Chapter I, Sec. 2–3: Research Purpose, Scope & Prior Research

2. Research Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that Donghak-related thought constructed a View of Heaven (천관, cheon'gwan), View of Earth (지관, jigwan), and View of Humanity (인간관, in'gan'gwan) by fusing Eastern and Western traditions through the philosophical methodology of Eastern thought, and thereby derived a mutually life-giving (상생적) View of the Heavenly Realm (천계관), View of the Earthly Realm (지계관), and View of the Human Realm (인계관) — establishing an Indigenous Modernity in response to Western modernity. It is from this perspective that the study compares Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought.

The theme of 'Donghak' as a philosophical methodology is broad and important, touching on the identity of East Asian civilization. Since the imperialist era, when Eastern and Western civilizations first clashed in earnest, the search for an Eastern philosophical methodology as an alternative to the West has been a matter of survival for peoples of the East. Paradoxically, Indigenous Modernity is equally important today for Westerners seeking an alternative modernity to resolve the crisis of modern civilization brought about by Western civilization.

Both Daesoon Thought and Donghak Thought present the philosophical structure and logical coherence of Eastern thought more clearly than earlier Eastern thought. Although Daesoon Thought shares many terms with Donghak Thought, it fundamentally redefines and supplements the terms first introduced in Donghak Thought, calling this the "True Donghak" (참동학). Given that the term 'Donghak' emerged with the meaning of Eastern philosophical methodology, the differences between Daesoon Thought and Donghak Thought need to be re-examined from the perspective of Eastern philosophical methodology.¹ In particular, what Daesoon Thought calls the "True Donghak" can be understood as meaning that it was more faithful to Eastern philosophical methodology than Donghak Thought itself. Comparing Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought from the angle of Eastern philosophical methodology can reveal a more essential understanding of 'Donghak' as the establishment of Indigenous Modernity, and opens the possibility of understanding Donghak-related thought through the lens of Eastern philosophical methodology.

This study examines the Indigenous Modernity of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought with respect to the construction of an East-West convergent View of Heaven, View of Earth, and View of Humanity, building on prior research that defines the distinctive features of the two traditions' Indigenous Modernity through Correlative Thinking, Liminality, and Revitalization. Correlative Thinking (상관적 사유, correlative thinking) and Liminality have been representative concepts in modern Western intellectual history — which has for over a hundred years sought an alternative to Western modernity — used to articulate alternative rationality.

Correlative Thinking is a thought-system that first perceives the whole of all things and sees the parts within that context and relationship. It corresponds to the holistic (全息的)² and generative thought-system of the East, as opposed to the substantialist and ontological analytical thinking (分析的 思惟) of the West that sees parts first and the whole only later. Correlative Thinking theory holds that, unlike in the West where addresses are written from nearest to farthest, Eastern cultures have a distinctive relational thought-system in which one writes from the farthest (the nation) inward.³ Correlative Thinking was first proposed for the study of Chinese thought by the pioneering early researcher Marcel Granet (1884–1940) and has been continuously developed since.⁴

Next, Liminality theory is a theory that explains religious change through the rites of passage. Victor Turner (1920–1983) explains religious change through the concept of Liminality — the intermediate zone between the pre-change and post-change states that appears in rites of passage.⁵ Liminality, derived from limen (meaning threshold or middle ground), is a theory that argues a third intermediate zone — Liminality itself — can explain individual and social change, such as that occurring in rites of passage, as distinct from the binary thinking of the West. Both theories were developed in the West as alternatives to Western thought and have been applied to the characteristics of Eastern ideas and institutions.

Furthermore, Revitalization theory is a theory that explains the process of responding to external change, as distinct from Liminality theory which emphasizes internal change. First introduced by anthropologist Anthony F. C. Wallace (1923–2015),⁶ Revitalization theory is another anthropological theory of ritual that explains the process by which traditions are mobilized in response to external threats. Unlike Liminality theory, which emphasizes internal processes of change, Revitalization emphasizes external threats and the utilization of tradition. When an individual faces the threat that their identity may dissolve, they reorganize their belief system based on their own strengths, put the revised belief system into practice, and thereby transform their position in society. Wallace coined the term "revitalization" for the process by which a society facing the threat of dissolution revives the strengths of its existing cultural traditions to transform its collective belief system. If Liminality describes the mechanism of change, Revitalization describes the mechanism of sustaining that change. Indeed, the internal change of Revitalization can itself be explained through Liminality.⁷ Therefore, explaining Indigenous Modernization requires both Liminality as the intermediate-stage mechanism and Revitalization as the principle of sustaining change.⁸

To achieve its purpose, this study proceeds in the following order and scope. First, it examines Liminality and Revitalization as mediating concepts between Eastern and Western thought-systems, which serve as conditions for Indigenous Modernity. Second, the study limits its scope to the View of Heaven, View of Earth, and View of Humanity to trace the Indigenous Modernity that appears in the two traditions. It examines the modern transformation of the traditional Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity in both traditions and traces the underlying principles. Third, it compares the Indigenous Modernity of the two traditions and, in the conclusion, offers an evaluation and prospects for the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity as Indigenous Modernity.

In more specific terms, this study proceeds in the following sequence. Chapter I analyzes prior research related to modernity. Chapter II explains the difference between modernity and Indigenous Modernity and presents Liminality and Revitalization as conditions of Indigenous Modernity. Specifically, Chapter II-1 examines the definition of modernity as the integration (統攝) of the Sacred (聖) and the Profane (俗), the shared Eastern origin of Western modernity and Indigenous Modernity, "Learning" (學) as the formal system of Indigenous Modernity, and Correlative Thinking as the philosophical methodology of Indigenous Modernity; Chapter II-2 examines Liminality as the mechanism of change of Indigenous Modernity and Revitalization as the mechanism of its continuity.

Chapter III explains the continuity and change in Eastern and Western traditions — that is, the commonalities and differences — as they appear in Donghak Thought, focused on the View of Heaven, View of Earth, and View of Humanity, divided into three parts. Specifically, Chapter III-1 explains the traditional Eastern and Western Views of Heaven as the "assimilative" (同化的) and "formal" (形相的) Views of Heaven respectively, and examines the Indigenous Modernity of the Sicheonju (侍天主, Serving the Heavenly Lord) View of Heaven in Donghak Thought. Chapter III-2 explains the traditional Eastern and Western Views of Earth as the "condensing" (凝縮的) and "material" (質料的) Views of Earth respectively, and examines the modernity of the Jowangjong (造化定, Settling of Creative Transformation) View of Earth in Donghak Thought. Chapter III-3 explains the traditional Eastern and Western Views of Humanity as the "transformative" (接化的) and "growth-theoretic" (成長論的) Views of Humanity respectively, and examines the modernity of the Yeongse Bulmang (永世不忘, Never Forgotten Through the Ages) View of Humanity in Donghak Thought.

Chapter IV explains the continuity and change in Eastern and Western traditions as they appear in Daesoon Thought, focused on the View of Heaven, View of Earth, and View of Humanity, by comparing commonalities and differences, divided into three parts. Chapter IV-1 explains Daesoon Thought's View of Heaven as the View of the Heavenly Realm of Insinkangse (人身降世, Divine Descent in Human Form) and compares it with the traditional View of Heaven, examining its aspects and features. Chapter IV-2 explains Daesoon Thought's View of Earth as the View of the Earthly Realm of Cheonji Seong'gyeong'sin (天地誠敬信, Sincerity, Reverence, and Faith toward Heaven and Earth) and compares it with the traditional View of Earth, examining its aspects and features. Chapter IV-3 explains Daesoon Thought's View of Humanity as the View of the Human Realm of Seongsa Jaein (成事在人, Achievement of Affairs Rests in Humanity) and compares it with the traditional View of Humanity, examining its aspects and features.

Chapter V compares the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought in terms of their continuity and change. Chapter V-1 compares the Indigenous Modernity of the two traditions focusing on their Views of Heaven. Chapter V-2 compares the Indigenous Modernity of the two traditions focusing on their Views of Earth. Chapter V-3 compares the Indigenous Modernity of the two traditions focusing on their Views of Humanity.

Chapter VI, the Conclusion, summarizes the foregoing discussion, clarifies the limitations and significance of this study, and synthesizes the comparison of Indigenous Modernity in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought.

—————————————————————— ¹ Viewing religion from the standpoint of "scholarship/learning" (학문) is represented paradigmatically by the usage of the term "Western Learning" (西學) for Western religion. The "learning" (學) of Western Learning is interpreted through the same Eastern thought-system as the "learning" (學) of Neo-Confucianism (성리학). This is equally true of the "learning" (學) of Donghak.

² The term jeon'sik (全息) is a translation of "hologram," indicating the holistic and fractal characteristic that the whole repeats itself within the parts. Jeon'sik is frequently used as an academic term in China. A representative example is the East Asian tradition of Mugeuk (無極)–Taegeuk (太極)–Yin-Yang-Five Phases (陰陽五行). Fractal, translated as "infinite overlapping" (무한중첩), means a fragment; it refers to the similarly patterned forms latent in nature — such as spiderwebs, honeycombs, and snowflakes — that repeat infinitely. (Yi Gwangmo and Jang Sunhui, "A Case Study on the Relevance of Complexity Theory: Focusing on the Self-Organization Phenomenon of Street Cheering at the 2002 World Cup," Korean Society and Public Administration Research 15(1), 2004, p.366.)

³ Richard Nisbett, trans. Choi In-cheol, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why [생각의 지도: 동양과 서양, 세상을 바라보는 서로 다른 시선], Paju: Gimm-Young Publishers, 2004.

⁴ Marcel Granet, trans. Yu Byeongtae, Chinese Thought [중국사유], Paju: Hangilsa, 2010.

⁵ Additional explanation of Correlative Thinking and Liminality is provided in Chapter II.

⁶ Wallace, Anthony F. C., "Revitalization Movements," American Anthropologist, 1956, pp.264-281.

⁷ Yi Yeongnan, "A Study of the Ghost Dance Ritual of the North American Plains Indians in 1890," Theatre Education Research [연극교육연구] 3, 1999, pp.224-225.

⁸ Anthony F. C. Wallace, trans. Kim Jongseok and Choe Junghyeon, Anthropology of Religion [종교인류학], Cheonan: Aunae, 2010, p.166.

