Aspiring to Enlightenment: Pure Land Buddhism in Silla Korea 9780824884130

Citation preview

Aspiring to Enlightenment

Pure Land Buddhist Studies

a publication of the Institute of Buddhist Studies at the Graduate Theological Union

•

EDITORIAL BOARD Richard K. Payne Chair, Institute of Buddhist Studies at the Graduate Theological Union Carl Bielefeldt Stanford University Harry Gyokyo Bridge Buddhist Church of Oakland James Dobbins Oberlin College Jérôme Ducor Université de Lausanne, Switzerland Paul Harrison Stanford University Anne Klein Rice University David Matsumoto Institute of Buddhist Studies at the Graduate Theological Union Scott Mitchell Institute of Buddhist Studies at the Graduate Theological Union Eisho Nasu Ryukoku University, Kyoto, Japan Jonathan A. Silk Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands Kenneth K. Tanaka Musashino University, Tokyo, Japan

Aspiring to Enlightenment Pure Land Buddhism in Silla Korea

Richard D. McBride II

University of Hawai‘i Press/Honolulu

© 2020 University of Hawai‘i Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 25  24  23  22  21  20   6  5  4  3  2  1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: McBride, Richard D., II, author. Title: Aspiring to enlightenment : Pure Land Buddhism in Silla Korea / Richard D. McBride II. Other titles: Pure Land Buddhist studies. Description: Honolulu : University of Hawai‘i Press, 2020. | Series: Pure Land Buddhist studies | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020022813 | ISBN 9780824882600 (cloth) | ISBN 9780824884130 (pdf) | ISBN 9780824884154 (epub) | ISBN 9780824884147 (kindle edition) Subjects: LCSH: 880-01 Wŏnhyo, 617-686. | Pure Land Buddhism—Silla (Kingdom)—Doctrines. | Pure Land Buddhism—Silla (Kingdom)—Customs and practices. | Silla (Kingdom)—Religious life and customs. Classification: LCC BQ8518.4 .M33 2020 | DDC 294.3/92609519—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020022813 The Pure Land Buddhist Studies series publishes scholarly works on all aspects of the Pure Land Buddhist tradition. Historically, this includes studies of the origins of the tradition in India, its transmission into a variety of religious cultures, and its continuity into the present. Methodologically, the series is committed to providing a venue for a diversity of approaches, including, but not limited to, anthropological, sociological, historical, textual, biographical, philosophical, and interpretive, as well as translations of primary and secondary works. The series will also seek to reprint important works so that they may continue to be available to the scholarly and lay communities. The series is made possible through the generosity of the Buddhist Churches of America’s Fraternal Benefit Association. We wish to express our deep appreciation for its support to the Institute of Buddhist Studies. University of Hawai‘i Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Council on Library Resources. Cover art: Detail of a seated Buddha triad, possible Amitābha, carved on the enigmatic Buddha Rock on the east side of Mt. Namsan in Kyŏngju in the early to midseventh century. Photo by author.

In Memoriam Younghee Yeon McBride

Contents Series Editor’s Preface

ix

Preface

xi

Abbreviations and Conventions

xiii

Chapter 1: The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea

1

Chapter 2: Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China

17

Chapter 3: The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

33

Chapter 4: Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults

57

Chapter 5: The Amitābha Cult in Practice

78

Epilogue: The Legacy of Silla’s Pure Land Buddhism

117

Appendix: Exegetical Works by Silla Scholars on Pure Land Themes 129 Notes

133

Selected Bibliography

161

Index

185

vii

Series Editor’s Preface In Aspiring to Enlightenment Richard McBride brings us a study of Pure Land Buddhism from a place and time that have received too little attention by the scholarly community. Traditionally, Korea’s Silla Dynasty (57 BCE to 935 CE) lasted almost a millennium, roughly twice as long as the Roman Empire. It was a key player in the diffusion and development of Buddhist thought and practice in East Asia, and Silla Monks actively contributed to the shared intellectual discourse of Buddhism in the region. McBride’s study focuses on Silla literary materials related to the Pure Land system of beliefs and practices from about 300 to 935 CE. Holding the Buddha in mind (Skt. buddhānusmṛti, Ch. nianfo, J. nenbutsu) is a meditative practice found throughout the Buddhist cosmopolis. As is well known its two main forms are visualizing the Buddha and reciting the Buddha’s name. Both are rooted in Indic theories regarding cosmology, awakening, and human agency, and are widely shared throughout the subcontinent. Depending on the viewer’s conceptual frame—the attitude with which the Buddha is held in mind—the practice may be considered evocational or devotional. Uttering the name of a deity, as in a mantra recitation, is considered an especially potent act. For many practitioners and thinkers the mantra and the deity are identical: The “meaning” of the mantra is not based on a referential understanding of the power of language. Rather than pointing to the deity, the mantra is the deity, and recitation of the mantra evokes the deity’s presence. Reciting the deity’s name also serves as an expression of the practitioner’s personal devotion or attachment to the deity. These practices and the ideas that supported them were spread to Central and East Asia by Buddhist practitioners. Many different buddhas were the object of such practices: The most prevalent and best known is the figure of Amitābha, the Buddha who presides over the Western Pure Land, Sukhāvatī. While visualization practices of different kinds continued in some lineages, vocal recitation of the name of Amitābha came to be the dominant form of holding the Buddha in mind. Known in Korean as yŏmbul, holding the Buddha in mind, according to McBride, “has long been recognized as the premier ix

Series Editor’s Preface

practice of Pure Land Buddhism in East Asia, although just what aspirants meant by their practice of ‘recollecting the Buddha’ changed appreciably over time.” McBride’s volume on Korean Buddhisms exists at the intersection of two fields of Buddhist studies that has taken the discipline in new directions. Work on the Buddhisms of Korea has long been eclipsed by research done first in China, then in Japan, but in the last few decades significant advances have shown that Korean Buddhists cannot be overlooked in the history of East Asian Buddhism. A comparable change has been seen in the understanding of Pure Land Buddhism. Long identified with the Japanese sectarian forms deriving from Hōnen and Shinran in the early Kamakura era, Pure Land is increasingly seen as a prominent form of practice throughout East Asian Buddhism. McBride’s book advances both areas of specialized study in the field.  

x

Preface This book has been a work in progress for nearly twenty years. It is a rethinking and expansion of the chapter on “The Cult of Amitābha” from my previous research as well as an extended revision of an essay on Pure Land Buddhism in Silla Korea 新羅 Korea (traditional dates, 57 BCE–935 CE) I wrote for an anthology on Pure Land Buddhist thought, which was ultimately rejected for lack of coverage regarding the Sinitic context of Pure Land thought in Silla. Because of the relative wealth of scholarly exegesis, epigraphy, art, and traditional narratives related to the Silla Pure Land tradition, I did not include a chapter on the cult of Amitābha in my 2007 book, Domesticating the Dharma: Buddhist Cults and the Hwaŏm Synthesis in Silla Korea. Work on other projects, such as my translations of several Korean Hwaŏm texts and commentaries from the Silla and Koryŏ periods contained in the Hwaŏm I: The Mainstream Tradition and Hwaŏm II: Selected Works in the Collected Works of Korean Buddhism series (2012) and Ŭich’ŏn’s 義天 (1055–1101) collected works in Doctrine and Practice in Medieval Korean Buddhism in the Korean Classics Library series (2017), has deepened my appreciation of the richness and relevance of Hwaŏm in understanding the core influences on Korea’s mainstream Buddhist tradition. In addition, other research on the popularity of dhāraṇī and mantra in the Sinitic Buddhist tradition enriched my understanding of the relationship between chanting dhāraṇī and recitation of the Buddha Amitābha’s name. Work on these projects, however, delayed my completing this manuscript for several years. The passing of my beloved wife, Younghee Yeon McBride, due to pancreatic cancer in February 2018 and the graciousness of my dean Phillip McArthur and academic vice president John Bell at Brigham Young University–Hawaii at that time to r­ elieve me of teaching duties for the winter 2018 semester ultimately provided the context for the manuscript’s completion. Since that time, I replaced my old undergraduate mentor, Prof. Mark Peterson, at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues whose work has been an inspiration. I am particularly grateful to my mentors in graduate school, Profs. Robert E. Buswell Jr., John Duncan, and William xi

Preface

Bodiford of UCLA; the late Prof. Kim Sang-hyun of Dongguk University in Seoul, Korea; and especially my long-time friend and colleague Prof. George A. Keyworth III of the University of Saskatchewan, with whom I have enjoyed countless fruitful discussions on the nature and character of medieval East Asian Buddhism. In addition, I am thankful for many colleagues whose insights and rich scholarship have influenced me and helped me to analyze materials in new ways: Prof. Yoon Seon Tae of Dongguk University, Prof. James Benn of McMaster University, Prof. Chen Jinhua of the University of British Columbia, Prof. Choe Yeonshik of Dongguk University, Prof. Nam Dongshin of Seoul National University, and Prof. James Robson of Harvard University. I would also like to thank the four anonymous readers from the press whose comments helped me improve the quality of the book and to more fully appreciate the key insights my research brings to the field. Finally, I must write something more regarding my dedication of the book to my late wife, Younghee. Work on this book spanned the entire seventeen-year duration of our marriage and the welcoming of our two sons, David and Sean, to our family. She was the love of my life, and the completion and publication of this book will in a small way enable me to move forward as I deal with grief and loss. Just as Buddhists believe the compassion of the Buddha Amitābha is limitless and immeasurable, I always felt that Younghee’s love and support for me was boundless and incalculable.

xii

Abbreviations and Conventions D

Zhengtong daozang 正統道藏 (The Daoist Canon of the Zhengtong Reign Period [1436–1449]). 60 vols. Taipei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1977.

HPC

Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ 韓國佛教全書 (Complete Works of Korean ­Buddhism). 14 vols. Seoul: Tongguk Taehakkyo Ch’ulpansa, 1979[–2004].

SYKY Samguk yusa kyogam yŏn’gu (Critical Edition of the Samguk yusa). Edited by Ha Chŏngnyong and Yi Kŭnjik. Seoul: Sinsŏwŏn, 1997. T

Taishō shinshū dai zōkyō (Taishō Edition of the Buddhist Canon). Edited by Takakasu Junjirō, et al. 100 vols. Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai, 1924–1932[–1935].

X

Xuzangjing (Hong Kong reprint of The Kyoto Supplement to the Canon (Dai Nihon zokuzōkyō), Kyoto, 1905–1912). 150 vols. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Buddhist Association, 1967. (Sequential numbers of texts established according to listing in Shōwa hōbō sōmokuroku 昭和法寶總目錄, vol. 2).

Transcriptions of Asian languages follow the systems now commonly used in the scholarly community: pinyin for Chinese, revised Hepburn for Japanese, and McCune-Reischauer for Korean. Despite the government’s promulgation in 2000 of still another Revised Romanization system for Korean, this new system has yet to enjoy widespread usage outside Korea, and its transcription rules have still not been rigorously honed for academic writing. Because this book is intended principally for a non-Korean audience, I have decided to stick with the better-known McCune-Reischauer system, which has been the system of choice in the West for over seventy years and offers more accurate and, I believe, more elegant transcriptions. Proper names are transcribed according to the nationality of the person or site or the provenance of the text. For the sake of consistency, the names of Buddhist schools and technical terms are generally given according to their Korean pronunciation and Chinese pronunciation. When the reference clearly applies only to Chinese or Japanese schools, however, I have used the corresponding national transcription. Citations from the Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ (Complete Works of Korean Buddhism) are listed as follows: title and roll number, volume number, xiii

Abbreviations and Conventions

page number, register (a, b, c, or d), and, if applicable, line numbers(s). For example, Taegak kuksa munjip 8, HPC 4.540c10–451a1. Citations from the Taishō shinshū dai zōkyō (Taishō Edition of the Buddhist Canon) are listed in the following manner: title (with Sanskrit title, if relevant, in parentheses) and roll number, Taishō serial number, Taishō volume number, page number, register (a, b, or c), and, if applicable, line number(s). For example, Sinp’yŏn chejong kyojang ch’ongnok, T 2184, 55.1166b13–14. Citations from the Xuzangjing (Hong Kong reprint of The Kyoto Supplement to the Canon (Dai Nihon zokuzōkyō)) are listed in the following manner: title (with Sanskrit title, if relevant, in parentheses) and roll number, Xuzangjing sequential number, volume number, page number, register (a, b), and, if applicable, line number(s). For example, Yuanjue jing dashu shiyichao 1, X 245, 9.459b20–21. Citations from traditional East Asian historical or literary works are listed in the following manner: title of the work and roll or chapter number: page, and, if applicable, register (a or b) and/or line number(s). For example, Samguk sagi 38.375. All Buddhist terminology that appears in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary I regard as English and leave unitalicized. This includes such technical terms as dhāraṇī, stūpa, and tathāgatagarbha. For a convenient listing of a hundred such words, see Roger Jackson, “Terms of Sanskrit and Pali Origin Acceptable as English Words,” Journal of the International Association of Asian Studies 5 (1982): 141–142. In rendering Buddhist technical terms, where the Chinese is a translation, I translate; where it is a transcription, I transcribe. East Asian personal names appear with family names first. For English translations of official titles, I have followed those given in Charles O. Hucker’s Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China for the Northern Dynasties, Sui, Tang, and Silla. For Silla titles not found in Hucker, I have developed my own translations based on his model. Following the advice of Robert Buswell, I have generated some of my own English translations of official Buddhist titles for the Northern Chinese dynasties and Silla (e.g., Buddhist Overseer [Ch. daotong 道統 or tong 統, Kor. sŭngt’ong 僧統 or kukt’ong 國統]). Noble rank titles found in ancient Korean society have usually been transliterated only because of the difficulty in assigning concise English meanings to these terms. Sexagesimal cycle dates are treated in the following manner: If the source text is Chinese, I transliterate the sexagesimal year using Chinese pronunciation (e.g., jiazi), but if the source is Korean, I transliterate it xiv

Abbreviations and Conventions

using Korean pronunciation (e.g., kapcha). In both cases the transliteration will be followed by an approximation to Western calendrical dates in parentheses following Xue Zhongsan, Liangqiannian Zhong-Xi li duizhao biao 兩千年中西曆對照表 (A Sino-Western Calendar for Two Thousand Years), rev. ed. (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan chuban, 1957; rpt. Taipei: Xuehai chubanshe, 1993).

xv

Chapter 1

The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea During the reign of Silla king Kyŏngdŏk 景德 (742–765), P’iri Settlement 避里村 lay at the eastern foot of South Mountain (Namsan 南山) in Silla’s cap­ital, present-day Kyŏngju. In the settlement there was a monastery which was, for this reason, called P’iri Monastery. In the monastery there lived an uncanny monk, whose name and family were unknown. He constantly recited “Amitābha.” The sound of his chanting was heard throughout all 360 neighborhoods and 170,000 households in the capital. The sound was neither high nor low but just rang in a single form, like the jingling of jade. The people of the capital, for this reason, considered it extraordinary and there was no one who was not caused to respect him. Everyone called him “Master Yŏmbul” (Yŏmbulsa 念佛師, “The Master Who Chants the Buddha’s Name”). After his death, a mud and clay image of his true likeness was enshrined in Minjang Monastery 敏藏寺. His original dwelling, P’iri Monastery, was renamed Yŏmbul Monastery 念佛寺.1

This anecdote is one of several illustrating that, by the middle of the eighth century CE, chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha was a common practice for the worship of this buddha who presides over Sukhāvatī, the Pure Land in the west. More important, however, is the association and equation of the practice of chanting Amitābha’s name with the concept of yŏmbul 念佛 (Ch. nianfo, J. nenbutsu). Yŏmbul, which literally means “recollection of the Buddha” (Skt. *buddhānusmṛti), has long been recognized as the premier practice of Pure Land Buddhism in East Asia, although just what aspirants meant by their practice of “recollecting the Buddha” changed appreciably over time. The purposes of this book are to explore the development of Pure Land Buddhism in the early Korean state of Silla 新羅 (ca. 300–935) and to call attention to active Korean participation in a shared Sinitic ­Buddhist intellectual discourse in medieval East Asia. I will do this by 1

Chapter 1

focusing on how the practice of “recollecting the Buddha” and the related concept of the recollecting the Buddha Amitābha for “ten recollections” or “ten thought-moments” (simnyŏn, Ch. shinian 十念), which is mentioned briefly yet significantly in two of the three main Pure Land scriptures, the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 (Sūtra on the Buddha Amitāyus, Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) and the Guan Wuliangshou jing 觀無量壽經 (Book on the Visualization of Amitāyus), were understood by Buddhist scholars and practitioners in Silla Korea. Because recollection of the Buddha became one of the most widespread devotional practices in medieval China and Korea and because Buddhist intellectuals were ­anxiously engaged in describing its meaning and significance in their commentarial works, it is an excellent window through which to observe the nature of Buddhist praxis and exegesis and the nature of the relation­ ship between Chinese and Korean Buddhism. Throughout this book I refer to medieval Chinese and Korean Buddhism as Sinitic Buddhism. The idea of separate or distinct national Buddhist traditions was foreign to Buddhists during the medieval period—roughly the fourth to the tenth centuries CE—because Buddhism was universal to its adherents. In other words, Buddhist exegetes and aspirants in medieval East Asia did not think of themselves as being Korean, Chinese, or Japanese Buddhists. For the most part they believed themselves to be bodhisattva adherents of the Mahāyāna, the Great Vehicle and most superior form of Buddhism taught by Siddhārtha Gautama, who was known to them as the Buddha Śākyamuni. If not, they at least aspired to attain the spiritual capacity of a bodhisattva someday or in some future lifetime. Until recently Silla Korea has usually been characterized as a miniature copy of its larger and highly influential neighbor Tang 唐 China (618–907). Silla history from the seventh to the tenth century, the most important formative years of Pure Land Buddhism in both China and Korea, has been typified previously by the Korean importation and emulation of Chinese culture.2 More nuanced illustrations demonstrate that, like Japan during the Nara 奈良 (710–794) and Heian 平安 (794–1185) periods, Korean adoption and adaptation of Chinese ways and means, though great, was more selective and was met with greater resistance from the hereditary elites than usually recognized.3 The origin of Silla’s Pure Land Buddhism, likewise, was neither the simple assimilation of contemporary Chinese praxis and exegesis nor a decidedly independent development. Because Pure Land Buddhism eventually developed into a separate sect—and then further splintered into several competing sects—in Japan 2

The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea

during the Kamakura 鎌倉 period (1185–1333) and subsequent eras, Japanese sectarian scholarship, for reasons of institutional legitimacy, has emphasized the formation of a Pure Land school in medieval China, pushed its genesis back as early as possible, and emphasized individual practitioners and thinkers whose views came to be accepted as orthodox in the later Japanese tradition. Although some Western scholars are compelled by this vision of an independent tradition, others have shown that this model, which has hitherto played a tremendously influential role in the understanding of East Asian Buddhist history in the West, does not depict an accurate picture of the way Pure Land Buddhism manifested itself “on the ground” in medieval China, especially during the Sui 隋 (581–617) and Tang periods.4 Also, because Chinese Buddhism is portrayed as possessing a Pure Land school, several Japanese and Korean scholars have also constructed a counterpart Pure Land school in Silla Korea as well. The limitations of this theory will be examined below and throughout the book. The existence of a separate Pure Land school in China in the sixth and seventh centuries is unlikely; nevertheless, there were certainly Pure Land practitioners that may be grouped into a tradition of sorts in Shanxi 山西 Province and later in the Tang capital, Chang’an 長安. However much is uncertain about their views and scholastic affiliation, if any, one thing is certain: these early practitioners—Tanluan 曇鸞 (ca. 488–554), Daochuo 道綽 (562–645), and Shandao 善導 (613–681)—never espoused the sole practice of chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha as understood by the Japanese Pure Land sectarians Hōnen 法然 (1133– 1212) and Shinran 親鸞 (1173–1262), for instance, who were products of the Japanese Tendai tradition 天台宗 in the Kamakura period (1185–1333).5 The Chinese and Korean proponents of Pure Land practice always placed their admonitions of praxis squarely within the context of the larger Sinitic Buddhist intellectual tradition, which emphasized arousal of the bodhicitta, the practice of samādhi (meditative absorption), and the assumption of the bodhisattva path (mārga). The growing popularity of the cult of Amitābha in the Sinitic cultural sphere among elites, commoners, monks, and Buddhist intellectuals during the late sixth and early seventh centuries and the widespread nature of its practices that promised rebirth in Sukhāvatī made it a topic that could not be ignored in the young Buddhist intellectual circles in Silla. Several monastic exegetes of the seventh and eighth centuries— Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686), Pŏbwi 法位 (fl. 661–681), Hyŏnil 玄一 (fl. 681–701), Ŭijŏk 義寂 (fl. 681–701), and Kyŏnghŭng 憬興 (fl. late seventh–early 3

Chapter 1

eighth century)—wrote commentaries on Pure Land scriptures. These Buddhist scholiasts of Silla, although greatly influenced by their predecessors and contemporary colleagues in medieval China, had many fresh ideas of their own that enriched the intellectual understanding of Pure Land Buddhism in East Asia and also played an important though seldom emphasized role in the development of Japanese Buddhism. Literary anecdotes, oral traditions, hagiography, and stele inscriptions preserved in historical writings and literary works of the midKoryŏ 高麗 period (918–1392) suggest that Buddhist images, sūtras, beliefs, and practices entered the early states on the Korean peninsula as early as the third or fourth centuries through the ministrations of monks of Chinese, Central Asian, or Turko-Mongol heritage. Eventually foreign and native Korean monks entered Silla from the northern Korean state of Koguryŏ 高句麗 (trad. dates, 37 BCE–668 CE). Silla was the most backward of the early Korean states behind Koguryŏ and Paekche 百濟 (trad. dates, 18 BCE–660 CE). The kings of these states had adopted Buddhism as a state cult in 372 and 384, respectively, each tradition suggests, at the heels of delegations from rulers of Chinese states.6 In some respects Silla (trad. dates, 57 BCE–935 CE) was less sophisticated than the loosely confederated Kaya 伽耶 kingdoms (trad. dates, 42–562), located to Silla’s south and west, which Silla conquered and assimilated in the mid-sixth century (532–562). The Kaya confederation enjoyed trade relations with Paekche, the kingdoms of southern China, and the early Japanese Wa polity, and its style of earthenware was adopted by Silla. Silla’s lack of direct contact and interstate relations with the Sinitic states of the Northern and Southern Dynasties period (317–589) probably was a contributing factor to their ignorance of Buddhism. At the beginning of the sixth century, however, Silla kings initiated a long process of Sinicization in an attempt to forge their aristocratic tribal state into a centralized autocratic bureaucracy. The bone-rank system (kolp’umje 骨品制) refers to Silla’s rigid system of hereditary status and social stratification. When fully developed it ultimately consisted of two bone ranks and, in theory, six head ranks. The Silla royal family comprised those of holy bone status (sŏnggol 聖骨), and the capital-based aristocracy held the true bone position (chin’gol 眞骨). Local elites of the capital and provinces comprised the head rank six (yuktup’um 六頭品) grouping, and local functionaries head ranks five and four. Head ranks three, two, and one, which seldom appear in the extant literary materials, are thought to have consisted of peasants and slaves. 4

The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea

The royal adoption of Buddhism as a state cult should be seen as an indicator of Silla’s willingness to participate in the dominant religious culture of and in diplomatic dialogue with the more highly advanced Chinese states. In turn, the participation of Silla exegetes in the dominant Sinitic Buddhist intellectual discourse attests to the degree to which the Silla intelligentsia had mastered the rudiments of Sino-­ Buddhist high culture and learning of the time. Although the actual process was undoubtedly a mixture of both piety and politics, there is little archeological evidence for the establishment of any Buddhist institutions in Silla until the sixth century, when King Pŏphŭng 法興 (r. 514–540) authorized the construction of Hŭngnyun Monastery 興輪寺 in the heart of the Silla capital in 535. The next major project after the completion of that monastery was Hwangnyong Monastery 皇龍寺, which was inaugurated by King Chinhŭng 眞興 (r. 540–576) in 553. The complex was constantly under renovation and expansion from the time of its first partial completion in 566 until the decline of the dynasty in the late ninth century. From almost its inception this vast monastic complex functioned as the state palladium of Silla. It was the headquarters of the Buddhist church, the center for the pursuit of Buddhist learning, and the locus of rituals for the protection of the Silla state. It was possibly the home of the émigré Koguryŏ monk Hyeryang 惠亮 (fl.  540–576), a lecturer on the scriptures, whom Chinhŭng made Silla’s first Buddhist overseer (sŭngt’ong 僧統) and who instituted the first stateprotection rituals, both of which produce merit for the king and state from sūtra recitation and lecturing on the scriptures after his arrival in Silla in 551.7 The monastery was then the home of the eminent monks Wŏn’gwang 圓光 (d. ca. 640) and Chajang 慈藏 (fl. 636–650), the great state overseer (taegukt’ong 大國統), during the first half of the seventh century, and others, such as Wŏnhyo, were invited to lecture there. In the mideighth century, King Kyŏngdŏk built a separate pavilion for the housing of sūtras attesting to the importance of its library holdings.8 The literary output of Silla’s Buddhist scholiasts, focused around the center for monastic learning at Hwangnyong Monastery, was staggering in its size and diversity, given the size of Silla. Unfortunately, only a smattering has survived the ravages of time.9 A small corpus of Buddhist exegesis, nevertheless, has been assembled and analyzed through the Herculean efforts of modern-day scholars such as Ahn Kye-hyŏn and Etani Ryūkai.10 Several intellectual monks of Silla ­composed commentaries on the Pure Land sūtras, but only a few have been preserved, either whole or partially (see the appendix). As a result 5

Chapter 1

of the compilation and preservation of interesting scholiums by Kyŏnghŭng and several Japanese monks of the Heian period, we are able to explore some of the key intellectual conceptualizations of Silla Buddhist thinkers concerning the crucial practices of recollecting the Buddha and the ten recollections.

Exegetical Literature and Cultic Practices In my earlier book, Domesticating the Dharma: Buddhist Cults and the Hwaŏm Synthesis in Silla Korea, I drew attention to monks’ abiding interest in ­cultic practices because of the promise of gaining spiritual and thaumaturgic powers. I showed that in hagiography and epigraphy, at least, the efficacy ascribed to the cultic practices was made sure because they were espoused by the most renowned monks of the age. In this book I will show how in their intellectual writings Silla monks emphasized devotional practice just as much as meditative absorption (samādhi) and adherence to monastic codes and precepts (vinaya) as a viable approach to practicing on the bodhisattva path in the personal quest to attain enlightenment. In this book, Buddhist sūtras, intellectual exegeses by medieval East Asian Buddhist scholiasts, and other literary materials are the primary sources. Such literature not only fleshes out what contemporary East Asian Buddhist monks thought appropriate practices were and the significance of cultic observances but also serves as a useful heuristic device giving insight into how Silla Buddhists understood and applied Buddhist beliefs their own way. In addition to Buddhist intellectual literature I also examine the traditional narratives, legends, and stories that have been passed down regarding Pure Land practice and the worship of Amitābha in Silla. These tales are contextualized with information that can be gleaned from Buddhist art and epigraphy in chapter 5. The two main literary sources for the study of ancient Korea are the Samguk sagi 三國史記 (History of the Three Kingdoms) and Samguk yusa  三國遺事 (Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms). The former was compiled by Kim Pusik 金富軾 (1075–1151) during the years 1136 to 1145 and follows the pattern set by Sima Tan 司馬談 (ca. 180–110 BCE) and Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 (146–86 BCE) Shiji 史記 (Historical Records). As in the other Chinese dynastic histories in this genre, Buddhist themes are not treated in great detail and are ignored in many respects. Nevertheless, the Samguk sagi preserves important facts regarding the Silla royalty’s 6

The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea

deployment of Buddhist symbolism in order to provide legitimacy vis-àvis the powerful hereditary aristocracy. Although late in comparison to such works as Daoxuan’s 道宣 (596– 667) Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (Further Lives of Eminent Monks), which was completed in 649 and further revised afterward, and Kyōkai’s Nihon ryōiki 日本靈異記 (Miraculous Stories of Japan), which was compiled between 787 and 824, the Samguk yusa is the major source of the hagiographical anecdotes that provide much of the detail in this book. It was compiled initially by the Buddhist monk Iryŏn 一然 (1206–1289), most likely in his final years after the devastating Mongolian invasion and subjugation of Korea in the mid-thirteenth century. The collection was further amended by his disciple Mugŭk 無極 (Hon’gu 混丘, 1250–1322) and also later by other unknown hands. The work is a hodgepodge of legends of historical people, places, and events, short stories, local narratives, poetry, songs, and so forth, similar to some Chinese works of the yishi 遺事 genre.11 Though most scholars trained in Korea do not question its validity, Western scholars are typically skeptical of the value of the Samguk yusa, not only because of its late date but also because of its fanciful subject material and anachronisms.12 The Samguk yusa was c­ ompiled originally during the mid-Koryŏ period, but many of the narratives it includes are derived from accounts contained in earlier historical documents, biographies, stele inscriptions, gazetteers, and collections of wonder tales emphasizing the traditions and local discourse of the ancient Silla domain.13 Although the hand of Iryŏn and other later editors is obviously evident, the Samguk yusa preserves much of the original language of its sources as far as such sources can be checked.14 Despite its shortcomings and the inescapable fact that what was selected for inclusion in the text must have been influenced somewhat by concerns and interests dating to the Koryŏ period, I believe that it preserves much useful information on Buddhist cults in the Silla epoch when used carefully and judiciously. Epigraphy from the Silla period, composed by both Buddhists and non-Buddhists, has been preserved in various sources, such as monastic records (saji 寺誌), and is compiled in a number of modern collections. Such literature provides much germane detail regarding religious ­communities and practices at specific sites. The shortcomings of the Samguk yusa are remedied, in part, through this useful material. 7

Chapter 1

The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea Study of Silla’s Pure Land tradition has been hindered by two interrelated problems, the roots of which trace back to Korea’s experience of being colonized by Japan during the first half of the twentieth century. The first was a generally successful attempt by Japanese Buddhist scholars of the colonial period (1910–1945) to write Korean contributions out of the grand historical narrative of the development of ­Buddhism in East Asia.15 The second was the overreactive, nationalistic response by Korean scholars, reifying a so-called Korean approach to religion and philo­sophy that overemphasized the rhetoric of syncretism and uniqueness.16 Despite the nationalistic discourse and interpretations propounded by many Korean scholars to combat the colonial-period rhetoric that Korean Buddhism offers nothing to the East Asian tradition, the fact remains that Korean Buddhism shares much with that of its East Asian neighbors, particularly China. Using the terminology of the natural sciences, Lew Lancaster encourages scholars to think not of Korean ­Buddhism as a different “genus” than the Chinese or Japanese varieties but as occupying a special “niche” or “valence” in a shared East Asian tradition.17 More moderate perspectives on Korean monks’ contributions to the shared East Asian Buddhist tradition have prevailed in Western scholarship in recent years, especially regarding Korean participation in the emergence of Chan 禪 Buddhism in China and the influence of Wŏnhyo’s commentaries on the Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起心 論 (Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna) on the famous Huayan exegete Fazang 法藏 (643–712).18 An influential theory on the development of the Silla Pure Land ­commentarial tradition among Japanese scholars is that proposed in the 1970s by Etani Ryūkai and Fujiwara Ryosetsu. According to their view, there are two exegetical lineages of the Silla Pure Land tradition: one that follows the exegete and early Huayan proponent Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523–592) and another that follows the famous pilgrim and Yogācāra expert Xuanzang 玄奘 (ca. 600–664) and his primary disciple Ci’en Kuiji 慈恩窺基 (632–682).19 Most of the Korean commentators are located in the Jingying Huiyuan lineage. As his evidence, Etani advances the existence of a Silla Pure Land commentarial “lineage” at Hwangnyong Monastery. He strongly suggests that Wŏn’gwang studied with Jingying Huiyuan’s successors in Chang’an and that he brought back his views on the Pure Land to Silla. Next, he conjectures that 8

The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea

Wŏn’gwang’s views, being flavored by those of Jingying Huiyuan, probably influenced those of Chajang while both were at Hwangnyong Monastery in the Silla capital, present-day Kyŏngju 慶州. In the work of Wŏnhyo, who also spent time at and around Hwangnyong Monastery, Etani locates the primary evidence of Jingying Huiyuan’s intellectual influence.20 He also theorizes that Ŭisang’s 義湘 (625–702) now lost ­commentary on the Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 (Amitābha Sūtra; Skt. [Smaller] Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) would also show Jingying Huiyuan’s influence because he also resided for a time at Hwangnyong Monastery. Etani also finds the influence of Jingying Huiyuan in commentaries on the Wuliangshou jing by the Silla monks Pŏbwi and Ŭijŏk, which he reconstructed, as well as in the writings of Hyŏnil.21 The Xuanzang-Kuiji lineage is represented solely by Kyŏnghŭng. The Silla tradition, furthermore, is focused around the explication of the Wuliangshou jing rather than the Guan Wuliangshou jing.22 In the final analysis, no matter which line one prefers to emphasize, the Pure Land tradition of Silla is removed from the traditional or dominant “discourse” on Pure Land because it does not follow any of the putatively “orthodox” lineages promoted in later sectarian Buddhist literature in China or Japan that emerged during the Song 宋 period (960–1279).23 This is a plausible explanation, but it has been more or less ignored by contemporary Korean scholars studying the same period.24 In Korea, scholars tend to follow the scholarship of Ahn Kye-hyŏn,25 who ­conducted detailed studies of the Silla Pure Land exegetes, and Lee Ki-baik,26 who emphasized the role of Chajang in the origins of the Pure Land faith.27 The lion’s share of Korean scholars eschew the exegetical materials and have been occupied instead with recovering, fleshing out, and emphasizing native developments and characteristics of the cult of Amitābha using the hagiography found in the Samguk yusa and archeological and art historical materials.28 If we scrutinize Etani’s theory it becomes obvious that it hinges on a few vitally important assumptions. Because the writings of Wŏn’gwang and Chajang are no longer extant,29 the first works we are able to examine are those of Wŏnhyo. Etani’s theory asserts that the influence of Jingying Huiyuan passed through these two Silla exegetes in a putative “Hwangnyong Monastery lineage” and is preserved in the writings of Wŏnhyo. There is no direct evidence for this, however. From Wŏnhyo, Jingying Huiyuan’s influence presumably passed down to later Silla Pure Land commentators. As we shall see, with respect to the ideas of buddhānusmṛti and the ten recollections, the extant writings of the 9

Chapter 1

later Silla exegetes—Pŏbwi, Hyŏnil, and Ŭijŏk—have as much or more in ­common with Wŏnhyo’s exegesis and each other than they do with Jingying Huiyuan’s commentaries. Nevertheless, I do not discount the possibility that Wŏnhyo gained access to Jingying Huiyuan’s writings through Wŏn’gwang and Chajang, who probably returned from their celebrated trips to China with copies of the commentaries of the most eminent monks of the time. The other more critical assumption is that, based on this theory, Wŏnhyo is presented as having no other influences in his Pure Land writings than those of “Jingying Huiyuan’s lineage.” This is the major flaw with Etani’s theory—because the Pure Land commentaries of these Silla scholiasts, beginning with Wŏnhyo, are viewed better as an attempt to anchor Pure Land doctrine and practice in the milieu of the greater exegetical traditions of China during the late sixth and seventh centuries. Wŏnhyo’s writings not only reflect the influence of Jingying Huiyuan; they attempt to factor in the views of other important exegetes, such as Tanluan and Tiantai Zhiyi 天台智顗 (538–597). More important, Wŏnhyo seeks to assimilate earlier exegetical views and his understanding of the intent of the scriptures and the practices they promote into the broader intellectual schemes of Chinese Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha thought, the nascent Huayan intellectual tradition. 30 Furthermore, subsequent Silla authors of Pure Land commentaries—Pŏbwi, Hyŏnil, Ŭijŏk, and Kyŏnghŭng—follow Wŏnhyo’s example in locating the Pure Land practice of “recollecting the Buddha” within the mainstream Mahāyāna context of the bodhisattva path, which is an inheritance of the ­Buddhist scholiasts of the Northern and Southern Dynasties period.

Cultic Practices in Pure Land Scriptures The most widely used scripture of the cult of Amitābha in East Asia from the early days of the cult was the Amituo jing, which was translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva (Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什, 344–413) around 402 CE. The short length and elegant prose of this sūtra made it a classic that was widely esteemed and much used for devotional purposes.31 The sūtra introduces the merits of the Buddha Amitābha and Sukhāvatī (Ch. Jile, Kor. Kŭngnak 極樂, “Extreme Bliss”), his Pure Land. It encourages people to aspire to rebirth in the Pure Land and informs them that if they maintain Amitābha’s name in their minds for from one to seven days, he will appear to them before they die and enable them to be reborn in the Pure Land.32 It teaches that if good people adhere to the discourse 10

The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea

recorded in the scripture, reflect upon it, and bear it in mind, they will be protected and remembered by all buddhas. They will also make irreversible progress toward enlightenment if they believe these things and practice with faith. Furthermore, the scripture teaches that those who vow to be born in Sukhāvatī will not regress in their journey on the path toward complete enlightenment and will be born in that land.33 Other longer scriptures related to the cult of Amitābha enhanced and developed these themes more fully.34 The sixteen visualizations (Ch. shiliu guan, Kor. simnyuk kwan 十六觀) of the Guan Wuliangshou jing (hereafter Guanjing 觀經) were commonly referred to by Chinese scholiasts in the sixth and seventh centuries and may have been practiced in the early years of the cult in Silla during the seventh century. More important than these visualization practices in the long run, however, was the interpretation of the concept of the “ten recollections” or “ten thought-moments,” which has had a profound impact on Buddhist culture in East Asia. Although the Guanjing is one of the main texts of the Pure Land tradition, there are a few curious problems with it. First, there is neither an extant Sanskrit version of the text nor a Tibetan translation of a now lost Sanskrit one.35 Second, the ­Chinese version of the text was purportedly done by Kālayaśas (Jiang­ liangyeshe 畺良耶舍), a Central Asian who traveled to southern China in the Yuanjia 元嘉 reign period (424–453) of the Liu-Song 劉宋 dynasty. This attribution was first made in Huijiao’s 慧皎 (497–554) Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (Lives of Eminent Monks; compiled ca. 519–554), whereas the text was listed as a “translator unknown” scripture in Sengyou’s 僧祐 (445– 518) Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏集記 (Compilation of Notices on the Publication of the Canon; compiled ca. 502–515). All later catalogs, beginning with Fajing’s 法經 (d.u.) Zhongjing mulu 衆經目錄 (Catalog of Scriptures; compiled in 593), list Kālayaśas as the translator of the Guanjing. Although the book was accepted without exception as genuine in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, the controversy over its authenticity reemerged during the twentieth century.36 One of the reasons why contemporary scholars feel that this text is important in the early development of Pure Land Buddhism throughout East Asia is due to an important passage found in the sixteenth visualization. The passage states that even people seeking rebirth in the lowest order of the lowest class (xiapin xiasheng 下品下生), such as those who have committed the five heinous crimes and ten evil acts,37 will be born in the Pure Land of Amitābha if they recite the formula “Homage to the Buddha Amitābha” (Kor. nammu Amit’a pul, Ch. nanwu Amituo fo 南無阿彌陀佛) for 11

Chapter 1

“ten thought-moments.”38 This passage curiously complements and ­contradicts the eighteenth vow of Amitābha found in the Wuliangshou jing: the famous vow that all beings who desire to be born in the Pure Land and also perform the “ten recollections”—or recollect the Buddha for “ten thought-moments”—will be born there except for those who commit the five heinous crimes and slander the true teaching.39

Assessing the Roles of Wŏn’gwang and Chajang Jingying Huiyuan wrote commentaries on two Pure Land sūtras, the Guan Wuliangshou jing and the Wuliangshou jing. If we take for granted Etani’s assertion that Jingying Huiyuan’s commentaries were influential in Silla, the next question is, how did they get there? The link between Wŏn’gwang and Jingying Huiyuan is not explicit. Wŏn’gwang studied in Sui China during the Kaihuang 開皇 period (581–600) and may have been instructed by Tanqian 曇遷 (542–607) in the Shelun 攝論 (Mahāyānasaṃgraha) because Wŏn’gwang’s biography in the Xu gaoseng zhuan (Further Lives of Eminent Monks) says that he was present at the inaugural public preaching of the Shelun in Chang’an. Perhaps this is a slight overstatement because the account also says that he did not arrive in Sui Chang’an until 589.40 We know from Tanqian’s biography in the same text, however, that it was Tanqian who delivered the first private lectures on Paramārtha’s (Zhendi 眞諦, 499–569) translation of the Shelun in the palace at the personal invitation of the first Sui emperor in 587 and that he continued preaching on this influential treatise until his death.41 Public lectures probably began soon thereafter. I regard this as the important connection between Wŏn’gwang and Jingying Huiyuan’s crowd, but it is not about the Pure Land; it is about mainstream Yogācāra doctrine. Tanqian was a close and respected friend and somewhat of a successor to Jingying Huiyuan—both had studied under Huiguang 慧光 (fl. 491–560), and some of Jingying Huiyuan’s disciples transferred to Tanqian after his death—so he may have given Wŏn’gwang access to Jingying Huiyuan’s Pure Land commentaries and other exegetical writings. Ahn Kye-hyŏn, on the other hand, advances the idea that Wŏn’gwang may have developed an interest in the practice of Buddhism among the masses because Xinxing 信行 (540–594), the founder of the mixed laymonastic organization called the Teaching of the Three Stages (Sanjiejiao 三階敎), was active and immensely popular during that time in northern China because of its emphasis on repentance practices and special, simplified observances associated with the doctrine that Buddhism in China 12

The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea

had entered the period of the Final Dharma (mofa 末法), when traditional Buddhist approaches were no longer efficacious.42 Although the Teaching of the Three Stages enjoyed popular acclaim during the Sui and early Tang, it was despised by the mainstream monastic community and was eventually proscribed as heretical by the Buddhist establishment during the early Tang period. The titles of the only known commentarial works by Wŏn’gwang, both non-extant, attest to his interest in Tathāgatagarbha thought, which is a common feature in Wŏnhyo’s writings.43 Although Wŏn’gwang’s interest in Tathāgatagarbha thought does not preclude the possibility of his being interested in Pure Land issues, there is no evidence to confirm that he had an abiding interest, either. If Jingying Huiyuan’s Pure Land commentaries did not enter Silla through Wŏn’gwang, they may have come later through Chajang, whose connections to Chinese monks of Huiyuan’s crowd are better documented. According to the Xu gaoseng zhuan, during his sojourn in Tang from 636 to 643, Chajang, a true-bone noble related to the Silla royal family, studied under Fachang 法常 (567–645), who was one of the eminent Buddhist exegetes of the early Tang and who also mentored the later Huayan master Zhiyan 智儼 (602–668).44 Fachang was a student of both Tanqian and Tanyan 曇延 (516–588), another well-known exegete and Buddhist overseer during the persecution of Buddhism by the Northern Zhou 北周 emperor from 574 to 577.45 Like Tanqian, Fachang was also renowned as a specialist in the Shelun.46 Besides living in Chang’an, Chajang also spent time on Mount Zhongnan 終南山, which suggests that he may have studied under the Vinaya expert Daoxuan (596–667). Daoxuan’s own biography of Chajang in his Xu gaoseng zhuan does not emphasize any connection between the two, so I concur with Jongmyung Kim that he was not the founder of a separate or distinct Vinaya school in Silla.47 It is with Chajang that we have the first evidence of scholarship on Pure Land materials by a Silla monk. Chajang composed two commentaries on the Amituo jing, although there are only a few extant quotations preserved in later Japanese sources.48 He wrote a commentary on the smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, called the Amit’a-gyŏng ki 阿彌陀經記 (Record of the Amituo jing). One extant fragmentary quotation, which discusses the causes of rebirth in the Pure Land, suggests that Chajang had a strict view of those capable of being reborn in Amitābha’s Pure Land. He says that the “Land of Peace and Bliss is a place where bodhisattvas dwell and only [those who have] great aspirations (taesim 大心) 13

Chapter 1

are reborn there, [while those who have] lesser aspirations (sosim 小心) are unable to be reborn there.” The quote ends with his saying that “[those who] make the vow (parwŏn, Ch. fayuan發願) [to be reborn in the Pure Land] are, moreover, able to be reborn [in the Pure Land], as the scripture explains.”49 Although this one brief quotation is insufficient grounds for a decisive account of Chajang’s views on Pure Land practice, it seems apparent that Chajang distinguished between people with superior and inferior spiritual capacities. Chajang probably envisioned a sharp contrast in the level of rebirth in the Pure Land acquired by people who recollected Amitābha and developed bodhisattva characteristics and those who merely chanted his name. Making the vow to be reborn in the Pure Land entailed a significant commitment to religious practice. Given the lack of data, I would tentatively conclude that the practices of the cult of Amitābha stressed by Chajang, owing to his ­Buddhist training in China during the early Tang, probably resembled the types of practices found in the Northern and Southern Dynasties and early Tang: recollection of the characteristics of the Buddha, sūtra recitation, the making of vows, and visualization practices. The short passages are insufficient grounds for an authoritative explanation of Chajang’s views on Pure Land issues, but the Japanese monks who excerpted his writings typically selected passages in which Chajang distinguished between people with superior and inferior spiritual capacities, which may have been a noticeable characteristic of his exegeses. There is nothing atypical about this position because, like his Chinese predecessors and colleagues, he probably envisioned a sharp contrast in the level of rebirth in the Pure Land attained by people who recollected Amitābha, aroused the bodhicitta, and developed bodhisattva characteristics on the one hand and those who merely chanted his name on the other. Thus, either by means of Wŏn’gwang or Chajang, the commentaries of Jingying Huiyuan may have entered Silla to influence the development of the Pure Land exegetical tradition.

