Dialectical understanding of "Ultimate Reality" in Religious Pluralism: Focused on

theism in comparison of Christianity, Donghak and Daesoon Thoughts

Jae-Hyun Park*
Introduction
In the multi-religious society, mutual respect and peaceful coexistence between the different
religions is important task. Howeer, due to the aspect of ultimateness of religious belief,
accepting other religion!s belief from specific religion!s perspectie is difficult to belieers of each
religion. "specially, because the #$ltimate %eality# is the basis of the religious belief in each
religion, it!s highly likely that belieers of each religion hae unfriendly attitude to other religion!s
$ltimate %eality. In this sense, seeral religious pluralists suggest the $ltimate %eality as a
hypothesis and common ground for dialogue recently.
&
'ut there are also many critics about this
kind of approaches pointing out its coert oppression and potential for iolence to (on-)hristian
religions.
*
In this manuscript, I insist that two extreme approaches - focusing on the differences of each
religion or subsume them in to single model - is not desirable approach. I tried to identify
differences and common points simultaneously between different religion!s $ltimate %ealities and
suggest more comprehensie iews to understand it. "specially, I focused on )hristianity,
+onghak and +aesoon ,houghts as the sub-ects of comparison. I will compare $ltimate %ealities
and his relation with humankind and unierse in the aspect of theism. .mong the three religions,
+aesoon ,houghts will be suggested as potential alues for understanding )hristianity and
+onghak dialectically.
istorical !ackground of comparison
,he basis of +easoon thought lies on the belief that the Holy ,eacher /ang Jeungsan
0&12&3&4546 was a great holy man in the history of religion. He had unsurpassed wisdom,
limitless grace, and absolute power. .s the 7reat )reatie 7od and 8ord of the (inth Heaen
09ang-e6, with great authority oer the ,ree %ealms 0Heaen, "arth and humankind6, he Itinerated
around the world, and finally he descended to the human would. Jeungsan 9ang-e went on his
circuit to rectify the disorder of heaen and earth, to create an earthly paradise by opening a path
to the eerlasting 8ater :orld, and to rescue the spiritual world from its discord and the world of
sentient beings from its calamities.
;
In the late )hoseon period 0in the late &1th century6 that /ang Jeungsan was born, the society of
)hoseon was unstable and full of anxiety. .t that time the )hristianity so called <:estern
8earning= was introduced to )hoseon people. .t the latter part of the )hoseon +ynasty, the ma-or
traditional ,houghts 0)onfucianism, 'uddhism, ,aoism6 had lost their true function and were
unable to integrate the society of )ho9eon +ynasty. .t that time the )hristianity was gradually
spread among the )hoseon people and had substantial impact on them. >eanwhile, )hoi Jaewu
0&1*?@ &1A?6 founded +onghak, meaning "astern 8earning, not only accepting the part of
doctrine of )hristianity but also criticiBe it and adocate new doctrine. )hoi Jaewu made use of
the term Cthe 8ordD as the same meaning of CHanulnimD, C9ang-aenimD that is the ob-ect of faith
&
* +ae-in $niersity, %epublic of /orea
"mailE p-aehyunFskku.edu
John Hick, .n Interpretation of %eligionE Human %eponses to the ,ranscendent, (ew Haen and
8ondonE Gale $niersity Press, *55?
*
)hang Hyun /im, )ritical 9tudy on HH$ltimate %ealityHH in %eligious Pluralism -Iocused on John HickHs
Hypothesis-, , *554E J
;
,he .cademic .ffair +epartment of +aesoon-inrihoe, .n introduction to +aesoon-inrihoe 0"nglish
translation edition6, +aesoon-inrihoe, *554
&
among )hoseon people for a long time. ,o do this, he was willing to encompass the doctrine of
)hristianity. Howeer, )hoi Jaewu criticiBed the )hristianity seerally as C,hey do not hae order in
the doctrine, do not attend to the lord with deotion.
?
,hen, he adocated new iewpoint toward
the world and sprit and human.
>eanwhile, /ang Jeungsan said he, himself is the 8ord, Hanulnim, 9ang-ae that )hristianity and
+onghak is worshiping and adocated new paradigm that is different from the )hristianity and
+onghak. /ang Jeungsan newly appointed >atteo %icci 0&JJ* @ &A&56 as the head of the
)hristianity and acknowledged that )hristianity has the substantial alue to opening the 8ater
:orld. 'ut /ang Jeungsan criticiBed that )hristianity would not be successful due to the poor
treatment for the sprits.
J
/ang JeungsanDs attitude is not different toward +onghak from
)hristianity. /ang Jeungsan said, he reealed the 7reat +o of the unierse, which was to sae the
world, to )hoi-Jaewe, howeer, he failed to enlighten the true meaning of the 7reat +o, so he took
back the heaenly mandate and diine exhortation and finally descended to the human would.
A

