『환단고기』의 삼신 하느님에 관한 고찰

이찬구 ( Lee Chan Goo ) 국제뇌교육종합대학원 국학연구원 2016 선도문화 Vol.21 No.-

The purpose of this research paper is to study the characteristics of the God according to the ‘HwanDan-Koki(桓檀古記)’, especially of the Sam-shin Haneunim(三神 하느님), the Three Gods. ‘HwanDan-Koki is the records on the historical accidents about the ancient Korean nation. This effort is also to trace the existence of God that the Korean natives believed in from the early on. Where does God originates whom our ancestors believed in even before we used Chinese characters, Hanmoon(漢文) As the author of this study, I compared ‘HwanDan-Koki’ as the core reference with the ‘Samil-shinko(三一神誥)’ When we interpret the opening words of ‘Samgukyusa(三國遺事)’ as ‘Sukyu-Hwanin(昔有桓因)’, ‘Hwanin’ carries the same role as the God. However, if we read the text as ‘Sukyu-Hwankook(昔有桓國)’, according to the ‘HwanDan-Koki’, we can see that Hwanin does not mean the God. A il-shin, the One God, is a different God than Hwanin. Until recently, the name of Hwanin were described as Jeseok(帝釋), Cheonje(天帝), or Sangje(上帝) which mean the Emperor or the Heavenly God. This could be the primary reason why Hwanin were regarded as the same manner as the God. But Hwanin is not the God but it seems more appropriate to see his figure as ‘the ancestor leader who is immanently related to the Sun of the Sky’. Also, the title of Cheonje does not mean ‘the God of Heaven’ but the concept is used as ‘the highest God of ancestor’. In other words, the title was used in honorific way of the leader at that time. Moreover, the important aspect of understanding God of ‘HwanDan-Koki’ is the concept of ‘Sam-shin’. ‘HwanDan-Koki’ and ‘Samil-shinko’ share mutual common idea which make a division between the Heaven and the God as the understanding of the ideology that the Three Gods originate from the Il-Ch`I(一氣). It also can be understood as the relationship between the God and the Creations according to A. N. Whitehead’s the process-philosophy.

고사상과(考思想) 고문화(考文化) : 우리 효사상 정착을 통한 교육개혁방향(1)-상고대의 뿌리교육사상을 중심으로-

김익수 ( Ik Soo Kim ) 한국청소년효문화학회 2011 청소년과 효문화 Vol.18 No.-

Korean is the greatest people with the oldest history and educational roots in the world. Korean educational root could be traced to its origin from the filial duty. The filial duty could be told as the bible of human education. The philosophy of the filial duty educational root which has been handed down by HwanIn of Hwangook, the first nation of our people with GaechunGyung follows: 1) HwanIn who founded Hwangook made HwanIn Ohoon whose key factor was the filial duty. 2) HwanWoong ChunHwang the first who founded Baedalgook nation with HongIk Ingan as the national founding and educational philosophy made HwanWoong ChilGyo whose educational key factor was the filial duty. 3) Dangoon WangGum who founded GoJoseon nation whose national educational philosophy were the same of Baedalgook`s made PalJoGyo which settled the ancient national religion. The summary of educational source follows: 1) The period of Hwangook (3,310 years) by HwanIn`s HwanIn Ohoon 2) The period of Baedalgook nation (1,565 years) by HwanWoong Chilhoon 3) The period of GoJoseon nation (2,096 years) by Dangoon WangGum`s ChilJoGyo Our ancient national religion became the root of doctrines of Confucius educational philosophy such as benevolence and justice. Our ancestors accepted the Confucius philosophy for the national educational frame without much conflict in the same context. The author suggested that the introduction and accept of Western educational philosophy to our society ignited to break down our national religion. This study pointed out that the period of our educational change process should be 1) the ancient period 2) the period of Three States 3) the period of the Koryo Dynasty 4) the period of Joseon Dynasty 5) the period of Modern society. There has been serious educational crisis nowadays. The purpose of the study is to suggest the future-oriented educational model to regain national status by recreating the global educational infinitive and essence.

