In this article, I examine the understanding of and intellectual response to Western Learning by the Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region, which refers to present-day Gyeongsang Province, around the 19th century. In particular, I review how these scholars perceived and criticized the concepts of Deus (Ch. Tianzhu; Ko. Cheonju) and anima (yeonghon), which the books on Western Learning introducing Catholicism particularly emphasized. Confucian scholars at that time understood the concept of ancestral spirit in a different way from the concept of anima in books on Western Learning. They tried to elucidate the meaning of the traditional ritual of ancestor worship, which was closely connected with the spirit (hon) of the ancestor, from the Neo-Confucian perspective of the theory of principle and material force (igi ron). While these efforts had been made in the past, various complex elements of the Yeongnam region during the 19th century drove the intellectual reflection and response of these scholars. For instance, the circulation of various books on Western Learning that entered Joseon, the concern arising from the how contemporary intellectuals sympathized with a considerable part of the arguments made in books on Western Learning such as The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven (Tianzhu shiyi), All Signs Indicating the Lord’s Reign (Zhuzhi qunzheng), A Preliminary Discussion on Anima (Ling yan li shao), and Seven Overcomings (Qi ke), and the demand that Confucian scholars must respond to the critical questions books on Western Learning posed to them all worked together to urge the Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region to reflect upon and contemplate their own beliefs and values.1
After the shock of the Jinsan Incident in early 1791, during which Catholics burned the spirit tablets of their parents and refused to carry out Confucian funerary rites and ancestor worship, Western Learning as well as books on them were officially regarded as heterodoxy and banned in Joseon. Of course, even after the government announced the ban, books on Western Learning spread around the capital and Gyeonggi area as well as the Hoseo region, which refers to present-day Chungcheong Province, through various routes. The early 19th century, however, when the Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region discussed Catholicism, was after the king Jeongjo had died and the 1801 Catholic Persecution had taken place, which made it difficult for them to directly access books on Western Learning. These scholars appear to have indirectly encountered Western Learning and the principles of Catholicism through the writings of the Southerner faction based in the Gyeonggi area, particularly those of the Seongho School.2 Yi Ik and An Jeongbok’s discussions of Western Learning and Catholicism were transmitted to the disciples studying under Daesan Yi Sangjeong 李象靖 (1711–1781), who criticized the writings in various ways. Nam Hanjo 南漢朝 (1744–1809), Jo Suldo 趙述道 (1729–1803), Jeong Jongno 鄭宗魯 (1738–1816), and Ryu Geonhyu 柳健休 (1768–1834) defined Western Learning and Catholicism as heterodoxy and expressed their concern about the scholarly attitude of the Seongho School, which took a favorable stance in their interpretation of Catholicism.3 Ryu Geonhyu, who regarded Buddhism, the Xiang-Shan School, and the Wang Yangming School in addition to Catholicism as heterodoxy and broadly recorded the criticisms of his senior scholars, also added his own opinion in his text Collection of Criticisms of Heterodoxy (Ihak jipbyeon 異學集辨), quoting the writings of Yi Ik 李瀷 (1681–1763), who wrote the postscript to The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven, and An Examination of Catholicism (Cheonhak go 天學考) and Questions on Catholicism (Cheonhak hongmun 天學或問), also known as Questions and Answers on Catholicism (Cheonhak mundap 天學問答), by An Jeongbok 安鼎福 (1712–1791).4 Nam Hanjo, the teacher of Ryu Geonhyu who once directly corresponded with An Jeongbok, wrote “Discussion of Doubtful Points in Sunam An Jeongbok’s Questions on Catholicism” (An Sunam Cheonhak hongmun byeonui 安順庵天學或問辨疑) and “Discussion of Doubtful Points in Seongho Yi Ik’s Postscript to The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven” (Yi Seongho Ik Cheonju silui bal byeonui 李星湖瀷天主實義跋辨疑) after receiving the writings of An Jeongbok through his disciple Sin Chibong 申致鳳 (1743–?).5
Previous studies have already shown how the Southerners of the Yeongnam region distanced themselves ideologically from the Southerners of the Gyeonggi area in order to assert the legitimacy and identity of their school of thought among other scholars of the Toegye School.6 These scholars in the Yeongnam region were strongly aware that they had carried on the Way by inheriting the legitimacy of the Toegye School. They expressed this by redefining the learning they had succeeded as orthodoxy (jeonghak 正學) and simultaneously vehemently objecting to heterodox learnings that went against it. Such scholarly efforts naturally led to the criticism by these Yeongnam Confucian scholars of the perspective of Western Learning, which was not easy to accept from the Neo-Confucian worldview of the Zhu Xi School. In particular, the Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region, who emphasized the non-actional (muwi) and non-personified properties of the Neo-Confucian concepts of the Great Ultimate (taegeuk) and principle (ri), found it difficult to accept the concept of a Master of Heaven (cheonju), a personified ruler described as being able to judge between the rewardable good and the punishable evil. It was also not easy for them to understand the notion of anima unique to a certain individual entity that lasted without end as they believed in ghosts and spirits (gwisin), the spiritual and physical side of the soul (honbaek), and the becoming and disappearing of all things due to the contraction and extension (gulsin 屈伸), decline and growth (sojang 消長), and the making and transformation (johwa 造化) of yin and yang. This article will focus on the intellectual understanding and critical response of the Confucian scholars of Yeongnam region regarding these two points.
