DASEOK'S THOUGHT AND DAOIST THOUGHT

Abstract

Such issues as how to define a being who is considered God or the absolute being and the center of the universe and also as how to define the relationship between the absolute being and tens of thousands of things have been characterized as philosophical and theological questions of significant importance. Throughout the history of philosophy and theology, a cosmological perspective that all things are derived from the absolute being and the foundation of the universe as the origin of real life and all these things will be reduced to nothingness has been subject to severe criticisms. The culprit for such time-honored criticisms is often found in the ensuing proposition: all creatures and all beings are dependent on the existence of God on the ground that they will ultimately be reduced to nothingness, thus they shall not be the central beings of the universe. Put differently, there is a gaping difference in defining effort between the attempt to recognize the existence in its own right and that to recognize existence as derived from and dependent upon the absolute being. This definitional difference gives rise to significant ontological and ethical difference. Yu Young-mo is a philosopher of Korea who attempted at establishing an Asian Christian thought which set out to overcome the problematic aspects and limitations of Judeo-Christian thought which is greatly based on dualistic distinction between matter and mind. Regardless of Yu Youngmo's awareness or otherwise, however, there are some points in conflict arising from any attempt to integrate two distinct thoughts: Asian philosophy and Judeo-Christian thought. The following features should be revealed, provided that Daseok's thought be influenced by Asian thoughts. First, the immanence rather than transcendence of the absolute being should be revealed. Second, there should be denial of existential dualism involving mind and matter and instead there should be a unifying monism of intentionality. Daseok's thought shows well the points of congruence and conflict when Western Christian theology meets with Daoist thought. The author attempts to explore some aspects of Daseok's thought that show the influence and thus continuity of Daoist thought within Daseok's Christian thought and to analyze philosophically the points of conflict and discontinuity between Daoist thought and Christian view of the absolute being. Prof. Kil Heeseong put forth that the Christianity and Asian thoughts differ from each other on the principles of creation. According to Asian thoughts, there is no concept of creation out of the nothingness itself. Further, the idea of creation posited by Asian thoughts does not entail the intended action or intervention of the All Mighty Lord but is interpreted as a natural process of the world derived from the primordial realities. Therefore, there will be no differentiation of the paired concepts in opposition such as singular versus plural, god versus world, and god versus human kind on the grounds of non-existence of differences between the paired concepts. In view of this, the Asian thoughts are usually recognized as monism. In contrast, the Christian theology presupposes that there is unbridgeable fundamental difference between the creator Lord and creatures of the universe. The Christian theology has attempted to put forth many alternatives to embrace and allow for breathing space for both the immanence of divinity and the existential continuity between the creator and the creatures. But, from the vantage point of Asian thought, Christian theology is plainly a religion of internal dualism with a theoretical spectrum recognized as transcendental dualism. The essence of Daseok's thought lies in its immanence-based cosmology as opposed to transcendental cosmology embedded within Christian tradition. This feature is a unique defining characteristic of what Daseok accomplished. Among various Asian thoughts and tradition, Daseok's cosmology is very close to Daoist thought. The gist of Daseok's thought may be grasped in his philosophical and theoretical attitudes gleaned from such as philosophy of attainment of unity, impossibility of expressions in construal of the absolute being, and positivity toward internal divinity. These unique and defining features of Daseok's thought bear a close resemblance to those of Daoist thought. Yet, as revealed in his position on human beings, Daseok disavows the physicality or matter of human beings. His denial toward physicality or matter constitutes a departure from or discontinuity with his thought espousing theory of immanence. Note his statement that says “what exists really is nothing but myself and to be more specific, it is my own thoght that exists." Although there may be various readings of such statement, one reasonable interpretation would be just take his statement at face value: he just intend to deny the physicality or matter of human beings. The unbridgeable gap or existential difference between the creator and creatures which appears to be drawn on traditional Christian concept of creation may have contributed to his adoption of negative attitude toward physicality and matter of human beings. Put differently, an Asian aspect or immanence-based theoretical position within Daseok's frame of thought may not dovetail with his adopted attitude of denial toward physicality or matter. How can we interpret such vestiges of dualist thought stemming from traditional theology? How the two different thoughts between thought of immanence influenced by Daoist thought and Christian dualism can be resolved and harmonized within Daseok's frame of thought? The author believes that how to properly interpret these core questions would be one of most pressing and important issues in order to better grasp Daseok's thought as a whole.