1. Preface
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
2. Samjae
2-1
2-2
2-2-1
2-2-2
2-2-3
2-2-4
2-2-5
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
3. Haneul(Sky)
3-1
3-2
3-2-1
3-2-2
3-2-3
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-8-1
3-8-2
3-8-3
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
4. Tang(Earth)
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-4-1
4-4-2
4-4-3
4-4-4
4-4-5
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-7-1
4-8
5. Saram(Man)
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-4-1
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
6. Ilgiyae
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-7-1
6-7-2
6-8
6-9
6-9-1
6-9-2
6-9-3
6-9-4
6-10
6-10-1
6-10-2
6-11
6-12
7. Kang-Yu
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-3-1
7-3-2
7-3-3
7-4
7-4-1
7-4-2
7-4-3
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-10-1
7-10-2
7-10-3
7-10-4
7-10-5
7-11
7-12
7-13
8. Unity of SJKY
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
8-5
9. Mind of Taekwondo
9-1
9-2

6-12. Do(道)?Yeok(易)?Beop(法)

The entire truth1) that can be understood through Samjae has three names, which are verily DO, Yeok, and Beop. The distinguished objects of them are discerned as yin/yang, Kang/Yu and Heo/Sil respectively. It means, DO generates Kang/Yu, Yeok yin/yang and Beop Heo/Sil. All of these are the distinctive entities of the entirety you understand through Samjae, so yin/yang, Kang/Yu and Heo/Sil are not different from another, yet each is a mere different form of understanding.

How can you say <Do, Yeok, Beop> are the different names of a same thing? “<Do> is the name given from the view of "not-being" to refer to the nondistinctive figure of the absolute, while <Yeok> is the name given from the view of "being" to refer to it./ What is or is not? The what is or is not is verily the distinction,”(Ch.24) so its there-being and there-not-being themselves also rely on Beop. This is why the one nondistinctive truth is differently named as <Do, Yeok, Beop>.

Properly speaking, the Taoists and Confucianists have discussed <Do>. But it was Taoists who understood the Nature with the concept of <Do> positively, while the Confucianists used that of <Yeok> instead. Through all the course of their investigations both the Taoists and the Confucianists never stopped being interested in the matters of men, rather taking an active hand in them. This is same as the ideology of Taekwondo, namely "the transcendence to inside of life."(Ch. 60) On the other, the truth that was said by Buddha is called "the Buddhist Beop". This Buddhist Beop talks of Saek(fullness, 色) and Gong(emptiness, 空), thus talking of the existence and non-existence of entities. This relative existence and non-existence are verily the fullness and the emptiness respectively, for which Heo and Sil, as the application of the Buddhist concepts for ultimate existence and non-existence, can be said to be the appropriate concepts.2) TAEKWONDO has its origin in the Pung Ryu, a Korean tradition that comprehends those three as genuine oneness, so it integrates <Do, Yeok, Beop> in oneness inclusive of Kang/Yu?yin/yang?Heo/Sil.

To observe its distinctive aspects, Kang & Yu are the hardness and the softness, so they are the properties of actions and the dispositions of changes. Yin & Yang are the brightness and the darkness, so they are the properties of beings and the dispositions of objects. Therefore, yin/yang is the framework for recognition of things while Kang/Yu is that for control of change that is immanent in things. As Heo & Sil are the fullness and the emptiness, so they are the relative existence and non-existence of things Taekwondo in itself is the principle of motion, and as far as its name includes the letter "Do", it distinguishes itself mainly along the Kang/Yu. This is the foundation of why techniques of Taekwondo are established according to Kang/Yu.

On the other hand, “fullness is possibility to produce something from its inside while emptiness is that to accept and hold something.”(Ch.37) It means, Heo/Sil is the change of fullness and emptiness, so it is not the property or figure but the movement of being. Therefore, “Your motion, no matter what it might be, comes from the change of <Heo-Sil>, which relies on the differences of Yin & Yang and Kang & Yu.”(Ch. 36)

Bye the way, why do I say <Do> is beyond distinction although it can be discerned by Kang & Yu? The distinction of Kang & Yu is merely practical, and because this cognitive distinction can vanish in the motion of Kang & Yu I say it is beyond distinction. That is, the distinction of Kang & Yu in <Do> is not immanent in <Do>. On the other, it is Heo-Sil that mediates the practical distinction of Kang-Yu and the cognitive distinction of Yin-Yang.

In this way, those three of <Do, Yeok, Beop> get together to be the basis for one another, and then they come to follow the framework of Samjae. For Samjae is the first reflexive framework enables every non-distinctive truth to be understood in distinctive way. Judging from it, as <Do> has no its own immanent distinction it belongs to Haneul; as <Yeok> is distinguished it belongs to Tang; and as it is <Beop> that founds their existence and non-existence it belongs to Saram. Therefore, man's intention can be or cannot be satisfied by the existence or non-existence of what he desires.

1) 그것은 “일체의 이치”이므로 전체이면서 곧 하나이다.
2) 불교 교리에서는 허실 개념이 거의 나타나지 않으며 불교에서 말하는 공색(空色) 개념은 허실과 전적으로 다르다. 즉 색과 공은 존재하는 일체의 있고 없음에 대해서 논한다. 그리하여 색이 곧 공이고 공이 곧 색이다.(色卽是空 空卽是色) 이에 반해서 허실은 분별된 것의 상대적인 비어있음과 차있음을 의미한다. 그러므로 `일단' 허는 실이 아니며 실은 허가 아니다. 하지만 동시에 불법에서는 사물의 모습을 개념적으로 설명하지 않았다. 그러므로 분별된 것으로서의 허실 개념 자체가 나타나지 않는 것이다. 그러므로 원리 전체로서의 <도>와 강유, 그리고 <역>과 음양의 관계와 같거나 적어도 가장 가까운 것이 색즉시공 공즉시색(色卽是空 空卽是色)의 <법>과 허실이라고 상정할 수 있을 것이다. 달리 말하면 개념적 혼동을 무릅쓰고서 허실의 변화를 지칭할 적절한 이름으로서 `법'을 선택하는 것이다. 또한 허실의 상대성으로서 허즉실 실즉허(虛卽實 實卽虛)를 유사한 방식으로(개념적으로는 여전히 근본적으로 다르다) 말할 수 있다.