I. Introduction

Introduction

Research Background and Necessity

Donghak Thought (Eastern Learning Thought) has been primarily studied as a religious ideology, and thus has not yet been independently illuminated from the perspectives of indigenous (autogenous) modernity and philosophical methodology implied by its name, "Donghak (Eastern Learning)." The same applies to Daesoon Thought (Daesoon Sasang), which claimed to be the "True Eastern Learning" (Cham Donghak).1) At that time, "Seohak (Western Learning)" was another name for Western modernity, characterized by material civilization and anthropocentrism, and 'Donghak' was another expression for the indigenous modernity and philosophical methodology that responded to it.2) Daesoon Thought also emphasizes that the origin of Western modernity is the Eastern civilization transmitted by Matteo Ricci (1552-1610), and highlights the global crisis caused by a Western modernity skewed toward materialism as the background for its emergence.3) Indeed, it is from this perspective that Daesoon Thought uses the term "True Eastern Learning" rather than just "Donghak."4)5)

The reason Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought have not been studied from the aspect of indigenous modernity is the failure to recognize East Asia's indigenous modernity, which is now known to be the origin of Western 'modernity.' However, as Daesoon Thought first revealed, the recent discovery that Western modernity originated from the Eastern civilization disseminated to the West by Matteo Ricci has led to a re-evaluation of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought as East Asia's indigenous modernity.

This re-evaluation of Eastern and Western modernity began as the development of IT technology made writings from the dawn of Western modernity freely available online through platforms like Google (google.com), thereby shedding new light on the concealed Eastern origins of Western modernity. In fact, although Max Weber (1864-1920) claimed the origin of modernity was Calvin's Predestination, it has been revealed that the Enlightenment, which institutionalized Calvin's theology into capitalism, began from the ethical, non-monotheistic civilization of China—namely, Confucian civilization—disseminated by Matteo Ricci.6) These records show that Confucianism, which was identified as an obstacle to modernization in the East, was, on the contrary, the origin of modernity in the West.7)8)

As the claims of Western scholars regarding the Eastern origins of the Enlightenment were substantiated by online materials, scholars from the Eastern sphere, such as Hwang Tae-yeon, are also revealing that the origin of Western Enlightenment lies in the ethical reflections and religious scholarship of the East, which had been dismissed as pre-modern superstition.9) Representative scholars in this field include Zhu Qianzhi (1899-1972) in China; in the West, Andre Gunder Frank (1929-2005), famous as a dependency theorist, John Montagu Hobson (1962-present), Herrlee Glessner Creel (1905-1994), and Adolf Reichwein (1898-1944); and in Korea, Hwang Tae-yeon, Cho Hye-in, Jeon Hong-seok, Lee Young-jae, and Lee Dong-hee, among others.10)11)12)13)14)15)16)17)18)19)

Consequently, Western 'post-modernism' theorists, particularly Francois Jullien (1951-present), have continuously conducted research seeking post-modern thought, an alternative to Western modernity, in the East. Although Jullien does not claim that Enlightenment philosophy was directly influenced by Mencius (BC 372? - BC 289?), he demonstrates that the critical consciousness of Enlightenment philosophers and that of Mencius are remarkably close.20)

This Western modern civilization has long been feared to bring about a crisis of human extinction, such as nuclear weapons and environmental problems, and that crisis has now become a reality. Accordingly, the construction of alternative modernities has become a pressing real-world issue.21) Postmodernist thinkers, who have been preparing for alternative modernities through discussions of 'post-modernity,' are also seeking alternatives to modernity in "ethical reflection" and "religious turns," much like indigenous modernity.22) Leading scholars unanimously state that without reflexivity on the civilization that has incessantly conquered nature, and without a religious turn, the alternatives proposed by numerous postmodern thoughts—such as "Deconstruction" and "mourning"—cannot succeed against a modern civilization skewed by human arrogance and materialism.23)

Amidst these fluid changes in global intellectual circles, Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, which early on emphasized the crisis of modern civilization and the religious turn as an alternative modernity, are being re-illuminated today as East Asia's indigenous modern ideologies.24)

Although Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought have been studied in various fields as indigenous modernities, existing research has lacked inquiry into the Eastern philosophical methodology presupposed in the name "Donghak"—that is, the Eastern and Korean philosophical methodology of thought. In the West, conversely, the characteristics of Eastern thought were early on sought in its philosophical methodology, which has been consistently noted as an alternative rationality to Western modern rationality.

It is somewhat surprising that philosophical methodology has not been the subject of research concerning Donghak-related thoughts thus far. A lack of understanding regarding the differences between Eastern and Western philosophical methods of thought is obscuring the global intellectual-historical value of the indigenous modernity found in Donghak-related thoughts. Donghak-related thoughts can be defined as thoughts influenced by or related to Donghak, including Daesoon Thought, which was described as 'True Donghak' after Donghak, as well as, for example, Won-Buddhism and the Unification Church.25)

In fact, Donghak Thought emerged asserting 'Donghak' as a "Learning (Hak)" in response to the identity crisis caused by the clash of Eastern and Western civilizations, similar to theories like 'Dongdo-seogi-ron' (Eastern ways, Western machines), 'Jungche-seoyong-ron' (Chinese essence, Western function), and 'Seohak-jungwon-ron' (Western learning originated in China). In the "Nonhangmun" (Discussion on Learning) of the Donggyeong Daejeon, where the term 'Donghak' first appears, Donghak Thought is presented over several passages as a "Learning (Hak)" contrasted with Seohak (Western Learning). With the failure of Donghak, this task remained an objective for subsequent Donghak-related thoughts.26)

Understanding religion from the academic perspective of "learning (Hak)" is a unique East Asian method of comprehending religion that became popular after Neo-Confucianism. The introduction of the term 'religion' into East Asia, which had previously understood it through the expression "learning (Hak)," occurred later, and even today, the concept of 'religion' remains highly controversial.27)

Of course, the concept of "learning (Hak)" in East Asia is sometimes assessed as a pre-modern, undifferentiated concept of religion used before the term "religion" was introduced. However, overseas, extensive research is being conducted on the concept of "Hak" as a broad concept that includes the social background of its emergence and its political implications, and the "Hak" concept of Neo-Confucianism, in particular, is evaluated as a highly holistic system of thought.28)29)

The concept of 'learning (Hak)' presented in Neo-Confucianism is evaluated as having a logical structure very different from the modern educational acquisition of knowledge or skills, or even the acquisition of culture. Although the main part of "Hak" in Neo-Confucianism discusses the problem of the Mind (Sim), which seems most detached from the concrete phenomena of human society, this theory, which appears to be merely abstract metaphysics, is said to be a very important part of understanding actual real-world problems. "Hak" shows how the elite, whose identity is "Hak," and the non-elite commoners (Min) are distinguished and what relationship they form; how they can possess and justify real power without being specifically empowered by the state or special institutions; and how the relationships between the elites and the government, state, and monarch are defined.30)