桓檀古記를 통해서 본 卒本의 위치

윤창열(Yoon Changyeol) 세계환단학회 2020 세계환단학회지 Vol.7 No.2

졸본은 고주몽이 처음 도읍한 장소이다. 『삼국사기』 와 『삼국유사』에서는 漢나라 玄菟郡의 경계이고 요나라 東京인 遼陽의 서쪽이며 遼河의 서쪽 醫巫閭山의 경내에 있다고 하였고 이병도가 日人 학자인 白鳥庫吉 견해를 따라 졸본이 요령성 桓仁縣이라 주장한 이후 한국의 대부분의 학자들이 이 설을 추종하고 있다. 『해동역사』의 「지리고」를 지은 한진서는 고구려의 卒本, 발해 요나라의 率賓府, 금나라의 恤品路, 速頻, 蘇濱 등은 모두 音이 변한 것이라는 탁견을 제시했으나 위치는 갑산삼수에서부터 후창 자성 만포 초산에 이르는 압록강의 상류, 중류, 內外 지역이라 하였다. 그러나 『신당서』 「발해전」 에서 발해 때 率賓府를 설치했고, 率賓府에서 華州(러시아 우스리스크, 雙城子), 益州(블라디보스톡), 建州(흑룡강성 東寧縣)를 관할했다는 내용과 불일치하고 있다. 정인보는 卒本, 率賓, 恤品, 速頻 그리고 蘇濱, 速平은 발음이 변한 동일한 지역이고 지금은 이 音이 綏芬으로 변한 것이기 때문에 大·小綏芬河가 만나는 주위의 땅이 卒本이 되나 그 정확한 위치는 확정할 수 없다고 하였다. 『환단고기』에 나오는 卒本을 가지고 위치를 비정해 보더라도 결코 桓仁은 졸본이 될 수 없고, 수분하지역으로 귀결된다. 고주몽이 동부여의 通河를 출발하여 동남쪽으로 이동했다고 했으니 桓仁보다는 수분하 지역이 타당하고 또 도중에 모둔곡(지금의 모단강)을 지났다고 했으니 더욱 이치에 부합한다. 또 연타발이 卒本人으로 남갈사(지금의 훈춘지역)와 북갈사(지금의 우수리강 지역)를 왕래하며 장사를 했다 했으니 수분하지역일 가능성이 크다. 그리고 기원전 6년 동부여왕 帶素가 卒本城을 공격했다 했는데 桓仁이 졸본이라면 당시의 수도 장춘의 朱城子를 통과해서 공격해야 하고 거리가 너무 멀기 때문에 이치에 맞지 않는다. 이상의 내용을 종합해보면 가장 오래된 기록인 발해의 率賓府에서 다스리던 華州, 益州, 建州의 三州 중에서 首州인 華州(러시아 우스리스크, 雙城子) 이거나 일설에 率賓府의 治所로 알려진 建州의 大城子古城(흑룡강성 東寧縣) 등이 卒本일 가능성이 높다고 본다. Goguryeo was founded by Gojumong with Jolbon as its capital. In Samguksagi (the History of the Three Kingdoms), and Samgukyusa (the Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms), it is said that the aforementioned ancient city is located near the boundary of the Hyeonto Commandery of Han, west of Liaoyang which is the Eastern capital of the Liao kingdom, and within the precincts of Mt. Yiwulu which is located west of the Liaoheo river. Based on the suggestions by Japanese scholar Siratori Gurakichi, Yi Byeong-do claimed that Jolbon had existed in Hwanin county in China’s Liaoning province. Since then, most of Korean historians adhere to this doctrine. Han Jin-seo, who wrote the Geographical Survey section of the History of the Eastern Land, suggested that the Jolbon of Goguryeo, the Solbinbu of the Liao kingdom, Hyulpumro, Sokbin, and Sobin of the Jin kingdom came from the same etymological origin with phonic variations. However, this analysis does not coincide with the Balhae section of the New Tang History, which accounts that the Balhae kingdom established Solbinbu, which administered Hwaju (present-day Ussuriysk), Yikju (present-day Vladivostok, and Geonju (present-day Dongning county of Heilongjiang province). Jeong In-bo said that Jolbon, Solbin, Hyulpum, Sobin, Sokpyong refer to the same place with phonetic variations. He also explained that “These diverse names has now ended up becoming Subun, so the land around the confluence of Greater and Lesser Xiufen river should be regarded as the site of Jolbon, but the exact place can not be located.” According to the Hwandangogi and its description of the ancient city, not Hwanin but Xiufen river area should be presumed to be the site of Jolbon. Gojumong is said to have departed from the Tongha River towards the Southeastern direction, so the Xiufen river area would be more suitable candidate as the site for Jolbon than the county of Hwanin. This is further verified by two historical records; firstly, Gojumonge passed by Mogokdun (modern-day Mudan River) in his journey, and secondly, Yeontabal, a Jolbon native, had business activities commuting between South Galsa (modern-day Hunchun) and North Galsa (modern-day Ussuri River region). Historical texts accounts that Daeso, a king of Eastern Buyeo had military campaign against the city of Jolbon. So, if Hwanin was presumed to be the site of Jolbon, Daeso should have passed through the then-capital Juseongja (modern-day Changchun). which is irrational due to geographical far distance. To sum up all, there is much probability that the site of Jolbon should be Daeseongja Goseong in Geonju (present-day Dongning county of Heilongjiang province), which, according to a theory, is known as the governing headquater of Solbinbu, or Hwaju (Russian Ussuriysk or Shuangchengzi), the head province among three—Huaju, Yikju, and Geonju—, which, according to an ancient historical text, were governed by Solbinbu.

