Chapter III, Sec. 3: Yeongse-bulgmang (永世不忘) View of Humanity
a. The Western Growth-Oriented View of Humanity
In the Western View of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity — which perceives the world from below upward — humanity strives toward growth amid an evolving Heaven and Earth. In the Western tradition oriented toward substantiality, the human being was first a Promethean figure who labors to realize the ideal of the Ideas upon the material substance of the earth; then, having fallen from Heaven to earth through original sin, the human became a being wholly focused on salvation in order to ascend once more from earth to Heaven. In the modern era, once God had vanished, the Western human became a solitary being separated from Heaven and Earth — an existential, phenomenological self pursuing individual success alone in a differentiated world, that is, a growth-oriented self.¹
Unlike the Eastern human being, in whom a sense of anxious concern (憂患意識, uuhwan-euisik) over the duty to participate in the nurturing transformation (化育, hwayuk) of Heaven and Earth arises before all else — given humanity's intimate relationship with Heaven and Earth — in the West, the sense of existential awareness directly related to the Heaven above Heaven (超越天) took precedence over the anxious concern connected to Heaven and Earth. The Western doctrine of original sin, unlike the Eastern doctrine of the innate evil of human nature, did not prohibit the instrumental manipulation of nature by human beings.
The Western growth-oriented view of humanity has been developed in the fields of mythology and psychology. In mythology, the Western theory of growth has been studied with a focus on individual growth, as in the hero's journey. Scholars such as Joseph Campbell interpret the entirety of world mythology as heroic mythology. The East, unlike the West, even when treating the theme of growth, gives priority to the celestial function of Heaven and Earth's nurturing transformation — expressed in the sequence of gestation, embryo, nurturing, life, desire, maturity, governance, kingship, decline, sickness, death, and burial² — that is, to the growth of Heaven and Earth itself. In Western psychology, the growth-oriented view of humanity has come to emphasize growth more forcefully by arguing that the modern Western view of humanity has been skewed toward a negative conception of the human — as seen in psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Eastern psychologists evaluate Western views of humanity, such as psychoanalysis, which sees all human desires as transformations of sexual drives, and behaviorism, which sees them as material desires, as comparatively self-affirmative views of the human being.³
The Western view of humanity is concentrated and expressed in the growth-oriented view of humanity and its reflection, the recent posthumanist view of humanity. The growth-oriented view of humanity is the view of the human being put forward by existentialist psychological theory — which regards human desire positively and approaches the inner mind as primary — in contrast to behaviorism and psychoanalysis, which regard human desire negatively and take a technology-oriented approach. According to the growth-oriented view of humanity, human desire is not something negative; there are simply various needs within the human being. The growth-oriented view of humanity is a general term for theories of the human being that presuppose that human needs lie latent in a hierarchical manner and emphasize the growth dimension in which these needs manifest progressively from lower-order to higher-order forms. The growth-oriented view proposed a view of the human being oriented toward self-actualizing problem-solving based on the doctrine of innate goodness, in contrast to the classical view oriented toward technology-centered problem-solving based on the doctrine of innate evil. Theories of the human being included within this growth theory include: Maslow's (A. H. Maslow) hierarchy of needs theory, which emerged in the mid-1940s and later formed the foundation of growth theory; McGregor's (D. McGregor) Theory X and Theory Y, proposed in the 1960s; Herzberg's (F. Herzberg) Two-Factor Theory; Allport's (G. W. Allport) trait theory; and Argyris's (C. Argyris) immaturity-maturity theory.
Posthumanism is grounded in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution is sometimes interpreted as the industrial revolution of the self-actualization stage described by the growth-oriented view of humanity.⁴ Furthermore, it has been argued that existentialism is finally fulfilled in the posthuman era and aligns with the future prospects that Korea's new religions have articulated.⁵
In contrast to the existing psychologically pessimistic view of the human being based on the doctrine of innate evil, the positive view of humanity proposed by the growth-oriented view manifests, in the case of Maslow, specifically as affirmations of desire, growth, and the world, respectively. First, regarding desire, Maslow affirms desire by arguing that the need for self-actualization — which emerges only after all the lower-level needs have been fulfilled — is the individual's yearning for self-enhancement, a desire to realize everything held as potential.
Second, he affirms growth. Maslow regarded the four lower-level needs in the need hierarchy — physiological, safety, belonging, and esteem — as "deficiency motives" that arise from some external condition of lack. The operation of such deficiency motives generally follows a "tension-reduction model." By contrast, the highest-level need, self-actualization, is a "growth motive" that seeks to promote the growth of the self. This "arises from being itself rather than from a state of deficiency, and seeks to increase rather than reduce tension. It is therefore called a 'being motive,' which pursues remote goals connected to the innate drive to realize the individual's potential, enriches life by broadening experience, and thereby increases the joy of life."⁶
Third is affirmation of the world. Maslow criticized the psychopathological aspects of the human mind emphasized by psychoanalysis — then the first force in American psychology — and the mechanistic aspects, reductionist and determinist worldview emphasized by behaviorism — the second force — and pursued self-actualization by respecting the individual's latent potential (human potentiality), which is grounded in the subjectivity and wholeness of the human being as an integrated being. Maslow became an idol for the youth of the time through his psychological theory, which sought to pursue and understand the genuinely human nature of the human being and was oriented toward a world contributing to human growth and happiness.⁷
The positive attributes of humanity that Maslow advocated are said to be very contrary to the attributes of the human being that the posthuman might replace. The reason why posthumans are so shocking to human society is that machines have surpassed human beings in the capacity for calculation — a form of instrumental reason, regarded as the representative attribute of humanity that machines could not replace. ⁸ However, the more artificial intelligence has been studied, the more Moravec's Paradox has emerged: humans possess an intelligence diametrically opposed to artificial intelligence, such that what humans do well is what AI does poorly, and what humans do poorly is what AI does well.⁹ This paradox revealed the limitation — through the Chinese Room argument by the critical posthumanist John Searle, which demonstrates that even artificial intelligence that passes the Turing Test and is judged to be intelligent cannot easily be regarded as possessing the kind of intelligence that posthumans display — of considering it to be human intelligence.¹⁰
In the posthuman era, co-evolution with machines has become possible only by concentrating on the intelligence at which humans excel over machines; and among these, the intelligence most prominently identified as distinctly human is growth intelligence. Significantly, the relationship between humans and divine beings (神明, sinmyeong) in the East also carries the character of organic human beings and mechanistic divine beings. The reason why human beings possess growth intelligence differently from machines is that, for a long period of time, survival was the goal of human beings, and thus human intelligence was not narrow artificial intelligence specialized in particular domains, but rather possessed the characteristics of general artificial intelligence — developing slowly yet evenly across all domains.¹¹ The growth intelligence that can form symbols and communities and advance by its own development attracted attention as intelligence unique to human beings. Indeed, human beings had for tens of thousands of years been making existential efforts, and through the countless symbols they developed in that process — symbols that artificial intelligence cannot imitate — they had developed intelligence and become positive beings with the motivation for self-actualization.¹² Human beings have finally come to achieve self-actualization as individuals from within the collective.¹³ Maslow's four-stage growth process can be compared with the Gwan-wang (官旺, the peak of the cycle) in Daesoon Thought and the Po-tae (胞胎, gestation) in Donghak Thought.
While the Western growth-oriented view of humanity has driven the development of modern science and technology and achieved diverse forms of social development, the independent advancement of humanity — excluding Heaven and Earth — has paradoxically brought humanity to the brink of annihilation through the betrayal of Heaven and Earth. The Western view of humanity, which has loosened the reins of desire but has no way to tighten them again, has come to require a new alternative modernity.
b. The Eastern Contact-Transformative (接化的) View of Humanity
Unlike the West, which emphasizes the Heaven above Heaven, the East emphasizes Heaven and Earth as the Heaven within Heaven — that is, immanent Heaven — and the role of the human being in connecting Heaven and Earth. Accordingly, the Eastern view of humanity has the character of contact-transformation (接化, jeokhwa) in which correlative thinking (相關的 思惟, sangkwan-jeok sayui) is prominent. Subsequent studies in contemporary philosophy following Kim Sang-il have been carried out by Shim Gwang-hyeon and others concerning the correlative thinking that enables an understanding of the Eastern view of humanity. The contact-transformative view of humanity in the East is prominent in the aesthetic characteristics of Korea among Korea, China, and Japan, owing to the nature of correlative thinking.¹⁴
Shim Gwang-hyeon defined the characteristics of Korean culture as fractal, made a detailed comparison with Western postmodernism, and applied the concept across Korean culture as a whole. Shim Gwang-hyeon argues that the Eastern science of repeating identical structures is expressed in a nutshell as fractal structure,¹⁵ and that the reason Korean Wave (Hallyu) receives support from people around the world is that all cultures based on yin-yang and the Five Phases (陰陽五行) share the most fractal characteristics in the world.¹⁶ The contact-transformative view of humanity in the East is well manifested in these fractal characteristics.
Fractal theory is the theory that the structure of the whole appears in the structure of the parts — as in the word "fractal," meaning part — and that no matter how complex the universe may be, like a computer, it consists of a repetition of identical structures, like the repetition of 0 and 1 analogous to yin and yang. The typical Eastern fractal theory is the yin-yang and Five Phases system, which holds that the yin-yang and Five Phases structure of Heaven also exists in the Earth and in humanity, so that knowing the yin-yang and Five Phases structure of humanity allows one to know the Earth and the principles of Heaven as well. This has been expressed in the East as principle (理, ri), and the Eastern contact-transformative view of humanity holds that since human beings simultaneously possess the principles of Heaven and Earth, they are beings who can and must participate in the nurturing transformation (化育, hwayuk) of Heaven and Earth.
