60% worldwide. According to *the International Labor Organization* (ILO), it is still women who shoulder three-quarters of all unpaid care work and do four times more unpaid care work than men in Asia and the Pacifc do.4 It seems then that the pandemic disaster attacks everyone equally but women particularly cruelly. Home has now become the safest place for education and care, which women mostly take care of. Such global shifts in political economy makes women endure more pain and suffering given the fact that the burden placed upon women has signifcantly increased.

We have an urgent ethical need then to be critically expanding *jeong* as caring heart not only toward expanded communities as an extension of family, but also to and from all genders as differently embodied caregivers. The power of *jeong* resides in capacities and relational potentials for sharing caring labor and caring affects. There is a *cliché* in Korean, "we share *jeong*: *jeongeul nanuda* (정을 나누다)." Ironically, the verb *nanuda* (to share) also means to divide. In terms of *jeong*, *nanum* (나눔, the noun of *nanuda*) doesn't mean an individualistic division or discrete separation, but rather a relational sharing and embodied caring. Historical examples of sharing *jeong* can be found in *pumashi* (품앗이, working together) and *dure* (두레, collective laboring). Although the historical origin of *dure* and *pumashi* should go backward considerably, they began during the *Joseon* dynasty with a systematic look and passed down to the present. *Dure* is a term used more for common village work such as farming, which is diffcult to do alone; while *pumashi* used is more for smaller works than *dure* such as helping *gimjang* (김장, preparing ton of *kimchi* for the winter) together. Since *dure* requires more physically demanding work, it is typically conceived more along the lines of men's common work, while *pumashi* is relegated to women's work. When there was something big to take care of in a village, everyone in the village rolled up their sleeves and

<sup>4</sup> See the *International Labor Organization* (ILO) news (June 27, 2018): https://www. ilo.org/asia/media-centre/news/WCMS\_633284/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm.

worked together as one family. These examples are indeed embodied actualizations of *jeong*.

Love and affection can be multiplied and intensifed by sharing labors through *jeong* whereas suffering can be minimized. Although *salim* and *jeong* have historically been problematically gendered and degraded as exclusively women's tasks and characteristic emotions in classical Korean culture, due to the traditionally oppressive gender roles, the power of *jeong* and *salim* lies precisely in their transformative potential to be expanded beyond a narrow patriarchy enforced only for women. These affective concepts need to be embodied in everyone and everything (even more than humans) including male gendered persons, in order to be critically extending *jeong* toward greater convivial communities as one caring family, all the while deconstructing gender binaries in terms of expansive care—this is our ethical imperative.

The distinctive heart-mind of family experience must be rooted in *jeong* (caring heart). Family experience should be at the root of any imagination and realization of caring community. With the sticky feeling of *jeong*, then we care for members of family, but this shouldn't be limited to biological ties or geographical relatedness alone. Rather, our familial expansion of care should be extended to our ecological bio-communities as well beyond a narrowly anthropic exceptionalism. The subjects and objects of *jeong* should not be limited to humankind only.

The Northern Song Dynasty neo-Confucian Zhang Zai (張載, 1022–1077) in his "Western Inscription" (a verse he posted on the Western wall of his scholar's studio) poetically identifed himself as such with the whole cosmos:

Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother, and even such a small creature as I fnd an intimate place in their midst. Therefore, that which flls the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the cosmos I consider as my nature. All people are my brothers and sisters and myriad things are my companions.5

Zhang Zai expanded the category of family beyond a set of biological ties that may restrict and limit the process of expansion of our *jeong* to the myriad things in the cosmos. Zhang Zai's horizontal expansion of family, as the whole cosmos beyond both a biological family and an exclusive

<sup>5</sup>For this translation, see Chan (1963: 467).

anthropocentrism, deconstructs the pseudo-biological boundaries and patriarchal obstacles of family conceived of as an ecological model of sustainable living that overcomes the pitfalls and limitations of a narrowly humanistic orientations of a certain brand of environmental ethics.

This 'planet as an extended eco-family' can become a live option by practicing our *jeong* with others who are unfamiliar to us in terms of critically and imaginatively expanding our circle of caring beyond our biological families, political parties, sexual orientations, countries, religious upbringings, and human species. Similarly, going beyond a narrow meaning of *salim* (enlivening) as simply women's mundane household tasks, a concept that could easily be degraded along with the women to whom it normally applies, *salim* can and should be reimagined in a broad sense to indicate all activities that are critically and caringly directed toward realizing a sustainable planetary living. *Salim* is then actualization of *jeong* as *jeong namum* (정나눔, sharing *jeong*). *Jeong* and *salim* should not belong to women or humans only. We all are and should be subjects of *jeong* (caring heart) and *salim* (enlivening) for our extended/expanding planetary family.

### 12.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I suggested a planetary family by introducing the unique Korean concepts of '*uri*, *han*, *jeong*, and *salim*.' I attempted to avoid the patriarchal dangers of using the term 'family' at the same time tried to overcome essentialist aspects of gender roles. A family is supposed to be a community of *jeong* as a caring organism for which women's role in Korean household should be re-evaluated as *salim* (enlivening) maker and subjective agency of life. The concept of family has been employed by patriarchal systems of oppression in Eastern as well as Western cultures to subordinate women. Throughout the history, women's status in Korean households has been highly complicated and at least double-sided within Joseon dynasty (1392–1910) identity politics as well as within the contemporary lived reality of Korean society. As we investigated the twofold aspects of women in Queen Sohye's *Naehun* and the Confucian society, it is crucial to excavate the positive elements and hidden voices from the traditional classics for doing Asian and comparative philosophies constructively as a Korean ecofeminist scholar. Despite destructive practices of patriarchal family around the world, I suggest a planetary expansion of 'eco-family'6 toward an interconnected ecosystem and an extended meaning of *salim* as all diverse activities for enlivening a sustainable symbiosis. Both *jeong* and *salim* cannot be essentialized or genderized. Beyond the dichotomy of male and female, Koreans and non-Koreans, human and nonhuman beyond any exceptionalisms, we must recognize *jeong* as caring heart exists not only in women and men but also in every aspect of life. Nonetheless, *jeong* doesn't automatically break down boundaries and divisions. *Jeong* needs to be actualized through caring activities as we learned from Korean extensive familial experiences of *jeong namum* (정나눔, sharing *jeong*) activities such as *dure*, *pumashi*, and the *salim* movements. This interdependent and interconnected earth is supposed to be a caring organism for which we human beings ought to 'practice' the positive aspect of *jeong* as planetary love that heals destructive families, communities, and our aching planet.

### References


6The term ecofamilism was frst offered by a Taiwanese ecofamilist Wan-Li Ho as a theoretical platform for thinking through environmental movements. Instead of using the western theoretical models of ecofeminism, Ho uses traditional Confucian family values as her conceptual framework to construct her new theoretical framework of ecofamilism. Ho emphasizes flial piety (*xiao* 孝) and benevolence (*ren* 仁) as virtues of ecofamilism that should be extended to familial care to strangers and even enemies. Ho writes, "This familyoriented approach of ecofamilism can certainly help us to engage more productively with traditions of social activism and ecofeminism, increasing the richness of ideas and broadening the appeal of environmental movements worldwide" (Ho 2016: 184).


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Conclusion: The Diversity, Dynamics, and Distinctiveness of Korean *Jeong*

*Edward Y. J. Chung and Jea Sophia Oh*

The frst, introductory chapter is the editors' comprehensive introduction to four related topics: "emotions in general, East and West" (Sect. 1.1); "emotions in the Chinese tradition" (Sect. 1.2); "emotions in the Buddhist tradition" (Sect. 1.3); and "emotions (*jeong* 情) in Korean philosophy and religion" (Sect. 1.4). We hope that Chap. 1 as a whole has served well as a helpful textual, philosophical, ethical, and religious background of our studies of Korean *jeong*.

As the title of this book indicates, the editors and all chapter contributors have discussed the nature, role, and problem of emotions (*jeong* 情) in Korean philosophy and religion from diverse yet integrated perspectives—according to leading Confucian doctrines, traditions, and ideas as well as several comparative, Buddhist, and contemporary meanings,

E. Y. J. Chung (\*)

Asian Studies and Religious Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE, Canada e-mail: chung@upei.ca

J. S. Oh

Department of Philosophy, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA, USA e-mail: JOH@wcupa.edu

© The Author(s) 2022

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_13

335

trends, and implications. We have endeavored to address this holistic theme of *jeong* emotions also in relation to the distinctively Korean experience and understanding of human life and culture. In addition to the introductory chapter, eleven individual chapters are dedicated to this entire, challenging topic.

This concluding chapter discusses "the diversity, dynamics, and distinctiveness of Korean *jeong* emotions." We develop fruitful concluding remarks and engaging insights. First of all, *jeong* (C. *qing* 情) is a unique Chinese-Korean term consisting of three essential characters: 心 (*sim*/*xin*; heart-mind, mind, heart), 生 (*saeng*/*sheng*; life, creation, or arising), and 丹 (*dan*/*dan*; red). Etymologically and literally speaking, it is therefore a living, creative, and dynamic phenomenon that has something to do with the human mind-heart and the body. As discussed in the introductory chapter, in early ("pre-Buddhist") China prior to the beginning of the Han dynasty, the Chinese word *qing* had two original meanings in Confucian and Daoist texts: "fact" (or factual), "situation," and "reality" pertaining to the objective world of beings, phenomena, and things, on the one hand, and "emotion," "feeling," or "desire," on the other hand.1

For these and other related reasons, it is diffcult to precisely translate the Chinese-Korean term *jeong* in any direct sense to one single English idiom. We also have to be mindful of the manifold nature, multilevel roles, and different types and problems of Korean *jeong* emotions. In a broadly inclusive context, *jeong*/*qing* can be translated or interpreted as emotion, passion, inclination, or desire. It can refer to basic natural feelings or sensations and also involves intuition, belief, judgment, motivation, attitude, and so on.2

In some cases, *jeong* positively means or closely relates to moral sentiment, affection, compassion, sympathy, empathy, or the intimate heart, all of which are commonly admired as good (virtuous) emotions in the context of self-cultivation and ethics. Two examples are the Four Beginnings of virtue in (Korean) Confucianism and the (Korean) Buddhist virtuous emotion of compassion. However, not all *jeong*/*qing* emotions are positive or good ("wholesome" in Buddhist terminology). As presented in the introductory and other chapters of this book, there are many negative or

<sup>1</sup>For details on the semantic, philosophical, and historical aspects of this topic, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.1 (emotions in early China).

<sup>2</sup> See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.1.1 (theories of emotions) and Sect. 1.1.4 (diversity of emotions).

"unwholesome" emotions; this is concurred by the philosophical and religious traditions of Confucianism, Buddhism, and others.

As far as Buddhism is concerned, Theravada, Mahāyāna, and Chinese and Korean texts criticize most *jeong* emotions as "unwholesome," including desire (craving), grief, anger, greed, fear, hatred, passion, pride, jealousy, anxiety, attachment, delusion, and on.3 Two leading Korean monks, Wonhyo and Jinul, strongly repudiate these unwholesome *jeong* emotions as "affictions" (*kleśa*) associated with all mental and physical activities.4 For self-discipline and enlightenment, these negative emotions have to be controlled and eliminated.

In the Korean (or Chinese) Confucian tradition as well, emotions such as anger, hated, and fear are strongly repudiated because of their distinctive (i.e., strong) characteristics. Craving (desire) is also viewed negatively. Other ordinary or potentially "selfsh" *jeong* emotions such as pleasure and love (*ae*/*ai*) are also repudiated negatively. Leading Korean thinkers such as Yi Toegye, like the Chinese Neo-Confucians, strongly recommended control or suppression of these emotions through self-cultivation and moral practice. Bongrae Seok's Chap. 2 introduced this topic in his discussion of the Four-Seven debate. Gabriel S. Choi's Chap. 3 discussed it especially in terms of Toegye's philosophy of *gyeong* (reverence).5

Righteous anger or justifed hatred (or resentment) is philosophically considered somewhat complicated from both Western and Eastern perspectives.6 Yulgok and Dasan positively affrmed this emotion as a kind of moral indignation or a passion for justice. This interesting point is discussed in Edward Chung's Chap. 4 and Don Baker's Chap. 5 on these two leading Korean Confucian thinkers, respectively.

