A Summary of Unification Thought

Preface

Theory of the Original Image
I.   Content of the Original Image
II.  Structure of the Original Image
III. Traditional Ontologies and Unification Thought

Ontology: A Theory of Being
I. Individual Truth Being
II Connected Being

Theory of the Original Human Nature
I.   A Being With Divine Image
II.  A Being with Divine Character
III. A Being with Position
IV.Conclusion
V. A Unification Thought Appraisal of the Existentialist Analysis of Human Existence

Axiology: A Theory of Value
I.   Meaning of Axiology and Significance of Value
II.  Divine Principle Foundation for Axiology
III. Kinds of Value
IV. Essence of Value
V. Determination of Actual Value and Standard of Value
VI.Weaknesses in the Traditional Views of Value
VII.Establishing the New View of Value
VIII.Historical Changes in the View of Value

Theory of Education
I.   The Divine Principle Foundation for a Theory of Education
II.  The Three Forms of Education
III. The Image of the Ideal Educated Person
IV. Traditional Theories of Education
V. An Appraisal of Traditional Theories of Education from the Standpoint of Unification Thought

Ethics
I.   The Divine Principle Foundation for Ethics
II.  Ethics and Morality
III. Order and Equality
IV.Appraisal of Traditional Theories of Ethics from the Viewpoint of the Unification Theory of Ethics

Theory of Art
I.   The Divine Principle Foundation for the New Theory of Art
II.  Art and Beauty
III. The Dual Purpose of Artistic Activity: Creation and Appreciation
IV. Requisites for Artistic Appreciation
V. Technique, Materials, and Style in Artistic Creation
VI. Requisites for Artistic Appreciation
VII.Unity in Art
VIII.Art and Ethics
IX. Types of Beauty
X.  A Critique and Counterproposal to Socialist Realism

Theory of History
I.   The Basic Positions of the Unification View of History
II.  The Laws of Creation
III. The Laws of Restoration
IV. Changes In History
V. Traditional Views of History
VI. Comparative Analysis of Providential View, Materialist View, and Unification View

Epistemology
I. Traditional Epistemologies
II. Unification Epistemology
III. Kant's and Marx's Epistemologies from the Perspective of Unification Thought

Logic
I.   Traditional Systems of Logic
II.  Unification Logic
III. An Appraisal of Traditional Systems of Logic from the Perspective of Unification Thought

Methodology
I.   Historical Review
II.  Unification Methodology - The Give-and-Receive Method
III. An Appraisal of Conventional Methodologies from the Perspective of Unification Thought

Appendix
I.   Principle of Mutual Existence, Mutual Prosperity and Mutual Righteousness
II.  Three Great Subjects Thought
III. Significance of the Four Great Realms of Heart and the Three Great Kingships

Notes

Bibliography

Appendix

During the time in which I was arranging Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s many ideas, he continued to express many new teachings and insights. So I would like to explain here “the principle of mutual existence, mutual prosperity, and mutual righteousness,” which are introduced in the Divine Principle. I would also like to introduce certain especially important topics: the “three great subjects thought,” the “four great realms of heart,” and the “three great kingships.”

I. Principle of Mutual Existence, Mutual
Prosperity and Mutual Righteousness

The principle of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness is a principle addressing a certain dimension of Rev. Moon’s concept of Godism, namely, the dimension including economics, politics and ethics. It is a compound principle consisting actually of three concepts: mutual existence, mutual prosperity, and mutual righteousness. In order to understand the meaning of the principle of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness correctly, it is helpful to understand each concept in turn. Thus, I will explain one by one.

A. Principle of Mutual Existence

The principle of mutual existence is a concept dealing with the economic aspects of an ideal society, especially the aspect of ownership. In terms of ownership, in capitalist economy there is private (individual) ownership, while in socialist economy there is social (national) ownership. Yet, in both economies the element of love is totally excluded. That is to say, whether private or socialist (public), economy is simply materialistic ownership, without regard to the mental aspect.

In contrast, in the principle of mutual existence, joint ownership is based on God’s true love. In other words, it is first, the joint ownership of God and myself; second, the joint ownership of the whole and myself; and third, the joint ownership of my neighbors and myself. It is not simply a materialistic ownership, but rather it is an ownership based on God’s true love. This means that, through God’s infinite love, we (myself, my neighbors, and the whole) are entrusted to jointly take care of God’s property, which is given to us as His loving gift.

According to the principle of creation, the created world is God’s possession, and it was created to be governed by Him through love (DP , 64). It is written in the Bible that God, the Creator, let birds fly above the earth, and He let the waters swarm with fish, and He made the beasts of the earth (Gen. 1:20-25). This means that the sky is the joint possession of all birds, the waters are the joint possession of all fish, and that the ground is the joint possession of all beasts, all based on God’s love.

Even birds of prey, like eagles, will not monopolize the sky. Even beasts of prey, like tigers, will not monopolize the ground. Even violent sharks will not monopolize the sea. Since God endowed human beings with the right to have dominion over all things with love, all human beings were to jointly possess the sky, the sea, and the land, as well as all living beings, including birds, fish and beasts, with a heart of gratitude, based on God’s true love. Thus, nature is the joint possession of God and human beings.

Nevertheless, due to the fall, human beings fell into self-centered individualism, and came to monopolize land and property. Today, under the banner of liberal democracy, people legally possess vast lands and enormous amounts of property. Yet, they are not usually very grateful; they seldom experience any pangs of a guilty conscience. Even when they see their neighbors starving, they often do not seem to care, and just continue to live arrogantly; this is characteristic of capitalist society. They are basically living their lives against the Way of Heaven.

The relationship between God and human beings is that of parent and children, the basic form of which is realized in a family. In a family, all property-such as the house, the garden, the yard, cattle, and so on-belongs to the parents, and at the same time to the children. In other words, in a family, even if the property is legally possessed by the parents, in fact, it is jointly possessed by both parents and children. In the original world, parents always love their children; therefore, children always have a heart of gratitude towards their parents and take good care of the family property.

In the basic form of the family the three generations of grandparents, parents and children (brothers and sisters) live together. Therefore, joint ownership is, strictly speaking, joint ownership of the three generations: namely, the joint ownership of grandparents, parents and children, all based on true love. Here, since the grandparents are in the position representing God, the joint ownership of the three generations can be expressed as the joint ownership of God, who is the subject of true love, parents, and children. The family joint ownership in which three genera-tions possess things together, is the prototype for various other kinds of joint ownership. Thus, joint ownership in the principle of mutual existence is the joint ownership of God and I, the whole and I, and my neighbors and I, all based on God’s true love. It is the joint ownership of all three levels of the other and I. In short, it may be called “the joint ownership of God, the whole, my neighbors, and I.”

An extension of this joint family ownership is the joint ownership of various other organizations. For example, the joint ownership of a company is the joint ownership of three parties: God, who is the subject of true love, the executives, who are in the position of parents, and employees, who are in the position of children. Therefore, it is the joint ownership of the three levels of “the other and I,” namely, “God and I,” “executives and I,” and “my fellow employees and I.”

In the original world, even when a company is founded by entrepre-neurs, it should first be offered to God. After it is offered to God, thus becoming God’s possession, it is returned to the entrepreneurs with God’s true love; then, it will be possessed jointly by the entrepreneurs and God. Such a procedure is more than a mere formality. Only through such a procedure can God’s true love, protection and help effectively come to a company. The same thing can be said of other organizations as well.

Next, let me explain about joint ownership on a national level. In the case of a state-owned enterprise, for example, all properties are under the joint possession of the state and the people. It is the joint possession of the three parties of God, who is the subject of true love, the president or the sovereign of the country, and the employees of the enterprise; also it is the joint possession of the three levels of “the other and I,” namely, “God and I,” “the president and I,” and “the employees and I.” Here, God’s love, protection and help can be given; the president will give affectionate concern and assistance; and the employees will be thankful to God and to the president, and they will take good care of all property with a consciousness of joint ownership. This is the concept of “joint ownership on a national level.”

Here, one might raise the question; “Is not there any private ownership in the ideal world?” Yes, there is, and it is proper that there should be. This is because a human being, in resemblance to God, has both a universal image and an individual image. That is to say, a human being has a common attribute (universality) and at the same time, an attribute peculiar to himself or herself (individual image). A human being has dual purposes: the purpose for the individual and the purpose for the whole, as well as the desire and freedom to practice love. Thus, private ownership is allowed. I will explain this using the case of joint family ownership, which is the prototype for various other joint ownerships.

Let’s take the example of the family of a farmer. It is for pursuing the purpose for the whole that family members jointly take care of, and keep, the family property, i.e., house, garden, field, cattle, and so on. In other words, all the family members jointly seek the life of food, clothing, and shelter. They do so, living under the same roof, spending the same budget. Yet, each member of the family has his or her own unique individuality (individual image). Thus, he or she will lead his or her own way of life according to his or her situation, tastes, and so on. Also, in many cases, children need a room, clothes, or other living necessities for their exclusive use in the same way that parents do. So, parents will give allowances to their children. This kind of personal possession is necessary for them to accomplish their individual purpose.

Private possession is necessary to accomplish the purpose for the individual, and at the same time, it is necessary to accomplish the purpose for the whole as well. The purpose for the whole is accomplished through a community life or a family life, by using the jointly owned property; at the same time, it is accomplished through personal ways by using personal property.

When children try to comfort and please their parents, they are fulfilling the purpose for the whole. For example, in order to please parents, an elder brother reads many books, which are his possessions, and gets good grades at school; a younger brother paints a beautiful picture using painting instruments, which are his possessions, and gets a special prize at an art exhibition; an elder sister plays the violin, which she possesses, and receives the highest praise from the audience at a concert. In these cases, they fulfill the purpose for the whole through their personal possessions.

In this way, private possessions are necessary not only for accomplish-ing the purpose for the individual but also for accomplishing the purpose for the whole. Thus, human beings are endowed with desire, love, and freedom in order to love others (to realize the purpose for the whole) according to their free will, investing their unique individualities and personal possessions.

Then, to what extent is personal possession reasonable? This is determined according to the appropriate necessity of each person. This kind of possession is called appropriate possession. The proper quantity and quality will be determined according to one’s own conscience. Rather differently from the case of fallen people, an original person will easily understand the quantity, quality, and kinds of his or her necessary personal posses-sions.

We often express the psychological amount-the amount of desire, gratitude, satisfaction and so on-through material means. For example, when we receive kindness from others, we often express gratitude with a kind of gift, or a sum of money. Similarly, in the case of private possessions, a psychological amount which one feels appropriate to oneself can be expressed through a material amount. No one other than oneself, can best express one’s psychological amount in a material amount. Thus, a psychological amount which is appropriate to oneself can easily be determined by oneself. When we have meals, we know our condition well: if we eat little, our physical strength will become weak, and if we eat too much, our stomach will have trouble. Similarly, if our conscience is pure, God will show us through our conscience the psychological amount appropriate for our personal possessions. Thus, the appropriate possession of private property can be easily determined.

It should be clarified here that even if the proper quantity and quality of one’s private possessions are determined through one’s conscience, that quantity and quality may vary from person to person. There are certain reasons for that. First, each person has his or her unique individual image, and therefore unique character, taste, and so on. Second, every person is an individual truth being and at the same time a connected being. A connected being refers to an individual person who is related to others in the six directions of high and low, front and back, and right and left. In order to have such relations, a person, as a connected being, requires at least a certain necessary quantity of personal possessions. Usually, the higher the position a person occupies, the greater the quantity and quality of his or her necessary possessions become. Therefore, the proper quantity and quality of personal possessions will differ from person to person. Thus, if a person has adequate personal possessions necessary to love others, then, those possessions are appropriate, even if the amount of his or her personal possessions is substantially higher or lower than the average.

In this way, the principle of mutual existence is the theory of joint economy based on joint ownership. The concept of economy here refers, first, to the totality of activities related to the production, exchange, dis-tribution, and consumption of goods through primary, secondary, and tertiary industries, in the same way as it does in conventional economic theory. However, since the economy in the future world is based on joint ownership centered on God’s true love, as already explained, economic activity in the future world will be quite different from the economic activity up until today. To explain briefly, all economic activities are the unity of spiritual processes, which are the flow of heart, love, gratitude, and so on, and the material process, which is the circulation of commodi-ties. The commodity itself is a united being of spirit and matter where love and sincere heart dwell, and the circulation of commodities is also the unity of spiritual processes and material processes where love and a sincere heart circulate.

Since the future world will be a unified world without national boundaries, the future economy will be one global economy in which regional bloc economies are organically and harmoniously united. In other words, a unified industry will be established, in which local, special industries fitted for particular regions and non-local, universal industries are harmonized and unified. This is a conclusion derived from Unification Thought, which states that every being is a united being in which the universal image (universality) and individual image (individuality) are unified.

In future industry, an enterprise will seek to contribute to the progress of the welfare of all humankind rather than aiming only for the interest of the entrepreneurs. Therefore, the overall result of industrial activity will be the multiplication of beneficial goods for humankind.

In the future, society’s most serious economic problem, which must be solved, is the food problem, since the population is increasing in a geometric progression. Thomas Malthus expressed concern about this problem in his An Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, and the Club of Rome also warned about this problem back in the 1970’s. However, this difficult problem will be solved through the development of the marine industry-based on the development of aquaculture, and so on. This is a conclusion which is derived from the Divine Principle, according to which the ocean symbolizes a woman, and a woman’s important mission is fertility or production.

B. Principle of Mutual Prosperity

The principle of mutual prosperity is concerned with the political aspects of the future ideal society. Especially, the principle of mutual prosperity is proposed as an alternative to democracy, which is the political ideology of capitalism. As is well known, democracy in capitalist society is a liberal democracy, a political ideology associated with the slogan “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence of America and the slogan “freedom, equality, and fra-ternity,” which derives from the French Revolution.

Democracy is an ideology wherein “sovereignty rests with the people.” This is well-expressed in his famous Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States, as the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Essentially, democracy is an ideology seeking to realize freedom and equality for all people. In other words, the ultimate purpose of democracy, which claims majority rule and parliamentary government, is the realization of freedom and equality for people. Freedom and equality are like two sides of a coin: there is no equality without freedom, nor is there freedom without equality.

Then, what is meant by the “people”? In the days of bourgeois revolu-tions, the people were the ruled class under an absolute monarchy. Today, however, “people” generally refers to the masses, transcending social classes. The ruling class is often dictatorial; therefore, it can be said that people means “the majority of the people,” those apart from the ruling class, and the wealthy, privileged class as well.

Over two hundred years have passed since democracy was established. Have freedom and equality of the people been realized? It certainly seems that they have not been. Due to its structural contradiction, capitalism, which was established based on liberal democracy, has brought about economic inequality and the restriction of economic freedom, along with an uneven distribution of wealth. We have also witnessed in history many cases in which economic inequality and the restriction of economic freedom were directly connected to political inequality and the restriction of political freedom.

Especially the freedom and human rights of the majority of the people -the lower class-are often apt to be trampled upon under the name of democracy. Therefore, the sovereignty of the people exists only in name. Actually, freedom and human rights are utilized for the special interests of politicians, who spend enormous amounts of money to get elected. Today, an election campaign is hardly more than a political contest for concessions. Thus, democracy has failed to become a genuine “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”; rather, it has become almost like a “government of the party members, by the party members, for the party members.” Due to this deficiency of liberal democracy, Communists accused it saying, “it is no more than a bourgeois democracy for the ruling and wealthy classes, rather than for the people.” Since World War II, they maintained that Communism for laborers and farmers is the true people’s democracy.

What is the reason why democracy, which aimed at the realization of true liberty, equality and fraternity, has failed to realize its purpose for more than two hundred years? The main reason is that democracy, which was established by overthrowing absolute monarchy through bourgeois revolution, was closely united with individualism; it has claimed the rights, freedom, and equality of an individual person. Individualism is to be respected in that it emphasizes the importance of individuality, personality, and individual values. Due to the policy of the separation of church and state, however, Christianity, as a guiding principle for the human spirit, became unable to function, and as a result individualism degenerated into egoism. Thus, democracy came to be established on the basis of egoistic individualism.

Since egoistic individualism rules the minds of economists and politicians, capitalists perpetually pursue the maximization of profit, and politicians regard political power as their concessions. Today, politicians invest enormous amounts of money for elections with the spirit of investing to acquire concessions, in the name of fair elections. So, due to entrepreneurs’ persistent pursuit of profit, and politicians’ insatiable desire for power, corruption, and various kinds of injustices and crimes are rampant in democratic society today.

This means that democracy had, from its very beginning, inherent limitations on the realization of its slogan of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Democracy, in which religion and politics are separated, has the inevitable tendency for individualism to degenerate into egoism. However, it is not that liberal democracy has failed in every respect. Clearly, it has played an important role in securing freedom of faith. In fact, in liberal democratic countries, the flowers of religion and faith are in full bloom, in the same way that many flowers bloom in the spring time.

Here, let me explain about the significance of the emergence of democracy, as seen from the viewpoint of God’s providence. It is in accordance with God’s providence that democracy has secured freedom of faith, since democracy is a political system that emerged prior to the Messianic Kingdom. It should be noted that democracy was established by the bourgeois revolution, which overthrew the existing absolute monarchy. If the political system of those days had not been an absolute monarchy, but had been the Messianic Kingdom, realizing God’s true love, the bourgeois revolution would not have occurred, and humankind would have lived happily, enjoying true liberty, equality and fraternity. The above-mentioned presupposition that “if it had not been an absolute monarchy but had been the Messianic Kingdom” is not a mere assum-ption. Seen from the viewpoint of God’s providence, the Messianic Kingdom was already supposed to have been established by that time. Let me explain this point more concretely.

Charlemagne (Charles the Great) developed the Frankish Kingdom and revived the Western Roman Empire from the end of the eighth century through the early ninth century. Seen from God’s providence, Charlemagne, in the New Testament Age, is the figure who corresponds to King Saul of the Jewish United Kingdom, in the Old Testament Age. The prophet Samuel anointed Saul with oil as the first king of Israel about 800 years after Abraham. Similarly, Charlemagne was crowned by Pope Leo III as the emperor of the Western Roman Empire about 800 years after Jesus. According to the Divine Principle, the Frankish Kingdom, from Charlemagne’s enthronement until the end of the Carolingian reign, is called the Christian Empire, which corresponds to the Jewish Kingdom in the Old Testament Age.

It was God’s providential will that the First Coming of Christ come to the Jewish Kingdom in the Old Testament Age to unify the world and establish the Kingdom of the Messiah, centered on God’s true love. In the New Testament Age, it was God’s providence that Christ at the Second Advent come to the Christian Empire to establish the Kingdom of the Messiah, centered on God’s true love.

In the Jewish United Kingdom of the Old Testament Age, the kings failed, throughout the three generations, to establish providential conditions in accord with God’s will; therefore, God divided that kingdom into two: Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Eventually, God allowed the northern kingdom to be occupied by Assyria, a Satanic kingdom, and the southern kingdom to be occupied by New Babylonia. The Jewish kings were made prisoners. Thus, God’s providence for establishing the Messianic Kingdom through the Jewish Kingdom ended in failure.

Likewise, since the kings of the Christian Empire, in the New Testament Age, failed to establish providential conditions in accord with God’s will, the Christian Empire was divided into Eastern and Western Kingdoms, and finally came to endure the hardships of the Crusades, and the Popes’ captivity in Avignon. Also, due to the failure of the kings of the Christian Empire, Satanic absolute monarchies appeared.

