3 Theory of Original Human Nature

I. The Task of the Theory of Original Human Nature

The Theory of Original Human Nature deals with the nature of man, disregarding the fact of the human fall. Since, however, the fall did occur, man has inherited properties that discord with his original human nature, causing him often to feel dissatisfied with life. Nevertheless, man also feels that he has something like an original self buried inside, although he may not clearly perceive what it is. Certain thinkers who pondered on these problems began a movement in the nineteenth century called existentialism, but existential philosophy has not given us an exact picture of the original man-the ideal man of creation. The “Theory of Original Human Nature” does that. This theory is unique to Unification Thought; we can look upon it as the anthropology of the Unification Principle.

As a result of the Fall, man became unable to realize not only his original nature, but also the original world (ideal world). After that, and often quite unaware of it, man has been attempting to restore his lost self and the lost world, the world never realized. He tries to improve himself and his family; he wishes to deepen his friendship with those around him, in an effort to make this a better world; yet he dies without fully actualizing his hopes. In a nutshell, this has been the story of human life.

Fish swim and eat freely, apparently quite satisfied with their life; birds fly in the sky, seemingly contented, singing and eating as they please. If these creatures, however, were taken out of their natural environment, what would happen? If a fish were taken out of the sea and thrown on the ground, it would feel extraordinary agony and would long to return to its home, the sea; it would have lost its original environment. If we were to catch a bird and put it in a cage, it would feel discontented and would long to fly freely in the sky. Similarly, man feels restless and craves to realize an ideal. This means that he has lost his ideal self and the ideal world for which he was created. The painful disappointment and despair that result from shattered hopes and unrealized ideals have often led people to resign themselves to a world and life that do not bring true satisfaction. Some, however, have not given up. These are the philosophers and religious persons. We cannot but respect those who have seriously struggled with man’s problems, seeking an ideal way of life, even at the expense of their wealth and social position.

Gautama Buddha, for example, forsook his riches and worldly position in order to seek the answers to questions such as: ‘What is man?’ ‘How should he lead his life?’ ‘Why is man born?’ ‘Why does he live and die?’ Only after years of searching and meditation did he finally receive spiritual enlightenment.

So it was.with Jesus. Even though when we read the Bible we are apt to think that Jesus was endowed with complete wisdom from the beginning and was just biding his time until he started his messianic mission, Jesus actually had to find answers to the same fundamental questions. On that foundation he stood as the Messiah. Jesus was born in accordance with God’s dispensation; he had, however, to accomplish his mission as a man. In order fully to discover the original or true nature of man, Jesus put himself in the same position as that of fallen man, experiencing all the sufferings that man had gone through during history. He put himself in the place of fallen man and suffered, so that others would not have to suffer as he did. By doing so, he received revelations from God and proclaimed these to mankind as God’s representative.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon,1 also, has suffered terribly in his search for solutions to mankind’s problems. His revelations have come neither accidentally nor easily. The Unification Principle has been compiled with tears, sweat, blood, and suffering; only those who have searched and suffered to find the true way of life can understand its contents.

Few of us have deeply suffered over the question, ‘What is life?’ Few of us can really appreciate the tribulations of past sages and the foundations they have laid for us. This grieves Rev. Moon, for it means that we cannot really appreciate what he is trying to tell us. With regard to the question, ‘What is man?', a warning may be appropriate: if we lack an honest and deep yearning to find the answer, we may fail to grasp its true meaning when we happen to find it.

As we have seen in “Ontology,” man is a created individual truth body. Some scholars have considered man as a creature like any other—a higher animal evolved from the apes. Unification Thought, however, seeks to liberate man from being just a cog in the wheel of nature, and to restore him to the position of the person who rules creation with love and wisdom.

If man is a creature, yet stands apart from the rest of creation, then in what lies his uniqueness? The “Theory of Original Human Nature” deals primarily with this question.

II. Original Human Nature

A. A Being With Divine Image

1. A United Body of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang

Man is a being with divine image resembling the Divine Image. The Divine Image contains the Universal Image (Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, Positivity and Negativity) and the Individual Images. First and foremost, man is a United Body of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. There are four ways of comprehending the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang aspects in man: (1) as the integration of all the Sung Sangs and Hyung Sangs of creation (integrated man); (2) as the union of mind and body (dual being); (3) as the union of spirit-man and physical man (dual man); and (4) as the union of spirit-mind and physical mind (dual mind).

In the original man, the spirit-mind and the physical mind participate in give-and-take action centering on Heart, forming a united body. The give-and-take action between spirit-mind and physical mind in fallen man differs from what it would have been in the original man, in two aspects: (a) it is not centered on Heart; (b) the positions of subject and object are usually reversed.

The purpose of the spirit-mind is to pursue a life of trueness, beauty, goodness, and love, in order to give joy to God. Man pleases God by being true, beautiful, and good. The basis for trueness, beauty, and goodness is love; so a life of trueness, beauty, and goodness centering on love is a life of values. A life of values is a life lived ‘for’ the family, ‘for’ the nation, and so forth—the highest ‘for’ being ‘for God’. The physical mind, on the other hand, centers on the physical necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, and sex. It pursues ‘physical life.’

The ‘life of values’ should be subject, and the ‘physical life’ should be object. In other words, the life of values comes first, and the physical life, second. We must, however, keep in mind that food, clothing, and shelter are a necessary foundation for achieving and maintaining a life of values. The original man has the ability to maintain the correct relationship between his spirit-mind and his physical mind. ‘His heart has grown to become centered ‘upon, and united with, the fullness of the Heart of God. The give-and-take action between his Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, like the give-and-take action between God’s Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, is harmonious and perfect, because it is centered upon Heart.

Because of the fall, however, man has been unable to maintain this relationship; the original positions have become reversed. Food, clothing, and shelter—and in general a life of physical pleasures—have become a primary concern for man, whereas the values of trueness, beauty, goodness, and love have become secondary. Sometimes man even tries to love his fellow man and to do good, but often only for the purpose of gaining physical pleasure, wealth, or political power.

I do not wish to imply that there are no spiritual values in this world; the point here refers to correct order. Values in this world often serve a self-centered purpose, for man’s spirit-mind has become subservient to his physical mind. Furthermore, his heart—the center of the give-and-take action—is not fully developed.

Although the spirit-mind is continually trying to return to its original position, man has been unable to become what he truly wishes to be. After the fall, man has had an impulse (desire) to go back to the original self and the original position. He persists in his search for an ideal because of that very impulse. Nature itself shows a similar impulse to grow: a young sapling will often continue to grow even under most severe circumstances. This is similar to fallen man’s situation. After the fall, his natural growth has become obstructed, but he never ceases to pursue his original ideal. Man’s situation is more complicated, however, since he does not clearly perceive which direction his growth should take; he only feels vaguely that things are not as they should be.

We must receive the Word of God in order to change our direction and be re-created. This explains why an increasing number of persons in today’s world are demanding a new understanding of values.

2. A Harmonious Body of Positivity and Negativity

In “Ontology” I said that positivity and negativity are attributes of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. Man is a substantial being with relatively positive characteristics, and woman is a substantial being with relatively negative characteristics. The harmony between positivity and negativity in the case of mankind means the harmony between man and woman—that is, conjugal harmony.

Plants, animals, and minerals are created through the combination of positivity and negativity, but to think that this is the only reason man and woman should unite is to ascribe to them a mere biological existence. In certain advanced countries of the world today men and women begin to question whether marriage should be a lasting relationship, as soaring divorce rates indicate. People marry and soon separate, in what is often little more than a biological relationship. What should be the true relationship between husband and wife? Is the ideal of eternal marriage just a holdover from the feudal ages? Problems related to the family are very complex indeed.

