• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.154
• /
• pp.6-7
• /
• 1994

소크라테스는 진리를 언어 밖에서 찾으라고 말했다. 플라톤은 언어를 어떤 모방의 형식이라고 생각했다. 미메시스 개념에 기초한 언어관 때문이다. 따라서 그들에 의하면, 책이란 진리의 시체 통조림이자 영혼을 망쳐놓는 흉물에 불과하다. 그러나 아리스토텔레스의 "오르가논"은 언어를 상징의 형식으로 이해하면서 책을 진리의 잔치마당으로 여긴다.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.155-185
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to compare death the Korean Buddhist understanding of death with that of Daesoon Jinrihoe. Various concepts, including reincarnation (輪廻), myeongbu (冥府, 'the postmortem offices' or 'afterworld') and the Ten Kings (十王) of the afterworld are used to explain views on death in both religions. However, these concepts differ not only in their content and categorization, but also in terms of the meaning they occupy within the doctrines of each religion. In other words, although many similarities can be found between Buddhism and Daesoon Jinrihoe's concept of reincarnation, at the same time, differences between them can also be pointed out. The differences include the period of time between one's death and reincarnation and also the importance of reliance upon other people or divine powers during the reincarnation process. With regard to ideas involving myŏngbu, there are far more differences than similarities. Both Buddhism and Daesoon Jinrihoe shares a similar notion of an afterlife judgment presided over by the Ten Kings. However, many differences can be found when it comes to Daesoon Jinrihoe other view of myŏngbu, known as 'myeongbu gongsa (the Reordering Works of Myeongbu).' These works are considered to be of great doctrinal importance in Daesoon Jinrihoe. Therefore, the concepts of reincarnation and myeongbu that appear in both traditions should not be considered identical and need to be redefined accordingly in comparative contexts. In other words, the concepts of reincarnation, myeongbu, and the Ten Kings as they appear in the Daesoon Thought should first be differentiated from their counterparts found in Buddhism and then be redefined in the context of the new and independent system of thought in which they exist. These concepts should then be applied to broader theoretical discourse on religion.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.25_1
• /
• pp.189-229
• /
• 2015

동아시아의 19세기는 근대화 물결 안에서 변화의 시대였다. 중국, 한국, 일본은 식민지적 압박가운데 정치적 위기를 대면하였고 선진 문물과 기독교는 사회, 문화, 종교, 사상의 변화를 가져왔다. 신종교운동도 각 나라에서 다양한 형태와 철학으로 등장하였다. 이들의 근본적인 사상은 일반적으로 불교, 유교, 도교, 신교, 샤머니즘과 연관되어 있었다. 근대한국이 정치적 혼란을 겪을 때 여러 신종교들이 1860년을 전후로 나타났다. 나중에 천도교가 된 동학, 증산계, 대종교, 원불교 가운데 증산계 계통의 대순진리회는 사회-종교적인 영향력 차원에서 한국에서 가장 성공적인 신종교 운동이다. 그들은 상제가 스스로 구천에서 혼탁한 삼계를 회복하기 위해 직적 내려왔음을 따르고 있다. 그렇다면, 구천상제에 대한 가르침이 어떻게 이해되고 있을까? 대순진리회의 근본적인 우주관은 무엇일까? 또, 이것이 일본의 유명한 천리교와 중국(대만)의 대규모 일관도와 어떻게 구분될까? 이 논문은 청계탑의 상직적인 콘셉트 안에서 대순의 상제관과 우주관의 관계를 이해하고자 대순의 경전격인 전경, 현무경, 예화들인 심우도, 사신도, 12지신도 등을 탐구할 것이면 이 한국의 대표적인 신종교의 우주관을 천지공사와 후천의 가르침과 연관하여 논리적으로 접근해석 할 것이다.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.116
• /
• pp.225-256
• /
• 2010