Matteo Ricci 利瑪竇 (1552–1610) judged that the concept of Emperor Above (Ch. shangdi; Ko. sangje) in ancient Confucian Classics was useful to propagate the concept of Deus in China. He argued from the complementary view (boyu ron) that Deus and Emperor Above meant the same entity. He used the Theory of Four Causes of Aristotle (384–322 BC) to prove the existence of Deus. In other words, the material and form constituting all things is innate in things, but the efficient cause and final cause that moved all things and let them realize their purpose is external and thus is Deus.7 Ricci defended the personified Emperor Above of Confucianism, which he saw to be similar to Deus, and criticized the theory of principle and material force (igi ron) of Neo-Confucianism. He particularly argued that the concept of principle (ri 理) or the Great Ultimate (taeguek 太極), which did not have rational capabilities (yeongseong 靈性 or yeongjae 靈才), could not create or rule spiritual entities such as human beings and thus could not be the ruler of all things.8 According to Ricci, principle (ri) was not a substance, or substania (zilizhe 自立者), that exists by itself but an accident, or accidentia (yifutzhe 依賴者), that had to depend on other things for its existence.9
Ricci also presented the hierarchy of various souls such as the living soul (saenghon 生魂), the sentient soul (gakhon 覺魂), and the spiritual soul of humans, or anima humana (yeonghon 靈魂), that was created by Deus. He emphasized that the physical body with form (sinhyeong 身形) disappeared, but the human soul did not.10 Ricci argued that ghosts and spirits (gwisin) and souls of the deceased ancestors were not made up by material force (gi 氣), pointing out that while ghosts and spirits were revered and worshiped through worshiping rites, there was no rule about performing rituals of worship to material force.11 The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven seriously questioned the way the Chinese had the long-standing tradition of worshiping their ancestors and carrying out rituals of ancestor worship but did not believe in the immortality of the spiritual soul after death. His criticism that such rituals were empty acts of amusement if the soul of the dead all disappeared in the end and could not receive the worshiping rites performed by descendants12 posed a grave challenge for the intellectuals of late Joseon. The Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region in the 19th century also took this intellectual challenge seriously. They thought hard about the ghosts, spirits, and souls they believed in as well as the principles and significance of the rituals of ancestor worship. In the following sections of this article, I first examine what the concept of principle (ri 理) meant in the Neo-Confucian worldview that the Confucian scholars of Yeongnam region primarily shared from the two aspects of non-action (muwi) and ruling over (jujae). Next, I look at the words of the Southerners of Yeongnam region to review how the Neo-Confucian concept of principle (ri) or Emperor Above (sangje), which contained both aspects, proved different from the concept of Deus in Catholicism. Finally, I look at the concept of soul (hon), which was different from the view of the anima of Catholicism and the basis and significance of the rituals of ancestor worship in relation.13
Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200), the Confucian scholar of Song China, and his disciples left many statements regarding the meaning of Emperor Above appearing in the ancient Confucian Classics. The School of Zhu Xi explains the world and things based on the theory of principle and material force, and Zhu Xi and his disciples interpreted the concept of Emperor Above by using the categories of principle and material force as well. Zhu Xi directly states that “The Emperor Above works by principle.”14 He distinguished between the blue sky, which has a visible form, and the heavens, which referred to the personified Emperor Above that imbued the people with the mind. Since the heavens granted the principle, this also meant that it ruled over (jujae 主宰).15 What did Zhu Xi mean by saying that the Emperor Above ruled over all things? According to Zhu Xi, the term ruling over should not be understood as meaning that there is an entity in the heavens that judges the sins of people.16 Although Zhu Xi writes that “King Wen is by the Emperor Above as he ascends and descends”17 in Book of Odes (Shijing), he explains that it is not right to say that King Wen was really beside the Emperor Above and the Emperor Above existed as if it were a clay figure (sosang 塑像) created in this world.18 His understanding was that the sages would have written this in the Confucian Classics for a reason. For instance, when Zhou Gong said in “The Metal-bound Coffer” (jinteng 金縢) of the Book of Documents (Shujing) that “he faithfully cleaned and set up the altar,” Zhu Xi took this as clearly indicating the act of praying to the Emperor Above and to ghosts and spirits. Although Zhu Xi did not regard that a personified Emperor Above ruled over the world by judging the evils of people, he also did not completely deny that the Emperor Above did indeed rule over.19 The features of the Emperor Above that Zhu Xi had in mind are related to the properties of the principle as in the following quote:
Principle exists where material force gathers. In general, material force can condense and contrive, whereas the principle has no emotions or intentions and is not contrived. Principle exists where material force collects and condenses […] the principle is simply a pure, empty, and vast world. It has no form, nor does it leave any trace. The principle cannot contrive. Material force can gradually change, condense, and produce things. At the center of such material force, however, lies the principle.20
The above is how Zhu Xi replied when asked by a disciple about the relationship between the principle and material force. According to his answer, it cannot be determined which comes before and after. All that can be known is that principle exists where there is material force, and material force circulates and depends on the principle. It is worth noting how Zhu Xi said that the principle has no emotion, will, the ability to plan, or the capacity to bring things into existence. These words, that principle has no emotion or intention, does not calculate or judge, and does not deliberately do or create, ultimately means that the principle does not have any personified or artificial properties. If Zhu Xi said earlier that the Emperor Above referred to the principle, then this seems to mean that the Emperor Above he was talking about was an entity with no emotions, will, judgement, or deliberate action, and thus did not rule over the world. At the same time, however, he said that it is not right to say that there is absolutely no entity ruling over the world. Then what did Zhu Xi mean by an Emperor Above that ruled over? When his disciple, referring to how the Emperor Above was commonly used to refer to the way the heavens ruled over the world, asked Zhu Xi who was it that ruled over then, Zhu Xi answered, “Ruling over exists in itself. The heavens are immensely strong and firm. It operates ceaselessly by itself. There is clearly an entity ruling over for this to be.”21
When explaining the meaning of the principle and Emperor Above, Zhu Xi saw that it had properties of ruling over on the one hand while also saying that there was no separate personified entity ruling over the world on the other. This is why he said that “Ruling over exists in itself” and not that there was a distinct entity making judgments. The words by Toegye Yi Hwang 李滉 (1501–1570), the 16th-century Confucian scholar of Joseon, resembles Zhu Xi’s basic approach to the principle and Emperor Above. Yi Hwang is famous for saying in his theory of principle and material force that the principle arises (ri bal 理發), the principle moves (ri dong 理動), and the principle is reached by itself (ri jado 理自到). In particular, he wrote in a letter to Gobong Gi Daeseung 奇大升 (1527–1572), who was one of his disciples, that the concept of the principle has both the aspect of a non-acting original form and the aspect of the act of moving and ruling over. The way Yi Hwang said “The principle is reached by itself” through the mind was an explanation of how the principle has properties of ruling over.
When speaking of the investigation of things, this means that one truly searches for the principle and realizes the law of all things. When speaking of things being investigated, can you not say that the ultimate principle itself will always reach one following this act of pursuit? This shows how the original nature of the principle is without emotion, will, or contrivance. It is the extremely mysterious work of the principle that it arises following what it encounters and that there is nowhere the principle cannot reach. Earlier, I only considered the aspect of the true form of the principle in its non-action without knowing that it can be realized through its mysterious work and consequently treated the principle practically as a lifeless thing. Is not this thought very far from the Way?22
Yi Hwang wrote that he had reconsidered the action of the principle thanks to the criticism by Gi Daeseung. In the quote above, Yi Hwang writes that he had only considered the fundamental aspect of the principle, that is, how it did not make specific effort and merely did not act. Now, however, he understood how the principle moved and manifested by itself. This is because Zhu Xi, during a conversation with his disciple, distinguished between the action of the mind and the action of the principle.23 According to Yi Hwang’s interpretation, Zhu Xi’s words that “the principle dwelled in all things, and the work of the principle does not go beyond the mind of humans” make it seem as if the action of the principle was still dependent on the work of the mind, but the way Zhu Xi distinguished the two by saying that “the principle acts, so why must we speak of the action of the mind?” shows that the principle went where the mind went was attained by itself. Yi Hwang thus saw that the principle possessed the two aspects of its original non-action and its aspect of subtle action. Because he acknowledged that the principle acted subtly, he said that the principle was reached in itself and warned against regarding the principle as a lifeless thing.
This is the context in which Yi Hwang said the principle was the heavens and Emperor Above was the ruling over by the heavens. When his disciple Yi Deokhong 李德弘 (1541–1596) asked Yi Hwang how to approach the issue of the heavens, Yi Hwang answered, “Since all above the earth is the heavens, the heavens accompany us wherever we may go. Heaven is the principle. When we understand that there is truly no object without the principle always dwelling within, then we would not be able to neglect the Emperor Above even for a single moment. The Emperor Above refers to the aspect of the heavens ruling over.”24 Yi Hwang often warned Yi Deokhong to “revere the Emperor Above” and told him that “since the Emperor Above is close to you, you must always be fearful whatever the object or wherever you may be.25 Yi Hwang did not just warn his disciples. In his memorial to the king Seonjo he urged him to listen to the love and mind of the heavens and listen to its will and orders. In the “Six-provision Memorial Submitted in the Mujin Year” (Mujin yukjo so 戊辰六條疏), Yi Hwang emphasized that the king, as one who had received the love of the heavens, must try to read the intentions of the Emperor Above. Because the imposing presence of the heavens was very strict and cannot be taken lightly, he told Seonjo, citing the Book of Odes and Book of Documents, it was important that the king fear the commanding presence of the heavens and follow its will.26 Yi Hwang appears to have partially acknowledged that the Emperor Above was a majestically noble entity that ruled over, similar to how he recognized the action of the principle. He underlined that the king and his disciples must know how to venerate and fear the Emperor Above, who was always by them.
