In this blog post, we will examine how Confucian scholars in the mid-Joseon period understood and accepted Taoism.
Early Confucian scholars in Joseon refused to acknowledge the existence and legitimacy of Taoism, viewing it as a heresy, and were extremely wary of allowing Taoism to infiltrate the Confucian ideological system. This overall negative perception of Taoism remained largely unchanged until the mid-Joseon period. Nevertheless, signs of change gradually appeared after the mid-Joseon period, and in this atmosphere, commentaries on Laozi and Zhuangzi began to appear.
Yulgok Yi I, a representative Neo-Confucian scholar, judged that the ideas of Laozi were somewhat lacking in theoretical depth and loftiness compared to Confucianism, but he believed that the virtues of self-cultivation contained therein were worth listening to. In particular, he sought the possibility of integrating the ideas contained in Laozi into the Confucian system of self-cultivation and governance, and presented a pioneering framework for interpretation. Yulgok’s perspective was an attempt that differed from the unilateral rejection of Taoist thought at the time.
Similarly, Seo Myeong-eung accepted the principles of emptiness (虛) and humility (謙) found in Laozi as guidelines for health and conduct, and sought to apply them to his own life. In addition, Hong Seok-ju emphasized “keeping still” and “having few desires” as methods of self-cultivation, interpreting the inner restraint and tranquility presented in the Tao Te Ching as key elements of health preservation. These attempts are in line with Yulgok’s perspective and can be seen as an interpretive trend showing that Taoist thought is not necessarily contrary to the principles of Confucianism.
They believed that Laozi’s original intention was not to undermine the Confucian system of self-cultivation, but rather to complement it. It was their common view that later generations misunderstood or misinterpreted this, leading to a negative perception of Laozi. This perception led to a trend of distinguishing between Laozi and Zhuangzi rather than treating them as equivalent. For example, Seo Myeong-eung pointed out that the contents of the Zhuangzi were divorced from reality and absurd, arguing that it should be clearly distinguished from the Tao Te Ching.
In addition, Hong Seok-ju distinguished between the ways of thinking of Laozi and Zhuangzi even within Taoist thought, and he clearly expressed his critical stance, citing Zhuangzi’s attacks and condemnation of Confucianism. This attitude can be seen as part of the intellectual efforts of Confucian scholars to further subdivide and accept Taoist thought. Among the many commentators on Taoist texts, Park Se-dang is particularly noteworthy.
Although he believed that the ideas of Laozi did not reach the level of the Way of the Sage as described in Confucianism, he did not think that they should be rejected. Park Se-dang decided that it was necessary to interpret the widely read Laozi within the Confucian framework, and he made the correct interpretation of Laozi his academic task and intellectual practice.
He positively evaluated the humility and restraint presented in Laozi and accepted concepts such as “wu” (nothingness) and “wu-wei” (non-action) as useful concepts by reinterpreting them from a Confucian perspective. At the same time, however, he also critically examined the ideas of Laozi. For example, he viewed the passage, “If you want to take something away, you must first give it,” as a form of political maneuvering, and interpreted the phrase, “Do not dwell on fame and profit,” as hiding a selfish intention to gain fame for oneself. Park Se-dang’s position was not uncritical acceptance, but rather an attempt to discerningly integrate Taoist ideas from the perspective of Confucianism.
Meanwhile, Park Se-dang believed that the fundamental nature of Zhuangzi’s ideas had not been clearly elucidated at that time. Based on this understanding, he sought to provide a new commentary on Zhuangzi, evaluating Zhuangzi as a figure who faithfully followed the teachings of Confucius among the Hundred Schools of Thought. Park Se-dang viewed the Zhuangzi not as a work of nihilism and despair, but as a classic closely related to the realization of social values. He understood that Zhuangzi was not ignorant of the ethical system of Confucianism, but rather was aware of it, and that his ideas were not detached from the real world.
One of the most notable points in Park Se-dang’s interpretation of Zhuangzi is his interpretation of the concept of “seongsim” (成心) in “Je-mo-ron.” Zhuangzi originally viewed “seongsim” as a preconception formed in the course of an individual’s life, that is, a cognitive structure that causes the distinction between self and others. He saw the problem in the fact that this “seongsim” acts as an absolute standard for judging all situations. This is because the perceptions formed in the course of life are inevitably relative, and when this relativity is made absolute, it limits our judgments of other people and things and leads to conflict. Ultimately, Zhuangzi concluded that right and wrong are fundamentally based on fiction, and to overcome this, he proposed an attitude of contemplation, or a calm and transcendent view of things.
On the other hand, Park Sae-dong interpreted “seongsim” from a completely different perspective. He regarded “seongsim” as an absolute principle inherent in humans, given by heaven, or in other words, a universal and righteous mind. He believed that all people have an absolute standard within themselves and that judgments based on this standard must be objective. From this perspective, he believed that conflicts could be naturally resolved and that a commonality of perception could be achieved. Park Se-dang was convinced that this objective judgment of right and wrong could serve as a practical basis for rational political action.
Park Se-dang’s approach was somewhat similar to that of other commentators on Taoist texts at the time, who deliberately omitted or softened the anti-Confucian elements of the Tao Te Ching. Rather than making a dichotomous distinction between Confucian and Taoist thought, he sought to harmoniously integrate the two, thereby broadening the horizon for an inclusive interpretation of Taoist thought. The work of Park Se-dang and other commentators on Taoist texts is regarded as a symbolic example of the trend among Confucian scholars in the mid-Joseon period to break away from their conservative and closed attitudes and broaden their understanding and acceptance of other ideas.
