Chapter VI: Conclusion

The Donghak Peasant Movement is today being re-evaluated as a modern movement comparable to the French Revolution, while Daesoon Thought is receiving scholarly attention as a traditional East Asian system of thought capable of explaining the transformations of the post-modern world. This dissertation has sought to demonstrate, centering on the concept of "Donghak (Eastern Learning)" as a method of inquiry within Eastern philosophy, that the two systems of thought — Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought — each constructed an indigenous modernity of East Asia through the reconstruction of the View of Heaven, View of Earth, and View of Humanity.

The following is a summary of the series of arguments set forth in this dissertation. An alternative to Western modernity in crisis can be found in the alternative modernity demonstrated by Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought through their respective Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. The reason for this lies in the fact that whereas the crisis of Western modernity originates in Western immanentism — which understands the transformation of all things solely in terms of substance — the East possesses correlative thinking, which explains the transformation of all things in terms of attributes. Western post-modernity theory, after extensive debate, has come to explain Eastern rationality in terms of correlative thinking and liminality. Accordingly, the new alternative Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity constructed by Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought can be explained through the liminality of correlative thinking.

Liminality — meaning threshold or boundary — denotes, in the context of rites of passage, the crossing of a boundary: that is, a harmonization of two mutually opposing elements that encompasses both in order to bring about transformation, thereby revealing the chaotic and dynamic character of Eastern thought, which pursues the harmony of yin and yang. Correlative thinking, by contrast, reveals the fractal and static character according to which all things are mutually interconnected. Through the liminality of correlative thinking, which synthesizes both characteristics, Heaven, Earth, and Humanity in East and West are connected to one another. Heaven and Earth become for humanity what a ruler, teacher, and parent (君師父) are to the individual. Just as, in human relations, a minister, a disciple, and a child are beings who receive and realize the will of the ruler-teacher-parent, so too does humanity, receiving grace from Heaven and Earth, repay that grace, and become a being of yeocheonjidong (與天地同, "moving together with Heaven and Earth"), learning to embody the same capacities as Heaven and Earth.

In Donghak Thought, at the time of the Dialogue with the Heavenly Messenger (天使問答), the import of the Heaven-beyond-Heaven (天外天) lay in revitalizing the liminality of correlative thinking across the Three Realms (삼계) of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. Accordingly, Donghak Thought newly presents a View of Heaven, View of Earth, and View of Humanity grounded in the appearance of Heaven-beyond-Heaven. The Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity newly proposed by Donghak Thought are constituted by: the View of Heaven as Sijeongju (侍天主, Serving the Heavenly Lord), the View of Earth as Johwajong (造化定, Settlement of Creative Transformation), and the View of Humanity as Yeongse-bulgmang (永世不忘, Never Forgetting for Ten Thousand Generations). The Three Realms in Donghak Thought, grounded in a demonological (귀신론적) relationship between Heaven and Earth, further interact through: the Gi-transformation (氣化論的) relationship between Heaven and Humanity, and the relationship between Earth and Humanity (地人關係) corresponding to kings, lords, generals, and ministers (王侯將相). However, the View of Heaven, View of Earth, and View of Humanity in Donghak Thought were unable to sufficiently transcend the precedents of Confucianism and thus remained incomplete.

In response to this limitation, Daesoon Thought introduces the concepts of divine spirits (神明) and resentment (怨恨) based on the descent of the Supreme Being of the Nine Heavens (九天) in human form (人身降世), and overcomes the Confucian precedents present in Donghak Thought's Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity through a threefold cosmological view guided by the interdependence of spirits and humans (神人依導的 삼계관). Daesoon Thought presents: the View of the Heavenly Realm (天界觀) grounded in Insinhangse (人身降世, Descent in Human Form); the View of the Earthly Realm (地界觀) as Sincerity-Reverence-Faith toward Heaven-Earth (天地誠敬信); and the View of the Human Realm (人界觀) as Seongsajaein (成事在人, Achievement of Affairs Rests with Humanity). The Three Realms of Daesoon Thought interact with one another according to the principle of yeocheonjidong (與天地同, moving together with Heaven and Earth), and grounded in an Earthly Paradise (地上天國) relationship between Heaven and Earth, construct: the Heaven-Humanity relationship as Gratitude toward Heaven and Earth (天地報恩), and the Earth-Humanity relationship as Earthly Immortals (地上神仙), realizing these through the Reordering of the Three Realms (天地公事) and spiritual cultivation (修道).

Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought both present indigenous modernity by achieving liminality through the revitalization of correlative thinking. If Donghak Thought contributed to the initial entry into revitalization by focusing on short-term liminality, Daesoon Thought revitalizes Donghak Thought at the very point where it had failed, and presents the True Donghak (參東學). Accordingly, Donghak Thought possesses the attributes of indigenous modernity as the liminality of Jangnan (作亂, Instigating Disorder) and Potae (胞胎, Conception Stage), while Daesoon Thought represents the revitalization of indigenous modernity as the liminality of Chiran (治亂, Governing Disorder) and Gwanwang (官旺, Flourishing Stage).