Thus, God’s providence to establish the Kingdom of the Messiah on earth by receiving the Messiah at the time of the Christian Empire failed in the same way as it had in the Old Testament Age. However, God’s providence to establish the Kingdom of the Messiah continued in force, and a new providence to receive the Messiah was initiated. That was the providence to receive the Messiah through the will of the people-from the bottom. This kind of providence appeared in both the Old Testament Age and the New Testament Age. In order to receive the Messiah through the will of the people, Satanic kingdoms and monarchies which obstructed God’s providence had to be overthrown, and a social environment created, in which the people’s will could freely be manifested. Thus, God universalized democracy, wherein each person would be respected.

In the Old Testament Age, God established Persia, a gentile nation on Abel’s side, and let it overthrow New Babylonia, which had captured the Israelites, and thus enabled the Israelites to return home. Then God, sending the prophet Malachi, started the providence of the preparation to receive the Messiah. At the same time, He left the throne of the king of Israel vacant and put the Israelites under the Hellenistic cultural sphere from the end of the fourth century BC. Since the Hellenistic culture was based on democracy, which respects individualities, the Israelites were able to express their own opinions freely under this culture. Thus, it became possible to receive the Messiah through the will of the people. According to the Divine Principle, this type of society is called a “society in the form of democracy” (DP , 332).

God conducted a similar providence in the New Testament Age: He arranged for the Satanic forces, which were obstructing God’s providence, to disintegrate and decline. At the beginning of the sixteenth century God inspired Martin Luther to initiate the Protestant Reformation in order to awaken Christianity, which had been secularized by Satan. Then, from the end of the sixteenth century through the end of the eighteenth century, He allowed the Enlightenment to spread throughout Europe. This was a movement against the authority, privileges, social restrictions, and inequalities of the old regime, while yet maintaining respect for human reason. On the basis of the Enlightenment, God allowed the French Revolution, the slogan of which was “liberty, equality and fraternity,” to occur, and He arranged for the Satanic absolute monarchies to decline. Thus, in this way modern democracy was established. Yet, as mentioned above, democracy is a political ideology established in order to receive the Second Advent of the Messiah through the will of the people; it is not an ideology able to actualize true liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Historically, religions had certain shortcomings, including a disregard for the individuality, freedom, and rights of human beings. Therefore, democratic governments felt it necessary to implement the policy of the separation of religion and politics. As a result, the absolute standard of value which the human spirit should follow came to be lost, and as a matter of course, democracy degenerated into egoistic democracy. Thus, in democratic society, the great confusion which we see today came about.

Actual problems of all kinds can be solved fundamentally only with God’s truth and true love. Therefore, it will be possible to solve all problems fundamentally only when the Kingdom of the Second Advent of the Messiah, who will come with truth and true love, is established. I have so far pointed out the limitations of liberal democracy when seen from the viewpoint of God’s providence. I have also noted the fact that democracy, to its great merit, has fulfilled its responsibility in guaranteeing freedom of faith, so that people can freely receive the Second Advent of the Messiah, according to their will.

The principle of mutual prosperity is, in short, a theory concerning joint government. Joint government refers to a government achieved through “the joint participation of all people.” The joint participation of all people is an ideal which represents the ideology of democracy in the true sense. The joint participation of all people is, in fact, a people’s participation through their election of their representatives. Then, if participation in politics through elected representatives is joint politics according to the principle of mutual prosperity, one may ask the follow-ing question: “How is this different from present democracy?” There is one basic difference between them, which we must now consider.

A joint government under the principle of mutual prosperity would have the following characteristics. First, the relationship among the candidates would not be that of rivalry, but that of brothers and sisters attending the Messiah, the representative of God, as the true parents of humankind. Second, the candidates would run for election not by their own will, but rather with the recommendation of many neighbors (brothers and sisters), namely, by the will of others, since those who are in the relationship of brothers and sisters centered on true love will make mutual recommendations. Third, an election would not take place in a way that would require an enormous expenditure of money, with all the accompanying side effects. After a preliminary election in the first stage, an election by lottery would be made in the second stage, accompanied by solemn prayer and appropriate formality. With the assurance and confidence that the outcome was in accord with God’s will, those elected, those not elected, and, in fact, all the people, would be thankful to God, and could accept the result happily and sincerely.

In this way, a joint government under the principle of mutual prosper-ity is a government conducted through the joint participation of the people, based on God’s true love. It would be the government of the Kingdom of the Messiah, in which the entire world can be unified. Also, since all people would attend the Messiah, the representative of God, as the True Parents of humankind, and participate in the joint government as brothers and sisters who have inherited the love of True Parents, a joint government will be a “government of the brothers and sisters, by the brothers and sisters, and for the brothers and sisters, centered on the True Parents of humankind,” rather than “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” To be specific, a government under the principle of mutual prosperity is not a democracy, but rather a government of brothers and sisters centered on Heavenly Father.

True liberty, equality, respect for human rights, fraternity, and so on, all of which are the aims of democracy, but unrealized even today, can be realized completely through a government of brothers and sisters centered on Heavenly Father. In this sense, joint government under the principle of mutual prosperity can be expressed as a fraternal democracy. It should be noted that the sense of brotherhood described here has a different meaning from the common sense meaning: we are not referring to a brotherhood confined within a national boundary, thus creating regional brothers and sisters, as we see today. The brotherhood I am talking about is a universal brotherhood, in the true sense, wherein the entire world is united into one nation of brothers and sisters, and all humankind, as children, attend the True Parents, the center of humankind.

The reason why the idea of universal brotherhood has not been realized even today is that, first, the unification of the world has not yet been accomplished, and second, the True Parents of humankind had not appeared. The same thing can be said of democracy. The reason why democracy has not yet been fully realized is that-other than the reasons mentioned above-democracy, which is originally a supra-ethnic and supranational idea, is, in reality, restricted by ethnic and national characteristics.

A similar thing can be said concerning the Kingdom of the Messiah. The Kingdom of the Messiah is not a regional kingdom, but rather it is a supra-ethnic and supranational kingdom. The advent of the Messiah takes place in one elected nation, which is a regional nation, whereas the establishment of the Kingdom of the Messiah is possible only after the world is unified. It needs to be said, however, that the principle of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness can be realized to some extent, even before the actual unification of the world, if the leaders of the world are willing to make an effort, attending God as the True Parents. By their doing so, a temporary solution of various kinds of confusion we experience today would be possible. Thus, I would say that the actual society functioning fully under the principle of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness, will be established only after the present time of capitalism.

Finally, let me explain about the relationship between such a joint government functioning under the principle of mutual prosperity, and the separation of three powers. Democracy is a constitutional government, whose essence is the separation of the three branches of government: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. Following this tradition, a joint government under the principle of mutual prosperity is a government by the representatives wherein the separation of the three powers is practiced.

However, the separation of three powers under the principle of mutual prosperity is not exactly the same concept as that proposed by Montesquieu, who sought to avoid any abuse of power. Under the principle of mutual prosperity, a separation of the three powers is proposed, but more in the sense of a division of the work of the three branches, legislation, judicial, and administrative, all working in harmony. The concept of power in the principle of mutual prosperity is also different from the traditional understanding. The traditional concept of power refers to physical force with which to subjugate people; but in the principle of mutual prosperity, power refers to an authority with true love, which inspires the object (people) to gratefully and willingly obey the will of the subject (sovereign).

While exercising their own physiological functions in harmony with each other, the various organs in a human body cooperate for the common purpose of supporting the life of the human body. Similarly, based on the common ideal of the country, the three branches will form an organic and harmonious system of cooperation, as they carry out the three functions of legislation, judicature and administration for the existence of the country.

According to the Divine Principle, the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches, which are all in a cooperative relationship with one another, are compared respectively to the lungs, heart, and stomach of the human body. The peripheral nerves connected to various organs in the human body cooperate with one another, harmoniously fulfilling the physiological functions of the human body, according to the commands of the brain. Similarly, in the ideal society, the will of God, who is the true subject of love, will be conveyed to the legislative, judicial, and executive branches through the organs of communication, and these three branches will cooperate harmoniously.

It should be clarified here that in God’s creation the ideal image of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth was conceived in God’s mind by taking the human body as a model. Therefore, the structure of the state in the ideal world resembles the structure of the human body. I explained above that the legislative, judicial, and executive branches are compared respectively to the lungs, heart and stomach; as a matter of fact, these three branches were established by imitating the lungs, heart, and stomach.

Due to the human fall, nations lost their original character, and became non-principled nations. Yet, the framework of a nation still resembles the structure of the human body. Thus, in the same way that the structure and function of the organs (lungs, heart, and stomach) of the human body are unchangeable, the structure and the function of the three branches of legislation, judicature and administration are unchangeable in the principled world. What should be added here is that the realities of the three branches in the ideal world are not identical to today’s non-principled ones. In fact, principled power and non-principled power are very different in that the former is based on an emotional force of true love, whereas the latter is based on a compulsory force of physical power.

C. Principle of Mutual Righteousness

The principle of mutual righteousness refers to joint ethics. This is the perspective needed for the realization of an ethical society, namely, a society of joint ethics, in which everyone observes and practices morality and ethics, both publicly and privately. Today, regardless of there being a capitalist or Communist society (including the ex-Communist societies), morality and ethics, which people should observe, have all but collapsed. As a result, various injustices and social crimes are rampant, and the world is now sunk in great confusion. Many people deplore this collapse of values, but no one seems to be able to offer any effective measures for revitalizing those values.

The principle of mutual righteousness is an ideology capable of terminating this collapse of values, and of establishing a healthy society on earth, wherein everybody freely observes morality and ethics everywhere and at all times. The ideal society, which is to come after both the capitalist and communist societies, will be the society of mutual existence and mutual prosperity as explained above and, at the same time, it will be the society of joint ethics, where all people, regardless of their positions, will live with the same ethical attitudes. The principle of mutual righteousness is the very core of the future society of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness. More concretely, and this will be explained shortly, the society of mutual righteousness will be the society in which the three great subjects thought is fully practiced.

In the future ideal society, religion will not be necessary, since the purpose of religion will have been completely realized. The purpose of Christian teaching is to empower an individual to firmly maintain faith until he or she receives the Second Advent of the Messiah. The purpose of Confucianism is to empower people to practice virtue until the ideal world of universal brotherhood arrives. The purpose of Buddhism is to empower people to train themselves and observe the law (Dharma) until the ideal world-the Realm of the Lotus-store (the World illuminated by the Buddha of Perfect Enlightenment) as taught in the Hua-yen (Kegon) School-arrives. Islam seeks a theocracy centering on the sovereignty of Allah. Therefore, the purpose of Christianity will be achieved when the ideal world of creation is realized by receiving the Second Advent of the Messiah; the purpose of Confucianism will be accomplished when the world of universal brotherhood is realized; the purpose of Buddhism will be accomplished when the Realm of the Lotus-store is realized; and the purpose of Islam will be realized when the theocracy centering on the sovereignty of Allah is realized.

The world in which the purpose of all religions has been accomplished is the society of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness, namely, the society centered on the Second Advent of the Messiah. The teachings of the Second Advent of the Messiah embrace the core teachings of Christianity, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Islam. Therefore, there is no further need for any religion to persist. The society of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness is not merely an instructive, ideal society, as traditional religions have taught, but rather the society in which people will lead a life of true love; a heavenly life in the midst of reality together with the Messiah. In that society, all people will live with the same values; therefore, religious doctrines centered on faith will be transformed into, and consummated as, living ethics centered on practice. This aspect of the future society is called the society of joint ethics, namely, the society of mutual righteousness

Then, what will be the characteristics of the society of joint ethics- First, social life will be reinforced by the true love of the three great subjects based on the three great subjects thought. Primarily, the three great subjects-namely, parents, who are the center of the family, teachers, who are the center of the school, and managers or leaders (company presidents, leaders of organizations, heads of state), who are the center of dominion-give God’s true love continuously and limitlessly to their object partners, namely, children, students, employees or the people of their country, all based on the three great subjects thought. Subsequently, mutual love among object partners will be induced, and the entire society, a highly ethical society, will resemble, metaphorically speaking, a garden of love.

Various inequalities will disappear with the practice of true love. Poverty will disappear through the true love of those who have more. Those who are thirsty for knowledge will be satisfied through the true love of those who have knowledge. Those who were alienated in the workplace will be consoled by the true love of the manager. Inspired by God’s true love, we can not but feel like helping those in need. This is what it means to say that the society will resemble a garden of love, and will be an ethical society.

A school filled with the teacher’s true love, and a workplace filled with the manager’s true love will both become ethical systems, which are the extended forms of an ethical family. That is to say, a school filled with the true love of a teacher is how a family filled with the true love of parents is extended in the aspect of education; a workplace filled with the true love of a manager is an extended family in the aspect of management. Thus, the entire society will be filled with God’s love. This is the society of mutual righteousness. Thus, the society of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness will be the social system based on the three great subjects thought.

Second, the basic unit of the society of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness is the family. In other words, the practice of the loves of the three great subjects is first realized in a family. There are four positions in the family, i.e., the positions of grandparents, parents (husband and wife), children (brothers and sisters), and grandchildren. God’s love is given and received between the various members of a family who are in these four positions. Thus, grandparents’ love, parents’ love, husband and wife’s love, brothers and sisters’ love, and children’s love are all fully realized in the family. When these kinds of love are given and received in the family, family law and family order will naturally be established. With the establishment of family law and family order (norm), a peaceful family, filled with compassion and harmony, will be realized. Such a family is indeed an ideal family.

The economical, political and ethical society based on the ideal family is the society of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual right-eousness. In this way, the long-cherished desire of humankind and the ideal of many thinkers and religious believers will finally be realized, and the world of the ideal of creation which has been fervently desired by God for over six thousand biblical years will be realized.

Conclusion

I have explained the basic concepts of the principle of mutual existence, the principle of mutual prosperity and the principle of mutual righteous-ness. My explanations have hopefully clarified that the principle of mutual existence, the principle of mutual prosperity, and the principle of mutual righteousness are not separate ideas but rather they are integrated as one. When this one, integrated idea is realized, the world of the ideal of creation, which God originally envisioned, will be realized for the first time. Thus, we call this one idea the “principle of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness,” using this single phrase. This concludes my explanation about the principle of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness. Next, I will explain the concept of the three great subjects thought, the ideology of the ideal family, which is the core of the principle of mutual righteousness.

II. Three Great Subjects Thought

The three great subjects thought is an expression coined by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The three great subjects refer to parents, teacher, and leader. In other words, the three great subjects mean the three great centers: the parents, who are the center of a family; the teacher, who is the center of a school; and the leader, who is the center of dominion. Here, the center of dominion refers to the center of a group, an enterprise, a country, and so on, namely, the central person who is responsible for management or leadership. Hence, the head of a group (a union, a political party, a federation, etc.), the president of an enterprise, the governor of a province, the president of a country, and so on, all fall under this category of leader. In this way, we call the three centers of parents, teacher and leader the three great subjects. The three great subjects thought emphasizes that these three great subjects should all practice God’s true love.

God’s True Love

God’s love is absolute, since He is the absolute being. The term “absolute” in the sense used here, has a meaning different from any kind of sense carrying a secular meaning. The term “absolute,” as it is used here, connotes the qualities of eternal, unchangeable, limitless, and universal. God is eternal, and omnipresent, existing all the time and everywhere. Accordingly, God’s love is also eternal, and omnipresent. Such love is absolute love, or true love.

True love can be compared to sunlight. There is no place upon which the sun does not shine, and the sun is always shining eternally without rest. Similarly, true love is a comprehensive love, given to all humankind as well as to all things. All created beings are object partners of true love, and nothing in the universe is excluded from the realm of true love. Love was sometimes taken as referring to the intimacy between people, but true love is love given to all humankind, including enemies, and also to all things.

A person is related with other people in the six directions of above and below, front and back, and right and left. Taking oneself as the center, one is related above with one’s parents, superiors, and elder persons; below with children, subordinates, and younger persons; to the front, with teachers, senior colleagues, and leaders; to the back, with students, junior colleagues, and followers; to the right, with brothers and sisters, intimate friends, and intimate colleagues; to the left, with competitors, strangers, and opponents. True love covers all these persons in all six directions. Furthermore, true love extends to all things. The three great subjects thought asserts that we should practice such true love at all times and in all places.

What is love? Love is to seek to care for one’s object partners, while expressing to them a warm heart. With true love, one wants to give what one has to others, rather than to receive things from others. Secular love is a more selfish love, with which one looks after one’s own interests. In contrast, the true love which Rev. Sun Myung Moon teaches is a love with which one expects nothing in return and only wishes to give to others. Thus, in true love, one wishes to continuously give to others, with a warm heart. Then, in what concrete way should we express love to others? There are many ways to love: “to talk gently,” “to understand one’s circumstances,” “to give financial aid,” “to extend cooperation,” “to serve,” “to support,” “to help someone get out of difficulties,” “to embrace,” “to forgive one’s enemies,” “to teach kindly,” and so on. To give, and then to give again to others with a warm heart in this way is the practice of true love. The spirit of this way of life is called altruism, or the spirit of “living for the sake of others.”

True Love of the Three Great Subjects

As explained above, the true love of God is a love with which one wishes to give, and give again, endlessly to others. Just as hot water flows endlessly from a hot spring, so, too, one should endlessly embrace others with the hot-spring-like-water of true love from a warm heart. The three great subjects should always practice such love in their daily life. This is the core of the three great subjects thought. That is to say, parents should express such love to their children; a teacher should express such love to his or her students; and a leader should express such love to his or her subordinates or followers. Then, how do we express true love in the practice of our daily life?

We should practice true love through acting in the role of a subject. The role of parents is to bring up their children. The Korean term for raising children is yangyuk( 養育), which consists of two Chinese characters, yang and yuk. Yang means to raise children by giving them food, clothing and shelter. While performing the duty of parents-namely, giving food, clothing and shelter-parents love their children with a warm heart. Yuk means to educate: parents teach their children family law, manners, ethics, morality, and any necessary knowledge, with a deep and warm heart.

In this way, parents can convey to their children the true love of God in the process of raising them. Parents should not love their children merely for the purpose of receiving something back when they have grown up. In other words, parents should not have the idea that they can make money or achieve power through their children. Wishing whole-heartedly that their children will become good, praiseworthy persons, they should raise them with a warm heart. This is the role of the parents. The expression of love when raising their children is the parents’ practice of true love.

The role of a teacher is to teach his or her students through the education of knowledge, technical education, artistic education, physical education, and so on. A teacher should teach students kindly and sincerely. If students raise questions, the teacher should answer sincerely, and if they have any difficult problems, the teacher should help them as much as possible. In this way, a teacher can practice God’s true love. This is the practice of true love in the role of a teacher. To teach only for the sake of wages is simply to sell and buy knowledge. This kind of education is not a correct education, since there is no love invested. A teacher should focus primarily on teaching students with sincerity, setting aside their receiving a salary as a secondary concern. Teaching should aim at the cultivation of the personality of students so that they will be empowered to serve society once they have matured. In order to do this, the teacher him or herself should first of all have a noble personality and a spirit of serving others. It is with the true love of a teacher that the teacher seeks to teach students with such a spirit of service and with a sincere and warm heart. Thus, the true love of a teacher is to practice love in one’s role as a teacher.