In Korea, the evaluation of Donghak's 'Hak' is sometimes expanded and re-evaluated as a theory of self-cultivation, or as Korean humanities or Korean philosophy; however, overseas, it is being re-evaluated through the postmodern science debate as an alternative East Asian science.31) The potential for East Asia's "Hak" to be an alternative science was discussed early in the philosophy of science, in the case of the scientific re-evaluation of Europe's pre-modern scientific philosophy, the "four-element theory" (Earth, Water, Fire, Air), within European philosophy of science.32)33)

The re-evaluation of the 'four-element' theory, a pre-modern Western scientific theory, as a philosophy of science began with Gaston Louis Pierre Bachelard's (1884-1962) discovery of the scientific philosophy of Earth, Water, Fire, and Air. French philosophy of science, starting with Bachelard, now bifurcates the world of scientific philosophy alongside Anglo-American philosophies of science, such as the paradigm theory of Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922-1996) or the Falsifiability of Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994), which are considered representative of contemporary philosophy of science. Whereas the Anglo-American scientific philosophies of Kuhn and Popper are limited to the field of science and lack a concrete system like the 'four elements,' French philosophy of science, which began with the philosophy of the four elements, has expanded into the humanities and social sciences—unlike its Anglo-American counterparts—and presupposes the traditional substance of the four elements.34)

Unlike the Anglo-American philosophies of science of Popper and Kuhn, which viewed the conditions of science as falsifiability or the consensus of the scientific community, Bachelard regarded the characteristic of science as the "Epistemological Break." This means that science is not based on the absolute existence of universally valid theories that are falsifiable or established by convention, but rather that disconnected theories emerge independently and coexist. A representative example is the coexistence of the 'four elements' and atomistic science. Bachelard, prior to Kuhn, termed this coexistence a 'paradigm.' Bachelard's philosophy of science, which regarded the 'epistemological break' as a paradigm, became the theoretical foundation for prominent postmodernist philosophers who are still influential today, such as Louis Pierre Althusser (1918-1990), Jacques Lacan (1902-1981), Michel Foucault (1926-1984), Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995), Michel Serres (1930-2019), Gilbert Durand (1921-2012), and systems science theorists like Humberto Maturana (1928-2021), Francisco Javier Varela Garcia (1946-2001), and Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998).

'Earth, Water, Fire, and Air' was a representative scientific view of the pre-modern world, prevalent not only in Europe but also in Buddhism, Hinduism, Egypt, and parts of China. The revival of the four-element scientific view, which had declined after modern science despite its past prominence, by Bachelard as a philosophy of science was paradoxically triggered by the process of pointing out its problems. In the process of identifying the problems of the four elements, the early Bachelard discovered within them the source of imagination, a pre-scientific element that transcends science.35) Bachelard discovered that the four elements were not an obstacle to science, but conversely, that science itself is a discovery of human imagination, and therefore science must utilize the four elements to advance. Bachelard pointed out that modern science, by obstructing the imagination of the four elements, has plunged modern people into the suffering of lacking imagination, and identified this lack of imagination as the cause of all modern problems.36) Bachelard's assertions, interpreted in various ways, came to form a major current in world philosophy of science.37)

The philosophy of science of the four elements is important for understanding Donghak's "Hak" concept because it shows the possibility that Yin-Yang and the Five Elements—the East Asian scientific theory on which Donghak is academically based—can be re-evaluated as a modern philosophy of science, and that Yin-Yang and the Five Elements have the potential to contribute to modern Eastern philosophy of science as much as the four elements did to Western.38)

Daesoon Thought early on suggested, through the term 'True Donghak' (Cham Donghak), that it is the final solution to the task of "Donghak" as an East Asian methodology of thought, a task posed by Donghak Thought. Although extensive research has been conducted on Daesoon Thought and Donghak Thought, studies conducted from the perspective of "Donghak" as an East Asian philosophical methodology are still rare among researchers in both fields.

In the Jeon-gyeong, the scripture of Daesoon Thought, the phrase 'Seoyudaeseong-inwalseohak Dongyudaeseong-inwaldonghak' (A great sage in the West is called Western Learning, a great sage in the East is called Eastern Learning) expresses the religion and learning originating from Eastern sages as 'Donghak,' contrasting it with Western 'Seohak.' From this expression in the Jeon-gyeong, we can see that 'Donghak' was also presented as a philosophical methodology for East Asian religion.39) The use of the academic expression "Jinri" (Truth) in "Daesoon Jinri" (Truth of Daesoon) also reflects this.40)

It is natural that this term was also presented as a philosophical methodology in Donghak. The "Nonhangmun" (Discussion on Learning) in the Donggyeong Daejeon, where the term 'Donghak' first appears, is said to have originally been titled "Donghangmun" (On Eastern Learning).41) The Yongdam Yusa, a compilation of Su-un's Hangeul verses, and the Donggyeong Daejeon, his work in classical Chinese, were both written directly by Su-un and thus correspond to early Donghak.42) In this discussion, the Donghak of the four-year period when Su-un was active is referred to as 'early Donghak,' and following the position of Daesoon Thought, which holds that 'early Donghak' is the thought of Jeungsan, this dissertation will limit its scope of Donghak Thought to early Donghak.43) However, for comparison with Daesoon Thought, some later terminology that specifically interprets early Donghak Thought will also be used.

In Daesoon Thought, Donghak Thought appears as 'a religion that advocated for the work of the Later World (Hucheon).' Although the term 'Hucheon' (Later World) does not appear directly in the Yongdam Yusa or Donggyeong Daejeon, Daesoon Thought shares many terms that originated in early Donghak, such as 'Donghak,' 'Gaebyeok' (Great Opening), and 'Jisang-seongyeong' (Earthly Paradise).44)

Another basis for the claim that Daesoon Thought represents the completion of Donghak — that is, True Donghak — is the reference to jaknan and chiran.45) The passage stating that “the one who created disorder (jaknan, 作乱) was Su-un, and the one who restores order (chiran, 治乱) is Jeungsan” demonstrates that the initial problem posed regarding ‘Donghak’ was raised by Su-un, while its resolution was achieved through Jeungsan’s True Donghak. The work of examining the terminology shared by early Donghak and Daesoon Thought through the lens of Eastern philosophical methodology — in order to show how the True Donghak of Daesoon Thought completes the Donghak of Donghak Thought — is research that is absolutely essential for understanding the logical coherence of Daesoon Thought in the study of Daesoon Thought.