Yi Sangjeong 李象靖 (1711–1781), an 18th-century Confucian scholar of the Yeongnam region, established himself as the scholarly leader of the Yeongnam Southerners by inheriting the household and Toegye School of thought, which had been carried on by Kim Seongil 金誠一 (1538–1593), Yi Hyeonil 李玄逸 (1627–1704), and Yi Jae 李栽 (1657–1730) after Yi Hwang’s death. After reflecting upon the problem of the order and movements of the principle and material force, he tried to better clarify the principle’s properties of non-action and ruling over in the following quotes below. While Yi Sangjeong acknowledged Yi Hwang’s theory that the principle arises by itself and moves at the same time, he tried to prevent such arguments from excessively emphasizing the ruling over of the principle and its contrivance.
As Toegye said, “The principle arises to become the Four Beginnings, upon which material force depends to arise. The principle is what lets this happen.” While saying that “the Great Ultimate gives birth to yang,” he also said that “the principle originally has no emotion, will, or contrivance. Its ability to rise and act is the extremely mysterious workings of the principle.” This is a highly accomplished discussion. However, its ability to arise and act is not a contrived action with intention but something that does and ceases by itself. This is the same as how it does not rule over while ruling over and how it does not act while doing.27
Zhu Xi said, “Movement is not the Great Ultimate. The Great Ultimate is what makes movement.” He also said, “Great Ultimate is the principle. The principle cannot be explained by movement, but since the principle dwells in material force, there also cannot be no movement.” Yulgok based his argument on these words. Zhu Xi also said, “There is movement in material force because there is movement in the principle. If the principle did not have movement, then what is the movement of material force based on?” He also said, “The principle makes things move without moving itself.” The principle generally manifests in living things. Although the principle uses the vehicle of material force in order to move, the subtlety displayed and operated by the principle is an extremely mysterious action. It does without doing and therefore does not lack action because it is too vast. It rules without ruling over and therefore does not lack the properties of ruling over because it is too enormous. It does not act but subtly rules over by itself. It rules over by itself but originally does not act. Only by understanding this can the wholeness of the Way can be discussed together.28
These quotes were written by Yi Sangjeong to defend and support Yi Hwang when the scholars of the Yulgok School, based on the argument of Yi I 李珥 (1536–1584), criticized Toegye’s theory of the mutual arising of the principle and material force. Following the words of Yi Hwang, Yi Sangjeong writes above that the discussion of the principle can only be complete when the original nature of the principle, which has no emotion, will, or action, and the subtle workings of the principle, which arises and rules over, are explained together. At the same time, he emphasized that it is important to understand that the principle rules over while seeming not to and that the principle acts without seeming to. He stresses the same point in the second quotation above. The principle cannot be described as not ruling over or not acting at all. Although the principle does not seem to act, it subtly rules over, and although it rules over, its original state is non-action in itself. By acknowledging both the original form and workings of the principle as its aspects of non-action and ruling over, Yi Sangjeong embraced and carried on the basic standpoint of Toegye. Citing Yi Hwang’s words, he saw that it was possible to see the principle and material force mutually arising, since sometimes material force follows the movement of the principle and sometimes the principle rides on the movement of material force. Regarding this point, he says that it was possible to distinguish between whether the principle was prioritized or the material force was prioritized.29 Since the two Chinese characters of movement, dong 動 and jeong 靜, can be used in both cases depending on what they referred to, he explained how the principle and material force can both have movement as the following:
While movement seems to truly belong to the side of material force, material force can move or be still because the principle is ruling over. It is therefore not problematic to say that the principle has movement. The principle is originally carried by material force. Therefore, even if the principle is said to have movement, the non-acting original form of the principle simply exists by itself. Even saying that the principle does not have movement will not damage the extremely subtle action of the principle, since the principle is what rules over material force. Their way of looking only at how the substance of the Way does not act and believing that the basis of movement and the opening and closing of yin and yang naturally exists by itself is to mistake the principle as a lifeless thing. On the other hand, if they were to regard the non-action of the principle as a malady and only emphasize how the principle has movement, this is similar to the error of thinking that the true man of no rank (muwi jinin) is actually there, glittering.30
As per Yi Hwang’s perspective, Yi Sangjeong argues in “Igi dongjeong seol” (Theory of the Movement of the Principle and Material Force) that the principle can be said to have movement, just as material force has movement. Of course, saying that the principle has movement is an interpretation of the traditional expression in the Book of Changes (Zhou yi) that says the Great Ultimate gives birth to yin and yang. Yi Hwang and Yi Sangjeong did not see the principle as having contrived action and unnaturally ruling over. However, Yi Sangjeong pointed out that if this made people believe that all things in the world arise and grow by themselves because the principle does not act, this was to commit the error of regarding the principle as a lifeless thing that has no function. By the same token, Yi Sangjeong also warned that if people only look at the way the principle moves and overly emphasize how it rules over, this will result in the misunderstanding that the principle exists somewhere and rules over the world like an invisible true man of no rank or a personified Emperor Above. In this sense, the concept of Emperor Above that Yi Hwang and Yi Sangjeong, as two Confucian scholars of Yeongnam region, had in mind possessed both the properties of non-action and ruling over, but with the emphasis placed on the latter.
The Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region, which included the disciples of Yi Sangjeong such as Ryu Jangwon 柳長源 (1724–1796), Nam Hanjo, and Jeong Jongno, as well as the next generation of disciples such as Ryu Geonhyu and Ryu Chimyeong 柳致明 (1777–1861), tried to clearly distinguish between the meaning of Master of Heaven (cheonju), which the books on Western Learning emphasized, and Emperor Above (sangje), which appeared in the Confucian Classics. Interestingly, Nam Hanjo and his disciple Ryu Geonhyu attempted to redefine the meaning of the Emperor Above in Confucianism more rigorously from the aspect of the principle while criticizing the perception of the Master of Heaven by the Southerner scholars of Gyeonggi Province. Nam Hanjo’s Collected Writings of Sonjae Nam Hanjo (Sonjae jip) features a critique of the Questions on Catholicism by An Jeongbok of the Seongho School. When Nam Hanjo was staying in the capital from 1782 to 1783, he corresponded with An Jeongbok, during which he received the request to critique An Jeongbok’s Questions on Catholicism, a text that had been written to criticize books on Western Learning such as The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven.31 Around 1790, Nam Hanjo composed “Discussion of Doubtful Points in Sunam An Jeongbok’s Questions on Catholicism” to discuss the questions that An Jeongbok’s writings raised. He also pointed out problems of “Postscript to The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven” (Bal Cheonju sirui 跋天主實義) written by Yi Ik in “Discussion of Doubtful Points in Seongho Yi Ik’s Postscript to The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven.” The Southerners of the Yeongnam region around the 19th century criticized Catholicism and emphasized the non-action of Emperor Above as a notion distinct from the concept of Master of Heaven again out of concern that the Southerners of the Gyeonggi area favorably interpreted the concepts of Deus and anima in Western Learning even while appearing to criticize them.
