Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms: Korean Buddhism under Colonial Rule 1557290946, 9781557290946

Table of contents :
Cover
Notes to this edition
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1. Rebound: From Oppression to Emulation of New Models
2. Caught In-Between: Korean Reactions to Japanese Buddhism and Colonial Policies on Buddhism
3. Modernizing Buddhism: Buddhist Reforms before the March First Movement
4. Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance: Buddhist Reforms after the March First Movement
5. A Vision for Social Salvation: Han Yongun's Integration of Sŏn and Kyo
Epilogue
Appendix 1: Major Events in Modern Korean Buddhism and Chronology of Han Yongun's Life
Appendix 2: Table of Contents of the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon)
Appendix 3A: Table of Contents of the Great Texts of Buddhism (Pulgyo taejŏn)
Appendix 3B: Table of Contents of the Holy Texts of Buddhism (Bukkyō seiten)
Bibliography
Glossary-Index
Back Cover

Citation preview

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms Park INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES

CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES

61793BRc-IEAS_TrialError.indd 1

KRM 34

INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ● BERKELEY

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms Korean Buddhism under Colonial Rule

Pori Park

KOREA RESEARCH MONOGRAPH 34

12/29/09 10:22 AM

Notes to this edition This is an electronic edition of the printed book. Minor corrections may have been made within the text; new information and any errata appear on the current page only. Korea Research Monograph 34 Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms: Korean Buddhism under Colonial Rule Pori Park ISBN-13: 978-1-55729-163-9 (electronic) ISBN-13: 978-1-55729-094-6 (print) ISBN-10: 1-55729-094-6 (print)

Please visit the IEAS Publications website at http://ieas.berkeley.edu/publications/ for more information and to see our catalogue. Send correspondence and manuscripts to Katherine Lawn Chouta, Managing Editor Institute of East Asian Studies 1995 University Avenue, Suite 510H Berkeley, CA 94720-2318 USA [email protected]

May 2015

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

KOREA RESEARCH MONOGRAPH

INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ● BERKELEY CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms Korean Buddhism under Colonial Rule

Pori Park

34

A publication of the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Although the institute is responsible for the selection and acceptance of manuscripts in this series, responsibility for the opinions expressed and for the accuracy of statements rests with their authors. The Korea Research Monograph series is one of several publication series sponsored by the Institute of East Asian Studies in conjunction with its constituent units. The others include the China Research Monograph series, the Japan Research Monograph series, and the Research Papers and Policy Studies series. Send correspondence and manuscripts to Katherine Lawn Chouta, Managing Editor Institute of East Asian Studies 2223 Fulton Street, 6th Floor Berkeley, CA 94720-2318 [email protected] Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Park, Pori, 1959Trial and error in modernist reforms : Korean Buddhism under colonial rule / Pori Park. p. cm. -- (Korea research monograph) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-55729-094-6 ISBN-10: 1-55729-094-6 1. Buddhist renewal--Korea. 2. Buddhism--Korea--History--20th century. I. Title. BQ4570.R4P37 2009 294.309519’0904--dc22 2009032514

Copyright © 2009 by the Regents of the University of California. Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. Front cover: Postcard of Mahayŏn Hermitage on Mount Kŭmgang, circa 1930. Reprinted, by permission, from Kim Kwangsik, ed., Han’guk Pulgyo Paengnyŏn, 1900–1999 (Seoul: Minjoksa, 2000). All illustrations herein are from this book and used by permission of Minjoksa, unless otherwise noted. Back cover: Bust of Han Yongun (Manhae) in front of the Manhae Museum located in Manhae Village (Manhae Maŭl) near Paektam Monastery at Inje, Kangwŏn Province, which was built to commemorate Han’s life as a poet, monk, and patriot. Photograph courtesy of the Manhae Museum.

Contents

Acknowledgments Introduction 1. Rebound: From Oppression to Emulation of New Models 2. Caught In-Between: Korean Reactions to Japanese Buddhism and Colonial Policies on Buddhism 3. Modernizing Buddhism: Buddhist Reforms before the March First Movement 4. Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance: Buddhist Reforms after the March First Movement 5. A Vision for Social Salvation: Han Yongun’s Integration of Sŏn and Kyo Epilogue Appendix 1: Major Events in Modern Korean Buddhism and Chronology of Han Yongun’s Life Appendix 2: Table of Contents of the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon) Appendix 3A: Table of Contents of the Great Texts of Buddhism (Pulgyo taejŏn) Appendix 3B: Table of Contents of the Holy Texts of Buddhism (Bukkyō seiten) Bibliography Glossary-Index

vii 1 14 34 48 69 94 118 126 130 131 134 136 148

Acknowledgments

For the completion of this book, I owe immense gratitude to the academic community. My graduate studies began at the University of Iowa, and my sincere thanks for the rigorous academic training that I received there go particularly to Raoul Birnbaum, William Bodiford, and Frederick Smith. My Ph.D. studies at UCLA and the writing of my dissertation there, from which this book has grown, have benefited greatly from the scholarship and support of the UCLA faculty in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures. I offer special thanks to Robert Buswell Jr., my academic adviser, for his erudition, insight, and support of my career, and to my dissertation readers, William Bodiford, John Duncan, Benjamin Elman, and Henry Em, for their invaluable contributions to my studies. I have received much inspiration and support from colleagues in discussions and workshops. In particular, I thank Mark Unno and Roger Jackson at Carleton College. At my present school, Arizona State University, I am most grateful to the wonderful collegiality of my department and of the Asian Studies program in particular. I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks to my colleagues James Foard, Anne Feldhaus, Eugene Clay, Agnes Kefeli, Juliane Schober, Norbert and Hava Samuelson, and Mark Woodward. Special gratitude goes to my department chair, Joel Gereboff, who has provided consistent guidance and encouragement. I am also very thankful for James Benn, who read the entire manuscript and gave me invaluable comments and suggestions. Special thanks also go to my colleagues in Asian Studies, Hyaeweol Choi, Claudia Brown, Tim Wong, Young Kyun Oh, Steve Mackinnon, Hoyt Tillman, James Rush, and Sybil Thornton. My book has greatly improved through presenting portions of it at conferences and workshop discussions with colleagues in the field. In this regard, I would like to thank Don Baker, Richard Jaffe, John Goulde, Nam-lin Hur, Charles Jones, James Ketelaar, George Tanabe Jr., and Zhiru Ng for their timely comments and questions. I am greatly indebted to my colleagues in Korean studies, Jongmyung Kim, Jin-kyung Lee,

viii

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Eunsu Cho, Heo Hungsik, Seong Jun Lee, Kim Kwangsik, Sung Bae Park, Jin Park, and Sungtaek Cho for their valuable feedback on my work. I would like to thank Mikyung Kang at the Yenching Library of Harvard, who helped me on many occasions to find information and to locate research materials; most of all, though, I thank her for her friendship and encouragement. My thanks also go to Esther Han at UCLA for her kind library help. I am very thankful for the assistance of our graduate students Matt Correa and Hwang Junsig. I am most grateful for the excellent copyediting work of Sharon Bear and Sara Jenkins, and to the two editors of the Institute of East Asian Studies at UC Berkeley, Joanne Sandstrom and Kate Chouta, for helping me through this rigorous process. I am particularly grateful to Sharon for her friendship and superb work, and to Kate, who took over the last process of completing the book with her meticulous, detailed work and her patient help. My gratitude also goes to the two reviewers for the Institute of East Asian Studies, who offered me valuable comments and suggestions for improvement of the manuscript. I alone am responsible for any remaining shortcomings. My thanks go to the Korean Foundation for its fellowship support and to its staff members Suh Ah-Jeong and Bangbok Lee for their help. I also would like to thank Arizona State University for the sabbatical leave to complete this book and for the generous subvention toward its publication. My department staff members Roxane Barwick and Marsha Schweizer deserve my warmest thanks for their remarkable assistance. I am grateful to Minjoksa Press for permission to use their treasured photographs in my book. My thanks also go to the Manhae Museum and especially Mr. Son Hunggi, who helped me acquire precious photographs of pieces in the museum’s collection and gave permission to use them here. I am in the deepest debt to my two lifetime gurus: the late Hyuam Sunim, who encouraged me to change my career course to academic studies of Buddhism, and Professor Willem Van Groenou, who showed me the joy and passion of academic pursuit. My words of gratitude will never be sufficient to repay their irreplaceable wisdom, inspiration, and affection. My final heartfelt thanks go to my family and friends who have always been there for me.

Introduction

Buddhism enjoyed royal protection for more than a millennium after its introduction to the Korean peninsula in the latter half of the fourth century c.e. The high status of Buddhism, however, was overturned with the establishment of the Chosŏn 朝鮮 dynasty (1392–1910). The Chosŏn court instituted Confucian ideology in lieu of the Buddhism that had been deeply ingrained in the politics of the preceding Koryŏ 高麗 dynasty (918–1392). The Koryŏ court lavished its financial resources on magnificent monasteries and sumptuous Buddhist rituals, and, in turn, Buddhist monasteries became major landholders and enjoyed numerous social and economic privileges. In the process of upsetting the power structure of the Koryŏ dynasty, the Chosŏn court targeted Buddhism, inflicting great damage on the sangha 僧家 (the Buddhist order), both financially and socially. The Chosŏn court maintained anti-Buddhist policies throughout most of the dynasty, and, as a result, Buddhist clerics fell to one of the lowest social strata. Amid the social and political chaos at the beginning of the twentieth century, however, Korean Buddhism found a new chance to rebound from its fallen status. After the 1876 Korean-Japanese Treaty of Kanghwa, when Japan forced Korea to open Pusan and two other ports and to grant extraterritorial rights to Japanese settlers in the opened ports, the Korean peninsula was caught in the cross fire of rival foreign colonial powers, including China, Japan, and Russia. After the Sino-Japanese War (1894– 1895) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), Japan increased its dominance over the Korean peninsula. Korea was forced to sign the 1905 Protectorate Treaty and subsequently lost its sovereignty to Japan in 1910. As a result, the Korean Buddhist order was, on the one hand, released from the restraints of Chosŏn persecution and, on the other, forced to accommodate its traditional practices to the type of Western modernity brought about by Japanese colonial rule.

2

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

The subsequent reform movement in Korean Buddhism was a concerted effort both to redress the negative effects of five hundred years of persecution under the staunchly Confucian Chosŏn dynasty and to respond to the new social and political contexts that evolved under Japanese rule (1910–1945). This book examines the reform movement, from roughly the early 1900s to 1945, which established the foundation of the modern era of Korean Buddhism. Present-day Korean Buddhism continues to deal with issues of modernity that were raised during that time. Buddhist “Modernist” Reforms The concept of reform movements, as I use it in this book, refers to Buddhist revival efforts during the first half of the twentieth century. Around this time, Western colonial powers were attempting not only to subjugate the military and the economy in Asian countries, but also to influence the realms of culture and religion. The rapid influx of Western civilization brought chaotic disturbances to the traditional equilibrium; Asian Buddhists could no longer enjoy their privileged status in the traditional order. Directly and indirectly, Asian countries reevaluated and rationalized their heritages in the light of new perspectives imposed by the West. They began to believe that their religions, including Buddhism, were obstacles to modernization, and Buddhists were accused of having superstitious practices and backward beliefs. Surrounded by rapidly secularizing societies, Buddhist institutions throughout Asia soon became targets of attack and disestablishment. Thus, Buddhists had to find ways to adjust their religion not only to Western modernity, but also to the new political structure of nation-states that emerged as a result of interaction with the West. In particular, the rapid dissemination of Christianity awakened Buddhists to the imminent nature of the challenges they were facing. Whether or not Buddhism could demonstrate its viability in a new context became the pivotal question for the survival of the religion. George Bond, in his study of the Sinhala Buddhist revival movements, demonstrates how two major concerns of Buddhist reformers were “identity” and “responsiveness.” In other words, Buddhism had to adapt successfully to the changes of a new social context and, at the same time, preserve its traditional cultural appeal. Bond explains: “Since modernization has changed the context radically, religions have an urgent need to respond by reinterpreting, re-presenting the essence of their tradition, their central truth, in a way that provides meaning both within and for the new context.”1 That is, Buddhist reforms had to be carried out in a

1 

Bond, The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka, 13.

Introduction

3

way that would guarantee the continuity of traditions by rendering the religion meaningful in a modern context. Similarly, Sallie King mentions that Buddhist activists are reformist “in the sense that they are deeply committed to the reform of something, although that something varies from case to case and differs in the degree to which it constitutes a challenge to Buddhist tradition itself.”2 She implies that Buddhist reform movements include sets of ideas and positions regarding how to balance old and new elements and how to create a new sense of Buddhist identity. Asian versions of “modernization” were, in other words, not merely a process of Westernization but involved reciprocal interaction between Western and indigenous cultures.3 Although Western modernity became a potent frame of reference for Asian modernization, there was never any question of wholesale Westernization. The identity of Asian culture—that is, its uniqueness vis-à-vis its counterpart in the West—was consolidated and emphasized under the concept of modernization. Buddhists tried to simultaneously recast Buddhist teachings in accordance with Western ideas and resist the encroachment of the West. At the outset of modern reforms, Buddhists felt that the survival of Buddhism depended largely on their ability and willingness to participate in a nationwide march toward co-opting Western-style modernity. The modern reforms meant a series of changes for the traditional order of the Buddhist community, which was centered on monasteries. The most pressing charges against Buddhism were its apparent lack of direct engagement with society and its outdatedness.4 Conspicuously active Christian missionary works were contrasted with the monastic seclusion of Buddhism. Buddhists thus strove to expand their participation in society, mostly by adopting the eleemosynary activities of Christian missionaries. For example, in Sri Lanka, the low-country monks formed their own fraternity, opposing the caste exclusivism of Kandy.5 They then adopted the strategies and organizational skills of Christian missionaries and initiated new movements; they attempted to defend Buddhism by engaging in public debates with Queen and King, Engaged Buddhism, 404. Rozman and Bernstein, The Modernization of China, 5. 4  Davis, “Buddhism and the Modernization of Japan,” 327. 5  Sri Lanka was ruled by a succession of colonial powers. Its low country was first under the rule of the Portuguese and subsequently the Dutch during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The British took over the low country in 1796 and then colonized the entire country in 1815, including the central parts, which constituted the Sinhalese Kandyan kingdom. The Buddhist establishment in the Kandyan region lost the patronage of the kingdom, which had provided religious authority and financial support. The conflict between the Kandyan and low-country Buddhists, which had arisen because of political divisions, became acute. See Malalgoda, Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, 1750–1900, 174. 2  3 

4

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Christian missionaries and purchased printing presses to spread their message. Buddhist activities were further developed with the formation of the Buddhist Theosophical Society by Colonel Olcott in 1880. The Buddhist Theosophical Society was a unified national organization, consisting of clergy and laity. It built Buddhist schools modeled on missionary schools and provided education in English.6 Buddhist chaplains were established in prisons and hospitals, and monks engaged in pastoral care. Scholars have dubbed this brand of Buddhism “Protestant Buddhism” because of its imitation of Protestantism and because of its protest against the British and against Protestant Christian missionaries.7 Another way for Asian Buddhists to participate in broad social concerns, and thus become socially viable, was to adopt and participate in nationalist movements. It is well-established that the global system of nation-states did not appear until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; the linear, progressive, essentialist concept of “nation” is a modern construct. As Robert Sharf has noted, nationalism is “very much the product of modernity and the modern episteme.”8 Academic inquiries differ only in how and in what context these “nationalisms” are said to have arisen. Scholars have discovered the following stimuli of nationalism: global industrialization (Ernest Gellner), the development of print capitalism (Benedict Anderson), the development of modern science and technology (Clive Christie), and people’s pursuit of status and respect (Liah Greenfeld).9 Naoki Sakai suggests that the universalism of modernity and the particularism of nationalism reinforce each other; for example, “only when it is integrated into Western universalism does Japan gain its own identity as a particularity.”10 Similarly, Andrew Feenberg has demonstrated how the forging of Japanese modernity implied cultural nationalism. He suggests that Nishida Kitaro (1870–1945), an influential Japanese philosopher, attempted to provide a solution to the limitations of rationalistic models of Western modernity by integrating Eastern and Western cultures.11 As a by-product, Feenberg argues, Nishida raised Japanese modernity to a level of universality (as a flip side to universalizing forms of Western modernity) by privileging the experience of “absolute nothingness” of Zen Buddhism. In so doing, Nishida tacitly asserted the cultural superiority of Japan over the West. Universalism of religion and Malalgoda, Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, 1750–1900, 250. Gombrich and Obeyesekere, Buddhism Transformed, 7. 8  Sharf, “Whose Zen?” 47. 9  Gellner, Nations and Nationalism; Anderson, Imagined Communities; Christie, A Modern History of Southeast Asia, 3­–6; Greenfeld, “Transcending the Nation’s Worth,” 47–62. 10  Sakai, “Modernity and Its Critique,” 487. 11  Feenberg, “The Problem of Modernity in the Philosophy of Nishida,” 154–155. 6  7 

Introduction

5

particularism of nationalism thus go hand in hand despite their apparent differences. Likewise, Kenneth Wells and Liah Greenfeld cast doubt on Anderson’s argument that nationalism replaced the function of religion in secularizing societies. Greenfeld argues that “[nationalism] was able to develop and become established owing to the support of religion, and if it later replaced religion as the governing passion, in many cases it incorporated religion as a part of the national consciousness.”12 Religion, in Greenfeld’s view, remains a strong force, if not an active accomplice, in the formation of nationalism. Wells also suggests that Anderson’s argument would contradict the reality of religious forms of nationalism, such as Christian or Islamic nationalism.13 He points out that Korean Protestants had no difficulty in retaining both Korean and Protestant identities. Korean Protestants fused their religion and nationalism by trying to incorporate their Christian beliefs into the process of nation building.14 In other words, they maintained their unique form of nationalism within their religious beliefs.15 Pressed by the influx of Western influences, Buddhists felt obliged to accommodate their religion to modernity and thus had no time to deal carefully with issues of identity and responsiveness. The reform movements began largely as reactive strategies to resuscitate Buddhism from its declining fate. It took time for Buddhists to deal with issues on their own terms in ways that engaged Buddhist teachings. Mere accommodations to Buddhist thought and practices, without sensitivity to the historical traditions and environments, produced ineffective and controversial results. Chinese Buddhists, for example, became involved in social charities and education primarily to avoid state persecution. In the latter part of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Buddhist properties were targeted for financial resources to rebuild the country against the threat imposed by Western colonial powers. The Chinese Buddhist establishments, which had already suffered severe devastation during the Taiping Rebellion in the middle of the nineteenth century, faced persistent recurrence of violence. The state withdrew its official protection of Buddhism in 1900 and issued a general order to convert temple property to schools.16 In response, Chinese Buddhists participated in institutional charity work to protect their property from the threat of confiscation and to compete with Christian Greenfeld, “Transcending the Nation’s Worth,” 49. Wells, New God, New Nation, 4–5. 14  Wells, New God, New Nation, 14. 15  Wells, New God, New Nation, 6–7. 16  Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China, 10. 12  13 

6

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

missionaries. They established lay schools, alone or jointly with several monasteries, and set up Buddhist children’s homes and workshops.17 In 1929, the state even legally required Buddhist monasteries to carry out charitable work.18 Given those circumstances, it is not surprising that the Chinese sangha lacked genuine passion for its social involvement, taking responsibility only for the financial operation of clinics, orphanages, and schools, and filling most other staff positions with paid lay workers. Japanese Buddhists also became involved in social work in order to prove the value of Buddhism for supporting national policies. The Meiji state supported the active import of Western civilization and, under the guise of modernization, inflicted severe blows on the Buddhist establishment. Anti-Buddhist measures had begun locally starting in the middle of the seventeenth century.19 The Meiji government carried out antiBuddhist policies nationwide by equating Buddhism with the Tokugawa regime and forging a Shinto national ideology by separating Shinto from Buddhism. The Office of Proselytizers (Senkyoshi) was set up by Shinto propagandists in 1869 to promote Shinto as the national creed. The separation of Buddhism and Shinto (shinbutsu-bunri) came with a popular anti-Buddhist (haibutsu-kishaku) movement that destroyed great numbers of Buddhist institutions. As a way to survive, Japanese Buddhist sects adopted Christian forms of social work, family morals, and wedding ceremonies. They were also involved in evangelistic work in prisons and factories; they propagated the state’s ideology of “rich country, strong army”; and they encouraged social harmony.20 Buddhist charity work thus indiscriminately followed state policies, the objectives of which were to ease the gap between rich and poor caused by industrialization.21 In the same way, Japanese Buddhists’ lack of a philosophy of their own led them to become protectors of the status quo and even accomplices of the state in its war efforts. After the Pacific War (1941–1945), progressive Japanese intellectuals criticized Japanese Buddhism for its involvement with the war effort.22 Under the yoke of colonialism, Buddhists across Asia became targets of criticism, as they were accused of collaborating with the colonizers. In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala Buddhist clergy pursued formal recognition by and patronage of the colonial government, asking persistently for state intervention in the maintenance and supervision of Buddhist Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China, 126. Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China, 130. 19  Collcutt, “Buddhism: The Threat of Eradication,” 146. 20  Davis, “Buddhism and the Modernization of Japan,” 330. 21  Tamamuro Taijō, Nihon Bukkyō shi, 3:373. 22  Hirata, “Zen Buddhist Attitudes to War,” 11. 17  18 

Introduction

7

properties.23 Kitsiri Malagoda suggests that traditional ties with rulers accounted for the failure of the Sinhala Buddhist revival to develop into a concerted movement for national independence.24 Similarly, the Chinese Buddhist order also showed ambivalence when their religious interests and national interests diverged. In 1904, Chinese monasteries voluntarily registered their properties under major Japanese Buddhist sects to solicit protection from the Japanese consulate.25 The Chinese sangha was also accused of collaboration with the Japanese after the Japanese commenced a campaign of military conquest in 1937.26 These examples reflect some of the trial and error involved in merely imitating Western modernity that Buddhists in Korea, China, and Japan had to go through before dealing effectively with issues of identity and responsiveness. The Korean Buddhist Reform Movement The Korean Buddhist reform movement, although its background and development are unique, experienced problems similar to those previously described. Under the tight scrutiny of the Japanese government, the Korean Buddhist order attempted to revitalize Buddhism with the goal of “modernization.” The religious policy of the Japanese colonial government provided a system of order for the Korean sangha (which had disintegrated during the Chosŏn dynasty), but its coercive measures were detrimental to the independence of Korean Buddhists. Nevertheless, the Korean sangha made great strides in instituting modern clerical education and propagation (p’ogyo 布敎) while compromising with the colonial state. At the same time, Korean Buddhists underwent a trial-anderror process in their experiment with modernization, which included, in particular, “secularization” of clerics. Academic studies of Korean Buddhism during the colonial period present the repressive colonial structure and the colonists’ exploitation, focusing on the inroads made by Japanese Buddhist establishments throughout the Korean peninsula, as well as on the restraints of the Temple Ordinance (sach’allyŏng 寺刹令), by which the Japanese regime supervised the Korean sangha directly under its administration.27 In addition, the studies focus mainly on the reform ideas and practices of individual Malalgoda, Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, 1750–1900, 261; De Silva, A History of Sri Lanka, 343. 24  Malagoda, Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, 1750–1900, 261. 25  Malagoda, Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, 1750–1900, 12. 26  Wright, “Buddhism in Modern and Contemporary China,” 18. 27  Sŏ Kyŏng-su, “Ilche ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’aek”; Chŏng Kwangho, “Ilche ŭi chonggyo chŏngch’aek kwa singminji Pulgyo”; Ch’oe Pyŏnghŏn, “Ilche Pulgyo ŭi Ch’imt’u wa Han Yongun ŭi Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon.” 23 

8

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Buddhists.28 Largely, Korean scholars assume that the Buddhist reform movement was anti-Japanese in nature, and their studies are primarily concerned with emphasizing anti-Japanese aspects of Buddhist development during this period. Such research contrasts progressive young clerics with the reputed pro-Japanese Buddhists associated with the abbots of the thirty main state-supported monastery districts. More recent works by Im Hyebong, Kim Kwangsik, and Kim Sunsŏk point out the collaborative actions of members of the youth movement in response to the Japanese regime.29 Whether scholars are sympathetic to or critical of Buddhist actions vis-à-vis the Japanese state, their viewpoint is dominated by nationalist discourse. Given that cleansing the colonial past never has become a public issue, as Im Hyebong notes, debate on the collaboration of Buddhist clerics will continue to arise. I argue that de-colonization failed partly because the Purification Movement (Pulgyo chŏnghwa undong 佛敎淨化運動), which was staged by celibate clerics against the married majority in 1954, distorted the issue of collaboration by equating married clerics with pro-Japanese traitors. During the fierce and prolonged fights between the two camps of clerics, “real” traitors—those who openly supported the colonial government— found a means to survive as members of the Chogye order, as professors at Dongguk University, or as members of other Buddhist camps. Nonetheless, the delimiting nature of focusing on the “patriotic” aspects of Korean Buddhism or the “collaborative” actions of Buddhists brought about discourse in which many other aspects of colonial Buddhism and the complicated nature of Buddhist lives have been easily overlooked. The editors of Colonial Modernity in Korea express similar concerns regarding simple, judgmental nationalist approaches.30 Working from the assumption of the oppressing colonial government and the oppressed Koreans, nationalist approaches, they argue, tend to disregard the complex, intertwined, and conflictual nature of human society. Even under colonial rule, Koreans were not passive victims, but rather strove to maneuver by yielding, compromising, resisting, or negotiating. Moreover, the homogenizing metadiscourse tended to silence the voices of those who belonged to marginal groups and thus were peripheral to nationalist concerns, including women, landless peasants, and outcasts. The more inclusive and nuanced approach introduced by the editors addresses the multiple dimensions of human interactions. They suggest that the 28  Han Kidu, “Pulgyo yusillon kwa Pulgyo hyŏksillon”; Han Chongman, Han’guk kŭndae minjung Pulgyo ŭi inyŏm kwa chŏn’gae; Yang Ŭnyong, “Kŭndae Pulgyo kaehyŏk undong.” 29  Im Hyebong, Ch’inil sŭngnyŏ 108-in; Kim Kwangsik, Han’guk kŭndae Pulgyosa yŏn’gu; Kim Sunsŏk, Ilchesidae Chosŏn Ch’ongdokbu ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’aek kwa Pulgyogye ŭi taeŭng. 30  Shin and Robinson, Colonial Modernity in Korea, 1–18.

Introduction

9

term “colonial modernity” be used to convey that colonial society was not a one-dimensional scene of oppression, but that Koreans faced their fate and sought ways to enhance their lives, whatever the situations in which they found themselves. People were affected by colonial confinement but at the same time persevered to build their lives despite their circumstances. Thus, “colonial modernity” recognizes as many diverse ways of life as there were individuals. My study brings these more inclusive and contextual approaches to the study of colonial Buddhism. Korean Buddhists, because of their special political circumstances, are a difficult group to examine. They were in the lowest social stratum under Confucian rule and later were able to raise their status with the support of “Buddhist” Japan. All of a sudden, when opportunistic aristocrats and government officials, such as the infamous Yi Wanyong, Kwŏn Chunghyŏn, Park Yŏnghyo, and Han Ch’angsu, rushed to become Buddhists, Buddhism became a religion of the privileged. What is more crucial, colonial Japan did not oppress religious reforms, instead encouraging Buddhists to turn their attention away from politics. The Korean sangha, finding itself in this perplexing situation, went through a period of confusion, conflict, and opportunity. Here, I examine the complex nature of colonial Buddhism in the light of modernist reforms, exploring the content and process of reform, major problems, and interactions and conflict among the sangha members in relation to the colonial regime. This study analyzes the extent to which reforms were successful in overcoming the negative effects of persecution by the Chosŏn and of adjusting Buddhist practices to social and political changes. As part of this broad contextual study, I discuss aspects that were neglected previously: long-term ramifications of Chosŏn antiBuddhist policies, activities of Japanese Buddhists after the announcement of the Temple Ordinance, Japanese influences on Korean reforms, and internal reasons for the failure of the reform movement. The Korean Buddhist reform movement can be divided broadly into two phases, before and after the March First Movement of 1919, a nationwide independence movement.31 The first phase was roughly from the early 1900s to 1919, the second from 1919 to the mid-1930s, when the Japanese began to exploit the peninsula as a supply base for their war The March First Movement was a peaceful independence movement that spread nationwide after the leaders made a formal declaration of independence. More than two million Koreans directly participated in more than 1,500 separate gatherings. According to the Japanese government record, 46,948 demonstrators were arrested, 7,509 killed, and 15,961 injured. The real numbers must far exceed the government report. Although the movement failed, the Japanese regime changed its military dictatorship government to a conciliatory one that allowed some political activities by Korean people, such as the vernacular press. See Lee, A History of Korea, 342–344. 31 

10

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

against China. Before this nationalist independent insurgence, reform centered on the sangha. The sangha came to support the colonial government’s policies, both tacitly and overtly, because the reform was apolitical in nature. After 1919, however, the Buddhist order incorporated political and nationalist ideas. Then, starting in the 1920s, differences in orientation surfaced between the dominant group, whose members worked closely with the Japanese administration, and the younger generation. Young Buddhists launched a youth movement and led the campaign for the independence of the sangha from the colonial administration by claiming the separation of religion from politics and calling for the abolition of the Temple Ordinance. This campaign created a great commotion for the sangha during the first half of 1920. Young clerics focused on the unification of the sangha, which was divided into thirty-one main monastery districts, and criticized bureaucratic Buddhism (kwanje Pulgyo 官 制佛敎; literally, “Buddhism for the rulers”), which was subservient to the Japanese government. The focus of the reformation became minjung (the masses); in this sense, minjung Pulgyo 民衆佛敎 (Buddhism for the masses) was not only a way of socially reaching out to people but also a form of resisting state intervention. In the 1930s, as Japanese militarism intensified, the political situation again worsened. Koreans were prevented from using their vernacular script (hangŭl) and forced to change their family names to Japanese surnames. During that time, many Korean nationalists collaborated with the regime, as did the majority of Korean Buddhists, including the youth leaders. In this precarious situation, the Korean sangha, as a united group, carried out reforms by trying to make their religion more widely accessible. One attempt at reviving their religion was by reconstructing it as “modern,” that is, as socially engaging and nationally beneficial. As in other Asian Buddhist countries, however, the mere adoption of social involvement, without a connection to the Buddhist system of practice, caused confusion and failed to create interest in social activities. Moreover, in the process of expanding religious horizons into the social realm, Korean Buddhism became greatly influenced by worldly values. Buddhist clerics sought abbot positions, political power, and material pleasures instead of observing their vows of renunciation and poverty. Similarly, they displayed ambivalent attitudes toward the Japanese state by prolonging their traditional ties to the powerful figures of the regime. They remained in conflict partly because they were unable to find ways to incorporate social ethics and nationalism, given the Buddhist emphasis on existential freedom. That is, they did not approach social and nationalist issues from their own Buddhist perspective.

Introduction

11

I argue, however, that the reformer Han Yongun 韓龍雲 (sobriquet Manhae 卍海; 1879–1944) tried to bridge the gap between identity and responsiveness in a dialectical sense. Han was a leading figure not only in religion but also in literary and social arenas. Today, most Korean people remember him as the great poet who authored The Silence of the Beloved, and as a nationalist leader of the March First Movement, as much as they remember him as a great Buddhist thinker.32 He assisted in drafting the Korean Declaration of Independence, and he wrote “A Discourse on the Independence of Korea” during his imprisonment in 1919—in which he protested against Japan’s forced annexation of Korea and also declared reasons for Korean independence.33 Han became one of the most significant figures for understanding Korean religious life during the colonial period. Academic interest in Han’s literary work began in the 1960s, and interest in his social and religious involvement began in the 1970s. The six volumes of the Han Yongun chŏnjip (Collected works of Han Yongun) were published in 1973.34 Chŏng Sunil has summarized the works of Korean scholars on Han that were produced between the 1960s and 1980s.35 According to Chŏng, academic treatments from the 1960s concentrated mostly on Han’s literary works. Han also became a source of inspiration in the areas of contemporary Korean history and social thought. In the 1970s, works on Han’s social and patriotic activities appeared.36 Scholarly interest in Han’s Buddhist thought, including his attitudes toward meditation, doctrinal teachings, and Buddhist activities, also produced significant studies in Korea starting in the late 1970s. Scholars regard Han Han Yongun, Nim ŭi chimmuk. This book of poetry contains eighty-eight meditative poems composed in modern Korean. See Lee, The Silence of Love. 33  Han Yongun, “Chosŏn tongnip ŭi sŏ.” As one of thirty-three leaders, Han played an important role in planning and organizing the independence movement. Among the leaders, only Han and a reform-minded Sŏn master, Paek Yongsŏng 白龍城 (1864–1940), were Buddhist representatives, whereas the majority came from the indigenous religion Ch’ŏndo-gyo 天道敎 (Religion of the Heavenly Way) and Christianity. 34  The six volumes of the Han Yongun chŏnjip (hereafter abbreviated HYC) contain the following texts: vol. 1—The Silence of the Beloved and “A Discourse on the Independence of Korea”; vol. 2—the Treatise on the Reform of Korean Buddhism and other essays on Buddhism; vol. 3—the Great Canon of Buddhism, An Exposition on the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, and the Annotated Ten Abstruse Conversations; vol. 4—his translation of the Caigentan (K. Ch’aegŭndam; Vegetable root discourses) and the Records of Historical Remains in Kŏnbong Monastery and Its Branch Temples; vol. 5—Black Wind, Remorse, and Iron-Blood Beauty; vol. 6—Ill Fate and Death. The sixth volume (pp. 395–401) contains the index of Han’s writings included in the HYC. For a complete list of Han’s work, see Kim Yŏlgyu and Sin Tonguk, Han Yongun yŏn’gu, 5:39–42. 35  Chŏng Sunil, “Han Yongun ŭi Pulgyo sasang,” 417–420. 36  For secondary works on Han, see Manhae Sasang Yon’guhoe, Han Yongun sasang yon’gu, 305–393; also see Kim Yŏlgyu and Sin Tonguk, Han Yongun yŏn’gu, 5:43–52. 32 

12

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

as a prophet of his time, and his significance in Korean Buddhism is comparable to that of Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686), who was one of the great Buddhist thinkers of the Silla 新羅 kingdom (57 b.c.e.–668 c.e.).37 This study explores Han’s uniqueness in that he attempted to overcome the Buddhist impasse in Korea by bridging social salvation and existential freedom through a salvific idea derived from Buddhist ontology. He emphasized internal attention through Buddhist meditation (sŏn 禪) as much as the ideas of social involvement gleaned from Buddhist doctrine (kyo 敎) and established a dialectical tension between the absolute and the relative through the nondual sŏn/kyo unification. He sought the sense of absolute truth not in isolation from society but in active involvement. Such active involvement, he felt, would not hinder existential freedom inasmuch as it would render each moment the perfect manifestation of the absolute. All in all, Han created a new sense of Buddhist identity, situating modernization within the Buddhist system of thought. Organization of the Present Study This book examines the Korean Buddhist reform movement and how the modern construct of Buddhism developed under colonial rule. Chapter 1 presents Chosŏn anti-Buddhist policies and their long-term effects, which Buddhists had to overcome in their blueprints for the revitalization of the religion. To overcome the otherworldly image of Buddhism and enhance the religion’s diminished social status, the Korean sangha had to find ways to engage with society. This chapter discusses subsequent changes that have affected modern reforms, such as the introduction of Christianity and Japanese Buddhism into the peninsula, whereby Korean Buddhists actively learned “modern” ways. Chapter 2 presents interactions and conflicts with Japanese Buddhist institutions that attempted to subjugate Korean Buddhism under their denominations, as well as an analysis of the Temple Ordinance to determine its effect on the Buddhist reforms. The chapter also describes the opportunities, challenges, and political confinement faced by Korean Buddhists as they embarked on modern reforms. Chapter 3 deals with reforms before 1919, and chapter 4 with those after 1919. The former were apolitical reforms of monastic education and propagation meant to render Buddhism socially useful. After 1919, the youth challenged the docile sangha, calling for the abolition of the Temple Ordinance, and propagated minjung Buddhism as a way to guard against the sangha’s close ties to the state. Chapter 5 presents Han Yongun’s unique approach to the Buddhist dilemma in regard to social engagement. This chapter contains an examination of Han’s life 37 

Pak Nosun and In Kwŏnhwan, Han Yongun yŏn’gu, 59.

Introduction

13

and worldview, which provided a doctrinal basis for active engagement that is congruent with the Buddhist system of thought. Overall, I argue that Korean Buddhists reconstructed Buddhism as socially active and nationally viable by responding to, negotiating with, and, at the same time, resisting the influx of Western modernity and the influence of the Japanese colonial government. The urgent need for survival led to an expansion of the horizons of Korean Buddhism into social realms; at the same time, the new enterprise caused another predicament, namely, difficulty in maintaining monastic traditions. This situation provides a case study of Buddhist adaptation and struggle to develop forms of “modernity” in a colonial context.

ONE

Rebound: From Oppression to Emulation of New Models

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Korean Buddhism had to overcome the effects—social, doctrinal, and institutional—of the antiBuddhist policies of the Chosŏn dynasty before finding a new form that would be compatible with the recently opened society. Amid the social and political chaos, the religion rebounded, stimulated by the arrival of Japanese Buddhist and Christian missionaries following the 1876 Treaty of Kanghwa. The rapid growth and active propagation of these religions challenged Korean Buddhist clerics, who regarded the situation as conducive to change (yusin 維新) and progress (chinbo 進步). Old Buddhist customs had to yield to “enlightened times” (kaemyŏng sidae 開明時代) and “civilized times” (munmyŏng sidae 文明時代 ).1 Japanese Buddhism and Christianity were viewed as advanced forms of religion that offered a frame of reference for the Koreans’ idea of modernity. As groundwork for investigating the major issues involved in Korean Buddhist reform (chapters 3 and 4), this chapter discusses the internal and external circumstances of Korean Buddhism at this crucial juncture in its history. The Chosŏn anti-Buddhist policies are analyzed in terms of the damage they inflicted upon Buddhism and the extent to which the resulting consequences extended to modern Korean Buddhists. Next, the arrivals of Japanese Buddhism and Christianity on the peninsula are analyzed in terms of their effect on Korean Buddhists’ attempts at modernist reforms. The Ramifications of the Chosŏn Anti-Buddhist Policies The political oppression of Buddhism was initiated by early-Chosŏn monarchs and reinforced by later monarchs throughout the dynasty. The Chosŏn court first focused on the dispossession of Buddhist financial resources. The anti-Buddhist act appeared at the end of the Koryŏ dynasty One example of this trend in Buddhist reform is O Chaeyŏng, “Pulgyo pogŭp e taehan ŭigyŏn,” 50–59. 1 

Rebound

15

when Yi Sŏnggye (T’aejo, the founder of Chosŏn; r. 1392–1398) and his literati supporters implemented the Rank Land Law (kwajŏnbŏp 科田法), which stipulated that no one was allowed to donate land to monasteries or shrines. This law also prohibited Buddhist clerics—along with private and public slaves, artisans, merchants, shamans, and courtesans, and their descendants—from possessing land.2 During the reign of the third Chosŏn monarch, T’aejong (r. 1400–1418), the systemic oppression of Buddhism began in earnest, with the court attempting to reduce the size of Buddhist institutions. In 1406 the court officially recognized only 242 monasteries chosen from the existing twelve Buddhist schools and permitted them to hold a limited amount of “monastery lands” (sawŏnjŏn 寺院田), from which the monasteries had the privilege of collecting taxes (sujokwŏn 收租權).3 The court then rationed the numbers of Buddhist clerics and slaves who could inhabit each of the monasteries. The largest allocation of land per monastery was 200 kyŏl 結 (1 kyŏl is approximately 2 acres of grade-one land) with one hundred monk-residents and one hundred slaves; the second level was 100 kyŏl with fifty monk-residents and fifty slaves; the smallest was 20 kyŏl with ten monks and ten slaves. The monasteries excluded from the official designation were allocated only 1 or 2 kyŏl of forest land for firewood. Land from which taxes could be collected was granted to monasteries holding a total of about 11,000 kyŏl. The court confiscated all lands and slaves in excess of the allocations, and the lands and slaves of the unrecognized monasteries were all seized. Yi Chaech’ang of Tongguk University estimates that at least 8,600 monastery slaves were forced to become public slaves and that about 60 percent of the monastery lands were confiscated.4 Many monasteries without a sound financial basis ceased to exist, and many monks had no choice but to defrock. In 1409, the court reduced the twelve Buddhist schools to seven.5 Koryŏ sa, 78:41a–b. T’aejong sillok, 11:13a–b. 4  Yi Chaech’ang, Han’guk Pulgyo sawŏn kyŏngje yŏn’gu, 187. 5  T’aejong sillok, 14:425b. The twelve Buddhist schools were Hwaŏm-jong, Chaŭn-jong, Chogye-jong, Ch’ŏnt’ae-jong, Ch’ongji-jong, Soja-jong, Pŏpsa-jong, Tomun-jong, Chungdojong, Sinin-jong, Namsan-jong, and Sihŭng-jong. They were reduced to seven schools: Hwaŏm-jong, Chaŭn-jong, Chogye-jong, Ch’ŏnt’ae-jong, Ch’ongnam-jong, Chungsin-jong, and Sihŭng-jong. Tomun-jong was absorbed into Hwaŏm-jong; Soja-jong and Pŏpsa-jong were incorporated into Ch’ŏnt’ae-jong; Ch’ongji-jong and Namsan-jong became Ch’ongnamjong; and Chungdo-jong and Sinin-jong became Chungsin-jong. The arbitrariness of the merge is reflected in the fact that Ch’ongnam-jong combined the Esoteric school Ch’ongjijong and the Precept school Namsan-jong and that Chungsin-jong combined the Exoteric Chungdo-jong and Esoteric Sinin-jong. These seven schools were further reduced to the two schools Sŏn-jong (Chogye-jong, Ch’ŏnt’ae-jong, and Ch’ongnam-jong) and Kyo-jong (Hwaŏm-jong, Chaŭn-jong, Chungsin-jong, and Sihŭng-jong). 2  3 

16

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

In 1424, during the succeeding Sejong era (1418–1450), the court further merged the seven schools into only two schools—Sŏn (Meditation) and Kyo (Doctrine)—making the Hŭngch’ŏn Monastery the headquarters of the Sŏn order and the Hŭngdŏk Monastery the headquarters of Kyo.6 Sŏn and Kyo, which had been generic designations, thus became specific names of Buddhist denominations. This arbitrary merging of schools left the Buddhist order in chaos in terms of doctrinal and lineage distinctions. Only thirty-six monasteries were officially recognized, eighteen per school. The total land area of monasteries granted only sujokwŏn was reduced to 7,950 kyŏl. Furthermore, in 1419, the court confiscated slaves from all monasteries except Chŏng’ŏbwŏn, a nunnery supported by the royal house.7 In 1471, during Sŏngjong’s reign (1469–1494) and after Sejo’s (r. 1455–1468) protection of Buddhism, forty-three monasteries apparently had monastery lands totaling 8,300 kyŏl.8 The National Code (Kyŏngguk taejŏn 經國大典), which was compiled during Sejo’s reign and enacted in 1471, codified the regulation that no new monasteries could be built and that only repair of monasteries was allowed. Following this codification, the deposed King Yŏnsan’gun (r. 1494– 1506) confiscated all monastery lands and abolished the two monastery headquarters in the capital.9 Consequently, the two Sŏn and Kyo schools were suspended. During the reign of the succeeding King Chungjong (r. 1506–1544), no monastery lands were returned except those of a few monasteries with connections to the royal families. In 1552, the numbers of officially sanctioned monasteries rose to 395, thanks to the protective policies of Queen Dowager Munjŏng (r. 1546–1553).10 However, after the demise of Munjŏng in 1565, the Sŏn and Kyo schools that had been revived were abolished again and did not recover until the end of the dynasty. As a result, the Buddhist order lost the incentive for doctrinal development that could be stimulated by sectarian promotion, and the abolition of sectarian identities confounded lineage problems among clerics. After Munjŏng’s reign, most of the privileged monastery lands disappeared permanently except, again, for those with connections to the royal families. Monasteries struggled to secure even those lands for which they were liable to pay taxes. Under these anti-Buddhist policies, Buddhist clerics became the targets of institutional control and social abuse. T’aejo instituted the monklicense identification system called toch’ŏpche 度牒制. Novices needed to Sejong sillok, 24:2b–3b. Sejong sillok, 6:7b. 8  Sŏngjong sillok, 9:17b–18a. 9  Yŏnsan’gun ilgi, 60:18b. 10  Myŏngjong sillok, 13:9b. 6  7 

Rebound

17

make a large payment to obtain the license: men of noble birth were required to pay 100 bolts (p’il) of medium-quality hemp (tatsebe), commoners, 150 bolts, and the low-born, 200 bolts.11 By establishing these high requirements, the court intended to prevent commoners in particular from becoming monks in order to avoid their heavy burdens of land tax, corvée (forced) labor, and military service. The National Code modified the regulations so that the monk license was to be issued to those who had passed examinations that involved reciting Buddhist sutras and who had paid 20 bolts of high-quality hemp (chŏngp’o 正布). In 1492, the issuing of the monk license was temporarily suspended by Sŏngjong under pressure from Confucian officials.12 Although the monk-license system posed a great obstacle to monk candidates, Confucian officials lobbied the king for its abolition, arguing that its existence legitimized the process of becoming a monk. Sŏngjong also ordered those practicing monks who did not have the monk license to be forcibly laicized. The monklicense system was reinstated only during Munjŏng’s reign. As another way to both control unofficial routes to monkhood and estimate the numbers of illegitimate monks, Chosŏn kings issued licenses to monks who were already ordained in exchange for corvée labor. Sejong, Sejo, and Sŏngjong granted licenses to those who provided corvée labor by repairing monasteries and building palaces. Even after the license system was revoked, however, the number of monks increased as many men sought to avoid the severe burdens of military service and corvée labor. During Chungjong’s reign, on two occasions monks who participated in corvée labor were also given the monk license: in 1535, three thousand received the license, and in 1537, five thousand.13 Another five thousand monks were given the license after Munjŏng reinstituted the monk-license system and the Sŏn and Kyo schools in 1550.14 In 1660, Hyŏnjong (r. 1659–1674) issued a decree to laicize those who had previously been commoners and to punish those who did not comply with the law.15 How effective this decree was remains unknown because of the social disorder during the latter part of the dynasty. Monk examinations, through which leaders of the Buddhist order were selected, were also suspended during Yŏnsan’gun’s reign and officially abolished during Chungjong’s. With their abolition, formal ties between the Buddhist order and the court were severed; the official hierarchy within the order was obliterated; and the intellectual quality of monks T’aejo sillok, 2:6a–b. Sŏngjong sillok, 262:2a. 13  Kim Ugi, “Chosŏn Chungjongdae Kim Anro chipkwŏngi ŭi chedo kaep’yŏn kwa kŭ sŏngkyŏk,” 5–9. 14  Kim Ugi, “16 segi wisin chŏngch’igi ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’aek,” 78. 15  Hyŏnjong kaesu sillok, 4:60b. 11  12 

