Chapter I
Chapter I, Sec. 1: Research Background and Necessity
1. Research Background and Necessity
Donghak Thought (東學思想) has been studied primarily as a religious movement, and the dimension of indigenous modernity (自生的, autogenous) and philosophical methodology implied by the very name "Donghak" (Eastern Learning) has yet to receive independent scholarly attention. The same applies to Daesoon Thought (大巡思想), which claims to be the "true Donghak."¹ ² At the time of its emergence, "Western Learning" (西學, Seohak) was another name for Western modernity—represented by material civilization and anthropocentrism—and Donghak was the corresponding expression of indigenous modernity and philosophical methodology from the East.³ Daesoon Thought likewise emphasizes that the origins of Western modernity lie in the Eastern civilization transmitted by Matteo Ricci (利瑪竇, 1552–1610),⁴ and it frames the global crisis produced by a materially skewed Western modernity as the backdrop for its own emergence.⁵ In this sense, Daesoon Thought also uses the term "true Donghak" rather than simply "Donghak."
Notes & References (39)
¹ Daesoonjinrihoe Office of Religious Affairs (대순진리회 교무부), Jeon'gyeong (『전경』), "Gwon-ji" 1–11, 2010. (Hereafter, citations from Jeon'gyeong will give only the book title, chapter name, and verse number, e.g., Jeon'gyeong, "Gwon-ji" 1–11. Similarly, Daejun Jichim [『대순지침』] and Daesoonjinrihoe Yoram [『대순진리회요람』] will be cited by their respective titles.) Among the many scriptures used by groups that venerate Jeungsan as an object of faith, Jeon'gyeong is one of the earliest and most consistent with the Jeungsan Cheonsa Gongsa-gi and Daesoon Jeon'gyeong. The first edition (1974) was published by Seoul National University Press under the editorship of Professor Jang Byeong-gil of the Department of Religious Studies at Seoul National University. Only minor textual revisions have been made since.
² Although Jeungsan's thought is sometimes called "Jeungsan Thought," this study uses the term "Daesoon Thought." In this paper, Daesoon Thought refers to the interpretation and systematization of the thought of Kang Jeungsan (姜甑山, 1871–1909) from the perspective of Daesoonjinrihoe—specifically as understood through Doju (道主) Jo Jeongsan (趙鼎山, 1895–1958), who inherited the orthodox transmission from Jeungsan, and Dojeon (都典) Park Udang (朴牛堂, 1917–1996), who succeeded him pursuant to Doju's dying instructions.
³ "Westerners speak without order and write without clarity; they are utterly devoid of any intention of serving Heavenly Lord; they only pray for their own personal gain; their bodies possess no spirit of gi-transformation; their learning contains no teaching of Heavenly Lord; there is form but no trace, thought but no incantation; their Way approaches emptiness and nothingness, and their learning is not that of Heavenly Lord—how can one say there is no difference?" (Donggyeong Daejeon, "Nonhangmun"). As the title "Nonhangmun" (Discussion of Learning) and the original title "Donghangmun" (Essay on Donghak) suggest, this text approaches Western religion through the framework of "hak" (learning) as a form of Eastern modernity, with "East vs. West" as its theoretical backdrop. This is discussed further in sections II-1-b and II-1-c.
⁴ Kim Seon-hui, "A Study on the Confucian Transformation of the Medieval Christian World-View," Ph.D. dissertation, Ewha Womans University, 2008, pp. 146–151. (The Jesuit order, whose identity as a new religious order had been questioned, rose to become the new favorite of Roman Catholicism following the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Since evangelizing China—then the world's greatest power—required an organization of the highest educational caliber devoted solely to the Pope and Jesus, the Jesuits were the most suitable candidates, and Matteo Ricci, the most brilliant and resolute among them, was chosen. Contrary to common assumption, Catholicism had already successfully Christianized Greek philosophy, as seen in the case of Thomas Aquinas, and thus approached Chinese thought with considerable confidence in its ability to Christianize it as well.)
⁵ Jeon'gyeong, "Gyoun" 1–9.
² Although Jeungsan's thought is sometimes called "Jeungsan Thought," this study uses the term "Daesoon Thought." In this paper, Daesoon Thought refers to the interpretation and systematization of the thought of Kang Jeungsan (姜甑山, 1871–1909) from the perspective of Daesoonjinrihoe—specifically as understood through Doju (道主) Jo Jeongsan (趙鼎山, 1895–1958), who inherited the orthodox transmission from Jeungsan, and Dojeon (都典) Park Udang (朴牛堂, 1917–1996), who succeeded him pursuant to Doju's dying instructions.
