Non-Existent Existing God; Understanding of God from an East Asian Way of Thinking with specific Reference to the Thought of Dask Yoo Yng-mo

Jeong-Hyun Youn

Sungkonghoe University

1. Introduction

In this paper, I labour to illustrate one Korean approach to understanding God from an East Asian way of thinking. This approach merges with specific reference to the thought of Dask, Yoo Yng-mo ( , 1890-1981). He who was actually Christian religious thinker in multi-religious society of Korea, emphasised the ancient Asian concept of the Great Ultimate () and the absolute nothingness (). He perceived that it was hard for him to understand God from by the dualistic thinking of the West. As he realised difficulties to accept this concept of God in the perspective of the orthodox Western theology, he tried to find the Asian notion of God, so called the non-existent existing God in Korean religious traditions. These emphasised the principle of interdependence and mutual complement based on the inter-action of yin-yang[footnoteRef:2] from an Eastern way of thinking. [2: The metaphysical symbols of The I Ching (), basically made by the divided bar ( ) called yin () and undivided one () called yang (). These two bars; the divided bar, yin and the united bar, yang in I Ching are the cardinal principles of all things, that is, the principle of polarity, which is not to be confused with the ideas of opposition or conflict. These two forces () are not a duality, because they do not conflict with, but complement, each other. Everything can be reduced to yin and yang. It is not seen as holding to yin and banishing yang, but as keeping the two in balance, because neither can exist without the other. Yin cannot exist without yang, and yang cannot exist without yin, either. Accordingly, yin and yang are one in essence but two in existences. Yin always changes to yang by union, and yang changes to yin by separation. And also union occurs through the expansion of yin, and separation through the contraction of yang. These two primordial forces are the components of change (, i). According to the Great Commentary of the I Ching (), the change is in the Great Ultimate, which generates the two primary forms (); yin and yang. These then produce the four images (, the four duograms). The four images produce the eight trigrams (, pa kua, see Ta chuan, I, ch. 11. ([], , ).]

Dask as a Christian thoroughly understood non-being or nothingness as well as being. And also he tried to harmonise and complement these two concepts. His understanding of God is not at all like the God conceived of by most Christians, and it is entirely dissimilar to traditional Christian doctrines. Thus, Dasks creative and unusual notion of God is not historical, not accidental, not at all measurable. It goes on continuously without cessation with no beginning and no end. It is not an event of yesterday or today or tomorrow; it comes out of timelessness, of nothingness, of the Absolute Void, as East Asian thought would phrase it. Gods work is always done in an absolute present, in a timeless now, which is time and place in itself. Gods work is sheer love, utterly free from all forms of chronology or teleology. Beyond the control of a serial time conception, the idea of God creating the world out of nothing in an absolute present, will not sound strange to Buddhists ears. Perhaps they may find it acceptable as reflecting their doctrine of emptiness, or Non-self.

2. Understanding of the Ultimate Reality from an Eastern way of thinking

The Japanese philosopher of religion, Yoshinori Takeuchi stated: Whenever a discussion arises concerning the problem between being () and non-being (), Western philosophers or theologians, with hardly an exception, tend to be on the side of being; this is no wonder; the idea of being is the Archimedean point of Western thought; Not only philosophy and theology, but also the whole tradition of Western civilization has turned around this pivot.[footnoteRef:3] This means that the general character of Western philosophy or theology tends to focus on the concept of being, whereas that of East Asian thoughts or of Indian Philosophy is more concerned with the concept of non-being. The main idea from which East Asian religious intuition and belief, as well as philosophical thought, have developed is the notion of nothingness rather than of being. Besides, while the Western theologians and philosophers show a tendency to depend on empirical evidence to establish what is true by the method of cognition of truth based on a rational, scientific way of knowledge, those of the East mainly tend to depend on intuition rather than reason, and on experience more than scientific proof.[footnoteRef:4] These perspectives are fundamental to the East Asian way of thinking, especially in its classical formation. In this sense, Northrop in Meeting of East and West stresses that each ought to learn from the other because the East sets out from experience as immediate awareness, while the West is concerned to handle experience by conceptual interpretation.[footnoteRef:5] This shows it is necessary to learn from each other in order to complement each other. Dask was a frontier to harmonise and complement these, and religious thinker to reinterpret the Westernised notion of God into the Easternised as well. [3: This passage was written by Takeuchi in 1957 in a Festschrift dedicated to Paul Tillich. See Hans Waldenfels, Absolute Nothingness: Foundation for a Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, p. 1. Also see William Johnston, The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion, p. 106. ] [4: Suzuki has surveyed the tendency of the Western and of Eastern mind in his own way: the Western mind is analytical, discriminative, differential, inductive, individualistic, intellectual, objective, scientific, generalising, conceptual, schematic, impersonal, legalistic, organizing, power-wielding, self-assertive, disposed to impose its will upon others, etc., whereas the Eastern mind is synthetic, totalising, integrative, non-discriminative, deductive, non-systematic, dogmatic, intuitive, (rather, affective), non-discursive, subjective, spiritually individualistic and socially group-minded D. T. Suzuki, Erich From and Richard De Martino, Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis, p. 5).] [5: Cf. F. S. C. Northrop, Meeting of East and West, (New York: Macmillan, 1946), p. 375. .]