The Eastern contact-transformative view of humanity is similar to the Western growth-oriented view of humanity in that it holds a high estimation of human capacity, but the difference is that in the East, Heaven and Earth are not the object for human capacity to actualize upon; rather, it is the reverse — human capacity is the gift of Heaven and Earth, and human beings are beings who owe a debt of gratitude to Heaven and Earth. Because Heaven and Earth in the East were not matter and form but rather assimilation and condensation that nurture and transform all things, the Eastern intellectual gave priority to the anxious concern of not being able to conform to and participate in Heaven and Earth's nurturing effort, over the existential concern of individual growth.
With Western modernization, the Eastern contact-transformative view of humanity was dismissed even by Eastern intellectuals as a pre-modern subject for enlightenment; however, with the exchange between East and West, it is being re-evaluated in diverse ways today. First, the scholar who extended the correlative thinking of the East to the level of Western cognitive psychology is Choi In-cheol. Through joint research with Nisbett, Choi In-cheol demonstrated the correlative cognition of Eastern thinking from a cognitive-psychological standpoint, thereby founding the academic field in this area. Through their research, the claim that the East and West are characterized respectively by collectivity and individuality has been confirmed even through contemporary psychological experiments.¹⁷
The person who concretely extended Choi In-cheol's research to Eastern psychology is Jo Geung-ho. Jo Geung-ho demonstrated that the Eastern cognitive system, which grasps the part from the whole, influences the psychological and ethical views of human beings, and that in the East — particularly in Confucianism — this created a system of Confucian psychology different from that of the West.¹⁸ In reality, the East has consistently emphasized the well-rounded doctrine of the mean (中庸) over specialization.¹⁹
The scholar who extended correlative thinking to the realm of language pedagogy is Jo Ok-gu. Jo Ok-gu explained the difference between the traditional Eastern education using the Thousand Character Classic (千字文), which begins by teaching "Heaven (天) and Earth (地)," and the Western-style modern education that begins with "Yeong-hee and Cheol-su" as a difference in the cognitive systems of East and West, and proposed that the correlative thinking of the East can become an alternative science to modern civilization.²⁰
Although senior scholars such as Yi O-ryeong joined in and proposed theories to counter Western analytical thinking with Eastern correlative thinking, the person who synthesized these theories and comprehensively explained the system of correlative thinking is Pak Jae-ju. Pak Jae-ju organized the matter comprehensively around the thought of Whitehead.²¹
Following the Eastern generative (生成論的) mode of thinking, which proceeds from above downward, the position of the human being in the universe within correlative thinking is that of a being who possesses all the attributes of Heaven and Earth and thereby becomes a being in contact-transformation (接化) with Heaven and Earth. Accordingly, Heaven and Earth require human beings for the mediation of Heaven and Earth, and bestow upon humanity the most quintessential energy (氣, gi) of Heaven and Earth.
The energy (氣) of yin-yang and the Five Phases flows through Heaven and Earth; what is quintessential becomes human beings, and the dregs become things. Among the quintessential, what is quintessential within the quintessential becomes sages and worthies; what is dregs within the quintessential becomes the foolish and the unworthy.²²
A human being born through the contact-transformation of the energy of Heaven and Earth bears the obligation to participate together with Heaven and Earth in the nurturing transformation of all things. Heaven and Earth nurture and transform humanity through sincerity (誠), reverence (敬), and faith (信), and human beings become beings who repay them in kind through sincerity, reverence, and faith.²³
Only one who performs sincerity (誠) to the utmost throughout the world can fully realize their own nature (性). One who can fully realize their own nature can fully realize the nature of others. One who can fully realize the nature of others can fully realize the nature of things. One who can fully realize the nature of things can assist the nurturing transformation of Heaven and Earth. One who assists the nurturing transformation of Heaven and Earth can then participate together with Heaven and Earth.²⁴
In the passage above, the contact-transformative human being appears as a being who has each received the energy of Heaven and Earth — what is called xing (性, nature/innate nature) — and who returns it in its fullness to Heaven and Earth. Ames and Hall, who have translated Eastern thought through correlative thinking, translate the Zhongyong (中庸, The Doctrine of the Mean) as "Focusing on the Familiar" and argue that when sincerity (誠, cheng) of Heaven and Earth is interpreted through the Western substantialist worldview, it should be interpreted as "Creativity" in the sense Whitehead uses in his process thought as a postmodern philosopher. Whitehead himself is said to have remarked on this matter:
In all philosophic theory there is an ultimate which we call creative. [...] In the philosophy of organism this ultimate is termed 'creativity.' [...] In monistic philosophies, [...] this ultimate is 'God,' sometimes also called 'the Absolute.' In such monistic schemes the ultimate is illegitimately allowed the final 'eminent reality,' overriding that of a final actuality. From this point of view, the philosophy of organism seems closer to some strains of Indian, and Chinese, philosophy than to Western Asiatic, or European, thought.²⁵
When sincerity (誠) is interpreted as creativity, both Heaven and Earth's giving birth to human beings (生人, saengin) and human beings' returning it are creativity. The concept of creativity is central to contact-transformation (接化). Although the Eastern contact-transformative view of humanity sought harmony with nature and did not pursue unreasonable development, it became fixed in correlative thinking, entered a state of rigidity in which the thinking prior to correlative thinking — that is, the Heaven above Heaven — was forgotten and new things were rejected, and was thus unable to adequately respond to Western critiques such as those of Matteo Ricci. It was therefore only after the Western shock that the East began to seek an indigenous modernity.
From the standpoint of Yi Yeong-nan's theory of liminality, following Heaven (1) and Earth (2, 1+2), the human being (3, 1+2, 1+2+3) is capable of transforming once more beyond the human into a third kind of being (1+2+3=1′), and this liminal quality of transformability becomes the contact-transformative characteristic of the human being. Since human beings possess yin and yang bestowed by Heaven and Earth — namely, the hun soul (魂) and the po soul (魄) — they can change by themselves and thereby become knowing persons (知人, jiin) capable of recognizing the cosmic performance of Heaven and Earth's nurturing transformation. Furthermore, human beings must reach the point of directly performing in the universe themselves. In the view of humanity of indigenous modernity arising from the Western shock, liminality prepares for the realization of the ideal view of humanity.
c. The Collision and Mutual Overcoming (相克化) of Eastern and Western Views of Humanity in the Modern Era
The Collision of Views of Humanity
Even before East and West made contact with each other, the Eastern and Western views of humanity already contained numerous problems within themselves. As the Eastern and Western views of humanity developed independently, the shortcomings of each became more pronounced. First, in the case of the Four Elements (地水火風, earth-water-fire-wind), when the fifth element was absolutized into a monotheistic framework, the system of spiritual beings (神明, sinmyeong) of the Four Elements first disappeared in the West.²⁶ In a View of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity weakened by the Four Elements, the spiritual beings of the Four Elements are dismissed and expelled, and the Heaven-humanity relationship is privatized into a covenantal relationship between a single God and human beings. Human beings are reduced to sinners before the monotheistic God, becoming beings who must repent and be saved, granted status to enter paradise only after death. In the East as well, as correlative thinking solidified, the discrimination between the noble class (yangban) and commoners (sangnom) intensified. This situation encountered a moment of transformation with the exchange between East and West.
Just as in the economic law that bad money drives out good, when East and West make contact with each other the advantages of both are exchanged, but the shortcomings of their views of humanity become more pronounced. As East and West came into contact, the West's transcendence-oriented view of humanity first shifted to an immanence-oriented view of humanity. Having learned from Matteo Ricci that an ethical human society is possible without a transcendent God, the West no longer sought salvation through God, and the place of God came to be filled by material reality.
The collision of Eastern and Western views of humanity begins with the age of imperialism, when the West — having attained its modernity through Eastern thought — strengthened its national power through policies of wealth and military might. As East and West collided, the transcendent Heaven of the Four Elements, which had originally been the mediator of the Four Elements as the fifth element, lost its attribute as an immanent god and appeared as a transcendent god. Under this transcendent monotheistic God, the earth was offered as a domain of domination and conquest available to human beings, and the East was no less subject to this.
The Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity of East and West, despite their apparent differences, share common origins when traced back to antiquity. The Thirty-Six Heavens found in Daesoon Thought also appear in the Taoist View of Heaven of the Thirty-Six Heavens, which is connected to a common Eastern and Western origin of Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity predating Buddhism. The Taoist Thirty-Six Heavens cosmology found in the Taoist Lingbao scriptures (靈寶經, Yŏngboggyeong) is said to be related to the Buddhist Twenty-Eight Heavens cosmology found in the Abhidharmakośa (阿毘達磨俱舍論).²⁷ The Buddhist Twenty-Eight Heavens are divided vertically into the realm of desire (欲界), the realm of form (色界), and the formless realm (無色界), while the Taoist Thirty-Six Heavens are said to be divided with the horizontal meaning of the four directions — east, west, south, and north. However, the Buddhist Twenty-Eight Heavens are also said to be related to the twenty-eight lunar mansions of astronomy (天文 28宿), as is the case with Taoism. The Abhidharmakośa, in which the Buddhist Twenty-Eight Heavens first appears, is regarded as a Hinayana scripture considered to be the teaching of Buddhism, but the theory of the Buddhist Twenty-Eight Heavens is regarded as a legacy of the Indo-European trifunctional system predating the establishment of Buddhism, which is said to derive from common astronomical thought shared by East and West.²⁸
The trifunctional system is a theory holding that, across the vast region of ancient India and Europe sharing a common language, both myth and social organization commonly display a system analogous to Heaven-Earth-Humanity: a religious class like Heaven — the Brahman; a warrior class like humanity — the Kshatriya (刹利種); and a productive class like the earth — the Vaishya-Shudra lineage. Dumézil, who first discovered the trifunctional system, surveyed ancient cultures in more than fifty languages, and found that the trifunctional system appears commonly in Greco-Roman myth, including the Trojan War, and in Hindu mythology as well. In the case of the Trojan War in Greek mythology, it is said to have been a war among Aphrodite, who symbolizes production and beauty; Hera, who symbolizes religion; and Athena, who symbolizes politics.²⁹ In India, Mitra of the Maitreya lineage — which appears in Buddhism as well — presides over religion together with Varuna, and Vajra, the thunder god of the Geumgangsan lineage, presides over politics together with Indra.³⁰ The reason why pre-Buddhist teachings are included in the Abhidharmakośa, held to be the unique teachings of Buddhism, is said to be connected to the process by which the doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism — which contradict those of Hinayana Buddhism — were accommodated into Buddhism. According to Sasaki Shizuka (佐佐木閑), renowned for his scientific interpretation of Buddhist scriptures, the scope of what could be accommodated as Buddhist was greatly expanded through two successive compilations of Buddhist texts (結集), as appears in Ashoka's edicts.³¹ Accordingly, Geumgangsan — which plays a major role in the Buddhist cosmological view that also appears in Daesoon Thought — has a structure forming a trifunctional system together with Vajra (Vajra), the ancient Indian mythological thunder god.