³ "Westerners speak without order and write without clarity; they are utterly devoid of any intention of serving Heavenly Lord; they only pray for their own personal gain; their bodies possess no spirit of gi-transformation; their learning contains no teaching of Heavenly Lord; there is form but no trace, thought but no incantation; their Way approaches emptiness and nothingness, and their learning is not that of Heavenly Lord—how can one say there is no difference?" (Donggyeong Daejeon, "Nonhangmun"). As the title "Nonhangmun" (Discussion of Learning) and the original title "Donghangmun" (Essay on Donghak) suggest, this text approaches Western religion through the framework of "hak" (learning) as a form of Eastern modernity, with "East vs. West" as its theoretical backdrop. This is discussed further in sections II-1-b and II-1-c.
⁴ Kim Seon-hui, "A Study on the Confucian Transformation of the Medieval Christian World-View," Ph.D. dissertation, Ewha Womans University, 2008, pp. 146–151. (The Jesuit order, whose identity as a new religious order had been questioned, rose to become the new favorite of Roman Catholicism following the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Since evangelizing China—then the world's greatest power—required an organization of the highest educational caliber devoted solely to the Pope and Jesus, the Jesuits were the most suitable candidates, and Matteo Ricci, the most brilliant and resolute among them, was chosen. Contrary to common assumption, Catholicism had already successfully Christianized Greek philosophy, as seen in the case of Thomas Aquinas, and thus approached Chinese thought with considerable confidence in its ability to Christianize it as well.)
⁵ Jeon'gyeong, "Gyoun" 1–9.
The fact that Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought have not been studied from the perspective of indigenous modernity is largely because scholars have overlooked the East's own indigenous modernity, which is generally assumed to have originated in the West. However, as Daesoon Thought first pointed out, recent scholarship has revealed that Western modernity itself originated in the Eastern civilization transmitted to the West by Matteo Ricci—a discovery that has prompted a reassessment of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought as expressions of Eastern indigenous modernity.
This reassessment of Eastern and Western modernity has been spurred by advances in IT technology, which have made texts from the dawn of Western modernity freely accessible online through platforms such as Google, thereby enabling a re-examination of the hidden Eastern origins of Western modernity. Max Weber (1864–1920) famously attributed the origins of modernity to Calvin's doctrine of predestination,⁶ but it has since been demonstrated that the Enlightenment—which institutionalized Calvinist theology into capitalism—was itself initiated by the ethical civilization of China transmitted by Matteo Ricci, that is, a Confucian civilization with monotheistic sensibilities but no institutional religion.⁷ The historical records show that Confucianism, long identified in East Asia as an obstacle to modernization, was in fact the origin of modernity in the West.⁸
This reassessment of Eastern and Western modernity has been spurred by advances in IT technology, which have made texts from the dawn of Western modernity freely accessible online through platforms such as Google, thereby enabling a re-examination of the hidden Eastern origins of Western modernity. Max Weber (1864–1920) famously attributed the origins of modernity to Calvin's doctrine of predestination,⁶ but it has since been demonstrated that the Enlightenment—which institutionalized Calvinist theology into capitalism—was itself initiated by the ethical civilization of China transmitted by Matteo Ricci, that is, a Confucian civilization with monotheistic sensibilities but no institutional religion.⁷ The historical records show that Confucianism, long identified in East Asia as an obstacle to modernization, was in fact the origin of modernity in the West.⁸
⁶ Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Seoul: Munye Publishing, 2023).
⁷ Yi Yeong-jae, "A Sympathetic-Moral Interpretation of Confucius's Concept of Shu (恕)," Korean Political Science Review 47(1), Korean Political Science Association, 2013, p. 30.
⁸ Hwang Tae-yeon, "The Influence of the Confucian-Mencian and Sima Qian's Laissez-faire Market Ideology and People-Nourishing Philosophy on Western Liberal Market Theory and Welfare State Theory," Journal of Korean Studies 35(2), Academy of Korean Studies, 2012.
⁷ Yi Yeong-jae, "A Sympathetic-Moral Interpretation of Confucius's Concept of Shu (恕)," Korean Political Science Review 47(1), Korean Political Science Association, 2013, p. 30.
⁸ Hwang Tae-yeon, "The Influence of the Confucian-Mencian and Sima Qian's Laissez-faire Market Ideology and People-Nourishing Philosophy on Western Liberal Market Theory and Welfare State Theory," Journal of Korean Studies 35(2), Academy of Korean Studies, 2012.