18

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

declined greatly. The examination was reinstated during Munjŏng’s time, then abolished permanently after her death. Most damagingly, the court prevented monks from entering the capital, Hanyang (today’s Seoul). In 1449, Sejong restricted monks from Hanyang unless they needed to see their parents or to buy things from marketplaces.16 A rule in the National Code prohibited monks from entering the capital except for soliciting alms, seeing parents or siblings, or buying necessities for Buddhist rites.17 Buddhism was thus removed from the central stage of politics, and the social status of monks dropped drastically. Succeeding monarchs abided by this injunction until 1895. The Veritable Records of the Chosŏn Dynasty (Chosŏn wangjo sillok 朝鮮王 朝實錄) records complaints from court bureaucrats to the king, urging the strengthening of the prohibition, in 1530, 1539, 1623, 1749, 1783, and 1815.18 These complaints indicate that some monks still found ways to sneak into the capital by back doors. Furthermore, monks were pressured by heavy demands of tribute taxes and corvée labor. Beginning in the reign of the Chosŏn founder, T’aejo, they were involved in building not only palaces but also houses of government officials.19 As mentioned before, some kings offered monks the monk license only after having them repair monasteries and build palaces and dams.20 During the late-Chosŏn period, monks were frequently on call for labor but did not receive the license. Monks also took part in battles during the Japanese invasions (1592–1598) and the Manchu invasions (1627, 1636). Even after these wars, monks were in charge of the construction and defense of the fortresses at Namhan and Pukhan mountains.21 They also had to assume all the expenses involved in this defense, thereby draining the financial resources of the monasteries. Monasteries were responsible for conscripting seven hundred monks every two months to serve as soldiers in both fortresses, a difficult requirement for the monasteries to meet. In 1755, the court allowed monks to pay 40 yang per person yearly instead of performing military service. This amount was reduced by half in 1785, but the financial burden was still heavy. The tribute taxes the monks were obliged to pay included providing daily supplies, such as paper, straw sandals, and wheat flour, to central

Sejong sillok, 123:14a. Kyŏngguk taejŏn, 5:8b. 18  Chungjong sillok, 67:1b, 90:714b; Injo sillok, 2:6a; Yŏngjo sillok, 69:17b; Chŏngjo sillok, 15:1b; Sunjong sillok, 18:3a. 19  T’aejo sillok, 7:4b–5a. 20  Kim Ugi, “Chosŏn Chungjongdae Kim Anro chipkwŏngi ŭi chedo kaep’yŏn kwa kŭ sŏngkyŏk,” 5–9. 21  Yi Chaech’ang, Han’guk Pulgyo sawŏn kyŏngje yŏn’gu, 181–185. 16  17 

Rebound

19

and local officials.22 Moreover, officials frequently demanded traditional products of monasteries, such as wild edible greens, herbs, fruits, and honey. Economic exploitation and social abuses alone drove some monks out of their monasteries. The Veritable Records of the Chosŏn Dynasty includes a report indicating that in 1670 most monasteries were empty because monks had fled from the heavy burden of the paper tribute tax: large monasteries had to pay 80 volumes (kwŏn 卷) and small ones 60 volumes of paper.23 The report states that in 1779 monks had dispersed because of the heavy burden of the defense payment.24 In 1790, Yun Saguk, the governor of Wŏnch’un (today’s Kangwŏn) Province, reported that the heavy tribute tax, corvée work, and mistreatment of monks by literati left monasteries in decline and monks suffering. Overall, long-term political oppression depleted the financial and human resources of the Buddhist order. The society as a whole exploited the monastery economy, and Buddhist monks were vulnerable to abuses and injustice. Chosŏn Buddhism fell into a period of internal exile as monks hid in remote mountains and lived incognito.25 With the abolition of sectarian distinctions, the Buddhist order became amorphous, and traits of dharma lineages became blurred. The schools of Sŏn and Kyo were confused, and doctrinal developments reached their lowest point.26 There was no central system that watched over the education and discipline of monks. Monks had limited methods of networking among themselves and thus survived and existed individually. As a result, the Buddhist order lost its social prestige and leadership. Moreover, being scattered around the country, monks had no system for interacting publicly with the society. They contacted the laity only individually, and this contact was confined to illiterate peasants and women. Without much development in Buddhist thought, Buddhist practices became prone to mixing with indigenous practices and to satisfying visible, worldly concerns. The Buddhists’ tenacity allowed them to survive the Chosŏn policies at least to the degree that they provided a foundation for the Buddhist revival during the colonial period. Under the anti-Buddhist policies, monasteries were focused exclusively on financial survival and were maintained by a stream of peasants who were driven off their land by the political and economic disorder of the time. Monasteries strove to increase tax-exempt lands by liaison with royal families. Monks were skilled in producing paper, straw sandals, leaven, and carpentry, and Kim Kapchu, “Chosŏn sidae sawŏn kyŏngje ŭi ch’ŭi,” 330. Hyŏnjong kaesu sillok, 23:13b. 24  Chŏngjo sillok, 8:13a. 25  Kim Yŏngt’ae, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi chongt’ong chongmaek,” 183–184. 26  Kwŏn Kijong, “Chosŏn sidae,” 98–102. 22  23 

20

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

they used income from their labor to acquire personal property. During the last quarter of the seventeenth century, the court allowed monks to bestow their property on their disciples and monasteries.27 Another way for monks to secure financial survival was to form a selfsupporting association, called a kye 契, among themselves.28 The kye was a popular form of promoting friendship and mutual financial assistance among commoners in the late Chosŏn. There were about twenty different types of kye formed by monks and lay devotees, and in a large monastery, ten kye might exist simultaneously. Some kye were formed among monks who shared the same teacher, who undertook the same monastery duties, or who spent a retreat together during the same season. The most frequent form of kye among monks was tonggap-gye 同甲契, which consisted of members within a six-year age range. Its members collected a certain amount of money at the outset and increased the amount by lending it at interest. The funds were kept rolling until they reached a predetermined sum. The members usually donated the final sum in the form of lands to their monasteries. Thanks to various tonggap-gye, monasteries were able to increase their landholdings. Within the harsh political environment, Chosŏn monks left a legacy of helping one another, putting the sangha before individual concerns, respecting monks who were devoted to religious practice, and establishing democratic procedures for handling monastery affairs through the “public council of monasteries” (sanjung kongsa).29 Buddhist survival was also possible because of the reluctance of Chosŏn monarchs to force the complete eradication of Buddhism as a religion, which was the agenda of the zealous Confucian literati-bureaucrats. Well into the middle of the sixteenth century, there was tension between monarchs and Confucian officials regarding Buddhist policies. Sejong, who along with T’aejong was most responsible for damaging the institutional structure of Buddhism, was personally inclined toward Buddhism in his later years and had Buddhist texts—the Wŏrin ch’ŏn’gang chi kok 月印千江之曲 (Songs of the moon’s reflection on a thousand rivers) and Sŏkpo sangjŏl 釋譜詳節 (Episodes from the life of the Buddha)— published in hangul. The seventh ruler, Sejo, was even an overt supporter of Buddhism. During his reign, Buddhism enjoyed an opportunity to recover and experienced an increase in both monastery landholdings and numbers of monks. Sejo built the Wŏn’gak Monastery in the capital and produced numerous hangul translations of Buddhist scriptures by Kim Kapchu, Chosŏn sidae sawŏn kyŏngje yŏn’gu, 158. Kim Kapchu, Chosŏn sidae sawŏn kyŏngje yŏn’gu, 130–135. 29  During the colonial period, the Temple Ordinance replaced this horizontal council with the hierarchical abbot system. 27  28 

Rebound

21

establishing the Superintendency for Sutra Publication (Kan’gyŏng togam 刊經都監), which was disestablished in 1471 by Sŏngjong. Although Sŏngjong called himself a Confucian king, during the first six years of his reign he was under the influence of the wife of Sejo, the devout Buddhist Queen Dowager Chŏnghŭi (1418–1483), who ruled in regency. In 1480, Chong Kŭgin estimated that there were still about ten thousand monasteries, and more than a hundred thousand monks and nuns.30 Despite the anti-Buddhist policies, the royal house still observed Buddhist funeral and memorial rites for kings and queens until 1511, when Chungjong officially prohibited them.31 Despite furious objections from officials, Queen Dowager Munjŏng subsequently revived the Sŏn and Kyo sects, the monk licenses, and the monk examinations that had been abolished by Yŏnsan’gun. After the demise of Munjŏng, all were abolished again and never reinstated. Moreover, after the Japanese invasion beginning in 1592 and the Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636, the court was obliged to recognize the contributions that monks had made during the wars and their role in the defense of the fortresses of the Namhan and Pukhan mountains afterward.32 The king granted official ranks to monastic leaders, but the monk examinations were never reinstituted. During the late Chosŏn, the crumbling of the economic order and the status system caused the court to loosen its grip on the Buddhist order. Under these circumstances, the human resources of the sangha were supplied by landless peasants trying to avoid the heavy burdens of land tax and corvée labor. As the anti-Buddhist policies extended over a period long enough to change the substratum of society, however, Buddhism further lost its influence over social and cultural life. The ultimate goal of the Confucian literati was the Confucianization of society. Neo-Confucianism gradually emerged as the dominant discourse and, at its peak in scholarly development in the sixteenth century, produced scholars of international fame such as Yi Hwang (1501–1570) and Yi I (1536–1584). Furthermore, NeoConfucians attempted to dictate a daily code for people’s lives.33 This code prescribed funeral and memorial rites based on the Family Rites of Zhu Xi (C. Zhuzi jiali, K. Chuja karye 朱子家禮). The Confucian literati also tried to inject Confucian ways into local customs through the community compact (hyangyak 鄕約), prescribing proper social, village, and family behavior. As the society was gradually Confucianized in nearly every aspect of life, people internalized anti-Buddhist sentiments and Sŏngjong sillok, 122:10b. Chungjong sillok, 25:43b. 32  Yi Chaech’ang, Han’guk Pulgyo sawŏn kyŏngje yŏn’gu, 170–174. 33  Hwang Wŏn’gu, “Yijo yehak ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwajŏng,” 239–263. 30  31 

22

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

disparaged Buddhist teachings and Buddhist clerics. In the end, Chosŏn Buddhism earned several epithets after all the years of political persecution: mountain Buddhism (san’gan Pulgyo 山間佛敎), Buddhism for monks (sŭngnyŏ Pulgyo 僧侶佛敎), Buddhism for women (ch’ima Pulgyo 치마佛敎), and Buddhism for securing worldly desires (kibok Pulgyo 祈福 佛敎). In the early twentieth century, Korean Buddhists embarked on reform movements to overcome all the negative effects of the anti-Buddhist policies. The Arrival of Japanese Buddhism and Christianity In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Korean Buddhists faced another crisis as Korea became a hotbed of hegemonic competition among colonial powers. With the influx of Christian missionaries and Japanese Buddhist clerics after the opening of the Korean ports in 1876, the “three religions of Japan” entered the peninsula: the first Buddhist missionary temple was established in 1877; a “Religious Shinto” (Tenri-kyō) temple opened in 1893; and, ten years later, the first Japanese Christian church was established. Japanese Buddhist orders began to send their clerics to Korea soon after 1876. As Japanese legations, guards, servants, and merchants arrived in the peninsula, so did the Japanese Buddhist denominations. According to Eda Toshio, the clerics came in three waves.34 The Higashi Honganji sect (ha) of the Jōdo Shin 淨土眞 school (shū) established branch temples in Pusan in 1877, Wŏnsan in 1881, Inch’ŏn in 1885, and Seoul in 1890, soon after the Korean court opened these cities.35 Four years after the Higashi sect arrived, the Nichiren 日連 school also embarked on a mission and built temples in Pusan in 1881, Wŏnsan in 1893, and Inch’ŏn in 1895.36 In 1880, there were 835 Japanese nationals in Korea; by 1890, the population had grown to 7,245.37 Japanese Buddhist clerics had experienced their own share of antiBuddhist measures in the nineteenth century and embarked on foreign missions as a way of survival by supporting the military campaign of the state; Japanese Buddhists had to deal with the anti-Buddhist policies of the Meiji government (1868–1912) at the same time that they were facing the challenges of Western civilization.38 Kitagawa describes the effects of the Meiji policies as follows: “In 1871 all temple lands were confiscated by government order, and all Buddhist ceremonies that had been performed Eda Toshio, Chōsen Bukkyoshi no kenkyū, 427. Chōsen Kaikyō Kantoku-fu, Chōsen kaikyō gojūnen-shi, 22–24, 29–30, 44–46. 36  Aoyanagi Nanmei, Chosen shukyo shi, 143–144. 37  Duus, The Abacus and the Sword, 290. 38  Kitagawa, Religion in Japanese History, 226–232. 34  35 

Rebound

23

in the imperial household were abolished. In the following year all the ranks and privileges previously bestowed upon the Buddhist hierarchy were revoked.”39 Between 1872 and 1884, Buddhist monks were merged into Shintoism as doctrinal instructors (kyōdōshoku 敎導職) and required to wear Shinto robes, perform Shinto rituals, and promote the “Great Teaching” of the state.40 The kyōdōshoku replaced sectarian ordination, and the numbers and activities of the Buddhist clergy came under the control of the state.41 Moreover, with the promulgation of the Imperial Rescript on Education in 1890, which taught the national virtues of loyalty and filial piety, the ideology of the emperor system (tennosei) became firmly established. Japanese religions were thus reconfigured in such a way so as to support and strengthen the Meiji system, and most Japanese Buddhists became ardent propagandists of the state ideology. At the same time, in contrast, some Japanese Buddhists embarked on a campaign to separate religion and politics. This movement started with Shimaji Mokurai’s attack on the state’s religious policy in 1872. The Shin sect petitioned the Ministry of Doctrine (Daikyōin 大敎院) for a similar separation in 1873.42 Finally, the ministry was abolished in 1875, as was the doctrinal instructor system in 1884. Freedom of religion was, at least by appearance, constitutionalized in 1889.43 Despite this campaign for the separation of religion and politics, most Japanese Buddhists embraced nativistic sentiments and maintained strong support for the statist ideology; they presented themselves as protectors of Japanese traditions from the encroachments of Western culture and promoted Buddhism as a way to defend the nation from the intrusion of Christianity.44 Concurrently, Japanese Buddhists instituted a nationwide movement to co-opt Western-style modernity as a way of coping with the persecution.45 While maintaining a strong anti-Christian stance they aggressively incorporated Christian tactics, engaging in social action and evangelistic work in prisons, schools, and factories. Buddhist charity work during the early Meiji was a defensive response to the challenge of Protestant charity organizations.46 Kitagawa, Religion in Japanese History, 202. Ketelaar, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan, 122. 41  Jaffe, “Neither Monk Nor Layman,” 70. 42  Tamamuro Taijō, Nihon Bukkyo shi, 3:328. 43  Even after the promulgation of the constitution, the Japanese government still controlled religious freedom in order to protect imperial families and imperial national policies (Tamamuro Taijō, Nihon Bukkyo shi, 328). 44  Masutani and Undō, “Buddhism,” 144, 146. 45  Davis, “Buddhism and the Modernization of Japan,” 327. 46  Davis, “Buddhism and the Modernization of Japan,” 332. 39  40 

24

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Another effort to defend Buddhism from Meiji persecution was the creation of New Buddhism (shin Bukkyō 新佛敎), a modernized form of lay Buddhism that conceived of society as separate from the state.47 New Buddhism appeared as “modern, cosmopolitan, humanistic, and socially responsible.”48 The Japanese established a solid basis for Buddhist scholarship by incorporating Western learning and methods. In the first half of the twentieth century, Japan emerged as a world leader in Buddhist scholarship. Buddhist studies were systematized and integrated on a grand scale, as the Japanese undertook the publication of such important texts as the Taishō shinshū daizōkyō, Nihon daizōkyō, Dai Nihon bukkyo zensho, Kokuyaku daizōkyō, and others.49 Lay Buddhists were also responsible for disseminating Zen teaching in the West, among them Nishida Kitaro, D. T. Suzuki (1870–1966), and Hisamatsu Sin’ichi (1889–1980). These teachers emphasized meditation and direct spiritual experience, devaluing institutional forms of Zen practice.50 The contemporary version of Zen Buddhism was constructed, according to Robert Sharf, as an offspring of New Buddhism.51 Zen was propagated as a modern, humanistic form of inquiry different from ritual and superstitional practices, an “empirical, rational, and scientific mode of inquiry into the true nature of things.” The Western image of Zen as “a mystical or spiritual gnosis that transcends sectarian boundaries,” Sharf argues, was a product of the twentieth century.52 Japanese lay intellectuals popularized this laicized form of Zen as a spiritual solution to the problem of modernity, which arose through contact with Westerners.53 The presentation of Zen as a transcendental experience appealed to the West and enhanced the prestige of Japanese Buddhism. Suzuki was largely responsible for the dissemination of this form of Zen, along with proponents of the Kyoto school, such as Hisamatsu Shin’ichi and Nishitani Keiji (1900–1990).54 Japanese Buddhists undertook their missionary work in Korea, Taiwan, and China as an extension of their service to the state, complying with the state’s military policies in their overseas activities.55 They also supported the imperial aspirations of the government during the SinoJapanese War and the Russo-Japanese War and sent war missionaries to Davis, “Buddhism and the Modernization of Japan,” 332. Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience,” 247. 49  Stone, “A Vast and Grave Task,” 225–227. 50  Sharf, “The Zen of Japanese Nationalism,” 140. 51  Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience,” 248. 52  Sharf, “Whose Zen?” 44. 53  Sharf, “Whose Zen?” 48. 54  Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience,” 247. 55  Ketelaar, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan, 166. 47  48 

Rebound

25

the battlefronts to comfort soldiers. Winston Davis comments as follows on the collaboration of Japanese Buddhists with the Japanese imperial state: To prove its “usefulness” to the state, Buddhism became a cornucopia of good works. . . . Buddhist sects began to train and dispatch home missionaries to conduct evangelistic work in prisons, schools, and factories. Foreign missionaries were sent out to “pacify” the new colonies. Buddhist chaplains began to accompany the army in its sallies abroad.56

Buddhist missionary activities were an active component in supporting the advancement of the colonial expansion of Japanese government.57 Sending Japanese clerics overseas thus fulfilled the duty of supporting the “national structure” (kokutai) of the emperor’s theocracy and imperial expansion. The first Korean missions were prompted by a special letter of request sent to the head of Honganji, Ōtani Kōshō (1871–1894), by the ministers of interior and foreign affairs of the Japanese government.58 The Japanese government solicited the assistance of Japanese Buddhists to serve Japanese nationals in Korea and, more importantly, to function as a buffer zone to ease the animosity of Koreans toward the Japanese military and economic encroachment. The Higashi Buddhists were pleased to accede to the government’s need and embarked on their mission in Korea. They carried out foreign missions to fulfill the religion’s mandate, namely, “serving the monarch and nation and abiding by the king’s law before the religion’s.”59 Similarly, the Higashi headquarters proudly sent Okumura Enshin (1843–1913) to Korea partly because he was the direct descendant of Okumura Joshin; the Higashi order celebrated Joshin as the first missionary landing in Chosŏn Korea just before the Japanese invasion of 1592. As a monk, Joshin attracted less suspicion than government officials while traveling around the country and surveying the topography and people’s living situations. The knowledge acquired during his travels assisted Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the subsequent invasion of Chosŏn.60 Joshin was Davis, “Buddhism and the Modernization of Japan,” 324. Recently, more than four decades after being involved with empire building, a small number of Japanese Buddhist schools began to make public apologies for their collaboration in the war. The Higashi Honganji branch of Jōdo Shinshū expressed its regrets in 1987, the Nishi Honganji branch of Jōdo Shinshū in 1991, Sōtōshū in 1992, and the Jimon branch of Tendaishū in 1994. The Sōtōshū, for example, apologized for their support for the imperialist state in its overseas missionary activities that were detrimental to the well-being of the Koreans and Chinese, but the other schools made only brief statements of apology for their support of the war (Victoria, Zen at War, 152–157). 58  Chōsen Kaikyō Kantoku-fu, Chōsen kaikyō gojūnen-shi, 18–19. 59  Chōsen Kaikyō Kantoku-fu, Chōsen kaikyō gojūnen-shi, 75–77. 60  Chōsen Kaikyō Kantoku-fu, Chōsen kaikyō gojūnen-shi, 18–19; Aoyanagi Nanmei, Chōsen 56  57 

Figure 1.1: A branch temple in Pusan built by the Nishi Honganji sect of the Jōdo Shin school.

Figure 1.2: Buddhist monks in the early twentieth century.

Figure 1.3: Okumura Enshin, a missionary cleric who arrived at Pusan in 1877, sent by the Japanese Higashi Honganji sect of the Jōdo Shin school.

Rebound

27

thus hailed as a hero in Japan but condemned as a spy by Koreans. It may not be a coincidence that his descendant Enshin went to Korea to initiate Japanese Buddhist missions before Japan colonized the country. Higashi Buddhists were proud of another connection with the 1592 invasion: in Seoul, they built a temple on the middle slope of Mount Namsan, where Katō Kiyomasa, the commander in chief of the Japanese army, made his military base during the invasion of 1592.61 The Higashi recorded that this location was a supremely auspicious one for the temple site. The second wave of Japanese clerics arrived after the Sino-Japanese War. With the Japanese victory over the Chinese military in Korea, the Japanese population expanded quickly; in Inch’ŏn alone, as an example, the Japanese population grew from 2,500 to 4,500.62 By 1900, the population of Japanese settlers in Korea had reached 15,829. Around this time, the Nishi Honganji sect of the Jōdo Shin school began its missionary work; the Jōdo 淨土 school had begun its missionary work in 1897.63 The third wave of clerics arrived in Korea after the Japanese triumph in the Russo-Japanese War. All the other major Japanese denominations, specifically the Sōtō 曹洞 school, Shingon 眞言 school, and Rinzai 臨濟 school, arrived after this war.64 By this time, the promotion of migration to Korea had become a firm government policy,65 and between 1900 and 1910, the Japanese population in Korea grew tenfold. In 1905, Korea became a protectorate of Japan, and in 1910, a colony. With colonization, the number of Japanese nationals in Korea reached 171,543. Most of the Japanese denominations that were influential in Korea arrived before the 1910 annexation. By 1911, six Japanese Buddhist schools and eleven Japanese Buddhist sects existed on the peninsula.66 These denominations went to Korea with the legitimate reason of serving the religious needs of Japanese government officials, soldiers, and migrants. As the Japanese population in Korea grew, the settlers became concerned about the education of their children. The Japanese mission temples responded to this need, and establishing schools for Japanese shukyo shi, 121–122. 61  Chōsen Kaikyō Kantoku-fu, Chōsen kaikyō gojūnen-shi, 48–49. 62  Duss, The Abacus and the Sword, 290–291. 63  Chōsen Sōtoku, Shisei nijūgonenshi, 188. For Japanese Buddhism in Korea, see also Kang Sŏkchu and Pak Kyŏnghun, Pulgyo kŭnse paengnyŏn; Pulgyo Sahakhoe, Kŭndae Han’guk Pulgyo saron; Kang, “The Secularization of Korean Buddhism under the Japanese Colonialism,” 42–47. 64  For Japanese Buddhism in Korea, see Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 4: “Ilbon Pulgyo,” 1–48; Pak, “Buddhism in Modern Korea,” 32–36. 65  Duus, The Abacus and the Sword, 295–301. 66  Kim Sunsŏk, Ilchesidae Chosŏn Chongdokbu ŭi Pulgyo chŏngchaek kwa Pulgyogye ŭi taeŭng, 24.

28

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

children became one of their main purposes. In addition, Japanese clerics tried to promote good relationships with the Koreans. The Higashi branch reported that its missionaries had come to Korea to facilitate and develop the relationship between Japanese residents and the Korean populace. However, Koreans were suspicious about and hostile toward the Japanese. When the port of Wŏnsan on the northern east coast was opened, for example, the local people showed their anger about the Japanese presence in their city. Koreans bit and even killed Japanese, according to reported cases. Additionally, Koreans refused any interaction with the Japanese, preventing them from entering the Korean market area.67 The monk Okumura Enshin tried to resolve this resentment through goodwill; he mediated as a clergyperson, successfully persuading Koreans to open their minds and markets to the Japanese. To counteract the Koreans’ antagonism, Japanese clerics engaged in activities that enhanced their image and eventually helped convert Koreans to the Japanese religions. Among the means employed to win the Koreans’ favor were inviting Koreans to Japanese temples where they were introduced to Japanese culture and sending Korean monks and laypeople to Japan, where they saw highly developed facilities for promulgating Buddhism, encountered “modern” civilization, and studied at Japanese schools. In addition, Japanese missionaries established social outreach programs. In 1877 the Higashi Honganji organized a charity group for the poor at Pusan and in 1906 built a medical clinic for street people at Seoul.68 The Nishi Honganji built a Buddhist high school and elementary school in Seoul and opened night schools and Japanese language schools in Hwanghae, Kyŏngsang, and Pyŏng’an provinces. The Jōdo school established a secondary commercial school in Kaesŏng in 1901, with the support of interested local Korean people.69 Through such active social engagement, Japanese clerics publicized their good works and promoted interaction with Koreans. In addition to supporting the well-being of the Japanese community, these activities contributed to the building of the emperor system of the Meiji state as part of its colonial expansion. Japanese Buddhist clerics served the military by accompanying them on imperial expeditions and tended to their needs during the Sino-Japanese and the Russo-Japanese wars. The Higashi temple in Pusan actively assisted with the landing of military troops in Pusan and the transportation of military cargo; the

Chōsen Kaikyō Kantoku-fu, Chōsen kaikyō gojūnen-shi, 26–27. Aoyanagi Nanmei, Chōsen shukyo shi, 123–134. 69  Yoshikawa Buntaro, Chōsen no shukyo, 268. 67  68 

Rebound

29

temple was used as military headquarters for medical treatment and for comforting soldiers.70 Japanese clerics also helped the government target the Korean Buddhist order as a group favorable to the Japanese rule. Korean clerics, desperate over their fallen status, bought into the Japanese “modern” rhetoric and accepted Japanese Buddhism as a model for the revitalization of their religion. Japanese Buddhist missionaries converted Koreans by subordinating their monasteries to Japanese establishments (a matter that will be discussed in chapter 2). In so doing, they could use Korean temples and clerics for the propagation of their own teachings and easily persuade Korean Buddhists to accept Japan’s political causes, including the colonization of Korea. In addition to Japanese Buddhism, Christianity began to make its mark on the religious landscape of the peninsula. The Korean Catholic Church was established around the last quarter of the eighteenth century, but the government tacitly recognized its existence only after the 1876 Treaty of Kanghwa. Church membership grew rapidly at the turn of the last century: believers were estimated at 13,625 by 1885 and 73,517 in 1910. Similarly, Protestant missionaries arrived in the peninsula in the mid-1880s and enjoyed unprecedented success in converting people to their faith. The number of Protestant believers reached about 37,400 in 1905 and had increased to 140,000 by 1910.71 When Japan annexed Korea in 1910, there were 277 foreign missionaries active in Korea (158 American, 64 British, and 45 French), and 198,635 Christians. Because of these substantial numbers, the colonial government was very careful in its dealings with this active religion with foreign connections.72 Before Korean Buddhism recovered from its fallen status, Christianity spread rapidly, and during the colonial period Christians outnumbered Korean Buddhists. “There were mission stations in every corner of Korea,” James Grayson writes, “and everywhere schools were created and medical work carried on along with pure evangelism.”73 According to a Japanese government report, the number of Korean Christians, including Catholics and Protestants, had reached 259,000 by the end of 1927; there were 3,069 churches with 3,447 clergy.74 This report numbers Christians at about 416,100 (Catholics, 95,500; Protestants, 320,600) around 1935. Statistics provided by Christian organizations show higher numbers: Protestants were reported to number about 200,732 in 1927, increasing Chōsen Kaikyō Kantoku-fu, Chōsen kaikyō gojūnen-shi, 165–167. The figures are taken from Clark, The Korean Church and the Nevius Method, 268. 72  Kang, Religion and Politics in Korea under the Japanese Rule, 5:43–44. 73  Grayson, Korea: A Religious History, 198. 74  Chōsen Sōtoku, Shisei nijūgonenshi, 493–494. 70  71 

30

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

to 423,000 by 1935,75 with Catholics reported to number 90,000 in 1920 and 183,000 in 1945.76 The Korean Christian population rapidly grew to a larger size than the Buddhist lay population (see table 1.1). Table 1.1. Numbers of Korean Christians and Buddhist Laypeople Year

Christians (Catholics and Protestants)

Buddhists

1910s

213,000 (1910)

100,000 (1915)

1927

259,000

189,800

1935

416,100

128,000

Source: Pulgyo chinhŭnghoe wŏlbo 4 (1915): 292.

As Korean Christianity experienced an unprecedented rate of growth, Japanese Protestant missionaries joined in for their share of expansion. About the time of the Russo-Japanese War, major Japanese Protestant churches appeared on the Korean peninsula to minister to Japanese nationals who were stationed there.77 In 1903, the Congregational Church (Kumiai Kyōkai) arrived, followed by the Methodist Church (K. Kamni Kyohoe) in 1904 and the Church of Christ in Japan (Nihon Kirisuto Kyōkai) in 1907. While the Congregational Church made Seoul its mission base, the Church of Christ in Japan focused on Pusan.78 Regarding missionary activities directed toward Koreans, those of the Congregational Church were most noticeable. With the annexation of Korea, the Congregational Church began its mission to Korean people in 1910.79 In 1911, the church sent Watase Tsunekichi (1859–1939) to do missionary work in Korea. Watase gathered teams of young ministers, mostly Doshisha graduates, and established a chain of churches in Korea. After two years of missionaries arriving in Korea, the Congregational churches in Korea numbered 49, with 3,500 members, while at the same time there were 4 churches for Japanese residents in Korea, with 500 members. From 1913 to 1917, the number of Congregational churches increased to 143 and membership to 12,670. Further, the annual budget increased from 6,000 to 17,500 yen.80 This visible and successful mission owed its strength to the strong moral and financial support of Governor-General Terauchi Masatake. Han Yŏngje, Han’guk Kidokkyo sŏngjang 100-nyŏn, 200–201. Grayson, Korea: A Religious History, 209; Cho Kwang, Han’guk Ch’ŏnjugyo 200-nyŏn, 59. 77  Chōsen Sōtoku, Shisei nijūgonenshi, 200–201. 78  Jirō Iinuma, Nihon teikoku-shugika no Chōsen dendō, 18. 79  Min Kyŏngbae, Ilcheha ŭi Han’guk Kidokkyo minjok sinang undongsa, 59. 80  Jirō Iinuma, Nihon teikoku-shugika no Chōsen dendō, 85–86. 75  76 

Rebound

31

Until 1921, Terauchi offered the church 6,000 yen annually.81 Terauchi also collected money from Japanese industrialists and donated 100,000 yen from 1912 to 1916; starting in 1917, he put aside 200,000 yen a year for the expansion of the church over a three-year period. This sum of money was quite substantial, given that the annual budget of the Congregational Church was 10,000 yen.82 Terauchi supported the Congregational Church as a way to reduce the power of the 277 Western Christian missionaries in Korea. In accordance with government policies, the Congregational Church initiated so-called colonial theology, which served the government in transforming Korean Christianity by separating Korean churches from the influence of the foreign missionaries. The ultimate purpose of the Japanese mission was to make Koreans faithful subjects of the Japanese empire.83 After the March First Movement of 1919, however, the remarkable missionary activities of the Congregational Church abruptly ended. As the result of a nationwide independent protest, the colonial government had to change its coercive policies to conciliatory ones. The new governor-general, Saito, decided to get rid of the annual contribution to the Congregational Church, a gesture aimed to gain favor with foreign missionaries and Korean churches.84 With the end of government support and with criticism of its mission tactics from within and without, the church rapidly lost members. In 1921, the general assembly of the church, held in Japan, voted to discontinue its Korean mission.85 The missions of other Japanese churches were less conspicuous. By 1920, there were 31 Japanese preaching stations, with 25 missionaries and 3,765 lay followers in the four denominations of Congregational, Methodist, Church of Christ in Japan, and Holiness.86 At the end of 1929, there were 5,425 members in the six denominations, and at the end of 1938, there were a reported 4,589 laypeople, mostly Japanese, who belonged to Japanese churches.87 The Japanese denominations were confined to serving the Japanese population. The small numbers reflected the situation in Japan, where 85 percent of the people were followers of traditional religions.

Jirō Iinuma, Nihon teikoku-shugika no Chōsen dendō, 87. Jirō Iinuma, Nihon teikoku-shugika no Chōsen dendō, 40; Min Kyŏngbae, Ilcheha ŭi Han’guk Kidokkyo minjok sinang undongsa, 61. 83  Min Kyŏngbae, Ilcheha ŭi Han’guk Kidokkyo minjok sinang undongsa, 63. 84  Min Kyŏngbae, Ilcheha ŭi Han’guk Kidokkyo minjok sinang undongsa, 70. 85  Sŏ Chŏngmin, “Ilche ha Ilbon Kidokkyo ŭi Han’guk insik: Sinang kwa minjok ŭi kwangye rŭl chungsim ŭro,” 181, 195. 86  Yoshikawa Buntaro, Chōsen no shukyo, 435. 87  Shinpo Zoji, “Chōsen nite Kirisuto-kyō no katsudō,” 320–321. 81  82 

32

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

In comparison, by 1911, the Korean Buddhist order had 30 main monasteries and 1,371 branch temples with about 6,000 clerics. For Korean Buddhists at the end of 1927, the Japanese government numbered Buddhist clerics at 7,590 and laity at 189,800.88 Around 1935, there were 6,790 clerics and 128,000 laypeople.89 The journal Buddhism (Pulgyo 佛敎) reported higher lay numbers: 73,749 in 1916; 150,868 in 1919; and 203,533 in 1924.90 The rapid spread of the Christian faith and the active social charity of Christian missionaries served as a stimulus to Korean Buddhists. Yi Nŭnghwa (1869–1943), a lay Buddhist intellectual, wrote in 1915 that Buddhists had to produce books of their own that were as well organized and easy to read as the Christian Bible.91 He also recommended modeling Buddhist rituals on Christian Sunday services. In 1917, the Korean Buddhist Magazine (Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 朝鮮佛敎叢報) recorded the first Buddhist marriage ceremony conducted at a temple in Seoul.92 In an article published in Buddhism in 1925, a Buddhist monk wrote that the success of Christianity in the peninsula was due not only to the passion of American missionaries but also to its systematic propagation strategies.93 He also noted that the Christian education system produced competent missionaries and that Christians managed social outreach programs and charity work in ways to promote their religion. He then criticized Buddhists for their mere imitation of Christian social programs, such as Sunday schools, night schools, and job-training facilities. He argued that Buddhists needed to incorporate skills from Christianity, but that social activities had to be done in a way to promote Buddhism. Generally speaking, Korean Buddhists regarded Christian missionary activities as something to learn from in overcoming their isolation from society. Japanese Buddhism was an important point of reference for Korean Buddhist reforms, since the Japanese too had largely adopted Christian missionary tactics, not only in building missionary stations but also in providing education for poor Korean children and caring for the poor and the sick, as previously mentioned. Korean Buddhist clerics were eager to learn from so-called modern Japanese Buddhism: Japan was the Chōsen Sōtoku, Shisei nijūgonenshi, 493. These figures of Korean lay Buddhists are not entirely accurate because traditionally laypeople did not give themselves a religious label. With the advent of Christianity, Koreans gradually became conscious of their religious identity, but it took decades for those who visited temples to pray to call themselves Buddhists. 89  Chōsen Sōtoku, Shisei nijūgonenshi, 915–916. 90  Pulgyo 21 (1926): 3–4. 91  Yi Nŭnghwa, “Chosŏn Pulgyogye p’ogyo sŏjŏk e kwanhan kwan’gyŏn.” 92  Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 6 (1917): 383. 93  Obong-sanin, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi hyŏnan ŭl haegyŏl hara.” 88 

Rebound

33

country where most Korean clerics went to study. Student clerics were sent to Japan soon after the annexation and up until the eventual liberation of Korea, which will be discussed in chapter 3. To conclude, in the midst of the political chaos of imperial competition on the peninsula, Korean Buddhists paradoxically found a chance to turn around their fate. At first, they felt threatened by the influx of Christian and Japanese Buddhist missionaries; then, they took advantage of the newly open circumstances by learning from the modern ways of the foreigners. But the new ventures did not come without confusion and conflict. The next chapter addresses Korean Buddhists’ early interactions and clashes with Japanese Buddhism and the colonial government’s policies toward the Korean Buddhist order.

TWO

Caught In-Between: Korean Reactions to Japanese Buddhism and Colonial Policies on Buddhism The rapid growth and ambitious missionary activities of Japanese religions and Christianity offered a chance for Korean Buddhist clerics, who had been reduced to a marginal status by the Confucian Chosŏn court, finally to redress the cumulative effects of the anti-Buddhist culture and find ways to start anew. They regarded the social activities of Christian and Japanese Buddhist missionaries as civilized, “modern” methods that could be adopted to revive their own religion. Japanese missionaries approached Korean clerics as brethren who understood the painful history of Chosŏn Buddhism. Thus, Korean clerics first viewed Japanese clerics as benefactors, but as it turned out, they were also Japanese nationals serving their own national causes. Caught in conflict between their religious interests and their patriotic sentiments, Korean Buddhists both imitated and resisted Japanese Buddhism. This chapter examines the Japanese attempt to absorb Korean Buddhism into the Japanese Buddhist establishment and how the Korean Buddhist order managed to avoid such subjugation. The chapter goes on to discuss how colonial policies toward Korean Buddhism imposed limits on Buddhist reforms. Japanese Attempts to Absorb Korean Buddhism Japanese missionaries made a series of attempts to absorb the Korean Buddhist order into their denominations. The first attempt was by the Nichiren monk Sano Zenrei. He filed a petition with the Korean government in 1895 to lift the ban against Korean monks’ entry into the capital, which had been in effect since 1449. Japanese Buddhists and Christian missionaries were allowed to proselytize in the capital, the Seoul of today, which Korean monks were still forbidden to enter. The pro-Japanese cabinet, which was proceeding with the Reforms of 1894 (Kabo kyŏngjang 甲午更張), accepted this request.1 Many Korean clerics were eager to Chŏng Kwangho, “Ilche ŭi chonggyo chŏngch’aek kwa singminji Pulgyo,” 77. The progressive cabinet instituted a series of reforms, such as abolishing the traditional 1 

Korean Reactions

35

express their gratitude to Sano for liberating them from that ban. Thus encouraged, Sano then attempted to subjugate Korean Buddhism under the banner of the Nichiren school, but this attempt was never realized because he met an outburst of criticism from his own school, and he also failed to persuade Korean clerics.2 Similar attempts to place Korean monasteries within Japanese Buddhist establishments ensued, especially after the enactment of the Regulations on the Propagation of Religion in 1906. Under these regulations, Japanese Buddhist missionaries needed permission from the Residency General to assume supervision over Korean monasteries. In 1905 Korea became a protectorate of Japan, and the Japanese Residency General took control of Korea’s foreign relations. With legislation passed in 1906, the Residency General assumed power even over religion,3 and it officially opened ways for Japanese Buddhists to subordinate Korean Buddhism. Japanese denominations soon vied with one another to petition the Residency General for the supervision of Korean monasteries. Japanese ambitions were matched by those of Korean monasteries, including the leading monasteries Haein-sa, Pŏmŏ-sa, and Hwaŏm-sa, which rushed to sign contracts making them branches of major Japanese denominations. By affiliating with Japanese Buddhists, the Koreans tried to enhance their status and, more crucially, to protect their property when the Japanese military launched attacks on rebel armies (ŭibyŏng 義兵) that hid in mountain areas and often used monasteries as their bases.4 This guerrilla warfare reached its peak after the Residency General disbanded the Korean army in 1907. Rebel armies arose nationwide and fought more than 1,900 battles with the Japanese forces. These battles continued until 1911, and up until that time, the Japanese army staged “a campaign of indiscriminate retaliation, striking not only the rebels but the general population.”5 Numerous Korean civilians were killed or injured and had their houses and property destroyed. Under those circumstances, Korean monasteries were suspected of collaborating with the rebel armies. The only way to avoid Japanese retaliation was to seek Japanese protection by joining their Buddhist orders. examination (kwagŏ) and the social class status system, restructuring the political system, reforming the currency, and standardizing weights and measures. 2  Takahashi Tōru, Richō Bukkyō, Richō Bukkyō, 893; Eda Toshio, Chōsen Bukkyoshi no kenkyū, 57. 3  Ch’oe Pyŏnghŏn, “Ilche Pulgyo ŭi Ch’imt’u wa Han Yongun ŭi Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon,” 1:456. 4  Chŏng Kwangho, “Ilche ŭi chonggyo chŏngch’aek kwa singminji Pulgyo,” 82; Takahashi Tōru, Richō Bukkyō, Richō Bukkyō, 918–919. 5  Duus, The Abacus and the Sword, 229.

36

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

The Chinese Buddhist order also showed its ambivalence when its religious interests and national interests diverged. Chinese monasteries voluntarily subjected themselves to control by Japanese Buddhist schools in order to protect their properties. Holmes Welch describes the situation as follows: “Toward the end of 1904 some thirty-five Chekiang monasteries became its [the Kyoto Higashi Honganji temple’s] affiliates, thirteen in Hangchow alone, and the movement began to spread to other provinces.”6 Chinese Buddhists rushed to register their monasteries under major Japanese Buddhist establishments to solicit protection from the Japanese consulate. Similarly, in Taiwan, Buddhist temples sought the supervision of Japanese Buddhist establishments to prove that they were not involved in widespread anti-Japanese insurrections. Three temple lineages of the four great lineages of Taiwanese Buddhism affiliated with either the Sōtō school or the Rinzai school of Japanese Buddhism. After an anti-Japanese incident in 1915, Taiwanese Buddhists and leaders of the vegetarian religion (zhaijiao 齋敎) aimed to prove themselves good citizens by forming islandwide associations such as the Patriotic Buddhist Association and the Buddhist Youth Association (Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn hoe 佛敎靑年會), under the administration of the Sōtō school. In this way, they tried to protect their religious practice from unnecessary government harassment.7 The Nishi Honganji sect responded most vigorously to the opportunity to take over Korean Buddhism. It established its Korean mission headquarters in Seoul in 1906. The Korea Daily News (Taehan maeil sinbo) criticized this establishment as an outright encroachment of religion in the same way that the Residency General was an encroachment in the political arena in Korea.8 Not surprisingly, by 1911 the Nishi Honganji had come to supervise a hundred Korean temples as its branches.9 This order became the most successful institution in converting Koreans to Buddhism. The temple it built in Seoul in 1907 for ministry to Koreans had eight thousand Korean devotees in 1911. The Nishi Honganji established four more branches for Koreans in Seoul and seven branches in other provinces. With the help of the Japanese Residency General, Japanese Buddhist schools made the subjugation of Korean Buddhism a mission strategy. Korean monasteries and clerics were sometimes an asset in promulgating Japanese Buddhism in Korea. Japanese missionaries faced language barriers and a lack of financial resources in opening and operating places Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China, 12. Jones, Buddhism in Taiwan, 33–74. 8  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 4: “Ilbon Pulgyo,” 20–22. 9  Aoyanagi Nanmei, Chosen shukyo shi, 129–131. 6  7 

Korean Reactions

37

to preach to Koreans. Japanese Buddhists, such as the Nishi Honganji, established separate temples for Koreans for which they needed Korean interpreters for Japanese clerics or Korean clerics to conduct sermons. For this, they turned to the established resources of the Korean monasteries. By converting Korean establishments into their own, they could make full use of Korean facilities and Korean clerics for their causes. The Jōdo school also tried to extend its power over Korean Buddhists. Under its wing, the Korean monks Yi Podam and Song Wŏlch’o formed the Association of Buddhist Studies (Pulgyo yŏn’guhoe), the first Korean clerics association, in Seoul in 1906. This group adopted the Pure Land as its official teaching. Another major attempt at subjugation was made between the Japanese Sōtō school and Yi Hoegwang of the new Wŏn-jong 圓宗 (Consummate school) in October 1910. In 1908, fifty-two monastery leaders nationwide convened at Wŏnhŭng-sa in Seoul and elected Yi Hoegwang as the supreme patriarch (chongjŏng 宗正) and Kim Hyŏnam as the general director.10 They adopted the new sectarian name Wŏn-jong, which means “harmony without obstacles,” a reference to the leaders of all monasteries who had gathered to work together. In 1910, after the Japanese annexation of Korea, Yi Hoegwang secretly went to the headquarters of the Sōtō school in Japan and signed a seven-item contract that subordinated Korean Buddhism to the authority of the Sōtō school.11 This contract was arranged by Takeda Hanshi, who became the adviser of Wŏn-jong, upon the recommendation of Yi Yonggu, the head of the pro-Japanese group Illchinhoe. Takeda was expelled twice from Korea for his spy activities during the anti-foreign Tonghak Rebellion in 1894 and for his involvement with the assassination of Queen Min in 1895.12 Each time, however, he was released after a short period of incarceration in Japan and returned to Korea. In 1906, he returned to Korea and resumed his activities with pro-Japanese Koreans to facilitate the Japanese annexation of Korea. Around this time, the Sōtō school appointed him director of its Korean mission, although he was not a Sōtō monk. The Sōtō authorities and Yi Hoegwang agreed on such major points as the merging of the Wŏn-jong and the Sōtō school on a permanent basis, the Sōtō office’s working for official recognition of the Wŏn-jong in Korea, and the Wŏn-jong office’s providing substantial assistance to the Sōtō missionary effort in Korea and inviting Japanese advisers and missionaries from the Sōtō office to Korea. This secret contract, however, aroused fierce opposition and resentment from Korean monks. Pak Hanyŏng, Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:936–937. Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:937–938; Mok, “Buddhism in Modern Korea,” 26–27. 12  Takahashi Tōru, Richō Bukkyō, Richō Bukkyō, 931–933. 10  11 

38

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Han Yongun, Chin Chinŭng, and others denounced Yi’s behavior as selling out the religion and, in opposition, established a separate administrative office, which they called the Imje-jong.13 It was at this point that the long battle to construct the sectarian identity of Korean Buddhism began. According to Pak Hanyŏng 朴漢永 (1870– 1948), to prevent Korean Buddhism’s subjugation to Japanese Buddhism, Korean clerics claimed that Imje-jong was the original school of Korean Buddhism.14 The name was derived in the following way: Korean clerics at the time traced their dharma lineages to Hyujŏng (1520–1604) or Puhyu (1543–1615), who were linked, in turn, to T’aego Pou 太古普愚 (1301–1383).15 After the death of Hyujŏng, his disciples attempted to restore their dharma lineages, which had been broken during the Chosŏn persecution. In this process of restoration, another important lineage, derived from Naong Hyegŭn 懶翁慧根 (1320–1376), was eliminated, and only T’aego’s line survived.16 Because T’aego received dharma transmission from Shiwu Qinggong 石屋淸珙 (1271–1351) of the Yuan dynasty, who belonged to the Yangqi line of the Linji Chan 臨濟禪 (K. Imje Sŏn), Korean clerics claimed their religion to be the Imje-jong, using the Korean pronunciation of the Chinese characters. Korean Buddhist clerics argued that their religion was based on Imje Sŏn, which advocated the sudden attainment of enlightenment, whereas Sōtō (C. Caotong) emphasized gradual attainment, which was thus in direct opposition to Imje Sŏn. Using this sudden/gradual dichotomy, Korean Buddhists tried to show the inappropriate nature of the unification. With this fierce resistance from Korean clerics, the Japanese regime made a political decision that neither let the Sōtō merge with the Korean order nor approved the Imje-jong. Instead of having the Sōtō school claim religious hegemony in Korea, after annexation the colonial regime kept the Korean order under its rule by enacting the seven articles of the Temple Ordinance. It then granted Korean Buddhism the sectarian name the Unified School of Meditation and Doctrine (Sŏn Kyo Yang-jong).17 Once Korea was under the firm political control of Japan, the colonial government could assume direct control of Korean Buddhism without the assistance of Japanese Buddhist orders. In addition, the regime could not ignore the Korean Buddhists’ resistance or the other powerful Japanese Buddhist orders, such as the Jōdo Shin school and Jōdo school.18 13  Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:938–939; Mok, “Buddhism in Modern Korea,” 27–28. 14  Tonga Daily, 20 June 1920. 15  Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:946. 16  Kim Yŏngt’ae, “Chosŏn sŏn’ga ŭi pŏpt’ong ko,” 300–301. 17  Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:945–947. 18  Sŏ Kyŏng-su, “Ilche ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’aek,” 116–117.