Moreover, since one cannot easily find the correct answer to questions such as “What does man exist for?” or “What does woman exist for?” a great number of people choose not to marry at all, opting for a life of total dedication to God. Our answer to these problems is clear. In their relationship, the ideal husband resembles one essential aspect of God (positivity), and the ideal wife resembles another essential aspect of God (negativity). Neither is complete or fulfilled without the other. Only when united do they substantially resemble the harmonious positivity-negativity relationship in God. Positivity and negativity, as well as Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, are the attributes of dual characteristics that every existing being has. Man is born as the united being of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang characteristically positive (masculine), while woman is born as the united being of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang characteristcally negative (feminine). Only when united can they be harmonized and perfected. Man was created as the encapsulation of the universe, but he can represent only half of the universe; the same is true of woman. Consequently, only through the union of man and woman can mankind become the loving dominator of all creation.

Each individual can fully represent not only half of the universe, but also half of all mankind. The population of the world today is estimated to be about four billion, four hundred million. Since one half of these people are men and the other half women, each human being has such value as to represent two billion, two hundred million people. This means that the husband and the wife are meeting half of the universe and half of all mankind in each other. They have to see such great value in each other. I would even predict that this view of the husband-and-wife relationship will soon prevail everywhere.

The perfection of husband and wife means the perfection of Creation. Since the husband-and-wife relationship has not been perfected, however, Creation has remained unperfected. For this reason, God has been involved in re-creating the universe until today. Re-creation means to lead man again toward the completion of the Three Blessings.2 Since Adam and Eve failed to perfect themselves and to be married according to the original ideal, God has been trying to raise man and woman up to perfection, enabling them to have an ideal marriage; this would bring Creation to perfection. Originally, the marriage of man and woman would have meant the completion of the creation of the universe, the unification of all mankind, and the full manifestation of God.

The main cause of social and family problems is that husbands and wives are not as they should be. Consequently, families are in a state of confusion, as are our societies, nations, and in fact, the whole world. Harmonizing the relationship between husband and wife represents harmonizing and unifying the whole world. We can say, therefore, that the key to solving world, national, social and family problems lies in solving problems between husband and wife. Such is the significance of the relationship between you and your spouse. To see this relationship as something private, only concerning one another, is not what God wants.

In order to help us to become aware of these truths, Rev. Moon takes every possible opportunity to speak about husband and wife, man and woman. Some of you may wonder why he speaks on this subject so often. This is because you have not yet grasped that this is the problem of greatest importance in the world today. First and foremost, husbands and wives must form a harmonious unity.

Of course, in trying to actualize the Principle we will encounter great difficulties, since we have to walk the course of restoration through indemnity. Nevertheless, if we clearly grasp the theory of the original standard, we will eventually be able to create an ideal family. For this reason I have emphasized these points in the “Theory of Original Human Nature.”

3. A Being with Individuality

Before creating, God had in His mind an Individual Image for each being to be created. He thought of numerous Individual Images for persons, animals, and plants. In order to receive infinite joy, God creates innumerable individuals, each one resembling the specific attributes of one of His Individual Images.

The individuality, or specific attributes, of a person is quite distinguishable from that of another. In the lower scales of creation, however, the distinction among individualities becomes less and less perceptible.3 This is related to the value of a specific being. The lower the value, the less perceptible tHe individuality will be; likewise, a being of great value will have a clearly defined individuality. Man, who has the highest value and is to give the greatest joy to God, shows unique individuality. We need to understand, therefore, that God has given us unique individuality (individual image) in order to derive unique joy from each one of us.

Because of the Fall, man’s individuality has often been abused or disregarded. Throughout history, there have been dictators and powerful leaders who used their subjects only as a means to achieve their selfish ends, often driving them like animals or machines, with little thought for their personal welfare. God, however, with love, wants to obtain joy from each person. It is not His wish for us to ignore the individuality of our fellow man.

In today’s communist societies, man’s individuality is being grossly disregarded. It is true that the citizens of those countries have a certain amount of freedom and have their individuality respected to a certain extent. This, however, is not done under the inspiration of the communist (Leninist) philosophy itself. It is reluctantly granted under pressure from the internal demands of the people, and it often represents the desire of these governments to save face in their diplomatic dealings with free nations. If our free society is destroyed, communism will quickly reveal its true nature by restricting man’s freedom and disregarding his individuality; powerful leaders will dominate man in any way they please.

In a work of art, we can perceive the artist’s individuality. Michaelangelo’s individuality is expressed in his paintings and sculpture, as are the unique character of Beethoven, Schubert, Bach, and Tchaikovsky in their musical compositions. A special beauty can be found in each one of them. In communist countries, however, even art has largely been deprived of its role of expressing the artist’s character and has been used primarily as a tool for the Communist Party to further its own causes. The kind of music to be composed and the kind of painting to be created are stipulated by the Party, and the artist must comply. Under such conditions, no true art can appear. Art without full investment of individuality is not true art; it contains neither true beauty nor true joy. This explains ‘why some artists in the Soviet Union are so involved in anti-establishment movements.

Originally, man himself is a work of art that gives God joy to behold. During his lifetime he uses his freedom to express his individuality, thereby taking part in his own creation. His undertakings help to create his personality. God Himself takes pleasure in seeing man’s creative works, for they express his individuality. Thus, in every person there is God-given individuality (individual image). Since it is a gift from God, it must be respected.

B. A Being With Divine Character

I have explained above that man is a being with Divine Image. ‘In addition, man is originally a being with Divine Character—Heart, Logos, and Creativity. Accordingly, man is originally a being with heart, being with logos, and being with creativity.

1. A Being with Heart

Heart, the first aspect of Divine Character, is the emotional impulse to seek joy through love. Man, who is created taking after God, has such impulse, too. How can we know that? Simply by observing that every person seeks joy through love. There is no one who doesn’t, neither child nor adult. Even martyrs; those who have been martyred for their faith were willing to die because they believed that their sacrifice was important to God’s Providence. They believed they were loved by God. They were seeking true joy. Most people try to obtain physical joy, whereas martyrs tried to obtain spiritual joy, through serving God, even to the point of death.

The impulse to obtain joy through love—through loving or through being loved—is irrepressible. If repressed, it will find a different way to manifest itself. Children, for instance, have the impulse to be loved by their parents; if they are not, they may become nervous or even psychologically ill. They may choose to vent their frustrations on society, thus becoming delinquents. The desire for joy through love cannot remain repressed. No matter what activities man engages himself in, no matter what methods he uses, his motivation is always the same: to find joy and happiness.

Like God, man is a being with heart. Just as God could not but create man and the rest of creation in order to seek joy through loving them, man tries to find or create his objects to love; also, he tries to find his subjects whom he is loved by, in order to be joyful. Fallen man, however, does not know how to obtain true joy. He is not aware that there is true joy only in true love, and he seeks joy through wealth, power, fame, mundane love, and so on. True love is what pleases the other first before pleasing oneself, just as God intended to please man first before pleasing Himself when He created man. True love will be realized through an original family centered on God (See Chapter 8 “Ethics”).

All of us are beings with heart, but our heart is not completely united with the Heart of God and cannot be fully expressed. Only after growing through the stages of formation, growth, and perfection, and after reaching the level of God’s Heart, will we be able clearly to comprehend the direction of our lives. Only when our heart is perfected will the originally intended direction of give-and-take action between our spirit-mind and physical mind be perfectly stabilized.

Since man’s heart is not elevated to this level, man has been unable to find the true direction of his life. In his desperate search for happiness, he has often turned to the acquisition of money and other material things, as well as to power. The result has been new problems and increased anxiety, for man cannot find happiness in a life centered around physical things alone. True joy must be based on heart, which man must find through practicing love. Heart is man’s deepest part; to develop and to improve it is his supreme task.4

2. A Being with Logos

Man is a ‘being with logos’. As explained in “Ontology,” ogos is reason-law. Man, like the rest of creation, was created through the Logos; in other words, he was created to live a life of reason-law, following laws and norms.

