• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.30
• /
• pp.1-57
• /
• 2018

There are three purposes to this study: first, to understand comprehensively the meaning of Haewon-sangsaeng (Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence) Thought, which can be taken as representative thought regarding peace in Korean new religions. Next, Haewon-sangsaeng Thought and the works for Haewon (resolving grievances) will be examined as principles and practical mechanisms for building the paradise of the Later World and understanding the structure of this system of thought. Lastly, logical inferences will be made regarding the future of humanity and the world through the ideological characteristics implied by Haewon-sangsaeng Thought. Haewon-sangsaeng Thought contains the complicated concepts of Haewon and Sangsaeng. Haewon is the resolution of the enmity and grievances that have accumulated in the realms of humanity and deities. Sangsaeng indicates the action of mutually benefiting one another or a state wherein people live in prosperity and peace. In Daesoon Jinrihoe, the concept of Haewon-sangsaeng is expressed explicitly and has broad applications. It can be expanded for the global peace and the harmony of all humanity. As the result of an integrated analysis of previous studies, it can be stated that Haewon-sangsaeng has values and meanings in terms of principles, laws, ethics, and ideology all of which are commonly connected to Injon (Human Nobility), Sangsaeng, peace, harmony, the Later World, and paradise. This indicates that its valuable for the future of humanity and world is deeper and wider than its mere etymological meaning. The common factor among paired ideas such as human nobility and Sangsaeng, peace and harmony, and Later World and paradise is the realization of humanity's greatest wish. This is the reason why the value and meaning of Haewon-sangsaeng can be expanded globally. The works of Haewon were a religious act of Kang Jeungsan who resolved the grievances of the Former World which was under the rule of mutual conflict and built a Later World that will operate according to mutual beneficence. Therefore, the principle of Haewon-sangsaeng has a motivative power, through the Reordering Works of the Universe, which can transform the future of humanity and the world. In this study, it can be inferred that as Haewon-sangsaeng 'fulfills human desires' and forms a 'harmonious relations of Sangsaeng' between humans and world, humans will be transformed into Injon (Human Nobility) while the world turns into a paradise, and the future turns into period of peace. Therefore, Haewon-sangsaeng Thought works as a principle that changes society, the world, and the universe. The social actualization of Haewon-sangsaeng is tantamount to bringing the future of Injon, paradise, and peace into objective reality. Previous studies on Haewon-sangsaeng Thought had been carried out under difficult circumstances by a small number of scholars. For all the above reasons, I anticipate that there will be more and more studies made on the topic of Haewon-sangsaeng Thought, which seeks the realization of Haewon (the Resolution of Grievances), Sangsaeng (Mutual Beneficence), human nobility, paradise, and peace. I hope it will emerge as a main subject in global religious thought.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.1-32
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this article is to explain the conceptual changes that the notion of Haewon (解冤) has undergone by examining the evolution of the usages of Haewon. In order to achieve this purpose, I reviewed the conceptual connotations and denotations of Haewon contained in data from the Joseon Dynasty (Section 2), the Japanese colonial period (Section 3), and the scriptures and major preceding research of Daesoon Jinrihoe (Section 4). The research results described in this article are as follows. First, Haewon is a term with historical, social, and cultural characteristics. This means that Haewon, a term that has been used since the Joseon Dynasty, was a concept used to solve collective problems but could also be applied on the individual level. This further means that, if culture is regarded as a collective consciousness or as a collection of material products, Haewon would be a term that contained social and cultural aspirations. Second, Haewon is not a concept that has been impervious to innovation throughout its history. This can be confirmed by the fact that Haewon's scope of application has changed depending on the problem domain (legal, natural disasters, an institutional domain, etc.). Third, Haewon has converted into religious language a doctrinal system that came about after the emergence of Jeungsan. This means that previously the concept of Haewon was mainly used at the legal level in the Joseon Dynasty, but after the emergence of Jeungsan, it became a term in religious language and in doctrine. The materials of Daesoon Jinrihoe show that this concept of Haewon was expanded to be included at the doctrinal level. These research results show a historical shift in the ideological thought contained in the concept of Haewon. As a term in religious language that is included in a doctrinal system, Haewon has an extension of denotations that is applied to the world beyond individuals and societies, yet it maintains connotations of resolving grievances. This concept of Haewon mediates the transformation of the world and creates a rationale by which training and ethical practice are necessary components of that process of transformation.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.99-136
• /
• 2021