For instance, Yi Ik remarked that “Western Learning only regards the Master of Heaven as the supremely noble being. The Master of Heaven is the same as the Emperor Above of Confucianism. The way they revere, fear, and believe in the Master of Heaven is similar to how Sakyamuni is regarded in Buddhism.”32 For Yi Ik, the Master of Heaven spoken by Western priests such as Matteo Ricci was the same as the Emperor Above emphasized in Confucianism. He criticized that the way Westerners excessively worshiped the Master of Heaven and stressed that the doctrine of heaven and hell was no different from the worship of Sakyamuni and the doctrine rebirth in Buddhism. At the same time, he commented that the words of Book of Odes and Book of Documents prove that it is difficult to deny that the principles and experiences of rewarding the good and punishing the evil, retributive justice, and auspicious and misfortunate events actually existed.33 In other words, he acknowledged that the belief in the Emperor Above and ghosts and spirits who grant good fortune or causes misfortune also existed in Confucian culture. In his understanding, the bible (Cheonjugyeong 天主經) had not been that different from Book of Odes and Book of Documents at first, but as the customs and people’s beliefs changed in the West, they had no choice but to add the doctrine of heaven and hell and divine miracles. This shows how Yi Ik criticized Catholicism on the one hand but also tried to understand their perspective to a considerable extent on the other.34
Nam Hanjo, however, began by criticizing how Yi Ik interpreted that the contents of the bible had initially not been very different from the Confucian Classics.35 Although he himself had not read the bible in person, he saw the arguments of Westerners as being a device to pursue their own personal interests under the pretext of relying on a high and noble Master of Heaven and helping human beings do good. Nam Hanjo took issue with the way Seongho Yi Ik had compared the bible, which tempted people by the logic of reward and punishment in the doctrine of heaven and hell, with the autonomous self-cultivation of Confucianism, which followed the doctrine of the mean without personal inflections. In addition, referring to Yi Ik’s words, “King Wen brightly shines in the heavens above,” Nam Hanjo pointed to the way Yi Ik saw that the spiritual forces of the deceased of the sages and ordinary people after their death had different status, rank, and position and suspected that Yi Ik, like Catholicism, also saw divine forces (yeongsin 靈神) as immortal after death.36 In that case, Nam Hanjo criticized, Yi Ik was treating the Emperor Above of Confucianism as the same as the Master of Heaven in Western Learning.
Seongho said that the Master of Heaven they speak of is the Emperor Above of Confucianism. Emperor Above in Confucianism is explained through the ruling over by the principle. The Emperor Above has no emotion, intention, or contrivance and is the foundation of all changes. The Master of Heaven they speak of is explained as the divine side of material force. It has emotion, intention, and contrivance and thus creates all kinds of technical skills. The Confucian rituals of worshiping ghosts and spirits is rooted in the principle. This is the rightful way to serve the Emperor Above. The heaven and hell they speak of only insist on divine forces and is thus an intrigue to worship and serve the Master of Heaven. This difference in impartiality and partiality (gongsa 公私) and authenticity and inauthenticity (jinwi 眞僞) is larger than the contrast between ice and charcoal fire or the difference between fragrance and stench.37
In the quote above, Nam Hanjo recalls how the Emperor Above in Confucianism is a term referring to the ruling over of the principle. Because the Emperor Above, as the principle, has no emotion, intention, or contrivance, he says, it can serve as the basis that causes things to change. This refers to Yi Sangjeong’s emphasis on the original nature of the principle, which is that the principle does not act. Nam Hanjo belittles the Master of Heaven as spoken by Westerners to merely be a divine force (yeongsin) that has emotion, intention, and artificial contrivance. Divine force here refers to an entity formed by material force. Nam Hanjo also criticizes that such divine forces are not impartial or true because they have personal feelings and intentions. This is because he saw the Master of Heaven of Catholicism as being nothing but a personified entity who judges the good and evil of human beings and tempts humans with the doctrine of heaven and hell. It is clear that Nam Hanjo and his disciples regarded a personified ruling entity that became angry, judged, and punished to be an unrefined entity of contrived ability. Nam Hanjo feared that the heterodox prioritized material force, as in the case of divine force, and neither understood the principle nor were they ruled by the principle, thus making the action of material wicked.38
Like his teacher, Yi Ik, An Jeongbok also explained that the learnings of a Confucian scholar was to worship the heavens by referring to examples of Emperor Above in Book of Documents, the way King Wen served Emperor Above in Book of Odes, how Confucius feared the heavenly mandate, and how Mencius served the heavens by preserving the mind and cultivating the innate nature.39 While explaining how the Emperor Above was a term referring to the properties of ruling over, An Jeongbok went further to say that this had already been said by Confucian scholars. He differentiated between the heavens as the principle when speaking of ruling over and the sky as a thing when speaking of form and material force. The heavens could be called the Emperor Above from the perspective that it ruled over, but since it was the Great Ultimate and the principle considering that it had no sound or scent, the Emperor Above and the principle of Great Ultimate were one and the same.40 Ryu Geonhyu, the disciple of Nam Hanjo, criticized this distinction in the Collection of Criticisms of Heterodoxy.41 According to Ryu Geonhyu, when Zhu Xi said the “Non-Ultimate and yet Great Ultimate” (wuji er taiji 無極而太極), he was already referring to both the principle’s aspect of having no sound or scent and the aspect of ruling, whereas Sunam ultimately distinguished between the Emperor Above and the Great Ultimate even though he said they were alike. Nam Hanjo criticized item 20 of An Jeongbok’s Questions on Catholicism, which explained the Emperor Above and the principle, as the following:
Westerners regard the Emperor Above as their master while excluding the Great Ultimate. This is because they see the Emperor Above as a divine force with emotions, intentions, and contrivance. They do not like how the principle can do so by itself and thus try to eliminate the principle [of the Great Ultimate]. Where there is the principle, there are things, and where there are things, there is the principle. Primarily, though, the principle always comes before, and things come after, because the principle is generally the cause of things. Westerners regard the principle to be dependent on things and use the metaphor of how subjects follow their rulers. This, however, is to say that things precede the principle. If a thing arises to take form without the principle and the principle depends on the thing, the principle in this case is useless and unnecessary. How can this make sense? Moreover, the Emperor Above can rule over all things because the principle has no sound or scent and thus can be the foundation of all things. A divine force with emotions, intentions, and contrivance such as the Master of Heaven is no different from a thing below. How can this be the ruler of all change? The paragraph where An Jeongbok says “The Emperor Above is the origin of the principle and gives rise to all things between the heavens and earth” meant to explicate how the Great Ultimate is the foundation that gives birth to things. His wording being difficult, however, he ended up erroneously implying that Emperor Above has emotions, intentions, and contrivance. In addition, although An Jeongbok distanced himself from the way books on Western Learning used the metaphor of king and his subjects in explaining the relationship between things and the principle, calling it illogical, he was unable to clarify the confusion resulting from the problem of what comes first and what comes after and thus ended up failing to elucidate the way or dispel heterodoxy.42
The part Nam Hanjo focused on is the item where An Jeongbok criticizes how The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven compared the relationship between things and the principle to the relationship between a king and his subjects in order to defend its perspective that the principle was the dependent entity and exists only if a thing existed and does not exist if a thing did not exist. An Jeongbok explained here that the Emperor Above, as the origin of the principle, gives rise to all things between the heavens and the earth. The principle, he said, was necessary for the formation of all things between the heavens and the earth since they cannot arise by themselves.43 Nam Hanjo, however, criticizes that this explanation leads to the misunderstanding that there is a personified entity that artificially gives birth to all things. Ryu Geonhyu, citing Nam Hanjo, also wrote in the Collection of Criticisms of Heterodoxy, “How can the Master of Heaven the Westerners speak of exist above the top of the head of humans, like a thing with a form, and command the authority that lets people live or die or grants them fortune or disaster? This is the typical method of referring to the true man of no rank in Buddhism. How can this be discussed together with the Emperor Above of Confucianism?”44 Ryu Geonhyu points out how the Emperor Above must not be understood as a personified entity who judges human beings and commands the power to reward and punish, like the true man of no rank in Buddhism or the Master of Heaven of the West. Both Nam Hanjo and Ryu Geonhyu criticized how Yi Ik and An Jeongbok seemed to find fault with the concept of Master of Heaven but in fact equated it with the Emperor Above of Confucianism and said that an Emperor Above that ruled over by commanding rewards and punishments came out in the ancient Confucian Classics. This shows how the Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region placed more emphasis on the original non-acting nature of the principle rather than as an Emperor Above that ruled over compared to the way Southerners of the capital area viewed the Emperor Above.45
The comments of Mangok 晩谷 Jo Suldo 趙述道, another disciple of the Daesan School whom Ryu Geonhyu frequently cited in the Collection of Criticisms of Heterodoxy, are quite intriguing.46 Ryu Geonhyu cites and discusses the words of Jo Suldo in his “Discussions of Catholic Practices” (Byeon cheonhak gongbu 辨天學工夫) of “Catholicism” (Cheonjuhak 天主學) in gwon 6 of the Collection of Criticisms of Heterodoxy. According to Ryu Geonhyu, Jo Suldo did not see the heavens and humans as two separate principles since humans received the Way from the heavens.47 He regarded the methods that Yao and Shun, Tang of Shang and Wu of Zhou, Confucius and Yanzi, and Zisi and Mencius taught as having commonly originated in the heavens and humans. Jo Suldo writes that revering the heavens (gyeongcheon 敬天) is all nothing but a method of self-cultivation to perfect oneself by veneration towards the heavens. The words cited in the Collection of Criticisms of Heterodoxy and the words Jo Suldo himself writes in “Questions and Answers at the Cloud Bridge” (Ungyo mundap 雲橋問答) of Collected Writings of Mangok Jo Suldo (Mangok jip 晩谷集) are somewhat different in this passage. The following is an excerpt from “Questions and Answers at the Cloud Bridge.”