If the Buddhist trifunctional system has the character of vertical time, the Chinese View of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity — transformed through the exchange between ancient East and West — is marked more prominently by the View of the Three Powers (三才, samjae), arranged as a spatial configuration of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. The Taoist cosmology of the Thirty-Six Heavens contains within itself the Buddhist cosmology of the Twenty-Eight Heavens.³² In the case of the East Asian View of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity, where spatial arrangement is emphasized, the driving force of the Three Powers cycle also appears not as the individual karmic cycle of rebirth but as the contest (勝負) between ancestors and descendants. Accordingly, in East Asian Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity, mythologically, the paradigmatic civilizational people, the Gonggong tribe (共工族), appears as an underground civilizational deity, and its remnants appear as underground deities.³³
Western Learning (西學) — Catholicism — also reflects the Indo-European trifunctional system in its View of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. Zoroastrianism, commonly regarded as the origin of the Abrahamic religions, likewise emphasizes the afterlife heavens and underworld based on the trifunctional system originating with the god Mitra, who is in turn the origin of Maitreya.³⁴
Although the Western View of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity, represented by the trifunctional system, and the Eastern View of the Three Powers, represented by Heaven-Earth-Humanity, share common ground, the two Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity also differ not only in the emphasis on time versus space but also in the manner of distinguishing the creator of the three realms from the three realms themselves. The Western View of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity, compared to the Eastern View of the Three Powers, has a creator who continually intervenes — and even in Western Learning (西學), all the gods of the celestial, terrestrial, and human realms disappear, and a monotheistic system arises. By contrast, in the Eastern View of the Three Powers, the creator appears as a hidden God (Deus absconditus). Since the Supreme God (上帝, Sangje) who appears in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought simultaneously displays attributes of both the Eastern hidden God and the Western monotheistic God, Lao Siguang (勞思光, 1927–2012) notes that "in ancient Chinese thought, Spirit (神, shen) is different from Judaic divinity, and when referring to a monotheistic deity like the Judaic God, 'Heaven (天)' or 'Lord/Supreme God (帝/上帝)' was used."³⁵ Thus Western Learning and Taoism come to appear similar in certain respects.
The common origin inherent in Eastern and Western views of humanity becomes the background for the formation of an indigenous modern view of humanity as East and West come into contact. The Eastern view of humanity, submerged in correlative thinking, finds the occasion for transformation through the intervention of the transcendent Heaven, while the West also finds the occasion to re-establish the immanent Heaven of the East that had been materialized.
The Mutual Overcoming (相克化) of the Heaven-Humanity (天人) and Earth-Humanity (地人) Relationships
As East and West developed independently, the Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity based on yin-yang and the Five Phases and on the Four Elements each became mutually antagonistic (相克化, sangkeukhwa) in different directions, but the two thought systems became more refined. In the yin-yang and Five Phases worldview, the Heaven-humanity relationship transitioned from the personalistic Heaven-humanity relationship of the Shijing (詩經, Book of Odes) and Shujing (書經, Book of Documents)³⁶ to the principle-based (理法的) Heaven-humanity relationship of the moral distinction between the good king Tang (湯王) and the evil king Jie (桀王); and during the Warring States period, the theories of yin-yang, the Three Powers, and the Five Phases were theoretically combined,³⁷ after which, with the introduction of Buddhism, the three realms (三界, samgye) — the celestial, terrestrial, and human realms — in which principle-and-law became substantiated, were completed in Taoism.³⁸ The transcendent system of spiritual beings completed in the Jade Pivot Scripture (玉樞寶經, Okchu boggyeong) also weakened, and the immanent yin-yang relationship between humans and spirits faded.
Examining the West's relation between the divine and humanity before Matteo Ricci — before the collision of Eastern and Western Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity — we find a structure in which there was an all-knowing, all-powerful, absolute monotheistic God who governs all affairs of the universe, beneath whom angels carry out the work of the one God only in special circumstances, with human souls in heaven and hell. The world's views on death, it is said, appear in two forms: salvation and avatar.³⁹ Max Weber also argues that the world's religions are divided into salvation religions, which rely on the power of another, and non-salvation religions, which rely on one's own power.⁴⁰ Recent research argues that, even within East Asia, the Eurasian mythology — particularly Korean mythology as represented by Maitreya and Dangun — has a threefold differentiating Manaism of Heaven (天), yang (陽), fire (火), and immortality (仙), while Chinese mythology as represented by Buddhism and Taoism has a dual structure Animism of earth (地), yin (陰), water (水), and the Way (道).⁴¹ In the West, the spiritual beings (天地神明) governing nature had been forgotten, but the East retained the advantage of preserving the memory of these forgotten spiritual beings. The Western monotheistic God, influenced by nomadic culture and wheat agriculture, was — like the Supreme God in the East — a being capable of doing all things arbitrarily without fixed laws rather than governing in accordance with law; and angels, unlike the spiritual beings of the East, were not beings charged with specific duties within a particular domain. Accordingly, the greatest sin for humans and angels was not the failure to fulfill one's own designated duty — as in the East — but disobedience to the commands of a monotheistic God who changes arbitrarily. The authority of the Western monotheistic God was oppressive but firm.
The transcendent God presupposed in the Western traditional Heaven-humanity relationship is presented by Western thought represented by Christianity. Christianity, which expressed itself in Aristotelian terms, also presents the model of the transcendent being in Aristotle's model of the fifth element. Aristotle's God is a being who oversees from a position transcending the cycle of the Four Elements, like the fifth element in the Four Elements cosmology. As symbolized by "Heaven is the Way, Earth is Virtue" (天道地德), earth in the East has traditionally been expressed by the attribute of "virtue" (德, deok). Accordingly, "virtue" becomes a primary element in comparing the Eastern and Western views of the Earth. In particular, Aristotle's concept of virtue — which played a central role in constructing the Western worldview — becomes an important subject of comparison with the concept of virtue in Daesoon Thought.⁴²
The transcendent Heaven of the fifth element — which had originally been the mediator of the Four Elements as the fifth element — lost its attribute as an immanent god and appeared as a transcendent god. In the West, as modernity arrived, the yin-yang and Five Phases cosmology of the Four Elements retained only the character of substance while excluding the correlative nature of the Four Elements. Accordingly, the arrogance of humanity was doubled in accordance with the deification of a single transcendent Lord of Heaven.
Not only the Heaven-humanity relationship but also the Earth-humanity relationship became mutually antagonistic. In the West, the earth had been matter and an object of domination, but after the exchange between East and West it was further reduced to an object of manipulation through immanent science and technology. In the East, the role of the earth became fixed within the Heaven-Earth relationship, and the earth was reduced to a being that merely follows the directives of Heaven.
The Heaven-humanity relationship was, at its inception, a mutually beneficial (相生, sangsaeng) relationship in both East and West. In the West, the human world was the place where the Ideas (理念) were projected, and God created human beings in His own image. In the East, the human realm was the place where cultivation (修鍊, surryon) was undertaken in order to ascend to a higher place in the realm of spiritual beings. However, as the Heaven-humanity and Earth-humanity relationships became mutually antagonistic, the development of the heavenly realm through the human realm was halted, and the nurturing transformation of Heaven and Earth also ceased. Even the entire cosmos accelerated toward chaos and entered a state on the brink of annihilation. Accordingly, the rearrangement of the sacred and profane — that is, the liminal aspect of modernity — came to be required in the Heaven-humanity and Earth-humanity relationships.
d. Liminality in Donghak Thought's Yeongse-bulgmang (永世不忘) View of Humanity
Donghak Thought's Yeongse-bulgmang (永世不忘) View of Humanity
The transformation of the View of Heaven through the intervention of the transcendent Heaven also brings about transformations in the View of Earth and the View of Humanity. Just as the concept of the earth is changed by the transcendent Heaven into the concepts of harmony (造化, jowa) and gi-transformation (氣化, gihwa), thereby elevating the status of the earth so that Heaven and Earth become equal in status, human beings are likewise elevated to beings capable of communing with the transcendent Heaven through "My mind is your mind" (吾心卽汝心, o-sim jeuk yeo-sim) — that is, through sharing the same mind — and their status is elevated to that of beings equal in standing to Heaven and Earth.
