The Basis for Coexistence Found from within: The Mystic Universality and Ethicality of Donghak (東學, Eastern Learning)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract and conclusion should reflect only on the content presented in the body of the paper so please delete extraneous content like Aldous Huxley, political democracy from your abstract and conclusion.

This paper would be strengthened to weigh your contribution alongside or against existing Donghak research publications (which is quite vast). Where does your argument reside next to others? It seems somewhat repetitive to existing Korean language publications on the subject. A brief literature survey would help situate your argument and contribution to the field. Your introduction is straightforward and accurately telescopes your essay but a discussion of the field may be the first thing you'd like to consider.

Perhaps you are arguing that Suun's mystical universalism was supposed to combat Korea's spiritual identity crisis and duality caused by Western imperial aggression? Using mysticism to combat imperialism might be seen as irrational. To resolve this issue, consider showing the ideological and practical transitions made between Suun Choe Je-u and Jeon Bong-jun.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I can clearly see the author’s original contribution to the scholarship on Donghak particularly for the English-speaking readership.  The author’s point of the pluralistic solution of Donghak to the new challenge of the 19^th century Joseon, which s/he characterizes as chaotic is significant both religiously and philosophically. His/her attempt to highlight the universalism represented by the Heavenly Way was articulated well. Presenting Donghak as a prototype of Korean pluralism, the author tried a conversation with its competitors of the time such as Christianity and Confucianism, touching on various themes, including theology, soteriology, enlightenment, and ethics. I think this paper is publishable. There are, however, some issues and suggestions that the author needs to address as he prepares his final manuscript.

I have three suggestions. One is that you offer a sufficient discussion on the problem of the society to set the stage for your main thesis, Donghak philosophy as a good alternative. You talked about the socio-political situation threatened by the interference and invasion of the neighboring hegemons and briefly mentioned about shortcomings of other religious traditions, particularly Confucianism and Christianity. However, your discussion seems very generic, based on Suun’s own claim, “selfishness.”

The reader would expect a more detailed explanation of the rationale of Suun’s criticism. It can be historical, political, and/or philosophical. Simply reiterating Suun’s characterization wouldn’t do much to make your thesis significant. For example, Christianity is selfish (line 112). Can you provide more cultural and theological contexts? Does his criticism have a solid ground? The reader may wonder what was happening with the Christianity as a new religion in the 19^th century Korea. Your short comment, “Christianity emphasized the importance of praying (line 125),” doesn’t seem to be sufficient for the reader to fully understand the context. It needs more articulation with some historical and may be theological details.

My second suggestion is related to the first one. Your presentation of Suun’s critical view of other religions is clear and straightforward. However, to be fair to those religious communities (Confucianism and Christianity), you would want to interject your critical comments in between.  Do you personally believe that Suun’s evaluation of Christian theology and Neo-Confucian thought was valid? What is your thought?  Due to the lack of background information in your discussion, the reader may wonder if Suun was misrepresenting and even misleading the original intention of the Christian and Confucian teachings discussed.

In other words, as you contrast them, make sure to provide a reasonable amount of detail on the traditions to which you juxtapose and contrast Donghak philosophy. For example, when comparing to Confucian philosophy, you would want to present the Confucian thought as accurately as possible first and then talk about Suun’s interpretation and criticism. You don’t want to skip the former although Suund never talked about it.  Park So Jeong’s “ Donghak’s Transformation and Experimentation of Confucian Publicity”(2015) can be a good showcase of the comparative study on Donghak and Confucianism. You cans see a close reading of a Confucian text to highlight the uniqueness of Donghak philosophy. Park compares  Mozi’s Heavenly Will/universal love with Donghak’s Heaveny Way, which is distinguished from  Xunzi’s understanding.

The reason why I suggest the addition of your critical comments and reflection is because in some cases  Suun’s criticism of other religions is simply not valid particularly in principle. For example, line 237-240 talk about the shortcoming of Confucianism. But, it can be easily contested. Sincerity and right and good intention are the preconditions for their moral ideals as well. Was Suun referring to how Confucianism was perceived and practiced by the people of Joseon or what Confucianism actually taught? I think that adding the author’s critical voice is very important particularly in comparative analysis, to show the objectivity, fairness, and depth of his or her discussion.