Where revering the heavens is mentioned in the Confucian Classics, it is written that one cultivates oneself by venerating the way of the heavens. […] The words, “The Emperor Above is by you” or “The Emperor Above gazes down on here everyday” refer to how the affairs of Emperor Above do not go beyond the self. If one turns to the self to preserve one’s mind, this is reason of the original body of the world (seoncheon 先天), the reason of the specific workings of this world (hucheon 後天), the reason of governing the world (gyeongnon 經綸), the reason of norms, and the reason of mutual participation and assistance. Is this what the heavens expect of humans or what humans expect of the heavens? If the words of Western Learning are true, then all things below humans are useless, and all subtle uses of learning as spoken by the sages become things that must be discarded.48
Jo Suldo regarded expressions such as “The Emperor Above is by you” or “The Emperor Above oversees this place everyday” as focusing on the Emperor Above among the heavens and even once said that the Master of Heaven mentioned in Western Learning is another name for the Emperor Above in Confucianism.49 This may suggest that Jo Suldo equates the Master of Heaven of Western Learning with the Emperor Above of Confucianism in the same way as Yi Ik or An Jeongbok did. However, Jo Suldo goes on to criticize that “Catholicism says there is a Master of Heaven among the heavens and to describe it as being the most mysterious among all things mysterious and the strangest out of all things strange. Westerners do not seek the heavens within their minds but base their minds in remote and absurd places.”50 According to Jo Suldo, although the Master of Heaven in Western Learning and the Emperor Above in Confucianism seem alike in that humans fear and revere the heavens, they are distinct in that the Emperor Above in Confucianism is the heavens sought inside one’s mind. This is why he said that to revere the heavens was to cultivate the self, as the quote above shows. He also emphasizes that the way the Emperor Above exists beside one or how it supervises all things everyday did not go beyond the boundaries of the human mind. Preserving one’s mind was to serve the heavens. In this sense, his question “Is this what the heavens expect of humans or what humans expect of the heavens?” is very significant. It ironically expresses how the heavens should pray to and expect from humans, not the other way around, since all affairs of the heavens can only be realized by the efforts of human beings.
In Collection of Criticisms of Heterodoxy, Ryu Geonhyu cited the passage where Jo Suldo criticized how the Master of Heaven, to which Westerners prayed, was regarded as a true man of no rank, a celestial deity of the heavens, or the Jade Emperor practicing sorcery.51 Ryu Geonhyu focused on how Jo Suldo’s criticism distinguished between the Emperor Above in the Confucian Classics, which he saw as existing for everyday learning by practicing reverence of the mind, and the Master of Heaven of Western Learning, which existed for humans to pray towards an external authoritative entity in order to fulfill their personal desires. At this point, however, Ryu Geonhyu points out that Jo Suldo criticizes the study of the heavens of the West but does not actually clarify the meaning of the heavenly principle (cheolli 天理). This shows Ryu Geonhyu’s concern that Jo Suldo did not sufficiently emphasize how revering and fearing the heavens was only possible by understanding the heavenly principle that elucidates the human imperatives in the relationship between father and son, ruler and subject, and husband and wife.52 Ryu Geonhyu also occasionally took a critical stance in this way towards the words of his senior scholars in the same school of thought such as Nam Hanjo, Jo Suldo, and Jeong Jongno. The Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region saw the Emperor Above as having the properties of both the principle of non-action and ruling over. However, Master of Heaven of the West judged the good and evil of humans based on a certain personified nature, which, in their view, was only the personification of the divine force that had emotions, intentions, and judgment. Of course, The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven emphasized that the Master of Heaven was a completely immaterial and intellectual entity and that the human soul was not material force but an immaterial entity that did not disappear. To the Confucian scholars, however, a personified entity who judged the world with emotions and will and controlled humans with the doctrine of heaven and hell, whatever it may be called, was regarded as being in the same category of a divine force, which was finite and limited. Perhaps the Confucian scholars thought that if the Master of Heaven of the West was completely immaterial and perfectly universal, then it should have properties of non-action, like the principle of the Great Ultimate. In this sense, the Confucian scholars of Yeongnam region did not equate the Emperor Above of Confucianism with the Master of Heaven, or Deus, of the West.
