조선시대 國祀로서의 三海 祭祀와 그 유래

신명호 부경대학교 인문사회과학연구소 2018 인문사회과학연구 Vol.19 No.1

The ancient chinese people thought that mankind should repay for all kinds of natural virtues. in that thought, they established the national memorial services for the natural virtues. the national memorial services for the four seas was one of the national memorial services for the natural virtues. The ancient chinese people thought that the earth was surrounded by the four seas. and also they thought that the four seas were made by great valley. the ancient chinese people thought the four could accept all kinds of rivers in the earth, because the four seas were made by great valley. they called that virtue of the four seas as the virtue of pit, the king. by this virtue, the four seas were selected as a national memorial services. Joseon dynasty also accepted the national memorial services for the three seas. joseon dynasty also regarded that the three seas had the virtue of pit. The national memorial services for the three seas in joseon dynasty were composed as four stages. but the other national memorial services were also composed as four stages. only the fact that the national memorial services for the three seas were carried out was a different pont. 전통시대 한국과 중국에서 거행된 국가 제사는 報本反始 사상에 근거하여 사람에게 공덕을 끼친 天神, 地祇, 人鬼 등 신령한 존재에게 감사한 마음을 표시하던 국가적 의례였다. 四海 제사 또는 三海 제사 역시 海의 공덕에 대한 감사를 표시하기 위한 국가적 의례였다. 이와 같은 고대 중국인들의 해양인식은 그대로 신라에도 전해져 四海 제사로 구현되었고 그것이 고려시대에 三海 제사로 이어졌다. 조선시대 사람들 역시 중국과 신라시대, 고려시대의 전통적인 인식을 받아들여 海를 百谷의 왕으로 인식하였다. 百谷의 왕인 海가 국토 주변을 둘러싸고 있으므로 지상의 百川이 국토를 흐르면서 만물을 기르고 海로 들어갈 수 있다는 해양인식이 바로 전통적인 유교 해양인식이었었다. 이런 해양인식에 근거하여 조선시대에도 三海 專祀가 거행되었다. 조선시대 三海의 專祀는 크게 事前 準備, 迎神, 娛神, 送神의 네 단계로 이루어졌다. 事前 準備는 제사 이전의 준비 단계로서 香祝 전달, 享官의 5일 간 齋戒, 陳設, 省牲器 등의 절차가 여기에 해당했다. 迎神은 해신을 맞이하는 절차로서 奠幣禮와 三上香 등의 절차였다. 娛神은 해신을 즐겁게 하는 절차로서 初獻, 亞獻, 終獻으로 술과 제물을 드리는 절차였다. 마지막으로 送神은 해신을 보내고 해신이 남기고 가신 복을 받는 절차로서 飮福禮와 撤籩豆가 그 절차였다. 조선시대의 國祀는 기본적으로 三海 專祀와 마찬가지로 事前 準備, 迎神, 娛神, 送神의 네 단계로 구성되었다. 따라서 조선시대 中祀이던 三海 제사가 事前 準備, 迎神, 娛神, 送神의 네 단계로 구성된 것은 당연한 현상이라고 할 수 있다. 다만 三海 專祀는 조선시대 國祀 중에서도 특별히 三海의 공덕에 보답하기 위한 國祀였다는 점에서 다른 國祀와 차별되었다.