Korean Reactions

39

This situation is very different from that in Taiwan, where most of the Taiwanese Buddhist groups were subject to the major Japanese Buddhist establishments until the island was liberated. Japanese Buddhist establishments made a concerted effort to assist their government by providing moral support and religious comfort to those engaged in imperialist expeditions. Their religious activities were conducted in ways that helped the Japanese government perform at its greatest capacity in colonizing Korea. By collaborating closely with the government, Japanese Buddhists attempted religious subjugation prior to the political annexation and were almost successful in placing Korean orders under their administrations. They helped the colonial government in targeting Buddhists as a group favorable to the Japanese and in facilitating political advance. As soon as the Japanese state achieved political occupation of Korea, however, it no longer condoned the Japanese Buddhist orders’ efforts to subjugate the Korean Buddhist order. With near total control of power, the regime did not need further assistance in dealing with Korean Buddhism. Japanese Buddhist orders submitted to their government’s different needs and became satisfied with their role in paving the way for political annexation. Japanese Buddhism after the Enactment of the Temple Ordinance After the Japanese regime assumed direct control of Korean Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism lost its momentum in attempting to subjugate Korean Buddhism and turned its efforts to the growing population of Japanese immigrants. The rapid growth of Japanese nationals in Korea provided plenty of work for Japanese missionaries, even in temples in the countryside.19 Among the Japanese orders in Korea, the Higashi Honganji and Nishi Honganji of Jōdo Shin, Jōdo, Sōtō, Shingon, and Nichiren schools became influential in terms of numbers of temples and devotees. By 1920, there were sixteen branches of eight denominations: the above five denominations, as well as Hokke 法華, Rinzai, and Ōbaku 黃檗.20 At around this time, the two branches of the Jōdo Shin school had the largest numbers of lay followers, comprising 60% of the total followers of Japanese Buddhism in Korea (Higashi 21%, Nishi 39%). The Jōdo school, another Pure Land school, had the second largest number of lay members (16 %). The Shingon had 11%, the Sōtō 5%, and the Nichiren 2%. As for temple buildings, the Jōdo Shin school established 85 preaching stations and 16 temples; the Jōdo, 34 preaching stations and 13 temples; the Shingon 45 and 9; the Sōtō 26 and 18; and the Nichiren 19  20 

Yoshikawa Buntaro, Chōsen no shukyo, 256. Yoshikawa Buntaro, Chōsen no shukyo, 437–438.

Figure 2.1: A Japanese temple in Seoul, established by the Higashi Honganji sect of the Jōdo Shin school.

Figure 2.2: A picture taken to celebrate the conversion of Koreans to the Jōdo school.

Korean Reactions

41

21 and 6. Overall, Japanese Buddhist orders built 227 preaching stations and 63 temples and had 324 Japanese missionaries. The total number of laypeople involved with Japanese missions was 148,122. Korean converts made up only 7% (11,056) of the entire lay population. The Pure Land schools, including the Jōdo Shin and Jōdo, were most influential, possessing 75% of the total number of devotees, most of whom were Japanese immigrants. By 1929, nineteen branches of nine denominations were active.21 The Nishi Honganji branch of the Jōdo Shin still had the largest group of lay followers (43%), and the Higashi branch had 12% of the whole lay population of Japanese Buddhism. The Nichiren, Jōdo, Sōtō, and Shingon each had 10% of the lay followers. The Hokke, Rinzai, Ōbaku, and Tendai 天台 remained insignificant, sharing the remaining 5%. Japanese Buddhist buildings had increased to a total of 348 preaching stations and 101 temples, and there were 452 Japanese priests. The lay population had grown from 148,122 to 263,501 over ten years. Korean converts, by contrast, declined from 7% in 1920 to 2.8% in 1929. By 1935, there were 26 branches from a total of eight denominations. Japanese preaching stations had increased to 441 and temples to 123. The laity had reached 241,800, including just 8,200 (3.4%) Koreans.22 As these numbers indicate, Japanese Buddhist missionaries served mostly Japanese immigrants. Except for early attempts, before the announcement of the 1911 Temple Ordinance, Japanese orders paid little attention to the Korean population. Some established a few separate temples for Koreans, but the temples were largely neglected by the Japanese orders and fell into poor condition. Even the most successful Nishi Honganji temples suffered from neglect. The previously mentioned Nishi Korean temple in Seoul, which had eight thousand Korean members in 1911, had only three thousand in the early 1920s, two-thirds of whom were women. Despite this reduced number of worshippers, the temple was too small to hold them, and the facilities so insufficient that visitors were shocked when they saw them.23 Buddhist sermons were conducted by Japanese monks with the assistance of Korean interpreters or by guest Korean monk lecturers. This temple had six resident Korean monks, yet it barely supported them financially because of its limited resources. No help came to this temple from the Nishi order. Another influential Japanese Buddhist order, in terms of converting Koreans, was the Jōdo school. This order did not have enough human or Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 4: “Ilbon Pulgyo,” 37–42. Chōsen Sōtoku, Shisei nijūgonenshi, 915. 23  Yoshikawa Buntaro, Chōsen no shukyo, 258–263. 21  22 

42

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

financial resources to extend its attention to Korean Buddhists. Its handful of Korean temples, including those in Seoul, Nonsan in Ch’ungch’ŏng Province, and Hwangju in Hwanghae Province, were in a gravely bad state, in terms of both building conditions and lay numbers. Overall, most Japanese orders made no deliberate attempts to convert Koreans. According to the Japanese scholar Yoshikawa Buntaro, Japanese orders did not establish central policies or plans for Korean proselytization or display any genuine interest in the mission.24 The number of Korean devotees of Japanese Buddhism remained insignificant, and Koreans mostly ignored the few Korean temples of Japanese Buddhism. The Colonial Government’s Policies on Korean Buddhism While Japanese Buddhist establishments in Korea enjoyed freedom of religion and state protection, the Korean Buddhist order was subjected to tight political control. The Japanese regime announced the seven articles of the Temple Ordinance in June of 1911, and in the following month they also declared detailed Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance (sach’allyŏng sihaeng kyuch’ik 寺刹施行規則). These regulations became effective in September 1911.25 The Japanese regime claimed that the Temple Ordinance was intended to secure and sustain Korean Buddhism and to protect Buddhist monasteries and properties,26 and the government attempted to curry favor with Buddhists by appearing as a protector of their religion. Many Korean clerics accepted the government’s pretense and even openly praised its protection of Korean Buddhism.27 They believed that the Temple Ordinance would preserve Buddhist monasteries and properties and raise the status of Buddhism in society. As the ordinance became effective, however, they began to realize the political maneuver behind it, and in the early 1920s young Buddhist clerics began to raise their voices against it. The seven articles of the Temple Ordinance brought the Korean order under the firm control of Japanese rule. Articles 1, 3, and 5 stipulated legal actions that required the approval of the governor-general of Korea: permission was required when monasteries moved, changed names, or merged with other monasteries; when monasteries adopted temple laws (sabŏp 寺法); and when monasteries disposed of temple properties including land, mountains, buildings, statues, documents, and temple Yoshikawa Buntaro, Chōsen no shukyo, 256–257. Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 4: “Kakchong pŏmnyŏng,” 13. 26  Takahashi Tōru, Richō Bukkyō, Richō Bukkyō, 887–888. 27  Kim Chisun, “Sŏng’ŭn ŭro sabŏp in’ga,” 3; Yi Nŭnghwa, “Sŏn Kyo Yangjong kwa kanghak p’ogyo.” 24  25 

Korean Reactions

43

drawings. Article 2 stated that temple sites and monasteries needed permission from the local government for events other than Buddhist sermons, proselytization, and rituals, and for the residence of monks. Article 4 entrusted the abbot of each monastery with the management of the monastery. The eight articles of the Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance stated that the abbots of the main monasteries needed permission from the governor-general for their appointments, and the local temple abbots needed permission from the local government. Article 7 permitted the governor-general to issue regulations whenever the need arose. Article 6 stipulated punishment for those who did not abide by the regulations.28 The Japanese governor-general intended to supervise the Korean order by establishing thirty independent monastery districts directly under his control. Article 3 of the Temple Ordinance allowed each main monastery, with the colonial government’s final permission, to make its own laws regarding the relationship between the main and branch temples, monk regulations, and rituals. Article 2 of the Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance listed thirty monasteries whose abbots needed permission from the governor-general for their appointments. The origin of these thirty monasteries goes back to the sixteen main monasteries (chung pŏbsan 中法山) of the Great Han Empire (Taehan cheguk 大韓帝國) era. Surrounded by increasing rivalries and intrigue among colonial powers, King Kojong (r. 1864–1907) proclaimed the establishment of the independent Great Han Empire in 1897.29 In 1902, the government instituted a new monastic administrative system, modeled on the Japanese system. It established the Office of Temples and Shrines (Sasa kwallisŏ 寺社管理署) at Wŏnhŭng-sa in Seoul and issued regulations for temple administration, which consisted of thirty-six articles. The government designated Wŏnhŭng-sa as the head monastery (tae pŏbsan 大法山) of the country, along with sixteen main monasteries, one in each province.30 The government also installed three monastic ranks— clerical officials of the head monastery, the main monasteries, and the other temples—assigning a different color of robe to each rank. The main 28  For the Temple Ordinance and the Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance, see Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 4: “Kakchong pŏmnyŏng,” 9–13. 29  Lee, A History of Korea, 300–301. 30  Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 1:616; Kwŏn Sangno, Chosŏn Pulgyo yaksa, 247; Takahashi Tōru, Richō Bukkyō, Richō Bukkyō, 866–867. As noted in Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa (vol. 1, part 1: “Sŭngdan p’yŏnnyŏn,” 13), the year of Wŏnhŭngsa’s construction was recorded as 1902 in the previously listed books except Richō Bukkyo, Richō Bukkyō, in which it is recorded as 1899.

44

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

monasteries followed the orders of the head monastery and gave orders to the other temples in their province. However, the monk clerics were still responsible only for limited aspects of monk and temple affairs. Buddhist clerics were not allowed to comment on any political affairs in their sermons. The Office of Temples and Shrines, which supervised the overall administration of the sangha, was in charge of the monks’ registry, the monk identification system, and the appointments of the head monastery clerics, higher positions in main monasteries, and heads of small temples. The entire structure of the sangha was under the scrutiny of the government. However, because of the country’s unstable political situation, this system had little power.31 After the abolition of the Office of Temples and Shrines, some monasteries that had not been included in the category of main monasteries appealed to the head monastery to enhance their status. Approximately fourteen additional monasteries, including Pŏmŏ-sa, Sŏnam-sa, Ŭnhaesa, and Kŏnbong-sa, were added to the original sixteen main monasteries.32 In 1911, the thirty monasteries listed in the Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance became main monasteries, with their own branch temples. Under the Temple Ordinance, each of the thirty main monasteries emerged as an independent administrative unit because there was no hierarchical system for subsuming them under one central institution like the head monastery.33 After years of dispute, in 1924, Hwaŏm-sa became a main monastery, increasing the total to thirty-one. In administering these districts, the Japanese government focused its power on the abbots, using them like puppets. Article 4 of the Temple Ordinance gave the abbot of each monastery the authority for monastery management. The eight articles of the Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance all concerned abbots, such as their appointment, term of office, termination, duties toward the government, and punishment. The appointment of the first generation of main-monastery abbots by the governor-general was started in November 1911 and completed in 1912.34 In accordance with the Temple Ordinance and Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance, each main monastery (ponsan 本山) could make its own temple laws and had to seek to have them approved For the thirty-six regulations, see Takahashi Tōru, Richō Bukkyō, Richō Bukkyō, 867–878; Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 4: “Kakchong pŏmnyŏng,” 2–9. 32  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 1: “Sŭngdan p’yŏnnyŏn,” 14; Kim Yŏngsu, “Chosŏn Pulgyo t’onghal e taehaesŏ,” 14. 33  Kim Yŏngsu, “Chosŏn Pulgyo t’onghal e taehaesŏ,” 14–15. 34  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 1: “Sŭngdan p’yŏnnyŏn,” 35; Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 6–12 (1912–1913). 31 

Korean Reactions

45

by the governor-general. Haein-sa was the first to receive approval, in July 1912. Most of the other main monasteries received the approval of the governor-general by the first half of 1913.35 The first draft of temple laws was said to have been written by a Japanese official, the head of the Department of Religion for the government-general, and it was then adopted by the abbots of the main monasteries.36 These abbots held a meeting at Wonhŭng-sa in May 1912 and decided that each main-monastery district should make similar temple laws.37 The temple laws of the thirty monasteries were thus the same in content except for their locations, names, founding patriarchs, and founding years. The temple laws consisted of thirteen chapters with a hundred articles. They established regulations on the relationship between the main and branch temples, abbots, property, rituals, clerics, proselytization, rewards, and punishments for monks.38 The Temple Ordinance reorganized Korean monasteries into a system of thirty main monasteries in accordance with the Japanese mainmonastery system. Under this system, Buddhist clerics were bureaucratized and competed for the limited number of abbot positions. All essential monastery transactions needed government approval, and thus Korean monasteries could not use their own properties effectively. The unprecedented concentration of power made abbots despots in all essential transactions of monastery affairs. The abbots’ new power overruled the traditional practice, sanjung kongŭi 山中公儀 (public council of monasteries), which honored the opinions of all the members of the Buddhist order. Through the administration of the ordinance, the government had successfully divided Korean Buddhism into thirty independent monastery districts and isolated abbots from other clerics. In contrast, the Japanese government maintained dual policies for the rapidly growing Christian communities. Aware of the presence of the foreign missionaries, it tried to appease Christians with rhetoric guaranteeing freedom of religion and, at the same time, to prevent further dominance of foreign missionaries over Korean churches. The colonial regime wanted, eventually, to have Japanese Christian missionaries lead Korean Christians. The government’s support for the Congregational Church’s 35  For the dates of the approval of temple laws, see Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 4: “Kakchong pŏmnyŏng,” 51. 36  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 4: “Kakchong pŏmnyŏng,” 25–26. 37  Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 6 (1912): 57. 38  For the main-branch temple law of Haein-sa, see Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 7 (1912): 38–61; for the Kŏnbong-sa temple law, Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 9 (1912): 49–56; Kŭmnyong-sa, Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 10 (1912): 45–50; Pŏpchu-sa, Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 10 (1912): 51–57; Yujŏm-sa, Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 10 (1912): 58–63.

46

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

mission occurred under these circumstances. The colonial regime was very careful in its dealings with Christianity: Governor-General Terauchi Masatake invited nineteen leading Korean church leaders to visit Japan in the fall of 1910 and lavished royal treatment on them. Furthermore, the Korean YMCA continued to receive an annual subsidy of 10,000 yen under the Japanese regime.39 Under these circumstances, many Christian missionaries acceded to Japanese rule, not wanting to be involved in political issues. After the Campaign for a Million Souls, a revival movement during the winter of 1910 to 1911, however, the government’s suspicion of Korean Christians grew strong. To control the activities of the foreign missionaries and Christianity, the government implemented a series of strict policies. In 1913, it required all missionaries who desired to practice medicine to apply for permission from the governor-general.40 In 1914, a government ordinance announced that official permission was needed for opening a new church or employing paid workers in a church. In 1915, the Revision of Regulations for Private Schools excluded teaching and reading from the Bible from all school curricula and required all teachers to learn the Japanese language within the following five years. With these regulations, the government was attempting to check the activities of foreign missionaries, which concentrated on medicine and education. Moreover, Terauchi further blocked missionary efforts by building public schools and hospitals near those of the Christians.41 After the March First Movement of 1919, however, the new Saito administration began to revise government regulatory policies on religions. In 1920, it announced new regulations for private schools and the propagation of religion. Religion was allowed to be taught in Christian schools, and new churches could open without prior permission from the government. Despite these changes, the government did not drop its suspicion of Christianity and kept a watchful eye on Christian activities.42 The Japanese government then established state Shinto as a national creed to which all Koreans should pay respect, regardless of their religious backgrounds. Chōsen Shingung, the central state Shinto shrine, was established in 1925.43 By 1937 there were 268 Shinto shrines in Korea, and by 1945 more than 1,140. Differentiating these state shrines from religious ones, the Japanese government tried to control Koreans without creating conflict with the religious institutions of Korea. Beginning in the 1930s, Kang, Religion and Politics in Korea under the Japanese Rule, 43–44. Kang, Religion and Politics in Korea under the Japanese Rule, 49–50. 41  Min Kyŏngbae, Ilcheha ŭi Han’guk Kidokkyo minjok sinang undongsa, 62. 42  Kang, Religion and Politics in Korea under the Japanese Rule, 58–59. 43  Before the establishment of this state Shinto shrine, religious Shinto shrines were built, the first in Inch’ŏn in 1883 (Grayson, “Religion, Nationalism, and State Policy,” 118). 39  40 

Korean Reactions

47

the political situation became worse for all Koreans, including Christians. Japanese staged their expansions in Manchuria and China in a series of wars—the Manchurian Incident in 1931, the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, and the Pacific War beginning in 1941—and all policies were changed to support the imperialist campaigns. Similarly, the policies of the Japanese government toward Korean Christianity had been careful and flexible while the regime held steadfastly to its control of the Korean Buddhist sangha by means of the Temple Ordinance until the end of colonial rule. The Buddhist sangha, it seems, was easy for the regime to control, and it was essential to maintain that control in order to check the unpredictable Christians. Korean Buddhists, in turn, went through a period of turmoil in their relationship with the ambitious Japanese Buddhist establishments but experienced a sense of oneness as Korean Buddhists through the Imje-jong movement. With the enactment of the ordinance, they were able to embark on modern reforms, although under the tight scrutiny of the Japanese regime. Korean Buddhists tried actively to incorporate the missionary tactics of Christianity and Japanese Buddhism. Proving the social utility and relevancy of Buddhism in the new context was regarded as a modern response. In the next chapters, I turn to the Korean reform movement, analyzing the process through which it developed and the major issues associated with it.

THREE

Modernizing Buddhism: Buddhist Reforms before the March First Movement Political and social changes simultaneously brought turbulence to the Korean peninsula and provided the Korean Buddhist order with opportunities to restore the social status of Buddhism that was damaged during the Chosŏn dynasty. The arrival of Christianity and Japanese Buddhism, in particular, offered Korean Buddhists both challenges and a frame of reference for the idea of modernity. Japanese Buddhist establishments were almost successful in taking over the Korean sangha before the colonial regime intervened with the Temple Ordinance. The Japanese government then encouraged Buddhist reforms so that Korean Buddhism would become strong enough to support Japanese policies on the peninsula. The Japanese regime’s support of Buddhism was also prompted by the rapid growth of Christianity: Buddhism served as a way to curb Christian expansion.1 The regime urged Korean Buddhists to cooperate in the same way that Japanese Buddhists had been encouraged to become faithful followers of government policies since the Meiji.2 As discussed in the introduction, previous studies on Korean Buddhist reform stressed its anti-Japanese nature, contrasting the nationalist young clerics with the allegedly pro-Japanese Buddhists who were associated with the abbots of the thirty main state-supported monastery districts. I argue, however, that the reformers and the so-called collaborators worked together throughout the period and that the collaborators even had their own versions of reformation that were mainly modeled upon Japanese Buddhism. The common goal of modernizing Korean Buddhism linked various groups, the urgent issue for all of them being “responsiveness,” the need to present a form of Buddhism that was socially viable. Accordingly, by participating in the general march toward modernization and nation building, the Korean sangha embarked on reforms, centered on 1  2 

Sŏ Kyŏng-su, “Ilche ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’aek,” 119. Chŏng Kwangho, “Ilche ŭi chonggyo chŏngch’aek kwa singminji Pulgyo,” 84–85.

Modernizing Buddhism

49

Buddhist institutions, to bring the religion up to date. The main areas of reform were in sangha education and methods of propagation; both were considered crucial for making the sangha accessible to the public. The curriculum included secular subjects to make Buddhist clerics more conversant with the general Korean society. In this process, the sangha co-opted the social activities of Christian missionaries and attempted to develop a sense of the connection among the sangha, the laity, and society. Initially, the reforms were not politically oriented; rather, the prime goals were survival of the sangha and protection of the sangha’s interests. By supporting Korean Buddhist reforms, the Japanese regime was able to apply pressure in a way that kept the reforms confined to religious areas. Korean Buddhists thus tacitly and openly supported the colonial government policies. On the one hand, the Japanese religious policy provided a system of order for the Buddhist establishments that had severely disintegrated under Chosŏn persecution; on the other, its coercive measures were detrimental to the independence of Korean Buddhists. This realization was publicly expressed only after the March First Movement of 1919. Until then, Buddhist clerics focused on reform within the sangha, excluding any political involvement; their common goal was simply to revive their religion. This chapter examines Buddhist reforms before 1919, which were focused on modernizing the sangha’s education system and propagation methods. The enactment of monastic laws under the Temple Ordinance gave the Buddhist order the structure and resources to initiate reforms. Korean Buddhists felt the urgent need for change, but the hasty imitation of Western (Christian) tactics without serious consideration of their effect on the Buddhist system of practice led them into a slew of confusion and problems. Similarly, the apolitical nature of the reforms tacitly approved Japanese rule and led to overt support of the Japanese regime. Reform Proposals The Korean sangha attempted to revitalize Buddhism by modernizing it, by trying to make it relevant to the changing society. Starting in the latenineteenth century, Korean Buddhists adopted the notion of modernism from Western liberalism. Korean intellectuals were heavily influenced by Chinese intellectuals of the late Qing dynasty (1644–1911) because of their shared political experiences as victims of colonialism. The “modern” thought of Chinese intellectuals such as Yan Fu 嚴復 (1853–1921) and especially Liang Qichao 梁啓超 (1873–1929) greatly influenced Korean intellectuals, particularly Korean Buddhists. These Chinese thinkers advocated concepts of Spencerian social Darwinism, and liberalism, in

50

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

this context, was seen as a movement that would create conditions allowing individuals to fulfill their interests and perform to their maximum abilities; “modernism” for them meant constant evolution and progress in which only the fittest and the strongest survived.3 Most of the Korean Buddhists’ initial ideas about reform were along these lines. For example, Han Yongun, in his Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon 朝鮮佛敎維新論), saw the world “in melioristic terms, as in a continual state of evolution that would culminate ultimately in an ideal civilization.”4 Likewise, other Buddhist clerics used terms such as “civilized” (munmyŏng) or “progressive” (chinbo) to refer to the modernity to which they aspired.5 Under these circumstances, a number of Korean Buddhist clerics vied to offer their own reform proposals. In “Changes Are the Public Principles of Buddhism” (“Pyŏnja nŭn Pulgyo ŭi kongni ron”) of 1912, Hyegŭn stated that nothing was immune to change, that change was needed for progress to occur, and that there would be no development without the will to change.6 He then proposed that the sangha improve its propagation techniques and become more involved with social charity for the poor and the sick. In “Article on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism” (“Chosŏn Pulgyo kaehyŏknon”) of 1913, Kwŏn Sangno 權相老 (1879– 1965) also urged that Buddhism become compatible with other religions and advocated reforms for monk education and proselytization.7 He suggested that Buddhist clerics first change their own attitudes and minds for the common goal of reformation and argued that the sangha needed collective power and self-governance, which would be possible only after reformation. He also recommended that Buddhists would be wise to turn their scattered properties, such as forests, farmlands, buildings, and treasures, to public use instead of holding on to them as if they were personal belongings.8 Both Hyegŭn and Kwŏn proposed reforms to change the current situation of Korean Buddhism and adopt more “advanced” ways of educating clerics and improving propagation methods. We can easily infer that the newly introduced Western culture was regarded as an

Schwartz, In Search of Wealth and Power, 42–90. Buswell, The Zen Monastic Experience, 26. 5  One example containing these terms is O Chaeyŏng, “Pulgyo pogŭp e taehan ŭigyŏn.” 6  Hyegŭn, “Pyŏnja nŭn Pulgyo ŭi kongni ron.” 7  Kwŏn Sangno, “Chosŏn Pulgyo kaehyŏknon.” 8  For a detailed discussion of Buddhist reform ideas, see Kim Kyŏngjip, Han’guk kŭndae Pulgyo-sa, 280–299; Mok, “Han Yong-un and Buddhism,” 24–26; Yang Ŭnyong, “Kŭndae Pulgyo kaehyŏk undong,” 139–175; Yang Ŭnyong, “Kwŏn Sangno Pulgyo kaehyŏk sasang ŭi yŏn’gu,” 437–450; No Kwŏnyong, “Pak Hanyŏng ŭi Pulgyo sasang kwa yusin undong,” 1–24. 3  4 

Modernizing Buddhism

51

advanced and potent form of development from which Koreans should learn. Korean Buddhists encountered Western civilization through the eyes of Japan: the Korean sangha sent inspection parties to Japan several times. Even before the annexation, Korean Buddhists were sent to Japan in 1907 and in 1909, and three times after 1910 the sangha sent cleric groups, consisting mostly of main-monastery abbots. In 1917, eight people, including Kwŏn, were sent to Japan for three weeks.9 In Japan, the Korean clerics visited Buddhist monasteries, colleges, and secondary schools, along with social charity groups of various Buddhist sects and Shinto shrines. An account of the 1917 trip, including daily schedules and brief descriptions of places they visited, was published in the seventh issue of the Korean Buddhist Magazine and thus widely disseminated.10 In 1925, another group was sent to Japan, for about ten days. A monk referring to himself as Sobaek Tuta kept a travel diary that was serialized in Buddhism.11 In 1928, twenty-two abbots and clerics were sent to Japan for three weeks; one member, Im Skŏjin, left a somewhat detailed travel diary.12 These trips were supported and promoted by the government-general as a way to win over Buddhist minds to Japanese rule.13 Korean Buddhist clerics made good use of the knowledge gained from these trips for their reform efforts. Under these circumstances of modernizing the sangha, Han Yongun published his Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism in 1913. This treatise is the first and most comprehensive systematic writing on Buddhist reformation that appeared in Korea during this period. This proposal will be analyzed extensively here because it encompasses and typifies Han’s era by containing other reform ideas. Han criticized the mild and gradual approaches put forth by Kwŏn Sangno, proposing instead a radical reformation. His ideas became the main reference for Buddhist reforms, and he shared ideas with other reform-minded monks, including Paek Yongsŏng 白龍城 (1864–1940) and Pak Hanyŏng. Han argued that religion that cannot satisfy the development of human intellect and civilization is destined to die out; any established religion should thus willingly reform practices that cannot meet the expectations of human development.14 His remedy was to reform Buddhist practices so that the sangha could function within society; Han believed that, through Chŏng Kwangho, “Ilche ŭi chonggyo chŏngch’aek kwa singminji Pulgyo,” 81. Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 7 (1917): 394–416. 11  Pulgyo 16–18 (1925). 12  Pulgyo 49–54 (July 1928–December 1928). 13  Kim Sunsŏk, Ilchesidae Chosŏn Ch’ongdokbu ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’ae kwa Pulgyokye ŭi taeŭng, 103. 14  Han Yongun, “Pan chonggyo undong e taehayŏ,” 279. 9 

10 

52

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

reformation, Buddhist clerics could actively intervene in people’s lives and restore the religious prestige of Korea. As evidenced in the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism, Han was exposed to the thought of Western philosophers—such as René Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Immanuel Kant—through the writings of Liang Qichao.15 He learned about Western civilization from the Yinbingshi wenji 飮永室文集, Liang’s encyclopedic book on Western political thought, history, and philosophy.16 During a tour of Japan in 1908, Han must have found a frame of reference in the early Japanese Buddhist experiments with Western ideas. He was assisted by clerics of the Sōtō school during his stay at Sōtōshū (now Komazawa) University from May through August 1908. He also visited Japanese cities, including Tokyo, Kyoto, Shiminoseki, and Nikkō. He returned to Korea after staying eight months in Japan.17 We can see influences from his experience in Japan in his proposal for cleric marriage, which was a common practice of Japanese Buddhists,18 and in his writing of the Great Texts of Buddhism (Pulgyo taejŏn 佛敎大典), which was modeled on a Japanese text.19 Reform Ideas in the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism The long period of stagnation and deterioration of status resulting from Chosŏn oppression had produced negative effects on Korean Buddhism that were daunting to overcome. Han Yongun first called for reformation in response to these effects by publishing the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism, which consists of seventeen chapters that cover various aspects of sangha reforms.20 His diagnosis was that Korean Buddhism had reached its nadir; therefore, only radical change could be effective, and mere corrections would not do any good. Revitalization of Buddhism must be preceded by demolition (p’agoe 破壞). What is revitalization? It is the child of demolition. What is Han Yongun, Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon, 38–42. Ko Ŭn, Han Yongun p’yŏngjŏn, 140–141; the Yinbingshi wenji influenced Han’s writing of the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism. 17  Yu, Han Yong-un and Yi Kwang-su, 182. 18  For the whole debate on clerical marriage among Buddhist denominations in Japan, see Jaffe, Neither Monk Nor Layman. 19  The Great Texts of Buddhism, a digest of Buddhist scriptures in the Korean vernacular, was compiled from 1912 through 1914 to provide the gist of Buddhist teachings to laypeople and guide their religious lives. It is based on the Holy Texts of Buddhism (Bukkyō seiten 佛敎 聖典), published by Japanese Shin Buddhists Nanjō Bun’yū (1849–1927) and Maeda Eun (1857–1930) in 1905. For the composition of the book, Han also made use of the Buddhist collections in the monastery library at T’ongdo-sa in South Kyŏngsang, consulting 1,511 sutras, totaling 6,802 volumes of the Koryŏ Tripitaka. 20  For the table of contents of this treatise, please refer to appendix 2. 15  16 

Modernizing Buddhism

53

demolition? It is the mother of revitalization. Everyone knows that there is no motherless child, but no one knows that revitalization cannot take place without demolition. . . . Demolition does not mean destroying and eliminating everything. Only those aspects of the traditional customs that do not suit contemporary times are to be amended and given a new direction.21

The main purpose of this treatise was to reform the sangha; Han proposed reforms to prepare the sangha to have easy access to the laity and the general public. He assessed the situation of the sangha and criticized the practices that he thought had contributed to the decline of Buddhism. He then provided a detailed blueprint of the kind of changes that were needed for the enhancement of Buddhism in society. His reform ideas can be divided into four major groups: unification of doctrinal orientation of the sangha, simplification of practices, centralization of the sangha administration, and reformation of sangha policies and customs. The aim of unifying the doctrinal orientation of the sangha was to establish the identity of Korean Buddhism. The anti-Buddhist policies of Chosŏn had blurred all sectarian distinctions, and Han wanted to restructure Korean Buddhism by giving priority to Sŏn 禪 (J. Zen, C. Chan) Buddhism. He believed that the mind is the source of everything else, and once one is awakened to the mind, all other mysteries of life are resolved.22 He regarded Sŏn practice, which he believed to be the way of seeing into the nature of the mind, as the epitome of Buddhism, and he criticized other practices, arguing that Korean Buddhism had lost its identity because of compromises with worldly desires and mixtures with indigenous practices. He recommended the abolition of the chanting halls (yŏmbultang) inside monasteries. The Pure Land belief exhorts Buddhists to engage in the practice of yŏmbul 念佛 (C. nianfo, “recalling the Buddha,” i.e., mental reflection on the qualities of the Buddha) in order to be born in the Land of Bliss (Sukhāvatī), a paradiselike world in the western part of the universe.23 Han, however, believed that there is no Pure Land beyond this world; the only difference between the Pure Land and this world is whether the minds of sentient beings are pure or not. Only by attaining one’s own buddhahood can one realize the Pure Land. Second, Han attempted to simplify Buddhist ritual practice. The changes he suggested in the frequent and complex Buddhist ceremonies included performing ceremonies only once per day, in the morning, accompanied by only three prostrations and the singing of a hymn for HYC, 2:105; Lee, Sourcebook of Korean Civilization, 2:497. Han Yongun, Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon, 52–54. 23  The Buddha Amitābha (K. Amit’a 阿彌陀), who presides over this paradise, made vows to save those who recalled him by having them gain rebirth in his Pure Land. 21  22 

54

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

the Buddha.24 He also advocated simplifying the mode of worship by eliminating all deities except the historical Buddha—Śākyamuni Buddha could represent the other buddhas and bodhisattvas—and rejected the adoration of icons including arhats, pratyekabuddhas, minor Buddhist deities, and indigenous deities.25 For him, simplicity could impose a sense of order on what had become mixed and confused practices. Han also proposed that clerics not be involved in the performance of memorial and sacrificial rites for the laity; these rites were based on the pursuit of worldly benefits, and essential Buddhist teachings were on a different plane from worldly blessings and disasters.26 With these measures, he intended to create a sense of purpose and urgency in the daily practices of clerics. Third, to regain prestige and a leading role in people’s religious lives, the sangha should, Han noted, centralize its scattered monasteries and their lands. Each monastery had its own Buddhist regimen and administration, and this decentralization prevented effective cooperative work among the sangha. Under a unified system, whether partially or completely unified, the sangha could implement uniform, consistent policies on administration, financial plans, education, and rites. The sangha could also introduce an election system for abbot positions and carry out large joint projects; with a concentrated system, it could wield great influence in educating clerics and could expand proselytization efforts.27 Last, Han proposed a reformation of monastery policies and customs, saying that Buddhism needed to transform its outlook according to the ways and needs of society. He called for changing the sangha’s traditional education by adopting the educational system of the general public; a general education curriculum in monastery schools, for example, would provide clerics with a broader base of knowledge before they undertook Buddhist studies. He also encouraged clerics to study abroad, in India, China, Europe, and the United States. He described his education reforms as follows: In conducting the education of monks, three things are most urgent. The first is general education (pot’onghak). General education is comparable to our clothing or food. . . . The second is pedagogy (sabŏmhak 師範學). . . . There should be schools where the more gifted monks selected from the age group ranging from fifteen through forty shall be taught according to a mixed curriculum combining general education,

HYC, 2:116–117. HYC, 2:114–116. 26  HYC, 2:77–78. 27  HYC, 2:121–125. 24  25 

Modernizing Buddhism

55

pedagogy, and Buddhist studies. . . . The third is sending clerics abroad for study.28

For Han, reforming clerical education would assist in proselytization. He pointed out that the lack of propagation of Buddhist teachings contributed to the decline of Buddhism and that the rapid spread of Christianity resulted from its active and various propagation activities.29 In contrast, monks’ sermons at monasteries were the only method of Buddhist propagation, and even then the content was not intellectually stimulating. He thus proposed the training of propagators and the development of propagation methods, including lectures, publications, translations, and social charity. He concluded that to be competent propagators, Buddhist clerics should have passion, perseverance, and compassion. Han also noted that the traditional locations of most monasteries in remote mountain areas presented a major obstacle to the propagation of Buddhism.30 The isolation made Buddhist clerics nonprogressive because they lacked stimulation and interaction with society. Having no knowledge of the outside world, the clerics lacked an adventurous and competitive spirit; they eventually became pessimistic, being apart from the world it was their duty to save. He thus proposed that most Buddhist monasteries be relocated to more populous areas so that clerics could connect more easily with people’s lives. Han asserted that the clerical lifestyle should be changed to harmonize with contemporary society. Whereas the major source of monastery income was from ritual services for the dead, alms, and lay donation, Han wanted clerics to earn their own living rather than depend on the laity. He contended that clerics should engage in production to restore their prestige. Also, the natural and human resources of the sangha could generate income. The sangha could use monastery forests for tea plantations or for mulberry, fruit, or oak trees; they could also run factories or commercial operations using their human resources.31 Han also advocated that clerics be allowed to choose whether or not to marry.32 To make his case, he invoked the doctrine of “skillful means” (Skt. upāya, K. pangp’yŏn 方便). The Buddha freely used his skillful means according to people’s spiritual faculties, time, and place. Han thought that observing celibacy was no longer practical in his time, and he believed it even posed a major threat to the propagation of Buddhism and HYC, 2:106–107; Lee, Sourcebook of Korean Civilization, 2:498–499. HYC, 2:61–63. 30  HYC, 2:64–69. 31  HYC, 2:117–119. 32  HYC, 2:119–121. Buswell discusses this proposal in detail (The Zen Monastic Experience, 26–30). 28  29 

56

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

the sustenance of the religion. He argued that celibacy was antithetical to ethical norms of filial piety, harmful to the nation because it contributed to the decrease of the population, and detrimental to proselytization and interaction with the laity. The proposal to allow marriage created much controversy among the contemporary clergy and later scholars. As he wished, however, cleric marriage became widely practiced, and the colonial government officially approved it in 1926. Han attempted to awaken the sangha, which was drifting without much structure or regulation. He tried to establish a hierarchy in both doctrine and practice, so that a sense of religious identity could emerge. The reform ideas proposed in his Treatise provided the main frame of reference for subsequent sangha reformation; the sangha’s reforms in cleric education and proselytization began to change policies. Han’s suggestions were followed in that the sangha began to provide clerics with a general education, establishing a teacher’s college and sending young clerics to study in foreign countries (usually Japan). The sangha also built missionary preaching stations (p’ogyoso 布敎所) in villages and towns to increase contact with the people. Similarly, the Conference Office of the Abbots of the Thirty Main Monasteries (Samsip ponsa chuji hoeŭi-so 三十本寺住持會議所) decided to convert the chanting halls of all monasteries, except that of Kŏnbong Monastery, into meditation halls (sŏndang 禪堂).33 The Sangha Reforms As reflected in the many reform ideas of Buddhist clerics, the Korean sangha as a whole felt the urgent need for reforms and finally embarked on them. The thirty main-monastery districts, which emerged in 1911 under the Temple Ordinance, became working units for the reformation. Each district invested its resources in establishing its own Buddhist schools and branch temples for proselytization. At the same time, in order to work together, the sangha formed the Conference Office of the Abbots of the Thirty Main Monasteries in November 1911; in 1915, the name was changed to the Cooperative Office of the Thirty Main Monasteries of the Sŏn-Kyo Sect (Sŏn Kyo yangjong samsip taeponsan yŏnhap samuso). Centralized, cooperatively financed projects included establishing a postsecondary Buddhist school in Seoul and publishing Buddhist magazines. These undertakings were basically apolitical in character and thus seemed safe to the sangha, considering that Buddhist activities were under the surveillance of the Japanese regime.

33 

Haedong pulbo 4 (1914): 89.

Modernizing Buddhism

57

Because of the limited financial resources of the sangha, reforms focused mainly on monastic education and proselytization rather than extending the reach of the religion to society in general. The Tonggwang and Posŏng middle schools, which were open to the general public, were exceptions. The sangha established the former in 1921 and took over the operation of the latter from the nativist religion Ch’ŏndo-gyo in 1922. In 1924, Tonggwang merged with Posŏng.34 The sangha could not afford to get involved in social charity work. The first and only Buddhist clinic, which could house a hundred patients, opened at the Central Propagation Office of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo chung’ang p’ogyo-dang 朝鮮佛敎中央布敎堂) in 1923 but closed in 1925 because of insufficient funds. Only a small number of temples for propagation opened night schools or kindergartens for the poor.35 Clerical Education The primary concern of the Buddhist sangha was to equip clerics with knowledge of modern society so that they could better disseminate Buddhist teachings. This urgent venture began before the annexation. In a cooperative effort, Buddhist clerics built a central postsecondary school in 1906. The Myŏngjin 明進 School, founded by the Association of Buddhist Studies at Wŏnhŭng-sa, asked each main monastery to send two students and to pay their tuition. The school offered a two-year course of study with prerequisite courses of three months to one year.36 The curriculum included both Buddhist and secular (modern) subjects, the latter being arithmetic, history, geography, philosophy, religious studies, physics, biology, and Japanese language.37 Until this time, Buddhist clerics had studied only Buddhist scriptures in Chinese at traditional seminaries (kangdang 講堂) in local monasteries. The Wŏn-jong office, which was established by fifty-two monastery leaders nationwide in 1908, took over the operation of the Myŏngjin School from 1908 to 1910. In 1910, they changed it into a Buddhist teachers’ college (Pulgyo sabŏm hakkyo 佛敎 師範學校) modeled on the Japanese college system.38 The school lasted until 1914, but it went into decline once the Wŏn-jong disbanded in 1911 and became an educational academy (kakchong hakkyo 各種學校) after the Temple Ordinance came into effect.

Nam Toyŏng, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk hwaltong,” 258. Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 2: “Sahoe saŏp,” 1–14. 36  Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:937; Nam Toyŏng, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk hwaltong,” 228. 37  Nam Toyŏng, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk hwaltong,” 232. 38  Nam Toyŏng, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk hwaltong,” 251. 34  35 

58

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

In 1915, following the proclamation of the Temple Ordinance, the Cooperative Office of the Thirty Main Monasteries established the Chung’ang Buddhist School (Chung’ang hangnim 中央學林) as the highest Buddhist school in lieu of the Buddhist High School (Pulgyo kodŭng kangsuk), which had lasted only four months. The Buddhist High School, in turn, had taken over the Buddhist Teachers’ College. The Chung’ang Buddhist School offered three-year courses with a one-year preparatory course. Its curriculum included Buddhist texts, philosophy, religion, proselytization methods, Japanese language, and Chinese texts.39 At the same time, main monasteries began to open independent primary schools (pot’ong hakkyo 普通學校), including the Myŏnghwa School at Yongju-sa, Pongmyŏng School at Kŏnbong-sa, Myŏngjŏng School at Pŏmŏ-sa, and Taehŭng School at Taehŭng-sa. From 1906 to 1910, twenty schools of this kind opened.40 Students at these schools were mostly young monks. For example, records indicate that the Myŏngnip School of Haeinsa and the Pong’ik School of Wibong-sa were open for the education of young monks. Exceptions were the Pomyŏng School of Ssanggye-sa and the Myŏngsin School of T’ongdo-sa, reportedly open to both monks and the general public,41 as well as the Sinmyŏng School. In 1913, there were eighteen primary schools (sixteen pot’ong hakkyo and two pot’ong kangsuk 普通講塾) and forty-seven traditional seminaries (kangdang).42 Local main monasteries also opened local preparatory schools (chibang hangnim 地方學林), replacing traditional seminaries, to prepare students for the Chung’ang Buddhist School. Ten main monasteries, including Kŭmnyong-sa, Pŏmŏ-sa, T’ongdo-sa, Haein-sa, Sŏnam-sa, and Taehŭng-sa, opened such schools, which took graduates of Buddhist primary schools.43 By 1915, the Buddhist order appeared to have instituted a three-step modern education system, starting with primary schools, then local preparatory schools, and a central postsecondary school as the highest educational institution in Seoul.44 In addition to attending their own Buddhist schools, young clerics went to public secondary schools in Seoul and colleges in foreign countries, Japan being the most popular. The Buddhist Journal of Korea (Haedong pulbo 海東佛報) reported that there were thirteen students in Japan in 39  40 

237.

Nam Toyŏng, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk hwaltong,” 257. For a list of these schools, see Nam Toyŏng, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk hwaltong,”

Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 2: “Kyoyuk ponsan,” 5, 6, 9; vol. 2, part 4: “Ilbon Pulgyo,” 23. 42  Haedong pulbo 4 (1914): 81–83. 43  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 2: “Kyoyuk p’yŏnnyŏn,” 46. 44  Nam Toyŏng, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk hwaltong,” 255. 41 

Figure 3.1: Students of the Sinmyŏng School, a primary school built by the Hwaŏm, Ch’ŏnŭn, T’aean, and Kwanŭm temples in 1909. The photograph shows both Buddhist clerical and nonclerical students.