The correlative thinking of Donghak Thought, as revitalized by Daesoon Thought, is manifested more concretely in the reconstruction of Daesoon Thought's Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. The correlative thinking of Daesoon Thought is expressed through the Union of Virtue of Yin-Yang (陰陽合德), the Establishment of the Three Powers (三才確立), and the Completion of the Five Agents (五行具備). Unlike Donghak Thought, Daesoon Thought — in its View of the Heavenly Realm — establishes Mugeuk (無極, Ultimatelessness) and Taegeuk (太極, Supreme Ultimate) through the Taeeulju (太乙呪) incantation, achieves the Union of Virtue of Yin-Yang between the Heaven of Principle-Law (理法天) and the personal Heaven (人格天), and re-establishes the celestial order (天文). Furthermore, by re-establishing the Three Sacred Mountains (三神山), the Parental Mountains (父母山), the Mountain King (山王), and the Sea King (海王), Daesoon Thought reconstructs the terrestrial geography. This connects to humanity, correcting the lineage (血統줄), and through Haewon (解冤, Resolution of Resentment) also aligns the realm of divine spirits (神明界), including the Hwanggeuk Spirit (黃極神) and the Underworld (冥府).

If the liminality and revitalization of religious anthropology represent an incomplete rite of passage that may remain at the level of ritual alone, the rites of passage in Daesoon Thought — which combine governance and moral transformation (政敎合一) — constitute a rite of passage that extends all the way to practice, and have indeed continued unbroken to the present day, taking concrete form in the institution of Daesoonjinrihoe (大巡眞理會). This is also in harmony with the simultaneity of Taoism, the processual philosophy of Buddhism, and the correlative thinking of Confucianism, thereby constituting an indigenous modernity in which Eastern and Western modernity are brought into harmony.

A detailed summary of the indigenous modernity appearing in the two systems of thought is as follows. For the general public today, modernity signifies "secularization," yet for researchers of modernity, modernity has in fact meant the "reordering of the Sacred (聖) and the Profane (俗)" — that is, the intensification of the sacred through liminality. Even Western modernity, today's foremost example of "secularization," began with Calvin's doctrine of predestination of salvation and Descartes's cogito ergo sum (Cogito ergo sum — I think, therefore I am). The reason modernity constituted the greatest transformation in human history was that it began — as with Calvin and Descartes — as a permanent and sweeping transformation of "the Sacred and the Profane" spanning both matter and spirit, that is, as an intensification of the sacred. However, contrary to its original intent, modernity transformed into a secularization that emphasized only the profane (俗), arriving at a crisis in which the sacred was disappearing from the earth.

Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, when compared with post-modern contemporary philosophy, have long been discussed individually in the academy as instances of indigenous modernity in East Asia. However, existing discussions of indigenous modernity did not emphasize the Eastern origins shared with Western modernity. Furthermore, the two systems of thought had not been comparatively studied in terms of the form and principles of indigenous modernity as manifested in the concept of "Donghak (Eastern Learning)." This dissertation, grounded in the concept of multiple modernities as the "reordering of the Sacred and the Profane," sought to compare the indigenous modernity achieved by the two systems of thought in their Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity — using the philosophical method of correlative thinking from Eastern philosophy — and thereby to illuminate more clearly the ideological value of the two systems of thought.

Whether expressed as "secularization" or as "intensification of the sacred" through the "reordering of the Sacred and the Profane," modernity manifests as political democratization, economic industrialization, and cultural diversification. In the case of Korea — virtually the only former colonial nation to have achieved all three — there existed an indigenous modernity nowhere else to be found. This is precisely the Heaven-beyond-Heaven (天外天) thought represented by Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought. The Heaven-beyond-Heaven thought was a response to the question raised by Matteo Ricci prior to the imperialist invasions. Ricci had criticized the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity in East Asia on the grounds that an excessive emphasis on the rationalization of principle-law (理法化) — which stressed only the attribute-based characteristics of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity — had caused these traditions to lose the personal-divine characteristics of Heaven-beyond-Heaven. In response to this critique, Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought respectively proposed, through the concepts of the appearance of Heaven-beyond-Heaven and the descent of the Supreme Being of the Nine Heavens, an indigenous reordering of the Sacred and the Profane that integrated the Eastern and Western Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. The Supreme Heaven of the Nine Realms (구천) of the two systems of thought — both instances of Heaven-beyond-Heaven grounded in correlative thinking — were able to integrate the strengths of Eastern and Western conceptions of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity.

As the detailed methodological framework for comparing the two forms of indigenous modernity, this dissertation employed three methodological frameworks: the theory of correlative thinking by A.C. Graham and others, Victor Turner's theory of liminality, and Anthony Wallace's theory of revitalization movements. The reason for applying all three theories simultaneously is that, in comparative research, they operate organically in relation to one another. First, the theory of correlative thinking clearly reveals the epistemological difference between Eastern and Western modes of thought, and thereby clarifies the distinction between indigenous modernity and modernity as such. Second, the liminality theory is effective in explaining the process of reordering within modernity understood as the "reordering of the Sacred and the Profane," and third, the revitalization theory is useful in explaining the inheritance of tradition that appears in the process of reordering.

