대순진리회에서 용서 문제-소외된 피해자의 원한을 중심으로-

Abstract

Some barriers exist that make it hard for victims to practice the act of forgiveness when it comes to perpetrators. First, some perpetrators do not feel guilty about the impact their actions have had on victims, and the existing theory of forgiveness only focuses on the correctness of the victims’ emotional state. Notably, this theory mostly overlooks ethical aspects that impose a burden on the perpetrators. Second, according to Yi Cheong-Jun’s novel, The Story of Insect, suggesting a sublime god forgives perpetrators, victims who have the right of forgiveness cannot exercise that right. Third, as Jean Améry and Simon Wiesenthal asserted, society and its subgroups force reconciliation and silence from victims, and victims individually sacrifice their identities due to collectivity (the state of being collective). In addition, as time goes by, the problem of forgiveness tends to be forgotten as memories fade. Such obstacles imply victims become isolated due to the perpetrators, the judgments of a sublime god, history and time, or society and its subgroups. It is posited that such isolation increases victims’ grievances and makes it more difficult for them to reach a state of forgiveness. This paper will examine how these obstacles are perceived in the worldview of Daesoon Jinrihoe. In doing so, the foundation of the discussion on the theory of forgiveness in Daesoon Jinrihoe will be set. In short, first, the worldview of Daesoon Jinrihoe posits that forgiveness emerges from the principle of grievance resolution for mutual beneficence. In this view, victims should personally resolve their grievances against perpetrators and be mutually magnanimous. Simply put, they should just forgive the perpetrators. The perpetrators should resolve victims’ grievances to produce mutual beneficence, which implies that perpetrators are forgiven by victims. The fact that forgiveness can be achieved in the course of grievance resolution for mutual beneficence suggests that the theory of forgiveness in Daesoon Jinrihoe does not allow for the avoidance and isolation caused by perpetrators. Moreover, the emphasis on victims giving forgiveness and perpetrators receiving it suggests that the theory does not permit avoidance and isolation. Second, the worldview of Daesoon Jinrihoe perceives that even one single person’s harboring grievance can drive the whole world into turmoil. Therefore, even if perpetrators are pardoned by a sublime god, victims still retain the right to forgive perpetrators insofar as their grievances have not yet been resolved. This implies that even a sublime god cannot forgive perpetrators on behalf of victims should victims’ grievances persist. This point of view values the grievances of individuals and refuses to acknowledge the phenomenon wherein victims become isolated from society and its subgroups or history and time. In this regard, the theory of forgiveness in Daesoon Jinrihoe differs from the existing theories that only emphasize the moral practice of victims or compensation for damages.