 Those chapters of this book dealing with one or another topic on Korean Confucianism carefully articulate virtuous Confucian *jeong* such as "compassion," "shame and aversion," "courtesy and modesty," and

3For details on this point, see the editors' discussion in all parts of Sect. 1.3 (emotions in the Buddhist tradition) of this introductory chapter.

4As we quoted and discussed in Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.3.1, Wonhyo and Jinul on emotions and emotional control.

<sup>5</sup> See also Chung 2016 and 2021 (a new book on Toegye's religious thought) for his fulllength studies of this topic on Toegye's ethics and spirituality of *gyeong* (reverence) and selfcultivation. For more information on these books, see Chung's Chap. 4, references.

6As we have pointed out in the introductory chapter, Sect. 1.1.4.

"discernment of right and wrong," which are known as the Four Beginnings of virtue (*sadan/siduan*) in the Confucian tradition. They also discussed the so-called Seven Emotions as ordinary [physical-psychological] *jeong*: pleasure, anger, sorrow, fear, love, hatred (dislike), and desire. All of these *jeong*/*qing* emotions—whether they are presented with traditional, comparative, or contemporary perspectives—are directly or indirectly related to Chinese origin and infuence. They are textually and philosophically discussed in all chapters of Part I by Seok (Chap. 2), Choi (Chap. 3), Chung (Chap. 4), and Baker (Chap. 5), as well as in three comparative- and contemporary-theme chapters of Part II and Part III by Joseph E. Harroff (Chap. 6), Hyo-Dong Lee (Chap. 7), Iljoon Park (Chap. 8), and Jea Sophia Oh (Chap. 12). Most of these chapters pointed to the signifcance of the Four-Seven Debate on emotions and its profound infuence on the Korean understanding of *jeong* emotions ethically, socially, and politically. Chung's Chap. 4 and Lee's Chap. 6 in particular discussed moral *jeong* emotions in an ethical-political context of fnding the compatibility of Confucian morality and modern democracy.

Other common Korean *jeong* emotions such as *won* (원 怨; resentment), *han* (한 恨; suffering or deep resentment/lamentation), and *heung* (흥 興; exhilaration or utmost joy) are often noted especially in Korean *jeong* talks. These signifcant emotions are judiciously explored in the several chapters of this book. For example, *won* (or *wonmang* 원망) resentment is infrequently talked about in the West.7 However, it is said to be often experienced or expressed by Koreans morally, socially, or psychologically. Baker's Chap. 5 on Dasan prudently discussed the justifed emotion of resentment as a key Confucian term, even though it was rarely mentioned in the orthodox Neo-Confucian literature. Ha's Chap. 10 meticulously presented the Korean Won Buddhist teaching of resentment (*wonmang*) and gratitude (*gamsasim* 감사심), which appears to be a distinctively Korean way of Buddhist ethics and soteriology.

Similar to *won* (怨), *han* (恨) is also translated as resentment/suffering in English and these two terms are often joined together as one word, *wonhan* (怨恨; resentful suffering, vengeance). *Han* is an interesting Korean emotion (*jeong*) from a historical and socio-cultural standpoint. It

<sup>7</sup>We also note that in the West, its associated terms such as "trauma," "injustice," and "grief" (grievance) are popular terms in psychology, sociology, journalism, theology, religious studies, feminist studies, and medical science (trauma and healing).

is carefully discussed in Chaps. 5, 8, 11 and 12 by Baker, Park, Sharon Suh, and Oh, respectively. Baker talked about Dasan's exceptionally rare Confucian interpretation of *han* suffering (deep resentment) along with *won* resentment,8 Park presented Korea's "social emotions (*jeong*)" by covering *han* suffering and *heung*, two key psychological-social emotions in close relation to *jeong*. Oh also discussed the emotion of *han* in relation to *jeong*, Korean family, and women's experience. In analyzing Korean *jeong* and interrelationality according to Korean Buddhist cinema, Suh's Chap. 11 articulated the Korean *han*, making its connection to the Buddhist teaching of suffering (*duhkha*) and Mahāyāna compassion (*karuṇā*).

It is never surprising that the virtuous emotion of compassion is highly admired by the Korean people and other East Asians, insofar as it is deeply rooted in the Confucian, Buddhist, and other moral-spiritual traditions. Compassion is the frst of the Mencian teaching of the Four Beginnings as the moral feeling (heart-mind) of universal Confucian virtue, *in*/*ren* (benevolence, human-heartedness). Thus, it closely relates to moral sentiment, affection, sympathy, empathy, and so on. Compassion or the bodhisattva's compassion is also honored by all Buddhists, insofar as the Buddha's teaching and key Mahāyāna scriptures highly cherish it (see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.3). Suh's Chap. 11 mentioned the Mahāyāna compassion as the bodhisattvic virtue to relieve or cure Korean *han* suffering. "Great compassion" is honored and emphasized in leading Korean commentaries and essays by Wonhyo and Jinul.9

As mentioned in Sect. 1.1 of the introductory chapter, there can also be other ethical, spiritual, psychological, or socio-cultural connotations of the term *jeong*. In the positive Korean context, *jeong* may well be a relational and interdependent embodiment of emotion with these dynamic connotations. By operating on its manifold or multilevel spectrum of mutual affection, attachment, or relationality, *jeong* also embraces the power or

8For this and other good reasons, Dasan is widely recognized as not only a leading Korean critic of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism school and its Korean Seongnihak school but also an original and creative Confucian thinker who compiled so many volumes of commentaries and essays. For details on Dasan's thought focusing on self-cultivation and sagehood, consult Baker's major forthcoming book: *How to be Human: Dasan Jeong Yagyong's Commentaries on the Zhongyong* (2022); for more information, see Baker's Chap. 5, references.

<sup>9</sup> See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.3.1 for details on the editors' introduction to Wonhyo's and Jinul's discussion of great compassion and joy.

creativity of emotional intimacy but should not be conceived as being limited to this particular spectrum only because there are obviously other positive and negative aspects of *jeong* as we've seen in the foregoing paragraphs.

Now the question is, What's distinctive about Korean *jeong*? Is there anything or something peculiarly "Korean"? This question therefore points to the "Korean-ness" or Korean distinctiveness of *jeong* in terms of philosophy, religion, and/or emotion studies.

For many centuries in Korean history, *jeong* has long been commonly recognized and practiced as mutual, lasting, or transformative emotions. Contemporary Koreans often talk about "family *jeong*," "parent-child *jeong*," "parental (grandparental) *jeong*," "conjugal *jeong*," "brotherly/ sisterly *jeong*," "fatherly/motherly *jeong*," "friendship *jeong*," "collegial *jeong*," "school *jeong*," "our (*uri*) *jeong*," "business *jeong*," "romantic *jeong*," and so on. Throughout modern times, *jeong* culture has functioned as a distinctively Korean phenomenon within any given group of two or more persons who *collectively* share a close family or social relationship. In this regard, the basic Korean notion of *jeong* as mutual "affection" or "affective bond" echoes not only love (*ae* 愛), one of the Seven Emotions in the Confucian literature, but also compassion, the frst of the Four Beginnings and the universal Confucian virtue of benevolence (*in* 仁).

Another distinctive dimension of Korean *jeong* emotions is the Korean Four-Seven debate and especially its profound and extensive infuence on the Korean people's understanding and practice of *jeong* emotions. This unique part of Korean emotion studies is comprehensively discussed by Seok, Chung, and Harroff in their chapters. Virtuous emotions such as "compassion" and "discernment of right and wrong" are articulated in relation or in contrast to ordinary emotions such as pleasure, anger, fear, hatred, and desire.

Seok's Chap. 2 presented an overview of the Four-Seven debate from a moral psychology standpoint. Harroff discussed some Western comparative views of the "cosmopolitan" meaning of Korean *jeong* in the context of philosophical translation issues. Chung's Chap. 4 focused on Yulgok's unique interpretation of the role of emotions in self-cultivation, ethics, and political reform. It concluded that Yulgok's distinctive Korean ethics of compassion and his passion for social justice and wellbeing are compatible with Western perspectives and especially Adam Smith's moral theory of "mutual sympathy" and "benevolence," Michael Slote's virtue ethics of "empathy," and Robert Solomon's ethics of "passion" and "justice."10

Oh's Chap. 12 reveals something unique about the social phenomenon of Korean *jeong* in terms of family life, women's experience, and traditional Korean patriarchy. She argued that Korean *jeong* is entangled with the *han* emotive culture and *uri* (we or our) "relationality" and "dependency" that are found in *pumashi* (품앗이, working together) and *dure* (두레, collective laboring) as distinctively Korean experiences of sharing *jeong*. We can also talk the distinctiveness of Korean *jeong* also in terms of Baker's Chap. 5 on Dasan's Confucian discussion of *wonmang* (resentment, lamentation) and *han* (suffering or deep resentment) and Park's Chap. 8 on the Korean social emotions of *han* and *heung* (exhilaration or utmost joy). As Park concludes, the Korean culture of *jeong*, *han*, and *heung* embody "a matrix to accept the Confucian understanding of being human": for example, *heung* is compatible with Confucian *rak* (락 樂; joy) and *hui*/*xi* (희 喜; pleasure), two of the Seven Emotions, and *han* closely resembles *ae*/*ai* (애 哀; sorrow, grief), another example of the Seven.

Jee's Chap. 9 also discussed the distinctive nature of *jeong* in relation to the Korean Buddhist teaching of *hanmaeum* (one heart-mind) and concluded that *jeong*, "a moral, social, and cultural emotion of the Korean people," is strongly infuenced by their Confucian language and ethics of *uri* "we-ness" ("our-ism") as group belonging and interdependency. This is philosophically compatible with Daehaeng's Buddhist idea of *hanmaeum* and Wonhyo's teaching of *ilsim*. From a different Buddhist angle, Ha's Chap. 10 confrmed that Sotaesan's Won Buddhist ethics of gratitude (*gamsasim* 감사심) to heal the suffering of resentment (*wonmang*) is also inspired by the Confucian teaching of benevolence, moral action, and social wellbeing; in other words, this Buddhist practice tends to be a distinctively Korean way of soteriology.

Suh's Chap. 11 on *jeong* and *i*nterrelationality in Korean Buddhist cinema makes an interesting conclusion that Korean *jeong* is not Buddhist in origin, but its Confucian foundation gradually accommodated with the Mahāyāna teaching of compassion, for which reason the two traditions "intertwine in the lived experiences of Buddhist monastics." Suh's "socially-engaged Mahāyāna" approach to *jeong* emotion as "affection," "empathy," "adhesive bond," or "relational dependence" remarkably

<sup>10</sup>According to Smith (2009), Slote (2007, 2010, 2020), and Solomon (1993, 1995a, 1995b); for our discussion of these sources, see Chap. 1 and Chung's Chap. 4.

resonates with the Korean Confucian-based talk of humanism and human relationships in terms of sympathy (compassion) and moral *jeong*, affective heart-mind, emotional intimacy, and social interdependency.

The Chinese-Korean word *jeong* 情 is fundamentally Confucian in origin. Overall, the holistic nature, meaning, and role of Korean *jeong* emotions are infuenced by and associated with the Confucian tradition of moral language, social interaction and harmony, and psychological-andcultural interdependence. It is also reasonable to state that despite the mutual ethical integration between Confucian *jeong* affection (compassion) and Mahāyāna Buddhist compassion among Korean Buddhists, there is a little *originally* Buddhist about the humanistic and social context of Korean *jeong* expression and experience. This is one of the essential conclusions we collectively discover from reading all chapters of this book and especially Chaps. 9, 10 and 11 on the Buddhist perspectives.

