specialists, and meditators all terms suggested in the categorizations of monks found in the various Biographies of Eminent Monks. If we are to arrive

Transcription

1 Korean Buddhist Thought in East Asian Context Robert E. Buswell, Jr. * I. Introduction II. Korea's Role in the Eastward Dissemination of Buddhism III. Korean Influences in Chinese Buddhism and Beyond IV. The Self-Identity of Korean Buddhists < 영문요약 > This article explores the organic relationship that existed between Korean Buddhism and the broader East Asian tradition throughout much of the premodern period. Even while retaining some sense of their ethnic and cultural distinctiveness, Korean Buddhists were able to exert wide-ranging influence both geographically and temporally across the East Asian region. This influence was made possible because Buddhist monks saw themselves not so much as Korean, Japanese, or Chinese Buddhists, but instead as joint collaborators in a religious tradition that transcended contemporary notions of nation and time. Korean Buddhists of the pre-modern age would have been more apt to think of themselves as members of an ordination line and monastic lineage, a school of thought, or a tradition of practice, than as Korean Buddhists. If they were to refer to themselves at all, it would be as disciples, teachers, propagators, doctrinal * University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

2 specialists, and meditators all terms suggested in the categorizations of monks found in the various Biographies of Eminent Monks. If we are to arrive at a more nuanced portrayal of Korean Buddhism, scholars must abandon simplistic nationalist shibboleths and open our scholarship to the expansive vision of their religion that the Buddhists themselves always retained. 주제어 Korean Buddhism, East Asian Buddhism, Buddhist Philosophy, East Asian cultural influences, Korean national identity

3 I. Introduction IT IS AN HONOR to have this opportunity to address this international conference on Korean Buddhist thought in comparative perspective. 1) As one of the few Westerners specializing in Korean Buddhism, and as someone with close personal ties to the tradition from my years in Korean monasteries, I have long considered it one of my principal roles as a scholar to help raise the profile of the Korean tradition in Western Buddhology. The importance of Korea has not necessarily been obvious to Western scholars of East Asia, where studies of China and Japan have dominated. When I finished graduate school in the mid-1980s, there were virtually no positions in Korean Studies of any sort available in American academe. I was lucky enough to be hired into a position in Chinese Buddhism, but was gradually able to add coverage of Korea to my own roster of courses. Early in my career, I can recall the chair of one of the largest East Asian department in the United States dismissing the request of students and faculty to add Korean to his department's curriculum: Well, couldn't they just study Korean at some junior college, instead? Even in the last few years I have still heard China specialists opine that there isn't much point in adding coverage of Korea to the curriculum, since it wouldn't be any more useful than hiring a regional specialist in Szechwan studies or Guangdong studies. I can recall any number of times during my own career where I was the only Korean Buddhist specialist on the roster of conference presenters, and was consequently always the last person to speak. At conferences on Buddhism, I was last, because I was the only scholar presenting on Korea; at conferences on Korea, I was last, because I was the only scholar presenting on Buddhism. (I should thank Director Kim Jong-uk and the Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn guwŏn for giving me the chance, finally, to go first!) 1) This keynote address was delivered at an international conference sponsored by the Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn guwŏn, Dongguk University, December 23, In this address, I freely adapt material that appeared in my previous publications, e.g., in the introduction to my edited volume Currents and Countercurrents: Korean Influences on the East Asian Buddhist Traditions (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005) and in my article Imagining Korean Buddhism, in Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity, Korea Research Monograph no. 26, ed. Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R. Tangherlini, pp. 73~107 (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 1998)

4 After some thirty years in the Korean Studies field in the West, I can happily report that this situation has begun to change and we have finally have enough of a critical mass of younger scholars in the field to allow us to speak of a field of Korean Buddhist Studies in the West. This progress has been hard won, however, and has required much education of our Asianist colleagues about the value of Korean materials, both intrinsically and extrinsically. By intrinsically, I mean the value of Korean materials in and of themselves, which makes them as worthy of study as materials from the Chinese or Japanese traditions. By extrinsically, I refer to the role that Korea, and especially its Buddhist tradition, can play in illuminating its neighboring traditions: first as a simulacrum of the broader East Asian tradition, within which the problematics of East Asian Buddhism can be profitably evaluated and analyzed; and second, as a major player itself in the domestic development of the Chinese and Japanese Buddhist traditions. Indeed, for a smaller field like Korean Studies, I have long believed that adopting a regional perspective is crucial: Koreanists must not become isolated, talking only to themselves, but find ways to engage their fellow Asianists, especially those working in China and Japan. This kind of engagement has been central to my own research and also characterizes the Korean program that we have built at UCLA, where all our graduate students must simultaneously develop a secondary area of expertise elsewhere in the East Asian region. In much of my own research work, in fact, I have proposed that it may be more profitable to think of Korean Buddhism not merely as Buddhism on the Korean peninsula, but instead as a crucial hub in a wider regional religious network that involves interconnections in doctrine, practice, lineage, and ritual. Indeed, when reflecting on the category Korean Buddhism, I think it is important that we must always keep in mind that Korea was in no sense isolated from the rest of Asia, and especially from the rest of northeastern Asia. If we ignore the greater East Asian context in which Korean Buddhism developed and treat the tradition in splendid isolation, I believe we stand more chance of distorting the tradition than clarifying it. In fact, there was an almost organic relationship between the Korean, Chinese, and the Japanese Buddhist traditions throughout much of the premodern period. Korean Buddhist schools all have as their basis earlier doctrinal and soteriological innovations that developed on