As arguments for the Eastern origins of the Enlightenment advanced by Western scholars have been corroborated by online primary sources, East Asian scholars such as Hwang Tae-yeon have also been demonstrating that Western Enlightenment thought has its roots in Eastern ethical reflection and religious scholarship—once dismissed as pre-modern superstition.⁹ Representative scholars in this field include: Zhu Qianzhi (朱謙之, 1899–1972)¹⁰ in China; Andre Gunder Frank (1929–2005),¹¹ John M. Hobson (1962–present),¹² Herrlee Glessner Creel (1905–1994),¹³ and Adolf Reichwein (1898–1944)¹⁴ in the West; and in Korea, Hwang Tae-yeon,¹⁵ Jo Hye-in,¹⁶ Jeon Hong-seok,¹⁷ Yi Yeong-jae,¹⁸ and Yi Dong-hui (translator of Leibniz).¹⁹
⁹ Hwang Tae-yeon, General Theory of Confucian Modernity (Seoul: Korean Cultural History Press, 2023).
¹⁰ Zhu Qianzhi, Europe's Modernity Made in China (Seoul: Cheonggye, 2010).
¹¹ Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient (Seoul: Isan, 2003).
¹² John M. Hobson, The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, trans. Jeong Gyeong-ok (Seoul: Ecolivre, 2005).
¹³ H. G. Creel, Chinese Thought: From Confucius to Mao Tse-tung, trans. Yi Dong-jun and Yi Dong-in (Seoul: Gyeongmunsa, 1992).
¹⁴ A. Reichwein, China and Europe: Intellectual and Artistic Contacts in the XVIIIth Century, trans. J. C. Powell (London; New York: Routledge, 1996).
¹⁵ Hwang Tae-yeon, Confucius and the World: The Political Philosophy of Confucius and Mencius in the Age of Patchwork Civilization, vols. 1–5 (Paju: Cheonggye, 2011).
¹⁶ Jo Hye-in, Modern Civil Society Spreading from East to West (Paju: Jimmundang, 2013).
¹⁷ Jeon Hong-seok, "The Influence of Song Neo-Confucianism on Modern European Enlightenment and Its Cultural-Philosophical Significance: Focusing on the Left-Wing Bayle and Right-Wing Malebranche of the French Cartesian School," Eastern Philosophy Research 57, Society for Eastern Philosophical Research, 2009, p. 304.
¹⁸ Yi Yeong-jae, "A Sympathetic-Moral Interpretation of Confucius's Concept of Shu," Korean Political Science Review 47(1), 2013.
¹⁹ Leibniz, Leibniz Encountering China, trans. Yi Dong-hui, 2003.
¹⁰ Zhu Qianzhi, Europe's Modernity Made in China (Seoul: Cheonggye, 2010).
¹¹ Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient (Seoul: Isan, 2003).
¹² John M. Hobson, The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, trans. Jeong Gyeong-ok (Seoul: Ecolivre, 2005).
¹³ H. G. Creel, Chinese Thought: From Confucius to Mao Tse-tung, trans. Yi Dong-jun and Yi Dong-in (Seoul: Gyeongmunsa, 1992).
¹⁴ A. Reichwein, China and Europe: Intellectual and Artistic Contacts in the XVIIIth Century, trans. J. C. Powell (London; New York: Routledge, 1996).
¹⁵ Hwang Tae-yeon, Confucius and the World: The Political Philosophy of Confucius and Mencius in the Age of Patchwork Civilization, vols. 1–5 (Paju: Cheonggye, 2011).
¹⁶ Jo Hye-in, Modern Civil Society Spreading from East to West (Paju: Jimmundang, 2013).
¹⁷ Jeon Hong-seok, "The Influence of Song Neo-Confucianism on Modern European Enlightenment and Its Cultural-Philosophical Significance: Focusing on the Left-Wing Bayle and Right-Wing Malebranche of the French Cartesian School," Eastern Philosophy Research 57, Society for Eastern Philosophical Research, 2009, p. 304.
¹⁸ Yi Yeong-jae, "A Sympathetic-Moral Interpretation of Confucius's Concept of Shu," Korean Political Science Review 47(1), 2013.
¹⁹ Leibniz, Leibniz Encountering China, trans. Yi Dong-hui, 2003.
In response to these developments, Western post-modernist theorists—most notably François Jullien (1951–present)—have been steadily pursuing research that looks to Eastern thought for alternatives to Western modernity. While Jullien does not directly claim that Enlightenment philosophy was influenced by Mencius (孟子, c. 372–289 BCE), he demonstrates that their problematics are closely aligned, and argues that Mencian philosophy can provide a moral foundation for Western ethics after Nietzsche.²⁰ Mencius offers the logic of cyclicality—a moral foundation absent from Western thought and sought by Nietzsche (1844–1900)—suggesting that Eastern and Western philosophy can be contrasted as "operation" and "creation," respectively.
