Choe's approach defnes *jeong* not only as an emotion but also as a world where Korean people live in. Choe's argument is quite persuasive, but it is still controversial whether we can call the way of existence of all beings *jeong*.

On the other hand, Lee fnds the origin of *jeong* from *hanmaeum*. If we limit *jeong* to being cultural emotions among the Korean, Lee's view is more acceptable. Emotion arises from a certain faith or idea. Even though you and I are different individuals, we both have *hanmaeum* as human beings. That gives us the feeling that connects us to one another. In this sense, Lee calls Korea the nation of *hanmaeum*. He made a connection between *hanmaeum* and Confucianism without explaining where this idea came from. Then, where does the *hanmaeum* belief come from? I believe that Buddhism gives a clue to answering this question.

# 9.3 *Hanmaeum* (한마음; One Heart-mind) as the Foundation of *Jeong*

The term *hanmaeum* (한마음, one heart-mind) appears in the Buddhist scriptures to explain the original and fundamental basis of the human mind. However, this term was not used to explain the oneness of all beings until the contemporary period. In the 1980s, the Korean Buddhist nun Daehaeng (大行; 1927–2012) creatively constructed her *hanmaeum* thought, which is similar to but distinctive from Wonhyo's (元曉) notion of one heart-mind (*ilsim/yixin* 一心*)* by articulating the indigenous Korean term *hanmaeum* (한마음, one heart-mind). Her unique notion of *hanmaeum* provides deeper understanding of the foundation of *jeong* (정).

Daeheang is one of the most infuential Buddhist nuns in the popularization of Buddhist teachings in Korea. She introduced *hanmaeum* (one heart-mind) and *juingong* (주인공/主人空; the *sunyata* ̄ of self) as the two ̄ crucial terms in her teaching. Instead of using the Chinese word 一心 *ilsim/yixin* (one mind), Daehaeng uses the Korean translated word for 一 心 *ilsim/yixin*, *hanmaeum* (한마음) and explains it directly and simply. In *No River to Cross*, she defnes *hanmaeum* more specifcally: "*Han* means 'one, 'infnite, and 'combined,' and *maum* means 'mind.' *Hanmaeum* means 'the fundamental mind that is intangible, invisible, beyond time and space, and has no beginning or end'" (Daehaeng 2007: 9). On combining with the word "One (한 *han*)," *maum* comes to have the meaning that this mind is the one ground of beings. *Hanmaeum* is the fundamental mind that exists equally in all beings, and all beings are derived from it. To explain the concept, Daehaeng uses the analogy of a radish and the ocean:

With a radish, you can make soup, kimchi, and other dishes. The radish in those dishes is still radish. Like this, the origination of all dharmas is *hanmaeum* (Daehaeng 1993: 350). … All things in this world are subsumed into one heart-mind, like all streams become one in the ocean. *Hanmaeum* is the origination of all things and the home for them to come back to. (Daehaeng 1993: 314)

Similarly, all beings have *hanmaeum* and eventually return to it. *Hanmaeum* is infnite because it is not limited to time, space, or a single being. *Hanmaeum* exists beyond all kinds of limits and distinctions, as we see in the one mind discourse above, because it is the unconditioned one needed to support conditioned beings:

*Hanmaeum* is not a mind of this side or of that side. It is too enormous to say this side or that side. It exists obviously, but ineffably. One never can see *hanmaeum* if he/she sees it dividing into two categories such as this and that, a favorite thing and a disliked thing, and a great thing and a teeny thing. A practitioner should not look for the *hanmaeum* keeping on dividing things. He/she can become close to *hanmaeum* when he/she can embrace both sides. (Kim, 1986: 18)

Daehaeng instructs that *hanmaeum* exists beyond dualistic schemes, and a practitioner can perceive it only when ceasing dualistic thought.  Minds discern all things through comparison and differentiation. For example, perceiving white paper against a whiteboard is more diffcult than perceiving white paper against a blackboard. If I cannot fnd the difference between my body and the outer world, then I cannot recognize myself. Without comparison, I cannot perceive what is big or small. Though that is the thought process of humans, Daehaeng suggests overcoming it and embracing both sides, as it is the characteristic of *hanmaeum* to be combined. *Hanmaeum* is interconnected wholeness, rather than an independent entity. All beings are combined with each other in *hanmaeum*, which is intangible and invisible. It also prevails in everything: "No one owns *hanmaeum* by oneself alone. *Hanmaeum* is for all living things and is all sentient beings' mind. *Hanmaeum* is wholeness. It is immense and spacious like space" (Daehaeng 1993: 664).

All beings are originated from *hanmaeum*. That means all beings are sharing *hanmaeum* with each other and are interconnected like in Lee's *hanmaeum* world. Though Lee's theory only explains human relationship, Daehaeng embraces all beings' relationship. The term *juingong* in her teaching reveals this relationship more clearly.

When *hanmaeum* is embodied and realized in oneself, it becomes *juingong* (주인공/主人空; the *sunyata* ̄ of self), one person's ̄ *hanmaeum*. In Seon Buddhism, *juingong* refers to the true self, the master of oneself5:

Why is it called *juingong*? It is the doer, so it is called *juin* (主人, master/ subject of actions), and it is empty, always changing with no fxed shape, so it is called *gong* (空, emptiness). Thus, *juingong* means your fundamental, profound, which is always changing and manifesting. (Daehaeng 2014: 10)

She uses the term *juin* (the master) not only because it is the doer but also because one's body is a community of all its cells, and *juingong* is the subject who leads them (Daehaeng 1993: 380). Therefore, we can translate *juingong* into "empty-doer" or "changing-doer (impermanent self)." In Daehaeng's teachings, the meaning of emptiness is fexibility and freedom. As water changes its shape to fll the space of its container, so does *juingong*. Indeed, *hanamaum* and *juingong* are essentially identical. So, *juingong* shares traits with *hanmaeum*:

*Juingong* is bright, eternal and ultimate. *Juingong* exists before the beginning of the world, and it does not perish even though the universe collapses and space disappears. *Juingong* is also called *hanmaeum* (Daehaeng 1993: 318). Both *hanmaeum* and *juingong* are the fundamental mind; but, unlike *hanmaeum*, *juingong* plays a role as the hub to connect all beings: "*Juingong* is the fundamental mind with which each one of us is inherently endowed and the mind that is directly connected to

5 *Juingong* is a concept calling the true self in *Seon* Buddhism. The conventional meaning of the Korean word 주인공 is *juingong* (主人公), with the *hanja* 公 meaning fairness or public, often used as suffx to respect. The term 주인공 *juingong* (主人公) with 公 means protagonist in English. Daehaeng replaced the hanja 公 with a homonym 空 (*gong/sunyata* ̄ , ̄ emptiness), in order to emphasize its empty nature. Her genius neologism of playing with two homonyms transforms the meaning of the Korean word *juingong* (주인공) from a fxed being/attached self to a true self, by emptying practice.

every single thing (Daehaeng 2007: 10)." *Hanmaeum* is the metaphysical basis while *juingong* is the subject of practice within with individuals. Daehaeng metaphorically compared *Hanmaeum* with the moon on the sky, and *juingong* with the moon refected on the thousand rivers.

The basic structure of *hanmaeum* and *juingong* is similar to Lee's "one heart-mind" and "mind" in Fig. 9.2 (inward type), which shows each human being has a mind that is derived from one mind. With this universal one mind, each being is connected to the other. However, *hanmaeum* thought offers a more delicate analysis. It subdivides an individual's mind into *juingong* and consciousness. "A human being is the result of three things: the eternal foundation, consciousness, and the fesh" (Daehaeng 2007: 12). "Eternal foundation" refers to *juingong* as the source of life; "consciousness" is the mind, for discernment and discrimination; "fesh" is the body. The three aspects work together harmoniously, causing life. Daehaeng explains this using the analogy of a cart pulled by a cow (Daehaeng 1993: 386). The cart is fesh. The coachman is consciousness. The cow is *juingong*. What we think of as "self" is the combination of consciousness and fesh. Ordinary people feel that consciousness—the coachman—is the center of the self and leads the cart. However, the real master is the cow—*juingong*, eternal foundation. The cow knows best where it should go; therefore, letting the cow lead is the best way to live. *Juingong* as the shared *hanmaeum*, is the master of self. This thought emphasizes the intimate connections of *hanmaeum* and the individual.

The *Hwaeom* (*Huayan* 華嚴; *Flower Garland*) Buddhist teaching, "one is in all; all are in one," supports the intimate connections of *hanmaeum* and individual. This tenet is based on a dependent arising worldview of Buddhism. Everything and everyone is interconnected, interdependent, and interrelated like Indra's net. Indra is a thunder god who owns a vast net in which the strands are joined together by jewels. When light refects onto one of the jewels, the same light is refected and re-refected endlessly

throughout the expanse of the net. We can apply this to the example of a fower and the whole universe. A fower is interconnected with the whole universe, and the whole universe is within one fower. How could this be? We just see one fower, but there are unrevealed factors and efforts that allowed it to exist. A blooming fower needs a seed, soil, water, the light of the sun, time, a farmer's labor, and so on. *Hanmaeum* is manifested in each being as *juingong*, and *juingong* in individuals is within *hanmaeum.* Like the metaphor of Indra's net, all beings are interconnected through *juingong* and *hanmaeum*. So, they are one connected becoming rather than separated beings.

This interconnection through *hanmaeum* can strengthen the sense of we-ness and further *jeong*-relationship. As we see in the Lee Gidong's arguments, *jeong* is a result of we-ism (we-ness) and we-ism roots into the thought of one heart-mind. Adding Daehaeng's explanation to this structure is like watering a plant called *hanmaeum* idea.

Daehaeng's unique *hanmaeum* teaching with fve commensal teaching (*ogongbeop* 오공법五共法) presents the world as the *hanmaeum* world. *Ogongbeop* elucidates the meaning of *hanmaeum* by using fve aspects. I would call it "the together teaching": living together (*gongsaeng* 공생 共 生), mind together (*gongsim* 공심 共心), essence/body together (*gongche* 공체 共體), function together (*gongyong* 공용 共用), and eating together (*gongsik* 공식 共食).

Living together means a sentient being does not live by itself; it lives together with others. Mind together means all sentient beings are from *hanmaeum*, and shares the same universal mind. With this "mind together," no discrimination occurs between my mind and others—in other words, the self and others. Essence and function are a paired category of the concept of mind. Sentient beings' essence is the same as *hanmaeum*, and they manifest together. Belonging to the same essence together denotes also sharing its body together as one body, because its character, *che* (체 體), means body as well. Daehaeng sees all cells as sentient beings, and says that each person's body is full of sentient beings (Daehaeng 1993: 380), which means that beings share one body together. Function (*yong* 용 用) in functioning together (*gongyong* 공용 共用) means actions and their effects. Sentient beings are based on the same mind and the same essence, so their actions infuence each other. For instance, my action of drinking infuences others as well as myself. If I do good to others or to myself, it affects all beings including myself. This is because all beings are interconnected. Functioning together also means working together.

The meaning of functioning together is clearer when looking at it in relation to sharing together. The word she uses for sharing is "eating" (*sik* 식 食). Eating has several connotations. The action of eating is that of obtaining energy from other sentient beings' lives. We live in a world of many food chains. From the perspective of the food, food is eaten and feeds people. Among interconnected relationships, all sentient beings feed each other. In addition, when one eats a meal with others, one is sharing. The word *sik* gives a more vivid picture of interconnection in the world than the picture that is offered by traditional Buddhist terms such as "*dharma* realm" and "dependent arising." Daehaeng explains this interconnected existence mechanism as follows:

The universal dharma realm always turns around without discrimination between Self and others.6 All things in the one *dharma* web work relatively. Therefore, all things that I do were not done by myself but done with all others in the universal dharma realm. For example, I earn money not all by myself but with all other beings in the universe. If there were no one, could I earn even a penny? I can do something because all things work together.   (Daehaeng 1993: 577–578)

This "together teaching" clarifes Daehaeng's *hanmaeum* world. The key point of the *hanmaeum* world is "togetherness." Living together gives the big picture of togetherness. Then, the next three aspects—mind, essence, and function—are analyzed in conjunction from three perspectives. Sharing together wraps up Daehaeng's together teaching. Sentient beings live together and are originated equally from *hanmaeum*. They share mind and body together and work with all others. This mechanism is called "sharing together." Others and I are one, and live together in an interconnected relationship.

In Daehaeng's *hanmaeum* world, all beings live together based on *hanmaeum*. It is similar to Choe Bongyeong's "*jeong* world," where all beings live by sharing *jeong* together. Both worlds emphasize the intimate

6The dharma realm is the true world behind phenomena. The 'dharma web' is a different expression for the dharma realm. It is a web because the world is interconnected in complicated ways.

interaction among all beings. Of course, they have differences. *Hanmaeum* is the origination of all beings, while *jeong* is the way of existence of all beings. Daehaeng's *hanmaeum* thought supports the sense of we-ness and the *jeong* relationship vertically and horizontally. Vertically, *hanmaeum* is the root of all beings who share it as the same foundation. So, they are not separated from one another but have a connected "we." Horizontally, all beings who live in the world of *hanmaeum* exist interdependently but they share the same fundamental mind, live as a connected body, work together, infuence each other, and live together. The *hanmaeum* world is one intertwined whole, and individual beings are the parts of this web-like we-world.