5 the Chinese mainland. Korean scholars and adepts training at the Mecca of the Chinese mainland participated personally in such achievements, as I will explore later in this presentation, and Koreans in their native land also made signally important contributions in the development of East Asian Buddhist philosophy. Even so, China had closer ties, over the silk routes, with the older Buddhist traditions of India and Central Asia; in addition, its very size, both in territory and in population, allowed it to harbor a variety of Buddhist schools without undermining the vigor of the tradition as a whole. Both factors led to Chinese precedence in establishing trends within the religion in East Asia. Early on, however, the Koreans, somewhat like the Song-dynasty Chinese Buddhists, found an important role for themselves as preservers and interpreters of the greater Buddhist tradition. By treating evenhandedly the vast quantity of earlier material produced by Chinese Buddhists, Korean Buddhists formed what was in many respects the most ecumenical doctrinal tradition in Asia. Korean Buddhism has thus served as both a repository and a simulacrum of the broader Sinitic tradition. One of the enduring topoi used to describe the dissemination of Buddhism is that of an inexorable eastward diffusion of the tradition, starting from the religion's homeland in India, leading through Inner Asia, and finally spreading throughout the entire East Asian region. According to tradition, soon after the inception of the religion in the sixth or fifth century B.C.E., the Buddha ordered his monks to wander forth for the welfare and weal of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, welfare, and weal of gods and men. 2) This command initiated one of the greatest missionary movements in world religious history, a movement that over the next millennium would disseminate Buddhism from the shores of the Caspian Sea in the west, to the Inner Asian steppes in the north, the Japanese isles in the east, and the Indonesian archipelago in the south. Buddhist missionaries, typically following long-established trade routes between the geographical and cultural regions of Asia, arrived in China by at least the beginning of the first millennium C.E., and reached the rest of East Asia within another few hundred 2) Vinaya-piṭaka, Mahāvagga I.20. I quote here T. W. Rhys Davids' classic translation of the Pali in Vinaya Texts, Sacred Books of the East, vol. 13 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1882); for a more modern, if rather less felicitous, rendering, see I. B. Horner, trans., The Book of the Discipline (1951; reprint ed., Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 1996) vol. 4, p

6 years. In the modern era, Buddhism has even begun to build a significant presence in the Americas and Europe. But this account of a monolithic missionary movement spreading steadily eastward is just one part of the story. The case of East Asian Buddhism suggests there is also a different tale to tell, a tale in which this dominant current of diffusion creates important eddies, or countercurrents, of influence that redound back toward the center. Because of the leading role played by the cultural and political center of China in most developments within East Asia, we inevitably assume that developments within Buddhism would have begun first on the mainland of China and from there spread throughout the rest of the region where Buddhism also came to flourish and where literary Chinese was the medium of learned communication. Through sheer size alone, of course, the monolith that was China would tend to dominate the creative work of East Asian Buddhism. But this dominance need not imply that innovations did not take place on the periphery of East Asia, innovations that could have a profound effect throughout the region, including the Chinese heartland itself. These countercurrents of influence can have significant, even profound, impact on neighboring traditions, affecting them in manifold ways. I am increasingly convinced, in fact, that we should not neglect the place of these peripheral regions of East Asia Tibet, perhaps Japan, but most certainly Korea in any comprehensive description of the evolution of the broader Sinitic tradition of Buddhism. Korea was subject to many of the same forces that prompted the growth of Buddhism on the Chinese mainland, and Korean commentarial and scriptural writings (all composed in literary Chinese) were often able to exert as pervasive an influence throughout East Asia as were texts written in China proper. Given the organic nature I propose for the East Asian traditions of Buddhism, such peripheral creations could find their ways to the Chinese center and been accepted by the Chinese as readily as their own indigenous compositions. We have definitive evidence that such influence occurred with the writings of Korean Buddhist exegetes. In considering filiations of influence between the traditions of East Asian Buddhism, we therefore must look not only from the center to the periphery, as is usually done, but also from the periphery toward the center, using the Korean case to demonstrate the different kinds of impact a specific regional strand of Buddhism can have on the broader East Asia tradition as a whole