Just as Western modernity began with Copernicus's heliocentric theory, it is a well-known fact that 'modernity' as a scholarly pursuit begins with the establishment of an indigenous theory of cosmology. Therefore, Donghak, as an indigenous modern thought, also started from the new establishment of an Eastern cosmology—that is, views on Heaven, Earth, and Humanity—but like Donghak's philosophical methodology, this aspect has not been extensively studied. Accordingly, this study intends to examine Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought from the perspective of philosophical methodology, focusing on the indigenous modernity of their views on Heaven, Earth, and Humanity, in order to discuss the breadth and depth of their indigenous modernity.46)

Research Objectives and Scope

The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate that 'Donghak'-related thoughts established an indigenous modernity against Western modernity by constructing views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity that fused East and West through Eastern philosophical methods of thought, and by deriving mutually beneficent (Sangsaeng-jeok) views of the Heaven-realm, Earth-realm, and Human-realm. From this perspective, this dissertation intends to compare Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought.

The theme of 'Donghak' as a philosophical methodology of thought is a broad and important topic related to the identity of East Asian civilization. Since the imperialist era, when Eastern and Western civilizations began to clash in earnest, the search for an Eastern philosophical methodology as an alternative to the West has been a task of survival for East Asians. Paradoxically, indigenous modernity is also an important task for Westerners in their search for an alternative modernity that can solve the crisis of modern civilization brought about by today's Western civilization.

Daesoon Thought and Donghak Thought present the philosophical structure and logical coherence of Eastern thought more clearly than existing Eastern thoughts. Although Daesoon Thought shares many terms with Donghak Thought, Daesoon Thought fundamentally redefines and supplements the terms first presented in Donghak Thought, referring to this as 'True Donghak' (Cham Donghak). Considering that the term 'Donghak' emerged with the meaning of an Eastern philosophical methodology, the difference between Daesoon Thought and Donghak Thought needs to be re-examined from the perspective of Eastern philosophical methodology. In particular, the 'True Donghak' spoken of in Daesoon Thought can be understood as meaning that it was more faithful to the Eastern philosophical methodology than Donghak Thought. Comparing Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought from the perspective of Eastern philosophical methodology can show the potential for a more essential understanding of 'Donghak' as the establishment of indigenous modernity.47)

This dissertation examines the characteristics of indigenous modernity in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought based on preceding research that defined them through the correlative thought's liminality and revitalization movements, focusing on the aspect of constructing a convergent East-West view of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. The liminality of correlative thinking has been a representative concept used to explain alternative rationality within the history of modern Western thought, which has sought alternatives to Western modernity for over 100 years.

Correlative thinking is a system of thought that first sees the whole of all things and then views the parts in context and relation, contrasting with the Western substantival, ontological, and analytic thought (annalistic thought) that sees the parts first and then the whole; it is an Eastern holographic (Jeon-sik-jeok) and holistic generative system of thought.48) The theory of correlative thought posits that, unlike the West where addresses are written starting from the nearest location, the East has a unique relational system of thought, writing addresses starting from the furthest point, the country's name.49) Correlative thinking is the system of thought manifested in the traditional Eastern educational method of learning 'Haneul-cheon Tta-ji' (Heaven, Earth, etc.) first, unlike Western-style education which starts with 'Spot, Chul-soo' (names). Correlative thinking was proposed by Marcel Granet (1884-1940), an early researcher of Eastern religions, and has been continuously developed since.50)

Next, the theory of liminality is a theory that explains religious change through rites of passage. Victor Turner (1920-1983) explains religious change using the concept of liminality, an intermediate zone in rites of passage that exists between the pre-change and post-change states. The concept of liminality, derived from 'Limen' meaning threshold or intermediate zone, is also a theory that, unlike dichotomous Western thought, posits that a third, intermediate zone—liminality—can explain individual and social changes, such as those in rites of passage. Both theories were developed in the West in the search for alternative ways of thinking and are being applied to the characteristics of Eastern thought and systems.51)

Furthermore, revitalization theory, unlike liminality theory which emphasizes the change of modernity, is a theory that explains the process of responding to external changes. First introduced by anthropologist Anthony F. C. Wallace (1923-2015), revitalization theory is another anthropological ritual theory that explains the changes in the process of responding to external threats by utilizing tradition.52) Unlike liminality theory, which emphasizes the internal process of change, revitalization emphasizes external threats and the utilization of tradition. When an individual is threatened with the potential dissolution of their identity, they reorganize their personal belief system based on their strengths, put the changed belief system into practice, and thus change their position in society. Wallace named 'revitalization' as the process whereby a society, when facing a crisis that threatens to dissolve its social identity, revitalizes the strengths of its existing cultural traditions to change its social belief system. If the aspect of liminality explains the mechanism of change, revitalization well explains the mechanism of maintaining that change. In fact, the internal changes of revitalization can be explained by liminality. Therefore, to explain indigenous modernization, the perspective of liminality as an intermediate stage is needed simultaneously with the perspective of revitalization as the principle of maintaining change.53)54)

To achieve the research objectives, this discussion will proceed in the following order and scope. First, it examines the differences between Eastern and Western thought systems as conditions for indigenous modernity, and explores liminality and revitalization as potential mediators between these systems. Second, this dissertation limits its scope to the views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity to trace the indigenous modernity manifested in the two thoughts. It examines the modern transformation of the traditional views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity found in both thoughts and traces its principles. Third, it compares the indigenous modernity of the two thoughts and, in the conclusion, presents an evaluation and prospect of them as the indigenous modernity of the views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity.

In detail, this dissertation proceeds in the following order. First, Chapter I analyzes previous research related to modernity. Chapter II explains the difference between modernity and indigenous modernity, and presents liminality and revitalization as conditions for indigenous modernity. Specifically, Section II-1 examines the definition of modernity as the 'consilience of the sacred and the secular,' the shared Eastern origins of modernity and indigenous modernity, "Hak" (Learning) as the formal system of indigenous modernity, and correlative thinking as the philosophical methodology of indigenous modernity; Section II-2 examines liminality as the change mechanism and revitalization as the persistence mechanism of indigenous modernity.

Chapter III explains the continuity and change of Eastern and Western traditions in Donghak Thought—that is, their commonalities and differences—by dividing them into three parts, focusing on the views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. Specifically, Section III-1 explains the traditional Eastern and Western views of Heaven as assimilative and formalistic, respectively, and examines the indigenous modernity manifested in Donghak Thought's 'Sicheonju' (Bearing God) view of Heaven. Section III-2 explains the traditional Eastern and Western views of Earth as condensative and materialistic, respectively, and examines the modernity manifested in Donghak Thought's 'Jowhajeong' (Fixing Creation) view of Earth. Section III-3 explains the traditional Eastern and Western views of Humanity as grafting and growth-oriented, respectively, and examines the modernity manifested in Donghak Thought's 'Yeongsebulmang' (Eternal Non-forgetting) view of Humanity.

