Abstract
'Fasting of the Mind (心齋, ch. xīn zhāi)' is arguably the most important concept within the practical approach to the spiritual cultivation formulated by the Daoist philosopher, Zhuangzi (莊子). Most scholars have interpreted 'Fasting of the Mind' as an apophatic practice centered around the aim of the 'Dissolution of the Self (喪我, ch. sàng wŎ).' The Korean new religious movement, Daesoon Jinrihoe (大巡眞理會), can be shown to instead consistently utilize cataphatic descriptions of spiritual cultivation based on the 'quieting of the mind (安心, kr. anshim)' and 'quieting of the body (安身, kr. anshin)' with the highest attainable state referred to as the 'Perfected State of Unification with the Dao (道通眞境, kr. Dotong-jingyeong).' While the language used by Zhuangzi and Daesoon Jinrihoe appears quite different on a superficial level, a deeper examination shows that these rhetorical framings are likely negativistic and positivistic descriptions of the same, or at least reasonably similar, phenomena. Zhuangzi, who focused primarily on the body, mind, and internal energy, cautioned practitioners that 'mere listening stops with the ears (聽止於耳, ch. tīng zhǐ yú ěr)' and 'mere recognition stops with the mind (心止於符, ch. xīn zhǐ yú fú).' He therefore encouraged cultivators of the Dao to 'listen with the spirit (聽之以氣 ch. tīng zhī yǐ qì).' The main scripture of Daesoon Jinrihoe states that "The mind is a pivot, gate, and gateway for gods; They, who turn the pivot, open, and close the gate, and go back and forth through the gateway, can be either good or evil (心也者, 鬼神之樞機也, 門戶也,道路也)," and the Supreme God of the Ninth Heaven (九天上帝, kr. Gucheon Sangje) even promises to visit anyone who possesses a 'singularly-focused mind (一心, kr. il-shim).' In both these approaches, there is a sense of what must be kept out of the mind (e.g., external disturbances, strong emotions, malevolent entities) and what the mind should connect with to attain spiritual progress (e.g., spirit, singular focus, the Supreme God). The observations above serve as the main basis for a comparison between the apophatic descriptions of cultivation found in Zhuangzi and their cataphatic counterparts in Daesoon Thought. However, the culmination of this nuanced comparative exploration reveals that while the leanings of Zhuangzi and Daesoon Thought generally hold true, ultimately, both systems of cultivation transcend the categories of apophatic and cataphatic.