The two school $M{\bar{a}}dhyamika$ and $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ act as a representative of $Mah{\bar{a}}y{\bar{a}}na$ Buddhism in India. But the two school disputed with each other insisting ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}-v{\bar{a}}da$ and $vij{\tilde{n}}aptim{\bar{a}}trav{\bar{a}}da$ separately. To introduce the disputation shortly is as follow. $N{\bar{a}}g{\bar{a}}rjuna$ explained the world and truth by two truth theories(二諦說) which carry out truth of a word and the dimension(spiritual enlightenment) which is absolute(ultimate) to it being lokasaṁvṛtisatya(世俗諦) about the truth which can be expressed verbally, and which is phenomenon-like (everyday) at paramaarthasatya(勝義諦). By the way, lokasaṁvṛtisatya and paramaarthasatya are actually distinction of the recognition which is not an ontological distinction. That is, lokasaṁvṛti(世俗) is paramaartha(勝義) as it is the time of seeing by the eyes of those who have realized. The two truth theories of $N{\bar{a}}g{\bar{a}}rjuna$ was developed logical more precisely by his successors. With an everyday language, the position of Candrakīrti(月稱) that it cannot be expressed as the position of $Bh{\bar{a}}vaviveka$(淸辨) that paramaarthasatya can be expressed logically is opposed to each other, and dissociates by $Sv{\bar{a}}tantrika$(自立論證派) and $P{\bar{a}}rsagika$(歸謬論證派). Confrontation of $Sv{\bar{a}}tantrika$ and $P{\bar{a}}rsagika$ is the dispute about the ability of s which is the highest truth to be proved logically. The $P{\bar{a}}rsaga$ of Candrakirti thinks that people exist truly, and is because it claims not existing in the world where a favorite thing is actually actual. However, $Bh{\bar{a}}vaviveka$ proved Sunyata(空性)을 positively based on the reliance to language and logic. Also the mokṣa of $M{\bar{a}}dhyamika$ is not recovery of original condition of $vij{\tilde{n}}apti$ which is pure in itself as $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ saying, as well as obtaining a thing which is dravya-sat as $Sarv{\bar{a}}stiv{\bar{a}}din$ saying. The mokṣa of $M{\bar{a}}dhyamika$ means a condition of liberated from karma and pains through extinction of $prapa{\tilde{n}}ca$ and discrimination by realizing the real aspect of all dharma which is said by pratītyasamutpāda, $praj{\tilde{n}}apti$, niḥsvabhāva, ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nya$, $madhyam{\bar{a}}pratipad$.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.1-52
• /
• 2024

One notable characteristic of Daesoon Jinrihoe's view of time, is its perception of time as a passive entity. This signifies that, in the context of Daesoon Jinrihoe, time is subject to influence through experience, specifically undergoing re-calibration or governance. The summary of this perspective is as follows: Firstly, Daesoon Jinrihoe's understanding of time incorporates a historical viewpoint characterized by the law of entropy, which posits that disorder increases as time progresses. Secondly, within the world established by Daesoon Jinrihoe, time experiences transformation before and after the Great Opening. Prior to this event, time follows a helical model characterized by increasing chaotic disorder, whereas in the Later World, the helical model reflects only Mutual Beneficence, symbolizing progress and development in the era. Thirdly, the Great Opening re-calibrates time, serving as the criterion for determining human life. Prior to the Great Opening, time recorded human life in a manner marked by Mutual Contention, whereas afterward, it will record human life as being characterized by Mutual Beneficence. This re-calibration of time leads precisely to directional (spatial) re-calibration. Fourthly, the Great Opening re-calibrates the order of time and space. In the Former World, space held precedence over time. However, the Great Opening changes this dynamic, with time assuming precedence over space in the Later World. In this context, the integration of time and space establishes a worldview. Fifthly, in the worldview of Daesoon Jinrihoe, time serves as a vehicle for the governance of the Supreme God. The Supreme God governs all things by controlling time, orchestrating changes spanning birth (saeng, 生), growth (jang, 長), harvest (yeom, 斂), and storage (jang, 藏), much like how problems are resolved through natural progress without requiring deliberate action. Lastly, time functions as a medium through which entities that strive to achieve unification with the Dao come to govern all things. For this reason, achieving unification with the Dao in Daesoon Jinrihoe specifically refers to the governance of time.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.6
• /
• pp.313-324
• /
• 2002

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.295-330
• /
• 2020

This paper examines the current state of the field wherein theoretical issues of ecology are still in need of concentration. Ecological texts are reconsidered from a religious worldview by extracting eco-friendly notions within religion and discourse is also essential in the practical field. As a case study on this matter, this paper aims to describe various aspects of ecological theory in Daesoon Jinrihoe, a new religious movement in Korea. In short, in its view of the natural world, Daesoon Jinrihoe values that all things originated from the Supreme God who presides over them, and the two are organically interrelated. Hence, the principle of nature is cherished. Especially as the Later World draws near, the fundamental basis of nature is slated to undergo change, and this also features heavily in Daesoon Jinrihoe's view of the natural world. Furthermore, the Supreme God reforms nature, and human beings live lives in conformity and resonance with that reformed nature. Above all else, the doctrines of haewon sangsaeng (the resolution of grievances for mutual beneficence) and boeun sangsaeng (the reciprocation of favors for mutual beneficence) are advocated in Daesoon Jinrihoe. Each supports its own form of ecological discourse, and together, they can be called Sangsaeng Ecological Theory (the Ecological Theory of Mutual Beneficence). Specific discussions of Daesoon Jinrihoe and ecology should be considered in light of this finding.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.373-399
• /
• 2014

