Keywords

1 Introduction

This chapter attempts to show how the emotion of resentment is the ground for the morality of Won Buddhism.Footnote 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 beneficence requital.

Sotaesan looked around with his enlightened eyes and diagnosed that human sufferings were caused by expansion of material civilization stimulating one’s selfish 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:

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 afflicted with the moral illness of resentment. People as individuals or as members of a family, a society, or a nation find 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 conflicts. 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 selfish craving and resentment that can lead people in human societies to suffering and misery. Resentment means that people find fault with others without recognizing their own faults. Thus, the moral illness of resentment can be the cause of conflicts 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)Footnote 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 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 beneficence, practical applications of Buddha-dharma, and selfless 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 beneficence is the essential way for remedying the world’s illness (Chung 2003: 65–101).

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 influence 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 beneficence 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),Footnote 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 influenced 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 Sutra as the most essential Buddhist teaching to remove one’s mental delusion and afflictions and to reach enlightenment (nirvāņa).

In Buddhist psychology, the main cause of the human predicament is the three poisoned minds or the three roots of evil (Sanskrit, akusala-mūla or kileśa), greed (raga), anger (dveṣa), and delusion (moha). On the other hand, three roots of good (kusala-mūla or akileśa) are being non-greed (arāga), non-hatred (adveṣa), and non-delusion (amoha). Kusala and akusala mean wholesome and unwholesome: kilesa and akilesa mean defilement and un-defilement. Kilesa (defilement) is negative psychological term. Three roots of good are expressed in a positive form which corresponds to unselfishness, 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 (āvaraṇa) such as afflictive hindrances (kleśa-āvaraṇa) and cognitive hindrances (jñeya- āvaraṇa). For example, craving and resentment are the afflictive (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 influence one’s personality, one cannot escape twelve dependent originations, namely the rebirth cycle (saṃsāra, 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, Śīla (gye 戒), Samādhi (jeong 定), and Prajñā (hye 慧). Delusion (moha) (or ignorance, avidyā) is the most fundamental root cause of continued involvement in saṃsāra. 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, asvabhāva), and self is no other than five aggregates (五蘊: Sanskrit, pañca skandha) which are form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, and consciousness. Svabhāva means intrinsic nature or self-being or own-self and asvabhāva means no-self. What one imagines the idea of ‘self’ is dependent originations of five elements, and it is not fixed and just eternal flows which one cannot grasp self. In Abhidharmakosa, five aggregates are analyzed into seventy-five elements (dharmas) and mental faculties divided into general functions, general functions of Good, general functions of defilement, general functions of evil, minor functions of defilement, 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 prajñā-pāramitā (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 prajñā-pāramitā which is the most important idea in Mahayana Buddhism. He admired greatly on Diamond Sutra, one of prajñā-pāramitā literatures. Heart Sutra (반야심경, Sanskrit; Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra) and Diamond Sūtra (금강경, Sanskrit; Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra) 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 prajñā-pāramitā 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 nirvāṇa from rebirth cycle or sea of suffering (saṃsāra). Confucianism aimed at the ideal nation with moral virtues through the rectification 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 nirvāṇa, renounced family duties and worldly duties.

However, Sotaesan thought Buddhism as the important teaching to discipline one’s mind and emotion and prajñā-pāramitā 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.

3 How to Recover Moral Sensitivity and Friendliness (Jeongui 情誼)

Sotaesan foresaw, that given the continuing expansion of scientific 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 selfish 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 scientific 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 benefit 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 selfish 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 conflicts 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 beneficences (saeun 四恩). While Niebuhr was neglected to solve the inter-group conflicts by ethics, Sotaesan had a great prescription to recover from social illnesses by awakening the fundamental beneficences.

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 benefit 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 conflicts of individual and inter-group relations among human societies. The prescription is “correct enlightenment and right practice” and “awareness and requital of beneficence,” 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 beneficence” is for “curing the world of illness.”

According to Jeungsan, the teaching of the four-fold beneficence 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 beneficence” (Chung 2012: 137). Hence, one should realize that the tenet of the four-fold beneficence, 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 beneficence is the greatest fundamental power by which the world may be kept in peace (Chung 2012: 136–137).