The view of humanity in Donghak Thought, like the view of the Earth, gradually reveals itself as Donghak Thought unfolds. As Donghak Thought develops, Suun's attitude toward Donghak Thought changes. It continues to change through the Heavenly Dialogue (天師問答, Cheonsaemundap), the activities of spreading virtue (布德, podeok), the martyrdom for the Way (殉道, sundo)⁴³ — which means dying for the Way, as in martyrdom for the faith — and after the martyrdom. The view of humanity in Donghak Thought changes particularly around the time of Suun's martyrdom for the Way.
Although the founder of Donghak, Choe Su-un, carried out a near-suicidal return to Gyeongju and, as expected, perished at the place of execution, the spark he had kindled began to revive with great difficulty through the efforts of Choe Si-hyeong. Choe Si-hyeong revived the Yongdamyusa (龍潭遺詞) and Donggyeongedaejeon (東經大典), which Suun had painstakingly left behind but had all but disappeared, by recalling them from memory and reconstructing them with the help of companions. The Yongdamyusa and Donggyeongedaejeon reconstructed by Choe Si-hyeong were distributed throughout the country, and Donghak revived in the form of the Donghak Peasant Movement. Jeungsan likened this to Chiyou (蚩尤), saying that the disruption caused by Donghak had begun.⁴⁴
The Donghak Peasant Revolutionary Movement became an unprecedented great movement in the history of Korean peasant revolutions and appeared to be succeeding, but it brought about Japanese intervention and thus became the greatest tragic movement. However, the will of the Supreme God (上帝, Sangje) manifested in Donghak was widely spread and left behind hope.⁴⁵ Those who survived among Donghak believers came to participate again in new religious movements or in the various movements that were transformations of Donghak.
Donghak can be said to be the new religion that appeared earliest among the new religions. The influence of Donghak on the new religions, based on research into some of them, extends even to the Unification Church.⁴⁶ This is because references related to Donghak appear in both Won Buddhism (圓佛敎) and the Unification Church. Donghak is also the field studied by the greatest number of intellectuals in the revival of new religions from the 1980s onward. Conversely, the claims of the new religions are contrary to those of Donghak. In the new religions that appeared after Donghak, it is generally claimed that Donghak was a prelude to the emergence of those post-Donghak new religions. The claims of Donghak and those of the post-Donghak new religions can be understood by examining the common doctrinal system they share. Among Donghak's doctrinal systems, the one most commonly shared with the post-Donghak new religions is the circularity of correlative thinking.
If the influence of Donghak on the post-Donghak new religions is controversial, then the influence of existing religions on Donghak is itself problematic. The relationship between Donghak's doctrinal system and existing religions is one of the major research topics for Donghak scholars. However, while the question of Donghak's affinity with Confucianism, Taoism, and Christianity has been extensively studied, it has not yet been studied in depth from the perspective of correlative thinking — namely, the circular quality of Donghak's doctrinal system.
Donghak, like the Way of the Immortals (仙道, Seondo), formally uses talismans and recites incantations, but internally possesses the system of Neo-Confucianism, including safeguarding the nation and pacifying the people (輔國安民, boguk anmin), loyalty-filial piety-chastity (忠孝烈), and sincerity-reverence-faith (誠敬信). It also shares the term "Lord of Heaven" (天主, Cheonju) with Western Learning. As Daesoon Jinrihoe's evaluation of Donghak summarizes, Donghak advocated the Way of the Immortals but failed because of the Neo-Confucian conventions (典憲, jeonheon).⁴⁷
The circular doctrinal system of Donghak — which has been re-evaluated since the 1980s centering on the Donghak Academic Society — is the Triple Taegeuk (三太極, samtaegeuk) system shared by not only Donghak but most new religions.⁴⁸ While Donghak's doctrinal core during the institutional period was the circularity of correlative thinking, the unique Views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity that appear in Donghak's doctrinal system have not been well studied.
What had previously been highly praised in Donghak — the circularity of correlative thinking — was not so much an internal evaluation of the doctrinal system as an external one: namely, the egalitarianism of the Donghak Peasant Movement. "Mosieum" (모심, Serving/Enshrining) is said to carry the meaning of equality in its practical dimension. The meaning is that all Donghak believers should serve with utmost devotion the Lord of Heaven (天主, Cheonju) enshrined within themselves through inner cultivation such as incantation and prayer, and should also keep in mind that those others with whom one continually comes into contact in daily life are likewise beings who enshrine the Lord of Heaven within their own interiors, and treat them as the Lord of Heaven. The following passage — frequently cited by Donghak researchers when emphasizing that Donghak's Heavenly Lord is also an entity interior to the human being — in fact contains both of these meanings together: "Do not trust me at all; trust the Heavenly Lord. He is enshrined within your body — why seek afar what is close at hand?" (『Yongdamyusa』, "Gyohun-ga"). The phrase "He is enshrined within your body" refers ontologically to the fact that a person is already a being who enshrines the Heavenly Lord, while the phrase "Do not trust me at all; trust the Heavenly Lord" refers practically to the egalitarian view that the act of "mosieum" (serving) must take place in both inward and outward directions.⁴⁹ Donghak claims that the circulation that appears in the post-Donghak new religions is due to Donghak's influence, but since both share the Triple Taegeuk tradition that appears in common with Donghak, it is difficult to regard the very diverse forms of correlative thinking that appear after Donghak as being solely due to Donghak's influence.
Bullyeongiryeon (不然其然), which appears at the very end of the Donggyeongedaejeon, is said — viewed in the overall context of the Donggyeongedaejeon — to constitute the content that corresponds to the transformation of the human being's status and the proof of the existence of God in Donghak Thought. The Donggyeongedaejeon focuses primarily on the thought of the Supreme God who revealed himself to Choe Su-un, rather than on Choe Su-un's own thought. In fact, in the Dowon Giseo (道源記書), in which Haewol recorded his conversations with Suun, Suun had been continuously receiving teachings from the Supreme God, and after the teachings from the Supreme God were cut off, he had a premonition of his own death and became very anxious.
After Choe Su-un, Donghak also shows discontinuity with Choe Su-un's Donghak. Within the Donggyeongedaejeon or Yongdamyusa itself, the earlier and later periods are also evaluated differently. Insofar as discontinuity is shown even within Donghak, it can be seen that Donghak and the other new religions are very distant from one another.
Yi Gang-o's data on new religions focuses mainly on the merging and splitting of religious organizations, attending to the commonalities rather than the differences of doctrinal systems. Donghak's view that the post-Donghak new religions are under Donghak's influence is because the figures who believed in the post-Donghak new religions were mainly Donghak members. Donghak members, following Donghak's failure, became active in Southern Buddhism, Won Buddhism, and other movements.
The doctrinal basis for Donghak's claim that the post-Donghak new religions are due to Donghak's influence is that Donghak also synthesized the Three Teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. However, there are many aspects in which Donghak has yet to substantially transcend the framework of Confucianism: Buddhist influence is almost entirely absent in Donghak; and while it recites incantations and uses talismans, it does not emphasize the world of spiritual beings including ancestral spirits (先靈神, seonryeong-sin). There are also studies that connect Donghak's Bullyeongiryeon with Buddhism and link Choe Su-un — who always centered his activities on hermitages — to Buddhism.⁵⁰
It can rather be said that Donghak's emphasis on the circularity of correlative thinking came after the emergence of the post-Donghak new religions, when Donghak reorganized its theoretical system after the March First Movement (三一運動) of 1919. Under Japan's suppression policy against religions without doctrinal systems, Donghak proceeded to establish its doctrinal system centered on Yi Don-hwa. Today there is a movement to understand Donghak according to a cyclical principle, centering on Kim Yong-ok's theory — which claims that Donghak's original name was Mugeuk Daedo (無極大道) — and on the theory of mountain-ridge circulation (山均論). Kim Ji-ha regards Bullyeongiryeon, Yullyo (律呂), and others as complex-systems cyclical principles. Kim Ji-ha states: "The key symbol of the Chinese historical perspective and the Book of Changes (周易), centered on Heaven, yang, and cosmos, is the Taegeuk, which proceeds from yin-yang, Four Symbols (四象), and Eight Trigrams (八卦) — these are the stable numbers, the order of the cosmos. In contrast, Gung-gung (弓弓) consists of the dynamic numbers 1·3·5·7·9. The unique meaning and numerical order of our country, constituted by the Three Ultimates (三極) of Heaven-Earth-Humanity — 1·3·5·7·9 — is precisely chaos."⁵¹
Liminality Aspects of the Yeongse-bulgmang (永世不忘) View of Humanity
The aspects of the Donghak view of humanity, elevated in status by the transcendent Heaven, appear differently in the earlier and later periods. In the early Heavenly Dialogue (天師問答), the elevation of humanity's status to a position capable of enshrining the Supreme God through sijeongju (侍天主, Serving the Lord of Heaven) was the result of Suun's painstaking efforts.
Just as the Jeongyeong states that those who participated in the Donghak Peasant Movement outwardly advocated safeguarding the nation and pacifying the people while inwardly harbored ambitions of becoming kings and nobles, people easily gravitate toward material things in difficult circumstances; but Suun, like Jesus, refuses even the proposals from Heaven. For Suun, who had endured the hardships of over forty years, the temptation of material things held no attraction — like it held none for Lü Dongbin (呂洞賓). After continued trials and Suun's hunger strike, the Supreme God revealed to Suun the elevation of humanity's status through the phrase "My mind is your mind" (吾心卽汝心).