Chapter IV compares the continuity and change of Eastern and Western traditions in Daesoon Thought—that is, their commonalities and differences—by dividing them into three parts, focusing on the views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. Section IV-1 explains the Daesoon view of Heaven as a view of the Heaven-realm based on 'Insin-gangse' (Human Advent), compares it with the traditional view of Heaven, and then examines its aspects and characteristics. Section IV-2 explains the Daesoon view of Earth as a view of the Earth-realm based on 'Cheonji Seong-Gyeong-Sin' (Sincerity, Reverence, and Faith of Heaven and Earth), compares it with the traditional view of Earth, and then examines its aspects and characteristics. Section IV-3 explains the Daesoon view of Humanity as a view of the Human-realm based on 'Seongsa-jaein' (Success Depends on the Person), compares it with the traditional view of Humanity, and then examines its aspects and characteristics.

Chapter V compares the views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought from the perspective of the continuity and change in the two thoughts. Section V-1 compares the indigenous modernity of the two thoughts, focusing on their views of Heaven. Section V-2 compares the indigenous modernity of the two thoughts, focusing on their views of Earth. Section V-3 compares the indigenous modernity of the two thoughts, focusing on their views of Humanity.

Chapter VI, the conclusion, summarizes the above discussion, identifies the limitations and significance of this study, and synthesizes the comparison of the indigenous modernity of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought.

Analysis of Prior Research

Research on Donghak has expanded, with over 1,000 theses published, primarily centered around related academic societies such as the Donghak Society and the Korean Donghak Society. The main discussion has consisted of content that seeks the origin of Korea's modernity theories in "Donghak," as a counterargument to the theories that had sought it in "Silhak" (Practical Learning). Among the preceding studies, the part emphasized as the origin of indigenous modernity in Donghak Thought was the comparison of Donghak Thought's contemporary philosophical aspects—which began with figures like Kim Ji-ha—with aspects of modern Western philosophy, such as life philosophy and process philosophy.55)56)57)

Previous research on Donghak Thought related to modernity is broadly divided into three categories: studies on the Donghak popular movement, Donghak's religious thought, and Donghak's philosophical methodology. First, the Donghak popular movement is primarily studied using social scientific methods regarding the history of the social movement that arose from Donghak Thought, rather than its religion and ideology, as historical research on the Donghak Peasant Revolution. Second, Donghak's religious thought is studied through religious studies methods or intellectual history methods concerning Eastern religions. Third, Donghak's philosophical methodology is studied as an Eastern academic methodology from the perspective of the philosophy of science or civilizational history.

The preceding research related to this dissertation is mainly the second type, which studies Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought as religious ideologies, and the third type, which regards them as Eastern methodologies of thought. The second type of research can be further divided into studies that seek the significance of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought within the entire history of Korean religious thought, and studies that intensively explore Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought. The first type, studies seeking the significance of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought in the entire history of Korean religious thought, includes Jang Byeong-gil, Jeong Jin-hong, Yoon Yi-heum, and Choi Jong-seong.58) Kang Don-gu, Noh Gil-myeong, Kim Hong-cheol, Don Baker, Yu Dong-sik, Kim Jong-seo, Kim Ik-du, Hwang Jong-won, among others, can be mentioned; for the second type, studies intensively comparing and exploring Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, representative researchers include Kim Ji-ha and Kim Tak.59)60)61)62)63)64)65)66)67)68)69)70)71)

Looking at each researcher in detail, first, in the case of Jang Byeong-gil, who pioneered the study of Daesoon Thought and published the first edition of the Jeon-gyeong through Seoul National University Press, he understands Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought as the spiritual worldview of the grass-roots populace, and notes that Daesoon Thought, which emerged in response, particularly entails a view of divine beings (Sinmyeong-gwan) according to the principle of the transformation of Heaven and Earth.72) It is said that this is also accompanied by a total change in views of humanity, values, and so on. In the case of Jeong Jin-hong, a representative Korean scholar of religion, he summarized Korean religious history as Daoism of mimesis, Buddhism of Mythos, Confucianism of Logos, and Donghak of Theos, and regarded the development of Protestantism after liberation as an extension of Donghak.73) He states that although Donghak's appearance was brief, it holds the significant meaning of being the beginning of Theos in Korean religious thought.74) Choi Jong-seong, carrying on Jeong Jin-hong's research, argues that Donghak needs to be studied centering on its rituals, as 'Theopraxy.' While Jeong Jin-hong's research studied the significance of Donghak Thought focusing on its doctrines, Yoon Yi-heum explains its significance in the form of a supreme God, stating that Donghak, while a new ideology, also shares the transformative worldview of the Jeonggamnok that preceded it and serves as a model for the new religions that emerged afterward.75)

In the case of Kang Don-gu, who seeks to apply global religious studies trends to the study of Korean new religions, he emphasizes the role of the Jeongyeok (Correct Change) from the perspective of the differentiation of Korean religion, and stresses that Korean characteristics are prominent in new Korean religions that reflect the Jeongyeok. He says that Daesoon Thought, which particularly emphasizes the Jeongyeok, expresses Korean characteristics well.76) Noh Gil-myeong states that today's new Korean religions, although established in the late Joseon period, are a contemporary phenomenon that can be linked to post-modernity, in that they were re-illuminated after the economic development. Accordingly, he argues that Daesoon Thought's Haewon-sangsaeng should also be examined as Jeungsan's alternative modernity, which foresaw the future crisis that Western modernity would cause.77)

In the case of Kim Hong-cheol, he points to Geumsan Temple and Vinaya Master Jinpyo as the geographical background for the emergence of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, illuminating the relationship between the Baekje restoration movement and the revitalization of Maitreya faith as the background for both thoughts. The Donghak Peasant Revolution and Daesoon Thought coincidentally developed centered on Geumsan Temple and Maitreya, which are related to the fall of Baekje.78) Don Baker regards Donghak-related thoughts as a combination of Sin (God/spirit) and Do (Dao/Way), which have constituted Korean spirituality. If Sin (神) is a personalistic god concept like that in Christianity or Shamanism, Do (道) can be said to be an impersonalistic principle-god (Ibeopsin), as in Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism.79) In the case of Yu Dong-sik, he advocates for "Pungryu" (Wind and Stream) theology, claiming that spiritual determinism, divination-prophecy beliefs, and Pungsu-jiri (Feng Shui) are the three mainstreams of Korean folk religion, and that Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought are extensions of this. The 'Pung' (Wind) in Pungryu is a concept of Qi (Gi) that predates and is interchangeable with Qi (氣), and Qi (氣) has formed the main pillars of Korean folk religion: spiritual determinism, divination-prophecy beliefs, and Pungsu-jiri.80) Kim Jong-seo introduces the research of Gernot Prunner (1935-2002), who compared the modern Donghak Thought, which emphasized social revolutionary aspects, with Daesoon Thought, which focused on the salvation of humankind.81)