If we look at the history of Buddhism or Christianity in Korea, each of these religions had to go through one level or another of cultural integration by adjusting itself to Korean Confucian language, mentality, and society: in other words, Korean people's "cultural DNA" is embodied by the Confucian-oriented tradition of basic human bonds and their reciprocal emotions (*injeong* 人情). The holistic nature of Korean *jeong* eventually became a multidimensional and interreligious phenomenon: it ethically, religiously, and socio-culturally integrated with (1) Mahāyāna Buddhist compassion and care, (2) Korea's shamanistic folk talk of *han* resentment and *heung* joy, and (3) Daoist infuence in terms of *pungnyu* naturalistic freedom and *heung* joy. Of course, we cannot ignore the Christian infuence of love and forgiveness as another dimension that has likely been incorporated into modern Korean *jeong* especially among the Korean Christians.

From a different angle, it was subtly suggested that the modern usage of two Korean terms *jeong* and *injeong* (human emotions)—both of which we have discussed extensively in this book—is probably "infuenced by the Japanese tradition [of Confucian language and modernity] since the Japanese colonial period (1910–1945)." This suggestion was given partly due to the debatable argument that the Tokugawa Confucian thinker Itō Jinsai (1627–1705)11 spoke of two Japanese Confucian terms *jo* 情 (*jeong*/*qing*; emotions) and *ninjo* 人情 (*injeong*/*renqing*; human

<sup>11</sup> Itō Jinsai was a Confucian scholar and thinker in eighteenth-century Japan who belonged to the so-called *Kogaku* (Ancient learning) that infuenced Japan's philological and ethical emotions) and the Japanese historian Masao Maruyama (1914–1996)12 pointed out that Jinsai's talk of *ninjo* likely infuenced Japan's modernization in the eighteenth century.13 Given Japan's colonial rule over Korea (1910–1945), one can see why this suggestion was made: Japanese Confucianism might have contributed to Japan's colonial infuence on, for example, Korea's political and economic modernization during this period. However, in the context of what we have concluded above, the editors as well as our chapter contributors (including those authors of several chapters on contemporary perspectives) have agreed that two Korean words *jeong* and *injeong* are not directly infuenced or "colored" by Japanese Confucian language and moral psychology in relation to *either* Jinsai's *Kogaku* talk of *ninjo* emotions *or* Maruyama's point about its political impact on Japan's modernity.

In other words, traditional Korea developed its own Confucian and related understanding and culture of *jeong* and *injeong* for many centuries textually, philosophically, ethically, religiously, and socially, insofar as our book has discussed comprehensively in the introductory and eleven chapters. That is to say, Koreans had *already* developed their *jeong* tradition, along with original Chinese infuence, a long time ago *prior to* Itō Jinsai's seventeenth century and the Japanese colonial period. It is more likely that the humanistic and philological (or philosophical) Confucian infuence of *jo* (*jeong*) and *ninjo* (*injeong*) emotion talk would rather be the *other way*: Korea infuenced Japan. For example, under Korean infuence through reading the Korean Neo-Confucian letters and essays and especially those by Yi Toegye, Japanese Shushigaku (Zhu Xi school) Neo-Confucians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries talked about emotions such as the Four Beginnings and the Seven Emotions in their own discussions of emotions, self-cultivation, and ethics. In other words,

study of Chinese Confucian classics such as the *Analects* and *Mencius*. For Itō Jinsai's life and thought, see Spae (1967) and J. Tucker (1998).

<sup>12</sup>Masao Maruyama was a modern Japanese historian who published a famous book on the intellectual history of Tokugawa Japan (1600–1868), which includes his critical analysis of the development of Tokugawa Confucianism in terms of philosophy, politics, and modernization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Masao Maruyama 1975). For good books on the Japanese Neo-Confucian tradition, consult Mary E. Tucker (1989) and Nosco (1989).

<sup>13</sup>This is our clarifed version of the suggestion originally made by one of the anonymous external reviewers of our book project proposal for this manuscript. The editors thank the reviewer for making this interesting suggestion.

it is possible that Itō Jinsai and his Kogaku Confucian thinkers were also motivated (infuenced) by this textual and intellectual trend of Korean impact on Japanese ethical and practical discussion of *jo* (*jeong*) and *ninjo* (*injeong*) human emotions.14

In the fnal analysis, there is still more work to be done regarding the study of emotions in East Asian philosophy and religion; however, thinking through *jeong* in a variety of Korean philosophical and religious contexts, as we have done in this book, is certainly a good place to start exploring the transformative potential of this fascinating topic both within and beyond Asian thought and comparative philosophy and religious studies.

Overall, we hope the reader will fnd this book a ground-breaking discussion of Korean philosophy and religion *vis-à-vis* its dynamic topic of *jeong* through our diverse, balanced, and integrated interpretations. The book has focused on the meaning, role, and problem of *jeong* emotions which we can consider the heart of Korean thought—and thereby informing and directing one's life and emotional experience as a scholar, an ethicist, a spiritual practitioner, or an average person.

What we discover through this study is a healthy philosophy of human nature and emotions, East and West. This holistic system of teaching and practice is deeply grounded in the traditional and contemporary trends of Korean philosophy and religion, most of which represent the intellectual, moral, and spiritual vitality of East Asian thought as well.

To conclude, by shedding new light on the breadth and depth of Korean Confucianism, Buddhism, and comparative and contemporary thought, we hope to have provided not only a pioneering, introductory anthology on the enthralling theme of *jeong* based on our collaborative and extensive efforts, but also an important scholarly source for Korean

14Here are two other possible reasons. For many centuries—from the ffth to the midnineteenth (beginning of "modern" Meiji Japan)—Korean Confucianism had intellectually informed and infuenced Japan in terms of Chinese writing (*kanji*), literary Japanese, classics, humanistic philosophy, moral education, social ethics, political administration, and practical learning (*jitsugaku* 實學). It is widely recognized that the philosophy and scholarship of the eminent Korean thinker Yi Toegye profoundly inspired Tokugawa Neo-Confucians such as Fujiwara Seika (1561–1619) and Hayashi Razan (1583–1657) and eventually helped them to establish their Shushigaku, a mainstream Neo-Confucianism there (Abe Yoshio 1970: 22). Furthermore, Yamazaki Ansai (1618–1682), his follower Ō tsuka Taiya (1677–1750), and other great Neo-Confucians such as Satō Naokata (1650–1719) were in turn infuenced by Toegye's teaching, character, and philosophy (see Abe Yoshio 1965, 1970: 57–59, 1977: 9). For more discussion of this topic, see Chung 2016 (Introduction) or 2021 (Chap. 1).

Confucian and Buddhist studies, comparative philosophy and religion, and beyond.

### References


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Index

### **A**

Affection another word for emotion, xvii, 2, 15, 18, 67, 82, 84, 145, 157, 166, 227, 259, 331, 339 flial, 17, 53, 227, 228 moral/virtuous emotion, 17, 214, 222, 223, 227, 230, 336, 341, 342 one of Seven, 340 *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情); Love Aje Bara Aje, Come, Come, Come Upward, Korean Buddhist flm, 298–299, 301–303, 308–309, 312 Ames, Roger, 190, 194–195, 202, 208 *Analects* of Confucius, xix, xx, 20, 58, 59, 126, 165, 215, 228 Dasan quotes/interprets, 59 on desire, 20, 21 on emotions, 21, 22, 59, 167 *See also* Confucius

Anger, xvii, 10, 15 Buddha and Mahayana on, 38, 45, 74, 75, 83, 283, 337 one of Seven Emotions in Confucianism, 16, 19, 30, 36, 52, 54, 100, 104, 109, 110, 145, 148, 166, 171, 178, 201, 217, 237, 251, 338 (*see also*  Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情)) righteous as moral indignation, 15, 152, 153, 337 Wang Yangming on, 34–36 Won Buddhism on, 292 (*see also*  Won Buddhism, Korean) Wonhyo on, 48, 75, 78, 83 (*see also*  Wonhyo, eminent Korean monk) Yi Yulgok on righteous, 15, 152, 153, 337 *See also* Emotions, anger Aristotle on "natural" feelings, 7, 8 on desire, temper, and pleasure, 8n8

© The Author(s) 2022 E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7

347

Arousal (aroused; manifestation), 3, 10, 30, 33, 34, 54, 56, 60, 99, 106, 109, 113, 115, 129, 145, 147–151 before (*mibal*) or after (*ibal*), of emotions, 23, 24, 30, 34, 37, 103, 108, 111, 112, 127, 130, 131, 139 of Four and Seven, by *gi/qi*, 107 of Four Beginnings, by *i/li*, 31, 55, 103 (*see also* Four (Beginnings/ roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端)) of Seven Emotions, by *gi*/*qi*, 31, 55, 103 (*see also* Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情)) Asian modernity, 188, 191, 209 Assad, Talal, 191 Attitude as associated with emotions, 2, 15, 39, 336 (*see also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情)) detached, 250 moral, 139 orderly and solemn attitude, 125 *Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith*, 274

### **B**

Bae Yong-kyun, 299 Belief, as related to emotions, 2, 11, 15, 157, 158, 267, 276 Benefcences awareness and requital of, 281, 287 fundamental, 279, 281, 287, 289 Korean Won Buddhist teaching of, 81, 288, 292 *See also* Sotaesan (founder of Korean Won Buddhism); Won Buddhism, Korean

Benevolence (or human-heartedness, *in*/*ren*), 17 as (cardinal) moral virtue, 26, 32, 34, 53, 56, 80, 152, 172, 215, 237, 280, 282, 285, 295, 340 compassion as emotive-moral beginning (root) of, 16, 25, 29, 30, 34, 149, 150, 237, 339 Confucius on, 20 (*see also*  Confucius) in Korean Won Buddhism, 287, 295, 341 (*see also* Won Buddhism, Korean) represent moral Dao mind, 33 Smith, Adam on universal, 7n7, 16n21, 28, 340 Bodhisattva, in Mahāyāna Buddhism, 43–45, 49, 77, 78, 83, 274, 300, 304–305, 307, 309, 312 *Book of Changes*, 131n10, 165, 203, 236 *Book of Odes*, 165, 167 *Book of History*, 165 Zhu Xi quotes, on (Dao) moral mind and (ordinary) human mind, 33, 33n65 *See also* Zhu Xi *Book of Rites*, xix, 4, 23, 50, 58, 178, 179, 323 Seven Emotions cited from, 21n29, 23, 24, 35, 36, 52, 100, 148n17, 166, 237 *See also* Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions); Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *Chiljeong* 七情) Bright/illuminating virtue (*myeongdeok*), Confucian teaching of, 111–113 Buddha, Shakyamuni, 4, 7, 10, 45–48, 73, 77, 283, 284, 294, 295, 308, 311, 339 on control/destruction of bad emotions, 17, 40, 42

emphasizes compassion, modesty, and mercy, 17, 42 on greed, hated, delusion, 41, 47 negatively views desire, pleasure, grievance, 38, 40 praises compassion, joy, equanimity, and kindness, 41 repudiates craving (*taṇhā*), sensations, passion, 39 *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *Jeong* 情), Korean Buddhist perspectives of; *Jeong* 情, Korean; Mahāyāna, Indian, on emotions Buddha nature (buddhahood), 3, 76, 77, 275, 281, 300, 302 Buddhism (Buddhist), vii, viii, xv, xvii, xix, xxiv, 3–7, 9–12, 14–21, 27–29, 38, 40–43, 45–49, 51, 52, 69, 73, 74, 76, 78–83, 124, 210, 246, 267, 268, 270, 272–277, 281–284, 293–295, 297–313, 335–339, 341, 342, 344 Buswell, Robert, xx, 48, 49, 73n150, 74–77, 299, 305

#### **C**

Cartesianism, 192, 197 Centrality (equilibrium; *jung*), and harmony (*hwa*) according to *Doctrine of the Mean*, 23, 108, 109, 112, 133, 148n17 before or after emotions are aroused, 23, 109 *See also* Arousal (aroused; manifestation); *Doctrine of the Mean* Chan, Joseph, 223–224, 229 on Confucian conception of political authority, 223–224