7 Looking at both the currents and countercurrents of influence that Korean Buddhism exerts in East Asia also allows us to move beyond a traditional metaphor used in scholarship on Korea, in which the peninsula is viewed merely as a bridge for the transmission of Buddhist and Sinitic culture from the Chinese mainland to the islands of Japan. As enduring as this metaphor has been in the scholarship, it long ago became anachronistic, a Japan-centric view of Korea that should finally be discarded for good. Scholars now recognize instead that Korea was itself a vibrant cultural tradition in its own right, and its Buddhist monks were intimately involved in contemporary activities occurring in neighboring traditions. To be sure, there eventually developed an important current of Buddhist transmission from China directly to Japan that brought with it later Sinitic Buddhist culture. But most of the early transmission of Buddhism into Japan occurred along a current that led not from China, but straight from Korea. Much less well understood than even this Korean influence on early Japanese Buddhism is the impact of Buddhists from the Korean peninsula on several schools of Buddhism in China itself. Finally, Korean Buddhism was also able to exert substantial influence in regions far removed from the peninsula, even in areas as distant from Korea as Szechwan and Tibet. Korea was not a bridge ; it was instead a bastion of Buddhist thought and culture in East Asia, which could play a critical role in the evolution of the broader Sinitic Buddhist tradition. II. Korea's Role in the Eastward Dissemination of Buddhism Notwithstanding another regrettable appellation that early Western visitors gave to Korea that of the hermit kingdom we should note that throughout most of history Korea was in no way isolated from its neighbors throughout the region. Korea was woven inextricably into the web of Sinitic civilization since at least the inception of the Common Era. The infiltration of Chinese culture into the Korean peninsula was accelerated through the missionary activities of the Buddhists, who brought not only their religious teachings and rituals to Korea but also the breadth and depth of Chinese cultural knowledge as a whole. To a substantial extent it was Buddhism, with its large

8 body of written scriptures, that fostered among the Koreans literacy in written Chinese, and ultimately familiarity with the full range of Chinese religious and secular writing, including Confucian philosophy, belles lettres, calendrics, and divination. 3) Korea played an integral role in the eastward transmission of Buddhism and Sinitic culture through the East Asian region. Buddhist monks, artisans, and craftsmen from the Korean peninsula made major contributions toward the development of Japanese civilization, including its Buddhist culture. The role of the early Korean kingdom of Paekche in transmitting Buddhist culture to the Japan islands was one of the two most critical influences in the entire history of Japan, rivaled only by the nineteenth-century encounter with Western culture. Indeed, for at least a century, from the middle of the sixth to the end of the seventh centuries, Paekche influences dominated cultural production in Japan and constituted the main current of Buddhism's transmission to Japan. Korean scholars brought the Confucian classics, Buddhist scriptures, and medical knowledge to Japan. Artisans introduced Sinitic monastic architecture, construction techniques, and even tailoring. The early-seventh-century Korean monk Kwallŭk, who is known to the Buddhist tradition as a specialist in the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna philosophy, also brought along documents on calendrics, astronomy, geometry, divination, and numerology. Korean monks were instrumental in establishing the Buddhist ecclesiastical hierarchy in Japan and served in its first supervisory positions. Finally, the growth of an order of nuns in Japan occurred through Korean influence, thanks to Japanese nuns who traveled to Paekche to study, including three nuns who studied Vinaya in Paekche for three years during the late-sixth century. 4) 3) On the critical role Buddhism played in transmitting broader Sinitic culture to Korea, see Inoue Hideo, The Reception of Buddhism in Korea and Its Impact on Indigenous Culture, translated by Robert Buswell, in Introduction of Buddhism to Korea: New Cultural Patterns, Studies in Korean Religions and Culture, vol. 3, edited by Lewis R. Lancaster and Chai-shin Yu (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1989), pp.30~43 (whole article pp.29~78). 4) For a convenient summary of some of these Paekche contributions to Japanese culture, see Kamata Shigeo, The Transmission of Paekche Buddhism to Japan, translated by Kyoko Tokuno, in Introduction of Buddhism to Korea: New Cultural Patterns, edited by Lancaster and Yu, pp.150~155 (whole article pp.143~160). If one overlooks the strong nationalist polemic, useful information on Paekche's impact on, and influence in, Japan may also be found in Wontack Hong, Paekche of Korea and the Origin of Yamato Japan, Ancient Korean-Japanese History (Seoul: Kudara International,