In the case of Kim Ik-du, who leads "Jeongeup Studies" in Jeongeup, the heartland of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, he, as a scholar of Korean literature specializing in drama, evaluates the two thoughts as groundbreaking ideologies that transform Aristotle's (B.C. 384-322) Western conflict frame, which emphasizes conflict, into Korean Sangsaeng (mutual beneficence). Kim Ik-du argues that the project of seeking the alternative modernity that postmodernism sought in the West failed because catharsis is the womb of dialectics, and catharsis is motived by Western mythology, which is themed on the conflict of gods. Rather, Kim Ik-du pays attention to Kim Ji-ha's research, which sought the alternative modernity postmodernism was looking for in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, and interprets Kim Ji-ha's research from the perspective of liminality. Kim Ik-du states that the 'aesthetics of white shadow,' an alternative modernity that Kim Ji-ha discovered in the two thoughts, was possible because it was based on Korean mythology, which, unlike Western mythology, is motived by the harmony of gods.82)

Also, Lee Young-ran, who studied performance studies under Richard Schechner (1934-present)—who early on applied liminality to performance studies and highly valued Korean shamanism from a liminality perspective—interprets liminality from a performance studies perspective along the two axes of 'being' and 'becoming,' and summarizes the views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity (Cheon-Ji-In) and representative Western postmodern thoughts in a single table. The verb "be," which has the two meanings of "to exist" (itda) and "to be" (ida), is applied in Heidegger's existentialism as a core tool for explaining the world, and Schechner applied this to performance studies, interpreting liminality as 'being' and 'becoming.' Although East Asia lacks the verb "be," it has the "Han" concept, which refers to both part and whole simultaneously; Lee Young-ran applies this to Heaven, Earth, and Humanity (Cheon-Ji-In) like the Cheonbugyeong, interpreting them as Heaven (1), Earth (2, 1+2), and Human (3, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1'=1+2+3), and argues that this "Han" concept can interpret liminality more readily than the verb "be." This dissertation intends to apply the definitions of liminality primarily referenced from Kim Ik-du and Lee Young-ran to the indigenous modernity of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought.83)

Hwang Jong-won states that Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought achieved a creative modernity by uniquely synthesizing the three origins of Eastern and Western religions. It is said that Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, among the ideologies that chose a third path in response to the Enlightenment faction (Gaehwapa) and the 'Protect Orthodoxy and Reject Heterodoxy' faction (Wijeong-cheoksapa), became successful indigenous ideologies by coordinating East and West from an objective standpoint, unlike the popularization of Confucianism seen in figures like Park Eun-sik. This aligns well with the case of China's Liang Qichao, as pointed out by Wang Hui.

Next, looking at studies focused on comparing the modernity of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, Kim Ji-ha, for instance, broadly categorizes Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought into political modern thought and cultural modern thought. Kim Ji-ha argues that while Donghak Thought emphasized political modernity, Daesoon Thought pursued cultural modernity by applying it starting from small, everyday practices. Kim Ji-ha, comparing the two thoughts through an intuitive aesthetic method, states that Donghak Thought has a strong political-ideological character, pursuing a 'Dongse-gaebyeok' (Dynamic World-Opening) through the organized methods of artificial and traditional popular revolt; whereas Daesoon Thought has a strong cultural movement character, demonstrating a movement of 'Jeongse-gaebyeok' (Peaceful World-Opening) in everyday practice.84) Kim Ji-ha attempted a comparative analysis of the modern characteristics of the two thoughts from the perspective of the philosophy of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), who synthesized science and theology; in particular, he compared the philosophy of becoming of Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995), a representative thinker of post-modernity, and ultimately derived the commonality of 'Chaosmos.' Kim Ji-ha expressed this through the stages of life philosophy, 'Yullyeo' (Cosmic Music/Rhythm), and the 'aesthetics of white shadow.' 'Yullyeo,' which means Eastern harmony but symbolizes cosmic harmony, was Kim Ji-ha's aesthetic expression for the indigenous modernity of correlative thinking.85) Kim Ji-ha interpreted Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought as indigenous modernity and post-modernity, respectively, and emphasized the characteristics of correlative thinking; however, he primarily used aesthetic expressions and did not attempt a comparison linking correlative thinking with anthropological concepts such as liminality and revitalization, as this dissertation does.86)87)88)89)

In the case of Kim Tak, he provides detailed textual verification of the two thoughts, specifically comparing the continuity and change of tradition connecting them to existing thoughts from the perspective of anthropocentrism. Especially, insofar as Daesoon Thought could be called 'True Donghak,' he sufficiently explains the terms shared by Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought. However, he has not yet conducted research on the correlative thinking present in the background of the two thoughts. Besides these two researchers, some comparative studies on the modernity of the two thoughts have been conducted, which will be discussed whenever the topic arises as the discussion unfolds.90)91)

Third, looking at preceding research on the methodological aspects of thought in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, it is broadly divided into studies on process philosophy, correlative thinking, and synchronicity. However, these studies, while applied to individual research on Donghak Thought or Daesoon Thought, have rarely been applied to a comparison of the two. The controversy over the third method, which applies the methodology of applying Western scholarship to Eastern thought, is still ongoing. In Daesoon Thought, which holds that modern Western science and humanities/social sciences resulted from the transmission of Eastern thought to the West by Matteo Ricci and Great Master Jinmuk (1562-1633), despite the controversy, preceding studies on the methodological aspects of thought in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought are prerequisite studies that must be reviewed. In fact, Hwang Tae-yeon, by analyzing the 400-year-old English writings from Matteo Ricci's time released by Google on the internet, shows through about 20 existing books—which analyzed how Eastern thought transmitted after Matteo Ricci was transformed into Western science and humanities/social sciences—how Western modernity, originating from Eastern thought, is being appropriated in Donghak-related thoughts.92)