However, in the end, even in the later period, Suun does not fully comprehend the purport of that "My mind is your mind." Although humanity's status was elevated to a position capable of enshrining the Supreme God through sijeongju, Suun did not fully understand the purport because he could not transcend the Neo-Confucian conventions. Suun resolves the problem of humanity through Bullyeon (不然, "it is not so") and Giryeon (其然, "it is so"). "What is difficult to understand is Bullyeon; what is easy to understand is Giryeon." If the world that human reason can understand and experience is Giryeon, then Bullyeon is the world that human reason cannot understand and cannot experience. In that case, Bullyeon corresponds to principle (理, ri), the Way (道), the One Mind (一心), and Heaven (天). But what is important here is that Bullyeon and Giryeon are not binary opposites. "My mind is your mind" comes to be understood at the level that, just as one awakens to truth beyond experience through experience, and attains enlightenment from things before one through experience, so one can reach ultimate reality through experience.⁵² While Bullyeongiryeon is sometimes understood by Donghak thought researchers as an excellent epistemology, compared to the Realm of Consummate Union with the Way (道通眞境, Dotong jinggyeong) in Daesoon Thought, it was a somewhat distant understanding.
The Yeongse-bulgmang view of humanity in Donghak Thought differed from Western Learning in two major respects. The first representative difference is the abolition of the distinction between priest and laity. Donghak Thought criticizes the strict distinction between priest and laity in Western Learning. While Donghak Thought highly evaluates Western Learning for viewing human beings more equally than Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, it sharply criticizes the class difference between priest and laity. The prominent aspect of the Yeongse-bulgmang view of humanity in Donghak Thought, from the perspective of the religious history of ideas concerning the view of humanity, is that it did not draw a distinction between priest and laity in the scope of "sijeongju" (Serving the Lord of Heaven). Accordingly, in Donghak Thought, the distinction between laity and priest disappears — like the non-churchism (無敎會主義) of Ham Seok-heon and others today. This constitutes the significance of the jeopjuje (接主制, the system of regional assembly leaders) as a characteristic of the Donghak view of humanity. If the Western Reformation abolished the privileges of the priest (神父, sinbu), Donghak Thought abolished even the privileges of the pastor (牧師, moksa).
The second characteristic of the Yeongse-bulgmang view of humanity that distinguishes it from Western Learning is the difference between "each doing as his own heart dictates" (各自爲心, gakjawisin) and "each knowing and not deviating" (各知不移, gakji buri). In Western Learning, the Lord of Heaven was external, and the surface religious characteristic was emphasized first; but in Donghak Thought's sijeongju, the characteristic of a deep religion (深層宗敎) in which the Lord of Heaven is internal is strongly manifested. Accordingly, the method of practice also takes the form of faith as "each doing as his own heart dictates" — as in Calvinism, proof of salvation through worldly success, as Weber pointed out — in the case of Western Learning. This became the foundation of Western modernity. However, in Donghak Thought, since the proof of salvation lies internally, it resides in moral cultivation (道德的 修行) — namely, the practice of reflective ethics from within, "each knowing and not deviating."
If the characteristics of the Donghak view of humanity that are contrasted with Western Learning are the abolition of the distinction between priest and laity and the emphasis on reflective ethics over worldly success, the characteristic of the Donghak view of humanity that is contrasted with Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism appears as the emphasis on the microcosmic human being. While later Donghak extends this even further to the term "Innaecheon" (人乃天, "Man is Heaven"), in early Donghak the view of humanity is above all else a humanity within Heaven and Earth. However, through sijeongju, human beings become beings who — through the cultivation of "having spiritual divinity within and gi-transformation without" (內有神靈 外有氣化, naeyusinyeong oeyugihwa) — can participate in the nurturing transformation of Heaven and Earth according to the Supreme God's non-active transformative power (無爲而化).
The difference between Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought's views of humanity arose from the question of whether the scope of "having spiritual divinity within and gi-transformation without" can be extended to "Innaecheon." The central doctrine of nineteenth-century Donghak was sijeongju — Serving the Lord of Heaven. But as Donghak was renamed Cheondogyo (天道敎, Religion of the Heavenly Way) and organizational restructuring took place, the core doctrine shifted to Innaecheon (人乃天, "Man is Heaven"), and the personal nature of Heaven (天) was said to be greatly weakened.⁵³ In the course of its subsequent development, Donghak Thought — which evolved into Cheondogyo — extended the scope of "having spiritual divinity within and gi-transformation without" to Innaecheon. This led some to criticize Daesoon Thought — which defines the human being only as a being who participates in the nurturing transformation of Heaven and Earth — as a pre-modern thought. The view of humanity in early Donghak Thought is in fact more concretely developed in Daesoon Thought.
The view of humanity in Donghak Thought is extended to the term "Earthly Kingdom of Heaven" (地上天國, jisang cheonguk) — which manifests when the sijeongju-type human beings of Donghak Thought gather together. In later Donghak, "earthly immortal" (地上神仙, jisang sinseon) comes to be understood not as the result of the exchange between the human realm and the earthly realm — as in early Donghak — but as meaning someone who has awakened to sijeongju. The term "Earthly Kingdom of Heaven," formed by the gathering of earthly immortals, likewise carried in early Donghak the implication of a change in the status of earth and Heaven according to their mutual exchange — that is, a transition from "Heaven is revered, Earth is inferior" (天尊地卑) to "Heaven is revered, Earth is also revered" (天尊地尊). In later Donghak, however, it is described as the world of indigenous modernity created by the gathering of sijeongju-type human beings. The concept of the Earthly Kingdom of Heaven in early Donghak is re-interpreted in Daesoon Thought.
The transcendent Heaven reactivated from the Eastern immanent Heaven in Donghak Thought brought great changes not only to the view of the Earth as the transformative action (氣化) of the Supreme God's non-active power, but also to the view of humanity. The human being in Donghak Thought is elevated to a being who can communicate directly with the transcendent Heaven. Accordingly, the sacred-profane relationship is restructured, and ordinary people came to interpret this as a rise in status — one where they could attain the positions of kings and nobles. As the expressions "Earthly Kingdom of Heaven" and "earthly immortal" suggest, the original intent of Donghak was to transcend Neo-Confucian conventions, but that intent was not fully realized. The view of humanity in Donghak Thought rearranged the sacred-profane relationship and provided ordinary people with the motivation to participate in the liminality of modernity, thereby providing the occasion for indigenous modernity.
Liminality Aspects of the "Having Spiritual Divinity Within" (內有神靈) Heaven-Humanity Relationship in Donghak Thought
While there are many studies that regard the defining characteristics of Donghak Thought as sijeongju and gaebyeok (開闢, Great Opening), research on "harmony" (造化, jowa) — the concept that connects these two — is rare. Harmony, the result of sijeongju, has been diversely interpreted in Donghak Thought as gi-transformation (氣化), supreme energy (至氣, jigi), and so on. Although the concept of jigi (至氣) is said to be a new concept, insofar as it lies within the extension of the concept of "gi" (氣), the most distinctive concept that distinguishes Donghak Thought from existing Western Learning and Neo-Confucianism is "harmony" (造化). When this harmony is applied to the interior of the human being, it is naeyusinyeong (內有神靈, having spiritual divinity within), and when applied to external individual everyday matters, it can be said to be gi-transformation (氣化). When this harmony is viewed from the Heaven-humanity relationship, it appears as spiritual divinity (神靈), and when viewed from the Earth-humanity relationship, it appears as non-active transformation (無爲而化) and harmony (造化) through gi-transformation (氣化).
In Donghak Thought, which emphasizes the Heaven above Heaven, the view of the Earth is likewise transformed into the gi-transformation action of the Supreme God; therefore, the relationship between Heaven and humanity is transformed into the relationship of naeyusinyeong (having spiritual divinity within).
The "harmony" of sijeongju manifests as naeyusinyeong (內有神靈) and also overcomes the Western Learning–style monotheistic Heaven-humanity relationship of divine transcendence and human inferiority (神尊人卑). Unlike the strictly distinguished monotheistic God of Western Learning, the Supreme God of sijeongju revives the realm of the Heaven-humanity unity (天人合一) that had been abandoned — as in "My mind is your mind." Donghak Thought, while the Heaven above Heaven intervened, also incorporated the concept of Heaven and Earth as the Heaven within Heaven — unlike Western Learning — so that ordinary believers could also be connected in heart to the Heaven above Heaven. Accordingly, Donghak Thought communed with the Heaven above Heaven, but unlike Western Learning, became a Heaven-humanity relationship without hierarchy between priest and laity; and thereby the relationship between society and the individual also changed.
In Donghak Thought, there was no discrimination in gi (氣) endowed from Heaven between the noble class and commoners — as in Neo-Confucianism — and no difference between priest and laity — as in Western Learning — and the status of human beings was elevated to beings who, as believers, can also possess the same mind as the Heaven above Heaven. Accordingly, the liminal aspect of indigenous modernity, in which the boundary between the sacred and the profane is rearranged, was realized in the Heaven-humanity and Earth-humanity relationships of Donghak Thought.
Liminality Aspects of the "Having Gi-transformation Without" (外有氣化) Earth-Humanity Relationship in Donghak Thought
The concept of "harmony" (造化) was also a major characteristic of nature at the time of Donghak Thought, but Neo-Confucianism primarily emphasized the characteristics of human society as propriety (凡節, beomjeol) and did not emphasize the characteristics of harmony as they appear in nature. In contrast to propriety — the orderly change of human society — the harmony of nature is a concept connected to the creativity that gives birth to new life; and while Joseon society at the time of Donghak overflowed with propriety, the culture that could nurture harmony and creativity was suppressed by Confucianism.
For the traditional eyes of the Joseon people of the time, Western Learning (西學), like Neo-Confucianism, suppressed the harmony and creativity that signify creation and evolution. The oppression of Western Learning's monotheistic God — which rendered ancestral rites superstitious and maintained a strict hierarchy between priest and laity — appeared as an authoritarianism surpassing that of Neo-Confucianism. Society thus found itself in a situation requiring a new antistructure,⁵⁴ and needed a new thought to harmonize these tensions.
