무속과 증산의 해원사상 비교를 통해 본 대순사상 연구 관점의 문제

Abstract

According to Lee Young-geum, the ideas of grievance resolution and mutual beneficence were already present in shamanism. She also insists that Jeungsan merely theorized upon these ideas by inheriting them and his religious activities must be identified from within a shamanistic worldview. Contrary to Lee’s claim, Cha Seon-keun argues that the grievance resolution of Jeungsan is far beyond the contents and level of development found in shamanism. He also insists that Jeungsan’s religious activities must be identified as having a certain orderly uniqueness distinct from shamanism. The argument between these two different perspectives has not attracted other researchers besides those who are directly involved. However, this debate deserves attention with regard to the problem of how one approaches a given religion and which academic perspective should be applied. Based on the perspective of the Daesoon Jinrihoe, this study examines their debate by considering four issues. Firstly, whether Jeungsan inherited or expanded upon the subject of grievance resolution and its range remains undetermined. Secondly, the ethics of mutual beneficence and grateful reciprocation in Jeungsan’s concept of grievance resolution should be analyzed as to whether that idea reasserts the ethics of shamanism. Thirdly, it is necessary to study whether his method of grievance resolution fully embraced the methods of grievance resolution that exist in shamanism. Lastly, it should be determined whether or not Jeungsan’s religious activities and system of thought should be identified within a shamanistic worldview. Through this review, Lee and Cha can be shown to have different opinions on the academic approach to research on religion. Accordingly, this study concludes that Lee’s method of only interpreting Jeungsan’s religious thought via a shamanic worldview is incompatible with academic methodology. A scholar of religious studies should discuss Jeungsan on his own merits rather than just imply that Jeungsan thoroughly reflects the worldview of shamanism, doctrinal studies of Buddhism, and Daoist thought as well as other theologies. In other words, if certain tangible and intangible elements found in shamanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Christianity are also observed in Jeungsan’s religious thought, it is necessary to comprehend how different or similar those elements are or whether they are re-interpreted in any manner. In the case of Lee, her method of overemphasizing similarities is now criticized as outdated. Nowadays, it is necessary to demonstrate awareness of modern religious studies tendency to pay equal attention to similarities and differences.