고대사 사료로서의 『제왕운기』

신종원(SHIN, Jong-Won) 한국사학사학회 2016 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.34

[제왕운기]는 사론에서 중요한 시각을 제공할 뿐만 아니라 1차사료로서도 적지 않은 정보를 제공해준다. 첫째는 단군신화에 대한 내용이다. 하늘(님)을 桓因･帝釋(釋提)라고 썼던 당시의 용례에 대해 오해를 하지 않도록, 그것은 ‘上帝’라고 정리해주었다. 환인의 아들 檀雄[환웅]을 檀樹神이라고 써주어 그가 나무神임을 분명히 하였다. 단웅은 ‘손녀’와 혼인하여 단군을 낳았다고 한다. 환인으로부터 단군에 이르기까지 3대에 걸치는 가계는 더욱 복잡해지는데 신들의 세대수를 정확히 헤아린다는 것도 그들의 속성에 어울리지 않는다. 신성한 獨生子를 처음 낳는 데 대한 고민과 사유를 잘보여주는 대목이다. 둘째는, 기자조선의 준왕이 위만에게 밀려 남쪽 금마군으로 옮겼다는 기사다. 근거를 알 수 없지만 이후 삼한정통론의 필수요소로 자리잡았다. 셋째는 고구려의 건국연대다. 백제의 건국을 (읽기에 따라)고구려보다 19년 또는 90년 뒤라 하였다. 만약 후자를 따른다면 고구려는 기원전 108에 건국한 것이 되어 원고구려의 존재를 입증하는 것이 된다. 넷째, 이승휴는 부여 금강의 墮死岩을 落花岩이라 쓴 장본인이다. 다섯째는 고려 건국에 대한 정보다. 왕건의 선조가 기장[ 穄]을 심어 왕이 되었다 하였다. ‘王’의 백제지역 새김[訓]이 기장･기로서 중국의 성인 기자에 기대어 나라이름을 설명하던 것을 반성하게 만든다. 그리고 왕건의 조상 虎景은 호랑이가 변신한 여인과 혼인하여 景康을 낳았다고 하니, 시대를 거슬러 단군신화에 나오는 범도 사람이 될 수 있다는 사례를 제공하였다. Chewang un’gi (Rhymed Record of Emperors and Kings, hereafter RREK) offers an important perspective to historical narratives and plentiful information as a primary source. First, the RREK deals with the myth of Tan’gun. Thanks to the RREK, it is clear that Hwanin refers to Sangje, a supreme ruler, and the usage of other terms such as chesŏkch’ŏn should not be misunderstood as equivalent of Hwanin. The RREK also confirms that Hwanin’s son Hwanung is a tree spirit, because he appears as Dansusin in the RREK, the first syllable ‘dan’ being a birch tree. It is believed that Tanung gained Tan gun through his marriage with his grand-daughter. The lineage of three generations which links Hwanin and Tangun become more complex, but ultimately, counting the order of their birth in precision is against their nature as gods. This is a passage that reflects concerns and thoughts on having a divine only child. The second finding concerns of an article that Chunwang of Kija Chos ŏn fled to Kŭmmagun in south. Despite lack of textual evidence, this passage became quintessential in the discourse of Legitimacy of Three Han Tribes. Third finding is with regards to the founding date of Koryŏ. It is uncertain whether Paekje was founded 19 or 90 years prior to Silla. Had the latter been the case, Koguryŏ must have been established in 108 B.C.E. which proves existence of Wŏn(Proper)’koguryŏ in the past. Fourth, Sŭnghyu Yi(1224-1300) is the very person who wrote T’asa’am as Nakhwa’am. The fifth aspect of the RREK addresses establishment of the Koryŏ kingdom. Ancestors of Wang’gŏn(877-943) are believed to have become kings by farming millet. It is a shame that naming of Kija Chosŏn has been understood based on the name of a Chinese sage, when in fact, the Chinese character ‘king’ was pronounced as kijang in Paekje, which explains the provenance of Kija. In addition, according to the RREK, Hogyŏng, Wang’gŏn’s forefather, is believed to obtain Kyŏng’gang by marring a tiger who metamorphosed into a woman. This is an example where not only a bear but also a tiger from the myth of Tan’gun transforms into a human.