3. Review of Prior Research

Research on Donghak has expanded, with over 1,000 papers published centered on the Donghak Studies Association (동학학회), the Korean Donghak Studies Association (한국동학학회), and other related societies. The central discussions have constituted a counterargument to the theory that located the origins of Korean indigenous modernity in the "Practical Learning" (실학) tradition, replacing it with a theory locating those origins in "Donghak." Jo Seonghwan, The Birth of Korean Modernity [한국 근대의 탄생] (Seoul: Mosineun Saramdeul, 2018). Among prior studies, the aspects of Donghak Thought emphasized as the origins of Indigenous Modernity are comparisons with the features of contemporary Western philosophy — vitalist philosophy (생철학) and process philosophy — initiated by Kim Jiha and others.¹

Prior research related to modernity in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought can be broadly categorized under three headings: the Donghak People's Movement, the religious thought of Donghak, and the philosophical methodology of Donghak. First, the Donghak People's Movement refers primarily to historical research on the Donghak Peasant Revolution, studied mainly through social-scientific methods that focus on the history of the social movement generated by Donghak Thought rather than on religion and ideas per se. Second, the religious thought of Donghak is studied through methods of religious studies or the history of thought as applied to Eastern religion. Third, the philosophical methodology of Donghak is studied from the perspective of philosophy of science or the history of civilization as a methodology of Eastern learning.

The prior research most relevant to this study falls primarily under the second category (research on Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought as religious thought) and the third category (research treating them as Eastern methodologies of thought). The second category can further be divided into research seeking the significance of the two traditions within the entirety of Korean religious intellectual history, and research focusing intensively on Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought in comparison. Scholars in the first group — those seeking the significance of both traditions within the entirety of Korean religious intellectual history — include Jang Byeonggil,² Jeong Jinhong,³ Yun Iheom,⁴ Choe Jongseong,⁵ Gang Dongu,⁶ No Gilmyeong,⁷ Kim Hongcheol,⁸ Don Baker,⁹ Yu Dongsik,¹⁰ Kim Jongseo,¹¹ Kim Ikdu,¹² Hwang Jongwon,¹³ and others. Among the second group — research focusing intensively on comparing Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought — the representative researchers are Kim Jiha¹⁴ and Kim Tak.¹⁵

Examining these researchers in detail: Jang Byeonggil, who was the first pioneer researcher on Daesoon Thought and published the first edition of the Jeon'gyeong (전경) through Seoul National University Press, understands Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought as the spiritual worldview of the popular masses, and holds that Daesoon Thought, which emerged in response to this, involves a comprehensive transformation of the spirit-world view (신명관), the View of Humanity, and the value system, all in accordance with the principle of cosmic change.¹⁶ Jeong Jinhong, one of Korea's foremost scholars of religion, organizes Korean religious history as: Daoism as mimesis (道敎), Buddhism as mythos (佛敎), Confucianism as logos (儒敎), and Donghak as theos (動學), and regards the growth of Protestantism after liberation as a continuation of Donghak.¹⁷ He argues that although Donghak's period of emergence was brief, it holds the important significance of being the beginning of theos in Korean religious history.¹⁸ Choe Jongseong, continuing Jeong Jinhong's work, argues that Donghak needs to be studied as a "Theopraxy" (테오프락시), centered on ritual practice. Where Jeong Jinhong studied the significance of Donghak Thought through its doctrines, Yun Iheom explains the significance of Donghak Thought in terms of the form of the supreme deity, arguing that Donghak is both a new ideology and one that shares the transformative worldview of earlier texts like the Jeong'gamnok (정감록), and that it has served as a model for new religions emerging thereafter.¹⁹

Gang Dongu, who seeks to apply trends in global religious studies to the study of Korean new religions, emphasizes the role of the Jeong'yeok (정역) [Book of Correct Change] in differentiating Korean religion, and stresses that Korean new religions reflecting the Jeong'yeok represent distinctively Korean characteristics well. He notes in particular that Daesoon Thought, which emphasizes the Jeong'yeok, well expresses these Korean features.²⁰ No Gilmyeong argues that today's Korean new religions, although they originated in the late Joseon period, were re-illuminated following economic development, and can thus also be connected to post-modernity as a modern phenomenon. He argues accordingly that the haewon sangsaeng (解寃相生, Resolution of Grievances and Mutual Life-Giving) of Daesoon Thought should also be examined as Jeungsan's alternative modernity, anticipating the future crisis that Western modernity would bring.²¹

Kim Hongcheol points to Geumsansa Temple and the Buddhist monk Jinpyo (眞表) as the geographical background for the emergence of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, and illuminates the relationship between the Baekje revival movement and the revitalization of Mireuk (Maitreya) faith as the background of both traditions. It is notable that both the Donghak Peasant Revolution and Daesoon Thought developed around Geumsansa Temple and the Mireuk image associated with the fall of Baekje.²² Don Baker regards Donghak-related thought as the combination of the divine (神) and the Way (道) that has constituted the Korean spiritual sensibility. If the divine (神) is a concept of a personal god as in Christianity and shamanism, then the Way (道) can be said to be a rational-principle deity (理法神) as in the three teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism.²³ Yu Dongsik argues in favor of a "Pungyu" (風流) theology, maintaining that spirit-determinism (신령 결정론), prophetic divination faith, and geomancy (feng shui) are the three main currents of Korean folk religion, and that Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought lie along this continuum. The pung (風) of pungyu is a concept of qi (氣) that can serve as a substitute for qi, or rather a concept preceding qi; this qi has constituted the major axes of Korean folk religion — spirit-determinism, prophetic divination faith, and geomancy.²⁴ Kim Jongseo introduces the research of Gernot Prunner (1935–2002), who compared the modern Donghak Thought — which emphasizes the socially revolutionary aspect — with Daesoon Thought, which focuses on the salvation of humanity.²⁵

Kim Ikdu, who leads the "Jeongeup Studies" (정읍학) in Jeongeup — the heartland of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought — is a scholar of Korean literature specializing in drama. He evaluates the two traditions as epochal thought that transforms the Western conflict framework of Aristotle (384–322 BCE), which emphasizes conflict, into a distinctly Korean framework of sangsaeng (相生, mutual life-giving). Kim Ikdu argues that catharsis became the matrix of dialectics, and because catharsis is motivated by Western mythological motifs of divine conflict, the Western project of finding the alternative modernity sought by postmodernism within the West has failed. Kim Ikdu instead turns to Kim Jiha's research — which found the alternative modernity sought by postmodernism within Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought — and interprets Kim Jiha's research from the perspective of Liminality. He argues that the alternative modernity of the "Aesthetics of the White Shadow" (흰그늘의 미학) that Kim Jiha discovered in the two traditions was possible precisely because it is grounded in Korean mythology, which — unlike Western mythology — takes the harmony of the gods as its motif.²⁶

Yi Yeongnan, having studied performance studies under Richard Schechner (1934–present) — who applied Liminality to performance studies early on and highly valued Korean shamanism from the perspective of Liminality — interprets Liminality from the standpoint of performance studies along two axes: being and becoming. She then synthesizes, in a single table, the View of Heaven, View of Earth, and View of Humanity within the framework of Heaven-Earth-Humanity (天地人), together with the representative Western postmodern thought. The verb "be," which carries the two meanings of "to exist" and "to be [something]," is applied in Heidegger's existentialism as the key tool for explaining the world; Schechner applied this to performance studies and interpreted Liminality as being and becoming. East Asia lacks a "be" verb, but has the concept of "han" (한) that simultaneously refers to part and whole; Yi Yeongnan applies this to Heaven-Earth-Humanity as in the Cheon'buekyeong (천부경), interpreting Heaven (1), Earth (2, 1+2), and Humanity (3, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1'=1+2+3), and argues that this concept of "han" can interpret Liminality more readily than the "be" verb.²⁷ This study will primarily reference the definitions of Kim Ikdu and Yi Yeongnan when applying Liminality to the Indigenous Modernity of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought.

Hwang Jongwon argues that Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought have achieved a creative modernity by uniquely synthesizing three sources from Eastern and Western religion. He states that among the traditions that chose a third path in response to both the pro-Enlightenment (개화파) and the "Defend Orthodoxy and Reject Heterodoxy" (위정척사파) factions, both traditions — unlike figures such as Bak Eunsik who pursued the popularization of Confucianism — took an objective stance to harmonize East and West, thereby becoming successful indigenous thought-systems. This is highly consistent with the case of Liang Qichao as pointed out by Wang Hui.

Turning to research focused on the comparison of modernity in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought: Kim Jiha broadly distinguishes between the two traditions as politically modern thought and culturally modern thought respectively. He argues that where Donghak Thought emphasized political modernity, Daesoon Thought pursued cultural modernity by applying it from small everyday practices. Kim Jiha, comparing the two traditions through an aesthetic method that makes for easy intuitive understanding, holds that Donghak Thought has a strong character as political thought that pursued dongsegaebyeok (動世開闢, the Great Opening that moves the world) through the organized method of the traditional people's revolt, while Daesoon Thought has a strong character as a cultural movement that showed the movement of cultural jeongsegaebyeok (靖世開闢, the Great Opening that settles the world) in everyday practice.²⁸ Kim Jiha attempted a comparative analysis of the modern characteristics of both traditions from the perspective of the thought of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), who synthesized science and theology.²⁹ He ultimately derived the concept of "Chaosmos" as a common point through comparison with the philosophy of becoming of Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995), the representative thinker of postmodernity.³⁰ Kim Jiha expressed this through the stages of Life Thought (생명사상), Yullyeo (律呂) [cosmic harmony],³¹ and the "Aesthetics of the White Shadow."³² If Chaosmos is an expression of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought through Western thought, then Life Thought, Yullyeo, and the "Aesthetics of the White Shadow" can be said to express them through Eastern thought.³³ Yullyeo — meaning the musical harmony of the East, but symbolizing cosmic harmony — was Kim Jiha's aesthetic expression for the Indigenous Modernity of Correlative Thinking. Kim Jiha interpreted Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought as Indigenous Modernity and post-modernity, noting that Indigenous Modernity — which, unlike the West, explains by focusing on attributes rather than substance — simultaneously possesses both modernity and post-modernity, which today appear as opposing attributes. Whether Indigenous Modernity appears as modernity or post-modernity depends on how one sets the comparator. Therefore, in this paper, "Indigenous Modernity" is used collectively to refer to both Indigenous Modernity and Indigenous Post-Modernity.³⁴ Comparing the two traditions, Kim Jiha interpreted Donghak Thought — which emphasizes political democratization — as Indigenous Modernity, and Daesoon Thought — which emphasizes cultural modernity — as Indigenous Post-Modernity. While he emphasized the characteristics of Correlative Thinking, he primarily used aesthetic expressions and did not attempt comparisons connecting Correlative Thinking to anthropological concepts such as Liminality and Revitalization as this paper does.