Harmony was always the process of resolving problems of mutually contradictory contradiction. Like the harmony of yin and yang, and the harmony of the old and the new, harmony always presupposes opposing elements. In religious anthropology, the concept closest to harmony is the concept of liminality. Liminality, derived from the Latin word limen meaning "threshold" or "boundary," was a term coined by anthropologist Arnold van Gennep to denote the boundary point between opposing elements commonly found in most rites of passage he studied. For example, in a rite of passage such as a wedding, there are rituals of antistructural deviation between the period before the wedding and the period after — such as a honeymoon or the ritual of dongsangnyeo (動床禮). Indeed, at the gate where the rites of passage of daily life always occur, the West had the two-faced Janus and the East had the Taegeuk. The Taegeuk and Janus signified the permission of deviation at the boundary point — that is, harmony.
That sijeongju came to signify harmony — liminality — owes much to the Heaven-humanity relationship of divine transcendence and human inferiority (神尊人卑) in which mutual antagonism (相克) had been maximized at the time. At that time, commoners were beings full of turbid energy (濁氣) from the Neo-Confucian perspective and sinners from the perspective of Western Learning; but through sijeongju they were offered the liminality of being able to enshrine the Supreme God.
The transformation of the Heaven-humanity relationship that began with sijeongju — that is, the liminal Heaven-humanity relationship — expanded throughout society, centering on Donghak. Accordingly, the relationship between the earth and the human being — that is, the relationship between earth-based society and the human being — changed. It is said that Donghak was called not "believing" but "doing," and it manifested as the practice of antistructural acts of communitas — the antistructural society brought about by liminality. As creativity and "harmony" — which had been almost entirely disrespected through Neo-Confucianism of the Joseon period — came to be respected, the first change (gaebyeok) was in the treatment of women and children, who had been the most oppressed during the Joseon period.
The elevation in the status of the earth and human beings, brought about by the transformation of the View of Heaven through the intervention of the transcendent Heaven in Donghak Thought, caused the liminal aspect of an antistructural character to appear in the traditional Earth-humanity relationship. If in Neo-Confucianism the nobility (양반), who received the pure energy (清氣) of Heaven and Earth, maintained the sacred (聖) domain, then the common people, who received the turbid energy (濁氣), were situated in the profane (俗) domain; but change occurred through the elevation of the status of human beings. Now ordinary people secured the religious legitimacy to be able to become kings and nobles, and an indigenous rearrangement of the sacred-profane relationship took place.
Examining the Earth-humanity relationship in detail: compared to Heaven — which, resembling the nature of the hun soul (魂), can move freely — the Earth, resembling the nature of the po soul (魄) and having form, has the attribute of being heavy; and just as expressions such as "suppressing yin and respecting yang" (抑陰尊陽) and "yang is revered, yin is inferior" (陽尊陰卑) indicate, even in the East the Earth was a being that came as confinement to human beings. Just as the term "astronomy and geography" (天文地理) suggests, in the East the Earth was a being that restricted everyday life for human beings as a material law, like the principles of natural science. In the West, of course, the Earth was the place to which human beings were expelled from the Garden of Eden, and in Buddhism as well, the Earth was the breeding ground of suffering.
The harmony that Donghak Thought emphasized also brought change to the traditional relationship between the earth and human beings. Through sijeongju of Donghak Thought — enshrining Heaven — a new heaven was opened, and Donghak Thought created a new Earth-humanity relationship through gaebyeok (Great Opening).
Donghak Thought brought about the change in the role of the earth — previously prohibited — through the harmony of sijeongju. In Donghak Thought, the Earth-humanity relationship cycles through auspicious times past the lower half of the sixty-year cycle (下元甲, hawon gap).⁵⁵ The Earth-humanity relationship is represented by "talented people come from sacred land" (人傑地靈, ingeol jiryeong), and illustrious sages and able persons come to join as Donghak believers.⁵⁶
In Donghak Thought, the Earth is again transformed through gaebyeok into a place where the Earthly Kingdom of Heaven can come about and where one can become an earthly immortal. Through the Eastern learning (東學, Donghak) — whose principle of the earth differs from the West — Donghak Thought also obtains the power to overcome Western Learning on an earth that has been opened through gaebyeok. Donghak grants Korea the power to overcome the West in place of China, which was defeated by the West, and brings about the birth of a new state. The power of the East manifested in Donghak Thought — "making an oath at the Daebodan altar and avenging Korea's enmity against the cunning Western enemy that invaded China"⁵⁷ — enables Korea to prevail. (Here, the Daebodan [大報壇] was an altar first erected in 1705 during the reign of King Sukjong with the intent of commemorating the benevolence of the Wanli Emperor of the Ming dynasty, who had sent troops to help during the Imjin War; it was later renamed the Hwanggudan [圜丘壇].)
The changes in the Heaven-humanity and Earth-humanity relationships also bring changes in the perception of the status of human beings in society. As appears even in the interrogation of Jeon Myeong-suk (全明淑), the occasion for the Donghak Peasant Movement coincides with the project of "the whole country becoming the nobility (yangban)."⁵⁸ This appears in the Jeongyeong (典經) as follows:
Jeon Myeong-suk had in mind, when he raised the righteous army, the wish to make commoners into nobility and to make the lowly into the honored; therefore, upon death, he did well and became a magistrate of the underworld of Joseon.⁵⁹
Donghak Thought furthermore held an egalitarian vision that made those who participated in the Donghak Peasant Movement dream of advancement in their hearts, and aimed for all citizens to become officials. However, since the desire of the participants to become kings and nobles was still internalized, Donghak Thought was in a state of hasty pursuit (欲速不達, yoksok buldal) unable to complete itself in realizing the Earthly Kingdom of Heaven. The image of Korean people seen through the eyes of foreigners at the time was said to be a loss of the will to labor. In a situation where one's harvest was taken away, becoming a king or noble was the most realistic path. Indeed, in the Jeongyeong, many Donghak participants' actual reason for joining was to pursue the positions of king and noble:
As the Supreme God entered the twelfth month and completed the various works, He undertook the work of adjusting the degree of transgression (逆度). Gyeong-seok, Gwang-chan, and Nae-seong went to Daeheungni; Won-il went to the house of Sin Gyeong-won; and Hyeong-ryeol and Ja-hyeon departed for Donggok. The Supreme God told the remaining Mun Gong-sin, Hwang Eung-jong, and Sin Gyeong-su: "I had thought of using Gyeong-seok differently, as his sincerity (誠), reverence (敬), and faith (信) are utmost, but since he requests it himself, it cannot be helped." He also said: "Originally, Donghak advocated safeguarding the nation and pacifying the people, which was nothing more than a cry for the work of the Later Heaven; but each person harbored the desire to become a king, noble, general, or minister (王侯將相), and having failed to fulfill that wish, was dragged away and died — the number reaching tens of thousands. Resentment fills the heavens, and if those spiritual beings (神明) are left as they are, in the Later Heaven they will be entangled in the degree of transgression and governance will become disordered; therefore I am in the midst of determining the leader for the resolution of grievances (解冤) of those spiritual beings. Since Gyeong-seok spoke of the twelve nations, this is his own volunteering. His father was a leading figure of Donghak who was arrested and killed, and he himself also served as a Donghak general; so from now on, all the spiritual beings of Donghak have been sent to Gyeong-seok, and from this place the resolution of grievances of kings, nobles, generals, and ministers (王侯將相) shall begin." He then wrote on paper while forbidding the entry of outsiders, and concluded His words: "Observe in the future. Much money will be spent, and the number of people will be greater than in the year of Gabo (甲午, 1894). They must be released so that in the Later Heaven there will be no obstacle whatsoever."⁶⁰
The passage above shows that most people who had participated in Donghak outwardly proclaimed safeguarding the nation and pacifying the people, while inwardly harbored the intention of attaining positions of kings, nobles, generals, and ministers. The Earth-humanity relationship in Donghak Thought, which has the characteristic of "having gi-transformation without" (外有氣化), was thus extended in diverse directions.
FOOTNOTES
¹ The Western growth-oriented view of humanity has been studied in the fields of mythology and psychology. In mythology, the Western growth theory has been studied with a focus on individual growth, as in the hero's journey. Scholars such as Campbell interpret the entirety of world mythology as heroic mythology. The East, unlike the West, even in the case of growth, gives priority to the celestial function of Heaven and Earth — expressed in the sequence of gestation, embryo, nurturing, life, desire, maturity, governance, kingship, decline, sickness, death, and burial (胞胎養生浴帶冠旺衰病死葬) — that is, to the growth of Heaven and Earth itself. Cf. Jeongyeong, "Saving the People" (濟生), 43. In Western psychology, the growth-oriented view of humanity argues for greater emphasis on growth by claiming that the modern Western view of humanity — as found in psychoanalysis and behaviorism — has been skewed toward a negative view of the human being. Eastern psychologists evaluate Western views of humanity — such as psychoanalysis, which sees all human desires as transformations of sexual drives, and behaviorism, which sees them as material desires — as comparatively self-affirmative views of the human being compared to the East. Jo Geung-ho, System of Confucian Psychology III: The Pursuit of Goals in Human Life and the Dream of Universal Psychology (유학 심리학의 체계 Ⅲ: 인간 삶의 목표 추구와 보편심리학의 꿈), Seoul: Hakjisa, 2021.
² Jeongyeong (典經), "Saving the People" (濟生), 43.
³ Jo Geung-ho, System of Confucian Psychology III: The Pursuit of Goals in Human Life and the Dream of Universal Psychology (유학 심리학의 체계 Ⅲ: 인간 삶의 목표 추구와 보편심리학의 꿈), Seoul: Hakjisa, 2021.
⁴ Yi Min-hwa, The Road to the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4차 산업혁명으로 가는 길), Creative Economy Research Society (창조경제연구회), 2016.