Reimagining the Intellectual Mileu of Sinitic Buddhism The exegetical tradition of the late Northern and Southern Dynasties, the Sui, and early Tang periods (ca. 500–712) has traditionally been characterized by means of projecting the anachronistic template of later Japanese sectarianism backward over time and space and hypothesizing the existence of intellectual “schools”—Tiantai 天台, Sanlun 三論 (­Chinese Madhyamaka), Nirvāṇa 涅槃, Dilun 地論 and Shelun 攝論 (Sinitic Yogācāra), 14

The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea

and so forth.50 Although this depiction serves well the isolated study of individual and groups of texts, it oversimplifies the reality of the complex and dynamic interaction between the scholars and students of these various scriptures and treatises. A more fruitful approach to understanding exegetical Buddhism in the late sixth and early seventh centuries is to visualize the following milieu. Various Buddhist scriptures and commentaries had been brought to China and translated by Indian and Central Asian monks and their Chinese disciples for the past several hundred years in both northern and southern China. Furthermore, some very skilled and talented monks composed apocryphal Buddhist scriptures—although “indigenous” is probably a more fruitful and elegant rendering—geared toward a ­Chinese or East Asian audience that made the message of Buddhism more accessible to people by incorporating and assimilating local beliefs and practices to the universal Buddhadharma. Many of these indigenous East Asian scriptures were among the most widely read and influential Buddhist scriptures. There were no firm scholastic traditions, lineages, or schools of thought. In other words, lines of intellectual transmission and influence could be and were traced through a number of different teachers a monk may have studied under throughout his career. Learned monks traveled north and south to study with other erudite monks renowned for their knowledge and understanding of particular scriptures and commentaries. Schemes of doctrinal classification (Ch. panjiao, Kor. p’an’gyo 判敎), extant since the late fifth century, were not yet polemical, rigid, and axiomatic, although there was plenty of contention regarding which were the most profound scriptures and the most superior practices.51 This was the intellectual climate familiar to erudite monk scholiasts of the various regions of China and the peninsular kingdoms of Korea during the sixth and seventh centuries. Monks in the Sinitic cultural sphere were thus faced with an ever-increasing selection of Buddhist scriptures and commentaries, freshly translated into Buddhist Chinese by immigrant monks from throughout the Indian cultural sphere— from Sri Lanka to Kashmir, as well as the oasis city-states of Central Asia. It was not enough merely to accept all the myriad and often ­contradictory teachings and practices described in this literature as the word of the Buddha. Intellectual monks sought to understand such practices, including those associated with the cult of Amitābha, within the context of their understanding of what it meant to be a bodhisattva and how they function within mārga schemes appropriate for a follower 15

Chapter 1

of the Mahāyāna. Learned Chinese monks grappled with these issues in a variety of ways. Their intellectual forays into the issues surrounding the practices of the cult of Amitābha provided the context for the academic discourse into which Silla monks entered during the seventh century. I will now turn to the ideas of Chinese exegetes on doctrines and practices associated with the cult of Amitābha.

16

Chapter 2

Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China

The Origins of Pure Land Buddhism in East Asia The cult of Amitābha in China was initially associated with communities of scholarly monks and men of socially elite families who refused to participate in the dangerous and bloody politics of the frequently changing Northern Dynasties and who vowed to be reborn in Sukhāvatī, the world system in the western extreme of the Buddhist universe. The earliest example of this form of the cult in China was Lushan Huiyuan’s 廬山慧遠 (334–417) group of 123 followers who, in 402, made a vow before an image of Amitābha to be reborn in Sukhāvatī.1 This group, referred to as the White Lotus Society (Bailian she 白蓮社) in Tang period materials, was organized as a community of believers, both lay and monastic, vowing rebirth in Sukhāvatī.2 According to the sūtras associated with the cult, eons ago, when the Buddha Amitābha (also called Amitāyus) was the Bodhisattva Dharmākara, he made forty-eight vows to create a buddhakṣetra (buddha-land or buddha-field) in which he could save all beings who sought refuge there. Most good beings would only need to vow to be reborn in Sukhāvatī and visualize their rebirth there, except for beings who had committed the five heinous crimes and slandered the true teaching.3 Exegetical monks and nobles commissioned images of Amitābha as means of generating merit, as objects of veneration, and as aids for visualization. Vowing rebirth in Sukhāvatī and visualization of Amitābha and his Pure Land in the west to make sure the vow came to pass were the original practices of the cult as it was practiced among the elites in both China and Silla. As the cult disseminated to all people in the seventh century, the practice of recollecting in the sense of chanting the name of Amitābha became more widespread among both the monks and the laity. 17

Chapter 2

Like Daoan’s 道安 (312–385) Maitreya cult, which stressed the importance of images in the devotional worship of Maitreya,4 Lushan Huiyuan also emphasized the importance of images in the Buddhism of Mount Lu. His biographical account and his writings are filled with references to the use of images in meditative practice, the visualization of Amitābha, and hymns to the “shadow of the Buddha.” The emphasis on images, besides being due to the lingering influence of Daoan’s cult of Maitreya, may stem from the necessity of laity to have a concrete object of worship, something more simple and practical, on which to focus their meditative energies. The method of this cultic practice was “remembrance” or “recollection” (nian, Skt. anusmṛti) of the Buddha Amitābha as found in a number of early scriptures.5 Mainstream Chinese exegetes of the sixth and seventh century, in laying the intellectual foundations of Pure Land thought, did not emphasize the concept of buddhānusmṛti or the ten recollections outside of its broader role and significance in Mahāyāna Buddhism. The eminent scholiasts Jingying Huiyuan, Tiantai Zhiyi, and Jizang 吉藏 (549–623), although they wrote important commentaries on Pure Land materials, did not pay strict attention to the idea of the ten recollections or attempt to explain what it meant as a self-contained religious practice. They held the view that chanting the name of Amitābha for ten thought-moments functioned essentially as a powerful dhāraṇī that eradicates unwholesome karma acquired over innumerable lifetimes and enables one to be reborn in the Pure Land.

Arousing the Bodhicitta and Rebirth in the Pure Land Jingying Huiyuan, one of the most respected and learned scholars of the late Northern Dynasties period and a celebrated defender of the Buddhist church during the Northern Zhou persecution of the Buddhist church (574–577),6 advances a conventional and simple understanding of buddhānusmṛti and the ten recollections. In his Wuliangshou jing yishu 無量 壽經義疏 (Commentary on the Wuliangshou jing), Huiyuan treats these concepts only within the context of causes of rebirth in the Pure Land. In a procedure followed by many succeeding exegetes, Huiyuan provides lists of causes of rebirth in the Pure Land. Of the five causes of people of the superior order (shangbei 上輩), “consistently and exclusively recollecting the Buddha Amitāyus” (yixiang zhuannian Wuliangshou fo 一向專念 無量壽佛) is the third, following forsaking the householder way of life and arousing the bodhicitta (fa puti xin 發菩提心). Of the four causes of 18

Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China

people reborn in the middling order (zhongbei 中輩), “exclusively recollecting that Buddha Amitāyus” is the second cause after arousing the bodhicitta.7 Furthermore, Huiyuan refers specifically to the admonition in the Guanjing to exclusively recollect that Buddha Amitāyus for ten thought-moments (shinian 十念) and doing it with a mind of utmost sincerity (zhicheng xin 至誠心) for one recollection or thought-moment (­yinian 一念), when outlining the four causes of rebirth in the inferior order (xiabei 下輩). We will return to the causes in detail in the following chapter when assessing the views of Wŏnhyo.8 In his Guan Wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏 (Commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing) Huiyuan briefly touches on the practice again in an attempt to clarify the sūtra’s discussion of the wholesome causes of rebirth in the Pure Land. He explains two reasons why people are reborn in hell: as a result of their evil acts, and despite the fact that when a person is on the verge of death and a spiritual mentor expounds the teaching to him, he does not have enough leisure time to recollect the Buddha. Huiyuan then explains: “Leisure time” is “spare time.” Because he has no spare time to recollect the Buddha, [the sūtra] says: “He does not have leisure [to recollect the Buddha]. Among his attainments he [mentions] two alternatives: (1) a spiritual mentor teaches and encourages him to chant (cheng 稱) that Buddha’s name for a full ten thought-moments (shinian 十念); (2) “By chanting [the name of that] Buddha, recollection by recollection (or “moment by moment,” niannian 念念) he eliminates the sins of birth and death for eighty million [koṭi] kalpas.”9

Thus, by the late sixth century, Jingying Huiyuan had already put forth the idea that under special circumstances, at least, recollection of the Buddha Amitābha could include the practice of merely chanting the Buddha’s name.10 Nevertheless, it is clear that recollection of the Buddha was originally intended and understood to be a mainstream practice that supplemented the arousal of the bodhicitta.11 Tiantai Zhiyi, the well-known founder of the Tiantai school, which enjoyed imperial patronage during the Sui period,12 employs a straightforward interpretation deriving from the sūtras in explaining the meaning of the ten recollections. In his Guan Wuliangshou jing shu 觀無量 壽經疏 (Commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing), he treats the ten recollections only in his interpretation of rebirth for people reborn in the lowest grade of the lowest class (xiapin xiasheng 下品下生): “Those 19

Chapter 2

who chant ‘The Buddha Amitāyus’ up to ten recollections, the continuation of wholesome thought (shanxin xiangxu 善心相續) for up to ten recollections, or the completion of one recollection,” he says, “immediately achieve rebirth in the Pure Land. By means of recollection of the ­Buddha one forsakes and eradicates sins and hindrances. Hence, by means of recollection of the Buddha one transcends karmic connections.”13 Jizang, the last influential adherent to the Chinese Madhyamaka tradition (Sanlun 三論),14 also sticks close to the scriptures themselves in his explication of the significance of the ten recollections in obtaining rebirth in the Pure Land. In his Wuliangshou jing yishu 無量 壽經義疏 (Commentary on the Meaning of the Wuliangshou jing), he says that “those of the lowest grade of the lowest class who complete the ten recollections obtain rebirth [there].” In the following line, however, he says that for people in all three classes the bodhicitta (puti xin 菩提心) is the direct cause (zhengyin 正因) of rebirth in the Pure Land.15 He corroborates these opinions in his Guan Wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏 (Commentary on the Meaning of the Guan Wuliangshou jing), saying that the bodhicitta is an action causing rebirth in the Pure Land. Although the Guanjing says that “the bodhi of the ten recollections” is a cause for achieving rebirth in the Pure Land, he explains that it is not the only way to be reborn there. To him, the attainment of buddha-fruit (foguo 佛果), making karmic connections through long desiring to escape from saṃsāra, and performance of the sixteen visualizations of the Guanjing are all equally viable causes of rebirth in the Pure Land.16

Recollection in Tanluan’s Five Practices One of the main reasons for the success of the cult of Amitābha in northern China was the reformulation of practices associated with the worship of Amitābha and rebirth in Sukhāvatī by the monk Tanluan. Tanluan’s classification of ways to venerate Amitābha placed devotional practices, which included recitation of Amitābha’s name and offerings, ahead of vows and visualizations, which had been the focus of Lushan Huiyuan’s White Lotus Society. These practices were much easier for ordinary people to perform and set the stage for the expansion of the Amitābha cult throughout all levels of Chinese society in the seventh century. His exegeses on Pure Land materials were often cited by Silla exegetes in the seventh and eighth centuries in their commentaries on scriptures associated with the Amitābha cult. 20

Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China

Wŏnhyo was influenced more by Tanluan than by Daochuo or Shandao among the later list of orthodox “Pure Land masters” because Tanluan, a fellow exegete, combines Madhayamaka and Yogācāra thought in his Pure Land writings.17 One scholar, Ōtani Kōshin, sees Tanluan reaching for an understanding or interpretation of Pure Land practice within the all-embracing approach of Huayan thought.18 This is significant because both Wŏnhyo and Shandao also seek to place the worship of Amitābha within the expansive context of Huayan doctrine and the Tathāgatagarbha. Wŏnhyo alludes to Tanluan indirectly by addressing issues he treated in several places. A standard practice of Wŏnhyo is to hearken back to the seminal writings of the pioneers of Mahāyāna Buddhist thought. For this reason, it is unavoidable that he would encounter the exegeses of Tanluan because Tanluan’s writings are inseparably ­connected to the first exegesis on Pure Land thought. His Wuliangshou jing youpotishe yuanshengjie zhu 無量壽經優波提舍願生偈註 (Annotated Commentary on the Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa, commonly called the Wang­ sheng lun zhu 往生論註) treats several fundamental doctrinal issues. Based on the Wuliangshou jing youpotishe wangshengjie 無量壽經優波提舍 往生偈 (Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa, or Wangsheng lun 往生論 for short), which was translated by Bodhiruci I (Putiliuzhi 菩提流支, fl. 508–535) and is attributed to Vasubandhu (Shiqin 世親, 400–480), it elaborates on the five approaches to recollection (wu nianmen 五念門) that became a standard way to refer to practices associated with the cult of Amitābha. These five  approaches were (1) worship (libai 禮拜), (2) praise (zantan 讚歎), (3) making the resolution (zuoyuan 作願), (4) visualization (guancha 觀察), and (5) “turning toward” (huixiang 迴向), or transferring one’s merit to others (pariṇāmanā) and turning back to reenter the saṃsāra.19 These approaches can be summarized as follows. Worship is addressing Amitābha under the titles of Tathāgata, Arhat, and Samyaksambuddha (Enlightened Buddha) and worshipping him using bodily activities. No special mudrās (hand signs or gestures) are necessary for this practice. Praise is the oral, audible invocation of the name of Amitābha. This is the form of recollection of the Buddha (nianfo 念佛) that would become the most distinctive cultic practice of Pure Land Buddhism; however, to Tanluan it was merely one aspect of a comprehensive approach to rebirth in the Pure Land. Making the resolution, visualization, and transference of merit are all linked together and comprise the mental activity in practice. The practitioner single-mindedly worships and praises Amitābha and vows to be reborn in the Pure Land. He then visualizes the Pure Land of Amitābha in all of its aspects. The final approach of the transference 21

Chapter 2

of merit is concerned with the turning over of one’s accumulated merit to others while one is still in the world and with turning back to reenter the world after one has been reborn in Sukhāvatī.20 These forms of devotional practice outlined in the exegetical works of Tanluan are indicative of the way Buddhism would be practiced by increasing numbers of Chinese, elites and non-elites, during the early Tang period because such monks as Daochuo and Shandao promulgated the worship of Amitābha among both the elites and masses.21 Furthermore, Tanluan’s writings were known in Silla and influenced the way exegetes, such as Wŏnhyo, classified Buddhist worship of Amitābha among the nobles during the seventh century. Wŏnhyo was quite familiar with Tanluan’s other works, particularly his Lüelun anle jingtu yi 略論 安樂淨土義 (Brief Treatise on the Meaning of Sukhāvatī), which supplied concise similes and outlines that were useful as both inspired examples and heuristic foils for Wŏnhyo.22 Although we cannot be sure whether or not Tanluan actually preached the practice of the vocal recollection of the Buddha as the means to rebirth in the Pure Land, this was certainly Daochuo’s reading of it. Prior to the evangelizing of Daochuo and Shandao, “recollection of the buddha” still meant buddhānusmṛti, a more contemplative recollection of the ­Buddha. This is the way the practice of recollecting the ­Buddha is described in early Buddhist literature, such as Huijiao’s Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (Lives of Eminent Monks), Yang Xuanzhi’s 楊衒之 (ca. 547) Luoyang qielan ji 洛陽伽 藍記 (A Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang), and the apocryphal Tiwei jing 提謂經 (Book of Trapuṣa) compiled by Tanjing 曇靖 (ca. 452–455), which contains a reference to the widespread cultic chant “Homage to the Buddha” (nanwu fo 南無佛).23 Tanluan also unavoidably explores the concepts of recollection and the ten recollections in the Wangsheng lun zhu. In this process he lays the foundation for how later exegetes, such as Wŏnhyo, understand the ­complex interaction between samādhi (meditative absorption), visualization, and recollection. Question: How long is one recollection (thought-moment, yinian 一念)? Answer: One hundred and one arisings and ceasings [of mind] is called one kṣaṇa. Sixty kṣaṇa is called one thought-moment. Among these, a thought-moment does not choose this segmentation of time. Merely, with respect to remembering and recollecting the Buddha Amitābha, it c­ onforms to general marks and specific marks. Consequently, in connection to what you visualize, your mind does not have other thoughts, and the continuation 22

Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China (xiangshu) of the ten thought-moments is called the ten recollections. Merely chanting [Amitābha’s] name is also like this.24

For Tanluan, however, recollection leading to rebirth in the Pure Land is not something that can be performed haphazardly, despite the fact that the Pure Land sūtras emphasize the ease of the practice. “These ten recollections rely and rest upon the superior mind of faith (xinxin 信心) and, relying on the expedients of the Tathāgata Amitābha, they are called the immeasurable meritorious virtues of ornamentation, true reality, and cleanliness and purity.”25 What is this superior mind of faith, or perhaps “believing mind”? Although Tanluan does not provide a direct definition, from the context it must refer to at least some aspect of the ordinary human mind. There is a fundamental paradox associated with and embedded in this kind of mind: “Because the mind of faith is impure, it is not firmly fixed. Because it is not firmly fixed, recollection is not ­continuous. Also, because recollection is not continuous, you cannot attain a firmly fixed mind. Because you cannot attain a firmly fixed mind, the mind is impure.”26 The problem with the mind of faith, thus, is that it cannot be maintained continuously, and because it cannot be maintained it is impure. Hence, to Tanluan, aspirants rely upon the expedients of Amitābha to achieve rebirth in the Pure Land.

Daochuo’s Pure Land Approach After the suppression of Buddhism under the Northern Zhou by Emperor Wu, the cult of Amitābha spread throughout all social strata of Chinese society due mainly to the missionary activities of Daochuo and Shandao. Daochuo developed many of the ideas advanced by Tanluan during the previous century. According to tradition, Daochuo was converted to the cult of Amitābha late in his life, at forty-seven years of age, in 609, during a visit to Xuanzhong Monastery 玄忠寺—the monastery where Tanluan spent the later years of his life. He became an enthusiastic participant in the cult after reading the stele inscription erected in Tanluan’s memory. His personal Buddhist practice consisted of invoking the name of Amitābha and constantly lecturing on the visualizations of Amitāyus (hengjiang Wuliangshou guan 恒講無量壽觀).27 Tanluan sought to convert monastic leaders to the worship of Amitābha through exegeses, while Daochuo disseminated the cult among the common people: urging them to recite the name of Amitābha, visualize his body, and think about him as complementary dimensions of the samādhi on 23

Chapter 2

recollecting the buddha Amitābha (nianfo sanmei 念佛三昧).28 He enjoyed great success in the Shanxi region, where it was said that everyone over the age of six chanted Amitābha’s name. He encouraged devotees to keep track of the number of their invocations by setting aside a bean for each recitation of the buddha’s name. People were also admonished not to cry, spit, or relieve themselves in the direction of the west, the abode of the Amitābha’s Pure Land.29 Daochuo believed that he lived in the latter days of the law, a time of the decline of the Buddhadharma (mofa 末法), when the distinguishing characteristics of Buddhism were making merit and practicing penance through the construction of monasteries and other religious works (images, stūpa, sūtra copying, sūtra recitation). He taught that people should adjust their religious practice to conform to the time in which they live and preached that verbal recitation of the name of Amitābha alone has the power to destroy the bad karmic residue accumulated over countless eons of birth and death. The influence of Daochuo on exegetes is difficult to assess because the tradition remembers him as more of a preacher than a scholar.30 In the Anle ji 安樂集 (Pure Land Anthology), his only extant work, Daochuo follows the example of his spiritual mentor Tanluan by using the concepts of emptiness and the two truths to treat the exegetical issues associated with doctrine of the Pure Land. Although this may be seen as basically a Madhyamaka perspective, he presents a more emotional argument for the validity of seeking rebirth in the Pure Land to escape an increasingly degenerate world. Daochuo recognized two types of teaching: the Path of the Sages (shengdao 聖道) and the Pure Land approach (jingtu men 淨土門). He rejected the former and embraced the latter. The Path of the Sages included all forms of exegetical Buddhism and focused on the intellectual apprehension of the illusion of all things, emptiness, and the personal experience of enlightenment. The Pure Land approach, on the other hand, provided a way for all beings to be reborn in Amitābha’s Pure Land by reciting his name. Daochuo did not believe that people could become enlightened by their own efforts and taught that the only way for a man to be liberated from the cycle of rebirth and death was to have faith in the saving power of Amitābha as expressed in his forty-eight vows.31 From his training in the Daban niepan jing 大般涅般經 (Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa Sūtra), he accepted the concept that all beings possess buddha-nature, but he did not think buddha-nature alone was sufficient to lead someone to enlightenment. In other words, arousing the bodhicitta is a prerequisite for rebirth in the Pure Land. 24

Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China

From an exegetical perspective, Daochuo’s views were fundamentally no different than Tanluan, save his views on the nature of Amitābha and Sukhāvatī.32 Furthermore, like Huiyuan, Zhiyi, and Jizang, the Pure Land proponents Tanluan and Daochuo also acknowledged the power of vocal recitation of the name of Amitābha in the manner of a dhāraṇī; however, they insist that recollecting the Buddha (nianfo) is really an all-­ consuming practice that involves exclusive concentration on Amitābha and the desire to be reborn in the Pure Land with a sincere mind. Tanluan does not quantify the shinian as a specific length of time but accedes that it means both to recollect the marks of Amitābha for a continuation of ten thought-moments (shinian xiangxu 十念相續) and to chant the name (cheng minghao 稱名號) of that Buddha. In describing what he means by a “continuation of ten thought-moments” Tanluan introduces the story of a man who in single-minded desperation hopes to cross a river to escape from marauders. Daochuo faithfully follows his spiritual mentor’s views with regard to the shinian and repeats the story of the river crossing, as does Shandao.33 Because Wŏnhyo also employs this story, I will treat it in greater detail in the following chapter.

Jiacai’s Six Practices The monk Jiacai 迦才 (fl. 626–649), who was active in Chang’an in the midseventh century,34 may have been known to the Silla scholiasts.35 His writings suggest that both he and the Silla exegetes shared views on the meaning of the “ten recollections,” which I will treat in greater detail in the next chapter. Jiacai advances a list of a number of causes of rebirth in the Pure Land in his Jingtu lun 淨土論 (Treatise on the Pure Land). These include clearly understanding the three meritorious acts36 and the ­sixteen visualizations, arousing the bodhicitta, recollecting the Buddha for seven days, teaching oneself to arouse the vow to transfer merit toward other sentient beings, and seeking rebirth in the Pure Land by means of the ten recollections.37 He also foreshadows some of the views espoused by his younger contemporary Shandao. For instance, in differentiating between indirect (bieyin 別因) and direct causes (zhengyin 正因) of rebirth in the Pure Land he lists the following six kinds of practices as direct causes: “(1) you must specially recollect the name of the Buddha Amitābha (xu bienian Amituofo minghao 須別念阿彌陀佛名號), (2) you must offer worship (xu libai 須禮拜), (3) you must praise (xu zantan 須讚歎), (4)  you  must arouse the vow (xu fayuan 須發願), (5) you must visualize 25

Chapter 2

(xu guancha 須觀察), and (6) you must make a transference [of your merit to others (i.e., direct your efforts)] (xu huixiang 須迴向).”38 By listing recollection of Amitābha first, Jiacai demonstrates the increased relevance of buddhānusmṛti and indicates its changing meaning and significance in the middle of the seventh century. Jiacai conceptualizes buddhānusmṛti as being of two types: “mental recollection” (xinnian 心念) and “vocal recollection” (kounian 口念). He further divides mental recollection into two subtypes: (1) “recollection of the physical body [rūpakāya] of the Buddha” (nian fo seshen 念佛色身), the 84,000 marks of Amitābha’s body, and (2) “recollection of the wisdom body [dharmakāya] of the Buddha” (nian fo zhishen 念佛智身), the superb Buddha qualities of mercy, compassion, strength, fearlessness, and so forth.39 Jiacai then explains vocal recollection after first providing the caveat that someone is only to perform it if they “lack mental power”—in other words, if they have limited spiritual capacity. Vocal recollection derives from Daochuo’s (here called “Dhyāna Master Chuo,” Chuo Chanshi  綽禪師) interpretation of the main practice from the Amituo jing: exclusively recollecting the Buddha for seven days and completing a million repetitions (baiwan pian 百萬遍) of Amitābha’s name.40 Although Jiacai’s diction begins to reflect that which would become more common in later Pure Land sectarian literature, his interpretations are completely in line with the views of the exegetes treated briefly above.

Shandao’s Ten Intonations The cult of Amitābha reached its exegetical and popular pinnacle in Tang China with Shandao, who became a disciple of Daochuo in the early 630s at Xuanzhong Monastery. After the passing of his master in 645, Shandao moved to the capital, Chang’an, and energetically spread the Pure Land faith among the city’s inhabitants by making thousands of copies of the Amituo jing and painting about three hundred scrolls depicting Amitābha’s Pure Land. Traditional accounts suggest that he was very successful in converting countless numbers of men and women to the cult, including some fanatics who radically chose to hasten their entry into the Pure Land by committing religious suicide. He does not, however, appear to have swayed any of his contemporaries, some of the great Buddhist exegetes of the capital, such as Xuanzang, Kuiji, or Fazang, to his cult, although he stayed at the renowned Da Ci’en Monastery for a while. His main residence while in Chang’an was Guangming Monastery 光明寺 located in the commercial district of the capital.41 26

Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China

The influence of Shandao on the Silla exegetes is most pronounced in the writings of Pŏbwi, who may have mentored Hyŏnil. Shandao’s thought was more nuanced and intellectual than is often portrayed in later sectarian Pure Land literature.42 As we have seen, scholars did not need Shandao for the idea of “chanting” (cheng 稱) because it had already been introduced by Tanluan and was further developed by Jingying Huiyuan. Although Shandao’s name is never mentioned, his term “vocal chanting” (koucheng 口稱) is apparent in their writings. One of Shandao’s important innovations, and perhaps his greatest influence on the Silla exegetes, was his introduction of the concept of the “ten intonations” (shisheng 十聲), an alternate reading of the “ten recollections,” into the learned discourse on buddhānusmṛti.43 This innovation has only really been recognized by Jérôme Ducor in Western scholarship on Shandao.44 In his exegetical magnum opus, the Guan Wuliangshoufo jing shu (Commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing), he introduces this concept within the context of justifying the practice of chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha from an exegetical standpoint: addressing the Shelun concept of “an intent [to declare an event] of another [future] time” (bieshiyi 別時意) and paraphrasing the Lotus Sūtra’s promise that if people chant “Homage to the Buddha” (nanwu fo) even one time they will all become buddhas.45 Shandao inherited a concern for this issue from his mentor Daochuo and passed it on to his disciple Huaigan 懷感 (fl. late seventh century).46 I will address these issues in chapter 3 in the context of discussing the scholiums of Pŏbwi. Shando explains the ­concept of the ten intonations when commenting on the Shelun school’s theory of “the meaning of separate time” (bieshi yi 別時義) in the ­Buddha’s teachings. He refined the doctrinal teachings supporting Pure Land practice as follows: In the Treatise [Asaṅga’s Mahāyāna-saṃgraha-śāstra], it is explained as “the same as someone who, by just producing the vow to be reborn in the land Sukhāvatī [will receive rebirth there].”47 For a long time, the Tonglun 通論 (another name of the Shelun school) has been wrongly citing [the passage] on the [beings reborn in] the lowest grade of the lowest class (xiapin xiasheng 下品下生) chanting the Buddha’s [name] for ten intonations (shisheng chengfo 十聲稱佛) [in the Sūtra on the Visualization of the Buddha Amitāyus] as similar to this, so that they would not immediately attain rebirth [there]. [For example, Vasubandhu’s Commentary on Asaṅga’s Treatise says:] It is like one gold coin becoming a thousand; it is accomplished after many days. It is 27

Chapter 2 not that in one day it instantly becomes a thousand.48 Chanting the ­Buddha’s [name] for ten intonations is also like this.49

Later in the same passage Shandao demonstrates that his interpretation of the benefits of Pure Land practice is influenced by conceptualization of a bodhisattva path of fifty-two stages as found in the Huayan jing 華嚴 經 (Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra).50 Almost all of the exegetes I have looked at and will look at have some opinion about the placement of Pure Land aspirants on this path, but since it is beyond the scope of the general thrust of my discussion of buddhānusmṛti I will not discuss it in detail here.51 Now, in this [scripture], the Guanjing, if one chants the Buddha’s [name] for ten intonations, he will then fully satisfy the ten vows and the ten practices.52 What does it mean to “fully satisfy” ( juzu 具足)? It means namaḥ, which is “to take refuge.” This is also the meaning of “transferring merit toward arousing the vow [to be reborn in the Pure Land]” (fayuan huixiang zhi yi 法願迴向之義). This refers to the Buddha Amitābha [and] his practice. One will certainly attain rebirth in the Pure Land from the meaning of this.53

In this way Shandao welded the idea of vocal chanting directly into the exegetical discourse on buddhānusmṛti. He further developed the ­concept of the ten intonations in his other more devotional and liturgical writings.54 His disciple Huaigan further embellished upon his master’s ­conceptualization in his wordy, catechism-like Shi jingtu qunyi lun 釋淨土 群疑論 (Treatise on a Multitude of Doubts regarding the Interpretation of the Pure Land), which infuriated the Silla monk Kyŏnghŭng.55 Huaigan, however, and Longxing 龍興 (d.u.), another disciple of Shandao, also appear to have been influenced by Jiacai and Zhiyan, providing evidence for the idea that early Pure Land monks were influenced by scholiasts outside of their “lineage.”56 Like Daochuo, Shandao believed that he lived in an age of the decline of the Buddhadharma and that the worship of Amitābha was the only sure means to facilitate a person’s escape from the cycle of rebirth and death. Shandao taught that Amitābha had vowed to save all beings, whether good or evil, provided they satisfied two conditions: (1) place their faith in Amitābha and acknowledge their own wickedness and inability to achieve enlightenment by themselves, and (2) perform five  types of devotional practices (wuzheng xing 五正行; lit. “five right 28

Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China

practices”) to demonstrate or express their inward faith and resolution. These five practices were study and chanting (dusong 讀誦, reciting Pure Land sūtras), visualization (guancha), worship (li, bowing to Amitābha), invocation or vocal chanting (koucheng, reciting the name of Amitābha), and praise and offering (zantan gongyang 讚歎供養).57 Thus, Shandao’s views deviate slightly from those expressed in the Wangsheng lun, which were further elaborated by Tanluan. Later Pure Land traditions, particularly those in Japan, singled out Shandao’s fourth activity, reciting the name of Amitābha, as the single most important cultic practice that causes one to be liberated from the cycle of rebirth and death and be reborn in Sukhāvatī. Shandao called it “an act that directly determines [entrance into the Pure Land]” (zhengding zhi ye 正定之業) and urged people to recite the name of this Buddha at all times and in all situations. The fact that invocation of the name of Amitābha could be performed by all people, whether learned or ignorant, was paramount to Shandao’s faith in the universality of Amitābha’s vow to save all beings. Although recent scholarship usually emphasizes Shandao’s vocal recitation of the name of Amitābha, we need to realize that, as Daniel B. ­Stevenson surmised, “when one examines the liturgical writings of the Shanxi masters [Tanluan, Daochuo, Shandao, and so forth], one finds them to be heavily imbued with the ritual norms of the broader buddhanusmṛti culture. Even with the growing emphasis on Sukhāvatī and the salvific power of Amitābha’s grace, ecstatic meditative visions of the Buddha continue to be sought and esteemed as a confirmatory sign of one’s impending rebirth in the Pure Land.”58 For example, Shandao left detailed instructions for seven-day rituals including visualizations of Amitābha and verbal recitation of the Amituo jing.59 Wŏnhyo and the Silla scholiasts were also products of this “broader buddhānusmṛti culture,” in which the idea of buddhānusmṛti was a mainstream Buddhist cultic practice in which one “recollected” (nian, Skt anusmṛti) or focused their mental energies on such things as the appearance, qualities, and characteristics of the Buddha (usually but not exclusively Amitābha).60 Thus, in seventh-century Tang China and later, verbal recitation of Amitābha’s name and recollection of Amitābha’s characteristics were both acceptable and widespread practices. The impact of the cult of Amitābha is brilliantly attested in the statuary of the Longmen Caves 龍門窟 outside the secondary capital Luoyang 洛陽: Between the years 640 and 710, 118 images of Amitābha were produced as opposed to a mere ten images of Śākyamuni and twelve of Maitreya.61 29

Chapter 2

Fazhao and Tonal Chanting The Tang court appears not to have participated in the cult of Amitābha until after the An Lushan 安祿山 rebellion (755–763). Pure Land rituals were first introduced to the Tang court by the monk Fazhao 法照 (d. ca. 820), who was later dubbed a reincarnation of Shandao because of his success in spreading the cult of Amitābha, particularly the practice of intoning the name of Amitābha. Following the example set by Lushan Huiyuan, Fazhao made a pilgrimage to Mount Lu, where he built a hermitage in which to cultivate the practice of visualizing Amitābha, the pratyutpanna samādhi (banzhou sanmei 般舟三昧). He had a vision of the Pure Land in 765 and saw an aged monk attending Amitābha, who he identified as Chengyuan 承遠, a renowned devotee of Amitābha living in the Nanyue 南嶽 mountains (present-day Hunan). Fazhao left Mount Lu and joined Chengyuan’s community at Nanyue. The next year Fazhao claimed to have another vision of Amitābha, in which the Buddha explained the practice of intoning the name of Amitābha in five different tempos (wuhui nianfo 五會念佛), which he described as “a priceless and rare treasure” uniquely suited for the present time, and equated with the five sounds heard in the Pure Land spoken of in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra. Fazhao spent four years at Nanyue devoted to meditations on Amitabha, during which time he had repeated visions of a monastery on Mount Wutai 五臺山 that he believed that he was destined to build. Fazhao moved to Mount Wutai in 770 to found a community, and then settled in Taiyuan 太原 for a time at the state-sponsored Longxing Monastery 龍興寺 where, perhaps, he cultivated relationships with the imperial clan. He also wrote a major treatise on the chanting of Amitābha’s name in five rhythms during his stay.62 Fazhao eventually reached Chang’an in the late 770s, where he solicited contributions for his dream monastery, Zhulin Monastery 竹林寺 on Wutai, and successfully preached his method of rhythmically chanting the name of Amitābha. He lectured at the court of emperor Daizong  代宗 (r. 762–779) and was granted the title state preceptor (guoshi 國師). While in the capital Fazhao stayed at Zhangjing Monastery 章敬寺, which Daizong had built in 767 in memory of his mother. After Daizong’s passing Fazhao moved to Bingzhou 并州 in Shanxi 山西 (the powerbase of Tanluan, Daochuo, and Shandao), where he preached his practice of chanting with great success. He was eventually recalled to the capital to instruct Dezong’s 得宗 (r. 779–804) officials in their performance of the practice of chanting the name of Amitābha in five rhythms. 30

Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China

Fazhao’s teachings and influence continued at court after his death. The Japanese monk Ennin 圓仁 (ca. 793–864) reports that his disciple Jing­ shuang 鏡霜 also dwelled at Zhangjing Monastery and by imperial ­command in 841 taught the practice of chanting the name of Amitābha in the monasteries of Chang’an.63

The Amitābha Cult at Dunhuang The cult of Amitābha is also quite visible in the collections of Dunhuang transformation tales (Dunhuang bianhua 敦煌變化) materials, which preserve four manuscripts dealing with the Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 (Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra).64 Although it is difficult to date these materials with complete accuracy, scholars generally accept that documents dating to as late as the tenth century may preserve practices and concepts dating to the eighth century, if not earlier. Two examples of the cult of Amitābha in Dunhuang will suffice. In one of the sermons, the person giving the lecture asks a few rhetorical questions in an attempt to encourage the listeners to pursue rebirth in the Pure Land. He asks, “Are you ready to make the vow?” There is then a marginal note apparently made by the preacher to himself to “chant the name of the Buddha three times five times” (nianfo sanwu sheng 念佛三五聲). Then the preacher says the name of the Foshuo Amituo jing (Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra).65 A conservative reading of the context seems to suggest that the preacher pauses to chant the name of Amitābha himself fifteen times prior to introducing the name of the sūtra. It is also possible, if not probable, however, that he paused to lead his listeners in the chant. The Foshuo Amituo jing yazuo wen 佛說阿彌陀經押座文 (Homily on the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) also contains a passage similar to that stated above. Toward the beginning of the talk the author of the manuscript says, “Are you ready? Those who are ready should chant the name of the Buddha Amitābha out loud” (gaosheng nian Amituo fo 高聲念阿彌陀佛). He then says, “When the sermon begins open your Amituo jing.”66 Thus we can see that chanting the name of Amitābha became the most widespread and accepted practice in the cult of Amitābha in Tang China. I would stress one more point before pressing on to the writings of the Silla exegetes: that chanting “Homage to the Buddha” (nanwu fo 南無佛) and “Homage to the Buddha Amitābha” (nanwu Amituo fo 南無阿彌陀佛) were essentially the same in medieval Sinitic Buddhism. This position is attested in other early Tang-period sources besides Shandao’s magnum opus, the Guan Wuliangshou jing shu. The intrepid monkish compiler 31

Chapter 2

Daoshi, in his treatment of dhāraṇī or “spell craft” (zhoushu 呪術) in his Buddhist “encyclopedia” Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 (A Grove of Pearls in the Garden of the Dharma), which he completed in 668, lists both these and other spells as appropriate for the worship of Amitābha. Daoshi says that the result of chanting these incantations is not only to be reborn in the “realm of limitless life” (Wuliangshouguo 無量壽國), the Pure Land of Amitāyus, but the destruction of the unwholesome karma caused by the four heavy sins (the pārājikas),67 the five heinous crimes, and so forth. Furthermore, chanting these spells will cause a woman to be reborn as a man, among other things.68 Ordinary rebirth in the Pure Land for a woman is tantamount to a woman’s being reborn as a man because, at least according to Vasubandhu’s commentary, no women are found in Amitābha’s Pure Land.69 Silla exegetes were well aware of the complex and rich tapestry of meaning woven into the warp and woof of exegetical discourse on this crucial aspect of Buddhist practice. Wŏnhyo was familiar with Tanluan, Pŏbwi and Hyŏnil were definitely acquainted with the writings of Shandao, and Kyŏnghŭng was unquestionably aware of the essays of Shandao’s disciple Huaigan. The Silla exegetes may have had access to the writings of Daochuo, but his influence is unpronounced. Silla monks were probably familiar with the rising popularity of chanting the name of Amitābha and associated repentance rituals in northern Shanxi, as well as the warm reception of these cultic practices in the Tang capital. They may have heard about it from other Silla monks who studied in and around Chang’an and who probably spent time in Shanxi. Two good candidates are the eminent monks Chajang, who spent time there between 636 and 643, and his friend Ŭisang, who studied Huayan in Chang’an sometime between 661 and 671, both of whom wrote commentaries on the Amituo jing (see the appendix).70 We will now turn to the writings of Wŏnhyo to see how his comprehensive approach to understanding the practices leading to rebirth in the Pure Land combined and synthesized many of the ideas of his intellectual predecessors and provided the context for many later Silla exegetes writing about Pure Land practice.