Finally, I would suggest that you provide a very brief introduction to Donghak movement due to our special audience of Religions, which is very broad, most of whom are not associated with the field of Korean religion and Korean studies. You may offer a biographical sketch of Suun’s life, including his major religious encounters, the historical background and impact of the Donghak Movement, and its central tenets. It can be done in a very succinct way. The reason for this general background information is because, for instance, the readers, who are not familiar with the history of the Donghak Movement, would be curious about what happened between the various religious/mystical encounters that Suun experienced. You don’t have to provide too much detail but at least a reasonable amount of information for the reader to better follow through your main points and their meaningful and logical connections.

I also have minor issues for which you may want to make some revisions:

-Line 12: mystic to mystical

-Line 10: “in religion” to “through religion”

-Line 34: “communication and coexistence” needs to be specified here. You did clarify it in line 44. Do you mean interreligious and inter-ideological communication?

-Line 42: Confucian doctrines to Confucian cultural ethos (just a suggestion, you don’t have to accept it)

-Line 50: You mentioned about ethicality. What’s the context? Is it part of the part two? Are you talking about moral implications of Suun’s universalism, which you believe is more profound than Confucian ethics? A mapping of ethicality seems necessary here in your roadmap.

-Line 54: The people to some people

-Line 49-51: This sentence needs to be merged to the previous paragraph. I recommend that every paragraph with less than four or five sentences be merged with the surrounding paragraphs.

-Line 74-76: I don’t see clearly major difference between first and second. The fact that East and West share the same divine will already connote that everyone shares the common spirit. You would want to clarify the distinction. The former refers to the dimension of religious tradition/community and the latter to the dimension of the individual.

-Line 82: combination to synthesis (just a suggestion, you don’t have to accept it).

-Line 92: Southeast Asia to East Asia or Asia

-Line 110: Mysticism to mysticism

-Change of numbering: 3, 4, and 5 should be sub-headings of III The Heavenly Will

1. The Universalism of Truth: All Cultures Share the Identical Heavenly Way
2. Personal mysticism: Heavenly Way can be Discovered Within Everyone
3. The Ethical Relationalism: We Must Practice the Heavenly Way within our Relationships

-Line 157-158: This may be factually wrong at least in the larger history of Buddhism and its principle. Devotional Buddhism is the most popular form of Buddhism in East Asia. It may not be the case in the Theravada tradition.

-Line 167: Very interesting! It seems an identical statement with the sacred phrase of the Changdogya Upanishad and the Bhagavad Gita, “Atman is Brahman.”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the paper is interested for readers of Korean religious philosophy. However, to delivery the high quality of the context, this paper needs to be improved based on the below details. Mainly, the paper has the patterns of repetition and lake of reference:

1. The introduction part (line 32-51) has been repeated. 
2. please avoid personal terms, such as I, we, etc.
3. The size of Chinese characters should be smaller.
4. The paper has too many quotations (14) which take a lot of the paper.
5. Line 78 needs reference.
6. Line 92. the word (Southeast) should be "East."
7. Lines 103-107 should be extended if the author particularly mentioned at the abstract. 
8. Lines 122-128 need reference as well as rewording for lines 127-128.
9. Line 126, a comma after "of the Donghak"
10. there are some unnecessary terms in the papers, such as "in the end", "in short," and "in sum up."
11.  Lines 141-145 needs reference.
12. there is a repeat of "Chonsamundap" in line 162.
13. the statement of "my mind is your mind" has unprofessionally been applied in too many places of the paper.
14. The two quotations (one from line 169-181: the other from 184-192) are a bit long, in comparison with the main article.  
15. The lines 196-198 has been repeated with previous part of the article.
16. Lines 223-225 are also been repeated.
17. They need reference for lines 271-277.
18. Lines 278-285 also require reference.
19. Lines 286-293 need reference.
20. Line 303 needs reference.
21. Lines 366-367 have been repeated.
22. Lines 368-373 need reference.
23. Lines 382-387 need reference as well.
24. Lines 388-391 need reference.
25. for the list of references, some of them need to put the page numbers, such as pages 456, 458, 462, 468, 474, 486, and 489.
26. The list of reference is generally scanty.

If the above details are applied, the paper will be improved as a professional writing. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf