Nationalism and Identity of the ‘Jogye Oder of Korean Buddhism’: Reconsidering the
Historiography of Modern Korean Buddhism
Korea University
[Working Draft: Not for Citation]
[Diacritical marks for foreign languages are omitted]
I.
Introduction
The historiography of Korean Buddhism in the early 20th century and the colonial period
has been primarily a “nationalist narrative” where ‘anti-Japanese sentiment’ and ‘Korean
Buddhist identity through the protection of tradition’ played a key role in writing of the
history of modern Korean Buddhism. The outline of the narrative is as follows: in response to
the threat of Japanese Buddhism in the Korean peninsula, a national Buddhism of antiJapanese sentiment emerged and continued under colonial circumstances; after liberation
from Japanese colonial rule, under the campaign of purifying the Buddhist Order seen to be
contaminated by the colonial legacy, Korean Buddhists expelled ‘married monks’; and in
1962, the Jogye Order, succeeding the long tradition of Korean Buddhism, was reestablished.
The problems with such a narrative can be summed up in the following three points:
(1) First, it considers the formative process of anti-Japanese national Buddhism as the
history of modern Korean Buddhism, and the establishment of the Jogye Order as its
final conclusion. As for the teleology of historical interpretation that has conflated the
whole history of Korean Buddhism, since the 20th century, as the establishment of the
Jogye Order, I have already argued elsewhere.1 And Prof. Micah Auerback recently
criticizes the writing of the history of modern Korean Buddhism as falling into
“presentism.” He argues:
Another problem related to the presentist fallacy is its rigid teleology, which posits
that our present is the only possible outcome of the past. …
The affirmation of a single ideal present is complicit with other affirmations, of a
totalizing, monolithic Korean identity, of a single legitimate form of Buddhist
practice.2
(2) The second problem is the rigid anti/pro Japanese dichotomy in which modern
Japanese Buddhism was ‘corrupted’, ‘degraded’, and ‘evil’, while Korean Buddhism was
‘feeble’ but pure--due to the long suppression of Neo-Confucian orthodoxy--and became a
1
Sungtaek Cho, “Modern Buddhist Scholarship and Modern Korean Buddhism,” Minjok Munwha
Yon’gu, vol 45(2006), 85.[in Korean]
2
Micah Auerback, “Rethinking the Historiography of “Ch’in-il Buddhism”: The Chosen Bukkyodan
and the Debate over Clerical Marriage in 1920s Korea.” [unpublished mss. pp.3]. However, the
Korean version was published in the Aea yon’gu [Asiatic Research], vol. 133, 2008, pp. 15-53.
1
victim of the former. This observation, bearing no semblance of any historical reality, is
nothing but a biased victim’s point of view. All the more, whether conscious or not, Korean
Buddhism maintains the defense of the political legitimacy of the Jogye Order and its
historical identity by simplifying the complexity of the history of modern Korean Buddhism.
(3) The third point I would like to mention is that ‘modern Buddhism’ is not distinguished
from Buddhism in the modern period. With the establishment of the Jogye Order being
described as the completion of modern Korean Buddhism, there is little heed to various
endeavors of modernization of Korean Buddhism during the colonial period, thereby
completely ignoring legitimate evaluations of the period. From the point of ‘modern
Buddhism,’ the Jogye Order, which purports to ‘restore the tradition’—doctrinally as well as
institutionally--is far from being ‘modern Buddhism.’ The Jogye Order is a result of
forgoing ‘reformation’ or ‘modernization’ of Korean Buddhism, which has been the primary
task since early 20th century. Moreover, the Jogye Order crafted the image of national
Buddhism in order to drive out ‘married monks’ (comprising most of the monk population),
and later appropriated the rhetoric of national Buddhism as seen fit.
It is time we need a new narrative of the history of modern Korean Buddhism instead of a
‘nationalist narrative’. Attempting beyond a binary view of ‘anti-/pro Japanese’ and the
‘presentist fallacy’ legitimizing the current Buddhist order of Korea, in this paper, I would
like to suggest a new perspective of viewing modern Korean Buddhism and the diverse
experiences of Korean Buddhists as ‘dilemmas’. By doing so, I think we could get at various
aspects which cannot be simply reduced to an ‘anti/pro Japanese’ perspective, and reexamine
critically the historical meaning of the establishment of the Jogye Order in modern Korea.