60

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

1913, only three of whom were studying with monastery funds, while five students were reported to be in Seoul, four of them supported by monastery funds.45 The first three graduates returned from Japan to Korea in 1918, finishing their studies at Sōtō-shu College. These monks—Yi Chigwang of Kŏnbong-sa, Kim Chŏnghae of Yongju-sa, and Yi Honsŏng of Yujŏm-sa—received a hearty welcome from their fellow Buddhists. Yi Chigwang received a teaching position at the Chung’ang Buddhist School, Yi Honsŏng became the chief editor of the Korean Buddhist Magazine starting with its twelfth volume, and Kim obtained an administrative position at Yongju-sa and later became a chief editor of the Korean Buddhist Magazine (he started with the fourteenth volume).46 In 1919, the Buddhist clerics Yi Chongch’ŏn, Kim Yŏngju, Cho Hagyu, and Chŏng Kwangjin also returned after five to six years of study in Japan.47 In 1924, about thirty students studied in Japan and six at universities in Beijing.48 Paek Sŏng’uk received a Ph.D. from Germany in 1924,49 and Kim Pŏmnin of Pŏmŏ-sa returned from France with a bachelor of arts degree in 1928.50 In 1928, twenty-two clerics graduated from Japanese colleges.51 Until liberation in 1945, Buddhist clerics continued to go mostly to Japan to study. These educated monks emerged as the leaders of the youth movement and later assumed central positions in the sangha. Proselytization Along with education, proselytization (p’ogyo 布敎) was a major concern of the Korean sangha. Heavily influenced by the aggressive expansion of Christianity, the sangha felt a pressing need to develop ways to reach out to the people. Each monastery district opened missionary preaching stations in villages and towns to make the religion accessible to the general public. In 1910, the Central Propagation Office of Korean Buddhism was established at the Kakhwang Temple (in Seoul) through the Haedong pulbo 4 (1914): 84. Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 11 (1918): 1, 53. 47  Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 15 (1919): 101. 48  Pulgyo 6 (1924): 66. Before the six students mentioned here, Kim Pongsu of Paegyangsa went to Beijing University in 1910, according to reports (Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 2: “Kyoyuk ponsan,” 9). 49  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 2: “Kyoyuk p’yŏnnyŏn,” 62. 50  Pulgyo 45 (1928): 43. 51  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 2: “Kyoyuk p’yŏnnyŏn,” 104–105); Pulgyo 43 (1928): 73; 45 (1928): 47–48. The Japanese colleges from which Korean clerics graduated included Rinzaishū Daigaku, Sōtōshū Daigaku, Risshō, Chuo, Waseda, Nihon, Taishō, and Ryūkoku Daigaku. For studies on Korean cleric students in Japan, see Yi Kyŏngsun, “Ilchesidae Pulgyo yuhaksaeng ŭi tonghyang.” 45  46 

Modernizing Buddhism

61

cooperative financial support of main monasteries. In 1912, nine monasteries (including Pŏmŏ-sa, T’ongdo-sa, Paegyang-sa, and Taehŭng-sa) opened the Central Propagation Office of Korean Sŏn Buddhism (Chosŏn Sŏnjong chung’ang p’ogyo-dang), also in Seoul.52 Including these two central propagation offices, by 1913, eighteen propagation stations had opened across Korea. According to a report by the sangha, the numbers of Buddhist missionary preaching stations had increased to about forty, and Buddhist lay followers numbered 100,000, by 1915.53 All of these new enterprises were commendable achievements for the sangha and were unimaginable prior to 1895, when Korean monks were not allowed to enter the capital. By the end of 1924, there were 72 missionary stations with 72 cleric propagators and 200,000 laypeople.54 In 1930, there were 117 missionary stations with 122 cleric propagators.55 These missionary stations offered a preaching assembly on Sundays and also attempted to implement wedding ceremonies, Sunday schools, and hymn singing in imitation of Christian churches. Their formation of social charities was blocked only by their lack of financial resources. The sangha also used print media for proselytizing. A major project was the publication of a series of Buddhist periodicals, which succeeded one another as the official organ of the sangha (table 3.1).56 The Conference Office of the Abbots issued the Korean Buddhist Monthly (Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 朝鮮佛敎月報) from February 1912 to August 1913, with nineteen issues in total. The magazine’s office was at Kakhwang-sa, the central missionary temple of the sangha. Kwŏn Sangno was the editor in chief, and subscription fees and funds collected from the monastery districts supported the operation of magazine. The Korean Buddhist Monthly was discontinued after its twentieth issue; that issue, edited by Pak Hanyŏng, was confiscated by the government as part of its censorship policy. After this confiscation, the official magazine of the sangha went through many different versions. First was the Buddhist Journal of Korea, with Pak Hanyŏng as chief editor, which lasted from November 1913 to June 1914, then was discontinued after eight issues.57 The Monthly of the Association for the Promotion of Buddhism (Pulgyo chinhŭnghoe wŏlbo Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 19 (1913): 69–71. Pulgyo chinhŭnghoe wŏlbo 4 (1915): 6. 54  The accuracy of lay numbers was said to be doubtful because laypeople registered their names at three or four temples simultaneously (Pulgyo 21 [1926]: 9–10). 55  A statistical list of numbers of preaching stations and clerics between 1917 and 1930 is provided in Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 2: “P’ogyo p’yŏnnyŏn,” 34–36. 56  For the tables of contents of Buddhist journals, see the appendix in Minjok Pulgyo Yŏn’guso, Pulgyo kwangye tosŏ nonmun mongnok, 207–257. 57  Pak Yunjin, “Pulgyo chapchi che paekho kinyŏm sa,” 86. 52  53 

62

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

佛敎振興會月報) ensued from March 1915 to December of the same year with a total of nine issues. It was published by the Association for the Promotion of Buddhism (Pulgyo chinhŭnghoe), which had been formed by the abbots of the thirty main monasteries and laymen in September 1914. The name was changed, to the World of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo-gye 朝鮮佛敎界) in April 1916, but the magazine lasted for only three issues, until June 1917. The Association for the Promotion of Buddhism was disbanded in 1917, and the Cooperative Office of the Thirty Main Monasteries assumed responsibility for the publication of the succeeding magazines. The Korean Buddhist Magazine was published from March 1917 until January 1921, with twenty issues. Yi Nŭnghwa, the editor in chief of these last three magazines, was the only layperson to serve as editor. Internal divisions led the sangha to suspend publication of the magazine for the next three years, from January 1921 to July 1924. After the March First Movement in 1919, Buddhist youth began to criticize the Temple Ordinance and the politically impotent sangha administration. The movement they staged in the early 1920s for the separation of government and religion (chŏng-gyo pulli 政敎分離) inflamed conflicts within the sangha, a matter that will be examined in the next chapter. In 1924, the magazine resumed under the name Buddhism (Pulgyo). The Office of Buddhist Affairs (Kyomuwŏn 敎務院), the sangha’s central administration office, sponsored the publication and appointed Kwŏn Sangno as the chief editor; he served through the eighty-third issue, which appeared in May 1931. The Buddhist magazines suffered frequent suspension of publication mainly because of the sangha’s financial difficulties and government censorship. The content and policies of the Buddhist periodicals before 1919 were mostly religious. Each issue of the magazine carried a statement that the magazine did not accept articles that mentioned politics or current events, only those with religious themes. Henrik Sørensen has pointed out that early Buddhist journals were instrumental in the propagation of Japanese colonial rule.58 In other words, all of the magazines operated under tight political scrutiny and tacitly supported Japanese rule by being apolitical. Likewise, the Japanese government used the Buddhist magazines as an important means of delivering its religious policies to the members of the sangha.59 Each issue carried government reports (kwanbo 官報) through which Buddhists were informed about the government’s policies, regulations, and decisions on Buddhist affairs. This section disappeared from 58  59 

Sørensen, “Korean Buddhist Journals during Early Japanese Colonial Rule,” 23. Sørensen, “Korean Buddhist Journals during Early Japanese Colonial Rule,” 23–24.

Modernizing Buddhism

63

the forty-eighth edition of Buddhism, issued in May 1928, around the second surge of the youth movement, but reappeared in January 1940 in the twentieth issue of Buddhism (New) (Pulgyo [Sin] 佛敎 [新]). Table 3.1. The Korean Sangha’s Official Periodicals Title

Time Span

Editor in Chief

Korean Buddhist Monthly

1912–1913

Kwŏn Sangno

Buddhist Journal of Korea

1913–1914

Pak Hanyŏng

Monthly of the Association for the Promotion of Buddhism

1915

Yi Nŭnghwa

World of Korean Buddhism

1916–1917

Yi Nŭnghwa

Korean Buddhist Magazine

1917–1921

Yi Nŭnghwa

Buddhism

1924–1933

Kwŏn Sangno, 1924–1931 Han Yongun, 1931–1933

Buddhism (New)

1937–1944

Hŏ Yŏngho, 1937–1939 Kim Samdo, 1939–1942 Im Wŏn’gil, 1942–1944

By focusing on the survival of the Buddhist order, the sangha inadvertently allowed itself to be used politically by the colonial regime. Before 1919, Buddhists largely failed to voice their own stance in the midst of all the social and political changes. Instead, the Korean sangha used the Buddhist magazines mainly as a medium by which Buddhists communicated among themselves and propagated Buddhist teachings to the general public. The magazine articles covered contemporary religious news; scholarly studies; Buddhist teachings; Buddhist scriptures and doctrines; Buddhist history (including hagiographies and inscriptions); doctrinal histories of India, China, Japan, and Korea; translations of contemporary Chinese and Japanese Buddhist writings; and other writings, such as poems, novels, and plays.60 As young clerics completed their education in Japan, their articles demonstrating how they interpreted Buddhism in the light of Western modernity began to appear in Buddhist magazines. The first ones were written by the three graduates who returned from Japanese universities in 1918. Yi Chigwang introduced “Buddhist Ethics” (“Pulgyo yullihak”) in the ninth, tenth, twelfth, and thirteenth issues of the Korean Buddhist 60  These topics were grouped together under general headings. Sørensen lists these headings with an explanation of their content (“Korean Buddhist Journals during Early Japanese Colonial Rule,” 21). These general headings were excluded from the Korean Buddhist Magazine (1917) until the last edition of Buddhism (1933) although the magazines had a similar content.

Figure 3.2: The cover page of the thirteenth volume of the Korean Buddhist Monthly (Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo), published from February 1912 to August 1913.

Figure 3.3: The first volume of the Korean Buddhist Magazine (Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo), published from March 1917 to January 1921.

Modernizing Buddhism

65

Magazine in 1918. Yi Honsŏng wrote “Buddhist Psychology” (“Pulgyo simnihak”) in the same issues of the magazine. Kim Chŏnghae’s “Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy” (“Pulgyo ch’ŏrhak kaeron”) was serialized from the fifteenth (1919) to the twenty-second (1921) issues. Other students who had returned from Japan also contributed to the magazine. Yi Chongch’ŏn wrote an article titled “Buddhism and Philosophy” (“Pulgyo wa ch’ŏrhak”); Chŏng Kwangjin wrote “The Study of Buddhist History” (“Pulgyo sahak yŏn’gu”); and Cho Hagyu wrote “The Ideal of Religion” (“Chonggyo ŭi isang”), “Religion and Knowledge” (“Chonggyo wa chisik”), and “On the Origin of Religion” (“Chonggyo kiwŏn e taehayŏ”). Paek Sŏng’uk’s Ph.D. dissertation, “The Buddhist Abhidharma Philosophy” (“Pulgyo sunjŏn ch’ŏrhak”), was submitted in Germany and published in the seventh to the fourteenth issues of Buddhism. Buddhist cleric Kim T’aehŭp’s bachelor’s thesis, written in Japan and titled “Studies on Religion and Social Welfare” (“Chonggyo wa sahoe saŏp ŭi yŏn’gu”), appeared in the twenty-fifth to forty-ninth issues of Buddhism.61 These articles demonstrate how Buddhists attempted to introduce modern (Western) disciplines to Buddhist studies and to interpret Buddhism in light of Western terminology. In addition to the previously mentioned official periodicals, Buddhist clerics and groups sponsored several Buddhist magazines.62 Yusim 唯心 (Mind only) was published by Han Yongun from September to December of 1918, ending after only three editions due to lack of funds.63 Ch’wisan porim chapchi 鷲山寶林雜誌 (Miscellaneous records of the precious forest of Ch’wisan) was published by T’ongdo-sa from March to October of 1920 with six issues in total.64 Student clerics abroad also issued their own magazines. The progressive magazine Kŭmgangjŏ 金剛杵 (Vajra) was first published in Japan in May 1924, and it lasted until January 1943, with twenty-six issues;65 Hwangya 荒野 (The wilds) was first published in 61  Yi Chigwang, “Pulgyo yullihak”; Yi Hongsŏng, “Pulgyo simnihak”; Kim Chŏnghae, “Pulgyo ch’ŏrhak kaeron”; Yi Chongch’ŏn, “Pulgyo wa ch’ŏrhak”; Chŏng Kwangjin, “Pulgyo sahak yŏn’gu”; Cho, “The Ideal of Religion,” “Religion and Knowledge,” and “The Origin of Religion”; Paek Sŏng’uk, “Pulgyo sunjŏn ch’ŏrhak”; Kim T’aehŭp, “Chonggyo wa sahoe saŏp ŭi yŏn’gu.” 62  For the list of Buddhist magazines, see Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 2: “Yŏkkyŏng,” 40–41. 63  For the table of contents of Yusim, see Minjok Pulgyo Yon’guso, Pulgyo kwangye tosŏ nonmun mongnok, 258–259. 64  For the table of contents of Ch’wisan porim chapchi, see Minjok Pulgyo Yon’guso, Pulgyo kwangye tosŏ nonmun mongnok, 227–228. 65  Prior to issue 16 of Kŭmgangjŏ, only tables of contents were known, which were recorded in issue 21 of Kŭmgangjŏ, dated December 1933; for these tables, see Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 2, “Yŏkkyŏng,” 30–33. For the tables of contents of the Kŭmgangjŏ from February 1937 to January 1943, see Minjok Pulgyo

66

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

China in July 1924. Also in that month, the Chosŏn Buddhist Association (Chosŏn Pulgyohoe), which included both Buddhist clerics and lay members, first published Puril 佛日 (The Buddha-sun) in Seoul. Hwangya and Puril must have been short-lived, although the ending dates of their publication are unknown. Ilgwang 一光 (One light) was first issued by Cho Hagyu as an official organ of the Student Association of Pulgyo Chŏnsu College (Pulchŏn kyouhoe) at Seoul in December 1928, and it lasted until January 1940 (the tenth issue). Except for Kŭmgangjŏ, these magazines did not last long enough to develop their own characteristics. Kŭmgangjŏ experimented with new Western ideas, and many articles advocated upto-date reform, yet the content was amateurish because it was published by student clerics. Other short-lived magazines came into being during the resurgence of the youth movement in the late 1920s. The Association of Student Clerics (Hagin yŏnmaeng) published two issues of Hoegwang 回光 (Tracing back the light) as its official publication between March 1929 and March 1933, and, starting in August 1931, the General League of Buddhist Youth published some ten issues of the progressive Pulch’ŏng undong 佛靑運動 (Buddhist youth movement). Other publications included four issues of Sŏnwŏn 禪苑 (The Sŏn collection), published by the Institute of Sŏn Meditation (Sŏn hagwŏn) between October 1931 and October 1935; ten issues of Kŭmgangsan 金剛山 (Kŭmgang Mountain) by P’yohun-sa of Mount Kŭmgang between September 1935 and June 1936; and three issues of Rumbini (Lumbinī) by the Student Association of Pulgyo Chŏnmun College between May 1937 and January 1939.66 These magazines, except for Pulch’ŏng undong, were conservative in content, mainly dealing with religious ideas. Their appearance testifies to the use Korean Buddhist clerics made of the print medium as a main avenue for the propagation of Buddhism and the consolidation of their group. At the same time, financial limitations and the disbanding of sponsoring groups prevented the magazines from developing further, mostly ending these ventures prematurely. Korean clerics, by focusing on education and proselytization, succeeded in carrying out reforms. Establishing mission stations in villages and cities meant they could restore public functions of the religion that had not been allowed in the Chosŏn era. They received education in modern curricula and were even sent to Japan for college, which was available to only a few chosen elites in Korean society at that time. All these changes must have been phenomenal to the Buddhist community. However, the Yon’guso, Pulgyo kwangye tosŏ nonmun mongnok, 260–263. 66  For the tables of contents of the magazines, see Minjok Pulgyo Yon’guso, Pulgyo kwangye tosŏ nonmun mongnok, 259–260 (for Sŏnwŏn) and 278–279 (for Rumbini).

Modernizing Buddhism

67

changes were strictly confined within religious areas while the sangha focused its energy on the survival of Buddhism. This apolitical stance of the sangha was manipulated by the colonial regime as a way to endorse the regime, and it made the sangha impotent in dealing with government interventions. In addition, the sangha suffered from financial difficulties and a lack of direction and vision. The sangha’s investment in both education and proselytization faced financial crises all along. Evidence of the financial problems can be seen in Buddhism, which reported in 1924 that the monastery treasures of Haein-sa, one of the largest main monasteries, were subject to seizure because of huge debts.67 An article published in July 1919 reported a financial crisis among the local preparatory schools, which occurred because they had been established without having separate funds for their operations.68 Kim Chŏnghae, a monk graduate of Sōtō-shu College in Japan, suggested a merger of several preparatory schools to save them from closure.69 A Buddhist cleric lamented in 1927 that all monasteries, whether main monasteries or branches, were burdened by crushing debt.70 More seriously, the sangha was not equipped with unified and consistent policies for the reforms; each independent main monastery carried out its own education and propagation policies. Even within each main monastery, long-term plans or budgets had not been established before the reforms were implemented.71 Main monasteries began to open schools because other monasteries opened them, not because they felt an urgent need to.72 With regard to sending young clerics to Japan, no guidelines or goals were established for selecting students or for the content of their studies.73 A monk styling himself Obong-sanin (Person Living on Mount Obong) criticized the lack of leadership regarding the policies and effectiveness of sending students to Japan in the following way: The abbots and sponsoring teachers randomly sent their disciples to foreign countries to study without any consistent plans or guidelines for them. Thus monk-students entered schools of any kind to study topics of their own preference, which had no relevance to Buddhism. If this

Pulgyo 6 (1924): 6. The debts were said to have been caused by the ten-year failure of the abbot Yi Hoegwang’s ventures. 68  Pak Kyŏngsun, “Chibang hangnim e taehan kwan’gyŏn,” 13–21. 69  Kim Chŏnghae, “Kuch’ejŏk han yŏnhap chedo ŭi p’iryo rŭl non ham,” 7. 70  Kim Pyŏgong, “Chosŏn Pulgyo kiu-ron,” 22. 71  Kim T’aehŭp, “Chosŏn Pulgyodo wa sinnyŏn ŭi kaksŏng,” 4. 72  Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 19 (1919): 13. 73  Pulgyo 2 (1924): 1–2; 4 (1924): 61. 67 

68

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

situation continues, the sangha will dry up its financial resources and only produce a type of laymen.74

Similarly, the students complained that no guidance or stable financial support was provided. Also, no opportunities were offered for work in the sangha after their graduation. Thus, many of them studied in disciplines other than Buddhism.75 Under these circumstances, the sangha experienced internal divisions and distrust, which came to the surface after 1919. All these adverse effects seemed to come from the hurried imitation of modernity, which will be discussed further in the next chapter. Chapter 4 continues with the Buddhist reforms after 1919, when young clerics began to voice opposition to the sangha’s policies and the systemic constraints of the Temple Ordinance, injecting a new dimension into the reform movement.

74  75 

Obong-sanin, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk pangch’im ŭl hwangnip hara,” 1. Pulgyo 17 (1925): 25; 23 (1926): 39–40.

FOUR

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance: Buddhist Reforms after the March First Movement Among Korean Buddhists there was consensus that the best strategy for the revival of Buddhism was to modernize clerical education and propagation methods. Under the oppressive regime of Governor-General Terauchi, these reform efforts were strictly confined to the religious realm; the Japanese regime actually promoted purely religious activities. However, the sangha’s apolitical stance and hastily conceived reform projects produced internal grievances and conflict. After 1919, when the Japanese acceded to the outcry of the Korean people and changed their coercive policy into a so-called cultural one, young clerics began to question the docility of the Buddhist order and to defy the religious policies of the colonial regime.1 This was the first attempt of Korean Buddhists to express their position vis-à-vis the state, opposing the sangha’s overt and covert collaboration with the Japanese government. This chapter deals with the second phase of Buddhist reforms, to which the youth added a political dimension. It explores changes in the Buddhists’ ideas of modernity, issues relating to modernist reforms, the development of a nationalist stance within the Buddhist youth movement, minjung Pulgyo (Buddhism for the masses), and the establishment of a sectarian identity. Previous studies tend to bifurcate the Korean sangha during the colonial period, contrasting the youth with the reputedly pro-Japanese Buddhists, most of whom were abbots of the thirty main-monastery districts. As I have argued, however, this pro- and anti-Japanese approach is not an accurate depiction of reality; its limitation is that it views nationalism only in light of the Buddhist relationship with the Japanese state. Buddhist nationalism of this period was more complicated than is suggested 1  The Buddhist youth movement began, according to Han Yongun, with the creation of the Imje-jong. However, the Imje-jong movement was a spontaneous reaction to cope with the conspiracy between Yi Hoegwang and the Japanese Sōtō sect. Only after the March First Movement did the youth movement actually appear (Han Yongun, “Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn yŏnmaeng e taehayŏ,” 338–340).

70

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

by this simple dichotomy; in fact, Korean Buddhists developed various strands of nationalist discourse. Past scholarship has identified the concept of “nation” largely with that of “nation-state.” The concept of nation, however, is unstable and thus a source of contestation.2 There are many different versions of nations and nationalism, from the nation-state to the ethnic nation. Japanese Buddhists, for instance, became faithful followers of state policies, identifying themselves with the nation-state. By the mid-Meiji period, Buddhism managed to present itself as the essence of Japanese culture. Most Japanese Buddhists embraced nativistic sentiments and maintained strong support for the statist ideology.3 In contrast, Sri Lanka developed its own version of nation while recognizing the strictures of the colonial state. The history of organized Buddhism in Sri Lanka, for example, has been identified with the history of the nation, and Buddhism was promoted as a way to defend the nation from the colonial West.4 At the same time, the Sinhala Buddhist clergy sought continued patronage and supervision of Buddhism from the colonial government by maintaining close ties with it.5 Korean Protestants also separated nation from state. They had embraced, according to Kenneth Wells, both religious universality and national particularism with their program of “self-reconstruction,” as they developed “ethical nationalism.”6 Even the Japanese colonial state did not entirely deny the development of ethnic nationalism as long as the nation-state was not threatened. As Henry Em has argued, the Japanese regime also participated in the creation of the national identity of Koreans.7 For the efficient operation of the nation-state, the colonial government needed homogeneous national subjects, even as it treated Koreans as second-class citizens. In other words, we cannot view nationalism only from the vantage point of “state.” While most Buddhist clerics (whether conservative or progressive) participated in the modern reforms of Buddhism they also took a nationalist stance as a way to enhance the status of the religion in society. “Nationalism” in this study is thus a more comprehensive term, connoting more than the simple association with a nation-state. Regarding the Japanese state, Korean Buddhists present complicated responses of confusion, compromise, and resistance by being situated at the intersection Wells, New God, New Nation, 19; Doak, “Nationalism as Dialectics,” 175. Fumio and Yoshimichi, “Buddhism,” 144. 4  Bond, The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka, 53. 5  Malalgoda, Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, 1750–1900, 261; De Silva, A History of Sri Lanka, 343. 6  Wells, New God, New Nation, 6–7. 7  Em, “The Nationalist Discourse in Modern Korea,” 7–8. 2  3 

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

71

of patriotic and religious interests. Furthermore, I argue that the complex and even conflicting actions of Korean Buddhists with regard to nationalist developments derived, in part, from the mere adoption of nationalism, a secular ideology, without an effort to locate nationalism within Buddhist worldviews and soteriologies. Because of this, the issue of Buddhist identity was neglected. The Youth Movement In the early 1920s, young clerics formed Buddhist youth associations and confronted the status quo of the abbot system, as well as the Japanese state by extension. In June 1920, student clerics of the Chung’ang Buddhist School formed the Buddhist Youth Association at Kakhwang-sa in Seoul and its branch associations in local monasteries. A subgroup of the Buddhist Youth Association, the Buddhist Reformation Association (Pulgyo yusin hoe 佛敎維新會), was formed with more than one thousand members in December 1921. Whereas the former group represented the whole body of young clerics, the latter consisted only of active members.8 The youth initiated campaigns for the separation of religion from politics and sent a petition to the government in 1922, with about 2,200 signatures, demanding the abolition of the Temple Ordinance and selfgovernance for the sangha. The petition was written by fifteen representatives, including Pak Hanyŏng, Kim Kyuhyŏn, Im Sŏkchin, Cho Hagyu, Yi Kogyŏng, Chŏng Kwangjin, and Kim T’aehwan.9 It criticized the abuses of the ordinance, after the institution of which each main monastery was made an independent unit of operation, so that there was no way to control any that were corrupt. Furthermore, the arbitrary imposition of the main-monastery system had been a constant source of strife between the main and branch temples (the long dispute between Hwaŏm-sa and Sŏnam-sa is one example). The petition also complained about the concentration of power in abbots, which made them despots over all monastic matters. For these reasons, young clerics urged the colonial government to abolish the Temple Ordinance and give the Korean sangha independence to manage its own affairs, as it had before Japanese involvement. No response came from the Japanese government, however, even after a second petition in May 1923.10 Thereafter, no visible action ensued for the abolition of the Temple Ordinance.

Han Yongun, “Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn yŏnmaeng e taehayŏ,” 4. Pulch’ŏng undong 9–10 (1933): 3–4, cited in Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 3: “Kakchong tanch’e p’yŏnnyŏn,” 17–18. 10  Pulch’ŏng undong 9–10 (1933): 4, cited in Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 3: “Kakchong tanch’e p’yŏnnyŏn,” 21. 8  9 

72

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

As Buddhist clerics became self-conscious about their situation in the 1920s, internal dissension surfaced. At the 1922 annual meeting of the abbots of the thirty main monasteries, which had been opened to the young clerics of the Buddhist Reformation Association, a decision was made to establish the sangha’s central administration organization, the General Office (Ch’ongmuwŏn 總務院), and to assign one-third of the financial resources of all Korean monasteries to fund the organization.11 This establishment of a central institution could have been a way to defeat the independent units of the main-monastery system. However, sixteen main-monastery abbots disagreed with this decision, and in March 1922, one of the primary figures of this group, Kang Taeryŏn (an allegedly notorious pro-Japanese abbot), was humiliated by angry young monks who put a drum on his back and dragged him through downtown Seoul. Several young monks were tried for this assault and sentenced to four to six months’ imprisonment, with several years of probation.12 This incident reflected how serious the internal division between the conservative and young progressive clerics had become. In fact, in the 1920s disputes over temple management frequently occurred, and the movement to expel corrupt abbots became widespread.13 In May 1922, the abbots of the main monasteries met again to try to solve the differences among themselves and decided to establish the Office of Buddhist Affairs (Kyomuwŏn), but they failed to incorporate the opinions of the members of the General Office. They determined to establish the Office of Buddhist Affairs on their own, acting as trustees (chaedan pŏbin 財團法人) and collecting 600,000 wŏn for its fund.14 The Office of Buddhist Affairs was approved by the government in December 1922, but three influential main monasteries (T’ongdo-sa, Pŏmŏ-sa, Songwangsa) did not agree with this approval, questioning the legitimacy of the Office of Buddhist Affairs.15 They argued that the establishment of the this organization reflected not the wishes of all clerics, but only those of corrupt abbots.16

11  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 1: “Sŭngdan p’yŏnnyŏn,” 100–102. 12  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 1: “Sŭngdan p’yŏnnyŏn,” 107–108, 114. 13  Pulgyo 2 (1924): 63. 14  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 1: “Sŭngdan p’yŏnnyŏn,” 110–112. 15  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 1: “Sŭngdan p’yŏnnyŏn,” 117. 16  Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 1: “Sŭngdan p’yŏnnyŏn,” 115.

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

73

Because of these internal divisions, two offices existed: the Office of Buddhist Affairs and the General Office. These offices were both located at Kakhwang-sa in Seoul, and disputes often arose between them. In 1924, the two offices finally agreed to work together and form one central office, called the Central Sangha Office (Chung’ang kyomuwŏn). The internal division had depleted energy for implementing reforms, which had already been set back by financial problems. During this internal conflict, the youth movement weakened until it existed in name only. The Buddhist Reformation Association died after three years, and the Buddhist Youth Association also became inactive. Those in power were not the youth but the abbots, and the abbots would not provide financial support to the youth.17 Moreover, the youth were subjected to the close scrutiny of the government. For example, in the summer of 1921, during a lecture tour throughout the peninsula initiated by young monks who were studying in Japan, some lectures were interrupted by police, and eight of the ten lecturers were summoned by the police.18 Kim Kyŏngju was incarcerated for six months; others were released after some days or weeks of investigation. They were suspected of making political comments or spreading “dangerous thoughts,” which was often a reference to socialism. The youth movement reemerged and grew in the late 1920s and early 1930s. This second surge came with the revival of the Buddhist Youth Association in 1927.19 In 1928, clerical students (Pulgyo hagin taehoe 佛敎 學人大會) and Buddhist youths (Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn taehoe 佛敎靑年大會) rallied.20 The movement was reconstituted in 1931 as the General League of Buddhist Youth (Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn yŏnmaeng 佛敎靑年聯盟). Han Yongun commented that this movement was formed as a general league with less central power than before, since previous youth movements had suffered because of government control. He added that it should be reorganized as an association (hoe) or party (tang), with more central power.21 In this latter phase of the youth movement, its leaders kept trying to become involved in the central sangha administration. By this time they had begun to play an important role in sangha policy making. Kim Pŏmnin, Kim P’ogwang, To Chinho, Kim T’aehŭp, and Paek Sŏng’uk became the main members of the Chehŏnbu 制憲部 (an organ for writing legislation). At the first nationwide conference of Buddhist clergy Pulgyo 86 (1931): 4. Sŏnu toryang Han’guk Pulgyokŭnhyŏndaesa Yŏn’guhoe, Sinmun ŭro pon Han’guk Pulgyo kŭnhyŏndaesa, 1:521, 525, 610. 19  Pulgyo 86 (1931): 4. 20  Pulgyo 76 (1930): 23–33; 86 (1931): 4. 21  Pulgyo 86 (1931): 4–5. 17  18 

Figure 4.1: Buddhist clerical students (Pulgyo hagin taehoe) at a rally in 1928.

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

75

(sŭngnyŏ taehoe 僧侶大會), held in 1929, the sangha legislation (chonghŏn 宗憲) was adopted and the Sangha Assembly (Chonghoe 宗會) established as a legislative organ.22 Under the Temple Ordinance, however, the sangha legislation could not exert any coercive power for punishment or dismissal of members of the sangha.23 The General League of Buddhist Youth also advocated the following: the propagation of the Buddha’s teachings, reformation of Buddhist administration, and the practice of taejung Pulgyo 大衆佛敎 (also called minjung Pulgyo).24 The league published the magazine Pulch’ŏng undong as its official organ; although there were some ten issues in total, it did not continue long enough to have any lasting effect. Within two or three years, this General League of Buddhist Youth also became obsolete,25 because following the Manchurian Incident in 1931, the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, and the Pacific War starting in 1941, the Japanese government tightened its grip on the Korean people. Minjung Pulgyo The young clerics advocated minjung Pulgyo while rebuking the sangha for practicing bureaucratic Buddhism (kwanje Pulgyo), which they believed served the needs of the Japanese regime. They attacked traditional Buddhist ties with the powerful and tried to sever the sangha’s liaison with the Japanese regime, asserting that religion should serve the general public. Han Yongun, who provided leadership to the youth movement, viewed the Temple Ordinance as a major obstacle to Korean Buddhism and insisted on self-management for the sangha. He stressed that the ordinance, which brought the administration, the management of properties, and the whole system of the sangha under the control of the Japanese regime, violated the principle of separation of religion and state and ran counter to the spirit of the constitutions of many foreign countries. Because within the peninsula only Buddhism was subject to this ordinance, the Buddhist community was viewed with suspicion and disrespect. Han pointed out that the general public and members of other religions disdained Buddhism with the term kwanje Pulgyo,26 which was used in a negative sense to mock the close ties between the sangha and the colonial regime. Han insisted in 1920 that Buddhism should reorganize itself in alignment with and for the minjung (the masses).

Pulgyo 56 (1929): 116. Kim Pŏmnin, “Chŏng-gyo pullip e taehayŏ,” 16. 24  Han Yongun, “Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn ch’ong yŏnmaeng e taehayŏ,” 338. 25  Pulgyo (Sin) 10 (1938): 3. 26  Han Yongun, “Chŏng-gyo rŭl pullip hara,” 144–145; Pulgyo 87 (1931): 425. 22  23 

76

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Does Buddhism reside in monasteries? No. Does Buddhism reside in clerics? It does not. Does Buddhism reside in its canons? The answer is also “no.” Buddhism resides indeed in every individual’s mental awareness. There are many ways to recognize the dignity and insight of each person. I sincerely wish for Buddhism to reflect this great truth and make connections with the minjung and live with the minjung.27

Han asserted that Korean Buddhism had to be changed for the sake of the minjung.28 According to him, Buddhist doctrines and canons should be made easy and simple so as to be accessible to the minjung. Buddhist institutions and properties had to be opened to, and used for the benefit of, the minjung. Incorporating the rhetoric of the term minjung, the Buddhist youth tried to establish a socially conscious Buddhism that would work for ordinary people. By working for the masses rather than the powerful, the Japanese regime, the youth wanted to overcome bureaucratic Buddhism. We can see possible socialist influence in the term minjung. Whereas the term appeared in the latter half of the nineteenth century, Kang Man’gil of Koryŏ University notes that the first use of minjung to refer to the leading group of the nationalist movement appeared in Sin Ch’aeho’s 申采浩 (1880–1936) “Declaration of the Korean Revolution” (“Chosŏn hyŏngmyŏng sonŏn sŏ”), written in 1923.29 Kang mentions that Sin’s minjung may refer to the proletariat of the oppressed colonial nations in Asia, specifically the peasants and laborers whose grassroots movements were rampant during the mid-1920s.30 Han Yongun was also sympathetic to the socialist goal of equality, which reflected his advocacy of minjung Pulgyo. In an interview in 1931 in the magazine Samchŏlli (Three thousand leagues), he said that he was planning to write about Buddhist socialism.31 He asserted that Buddhism does not support the possession of personal wealth and economic inequality, yet he did not develop this idea any further. Despite this sympathetic attitude, he simultaneously emphasized the importance of religion as a defense against socialist attack.32 Because religion was the only means for the oppressed proletariat to receive comfort in their economic suffering, he thought that religion should be an important part of their lives. He further believed that because people are innately endowed with religious minds, a temporary ideological or belief system such as socialism could not replace religion. Han Yongun, “Pulgyo yusinhoe,” 133. Han Yongun, “Pulgyo yusinhoe,” 133–134. 29  Kang, “Contemporary Nationalist Movements and the Minjung,” 32–34. 30  An Pyŏngjik, “Manhae Han Yongun ŭi tongnip sasang,” 68. 31  Han Yongun, “Sŏkka ŭi chŏngsin,” 292. 32  Han Yongun, “Pan chonggyo undong e taehayŏ.” 27  28 

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

77

Before Sin Ch’aeho’s use of the term, minjung simply indicated the general populace. Buddhists used the terms minjung and taejung (the general public) interchangeably: minjung probably referred to a wider range of people who were the governed in contrast to the governing. During the latter part of the 1920s, the term minjung seemed to have been in common use in society in general and also among Buddhists. In 1928, a monk stated in Buddhism that at that time minjung was invariably mentioned when referring to common people’s lives.33 The term minjung Pulgyo (J. minshu Bukkyo) was also used by Buddhists in Japan and was widely spread with the introduction of democracy during the Taisho era (1912–1925).34 This adoption of minjung rhetoric was also a way to redress the earlier acceptance of modernity from Spencerian social Darwinism; if Koreans followed that evolutionary logic, they had to accept that domestic conditions rather than the foreign imperialist invasion had brought about their political predicament. Furthermore, this theory of evolution posited that fundamental social change took a long time. Koreans were satisfied with the freedom granted by the colonial rulers and participated in the politics of the colonial government. Even the Japanese colonial state did not entirely suppress the development of ethnic nationalism as long as the nation-state was not threatened. Korean intellectuals strove to find other ways to overcome this linear idea of modernity and to cope with the colonial situation. Sin Ch’aeho, in the later development of his thought, abandoned this Western liberal stance and adopted the anarchism of Kropotkin. The “mutual aid” of Kropotkin was an attempt to overcome Darwinism by stressing mutual assistance among people.35 Above all, the direct confrontation of anarchism offered Sin a realistic means of dealing with the exigency of national independence.36 Similarly, Han Yongun changed his ideas about the Darwinian notion of progress. He later believed that history repeated itself rather than developed progressively.37 He considered history to be transient and relative while regarding religion as transcendent. The espousal of minjung Pulgyo was thus a way of resisting the Japanese government by rendering minjung the center of the Buddhist reforms. The youth started more active resistance activities through the underground movement; committed young clerics formed a secret society, called Mandang 卍黨, in 1930. Its initial members included Kim Pŏmnin, Ch’oe Pŏmsul, Cho Hagyu, Kim Sangho, Yi Yongjo, and Hŏ Yŏngho.38 Pulgyo 43 (1928): 9. Tamamuro Taijō, Nihon Bukkyō shi, 3:399–406. 35  Brière, Fifty Years of Chinese Philosophy, 1898–1950, 20. 36  Robinson, “National Identity and the Thought of Sin Ch’aeho,” 140–141. 37  Han Yongun, “Segye chonggyogye ŭi hoego,” 276–277; Pulgyo 93 (1932): 162. 38  Taehan Pulgyo, 30 August 1964, cited in Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo 33  34 

Figure 4.2: The main activists of the Buddhist youth movement. In the top row, starting with the first from the left, are Hŏ Yŏngho, Kim Pŏmnin, and Ch’oe Pŏmsul. In the bottom row, on the far right, is Kim Sangho.

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

79

Membership eventually increased to about eighty, and many members were the recipients of a modern education, mostly in Japan.39 Mandang’s main principles were the separation of religion and politics, the centralization of the sangha administration, and propagation for the general public (minjung hwa). However, the ultimate goal of Mandang was the restoration of Korean independence.40 The government arrested Mandang members six times in Seoul, Chinju, Sach’ŏn, Haenam, and Hapch’ŏn. Mandang was disbanded in 1933, not only because of government oppression, but also because of internal divisions.41 Its members were also leaders of the General League of Buddhist Youth, and their differences of opinion widened as they became involved with sangha policies. They then got entangled in the internal divisions among main monasteries vis-à-vis the central administration. The youth movement could not develop a systematic and enduring organization and instead suffered many years of interruption.42 First among the possible reasons for this was that under the scrutiny of the Temple Ordinance, the reforms suffered from serious restrictions. Efforts to centralize the sangha repeatedly failed. The independent main-monastery system could not be unified under the General Office, the Office of Buddhist Affairs, or the Sangha Assembly, or by use of the sangha legislation. In 1941, the sangha was finally unified under the head monastery (ch’ong ponsan) T’aego-sa, adopting the name Chogye-jong 曹溪宗 as its official designation. The government’s use of the Temple Ordinance to intervene in the affairs of the sangha persisted, however, until the end of Japanese rule in 1945. A part of the Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance was revised to be even more restrictive in 1929: monasteries were required to request permission of the governor-general not only when they disposed of monastery properties but also when they mortgaged temple properties to borrow money.43 Another reason for the youth movement’s failure to change the course of the reformation was a lack of philosophy and vision. An additional contributing factor was the general lack of interest in and purpose of the reforms.44 The young monks’ ideas for reforms were no different from the abbots’; their attention was focused on changing policies within the paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 3: “Kakchong tanch’e p’yŏnnyŏn,” 34–36. For the study of Mandang, see Kim Kwangsik, Han’guk kŭndae Pulgyosa yŏn’gu, 255–307. 39  Kim Kwangsik, Han’guk kŭndae Pulgyosa yŏn’gu, 268–269. 40  Cho Chonghyŏn, “Pulgyoin ŭro sŏui Manhae,” HYC, 2:26. 41  Kim Kwangsik, Han’guk kŭndae Pulgyosa yŏn’gu, 286–292. 42  For a historical overview of the Buddhist youth movement, see Kim Kwangsik, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn hoe ŭi sachŏk koch’al,” 227–284. 43  Chōsen Sōtoku, Shisei nijūgonenshi, 588. 44  Kim Kwangsik, Han’guk kŭndae Pulgyosa yŏn’gu, 259.

80

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

sangha’s administration. This top-down approach was unable to effect reforms. Since the young monks did not develop their own reform programs or generate grassroots movements, it is not surprising that no drastic changes appeared even when the youth leaders assumed central positions in the sangha. In addition, the Buddhist Youth Association, which was formed in 1920, made eight demands in the proposal sent to the Cooperative Office of the Thirty Main Monasteries. The proposal started with the statement that all decisions of the sangha should be made by consensus of its members. The demands included reforms of the financial system, the administration, education, proselytization, and ceremonies.45 Similarly, the Buddhist Reformation Association, represented by active youth members, started with four general principles: educational reforms, development of proselytization, centralization of administration and financial systems, and systematization of financial resources of monasteries.46 This involvement in the sangha’s administration led the youth into a whirlpool of internal conflict. During the division of the sangha in the first half of the 1920s, they sided with General Office, and serious conflicts erupted between the youth and the abbots who strove to defend their privileges. To make matters worse, as the youth leaders—including Hŏ Yŏngho, Kim Sangho, Pak Yunjin, Kim Kyŏngju, Kim T’aehŭp, and Yi Chonguk— began to occupy key positions in the sangha, they, like their predecessors, also became supporters of the Japanese regime.47 Again, the survival of the sangha overrode nationalist concerns. Toward the end of the 1940s, these leaders compromised their position by concurring with the Japanese policy that “Japan and Korea are one entity” (Nai-Sen ittai 內鮮一體), which aimed to eradicate Korean identity. The youth leaders became involved in giving lectures to support the Japanese war policy and even submitted to the regime’s requirement that they make a conciliatory visit to the Japanese Imperial Army. From 1940, the sangha magazine Buddhism (New) overtly supported the Japanese government by including articles that endorsed Japan’s expansionist wars. On its cover page, it carried the “vows of imperial Japan’s subjects” (hwangguk sinmin ŭi sŏsa 皇國臣民의誓詞), which included three duties of the people: showing loyalty to imperial Japan, strengthening national solidarity, and promoting 45  Pulch’ŏng undong 9–10 (1933): 3, cited in Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 3: “Kakchong tanch’e p’yŏnnyŏn,” 7–9. 46  Tonga Daily, 22 December 1921, cited in Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 3: “Kakchong tanch’e p’yŏnnyŏn,” 11. 47  Kim Kwangsik, Han’guk kŭndae Pulgyosa yŏn’gu, 298–303. For a general account of the collaboration of Korean Buddhism with the Japanese regime, see Im Hyebong, Ch’inil Pulgyoron.