32

Chapter 3

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

Arousing the Mind to Practice Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686) was the most prodigious monk of Silla and is arguably the most well-known Korean Buddhist exegete.1 His commentaries on the Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起心論 (Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna) and the Jin’gang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 (Vajrasamādhi-sūtra), as well as his Simmun hwajaeng non 十門和諍論 (Treatise on the Reconciliation of Disputes in Ten Approaches), were among the most famous and well studied in medieval East Asia.2 Like Wŏn’gwang, Wŏnhyo was a lesser elite of head rank six (yuktup’um 六頭品) status in Silla’s hierarchical bone-rank system of social stratification and, therefore, did not enjoy the privileges of nobles of true-bone (chin’gol 眞骨) status, such as his friend Ŭisang and possible mentor Chajang. Wŏnhyo and Ŭisang made a few attempts to travel to Tang China via the land route through Koguryŏ, which then controlled much of presentday Manchuria and North Korea, but were turned back, according to tradition, for fear that they were spies. Ŭisang eventually crossed over to Tang China by boat, but Wŏnhyo declined after a (perhaps legendary) experience in which he realized that because all phenomena arise from one’s mind there was no need for him to search for truth outside of his own mind or travel all the way to China.3 Despite his lower birth status, Wŏnhyo attained some level of social mobility in Silla. Wŏnhyo’s fame provided him with the opportunity to pursue a sexual relationship with a youthful widowed princess of Silla, the Princess of the Jasper Palace (Yosŏkkung 瑤石宮) during the reign of King Muyŏl 武烈 (r. 654–661). According to tradition, the king arranged for the relationship at Wŏnhyo’s 33

Chapter 3

bidding in hope that the princess would bear a son that would be beneficial to the kingdom. Although his wife was of true-bone status, his son Sŏl Ch’ong 薛聰 (ca. 660–730) was of head rank six status like himself.4 After breaking his monastic vow of chastity, his Korean hagiography says that the once śramaṇa Wŏnhyo called himself “Humble Householder” (Sosŏng Kŏsa 小姓居士), composed songs that helped convert the common people to Buddhism, and also taught the poor and ignorant people “to recognize the name of the ‘Buddha’ (sik Pult’a chi ho 識佛陀之號), and recite together the invocation ‘Homage.’ ”5 In his exegetical works, Wŏnhyo commented on nearly every significant scripture and doctrinal issue of his day, including the Pure Land sūtras (see the appendix). Wŏnhyo also lived at Punhwang Monastery 芬皇寺, located just north of the Hwangnyong Monastery site, and may have developed some of his views on Pure Land practice under the influence of or, perhaps, in ­contradistinction to, the views of Chajang. Wŏnhyo is the textual exegete of Silla most difficult to classify conventionally. The broad range of his writings on Prajñāpāramitā, Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, Tathāgatagarbha, Hwaŏm, and Pure Land themes attest to his understanding and mastery of the issues and concerns in the Sinitic Buddhist intellectual community. The quotations and allusions found in his Pure Land works alone demonstrate what I believe is Wŏnhyo’s larger project of attempting to harmonize the various strands of the Sinitic Buddhist exegetical tradition.6 Wŏnhyo first establishes the Wuliangshou jing within the standard Sinitic Yogācāra context (Shelun). Then he pushes forward the understanding of the scripture to its place in Tathāgatagarbha thought (Qixin lun 起信論 and Huayan jing).7 Wŏnhyo was aware of the apparent contradiction between the Wu­ liangshou jing and the Guanjing with respect to the practice of the recollection of the Buddha Amitābha and, like most exegetes of his day, set his hand to resolving the problem. Wŏnhyo treats the notion of the ten recollections in two ways. He draws on a sūtra associated with Maitreya to encourage people to arouse the bodhicitta, a recurring theme in all his writings.8 He says that among several ways of recollecting the Buddha, a repentant, sincere mind (chisim 至心) when chanting one’s recollection of the name of the Buddha is the key to resolving the contradiction between the two scriptures. In his Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 無量壽經宗要 (Doctrinal Essentials of the Wuliangshou jing), he says that arousing the bodhi­ citta is the primary cause of birth in the Pure Land. Here he is in agreement with his Chinese colleagues.9 34

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

Causes of Rebirth in the Pure Land People who are reborn in Sukhāvatī, Amitābha’s Pure Land, are described in the Wuliangshou jing as being separated into three orders—superior, middling, and inferior—depending on a variety of causes. One of the tasks of an exegete commenting on this scripture was to delineate the direct and indirect causes of rebirth in the Pure Land for particular types of people. The clearest example of the influence of Jingying Huiyuan on Wŏnhyo may be seen in a brief analysis of the two scholars’ views on the causes of rebirth of people among people of the three classes. However, we must begin with Tanluan because he establishes the general pattern. Because all three are in fundamental agreement regarding the causes of rebirth in the higher class, and are basically the same regarding rebirth in the middle class, we will skip these and focus on their slightly different views regarding rebirth in the inferior class.10 Tanluan lists three causes: 1. Suppose you are unable to practice all the meritorious virtues, but you did arouse the unsurpassed bodhicitta. 2. C  onsistently and exclusively think about (yi 意) and recollect (nian 念) for up to ten thought-moments (shinian) the Buddha Amitāyus. 3. Desire to be reborn in [the Land of] Peace and Bliss with a mind of utmost sincerity (zhicheng xin 至誠心).11 Huiyuan both simplifies and expands upon Tanluan’s list of causes, the most significant change being his addition of a new third cause, and he lists four alternatives: 1. Arouse the bodhicitta. 2. E  xclusively recollect (nian 念) that Buddha Amitāyus up to ten thought-moments (shinian 十念) and desire to be reborn in that land. 3. Hear the profound dharma; be blissful, faithful, and joyful; and do not produce doubts or delusions. 4. R  ecollect that Buddha [Amitāyus] with a mind of utmost sincerity (zhicheng xin) [for] up to one thought-moment and desire to be reborn in that land.12 Wŏnhyo further develops Huiyuan’s description of the causes of rebirth for people in the lower class by dividing the classification into two 35

Chapter 3

categories of people and by expanding the alternatives associated with the groups. The wording selected by Wŏnhyo suggests that he was familiar with both Tanluan and Huiyuan’s lists of causes: The first type of person has three [alternatives]: 1. Suppose you were unable to practice all meritorious virtues, but you did arouse the unsurpassed bodhicitta. This clarifies the direct cause. 2. U  p to ten thought-moments (simnyŏm 十念) you exclusively recollect (yŏm 念) that Buddha. This is an ancillary full deed.13 3. You wish to be reborn in that land. Bringing together the previous practices with this vow serves as the cause [of rebirth in the Pure Land]. This clarifies the people of underminded natures (pulchŏngsŏng in 不定性人). The second type of person has three alternatives: 1. You hear the extremely profound dharma; be blissful, faithful, and joyful. This passage illustrates fully the direct cause, which is the arousal of the mind of unsurpassed bodhi. The only difference with the previous [type of] person is that you display profound faith in it. 2. Up to one thought-moment (yŏm 念) you recollect that Buddha. This is an ancillary full karmic action. Because it has been ­explained that the previous [type of] person does not have profound faith, he must to do it for ten thought-moments. Since this [kind of] person has profound faith, he does not have to do it for a full ten thought-moments. 3. You vow to be reborn in that land with a mind of utmost sincerity (chisŏng sim 至誠心). Bringing together this vow with those previous practices serves as the cause [of rebirth in the Pure Land]. This describes a person from the bodhisattva lineage.14 Huiyuan’s first two alternatives became the basis for Wŏnhyo’s first type of person in the inferior order, one who is able to arouse the bodhicitta, which Wŏnhyo constantly emphasizes as the primary cause of rebirth in the Pure Land. Huiyuan’s last two alternatives became the core of the second category, which emphasizes faith in the saving power of Amitābha through the practice of buddhānusmṛti. From this we can see that Wŏnhyo differentiates between yet also seeks harmony and balance between the 36

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

competing concepts of arousing the bodhicitta, which represents the traditional path toward enlightenment and faith in the saving power of the Amitābha.

The Esoteric Ten Recollections Wŏnhyo then indicates that even while there are many auxiliary causes of birth in the Pure Land, he will stick to clarifying the “ten recollections” of the inferior order of people (habae 下輩), or people with extremely limited spiritual capacity. Implicit within the notion of “ten recollections,” he argues, are two interpretations: an exoteric or apparent (hyŏllyo 顯了) meaning and the esoteric or hidden (ŭnmil 隱密) meaning. Although the concepts of exoteric and esoteric were usually deployed in Sinitic Buddhist exegesis for polemical purposes—lauding the Mahāyāna (esoteric) over the Hīnayāna (exoteric)—this is one of the few cases in which they are used as heuristic devices. It was used heuristically once by Jiacai, who employed the similar compound yinxian 隱顯 to refer to “hidden” and “manifest” interpretations of a key passage from the Shelun, which we will examine briefly in a scholium by Pŏbwi below. Still, the polemical superiority of the esoteric interpretation hovers in the background.15 Wŏnhyo bases his interpretation of the “esoteric” meaning of the ten recollections on a passage from the Mile fawen jing 彌勒發問經 (Scripture on Questions asked by Maitreya), which is no longer extant.16 It is not the same as the extant Mile pusa suowen benyuan jing 彌勒菩薩所問本願經 (Skt. Maitreyaparipṛcchā), which was translated by Dharmarakṣa in 303.17 Although it bears a similar title, the later text does not include a list of ten recollections. To paraphrase Wŏnhyo’s quotation from this scripture, the Bodhisattva Maitreya addressed the Buddha and said that if people are able to perform the “ten recollections,” they will be able to be born in the Pure Land. He then asked the Buddha to explain these ten recollections. The Buddha said that they are not the recollections of ordinary men, and that they are not unwholesome recollections. He said that if supplicants fully equip themselves with these recollections then they will be able to be born in the Pure Land. He then lists the ten recollections: 1. Constantly arouse thoughts of compassion toward all beings. Do not slander the practice of all beings, for if you do slander their practice, you will never be born in the Pure Land. 37

Chapter 3

2. Deeply arouse thoughts of sympathy toward all beings. Forsake remaining harmful intentions. 3. Arouse the thought of protecting the dharma without begrudging your body or your life. Do not slander any of the dharmas. 4. Produce a mind of assurance with regard to everything you are enduring. 5. With your mind profound and pure, do not covet profit and gain. 6. A  rouse all kinds of wise thoughts. Constantly reflect on these daily without faltering. 7. A  rouse thoughts of honor and respect toward all beings. Forsake all sentiments of self-conceit and be humble when you speak. 8. D  o not take pleasure in worldly gossip. 9. S tay close to the thought of enlightenment and deeply arouse all the conditions of wholesome faculties. Stay far away from thoughts that are troubled, shaken, scattered, and chaotic. 10. V  isualize the Buddha with the correct recollection and forsake all faculties.18 Wŏnhyo supplies his own interpretation of the “ten recollections,” saying that bodhisattvas above the initial stage are fully equipped with these ten sorts of recollections since they are not associated with ordinary people. However, they are also the causes of the beings reborn in the inferior order in the Pure Land. So, in other words, once practitioners reach this initial stage on the path to Buddhahood, then and only then will they be endowed with the full power of the ten recollections. A supplicant cannot enjoy the full power of this practice until he enters the bodhisattva path. This indicates that sooner or later the Pure Land aspirant must arouse the bodhicitta. He concludes his explanation of the esoteric meaning that these ten recollections should be regarded as ­auxiliary causes of birth for the inferior order of people.19 Matsubayashi Kōshi compared Wŏnhyo’s “ten recollections” from the Mile fawen jing with three other lists of ten recollections. He first compared it to Jiacai’s ten recollections from the Fajue jingxin jing 發覺 淨心經 (Scripture on Arousing Enlightenment and a Pure Mind) cited in his Jingtu lun.20 Although there are some similarities, Jiacai’s list is different because it derives from an extant Sui-period translation (595) by Jñānagupta (Shenajueduo 闍那崛多).21 He next compared it to Bodhiruci II’s (Putiliuzhi 菩提流支, d. 727) retranslation of this text, called the Mile suowen hui 彌勒所問會 (The Assembly on Questions Asked by the ­Bodhisattva Maitreya), which is part of his Dabaoji jing 大寶積經 38

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

(Skt.  Mahāratnakūṭa, A Great Heap of Jewels). This second Bodhiruci, who arrived in Tang Chang’an in 693, translated this collection of sūtras between 706 and 713, twenty years after Wŏnhyo’s death. This list, while presumably from the same source, is also different from Wŏnhyo’s list.22 Finally, he compared it to the list found in Zhiyan’s 智儼 (602–668) Huayan jing neizhang mendeng li kongmu zhang 華嚴經內章門等離孔目章 (Exposition on Various Topics of the Huayan jing).23 This list is virtually the same as Wŏnhyo’s except for five variant Sinographs; however, Zhiyan, who provides this list in a section on “six types of recollection” (liunian 六念), does not give a source for his reading of the ten recollections.24 Matsubayashi suggests two tentative conclusions: either the section on ten recollections found in Fajue jingxin jing was excerpted from the scripture and known under the name Mile suowen jing or Mile fawen jing, or the latter two titles of the same scripture were an actual text that circulated separately.25 I concur with Matsubayashi’s second solution; however, there is a greater implication to this list of ten recollections from the Mile fawen jing that, though implied, hitherto has remained unstated and unemphasized: this list of ten recollections, along with the scripture itself, circulated among thinkers associated with the nascent Huayan tradition. In other words, granted Wŏnhyo’s predisposition toward the Tathāgatagarbha thought of the Qixin lun and the Huayan jing, it is not surprising that he would incorporate a passage from a text circulating in that circle to describe the superior “esoteric” meaning of the ten recollections. It is possible, if not probable, that his friend Ŭisang, who studied with Zhiyan in China, introduced him to this text. In order to explain the “exoteric” meaning of the ten recollections, Wŏnhyo reintegrates the views of Tanluan regarding the practice of the “ten recollections.” He first paraphrases the passage from the Guanjing that establishes the importance of chanting “the Buddha of Immeasurable Life (Amitāyus)” with a sincere mind and completing a full ten recollections (or thought-moments) chanting “Homage to the Buddha Amitāyus”: Those who are born in the lowest grade of the lowest class, or, beings that commit unwholesome actions, the five heinous crimes and the ten evil actions, and all manner of unwholesomeness, when they are on the verge of death, [may] encounter a spiritual mentor who will explain the wondrous dharma and teach them to recollect the Buddha. If they are unable 39

Chapter 3 to recollect [him], they should [vocally] chant (ch’ing 稱) the Buddha Amitāyus and, in this way, with a sincere mind (chisim 至心), chant without ceasing a complete ten recitations of “Homage to the Buddha” (ch’ing nammu pul 稱南無佛).26

Following the sūtra and Huiyuan, Wŏnhyo adds that when supplicants recollect Amitābha with a sincere mind, “moment by moment” or “recollection by recollection” (yŏmnyŏm 念念), they alleviate the karmic retribution of sins of birth and death over eighty million kalpas. When their lives are over, they will then be able to be born in the Pure Land and later achieve extreme bliss. Expanding on what Wŏnhyo means, people who have generated unwholesome karma and have not or cannot arouse the bodhicitta do not obtain the same type of birth in the Pure Land as people who have generated wholesome karma and have aroused the bodhicitta. For this reason, Wŏnhyo says, the Buddha has spoken of three classes of people and lists ways for them to be born in the Pure Land, as described in the Guanjing.

The “Crossing the River” Expedient To Wŏnhyo, people who have generated unwholesome karma yet who have made wholehearted supplication for rebirth in the Pure Land are born in the Pure Land in the calyx of a lotus flower. After many kalpas of perfecting their faith the flower opens and they arouse the bodhicitta and start on the bodhisattva path. So, while all people can be reborn in the Pure Land, they do not receive the same type of Pure Land birth. Wŏnhyo also teaches that people of the inferior class can generate the sincere mind (chisim) and perform a practice equal to the ten recollections. Wŏnhyo calls this practice the “crossing the river” expedient (toha pangbyŏn 渡河方便) and the “one recollection” (illyŏm 一念), and he says that this one recollection is equal to the complete ten recollections. 27 Wŏnhyo paraphrases Tanluan’s story of the river crossing to explain what he means by a sincere mind and the continuation of the ten recollections. Previous scholars of Tanluan and Daochuo, who also used this story, have interpreted the idea as “ten continuous thoughts,” “continuously ten consecutive times,” and “continuous contemplation.”28 While helpful and valid as translations go, they have missed a further significance of the term. “Continuation” (Kor. sangsok, Ch. xiangxu 相續) is the Chinese translation of the common technical terms anusaṃdhi and prabandha used 40

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

in Buddhist exegetical texts, such as the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, to refer to the state or process in which dharmas continue after they have arisen and to continue on without ceasing.29 The eminent Sanskritist Franklin Edgerton defines anusaṃdhi as a “connexion,” “serial line,” “series,” “­succession,” and “according to the totality or essence;” and he defines prabandha as “continuation,” “continuity,” suggesting “a continuous activity or existence.”30 Thus, it is an encompassing mental state or process; much more than an adjective or adverb describing the ten recollections. It is with this understanding that we need to read the story of the river crossing: This is like a man in a desolate wilderness that encounters an evil highwayman who levels his spear at him and draws his double-edged sword, and who comes right after him to murder him. That man runs urgently and sees that he has to cross a river. If he does not cross the river he will lose his head! At that time he will only think (yŏm 念) of a means for crossing the river. “Since I have to reach the shore, should I cross keeping my clothes on or should I cross having taken them off? If I keep my clothes on I fear that I will not make it, and if I take my clothes off I fear I will run out of time.” He only has this thought (yŏm) and no other thoughts. He must think (yŏm) only of crossing the river. And this is his one thought (illyŏm 一念). These ten recollections are not mixed with other recollections. Practitioners are also like this. If they recollect the name of the Buddha, if they recollect the marks of the Buddha, and so forth, and recollect the Buddha without interruption up to ten thought-moments, this sort of sincere mind is called the ten recollections.31

Although Wŏnhyo does not supply his own interpretation, I understand the metaphor as follows. Aspirants of the Pure Land are represented by the man. The highwayman personifies the man’s vindictive unwholesome karma, and the river is saṃsāra, the cycle of rebirth and death. “Removing the clothes” refers to obtaining merit by renouncing the sense-pleasures of the world (Kor. charyŏk, J. jiriki 自力) while “leaving the clothes on” refers to relying on the saving power of the Buddha (Kor. t’aryŏk, J. tariki 他力). The quandary of the man as he contemplates crossing the river and these two choices and their consequences refers to the generation of this sincere mind. Wŏnhyo explains that if the aspirant merely abides in this state of mind or recollection, he will immediately have no other thoughts. He teaches that this “crossing the river” expedient is the first recollection, and that this one recollection (illyŏm) is equal to the complete ten recollections. Thus, to finish the 41

Chapter 3

story, the man chased by his own unwholesome karma can alleviate the hellish effects of his actions by relying on the saving grace of the ­Buddha in order to obtain rebirth in the Pure Land. However, he must perfect his faith in that technique.32 Wŏnhyo suggests two practices that accord with this approach: recollecting the name of the Buddha Amitābha and recollecting the characteristics of the Buddha Amitābha. He points out that if a supplicant generates the one recollection with a sincere mind, it is regarded as the ten recollections. These are the characteristics of the exoteric meaning of the ten recollections. 33 These, of course, are conventional views held by many of Sinitic scholiasts mentioned above. This continuation of the ten recollections is more than just performing an action for ten thought-moments. If we look at the concept of “­continuation” in this technical sense, it explains why Tanluan and Daochuo eschewed the idea of its being an action performed for ten thoughtmoments. They understood the all-encompassing nature of this practice, which was not lost on Wŏnhyo. This is perhaps why Wŏnhyo deploys the terms “ten recollections” and “one recollection.” The numbers ten and one are not important as far as numbers are concerned, but represent wholeness, completeness, totality, and full and utter integration. Just as the ten bhūmis of the bodhisattva path are interpenetrating according to the Huayan interpretation, the ten recollections of the Buddha Amitāyus are bound together in one fluid mental motion. This sort of interpretation seems fundamental to Wŏnhyo and, in part, explains why the early Pure Land proponents encouraged people to cultivate themselves in such a manner through various practices that insured constant and sincere recollection of the Amitābha. Vocal recitation of the name of the Buddha Amitāyus was merely the most convenient way to establish it among the common people, or people with inferior spiritual capacities. Wŏnhyo also emphasizes the importance of the continuation of the ten recollections by ascribing this story to Kumārajīva, the famous Central Asian translator and explicator of Buddhism to the Chinese and founder of Madhyamaka philosophy in China, although it is abundantly clear that he has lifted it from Tanluan’s Lüelun anle jingtu yi. The story of the river crossing is not found among the known works of Kumārajīva, including translations. Perhaps Wŏnhyo presumed Tanluan excerpted the story from the voluminous Dazhidu lun 大智度論 (Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom), a large compendium of Mahāyāna views and practices that Kumārajīva “translated” into Chinese, which was by 42

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

all reports one of the most studied books among Sinitic exegetes during the sixth and seventh centuries, including Tanluan, Huiyuan, Zhiyi, and Wŏnhyo. Although it is not in the Dazhidu lun, attributing the idea to Kumārajīva suggests the high regard Wŏnhyo held for this story and the concept it illustrates. The final point I want to emphasize is that Wŏnhyo conceptualized both the ten recollections of the Mile fawen jing and the practice of chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha for ten thought-moments as practices for people with inferior spiritual capacity. This probably reflects his belief that all people are capable of arousing the bodhicitta because all beings possess a Tathāgatagarbha. Succeeding monastic scholiasts of Silla adopt many of Wŏnhyo’s views but none completely shares his belief that the ten recollections of the Mile fawen jing are for people with limited mental capacity who hope to be reborn in the lowest order of rebirth in the Pure Land.

Commitment to Cultic Practice: Pŏbwi, Hyŏnil, and Ŭijŏk The monk Pŏbwi 法位 was probably younger than Wŏnhyo and was probably active in the late seventh century. Although nothing is known of his life, through his writings we see a fuller picture of Silla exegetes’ understanding of Pure Land practice. Pŏbwi would be completely unknown were it not for the preservation of passages from his commentary on the Wuliangshou jing in the extant writings of Kyŏnghŭng, Hyŏnil, and later Japanese monks. Pŏbwi expands on Wŏnhyo’s list of ways to recollect the Buddha, invites people to practice the ten recollections found in scripture, and follows Wŏnhyo’s notions of a repentant and sincere mind. In his Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso 無量壽經義疏 (Commentary on the Wuliangshou jing),34 he would have us consider that chanting the name of the Buddha is merely the method for obtaining birth in the lowest grade of the lowest class in the Pure Land (hasaeng hap’um 下生下品). He stresses that there are many ways to recollect the Buddha. People may recollect the Buddha’s name, his marks, his glory, his merits, his wisdom, or his original vow of enlightenment. The simple practice of chanting the name of the Buddha is set aside for those who say that they are unable to accomplish any of the above recollections; in other words, they lack mental capacity. When they chant they should chant the name “Buddha of Limitless Life” (Muryangsu, Amitāyus). If people are going to chant vocally (kuch’ing 口稱), they have 43

Chapter 3

to complete a full ten (mansip 萬十) recollections, and when they do so, their merits are perfected, their sins are destroyed, and merit is produced. If they do not complete a full ten recollections their sins are not destroyed and they are unable to be born in the Pure Land.35 Pŏbwi then addresses several questions about the practice of the ten recollections within a larger Mahāyāna context that deal with the spiritual efficacy of the practice of buddhānusmṛti in its cultic version of vocally chanting the name of the Buddha. Question: If you literally chant the name of the Buddha (chikch’ing pulmyŏng 直稱佛名) will you then be reborn in the Pure Land? Is this the intention [to declare an event] of another [future] time (pyŏlsi ŭi 別時意) as written in the She dasheng lun 攝大乘論 (Mahāyānasaṃgraha)?36 Answer: If you chant the name of the Buddha for one recollection (or “one moment,” illyŏm) you will then be reborn in the Pure Land. This is the intention of another [time] (pyŏrŭi 別意). Since one recollection is the cause of the ten recollections, the intent resides in the time of the ten recollections. Ten is caused by amassing single [recollections]. As a virtuous [man] acquires one gold coin and immediately says that he has acquired a thousand gold coins, it is not one that is a thousand since it is said to be caused by amassing single [coins]. As the Fahua jing 法華經 (Lotus Sūtra) says: “A chant of ‘Homage to Buddha’ and every one of you will achieve the way of the Buddha.”37 This is the intent [to declare an event] of another [future] time. This explains the first cause of achieving the way of the Buddha. Furthermore, as a child who playfully molds sand into Buddhist stūpa gradually amasses merit and is endowed with great compassion, and each and every one will achieve the way of the Buddha. 38 In this instance, this is explained as complete, initial Buddhahood. Now, if these ten recollections are complete, they are initially able to be reborn in the Pure Land. 39

The concept of an “intention to declare an event of another future time” (Ch. bieshi yi, Skt. kālāntarābhiprāya) is the second in a list of four intentions40 in the Shelun, and points out how the Buddha made promises to aspirants who faithfully perform cultic practices: (2) The intention [to declare an event] of another [future] time, as for instance when it is taught that if a person recites and maintains [in his mind] the name of the Buddha Many Treasures (Duobao 多寶, Skt. Prabhūtaratna) he is completely assured of [attaining] supreme bodhi and never backsliding;41 or when it is taught that “Only those who have aroused a vow to be 44

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals reborn in the Buddha-land of Peace and Bliss (Sukhāvatī) will attain rebirth there.”42

This passage suggests that Pŏbwi was an exegete who, like Wŏnhyo and his Sinitic predecessors, specifically Shandao, sought for justification of devotional Pure Land practices in the most respected exegetical literature of the day. These scholiasts, following their Indian intellectual forebears, such as Vasubandhu, conceptualized that the most superior direct causes of rebirth in the Pure Land, however, were arousal of the bodhi­ citta and assumption of the bodhisattva path, as we have seen with Tanluan, Huiyuan, and Wŏnhyo above.43 The Shelun passage and Pŏbwi’s scholium about it, however, portray the way in which serious monks of the time who read Yogācāra thought with an eye to validate the doctrines and practices found in some of the most popular Buddhist literature of the period: in this case, the Lotus Sūtra. The following passage is a good example of how Silla exegetes followed their Chinese colleagues in conceptualizing or ascribing to the cultic practice of buddhānusmṛti the power of dhāraṇī: Question: How is the name of the Buddha spiritually efficacious (yŏnghŏm 靈驗)? You chant his name and it then destroys your sins and you are reborn in the Pure Land? Answer: All Buddhas, each and every one, rely on the [practice] of chanting their names (ch’ingmyŏng 稱名). If you chant their names and then chant of their virtue, their virtue is able to destroy your sins and produce merit. The name [of Amitābha] is also just like this. If you believe and are mindful of the name of the Buddha [Amitābha], you will be able to produce goodness and destroy evil. If you make a firm decision, without doubt, and chant his name you will be reborn in the Pure Land. This is [the same] whether there is doubt or disbelief. Nevertheless, the belief in sins and merit is the basis for the cultivation of wholesomeness. By vowing to be reborn in that realm, you are still able to be reborn in the Pure Land as a “womb-born” (t’aesaeng 胎生) [being]. How much more so now if you firmly resolve to believe and be glad? By chanting the name in a continuation of ten recollections (ch’ingmyŏngho simnyŏm sangsok 稱名號十念相續) you will be reborn and not doubt.44

Pŏbwi then explains in this format what he means by a “continuation” by deploying a natural simile Silla people in the Kyŏngju plain could understand (or at least visualize) about the powerful potential of 45

Chapter 3

water flowing from the mountains into the East Sea (Tonghae 東海, viz. Sea of Japan). Question: Are the ten recollections a continuation? Answer: The ten recollections are inseparable (mugyŏn 無間). If they are a continuation, in this way, they prepare the mind’s resolve (simjŏng 心定). If you amass recollections for only a few days your resolve will not be very strong. The reason is that as water flows it is inseparable and able to flow into the East Sea by design. If it is separated it will then destroy and inundate according to its location and will not arrive at the East Sea. This is also like that.45

To this point Pŏbwi has justified the cultic practice of chanting the name of Amitābha by alluding to the mainstream Buddhist cultic practices found in the Lotus Sūtra and by pointing out that the practice is in accordance with the teachings of the Shelun 攝論 (Mahāyānasaṃgraha). He now turns to a more rigorous challenge—one that is worthy of his intellectual mentors Huiyuan, Zhiyi, and Wŏnhyo—the attempt to reconcile vocal recitation and mental recitation. In the process he introduces Shandao’s term “ten intonations” to the exegetical discourse on buddhānusmṛti in Silla: Question: With respect to the “ten recollections,” is it just one dharma that arouses the ten recollections or is it ten dharmas that arouse the ten recollections? Answer: It contains both meanings. On the one hand, there is the one dharma arousing the ten recollections in immediate accordance to the one dharma of the name of the Buddha, for it produces the ten recollections. If you vocally chant ten intonations (kuch’ing sipsŏng 口稱十聲) the recollection will be ten dharmas while it is merely one dharma. On the other hand, there are ten dharmas arousing the ten recollections when you do not chant the name vocally; you merely arouse ten recollections. Recollections are wisdom (chihye 智惠).46

He then alludes to the list of ten recollections, which is essentially the same list as Zhiyan’s. Pŏbwi (or perhaps an editorial decision by the Japanese monk who made the selection) only reproduces the first three recollections and the tenth in full. It suggests that the list of ten recollections was well known in Silla (or Japan) at the time. However, there is one important difference: the tenth is listed as “forsake all perceptions and visualize the Buddha with the correct recollection (chŏngnyŏm kwanbul 46

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

正念觀佛).”47 This is probably a transposition of the tenth recollection on Zhiyan’s list since the phrase in Zhiyan’s work reads “Visualize the Buddha with the correct recollection and forsake all perceptions,” unlike Wŏnhyo’s, which says, “forsake all doubts.”48 In response to the final question of which of these ten recollections one should choose, Pŏbwi invites his readers to practice the recollections of the Mile suowen jing (Scripture on Questions Asked by Maitreya). This scripture is probably the same one Wŏnhyo cites above, with a slightly different title. Since his audience was comprised of literate monks and perhaps some interested nobles, it is hardly surprising that he, like Wŏnhyo, would challenge them to practice the more mentally challenging form of buddhānusmṛti, to arouse the bodhicitta, and to pursue the path of the bodhisattva; however, he also justifies the cultic practice by following the example set by so many of his exegetical forebears by concluding with the instruction found in the Guanjing that we have seen so often above: Question: Now, which of these ten recollections do you choose? Answer: If you choose the visualization [practice] of chanting the name [of Amitābha] (ch’ingmyŏng kwan 稱名觀), then choose the one dharma that produces the ten recollections. If you choose the ten dharmas that produce the ten recollections, then it is what is explained according to the Mile suowen jing. If it is at the moment of impending death, when one is suffering and compelled then they should choose the ten recollections of chanting the name. The Guanjing says: “If with a pure intent one cries ten complete recitations chanting ‘Homage to Buddha’ without ceasing, because he has chanted the name of the Buddha, moment by moment (yŏmnyŏm 念念), he will remove the sins of eighty million kalpas of life and death.”49

In Pŏbwi’s estimation, there are three possible types of buddhānusmṛti that are described in Buddhist literature. The first is the original kind of buddhānusmṛti, which is comprised of recollecting the Buddha’s name, marks, glory, merits, wisdom, and original vow. The second kind is chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha for ten recollections, which he glosses as ten intonations following Shandao and suggests it is best observed as a deathbed practice for people with limited spiritual capacity. The third kind is the ten recollections of the Mile suowen jing (that emphasizes the arousal of the bodhicitta), which he inherited from Wŏnhyo, but he sees this practice as requisite for people with advanced mental capacity. Pŏbwi shares many, but not all, of Wŏnhyo’s views and 47

Chapter 3

provides greater precision to the meaning of the ten recollections by introducing Shandao’s term “ten intonations.” The Silla exegete Hyŏnil 玄一 was also roughly contemporaneous with Wŏnhyo and Pŏbwi 法位. Nothing is known of Hyŏnil beyond the fact that he appears in old Japanese sources and that his commentary was cited frequently in Kyŏnghŭng’s compendium of scholiums on the Wuliangshou jing, which will be treated below. He was probably active at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century, and at least one scholar thinks he might have been a disciple of Pŏbwi.50 Hyŏnil makes a break with the basically conventional Buddhist interpretations of his colleagues and those of the prior generation who attempted to preserve the superiority of mental recollection of the ­Buddha Amitābha by reducing the meaning of the ten recollections to exclusively chanting the name of the Buddha. He does this by claiming that the samādhi generated by chanting is good enough to cultivate wholesome roots and destroy the effects of prior sins. In his Muryangsugyŏng ki 無量壽經記 (Record of the Wuliangshou jing), he is the first to say directly that those ten recollections found in the Mile suowen jing are exactly the same as the ten recollections of chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha as explained in the Guanjing. Hyŏnil comes to this conclusion through an analysis of three of Amitābha’s forty-eight vows: the vow that promised people rebirth in the Pure Land if they recollect the Buddha for ten recollections or thought-moments (no. 18 in the sūtra), the vow that encourages people to do meritorious deeds and sincerely vow to be reborn in the Pure Land (no. 19), and the vow that encourages people to concentrate on the Pure Land and transfer the merit of their practices toward their aspiration to be reborn there (no. 20). 51 In his analysis of the meaning of the first vow from the standpoint of the Wuliangshou jing, Hyŏnil cites his colleague Pŏbwi’s interpretation specifically in explaining the meaning of the vow as referring to people with spiritual capacity and a history of wholesome karma, but then he qualifies it from the standpoint of the Guanjing suggesting that it may also apply to people with unwholesome karma: Pŏbwi says that these are aroused relying on ten dharmas and are not the ten recollections of chanting [the name of] the Buddha] (ch’ingbul simnyŏm 稱佛十念). The highest three classes (sang samp’um 上三品) of this means those who have forsaken the five heinous crimes, and so forth. In the highest three classes, it is because they do not commit the heinous crimes and 48

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals sins [that they are reborn in the Pure Land]. In reliance upon [the teaching of] the Guanjing, those reborn in the lowest grade of the lowest class (hap’um hasaeng) have committed the five heinous crimes and the ten evil acts. If those people, [even if it be] at the point of impending death, fully complete ten recollections (kujok simnyŏm 具足十念), chanting the name of the ­Buddha, they will also be reborn in the Pure Land.52

Hyŏnil then goes on to opine that the second vow refers to beings of the middle three classes (chung samsaeng 中三生) and the third vow applies to beings in the lowest three classes (ha samsaeng 下生下品). Then, following in the tradition of his Silla colleagues, he acknowledges that the ten recollections are explained in the Mile suowen jing, and he provides the full text of the ten.53 He closes out this discussion with the frank statement: “It is the same as the ten recollections of chanting the name of the Buddha as explained in the Guanjing.”54 Hyŏnil comes closest to Wŏnhyo in his interpretation of the practice of ten recollections of the Mile suowen jing as being for all people. However, he surpasses him in emphasizing the power of chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha and deemphasizing the arousal of the bodhicitta. Although arousing the bodhicitta is part of the ten recollections of the Mile suowen jing, he judges chanting as of the same value in generating samādhi as the mainstream bodhisattva practices of the Mile suowen jing list. In this respect Hyŏnil is perhaps closest to the later Japanese Pure Land masters Hōnen and Shinran. In Korean sources, Ŭijŏk 義寂 is remembered as one of the ten great disciples of Ŭisang, the founder of the Hwaŏm tradition in Korea.55 According to Japanese sources, however, Ŭijok is said to be the founder of one of the six houses of the Consciousness-Only school (J. Yushikishū Rokuka 唯識宗六家) along with Kuiji, Wŏnch’ŭk 圓測 (613–696), Puguang  普光 (d.u.), Huiguan 慧觀 (fl. 508), and Xuanfan 玄範 (d.u.).56 Ŭijŏk ­composed twenty-five titles in seventy-two rolls, but, aside from his commentary on the Wuliangshou jing,57 only parts of his exegesis on bodhisattva precepts and the first roll of his sub-commentary on Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Lotus Sūtra are extant.58 As a disciple of Ŭisang he was probably active during the first few decades of the eighth century. Scholars have previously thought that Ŭijŏk came before Kyŏnghŭng, but Minamoto Hiroyuki has argued persuasively that Ŭijŏk is later than Kyŏnghŭng.59 Ŭijŏk returns to Wŏnhyo’s notion of a repentant, sincere mind to reconcile the contradiction between the Guanjing and the Wuliangshou jing, 49

Chapter 3

and even defines the notion of recollection as chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha. However, he then returns to the standard separation of practices between people with superior and inferior mental capacity. In his Muryangsu-gyŏng surŭi ki 無量壽經述義記 (Record Narrating the Meaning of the Wuliangshou jing), he says that the eighteenth vow is a vow by which the Buddha Amitābha saves those who, with a sincere mind (chisim), desire to be born in the Pure Land. These are apparently superior beings, because he contrasts them with his paraphrase of the Guanjing passage where the Buddha addresses the beings reborn in the lowest grade of the lowest class (hap’um hasaeng): Perhaps there are beings who commit all manner of unwholesomeness, such as the five heinous crimes and the ten evil acts. Stupid people like this will, because of their evil karma, fall into evil destinies and endure many kalpas of extreme suffering. [However,] when stupid people like this reach the end of their lives, if they chant “Homage to Amitābha Buddha” (ch’ing nammu Amit’a pul 稱南無阿彌陀佛) for a full ten thought-moments (simnyŏn 十念) and chant the name of the Buddha, then they will be able to be born in the World System of Extreme Bliss.60

Ŭijŏk then says that under the condition that these “ten recollection moments” (simnyŏn’gyŏng 十念頃) found in the text (deploying the actual language of the scripture) only apply to chanting the name of the ­Buddha, he glosses the word yŏm as “chanting Homage to ‘Amitābha ­Buddha,’ ” and says that chanting these six Sinographs in a “moment” (kyŏng 頃) is called “one recollection” (illyŏm), which he glosses with the Sanskrit word kṣaṇa (a single moment). However, Ŭijŏk says that the notion of a recollection can be even broader. He then quotes the ten recollections from the Mile suowen jing as a means by which the practice of recollecting the Buddha is expanded and transformed into a way of life. We should also note that this may be seen as evidence of Ŭijŏk’s participation in the Hwaŏm tradition of Silla, since his list of the ten recollections is exactly the same as Zhiyan’s list that we treated above.61 For lesser beings who say that they do not have the time or are distressed to the point that they cannot practice the recollections of the Mile suowen jing, he says that chanting “Homage to Amitābha Buddha” for ten recollections causes a person to develop compassion and other wholesome qualities. Thus, Ŭijŏk follows his predecessors in holding to the view that the ten recollections for people with superior spiritual capacity are the ten practices of the Mile suowen jing and the ten recollections for 50

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

people with inferior spiritual capacity are the practice of chanting the name of the Buddha. He ­concludes by saying that this explains the ten recollections of the lowest class of rebirth in the Pure Land according to the Guanjing.62 Ŭijŏk may be presenting an early Korean Hwaŏm interpretation of buddhānusmṛti. The influence of Wŏnhyo is unmistakable, as is the influence of Zhiyan. Access to Zhiyan’s exact list of the ten recollections of the Mile suowen jing (if it was not a later scribal or editorial decision) may have come through his mentor Ŭisang. He is not fundamentally different from either Wŏnhyo or Pŏbwi; however, the one main difference is that there is no extant evidence suggesting that he was familiar with Shandao’s writings.

“Don’t Wrest the Scriptures!”: The Pure Land Conservatism of Kyŏnghŭng Kyŏnghŭng 憬興 was a monk from Silla’s newly conquered Paekche territory; he hailed from Ungch’ŏn 熊川, modern Kongju 公州 in South Ch’ungch’ŏng Province 忠清南道. Like many eminent monks of his age, he sprang from the local nobility, renounced the householder way of life (at age eighteen), mastered the Buddhist canon, and gained a reputation for himself as an authority on the Buddha’s teachings. Although he ­composed about forty titles in 230 rolls, second only to Wŏnhyo, his extant works include only a commentary on the Wuliangshou jing and a commentary on the three Maitreya scriptures.63 According to Silla legends recorded in the Koryŏ period, before King Munmu 文武 (r. 661–681) passed away, he made the following request of the crown prince, who became King Sinmun 神文 (r. 681–692): “Make Dharma Master Kyŏnghŭng the ‘state elder’ (kungno 國老). Do not forget the importance of this request.” Thus, when King Sinmun assumed the throne, he appointed him the state elder, an honorary position roughly equivalent to a “state preceptor” (kuksa 國師), and he resided at Samnang Monastery 三朗寺 in the Silla capital.64 In some sense Kyŏnghŭng was a collaborator with the Silla state. King Munmu may have requested his being made state elder as a means of assuaging tensions and winning the support of the people in the newly conquered country of Paekche. Some Paekche nobles were made true-bone elites, but it is more likely that Kyŏnghŭng was made a head rank six elite. Because head rank six elites, like Wŏnhyo’s son Sŏl Ch’ong, were later used by Silla kings to consolidate and enhance their power at the expense of the true-bone 51

Chapter 3

nobles, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Kyŏnghŭng may have helped bolster royal power and influence in the Buddhist establishment.65 Another reason why the Silla king may have made this request is because the evidence is quite strong that Kyŏnghŭng was an adherent to the Sinitic Yogācāra of Xuanzang and Kuiji, which, despite its loss of imperial support after the death of Xuanzang in 664, remained one of the most influential intellectual traditions in Tang Buddhism until the An Lushan rebellion in the mid-eighth century.66 Kyŏnghŭng writes with the academic certitude of the conservative scholiasts of the Sinitic Yogācāra tradition, what would become the Ci’en (Kor. Chaŭn 慈恩) school named after Kuiji, the recognized successor to Xuanzang. Although I am skeptical that Wŏnhyo, Pŏbwi, Hyŏnil, and Ŭijŏk belonged to the “Pure Land lineage of Huiyuan” as conceived of by Etani, I completely agree that Kyŏnghŭng belongs to the Xuanzang-Kuiji lineage. His emulation of Kuiji is even more apparent in his scholium on the exegetical debate concerning the comparison of Sukhāvatī to Tuṣita, Maitreya’s Pure Land, which is treated in chapter 4.67 These scholiasts held firm to the doctrines of the earlier Sino-Indian Yogācāra tradition that eschewed the doctrine of the Tathāgatagarbha and preserved the older traditional view that some beings are simply incapable of enlightenment (the icchantika; Ch. wuming, Kor. mumyŏng 無明). Kyŏnghŭng’s charged response to what he probably saw as a wrongful application of the liberal doctrine of the Tathāgatagarbha (I imagine his lashing out impotently against the nascent Hwaŏm intellectual tradition in Silla) as applied to other aspects of Buddhist doctrine and practice was “Don’t wrest the scriptures!” Kyŏnghŭng rejects Wŏnhyo’s notion of a repentant, sincere mind and does not attempt to reconcile the Wuliangshou jing and the Guanjing. Kyŏnghŭng’s views on the ten recollections are very conservative. This is not surprising considering his intellectual ties to Sinitic Yogācāra (and perhaps also his position as state elder would also predispose him toward an interpretation favoring the spiritual capacities of social elites over those of the common people). He says that the ten recollections in the Mile suowen jing are only for superior beings and ensure the practitioner birth in the highest class of the Pure Land. He relegates chanting the Buddha Amitābha’s name to the list of inferior Buddhist practices viable only for people with inferior mental capacity who seek rebirth in the Pure Land in the lowest class.68 In his Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭisul munch’an (Record of Combined ­Commentaries on the Wuliangshou jing), he treats the contradiction 52

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals

between the two scriptures with regard to the efficacy of the ten recollections in a most peculiar fashion. Rather than offering his own interpretation, in quick succession he presents and refutes several views that he says he has assembled from the past. He seems to regard most of the views as ridiculous and refutes these with ease. A few of Kyŏnghŭng’s responses are insightful. Kyŏnghŭng differs from all other Korean commentators treated here because of his opinion that because recollection of the ­Buddha (yŏmbul 念佛) destroys the sins of eighty million kalpas, beings should neither repent nor be given special allowance to repent.69 From a philological standpoint he has a strong argument. This is exactly what the passage from the Guanjing says: therefore, recollection of the Buddha is, in and of itself, a kind of cleansing penance practice making the need of performing any other repentance rituals completely unnecessary. One way, he says, that Buddhists have tried to explain the contradiction between these two scriptures is to claim that those who have slandered the Right Dharma are forsaken and those who have merely committed the five heinous crimes are able to be born in the Pure Land. Kyŏnghŭng notes that just prior to the evocation of the promise of birth in the Pure Land the text of the Guanjing mentions the notion of “all unwholesomeness” (Ch. juzhu bushan, Kor. kuje pulsŏn 具諸不善).70 If one does not slander the dharma, his argument follows, he is then unable to say that “all unwholesomeness” has been committed. Just what then is saying that those who “merely” commit the five heinous crimes can be born in the Pure Land? Kyŏnghŭng has problems with this because he does not want to recognize the notion of repentance, as does Wŏnhyo. Certainly, to him, committing the five heinous crimes should fall under “all unwholesomeness.” He admits that if we take a literal reading of the passages then the interpretations are irreconcilable. This is the reason that, he says, sins have been given distinct names and classified by order of severity.71 Another case concerns the explanation that those who are forsaken have completed ten recollections but did not complete them at one time (kusip pulche sipsil 具十不諸十息) and thus are unable to be born in the Pure Land, while those who are born have merely completed ten intonations (sipsŏng 十聲). Kyŏnghŭng says that this interpretation is also wrong, because even though they might not have completed ten intonations, the power of Amitābha’s vow also extends to the completion of ten recollections, as taught in the Guanjing. 53

Chapter 3 Some have explained that those who recollect the Buddha for one thought-moment (illyŏm yŏmbul 一念念佛) eliminate (che 除) [their unwholesome karma] and those who recollect the Buddha for ten thoughtmoments (simnyŏn) are reborn [in the Pure Land]. This is certainly wrong because contrarily this [scripture] says “up to ten recollections” (naeji simnyŏn 乃至十念). Some have explained those who eliminate [their unwholesome karma] as having completed ten, but because they did not complete the ten all [at one time] (pulgu sipsil 不具十悉) they were not reborn; and those who are reborn [in the Pure Land] as having only completed ten intonations (yugu sipsŏng 唯具十聲). This is also wrong. Even though they do not complete ten intonations, it also extends to completing ten recollections because, in resonance with that scripture [the Guanjing], they cannot eliminate [unwholesome karma].72

Kyŏnghŭng is undoubtedly responding to several long passages on this very topic found in the Shi jingtu qunyi lun, in which Huaigan belabors the point adding word upon word but not really saying anything different than his mentor Shandao.73 It seems obvious that Shandao’s interpretation of the ten recollections (shinian 十念) being the same as ten intonations (shisheng 十聲) was not accepted by the conservative establishment of Sinitic Yogācāra scholars and so Huaigan took it upon himself to resolve the doubts that may have been instilled in potential Pure Land adherents among them in his catechism-like work. Because Huaigan’s reasoning seems to border on circular logic at times (because it presumes on no evidence that “ten intonations” is a viable gloss for “ten recollections” and yet provides no scriptural support for it), one can understand Kyŏnghŭng’s rancor and his almost bluntly dismissive and corrective tone and his stark admonition to “not wrest the words” of the sūtras: Now, according to this scripture [the Wuliangshou jing] [although] they necessarily do not commit the heinous crimes in the three rebirths in the highest class [in the Pure Land] (sang samsaeng), they need to eliminate it [­unwholesome karma]. That explains the lowest rebirth [in the Pure Land]. Even though they commit the five heinous crimes, if they prepare the ten recollections (pi simnyŏm 備十念) they will also be reborn [in the Pure Land]; hence, it does not contradict what might be interpreted. You should not wrest the words (purŭng nanŏn 不應難言)! Because [beings who achieve the] three rebirths in the middle class (chung samsaeng) also do not commit the heinous crimes, those who do not need to eliminate [their unwholesome 54

The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals karma] arouse the bodhicitta and cultivate all meritorious virtues. It is a­ lready apparent that it does not mean that they have committed heinous crimes. Only the sin of slandering the Right Dharma (chŏngbŏp 正法, Skt. Saddharma) is deeply serious because over numberless kalpas they will be requited with suffering. [Those who] feign (ka 假) completing the ten intonations are certainly unable to be reborn [in the Pure Land in the lowest rebirth]. Therefore, the sagely teaching (sŏnggyo 聖敎) still does not have a different explanation because those who enter into all [manner of] unwholesome [activity] will experience much hardship.74

Kyŏnghŭng’s response is, in part, his chastising Huaigan, and by extension Shandao, for taking as scriptural Shandao’s deployment of the term ten intonations as meaning the same thing as the ten recollections of people with superior spiritual capacities. Kyŏnghŭng does not ­completely reject the practice of the ten intonations; but he sees it as only conducive to people of the lowest class of rebirth in the Pure Land. It is also significant to note that Kyŏnghŭng regards the ten recollections of the Mile suowen jing as requisite practice only for people with advanced spiritual capacity, “extraordinary people” (pibŏmbu 非凡夫), who would be born in the superior order of birth in the Pure Land (sangbae 上輩). Thus, it is apparent that his prior discussion of recollections and chanting is solely meant for beings with limited spiritual capacity seeking rebirth in the lowest class in the Pure Land. Some have explained that the ten recollections of this scripture [the Wuliangshou jing] depend on recollecting ten dharmas. Because [these ten recollections] are not of the name of the Buddha, they are [taken to be] the ten recollections of the Mile suowen jing. This is also wrong, because the ten recollections of that scripture [the Mile suowen jing] are for extraordinary people (pibŏmbu) and are certainly not those able to be cultivated by [all those of] the three levels of rebirth in the highest level. Now, returning to these same ten recollections in the Guanjing. [Those in] the superior order (sangbae) also cultivate [these] ten recollections since, in principle, they do not contradict. Because one desires to display one or two words, and so forth, and so on, one should interpret the original text relying on reasoning (non 論) and calmness (chi 止).75

In the last sentence of this scholium Kyŏnghŭng sums up his critical analysis not only of Huaigan’s attempt to justify Shandao’s interpretation of buddhānusmṛti, but also of his fellow Silla scholiast Hyŏnil, who, as we have seen above, conceptualizes the ten recollections of the Mile 55

Chapter 3

suowen jing to be of equal value to the practice of chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha. Kyŏnghŭng, however, does not reject all of their views. He does recognize the “ten intonations” as the same as “chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha,” in validation of Shandao, Huaigan, Pŏbwi, and others. Furthermore, he more or less accepts the view held by Pŏbwi and Hyŏnil that Amitābha’s the major vows (nos. 18, 19, and 20) refer to people in the superior, middling, and inferior orders of rebirth in the Pure Land, respectively.76

56

Chapter 4

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults Sukhāvatī, the Pure Land of Amitābha, and Tuṣita, the heaven where Maitreya awaits his final rebirth, were both destinations where the ­Buddhist faithful sought to be reborn to escape the struggles and temptations of the mundane world. Although the exact reasons are not ­completely clear, the evidence is overwhelming that from the Northern and Southern Dynasties period and into the Sui-Tang period, both Sukhāvatī and Tuṣita were often, if not typically, understood as being essentially interchangeable. In other words, aspirants did not differentiate between the locations and conceptualized Amitābha and Maitreya as being very similar with respect to the ways that people could approach them for assistance. Tsukamoto Zenryū suggests that one reason for the popularity and conflation of these figures in some contexts was the fact that rebirth in Amitābha’s Sukhāvatī and rebirth in Maitreya’s Tuṣita enabled the aspirant to avoid or escape physical death. Evidence from Chinese Buddhism, particularly during the sixth century, suggests that the original appeal of the cult of Maitreya was the belief that an aspirant could become a Buddhist ṛṣi (like a Daoist xian 仙, an immortal or transcendent being) and dwell in the company of the Bodhisattva Maitreya just as a Daoist transcendent might reside in heaven.1 Although Sinitic Buddhist exegetes knew that Amitābha and Maitreya were distinct figures and that their domains were also clearly defined and distinct in the scriptures, the close similarities between these figures and the ways to venerate them led to the interfusion of doctrines and practices associated with Amitābha and Maitreya to the point that the Maitreya cult is often called “another kind of Pure Land Buddhism.” In this chapter I explore how Wŏnhyo and Kyŏnghŭng used doctrines and practices from scriptures associated with the Amitābha cult to flesh 57

Chapter 4

out their views of Maitreya cult practices and analyze the scholastic debate that raged in the seventh century regarding which Pure Land, Sukhāvatī or Tuṣita, is superior.

Wŏnhyo, Yogācāra, and the Maitreya Visualization In conventional Korean scholarship, Wŏnhyo is seen as both the founder of the Korean Dharma Nature school (Pŏpsŏngjong 法性宗) and the promulgator of the indigenous Korean approach of “comprehensive Buddhism” (t’ong Pulgyo 通佛敎), perhaps better rendered as “ecumenical,” as expressed in his famous Simmun hwajaeng non 十門和諍論 (Treatise on the Reconciliation of Disputes in Ten Approaches), which is even rumored to have been translated into Sanskrit and sent back to India.2 The great Huayan exegete Fazang 法藏 (643–712) was also influenced by Wŏnhyo’s Hwaŏm thought,3 so much so that the Japanese regard Wŏnhyo as a founder of the Kegon school. Although I am certain that assigning Wŏnhyo to any particular school or, worse, making him a proponent of a particular form of Buddhist thought is misleading at best, scholars who have read Wŏnhyo broadly cannot mistake the extent to which Yogācāra doctrine and views informs his assessment of nearly all Buddhist scriptures, even his commentaries and essays associated with Pure Land scriptures with which I am most familiar. His use of Yogācāra terminology and insights probably reflects the formative years of his Buddhist training, which during the seventh century was usually based on the study of Yogācāra and related texts such as the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra (Yuga shidi lun 瑜伽師地論; Treatise on Yogācāra Stages) and Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起心論 (The Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna). The Yogācāra scriptures were said to have been revealed by either a monk named Maitreya or the bodhisattva Maitreya himself. By the seventh century, belief that the bodhisattva Maitreya was the patron bodhisattva of Yogācāra was widespread. This connection between the Maitreya cult and the Yogācāra “school” or intellectual tradition is most evident in the life of the famous Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang, whose sincere faith in Maitreya is shown repeatedly in his biographies.4 For example, during his pilgrimage to India (629–645), Xuanzang was beset by river pirates. Learning that the pirates sought to sacrifice him to the Indian god Durgā, he asked for and was granted the final privilege to perform a complicated Maitreya visualization technique to ensure his rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven, where he could master the dharma under the 58

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults

tutelage of Maitreya himself. He also vowed to be reborn with Maitreya “to this world again, where he would teach those same pirates [in their later lives], bringing them to practice good deeds and to abandon all evil acts, and where he would propagate the dharma widely for the benefit of all beings.”5 Although Wŏnhyo was familiar with Yogācāra doctrines and wrote a commentary on a sūtra associated with Maitreya, this does not necessarily prove his membership in the Yogācāra school. Of the four major commentaries on Maitreya cult scriptures, which are extant, two were executed by Chinese exegetes: Jizang, who was affiliated with Chinese Madhyamaka, and Kuiji, a proponent of Chinese Yogācāra.6 The other two were by the Silla exegetes Wŏnhyo and Kyŏnghŭng. One of Wŏnhyo’s most prominent agendas in his commentarial writings is the reconciliation of seemingly contradictory Buddhist doctrines and practices. Different than the hierarchical doctrinal classification schemes (p’an’gyo, Ch. panjiao) developed by Zhiyi and Fazang, which exalted one scripture as the ultimate teaching of the Buddha, in his exegetical exercises Wŏnhyo sought to demonstrate the fundamentally comprehensive and thoroughly harmonious nature of all practices and doctrines. In his Mirŭk sangsaeng-gyŏng chongyo 彌勒上生經宗要 (Doctrinal Essentials of the Sūtra on Maitreya’s Rebirth Above), which may have been composed between 654 and 676, Wŏnhyo suggests that visualization practices (kwan 觀) and other cultic practices (haeng 行) both lead to the same level of rebirth in the Tuṣita Heaven, without relapse from the bodhisattva path. He describes two types of visualization, which appear to be meditations that only people with superior spiritual capacity can achieve: The first is to visualize the majestic adornments (Skt. alaṃkāra) of [Tuṣita] Heaven as the setting for rebirth, and the second is to visualize the superiority of receiving rebirth there as a bodhisattva. One concentrates one’s thoughts in a detailed visual examination (chŏnnyŏm kwanch’al 專念觀察) and so this [technique] is called samādhi. Nevertheless, it is not a [samādhi that produces] the wisdom of meditative cultivation (Skt. bhāvanāmayī-prajñā), as it consists only of learning [about Maitreya’s heaven] (Skt. śrutamayī[-prajñā]) and reflecting upon it (Skt. cintāmayī[prajñā]).7 [Even so,] it is still called the “Lightning-bolt Samādhi” (chŏn’gwang sammae 電光三昧). 8 59

Chapter 4

These practices are supported by three types of nonmeditative or contemplative practices that can be performed by people with inferior spiritual capacity. (1) Hearing the name Great Mercy (Taeja 大慈; i.e., Maitreya) and repenting with reverent mind the transgressions previously committed; (2) hearing the name Merciful One (Chassi 慈氏) and respectfully trusting (angsin 仰信) in the virtues manifested by his name; (3) undertaking the practice of the ritual acts of cleaning stūpas and re-plastering them (sot’ap toji 掃塔塗地), offering incense and flowers, and so forth, as taught in a subsequent passage [of this sūtra].9

Practitioners who perform either of these practices, Wŏnhyo continues, will achieve spiritual rewards according to their spiritual attainments. He suggests that there are four kinds of results, which he likens to the growth process of a fruit tree: (1) the extinguishing of all one’s past transgressions, which is likened to sprouting fruit; (2) the knowledge that one will never again fall into the evil destinies of rebirth or develop false views, which is equated to leaves and flowers in the shade; (3) rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven in the presence of Maitreya, which is analogous to the blossoming of fine flowers; and (4) reaching the stage of nonrelapse on the path to buddhahood corresponds to the maturing of fragrant fruit. Wŏnhyo says that people who perform the first practice only will receive the first reward, those who do the second only will receive the second, and so forth. To achieve the fourth reward, however, a practitioner must perform both the cultic practices and the visualization practices.10 Wŏnhyo further breaks down the spiritual capacities of people who attempt to perform these visualization and cultic practices. He suggests that they correspond to the three grades of people who achieve rebirth in the Amitābha’s Pure Land Sukhāvatī, according to the Wu­ liangshou jing. The highest grade of people (sangp’um chi in 上品之人) are those who e­ ither cultivate the samādhi of Buddha-visualization (kwanbul sammae 觀佛三昧) or who take repentance as their method of practice (in ch’amhoe haengbŏp 因懴悔 行法). In their present body they will succeed in seeing Maitreya (kyŏn Mirŭk 見彌勒). According to the quality of their mind (sim uyŏl 心優劣), the image (hyŏng 形) they see will be either great or small. . . . The middle grade of people is those who either cultivate the samādhi of Buddha visualization or who [practice] by performing pure deeds (karma). 60

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults After having given up this [present] body, they will be reborn in Tuṣita Heaven, there to see Maitreya and attain the stage of no relapse. . . . The lowest grade of people cultivate various good deeds—generosity (dāna), morality (śīla), and so forth—and, upon that base, produce a vow (praṇidhāna) wishing to see Maitreya. After giving up their [present] body, they incur rebirth in accord with their past deeds until the time when Maitreya completes the path (sŏngdo 成道) [and is reborn on earth]. They will see Maitreya then and attain deliverance (tŭkto 得度) as part of the three assemblies.11

In the foregoing passages, Wŏnhyo has suggested that chanting the name of Maitreya, in order that it might be heard, repentance practices, and the careful maintenance of stūpas, as well as the visualization of Maitreya, constitute the efficacious practices of the cult. As will be demonstrated below in the discussion of Kyŏnghŭng’s commentary on the Maitreya sūtras, however, this list of practices is mainly a standard list used by most exegetes. Nevertheless, hagiographical accounts provide good evidence that such practices as chanting of Maitreya’s name and repentance rituals were performed in Silla.12 It is also significant that Wŏnhyo suggests that there are three classes or levels of rebirth in Tuṣita, the same as in Sukhāvatī, relying on the Wuliangshou jing. Chinese Buddhist exegetes do not make this assumption, although it is also taken for granted by Wŏnhyo’s junior colleague Kyŏnghŭng, whose views on the Maitreya cult will be discussed below. Nowhere in Wŏnhyo’s extant writings does he say whether rebirth in Tuṣita or Sukhāvatī is better. The Yusim allak to 遊心安樂道 (The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss), attributed to Wŏnhyo, makes a case for both the superiority and ease of rebirth in Sukhāvatī, but this text has been shown by many scholars to be a hodgepodge compiled at a later date.13

Kyŏnghŭng’s Fusing of Amitābha and Maitreya Cult Practices Kyŏnghŭng’s discussion of Maitreya cult practices in the portion of his Sam Mirŭk-kyŏng so 三彌勒經疏 (Commentary on the Three Maitreya Sūtras) that deals with the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing 觀彌勒菩薩 上生兜率天經 (Sūtra on Visualizing the Bodhisattva Maitreya’s Rebirth above in Tuṣita Heaven) is very similar to the contemporary discussion of the Chinese Yogācāra monk Kuiji. Kyŏnghŭng’s views thus reflect mainstream Sinitic Buddhism during the second-half of the seventh century. Like Wŏnhyo, nevertheless, he also participates in an ecumenical discourse 61

Chapter 4

in which he seeks to bring together the practices associated with Amitābha worship with those of the Maitreya cult. Like Wŏnhyo, Kyŏnghŭng suggests that rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven is a religious pursuit that may be pursued by people of all spiritual capacities. He differentiates between the three types of beings seeking Buddha­ hood: bodhisattvas, adherents to the Two Vehicles, and ordinary people. He says that because bodhisattvas develop various wholesome roots by hearing the Dharma and helping other people hear it, they will be reborn in that heaven. Adherents of the Two Vehicles need to hear the story of Maitreya, believe, and wholeheartedly make a vow to obtain rebirth there (wangsaeng 往生). Ordinary folks must hear the name of Maitreya, repent of their transgressions, and make a vow; then they will obtain rebirth there.14 Kyŏnghŭng then describes the devotional practices associated with the cult that will cause rebirth in Tuṣita in the presence of Maitreya. Kyŏnghŭng and Kuiji, as opposed to Wŏnhyo, repeat verbatim the practices listed in the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing, dividing them into five types: First is the cause of making offerings (sasi 捨施), which means making known the name of this bodhisattva, commissioning and enshrining images, sweeping stūpas and replastering them (sot’ap toji), [making offerings of] fragrant floral banners, etc., and all manner of offerings. If you make a vow desiring to be reborn [in Tuṣita] you will then be reborn there. Second is defending against negative causes, which means holding a fast of the eight prohibitions (p’algwan chae 八關齋) with single-minded necessity and cultivating all wholesome actions and making a vow to obtain rebirth there for from one to seven days.15 Third are scattered causes, meaning to fuse together all recollections and practices, and so forth, observing the recollection of Buddhist images and making a vow to obtain rebirth there. Fourth is the non-cause of book selection, which means verbally chanting the scriptures, chanting the name of Maitreya, and making a vow to obtain rebirth there. Fifth is the cause of purity, which means that after the ­Buddha achieved extinction, disciples of the four groups heard the name of Maitreya and aroused the desire to worship him. When these people die, they will be reborn there in a snap of the fingers.16

At this point, Kyŏnghŭng also includes a discussion of the five traditional approaches for rebirth in Sukhāvatī that were previously presented in Vasubandhu’s Wangsheng lun 往生論 (Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa) and Tan­ luan’s commentary on this same treatise discussed in chapter 2. To 62

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults

Kyŏnghŭng, these Amitābha cult practices are now considered appropriate for Maitreya worship. (1) the approach of worship (yebae 禮拜), [which means] relying on his name and worshipping the bodhisattva throughout one’s life for salvation and rebirth in heaven; (2) the approach of praise (ch’ant’an 讚歎), which means intoning and praising the bodhisattva’s knowledge, wisdom, and glory with a sincere mind (chisim 至心) for salvation and rebirth in heaven; (3) the approach of making a vow (chagwŏn 作願), which means that since one makes a vow, vowing to be reborn in that heaven, he cultivates what is practiced and what is achieved by the bodhisattva; (4) the approach of visualization (kwanch’al 觀察), which means visualizing the meritorious virtues and ornamentation of that heaven above, the meritorious virtues and ornamentation of that bodhisattva, and the meritorious virtues and ornamentation of the heavenly throng; and (5) the approach of the transference of merit (hoehyang 迴向; Skt. pariṇāmanā), which means not forsaking sentient beings, since one transfers the merit from the meritorious virtues that one has performed to the flocks of beings [so that they may be] reborn together above. If one enriches the previous five causes with these five approaches he will surely be reborn in that heaven.17

Kyŏnghŭng’s appropriation of this classification scheme—previously designed for Amitābha worship—for Maitreya worship bespeaks the close connection between these two cults. The practices associated with the Maitreya cult are not too different from those connected to Amitābha. Furthermore, nowhere in Kyŏnghŭng’s commentaries on the three major Maitreya sūtras does he argue for the superiority of Tuṣita to Sukhāvatī or the ease of acquiring rebirth in Sukhāvatī to Tuṣita.18 Kyŏnghŭng then discusses the spiritual benefits accruing from hearing the sūtra and performing certain visualization exercises associated with it. He suggests that there are two types of benefits: benefits causing the destruction of sins and benefits from hearing the dharma. He then lists six specific benefits causing the eradication of sins and three ­benefits resulting from hearing the dharma. First, benefits accruing from taking refuge [in the sūtra]. As the scripture says: “Resolutely visualizing the white tuft of hair between his eyebrows you will remove the sins of rebirth and death for ninety hundredmillion kalpas.” Second, benefits accruing from worship. As the scripture says: “If you worship and revere the Bodhisattva Maitreya you will remove 63

Chapter 4 the sins of rebirth and death for a hundred hundred-million kalpas.” Third, benefits accruing from hearing his name. As the scripture says: “Merely hearing the name of Maitreya you will not sink into borderlands or be taken in cunningly by evil precepts and demeanor.” Fourth, benefits accruing from the destruction of sins. As the scripture says: “Hearing the name of the bodhisattva, joining your palms together, and offering worship will remove the sins of birth and death for fifty kalpas.” Fifth, benefits accruing from hearing and intoning [the bodhisattva’s name]. As the scripture says: “If for one thought-moment you intone the name of Maitreya you will remove the sins of rebirth and death for a thousand two-hundred kalpas.” Sixth, benefits accruing from repenting of one’s excesses. As the scripture says: “Men and women violate the prohibitory precepts and do all manner of evil actions. [However, if they] hear the name of the Great Compassionate One Maitreya, perform five-pointed prostrations,19 and repent with a sincere mind, they will speedily obtain lucid purity. Of the second [type], benefits accruing from hearing the dharma, there are three. First, benefits accruing from hearing the dharma. As the scripture says: “At this time the bodhisattva, according to the karma of his past lives, discoursed on the dharma and did not backslide from the thought of the unsurpassed path.” Second, benefits accruing from encountering the saint. Within this [type] there are three [sorts]. First, the benefit of meeting the sage in the present. As the scripture says: “You will meet Maitreya.” Second, the benefit of meeting the sage at rebirth. As the scripture says: “You will meet the worthy in a kalpa with all the buddhas.” Third, the benefit of meeting the sage later. As the scripture says: “You will meet [Maitreya] in the future with all buddhas numbering as the sands of the Ganges.” Third, benefits accruing from receiving prophecy of one’s future buddhahood. In this [type] there are two. Initially, Maitreya received the prophecy of his future buddhahood. As the scripture says: “If you take refuge in the Bodhisattva Maitreya, when the bodhisattva achieves Buddhavision and Buddha-glory, then you will obtain a prophecy of your future buddhahood.” Finally, all buddhas will receive prophecies of their buddhahood. As the scripture says: “In kalpas numbering as the constellations you will meet all buddhas and all buddhas prior to their receiving the prophecies of their buddhahood.”20

Kyŏnghŭng then deftly treats the concept of cultivating all meritorious virtues by following the description given by Kuiji: (1) the practice of discussing the precepts (tamgye 談戒), which means acting in dignified manner without fail; (2) the practice of worshipping 64

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults stūpas (kyŏngt’ap 敬塔), which means sweeping stūpas and painting the precincts; (3) the practice of making offerings (kongyang 供養), which refers to precious incense and wondrous flowers; (4) the practice of absorption (tŭngji 等持), which means all samādhis enter the correct feelings (chŏngsu 正受); (5) the practice of sūtra-chanting (songgyŏng 誦經); (6) the practice of sūtra-recitation (tokkyŏng 讀經).21

Kyŏnghŭng then collapses these six practices into three groups. He classifies the first three as “preceptory practices” (kyehaeng 戒行). Discussing the precepts, he says, is a means for stopping the production of unwholesome karma and worshipping stūpas and making offerings are a means of making wholesome karma, both processes to aid rebirth in Tuṣita. Absorption, of course, refers to meditation. Kyŏnghŭng glosses his “correct feelings” as a different name for meditative absorption (chŏng 定). He then says that the final two practices of sūtra chanting and sūtra recitation are practices that produce wisdom in the performers. He says that if you complete six or five practices you will be reborn in the highest grade of the highest class, if you perform three or four practices you will be reborn in the middle grade of the highest class, and if you do one or two practices you will be reborn in the lowest grade of the highest class.22 The foregoing discussion clearly demonstrates that Kyŏnghŭng ­conceived of Maitreya worship as encompassing all facets of Buddhism. He demonstrates that the cult of Maitreya and the desire for rebirth in Tuṣita was conducive to the essential three goals of classical Buddhism— morality, meditation, and wisdom—and that all merit-making practices from the maintenance of stūpas to sūtra recitation can also be marshaled under its head. Kyŏnghŭng describes that rebirth in the “lowest class” in Maitreya’s Tuṣita may be achieved through the performance of merely two cultic practices. Following Wŏnhyo, however, he described the efficacy of the five kinds of cultic practices using commentaries and scriptures about Amitābha’s Pure Land. It is also clear from the foregoing discussion that only subtle differences existed between rebirth in Tuṣita and rebirth in Sukhāvatī. To most people the similarities probably far outweighed the differences. Furthermore, the methods of venerating the figures of Maitreya and Amitābha and requesting rebirth in their respective buddha-lands were almost completely interchangeable. This is one reason for the combination of the cults of Maitreya and Amitābha in Silla. 65

Chapter 4

Which Pure Land Is Superior? The Debate regarding Sukhāvatī and Tuṣita Some of the most common cultic practices in medieval Sinitic Buddhism were linked to aspiring to rebirth in either Tuṣita Heaven or Sukhāvatī. According to Mahāyāna scriptures, Tuṣita is one of several heavenly realms situated in the empty expanse of space directly above Mount Sumeru, the sacred, cosmic mountain located in the center of our world system. Although beings may be reborn into this heaven as gods and goddesses, who marry and give birth to divine children, the key characteristic for Buddhist practitioners is that it is where the future buddha Maitreya, abiding in meditative absorption, awaits rebirth below in the world in the remote future. Primarily monastic but also some lay participants in the cult of Maitreya vowed to be reborn in this place in order to have their doubts about contradictory Buddhist teachings removed and to receive the Buddhadharma in an unadulterated fashion in the presence of the pensive bodhisattva. Similarly, Sukhāvatī, said to be located in the remote western region of space, is one of four directional buddha-lands presided over by an enlightened and merciful buddha, Amitābha, who is not originally from our world system. Sukhāvatī itself is a product of several vows made by Amitābha to save all living beings when he was a bodhisattva named Dharmākara in the remote past. A buddha-land or buddha-field (buddhakṣetra) is a special domain created by the power of vows made by a bodhisattva in the process of his becoming enlightened. The realm takes shape or form around the awakened being as a reward or adornment of his achievement. Such spheres are usually called “Pure Lands” (Ch. jingtu, Kor. chŏngt’o) in East Asia. Amitābha’s Western Pure Land, typically called “Extreme Bliss” (Ch. Jile, Kor. Kŭngnak 極樂) is distinguished from other popular Pure Lands—the Buddha Akṣobhya’s realm of Profound Joy and the Medicine Buddha Bhaiṣajyaguru’s Pure Lapis Lazuli world system, both of which are located in the eastern region— because woman are not reborn there. Because both Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī are blessed realms with splendidly attractive halls, trees, gardens, and pavilions, Buddhist believers in medieval China and early Korea typically did not clearly distinguish between the two “Pure Lands.” However, in the seventh century, when the worship of Amitābha was on the rise, Buddhist intellectuals representing both cultic traditions argued vigorously for the superiority of one or the other Pure Land. In this chapter I 66

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults

will revisit this debate and describe the contributions of Silla monk exegetes within a larger historical context.

The Medieval Chinese Origins of the Pure Land Debate The origins of the exegetical debate concerning the comparison of Sukhāvatī to Tuṣita in Silla are found in the writings of Chinese Buddhist exegetes working in Chang’an during the Sui and early Tang periods.23 The Maitreya cult was preeminent in China and Korea during the seventh century. The most eminent monk of the period, Xuanzang, endorsed the worship of this bodhisattva and future buddha, and the most powerful ruler of the period, Empress Wu Zetian 武則天 (Wu Zhao 武曌, r. 690– 705), proclaimed herself to be Maitreya.24 Achieving rebirth in the future Buddha Maitreya’s Pure Land, Tuṣita Heaven, was a religious aspiration of many religious and social elites in northern China. However, the cultic practices for venerating Amitābha, and the aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land in the west, also began to emerge as important religious practices. Many religious practitioners in China visualized both Maitreya and Amitābha in their meditative practices, and social elites do not seem to have made much distinction between rebirth in Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī in the iconic inscriptions dating from the sixth century. However, according to the extant materials, beginning in the early seventh century, Buddhist exegetes began to more fully explore the purported doctrinal differences between these two “Pure Lands” in their commentaries on sūtras associated with the Maitreya and Amitābha cults. Jizang, an eminent monk of Jinling 金陵 (Nanjing), best known for his study of Chinese Madhyamaka (Sanlun 三論), the previously mentioned Daochuo from Shaanxi Province, and Jiacai, who lived in Hongfa Monastery 弘法寺 in Chang’an, attempted to make clear distinctions between the two “Pure Lands.” Jizang argued for the superiority of Sukhāvatī by suggesting that the sūtras associated with Maitreya were Hīnayāna sūtras and those associated with Amitābha were Mahāyāna.25 He also proposed that Tuṣita was a “defiled Pure Land,” because it is attached to the mundane world, and that Sukhāvatī was a “true Pure Land” because it is beyond the Three Realms.26 Jizang concludes by citing four major differences between Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī when comparing the three Maitreya sūtras—the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing, the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 (Sūtra on Maitreya’s Rebirth Below), and the Mile xiasheng chengfo jing 彌勒下生成佛經 (Sūtra on Maitreya’s Rebirth Below and His Attainment of Buddhahood)—with the Guan Wuliangshou 67

Chapter 4

jing 觀無量壽經 (Book on the Visualization of the Buddha Amitāyus, or Guanjing for short). Jizang’s four differences are that, first, the Guanjing expressed the teaching of the buddhas of the ten directions, while the Maitreya sūtras are confined to the teaching of the buddhas in the three times (past, present, and future). Second, the Buddha did not preach the superior teachings of the buddhas of the ten directions in the Hīnayāna sūtras, only the teachings of the buddhas of the three times. The reason for this is that the Hīnayāna practitioners were lazy and he wanted to inspire them to be more diligent in their practice. He taught both in the Mahāyāna sūtras in order to increase greatly joy in the minds of the  Mahāyāna practitioners. Third, according to the Maitreya sūtras, the aspirant reborn in Tuṣita sees Maitreya only at a distance, while in the Guanjing he sees him up close. Fourth, the Maitreya sūtras were given to people at the Hīnayāna level and the Guanjing to people at the Mahāyāna level due to the difference in the spiritual capacities of these beings to receive merit.27 Daochuo also developed a list of four differences between rebirth in Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī: First, when an aspirant is reborn in Tuṣita Heaven, Maitreya conveys teachings to him that will ensure that he will never fall away from or out of that realm. However, because Tuṣita belongs to our three realms of transmigration (sense desire, form, and formless realms), although people may hear Maitreya’s teachings, they may backslide into the cycle of rebirth and death. However, Amitābha’s Sukhāvatī is not associated with our three realms, and no one who is reborn there is subject to backsliding into transmigration. Furthermore, the Pure Land Sukhāvatī has no defilements and transcends the three realms of transmigration. Second, even though someone reborn in Tuṣita lives for four thousand years, they will eventually be reborn again; however, in Amitābha’s Pure Land one obtains immortality equal to that of a ­buddha. Third, although the water, birds, and trees of Tuṣita are extraordinary, they are still sense-desire objects. However, someone reborn in Sukhavati is taught the non-arising of all things through the teaching of the water, birds, and trees of that land. Fourth, the music of Sukhāvatī surpasses that of Tuṣita.28 Jizang’s four differences further develop the idea that rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven is a Hīnayāna teaching, while Sukhāvatī is Mahāyāna teaching. Daochuo’s list of differences pointed out some of the putatively superior characteristics of Sukhāvatī and even how the nature of 68

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults

the Buddhist teaching taught in Sukhāvatī was superior to that taught in Tuṣita. Jiacai, on the other hand, attempted to prove the superiority of Sukhāvatī through a point-by-point comparison of differences between the natures of the two realms. Jiacai suggested that obtaining rebirth in Sukhāvatī is both better and easier for humans than achieving rebirth Tuṣita Heaven because, as Jizang argued, Tuṣita is a defiled realm and Sukhāvatī is a Pure Land, and because the sūtras that support the superiority of Sukhāvatī are more abundant. According to Jiacai, even though the characteristics of Maitreya and Amitābha are relatively equal whether they exist in a pure or defiled world, their respective “lands” (kṣetra) are not. Tuṣita is inferior to Sukhāvatī for ten reasons, such as the existence of women and the possibility of backsliding. Jiacai’s list is as follows: (1) the existence of women; (2) the existence of passion; (3) the possibility of backsliding into a state of rebirth and death; (4) the life span of a person reborn there; (5) the nature of the mind of those who dwell there; (6) feelings; (7) objects of the six senses; (8) the path of rebirth there; (9) the teachings taught there; and (10) causation.29 Jiacai also established seven reasons why, in his opinion, rebirth in Sukhāvatī is easier for humans to achieve than rebirth in Tuṣita. These reasons included the ideas that ordinary humans can be reborn in Sukhāvatī while only gods (devas) are reborn in Tuṣita and that one must only perform the ten recollections (shinian 十念) to be reborn in Sukhāvatī, while one must keep the precepts and make lots of donations to be reborn in Tuṣita. Jiacai also mentioned the power of Amitābha’s vow for saving people, while people rely on their own merits to be reborn in Tuṣita. Jiacai’s arguments are compelling, particularly the idea of getting more for doing less: Sukhāvatī is superior to Tuṣita, and rebirth in Sukhāvatī is easier to achieve than rebirth in Tuṣita. However, we must remember that Jiacai was more or less unknown during his lifetime and immediately after his death, because we know little about his life. The Amitābha devotees Daochuo and Shandao achieved regional fame in Shaanxi Province during the seventh century, but it was not until later that their ideas became mainstream Buddhism. Although the practice of chanting the name of Amitābha to obtain rebirth in Sukhavati gradually became more prevalent in the seventh century, the cult of Maitreya and desire for rebirth in Tuṣita were still better established. Adherents to the cult of Maitreya like Kuiji continued to defend rebirth in Tuṣita. 69

Chapter 4

If we may use the term orthodox to describe monastic exegetes who enjoyed imperial patronage and were respected for their personal relationships and scholastic accomplishments, we must define Kuiji as a representative of orthodox Chinese Buddhism during the seventh century. Kuiji and the Silla exegete Wŏnch’ŭk were the two main disciples of the exegete par excellence of the day, the pilgrim and Maitreya enthusiast Xuanzang. Kuiji did not engage Jiacai in his commentarial work—he may not have known of its existence—but he advances other arguments in support of the superiority of Tuṣita Heaven. Kuiji referred to writings about Sukhāvatī attributed to the important early Indian Mahāyāna exegetes Vasubandhu (ca. 400–480) and Asaṅga (310–ca. 390), the Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa and a now-lost Wangsheng lun 往生論 (Treatise on Rebirth in the Pure Land), respectively, to build an argument on the ease of rebirth in Tuṣita as ­compared to Sukhāvatī. Kuiji reported that these two masters understood Sukhāvatī to be a reward based on the completion of certain conditions. They also wrote that certain people, women and adherents of the Two Vehicles (ersheng 二乘), 30 could not be reborn in Amitābha’s Pure Land. 31 Kuiji pointed out that the Amituo jing says that people who lack wholesome roots (good karma) cannot be reborn in Sukhāvatī32 and that the Guanjing partitions Amitābha’s Pure Land into nine classes for people who seek to be reborn there. Kuiji suggested that the real intent of this classification is to encourage people with inferior spiritual capacities to practice and to let them know that one can obtain rebirth in a good place by doing things other than arousing the bodhi­ citta. Kuiji reasoned that the difficulty of obtaining rebirth in Sukhāvatī is expressed by a simile from Vasubandhu’s She dasheng lun shi 攝大乘論釋 (Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha): “it is just like [the difficulty of] obtaining a thousand pieces of gold by offering only one in return.”33 Furthermore, he says that because Amitābha’s down mark, the white tuft of hair between his eyebrows, looks like the fivepeaked Mount Sumeru, ordinary people cannot see it and, thus, it is impossible for them to obtain rebirth in his Pure Land. 34 However, unlike Sukhāvatī, Tuṣita Heaven is part of our own world system, where Mahāyānists, Hīnayānists, and non-Buddhists dwell together. Kuiji c­ oncluded by paraphrasing the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing: “If the four groups that comprise the Buddhist saṃgha (sizhong 四衆)35 practice the six pāramitās (perfections) and if the eight classes of supernatural beings (babu 八部)36 who protect Buddhism delight in hearing the name of the Buddha, confess their evil actions, 70

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults

cultivate the ten wholesome acts (shi shixing 十事行) and transfer their merit to all beings, they can all be reborn in Tuṣita Heaven.”37 Later, Huaigan, a disciple of Shandao, probably writing in the late seventh or early eighth century, further expanded the arguments of Jiacai proving the ease of rebirth in Sukhāvatī. Huaigan expands the ten points of superiority of Sukhāvatī to Tuṣita to twelve. Although some of these are derived from Jiacai’s list, several are unique to Huaigan—particularly his ideas on differences between the physical characteristics of Amitābha and Maitreya and the complete elimination of evil in Sukhāvatī, while passions and sensations exist in Tuṣita.38 Huaigan then addressed the similarities and differences between obtaining rebirth in these two “Pure Lands.” He enumerated fifteen similarities39 and eight differences,40 as compared to the seven listed by Jiacai. Making images, sūtra chanting, and reciting the name of the Buddha are all mentioned as points of similarity between the two cults. This suggests that the devotional practices performed by people were much the same in both cults. Most of the eight differences listed by Huaigan are subjective differences of degree: thus, Amitābha’s original vow is more potent than Maitreya’s, or the light coming from Amitābha’s body is brighter than Maitreya’s. In my opinion the main difference is the argument that people who commit the most serious crimes can be reborn in Sukhāvatī but may not be reborn in Tuṣita. However, Kuiji relied on Vasubandhu’s She dasheng lun shi to argue that it was just as difficult to be reborn in Sukhāvatī as Tuṣita.41 Kuiji’s conservative views greatly influenced Kyŏnghŭng, whose views on this subject will be treated below. Although Huaigan successfully demonstrated the superiority of Amitābha’s Pure Land, in the end, he reflected on the struggle between these two traditions of Buddhism and concluded by warning against holding to the superiority of either Tuṣita or Sukhāvatī. Huaigan suggested that since both were taught by the Buddha, both should be respected and revered, and that scholars should discern the two approaches of ease and difficulty, and exhaust their faculties of reason in the Buddha’s teaching, for all are exhorted to enter the expedients of the Way to enlightenment in order to forsake ignorance and delusion.42 Until the end of the early Tang period in the first quarter of the eighth century, it remained evident that both Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī were seen as “Pure Lands” and that comparisons of the two merely emphasize the fact that they were similar—perhaps interchangeable—to many practitioners. Although exegetes in the seventh century engaged in lengthy debates in commentarial literature, advancing arguments for superiority and ease 71

Chapter 4

of rebirth in both destinations, the cult of Maitreya and desire for rebirth in Tuṣita were probably more widespread for most of the seventh century because, as we have seen above, detailed and innovative exegetical justifications came from scholar-monks who supported the Amitābha cult, such as Jiacai and Huaiguan.

The Pure Land Debate in a Primer Attributed to Wŏnhyo The strong trade and tributary relations and military alliance between Tang and Silla during the seventh and eighth centuries must have created an atmosphere in which intellectual Buddhist developments were known in Silla. However, it is difficult to know the extent to which Silla Buddhist exegetes participated in this particular dispute regarding Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī. We have seen above that Silla exegetes were well informed of the issues surrounding the recitation of Amitābha’s name as the central practice of the Amitābha cult. However, perhaps because of the close relationship between the Maitreya and Amitābha cults in Silla, there is little evidence to suggest that Silla scholar-monks regarded Sukhāvatī as superior to Tuṣita. The writings on this subject of two prominent exegetes only—Wŏnhyo and Kyŏnghŭng—have survived, and the authority of one of these writings is suspect. There is no conclusive evidence that Wŏnhyo considered rebirth in Sukhāvatī, the Pure Land of Amitābha, both superior to and easier than rebirth in Tuṣita heaven, the putative Pure Land of Maitreya. Like Jizang, Wŏnhyo classified the three Maitreya sūtras as both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna scriptures. He categorizes the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing as a Mahāyāna text, while the other two are relegated to Hīnayāna status. Wŏnhyo also says that the former was preached to people with middling spiritual capacities, while the latter were taught to people with inferior spiritual capacities.43 However, Wŏnhyo never directly discusses the relationship between Maitreya and Amitābha or Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī in his writings on Maitreya cult scripture. The work titled Yusim allak to 遊心安樂道 (The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss), which is attributed to Wŏnhyo, is a hodgepodge of Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land thought drawn from his Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, excerpts from the Wuliangshou jing and Guanjing, and passages and analysis culled from Chinese exegetes. Opinions on the true authorship and place of the essay’s compilation vary, although it is my opinion that it was compiled in Japan as a primer during the late tenth or early 72

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults

eleventh century and was never known in Korea until the twentieth century.44 The sixth section of this work is a treatment of “The Difficulty and Ease of Rebirth in the Pure Land.” In this section Wŏnhyo purportedly weighs the arguments for both Sukhāvatī and Tuṣita and declares Sukhāvatī to be the better of the two Pure Lands. The text lists fourteen differences between rebirth in Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī, suggesting the inferiority of rebirth in the former heaven: (1) The land is narrow and confined; (2) men and women intermingle and dwell there together; (3) the maculation of desires is active; (4) it is also subject to backsliding; (5) their lives last for four thousand years; (6) there is still a middle heaven; (7) their body measure is also as it is; (8) they give rise to the thoughts of the three natures (samsŏng 三性);45 (9) therefore, they may fall into hell because of their evil thoughts; (10) the three feelings [pleasant, unpleasant, neutral] arise reciprocally; (11) the objects of the six sense-desires (yukchin 六塵)46 cause people to be profligate; (12) when sons are born they sit on their father’s knee and when daughters are born they sit on their mother’s knee; (13) only bodhisattvas are said to be teachers of the dharma; and (14) some are able to acquire the fruit of sagehood [enlightenment] and others are unable to acquire it.47

The Yusim allak to, like Jiacai’s commentary, then lists seven reasons why rebirth in Sukhāvatī is superior to rebirth in Tuṣita and why rebirth in the latter is more difficult. (1) Extreme Bliss (Sukhāvatī) is where people are reborn with ease; Tuṣita is where gods are reborn with difficulty. (2) You may be reborn in Extreme Bliss if you merely observe the five precepts, while you may be reborn directly into Tuṣita [only] if you cultivate all ten wholesome practices. (3) You may be reborn in Extreme Bliss if you make up to ten recollections [of the Buddha Amitābha], while you may be reborn in Tuṣita [only] by perfecting the cultivations of giving and precepts. (4) You may be reborn eventually in the Western Region by relying on the Forty-Eight Vows of the Buddha Amitābha, while you may be reborn in Tuṣita only by means of your own power. (5) If you are reborn in the Western Region Avalokiteśvara and other bodhisattvas will come directly to this land and encourage you to make progress, while in Tuṣita there is no such occurrence. (6) You are encouraged to chant all the scriptures and treatises in the Western Region, while in Tuṣita you only chant and expound one scripture. 73

Chapter 4 (7) Since ancient times there have been many beings of great virtue who have looked toward the Western Region, while few have looked toward Tuṣita.48

Finally, to close the sixth section, the author of the text then makes a counter-case for the ease of rebirth in Tuṣita by mentioning such things as the Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing, Vasubandhu’s Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa, and the image of Amitābha’s down mark.49 A closer and critical look at this sixth section, however, shows it to be a compilation that contrasts passages paraphrased from Jiacai’s Jingtu lun 淨土論 (Treatise on the Pure Land) with general analysis following Kuiji’s Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing zan 觀彌勒上生兜率天 經贊 (Compendium on the Sūtra on the Visualization of the Bodhisattva Maitreya’s Rebirth above in Tuṣita Heaven), which are familiar from the foregoing discussion on the origins of this debate.50 In this section the style of philosophical argumentation is oversimplified, compared to other known writings by Wŏnhyo, such as the earlier sections of the work drawn from the Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo. Minamoto finds the influence of Huaigan in the Yusim allak to, which could not have occurred during Wŏnhyo’s lifetime.51 Furthermore, because the most obvious characteristic of Wŏnhyo’s writings is the reconciliation of disputes, it is uncharacteristic that Wŏnhyo would make a case that rebirth in Sukhāvatī is better and easier than in Tuṣita. It is quite obvious that Wŏnhyo did not compose this essay.

Kyŏnghŭng’s Doctrinal Orthodoxy The authenticity of Kyŏnghŭng’s writings on this subject, on the other hand, is not questioned. Kyŏnghŭng was well aware of the exegetical dispute in Tang China between Amitābha cult enthusiasts and Maitreya cult adherents concerning the comparisons of the “Pure Lands” Sukhāvatī and Tuṣita. Like Kuiji, Kyŏnghŭng held a position of public prominence and, in my opinion, should be considered as a representative of “orthodox” Buddhism in Silla during the late seventh and early eighth centuries because of his official position as state elder (kungno 國老) of the Buddhist church in Silla. Thus, it is not surprising that Kyŏnghŭng would take a conservative cue from Kuiji with regard to this dispute. Like Wŏnhyo, however, he did not discuss the similarities and differences between Maitreya and Amitābha or Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī in his Sam Mirŭk-kyŏng so 三彌勒經疏 (Commentaries on 74

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults

the Three Maitreya Sūtras). In his Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 無量壽經連義述文讚 (Narrative Passages and Praises on the ­Combined Explications of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra), Kyŏnghŭng attempted to make sense out of the arguments for both sides, contributed his own opinions to the exegetical dialogue, and concluded by offering a doctrinal approach that concluded that neither “Pure Land” should be classified as superior to the other. Which is more difficult, cultivating [the merit needed for rebirth in] the Sukhāvatī or in Tuṣita? It is said that Tuṣita belongs to this world, while Sukhāvatī is not associated with defilement. Therefore, is it not the case that rebirth in Tuṣita is easier than in Sukhāvatī? Masters who were cultivating the practice leading to Tuṣita Heaven would not do that practice required for Amitābha’ Pure Land because they believed that Amitābha’s land is difficult to obtain. Now, I will prove that ease of being reborn in Amitābha’s Pure Land by giving seven reasons . . . (1)  only short-term practice is needed to be reborn in Amitābha’s land; (2)  the Buddhas protect the recollection needed for this rebirth; (3) the light found in this land is excellent; (4) Amitābha has made the Original Vow; (5) Amitābha and the holy saints welcome all who are reborn into that land; (6) Amitābha rescues ordinary people; [and] (7) many masters of the past have taught the ease of this rebirth. Now, I have looked over these interpretations and find that they are quite excellent, but not always logical for the following reasons: (1) it is not the case that Maitreya does not have an original vow; (2) when someone is born into Tuṣita Heaven, Maitreya welcomes him by sending out a ray of light in the same way as Amitābha; (3) one utterance of the name of the Buddha brings about rebirth, therefore, it is needless to talk about ten recitations; (4) spiritual mentors on the way always help each other; (5) Tuṣita Heaven is not limited to just the gods (devas); (6) it is not the case that the teaching about Tuṣita had a hidden meaning in order to encourage the indolent. For reasons such as these, wise men cannot insist on saying that rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land is easy while rebirth in Maitreya’s Tuṣita Heaven is difficult. The ease of rebirth does not always mean a superior result. Rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land is extremely difficult, but if one aspires for this rebirth and practices the recitation of the Buddha’s name with fervor, it is attainable. Thus we can call it “the ease of attaining a difficult rebirth.”52

In this passage, Kyŏnghŭng shows that he understood the doctrinal arguments set forth by Jizang, Daochuo, Jiacai, and Kuiji. The first paragraph demonstrates that Kyŏnghŭng was familiar with Jizang’s appraisal 75

Chapter 4

of Tuṣita’s being part of our defiled world system while Sukhāvatī is a truly pure “Pure Land.” The second paragraph illustrates that he was familiar with Daochuo and Jiacai’s lists of reasons for the superiority of rebirth in Sukhāvatī. In the third paragraph, however, Kyŏnghŭng develops his own conceptualization of these Pure Lands, drawing from the opposing points of view produced in China. Kyŏnghŭng chose to ­compare the relative difficulty of rebirth in Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī differently than his Chinese colleagues. Like Kuiji he insisted on the ease of obtaining rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven and the “ease in difficulty” of attaining rebirth in Amitābha’s Sukhāvatī. Also, like Kuiji, he does not offer a judgment regarding the superiority of one form of rebirth as compared to the other. I think that Kyŏnghŭng tacitly accepted the Chinese interpretation of the superiority of Sukhāvatī, but that his six points in defense of Tuṣita show that he held to the idea of the ease of rebirth there. In response to Jiacai’s arguments in favor of the ease of rebirth in Sukhāvatī and the difficulty of rebirth in Tuṣita, however, he qualified the notion of superiority in his expression that “the ease of rebirth does not always mean a superior result.” In other words, just because it is easy to be reborn in the lowest grade of Sukhāvatī, it does not mean that it is qualitatively better than rebirth in Tuṣita. Kyŏnghŭng was not familiar with Huaigan’s views. His list of six similarities between Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī seems short and incomplete when compared to Huaigan’s list of fifteen similarities and eight differences; however, Huaigan’s writings were not introduced to Korea until after the time of Ŭijŏk, probably about 720 to 730. In summary, although Silla exegetes were familiar with the doctrinal interpretations of their Chinese colleagues regarding the “Pure Lands” of Maitreya and Amitābha, they were not convinced of the superiority of Amitābha worship to Maitreya worship. They acknowledged the special characteristics of Amitābha’s Sukhāvatī and the benefits of rebirth there, but they were not willing to eschew the well-grounded tradition of seeking rebirth in Maitreya’s Tuṣita Heaven, which had been a key religious practice among the elites for more than one hundred years and, as we shall see, continued to be an important cultic practice throughout the eighth century. From the standpoint of the Silla exegetical tradition, this conclusion rests only on one reliable resource. However, the one source we do have, Kyŏnghŭng’s exegesis, is the best for understanding the late seventh and early eighth centuries because of the position he held in Silla’s religious administration. Kyŏnghŭng is a better example and is representative of mainstream Silla Buddhist 76

Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults

thought on cultic practices than Wŏnhyo. Kyŏnghŭng did not casually follow Kuiji on this issue of comparing Tuṣita to Sukhavati; he developed a middle-of-the-road approach that preserved his conservative and inclusive dispositions toward the cultic practice of seeking rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven while recognizing the rising importance of the practices associated with rebirth in Sukhāvatī.

77

Chapter 5

The Amitābha Cult in Practice The worship of Amitābha became one of the most visible forms of Buddhist devotion from the second half of the seventh to the middle of eighth century. Pure Land Buddhism never developed into a separate tradition, sect, or independent school in Silla. The veneration of Amitābha and the performance of practices and rituals in expectation of rebirth in Sukhāvatī, the Pure Land in the west, completely integrated with other forms of mainstream practice and other Buddhist cults common in Silla, such as the chanting of dhāraṇī, the cult of the buddhas of the four directions, and Silla’s dominant Hwaŏm tradition. Many types of materials allow us to recreate the nature of Pure Land practice from the seventh to the tenth centuries: icons and images, epigraphy, literature, and traditional narratives. In this chapter I explore the evidence of the cult of Amitābha on the ground through the icons used in devotional practice and their locations and context with other cults of buddhas and bodhisattvas, inscriptions on metal and stone in which aspirants describe the reasons for their commissioning images of Amitābha and something of the nature of their religious beliefs, and instructive stories passed down over generations intended to encourage individuals to aspire to rebirth in Sukhāvatī that they might eventually return to the world to save all living beings. I conclude by providing context through comparing contemporary developments in Pure Land Buddhism in medieval China and early Japan.

Iconic Representations The emergence of the cult of Amitābha about the time of Silla’s conquest and unification of the Three Kingdoms is corroborated by extant sculptural evidence. Because the popularity of the cults of buddhas and bodhisattvas exploded during the seventh and eighth centuries and paralleled similar developments in China, this general trend is directly reflected in 78

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

the surviving corpus of Korean Buddhist sculpture. One published collection, for example, contains only one buddha image identified as Amitābha dating to the Three Kingdoms period (from Koguryŏ) and five dating to the mid-Silla period.1 The earliest extant image of Amitābha, a small gilt bronze Amitābha triad, is from the northern Korean state of Koguryŏ. It was excavated in Koksan County 谷山郡 in Hwanghae Province 黃海道 in 1930. The inscription on the back of the mandorla or full-body halo (kwangbae 光背) illustrates the interactive relationship between the cults of Maitreya and Amitābha: In the sinmyo-year, the fourth year of the kyŏng [reign period?], five bhikṣus and spiritual mentors (kalyāṇamitra) together commissioned one image of the Buddha Amitāyus (Muryangsu 無量壽) with the vow that their deceased masters and parents might always meet all the buddhas in their rebirths. The spiritual mentors, and so forth, vow to encounter Maitreya. In this manner we vow that we might be reborn together in one place, see the Buddha, and hear the Dharma.2

Although the name of the reign period is confusing, art historians are confident that it was cast in 571—rather than 631—because the buddha is referred to as “Amitāyus” in the inscription. During the Northern Wei period and succeeding Northern Dynasties, this buddha was commonly referred to as “Amitāyus” (Ch. Wuliangshou, Kor. Muryangsu 無量壽). In the succeeding Sui and Tang periods, people more frequently used the name “Amitābha” (Ch. Amituo, Kor. Amit’a).3 The inscription attests to the symbiotic relationship between the cults of Amitābha and Maitreya discussed in chapter 4. The monks and believers who commissioned the icon apparently preferred to be reborn in the presence of Maitreya in Tuṣita Heaven, or at least to be among the three assemblies in attendance when Maitreya preaches the Buddhadharma in the distant future. However, that they made the Amitāyus image for the benefit of their deceased mentors and parents suggests that they sought to utilize Amitābha’s saving power to draw these people into wholesome rebirths. Rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land is not mentioned explicitly. Instead, those who crafted the inscription seem to allude to a deeper doctrinal understanding: After individuals are reborn in the Pure Land, they will eventually return to the cycle of rebirth and death as bodhisattvas and encounter all the buddhas as they work to liberate all sentient beings. However, what is implicit is the funerary context. In other words, the 79

Chapter 5

image was made to invoke the power of Amitāyus and Maitreya for the benefit of the deceased. Evidence of the worship of Amitābha in Paekche may be found in a few Amitābha Buddha triads carved into rock faces (maaebul 磨崖佛) in South Ch’ungch’ŏng Province 忠清南道. Both were probably carved in the mid seventh century prior to Paekche defeat by the Tang Chinese and Silla forces in 660. The first triad is in T’aean 泰安, carved on the crags of Mount Paekhwa 白華山. Instead of a larger central buddha flanked by two bodhisattvas, buddhas, or some combination of the two, this image consists of a smaller central Avalokiteśvara (Kwanseŭm 觀世音, 180 centimeters in height) flanked by Amitābha on the right (250 centimeters in height) and Bhaiṣajyaguru (Yaksa 藥師) on the left (240 centimeters in height). All are standing on opened lotus blossoms. The second and more famous Sŏsan 瑞山 triad, which was carved in a gorge on Mount Kaya 伽倻山, consists of a standing central Buddha (280 centimeters in height)—­ probably Amitābha—flanked by a standing Avalokiteśvara holding a wish-fulfilling jewel (poju 寶珠; Skt. cintāmaṇi; 170 centimeters in height) on the right and a bodhisattva seated in the pensive pose (sayu 思惟; 166 centimeters in height). All three, the buddha and bodhisattvas, are grinning with the elusively beautiful Paekche smile.4 More than in Paekche, the very rocks and crags of Silla’s mountain valleys were transformed into forceful physical reminders of the ­Buddhadharma and particularly the Pure Land of Amitābha. Among some of the most impressive works that have been preserved are examples of the nascent Pure Land tradition in Silla. For instance, located in Sŏnbanggok 禪房谷 (Meditation Chamber Gorge) in Paeri 拜里 (Worship Village) on the west side of Kyŏngju’s South Mountain are three stone Buddhist images dating from the old Silla period probably carved before the joint Silla-Tang conquest of Paekche and Koguryŏ in the 660s (fig. 1). The triad consists of a standing stone icon of the Buddha Amitābha (Amit’a) in the center manifesting a gesture to aspirants to fear not, flanked by two standing stone bodhisattvas Mahāsthāmaprāpta (Taeseji 大勢至) on the left and Avalokiteśvara on the right. Each of the three images was carved on top of a sturdy stone base anchoring it to the ground, Avalokiteśvara’s being shaped like a lotus. In their heyday, the stone images were probably enclosed inside of a wooden Buddhist hall and painted to provide the greatest effect upon the devotees who gathered there to venerate the ­Buddha of the Western Paradise and his attendant bodhisattvas, who, they believed, would appear at the moment of their deaths and lead them by the hand to rebirth in the Pure Land of Extreme Bliss. 80

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

Figure 1. Standing Amitābha Triad at Paeri, Namsan, Kyŏngju. Photo by Richard D. McBride II, May 2006.

Two Buddha triads are found carved into cracked, uneven rock faces deep in Samnŭnggye 三陵溪 (Valley of the Three Royal Tombs) on the western side of South Mountain (fig. 2). The first triad is comprised of a standing Buddha, held to be Amitābha by several art historians, flanked by two kneeling bodhisattvas. The Amitābha icon features an un­common mudrā (hand gesture) with the left hand held at the navel with the palm facing upward and the right hand at the chest with the palm facing downward. Markings in the rock indicate that a small worship hall once stood above the image.5 It was carved during the eighth century. Because the valley contains several royal tombs, the funerary context of this Amitābha triad seems probable. Those who visited the royal tombs probably invoked Amitābha for the benefit of these past rulers. Another Amitābha triad was carved in a cave in the mountainous region located between the capitals of Paekche and Silla, in the village of Kunwi 軍威 in present-day North Kyŏngsang Province (fig. 3). Because the images show a blending of the distinct styles of Silla and Paekche from the first half of the seventh century, scholars believe that the stone statues were executed soon after Silla’s conquest of Paekche late in the 81

Chapter 5

Figure 2. Amitābha Triad in Samnŭnggye, Namsan, Kyŏngju. Photo by Richard D. ­McBride II, September 2007.

same century. The seated stone Amitābha image (218 centimeters in height) is flanked by a standing stone image of Avalokiteśvara (190 centimeters in height) on the right and Mahāsthāmaprāpta (170 centimeters in height) on the left, offering physical proof of the continued importance of the cult of Amitābha and his attendants.6 Several of the early Buddhist kings of Silla, as well as influential members of the royal Kim family, were buried in the western region of Kyŏngju around the southern base of Sŏndosan 仙桃山 (Mount Transcendent Peach) in Sŏangni 西岳里 (Western Crag Village) during the sixth and seventh centuries. The tombs of Kim Ch’unch’u 金春秋 (604–661; King T’aejong Muyŏl 太宗武烈), the architect of Silla’s conquest of Paekche and Koguryŏ who became Silla’s king in the mid-seventh century, and his second son, the diplomat-general Kim Inmun 金仁問 (629–694), are marked by two large tortoise-shaped granite pedestals at the foot of the mountain. According to local tradition and scholarly opinion, the kings Pŏphŭng, Chinhŭng, and Chinji 眞智 (r. 576–579) are also buried on the southern slopes and subridges of the small mountain. Chinji’s son who was born posthumously, the powerful courtier Kim Yongch’un 金龍春 (also known as Yongsu 龍樹, ca. 580–d. after 645), the father of Kim 82

Figure 3. Amitābha Triad in Kunwi, North Kyŏngsang province. Photo by Richard D. McBride II, February 1990.

Chapter 5

Ch’unch’u, is also thought to be buried in a group of four large unidentified mounds, which may consist of the tombs of other members of Ch’unch’u’s family. In the late seventh century an Amitābha triad was carved on a rocky crag near the peak of Mount Sŏndo. The main icon is carved into the natural rock (maae), while the attendant figures were carved separately in the round out of granite. Although much of the head of the principal icon has been lost due to exposure and vandalism, the remains show a large nose and thin lips displaying an odd but gracious smile. The bodhisattva figure on the left wears a three-peaked crown and carries a kuṇḍikā (water bottle) in its left hand identifying it as Avalokiteśvara. The attendant on the right has an uṣṇīṣa (fleshy bulb on the crown of the head signifying enlightened status) instead of a crown, suggesting that it represents a buddha.7 The Amitābha triad may have been commissioned to pray for the posthumous welfare of Kim Ch’unch’u and his royal ancestors in the late seventh century. Many beautiful bronze images of buddhas and bodhisattvas survive from the early mid-Silla period at the beginning of the eighth century. The pleasure palace Imhaejŏn 臨海殿 and man-made lake complex Wŏlchi 月池 (Moon Pond), known since the Chosŏn 朝鮮 period (1392– 1910) as Anapchi 雁鴨池 but officially renamed Wŏlchi in 2015, was probably first constructed during the reign of King Munmu.8 In the early eighth century, when the Silla royalty began to rebuild relations with the Tang court after the problems of the 670s, they adopted and adapted some of the artistic motifs current about 700 to 710 as represented in the sculptures at Baoqing Monastery 寶慶寺 in Chang’an and Cave XXI at Mount Tianlong 天龍山. One attractive gilt-bronze relief of a Buddha triad, 27 centimeters in height, was discovered when Anapchi was dredged in 1975. It portrays a buddha, probably Amitābha, seated on a richly adorned lotus framed by a mandorla comprised of floral rosettes and honeysuckle rinceau designs. This image (National Treasure no. 1475), shares much in style and iconography with similar kinds of plaques preserved in Hōryūji 法隆寺 in Nara, Japan—in particular the main icon of Amitābha at the same monastery. Energy, power, and ­compassion exude from the seated buddha, which may have been part of a small shrine. It is one of the most spectacular pieces of authentic royal garden art to survive from the first half of the eighth century in all of East Asia.9 On the southeastern side of South Mountain, deep in Ponghwagok 烽火谷 (Signal Fire Gorge) up on the side of the mountain lies Ch’ilburam 七佛庵, the Hermitage of the Seven Buddhas (fig. 4). Carved in the early to mid-eighth century, this sacred site portrays an 84

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

interesting Silla variation of mainstream Pure Land worship. A Buddha triad facing roughly southeastward is carved onto a rock face with Mahāsthāmaprāpta standing on the left holding a lotus flower and Avalokiteśvara standing on the right holding a kuṇḍikā with a seated Śākyamuni (266 centimeters in height) in the gesture of “calling the

Figure 4. Amitābha triad, Ch’ilburam, Namsam, Kyŏngju. Photo by Richard D. McBride II, May 2006.

85

Chapter 5

earth to witness” occupying Amitābha’s position in the center. Amitābha is nonetheless present, however, because a four-sided rock featuring another Śākyamuni carved into the southern face, the future Buddha Maitreya (Mirŭk 彌勒) on the northern face, the ­medicine Buddha Bhaiṣajyaguru on the eastern face, and Amitābha on the western face sits directly in front of the previously described ­ Buddha triad.10 The four-sided stone at Ch’ilburam is one example of a common form of representing the buddhas of the four directions (sabangbul 四方佛) in medieval East Asian Buddhist art. Although early depictions are found in India at Sañcī and Bodhgaya, the models for this Silla image are found carved in relief on four-sided pagodas in the Buddhist caves at Dunhuang 敦煌 and Yungang 雲岡. Four directional buddhas are also carved into stone pillars and stele images from the Chinese Northern Dynasties in the sixth century. Although sixteen different Buddhist scriptures, including the Smaller Sukhāvatī Sūtra, provide varying lists of the four buddhas, the most relevant list is found in the Jin’guangming jing 金光明經 (Suvarṇaprabhāsottama Sūtra; Sūtra of Golden Light) and Guanfo sanmeihai jing 觀佛三昧海經 (Sūtra for Visualizing Buddha and the Sea of Samādhi): Akṣobhya (Ach’ukpul, Ch.  Achufo 阿閦佛) in the east, Amitāyus (Muryangsubul, Ch. Wuliangshoufo 無量壽佛) in the west, Ratnaketu (Posangbul, Ch. Baoxiangfo 寶相佛) in the south, and Profound Sound Buddha (Mimyosŏngbul, Ch. Weimiaoshengfo 微妙聲佛) in the north. A Northern Qi stele from 556 displays Śākyamuni in the south, Amitābha in the west, Maitreya in the north, and Akṣobhya in the east. In time, Bhaiṣajyaguru in the east, Amitābha in the west, Śākyamuni in the south, and Maitreya in the north became prevalent, as in a stone image found at Kōfukuji 興福寺 dating to 724 or 730.11 As in the Ch’ilburam collection of Buddhist images, the worship of Amitābha and his attendants within the context of the cult of the B ­ uddhas of the four directions continued well into the eighth century. North of Kyŏngju, on the southwestern edge of So Kŭmgangsan 小金剛山 (Smaller Diamond Mountain) lies the site of Kulbul Monastery 掘佛寺. The principal icon of this large four-sided rock is a Buddha triad featuring a standing stone image of Amitābha (351 centimeters in height), flanked by a standing stone image of Avalokiteśvara (360 centimeters in height) on the left and a bodhisattva holding a kuṇḍikā that is probably Mahāsthāmaprāpta. The eastern face features the Medicine Buddha Bhaiṣajyaguru (206 centimeters in height); the northern side, a relief carving of the eleven-headed Avalokiteśvara. The southern face originally featured a Buddha triad, but 86

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

the head of the main buddha and the attendant on the right were removed by the Japanese during the colonial period. The images were originally carved in the mid-eighth century during the reign of King Kyŏngdŏk (National Treasure no. 121, fig. 5).12 Iryŏn provides a miraculous tale purporting to explain the discovery of this four-sided rock. One day, King Kyŏngdŏk traveled to Paengnyul Monastery 栢栗寺 to attend religious services. On a mountainside leading up to the monastery he heard the sound of a chanting Buddha (ch’angbul 唱佛) and ordered his subordinates to dig for the source of the sound. They unearthed a large rock carved with the buddhas of the four directions. The king ordered a monastery to be established on the site and called it “Buddha-digging Monastery” (Kulbulsa). Iryŏn reports that in his day, the thirteenth century, it was mistakenly renamed as “RockDigging Monastery” (Kulsŏksa 掘石寺).13 On the northeastern side of the Smaller Diamond Mountain an Amitābha triad is carved into the rock face. The 3.2-meter-tall Amitābha is austere looking and is flanked by the bodhisattvas Avalokiteśvara on the left and Mahāsthāmaprāpta on the right. Following scriptural descriptions, Avalokiteśvara wears a crown decorated with a small image of Amitābha. Two square impressions in the rock face reveal that the

Figure 5. Amitābha Triad on one side of a carved, four-sided rock, site of Kulbul Monastery, So Kŭmgangsan, Kyŏngju. Photo by Richard D. McBride II, April 2008.

87

Chapter 5

images were once protected by an antechamber. The unsophisticated technique used in the execution of the images indicates that they were probably carved during the late Silla period in the late ninth century.14 Stone-carved Amitābha triads stylistically dating to the mid-to-late eighth century are also found in the environs of Kyŏngju, strongly supporting the supposition that Silla Buddhists followed their Tang Chinese contemporaries in promoting the worship of Amitābha, his attendant bodhisattvas, and the practices associated with seeking rebirth in the Pure Land in the west. In Tudaeri 斗垈里, in the southwest of the city, another Amitābha triad (National Treasure no. 122; fig. 6) dating to the late eighth century is carved into a west-facing rock 3.5 meters high and 5 meters wide on Pyŏktosan 碧桃山 (Double-Flowering Peach Mountain). The bodhisattva attendant on the right is probably Avalokiteśvara holding a kuṇḍikā. Although art historians consider the images of the late eighth century to be inferior to those of the mid-eighth century because they lack vitality and suppleness, it is still an attractive image comprised of soft, flowing curves.15 In Domesticating the Dharma, I described the layout of Pulguk Monastery 佛國寺 as an architectural manifestation of the way the cults of

Figure 6. Standing Amitābha Triad at Tudaeri, Kyŏngju. Photo by Richard D. McBride II, September 2007.

88

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

Amitābha and Avalokiteśvara were subsumed within the broader ­context of Silla’s Hwaŏm tradition during the mid-eighth century. One of the most prized icons of Amitābha from the mid-Silla period is the gilt bronze seated Amitābha enshrined in the Hall of Extreme Bliss (Kŭngnakchŏn 極樂殿) at Pulguk Monastery 佛國寺 (National Treasure no. 27; fig. 7). The image, 1.66 meters in height, is made in the same resplendent style and matches the majesty of the gilt bronze seated Vairocana (National Treasure no. 26, 1.77 meters in height) enshrined in the same monastery. In the writings of Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn (857–d. after 908), who was active during the demise of the Silla state in the late ninth and early tenth centuries, Pulguk Monastery was not only associated with Hwaŏm Buddhism, but it was also specifically identified with the worship of Amitābha. The royal Koryŏ monk Ŭich’ŏn 義天 (1055–1101) recorded a poem, “Encomium on the Paintings and Images of Amitābha at Hwaŏm Pulguk Monastery” (Hwaŏm Pulguksa Amit’a pul hwasang ch’an 華嚴佛國寺 阿彌陀佛畵像讚), which he attributes to Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn, in his Wŏnjong mullyu 圓宗文類 (Literature of the Perfect Tradition): On the eastern mountain of Tonghae (Silla), there dwells a monastery, “Hwaŏm Pulguk” is its name. A high-ranking official of the royal clan personally established it— The four words of the monastery’s name have deep meaning. Fixing your eyes on the Flower Garland brings to mind the Lotus Storehouse, In the Buddha’s country, the racing mind is brought to Peace and ­Nurturance. [If you] desire to command Devil Mountain and pacify Poison Peak, In the end you will rule over the Sea of Pain without making waves. A lovable “monk” is made to explain the principles [of Buddhism], And is able to guide a dānapati (alms-giver) when he hopes to offer his mind. Dwelling in the east and imagining the west, I write the appearance of form. Visualizing myself in the darkening landscape, I point to [Mount] Yanzi. In each and every one of their countries they give blessings and benefits, The Tathāgata Akṣobhya [the Buddha of the East] is also peculiar and strange. Sage advice does not necessarily distinguish my course bearings, The ultimate end points to the mind, causing it to possess a ground. Absurd arising and absurd distinction—emptiness faces emptiness, Self-cultivation for floating generations is in a careful end. 89

Chapter 5 Having been able to live peacefully I rely on a clear countenance— Who is said “to face the wall” and not have thaumaturgic powers? Great practices sustain the lords and also keep the lords at a distance, Existing in nothing, all dwell in the country of the Buddha.16

Figure 7. Gilt bronze seated Amitābha in the Hall of Extreme Bliss at Pulguk Monastery (National Treasure no. 27). Photo by Richard D. McBride II, July 2018.

90

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

The poem is instructive because it provides insight into the relationship between the Amitābha cult and the Hwaŏm doctrinal tradition. The poem explicitly asserts that Pulguk Monastery is associated with the Hwaŏm tradition and refers to the Lotus Storehouse World System, where the Avataṃsaka-sūtra was preached. “Peace and Nurturance” is one of the most conventional allusions to Amitābha’s Sukhāvatī, and “Mount Yanzi” is a literary reference to the place where the sun goes when it descends in the western sky—hence, another metaphor for Sukhāvatī.17 The synthesis or fusion of Hwaŏm and Pure Land is a representative characteristic of Korean Buddhism and an important legacy of the Silla period that I will flesh out more fully in the next chapter.

Ritual, Dhāraṇī, and Pure Land Worship The three-story stone pagoda in the courtyard of the primary Buddha hall of Pulguk Monastery is commonly referred to as the Śākyamuni Stūpa (Sŏkkat’ap 釋迦塔). On the nights of September 3 and September 6, 1966, thieves attempted to break into the first and second stories of the pagoda. They were attempting to steal whatever treasure might have been enshrined inside, such as golden relics containers and small giltbronze pagodas. Their scheme lost its stealth on the second night when they made a commotion, being unable to lift the roof stone on the second level high enough to steal the treasure. They fled, their plot having failed, when the few monks housed near the old monastery, which was founded in the mid-eighth century, came to inspect the matter. A month later, on October 13, 1966, archeologists, charged by the government with fixing this historic pagoda (National Treasure no. 21), removed the top sections of the structure and revealed the objects enshrined inside. Although an exquisite large golden reliquary and several smaller ­containers were found, the real treasure was a long, thin scroll of the Wugou jingguang da tuoluoni jing 無垢淨光大陀羅尼經 (Skt. *Raśmivimala­ viśuddhaprabhādhāraṇī; Kor. Mugu chŏnggwang tae tarani kyŏng; Great Dhāraṇī on Immaculately Pure Light), printed from woodblocks, which many regard as the oldest extant printed material in the world. When the Śākyamuni Stūpa was opened in 1966, several literary objects were discovered besides the printed dhāraṇī text. Aside from several śarīra, four worn handwritten pages recording that the stūpa had been repaired during the eleventh century were discovered. At that time, however, the discovery of this record was either suppressed or ignored for an undisclosed reason.18 “The Record of Repairs to the Western Stone 91

Chapter 5

Stūpa of Pulguk Monastery” (Pulguksa sŏsŏkt’ap chungsu hyŏngjigi 佛國寺 西石塔重修形止記), as it is now called, was “rediscovered” and made public by the National Museum of Korea in September 2005. The most recent research on these handwritten documents indicates that the stūpa was damaged due to an earthquake in 1024, that it was repaired, and that it was then damaged severely again by earthquake in 1036. It was finally repaired again in 1038. Those in charge of the second repair job just added their record to the earlier record made in 1024.19 In the reconstruction record the Śākyamuni Stūpa is called a “Stūpa of Immaculate Light and Purity” (mugu kwangjŏngt’ap 无垢光淨塔) because it was common to refer to a particular stūpa according to the dhāraṇī enshrined inside. Because the stūpa was opened during the eleventh century, some have questioned the validity of the dating of the printed Korean dhāraṇī text to the mid-eighth century and have advanced a theory that the dhāraṇī scroll was actually printed and enshrined during the Koryŏ.20 The scholars working on these documents, however, hold the position that the original dhāraṇī sūtra placed in the stūpa during the Silla period, although perhaps already damaged to some extent, was put back into the stūpa during the Koryŏ period, and, as the reconstruction record describes, was supplemented and protected with the addition of a copy of the Baoqieyin tuoluoni jing 寳箧印陀羅尼經 (Dhāraṇī of the Jeweled Casket Seal) in 1038.21 Rebirth in Sukhāvatī, Amitābha’s Pure Land in the west, is emphasized four times in this spell sūtra as a by-product of following the procedures for chanting and enshrining the dhāraṇī in stūpas. There is nothing particularly unique about the connection between the chanting of the dhāraṇī found in this sūtra and the worship of Amitābha/ Amitāyus. Gregory Schopen described the role of rebirth in Sukhāvatī as a generalized goal in Sanskrit Mahāyāna sūtra literature.22 Evidence that the concept of “rebirth in Sukhāvatī” is invoked in Sinitic Mahāyāna Buddhist literature as a common goal or by-product of particular devotional, cultic, or ritual performances is compelling, particularly in dhāraṇī literature.23 Inscriptions associated with many pagodas ­constructed during the eighth and ninth centuries throughout the Silla domain listed the Great Dhāraṇī on Immaculately Pure Light as being enshrined inside or contained seventy-seven or ninety-nine small pagodas, strongly suggesting that those who commissioned these pagodas had the procedures of this particular spell scripture in mind. Although some scholars assert that this is evidence of a synthesis between Pure Land and Esoteric Buddhism (milgyo 密敎) in the mid-Silla period, I do 92

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

not find anything particularly esoteric about these ritual practices. Rather, rebirth in the Pure Land was a widespread and common goal in medieval Sinitic Mahāyāna Buddhism, and it was mixed with various kinds of ritualized practices to form the heart of East Asian Buddhist practice from the eighth century forward.24 Evidence of the ritual veneration of Amitābha and the use of dhāraṇī goes back much earlier than the Great Dhāraṇī on Immaculately Pure Light. In his Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀 (Great Treatise on Śamatha and Vipaśyanā), Tiantai Zhiyi described many ways for monks to develop calmness or to “stop” the passions (śamatha) and to engage in visualization or contemplation (vipaśyanā): the insight to develop the prajñā of śūnyatā (wisdom of emptiness), the “the acquiescence to the non-production of dharmas” (wushengfa ren 無生法忍; Skt. anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti). “Acquiescing to the non-production of dharmas” is the phrase commonly used in the Mahāyāna teachings to reflect an adherent’s awakening to the ultimate truth of reality, or the way things really are.25 After describing twentyfive kinds of preliminary practices subsuming morality (śīla), breathing, and recollection of Buddha’s name, he explains four ways of cultivating samādhi through constant sitting, constant walking, part walking and part sitting, and neither sitting nor walking. Dan Stevenson has described all four meditation practices in great detail.26 Zhiyi’s description of the constant walking practice illustrates how worship of Amitābha could be practiced by devoted monastic aspirants. Those using this expedient means were charged not to sit or lie down for ninety days (or forty days) and to constantly practice to see Buddha throughout the universe in all things. The basis for the constant walking practice was the pratyutpanna samādhi (banzhou sanmei 般舟三昧), which was to be performed in isolation. After selecting a worship hall in which to perform his labor, the practitioner lays out all of the appropriate offerings of food and flowers, he washes and changes into a new set of robes before entering the sacred space of his ritual practice. The practice itself lasts for a fixed period of ninety days, over a duration of which the meditator must continuously circumambulate an altar to the Buddha Amitābha. He vows never to amuse himself with worldly thoughts or desires, never to lie down or leave the hall, and, aside from the times when he eats his meals, never randomly to sit down or stop to rest until he completes the three months of practice. In the approach of cultivating samādhi by neither walking nor sitting, Zhiyi describes a dhāraṇī practice that ensures that each and every thought is complete concentration so that the practitioner can develop 93

Chapter 5

the aspiration to enlightenment: repentance through petitioning Avalokiteśvara (qing Guanyin xingfa 請觀音行法). This ritual derives its content from the Qing Guanshiyin xiaofu duhai tuoluoni jing 請觀世音消伏 毒害陀羅尼經 (The Sūtra on the Dhāraṇī That Petitions Avalokiteśvara to Dissipate Poison and Harm, T 1043), which was translated into Chinese by *Nandi (Ch. Nanti) in 419. It is performed in an isolated image hall, and the practitioner cleans the floor and adorns the room with banners, canopies, lamps, and equipment for making offerings at an altar. He enshrines a triad featuring Buddha Amitābha and his two attendant bodhisattvas, Avaloktieśvara and Mahāsthāmaprāpta. He places a mat in front of the altar for use in his prostrations and prepares new robes to be worn whenever he is performing the ritual. Up to ten people may participate in the ritual, which must begin on one of the poṣadha days: the eighth, fourteenth, fifteenth, twenty-third, twentyninth, or thirtieth. Typically, those performing the ritual would practice for a period of either twenty-one (three times seven days) or forty-nine days (seven times seven days). The ritual cycle performed by aspirants includes invoking and paying obeisance to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṃgha; the seven buddhas of antiquity; the Buddha Amitābha; the two bodhisattvas Avalokiteśvara and Mahāsthāmaprāpta; the assembly of the saints (bodhisattvas); and the three dhāraṇī of the spell sūtra (the dhāraṇī for dispersing poison, the dhāraṇī for eradicating [unwholesome] karma, and the dhāraṇī of six-syllable phrases). They would offer incense and flowers, perform seated meditation and visualization exercises, recite verses and the dhāraṇī from the sūtra, repent and confess their sins, make vows, circumambulate the buddha triad, and recite the entire spell sūtra. Aspirants would go through these procedures twice a day, the morning and evening. Other times of the day they would occupy themselves with extended meditation and veneration of the Amitābha icon.27 In the mid-seventh century, the encyclopedist Daoshi 道世 (ca. 596– 683) cataloged the most important and efficacious Buddhist spells of his time in his Fayuan zhulin (Grove of Pearls in the Garden of the Dharma; compiled ca. 667). He began with dhāraṇī used in repentance rituals. In order to repent, he instructs, you must first set up an “enlightenment site” or “ritual site” (daochang 道場; Skt. bodhimaṇḍa), cover it with a silk cloth and place a parasol on top of it. Then you should secure various types of incense and perfume, close your doors, clean your house, keep visitors and intruders away, bathe, hold blended perfume in your mouth constantly, and pray to the buddhas of the ten directions for repentance. 94

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

If you are not lazy, he promises, you will have an experience and will cease to doubt.28 He then introduces a spell called the “dhāraṇī of a thousand coursings” (qianzhuan tuoluoni shenzhou 千轉陀羅尼神呪), which he says was transmitted in the mid-Sui period (ca. 605) and spread widely among the Chinese and the barbarians (hua-yi 華夷), which probably included Koreans as “eastern barbarians” (dongyi 東夷). The spell is reputed to eradicate bad karma accumulated over a thousand kalpa and enable one to avoid rebirth in the undesirable destinies for a thousand kalpa, as one “courses” (zhuan 轉) in this life one will see a thousand cakravartin kings (zhuanlun wang 轉輪王).29 If this dhāraṇī was actually practiced among some Buddhists in Silla, it may explain why the Great Dhāraṇī on Immaculately Pure Light was readily accepted fifty years later, because both dhāraṇī putatively ensure the elimination of unwholesome karma and good rebirths. Daoshi next introduces dhāraṇī associated with the cults of Amitābha and Maitreya in separate sections. He introduces two dhāraṇī associated with Amitābha. The second of these spells, the Amituo guyinshengwang da tuoluoni 阿彌陀鼓音聲王大陀羅尼 (Skt. Aparimitāyurjñānahṛdayadhāraṇī; Great Dhāraṇī of Amitābha, the Drum Sound King), was known to Wŏnhyo and, as we will see below, other Buddhists in Silla.30 Daoshi lauds the power of this spell as being able to eradicate sins and cause rebirth in the Pure Land.31 The portion on Maitreya worship also presents two dhāraṇī, the first of which refers to the Qifo bapusa suoshuo da tuoluoni shenzhou jing 七佛八菩薩所說大陀羅尼神呪經 (Dhāraṇī Spell Sūtra of the Seven Buddhas and Eight Bodhisattvas), a late fourth-­ century or early fifth-century work. Daoshi says it contains a spell called “Yanmatou” 閻摩兜 (Yama’s helmet?), which loosens the bonds set on sentient beings, and removes obstacles and worldly fetters so that the practitioner can be enlightened in this body.32

Inscriptions on Metal and Stone During the sixth and seventh centuries, the valleys and gorges of South Mountain (Namsan), located to the south of the Silla palace complex of Wŏlsŏng 月城, began to be filled with monasteries and hermitages. Under the patronage of wealthy and powerful capital-based nobles, Silla’s skilled artisans and craftsmen transformed rocks and stones into representations of the buddhas, bodhisattvas, heavenly kings and their attendants and musicians, the eight groups of supernatural beings, and other powerful beings from the rich Buddhist pantheon as a means of 95

Chapter 5

manifesting their growing devotion toward the Buddhadharma. In the process, they acquired a powerful way of displaying their wealth and prestige. Unlike similar sites in China, such as the Mogao Caves 莫高窟 in Dunhuang 敦煌, the Yungang Caves 雲岡窟 in Datong 大同, and Longmen Caves 龍門窟 in Luoyang 洛陽, however, inscriptions recording for posterity the names of the donors and the reasons for their commissioning the stone images are seldom if ever found. Although few inscriptions are found on images of metal and stone from Silla times, those that have been found depict a continuation of the patterns of worship commonly found in China during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period (ca. 317–581) and in Korea during the Three Kingdoms period. In the reign of Silla King Munmu 文武 (r. 661–681), for instance, a Buddha triad was commissioned by a large group of aspirants residing in what is now Yŏn’gi County 燕岐郡 in South Ch’ungch’ŏng Province: On the fifteenth day of the fourth moon in the kyeyu year [May 6, 673], aspirants (lit. “incense burners”) commissioned an image of Śākyamuni and all the bodhisattvas. . . . recorded on stone. . . . This was respectively commissioned for the king, great ministers, and seven generations of parents and livings ­beings in the Dharma realm. The aspirants names are Mich’anae 彌次乃, the taesa 大舍 [rank twelve] Chinmossi 眞牟氏, the taesa Sangsaeng 上生, the taesa [one character missing]inch’a [?], the taesa [one missing character]sŏn ?宣 [?], the sosa 小舍 [rank thirteen] Ch’anbul 贊不, the sosa Musa 武使, and sosa [three missing Sinographs], and 250 other people.33