Chan, Wing-tsit, xix, xx, 109, 122, 128 Chan (Zen) evils of passion, 47 and Huineng, on no-thought and no emotions, 46, 47 rejects deluded ideas and emotions, 47 *See also* Huineng and Chan Cheng Hao, 35, 147 on idea of *gi*/*qi*, 147 sages with no selfsh emotions, 147 Cheng Yi, 36, 97n1, 147 on *gyeong*, 124, 125 love (affection) and benevolence, 29, 32 Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucian(ism), 58, 59 school/doctrines/texts, 33, 37, 58, 97, 98n2, 98n3, 114–115 *Cheolli* Heaven's (moral) principle, 33, 56 also translated as "natural reactions," 128, 168 *Cheonmyeong* (mandate/ ordinance of Heaven), 26, 126, 130 Chi Kim, Sandra So Hee, 310 Ching, Julia, on Zhu Xi's idea of *gyeong*/*jing*, 122 Civility for common good, 226, 228 Confucian theory of, 225, 226 Cognition, 11, 14, 52, 170, 254 emotion and, 14, 27, 151 Cognitive awareness, 28 as nature of emotions, 2, 10, 11, 13, 22, 151 Common sense, 190, 196, 199, 206, 209

Compassion, in Buddhism, 9, 38, 43, 77 bodhisattvic, in Korean Buddhist cinema, 49, 82, 83, 303, 309, 312 Buddha on, 32, 40–42, 339 (*see also*  Buddha, Shakyamuni) great, of bodhisattva (*karuna*) in Mahāyāna, 12, 17, 28, 38, 44, 45, 48, 78, 81–82, 339, 341, 342 Korean Buddhist, and *uri*, 78 Korean *jeong*, *han* and, 82–84, 303, 304 (*see also Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean, and bodhisattvic compassion in Korean Buddhist cinema) Korean monk Jinul on great, 77, 81 (*see also* Jinul, eminent Korean monk) Korean monk Wonhyo on great, 49, 77, 81 (*see also* Wonhyo, eminent Korean monk) Sotaesan (Won Korean Buddhism) on, 81n160 *See also* Mahāyāna, Indian, on great compassion and ultimate joy; Mahāyāna, *Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra on* compassion Compassion, Confucian as beginning of humanheartedness, 25 on emotional engagement, 21 innate goodness of human nature, 11 and Korean *jeong* and *uri*, 78, 236, 238, 337, 340 (*see also Jeong* 情, Korean, and *uri* (we) and *salim* (enlivening of life); *Uri* (we/our)) and Korean women and *salim*, 72, 316, 324 (*see also Salim* 살림

(enlivening of life), Korean, dealing with *han* and women) Mencius on, as one of Four Beginnings, 10, 11, 16, 17, 24–26, 28, 30, 34, 53, 100, 149, 171, 179, 215, 237, 339, 340 (*see also* Mencius (Mengzi or *Mencius*)) moral emotion based on *i*/*li*, 55, 56 (moral) heart-mind (emotion) of, 10, 16, 19, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 53, 54, 58, 100, 149, 340 regarding affection and conjugal intimacy, 71n148 *See also* Compassion, East and West; Four (Beginnings/roots/ seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端) Compassion, East and West, 15, 28, 29, 62 Michael Slote on empathy and virtue ethics, 16, 62, 341 (*see also* Slote, Michael) as sympathy in David Hume and Adam Smith, 16n21, 28, 62, 340 (*see also* Smith, Adam on, sympathy and moral nature) and Western virtue ethics, 16, 28 *See also* Compassion; Four (Beginnings/roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端) Confucian democracy, 63n135, 65, 67, 68, 155, 213, 220, 224, 230, 231, 319 Confucian moral psychology, 51, 60, 63, 67, 98, 115, 169, 171, 174, 180, 196, 202, 204 Confucius, xix, 4, 18, 20–22, 27, 29, 58, 126, 167, 172, 214, 215, 323 on benevolence/human-heartedness (*in*/*ren*), 16, 20, 123–125 (*see also* Benevolence (or humanheartedness, *in*/*ren*))

resentment and selfsh desire, 22, 59, 167 reverence (*gyeong*), 123n3, 129, 134 (*see also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral selfcultivation of) Sotaesan and Korean Won Buddhism, infuenced by, 80, 282 (*see also* Sotaesan (founder of Korean Won Buddhism), inspired by Confucian benevolence (*in*/*ren*)) true emotions of joy (*rak*/*le*) and sorrow (*ae*/*ai*), 20–22, 53 *See also Analects* COVID-19, 235, 329–330 Craving, Buddhist teaching of, *see*  Desires (*yok* 欲) Current Western scholarship on emotions in East Asian thought, vii, 1–3, 7, 13, 15, 28, 61, 62, 65n139, 70 *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), Western theories of

### **D**

Daehaeng on Buddhist *hanmaeum*, 79, 266–277 related to Korean *jeong* and Wonhyo's *ilsim*, 79, 80, 266, 268 (*see also Hanmaeum* (한마음), Daehaeng's Buddhist teaching of) Dai Zhen, Qing Chinese Neo-Confucian, 156 Damasio, Antonio, 242 on emotion as homeostatis, 242, 245 on feelings, 246 *Dan* 斷 (cutting off), 76, 318, 321

*Dao* 道, 32, 192, 196, 198 Daoism, 5, 6, 14, 16n22, 17, 27, 29, 220, 246, 336 emotionlessness (*mujeong*), 12, 15, 20 on emotions, 6, 14, 16n22 infuence on Korean *pungnyu* and *heung* joy, 342 Korean, 5n2 Laozi and Zhuangzi, 12, 18, 20, 220n13, 250 repudiates emotions and desires as precarious, 2, 12 *See also* Laozi (Daoist); Zhuangzi, Daoist Dasan, Jeong Yagyong, xv, 15, 50, 52, 53, 165, 168, 173–177, 179 Catholic Christian infuence on, 64n139 on compassion and emotions, 165, 171–172, 175, 179 on desire, 65, 176, 180 emotional role in moral behaviour, 64, 165–184 on fear of Sangje (god) and moral behaviour, 64, 180 on human nature, 173–180 quotes *Mencius* or *Jungyong* to interpret emotions, 64, 176 on resentment (*won*) and *han* (suffering; resentment), 16, 53, 59, 72, 168, 169, 178, 337–339, 341 (*see also Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean) Yulgok's infuence on his practical ethics, 155n48 writings, xvi, 55, 58 *Daxue* (Great learning), 165 Delusion, 35, 41, 47, 48, 74, 76, 78, 80, 283, 284, 295, 337

Desires (*yok* 欲) Aristotle on, 8n8 Buddha repudiates (*see* Buddha, Shakyamuni) Confucius' sincere (heart's), for learning, 20–22 as craving in Buddhism, 34, 38, 40, 43, 83, 279–281, 284, 285, 295, 337 Dasan on, as positive and engaging, 65, 166, 176 *jeong* (translated) as, 260, 336 Laozi and Zhuangzi repudiate (*see*  Daoism; Laozi (Daoist); Zhuangzi, Daoist) Mahāyāna on, as entrenchment or affiction, 44, 74 Marks, Joel on, 10, 11, 13, 22, 41, 62, 149, 151, 157 (*see also*  Marks, Joel) one of Seven Emotions in Confucianism, 16, 19, 21n29, 23, 35, 36, 52, 100, 104, 147, 166, 171, 217, 237, 265, 338 Sotaesan and Won Buddhism on selfsh, 285 Wonhyo condemns, as affiction, 74, 75 Yi Toegye on, as precarious, 56 Yi Yulgok on, as physical function ("individual needs"), 147, 148, 157 Yi Yulgok on moral, 148, 152, 157 Zhu Xi on removing selfsh, 124 De Sousa, Ronald, on rational thinking and human experience, 13 Dewey, John, 67, 187, 189 *Dharma*, Buddhist, 46, 77, 82, 84, 269, 273, 281, 283, 285, 288, 294, 299, 300 *Diamond Sutra*, 282, 284 Disdain, 171–172

*Doctrine of the Mean*, xix, 4, 25, 34, 35 before or after arousal of emotions, 23, 24, 30, 34, 52, 103, 109, 111, 112, 127, 130, 131, 139 Dasan quotes and interprets, 64, 165, 174 emotional control/harmony in, 30, 52, 109, 282 on human nature mandated/ endowed by, 32, 126, 215, 282 shortlist of Seven Emotions in, 23, 24, 109 Yi Yulgok quotes and interprets, 152, 154 *See also* Arousal (aroused; manifestation); Centrality (equilibrium; *jung*), and harmony (*hwa*); Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情) *Dongho mundap* (Dongho questions and answers), by Yi Yulgok, 144, 154 (*see also* Yi Yulgok) Dualism body-mind, 1, 209 of reason and emotion, 1 Toegye's Four-Seven, 237 Toegye's, of moral mind and human mind, 54 Zhu Xi's, of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, 33 Duara, Prasenjit, 209 *Dukkha*, Buddhist, 303, 304, 310 *See also Duhkha* (suffering), Buddhist *Duhkha* (suffering), Buddhist, 38–40, 339 *See also* Buddha, Shakyamuni; Grief (sorrow), emotion of, Buddha on

#### **E**

Ecofamily, 316, 327, 333 Ecofeminist (planetary family), 315, 332 Eightfold noble path, 38–40, 42, 283 Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情) affection as (*see* Affection) anger, righteous as moral indignation, 15, 152, 153, 337 Aristotle on "natural" (*see* Aristotle on "natural" feelings) as aroused state (of the mind), xvii, 10, 23, 24, 33, 60, 99, 103, 106, 109, 113, 115, 130, 139, 145–148, 151 (*see also* Arousal (aroused; manifestation)) attitude associated with, 2, 15, 39, 63, 125, 129, 336 as behaviour or relate to behaviourism, 9, 23, 63, 168, 169, 171, 180, 181 belief associated with, 2, 11, 15, 157, 158, 267, 276 *Book of Rites* on Seven (*se Book of Rites*) Buddha and Theravada repudiate craving and suffering (*see*  Buddha, Shakyamuni) Buddha praises compassion, equanimity, kindness (*see*  Buddha, Shakyamuni) in Buddhist tradition, 38–49 in Chinese tradition, 18–37 in classical Chinese Confucianism, 20–29 and cognition, 22, 27, 52, 198 cognitive nature/role of, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 28, 151, 283 Confucius on true, and human character (*see* Confucius, true emotions of joy (*rak*/*le*) and sorrow (*ae*/*ai*))

culturally informed/contextualized/ learned, 8, 11 current Western literature on, in East Asian thought, vii, 1–3, 7, 13, 15, 28, 61, 62, 65n139, 70 Daoism on (*see* Daoism; Laozi (Daoist); Zhuangzi, Daoist) dependent on cultural rules, norms, 6, 8, 9 as desires (*see* Desires (*yok* 欲)) dichotomy of, and reason, 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 27 diversity of, 14–17, 20, 28, 73, 335, 337 diversity, dynamics, and distinctiveness of Korean *jeong*, viii, xxv, 335–345 *Doctrine of the Mean* on (*see Doctrine of the Mean*) in early (pre-Buddhist) China, 4, 14, 18–20, 201n22, 336 East and West, 2–5, 7–17, 28n47, 49, 335, 344 ethics of, 10, 13, 24, 25, 28, 35, 37, 62 Four as good (moral) (*see* Four (Beginnings/roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端); Yi Toegye, Four as moral emotions and foundation; Yi Yulgok) in Four-Seven debate (*see* Four-Seven debate, in Korean Confucianism; Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions)) and good and evil (*see* Four (Beginnings/roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端), as good (moral) emotions (*jeong*); Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情), as potentially evil))

Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情) (*cont*.) of *han* 恨 (suffering, deep resentment) (*see* Grief (sorrow), emotion of; *Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean) Hegel on, as passion, 13n18, 22 and holistic nature of (Korean) *jeong*, ix, 6, 51, 52, 62, 84, 99, 336, 342 holistic nature of, in Korean/East Asian thought, 4, 20, 28, 144, 151, 342 in Horak debate, 51, 52, 59, 60, 98, 99, 108, 110, 112–114 Huineng (Zen) on emotionless and non-abiding, 46, 47 (*see also*  Chan (Zen)) Hume, David on, 28 (*see also*  Hume, David) and intrinsic moral equality in Confucianism, 218–219 issues with conventional theories of, 8–12 James, William on, 7, 62, 148, 157 Jeong Hagok on, and innate knowledge of good (*see*  Jeong Hagok) Jinul condemns greed and hatred (*see* Jinul, eminent Korean monk) Jinul's Korean Buddhist view of, "poisonous" (*see* Jinul, eminent Korean monk) judgment as basis of, 10, 11, 13, 15, 28, 62, 151, 158 (*see also*  Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), Solomon, Robert on, as judgements) in Korean Buddhist cinema, 49, 78, 297–313 (*see also Han* (恨

suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean, and bodhisattvic compassion in Korean Buddhist cinema; *Jeong* 情, Korean, Buddhist, infuenced by Confucian human relationships) Korean Buddhist perspectives of, xxiv, 6, 17, 28, 49, 73–84, 279–295, 297–300, 310, 336, 341 Korean, comparative, Confucian perspectives of, 5, 65–68, 145, 148, 153, 157, 158 Korean Confucian perspectives of, viii, xviiin4, 5, 16, 24, 37, 50, 59, 65, 80, 146, 321, 342 (*see also* Korean) Korean distinctiveness of, 72, 81n161, 98, 99, 114, 244, 317, 332, 336, 340, 341 (*see also* Korean) in Korean philosophy and religion, vii, viii, 2, 5, 6, 14, 335 Korean "social," 6, 16, 22, 68, 70, 80, 236–254, 276, 339, 341 (*see also* Korean, social emotions, *han* and *heung*; *Uri* (we/our)) in Korean Won Buddhism (*see*  Sotaesan (founder of Korean Won Buddhism); Won Buddhism, Korean) Laozi's Daoist view of, emotionlessness (*see* Daoism; Laozi (Daoist)) in Mahāyāna, Chinese and Korean Perspectives of (*see* Mahāyāna) Mahāyāna on great compassion and ultimate joy (*see* Mahāyāna) in Mahāyāna, Indian, Buddhist perspective of (*see* Mahāyāna)

Marks, Joel on, as desires (*see*  Marks, Joel) Mencius on moral, and Four (*see*  Four (Beginnings/roots/ seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端); Mencius (Mengzi or *Mencius*)) moral (good), 4, 9, 19, 25–27, 30, 32, 37, 48, 53, 54, 56–58, 60, 62, 99, 100, 103, 107, 145–150, 152, 154, 158, 197, 217, 220, 221, 225, 227, 231, 238, 282 moral psychology of, xvii, xviii, 51, 57n119, 59, 60, 63, 67, 97, 98, 115, 180, 196, 204, 210, 214, 340, 342 onto-directive approach to emotions, 99, 101, 106, 107, 112–115 passion(s) as, 2, 7, 13, 18, 22, 39, 43, 47, 62, 82, 145, 153, 155, 157, 158, 228, 253, 307, 336, 337, 341 (*see also* Passion(s)) positive or negative roles/examples of, xvii, 19, 22, 36, 38, 39, 43, 50, 76, 83, 145, 244, 248, 318, 336, 337, 340 psycho-affective approach to emotions, 99, 107, 112–115 resentment (*won* 怨) (*see*  Resentment (*won*/*yuan* 怨)) roles of, in self-cultivation and ethics, 19, 50, 54, 67n142, 144, 153, 154, 159, 340 (*see also* Yi Yulgok, role of emotions in self-cultivation and ethics) Rousseau on (*see* Rousseau, Jean-Jacques on emotions, as moral foundation) selfshness of, 12, 19, 33, 35, 37, 41, 50, 53, 55, 61, 64, 130, 135, 280 (*see also* Selfshness (selfsh cravings))

as sensation (*see* Sensation) as sentiment (*see* Sentiment(s)) Seven (*see Book of Rites*; *Doctrine of the Mean*, shortlist of Seven Emotions in; Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情)) shame, East and West, 9, 178, 322 shame, as one of Four, 16, 19, 25, 26, 30, 34, 53, 149, 152, 200, 237, 337 (*see also* Four (Beginnings/roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端)) *Śikṣāsamuccaya* scripture on "generosity" and "utmost joy," 44, 83n164 Slote, Michael on, and virtue ethics, 16, 62, 341 (*see also* Slote, Michael) Smith, Adam, on sympathy and moral, 16n21, 28, 62, 340 as socially (culturally) constructed/ learned, 8, 9, 11, 250 Solomon, Robert on, as judgements, 10, 11, 13, 28n65, 157 (*see also*  Solomon, Robert) of sorrow (grief) (*see Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean; Sorrow (grief), East and West) of sympathy (*see* Compassion; Sympathy) in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, 31, 33, 55, 56, 101–104, 106, 107 (*see also* Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions); Four (Beginnings/roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端); Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情)) translation of *jeong*/*qing* 情 as, xvii, 128n7, 145, 196, 336, 340 (*see also Jeong* 情, Korean)

Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情) (*cont*.) types of (Korean), 3, 7, 8, 19, 54, 58, 76, 146, 148, 177, 205, 247, 336 Wang Yangming on (*see* Wang Yangming, Ming Chinese Neo-Confucian) Western theories of, 144, 145, 148n16, 149, 157, 340 in Won Buddhism (*see* Won Buddhism, Korean) Wonhyo and Jinul on unwholesome emotions (*see* Jinul, eminent Korean monk; Wonhyo, eminent Korean monk) Wonhyo's Korean Buddhist views of (*see* Wonhyo, eminent Korean monk) Yi Toegye on (*see* Yi Toegye) Yi Yulgok on (*see* Yi Yulgok) Yi Yulgok's ethics of, 63, 145, 155, 159 (*see also* Yi Yulgok) Zhuangzi on, of ultimate joy and freedom, 12, 20 (*see also*  Zhuangzi, Daoist) Zhu Xi on Four and Seven in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, 31, 55 (*see also* Zhu Xi, Four-Seven distinction) *See also* Four (Beginnings/roots/ seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端; Four-Seven debate, in Korean Confucianism; *Jeong* 情, Korean; Korean); Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情) Emotionality and rationality, 1, 14, 49, 52, 151 Evil Buddha on "evils of passion," 47 due to selfshness (or selfsh cravings), 24, 31, 61, 158

*gi*/*qi* of desires as potentially, 102, 153 three roots of, in Won Buddhism, 283 (Toegye on) Seven Emotions as potentially, 31, 36, 56, 60, 61, 101, 151 Wang Yangming and Jeong Hagok on doing good and removing, 37, 58, 118, 120 *See also* Selfshness (selfsh cravings); Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情), as potentially evil)

### **F**

Family, Korean and emotions, 315, 319, 322, 327–333 and familial care, 327–333 (*see also* Korean) Fear, xvii, 11, 15, 16, 166, 171, 177–180 in Buddhism, 38, 45, 337 Dasan on, of Sangje (god), 64, 180 one of Seven Emotions in Confucianism, 16, 19, 23, 36, 52, 100, 104, 145, 148, 166, 201, 217, 237, 338 Feelings, *see* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情); Four-Seven debate, in Korean Confucianism; *Jeong*

情, Korean

Four (Beginnings/roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端)

are aroused by *i*/*li*, 31, 55

as good (moral) emotions (*jeong*), 4, 19, 25–20, 27, 32, 48, 53, 54, 56–58, 60, 62, 100, 107, 145,

149, 152, 217 (*see also* Mencius (Mengzi or *Mencius*)) as innate knowledge of good (*yangji*), 26, 33, 37, 58 Jeong Hagok on, 57, 58 as manifestations of *i*/*li*, 30, 55, 169 Mencius' doctrine of, 4, 9, 11, 20–24, 32, 53, 54, 57–59, 100, 101, 149, 153, 214–216, 237, 238 not sought from the outside, 26, 149n21 as original/innate human goodness, 25, 27, 28, 37, 56, 238 Toegye on (*see* Yi Toegye) Yulgok on (*see* Yi Yulgok) *See also* the Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情); Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions) Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions) pertain to moral mind and human mind, 32, 57, 104, 106 regarding good and evil (*see* evil, (Toegye on) Seven Emotions as potentially; Four (Beginnings/ roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端), as good (moral) emotions (*jeong*)) on relationship, distinction, or continuum, between, 51, 54, 55, 57, 101, 146, 207, 238 in terms of *i* and *gi*, 31, 33, 55, 56, 101–104, 106, 107 in terms of original and physical human natures, 56 Toegye on (*see* Yi Toegye) Yulgok on (*see* Yi Yulgok) Zhu Xi on, 30, 31, 32

*See also* Four (Beginnings/roots/ seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端); Four-Seven debate; Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情) Four essential principles, in Won Buddhism, 294, 295 Four-Seven debate, in Korean Confucianism, xxiv, 24, 32, 50–52, 62, 70, 98, 100, 101, 105, 144, 171, 187, 192, 193, 199, 337 current scholarship on, 17n23, 31n58, 103n12, 144n1 on emotions and Four-Seven relationship, 24, 32, 54, 56, 57, 59, 67, 99, 100, 146, 237, 253 (*see also* Yi Toegye; Yi Yulgok) infuence on Korean understanding of *jeong*, 66, 70, 254, 338, 340 and moral (Confucian) psychology, 59, 63, 67, 97, 99, 100, 103, 113–115, 202, 204, 214 regarding oneness of moral and human minds, 56, 57, 104 in terms of *i*/*li and gi*/*qi*, 66, 102, 107, 156, 282 (*see also* Yi Toegye; Yi Yulgok) Fujiwara Seika, 114n32

### **G**

Gender, regarding Korean women and proverbs, 322–324 *Geumgang sammaegyeong non* (Exposition of the *Vajrasamādhisūtra*) by Wonhyo, on emotions, *see* Wonhyo, eminent Korean monk

*Gi*/*qi* (vital/physical energy or material force), xvi, xviii, 24, 31, 97–107, 126, 127, 129, 147n11, 169, 175, 198, 202, 203, 205, 206 associated with physical form (*hyeonggi*) and physical dispositions (*gijil*), 150 brings each being into concrete existence, xviii, 31n57 contrasted with *i/li*, 102, 103, 169, 171, 173, 175, 177 (*see also I*/*li* 理 (metaphysical principle; ground of being; order; pattern); *I*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*) evil (emotions) caused by impure, 56, 151, 153 (*see also* Evil) physical, material, or emotional reality of, 107, 147, 156 represents physical and psychological dispositions, xviii, 31n57, 32, 150 original, and physical represents physical human nature, 31, 32, 56 (*see also* Human nature, original, and physical, in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*) selfsh cravings due to, 31 (*see also*  Selfshness (selfsh cravings)) Seven Emotions aroused (or manifestations) by (of), 30–32, 55, 103, 104, 107, 111 translation of, xviii, 31n57 Gobong (Gi Daesung), 101, 102n9, 103, 106, 107, 114 Graham, Angus C., on *qing* in early China, 18, 123n3 Gratitude, Korean Won Buddhist teaching of, 279, 281, 282, 290 *See also* Benefcences; Sotaesan (founder of Korean Won Buddhism) Greed, 2, 283 Buddha on, 38, 39, 41, 283

Korean monks, Wonhyo and Jinul, on, 48, 76, 77, 337 in Mahayana, 83, 337 Green, Ronald and Mun, Changju, 303, 304 Grief (sorrow), emotion of, 15 Buddha on, 40 Confucius on, 34, 35 in Korean Won Buddhism, 15 as one of Seven, 40, 71n147, 101, 201, 237, 254 related to Korean *han*, 82, 83, 337, 341 (*see also Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean) *Gunja/junji* (self-cultivated person, exemplary person), 20, 22, 219, 282, 324–326 *See also* Confucius Gwon Geun, 172 *Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral self-cultivation of, 105, 129, 131, 132, 135, 198, 199, 205 to control emotions, 123, 124, 130, 135 ethics of, 57, 60, 61, 139 fexible translation of, 122, 199 as virtuous emotion, 17, 53, 138, 139 Yi Toegye on, 17, 53, 55, 60, 61, 66, 105, 121–123, 128–135, 139, 339 Zhu Xi on, 55, 121, 122, 124–128 (*see also* Zhu Xi, on *gyeong* as moral virtue) *Gyeonghak* (learning of *gyeong*), 12, 122, 130, 139