Finally, let me explain the true love of a leader as expressed through the role of being a leader. What is the proper role of a leader? The role of the president of a country is to govern the people well and empower them to live well. The role of the governor of a province is to harmoniously govern the province, and the role of the manager of a company is to offer good welfare to employees. Let me briefly explain about the case of a company more concretely. The manager of a company should not have the idea of making employees engage in hard work in order to make money for himself or herself. Of course, a company should make money. However, once the company has made money, managers should return an appropriate share of it to the employees. In the future society, the spirit of making money will be united with the spirit of giving.

The manager of a company should have an altruistic spirit of service. He or she should love the employees and have the spirit of giving with a warm heart. The manager should be concerned about the circumstances of the employees, and whether or not they have any difficulties with regard to food, clothing, and shelter. This is a dominion with love. In many cases, however, dominion includes giving orders to subordinates. An order in itself can feel cold; but when a leader gives an order with a warm and sincere heart, subordinates can receive it with gratitude because the order carries with it such a warm feeling.

The Bible says that God gave human beings the three great blessings. In the third blessing, God ordered human beings to dominate all things with love. The primary, secondary, and tertiary industries, as well as all other activities which deal with materials, fall under the category of dominion over all things. Dominion should be done with love. Thus, we should manage buildings and facilities, regarding them as belonging to all people and to God rather than to ourselves.

Thus, the management and maintenance of properties and facilities should be carried out with a sincere heart. This is the spirit of management as an exercise of loving dominion over all things. Pollution, which recently has become a serious problem, is the inevitable result arising from the loss of the spirit of dominion or the spirit of management with love. The spirit of dominion with love is the practice of the true love of a leader. In summary, the idea that the three great subjects should practice God’s true love through their respective roles is the three great subjects thought.

Three Subjectivities with One Center

Three subjectivities with one center refers to the idea that a central figure serves in the roles of, and practices simultaneously the loves of, the three great subjects, i.e., parents, teacher, and leader. In other words, although parents, teacher, and leader are different roles, nevertheless, parents should be at the same time a teacher and a leader. In other words, parents practice true love through the roles of the three subjects: While parents are primarily fulfilling their role as parents to love their children with a warm heart, they also carry out the roles of teacher and leader.

While engaging primarily in teaching, a teacher also stands in the position of a parent and raises students as if they were his or her own children, and at the same time, the teacher stands in the position of a leader to guide the students.

While engaging primarily in the management of an organization, a leader should also accomplish the roles of parent and teacher. A manager, in addition to the work of management, should express a warm heart to his or her employees with the heart of a parent in raising children, having constant concern for their eating, sleeping and welfare. Also, a leader, standing in the position of a teacher, should teach his or her subordinates social norms and knowledge.

Thus, it is the assertion of the three great subjects thought that one subject, or one center, simultaneously plays the role of three subjects. In other words, the three great subjects thought is the thought concerning the practice of a parent’s three subjectivities, a teacher’s three subjectivities and a leader’s three subjectivities. Since the love of parents to children, the love of a teacher to students, and the love of a leader to subordinates are downward-oriented loves, the three great subjects thought claims that one subject should practice three downward loves through the roles of the three subjects.

As mentioned previously, true love does not seek one’s self-interest but rather it wishes to give limitlessly. With true love you want to invest totally and forget what you have done. You want to give and give again, and you forget completely what you have given. No matter how much you have loved someone, you release it, and you do not carry with you any idea that you have loved.

When you forget the extent to which you have loved, your heart can become empty and humble. If you think that “I have loved him so much, but he did not respond. What a rude person he is,” then you can become arrogant. Once you become arrogant, it becomes difficult for you to truly love anymore. Therefore, when you give, you must forget it; and when you forget, you can feel like loving again, since God’s true love will fill your empty heart. Thus, always love with a fresh mind, and you will be empowered to love again. Parents, teachers, and leaders should all do this. This is the way of true love.

The Spread of Love

If parents truly love their children, children can not merely remain still, since love causes an inductive effect. Children will be moved by their parents’ love and, gratefully, they will serve their parents. Since parents love their children with all their heart, children, with all their hearts, feel like serving their parents with filial piety. This is the upward-directed love of children.

Also, when children receive the true love of their parents, not only does a filial heart toward their parents emerge, but also, the children themselves, namely, brothers and sisters, will come to love one another. This is horizontal love. In addition to that, a son and his wife (daughter-in-law) will also love each other in conjugal love, which is a horizontal love. Thus, based on parents’ love, both upward love and horizontal love are brought about, and the family is filled with love. Consequently, in a family the parents’ downward love is most important.

The same thing can be said about the love of a teacher at a school. Students who receive the true love of their teacher (downward love) will automatically respect their teacher from the bottom of their heart. They will think that their teacher is great. While satisfied intellectually, they are also impressed by the sincerity of the teaching; they naturally bow their heads toward the teacher. Then, students can not but respect their teacher. This is the upward love of students to the teacher. Not only that, but being impressed by the true love of their teacher, students themselves will come to love one another. This is a horizontal love among students. Thus, the love of the teacher (downward love) causes an inductive effect.

A few years ago, there was an unsavory incident at a certain university in Korea: Students struck a teacher. At that time, every newspaper condemned the students. The criticism of the students was not wrong in itself, but it was a misdirected criticism, in terms of solving the problem. The responsibility for the mishap rested primarily with the teacher and only secondarily with the students. The students reacted as they did because the teacher did not teach them properly. Would there be any valid reason for the students to strike the teacher if the teacher had regularly practiced the roles of the three subjects with true love, and followed the way of a teacher? The students’ violence can, in one sense, be understood as an expression of their complaint, “why did you not  teach us properly?” Furthermore, the parents also share the blame. The students’ parents must not have given downward love to their children in daily life. Therefore, there was no base for the students to respect the teacher, whose position is not different from their parents. Hence, the solution to the problem of student violence against teachers can be found through the three great subjects thought.

As mentioned above, the loves of the three great subjects are downward loves: parents’ love toward children, teacher’s love toward students, and a leader’s love toward followers. The downward love is primary, and upward and horizontal loves are then induced by such downward love.

Since there is an inductive effect and a reciprocal reaction in love, there are certain cases where the upward love of the subordinate is given first, and that is followed by the induced downward love of the superior. When children show filial piety to their parents, students respect their teacher, and subordinates are loyal to their leaders, parents’ love, a teacher’s love, and a leader’s love are all induced. In principle, however, the downward love is primary, and upward and horizontal loves are secondary. When downward love is prior, upward love and horizontal love can be induced one hundred per cent, whereas when upward love is prior, there is no guarantee that downward love will be induced one hundred percent. The same thing can be said of horizontal love. The starting point of true love is the downward love, since the origin of true love is in God, and everything comes downward from God in the first place.

If the manager of a company truly loves the employees, they will not simply be satisfied with receiving salaries, but they will want to reward the manager. That is to say, when the manager makes constant efforts with a warm heart to give the employees as much as possible from the income of the company, then the employees will respect and be thankful to the manager. In this situation, if the company should face difficulty, the employees might say, “We do not need an increase in salary. Please invest a portion of our salary increase back into the company, and manage it well.” In this way, if the manager of a company shows true love, the employees will love the manager, and at the same time love will spread among the employees. In addition, the employees will love and care for the facilities and properties of the company. Thus, the subject’s downward love, namely parents’ love, teacher’s love and leader’s love, should be given first.

If, in this way, true love spreads to a family, to a school, and to a company, and then to a nation, and to the entire world, the global village will eventually be filled with God’s love. As a result, all crimes on earth will disappear without any trace, and true and everlasting peace can be actualized.

The Origin of the Three Great Subjects Is God

What is the origin of the three great subjects in the three great subjects thought? It is God. The origin of all subjects is God. The most representative subjects among all subjects are the three great subjects, and the origin of the three great subjects is God.

God is, first of all, the Parents of humankind. In prayer, someone may call God “Father,” while someone else may call God “Mother.” In fact, God possesses Yang and Yin dual characteristics; therefore, God is the Parents of humankind. God created human beings as His (Her) sons and daughters. Originally human beings are not sinners, but are God’s sons and daughters; due to the human fall, however, human beings became sinners. Thus, God is the Parents of humankind, and at the same time the subject of true love. God created the universe with Logos, as is written in the Gospel according to John, chapter 1. Logos is truth and God’s Word. Therefore, God is the subject of truth. The subject of truth is basically a teacher. Thus God is the teacher of truth. Also God is the master, since the Creator is the master of dominion.

The traditional Korean term Kun-Sa-Bu(君師父) refers to the ideal of parents, teacher and leader. Kun means the master, Sa means the teacher, and Bu means father (who represents parents). The Korean people possessed this Kun-Sa-Bu thought from their ancient times, and the origin of Kun-Sa-Bu is God. Hence, God is father (parents), teacher, and leader. Kun-Sa-Bu is, indeed, the same as the three great subjects, there being only a difference in the order of the words.

In the Korean national anthem there is a passage: “Long live our country, which Hanunim protects!” Hanunim is the same as Hananim, or the Creator, God. How does God protect Korea? He protects it with the true love of parents, teacher and master. The origin of parents, teacher, and master, or the origin of Kun-Sa-Bu is God. Therefore, the love of the three great subjects is in accordance with the Way of Heaven, which is absolute. Thus, the three great subjects thought is absolute and it will never fail. Those who disobey the Way of Heaven, or those who do not live according to this thought, can only decline, or perish.

Why is today’s society in such confusion? It is because we did not practice the love of the three great subjects, and we did not observe the Way of Heaven. If we disobey natural law, we will suffer physically; therefore, we lead our lives, observing natural law. Similarly, we should spiritually lead our lives according to the Way of Heaven. Since the three great subjects thought is in accordance with the Way of Heaven, which is based on God, we can not but observe it. If we observe it, peace can be realized, and if we do not, confusion will prevail. This is the very reason why traditional religions have all emphasized love.

Buddhism taught us to practice mercy; Confucianism, jen; Islam, compassion, and Christianity, love. However, the reason why we should do so has never before been clarified. Now, it can be clarified that the origin of mercy, jen, compassion, and love is the true love of God, which is also the origin of the love of the three great subjects. The three bonds (ruler and ruled, father and son, and husband and wife) and five moral duties (between father and son, husband and wife, elder brother and younger brother, one friend with another, and ruler and ruled) in Confucianism, the main teaching of which is the relationship between parents and children, is in agreement with the three great subjects thought. The same thing can be said about the virtues of Buddhism, the virtues of Islam and the virtues of Christianity. All the teachings of the saints and sages, about love, are also included, without exception, in this category of the love of the three great subjects.

The reason why traditional values have been declining is that people do not realize that mercy in Buddhism, jen in Confucianism, compassion in Islam, and love in Christianity all originate from the true love of God, and they are precisely the various expressions of the love of the three great subjects. To put it in another way, when it becomes clear that the origin of all these traditional religious virtues is the true love of God and, therefore, based on the love of the three great subjects, then all the traditional virtues will be revitalized, and they will recover the ability to guide and empower the minds of humankind today.

The Three Great Subjects Thought, the Principle of Mutual Existence, Mutual Prosperity and Mutual Righteousness, and the Principle of the Ideal Family

The principle of mutual existence, mutual prosperity and mutual righteousness is the concept which describes the characteristics of the economic, political, and ethical system of our future ideal society. That is, the future society will be an economic and political system which is managed under the principle of mutual righteousness (joint ethics). The content of the principle of mutual righteousness is the practice of the three great subjects thought, and the essence of the three great subjects thought is the principle of the ideal family. In sum, the future society will be an economic and political system that is managed under the principle of mutual righteousness; concretely, it will be managed by the three great subjects thought whose essence is the principle of the ideal family.

Establishment of a New Value Perspective

Finally, let me explain how a new value perspective can be firmly established on the basis of the three great subjects thought. When, from the ethical aspect, we see the actions, which are the expression of the three great subject’s true love, and the consequent love of the object partners which is thereby induced, namely, the downward love of the subject partners and the upward and horizontal loves of the object partners, we accept them as truly good. When those same deeds are seen from the intellectual and educational aspect, we accept them as genuine trueness, and when they are seen from the artistic aspect, we experience them as true beauty. Truth, goodness, and beauty are not separated in one’s actions. A deed of true love is accepted as truth, goodness, or beauty according to the mental aspect with which we perceive it. All traditional values will be revitalized and enlivened when they embrace this new value perspective of the three great subjects thought.

III. Significance of the Four Great Realms of Heart
and the Three Great Kingships

Rev. Sun Myung Moon proposed the concepts of “the four great realms of heart” and “the three great kingships” at the beginning of the Completed Testament Age. It is important for us to understand these concepts clearly in order to realize the ideal family which is the basic unit of the ideal society. First, let me explain the four great realms of heart.

A. Four Great Realms of Heart

Concept of Heart

In order to understand the concept of the four great realms of heart, it is first necessary to understand the concept of heart. Heart refers to “the emotional impulse to seek joy through love.” In other words, heart is “the emotional impulse that can not but love.” It was due to His emotional impulse that can not help but love, that God created human beings as His object partners, and all things as the object partners of joy for human beings.

Realm of Heart

The realm of heart means the sphere of influence of one’s heart. The realm of culture means the sphere of influence of a culture, and the realm of sovereign power means the sphere of influence of one’s power. So, again, the realm of heart means the sphere of influence of one’s heart. Since heart is the emotional impulse to love, it necessarily accompanies the practice of love. Heart and love are two sides of a coin, and the sphere of influence of one’s heart is the sphere of influence of one’s love.

The four great hearts refer to the four kinds of hearts: heart of parents, heart of husband and wife, heart of brothers and sisters, and heart of children. Since heart and love are two sides of a coin, the four great hearts are the same as the four great loves: parents’ love, husband and wife’s love, brothers and sisters’ love, and children’s love.

Vertical Love, Horizontal Love, and Family Love

In order to understand the four great hearts or four great loves correctly, it is necessary to understand the direction of love, that is, the vertical and horizontal directions of love. Vertical love refers to a downward-oriented love, one which flows from above downwards, such as God’s love to human beings, and parents’ love to their children, and to an upward-oriented love, one which flows from below upwards, such as human beings’ love to God, and children’s love to parents. Horizontal love, on the other hand, refers to the love that flows horizontally, such as brothers and sisters’ love and husband and wife’s love. The brothers and sisters’ love includes love between brothers, love between sisters, and love between brother and sister. Parents’ love, husband and wife’s love, brothers and sisters’ love, and children’s love are all practiced in a family; therefore they are family loves.

Parents’ love, husband and wife’s love, and children’s love, are called the three object partners’ loves in the Divine Principle. When God is seen as the subject, parents, husband and wife, and children are His three object partners; therefore, parents’ love, husband and wife’s love, and children’s love are called the three object partners’ loves. The four great loves, which are based on the four great hearts, are the three object partners’ loves plus brothers and sisters’ love.

Four Great Realms of Heart and the Growth of Love

Rev. Sun Myung Moon teaches that love grows as one develops from childhood. An infant does not know well what love is like; but as he or she grows in parents’ love, his or her love for his or her parents will gradually grow. This is children’s love. The word infant here refers not to a son or daughter possessing particular sex characteristics, but to a child who does not yet have any consciousness of sexuality. In other words, the relation between children is not yet that of boy and girl, but that between children (for example, like twins) without any sexual consciousness.

Then, brothers and sisters’ love, namely, the love between brothers, the love between sisters, and the love between brother and sister, begins to grow among children, as it is stimulated by the love of parents. In the same way, as children’s love grows under parents’ love, so too, does brothers and sisters’ love grow under the parents’ downward love, along with the simultaneous growth of their physical bodies. This is accomplished in accordance with the inductive effect of love.

When brothers and sisters mature to the appropriate point, a brother will become engaged with the sister of another family or a sister will become engaged with the brother of another family; then, they will get married and become husband and wife. The love between them is a husband and wife’s love, which is also practiced under the inducement of parents’ love.

When children have thus grown, and have completed themselves, they finally become parents. The concept of parents here is not a concept imbued with any sexual character; rather, it is the more simple concept of those who are “opposite” of children. Parents practice parents’ love toward their children.

So far, I have explained husband and wife’s love and parents’ love as well as the growth of children’s love and brothers and sisters’ love. It should be noted here that husband and wife’s love does not appear all of a sudden once a brother and a sister have matured and get married; rather, as they grow, their love for the opposite sex, which is a stage prior to that of conjugal love, grows in them little by little. In fact, as brothers and sisters grow, they only gradually become qualified to become husband and wife. Thus, as their physical bodies grow, a love for the opposite sex (namely, the stage prior to conjugal love) grows unconsciously in them, in a vague form.

The same thing can be said about parents’ love. It is not the case that children grow to become parents and then all of a sudden parents’ love appears, but rather they already experience parents’ love unconsciously while they grow. Since children grow under parents’ love, they experience what parents’ love is like. Thus, there is a growing of love not only in children’s love and brothers and sisters’ love but also in husband and wife’s love and parents’ love.

Inclusiveness of Love

Inclusiveness means that something is included in another thing. Therefore, the inclusiveness of love means that a certain love is included in another love. Those including other loves are brothers and sisters’ love, husband and wife’s love, and parents’ love.

Brothers and sisters’ love includes children’s love, since brothers and sisters are related with each other in a family where they grow as children. Next, husband and wife’s love includes both brothers and sisters’ love, and children’s love, since a brother and a sister have grown up from childhood to become husband and wife. Of course, it is not the case that a brother and sister within the same family become husband and wife, but that a brother in one family and a sister in another, different, family become husband and wife. Finally, parents’ love includes all those loves, namely, children’s love, brothers and sisters’ love and husband and wife’s love.

Seen from the aspect of heart, brothers and sisters’ heart includes the children’s heart; husband and wife’s heart includes children’s heart and brothers and sisters’ heart; and parents’ heart includes all these hearts. To put it another way, the realm of children’s heart is the narrowest, the realm of brothers and sisters’ heart is broader, the realm of husband and wife’s heart is even broader, and the realm of parents’ heart is the broadest.

Concretely speaking, for children’s love (or heart), there is one object partner, the parents. For brothers and sisters’ love (or heart), there are at least the two object partners of parents and siblings. It may seem that conjugal love (or heart) has only one object partner (the spouse), but this is not the case. In the Divine Principle view, a husband represents all the men in the family, and a wife represents all the women in the family. In other words, the husband represents the grandfather, the father, and a brother, and the
wife represents the grandmother, the mother, and a sister. Hence, for husband and wife’s love, there are at least three object partners of parents, spouse, and siblings.

Next, the realm of parents’ love is broader than the realm of husband and wife’s love since parents are parents to their children and at the same they are husband and wife. Here must be added the fact that these four kinds of love, namely children’s love, brothers and sisters’ love, husband and wife’s love, and parents’ love, are all practiced under God’s love; therefore, all the family members can be grateful to God and, at the same time, they can regard God as their object partner of love consciously or unconsciously. The breadth of the realm of the four loves can be shown by four concentric circles as in fig. 12.1.

Husband and Wife’s Love as a Representative Love

Among the four loves mentioned above, the most representative one is the husband and wife’s love. This is because, as already mentioned, the husband represents all the men in a family and the wife represents all the women in a family; moreover, each represents one of God’s dual characteristics. Furthermore, the husband represents all men, half of humankind, and the wife represents all women, the other half of humankind; the husband represents the yang aspects of all things in the universe, and the wife represents the yin aspects of all things in the universe.

Husband and wife’s love, therefore, represents the masculine and feminine loves in a family, in all humankind, and in all things, as well as the masculine and feminine loves in God. In other words, husband and wife’s love includes all the kinds of love in the created world as well as God’s love. Thus, husband and wife’s love is the representative love in a family.

Center of the Cosmos and the Fruit of Love

I have clarified above that the husband and wife’s love is not only the love between a man and woman, but rather it is a synthesized love wherein God’s love, family love, and the love in all things are united. When such love is synthesized, there is a multiplying effect, which engenders a strong impulse which can not be repressed. The position of conjugal union represents the cosmos, namely, it is the center of the cosmos, and at the same time it is the position of the second Creator where the ideal of creation is accomplished. The True Parents of humankind (messiah) are the model, the second Creator. Thus, the position of conjugal union is very precious and holy; it is the position wherein human beings most resemble God.

The foundation for all the various types of love beyond the family-one’s love for the nation, love for humankind, love for all things, love for one’s fatherland, and so on-is conjugal love. This is because conjugal love is not only the love between a man and woman, but rather it represents all the different types of love between all subjects and objects. That is to say, conjugal love represents the love between principal element (or individual) and subordinate element (or individual) as well as the love between subject and object in the sense of Sungsang and Hyungsang.

As a matter of fact, a husband (man) represents heaven, and a wife (woman) represents the earth. In other words, the relationship between husband and wife is like that between God and the created world. Accordingly, conjugal love represents the love between God and created beings (human beings).

In principle, the husband takes the initiative and his wife acts according to his directive; therefore, the relationship between husband and wife is that of subject and object, in the sense of Sungsang and Hyungsang. Furthermore, conjugal love represents the love between spiritual beings, and physical beings in the world.

Also, in principle, the husband is the head of the family, and his wife is his support. Hence, the relationship between husband and wife is that of subject and object in the sense of superordinate and subordinate. Teacher and student, government and people, the sun and the earth, a cell nucleus and cell cytoplasm are all examples of such a relationship.

Furthermore, the husband is the representative of all men, half of humankind, and his wife is the representative of all women, the other half. Accordingly, the union of man and woman relates to the unification of humankind, and thus conjugal love is a love for all humankind. Also, the husband represents the yang aspect of the universe and spirit world, and the woman represents the yin aspect of the universe and spirit world. Hence, the conjugal union is the representative center of the cosmos.

It can be concluded that conjugal love represents all the types of love in the created world. They are all manifestations of God’s love. Therefore, husband and wife’s love, which is the representative love and synthesized love, is none other than God’s love. Hence, the position of the union of husband and wife, where such synthesized love appears, is the center of the cosmos, the position of the second Creator, and the position of the perfection of the ideal of creation.

Original conjugal love is indeed boundlessly broad and deep, and the children born through such a conjugal love are the fruit of this holy, synthesized love. Since conjugal love is the love that synthesizes God’s love and the love of the whole world, the children (new beings) who are born through that love are God’s children, who are the integration of the universe and, therefore, they are microcosms.

It is important to realize here that all phenomena take place first in the heavenly world, or the spirit world, and then manifest on the earth. Hence, the image of children being born and growing as brothers and sisters, and becoming husband and wife and then parents, namely, the phenomena that human beings are born and grow, while experiencing love step by step, take place first in heaven or, more precisely, within God’s mind. That is to say, the growth of children, growth of brothers and sisters, becoming husband and wife, and then becoming parents first takes place in an ideal form in God’s mind before they appear on earth.

To put it another way, before creating Adam and Eve, God envisioned such a content in His mind, and then, in accordance with that vision, Adam and Eve were to be created as His children, and were to grow as brother and sister, become husband and wife, and then parents. Thus, the “envisioned” Adam and Eve, children, brother and sister, husband and wife, and parents within God’s plan can be called mental Adam and Eve, mental children, mental brother and mental sister, mental husband and wife, and mental parents respectively. This is illustrated in fig. 12.2.


A Global Realm of Heart as the Extended Form of the Four Great Realms of Heart

The four great loves are family loves, and the four great hearts are family hearts. The realm of children’s heart, the realm of brothers and sisters’ heart, the realm of husband and wife’s heart, and the realm of parents’ heart are all the realms of heart in the family. Thus, the basic form of the four great realms of heart is that of the family.

According to the Divine Principle, in the original society all human beings attend the True Parents of humankind. That is to say, in the original society all humankind becomes one great family centering on the True Parents. In other words, in the ideal world of creation, human society is a great family society existing as an extended form of a family, and each family is a miniature of the great family society, namely, it is a small family society.

Therefore, the realm of children’s heart in the family can be extended even to the global realm of children’s heart; the realm of brothers and sisters’ heart in the family can be extended even to the global realm of brothers and sisters’ heart; the realm of husband and wife’s heart in the family can be extended even to the global realm of husband and wife’s heart; and the realm of parents’ heart in the family can be extended even to the global realm of parents’ heart. Hence, the great family society of humanity is the global society of the four great realms of heart.

As already explained, the realm of heart refers to the realm of object partners of heart, or the realm of object partners of love. The global realm of the four great hearts, therefore, refers to the global realm of object partners (all humankind) of the four great loves.

Those who belong to the realm of children’s heart (children’s love) in the family are their parents, the object partners of children’s love. Then, who belongs to the global realm of children’s heart? They are adults who are about the same age as their parents: those persons all over the world whom children will respect and attend like their own father or mother.

The same thing can be said of the realm of brothers and sisters’ heart. The family realm of brothers and sisters’ heart includes brothers and sisters in a family, while the global realm of brothers and sisters’ heart includes all men and women about the same age as one’s brothers and sisters. Accordingly, wherever you may go and happen to meet men and women of about the same age as your own brothers and sisters, you can express love to them as if they were your real brothers and sisters, and you can receive love from them as well.

The same thing can not be said about the realm of husband and wife’s heart, however. The realm of husband and wife’s heart is different in character from the other realms of heart in this regard. When a woman meets a man of the same age as her husband, or when a man meets a woman of the same age as his wife, can she give him a love similar to that which she gives to her husband? Can he give her a love similar to that which he gives to his wife? Absolutely not! This is because the hus-band and wife relationship is a monogamous relationship incorporating a sexual life. Since husband and wife’s love is necessarily accompanied by their sexual life, conjugal love can not be allowed beyond the parame-ters of their relationship. Instead, one should express brothers and sisters’ love toward men or women of the same age as your husband or wife, in the same way that you love your brothers and sisters in your family.

As for the realm of parents’ heart, the same thing can be said as regards the realms of children’s heart and brothers and sisters’ heart. Wherever you may meet children of the same age as your sons or daughters, you should relate to them with a parents’ heart or parents’ love in the same way as you do to your own children.

B. Three Great Kingships

Significance of the Three Great Kingships

In speaking of the three great kingships, one may wonder what difference exists between the three great kingships and the three great subjects. As already explained, the three great subjects in the three great subjects thought refer to the centers of the family, the school, and the workplace. The king of a country is the center of the country, and therefore, he is the subject. Then, one may think that the three great kings of the world are the three great subjects, but this is not the case.

The king in the three great kingships does not mean the king of a country as it is understood in the mundane world. The kings in the three great kingships are the centers or the heads of a family. The heads of a family are the parents, and the three great kings in the three great kingships refer to the parents of the three generations: grandparents, parents and children.

Kingship means possessing the authority of a king. In the secular sense, the king is the central figure who governs the people with kingship, or, the figure in the highest position. In contrast, in the Kingdom of Heaven, as mentioned above, the king is the center and the head of a family, namely, the parents. Thus, the parents of the family are the parents and the king and queen of the family. The king of the country is the parent and the king of the country. In an enterprise, which is an extended form of a family, the president and his or her spouse are the parents and the king and queen of the enterprise.

In a family, there is only one set of parents. Then, why is it said that there are three kings in the family? Because there are three kings: the king of the past, the king of the present, and the king of the future; namely, the parents of the past, the parents of the present, and the parents of the future. Thus, three kings in a family refer to grandparents, parents, and children. The grandparents are the king and queen of the past; the parents are the king and queen of the present; and children are the kings and queens of the future. Since the grandparents, parents, and children are all kings and queens, the authority of king is given to all of them; namely, the three great kingships. Yet, the three kingships are different from each other in character.

Characteristics of the Three Great Kingships

Grandparents belong to the past and they are the king and queen of the past. It means that they were king and queen on earth in the past. Then, what is their status now? They are still king and queen. However, they are no longer a king and queen representing the earth, but a king and queen representing the spirit world. Furthermore, they are a king and queen representing God. In other words, grandparents represent the spirit world and God. Accordingly, the four position foundation centered on God as explained in the Divine Principle is also the four position foundation centered on grandparents in the original world. Therefore, from now on, grandparents will be the center of the family four position foundation, representing God and the True Parents of humankind. Hence, the position of grandparents is that of God, which is the highest in the family and, therefore, children and grandchildren have to attend their grandparents in the most respectful manner.

Parents are the king and queen representing the present world, while grandparents are the king and queen representing the spirit world. Also, parents are the king and queen in the family. Children are the future head of the family. At present, they are princes and princesses, and in the future they will be kings and queens of the family, and of the world. Children also represent all the descendants, namely, grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so on, who are also future kings and queens.

The Reason Why the Term “Three Great Kingships” Is Necessary

One may raise the following question: Why do we need to call them kings instead of just saying grandparents, parents and children? It is because the position of king is the most noble and respectable position. The conventional concepts of grandparents, parents and children are quite different from those in the original world. Through the Divine Principle, we have learned the preciousness of the family, namely, the preciousness of grandparents, parents and children. However, there is still a great difference between those concepts as conceived by God, and those which are conceived by human beings. We express the most supreme nobility with the term king or prince. Originally, every human being was to be a noble being like a king. With the study of the Divine Principle, however, we may not yet have fully realized the true nobility of the human being.

Suppose there is a prince of a country who is hiding himself in a village in a remote mountain area and wearing shabby clothes, separated from his father, the king, due to the betrayal of his men. If the elders of the village realized the truth, they would apologize to him saying, “What has happened to Your Highness? We did not know that you are such a noble person, and we have committed a great crime. Please forgive our disloyalty.” Then, with the greatest sincerity, they would respect him and attend him, placing him in the highest position. The greatest sincerity, the highest position and the best attendance that the prince would receive all express the nobility of his position as prince. The value of a human being in God’s eyes is much like this, or even greater.

Thus, the original concepts of grandparents, parents and children are very precious, and the conventional concepts are not able to convey the same noble sense as do the original concepts. There is no better means of expression than to use the concept of king in order to express their nobility, importance and gloriousness, since the king occupies the most supreme of all positions on earth. Thus, in the original world, where humans are so precious, the nobility of grandparents, parents, and children is expressed through the concepts of the three great kingships.

Parents should not treat their children casually, even when their children are young. Rather, they should treat their children just as a king would treat his prince and princess. Once the king has decided on his son as his successor, no matter how young he may be, the king will not ignore the prince’s words. Therefore, from now, parents should not neglect their children. And children should attend their parents, regarding them as king and queen, and attend their grandparents, regarding them as honorable king and queen mother (king and queen of the spirit world).

Kingship and Its Concept

A king possesses the authority of a king, namely, kingship. The kingships of grandparents, parents, and children are together called the three great kingships. In other words, authority is given to the three great kings. From this viewpoint, we should look at the members of our family, and other families, as those who are as precious as kings and queens. Hence, a home is a royal palace.

After bequeathing his throne to his child, the king becomes the grand-father in the royal palace, and stays in the central position as the great king, representing the spirit world and God. A home is as precious as a royal palace. A family constitution therefore is the constitution of a royal palace. The family of the True Parents is its model. When the ideal world is realized, all the families of the world will resemble the True Parents’ family.

Finally, let me explain about the power of kingship. Conventional power is what makes people in the object position obey the sovereign subject, usually through fear and reverence. Secular power is enforced physically. It has the authority to make people obey the sovereign com-pulsorily by using police or military force. In contrast, power in the Kingdom of Heaven will be that which inspires the object to obey the subject with a grateful heart, and it will be based on God’s true love.

Power in the Kingdom of Heaven, however, also has a certain authority which gives people, as objects, a certain feeling of fear. This is the fear which arises from the intuition one possesses of the spiritual death which would accrue with one’s separation from or one’s opposition to God’s true love. Since love is the source of life, and the loss of love is connected with the loss of true life, or the death of true life, should one disregard or oppose the love of the subject figure, one’s subconsciousness would perceive its inevitable result (that is, the death of life) and feel fear. This is why one would feel fear even while feeling happiness in God’s limitless love.

There is a difference between the obedience of people to the subject (the dictator) in the Communist world and the obedience of people to the subject in the Kingdom of Heaven. The dictators in the Communist world made the people obey compulsorily, threatening them with death. In the Kingdom of Heaven, however, people will want to obey the sovereign, centered on true love. This is the precise point of difference between the two worlds.

However, both worlds are the same in that the people suffer if they do not unite with the sovereign. In the Communist world, if one does not obey the dictator, one is risking one’s life, or risking being purged at once. In contrast, in the Kingdom of Heaven, if one disobeys the subject’s order which is based on love, one feels a shrinkage or risk of one’s life, to a greater or lesser degree, at once or after a certain period of time, depend-ing on the degree of disobedience. Thus, love is accompanied with authority.

In the Bible, there is written an expression conveying the authority of God: When Abraham was prepared to offer his only begotten son, Isaac, in order to indemnify his failure in his earlier, symbolic, offering, God said, “now I know that you fear God” (Gen. 22:12). This passage makes plain that God’s love is accompanied with a certain authority and fear. Thus, secular power is enforcement with compulsory power, while power in the Kingdom of Heaven is the power of true love which induces people to obey voluntarily. Kingship is to be exercised. The exercise of the three great kingships is that the grandparents, parents, and children demonstrate such power of love over their object partners.

1. Theory of the Original Image

1. A representative example of the reciprocal relationship is yang and yin, or man and woman. Exposition of the Divine Principle (hereafter cited as DP ) explains that the relationship between Sungsang and Hyungsang is, in a way, the same as that between Yang and Yin, or man and woman, as follows: i) “In this case, the yang and yin of God were manifested in masculinity and femininity” (DP , 19). ii) “Because God exists as the subject partner having the qualities of internal nature and masculinity, He created the universe as His object partner with the qualities of external form and femininity” (DP , 19). iii) God is the Subject in whom the dual characteristics of original internal nature and original external form are in harmony. At the same time, God is the harmonious union of masculinity and femininity, which manifests the qualities of original internal nature and original external form, respectively. In relation to the universe, God is the subject partner having the qualities of internal nature and masculinity” (DP , 19). Consequently, the relationship of Sungsang and Hyungsang, and the relationship between God and the creation are also the reciprocal relationships of yang and yin.

2. The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, Exposition of the Divine Principle (New York: HSA-UWC, 1996).

3. Paul A. Dirac, et al., Scientific American Resource Library: Readings in the Physical Sciences (Japanese version) (Tokyo: Kodansha), 1972, 79.

4. The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, Divine Principle (Korean version) (Seoul: Sunghwa-sa, 1987).

5. From around 1951, Werner Heisenberg (1901-76), the founder of quantum physics, dealt with the unified theory of elementary particles and advocated the idea of “prime-matter.” This theory asserts that the elementary particles that have been observed, of which there are approximately 300, have come into being from a prime-matter, the ultimate matter, following a cosmic equation expressed in a certain mathematical form. Heisenberg also said that “prime-matter” is the same as “prime-energy,” and that all the various kinds of elementary particles (therefore, all matter) of the universe consists of prime-energy. The prime-matter, or prime-energy, advocated by Heisenberg can be regarded as pointing to pre-matter, or pre-energy, as advocated by Unification Thought. Today it is known that all matter consists of quarks and leptons. Recently the “sub-quark” model has been advocated. This model states that quarks and leptons are made of even more basic particles, and active research is being conducted into that area. Specifically, the sub-quark model states that all matter is made of sub-quarks, and that there are three kinds of sub-quarks, which can be regarded as different states of a single sub-quark. If this theory is correct, it follows that all matter is made of a single, basic substance. This can be seen as a contemporary version of Heisenberg’s monistic unified model. For further reference, see Hidezumi Terasawa’s Sub-quark Physics and Original Geometry (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Kyoritsu Shuppan Sha,1982), 17-21.

6. The Universal Prime Force is acting on the created world, and the force of give and receive action is working between existing beings as the result of the operation of the Universal Prime Force. Therefore, the Universal Prime Force is the causal force operating on the created world; in other words, the Universal Prime Force and the force of give and receive action are in the relationship of cause and effect. (This note is added by the editor.)

7. Let me concretely explain about homogeneous elements and absolute attributes. One may raise the question: “Even though Sungsang and Hyungsang are two expressions of the homogeneous element, Sungsang itself and Hyungsang itself are different, aren’t they? For example, steam and ice are the two expressions of water (H2O). They are supposed to be essentially the same in that both have in them-selves the relative relationship between attraction and repulsion of water molecules. However, attraction and repulsion are different from each other. Likewise, even if it is claimed that Sungsang and Hyungsang are homogeneous in that Sungsang contains Hyungsang and Hyungsang contains Sungsang, aren’t Sungsang and Hyungsang themselves different from each other?”

   This question seems reasonable but, nevertheless, is shortsighted. It arises from one’s being unaware of the fact that the phenomenal world is somewhat different from the causal world. In fact, there is a difference between macroscopic phenomena and microscopic phenomena. For example, the principle of uncertainty says that, in the microscopic world, the position of the particle and its momentum can not be exactly determined at the same time through our observation. Also, light, or the photon, is known to have the two discrepant attributes of particle and wave at the same time. Such phenomena are not seen in the macro-scopic world. In other words, there are certain cases in which we can not understand microscopic phenomena in the same manner as we do when we think of the macroscopic world. This means that there are cases when we have to abandon our ideas and concepts formed in the macroscopic world in order to understand the microscopic world properly.

   A similar thing can be said about our knowledge of the attributes of God, the ultimate Cause. It is not always appropriate to apply our concepts of the phenomenal world to the causal world. In the above-mentioned example of ice and steam, I explained that the common element between them is the relative relationship between attraction and repulsion of water molecules. As for the question whether the attractive force and the repulsive force are essentially different or not, it will be properly answered if it is proven that both forces originate from a single force.

   Though it is not yet proven that the attractive force and the repulsive force originate from a single force, we will assume that the separation into two attributes from one attribute is possible in the causal world. For example, a photon, which belongs to the microscopic world, manifests itself as particle and wave. The photon, or light quantum, as named by A. Einstein, is “light” which has the united attributes. When a photon operates in the actual world, it shows one of the two characters according to the circumstances. In other words, the substance of light is one, but only manifests itself as one of its attributes.

   Light gives us brightness and heat. This does not mean that brightness and heat, which are separate qualities, are united in the light. Rather, a light is perceived as brightness and warmth through our sense of sight and sense of touch respectively. Likewise, we should understand that God’s Sungsang and Hyungsang are not essentially different attributes, but rather are one absolute attribute which has become separated into two correlative attributes in His creation. If Sungsang and Hyungsang were essentially heterogeneous attributes, give and receive action between them would not be possible.