Transferring the merit that comes from making the image to the king and ministers—who represent the state—and especially to seven generations of one’s ancestors appear commonly in inscriptions on images of Śākyamuni and Maitreya in China. A generation later, during the reign of King Sinmun 神文 (681–691), we see the same pattern applied to an image of Amitābha found in the same county: “On the fifteenth day of the second moon of the kyech’uk year [March 11, 689], I respectfully ­commissioned this image of the Buddha Amitābha and all the buddhas and bodhisattvas on behalf of seven generations of parents and. . . .”34 Although the cult of Amitābha really began to flourish during the eighth century, the Silla nobility does not appear to have differentiated between rebirth in Maitreya’s Tuṣita Heaven and rebirth in Amitābha’s Sukhāvatī. For example, Kim Chisŏng 金志誠 (ca. 651–720) was a truebone noble, related to the royal Kim family, who served in the expanding 96

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

Silla bureaucracy at the beginning of the eighth century. He built Kamsan Monastery 甘山寺 about twenty li 里 southeast of the Silla capital and commissioned images of Maitreya and Amitābha in 719 for the benefit of his deceased parents. Both images are among the few extant Silla images with inscriptions.35 The original inscription upon which Iryŏn based his quotation appears on the back of the mandorla of the standing stone image of the Bodhisattva Maitreya (273 centimeters in height). It is presently housed in the National Museum of Korea. There is also an inscription on a matching image of the Buddha Amitābha (290 centimeters in height), which was found at the same site. What first strikes the reader is Iryŏn’s elision of most of the body of the original inscription, and the fact that he left only Kim Chisŏng’s formal introduction and the invocation of the people who should benefit from the wholesome karma generated by his commissioning the monastery and these two images. Upon closer inspection, however, one recognizes that much of the diction in the original inscription does not sound like mainstream East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhism, but in fact contains random allusions to Daoist terms and concepts. For instance, although the idea of the “three bodies of dharmic response” (pŏbŭng chi samsin 法應之三身) alludes to the Mahāyāna doctrine of the “three bodies of the Buddha,”36 “the ten titles of the Celestial Master” (ch’ŏnsa chi sipho 天師之十號) is definitely not Buddhist. The concept of ten titles of the Celestial Master is, however, not a common Daoist term, either. It is not found in any modern reference work of Daoist doctrine, thought, or culture. Because the Buddhist “three bodies” pertain to different manifestations of reality (or the way that which is real changes and transforms according to its circumstances), the grammar suggests that the “ten titles” refer to the same thing. Daoist scriptures employing similar terms support this understanding.37 The way the term is used in the inscription suggests that Kim Chisŏng did not differentiate strictly between what we would call “Buddhism” and “Daoism,” but was instead concerned more broadly with enlightenment and transcendence, such as the tradition of recluses who rejected the world and dwelled in the mountains. In this sense he is similar to other scholar-officials in East Asia at the time—including such later luminaries as the Tang scholar Li Ao 李翺 (774–836), the Tang poet Bai Juyi 白居易 (772–846), and the Silla literatus Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn, who passed the Tang civil service exam and served in the Tang bureaucray through the Huang Chao rebellion 黃巢亂 (874–884)—who cannot be easily classified as strictly Buddhist, Daoist, or Confucian.38 97

Chapter 5

Kim Chisŏng’s statement that he was well versed in the Daode jing, which he calls the Classic in Five Thousand Words, provides further evidence that he was familiar with contemporary developments in China. In the second month of 705 (February 28–March 28), and before Kim served as an emissary to Tang in the third month (March 29–April 27) of the same year,39 Emperor Zhongzong 中宗 (r. 684, 705–710) restored the honorific titles that had been bestowed on Laozi 老子 during the reign of Gaozong 高宗 (649–683). These titles had been discontinued during the brief Tang interregnum of the Empress Wu Zetian’s Zhou 周 dynasty (690–705). Zhongzong also instituted a statute requiring officials to study the Daode jing for the Tang civil service examination.40 Kim Chisŏng was also familiar with the most commonly studied Buddhist literature of the time: descriptions of the bodhisattva path. The “Dharma Approaches of the Seventeen Stages” refer to a comprehensive list of “grounds” or “stages” (Skt. bhūmi) mentioned on the very first page of the Yogācārabhūmi (Treatise on the Stages of the Yogācāra) and described in detail over the next fifty rolls of the treatise in one hundred rolls.41 The text, attributed to the Bodhisattva Maitreya, was translated into Chinese by the famous monk-pilgrim Xuanzang. Because all people were encouraged to become bodhisattvas and to commence on the path toward buddhahood, these lists of stages served as signposts and describe in detail the types of enlightened characteristics and spiritual powers a practitioner acquires as he develops wisdom and compassion over successive lifetimes. The writer’s lauding of Kim’s knowledge of Daoist material as much as Buddhist doctrine may account for Iryŏn’s decision to elide so much of it, but it seems odd that he would cut the portions that mention his study of bodhisattva stages. Only one other person mentioned in the inscription’s text is known in other materials. Kaewŏn 愷元 was the sixth and youngest son of King Muyŏl. He was raised to the rank of ich’an (rank two) in 655 (probably a mistake for ach’an 阿湌 [rank six]) and invested as a taeach’an (rank five) in 667, but was again listed as an ich’an when he was dispatched to the house of King Sinmun’s (r. 681–691) fiancée to appoint her to the rank of “lady” (puin 夫人) prior to their wedding in 683. Kaewŏn was then made the senior grandee (sangdaedŭng 上大等), one of the chief ministers of state and leader of the council of nobles, in 695, and he probably passed away early in 706.42 Kaewŏn is mentioned as second only to the king of Silla among the names of people to benefit from the commissioning of the image. Kim Chisŏng was a not grandson of Kaewŏn, because it is not stated and because Kaewŏn and Kim’s father Injang 仁章 were probably 98

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

roughly the same age. Furthermore, Kaewŏn’s name is omitted in the Samguk yusa version. Yet Kaewŏn is singled out in the original inscription, and it therefore seems reasonable to suggest that Kim Chisŏng may have been his protégé in Silla’s status-oriented government. The only thing one can say for sure is that these two men had a close relationship. Kaewŏn would have been the head of the Silla government when Kim Chisŏng was dispatched as an emissary to Tang, which was a great honor and very important because Silla was rebuilding its diplomatic relationship with Tang in the early eighth century after their association had soured as a result of the peninsular wars between 660 and 676. In the Amitābha inscription, Kim Chisŏng describes himself more as a sophisticated scholar elite who is well read in the cosmopolitan literature of his day than as a fervent Buddhist devotee. He makes no differentiation between Buddhist Yogācāra texts and the “Daoist” Zhuangzi 莊子, which may have been books that he was fond of reading. As with the inscription on the Maitreya image, the structure is formulaic, suggesting Kim Chisŏng’s achievement of the highest respect in the world and his subsequent departing from the world to obtain the quiescence only the way of the Buddha brings. One significant idea that can be derived from this inscription is that Silla nobles were not always completely single-minded in their pursuit of the Pure Land. Their participation in the cult of Amitābha was merely one aspect of a full, rich lifestyle coming from an understanding and appreciation of the cultural heritage of China that was transmitted to the Korean peninsula by means of Buddhism. The most important reason for participation in the cult was to acquire merit for oneself, one’s parents and relatives, and one’s sovereign, as the text of the inscription clearly describes. Another significant idea that emerges is that Silla is a “country of extreme bliss” (kŭngnak chi pang 極樂之邦) like Amitābha’s Pure Land. Silla, or Kyerim 鷄林 (Cock Grove), is placed on the same spiritual footing as the land where the Dragon Palace (Kor. Yonggung 龍宮) is, presumably “India,” and the place where the Great Wild Goose Pagoda (Dayan ta 大鴈塔) is, an allusion to the Tang Chinese capital Chang’an. Both inscriptions mention a place, the shore of “Hŭnji on the East Sea” (Tonghae hunji 東海欣支), where something associated with his parents was scattered. The inscription on the image of Maitreya says, “My deceased mother Lady Kwanch’ori 觀肖里 achieved it when she was an elderly matron of sixty-six years. On the shore of Hŭnji on the East Sea [her ashes] were scattered.” The inscription on the image of Amitābha says, “My deceased father the ilgilch’an 一吉湌 [rank seven] 99

Chapter 5

Injang 仁章, when he was a forty-seven-year old man achieved it, and on the shore of Hŭnji on the East Sea they scattered [his ashes].” What his parents achieved, liberation, rebirth in Tuṣita, or rebirth in Sukhāvatī, is never explicitly stated in the inscription, although it seems reasonable to suggest that they were devout Buddhists and that their bodies were cremated and their ashes were scattered on the seashore. Iryŏn provides evidence for the interpretation that it was their cremated ashes that were scattered and further suggests that Hŭnji on the East Sea, which he transcribes as “Yuban on the East Sea” (Tonghae yuban 東海攸反), probably refers to the dispersal of King Munmu’s ashes on the East Sea.43 Hence, following Iryŏn, devout Buddhists of Silla may have had their ashes scattered at the site of present-day Kamp’o 甘浦, where King Munmu’s ashes were scattered in the East Sea, to fulfill his vow to become a dragon to protect Silla from invaders.44 Perhaps “Hunji on the East Sea” refers to the turtle-shaped tombstone of Kim Munmu that was placed in a rock crag formation jutting out of the water just off the coast of Kamp’o. The devotional action of having one’s ashes scattered on the East Sea appears to have been a vogue practice in the eighth century, perhaps because of tensions between Silla and Japan. For instance, the ashes of King Hyosŏng (r. 737–742) were scattered over the East Sea, although a coffin was buried to the south of a monastery, and the ashes of King Sŏndŏk (r. 780–785) were scattered in the East Sea.45 Saitō Tadashi demonstrates that the Sinograph “to scatter” (san 散) was commonly used to refer to the scattering of ashes (san’gol 散骨) and, using Japanese sources from the eighth century, opines that the Buddhist practice of cremation spread to Japan from Korea at this time.46 By the late eighth century, the cult of Amitābha had fused seamlessly with the dominant Hwaŏm doctrinal tradition, and the classes of deities listed in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra were venerated along with the popular buddhas and bodhisattvas of sūtra literature. The way the Silla royalty and nobility approached the worship of these figures is articulated in an account of Mujang Monastery 鍪藏寺. Mujang (Helmet Storehouse) Monastery was located in Amgok Village 暗谷村, situated in a winding and inaccessible valley about twenty li 里 northeast of the capital city. It was first built by the taeagan 大阿干 [rank five] Hyoyang 孝讓, the father of King Wŏnsŏng 元聖 (r. 785–798), to provide merit for his deceased uncle. According to tradition, the monastery had its uncommon name because King T’aejong Muyŏl (r. 654–661) stored his soldiers’ helmets in the valley during the wars of conquest to unify the Three Kingdoms. Above the monastery, which Iryŏn describes as a “numinous precinct 100

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

useful for putting your mind to rest on the path to bliss,” there was an old hall for the veneration of Amitābha. When King Sosŏng 昭聖 (r. 798– 800) passed away, his primary consort Queen Kyehwa 桂花 commissioned a grand image of Amitābha and a stele was erected to commemorate the event. The stele and its inscription remained intact until 1530 because it is mentioned in Sinjŭng Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam 新增東 國輿地勝覽 (Augmented Survey of Korean Geography).47 However, by the late Chosŏn period it was in ruins, the stele broken in half, probably a victim of the wanton destruction during the period of the Hideyoshi invasions (1592–1598). Pieces of the stele were rediscovered in 1760, lost and then recovered again in 1817, and another piece was found in 1914. Although the extant fragments are very hard to decipher, several lines correspond to Iryŏn’s version of the tale preserved in the Samguk yusa.48 Iryŏn reports that Queen Kyehwa was worried and disoriented after the death of King Sosŏng. Her mourning was so excessive that her tears were as blood pricking her heart. She thought she should praise his good works and offer up prayers for his repose in the netherworld (hyŏnbok 玄福). She heard that in the western quarter of the universe there is a great saint (taesŏng 大聖) named Amitābha: “If you take refuge in him with utmost sincerity (chisŏng kwiang 至誠歸仰), he will come and meet you to deliver you into a wholesome place.” “If these are true words, why would he deceive me?” she concluded. She then donated her six costumes of full court attire and emptied the royal treasury to pay for this project. She summoned famous artisans and instructed them to make an image of Amitābha and also to make a representation of the divine assembly (sinjung 神衆) and enshrined them in the Amitābha Hall.49 The divine assembly is all the classes of bodhisattvas, gods, and other supernatural beings that were present when the Buddha Śākyamuni taught the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. A Hwaŏm cult of the divine assembly emerged in Silla during the eighth century and flourished through the Koryŏ period. The cult assimilated the worship of the indigenous gods of mountains and rivers to the veneration of the buddhas and bodhisattvas. It brought to fruition a process begun soon after Buddhism was accepted as a state cult in Silla: the Buddhist transformation of ancient Silla’s sacred sites by the building of monasteries and shrines within their precincts.50 That Queen Kyehwa had a depiction of the divine assembly made to go along with an image of Amitābha suggests the close relationship between the worship of Amitābha and the dominant Hwaŏm tradition. 101

Chapter 5

Narratives and Literature The Sanbao ganying yaolüe lu 三寶感應要略錄 (Abbreviated Record of Resonances to the Three Treasures), collected by the Liao 遼 monk Feizhuo 非濁 (d. 1063), preserves the oldest extant didactic tale regarding Pure Land practice in Silla: “The Silla monk Sŭngyu chants the Āgamas and is reborn in the Pure Land.” The anecdote goes as follows: Sŭngyu 僧兪 was a native of Silla. When he was young, he became a monk and took refuge in the Pure Land teachings. Upon observing other monks who chanted and memorized the Āgamas, the early scriptures of Buddhism that later Mahāyāna Buddhists associated with the Hīnayāna, he slandered and chastised them saying that they should forsake those Hīnayāna teachings.51 Subsequently he dreamed that he arrived at the eastern gate of Extreme Bliss, the Pure Land Sukhāvatī, and was about to enter through the gate. Immediately a lad of Immeasurable Heaven (wuliangtian tongzi 無量天童子) appeared and stood right outside the gate. He drove Sŭngyu away with his jeweled staff, saying, “The lesser path destroys death—the greater teacher destroys marks. Using the lesser Dharma as a ladder one may ascend to the greater path. This is the pattern of your country. If you treat the Āgamas with disrespect and begrudge others’ chanting [to attain rebirth in the Pure Land], you will not be able to enter the gate of the Greater Vehicle.” Awaking from his dream, he wept with grief. He repented of his sins and chanted the four Āgamas to obtain welcome into the Pure Land. His disciple also had a dream, in which his master seated on a lotus flower came and spoke to him, saying, “In this Sahā world, because I relied originally on Pure Land practice in addition to chanting the Āgamas, I first obtained the lesser path and not long afterward returned to enter the greater path!”52 The text provides no indication of when Sŭngyu was active or his social status. Because scripture chanting is the key practice in this story, I think it may refer to a monk active in the late sixth or seventh century, before the practice of reciting the name of Amitābha became the dominant activity for those seeking rebirth in the Western Paradise. This tale is interesting because it advocates that in Silla some aspirants for the Pure Land entered the Mahāyāna path by means of Hīnayāna. “The Āgamas” refers to neither Amitābha nor Sukhāvatī, although they do contain stories about individuals who attain rebirth above in the various heavens of Buddhist cosmology. The story illustrates several general 102

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

Buddhist principles. First, Buddhists should study the Hīnayāna before embarking on the Mahāyāna path. Second, aspirants should not poke fun at or slander the practices of others. The Larger Pure Land Sūtra says that only individuals who have not committed the five heinous crimes and slandered the True Dharma may be reborn in the Pure Land. Although the Āgamas are not among the advanced Mahāyāna teachings, they are the original True Dharma. This is the point emphasized in the dream given to Sŭngyu in which he meets the heavenly youth, seemingly a representative of the Hīnayāna path.53 During the reign of King Chinp’yŏng 眞平 (r. 579–632), the Silla court patronized the cults of Śākyamuni and the heavenly lord Śakra, and the cult of Maitreya was at its height in Silla. In Iryŏn’s Samguk yusa, the earliest mention of the cult of Amitābha, chronologically speaking, is in reference to the monk Hyesuk 惠宿, who was active at this time. In his youth Hyesuk had been a follower of the hwarang Hose 好世郎 (d.u.). The hwarang were bands of young men, primarily of hereditary elite status, who had religious as well as military responsibilities. The hwarang were also linked to the bodhisattva Maitreya, suggesting a relationship between the power of the nobility and the cult of Maitreya.54 Hyesuk was probably a head rank six elite and, after leaving Hose’s band, dwelled in seclusion in Chŏksŏn Village 赤善村 in An’gang 安康. He is remembered for admonishing a noble friend, Lord Kudam 瞿旵公 (also written as Kuch’am 瞿僭), against killing living beings by slicing a piece of flesh from his own side and offering it to the duke after Hyesuk had accompanied the duke hunting. The “pound of flesh” metaphor is an old folkloric topos that also occurs frequently in Buddhist literature.55 King Chinp’yŏng was astonished by this story when it was told to him and dispatched a messenger to request Hyesuk’s presence at court. Hyesuk used his thaumaturgic powers to confound the messenger with regard to the concept of purity and impurity and declined to attend to the king.56 According to tradition he established an Amitābha Monastery (Amit’asa 阿彌陀寺) on the border of Kangju 康州, present-day Chinju 晋州 in South Kyŏngsang Province 慶尙南道.57 Scholars conjecture that he taught the common people in the vicinity to chant the name of the ­Buddha Amitābha, although this cannot be verified.58 Presumably they suggest that Hyesuk’s establishment of an Amitābha Monastery meant that he wished to spread the practice of verbally chanting the name of Amitābha, which was becoming prevalent in China due to the activities of monks such as Daochuo. Hyesuk’s relevance to the development of 103

Chapter 5

Pure Land practice is questionable, but it is certainly possible that he encouraged people to chant the name of Amitābha. The reigns of kings Muyŏl, Munmu, and Sinmun mark a significant turning point in the history of the Silla kingdom. This era was marked by widespread carnage on the peninsula due to the allied Silla and Tang conquest of Silla’s peninsular rivals Paekche and Koguryŏ, and Silla’s subsequent struggle with Tang over administration of subjugated territory.59 The cult of Amitābha and the aspiration for rebirth in Sukhāvatī were well suited to the socioreligious needs of this milieu: unifying principles of belief to be used in pacifying conquered territories as well as the souls of the deceased who perished in battle. The first complete record reportedly related to “Pure Land practice” is the text of the “Vow Made at the White Flower Enlightenment Site” (Paekhwa toryang parwŏn mun 白花道場發願文) attributed to Ŭisang, a true-bone noble undisputedly regarded as the founder of the Hwaŏm tradition (Ch. Huayan) in Silla. What is most significant about the text is that it is regarded as a “Pure Land document” by some scholars of Korean Pure Land Buddhism because the vow was made at a place called the “White Flower Enlightenment Site,” located at Naksan Monastery 洛山寺 in present-day Kangwŏn Province 江原道 in northeastern Korea. The term “White Flower” seems to refer to the lotus flower an aspirant is born into in the Pure Land. This vow text should be regarded as evidence of the Avalokiteśvara cult, because neither Amitābha nor his Pure Land in the west is mentioned. Avalokiteśvara’s mercy is the focus of the vow and Maitreya is mentioned only once in the document. The practices that the aspirants vowed to cultivate include chanting the Great ­Compassion Spell (taebi chu 大悲呪),60 recollecting the name of the ­bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (yŏm posal myŏng 念菩薩名), and taking refuge in Avalokiteśvara.61 Although previously I asserted that this vow text was probably composed after Ŭisang’s return from Tang in 676 as he preached and established monasteries throughout Silla’s newly ­conquered domain, after closer study I now think it was probably ­composed in the Koryŏ period in conjunction with the renovation of Naksan Monastery because important terminology in vow text was most likely not in circulation until the late eighth century at the earliest.62 Although the vow text itself is suspect, the devotional practices it encourages are not anachronistic. Translations of the Great Compassion Spell would have been accessible to Ŭisang in mid-seventh century China and, more important, the dhāraṇī-sūtras themselves promise that following the procedures outlined in these dharani will eradicate 104

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

all unwholesome karma and cause the practitioner to be reborn in the Pure Land in the west.63 The cult of Avalokiteśvara was widespread throughout East Asia and the worship of this bodhisattva was common among both elites and non-elites. For example, the famous Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang had chanted the name Avalokiteśvara for protection and guidance with great success throughout his journey to the west (629–645) when he encountered dangers or other obstacles.64 Because Ŭisang and Wŏnhyo had wanted to study in China under him, they were probably familiar with Xuanzang’s faith in Avalokiteśvara as well as the devotional practices he cultivated. This vow text shows that verbal recollection of the name of Avalokiteśvara was an accepted and common practice. This document attests to the nonexclusive nature of Buddhist cultic affiliation in Silla. Although the name of the monastery suggests the cult of Amitābha, the vow text composed at that site did not preclude active participation in another cult—that of Avalokiteśvara. Wŏnhyo was, by birth, head rank six in the bone-rank system and, therefore, did not enjoy the privileges of monks of true-bone status, like his intimate friend Ŭisang. The two Silla monks made a few attempts to travel to Tang China via the land route through Koguryŏ but were turned back for fear that they were spies. Ŭisang eventually crossed over to Tang by boat, but Wŏnhyo declined after his famous experience in which he realized that because all phenomena arise from one’s mind, there was no need for him to travel all the way to China.65 Although Wŏnhyo did not go to China, which would have increased his prestige in Silla’s Buddhist-­ centered culture, he did show some level of social mobility in Silla. His fame provided him with the opportunity to have intimate relations with a youthful, widowed princess of Silla, the Princess of Jasper Palace (Yosŏkkung 瑤石宮) sometime during the reign of King Muyŏl. According to tradition, the king arranged for the relationship at Wŏnhyo’s bidding in hope that the princess would bear a son that would be beneficial to the kingdom. Although his wife was of true-bone status, his son Sŏl Ch’ong was also head rank six. After breaking his vow of chastity, Wŏnhyo called himself “Humble Householder,” composed songs that helped convert the common people to Buddhism, and taught the poor and ignorant people “to recognize the name of the ‘Buddha’ (sik Pult’a chi ho 識佛陀之號), and recite together the invocation ‘Homage.’ ”66 Wŏnhyo also composed a poem, which he may have sung, titled “Gāthā on Amitābha’s Attaining Buddha-Nature” (Mit’a chŭngsŏng ke 彌陀證性偈). This gāthā was probably composed sometime in between 660 and 686. 105

Chapter 5 From the distant past and over innumerable generations There has been one eminent sage called Dharmākara. Having first aroused the thought of supreme enlightenment He went forth from the mundane world and entered the path, shattering all signs. Even though he knows that the one mind does not have signs He has pity for the flocks of sentient beings drowning in the ocean of afflictions. He made forty-eight great salvational vows To fully cultivate wholesome actions and forsake all defilements.67

In his Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, Wŏnhyo wrote that the most crucial ingredient leading to a devotee’s rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha is having a sincere mind (chisim 至心) or having one’s mind fully focused on the power of Amitābha to cause him to be reborn in Sukhāvatī. This idea of the Pure Land aspirant’s having a sincere mind is of central importance in Iryŏn’s account of the śramaṇas Kwangdŏk 廣德 and Ŏmjang 嚴莊, who lived during the reign of King Munmu. Kwangdŏk lived to the west of Punhwang Monastery 芬皇寺 in Kyŏngju, where Wŏnhyo was often in residence. Together with his wife, Kwangdŏk practiced verbal recitation of the name of the Buddha Amitābha (ilsŏngnyŏm Amit’a pul ho) and also the sixteen visualizations (simyuk kwan) of the Guan Wuliangshou jing. When Kwangdŏk passed away, Ŏmjang offered to take his friend’s wife into his home. When Ŏmjang made sexual advances toward her later that evening she reproved him, informing him of her deceased husband’s abstinence from sex, their mastery of the sixteen visualizations, and their sitting in quiet contemplation meditating on the moon’s traveling to the west. She counseled that his resolve to be reborn in the Pure Land was ill founded. Ashamed, Ŏmjang sought out Wŏnhyo, from whom he learned how to correctly cultivate the visualizations of the Pure Land. According to tradition, Ŏmjang cultivated his practice with a sincere mind and was reborn in the Pure Land at his death. As a result of her sincerity, Kwangdŏk’s wife was later recognized as one of nineteen manifestations of Avalokiteśvara in Silla times. Iryŏn includes a native song (hyangga 鄉歌) that is attributed to Kwangdŏk. O moon, now, Go to the West, And in front of Amitābha, Please tell that there is one who adores him, Buddha of Limitless Life and Vow, 106

The Amitābha Cult in Practice And prays before him with folded hands, That he may be reborn immediately into his Pure Land. If this flesh is not left behind Can your forty-eighty vows be met?68

Kwangdŏk and Ŏmjang were probably high-ranking commoners, perhaps head rank five, because the traditional account makes no mention of their having surnames—their names seem to be of Buddhist ­derivation— and because Kwangdŏk’s wife was said to be a slave (pi 婢) of Punhwang Monastery. Although in medieval China it was not uncommon for royalty or nobility to make themselves slaves of the Buddha in order to be “ransomed” by their families—a flashy means of giving patronage to the Buddhist church—for large sums of money, Kwangdŏk’s wife appears to have been a real slave. If she were a commoner with no means of support after the passing of her husbands Kwangdŏk and Ŏmjang, however, it does not seem unlikely that she could have enslaved herself as a means of acquiring merit and practicing the bodhisattva’s perfection of giving (dānapāramitā). This is the first account that, though tenuously, links the Amitābha cult to the Avalokiteśvara cult, because, at least by Iryŏn’s time in the thirteenth century, Kwangdŏk’s wife is later said to have been one of nineteen manifestation bodies of Avalokiteśvara. Kwangdŏk’s wife does function as Avalokiteśvara in the sense that she tests Ŏmjang and exposes his weakness and attraction to her feminine form. Her ridicule of his lack of sincerity acts as the catalyst for his subsequent success in being delivered to the Pure Land. Although the evidence is scant, this account does support the proposition that Wŏnhyo actually taught common people Pure Land practices. Because this is the only account that mentions the sixteen visualizations of the Guan Wuliangshou jing, these sorts of practices were probably limited to the Silla capital, present-day Kyŏngju. During the reign of King Hyoso 孝昭 (692–702), there is some evidence of royal patronage of the Amitābha cult. Kim Inmun was the second of King Muyŏl’s six sons and the younger brother of King Munmu. He served as an ambassador to Tang China as well as a general during Silla’s war of peninsular expansion. The Tang emperor even threatened to replace Munmu with Inmun when, in the 660s, the Silla king contested the Chinese attempt to incorporate the jointly conquered territory of Paekche into the expansive Tang empire by organizing bands of covert guerilla fighters to thwart Chinese administration. Later, when the Tang court cast him into prison due to Silla’s ambiguous—and from the Chinese 107

Chapter 5

perspective treacherous—reaction to Tang imperial prerogatives on the Korean peninsula, the court constructed an Avalokiteśvara Enlightenment Site (Kwanŭm toryang 觀音道場) at Inyong Monastery 仁容寺 in Kyŏngju on his behalf. Therein they held prayers for his safety and safe return to Silla. Later, in the third year of the reign of King Hyoso (695), after Inmun died in Tang and was escorted back to Silla by Tang envoys, the court changed its name to Amitābha Enlightenment Site (Mit’a to­ ryang 彌陀道場).69 Although the scattered sources from which this account is constructed do not state the manner of practice, because the monastery was renamed we can surmise that prayer rituals invoking Amitābha on his behalf, probably including the chanting of dhāraṇī, were carried out on his behalf so that he might be reborn in the Western Paradise. During the eighth century the cult of Amitābha continued to spread among the common people. Most accounts of the worship of Amitābha and the pursuit of rebirth in the Pure Land are associated with common people. Nobles, nevertheless, continued to supplicate Amitābha for rebirth in the Pure Land, and some formed societies in which they verbally chanted the name of that buddha. At this time, as expected from our previous study of the exegetical materials, verbal chanting of Amitābha’s name emerged as the foremost and characteristic practice of the Amitābha cult in Silla. The narrative concerning the two friends named Nohil Pudŭk 努肹 夫得 and Taltal Pakpak 怛怛朴朴 demonstrates the general harmony and camaraderie between practitioners of the cults of Amitābha and Maitreya. Their names suggest that both of these men were commoners, because commoners for the most part did not have family names, and the names they did have were simple and unadorned and often contained repeated sounds. Although locally renowned for their physical beauty, they renounced their happy lives with their wives for life in the mountain forests, where they could pursue their spiritual aspirations. In Mudŭng Valley in the Paegwŏl Mountains, Pakpak built a log cabin at the foot of the northern peak, while Pudŭk dwelt in a cave under the eastern peak. Pudŭk diligently sought after Maitreya (kŭn’gu Mirŭk), while Pakpak “worshipfully recited” (yenyŏm 禮念) the name of Amitābha. One day in the eighth year of King Sŏngdŏk 聖德 (709), a beautiful and alluring woman visited the cabin of Pakpak and asked for shelter. He refused her because of the great temptation to break his vow of celibacy with her. She then went to the cell of Pudŭk and again offered her plea for shelter. Although sorely tempted to break the precepts, Pudŭk took pity on her and admitted her into his cell, diligently 108

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

chanting (sŏngnyŏm 聲念) to overcome the temptation of her presence. To further amplify the motif of enlightenment coming through the breaking of monastic precepts and ritual defilement, she gave birth to a child in his cell and then asked for him to draw a warm bath for her. He washed her in the water and found that it had turned golden. When he asked her the reason for the miraculous golden water, she invited him to bathe in the golden water as well. The bath purified his mind, his skin turned gold, and the tub became a lotus pedestal. She then revealed herself as Avalokiteśvara and disappeared. In the morning, Pakpak visited his friend. He was sure that Pudŭk had violated the precepts with the alluring woman. He was surprised to find Pudŭk, golden and brightly radiating, seated on a pedestal like a Maitreya image. After telling his tale, Pudŭk informed Pakpak that there was still some golden water left and invited his friend to wash his body with it. Pakpak was then transformed into a golden Amitāyus, and they took their places facing each other. Much later, when King Kyŏngdŏk heard this fabulous story, he had a monastic complex, the Southern Monastery of Paegwŏl Mountain, constructed there. When it was finished (764), he enshrined an image of Maitreya in the golden hall (kŭmdang 金堂), with the inscription “Hall of the Maitreya Who Completed the Way in the Present Body” (hyŏnsin sŏngdo Mirŭkchŏn 現身成道彌勒殿), and an image of Amitābha in the lecture hall (kangdang 講堂), with the inscription “Hall of the Amitābha Who Completed the Way in the Present Body” (hyŏnsin sŏngdo Mit’ajŏn 現身成道彌陀殿).70 White Moon Mountain (Paegwŏlsan) is located in the vicinity of the present-day city of Ch’angwŏn in South Kyŏngsang Province in the southeastern part of the Korean peninsula near the southern coast. The remains of two monasteries, a southern monastery site and a northern monastery site, have been unearthed at the base of White Moon Mountain. Ancient roof tiles and ceramic shards have been found at the sites, as well as an image of the Buddha incised on a rock face and a threestory stone pagoda. These data suggest that White Moon Mountain was an active cult site during the mid-Silla period.71 Although Nohil Pudŭk and Taltal Pakpak were probably both commoners, the narrative makes special mention of their parents’ names. The names of their parents appear to have been altered to suggest a relationship with the names given to the parents of Maitreya and Amitābha in Buddhist scriptures. Nohil Pudŭk’s father’s name was purportedly Wŏlchang, and his mother’s name, Misŭng. Taltal Pakpak’s father’s name was reportedly Subŏm 修梵, and his mother’s name, Pŏmma 梵摩. In the 109

Chapter 5

Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 (Scripture on Maitreya’s Rebirth Below), Maitreya’s parents are Xiufanma 修梵摩 (Kor. Subŏmma) and Fanmayue 梵摩越 (Kor. Pŏmmawŏl), and in the Amituo guyin shengwang tuoluoni jing (Aparimitāyurjñānahṛdaya-dhāraṇī), Amitābha’s parents are Yueshang Zhuanlun Shengwang 月上轉輪聖王 (Kor. Wŏlshang Chŏllyun Sŏngwang) and Shusheng Miaoyan 殊勝妙顏 (Kor. Susŭng Myoan). Although these correspondences have been indicated previously by scholars, they have not emphasized that the names of the parents of Pudŭk, who worships Maitreya, correspond more closely to the names of Amitābha’s parents, and that the names of the parents of Pakpak, who worships Amitābha, correspond to the names of Maitreya’s parents. Nor is this the first case in which symbolic Buddhist names have been attributed to Koreans. For example, according to the Samguk sagi, the given names of King Chinp’yŏng, his wife, and his younger brothers were made to correspond to the Chinese translations of the names of the family of the Buddha Śākyamuni (Siddhārtha Gautama), namely, the Buddha’s father, Śuddhodhana; the Buddha’s mother, Lady Māyā; and the Buddha’s uncles Śuklodana and Drotodana.72 Considering that the finale of the tale is that Pudŭk and Pakpak become both Maitreya and Amitābha in their present bodies, it may have been an editorial mistake that Amitābha’s parents should give birth to Maitreya and Maitreya’s parents give birth to Amitābha. Or, perhaps we may understand this as evidence for the interrelationship between these two cults and the relative interchangeability of Maitreya and Amitābha in the minds of some Korean Buddhists. Both figures are lords over sacred lands where the Buddhist Law may be heard and understood with greater ease than in our world. More important, however, the narrative concerning Nohil Pudŭk and Taltal Pakpak’s practice suggests a close and friendly relationship between the practitioners of the cults of Maitreya, Amitābha, and Avalokiteśvara in eighth-century Silla. During the reign of King Kyŏngdŏk, five unnamed bhikṣus (ordained monks) came to Mount P’och’ŏn 布川山 in the Samnyang Region 歃良州, northeast of modern Yangsan in South Kyŏngsang Province, just north of Pusan. They dwelt in a breathtakingly beautiful cave on the high mountain where they “recited Amitābha” (yŏm Mit’a 念彌陀) and sought rebirth in the Western Paradise (ku sŏbang 求西方) for ten years. At long last, one day a host of saints suddenly appeared to them, seated them on lotus thrones, and flew them off to T’ongdo Monastery 通道寺. For several days heavenly music accompanied the five bhikṣus’ preaching at the monastery before they shed their mortal frames and flew away to the 110

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

west.73 Ascertaining the social status of these five bhikṣus is difficult. Because their names have been lost, this suggests that they were not social elites; however, use of the term bhikṣu certainly intimates that they were regarded as fully ordained monks. Therefore, it is possible that they were of head rank six status. If they were true-bone status their names would have been recorded. The social status of these monks is important because it accounts for the spread of the practice of verbal recitation of the name of Amitābha among both elites and non-elites. By the middle of the eighth century the cult of Amitābha was embraced by the monastic community as well as people of elite, commoner, and slave status. During the reign of King Kyŏngdŏk, the slave woman Ungmyŏn 郁面 was a fervent worshipper at Amitābha Monastery (Mit’asa 彌陀寺) in what is present-day Chinju, in South Kyŏngsang Province. The cult of Amitābha flourished there with scores of believers who willfully pursued the Western Paradise with “binding oaths for ten thousand days” (yak manil wi kye 約万日為契).74 Ungmyŏn was a female slave belonging to a noble’s family, whom she followed to the monastery whenever he went and “recited the name of the Buddha” (yŏmbul 念佛). Her master did not like this, so he gave her extra chores to keep her busy. However, such was her diligence that she was able to go to the monastery and “recite the name of the Buddha” morning and night. As a show of her devotion she bore holes in the palms of both her hands, passed a straw rope through them, and affixed the ends of the rope to pegs on opposite ends of the monastery’s courtyard. One evening, heavenly chanting was heard inviting Ungmyŏn to “enter the hall and recite the name of Buddha” (iptang yŏmbul 入堂念佛). Heavenly music was heard coming from the west when she entered the hall, and Ungmyŏn was whirled away to the west through the roof of the hall. She shed her mortal frame and was transformed into a “perfected form” (hyŏnjin sin 現真身).75 Although the story of Ungmyŏn describes a lay person performing ascetic practice that is perhaps too extreme, many lay people must have felt compelled to demonstrate their willingness to sacrifice their mortal bodies as offerings to the Buddha because such practices were described as appropriate displays of faith and devotion toward the Buddha in the Lotus Sūtra.76 Ten-thousand-day assemblies for the recitation of Amitābha’s name (Mit’a manirhoe 彌陀萬日會) were also putatively performed at Wŏn’gak Monastery 圓覺寺 in the Diamond Mountains (Kŭmgangsan 金剛山). According to stele inscriptions commemorating the ten-thousand-day assemblies performed at Kŏnbong Monastery 乾鳳寺 dating from the 111

Chapter 5

late Chosŏn period, the Silla monk Palching 發徵 (d.u.), assisted by the monks Chŏngsin 貞信 and Yangsun 良順, established this group practice of worshipping Amitābha by chanting “Homage to the Buddha Amitābha” (nammu Amit’a pul 南無阿彌陀佛) for ten thousand days with thirty-one people at Wŏn’gak Monastery in 758.77 In 1358, Wŏn’gak Monastery was renamed Kŏnbong Monastery. Although we do not know when these tenthousand-day assemblies were discontinued at this monastery—perhaps it was during the chaos that engulfed the peninsula with the fall of Silla or sometime during the Koryŏ period—these assembles were reinstituted at least by 1802.78 Ten-thousand-day ceremonies continued to be a common way in which the people of Silla hoped to attain deliverance into the Pure Land. This practice continued into the early Koryŏ period. For example, Iryŏn reports that in 982 the otherwise unknown monk Sŏngbŏm 成梵 established a “Ten-Thousand Day Amitābha Enlightenment Site” (manil Mit’a toryang 萬日彌陀道場) on P’osan 包山, in the vicinity of Mount Sosŭl 所瑟山 in North Kyŏngsang Province 慶尙北道.79 At the beginning of this book I recounted that story of a strange monk who lived at P’iri Monastery, near South Mountain in the Silla capital. He never told anybody his name but “continually chanted the name Amitābha” (sang yŏm Mit’a 常念彌陀) such that the sound of his chanting was heard throughout the city. For this reason, the people called him “The Master Who Chants the Buddha’s Name” (Yŏmbulsa 念佛師). After he died, they made a lifelike plaster image of him and enshrined it in Minjang Monastery 敏藏寺. Later P’iri Monastery was renamed Yŏmbul Monastery 念佛寺 in his honor.80 During the reign of King Kyŏngdŏk, verbal recitation of the name of Amitābha seems to have become the sole practice of the cult of Amitābha. Monks and laity of elite status, as well as of those of commoner and slave status, worshipped Amitābha in this way. The social elites formed organizations for the communal recitation of the name of Amitābha (manirhoe). Certainly there was some lingering tension between the elites and non-elites with regard to the benefits of the worship of Amitābha. Apparently elites were not well disposed toward sharing rebirth in the Pure Land with their slaves, as seen in the tale of Ungmyŏn when her owner forbade her participating in the assembly for the recitation of Amitābha’s name. Nevertheless, as the exegetes wrote, people with a sincere mind could be assured of rebirth in the Pure Land. The notion of having a sincere mind was the factor that provided for the benefits of the cult of Amitābha to expand to all people and broke down the 112

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

barriers between the practices for people with superior spiritual capacities and those with inferior spiritual capacities. The monk Wŏlmyŏng 月明 (fl. 742–765), who had been a hwarang as a youth, earned fame during the reign of King Kyŏngdŏk as a result of his skill in composing native songs in the vernacular of Silla. His “Song of Scattering Flowers” or “Song of Tuṣita Heaven” functioned as a powerful incantation that caused an inauspicious heaven omen to disappear. The narrative contained in the Samguk yusa emphasizes his connection to the worship of Maitreya. Wŏlmyŏng, a talented flute player, was ­commonly in residence at Sach’ŏnwang Monastery 四天王寺, located to the east of South Mountain in Kyŏngju.81 Wŏlmyŏng had a service performed in memory of his sister. When a sudden gust of wind blew the paper money away to the south, he composed an impromptu native song expressing his hope for rebirth in the Pure Land: On the hard road of life and death that is near our land, You went, afraid, without words. We know not where we go, leaves blown, scattered, Although fallen from the same tree by the first winds of autumn. Abide, Sister, perfect your ways, Until we meet in the kṣetra [field/land] of Amitābha.82

Context and Connections in Early Japan The rise of the cult of Amitābha in early Japan (552–794) is closely related to developments on the Korean peninsula before and after the conquest of Paekche and Koguryŏ by the combined Silla-Tang forces. The cult remained among the nobility and social elites during this period, because there is little evidence showing that ordinary people worshipped Amitābha until it disseminated down to ordinary people during the Heian 平安 (794–1185) and later Kamakura 鎌倉 (1185–1333) periods. Evidence for the cult is sketchy during the Asuka 飛鳥 (552–645) period and is difficult to differentiate from the cult of Maitreya because the goal of both cults is commonly referred to as the “Pure Land.” There are essentially three pieces of evidence. First is the Tenjukoku mandara 天壽 國曼荼羅 (“maṇḍala”-shaped curtain depicting the “Realm of Heavenly Longevity”) of Chūgūji 中宮寺, which many regard as evidence of belief in the Pure Land. Second is an inscription on the halo (mandorla) of the image of Śākyamuni in the Golden Hall of Hōryūji that states: “When it is our fate to die, we hope to be reborn in the Pure Land.” Third is the statement of the Koguryŏ monk Hyeja 慧慈 (J. Eji, d. 623), who was highly 113

