The Origins of Good and Evil and the Challenge of Theodicy in the Buddhist Tradition

Robert E. Buswell, Jr. 계명대학교 한국학연구원 2019 Acta Koreana Vol.22 No.2

The origins of good and evil and the problem of theodicy present a special set of challenges in Buddhism, which is relatively less concerned with consideration of first causes than are monotheistic religions. Buddhism focuses less on the issue of why evil and its incumbent suffering are present in the world and more on the question of how to respond to that evil. This emphasis on soteriology over metaphysics is seen in the characteristic invocation of pragmatic criteria for the evaluation of doctrines and practices; the recurrent motif of the Buddha as therapist rather than theorist; and the pervasive influence of the meta-theory of upāya (expedients or stratagems). This article will examine the soteriological dimension of the broader Buddhist response to evil and explore some of the explicit examinations of the problem of a Buddhist “theodicy” in later Mahāyāna monistic ontologies, which are explored in Korean Buddhist materials: viz., if the mind is innately enlightened or inherently pure, whence do ignorance or defilements arise?

On Translating Wo˘nhyo

Buswell, Robert E. Jr. International Association for Buddhist Thought & C 2002 International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Cultur Vol.1 No.-

Translating a corpus of works as voluminos and varied as tat of Wŏnhyo in Buddhist catalogues, of which some twenty-five are still extant. These works cover virtually the entire gamut of East Asian Buddhist materials available during his time, from the flower Garland (Hwaaŏm) to the Mere-Representation (Yusik), to the Pure land(Chŏngt'o) traditions. Given this huge corpus and range of matrerial a multi-author project such as is being planned through Dongguk University is the only viable approach to the translation. In this brif talk, I seek to raise a few issues relevant to translation Wŏnhyo, in particular, as well as to the project, in general. Many of Wŏnhyo's works are exegetical commentaries to scriptures and treatises important in East Asian Buddhism. There is probably no redligious literature that is so deceptively simple, yet in fact so utterly prolix than is the commentarial literature of East Asian Buddhism, including that of korea. Commentarial literature may seem relatively straightforward to the first-time reader. Typically the scholiast will include a brief introduction outlining the significance of the scripture that is the object of exegesis and the broad structure of the commentary. This introduction will be followed by passages of the scripture, followed by the exegete's comments, which will often include a line-by-line, or even word-by-word, exegesis. But this simple style masks what is often an immensely complex hermeneutical structure that is superimposed over the commentarial sections. This massive interpretative schema challenges the resources of any translator. Wŏnhyo's commentaries are typical of this East Asian commentarial style. His kûmgang sammaegyông non (Exposition of the Adamantine Absorption Scripture), for example, uses a fourfold structure to explicate the scripture : a narration of its principal ideas, an analysis of its theme, an explanation of the title, and finally an explication of the text. The first three sections are essentially introductory, lasting only three Taishō pages, while the last goes on for some forty-five Taishö pages. In several typically complex sections of this fourth section, Wŏnhyo's commentary includes five levels of subheading in its explication. It is absolutely crucial when translation this dense commentarial literature that this hermeneutical structrue be carefully detailed, otherwise the train of Wŏnhyo's argument will be virtually inaccessible to the reader. Wŏnhyo's commentarial style is difficult but not intractable and it is up to the translator to clarify the argument for the reader by providing an adequate outline of the sections. In addition, it will be absolutely crucial to orient readers to the material before they begin to read the translation itself. An extensive introduction outlining the significance and contribution of the text, as well as an overview of its structure and style, should be an integral part of each translation. In addition, extensive annotation will be necessary in order to clarify the nuances of Wŏnhyo's writing, ferret out his own cryptic references and allusions to Buddhist scriptural literature, and to detail the frequent numerical lists that pepper all of Buddhist exegetical writing. Without such scholarly apparatus, even the most dedicated of readers will be apt to throw up their hands in despair when trying to work through these densely-packed translations.