In the stream of the history, there is the possibility that +onghak dialectically deelop the
)hristianity to the new doctrine, and +easoon ,houghts dialectically deelop +onghak to the new
doctrine. ,hat is, +easoon ,houghts hae the potential alue to encompass the )hristianity and
+onghak towards the holistic iew. In the following chapter, I would like to compare the theism of
the )hristianity, +onghak and +easoon ,houghts focusing on the #$ltimate %eality# and his
relation with human and unierse to identify the alue of +easoon ,houghts to encompass the
)hristianity and +onghak.
" comparison !et#een the theism of Christianity, Donghak and Deasoon Thoughts
'efore discussing the theism of )hristianity, I would like to limit the scope of discussion in the
iew of god in conseratie conentional )hristianity, excluding )hristian >ysticism and religious
pluralistic )hristianity, which hae different iew of 7od with conseratie conentional
)hristianity.
In the iewpoint of the )hristian theism, 7od is the creator of the unierse and human and human
is the creation by 7od. 7od is illustrated as the being of creating, inoling, salating, -udging, to
be actie being. >eanwhile, human is illustrated as the being to lie according to proidence of
7od, to be salated by the 7od, to be -udged by the 7od, and to be passie being. In the )hristian
theism, human is not the same leel of 7od as being a creation by the 7od, the )reator. 7od has
omniscience and omnipotence and inole eery process of the unierse.
Historically, there has been substantial argument about Cup to which leel we should accept 7odDs
inolement into the worldD and Cup to which leel we should accept humanDs free willD in )hristian
theism. If we accepted 7od inole eery process of unierse and the liing things including us,
that means we are the being to lie according to the exact path that the 7od mapped out. If we
accept this assumption, we are accepting the determinism, that is, eerything that happens there
are conditions such that, according to the map 7od made. In this assumption, 7odDs
limitlessness and omniscience and omnipotence are secured, but the free will of human is
weakened. :e are -ust puppets to be played in the stage according to the 7ods will. .nd if we
accept this assumption, human does not hae any responsibility to the eil that happen in the
earth and only 7od has the responsibility of eil. "il exist because 7od had included eil in the
map he designed. ,hat means human do not hae needs to lie ethically because eerything is
predetermined by the 7odD will and we are -ust liings according to 7odDs will.
2

Kn the other hand, if we accept the opposite assumption that 7od do not inole the process of
unierse and the liing things including us and human is liing according to his free will, that
means eerything is not predetermined. 'ecause of that, human determines his way of life by
?
)heondokyo 'ible, (onhakmun, ;&
J
Jungyong, /yobyob, &EAA
A
Jungyong, 7yowun &E4
2
John Hick, Philosophy of %eligion, (ew JerseyE Prentice-Hall Inc, &445
*
himself, take the eery responsibility he made, eery eil that Human made. Howeer, if we
accept this assumption, humanDs free will is secured, but limitlessness and omniscience and
omnipotence of 7od is weakened. In other words, een if eil things preail in the world, and
unierse is collapsing, what 7od could do is -ust watching that happen because he could not
inole the world.
1

In this sense, in the )hristian theism, there is tension between 7odDs limitless and omniscience
and omnipotence and humanDs free will and eil in the world.
In the iewpoint of the +onghak theism, the heaenly 8ord is transcendent and immanent as in
)hristianity. He is the )reator, not only who created all things, but also who carries on proidence
oer all things and guides the order of nature. 'etween the two religions, )hristianity and
+onghak, there are both common concepts of 7od, the personal 7od, monotheism, the supreme
7od, Panentheism, but also different concepts of 7od, the ,rinitarian theism s. the god-human
beings-nature united into one theism. ,o understand and to practise #,ong-kwi-il-che#, in which
you and I are not distinguished, is essential to know 7od in +onghak. Kn the contrary, in
)hristianity, the knowledge of 7od begins from the consciousness of differences between 7od
and human beings. In conseLuence, in +onghak, 7od, human beings and nature are different
moments of the only one /i, but in )hristianity, they are different substances.
4