Chapter 5

favored of Prince Shōtoku 聖德 (574–622) and who, upon learning of the prince’s death, is reported to have said, “I would like to meet Prince Shōtoku in the Pure Land.”83 Japanese Buddhist scholars have typically been divided as to whether the Tenjukoku maṇḍala provides evidence of belief in Amitābha’s Pure Land Sukhāvatī or Maitreya’s Tuṣita Heaven.84 Recent research by Chari Pradel, however, has questioned both of these interpretations, arguing convincingly that some scholars ignore the actual imagery of the curtain for their sectarian or scholarly agenda. Pradel asserts that the socalled Tenjukoku is probably not a Buddhist paradise at all but merely an artistic representation of the afterlife world of the time that the tapestry was made and that it should be seen as a representation of the preBuddhist belief in heaven linked with the art found in the tomb paintings of Koguryŏ and Paekche.85 Although direct evidence is lacking, the cult of Amitābha was probably transmitted to Japan by monks from Paekche and Koguryŏ toward the end of the Asuka period and the beginning of the Hakuhō 白鳳 (645– 710) period. During the reign of Jomei 舒明 (593–641), the monk Eon 慧隱 preached on the Larger Pure Land Sūtra after returning from China. Furthermore, this same monk is said to have lectured to the court on this same sūtra in 652, with over one thousand monks present.86 During the Hakuhō period, the second half of the seventh century, references to rebirth in the Pure Land began appearing on images of Śākyamuni. On the mandorla of an image of Amitābha, made in 658, at Kanshinji 觀心寺 in Kawachi 河内 Province is inscribed a prayer imploring that the donor’s ancestors and ordinary people be reborn in the Pure Land. An image of Amitābha in the Sairinji 西琳寺 in Kawachi Province, believed to have been made in 659, states that it was made in accordance with the Larger Pure Land Sūtra; mentions the forty-eight vows of the bodhisattva Dharmākara, who became Amitābha; and contains a prayer for the eternal happiness for living relatives and deceased ancestors. Furthermore, in 689 a gilt-bronze Amitābha triad (flanked by his attendant bodhisattvas Avalokiteśvara and Mahāsthāmaprāpta) was sent for from Silla in order to pray for the repose of Emperor Tenmu’s 天武 (r. 673–686) soul.87 During the Nara 奈良 period (710–794), the cult of Amitābha did not form a separate tradition, but instead spread gradually in association with the various doctrinal traditions of Nara-period Japanese Buddhism: Sanron 三論, Jōjitsu 成實, Hossō 法相, Kusha 俱舍, Kegon 華嚴, and Ritsu  律. Scholars suggest that recollection of the Buddha Amitābha (nenbutsu 念佛) was seldom performed verbally and was instead seen as a 114

The Amitābha Cult in Practice

meditative practice, following Shandao’s example and the standard Hossō interpretation of the practice. The cult of Amitābha and the desire for rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land were by no means dominant but gradually superseded the pursuit of rebirth in the Pure Lands associated with Maitreya and Bhaiṣajyaguru during the Nara period.88 During the Nara period, the Hossō school 法相宗 was particularly dominant and its founder, Dōshō 道照 (d. 700), is explicitly associated with the worship of Amitābha. At the time of his death, as recorded in the Nihon ryōiki 日本靈異記 (Miraculous Stories of Japan), he purified himself in the bath, changed his clothes, and seated himself facing west. Light filled the room. The next morning the light moved to fill the garden of pine trees outside. All of Dōshō’s disciples were struck with amazement until the light disappeared into the west. It was at that moment that Dōshō passed away, facing west.89 This account resembles the account of the Silla figures Kwangdŏk and Ŏmjang. Also, during the Nara period, noble practitioners of the cult of Amitābha associated with Hossō teachings, such as Princess Chūjō 中將, the daughter of Minister of the Right Fujiwara Toyonari 藤原豊成 (704–756), made paintings of Amitābha’s Pure Land ( jōdo hensō 淨土變相) and also made copies of simplified versions of the Smaller Pure Land Sūtra (Ch. Chengzan jingtu jing, J. Shōsan jōdo kyō 稱讚淨土經), composed by Xuanzang, in order to make merit to obtain rebirth in the Pure Land.90 As in Silla Korea, members of the Kegon school, which shared intellectual and doctrinal links with the Hossō school, also practiced recollection of Amitābha (nenbutsu) in its meditative form. The Indian monk Bodaisenna 菩提僊那 of Tōdaiji 東大寺 painted an image of Amitābha on his robe after being welcomed to Japan by Gyōgi 行基 (668–749) in 733. Also, the monk Chikei 智憬, who studied Kegon in Silla under Simsang 審祥 (J. Shinshō, d. 742), wrote a sub-commentary on Wŏnhyo’s Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, which is no longer extant. Shigematsu suggests that the Silla form of Pure Land practice—which he thinks incorporates Kegon and Hossō meditative practices—was practiced principally at Tōdaiji.91

115

Epilogue The Legacy of Silla’s Pure Land Buddhism The Silla exegetes demonstrate a general preference toward an interpretation of buddhānusmṛti that favors people with superior spiritual capacity, the arousal of the bodhicitta, mental concentration, the cultivation of samādhi, and advancement on the bodhisattva path of practice. This intellectual preference, coupled with the doctrine of the Tathāgatagarbha, may in some small way have contributed to Silla’s early acceptance of Chan (Sŏn) Buddhism.1 Later Koryŏ monks, such as the Sŏn monks ­Chinul 知訥 (1158–1210) and T’aego Pou 太古普愚 (1301–1382), present more conventional self-reflective Sŏn interpretations of buddhānusmṛti that make no mention of the earlier exegesis.2 The royal monk Ŭich’ŏn 義天 (1055–1101), a fierce proponent of Hwaŏm thought and the East Asian Buddhist exegetical tradition who reestablished the study of texts of the Ch’ŏnt’ae tradition in Koryŏ, was certainly influenced by Wŏnhyo’s exegeses and attempts to reconcile doctrinal disputes. He may have been influenced by these thinkers on this topic, but no scholiums on buddhānusmṛti remain in his extant writings—though some parts of his collected works were lost. In a poem written at the end of his life, nevertheless, he articulates a desire to combine his varied approaches to doctrinal learning with devotional practices, specifically vows for rebirth in the Pure Land emulating Huiyuan’s White Lotus Society.3 The later Ch’ŏnt’ae 天台宗 leader Yose 了世 (1163–1245) oversaw the construction of a large monastery on Mount Mandŏk 萬德山 at which a White Lotus Society (paengnyŏn-sa 白蓮社) was organized, so the evidence seems to suggest that some form of buddhānusmṛti continued in the praxis of monks associated with “doctrinal Buddhism” (kyojong 敎宗) in the Koryŏ period.4 However, due to the many gaps left in the intellectual record of the Koryŏ period, which in large part were the result of the Mongol invasions (1231–1259) and later Japanese depredations (1592–1598), the role of these Silla exegetes on the later Koryŏ-period doctrinal Buddhist interpretations of buddhānusmṛti is difficult to assess with more than pure speculation. 117

Epilogue

When placed in the larger historical context, on the one hand we see the impact of Huayan/Hwaŏm thought and interpretations on Pure Land exegesis, particularly the doctrinal understanding of the “ten recollections.” On the other hand, we cannot fail to see the similarity of reciting Amitābha’s name with the widespread and popular practice of chanting dhāraṇī. Rebirth in the Pure Land was a common or general benefit attributed to many dhāraṇī that were accessible from at least the early seventh century forward. Dhāraṇī that eradicate sins and promise rebirth in the Pure Land link together the core practices that have appealed to most lay practitioners in later East Asian Buddhism: the chanting of dhāraṇī, repentance rituals and penance practices, and the aspiration to be reborn or delivered into the Pure Land. As the mainstream interpretation of buddhānusmṛti in Sinitic doctrinal Buddhism gradually shifted away from a meditative or contemplating understanding of “recollection” toward a more performative and ritualized explanation, the connection between vocalization or intonation of Amitābha’s name and the incantation of dhāraṇī and mantra became increasingly apparent. In other words, if verbally chanting Amitābha’s name produces the desired effect of granting the practitioner rebirth in the Pure Land Sukhāvatī, how is that functionally different than intoning a dhāraṇī that promises to eradicate one’s unwholesome karma and causes one to be reborn in the Amitābha’s Pure Land? This all-embracing position was well understood by Buddhist scholiasts who were familiar with a wide variety of Buddhist sūtras, such as Wŏnhyo and the Chinese encyclopedist Daoshi. Aside from the Hwaŏm-oriented interpretation of the “ten recollections” that was held by several of the scholar-monks, what the extant evidence suggests is that a Hwaŏm-inspired vision of Amitābha’s Pure Land emerged as the dominant approach to Buddhist devotional worship in the ninth and tenth centuries during late Silla and early Koryŏ period.5 This development was made possible by the introduction of the Zhenyuan xinyi huayan jing 貞元新譯華嚴經 (New Translation of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra Made during the Zhenyuan Reign Period), which refers to the Avataṃsaka-sūtra in forty rolls that was translated into Chinese by the Kashmiri monk Prajñā (Bore 般若, d.u.) in 798. The translation was originally titled Dafangguang fohuayan jing ru busiyi jietuo jingjie Puxian xingyuan pin 大方廣佛華嚴經入不思議解脫境界普賢行願品 (Chapter on entering the world system of inconceivable liberation and the practices and vows of Samantabhadra in the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra; hereafter the “Practices” chapter), emphasizing the role of this bodhisattva who 118

The Legacy of Silla’s Pure Land Buddhism

essentially functions as the patron saint of practicing monastics.6 The “Practices” chapter was translated by Prajñā, but it is presumed that other eminent monks such as the Huayan exegete Chengguan 澄觀 (738– 839) and broadly trained scholiast Yuanzhao 圓照 (fl. 766–804) also participated. Although for the most part the “Practices” chapter bears many similarities with the two earlier full translations of the sūtra, the sixty-roll edition translated in the early fifth century and the eighty-roll version translated in the late seventh, its distinctive characteristics are that its sentences are even more expanded and lengthened, it appends the ten great vows of the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra, and it merges Hwaŏm doctrine with strong accentuation on the cultic practice of seeking rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha in the final passage and gāthā summary of the last chapter of the sūtra.7 The amalgamation of Hwaŏm thought and seeking rebirth in the Pure Land was not developed exclusively by Chinese Huayan/Hwaŏm exegetes, such as Chengguan and Zongmi 宗密 (780–841) in the ninth century; it was also, as we have seen in previous chapters, a distinctive characteristic of Korean Buddhism in the middle and late periods of Silla from at least the eighth century into the founding of the Koryŏ.8 The “Practices” chapter differs from the other translations of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra because it is only a translation of the “Entry into the Dharma Realm” chapter (Ru fajie pin 入法界品), the voluminous final chapter of the sūtra, which circulated separately in India as the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra.9 Lines from the final gāthā evoke the aspiration of a supplicant: “I vow that when I reach the end of my life I will completely rid myself of all hindrances; I will gaze upon that Buddha Amitābha and immediately be reborn in the land of peace and bliss (Sukhāvatī).”10 Although he does not mention Amitābha or the Pure Land specifically, the poetry of the early Koryŏ monk Kyunyŏ 均如 (923–973) attests to the importance of the practices and vows of Samantabhadra in the tenth century.11 If we take the “Practices” chapter as our guide to devotional practice and the cult of Amitabha in the Silla–Koryŏ transition, views like those held by the Chinese exegetes Chengguan and Zongmi, whom Ŭich’ŏn considered to be his intellectual forebears and whose works he lectured on, were probably pervasive in Koryŏ.12 Because of the interpenetration of all things, the original vows of Amitābha reach out to all living beings in the dharma realm; rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha functions as an expedient means for living beings who 119

Epilogue

are unable to conceptualize the idea that the vow interpenetrates the entire dharma realm; Amitābha’s Pure Land of Extreme Bliss (Sukhāvatī) is suffused throughout each and every mote of dust in the Lotus Storehouse Realm, the Hwaŏm world system; and so Amitābha is effectively an emanation of the virtues of Vairocana.13 Zongmi also advocates four kinds of recollection of the Buddha Amitābha: recollection by means of intoning his name (chengming nian 稱名念), recollection by means of visualizing images (guanxiang nian 觀像念), recollection by means of visualizing his marks (guan­ xiang nian 觀相念), and recollection by means of the marks of reality (shixiang nian 實相念).14 Furthermore, because of the interpenetration of all things, rebirth in the Pure Land is functionally identical to the attainment of buddhahood and involves the perambulations throughout the dharma realm to learn all of the expedients of a bodhisattva, just like Sudhana, the young bodhisattva hero of the last chapter of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, “Entry in the Dharma Realm” chapter, of which the “Practices” chapter is an elaboration. Evidence for the enduring relevance of Pure Land worship in the Koryŏ period and its close relationship with the Hwaŏm tradition does not reside only in commentarial writings—of which few remain on Pure Land topics from the Koryŏ period—but in the large percentage of paintings with Pure Land themes among surviving Koryŏ ­Buddhist paintings. Of the roughly 160 paintings presently identified as Koryŏ Buddhist paintings, at least a third depict what art historians refer to as “Pure Land themes.” Some narrative portrayals or transformation tableaux (pyŏnsang 變相) depicting the sixteen visualizations of the Guan Wuliangshou jing may have been used for teaching and edification, and some paintings of Amitābha and Amitābha triads might have been used in deathbed rituals, but most extant images were probably placed in votive temples (wŏndang 願堂). Koryŏ ­Buddhist paintings of Amitābha and his Pure Land functioned primarily as expressions of religious piety and aids to a wide range of devotional practice, including aids to the conceptualization of seminal doctrines of the Hwaŏm tradition. The cult of Amitābha was more closely and conspicuously associated with Hwaŏm Buddhism than in contemporary China and Japan. The importance of the “Practices” chapter, which describes a close connection between veneration of Amitābha and bodhisattva practice in the Hwaŏm tradition, is also discernable in Koryŏ Buddhist painting. Paintings of Amitābha, including the genre of Amitābha and the Eight Great Bodhisattvas, are linked to 120

The Legacy of Silla’s Pure Land Buddhism

this version of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra through verses and dhāraṇīs appended to manuscripts of the text and associated commentaries. The concept of the dharma realm that interpenetrates all things provides context for some images that both visually and symbolically combine the aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha with the sophisticated but completely interfused Hwaŏm path of bodhi­ sattva practice. Other narrative portrayals of the sixteen visualizations of the Guan Wuliangshou jing seem to demonstrate know­ledge of varied doctrinal positions that circulated in China on the types of people reborn in the nine classes of rebirth in the Pure Land. Such paintings may have functioned in the context of education and edification, along with devotion, encouraging lay people to become bodhisattvas or reminding them that they could be reborn in the Pure Land.15

The Influence of Silla Pure Land Thinkers in Japan The first principal and extant commentary written by a Japanese monk dealing with the Pure Land scriptures is the Muryōjukyō ronshaku 無量壽經論釋 (Exegesis on the Wuliangshou jing) composed by Chikō 智光 (fl. 729–749) of Gangōji 元興寺, who was affiliated with the Sanron school. In the fourth roll, Chikō dealt with some of the same issues as his Korean counterparts in Silla with regard to the practice of recollection of the Buddha Amitābha: people with superior spiritual capacities and people with inferior spiritual capacities. Chikō frames the concern a little differently than the Silla monks by suggesting that there are two important types of recollection of the ­Buddha Amitābha (nenbutsu): “mental recollection” (shinnen 心念) and “verbal recollection” (kōnen 口念). “Mental recollection” is an exercise dealing with an abstract, spiritual form of recollection and includes meditation on the form of the Buddha and the appearance of the Pure Land. People who are incapable of performing this meditative practice then perform “verbal recollection” by chanting the name of Amitābha instead.16 Japanese monks collected and treasured the commentaries written by Silla Buddhist exegetes on Pure Land materials. If we compare the titles collected by Japanese monk pilgrims and catalogers to what Ŭich’ŏn collected, as in table 1, we see that Japanese Buddhists interested in Pure Land topics had greater access to Silla materials than most Silla monks. 121

Epilogue

Table 1.

Silla Pure Land Exegeses in Japanese and Korean Catalogs Name

Shōsōin bunsho 正倉 院文書 (Japanese imperial treasury catalog)

Sinp’yŏn chejong kyojang ch’ongnok 新 編諸宗敎藏 總錄 (Ŭich’ŏn’s catalog)

Chajang 慈藏

Pŏbwi 法位

Muryangsugyŏng ŭiso 無 量壽經義疏

Wŏnhyo 元曉

Panju sammaegyŏng yakki 般舟三昧經 略記 Muryangsugyŏng chongyo 無 量壽經宗要

Ŭisang 義湘

Ŭijŏk 義寂

122

Panju sammaegyŏng so 般 舟三昧經疏 (one roll) Muryangsugyŏng so 無 量壽經疏 (one roll) Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經 疏 (one roll)

Tōiki dentō mokuroku 東 域傳燈目錄 (Tōiki’s catalog)

Chōsai roku 長 西録 (Chōsai’s catalog)

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經 疏 (one roll)

Amit’a-gyŏng so (one roll)

Muryangsugyŏng ŭiso (two rolls)

Muryangsugyŏng ŭiso (two rolls)

Panju sanmae-gyŏng yakki (one roll) Muryangsugyŏng chongyo (one roll) Amit’a-gyŏng so (one roll)

Panju sanmaegyŏng yakki (one roll) Yanggwŏn [Muryangsu]gyŏng chongyo (one roll) Amit’a-gyŏng so (one roll) Yusim allak to 遊心安樂道 (one roll)

Muryangsugyŏng so (three rolls)

Muryangsugyŏng surŭi ki 無量壽經述義 記 (three rolls)

Amit’a-gyŏng ŭigi 阿彌陀 經義記 (one roll) Yanggwŏn Muryangsugyŏng so 無 量壽經疏 (three rolls)

Kwan Muryangsugyŏng kangyo 觀無量壽經 綱要

The Legacy of Silla’s Pure Land Buddhism

Hyŏnil 玄一

Muryangsugyŏng so 無 量壽經疏

Wŏnch’ŭk 圓測

Muryangsugyŏng so 無 量壽經疏

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經 疏 (one roll)

Kyŏnghŭng 憬興

Taehyŏn 大賢

Muryangsugyŏng kojŏk ki無量壽經 古迹記 (one roll) Kwan’gyŏng kojŏk ki (one roll) Amit’a-gyŏng kojŏk ki (one roll) Ch’ingch’an chŏngt’ogyŏng kojŏk ki 稱讚淨土 古迹記 (one roll)

Tullyun 遁倫

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經 疏 (one roll)

Muryangsugyŏng ki 無量 壽經記 (three rolls) Amit’a-gyŏng so (one roll)

Muryangsugyŏng ki (two rolls) Amit’a-gyŏng so (one roll)

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經 (one roll)

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經疏 (one roll)

Muryangsugyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 無量壽經連 義述文讚 (three rolls) Amit’a-gyŏng yakki 阿彌陀 經略記 (one roll)

Muryangsugyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an (three rolls)

Ch’ingch’an chŏngt’ogyŏng kojŏk ki 稱讚淨土古 迹記 (two rolls)

123

Epilogue

The actual legacy of the Silla scholiasts is the fact that they continued to be read by monks of the Tendai, Kegon, and Yushiki schools in Japan from the tenth to fifteenth centuries and that monks excerpted passages from these Silla exegeses on the Wuliangshou jing and preserved them in compendia and anthologies. Let us look briefly at a few cases. Minamoto Takakuni 愿隆国 (1004–1077) was very familiar with the Pure Land ­writings of Pŏbwi and included fourteen long quotations in his Anyō shū 安 養集 (Collection on Peace and Nurturance); Ryōkei 良慶 (d.u.), a monk from the late Heian period, cited him seven times in his Anyō shō 安養鈔 (Documents on peace and nurturance); and Ryōkei Dōkō 了慧道光 (1243– 1330) quoted him thirty-two times in his Muryōjukyō shō 無量壽經抄 (Extracts on the Wuliangshou jing), which was compiled in 1295. Several other scholarly works quote him one or two times: Ryōchū’s 良忠 (1199– 1287) Kangyō shōden zūki 觀經疏傳通記 (Comprehensive Record of ­Commentarial Traditions on the Guanjing), compiled in 1257–1258; Kōben’s 高辨 (1173–1232) Zaija rin 摧邪論 (The Wheel for Destroying Evil), compiled in 1212; Kakumyōbō Chōsai’s 覺明房長西 (1184–1266?) Nenbutsu hongangi 念佛本願義 (Meaning of nenbutsu and the original vow); Sekie Ryōgyō’s 寂 慧良曉 (1251–1328) Jōdojutsu monsho 净土述聞鈔 (Descriptions of the Pure Land); and Seisō’s 聖聡 (1366–1440) Daikyō jikidan yōchūki 大經直談要註記 (Record of Notes and Straight Talk on the Larger [Pure Land] Sūtra).17 Ŭijŏk was even more cited than Pŏbwi. Minamoto’s Anyō shū included forty-five long passages from Ŭijŏk’s Pure Land exegesis; Ryōkei’s Muryōjukyō shō, 125 citations; Ryōkei’s Anyō shō, twenty-six quotations, and Seisō’s Daikyō jikidan yōchūki, thirty-three citations. Etani Ryūkai concludes that about fifty Japanese Pure Land doctrinal works cite Ŭijŏk. The commentarial works that were most important in his reconstruction of Ŭijŏk’s commentary were the previously mentioned Anyō shū, Anyō shō, and Muryōjukyō shō, as well as Ryōkei Dōkō’s Ōjōronchū shūishō 往生論註 (Gleanings from the Wangsheng lun zhu), Ryōchū’s Jōdoshū yōshū 净土宗要集 (Selections from the Pure Land School), and Ryōgen’s 良源 (912–985) Kubon ōjōgi 九品往生義 (The Meaning of Rebirth in the Nine Grades of the Pure Land).18 Silla exegetes of the Pure Land scriptures were held in high esteem by Japanese Buddhists during the Heian period (794–1185). Their views on a broad range of topics associated with the Pure Land were just as important as those of famous Chinese Pure Land Buddhists. A summary of the citations from important East Asian Pure Land works compiled in Minamoto Takakuni’s Anyō shū, for instance, shows that commentarial works by Silla monks were cited just as often as the famous Pure Land monks of China (see table 2). 124

The Legacy of Silla’s Pure Land Buddhism

Table 2.

Textual Citations of Silla Exegetes in the Anyō shū Author

Commentary Title

No. of citations

Huaigan

Shi jingtu junyi lun

83

Ŭijŏk

Muryangsu-gyong surŭi ki

45

Chikō

Muryōjūkyō ronshaku

36

Jiacai

Jingtu lun

36

Kyŏnghŭng

Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an

32

Daochuo

Anle ji

29

Shandao

Guan Wuliangshou jing shu

27

Pŏbwi

Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso

15

Wŏnhyo

Yusim allak to

9

Tanluan

Wangsheng lun zhu

7

Wŏnhyo

Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo

6

Wŏnhyo

Amit’a-gyŏng so

5

Shandao

Wangsheng lichen

5

Source: Etani, Jōdokyō no shin kenkyū, 177–178. Although Shandao’s disciple Huaigan is cited almost twice as much as any other thinker, Ŭijŏk is in second place, being cited nine more times than the Japanese monk Chikō and the Chinese scholar-monk Jiacai. The citations to works by Kyŏnghŭng, Pŏbwi, and Wŏnhyo also compare favorably to those by Daochuo and Shandao.

The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss Furthermore, the Pure Land writings of Wŏnhyo were so influential for a time in Heian Japan that an unnamed Tendai monk attributed to him a cut-and-paste compilation of what the late tenth to early eleventh centuries meant for the intellectual training of monks: the Yusim allak to 遊心安樂道 (The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss). The Yushiki and Kegon schools both claimed Wŏnhyo as some kind of “patriarch” in their 125

Epilogue

schools because of his ability to explain with panache the doctrinal views they ascribed to their intellectual traditions. Hōnen, on the other hand, presents only a brief caricature of Wŏnhyo’s interpretations in his writings, citing the Yusim allak to exclusively, which he uses to bolster his own views, because the passages deal with Pure Land practice being acceptable for people with both superior and inferior spiritual capacities. Hōnen disciples, whose works are essentially sub-commentaries to Hōnen’s work, refer to Wŏnhyo specifically as a Kegon patriarch.19 Minamoto Hiroyuki suggests that the authority of the Silla Pure Land exegeses is best seen in their effect on such figures as the Kegon monk Gyōnen 凝然 (1240–1321), who was highly influenced by Wŏnhyo’s interpretation of the ten recollections, and Ryōgen, Senkan 千觀 (918–983), and Genshin 源信 (942–1017), who accepted Ŭijŏk’s solutions to the problems associated with the Wuliangshou jing and Guan Wuliangshou jing instead of following Chinese monks.20 Ahn Kye-hyŏn demonstrated that monks from such diverse periods as the Kegon monk Ryōkei Dōkō of the Kamakura and Gizan 義山 (1648–1717) in the early Tokugawa period, among many others, excerpted scores of passages, sometimes reaching more than three hundred, from Ŭijŏk, Kyŏnghŭng, Hyŏnil, and Pŏbwi.21 The Yusim allak to, attributed to Wŏnhyo, continued to provide inspiration to Japanese monks, such as Gikai 義海 (d. 1755), well into the middle of the eighteenth century.22

Final Reflections The fundamental difference between the Pure Land traditions in China and Japan and that of Korea is that in Korea there never was any semblance of an independent or sectarian tradition at any time. None of these Korean monks should be classified as members of a “Pure Land tradition” or “Pure Land school.” Instead, these Buddhist exegetes in Silla, like many of their colleagues in China, were more concerned with the way in which the doctrines and practices presented in the Pure Land sūtras integrated with other aspects of Sinitic Mahāyāna Buddhism. In their writings the Silla scholiasts demonstrate a strong knowledge of the state of doctrinal Buddhism in China and wrote to participate in the larger Sinitic Buddhist intellectual discourse. Although all of the extant commentaries treat the Wuliangshou jing, Silla exegetes did not ignore the Guan Wuliangshou jing. They were able to treat with precision the crucial passage of the latter scripture that deals with the meaning of the “ten recollections” from within the context of the former sūtra. 126

The Legacy of Silla’s Pure Land Buddhism

During the period stretching from the second half of the seventh to the first few decades of the eighth century, Silla exegetes struggled to rationalize the practice of buddhānusmṛti and the “ten recollections” in the cult of Amitābha within the larger context of the bodhisattva’s path of practice and the emerging Huayan/Hwaŏm intellectual tradition and Shandao’s influential interpretations. Huayan/Hwaŏm influence on the doctrinal understanding of the “ten recollections” was based on lists found in the Mile fawen jing and the Mile suowen jing that circulated in the nascent Huayan community. All of the Silla thinkers, Wŏnhyo, Pŏbwi, Hyŏnil, Ŭijŏk, and Kyŏnghŭng, recognized that recitation or chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha was a viable practice for people with inferior spiritual capacities. The scholarly monks of Silla were well aware of the contradiction between the Wuliangshou jing and the Guanjing with regard to the ten recollections and attempted various ways of reconciling the contradiction. Wŏnhyo thought everyone should be able to arouse the bodhicitta and achieve rebirth in the Pure Land by practicing the ten recollections of the Mile fawen jing (generally the same as Mile suowen jing), which circulated among the monks of the nascent Huayan/ Hwaŏm tradition in Tang and Silla. Other commentators, Pŏbwi and Ŭijŏk in particular, settled on the idea that only people with advanced spiritual capacities should arouse the bodhicitta and practice the ten recollections of the Mile suowen jing, which are akin to bodhisattva practices, while people with limited spiritual capacities are allowed to chant the name of the Buddha Amitābha. The exegetes emphasized that both types of practice generate birth in the Pure Land; however, they qualify the efficacy of the practices by saying that the former causes the aspirant to achieve birth in the superior order in the Pure Land while the latter merely allows birth in the inferior order. Due to the use of such glosses as ch’ing (chant) and sŏng (intone), following both Huiyuan and Shandao, it is unmistakable that the compound yŏmbul could and did mean “chanting the name of the Buddha Amitābha” precisely because of the Guanjing passage on the ten recollections. On the one hand, this reading is strongly inferred during the height of Wŏnhyo’s fame (ca. 661–681), because several other types of recollection were possible, such as described in Pŏbwi’s scholium. On the other hand, perhaps no more than a generation later, the conceptualization of buddhānusmṛti (yŏmbul) as chanting exclusively was seen by some exegetes as an acceptable practice for people with both superior and inferior mental abilities, since, to an exegete such as Hyŏnil, chanting the Buddha Amitābha’s name was of equal value to the “ten recollections” of the Mile fawen jing/ 127

Chapter 5

Mile suowen jing in generating the samādhi requisite to cause rebirth in the Pure Land. Kyŏnghŭng, on the other hand, attempted to preserve the conservative interpretations of Sinitic Yogācāra but still was influenced by the other Silla scholiasts in their understanding of the value of Amitābha’s vows. The legacy left by these Silla exegetes in medieval Korea is that, as in the contemporary Chinese world, the veneration of Amitābha and the chanting of Amitābha’s name became the core devotional practice performed by the vast majority of Buddhist faithful in the country. Although the extent to which the writings of the Silla scholar-monks was known is uncertain due to the lack of writings of exegetical monks in the Koryŏ period, the evidence is quite clear that the scholastic works of all of these Silla monks continued to be of great value to monks in Japan, particularly those associated with the Tendai, Kegon, and Yushiki schools from the Heian period through the Tokugawa period, from at least the tenth century through the eighteenth century.23 And the influence of the Silla scholiasts on later Japanese thinkers often exceeded that ascribed to Chinese monks. So, in conclusion, rather than emphasizing Silla scholiasts’ adherence to a particular exegetical figure, such as Jingying Huiyuan, Xuanzang, or Kuiji, the Silla exegetes should be remembered for their assimilation and deployment of the gamut of Sinitic Buddhist interpretations of the concept of buddhānusmṛti. All of them maintained certain conventional intellectual views from the Northern and Southern Dynasties period while absorbing the conceptualizations of the “ten recollections” held by monks in the nascent Huayan/Hwaŏm tradition, as well as Shandao’s concept of the “ten intonations.” These Silla monks were dynamic in their views and differed from each other as much as from their Sinitic mentors, but more important, they demonstrate an important aspect of the Korean Buddhist tradition: its tempered maintenance of mainstream Sinitic Buddhist practices and doctrinal views while incorporating new ideas and approaches to practice.

128

Appendix: Exegetical Works by Silla Scholars on Pure Land Themes

Author

Title

Length

Location

Chajang 慈藏 (fl. 632–650)

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經疏 (Commentary on the Amituo jing)

one roll

missing

Amit’a-gyŏng ŭigi 阿彌陀經義記 (The Meaning of the Amituo jing)

one roll

missing

Muryangsu-gyŏng so 無量壽經疏 (Commentary on the Wuliangshou jing)

three rolls missing

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經疏 (Commentary on the Amituo jing)

one roll

missing

Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 無量壽經宗 要 (Doctrinal Essentials of the Wuliangshou jing)

one roll

T no. 1747, vol. 37; HPC 1

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經疏 (Commentary on the Amituo jing)

one roll

T no. 1759, vol. 37; HPC 1

Wŏnch’ŭk 圓 測 (613–696)

Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686)

Panju sanmae-gyŏng so 般舟三昧經疏 one roll (Commentary on the Banzhou sanmei jing [Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvas thitasamādhi-sūtra]) Probably actually late 10th–early 11th century Japanese Tendai work

Yusim allak to 遊心安樂道 (The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss)

129

one roll

missing

T no. 1965, vol. 47; HPC 1

Appendix

Author

Title

Length

Location

Mit’a chŭngsŏng ke 彌陀證性偈 (Gāthā on Amitābha’s attaining Buddhahood)

one section

HPC 1

Muryangsu-gyŏng yogan 無量壽經料簡 (Excerpts on the Wuliangshou jing)

unknown

missing

Muryangsu-gyŏng sagi 無量壽經私記 (Personal Notes on the Wuliangshou jing)

one roll

missing

Muryangsu-gyŏng so 無量壽經疏 (Commentary on the Wuliangshou jing)

one roll

missing

Amit’a-gyŏng t’ongch’an so 阿彌陀經通 讚疏 (Commentary Thoroughly Praising the Amituo jing)

two rolls

missing

*Kwan’gyŏng chongyo 觀經宗要 unknown 1 (Doctrinal Essentials of the Guanjing) Ŭisang 義湘 (625–702)

Amit’a-gyŏng ŭigi 阿彌陀經義記 (The Meaning of the Amituo jing)

one roll

missing missing

Paekhwa toryang parwŏn mun 白花道場 one section 發願文 (Record of the Vow of White Lotus Enlightenment Site)

HPC 2

Pŏbwi 法位 (fl. 661–681)

Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso 無量壽經義疏 two rolls (Commentary on the Wuliangshou jing)

HPC 2

Kyŏnghŭng 憬興 (d.u., ca. late seventh–early eighth century)

Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 無 量壽經連義述文讚 (Narrative Passages and Praises on the Combined Explications of the Wuliangshou jing)

130

three rolls T no. 1748, vol. 37; HPC 2

Appendix

Author

Title

Length

Location

Amit’a-gyŏng yakki 阿彌陀經略記 (Summary of the Amituo jing)

one roll

missing

Kwan Muryangsu-gyŏng so 觀無量壽經 疏 (Commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing)

two rolls

missing

Muryangsu-gyŏng so 無量壽經疏 (Commentary on the Wuliangshou jing)

three rolls missing

Yŏngin 靈因 (d.u.)

Muryangsu-gyŏng so 無量壽經疏 (Commentary on the Wuliangshou jing)

one roll

missing

Tojŭng 道證 (fl. 692)

Sŏbang kŭngnak yoch’an 西方極樂料讚 (Encomia on the Western Paradise)

one roll

missing

Hyŏnil 玄一 (d.u., ca. late seventh–early eighth century)

Muryangsu-gyŏng ki 無量壽經記 (Notes on the Wuliangshou jing)

remnants

HPC 2

Kwan Muryangsu-gyŏng ki 觀無量壽經 記 (Notes on the Guan Wuliangshou jing)

one roll

missing

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經疏 (Commentary on the Amituo jing)

one roll

missing

Suwŏn wangsaeng-gyŏng ki 隨願往生經 one roll 記 (Record on the Vows for Rebirth in the Pure Land)

missing

Ŭijŏk 義寂 (d.u., ca. late seventh–early eighth century)

Muryangsu-gyŏng surŭi ki 無量壽經述 義記 (Record Narrating the Meaning of the Wuliangshou jing)

three rolls HPC 2

131

Appendix

Author

Tullyun 遁倫 (Toryun 道倫, d.u.)

Title

Length

Location

Kwan Muryangsu-gyŏng kangyo 觀無量 壽經綱要 (Outline of the Guan Wuliangshou jing)

one roll

missing

Kwan Muryangsu-gyŏng so 觀無量壽經 疏 (Commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing)

one roll

missing

Muryangsu-gyŏng so 無量壽經疏 (Commentary on the Wuliangshou jing)

one roll

missing

Amit’a-gyŏng so 阿彌陀經疏 (Commentary on the Amituo jing)

one roll

missing

one roll

missing

Kwan Muryangsu-gyŏng kojŏk ki 觀無量 one roll 壽經古迹記 (Record of Ancient Traces of the Guan Wuliangshou jing)

missing

one roll

missing

Ch’ingch’an chŏngt’o-gyŏng kojŏk ki 稱讚 one roll 淨土古迹記 (Record of Old Traces of Reciting and Praising the Pure Land Sūtras)

missing

one roll Chŏngt’o ch’ongnyogan 淨土總料簡 (Comprehensive Excerpts on the Pure Land)

missing

Taehyŏn 大賢 Muryangsu-gyŏng kojŏk ki 觀無量壽經 古迹記 (T’aehyŏn 太 賢, fl. 742–765) (Record of Ancient Traces of the Wuliangshou jing)

Amit’a-gyŏng kojŏk ki 阿彌陀經古迹記 (Record of Ancient Traces of the Amituo jing)

132

Notes

Chapter 1: The World of Buddhist Scholars in Silla Korea 1. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039, 49.1017b. 2. See, for instance, the chapters on Korea in Reischauer and Fairbank, East Asia: The Great Tradition; Reischauer, Fairbank, and Craig, A History of East Asian Civilization; and Fairbank, Reischauer, and Craig, East Asia: Tradition and Transformation. 3. See, for instance, Kim Chong Sun, “Sources of Cohesion and Fragmentation in the Silla Kingdom,” and Palais, “Early Korea: Chosŏn, Three Kingdoms, Silla, and Parhae.” See also the essays compiled in McBride, State and Society in Middle and Late Silla. 4. See, for instance, Amstutz, “The Politics of Independent Pure Land in China”; and Sharf, “On Pure Land Buddhism and Ch’an/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval China.” 5. For a brilliant and concise overview of their contributions to the so-called Kamakura New Buddhism see Sueki Fumihiko, Nihon Bukkyōshi, 203–217; see also Shigematsu Akihisa, “An Overview of Early Japanese Pure Land,” 267– 312, esp. 296–307; and Unno Taitetsu, “Shinran: A New Path to ­Buddhahood,” 313–355. 6. See Best, “Kwallŭk’s Testimony Concerning the Date of Buddhism’s Introduction to Paekche,” 1–21; and Best, “Buddhism and Polity in Early SixthCentury Paekche,” 165–215. 7. See Samguk sagi 44.411–442 (Kŏch’ilbu 居柒夫) for the account of Hyeryang. The two rituals he introduced are the Assembly for the Lecturing on (and the Recitation of) the Sūtra of Humane Kings (Renwang jing 仁王經) by One Hundred Eminent Monks (paekkojwa kanghoe 百高座講會) and the Assembly of the Eight Prohibitions (p’algwanhoe 八關會); see Ahn Kye-hyŏn, “P’algwanhoe ko,” 31–54; Rhi Ki-yong, Han’guk Pulgyo yŏn’gu, 163–193. See also McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 27–28; and Kim Jongmyung, “Buddhist Rituals in Medieval Korea (918–1392).” 8. For an overview of the importance of Hwangnyongsa see Park Youngbok, “The Monastery Hwangnyongsa and Buddhism of the Early Silla Period,” 140–153; see also McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 24–30. 133

Notes to Pages 5–8 9. See, for instance, Tongguk Taehakkyo Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn, Kankoku Bussho kaidai jiten, 6–84. The Koryŏ-period royal monk Ŭich’ŏn’s (1055–1101) catalog to his “canon of doctrinal teachings” (kyojang 敎藏), which ­comprises East Asian Buddhist exegeses he either collected himself in Korea and China during his brief stay there or dispatched commissioners to collect as in the Khitan Liao state and late Heian Japan, attests to the amount of Korean and Chinese Buddhist exegesis that existed prior to the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century. Much was lost, never to be recovered, when the Mongols terrorized the Koryŏ state by burning their first set of woodblocks of the Buddhist Canon, Ŭich’ŏn’s supplement, and the state palladium of Hwangnyong Monastery during the years 1231–1232 and 1238. See Sinp’yŏn chejong kyojang ch’ongnok, three rolls, T 2184, 55.1165b–1178c. 10. See the several studies published separately by these great scholars, ­compiled together in monographs: Ahn, Silla chŏngt’o sasangsa yŏn’gu, 11–324, and Etani, Jōdokyō no shin kenkyū, 55–118, 393–454. 11. McBride, “A Koreanist’s Musings on the Chinese Yishi Genre.” 12. Sørensen, “Problems with Using the Samguk yusa as a Source for the History of Korean Buddhism,” 271–288; see also Sørensen, “On the Sinin and Ch’ongji Schools and the Nature of Esoteric Buddhist Practice under the Koryŏ,” 49–61. 13. McBride, “Preserving the Lore of Korean Antiquity.” 14. McBride, “Is the Samguk yusa reliable?” 15. The classic example is the work of Takahashi Toru, who attempted to demonstrate (1) that Korean Buddhism is merely a derivative of Chinese Buddhism, (2) that “it lacked originality and creative thought” through “tenacious adherence” to Sinitic Buddhism, and (3) that it had lost the vitality of the Silla and Koryŏ periods. See Takahashi, Richō Bukkyō, 13; cf. Shim Jaeryong, “On the General Characteristics of Korean Buddhism: Is Korean Buddhism Syncretic?” 150–151. This view was shared by early Western observers in China and Christian missionaries in Korea; see Lancaster, “The Significance of Korean Buddhism in East Asia.” 16. See, for instance, Shim Jae-ryong, Korean Buddhism: Tradition and Transformation, 171–182 in particular; Buswell, “Imagining ‘Korean Buddhism,’” 73–107. 17. Lancaster, “The Significance of Korean Buddhism in East Asia.” 18. See, for instance, Ch’oe Ki-p’yo, “Wŏnhyo’s Effect on Fazang’s Commentary of Discipline-Faith Chapter, Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, and Their Attitudes toward Quotation.” 19. Kuiji, meaning “Peeping Ji,” is most likely a pejorative reference to Xuanzang’s primary disciple and the founder of the Chinese Weishi school. He is 134

Notes to Pages 9–9 usually referred to as simply “Ji” in Buddhist literature of the period. Nevertheless, I will follow scholarly convention and refer to him as Kuiji. I ­suspect that the name Kuiji was given to him by proponents of the Huayan tradition, and because Huayan (Hwaŏm) was dominant in Silla, the pejorative name was thence passed on to Japan. 20. Interestingly enough, in his study on Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land thought, Etani never develops this idea. See Etani Ryūkai, “Shiragi Gangyō no Jōdokyō shisō,” 71–92. Wŏnhyo’s intellectual connection to Jingying Huiyuan was established much earlier during the colonial period in foundational scholarship conducted by Mochizuki Shinkō, Chūgoku Jōdo kyōrishi, 210–226. 21. Etani Ryūkai, Jōdokyō no shin kenkyū, 55–61. 22. Etani Ryūkai, “Kankoku Jōdokyō no tokushō,” 519–529; and Etani Ryūkai, “Silla Chŏngt’ogyo ŭi t’ŭksaek,” 1203–1208. 23. For an overview of the various conceptualizations of the supposed “Pure Land patriarchate” see Sharf, “On Pure Land Buddhism and Ch’an/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval China,” 286–301. 24. Only Korean scholars who have studied in Japan or in the West pay serious attention to Etani’s theory. Kim Chaegyŏng notes its existence in his “Silla Amit’a sinang ŭi sŏngnip kwa kŭ paegyŏng,” 84 n. 1; but I have only been able to find a few who utilize it: Han Pogwang, Shiragi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū, 35–36; and Jung Hee-Soo, “Kyŏnghŭng’s Commentary on the ‘Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra’ and the Formation of Pure Land Buddhism in Silla,” 200–201. 25. Ahn published a series of articles in various Korean historical journals from 1961 through 1965 in which he developed the Pure Land thought of Wŏnhyo (three articles), Kyŏnghŭng (two articles), Ŭijŏk (one article), and Pŏbwi and Hyŏnil (one article). His work took the early insights of Mochizuki Shinkō and earlier reconstructive work executed by Etani Ryūkai and advanced them much further. These studies were further edited and published in monograph form initially in 1976: Silla chŏngt’o sasangsa yŏn’gu. Ahn’s groundbreaking work is packed with good insights demonstrating that Wŏnhyo responded not only to the scholarship of Jingying Huiyuan, but also such eminent exegetes as Zhiyi and Jizang on a variety of matters. One limitation of his work, however, is that he labored under the misconception that the Yusim allak to was the primary Pure Land exegesis of Wŏnhyo, superseding the Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, which will be treated in detail below. See Ahn Kye-hyŏn, Silla chŏngt’o sasangsa yŏn’gu, 326–332, for a list of Ahn’s articles see p. 378; and Ahn’s Han’guk Pulgyo sasangsa yŏn’gu, 31–38. 26. Lee Ki-baik, Silla sasangsa yŏn’gu, 125–127; see also Lee’s “Silla chŏngt’o sinang ŭi cheyangsang,” 129–147. 135