Special Topic of W&nhyo : W&nhyo and the Commentarial Genre in Korean Buddhist Literature

Robert E. Buswell 국제불교문화사상사학회 2003 International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Cultur Vol.2 No.-

Hyobong Sŭnim and “Studying Chinul” (Hangnul學訥): The Centrality of Chinul’s Excerpts (Chŏryo節要) to the Korean Buddhist Tradition

Robert E. Buswell, Jr. 보조사상연구원 2017 보조사상 Vol.47 No.-

HyobongSŭnim, whom we are commemorating at this confe-rence, had great respect for Chinul 知訥(1158-1210) and the approach to practice that he pioneered; in fact, HyobongSŭnim’s sobriquet Hangnul學訥, “Studying Chinul,” indicates how profound was his respect for his predecessor in the Songgwangsa松廣寺 monastic lineage. I have recently completed a new book on Chinul’s Excerpts (Chŏryo 節要), which I believe demonstrates conclusively that it is the single most influential work ever written by a Korean Buddhist au-thor. I am similarly convinced that Chinul’s distinctive soteriological approach of sudden awakening followed by gradual cultivation (tono chŏmsu頓悟漸修) as recounted in his Excerpts constituted the mainstream—really, the only stream—of Korean Buddhism throughout virtually all of history. In this brief paper, I seek to emulate Hyobong Sŭnim’s own encouragement to “Study Chinul” (Hangnul學訥) and outline in very broad swath why I believe Chinul’s Excerpts deserves to be restored to its rightful place at the very center of the Korean Buddhist tradition.