Examining the scholarship by individual researcher, the representative figures in the area of process philosophy are Kim Gyeong-jae and Kim Sang-il. Process philosophy, which began with Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), developed into process theology through figures such as John B. Cobb (1925–present) and made groundbreaking contributions to understanding the religious conceptions of the divine93) found in the self-cultivation traditions of East and West across all periods. In the case of Kim Ji-ha, he also applied process philosophy in an aesthetic mode to Donghak thought and Daesoon Thought, and there is likewise the research of Pak Jae-ju, who analyzed the thought of the Book of Changes — the origin of East Asian modes of thought — through the lens of process philosophy,94) but the researchers who substantively connected Donghak thought with process philosophy are Kim Gyeong-jae and Kim Sang-il. Kim Gyeong-jae, drawing on the concepts of Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), who laid the foundations for process theology,95) interpreted the Donghak conception of the divine as a panentheism in which the transcendent is immanently co-present, thereby first opening up the possibility of understanding Donghak through philosophical modes of thought.96) Kim Sang-il applies the process theology of John Cobb — who extended Hartshorne’s concepts further — to characterize Donghak as Neo-Western Learning (신서학, Sinseohak).97) Kim Sang-il subsequently attempted a variety of studies grafting process philosophy onto modern fractal science and applying it to the postmodernity of Daesoon Thought, including the perennial philosophy associated with Ken Wilber (1949–present).98) More recent scholarship on process theology has developed into research on the holistic unity (全一性) of Donghak thought.99)

Next, in the case of correlative thinking, representative researchers include Kim Hyung-hyo, Lee Chang-il, Kwak Shin-hwan, Jeong Woo-jin, Park Jeong-jin, Kim Ki, Baek Seung-jong, Lee Bong-ho, and Kim Baek-hyun. Although Lee Chang-il was the researcher who fully introduced correlative thinking to Korea, Kim Hyung-hyo's research, which had been grafting postmodernism onto Eastern thought for about 30 years prior, existed, and this was followed by domestic researchers like Park Jeong-jin and overseas research.100) Regarding full-scale research on correlative thinking by Confucian scholars, there is the work of Kwak Shin-hwan.101) Kwak Shin-hwan introduced Taiwanese research on correlative thinking and applied it to the study of post-Toegye Korean thought, including new Korean religious ideologies.102) Kim Ki has also published a doctoral dissertation synthesizing domestic and international research on the Confucian aspects of correlative thinking.103) Baek Seung-jong, who has traced the influence of the Jeonggamnok, has also explored the Eastern tradition regarding the power of the mind through correlative thinking, which formed the background of the Jeonggamnok's power.104)105)106)107)

Full-scale research on correlative thinking by Daoist scholars has been conducted by Jeong Woo-jin and others. Jeong Woo-jin, reflecting the recent trend in East Asian Daoist research connecting traditional Korean medicine with correlative thinking, distinguished between correlative thinking and synchronistic thinking and presented various views on the body, where East Asian science is concentrated.108) Kim Hee-jung regards the period when correlative thinking was established as the Han Dynasty, when the Huangdi Sijing (Yellow Emperor's Four Classics) was established, and has traced the development process of Eastern science, in which the body, state, and universe were integrated as one through correlative thinking.109) Lee Bong-ho, who has traced the correlative thinking of Daoist scholars like Seo Myeong-eung (1716-1787) who responded to Western Learning (Seohak) with correlative thinking, has also traced the emergence of the Yi-zhuan (Commentary on the I Ching), where correlative thinking centered on Taiyi (Great One) first appears, as the birth process of I Ching studies.110) Lee Bong-ho, like Kwon Taek-young, has also traced the structural similarities between Saussure, who was the origin of Lacanian structuralism—a leading theory of post-modernity—and Laozi's Daodejing.111) Kim Baek-hyun synthesizes the origins of correlative thinking from the perspective of the 'theory of Qi-fication' (Gihwa-ron).112)113)114)115)116)

While there have been critical studies on correlative thinking, such as Kim Young-gun's critical study from an analytic philosophy perspective arguing that correlative thinking cannot be an alternative to analytic science, if one applies the philosophy of science of Paul Karl Feyerabend (1924-1994)—who argued there is no reason why science must only use analytic methods—then analytic thinking, incompetent in solving today's real-world problems, can be sufficiently complemented by correlative thinking.117)118)

Research on synchronicity, as seen in the Secret craze, is a field that can be called the future of religious studies, represented today by the "encounter between religion and science." Although the Korean Academy of Mental Science was disbanded, the International Society for Science & Religion, established in 1968, which has continuously held international academic conferences on science and religion, ranks among the top societies in the global field of religious studies every year.119) Research on synchronicity manifests in various fields of Fractal science, which posits that the whole appears repeatedly in the parts.120) Previous researchers in fields related to synchronicity in Donghak Thought and Jeungsan Thought include Heo Hun, Park Byoung-hoon, and others.121) Heo Hun viewed Daesoon Thought through "Perennial Philosophy," and Park Byoung-hoon unearthed cases of synchronicity through the study of Donghak's "Gangpil" (automatic writing).122)123)124)

In existing discussions on the modernity of Donghak Thought, the research paying attention to correlative thinking was pioneered by the study of Kim Ji-ha. Kim Ji-ha, almost the only early researcher to study both Donghak Thought and Jeungsan Thought simultaneously, also published many literary works, and the consistency seen in Kim Ji-ha's works was Yin-Yang and the Five Elements.125) Kim Ji-ha also claimed that Hong Yong-hee's critical review, which interpreted his thought development process through Yin-Yang and the Five Elements, was most consistent with his own thesis.126) Hong Yong-hee compares Kim Ji-ha's early work Hwangtogil (Yellow Earth Road) and his later work Aerin, stating that Kim Ji-ha interpreted Donghak Thought as the modernity of Yang (positivity) and Jeungsan Thought as post-modernity.127) Kim Ji-ha is said to have explained the development from Donghak Thought to Jeungsan Thought in three stages: Life, Yullyeo (rhythm/cosmic music), and White Shadow.