II. Korean Buddhism in Dilemmas
The early modern Korean Buddhism was, in sum, ‘Buddhism in dilemma.’ The whole
picture of the various aspects of Korean Buddhism spawned through dilemma situations is
the history of modern Korean Buddhism. The origin of the dilemmas, which Korean
Buddhism had to endure since early 20th century and, subsequently, during the colonial period
concerns two facts: one is the fact that the religion of Japan, the colonizer, was Buddhism,
and the other is that the Buddhism of Japan was more ‘advanced’ compared to Korean
Buddhism which had, through 500 years of suppression, became powerless.. By viewing
modern Korean Buddhism in the perspective of ‘dilemma,’ we see that the relationship of
Korean Buddhism to Japan as neither ‘anti-Japanese’ or ‘pro-Japanese’ Buddhism; rather we
see Korean Buddhism to be facing two kinds of dilemma: (1) is that which was generated
from the way in which Korean Buddhism related itself with Japanese Buddhism and (2) was
from the ambivalence of the self-proclaimed enlightenment nationalist intellectuals on
Korean Buddhism. I would like to discuss these two aspects of dilemmas respectively.
II-1. Modernization or Korean Selfhood
It was not until 1895 that Korean Buddhists, enabled by Japanese Buddhism, were allowed
officially to propagate their religion. Initially, Japanese Buddhism were a sort of ‘liberation
army’ to the Korean Buddhists. Before the ascendancy of nationalism of anti-Japanese
sentiments it is not surprise that Korean Buddhists had a favorable impression towards
Japanese Buddhism. With its impact on Korean society, Christianity posed a challenge to
Korean Buddhism, and Korean Buddhists even considered Japanese Buddhism to be a
favorable protection from the powerful religion from the West.
2
Korean Buddhists knew well that the ‘modernization of Buddhism’ was the only option
after five hundred years of long depression. It was too long away and anachronistic to return
back to the past of Silla or Koryo, the Golden Eras of Korean Buddhism. Moreover, ‘entering
into the modern society’ and ‘attaining civilization and enlightenment’ (munmyong kaewha)
were common aspirations of the Korean people in a crisis of losing their country. In concert
with such aspirations of the Korean society, Korean Buddhists had ‘modernization’ as one of
their paramount tasks to be carried out in so-called modern society. It was of utmost
importance for Korean Buddhists to prove to themselves that Buddhism, a traditional religion,
had modern utility, useful enough to survive in a new environment, the so-called modern
society. Accordingly, they defined their religion as ‘philosophy’ in order to prove Buddhism
to be ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ two characteristics of modernity; and they were not reluctant
to include modern academic disciplines, such as biology, physics, geography, religious
studies, history and so on, in new curriculums for training monks and nuns: Inspired by the
social works of Christianity, as well as Japanese Buddhism in Korea, Korean Buddhists were
also actively engaged in modern social service activities such as running hospitals, prison
propagations, and so forth, endeavors all of which prove modern utility and social viability of
Buddhism in modern society. In an attempt to achieve modernization, there were, at times,
radical proposals that denied even their own old Buddhist traditions. In this regard we
might mention that ‘clerical marriage’ and the ‘abolishment of chanting halls’, proposed by
Manhae (1879-1944), were some of the most radical proposals among others. In as much as
not reluctant in denying their own tradition, Korean Buddhists viewed with optimism their
efforts to adapt themselves in a rapidly changing society. To the Korean Buddhist, a
latecomer to the modern world, Japanese Buddhism as well as Christianity were rivals as well
as challenges for them to overcome, but at same time, in terms of social viability and modern
utility, they were models to follow.