The idea of laws and norms may be repugnant to those who believe that man must be free from any restrictions or laws. (Young people, especially, are attracted to this way of thinking.) Such views, however, come from their ignorance of the details of Creation. True freedom is found within rules. Freedom without rules results in licentiousness and destruction. A train is free to go either fast or slow, and to run from one place to another, but it must remain on tracks, for without them it cannot run. Tracks, therefore, represent true freedom for the train. If it goes off the tracks, not only will it be destroyed and paralyzed, but may also destroy property and injure people. Similarly, we must lead our lives according to laws. We need norms, or guidelines, on how to act as a child, as a spouse, or as a parent. These norms constitute family ethics. Since we were created with logos, it is natural for us to conform to laws. The problem is whether these laws are within the Principle or not. As long as they are, we should gladly conform to them, for ethical laws are the way to actualize love.

Every person needs to receive education of logos-that is, instruction on the various norms that guide human life. (This will be dealt with in “Ethics.”) If a person is thus educated from childhood, he will become the incarnation of the norm and logos. Each one of his actions will be in accordance with the norm. Confucius, for instance, said, at the age of seventy, “I never go against the law, even when I pursue what I want.” It was not until he reached that age that his actions became consonant with the rules of Heaven; he had attained a life of logos.

If man had not fallen, but had passed through the growth period, perfecting himself, he would have become the incarnation of reason-law, the incarnation of the norm. He would have become a being with logos.

3. A Being with Creativity

God’s Creativity, with which He made the world, was given to man as a potentiality. Even though man has fallen, he has displayed creativity throughout history, bringing about the development of science and the arts. The creativity manifested in fallen history, however, differs from that of God: God’s Creativity is based on Heart, whereas fallen man’s usually is not.

As it was explained in the “Theory of the Original Image,” God created the universe motivated by the element of Purpose within Heart. Purpose, therefore, was established first. Then, centering on Purpose, God’s Inner Sung Sang entered into give-and-take action with Inner Hyung Sang to form the Logos. This was a manifestation of God’s Creativity. After that, there was give-and-take action between Logos and Hyung Sang in order to create substantial beings. This was also a manifestation of God’s Creativity. In the Creation process, therefore, God first established Purpose based on Heart; next, He dedicated everything He had to its realization.

Similarly, when man wants to create something, he sets up his purpose, formulates a plan, and works to carry it out. But, where is heart, which is the foundation of true creativity? Instead of setting up his purpose based on heart, man usually sets it up based primarily on reason. Consequently, his creativity has given rise to numerous ill effects.

God created the universe in order to have an object to love. Man, however, usually creates for self-centered reasons. God’s Creation, which is based upon Heart, shows His love for mankind and all things. In contrast, man (fallen man) creates things out of love for himself, for his own family, or at best for his own nation, disregarding other people, other nations, as well as nature. Consequently, we have such problems as pollution and the draining of natural resources. The world around us—air, land, and sea—is suffering from problems caused by man’s deficiency and disregard of heart. The damage will eventually fall back on man. If we waste and misuse the world’s natural resources, instead of appreciating and conserving them, they will soon be used up.

Creativity, therefore, must be guided by a true standard of values. A scientist, for instance, should be primarily a person with a standard of values (a person of character), and secondarily a person of science. In other words, ethics should be the very basis of natural science. Man’s motivation to develop science must be his love for creation and for his fellow man. Scientists, ‘however, ‘have often refused to establish a universal standard of values, saying that science need not concern itself with anything but phenomenal events, leaving problems of value, ethics, and morality out of its domain. The miserable condition of the world around us is the result of such thinking.

Thus, original man is a being with Divine Character and Divine Image. Knowing this, we can more easily realize the preciousness of man and the importance of a proper way of life.

C. A Being with Position

1. A Being in the Object-Position

Man was created as the substantial object of God. God desires to rejoice through loving His substantial object-man. Man, therefore, must love God and assume the object-position in relation to Him; this is the only way for God to find true joy. Thus, man can be called a being in the object-position. The object relies upon, lives for, and seeks to please the subject; man must do these things in relationship to God.

‘Position’ here refers to ‘relative situation’ in the created world and in social life. Primarily, man is in the object-position to God; secondarily, in the subject-position to the rest of creation. Accordingly, from birth man tends to take the object-position—that is to live for, and to be ruled by, a subject.

When, for example, people find someone who truly loves them and wants to help them solve their problems, they seek this person’s guidance and accept him as their leader; in some cases they may be willing to follow him unconditionally, even at the cost of their lives. This they do, not out of compulsion, but out of loyalty.

Why is man willing to follow and even die for a subject? This springs from man’s original tendency to be a loyal object to God, to serve Him, and to bring Him joy. Consequently, man looks for a leader who can represent God. If a leader appears to be the person for whom they have been searching, people will follow him willingly. It is not easy, however, for a man to find a true leader in the fallen world. Even if God’s representative does appear, it will be extremely difficult for people to recognize him as such.

On the contrary, history shows us that numerous false leaders have appeared, who excited and mobilized large numbers of people with their words; they were later revealed as selfish dictators, who misled and abused their followers. By exploiting the object-consciousness of the people, they received their unconditional support; later, they became arrogant and deified themselves. Soon, however, they fell, for they were false subjects.

Man originally stands in the object-position not only to God, but also to a subject on earth. The object-position is necessary in order for us to establish order, morality, and norms in our society; only through respecting and following a true person in the subject-position can order and morality be established.

In the modern world, however, most people desire to have only themselves in the subject-position, as man’s object-consciousness becomes increasingly hampered, bringing about a great number of conflicts. This is very sad indeed, when we consider that the hope of all mankind is peace.

2. A Being in the Subject-Position

Man is the subject and dominator of all creation. Accordingly, man simultaneously occupies the dual positions of subject and object. He is in the subject-position not only with regard to creation, but also with regard to his wife, his subordinates, his children, those younger than him, and so forth.

While in the subject-position, man must be guided by the original subject-consciousness—that is, by love. Subject-consciousness is often misconstrued as one’s tendency to oppose or dominate others by putting oneself first. The true, or original subject-consciousness, however, is love; in other words, to be a subject means to love those in the object-position. God, for example, who is the subject of mankind, has an immense love for all of us, His objects.

The word ‘love’ often evokes the idea of warmth or tenderness. This, however, need not always be the case. A stern order may also be an expression of love. If a leader uses only sweet words in leading his subordinates, he may eventually find that he has no authority at all. Yet authority must accompany the subject-position. The expression of subject-consciousness, therefore, will vary according to time, place, situation, and so forth, but its origin must always be love.

In the early days of the Unification Church, Rev. Sun Myung Moon often spoke with warm and gentle words, which seemed to reach out and embrace the members. Now, he sometimes speaks forcefully and issues stern orders. Those who see him for the first time may think that he is a very cold-hearted person, but this is far from the truth. As older members will testify, he is a warm and loving person.

In the Summer of 1958, as I recall, Rev. Moon instructed us to do a seven-day fast, for the first time. For a lot of members it was their first time to fast at all; for everyone, it was a formidable obligation. Nowadays new members breeze through a seven-day fast and continue activities as usual; at that time, however, we all had to remain lying down, and would only get up to walk short distances. We felt proud of ourselves and thought we were doing a phenomenal task. It is said that Rev. Moon worried very much about us, torn inside because he had to give us such an order. But it was God’s order, so he made us do it, suffering along with us and consoling us with a heart of love.

Sometimes Rev. Moon would also give us very difficult missions. He would give us strict orders, such as, “Go out immediately and evangelize for forty days. Don’t take anything with you. If you don’t find transportation, then walk! Don’t worry if you fall down on the way.” We had to manage somehow, by ourselves. The Bible tells us a similar story, that of Jesus sending out his disciples in pairs, telling them not to take anything with them. I have heard that after giving that order, Rev. Moon wept in prayer. Even though it was a necessary indemnity condition, he wept because he had to give an apparently cruel order.