In the West, along with the trend of postmodernism, research interpreting correlative thinking as post-modernity also appeared globally. In the West, postmodernism is based on non-linear thinking, such as correlative thinking. In particular, theories such as the complex system attracted attention as an alternative not only for the humanities and social sciences but also for modern natural sciences. In Korea, Kim Sang-il and others developed a deductive theory that the I Ching is based on the logic of post-modernity and is also related to process philosophy.128) However, these preceding studies delved into everydayness or micro-theories and did not discuss the macroscopic views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity that are the foundation of actual modernity.129)130)

Even researchers of Donghak Thought who have studied it as a theory of self-cultivation have conducted insufficient research on correlative thinking.131) This is because there was no mediating concept like "liminality" to connect correlative thinking with the theory of self-cultivation. The concept of liminality, which has properties of both epistemology and self-cultivation, shares common attributes with the concept of "Jhwa" (Harmony/Creation) in Donghak Thought, and thus can link research on correlative thinking in Donghak Thought with the theory of self-cultivation. The traditional research on "Jhwa" by Cho Yong-il and the research on "liminality" by Lee Young-ran can connect the two concepts.132)133)

"Jhwa" (Harmony/Creation) was a core ideology of Donghak Thought, along with "Sicheonju" (Bearing God), but follow-up research after Cho Yong-il has been insufficient. The broad scope and meaning covered by "Jhwa" made it a very difficult concept for which to clarify the core attributes. In a broad sense, the "Yullyeo" (cosmic rhythm) and "aesthetics of white shadow" proposed by Kim Ji-ha, or Kim Sang-il's "Han" concept, can also be interpreted as different concepts of "Jhwa."134)135)

In his doctoral dissertation on the concept of "Jhwa," Cho Yong-il utilizes the concepts of "Buryeon" (Not-so) and "Giyeon" (So-it-is) found in Donghak Thought to interpret the "Jhwa" concept with the dual meaning of the substance of "being" (doem) and the attribute of "becoming" (saengseong) inherent in the German verb "ist" (to be). Similarly, Lee Young-ran interprets the dual attributes of "liminality" from a performance studies perspective as "becoming" and "being." Furthermore, Lee Young-ran applies these two attributes to a comparison of the Derrida-line and Deleuze-line of postmodernism, presenting a framework for understanding post-modernity as well as a link between modernity and Eastern thought. This visualizes the form of "Jhwa" that 'Sicheonju' (Bearing God)—which seeks to maximize the theory of self-cultivation by enshrining God in one's body—sought to achieve through self-cultivation, thereby presenting the indigenous modernity of Donghak-related thoughts.

Research on Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought is extensive, not only in fields related to correlative thinking, liminality, revitalization, and modernity—which this dissertation adopts as its methodology—but also ideologically; however, further mention will be made in the detailed discussion.136)

Next, looking at the research by Daesoon Thought scholars related to the three methods above, representative studies include those by Ko Nam-sik, Lee Kyoung-won, Cha Sun-geun, Park Sang-gyu, and Kim Tae-soo. First, in the case of Ko Nam-sik, using a text-centered research method, he has unearthed many hidden concepts that had not received attention, such as 'True Donghak' (Cham Donghak), the 'Fifty-Year Study,' the 'Two Revelations,' the 'View of the Three Realms' (Samgye-gwan), the 'Earth-Human relationship' (Ji-in-gwangye), 'South Joseon,' 'Japanese Haewon (Resolution of Grievances),' the 'Dao of Divine Beings' (Sindo), and the 'Righteous Governance of the Mind's Law' (Ijeong-simbeop).137) In particular, related to the first research area, he studied the entire process of the establishment and development of Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought from the perspective of 'True Donghak.' Ko Nam-sik first studied the establishment and development process of 'True Donghak' from the perspectives of 'Jakran' (Causing Disorder), 'Dongran' (Disturbance), and 'Chiran' (Rectifying Disorder); then, in relation to 'Haewon' (Resolution of Grievances) and the 'construction of the Earthly Paradise'—which constitute 'True Donghak'—he sought to prove that Daesoon Thought is 'True Donghak' by demonstrating that the study of Doju Jo Jeong-san, encompassing Korean 'Haewon' starting from 'Japanese Haewon,' the 'two revelations' in Daesoon Thought, and the realization of a nationalism different from Donghak's, was finalized as the 'Fifty-Year Study Completion' (Osimnyeon Gongbu Jongpil).138)139)140)141)142)143)144)145)146)147)148)

Ko Nam-sik has explained the development process of Daesoon Thought as the development process of 'True Donghak.' Ko Nam-sik's research provides an opportunity for the development process of 'True Donghak' to be expanded into various studies if religious studies theories are applied. Accordingly, this dissertation aims to explain the development process of 'True Donghak' by focusing on the "Hak" (Learning) of Donghak, centering on the theory of rites of passage, which can be seen as a religious-anthropological theory of growth. In fact, in Daesoon Thought, modern civilization, which commits the ceaseless sin of conquering nature, is evaluated as a civilization that must be overcome through views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity that accord with correlative thinking, and through rites of passage. This dissertation aims to show that both thoughts are indigenous modernities and post-modernities by examining how Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought present views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity with a new methodology of thought in order to overcome the crisis of modern civilization through the liminality of rites of passage.

In the case of Lee Kyoung-won, he compares the religious studies analysis of Donghak Thought and Jeungsan Thought as a religious studies inquiry into "ultimate reality." Lee Kyoung-won shows a case where the unprecedented Korean concept of a personalistic God, established in Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, can be interpreted through the universally human religious studies concept of "ultimate reality," thereby showing a clue that the two thoughts can be interpreted as indigenous modernity.149) Lee Kyoung-won, who also understood Daesoon Thought through organic philosophy, described the concept of "ultimate reality" as a characteristic of the view of God common to Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, showing that an understanding beyond panentheistic concepts is possible.150) Lee Kyoung-won showed that through the concept of "ultimate reality," it is possible to interpret not only the view of the Three Realms in Daesoon Thought but also new religions in general, and furthermore, the characteristics of Korean religion.151) Furthermore, in his research on the modern transformation of the concept of Heaven (Cheon) in Daesoon Thought, Lee Kyoung-won comparatively explained Donghak Thought's mystical view of Heaven as the 'emergence of a Heaven-beyond-Heaven' (Cheonoecheon) and Daesoon Thought's avataric (Gwonhwa-jeok) view of Heaven as the 'Human Advent of the Ninth Heaven' (Gocheon ui Insin-gangse).152) Also, in his research on the modernity and transformative thought of Daesoon Thought, he explained Haewon (Resolution of Grievances) thought as true modernity and the Cheonji-gongsa (Reordering Works of Heaven and Earth) as transformative thought.153) Modernity without Haewon is like investing in the future without addressing the past, which well explains the problem of today's modernity, where problems grow larger as modernity progresses.154) This dissertation intends to examine the mystical view of Heaven and transformative thought by adding liminality, the avataric view of Heaven and true modernity by adding revitalization, and modernity by adding correlative thinking.155)