He often used such the terms as the Great Void (), void (), emptiness (), nothingness (), the manifested world (), the world of forms or the world of illusion, etc. These are seldom used by Korean Christians, but are habitually used by the Buddhists or Taoists. These terms have also used by a new age thinker or in a spiritual movie. These are old concepts that pre-date 20th century movements. Dask promoted that this Great Void is the origin of all lives and all things, and the One God transcending being or non-being.[footnoteRef:6] For Dask, one can find God in the Great Void. He, as a Christian, daringly expresses his thoughts by using Buddhist or Taoist terms. Furthermore, Dask stresses the passage that he discovers, and concludes; when one understands and realises perfectly the world of the Great Ultimate () or the Ultimateless (), one becomes aware of the fact that religions such as Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism are not different from or do they correspond to one another.[footnoteRef:7] Accordingly, Dask advocates that one should understand they all are one. [6: Dask-gangeui, p. 452; Dask-rok, p. 285.] [7: ibid., p. 452; Dask-rok, p. 318 ]

Besides, he says, from a long time ago, I would like to mention about nothingness (), but it is not sure to tell until I have discovered it explicitly. I think that we should understand the nothingness, and enter the state of emptiness. When we come to discover it, we are aware of attaining the world of the Ultimateless () beyond the realm of the Great Ultimate (). This is the conclusion of my philosophy. Hence, I mention about the Diagrams of the Great Ultimate Explained () by Chou Lien-hsi (, 1017-1073). It is out of question whether or not who writes it. It is not important whether Chou Lien-hsi, Jesus, or Buddha wrote or not. This is my conclusion.[footnoteRef:8] [8: Dask-rok, p. 310. ]

3. God as the Great Ultimate ()

Dask states that the Great Ultimate is God. This shows that he attempts to reconcile and harmonise the Confucian concept of the Great Ultimate, selectively reinterpreting God in accordance with his Christian perspective. His view shows the possibility of corresponding to the notion of other faiths in the Ultimate Reality. Dask says, the Ultimate Reality which transcends being (, yu) and non-being (, wu) alike, yet is itself both being and non-being: this is the Great Void (, tai hs). In this Great Void, the Ultimate Reality in non-being is called the Ultimateless, while in being as the Great Ultimate. Yet the Ultimateless and the Great Ultimate are not two but one. This One is God. Thinking of the Great Ultimate in being, we cannot but associate it with the Ultimateless in non-being. Accordingly, they are one.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Dask-gangeui, pp. 714-715; Dask-rok, p. 240.]

The Ultimate Reality transcends both concepts of being and non-being, for Dask, yet is itself both being and non-being. Here, the opposite logic; the neither-nor way of thinking is available: the Ultimate Reality is neither being nor non-being, yet is at once itself both being and non-being. Whereas the manifested Ultimate Reality is revealed as the Great Ultimate in being, the unmanifested Ultimate Reality is shown as the Ultimateless in non-being. For Dask, therefore, the Great Ultimate is the Godhead considered from metaphysical aspect and is the most abstract Principle in the Great Void. This understanding of the Ultimate Reality tends to come from the principle of interdependence and mutual complement in East Asian thought, as seen in the principle of yin and yang. Dask remarks, if we get to the stage of realising the real meaning of the Ultimateless and the Great Ultimate, there would be no difference between Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism on the Ultimate Reality.[footnoteRef:10] [10: Dask-rok, p. 318.]

Upon this metaphysical comprehension, Dask harmonises the concepts of God between the personal Being of God as the Lord of Heaven based on the early Confucian identification of God as Heaven and Earth and the cosmic reality of God as non-existence corresponding to Universe in an absolute view. Following Dasks interpretation of the One that holds God as both non-existence and existence as well as God as both immanent and transcendent, illuminates his attempts at the interpretation of the interdependent and mutual complementary relation between the Great Ultimate as being and the Ultimateless as non-being. In particular, his understanding of God like this is highlighted in his thoughts on the One: Nothingness is the Ultimateless, and manifested is the Great Ultimate. The Ultimateless and the Great Ultimate are One, and the One is God. Regarding the Great Ultimate as existence, it is reasonable to consider the Ultimateless as non-existence. Therefore, they are not two but one.[footnoteRef:11] Thus, the mutual complementary harmonisation between the existence and non-existence, and the being and non-being of God produces a possible way to interfaith dialogue among Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Christianity etc. [11: Dask-gangeui, p. 715; Dask-rok, p. 240.]

4. God as the Tao ()

Translated literally, the Tao becomes way, road, or path, extended to mean principle, system, truth, and reality. In more than one sense this corresponds to the Sanskrit Dharma.[footnoteRef:12] In many traditions this denotes the way of mankind as a rule, or an outline of moral behaviour; and it is in this sense that numerous Western philosophical and religious traditions use the word.[footnoteRef:13] This is its general understanding. In fact, however, as the principle of the universe the Tao has a distinctive metaphysical meaning in Taoist thought. As its name suggests in the Tao Te Ching, the Tao is the core concept and is a difficult idea to explain in words, as is affirmed from the opening passage of the Tao Te Ching: The Tao that can be talked about is not the Eternal Tao, and the name that can be named is not the Eternal Name.[footnoteRef:14] The Tao as the all-embracing origin of all things and as the first principle from which all appearances arise, is the ground of Ultimate Reality, the underlying reality that sustains the universe and enables its ceaseless activity to maintain for ever or all things to change timelessly. The closest notion of Tao that Western philosophy approaches is in the Greek, the logos, as the underlying principle in all things. This idea corresponds to the doctrine of Brahman in Hinduism, the idea of Word in the Christian Gospel of John, and the concept of the dharmakaya (, the body of the great order), meaning the true nature of Buddha (). Julia Ching believes that since the Chinese term Tao is an equivalent of both the Greek term logos, the Word, and the Greek word hodos, the Way, this Tao has been used appropriately in translations of Prologue of the Gospel according to John:[footnoteRef:15] In the beginning was the Tao, which seems to contain echoes of the line I am the Way or Tao, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). [12: Suzuki, Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist, p. 11.] [13: Ray Billington, Understanding Eastern Philosophy, (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 90.] [14: John Wu translates this passage as follows; Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao, and names can be named, but not the Eternal Name (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, trans. by John C. H. Wu, Boston & London: Shambhala, 1990, p. 1). Here I translate it in my own way with reference to the original text; , ; , ([], ).] [15: Julia Ching, Christianity and Chinese Religions, (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1977), p. 132.]

This seems to show a kind of Christian appropriation of Taoist philosophy. The above quotation, however, serves also to show the dialectical method in Taoist thinking and the effort to point to the nameless Tao as the first principle, by which all things come to be. The Taoists use it in the sense of truth, ultimate reality, logos, etc. Even explained like this, it cannot be seen or felt; it is not manifest to the senses, but without the Tao nothing can exist. All things have their being only because of the Tao, the ground of all things. Lao Tzu () defines it in his Tao Te Ching as empty vessel.[footnoteRef:16] [16: Tao Te Ching, ch. 4. The Tao (, way) is like an empty vessel. That yet may be drawn from without ever needing to be filled. It is bottomless: the very progenitor of all things in the world. It is like a deep pool that never dries. I do not know whose child it could be. It looks as if it were prior to God. , . , ; , , , ; , . , ([], ).]

The vessel is empty and full simultaneously. Nothing in it and yet everything comes out of it. Actually Tao described as empty and full at the same time is a poetic rendering of the vacuum-plenum paradox.[footnoteRef:17] As the mystics remark the One is both empty and full. It corresponds to the paradox of the following quotation from the Isa Upanishad, a poetical rendering of the static-dynamic aspect: That One, the Self, though never stirring, is swifter than thought. Though standing still, it overtakes those who are running. It stirs and it stirs not.[footnoteRef:18] In this passage, It stirs and it stirs not, the whole paradox of the simultaneously dynamic and static, moving and motionless, nature of the One is set out. Absolute Reality as the Eternal Truth () is explained in Formless (), Soundless () and Incorporeal (), as the Prajnaparamita group of Buddhist sutras considers the Truth to be neither form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness.[footnoteRef:19] [17: InMysticism and Philosophy, W. T. Stace proposes the concept of the vacuum-plenum in three aspects: 1) The One has qualities / has no qualities; 2) is personal / is impersonal; 3) is dynamic, creative, and active / is totally inactive, static, motionless (right sides of slash bar are the part of negative aspects). In poetic and metaphorical language the positive side is often spoken of as light or sound, while the negative side as darkness or silence.] [18: Hindu Scripture, Isa Upanishad, 4 and 5, p. 207.] [19: Tao Te Ching, ch. 14. Look at it but you cannot see it! Its name is Formless (; ). Listen to it but you cannot hear it! Its name is Soundless (; ). Grasp it but you cannot catch it! Its name is Incorporeal (; ). These three attributes are unfathomable; Therefore they fuse into one (). Its upper side is not bright. Its under side not dim. Continually the Unnameable moves on, until it returns beyond the realm of things. We call it the formless Form, the imageless Image. We call it the indefinable and unimaginable. Confront it and you do not see its face! Follow it and you do not see its back! Yet, equipped with this timeless Tao, you can harness present realities. To know the origins is initiation into Tao. , ; , ; , . , . , , , . , ; . , . , . , ( ).]

Since the Tao as the metaphysical being or the Ultimate Reality is not seen, or heard, or grasped, it is a formless (), soundless () and incorporeal () Being, namely, the unlimited Ultimate Reality existing anywhere beyond the perception of our organs. In Taoism, therefore, the Tao, Ultimate Reality remains mysterious, indescribable, and unknowable, so that its very being can be divided only because of the forces, and their consequences, to which it gives rise. Because of this attribute of Tao itself, it is not even describable as the Origin of the universe; that Origin is ChI (), or primeval breath. In addition, the Tao is the source of chi. Therefore, the Tao is the origin of the Origin of the universe.[footnoteRef:20] Indeed, Tao Te Ching expresses it as the origin of the Origin.[footnoteRef:21] [20: Ray Billington, Understanding Eastern Philosophy, (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 91.] [21: The Tao gives birth to the One; the One gives birth to the two; the Two give birth to the three; the Three give birth to every living thing. All things carry the yin on the their backs and hold the yang in their embrace, and they are harmonised together in the Chi of teeming energy. With reference to the translation of Kwok Man-ho, Martin Palmer and Jay Ramsay (Dorcet: Element, 1993), of James Legge (The Texts of Taoism, New York: Dover, 1962), of Chu Ta-Kao (London: Unwin, 1985), and of John C. H. Wu (London: Shambhala, 1990), I translated these from the original text; , , , . , ([], ).]

On the basis of his application of the concept of the Tao to God, Dask was more concerned with The Book of Changes () and Tao Te Ching than with other classics, and was also deeply influenced not only by the ideas of the harmony, continuum, correlation, and complementarity which are emphasised in The Book of Changes, but additionally by the thought of non-action ().[footnoteRef:22] [22: In terms of non-action, Taoism is much more compatible to Buddhist teachings, with metaphysical propensities and a language of negation. Mainly, Chuang Tzus idea of non-action together with his own preference for solitude, has had an influence on Dasks religious tendency and asceticism based on thought of non-action. ]

For Dask, God originally has no name nor can be named. If one can name God, it is not God but an idol.[footnoteRef:23] This passage corresponds to the beginning of one of the first chapters in the Tao Te Ching. In spite of his asserting that there is no God, he never doubted the reality of God as a transcendent or immanent being, but thoroughly believed in and was devoted to God. Dask understands the Tao as the Ultimate Reality, God or Nirvana: The Great One who is not two but only one, is God, and also Nirvana. I believe in such a One God.[footnoteRef:24] In this sense, for Dask, the Great One exists as the non-existent existing God: This Great One cannot be divided into one or two, but nothing. In the world of the Great One, there is nothing to possess and it should even be forgotten that something has already been possessed.[footnoteRef:25] [23: Dask-rok, p. 34. ] [24: ibid., p. 162, 169.] [25: Dask-gangeui, p. 747; Dask-rok, p. 169.]

Dask also considers this Great One as the Tao or Truth, which transcends all things in the world:[footnoteRef:26] The Tao means the Way. In this regard, we should understand the phrase, that the Void is truth. Dharma in Buddhism indicates this Way and Principle as well. The term, Tao or Principle has the same meaning. The true Principle is the very Tao.[footnoteRef:27] When we think that all things are completed by the logos, this logos means the righteous thought and reason. Without thinking deeply about the logos as the Word of God, we cannot say this. This thinking appears as the Holy Spirit in Christianity, as the Tao in Confucianism or Taoism, as Dharma in Buddhism. Atman is the same. Without thought, there is neither theism itself nor atheism itself. Thus, theism or atheism is nothing but a method of thought.[footnoteRef:28] Dask mentions; As God dwells within us, we can think rightly. As the spirit which God sends us is the true thought, we cannot own the true and holy thoughts without Gods endowing us with the spirit.[footnoteRef:29] Because Dask considers that those whom God justifies have such a thought, he always thinks of God and concentrates to return to the One. He asserts that God is within ourselves where we think deeply. [26: Dask-rok, p. 177.] [27: ibid., pp. 170-1.] [28: ibid., p. 172.] [29: Dask-gangeui, pp. 96-97.]

5. The non-existent existing God

Dasks understanding of God, eventually, is that the Ultimate Reality is nothingness or emptiness. Its key notion is related to the passages of the Dialectical Songs of the Original mdhyamaka: One may not say that there is emptiness, nor that there is non-emptiness; nor that both exist simultaneously, nor that neither exists; saying emptiness is for the purpose of conveying knowledge (Mlamadhyamakakriks 22:11).[footnoteRef:30] In Ngrjunas doctrine of the middle-way, two types of negation are set forth in the Buddhist logic, that is, the affirming negative and non-affirming negative.[footnoteRef:31] An affirmative negative is a phenomenon in the place of something that which is eliminated, whereas a negative is one that is understood upon the explicit elimination of something else.[footnoteRef:32] A non-affirming negative eliminates without implying the existence of anything in the place of that which was eliminated. An example is the selflessness of persons. Drawing on this double negation[footnoteRef:33] for affirmation, like the Christian mystics in the apophatic tradition, [footnoteRef:34] Dask also denies the two extremes in the light of his understanding of God. For instance, for him, God is neither non-existent nor substantively existent: Nothingness indicates that which is immeasurably huge and absolutely whole; existence means the divided fragmentary pieces; it is natural for there to be a great number when incomputable fragmentary pieces exist here and there; however, Ultimateless and the Great Ultimate are the one and the uppermost.[footnoteRef:35] [30: Mlamadhyamakakriks 4: 8-9; 13:8. Cited here according to Strengs translation in his book, Emptiness, p. 188, 198. Whoever argues against emptiness in order to refute an argument, For him everything including the point of contention (sdhya) is known to be unrefuted. Whoever argues by means of emptiness in order to explain an understanding, For him everything including the point to be proved (sdhya) is known to be misunderstood (4:8-9). Emptiness is proclaimed by the victorious one as the refutation of all viewpoints; But those who hold emptiness as a viewpoint - [the true perceivers] have called those incurable (asdhya) (13:8).] [31: Cf. F. Th. Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logic, vol. I, (New York: Dover Publishing, 1962), pp. 363-99. On the two kinds of negative; paryudsapratisedha (affirniming negative) and parasajyapratisedha (non-affirming negative), see Yuichi Kajiyama, Three Kinds of Affirmation and Two Kinds of Negation - in Buddhist Philosophy, Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdaseins und Archiv fr Indische Philosophie, 1973 and Anne Klein, Knowledge and Liberation: The Sautrntika Tenet System in Tibet (Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publishions, 1986), ch. 6 and 7, and B. K. Matilal, Epistemology, Logic, and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), pp. 63-4.] [32: Donald S. Lopez, Jr. The Heart Stra Explained: Indian and Tibetian Commentaries, (New York: State University of New York Press, 1988), p. 60. For example, an affirmative negative is that expressed by the statement, the fat Devadatta does not eat during the day, implying, of course, that his fasting ceases at sunset. ] [33: Masao Abe argues that the double negation is the most convincing way of nothingness, of expressing an affirmation. See Abe, Zen and Western Thought, p. 93, 110, 159. ] [34: While the Greek word kataphasis means affirmation, apophasis means negation or denial. Whereas the kataphatic way is the tradition of light, it arrives at an understanding of God through affirmation, the apophatic one is through negation. The apophatic way is an essential step in the truly contemplative experience. For there comes a point in contemplation when concepts and images will no longer do; indeed, they become a hindrance to the deep experience of the reality like Sn Buddhism (). For, while it is true that all creatures bear in themselves the imprint of God, there is, nonetheless, an infinite distance between God and created things. ] [35: Dask-ilji, vol. I (Dask Yoo Yng-mos diary), p. 637. 6th October 1959. It is a written poem in Sino-Korean as follows: , , , : , , , (Park Yng-ho, Meditations of Dask Yoo Yng-mo, p. 270).]

In this respect, his starting point of his understanding of God is based on the double negative of nothingness, which comes from Prajpramit. Dask considers its thoughts as the core of Buddhism: Carefully understanding Prajpramit, we can outline the general understanding of Buddhism. Whoever thinks of eternal life with a true mind should obviously comprehend this Prajpramit. The thoughtful person who comes to understand its meaning is obviously a great spiritual treasure.[footnoteRef:36] Hence, Dasks experiences are deeply, basically and abundantly rooted in God as the Ultimate Reality which is at once being () and not-being () based on the both-and or neither-nor way of thinking; he saw all the glories of its is-ness or suchness[footnoteRef:37] in the meanest thing among Gods creatures. Through his faith of enlightenment (/, Jpn., satori), Dask appreciates God as nothingness. This understanding of God shows that it is deeply rooted in Buddhist enlightenment (), which is nothing more than the experience of is-ness or suchness. In The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, called the flower of Mahayana Buddhism, Suchness (tathat) is explained as emptiness.[footnoteRef:38] [36: Dask-rok, p.364. Cf. The Buddhist Thought of Yoo Yng-mo, p. 14. ] [37: Suchness or Thusness (tathat, ) is used in Mahyna Buddhism to refer to the ultimate and pure nature of all things. The manifested external world with all its variety and complexity has no real existence and as such the fundamental nature of things is neither nameable nor explicable in Mahyna Buddhism.This suchness of things may be viewed under two aspects, negative and positive. On its negative side (snyat), it asserts the complete negation of all the attributes of all things; in its metaphysical origin it has nothing to do with things defiled, which are conditional or relative by nature. The suchness is 'neither that which is existence, nor that which is non-existence, nor that which is at once existence and non-existence, nor that which is not at once existence and non-existence. As suchness cannot be comprehended by the particularising consciousness of all beings, we call it negation. This tathat is snya (void) for two reasons. Firstly, there is no content in it, as being the oneness of the totality of things. Secondly, there is no any subject to comprehend it, so that its nature involves the denial of both the subject and the object. But this tathat may also be viewed as something positive (asnyat) in the sense that it contains infinite merits, that it is self-existent (see. S. B. Dasgupta, An Introduction to Tantric Buddhism, Berkeley: Shambhala, 1974, pp. 20-1).] [38: Yoshito S. Hakeda, The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, pp. 34-5; Suchness is emptiness. Because from the beginning it has never been related to any defiled states of existence, it is free from all marks of individual distinction of things, and it has nothing to do with thoughts conceived by the deluded mind. It should be understood that the essential nature of Suchness is neither with marks nor without marks; neither not with marks nor not without marks; nor is it both with and without marks simultaneously; it is neither with a single mark nor with different marks; neither not a single marks nor not with different marks; nor is it both with a single and with different marks simultaneously.]

This negative way of neither-nor logic is a typically Buddhist way of thinking when it contemplates the essential nature of Suchness. For Dask, likewise, God has neither name, nor can be named, as previously stated. As explained in the footnote No.36 about suchness, its positive aspect of Ultimate Reality is considered the Godhead from the religious perspective. According to the first expounder of Mahyna Buddhism, Asvaghosha (),[footnoteRef:39] the Ultimate Reality, is the unmanifested Dharmakya (), the ineffable Source of all Life, who sustains all phenomena,[footnoteRef:40] but, like Christ as the incarnate Word, the manifested Dharmakya is the embodiment of the Law, which unfolds itself with an absolute and perfect intelligence in every realm of the universe. In The Awakening of Faith, Asvaghosha remarks that Tathgata (, suchness) is One who truly comes, One who fulfils all things.[footnoteRef:41] This is a title given to Buddha, but in the Mahyna system Buddha has ceased to be regarded merely as a historical personage, and is understood as the eternal embodiment of the one Divine Principle of all. This means that the embodiment of Dharmakya is Tathgata. Therefore, when the unmanifested Dharmakya is Bhtatatht (), the manifested Dharmakya is Tathgata. [39: Asvaghosha was the first to be expounded in Mahyna Buddhism. Very little is known of his life, and the exact date of his birth is unknown. According to the events recorded in his various works, it is supposed that he lived in Eastern India sometimes between the years B.C. 75 and 80 A.D. ] [40: Asvaghosa, the Awakening of Faith, (Surrey: Shrine of Wisdom, 1964), p. 28.] [41: See the Awakening of Faith, pp. 27-49; also cf. The Flower of Ornament Scriture, pp. 970-1021.]

Dasks notion of God, in a word, is the non-existent existing God. When God is beyond our imagination or cognition, God appears as nothing. Yet when God is within our imagination or cognition, God appears as Being. Therefore, God in the absolute world or view is nothing, unmanifested reality, whereas God in the relative world is manifested reality. His notion of God that God exists but does not exist hearkens to the self-contradictory, paradoxical expressions seen frequently in Christian mysticism. For Dask, God is a being above all being, and beyond form. God does not exist in being, but exists in non-being. Hence, he says, God is as non-existent existing. Dask often read and enjoyed reciting the sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom, because it clearly explains and contains the true meaningful non-being and emptiness of the Ultimate Reality. Thus, Dasks starting point of understanding of God shows that it is based on Prajpramit. In this respect, for Dask, this emptied mind,[footnoteRef:42] namely, non-self can only obtain a perfect wisdom to God or Nirvana in the Prajpramit sutras.[footnoteRef:43] [42: Ref. Dasks poem, Void and Mind (Dask-ilji, vol. II, p. 477, 23rd Feb. 1967. Ref. The Buddhist Thought of Yoo Yng-mo, pp. 80-1; also see, The Eastern Sage, Yoo Yng-mo, (Seoul: Muae, 1993), p. 265).Even though our mind is in our own body, we cant go into there nor see it.Though the void () is outside, how can we go out and grasp it?We dont know our inside nor outside, how then can we be the real owner of our mind? Even though the narrow minded one consider this mind as ones own inside, And understand this void as the outside,But the void comprising this space also comes to in the detached and emptied mind!The mind contains all thoughts and behaviours,And also the void holds all forms.Perhaps these two seem to be one!Even though it is your own mind, you must not use it at random.Though unseen void is empty, dont make an absurd remark easily.Since these are the ways that God passes by, the mind and the void are very close! ] [43: Homage to the Perfection of Wisdom, the lovely, the holy! Avalokita, the holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high; he beheld but five heaps; and he saw that in their own being they were empty. Here, O Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, nor does form differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. I quoted the text translated by Edward Conze, Buddhist Texts, p. 152. Also see. Suzukis translation in Essay in Zen Buddhism, p. 216: When the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara was engaged in the practice of the deep Prajpramit, he perceived: there are five Shandhas; and these he saw in their self-nature to be empty. O Sriputra, form is here emptiness, emptiness is form; form is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form; what is form that is emptiness, what is emptiness that is form. The same can be said of sensation, thought, confection, and consciousness. In the Chinese text; ().]

Straightforwardly, Dask asserts that there is no God, if we know where God is, that God is not God anymore; the existence about whom we know, the how, the when, and where of its existence, and whom we call by any name, is not the true God.[footnoteRef:44] In this respect, God cannot be confined to a place or be named: If God is confined to a place, then God would not be a God. If there is a starting point to God, then God would not be God. From where, knowing how God has been called God, it would stop being God. In the relative concept the One is what we called God. Absolute One is God.To be named God is strange for me because God has no name. God exists without any name.[footnoteRef:45] [44: Dask-rok, p. 15, 34, 98, 275.] [45: ibid., p. 98. Cf. Park Yng-ho, The thought and Belief of Dask Yoo Yng-mo, p. 55. ]

6. Conclusion

The Ultimate Reality has examined from the three perspective: the Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist perspectives. In terms of the Confucian perspective, the Great Ultimate is seen from a relative viewpoint, whereas from the absolute view it is seen as the Ultimateless. From the Buddhist perspective, the aspect of Ultimate Reality appears as manifested or unmanifested reality. If the unmanifested Dharmakya can be called Bhtatatht, the manifested Dharmakya can be called Tathgata. In terms of the absolute void, from the viewpoint of Lao-Chuang, unmanifested Ultimate Reality is called the Ultimateless, while the manifested Ultimate Reality is called the One or the Tao.

In a word, this manifested One appears as Tao, dharma, Dharmakya, Tathgata, Christ, the Holy Spirit and logos, whereas the unmanifested One is known as the Void, the Ultimateless, Godhead, Bhtatatht. For example, in this sense, the Tao as the manifested One describes at once as the Way and the Principle of the Universe. But just as the Tao and the One are not two but one, so the manifested and unmanifested reality are not two but one only. In the relative world this appears as if it were two, but in the absolute world it is one. Thus, it may be concluded that this idea is identified with the notion of the Ultimate Reality as the Ultimateless and the Great Ultimate in Confucianism, Tathgata and Bhtatatht in Buddhism and the Tao and the One in Taoism. Consequently, Dask can harmonise all these notions of God within his own idea of the non-existent existing God. These ideas are traced through logic such as both-and or neither-nor which are founded on East Asian ways of thinking.