### **H**

Habitus, 190, 191, 199, 202, 208 *Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean

and bodhisattvic compassion in Korean Buddhist cinema, 82, 83, 303, 309, 310 (*see also*  Compassion, in Buddhism)


postcolonial theological criticism of, 69, 245, 253, 310


Harmony (*hwa*)


family, 327, 328; social, 215, 231, 317, 342 Hatred (dislike), one of Seven Emotions, 16, 19, 23, 36, 52, 148, 166, 338 in Mahayana, 45 Heart-mind (heart or mind; *sim*/*xin* 心), xvi, 19, 20, 26, 27, 169, 170, 173 associated with Korean *hanmaeum* or *ilsim*, 266–268, 271, 274, 341 of compassion in Mencius, 10, 26, 149, 150, 214, 237 (*see also*  Mencius (Mengzi or *Mencius*)) *Confucian* humanism of, and *jeong*, 84, 342 (*see also* Compassion, Confucian) *Dasan* on, 169–173, 175, 177, 180 as emotions, xvii, 3, 14, 24, 25, 50, 51, 97 Four as, 24–26, 149, 152, 214, 215, 237 (*see also* Four (Beginnings/roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端)) Four-Seven debate on, 43, 56 (*see also* Four-Seven debate, in Korean Confucianism) as innate knowledge and ability to do good, 26, 27, 36, 37 Jinul's (Wonhyo's) Buddhist notion of, of great compassion, 49, 77 (*see also* Jinul, eminent Korean monk; Wonhyo, eminent Korean monk) Korean women's, and *jeong*, 322, 324 moral (*see* Mind, moral (or Dao moral mind; *dosim*); Mind, moral and human mind) as moral emotions, 8, 9, 11, 26, 34, 149, 152, 154, 339 one, (*hanmauum*) in Korean

Buddhism, 78, 79

Heart-mind (heart or mind; *sim*/*xin* 心) (*cont*.) as one single holistic faculty, 14, 15, 52 *translation* of, xviii *Wang* Yangming on, 34–37 *Wonhyo* on buddhanature as one, (*ilsim*), 73, 79 (*see also Ilsim* (一心 one heart-mind), Wonhyo's doctrine of, related to Korean *jeong*) *See also* Mind, human (or ordinary human mind; *insim*); Mind, moral and human mind *Heart Sutra*, 284, 298, 308 Heaven, 174, 177, 193, 238, 244, 265, 267, 324; and earth, 23, 27, 109, 127, 133, 236, 246, 288, 290, 293, 325 and humans, 133, 177, 244 Hegel on passion, 22 Hermeneutics intercultural, 191, 193 of suspicion, 67, 189 *Heung* 興 (utmost joy; exhilaration), Korean social emotion of, 16, 22, 68–72, 236, 246–249, 251, 254, 338 associated with *jeong* and *han*, 68, 70–72, 78, 236, 246–249, 254, 315, 317, 319, 320, 338, 341 *See also Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean; *Jeong* 情, Korean Holistic nature of (Korean) emotions/*jeong*, ix, 4, 6, 20, 28, 51, 52, 84, 99, 144, 151, 336, 342. *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), and holistic nature of (Korean) *jeong* Horak debate on emotions, 51, 52, 59, 60, 98, 99, 108, 110, 112–114

Huai, King, 166, 167 Huineng and Chan, xix, 46, 48, 73 "crush the passions," 47 "evils of passion," 47 on no-thought and no passions/ desires, 47 reject deluded ideas an emotions, 47 Human nature Cheng-Zhu doctrine of, as *i*/*li* (principle), 115, 127, 265 Dasan on, 173–180 (*see also* Dasan, Jeong Yagyong) Four as original, 25, 27, 28, 37, 56, 238 mandated Heaven, 32, 215 Mencius on intrinsic goodness of, 215–216 (*see also* Mencius (Mengzi or *Mencius*)) original goodness of, 29, 56, 113, 154 original, and physical, in terms of Four and Seven, respectively, 56 original, and physical, in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, 31, 32, 56, 237 as substance of the mind, 108, 127 Wonhyo on original, as buddhanature, 73 Hume, David emotions like sympathy embodying moral priority, 16n21, 28 on reason as slave of passion, 13n18 *Hwadu*, 302, 303, 305, 307

### **I**

*I*/*li* 理 (metaphysical principle; ground of being; order; pattern), xvi ¸ xviii, 24, 31n57, 147n11 Cheng–Zhu doctrine of, as human nature, 115, 127, 173–175, 265 contrasted with *gi/qi*, 102, 103, 169, 171, 173, 175, 216

Four Beginnings aroused (or manifestations) by (of), 30, 31, 55, 169 moral, 30, 31, 56, 146, 148, 153 purely good, xviii, 31n57 translation of, xviii, 31n57 *See also Gi*/*qi* (vital/physical energy or material force); *I*/*li* 理 (metaphysical principle; ground of being; order; pattern) *I*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, xviii, 24, 31, 147n11, 101 Four-Seven and Horal debates in terms of, 60, 101 good and evil in terms of, xviii, 31n57, 56, 151, 153 Jeong Dasan opposes Zhu Xi's philosophy of, 55, 58 original and physical human natures in terms of, 31, 32, 56, 237 (*see also* Human nature, original, and physical, in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*) in terms of Four and Seven, 31, 33, 55, 56, 101–104, 106, 107 (*see also* Four (Beginnings/roots/ seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端); Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions); Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情)) translation of, xviii, 31n57 Zhu Xi's system of, 24, 31, 55, 147 *See also Gi*/*qi* (vital/physical energy or material force); *I*/*li* 理 (metaphysical principle; ground of being; order; pattern); Zhu Xi Ignorance, Buddha's teaching of, 40, 283, 284 *Ijang eui* (*Doctrine of the two hindrances*) by Wonhyo, on

emotions, xvin1, 48, 74, 75, 77

*See also* Wonhyo, eminent Korean monk *Ilsim* (一心 one heart-mind), Wonhyo's doctrine of, related to Korean *jeong*, 73, 79, 80, 266, 268, 341 Im Kwon-Taek, Korean Buddhist flm producer, 82, 298, 301, 302 Imagination, 190, 195, 200–202, 209, 210 *In/ren* (human-heartedness), 325 and *ceyin zhi xin*, 325 *See also* Confucius, on benevolence/ human-heartedness (*in*/*ren*) Inclinations as (related to) emotions, 2, 9, 15, 19, 336 Buddha on, 39, 42 Dasan on, 63, 64, 174–176, 179 Smith's view of moral, 28 Yulgok on, 157 Indebtedness, Korean Won Buddhist teaching of, 280, 288, 289 Ingratitude, Won idea of, 289–291 Innate knowledge of good (*yangji*), 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 58, 265 Inner mental attentiveness, *gyeong* translated as, 122 *See also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral self-cultivation of; Yi Toegye, *gyeong* to control emotions *Insim/renxin* (human mind; mind of ordinary human beings), 104, 106, 115 *See also* Mind, human (or ordinary human mind; *insim*); Mind, moral (or Dao moral mind; *dosim*) Ito Jinsai, 114n32 Ivanhoe, Philip, 122, 170, 173, 199, 202

### **J**

*Jaejangjeongil* (strict composure and quiet recollection), Toegye on *gyeong* and, 131 *See also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral self-cultivation of; Yi Toegye James, David, 307, 309 James, William on emotions, 7, 62, 148, 157, 188 *Jeong* 情, Korean as affection, adhesive bond, and/or relational attachment, 67, 82, 214, 222, 223, 227, 235, 298, 299, 310, 311, 317, 320, 331, 339, 340, 342 (*see also* Love) Buddhist and contemporary perspectives of (*see* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), Korean Buddhist perspectives of) Buddhist, infuenced by Confucian human relationships, 78, 341, 342 and Buddhist interdependency, 73, 77, 78, 82, 84, 308, 312 compassion and (*see* Compassion, Confucian, and Korean *jeong* and *uri*) and Confucian democracy, 15, 65, 67, 68, 213 Confucian infuence of humanism and social values on, 84, 340, 342 Confucian perspectives of, viii, xviiin4, 5, 16, 24, 37, 50, 59, 65–68, 80, 146, 157, 158, 321, 342 (*see also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), Korean Confucian perspectives of; Korean, Confucian foundation on, *jeong*)

diversity, dynamics, and distinctiveness of, viii, xxv, 335–345 as familial affection, 227 in Korean philosophy and religion, vii, viii, 2, 5, 6, 14, 335 and moral (political) equality, 67, 68 (social) ethics of, 5n2, 16, 50n104, 52, 54, 58, 63, 79, 121, 154, 157–159 social (socio-cultural) (*see*  Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), Korean "social") such as good *jeong*, hateful *jeong*, no *jeong*, 79, 261 and *uri* (we) and *salim* (enlivening of life), 72, 78, 236, 238, 316, 324, 337, 340 *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情); Korean Jeong Hagok on emotional control, 57, 58 on Four and Seven, 37, 50, 57 on Four as moral emotions and innate heart-mind, 58 Jeong Yagyong (Dasan), *see* Dasan, Jeong Yagyong *Jeongjaeeomsuk* (attitude to be orderly and solemn), Zhu Xi's teaching of, 125 *See also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral self-cultivation of; Zhu Xi, on *gyeong* as moral virtue *Jeoniljipjung* (carefully examine and hold fast to the mean), 129 Toegye on, and *gyeong* (*see also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral self-cultivation of; Yi Toegye, on *gyeong* as virtuous emotion) Jeungsan Kang Ilsun, 280

*Jigyeong* (holding on to *gyeong*), 125, 129, 131

*See also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral self-cultivation of; Yi Toegye, on *gyeong* as virtuous emotion

*Jinsim jikseol* by, Jinul on "deluded mind" and "poisonous" emotions, *see* Jinul, eminent Korean monk

Jinul, eminent Korean monk, xv, xvi, xix, 4, 6, 14, 53, 73, 81, 84

condemns greed and hatred as poisonous, 48, 78, 337

confrms Buddha and Huineng, 48, 49, 73, 74

eliminate unwholesome emotions and desires, 48, 76, 337

*Jinsim jikseol* by, on "deluded mind" and "poisonous" emotions, 49, 76, 77, 83n164

on Korean Seon (Zen) notion of great compassion, 49, 77, 78

*Susim gyeol* (Straight talks on the true mind) by, on *deflements* and emotional suppression, xvin1, 75

on "true mind" (*jinsim*) by removing afficting emotions, 76

and Wonhyo as compatible with Confucian emotional control, 76

*See also* Buddha; *Jeong* 情, Korean, Buddhist and contemporary perspectives of; Mahāyāna

Joh, Wonhee Anne, 69, 70, 83, 236, 298, 309–311, 318, 320

Joseon dynasty, of Korea, 37, 51, 59, 62, 71, 97–99, 115, 154, 172, 188, 315, 324, 330, 332

Joy

emotion of, in *Doctrine of the Mean* on, 23, 109, 127n5

of learning as true emotion in Confucian *Analects*, 21–23, 34 one of Seven Emotions in Confucianism, 16, 19, 23, 30, 52, 100, 166, 237 ultimate, in *nirvana* praised by Buddha and Theravada, 38, 41, 43 ultimate (bodhisattvic), in Mahāyāna Buddhism, 38, 44, 45, 83 ultimate, in Zhuangzi, 12 utmost, (*heung*) and *han* (suffering) as Korean emotions, 16, 68, 70, 78, 236, 238, 341 Wang Yangming on, 34, 35, 37 Yulgok on true (proper), as good emotion, 152, 154 Judgement as basis of emotions, 10, 11, 13, 15, 28, 62, 151, 158 *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), Solomon, Robert on, as judgements; Solomon, Robert *Juilmujeog* (single-mindedness and freedom from distraction), 124 *Juingong* (*sūnyatā* of self), and Daeheanag's idea of *hanmaeum*, 79, 268, 270–272