   When I explain Sungsang and Hyungsang in this way, one may think that this is the same as the Identity-philosophy. The Identity-philosophy claims that the correlative elements in the phenomenal world-spirit and matter, or subject and object-originate from one and the same entity (the absolute). In contrast, the theory of homogeneity of Sungsang and Hyungsang is an argument in the realm of the Causal Being, namely, God. In God, there is no time; therefore, the relationship between the absolute and the relative attributes is not cause and effect. Hence, in God, the absolute attribute is at the same time a relative attribute. In this respect, it is quite different from the Identity-philosophy.

8. Unification Thought ontology is “Unification Theory” or “Theory of Oneness,” which is a kind of monism, a monism with dual characteri-stics. The Theory of Oneness is different in its character from the monisms of materialism and spiritualism (idealism). Materialism is a monism in the sense that it considers matter to be prior to spirit, and spiritualism is a monism in the sense that it considers spirit to be prior to matter. Hence, both materialism and spiritualism are relative monisms. In contrast, the Theory of Oneness claims that the origin of spirit and matter is one; therefore, it is an absolute monism.

9. A famous British theoretical physicist, David Bohm, explored the realm of consciousness and formulated his unique cosmology. He said, “If the immanence is pursued more and more deeply in matter, I believe we may eventually reach the stream which we also experience as mind, so that mind and matter fuse.” The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes, ed. Ken Wilber (Shambhala/Boston & London: New Science Library, 1985), 193. We can see that Bohm, while exploring the realm of consciousness from the perspective of a natural scientist, has reached the same conclusion as that of the Theory of Oneness advocated by Unification Thought.

10. Nicolas de Malebranche (1638-1715) applied Geulincx’s occasionalistic idea to epistemological questions. If spirit and matter are kinds of substances that are totally different from each other, how can spirit recognize matter? Malebranche explained that in God there are eternal ideas as the prototypes of things and that in recognizing things, we do not recognize things directly, but rather we recognize the ideas within God. On this point he said, “We see all things in God.” The consequence of this view is that we are relating ourselves ultimately to God, and the significance of the existence of matter diminishes. See Takeo Iwasaki’ s History of Western Philosophy (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Yuhikaku, 1975), 147.

11. Confucius, Confucian Analects, The Great Learning & The Doctrince of the Mean, trans. James Legge (New York: Dover Publications, 1971), 359.

12. In humans, the actualization of love means to show a warm heart to others, or to please others, and ultimately, to return joy to God. In order to show our warm heart to others, intellectual, emotional, and volitional activities are necessary in our real life. In other words, the goal of our intellectual, emotional, and volitional activities is the actualization of love.

13. In Exposition of the Divine Principle , the Universal Prime Force is explained as belonging to God (DP , 21), while in Explaining the Divine Principle (in Korean) (Seoul: Sejong Moonhwa-sa, 1957), Universal Prime Force is explained as belonging to the created world (p. 35). Between these, Unification Thought chooses the latter in order to more clearly distinguish between the force from God and the force among all things.

14. When we say that the Prime Force is a vertical force and the Universal Prime Force is a horizontal force, the concept of vertical and horizontal refers to the relation of cause and effect. Accordingly, the Universal Prime Force is a horizontal force in relation to the Prime Force, while it is a vertical force in relation to the force of give and receive action. (This note is added by the editor.)

15. The force of God’s love is manifested differently according to the hierarchical ranking of created beings. For human beings, God’s love manifests on a full scale.

16. Inner Sungsang and Inner Hyungsang may jointly be called “inner dual characteristics.” Also, if necessary, Sungsang and Hyungsang may be jointly called “outer dual characteristics.” Similarly, such concepts as “inner subject and object” and “outer subject and object” may also be established.

17. When a driver observes traffic rules, the driver does not do so obliged by force, but rather does so according to his or her free will and decision. Therefore, the relationship of freedom and necessity is one of subject and object.

18. A galvanometer is a machine used to detect a weak electric current. By attaching it to a human body, the change in a person’s thought or emotion can be detected through the measurement of the human body’s electrical potential, which is recorded on a graph. One day, on impulse, Cleve Backster, America’s foremost lie-detector examiner attached the electrodes of a polygraph (lie detector) to a leaf of his dracaena (a foliage plant) in his laboratory, and tried to observe any change which might occur in the galvanometer as a result of threatening the plant as he might threaten a human suspect. To his surprise, a dramatic change occurred in the movement of the needle of the galvanometer. The dracaena perceived Backster’s threat and responded to it. Later he made the same test on more than twenty-five different varieties of plants and fruits, and all the results were the same. It is concluded, therefore, that plants are sentient. Peter Tompkins & Christopher Bird, The Secret Life of Plants (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1973), 3-6.

19. Based on his theory of complex relativity, Jean E. Charon, theoretical physicist at the University of Paris, explained that electrons and photons themselves are microcosms equipped with mechanisms of memory and thinking. The theory of complex relativity, in which complex numbers are used, refers to an extension of the theory of relativity. A complex number consists of a real number and an imagi-nary number. In physics, natural phenomena are usually described within a four dimensional world of time and space using real numbers. In the theory of relativity as well, phenomena are described in the four dimensional world of time and space using real numbers. Yet, in the theory of complex relativity, the four dimensional world of time and space in imaginary numbers is added. Hence, phenomena are described in an eight dimensional world of time and space. It is possible for us to observe the real world of time and space, since it has a definite extension. On the contrary, the imaginary world of time and space is a “closed world” without extension; therefore, it is impossible to observe this world from the real world. However, Charon says that this imaginary world actually exists in the same way that our consciousness does. Thus, the universe consists of the real, material existence and the imaginary, spiritual existence, and we are beings that can perceive these two existences. Mitsuo Ishikawa, The Worldview of New Science (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Tama Shuppan, 1985), 176-79.

20. Dominion is, in principle, human dominion over all things in nature, but the concept of dominion can also be applied to human relation-ships, in which the subject rules or leads the object; for example, the relationship between a government and the people. In human relation-ships, the subject exercises dominion over the object with creativity and love.

21. When we mention the “reciprocal relationship between Sungsang and Hyungsang,” how can we reconcile it with the “essential homogeneity of Sungsang and Hyungsang”? In the section “Content of the Original Image” I explained about “the difference and homogeneity between Sungsang and Hyungsang,” and said that Sungsang and Hyungsang, as the correlative attributes in God’s creation, are essentially homoge-neous, since they are the two correlative attributes into which the absolute attribute has separated. Here, another question may be raised: If Sungsang and Hyungsang are essentially homogeneous, Sungsang is Hyungsang, and Hyungsang is Sungsang, and the formation of the reciprocal relationship, and the give and receive action between them would become impossible, wouldn’t it? This is not the case, however. When Sungsang and Hyungsang are separated from the absolute attribute and become correlative attributes, Sungsang and Hyungsang assume different attributes in addition to having common aspects; therefore, reciprocal relationships, and give and receive action between them, are possible.

22. It should be noted here that, as already explained, there are two kinds of result, union and a multiplied being. Union is realized when Sungsang and Hyungsang enter into give and receive action to be united into oneness; and a multiplied being is realized when Sungsang and Hyungsang enter into give and receive action, giving rise to a new individual or element.

23. The four position foundation was originally to be used as a spatial concept similar to the four directions of north, south, east and west. In actuality, however, it is also used as an abstract mental concept.

24. For example, the earth revolves around the sun while rotating itself, and an electron revolves around the nucleus while rotating itself. Here, rotation originates in the inner give and receive action, and revolution originates in the outer give and receive action.

25. In the Original Image, the center in the identity-maintaining four position foundation, or the center of the give and receive action whereby union is realized, is Heart, while the center in the develop-mental four position foundation, or the center of the give and receive action whereby a multiplied being is formed, is purpose (purpose of creation). In the created world, however, the center is purpose both in forming a union (identity-maintaining four position foundation) and in forming a multiplied being (developmental four position foundation). This is because, in created beings, both the formation of unity and the formation of a multiplied being are made in order to accomplish the purpose of creation. Needless to say, the purpose of creation is based on heart; therefore, the center is purpose and, at the same time, it is heart.

26. The inner identity-maintaining four position foundation and outer identity-maintaining four position foundation together form the two stage four position foundations, which is the “two-stage structure of the Original Image.”

27. From the viewpoint of the Divine Principle, development means the multiplication of an individual of new quality (namely, a new being). Development is equivalent to creation when creation is seen from the result. In fact, economic development is the multiplication of economic properties; cultural development is the multiplication of cultural properties, and scientific development is the multiplication of inventions and discoveries. All of these are productions made by give and receive actions based on four position foundations.

28. Not a few animals have creativity, though their creative abilities are of a lower level compared to those of humans. Bees, ants, spiders and magpies are such examples. Their creativity is instinctive, yet they also have the ability to form the inner developmental four position foundation, though at a lower level. In contrast, human creativity consists of instinctive and rational creativity.

29. The Inner Sungsang, as the union of intellect, emotion, and will also becomes a standard for the solution of an actual problem related to the problem of freedom: Is freedom a freedom of reason, of emotion, or of will? Divine Principle mentions “free will” or “free action” (DP , 74); therefore freedom is a freedom of will. In philosophy, freedom is often referred to as a freedom of will in the sense of a freedom of choice. Yet freedom, as Hegel claimed, is a freedom of reason; and freedom, as Kant claimed, is that humans obey moral laws unrestricted by sensuous desires; and the freedom of the late eighteenth century German philosophy of feeling is a freedom of feeling and faith.

   Thus, freedom seems to be a freedom of reason, or of emotion, or of will. Which one is correct? The Unification Thought view of the unity of intellect, emotion, and will, provides an answer to this problem. In this view, a freedom of reason is, and should be, at the same time a freedom of will, and a freedom of emotion. Let’s discuss freedom of choice. This is a freedom to decide by one’s own will; therefore, it is a freedom of will. (In this sense, “free will” as mentioned in the Divine Principle is correct.) When we choose something, however, we make a judgment as to which one is better. This is a freedom of reason. Also, when we choose something, we do so in such a way that we become pleased and do not become unhappy; therefore, freedom of choice is at the same time a freedom of emotion.

   Among the three views of freedom above, the most essential free-dom is that of reason. This is because one has to understand an object before one makes a choice, and then one gives a direction to one’s will, so that one may follow one’s decision. The ability to understand an object and the ability to give a direction to one’s will lies in one’s reason. As for emotional freedom, it is accompanied by esthetic judg-ment, which is also accompanied by factual and logical judgments. Therefore, the work of reason is also required.

30. What should be clarified here is that complex ideas (which are formed through the synthesis of various simple ideas), as well as simple ideas in the Inner Hyungsang, play the role of a spiritual mold. In human creative activity, a lot of moldings are made from a single mold, while in God’s creation of human beings, the role of each mold in His Inner Hyungsang ends when a person is created. Each mold is, in other words, an individual image in God.

31. This becomes the standard in solving another problem in logic. Traditional logic regards thinking as an established fact, and does not take into consideration such questions as why we should think, or in what direction we should think, in spite of the importance of such questions. As a result, traditional logic has come to a deadlock. These problems of logic can be solved through the theory of the inner developmental four position foundation in the Original Sungsang.

32. Here, the difference between pantheism and the Pan-Divine-Image Theory is explained in order to clarify that Unification Thought is not pantheism, but rather it is the Pan-Divine-Image Theory. Pantheism is the religious or philosophical view that regards all things in nature as being identical to or the representations of God; hence, it does not distinguish God from nature. Spinoza’s philosophy, Brahminist phi-losophy in ancient India, Buddhist philosophy, and some Egyptian or Greek philosophies are examples of pantheism. Pantheism gave rise to optimism, which recognizes divine nature in all things and regards all phenomena as good. On the other hand, pantheism gave rise to pessimism, since pantheism regards all things indiscriminately as the manifestations of God, and therefore any distinction between good and evil, or between true and false became meaningless, and thus the foundation for moral effort was lost. Needless to say, both optimism and pessimism are powerless in solving actual problems.

   It is because of the ignorance of God’s personality and His creation that pantheism is powerless in solving actual problems. Pantheists never considered such an idea as that of “Heart motivation” in God’s creation. As explained already, Unification Thought proposes “Heart motivation” and “creation in likeness”; therefore, it is possible for Unification Thought to fundamentally solve any difficult actual problem.Then, what is the Unification Thought view about panthe-ism? As mentioned above, Unification Thought is not pantheistic, but rather a Pan-Divine-Image theory. In Unification Thought, all things were created according to the law of likeness, centered on the purpose of creation. Hence, all things are not the direct manifestations of God, but rather they are created in the image of God, in other words, in the Divine Image of God. Hence, Unification Thought regards the relationship between God and all things as the relationship between the Creator and the created, the infinite and the finite, and the original being and the imitation; furthermore, Unification Thought regards the relationship between God and human beings as the relationship between parents and children.

33. In the Divine Principle it is written: The universe is formed by the multiplication of myriad substantial manifestations of God’s original internal nature and original external form through their give and take action in the pursuit of the purpose of creation (DP , 31).

34. Here, I can explain more concretely about the meaning of a living “idea-mold” or a “living mold.” An idea-mold is an idea which serves as a mold, or a model, in God’s creation. But, what does it mean to say that an idea is living? A living idea may be compared to the animation on a screen. However, an animation is not an actual living image; it is only a series of still images, for example, in a roll of film, projected onto a screen. However, a living idea-mold has life; therefore, it is literally alive. Let me offer a figurative explanation here as to a living idea-mold, although it may not be a completely appropriate example.

   We sometimes meet a person who claims to have met someone in his dream whom he had never seen before, and consequently, he actually meets the person about whom he dreamed. In this case, the person in the dream corresponds to a living idea-mold, and the real person corresponds to a being created in the way matter (pre-energy) is put into the idea-mold. Also, one might observe a scene including mountains, rivers, animals, and plants in their dream, and to their surprise, a few days later, he or she sees exactly the same scene on their actual trip. This may also serve as a helpful example enabling us to understand that there are, at first, idea-molds for all things, and then all real things are created when matter is put into them.

35. The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, Explaining the Divine Principle  (in Korean) (Seoul: Sejong Moonhwa-sa, 1957).

36. What should be clarified here is that there is a difference in the nature of the Inner Sungsang of Logos between the two cases: Logos with which human beings were created and the Logos with which all things were created. In the creation of all things, the Inner Sungsang of Logos consists of the lower level faculties of intellect, emotion, and will, whereas in the creation of human beings, the Inner Sungsang of Logos consists of both the higher level and lower level faculties of intellect, emotion, and will. When a human being is created, the lower level faculties of intellect, emotion, and will appear as the “physical mind,” the mind of the physical self, and the higher level faculties of intellect, emotion, and will, appear as the “spirit mind,” the mind of the spirit self.

37. It is written in the Divine Principle that everything reaches perfection by passing through three ordered stages of growth: the formation stage, the growth stage, and the completion stage (DP , 41-42). The three stages of growth originated from the number three in God, as it is written in the Divine Principle that “God is the one absolute reality in whom the dual characteristics interact in harmony; therefore, He is a Being of the number three” (DP , 41). This statement is the prototype for the four position foundation in which the center is the absolute, or Heart, the correlative elements of subject and object are engaged in the give and receive action, and the result is harmony or union; at the same time it is the prototype for the origin, division, and union action (Chung-Boon-Hap action) in which the absolute reality corre-sponds to origin, the dual characteristics correspond to division, and harmony corresponds to union.

38. Hirschberger states, “People like to call this pan-logism, and in relation to this pan-logism, they have regarded Hegel as the advocate of the mystical, pantheistic theory that all is one. Philosophers with scholastic inclinations have generally uniformly regarded Hegel as a philosopher of a pantheistic identity.” Geschichte der Philosophie (Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1984), II., 419.

39. Here, I will explain further about a proof for the existence of God. Since Unification Thought is a theory based on God, we should necessarily offer some proof of His existence.

A. Traditional Arguments to Prove the Existence of God

(1) Ontological Argument

This is a method of proving God’s existence based on the concept of God held by human beings. For example, Anselm (1033-1109) in his Proslogium (Words toward God) asserted that “It is because God exists that human beings understand God as the most perfect being. If God does not possess the attribute of existence, then He can not be seen as the most perfect being. Therefore, God must exist.” This method of proof was also used by Ren?Decartes. However, with this proof, it is difficult to overcome the refutation of atheists like Feuerbach that “God is nothing but the objectification of the human species-essence and desire for perfection.”

(2) Cosmological Argument

This refers to a proof proposed by Thomas Aquinas (1224-75). He asserted that if we trace back the causal relationships of the move-ments of the physical world, we will finally reach the ultimate cause, namely, the first cause, which is the original mover, or self cause. He recognized this as God. This method of proof was established based on Aristotle’s methodology, in which he recognized an unmoved mover. Nonetheless, it is difficult to persuade atheists and materialists using this method. They argue that there is no compelling reason why the first cause, as the ultimate cause of the material causal relationships, must be God. Materialists (atheists) make the point that regardless of how one traces the cause of matter back, it can never be anything other than matter. They assert that even if the first cause of the universe is said to be God, then God must be a material being.

(3) Teleological Argument

This is a method of proving the existence of God using the following argument: “Just as the structure and physiology of the human body seemingly assume purposefulness, so too the universe, which is com-posed of innumerable heavenly bodies, is a huge system of order formed in accordance with a specific purposive plan. When we con-sider it in this way, the planner must be God.” Another argument is that “From the beauty and solemnity of the natural world, we can not but admit that God with His supreme wisdom created the world.” However, this method of proof also faces difficulty in overcoming atheism or materialism, because atheists believe that the movement of the universe can be explained solely through the inevitability of laws. It is the atheistic viewpoint that for teleology to consider the phenomena of the universe to be purposive simply because the structure and movements of the human body are purposive, is a jump in logic. Atheists hold that the movement of the universe is completely law-governed.

(4) Moral Argument

This is a method of proof by way of recognizing God’s existence as the source of the moral laws that human beings follow in their daily life, and as the source of moral world order. It is also the method, used especially by Kant, of proving the existence of God based on the moral imperative, that is, the necessary criterion for a moral life. The standpoint whereby one regards the conscience as being God’s voice also falls into this category. However, this kind of theory also fails to persuade atheists, especially Marxists, because they consider traditional morality and ethics as mere carry-overs from a previous feudal society, or feudal norms created by the ruling class in order to maintain and consolidate their class rule. When considered in this way, these traditional proofs for God’s existence are seen to be little more than logical fortifications for belief in God’s existence, valid only when there is a prior belief in God. In other words, they are proofs assuming a theistic position to start with. Therefore, such proofs of God can not make a common base with atheism and these two positions will remain as far apart as ever. In other words, in order to persuade atheists to recognize God’s existence, it is essential to develop one’s logic in such a way that they can relate to it. This requirement is met, I believe, by the effort to prove God’s existence using the hypothetical method. Let me explain about this method.