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

81

the imperial way. The subjects covered demonstrate that the magazine followed the regime’s “one entity” policy. These kinds of collaboration with the Japanese regime were not infrequent toward the end of the Japanese rule. Beginning in the 1930s, when the Japanese embarked on their expansions into Manchuria and China, many changes were effected to support the imperialist campaigns. In 1935, the government ordered all schools, including private Christian schools, to attend state Shinto shrine ceremonies to pay respect to Amaterasu Ō-mi-kami (the sun goddess), the spirit of the Japanese imperial clan.48 In 1937, the government decreed that the Oath of Imperial Subjects be recited publicly at all school and organizational meetings. In 1939, the enactment of the Religious Organization Law brought all aspects of religion under strict government control in both Japan and the colony.49 The colonial regime attempted to eradicate Korean cultural identity under the so-called ethnic cleansing (minjok malsal) policies, preventing Koreans from using their vernacular script and their Korean surnames. Under these circumstances, Korean Buddhist clerics were also compelled to support the imperial state. Convergence of Buddhist and Nationalist Identities As young clerics expressed their concerns regarding the colonial policies and the sangha’s management, clerics also raised questions regarding the name of the Unified School of Meditation and Doctrine (Sŏn Kyo Yangjong). Before the annexation, they attempted to establish their religious identity first as the Wŏn-jong and then the Imje-jong. When Japan annexed Korea, however, the occupational regime neither allowed the Japanese Sōtō school to merge with the Korean order nor approved either the Wŏn-jong or the Imje-jong. Instead, the Japanese designated the Korean sangha as the Unified School of Meditation and Doctrine and thus kept it under political control. Each monastery’s regulations (sabŏp) used the Unified School of Meditation and Doctrine as the sangha’s official name and T’aego Pou as the founding patriarch (chongjo 宗祖). Pŏmŏ-sa and Pohyŏn-sa sought the permission of the governor-general to call themselves the Imje-jong, but permission was refused.50 The sangha legislation (chonghŏn), established in the first nationwide rally of Buddhist clerics in 1929, also identified the Unified School of Meditation and Doctrine as the

Kang, Religion and Politics in Korea under the Japanese Rule, 62–66. For the content of the thirty-seven articles of this law, see Kim Sŭngt’ae, Ilche kangjŏmgi chonggyo chŏngch’aeksa charyojip, 307–314. 50  Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:945–947. 48  49 

82

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

official name and T’aego as its patriarch. It adopted both sŏn and kyo as the essential teachings (chongji 宗旨) of Korean Buddhism.51 Buddhist clerics, however, got into serious discussions on the historical roots of their religion. Yi Nŭnghwa, the lay Buddhist scholar, noted in 1918 that T’aego and Naong did not establish Linji (K. Imje) as the sectarian name, although they belonged to Linji lineages. Rather, they were regarded as patriarchs of Chogye-jong.52 Yi pointed out that T’aego was the succeeding patriarch of Chogye-jong, which was established by Chinul 知訥 (1158–1210).53 Monks of Linji lineages, not only those after Chinul but also those before him, were called followers of Chogye-jong (chogyejong cha).54 Although he identified Chogye-jong as the sectarian name of Korean Buddhism, Yi maintained that the Linji lineages that traced back to T’aego were the orthodox lines.55 Kwŏn Sangno, the monk-scholar, wrote a series of articles in 1929 introducing Buddhist schools that had developed uniquely on the peninsula. He stated that only Chogye-jong had persisted in terms of patriarchal lineages and dharma lineages before the Chosŏn court reduced the sangha to the two schools of Sŏn and Kyo. He then argued that the origin of Chogye-jong should be traced back to the Silla Sŏn master Toŭi (d. 825), despite the fact that the record regarding Chogye-jong appeared first in the inscription of National Master Taegam (1070–1159).56 Supporting Kwŏn’s argument, Pang Hanam (1876–1951), a renowned Sŏn master, questioned the designation of T’aego as the founding patriarch and argued that Korean Chogye-jong had to be revived with Toŭi as its founding patriarch, with the lineage continuing through Chinul, Kagŏm, Kwigok, and Pyŏkkye. Pang stressed that if T’aego were included, he could be put after Chinul, but without special treatment. He suspected that Chosŏn monks who felt an affinity with Chinese Buddhism regarded T’aego as their patriarch because of his connection with China.57 Kim P’ogwang (1884–1965), another monk-scholar, similarly supported Chogye-jong. He pointed out in 1932 that only Chogye Sŏn carried on its dharma lineage after Hyujŏng and that Chogye-jong had thus become Pulgyo 56 (1929): 23. Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:946. 53  Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:336. 54  Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 3:501. 55  In vol. 2 of the Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, Yi calls the Linji sect the orthodox line of Chan, tracing its lineages back to such Indian patriarchs as Mahakāśyapa, Ānanda, and Śanakavāsa. Bodhidharma is recorded as the twenty-eighth patriarch, and Huineng as the thirty-third. Linji is identified as the fifth generation down from Huineng, T’aego as the nineteenth generation down from Linji, and Hyujŏng as the twenty-fifth from Linji and the sixth from T’aego. See Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 2:92–377. 56  Kwŏn Sangno, “Chogye-jong.” Taegam refers to T’anyŏn of Koryŏ. 57  Pang Hanam, “Haedong ch’ojo e taehaya.” 51  52 

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

83

identified with Chosŏn Buddhism. Kim also pointed out that T’aego united the Nine-Mountain Sŏn schools, the earliest Sŏn establishments of Silla.58 Kim regarded T’aego as the founding father of contemporary Korean Buddhism while also admitting that T’aego was a successor to Chinul’s thought. Kim tried to clarify that T’aego was the founding patriarch of the contemporary sangha of his time, not of the sangha since its inception on the peninsula: Designating T’aego as the founding patriarch means that T’aego is the founding patriarch of the present Chogye-jong, which consists of seven thousand clerics. Although the name Chogye-jong has existed since Ŭich’ŏn of Koryŏ, the Chogye-jong before T’aego and after T’aego are not the same. The Chogye-jong before T’aego refers to the sangha that consisted of the followers of the Nine-Mountain Sŏn school of Huineng’s lineage. The Chogye-jong after T’aego, to the contrary, refers to the sangha consisting of the present seven thousand clerics of the T’aego lineage.59

The establishment of the sectarian name was important in that it gave a sense of identity to the contemporary members of the sangha. In this way, Kim established the retrospective construction of Buddhist identity during this colonial period. He further suggested the correction of the sangha legislature as follows: the sectarian name (chongmyŏng 宗名) is Chogye-jong, the founding patriarch is T’aego, and the sectarian teachings are both the sudden approach that does not rely on letters and words and the bodhisattva ideal of salvation.60 In trying to create a unified religious identity, Korean Buddhists wanted to unite the clerics, which were divided among thirty districts. Around 1935, in an effort to give ultimate commanding power to the head monastery, the sangha embarked on the Monastery Headquarters Movement (ch’ongbonsan) to centralize its administration.61 This centralization was another means of overturning the main-monastery system by consolidating independent main monasteries under central control and eventually revoking the Temple Ordinance. Given the situation in which no changes of colonial rules were possible, the establishment of a central organ in the existing system was an alternative to the separation of religion and state. However, as Im Hyebong and Kim Sunsŏk have pointed out, this movement went astray when the government-general supported it as a way of making efficient use of the Korean sangha under the war-driven Kim P’ogwang, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi t’ŭksaek,” 29–34. Kim P’ogwang, “Chongjo chongmyŏng ŭi chirŭi e taehayŏ,” 6. 60  Kim P’ogwang, “Chosŏn Pulgyo chongji e taehaya.” 61  Pulgyo (Sin) 29 (1941): 3–4. 58  59 

84

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

circumstances.62 And in fact, the sangha actively cooperated with the regime in its imperial expansions by offering financial aid and giving lectures to support the wars. T’aego-sa of Seoul was completed as the head monastery in 1938 after one and half years of construction. “Chogye-jong” finally became the official name for Korean Buddhism in 1941; it was used until liberation in 1945. Immediately after liberation, the name was changed to “Korean Buddhism” (Taehan Pulgyo) as a way to start afresh in a new era.63 In 1954, it was changed again to today’s name, Chogye-jong of Korean Buddhism (Taehan Pulgyo Chogye-jong). The construction of religious identity in Korea was connected with solidifying a national identity. Korean Buddhists tried to articulate the religion in light of Korean history; by identifying Buddhist history with national history, they intended to instill traditional identity and ethnic pride in the Korean people. The first comprehensive Korean Buddhist histories were published in 1917 and included A Comprehensive History of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa 朝鮮佛敎通史), by Yi Nŭnghwa, and An Abridged History of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo yaksa 朝鮮 佛敎略史), by Kwŏn Sangno.64 A Comprehensive History of Korean Buddhism was written as a textbook for chibang hangnim, the local secondary schools for Buddhist clerics, and it briefly chronicled major Buddhist events and court policies from the Three Kingdoms period to the 1910s. A Comprehensive History of Korean Buddhism consists mostly of primary sources on Korean Buddhism in three parts, totaling 2,302 pages. The first part is a general account of Korean Buddhism from the Three Kingdoms period to the modern period (through 1916). It is in chronological format, with notes (pigo 備考) and references (ch’amgo 參考). The second part deals with the origin of the Three Jewels of Buddhism, including such topics as the life of the Buddha, the formation of the Tripitaka (Buddhist sutras) and Buddhist treatises, the transmission and translation of Buddhist scriptures, the establishment of Buddhist schools, and the history of the Linji Chan school. Yi identifies the Chan school with the Linji sect and lists its historical lineages, tracing its origin back to India. He then locates the Korean Linji branches in those lineages, starting from T’aego and following down to Hyujŏng. By doing so, he establishes the historical linkage between the contemporary Korean sangha and the legitimate line of Chan history. The third part deals with two hundred topics related Kim Sunsŏk, Ilchesidae Chosŏn Ch’ongdokbu ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’aek kwa Pulgyogye ŭi taeŭng, 189–197; Im Hyebong, Ch’inil sŭngnyŏ 108-in, 611–612. 63  Kim Yŏngt’ae, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi chongt’ong chongmaek,” 206–207. 64  Yi Nŭnghwa wrote an introductory article on A Comprehensive History of Korean Buddhism before its publication: “Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa e ch’wihaya” (Upon the completion of the Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa), Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 6 (1917): 346–355. 62 

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

85

to Korean Buddhism, including Korean religions other than Buddhism, various Korean Buddhist schools, and Buddhist customs, arts, monks, stupas, temples, and so forth. Buddhist clerics tried to separate themselves from China and Japan by highlighting specific features of their history. In an article written in 1918, Kim Chŏnghae attempted to restore a sense of pride in Korean Buddhism by pointing out the contributions Korean Buddhists had made to Chinese Buddhism, and Japanese Buddhism in particular.65 Kim enumerated the Korean monks who had introduced Buddhism to Japan, such as Tamhye, Toryung, and Hyepy’ŏn. Korean monks also became the founding patriarchs of major Buddhist schools, such as Sanron (C. Sanlun) and Kegon (C. Huayan). Korea was thus the motherland of Japanese Buddhism, he argued, so that one had to know Korean Buddhism first before inquiring about Japanese Buddhism. Kim also emphasized the importance of Korean Buddhism by illuminating the influence of the Korean monks Wŏnhyo, Ŭisang (625–702), and Ŭich’ŏn (1055–1101) on Chinese Buddhism. Similarly, Ch’oe Namsŏn (1880–1957), a historian, emphasized the seminal contributions Korean Buddhists had made to Chinese and Japanese Buddhism.66 He argued that Japanese Buddhism had developed from one branch of Korean Buddhism. In particular, his understanding of Wŏnhyo was unique and wielded a lasting influence over the self-identity of later generations of Korean Buddhists. Ch’oe regarded Wŏnhyo as the creator of features emblematic of the Korean Buddhist tradition, that is, ecumenical or unified Buddhism (t’ong Pulgyo 通佛敎) and minjung Pulgyo. He contended that Wŏnhyo systematized disparate Buddhist teachings, thereby achieving the unification of Buddhism. Wŏnhyo also transformed philosophical Buddhism into a religion of practice (sirhaeng Pulgyo 實行佛敎) and made Buddhism accessible to the uneducated masses. Ch’oe’s argument implied that Korean Buddhism had developed forms at least as mature as those of Japanese Buddhism. Moreover, this articulation of the ecumenical Buddhist tradition might have provided a theoretical foundation for the unification movement of the sangha, which resisted the main-monastery system. Kwŏn Sangno also wrote a series of articles on Korean Buddhist schools, focusing on unique historical developments and practices in Korea.67 For example, when discussing the Hwaŏm (C. Huayan) school, he 65  Kim Chŏnghae, “Yŏksa sang e hyŏnha nŭn Chosŏn sŭngnyŏ wa oeguk p’ogyo ŭi kach’i.” 66  Ch’oe Namsŏn, “Chosŏn Pulgyo,” 233–283; Buswell, “Imagining ‘Korean Buddhism,’” 101–105. 67  Kwŏn Sangno, “Chosŏn esŏ charip han chongp’a.”

86

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

focused on Wŏnhyo, who had developed his own scholarship, instead of Ŭisang, who had studied in China. Kim P’ogwang also identified the unique features of Korean Buddhism, as follows: Wŏn’gwang’s five precepts for the laity, Wŏnhyo’s unique Haedong-jong,68 the Nine-Mountain school’s direct transmissions from Bodhidharma’s teachings, and the renowned Koryŏ Tripitaka (Koryŏ woodblock printing of the Buddhist canon).69 Using history, Korean Buddhists attempted not only to construct their own religious identity but also to enhance the religion’s value for the nation. That is, their historical awareness played a role in the construction of a new Korean national identity as well. Korean Buddhists participated in nation-building projects under the constraints of the Japanese state while believing that Buddhist reforms meant the refinement of Korean tradition and that the propagation of modernized Buddhism would enlighten the people. In this way, they wished to show the practicality of the religion for contemporary society. Limits of and Issues in Modernist Reforms Along with all the new activities, the sangha faced many difficulties as it continued its efforts to modernize clerical education and propagation methods. The Chung’ang Buddhist School was closed in 1922 after a student boycott of classes in 1921, in which the students demanded that the Cooperative Office promote the school to college level. An article attributed the failure of the school to a lack of funds and also to internal divisions of the sangha, political disturbances (student involvement with the March First Movement), and a lack of students sufficiently qualified to enter.70 To fill the gap left by these closures, traditional seminaries (kangwŏn 講院), most of which had disappeared after the establishment of the chibang hangnim, were revived. Only four or five traditional seminaries

68 

102.

A Korean variety of Huayan Buddhism; see Buswell, “Imagining ‘Korean Buddhism,’”

69  Kim P’ogwang, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi t’ŭksaek,” 741–746. For Wŏnhyo’s Haedong-jong and the Nine-Mountain school, see Buswell, Tracing Back the Radiance, 7–12. The extant Koryŏ Tripitaka housed at Haein-sa in Korea is a second edition of woodblocks carved between 1236 and 1251. The first edition, whose carving began in 1010 and was completed after several decades, was destroyed by the Mongol invasions. The Koryŏ Tripitaka provided the major reference to the modern editions of the Buddhist canon published in Japan: the Shukusatsu zōkyō, Manji zōkyō, Zoku zōkyō, and Taisho shinshu daizōkyō. See Lancaster and Park, The Korean Buddhist Canon, 13–16. 70  Uusaeng, “Pulgyo kyoyuk saŏp e taehayŏ,” 4.

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

87

were said to exist by 1924,71 but in 1925, Haein-sa seminary reopened after a ten-year closure and other monasteries also reopened their seminaries.72 After seven years of closure, Chung’ang Buddhist School reopened as the Buddhist Secondary School (Pulgyo chŏnsu hakkyo) in 1928. In 1930 it then became Chung’ang Buddhist Junior College (Chung’ang Pulgyo chŏnmun hakkyo 中央佛敎專門學校), with an educational quality reported to have been as high as that of other private colleges.73 There were no independent funds for the operation of the school, however, and furthermore the college did not have enough qualified students to enter because the Buddhist order had failed to maintain its own primary and secondary schools. The education system consisted of only the head without a body, meaning the college without a lower-school system.74 In 1940, the college became Hyehwa Junior College (Hyehwa chŏnmun hakkyo 惠化專門學校).75 The sangha was also unsuccessful in establishing stable plans of support and rules for student clerics who were sent to Japan. Many of them studied disciplines according to their own interests and left the monkhood when their studies were completed. A monk named Kang Ŭisin made the criticism that these students lacked a sense of purpose and pursued personal careers, majoring in law, economics, and sociology.76 In fact, in 1926, among about forty students in Japan, only thirteen studied at Buddhist colleges and about eight enrolled at non-Buddhist colleges, studying other disciplines. The remaining students engaged in a great variety of secular activities.77 The majors of the twenty-two graduates in 1928 included mathematics, English, agriculture, literature, and geography in addition to Buddhist studies. Students chose not to focus on Buddhism partly because the prospects were not bright for those who did study the subject. As a monk wrote: “When students returned to their monasteries after graduation, the abbots avoided them for fear of losing their job and status. Also, there were no other jobs available for monks who were trained only in Buddhism. Graduation thus meant joblessness for them.”78 One student cleric testified that even a large monastery such as T’ongdo-sa did not require repayment from the returned monks. To

Pulgyo 2 (1924): 1–2. Pulgyo 29 (1926): 42. 73  Pulgyo (Sin) 22 (1940): 3. 74  Pulgyo (Sin) 20 (1940): 10. 75  Nam Toyŏng, “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk hwaltong,” 260. 76  Kang Ŭisin, “Kyogye chapgam ilsok,” 17. 77  Pulgyo 26 (1926): 34. 78  Kaya-napcha, “Paeŭn mangdŏk,” 32. 71  72 

Figure 4.3: The first graduates of Chung’ang Buddhist Junior College (Chung’ang Pulgyo chŏnmun hakkyo) in February 1931.

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

89

avoid having to pay high salaries, the monastery also did not hire these monks for monastery administration.79 Just as Korean Buddhist students lacked interest in, and passion for, reformation, so was a similar problem reflected in the Korean sangha’s involvement in propagation. Although preaching stations grew in numbers, internal assessment and criticism revealed weaknesses in how this new venture had proceeded. “A Discussion on Proselytization” (“P’ogyo e taehan ch’uŭi”), an editorial in the 1926 edition of Buddhism, analyzed the increase in the number of missionary stations and cleric propagators, acknowledging the sangha’s efforts, then offered suggestions for improving propagation policies, specifically, a central sangha office to provide unified policies among all missionary stations nationwide and quality education for clerics. In 1927, Kim Pyŏgong, a Buddhist cleric, lamented the situation in which every main and branch temple had become loaded with debts because the abbots used the temples for personal gain. He pointed out that few qualified missionary clerics existed, and only old women and children filled the missionary stations.80 Missionary clerics assembled for seven days in August 1927 at Tonghwa-sa in Taegu to discuss the situation. The clerics discussed ways of establishing a central system for propagation methods, rites, regulations, and publications.81 At the second assembly, held in 1928, the clerics discussed establishing a study group for proselytization and education for propagators, uniform regulations, and ways of publishing books for proselytization.82 Despite these attempts, the situation barely improved. Kim T’aehŭp, who had been working as a propagator at the Central Propagation Office since 1928, pointed out the failure of proselytization in his 1932 article. He expressed his frustration about the sangha’s proselytization: “I shudder at the sound of the word p’ogyo. I have nothing but the thought of fleeing from this world of p’ogyo, let alone changing this outmoded world [the sangha].”83 Kim further contended that no genuine interest was being paid to the development of proselytization for various reasons: those beneficiaries of modern education, including graduates of Hyehwa Junior College, did not work for propagation; no propagation policies were in effect; and the present propagators were interested only in supporting themselves financially—mainly engaging in lectures on personal fortunes and misfortunes and conducting rituals for the dead.84 In other words, although Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 1, part 2: “Kyoyuk ponsan,” 9. Kim Pyŏgong, “Chosŏn Pulgyo kiu-ron, II.” 81  Pulgyo 40 (1927): 50–51. 82  Pulgyo 46–47 (1928): 106–107. 83  Kim T’aehŭp, “Pulgyo p’ogyo e taehayŏ,” 23. 84  Kim T’aehŭp, “Pulgyo p’ogyo e taehayŏ.” 79  80 

90

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Buddhist clerics felt the urgent need to develop systems of Buddhist propagation, they still felt no real dedication to the reforms for the same reasons that they were not committed to sangha education reforms. This lack of passion was also testified to by Chinese Buddhists. Chinese Buddhists became involved in social charities and education primarily to avoid state persecution, and they participated in the state’s march toward Westernization by lending their property for public use. Concerning this situation, Holmes Welch, a scholar of Chinese Buddhism, states: “Often, I think [the monks’ failure to participate] was because of a certain lack of enthusiasm. Many welfare enterprises were started because the monks felt obliged to, not because they found the idea intrinsically attractive. They were happy to put up the money and let it go at that.”85 Similarly, Japanese Buddhists also offered their services to the government in order to soften its persecution of the Buddhist establishment. The Japanese evangelists carried out charity work in prisons and factories partly to prove their support of national policies. However, their lack of sympathy and knowledge of the workers’ situation prevented them from helping their clients.86 Winston Davis comments on this situation as follows: “In keeping with its social base, the reaction of institutional Buddhism to modernity was conservative and often reactionary. Its overwhelming concern was the recovery of its own privileges, comfort, and security.”87 Buddhists’ social involvement thus remained on a superficial level rather than being developed into a fully grown movement. A possible explanation for this lack of engaged involvement on the part of many Buddhists may be that the new types of Buddhist social programs were motivated more by survival tactics than by genuine concern for the people’s well-being. Buddhist clerics did not develop ways to incorporate the changes within their religious goals or systems of thought. In other words, social responsibility had been relegated to a lower level of priority within their existential system—a system that emphasizes liberation from existence itself rather than improvement of circumstances on the social plane. Mere imitation of Western modernity could not provide lasting inspiration and purpose. In other words, the Korean sangha failed in dealing with the issue of their identity as Buddhists; without having established a Buddhist ground for social involvement, they were not at all clear about their new social roles. In addition, financial difficulties posed the major stumbling block for reformation, as indicated earlier. The sangha’s investment in both

Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China, 130. Davis, “Buddhism and the Modernization of Japan,” 330. 87  Davis, “Buddhism and the Modernization of Japan,” 324. 85  86 

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

91

education and proselytization suffered from a lack of financial resources.88 According to an article appearing in 1932, the Office of Buddhist Affairs faced a financial crisis and owed a debt of 90,000 wŏn. The article also pointed out that no monasteries were without debt or financial disputes.89 The total debts of all monasteries were estimated at more than one million wŏn in the early 1930s.90 The financial crisis happened for a number of reasons. New expenses— such as building schools and missionary stations and supporting young clerics’ education in Seoul or Japan—consumed the financial resources of the sangha.91 The Temple Ordinance also had negative ramifications: At the outset, reform under the scrutiny of the government implied inevitable limits; all essential transactions of monastery affairs needed government approval, and Buddhists could not utilize monastery properties effectively.92 In particular, the ordinance concentrated power in the abbots, who abused their power in monastic management, including finance.93 The abbots’ power overruled the traditional practice of the public council of monasteries, which honored the opinions of all the members of the sangha. One monk noted, in an article published in 1932, that abbots had become despots whose power had become unruly by any standard.94 Furthermore, as married clerics increased in number, they needed more personal funds to support their families.95 The economy of the monasteries deteriorated quickly. Under these circumstances, Korean clerics easily became affected by worldly values, as their social activities increased and the distinctions between the religious order and the secular society became blurred. Clerics vied for the alluring positions of the abbots and coveted personal gain. Kim Pŏmnin wrote in 1932 that the sangha became secularized under the Temple Ordinance because the sangha became a center for seeking power and pursuing personal interests.96 He added that mistrust among the sangha members and adulation of government officials had become common practices. Additionally, under the name of modernization, clerics rapidly adopted monk marriage from Japanese Buddhism as a convenient way to make Buddhism accessible to the laity and the general Kim Pyŏgong, “Chosŏn Pulgyo kiu-ron, II” 22. Mongjŏngsaeng (“a Mandang member”; Yi Yongjo’s pen name), “Wigi e chingmyŏn han Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi wŏnin koch’al,” part 1, pp. 52–53. 90  Pulgyo 100 (1932): 21. 91  Mongjŏngsaeng, “Wigi e chingmyŏn han Chosŏn Pulgyo,” part 2, p. 39. 92  Kim Pŏmnin, “Chŏng-gyo pullip e taehayŏ,” 19. 93  Kim Pŏmnin, “Chŏng-gyo pullip e taehayŏ,” 20. 94  Mongjŏngsaeng, “Wigi e chingmyŏn han Chosŏn Pulgyo,” part 2, pp. 37–38. 95  Mongjŏngsaeng, “Wigi e chingmyŏn han Chosŏn Pulgyo,” part 2, pp. 38–40. 96  Kim Pŏmnin, “Chŏng-gyo pullip e taehayŏ,” 20. 88  89 

92

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

public. Cleric marriages had already become prevalent even before they were officially approved by the government in 1926. This practice definitely became a contributing factor to expediting the secularization of monkhood. Conclusion The Buddhist reforms began with limited financial and human resources as a result of the extended Chosŏn persecution of the religion. The sangha strove to render Buddhism socially and nationally viable amid political and social changes. Before the March First Movement, Korean Buddhists focused on apolitical reforms of clerical education and propagation methods. After 1919, Buddhist youth began challenging the apolitical sangha and attempted to gain the sangha’s independence by protesting against the Temple Ordinance. The youth adopted the minjung ideology in lieu of linear Darwinian modernism and were able to instill a political dimension in their reforms; by shifting the focus to minjung, they intended to sever ties with the government and defy Japanese intervention in Buddhist affairs. The youth also, however, adopted ambivalent and compromising attitudes toward the Japanese state as a way to survive when Japan intensified its aggression in the imperial expeditions of the early 1930s. Despite differences in the degree and intensity of resistance toward the colonial state, Korean Buddhists agreed on one thing—the revival of Buddhism through modernist reforms. Whether they were abbots of main monasteries or young idealists, Buddhist clerics generally encountered confusion and conflict at the intersection of religious and nationalist interests; thus, a clear-cut dichotomy of pro- and anti-Japanese does not accurately reflect the complex reality. Moreover, Korean Buddhists developed different strands of nationalism; they attempted to participate in nation building by modernizing Buddhism and establishing the historical roots of Buddhism. They reconstructed Buddhism as ecumenical (t’ong Pulgyo) and socially conscious (minjung Pulgyo) and restored their sectarian name, which had become blurred during the Chosŏn dynasty, by tracing their lineages back through history. This movement to establish a unique sectarian identity continued with the ensuing effort to institute a central organization to unify the sangha. This centralization movement, in turn, was a form of resistance against the government’s intervention in religion. In 1941, the centralized sangha was born, with the sectarian name Chogye-jong. At last, the construction of the identity of Korean Buddhism was completed, at least in appearance. Among all the trials and conflict, Buddhist clerics could not easily destroy the negative images of Buddhism developed during the Chosŏn

Confusion, Compromise, and Resistance

93

dynasty. In addition to their conflicting attitudes toward the Japanese state, they had to struggle to provide Buddhist values that could replace the pursuit of worldly benefits and still appeal to the wider population. The price of social expansion was the adverse effects on the sangha from its exposure to secular society. This result was partly because Buddhists did not seriously reflect on their new social venture in their own terms; therefore, they had to find ways of social salvation that were compatible with their pursuit of existential freedom (freedom from the inexorable wheel of life with its inevitable suffering), rather than methods for improving specific life situations. In other words, they had to explore ways of harmonizing the polarities of “identity” and “responsiveness.” The mere imitation of Christian tactics and adoption of nationalist ideologies, however, did not automatically mesh with Buddhist worldviews and tended to create confusion and a lack of interest in social programs. Finally, Korean Buddhism was severely Japanized during the occupation and secularized in the name of modernization. Korean monasteries were reorganized according to the Japanese main-monastery system. Buddhist clerics were bureaucratized and competed for limited abbot positions. Most of them adopted the practices of Japanese Buddhism, wore Western-style clothes, took wives, ate meat, and drank wine. They began to observe Japanese national rites, such as Shihōhai 四方拜 (1 January), Kigensetsu 紀元節 (11 February), Tenchōsetsu 天長節 (3 November), Niinamesai 新嘗祭 (23 November), and so forth.97 Under the heavy influence of Japan, the internal conflict between old, conservative clerics and young, progressive clerics persisted. Most of all, the adoption of monk marriage during the colonial period planted the seeds that led to intrasectarian strife after liberation. Han Yongun was a unique thinker who attempted to appropriate modern social involvement and nationalism from a Buddhist standpoint to deal with the confusion and ambivalence experienced by the majority of Korean Buddhists. The next chapter provides a case study of this Buddhist reformer, discussing his efforts to overcome these problems doctrinally and resolve the conflict between responsiveness and identity.

97  The temple laws included Japanese imperial rites among the regular ceremonies conducted at Korean monasteries. For a list of these rites, see Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 7 (1912): 47–48.

FIVE

A Vision for Social Salvation: Han Yongun’s Integration of Sŏn and Kyo The development of a socially viable Buddhism was of primary concern for the Korean sangha. The mere imitation of social involvement by Buddhist clerics, however, caused confusion and posed major challenges. Genuine reformation required that Buddhists find ways of social engagement that were congruent with Buddhist systems of thought. Without reflecting on fundamental soteriological differences, Buddhists superficially copied the social programs of Christianity, which were never fully incorporated into Buddhism. The absence of real passion for social involvement produced adverse results, including helping to sustain the status quo and fostering collaboration with the colonial regime. Han Yongun was a unique figure in Korea in that he attempted to overcome this impasse by directly embracing the aim of social salvation. Han treated social involvement not as a temporary cure, but as something fully ingrained in the main Buddhist systems of thought. He joined social involvement and the pursuit of Buddhist awakening with his nondual approach of kyo (doctrine) and sŏn (meditation). In this way, the social dimension was no longer seen as separate from Buddhist practice, and clerics were no longer drawn away by secular interests. Han devoted his life to Buddhist reform. His Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism generated the motivation for sangha reforms by providing both a rationale and a blueprint. Han was almost unanimously regarded as the leader of the Korean sangha during his time.1 In 1932, when the magazine Buddhism asked clerics to vote for the most outstanding colleague in representing the sangha, Han received 422 votes while 18 votes went to Sŏn Master Pang Hanam and 13 votes to Kyo Master Pak Hanyŏng. This chapter examines how Han doctrinally supported his vision of socially engaged Buddhism and resolved the impasse in dealing with social salvation. It begins with a discussion of his active life and then focuses on his doctrinal presentation. 1 

Ko Ŭn, Han Yongun p’yŏngjŏn, 352.

A Vision for Social Salvation

95

Han Yongun’s Life and Writings Most scholarly accounts of Han’s life have been based on his yŏnbo (chronological records) and information inscribed on the funerary monument erected to him in Pagoda Park in Seoul in 1967.2 Some aspects of Han’s life are, however, still open to question, especially his childhood and early religious career. As Yŏm Muung showed in 1971,3 there are many inconsistencies in those biographies and on the monument as well. For my review of Han’s life, I turned to Han’s own writings and to the two main biographies, which are based in part on interviews with people who had firsthand experiences with him: Ko Ŭn’s Han Yongun p’yŏngjŏn (Critical biography of Han Yongun) and Kim Kyosik’s Han Yongun. Limited information is available on Han’s childhood. He was born in 1879 in the impoverished countryside, in present-day Hongsŏng in South Ch’ungch’ŏng Province. He had only one sibling, a brother nineteen years his senior. Yuch’ŏn was Han’s childhood name, and he was called Chŏngok after his early marriage in his fourteenth year. Han was brought up learning Confucian texts. As a prodigy praised by local villagers, he is said to have mastered Confucian classics in his teens, including the Analects, Mencius, Great Learning, Doctrine of the Mean, Book of Songs, Book of Documents, and others, and in his late teens he taught at a village Confucian school. Throughout his life he exercised his genius in the rapid learning of Buddhist teachings and his subsequent presentation of Buddhist reform ideas. Han left his village after both his father and brother were killed by the court army because of their involvement in one of the rebel armies that appeared after the Tonghak Rebellion in 1894.4 Han’s birthplace, Hongsŏng, was well known for rebel protests against foreign encroachment and the court’s impotence. Because people would have assumed that Han belonged to the same rebel army as his father and brother, he had to flee for his safety. He set out for the capital, Seoul, where he believed he would find a way of helping to deal with the nation’s crisis. Ko Ŭn, Han Yongun p’yŏngjŏn; Kim Kyosik, Han Yongun. For Han’s yŏnbo, see HYC, 6:384–391. The epitaph was composed by Kyo Master Unhŏ Yongha (1892–1980); see HYC, 4:419–420 for its contents. 3  HYC, 4:386–389. Yŏm Muung raised doubts about previous accounts of Han’s family origin, the death year of his father and brother, and Han’s participation in the Tonghak Rebellion: Yŏm suggested that Han’s family came from the middle class (chungin 中人), not from the literati class (yangban 兩班). He reasoned that Han’s father and brother might have been killed while in one of the rebel armies around 1896 and that Han might also have been involved in this resistance rather than the Tonghak Rebellion itself (Yŏm Muung, “Manhae Han Yongun non,” 235–254). 4  Although the year of this involvement is still not certain, it must have been two or three years after the Tonghak Rebellion began. 2 

96

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

On the way, however, he realized the reckless nature of this attempt and turned his attention inward. He recalled the moment he changed his course: instead of heading toward Seoul, he went to Paektam Monastery on Mount Sŏrak in Kangwŏn Province: Isn’t our life transient? What could be left when we face our final moment [death] after all those days of struggling? Could it be honor or wealth? Couldn’t all that is left be ephemeral? Everything, after all, becomes empty, intangible, and nothing. My skepticism was getting worse and made me deeply troubled. I concluded that I should first find out what life was and then do some worthy work [for the troubled nation]. I changed my route to Seoul and headed for Paektam Monastery on Mount Sŏrak where I had heard a renowned Buddhist master resided.5

Han undertook Buddhist training to explore the meaning of life and to prepare himself for devoting his life to society. This dual purpose created a tension throughout his career. It is unclear when that career began, even by Han’s own account: in one place he wrote that he became a monk in his nineteenth year, which was 1897,6 and elsewhere he said that he entered monastery life around 1903.7 Han’s history from the period between 1897 and 1905 is unclear. During that time he must have passed the disciplinary period as a postulant (haengja 行者) and become a novice monk (K. sami 沙彌, Skt. saramanera). Han’s time as a postulant was spent at the small hermitage of Ose-am near Paektam Monastery.8 There he studied the Fourfold Collection (Sa chip), which consists of teachings on Sŏn Buddhism, and because of his unusual talent in learning he surpassed his fellow postulants and impressed his first master, Kim Yŏn’gok.9 Most postulants had to pass a three-year training period prior to ordination, but Han received novice monk ordination within a year. Master Yŏn’gok ordained him as a novice monk, at which time he received his first dharma name, Pongwan. His master introduced him to books on the West, such as the Yinghuan zhilüe 瀛環地略, a Chinese geography of the world, for the first time.10 Han Yongun, “Siberia kŏch’ŏ Seoul ro,” 255. Han Yongun, “Nam morŭnŭn na ŭi adŭl”; Han Yongun, “Siberia kŏch’ŏ Seoul ro.” 7  Han Yongun, “Na nŭn wae chung i toeŏnna,” 98. 8  Paektam Monastery was built in 647 by Chajang and rebuilt in 719 after being burned down. It was completely destroyed during the Korean War, then rebuilt in 1957. 9  The Fourfold Collection contains Dahui Zonggao’s Letters, Gaofeng Yuanmiao’s Essentials of Chan, Zongmi’s Chan Preface, and Chinul’s Excerpts from the Dharma Collection and Special Practice Record with Personal Notes (Buswell, The Zen Monastic Experience, 96). Kim Yŏn’gok was a monk-scholar at Kŏnbong Monastery and later practiced sŏn at Paektam Monastery. He is said to have had knowledge of the West (Ko Ŭn, Han Yongun p’yŏngjŏn, 81). 10  The Yinghuan zhilüe was compiled by Xu Jiyu (1795–1873) from 1843 to 1848. 5  6 

A Vision for Social Salvation

97

Han could not, however, be satisfied with monastic training that focused exclusively on the pursuit of individual salvation; the social awareness he gained before his entry into the monastery prompted him to explore the outside world. Probably around 1899 he went to Vladivostok with the idea of embarking on a world tour, traveling through Siberia and Europe to the United States and hoping to learn about the modern civilization of the West.11 At Vladivostok, however, Korean residents mistook him for a pro-Japanese spy and attempted to kill him.12 He gave up his plan and returned to the peninsula. Han’s son by his first wife was born in 1904, so he must have visited his home sometime after his trip to Vladivostok. He returned to Paektam Monastery, where he took full ordination (bhiksu) in 1905 and received the dharma name Yongun from Master Yŏn’gok. Han’s Buddhist training was a mixture of doctrinal study and meditation. He studied doctrine with Yi Hagam of Paektam Monastery and later with Sŏ Wŏrhwa (Chinha) at Yujŏm Monastery on Mount Kŭmgang.13 Han practiced the hwadu 話頭 (also 公安; C. gongan, J. koan, “critical phrase”) “No” (K. mu, C. wu) at Kŏnbong Monastery with Master T’aehŏ for a year.14 He learned more about Western civilization from the Yinbingshi wenji, Liang Qichao’s encyclopedic book on Western political thought, history, and philosophy.15 In 1908 Han finally had an opportunity to go to Japan, where he spent eight months, touring various cities.16 He viewed Japan as a new center of modern civilization, and his observation of Japanese Buddhism must have influenced his writing of the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism. Han regarded Buddhist teachings as a viable spiritual resource for contemporary life. He thus embarked on his journey to reform Buddhism as a way of preparing the religion to fulfill its function for the Korean people. He believed that through reformation, the sangha could actively intervene in people’s lives by restoring the religious prestige of Korean Buddhism. In response to the stagnation and deterioration of Buddhism The year of this trip to Vladivostok is not known. Han Yongun, “Pukdaeryuk ŭi harutpam.” 13  Yi Hagam was a well-known sutra master, especially for his mastery of Hwaŏm and Prajnā-pāramitā sutras. Kim Kyosik, Han Yongun, 118; Ko Ŭn, Han Yongun p’yŏngjŏn, 135. Sŏ Wŏrhwa was a great Hwaŏm master who was the heir of T’anhŏ. He wrote Sŏnmun Chaejŏngnok (Revised record of sŏn writings). Yujŏm Monastery was built in 4 c.e. by King Namhae and rebuilt in 1882. 14  For the practice of the hwadu mu, see Buswell, The Zen Monastic Experience, 150–151. Kŏnbong Monastery was reputedly built by Ado in 520. It was rebuilt in 1879 but completely destroyed during the Korean War. 15  Ko Ŭn, Han Yongun p’yŏngjŏn, 140–141. The Yinbingshi wenji influenced the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism. 16  Yu, Han Yong-un and Yi Kwang-su, 182. 11  12 

98

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

under the Chosŏn dynasty, Han first called for reformation in his Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism, which consists of seventeen chapters covering various aspects of the sangha reforms. Throughout his life, Han upheld the ideas proposed in this treatise and expanded them in his 1931 article “Record on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism” (“Chosŏn Pulgyo kaehyŏk an 朝鮮佛敎改革案”). After addressing sangha reforms in his Treatise, Han turned his attention to laypeople. For three years, from 1912 through 1914, he devoted his energy to producing the Great Texts of Buddhism, a digest of Buddhist scriptures in the Korean vernacular, compiled to provide the gist of the teachings to laypeople and guide their religious lives. Han also translated the Caigentan 菜根潭 in 1917 from Chinese into Korean and provided commentary on the text.17 The popularity of this translation led to a second edition in 1921. The main focuses of the text are the cultivation of the mind and the improvement of relationships among people. Han’s undertaking to translate the Vimalakīrti sūtra (K. Yumahil sosŏlgyŏng kangŭi, An exposition on the Vimalakīrti sūtra), of which he completed only six chapters of the fourteen, was another way of making Buddhist teachings available to the laity.18 In the winter of 1917, in his thirty-eighth year, Han achieved enlightenment and wrote this “Song of Enlightenment” (“Odoga 悟道歌”): Wherever men arrive, it is their hometown. [Yet] how many men get stuck in traveler’s nostalgia! Giving a loud shout, I broke the trichiliocosm.19 On the snow, peach blossoms are strewn red.20

After his enlightenment, Han produced many articles on Sŏn meditation. He considered mind cultivation through Sŏn meditation the fountainhead of all other aspects of life. In 1925 he developed his Sŏn philosophy in the Annotated Ten Abstruse Discussions (Sipyŏndam chuhae 十玄談註解), an annotation of a Tang text, the Shixuantan (K. Siphyŏndam, Ten abstruse discussions).21 Han had already appeared as an influential figure in his early thirties when Yi Hoegwang’s conspiracy broke out right after the 1910 annexation. Together with Pak Hanyŏng and Chin Chinŭng, Han stood The Caigentan (K. Ch’aegŭndam, Vegetable root discourses) was composed by Hong Yingming, who flourished in the Ming during the Wanli era (1573–1616). It is divided into two parts, with a total of 356 paragraphs, each being an aphorism or maxim. 18  For Han’s translation of this text, see HYC, 3:253–331. 19  The trichiliocosm is the entire universe, composed of myriads of world systems. 20  HYC, 1:172. 21  The Shixuantan was a work of Tongan Changchu (d.u.), a Tang Caotong monk. It consisted of ten discussions that purport to express the ultimate state of the mind. 17 

A Vision for Social Salvation

99

against Yi’s Wŏn-jong, which attempted to merge the sangha with the Sōtō school of Japan.22 Han, selected as acting chair of Imje-jong because the elected chair, Kim Kyŏngun, was too old to act, convened clerics to counter Yi’s attempt. From that time on, Han became critical of the mainmonastery abbots for their cooperation with the Japanese government. He maintained his distance from them and never sought any abbot positions himself. One anecdote says that when Han was invited to a meeting of abbots, he railed at them, telling them that they were filthier than feces or decaying corpses.23 Whereas the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism focused exclusively on reforms of the sangha without mentioning state policies, Han later developed his reform ideas in response to Japanese policies on Buddhism.24 He shared his insights with the Buddhist youth; he was a lecturer at the sangha’s postsecondary school, the Chung’ang Buddhist School, in 1918 and attracted many young followers. These young monks, including Kim Pŏmnin, Kim Sanghŏn, and Paek Sŏng’uk, worked with Han on the March First Movement in 1919 and remained loyal to him.25 As one of the thirty-three leaders of the movement, Han played an important role in planning and organizing it. Among the leaders, only Han and a reform-minded Sŏn master named Paek Yongsŏng were Buddhist representatives; the majority came from the indigenous religion Ch’ŏndogyo and Christianity.26 Along with other leaders, Han was imprisoned for three years for his role in the movement. In 1924, after being released from prison, Han was chosen as director of the Buddhist Youth Association. He was also respected as a figurehead leader of the secret Buddhist society Mandang.27 As described earlier, Han served as an editor in chief of Buddhism, and he promoted the main goals of the youth movement: independence of the sangha from government intervention, centralization of the sangha, and dissemination of minjung Pulgyo. In his 1931 article “Record on the Reformation of Korean Yi Nŭnghwa, Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa, 2:937–938. About this movement against Wŏnjong, see chapter 2 herein. 23  Kim Kwanho, “Manhae ka namgin irhwa,” 369–370; Han Yongun, Han Yongun supil chip, 271–273. 24  State policies were not mentioned because the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism was completed in 1910, before the Japanese developed their religious policies. 25  Kim Pŏmnin, “Samil undong kwa Manhae,” 414–415; An Kyehyŏn, “Samil undong kwa Pulgyo-kye ŭi tonghyang,” 274–277. 26  Ch’ŏndo-gyo grew from Tonghak (Eastern Learning), which was founded by Ch’oe Cheu (1824–1864) and named with a catchphrase to create awareness of protecting the nation from Sŏhak (Western Learning, meaning Catholicism). Tonghak consists of eclectic teachings drawn from Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and popular elements. 27  Taehan Pulgyo, 30 August 1964, cited in Sambo Hakhoe, Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa, vol. 2, part 3: “Kakchong tanch’e p’yŏnnyŏn,” 34–36. 22 

Figure 5.1: A short poem by Han Yongun titled “Sarang” (Love), written in his own hand. Photograph courtesy of the Manhae Museum at Inje, Kangwŏn Province.

Figure 5.2: Mug shots of Han Yongun taken while he was imprisoned for his participation in the March First Movement as one of its leaders. Photograph courtesy of the Manhae Museum at Inje, Kangwŏn Province.

A Vision for Social Salvation

101

Buddhism,” Han asserted that Buddhism should be involved in protecting and supporting the lives of the masses. He suggested that operating factories on Buddhist properties would allow the sangha to generate income to support the poor and the needy. Previously, in the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism, Han had proposed commercial operations for the sangha, but to achieve economic self-sufficiency and thus enhance the status of Buddhist clerics. When he later extended the idea to include making profit in order to assist laypeople, he stated that the essential meaning of religion was to increase people’s happiness.28 In that way, his approach to religion was pragmatic. He believed that Buddhism, like the secular ideologies of socialism and capitalism, should function in the daily lives of people in addition to addressing spiritual concerns. He defined minjung Pulgyo as follows: Taejung Pulgyo [minjung Pulgyo] means to practice Buddhism for the minjung. Buddhists neither abandon human society nor deny close, loving relationships with people. They instead attain enlightenment through embracing defilement and achieve nirvana in the midst of the stream of life and death. Being aware of this truth and getting involved in action are the practices of Taejung Pulgyo.29

Thus, Buddhists should participate in social action by establishing Buddhist libraries, welfare institutions for laborers and farmers, and educational facilities for the general public.30 Han attempted to construct a socially sensitive Buddhism, letting Buddhist practices take root in concrete ways. Han’s Buddhist career, including his writing, was always closely tied to the general concerns of the people. He wrote “A Discourse on the Independence of Korea” in 1919 during his imprisonment; in it he protested the forced annexation of Korea and declared reasons for Korean independence.31 After his release, his activities were carried on under tight government surveillance. He later served as chairman of the Seoul chapter of the nationalist association Sin’ganhoe, which was formed in 1927 as a front uniting leftists and right-wing Korean nationalists. However, the fundamental ideological differences between these two groups, combined with the colonial regime’s severe pressure against the leftists, led to the disbanding of Sin’ganhoe in 1931. Han Yongun, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi kaehyŏk an,” 164–165; Pulgyo 88 (1931): 490–491. Han Yongun, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi kaehyŏk an,” 167; Pulgyo 88 (1931): 492–493; for a study on “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi kaehyŏk an,” see Kim Kwangsik, “A Study of Han Yong-un’s ‘On the Reform of Korean Buddhism,’” 64–86. 30  Han Yongun, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi kaehyŏk an,” 167; Pulgyo 88 (1931): 492–493. 31  Han Yongun, “Chosŏn tongnip ŭi sŏ.” 28  29 

102

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Han also expressed the pain of his people in poetry. A collection of his poems, The Silence of the Beloved (Nim ŭi chimmuk 님의沈黙), published in 1926,32 earned him a name as Korea’s first modern, nationalist poet.33 Besides modern poems, Han left 163 Chinese poems (hansi 漢詩) and thirtytwo sijo poetic compositions.34 He also wrote five novels.35 His first novel, Death (Chugŭm 죽음), was written in 1924 but not published until after his death. He serialized Black Wind (Hŭkp’ung 黑風) from April 1935 to February 1936 in the Chosŏn Daily; Remorse (Huhoe 後悔) was serialized in the Chosŏn Chung’ang Daily, also in 1936, but publication was stopped before the novel was completed. His other novels are Ill Fate (Pangmyŏng 薄命), which was serialized in the Chosŏn Daily from 1938 to 1939, and Iron-Blood Beauty (Ch’orhyŏl miin 鐵血美人), which was serialized in Buddhism (New) in 1937.36 In his novels, Han expressed his Buddhist beliefs—compassion, no-self, karmic retribution—and his social awareness in championing public virtue and working for national independence.37 Han’s uncompromising lifestyle produced many interesting anecdotes.38 He lived his whole life without a family registry, with which the government kept records of the Korean population in order to oppose the colonial administration. He was said to sleep in a room without heat even during the winter because he believed that colonial rule had turned the whole peninsula into a prison. He kept his integrity until his death while most of his colleagues compromised with the colonial government, cooperating with Japan’s war campaign and changing their last names to the Japanese style. His contemporaries thought very highly of him. Chŏng Inbo (1892–1950), a leading intellectual of the time, encouraged young people to follow Han’s example, saying, “As India has Gandhi, Korea has Han Yongun.”39 Sŏn Master Man’gong (1871–1946) once said, “There are no monks comparable to Han Yongun. If Pang Hanam is bones, Han is heart. If Pak Hanyŏng is said to be grandfather, Han is father.”40 Han ended the celibate phase of his life by marrying for a second time, in 1933; a daughter was born from this marriage. In 1944 Han died of Han Yongun, Nim ŭi chimmuk. Yŏm Muung, “Manhae Han Yongun non,” 252. 34  Kim Chonggyun, “Han Yongun ŭi hansi wa sijo,” 284. A sijo is a Korean poem consisting of 44 to 46 syllables in three lines, with 14 to 16 syllables per line. 35  Pak Nosun and In Kwŏnhwan, Han Yongun yŏn’gu, 214–217; Paek Ch’ŏl, “Siin Han Yongun ŭi sosŏl,” 6–9. 36  For the contents of Hŭkp’ung, see HYC, 5:17–307; for Huhoe, HYC, 5:309–371; for Ch’orhyŏl miin, HYC, 5:373–384; for Pangmyŏng, HYC, 6:5–290; and for Chugŭm, HYC, 6:291–354. 37  In Kwŏnhwan, “Han Yongun sosŏl yŏn’gu ŭi munjejŏm kwa kŭ panghyang,” 2:58–77. 38  For more anecdotal stories about Han Yongun, see Kim Kwanho, “Manhae ka namgin irhwa,” 369–370. 39  Kim Kwanho, “Manhae ka namgin irhwa,” 381. 40  Ko Ŭn, Han Yongun p’yŏngjŏn, 319. 32  33 

A Vision for Social Salvation

103

palsy in his sixty-fifth year. He had lived as a monk, a poet, and a critic of colonial rule. These various aspects of his life formed an integral whole; Han’s Buddhist reform ideas derived from his social consciousness, and his Buddhist faith led him to active social involvement. The Integration of Sŏn and Kyo As a Buddhist reformer and visionary, Han strove to solve two major problems doctrinally. First, he had to develop a Buddhism that was socially active so that the sangha could survive the challenges of modernity. In other words, he made a conscious effort to establish Buddhism’s place in society. With Buddhism’s traditional image of being aloof from society, its very existence became endangered in a rapidly Westernizing country. Han believed that Buddhism needed to demonstrate its usefulness in the process of modernization. His challenge was to show the social dimension of Buddhism as an essential part of the religion, not as an appendage. Social salvation needed to be in harmony with the existential salvation of the Buddhist tradition. Second, Han had to prevent the negative consequences of social engagement on the part of Buddhist clerics. At first, Buddhist monks showed a reluctance toward social engagement, but once they became involved, they were easily affected by worldly values. As social involvement blurred the distinction between a religious career and a lay livelihood, monkhood became altered by secular experience, which undermined the integrity of the monastic community. To resolve these two problems concurrently, Han proposed his unified philosophy of Buddhist teachings, in which the principle of equality (p’yŏngdŭng chuŭi 平等主義) and the principle of saving the world (kuse chuŭi 救世主義) were both at the core of Buddhism.41 The principle of equality refers to the absolute, universal, and impartial nature of the Buddha or truth. In this absolute point, both sentient and insentient beings have buddha-nature, which has never been defiled by phenomena. The principle of saving the world refers to compassion and the vows of buddhas and bodhisattvas to save all beings from their suffering. Han interpreted the principle of saving the world in light of the principle of equality by building a dialectical tension between the two. He applied the principle of equality to a way of living such that the major goal of Buddhism became to love and save all beings equally.42 Similarly, he emphasized the nondual aspect of “mind only” (yusim 唯心) such that the mind includes the material world and therefore is no different from matter. Mind and matter depend upon each other for their existence. The 41  42 

Han Yongun, Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon, 104. Han Yongun, “Nae ka minnŭn Pulgyo,” 288.