󰡔천부경󰡕의 유래와 초기 전승에 관한 검토

노종상(Roh Jong-sang) 세계환단학회 2019 세계환단학회지 Vol.6 No.1

󰡔천부경󰡕이 인류역사에 던지는 의미는 간단하지 않다. 󰡔천부경󰡕에 대한 선행연구도 적지는 않다. 그러나 󰡔천부경󰡕의 유래에 관한 선행연구는 찾아보기 어렵다. 이 논문은 󰡔천부경󰡕의 유래에 관한 연구다. 이 논문에서는 󰡔천부경󰡕의 전승과 정을 편의상 3기로 구분하였다. 초기는 환국·배달·단군조선 시대다. 중기는 삼국시 대부터 조선시대 말까지, 후기는 대한제국 시대부터 현재까지다. 여기서 ‘초기’는 󰡔천부경󰡕의 유래와 동시대라는 점에서 그 어떤 시대보다도 중요하다고 할 수 있다. 넓은 의미에서 초기 전승은 󰡔천부경󰡕의 유래에 포함될 수 있기 때문이다. 우리 역사에서 󰡔천부경󰡕의 ‘천부’라는 용어가 처음 등장한 것은 󰡔삼국유사󰡕 고조선조라고 할 수 있다. 여기서 ‘천부인’은 천제 환인이 환웅천황에게 전해준 신표였다. 이 ‘천부인’이 곧 󰡔천부경󰡕이라는 주장이 있다. 󰡔환단고기󰡕에 따르면 이 󰡔천부경󰡕의 ‘인수인계’사건은 실체적 역사적 사건이었다. 󰡔천부경󰡕은 최초의 나라인 환국 때부터 구전되어 온 경전이라는 󰡔환단고기󰡕 기록이 근거다. 󰡔천부경󰡕은 환국을 통치했던 천제 환인들 사이에 전수된 원형 경전이라고 할 수 있다. 환국의 󰡔천부경󰡕은 배달국으로 전수되었다. 다시 말하면 환국 시대에 구전되었던 󰡔천부경󰡕이 환국 마지막 천제 환인으로부터 배달 신시 1세 환웅천왕으로 전해졌다. 환웅천왕은 신시 혁덕에게 명하여 󰡔천부경󰡕을 녹도문으로 기록하게 하였다. 이것은 󰡔천부경󰡕이 최초로 문자로 기록된 사건이다. 󰡔천부경󰡕 은 다시 단군조선으로 전수되었다. 특히 전반기 단군조선은 ‘󰡔천부경󰡕의 나라’였다. 1세 단군왕검은 앞선 환인·환웅 성조의 가르침을 받들어 나라를 열었다. 그는 󰡔천부경󰡕을 나라의 공법으로 삼았다. 이 때는 나라에 큰 행사가 있을 때 󰡔천부 경󰡕이 권위의 상징으로 등장하였다. 온 나라의 남녀가 󰡔천부경󰡕을 믿고 받들었다. 이것은 󰡔천부경󰡕이 제정일치 사회의 통치 법전이요 종교적 경전이었다는 근거다. 󰡔천부경󰡕은 단군조선 후반기에 이르면 권위가 약해졌다. 16세 위나단군 이후의 단군조선 역사에서 󰡔천부경󰡕은 더 이상 흔적을 찾을 수 없다. 신교시대 말기에 이르면서 인간에 의한 통치권력이 강해지면서 신교는 물론 󰡔천부경󰡕도 그 권위를 점차 잃어갔다고 할 수 있다. 환국, 배달국, 단군조선을 신교시대라고 할 수 있다. 󰡔천부경󰡕은 바로 신교시대의 경전이었다. 다시 말하면 󰡔천부경󰡕이야말로 우리 민족 고유의 신교 경전이라고 할수 있다. 좁은 의미에서 󰡔천부경󰡕의 유래는 환국시대에 구전된 경전으로 한정되지 만, 넓은 의미에서 신교시대 경전인 󰡔천부경󰡕은 우리 민족 고유의 경전이 된다. 