Although Daehaeng started her unique notion of *hanmaeum*, it originated from the traditional Buddhist teaching of "one heart-mind" (一心) in *The Awakening of Mahaya*̄ *na Faith* ̄ (*Daeseunggisillon* 대승기신론 大乘 起信論), a crucial treatise in Chinese Buddhism.7 The concept of one heart-mind was noted by Wonhyo, a prominent Korean Buddhist scholar in the *Silla* Dynasty (57 BCE–935 CE). Contemporary Buddhist scholars claim that the concept of one mind is one of the most important terms to understand in Wonhyo's philosophy. This indirectly shows how deep the *hanmaeum* idea is rooted in Korean people's thought.

Like Daehaeng's *hanmaeum,* one heart-mind is the metaphysical basis of all beings. The innate nature of all beings. In his commentary on *The Awakening of Faith in the Mahaya*̄ *na,* ̄ Wonhyo states: "all phenomena do not have innate nature (*seong/xing* 性) separately and [take] the one mind for their innate nature" (Wonhyo, T44: 206).

"All phenomena" is another way to express "all beings" in Buddhism. To understand it, think about the relationship between the metaphysical basis and all beings. All beings are conditions of others' existences. "I" exists because there is "you." We can recognize white, because there is black. If there is no "you," and all being is "I," then "I" cannot be

7*The Awakening of Mahaya*̄ *na Faith* ̄ (大乘起信論) is a book discussing the essential teachings of Mahāyāna Buddhism. It was written by Asvaghos ́ a, an Indian Buddhist scholar. It ̣ explains the aspects and attributes of one mind, the original status of being, and instructs the reader on the way to attain enlightenment, which means restoring the Buddha-mind, the original status of one mind. The one mind has an untainted part and tainted parts, and the untainted part should be purifed. To do that, the book proposes four faiths, *bodhisattva* practices, and chanting *Amitabuddha*. The four faiths are the belief in the original status, Buddha, Buddhist teaching, and Buddhist practitioners. The *bodhisattva* practices include generosity, proper conduct, endurance, wisdom, and meditation. Wonhyo's two books are the most popular commentary on this text.

recognized. If there is only the color white in the world, we cannot conceptualize white. We recognize X because of not-X, and the borderline between X and not-X. Therefore, all beings are limited and conditioned. In this limited world, humans look for unlimited and unconditioned things, because logically conditioned beings, including humans, can exist when the unconditioned exist. That is the metaphysical basis. Depending on philosophical tradition, philosophers look for it outside the limited world, inside the limited world, or in human beings. They call it God, Dao, Buddha nature, or one mind. This unlimited "one" manifests through conditioned beings, because the unlimited and the unconditioned cannot be perceived.

The interdependent relationship between the conditioned beings and the unconditioned is another expression of *juingong* and *hanmaeum*. Like their connected relationship added water to the *hanmaeum* idea, Wonhyo's arguments proves how deep the source of water. Wonhyo holds that one heart-mind is the innate nature of all beings as well as the original mind of human beings.

The term "one heart-mind" unifes and sums up all discourse on the metaphysical basis Buddhism. Wonhyo equates one heart-mind with several Buddhist terms such as "real states of beings," "suchness," "Buddha nature," "storehouse consciousness," "pure consciousness," and "Buddha womb" (T45 227c-228a). The unconditioned is the real states of all phenomena. It can be considered as emptiness (*sunyata* ̄ , ̄空 *gong*), because in Mahāyāna Buddhism, emptiness is a major term used to explain the metaphysical basis of existence. Wonhyo holds that it is not the same as emptiness, because the unconditioned has the faculty of inexplicable intelligence. So, it is called "mind" instead of emptiness.

In the early stage of Buddhist teachings, "non-self" (*anatta*) was put ̄ forth. "Non-self" means that nothing can exist independently or have any fxed, separated substance apart from others. Emptiness is another expression for non-self. Designating emptiness for the unconditioned thing is good for healing the suffering caused by strong attachment to objects and to self. If all beings' innate nature, including self, is empty, there is nothing to cling to, causing good or bad emotions/feelings. Then, there is no way to suffer. However, the unconditioned thing manifests through conditioned things, so it cannot be totally empty. The Yogācāra school acknowledges this ineffable function of the unconditioned and calls it "storehouse" or "pure" consciousness. Both emptiness and consciousness are two faces of the unconditioned one.

*The Awakening of Faith in Mahaya*̄ *na*̄ integrates these discourses into a structure made up of one heart-mind and its two aspects. One heart-mind has the aspect of "suchness" and the aspect of rising and ceasing. The aspect of suchness refers to the emptiness of the unconditioned thing. The aspect of rising and ceasing refers to the consciousness part, which has ineffable function.

The discourse on one heart-mind gives us an idea of how to see the world and individuals as "one connected being." One heart-mind is the metaphysical basis of all beings. It means that all beings including humans are originated from one heart-mind, though they all appear to be separate. However, people do not acknowledge that they are from one origin, and fght each other, thinking they are separate beings. Therefore, Wonhyo given the philosophy of *The Awakening of Faith in Maha*̄*ya*̄*na* teaches people to return to one mind, and then to beneft others. Likewise, Buddhist doctrine of one heart-mind offers more densely interconnected world view on the world as well as supports Korean people's mind longing for oneness. Korean's *jeong* culture is established on this world view.

### 9.4 Conclusion

*Jeong*, a moral, social, and cultural emotion of the Korean people, is based on the Korean Confucian notion of "we-ness (we-ism)" and this we-ness is derived from their common belief that "we are *hanmaeum* (one heartmind)." The idea of *hanmaeum* originated from Korean Buddhism such as Wonhyo's thought and Daehaeng's contemporary teaching though it has not been noticed.

The Buddhist understanding of *hanmaum* frms the ground of *jeong and makes the jeong relationship more inclusive*. *Hanmaeum* is the origin and foundation of all beings that root on. This one universal mind prevails throughout the whole world, exists in all beings, and makes them connected and interdependent. The whole world's interconnecting of all beings through *hanmaeum* is like an intertwined web. Daehaeng's *hanmaeum* thought explains it through her teaching of togetherness. All beings live together, share the mind and body, work together, and feed one another in the web of life relationships. In this interaction, the meaning of "we-ism" can be strengthened, and the *jeong* relationship can be expanded to all beings.

Along with changing with time, *jeong* culture has been dimmed and redefned today to mean emotions in an old-fashioned relationship. It is because, in my view, the jeong relationship has been narrowed down to its signifcance of oneness or intimate relationships, and its problematic aspect of exclusivism is often noticed. However, with the Buddhist understanding of hanmaeum, the culture of jeong could overcome the exclusiveness of "we-groups" by sharing the one universal mind with all beings and promote the present and future welling of Korean and global society.

### References

Yi Jema李濟馬, Donguisusebowon東醫壽世保元 Vol.1 Seongmyeonglon性命論. Wonhyo, 元曉, *Gisinlonso*起信論疏 T44, No.1844.

#### Further Reading

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Resentment and Gratitude in Won Buddhism

### *Chung Nam Ha*

### 10.1 Introduction

This chapter attempts to show how the emotion of resentment is the ground for the morality of Won Buddhism.1 The main point of the chapter is to show how resentment is the cause of all suffering, individual and collective, and to show how the ethics of Won Buddhism teaches to remove the resentment by the morality of benefcence requital.

Sotaesan looked around with his enlightened eyes and diagnosed that human sufferings were caused by expansion of material civilization stimulating one's selfsh craving for material things so that one lost the moral sense and endured shame. Further, he focused on the emotion of "resentment" (*wonmang* 원망) as the main cause of discord and troubles in family, society, and nation. He stated:

1For the introduction to Won Buddhism, see Bongkil Chung, trans. *The Scriptures of Won Buddhism* (2003).

C. N. Ha (\*)

279

Won Institute of Graduate Studies, Won Buddhist Studies Institute, Won Buddhist Studies Institute, Warminster, PA, USA e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© The Author(s) 2022

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_10

First, people are ill with money. For those who feel it necessary to have money to satisfy all their desires for pleasure, money is more precious than integrity and honor so that they lose their moral sense and friendliness. This is indeed a serious moral illness. Secondly, people are afficted with the moral illness of resentment. People as individuals or as members of a family, a society, or a nation fnd fault with others without recognizing their own faults. They forget indebtedness to others without forgetting their favors to others, hating and resenting each other with no end to minor and serious conficts. This is indeed a serious illness. (Chung 2003: 192–193)

As Sotaesan said, moral sensitivity and friendliness (*jeongui* 情誼) in the family and society can be destroyed by selfsh craving and resentment that can lead people in human societies to suffering and misery. Resentment means that people fnd fault with others without recognizing their own faults. Thus, the moral illness of resentment can be the cause of conficts and wars between individuals and nations.

In the above passage, Sotaesan pointed out "ill with money" and the "illness of resentment" as the most serious moral illness. To overcome two main moral illnesses is to save people from ailing societies by recovering benevolence (*in* 仁) and righteousness (*ui* 義). By recovering benevolence and righteousness the human societies can recover the moral sensitivity and friendliness in family life and among other social groups. Sotaesan said,

Benevolence (仁) and righteousness (義)2 are the main principles of morality; trickery is not. It is a matter of necessary course, therefore, that human spirit should rule over all material things and that the moral principles of benevolence and righteousness should rule human conduct. Recently, however, the main moral principles have been ignored, and trickery is rampant. Thus, the supreme morality has been abnegated. At this critical time, we ought to act in concert and agreement in order to rectify the public morality, which is declining daily. You should understand this point and thereby prepare to be the founders of a great new religious order. (Chung 2003: 168)

Jeungsan Kang Ilsun (증산 강일순, 1871–1909), one of the founders of new religions in Korea, also focused on resentment (*wonmang* 원망) as the main problem of all human societies. According to Jeungsan, the

2Benevolence and righteousness are the core values of morality in Confucianism. According to Mencius "Benevolence (*in* 仁) is the tranquil habitation of man, and righteousness (*ui* 義) is his straight path" (Legge 2020: 418).

resolution of grudges was an important goal of his new religion, *Jeungsangyo* (증산교). He pointed out that resentment was caused by discriminations between men and women, between nobles and commoners, and so on. He pointed out that the suppressed ones like women, commoners, or illegitimate sons kept resentment in their heart for a long time. Because all human societies were covered by resentment, the future human societies, without resolution of grudges, would not be safe or in peace (Chung 2003: 25).

Sotaesan seriously considered the Buddhist teaching of the law of causality that helps sentient beings to seek liberation and accomplishing Buddhahood. According to Buddhism, one's own happiness or unhappiness depends on having right views of life and the world and cultivating one's moral-spiritual ability. Sotaesan emphasized the essential Buddhist teaching as the important method to help people while he criticized the other worldly teaching of the Buddhist tradition. He had a plan to open a new order with the basic tenet of the Buddhist teaching.

The general doctrine of Won Buddhism is outlined according to its four general principles: "correct enlightenment and right practice, awareness and requital of benefcence, practical applications of Buddha-*dharma*, and selfess service for the public" (Chung 2003: 118). Sotaesan aimed at two goals through the general doctrine: delivering all sentient beings and remedying the world's illness. Correct enlightenment and right practice is the essential way for delivering all sentient beings; awareness and requital of benefcence is the essential way for remedying the world's illness (Chung 2003: 65–101).

# 10.2 The Mind and the Emotions of Resentment and Gratitude in Won Buddhism

To elucidate the role of emotions according to Won Buddhism, it is therefore crucial to understand the ideas of human nature in Buddhism and other religion like Confucianism which have great infuence on Won Buddhism. Won Buddhism is known as a reformed Buddhism that maintains the essential Buddhist teachings. This study focuses on how Won Buddhism deals with the emotions of craving (*tamyog* 탐욕) and resentment (*wonmang* 원망) and how Sotaesan's teaching of delivering all sentient beings and healing the sickness of society. Even though Won Buddhism also emphasizes the main Buddhist teaching, its doctrine of "gratitude" (*gamsasim* 감사심) helps one realize the fundamental benefcence of all beings in the world. Gratitude is a unique, emotional, and moral-religious element in Won Buddhism, which distinguishes this new Buddhism from mainstream Buddhism.

The beginning chapter of the *Doctrine of the Mean* also talks about emotions (Legge 2020: 15) by emphasizing the "arousal" of emotions/ feelings (*jeong/qing* 情) and the importance of emotional control and harmony for the Confucian path of self-cultivation.

Confucius also said, "By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart" (Legge 2020: 237–238). This verse means that since human nature is conferred by Heaven, it is common among all human beings. Both Confucius and Sotaesan viewed the relationship between human nature and emotions non-dualistically. The Confucian way of the exemplary person (*gunja*/*junzi* 君子) makes human nature function timely through self-cultivation. It is the way of benevolence and righteousness. Benevolence means to serve family and relatives, which means love between husband and wife, between parents and children, between siblings, and between sovereign and minister. Righteousness means venerating the virtuous and the wise, which means it is the essential way to govern the nation.

Won Buddhism shares the principle of human nature with Confucianism. As I stated above, both teachings focus on how to discipline and transform one's mind to develop one's virtues like benevolence and wisdom; practice moral emotions such as benevolence; and to maintain one's life better or more meaningfully with others and society. Neo-Confucianists further developed the nature (*seong* 性) and emotions (*jeong* 情) in the *Doctrine of the Means* into *Four-Seven debates* (*sadanchiljeong* 四七論爭),3 the principle (*i* 理) and the dynamic force (*gi* 氣), and the nature and emotions. In this chapter, I will not treat these issues in detail. Four-seven debates and the theory of the principle and the dynamic force are different from Buddhist teaching.

Won Buddhist teachings were infuenced by Buddhist essential teaching as well as by Confucianism. Sotaesan was deeply impressed with the excellent method of Buddhism for seeing the problems of the human mind and the way to discipline the mind. He focused especially on the *Diamond*

3An excellent source for the Four-Seven Debate, See Michael C. Kalton, et al. *The Four-Seven Debate* (1994).

*Sutra* as the most essential Buddhist teaching to remove one's mental delusion and affictions and to reach enlightenment (*nirvan*̄ *a*̧ ).

In Buddhist psychology, the main cause of the human predicament is the three poisoned minds or the three roots of evil (Sanskrit, *akusalamula*̄ or *kilesa*́), greed (*raga*), anger (*dvesa*̣ ), and delusion (*moha*). On the other hand, three roots of good (*kusala-mula*̄ or *akilesa*́) are being nongreed (*araga*̄ ), non-hatred (*advesa*̣ ), and non-delusion (*amoha*). *Kusala* and *akusala* mean wholesome and unwholesome: *kilesa* and *akilesa* mean deflement and un-deflement. *Kilesa* (deflement) is negative psychological term. Three roots of good are expressed in a positive form which corresponds to unselfshness, benevolence, and understanding.

Craving and resentment which Sotaesan focused on as the main cause of human predicaments belonged to main poisoned minds with delusion in Buddhism. According to Yogacara Buddhism, there are two hindrances (*avaran* ̄ ̣*a*) such as affictive hindrances (*klesa-a* ́ *varan* ̄ ̣*a*) and cognitive hindrances (*jñeya- avaran* ̄ ̣*a*). For example, craving and resentment are the affictive (or emotional) hindrance and delusion or ignorance is the cognitive (intellectual) hindrance. Craving and resentment are based on delusion or ignorance.

If one does not overcome the three poisoned minds which will infuence one's personality, one cannot escape twelve dependent originations, namely the rebirth cycle (*sam*̣*sara*̄ , suffering sea). To overcome the three poisoned minds one has to practice the eight-fold noble path, which are right view, right intention, right speech, right activity, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. The Eight-fold Path is summarized as the three-fold practice, *S*́ *ıla*̄ (*gye* 戒), *Samadhi* ̄ (*jeong* 定), and *Prajña* (̄ *hye* 慧). Delusion (*moha*) (or ignorance*, avidya*) is ̄ the most fundamental root cause of continued involvement in *sam*̣*sara.* ̄ Craving and aversion are considered as emotions rooted in ignorance. 'Ignorance' is the erroneous attachment to the notion of 'self'.

According to Buddha's teaching, there is 'no-self' (Sanskrit, *asvabhava*̄ ), and self is no other than fve aggregates (五蘊: Sanskrit, *pañca skandha*) which are form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, and consciousness. *Svabhava*̄ means intrinsic nature or self-being or own-self and *asvabhava*̄ means no-self. What one imagines the idea of 'self' is dependent originations of fve elements, and it is not fxed and just eternal fows which one cannot grasp self. In *Abhidharmakosa*, fve aggregates are analyzed into seventy-fve elements (*dharmas*) and mental faculties divided into general functions, general functions of Good, general functions of deflement, general functions of evil, minor functions of deflement, and indeterminate functions (Stcherbatsky 2001: 100; Takakusu 1956: 73). In Mahayana Buddhism, ignorance or delusion is considered as the hidden and fundamental cause of all human problems. It is said that Buddha and high-level Bodhisattvas can break through intellectual hindrance only through *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ (perfection of wisdom). Therefore, masters of Zen ̄ Buddhism emphasize enlightenment.

Sotaesan agreed with the essential Buddhist teaching of "no-self" and "impermanence." He also saw three poisoned minds as the root of human sufferings and the fundamental root as the misconception of "self." Thus, he adapted the Buddhist teachings while he emphasized on "correct enlightenment and right practice." Sotaesan's concern on the heart of Buddhist teaching was *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ which is the most important idea ̄ in Mahayana Buddhism. He admired greatly on *Diamond Sutra*, one of *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ literatures. ̄ *Heart Sutra* (반야심경, Sanskrit; *Prajñapa*̄ *ramita* ̄ *hr*̄ ̣*daya Sutra)* ̄ and *Diamond Sutra*̄ (금강경, Sanskrit; *Vajracchedika Prajña* ̄ *pa*̄ *ramita* ̄ *Su* ̄ *tra*̄ ) are the most popular sutras in all Mahayana Buddhist schools including Won Buddhism. According to *Diamond Sutra*, "by detachment from appearances, remain none attachment. You should see all compounded dharmas are like a dream, a mirage, a bubble, and a shadow; they are like dew and like lightening" (*Diamond Sutra* 32). If one understands that all things are not real and may not attach to any situations, one's craving and resentment will disappear naturally. One's ignorance comes from misunderstanding or misconception of self (*a* 我 as subject) and things (*beop* 法, appearance as objects). Through *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ practice, one should be free from two attachments of self ̄ and things, and then one can be free from rebirth cycle.

While the theory of mind and human nature (*simseongnon* 심성론) in Confucianism focused on how to be moral men, Buddhist teachings focused on how to achieve *nirvan*̣̄*a* from rebirth cycle or sea of suffering (*sam*̣*sara*̄ ). Confucianism aimed at the ideal nation with moral virtues through the rectifcation of names: "There is government, when the prince is prince, and minister is minister; when the father is father, and the son is son" (Legge 2020: 168). Therefore, Confucian scholars criticized Buddhism because Buddhist practitioners, to pursue their own *nirvan*̣̄*a*, renounced family duties and worldly duties.

However, Sotaesan thought Buddhism as the important teaching to discipline one's mind and emotion and *prajña-pa* ̄ *ramita* ̄ as the excellent ̄ wisdom to destroy all delusions such as individual and collective egoisms while he focused on the ideal man and society with moral virtues in *Confucian* teachings. He tried to synthesize two teachings for delivering sentient beings and remedying ailing society.

Without controlling one's three poisons of mind, one cannot expect the ideal society with moral virtues such as benevolence and righteousness. Sotaesan taught that Won Buddhists must learn Buddha *dharma* to apply in our daily life. Whenever one faces adverse conditions, one must discipline one's mind with *samadhi*, *prajna*, and *sila*. "Practical application of Buddha *dharma*" (Chung 2003: 118–119) in Won Buddhism is to change the other world centered Buddhism into this world centered Buddhism.

# 10.3 How to Recover Moral Sensitivity and Friendliness (*Jeongui* 情誼)

Sotaesan foresaw, that given the continuing expansion of scientifc civilization and modern conveniences, human craving and competition become increasingly serious. Even though humans enjoy material blessing and convenience, their anxiety and stress increase and escalate. Sotaesan, with his enlightened eyes, observed the human society in the world and thus said to his disciples, "As material power is unfolding, let us unfold our spiritual power accordingly" (Chung 2003: 114). This teaching became the founding motto of Won Buddhism for the new world order. "Spiritual power" means the power of morality which humans must develop not to be blinded by our selfsh desire to obtain whatever we wish. Sotaesan worried that the human spirit and moral principles become weakened by the material power and, as a result, more serious problems could arise in human societies. He said:

As a result of scientifc advancement, the ability of human spirit to make use of material things has gradually weakened while the power of material things that human beings make use of has daily grown stronger, conquering the weakened spirit of humankind and thereby bringing the latter under its rule. With human beings enslaved to material things, how can they avoid suffering in the bitter seas of misery? The founding motive of this religious order is to lead all sentient beings suffering in the bitter seas of misery to a vast immeasurable paradise by expanding spiritual power and thereby subjugating the material power through faith in truthful religion and training in sound morality. (Chung 2003: 117–8)

Sotaesan pointed out two causes of resentment in human societies. First, resentments are caused by discrimination between nobles and commoners, between a legitimate child and illegitimate one, between the aged and the young, between man and woman, and between races. Discriminations were the most serious problems in past societies and cultures including the past Korean society. Secondly, antagonism between the strong and the weak was the important causes of resentments. Sotaesan further pointed out resentments as cause of the world war,

For a long time, the strong and the weak have developed antagonism against each other, and there have been severe discriminations among people, so that countless people have built up grudges and resentments against oppression and humiliation. As a result, a great war will break out, and, thereafter, human intelligence will gradually advance so that individuals and nations will help each other, become friends and understand each other; they will not infringe on each other's sovereignty. (Chung 2003: 308)

Sotaesan, on the other hand, explicated the "Way of Progress for the Strong and the Weak":

The strong can remain strong forever by helping the weak grow strong on the principle of mutual beneft when the strong treat the weak. The weak can grow strong, improving themselves from the position of the weak to the position of the strong, by taking the strong as their guide and patiently coping with hardships of any kind. (Chung 2003: 160–161)

At this point, one can recall Reinhold Niebuhr, the American Reformed theologian and ethicist, in comparison with Sotaesan. In his *magna opus*, *Moral Man and Immoral Society* (1960: xi–xii), Niebuhr pointed out collective egoism as more serious moral problems than individuals' egoism. Individuals might be selfsh by one's egoism but can recover one's moral sensitivity when one could be aware of one's immoral action. Moral sensitivity is to consider the other's needs with one's own needs. "Moralists, whether religious or rational, did not understand the brutal character of the behavior of all human collectives, and the power of self-interest and collective egoism in all inter group relations" (Niebuhr 1960: xx). And he saw that inter-group conficts could not be solved by ethics.

This relationship between groups must therefore always be predominantly political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proportion of power which each group possesses at least as much as by any rational and moral appraisal of the comparative needs and claims of each group. (Niebuhr 1960: xxiii)

In the contrast to Niebuhr, Sotaesan had a vision to remedy ill society with benevolence and righteousness: his vision was to recover organic relations to our fellow beings by awakening the four benefcences (*saeun* 四 恩). While Niebuhr was neglected to solve the inter-group conficts by ethics, Sotaesan had a great prescription to recover from social illnesses by awakening the fundamental benefcences.

Sotaesan's main concern was how to recover moral sensitivity and friendliness in human societies. He was thinking that moral illnesses in human societies should be cured by proper moral methods. That is why Sotaesan planned to open a new order for the beneft of all humanity as human beings. He did not give up people to lament for their misfortunes without knowing the reasons and to be frustrated in the face of their bad fates. He emphasized to his followers that one had the responsibility for one's fate and one's fate depended on functions of one's mind and body. He encouraged people to recover moral sensitivity and friendliness in human societies.

While Niebuhr revealed all problems between social groups in *Moral Man and Immoral Society*, Sotaesan pointed out resentment as the fundamental cause of human predicaments. Sotaesan suggested the prescription to solve conficts of individual and inter-group relations among human societies. The prescription is "correct enlightenment and right practice" and "awareness and requital of benefcence," which show Sotaesan's two goals, namely "delivering sentient beings and curing the world of illness" (Chung 2003: 65, 218). While "correct enlightenment" is for "delivering sentient beings," "awareness and requital of benefcence" is for "curing the world of illness."

According to Jeungsan, the teaching of the four-fold benefcence was not just to cure the moral illness caused by resentment. Sotaesan's intention was also to reveal mainly "the way of reciprocal benefaction among the various truths of the universe and thereby elucidated the fact that we owe our lives to the four-fold benefcence" (Chung 2012: 137). Hence, one should realize that the tenet of the four-fold benefcence, Grand Master Sotaesan's way of reciprocal benefaction, is the greatest way to deliver all sentient beings, and that the principle of requital of the four-fold benefcence is the greatest fundamental power by which the world may be kept in peace (Chung 2012: 136–137).

The four-fold benefcence means benefcences of heaven and earth (*cheonjieun* 천지은), parents (*bumoeun* 부모은), fellow beings (*dongpoeun* 동포은), and laws (*beoblyuleun* 법률은) in Won Buddhism (Chung 2003: 124–131). Fellow beings cover not only human beings but also all beings in the universe like animals and plants. Laws mean "the principle of fairness for the sake of morality and justice" and include religious and moral principles as well as social institutions, legislation, and all civil laws (Chung 2003: 130).

If people do not understand the principle of the four-fold benefcence, they can be afficted with the moral illness of resentment. Daesan (大山, 1914–1998), said, "All things in the universe can exist by the four-fold benefcence; by understanding the principle of 'benefcence' one can maintain friendly feeling and by friendly feeling one can keep moral sense."4 We therefore need to note that Won Buddhism emphasizes beneficence as the ground of a good moral emotion like friendliness and gratitude.

However, even though one understands that one cannot exist without the four-fold benefcence, one may not feel motivated to do something out of the duty to requite benefcence. How does Won Buddhism help people to feel grateful to the four-fold benefcence and to requite them? Sotaesan revealed four benefcences of heaven and earth, parents, fellow beings, and laws through the principle of indebtedness, the details of indebtedness, the principle of requiting benefcence, and the details of requiting the benefcence. Let's see the "benefcence of fellow beings" (or brethren, 동포은) in *the Canon* as one example:

In "the principle of indebtedness to brethren," Sotaesan said,

the easiest way to know how one is indebted to brethren is to consider whether one could live where there are no other human beings, birds, beasts, grass, or trees. Anyone would admit that one cannot live without them. What could be a greater benefcence than that of brethren if one cannot live without depending on their help and on things they provide? (Chung 2003: 128)

4*Daesan Jongsa Beobeo* 대산종사법어 [Dharma Words of Master Daesan], Kim D. G. 2014, 28. This book is not translated into English yet. Daesan was the third head dharma master. His personal name is Kim Dae Geo (金大擧, 1914–1998).

And, in the "detail of indebtedness to brethren" he gave evidences such as "scholar educate and direct us," "farmers provide us with materials for clothing and food," "artisan provide us with shelter and commodities," "merchants provide us with convenience for living by exchanging myriad goods" and "birds and beasts and trees, too, are of help to us." In "the principle of requiting the benefcence of brethren," Sotaesan convinced, "since one is indebted to brethren through the principle of mutual beneft, one ought, either as a scholar, farmer, artisan, or merchant, to honor the principle of mutual beneft, to requite the benefcence." "This one does when one exchange myriad types of learning and goods with others, modeling oneself on the principle." In "the details of requiting the benefcence of brethren" Sotaesan guided, "a scholar-offcial ought to follow the principle of fairness for mutual beneft while educating others," "a farmer ought to follow the principle of fairness for mutual beneft while providing materials," "an artisan ought to follow the principles of fairness for mutual beneft while exchange myriad goods," and "one ought not to destroy grass or trees or take the life of birds or beasts without justifable reason" (Chung 2003: 128–129).

Sotaesan further explained ingratitude and the effect of requiting the benefcence, and the consequence of ingratitude. By comparing the effect of requiting the benefcence and the consequence of ingratitude based on the law of causality, he could convince his followers to practice the way of benefcence requital. In "ingratitude to fellow beings," Sotaesan criticized, "if one does not know indebtedness to, requital of benefcence of, and ingratitude to brethren and if one does not practice the details of requiting the benefcence even of one knows them, then one is ungrateful to brethren." In "the effect of requiting the benefcence of brethren," he convinced,

if we are grateful to brethren, the following will be the effect. All the brethren infuenced by mutual beneft will love and rejoice in one another. One will be protected and received with honor by brethren; individuals will love one another. There will be friendship between families, mutual understanding between societies, and peace between nations so that, eventually, an unimaginable utopia will be realized. (Chung 2003: 129)

In "the effect of requiting the benefcence of brethren" he encouraged,

If we are grateful to brethren, the following will be the effect. All the brethren infuenced by mutual beneft will love and rejoice in one another. One will be protected and received with honor by brethren; individuals will love one another. There will be friendship between families, mutual understanding between societies, and peace between nations so that, eventually, an unimaginable utopia will be realized. (Chung 2003: 129)

Finally, in "the consequence of ingratitude to brethren" he expressed concern,

If people are ungrateful to their brethren, all brethren will hate and dislike one another, becoming enemies. There will be quarrels among individuals, hatred between families, antagonism between societies, and no peace between nations so that the world will be at war. (Chung 2003: 129)

According to Sotaesan's teaching of benefcence, we should know we are indebted to heaven and earth, parents, fellow beings, and laws. And one should feel grateful to them for their benefcence, modeling on the way we are indebted to them. "Even if one has something to resent, one ought to fnd out how one is indebted to the benefcence and thereby be grateful rather than resentful so that one can requite to the benefcence" (Chung 2003: 118).

# 10.4 Religious Ethics of Gratitude

In Niebuhr's words, we can fnd that his insights are similar to Sotaesan's thought of benefcence. He said, "Human nature is not wanting in certain endowments for the solution of the problem of human society" (Niebuhr 1960: 2). He continued,

Man is endowed by nature with organic relations to his fellowmen; and natural impulse prompts him to consider the needs of others even when they compete with his own. With the higher mammals man shares concern for his offspring; and the long infancy of the child created the basis for an organic social group in the earliest period of human history. (Niebuhr 1960: 2)

However, Niebuhr saw, by the process of one's socialization, human beings' identity moved from individual ego to collective ego.

Gradually intelligence, imagination, and the necessities of social confict increased the size of this group. Natural impulse was refned and extended until a less obvious type of consanguinity than an immediate family relationship could be made the basis of social solidarity. Since those early days the units of human cooperation have constantly grown in size, and the areas of signifcant relationships between the units have likewise increased. (Niebuhr 1960: 2)

Niebuhr confessed that conficts between the national units could not be solved permanently and to maintain either peace or justice within its common life in each national unit is increasingly diffcult (Niebuhr 1960: 2–3). But, he still pointed out a possibility of benevolent impulse to consider other's needs. He continued,

While it is possible for intelligence to increase the range of benevolent impulse, and this prompt a human being to consider the needs and rights of other than those to whom he is bound by organic and physical relationship, there are defnite limits in the capacity of ordinary mortals which makes it impossible for them to grant to others what they claim for themselves. (Niebuhr 1960: 3)

Thus, Niebuhr was skeptical to solve conficts of inter-group relations affected by collective egoism with morality, whether religious or rational. On the other hand, Sotaesan planned to solve inter-group conficts with religious ethics based on 'awareness and requital benefcence,' and he expounded 'the way of progress for the strong and the weak' (Chung 2003: 160–161).

As the world in the past was immature and dark, those who had power and knowledge could live by exploiting the weak and innocent people. Since the people in the coming world are bright and intelligent, no one of high or low rank will be able to exploit other people. Consequently, vicious and dishonest people will become poorer while upright and truthful people will become richer. (Chung 2003: 343)

By revealing gratitude and ingratitude for the four-fold benefcence, Sotaesan taught that people would understand the importance of the life of gratitude and practice the way of gratitude. In short, according to the law of causality the life of gratitude and the life of ingratitude divide people's lives into fortune or misfortune, respectively. While providing guidance with detail items in practicing the requital of the four-fold beneficence, Sotaesan spelled out the ways of requiting the four-fold benefcence for people to remember the general point of benefcences and apply those ways in their practice. The essential principles of requiting benefcences are the way of harboring no false idea after rendering favors for the benefcence of Heaven and Earth, the way of protecting the helpless for the benefcence of parents, the way of mutual beneft for the benefcence of fellow beings, and the way of doing justice and eradicating injustice for the benefcence of laws.

In the details of requiting the benefcence of Heaven and Earth, Sotaesan explicated the eight ways of Heaven and Earth, and by modeling after the eight ways one ought to cultivate the way within oneself. The eight ways of Heaven and Earth are the brightness of sun and moon, sincerity, fairness, reasonableness and naturalness, their vast, great, and limitless, the eternity and immortality, neither good nor evil fortunes, and their no harboring the idea of bestowing favors.

By modeling after the eight ways (1) one ought to attain wisdom; (2) one has to do until one attain the goal; (3) one ought to keep the Mean in handling all affairs without being attached to remoteness, closeness, intimacy, or estrangement; or to such feelings as pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy; (4) one ought to take what is reasonable and forsake what is unreasonable by separating reasonable from unreasonable; (5) one ought to do away with partiality and attachment; (6) one ought to emancipate oneself from the transformation of all things and birth, aging, illness, and death; (7) one ought to be detached from good or evil fortunes, fnding good fortune in evil fortune and ill fortune in good fortune; and (8) one ought not to hate anyone who is indebted but, perchance, ungrateful. (Chung 2003: 125)

When one disciple asked, "how could it be enough for us to act by simply modeling ourselves after their ways of Heaven and Earth in order to recompense them for their benefcence?" Sotaesan answered,

To explain the point by an illustration, suppose that the disciples in the orders of buddhas and bodhisattvas or of other sages and superior men, upon being bestowed with great benefcence, inherit and develop the holy enterprise by learning what their masters knew and practicing what their masters did though they were not recompensed with material rewards. Should we say that they recompense their teachers for the benefcence? Or should we say that they acted ungratefully? From this we can infer that acting by modeling oneself after the way of heaven and earth amounts to recompensing them for their benefcence. (Chung 2003: 259)

The details of requiting the benefcence of parents are four: "(1) One ought to follow the essential ways of practice, namely, threefold practice and eight articles,5 and the essential ways of humanity, namely, four-fold benefcence and four essentials.6 (2) When one's parents become helpless, one ought to serve them faithfully to ensure their mental and physical comfort. (3) While one's parents are alive or after they have passed away, one ought to protect even the helpless parents of others to the best of one's ability as if they were one's own parents. (4) After one's parents have passed away, one ought to enshrine their biographical chronicles and their portraits to commemorate them for a long time" (Chung 2003: 121).

The details of requiting benefcence of fellow beings are fve, mentioned already in this paper. The details of requiting benefcence of laws are fve:

(1) As an individual, one ought to learn and practice the principle of moral cultivation. (2) As a member of the family, one ought to learn and practice the principle of regulating the family. (3) In a society, one ought to learn and practice the principle of social regulations. (4) In a country, one ought to learn and practice the laws governing the country. (5) In the world, one ought to learn and follow the laws for realizing peace in the world. (Chung 2003: 130)

The awareness and requital of the four-fold benefcence is not just to express feelings (*jeong*) of gratitude but also to require the religious and moral activities of Won Buddhism. Heaven and earth cover and support all beings in the universe without partiality and attachment: if we offer people generosity without expectation of return, there will be loads of love in our

5There are eight articles necessary for carrying out the three-fold practice: four articles to keep and four articles to forsake. Four articles to keep are faith, zeal, inquiry, and sincerity: four articles to forsake are disbelief, greed, laziness, and delusion (Chung 2003: 137–138).

6 Sotaesan criticized unreasonable social discriminations and recommended reasonable social relations between human beings which are four essentials. Unreasonable discriminations are already mentioned such as discrimination between woman and man. Four essentials are cultivation of self-reliance, the wise one as the standard, the education of children of others, and veneration for those dedicated to the public (Chung 2003: 131–134).

society.7 If people practice the way of protecting the helpless, they will be protected when they are helpless. If people practice the way of mutual beneft for fellow beings, they can trust their fellow beings in various work felds. If people practice the way of doing justice and eradicating injustice, they will be protected by the power of justice. By showing the law of causality, Sotaesan helped people practice voluntarily the way of requiting the benefcence. Depending on one's reaction to the four-fold benefcence it can become either the feld of blessing or the feld of misfortune (Chung 2003: 131).

In each Won Buddhist temple, *Irwonsang* (*Irwonsang* ̆ 一圓相, a circular form) is enshrined as the object of faith instead of a Buddha statue; it symbolizes the essence of Buddha mind. The essence of Buddha mind is vast and infnite and includes being and non-being and penetrates our past, present, and future. It is the fundamental source of all beings in the universe and the realm of *samadhi* beyond words. "Therefore, we enshrined *Irwonsang* ̆ as the standard for relating our daily life to the essence of Buddha mind, and we are related to *Dharmakaya*̄ 8 Buddha through the two ways of religious faith and practice" (Chung 2003: 179). Won Buddhists can know the way to pursue blessings and happiness by taking *Irwonsang* as the object of religious faith and believing in its truth:

It stands, as a symbol, for the origin of the four-fold benefcence, which, in turn, is a four-fold categorization of all things in the universe. Heaven and earth, all things, the dharma realm of empty space-all these are none other than the universal Buddha. Therefore, we should always treat all things everywhere with the same sense of respect and awe and a pure heart and pious attitude as we have when we respect the Buddha. (Chung 2003: 179)

*Irwon*, as a symbol, in Won Buddhism identifes with the four-fold benefcence and all beings. While faithful activity in Buddhism is called as offerings to Buddha, offering Buddha in Won Buddhism means to practice the way of requiting the benefcence, the four essential principles of

7 Jeungsan emphasized the impartiality of heaven and earth so that we learn the way of heaven and earth and practice heavenly and earthly generosity (see Chung 2012: 136). The principle of benefcence requital of heaven and earth is identical with the non-abiding charity of Buddhism.

8The term *Dharmakaya*̄ means the "body of Truth." '*Dharma*' in Sanskrit has several meanings: Truth, Buddhist teaching, and phenomena or elements. '*Dharmakaya*' is one of the three bodies of the Buddha in Yogacara Buddhism.

benefcence requital (Chung 2003: 116), which are the way of harboring no false idea after rendering favors, the way of protecting the helpless, the way of mutual beneft, and the way of doing justice and eradicating injustice. These four essential principles are the way of offering Buddha (*bulgong* 佛供) as the way of faith and the religious moral practice in Won Buddhism.

### 10.5 Conclusion

This chapter discussed how the emotion of "gratitude" becomes the foundation of religious ethics through transforming the emotion of "resentment" in Won Buddhism. Buddhism and Confucianism have infuenced Won Buddhist teachings to cultivate morality and humanity through cultivating the mind with different theories and methods. Sotaesan pointed out "illness with money" and "resentment" as the serious roots of human predicaments. While Buddhism illuminates three poisoned minds of craving, aversion, and delusion as the roots of all human problems, Buddhism reveals the path of suffering and stopping suffering. On the other hand, Sotaesan deeply agreed with Confucianism which teaches benevolence and righteousness as the moral value.

Sotaesan with his enlightened insight focused on resentment and foresaw that to resolve resentment between individuals and inter-social groups is the most urgent problem. Sotaesan's vision for his new religious order was to remedy resentment and to cultivate gratitude and to recover benevolence and righteousness, namely moral sensitivity and friendliness between human beings. Through this chapter, I tried to explain the Won Buddhist teaching that to change the life of resentment into the life of gratitude is to be the foundation of morality for mutual beneft and equal society.

### Further Readings

Chung, Bongkil. 2013. *Lectures on the Ethics of Won Buddhism*. Philadelphia: Won Publication.

Chung, Bongkil, trans. 2003. *The Scripture of Won Buddhism: A Translation of the Wonbulgyo Kyojo* ̆ *n with Introduction* ̆ . Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

#### References

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# *Jeong* and the Interrelationality of Self and Other in Korean Buddhist Cinema

*Sharon A. Suh*

### 11.1 Introduction

Movies, according to feminist theorist and cultural critic bell hooks are "the perfect cultural texts" that, on the one hand, teach us things about the unfamiliar and, on the other hand, "give the reimagined, reinvented version of the real" (Hooks 2009: 1). Francisca Cho observes, "Film instantiates the Buddhist lesson that life itself is an illusory projection of our own minds, and it provides the means for exploring the features of this projection" (Cho 2009: 163). By reimagining the world and our place in it, flm can alter our understandings of self and other, push us to question our epistemological assumptions, and reacquaint us with our present moment experience. In this way, flm also functions as a spiritual technology that, like a Buddhist *sutra*̄ , hones a refned vision of the relationship of self and other (Suh 2015).

S. A. Suh (\*)

Department of Theology and Religious Studies, Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© The Author(s) 2022 297

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_11

Korean Buddhist cinema has largely addressed the ever-present dilemma of an individual's responsibility to the other to promote a decidedly thisworldly affrmation that echoes the Mahayana proposition that ultimate freedom (*nirvan*̣̄*a*) is not found in an escape from the world of suffering (*sam*̣*sara*̄ ), but rather in its embrace. This chapter concerns one such Korean Buddhist flm—Im Kwon-taek (임권택) — *Aje Aje Bara Aje* (아 제 아제 바라 아제, "Come, Come, Come Upward"; 1989) whose title is a direct translation of the fnal verse or *gatha* of the beloved Mahayana *Heart Sutra*̄ , which conveys the Buddhist teaching of emptiness (*sun*́ ̣*yata*̄ ) as the ontological basis of reality. *Mandala* (1981), Im's frst Buddhist flm, features the religious lives of two monks struggling with desire and in *Aje Aje Bara Aje*, the director once again focuses on modern Buddhism to consider how a religious tradition that explicitly exhorts its monastic practitioners toward non-attachment can adequately respond to the suffering of others. The tension between monastic life and social responsibility is certainly no stranger to Buddhism and I suggest that an examination of *jeong*/*qing* (정 情; affection) as the adhesive that attaches people together in relationship may prove fruitful for understanding how this dilemma gets resolved.

It makes good sense then to query the interrelationality at the heart of *jeong* that mutually constitutes beings, for the *jeong* between the protagonist, a Buddhist nun, and her superior facilitates the disciple's spiritual awakening and draws her back down the mountain to immerse herself in the world of suffering. Because I have written extensively about this flm with respect to gender and enlightenment in an earlier work (Suh 2015), I take a different approach here by focusing on the dynamics of *jeong* that bind *Seon* Buddhist masters and disciples in spiritual kinship.

As we shall see, the *jeong* between wise masters and their fedgling disciples propels students along the path, but even these relationships must be abandoned to recognize the truth of emptiness and the ultimate commensurability of *nirvan*̣̄*a* (liberation) and engagement in the world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ (suffering).

# 11.2 The Expression of *Jeong* in Korean Buddhist Films

Wonhee Anne Joh's theorization of *jeong* as the "stickiness" between individuals that "saturates daily living and all forms of relationships," proves useful to understanding *Aje Aje Bara Aje's* presentation of an ethical Buddhist life that embraces the abject as the self (Joh 2007: 145). In what follows, I provide a synopsis and thematic overview of *Aje Aje Bara Aje* to show how the flm's protagonist Sun Nyeo (순녀) learns to embrace the abject and dissolve the fault line between self and other through the relational pull of *jeong*. Although I do not make the claim that *jeong* is necessarily a Buddhist term, the separation between Buddhist and Confucian ideologies is far less porous than it may seem from an outside perspective.

While the explicit language of *jeong* may not appear literally in this flm, we witness its relational force as it draws teacher and student together into a spiritual bond. Affection and monastic kinship emerge between master and disciple to create a familial intimacy that renders students the charges of their respective mentors. Several Korean Buddhist flms such as Bae Yong-kyun's *Why has Bodhidharma Left for the East* (*Dalmaga dongjjokeuro gan ggadalkeun?*; 1989), Ju Kyung-jung's *A Little Monk* (*Dongseung* 2003), and Kim Ki-duk's *Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring* (봄 여름 가을 겨울 그리고 봄 …; 2004) feature orphaned boys adopted into the order and raised by senior monks as their own spiritual children. The fatherly monks attend to their religious training as well as their more secular needs such as feeding, dressing, and even pulling their loose baby teeth. In his study of Korean monastic life, Robert Buswell notes, "There is a deep affnity among monks from the same monastery," who share a common family lineage (Buswell 1992: 77). Ordination into temple life thus symbolizes the adoption of a new monastery family. Buswell explains, "One of the euphemisms Buddhists have always used for ordination is 'to leave home'" (出家 *chulga*; *pravrajita*). For the majority of monks, most of the functions of their secular families are effectively served by the new "*dharma* family" (Buswell 1992: 91).

When aspirants enter the monastic order, they enter into *jeong*-infused relationships with their fellow practitioners and the mentors who guide them. Buddhist teachers ferry their students along the path, but senior monastics also know that overreliance on their guidance and the ties of *jeong* can become obstacles if their students fail to recognize that enlightenment is something that they already have within them. *Jeong* binds students to their Buddhist masters, but as I show in this chapter, these bonds of affection seem to function like the 'skillful means' or *upaya* of the Buddha who taught through whichever methods were most conducive to his disciples.

Buddhist tradition maintains that if the teachings were to remain relevant beyond their original birthplace in India, they would naturally need to adapt "according to the needs of his hearers" (Williams 1989: 143). The Mahayana method of *upaya* proved benefcial in the transmission of Buddhism to new locales precisely because it acknowledged that different methods based on the needs of the student were legitimate methods to deliver students along the path to liberation. For Sun Nyeo, the affective dimensions of *jeong* become the very push that she needs in order to let go of her misperception of *nirvan*̣̄*a* as separate from *sam*̣*sara*̄ . But just as one cannot cling too tightly to the doctrine (*dharma*) lest it become a hindrance, neither can the student grasp too tightly to her teacher lest she risk obscuring her own ability to awaken to their own Buddha nature.

Comparing his teachings to a raft to cross over river, the Buddha admonished his disciples: "O' *bhikkhus*, even this view, which is so pure and so clear, if you cling to it, if you fondle it, if you treasure it, if you are attached to it, then you do not understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, which is for crossing over, and not for getting hold of" (Rahula 1974: 11). The student ought therefore to depend on the teacher and doctrine as provisional guides pointing to enlightenment. That is to say, the point of practice is to wake up to the Buddha within oneself and remove the mental hindrances that obscure one's recognition of emptiness.

### 11.3 A Buddhism for the People: *Aje Aje Bara Aje*

In the introduction of *Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism*, Jin Y. Park writes,

Korean Buddhist efforts to bring Buddhism to the milieu of people's daily lives by actively engaging themselves in the social and political situations of the time re-emerged in the 1970s and 1980s in the form of *Minjung* Buddhism. Buddhist reformists adapted the term *minjung* (민중; the multitude) during the frst half of the twentieth century to emphasize the importance of the religion's rapport with society and the people. *Minjung* Buddhism during the second half of the twentieth century takes visibly political stances, directly responding to the military dictatorship in Korea. By its founding principles, *Minjung* Buddhism is Buddhism for the politically oppressed, economically exploited, and socio-culturally alienated. Philosophically, *Minjung* Buddhists appeal to the *bodhisattva* ideal and compassion. Adherents of *Minjung* Buddhism emphasize the liberation from all forms of oppression including social and political constraints. (Park 2010b: 5)

Im's flm subscribes to a vision of Buddhism that aligns closely with the modern reform efforts studied by Park (2010a) and with the reformist monk Manhae's contention that "social salvation" was deeply connected to traditional Buddhism (Park 2010b: 43). Manhae insisted that "Buddhists neither abandon human society nor deny close, loving relationships with people. They instead attain enlightenment through deflement and achieve in the midst of the stream of life and death. Being aware of this truth and getting involved in action are the practices" of Buddhist monastics (48). Pori Park explains, "By juxtaposing the principle of saving the world with the principle of absolute equality, Manhae was able to demonstrate social salvation as a fundamental principle of Buddhism not as its contingent aspect" (50). Accordingly, *Aje Aje Bara Aje* is in many ways a flmic version of Manhae's vision that identifed the absolute with the relative.

While *Aje Aje Bara Aje* valorizes the spiritual trajectory of a noncelibate former nun, it also introduces viewers to another Seon Buddhist nun named Jin Seong (진성) who represents a strict ascetic monasticism far removed from the struggles of the laity. In Im's narrative of the Buddhist path to *nirvan*̣̄*a*, Jin Seong's asceticism is rendered impotent because of her dogged refusal to engage in the suffering of humanity. Instead, she clings rigidly to a code of discipline that cuts her off from the world. In an effort to draw the nun away from her exclusive attachment to asceticism, purity, and orthodoxy, her abbess then requires the young nun to enroll in university. In the secular world, she is confronted by a prodemocracy student activist named Jong Nam (종남) who continually pushes her to confront Buddhism's lack of participation in the world of suffering. Im's camera provides footage of tear-gas cannisters exploding amidst student pro-democracy protests as Jong Nam confronts her narrow vision of liberation:

You said that all beings serve different purposes. Then, what is your purpose? Is it to ignore the poor, hide deep in the mountains, and discipline yourself? For Buddhism to build a stronghold today, you have to get together with the poor farmers and city laborers to lead their spiritual ways. That's the only road to salvation.

Unmoved by the protests around her and the challenges to her belief that only reliance on Buddhist doctrine and ascetism can liberate her, Jin Seong ignores his critique and returns to her temple even more committed to her pursuit of enlightenment. In her sole reliance on the Buddhist *sutras* ̄ and *Seon* practice, she eventually burns all of her university books as distractions from her religious dedication to focus on the *hwadu* (화두, 話頭**,** a short phrase for meditation) given to her by the abbess, "Why has Bodhidharma been painted without a beard?"

Jin Seong's story refects Im's view that Korean Buddhism must come down from the mountains in order to remain relevant to society. Im explains, "If reality is painful for most people, then it is necessary to share ordinary people's pain and struggle by following Mahayana Buddhism. I made *Come, Come, Come Upward* to ask how the monks could separate themselves from ordinary life and follow Hinayana ways" (James 2007:152). Im's vision of a socially engaged Buddhism thus concurs with the reformist monk Manhae's belief that "monks and nuns would have to abandon their cherished abodes in the remote mountains, and enter the cities in order to perform their religious duty to the general public" (Sorensen 1999: 121). Jin Seong clings to a dualistic and erroneous vision of reality that posits a distinction between the 'impure' world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ and its suffering people and the purity of *nirvan*̣̄*a*. Her refusal to relinquish her ascetic fervor is clearly noted in her exchange with Sun Nyeo over carvings of the Buddha made to resemble the humble visages of farmers and peasants. Jin Seong dismisses the folk features of the statues as ugly and therefore incapable of refecting the purity of the Buddha. When challenged by Sun Nyeo to see the humanity of the images refected and the Buddha nature in all beings, the ascetic nun simply replies, "You must not desecrate the holiness of our religion."

Despite her best efforts, Jin Seong's pursuit of enlightenment and solution to her *hwadu* come to an impasse in the monastery. With her abbess's consent, she resolves to leave the mountain top and embark on a pilgrimage seeking out meditation caves even further away from worldly entanglement. It is in one such cave that she literally meets face to face with the impotence of her asceticism as she prepares for her intensive meditation.  In an effort to teach the young nun about the relentless nature of desire despite his fervent meditations, he shouts, "Look carefully!  Now look at what happened to that place! Look with your own eyes! Look! Look! Look! I said look at it!" The monk's admonishment to look acts as a cautionary tale safeguarding against the follies of over ascetism which ironically highlights the very thing that one tries to avoid. Thus, the monk's embodied lesson refects the Buddha's exhortation to his disciples to come and see into the nature of reality as it truly is rather than as one's mental projections. Here, Jin Seong is forced to reckon with her own ravenous desire not for sex but for purity, both of which prove to be fip sides of the same coin. Unwilling to engage with this depraved monk, Jin Seong stoically responds, "You should've cut the root of your heart… not that. What pointless act is that?" Much like the monk struggled with his attachment to the world of sensual desire to no avail, Jin Seong's path to enlightenment will also be plagued by attachment to an unattainable purity that will take her further and further from the world of compassionate engagement with others who, in the *Mahayana* vision of reality, are none other than a part of oneself. She is obsessed with the quest for a purifed self that can experience enlightenment only after cutting off attachments to the world, yet it is precisely this obsession that keeps her from resolving her *hwadu*.

Sun Nyeo's story runs parallel to Jin Seong to provide an alternative view of the Mahayana pathway that validates the mundane world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ as the most appropriate training ground for monks and nuns to uproot the suffering that comprises human existence. According to Ronald Green and Chanju Mun, *Aje Aje Bara Aje* addresses themes critical of the previous military regime of Chun Doo-Hwan which ended in 1988 (Green and Mun 2016). Im's flm takes up signifcant political issues such as the Vietnam War, the Gwanju Democratization Movement, and government discrimination against Communist sympathizers and family members (233). Sun Nyeo's own ministry, which I have referred to elsewhere as a "radical act of somatic compassion" (Suh 2015: 96), focuses on the lives of several *dukkha-*flled men who embody *han* (한 恨; resentment).

Her own estranged father is a veteran of the Vietnam War who returned to Korea and entered the monastic order to escape his own war-related *han* and trauma. Although he sought to escape the world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ through ordination, he explains to his daughter that, similar to Jin Seong, he erroneously sought out the monastic life as a way to cleanse himself (presumably from war-related trauma):

Your father failed in his mission. He wanted to go live in the mountain, to learn from Buddha. He wanted only to make himself clean and receive a revelation. That was his mistake. He failed to see that, in living among the poor and the suffering, and in sharing their pain, there is something to be gained. When he realized that this something is the most valuable his illness had already affected his body deeply.

The ailing monk as an emblem of *han* (which is an example of *dukkha)* parts ways with his daughter as he imparts this lesson that foreshadows her own *bodhisattva* career.

Prior to her arrival at the Buddhist nunnery, Sun Nyeo develops a schoolgirl crush on her high school history teacher who participated in the Gwanju uprising and lost his wife and unborn child during the military crackdown and massacre. Like her father's regret and suffering, the teacher's deep loss and remorse also shapes Sun Nyeo's decision to enter the nunnery, albeit for less spiritual reasons. Compelled to follow him on his annual visit to Daejeon during holiday, they share a room together and are subsequently accused of having an illicit affair which leads to her expulsion from school. Sun Nyeo thus arrives at the temple infuenced by her father's own failings as a monk isolated on a mountain top and deeply pulled toward the suffering of her former teacher, and perhaps even chastened by this crush gone awry.

It is not, however, until she meets the third man in her life that she becomes an earthly *bodhisattva* engaging in acts of embodied compassion by becoming a wife and salvifc fgure to this *han*-flled man. After her tonsure ceremony, Sun Nyeo saves a man named Hyun Woo from committing suicide off the mountainside near her temple. Green and Mun note that the desperate man "had been a student activist for democracy and that his father was a Communist during the Korean War. Because he could not get a good job because of his father's affliation, he became destitute and suicidal" (Green and Mun 2016: 235). The nun saves this drunken man and she is unwittingly expelled from the monastery due to his relentless pursuit of her. In his despair, he cries for her to help straighten out his life as a petty criminal. He beseeches her, "I have no strength or confdence to fnd my own way!" Hyun Woo's parents were killed during a Communist round up and because of his parent's affliations, he could not fnd decent work and turned to crime and gang activity. "But," he explains to Sun Nyeo, "I have been saved by your hands." Sun Nyeo does pull him from his death, but the hands are also a reference to the salvifc qualities of Kuan Yin *bodhisattva* who is also referred to as a mother and envisioned with a thousand hands to reach out compassionately to all beings (Yü 2001). Later, as he is arrested a second time for harassing the nun, he shouts, "You allowed me to be born again! You must become my mother! My friend! My wife!" Thus, he becomes one of the many beings suffering in *sam*̣*sara*̄ who cry out and inspire the *bodhisattva*'s vow to save all sentient beings.

While shaving the head signifes her cutting ties with the ordinary world, it seems that the world is not ready to let go of her. Sun Nyeo is duly dismissed from the temple by the abbess due the temple nuns' constant complaints about her impurity, but on the eve her departure, Eunseon urges her to "kill the immature Buddha" inside her and gives Sun Nyeo her *hwadu*, "Between your spirit that stays here and your body rambling around the world, which one is real?" Although she is expelled from the temple, the abbess wisely acknowledges that there is more than one way to become enlightened and implies that, unlike Jin Seong Sun Nyeo's enlightenment will come only through her compassionate interactions with the suffering people below.

Seon Buddhist masters regularly present their students with a *hwadu* (known as *koan* in Japanese Zen; meditational question) as an object of intensive inquiry that will, if correctly understood, convey to the meditator what lies beyond form. Buswell explains, "The [*hwadu*] is a question, particular to the Seon school, that promotes spiritual inquiry" (Buswell 1992: 150) and plays a critical role in our disciple's training. Sun Nyeo is expected to focus on this meditation riddle to rid herself of the distracting thoughts and delusions that have mired her progress and, when solved, will enable her to exchange her own limited understanding for what the Buddha saw (Cho 2017). She does not, however, progress swiftly in solving her *hwadu* while living as an ascetic nun engaged in meditative contemplation day and night; instead, it is only when she is sent down the mountain and engages in emotional and physical relationships with others that she begins to recognize that ultimately self and other are one. As we shall see, the culmination of her spiritual journey will not be fnished until she visits with her abbess one last time and the bonds between them are loosened when her teacher passes away.

The abbess predicts that she will see Sun Nyeo again and indicates that her disciple will succeed in understanding her *hwadu*. The young nun has no choice but heed the decision of the abbess and is greeted by her future husband as she descends the mountain. Sun Nyeo's earthly ministry unfortunately begins when he rapes her immediately after she vows to transform him over a few drinks, "Mark my words. I'm going to make a human being out of you." Hyun Woo drags the inebriated Sun Nyeo to an inn where he proceeds to undress her and then restrains her arms by pinning her limbs under her outer garment that he has wrapped around her body as a bind. His deft maneuvers indicate that he has some skill in restraining and raping women and as Sun Nyeo regains consciousness, she tries in vain to escape and fght back. Hyun Woo then strikes and rapes her as she struggles to cover her tonsured head with her knit beanie as if shrinking away in shame and anguish. Sun Nyeo is forcibly laicized and no longer a Buddhist nun.

We next encounter Sun Nyeo and Hyun Woo as a happily married couple living in a tin-roofed shack outside the coal mine where the soon-to-be father has found work. He arrives home after a full day's work in the mines exhausted but with a renewed sense of purpose and fulfllment. Sun Nyeo appears as a devoted housewife who breaks the joyful news that they will soon have a baby. Thus, her mission is accomplished in that she has cleansed Hyun Woo of his negative *karma* and made this *han*-flled man whole again. Unfortunately, as he had predicted, Hyun Woo eventually meets his death in a mining accident and Sun Nyeo miscarries their child. We only learn of these tragic events as she recounts them years later to Jin Seong whom she briefy encounters on her way to Bigeum island to work as a nurse's assistant.  Sun Nyeo shares that after her frst husband's death, she married a double amputee who subsequently died, and that now she is on her way to a new location for work. We get a glimpse into her earthly ministry and acts of embodied compassion for the *han*-flled men she makes whole when she explains, " I don't regret my life in which I gave my heart and my body to such people. Living, happiness, and unhappiness are all the same in essence … I never gave up … Whenever I met a new man I did my best as if I was a virgin. I hope that it might be asceticism." Sun Nyeo's acknowledgment that happiness and unhappiness are of the same essence indicates that she has already come to recognize that there is no difference between the self living up on the mountain and the self wandering in the world for they are of the same essence—empty. In contrast, Jin Seong remains staunchly in pursuit of enlightenment and struggles to answer her *hwadu* throughout the remainder of flm to little success.

Sun Nyeo's third husband is a widowed ambulance driver with a young son whom she meets while working on the island.  In her extensive study of the feminine forms of *Kuan Yin*, Chünfang Yü points out because the *bodhisattva* realizes nonduality, she can appear in a variety of forms without worrying about "evil" activities such as sexual activity: "She would use sexual desire as a skillful means, a teaching device to help people reach goodness" (Yü 2001:421). Similarly, the *bodhisattva* appears in the form of the prostitute Vasumitra in the *Gandhavyuha Sutra*̄ and "tells the young pilgrim Sudhana that she teaches all men who come to her full of passion in such a way that they become free from passion. Without discrimination, she will offer whatever they want and in doing so, enable them to become dispassionate" (Yü 2001: 424). The Mahayana texts certainly allow us a Buddhist spin on Sun Nyeo's sexual relationships with *han*-flled men and perhaps their early deaths are an indication of their liberation from the world of suffering. According to David E. James, her sexual companionship is also "metonymic for her general ministry, and is the source of her own spiritual development. This allows the flm to assert a redemptive humanism founded in female sexuality" (James 2001: 28).

Following the ambulance driver's death, Sun Nyeo returns to the nunnery to visit with her abbess one last time before her master passes away. The abbess's prediction that the two would meet again rings true as does her prediction that Sun Nyeo will understand the true nature of herself by immersing herself in the world of suffering. On her deathbed, the abbess advises the resident nuns to allow a small space for Sun Nyeo to live on the temple property and to eventually re-ordain her.

The abbess dies after her student returns and preparations are quickly made for her cremation. She is soon set ablaze on a funeral pyre as her disciples circumambulate their master while chanting *sutras* ̄ . Sun Nyeo must observe the cremation from afar, for the nuns still revile her as a "disgusting creature" for her dalliances with men, which refects monasticism's failure to wet its feet in the world of the abject by clinging to puritanical views that only heighten their isolation. Undeterred, Sun Nyeo returns later to sift through the smoldering ashes to collect her teacher's relics. In this heightened moment of grief and loss, Sun Nyeo suddenly reveals the answer to her *hwadu*: "Seunim [master] between my soul left with you and the body out in the world, neither is my substance. I knew too late that I fnally have the real self when and only when the two are in the same boundary." That is, Sun Nyeo has understood the *Heart Sutra*̄ 's most famous teaching that form is emptiness and emptiness is form (색즉 시공 공즉시색; 色卽是空空卽是色). It is emptiness that fuses the purported gap between *nirvan*̣̄*a* and *sam*̣*sara*̄ and self and other into a network of interdependence. Recognizing that "Something that is in the rough may be more pure as the lotus blooms in the mud," Sun Nyeo makes a vow to "grind these bones into a thousand pieces. And at every place I stay, I'll put a piece in a stone pillar. To every heart in this world, [t]hese will be a source of light. I'll build a thousand such pillars." The flm concludes with Sun Nyeo fading into the distance as she follows the pathway back down the mountain to continue her *bodhisattva* activity with her master's relics to serve as a beacon of hope and compassion for all beings. Jin Seong remains behind still grappling with her own *hwadu* and clinging to her purity.

*Aje Aje Bara Aje* fts squarely into a Mahayana philosophical vision that rejects the absolute distinction between *sam*̣*sara*̄ and the ultimate goal of *nirvan*̣̄*a*. Rather than claiming that *nirvan*̣̄*a* can only be attained through monastic pursuits high in the mountains above the realm of *sam*̣*sara*̄ , Mahayana valorizes *sam*̣*sara*̄ as something to be embraced rather than rejected, for both are "absent of inherent existence" anyway (Williams 1989: 69). And yet it is not just the flmic portrayal of the Buddhist path that conveys this ontological message, it is flm itself that also imparts this wisdom onto its viewers. In her study of the Buddhist semiotics operative in flm, Francisca Cho remarks that "the weight of Buddhist tradition rejects the distinction between signifers and signifed, sanctioning the conclusion that cinematic illusion is ontologically no different from life itself" (Cho 2009: 163). Thus, viewers receive the lesson of emptiness from the main characters' trajectories as well as through the simple act of seeing. In this way, they see what and how the Buddha saw reality (Cho 2017). Im's flm engages viewers in "the dialectics of liberation" that casts a Mahayana interpretive lens on monasticism and its perceived limitations (Cho 2009: 167). If, as the famed Mahayana philosopher Nagarjuna proclaims, "Between the two [*nirvan*̣̄*a* and *sam*̣*sara*̄ ] there is not the slightest bit of difference," then they are not ontologically distinct. It then follows that monasteries and the worldly life cannot be so far apart either and that the muddy world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ can be just as potent a source for enlightenment (Williams, 1989: 69).