Pojo Chinul 普照知訥 and the Sudden-Gradual Issue

Robert E. Buswell(로버트버스웰) 동국대학교 불교문화연구원 2013 佛敎學報 Vol.0 No.66

지눌은 간화선이라는 명상 기법에 관하여 기술하고 그것의 사용을 지지한 최초의 한국 승려이다. 지눌이 그의 저작에서 대략적으로 설명한 간화선에 접근하는 방식은 임제종내에서 표준이 된 그것과는 몇 가지 중요한 점에서 다르다. 이러한 차이점들 중 가장 중요한 것은 지눌이 자신이 선호한 돈오점수라는 수증론적 방식과 간화선 수행 사이에서 조화를 추구했다는 점이다. 중국과 한국에서 임제 선사들 사이에 일반적으로 수용되는 간화선에 대한 해석은 이 명상 기법을 돈오돈수라는 수증론적 체계를 반드시 수반하는 것으로 보는 것이다. 간화선을 극단적인 돈오지상주의로 볼 경우 이 기법은 깨달음의 체험 그 자체에만 집중하는 것으로 간주되는데, 이는 완전한 깨달음은 어떠한 수행의 형식이 되었건 그것들을 모두 저절로 완벽하게 만들어 버릴 것이라는 가정에 근거한 것으로서 깨달음과 수행 양자를 ‘즉각적’인 것이 되게 한다. 이러한 새로운 간화선 체계를 그가 선호했던 돈오점수의 수증론과 조화시키기 위하여 지눌은 선 수증론의 접근 방법에 있어서의 상당한 간극을 극복해야 했다. 첫째로 그는 비록 신중한 태도를 보이긴 했지만 간화선을 돈오점수의 틀 안에 통합될 수 있는 접근 방법으로 취급한다(다시 말해 바른 이해는 즉각적인 깨달음[돈오]을 낳고, 간화선은 이어지는 점진적 수행[점수]을 구성한다는 것이다). 지눌이 화두를 두 가지 유형으로 구분한 것 또한 간화선을 돈오점수의 틀에 통합하기 위한 방편을 제공한다. ‘뜻을 탐구함’[參句]을 통해 처음의 즉각적인 해오(解悟)를 일으키고, ‘말을 탐구함’[參句]을 통해 인식의 장애[所知障, jneyavarana]를 극복하여 증오(證悟)를 얻는 것이다. 두 번째로 지눌은 간화선을 그가 이전에 검토한 깨달음과 수행을 설명하는 갖가지 불교 교학적 설명들과는 전혀 관계가 없는 별개의 기법으로 다룬다. 곧 화두는모든 다른 수증론의 틀을 초월하는 특별한 ‘경절의 방편’[徑截門]인 것이다. 은밀히 돈오돈수를 간화선에 관한 그의 저작 중에 수용함으로써 지눌은 그가 선호했던 수증론의 토대를 무너뜨리고 돈오점수라는 그의 독특한 방법론에 대한 비판을 야기하기도 하였다. Chinul was the first Korean Buddhist teacher to write about the kanhwa Son technique and to champion its use. The approach to kanhwa Son that Chinul outlines in his writings differs in some important respects from that which becomes normative within the Linji/Imje tradition. The most crucial of these differences is the accommodation Chinul seeks to accomplish between his preferred soteriological approach of sudden awakening/gradual cultivation (tono chomsu) and kanhwa practice. The interpretation of kanhwa Son that is generally accepted by Linji teachers in both China and Korea views the technique as involving the soteriological stratagem of sudden awakening/gradual cultivation (tono tonsu). Where kanhwa Son is viewed as radical subitism, the technique is claimed to focus exclusively on the enlightenment experience itself, the presumption being that a full and complete awakening would automatically perfect any and all forms of cultivation, thus rendering both awakening and practice sudden. In order to reconcile this new system of kanhwa Son with his preferred soteriology of sudden awakening/gradual cultivation, Chinul must negotiate a quite considerable divide in Chan/Son soteriological approaches. Chinul takes two distinct approaches to this reconciliation. First, he treats kanhwa Son as an approach that can be incorporated, albeit hesitatingly, into sudden awakening/gradual cultivation (viz., generating correct understanding constitutes sudden awakening; kanhwa Son constitutes the subsequent gradual cultivation). Chinul``s distinction between two distinct types of hwadu investigation also allows for a way of incorporating kanhwa Son into sudden awakening/ gradual cultivation: investigation of its meaning (ch`amui) generates the initial sudden understanding-awakening; investigation of the word (ch`amui) overcomes the cognitive obstructions (jneyavarana) and results in the realization- awakening. Second, Chinul treats kanhwa Son as a separate technique that has nothing at all to do with Buddhist scholastic accounts of the different outlines of awakening and cultivation he had examined previously: viz., the hwadu was a special kind of shortcut expedient that transcends all other soteriological schemata. By tacitly accommodating sudden awakening/sudden cultivation in his late writings on kanhwa Son, Chinul undermined his own preferred soteriology and prompted critiques of his signature approach of sudden awakening/ gradual cultivation.

Hyobong Sŭnim and “Studying Chinul” (Hangnul 學訥) : The Centrality of Chinul’s Excerpts (Chŏryo 節要) to the Korean Buddhist Tradition

Robert E. Buswell. Jr. 보조사상연구원 2017 보조사상 Vol.47 No.-

이번 학술대회를 통해서 기념하고자 하는 효봉스님(曉峰, 1888-1966)은 지눌(知訥, 1158-1210)과 지눌이 선도했던 수행접근법을 매우 존중했던 분이다. 효봉스님은 ‘지눌을 공부함’이라는 뜻을 담은 ‘학눌(學訥)’을 법호로 삼았을 만큼, 송광사 선맥의 선진자였던 지눌을 향한 존경심이 대단히 깊었다. 최근에 완성된 저자의『절요』에 관한 책은 지눌의『절요』가 한국불교에 있어 가장 영향력 있는저작이라는 점을 분명하게 보여주고 있다. 또한『절요』에 밝혀져 있는 지눌의 해탈을 위한 독특한 돈오점수론(頓悟漸修論)은 실제로 한국불교역사에 있어 유일하게 주류 수행접근법으로 여겨져 왔다. 본 논문에서는 ‘지눌을 공부할 것’을 권장했던 효봉스님을 본보기삼아 왜 지눌의『절요』가 한국불교의 핵심의 위치에 재정립되어야 하는지에 대해서 개괄적으로 살펴보고자 한다. Hyobong Sŭnim, whom we are commemorating at this conference, had great respect for Chinul 知訥 (1158-1210) and the approach to practice that he pioneered; in fact, Hyobong Sŭnim’s sobriquet Hangnul 學訥, “Studying Chinul,” indicates how profound was his respect for his predecessor in the Songgwangsa 松廣寺 monastic lineage. I have recently completed a new book on Chinul’s Excerpts (Chŏryo 節要), which I believe demonstrates conclusively that it is the single most influential work ever written by a Korean Buddhist author. I am similarly convinced that Chinul’s distinctive soteriological approach of sudden awakening followed by gradual cultivation (tono chŏmsu 頓悟漸修) as recounted in his Excerpts constituted the mainstream-really, the only stream- of Korean Buddhism throughout virtually all of history. In this brief paper, I seek to emulate Hyobong Sŭnim’s own encouragement to “Study Chinul” (Hangnul 學訥) and outline in very broad swath why I believe Chinul’s Excerpts deserves to be restored to its rightful place at the very center of the Korean Buddhist tradition.