B. Hypothetical Method

A hypothesis has to do with an assumption or speculation formu-lated in order to explain a certain thing or phenomenon, the certainty of the truth or falsehood of which has not yet been proven through any empirical method. The hypothetical method, then, refers to a way or method of proving that the hypothesis is true by verifying it through scientific observations or experiments. A very common example of this is when a medical doctor cures a patient’s illness. First, he will speculate as to what the cause of that illness might be (for example, in assuming an illness with a high fever to be influenza, based on observed symptoms), and then he will prescribe a cure for that illness (influenza) based upon his assumption. If the patient’s illness is cured, that diagnosis will have been proven to be a correct diagnosis, and if not, that diagnosis will have been shown to be a wrong diagnosis. The same thing can be said about the hypothetical method.

Let me cite an example from natural science. The ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (ca.460-370 BC) claimed that all matter is composed of minute particles called atoms that can not be further divided. This claim was not obtained from any natural scientific obser-vation or experimentation, but was merely a hypothesis. However, in the contemporary period, now that science is so developed, even the weight and internal structure of the minute particles composing matter are being clarified; thereby, his atomic theory has come to be officially recognized as a true theory, verified scientifically.

This kind of example can also be found in the discovery of the atomic elements. D. I. Mendeleev (1834-1907), who first laid out the periodic table of the elements, predicted through this table the atomic weights, atomic numbers, and characteristics of several atoms that had not yet been discovered. Later, in 1886, C. A. Winkler actually discovered germanium, one of the atoms predicted by Mendeleev. This is another example in which a hypothesis is first set up, and then becomes an established theory through consequent verification.

Thus, a hypothesis is first established concerning something which is not yet recognized scientifically. If the conclusion derived from that hypothesis can be verified through scientific observations and experiments, then that hypothesis can be considered as a recog-nized, true theory. In many cases in the history of the development of science, theories have been affirmed as correct through the hypothetical method. The atomic theory is one such example.

In this way, the hypothetical method can be regarded as a way, recognized by natural science, to inquire after truth, one that can be, or should be, acknowledged by atheists as well. This same principle can be applied to the hypothetical deductive method of the proof of the existence of God. In other words, if a proof for God’s existence were offered using this hypothetical method, and subsequent investigation confirmed its veracity, then atheists would be obliged to seriously consider it.

In order to prove the existence of God through the hypothetical method in Unification Thought, we may first propose that an atheist consider the theory concerning the attributes of God (the Theory of the Original Image) as a hypothesis, then they can be challenged to participate in the attempt at verification, namely, a comparison of the conclusion obtained from the hypothesis with the results of various experiments and observations made by natural scientists. If they can then find themselves in complete agreement with the experimental results, then the Theory of the Original Image should be recognized as a true, established theory and they would be obligated to lend their consent. This is the hypothetical method. Let me explain it with some examples.

The essential parts of the Theory of the Original Image are, first, that “God is the harmonious Subject of the dual characteristics of Sungsang and Hyungsang, and at the same time the harmonious Subject of the dual characteristics of Yang and Yin, where Yang and Yin are the attributes of Sungsang and Hyungsang.” A second part is that “centering on the purpose of creation, God created all things through give and receive action, and this takes place on the basis of the four position foundation, which consists of four types: inner and outer four position foundations, and identity-maintaining and developmental four position foundations.”

Atheists will not accept this theory concerning the attributes of God, if it is simply presented as dogma. Therefore, especially for them, the Theory of the Original Image may be treated as a hypothesis, and they can be asked to consider the verification of the hypothesis. That is, together we can examine whether the conclusion derived from the hypothesis is in agreement with the results of scientific experiments and observations. As mentioned above, the hypothetical method is a scientific method of pursuing truth; therefore, if atheists refuse even the verification of the hypothesis, that will mean that they are abandoning or evading the pursuit of truth, thus revealing their unscientific attitude. Therefore, they would be obliged to acknowledge the verification.

Strictly speaking, any verification of the hypothesis should be carried out through direct scientific experiments and observations by the advocate of the hypothesis. Today, however, with our highly developed natural sciences, such efforts are not necessary. All we have to do is compare already established scientific achievements with the conclusion of the hypothesis, and make a judgment as to whether or not they are in agreement. To invite atheists to attend to the verification of the hypothesis means to consider, together with them, whether or not natural scientific facts and the hypothetical conclusions are in agreement. If it can be conclusively shown that scientific facts and the propositions of the Theory of the Original Image are in agreement, then even atheists would be obliged to accept the Theory of the Original Image as a plausible counterproposal to atheism.

In this way, if the conclusion obtained from a hypothesis is in accord with the experiments and observations of the natural sciences, then that hypothesis can become a true, established theory. Next, let me explain how the Theory of the Original Image, once accepted as a hypothesis, can become an established theory through verification, citing some examples.

(1) Verification of the Dual Characteristics of Sungsang and Hyung-sang

i) Hypothesis

Let us accept the following assertion of the Theory of the Original Image as a hypothesis for the time being: “God is the harmonious Subject of Sungsang and Hyungsang. All things, which were created according to the law of likeness, resemble God; therefore, they are united beings of the dual characteristics of Sungsang and Hyungsang.”

ii) Conclusion

From this hypothesis, the following conclusion can be obtained: “All created beings resemble God’s dual characteristics of Sungsang and Hyungsang; therefore, they are endowed, without exception, with an invisible Sungsang aspect and a visible Hyungsang aspect. That is to say, all created beings, including minerals, plants, animals, and human beings, possess these Sungsang and Hyungsang aspects without exception.” Accordingly, what is required next is to verify whether or not this conclusion is in accord with the facts of the natural sciences, namely, the results of experiments and observations.

iii) Verification

Verification in this case is to confirm through scientific analysis whether or not human beings, animals, plants, and minerals all do have the correlative aspects of Sungsang and Hyungsang. In fact, we can see that this conclusion is in complete agreement with scientific facts.

In present-day medical science, a human being is regarded as a union of mind and body, and research is being conducted on the mutual relationship between the two aspects. This field is being covered by psychosomatic medicine, psychophysics, psychic physio-logy, and so on. Spirit or mind is Sungsang, and the body is Hyungsang. In this way, medical science today is showing that a human being is, in fact, a union of Sungsang and Hyungsang, thus resembling the dual characteristics of God.

It has been clarified by such sciences as animal psychology, that there is a part in animals which corresponds to the human mind. A neurophysiologist, John Eccles, said, based on his experiments, that animals (mammals) also have consciousness in the same way that humans do, and that the only difference between humans and animals is that humans have self-consciousness, whereas animals do not. This scientifically proves that animals have minds, even though it may be of a lower dimension. It goes without saying that animals have bodies, as do humans. Thus, animals are also the unions of Sungsang and Hyungsang, resembling the dual characteristics of God.

Plants are also living beings, as are animals. Life activity is a physiological phenomenon, and the science which studies this phenomenon is physiology. The physiology which deals with plants is called plant physiology. Life is not material, but has the invisible function of responding to environmental stimuli; therefore, it is similar to animal instinct in its function of responding to environmental stimuli. The two functions are different only in dimension. Botany includes such fields as plant anatomy, morphological botany, and so on, which deal with the physical, visible aspects of plants, including cells, tissues, and structures. Thus, we see that plants also have a functional, invisible aspect and a visible, physical aspect. Therefore, we can verify, through science, that plants also have the two aspects of Sungsang and Hyungsang, resembling the dual characteristics of God.

Since minerals are inorganic and lifeless material beings, they may seem to have no Sungsang aspect. But this is not so at all. The Sungsang aspect in minerals refers to their properties or functions. In order to find out whether minerals have invisible properties or functions, what we have to do is examine the scientific achievements con-cerning the constituents of minerals, in other words, atoms and molecules. Every atom has its definite atomic weight and definite chemical properties. The periodic table of the elements illustrates this graphically. Also, every atom or molecule has the potential to exert a definite force. This potential is the function of an atom or a molecule. For example, an atomic nucleus has the potential to cause a nuclear reaction. The energy emitted at this time is the atomic force. A molecule also has its potential to exert an intermolecular force. A potential or a function is invisible; therefore, it is the Sungsang element. On the other hand, an atom or a molecule has its visible aspect. The visible aspect of an atom is its atomic structure, which is dealt with in atomic theory. Also, a molecule has a molecular structure as its visible aspect, which is dealt with in the theory of molecular structure. Thus, an atom or a molecule has its Hyungsang aspect as well. Atoms and molecules combine together to form minerals. It is confirmed, therefore, through scientific achievements that minerals are also unions of Sungsang and Hyungsang, resembling the dual characteristics of God.

From the above explanation, I think it should be quite clear that even though God is invisible, and thus can not, per se, become an object of research for the natural sciences, the existence of God can be persuasively argued for through the hypothetical method, which is a scientific method.

(2) Verification of the Dual Characteristics of Yang and Yin

i) Hypothesis

In the Theory of the Original Image, there is an assertion that “God is the harmonious Subject of the dual characteristics of Yang and Yin, and all things created according to the law of likeness exist in a correl-ative relationship of Yang and Yin, resembling the dual characteristics of God.” If this is regarded as a hypothesis, the following conclusion can be derived.

ii) Conclusion

It may be concluded that “every created being is endowed with the correlative attributes of yang and yin, and it is engaged in correlative relationships of yang and yin with other created beings, in resem-blance to the dual characteristics of Yang and Yin of God.” Therefore, whether this conclusion agrees with scientific facts or not should be examined.

iii) Verification

Let us see to the verification of the conclusion which is based on our hypothesis. We concluded that “every created being exists with another created being in a correlative relationship of yang and yin.” In human beings, for instance, yang is a man, and yin is a woman. The difference between man and woman is clearly expressed ana-tomically (skull, pelvis, sexual organs, etc.), physiologically (voice, hormones, etc.), and in appearance (face, breasts, hips, etc.). The yang and yin in animals are male and female animals, and the difference between male and female animals is well expressed anatomically and physiologically. The yang and yin in plants are expressed as stamen and pistil, a male type tree and a female type tree, namely, a tree bearing fruit and a tree bearing no fruit (in the case of a ginkgo), and a male type flower and a female type flower.

Let me offer another example. In the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule, which contains the genes of a living being, there are two pairs of nitrogenous bases: the A-T pair and the G-C pair. The two base pairs serve as the connections or rungs between the two chains of the double helix, which is made of sugars and phosphates. It is known that the relationship between A and T, or G and C is a complementary relationship, as if one were a positive picture, and the other a negative picture. This can easily be understood as a relationship of yang and yin.

Next, let us examine minerals. As I have mentioned, the constituents of minerals are atoms, which, as atomic physics has made clear, are composed of the nucleus (which consists of protons and nNeutrons) which carries positive charges, and electrons, revolving around the nucleus, which carry negative charges. That is, minerals exist with yang and yin elements within themselves.

Thus, it seems that the hypothetical conclusion that “every created being exists with another created being in the correlative relationship of yang and yin” is in agreement with the results of research in the natural sciences (medical science, zoology, botany, atomic physics, etc.), and that, therefore, the hypothesis that “God exists as the harmonious Subject of Yang and Yin dual characteristics,” and “all things created according to the law of likeness exist in a correlative relationship of yang and yin, resembling the dual characteristics of God,” receives solid support in being considered as a true, established theory.

The same thing can be said with regard to the other central tenets of the Theory of the Original Image: “Centering on the purpose of creation, God created all things through the give and receive action between Sungsang and Hyungsang. This give and receive action takes place on the basis of the four position foundation, which can be divided into four kinds, namely, inner and outer, identity-maintaining and developmental four position foundations.” First, this assertion is regarded as a hypothesis, then a conclusion may be derived from it, and finally the conclusion may be verified with scientific facts. Due to spatial limitations, and since one can easily understand the argument if one examines the explanation of the “Structure of the Original Image” in the Theory of the Original Image, I will here omit the verification of this hypothesis. With this, nevertheless, I am convinced that it has been clarified that the “existence of God” can be asserted most correctly using the hypothetical method of Unification Thought.

I would like to add one final point here before I end and that is that no matter what kind of atheist one may claim to be, once a theory concerning God has been verified as being in accord with scientific fact through the hypothetical method, the proper scientific attitude commensurate with that would be to accept the theory as true with a humble heart. Since Communists and materialists, in particular, have long denied God, it would seem that they are steeped in a mindset which opposes or rejects “God” unconditionally. However, they should come to realize that such an inflexible attitude of unconditional rejection is highly unscientific.

The way to fundamentally solve the great confusion of today’s world is to pull down the banners of atheism from the face of the earth and raise high the banner of God. As human beings become one under the banner of God, an ideal world of love, freedom, prosperity and peace, which has long been the dream of humankind, can finally become a reality.

2. Ontology

1. Hiroshi Motoyama, Yoga and Parapsychology (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Shukyo-shinri Shuppan, 1972), 109.

2. The phenomenon of the direct influence of the will over matter is called “psychokinesis.” Through psychokinesis the will can move a distant object, can bend, extend, or harden a metal, and can even make a random-number generator lose its randomness. See Michel Cazenave, ed., Science et Conscience, trans. A. Hall and E. Callander (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1984), 49.

3. In 1966 Cleve Backster, an American lie-detector technician, examined the reactions of a plant by attaching the electrodes of a lie-detector to its leaves. To his surprise, Backster found that the plant was able to read his mind. For instance, when he pictured burning the leaves, the instant he pictured the flame in his mind, even before he moved to get matches, the plant reacted strongly. Subsequently, he conducted various experiments and concluded that plants seem to have consciousness and sense. This discovery by Backster is called the “Backster Effect.” See Peter Tompkins & Christopher Bird, The Secret Life of Plants (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973), 3-5.

   Attempts to reproduce the kinds of communication between human beings and plants that Backster reported were also made in the Soviet Union. V. N. Pushkin and other researchers confirmed that plants react to the emotion of a person in a hypnotic state. See A. P. Dubrov & V. N. Pushkin, Parapsychology and Contemporary Natural Science (Moscow, 1983).

4. On this matter, David Bohm of London University said, “There may be a sort of living energy in all matter that manifests in us in certain ways which it does not do in the rock. If that were the case, if a sort of intelligence were generalized throughout nature, then the speculative proposal that inanimate matter might respond to our thought is not so illogical.” The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes, ed. Ken Wilber (Shambhala/Boston & London: New Science Library, 1985), 211.

   Also, Jean E. Charon, a theoretical physicist at Paris University, said that electrons and photons themselves are microcosms, equipped with mechanisms of memory and thinking. See Mitsuo Ishikawa, The World View of New Science (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Tama Shuppan, 1985), 178-79.

5. Traditionally, it had been considered that single-cell organisms (bacteria) were sexless; but in 1946, J. Lederberg and E. L. Tatum demonstrated that even bacteria engage in sexual reproduction. Concerning the sex of bacteria and paramecia, see, for example, Koichi Hiwatashi, The Search for the Origin of the Sex (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1986).

6. The Big Bang theory is still in the hypothetical stage, with the possibility that it may be revised in the future.

7. Joseph V. Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism (New York: International Publishers, 1940), 7.

8. Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), 33.

9. Sang Hun Lee, The End of Communism (New York: Unification Thought Institute, 1985), chapter 3.

10. Here, let me explain the types of time for your reference. Divine Principle often mentions the providential periods of 21 days, 40 days, 210 years, 400 years, and so forth, in the providential history of restoration. Such providential periods are different from ordinary time-periods. In order to clarify this fact, the different types of time should be examined. There are five types of time as follows:

(1) Physical Time: This is the time observed in repetitive circular motion in non-living beings, caused by physical force.

(2) Biological Time: This is the time observed during the growth of living beings, and the repetition of the life cycle (the succession of generations), brought about by the life force.

(3) Historical Time: This is the time required in the formation and development of a culture, brought about by the human spirit.

(4) Providential Time: This is the time assigned for providential figures, in pursuit of their mission, to accomplish the providence of restoration with faith and through accomplishing their portion of responsibility.

(5) Ideal Time: This is the time necessary for the realization of true love, which is God’s ideal of creation. It is the time in which people are to realize the three great blessings.

Thus, there are five types of time. It can be said that most human beings living on earth, live in one or two, at the most, of these five types of time. The people who live without a sense of purpose or mission, but only for the sake of food, clothing, and shelter, and to feed their children, are living in biological time in much the same way that animals do. Those who are contributing to cultural development with their spirit are people who live in historical time. Those who are dedicating themselves to the realization of God’s providence to save humankind are the people who live in providential time. In the future, when God’s providence of restoration has been completed, and the ideal world has come, the whole of humankind will live in ideal time.

11. David Bohm speaks about the influence of a seed upon its environ-ment as follows: “According to the implicate order, the seed is continually providing inanimate matter in the environment with new information that leads it to produce the living plant or animal. Who is to say, then, that life is not immanent, even before the seed is planted?” The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes, 193.

12. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 75-76.

13. V.I. Lenin, “On the Question of Dialectics,” Collected Works, Vol. 38 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), 358.

14. Ibid.

15. If perfected human beings have a dominion of love over all things, even the phenomena of “the strong preying upon the weak” in the animal world will vanish.

3. Theory of the Original Human Nature

1. The Rev. Sun Myung Moon has stated this idea as follows: “For a man, his wife represents mother, elder sisters, younger sisters, and, indeed, all women of the world. To love a wife who has such significance means to love all races of humanity, all women, and one’s mother, elder sister, and younger sister in the home. Accordingly, the family is the ‘basic training’ center that educates people in human love. Therefore, to be trusted and to live a happy life in a family means to live a happy life as the center of the universe and to be situated at the center of happy love. There is nothing meaningful without love. Likewise for a woman, her husband represents father, elder brothers, younger brothers, and all men on earth. This is our ideal of the family.” God’s Will and the World (New York: The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1985), 446.

2. Confucius, The Analects, trans. D. C. Lau (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1979), 63.

3. Rev. Sun Myung Moon, “Founder’s Address (Fourteenth ICUS),” in Absolute Values and the New Cultural Revolution (New York: The International Cultural Foundation, 1985), 16.

4. F. Engels, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970), 149.

5. John Locke states as follows: “Man being born, as has been proved, with a Title to perfect Freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the Rights and Privileges of the Law of Nature, equally with any other Man, or Number of Men in the World, hath by Nature a Power, not only to preserve his Property, that is, his Life, Liberty and Estate, against the Injuries and Attempts of other Men; but to judge of, and to punish the breaches of that Law in others, … even with Death itself.” Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 323-324.

6. Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 13.

7. Søren Kierkegaard, The Present Age (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1962), 63.

8. Friedrich Nietzsche, “Thus Spake Zarathustra” in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans., Walter Kaufmann (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), 226.

9. Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Antichrist” in The Portable Nietzshe, 570.

10. Friedrich Nietzsche, “Thus Spake Zarathustra” in The Portable Nietzsche, 329.

11. Nietzsche asserted in “The Antichrist” that Paul had changed “evangel” into “dysangel,” and Jesus’ teachings into a kind of teaching for after death. Nietzsche said as follows: “I tell the genuine history of Christianity. The very word ‘Christianity’ is a misunderstanding: in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The ‘evangel’ died on the cross. What has been called ‘evangel’ from that moment was actually the opposite of that which he had lived: ‘ill tidings,’ a dysangel” (The Portable Nietzshe, 612). He also said the following: “Paul simply transposed the center of gravity of that whole existence after this existence-in the lie of the ‘resurrected’ Jesus” (Ibid., 617).