󰡔천 부경󰡕은 환국시대에 환인천제로부터 구전되어 전해졌다가 배달시대에 문자로 기록 되었고 단군조선 시대에 활짝 꽃을 피웠던 우리 민족 고유의 경전이다. This is the study about the origin and the early stage of transmission of the 『The Scripture of Heavenly Code』. According to 『Samkukyusa』, Cheonbuin was a sign of faith which Heavenly Sovereign Hwanin gave to Heavenly Emperor Hwanung. In preceding researches, there was an opinion that Cheonbuin was just 『The Scripture of Heavenly Code』. According to 『Hwandangogi』, the change-over case in The Scripture of Heavenly Code was substantive and historical event. There is a record in 『Hwandangogi』 that the scripture had been transmitted orally since the Hwankuk. 『The Scripture of Heavenly Code』 was passed down to Baedalguk. When Baedal Shinshi was begun by Heavenly Emperor Hwanung Primogenitor, it was transmitted. Since then, it was passed down from generation to generation. Moreover, during Baedalguk era, it was recorded by the first letter system rokdomun invented by Shinji Hyeokdoek. 『The Scripture of Heavenly Code』 was passed to Dangun-Joseon again. Preeminent Emperor Dangun founded his nation in obedience to Heavenly Sovereign Hwanin and Heavenly Emperor Hwanung’s words. He made it the law of his nation. At that time, 『The Scripture of Heavenly Code』 became a symbol of authority when there was a national ceremony. And all people believed in and respected 『The Scripture of Heavenly Code』. However, the authority had been declined from the late Dangun-Joseon. It was the age of Spirit Teaching in Hwankuk, Baedalguk and Dangun-Joseon. As a major and basic national scripture of Spirit Teaching,『The Scripture of Heavenly Code』 was originated from the Hwanguk, a nation ruled by Heavely Sovereign Hwanin.