While making various efforts to modernize Korean Buddhism, Korean Buddhists were
encountered with another task: to secure an ‘identity of Korean Buddhism’ distinct from that
of Japanese Buddhism. Japanese Buddhism, after the systematic suppression of the Meiji
government during in the late 19th and early 20th century, had been transformed into ‘national
Buddhism’ or ’state Buddhism’; the Buddhism requiring loyalty to the Emperor; being
beneficial to the state; and being committed to the national ideology. After the experience of
the March First Movement in 1919 and the inevitable conflict between the colonizer and the
colonized, Korean Buddhists recognized that an identity distinct from Japanese Buddhism
was no less important than the modernization of Korean Buddhism.
From today’s perspective, we might able to envision a model for Korean Buddhism that is
different from Japanese Buddhism while pursuing modernization of Korean Buddhism.
However, in the marginalized situation of Korean Buddhism, I think, it was almost
impossible to think of a ‘third model.’ Five hundred years of suppression and financial
resources as well as personnel resources were also far from being sufficient. The most
decisive factor was, however, the fact that the religion of Japan, the colonizer, was Buddhism.
As in the case of the European colonies where the religion of the colonized was different
from the colonizer, the traditional religion of the colonized would take a central position of
engendering national resistance and creating a new national discourse against the colonizer.
In the case of Korea, however, Christianity, a foreign religion of Korea, took such a role.
Since Christianity was under the restraint of the anti-Christian policy of the colonial
government, it was somehow in a position of being easily identified with Korean people who
were also under the unjust Japanese colonial rule. And with this sympathetic sentiment of
Korean people Christianity could become a ‘national religion’ of Korea and the place of
3
creating the ‘national discourse.’ While scholars in the field of modern Korean Buddhism
postulate with no reservation that Japanese Buddhism as being the primary ‘other’ to Korean
Buddhism, this may not have been the case for the Korean Buddhists faced with a dilemma.
Undergoing a crisis in the early 20th century, Korean intellectuals began to contemplate the
concept of the ‘nation’ that was not based on the ‘state’ but on ‘ethnicity.’ In their
contemplation history, religion, and language became important elements for constructing the
‘nation’ and ‘national identity.’ ‘Civilization and enlightenment’ (munmyong kaewha) and
‘nationalism’ can be seen to be contradictory just as the two Buddhist agendas of
‘modernization’ and ‘Korean identity’ contradict each other. As Prof. Andre Schmid
demonstrates in a persuasive manner, however, Korean intellectuals appropriated accordingly
‘civilization and enlightenment’ (munmyong kaewha) and ‘nationalism’ as one discourse in
the early 20th century.3 In other words, what is useful is good for Korea in the name of
‘civilization and enlightenment’ (munmyong kaewha). In the case of Christianity, for an
example, despite its foreign origin, it could be beneficial to the Korean people in the name of
‘civilization and enlightenment’ (munmyong kaewha); if beneficial to the Korean people it
could be a fitting religion for Korean people. In this way of thinking it was not unnatural to
consider Christianity as a national religion for Koreans. Christianity, since the 20th century,
equated with civilization, modern education including the education for women, and
occupied a central space for creating a ‘national discourse.’ During and after the early modern
period, Christianity was even considered as being potentially the only possible counterproposal by which to help escape from the fetters of Japanese colonial rule. That Christianity
was different from the religion of the colonizer and was under colonial restraint enabled the
favorable appearance of Christianity as a national religion for Korean people.
This was not the case of Korean Buddhism, however. The religion of Japan, the colonizer,
was Buddhism, and Japanese Buddhism was seen as the most successful model for modern
Buddhism in Asia then: the lay Buddhist intellectuals played an integral role in Buddhism;
Buddhism was taught as one of the modern academic disciplines in colleges and universities;
social work, in a modern sense, also became an important component of religious
propagation, of which method and contents were completely different from traditional
Buddhism. For it was not easy, if not impossible, for Korean Buddhists to separate
modernization of Korean Buddhism from Japanese Buddhism and conflate modernization of
Korean Buddhism with nationalism since modern Buddhism was introduced by Japanese
Buddhism.