Grievance-resolution pursues reconciliation, mutual beneficence, and consolidation. Accordingly, the concept of grievance-resolution is a norm, a principle, as well as an ideology that aims to realize an ideal society and satisfy human desires. Such ideological thought transcended into religious doctrine and was systemized by Jeungsan, Kang Il-sun. He focused on grudges that represented the intrinsic sentiment of Korea and apprehended that grudges are the grounds and reason for the devastation of the world. Furthermore, Jeungsan was a figure who reinterpreted the concept of grievance-resolution via a religious perspective through an in-depth study which transformed into a doctrinal system. He practiced the Reordering Works of grievance-resolution on a universal dimension to religiously redeem all things. Jeungsan completely resolved all the grudges and grievances that filled up the Three Realms (Heaven, Earth, and Humanity) through the concept of grievance-resolution and emphasized that he would establish an ideal society on earth to complete the redemption of human beings. Jeungsan apprehended that the essential characteristics of grudges and grievances were the fundamental reason for the destruction of the world. In this regard, he insisted that the redemption of the world should be achieved through the grievance-resolution. Grievance-resolution is an essential aspect and principle of Jeungsan's system of thought. In addition, it is a concrete approach to establish the earthly paradise of the Later World. Jeungsan implemented a method to redeem humankind by systemizing the intrinsic sentiments common in Korea - namely, the concept of grievance-resolution- and he suggested it as a religious practice which was the principle behind the Reordering Works of Heaven and Earth. Jeungsan defined that his own era was a time of grievance-resolution. In addition, he insisted that grievances and grudges had existed from the beginning of humankind. Jeungsan also said that there were grievances and grudges in heavenly planes, human planes, and underworldly planes. It was thereby necessary to do beneficial deeds for others and reciprocate beneficence in order to resolve grievances. He emphasized that a process wherein all human desires could be satisfied was essential. Furthermore, Jeungsan stressed that this present time should focus on the process of grievance-resolution on a practical level.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.24_1
• /
• pp.209-253
• /
• 2014

『태평경』과 『전경』은 저술된 시기에 있어 큰 차이가 있지만 사회이상의 구상적 측면에서 매우 큰 유사성을 보이고 있어 주목할 만하다. 전체적으로 보았을 때, 태평경이 추구하는 '태평세도'와 『전경』에서 언급된 '후천선경'의 내용은 매우 유사하다. 증산께서는 '해원상생'이라는 구제의 방법을 통해, '후천선경' 혹은 '지상천국'을 실현하고자 하셨는데, 이는 당시 민중의 심리적 요구에 부합되는 것이었다. 이후 대순진리회에서는 '후천선경'을 이루는 것을 종단의 목표로 삼고 있다. 구제 원리의 측면에서 『태평경』은 '해원결'이나 '해승부'를 통해 '삼기상통'(三氣相通)을 이루고자 하는데, 이는 『전경』의 해원상생과 상통하는 면이 있다. 중외고금에서 사회이상 실현을 논하는 측면에서 볼 때, 대부분 유사한 측면을 발견할 수 있는데 이는 대체로 의식에 대한 걱정이 없고, 전쟁과 재해가 사라지며, 백성들이 스스로 만족하며 즐거워한다는 것이다. 그리고 그 중에서도 특히 『태평경』과 『전경』의 인본주의 사상, 남녀평등, 불로장생에 대하여 유사점을 비교해 보았다. 한편으로 양자는 차이점도 지니고 있는데 『전경』에서는 현대적 의의를 바탕으로 전지구적인 시각으로 문제를 바로 보고 있다는 것이다. 예를 들면, 후천선경이라는 사회적 청사진을 제시하는 내용에 있어 이후 언어가 통일된다고 하는 내용은 태평경과 뚜렷한 차이점을 지닌다. 또한 구제의 순서에 있어 『전경』과 『태평경』의 차이점은 『전경』에서는 신의 해원을 통해 인간의 원결이 해소될 수 있다고 보며, 『태평경』에서는 사회의 재난이 인간, 즉 인간의 승부로 인해 야기된 것으로 봄으로 사람의 승부 특히 제왕의 승부를 해소하는 것이 중요하다고 강조한다.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.30
• /
• pp.131-162
• /
• 2018