고조선 건국 신화의 환인과 환웅-부정론에 대한 비판과 실체에 관한 탐구-

전진국 한일관계사학회 2022 한일관계사연구 Vol.77 No.-

During the Japanese colonial period, Japanese scholars denied the historical character of the founding myth of Old Joseon(古朝鮮), and in particular, Hwanin(桓因) and Hwanwoong(桓雄) appearing in the myth were treated as being added to the original myth in later generations. The hypothesis that the contents of Hwanin and Hwanwoong were added to myths under the influence of Buddhism and Taoism continues to this day. This paper criticized this argument. Japanese scholars argued that Hwanin is an abbreviation of Seokjehwanin (釋提桓因) in Buddhist scriptures, and that the relationship between Hwanin and Dangun(檀君) was applied to the relationship between Seokjehwanin and Jeondan(栴檀). Otherwise, they paid attention to the records in which Seokjehwanin appeared as a mountain god of Mt. Myohyang, or they argued that Hwanin was included as the belief of Jeseok(帝釋) became popular during the Goryeo(高麗) Dynasty. However, the character of Hwanin in the founding myth of Old Joseon is different from that of Seokjehwanin in Buddhism. The name Hwanin is also not an abbreviation of Seokjehwanin, but is an indigenous word meaning God. Jeseok belief has been popular since the Three Kingdoms period, and it was easily connected with the indigenous belief in heavenly gods. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted only from the Buddhist point of view of the Goryeo period. The myth of the founding of Old Joseon is recorded in several documents besides Samgukyusa(三國遺事). Although it was necessary to investigate these various myths and analyze their uniqueness, Japanese scholars treated them other than the Dangun myth of Samgukyusa as a later manipulation. The differences in various Dangun myths are evident in the stories of the Hwanwoong. When approached from the perspective of acknowledging the uniqueness and historicity of the contents related to Hwanwoong, it can be seen that Hwanwoong symbolizes religious and political leaders in the history of Old Joseon. Therefore, not only Dangun but also Hwanwoong can be interpreted from a historical point of view. 일제강점기 일본 학자들은 고조선 건국 신화의 역사성을 부정하였는데, 특히 환인과 환웅에 대해서는 본래의 신화에 덧붙여진 이야기로 취급하였다. 환인・환웅에 관한 내용이 불교와 도교의 관념에 의해 덧붙여졌다는 가설은 오늘날까지 이어진다. 이 글에서는 그에 대해 비판적으로 살펴보았다. 일본 학자들은 환인은 불교 경전에 등장하는 석제환인을 줄인 용어이고, 환인과 단군의 관계는 석제환인과 전단의 관계를 차용한 것이라 한다. 또는 석제환인이 묘향산의 산신으로 등장하는 문헌을 주목하거나, 고려시대 제석신앙이 유행하면서 환인에 관한 내용이 들어갔다고 한다. 그러나 고조선 건국 신화의 환인은 불교의 석제환인과 성격이 다르다. 환인의 이름 또한 석제환인의 축약이 아니라 하느님을 뜻하는 토착어이다. 제석신앙은 삼국시대부터 유행하였고, 토착의 천신신앙과 쉽게 연결되었다. 따라서 고려시대의 불교적 관점에서만 해석할 수는 없다. 고조선 건국 신화는 삼국유사 에 수록된 것 외에도 여러 문헌에서 확인된다. 연구의 시작은 그 다양한 신화에 대한 조사 및 각각의 고유성에 대한 분석이 먼저인데, 일본 학자들은 삼국유사 의 단군신화에만 치중하고 그 외의 것은 후대의 조작으로 취급하였다. 여러 단군신화의 차이는 환웅 시대의 이야기에서 두드러지게 나타난다. 환웅과 관련된 내용의 고유성 및 역사성을 인정하는 시각에서 접근할 때, 환웅은 고조선의 역사 안에서 원시 제정일치 사회의 수장을 신화화한 존재이다. 따라서 단군뿐만 아니라 환웅 역시 역사적 존재로 설정해 볼 수 있다.

삼국유사 고조선 기록에 나타나는 환인과 그 연대기

문치웅 ( Chi Ung Moon ) 국제뇌교육종합대학원 국학연구원 2015 선도문화 Vol.19 No.-

We can identify that Hwanin, Hwanung and Dangun were inducted into three saints(三聖) from the records of related the ancient Joseon history. Three saints mean that three emperors who made great achievements in ancient times. Among them, Hwanung and Dangun chronologies were arranged sequentially in detail relatively by historians of Koryo and Joseon dynasty. However, Hwanin chronology was not arranged in order of era yet and no research has explored their history. In this research, we investigate the history of Hwanin in detail to make their chronology and to find their around the time of activities. From the analysis of contents related literatures such as Samkukyusa, Samsungki and Taebackilsa, this research proposes a conceptual framework of Hwanin chronology with their historical activities era. This research also provides a relationship between Hwanung and Hwanin in historic times.