Eventually, Dasks understanding of Ultimate Reality between Christian metaphysics and the other three traditions in Korea has shown the possibility to interpret Christian God as the same ultimate reality. Dask considered that it was possible to present an overall picture of harmony and complementarity between Christianity and the three religious traditions on the basis of his pluralistic religious context. The drawing together of the Great Ultimate, Absolute Nothingness, the One Absolute from the Tao and the traditional personal God of Christianity gives the discussion an entirely new direction which has become a challenge for traditional orthodox Christian theology. Dask presents his view on the meaning of Westernised Christianity from the East Asian perspective, and in doing so integrates Western Christianity and East Asian thoughts. For him, Truth does not belong to any one person nor is limited within any special religion. In his book Christians and Religious Pluralism, Alan Race argues, knowledge of God is partial in all faiths, including Christianity. Religions must acknowledge their need of each other if the full truth about God is to be available to mankind.[footnoteRef:46] Dasks erudition is also the basis of his tolerance of all religions. He is thoroughly familiar with the intellectual currents of his time. His understanding of Western history and philosophy, at the same time his understanding of East Asian classical philosophy and religions, helped his openness toward religions. Dasks emerging of Christianity with East Asian philosophies, and comprehensive understanding of Westernised Christianity, as an East Asian person, is a great legacy to the 200 years of the Korean Church. [46: Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions, (London: SCM Press, 1983), p. 72.]

Yoo, Yng-mo. Dask- gangeui, (Dask Lectures, ), ed . Society of Dask Studies, Seoul: Hyunamsa, 2006.

____________. Dask- rok, (Yoo Yng-mos Sayings, ), ed. Park Yng-ho, Seoul: Hongikjae, 1993.

____________. Dask-ilj, vol. I (Diary, , ), Seoul: Hongikjae, 1990.

____________. Dask-ilj, vol. II (Diary, , ), Seoul: Hongikjae, 1990.

Kim Hng-ho. My Own Voice: Yoo Yng-mos Saying (), Seoul: Pungman, 1986.

Park Yng-ho. ed., The Eastern Sage, Yoo Yng-mo ( ), Seoul: Muae, 1993.

_____________. Meditations of Dask Yoo Yng-mo ( ), Turye, 2000.

_____________. The Accurate Comment on Yoo Yung-mos Thought, vol.I ( , ), Seoul: Hongikjae, 1994.

_____________. The Buddhist Thought of Yoo Yng-mo ( ), Seoul: Munhwailbo, 1995.

_____________. The Christian Thought of Yoo Yng-mo ( ), Seoul: Munhwailbo, 1995.

_____________. The Confucian Thought of Yoo Yng-mo, I ( , ), Seoul: Munhwailbo, 1995.

_____________. The Confucian Thought of Yoo Yng-mo, II ( , ), Seoul: Munhwailbo, 1995.

_____________. The Life and Belief of Yoo Yng-mo ( ), Seoul: Munhwailbo, 1995.

_____________. The Life and Thought of Yoo Yng-mo, I ( , ), Seoul: Munhwailbo, 1996.

_____________. The Life and Thought of Yoo Yng-mo, II ( , ), Seoul: Munhwailbo, 1996.

Abe, Masao. Zen and Western Thought, Honolulu: Universtity of Hawaii Press, 1985.

Asvaghosa, The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, Surrey: Shrine of Wisdom, 1964.

Barrett, William. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D. T. Suzuki, New York: Doubleday Anchor Book, 1958.

Bilington, Ray. East of Existentialism: The Tao of the West, London: Unwin, 1990.

____________. Understanding Eastern Philosophy, London: Routledge, 1997.

Blakney, R. H. trans., Meister Eckhart, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1941.

Broad, C. D. Religion, Philosophy, and Psychical Research, N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1953.

Chan, Wing-Tsit. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, Princeton University, 1973.

Chang, Cursum. The Development of Neo Confucian Thoughts, New York: Bookman Associates, 1957.

Chang Tsai, Correct Discipline for Beginners ([]), trans. Chng Hae-wang, Seoul: Myngmundang, 1991.

Ching, Julia and Kng, Hans. Christianiy and Chinese Religions, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988.

Ching , Julia. Confucianism and Christianity, Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd., 1977.

Chuang Tzu, Chuang Tzu (), trans. Cho kwan-hi, Seoul: Chnghachulpansa, 1988.

Clasper, Paul. Eastern Paths and the Christian Way, New York: Orbis, 1980.

Conward, H. Pluralism and World Religions, New York: Orbis, 1985.

Conze, Edward. Buddhist Thought in India, Michigan: the University of Michigan, 1967.

____________. Buddhist Scripture, London: penguin Books, 1959.

____________. Selected Saying from the Perfection of Wisdom, Boulder: Prajna Press, 1978.

Dasgupta, S. B. An Introduction to Tantric Buddhism, Berkeley: Shambhala, 1974.

Davies, O. trans. Meister Eckhart: Selected Writings, London: Penguin Books, 1994.

Dhammapada, , Bangalore: Buddha Vacana Trust, 1987.