12. Karl Jaspers, Philosophy, vol.1, trans. E. B. Ashton (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969), 56.

13. Karl Jaspers, Philosophy, vol. 2, 193-215.

14. Karl Jaspers, What is Philosophy? (Japanese version) (Tokyo: Hakusuisha, 1978), 22. Originally published as Was ist Philosophie? Ein Lesebuch, ed. Hans Sauer (Munich: R. Piper & Co. Verlag, 1976).

15. Ibid., 26.

16. Jaspers explains “the loving struggle” as follows: “The love in this communication is not blind love regardless of its object. It is the fighting, clear-sighted love of possible Existenz tackling another possible Existenz, questioning it, challenging it, making things hard for it.” Philosophy, vol. 2, 59-60.

17. Heidegger spoke of “they” (Das Man) as follows: “The ‘who’ is not this one, not that one, not oneself [man selbst], not some people [einige], and not the sum of them all. The ‘who’ is the nNeuter, the ‘they’ [Das Man].” Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Southampton: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 164.

18. Ibid., 320.

19. Jean-Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is a Humanism” in The Fabric of Existentialism, ed. R. Gill & E. Sherman (New York: Meredith Corporation, 1973), 523.

20. Ibid., 521.

21. Ibid., 522.

22. Jean-Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is a Humanism” in The Fabric of Existentialism, 523-524.

23. Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, trans. H. E. Barnes (New York: Washington Square Press, 1956), 373.

24. Ibid., 555.

4. Axiology: A Theory of Value

1. The Society for the Research of Teaching Materials of Philosophy, New Lectures on Philosophy (in Korean) (Seoul: Hakusa, 1978), 132.

2. Rev. Sun Myung Moon, New Hope-Twelve Talks by Sun Myung Moon, ed. Rebecca Salonen (New York: HSA-UWC, 1973), 55.

3. In Buddhism, the Three Realms refer to the three stages of the world where people live, die, and change, namely, the realm of desire, the realm of matter, and the realm of non-matter. The realm of desire is the lowest one; those who inhabit it are consumed by desires of carnal pleasure, food, and sleep. The realm of matter is located above the realm of desire and refers to the realm consisting of exquisite matter for those who have rid themselves of desire. The realm of non-matter refers to the highest stage and is a highly spiritual realm, transcending matter.

4. With regard to the universal standard, Rev. Sun Myung Moon said, “We must recognize that there is a universal principle involved, regardless of what race you are. You can see that the universe has certain fundamental laws, and anyone who violates them will be judged accordingly, regardless of his race or stature. What is the spirit of that constitution of the universe? It aims to preserve or uphold the men and women who try to live for others. It would also try to eliminate people who take advantage of others and seek to benefit only themselves. This is why we can say that good people are those who exist for the sake of others, and good deeds are those actions which benefit others.” God’s Will and the World (New York: HSA-UWC, 1985), 497.

5. The Rev. Moon’s consistent assertion at the International Conferences on the Unity of the Sciences is that absolute values should be pursued on the basis of absolute love.

6. Liberation Theology is a new theology that emerged in the less developed world. It departs from the traditional Christian view of salvation, and insists on active participation in resolving actual problems. Theology’s most important problem among actual problems is the dehumanization of people, and Liberation Theology asserts that the cause of this dehumanization lies in the structural contradictions and social evils of capitalist society. Accordingly, it asserts, in order to liberate human nature, that capitalist society must be overthrown; thus, it affiliates itself with Communism.

7. After World War II, the less developed world obtained independence politically; economically, however, it still depends on the developed world and can not get out of the state of underdevelopment. Dependency Theory grasps this situation as a relationship between central and peripheral nations, and interprets it as a projection, on an international scale, of the class confrontation of capitalist society. That is to say, just as the working class is exploited by the capitalist class, so the less developed countries are exploited by the developed countries-exploitation carried out through multinational corporations-it asserts. Therefore, in order for the less developed world to get out of its under-developed state, it must liberate itself from the developed countries and become socialist-and the way to do that is to expel multinational corporations, abolish all forms of dependency relations, and overthrow comprador capital and the authoritarian class.

8. Confucius says in The Great Learning: “Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their States were rightly governed. Their States being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.” Confucian Analects, The Great Learning and The Doctrine of the Mean, trans. James Legge (New York: Dover Publications, 1971), 358-59. The Great Learning was part of The Book of Rites. Zhu Xi (Chu Hsi) characterized the Analects, Mencius, The Doctrine of the Mean, and The Great Learning as The Four Chinese Classics. It is said that The Great Learning is the work of one of Confucius’ disciples.

9. Confucius says in Confucian Analects, “Heaven produced the virtue that is in me” (Confucian Analects, The Great Learning and The Doctrine of the Mean, 202), which means that virtues are given by Heaven. Tung Chung-shu said that Heaven is jen (benevolence).

10. It is said that Tathagata is the “one who comes from Tathatā.” Also, one of the Buddhist sutras says that Tathagata has the great merciful heart that is found in every living being. Therefore, Tathatā can be regarded as the root of mercy, which is the fundamental virtue of Buddhism.

11. The Koran says: “Say: We belive in Allah and that which is revealed to us; in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes; to Moses and Jesus and the other prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction amongst any of them, and to Allah we have surrendered ourselves.” THE KORAN, trans. with notes. N.J. Dawood (New York: Penguin Books, 1974), 346.

12. The Exordium of the Koran, which is the Opening Chapter, contains the Seven Verses, which are called “the essence of the Koran,” as follows (Ibid., 15):

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH

THE COMPASSIONATE

THE MERCIFUL

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Creation,

The Compassionate, the Merciful,

King of Judgement-day!

You alone we worship, and to You alone

we pray for help.

Guide us to the straight path

The path of those whom You have favoured,

Not of those who have incurred Your wrath,

Nor of those who have gone astray.

13. Pascal wrote as follows: “Man without faith can know neither true good nor justice. All men seek happiness. There are no exceptions…. What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is empty print and trace? … None can help [him], since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words, God himself.” Pensées, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer (New York: Penguin Books, 1966), 74-75. He also wrote, “It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason” (Ibid., 154).

14. Dictionary of Philosophy (in Japanese), ed. Koichi Mori (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1974), 61.

5. Theory of Education

1. Comenius gave the following subtitle to his book The Great Didactic:

The whole Art of Teaching

all Things to all Men

or

A certain Inducement to found such Schools in all

the Parishes, Towns, and Villages of every

Christian Kingdom , that the entire

Youth of both Sexes, none

being excepted, shall

;Quickly, Pleasantly, and Thoroughly

Become learned in the Sciences, pure in Morals,

trained to Piety, and in this manner

instructed in all things necessary

for the present and for

the future life,

K-John Amos Comenius, The Great Didactic, trans. M. W. Keatinge (New York: Russell and Russell, 1967), 1.

2. J. J. Rousseau, trans. Barbara Foxley, Ēmile (London: L.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1974), 5.

3. Immanuel Kant, Education, trans. Annette Churton (The University of Michigan Press, 1960), 1.

4. Ibid., 6.

5. On intellectual education (mental education) and moral-religious education (heart education), Pestalozzi wrote the following:

“Originally, intellectual education is not at all suitable for producing innocence and child-like feelings within ourselves, which produce all the methods that enhance ourselves to higher, divine feelings. As a thorn does not bear figs and a thistle does not bear grapes, so mere spiritual education, separate from heart education, does not bear the fruit of love. Since spiritual education is a victim of the selfishness and weakness that arise as a result of this separation, it has the cause of degradation in itself, and exhausts itself by its own power, just as a flame burns out as soon as it is taken out of the fuel container.” Spirit and Heart in the Method (Japanese version) (Meiji-Tosho: Tokyo, 1980), 122. In Swans’ Song (1826), which he wrote just before his death, he explained spiritual power, heart power, and technical power, and clarified that love is the force that unites them.

6. F. Froebel, The Education of Man (Clifton: Augustus M. Kelley, Publishers, 1974), 10.

7. John Dewey, Democracy and Education, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (New York: The Free Press, 1944), 53.

8. Ibid., 9.

9. Ibid., 77.

10. K. Marx, “The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850,” in K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), 1:278.

11. K. Marx, Capital (New York: International Publishers, 1967), 1:477.

12. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), 28:86 (hereafter cited as CWL).

13. CWL, 28:407-408.

14. CWL, 29:132.

15. CWL, 31:368.

16. Yoshimatsu Shibata and Satoru Kawanobe, eds., Material on Soviet Pedagogy (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Shin-dokusho Sha, 1976), 708.

17. CWL, 31:50. See also K. Marx, Capital, 1:454.

18. The instruction was given by the Americans for the reconstruction of Japan after its defeat in World War II. In 1946, an education mission was sent from the United States in order to offer advice on reforming education in Japan. “Report of the United States Education Mission to Japan” was the proposal for democratic education for the re-construction of Japan. That report is quoted here because it contains a good summary of the educational ideals of democracy.

19. Report of the United States Education Mission to Japan -Submitted to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (Tokyo: March 30, 1946), Introduction, x.

20. Ibid., 3-4.

6. Ethics

1. At this point, I can explain “vertical love and horizontal love.” I can also explain certain other terms that Rev. Sun Myung Moon, in referring to love, has often used, such as the “vertical and horizontal axes of love.”

Since the relationship between God and human beings is like that between heaven and earth, or that between parents and children, it can be described as a relationship between above and below-in other words, it is a vertical relationship. On the other hand, since the rela-tionship between husband and wife is that between man and woman of the same generation, it is a horizontal relationship. Accordingly, God’s love is vertical, and the love between husband and wife is horizontal

God’s love derives from the impulsive, emotional force of His Heart; once it starts, it travels in a straight line-much in the same way as light travels in a straight line. This means that God’s love does not travel in a roundabout or curved manner. This characteristic of love is called “the axis of God’s love.” So, the form of God’s vertical love moving in a straight line is expressed as “the vertical axis of love.” Love between husband and wife also moves in a straight line. So, the form of conjugal, horizontal love moving in a straight line is expressed as “the horizontal axis of love.”

In the same way as the light traveling in a straight line is expressed as a “beam of light,” the love moving in a straight line is expressed as  a “beam of love” or “axis of love.” The vertical beam of love is the “vertical axis of love,” and the horizontal beam of love is the “horizontal axis of love.”

2. The concept of “object” in the term “three object purpose” and the concept of “object” in the relationship of subject and object are slightly different. In a subject-object relationship, “object” refers to a being that stands as an object toward a subject; in the three object purpose, “object” refers to a being that stands in a position correlative to another being.

3. I. Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, trans. and ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 28.

4. Ibid., 73.

5. J. Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation (New York: Prometheus, 1988), 1.

6. Ibid., 24.

7. G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 7.

8. Ibid., 6.

9. William James, Pragmatism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 97.

10. John Dewey, Theory on the Moral Life (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1960), 141.

7. Theory of Art

1. The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, Exposition of the Divine Principle (New York: HSA-UWC, 1996), 33.

2. Ibid., 20.

3. It is written in the Divine Principle as follows: “God is the Subject in whom the dual characteristics of original internal nature and original external form are in harmony. At the same time, God is the harmonious union of masculinity and femininity, manifesting the qualities of original internal nature and original external form, respectively. In relation to the universe God is the subject partner having the qualities of internal nature and masculinity.” Exposition of the Divine Principle , 19. And also, “It may be said that the universe is formed by the multiplication of myriad substantial manifestations of God’s original internal nature and original external form through their give and take action in the pursuit of the purpose of creation” (Ibid., 31).

4. H. Read, The Meaning of Art (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1972), 18.

5. Complementarity, wherein one feels joy through finding in one’s object partner the aspect one lacks, applies not only to one’s Hyungsang but also to one’s Sungsang. For example, there is a case in which one who has a delicate mind likes someone who has a bold mind, and also there is a case in which one who has a hasty and rough character likes someone who has a quiet and calm character.

6. Plato, Early Socratic Dialogues (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 256.

7. Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Judgment, trans. J. H. Bernard (New York: Prometheus Books, 2000), 69.

8. Albert Hofstadter and Richard Kuhns, ed., Philosophies of Art and Beauty (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), 96.

9. H. Read, The Meaning of Art, 35.

10. Romain Rolland wrote: Beethoven said, “There is nothing finer than to approach the Divine and to shed its rays on the human race.” Beethoven, trans. B. Constance Hull (New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1969), 101. Romain Rolland also said in a lecture commemo-rating Beethoven, “His [Beethoven’s] thought to put his art to the use of others was constantly repeated in his letters…. He determined just two objects in his life. They are his dedication to holy art and a conduct intended to make others happy.” Life of Beethoven (Japanese version) (Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten, 1965), 159.

11. Generally, in aesthetics the process of creation is divided into the following four stages: (1) Creative feeling: the state of the fermentation of vague feelings; (2) Conception: the stage where a plan of a work of art looms; (3) Internal refinement: the stage where a clear plan is developed; (4) External perfection, finishing: the stage where a work of art is concretely produced with specific materials and techniques. The Encyclopedia of Aesthetics (in Japanese), ed. Toshio Takeuchi (Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten, 1965), 159. Looking from the viewpoint of Unification Thought, (1), (2), and (3) correspond to the formation of the inner four position foundation, and (4), to the formation of the outer four position foundation.

12. Romain Rolland said that Millet had in mind the following: “The mission of fine art is one of love, rather than hatred. Also, even when fine art describes the pain of the poor, it should not aim at stimulating jealousy toward the rich class.” Millet (Japanese version) (Tokyo: Iwanami-Bunko, 1959), 9. “It was the ultimate objective of Millet’s creed and art to express the poetry and beauty of human life in the pain of labor as much as possible” (Ibid., 11-12).

13. Theodore Lipps (1851-1914) calls it “empathy” (Einfühling) when the subject projects onto the object the feelings inspired by the object, and experiences those feelings as though belonging to the object itself.

14. Tsutomu Ijima, Aesthetics (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Sobunsha, 1958), 213

15. Clara Zetkin, Reminiscences of Lenin (in German) (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1957), 17.

16. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 10:45.

17. Maxim Gorky, “Marshlands and Highlands” in Mother (Japanese version) (Tokyo: Shin-Nippon Bunko, 1976), 2:335.

18. Maxim Gorky, “On Socialist Realism,” in An Introduction to Literature (Japanese version) (Tokyo: Aoki-Shoten, 1962), 136.

19. Ibid., 148-149.

20. Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970), 20.

21. Joseph Stalin, “Concerning Marxism in Linguistics” (Pravda, 1950), in Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1972), 5.

22. Ibid., 7.

23. R. A. Medvedev, who criticized Stalin, depicts how Soviet writers and artists were oppressed in the late 1930s. Medvedev explains the reality of socialist realism by saying that, as it turned out, social realism did not describe the truth of reality, but on the contrary embellished reality in order to embellish Communism. He said that “[In the forties], the embellishment of reality became the hallmark of many writers; the desirable was often indistinguishable from the real.” Let History Judge: Origins and Consequences of Stalinism (London: Macmillan, 1972), 531. He also said that “Artistic quality was bound to be very low. A vast quantity of gray, uninteresting works appeared in all fields of literature and art” (Ibid. 532).

24. Herbert Read, “Art and Society,” in The Philosophy of Art, by Yohan Choe (in Korean) (Seoul: Kyungmun-sa, 1974), 169.

25. Ilya Ehrenburg, “The Work of a Writer,” in The Philosophy of Art, by Yohan Choe, 169.

26. Yohan Choe, The Philosophy of Art (in Korean) (Seoul: Kyungmun-sa, 1974), 168-69.

27. Andr?Gide, Back from the U.S.S.R. (London: Martin Secker & Warburg, Ltd., 1937), 11.

28. Ibid., 45.

29. Ibid., 62-63.

30. Boris Pasternak, Doctor Zhivago, trans. Max Hayward and Manya Harari (New York: Ballantine Books, 1981), 259.

31. Ibid., 408.

32. Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 217.

8. Theory of History

1. Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History, abridgement of I-VI by D. C. Somervell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), 214.

2. Karl Jaspers wrote: “It would seem that this axis of history is to be found in the period around 500 B.C., in the spiritual process that occurred between 800 and 200 BC. It is there that we meet with the most deepcut dividing line in history. Man, as we know him today, came into being. For short, we may style this the ‘Axial Period.’” The Origin and Goal of History, trans. Michael Bullock (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1976), 1.

3. Jaspers also wrote: “But it is an historical mystery which progressive research into the facts of the situation renders increasingly great. The Axial Period, with its overwhelming plenitude of spiritual creations, which has determined all human history down to the present day, is accompanied by the enigma of the occurrence, in these three mutually independent regions, of an analogous and inseparably connected process” (Ibid., 13).

4. In the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe (ca. 1320-84) of Great Britain translated the Bible into English, and asserted that the standard of faith should be placed, not on the pope or the clergy, but on the Bible itself, and fiercely denounced the corruption of the Church. Jan Huss (ca. 1374-1415) of Bohemia believed in Wycliffe’s teachings and started a reform movement of Christianity, but was declared a heretic and burnt at the stake. In fifteenth century Florence, Girolamo Savonarola (1452-98) conducted a church reform movement, but was likewise suppressed and burnt at the stake. Then, in the sixteenth century, the Reformation sparked by Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-64) was carried forth. The Renaissance was a cultural movement that started in Italy and spread to the Western European nations in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries. Dante (1265-1321), Petrarca (1304-74), and Boccaccio (1313-75) of Florence were the precursors of the Renaissance Movement. The center of the Renaissance in its golden age moved from Florence to Rome, during which time the representa-tive figures were Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), Raphael (1483-1520), and Michelangelo (1475-1564).

5. DP , 191.

6. DP , 197.

7. DP , 198.

8. Toynbee attributes the 400-year period of turmoil until the rise of the Roman Empire to the following effect: “The historian sees that the Graeco-Roman world achieved a rally in the generation of Augustus after the Battle at Actium. He also sees that the preceding breakdown began with the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, four centuries earlier. For him, the vitally interesting problem is: What was it that went wrong in the fifth century and continued to go wrong until the last century B.C.? Now, the solution of this problem can only be found by studying Greek and Roman history as a continuing story with a plot that is one and indivisible.” Civilization on Trial (New York: Oxford University Press, 1948), 46. He said, however, “if one does succeed in obtaining this light from it, it proves, experto crede, to be most amazingly illuminating” (Ibid., 61)-concluding that, if this question is solved, it would be as if we had obtained a revelation.

9. DP , 255, 271. This is a summary of the content of Exposition of the Divine Principle .

10. Oswald Spengler stated as follows: “The application of the ‘homology’ principle to historical phenomena brings with it an entirely new connotation for the word ‘contemporary.’ I designate as contemporary two historical facts that occur in exactly the same-relative-positions in their respective Cultures, and therefore possess exactly equivalent importance…. I hope to show that without exception all great creations and forms in religion, art, politics, social life, economy and science appear, fulfill themselves and die down contemporaneously in all the Cultures; that the inner structure of one corresponds strictly with that of all the others.” The Decline of the West, trans. Charles Francis Atkinson (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1961), 112.

   He cites as examples the relationship between ancient Graeco-Roman culture and Western culture, Alexander the Great and Napoleon in the political field, Pythagoras and Descartes in the mathematical field, and so on.

11. Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History, Illustrated (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 11.

12. Herodotus was a fatalist who described history in the epic manner as manipulated by the thread of fate. On the other hand, Thucydides described historical facts realistically and scientifically. Yet, Thucydides also considered, according to the ordinary Greek way of thinking, that history repeats itself. He wrote, “The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time.” The History of the Peloponnesian War (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1948), 11.