⁵ Jeon Hong-seok, "An Illumination of Modern Korean National Religions from the Perspective of World Civilization History — A Proposal for New Directions and Methodology in the Study of New Religions through a Civilizational (Religious) Axial Approach" (근대 한국민족종교에 대한 세계문명사적 조명－문명(종교)기축적 접근을 통한 신종교 연구의 새로운 방향과 방법론 제안), Dongasia godaehak (동아시아고대학), 54, 2019.
⁶ Jo Geung-ho, System of Confucian Psychology III: The Pursuit of Goals in Human Life and the Dream of Universal Psychology (유학 심리학의 체계 Ⅲ, 인간 삶의 목표 추구와 보편심리학의 꿈), Seoul: Hakjisa, 2021, p.320.
⁷ Jeong In-seok, Transpersonal Psychology: The Integration of Eastern and Western Wisdom and the Paradigm of Self-Transcendence (트랜스퍼스널 심리학: 동서 예지의 통합과 자기초월의 패러다임), Seoul: Daewangsa, 1998.
⁸ Kim Bong-ryul, "The Automated Society, Buddhism, and Sexuality" (자동화사회와 불교, 그리고 섹슈얼리티), Proceedings of the Saehan English Language and Literature Association 2022 Fall Academic Conference (새한영어영문학회 2022년도 가을학술발표회 논문집), 2022.
⁹ Hans Moravec, Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence (마음의 아이들: 로봇과 인공지능의 미래), Gimm-Young Publishers (김영사), 2011.
¹⁰ Yi Myeong-ui, Philosophy of Neuroscience: From Brain-Centrism to Embodied Cognition (신경과학철학: 뇌중심중의에서 체화주의로), Acanet (아카넷), 2022, p.95.
¹¹ Park Chan-guk, "The Future of Humans and Artificial Intelligence: The Ontology of Humans and Artificial Intelligence" (인간과 인공지능의 미래: 인간과 인공지능의 존재론), in Artificial Intelligence and New Norms (인공지능과 새로운 규범), ed. Korean Institute for Posthumanism (한국포스트휴먼연구소), Acanet, 2018, p.123.
¹² Park Seong-hyeon, The Birth of the Symbol: The Evolution of Hyper-Sociality over 6 Million Years (상징의 탄생: 600만 년에 걸친 초(超) 사회성 진화), Seoul: Symbolicus (심볼리쿠스), 2017.
¹³ Park Seong-hyeon, The Miracle Called the Individual (개인이라 불리는 기적), Seoul: Symbolicus (심볼리쿠스), 2011.
¹⁴ Choe Gwang-jin, Korean Aesthetics (한국의 미학), Goyang: Art Culture (미술문화), 2015, pp.111-115; The aesthetic characteristics of Daesoon Thought are also classified into the sublime beauty, virtue-radiance beauty, and harmony beauty. (Yi Ji-yeong, An Aesthetic Study of Daesoon Thought: Focusing on Sublime Beauty, Virtue-Radiance Beauty, and Harmony Beauty (대순사상의 미학적 연구: 숭고미, 덕휘미, 조화미를 중심으로), Doctoral Dissertation, Daejin University Graduate School, 2024.)
¹⁵ Shim Gwang-hyeon, Fractal (프랙탈), Hyeonsil munhwa yeongu (현실문화연구), 2005.
¹⁶ Shim Gwang-hyeon, Heunghan Minguk (흥한민국), Hyeonsil munhwa yeongu (현실문화연구), 2005, pp.303-311.
¹⁷ Richard Nisbett, translated by Choi In-cheol, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why (생각의 지도), Seoul: Gimm-Young Publishers, 2004, pp.83-106.
¹⁸ Jo Geung-ho, System of Confucian Psychology III.3: The Pursuit of Goals in Human Life and the Dream of Universal Psychology (유학 심리학의 체계 Ⅲ.3, 인간 삶의 목표 추구와 보편심리학의 꿈), Seoul: Hakjisa, 2021.
¹⁹ Ha Ji-yeong and Kim Tae-su, "The Religious-Educational Implications of the Zhongyong (中庸) as Manifested in Daesoon Thought" (대순사상에 나타난 『중용(中庸)』의 종교교육적 함의), Jonggyo gyoyuk hak yeongu (宗敎敎育學硏究), 73, 2023.
²⁰ Jo Ok-gu, Baekja chomin (백자초문), Uiwang: Ia (이아), 2014.
²¹ Pak Jae-ju, The Meeting of Eastern and Western Worldviews and Ethics (동서양 세계관과 윤리의 만남), Seoul: Cheolhak gwa hyeonsilsa (철학과 현실사), 2011.
²² Zhuzi yulei (朱子語類), Volume 14: "There is only one gi of yin-yang and the Five Phases flowing through Heaven and Earth; what is quintessential becomes human beings, and the dregs become things. What is quintessential within the quintessential becomes sages and worthies; what is dregs within the quintessential becomes the foolish and the unworthy." (只是一箇陰陽五行之氣, 滾在天地中, 精英者爲人, 渣滓者爲物. 精英之中又精英者, 爲聖爲賢; 精英之中渣滓者, 爲愚爲不肖.) Cited in Ahn Yu-gyeong, "A Comparative Study of the Theory of Life in Confucianism and Daesoon Thought" (유학과 대순사상의 생명론 비교 고찰), Daesoon sasang nonchong (대순사상논총), 42, 2022, pp.75-108.
²³ Daesoon Jinrihoe Yoran (『대순진리회 요람』), "Admonitions" (訓會, Hunhoe).
²⁴ Zhongyong (中庸), Chapter 22: "Only one who performs sincerity to the utmost throughout the world can fully realize their own nature. One who can fully realize their own nature can fully realize the nature of others. One who can fully realize the nature of others can fully realize the nature of things. One who can fully realize the nature of things can assist the nurturing transformation of Heaven and Earth. One who assists the nurturing transformation of Heaven and Earth can then participate together with Heaven and Earth." (惟天下至誠, 為能盡其性, 能盡其性, 則能盡人之性, 能盡人之性, 則能盡物之性, 能盡物之性, 則可以贊天地之化育, 可以贊天地之化育, 則可以與天地參.) Cited in Kim Hak-gwon, "The Problem of Self-Cultivation in the Yizhuan (易傳)" (『易傳』에서 修養의 문제), Dongyang cheolhak (동양철학), 31, 2009, p.201.
²⁵ A. N. Whitehead, D. R. Griffin and D. W. Sherburne, Process and Reality, New York: Free Press, 1929, pp.10-11. Cited in Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall, translated by Jang Won-seok, Focusing on the Familiar: A Translation and Philosophical Interpretation of the Zhongyong (일상사에 초점 맞추기: 『중용』의 번역과 철학적 해석), Seongnam: Academy of Korean Studies Press (한국학중앙연구원출판부), 2019, pp.50-51.
²⁶ Son Yun-nak, "Aristotle's Theory of Elements: Focusing on the Generation-Destruction Mechanism of Elements as Presented in On Generation and Corruption (생성소멸론)" (아리스토텔레스의 요소 이론: 『생성소멸론』에 나타난 요소들의 생성-소멸 메커니즘을 중심으로), Seoyang gojeon hak yeongu (西洋古典學硏究), 31, 2008, pp.83-108.
²⁷ Yano Michio, translated by Jeon Yong-hun, Esoteric Buddhist Astrology and the Suyao jing (밀교점성술과 수요경), Seoul: Dongguk University Press (동국대학교출판부), 2010.
²⁸ Hirakawa Akira, translated by Yi Ho-geun, History of Indian Buddhism, Vol. 1 (印度佛敎의 歷史 (上)), Seoul: Minjoksa (民族社), 1991, pp.196-199.
²⁹ Kim Hyeon-ja, Georges Dumézil: Comparative Studies in Indo-European Mythology (조르주 뒤메질, 인도-유럽 신화의 비교 연구), Seoul: Minumsa (민음사), 2018.
³⁰ Mircea Eliade, History of Religious Ideas, Vol. 2: From Gautama Buddha to the Triumph of Christianity (세계종교사상사2: 고타마 붓다에서부터 기독교의 승리까지), Ihaksa (이학사), 2005, pp.105-106.
³¹ Sasaki Shizuka (佐佐木閑), Scientific Buddhism: The Scientific Worldview of Abhidharma Buddhism (과학의 불교: 아비달마불교의 과학적 세계관), Seoul: Mogwanamu (모과나무), 2017.
³² Yoshiko Kamitsuka, translated by Jang Won-cheol and Yi Dong-cheol, Taoist Thought (도교 사상), Seoul: AK Communications (에이케이커뮤니케이션즈), 2022, pp.116-121.
³³ Jeong Jae-seo, The Return of the Vanished Gods (사라진 신들의 귀환), Paju: Munhakdongne (문학동네), 2022.
³⁴ Kim Yeong-deok, Heo Yong-gu, and Kim Byeong-su, History of Chinese Literature (중국문학사), Seoul: Cheongnyon-sa (청년사), 1992, p.133; cited in Kim Chae-su, Theory of Altaic Civilization (알타이 문명론), Seoul: Bak-ijong (박이정), 2013, p.691.
³⁵ Lao Siguang (勞思光, 1927–2012) states that "in ancient Chinese thought, Spirit (神, shen) is different from Judaic divinity, and when referring to a monotheistic deity like the Judaic God, 'Heaven (天)' or 'Lord/Supreme God (帝/上帝)' was used." Lao Siguang, Zhongguo zhexueshi (gudai pian) (中國哲學史(古代篇)), translated by Jeong In-jae as Jungguk cheolhaksa (godeae pyeon) (중국철학사(고대편)), Seoul: Tamgudang (탐구당), 1988, pp.44-45; cited in Kim Yeong-ho, "A Comparative Study of the Attributes of Heaven (天) in the Shijing (詩經) and the Attributes of God in the Psalms (詩篇)" (『시경(詩經)』의 천(天) 속성과 『시편(詩篇)』의 신(神) 속성 비교 연구), Wonbulgyo sasang gwa jonggyo munhwa (원불교사상과 종교문화), 71, pp.201-236.