Due to this dilemmatic situation clerical marriage emerged as a pivotal issue for modern
Korean Buddhism. Some of Korean monks considered clerical marriage to be an important
component of Japanese Buddhism, while others viewed clerical marriage to be a feature of
‘modern Buddhism’ and not necessarily a Japanese trait. The former thought that with just the
elimination of clerical marriage from Japanese Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism could be seen
as a model reference for modern Korean Buddhism and consequently distinguish modern
Buddhism from Japanese Buddhism. This was the case of conservative reformers such as
Paek Yongsong(1863-1940) or Paek Hangmyong(1878-1944). While they only viewed
negatively ‘clerical marriage’ they were not quite reluctant to accept some of the modern
features of Japanese Buddhism, such as the modern education for monks, the urban
dissemination of Buddhism, and the importance of lay Buddhist intellectuals. Meanwhile
3
Andre Schmid, Korea Between Empires, 1895-1919, Columbia University Press, 2002. Especially
“Authentic Culture, Pure Identities,” 60-64; “A Lost Korean and Eastern Civilization, 80-86.
4
those who had a more flexible stance on clerical marriage saw that ‘clerical marriage’ was an
indispensable for the modernization of Korean Buddhism, and was not necessarily harmful
for the identity of Korean Buddhism. Manhae(1879-1944), a well-known progressive
reformer of modern Korean Buddhism, is an exemplary case. For Manhae the main problem
of Japanese Buddhism was its nature of being a state religion, and he thought that in order to
secure an identity of Korean Buddhism it was more crucial to be free from colonial rule; this
explaining why he continued to advocate the separation of politics and religion (or the
separation of state and church) in his writings.4 His ideas of ‘People’s Buddhism’ (minjung
pulgyo) or the ‘Multitude/Public Buddhism’ was, I think, on one hand to save Buddhism from
the nationalism in a narrow sense, and on the other hand to change traditional, monk-centered
Buddhism to the Buddhism of the populace, which in fact meant the embrace of clerical
marriage. This was, he thought, the way of modernizing Korean Buddhism while securing the
identity of Korean Buddhism. Not viewing clerical marriage as an essential trait of Japanese
Buddhism, Manhae thought that through freedom from colonial control government the
identity of Korean Buddhism could be secured, and with the new system of clerical marriage,
modern utility of Korean Buddhism could be achieved. However astute a proposal, even from
today’s viewpoint, ‘clerical marriage’ was seen as an essential element of Japanese Buddhism,
and failed to gain the general consensus of the Korean Buddhists. ‘Modernization’ and
‘Korean identity’ were, throughout the history of modern Korean Buddhism, considered to be
incompatible and self-contradictory
While this dilemma situation continued, Korean Buddhism faced another adversity:
general mobilization efforts for the Sino-Japanese war in 1936. From then on, so-called ‘proJapanese’ or ‘anti-Japanese’ came to be significant issues for modern Korean Buddhism, in
terms of giving support to or collaborating with the Japanese war campaign. Under this
‘general mobilization’ for the Japanese war campaign, Korean Buddhists incessantly
agonized over ‘modernization’ and ‘Korean identity’, and suffered the brutality of the
Japanese military system until liberation from colonial rule in 1945.
II-2. “The Brighter Past and the Dismal Present”5
The dilemmatic experience of modern Korean Buddhism did not originate solely from
the relationship with Japanese Buddhism and Japanese colonial rule. Korean Buddhists had to
deal with the complex situation that came about due to, in a way, the ambivalent views on
Korean Buddhism of the self-proclaimed enlightenment nationalist intellectuals. At the time
of the crisis of ‘losing national sovereignty’ in the late 19th century and early 20th century
Korean intellectuals began to contemplate on the ‘nation’ not based on the ‘state’ but on the
‘ethnicity.’ In their contemplation the history, religion and language became the paramount
important factors in imaging the ‘national identity.’ In such a process of the contemplation
Tan’gun emerged as a new symbolic icon in the reconstruction of a cultural identity based on
Korean ethnicity. By reifying the Tan’gun narrative along with ‘civilization and
4
To come
5
This title is from Andre Schmid’s Korea Between Empires, 1895-1919, pp. 108.