In this article, I studied how we can heal resentment (㝨) and regret (恨) in the present and future world that are deeply rooted in our society, and I sought out the theoretical and practical measures to realize peace and mental well-being of the Korean people. For this purpose, firstly, I reinterpreted the content of 'Hongik Ingan Humanitarianism (弘益人間)' as an idea and its practical methods into a critical perspective, and confirmed that it is the ideological and emotional root of the Korean people. And I looked at concrete action plans for the present and in the future. Next, I studied the contents of the 'Accompaniment Society (大同社會)' for studying abroad and how to realize its ideals. Through this process, it was confirmed that Accompaniment Society is also deeply rooted in the sentiments of the Korean people. I also found out that more active and practical theoretical methodological studies are necessary to heal the resentment and regret common in our society. Lastly, I studied the fundamental and essential meaning of 'The Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence (解冤相生),' the major, representative concept of 'The Truth of the Great Itineration (大巡眞理).' Through this process, I confirmed the possibility that the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence could be transformed into a universal value and could be sublimated to a practical norm in the future. In particular, I found that the logic of "the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence" is highly practical in resolving feelings of resentment in the Korean people. Through the above study, 'The Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence' of 'The Truth of the Great Itineration' can emerge as a 'win-win' system of ethics in the future through the synthetical comprehension of the ideals of 'Hongik Ingan Humanitarianism' and Accompaniment Society.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.4
• /
• pp.281-298
• /
• 1998

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.1-38
• /
• 2022

The aim of this research is to discover the value of peace conveyed by Haewon Sangsaeng, the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence, as espoused by Holy Teacher Kang Jeungsan (姜甑山, 1871~1909) and to evaluate its modern significance. To the faithful, Jeungsan is seen as the Supreme God who descended into the world in the Late Joseon Dynasty in the year 1871. Until the time of His passing away into Heaven in 1909, He vastly saved the world and fulfilled the hopes of humankind by carrying out the fundamentally innovative Reordering Works of Heaven and Earth (1901~1909) in the Three Realms of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. He has thereby been appraised as a great religious figure within religious and academic circles. Jeungsan's ideological contributions can be summarized into two main points. One is the concept of 'the Great Opening and the Later World,' which foreshadowed the liquidation of the old system of order and the arrival of a new world. The other contribution is the concept of 'the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence,' a fundamental principle meant to achieve human salvation and world peace. In this context, 'the Great Opening' is precisely a 'positivistic religious expression of peace,' and 'the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence' is the principle by which 'peace can be achieved in the world for all humankind.' In particular, the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence is a tenet within the doctrine of Daesoon Jinrihoe, and it is the main concept that forms the basis of Daesoon Thought. It can be said to be the core current that flows through Jeungsan's Reordering Works of Heaven and Earth. Nowadays, the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence is being discussed and cited in various ways in academic fields as well as in discourse on coexistence, mutual beneficence, and peace. The Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence is specifically based on observations of the structure of conflicts as observed throughout world history via global conflicts, regional conflicts, cultural conflicts, ideological conflicts, class conflicts, generational conflicts, racial conflicts, religious conflicts, and other such conflicts. That is why the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence is discussed in depth within academic settings wherein the nature of conflict-resolution is examined. Looking at the previous studies on this topic, those studies tended to focus on key concepts or concerns such as human beings, divine beings, the earthly paradise of the Later World, ideal societies, world peace, new principles of order, and lasting peace. In particular, the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence has been presented as directly related to concepts such as love, coexistence, harmony, and peace for humankind and the world. Its significance has been applied to ethics, philosophy, order, and principles, and it has been understood as conveying values such as peace. Accordingly, this paper examines the ideological connections to the succession and establishment of Jeungsan's notion of the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence based on previous research, but further examines the value of peace communicated via the principles and ideas that pervade current discourse on the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence. I hope to thoroughly explore Haewon Sangsaeng in regards to its modern significance to the world and to humankind.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.115-151
• /
• 2021