³⁶ Kim Yeong-ho, "A Comparative Study of the Attributes of Heaven (天) in the Shijing (詩經) and the Attributes of God in the Psalms (詩篇)" (『시경(詩經)』의 천(天) 속성과 『시편(詩篇)』의 신(神) 속성 비교 연구), Wonbulgyo sasang gwa jonggyo munhwa (원불교사상과 종교문화), 71, 2017, pp.201-236.
³⁷ Yi Seung-jae, A Scientific Inquiry into the Eight Trigrams (팔괘의 과학적 탐구), Seoul: Mirae-teo (미래터), 2016.
³⁸ Choe Su-bin, "The Other World as Viewed from Taoism — The Taoist Worldview and Salvation Reflected in the World of Immortals (神仙) and the Dead (死者)" (도교에서 바라보는 저 세상-신선(神仙)과 사자(死者)들의 세계에 반영된 도교적 세계관과 구원), Dogyo munhwa yeongu (道敎文化硏究), 41, 2014, pp.303-350.
³⁹ It is said that the world's views on death appear in two forms: salvation and avatar. Edgar Morin, translated by Kim Myeong-suk, Man and Death (인간과 죽음), Seoul: Dongmunson (東文選), 2000, pp.147-164. Max Weber also argues that the world's religions are divided into salvation religions, which rely on the power of another, and non-salvation religions, which rely on one's own power. Jeon Seong-u, "Max Weber's Theory of Confucianism — A Critical Reconstruction" (막스 베버의 유교론-비판적 재구성), Nammyeonghak yeongu (남명학연구), 16, 2003, pp.310-314.
⁴⁰ Ibid.
⁴¹ Recent research argues that, even within East Asia, the Eurasian mythology — particularly Korean mythology as represented by Maitreya (彌勒) and Dangun — has a threefold differentiating Manaism of Heaven (天), yang (陽), fire (火), and immortality (仙), while Chinese mythology as represented by Buddhism and Taoism has a dual structure Animism of earth (地), yin (陰), water (水), and the Way (道). Jeon Je-hun, "An Illumination of Ancient Korean Mythology through Manaism" (韓國古代神話의 manaism的 照明), Doctoral Dissertation, Wonkwang University, 2013, pp.11-12.
⁴² Traditionally, in the East, earth has been expressed by the attribute of "virtue" (德, deok), as symbolized by the phrase "Heaven is the Way, Earth is Virtue" (天道地德). Accordingly, "virtue" becomes a primary element in comparing the Eastern and Western views of the Earth. In particular, Aristotle's concept of virtue — which played a central role in constructing the Western worldview — becomes an important subject of comparison with the concept of virtue in Daesoon Thought. Ju So-yeon, A Study of Virtue Ethics in Daesoon Thought (대순사상의 덕윤리 연구), Doctoral Dissertation, Daejin University Graduate School, 2024.
⁴³ Sundo (殉道) means death for the Way, the same as martyrdom for the faith (殉敎, sungyo).
⁴⁴ Jeongyeong (典經), "Doctrines of the Law" (敎法, Gyobeop), 3-30.
⁴⁵ Jeongyeong (典經), "Omens" (豫示, Yesi), 6.
⁴⁶ Kim Tak, The Ideology Running through Korean New Religions: Anthropocentrism (한국신종교를 관통하는 이념, 인간중심주의), Seoul: Minsokwon (민속원), 2023, p.405.
⁴⁷ Jeongyeong (典經), "Founding of the Religion" (敎運, Gyoun), 1-9.
⁴⁸ Choe Min-ja, "Donghak Illuminated from the Perspectives of Eastern and Western Thought: The Integrative Vision in Ken Wilber's Holarchic Holism and Suun's Si (侍)" (동서양 사상의 관점에서 조명해 본 동학; 켄 윌버의 홀라키적 전일주의(holarchic holism)와 수운의 시『侍』에 나타난 통합적 비전), Donghak hakbo (동학학보), 23, 2011.
⁴⁹ "Mosieum" carries the meaning of equality in its practical dimension. The meaning is that all Donghak believers should serve with utmost devotion the Lord of Heaven (天主) enshrined within themselves through inner cultivation such as incantation and prayer, and should also keep in mind that those others with whom one continually comes into contact in daily life are likewise beings who enshrine the Lord of Heaven within their own interiors, and treat them as the Heavenly Lord. The following passage — frequently cited by Donghak researchers when emphasizing that Donghak's Heavenly Lord is also an entity interior to the human being — contains both of these meanings: "Do not trust me at all; trust the Heavenly Lord. He is enshrined within your body — why seek afar what is close at hand? (捨近取遠하단 말가)" (Yongdamyusa, "Gyohun-ga"). The phrase "He is enshrined within your body" refers ontologically to the fact that a person is already a being who enshrines the Heavenly Lord, while the phrase "Do not trust me at all; trust the Heavenly Lord" refers practically to the egalitarian view that the act of "mosieum" (serving) must take place in both inward and outward directions. "Choe Je-u and Pak Eun-sik's Directions of Confucian Reform, Egalitarian Views, and Attitudes toward Western Modern Civilization" (최제우와 박은식의 유교개혁 방향, 평등관, 서구 근대문명에 대한 태도), Toegye hakgwa yugyo munhwa (퇴계학과 유교문화), 49, 2011, p.328.
⁵⁰ There are studies that connect Donghak's Bullyeongiryeon with Buddhism and link Choe Su-un — who always centered his activities on hermitages — to Buddhism. Pak Gyeong-hwan, "Donghak and Buddhist Thought" (동학과 불교사상), in Donghak and Traditional Thought (동학과 전통사상), Mosineunsaramdeur (모시는 사람들), 2004.
⁵¹ Today there is a movement to understand Donghak according to a cyclical principle, centering on Kim Yong-ok's theory that Donghak's original name was Mugeuk Daedo (無極大道, the Great Way of the Infinite Absolute) and on the theory of mountain-ridge circulation (山均論). Kim Ji-ha regards Bullyeongiryeon, Yullyo (律呂), and others as complex-systems cyclical principles. Kim Ji-ha states: "The key symbol of the Chinese historical perspective and the Book of Changes (周易), centered on Heaven, yang, and cosmos, is the Taegeuk, which proceeds from yin-yang, Four Symbols (四象), and Eight Trigrams (八卦) — these are the stable numbers, the order of the cosmos. In contrast, Gung-gung (弓弓) consists of the dynamic numbers 1·3·5·7·9. The unique meaning and numerical order of our country, constituted by the Three Ultimates (三極) of Heaven-Earth-Humanity — 1·3·5·7·9 — is precisely chaos." Kim Ji-ha, A Forest Shade Full of Premonitions (예감에 가득찬 숲그늘), Silcheon munhaksa (실천문학사), 1999, p.35.
⁵² Yi Do-heum, "The Possibilities and Limits of Eastern Philosophy as a Post-Modern Thought" (탈현대 사상으로서 동양 철학의 가능성과 한계), Donghak hakbo (동학학보), 10, 2005, p.22.
⁵³ The central doctrine of nineteenth-century Donghak was sijeongju (侍天主) — Serving the Lord of Heaven. But as Donghak was renamed Cheondogyo (天道敎) and organizational restructuring took place, the core doctrine shifted to Innaecheon (人乃天, "Man is Heaven"), and the personal nature of Heaven (天) was said to be greatly weakened. Hwang Jong-won, "The Characteristics of East-West Philosophical Fusion and the Significance for the Philosophy of Life in Yi Don-hwa's Cosmology and View of Humanity: Centering on Sinin cheolhak (新人哲學)" (이돈화의 우주관과 인간관이 지니는 동서철학 융합적 특징 및 생명철학적 의의: 『신인철학』을 중심으로), Yuhak yeongu (儒學硏究), 36, 2016, p.590.
⁵⁴ Yun Seung-yong, "A Brief Study on the Antistructural (Communitas) Character of New Religions" (新宗敎의 反構造(communitas)的 性格에 관한 小考), Master's Thesis, Seoul National University, 1982.
⁵⁵ Yongdamyusa (龍潭遺詞), "Mongjung noso mundap-ga" (夢中老少問答歌, "Song of the Dialogue between the Old and the Young in a Dream").
⁵⁶ Yongdamyusa (龍潭遺詞), "Yongdam-ga" (龍潭歌, "Song of Yongdam").
⁵⁷ "Making an oath at the Daebodan altar and avenging Korea's enmity." Yongdamyusa (龍潭遺詞), "Ansim-ga" (安心歌, "Song of Peace of Mind"). The Daebodan (大報壇) was an altar first erected in 1705 during the reign of King Sukjong with the intent of commemorating the benevolence of the Wanli Emperor (萬曆帝) of the Ming (明) dynasty, who had sent troops to help Korea during the Imjin War; it was later renamed the Hwanggudan (圜丘壇).
⁵⁸ Kim Sang-jun, "The Whole Country Becoming Nobility — A Mechanism of Confucian Egalitarianization in Late Joseon" (온 나라가 양반 되기-조선 후기 유교적 평등화 메커니즘), Sahoe wa yeoksa (사회와 역사), 63(0), 2003, pp.5-29.
⁵⁹ Jeongyeong (典經), "Doctrines of the Law" (敎法, Gyobeop), 1-2.
⁶⁰ Jeongyeong (典經), "Divine Works" (公事, Gongsa), 2-19.