5
enlightenment’(munmyong kaewha), Korean intellectuals--especially the Confucian
Reformers such as Shin Ch’aeho--attempted to extricate Korea’s history from a Chinese
cultural legacy and to decenter the “Middle Kingdom’(中華). In the making a ‘new’ national
history , Korean Buddhism, having had a long and strong tie with Chinese Buddhism, was
considered a foreign religion, and was omitted in the various disciplines of
‘Chosonhak’(Korean Studies of then) intended for researching the cultural identity of Korea.
Here Korean Buddhism, just resurfacing from a long period of depression, was once again to
be marginalized in the name of the ‘nation.’ Not only was it the perennial bias against
Buddhism by the Confucian Reformers, who came to emerge as a new intellectual group
along with the Western and Christian groups, but the fact that Japan’s religion was Buddhism
also had a negative impact on the outlook of Buddhism.
A newspaper article shows us the then Korean intellectuals’ critical standpoint on
Buddhism. Here is the summary of their criticism in the newspaper article. For the
convenience of reading section numbers are inserted in each statement.
(1) Though there are a few monks, aware of the current trends and thoughts, are
committed to educating monks, upon examination, however, those who teach juniors
with the principles advocated by Masters Sosan(1520-1604) and Samyong(15441610) of saving the nation are very few, and most of them make a living, following
the tide of our times, by translating for Japanese monks. This is a disgrace for
[Korean] monks.
(2) There are a few monks who, in order to establish the religious legitimacy [of Korean
Buddhist tradition], convene and organize a society for Buddhist Studies. However,
unlike Japanese monks, there are no Korean monks who have extensive knowledge
of Eastern and Western philosophy and of the past and present with which to make
innovative and new contribution to (Korean) Buddhism. This is also a disgrace for
[Korean] monks.
(3) There is no monk who actively opposes propagations of Japanese monks. But also
there are many monks who ask the Japanese monks to ‘preach Dharma.’ This is also
disgrace to [Korean] monks.
(4) You, Korean Monks, should stand up resolutely. First, you should not forget the
‘Spirit of Universal Salvation’ of Buddhism; second, you should not forget the
‘Spirit of Nationalism,’ which has been a feature of Korean Buddhism; third, you
should import the knowledge of the new world6, and should not give into the
activities of foreign monks in every business but should move forward.
Those who, while staying at a monastery deep in the mountains savor the taste of zen
alone and want only for oneself to dwell in heavenly paradise, will fall into hell
sooner or later, as this is not what the Buddha allows us.
[“The Public Statement for the Buddhist Monks, my fellow countrymen,” Taehan
maeil sinbo (The Korean Daily Newspaper), December 13, 1908]
It is interesting that the ‘Monks’ Army’ was singled out as a historical example of Buddhist
contribution to the nation. Since the ‘Monks Army’ of the Sosan and Samyong was organized
during the war campaign against the Japanese invasion in1592, it seems to have been chosen
selectively as a symbol of national protection from Japan. Though further research is required,
as far as I know, this newspaper article seems to be the first document mentioning the
6
Meaning ‘the knowledge of the West.’
6
‘Monks’ Army’ to be a Buddhist contribution to the nation. If this is the case, ‘state protection
Buddhism’(hoguk pulgyo) could not have been a forged tradition created by Korean
Buddhism circles but may have been imposed from outside of the Buddhist society during the
crisis of losing national sovereignty. Whichever the case may have been, this needs to be
looked into.
Buddhist call for patriotism (or nationalism) and ‘civilization and
enlightenment’(munmyong kaewha)--issues raised in Korean society since the late 19th
century—continued to appear in newspapers and journals. Korean Buddhists not yet keen to
the meaning of patriotism (or nationalism) to Buddhism, in their attempt to respond to social
demands, maintained in the mission statements the social responsibility of Buddhism; they
invoked the ‘patriotic spirit of Buddhism’ or the Buddhist contribution to the ‘wealthy
country and its powerful people’. Also, a Buddhist sense of patriotism and nationalism
appeared in the ‘Korean Buddhist Declaration of Independence,’ proclaimed at Shanghai in
December of 1919 immediately after the March First Movement. Kim Kwangshik understood
‘Korean Buddhist Declaration of Independence,’ the historical foundation of anti –Japanese
national Buddhism, to be the essence of modern Korean Buddhism. While it is true that
patriotism and anti-Japanese nationalism are expressed in the ‘Korean Buddhist Declaration
of Independence,’ I argue, however, that this was simply a response generated out of social
cry for patriotism; there was no elaboration based on Buddhist doctrines or the Buddhist spirit.