²⁰ François Jullien, Dialogue Between Mencius and the Enlightenment Philosophers (On Establishing the Foundation of Morality: Rousseau, Kant) (Seoul: Hanul Academy, 2009), pp. 50–55.
The Western modern civilization that emerged from these developments has long been feared to bring about crises threatening humanity's very existence—nuclear weapons, environmental degradation, and so on—and those crises have now become reality. Building alternative modernities has therefore become an urgent practical necessity.²¹ Post-modernist thinkers who have been preparing alternative modernities through the discourse of "post-modernity" are also looking for alternatives to modernity in what indigenous modernity similarly emphasizes: "ethical reflexivity"²² and a "religious turn."²³ Scholars are unanimous that without reflexivity toward a civilization that has ceaselessly conquered nature, and without a religious turn, the alternatives proposed by the many post-modern schools of thought—deconstruction, mourning, and the like—cannot succeed.
²¹ Kim Sang-jun, The Sweat of Mencius, the Blood of the Sage-King (Seoul: Acanet, 2011), p. 35.
²² Song Jae-ryong, Postmodern Era and Communitarianism (Seoul: Cheolhak-gwa Hyeonsil, 2001), pp. 73–106.
²³ Shin Myeong-a, The Religious Turn in Contemporary Philosophy: Benjamin, Derrida, Levinas, Agamben, Žižek, Deleuze, Guattari (Seoul: Kyung Hee University Press, 2021), pp. 6–7.
²² Song Jae-ryong, Postmodern Era and Communitarianism (Seoul: Cheolhak-gwa Hyeonsil, 2001), pp. 73–106.
²³ Shin Myeong-a, The Religious Turn in Contemporary Philosophy: Benjamin, Derrida, Levinas, Agamben, Žižek, Deleuze, Guattari (Seoul: Kyung Hee University Press, 2021), pp. 6–7.
Against this background of fluid global intellectual change, Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought—which have long emphasized the crisis of modern civilization and the religious turn as an alternative modernity—are being re-examined today as indigenous modern thought traditions of East Asia.²⁴
²⁴ Korean Society for Daoist Culture, Multi-layered Analysis of Jeungsan Thought (Seoul: Cheonghong, 2015); Baek Nak-cheong, Park Maeng-su, and Kim Yong-ok, "Seeking Donghak Again to Ask the Way Forward Today," Changjak-gwa Bipyeong (Autumn 2021); Choe Min-ja, Donghak Thought and New Civilization (Seoul: Mosineun Saramdeul, 2005); Kim Ji-ha, The Story of Donghak (Seoul: Sol, 1994).
Although Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought have been studied from various angles as indigenous modernity, existing research has largely neglected the philosophical methodology of the East presupposed by the very name "Donghak"—that is, the East Asian and Korean philosophical methodology of thought. In the West, by contrast, scholars have long looked to the distinctive philosophical methodology of Eastern thought to identify the hallmark of Eastern thought systems, and have steadily regarded this methodology as an alternative rationality to Western modern rationality.
It is somewhat surprising that studies of Donghak-related thought have not taken philosophical methodology as their subject. This lack of understanding of the differences between Eastern and Western modes of philosophical thinking has prevented scholars from properly illuminating the significance of Donghak-related thought's indigenous modernity for the global history of ideas. "Donghak-related thought" includes Daesoon Thought—which describes itself as "true Donghak"—as well as other thought systems influenced by or related to Donghak, such as Won Buddhism and the Unification Church.²⁵
It is somewhat surprising that studies of Donghak-related thought have not taken philosophical methodology as their subject. This lack of understanding of the differences between Eastern and Western modes of philosophical thinking has prevented scholars from properly illuminating the significance of Donghak-related thought's indigenous modernity for the global history of ideas. "Donghak-related thought" includes Daesoon Thought—which describes itself as "true Donghak"—as well as other thought systems influenced by or related to Donghak, such as Won Buddhism and the Unification Church.²⁵
²⁵ Kim Tak, The Ideology Running Through Korean New Religions: Anthropocentrism (Seoul: Minsogwon, 2023).
In fact, Donghak Thought emerged as a "hak" (學, learning) that responded to the identity crisis caused by the collision of Eastern and Western civilizations—as expressed in theories such as Dongdo Seogi (東道西器, Eastern Way, Western Instruments), Zhongti Xiyong (中體西用, Chinese Substance, Western Application), and Seohak Jungwon (西學中源, Western Learning Has Chinese Origins). The text "Nonhangmun" in the Donggyeong Daejeon, where the term "Donghak" first appears, presents Donghak in multiple passages as a "hak" opposed to Western Learning (Seohak).²⁶ With the failure of Donghak, this agenda was passed on to Donghak-related thought.
