The Analects of Dasan Volume 1: A Korean Syncretic Reading by Hongkyung Kim

Dasan (Tasan 茶山) is the pen name of Jeong Yak-yong (Chŏng Yagyong, 丁若鏞, 1762–1836) who became arguably the most celebrated cultural hero in recent Korea and the most prolific writer during the late Chosŏn Dynasty. However, until recently, Dasan was known primarily for his two well-known works, Heumheum sinseo (Hŭmhŭm sinsŏ, 欽欽新書, New book of judicial prudence) and Mongmin simseo (Mongmin simsŏ, 牧民心書, Treasured book of nurturing the people), because of his socio-political concerns in dealing with practical matters. For this reason, Dasan was known as a scholar of "practical learning" (silhak, 實學) in Korea. Hongkyung Kim's The Analects of Dasan Volume 1: A Korean Syncretic Reading clearly puts the status of Dasan beyond the general perception of "practical learning." This does not mean that the author rejects or denounces the idea of "practical learning." Rather, what Hongkyung Kim does in this book is to expound the deeper and authentic meaning of "practical learning" by going back to Confucius' Analects.

This book is the first of the six-volume series of Hongkyung Kim's translation and commentary of Dasan's Noneo gogeum ju (Nonŏ kogŭm chu, 論語古今註, Old and new commentaries on the Analects) which Dasan completed in 1813. The author's introduction to this volume elucidates Dasan's Noneo gogeum ju by providing the chronology of Dasan's life, his government service, his association with Catholicism, and the subsequent eighteen years of life in exile in Gangjin (Kangjin). The author also tries to contextualize the study of Dasan in modern Korea by focusing on "practicality" (sil, 實): "While all these scholars adopted the notion of sil, 實 (practicality) in defining Dasan's scholarly achievements, Choe Nam-seon (1890–1957) used the existing term, silhak (實學, practical learning), to describe the socio-political work of a larger group of scholars, including Dasan, who are now referred to as scholars of Practical Learning (Silhak)" (p. 9). Recently there has been an enormous number of monographs and articles about Dasan, whose summarizing would be a difficult task. The author, however, highlights three distinguishable changes in the study of Dasan: "First, the conventional conception of Dasan's philosophy as exemplary of Practical Learning has faced counter arguments from relatively young scholars. They tend to emphasize continuity and mutual influence among various philosophies in the late Joseon period. …. It now seems crude to locate Dasan exclusively in the orbit of anti-neo-Confucianism or intellectual defiance of neo-Confucian orthodoxy. Second, ……. a growing number of scholars have found that his classical studies yield more insights about his philosophical inspiration than they originally anticipated….. Third, today's researchers on Dasan have specialized in narrowly defined topics rather than drawing grand conclusions" (p. 10).

As the author claims, this book has been shaped by the new Korean scholarship trying to demonstrate how Dasan's works attempted to synthesize all past Confucian commentaries and the philosophical ideas in Dasan's interpretation of the Analects (p. 10). The title conveys the scope of Dasan's reference. It also describes Dasan's unique methodology; a synthesis of all transmitted Confucian ideas to achieve a new Confucian philosophy. Dasan was an ambitious syncretist who claimed that he understood the original meaning of the Analects (p. 14). In expounding the "original" meaning, Dasan seems to be combining three elements in his interpretation of the Analects: the old commentaries, which means the commentaries before Zhu Xi, the commentaries after Zhu Xi, called new commentaries by Dasan and his own commentaries which synthesized both.

Dasan's Noneo gogeum ju consists of two parts: grounds for his interpretation and arguments against various influential theories that he believed incorrect in their understanding of the Analects. Although Dasan's original text does not provide a clear demarcation between grounds and arguments, Hongyung Kim's translation makes a clear distinction between these two by assigning them to the respective categories of "Grounds" and "Arguments." Dasan, in his commentary, arranged all of the classical texts in a hierarchy: the Analects, the Five Classics of Confucianism, pre-Qin texts, Han texts, and post Han texts. As the author indicated, one of the reasons for Dasan to write this extensive commentary on the Analects was probably that he was eager to "prove" that he was genuinely committed to the study of Confucianism as a distinguished Confucian scholar and trying to dissociate himself from his alleged involvement in "Western Learning" or Catholicism.

The author describes a unique Korean movement in Confucian studies from the seventeenth century onward. Unlike China and Japan, the Korean movement did not sever its relationship to neo-Confucianism. For example, Korean neo-Confucianism and Practical Learning were not entirely antagonistic to each other. On the contrary, the Practical Learning movement in Korea originated in neo-Confucianism. The author also affirms that Dasan's Noneo goguem ju shows his respect for Zhu Xi's scholarship, and he never went too far in his criticisms of neo-Confucianism (p. 19). Dasan thought any radical attempt to uproot the foundation of neo-Confucian moral philosophy was wrong and ill-conceived. In this respect, Dasan attempted to integrate the neo-Confucian component into his understanding of the traditional Confucian framework. Since Dasan extensively used the neo-Confucian concept li (理 "principle" or "reason"), which does not appear in Confucius' Analects, the author concluded that li (principle) became one of the essential notions in Dasan's interpretation of the Analects. In this respect, the author suggests that Dasan's philosophy be conceptualized as the "Learning of Practical Principle [實理學]" instead of Silhak (Practical Learning):

"Pre-Qin Confucian scholars emphasized practicality [實], and neo-Confucian scholars developed Confucian metaphysical theory by adopting universality such as the principle [理]. What Dasan wished to achieve in his commentary on the Analects was to synthesize these Confucian legacies to create a new theoretical paradigm. Terming his scholarship Learning of Practical Principle credits him with attempting to integrate all transmitted Confucian philosophies into a syncretic or synthetic system" (p. 22).

In this respect, Dasan's philosophy demonstrates a synthesis of the old and new commentaries on the Analects and tries to synthesize the old Confucian teachings on practical issues and the neo-Confucian learning of principle to establish his foundation for the learning of practical principle. Furthermore, he tried to synthesize the moral principle and the principle of human relationships and things to form a foundation for the philosophy of principle.

Finally, I wholeheartedly applaud Hongkyung Kim's indispensable contribution to this volume. In the main text, Hongkyung Kim, after his translation of each chapter, has placed his own explanations of the meaning of Dasan's discussions. These explanations are crucial in understanding the nature of Dasan's commentary and his philosophy in general, the creativity of his interpretations, and the exegetical implication of his reading. This book is indispensable for understanding not only Dasan's commentary on the Analects but also Dasan's philosophical ideas and spiritual orientation. I certainly look forward to reading the remaining five volumes due for publication in the next few years.