9 But even after cultural transmission directly from the Chinese mainland to Japan began to dominate toward the end of the seventh century, an influential Korean countercurrent reappeared during the Kamakura era (1185~1333), which affected the Pure Land movement of Hōnen (1133~1212) and especially Shinran (1173~1262). Shinran cites Kyŏnghŭng (d.u.), a seventh-century Korean Buddhist scholiast, more than any other Buddhist thinker except the two early Chinese exegetes Tanluan (476~542) and Shandao (613~681). Indeed, a broader survey of Japanese Pure Land writings before Shinran shows, too, a wide familiarity with works by other early Unified Silla thinkers, including Wŏnhyo (617~686), Pŏbwi (d.u.), Hyŏnil (d.u.), and Ŭijŏk (d.u.). The influence of these Korean scholiasts led to several of the distinctive features that eventually came to characterize Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, including the crucial role that sole-recitation of the Buddha's name, or nenbutsu, plays in Pure Land soteriology, the emphasis on the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra (Sūtra on the Array of Wondrous Qualities Adorning the Land of Bliss) over the apocryphal Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching (Contemplation Sūtra on the Buddha Amitābha); the emphasis on the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth of the forty-eight vows of Amitābha listed in the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, 5) which essentially ensure rebirth in the Pure Land to anyone who wants it; and the precise definition of the ten moments of thought on the Buddha Amitābha that are said in the eighteenth vow to be sufficient to ensure rebirth in the Pure Land. 6) Hence, at least through the thirteenth century, Korea continued to exert important influence over the 1994). See also Im Tong-gwŏn, Ilbon an ŭi Paekche munhwa (Paekche Culture in Japan) (Seoul: Korea Foundation, 1994), especially pp.13~59; and Kim Tal-su, Ilbon sok ŭi Han guk munhwa (Korean Culture in Japan) (Seoul: Chosŏn Ilbosa, 1986). 5) For these vows, see Luis Gómez, The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light, Sanskrit and Chinese Versions of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtras, University of Michigan Studies in the Buddhist Traditions (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press and Kyoto: Higashi Honganji Shinshū Ōtani-ha, 1996), pp.167~168 (and cf. pp.71 for the slightly different Sanskrit version). 6) For a comprehensive survey of these distinctive Korean perspectives on Pure Land practice, see Minamoto Hiroyuki, Shiragi Jōdokyō no tokushoku, in Shiragi Bukkyō kenkyū (Studies in Silla Buddhism), edited by Kim Chi-gyŏn and Ch ae In-hwan (Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1973), pp.285~317; translated as Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla, in Assimilation of Buddhism in Korea: Religious Maturity and Innovation in the Silla Dynasty, Studies in Koran Religions and Culture, vol. 4, edited by Lewis R. Lancaster and Chai-shin Yu (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991), pp.131~

10 evolution of Japanese Buddhism. 7) III. Korean Influences in Chinese Buddhism and Beyond Despite their apparent geographical isolation from the major scholastic and practice centers of Buddhism in China, Korean adherents of the religion also maintained close and continuous contacts with their brethren on the mainland throughout much of the premodern period. Korea's proximity to northern China via the overland route through Manchuria assured the establishment of close diplomatic and cultural ties between the peninsula and the mainland. In addition, during its Three Kingdoms (4 th ~7 th centuries) and Unified Silla (668~935) periods, Korea was the virtual Phoenicia of East Asia, and its nautical prowess and well-developed sea-lanes made the peninsula's seaports the hubs of regional commerce. It was thus relatively easy for Korean monks to accompany trading parties to China, where they could train and study together with Chinese adepts. Ennin (793~864), a Japanese pilgrim in China during the middle of the ninth century, remarks on the large Korean contingent among the foreign monks in the Tang Chinese capital of Chang an. He also reports that all along China's eastern littoral were permanent communities of Koreans, which were granted extraterritorial privileges and had their own autonomous political administrations. Monasteries were established in those communities, which served as ethnic centers for the many Korean monks and traders operating in China. 8) Koreans even ventured beyond China to travel to the Buddhist homeland of India itself. Of the several Korea monks known to have gone on pilgrimage to India, the best known is Hyech o (fl. 720~773), who journeyed to India via sea in the 7) For a rather more nuanced picture of these new schools of Kamakura Buddhism, see the articles compiled in Richard K. Payne, ed., Re-Visioning Kamakura Buddhism, Kuroda Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism 11 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, A Kuroda Institute Book, 1998), and especially James C. Dobbins' article, Envisioning Kamakura Buddhism, pp.24~42. 8) See Edwin O. Reischauer, Ennin's Travels in T ang China (New York: The Ronald Press, 1955), especially chap. 8, The Koreans in China. For a survey of Buddhist monastic life in such a Korean colony on the mainland, see Henrik Sørensen, Ennin's Account of a Korean Buddhist Monastery, A.D., Acta Orientalia 47 (1986), pp.141~