According to Lee Young-geum, the ideas of grievance resolution and mutual beneficence were already present in shamanism. She also insists that Jeungsan merely theorized upon these ideas by inheriting them and his religious activities must be identified from within a shamanistic worldview. Contrary to Lee's claim, Cha Seon-keun argues that the grievance resolution of Jeungsan is far beyond the contents and level of development found in shamanism. He also insists that Jeungsan's religious activities must be identified as having a certain orderly uniqueness distinct from shamanism. The argument between these two different perspectives has not attracted other researchers besides those who are directly involved. However, this debate deserves attention with regard to the problem of how one approaches a given religion and which academic perspective should be applied. Based on the perspective of the Daesoon Jinrihoe, this study examines their debate by considering four issues. Firstly, whether Jeungsan inherited or expanded upon the subject of grievance resolution and its range remains undetermined. Secondly, the ethics of mutual beneficence and grateful reciprocation in Jeungsan's concept of grievance resolution should be analyzed as to whether that idea reasserts the ethics of shamanism. Thirdly, it is necessary to study whether his method of grievance resolution fully embraced the methods of grievance resolution that exist in shamanism. Lastly, it should be determined whether or not Jeungsan's religious activities and system of thought should be identified within a shamanistic worldview. Through this review, Lee and Cha can be shown to have different opinions on the academic approach to research on religion. Accordingly, this study concludes that Lee's method of only interpreting Jeungsan's religious thought via a shamanic worldview is incompatible with academic methodology. A scholar of religious studies should discuss Jeungsan on his own merits rather than just imply that Jeungsan thoroughly reflects the worldview of shamanism, doctrinal studies of Buddhism, and Daoist thought as well as other theologies. In other words, if certain tangible and intangible elements found in shamanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Christianity are also observed in Jeungsan's religious thought, it is necessary to comprehend how different or similar those elements are or whether they are re-interpreted in any manner. In the case of Lee, her method of overemphasizing similarities is now criticized as outdated. Nowadays, it is necessary to demonstrate awareness of modern religious studies tendency to pay equal attention to similarities and differences.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.39-76
• /
• 2022

The two religious ethics, Christianity's 'love your enemies' and Daesoon Jinrihoe's 'grievance-resolution for mutual beneficence', can be misunderstood as similar. The misunderstanding arises from these religious ethics having something in common that specifically points to a particular object, called an enemy, and contains instructions to treat that object altruistically. However, from the perspective of Religious Ethics, the two teachings are not the same. The beliefs they are based upon are different, the religious character they pursue is different, and their processes of obtaining legitimacy, logic, and implementation are different. The most distinct difference between these ethics is that the Christian ethic focuses on a victim's role whereas Daesoon Jinrihoe ethic emphasizes the roles of both victims and perpetrators. In case of 'love your enemies,' if a perpetrator turns away from a victim and believes that they would be forgiven for their sin, the victim is unlikely to practice the teaching 'love your enemies.' Accordingly, to avoid criticism over cases wherein love of an enemy is nothing but a shallow grace, the roles of the two sides should be more highlighted than that of the absolute being. As for grievance-resolution for mutual beneficence, this teaching encourages victims to resolve their grievance with a goal of mutual beneficence. The perpetrator should likewise resolve the grievances and grudges of their victim with the aim of mutual beneficence. Jeungsan especially stressed that perpetrators have to resolve 'Cheok (慼: the resentment and grievances that someone holds against the one who victimized them)' through the ethic of grievance-resolution in order for living well. In other words, 'the ethic of Cheok-resolution' is an ethic wherein the perpetrator also plays an important role in the implementation of grievance-resolution for mutual beneficence.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.229-262
• /
• 2021

The debate on the treatment of animals has accelerated as a social issue in the West since the 1970s. In 1975, Peter Singers argued in his book, Animal Liberation, that speciesism should be banned. This led to an explosion in research on animal welfare in the philosophical and social sciences. Following Singer, Tom Regan suggested considering the animal rights as being on the same level as human rights. Their arguments were that animals should be imbued with some intrinsic weight sufficient enough to remind humans of their social responsibility to animals at least to a certain degree. In this regard, social responsibility for animal welfare as well as animal rights has formed an axis that organizes human morality in modern society. Such arguments regarding animal welfare can be perceived as an active and creative effort which accords with the free will of human beings who in Daesoon Thought are understood as facing the era of human nobility. This argumentation also aligns with the doctrine of grievance-resolution for mutual beneficence as a practical creed due to the way in which modern bioethics implies that animal welfare could become a practical communal morality integrated into legal systems prior to adoption as a system of individual morality. From within this context, this study discusses the nature and limits of modern animal welfare and animal rights from the perspective of the grievance-resolution which Kang Jeungsan promised to animals.