13. According to the view of history of Enlightenment thought, God’s power was excluded from history because history was thought to be made by man. But Vico thought that even though history was made by man, still it is under God’s providence. This means that history is the product of human power and God’s providence. That view is in accord with the Unification view of history. Also, Vico thought that, although history is mainly in the process of progress or development, there are patterns of development and decline in history, and thus he grasped history as spiral progress. In that respect, he was a forerunner for the appearance of the cultural view of history advocated by Spengler and Toynbee.

14. Simmel stated in the introduction to the third edition of The Problems of History that “the spirit describes its coast and the rhythm of wave, in the stream of becoming, whereby it finds itself, and by doing so, it makes the stream of becoming a history.” Die Probleme der Geschichte (Munchen: Verlag Dunker and Humblot, 1923), VII; my translation.

15. Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History, Illustrated, 488.

16. Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History (London: Oxford University Press, 1954), vol. 10, 1.

17. Karl Löwith, Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschehen (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1953), 48; my translation.

9. Epistemology

1. Masaaki Kohsaka, a Japanese scholar, states the following: “As a result of ten years of silence and study beginning in 1770, Kant’s critical philosophy, which synthesized rationalism and empiricism, was established, and in 1781, he published Critique of Pure Reason.” History of Western Philosophy (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Sobunsha, 1971), 322.

2. Locke wrote, “How comes it [the mind] to be furnished? … Whence has it all the materials of Reason and Knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, From Experience: In that, all our Knowledge is founded; and from that, it ultimately derives itself.” An Essay concerning Human Understanding (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 104.

3. Ibid., 525.

4. Ibid., 578.

5. René Descartes, “Discourse Concerning Method,” in John J. Blom, René Descartes: The Essential Writings (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1977), 134.

6. Ibid., 135.

7. René Descartes, “Principles of Philosophy,” in The Philosophical Works of Descartes, (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1911, reprinted 1977), vol. 1, 237.

8. Kant, who regarded Wolff as the representative philosopher of dogmatism, said in the preface to the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason: “Dogmatism is thus the dogmatic procedure of pure reason, without previous criticism of its own powers.” Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Norman Kemp Smith (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1933), 32.

9. Ibid., 55.

10. Ibid., 93.

11. Here, the idea refers to the rational concept.

12. Engels said, “But if the further question is raised: what then are thought and consciousness, and whence they come, it becomes apparent that they are products of the human brain and that man himself is a product of Nature, which has developed in and along with its environment.” Anti-Dühring (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), 49. Lenin also said, “The mind does not exist independently of the body, … mind is secondary, a function of the brain, a reflection of the external world.” Materialism and Empirio-criticism (Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1972), 95.

13. Frederick Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” in K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970), 3:362 (hereafter MESW).

14. V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-criticism, 313.

15. V. I. Lenin, “Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic,” in V. I. Lenin, Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), 38:171.

16. Mao Tse-tung, “On Practice,” in Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1975), 1:298-99 (hereafter SWM).

17. Ibid., 1:302.

18. Ibid., 1:308.

19. Engels, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” in MESW 3:102.

20. Mao Tse-tung, “On Practice,” in SWM 1:297.

21. Ibid., 1:304.

22. F. V. Konstantinov, ed., The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1982), 123-46.

23. O. W. Kuusinen, et al., Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1961), 119.

24. K. Marx, “Thesis on Feuerbach,” in K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1976), 5:6.

25. Mao Tse-tung, “On Practice,” SWM 1:296.

26. V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-criticism, 152.

27. Lenin said, “Human thought then by its nature is capable of giving, and does give, absolute truth, which is compounded of a sum-total of relative truths. Each step in the development of science adds new grains to the sum of absolute truth.” Materialism and Empirio-criticism, 151.

28. Some of the major points of Divine Principle, on which Unification epistemology is based, are the following:

(1) “The process of God’s creation begins when the dual chara-cteristics within God form a common base through the prompting of His universal prime energy. As they engage in give and take action, they generate a force which engenders multiplication. This force projects the dual characteristics into discrete substantial object partners, each relating to God as its center” (DP , 24). “Multiplication takes place through origin-division-union action which is built upon good interactions [give and receive actions]” (DP , 31). The pheno-menon of the increase in new knowledge can be explained through this principle.

(2) “The spirit can grow only while it abides in the flesh” (DP , 48). “All the sensibilities of a spirit are cultivated through the reciprocal relationship with the physical self during earthly life” (DP , 49). “Good or evil in the conduct of the physical self is the main determinant of whether the spirit self becomes good or evil” (DP , 48). Through these points of Divine Principle, we can come to understand that cognition through the five physical senses necessarily corresponds to cognition through the five spiritual senses, and that cognition and action (practice) originally are intended to fulfill the purpose of good.

(3) “The natural world returns beauty as an object partner” (DP , 38). “They [human beings] must earn certain qualifications to gain their God-given mandate to govern” (DP , 78). “The purpose for which the universe was created is to have man feel joy and peace.” Explaining the Principle (in Korean) (Seoul: Sejong Moonhwa-sa, 1957), 50. From these points of the Principle, we can understand that cognition and dominion (practice) are in an inseparable relationship, and that the purpose of cognition and dominion lies in the realization of joy and peace.

(4) “Every human being embodies all the elements in the cosmos” (DP , 30). “In a human cell, there is life and consciousness, and the mystery of the universe is contained there” (a sermon by Rev. Sun Myung Moon). From these points we can derive the concepts of protoconsciousness and protoimage as the criteria through which all things in the external world can be cognized.

(5) “In give and receive action, there are various types, and among them there is also a contrast type” (Rev. Moon’s answer to a question from the author). From this teaching, it was possible to obtain the concept of “collation” in cognition.

(6) “The body resembles the mind and moves according to its commands in such a way as to sustain life and pursue the mind’s purposes” (DP , 17). “Thinking is also a kind of give and receive action”; “There are give and receive actions between mind and body, and give and receive actions within the mind” (Rev. Moon’s response to the author’s questions). Through these points of Divine Principle and Rev. Moon’s teachings, it was possible to come to understand such phenomena as the correspondence between the invisible mind and the visible body, that is, the will and the movement of the body, and the cognition (judgment) of the mind about the information (codes) coming through the body (nerves).

(7) “God created human beings to be the rulers of the universe” (DP , 46). “What will the world be like when the natural world abides under the direct dominion of human beings? When a fully mature person relates with the diverse things in nature as his object partners, they come together to form a four position foundation” (DP , 45). “God created the invisible substantial world and the visible substantial world, and He created man as the ruler over them” (Explaining the Principle, 44). “The universe was created as the substantial object to the subjective Sungsang of man” (Ibid., 50). From these principles, we can realize that human beings are created as the subject of cognition as well as the subject of dominion (practice) over all things, and that all things are created as the object of cognition and the object of dominion by human beings, and that, therefore, the relationship between human beings and all things is a necessary relationship, similar to the relationship between mind and body.

29. The functions of the mind include intuition (sensibility), perception, cognition, thinking, inference, conception, planning, memory, pursuit of purpose, recollection, and aesthetic appreciation. Protoconsciousness possesses only some of these functions, such as the functions of sensibility, perception, and pursuit of purpose (purposiveness). Accordingly, protoconsciousness is the mind on a lower dimension. Cosmic consciousness is the expression of the cosmic mind on a lower dimension, that is, the expression of God’s mind (Sungsang) on a lower dimension.

30. Cosmic consciousness is contained not only in living beings, but also in minerals. However, in minerals it surfaces only as physicochemical functions, because of the structural character of minerals.

31. Numbers and laws are in inseparable relationships, as shown in the following:

One    = absolute                                             Six     = number of creation

Two    = relative                                Seven   = perfection, Sabbath

Three  = Origin-Division-Union              Eight   = new start

Four    = Four Position Foundation          Nine   = 3 multiplied by 3

Five     = metal, wood, water, fire, and soil    Ten          = Return

The following examples also show that numbers exist with laws or principles.

the number of human vertebra

the breathing rate

the pulse rate

body temperature

the four seasons of the year

the three months of a season

the thirty (or thirty one) days of a month

the twenty four hours of a day

the sixty minutes in an hour

the sixty seconds in a minute

the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter ( π = 3.14 ).

32. The spirit mind is the mind of the spirit self and contains spiritual elements. Thus, the functional part of the union of the spirit mind and physical mind is called “spiritual apperception” in epistemology.

33. When, in the formation of an inner four position foundation of the understanding stage, cognition does not take place, the sense image becomes an undetermined image. Then, the following options are available: (1) Create a new image (a new prototype) and repeat the process of collation; (2) Ask someone else for a judgment (this is called “judgment by another,” or “educational judgment”); (3) Abort the judgment (in this case, the sense image will be erased); (4) Suspend the judgment (in this case, the sense image will be stored in memory).

34. Wilder Penfield states: “The brain is a kind of computer in which an automatic mechanism acquired anew is at work. Every computer becomes useful only after it is given a program and is operated by someone existing separately from the computer. Let us consider the case where we observe a certain thing. It seems that the decision to do so is the function of the mind, which exists separately from the brain.” The Mystery of the Mind (Japanese version) (Tokyo: Hosei University Press, 1978), 110.

35. Eccles states the following: “These considerations lead me to the alternative hypothesis of dualist-interactionism, which has been expanded at length in The Self and its Brain. It is really the commonsense view, namely, that we are a combination of two things or entities: our brains on the one hand; and our conscious selves on the other. The self is central to the totality of our conscious experiences as persons through our whole waking life. We link it in memory from our earliest conscious experiences. The self has a subconscious existence during sleep, except for dreams, and on waking the conscious self is resumed and linked with the past by the continuity of memory.” J. C. Eccles and D. N. Robinson, The Wonder of Being Human (New York: The Free Press, 1984), 33.

36. Andrée Goudet-Perrot, Cybernétique et Biologie (Japanese version) (Tokyo: Hakusuisha, 1970), 15.

37. Ibid., 105.

38. This does not exclude, however, the possibility that future develop-ment in cerebrophysiology may lead to the appearance of a new physiological theory of epistemology. Here I have only provided evidence for the point that natural science, as it develops more and more, will support the positions of Unification Thought.

39. According to Goudet-Perrot, memory can be divided into two kinds: (1) Hereditary memory, which is received before birth, like the infor-mation contained in genes; (2) Acquired memory, which is acquired after birth and constitutes consciousness. Cybernétique et Biologie, 105.

40. Shigeru Kobayashi, et al., Introduction to Brain Science (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Ohmusha, 1987), 134.

41. Masao Ito, Brain and Behavior (in Japanese) (Tokyo: NHK Press Association, 1990), 125.

42. Goudet-Perrot, Cybernétique et Biologie, 89.

43. Hisashi Oshima’s view supports the concept of prototype and the theory of collation of Unification Epistemology. Oshima states the following: “During our long-time contact and interaction with the environment, we come to form numerous prototypes in our mind. The structure of our knowledge is built centering on those proto-types…. Knowledge has a structure in which, centering on prototypes, things are ordered…. When we try to understand someone’s speech, we compare and collate it with the knowledge that is structured in this way. The portions that accord with it are integrated in the structure of knowledge, but those that do not accord are not understood, and even if they appear somehow to be understood, in reality they will be misunderstood.” The Science of Knowledge (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Shinyosha, 1986), 68-69.

44. M. S. Gazzaniga and J. E. Ledoux, The Integrated Mind (New York: Plenum Press, 1978), 132-135.

10. Logic

1. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Norman Kemp Smith (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. 1933), 17.

2. Hegel stated the following in the introduction to The Science of Logic: “One may therefore express it thus: that this content shows forth God as He is in His eternal essence before the creation of nature and of a finite spirit.” “The Science of Logic,” in The Philosophy of Hegel, trans. W. H. Johnson and L. G. Struthers, ed. Carl J. Friedrich (New York: The Modern Library, 1954), 186.

3. In the section dealing with “Quality,” in “The Doctrine of Being,” Hegel stated, “Pure Being makes the beginning: because it is on one hand pure thought, and on the other immediacy itself, simple and indeter-minate; and the first beginning can not be mediated by anything, or be further determined.” Hegel’s Logic, trans. William Wallace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 124.

4. Hegel stated, “But this mere Being, as it is mere abstraction, is therefore the absolutely negative; which, in a similarly immediate aspect, is just Nothing” (Ibid., 127).

5. Hegel stated, “Becoming is the first concrete thought, and therefore the first notion; whereas Being and Nought are empty abstractions…. Becoming is only the explicit statement of what Being is in its truth” (Ibid., 132).

6. The Absolute Idea at the end of the philosophy of Spirit is actual while the Absolute Idea at the end of the Logic is abstract. W. T. Stace writes as follows: “The Idea is thus both subject and object here. The whole development of spirit from its earliest stages has been motivated by this one impulse,-to bridge the gulf between subject and object, and this is now complete, and with this the development of spirit is complete. Subject and object are now identical. Absolute reconciliation is reached. And since the Idea now has itself for object, it is seen as what it is, self-consciousness, the Absolute Idea. This is the same result as we reached at the end of the Logic. But the Absolute Idea as found at the end of the Logic was still abstract to this extent that it was merely a category. Absolute spirit is the same thing which has now given itself actuality, has passed from the sphere of pure thought, of categories, into actual existence.” The Philosophy of Hegel: A Systematic Exposition (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1955), 516.

7. At the end of The Phenomenology of Mind, Hegel stated, “This trans-forming process is a cycle that returns into itself, a cycle that presup-poses its beginning, and reaches its beginning only at the end.” The Phenomenology of Mind, trans. J. B. Baillie (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), 801.

Concerning the circular nature of Hegel’s philosophy, W. T. Stace explains as follows: “The sphere of absolute spirit ends the Hegelian system. It appears as the final result of all development. In accordance, however, with Hegelian principles, it is also the absolute foundation, the beginning. Thus the end of philosophy is also the beginning. This is what Hegel means when he says that philosophy is a circle which returns into itself. Here at the end of the system of philosophy we reach philosophy. If we ask what is this philosophy which we have reached the only answer possible is to begin again at the beginning of the Logic. Thus having reached the end, we must, to explain it, begin again at the beginning. This is the circle of philosophy. The Logic, with which we began, treated of the Idea. Here at the end of the philosophy of spirit we again reach the Idea, the Idea now as actual, existent in the philosophic mind. It is here that the world-process is consummated. ‘The eternal Idea, in full fruition of its essence, eternally sets itself to work, engenders and enjoys itself as absolute mind (spirit)’.” The philosophy of Hegel: A systematic Exposition, 517-518.

8. Engels, satirizing the laws of identity and contradiction in formal logic, wrote, “To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once and for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. ‘His communication is yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.’ For him a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing can not at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis one to the other.” Anti-Dühring (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), 31.

9. Masatane Iwasaki, Contemporary Logic (in Japanese) (Chiba: Azusa Shuppansha, 1979), 31.

10. In response to the question “Is it true that language is a superstructure on the base?”, Stalin clearly denied the view that a new language will be established in place of the Russian language as follows: “In this respect language radically differs from the superstructure. Take, for example, Russian society and the Russian language. In the course of the past thirty years the old, capitalist base has been eliminated in Russia and a new, socialist base has been built…. But in spite of this the Russian language has remained basically what it was before the October Revolution…. As to the basic stock of words and the grammatical system of the Russian language, which constitute the foundation of a language, they, after the elimination of the capitalist base, far from having been eliminated and supplanted by a new basic word stock and a new grammatical system of the language, have been preserved in their entirety and have not undergone any serious changes-they have been preserved precisely as the foun-dation of the modern Russian language.” Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1972), 3-5.

11. Masatane Iwasaki, Contemporary Logic, 37.

12. Concerning dialectical logic, the Japanese author Tsunenobu Terasawa wrote in the preface of his An Essay on Dialectical Logic, “About 150 years have passed since Hegel wrote Science of Logic (1812-1816), and in the meantime, no system of dialectical logic to replace it has been written by anyone. Even though the need for dialectical logic from a materialist position has often been emphasized, it has not as yet been written systematically by anyone.” Science of Logic (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Otsuki Shoten, 1957), p. i. And even after Terasawa wrote that, no systematized dialectical logic seems to have appeared.

13. Kant wrote, “All our knowledge starts with the senses, proceeds from thence to understanding, and ends with reason, beyond which there is no higher faculty to be found in us…. Reason, like understanding, can be employed in a merely formal, that is, logical manner, wherein it abstracts from all content of knowledge.” Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Kemp Smith (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1950), 300.

14. Hegel stated the following: “But every additional and more concrete characterization causes Being to lose that integrity and simplicity it has in the beginning. Only in, and by virtue of, this mere generality is it Nothing, something inexpressible, whereof the distinction from Nothing is a mere intention or meaning. All that is wanted is to realize that these beginnings are nothing but these empty abstractions, one as empty as the other.” Hegel’s Logic, 127.

15. Kazuto Matsumura, Hegel’s Logic (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Keiso Shobo, 1959), 40.

16. Johannes Hirschberger, History of Philosophy III: The Modern Period (Japanese edition) (Tokyo: Risosha, 1976), 509-10.

17. According to Akira Seto, the following difficulties arose as a result of the debate on Logic in the fifties:

(i) Difficulty in the Reflection Theory of Logic: It was asserted that the law of identity and the law of contradiction are on the one hand relative, as they are reflections of the relative unchangeability of objective reality, while on the other hand they are absolute as the rules of operation of thought, or the forms of thought. However, the refutation was made that if the law of identity and the law of contradiction are merely relative reflections of reality, then they can naturally have only relative validity.

(ii) Difficulty in the Operation Theory of Logic: Formal logic is the logic of operation in the sense that it is not concerned with the truthfulness of thinking, but with the validity of thinking. Therefore, it was asserted that the law of identity and the law of contradiction are not reflections of reality but they are purely the laws and norms of thinking. However, to recognize independent laws of thinking without any relationship to existence would imply losing the materialistic foundation, falling into Kantian a priorism. Contemporary Epistemology and Dialectic (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Sekibunsha, 1976), 234-237.

The difficulty pointed out in my book refers to part (ii) above. As a method of solving the two difficulties above, Seto suggests that we should recognize that the two contradictions in the law of contradiction, namely, the dialectical contradiction and the contradiction in the formal logic are originally different in nature. However, to regard the two contradictions as essentially different would be to lose the materi-alistic foundation. After all, the problems are not solved at all, as Seto himself points out: “This does not solve all problems…. A question is raised as to the reason why the situation has arisen that the two essentially different contradictions are expressed in the law of contradiction at the same time” (Ibid., 250).

11. Methodology

1. Immanuel Kant, “Prolegomena,” in The Philosophy of Kant -Immanuel Kant’s Moral and Political Writings, ed. and trans. Carl J. Friedrich (New York: The Modern Library, 1977), 45.

2. Kant stated: “That had not even occurred to anyone except him [Hume], although everyone unconcernedly used these concepts (without asking on what their objective validity rested)” (Ibid., 46).

3. Hegel’s Science of Logic, trans. A.V. Miller (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1969), 439.

4. Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), 168-9.

5. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 38 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), 358.

6. Ibid.

7. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 33.


>> Go to top


© 2006 The Research Institute for the Integration of World Thought. All rights reserved.
sitemap