11 early eighth century and traveled all over the subcontinent before returning overland to China in ) The ready interchange that occurred throughout the East Asian region in all areas of culture allowed indigenous Korean contributions to Buddhist thought (again, all composed in literary Chinese) to become known in China, and eventually even beyond into Central Asia and Tibet. Writings produced in China and Korea especially were transmitted elsewhere with relative dispatch, so that scholars throughout East Asia were kept well apprised of advances made by their colleagues. Thus, doctrinal treatises and scriptural commentaries written in Silla Korea by such monks as Ŭisang (625~702), Wŏnhyo (617~686), and Kyŏnghŭng (ca. 7th century) were much admired in China and Japan and their insights influenced, for example, the thought of Fazang (643~712), the systematizer of the Chinese Huayan school. In one of my earlier books, The Formation of Chan Ideology in China and Korea, I sought to show that one of the oldest works of the nascent Chan (Zen) tradition was a scripture named the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra(Kor. Kŭmgang sammae kyŏng; Ch. Jin gang sanmei jing), an apocryphal text that I believe was written in Korea by a Korean adept of the nascent tradition. The Vajrasamādhi is the first text to suggest the linearity of the Chan transmission that is, the so-called mind-to-mind transmission from Bodhidharma to the Chinese patriarchs a crucial development in the evolution of an independent self-identity for the Chan school. Within some fifty years of its composition in Korea the text is transmitted to China, where, its origins totally obscured, it came to be accepted as an authentic translation of a Serindian original and was entered into the canon, whence it was introduced subsequently into 9) Hyech o account of his pilgrimage, Wang Och ŏnch ukkuk chŏn (A Record of a Journey to the Five Regions of India), has been translated by Han-sung Yang et al., The Hye Ch o Diary: Memoir of the Pilgrimage to the Five Regions of India, Religions of Asia Series, no. 2 (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, n.d.). For a survey of the Korean Buddhists who traveled to India, see James H. Grayson, The Role of Early Korean Buddhism in the History of East Asia, Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 34-2 (1980), pp.57~61. One Korean pilgrim frequently mentioned in the literature who should be taken off the list is the Paekche monk Kyŏmik. Kyŏmik supposedly traveled to India in the early sixth century, returning to Paekche ca. 526 with Vinaya and Abhidharma materials, which he then translated at a translation bureau established for him in the Paekche capital. Jonathan Best has convincingly debunked this account in his article Tales of Three Paekche Monks Who Traveled Afar in Search of the Law, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 51 (1991): pp.178~

12 Japan and even Tibet. 10) This ready interchange between China, Korea, Japan, and other neighboring traditions has led me to refer to an East Asian tradition of Buddhism, which is created through mutual interactions between its constituents and which is something more than the sum of its constituent national parts. 11) Korean Buddhist pilgrims were also frequent visitors to the mainland of China, where they were active participants in the Chinese tradition itself. Although many of these pilgrims eventually returned to the peninsula, we have substantial evidence of several who remained behind in China for varying lengths of time and became prominent leaders of Chinese Buddhist schools. 12) A few examples may suffice to show the range and breadth of this Korean influence in China, and beyond. The first putatively Korean monk presumed to have directly influenced Chinese Buddhism is the Koguryŏ monk Sŭngnang (Ch. Senglang; fl. ca. 490), whom the tradition assumes was an important vaunt courier in the Sanlun school, the Chinese counterpart of the Madhyamaka branch of Indian philosophical exegesis; issues regarding his ethnicity and his contribution to Chinese Buddhism. Less controversial is the contribution of the Silla monk Wŏnch ŭk (Ch. Yuanze, Tibetan Wentsheg; 613~696), to the development of the Chinese Faxiang 10) For the Korean origins of the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra, see Robert E. Buswell, Jr., The Formation of Ch an Ideology in China and Korea: The Vajrasamādhi-Sūtra, a Buddhist Apocryphon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989). For the sūtra's influence in Tibetan Buddhism, see Matthew T. Kapstein, From Korea to Tibet: Action at a Distance in the Early Medieval World System, in The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp.76~78 (whole article pp.69~83). 11) I first broached this issue in my article Chinul's Systematization of Chinese Meditative Techniques in Korean Sŏn Buddhism, in Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, Kuroda Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism No. 4, edited by Peter N. Gregory (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986), pp.199~200 (whole article pp.199~242). This notion of a broader East Asian tradition of Buddhism was also the major theme of my book The Formation of Ch an Ideology in China and Korea. The broader regional connections between Korean Buddhism and the rest of East Asia has been a major topic in the work of Lewis R. Lancaster. See also James H. Grayson, The Role of Early Korean Buddhism in the History of East Asia, Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 34-2 (1980), pp.51~68. 12) One of the more thorough studies of the impact Korean Buddhists had in China is Huang Yufu and Chen Jingfu, Zhong-Chao fojiao wenhua jiaoliu shi (A History of Buddhist Cultural Exchanges between China and Korea) (Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe, 1993), translated by Kwŏn Och ŏl, Han-Chung Pulgyo munhwa kyoryu sa (Seoul: Tosŏ Ch ulp an Kkach i, 1995)