Following Rev. Moon’s example, the leaders of the early church sent members out to work or to evangelize under very severe conditions. Seeing them faithfully obey, the leaders would pray tearfully. Though strict, those orders were based on love.

This does not mean, however, that a leader can issue any kind of order he likes. Once the subject gives a direction, he must take responsibility for the results of the efforts of those in the object-position who have tried to follow his direction. The subject must love his object and have a genuine interest in his well-being. He must not overlook anyone—no matter how many subordinates he may have—for only through showing interest does love grow.

Once in Korea a woman itinerary worker went far into the countryside in order to visit a local church. It was a very small church, far away from the central headquarters; it could have easily been neglected. When she arrived there, she spoke and prayed together with the missionary who was leading that church. The missionary was surprised and thankful that someone had taken the trouble to come such a long way just to see him. As he thanked the itinerary worker, he wept with tears of gratitude. Indeed, love begins by showing interest in someone. When the subject shows real interest in his object, love grows, and the true subject-consciousness develops.

True subject-consciousness manifests itself in other areas as well. If you are the subject, when you give a lecture or sermon, for instance, you should not feel that you are great. Instead, you should feel that you are representing the church leader or Rev. Moon or God Himself. You must think that your subject is behind you; this will help you to maintain your object-consciousness. Only then will you remain humble, thus conveying the right impression to your audience. Of course, we also ought to show dignity as a preacher or lecturer. Our attitude must combine both the subject- and the object-consciousness.

In today’s democratic societies, the subject-consciousness has been over-emphasized, and the object-consciousness largely neglected. People want to control others, while they themselves are reluctant to submit to authority. They criticize the government, disregard authority, and oppose their subjects—all because of a misunderstanding of the idea of equality. This shows that the object-consciousness has been stifled. Nevertheless, not only the objects are at fault; subjects are also to be blamed, for they have lost the consciousness of ruling with love. Their concern for the object is usually one-sided and based on selfish motives. Thus, democracies are falling into confusion; to an increasing degree, they are ignoring or becoming indifferent to man’s position.

On the other hand, what should be the attitude of an object with regard to his subject? As mentioned before, the object should obey and respect the subject. This, however, does not mean that e must be servile or sycophantic. In fact, he ought to present his own ideas and opinions—with a humble attitude—whenever necessary. He should become an object with independent consciousness, for man is both an object as well as a subject. He should be a good subject to his subordinates and, at the same time, a good object to his superiors.

3. A Being with the Position of Mediator

If man had not fallen, he would have become a perfect mediator, harmonizing the physical and the spiritual worlds. Because of the Fall, however, he has been unable to attain that position. The spirit-man and the physical man have been rendered unable to harmonize; in other words, they have lost their mutual resonance.

Originally, man’s spiritual senses should resonate harmoniously with his physical senses, and vice-versa. Even fallen man, if sufficiently mature spiritually, can feel the presence of the spirit-world to some degree. In fact, the spirit world is always willing to respond to, and to cooperate with, those who earnestly seek its help. This is called Hwa-Dong (Harmony).5

Suppose that we are listening to a fine musical concert. As we enjoy the concert we can also mediate between the physical and the spirit-world, allowing spirit-men around us to hear the music through having give-and-take action with us; thus, they will enjoy the concert as well. Here, the physical and spiritual worlds are harmonized through the concert. This is Hwa-Dong.

Hence, man is the mediator-the center of harmony-between the two worlds. If you give a Unification Principle lecture and really express your heart through it, the spirit-world will be moved and will listen to you. This is because man is able to dominate the spiritual as well as the physical world, even while still living on earth.

Since we are in the position of mediators, we must choose our words carefully; even a single wrong word can offend some spirit-man. Thus, we ought to think and act so as to please the spirit-world. If you act centering on the Word, the spirit-world will cooperate with you. Here, again, you are a mediator.

In summary, man is simultaneously a being with Divine Image, a being with Divine Character, and a being with position. Although this may sound simple, it actually answers the questions, ‘What is man?’ and ‘How should he be?’ As we know, these are questions that have worried man for a long time.

D. Conclusion

Among the original human characteristics I have explained, the most essential one is ‘a being with heart’ or ‘a being with love.’ Man exists to love others—that is, to love his family, neighbors, society, nation, world, and God. Philosophers thus far have advocated various views of man, such as homo sapiens (intellectual man), homo faber (technical man), homo religiousus (religious man), homo economicus (economic man), homo liberalis (liberal man), social animal, and tool-making animal. Unification Thought, however, regards man as homo amoris, which means “man of love,” or “man for loving.” To be sure, Unification Thought does not disregard the other aspects of man’s value, referred to above.

Since we have received such precious information about the original human nature, based on the Unification Principle, without really exerting ourselves to find it, we are apt to slight its value. We should, however, treasure the Unification Principle and treat it with respect. When we talk about the Unification Principle, we should do so seriously and with great effort, feeling in our hearts the value of these words. We ought to realize how much blood, sweat, and tears of righteous persons are behind them. If we speak with such an attitude, our listeners, as well as the spirit-world, will be deeply moved. Rev. Sun Myung Moon shed countless tears before making public the message of the Unification Principle. He says that we ourselves should naturally feel like crying when we understand that message deeply.

Besides the power to make an emotional impact, the Unification Principle contains also academic and rational aspects. Some members, therefore, attempt to convey it only through the use of logic; this is not what Rev. Moon wants. He has told me that unless our intellectual aspects are accompanied by the aspects of faith and heart, people will not be moved. Even if we are speaking to academic professors or students, we must speak earnestly and honestly, with heart.

As I mentioned in “Ontology,” God, during the Creation, caused Sung Sang and Hyung Sang to enter into give-and-take action centering on Heart. Prior to that, the Inner Sung Sang and Inner Hyung Sang of the Sung Sang had formed the Logos. Within the Inner Sung Sang there is reason, which operates centering on Heart. Heart never arises from attitudes such as thinking that it is enough just to convey a given amount of content for a certain period of time. Heart seeks to love people, to save them from their miseries, to guide them toward knowing and carrying out God’s will. Become earnest! When you speak, forget everything else and devote your whole heart and soul to your audience. This is the kind of attitude Heaven wants to see.

Heaven does not want to see you, or any teacher, selling knowledge as an “education merchant.” Teachers must teach their students with their whole heart and soul, praying that through their teaching the students will grow up to become loving family members, useful constituents of society, a backbone for the nation, and good servants of mankind.

III. A Critique of Existentialist Views of Man

A considerable number of philosophers have attempted to provide solutions to problems concerning the original nature of man. The group of existentialists is among them. Here I will criticize the ideas of five existentialists, whose ideas still influence people’s thinking today. Understanding their theories, I think, will help you to understand the theory of the original human nature.

Existentialists are basically concerned with such problems as how man should live and what the real man is like. To most of these philosophers, man is caught up in anxiety and despair, even though some people seem not to suffer. These philosophers observed also that there are people who sincerely try to live in a true way, and yet cannot avoid suffering. Thus e istentialist philosophers, like many religious persons, tried to identify the origin of human suffering, drawing their own conclusions about the meaning of life.

A. Soren Kierkegarrd (1813-1855)

1. Kierkegaard’s View of Man

With regard to what man is, Kierkegaard says, “Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self….”6 “Who enables man to have this relation with his own self? It must be someone other than the self. This is none other than God. Man’s self, therefore, always makes man face God.

But man, who is originally related to God, has been separated from Him. How did that happen? Kierkegaard discussed the state of Adam’s innocence and explained that the dread in Adam’s innocence was the cause of original sin.