In the case of Cha Sun-geun, he applied the methodology of Jonathan Zittell Smith (1938-2017)—which holds that even when using a religious phenomenological method in comparative religion, the comparison should not be holistic between two religions, but contextual for each individual religion to reveal its uniqueness—to the comparative study of Daesoon Thought. Daesoon Thought shares various characteristics not only with Donghak Thought but also with many other Korean religious traditions such as Daoist thought, Jeongyeok (Correct Change) thought, and shamanistic thought, and thus many comparative studies have been conducted. Regarding this, Cha Sun-geun emphasizes that existing research on Daesoon Thought has concentrated on the religious phenomenological method that holistically compares two religions, which tends to conceal the unique characteristics of the two religions being compared; he stresses that contextual comparison is advantageous for highlighting these concealed characteristics. Accordingly, he emphasizes that despite the commonalities between Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought, their differences must be clearly distinguished, and he subdivides these differences according to the categories of religious studies.156) Cha Sun-geun, in particular, demonstrates through the difference between the concept of "Gihwa" (Qi-fication) in Donghak Thought and "Deokhwa" (Virtuous Transformation) in Daesoon Thought that Daesoon Thought is not an alternative ideology to Donghak Thought but its own unique ideology, proving this from a religious studies perspective.157) Donghak Thought's 'Dogi-jangjon Sa-bul-ip' (If the spirit of Dao is preserved long, evil cannot enter) and Daesoon Thought's 'Jinsim-gyeonsu Bok-seon-rae' (If a true mind is firmly kept, blessings come first) clearly reveal the difference between 'Gihwa' (Qi-fication) and 'Deokhwa' (Virtuous Transformation).158) This dissertation also, following the contextual comparative method proposed by Cha Sun-geun, will compare the two thoughts restrictively, only within the contexts of "learning (Hak)" and the "views of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity in correlative thinking."159)160)161)

In the case of Daesoon Thought research related to the view of the Three Realms or cosmology, the research of Park Sang-gyu can be mentioned. First, in his paper on the view of the Heaven-realm (Cheongye-gwan) within the view of the Three Realms (Samgye-gwan), Park Sang-gyu compares the 28 Heavens of the Buddhist Three Realms (divided into the Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm) with the 36 Heavens of the Heaven-realm in Daesoon Thought and the 36 Heavens of Daoism, showing that these three views of the Heaven-realm can be mutually harmonized.162) Park Sang-gyu argues that the dual structure of the Yeongdae (Spirit Altar) and Dosolgung (Tusita Palace) at the Mugeukdo-jang, the center (Dojang) during the Mugeukdo period, shows the dual structure of the Heaven-realm: the 'Heaven within the Three Realms' and the 'Gocheon (Ninth Heaven), the Heaven outside the Three Realms.' Park Sang-gyu states that when explaining the Heaven-realm as a dual structure, the three Heaven-realms can be interconnected in various ways. In Daesoon Thought, which holds that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism (Yu-Bul-Seon) were formed according to the principle of the 12 orbital periods (Unseong) of the 'Function of Heaven and Earth' (Cheonji-jiyong)—which is the Qi-dynamic action of the Taegeuk (Supreme Ultimate)—it would be natural for the views of the Heaven-realm of Yu-Bul-Seon to be congruent.163)

Lastly, regarding liminality, Kim Tae-soo has analyzed the Cheonji-gongsa (Reordering Works of Heaven and Earth) of Daesoon Thought from the perspective of liminality. Kim Tae-soo regarded the Cheonji-gongsa itself as a ritual based on liminality and analyzed the Cheonji-gongsa in detail based on liminality theory. This dissertation differs from Kim Tae-soo, who applied the concept of liminality from the perspective of the Supreme God, in that it applies liminality from the self-cultivation perspective of the practitioner (Sudo-in) and also compares it with Donghak Thought from the aspects of correlative thinking and modernity.164)

Although the three methods used to study the modernity of Donghak Thought—namely, the Donghak popular movement, religious thought, and methodology of thought—differ, the three methods are mutually and organically connected. Studying Donghak as a philosophical methodology does not diminish the characteristics of Donghak Thought as a popular movement or a religious ideology. Rather, an examination of its philosophical methodology can enhance the other two characteristics. A philosophical-methodological study of Donghak Thought can foster greater empathy for it by enabling an understanding of the reasons for its theoretical emergence not only from an ideological aspect but also from a logical one. A logical understanding of Donghak Thought also enables a rational and universal understanding of the motivations of the people involved in the Donghak popular movement, who put the thought into practice. Therefore, a philosophical-methodological understanding of Donghak Thought becomes very important research for universally understanding Daesoon Thought as well.

Despite there being no shortage of research compared to the other two fields, research applying philosophical methodology to Daesoon Thought is relatively lacking compared to Donghak Thought. The reason for this lack of research is related to the absence of diachronic studies and the research scope of the 'ideal world.' First, looking at the absence of diachronic research, existing studies on the philosophical methodology of Donghak remained at the level of existing synchronic methods comparing contemporary Eastern and Western philosophical methodologies, making it difficult to link with the other two fields that focus on historical change. This is because the existing synchronic method limited the philosophical-methodological understanding of Donghak Thought to the domain of philosophy of science, failing to present an organic method that could influence the other two research fields that were already active. In particular, existing preceding research did not pay attention to the difference between Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought using a diachronic method, which studies changes that appear over time. A diachronic study, by diachronically presenting Donghak before Donghak Thought and Donghak after the emergence of Daesoon Thought, can explain the emergence of Donghak Thought and the Donghak popular movement through a philosophical-methodological understanding of Donghak Thought.

Another reason why Daesoon Thought has not been understood in terms of its methodology of thought is that, within Daesoon Thought, the completion of Donghak entails an expansion of Donghak’s scope all the way to the realization of the ideal world of Eastern thought. As expressed in the passage, “Those who follow me will attain eternal fortune and blessings, be free from aging and death, and enjoy the pleasures of an eternal paradise — this is True Donghak”165) — in Daesoon Thought, Donghak’s scope extends beyond the dimension of a popular movement to encompass the Later Heaven (후천, Hucheon), the actual ideal society of the East, which makes a religious understanding appear more appropriate than an academic one. However, if the ideal world of the Later Heaven spoken of in Donghak is understood not at the empirical level but at the methodological level of Eastern philosophical modes of thought, then a way of understanding the True Donghak of Daesoon Thought — which encompasses even the ideal world — as a methodology of thought can be proposed.

Besides this, there are various research achievements on Donghak Thought and Daesoon Thought. In the case of Daesoon Thought's cosmology and view of the Three Realms alone, there are studies by Lee Jae-won, Kim Yong-hwan, Kim Gwi-man, Cha Sun-geun's comparative research on the cosmology of Daesoon Thought and Jeongyeok (Correct Change) thought, research on future views, Choi Won-hyuk's comparative study on the views of the Three Realms in Daesoon Thought and Donghak Thought, comparative research on the ideal society, as well as various studies and monographs published in overseas journals, including SCI-level ones.166) Additional preceding research will be discussed as the discussion unfolds, whenever the topic arises.167)168)169)170)171)172)173)