13 (Yogācāra) school. Wŏnch ŭk was one of the two main disciples of the preeminent Chinese pilgrim-translator Xuanzang (d. 664) and his relics are enshrined along those of Xuanzang himself in reliquaries in Xi an. Still today, Wŏnch ŭk remains perhaps better known in Tibet than in his natal or adopted homelands through his renowned commentary to the Samdhinirmocana-sūtra(Sūtra. that Reveals Profound Mysteries), which the Tibetans knew as the Great Chinese Commentary, even though, again, it was written by a Korean. Wŏnch ŭk's exegesis was extremely popular in the Chinese outpost of Dunhuang, where Chösgrub (Ch. Facheng; ca. 775~849) translated it into Tibetan at the command of King Ralpachen (r. 815~841). Five centuries later, the renowned Tibetan scholar Tsongkhapa (1357~1419) drew heavily on Wŏnch ŭk's work in articulating his crucial reforms of the Tibetan doctrinal tradition. Wŏnch ŭk's views were decisive in Tibetan formulations of such issues as the hermeneutical strategem of the three turnings of the wheel of the law, the nine types of consciousness, and the quality and nature of the ninth immaculate consciousness (amalavijñāna). Exegetical techniques subsequently used in all the major sects of Tibetan Buddhism, with their use of elaborate sections and subsections, may even derive from Wŏnch ŭk's commentarial style. 13) Later, during the Song dynasty, Ch'egwan (Ch. Diguan; d. ca. 971) revived a moribund Chinese Tiantai school and wrote the definitive treatise on its doctrinal taxonomy, the Tiantai sijiao yi (An Outline of the Fourfold Teachings according to the Tiantai School), a text widely regarded as one of the classics of Chinese Buddhism, even though it was written by a Korean. Several other Korean monks were intimately involved with the Tiantai school up through the Song dynasty, including Ŭich ŏn (1055~1101), the Koryŏ prince, Buddhist monk, and bibliophile. Such contacts between Chinese and Korean Buddhism are especially pronounced in 13) For Wŏnch ŭk's contribution to Tibetan Buddhism, see Matthew Kapstein, From Korea to Tibet, pp.78~82; Jeffrey Hopkins, Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism: Dynamic Responses to Dzong-ka-ba's The Essence of Eloquence: 1 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999), passim. The importance of Wŏnch ŭk's exegetical style to Tibetan Buddhist commentarial literature is discussed in Ernst Steinkellner, Who is Byan chub rdzu phrul? Tibetan and Non-Tibetan Commentaries on the Samdhinirmocana. Sūtra A Survey of the Literature, Berliner Indologische Studien 4, no. 5 (1989), p.235; cited in Hopkins, Emptiness, pp.46~

14 the case of the Chan or Sŏn tradition of Sinitic Buddhism. Two of the earliest schools of Chan in China were the Jingzhong and Baotang, both centered in what was then the wild frontier of Szechwan in the southwest. Both factions claimed as their patriarch a Chan master of Korean heritage named Musang (Ch. Wuxiang; 684~762), who is better known to the tradition as Reverend Kim (Kim hwasang), using his native Korean surname. Musang reduced all of Chan teachings to the three phrases of not remembering, which he equated with morality, not thinking, with samādhi, and not forgetting, with wisdom. Even after his demise, Musang's teachings continued to be closely studied by such influential scholiasts in the Chan tradition as Zongmi (780~841). 14) IV. The Self-Identity of Korean Buddhists The pervasive use of literary Chinese in the names of these Korean expatriate monks sometimes masks for us today the fact that the men behind these names were often not Chinese at all, but monks from the periphery of the empire. Many of the expatriate Koreans who were influential in China became thoroughly Sinicized, but rarely without retaining some sense of identification with their native tradition (e.g., through continued correspondence with colleagues on the Korean peninsula). In the case of Ŭisang, for example, despite assuming control of the Chinese Huayan school after his master Zhiyan's death, the Samguk yusa (Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms) tells us that Ŭisang still decided to return to Korea in 670 to warn the Korean king of an impending Chinese invasion of the peninsula. The invasion forestalled, Ŭisang was rewarded with munificent royal support and his Hwaŏm school dominated Korean Buddhist scholasticism from that point onward. Fazang (643~712), Ŭisang's successor in the Huayan school, continued to write to Ŭisang for guidance long after his return to Korea and his correspondence is still extant today. 15) 14) For Musang's three phrases, see Peter Gregory, Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991; reprint ed., Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002), pp.43~44; Tsung-mi's understanding of Musang is discussed at various points throughout Gregory's book. 15) See Antonino Forte's study and translation of this important correspondence in his monograph A