### 11.4 Buddhism, *Han*, and *Jeong*

Because it problematizes the separation of spiritual pursuits in distant monasteries and direct social engagement in the world, *Aje Aje Bara Aje* also addresses Korean Buddhism's responsiveness to *han*, a particularly Korean embodiment of suffering (*dukkha)*. David E. James notes that *Aje Aje Bara Aje* addresses Buddhism's ability to adequately respond to the embodied suffering of *han* to ask, "How can traditional culture be used to confront the *han* of present-day Korea and what part can Buddhism play in that confrontation?" (James 2001: 26). *Aje Aje Bara Aje* is notably replete with men who are emblematic of *han*, a kind of trauma they embody through their spiritual angst, illness, disability, and premature deaths. James writes:

Taken by Koreans to be the essential national experience, *han* is constituted from the sentiments of loss and rage at the severance of wholeness and continuity between self and history. The accumulated emotions of sufferers …, *han* may be projected onto any political ordeal, but in this century it has been primarily experienced as the response to devastating colonization and political division. (19)

The *han*-flled men in Im's flm are hungry for the salve and tonic of the *bodhisattvic* compassion of Sun Nyeo who becomes a wife, mother, and sexual partner to each of them. In so doing, she refects the emanations of *Kuan Yin bodhisattva*, "a compassionate universal savior who responds to another's cry for help regardless of class, gender, or even moral qualifcations" (Yü 2001: 5).

In her work, *Heart of the Cross: A Postcolonial Christology*, Joh writes, "As a concept, *jeong* encompasses but is not limited to compassion, affection, solidarity, relationality, vulnerability, and forgiveness" (Joh 2006: xiii). Connecting Korean *jeong* to the Chinese character 情 (*qing)* that expresses "heart" and "arising," Joh further notes that "*Jeong* makes relationships "sticky." (xiv). In her approach to *jeong* as an adhesive bond that gives rise to hopefulness in the midst of *han*, Joh argues that the "profound sense of collective interconnectedness and the relational power of *jeong*…promote communal healing and sustaining and make way for the presence of a deep, life-affrming power" (Joh 2006: xvi). Joh's theological approach to *jeong* bears a striking resemblance to the Mahayana *bodhisattva* vow to save all sentient beings that inspires the protagonist of *Aje*  *Aje Bara Aje*; in both instances, suffering is to be transformed through the intrapersonal bonds with and among the people.

Although writing from a Christian perspective, Joh's analysis of *jeong* and *han* proves instructive for locating similar instances of *jeong* and *han* within a Korean Buddhist framework of emptiness, compassion, and suffering. Similarly, if, as Andrew Sung Park contends, "*han* can be defned as the critical wound of the heart generated by unjust psychological repression, as well as by social, political, economic, and cultural expression," then the suffering that *han* entails can also be approached as a culturally specifc instance of *dukkha* or suffering from Buddhist perspectives (Park 1993: 10). If *han* is deep trauma and suffering on an individual and collective level, it is *jeong* that gives hope through relational attachments and love that "transforms relationships, thereby transforming systems of oppression" (Joh 2006: 121). Despite her critique of a biologically oriented meaning of *han* Sandra So Hee Chi Kim argues, "The word *han* carries with it a history of unmitigated collective traumas in Korea, which have created a very specifc social and national imaginary in Korea and Korean diasporas" (Chi Kim 2017: 274). For Chi Kim, *han* signifes a sorrow and woundedness that is both individually manifest and "at the same time creating horizontal connections of empathy and identifcation" (Chi Kim 2017: 274). It is these horizontal connections and ties that stem from the historical trauma of *han* that concerns this study.

Complementing Joh's study of the theological implications of *jeong*, Angela Son examines the psychological dynamics behind *jeong*, which she sees as "the outward manifestation of the self-selfobject relationships can facilitate the development of the self and can be seen as developing from an immature to a mature state" (Son 2014: 745). Both the theological and psychodynamic interpretation of *jeong* prove invaluable to this present study of *jeong* as the relational ties that can mature fedgling monastics who seek to escape the very world of *sam*̣*sara*̄ . One does not need to leave the world in order to become enlightened; rather, one enters into the *han*flled realm to help transform it.

Sun Nyeo's compassion refects an ideal Buddhism that has resolved the tension between a socially responsible Buddhism infused with ideals of *jeong*, and a detached ascetic and formal religion that does little for society. *Jeong* as the bonds of affection and emotion that adheres between people certainly plays a signifcant role in Sun Nyeo's story, for it is through *jeong* that Sun Nyeo transcends the false dichotomy between *sam*̣*sara*̄ and *nirvan*̣̄*a* and enters the world of *han*-flled men in order to liberate them.

We would be remiss if we viewed Im's flm without recourse to a discussion of *han* as the woundedness and abjection that *jeong* can transform. *Jeong*ful people are those who are able to experience others' suffering and pain as if it is their own because, ultimately it is. Joh notes, "Experience of *jeong* between the self and the other opens a space in which we begin our journey of awakening to the other and to the self" (Joh 2011: 169). She further notes that "When we realize that who we are is always constituted through and in relation to the other, and when we begin to really "see" and "hear" the other, we cannot help but become aware that the other's well being is my well being, the other's pain becomes my pain" (Joh 2011:178). *Jeong* thus awakens in the self the realization of the other as a deep part of the self and, in so doing, it becomes the catalyst for deep compassion and co-experience between beings.

Im's flm critiques the monastic impetus to remain isolated on mountaintops as a rejection of humanity precisely because it does not engage in taking on the pain of the other as the self. Mahayana Buddhism promotes interdependence as the existential relationship between all phenomena; thus, we are mutually constituted. Jin Seong fails in her spiritual quest because she aligns herself with a form of asceticism considered ineffectual because it only focuses on the meditator herself and not on the abject. Im's Buddhism embraces the Mahayana image of "the Jewel Net of Indra (Lord of the *deva* realm)" that appears in the *Avatamska Sutra*̄ where each node of Indra's net contains a multi-faceted jewel that refects each and every other jewel to convey that all beings are deeply intertwined, entangled, and co-related.

*Jeong* can be understood as empathy, affection, and emotion between relational beings. The affection that Sun Nyeo has for her abbess is a form of love and relational attachment whose bonds are severed upon the teacher's death and cremation. Buddhists do not talk much of the love between teachers and their disciples, yet, as Joh reminds us, *jeong* saturates relationships. Despite the Buddha's teachings about non-attachment and no self, it would be unwise to imagine that the relationality and mutuality of *jeong* have somehow been bypassed or entirely separated from everyday social life in the monastery. The monks and nuns of their respective monastic complexes function like a family, albeit a *sangha* family whose shared experiences of daily living, sleeping, and eating depend on the other. Thus, the *sangha* family has the stereotypical father and mother fgures in the abbot and abbess and their students are akin to their spiritual children.

Much like the Buddhist discourses of *karuna* or compassion, *jeong* also connotes compassion which Joh notes "has a way of making diffcult our desire for easy boundary-making" (Joh 2011: 178) There is much consonance between Sun Nyeo's *bodhisattvic* compassion and *jeong* which recognizes the indebtedness to the other as none other than the self and, like compassion, it is a practice in unboundedness and relational fow between beings.

Although not writing specifcally about Buddhism, Joh's theorization of *jeong* bears striking similarities and resonance with Buddhist emptiness and the *bodhisattva* vow of compassion. It is precisely this disposition of the subject toward the other that makes it possible to see Sun Nyeo's embodied compassion as an enactment and embodiment of *jeong*. Joh's deciphering of *jeong* forged at the contact zone between self and other enables us to see that Sun Nyeo's somatic compassion is compelled also by the interrelationality of *jeong*. She descends the mountain and practices her Buddhist compassion immersed in the world of suffering individuals precisely because that is what *jeong* entails. It is a care and regard for the other and it is the antagonistic relationships that perhaps require the most care and regard. While Sun Nyeo's fellow nuns cling to purity and reject Hyun Woo's suffering, she herself reaches out to him because, as a *jeong*ful person, she understands its healing power. Much like Buddhism's nondualism and deep recognition that we are mutually constituted, *jeong* becomes a force that ties the two together and renders the fabricated relation of verticality into a horizontal relationship.

### 11.5 Conclusion

Approaching *jeong* as an ethical response to the other is nearly interchangeable with Buddhist understandings of no self and interdependence that comprise the *bodhisattva* path. Buddhist ethics and *jeong* go hand and hand in their valorization and cultivation of the impulse toward the other as if their deep needs and cries become our own. It is this relational fow that comprises *jeong* and allows for the fuidity of its conceptualization. *Jeong* is thus a relationality that has the power to transform relationships and fnds striking resonance with the Buddhist concepts of emptiness and interdependence introduced in *Aje Aje Bara Aje*. *Jeong* fosters bonds of love, heartfulness, and relationality between beings and delivers them to a deeper vision of the phenomenal world as ontologically co-created, corelated, and interdependent. Thus, *jeong* and Buddhist compassion go hand in hand as the ethical pull to the other. Although Confucian in origin, *jeong* is not a discrete emotion that runs parallel to the Buddhist ethic of compassion; on the contrary, the two intertwine in the lived experiences of Buddhist monastics to fulfll the Mahayana vision of the interdependence of all phenomena.

### References

Park, Pori. 2010b. "A Korean Buddhist Response to Modernity: Manhae Han Yongun's Doctrinal Reinterpretation for His Reformist Thought." In *Makers of Modern Korean* Buddhism, edited by J. Y. Park. New York: State University of New York Press.

Rahula, Walpola. 1974. *What the Buddha Taught*. New York: Grove Press.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Emotions (*Jeong* 情) in Korean Confucianism and Family Experience: An Ecofeminist Perspective

*Jea Sophia Oh*

### 12.1 Introduction

This chapter critically reimagines the dynamics between Korean Confucianism and family and rediscovers constructive meanings and functions of emotions (*jeong* 情). First, this chapter introduces the Korean concept of *jeong* in relation to the closely related concepts of *uri* (we/us) and *han* (resentments). Korean women have been recognized as icons of the uniquely Korean feelings of *jeong* and *han*. Unlike general assumptions that Korean society has been described as an extreme form of patriarchy since *Joseon* dynasty (1392–1897), Korean women's role in the Confucian family is predominant and even more powerful than women's in the Western family on some points. This chapter analyzes multiple degrees of *jeong* as more than genderized emotions but transformative affects to

J. S. Oh (\*)

Department of Philosophy, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA, USA e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© The Author(s) 2022 315

E. Y. J. Chung, J. S. Oh (eds.), *Emotions in Korean Philosophy and Religion*, Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94747-7\_12

bring compassions and care for others despite its destructiveness and dangers. This chapter recognizes Korean women's leading roles in traditional Confucian families as advisors, educators, and caregivers. Korean women have thrived through *han* by dealing with *salim* (enlivening) as the subject of *life*. Finally, this chapter suggests its familial expansion to the holistic planetary 'eco- family' beyond biological ties and anthropocentrism for which *jeong* is a crucial element to interconnect humans and more than humans.

# 12.2 The Familial Dynamics of *Uri*, *Han*, and *Jeong*

What is it about *jeong* that makes it so uniquely Korean? *Jeong* is closely related to the term we (*uri* 우리) by asking, "Are we strangers, others? (*uriga naminga*? 우리가 남인가?)", which means *jeong* is a main factor that draws a line between us and them or others. Basically, *jeong* refers to the emotional and psychological bonds that join persons in a Korean cultural context; it permeates all levels, dividing the world into different degrees of us (*uri* 우리) *versus* them (*nam* 남). With *jeong*, people in a community become like a family and share communal feelings *via* solidarity and compassion. In this sense, *jeong* can be actually practiced and is realized as a familial attachment amongst Koreans that it can potentially be and is often extended to strangers beyond actual biological ties of kinship.

Koreans' familial relationship is connected by the term *uri* (우리 our/ us). It is always, *uri jib* (우리집 our home), *uri ddal* (우리딸 our daughter), *uri sengmyeong* (우리생명 our life), and *uri nara* (우리나라 our nation). *Uri* is far more than a word that connotes togetherness or possession, it is a word embedded with one organismic communal body of peoplehood. *Uri* encompasses what it means to cultivate a care community that gives birth to a selfhood not the other way around. A selfhood is shaped and defned by the community of which we are a part. Western modernity and the cultural transformations that has engendered are typically more individualistic while traditional Asian, African, and indigenous cultures tend to be more convivial. The scholar of comparative political theory, Sungmoon Kim, argues that the social-psychologically constituted *uri* in Korean society is qualitatively different from social groups in Western liberal society because the Korean *uri* is accompanied by the group-specifc self-transformation of individual participants, generating a unique group dynamic that is rarely found in liberal associations (Kim 2014: 213–214). This difference is from how they recognize the self. An individualistic sense of self is defned more by who they are on the inside, minimizing the infuence of factors, contexts, and people outside the individual. A convivial sense of self is defned more by who they are with other people, or by their membership in a group. In this regard, *uri* is intersubjective self (I) in the community we belong to *via* recognition of empathetical affection and familial relationality beyond biological ties. Maintaining social harmony, getting along with others, and meeting social expectations are more important in convivial cultures. In Korean social psychology, *uri* is indistinguishably interwoven with 'I.' This is evident in the way that Koreans refer to their mothers not as 'my mother', but as 'our mother' (*uri eomma* 우리엄마).  This extent of attention and concern can seem burdensome, or even an invasion of privacy, but in a world where society is becoming more fragmented and individualized, the care for those around you expressed through *jeong* becomes increasingly valuable. *Jeong* ties people together in the category of *uri* regardless if they are family or friends or not.

*Jeong* is formed through relationships while at the same time relationships are consolidated via *jeong*. Due to this mutual relationality of *jeong*, Korean people say that *jeong* is piled up and is accumulated (*jeongi ssaida* 정이 쌓이다). Like an old grandmother piling plate upon plate of food in front of their grandchildren to the point they feel they might burst. *Jeong* is largely related to love, a deep-seated love. There is a *cliché* in Korean, *ireoda jeongdeulgeteo* (이러다 정들겠어, someone may grow on you), which means that you feel close to the person as a good friend. The relationality of *jeong* is extensive beyond one's family or human relationships. One can feel *jeong* for their family, friends, lovers, colleagues, and even for places like their house and objects such as hometown or their car. *Jeong* is more easily felt than verbally described. Koreans often express *jeong* through unspoken actions. *Jeong* can be seen in the Korean custom such as sharing food with people including strangers, helping each other, taking baths together as friends, and so on.

As a unique cultural feeling for Koreans *jeong* is deeply related to *han* ( 한/恨, deep resentment) that is also a representative sentiment feeling of Koreans. Both *jeong* and *han* are expressed as something formed with a verb, 맺다 (*maetda*, form). While the term *jeong* is combined with an active verb 맺다 (*maetda*), for example, I and my husband have formed *jeong* (i.e. I and my husband fell in love). The word *han* is combined with a passive verb 맺히다 (*maechida*, being formed), for example, in my heartmind *han* has been formed. *Jeong* is more like an active emotion and motion by oneself via mutual relationships while *han* occurs in one's heart-mind by external causes such as violence, oppression, exploitation, invasion, coercion, and colonization without a right reciprocity. A Korean American constructive theologian, Andrew Sung Park, defnes *han* as the critical wound of the heart formed by unjust psychosomatic repression, as well as by socio-political, economic, and cultural oppressions such as Holocaust, racial discriminations, child-molestation, exploitation of labors, and patriarchy (Park 1993: 10). Park describes *han* from victims' perspectives as not only the abysmal experience of pain but also as being dominated by feelings of abandonment and helplessness (15). He names *han* "the wounded heart": "When the aching heart is wounded again by external violence, the victim suffers a yet deeper pain. The wound produced by such repeated abuse and injustice is *han* in the heart" (20). Park has highlighted the link between women's experiences of *han* and patriarchal violence.

Along with *uri* (we), *han* (resentment) and *jeong* (attachment) are closely related as uniquely Korean feelings at the same time they have been generally recognized as feelings of femininity in relation to Korean women and patriarchy. Korean Christian theologian Jaehoon Lee compared women and men in dealing with *han*; Most often women's experiences are allowed by patriarchy to experience *han* as *jeonghan* (정한/情恨, lovehate resentment/love from *han*) whereas men are dictated by the norms of patriarchy to experience *wonhan* (원한/怨恨, vengeful resentment/ hate from *han*) that is often encouraged to lead to the practice of *dan* (斷, cutting off forms of oppression) (Lee 1994: 37). There is inevitable coexistence of *han* and *jeong* as *jeonghan*. Given this dichotomy of *han* and *jeong* and their ironical combinations of both, both *han* and *jeong* have been understood as depressive and negative while *jeonghan* has been interpreted as passive, ineffective, compromised, and essentially domesticated as gendered. Wonhee Anne Joh, a Korean postcolonial theologian, powerfully advocates that we need to always be creatively seeking a positive and transformative nature of *jeong* in overcoming oppressive *han* (Joh 2006: 23).

As I mentioned above, three very intensive and intimate concepts in Korean, 우리, 한, and 정: *uri* (we/us/our), *han* (wounded heart/resentment), and *jeong* (caring heart/attachment feelings) connect the Korean people with a silent force, cultivating shared culture and kinship. While *han* can be compared to the dark cloud that hangs over modern Korea and the promise of clear skies on the horizon, *jeong* can be metaphorically likened to the enormous umbrella that embraces everyone in terms of *uri*. Korean people regard Korea as one extended family by calling *uri nara* ( 우리나라, our country) a nation family (*gukga/guojia* 國家). Kim calls *jeong* an "*uri*-building familial relationality" that induces "*uri*responsibility" to perform social actions for a unique Korean-Confucian democracy (Kim 2014: 213 and 217). I agree with his critical point that "*uri*-responsibility works through *jeong* (212)," especially *miun jeong* (미 운정, affectionate hatred, so-called, *han*), which can be and have been constructively transformed into people's democratic movements against oppressive systemic evil with collective moral responsibility. There are some shared *han* and *jeong* in the category of *uri* as Korean people today regardless of gender identity have via the historical traumas (*han*) persisting from the period of Japanese colonial rule over Korea (1910–1945), the Korean war (1950–1953), the division of Korea (1953–), the military dictatorship (1963–1979), the *Gwangju* uprising and massacre (May 18, 1980), the IMF crisis (1997–2001) and the *Sewol* ferry disaster (April 16, 2014). Throughout this *han*-ridden history of modern Korea, Korean people gather still can together as one organic body of *uri nara* (our country) under the name of a nation family actively participating in creative democratic movements such as the "enlivening" *salim* movements (Korean environmental activism) for responding to the IMF crisis and the post-*Sewol* candlelight protests of 2016–2017.

Regardless of the prejudicial assumptions that Korean women are apolitical and excluded from the patriarchal national politics, many Korean women have actively participated in the Korean democratic struggles. The *salim* movement is also predominantly carried out by Korean women in the everyday practice of caring for their homes. Ironically, this politicization arising from Korean women's traditional gender roles deconstructs the patriarchal designation between the public domain of politics and the private space of the family. The entanglement of *jeong*, *han*, and *uri* in contemporary Korean political experience might run deeper and broader than a similar triadic affective entanglement as relates to the complex issues of gender oppression and violence in the Korean Confucian patriarchy. Nevertheless, in order to discover the positive elements of *jeong*, it is imperative that we need to know how *jeong* has been consistently genderized and feminized, and how women's roles in the traditional and contemporary Korea function in the dynamics of *jeong*, *han*, and *uri*.

# 12.3 *Jeong* and Korean Women

*Jeong* as a Korean concept of affection has been interpreted as a complicated feeling of human relationships but somehow practiced as a gendered concept that enforces women to accept and justify their sufferings rendered by a patriarchal society. Despite the constructive and positive elements of *jeong* in human relationships, *jeong* can also be a most vulnerability-inducing and dangerous concept when practiced as part of a psychological suppression strategy to overlook the transgressions of perpetuators. *Jeong* has been essentialized and feminized within the patriarchal culture in Korea. *Jeong* is like a double-edged sword that allows vulnerability and acceptance of heterogeneity and differences. Joh utilizes *jeong* and constructs a love-centered theology of the cross. She understands *jeong* (love) in relation to *han* (suffering). She understands the Christian act of atonement as the *han* of Jesus' crucifxion and the transformative power of *jeong*/love in Jesus' life and death. She argues that the cross performs a double gesture of *han* and *jeong* (xxii). Joh's juxtaposition of *han* and *jeong* makes her postcolonial Christology a Korean contextual theology since *han* and *jeong* are highly representative words describing historical and cultural feelings of Koreans. Beyond a passive and reductively feminized form of relationality, she suggests a powerful women's embodiment of *jeong* as dynamic, empowering, and oriented toward sustaining forms of life that could possibly unravel *han* (Joh 2006: 127).

As Joh warns, patriarchal domestication of *jeong* has often justifed unhealthy relationships. In many cases, a woman couldn't divorce from her abusive spouse 'because of *jeong* (*jeong ttaemune* 정때문에).' When an unhappy married woman says 'because of *jeong* I live-with my spouse- (*jeong ttaemune sanda* 정때문에 산다), *jeong* can be interpreted as a negative comment. In other words, even if the wife wants to divorce with her abusive husband, she shouldn't because of *jeong*. For instance, imagine an unhappy married woman who has grown sick of her husband over the years due to his mistreatments, but she stays married to him because either she doesn't have any other sources to get out of her marriage or she can bear with him just enough to live under the same roof. It can be interpreted as a blind loyalty, or a hopeless faith. In any case, *jeong* doesn't mean an erotic love at all. It is more like a habitual and unrefective 'attachment' to relationships even in unwanted situations of living. Indeed, what she needs is a defnitive *dan* (斷, cutting off forms of oppression) and *danjeong* (斷情, cutting off attachment) to free her from the oppression of her marriage. However, there is a fear of being a single woman due to social prejudice against divorced women, which seems to be far from an idealized traditional role for women, the so-called wise-mother good-wife (*hyeonmoyangcheo/xianmuliangqi* 賢母良妻)1 model in traditional Korean Confucian society. This model represented the ideal for womanhood in East Asia in the late 1800s and early 1900s and its effects continue to the present. Women were expected to master domestic skills such as sewing and cooking, as well as to develop the moral and intellectual skills requisite to raise strong, intelligent sons for the sake of the nation. Even in my college days in the late twentieth century in Korea, some of my classmates expressed their dream occupation as being a devoted 'wise-mother and good-wife.'

This idealized womanhood as 'wise-mother good-wife' has been enforced by patriarchal society and has become a barometer to judge women as qualifed or as relatively worthless. In this binary stereotypical gender bias, women have been enforced to embrace even their unjust and abusive relationships in the name of *jeong*. If one rejects this traditional model of womanhood, she might easily receive adjectives in front of her name such as selfsh, unwomanly, unruly, disobedient, opinionated, useless, tough, butch, and so on. Having grown up in Korea, I was also taught to comply with male authorities and often trained to be hiding my feelings and opinions. For Korean women in general, quietness (*jeong/jing* 靜) and caring love (*jeong/qing* 情) are virtually kin concepts. Women have no way of venting or letting out frustrations when scolded by in-laws, elder siblings, or teachers because of the prohibitions involved in the rigid hierarchy of traditional Korean society. Even today, the Korean patriarchy still demands that the younger generation fnd ways to ft into the structure of the old (Son 2013:23). For instance, in a famous Korean drama, *My Mother Is Having An Affair* (SBS May 4–October 23, 2020), it is very typical that a mother-in-law scolds and even slaps her daughter-in-law when the daughter-in-law talks back and presents an opinion against her. It is an irony then that I grew up in a cultural context wherein women's

1The four-character phrase "wise mother and good wife" (*humor yangcheo* 賢母良妻, Japanese: *ryosai kenbo* 良妻賢母, Chinese: *xianqi liangmu/xianmu liangqi* 賢妻良母/賢母 良妻) was coined by Nakamura Masanao in 1875. See Sievers (1983: 22).

emotions were suppressed while at the same time being labeled as a gender that was by nature more emotional than men were. Both *jeong/jing* (靜, quietness) and *jeong/qing* (情, caring love) have been expected from women as cultural values and virtues. Hiding women's feelings has become a virtue under the traditional gender binaries. Women's sacrifce, selfessness, the motivation to internalize women's opinions and desires, and the humility to minimize their agency are considered virtuous and normalized.

The silencing and mutilation of women's voices has become usual given some popular Korean proverbs such as "when hens crow, the house is ruined," "Loud women will be kicked out of family" and "Arguing with a woman in the morning and your entire day will be ruined." In this regard, a Korean marriage therapist Chul Woo Son listed twelve particular proverbs (to me they sound disgustingly familiar since I have heard throughout my lifetime) made by "men for men" shows the distinct trait of placing women in the role of submission and muting their voices (26–28):

Those listed proverbs above seem to be extremely misogynic. However, I can't deny my embodied experiences that I have been going through due to my biological sex in a patriarchal culture. Nevertheless, in order to transform the traditional values which are still widely used even today, I need to return to the text again and revisit the context once more to say neither the one nor the other, but something else, something totally new and constructive that will bring forth a renewed power of life.

Suppressing women's feelings by silencing them is justifed by the patriarchal paradigm of *namjon yeobi* (男尊女卑, men are superior/women are inferior) which can be easily summed by *samjong ji do* (三從之道, the way of three obediences). Before marriage, a woman should obey her father. After marriage, she should obey her husband. In the event of the husband's death, *she should obey her son*. The idea of the three obediences came from the *Book of Rites* also written in *Naehun* (內訓, *Teaching Women*, 1522) by Queen Sohye (소혜왕후/昭惠王后; 1437–1504).2 *Naehun* elaborates on the various scripted roles that a married woman had to perform successfully in order to be an obedient wife and a daughter-in-law, and a caring mother. In the chapter of Marriage (*Hollyejang* 婚禮章) in *Naehun*, Queen Sohye seemed to embrace the way of triple obediences (*samjongjido* 三從之道) along with the seven deadly sins (*chilgeojiak* 七去 之惡) that justify divorce:

According to Confucius, a wife should be submissive to her husband, not handle affairs by herself, and fulfll 'three obediences (*samjong* 三從)': Obey her father when unmarried, obey her husband when married, and obey her son after her husband dies. This means that a woman should never handle things alone. (*Naehun*; trans. Lee 1976: 154)

The seven valid causes for divorce are: (1) disobedience to the parents-inlaw, (2) inability to give birth to a son, (3) adultery, (4) jealousy, (5) genetic disease, (6) a lot of talk, (7) and kleptomania (Lee 1976: 153).

All of the above are extremely preposterous and terribly oppressive based on the double standards pervasive in this binary understanding of sex and gender. However, Queen Sohye listed three anti-divorce facts (*sambulchul* 三不出) to protect women from being kicked out, even if they fall under the seven sins listed above: You could not abandon your wife for three facts, the fact that the wife has spent three years of mourning