The second key concept emphasized in books on Western Learning is the soul (yeonghon). The term soul is one of the translations of anima, a concept in medieval Western philosophy, into classical Chinese.53 According to books on Western Learning, the human soul, which was made in the form of the absolute being of God, does not perish even after separating from the physical body but instead exists forever, is unique to each individual, and is ultimately judged based on the good and evil it did in this world. The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven in particular emphasizes that this human soul, after being created by God, is not only immortal but distinctive to each individual. In short, the soul can be characterized by its immortality and individuality. The corresponding Neo-Confucian concept can be seen as ghosts and spirits (gwisin 鬼神), which are understood as the action of contraction and extension of yin and yang. Ghosts and spirits, the ethereal and physical aspects of the soul, and the rituals of worship were important topics in the conversations between Zhu Xi and his disciples. As Zhu Xi cited in Commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong zhangju), ghosts and spirits are the contributing action (gongyong 功用) of the energy of yin and yang of the heavens and the earth, the traces of how the heavens and the earth gave rise to all things, and the result of the smooth workings (yangneung 良能) of both yin and yang.54 The Neo-Confucianist scholars referred to the expanding and mysterious energy as spirit (sin 神) and the contracting, coalescing energy as ghost (gwi 鬼). According to this definition, the mind and physical body of humans and the soul’s ethereal and bodily aspects were all ghosts and spirits manifested through the contraction and expansion of the two forces of yin and yang. While the material forces of yin and yang is generated anew every day and grows, once the material force is full, it gradually disperses and disappears. Zhu Xi saw that the material force that gives rise to humans and all things ceaselessly acts, but the material of individual entities disappears once all things die. Therefore, he said, the material force of the heavens and the earth, the mountains and the rivers, and of ancestors cannot be recovered as form.55 Of course, Zhu Xi said that it was the way of things for the material force of one’s ancestor to return and respond if one devotes the clear and spiritual force (jeongsin 精神) reverently, since the material force of the ancestor and their descendants were the same. For instance, if not much time has passed since the death of the ancestor and the ethereal and physical sides of the soul had not completely dispersed yet, the soul of the ancestor will readily react to the sincere devotion of the descendant. In the case of a remote ancestor going back many generations, however, it was not possible to know whether the material force of that ancestor existed. In other words, if the principle existed, the ancestor would react, and the descendant could meet the ancestor due to the universality of that principle, but the material force of an ancestor that has already dispersed never gathers again. Zhu Xi thus denied not only the immortality of the soul of a long-deceased ancestor but also denied that it was uniquely that of an individual.56
All that gathers and disperses is material force. The principle merely dwells in material force and does not condense to form things or become innate nature. What humans must carry out is the principle. While material force coalesces and disperses, the principle cannot be explained by coalescing and dispersing. Because material force does not immediately scatter as soon as human beings die, performing ancestor worship elicits a response in principle. If many generations separate the descendant and his ancestor, it cannot be known whether the material force of the ancestral spirit is there or not. The same material force of the ancestor that is worshiped, however, is eventually transmitted down to the person performing the ritual if he is his descendant. Therefore, it is the way of things that sincere devotion and reverence will resonate.57
It is worth noting how Zhu Xi acknowledges that the principle of response from the ancestor that is possible by the sincere devotion of the descendant consistently exists but confesses that we cannot know whether the ancestral souls exist or not, since all material force ultimately ceases to exist. The disciples of Zhu Xi questioned him, saying that it was hard to understand how we can resonate with ancestral souls if we perform ancestor worship to a soul that does not exist in contrast to the way we pray towards an existing entity when worshiping the heavens and the earth and the mountains and the rivers.58 It was difficult to fundamentally justify the ritual of ancestor worship by simply answering that the same material force responds. Zhu Xi ultimately had no choice but to emphasize the principle of response, namely, the universal principle which humans must do: “The coalescing of material force leads to the formation of human, while the dispersal of material force leads to the formation of ghosts and spirits. Even if material force has dispersed, the principle of yin and yang of the heavens and the earth continuously arises and is thus endless. Even if the clear spiritual force and the ethereal and physical aspects of the ancestral soul has already dispersed, the clear spiritual force and the ethereal and physical aspects of the soul of the descendant gradually continue by itself. This is why utmost sincere devotion and reverence during the ritual of worship can reach the ethereal and physical side of the ancestral soul. It is difficult to put into words. After its dispersal, it appears as if there is nothing left anymore. Utmost devotion and reverence can elicit a response since the principle is always here.”59 According to the theory of the principle and material force of Neo-Confucianism, where there is the principle, there is material force. In this theory, it is believed that we as the descendant can encounter our ancestor if we carry out the principle. When his disciple said that if the principle is not involved, the object of worship, or the soul, cannot gather, while if the principle is involved, the object of worship, or the soul, will gather, Zhu Xi replied that this was so.60 If what ultimately justifies the ritual of worship is the universal principle, then things such as the blood-related ancestral soul, the uniqueness or individuality of the ancestral soul, and the relationship specific to the ancestor and the descendent becomes nothing but a temporary measures.
When his disciple asked him whether clear and mysterious spiritual force of the ancestors was the clear and mysterious spiritual force of oneself and thus resonated only within the family, while the material force of the heavens and the earth, the mountains and the rivers, and the sages was a public material force of the universe, Zhu Xi answered by saying that the ancestral soul was also a public material force.61 In other words, because Zhu Xi emphasized the universality of the principle, he regarded the soul of all humans, which contracted and extended and waxed and waned, to be the universal and shared energy of the heavens and the earth. This led to the dilution of the unique significance of the soul in the ritual of worshiping the ancestral soul within one’s family. Zhu Xi said although the material force of a person leaving behind no descendants eventually disappears in terms of blood ties or specific traits but in its aspect as the vast energy of the heavens and the earth, it did not disappear. The soul of the deceased thus had never ceased to exist even if they had no descendants. If a worshiping ritual was properly performed for the dead in compliance with the principle, then it was possible to elicit a response from the souls of the deceased even if they were not of one’s actual ancestors.62 This was because Zhu Xi believed that rituals of worship could be performed based on the proper principle, and if there was a principle, there was a corresponding material force. The proper principle here that Zhu Xi referred to is closely related to the hierarchical order of Confucian social status such as the Son of Heaven, the lords, high officials, the gentry, and the ordinary people. Since Zhu Xi saw that “only the Son of the Heaven may perform the ritual of worship to the heavens and the earth; only the lords may perform the ritual of worship to the mountains and the rivers; and only the high officials may perform the ritual of Five Sacrifices (wusi 五祀),” he believed that the level of the clear and mysterious spiritual force (jeongsin 精神) of the person performing the rites must match the object of worship in order for the object to respond and arrive.63 Since the Son of Heaven commanded all affairs of the world, the material force of the Son of Heaven and the heavens and the earth become interrelated. If one yearns for the way of the sages and seeks to learn the minds and ways of the sages, the material force of oneself and the sages become mutually involved. Spiritual force (sin or singi) does not come to receive and enjoy what is not of the same category. Whether or not the material force of oneself and the spirit are interrelated depends on whether one’s clear and mysterious spiritual force is on par with that of the object to whom one is worshiping through ritual.64 In the end, the most important thing in performing the ritual of worship is one’s sincere devotion.
Zhu Xi entreats in regard to worshiping rites that while the intelligence and luminosity of the spiritual force (sinmyeong 神明) cannot be known for sure, the existence of the spirit does not need to be sought somewhere far away, since it depends on how sincerely one is devoted.65 According to Zhu Xi, the spirit exists where there is sincere devotion and does not where there is no sincere devotion. Therefore, the principle of ghosts and spirit is ultimately the principle of one’s mind.66 All worship derives from the living being, namely, the descendant. Zhu Xi emphasizes that the soul of the dead and the deceased ancestors are the same material force, and that it is “I,” the descendant performing the ritual, who commands over it all.67 Regarding this point, Zhu Xi said, “If I can command them, I can also direct their material force. If this is the case, there is a point of interrelation at which we.”
The view that the ritual of worship was a summoning of the responding spirit that is being worshiped became a key point for the 19th-century Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region in justifying the meaning of worshiping rites. Ryu Geonhyu cites many of the aforementioned words of Zhu Xi in the Collection of Criticisms of Heterodoxy. Ryu Geonhyu emphasized that the worship of ghosts and spirits was based on the principle. Since all material force eventually disperses, the argument of books on Western Learning that the soul was immortal was an error. Although the heavens and the earth and the mountains and rivers were not one’s ancestors, one was interrelated with the object of worship as the main agent commanding their material force. The ritual of worship was a summoning of the spirit by one’s sincere devotion, not an act of receiving and enjoying by a spiritual and luminous entity that appeared after being hidden.68 As Zhu Xi argued earlier, Ryu Geonhyu also recognized that one may perform worship if it were proper based on the principle even if one was not the ancestor’s descendent and that one can reach the currently interrelated soul through sincere devotion.69 Even if the soul has already dispersed and disappeared, based on the principle, the limitless material force of the heavens and earth is newly and endlessly generated vastly every day. In the end, it is one’s mind that knows such principle. Ryu Geonhyu said that the principle of death is not something known separately from living.70 This statement was informed by how his teacher, Nam Hanjo, in explaining the words of Confucius regarding the worship of ghosts and spirits, said that ghost and spirits cannot be worshiped if one cannot sincerely and reverently worship a person. Death cannot be known without knowing life.71
Ipjae Jeong Jongno 立齋 鄭宗魯 (1738–1816),72 who was a fellow scholar of Nam Hanjo and also wrote “The Life of Sonjae Nam Hanjo” (Sonjae Nam gong haengjang 損齋南公行狀) after Nam Hanjo’s death, said that worshiping the dead, that is, the ritual to worship ghost and spirits, was based on the worship of the living.73 Jeong Jongno saw that the spirit tablet was created for the deceased because they had taken form when they were alive, and food was prepared for the worshiping ritual for them to receive and enjoy because they had eaten food when alive. Jeong Jongno went further to say that memorial tablets were created for worshiping sages, and spirit tables were created for worshiping ancestors, but this did not mean that the soul of the dead dwelled in the spirit tablets or memorial tablets. The tablets merely served as a structure for picturing the deceased in carrying out one’s admiration, reverence, and sincere devotion of worship.74 Thus, Jeong Jongno did not emphasize the actual existence of the ancestral soul, or the soul of the deceased, which was symbolized by the memorial or spirit tablet during the worshiping ritual, and in a sense, had the all-encompassing material force in mind, similar to Zhu Xi.