현대시에 나타난 바다의 계절 상징 및 의미

남진숙 제주대학교 탐라문화연구원 2025 탐라문화 Vol.- No.78

본 연구는 현대시에 나타난 바다의 계절 상징 및 그 의미를 고찰한 논문이다. 바다는 오랜 시간 동안 시의 주요 제재로 등장하며, 계절과 맞물려 시인의 감각적변화와 정서, 인식, 시적 세계, 철학 등을 담고 있다. 따라서 계절마다 바다는 각기다르게 형상화된다. 첫째 봄바다는 삶과 죽음, 생명과 죽음, 긍정과 부정 등 양면성을 드러낸다. 이는 봄이 일반적으로 만물의 소생이나 부활, 생명, 삶, 새로운 도전 등 긍정적인이미지가 강조된 것과는 조금 다른 층위로 양면성을 지닌다고 할 수 있다. 둘째 여름바다는 기능적인 측면에서 더위를 시켜주는 역할도 하지만 그 내면에는 역동성과 생명력을 표상하며 젊음의 힘과 열정을 내포한다. 셋째 가을바다는 그리움과애틋함으로 형상화된다. 이는 쓸쓸함과 아름다운 추억이 교차하는 바다로 형상화된다. 넷째 겨울바다는 화자의 삶과 자아를 돌아보는 공간으로 형상화된다. 본 연구는 바다의 계절적 변화를 중심으로 시적 형상화를 고찰함으로써 보다입체적인 분석을 시도하였다. 이를 통해 바다가 단순한 자연 배경, 시적 배경으로만 존재하는 것이 아니라 계절과 맞물려 정서적, 철학적 공간으로 기능한다는 점을 확인하였다. 또한 시인들이 계절에 따라 인간의 내면과 자연의 관계를 어떻게드러내는지 구체적으로 분석하였다는 점에 의의가 있다. This study examines the seasonal symbolism of the sea and its meaning in modern poetry. The sea has been a major subject of poetry for a long time, and contains the poet’s sensory changes, emotions, perceptions, poetic world, and philosophy in conjunction with the seasons. Therefore, the sea is depicted differently in each season. First, the spring sea reveals duality such as life and death, life and death, positivity and negativity. This can be said to have duality at a slightly different level from the fact that spring generally emphasizes positive images such as the revival or resurrection of all things, life, life, and new challenges. Second, the summer sea has a functional role in providing warmth, but it also symbolizes dynamism and vitality and contains the power and passion of youth. Third, the autumn sea is depicted as longing and longing. It is depicted as a sea where loneliness and beautiful memories intersect. Fourth, the winter sea is depicted as a space where the speaker reflects on his life and self. This study attempted a more three-dimensional analysis by examining the poetic depiction centered on the seasonal changes of the sea. Through this, it was confirmed that the sea does not exist only as a simple natural background or poetic background, but also functions as an emotional and philosophical space intertwined with the seasons. It is also significant in that it specifically analyzed how poets reveal the relationship between the human mind and nature according to the seasons.