### **K**

Kaibara Ekken, 114n32, 156 Kalton, Michael, book on Four-Seven debate, xix, 101, 103, 104, 106, 122, 205–208, 237, 238 Kim, Sungmoon on Confucian morality and democracy, 155, 226, 228, 231, 316, 319 on familial affection, 227 as *uri* group responsibility 228, 319 Kobong (Gi Gobong), 192, 205–208 *See also* Gobong (Gi Daesung)

Korean Buddhist flms, 298, 299 Buddhist *jeong*, under Confucian infuence of *uri*-ism, 78, 341, 342 Confucian foundation on, *jeong*, 84, 340, 342 (*see also Jeong* 情, Korean, Confucian infuence of humanism and social values on) distinctiveness of, *han* and *heung* emotions, 68, 70–72, 78, 236, 246–249, 254, 315, 317, 319, 320, 338, 341 distinctiveness/uniqueness of, *jeong*, 72, 81n161, 98, 99, 114, 244, 317, 332, 336, 340, 341 emotion of *han* (*see Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean) *jeong* (*see Jeong* 情, Korean) *jeong* in, philosophy and religion, vii, viii, 2, 5, 6, 14, 335 (*see also Jeong* 情, Korean) *pungnyu* (*poong-ryu*), related to emotions (*see Pungnyu* (or *poong-ryu*)) social emotions, *han* and *heung*, 68, 70, 71, 236, 246–249, 254, 338 (*see also Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean; *Heung* 興 (utmost joy; exhilaration), Korean social emotion of) women, *han*, compassion, and *salim*, 72, 82–84, 303, 304, 316, 324

Kuan Yin *bodhisattva*, 305, 309

### **L**

Laozi (Daoist) on emotionlessness and no desires (*mujeong*/*wuqing*), 12, 20

on emotions, 12, 14, 220n13, 250 repudiates emotions and desires as selfsh or precarious, 5n2, 12 *See also* Daoism Lau, D. C., xix, 20 Legge, James, xix, 23, 52, 126, 194 Liu, Lydia, 196, 197 Love, 2, 15 according to Buddha and Mahāyāna, 38, 43, 45, 48 family/parental, 9, 219, 327 as *jeong* in Korean tradition, 236, 259, 261, 318, 320, 322, 333 one of Seven, in Confucianism, 16, 19, 23, 29, 36, 52, 78, 100, 104, 148, 166, 171, 217, 237, 238, 317 Yi Yulgok on, 152, 153 *See also* Affection; *Jeong* 情, Korean, as affection, adhesive bond,

and/or relational attachment

### **M**

Mahāyāna Chan on emotions (*see* Chan (Zen), and Huineng, on no-thought and no emotions; Huineng and Chan) Chinese, on emotions, 46–49 Indian, on emotions, 43–45 Indian, on great compassion and ultimate joy, 38, 43–45, 83 (*see* Compassion, in Buddhism) Korean, perspectives of emotions, 46, 48, 49, 73–80, 266, 268, 337, 339, 341 (*see also* Jinul, eminent Korean monk; Wonhyo, eminent Korean monk) *Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra on* compassion, 44 *Śikṣāsamuccaya* sutra on generosity, utmost joy, and 44, 83n164

Tiantai on emotions, 4, 46 *See also* Buddha, Shakyamuni; Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), in Buddhist tradition Manhae, Korean monk, on social salvation, 301 Marks, Joel compatible with Yi Yulgok's theory of desires, 149, 151, 157 on dispassion, 10, 42 emotions as desires, 10, 11, 13, 22, 41, 62, 149, 151, 157 Material force (or vital energy), *see Gi*/*qi* (vital/physical energy or material force) Mencius (Mengzi or *Mencius*) on compassion, one of Four Beginnings of virtue, 10, 11, 16, 17, 24–26, 28, 30, 34, 53, 100, 149, 171, 179, 215, 237, 325, 339, 340 doctrine of Four Beginnings, 4, 9, 11, 20–24, 32, 53, 54, 57–59, 100, 101, 149, 153, 214–216, 237, 238 Four as innate knowledge of good (*yangji*) and to do good (*yangneung*), 26, 33, 37, 58 Four as moral (good) emotions, 4, 19, 20, 25–27, 32, 48, 53, 54, 56–58, 60, 62, 100, 107, 145, 149, 152, 217 on imagination and human becoming, 200 on moral-spiritual dimension of emotions, 26–29, 54, 339 as original/innate human goodness, 25, 27, 28, 37, 56, 238 on other related ideas, 199–202, 204–208, 328 *See also* Four (Beginnings/roots/ seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端);

as innate knowledge of good (*yangji*) *Mibal* (unaroused state), 108–113, 110n22, 111n26, 113n31, 127, 128 *See also* Arousal (aroused; manifestation), before (*mibal*) or after (*ibal*), of emotions Mind, human (or ordinary human mind; *insim*) as identifed with physical form (*hyeonggi*), 33 precarious involving good and evil, 56 *See also* Heart-mind (heart or mind; *sim*/*xin* 心); Mind, moral (or Dao moral mind; *dosim*) Mind, moral (or Dao moral mind; *dosim*) aroused by Heaven's principle (*cheolli*), 33 good as moral principles/virtues, 33, 56, 101 *See also* Heart-mind (heart or mind; *sim*/*xin* 心); Mind, human (or ordinary human mind; *insim*); Mind, moral and human mind Mind, moral and human mind before arousal or after arousal, respectively, 108, 113 Four and Seven relating to, 32, 57, 104, 106 Yulgok on, 56, 57, 104 Zhu Xi quotes, on moral mind and human mind, 32, 33, 33n65, 127 *See also* Mind, human (or ordinary human mind; *insim*); Mind, moral (or Dao moral mind; *dosim*)

Mindfulness, *gyeong* as, 17, 53, 61, 105, 122 *See also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral self-cultivation of; Yi Toegye, *gyeong* to control emotions; Zhu Xi, on *gyeong* as moral virtue Minjung, Korean Buddhism, 300 Moral equality, Confucian idea of, 219–221 Moral illness, Sotaesan's Won Buddhist view of, 280, 287–288 *See also* Sotaesan (founder of Korean Won Buddhism) *Musim* (無心 no heart-mind), and Korean social emotions, 244, 247–250

### **N**

*Naehun* 內訓 (Teaching women), Confucian text, 323–326 Niebuhr, Reinhold, 286–287, 290, 291 *Nirvana* (*nirvāṇa*), as enlightenment, 17, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 82, 284, 298, 300–302, 308, 310 Non-self (no-self), Buddhist doctrine of, 275, 283, 284

### **O**

Ogyu Sorai, Japanese Kogaku scholar, 114n32 Onto-directive approach, to Korean Neo-Confucian debates on emotions, 59, 99, 101, 106, 107, 112–115

### **P**

Park, Andrew Sung, 318, 319

Park, Jin Y., on compassion in Korean Buddhist ethics, 78

Passion(s) another word for emotion, 2, 7, 13, 18, 22, 38 Buddha (Buddhism) repudiates, 38, 39, 43, 47, 82, 337 Hegel on (*see* Hegel on passion) Huineng on "evils of passions" (*see*  Huineng and Chan) Huineng and Zen on "crushing passions (*see* Huineng and Chan) not in confict with cognition, 13 Solomon's theory of (*see* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), Solomon, Robert on, as judgements) Yulgok on, 145, 153, 155, 158, 337, 340, 341 Yulgok's notion of, compared with Solomon's theory of, 62, 153, 157, 341 *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), passion(s) as; Solomon, Robert Patriarchy, and traditional Korea, 320–324 Plato (Platonic or Platonism), 1, 2, 13, 188, 192, 197 Political equality, Confucian idea of, 222 Popular sovereignty, Confucian notion of, 224, 225 Pragmatism, 192, 202, 204, 206 *Prajñāpāramitā*, Mahāyāna scripture, 44n91, 283, 284 Psycho-affective approach, to Korean Neo-Confucian debates on emotions, 99, 107, 112–115 *Pungnyu* (or *poong-ryu*), 246–248 Daoist infuence, 342 as related with Korean *musim* (non-attachment), 70 related to Korean emotions *heung*, *jeong*, 70–72, 236, 247, 254

Pure Land, xix, 4, 46 emphasizes compassion and love, 48 *See also* Buddhism (Buddhist); Mahāyāna, Chinese, on emotions

### **Q**

Qu Yuan, 166–168, 170 Queen Sohye, 323–325, 332 Quietness (*jeong*/*jing*), 321–322

### **R**

Rationality (reason) against emotionality (emotion), 1, 13, 14, 49, 51, 151, 209 Resentment (*won*/*yuan* 怨) in Dasan's Confucianism, 16, 53, 59, 72, 166–169, 178, 337–339, 341 (*see also Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean) and gratitude in Won Buddhism, 15, 80, 81, 279–281, 283–284, 286–291, 295, 338 related to Korean *han* (suffering, deep resentment), 241, 254, 317, 318, 327, 339, 342 *See also* Grief (sorrow), emotion of; *Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean Reverence (*gyeong*/*jing*), *see Gyeong* Reverential concentration, 122 seriousness, 122 (*see also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral self-cultivation of; Yi Toegye, *gyeong* to control emotions; Zhu Xi, on *gyeong* as moral virtue)

Romanization of Korean names and terms, xv, xvi, 144n2 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques on emotions, as moral foundation, 8

### **S**

*Sadan/siduan*, *see* Four (Beginnings/ roots/seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端) Sages/sagehood (or sagely), Confucian, 18, 20–22, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 37, 108, 111, 122, 129, 130, 139, 167–169, 172, 174, 178, 221, 223, 229, 326 Sage-ruler democratization of, 222 as interconnection between morality and politics, 219–220 *Salim* 살림 (enlivening of life), Korean, dealing with *han* and women, 68, 72, 316, 319, 326, 331–333 *See also Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean; *Uri* (we/our) *Samādhi*, 77, 283, 285, 294 *Saṃsāra*, 82, 283, 298, 302, 303, 305, 308, 310 Sangje/Shangdi (Lord on High), 63, 64, 180, 181 Selfshness (selfsh cravings), 14, 15, 17, 260 Buddhist repudiation of, 17, 39, 41, 46 Confucian view of, 20, 22, 24, 35, 36, 53, 61, 65, 124, 198, 337 due to individual *gi*/*qi*, 55 evil due to, 31, 60, 61, 153 (*see also*  Evil, due to selfshness (or selfsh cravings))

Selfshness (selfsh cravings) (*cont*.) Korean Buddhism on eliminating, 76, 78, 279, 280, 285 Yi Toegye rejects, 53, 61, 130, 134 Zhuangzi repudiates, 5n2 *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), Selfshness (selfsh cravings); Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情) Sensation in Buddhism, 7, 38–40 in Confucianism, 32, 56 in East Asian religion, 2, 226 related to emotion, 2, 11, 15, 157 Yulgok on, 62, 146, 147 *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情) Sensitivity, moral in Korean Won Buddhism, 280, 286, 287, 295 Sentient beings, Buddhist notion of, 49, 77, 270, 272, 273, 281, 285, 287 Sentiment(s) another word for emotion, xvii, 2, 18, 145 in Confucianism, 51, 216, 218, 221, 224, 229, 317, 336, 339 extended from familial moral affection, 228 Mencius on moral, 216 Smith on moral, 7, 15 in Western thought, 28, 157 *See also* Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情); Smith, Adam on, sympathy and moral nature Seon (Zen), Korean, 298, 301, 302 *Seong*/*xing* 性 (human nature), xviii, 19, 27 S*ee also* Human nature *Seonghak jibyo* (Collected essentials of sagely learning) by Yulgok, 62, 144, 152, 153

emotions in, 144, 152, 153 *See also* Yi Yulgok *Seonghak sipdo* (Ten diagrams on sage learning) by Yi Toegye, 122, 172 Seongnihak, 37, 58, 63, 145, 156, 192 Seriousness, *gyeong* translated as, 122 *See also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral self-cultivation of; Yi Toegye, *gyeong* to control emotions Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情) aroused by (or manifestations of) *gi*/*qi*, 30–32, 55, 103, 104, 107, 111 *Book of Rites* on, 21n29, 23, 24, 35, 36, 52, 100, 148n17, 166, 237 *Doctrine of the Mean* on short list of, 23, 24, 109 (*see also Doctrine of the Mean*) emotional control over, 30, 52, 109, 282 as manifestations of *gi*/*qi*, 30, 55, 169 not learned/sought from the outside, 23, 36, 52, 149 not moral emotions, 148 as (ordinary) physical/psychological states, xvii, 23, 24, 56, 97, 112 pertain to physical human nature, 56 as pleasure, anger, sorrow, fear, love, hatred, and desire, 21n29, 23, 24, 35, 36, 52, 100, 148n17, 166, 237 as potentially evil, 31, 36, 56, 60, 61, 101, 151 (*see also* Evil, (Toegye on) Seven Emotions as potentially; Selfshness (selfsh cravings)) as potentially good emotions, 24, 152