Kim Tak provides a detailed philological examination of both traditions and specifically compares the continuity and change of tradition — in which both traditions connect to existing thought — from the perspective of anthropocentrism. In particular, since Daesoon Thought can be called the True Donghak, Kim Tak provides sufficient explanation of the terms shared by Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought. However, he has not yet conducted research on the Correlative Thinking underlying the background of both traditions.³⁵ Beyond these two researchers, some comparative studies on the modernity of the two traditions have been conducted, which will be addressed as each topic arises in the course of discussion. A chronological survey of comparative studies by researchers outside the specialists in Daesoon Thought includes: Bae Yeonggi, "A Comparative Theory of Donghak Thought and Jeungsan Thought" [「東學思想과 甑山思想의 對比論」], Gojoseon Dan'gun Studies (고조선단군학) 6 (2002); Kim Yungyeong, "The Development and Transformation of Popular Daoism in the Late Joseon Period: Focusing on Donghak and Jeungsan'gyo" [「조선후기 민간도교의 전개와 변용」], Daoist Culture Research (도교문화연구) (2013); Bae Mungyu, "An Examination of the Appearance of Donghak in Jeungsan'gyo: Focusing on 'Donghak-Related Contents' in the First Edition of the Daesoon Jeon'gyeong (대순전경)" [「증산교에 나타나는 동학의 모습 고찰」], Donghak Studies (동학학보) 41 (2016); Pak Jongcheon, "Donghak and Jeungsan'do Seen Through Taoist Thought" [「신선사상으로 본 동학과 증산도」], National Culture Research (民族文化硏究) 96 (2022), pp.291-330.³⁶

Third, regarding prior research from the perspective of methodology of thought on Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought: this can broadly be divided into research on process philosophy, Correlative Thinking, and synchronicity. However, these studies have been applied to individual research on either Donghak Thought or Daesoon Thought but have rarely been applied to comparing the two. Debate over the methodology of applying Western academic frameworks to Eastern thought — the third approach — is still ongoing. In Daesoon Thought, despite the controversy over the claim that today's Western modern science and humanistic-social thought derives from the transmission of Eastern thought to the West by Matteo Ricci and the Buddhist monk Jinmuk (震默, 1562–1633), prior research from the perspective of methodology of thought on Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought must be reviewed as a priority. Indeed, Hwang Tae-yeon (황태연), through over twenty existing books analyzing English-language works from four hundred years ago during the time of Matteo Ricci — made available by Google on the internet — shows how Western modernity originating from Eastern thought has been appropriated in Donghak-related thought.³⁷

Looking at individual researchers, the representative scholars in process philosophy are Kim Gyeongjae (김경재) and Kim Sang'il (김상일). Process philosophy, beginning with Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), developed into process theology through John B. Cobb (1925–present) and others, making a groundbreaking contribution to the understanding of the views of God in the religio-cultivational traditions of East and West throughout history.³⁸ Kim Jiha also aesthetically assimilated process philosophy and applied it to Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought; there is also research by Pak Jaeju (박재주) analyzing the Book of Changes (周易), the origin of East Asian methodological thinking, through process philosophy,³⁹ but the researchers who systematically connected Donghak Thought with process philosophy are Kim Gyeongjae and Kim Sang'il. Kim Gyeongjae, adopting the concepts of Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000) who founded process theology,⁴⁰ interpreted the View of God in Donghak as panentheism — in which the transcendent God is immanently present — and was the first to propose the possibility of understanding Donghak through philosophical methodology.⁴¹ Kim Sang'il, applying the process theology of John Cobb — who further extended Hartshorne's concepts — defines Donghak as "New Western Learning" (신서학, Sinseohak).⁴² Kim Sang'il subsequently also attempted various studies applying process philosophy to modern fractal science and to the postmodernity of Daesoon Thought, including its connections to the Perennial Philosophy associated with Ken Wilber (1949–present).⁴³ Recent research on process theology has developed into research on the wholeness (全一性) of Donghak Thought.⁴⁴

The representative researchers in Correlative Thinking include Kim Hyunghyo (김형효), Yi Chang'il (이창일), Gwak Sinhwan (곽신환), Jeong Ujin (정우진), Pak Jeongjin (박정진), Kim Gi (김기), Baek Seungjong (백승종), Yi Bongho (이봉호), and Kim Baekhyeon (김백현). The researcher who introduced Correlative Thinking in earnest in Korea was Yi Chang'il,⁴⁵ but before that there was Kim Hyunghyo's research, which had been grafting postmodernism and Eastern thought together for more than thirty years,⁴⁶ followed by domestic researchers such as Pak Jeongjin⁴⁷ and overseas research.⁴⁸ The substantive research on Correlative Thinking by Confucian scholars is found in Gwak Sinhwan's work. Gwak Sinhwan, while introducing Taiwanese research on Correlative Thinking,⁴⁹ applied it to research on Korean thought from the Toegye period onward, including Korean new religious thought.⁵⁰ Kim Gi published a doctoral dissertation synthesizing domestic and international research on Correlative Thinking from the Confucian perspective.⁵¹ Baek Seungjong, who has been tracing the influence of the Jeong'gamnok (정감록), also traces in the Eastern tradition the power of the mind achieved through Correlative Thinking, which formed the background of the Jeong'gamnok's power.⁵²

Substantive research on Correlative Thinking by Daoist scholars has been conducted by Jeong Ujin and others. Jeong Ujin, reflecting recent East Asian Daoist research trends connecting traditional Korean medicine with Correlative Thinking,⁵³ distinguishes between synchronous thinking and Correlative Thinking — where synchronous thinking is mainly connected to gangeung (感應, resonance/sympathetic response) and Correlative Thinking is mainly connected to Yin-Yang-Five Phases — and has presented various perspectives on the body in which East Asian science is concentrated.⁵⁴ Kim Huijeong (김희정) regards the period when Correlative Thinking was established as the Han Dynasty period when the Hwangje Sagyeong (黃帝四經) was established, and traced the process by which Eastern science developed, with the body, the state, and the cosmos integrated as one through Correlative Thinking.⁵⁵ Yi Bongho (이봉호), who has been tracing the Correlative Thinking of Daoist scholars such as Seo Myeong'eung (徐命膺, 1716–1787) who responded to Western Learning through Correlative Thinking,⁵⁶ also traced the emergence of "Yeok'jeon" (易傳) — in which Correlative Thinking first appears, centered on the concept of Taeii (太一) — as the birth process of the study of Changes (易學).⁵⁷ Like Gwon Taekyeong (권택영),⁵⁸ Yi Bongho also traced the similarity between the structure of Saussurean linguistics — which became the origin of Lacanian structuralism, the representative current of postmodern theory — and the structure of Laozi's Daodejing (道德經).⁵⁹ Kim Baekhyeon (김백현) synthesizes the origins of Correlative Thinking from the perspective of Qi-transformation theory (氣化論), arguing that the Qi-transformation attempt to interpret the Way (道) through concrete qi (氣) like Yin-Yang-Five Phases began with Zhuangzi — who emerged independently of Laozi — and developed throughout the entirety of Chinese intellectual history through the Warring States period.⁶⁰

There are also critical studies of Correlative Thinking, including Kim Yeong'geon's (김영건) critical research from the perspective of analytical philosophy, which argues that Correlative Thinking cannot serve as an alternative to analytical science.⁶¹ However, if one applies the philosophy of science of Paul Karl Feyerabend (1924–1994) — who held there is no reason why science must use only analytical methods — then analytical thinking, which has proven impotent in solving today's real-world problems, can be fully supplemented by Correlative Thinking.⁶²

Research on synchronicity is a field that can genuinely be called the future of religious studies, represented today by the "meeting of religion and science," as seen in the popularity of such works as The Secret.⁶³ Although Korea's Korean Society for Parapsychology has dissolved, the International Society for Science and Religion (https://www.issr.org.uk/), established in 1968 and continuously holding international academic conferences on science and religion, has consistently ranked among the top academic societies in global religious studies.⁶⁴ Research on synchronicity manifests in various fields of fractal science, which holds that the whole repeats itself within the parts.⁶⁵ Prior researchers on synchronicity related to Donghak Thought and Jeungsan Thought (증산사상) include Heo Hun (허훈) and Pak Byeonghun (박병훈). Heo Hun surveys Daesoon Thought through the lens of the "Perennial Philosophy,"⁶⁶ while Pak Byeonghun excavated cases of synchronicity through research on the spirit-writing (강필, gangpil) of Donghak.⁶⁷

Among prior research on the modernity of Donghak Thought, the research that draws attention to Correlative Thinking is pioneered by research on Kim Jiha. Kim Jiha — one of the virtually sole early researchers who studied both Donghak Thought and Jeungsan Thought simultaneously⁶⁸ — published many literary works, and what shows consistency across Kim Jiha's works was the Yin-Yang-Five Phases.⁶⁹ Kim Jiha himself also argued that Hong Yonghui's literary criticism, which interpreted Kim Jiha's process of intellectual development through the Yin-Yang-Five Phases, was most consonant with his own argument.⁷⁰ Hong Yonghui, comparing Kim Jiha's early work Hwangtogil (황토길, The Loess Road) with his later work Aerin (애린), states that Kim Jiha interpreted Donghak Thought as yang-sided (陽) modernity and Jeungsan Thought as post-modernity. Kim Jiha described the development from Donghak Thought to Jeungsan Thought in three stages: Life, Yullyeo, and the White Shadow.

In the West, with the spread of postmodernism, research emerged worldwide interpreting Correlative Thinking as post-modernity. In the West, postmodernism is grounded in non-linear thinking such as Correlative Thinking. In particular, theories such as complex systems (複雜系) received attention as alternatives not only in the humanities and social sciences but also in modern natural science.⁷¹ In Korea, too, Kim Sang'il and others advanced the deductive theory that the Book of Changes is grounded in the logic of post-modernity⁷² and is also related to process philosophy.⁷³ However, these prior studies remained focused on everyday life and micro-level theories and did not discuss the macro-level Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity that form the foundations of actual modernity.

Scholars of Donghak Thought who have been conducting research from the perspective of cultivation theory (수양론) also showed insufficient research on Correlative Thinking.⁷⁴ This is because the mediating concept of "Liminality," which connects Correlative Thinking with cultivation theory, was absent. The concept of Liminality — possessing attributes of both epistemology and cultivation theory — shares common attributes with the concept of "creative transformation" (造化, jowanghwa) in Donghak Thought, and can thus connect research on Correlative Thinking in Donghak Thought to cultivation theory. Jo Yongil's traditional research on the concept of "creative transformation" in Donghak Thought⁷⁵ and Yi Yeongnan's research on "Liminality"⁷⁶ can bridge the two concepts.