In this state there is peace and repose; but at the same time there is something different, which is not dissension and strife, for there is nothing to strive with. What is it then? Nothing. But what effect does nothing produce? It begets dread. This is the profound secret of innocence, that at the same time it is dread.7

Man has tried to free himself from his dread as if it were something hanging around his neck, but he has been unable to do so. He cannot overcome despair until he becomes related to God, and until he relates himself to his own self. Belonging to the public is not true existence. Such life is limited to loving pleasures of the physical world-the world of no value. Kierkegaard, therefore, maintains that man should escape from such a world in order to become his original self—an individual that has recovered his relationship to God. Everyone should stand before God alone, as an individual.

He classified the process of the return to the original self into three stages: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious stages.

(a) The Aesthetic Stage—This stage is formed by the aesthetic attitude—i.e., the attitude of seeking after pleasures. Man in this stage lives by wit (mit Geist) and according to sensuous desires. The satisfaction of one desire, however, only brings about dissatisfaction soon afterwards, and a person wanders around, looking for his next satisfaction. In this stage, therefore, there is a constant alternating between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Some pleasures are noble and others vulgar, but they all have in common their lack of seriousness toward life. However attractive, a life of seeking after pleasures is a life of despair, for it brings about the vicious circle of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

(b) The Ethical State—A man enjoying the aesthetic stage will finally fall into deep melancholy. In order to escape from its vicious circle, he must regain seriousness toward life and leap to the ethical stage. Here he takes into consideration the standpoint of other people, as well as his own. In this stage he lives by conscience, trying to be a good citizen. He finds meaning in life through performing his duties and responsibilities. Once he occupies a responsible position in his community, for instance, he will no longer fear the monotonous repetition of daily living. While the aesthetic person lives in moments, the ethical person lives in time and in history. For the aesthetic person, pleasure and displeasure, beauty and ugliness are the standards of judgment, or the decisive factors for personal conduct; for the ethical person, however, good and evil become the standard of subjective decisions and deeds. Yet man soon realizes he cannot do good however eagerly he may try. In other words, he finds sin latent within himself and thus falls into serious ethical self-contradiction.

(c) The Religious Stage—When man becomes aware of his sin, he also becomes conscious of his true self as well. But only in God can man become conscious of his true self, because God is the source of man’s self. So, God is the medium of man’s discovery of his true self. Here man enters the religious stage, in which he lives by faith and becomes a true existence facing God. As we said before, the aesthetic person lives in moments; the ethical person lives in time; the religious person, however, lives in the expectation of eternity. The religious person is not satisfied with human sincerity alone; his goal is much higher, as he seeks after internal seriousness. According to Kierkegaard, these three stages of existence develop neither naturally nor necessarily. They can be reached only through a personal decision and a leap of faith. At the point of the leap of faith that carries man from the ethical to the religious stage, paradoxical faith emerges—i.e., a kind of faith through which man believes that which he cannot understand with reason.

For instance, in discussing the faith of Abraham, who was ordered by God to offer his only son Isaac, Kierkegaard concludes that “…Abraham was greater than all, great by reason of his power, whose strength is impotence, great by reason of his wisdom, whose secret is foolishness, great by reason of his hope, whose form is madness, great by reason of the love which is hatred of oneself.”8

As Kierkegaard understood it, faith includes strife such as this. This strife, however, is the very process of overcoming sin. He calls this process ‘paradoxical dialectic’. Even beyond faith, love should guide people’s lives. He said that those who have become true existences should love one another through the agency of God’s love, according to Jesus’ teachings, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matthew 23:39) True society can be realized by such works of love.

2. Critique of Kierkegaard

According to Kierkegaard, man has fallen into anxiety and despair because of his separation from God and the subsequent disintegration of the relation that ‘relates itself to its own self’. This relation is, in the Unification Thought view, the relation between mind and body, or between spirit-mind and physical mind. What Kierkegaard is saying here is that mind and body, which originally should be united harmoniously, have been disunited because of man’s fall and his separation from God. Kierkegaard’s view of man as the ‘relation which relates itself to its own self’ corresponds to the original human nature of the ‘United Body of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang’ in Unification Thought. But how can mind and body be united ceutered on God? Unification Thought would reply that spirit-mind and physical mind can be harmoniously united when they enter into the relationship of subject and object ‘centered ‘on ‘God’s ‘Heart and love.

Kierkegaard said that man must stand before God alone as an individual, and that an individual must relate absolutely to God. But why is an individual absolute? He seems to offer no explanation. His concept of the individual corresponds to ‘being with individuality’ in Unification Thought. Unification Thought explains the absoluteness of individuality in that God is the God of Heart, and He has created every man as His object of love; from each individual God seeks to obtain a particular joy, which cannot be acquired from any other person. Thus, each individual is unique and is created taking after a particular Individual Image in God.

Kierkegaard explained the unity of mind and body as well as the individuality of the original human nature; in the Unification Thought view, however, this is only a part of the original human nature. He was unable to understand the most essential aspect: ‘a being with heart.’ Furthermore, he was unable to understand man as ‘the harmonious body of positivity and negativity; According to this characteristic, man is not complete as an individual, but only when united with a partner in a husband-wife relationship. He also failed to see man as a ‘being with logos’ and a ‘being with creativity', where logos and creativity are centered on heart. Furthermore, Kierkegaard did not perceive man as a ‘being with position,’ or a being that has both subjectivity and objectivity. In the Unification Thought view, Kierkegaard’s view of man as an individual who stands alone before God is, though sincere, lonely and solitary. The original human nature is, first of all, a heart full of joy.

Why has man been separated from God? It is impossible for man to restore his original self—the self of a man who has realized the Purpose of Creation—unless matters pertaining to the human Fall are clarified. Kierkegaard said that Adam fell because of the dread lying within his innocence. Is it really true that this dread is the cause of the Fall? Unification Principle says that insecurity and fear arose in Adam and Eve only as a result of their separation from their original position—accordingly, from God’s love. In other words, dread appeared as the result of going off the track of the Principle; dread itself cannot be the cause of the Fall.

According to Unification Principle, the cause of the Fall is the power of non-principled love, which was generated when Eve responded to the temptation of the archangel. After falling, Eve seduced Adam, hoping to rid herself of the fear derived from the Fall; they made a premature conjugal relationship centered on non-principled love, which multiplied mankind in sin. Adam and Eve should have become husband and wife, eternally centered on God, after their perfection. Through their Fall, all mankind has been separated from God; anxiety and despair have been generated as a result. Man cannot overcome his anxiety and despair unless the problem of the Fall is solved.

Kierkegaard said that man has to meet God as an individual. The question here is whether or not the God met in this way is the true God. Can man meet the true God by going against what is “reasonable,” and believing in a paradoxical dialectic? Not necessarily.

In Kierkegaard’s day, the clergy was very corrupt. He felt that he had a mission to awaken Christianity, so he spoke about true faith and the true path for Christians. He was not aware, however, of what we now understand about God’s Heart and the Purpose of Creation. He had only a veiled understanding of God, even though his faith was pure, and his desire to discover God was sincere.

Furthermore, his concept of love was vague. Purpose and direction are a part of the nature of love, as we know from the Principle of Creation. When God’s love is expressed on earth, it takes different forms (just as white light can be broken up into different colors, when projected through a prism); this can be called divisional love. There is parental love, conjugal love, and children’s love. These basic types of love can be developed, when applied to different situations, thus becoming love for mankind, love for one’s country, love for animals, love for nature, and so on. First, however, we must have a concrete understanding of love, and a concrete experience of God’s love; otherwise, problems will arise in each one of our relationships.

B. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

1. Nietzsche’s View of Man

Nietzsche said that man suffers because of his belief in God, a view quite different from Kierkegaard’s affirmation that man suffers because of his separation from God. Perhaps he had good reasons for saying that. Preachers and theologians of his day taught that man must do good and endure pain on earth in order to go to heaven after death, and that life on earth is only a preparatory period before going to heaven. Thus, man must not hate others, must not steal, and must not kill. He has to attend church regularly and live according to God’s words, which are conveyed by his pastor. Man must not have desires while living on earth; he should submit to his plight. Christianity in Nietzsche’s time was authoritarian, stoical, and oriented toward life after death.

