증산계 신종교 일괄기술에 나타난 문제점과 개선 방향

Abstract

The existing en bloc description on Korean new religion ischaracterized by an intermittent mentioning of the ‘common’ traitsof each new religion for the sake of supplementary explanation, afterenumerating a trait which is regarded as ‘common’ for the wholenew religion. This problem is found not only in a single item descriptionon ‘new religion,’ but also in an en bloc description of each lineagepertaining to new religion. For instance, in case of Jeungsan lineage(甑山系) which has thelargest number of affiliations among Korean new religion, each religiousorder clings to one’s own position in its interpretation on Jeungsan,faith, doctrine, practice or organization. Thus, it is important to differentiatethe similarity and distinction properly based on separate analysis onJeungsan line religious orders. Yet, in most of the descriptions onJeungsan lineage, there is a tendency to put the position of certainreligious orders, mainly that of Jeungsan-gyo(甑山敎) or Daesoonjinrihoe(大巡眞理會) together as that of the whole Jeungsan lineage. Possible explanation can be found in the point that Jeungsangyo is areligious order which used to take the lead to unite the doctrine, whileDaesoonjinrihoe is the biggest religious order among Jeungsanlineage. Yet, this attempt to try to explain the other religious orderor the whole Jeungsan lineage with the position of a certain Jeungsanline religious order is not desirable. This way can neither guaranteea right understanding on Jeungsan lineage nor protecting the identityand peculiarity of each Jeungsan line religious orders. Moreover, although the representative thought of Jeungsan lineageis Relieving the grievances for the mutual beneficence of all life, inreality only the half of Jeungsan line religious orders adopts the ideaof Relieving the grievances or mutual beneficence of all life as adoctrine. Besides, even among religious orders which regard Relievingthe grievances for the mutual beneficence of all life as their religiousdoctrines, the way of understanding the thought is divided into acase using the frame of shamanism, idea on Dangun(檀君) or Donghak(東學) thought, and a case dwelling on creativity. Since these factsare not reflected in an en bloc description on Jeungsan lineage, futureimprovement seems to be necessary. The en bloc description is necessary in that it notifies the generaldirection of understanding on Jeungsan lineage. The only problem Iwould like to suggest is that, when describing Jeungsan lineage enbloc, we need to maintain a meticulous attitude to reveal similarityand difference rather than a concomitant feature, while respectingdiversity and identity of Jeungsan line religious orders, for the betterunderstanding and description on the history of Korean new religion.