"Creative transformation" (造化), along with "Serving the Heavenly Lord" (侍天主, sicheonju), was a core concept of Donghak Thought, but there has been little follow-up research since Jo Yongil. The broad scope and meaning of "creative transformation" made it a concept whose core attributes were very difficult to clarify. In a broad sense, "creative transformation" could also be interpreted as another concept for the "Yullyeo" and "Aesthetics of the White Shadow" proposed by Kim Jiha,⁷⁷ or for Kim Sang'il's concept of "han" (한).⁷⁸

In his doctoral dissertation, Jo Yongil utilizes the concepts of "Bullyeon" (不然, the "not-so") and "Giryeon" (其然, the "so-it-is") appearing in Donghak Thought to interpret the concept of "creative transformation" as having the dual meaning inherent in the German "be" verb "ist" — both "being" (Sein, 됨) as substance and "becoming" (Werden, 생성) as attribute. Likewise, Yi Yeongnan interprets the dual attributes of "Liminality" from the performance studies perspective as "becoming" and "being." Furthermore, Yi Yeongnan applies these two attributes to a comparison of Derridean and Deleuzian postmodernism, providing simultaneously both a framework for understanding post-modernity and a connecting link between modernity and Eastern thought. This gives shape to the "creative transformation" that the Sicheonju (侍天主), which seeks to maximize cultivation theory by enshrining the Heavenly Lord in one's own body, sought to achieve through cultivation, presenting the Indigenous Modernity of Donghak-related thought.

Research on Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought has accumulated many results not only in the fields of Correlative Thinking, Liminality, Revitalization, and their relation to modernity — which this study adopts as methodology — but also in terms of ideas; however, additional discussion will be introduced as each topic arises in the detailed discussion.⁷⁹

Looking next at the research of Daesoon Thought specialists related to the above three approaches, the representative researchers include Ko Namsik (고남식), Yi Gyeong'won (이경원), Cha Seon'geun (차선근), Pak Sang'gyu (박상규), and Kim Taesu (김태수). First, in the case of Ko Namsik, through a text-centered research method, he has excavated many hidden concepts that had not received attention, including the True Donghak (참동학),⁸⁰ the "fifty years of study" (50년 공부),⁸¹ two instances of divine revelation (啓示, gyesi),⁸² the Three-Realm View (三界觀),⁸³ the Earth-Humanity (地人) relationship,⁸⁴ the "Southern Joseon" (남조선) motif,⁸⁵ the Japanese haewon (日本 解寃, resolution of Japanese grievances),⁸⁶ the Korean Way of the Gods (신도, shinto),⁸⁷ and the "Righteous Mind and Method" (이정심법, ijeong simbeop).⁸⁸ In particular, he researched the entire process of the establishment and development of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought from the perspective of the True Donghak as related to the first category.⁸⁹ Ko Namsik first studied the process of the True Donghak's establishment and development from the perspective of jangnan (作亂, creating disorder), dongnan (動亂, stirring disorder), and chiran (治亂, settling disorder), and then, in relation to haewon (解寃, resolution of grievances) and the construction of the terrestrial paradise that constitute the True Donghak, worked to demonstrate that Daesoon Thought is the True Donghak — through Donghak's distinct form of nationalism beginning with Japanese haewon,⁹⁰ the two instances of divine revelation in Daesoon Thought, and so on — culminating in the Doju (道主, Religious Leader) Jo Jeongsan's fifty years of study concluding as the "completion of fifty years of study" (50년 공부종필).⁹¹

Ko Namsik has explained the development of Daesoon Thought as the development of the True Donghak. His research creates the occasion for expansion into diverse studies when religious-studies theories are applied to the development of the True Donghak. This study accordingly seeks to explain the development of the True Donghak through the concept of the rites of passage (통과의례) — which can be seen as a religious-anthropological theory of growth — focusing on the "learning" (學) of Donghak. Indeed, in Daesoon Thought, modern civilization — which endlessly commits the sin of conquering nature — is evaluated as a civilization that must be overcome through Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity that accord with Correlative Thinking, and through rites of passage. This study seeks to show that both traditions represent Indigenous Modernity and post-modernity by examining how Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought present the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity as new methodologies of thought, in order to overcome the crisis of modern civilization through the Liminality of the rites of passage.

In the case of Yi Gyeong'won, he compares the religious-studies analysis of Donghak Thought and Jeungsan Thought as a religious-studies inquiry into "ultimate reality."⁹² Yi Gyeong'won demonstrates that the unprecedented Korean concept of a personal deity formed in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought can be interpreted through the universally human religious-studies concept of "ultimate reality," providing a starting point for interpreting both traditions as Indigenous Modernity.⁹³ Yi Gyeong'won, who has also understood Daesoon Thought through organismic philosophy, described "ultimate reality" as a characteristic of the View of God common to both Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, showing the possibility of understanding that goes beyond the concept of panentheism. Through the concept of "ultimate reality," Yi Gyeong'won showed that not only the Three-Realm View (삼계관) of Daesoon Thought⁹⁴ but also new religions in general⁹⁵ and, further, Korean religion as a whole⁹⁶ can have their characteristics interpreted. Yi Gyeong'won also compared and explained the mystical View of Heaven of Donghak Thought — the appearance of Heaven-beyond-Heaven (천외천, cheon'oicheon) — with the avataristic (勸化的) View of Heaven of Daesoon Thought — the descent of Gucheon (九天, the Ninth Heaven) in human form (人身降世) — in his research on the modern transformation of the concept of Heaven in Daesoon Thought.⁹⁷ In his research on the modernity and transformative thought of Daesoon Thought, he also explained the haewon thought as "true modernity" (참근대성) and the Cheonji Gongsa (天地公事, Reordering Work of Heaven and Earth) as transformative thought. Modernity without haewon is like investing in the future without clearing the debts of the past — it well explains today's problems with modernity, where the more modernity progresses, the larger the problems become. This study seeks to add Liminality to the mystical View of Heaven and transformative thought, Revitalization to the avataristic View of Heaven and true modernity, and Correlative Thinking to modernity, for further examination.

In the case of Cha Seon'geun, he applied the methodology of Jonathan Zittell Smith (1938–2017) — who argued that even when using phenomenological-religious methods in comparative religion, comparison should be contextual rather than comparing two religions as wholes, so that the uniqueness of each religion emerges — to comparative research on Daesoon Thought. Daesoon Thought shares many characteristics with many other Korean religious traditions, including Donghak Thought, Daoist thought, Jeong'yeok thought, and shamanism, and thus many comparative studies have been conducted. In response, Cha Seon'geun emphasizes that existing research on Daesoon Thought, within religious phenomenology, has concentrated on the phenomenological method that compares two religions as wholes, which tends to conceal the unique characteristics of the two religions being compared; he argues that contextual comparison is advantageous for highlighting those concealed features.⁹⁸ Accordingly, while noting that commonalities exist between Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, he emphasizes that the differences must be clearly distinguished, and distinguishes those differences in detail by categories of religious studies.⁹⁹ Cha Seon'geun in particular, through the difference between the concept of "Qi-transformation" (氣化, gihwa) in Donghak Thought¹⁰⁰ and the concept of "Virtue-transformation" (德化, deokhwa) in Daesoon Thought, demonstrates religiously and academically that Daesoon Thought is not an alternative to Donghak Thought but rather an independent tradition.¹⁰¹ The contrast between Donghak Thought's dogi jangjonsaburi'p (道氣長存邪不入, "Through long preservation of the Way's energy, evil cannot enter")¹⁰² and Daesoon Thought's jinsim gyeonsu bokseollae (眞心堅守福先來, "Firmly keep a true heart and blessings will come first")¹⁰³ well reveals the difference between Qi-transformation and Virtue-transformation. This study likewise limits its comparison of the two traditions to the contextual comparison of "learning" (學) and the "Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity within Correlative Thinking," following the contextual comparative method proposed by Cha Seon'geun.

Regarding research on Daesoon Thought related to the Three-Realm View or cosmology, Pak Sang'gyu's research can be cited. First, in a paper on the Heavenly Realm View (天界觀) within the Three-Realm View, Pak Sang'gyu compares the twenty-eight heavens of the Buddhist Three Realms divided into the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm, with the thirty-six heavens of the Heavenly Realm View in Daesoon Thought, and the thirty-six heavens of Daoism, showing that the three Heavenly Realm Views can be harmonized.¹⁰⁴ Pak Sang'gyu argues that the dual structure of the Yeong'dae (靈臺, Spirit Platform) and Dosollung (兜率宮, Tushita Palace) in the Mugeukdo religious compound shows the dual structure of the Heavenly Realm — the heaven within the Three Realms and the heaven of Gucheon (九天) outside the Three Realms — and that when explaining this dual structure of the Heavenly Realm, the three Heavenly Realm Views can be connected to each other in various ways. In Daesoon Thought, which holds that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism were formed through the twelve-phase operating principle (12운성 원리) of the cosmic function (天地之用) of the moving operation of Taegeuk (太極),¹⁰⁵ it is natural that the Heavenly Realm Views of the three teachings should accord.

Finally, in the case of Liminality, Kim Taesu (김태수) analyzed the Cheonji Gongsa (天地公事, Reordering Work of Heaven and Earth) of Daesoon Thought from the perspective of Liminality.¹⁰⁶ Kim Taesu regarded the Cheonji Gongsa itself as a ritual grounded in Liminality, and analyzed the Cheonji Gongsa in detail based on Liminality theory. This study differs from Kim Taesu — who applied the concept of Liminality from the perspective of the supreme deity — in applying Liminality from the perspective of the practitioner's cultivation theory and also comparing it with Donghak Thought, Correlative Thinking, and modernity.

The three approaches to studying the modernity of Donghak Thought — the Donghak people's movement, religious thought, and philosophical methodology — differ from one another, yet the three are organically interconnected. Studying Donghak as a philosophical methodology does not diminish the characteristics of the Donghak people's movement or the religious thought of Donghak Thought. On the contrary, examination of philosophical methodology can multiply the other two characteristics. Methodological research on the philosophical thinking of Donghak Thought can lead to understanding the reason why Donghak Thought's theory arises not only from the perspective of ideas but also from a logical perspective, enabling greater empathy for Donghak Thought. Logical understanding of Donghak Thought also enables rational and universal understanding of the motivations of people who put Donghak Thought into practice through the Donghak people's movement. Therefore, a methodological philosophical understanding of Donghak Thought becomes very important research for universally understanding Daesoon Thought as well.

Despite there being no lack of research in the other two areas, research applying philosophical methodology to Daesoon Thought is relatively insufficient compared with Donghak Thought. The reasons for this lack of research are related to the absence of diachronic research and to the research scope of the ideal world. First, examining the absence of diachronic research: existing research on the philosophical methodology of Donghak Thought has remained with the existing synchronic method of comparing contemporary Eastern and Western philosophical methodologies, making it difficult to connect with the other two areas that pay attention to change over time. The existing synchronic method limited methodological philosophical understanding of Donghak Thought to the field of philosophy of science, and failed to present an organic method capable of influencing the other two, already active, fields of research. In particular, existing prior research did not pay attention to differences between Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought through a diachronic method that studies changes over time. Diachronic research can explain the emergence of Donghak Thought and the Donghak people's movement through a methodological philosophical understanding of Donghak Thought by presenting diachronically the Donghak before Donghak Thought and the Donghak after the emergence of Daesoon Thought.