15 Even where these Korean monks were assimilated by the Chinese, their Korean ethnicity often continued to be an essential part of their social and religious identity. I mentioned above that Musang was best known to his contemporaries as Reverend Kim, clear evidence that he retained some sense of his Korean ethnic identity even in the remote hinterlands of the Chinese empire, far from his homeland. The vehement opposition Wŏnch ŭk is said to have endured in cementing his position as successor to Xuanzang through a defamation campaign launched by followers of his main rival, the Chinese monk Kuiji (632~682) may betray an incipient ethnic bias against this Korean scholiast and again suggests that his identity as a Korean remained an issue for the Chinese. Therefore, even among Sinicized Koreans, the active Korean presence within the Chinese Buddhist church constituted a self-consciously Korean influence. Why would monks from Korea have been able to exert such wide-ranging influence, both geographically and temporally, across the East Asian Buddhist tradition? I believe it is because Buddhist monks saw themselves not so much as Korean, Japanese, or Chinese Buddhists, but instead as joint collaborators in a religious tradition that transcended contemporary notions of nation and time. These monks' conceptions of themselves were much broader than the shrunken imaginings of recent history, to paraphrase Benedict Anderson's well-known statement about modern nationalism. 16) Korean Buddhists of the pre-modern age would probably have been more apt to consider themselves members of an ordination line and monastic lineage, a school of thought, or a tradition of practice, than as Korean Buddhists. If they were to refer to themselves at all, it would be not as Korean Buddhists but as disciples, teachers, proselytists, doctrinal specialists, and meditators all terms suggested in the categorizations of monks found in the various Gaoseng zhuan (Biographies of Eminent Monks), which date from as early as the sixth century. These categorizations transcended national and cultural boundaries (there are, for instance, no sections for Korean monks, Japanese monks, etc.), and the Chinese compilations of such Biographies of Eminent Monks will Jewel in Indra's Net: The Letter Sent by Fazang in China to Ŭisang in Korea, Italian School of East Asian Studies Occasional Papers 8 (Kyoto: Instituto Italiano di Cultura Scuola di Studi sull Asia Orientale, 2000). 16) Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (1983; revised edition, London: Verso, 1991), p

16 subsume under their main listings biographies of Koreans, Indians, Inner Asians, and Japanese. Hence, although the Biographies might mention that Buddhists as being a monk of Silla or a sage of Haedong both designations that are attested in the Biographies they are principally categorized as proselytists, doctrinal specialists, and so forth, who may simultaneously also be disciples of X, teachers of Y, or meditators with Z. 17) Unlike many of the other peoples who lived on the periphery of the Sinitic cultural sphere, Koreans also worked throughout the premodern period to maintain a cultural, social, and political identity that was distinct from China. As Michael Rogers at the University of California, Berkeley, so aptly described it, Koreans throughout their history remained active participants in Sinitic civilization while also seeking always to maintain their cultural self-sufficiency. 18) But simultaneous with their recognition of their clan and local identity, their allegiance to a particular state and monarch, their connection to Buddhist monastic and ordination lineages, and so forth, Buddhist monks of the pre-modern age also viewed themselves as participating in the universal transmission of the dharma going back both spatially and temporally to India and the Buddha himself. With such a vision, East Asian Buddhists could continue to be active participants in a religious tradition whose origins were distant both geographically and temporally. East Asians of the premodern age viewed Buddhism as a universal religion pristine and pure in its thought, its practice, and its realization; hence the need of hermeneutical taxonomies to explain how the plethora of competing Buddhist doctrines and practices each claiming to be pristinely Buddhist but seemingly at times to be almost diametrically opposed to one another were all actually part of a coherent heuristic plan within the religion, as if Buddhism's many variations were in fact cut from whole cloth. This vision of their tradition also accounts 17) Compare here Benedict Anderson's comments about the invention of the French aristocracy prior to the French Revolution (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities [1983; rev. ed., London: Verso, 1991], p.7). As Anderson suggests, in that period members of the aristocracy did not conceive of themselves as part of a class, but as persons who were connected to myriad other persons, as the lord of X, the uncle of the Baronne de Y, or a client of the Duc de Z. 18) Michael C. Rogers, P yŏnnyŏn T ongnok: The Foundation Legend of the Koryŏ State, Korean Studies 4 (1982~1983): pp.3~

17 for the persistent attempt of all of the indigenous schools of East Asian Buddhism to trace their origins back through an unbroken lineage of ancestors or patriarchs to the person of the Buddha himself. Once we begin tracing the countercurrents of influence in East Asian Buddhist thought, however, we discover that the lineages of these patriarchs often lead us back not to China or Japan, but instead to Korea