Dumoulin, Heinrich. Zen Enlightenment: Origin and Meaning, N.Y.: Weatherhill, 1979.

Dunne, John S. The Way of All the Earth, New York: Macmillan, 1972.

Egan, Harvey D. Christian Mysticism, New York: Pueblo Publishing Co. 1984.

Evans, C. de B. trans. Meister Eckhart, London: John M. Watkins, 1924.

Finley, James. Mertons Palce of Nowhere, Indiana: Ave Maria Press, 1985.

Fung Yu-lan. A History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol.I, trans. Derk Bodde, Princeton: Princeton Univrsity Press, 1983.

__________. A History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. II, trans. Derk Bodde, Princeton: Princeton Univrsity Press, 1983.

Hakeda, Yoshito S. The Awakening of Faith: Attributed to Asvanghosha, New York: Columbian University, 1967.

Heine, Steven. ed. Zen and Comparative Studies, London: Macmillan Press, 1997.

James, E. O. The Concept of Deity: A Comparative and Historical Study, London: Hutchinsons University Library, 1950.

Kajiyama, Yuichi. Three Kinds of Affirmation and Two Kinds of Negation in Buddhist Philosophy, Wiener Zeitschrift fr die kunde Sdaseins und Archiv fr Indische Philosophie, 1973.

Klein, Anne. Knowledge and Liberation: The Sautrntika Tenet System in Tibet, Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publishions, 1986.

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, Gia-Fu Feng & J. English, trans. London: Wildwood House, 1978.

________, Tao Te Ching, John C. H. Wu, trans. Boston & London: Shambhala, 1990.

________, Tao Te Ching, Chu Ta-Kao, trans. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985.

Leaman, Oliver. Eastern Philosophy, London: Routledge, 2000.

Lee, Jung-young. The Theology of Change: A Christian Concept of God in an Eastern Perspective, New York: Orbis Books, 1979.

____________. The Trinity in Asian Perspective, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.

Legge, James. The Texts of Taoism, vol. I, New York: Dover, 1962.

___________. The Texts of Taoism, vol. II, New York: Dover, 1962.

___________. trans., Confucius: Cnfucian Analects, The Great Learning & The Doctrine of the Mean, New York: Dover, 1971.

Leong, Kenneth S. The Zen Teachings of Jesus, New York: Crossroad, 1999.

Lopez, Donald S. Jr. The Heart Stra Explained: Indian and Tibetian Commentaries, New York: State University of New York Press, 1988.

Malalasekera, G. P. The Buddha and his Teachings, the Buddhist Council of Ceylon; 1957.

Mascarro, Juan. trans., The Upanishads, Middleessex: Penguin Books, 1970.

___________. The Bhagavad Gita, London: Penguin, 1962.

Murti, T. R. V. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1974.

Murray, J. Courtney. The Problem of God: Yesterday and Today, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.

Nagao, Gadjin. the Foundational Standpoint of mdhyamaka Philosophy, trans. John P. Keenan, New York: the State University of New York Press, 1989.

Northrop, F. S. C. The Meeting of East and West. New York: Macmillan, 1953.

Phillips, Bernard. The Essentials of Zen Buddhism, ed., London: Rider & Co., 1963.

Ralaula, Walpola. What the Buddha taught, New York: Grove Press, 1959; reprint, Evergreen Edition, 1962.

Race, Allan. Christian and Religious Pluralism, London: SCM Press, 1983.

Ray Billington, Understanding Eastern Philosophy, London: Routledge, 1997.

Stace, W. T. Mysticism and Philosophy, London: The Macmillan, 1980.

Stcherbatsky, Th. Buddhist Logic vol. I, New York: Dover Publishing, 1962.

Streng, Frederick J. Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning, Abingdon press, 1967.

Suzuki, D. T. Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist, London: Mandala Books, 1979.

__________. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D. T. Suzuki, ed. By William Barrett, New York: A Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956.

Swarupananda, Swami. Trans. Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita, Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1972.

The Book of Changes (I Ching), James Legge, trans. N.Y.: Gramercy Books, 1996.

The Book of Changes (), trans, Choi Wan-sik, Seoul: Hyewnchulpansa, 1990.

The Dhammaapada, Dorset: Element, 1997.

The Diamond Sutra and The Sutra of Hui Neng, A. F. Price and Wong Mou-Lam, trans. Colorado: Shambhala Boulder, 1969.

The Great Learning, the Doctrine of the Mean ( ), trans. Kim Hak-ju, Seoul: Mynmundang, 1985.

The I Ching, Richard Wilhelm, trans. Reading: Cox & Wyman Ltd., 1984.

Waldenfels, Hans. Absolute Nothingness: Foundation for a Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, New York: Paulist Press, 1980.

Waley, Arthur. The Way and Its Power, London: Unwin Books, 1934

Watts, Alan W. The Way of Zen, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1957.

___________. Tao: the Watercource Way, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1975.

Wu, John C. H. The Golden Age of Zen, Taipei: The National War College, 1967.

Youn, Jeong-Hyun, The Non-Existent Existing God: An East Asian Perspective with specific Reference to the Thought of Ryu Yng-mo, Th. D. Diss., the University of Birmingham, 2003.

Zaehner, R. C. Mysticism: Sacred and Profane, N. Y.: Galaxy Book, 1961.

14