성서적 관점에서 본 단군사화 이해

방석종(Pang, Suk-Chong) 고조선단군학회 2017 고조선단군학 Vol.36 No.-

필자는 성서적 관점에서 단군 사화를 이해하는 데 목표를 두고 단군사화가 ‘신’(神)의 특수개념을 반영하며 성서의 신학적 관점과 비슷한 신정통치 사상을 나타내고 있음을 밝히려 한다. 저자는 두 개의 문학이 역사적으로 직접적인 관계를 가지고 있기보다는 각기 다른 문학이 다른 민족들의 공통된 역사적 경험에서 나온 것으로 추정한다. 이런 논증을 위해서 필자는 단군사화의 문학적 분석에 초점을 둔다. 그리고 그런 문학 속에 함축된 특수 사상과 이념 및 신학적인 개념을 찾는다. 무엇보다 우리는 단군 사화 안에서 ‘하느님’과 ‘인간’ 사이“에서 아버지-아들” 관계로서 특수한 표현법을 알 수 있다. 이런 묘사는 성서에서도 나타난다. 그것은 유일신 하느님과 하느님의 신성한 의지를 완성하도록 소명 받은 ‘지도자’와 밀접한 관계를 강조한다. 이런 묘사법에서 사람들은 이 세상에서 신적인 의지를 실현하는 권위를 갖게 한다. 이와 같이 우리는 양편 문학에서 신정통치(神政統治) 사상을 알 수 있다. 더군다나 그중에서도 특히 단군사화의 신정 통치는 고대 제정통치(祭政統治)와 같은 뿌리에서 나오긴 했지만, 첫 머리의 ‘석유환인’(昔有桓因) 구절의 번역 문제가 새로운 검토를 요구한다. 말하자면, ‘태초에 하느님(환인)이 계셨다’로 번역하는 경우, ‘석’(昔)은 ‘옛날’과 ‘태초에’ 두 가지로 번역이 될 수 있다는 점이다. 이런 구절의 주어는 인간보다 ‘신’(神)이요, 구약 창세기 1장 1절의 “태초에 하나님이 하늘과 땅을 창조하셨다”와 요한 복음 1 장 1절의 “태초(부터)에 말씀이 계셨다”는 구절이 ‘석유환인’과 일치하는 구절로 비교된다. 여기서 단군사화의 ‘환인’은 ‘태초’라는 시점(時點)과 연결되어 창조자로서 절대적인 신성(神性)을 나타내며, 앞으로 그의 말은 ‘계시’(啓示)가 된다. 이와 같이 창조자 하느님과 신성의 의지를 수행하도록 소명(召命)받은 인간 사이의 신학적인 관계는 성서의 신정통치 사상과 일치하는 계시를 나타낸다고 볼 수 있겠다. The current author aims to understand the Dangun Narrative in light of biblical perspective and to present that the Dangun Narrative reflects the particular concept of god and the theocratic ideology similar to those of the Bible. The current author assumes that those similarities were derived from “common experiences” of the different people who had formed each literature, rather than from “direct literary relationship” of two distinct kinds of literature. For this argument, I will focus on the literary analysis of Dangun Narrative and find the specific ideologies and theological concepts implied in that narrative. First of all, we can find the particular portrayal of the relationship between god and human as “father-son” in Dangun Narrative. This portrayal can also be found in the Bible, and it stresses the close relationship between G/god and the certain person commissioned to fulfill the divine will. In this portrayal, the people come to have the authority to realize the divine will in this world. Thus we can find the theocratic ideology in both kinds of literature. Moreover, notably, the theocratic ideology of Dangun Narrative is further emphasized by the first phrase of the narrative, 昔有桓因. This phrase can be translated as follows: “In the beginning, there was Hwanin (god).” The similar phrase appears in the first chapter of Genesis and the Gospel of John which depicts the motif of creation respectably. In this regard, the temporal phrase, “in the beginning” of Dangun Narrative particularly accentuates the absolute divine authority of Hwanin as a creator. Thus the theological relationship between god, a creator, and human commissioned to fulfill the divine will apparently reveal the theocratic ideology similarly with the biblical ideology of theocracy. Finally, Dangun Narrative focuses on the moral and ethical ideology, Humanitarianism(弘益人間), rather than merely a secular blessing. In this respect, Hwanin is not pictured as shaman god. Rather the Dangun Narrative shows very promoted ethical and moral value through the revelations of Hwanin as the Bible does. Thus we can find the ideological similarities between the Dangun Narrative and the Bible. The current writer believes that this research would contribute to the enhanced understanding of the Dangun Narrative in light of the biblical perspective.