²⁶ Bae Yeong-sun, "The Question of Differentiation Between Donghak and Western Learning: Focusing on 'Un-jeuk Dojeuk-dong Ri-jeuk-bi'," Daegu Historical Review 73, 2003.
Understanding religion through the academic lens of "hak" (learning) is a uniquely East Asian mode of religious understanding that became prevalent after Neo-Confucianism. The term "religion" (종교) was introduced to East Asia—where religious traditions had previously been understood under the rubric of "hak"—only later, and the concept of "religion" remains subject to considerable debate even today.²⁷
²⁷ Kim Tae-yeon, "The Background of the Birth of Religious Studies as an Academic Discipline," in Korean Religious Studies (Seoul: National Academy of Sciences, 2021), pp. 11–26.
Of course, the concept of "hak" in East Asia can be evaluated as a pre-modern, undifferentiated religious concept used before the concept of "religion" arrived.²⁸ However, overseas scholarship has produced extensive research on "hak" as a broad concept encompassing the social context of its emergence and its political implications, and Neo-Confucian "hak" in particular is evaluated as a highly comprehensive thought system.²⁹
²⁸ Yun Seung-yong, Korean New Religions and the Thought of Gaebyeok (Seoul: Mosineun Saramdeul, 2017).
²⁹ Min Byeong-hee, "The Republic of the Mind: Zhu Xi's Learning (Xue) as a Sociopolitical Agenda and the Construction of Literati Society," Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2007.
²⁹ Min Byeong-hee, "The Republic of the Mind: Zhu Xi's Learning (Xue) as a Sociopolitical Agenda and the Construction of Literati Society," Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2007.
The concept of "hak" as developed from Neo-Confucianism is evaluated as having a logical structure fundamentally different from the acquisition of knowledge or skills in modern education, or even from cultural acquisition. The central part of "hak" as understood in Neo-Confucianism discusses the question of mind (心, sim)—which would appear to be most removed from the concrete phenomena of human society—yet theory that seems abstractly metaphysical is said to be highly important for understanding actual practical problems.³⁰ "Hak" reveals how elites who identify with "hak" and non-elite commoners are distinguished and what relationships they form; how elites can possess real-world power without being formally empowered by the state or special institutions, and how this can be justified; and how the relationship between elites and the government, state, and ruler is defined.
³⁰ Min Byeong-hee, "Neo-Confucianism and East Asian Society: In Search of a New Explanatory Framework," Sarim 32, 2009, p. 23.
The evaluation of Donghak's "hak" in Korea has expanded into the domain of self-cultivation theory,³¹ and has been reassessed as a form of Korean humanities or Korean philosophy.³² Abroad, it has even been reassessed as an alternative science for East Asia through debates in post-modern philosophy of science.³³ That Eastern "hak" could serve as an alternative science in the philosophy of science was first discussed in European philosophy of science through the re-evaluation of the pre-modern European science of the four elements (地水火風, earth-water-fire-wind).
³¹ Kim Yong-hwi, Donghak as Our Own Learning (Seoul: Chaeksesang, 2007).
³² Jo Seong-hwan and Yi U-jin, "The Intellectual-Historical Significance of the Birth of the Concept of 'Donghak': From Creating a Way (創道) to Creating a Learning (創學)," Confucian Studies 58, 2022, pp. 115–144.
³³ P. K. Feyerabend, Farewell to Reason (London; New York: Verso, 1987).
³² Jo Seong-hwan and Yi U-jin, "The Intellectual-Historical Significance of the Birth of the Concept of 'Donghak': From Creating a Way (創道) to Creating a Learning (創學)," Confucian Studies 58, 2022, pp. 115–144.
³³ P. K. Feyerabend, Farewell to Reason (London; New York: Verso, 1987).
The Western pre-modern scientific theory of the four elements (earth-water-fire-wind) began to be reassessed as a philosophy of science through the work of Gaston Bachelard (1884–1962), who discovered a philosophy of science in the four-element worldview and confirmed that countless philosophers, scholars, and alchemists had reasoned on the basis of the four elements.³⁴ The French philosophy of science that begins with Bachelard now divides the world stage of philosophy of science together with the Anglo-American philosophy of science represented by Thomas Kuhn's (1922–1996) paradigm theory and Karl Popper's (1902–1994) concept of falsifiability. Whereas Anglo-American philosophy of science (Kuhn and Popper) is confined to the natural sciences and lacks a concrete systematic framework like the four elements, the French philosophy of science—which began with the four-element philosophy—has been extended to the human and social sciences and is grounded in the concrete traditional substance of the four elements.