How can the deceased have a substantial material force? It is merely that the material force that is evenly transferred down from the ancestor has been equally innate in the descendants since their birth, and ordinary people have evenly received the material force inherent in the sages from the heavens and the earth. Therefore, the material force of descendants is the material force of the ancestors. The ancestors being worshiped are summoned by and respond to this material force regardless of whether they are one generation apart or four to five generations apart. In terms of ordinary people, their material force is the material force of the sages. The sages being worshiped are summoned by and respond to this material force regardless of the town, country, or world they are in.75
Although the material force of ancestors is temporarily connected through blood ties for a while, this also ceases to exist after a long period of time passes. The reason I can communicate with the material force of another sage regardless which town or country I am in and elicit a response of the material force by performing a worshiping rite to the sages is because the sages are worth worshiping according to the principle. By the same token, I can encounter my ancestor regardless of how many generations there are between myself and my ancestor because my mind feels a reverence towards them as the object of worship corresponding to the principle. Jeong Jongno’s argument resembles Ryu Geonhyu’s perspective of worshiping rites mentioned earlier. Jeong Jongno saw that the worshiping rituals can change depending on the meritorious conduct of the deceased as well as the future generations who benefited from this contribution. For instance, if the descendants benefited greatly by the meritorious conduct of their ancestors, the descendants could perform worshiping rites to their ancestors virtually for eternity beyond merely a hundred years of three or four generations.76 This shows how Jeong Jongno viewed that worship could vary in proportion to the descendant’s reverence of and sincere devotion to his ancestor. If I greatly benefited from the meritorious conduct of one who was not my ancestor, I may worship him through ritual based on the principle of my mind even if I am not a descendant of his. This goes along the same lines as how Ryu Geonhyu said that I could perform worshiping rites to anyone with whom I became interrelated with though my sincere devotion.77
The perspective that the key commanding ruler was one’s mind and that the spiritual force can be reached depending on the sincere devotion and reverence of the one performing the worshiping rite in the present, which continued on ever since Zhu Xi’s discussion of it, appears to have continued to influence many younger generation Confucian scholars following him. However, even though Zhu Xi emphasized that only whether the principle was proper mattered and the existence of spirit should not be wished for, the issue of whether the receiving soul, such as the ancestral soul, during the worshiping ritual truly existed inevitably became a crucial problem for the descendants. Matteo Ricci criticized the concept of worshiping rites Confucian scholars harbored in The True Meaning of the Master of Heaven because of this point. An Jeongbok was also aware of this criticism in books on Western Learning when he expressed his concern in a letter to Seongho Yi Ik that if worshiping rites were justified only by the yearnings of the filial descendant without the premise of the ghosts and spirits of the ancestors, it may be nothing but a blasphemous play for phantoms.78 An Jeongbok confesses that the theory of ghosts and spirits has aspects making it hard to completely understand. This was because Confucian scholars thought that the gathering of material force meant life, while death would cause the material force to disperse and ultimately cease to exist, but Westerners argued that even though a person dies, there was a kind of soul that did not die and existed as an individual and unique ghost and spirit.79 Seo Gyeongdeok’s theory of ghosts and spirits, although similar to that of Matteo Ricci, did not argue that the soul was immortal and said that there was only a difference in speed when the ghosts and spirits coalesced and dispersed. An Jeongbok asked Yi Ik whether Seo Gyeongdeok’s words were somewhat valid. He also wondered that if one acknowledged the argument that there was a soul that did not disperse, then it was not that strange to say that there was an entity who commanded such souls and was in charge rewarding the good and punishing the evil.80
Nam Hanjo wrote “Discussion on Doubtful Points in Sunam An Jeongbok’s Questions on Catholicism” and criticized An Jeongbok’s theory on ghosts and spirits in order to answer his questions and criticize his skepticism. Nam Hanjo sharply criticized how An Jeongbok displayed an ambivalent stance that hovered between existing and not existing (yumu 有無) and suspicion and trust (uisin 疑信) even though the theory of the immortality of soul in the books on Western Learning carried fundamental errors. He also criticized how An Jeongbok deferred judgment while asking how we could know for sure whether things Westerners said really did not exist between the heavens and the earth.81 Nam Hanjo, who believed that the gathering and dispersal, or life and death, of form and spirit was nothing but the contraction and extension and decline or flourishing of a material force and that not even the largest heaven and hell would be able to accommodate all of the continuously existing souls floating in the air for thousands of years since the birth of humans, asked in return how such a principle, in which the material force of the heavens and the earth only grows without disappearing and only extends without contracting, is possible.82 He writes that life is the physical energy, or specific traits, of the body, that intelligence and luminosity of the soul (yeong 靈) was the spiritually mysterious aspect (sin 神) of the material force, and that the arising of this mysterious and eternal energy was called knowledge and perception (jigak 知覺).83 He strongly criticized the immortality of the soul, asking how a separate soul could exist after the dispersal of physical energy and the absence of the soul and the absence of knowledge and perception, if life, the soul, and the act of knowing and perceiving were all based on the physical energy of material force.84
If a person dies and the material force disperses, there is no spirit that does not vanish. However, if it is said that the ancestral spirit comes again, coalesces, and receives and enjoys, what exactly is the kind of spirit that is being mentioned here? The spirit is the mysterious aspect of material force. When it is in the heavens and the earths, it becomes the spirit that circulates and operates, and when it exists in a person, it becomes the spirit that knows, perceives, and operates. Although it can be differentiated depending on whether it is in the heavens or the human, it is the same in that it becomes the spirit. If a person dies, the form disappears, the physical energy becomes separated, and the spirit scatters and disappears. The material force that allowed its birth and the material force that was passed down, however, never disappeared. What do we refer as the “material force that allowed its birth”? This is what allows the heavens and the earth give rise to things. What do we call the “material force that was passed down”? This is the material force that people are born by and transmitted to their descendants. […] The immortal soul the Westerners speak of means the action of knowledge and perception. This exists when gathered and ceases to exist when dispersed. The mysterious and spiritual force [in Confucianism] is based on the principle and is generated every day. It gathers when summoned and receives and enjoys upon arrival. Only when it is understood that it is not right according to principle to believe that knowledge and perception and what Westerners call the soul is immortal can we understand that the spirit arrives during worshiping rites is only possible by the principle that the spiritual soul responds to sincere devotion.85