In this sense, in +onghak theism, ,he 7od and human is in the same leel as they are different
moments of the only one /i. In +onghak, 7od is more immanent than in )hristianity and
furthermore, 7od share all his process of self-creation with human and nature. ,herefore, in
+onghak, there is no tension between 7odDs limitless and omniscience and omnipotence and
humanDs free will like in )hristian theism because 7od and human share all their faith and
destiny. In +onghak, 7odDs will is our will, and our will are 7odDs will.
Howeer, in +onghak theism of one /i, 7odDs limitless and omniscience and omnipotence are
weakened because 7od is imminent in the finite and incomplete world we lie in. 7od should be
in eery eil that happen in the world and sometimes cannot rescue human from the catastrophic
disasters. .nd like in )hristian theism, we could not explain why there are so many eil-things and
so much pain in the world, that 7od do not eliminate with his omniscience and omnipotence. ,hat
is, in other words, why human is the finite and incomplete being een thought 7od and human are
different moments of the only one /i.
.s we hae seen in preious paragraphs, )hristian theism which emphasiBe the difference
between 7od and human, +onghak theism which emphasiBe the oneness between them hae
their own logical contradiction that should be soled.
8astly, in the iewpoint of +aesoon ,houghts, it share common concepts of 7od, the personal
7od, the supreme 7od, Panentheism with )hristianity and +onghak. Howeer, in +aesoon
,houghts, monotheism is dined but Poly-theism is accepted. In +aesoon ,houghts, the whole
unierse is full of spirits. /ang Jeungsan said, <if the spirit departs from the wall that is made of
dirt, the wall will collapse.=
&5
In +aesoon ,houghts, the world could be diided into 4 leel, in
other words, heaen. ,he supreme 7od, /ang Jeungsan sang-e, is in the top leel of the heaen
0ninth heaen6 and rule eery spirits. In +easoon ,houghts, the spiritual world has multi-leel, and
systematic structure.
.nother aspects of +aesoon ,houghts is that human and spirits exchange each otherDs will and
emotion. If human fights each other, that results in the fight among the spirits, after fight among
the spirits ends, then fight among human is determined.
&&
human and spirits depend each other
and share their faith. ,hat aspect is similar with +onghak theism. ,he only difference is that in
+onghak, 7od share the faith with human, but in +easoon ,houghts, spirits share the faiths with
human.
.nd In +easoon ,houghts, the eil or pain are full in the unierse because grudge hae been full
1
John Hick, Philosophy of %eligion, (ew JerseyE Prentice-Hall Inc, &445
4
Gong Hae /im, . comparison between the theism of christianity and )heondokyo, ,he +onghak
9ociety, *55;E AM 1J-&*J
&5
Jungyong, /yobyob, ;E*
&&
Jungyong, /yobyob, &EJ?
;
in the unierse. ,hat grudge has been generated by human and spirits. .nd the 7od,
/ang Jeungsan sang-e rectify the disorder of heaen and earth, to create an earthly paradise by
opening a path to the eerlasting 8ater :orld.
,hese aspects make +easoon ,houghts to be more indirect and flexible in terms of relationship
with 9upreme 7od and human. ,he 9upreme 7od in +easoon ,houghts does not inole directly
in the world and human. Instead, sprits that are full in the unierse mediate 7od and human. ,he
9upreme 7od made the program that rescue the human, but whether to follow the program or not
is totally depends on human.
&*
+easoon ,houghts hae more complex and systematic story in theism compared with )hristian
theism or +onghak theism. ,hese aspects of +easoon ,houghts makes the logical contradiction
happened in )hristianity and +onghak to be more explainable. In )hristianity, 7odDs limitless and
omniscience and omnipotence is opposed to humanDs free will and eils in the world. Howeer, in
+easoon ,houghts, 9upreme 7ods inole the world more indirectly, mediated by the spirits who
share same faiths with human and nature. .nd eils and pains are the sub-ects we should
experience to enter the 8ater :orld. 8ikewise, in +onghak theism of one /i, 7odDs limitless and
omniscience and omnipotence are weakened because 7od is imminent in the finite and
incomplete world we lie in. Howeer, in +easoon ,houghts, the multi-leel and systematic
structure of theism makes these logical problems less serious. In +easoon thoughs, the unierse
is composed of nine-leel, from complete to incomplete, from infinite to finite leel. ,hese
aspects make +easoon ,houghts more plausible to construct relationship with 9upreme 7od and
human and nature with less logical contradictions.
Conclusion
In the preious chapter, +easoon ,houghts hae historical backgrounds to dialectically deelop
the other two theism into renewed and more holistic way. +aesoon ,houghts share similar
characteristics with )hristianity and +onghak. Kn the other hand, +easson ,houghts also hae
more complex, multi-leel and systematic theism compare to )hristianity or +onghak. ,hese
aspects of +aesoon ,houghts hae the potential alue to encompass the )hristianity and
+onghak towards the holistic iew. If there is only one 9upreme 7od, een though the name is
different between each religions like John Hick suggested
&;
, the different theisms from different
religions could be compared and discussed to understand more holistic aspects about our
#$ltimate %eality# in %eligious Pluralism.
&*
Jungyong, /yobyob, ;E;J
&;
John Hick, 7od Has >any (ames, PhiladelphiaE ,he :estminster Press, &415
?