悉直과 신라의 北海 제사

박승범 한국이사부학회 2015 이사부와 동해 Vol.9 No.-

新羅 四海 祭場은 東海 阿等邊의 경우 현재 포항시 영일읍에 소재했던 魚龍臺 로, 南海 兄邊은 부산시 남구 용당동 일대로, 西海 未陵邊은 군산시 경암동 북쪽 해변으로, 北海 非禮山은 지금의 삼척시 葛夜山 지역으로 추정된다. 이들 제장의 성립시기는 동해는 신라가 영일지역을 확보한 사로국 초기에, 남해는 5세기 중반 이후, 서해는 죽막동 제사유적과의 연관성을 고려하여 7세기 이전으로, 북해 비례산은 6세기 중반 신라가 동해안로를 따라 함경도 방면으로 진출하던 시기로 여겨진다. 북해 제장이 다른 4해와 달리 산에 마련된 것은 悉直州를 포함한 강원도 일대 동해안과 그 주변 해상력 확보과정에서 전통적 산악숭배, 그리고 고구려의 침입대비 및 우산국 정벌 등을 고려한 결과였다. 삼국통일 후 북방으로의 영역 확대에 불구하고 북해는 실직에 소재하였다. 실직의 지역토착 해양세력을 국가사전편제를 통해 흡수하려는 목적에서 과거 신라 해상력의 상징이었던 실직에 계속 유지할 필요성이 있었기 때문이다. 북해를 포함한 4해의 제사 형식은 대체로 중국의 예제를 참고하였을 것이지만, 신라의 전통적인 산천숭배 관념에 따라 제례의 순서와 내용도 포함된 것으로 이해 된다. 그 제일은 신라의 독자적 산천숭배 전통에 따라 결정되었을 가능성이 높지만 왕도에서 행하는 경우 당의 그것과 마찬가지로 1년에 한차례씩 5郊에서 迎氣日에 행했을 가능성도 있다. 4해의 신격은 각 방면의 해신으로 神像을 조성하여 제사 때 모셨다. 4해에 대한 봉작은 성덕왕 34년(735) 시기까지는 행해지지 않은 것으로 보았다. 4해 제사의 절차는 ..三國遺事.. 水路夫人조와 高麗 李齊賢의 시를 통해 재구성할 수 있다. 구체적 단계는 첫째 제장을 물로 정화하기, 둘째 신이성을 부여한 ‘杖’을 두드리며 용을 불러내기, 셋째 높은 바위에 핀 꽃을 꺾어 술잔과 함께 봉헌하기, 넷째 기우와 풍년 기원 등의 순서로 추정된다. 이러한 절차는 북해 제장에 적용되었다가 점차 다른 4해의 제장에도 확대되었을 것으로 여겨진다. The detailed steps are presumed to be as follows: 1) purify the ritual site with water; 2) summon the dragon by knocking the cane to which divine characteristic has been accorded; 3) pick a flower from a lofty rock and offer it with a glass of alcohol; and 4) wish for rain and good harvest. Such procedures were applied to the ritual sites of North Sea and expanded to other areas of the four seas as well. The places of ancestral rites in the four seas of Silla are presumed to be Eochondae that used to be located in Yeongil-eup of today s Pohang-si for Donghae (East Sea) Okdeung Byeon, Yondang-dong area of Namgu in Busan for Namhae (Southern Sea), northern seashore of Gyeongam-dong in Gunsan for Seohae Mireungbyeon (Western Sea), and Galyasan (Mountain Galya) area of today s Samcheok-si for Bukhae Biryesan (North Sea). The period during which these sites of ancestral rites were established are estimated to be in the beginning of Saroguk when Silla secured the area of Yeongil for the site in the East Sea, after the mid-5th century for the Southern Sea, before the 7th century for the Western Sea considering the relation to the ritual remains of Jukmakdong, the mid-6th century when Silla advanced toward Hamgyeongdo following the eastern sea route for Bukhae Biryesan (Northern Sea). Different from other seas, the site of ancestral rites in the Northern Sea was established in the mountain as a result of taking into consideration traditional mountain worship in the eastern coast of Gangwon-do area including Siljikju, and of preparing for the invasion of Goguryeo and the conquest of Usanguk. After the unification of the three nations, the North Sea was included in Siljik despite the territorial expansion toward the north. In order to absorb the maritime power of Siljik s indigenous region through national organization, it was necessary to remain in Siljik, which was the symbol of Silla s maritime power. Although the formality of the ancestral rites in the four seas including the North Sea seem to have referred to the examples of China, it can be understood that the order and the content of ancestral rituals follow Silla s tradition of worshiping mountains and streams. It is highly probable that the day of the ritual was determined following Silla s unique tradition of worshiping mountains and streams. However, it is also possible that it was performed once a year on Yeonggi day when it was performed on the royal road. The divinity of the four seas is the god of the sea of each side and it was built into a pagod and subserved during the ancestral rites. The investiture of the four seas was considered to not have been performed until the 34th year of King Seongdeok(735). The procedure of the ancestral rites of the four seas can be reconstructed through Samgukusa Surobuin and the poem of Lee Je Hyeon from Goryeo. The detailed steps are presumed to be as follows: 1) purify the ritual site with water; 2) summon the dragon by knocking the cane to which divine characteristic has been accorded; 3) pick a flower from a lofty rock and offer it with a glass of alcohol; and 4) wish for rain and good harvest. Such procedures were applied to the ritual sites of North Sea and expanded to other areas of the four seas as well.