³⁴ Gaston Bachelard, Fragments d'une poétique du feu, P.U.F., 1988, p. 28; cited in Song Tae-hyeon, "Gaston Bachelard: From Philosophy of Science to Philosophy of Imagination," Études françaises en Corée 42, 2003, p. 193.
Unlike Popper and Kuhn, who define science by the falsifiability of its theories or the consensus of the scientific community, Bachelard characterizes science by epistemological rupture (coupure épistémologique): science does not operate through absolutely valid theories that are falsifiable or arrived at by convention, but rather through independently emerging, mutually discontinuous theories that coexist. The coexistence of the four-element theory and atomic science is the representative example. Bachelard named this coexistence "paradigm" before Kuhn did. Bachelard's philosophy of science—which treats epistemological rupture as paradigm—became the theoretical foundation for the leading postmodernist philosophers, including Althusser, Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze, Serres, and Durand, as well as systems scientists Maturana, Varela, and Luhmann.
The four-element worldview was the dominant scientific worldview across much of the pre-modern globe—found not only in Europe but also in Buddhism, Hinduism, Egypt, and parts of China. The occasion for Bachelard to revive the four-element worldview as a philosophy of science was, paradoxically, his attempt to identify its problems.³⁵ In early work, Bachelard discovered in the four elements the source of imagination—a pre-scientific element that transcends science. He found that the four elements are not an obstacle to science, but rather that science itself is a product of human imagination, and thus science can only advance by engaging with the four elements. Bachelard holds that all science is founded on error, and that error is the most important factor in scientific development.³⁶ He further argued that modern science, by suppressing the imagination associated with the four elements, has plunged modern people into an anguish of imagination-deprivation, and that this deprivation of imagination is the root cause of all modern problems. East Asia has a tradition of valuing imagination, as exemplified by Zhuangzi.³⁷ Bachelard's arguments have been varied in numerous ways and have come to form a mainstream of global philosophy of science.
The four-element worldview was the dominant scientific worldview across much of the pre-modern globe—found not only in Europe but also in Buddhism, Hinduism, Egypt, and parts of China. The occasion for Bachelard to revive the four-element worldview as a philosophy of science was, paradoxically, his attempt to identify its problems.³⁵ In early work, Bachelard discovered in the four elements the source of imagination—a pre-scientific element that transcends science. He found that the four elements are not an obstacle to science, but rather that science itself is a product of human imagination, and thus science can only advance by engaging with the four elements. Bachelard holds that all science is founded on error, and that error is the most important factor in scientific development.³⁶ He further argued that modern science, by suppressing the imagination associated with the four elements, has plunged modern people into an anguish of imagination-deprivation, and that this deprivation of imagination is the root cause of all modern problems. East Asia has a tradition of valuing imagination, as exemplified by Zhuangzi.³⁷ Bachelard's arguments have been varied in numerous ways and have come to form a mainstream of global philosophy of science.
³⁵ Song Tae-hyeon, "Science and Poetry: Gaston Bachelard's Duality and Unity," World Literature Comparative Studies 36, 2011, pp. 233–234.
³⁶ Jin Hyeong-jun, "The New Science Mind and the New Anthropological Mind," Hongdae Nonchong 19(1), 1987, pp. 114–115.
³⁷ Song Jong-in, "A Preliminary Essay on 'Imagination' as an Epistemological Method," Philosophy and Culture 21, 2010, pp. 138–144.
³⁶ Jin Hyeong-jun, "The New Science Mind and the New Anthropological Mind," Hongdae Nonchong 19(1), 1987, pp. 114–115.
³⁷ Song Jong-in, "A Preliminary Essay on 'Imagination' as an Epistemological Method," Philosophy and Culture 21, 2010, pp. 138–144.
The reason that the four-element philosophy of science is important for understanding the concept of "hak" in Donghak is that the East Asian science of yin-yang and the five phases (陰陽五行), on which Donghak academically grounds itself,³⁸ shows potential for contributing to a contemporary Eastern philosophy of science comparable to that of the four elements, and thus for reassessment within modern philosophy of science.