Thinking about “Korean Buddhism”: A Continental Perspective

Robert E. Buswell, Jr. 서강대학교 종교연구소 2010 Journal of Korean Religions Vol.1 No.1

This article explores the organic relationship that existed between Korean Buddhism and thebroader East Asian tradition throughout much of the premodern period. Even while retainingsome sense of their ethnic and cultural distinctiveness, Korean Buddhists were able to exertwide-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 areligious tradition that transcended contemporary notions of nation and time. KoreanBuddhists of the pre-modern age would have been more apt to think of themselves asmembers of an ordination line and monastic lineage, a school of thought, or a tradition ofpractice, than as “Korean” Buddhists. If they were to refer to themselves at all, it would be as“disciples,” “teachers,” “propagators,” “doctrinal specialists,” and “meditators”—all termssuggested in the categorizations of monks found in the various Biographies of EminentMonks. If we are to arrive at a more nuanced portrayal of Korean Buddhism, scholars mustabandon simplistic nationalist shibboleths and open our scholarship to the expansive visionof their religion that the Buddhists themselves always retained.

The Challenge of an Authentic Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: A Response to Young Woon Ko

Robert E. Buswell, Jr. 서강대학교 종교연구소 2014 Journal of Korean Religions Vol.5 No.1

Korean Buddhist Thought in East Asian Context

Robert E. Buswell, Jr(로버트 버스웰) 동국대학교 불교문화연구원 2011 佛敎學報 Vol.0 No.60

이 논문은 전근대 시기의 상당 기간 동안 한국불교와 그보다 넓은 동아시아 전통 사이에 존재했던 유기적 관계에 대하여 탐구한 것이다. 한국의 불교도들은 자신들의 민족적·문화적 차이를 다소간 자각하면서도, 동아시아 지역의 시·공간을 가로질러 광범위한 영향력을 행사할 수 있었다. 불교 승려들이 이렇게 영향을 미칠 수 있었던 것은 그들이 스스로를 한국의, 일본의, 또는 중국의 불교도라기보다는, 민족과 시대에 대한 당대의 관념을 초월하는 하나의 종교 전통 안에서의 공동 협력자로 보았기 때문이었다. 전근대 시기의 한국 불교도들은자신들을 한국의 불교도라기보다는 수계와 법맥, 하나의 학파, 또는 수행 전통에 있어서의 일원으로 여기는 경향이 있었다. 그들이 굳이 자신을 지칭할 경우에는 보통 제자, 스승, 포교승, 교학승, 선 수행자 등의 용어를 사용했는데, 이들 용어들은 모두 다양한 고승전류에서 승려들을 구분하는 맥락에 암시되어 있다. 한국불교를 보다 면밀히 밝히고자 한다면, 단순화된 민족주의적 구호를 버리고 우리의 연구 방향을 저 불교도들 자신들이 항상 간직하고 있던 그들 종교에 대한 포괄적인 비전을 향하도록 전개해야 할 것이다. 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 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.

간화선(看話禪)에 있어서 의정(疑情)의 전환

Robert E. Buswell 보조사상연구원 2014 보조사상 Vol.41 No.-