고려 건국기의 三韓一統意識과 ‘海東天下’ 인식

윤경진 한국중세사학회 2018 한국중세사연구 Vol.0 No.55

Examined in this article is the historical meaning of the very notion of “the Three Han units are one(三韓一統意識),” and the concept of “Another universe on the East side of the Sea(海東天下),” which both prevailed during the Goryeo period. The existence of these notion and concept are traced through stone epitaphs and other similar sources of historical information, produced at the end of the Unified Shilla period and in early years of Goryeo. These notion and concept were all formed during the ending days of Shilla, but were established as formal ideological beliefs for the state by the people of Goryeo. Shilla only considered itself as Jinhan(辰韓), one of the Three Hans, but Goryeo identified itself as the Three Hans as a whole. Shilla considered the establishment of another universe engulfing all regions in the Eastern side of the Sea(海東諸國) as the way to bind all Three Hans together, so memories and legacies cultivated by entities that had ever existed upon the East side of the Sea were conceptually absorbed into the Shilla culture and Shilla mind. So did even the memories and legacy of the Four Gun(四郡) units, as Shilla connected itself with the Hyeonto-gun(玄菟, 兎郡) unit, which had usually been associated with Goguryeo in the past. Goryeo too inherited Shilla’s such perception of the ‘East side of the Sea(海東),’ and established a universe of its own. The Goryeo-version of this “Universe on the East side of the Sea(海東天下)” was of course conceived as part of the Sino-centric world order(中華天下), but at the same time it was considered to have retained its own unique identity that differentiated itself from the Chinese universe. The Goryeo king considered itself as an Emperor(天子) in its own right, and the Goryeo people even defined China as a ‘Universe on the West[海 西],’ compared to themselves on the East.

「청주운천동사적비」의 건립 시기에 대한 재검토

윤경진 ( Kyeong Jin Yoon ) 수선사학회 2013 사림 Vol.0 No.45

Until now, the Chang-ju Uncheon-dong Temple vestige monument was understood to have been erected at the end of the 7th century, and was cited as a primary evidence showing us the notion of “Sam-han is united as one(三韓一統意識)” have already existed during the war between the three dynasties and also in the early stages of the Unified Shilla`s Middle Kingdom period. However, considering the situations of the time and the social foundation described on the epitaph, the monument seems to have been erected in the transitional period between Unified Shilla and the Goryeo dynasty. There is a reference to a king with the instructions from heaven(天命) who appeared and brought stability to the world surrounded with four seas(四海), which is a reference to Goryeo dynasty`s Founder king Taejo Wang Geon and his unification of the Later Three Dynasties. The “2nd year of Sugong(壽拱/垂拱)” is the time when a building was first constructed to store the holy texts, so we can say that this monument was created to record how the building was renovated in the ending days of the Unified Shilla period and the beginning of the Goryeo dynasty period. A title named Agan(阿干) which is included in the list of people who were involved in the construction seems to have been a local official(在地官班) of the time, considering how he was recorded in the epitaph. So in my opinion, this monument cannot be considered as an evidence to the notion said above being already prevalent in the ending days of the 7th century.