Nietzsche had no need for such a religion, and had a great hatred for Christianity. It seemed to him that those who went to church regularly had surrendered their own rights to the church. Man might just as well be an ox or a horse. Such miserable people cannot assert themselves or express their own hopes; all they can do is silently and obediently follow orders from God. Since he believed that man had become diminished because of his faith in God, Nietzsche felt it was up to him to free man. He believed that man had lost his true human nature, his rights, and his freedom, thus becoming a weak and cringing creature.

For these reasons, Nietzsche declared the death of God, and attacked Christianity. In his view, Christian morality supports weakness, opposes strength, despises the physical body and instinct, and does not accept life’s realities. In other words, Christian morality is slave morality.

In its place he advocated a morality that followed nature—a morality of life. Scrapping all Christian ideals—such as love, service, and compassion—he proposed a life based on the instinctive desires of the human body. According to him, there is a life-force within every living being, an impulse to grow and become great. When suppressed, this force will fight against its suppressor. Man should live according to this life-force, Nietzsche asserted.

With regard to ‘the essence ‘of ‘life, ‘he ‘wrote, “Where I found a living creature, there I found will to power; and even in the will of the servant, I found the will to be master.”9

Thus, life is not merely the will to live, but the will to power (Wille zur Macht). Based on the theory of ‘will to power’, he established the master morality, or hero morality, instead of the Christian slave morality. He said that even the weak have a ‘will to power’, but owing to their weakness, they are unable to fulfill their desire of domination. This creates in them a feeling of resentment (Ressentiment), or a desire for revenge. Master morality is challenged by this deep-seated resentment on the part of the “slaves,” or “herd,” who are oppressed and abused. Because of their situation, they cannot have a proper outlet of action and are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary, psychological revenge. Nietzsche regarded Christianity as a seductive life, and was appalled that Europe should be subjected to the morality of a small group of slaves, such as those who gathered around Jesus. For Nietzsche, Christianity was no more than slave morality, springing from the resentment of the herd.

In his master morality, the ideal man is Superman, or superior man (Ubermensch). The Superman is the goal of history, the meaning of the earth, the highest rung in the ladder of evolution. A few superior individuals are destined to reach the level of Superman, not by the blind force of evolution, but by a conscious effort to break away from the shackles of traditional values and then respond in freedom to the ‘will to power’ within. In Superman, passion reaches its highest expression, but it is carefully controlled by intellect. Only through enduring and accepting the pain of life can man reach such a level. To affirm life means to accept the idea of eternal recurrence (ewige Wiederkunft): “Everything goes, everything returns; the wheel of existence rolls forever.”10 To accept the eternal recurrence means to endure fate; this is possible when we look at inevitability as beauty, and when we love fate. Thus he advocated the love of fate (amor fati). Superman is the person who always surmounts the difficulties of his actual life. This is Nietzsche’s ideal image of man. He encouraged superior individuals to seek to attain the level of Superman.

2. Critique of Nietzsche

We must recognize Nietzsche’s sincere efforts to rescue man, who—as he saw it—had become diminished because of an extreme Christian belief in life after death. The charges Nietzsche brought against Christianity served as a warning to the clergy that they were failing to portray the true nature of God. Nevertheless, Nietzsche has a distorted view of God, as a ruler who judges man from His throne in Heaven, rewarding the good and punishing the wicked.

His philosophy originated from this distorted view of God. The way man understands God greatly affects his philosophical thought, as well as his views on political, economic, and other social issues. For this reason have we tried clearly to state our understanding of God in the “Theory of the Original Image” of this book. We do not see God as this entity of the world after death, standing in the highest place and denying man’s earthly life. God’s Purpose of Creation is not to establish the Kingdom of Heaven in the world after death (the spiritual Kingdom of Heaven); rather, it is to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth; when this is done, the spiritual Kingdom of Heaven will be automatically established (by the spirit-men of those who have experienced life in the Kingdom of Heaven on earth).

We cannot deny Nietzsche’s assertion that every living being has a will to power. According to the Bible, God gave man the blessing of dominion over all things (Genesis 1:28). In other words, man was given the nature of dominion and creativity. Accordingly, the desire of dominion itself is one of the characteristics of the original human nature given by God. True dominion, however, means dominion by love—not by power—as already explained in ‘a being in the subject-position’ of this chapter. Consequently, the necessary conditions for one’s dominion are the ripening of heart through the perfection of character, and the practice of the ethics of love through family life. True dominion can only be displayed on these foundations. Nietzsche, however, emphasized the will to power—the will to dominate without such foundations. This is a problem in his philosophy.

Nietzsche considered Christian morality as slave morality, or a system of thought that fundamentally opposes strength. In reality, however, Christianity does not oppose strength. Christianity has tried to teach people true love, which is the basis of dominion. In order to acquire true love, man has had to fight against an evil power, which has worked mainly through the instinctive desires of his physical body. This does not mean that the instinctive desires themselves are evil. Man’s physical body should be controlled by his spirit-mind centering on heart. Fallen man, however, being controlled by this evil power, often pursues the instinctive desires of the physical body, rather than the spiritual desires of the spirit-man. The actions of the physical body are good when the spirit-man controls the physical-body. If fallen man’s spirit-mind develops, this control will be easier to establish and maintain.

I must say that I feel Nietzsche’s thought is quite dangerous. He nullified not only God, but also man’s spiritual aspect—the spirit-man. He taught people to be concerned with the physical, rather than the spiritual; with life, rather than love; with instinct, rather than reason. Instinct acts in order to develop and preserve physical life and is an aspect of the physical man; reason and love are attributes of the spirit-man. Nietzsche’s advocating the scrapping of virtually all the functions of the spirit-man amounts to killing the spirit-man altogether.

What is left after that? Nothing but the physical man. Nietzsche, therefore, has practically degraded man to the level of a mere animal. At best, he can be a powerful animal, but never a true man. Nietzsche’s way of remodelling man is completely erroneous. Man is the united body of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang: but he emphasized only the Hyung Sang aspect.

Even though he was not a materialist, we can see that, in his conclusions, he triied to solve the problems of life in a materialistic way. Numerous young people today have adopted a way of thinking similar to Nietzsche’s—disregarding morals and a religious view of values. They follow a very selfish way of life. As long as such a way of thinking is perpetuated, God’s kingdom cannot appear.

C. Karl Jaspers (1883-1969)

1. Jasper’s View of Man

For Jaspers, as for Kierkegaard, true existence is related to God, as well as to its own self. The existence that has not yet become related to God is called possible existence (mogliche Existenz). Ordinarily, man is a possible existence that encounters various situations. To some of these situations he can react positively, by his own free will, but he also faces dreadful, desperate situations—the ultimate situations (Grenzsituationen) of death, suffering, struggle, chance, and guilt. In Jasper’s own words, “I must die, I must suffer, I must struggle, I am subject to chance, I involve myself inexorably in guilt. We call these fundamental situations of our existence ultimate situations. That is to say, they are situations which we cannot evade or change.”11

Death is a very serious problem for man, since he wants to live eternally, but no one can evade death. Life is a “sea of sufferings,” and to live means to face these problems. Man cannot evade struggles as long as he lives and is given to the hand of chance. Man is stricken with conscience and the guilt of sin.

In an ultimate situation, man becomes anxious and falls into despair; he becomes powerless and his efforts seem meaningless, no matter how much knowledge or how many experiences he may have had. What kind of existence he will realize depends on his way of experiencing this situation. Man should not attempt to escape an ultimate situation; he must sincerely face it and endure to the end, until he has passed through it. If he does that, what seemed meaningless before becomes meaningful; it comes to life. He suddenly realizes that the Transcendent (Transzendenz) or the Comprehensive (das Umgreifende) —that is, God—is behind nature, history, philosophy, and art. Though things may once have seemed worthless to him, they now have value; through them God embraces and speaks to him.