If the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity in Western thought — which prioritizes substance — are characterized by differentiation (分化的), then the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity in Eastern thought — which prioritizes attributes — exhibit, respectively, the characteristics of assimilation (同化的), condensation (凝縮的), and permeation-transformation (接化的). In response to this, Donghak Thought proposed a transcendent View of Heaven, an accompanying Gi-transformation (氣化) of the Earth, and an Innaecheon (人乃天, Humanity is Heaven)-centered View of Humanity, thereby attempting an integration of East and West. The Heaven-beyond-Heaven of Donghak — appearing for the first time in the over 4,600-year civilization history of East Asia traced from the Yellow Emperor — caused a great sensation in Joseon society at the time, developing into a large-scale peasant movement. However, Donghak Thought, unable to transcend the limits of Confucianism, ultimately left behind only great disorder (作亂) and upheaval (動亂).

In response to this, Daesoon Thought — premised on the Incarnation (人身降世) of the Supreme Being of the Nine Heavens (九天) — introduced the concepts of the divine spirits of Heaven and Earth (天地神明) and revitalized anew the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity proposed by Donghak Thought. Daesoon Thought reinterpreted Donghak Thought through the religious principles of Haewon Sangsaeng (解冤相生, Resolving Resentment and Promoting Mutual Life) and Boeun Sangsaeng (報恩相生, Repaying Grace and Promoting Mutual Life), and — by means of a correlative thinking applicable even to everyday things and affairs — constructed an indigenous modernity in which Heaven-Earth and divine spirits are combined through the theory of Gi-transformation (氣化論). In accordance with the principles of Daesoon Thought — namely, the Union of Virtue of Yin-Yang (陰陽合德), Harmonious Transformation of Spirits and Humans (神人調化), Haewon Sangsaeng (解冤相生), and the Ultimate Realm of Truth (道通眞境) — Daesoon Thought presented the indigenous-modern Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity, encompassing concepts such as the Three Realms (三界), Later Heaven (後天), Sangsaeng (相生, Mutual Life), Divine Governance (神道), Earthly Paradise (地上天國), and Earthly Immortals (地上神仙).

The value and significance of this research, grounded in the foregoing discussion, may be summarized as follows.

First, this study has presented the indigenous modernity of the two systems of thought as an alternative modernity to Western modernity, which is presently in crisis. The discourse on indigenous modernity in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought constitutes a minority discourse today, yet it is the only remaining modernity discourse rooted in East Asian correlative thinking in the world. Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been many instances in which a period of crisis has seen minority discourses transform into mainstream discourses. Particularly today — when humanity is grappling with the prospect of extinction due to the comprehensive crisis of modernity, including the climate crisis and nuclear threats, and amid the absence of any adequate alternative modernity — the indigenous modernity of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought represents a discourse that integrates the strengths of Eastern and Western, ancient and contemporary Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity through the liminality of correlative thinking, and is thus capable of presenting an alternative modernity practicable in daily life.

Second, this study has proposed the revitalization of correlative thinking as a solution to the stagnation of East Asian modernity's growth. Over the past 150-plus years, East Asia — particularly Korea, China, and Japan — advocating the Divine Governance (神道) with the Supreme Being of the Nine Heavens (九天上帝) at its apex while learning from Western modernity, has come to surpass the West in economic terms. However, with nothing further to learn from the West, East Asia now finds itself seeking a new model of growth in indigenous modernity. In this context, Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought — which alone among the three East Asian nations have constructed an indigenous modernity grounded in correlative thinking — offer a model for recovering the modernity that East Asia has lost. This is applicable not only to communities but also to individuals in East Asia struggling with identity confusion: it can enable them to overcome Western modernity's culture of comparative supremacism and construct a new survival strategy through indigenous modernity.

Third, this study can contribute to a comparative-philosophical understanding of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought across Eastern and Western, ancient and contemporary perspectives. This research — comparing the indigenous modernity of the two systems of thought with Western modernity, centering on the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity — facilitates a more accessible understanding of the significance and value inherent in both systems of thought. The characteristics of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought are more readily understood through comparison with existing Eastern and Western thought as well as with contemporary scientific thought.

The limitations of this study are as follows.

First, this research, by focusing on the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity within correlative thinking as they pertain to indigenous modernity, was unable to fully accommodate existing research on modernity. Modernity is a comprehensive phenomenon that has been studied in diverse fields — from ecology to numerous other domains — beyond correlative thinking alone. Future research on indigenous modernity will likewise require follow-up studies building upon the achievements of existing modernity scholarship.

Second, this research lacked sufficient detailed discussion due to the broad scope of inquiry encompassing the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. This study, which compared the two systems of thought in a summary manner centered on its research methodology, needs to be supplemented by interdisciplinary research.

Third, this research was insufficient in its introduction of concrete examples in which the indigenous modernity of correlative thinking is successfully realized. For the indigenous modernity of correlative thinking to be applicable as a genuinely viable alternative modernity, diverse cases of application and research models are needed.