identical.  However, if you  end  up with  emptiness  and
　　 annihilation, you  can never  become  a man  of morality.
　　 Hence, you must  take emptiness  and annihilation  as the
　　 substance  of the Way and jen, i, li.  and chih(u) as the
　　 functions of the way in order to apply the Way to myriads
　　 of human affairs.  Only then does the Way become  perfect
　　 (K. 28o-281).

Sot'aesan  was here disabusing  his disciple  of the mistaken
Neo-Confucian  conception of the metaphysics  of sunyata.  If
given a proper interpretation, it could imply the meaning  of
the  term  hsing(v) or nature  as used  in the  Chung-yung(w)
[Doctrine  of the Mean]: "What Heaven has conferred on man is
called  nature."(17) The state of mind before the arousal  of
feelings  of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, called chung or
equilibrium, was none other  than emptiness  and annihilation
of this  or that feelings.  And yet the way of sunyata  could
only  be a moral  way if it functioned  as the four  cardinal
virtues  of  Confucianism.  Thus  there  was  no  problem  of
synthesizing the two conflicting views.
　　 To  Sot'aesan,  different  religious  doctrines  provided
different  metaphysical   paradigms,  to  use  Thomas  Kuhn's
terminology,(18) which would cause  one and the same ultimate
reality to be viewed differently. Sot'ae-

P.433

san used the figure of a perfect  circle  called Irwonsang(x)
(i-yuan-hsiang) to refer  to that  ultimate  reality  and the
original nature of all sentient beings.

　　 What is referred  to by Irwonsang  is called T'ai-chi  or
　　 Wu-chi  in Confucianism, Tao(y) or nature  in Taoism, and
　　 pure  Dharmakaya  Buddha  in Buddhism.  However, they are
　　 different names of one and the same principle;  no matter
　　 which way you enter, ultimately  you return  to the truth
　　 of Irwon(g).... (K.320).(19)

The  correctness  of this  view  is a thorny  question  which
cannot be settled here.  The same idea, however  goes back to
the Vedic period.(20)
　　 With Sot'aesan believing that the best theoretical  basis
for the synthesis of the Confucian and Buddhism moral systems
lie in the concept  of Irwonsang, it must be shown  both  how
Buddhistic  the concept  of Irwonsang  is and how some of the
central  moral tenets  of Confucianism  are derived  from it.
Sot'aesan  identified  Irwon  or one circle  with  Dharmakaya
Buddha  and said  it was  "the  origin  of all beings  of the
universe, the Mind  Seal  of all  Buddhas  and sages, and the
original nature of all sentient beings" (K. 9).
　　 Here Irwon refers to the realm which Kant called noumenon
and  to li-fa-chieh(z) or  the  realm  of  principle  in  the
Hua-yen  texts.(21)That  Sot'aesan's  view  of  the  ultimate
reality of the universe was within the Mahayanistic tradition
can be seen in his description of what Irwon referred to:

　　 ...In  this  realm  there  is  no  difference   of  great
　　 [substance] and small [function], being and nonbeing, nor
　　 is there  the change  of coming  and going  of birth  and
　　 death.  Nor is there the karmic  retribution  of good and
　　 evil.  In this realm words  and names are all annihilated
　　 in complete voidness (K. 21).

This description reminds one of Kant's view that the noumenal
realm   goes  beyond   any  of  the  twelve   categories   of
understanding, especially that of causality.(22)

P.434

　　 Sot'aesan   then  explained  the  relation  between  that
ineffable  realm and the phenomenal  realm [shi-fa-chieh(aa)]
in terms found in some Mahayana texts, saying:

　　 According   to  the  light  of  the  Numinous   Awareness
　　 [ling-chih(n)] of the Silent  Void  [k'ung-chi(m)] arises