In other words, although the Korean Buddhist society were aware of the national demand for
patriotism (or nationalism) and ‘civilization and enlightenment’(munmyong kaewha) and
were eager to respond accordingly, it must be noted that Korean Buddhism, being placed in a
difficult situation in that the colonizer’s religion was Buddhism, may have been making no
more than a declaration, no other than what they thought what they should do.
Meanwhile, Korean intellectuals’ understanding of and demands on Korean Buddhism
were not necessarily always in agreement. While some desired for Korean Buddhism to be
‘modernized,’ others, implicitly or explicitly, wanted Korean Buddhism to remain as
‘tradition’, symbolizing the ‘brighter past.’ While it is true that the stance on Buddhism in the
‘tradition’ was not necessarily in opposition to modernization, there was definitely hesitance
towards modernization. Ch’oe Namson’s ambivalent view and attitude towards Buddhism is
clearly shown.
Ch’oe Namson(1890-1957) wrote an article in which he recounts his encounter with
Buddhism in his life:
At age 15, when I went to Japan [for studying], I began to read Western philosophy one
after another, and came to know that Buddhism was philosophical. And previously I
thought that Buddhism was a reclusive mountain religion. However, I came to observe
the religious atmosphere of Japan and learned that Buddhism was active in worldly
affairs and cultural interactions. After that my interest in Buddhism increased
substantively.
Earlier times I had already read some books, published in Shanghai, on Buddhist
doctrines and philosophy, books which were translated from Western languages into
Chinese. However, due to limited, Western understanding of Buddhism, there was
mention of inertia and unconcerned with affairs of the world as the shortcomings of
Buddhism. Since then I had felt sorry about that until I saw in Japan that Buddhism
was not necessarily isolated and out-of-the-world. This made me glad, and also I was
so deeply moved by the [Japanese] scholars active around the time, scholars who
stressed that Buddhism was philosophical. At that time, I felt reassured that Buddhism
7
Buddhism was no less philosophical or theoretical than Western philosophy.
[“Myoum gwanseum”(The mystic sound of goddess of mercy), Pulgyo(Buddhism), vol.
50-51, 1928, 63-64.]
“At age 15,” in the story is the year of 1906 when Ch’oe Namson went to Yaseda
University. At a glance it only appears that Ch’oe Namson is recounting how his view on
Buddhism has changed. At the background of the story, however, Korean Buddhism and
Japanese Buddhism in the early 20th century are, in fact, compared. His views of Buddhism
as being “a reclusive mountain religion,” “inert” and being “unconcerned with affairs of the
world” was in fact his reflection on Korean Buddhism, while the Buddhism which he was
deeply moved by was Japanese Buddhism. It was through Buddhism in Japan, not in Korea,
that he came to realize that Buddhism had a philosophical system comparable to Western
thought, and that Buddhism could play an important cultural role in modern society. His
experiences and observations in Japan on the possibility of Buddhism in a modern society
produced a renewed interest in Korean Buddhism and its function in Korea society, but also
provided the basis from which to criticize Korean Buddhism.