In the quote above, Nam Hanjo writes that although Westerners and Confucian scholars both use the Chinese character shen 神, there is a clear distinction between right and wrong.86 In his view, although the Master of Heaven and soul as argued in the West are said to be immortal, their soul was merely a finite agent that experienced knowledge and perception. This is why he belittled the soul they worshiped as nothing but an entity which existed when coalesced but ceased to exist when scattered. The spirit as discussed by Confucian scholars, meanwhile, was based on the principle and newly arose every day. The principle here is understood and perceived by the mind of the descendent who performed worship. Nam Hanjo says that if the person performing the ritual summons with true reverence and sincere devotion, the object of the worship, the entity to whom the worshiping rite is performed, will arrive following this principle. As long as we understand and perceive this principle, the material force of the heavens and the earth and the material force transmitted to the descendants was a single force that was connected. This material force was always arising newly and changing according to the principle. In this context, Nam Hanjo says that the material force that has not dispersed yet after a person dies and the material force that begets people are one, and while the dispersal after death does indeed change depending on the speed, it is the principle that what comes and is generated is circulates and mutually responds to each other.87 He explains this phenomenon by dividing it into two aspects. First, what has not yet dispersed but will eventually change refers to the phenomenon of the descendant coming into contact with the ancestor through the same material force. Second, what reaches the descendant and is newly generated is the principle of the responding spiritual force. The most important thing in worshiping rites for Nam Hanjo was thus not whether or not a specific individual soul existed or not after death but for the person performing the ritual to become aware of the principle that both the spiritual forces of ancestors and of decedents respond to each other and to reverently devote oneself to the worshiping ritual.88
From the perspective of the universality and eternity of the principle, the soul in Western Learning, whether it was Deus or anima, was simply the gathering and dispersal of material force. This is why the Confucian scholars during then did not see the finite soul called Master of Heaven as an entity worth venerating. The Confucian scholars in the past had criticized Buddhist theory of ghosts and spirits when faced with their theory of reincarnation. For the Confucian scholars, this theory of rebirth was regarded as a logic in which the same material force circulated alternatively between human and ghosts and spirits. The Confucian scholars including Nam Hanjo believed that all material force was continuously generated anew ceaselessly because of the existence of a permanent and universal principle. Therefore, the principle, which enabled the spiritual force to reciprocate, was everlasting and universal, but nothing of spiritual force itself lasted forever. Spiritual force was endlessly generated and disappearing over and over again. Likewise, the ancestral soul, which arose, eventually disappeared. When performing the worshiping ritual, one was thus to know and perceive the principle with one’s mind and revere the proper object. If the principle was proper, the spirit being worshiped could be said to exist. Seen this way, the souls in books on Western Learning, Deus, and anima were regarded as finite entities who were limited precisely because of their personification and their individuality.
This article has looked at the understanding of Emperor Above and Master of Heaven, the meaning of soul and ancestral soul, and the principle of the worshiping ritual by the 19th-century Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region. Confucian scholars of Southern Song including Zhu Xi also discussed the meaning of Emperor Above and the principle. This concern was shared with the Confucian scholars Yi Hwang and Yi Sangjeong of Joseon. Yi Hwang distinguished between the form and action of the principle and focused on the aspect of ruling over in the concept of the principle. He compared the principle to a personified Emperor Above and emphasized the ethical supervision by the Emperor Above. Yi Sangjeong, who inherited the Toegye School, explained the action of the principle and the Emperor Above argued by Yi Hwang as “what does not rule over but rules over and what does not act but acts.” It cannot be said that the Emperor Above does not rule over the world at all, he said, but the action of the principle cannot be understood as an artificial and personified entity surveilling and controlling humans from outside. In other words, this should not be understood as a true man of no rank that existed in some mystical place to watch and oversee humans.
The 19th-century Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region focused on concepts of the principle and the Emperor Above again when they witnessed how the notion of the Master of Heaven in books on Western Learning spread among a number of Confucian scholars including the Seongho School, who appeared to accept the argument. Wary of the favorable interpretation of the Southerners of the Gyeonggi area such as Yi Ik and An Jeongbok, who acknowledged that the Emperor Above in Confucianism was the same as the Master of Heaven of the West given how the Emperor Above interfered in human affairs and rewarded good while punishing evil, the Southerners of the Yeongnam region felt the need to more clearly define their scholarly identity. The disciples of Yi Sangjeong including Ryu Jangwon, Nam Hanjo, Jo Suldo, Jeong Jongno, Ryu Geonhyu, and Ryu Chimyeong criticized the notion of Master of Heaven and emphasized the non-acting aspect of the Confucian view of Emperor Above, that is, the non-personified and universal properties of Great Ultimate and the principle. Even if the books on Western Learning defined Master of Heaven as immaterial, eternal, and intellectual, the Confucian scholars concluded that a personified Master of Heaven with emotions and will, who judges the good and bad of humans, was still a finite entity, like the divine force. These Confucian scholars emphasized the universality and public aspect of the principle in face of this limited personified entity. When explaining the ancestral soul in particular, the Confucian scholars focused on how it was a public entity. Although the ancestral soul connected by blood ties and physical traits eventually ceased to exist, the flow of the single material force that gave birth to the ancestor and descendants did not. This was because the principle continued to regenerate new material force. They understood the newly generated material force based on the universality of the principle as a public material force.
In criticizing the limitations of the personified soul emphasized by books on Western Learning, the Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region reflected upon and contemplated the meaning of ghosts and spirits and ancestral souls they themselves had believed in. The depth in their thought reflects their efforts to move beyond the narrow meaning of ritual, in which the descendant of the same family worshiped the ancestral soul corresponding to the same material force and instead explore the public value and universal principle of worship. They emphasized that worshiping ghosts and spirits was based on the actually existing principle that our minds perceive. While the heavens and the earth, the mountains and the rivers, and the sages were not my own ancestors, it was I, as the main agent, who commanded them, which related me with the object of worship and allowed me to summon the spirit with my sincere devotion. These scholars saw that whether it was my own ancestors or the sages, I can reciprocate and connect with them through worshiping rites because the principle made them worthy of revere and worship. Therefore, the key to worshiping rites was to revere the proper object by understanding and perceiving the principle with the mind. They also argued that the spirit existed only when it was proper according to the principle. This was based on their belief that whatever the object of worship may be, its spiritual force and the person performing the worshiping ritual connected with each other because there of the actual existence of the proper principle.
The encounter with Western Learning and the theories of Catholicism by the Southerner Confucian scholars of the Gyeonggi area as well as the Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region was an important opportunity that triggered their various inner capabilities. While Confucian scholars considered the meaning of the principle, the Emperor Above, ghosts and spirits, and the spiritual and physical aspects of the soul for a long time based on the Neo-Confucian worldview, it was only after they encountered Western Learning and Catholicism as the Other that they reflected upon the important features and values of how they saw the Emperor Above and the soul. In this sense, the discussion and criticism surrounding the concepts of the Master of Heaven and the soul motivated the Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region to understand and reinforce their intellectual and scholarly identity. The reason they could decipher and criticize the personified Master of Heaven and the belief in the immortality of the soul they encountered in books on Western Learning was clearly because it was a point of contact enabling conversation between the two worlds of thought. It is impossible for texts coming from completely different cultures and traditions to meet without a common foundation of understanding. The interpretation of the Seongho School, which compared the bible with Book of Odes and Book of Documents is a case in point. The spread of Western Learning agitated the intellectuals of Joseon and caused the division of thought but, on the other hand, provided an impetus for them to actively reflect upon their beliefs and values. This is evident by the intellectual response of the Confucian scholars of the Yeongnam region, who contemplated the meaning of Emperor Above, ancestral soul, and worshiping rituals.