The four-fold beneficence means beneficences 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 beneficence, they can be afflicted with the moral illness of resentment. Daesan (大山, 1914–1998), said, “All things in the universe can exist by the four-fold beneficence; by understanding the principle of ‘beneficence’ one can maintain friendly feeling and by friendly feeling one can keep moral sense.”Footnote 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 beneficence, one may not feel motivated to do something out of the duty to requite beneficence. How does Won Buddhism help people to feel grateful to the four-fold beneficence and to requite them? Sotaesan revealed four beneficences of heaven and earth, parents, fellow beings, and laws through the principle of indebtedness, the details of indebtedness, the principle of requiting beneficence, and the details of requiting the beneficence. Let’s see the “beneficence 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 beneficence than that of brethren if one cannot live without depending on their help and on things they provide? (Chung 2003: 128)

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 beneficence of brethren,” Sotaesan convinced, “since one is indebted to brethren through the principle of mutual benefit, one ought, either as a scholar, farmer, artisan, or merchant, to honor the principle of mutual benefit, to requite the beneficence.” “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 beneficence of brethren” Sotaesan guided, “a scholar-official ought to follow the principle of fairness for mutual benefit while educating others,” “a farmer ought to follow the principle of fairness for mutual benefit while providing materials,” “an artisan ought to follow the principles of fairness for mutual benefit while exchange myriad goods,” and “one ought not to destroy grass or trees or take the life of birds or beasts without justifiable reason” (Chung 2003: 128–129).

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

if we are grateful to brethren, the following will be the effect. All the brethren influenced by mutual benefit 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 beneficence of brethren” he encouraged,

If we are grateful to brethren, the following will be the effect. All the brethren influenced by mutual benefit 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 beneficence, we should know we are indebted to heaven and earth, parents, fellow beings, and laws. And one should feel grateful to them for their beneficence, modeling on the way we are indebted to them. “Even if one has something to resent, one ought to find out how one is indebted to the beneficence and thereby be grateful rather than resentful so that one can requite to the beneficence” (Chung 2003: 118).

4 Religious Ethics of Gratitude

In Niebuhr’s words, we can find that his insights are similar to Sotaesan’s thought of beneficence. 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 conflict increased the size of this group. Natural impulse was refined 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 significant relationships between the units have likewise increased. (Niebuhr 1960: 2)

Niebuhr confessed that conflicts 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 difficult (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 definite 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 conflicts of inter-group relations affected by collective egoism with morality, whether religious or rational. On the other hand, Sotaesan planned to solve inter-group conflicts with religious ethics based on ‘awareness and requital beneficence,’ 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 beneficence, 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 beneficence for people to remember the general point of beneficences and apply those ways in their practice. The essential principles of requiting beneficences are the way of harboring no false idea after rendering favors for the beneficence of Heaven and Earth, the way of protecting the helpless for the beneficence of parents, the way of mutual benefit for the beneficence of fellow beings, and the way of doing justice and eradicating injustice for the beneficence of laws.

In the details of requiting the beneficence 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, finding 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 beneficence?” 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 beneficence, 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 beneficence? 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 beneficence. (Chung 2003: 259)

The details of requiting the beneficence of parents are four: “(1) One ought to follow the essential ways of practice, namely, threefold practice and eight articles,Footnote 5 and the essential ways of humanity, namely, four-fold beneficence and four essentials.Footnote 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 beneficence of fellow beings are five, mentioned already in this paper. The details of requiting beneficence of laws are five:

(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 beneficence 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 society.Footnote 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 benefit for fellow beings, they can trust their fellow beings in various work fields. 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 beneficence. Depending on one’s reaction to the four-fold beneficence it can become either the field of blessing or the field of misfortune (Chung 2003: 131).

In each Won Buddhist temple, Irwonsang (Irwŏnsang 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 infinite 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 Irwŏnsang as the standard for relating our daily life to the essence of Buddha mind, and we are related to DharmakāyaFootnote 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 beneficence, 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 identifies with the four-fold beneficence 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 beneficence, the four essential principles of beneficence 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 benefit, 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.

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 influenced 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 benefit and equal society.