Another reason why Daesoon Thought has not been understood in terms of philosophical methodology is that, in Daesoon Thought, the completion of Donghak is the True Donghak, where the scope of Donghak extends to the realization of the ideal world of Eastern thought. As in the passage, "Those who follow me will obtain eternal blessings, be free of old age and death, and enjoy the bliss of the eternal paradise — this is the True Donghak" (Jeon'gyeong, "Gwon'ji" 1-11),¹⁰⁷ in Daesoon Thought Donghak extends beyond the dimension of a people's movement to encompass the Later Heaven (후천, hucheon) — the ideal society of the East — so that religious understanding seems more appropriate than scholarly understanding. However, if the ideal world of the Later Heaven spoken of by Donghak is understood not at an empirical but at a methodological level — as a methodology of Eastern philosophical thinking — a method for understanding the True Donghak of Daesoon Thought, which encompasses even the ideal world, through a mode of thought can be proposed.

Beyond the above, there are diverse research achievements on Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought. Even in the case of Daesoon Thought's cosmology and Three-Realm View alone, there are works by Yi Jaewon (이재원),¹⁰⁸ Kim Yonghwan (김용환),¹⁰⁹ Kim Gwiman (김귀만),¹¹⁰ Cha Seon'geun's comparative research on the cosmology of Daesoon Thought and Jeong'yeok Thought,¹¹¹ research on the future-oriented view,¹¹² Choe Won'hyeok's (최원혁) comparison of the Three-Realm Views of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought,¹¹³ comparative research on the ideal society,¹¹⁴ and numerous studies published in SCI-level international journals and monographs.¹¹⁵ Additional prior research will be discussed as each topic arises in the discussion that follows.

—————————————————————— ¹ Kim Gyeongjae [김경재], "Suun's Experience of Sicheonju and the View of God in Donghak" [수운의 시천주 체험과 동학의 신관], Donghak Studies [동학연구] 4: 23–43, 1999; Kim Sang'il [김상일], Suun and Whitehead [수운과 화이트헤드] (Seoul: Jisiksaneopsa, 2001); Choe Minja [최민자], "The Integral Vision Appearing in Ken Wilber's Holarchic Holism and Suun's Si (侍)" [켄 윌버의 홀라키적 전일주의와 수운의 시(侍)에 나타난 통합적 비전], Donghak Studies [동학학보] 23: 7–51, 2011.

² Jang Byeonggil [장병길], Korean Religion and the Study of Religion [한국 종교와 종교학] (Seoul: Cheongnyon'sa, 2003).

³ Jeong Jinhong [정진홍], The Development of Korean Religious Culture [한국종교문화의 전개] (Seoul: Jimmundang, 1988).

⁴ Yun Iheom [윤이흠], Korean Religion and Religious History [한국의 종교와 종교사] (Seoul: Bakmunsa, 2017).

⁵ Choe Jongseong [최종성], The Theopraxy of Donghak [동학의 테오프락시] (Seoul: Minsokwon, 2009).

⁶ Gang Dongu [강돈구], Religious Theory and Korean Religion [종교이론과 한국종교] (Seoul: Bakmunsa, 2011).

⁷ No Gilmyeong [노길명], "Globalization and 'Haewon Sangsaeng'" [세계화와 '해원상생'], Daesoon Studies Academic Papers [대순진리학술논총] 4, 2009.

⁸ Kim Hongcheol [김홍철], Research on the Thought of Jeungsan'gyo [증산교사상연구] (Iksan: Wonkwang University Press, 2000).

⁹ Don Baker, Korean Spirituality [한국인의 영성], trans. Pak Sojeong (Seoul: Mosineun Saramdeul, 2012).

¹⁰ Yu Dongsik [유동식], Folk Religion and Korean Culture [민속종교와 한국문화] (Seoul: Hyeondae Sasang'sa, 1978).

¹¹ Kim Jongseo [김종서], Western Research on Korean Religion [서양인의 한국 종교 연구] (Seoul: Seoul National University Press, 2006).

¹² Kim Ikdu [김익두], "The Thought of Jeungsan Gang Il-sun as Seen by a Scholar of Korean Literature" [국문학자가 본 증산 강일순의 사상], in Jeongeup Intellectual History: The 21st-Century Vision of Saem'gol Thought [정읍사상사: 샘골사상의 21세기적 비전] (Seoul: Minsokwon, 2017).

¹³ Hwang Jongwon [황종원], multiple studies including: "Three Sources of Choe Je-u's Concept of Cheonju" [최제우 천주 관념의 세 가지 근원], Aporia Review of Books 2(8), 2014; "A Comparative Study of the Seong, Gyeong, and Sin of Daesoon Jinri and Donghak" [대순진리와 동학의 성·경·신 비교 연구], Daesoon Studies Academic Papers [대순진리학술논총] 8, 2011; "Kim Jiha's Life Movement Theory and the Contemporary Interpretation of Donghak Thought" [김지하의 생명 운동론과 동학사상의 현대적 해석], Korean Philosophical Writings [한국 철학논집] 81, 2024.

¹⁴ Kim Jiha [김지하], Collected Works of Kim Jiha [김지하 전집] (Seoul: Silcheon Munhak'sa, 2002).

¹⁵ Kim Tak [김탁], Jeungsan Thought and Korean Religion [증산사상과 한국종교] (Seoul: Minsokwon, 2022).

¹⁶ Jang Byeonggil [장병길], Korean Religion and the Study of Religion [한국 종교와 종교학] (Seoul: Cheongnyon'sa, 2003), p.628.

¹⁷ Jeong Jinhong [정진홍], The Development of Korean Religious Culture [한국종교문화의 전개] (Seoul: Jimmundang, 1988), pp.54–61.

¹⁸ Choe Jongseong [최종성], The Theopraxy of Donghak [동학의 테오프락시] (Seoul: Minsokwon, 2009), pp.22–28.

¹⁹ Yun Iheom [윤이흠], Korean Religion and Religious History [한국의 종교와 종교사] (Seoul: Bakmunsa, 2017), pp.549–551.

²⁰ Gang Dongu [강돈구], Korean Modern Religion and Nationalism [한국 근대종교와 민족주의] (Seoul: Jimmundang, 1992), pp.450–451.

²¹ No Gilmyeong [노길명], "Trends in the Development and Research of the Korean New Religious Movement since Liberation" [광복 이후 한국 신종교운동의 전개와 연구 동향], Religion and Culture [종교와 문화] 3, 1997, pp.113–114.

²² Kim Hongcheol [김홍철], Research on the Thought of Jeungsan'gyo [증산교사상연구] (Iksan: Wonkwang University Press, 2000), pp.312–320. Research connecting the Baekje region to the Wolji (月支) people, who were the central nation of ancient world civilization, has also been conducted extensively. See: Pak Dong [박동], Dongyi Sam'gukji [동이 삼국지] (Seoul: Chaek'gwa Namu, 2024); Pak Dong, The Origins and Development of the Sun Tribe of Mahan on the Yeongsangang River [영산강 마한 태양족의 기원과 발전] (Gwacheon: Beomsin, 2020); Yi Jinwu [이진우], Omnibus Korean History [옴니버스 한국사] (Seoul: Korean Literature Broadcasting, 2021); Yi Junhan [이준한], Holmes Reveals the Secrets of Ancient History [홈스, 고대사 비밀을 밝히다] (Seoul: Booklab, 2021); Yi Gihun [이기훈], Dongyi Korean History [동이 한국사] (Seoul: Pubple, 2014); Jeong Hyeongjin [정형진], Hwanwoong Who Came from the Millennial Kingdom of Sushiana [천년왕국 수시아나에서 온 환웅] (Seoul: Ilbit, 2006).

²³ Don Baker, Korean Spirituality [한국인의 영성], trans. Pak Sojeong (Seoul: Mosineun Saramdeul, 2012).

²⁴ Yu Dongsik [유동식], Folk Religion and Korean Culture [민속종교와 한국문화] (Seoul: Hyeondae Sasang'sa, 1978), pp.312–320, 277–297.

²⁵ Kim Jongseo [김종서], Western Research on Korean Religion [서양인의 한국 종교 연구] (Seoul: Seoul National University Press, 2006), pp.76–77.

²⁶ Kim Ikdu [김익두], "The Thought of Jeungsan Gang Il-sun as Seen by a Scholar of Korean Literature" [국문학자가 본 증산 강일순의 사상], in Jeongeup Intellectual History (Seoul: Minsokwon, 2017); Kim Ikdu, A Journey to Find Korean Mythology [한국신화를 찾아 떠나는 여행] (Paju: Jisiksaneopsa, 2021); Kim Ikdu, "The 'Cheonji Gut' Vision of Sangsaeng, Haewon, and Daedong, and the Style of Generating Spirit-Energy" [상생·해원·대동의 '천지굿' 비전과 신명 창출의 문체], Beginning of a Millennium [천년의시작] 11(3): 12–25, 2012; Kim Ikdu, Korean National Performance Studies [한국 민족공연학] (Paju: Jisiksaneopsa, 2013).

²⁷ Yi Yeongnan [이영란], Liminality [리미널리티] (Seoul: Dongbang Inswae Gongsa, 2020), p.162.

²⁸ Kim Jiha [김지하], The Story of Donghak [동학 이야기] (Seoul: Sol, 1994), pp.163–164; Heo Namjin [허남진], "Kang Jeungsan's 'Gaebyeok' and New Civilization" [강증산의 '개벽'과 새로운 문명], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총] 32, 2019, p.114.

²⁹ Yi Cheolho [이철호], "Kim Jiha's Spirituality (靈性): One Context of Minjung Theology and Christian Life-Politics in the 1970s" [김지하의 영성: 1970년대 민중신학과 기독교 생명정치의 한 맥락], Dongak Literature [동악어문학] 68, 2016, p.163. Yi Cheolho regards Kim Jiha's understanding of Donghak Thought as a typical case of the Christian spirituality movement that spread widely with Teilhard de Chardin as its impetus.

³⁰ "Chaosmos" is a term that can be said to refer to 'order from chaos.' (Kim Ranhui [김란희], "Chaosmos Poetics and the Structural Formation of Kim Jiha's Narrative Poems" [카오스모스 시학과 김지하 담시의 구조형성방식], International Literature [국제어문] 45, 2009, pp.141–146.) Chaos is chaos, cosmos is order; combining the two, it was interpreted as "Chaosmos." This accords with the postmodern thought that integrates structure and existence; Deleuze and Guattari together summarized their thought as "Chaosmos." Korean aesthetics has the characteristic of simultaneously holding both chaos and cosmos. Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought are widely known as panentheism, having both transcendent and immanent divine views from both East and West. Kim Jiha accordingly explained Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought through Chaosmos.

³¹ Kim Jiha's Life Movement theory gives considerable suggestions for reflecting on the various defects of existing ecological movement theory and seeking new directions of practice, and is also significant as an interpretation that properly revives the spirit of the Donghak movement. (Hwang Jongwon [황종원], "Kim Jiha's Life Movement Theory and the Contemporary Interpretation of Donghak Thought" [김지하의 생명 운동론과 동학사상의 현대적 해석], Korean Philosophical Writings [한국 철학논집] 81, 2024, p.208.)

³² If Chaosmos expressed Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought through Western thought, then Life Thought, Yullyeo (律呂), and the "Aesthetics of the White Shadow" can be said to express them through Eastern thought. If the starting point was early Kim Jiha — who discovered the difference between materialism and Eastern thought in the vitality of a plant blooming in prison — understanding Donghak Thought as Life Thought based on Teilhard de Chardin's theory, then he subsequently explained the Chaosmos concept appearing in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought through the numerological-study (象數學) of "Ullyeo" in Jeong'yeok [Book of Correct Change], and the aesthetic expression of the "Aesthetics of the White Shadow."

³³ Indigenous Modernity, which unlike the West explains by focusing on attributes rather than substance, simultaneously possesses both modernity and post-modernity, which today appear as opposing attributes. Whether the modernity and post-modernity of Indigenous Modernity appear one way or another depends on how one sets the comparator. Therefore, in this paper, "Indigenous Modernity" is used collectively to refer to both Indigenous Modernity and Indigenous Post-Modernity. Comparing Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, Kim Jiha interpreted Donghak Thought — which emphasizes political democratization — as Indigenous Modernity, and Daesoon Thought — which emphasizes cultural modernity — as Indigenous Post-Modernity.

³⁴ See footnote 33 above.

³⁵ Kim Tak [김탁], Jeungsan'gyo Studies [증산교學] (Seoul: Mirae'hyang Munhwa, 1992); Kim Tak, The Meeting of Donghak and Jeungsan'gyo in the History of Korean Religion [동학과 증산교의 만남] (Seoul: Hannuri Media, 2000); Kim Tak, Jeungsan Gang Il-sun [증산 강일순] (Paju: Korean Academic Information, 2006); Kim Tak, Prophetic Thought During the Japanese Colonial Period [일제강점기의 예언사상] (Seongnam: Book Korea, 2019); Kim Tak, "The Religious Transmission of Donghak Thought: Focusing on Jeungsan Thought" [동학사상의 종교적 전승], Chungcheong Cultural Research [충청문화연구] 25: 147–206, 2021; Kim Tak, Jeungsan Thought and Korean Religion [증산사상과 한국종교] (Seoul: Minsokwon, 2022); Kim Tak, The Ideology That Runs Through Korean New Religions: Anthropocentrism [한국신종교를 관통하는 이념, 인간중심주의] (Seoul: Minsokwon, 2023).

³⁶ Bae Yeonggi [배영기], "A Comparative Theory of Donghak Thought and Jeungsan Thought" [東學思想과 甑山思想의 對比論], Gojoseon Dan'gun Studies [고조선단군학] 6, 2002; Kim Yungyeong [김윤경], "The Development and Transformation of Popular Daoism in the Late Joseon Period" [조선후기 민간도교의 전개와 변용], Daoist Culture Research [도교문화연구], 2013; Bae Mungyu [배문규], "An Examination of the Appearance of Donghak in Jeungsan'gyo" [증산교에 나타나는 동학의 모습 고찰], Donghak Studies [동학학보] 41, 2016; Pak Jongcheon [박종천], "Donghak and Jeungsan'do Seen Through Taoist Thought" [신선사상으로 본 동학과 증산도], National Culture Research [民族文化硏究] 96, 2022, pp.291–330.

³⁷ Hwang Tae-yeon [황태연], The Political Thought of Korean Modernization [한국 근대화의 정치사상] (Paju: Cheongye, 2018); Hwang Tae-yeon, The Enlightenment of the Far East and the Birth of the Western Tolerant State [극동의 격몽과 서구 관용국가의 탄생] (Seoul: Sol Science, 2022); Hwang Tae-yeon, The Shock of the Confucian Empire and the Birth of the Modern Western State [유교제국의 충격과 서구 근대국가의 탄생] (Seoul: Sol Science, 2022); Hwang Tae-yeon, A General Theory of Confucian Modernity [유교적 근대의 일반이론] (Seoul: Korean Culture History, 2023); and additional volumes.

³⁸ The absence of cultivation theory in Western theology was pointed out by Ken Wilber. (Ken Wilber, The Marriage of Sense and Soul [감각과 영혼의 만남], Beomyang'sa, 2007, pp.189–190.) Process theology, grounded in process philosophy that interprets substance as process, enabled a cultivation-theoretic reinterpretation of Western theology by also interpreting theology as process. This can be confirmed in the titles of books dealing with process theology. (Pak Jongcheon [박종천], The Crawling God [기어가시는 하느님] (Seoul: Gamsin, 1995); World Theology Research Institute, Sangsaeng Theology: A New Paradigm for Korean Theology [상생신학; 한국신학의 새 패러다임] (Seoul: Jomyeong Munhwa'sa, 1992).)

³⁹ Pak Jaeju [박재주], The Logic of Generation in the Book of Changes and Process Philosophy [주역의 생성 논리와 과정 철학] (Suwon: Cheongye, 2001); Pak Jaeju, The Meeting of Eastern and Western Worldviews and Ethical Views [동서양 세계관과 윤리관의 만남] (Seoul: Cheolhak'gwa Hyeonsil'sa, 2011).

⁴⁰ Jeong Seungtae [정승태], The Philosophical Theology of Charles Hartshorne [찰스 하츠혼의 철학적 신학] (Daejeon: Baptist Theological University Press, 2013).

⁴¹ Kim Gyeongjae [김경재] interpreted the View of God in Donghak as panentheism (범재신론). Panentheism is a term coined by German philosopher Karl Krause (1781–1832) meaning "everything is within God." It differs from pantheism (범신론), which claims "everything is God." Panentheism does not deny a transcendent God, but further emphasizes an immanent God closely related to the ongoing process of the cosmos; God and the world are mutually dependent, and God is relative and changing. The philosopher who applied panentheism to contemporary American theology — Hartshorne — holds that God and humanity mutually participate in and cooperate in the work of creation. Kim Gyeongjae applied Hartshorne's thought to the View of God in Donghak and argued that Donghak's View of God, as a form of pantheism, overcomes both pantheism and monotheism... Process theology diminishes or denies the absoluteness of God and discusses God as a relative, processual (process) being connected to changing human experience and cosmic events, and panentheistically. Process theology denies the absoluteness, immutability, self-existence (自存性), and self-sufficiency (自足性) of God as believed in classical/traditional Christianity. (Kim Yongjun [김용준], "The View of God and View of Life in Donghak: Focusing on Yi Donhwa's Interpretation" [동학의 신관과 생명관], Donghak Studies [동학학보], 2009, p.51.) Prior research understanding Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought through process theology succeeded in uncovering the View of God of both traditions, which possess diverse attributes including transcendent and immanent God. However, it failed to understand the characteristic of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought that distinguishes God into Heaven-beyond-Heaven (天外天) and immanent Heaven (內在天), and thus could not preserve the characteristics of God's absoluteness, immutability, self-existence, and self-sufficiency. The difference between this paper and prior research is that by distinguishing the God of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought into Heaven-beyond-Heaven and immanent Heaven, these characteristics can be preserved. It is also noted that the Heaven-beyond-Heaven in Daesoon Thought has multi-layered meaning in terms of philosophy of religion. (Pak Jaehyeon [박재현], "A Study on the Object of Faith in Daesoon Jinrihoe: Focusing on the Philosophy-of-Religion Methodology" [대순진리회의 신앙의 대상에 대한 연구], master's thesis, Daejin University, 2014.)

⁴² Kim Sang'il [김상일] defines Donghak as "New Western Learning" (신서학, Sinseohak) by applying the process theology of John Cobb, which further expanded Hartshorne's concepts. If modernity is "Western Learning" (서학), then post-modernity, which criticizes modernity, becomes "New Western Learning." Donghak — which criticized the modernity of Western Learning — therefore shares its context with New Western Learning. Kim Sang'il accordingly seeks to understand Donghak in the context of New Western Learning. (Kim Sang'il [김상일], Donghak and New Western Learning [동학과 신서학] (Seoul: Jisiksaneopsa, 2000).)

⁴³ Ken Wilber has gained wide resonance by advocating the Four-Quadrant theory, which synthesizes the world understanding of East and West, past and present, on two axes: I–You vs. He–They. The Four-Quadrant theory belongs to the perennial philosophy tradition in that it synthesizes the philosophy of East and West across time. Also, as with the four elements (earth, water, fire, wind) or Yin-Yang-Five Phases, it exhibits the character of Qi-transformation theory (氣化論), sharing many commonalities with the Qi-transformation theory of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, where Indigenous Modernity is prominent. Qi-transformation theory (氣化論) is the Eastern intellectual system since the Warring States period that has interpreted the abstract Way (道) through the concrete operation of qi (氣) such as Yin-Yang-Five Phases. (Kim Sang'il [김상일], "A Study on the Two Natures of God in Process Theology and the Human-Divine Harmony in Daesoon Thought" [과정 신학의 신의 두 본성과 대순사상의 신인조화에 관한 연구], Daesoon Studies Academic Papers [대순진리학술논총] 3, 2008; Kim Sang'il, Changes and the Logic of Post-Modernity [易과 탈현대의 論理] (Seoul: Jisiksaneopsa, 2006).)

⁴⁴ Choe Minja [최민자], "The Integral Vision Appearing in Ken Wilber's Holarchic Holism and Suun's Si (侍)" [켄 윌버의 홀라키적 전일주의와 수운의 시(侍)에 나타난 통합적 비전], Donghak Studies [동학학보] 23, pp.5–7.

⁴⁵ Yi Chang'il [이창일], The Philosophy of Shao Kangjie [소강절의 철학] (Seoul: Simsan, 2007).

⁴⁶ Kim Hyunghyo [김형효], "A Philosophical Reflection on 'Return to the Origin' and 'Haewon Thought': A Study of Jeungsan Thought" [原始返本과 解원思想에 대한 哲學的 省察], in Subjective Records on Eastern and Western Philosophy [東西哲學에 대한 主體的 記錄] (Seoul: Goryeowon, 1985), pp.38–67.

⁴⁷ Pak Jeongjin [박정진], Neo-Shamanism [네오샤머니즘] (Paju: Salim, 2018).

⁴⁸ Simwon Sasang Research Society [심원사상연구회], Simwon Kim Hyunghyo's Philosophical Thought and Life [심원 김형효의 철학적 사유와 삶] (Paju: Bogosa, 2023).

⁴⁹ Ko Hoemin [고회민], trans. Gwak Sinhwan [곽신환], The Pre-Heaven Numerology of Shao Kangjie [소강절의 선천역학] (Seoul: Yemun Seowon, 2011).