God does not speak in words that can be heard directly by the human ear, but in ciphers. Consequently, it is up to man to interpret the ciphers, or the symbols; only those who have passed through suffering and despair can do so. This is called cipher-reading (Chiffrelesen). Since each person has different experiences and faces different kinds of suffering and despair, people understand the meaning of ciphers in different ways. God, therefore, uses those ciphers to communicate individually with each person. What should man do then? He should communicate harmoniously with his fellow man, and thus live his life loving others.

2. Critique of Jaspers

According to Jaspers, man is usually a possible existence—that is, someone who has not yet found the Transcendent; he can become his true self, or the existence related to the Transcendent, by passing through an ultimate situation. But why does man usually remain as a possible existence separated from the Transcendent, and why does man become related with the Transcendent when he passes through an ultimate situation? Jaspers did not say anything about this. If, however, we do not know the answers to these questions, we can understand neither what our original selves are nor how to return to our original selves.

Unification Principle says that man was created to realize the Purpose of Creation. Realizing the Purpose of Creation means completing God’s three great blessings: the perfection of character, the perfection of the family, and the perfection of dominion. But, as already explained in the critique of Kierkegaard, the first human ancestors, Adam and Eve, did not believe in God’s commandment and prematurely became husband and wife centered on non-principled love; they multiplied children of sin, and all mankind became separated from God.

If man had realized the Purpose of Creation, his original human nature would have been fully developed. When Jaspers asserts that true existence is related to the Transcendent as well as with his own self, he is explaining only the perfection of character from among the three blessings. (We have shown that Kierkegaard followed a similar path.) This corresponds only to the ‘united body of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang’ and ‘being with individuality’ of the original human nature in Unification Thought.

Next, why does man become related to the Transcendent when he passes through an ultimate situation? As Jaspers points out, “In ultimate situations man either perceives nothingness or senses true being in spite of and above all ephemeral worldly existence.”12 From the philosophy of Jaspers, however, it is not clear why one perceives nothingness (as Nietzsche did), while someone else senses true being (as Kierkegaard did), even if both sincerely face ultimate situations. Unification Principle offers an explanation of the difference in these results, through the Principle of Restoration through Indemnity. Because of the Fall, man was separated from God and became dominated by an evil subject—that is, Satan. It became impossible for him to go back to God unconditionally; he can do that only through a condition of indemnity. The Principle of Restoration Through Indemnity teaches us how to establish conditions of indemnity. (See Divine Principle, Part II, Introduction, I.) The pain and suffering in an ultimate situation correspond exactly to this copdition of indemnity; when he endures them to the last, the condition of indemnity is completed, and he comes nearer to God. In enduring pain and suffering in an ultimate situation, however, man should have a humble objective consciousness, serving the absolute subject, just as the Bible instructs us to do: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” (Matthew 7:7) As long as he continues to have a self-centered subjective consciousness, he will never meet God, even though he may pass through an ultimate situation.

Jaspers said that man meets the Transcendent through cipher-reading; the Transcendent thus met, however, is only the symbolic God. When one meets only the symbolic God, one cannot understand the Divine Character, especially Heart and love. Jaspers said that, after man becomes related with the Transcendent, he must communicate with other people by loving them. Like Kierkegaard, however, Jaspers was vague when he spoke about love. Actually, love for others can more clearly be expressed through the divisional loves; as we explained before, the divisional loves are manifested in the family. Thus, we must become aware of the specific details of the human fall; we need a clear understanding of the Purpose of Creation; and we must experience God’s Heart and love, by establishing true families centered on God.

D. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

1. Heidegger’s View of Man

Heidegger called the entity of man Dasein, and said the essential element of Dasein is ‘being-in-the-world’ (ln-der-Welt-sein). Man is not born on earth of his own will; he finds himself alive as though someone had thrown him into the world, so he is in a state of thrownness (Geworfenheit).

In everyday life, man is a trivial, unauthentic existence that may be called they (Das Man). When man becomes aware of the fact that he is facing dread (Angst), he can have the chance to overcome everyday triviality and to become a true existence. There is no particular cause for this dread; it is caused by nothing; dread is the dread over nothing. There is also dread over death. Should man wait for his death passively in dread? No, he shouldn’t. He must project himself toward the future, that is, he must live sincerely, trying to become a true being. Even death can be a possible motive in his becoming the true existence, when he realizes that he is the being-towards-death (Sein-zum-tode).

Then, what is the standard by which man projects himself toward the future? It is the voice of conscience, Heidegger said. The conscience is the call of the self to itself, out of forfeiture (Verfallen) and to truth. For Heidegger, conscience is the standard of behavior and of value.

Heidegger explained Dasein from the stand-point of time, saying that the meaning of the being of Dasein is temporality. Man has three aspects: facticity, forfeiture, and existentiality. Facticity means that man is always already in the world; in other words, it means the past. Each one of us is born into a family, a society, and a nation that are the product of past events; we cannot be separated from these things. Forfeiture means that man in his everyday life is surrounded by gossipy, insincere, promiscuous people; in other words, it means the present. Being dissatisfied with the present, man tries to become a new self and to project himself toward the future. Existentiality is the anticipation of true existence and the true world; in other words, it is the future.

Heidegger said that man should not forget that he is a being-in-the-world, and that he is not here because of his choice. Man must take upon himself the burdens of the past, and escape from the forfeiture of the world around him, going on toward the possibility of the future according to the voice of the conscience.

2. Critique of Heidegger

According to Heidegger, man is a being-in-the-world who has lost his original self, and whose basic characteristic is dread. Like other existentialists, however, he did not explain exactly what he meant: why man has lost his original self, or what the original self is like. If one’s understanding of man’s original nature is not clear, one cannot know whether or not one is going toward true existence, even if one projects oneself toward the future. Heidegger said that the voice of conscience is calling man to become a true existence; this, however, is not a real solution. He is simply presenting a complicated expression of common knowledge. In a world where man does not recognize God, he has only two options: either to live according to his conscience (as Heidegger proposes), or according to animal-like instincts (as Nietzsche proposes).

According to the Unification Principle, man’s mind has both Sung Sang and Hyung Sang aspects, where Sung Sang is the original mind and Hyung Sang is the conscience. They are similar in that they both help to direct man to lead a life of goodness, but the standard of conscience is earthly, whereas the standard of the original mind is based on God’s standard. The standards of conscience will vary, depending on one’s age, circumstances, religion, and so forth. The conscience of a Japanese directs him to serve the nation of Japan; that of a Korean, to serve Korea; that of a communist, to serve his Party. Heidegger tells us to live by our conscience, but this will not solve our problems. Since there are numerous kinds of standard of conscience, conflict among people is bound to happen and to continue.

What we should follow, actually, is our original mind. When people live according to their original mind, they seek to become united and to recognize God. Practically speaking, we must begin by seeking God; when we ignore God, our original mind becomes inoperative, even if we may still have it. If all men were to recognize God and to allow their original minds to work, we would have a world without conflict.

Heidegger said that man has temporality. But why does man have temporality? Why should man take upon himself the past, escape from the present, and project himself toward the future? The reason should be clarified. According to the Unification Principle, because of the Fall of Adam and Eve man has inherited “original sin”—the sin derived from the Fall of the first human ancestors; besides, he has also inherited “hereditary sin”—the sin of ancestors transmitted to their descendants—as well as “collective sin”—the sin for which all members of a nation or a tribe are responsible. Accordingly, man has the mission of restoring his original self and the original world, which were lost because of the Fall, by freeing himself from such sins. This mission is not achieved by any one single individual; instead, it is carried out by a number of people, who hand over the baton of mission from generation to generation. This means that man should take upon himself the problems of the past (the sins of his ancestors and of his people), should liquidate them to some degree in the present, and should take responsibility for the happiness of his future descendants. This is the true meaning of man’s temporality.