104

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

absolute truth and the phenomenal world are thus coexistent, making a harmonious whole. Han explained the dialectic as follows: “Buddhism is a way of transcending this world (ch’ulsegan 出世間), but it teaches us to transcend the world by entering the world, not by avoiding it.”43 He argued that Buddhism had to be practiced with active participation in society. One attains enlightenment through accepting predicaments and achieves nirvana without leaving behind the stream of life and death. The salvation of one’s own existence and full involvement in this world are fulfilled simultaneously. By joining the principle of saving the world with the principle of equality, Han incorporated social salvation into Buddhism as a fundamental principle, not merely as an addition. Moreover, uniting the two kept Buddhist social programs from being affected by secular values since the secular involvement was balanced with absolute truth. By bridging social salvation and existential freedom, Han brought Buddhist social engagement fully within the Buddhist system, rather than allowing it to linger as an imitation of Christian charity. Han’s unified approach integrating sŏn and kyo incorporated internal attention to the mind with ideas of social involvement gleaned from teachings. He sought the absolute sense of truth not in isolation from society but in active involvement. In his vision, social action does not hinder existential freedom because each moment is the perfect manifestation of the absolute. Han presented the simultaneous practice of sŏn/kyo as the core of Buddhism: We cannot talk about Buddhism apart from sŏn and kyo, so that sŏn/kyo is Buddhism and Buddhism is nothing but sŏn/kyo. Sŏn is Buddhism’s metaphysical truth, and kyo is Buddhist written teachings. We acquire prajnā [wisdom] from kyo and samādhi [meditative concentration] from sŏn. With the attainment of samādhi, we can reach nirvana, passing over the turbulent sea of life and death; and by kyo we can acquire the wisdom of saving sentient beings.44

Han thought that sŏn and kyo epitomized the entirety of Buddhist teachings. Sŏn provides the solid basis for the ultimate deliverance from entanglements, whereas kyo offers specific guidance on how to live together with others. Thus, sŏn and kyo—in dialectical tension, influencing one another—constitute a complementary whole. Han states that “not depending upon words and letters” (sŏn) is a way to see one’s own nature and attain Buddhahood.45 On the contrary, “not leaving behind words and Han Yongun, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi kaehyŏk an,” 167. Han Yongun, “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi kaehyŏk an,” 168. 45  Han Yongun, “Muncha pimuncha,” 304. 43  44 

A Vision for Social Salvation

105

letters” (kyo) consummates one’s nature and also provides a great means to save all beings. Han believed that one should thus see kyo from sŏn and attain sŏn from kyo. The Study of the Great Texts of Buddhism The Great Texts of Buddhism is the main source for the doctrinal underpinnings of the principles of equality and saving the world. The text is laid out in such a way that these two principles typify the whole corpus of Buddhist scriptures. It is based on the Holy Texts of Buddhism published by the Japanese Shin Buddhists Nanjō Bun’yū and Maeda Eun in 1905.46 For the composition of the book, Han also made use of the Buddhist collections in the monastery library at T’ongdo-sa in South Kyŏngsang, consulting 1,511 sutras, totaling 6,802 volumes of the Koryŏ Tripitaka.47 James Ketelaar succinctly describes the Holy Texts of Buddhism as “a fivehundred-page collection of short, carefully chosen selections, translated from Sanskrit, Chinese, and even English versions of the Buddhist canon, into contemporary Japanese.” The compilers extracted useful passages from Buddhist scriptures and organized them topically under general headings and subheadings. Ketelaar further comments that “the arrangement of the book and the easy-to-read format of the modern Japanese translations indicate the concern both to reach a wide readership and to promote the image of a Buddhism intimately involved in everyday life.”48 Han followed the basic structure and intent of the Holy Texts of Buddhism, a portable book for laypeople. Upon first glance at the book, one is struck by conspicuous similarities between the contents of the two; the major selections in both texts are nearly identical.49 Han, however, reconstructed the text by rearranging the structure and adding and excluding some extracts. An analysis of the differences between the two texts reveals Han’s approach to kyo. The Great Texts of Buddhism contains about five hundred pages, including footnotes that were inserted later by Yun Chaeyŏng.50 The “Conventions” of the Great Texts of Buddhism relate that the text consists of Korean translations of selections extracted from more than a thousand Chinese versions of Buddhist scriptures and from some Pali and Sanskrit versions.51 They also mention that the compiler (Han) compared various Nanjō Bun’yu and Maeda Eun, Bukkyō seiten. Cho Myŏnggi, “Manhae Han Yongun ŭi chŏsŏ wa sasang,” 11. 48  Ketelaar, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan, 209–210. 49  For the tables of contents of both texts, please refer to appendixes 3A and 3B. 50  The footnotes must have been added in the early 1970s, when the six volumes of Han Yongun chŏnjip were published. 51  Han Yongun, Pulgyo taejŏn, 21. 46  47 

106

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Chinese versions and when there was more than one for the same scripture, chose the best one to translate. Han extracted 1,741 sutras for the Great Texts of Buddhism.52 It is apparent that Han used the Holy Texts of Buddhism as a first reference for his book, yet he must have scrutinized the original Chinese scriptures before rendering his own translation. A close reading of his translation indicates that it is not necessarily a direct translation from Japanese, except in the cases of the original Pali and Sanskrit texts. The structure of the Great Texts of Buddhism emphasizes different points from the Holy Texts of Buddhism. The primary concern of the latter appears to be the religious practice of laypeople, and the section on Buddhist doctrine is considered part of comprehensive lay practice. The Holy Texts of Buddhism is composed of four main chapters: an introduction followed by “Faith,” “Action,” and “Doctrine.” It places significant weight on the chapters on faith and action for lay practitioners. In comparison, the Great Texts of Buddhism emphasizes a systematic presentation of Buddhist doctrine, and religious practice lies within the overall doctrinal system. It has a more extended and detailed structure, with nine main chapters divided into thirty-two sections with thirty-six subdivisions. Even in the subdivisions, the content is grouped by subject headings; the Holy Texts of Buddhism does not make such distinctions. The nine chapters consist of an introduction followed by “Essential Points of Buddhist Doctrine,” “The Buddha,” “Faith,” “Karmic Conditions,” “SelfCultivation,” “Cultivation in Relationship,” “Proselytization,” and “The Ultimate Goal.” In “Essential Points of Buddhist Doctrine,” Han divided the doctrine into two parts, mind and dharma (elements of reality), each of which is further divided, into essence (ch’e 體) and conditional arising (yŏn’gi 緣起). The nondiscrimination of the mind and the original emptiness of dharma are presented along with the conditionally changing aspects of the mind and dharma in phenomena. The text ends with the last (ninth) chapter on the ultimate goal of achieving enlightenment; within this overall structure, Han places the rest of the chapters in the middle to show how to attain the final stage of enlightenment. Han’s arrangements display his human-centered approach to Buddhist teachings; he mentions that the purpose of his text is to develop people’s wisdom and virtue.53 He places the human mind on the same level as dharma in the chapter on doctrine, whereas the Holy Texts of Buddhism separates mind from dharma, placing mind under the heading of “Sentient Beings.” By giving the human mind equal status with dharma, Han seems to stress the possibility of the perfection of the 52  53 

Chŏn Posam, “Han Yongun ŭi Hwaŏm sasang yŏn’gu,” 5:1. Han Yongun, Pulgyo taejŏn, 21.

A Vision for Social Salvation

107

mind. Accordingly, he gives greater weight to the aspect of human cultivation. While the “Action” chapter in the Holy Texts of Buddhism deals with proper conduct with regard to “self,” “other,” and the “Three Jewels,” Han divides this material into two chapters, “Self-Cultivation” and “Cultivation in Relationship.” He expands “Self-Cultivation” by adding subsections, although the main ideas in this section are adopted from the “Other” section in the Holy Texts of Buddhism. Han’s additions are “Learning”—further divided into “Diligence in Study (Suhak),” “Wide Learning (Pakhak 博學),” and “Cultivation of Wisdom”—“Cultivation of the Mind,” “Confidence in Oneself,” and “Practicing Good Conduct.” All these reflect his emphasis on human cultivation. In contrast, the structure of the Holy Texts of Buddhism reflects the sectarian orientation of the Shin sect of Pure Land Buddhism. There, the chapter on “Faith” is divided into three main parts: “The Heart of Faith,” “Yŏmbul [Recalling of the Buddha] Practice,” and “Confession.” The section on self-cultivation is divided into “Self-Control,” “Temperance,” “Endurance,” “Diligence,” “Honesty,” “Humility,” “Prudent Talking,” “Abstinence from Drinking,” and “Hygiene.” These practices focus on precepts that control bodily desires rather than the purposeful cultivation described in Han’s book. In his chapter on faith, Han replaced “Confession” with “Bodhicitta” (K. palsim 發心, “activation of the thought of enlightenment”), and transferred the Three Jewels into the material from the “Action” chapter of the Holy Texts of Buddhism. Han’s “Faith” chapter thus consists of “Bodhicitta,” “The Heart of Faith,” “Yŏmbul Practice,” and “The Three Jewels.” Han emphasizes self-cultivation with a belief that the mind, buddhas, and sentient beings are not different from one another. The myriad phenomena are nothing but creations of the mind, like flowers in the sky (konghua 空華).54 Each sentient being has been deluded and thus takes illusions to be real. The tathatā (true suchness) is always abiding and calmly illuminating, transcending all sense faculties and objects.55 Self-cultivation aims to go beyond the deluded state and awaken to the tathatā, which is immanent in all beings. Han organizes the Great Texts of Buddhism according to his nondual philosophy, linking the themes of the principles of equality and saving the world, the world of enlightenment, and the world of living in relationship to phenomena. Cultivation contains both principles: “Self-Cultivation” aims for the realization of the equality of tathatā, and “Cultivation in Han Yongun, Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon, 53. The term konghua denotes a false image that appears in one’s sight because of an eye disease. It is seen in the Yuanjue jing, T 842.17.913b.24–26. 55  Han Yongun, Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon, 37. 54 

108

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Relationship” deals with ways to expand Buddhist beliefs in compassionate living with others. The latter aspect stresses giving, compassion, taking care of the sick, gratitude, and courtesy. The entry on bodhicitta in the “Faith” chapter also reflects Han’s nondual philosophy, with phrases quoted from the Avatamsaka sūtra: practitioners give rise to bodhicitta not only to learn the dharma and realize awakening but also to help heal the suffering of all beings and to benefit the world.56 Furthermore, the Great Texts of Buddhism establishes the Buddha as an ideal model for human cultivation. To the attributes of the Buddha mentioned in the Holy Texts of Buddhism—wisdom, compassion, salvific power, and buddha bodies57— Han adds original vows and the resolve of buddhas to save all beings. He places bodhisattvas on the same plane with buddhas as ideal beings, emphasizing their power to save,58 while the Holy Texts of Buddhism mentions only buddhas in this regard. All dualities are resolved in the last chapter, “The Ultimate Goal.” In other words, the final stage of achieving enlightenment is inclusive of both the absolute and the conventional. Enlightenment and suffering are shown to be complementary rather than separate and in opposition. For Han, there is nothing to aspire to that is apart from this life. Just as the Vimalakīrti sūtra states that “a buddha-field of bodhisattvas is a field of living beings,”59 enlightenment is possible only in relation to suffering. Likewise, the Great Texts of Buddhism teaches that mastering life and death is itself realizing nirvana.60 Practitioners are encouraged to manifest the absolute in daily life rather than seek the absolute by overcoming the conventional. Emphasis on Sŏn Practice In the Great Texts of Buddhism, Han emphasizes cultivation of the mind and defines sŏn as a way to find out what the mind is.61 Once the mind is illuminated, all mysteries of life will be solved. If nothing blocks the brightness of the mind, it reflects all objects in every detail. Han elaborates: Han Yongun, Pulgyo taejŏn, 66; Dafangguangfo huayan jing, T 278.9.652c.2–3. This refers to the three bodies of the Buddha: (1) the apparition-body (the form-body of the Buddha); (2) the enjoyment-body (the glorified body as a reward for bodhisattva practices); (3) the Dharma-body (a pure reality innate in all beings). 58  Bodhisattvas vow to postpone their own nirvana until all beings attain supreme enlightenment. Motivated by compassion for those who suffer, and using skillful means, they help living beings develop themselves. By voluntarily participating in the world, bodhisattvas choose the course of rebirth. 59  Weimojie suoshuo jing, T 475.14.538a.21–23. For Han’s translation of this text, see HYC, 3:253–331. 60  Han Yongun, Pulgyo taejŏn, 247; Liushisong ruli lun, T 1574.30.254c.5–7. 61  Han Yongun, Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon, 52–53. 56  57 

A Vision for Social Salvation

109

“There is nothing but the mind, so no independent, objective things can exist without relation to the mind. Only the mind is able to give rise to the existence of history and the myriad things in space. Nothing exists outside the mind.”62 The mind is the key to all things and troubles, and thus Buddhist practice emphasizes mind cultivation. The mind is accountable, Han believed, for every aspect of human experience. To lead a good life, one should cultivate the mind to realize its essential emptiness. That is, from the absolute point of view, the mind is originally empty, being neither existent nor nonexistent.63 From the viewpoint of sentient beings, however, all dharmas are constantly arising and ceasing. For cultivation of the mind, Han recommended sŏn practice for people in every walk of life: “Sŏn is neither religious faith nor the object of academic inquiry. It is an easy and necessary practice for everyone. It provides solid foundation for one’s character, and it is a supreme hobby and an ultimate art on Earth.”64 Han depicted sŏn as an integral cultivation that provides a sense of completeness in human life. His nondual perspective is an important theme: Sŏn is not only a means of attaining salvation; it also provides a foundation for living without being entangled in the cycle of life and death. Sŏn practice, Han explains, enables one to be undisturbed by external circumstances.65 The “real person” (ch’am saram 참사람) never loses the original self (china 眞我) no matter what happens. The eye faculty is not affected by objects it sees, and the ear faculty is not disturbed by sounds it hears. Because of the power of samādhi, one is not agitated by any aspect of life, including sadness, irritation, or pleasure. Also, the mind is not swayed by either danger or comfort. Han describes the spirit of sŏn in this way: Sŏn [as I refer to it] is not “dead sŏn” (sa-sŏn 死禪) that clings to quiet calmness. It is “live sŏn” (hwal-sŏn 活禪) that could make use of the sŏn spirit: you soar as you please, and as you please you soar (imun dŭngdŭng 任運騰騰).66 Sŏn can get rid of danger and fear, and it repels sorrow and hurt. And it eventually leads one to transcend life and death.67

One enters the world of life and death with the mind that has already gone beyond the boundary of phenomena; the adept has already died, so there is no death to overcome. Han mentions that great-life (taehwal 大活) Han Yongun, Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon, 52. Han Yongun, “Sŏn kwa insaeng,” 311–312. 64  Han Yongun, “Sŏn kwa insaeng,” 311. 65  Han Yongun, “Sŏn kwa insaeng,” 318. 66  The phrase “imun dŭngdŭng” is found in Hongzhi Chanshi guanglu. 67  Han Yongun, “Sŏn kwa insaeng,” 317. 62  63 

110

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

is made possible by great-death (taesa 大死).68 A trivial life that indulges in selfish desires is nothing but death. Life in a real sense begins when one disregards death. For Han, in other words, dying to oneself (disregarding one’s own self) paradoxically saves one’s life. This is why Han regarded sŏn as the supreme form of art on earth. Sŏn Thought in the Annotated Ten Abstruse Discussions The Ten Abstruse Discussions, annotated by Han and originally composed by a Caotong monk, Tongan Changchu (d.u.; K. Tongan Sangch’al),69 is based on the five positions of the absolute and the relative (zhengpian wuwei 正偏五位) of Dongshan (807–869). The five positions (wuwei 五位) purport to transmit a secret teaching through positionings in terms of zheng 正 (center) and pian 偏 (off-center).70 Zheng refers to the absolute, essence, equality, and ideal principle while pian refers to the relative, diversity, function, and matter.71 The counterpart of zhengpian in the Huayan 華嚴 (K. Hwaŏm) system is lishi 理事 (principle and phenomena). Huayan posits unimpeded interpenetration of lishi. The absolute and the relative are inseparable; the absolute unfolds itself in the relative, and the absolute encompasses the relative. The main reference for the nondual orientation of both the zheng and pian of the Caotong school and the lishi of the Huayan system is the world of enlightenment. The five positions have to do with the identity of lishi. Each position expresses aspects of the ultimate oneness. Alfonso Verdu states that the five positions “represents an attempt to visualize the five perspective moments that are implicitly identical for the enlightened mind.”72 The consummate realization is attained at the final stage of harmonization of the zheng and pian perspectives.73 Similarly, the ten discussions are related to one another in a way that expresses the ultimate state of sŏn.74 The discussions are the “Mind Seal (Simin 心印),” “Patriarchs’ Intention (Choŭi 祖意),” “Abstruse Capacity (Hyŏngi 玄機),” “Nonduality of Dust [Phenomena] (Chini 塵異),” “Extending the Teachings (Yŏn’gyo 演敎),” “Reaching the Root (Talbon 達本),” “Abandoning the Idea of Going Home (P’ahwanhyang 破還鄕),” “Enhancing the Stage (Chŏnwi 轉位),” “Capacity of Returning (Hoegi Han Yongun, “Ch’unmong,” 240. For the original text, see Jingde chuandeng lu, roll 29. See also a Taiwanese reprint of the Dai Nihon Zokuzōkyō, 136.473c–474c. For the commentaries, see Tongguk University Pulgyo Chŏnsŏ Pyŏnchan Wiwŏnhoe, Han’guk Pulgyo Chŏnsŏ, 7:309–323. 70  Lai, “Sinitic Mandalas,” 231–232. 71  Verdu, Dialectical Aspects in Buddhist Thought, 118. 72  Verdu, Dialectical Aspects in Buddhist Thought, 117. 73  Lai, “Sinitic Mandalas,” 239–240. 74  Han Chongman, “Han Yongun ŭi Siphyŏndam chuhae,” 22. 68  69 

A Vision for Social Salvation

111

廻機),” and “One Form (Ilsaek 一色).” Although “One Form” is regarded as the ultimate state, each of the ten discussions is perfect by itself in representing aspects of the nonduality of dharma.75 Since the absolute and the relative include each other, the relative is no different from the absolute and is thus called “sublime existence” (myoyu 妙有).76 Han translated the Ten Abstruse Discussions and added his own comments (pi 批) and notes (chu 註), consulting commentaries by Fayan Wenyi (885–958), the first patriarch of the Fayan school, and Kim Sisŭp (1435–1493) of the Chosŏn dynasty. Wenyi commented on the Ten Abstruse Discussions in terms of the zheng and pian of the five positions.77 He showed that the enlightened state is in constant dialectical relation with zheng and pian, not abiding in either of the two. The mind resides in the absolute, yet is not attached to it.78 The mind instead directs the attention to the relative. Although the mind is active in the relative, it is not affected by phenomena.79 The relative is the very basis of both attaining enlightenment and manifesting the absolute. Kim Sisŭp also commented on the text with reference to the zheng and pian philosophy while placing emphasis on activity in phenomena. Before he became a Buddhist adept, Kim was a renowned Confucian scholar.80 He must have had in mind the Confucian charges against the nonworldly orientation of Buddhism. His comments suggest that Buddhism could be practiced without leaving daily life. In one of his comments, he writes: “The dharma wheel has to be turned in the midst of a mundane world. All buddhas face both adverse and amicable circumstances as the same manifestations of the perfect sound [of the absolute]. It is like spring winds that move the earth, and myriad plants and flowers bloom in their fullest.”81 Kim also states that all things are “one form.”82 There is nothing that is not the manifestation of the absolute. The worlds in ten directions and the three time periods (past, present, and future) all give dharma talks to save sentient beings across the sea of life and death.83 Han freely commented on the text without directly mentioning the five positions, although he maintained the nondual tone of the Caotong school. Han’s commentaries can be divided into two major areas: Han Chongman, “Maewŏltang Kim Sisŭp ŭi Pulgyo sasang,” 789. Han Chongman, “Han Yongun ŭi Siphyŏndam chuhae,” 37. 77  For a biography of Wenyi, see Jingde chuandeng lu, roll 24; Song Gaoseng zhuan. 78  Kim Sisŭp, “Siphyŏndam yohae.” 79  Kim Sisŭp, “Siphyŏndam yohae,” 7:313c. 80  Kim Sisŭp was one of the “six loyal subjects” (saeng yuksin) who gave up official service to the court in defiance of King Sejo’s usurpation of the throne. 81  Kim Sisŭp, “Siphyŏndam yohae,” 7:315b. 82  Kim Sisŭp, “Siphyŏndam yohae,” 7:322b. 83  Kim Sisŭp, “Siphyŏndam yohae,” 7:315c. 75  76 

112

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

the nature of enlightenment and ways to attain enlightenment. Han’s commentary on the former shares many themes with previous commentaries. Han addresses various aspects of abstruse reality, that is, the identity of the absolute and the relative. The import of the “Mind Seal” discussion becomes clear when it is seen that the essence of the absolute and its provisional names (the relative) do not contradict one another.84 The mind has no essence, no signs, and no trace, yet all the myriad beings take the mind as their measure and all buddhas prove it. No conflict thus exists between the absolute and the relative. The “Patriarchs’ Intention” is only revealed when both being (the relative) and emptiness (the absolute) are transcended.85 Destroying being is called emptiness, and destroying emptiness is called existence. That is, the “Patriarchs’ Intention” transcends both the absolute and the relative. Likewise, the “Abstruse Capacity” transcends time and space, yet at the same time it is no other than time and space. Apart from the thought of this moment, there are no worlds or ten time periods (sipse 十世).86 Therefore, abandoning worldly relationships and stopping thoughts are far from the right ways and instead feed delusion.87 Han emphasized that enlightenment transcends life and death in the midst of life and death. Once one attains the right stage, nirvana is exactly transmigration, and there is no birth and death although one stays in the wheel of transmigration.88 For Han, this worldly life is the exact state in which to realize enlightenment, and the phenomenal plane becomes a meaningful place only because of that relation with the absolute. The latter part of Han’s commentaries is on how to attain enlightenment. Han noted that one has to stop ratiocination and deluded thought: if even one strand of thought arises, the absolute cannot be realized. Since all dharmas arise from deluded thoughts, the essence of the mind appears when all thoughts stop.89 The sense of subject and object has to be severed, and one has to completely forget achievement and purposefulness. The abstruse final stage further confirms that there is nothing special and that all dharmas are empty of both subject and object.90 Discussion In summary, Han gave equal emphasis to sŏn and kyo as a means of fulfilling two major goals: the principle of equality and the principle of saving Han Yongun, Siphyŏndam chuhae, 336. Han Yongun, Siphyŏndam chuhae, 340. 86  Han Yongun, Siphyŏndam chuhae, 343. 87  Han Yongun, Siphyŏndam chuhae, 362. 88  Han Yongun, Siphyŏndam chuhae, 361. 89  Han Yongun, Siphyŏndam chuhae, 348. 90  Han Yongun, Siphyŏndam chuhae, 363. 84  85 

A Vision for Social Salvation

113

the world. He recommended sŏn practice to deal with existential suffering and kyo for social suffering. Han regarded the doctrinal system as a source of wisdom that could offer spiritual guidelines for living in relation to other people. Major Buddhist thinkers before Han, such as Chinul and Hyujŏng, also tried to unify sŏn and kyo. Chinul, a sŏn apologist during the Koryŏ dynasty, faced disharmony among Buddhist practitioners who were split between sŏn and kyo. Chinul integrated sŏn and kyo from the point of sŏn praxis and introduced doctrinal understanding into sŏn by advocating sudden awakening/gradual cultivation (tono chŏmsu 頓悟漸修). That is, doctrinal understanding could spur the initial sudden awakening to the inherent buddha-nature and thus help complete sŏn training. This sudden/gradual concept reconciled sŏn with the teachings of the Buddhāvatamsaka sūtra. The fifty-two stages of bodhisattva development became possible because of the sudden awakening at the beginning of the path.91 As a result of the initial awakening to mind-essence, the long process of clearing away delusions became bearable to practitioners who understood nonduality and the possibility of realizing innate purity. Chinul’s approach stemmed from his concern for presenting a workable sŏn soteriology to his fellow practitioners while coming up with a doctrinally based rationale. Chinul focused on the restoration of the proper sense of monastic order by establishing a concrete mode of praxis for his fellow practitioners. Similarly, Hyujŏng, a leading Sŏn master during the Chosŏn dynasty, tried to harmonize sŏn and kyo in order to subdue the conflict between the two schools. He taught that both sŏn and kyo originated from the Buddha, “Sŏn being the Buddha’s mind and kyo his words.”92 Sŏn is a way to attain the ultimate state (enlightenment) that is beyond words by means of no-words, whereas kyo is a way to reach the state through words. For Hyujŏng, kyo is necessary for teaching the phenomena to people of ordinary faculties before showing them the ultimate truth of emptiness.93 But sŏn training, from the outset, requires complete renunciation of kyo because sŏn teaches one to see one’s own nature at this thought-moment. Hyujŏng thus placed more significance on sŏn than on kyo, encouraging the short-cut investigation of koan, which are beyond the reaches of reason, meaning, mind, or ordinary words.94 In contrast to sŏn, he regarded kyo as ratiocination in association with meaning, mind, and consciousness. Buswell, Tracing Back the Radiance, 51. Hyujŏng, “Sŏn’ga kwigam,” 7:635b. Hyujŏng quoted this phrase from Zongmi’s Chanyuan zhuquanji duxu 1, T 2015.48.400b.10–11. 93  Hyujŏng, “Sŏn’ga kwigam,” 7:636b. 94  Hyujŏng, “Sŏn Kyo kyŏl,” 7:658a. 91  92 

114

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

I suggest that Han’s sŏn/kyo integration provided the doctrinal foundation for the unification of the sangha during the colonial period, when it struggled to establish a central organization. Han proposed centralization of the sangha in order to utilize the human and financial resources of the institution. Equally important, he attempted to bring about a socially viable Buddhism. Regarding the doctrinal system as offering spiritual guidelines for living in relation to other people, Han proposed a socially engaged Buddhism, minjung Pulgyo; he then proposed sŏn practice to counteract such disturbances as clerics would encounter in their social engagement. Han’s emphasis on sŏn practice can be compared with the lay Zen (Japanese for “Sŏn”) movement developed in the spirit of the New Buddhism during the Meiji period. Zen appeared as a modern, humanistic form of inquiry different from ritual and superstitious practices.95 The Western image of Zen as “a mystical or spiritual gnosis that transcends sectarian boundaries,” Robert Sharf has argued, is a product of the twentieth century.96 Japanese lay intellectuals popularized this laicized form of Zen as a spiritual solution to the problems of modernity brought by Westernization.97 The presentation of Zen as transcendental experience appealed to Westerners and enhanced the prestige of Japanese Buddhism. D. T. Suzuki was largely responsible for the dissemination of this form of Zen. Proponents of the Kyoto school, such as Hisamatsu Shin’ichi and Nishitani Keiji, were also major contributors to its dissemination.98 Ichikawa Hakugen (1902–1986), a Japanese Buddhist scholar, criticized Zen for its role in Japan’s Fifteen-Year War (1931–1945), pointing out that the existential orientation of Zen paralyzed Buddhists’ ability to discriminate the actual from the absolute.99 Thus, Zen’s focus on existential freedom for individuals led to its social impotence. Ichikawa states that “in the place of absolute nothingness, existence and nonexistence, value and anti-value, rationality and irrationality are identical.”100 He contends that existential freedom is essentially nonethical.101 In other words, the transcending of the relative plane led Buddhists to accept political ideology without distinguishing the pros and cons of the result. That is, nondiscrimination produced insensitivity to colonial war and social injustice. Sharf’s scrutiny of modern Japanese Zen rhetoric reveals what he calls “Zen orientalism.” By privileging the transformation experience of Zen, Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience,” 247. Sharf, “Whose Zen?” 44. 97  Sharf, “Whose Zen?” 48. 98  Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience,” 247. 99  Ives, “Ethical Pitfalls in Imperial Zen and Nishida Philosophy,” 19. 100  Ives, “Ethical Pitfalls in Imperial Zen and Nishida Philosophy,” 26. 101  Hirata, “Zen Buddhist Attitudes to War,” 12. 95  96 

A Vision for Social Salvation

115

which is supposedly beyond intellectual categorization and contestation, Japan viewed its version of Buddhism as superior to Western thought. Zen Buddhists repeated the rhetoric of Western Orientalism, in reverse,102 by absolutizing the spiritual dimension of Buddhist practice to assert their superiority in relation to other practices. As Sharf points out, “The Buddhist rhetoric of meditative experience would appear to be both informed by, and wielded in, the interests of legitimation, authority, and power.”103 Sharf and others similarly note the cultural nationalism in the Japanese propagation of Zen to the West. This universalizing discourse of Zen implied cultural superiority for Japanese Buddhism. The criticisms leveled against the Japanese Zen movement can be applied also to Han’s sŏn, given that Han, too, emphasized its timeless quality. The ultimate goal of the nondual approach is enlightenment, which is beyond thought and conceptualization. This nondual philosophy is not a way of improving and developing anything on the social plane. The social world, as it is, is a place for attaining enlightenment. Careless identification between the absolute world and the human world could thus create a potential danger of totalitarian and antinomian tendencies. Because the undifferentiated nondual world does not discriminate between the natural world and the world of history, it could serve the status quo since anything could be viewed as acceptable under the rubric of nonduality. Han attempted to resolve this impasse by introducing a value system into the world of enlightenment and by encouraging active engagement against social ills, including colonial occupation. Han drew social values—freedom, equality, and peace—from absolute equality. He interpreted absolute equality as being fundamentally free: “What is the position of equality? It refers to truth [tathatā], which does not have any obstructions because it is free from time and space.”104 Han translated this absolute freedom and equality into social terms.105 He regarded social equality as the manifestation of tathatā and suggested that contemporary liberalism and cosmopolitanism could be derived from absolute truth.106 By respecting the freedom of others as that of one’s own, liberalism would epitomize the ideal of equality. Cosmopolitanism would also reflect absolute equality with the view of the world as one house and all people as brothers and sisters, thereby discouraging competition and military conquest. For Han, the practice of social equality is possible

Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience,” 268–269. Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience,” 265. 104  Han Yongun, Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon, 44. 105  An Pyŏngjik, “Manhae Han Yongun ŭi tongnip sasang,” 73. 106  Han Yongun, Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon, 44. 102  103 

116

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

by the realization of the absolute or, in other words, the fundamental awareness of the absolute is the key to social justice. Han envisaged an active mode of life in which, to realize absolute equality in a social world, the mind resists social inequalities and takes risks for social justice: Liberty is the life of all beings, and peace is the happiness of life. So, a person without liberty is like a dead body, and a person deprived of peace is the one who suffers the greatest pain. . . . Therefore, in order to obtain liberty and secure peace, one must regard life as lightly as a strand of hair and be willing to sacrifice.107

He was critical of social inequalities, colonialism, and militarism as counter to the values of liberty and equality. He reappropriated nationalism from the Buddhist standpoint, regarding the loss of the nation’s sovereignty as social inequality, which he interpreted as a violation of the fundamental principles of liberty and equality in Buddhist teachings. He believed that relationships among nations and among people had to be based on truth, not on exploitation, which is the pursuit of power. His participation in the Korean independence movement was based on this belief. Han’s major concern was thus the attainment of Korean independence, not the improvement or rectification of the policies of the Japanese regime. He insisted on a proclamation of independence (tongnip sŏnŏn 獨立宣言), not a request for independence (tongnip ch’ŏngwŏn 獨立請願), as was proposed by some factions of Korean nationalists.108 In other words, he denied colonialism itself and thus rejected the idea of negotiating with the colonists. He condemned colonialism and militarism in general for their destruction of the happiness of humanity and criticized the world system of capitalism because it was power-oriented.109 He believed justice and human morality would eventually triumph over all the world systems of power.110 Han regarded colonialism as an extreme case of nationalism and saw the potential danger in both. Yet as long as he fought against the injustice of Japanese colonialism, he appeared to be a nationalist. Working for the “ethnic nation” (minjok 民族) was an interim process leading to the ultimate stage of universalism.111 Han stated that history develops from ignorance to civilization and that humanity progresses from individual Han Yongun, “Chosŏn tongnip ŭi sŏ,” 346. An Pyŏngjik, “Manhae Han Yongun ŭi tongnip sasang,” 76–77. 109  Han Yongun, “Chosŏn tongnip ŭi sŏ,” 347. 110  Han Yongun, “Chosŏn tongnip ŭi sŏ,” 353. 111  Han Yongun, “Chosŏn tongnip ŭi sŏ,” 346. 107  108 

A Vision for Social Salvation

117

to family, community, nation, world, and eventually the cosmos. He thought that nationalism was a temporary yet necessary step for Koreans to accept. The exigency of this period required Han to employ a nationalistic discourse. His support of the ethnic nation was a strategic means for allowing the Buddhist religion to accommodate the needs of the people. Han made it clear that universal revolution, not nationally bound movements, was the ultimate concern of the Buddha.112 He advocated cosmopolitanism (segye chuŭi 世界主義), which would treat the entire human world as one family, the ultimate development of humanity. In other words, Han strove to transform the amoral stance of sŏn into a practical social value by interpreting the absolute sense of equality and liberty in social terms. The absolute world of enlightenment (sŏn) thus became no different from its realization in the social world. He encouraged active social involvement to cure injustice, which he believed impeded the ultimate Buddhist goal of attaining enlightenment. To him, salvation from this death-bound existence and the alleviation of social predicaments were coexistent. Nondual philosophy, seen in the zheng and pian of the Caotong school and the li and shi of the Huayan system, was an attempt to show the possibility of Buddhist practice in the temporal world. The identification of the absolute with the conventional showed that Buddhist enlightenment is attainable without avoiding the social sphere. This temporal world, therefore, could be the foundation of Buddhist practice. This integration of social and existential salvation meant that the Buddhist version of social involvement arose naturally from Buddhist teachings, rather than being a mere imitation of Christianity. By connecting the social and the existential, Han intended to encourage Buddhists’ passion for social engagement. His unique approach was aimed at resolving the dilemma of Korean Buddhists regarding their response to modernity. From a doctrinal basis, Han took the major reform issues of “responsiveness” and “identity” dialectically to create a new sense of Korean Buddhism by locating social involvement and nationalist discourse within Buddhist systems of thought.

112 

Han Yongun, “Sŏkka ŭi chŏngsin,” 293.



Epilogue

This study has examined Korean Buddhist reforms not only in terms of ideas, as previous scholarship has largely done, but also as religious and social movements. Reform was the top priority of the Korean sangha throughout the colonial period. The sangha strove to render Buddhism socially viable amid political and social change while struggling to recover from the deterioration suffered during the Chosŏn dynasty. The Buddhist reform movement progressed as a concerted effort among clerics, addressing various issues and problems through the different phases of its development. As in other Asian countries, the viability of Buddhism in Korea depended considerably on Buddhists’ participation in a nationwide effort to co-opt Western modernity. In the first phase, before the March First Movement, reforms centered on clerical education and proselytization. The sangha attempted to increase its social breadth by exposing Buddhist clerics to modern education and by developing propagation methods. During the second phase, in the 1920s and early 1930s, clerics raised awareness of Buddhist social responsibility and tried to establish the sangha’s independence from state intervention. In this process, Korean Buddhists reconstructed their tradition to make it more relevant to the changing conditions of modern times. With modernist reforms, Korean Buddhists aimed to counteract negative images of Buddhism from the Chosŏn period—such as “mountain Buddhism,” “Buddhism for women,” and “Buddhism for securing worldly desires”—by establishing a socially conscious Buddhism, minjung Pulgyo. At the same time, they identified Buddhism as a major Korean tradition by emphasizing Buddhist contributions to the country and composing histories of Korean Buddhism to instill national pride. Under these circumstances, a need arose to unify Korean Buddhism doctrinally and institutionally. Buddhist clerics established sectarian names, which had become blurred during the Chosŏn dynasty, by tracing their lineages back through history. They also created new sectarian names, such as

Epilogue

119

Wŏn-jong and later Imje-jong. The Japanese regime approved of neither of these names and referred to the sangha as the Unified School of Meditation and Doctrine. The movement to establish a unique sectarian identity continued with the effort to unify the sangha under a central organization. In 1941, the centralized sangha was born with the sectarian name Chogye-jong. Lineage disputes that began in the colonial period persist even today, in regard to whether the founding patriarch (chongjo) of the present sangha was Chinul or T’aego. In parallel with this reconstruction of sectarian identity, Korean Buddhists also left a legacy in the form of so-called ecumenical Buddhism (t’ong Pulgyo) as an ideological support for the movement to bring the sangha under central control. Shim Jae-ryong, of Seoul National University, has pointed out this origin of the t’ong Pulgyo tradition. He suggests careful use of this term in academic studies, which tend to indiscriminately apply t’ong Pulgyo as a general designation for Korean Buddhism.1 Instead, this term was created in the process of reestablishing the unique features of Korean Buddhism. An examination of the modern remaking of Buddhism could thus provide an insight into this term and the lineage disputes in Korean Buddhism today. This study also sheds new light on the complex nature of the reform movement vis-à-vis the Japanese regime. Previous studies divided Korean Buddhists simplistically into two camps: anti-Japanese reformers and alleged pro-Japanese collaborators (mostly those who associated with abbots of the thirty main-monastery districts). In other words, they equated Buddhist reform with the anti-Japanese camp. This study shows that there existed a variety of groups with conflicting interests and agendas in relation to Buddhist reforms. Thus, a simple bifurcation of the sangha does not reflect reality, and it is not accurate to treat Buddhist reform as a monolithic nationalist movement. With differing degrees of intensity, different groups of Buddhists participated in nation building by resisting the state, compiling Buddhist history, and reforming Buddhist practices. Even Kwŏn Sangno and Ch’oe Namsŏn, who were ostracized by Korean scholars as pro-Japanese because of their collaboration with the Japanese regime, made contributions to the construction of Korean Buddhism. In comparison, some of the leaders of the youth movement who were celebrated as anti-Japanese reformers were also involved in pro-Japanese activities. After the mid-1930s, many of the youth leaders, including Hŏ Yŏngho, Kim T’aehŭp, and Yi Chonguk, endorsed and urged Korean participation in the Japanese war campaign. The complex nature of the

Shim, “On the General Characteristics of Korean Buddhism,” 153; Buswell, “Imagining ‘Korean Buddhism,’” 102–103. 1 

120

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

reform movement thus requires a more nuanced and careful treatment than reduction to anti- and pro-Japanese categories. Previous studies also focused largely on the damaging effect of Japanese Buddhism and the Temple Ordinance on Korean Buddhism. Korean Buddhists, despite their resistance to and their cautious attitudes toward Japanese Buddhism, tried to learn from and imitate its “modernized” forms. Additionally, in the beginning of Japanese rule, many Korean Buddhists believed that the ordinance would protect Buddhist institutions and properties and provide them with a structure—the system of thirty-three main monasteries—within which to initiate reforms. Under the protection of the Japanese state, most main-monastery abbots used Buddhist reforms as a means of maintaining close ties with the regime and securing their hegemony in the sangha. The colonial regime even encouraged Buddhist reforms in order to earn Buddhist support for its rule. Asserting that Japan was a Buddhist nation and that the colonial regime was a protector of Buddhism, the Japanese tried to curry favor with the Korean sangha, which after all had suffered severe oppression from Koreans themselves. With reforms confined strictly to an apolitical arena, the Japanese rulers saw Buddhist modernization as having the potential to tame and educate Korean people for a new era and thus support the colonial administration of the peninsula. Situated between conflicting religious interests and patriotic sentiments, the Korean sangha carried out reforms as an apolitical religious movement. Only after the March First Movement did a dissident group of mostly young clerics oppose the hegemony of the abbots and the Japanese involvement in sangha affairs. Young clerics demanded the abolition of the Temple Ordinance, arguing that it inhibited the reform process by concentrating power in the abbots, who misused that power for personal gain. Similarly, the youth movement staged a campaign for the practice of minjung Pulgyo in an effort to stop the state’s intervention, and young clerics demanded the religion’s active involvement in people’s lives. The more crucial agenda behind this rhetoric was the criticism of bureaucratic Buddhism, which the youths believed served the needs of the Japanese regime. In other words, the youths tried to sever the sangha’s liaison with the Japanese regime by asserting Buddhism’s responsibility for the people. The movement to centralize the sangha administration was another way to overturn the main monastery system; subjugating the main monasteries under central control eventually led to the revocation of the Temple Ordinance. All these movements were lateral forms of protest against Japan. Like other Asian Buddhists under colonial governments, however, Korean Buddhists held ambivalent attitudes toward the Japanese regime.

Epilogue

121

In some ways they reaffirmed their traditional ties with the powerful and were unable to disassociate themselves from the structure of power, namely, the colonial state. The study of colonized Buddhist nations attests to the complexity of Buddhist nationalism. Liaisons with the powerful can be seen in the extreme case of Japanese Buddhists who collaborated with the state. Japanese Buddhists’ support of imperial policies and the collaboration of Buddhists under colonial rule with the governing regimes seemed no different from the ways they traditionally had subjugated themselves to the powerful. After liberation from Japanese colonial rule in 1945, Korean Buddhists experienced situations involving similar imbalances of power, under a series of dictatorial Korean governments. The general public accused the sangha of assuming a subservient role under those oppressive regimes. In the name of Buddhism for the protection of the nation (hoguk Pulgyo 護國佛敎), the sangha tacitly collaborated with oppressive governments against minjung and social justice, as it had during the Japanese regime. Another new approach in this study is its analysis of the internal problems of the reform movement. Previous studies point to external factors as the main obstacles to reform, a specific example being the Japanese regime’s control of Buddhist affairs. Following the institutional, cultural, and social devastation of the anti-Buddhist Chosŏn policies, the sangha began Buddhist reforms with a deficiency of financial and human resources. The two major areas of reform—the sangha education system and proselytization techniques—both faced difficulties. By 1915 a threestep modern education system had been established, consisting of the Chung’ang Buddhist School, ten local preparatory schools, and eleven independent primary schools. Only four or five traditional monastery schools remained by 1924. After 1925, however, traditional monastery seminaries began to reappear because the local preparatory schools had gone bankrupt. Even the Chung’ang Buddhist School remained closed for seven years during the 1920s because of financial difficulties. In the area of proselytization, the main monasteries began to establish missionary preaching stations in villages and cities. Eighteen stations had been opened by 1913; the number grew to 72 by the end of 1924; and in 1930 there were a reported 117. However, the move from the mountains to the cities was not supported by internal changes. The sangha did not have consistent plans or policies for all of the preaching stations, and each main monastery had its own methods for operating its stations. No activities or outreach programs were developed for society at large or for lay Buddhists, the majority of whom were old women, as was historically the case.

122

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

In addition to financial problems, which were aggravated by the Japanese regime’s control of the sangha administration and properties, Korean Buddhists faced problems caused by their failure to set clear directions in applying modern education to the propagation of Buddhism. Monasteries opened schools to keep up with other religions without serious thought to goals and principles. They also sent young clerics to colleges in Japan yet did not provide adequate guidance for their study. Left on their own, the students pursued whatever they liked, mostly secular disciplines, such as mathematics, English literature, agriculture, literature, and geography. Moreover, the sangha did not develop employment opportunities for the graduates, who went off to follow secular careers or did not know what to do with their education. As a result, modern education for clerics did not do much to advance Buddhist causes. Although the educational reforms presumably were intended to produce clerics capable of effective proselytizing, Buddhists lacked a philosophy and passion for their outreach programs. Even those who were educated abroad did not display genuine interest in proselytization. The sangha tried to move monasteries from remote areas to villages and cities, but it was unable to create Buddhist communities where laypeople felt they belonged and were able to share their dreams and pains. Instead, opening the sangha up to society at large adversely affected Buddhist clerics. The observance of precepts became lax, and the practice of poverty became a mere slogan; Buddhist clerics became entrapped in worldly values such as the desire for wealth, power, and material pleasures. The traditional Buddhist focus on personal salvation could be one reason for the clerics’ lack of interest in and confusion about accommodating social programs despite the urgent need for them. The emphasis on existential deliverance inevitably led the sangha to neglect social involvement. Because of this tendency, Buddhist communities occasionally had been the target of attack in the past. For example, Confucian scholars of the Song dynasty had attacked Buddhism as a socially harmful religion,2 and Tokugawa anti-Buddhist ideologues refuted Buddhism as otherworldly, antiethical, socially useless, and antithetical to efficacious action.3 Similarly, Chosŏn Confucians had launched assaults on Buddhism for its social uselessness in order to legitimize their anti-Buddhist polices. Incorporating concepts of social salvation into Buddhist systems was a much more difficult task than Korean Buddhists initially assumed. It required that Buddhists seriously reflect on ways to render social work congruent with Buddhist teachings, because existential salvation and social engagement could be viewed as mutually exclusive. That is, attaining 2  3 

Hirata, “Zen Buddhist Attitudes to War,” 11–12. Ketelaar, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan, 19.

Epilogue

123

existential freedom required restraint of sensory and intellectual faculties, which were easily stimulated by excessive social involvement. Without giving much thought to this fundamental soteriological difference, Buddhists superficially imitated the social welfare activities of Christianity. Aside from the Buddhist clerics’ lack of interest in or passion for social concerns, it was difficult to incorporate such concerns into Buddhism because they were regarded as obstacles to enlightenment that needed to be overcome. The half-hearted and ill-conceived pursuit of social involvement produced adverse results, such as support for the status quo and colonial war policies, as well as, more seriously, the secularization of Buddhist clerics. The minjung Pulgyo advocated by young clerics was limited in its effectiveness in that it operated on the same principle of power as bureaucratic Buddhism. Rather than abolishing the power structure altogether in favor of the nonhierarchical minjung, the movement merely replaced the power structure of the abbots with another hierarchy. Young clerics did not develop a grassroots movement of their own but became involved in the hegemonic struggle within the sangha during the early 1920s. Even after youths emerged as sangha leaders in the 1930s, their concerns were centered on changes in the sangha system and its existing top-down policies. All in all, Korean reforms were focused mostly on the sangha and were carried out by Buddhist clerics. The sangha excluded the laity, which as a group was not a full participant in the reform movement. This neglect of the laity could also account for the lack of innovation in Korean Buddhist reforms. Overall, this study investigates the layers of Buddhist experience in striving to revive the religion under colonial rule. As “colonial modernity” implies, Buddhists were not one-sided victims but instead conducted their lives flexibly either by negotiating with the Buddhist Japanese rulers for the enhancement of their status or by resisting the oppressive Japanese for their political independence. Korean Buddhists managed to execute modernist reforms while facing a plethora of problems associated with the new venture in a colonized nation. Given the complex nature of Buddhist discourse, a simple, judgmental, nationalist approach is too limited for understanding the multidimensionality of Buddhist involvement. Finally, this study examines Han Yongun’s Buddhism in relation to his doctrinal solutions to problems that emerged during the reforms. Han’s significance lies in the way that he tried to resolve the dilemmas faced by the sangha during the modernization process. At first, Buddhist clerics were reluctant to take responsibility for social involvement, but once they got involved in social activities, they were rapidly affected by

124

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

worldly values. Their social involvement blurred the distinction between a religious vocation and a lay career. Monkhood was becoming a worldly profession. In response, Han proposed the nondual approach of sŏn and kyo as a way for clerics to avoid entanglement in worldly desires. To draw a social ethic from Buddhist teachings, he emphasized the principle of saving the world as fundamental, interpreting the absolute sense of equality and liberty in social terms. The absolute world of enlightenment thus does not differ from its realization in the social world. Han encouraged active social involvement to cure social ills and injustice, which he saw as obstacles to the ultimate Buddhist goal of attaining enlightenment. By establishing a dialectical tension between the absolute and the phenomenal, he incorporated social salvation into the Buddhist existential system. Social engagement could not disturb the inner pursuit of salvation because the working principle is based on the experience of no-self and the consequent equanimity drawn from the absolute world of enlightenment. In this way, Han applied his vision of a Buddhist social ethic to ways of leading a socially engaged life. In a similar manner, Han offered a Buddhist way of dealing with the nationalist issue. Most Korean Buddhist scholars take him for granted as an exemplary nationalist, yet no attempts have been made to examine his view of nationalism in light of his Buddhist beliefs. Han’s unique contribution was to see nationalism and colonialism from a Buddhist point of view. He considered colonialism to be an extreme form of nationalism and was wary of both ideologies. He criticized the colonial regime because he believed that it violated the fundamental principles of liberty and equality advocated in Buddhist teachings. He also proposed that nationalism should be an interim process leading to the ultimate stage of cosmopolitanism, which treats the whole world as one family of human beings.4 The exigency of this period required Han to employ a nationalistic discourse, but he did not endorse nationalism as an ultimate goal. His support of the nation was thus a strategic means for him to realize religious truth. His nationalist struggle was not different from his fight against social injustice. Unfortunately, however, Han’s ideas remained ideals and were not expanded or developed into grassroots movements. The present generation of Korean Buddhists faces problems similar to those for which Han proposed reforms. After liberation and until the early 1970s, the energy of the sangha was consumed by internal strife between married and celibate clerics.5 Under the name of modernization Han Yongun, “Chosŏn tongnip ŭi sŏ,” 346. Buswell, The Zen Monastic Experience, 30–33; Minjok Pulgyo Yŏn’gu Hoe, Han’guk Pulgyo chongdan chojik silt’ae chosa pogosŏ, 48–68. 4  5 

Epilogue

125

and the influence of Japanese Buddhism, the majority of Korean Buddhist clerics gave up their traditional practice of celibacy and took wives. By the time of liberation, about seven thousand clerics were married and only seven hundred remained celibate.6 Beginning in 1954, the minority celibate faction initiated the Purification Movement with the strong support of the Yi Sŭngman regime (1948–1960). After vigorous attacks and counterattacks through both physical fights and litigation, the celibates claimed final victory in 1970. The married clerics formed their own sect, Han’guk Pulgyo T’aego-jong (T’aego sect of Korean Buddhism), and separated themselves from Taehan Pulgyo Chogye-jong (Chogye sect of Korean Buddhism). By this time, the married clerics occupied only 50 monasteries, while their celibate counterparts had 950 monasteries.7 In 1946, by contrast, the married clerics had possessed 900 monasteries, and only 100 monasteries belonged to the celibates. The ratio was 700 to 300 monasteries between 1954 and 1962; in 1964, it became 400 to 600, and finally 50 to 950 in 1970. The period of strife left Korean Buddhists no time for the reform issues they had addressed during the colonial period. Only in the late 1970s did they begin to return to those issues. With the passage of time, they renewed their interests in attuning their practices to the rapidly Westernizing society. While the sangha administration emphasized the institutional reforms of monk education and religious propagation, younger generations reintroduced the idea of minjung Pulgyo, which had been integrated into the modern reforms of the sangha during the colonial period. In 2005, the Buddhist population in Korea was 22.8% of the total religious population, with Protestants at 18.3% and Catholics at 10.9%. In comparison, Buddhists were 23.2% in 1995, with Protestants at 19.7% and Catholics at 6.6%.8 Today, Buddhism is the main religion in Korea, competing with Christianity to expand its influence in society, but it still has not fully incorporated social involvement into its own system of practice. Buddhists merely adopted the minjung rhetoric to attack dictatorships and social injustice rather than developing their own ways of confronting social problems. Social involvement at the price of religious practice affected the sangha and further confounded Buddhist clerics in a rapidly Westernizing society. For these long-lasting problems, Han’s insight could be still relevant. The quandary of contemporary Korean Buddhists still requires the dialectical integration of “identity” and “responsiveness,” as Han proposed decades ago. Mok Jeong-bae, “Kŭn Hyŏndae,” 105. Minjok Pulgyo Yŏn’gu Hoe, Han’guk Pulgyo chongdan chojik silt’ae chosa pogosŏ, 68. 8  These figures are based on census information provided by the Korea National Statistical Office (www.nso.go.kr). 6  7 

APPENDIX 1

Major Events in Modern Korean Buddhism and Chronology of Han Yongun’s Life 1876 • The ports of the peninsula are opened after the Korean-Japanese Treaty of Kanghwa. 1878 • The first branch temple of the Higashi Honganji sect of the Jōdo Shin school is established at Pusan. 1879 • Han Yongun, later known as Manhae, is born at present-day Hongsŏng in South Ch’ungch’ŏng Province. 1880 • The Korean Catholic Church starts to grow in membership. (Catholicism was introduced to Korea in the last quarter of the eighteenth century.) • Protestant missionaries arrive on the peninsula in the mid-1880s. 1881 • A branch temple of the Nichiren sect is opened at Pusan. 1892 • Manhae marries. 1894 • Tonghak Rebellion begins. 1894–1895 • The Sino-Japanese War. 1895 • The ban against Korean monks’ entry into the capital is lifted. 1897 • King Kojong proclaims the establishment of the independent Great Han Empire. • Manhae becomes a novice monk at Ose-am near Paektam Monastery. 1899 • Manhae’s plan for a world trip stops at Vladivostok. 1902 • The Office of Temple and Shrines is established. 1904 • Manhae’s son from his first wife is born. 1904–1905 • The Russo-Japanese War. 1905 • Korea becomes a protectorate of Japan.

Major Events

127

• Manhae receives full ordination from Master Yŏn’gok at Paektam Monastery. 1906 • The Association of Buddhist Studies is founded. • The Myŏngjin School is founded. 1908 • Wŏn-jong is established. • Manhae spends six months in Japan. 1910 • Japan annexes Korea. • The Central Propagation Office of Korean Buddhism is established. • Conflict between Wŏn-jong and Imje-jong breaks out. • Manhae finishes his draft of the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism. 1911 • The Temple Ordinance and Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance are promulgated. • The Conference Office of the Abbots of the Thirty Main Monasteries is established. 1912 • The Central Propagation Office of Korean Sŏn Buddhism is established. 1912–1913 • The Korean Buddhist Monthly is published. 1913 • Manhae publishes his Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism. 1913–1914 • The Buddhist Journal of Korea is published. 1914 • Manhae publishes his Buddhist Journal of Korea. 1915 • The Cooperative Office of the Thirty Main Monasteries of the Sŏn-Kyo Sect is established. • The Monthly of the Association for the Promotion of Buddhism is published. 1915–1922 • The sangha’s postsecondary school, the Chung’ang Buddhist School, is established. 1916 • Manhae works as a propagator at the Central Propagation Office of Korean Sŏn Buddhism. 1916–1917 • The World of Korean Buddhism is published. 1917 • Publication of Yi Nŭnghwa’s Comprehensive History of Korean Buddhism and Kwŏn Sangno’s Abridged History of Korean Buddhism. • Manhae translates the Caigentan (K. Ch’aegŭndam). • Manhae achieves his enlightenment.

128

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

1917–1921 • The Korean Buddhist Magazine is published. 1918 • Manhae publishes a Buddhist magazine titled Yusim. • Manhae lectures at the Chung’ang Buddhist School. 1919 • Manhae participates in the March First Movement as one of its thirty-three leaders. • Manhae writes “A Discourse on the Independence of Korea” in prison. 1919–1921 • Manhae is imprisoned because of his involvement in the March First Movement. 1920 • The Buddhist Youth Association is formed. 1921 • The Buddhist Reformation Association is formed. 1922 • Conflict erupts between the sangha’s two offices, the General Office and the Office of Buddhist Affairs. 1924 • The Central Sangha Office is formed. • Manhae becomes the director of the Buddhist Youth Association. • Manhae writes his first novel, Death, which is published after his death. 1924–1933 • The magazine titled Buddhism is published. 1925 • Manhae publishes his Annotated Ten Abstruse Discussions. 1926 • Manhae publishes The Silence of the Beloved. 1927 • The first assembly of propagation clerics is held. • The Buddhist Youth Association is revived. • Manhae becomes the chairman of the Seoul chapter of the nationalist association Sin’ganhoe. 1928 • Buddhist Secondary School is founded. • A rally of student clerics and a rally of Buddhist youths are held. 1929 • The first nationwide conference of Buddhist clergy is held. 1930 • Chung’ang Buddhist Junior College is founded. • A Buddhist secret society, Mandang, is formed, with Manhae as its figurehead leader. The society exists until 1933. 1931 • Manhae writes “Record on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism.” • The Manchurian Incident breaks out. • The General League of Buddhist Youth is formed. 1931–1933 • Manhae is editor in chief of Buddhism.

Major Events

129

1933 • Manhae gives up celibacy and remarries. 1934 • Manhae’s daughter is born. 1935 • The Monastery Headquarters Movement begins. 1935–1936 • Manhae serializes his novel Black Wind in the Chosŏn Daily. 1936 • Manhae serializes his novel Remorse in the Chosŏn Chung’ang Daily. 1937 • The Sino-Japanese War begins. • Manhae serializes his novel Iron-Blood Beauty in Buddhism (New). 1937–1944 • Buddhism (New) is published. 1938–1939 • Manhae serializes his novel Ill Fate in the Chosŏn Daily. 1940 • Hyehwa Junior College is established. 1941 • The Pacific War begins. • The sangha is unified under the name of Chogye-jong. 1944 • Manhae dies. 1945 • Korea is liberated from colonial rule. • The sangha’s name is changed to Taehan Pulgyo. 1954 • The sangha’s name is changed again to Taehan Pulgyo Chogyejong, its current moniker.

APPENDIX 2

Table of Contents of the Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon) Chapter One: Introduction Chapter Two: The Characteristics of Buddhism Chapter Three: The Principle of Buddhist Teachings Chapter Four: Buddhist reforms should start from demolition. Chapter Five: Buddhist Clerics’ Education Chapter Six: Sŏn Practice Chapter Seven: The Abolition of the Chanting Halls Chapter Eight: Proselytization Chapter Nine: The Location of Buddhist Monasteries Chapter Ten: Buddhist Icons for Worship Chapter Eleven: Buddhist Rituals and Ceremonies Chapter Twelve: The restoration clerics’ status depends on their engagement in production. Chapter Thirteen: Cleric Marriage and the Future of Buddhism Chapter Fourteen: The Election of Abbots Chapter Fifteen: The Consolidation of Clerics Chapter Sixteen: The Unification of Monasteries Chapter Seventeen: Conclusion

APPENDIX 3A

Table of Contents of the Great Texts of Buddhism (Pulgyo taejŏn)

Chapter One: Introduction Chapter Two: The Essential Points of Buddhist Doctrine

1. Overview

2. The Human Mind a. The Essence of the Mind b. The Conditional Arising of the Mind 3. All Dharmas a. The Essence of All Dharmas b. The Conditional Arising of All Dharmas Chapter Three: The Buddha

1. Overview



2. The Original Vows of the Buddha



3. The Wisdom of the Buddha



4. The Compassion of the Buddha



5. The Salvific Power of the Buddha



6. The Bodies of the Buddha

Chapter Four: Faith

1. Bodhicitta [Activation of the Thought of Enlightenment]



2. The Heart of Faith



3. Yŏmbul [Recalling of the Buddha] Practice

4. Taking Refuge in the Three Jewels a. Overview b. Taking Refuge in the Buddha

132

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

c. Taking Refuge in the Teachings d. Taking Refuge in the Sangha

Chapter Five: Karmic Conditions

1. Human Bodies



2. Impermanence



3. Affliction



4. Bad Karma



5. Karmic Retribution



6. Transmigration

Chapter Six: Self-cultivation 1. Learning a. Diligence in Study b. Wide Learning c. Cultivation of the Mind 2. Observing Precepts a. Overview b. Control of Desire c. Prudent Behavior d. Prudent Talking e. Abstinence from Drinking

3. Cultivation of the Mind



4. Confidence in Oneself

5. Practicing Good Conduct a. Cultivation b. Endurance c. Diligence d. Honesty e. Charity f. Humility g. Repentance

6. Hygiene

Chapter Seven: Cultivation in Relationship 1. Home a. Overview b. Parents and Children

Great Texts of Buddhism

c. Husband and Wife d. Master and Servant

2. Teacher and Student

3. Others a. Relationship b. Grateful Attitude c. Giving d. Taking Care of the Sick e. Compassion f. Courtesy 4. Society a. Public Virtue b. Peace c. Social Classes

5. The Nation

Chapter Eight: Proselytization Chapter Nine: The Ultimate Goal

1. Enlightenment



2. Nirvana

133

APPENDIX 3B

Table of Contents of the Holy Texts of Buddhism (Bukkyō seiten)

Chapter One: Introduction Chapter Two: Faith

1. The Heart of Faith



2. Reciting the Buddha’s Name



3. Confession

Chapter Three: Action

1. Overview

2. Virtues with Regard to Oneself a. Temperance b. Prudent Talking c. Endurance d. Diligence e. Control f. Humility g. Modesty and Honesty h. Abstinence from Drinking i. Hygiene 3. Virtues in Relationship a. Grateful Attitude b. Master and Servant c. Parents and Children d. Teacher and Student e. Friends f. Husband and Wife g. Charity h. Compassion i. Taking Care of the Sick

Holy Texts of Buddhism 4. Virtues with Regard to Society a. Peace b. Public Well-being c. Social Classes 5. Virtues with Regard to the Three Jewels a. The Buddha Jewel b. The Dharma Jewel c. The Sangha Jewel d. Proselytization Chapter Four: Buddhist Doctrine 1. Myriad Beings in the Universe a. The Essence of Myriad Beings b. The Conditional Arising of Myriad Beings 2. Sentient Beings a. Impermanence b. Human Bodies c. Evil Actions d. Karmic Retribution e. Transmigration f. Enlightenment i) Enlightenment through Action ii) The Process of Enlightenment iii) Enlightenment through Faith 3. The Buddha a. The Compassion of the Buddha b. The Wisdom of the Buddha c. The Salvific Power of the Buddha d. The Bodies of the Buddha e. Nirvana

135

Bibliography

Abbreviations HYC Han Yongun chŏnjip (Collected works of Han Yongun), by Han Yongun. 6 vols. Seoul: Sin’gu Munhwasa, 1973. T Taishō shinshū daizōkyō, edited by Takakusu Junjirō, Watanabe Kaikyoku, et al. 85 vols. Tokyo: Taishō Isssaikyō Kankōkai, 1924–1934. Primary Sources Chanyuan zhuquanji duxu (Preface to the Complete explanations on the fountainhead of Chan collection). Roll 1. T 2015.48.400b.10–11. Chŏngjo sillok (Veritable records of King Chŏngjo). 54 rolls. In Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vols. 44–47. Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 1–22 (1917–1921). Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 1–19 (1912–1913). Chosŏn wangjo sillok (Veritable records of Chosŏn kings). 49 rolls. Seoul: Kuksa Pyŏnchan Wiwŏnhoe, 1983. Chungjong sillok. (Veritable records of King Chungjong). 105 rolls. In Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vols. 14–19. Dafangguangfo huayan jing. T 278.9.652c. Dai Nihon Zokuzōkyō. 750 vols. Kyoto: Zōkyō Shoin, 1905–1912. Haedong pulbo 1–8 (1913–1914). Han Yongun. “Chŏng-gyo rŭl pullip hara” (Do separate religion from politics). HYC, 2:134–145. ______. “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi kaehyŏk an” (Record on the reformation of Korean Buddhism). HYC, 2:160–169. ______. Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon. (Treatise on the reformation of Korean Buddhism). HYC, 2:33–125. ______. “Chosŏn tongnip ŭi sŏ” (A discourse on the independence of Korea). HYC, 1:354–360. ______. “Ch’unmong” (Dreams of spring). HYC, 1:239–240. ______. Han Yongun chŏnjip. 6 vols. Seoul: Sin’gu Munhwasa, 1973.

Bibliography

137

______. Han Yongun supil chip. Seoul: Samjungdang mun’go, 1985. ______. “Muncha pimuncha” (Letters, nonletters). HYC, 2:304–305. ______. “Na nŭn wae chung i toeŏnna” (Why did I become a monk?). In Han Yongun, Han Yongun supil chip, pp. 97–102. ______. “Nae ka minnŭn Pulgyo” (Buddhism that I practice). HYC, 2:288–289. ______. “Nam morŭnŭn na ŭi adŭl” (My son about whom nobody knew). HYC, 1:253. ______. Nim ŭi chimmuk (The silence of the beloved). HYC, 1:42–82. ______. “Pan chonggyo undong e taehayŏ.” HYC, 2: 278–281. ______. “Pukdaeryuk ŭi harutpam.” HYC, 1: 243–250. ______. “Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn yŏnmaeng e taehayŏ” (On the General League of Buddhist Youth). Pulgyo 86 (1931): 2–8. ______. Pulgyo taejŏn (Great texts of Buddhism). HYC, 3:19–249. ______. “Pulgyo yusinhoe: Pulgyo ŭi chach’i wa sinhwaltong ŭi p’iryo” (Association for the revitalization of Buddhism: The self-management of Buddhism and the necessity of new activities). Tonga Daily 1920; HYC, 2:132–134. ______. “Segye chonggyogye ŭi hoego” (Reflections on the international religious world). HYC, 2:272–277. ______. “Siberia kŏch’ŏ Seoul ro” (To Seoul via Siberia). HYC, 1:254–255. ______. Siphyŏndam chuhae (The annotated ten abstruse discussions). HYC, 3:333–364. ______. “Sŏkka ŭi chŏngsin” (The spirit of the Buddha). HYC, 2:291–295. ______. “Sŏn kwa insaeng” (Sŏn and life). HYC, 2:310–318. Hongzhi Chanshi guanglu. Roll 6. T 2001.48.74a.9–10. Hyŏnjong kaesu sillok (Revised veritable records of King Hyŏnjong). 28 rolls. In Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vol. 41. Hyujŏng. “Sŏn Kyo kyŏl” (Mirror for meditation students). In Tongguk University Pulgyo Chŏnsŏ Pyŏnchan Wiwŏnhoe, Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ, 7:657b–658b. ______. “Sŏn’ga kwigam.” In Tongguk University Pulgyo Chŏnsŏ Pyŏnchan Wiwŏnhoe, Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ, 7:634c–647b. Jingde chuandeng lu. Roll 29, T 2076.51.455a–c; roll 24, T 2076.51.398b.2–400a.11. Kim Sisŭp. “Siphyŏndam yohae” (The annotated ten abstruse discussions). In Tongguk University Pulgyo Chŏnsŏ Pyŏnchan Wiwŏnhoe, Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ, vol. 7. Koryŏ sa (Historical records of Koryŏ). 137 vols. Compiled in 1451 by Chŏng Inji et al. P’yŏngang: Sahoe kwahagwŏn kojŏn yŏn’gusil, 1962. Reprint, Seoul: Sinsŏwŏn, 1991. Kyŏngguk taejŏn (National code). Seoul: Seoul Taehakkyo Kyujanggak, 1997.

138

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Liushisong ruli lun. T 1575.30.254b–256a. Myŏngjong sillok (Veritable records of King Myŏngjong). 34 rolls. In Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vols. 19–21. Pulgyo 1–108 (1924–1933). Pulgyo (Sin) 1–67 (1937–1944). Pulgyo chinhŭnghoe wŏlbo 4 (1915). Sejong sillok (Veritable records of King Sejong). 163 rolls. In Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vols. 2–6. Song Gaoseng zhuan. 13 rolls. T 2061.50.788a.18–b.16. Sŏngjong sillok (Veritable records of King Sŏngjong). 297 rolls. In Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vols. 8–12. T’aejo sillok (Veritable records of King T’aejo). 15 rolls. In Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vol. 1. T’aejong sillok (Veritable records of King T’aejong). 36 rolls. In Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vols. 1–2. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō, edited by Takakusu Junjirō, Watanabe Kaikyoku, et al. 85 vols. Tokyo: Taishō Isssaikyō Kankōkai, 1924–1934. Tonga Daily. Tongguk University Pulgyo Chŏnsŏ Pyŏnchan Wiwŏnhoe, ed. Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ. Vol. 7. Seoul: Tongguk University Press, 1984. Weimojie suoshuo jing. T 475.14.537a–557b. Yŏnsan’gun ilgi (Veritable records of Prince Yŏnsan’gun). 63 rolls. In Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vols. 12–14. Secondary Sources An Kyehyŏn. “Samil undong kwa Pulgyo-kye ŭi tonghyang.” In Pulgyo Sahakhoe, Kŭndae Han’guk Pulgyo saron. An Pyŏngjik. “Manhae Han Yongun ŭi tongnip sasang.” In Han Yongun sasang yŏn’gu, edited by Manhae Sasang Yŏn’guhoe. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1980. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. 1981. Rev. ed., London: Verso, 1983. Aoyanagi Nanmei. Chosen shukyo shi. Keijo: Chōsen Kenkyukai, 1911. Bond, George Doherty. The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka: Religious Tradition, Reinterpretation, and Response. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988. Brière, O. Fifty Years of Chinese Philosophy, 1898–1950, trans. Laurence G. Thompson. London: Allen and Unwin, 1956. Buswell, Robert E., Jr. “Imagining ‘Korean Buddhism.’” In Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity, edited by Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R. Tangherlini, pp. 73–107. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 1998.

Bibliography

139

______. Tracing Back the Radiance: Chinul’s Korean Way of Zen. Classics in East Asian Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1991. ______. The Zen Monastic Experience: Buddhist Practice in Contemporary Korea. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992. Cho Chonghyŏn. “Pulgyoin ŭro sŏui Manhae” (Manhae as a Buddhist). HYC, 2:12–30. Cho, Hakyu. “The Ideal of Religion.” Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 12 (1918): 27–31. ______. “The Origin of Religion.” Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 9 (1918): 43–51. ______. “Religion and Knowledge.” Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 19 (1920): 38–40. Cho Kwang. Han’guk Ch’ŏnjugyo 200-nyŏn. Seoul: Haetbit Press, 1989. Cho Myŏnggi. “Manhae Han Yongun ŭi chŏsŏ wa sasang.” HYC, 3:10–18. Ch’oe Namsŏn. “Chosŏn Pulgyo: Tongbang munhwasa-sang e it nŭn kŭ chiwi” (Korean Buddhism and its place in Asian cultural history). Pulgyo 74 (1930): 1–51. Ch’oe Pyŏnghŏn. “Ilche Pulgyo ŭi Ch’imt’u wa Han Yongun ŭi Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon.” In Chinsan Han Kidu hwagap kinyŏm Han’guk chonggyo sasang ŭi chae chomyŏng, edited by Chinsan Han Kidu Hwagap Kinyŏm Wiwŏnhoe, pp. 451–458. Iri, Chŏlla-pukto: Wŏn’gwang University Press, 1993. Chŏn Posam. “Han Yongun ŭi Hwaŏm sasang yŏn’gu: Pulgyo taejŏn ŭl chungsim ŭro.” In Hanguk Pulgyohak kwan’gye hagwi nonmunjip, vol. 5. Seoul: Pulgyohak Yŏn’gu Hoe, 1984. Chŏng Kwangho. “Ilche ŭi chonggyo chŏngch’aek kwa singminji Pulgyo.” In Pulgyo Sahakhoe, Kŭndae Han’guk Pulgyo saron. Chŏng Kwangjin. “Pulgyo sahak yŏn’gu.” Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 14 (1919): 26–32; 15 (1919): 42–54. Chŏng Sunil. “Han Yongun ŭi Pulgyo sasang.” In Han’guk kŭndae chonggyo sasangsa Sungsan Pak Kilchin paksa kohŭi kinyŏm, edited by Sungsan Pak Kilchin Paksa Kohŭi Kinyŏm Saŏphoe. Iri, Chŏlla-pukto: Wŏn’gwang University Press, 1984. Chōsen Kaikyō Kantoku-fu, ed. Chōsen kaikyō gojūnen-shi. Keijo: Chōsen Kaikyō Kantoku-fu, 1928. Chōsen Sōtoku, ed. Shisei nijūgonenshi. Keijo: Chōsen Sōtoku, 1935. Christie, Clive J. A Modern History of Southeast Asia: Decolonization, Nationalism, and Separatism. London: Tauris Academic Studies, 1996. Clark, C. A. The Korean Church and the Nevius Method. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1930. Collcutt, Martin. “Buddhism: The Threat of Eradication.” In Japan in Transition, from Tokugawa to Meiji, edited by Marius B. Jansen and

140

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Gilbert Rozman, pp. 143–167. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986. Davis, Winston. “Buddhism and the Modernization of Japan.” History of Religions 28, no. 4 (1989): 304–339. De Silva, K. M. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Doak, Kevin M. “Nationalism as Dialectics.” In Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, and the Question of Nationalism, edited by James W. Heisig and John C. Maraldo. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1995. Duus, Peter. The Abacus and the Sword: The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895–1910. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Eda Toshio. Chōsen Bukkyoshi no kenkyū. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1977. Em, Henry. “The Nationalist Discourse in Modern Korea: Minjok as a Democratic Imaginary.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1995. Feenberg, Andrew. “The Problem of Modernity in the Philosophy of Nishida.” In Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, and the Question of Nationalism, edited by James W. Heisig and John C. Maraldo. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1995. Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism: New Perspectives on the Past. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, 1983. Gombrich, Richard Francis, and Gananath Obeyesekere. Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988. Grayson, James Huntley. Korea: A Religious History. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1989. ______. “Religion, Nationalism, and State Policy: The Conflict between Christianity and State Shinto in Colonial Korea, 1910–1945.” Japan Christian Review 60 (1994): 111–123. Greenfeld, Liah. “Transcending the Nation’s Worth.” Daedalus 122, no. 3 (Summer 1993): 47–62. Han Chongman. “Han Yongun ŭi Siphyŏndam chuhae esŏ pon chilligwan kwa Sŏn’gwan.” In Han Yongun sasang yŏn’gu, edited by Manhae Sasang Yŏn’guhoe. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1980. ______. Han’guk kŭndae minjung Pulgyo ŭi inyŏm kwa chŏn’gae. Seoul: Han’gilsa, 1980. ______. “Maewŏltang Kim Sisŭp ŭi Pulgyo sasang.” In Han’guk munhwa wa Wŏn Pulgyo sasang, edited by Munsan Kim Samnyong Paksa Hwagap Kinyŏm Saŏphoe, pp. 1–33. Iri, Chŏlla-pukto: Wŏn’gwang University Press, 1985. Han Kidu. “Pulgyo yusillon kwa Pulgyo hyŏksillon.” In Han Chongman, Han’guk kŭndae minjung Pulgyo ŭi inyŏm kwa chŏn’gae.

Bibliography

141

Han Yŏngje. Han’guk Kidokkyo sŏngjang 100-nyŏn. Seoul: Kidokkyomusa, 1986. Hirata, Seiko. “Zen Buddhist Attitudes to War.” In Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, and the Question of Nationalism, edited by James W. Heisig and John C. Maraldo. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1995. Hwang Wŏn’gu. “Yijo yehak ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwajŏng.” Tongbang hakchi 6 (1963). Hyegŭn. “Pyŏnja nŭn Pulgyo ŭi kongni ron” (Changes are the public principles of Buddhism). Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 11–19 (1912–1913). Im Hyebong. Ch’inil Pulgyoron. Vols. 1–2. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1993. ______. Ch’inil sŭngnyŏ 108-in. Paju, Kyŏnggido: Ch’ŏngnyŏnsa, 2005. In Kwŏnhwan. “Han Yongun sosŏl yŏn’gu ŭi munjejŏm kwa kŭ panghyang.” In Han Yongun sasang yŏn’gu, edited by Manhae Sasang Yŏn’guhoe. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1981. Ives, Christopher. “Ethical Pitfalls in Imperial Zen and Nishida Philosophy: Ichikawa Hakugen’s Critique.” In Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, and the Question of Nationalism, edited by James W. Heisig and John C. Maraldo. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1995. Jaffe, Richard Mark. Neither Monk nor Layman: Clerical Marriage in Modern Japanese Buddhism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001. ______. “Neither Monk nor Layman: The Debate over Clerical Marriage in Japanese Buddhism, 1868–1937.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1995. Jirō Iinuma. Nihon teikoku-shugika no Chōsen dendō. Tokyo: Nihon Kirisuto Kyōdan Shuppankyoku, 1985. Jones, Charles Brewer. Buddhism in Taiwan: Religion and the State, 1660– 1990. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1999. Kang, Man’gil. “Contemporary Nationalist Movements and the Minjung.” In Wells, South Korea’s Minjung Movement, pp. 31–38. Kang Sŏkchu, and Pak Kyŏnghun. Pulgyo kŭnse paengnyŏn. Seoul: Chungang Ilbo, 1980. Kang Ŭisin. “Kyogye chapgam ilsok” (Miscellaneous thoughts on the Korean Buddhist order). Pulgyo 5 (1924): 14–20. Kang, Wi Jo. Religion and Politics in Korea under the Japanese Rule. Studies in Asian Thought and Religion 5. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987. ______. “The Secularization of Korean Buddhism under the Japanese Colonialism.” Korea Journal 19, no. 7 (1979): 42–47. Kaya-napcha. “Paeŭn mangdŏk” (Being ungrateful). Pulgyo 23 (1926): 30–35.

142

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Ketelaar, James Edward. Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990. Kim Chisun. “Sŏng’ŭn ŭro sabŏp in’ga” (The temple law was approved by the gracious Japanese emperor). Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 10 (1912): 2–4. Kim Chonggyun. “Han Yongun ŭi hansi wa sijo.” In Han Yongun sasang yŏn’gu, edited by Manhae Sasang Yŏn’guhoe. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1980. Kim Chŏnghae. “Kuch’ejŏk han yŏnhap chedo ŭi p’iryo rŭl non ham” (A detailed discussion on the necessity of a united system). Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 19 (1920): 3–10. ______. “Pulgyo ch’ŏrhak kaeron.” Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 15–22 (1919–1921). ______. “Yŏksa sang e hyŏnha nŭn Chosŏn sŭngnyŏ wa oeguk p’ogyo ŭi kach’i” (Korean monks as they appear in history and the importance of propagation to foreign countries). Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 9 (1918): 36–42. Kim Kapchu. “Chosŏn sidae sawŏn kyŏngje ŭi ch’ŭi.” In Han’guk Pulgyosa ŭi chaejomyŏng. Seoul: Pulgyo Sidaesa, 1994. ______. Chosŏn sidae sawŏn kyŏngje yŏn’gu. Seoul: Tonghwa Ch’ulp’ansa, 1983. Kim Kwangsik. “Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn hoe ŭi sachŏk koch’al” (Historical review of the history of the Youth Association of Korean Buddhism). Han’guk Pulgyohak 19 (1994). ______. Han’guk kŭndae Pulgyosa yŏn’gu. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1996. ______. “A Study of Han Yong-un’s ‘On the Reform of Korean Buddhism.’” Korea Journal 45, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 64–86. Kim Kwanho. “Manhae ka namgin irhwa” (Anecdotal stories that Manhae left). HYC, 6:356–381. Kim Kyŏngjip. Han’guk kŭndae Pulgyo-sa (History of modern Korean Buddhism). Seoul: Kyŏngsŏwŏn, 1998. Kim Kyosik. Han Yongun. Seoul: Kyesŏng Ch’ulp’ansa, 1984. Kim Pŏmnin. “Chŏng-gyo pullip e taehayŏ” (About the separation between politics and religion). Pulgyo 100 (1932): 16–22. ______. “Samil undong kwa Manhae” (The March First Movement and Manhae). HYC, 4:414–415. Kim P’ogwang. “Chongjo chongmyŏng ŭi chirŭi e taehayŏ” (On questions regarding the founding patriarch and the name of the sect). Pulgyo (Sin) 61 (1944): 4–11. ______. “Chosŏn Pulgyo chongji e taehaya” (Regarding the essential teachings of Korean Buddhism). Pulgyo 105 (1933): 7–15. ______. “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi t’ŭksaek” (The special characteristics of Korean Buddhism). Pulgyo 100 (1932): 29–34.

Bibliography

143

Kim Pyŏgong. “Chosŏn Pulgyo kiu-ron” (Article on worrying about Korean Buddhism). Pulgyo 32 (1927): 23–26. ______. “Chosŏn Pulgyo kiu-ron, II” (Article on worrying about Korean Buddhism, 2) Pulgyo 33 (1927): 20–25. Kim Sŭngt’ae, ed. Ilche kangjŏmgi chonggyo chŏngch’aeksa charyojip: Kidokkyo p’yŏn, 1919–1945 (Source material on the religious policies during the colonial period: On Protestantism, 1919–1945). Seoul: Han’guk Kidokkyo Yŏksa Yŏn’guso, 1996. Kim Sunsŏk. Ilchesidae Chosŏn Ch’ongdokbu ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’aek kwa Pulgyogye ŭi taeŭng. Seoul: Kyŏngin Munhwasa, 2003. Kim T’aehŭp. “Chonggyo wa sahoe saŏp ŭi yŏn’gu.” Pulgyo 25–49 (1926–1928). ______. “Chosŏn Pulgyodo wa sinnyŏn ŭi kaksŏng” (Korean Buddhists and New Year’s resolutions). Pulgyo 43 (1928): 2–7. ______. “Pulgyo p’ogyo e taehayŏ” (On Buddhist proselytization). Pulgyo 100 (1932): 23–28. Kim Ugi. “16 segi wisin chŏngch’igi ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’aek.” Chosŏnsa yŏn’gu 3 (1994): 5–9. ______. “Chosŏn Chungjongdae Kim Anro chipkwŏngi ŭi chedo kaep’yŏn kwa kŭ sŏngkyŏk.” Chosŏn-sa yŏn’gu 1 (1992). Kim Yŏlgyu, and Sin Tonguk, eds. Han Yongun yŏn’gu. Seoul: Saemunsa, 1982. Kim Yŏngsu. “Chosŏn Pulgyo t’onghal e taehaesŏ” (On the centralization of Korean Buddhism). Pulgyo 91 (1932): 12–16. Kim Yŏngt’ae, “Chosŏn sŏn’ga ŭi pŏpt’ong ko.” In Han’guk Chogye-jong ŭi sŏngnip sa yŏn’gu, edited by Pulgyo Sakakhoe. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1986. ______. “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi chongt’ong chongmaek.” In Han’guk kŭnndae chonggyo sasang sa, edited by Sungsan Pak Kilchin Paksa Hwagap Kinyŏm Wiwŏnhoe, pp. 1–20. Iri, Chŏlla-pukto: Wŏn’gwang University Press, 1984. Kitagawa, Joseph Mitsuo. Religion in Japanese History. Lectures on the History of Religions. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. Ko Ŭn. Han Yongun p’yŏngjŏn. Seoul: Minŭmsa, 1975. Kwŏn Kijong. “Chosŏn sidae.” In Han’guk Pulgyo ch’ongnam, edited by Han’guk Pulgyo Ch’ongnam Pyŏnchan Wiwŏnhoe, pp. 98–102. Seoul: Taehan Pulgyo Chinhŭnghoe, 1993. Kwŏn Sangno. “Chogye-jong.” Pulgyo 58 (1929): 2–10. ______. “Chosŏn esŏ charip han chongp’a” (Unique Buddhist sects developed in Korea). Pulgyo 54–61 (1928–1929). ______. “Chosŏn Pulgyo kaehyŏknon” (Article on the reformation of Korean Buddhism). Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 3–18 (1912–1913).

144

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

______. Chosŏn Pulgyo yaksa. Seoul: Sinmun’gwan, 1917. Lai, Whalen. “Sinitic Mandalas: The Wu-wei-t’u of Ts’ao-shan.” In Early Ch’an in China and Tibet, Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series 5, edited by Lewis R. Lancaster and Whalen Lai. Fremont, Calif.: Asian Humanities Press, 1983. Lancaster, Lewis R., and Sung-bae Park. The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Lee, Ki-baik. A History of Korea. Translated by Edward Wagner. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984. Lee, Peter H., trans. The Silence of Love: Twentieth-Century Korean Poetry. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1980. ______, ed. Sourcebook of Korean Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Malalgoda, Kitsiri. Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, 1750–1900: A Study of Religious Revival and Change. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Manhae Sasang Yon’guhoe, ed. Han Yongun sasang yon’gu. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1980. Masutani, Fumio, and Undō Yoshimichi. “Buddhism.” In Japanese Religion in the Meiji Era, edited by Hideo Kishimoto, vol. 2, pp. 101–169. Tokyo: Ōbunsha, 1956. Minjok Pulgyo Yŏn’gu Hoe, ed. Han’guk Pulgyo chongdan chojik silt’ae chosa pogosŏ Seoul: Han’guk Ch’ŏngnyŏn Sŭngga Hoe, 1986. Minjok Pulgyo Yŏn’guso, ed. Pulgyo kwangye tosŏ nonmun mongnok. Seoul: Taewŏnjŏngsa, 1986. Min Kyŏngbae. Ilcheha ŭi Han’guk Kidokkyo minjok sinang undongsa. Seoul: Taehan Kidokkyosŏhoe, 1991. Mok, Jeong-bae. “Buddhism in Modern Korea.” Korea Journal 33, no. 3 (Autumn 1993): 23–49. ______. “Han Yong-un and Buddhism.” Korea Journal 19, no. 12 (December 1979): 19–27. ______. “Kŭn Hyŏndae.” In Han’guk Pulgyo ch’ongnam, edited by Han’guk Pulgyo Ch’ongnam P’yŏnch’an Wiwŏn Hoe. Seoul: Taehan Pulgyo Chinhŭng Wŏn, 1993. Mongjŏngsaeng. “Wigi e chingmyŏn han Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi wŏnin koch’al” (Investigation into the causes of the crisis in Korean Buddhism). Part 1: Pulgyo 100 (1932): 52–56. Part 2: Pulgyo 101–102 (1932): 24–29. Nam Toyŏng. “Kŭndae Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk hwaltong.” In Pulgyo Sahakhoe, Kŭndae Han’guk Pulgyo saron. Nanjō Bun’yu, and Maeda Eun. Bukkyō seiten. Tokyo: Sanseidō, 1905.

Bibliography

145

No Kwŏnyong. “Pak Hanyŏng ŭi Pulgyo sasang kwa yusin undong.” In Han’guk kŭndae chonggyo sasang sa Sungsan Pak Kilchin paksa kohŭi kinyŏm, edited by Sungsan Pak Kilchin Paksa Kohŭi Kinyŏm Saŏphoe. Iri, Chŏlla-pukto: Wŏn’gwang University Press, 1984. O Chaeyŏng. “Pulgyo pogŭp e taehan ŭigyŏn” (My thoughts on the promulgation of Buddhism). Haedong pulbo 7 (1914): 50–59. Obong-sanin. “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi hyŏnan ŭl haegyŏl hara” (Let’s solve the impending problems of Korean Buddhism). Pulgyo 7 (1925): 16–18. ______. “Chosŏn Pulgyo ŭi kyoyuk pangch’im ŭl hwangnip hara” (Let’s stabilize the educational policies for Korean Buddhism). Pulgyo 2 (1924): 1–4. Paek Ch’ŏl. “Siin Han Yongun ŭi sosŏl.” HYC, 5:6–16. Paek Sŏng’uk. “Pulgyo sunjŏn ch’ŏrhak.” Pulgyo 7–14 (1925–1925). Pak, Kyŏng-hun. “Buddhism in Modern Korea.” Korea Journal 21, no. 8 (August 1981): 32–40. Pak Kyŏngsun. “Chibang hangnim e taehan kwan’gyŏn” (My thoughts on local preparatory schools). Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 19 (1919): 10–22. Pak Nosun, and In Kwŏnhwan. Han Yongun yŏn’gu. Seoul: T’ongmunsa, 1960. Pak Yunjin. “Pulgyo chapchi che paekho kinyŏm sa” (Celebrating the magazine Buddhism’s hundredth anniversary). Pulgyo 100 (1932): 85–88. Pang Hanam. “Haedong ch’ojo e taehaya” (Regarding the founding patriarch of Korean Buddhism). Pulgyo 70 (1930): 7–11. Pulgyo Sahakhoe, ed. Kŭndae Han’guk Pulgyo saron. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1988. Queen, Christopher S., and Sallie B. King, eds. Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. Robinson, Michael Edson. “National Identity and the Thought of Sin Ch’aeho: Sadaejuŭi and Chuch’e in History and Politics.” Journal of Korean Studies 5 (1984): 121–142. Rozman, Gilbert, and Thomas P. Bernstein, eds. The Modernization of China. New York: Free Press, 1989. Sakai, Naoki. “Modernity and Its Critique: The Problem of Universalism and Particularism.” South Atlantic Quarterly 87, no. 3 (Summer 1988). Sambo Hakhoe, ed. Han’guk kŭnse Pulgyo paengnyŏnsa. Vols. 1–2. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1994. Schwartz, Benjamin Isadore. In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West. Harvard East Asian Series. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1964.