Upon his return from Japan, he helped Buddhist intellectuals, Yi Nung hwa and Kwon
Sangno, publish their books, Choson pulgyo t’ongsa (The Comprehensive History of Korean
Buddhism) and Choson Pulgyo yaksa (A Brief History of Korean Buddhism), respectively, at
his own publishing company, Sinmungwan. Furthermore, he encouraged systematization of
Korean Buddhism in the system of modern Buddhist scholarship. He himself was committed
to researching Buddhism as a central part of Korean culture. Ch’oe maintains that research on
Buddhism was prerequisite in understanding of Korean culture and in establishing Korean
identity:
Now I came to the realization that without an understanding of Buddhism we are not
able to understand Korean culture. Furthermore, since the narrative of Tan’gun, the
Founding Father, was transmitted through the Buddhist literature, in which [without
knowledge on Buddhism] various questions and problems were raised, in order to
know the right answer I knew I had to study Buddhism prior to anything else. [Ibid.,
pp. 64]
Here Ch’oe recognizes Korean Buddhism to be an important part of Korean culture. While
recognizing the traditional value of Korean Buddhism, however, he devalues the actual
Korean Buddhism at his time. It must have been inevitable for him to compare the ‘inert’
Korean Buddhism with Japanese modern Buddhism, which he had observed as being “so
active in worldly affairs and cultural interactions” and comparable to the Western
philosophical system. He criticized Korean Buddhism, unable to make headway in creating a
‘new culture’(sinmunwha) of Korea, in the following way:
Up to now it is more than true that Korean culture has been indebted to Buddhism. We
cannot but view Buddhism as the first, among thoughts of foreign origin, which had
engendered cultural progress to us in a real sense. …
Korean culture’s expectations of Buddhism in the present and the future is no less if not
more than the past. However, how much can we really ask of Korean Buddhists and
Korean Buddhism of today? How much can their downward shoulders and loosened
arms take such burdens and responsibility in the process of building our ‘new culture’?
At a time when we could say alas “here comes the time that the entire world would
8
become a Buddhist world,” what is the reason for that it is no other than the Buddhist
themselves, who have dragged Buddhism into the miserable dumps? It is so sad that
there is none to blame for this, but only Korean Buddhists today. …
…
It is, in fact, not accidental nor casual that, amongst the Buddhist world, Korean
Buddhism was able to enjoy a position of prestige and eminent value in terms of the
doctrine, and that since Buddhism was introduced into Korean culture , all of Korea has
become a Buddhist culture.7 [ “ch’amchi mottal il,” Dong-A ilbo, 1927, 10.25-31; Also
the Ch’oe Namseon Chonjip(The Collected Works of Ch’oe Namseon), vol. 9, 175-6.) ]
In the article above the statement “here comes the time and opportunity that the entire
world would become a Buddhist world” reflects Ch’oe’s impression and observation on
Japanese Buddhism. If we compare Korean Buddhism with the above standard of Japanese
Buddhism, Ch’oe Namson’s statement on Korean Buddhism, “downward shoulders and
loosened arms” would be an accurate observation of Korean Buddhism at the time. It was
not, however, a fair evaluation for Korean Buddhism at that time. Having just emerged
after a stagnation of five hundred years, Korean Buddhism despite its long tradition in
Korean peninsula was, in fact, a new religion of Korea in terms of its religious, financial,
and institutional influence in Korean society. Just as it would be unreasonable to compare
the religious and social influences of Korean Christianity in the early the 20th century with
those of contemporaneous Christianity in Western countries, it would not be fair to
compare Korean Buddhism with Japanese Buddhism. In fact as early as the 1920s,
Christianity surpassed Korean Buddhism in terms of population of followers, as well as in
the number of schools, hospitals, and other institutions of social service. What Korean
Buddhists needed may not have been criticism or reprimanding on its current stagnant
status, but encouragement and moral support. And instead Korean intellectuals relentlessly
criticized Korean Buddhism. This may have been so because Korean Buddhism was one of
the main sources for Korean intellectuals’ inferiority complex. Here again we see how the
fact that Japan’s religion was Buddhism was played out and functioned in Korean society
and reacted to Korean Buddhism.