대승불교의 信觀

한태식(보광) 한국정토학회 2006 정토학연구 Vol.9 No.-

Frequently, people say that we believe Buddhism. However, when they happen to encounter the question of the religious objective in the Buddhism, there would be no definite answer to the question. The reason would be that they view Buddhism as a self-power religion. The answer to the question of the religious objective would be simple if they simply believe a god like what a Christian does, but it is not so in Buddhism. Buddhism is not that kind of the simple faith. Even if it is so, Buddhism does not only insist a self-power alone. Also there exist lots of the other-power aspects in Buddhism. This dissertation studies a view of the faith in Mahayana Buddhism. Buddhism starts with a faith and ends with a fruit of wisdom. That is to say, faith is a beginning and wisdom is an accomplishment in Buddhism. In the early Buddhism, a faith was viewed as one of the practice virtues among the five roots or the five powers of the Buddhist priests as well as the five properties of the Buddhists. Among practice virtues, a faith was the first to be addressed. But a faith is indicated to a beginning of enlightenment in Mahayana Buddhism. In Mahayana Buddhism, it has been discussed specifically about the question of the religious objective. According to a Nirvana Sutra, it is the right belief if we have a faith in the Causality and the Triratna, it is the wrong belief if we do not have a faith in the Causality and the Triratna. But according to an awakening of faith sutra, there are four pieces of faith on True thusness and Triratna. Even though there is a slight difference between the two sutras, the two sutras obviously indicate the four pieces of faith as the religious objective. Faith on Triratna is the religious objective throughout both Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhism. About methodological aspects of faith, Sechin insisted on five mindfulness gate and Mamyung insisted on five practices. I hope that the Korean Buddhism take a right way with the practice of the above mentioned faith.