³⁸ Yin-yang and the five phases emerged from two distinct traditions but were integrated into a single framework. The yin-yang and five-phases system as understood today was reformed by Dong Zhongshu and Han Yu. (Liang Qichao, Feng Youlan et al., Research on the Theory of Yin-Yang and Five Phases, trans. Kim Hong-gyeong, Sinji Seowon, 1993, pp. 531–540.) The earliest text to mention the five phases is the "Hongfan" (洪範) chapter of the Shangshu (Book of Documents), which describes the five phases as the functional properties of five materials: "Water moistens downward (潤下); fire flames upward (炎上); wood bends and straightens (曲直); metal can be reshaped (從革); earth produces grain (稼穡)." (John B. Henderson, Chinese Cosmology and the Scientific Revolution in the Qing Dynasty, trans. Mun Jung-yang, Seoul: Somyeong Publishing, 2004, p. 24.) However, the "Hongfan" speaks of the five phases as material entities rather than in their philosophical sense, and it is now generally accepted that this text is a forgery (僞書) belonging to the "Ancient Text" Shangshu, and thus lacks textual reliability. (So Jae-hak, A Study on the Theory of Yin-Yang and Five Phases, Ph.D. dissertation, Wonkwang University, 2005, p. 66.) Five-phases theory was subsequently developed by Zou Yan, Dong Zhongshu, and the Liu Xin family. Today, yin-yang and five-phases theory is understood in terms of complex-systems organism science, and cases have been reported of its effective application to economic thought, stock market analysis, and gaming. (Kim Tae-gyu, World Affairs Examined Through Yin-Yang and Five Phases, Donghaksa, 2002.) Reports from interviews with Korean masters of yin-yang and five-phases theory also show instances of remarkable accuracy in real-world application. (Jo Yong-heon, Stories of Saju Myeongrihak, Saengak-ui Namu, 2009.) There are also cases of historically compelling analysis using this framework. (Kim Seok-jin, Our Future, Daeyuhakdang, 2009.) Yin-yang and five-phases theory is being reassessed today in light of developments in organism science and correlative thinking theory. Although yin-yang and five phases emerged independently, and their combination has been criticized as an artificial construction rather than a law of nature, organism science and correlative thinking—which hold that parts reflect the whole—suggest that yin-yang and five phases, though originating separately, speak to different aspects of the same reality, and thus may indeed reflect a law of nature rather than an artificial construction.
Daesoon Thought has long maintained, through the term "true Donghak," that the ultimate resolution of the agenda of "Donghak" as an East Asian philosophical methodology—first raised by Donghak Thought—is found in Daesoon Thought. Despite the extensive research conducted on both Daesoon Thought and Donghak Thought, studies approaching "Donghak" as an East Asian philosophical methodology remain rare among researchers in both fields.
The scripture of Daesoon Thought, Jeon'gyeong, contains the passage "In the West there is a great sage, and in the East there is a great sage—this is called Donghak" (西有大聖人東有大聖人曰東學).³⁹ This passage uses the term "Donghak" to designate religion and learning that emerged from Eastern sages, in contrast with Western Learning. The use of "Donghak" in Jeon'gyeong shows that the term was also proposed as a philosophical methodology for East Asian religions. In the East Asian holistic tradition, the meaning of "hak" differs significantly from modern scholarship.⁴⁰ The use of the scholarly expression "truth" (진리) in the name "Daesoon Truth" (大巡眞理) also reflects this.
The scripture of Daesoon Thought, Jeon'gyeong, contains the passage "In the West there is a great sage, and in the East there is a great sage—this is called Donghak" (西有大聖人東有大聖人曰東學).³⁹ This passage uses the term "Donghak" to designate religion and learning that emerged from Eastern sages, in contrast with Western Learning. The use of "Donghak" in Jeon'gyeong shows that the term was also proposed as a philosophical methodology for East Asian religions. In the East Asian holistic tradition, the meaning of "hak" differs significantly from modern scholarship.⁴⁰ The use of the scholarly expression "truth" (진리) in the name "Daesoon Truth" (大巡眞理) also reflects this.
³⁹ Jeon'gyeong, "Gongsa" 5–38.
⁴⁰ The Analects of Confucius also begins with the word "hak" (學而時習之 不亦說乎). The latter portion of Jeon'gyeong, "Gongsa" 5–38—"都是敎民化民 近日日本文神武神 幷務道通"—is also connected to Japanese modernity.
⁴⁰ The Analects of Confucius also begins with the word "hak" (學而時習之 不亦說乎). The latter portion of Jeon'gyeong, "Gongsa" 5–38—"都是敎民化民 近日日本文神武神 幷務道通"—is also connected to Japanese modernity.
