Chinese/Korean neo-Confucian philosophical encounters with Buddhist emptiness
Jung-Yeup Kim, Kent State University
The term emptiness (kong/gong) is an extraneous term to Confucian philosophy. We cannot see it being used as a philosophical significant term in the classical Confucian texts. Furthermore, this is, by and large, the case for neo-Confucianism. For the vast majority of neo-Confucians in China/Korea, the notion of emptiness was a notion that should be excluded from philosophical discourse because of its negative practical implications for them.
However, there are a few exceptions to this, namely the positions of Zhang Zai (1020 – 1077) and Seo Gyeongdeok (1489 – 1546). On the one hand, both these philosophers critiqued the notion of emptiness like many other neo-Confucians. On the other hand, unlike the majority of neo-Confucians, they constructively integrated and fused this notion into their Confucian system to the extent that it becomes one of the central aspects of their positions. Thus, these two philosophers provide us with a unique opportunity to observe how a Confucian – Buddhist fusion may look like from a traditional Confucian perspective. They also, provide us with philosophical beginnings for further productive Confucian-Buddhist dialogue.
In this paper, I investigate Zhang and Seo’s understanding of Buddhism focusing on the notion of emptiness. I show how they critiqued, but also integrated this notion into their Confucian positions. I end with some questions (mostly for Buddhist scholars) at the end of this inquiry: Which strands of Buddhist emptiness do they seem to be engaging with? Did they understand Buddhist emptiness properly? Which aspects of Buddhist emptiness did they properly understand? Which aspects of Buddhist emptiness did they misunderstand? Is their Confucian understanding of the Buddhist notion of emptiness compatible with any form of Buddhism? Does this show that there is a possibility for productive Confucian-Buddhist syncretic engagement? Or do their efforts push Confucianism and Buddhism back into further otherness? What significance does this discussion have to us living in the contemporary world?
However, there are a few exceptions to this, namely the positions of Zhang Zai (1020 – 1077) and Seo Gyeongdeok (1489 – 1546). On the one hand, both these philosophers critiqued the notion of emptiness like many other neo-Confucians. On the other hand, unlike the majority of neo-Confucians, they constructively integrated and fused this notion into their Confucian system to the extent that it becomes one of the central aspects of their positions. Thus, these two philosophers provide us with a unique opportunity to observe how a Confucian – Buddhist fusion may look like from a traditional Confucian perspective. They also, provide us with philosophical beginnings for further productive Confucian-Buddhist dialogue.
In this paper, I investigate Zhang and Seo’s understanding of Buddhism focusing on the notion of emptiness. I show how they critiqued, but also integrated this notion into their Confucian positions. I end with some questions (mostly for Buddhist scholars) at the end of this inquiry: Which strands of Buddhist emptiness do they seem to be engaging with? Did they understand Buddhist emptiness properly? Which aspects of Buddhist emptiness did they properly understand? Which aspects of Buddhist emptiness did they misunderstand? Is their Confucian understanding of the Buddhist notion of emptiness compatible with any form of Buddhism? Does this show that there is a possibility for productive Confucian-Buddhist syncretic engagement? Or do their efforts push Confucianism and Buddhism back into further otherness? What significance does this discussion have to us living in the contemporary world?