146

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms

Sharf, Robert H. “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience.” Numen 42, no. 3 (1995): 228–283. ______. “Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited.” In Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, and the Question of Nationalism, edited by James W. Heisig and John C. Maraldo. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1995. ______. “The Zen of Japanese Nationalism.” In Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism, edited by Donald S. Lopez. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Shim, Jae-ryong. “On the General Characteristics of Korean Buddhism: Is Korean Buddhism Syncretic?” Seoul Journal of Korean Studies 2 (1989): 147–157. Shin, Gi-Wook, and Michael Edson Robinson. Colonial Modernity in Korea. Harvard East Asian Monographs. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Asia Center, 1999. Shinpo Zoji. “Chōsen nite Kirisuto-kyō no katsudō” (The activities of Christianity in Korea). 1940. In Kim Sŭngt’ae, Ilche kangjŏmgi chonggyo chŏngch’aeksa charyojip. Sŏ Chŏngmin. “Ilche ha Ilbon Kidokkyo ŭi Han’guk insik: Sinang kwa minjok ŭi kwangye rŭl chungsim ŭro.” Ph.D. diss., Yonsei University, 1999. Sŏ Kyŏng-su. “Ilche ŭi Pulgyo chŏngch’aek.” In Pulgyo Sahakhoe, Kŭndae Han’guk Pulgyo saron. Sŏnu toryang Han’guk Pulgyokŭnhyŏndaesa Yŏn’guhoe, ed. Sinmun ŭro pon Han’guk Pulgyo kŭnhyŏndaesa. Vol. 1. Seoul: Sŏnu Toryang Ch’ulp’anbu, 1995. Sørensen, Henrik. “Korean Buddhist Journals during Early Japanese Colonial Rule.” Korea Journal 30 (January 1990): 17–27. Stone, Jackie. “A Vast and Grave Task: Interwar Buddhist Studies as an Expression of Japan’s Envisioned Global Role.” In Culture and Identity: Japanese Intellectuals during the Interwar Years, edited by J. Thomas Rimer and Joint Committee on Japanese Studies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990. Takahashi Tōru. Richō Bukkyō, Richō Bukkyō. 1929. Reprint, Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1973. Tamamuro Taijō, ed. Nihon Bukkyō shi. Vol. 3. Kyoto: Hozokan, 1967. Uusaeng. “Pulgyo kyoyuk saŏp e taehayŏ” (About the policy of Buddhist education). Pulgyo 20 (1926): 3–6. Verdu, Alfonso. Dialectical Aspects in Buddhist Thought: Studies in SinoJapanese Mahāyāna Idealism. University of Kansas East Asian Series 8. New York: Paragon Book Gallery, 1974. Victoria, Daizen. Zen at War. New York: Weatherhill, 1997.

Bibliography

147

Welch, Holmes. The Buddhist Revival in China. Harvard East Asian Series. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968. Wells, Kenneth M. New God, New Nation: Protestants and Self-Reconstruction Nationalism in Korea, 1896–1937. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1990. ______. South Korea’s Minjung Movement: The Culture and Politics of Dissidence. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1995. Wright, Arthur F. “Buddhism in Modern and Contemporary China.” In Religion and Change in Contemporary Asia, edited by Robert F. Spencer, pp. 14–26. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971. Yang Ŭnyong. “Kŭndae Pulgyo kaehyŏk undong.” In Han’guk sasangsa taegye, vol. 7, pp. 139–175. Sŏngnam, Kyŏnggi-do: Chŏngsin Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn, 1994. ______. “Kwŏn Sangno Pulgyo kaehyŏk sasang ŭi yŏn’gu.” In Han’guk chonggyo sasang ŭi chaejomyŏng, edited by Chinsan Han Kidu Paksa Hwagap Kinyŏm Saŏphoe. Iri, Chŏlla-pukto: Wŏn’gwang University Press, 1993. Yi Chaech’ang. Han’guk Pulgyo sawŏn kyŏngje yŏn’gu. Seoul: Pulgyo Sidaesa, 1993. Yi Chigwang. “Pulgyo yullihak.” Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 9, 10, 12, 13 (1918). Yi Chongch’ŏn. “Pulgyo wa ch’ŏrhak.” Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 9, 12, 13 (1918). Yi Hongsŏng. “Pulgyo simnihak.” Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 9, 10, 12, 13 (1918). Yi Kyŏngsun. “Ilchesidae Pulgyo yuhaksaeng ŭi tonghyang.” Sŭngga kyoyuk 2 (October 1998): 252–297. Yi Nŭnghwa. Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa. Vols. 1–3. 1918. Reprint, Seoul: Kyŏnghŭi Ch’ulp’ansa, 1968. ______. “Chosŏn Pulgyogye p’ogyo sŏjŏk e kwanhan kwan’gyŏn.” Pulgyo chinhŭnghoe wŏlbo 8 (1915): 2–6. ______. “Sŏn Kyo Yangjong kwa kanghak p’ogyo.” Pulgyo chinhŭnghoe wŏlbo 7 (1915): 1–6. Yŏm Muung. “Manhae Han Yongun non.” In Han Yongun sasang yŏn’gu, edited by Manhae Sasang Yŏn’guhoe. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1980. Yoshikawa Buntaro. Chōsen no shukyo. Keijo: Chōsen Insatsu Kabushiki Kaisha, 1921. Yu, Beongcheon. Han Yong-un and Yi Kwang-su: Two Pioneers of Modern Korean Literature. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992.

Glossary-Index

Persons Ānanda (Indian patriarch), 82n Bacon, Francis, 52 Bodhidharma (Indian patriarch), 82n Chin Chinŭng (monk), 38, 98 Chinul 知訥 (1158–1210; monk), 82, 113 Cho Hagyu (Buddhist cleric), 60, 65, 66, 71, 77 Ch’oe Namsŏn (1880–1957; historian), 85, 119 Ch’oe Pŏmsul (Buddhist cleric), 77 Chŏng Inbo (1892–1950; intellectual), 102 Chŏng Kwangjin (Buddhist cleric), 60, 65, 71 Chŏnghŭi (1418–1483; queen dowager), 21 Chungjong (king, r. 1506–1544), 16, 17 Descartes, René, 52 Fayan Wenyi (885–958; patriarch), 111 Han Ch’angsu (official), 9 Han Yongun 韓龍雲 (Manhae 卍海; 1879–1944; reformer), 11, 38, 50, 51–56, 65, 73, 93, 94, 95ff, 123–125 Hisamatsu Sin’ichi (1889–1980; philosopher), 24, 114 Hŏ Yŏngho (youth leader), 77, 80, 119 Hong Yingming (monk), 98n Huineng (patriarch), 82n Hwaŏm 華嚴 (C. Huayan) school, 85 Hyepy’ŏn (monk), 85

Hyŏngjong (king, r. 1659–1674), 17 Hyujŏng (1520–1604; sectarian founder), 38, 82, 82n, 84, 113–114 Ichikawa Hakugen (1902–1986), 114 Im Sŏkchin, 71 Kagŏm (patriarch), 82 Kang Taeryŏn (abbot), 72 Kant, Immanuel, 52 Katō Kiyomasa (J. commander), 27 Kim Chŏnghae (monk), 60, 65, 67, 85 Kim Hyŏnam (general director), 37 Kim Kyŏngju (youth leader), 73, 80 Kim Kyosik, 95 Kim Kyuhyŏn, 71 Kim P’ogwang (youth leader), 73, 82, 86 Kim Pŏmnin, 60, 73, 77, 99 Kim Pyŏgong (cleric), 89 Kim Sangho (youth leader), 77, 80 Kim Sanghŏn, 99 Kim Sisŭp (1435–1493), 111 Kim T’aehŭp (youth leader), 65, 73, 80, 89, 119 Kim T’aehwan, 71 Kim Yŏngju, 60 Kim Yŏn’gok (monk), 96, 96n, 97 Ko Ŭn (poet), 95 Kojong (king, r. 1864–1907), 43 Kropotkin, Pyotr Alexeyevich, 77 Kwigok (patriarch), 82 Kwŏn Chunghyŏn (official), 9 Kwŏn Sangno 權相老 (1879–1965; intellectual), 50, 51, 61, 82, 84, 85, 119 Liang Qichao 梁啓超 (1873–1929; intellectual), 49, 52, 97

Glossary-Index Maeda Eun (J. Shin Buddhist), 105 Mahakāśyapa (Indian patriarch), 82n Man’gong (1871–1946; Sŏn master), 102 Min (queen), assassination of, 37 Munjŏng (queen dowager, r. 1546– 1555), 16, 17, 18, 21 Nanjō Bun’yū (Shin Buddhist), 105 Naong Hyegŭn 懶翁慧根 (1320–1376; sectarian founder), 38, 50, 82 Nishida Kitaro (1870–1945; philosopher), 4, 24 Nishitani Keiji (1900–1990; philosopher), 24 Obong-sanin (“Person Living on Mount Obong”; monk), 67 Okumura Enshin (1843–1913; monk), 25 Olcott, Henry Steel, 4 Ōtani Kōshō (1871–1894; J. bureaucrat), 25 Paek Sŏng’uk (youth leader), 60, 65, 73, 99 Paek Yongsŏng 白龍城 (1864–1940; monk), 51 Pak Hanyŏng 朴漢永 (1870–1948; monk), 37, 38, 51, 61, 71, 94, 98, 102 Pak Yunjin (youth leader), 80 Pang Hanam (1876–1951; Sŏn master), 94 Park Yŏnghyo (official), 9 Puhyu (1543–1615; sectarian founder), 38 Pyŏkkye (patriarch), 82 Śākyamuni Buddha, 54 Śanakavāsa (Indian patriarch), 82n Sano Zenrei (J. monk), 34, 35 Sejo (king, r. 1455–1468), 16, 17, 20, 21, 111n Sejong (king, r. 1418–1450), 16, 17, 18, 20 Shimaji Mokurai (Japanese Buddhist), 23 Shiwu Qinggong 石屋淸珙 (1271– 1351; Chinese monk), 38

149 Sin Ch’aeho 申采浩 (1880–1936), 76, 77 Sŏ Wŏrhwa (Chinha; monk), 97 “Sobaek Tuta” (monk), 51 Song Wŏlch’o (monk), 37 Sŏngjong (king, r. 1469–1494), 16, 17, 21 Spencer, Herbert, 49, 77 Suzuki, D. T. (1870–1966; philosopher), 24, 114 Taegam (1070–1159; national master), 82 T’aego Pou 太古普愚 (1301–1383; sectarian founder), 38, 82, 83, 84 T’aehŏ (master), 97 T’aejong (king, r. 1400–1418), 15 Takeda Hanshi, 37 Tamhye (monk), 85 Terauchi Masatake (J. governorgeneral), 30–31, 46 To Chinho (youth leader), 73 Tongan Changchu (d.u.; Caotong monk), 98n, 110 Toryung (monk), 85 Toŭi (d. 825; patriarch), 82 Toyotomi Hideyoshi (J. dictator), 25 Ŭich’ŏn of Koryo (1055–1101), 83 Ŭisang (625–702), 85, 86 Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686; monk), 12, 85, 86 Yan Fu 嚴復 (1853–1921; intellectual), 49 Yi Chigwang (monk), 60, 63 Yi Chongch’ŏn, 60 Yi Chonguk (youth leader), 80, 119 Yi Hagam (monk), 97 Yi Hoegwang (supreme patriarch), 37 Yi Honsŏng (monk), 60, 65 Yi Hwang (1501–1570; scholar), 21 Yi I (1536–1584; scholar), 21 Yi Kogyŏng, 71 Yi Nŭnghwa (1869–1943; editor), 32, 62, 82, 84, 84n Yi Podam, 37 Yi Sŏnggye (T’aejo; king, r. 1392– 1398), 15, 16, 18

150 Yi Sungman (regime; 1948–1960), 125 Yi Wanyong (official), 9 Yi Yongjo, 77, 91n Yŏnsan’gun (king, r. 1494–1506), 16, 17 Yun Chaeyŏng (editor), 105 Yun Sanguk (governor), 19 Buddhist terms, English-Korean abandoning the idea of going home (p’ahwanhyang 破還鄕), 110 abstruse capacity (hyŏngi 玄機), 110 activation of the thought of enlightenment (palsim 發心), 107 association (tonggap-gye 同甲契), 20 Buddhism, bureaucratic (kwanje Pulgyo 官制佛敎), 75 Buddhism, ecumenical/unified (t’ong Pulgyo 通佛敎), 85, 92, 119 Buddhism for monks (sŭngnyŏ Pulgyo 僧侶佛敎), 22 Buddhism for securing worldly desires (kibok Pulgyo 祈福佛敎), 22 Buddhism for the masses (minjung Pulgyo 民衆佛敎), 10, 69, 75, 77, 85, 92, 99, 114, 118, 120, 123, 125; defined, 101 Buddhism for the protection of the nation (hoguk Pulgyo 護國佛敎), 121 Buddhism for women (ch’ima Pulgyo 치마佛敎), 22 Buddhism, mountain (san’gan Pulgyo 山間佛敎), 22 Buddhism, New (shin Bukkyō 新佛 敎), 24, 114 Buddhist clergy (sŭngnyŏ taehoe 僧侶 大會), 73–75 Buddhist teachers’ college (Pulgyo sabŏm hakkyo 佛敎師範學校), 57 Buddhist youths (Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn taehoe 佛敎靑年聯盟), 73 capacity of returning (hoegi 廻機), 110–111 center (zheng 正),110, 117 change (yusin 維新), 14

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms clerical students (Pulgyo hagin taehoe 佛敎學人大會), 73 civilized times (munmyŏng sidae 文明 時代), 14 comments (pi 批), 111 community compact (hyangyak 鄕約), 21 conditional arising (yŏn’gi 緣起), 106 “critical phrase” (hwadu 話頭; C. gongan, 公安 J. koan), 97 dead (sŏn, sa-sŏn 死禪), 109 demolition (p’agoe 破壞), 52 dharma, 106, dharma-body, 108n, dharma-wheel, 111 doctrinal instructors, Japanese (kyōdōshoku 敎導職), 23 doctrine (kyo 敎), 12, 82, 94, 104, 105, 124 educational academy (kakchong hakkyo 各種學校), 57 enhancing the stage (chŏnwi 轉位), 110 enlightened times (kaemyŏng sidae 開明時代), 14 essence (ch’e 體), 106 essential teachings (chongji 宗旨), 82 extending the teachings (yŏn’gyo 演敎), 110 five positions (wuwei 五位), 110 five positions of the absolute and relative (zhengpian wuwei 正偏 五位), 110 flowers in the sky (konghua 空華), 107 founding patriarch (chongjo 宗祖), 81 government reports (kwanbo 官報), 62 great-death (taesa 大死), 110 great-life (taehwal 大活), 109 head monastery (tae pŏbsan 大法山), 43 high-quality hemp (chŏngp’o 正布), 17 live-sŏn (hwal-sŏn 活禪), 109 main monastery (ponsan 本山), 44 meditation (sŏn 禪), 12, 53, 82, 94, 96, 98, 104, 105, 109–115, 124

Glossary-Index meditation halls (sŏndang 禪堂), 56 mind only (yusim 唯心), 103 mind seal (simin 心印), 110, 112 monastery lands (sawŏnjŏn 寺院田), 15 monk-license identification system (toch’ŏpche 度牒制), 16 nirvana, 101, 104, 108, 108n, 112 nonduality of phenomena (chini 塵異), 110 notes (chu 註), 111 notes (pigo 備考), 84 novice monk (Skt. saramanera); see sami off-center (pian 偏), 110, 117 one form (ilsaek 一色), 111 original self (china 眞我), 109 patriarch (chongjŏng 宗正), 37 patriarchs’ intention (choŭi 祖意), 111 pedagogy (sabŏmhak 師範學), 54 postulant (haengja 行者), 96 preaching station (p’ogyoso 布敎所), 56, 121 preparatory schools (chibang hangnim 地方學林), 58, 84, 86 principle and phenomena (lishi 理 事), 110, 117 principle of equality (p’yŏngdŭng chuŭi 平等主義), 103 principle of saving the world (kuse chuŭi 救世主義), 103 progress (chinbo 進步), 14 propagation/proselytization (p’ogyo 布敎), 7, 60, 89 public council of monasteries (sanjung kongŭi 山中公儀 or sanjung kongsa), 20, 45, 91 reaching the root (talbon 達本), 110 real person (ch’am saram 참사람), 109 rebel armies (ŭibyŏng 義兵), 35 recalling the Buddha (yŏmbul 念佛), 53, 107 references (ch’amgo 參考), 84 religion of practice (sirhaeng 實行 Pulgyo), 85

151 sangha legislation (chonghŏn 宗憲), 75, 81 sectarian name (chongmyŏng 宗名), 83 self-supporting association (kye 契), 20 separation of government and religion (chŏng-gyo pulli 政敎 分離), 62 skillful means (pangp’yŏn 方便, Skt. upāya), 55 soaring (imun dŭngdŭng 任運騰騰), 109 sublime existence (myoyu 妙有), 111 sudden awakening/gradual cultivation (tono chŏmsu 頓悟 漸修), 113 taxes (sujokwŏn 收租權), 15 temple laws (sabŏp 寺法), 42 ten time periods (sipse 十世), 112 traditional seminaries (kangdang 講堂), 57, 58 traditional seminaries (kangwŏn 講院), 86 transcending the world (ch’ulsegan 出世間), 104 true suchness (tathatā) 107, 115 trustee (chaedan pŏbin 財團法人), 72 unification of meditation and doctrine (sŏn/kyo), 12, 103ff, 114 unit of land measure (kyŏl 結), 15 vegetarian religion (zhaijiao 齋敎), 36 volumes (kwŏn 卷), 19 wide learning (pakhak 博學), 107 Buddhist terms, Korean-English chaedan pŏbin 財團法人 (trustee), 72 ch’am saram 참사람 (real person), 109 ch’amgo 參考 (references), 84 chan 禪 Buddhism (C.); see sŏn ch’e 體 (essence), 106 chibang hangnim 地方學林 (preparatory schools), 58, 84, 86 ch’ima Pulgyo 치마佛敎 (Buddhism for women), 22 china 眞我 (original self), 109

152 chinbo 進步 (progress), 14 chini 塵異 (nonduality of phenomena), 110 chŏng-gyo pulli 政敎分離 (separation of government and religion), 62 chonghŏn 宗憲 (sangha legislation), 75, 81 chongji 宗旨(essential teachings), 82 chongjo 宗祖 (founding patriarch), 81 chongjŏng 宗正 (patriarch), 37 chongmyŏng 宗名 (sectarian name), 83 chŏngp’o正布 (high-quality hemp), 17 chŏnwi 轉位 (enhancing the stage), 110 choŭi 祖意 (patriarchs’ intention), 110 chu (notes 註), 111 ch’ulsegan 出世間 (transcending the world), 104 haengja 行者 (postulant), 96 hoegi 廻機 (capacity of returning), 110–111 hoguk Pulgyo 護國佛敎 (Buddhism for the protection of the nation), 121 hwadu 話頭 (“critical phrase”; C. gongan, 公安, J. koan), 97 hwal-sŏn 活禪 (live-sŏn), 109 hyangyak 鄕約 (community compact), 21 hyŏngi 玄機 (abstruse capacity), 111 ilsaek 一色 (one form), 111 imun dŭngdŭng 任運騰騰 (soaring), 109 kaemyŏng sidae 開明時代 (enlightened times), 14 kakchong hakkyo 各種學校 (educational academy), 57 kangdang 講堂 (traditional seminaries), 57, 58 kangwŏn 講院 (traditional seminaries), 86 kibok Pulgyo 祈福佛敎 (Buddhism for securing worldly desires), 22 konghua 空華 (flowers in the sky), 107

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms kuse chuŭi 救世主義 (principle of saving the world), 103 kwanbo 官報 (government reports), 62 kwanje Pulgyo 官制佛敎 (bureaucratic Buddhism), 75 kwŏn 卷 (volumes), 19 kye 契 (self-supporting association), 20 kyo 敎 (doctrine), 12, 82, 94, 104, 105, 124 kyōdōshoku 敎導職 (J. doctrinal instructors), 23 kyŏl 結 (unit of land measure), 15 lishi 理事 (principle and phenomena), 110, 117 minjung Pulgyo 民衆佛敎 (Buddhism for the masses), 10, 69, 75, 77, 85, 92, 99, 114, 118, 120, 123, 125; defined, 101 munmyŏng sidae 文明時代 (civilized times), 14 myoyu 妙有 (sublime existence), 111 nianfo (C., “recalling the Buddha”); see yŏmbul nirvana, 108, 108n p’agoe 破壞 (demolition), 52 p’ahwanhyang 破還鄕 (abandoning the idea of going home), 110 pakhak 博學 (wide learning), 107 palsim 發心 (activation of the thought of enlightenment), 107 pangp’yŏn 方便 (skillful means), 55 pi 批 (comments), 111 pian 偏 (off-center), 110, 117 pigo 備考 (notes), 84 p’ogyo 布敎 (propagation/ proselytization), 7, 60, 89, p’ogyoso 布敎所 (preaching station), 56 ponsan 本山 (main monastery), 44 pot’ong hakkyo 普通學校, 58 pot’ong kangsuk 普通講塾, 58 Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn taehoe 佛敎靑年 聯盟 (Buddhist youths), 73 Pulgyo hagin taehoe 佛敎學人大會 (clerical students), 73

Glossary-Index Pulgyo sabŏm hakkyo 佛敎師範學校 (Buddhist teachers’ college), 57 p’yŏngdŭng chuŭi 平等主義 (principle of equality), 103 sabŏmhak 師範學 (pedagogy), 54 sabŏp 寺法 (temple laws), 42 samādhi, 109 sami 沙彌 (novice monk), 96 san’gan Pulgyo 山間佛敎 (Buddhism, mountain), 22 sanjung kongŭi 山中公儀/sanjung kongsa (public council of monasteries), 20, 45, 91 saramanera (Skt., novice monk); see sami sa-sŏn 死禪 (dead sŏn), 109 sawŏnjŏn 寺院田 (monastery lands), 15 shin Bukkyō 新佛敎 (New Buddhism), 24, 114 simin 心印 (mind seal), 110, 112 sipse 十世 (ten time periods), 112 sirhaeng實行 Pulgyo (religion of practice), 85 sŏn 禪 (meditation), 12, 53, 82, 94, 96, 98, 104, 105, 109–115, 124 sŏn/kyo (unification of meditation and doctrine), 12, 103ff, 114 sŏndang 禪堂 (meditation halls), 56 sujokwŏn 收租權 (taxes), 15 sŭngnyŏ Pulgyo 僧侶佛敎 (Buddhism for monks), 22 sŭngnyŏ taehoe 僧侶大會 (Buddhist clergy), 73–75 tae pŏbsan 大法山 (head monastery), 43 taehwal 大活 (great-life), 109 taejung Pulgyo 大衆佛敎; see minjung Pulgyo taesa 大死 (great-death), 110 talbon 達本 (reaching the root), 110 tathatā (true suchness), 107, 115 toch’ŏpche 度牒制 (monk-license identification system), 16 t’ong Pulgyo 通佛敎 (ecumenical/ unified Buddhism), 85, 92, 119

153 tonggap-gye 同甲契 (association), 20 tono chŏmsu 頓悟漸修 (sudden awakening/gradual cultivation), 113 ŭibyŏng 義兵 (rebel armies), 35 upāya (Skt.); see pangp’yŏn wuwei 五位 (five positions), 110 yŏmbul 念佛 (recalling the Buddha), 53, 107 yŏn’gi 緣起 (conditional arising), 106 yŏn’gyo 演敎 (extending the teachings), 110 yusim 唯心 (mind only), 103 yusin 維新 (change), 14 zen 禪 Buddhism (J.); see sŏn zhaijiao 齋敎 (vegetarian religion), 36 zheng 正 (center), 110, 117 zhengpian wuwei 正偏五位 (five positions of the absolute and relative), 110 Institutions, Associations, and Political and Social Acts Association of Buddhist Studies (Pulgyo yŏn’guhoe), 37, 57 Association of Student Clerics (Hagin yŏnmaeng), 66 Buddhist Reformation Association (Pulgyo yusin hoe 佛敎維新會), 71, 73, 80 Buddhist Theosophical Society, 4 Buddhist Youth Association (Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn hoe 佛敎靑年會), 36, 71, 73, 80, 99 Campaign for a Million Souls, 46 Central Propagation Office of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo chung’ang p’ogyo-dang 朝鮮佛敎 中央布敎堂), 57, 60 Central Propagation Office of Korean Sŏn Buddhism (Chosŏn Sŏnjong chung’ang p’ogyo-dang, 61 Central Sangha Office (Chung’ang kyomuwŏn 中央敎務院), 73 Chehŏnbu 制憲部 (legislative organ), 73

154 Chosŏn Buddhist Association (Chosŏn Pulgyohoe), 66 Conference Office of the Abbots of the Thirty Main Monasteries (Samsip ponsa chuji hoeŭi-so 三 十本寺住持會議), 56 Cooperative Office of the Thirty Main Monasteries of the Sŏn-Kyo Sect (Sŏn-Kyo yangjong samsip taepobsan yŏnhap samu-so), 56, 80, 86 Declaration of Independence, Korean, 11 General League of Buddhist Youth (Pulgyo ch’ŏngnyŏn yŏnmaeng 佛敎靑年聯盟), 66, 73, 75, 79 General Office (Ch’ongmuwŏn 總務 院), 72, 73, 80 Illchinhoe (pro-Japanese group), 37 Imje-jong (office), 38, 81, 119 Imperial Rescript on Education (1890), 23 Institute of Sŏn Meditation (Sŏn hagwŏn), 66 Japanese Residency General, 35 Korean YMCA, 46 Mandang 卍黨 (secret society), 77, 99 Ministry of Doctrine (J. Daikyōin 大敎院), 23 Oath of Imperial Subjects, 81 Office of Buddhist Affairs (Kyomuwŏn 敎務院), 62, 72, 73, 79, 91 Office of Proselytizers (Senkyoshi), 6 Office of Temples and Shrines (Sasa kwallisŏ 寺社管理署), 43, 44 Patriotic Buddhist Association, 36 Rank Land Law (kwajŏnbŏp 科田法), 15 Reforms of 1894 (Kabo kyŏngjang 甲午 更張), 34 Regulations for Administering the Temple Ordinance (sach’allyŏng sihaeng kyuch’ik 寺刹施行規則), 42, 43, 43n, 44 Regulations on the Propagation of Religion (1906), 35

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms Religious Organization Law, 81 Revision of Regulations for Private Schools, 46 Sangha Assembly (Chonghoe 宗會), 75, 79 Sin’ganhoe (nationalist association), 101 Student Association of Pulgyo Chŏnsu College (Pulchŏn kyouhoe), 66 Superintendency for Sutra Publication (Kan’gyŏng togam 刊經都監), 21 Temple Ordinance (sach’allyŏng 寺刹令), 7, 9, 10, 12, 20n, 38, 41, 42, 43n, 44, 45, 47, 49, 56, 57, 58, 62, 68, 71, 75, 79, 83, 91, 92, 120 Vows of imperial Japan’s subjects (hwangguk sinmin ūi sŏsa 皇國 臣民의誓詞), 80 Texts, Documents, and Publications Abridged History of Korean Buddhism, An (Chosŏn Pulgyo yaksa 朝鮮佛敎 略史), 84 Annotated Ten Abstruse Discussions (Sipyŏndam chuhae 十玄談註解), 98, 110 “Article on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism (“Chosŏn Pulgyo kaehyŏknon”; Kwŏn Sangno), 50 Avatamsaka sūtra, 108 Black Wind (Hŭkp’ung 黑風; Han Yongun), 102 Buddhāvatamsaka sūtra, 113 Buddhism (Pulgyo 佛敎; journal), 32, 51, 62, 63, 63n, 65, 67, 77, 89, 94, 99 Buddhism (New) (Pulgyo [Sin] 佛敎 [新]; journal), 63, 80, 102 “Buddhism and Philosophy” (“Pulgyo wa ch’ŏrhak”; Yi Chongch’ŏn), 65 “Buddhist Abhidharma Philosophy, The” (“Pulgyo sunjŏn ch’ŏrhak”; Paek Sŏng’uk), 65

Glossary-Index “Buddhist Ethics” (“Pulgyo yullihak”; Yi Chigwang), 63 Buddhist Journal of Korea (Haedong pulbo 海東佛報), 58, 61, 63 “Buddhist Psychology” (“Pulgyo simnihak”; Yi Hŏnsong), 65 Caigentan 菜根潭 (K. Ch’aegŭndam), 98, 98n Chosŏn Chung’ang Daily, 9, 102 Chosŏn Daily, 102 Ch’wisan porim chapchi 鷲山寶林 雜誌 (Miscellaneous records of the precious forest of Ch’wisan; T’ongdo-sa), 65 Comprehensive History of Korean Buddhism, A (Chosŏn Pulgyo t’ongsa 朝鮮佛敎通史), 84 Confucian Classics (Analects, Book of Documents, Book of Songs, Doctrine of the Mean, Great Learning, Mencius), 95 Dai Nihon bukkyo zensho, 24 Death (Chugŭm; Han Yongun), 102 “Declaration of the Korean Revolution” (“Chosŏn hyŏngmyŏng sonŏn sŏ”; Sin Ch’aeho), 76 “Discourse on the Independence of Korea” (Han Yongun), 101 Family Rites of Zhu Xi (C. Zhuzi jiali 朱子家禮, K. Chuja karye), 21 Fourfold Collection (Sa chip), 96 Great Texts of Buddhism (Pulgyo taejŏn 佛敎大典; Han Yongun), 52, 52n, 98, 105, 106, 107, 108, Appendix 3A Hoegwang 回光 (Tracing back the light; journal), 66 Holy Texts of Buddhism (Bukkyō seiten 佛敎聖典), 52n, 105, 106, Han Yongun additions, 107, 108, Appendix 3B Hwangya 荒野 (The wilds), 65 “Ideal of Religion, The” (“Chonggyo kiwŏn e taehayŏ”; Cho Hagyu), 65 Ilgwang 一光 (One light), 66

155 Ill Fate (Pangmyŏng 薄命; Han Yongun), 102 “Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy” (Pulgyo ch’ŏrhak kaeron”; Kim Chŏnghae), 65 Iron-Blood Beauty (Ch’orhyŏl miin 鐵血 美人; Han Yongon), 102 Kokuyaku daizōkyō, 24 Korea Daily News (Taehanmaeil sinbo), 36 Korean Buddhist Magazine (Chosŏn Pulgyo ch’ongbo 朝鮮佛敎叢報), 32, 51, 60, 62, 63–65 Korean Buddhist Monthly (Chosŏn Pulgyo wŏlbo 朝鮮佛敎月報), 61, 63, 64 Koryŏ Tripitaka, 86, 86n, 105 Kŭmgangjŏ 金剛杵 (Vajra; magazine), 65, 66 Kŭmgangsan 金剛山 (Kŭmgang Mountain; journal), 66 Monthly of the Association for the Promotion of Buddhism (Pulgyo chinhŭnghoe wŏlbo 佛敎振興會 月報), 61–62, 63 National Code (Kyŏngguk taejŏn 經國 大典), 16 Nihon daizōkyō, 24 “On the Origin of Religion” (“Chonggyo kiwŏn e taehyŏ”; Cho Hagyu), 65 Pulch’ŏng undong 佛靑運動 (Buddhist youth movement; magazine), 66, 75 Puril 佛日(The Buddha-sun; journal), 66 “Record on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism” (“Chosŏn Pulgyo kaehyŏk an 朝鮮佛敎改革 案”), 98, 99–101 “Religion and Knowledge” (“Chonggyo wa chisik”; Cho Hagyu), 65 Remorse (Huhoe 後悔; Han Yongun), 102 Rumbini (Lumbinī; journal), 66 Samchŏlli (Three thousand leagues; magazine), 76

156 Shixuantan (K. Siphyŏndam 十玄談, Ten abstruse discussions; Tongan Changchu), 98, 98n; see Ten Abstruse Discussions Silence of the Beloved, The (Nim ŭi chimmuk 님의沈黙; Han Yongun), 11, 102 Sŏkpo sangjŏl 釋譜詳節 (Episodes from the life of the Buddha), 20 “Song of Enlightenment” (“Odoga 悟道歌”), 98 Sŏnwŏn 禪苑 (The Sŏn collection), 66 “Studies on Religion and Social Welfare” (“Chonggyo wa sahoe saŏp ŭi yŏn’gu”; Kim T’aehŭp), 65 “Study of Buddhist History, The” (“Pulgyo sahak yŏn’gu”; Chŏng Kwangjin), 65 Taishō shinshū daizōkyō, 24 Ten Abstruse Discussions, 110 Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo yusillon 朝鮮佛敎維新論; Han Yongun), 50, 51, 52, 94, 97, 98, 99, 101, Appendix 2 Veritable Records of the Chosŏn Dynasty (Chosŏn wangjo sillok 朝鮮王朝實 錄 ), 18, 19 Vimalakirti sūtra, 98, 108, Han’s exposition of, 11n, 98 Wŏrin ch’ŏn’gang chi kok 月印千江之 曲 (Songs of the moon’s reflection on a thousand rivers), 20 World of Korean Buddhism (Chosŏn Pulgyo-gye 朝鮮佛敎界), 62, 63 Yinbingshi wenji 飮永室文集 (Liang Qichao), 97 Yinghuan zhilüe 瀛環地略 (Chinese world geography), 52, 50n, 96 Yusim (Mind only; journal), 65 General Amaterasu Ō-mi-kami (sun goddess), 81 Amitābha (K. Amit’a 阿彌陀) Buddha, 53n

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms anarchism, 77 anti-Buddhist (haibutsu-kishaku) movement, 6 Bodhidharma teachings, 86 bodhisattva, 83, 108n Buddhism, Chinese, 36, 90 Buddhism, Korean (Taehan Pulgyo), 84 Buddhism, Korean Reform Movement, 7–12 Buddhism, modernist reforms, 2–7; see also Sinhala revival movements Buddhism, “Protestant,” 4 Buddhism, and Shinto, separation of (shinbutsu-bunri), 6 Buddhist identity, construction of, 83 Buddhist population, 125 Caotong school, 110, 117 celibacy, 125 Chogye order, 8 Chogye-jong 曹溪宗, 79, 82, 84, 119 Ch’ŏndo-gyo (nativist religion), 57, and Christianity, 99 Chōsen Shingung (Shinto shrine), 46 Chosŏn 朝鮮 dynasty (1392–1910), 1–2, 7, 92, anti-Buddhist policies, 12, 14–22, 38, 48, 98, 110, 121, 122 Christianity, 29, 93, Japanese, 22, spread of, 29–31, 48 Chung’ang Buddhist Junior College (Chung’ang Pulgyo chŏnmun hakkyo 中央佛敎專門學校), 87 Chung’ang Buddhist School (Chung’ang hangnim 中央學林), 58, 71, 86, 99, 121 Church of Christ in Japan (Nihon Kirisuto Kyōkai), 30, 31 colonialism, Buddhism under, 6, 125 Confucianism, charges against Buddhism, 111, 122 Congregational Church (Kumiai Kyōkai), 30, 31 cosmopolitanism (segye chuŭi 世界 主義), 115, 117 dharma, 106, 111, dharma-body, 108n, dharma-wheel, 111

Glossary-Index ethnic cleansing (minjok malsal), 81 Fayan school, 111 Fifteen-Year War (1931–1945), 114 five positions; see zhengpian wuwei Great Han Empire (Taehan cheguk 大韓帝國), 43 Haedong-jong, 86 Han’guk Pulgyo T’aego-jong (T’aego sect of Korean Buddhism), 125 hangŭl (Korean script), 10, 20 hansi 漢詩 (Chinese poems), 102 Hanyang (Seoul), 18 Higashi Honganji (sect), 22, 25, 28 Hokke 法華 (sect), 39 Holiness Church, 31 Huayan 華嚴 (K. Hwaŏm) system, 110 Huayan Buddhism, 86n, 117 Hwangju, 42 Hyehwa Junior College (Hyehwa chŏnmun hakkyo 惠化專門學校), 87, 89 India, 84 “Japan and Korea are one entity” (Nai-Sen ittai 內鮮一體), 80 Japanese Buddhism, influence on Korean reform, 32–33, 34–35, 48, 125 Japanese invasion of Korea (1592– 1598), 18, 21, 25, 27 Jōdo 淨土 school, 27, 38 Jōdo Shin 淨土眞 school, 22, 38, 41 Kakhwang, 60, 61 Kandy, kingdom of, 3 Kanghwa, Treaty of (1876), 1, 29 Kigensetsu 紀元節 (J., national rite), 93 Korean Catholic Church, 29 Koryŏ 高麗 dynasty (918–1392), 1, 14, 113 Kyoto school, 24, 114 Land of Bliss (Sukhāvatī), 53 lay Zen movement, 114 liberalism, 49 Linji Chan 臨濟禪 (K. Imje Sŏn; sect), 38, 82, 82n, 84

157 Manchu invasions of Korea (1627, 1636), 18, 21 Manchuria, 47, 81 Manchurian Incident, 47, 75 March First Movement (1919), 9, 9n, 11, 31, 46, 86, 92, 99, 118, 120 Meiji government (1868–1912), 6, 114, anti-Buddhist policies of, 22 Methodist Church (Kamni Kyohoe 감리교회), 30, 31 Ming dynasty, 98n minjok 民族 (ethnic nation), 116 minjung (masses), 75, first use of term, 76, meaning of term, 77, 125 minjung hwa (general public), 79 monasteries and nunneries, Chŏng’ŏbwŏn, 16; Haein-sa, 35, 45, 45n, 58, 67, 86n, 87; Hŭngch’ŏn (Sŏn), 16; Hŭngdok (Kyo), 16; Hwangju, 42; Hwaŏmsa, 35, 44; Kakhwang-sa, 73; Kŏnbong, 97; Kŭmnyong-sa, 58; Paegyang-sa, 61; Paektam, 96, 97; Pohyŏn-sa, 81; Pŏmŏ-sa, 35, 58, 61, 72, 81; P’yohun-sa, 66; Sŏnamsa, 44, 58, 71; Songwang-sa, 72; T’aego-sa, 84; Taehŭng-sa, 58, 61; T’ongdo-sa, 58, 61, 65, 72, 87, 105; Tonghwa-sa, 89; Wŏngak, 20; Wŏnghŭng-sa, 37; Yujŏm, 97 Monastery Headquarters Movement (ch’ongbonsan), 83 Mongol invasions, 86n Mount Kŭmgang, 97 Mount Namsan, 27 Mount Sorak, 96 Myŏngjin 明進 School, 57 Namhan mountain, 18, 21 “nation,” concept, 70 national structure (J. kokutai), 25 nationalism, Buddhist, 69, 121, 124 Nichiren 日連 school, 22, 39, 41 Niinamesai 新嘗祭 (J., national rite), 93 Nine-Mountain school, 83, 86 Nishi Hongashi (sect), 36, 37, 39

158 Nonsan, 42 Ōbaku 黃檗 (J. sect), 39, 41 one form (ilsaek 一色, ultimate state), 111 Ose-am (hermitage), 96 Pacific War (1941–1945), 6, 47 Paektam Monastery, 96, 96n Pagoda Park, 95 Pongmyŏng School, 58 Posŏng middle school, 57 proclamation of independence (tongnip sŏnŏn 獨立宣言), 116 Protestants, Korean, 5, 23, 30, 70, 125 Pukhan mountain, 21 Pure Land, 37, 39, 53, 107 Purification Movement (Pulgyo chŏnghwa undong 佛敎淨化運動), 8, 125 Qing dynasty (1644–1911), 5, 49 Religious Shinto (J. Tenri-kyō), 22 request for independence (tongnip ch’ŏngwŏn) 獨立請願, 116 Rinzai 臨濟 school, 27, 36, 39, 41 Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), 1, 24, 28 Saito administration, 31, 46 sangha (the Buddhist community), Korean, 7, 10, 122, 123 schools, Buddhist, 15n; see also the twelve schools (Chaŭn-jong, Chogye-jong, Ch’ongji-jong, Ch’ŏnt’ae-jong, Chungdo-jong, Hwaŏm-jong, Namsan-jong, Pŏpsa-jong, Sihŭng-jong, Sininjong, Soja-jong, Tomun-jong), the derivative schools, Kyo-jong (doctrine-school), 15n, 16, Sŏnjong (meditation school), 15n, 16 Shihōhai 四方拜 (J., national rite), 93 Shingon 眞言 school, 27, 39, 41 Shinto, 6 Silla 新羅 kingdom (57 b.c.e.–668 c.e.), 12 Sinhala Buddhism, revival movements, 2, 7, Chinese, 7, under colonialism, 6–7

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), 1, 24, 28, 47 “six loyal subjects” (saeng yuksin), 111n social Darwinism, 49, 77 socialism, 76 Song dynasty, 122 Sōtō 曹洞 school, 27, 36, 39, 52, 81, 99 Sōtō-shu College, 60, 67 Sri Lanka, 3, 6, 70, Portuguese rule of, 3n, Dutch, 3n, British, 3n Taehan Pulgyo Chogye-jong (Chogye sect of Korean Buddhism), 84, 125; see also Chogye-jong Taiping Rebellion, 5 Taiwanese Buddhism, 36 Tenchōsetsu 天長節 (J., national rite), 93 Tendai 天台 (sect), 41 Three Jewels of Buddhism, 84, 107 Three Kingdoms period, 84 Tokugawa period, 6 Tonggwang middle school, 57 Tripitaka (Buddhist sutras), 84 Unified School of Meditation and Doctrine (Sŏn Kyo Yang-jong), 38, 81, 119 Wanli era (1573–1616), 98n Westernization, 3 Wŏn-jong 圓宗 (Consummate school), 37, 57, 81, 99, 119 Wŏnsan (port), 28 yangban 兩班 (literati class), 95n Yuan dynasty, 38 Zen Buddhism, 4, 24, 114, “Zen orientalism,” 114

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES The Institute of East Asian Studies was established at the University of California, Berkeley, in the fall of 1978 to promote research and teaching on the cultures and societies of China, Japan, and Korea. The institute unites several research centers and programs, including the Center for Buddhist Studies, the Center for Chinese Studies, the Center for Japanese Studies, the Center for Korean Studies, the Group in Asian Studies, the East Asia National Resource Center, and the Inter-University Program for Chinese Language Studies. Director: Associate Director: Executive Committee:

Wen-hsin Yeh Martin Backstrom Martin Backstrom, Patricia Berger, John Connelly, Penelope Edwards, Thomas B. Gold, Andrew Jones, Hong Yung Lee, John Lie, Kevin O’Brien, Kaiping Peng, Robert Sharf, Alan Tansman, Steven Vogel, Bonnie Wade, Duncan Williams, Wen-hsin Yeh

CENTER FOR BUDDHIST STUDIES Chair: Robert Sharf CENTER FOR CHINESE STUDIES Chair: Andrew Jones CENTER FOR JAPANESE STUDIES Chair: Duncan Williams CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES Chair: John Lie GROUP IN ASIAN STUDIES Chair: Bonnie Wade EAST ASIA NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER Director: Wen-hsin Yeh INTER-UNIVERSITY PROGRAM FOR CHINESE LANGUAGE STUDIES Executive Director: Thomas B. Gold

KOREA RESEARCH MONOGRAPHS (KRM)

20. Chung, Chai-sik. A Korean Confucian Encounter with the Modern World: Yi Hang-no and the West. 1995. 21. Kang, Myung Hun. The Korean Business Conglomerate: Chaebol Then and Now. 1996. 22. Lancaster, Lewis, Kikun Suh, and Chai-shin Yu, eds. Buddhism in Koryŏ: A Royal Religion. 1996. (out of print) 23. Lancaster, Lewis R., and Chai-shin Yu, eds. Buddhism in the Early Choson: Suppression and Transformation. 1996. (out of print) 24. Lancaster, R. Lewis, and Richard K. Payne. Religion and Society in Contemporary Korea. 1997. 25. Shin, Jeong-Hyun. The Trap of History: Understanding Korean Short Stories. 1998. 26. Pai, Hyung-Il, and Timothy R. Tangherlini, eds. Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity. 1999. 27. Hesselink, Nathan, ed. Contemporary Directions: Korean Folk Music Engaging the Twentieth Century and Beyond. 2002. 28. Choi, Byonghyon, trans. The Book of Corrections: Reflections on the National Crisis during the Japanese Invasion of Korea, 1592–1598. 2003. 29. Dilling, Marnie. Stories inside Stories: Music in the Making of Korean Olympic Ceremonies. 2007. 30. Kim, Hyuk-Rae, and Bok Song, eds. Modern Korean Society: Its Development and Prospect. 2007. 31. Park, Hun Joo. Diseased Dirigisme: The Political Sources of Financial Policy toward Small Business in Korea. 2008. 32. Finch, Michael, trans. Min Yŏnghwan: The Selected Writings of a Late Chosŏn Diplomat. 2008. 33. Pettid, Michael. Unyŏng-jŏn: A Love Affair at the Royal Palace of Chŏson Korea. 2009. RESEARCH PAPERS AND POLICY STUDIES (RPPS)

40. Hao, Yufan. Dilemma and Decision: U.S. China Policy from an Organizational Perspective. 1997. 41. Wakeman, Jr., Frederic, and Xi Wang, eds. China’s Quest for Modernization: A Historical Perspective. 1997. 42. West, Loraine A., and Yaohui Zhao, eds. Rural Labor Flows in China. 2000. 43. Sharma, Shalendra D., ed. The Asia-Pacific in the New Millennium: Geopolitics, Security, and Foreign Policy. 2000. 44. Arase, David, ed. The Challenge of Change: East Asia in the New Millennium. 2003. SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS

Han, Theodore, and John Li. Tiananmen Square Spring 1989: A Chronology of the Chinese Democracy Movement. 1992. Hawley, Samuel. The Imjin War: Japan’s Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China. 2005. Scalapino, Robert. From Leavenworth to Lhasa: Living in a Revolutionary Era. 2008. Thompson, Phyllis L., ed. Dear Alice: Letters Home from American Teachers Learning to Live in China. 1998. Zhan, Kaidi. The Strategies of Politeness in the Chinese Language. 1992. PUBLICATIONS WITH THE SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF EARLY CHINA

Loewe, Michael, ed. Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. 1993. Qiu, Xigui. Chinese Writing. Trans. Gilbert L. Mattos and Jerry Norman. 2000. von Falkenhausen, Lother, ed. Japanese Scholarship on Early China, 1987–1991: Summaries from Shigaku zasshi. 2002.

For a complete list and prices, see http://ieas.berkeley.edu/publications/ or write to [email protected].

61793BRc-IEAS_TrialError.indd 2

12/29/09 10:22 AM

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms Park INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES

CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES

61793BRc-IEAS_TrialError.indd 1

KRM 34

INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ● BERKELEY

Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms Korean Buddhism under Colonial Rule

Pori Park

KOREA RESEARCH MONOGRAPH 34

12/29/09 10:22 AM