⁵⁰ Gwak Sinhwan [곽신환], Joseon Confucianism and the Philosophy of Shao Kangjie [조선유학과 소강절 철학] (Seoul: Yemun Seowon, 2014).

⁵¹ Kim Gi [김기], "A Study on the Patterns of Application of Yin-Yang-Five Phases Theory in Neo-Confucianism" [陰陽五行說의 朱子學的 適用樣相에 關한 硏究], doctoral dissertation, Sungkyunkwan University, 2012.

⁵² Baek Seungjong [백승종], The Doctrine of the Mean: A Book That Changed Joseon [중용, 조선을 바꾼 한 권의 책] (Seoul: Sau, 2019).

⁵³ Yu Janglim [유장림], The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Internal Medicine [황제내경] (Seoul: Cheonghong, 2011); Yang Yeok [양력], The Book of Changes and Chinese Medicine [주역과 중의학] (Seoul: Beop'in Munhwa'sa, 2015); Xu Yiming [徐儀明], Nature and Medicine [性理与岐黄] (Chinese Social Sciences Press, 1997); Wang Cunzhen and Yan Chunyou [王存臻, 严春友], The Theory of Universal Information Unity of the Universe [宇宙全息统一论] (Shandong People's Publishing House, 1991); Yang, C.D., Complex Mechanics, Progress in Nonlinear Science (Asian Academic Publisher, Hong Kong, 2010); Jo Hyeonhak [조현학], "The Meeting of East and West" [동양과 서양의 만남], Papers of the Korean Parapsychology Society [한국정신과학회 학술대회 논문집] 21, 2004, pp.131–148; Jo Hyeonhak, "The Three Realms (三界) II" [삼계(三界)Ⅱ], Papers of the Korean Parapsychology Society [한국정신과학회 학술대회 논문집], 2014, pp.27–55.

⁵⁴ Jeong Ujin [정우진], "The Logic of Eastern Science: A Study on the Types of Gangeung (感應)" [동양과학의 논리: 감응의 유형에 관한 연구], Daoist Culture Research [도교문화연구] 42, 2015, pp.119–140. Synchronous thinking is mainly connected to gangeung and Correlative Thinking to Yin-Yang-Five Phases. If gangeung focuses on the simultaneity of action, Yin-Yang-Five Phases places emphasis on the comparison of attributes.

⁵⁵ Jeong Ujin [정우진], Chronicle of the Body: The History and Philosophy of the East Asian Body [몸의 연대기] (Goyang: Sonamu, 2021).

⁵⁶ Kim Huijeong [김희정], Dreaming the Body, State, and Cosmos as One [몸 국가 우주 하나를 꿈꾸다] (Seoul: Gungni, 2008).

⁵⁷ Yi Bongho [이봉호], The Philosophy of Seo Myeong'eung, Teacher of King Jeongjo [정조의 스승, 서명응의 철학] (Goyang: Dong'gwa Seo, 2013).

⁵⁸ The Tae'il Saengsu (太一生水) and Dong'hwang Tae'il in the Guodian bamboo manuscript of the Laozi form the basis for understanding the Way (道) through the Correlative Thinking of Yin-Yang-Five Phases and the Book of Changes, which emerged and developed as the theoretical foundation of Emperor Wu of Han's centralization of power. (Yi Bongho [이봉호], The Birth of the Book of Changes [주역의 탄생] (Seoul: Para Academy, 2021).)

⁵⁹ Gwon Taekyeong [권택영], Lacan, Zhuangzi, and the Taegukgi [라캉·장자·태극기] (Seoul: Minumsa, 2003).

⁶⁰ Yi Bongho [이봉호] states that Saussurean linguistics — which holds that the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary — shares a common logical structure with Confucius's zhengming (正名, Rectification of Names) thought that X must be called X, and Laozi's feichanming (非常名, Names That Are Not Constant) thought that X must be called -X. (Yi Bongho, "Confucius's 'Zhengming' and Laozi's 'Feichanming': The Way of Laozi and Saussurean Linguistics — A Proper Encounter" [공자의 '正名'과 노자의 '非常名'], Philosophical Research [哲學硏究] 148, 2018, pp.269–289.)

⁶¹ Kim Baekhyeon [김백현] states that the Qi-transformative attempt to interpret the Way (道) through concrete qi (氣) like Yin-Yang-Five Phases began with Zhuangzi — who appeared independently of Laozi — and developed throughout the entirety of Chinese intellectual history through the Warring States period. (Kim Baekhyeon, Research on Daoist Philosophy [도가철학연구] (Gangneung: Dongnyeok Publishing, 2002).)

⁶² Kim Yeong'geon [김영건], "Correlative Thinking and Aesthetic Order" [상관적 사유와 심미적 질서], Philosophical Writings [철학논집] 26, 2011, pp.165–193; Kim Yeong'geon, "Daoist Philosophy and Kant's Aesthetics" [도가철학과 칸트의 심미성], Philosophical Writings [철학논집] 20, 2010, pp.5–37; Kim Yeong'geon, "Conceptual Thinking and Correlative Thinking" [개념적 사유와 상관적 사유], in The Logical Space of Reason [이성의 논리적 공간] (Seoul: Sogang University Press, 2014); Kim Yeong'geon, Analytical Critique of Eastern Philosophy [동양철학에 관한 분석적 비판] (Seoul: Ratio Press, 2009).

⁶³ Paul K. Feyerabend, trans. Jeong Byeonghun, Against Method [방법에 반대한다] (Seoul: Greenbee, 2019).

⁶⁴ Ronda Byrne, The Secret [시크릿: 수 세기 동안 단 1%만이 알았던 부와 성공의 비밀], trans. Kim Uyeol (Paju: Salim, 2007).

⁶⁵ https://www.issr.org.uk/

⁶⁶ An Sin [안신], "Religion and Science and the Study of Religion: The Diversity of Relationship Types and the Role of Religious Studies" [종교와 과학 그리고 종교학: 관계유형의 다양성과 종교학의 역할], Religion and Culture [종교와 문화] 19.

⁶⁷ Fractal (무한중첩), meaning a fragment, refers to the similarly patterned forms latent in nature — such as spiderwebs, honeycombs, and snowflakes — that repeat infinitely. Additional discussion: Yi Gwangmo and Jang Sunhui, "A Case Study on the Relevance of Complexity Theory" [복잡성이론의 적실성에 관한 사례 연구], Korean Society and Public Administration Research [한국사회와 행정연구] 15(1), 2004, pp.355–378. Fractal is like the li (理) of gangeung: the reason Heaven and humanity, outer objects and the inner self, all penetrate as one is simply that li (理). It is like a single thread threading ten thousand beads — when one pulls the thread, all the beads come into one's grasp. (Choe Jinduk [최진덕], In Defense of Neo-Confucianism: The Philosophy of Yi'il Bunsu in Na Jeong'am [주자학을 위한 변명: 나정암의 이일분수 철학] (Seoul: Cheongye, 2000), p.147.) In terms of overseas fractal science: broadly, perennial philosophy, the Enneagram, MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), Human Design, Guardian material, Tarot, TRIZ, and others. Domestically, there are diverse fields of research including gimuun dungap (기문둔갑), jami dusu (자미두수), fate analysis (명리학), Korean medicine (한의학), geomancy (풍수지리), Sukyo astrology (숙요점성술), three-dimensional five phases (입체오행), the law of cycles (순환법칙), structural theory (구조론), the four constitutions (사상체질), and eight constitutions, among others.

⁶⁸ Heo Hun [허훈], "An Examination of the Great Nest of Being in the World's Major Religious Thought: In Comparison with Daesoon Thought" [세계 주요 종교사상의 존재의 대둥지 고찰: 대순사상과 비교하여], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총], 2020.

⁶⁹ Pak Byeonghun [박병훈], "A Study on Donghak Spirit-Writing (降筆)" [동학 강필 연구], Religious Research [종교연구], 2020.

⁷⁰ Kim Jiha [김지하], The Story of Donghak [동학 이야기] (Seoul: Sol, 1994).

⁷¹ Hong Yonghui [홍용희], Research on the Literature of Kim Jiha [김지하 문학 연구], doctoral dissertation, Kyunghee University, 1998.

⁷² Hong Yonghui [홍용희], Kim Jiha: The Last Interview [김지하 마지막 대담] (Seoul: Jakga, 2023).

⁷³ Stuart Kauffman, trans. Guk Hyeongtae, At Home in the Universe [혼돈의 가장자리] (Seoul: Science Books, 2002); Jang Yeongchang [장영창], A Study on the Spread of Pansori Culture [판소리 문화 확산에 관한 연구], doctoral dissertation, Kyunghee University, 2012.

⁷⁴ Kim Sang'il [김상일], Changes and the Logic of Post-Modernity [易과 탈현대의 論理] (Seoul: Jisiksaneopsa, 2006).

⁷⁵ Kim Sang'il [김상일], Suun and Whitehead [수운과 화이트헤드] (Seoul: Jisiksaneopsa, 2001).

⁷⁶ Kim Yonghwi [김용휘], Donghak as Our Own Learning [우리 학문으로서의 동학] (Seoul: Chaegsesang, 2007).

⁷⁷ Jo Yongil [조용일], A Study on the Thought of Creative Transformation (造化) in Donghak [東學의 造化思想에 關한 硏究], doctoral dissertation, Dongguk University, 1986.

⁷⁸ Yi Yeongnan [이영란], A Study on the Essence of the Phenomenon of Acting (演技現象) from the Performance Studies Perspective [공연학적 관점에서 본 연기현상의 본질에 관한 연구], doctoral dissertation, Graduate School, Chungang University, 2012.

⁷⁹ Kim Jiha [김지하], Collected Works of Kim Jiha, Vol. 1 [김지하전집1] (Seoul: Silcheon Munhak'sa, 2002).

⁸⁰ Kim Sang'il [김상일], Changes and the Logic of Post-Modernity [易과 탈현대의 論理] (Seoul: Jisiksaneopsa, 2006). [Note: referring to Kim Jiha's conceptual parallels cited in the main text]

⁸¹ Ko Namsik [고남식], "The Status of Donghak and the Development of Jeungsan's True Donghak in Daesoon Thought" [대순사상에 나타난 동학의 위상과 증산의 참동학 전개], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총] 16, 2003, pp.1–23.

⁸² Ko Namsik [고남식], "Doctrinal Tenets and Succession of the Religious Lineage: Focusing on Chapter 2 of Gyoun" [종지와 종통계승: 교운 2장을 중심으로], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총] 6, 1998, pp.657–696.

⁸³ Ko Namsik [고남식], "Jeungsan's Daoist Tendencies and the Daoist Elements of the Mugeukdo" [증산의 도가적 경향과 무극도의 도교적 요소], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총] 17, 2004, pp.1–33.