사회복지 관점에서 본 홍익인간 이념

김영미 영산대학교 동양문화연구원 2023 동양문화연구 Vol.39 No.-

This article is based on the study on the idea of HongIkInGan in the viewpoint of social welfare, which is seen in DanGun Mythology. As many know, HongIkInGan is the national foundation idea and education thought of Korea. Such idea of HongIkInGan was presented by HwanIn(桓因) while it was HwanWung(桓雄) who had come down to the people’s world to practice it. The HwanWung wanted to govern such people’s world, and then his father HwanIn searched for the land to plant HongIkInGan. While searching out for it, he determined that Mt. TaeBaek would be good for HongIkInGan. Then, he gave his son three items – Cheon, Bu and In (天, 符, and 印) - so that his son should govern the land with such three items. Finally, HwanWung came down to the land with this troop of 3,000 people as well as such experts as PungBaek(風伯) for wind, WuSa(雨師) for rain and WunSa(雲師) for cloud, and then he began to dominate the world and educate the people managing more than 360 worldly matters such as Gok(穀, crop), Myeong(命, life), Byeong(病, disease), Hyeong(刑, punishment), SeonAk(善惡, goodness and badness) and etc. Touched by HwanWung’s governance, a bear and tiger came to HwanWung to beg him for them to become human. Then, HwanWung taught them how to become human. However, only the bear followed the way and changed itself to a woman while the tiger failed. Unfortunately, there was not a man who wanted to marry the bear-girl, WungNyeo. Therefore, HwanWung changed himself to a man shortly to marry her. It was DanGunWangGeom(檀君王儉) who was born between the couple. Later, DanGunWangGeom founded the country, JoSeon(朝鮮), which is called Old-JoSeon or DanGun’s JoSeon to identify it from GiJa’s JoSeon and Lee’s JoSeon. What the things related with social welfare from DanGun Mythology is the idea of HongIkInGan, with which HwanWung “dominated the world and educated the people managing more than 360 worldly matters such as Gok (穀, crop), Myeong(命, life), Byeong(病, disease), Hyeong(刑, punishment), SeonAk(善惡, goodness and badness) and etc”. Generally, the primary social welfare items are JuGok(主穀) for economic stability that is directly related with food and life of people, JuMyeong(主命) for social safety network that help people living their given lives and JuByeong(主病) for disease cure while the secondary welfare items are JuHyeong(主刑) to restore the social order and JuSeonAk(主善惡) to build a moral society through encouragement of goodness and demolition of badness. That is, the idea of HongIkInGan worked for the social welfare including economical, biological and emotional stability.

단군신화 주요 이본간 동이성(同異性) 연구 -환인과 (환)웅의 관계를 중심으로

윤성찬 ( Sung Chan Yun ) 경희대학교 민속학연구소 2010 한국의 민속과 문화 Vol.15 No.-

To dare, ``DanGun myth`` of research on A different version Text to translate what is written in Chinese character, outlining the plot, were compared. And the deployment of narrative analysis approach was watching where the similarities and differences. But this is a special genre of myth is not appropriate for investigating. Therefore, this paper intends to do the following. First, ``DanGun myth`` of the six major targets A different version text visible part of the same motif was extracted. And by transforming it into a short sentence, the sentence appeared in each pixel and found common. And a lot of them appeared to find the pixels in a sentence consisting only of these things made. These in turn set the standards of the original results were compared with a short sentence. In this way, regardless of the change of meaning appears in the myth motifs (vocabulary, etc.) without any special intention that the premise will not change, In other words, the vocabulary used by A different version text similar to each other if there is a possibility that the origin is similar. In this way, covering linguistics ``EoHwiJang`` theory of myth is to match the characteristics that I made. But it does not show the full results. However, according to a particular pixel comparison between A different version text the sense will be able to provide objective data. In addition, I found here that A different version text ``DanJongSilLock``, ``MeaWeulDangJip``, ``GiEon`` and was very much. ``DanGun myth about A different version text`s right to study very short sentences, if any information regarding this study should be driven by the target will be. But these tasks take a long time to be a large burden now I have a lot of the skills include. So, A different version text for the entire study can have a bet prior to the objectivity of the research methods devised. And validation of the method, this paper has been to me. This paper has a clear error. Nevertheless, the objectivity of a new approach will lead to a sense of righteousness that is thought to be. I previously stated this paper is a research paper on how experimental. Therefore, the subject of study rather than the entire contents A different version text ``HwanIn and (Hwan)ung relationship`` only target organ.