That said, it would be understandable that in the article above while mentioning “among
the entire Buddhist world Korean Buddhism enjoyed the position of prestige and excellent
value,” Ch’oe Namson turned his interest from Korean Buddhism to ‘traditional’ Buddhism
of the past. By reverting back to the past when Korean Buddhism had an advantageous
position over Japanese Buddhism, Ch’oe was compensating for the gap made in relatively
recent times and to reassure national pride, which had been injured by colonialism. In fact
this kind of psychological disposition was common among Korean intellectuals during the
colonial period. Korean intellectuals tried to compensate for the ‘present dismal’ by
invoking the traditional legacies of the ‘brighter past’--Turtle Ship, the advanced printing
technology, pottery, and so on. However, this was not necessarily beneficial for Korean
Buddhism, as the more one talks about the ‘brighter’ past, the more the present becomes
‘dismal.’ It could result in the same consequence intended by Japanese colonialists who, by
stressing the high cultural level of the Silla, in fact, embossed the stagnation of present-day
Korea and wanted to justify their colonial rule of Korea.
Ch’oe Namson wrote an article with the title “Korean Buddhism and her Position in the
7
See if correct
9
Cultural history of the Orient” for the purpose of presenting at the Pan-Asian Pacific
Buddhist Youth Conference held in Hawaii in 1930. As implied in the title, his article was
to demonstrate the peculiarity and the uniqueness of Korean Buddhism in the context of
World Buddhism. He mentioned that Korean Buddhism with special geographical
background of peninsula was the realization of ‘comprehensive Buddhism’ (chon pulgyo),
‘syncretic Buddhism’(chonghap pulgyo), and the final conclusion of Buddhism originated
in India. And he continued to point out that the one responsible for this was no other than
Wonhyo (617-686) of the Silla period. On one hand, his contention was in response to the
general view of Takahashi Toru and other Japanese scholars, who saw Korean Buddhism as
“adhering to original Chinese Buddhism” and regarded its general characteristics to be
“nonindependence” and “lack of originality.” One the other hand, however, his way of
narrating Korean Buddhism was in alignment with the general trend of Buddhist Studies in
Japan and China, which attempted to reconstruct the history of East Asian Buddhism from
the perspective of their own ‘national Buddhism.’ While Ch’oe Namson argued that from
the viewpoint of the ‘past’ Korean Buddhism was the ‘comprehensive Buddhism’ and the
‘final conclusion,’ Japanese scholars, from the viewpoint of the ‘present’, saw Japanese
Buddhism to be ‘comprehensive’ and ‘complete’ one. The opinion expressed by Japanese
scholars was widely accepted among the Buddhist scholars worldwide. Takakusu Junjiro in
his The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, based on his lectures at University of Hawaii, in
1938-1939, summed up that “the only way to exhibit the entire Buddhist philosophy in all
its different schools is to give a resume of Buddhism in Japan. It is in Japan that the entire
Buddhist literature, the Tripitaka, is preserved and studied.”8 Wing-Tsit Chan and Charles
A. Moore, the co-editors of this book wrote the editors’ preface as follows:9
Some readers may believe that Japanese Buddhism has been overstressed in this
volume, but as Professor Takakusu states, it is justified --- or necessitated --- by
the fact that in Japan “the whole of Buddhism has been preserved,” as well as the
fact that, in Japan, Buddhism is the living and active faith of the mass of the
people.
Although this cannot be accepted from today’s scholarly perspective, we cannot refuse to
acknowledge that it was the mainstream view in Buddhist scholarship worldwide at the time.
The difference between Ch’oe Namson and Takakusu Junjiro is essentially a difference of the
‘past’ and the ‘present.’ While Takakusu Junjiro emphasized the ‘present’ of Japanese
Buddhism, Ch’oe Namson focused on the ‘past’ of Korean Buddhism. Though the
consequence was not what Ch’oe Namson had intended, he had provided the momentum for
Korean Buddhists to concentrate not on the modern reformation of the ‘present’ but on the
‘brighter past.’ Ch’oe Namson and other intellectuals’ ‘traditionalist stance’ on Korean
Buddhism prevented Korean Buddhists from moving forward with the modernization of
Korean Buddhism only to reify the ‘brighter past’. What if the religion of Japan had not been
Buddhism, or Korean Buddhism had had not a ‘brighter past,’ would Korean Buddhism be in
a more promising situation now?
8
The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, eds., by Wing-Tsit Chan and Charles A. Moore, the Office
Appliance Co., Ltd., Honolulu, 1956, pp.10.
9
“Editor’s Preface,” ibid..
10
11