18 <References> Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities (London: Verso, 1983; reprint 1991). Best, Jonathan. Tales of Three Paekche Monks Who Traveled Afar in Search of the Law, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 51 (1991). Buswell, Robert E. Jr. Currents and Countercurrents: Korean Influences on the East Asian Buddhist Traditions (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005).. Imagining Korean Buddhism : The Invention of a National Religious Tradition, in Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity, Korea Research Monograph no. 26, edited by Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R. Tangherlini, (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 1998).. The Formation of Ch an Ideology in China and Korea: The Vajrasamādhi- Sūtra, a Buddhist Apocryphon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).. Chinul's Systematization of Chinese Meditative Techniques in Korean Sŏn Buddhism, in Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, edited by Peter N. Gregory(Honolului University of Hawaii Press, 1986). Davids, Rhys. trans. Vinaya Texts, Sacred Books of the East, vol. 13 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1882). Dobbins, James C. Envisioning Kamakura Buddhism, in Re-Visioning Kamakura Buddhism. Forte, Antonino. A Jewel in Indra s Net: The Letter Sent by Fazang in China to Ŭisang in Korea, Italian School of East Asian Studies Occasional Papers 8 (Kyoto: Instituto Italiano di Cultura Scuola di Studi sull Asia Orientale, 2000). Gómez, Luis. The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light, Sanskrit and Chinese Versions of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtras, University of Michigan Studies in the Buddhist Traditions (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press and Kyoto: Higashi Honganji Shinshū Ōtani-ha, 1996). Grayson, James H. The Role of Early Korean Buddhism in the History of East Asia, Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 34-2 (1980). Gregory, Peter N. ed. Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, Kuroda Institute

19 Studies in East Asian Buddhism No. 4 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986).. Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991; reprint ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002). Hong Wontack. Paekche of Korea and the Origin of Yamato Japan, Ancient Korean- Japanese History (Seoul: Kudara International, 1994). Hopkins, Jeffrey. Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism: Dynamic Responses to Dzong-ka-ba's The Essence of Eloquence: 1 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999). Horner, I. B. trans. The Book of the Discipline, vol. 4 (1951; Oxford: Pali Text Society, reprint 1996). Inoue Hideo. trans. by Robert E. Buswell, Jr. The Reception of Buddhism in Korea and Its Impact on Indigenous Culture, in Introduction of Buddhism to Korea: New Cultural Patterns, Studies in Korean Religions and Culture, vol. 3, ed. Lewis R. Lancaster and Chai-shin Yu (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1989). Kamata Shigeo. trans by Kyoko Tokuno. The Transmission of Paekche Buddhism to Japan, in Introduction of Buddhism to Korea: New Cultural Patterns (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1989). Kapstein, Matthew T. From Korea to Tibet: Action at a Distance in the Early Medieval World System, in The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). Lancaster, Lewis R. and Yu Chai-shin. ed. Introduction of Buddhism to Korea: New Cultural Patterns, Studies in Korean Religions and Culture, vol. 3 (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1989). Lancaster, Lewis R. Assimilation of Buddhism in Korea: Religious Maturity and Innovation in the Silla Dynasty, Studies in Korean Religions and Culture, vol. 4 (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991). Minamoto Hiroyuki. Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla, Assimilation of Buddhism in Korea: Religious Maturity and Innovation in the Silla Dynasty, Studies in Koran Religions and Culture, ed. Lewis R. Lancaster and Chai-shin

20 Yu (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991), vol. 4. Pai, Hyung Il Pai and Tangherlini, Timothy R. ed. Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity, Korea Research Monograph no. 26 (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 1998). Payne, Richard K. ed. Re-Visioning Kamakura Buddhism, Kuroda Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism, No. 11 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, A Kuroda Institute Book, 1998). Reischauer, Edwin O. Ennin s Travels in T ang China (New York: The Ronald Press, 1955). Rogers, Michael C. P yŏnnyŏn T ongnok: The Foundation Legend of the Koryŏ State, Korean Studies 4 ( ). Sørensen, Henrik. Ennin s Account of a Korean Buddhist Monastery, A.D., Acta Orientalia 47 (1986). Steinkellner, Ernst. Who is Byan chub rdzu phrul? Tibetan and Non-Tibetan Commentaries on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra A Survey of the Literature, Berliner Indologische Studien 4, no. 5 (1989). Yang Han-sung. The Hye Ch o Diary: Memoir of the Pilgrimage to the Five Regions of India, Religions of Asia Series, no. 2 (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, n.d.).. ( :, 1995).. ( :, 1986)..,,, ( :, 1973).. ( :, 1994).,. ( :, 1993)

21 <Abstract> 동아시아의맥락에서본한국의불교사상 로버트버스웰 Key Words

22 < 한국어번역 > 동아시아의맥락에서본한국의불교사상 로버트버스웰 (Robert E. Buswell, Jr) * Ⅰ. 서언

23

24

25 ṭ

26

27 Ⅱ. 불교의동방확산에있어서한국의역할

28

29 Ⅲ. 중국불교그리고그너머에끼친한국의영향력

30

31

32 ñ ṃ

33 Ⅳ. 한국불교도들의자아의식 Ŭ

34

35

36