중국 고전문헌에 보이는 ‘바다(海)’의 의미 - ≪尙書≫를 중심으로 -

金昌慶 동북아시아문화학회 2007 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.12

퇴석(退石) 김인겸(金仁謙)의 계미통신사행기(癸未通信使行期) 시문과 내용 고찰 -한문학 작품의 현황과 분석을 중심으로-

이성형 동방한문학회 2024 東方漢文學 Vol.- No.100

본고는 퇴석(退石) 김인겸(金仁謙, 1707~1772)이 계미통신사행기(癸未通信使行期)에 남긴 한문학 작품을 찾아서 그 현황과 작품 세계를 분석했다. 김인겸은 문학적 능력을 인정받아 통신사의 서기로 선발되었고, 일본에서도 시문 수창 능력이 뛰어나다는 명성이 있었는데, 천여 수의 수창시를 지었다. 조엄(趙曮)의 해사일기(海槎日記) 와 일본의 창수록에 수록된 김인겸의 한문 작품은 필담을 제외하고 편지 2편과 한시 192수가 확인된다. 김인겸 시문의 작품 세계로, 먼저 ‘막부(幕府)에 대한 양가감정(兩價感情)’에 대한 작품은 임진왜란의 원흉인 풍신수길(豐臣秀吉)에 대해서는 적개심이 뚜렷하지만, 덕천가강(德川家康)에 대해서는 조선의 원수인 풍신수길을 처단했던 점에 대해서 긍정적으로 평가하였다. 강호(江戶) 막부(幕府)가 덕천가강을 계승했기 때문에 현재의 막부를 긍정적으로 판단한 것이다. 다만 전명례(傳命禮)에 임진왜란의 기억을 투사하며 참여를 거부했던 모습은 막부를 부정적으로 인식한 것으로, 막부에 대한 양가감정을 확인할 수 있다. 두 번째로 ‘선린(善隣)과 화국(華國)을 위한 수창(酬唱) 의지(意志)’에 대한 작품은 일본 문사들과 수창을 통해 선린을 도모하면서 조선의 문학적 역량을 드러내고자 했다. 다만 실제 시문 수창 현장은 선린을 표방한 일종의 시전(詩戰)처럼 진행되어, 조식(曹植)이나 온정균(溫庭筠)같은 시재(詩才)가 높게 평가되었다. 필하전담(筆下傳談)이 가능한 일본을 사해동포(四海同胞)로 인식하고, 수창은 이문회우(以文會友)로 평가하며 선린을 도모했다. 또한 병증을 무릅쓰고 응수하려는 의무감과 의지가 확인되는데, 선린과 화국에 응대가 기본이 되었기 때문이다. 세 번째로 ‘일본(日本) 학술(學術)과 불교(佛敎)에 대한 논평(論評)’에 대한 작품에서 일본 성리학에 대해서는 진량(陳良)같은 인재들에게 북학(北學)의 길이 막힌 것 같다는 비유를 통해, 일본 성리학의 범위와 수준에서 한계를 지적했다. 조래학자(徂徠學者)나 절충학자(折衷學者)는 그들의 예모(禮貌)와 시문의 격조를 근거로 객관적인 논평을 남겼고, 학문적 경향과 수준에 대한 논평은 남기지 않았다. 다만 불교에 대해서는 한유(韓愈)의 ‘불골표(佛骨表)’를 근거로 견해를 직접적으로 반박하며, 조선은 성리학이 아닌 불교를 통금(痛禁)한다고 주장했다. 불교와 관련해서 심도 있는 필담을 병행했기 때문으로 보인다. This paper found the Chinese literary works left by Toeseok(退石) Kim In-gyeom(金仁謙, 1707-1772) during the Gyemi Tongsinsa(癸未通信使) period and analyzed their current status and world of works. In recognition of his literary ability, Kim In-gyeom was selected as a secretary at Tongsinsa, and he had a reputation in Japan for his outstanding ability to recite poetry, and he wrote more than a thousand poems. In Jo Eom(趙曮)'s Haesailgi(海槎日記) and Kim In-gyeom's Chinese writing works included in Japanese records, 2 letters and 192 Chinese poems are confirmed, excluding text dialogue. Looking at the literary world of Kim In-gyeom's Chinese literary works, first of all, the works about ‘ambivalence toward Bakufu(幕府)’ clearly show hostility toward Toyotomi Hideyoshi(豐臣秀吉), the culprit of the Japanese invasions of Korea. On the other hand, Tokugawa Ieyasu(德川家康) was evaluated positively for the fact that he punished Toyotomi Hideyoshi(豐臣秀吉), the enemy of Joseon. Because the Edo(江戶) Bakufu(幕府) succeeded Tokugawa Ieyasu(德川家康), the current Bakufu(幕府) was judged positively. However, the refusal to participate while projecting memories of the Japanese Invasion of Korea in the ceremony of handing over the national letter indicates a negative perception of Bakufu(幕府), confirming the ambivalent feelings toward Bakufu(幕府). Second, the work about ‘friendship with neighboring countries and the will to sing for the glory of one’s country’ attempted to show off Joseon’s literary capabilities while promoting friendship with neighboring countries through singing with Japanese writers. However, the actual poetry and prose writing scene proceeded like a kind of literary war that advocated friendship with neighboring countries, and the Chinese poetry skills of Jo Sik(曹植) and On Jeong-gyun(溫庭筠) came to be highly regarded. Recognizing Japan, where text communication was possible, as a compatriot, Suchang promoted friendship with neighboring countries, evaluating it as ‘making friends through literature.’ In addition, the sense of duty and will to sing despite illness is confirmed, because singing became the basis for friendship with neighboring countries and the glory of one's country. Third, in the work on ‘Essay on Japanese Studies and Buddhism’, Japanese Neo-Confucianism was likened to the path to Northern studies being blocked for talented people like Jin Ryang(陳良), pointing out the limitations in the scope and level of Japanese Neo-Confucianism. Scholars of ancient literature and scholars of art left objective comments based on their manners and the quality of their poetry and writing, and did not leave comments on academic trends and levels. However, regarding Buddhism, he directly refuted the view based on Han Yu(韓愈)'s ‘Bulgolpyo(佛骨表)’ and claimed that Joseon strictly prohibited Buddhism, not Neo-Confucianism. This appears to be because they had an in-depth text conversation related to Buddhism.