⁸⁴ Ko Namsik [고남식], "The Correlative Principles of the Three Realms of Heaven-Earth-Humanity (天地人) in the Thought of Kang Jeungsan During the Enlightenment Period: In Relation to Yin-Yang and the Way of the Gods (神道)" [개화기 강증산사상에 나타난 천지인 삼계의 상관원리], National Learning Research Papers [국학연구론총] 32, pp.185–214.

⁸⁵ Ko Namsik [고남식], "The Logic of In'jon (人尊, Human Dignity) in the Integrated Three-Realm View and the Earth-Humanity Relationship: Focusing on the Gongsa (公事) Related to the Realization of the Terrestrial Immortal Paradise" [통합적 삼계관과 지·인관계의 인존 논리], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총], 2002.

⁸⁶ Ko Namsik [고남식], "The 'Southern Joseon State' in the Kang Jeungsan Tradition as Seen through Haewon, and the 'Yuldo State' in Hong Gildong-jeon" [해원으로 본 강증산 전승의 <남조선국>과 『홍길동전』의 <율도국>], Literature Therapy Research [문학치료연구] 12, 2009, pp.141–176.

⁸⁷ Ko Namsik [고남식], "The Aspects and Meanings of Records Relating to Japan in the Kang Jeungsan (姜甑山) Tradition in Modern/Contemporary Times: Focusing on the Daesoon Jeon'gyeong (大巡典經) (1929–1965)" [근·현대기 강증산 전승에 나타난 일본 관련 기록의 양상과 의미], Japanese Modern Studies Research [일본근대학연구], 2023.

⁸⁸ Ko Namsik [고남식], "A Comparison of Modern Korean and Japanese Shindo (神道) Thought: Focusing on the Background of Emergence and the Purpose of Shindo" [한일 근대 신도(神道)사상 비교], Japanese Modern Studies Research [일본근대학연구], 2021.

⁸⁹ Ko Namsik [고남식], "The Status of Donghak and the Development of Jeungsan's True Donghak in Daesoon Thought" [대순사상에 나타난 동학의 위상과 증산의 참동학 전개], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총] 16, 2003, pp.1–23.

⁹⁰ Ko Namsik [고남식], "The Aspects and Meanings of Records Relating to Japan in the Kang Jeungsan Tradition: Focusing on the Daesoon Jeon'gyeong (1929–1965)" [근·현대기 강증산 전승에 나타난 일본 관련 기록의 양상과 의미], Japanese Modern Studies Research [일본근대학연구], 2023.

⁹¹ Ko Namsik [고남식], "A Comparison of the Nationalistic Elements of Suun and Jeungsan" [수운과 증산의 민족주의적 요소 비교], New Religion Research [신종교연구], 2012.

⁹² Yi Gyeong'won [이경원] and Choe Donghui [최동희], Rewriting Donghak [새로 쓰는 동학] (Seoul: Jimmundang, 2003).

⁹³ Yi Gyeong'won [이경원], "The Modernity and Transformative Thought of Daesoon Jinri" [대순진리의 근대성과 변혁사상], Donghak Studies [동학 학보] 9(2), 2005, p.43.

⁹⁴ Yi Gyeong'won [이경원], Daesoon Jinrihoe: A Study of Doctrine [대순진리회 교리론] (Seoul: Munsacheol, 2013); Yi Gyeong'won, Korean Religious Thought: The Problem of Ultimate Reality [한국의 종교사상: 궁극적 실재의 문제] (Seoul: Munsacheol, 2010).

⁹⁵ Yi Gyeong'won [이경원], Korean New Religions and Daesoon Thought [한국 신종교와 대순사상] (Seoul: Munsacheol, 2010).

⁹⁶ Yi Gyeong'won [이경원], Korean Religious Thought [한국의 종교사상] (Seoul: Munsacheol, 2010).

⁹⁷ Yi Gyeong'won [이경원], "A Study of Modern Heavenly Thought in Korea" [韓國 近代 天思想 硏究], doctoral dissertation, Sungkyunkwan University, 1998.

⁹⁸ Cha Seon'geun [차선근], "The Problem of the Research Perspective on Daesoon Thought as Seen through a Comparison of the Haewon Thought of Shamanism and Jeungsan" [무속과 증산의 해원사상 비교를 통해 본 대순사상 연구 관점의 문제], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총] 38, pp.115–151; Cha Seon'geun, "The Identity of Daesoon Thought and the Problem of its Research Materials" [대순사상의 정체성과 그 연구자료의 문제], Daesoon Jonghak [대순종학] 1, pp.19–46; Cha Seon'geun, "Smith and Smith, the Blacksmiths of Religious Studies: From 'Religion' to 'Religions'" [스미스와 스미스, 종교학의 대장장이들], Religious Research [宗敎硏究] 82(2): 87–113; Cha Seon'geun, "Problems and Directions for Improvement in General Descriptions of Jeungsan-based New Religions" [증산계 신종교 일괄기술에 나타난 문제점과 개선 방향], New Religion Research [신종교연구] 30, pp.57–95; Cha Seon'geun, "A Comparative Study of Jeong'yeok Thought and Daesoon Thought: Focusing on Cosmology" [정역사상과 대순사상의 비교 연구], Religious Research [宗敎硏究] 60, 2010, pp.35–59.

⁹⁹ Cha Seon'geun [차선근], Contemporary Religious Studies and Daesoon Thought [현대종교학과 대순사상] (Seoul: Bakmunsa).

¹⁰⁰ The interpretive method that explains the generation of all things through the Way (道) through the operation of qi (氣) such as Yin-Yang is called "Qi-transformation theory" (기화론). Qi-transformation interpretation necessarily regards the Way as qi. If in Laozi's "One generates Two, Two generates Three" (一生二 二生三), "Two" is regarded as Yin-Yang qi (陰陽氣), then the "One" that gave birth to Yin-Yang qi must necessarily be the qi of undifferentiated mixture (混一未分), and the "Way" that gave birth to "One" must also necessarily be seen as the primordial original qi (混元之氣 or 元氣). (Kim Baekhyeon [김백현], Research on Daoist Philosophy [도가철학연구] (Gangneung: Dongnyeok Publishing, 2002), pp.187–188.) Qi-transformation theory began from Zhuangzi's theory — which started independently of Laozi — passed through the Jixia Academy, and was first Confucianized by Dong Zhongshu, then later connected even to Mugeuk (無極) and Taegeuk (太極) in Neo-Confucianism. Neo-Confucianism can be said to be Qi-transformation theory connected all the way to Mugeuk and Taegeuk. Daesoon Thought's yin-yang harmony (음양합덕) also has elements of Qi-transformation theory that interpret the Way as the qi of Yin and Yang, and this too is connected to Mugeuk and Taegeuk. (Cf. Chinese: 氧化, 指阴阳之气的变化 [Chinese Great Dictionary, vol. 6, p.1025].)

¹⁰¹ Cha Seon'geun [차선근], "A Comparative Study of the Religious Thought of Suun and Jeungsan: Focusing on the View of Heaven and the View of Cultivation" [수운과 증산의 종교사상 비교 연구], Religious Research [宗敎硏究] 69, 2012, pp.205–240.

¹⁰² Donggyeongedaejeon (동경대전), "Ipchunsi" [입춘시]: Dogi jangjonsaburi'p (道氣長存邪不入) — "Through long preservation of the Way's energy, evil cannot enter."

¹⁰³ Jeon'gyeong (전경), "Gyobeop" [교법] 2-3.

¹⁰⁴ Pak Sang'gyu [박상규], "The Concept of the Heavenly Realm (天界) in Daesoon Faith: Focusing on the Mugeukdo" [대순 신앙의 천계 관념－무극도를 중심으로－], Religious Research [宗敎硏究] 82(2), pp.173–205.

¹⁰⁵ Jeon'gyeong (전경), "Gyoun" [교운] 1-66; Jeon'gyeong, "Jesaeng" [제생] 43.

¹⁰⁶ Kim Taesu [김태수], "A Study on the Ritual Character Appearing in the Cheonji Gongsa" [천지공사에 나타난 의례적 성격 연구], doctoral dissertation, Daejin University, 2013.

¹⁰⁷ Jeon'gyeong (전경), "Gwon'ji" [권지] 1-11.

¹⁰⁸ Yi Jaewon [이재원], "A Study on the Cosmological View of Daesoon Thought: Focusing on the View of Time and the View of Space" [대순사상의 우주관 연구: 시간관과 공간관을 중심으로], Daesoon Jonghak [대순종학] 2, 2022, pp.85–117.

¹⁰⁹ Kim Yonghwan [김용환], "A Study on the Correlatively Connected Daesoon Cosmology of Mugeuk and Taegeuk" [무극과 태극 상관연동의 대순우주론 연구], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총] 33, 2019, pp.31–62.

¹¹⁰ Kim Gwiman [김귀만], "A Study on the Cosmology of Daesoon Thought" [대순사상의 우주론 연구], Won'bulgyo Thought and Religious Culture [원불교사상과 종교문화] 74, pp.285–323.

¹¹¹ Cha Seon'geun [차선근], "A Comparative Study of Jeong'yeok Thought and Daesoon Thought: Focusing on Cosmology" [정역사상과 대순사상의 비교 연구], Religious Research [宗敎硏究] 60, 2010, pp.35–59.

¹¹² Bae Gyuhan [배규한], "A Study on Haewon Sangsaeng Thought Concerning the Future of Humanity and the World" [인간과 세계의 미래에 관한 해원상생사상 연구], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총] 30, 2018, pp.1–57.

¹¹³ Choe Won'hyeok [최원혁], "A Comparative Study on the Indigenous Modernity of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought," Studies on Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSC) 6(1), 2024, pp.287–305.

¹¹⁴ Na Gwonsu [나권수], "A Study on the Theory of the Ideal Society of Daesoon Jinrihoe" [대순진리회의 이상사회론 연구], Daesoon Thought Papers [대순사상논총] 21, 2013, pp.409–452.

¹¹⁵ Rigal-Cellard, Bernadette, "Daesoon Jinrihoe In Light Of Anthony F. C. Wallace's Revitalization Theory," Religiski-filozofiski raksti 30(2), 2021; Introvigne, Massimo, "The Flourishing of New Religions in Korea," Nova Religio 25(1), 2021; T.S. Kim, "The Ethical Characteristics of 'Haewon-sangsaeng' (解寃相生) in Daesoon Thought: With Focus on Its Relation to the Idea of 'Guarding Against Self-deception'," Taiwan Journal of Religious Studies [臺灣宗教研究] 20(1), 2021. Recently, an English-language doctoral dissertation on the canonical scriptures related to Daesoon Thought has also been published: Jason Greenberger, Searching for the Historical Jeungsan while Beholding the Hagiographical Jeungsan, doctoral dissertation, Daejin University, 2024; Kim, D.W., Daesoon Jinrihoe in Modern Korea: The Emergence, Transformation and Transmission of a New Religion (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020).