That this term was also proposed as a philosophical methodology in Donghak itself is hardly surprising. The essay "Nonhangmun" in the Donggyeong Daejeon, where the term "Donghak" first appears, was originally titled "Donghangmun" (東學文).⁴¹ The study will focus on early Donghak.⁴² ⁴³
⁴¹ Kim Yong-ok, Donggyeong Daejeon (Seoul: Tongnamu, 2021).
⁴² For the basis on which Daesoon Thought focuses on early Donghak, see Park Sang-gyu, "A Study on the Discourse of Haeweol's Transmission of the Orthodox Succession of Donghak: Focusing on Textual Evidence," Daesoon Thought Collected Essays 48, pp. 41–156.
⁴³ This study refers to the period of Suun's four-year activity as "early Donghak," and following Daesoon Thought's position that early Donghak is the foundation of Jeungsan's thought, restricts the discussion of Donghak Thought to early Donghak alone. See Choe Jong-seong, Donghak's Theopraxy: The Thought and Ritual of Early and Late Donghak (Seoul: Minsogwon, 2009). Where necessary for comparison with Daesoon Thought, some later terminological usages that specifically interpret early Donghak thought are also employed.
⁴² For the basis on which Daesoon Thought focuses on early Donghak, see Park Sang-gyu, "A Study on the Discourse of Haeweol's Transmission of the Orthodox Succession of Donghak: Focusing on Textual Evidence," Daesoon Thought Collected Essays 48, pp. 41–156.
⁴³ This study refers to the period of Suun's four-year activity as "early Donghak," and following Daesoon Thought's position that early Donghak is the foundation of Jeungsan's thought, restricts the discussion of Donghak Thought to early Donghak alone. See Choe Jong-seong, Donghak's Theopraxy: The Thought and Ritual of Early and Late Donghak (Seoul: Minsogwon, 2009). Where necessary for comparison with Daesoon Thought, some later terminological usages that specifically interpret early Donghak thought are also employed.
In Daesoon Thought, Donghak Thought appears as "the religion that advocated the affairs of the Later Heaven."⁴⁴ Although the term "Later Heaven" (後天) does not appear directly in the Yongdam Yusa or Donggyeong Daejeon, Daesoon Thought actually shares a significant number of terms that first appear in early Donghak: "Donghak," "Gaebyeok," and "Earthly Paradise" (地上仙境), among others.
⁴⁴ Jeon'gyeong, "Gongsa" 2–19.
Another basis for presenting Daesoon Thought as the completion of Donghak—the "true Donghak"—is its reference to Jangnan (作亂, instigating disorder) and Chiran (治亂, governing disorder). The passage "The one who instigated disorder is Suun, and the one who governs the disorder is Jeungsan"⁴⁵ shows that the first raising of the "Donghak" problematic was accomplished by Suun, and that its resolution was achieved by Jeungsan's true Donghak. The work of examining the terms shared by early Donghak and Daesoon Thought as Eastern philosophical methodologies—and thereby showing how Daesoon Thought's "true Donghak" completes the "Donghak" of Donghak Thought—is indispensable for understanding the logical coherence of Daesoon Thought.
⁴⁵ Jeon'gyeong, "Gyobeop" 3–30.
Just as Western modernity began with Copernicus's heliocentric theory, it is widely recognized that the starting point of "modernity" as a field of inquiry is the construction of an indigenous theory of cosmology. In the West, the motivation for modern philosophical theology lay in the Copernican revolution in astronomy.⁴⁶ One of the most powerful driving forces behind modernity was a new understanding of nature. Modernity's significance lies not merely in adding yet another understanding of nature, but in developing a new mode of inquiry into nature—a distinctive method that continues to this day. Just as the emergence of a new conception of nature in antiquity brought about a great rupture in civilization, so the emergence of a new understanding of nature and the new methods that drove it in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries constituted an equally momentous rupture in the history of thought.⁴⁷ Accordingly, Donghak, as an indigenous modern thought, also began by constructing a new Eastern cosmology—a View of Heaven (天觀), View of Earth (地觀), and View of Humanity (人間觀)—but like Donghak's philosophical methodology, this has not been sufficiently studied. This study therefore examines Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought from the perspective of philosophical methodology, focusing on the indigenous modernity of their Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity, in order to discuss the breadth and depth of the indigenous modernity of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought.
⁴⁶ Richard Scheffler, Phenomenology of Religion (Seoul: Hawu, 2023), pp. 241–242.
⁴⁷ Yi Jeong-u, World History of Philosophy, vol. 3: Cartography of Modernity (Seoul: Gil, 2021), p. 22.
⁴⁷ Yi Jeong-u, World History of Philosophy, vol. 3: Cartography of Modernity (Seoul: Gil, 2021), p. 22.