Heidegger said that man should not wait for the future passively, but should live for the future with a determined mind, thus freeing himself from the ‘dread over nothing.’ But how can man be freed from dread, if his future original self is not clarified? In the Unification Thought view, man’s dread comes from his separation from God’s love; he will be set free from dread and will experience peace and joy, only if he becomes ‘a being with heart’ (homo amoris), by returning to God and by experiencing His Heart.

Furthermore, Heidegger said that man becomes free from death by realizing he is the being-toward-death; this, however, cannot be the true solution of dread over death, for the true meaning of death has not been clarified. In the Unification Thought view, man is the united body of spirit-man and physical body; the spirit-man grows on the foundation of the physical body. After man fulfills the Purpose of Creation of earth, his spirit-man becomes mature; the physical body will have fulfilled its function, and will eventually die. The spirit-man, on the other hand, will live forever in the spirit-world. Thus, man is not a being-toward-death, but a being-toward-eternity. After man completes his original self on earth, he is ready to start a new life in the spirit-world. The phenomenon of death, therefore, can be compared with the ecdysis of an animal. In conclusion, the dread over death originates from man’s ignorance of the meaning of death, as well as from his awareness—conscious or unconscious—that he is spiritually unprepared to go to the spiritual world.

E. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

1. Sartre’s View of Man

Dostoyevsky once wrote, “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.” This is the starting point of Sartre’s philosophy, as he himself has said. Heidegger was indifferent to God and asserted an existentialism without Him. Sartre’s existentialism is not just indifferent to God: it denies God altogether. It is atheistic existentialism.

Sartre’s fundamental idea is that existence precedes essence. In his own words, “If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it.”13

A man-made instrument, such as a book or a paper-knife, has been made by someone who had a conception of it—including its purpose or essence—in his mind. If God exists, and if He has created man according to the conception of man in His mind, then we can say that essence precedes existence in man. But Sartre denied God, so there is no such thing as a pre-determined, essential human nature in man. Consequently, there is no original human existence in Sartre’s philosophy.

Sartre said also that existence is subjectivity. Man is an accidental being who has appeared from nothing; he is not restricted by anyone and need not be ordered around by anyone. He decides by himself whether he should become a statesman, a musician, or a scientist. Subjectivity means making decisions and choices concerning one’s way of life by oneself.

The essential character of existence is anguish, which is related to man’s ability to choose for himself. When man chooses for himself, he also chooses for all men; he must make his choice with a deep sense of anguish, for he is responsible not only for himself but also for all men. Since existence precedes essence in man, he is free in his actions, but the results of his actions can be either good or bad—hence, the anguish of man. Nevertheless, he said, anguish does not prevent man’s action; on the contrary, it is a condition of his action, or a part of his action. In sum, man is in anguish because he is free.

Sartre said that man is subjectivity; in order to make his subjectivity operational he needs objects to dominate. If the object is a being-in-itself (l’en-soi)—which has no relationship with itself and all that can be said of it is that it is—there is no problem. If, however, his object is a being-for-itself (le pour-soi)—which is a conscious being, or a person—there will necessarily be conflicts, for the object—in this case, a person—also has his own subjectivity. For this reason, he said conflict is the original meaning of being-for-others (etre-pour-autrui), which is man in contact with other persons. When I stand in the presence of someone, I become a thing to be observed, an object of his looking. On the other hand, when someone stands in my presence, he becomes a thing to be observed, an object of my looking. As long as man is a being-for-itself, he is subjective to himself; when he faces others, however, he becomes a being-for-others, whose nature is conflict.

2. Critique of Sartre

According to Sartre, existence precedes essence in man; every individual chooses for himself; the concept of human nature, or essence, must be rejected. In the Unification Thought view, the original human nature does exist; we cannot, therefore, accept Sartre’s idea (see section 1 of this chapter). If his idea were accepted, we would no longer have a standard of value or a judgment of good and evil. Man would be able to justify any action whatsoever, under the pretense that he made the decision responsibly and by himself. Sartre said man is subjectivity, whereas Unification Thought asserts that man is both subjectivity and objectivity—that is, a being in the subject-position and in the object-position. Sartre considers subjectivity as the ability to choose or to decide by oneself; Unification Thought, however, views subjectivity as the ability to dominate one’s objects with love. Before man can do this, he must establish his own objectivity, that is, his ability to experience the joy of being dominated with love by his subjects and to have the heart of thanks to his subjects. Once he has gone through this experience, he becomes able to dominate his objects with love and becomes a being in the subject-position (a being of true subjectivity). Emphasizing false subjectivity—as Sartre does—cannot save the world; in fact, it has put, and will continue to put, the world into confusion. The world of love and harmony will be realized only when man has established true subjectivity as well as true objectivity, through the harmonious give-and-take action among persons in relationships of subject and object.

These views proposed by Sartre originate from his concept of man’s freedom, according to which man is essentially free, and his freedom is realized by the denial of his objects. It is similar to Thomas Hobbes’s thought that the unavoidable nature of society is that of ‘a war of all against all’. Unless the errors in these views are exposed and corrected, the confusion in society, especially democratic society, will not be solved.

According to the Unification Principle, freedom cannot exist apart from the Principle. In other words, keeping the Principle is a precondition for freedom. Here, Principle means the rules for the realization of true love. The Principle for the realization of true love, though a rule, does not restrain man, for the freedom that man seeks from the bottom of his heart is the freedom to realize true love. Such freedom is characterized by joy. On the contrary, Sartre’s freedom is characterized by anguish, restraining man to the point of despair, instead of liberating him.

F. Unification Thought and Existentialist Philosophy

As we have seen, the solutions that these five philosophers have reached in their attempts to escape from anxiety (dread, anguish) and from despair are either vague or incomplete or both. According to the Unification Principle, the reason for man’s anxiety and despair is that he is fallen; in other words, he has lost his original position and has become unable to receive love from God and from persons around him. The fact that he has lost his original position and love explains why he is anxious.

This situation is reflected in human relationships as well. Within the family, for example, neither parents nor children are taking their proper positions. When they find their proper positions, they will find true joy and will be liberated from anxiety. In schools, teachers and students are not carrying out their proper roles. When they find their proper positions, teachers will love their students, and students will love and respect their teachers. Only when true positions are understood and kept can a true exchange of love take place; when this happens, anxiety is no more.

Hence, all men must return to their original position. This does not mean that man must go back six thousand years to the beginning of civilization; it means, rather, that man must realize he is fallen and must be re-created, thus recovering his original position in the family, which is the base of the society, nation, and world. When this is done, all problems of anxiety become solved.

As mentioned above, despair and anxiety are a result of man’s having fallen and lost his original position and love. In order to recover what was lost, man must first restore his original relationship with God, especially with God’s Heart. He can do this only if he finds and follows the Messiah (who perfectly embodies God’s Heart as the True Parent), and forms relationships of brothers and sisters with ties of Heart. This is the way for man to restore himself and to create the world that God intended for him from the beginning.

Love is directional: the love of parents for their children is vertical (downward); the love between husband and wife is horizontal; and the love of children for their parents is vertical (upward). Unless each family member is in his or her proper position, true love cannot be realized, for the directions become confused. God’s love cannot be manifested, no matter how much He longs to share His love with man.

Both Kierkegaard and Jaspers said that people ought to love one another, but their explanations about how to realize love were vague and incomplete—as I have shown in the critique of their philosophies. We need a concrete idea on how to realize true love—that is, God’s love. This will be dealt with in “Ethics”, where the realization of God’s love through the family foundation (divisional love) will be explained in detail.