This paper deals with the question whether the metaphysical dialetheism is a persuasive view or not. That is, the purpose of this paper is to criticize the metaphysical dialetheism by answering three questions, whether the dialetheism is compatible with the correspondence theory of truth, whether there is an observable contradiction, finally what the status of LNC is. In conclusion, it is argued that dialetheism is incompatible with the correspondence theory of truth, because it results in trivialism to suppose that two views are compatible. It is also claimed that LNC should be understood as the principle of exclusion which constrains the structure of the world and that the real world is consistent. Therefore, there is no observable contradiction in the world and the metaphysical dialetheism is not persuasive.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.37-63
• /
• 2002

The previous study has assumed that dialogue and debate could not have been activated by the hierachical Confucian norm and political authoritarianism in Korean society. Political democracy has developed in Korean society since 1987. But many observers have pointed out that the culture of debate still remained undeveloped in Korean society. This study assumes that the key factor of determining the quantity and frequency of debate is the polilitical factor such as authoritarianism, but the determining one of qualitative dimension such as debate competence derived from the epistemological tradition. In order to ascertian this hypothesis, this study explored the epistemological basis of Confucian thoughts in comparison with the classical Greek thoughts. In classical Greek society, philosophers considered that the purpose of debate is to find and to ascertain the truth. Bur Confucian scholors didn't look upon questioning the truth. Instead they considered practicing or doing of the truth worthful. Therefore, in a society which were much influenced by the Confucian thought, the culture of debate could not have been developed.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.22
• /
• pp.133-275
• /
• 2014

『옥추보경』(玉樞寶經)은 송대의 유명한 도교 경전으로 정식 명칭은 『구천응원뇌성보화천존설옥추보경』(九天應元雷聲普化天尊說玉樞寶經)이다. 송·원시대 이후 『옥추보경』은 중국 각 지역에 광범위하게 전해지면서 많은 영향을 끼쳤으며, 명나라의 세종(世宗)과 신종(神宗)은 『옥추보경』을 새로 간행하여 직접 서문을 쓰고 동시에 매우 숭앙하였다. 『옥추보경』의 집주본이 조선에 전해진 시기는 대략 명대 시기로 보고 있으며, 조선시대에 전해졌던 『옥추보경』 집주본은 융경(隆慶) 4년(1570)에 전라도 무등산(無等山) 안심사(安心寺)에서 최초로 발간되었다. 그러나 당시 안심사 판본은 첫 페이지와 경문 중의 또 다른 페이지가 없는 불완전한 판본이었다. 옹정(擁正) 11년(1733)에 송몽삼(宋夢三), 서두추(徐斗樞) 등의 제안에 따라 영변(寧邊) 묘향산(妙香山) 보현사(普賢寺)에서 『옥추보경』을 새로 간행하게 되었다. 하지만 이 또한 불완전한 판본이었으며, 병진년(1736)에 잃어버린 두 페이지를 우연히 찾게 되면서 완전한 판본을 이루게 되었다. 이후 광서(光緖) 무자년(1888)에 김흡(金潝)이 『옥추보경』을 새로 교정하였고, 계룡산(鷄龍山)에서 이를 다시 간행하였다. 명대의 『도장』에 수록된 『옥추보경』 집주본에는 신장도(神將圖)가 포함되어 있지 않았다. 하지만 조선시대 세 종류의 판본은 모두 신장도(神將圖)가 포함되어 있다. 이 외에도 조선시대 간행본과 비슷한 판본으로 영국의 대영도서관 소장본과 일본 천리대학(天理大學) 도서관의 소장본 및 중국 국가 도서관 고적관의 소장본이 있다. 그런데 안심사 판본은 41명, 보현사 판본은 47명, 계룡산 판본은 48명의 신장도가 포함되어 있으며, 대영도서관은 45명, 중국 국가 도서관은 45명 등으로 차이가 있다. 이러한 판본들에 수록된 신상의 수가 다른 이유는 아직 명확하지 않다. 이에 본문에서 필자는 먼저 계룡산 판본 『옥추보경』에 근거하여 48신장의 내력에 대한 초보적인 고찰을 진행하였다. 언어상의 문제로 『옥추보경』과 관련된 한국의 연구 성과를 반영하지는 못했지만, 『옥추보경』의 48장과 대순진리회의 『전경』에 등장하는 48장이 어떠한 연관이 있는지를 조명하는 데 유의미한 기초 작업이 될 것으로 전망한다. 이를 토대로 나아가 대순진리회의 48신상도와 『옥추보경』의 판본간의 형태적 특징에 주목하여 면밀한 상호 분석을 시도함으로써 대순진리회의 신앙체계와 『옥추보경』의 관련성을 규명하는 데 일조할 수 있기를 기대한다.