Yulgok on, as good emotions if harmonized, 152 (*see also* Yi Yulgok, on justifed anger/ hatred as moral indignation)

Yulgok on, as totality of emotions, 54

*See also* Evil; Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions); Four-Seven debate, in Korean Confucianism

Seven feelings, *see* Seven (Emotions)

	- *See also* Heart-mind (heart or mind; *sim*/*xin* 心); Mind, human (or ordinary human mind; *insim*); Mind, moral and human mind
	- *See also* Yi Toegye

Slote, Michael

on empathy and virtue ethics, 16, 62, 157

related to Yulgok's Confucian ethics of emotions, 62, 157

Smith, Adam on, sympathy and moral nature, 16n21, 28, 62, 157

Social emotions, Korean 238, 244 *See also* Korean, social

Solidarity, affectionate and moral, 214, 228, 229, 231

Solomon, Robert

compared with Yulgok's passion for social justice, 62, 153, 157, 341

on judgement, 10, 11, 13, 28n65, 62, 157 Somaesthetics, 192, 195, 198, 199, 204, 206, 208 Son, Chul Woo, 322 Sorrow (grief), East and West, 10, 15, 145 in Buddhism, 40, 45 one of Seven in Confucianism, 16, 21, 23, 30, 34, 35, 52, 71n147, 104, 109, 122, 148, 166, 171, 254, 265, 341 related to Korean *han*, 310 *See also* Grief (sorrow), emotion of; *Han* (恨 suffering, grievance, deep resentment), Korean Sotaesan (founder of Korean Won Buddhism) four-fold benefcence, 81, 287–290, 292 inspired by Confucian benevolence (*in*/*ren*), 80, 81, 282 on removing resentment by gratitude, 80, 291, 295 suffering caused by resentment, 80, 279, 280 *See also* Won Buddhism, Korean Suffering in Won Buddhism, 279, 280, 283–285, 295 *See also* Grief (sorrow), emotion of *Susim gyeol* (Secrets on cultivating the mind) by Jinul, on emotional suppression, xvin1, 75 Sympathy Hume and Adam Smith on, 16n21, 28, 62, 157, 340 (*see also*  Smith, Adam on, sympathy and moral nature) Slote on empathy and virtue ethics, 16, 62, 341

#### **T**

Translation and transliteration, of Korean and East Asian terms, xv–xviii, xix Translation, of Korean Four-Seven letters/ideas, 193–197 Translingual practice, 191, 192, 199–209

### **U**

Ugye (Seong Hon), 101, 101n8, 104, 107, 113, 114 *Uri* (we/our) Confucian infuence on, 78–80, 228, 340–342 (*see also Jeong* 情, Korean, Confucian infuence of humanism and social values on; Korean, Confucian foundation on, *jeong*) Korean uniqueness of, 72, 316, 318, 341 regarding Korean *jeong* and compassion, 78, 236, 238, 337, 340 (*see also* Compassion, Confucian, and Korean *jeong* and *uri*) in relation to Korean *jeong* and *han*, 68, 70, 315, 318, 319, 332, 341 and *salim* (enlivening of life), 72, 78, 236, 238, 316, 324, 337, 340 *See also* We-ism, *uri*; We-ness, *uri*

### **V**

Virág, Curie on emotions in early Chinese thought, 12, 14, 19, 21 Virtue ethics, 16, 28, 29, 60, 136–138 Sher and Montague on, 61 Slote's, of empathy, 16, 29, 62, 137

Yulgok's, 62, 157 *See also* Slote, Michael Vital energy (*gi*/*qi* material force), *see Gi*/*qi* (vital/physical energy or material force)

### **W**

Wang Fuzhi, Qing Chinese Neo-Confucian, 156 Wang Yangming, Ming Chinese Neo-Confucian, xix, 4, 21, 27 *Chuanxi lu* (Instructions for practical living), xvi, 34 on Confucius' true joy of learning, 34, 35, 37 emotional control over Seven, 24, 34, 36 Four and innate knowledge of good (*yangji*/*liangzhi*), 27, 34, 37, 114n32 on heart-mind (*sim*/*xin*), selfsh emotions, and moral practice, 33–37 and Jeong Hagok on "doing good and removing evil," 37, 58 substance of heart-mind, 34–37 We-ism, *uri*, 267, 276 *See also Uri* (we/our) We-ness, *uri*, 261, 262, 267, 268, 276 *See also Uri* (we/our) Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 189, 190 Won Buddhism, Korean, 80, 81, 279, 281–285, 288, 293–295 Confucian infuence on, 281, 283 doing justice and eradicating injustice, 292, 294, 295 on protecting the helpless, 294, 295 removing resentment by gratitude, 80 *See also* Sotaesan (founder of Korean Won Buddhism)

Wonhyo, eminent Korean monk, xv, xix, 4, 6, 14, 46, 52, 81, 84, 274, 275

on entrenchment of emotions, 74 *Geumgang sammaegyeong non* by,

on elimination of harmful emotions, 75

*ilsim* (一心 one heart-mind) and Daehaeng's idea of *hanmaeum*, 268–271, 341

on *ilsim*, in relation to Korean *jeong*, 73, 79, 80, 266, 268, 341

*Ijang eui* (Doctrine of the two hindrances), on emotions as affictive hindrances, 46, 75

and Jinul, on "great compassion," 49, 77, 78, 339

and Jinul, as compatible with Confucian emotional control, 76

repudiates affictions (*kleśa*) of greed, delusion, craving, anger, pride, 48, 74, 75, 337

*See also* Buddha, Shakyamuni; *Jeong* 情, Korean, Buddhist and contemporary perspectives of; Mahāyāna

### **X**

*Xinjing* (Classic of heart-andmind), 165

### **Y**

Yan Hui, 172 Yan Yuan, 156 Yi Gan (Oeam), Korean Neo-Confucian, 108, 110–113, 111n26, 112n29, 114 Yi Hwang (Toegye), *see* Yi Toegye *Yijing*, *see Book of Changes* Yi Jiu, crown prince, 166–168 Yi Toegye, xv, xviii, xix, xxiii, 14, 21, 50, 65, 101 current scholarship on, 24n38, 24n39 on desires as precarious, 56 evil due to selfsh cravings, 24, 31 Four aroused by (manifestations of) *i*/*li*, 55, 56, 101, 203, 205, 218 Four as moral emotions and foundation, 54–56, 60, 106, 113, 217 Four-Seven distinction (difference), 31, 54, 55, 57, 60, 101–103, 105, 114 (*see also* Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions)) on *gyeong* as virtuous emotion, 17, 53, 55, 60, 61, 66, 105, 121–123, 128–135, 139, 202, 205, 339 *gyeong* to control emotions, 53, 55, 57, 123, 124, 130, 135 (*see also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral selfcultivation of) moral-religious dimension of his thought, 27, 54, 60 original and physical human natures, 32, 56 (*see also* Human nature, original, and physical, in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*) Seven as aroused by (manifestations of) *gi*/*qi*, 55, 56, 101–103, 217 (*see also* Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情)) on Seven as potentially evil, 31, 36, 55, 56, 60, 61, 151

Yi Yulgok, xv, xvi, xviii, xix, xxiii, 14, 15, 21, 24, 30, 50, 52, 53, 60 compatible with Marks' theory of desires, 62, 151 (*see also*  Marks, Joel) compatible with Slote's virtue ethics of empathy (*see* Slote, Michael) compatible with Smith's theory of sympathy (*see* Smith, Adam, on sympathy and moral) compatible with Solomon's theory of judgment and passion (*see*  Solomon, Robert) contemporary relevance of his ethics of emotions, 63, 145, 155, 159 criticized Toegye's Four-Seven thesis, 31, 57, 156 (*see also*  Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions) current scholarship on, 24n38, 24n39, 144n1 on desires as individual needs, 147, 148, 151 (*see also* Desires (*yok* 欲)) emotions aroused by *gi*/*qi*, 104, 106, 147, 151 (*see also* Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情)) on emotional harmony, 144, 148, 159 emotions as conscious of physical form and concrete world, 149, 150 Four and Seven regarding oneness of moral and human minds, 56, 57, 104 (*see also* Mind, moral and human mind) Four as moral emotions or "good side of Seven," 54, 56, 152 (*see also* Four (Beginnings/roots/ seeds), of virtue (*sadan* 四端))

Four-Seven continuum and inseparability, 31, 55 (*see also*  Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions)) on justifed anger/hatred as moral indignation, 15, 152, 153, 337 moral desires, 148, 152, 157 moral emotions based on judgment, 62, 157, 158 no dichotomy between emotion and reason, 14, 52, 151 (*see also*  Emotion(s) (or feelings; *jeong* 情), dichotomy of, and reason) passion for reform and social wellbeing (Confucian democracy), 145, 153, 155, 158, 337, 340, 341 political reform essays (*see Dongho mundap*; *Yukjogye*) on proper (true) joy as good emotion, 152, 154 (*see also*  Confucius, true emotions of joy (*rak*/*le*) and sorrow (*ae*/*ai*)) quotes and interprets *Doctrine of the Mean*, 152, 154 (*see also Doctrine of the Mean*) role of emotions in self-cultivation and ethics, 151–153 role of emotions in statecraft, 154–155, 158, 159 on sensations as emotions, 62, 146, 147 (*see also* Sensation) *Seonghak jibyo* by, on self-cultivation (*see Seonghak jibyo* (Collected essentials of sagely learning) by Yulgok) Seven as potentially "good emotions," 24, 152 (*see also*  Seven (Emotions) (seven feelings; *chiljeong* 七情)) "transform/nourish *gi*/*qi*" through emotional harmony, 144, 153

Yü, Chün-fang, 307, 311 *Yukjogye* (Six-article memorial for current affairs), by Yi Yulgok, xvi, 62 on political reform and Confucian democracy, 144, 154 (*see also*  Yi Yulgok)

#### **Z**

Zhang Zai, Sung Chinese Neo-Confucian, 173, 331 *Zhongyon*g, 165, 169, 174, 179, 194, 201 *See also Doctrine of the Mean* Zhu Xi, xv, xvi, xviii, xix, 4, 21, 27, 37, 50, 58, 59, 63, 97, 109, 121, 145, 146, 172–174, 193, 206, 207, 265 Dasan opposed his philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, 55, 58 (*see also*  Dasan, Jeong Yagyong) on emotions and Four-Seven relationship, 29–33 Four and Seven in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, 31, 55 Four-Seven distinction, 30–32 (*see also* Four (Beginnings) and Seven (Emotions))

on *gyeong* as moral virtue, 55, 57, 61, 121–128, 130, 133, 134, 138 (*see also Gyeong*/*jing* 敬 (reverence), for moral selfcultivation of) on human nature, 173–174 (*see also*  Human nature, original, and physical, in terms of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*) moral mind and human mind,32, 33, 33n65, 56, 127 (*see also*  Mind, moral and human mind) on original and physical human natures, 56 (*see also*  Human nature) philosophy of *i*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*, 24, 31, 147 (*see also I*/*li* and *gi*/*qi*) on removing selfsh desires, 124 *Seonghak sipdo* (Ten diagrams on sage learning), 122 Zhuangzi, Daoist, 14, 18, 220, 250 on Daoist emotionlessness (*mujeong*), 12, 20 repudiates selfsh emotions and desires, 5n2 on ultimate "joy" and "freedom" and mystical life, 12, 20