Main Points of Contention in Terms of the Studies on Tan'gun and Kojosŏn

Cho Bup Jong(조법종) 고려대학교 한국사연구소 2005 International Journal of Korean History Vol.8 No.-

외교 문서를 통해 본 몽골의 다층적 대외 인식

조원 한국사학사학회 2024 한국사학사학보 Vol.- No.50

몽골 초원을 통일하고 예케 몽골 울루스를 건설한 칭기스칸은 몽골의 강력한 군사력에 기반하여 북중국의 금과 중앙아시아의 이슬람 제국 호레즘을 상대로 정복 전쟁을 감행했다. 대금 전쟁과 호레즘 전쟁 초기 관련 사료에서는몽골이 정복 전쟁의 이념적 근거에 의존하여 전쟁을 개시했다는 기사는 발견되지 않는다. 그런데, 종교적 세계관이 지배하는 이슬람의 유서 깊은 도시들을 몽골이 정복하는 과정에서 칭기스칸은 자신의 신적 권위를 내세우기 시작했다. 몽골의 세계의 군주 관념은 1221년 니샤푸르 정복 당시 보낸 칙서에서처음으로 등장하여 이후 외교 문서의 중요한 관용구로서 사용되었다. 칭기스칸의 신적 권위의 근원인 뭉케 텡그리의 절대적 권위는 유일신의 관념이 자리 잡고 있는 이슬람을 정복하는 과정에서 공식화되었으며, 몽골 군주에게세계 정복의 정당성을 부여했다. 한편, 몽골은 동아시아의 일부 정권들에 보낸 외교 문서에 ‘一家’라는 표현을 사용했다. 이는 우구데이가 고려에 보낸 문서, 쿠빌라이 시기 안남과 일본에 보낸 문서에서 발견되며, 몽골이 서방 정권에 보낸 외교 문서에서는 발견되지 않는 표현이다. 일가의 관념은 사회 구조에서 친족 관계가 핵심적으로작용했던 몽골 사회의 특징을 반영한 것으로 몽골 초원에서의 의형제 관계로부터 그 원형적 성격을 찾을 수 있을 것이다. 이처럼 몽골은 외교 문서를 통해 외교 상대국의 세계관과 문화에 맞추어 외교적 수사를 선택하여 사용했으며, 상대국에 맞추어 적절한 이데올로기를 강조하는 등 상당히 유연한 전략을 취했다. Chinggis Khan, who unified the Mongolian steppe and established the Great Mongol Ulus, launched conquests against the Jin dynasty of northern China and the Khwarazm in Central Asia, relying on the Mongol's formidable military power. In the early stages of the wars against the Jin dynasty and Khwarazm, historical records do not indicate that the Mongols initiated these wars based on ideological justifications for conquest. However, during the Mongols' westward campaigns, as they conquered the ancient cities of the Islamic world dominated by religious worldviews, Chinggis Khan began asserting his divine authority. The concept of the Mongol ruler as the sovereign by the decrees of Heaven first appeared in these diplomatic documents, becoming a significant formula in later correspondence. The idea of the Mongol ruler as the universal sovereign emerged for the first time in a decree sent during the conquest of Nishapur in 1221. This concept was subsequently established as an essential motif in Mongol diplomatic correspondence. The divine authority of Chinggis Khan, derived from Möngke Tengri (Eternal Heaven), expanded beyond the Mongolian steppe and parts of Eurasia to take on the characteristics of an omnipotent being. This divine authority of the Mongol deity became formalized during the conquest of the Islamic world, where the notion of a supreme deity was already well-established. Meanwhile, the Mongols used the term "一家" (one family) in diplomatic documents sent to certain East Asian polities. This expression is found in documents sent by Ögödei to Goryeo and by Qubilai to Japan. However, this term does not appear in diplomatic documents sent to Western powers. The concept of "one family" reflects the characteristics of Mongolian society, where kinship relationships played a central role, and its archetypal roots can be traced to the sworn brotherhood practices of the Mongolian steppe. This demonstrates the Mongols' flexible approach to establishing external relations. Through diplomatic documents, the Mongols adopted appropriate expressions that aligned with the worldview and culture of the recipient states and emphasized ideologies tailored to each specific audience. Furthermore, the ideas highlighted through interactions with conquered regions evolved to become part of the ideological framework of Mongol world domination.