Notes to Pages 9–12 27. For instance, Ch’ae Inhwan ignores Etani’s theory but follows Ahn in his “Silla sidae ŭi chŏngt’ogyohak,” 85–87. 28. See, for instance, Kim Young-tai, “Samguk sidae Mit’a sinang ŭi suyong kwa kŭ chŏn’gae,” 11–50; and Kim Yŏngmi, Silla Pulgyo sasangsa yŏn’gu, 51–77. 29. A few passages of Chajang’s Amit’a-gyŏng ŭigi (Commentary on the Amituo jing) are extant in Japanese commentaries. Ahn Kye-hyŏn collected these in his Silla chŏngt’o sasangsa yŏn’gu, 215 n. 4. For a discussion of the influence of Chajang on later Japanese Buddhist writers see pp. 326–332. 30. See McBride, “Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo (Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra): Annotated Translation and Introduction.” See also Fukushi Jinen, “Gangyō chojutsu ni okeru Tendai no eikyō ni tsuite,” 122–124. 31. Luis O. Gómez, The Land of Bliss, 125–126. 32. Amituo jing, T 366, 12.347b; Inagaki and Stewart, The Three Pure Land Sūtras, 92–93. 33. Amituo jing, T 366, 12.348a7–17; Gómez, The Land of Bliss, 150–151. 34. Gómez, The Land of Bliss, 126–127. 35. Fujita Kōsatsu, “The Textual Origins of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching: A ­Canonical Scripture of Pure Land Buddhism,” 154–156. 36. Fujita, “The Textual Origins,” 151–154; cf. Guan Wuliangshou jing, T 366, 12.356a12. 37. The five heinous crimes (Ch. wuni 五逆) are (1) patricide, (2) matricide, (3) killing an arhat, (4) shedding the blood of a Buddha, and (5) destroying the harmony of the saṃgha. See Apidamo jushe lun (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) 17, T 1558, 29.926b27–29. The ten evil acts (Ch. shie 十惡) are (1) killing, (2) stealing, (3) adultery, (4) lying, (5) duplicity, (6) coarse language, (7) filthy language, (8) covetousness, (9) anger, and (10) perverted views. See Zhong ahan jing (Madhyamāgama) 3, T 26, 1.437b28–c27. 38. Guan Wuliangshou jing 1, T 365, 12.346al8–20. 39. Wuliangshou jing 1, T 360, 12.268a26–28. 40. Xu gaoseng zhuan 13, T 2060, 50.523c29–524a1. Based primarily on the information contained in the the mid-Koryŏ period works Samguk sagi and Samguk yusa, however, most Korean scholars suggest Wŏn’gwang’s dates to be roughly 555 to 638, during which time he is said to have gone to Sui China in 589 and returned to Silla in 600. However, his biography in the Xu gaoseng zhuan, first completed by Daoxuan in 649 and subsequently revised after his death in 668, says he died in 630, at the age of ninety-nine. It also says that he first entered China to study in the southern state of Chen 陳 sometime between 559 and 565, that he went to the Sui capital (Chang’an) after the fall of Chen in 589, and then returned to Silla around the year 600. More 136

Notes to Pages 12–15 critical work needs to be done on this seminal figure in Silla Buddhism. In an attempt to accommodate the later Korean sources with the Chinese, Sin Chongwŏn presents an argument for why Wŏn’gwang’s death date should be pushed forward ten years to 640; see his Silla ch’ogi Pulgyosa yŏn’gu, 212– 216. For reasons associated with explaining the origins of exegetical Buddhism in Silla, I think the dates presented in the Xu gaoseng zhuan are probably more accurate. 41. For Tanqian’s biography see Xu gaoseng zhuan 18, T 2060, 50.571b–574b; see also Gimello, “Chih-yen (602–668) and the Foundations of Hua-yen Buddhism,” 191; and Chen Jinhua, Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics, 17. 42. See Ahn, Han’guk Pulgyosa yŏn’gu, 103–109. 43. Wŏn’gwang’s two lost works are titled Yŏraejang-gyŏng sagi 如來藏經私記 (Personal Record on the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra), in three rolls, and Taebangdŭng Yŏraejang-gyŏng sŏ 大方等如來經疏 (Commentary on the Vaipulya Tathāgatagarbhasūtra), in one roll; see Tongguk Taehakkyo Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn, Kankoku Bussho kaidai jiten, 6–7. For Wŏnhyo’s interest in Tathāgatagarbha thought see Yi Pyŏngnae, Silla Pulgyo yŏraejang sasang yŏn’gu. 44. See Xu gaoseng zhuan 15, T 2060, 50.541a14. According to the Tang Buddhist encyclopedia Fayuan zhulin (A Grove of Pearls in the Garden of the Dharma), compiled by Daoshi (ca. 596–683) in 668, Chajang passed away during the Yonghui 永徽 reign period of Tang Gaozong (650–655); see Fayuan zhulin 64, T 2122, 53.779c18–19. 45. For the biography of Tanyan see Xu gaoseng zhuan 8, T 2060, 50.488a2–489c25; see also Gimello, “Chih-yen (602–668) and the Foundations of Hua-yen Buddhism,” 172–174; Chen Jinhua, Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship, 36–37. 46. For Fachang’s biography see Xu gaoseng zhuan 15, T 2060, 50.540c14–541b23; see also Gimello, “Chih-yen (602–668) and the Foundations of Hua-yen Buddhism,” 171–177. 47. See Kim Jongmyung, “Chajang (fl. 636–650) and ‘Buddhism as National Protector’ in Korea: A Reconsideration,” 23–55. Chajang did, however, compose commentaries on the Sifenlü 四分律 (Dharmaguptakavinaya) and the Shisonglü 十誦律 (Daśabhāṇavāravinaya), the vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins; see Tongguk Taehakkyo Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn, Kankoku Bussho kaidai jiten, 7–8. 48. For quotations see Ahn Kye-hyŏn, Silla chŏngt’o sasangsa yŏn’gu, 215 n. 4b. 49. Hōjisan shiki 3, in Jōdoshū zensho 4.73b12–17. 50. See Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 128–135, 180–183, 297–364. The Shelun tradition (centered on the Shelun, Mahāyānasaṃgraha) was transmitted to 137

Notes to Pages 15–19 China by Paramārtha (Zhendi) and paved the way for the later Ci’en or Faxiang 法相 tradition of Xuanzang and Kuiji during the early Tang period (618–712). The Dilun tradition (centered on the Dilun, Daśabhūmikasūtra Sāstra) was putatively initiated in China by Bodhiruci I (Putiliuzhi, fl.  508–535), the translator of the text, and set the stage for the later Huayan tradition, since many of the scholar-monks associated with it studied the Qixin lun (Awakening of Faith) and the Huayan jing (Buddhavataṃsaka Sūtra). However, Robert M. Gimello has demonstrated problems with this simplistic model by describing in great detail how Zhiyan, who should have been in the Dilun tradition because of association with the nascent Huayan tradition, actually had several teachers who were masters of the Shelun; see note 51 for the citation. Other scholars have begun to question the existence of the Dilun tradition recently, acknowledging that references to Dilun shi 地論師 (masters of the Dilun) only appear in the later polemical writings of Zhiyi and Jizang; see Yoshizu Yoshihide, “Jironshi to iu kōshō ni tsuite,” 307–323. 51. For a compelling and convincing presentation of this description in greater detail see Gimello, “Chih-yen (602–668) and the Foundations of Hua-yen Buddhism,” 171–212.

Chapter 2: Pure Land Thinkers in Medieval China An earlier, edited version of the material relating to Jingying Huiyuan, Tanluan, Daochuo, and Shandao in this chapter is found in my essay “Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land Thought on Buddhānusmṛti in Its Sinitic Buddhist Context,” Acta Koreana 18, no. 1 (2015): 45–95. 1. Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 106. 2. Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 106–107; Zürcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China, 206–224. 3. Inagaki and Stewart, The Three Pure Land Sutras, 12–18, esp. 14. 4. Link, “Biography of Shih Tao-an,” 21, 36–37. 5. Zürcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China, 220–221. 6. For the biography of Jingying Huiyuan see Xu gaoseng zhuan 8, T 2060, 50.489c–492b; for a discussion of his life see also Tanaka, The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, 20–37. 7. Wuliangshou jing yishu 2, T 1745, 37.107c25–108a9. 8. Wuliangshou jing yishu 2, T 1745, 37.108a13–17. 9. Guan Wuliangshou jing yishu, T 1749, 37.186a10–13. The quote at the end of the passage is from Guan Wuliangshou jing, T 365, 12.346a15–19. For an alternate translation of this passage see Tanaka, The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, 194–195. 138

Notes to Pages 19–24 10. Minamoto Hiroyuki holds to the position that recitation practice was the inheritance of Shandao and Huaigan, but I think the evidence is quite clear that it must have existed before in the writings of the mainstream exegetes; cf. Minamoto Hiroyuki, “Shiragi Jōdōkyō no tokushoku,” 306. 11. On how Jingying Huiyuan’s view of the Guan wuliangshou jing fits in the mainstream Mahāyāna doctrine of the three vehicles, see Uno Sadatoshi, “Jōyōji Eion Kanmuryōjūkyōso no sanjōkan.” 12. For the biography of Zhiyi see Xu gaoseng zhuan 17, T 2060, 50.564a–568a; see also Leon Hurvitz, Chih-I (538–597): An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a Chinese Buddhist Monk, and Kenneth Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 303–313. 13. Guan Wuliangshou jing shu, T 1750, 37.194b19–22. 14. For the biography of Jizang see Xu gaoseng zhuan 11, T 2060, 50.513c–515a; see also Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 132–134. 15. Wuliangshou jing yishu, T 1746, 37.122b18–19. 16. Guan Wuliangshou jing yishu, T 1752, 37.235a7–11. 17. On the life of Tanluan see Corless, “T’an-luan: The First Systematizer of Pure Land Buddhism,” 107–137; see also Corless, “T’an-luan: Taoist Sage and Buddhist Bodhisattva,” 36–64. 18. Ōtani Kōshin, “Donran to Kegon shisō.” 19. See Wangsheng lun, T 1524, 26.231b11–24; Wangsheng lun zhu 1, T 1819, 40.827a– 828a; roll 2, 835a–836b. 20. Corless, “T’an-luan: The First Systematizer of Pure Land Buddhism,” 112– 114. 21. Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 342–347. 22. See McBride, “Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo (Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra): Annotated Translation and Introduction.” 23. Lai, “Legends of Births and the Pure Land Tradition in China,” 174–176. See also Lai, “The Earliest Folk Buddhist Religion in China,” and Tokuno, “Byways in Chinese Buddhism: The Book of Trapuṣa and Indigenous Scriptures.” 24. Wangsheng lun zhu 1, T 1819, 40.834c13–17. See also Fuji, Wŏnhyo ŭi Chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu, 293. 25. Wangsheng lun zhu 1, T 1819, 40.834c. See also Fuji, Wŏnhyo ŭi Chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu, 292. 26. Wangsheng lun zhu 1, T 1819, 40.835b27–29. See also Fuji, Wŏnhyo ŭi Chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu, 292. 27. Xu gaoseng zhuan 20, T 2060, 50.593c25. 28. Anle ji 2, T 1958, 15a7, 15b5; see Chappell, “Tao-ch’o (542–645): A Pioneer of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism,” 321. 139

Notes to Pages 24–27 29. Xu gaoseng zhuan 20, T 2060, 50.593c–594c; cf. Jiacai, Jingtu lun 3, T 1963, 47.98b; Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, 70. 30. For the life of Daochuo see Chappell, “Tao-ch’o (542–645): A Pioneer of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism,” 46–109. 31. Daochuo, Anluo ji 1, T 1958, 47.13c, 14b; Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, 71. 32. See Anle ji 1, T 1958, 47.13b; Weinstein, Buddhism under the Tang, 71; see also Chappell, “Tao-ch’o (546–645): A Pioneer of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism,” 126–136, 318–329; Chappell, “Chinese Buddhist Interpretations of the Pure Lands,” 23–53. 33. For Tanluan see Wangsheng lun 1, T 1819, 40.834c13–17, and Lüelun anle jingtu yi, T 1957, 47.3c16–23; for Daochuo see Anle ji 1, T 1958, 47.11a17–27; Chappell, “Tao-ch’o (562–645): A Pioneer of Chinese Buddhism,” 322–323, 326–327; for a translation of Tanluan’s version of the river-crossing story see Pruden, “A Short Essay on the Pure Land,” 94–95; for Shandao see Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī, 147–148. 34. Sharf suggests 620–680 as possible dates for Jiacai; see his “On Pure Land Buddhism and Ch’an/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval China,” 289. 35. By this I am not referring to the inclusion of passages from Jiacai’s Jingtu lun in the Yusim allak to, which is attributed to Wŏnhyo. My research suggests that the latter work is a cut-and-paste primer constructed in Japan by a member of the Tendai school, probably during the late tenth or early ­eleventh century, and was only attributed to Wŏnhyo since much of it derives from Wŏnhyo’s Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo. See McBride, “Yusim allak to (The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss): Annotated Translation and Introduction.” 36. The three meritorious acts (sanfuye 三福業) are giving, equanimity, and pensiveness. See Apidamo jushe lun 18, T 1558, 29.95b–c. 37. Jingtu lun 2, T 1963, 47.91a28–b3. See also Nabata Ōjun, Kazai Jōdo-ron no kenkyū, 1.106–121; and Uno Sadatoshi, “Kasai Jōdoron ni okeru senke.” 38. Jingtu lun 1, T 1963, 47.89b14–16. 39. Jingtu lun 1, T 1963, 47.89b17–19. 40. Jingtu lun 1, T 1963, 47.89b 41. Xu gaoseng zhuan 27, T 2060, 50.684a; Wangsheng xifang Jingtu ruiying shanzhuan 1, T 2070, 51.105b–c; Jingtu wangsheng zhuan, T 2071, 51.119a–b. See also Tōdō Kyōshun, Zendō daishi kenkyū; and Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, 71–72, 174 n. 19. For a detailed study on the life of Shandao, see Fujita Kōtatsu, Zendō. 42. For more views of Shandao see Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī; Seah, “Shan-tao, His Life and Teachings”; and Chappell, “The Formation of the Pure Land 140

Notes to Pages 27–28 ­Movement in China,” 139–171. For a critical review of Pas, see Ducor, “Shandao et Hônen, à propos du livre de Julian F. Pas: Visions of Sukhāvatī.” 43. This concept would later be incorporated into the retranslation of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra executed by Wang Rixiu 王日休 during the Song period; see Da Amituo jing, T 364, 12.329c1–4 (where it is used in the twentyninth vow, which is the same as the Wuliangshou jing’s eighteenth vow). 44. See Ducor, “Shandao et Hônen, à propos du livre de Julian F. Pas: Visions of Sukhāvatī,” 122–123. Julian Pas fails to mention shisheng as an important term in his analysis of Shandao’s intellectual contributions centered on the Guan Wuliangshou jing shu; note its absence in Pas’s glossary of important terms, Visions of Sukhāvatī, 418–428; I cannot speak for the vast amounts of Japanese scholarship on Shandao. I will not pretend that I have even scratched the surface of it. In the several books and essays I have perused, however, I have yet to see any treatment of the significance of shisong. ­Shandao’s gloss has become so much a part of the accepted tradition and understanding of Pure Land practice, perhaps, that many scholars fail to recognize how this simple gloss forged an interpretational divide between scholarship before and after Shandao. I would like to thank Jérôme Ducor for informing me of his recognition of this term in his critical review of Pas’s Visions of Sukhāvatī. 45. Guan Wuliangshou jing shu 1, T 1753, 37.249c10–250b11; Lotus Sūtra paraphrase is 249c19–20; cf. Miaofa lianhua jing 1, T 262, 9.9a25; Hurvitz, Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma, 40. 46. See Anle ji 8, T 1958, 47.8a22–10b11, where Daochuo uses the term bieshiyi six times. For Huaigan’s biography see Song gaoseng zhuan 6, T 2061, 50.738c11– 24; for his deployment of the term bieshiyi see Shi jingtu qunyi lun 2, T 1960, 47.39a5–40a8, 40a9–b28, 41b28–42a3. 47. Cf. She dasheng lun 2, T 1593, 31.121b12–14. 48. Cf. She dasheng lun shi 6, T 1595, 31.194b4–7. 49. Guan Wuliangshou jing shu 1, T 1753, 37.249c26–29. I would like to thank Jérôme Ducor for assistance and corrections associated with this quote. 50. The fifty-two stages of the bodhisattva path are conceptualized as follows (citations are to lists): the ten faiths (shixin 十信), see Renwang bore boluomi jing 1, T 245, 8.826b26–27; the ten abodes (shizhu 十住), see Dafangguang fo huayan jing [hereafter Huayan jing] 8, T 278, 9.444c29–445a1; the ten practices (shixing 十行), see Huayan jing 11, T 278, 9.466b27–c2; the ten transferences (shi huixiang 十廻向), see Huayan jing 14, T 278, 9.488b26–c4; the ten stages, bhūmis (shidi 十地), see Huayan jing 23, T 278, 9.542c27–c4; equal enlightenment (dengjue 等覺, or dengzhengjue 等正覺), see Huayan jing 53, T  278, 9.736a, and wonderful enlightenment (miaojue 妙覺, or miaojuezhe wushangdi 妙覺者無上地), see Pusa yingluo benye jing 1, T 1485, 24.1011b8–24 141

Notes to Pages 28–31 (here, the final forty-two stages are described and the Sanskrit names are given). 51. On this issue, however, see Ahn, Silla chŏngt’o sasangsa yŏn’gu, 51–54, 65, 148– 149, for useful charts and discussion of several Chinese and Korean scholiasts views. 52. Here, the context suggests that the ten vows (shiyuan 十願) is probably an alternate reading of the ten faiths (shixin 十信) as in Huayan jing 4, T 278, 9.418b; for a list of the ten vows see Huayan jing 23, T 278, 9.546a17–24. 53. Guan Wuliangshou jing shu 1, T 1753, 37.250a27–b1. 54. See, for instance, his Wangsheng lizan jie, T 1980, 47.438c1–13, where he deploys the concept of “ten intonations” in his explanation of the “three minds” (sanxin 三心): a mind of utmost sincerity (zhicheng xin 至誠心); a deep mind (shenxin 深心), meaning a mind of deep and abiding faith; and a mind that arouses the vow to direct [all efforts] toward rebirth [in the Pure Land] (huixiang fayuan xin 回向法願心). If cultivated, these will cause one to be reborn in the Pure Land; see also Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī, 216–221. The term also appears several more times in Shandao’s gāthā: 439b5–16, 447c1– 12, and 447c12–448a13; and also in his Guannian Amituofo xianghai sanmei gongde famen, T 1959, 47.25a4–7, 26c4–10, 27a16–20, and 28a17–25. 55. Shi jingtu qunyi lun 2, T 1960, 47.41b28–42a3; roll 3, 44a11–44b1, 46c1–23, 49c29–50a1, 50b3–13; roll 5, 61a29–b12, 63a8–13; roll 6, 68c20–69a1, 69c17– 29; and roll 7, 70c21–25; 72b8–22; and 73a20–b1. 56. See Minamoto Hiroyuki, “Shiragi Jōdōkyō no tokushoku,” 304–305; for more on Longxing see Etani Ryūkai, Jōdokyō no shin kenkyū, 39–53. 57. See Guan Wuliangshoufo jing shu 4, T 1753, 37.271a–272b, specifically 272a28– b23; cf. Pas, Visions of Sukhāvatī, 243–244. 58. Stevenson, “Pure Land Worship and Meditation in China,” 362. 59. Stevenson, “Pure Land Worship and Meditation in China,” 377–379. 60. See Zürcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China, 1.220–221. 61. Tsukamoto Zenryū, Shina Bukkyōshin kenkyū: Hokugi hen, 377–378; Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, 72. 62. Stevenson, “Visions of Mañjuśrī on Mount Wutai”; Tsukamoto Zenryū, Tō chūki no Jōdokyō; Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, 73–74, 174–175 nn. 24–30. 63. Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, 74, 175 nn. 31–32. 64. See Foshuo Amituo jing jiangjing wen 1–3, in Dunhuang bianwen jiaozhu 5.667–705; and Foshuo Amituo jing yazuo wen, in Dunhuang bianwen jiaozhu 7.1160–1166. 65. Foshuo Amituo jing jiangjing wen 2, in Dunhuang bianwen jiaozhu 5.684. 142

Notes to Pages 31–33 66. Foshuo Amituo jing yazuo wen, in Dunhuang bianwen 7.1160. 67. The four heavy sins (sizhong zui 四重罪) are the four rules of expulsion: killing a sentient being, grand theft, having sexual relations, and lying about spiritual attainments. 68. Fayuan zhulin 60, T 2122, 53.735b26–736b17. For a more detailed treatment of Daoshi’s discussion on dhāraṇī, see McBride, “Dhāraṇī and Spells in Medieval Sinitic Buddhism,” 102–107. For an interesting essay on the relationship between nianfo and dhāraṇī see Ujike Kakusho, Darani shisō no kenkyū, 3–33. For a somewhat conflicted analysis of the issue of nianfo functioning like a dhāraṇī or spell see Kiritani Junnin, “Namu Amida Butsu ni tsuite: Hi jujutsusei no mondai,” 118–121. 69. The thirty-fifth vow of the Bodhisattva Dharmākara, who would become Amitābha, asserts, “If, when I attain buddhahood, women in the immeasureable and inconceivable buddha lands of the ten directions who, having heard my Name, rejoice in faith, awaken aspiration for enlightenment, and wish to renounce womanhood should after death be reborn again as women, may I not attain perfect enlightenment.” See Wuliangshou jing 1, T 360, 12.268c; cf. Inagaki and Stewart, Three Pure Land Sutras, 16. Although this brief passage from the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra suggests that women could renounce female form if they wished and that the Pure Land was a place to make this possible, in his commentary Vasubandhu asserts that women are not born in Sukhāvatī. See Wangsheng lun [Wuliangshou jing yubo­ tishe yuansheng jie (Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa)], T.1524.26.231a13–14; cf. Wang­ sheng lun zhu [Wuliangshou jing yubotishe yuansheng jie zhu (Commentary on the Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa)] 1, T.1819.40.830c4–14; roll 2, T.1819.40.838b14–15. 70. On Chajang’s experiences in China see Xu gaoseng zhuan 24, T 2060, 50.639b13–c3; Samguk yusa 4, T 2049, 49.1005a28–b11; roll 3, 990c2–23. The Song gaoseng zhuan (Lives of Eminent Monks compiled during the Song), compiled by Zanning (919–1001) between 982 and 988 (and further edited and revised later) contains the earliest biography of Ŭisang. On the one hand it confirms that Ŭisang studied with Fazang (643–712) under Zhiyan (602–668); however, the date it provides for his initial arrival in Tang China is 669 (Zhongzhang 總章 2), the year after Zhiyan passed away; see Song gaoseng zhuan 4, T 2061, 50.729a.16–17.

Chapter 3: The Pure Land Practice of Silla’s Buddhist Intellectuals This chapter was revised and expanded from my essay “Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land Thought on Buddhānusmṛti in Its Sinitic Buddhist Context,” Acta Koreana 18, no. 1 (June 2015): 45–95. 1. Wŏnhyo is credited with composing roughly eighty-six titles in 175 rolls, see Tongguk Taehakkyo Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn, Kankoku Bussho kaidai 143

Notes to Pages 33–36 jiten, 15–34. On the one hand, the Yusim allak to may not actually have been composed by Wŏnhyo, though it is based on his Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo. On the other hand, Minamoto Takakuni’s Anyō shū (ca. 1070), in rolls 3, 9, and 10, refers to an otherwise unknown essay of Wŏnhyo’s called the Kwangyŏng chongyo (Doctrinal Essentials of the Guanjing). See Satō Tetsuei, Eizan jōdokyō no kenkyū, 451–452. 2. For more detailed biographical information see Buswell, “The Chronology of Wŏnhyo’s Life and Works: Some Preliminary Considerations,” 931–964; Buswell, The Formation of Ch’an Ideology in China and Korea, 41–73; or Buswell, “Hagiographies of the Korean Monk Wŏnhyo,” 553–562. See also Sung Bae Park, “Wonhyo’s Commentaries on the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana”; Oh Young Bong, Wonhyo’s Theory of Harmonization; Buswell, Cultivating Original Enlightenment; and Muller and Nguyen, Wŏnhyo’s Philosophy of Mind. 3. Song gaoseng zhuan 4, T 2061, 50.729a5–16. 4. For Sŏl Ch’ong’s biography see Samguk sagi 46.431–432; for a discussion of his contribution to the codification of idu see Samguk yusa 4, T 2039, 49.1006b1– 27; SYKY 4.348–350 (Wŏnhyo pulgi 元曉不覊). 5. Samguk yusa 4, T 2039, 49.1006a–c, specifically 1006b15–16. See also Buswell, “Hagiographies of the Korean Monk Wŏnhyo,” 561. 6. See also Muller, “Wŏnhyo’s Approach to Harmonization of the Mahayana Doctrines (Hwajaeng).” 7. See McBride “Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo (Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra): Annotated Translation and Introduction.” 8. For example, see his Palsim suhaeng chang 發心修行章 (Arouse Your Mind and Practice), HPC 1.841a–c; see also Buswell’s translation in Peter H. Lee, Sourcebook of Korean Civilization, 1.154–157. For the sūtra associated with Maitreya, see the discussion that follows on the Mile fawen jing (Scripture on Questions asked by Maitreya). 9. My discussion of Wŏnhyo’s contribution to the scholarly discussion on buddhānusmṛti draws from and further develops information presented previously in McBride, “Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land Thought on Buddhānusmṛti in Its Sinitic Buddhist Context.” 10. Cf. Lüelun anle jingtu yi, T 1957, 47.1c8–14, and Wuliangshou jing yishu 2, T 1745, 37.107c22–27, 108a1–9 with Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, HPC 1.557c14–558a1; T 1747, 37.128b11–20. 11. See Lüelun anle jingtu yi, T 1957, 47.1c20–24; cf. Pruden, “A Short Essay on the Pure Land by Dharma Master T’an-luan,” 84–85. 12. See Wuliangshou jing yishu 2, T 1745, 37.108a15–17. 13. Ancillary full deeds (Kor. choman ŏp, Ch. zhuman ye 助滿業), later expressed more simply as “ancillary karma” (Kor. choŏp, J. jōgō 助業) in the Japanese 144

Notes to Pages 36–39 Pure Land tradition, include merit-making practices such as sūtrarecitation, visualization or meditation practices, worship, praise, and making offerings. In Japanese Pure Land these practices are auxiliary to “direct karma” (Kor. chŏngŏp, J. shōgō 正業), which is faith in Amitābha as expressed through the sole practice of nenbutsu (recitation of the name of Amitābha). See Senchakushū, T 2608, 83.3a. 14. See Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, HPC 1.558a2–14; T 1747, 37.128b21–c1. 15. Jingtu lun 2, T 1963, 47.90b. For a detailed study of the uses of “esoteric” and “exoteric” in medieval Sinitic Buddhist literature (ca. 317–907 and beyond) see my “Is There Really ‘Esoteric’ Buddhism?” 16. Bodhiruci II (Putiliuzhi, d. 727), who came to Tang in 693, retranslated this text, which has come down to us as the Mile pusa suowen jing 彌勒菩薩所問經 (Scripture on Questions Asked by the Bodhisattva Maitreya) [also known as Mile pusa suowen hui 彌勒菩薩所問會 (The Assembly on Questions Asked by  the Bodhisattva Maitreya)], which is part of his Da baoji jing (Skt. Mahāratnakūṭa, A Great Heap of Jewels) 92, T 310, 11.523b–528c, specifically 528b1–4. However, since it is a different recension of the ten recollections, an earlier translation must have existed then that does not exist today. It may have been some sort of a bootleg translation, or possibly a working translation of what was to later be incorporated into Bodhiruci’s work since no other text by the name Mile fawen jing or its variant Mile suowen jing, other than Bodhiruci’s translation, is listed in any of the catalogs. 17. Mile pusa suowen benyuan jing, T 349, 12.186c–189b. 18. Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 1, T 1747, 37.129a9–19; HPC 1.558c9–20. 19. Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 1, T 1747, 37.129a; HPC 1.558c–559a. 20. Jingtu lun 2, T 1963, 47.93c. 21. Fajue jingxin jing 1, T 327, 12.52c. 22. Da baoji jing 92, T 310, 11.523b–528c, specifically 528b17–24. 23. Huayan jing neizhang mendeng li kongmu zhang 4, T 1870, 45.582c15–26. 24. The six recollections Zhiyan lists in this section are recollection of the ­Buddha (nianfo), the dharma (nianfa 念法), the saṃgha (nianseng 念僧), the precepts (nianjie 念戒), charity/donations (nianshi 念施), and heaven (niantian 念天), but the only practice he describes in the “ten recollections,” of which he describes two separate lists; see Huayan jing neizhang mendeng li kongmu zhang 4, T 1870, 45.582c12–583a3. 25. Matsubayashi Kōshi, “Shiragi Jōdokyō no ikkōsatsu: Gangyō no jōdokyō shisō o megutte,” 196–198; see also Matsubayashi, “Chōsen Jōdokyō no kenkyū: Miroku somon no jūnen o meguru gimon,” 82–85. Later scholarship on Wŏnhyo’s ten recollections derives from Matsubayashi’s work. See, for instance, Chŏng Hakkwŏn, “Gangyō Taishi no jūnengi ni tsuite,” 145

Notes to Pages 40–45 2­ 69–271; and Kakehashi Nobuaki, “Shiragi Jōdokyō no hatten (1): Jūnen-ron ni chakuganshite,” 650–653. 26. Guan Wuliangshou jing 1, T 365, 12.346a; Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 1, T 1747, 37.129a22–27; HPC 1.559a2–7. 27. Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, T 1747, 37.129a28–b8; HPC 1:559a. 28. See Pruden, “A Short Essay on the Pure Land,” 94; Chappell, “Tao-ch’o (562– 645): A Pioneer of Chinese Buddhism,” 323, 326. 29. See Apidamo jushe lun (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) 30, T 1558, 29.159a6; Nakamura Hajime, Bukkyōgo dai jiten, 868b (s.v. sōzoku 相續). 30. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, (s.v. anusaṃdhi) and 2.381b–382a (s.v. prabandha).

2.36a

31. Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, T 1747, 37.129a29–b8; HPC 1.559a; Lüelun anle jingtu yi 1, T 1957, 47.3c10–18; Anle ji 1, T 1958, 47.11a29–b12; Guan Wuliangshoufo jing shu 4, T 1753, 37.272c15–273a14. 32. See Anle ji 1, T 1958, 47.11a–b; Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 1, T 1747, 37.129a–b; HPC 1.559a. 33. Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 1, T 1747, 37.129b; HPC 1.559a. 34. Reconstructed by Etani Ryūkai, “Shiragi Hōi no Muryōjukyō gisho no kenkyū,” reprinted in Etani Ryūkai, Jōdokyō no shinkenkyū, 55–70; see also his “Fukugenbon Muryōjukyō gisho,” and his “Shiragi Hōi sen Muryōjukyō gisho no fukugen ni tsuite,” in Jōdokyō no shinkenkyū, 393–408. This last article contains the reconstruction used in the Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ, vol. 2, which will be used below. 35. Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso, HPC 2.11b15–c8. 36. She dasheng lun 2, T 1593, 31.121b12. 37. Miaofa lianhua jing 1, T 262, 9.9a25; Hurvitz, Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma, 40. 38. Miaofa lianhua jing 1, T 262, 9.8c24–25; Hurvitz, Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma, 38–39. 39. Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso, HPC 2.11c9–19. 40. These four intentions (siyi 四意) are the intention to make an identification, the intention to declare a future event, the intention of indirect reference, and the intention to accord with the dispositions of livings; She dasheng lun 2, T 1593, 31.121b11–18; my translation follows Keenan, The Summary of the Great Vehicle, 55–56. 41. This is a paraphrase of the chapter “Apparition of the Jeweled Stūpa,” see Miao lianhua jing 4, T 262, 9.32b–34b; Hurvitz, Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma, 183–194. 42. She dasheng lun 2, T 1593, 31.121b12–14; cf. Amituo jing T 366, 12.347b, 348a. 146

Notes to Pages 45–51 43. See, for example, Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Shelun (Mahāyāna­ saṃgraha), She dasheng lun shilun, T 1596, 31.194a26–b9; fr. Tanaka, The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, 210 n. 64. Jiacai also wrestles directly with the issue of the “intention to declare an event of another future time” in Jingtu lun 2, T 1963, 47.90b7–c3. 44. Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso, HPC 2.11c20–12a3. 45. Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso, HPC 2.12a3–8. 46. Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso, HPC 2.12a8–13 47. Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso, HPC 2.12a16–17. 48. Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 1, T 1747, 37.129a19; HPC 1.558c20. 49. Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso, HPC 2.12a.17–24. 50. Han Pogwang, Shiragi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū, 342. 51. Wuliangshou jing 1, T 360, 12.268a–b. 52. Muryangsu-gyŏng ki 1, HPC 2.241b1–6. 53. Muryangsu-gyŏng ki 1, HPC 2.241b6–19. 54. Muryangsu-gyŏng ki 1, HPC 2.241b19–20. 55. Samguk yusa 4, T 2039, 49.1006c–1007a. 56. Yushiki gitō zōmei ki 1, T 2261, 65.342a–c; fr. Han Pogwang, Shiragi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū, 351. 57. Reconstructed by Etani Ryūkai, “Shiragi Giseki no Muryōjukyō jutsugiki ni tsuite,” reprinted in Etani Ryūkai, Jōdokyō no shinkenkyū, 93–107; and his “Shiragi Giseki Muryōjukyō jutsugiki fukugen ni tsuite,” in Jōdokyō no shinkenkyū, 409–453. This last article contains the reconstruction of the text reprinted in the Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ, vol. 2, which will be used hereafter. 58. See Tongguk Taehakkyo Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn, Kankoku Bussho kaidai jiten, 55–59; Posal kyebon so, HPC 2.251c–300b; Pŏphwa-gyŏngnon sulgi, HPC 2.300c–320b; Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Lotus Sūtra is the Miaofa lianhua jing yupotishe (*Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa), in two rolls (T 1519, vol. 26). 59. See Minamoto, “Chosen Jōdokyō ni okeru Keikō to Giseki no ikkōsatsu.” 60. Muryangsu-gyŏng surŭi ki 2, HPC 2.327b19–24; Guan Wuliangshou jing 1, T 365, 12.346a11–22. 61. Muryangsu-gyŏng surŭi ki 2, HPC 2.327c5–21; fr. Matsubayashi Kōshi, “Chōsen Jōdokyō no kenkyū,” 82–85. 62. Muryangsu-gyŏng surŭi ki 2, HPC 2.328a. 63. See Tongguk Taehakkyo Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn, Kankoku Bussho kaidai jiten, 36–44; Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an, three rolls, T 1748, vol. 37; 147

Notes to Pages 51–58 HPC 2.18a–77a; and Sam Mirŭk-kyŏng so, one roll, T 1774, vol. 38; HPC 2.77b– 110a. For a collection of essays on Kyŏnghŭng’s Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an (T 1748), see Watanabe Kenshō, Shiragi Kyōgyō shi Jutsumonsan no kenkyū. For an English translation of and introduction to Kyŏnghŭng’s Maitreya material, see McBride, “Selections from the Commentary on the Three Maitreya Scriptures (Sam Mireukgyeong so (seon)) by Gyeongheung: Annotated Translation and Introduction.” 64. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039, 49.1012c–1013a. 65. For a study on the head rank six social strata and their collaborations with Silla kings see Lee Ki-baek, Silla chŏngch’i sahoesa yŏn’gu, 34–64. 66. For the loss of patronage to Xuanzang’s Buddhism see Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, 30–37. 67. Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 2, T 1748, 37.164a; HPC 2.66c. 68. For a variant discussion of Kyŏnghŭng’s exegesis on buddhānusmṛti see Jung Hee-Soo, “Kyŏnghŭng’s Commentary on the ‘Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra’ and the Formation of Pure Land Buddhism in Silla,” 316–334. 69. Guan Wuliangshou jing 1, T 365, 12.346a19–20; Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 2, T 1748, 37.151b; HPC 2.48b. 70. Guan Wuliangshou jing 1, T 365, 12.365a13. 71. Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 2, T 1748, 37.151b; HPC 2.48b. 72. Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 2, T 1748, 37.151c25–152a1; HPC 2.48c18–23. 73. See the following passages in Huaigan’s Shi jingtu qunyi lun 3, T 1960, 47.44a11–b1; 46c1–23; and roll 7, 73a20–b1. 74. Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 2, T 1748, 37.152a1–7; HPC 2.48c23–49a7. 75. Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 2, T 1748, 37.152a7–12; HPC 2.49a7–13. 76. Minamoto Hiroyuki, “Shiragi Jōdōkyō no tokushoku,” 306.

Chapter 4: Interaction and Reaction between the Amitābha and Maitreya Cults 1. Tsukamoto Zenryū, Chūgoku Bukkyō tsūshi, 1:560–561. 2. Sinp’yŏn chejong kyojang ch’ongnok 3, T 2184, 55.1177c19; Oh Young Bong, Wonhyo’s Theory of Harmonization, 194–204; Yi Chongik, Wŏnhyo ŭi kŭnbong sasang: Sinmun hwajaeng non yŏn’gu. 3. Fazang produced a sequence of Wŏnhyo’s works while introducing the panjiao scheme of all the Buddhist exegetical masters in one of his works on the Avataṃsaka-sūtra (Huayan jing): “Dharma Master Wŏnhyo of Haedong Silla in the Tang empire composed a commentary on this sūtra (i.e., Huayan jing) in which he establishes four teachings. First, the teaching that the three ­vehicles 148

Notes to Pages 58–61 are separate (bie 別), which is like the teaching of the four truths as found in the Yuanqi jing 緣起經 (T 124) and so forth. Second, the teaching that the three vehicles are interpenetrating (tong 通), which is like the Bore jing 般若經 (Perfection of Wisdom, T 220) and the Shenmi jing 深密經 (T 675), etc. Third, the teaching that the one vehicle is partial (fen 分), such as in the Yingluo jing 瓔珞經 (T 1485) and the Fanwang jing 梵網經 (T 1484), and so forth. Fourth, the teaching that the one vehicle is full (man滿), which is spoken of in Samantabhadra’s teaching in the Huayan jing (T 278). He interprets the differences between these four in this way in those commentaries.” See Huayan jing tanxuan ji 1, T 1733, 35.111a25–b1. 4. See Arthur Waley’s brilliant treatment of Xuanzang in The Real Tripitaka, 21, 37, 39, 40–41, 47, 93, 113, 129. See also Wriggins, Xuanzang: A Buddhist Pilgrim on the Silk Road, 96, 64, 86, 131. 5. Sponberg, “Wŏnhyo on Maitreya Visualization,” 109 n. 22; cf. Da Tang Da Ci’ensi Sanzang fashi zhuan 3, T 2053, 50.233c13–234a21. 6. Cf. Jizang, Mile jing youyi, T 1771, 38.263a–272b; Kuiji, Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing zan, two rolls, T 1772, 38.272b–299a. 7. This is a reference to the three kinds of wisdom (samhye 三慧; Skt. trividhāprajñā; also written munsasu 聞思修): the “wisdom gained by learning/­ listening [to expositions of the Dharma]” (munhye 聞慧; Skt. śrutamayī prajñā), “wisdom gained by reflecting on/contemplating [the truth]” (sahye 思慧; Skt. cintāmayī prajñā), and “wisdom gained by practicing/cultivating [meditation]” (suhye 修慧; Skt. bhāvanāmayī-prajñā). The wisdom gained by practicing/cultivating meditation is mentioned specifically in the previous sentence, and is probably alluded to by the word still in the following sentence. See Yuga shidi lun 9, T 1579, 30.322c26–27; Cheng weishi lun 9, T 1585, 31.52c28–53a6. 8. Mirŭk sangsaeng-gyŏng chongyo, T 1773, 38.299c3–5; HPC 1.548a1–4; translation adapted from Sponberg, “Wŏnhyo on Maitreya Visualization,” 97. 9. Mirŭk sangsaeng-gyŏng chongyo, T 1773, 38.299c7–9; HPC 1.548a5–8; translation adapted from Sponberg, “Wŏnhyo on Maitreya Visualization,” 97–98; Cf. Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing 1, T 452, 14.420a10–15. 10. Mirŭk sangsaeng-gyŏng chongyo, T 1773, 38.299c; HPC 1.548a–b; for translation see Sponberg, “Wŏnhyo on Maitreya Visualization,” 98. 11. Mirŭk sangsaeng-gyŏng chongyo, T 1773, 38.300b10–22; HPC 1.549a5–19; translation adapted from Sponberg, “Wŏnhyo on Maitreya Visualization,” ­99–100. 12. See McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 33–61 (esp. 47–50), 115–116. 13. See Etani Ryūkai, “Shiragi Gangyō no Yushin anrakudō wa gisakuka”; Han Pogwang, Shiragi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū, 299–331; and McBride, “Yusim allak to 149

Notes to Pages 62–69 (The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss): Annotated Translation and Introduction.” 14. Sam Mirŭk-gyŏng so, T 1774, 38.316c–317a; HPC 2.98a–b. 15. Cf. Guan Mile shangsheng Doushuaitian jing 1, T 452, 14.420a10–15; Kuiji, Guan Mile shangsheng Doushuaitian jing zan 2, T 1772, 38.295b8–10. 16. Sam Mirŭk-gyŏng so, T 1774, 38.317a6–14; HPC 2.98b7–16. 17. Sam Mirŭk-gyŏng so, T 1774, 38.317a14–21; HPC 2.98b14–21; cf. Vasubandhu, Wuliangshou jing yubodishe yuansheng jie (Wangsheng lun) 1, T 1524, 26.231b10–24; Tanluan, Wuliangshou jing yubodishe yuansheng jie zhu (Wangsheng lun zhu) 2, T 1819.40.835a19–20. 18. See Minamoto Hiroyuki, “Shiragi Jōdōkyō no tokushoku,” 307–315; also his “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla,” 154–165. 19. The five-pointed prostration, literally, “the five members” (Kor. och’e; Ch. wuti 五體) or “the five wheels” (Kor. oryun; Ch. wulun 五輪) refer to the knees, elbows, and head—when all are placed on the ground in prostration it implies utmost respect. See Fayuan zhulin 20, T 2122, 53.434c4–22. 20. Sam Mirŭk-gyŏng so, T 1774, 38.317a27–b15; HPC 2.98c7–99a5. 21. Sam Mirŭk-gyŏng so, T 1774, 38.317b21–24; HPC 2.99a13–17; cf. Kuiji, Guan Mile shangsheng Doushuaitian jing zan 2, T 1772, 38.295b22–29; Ahn Kye-hyŏn, Silla chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu, 90 n. 38. 22. Sam Mirŭk-kyŏng so, T 1774, 38.317b24–29; HPC 2.99a17–23. 23. Minamoto Hiroyuki, “Shiragi Jōdōkyō no tokushoku,” 307–315; for an edited English translation see his “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla,” 154–165. 24. See Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh Century, 153–170. 25. Mile jing youyi, T 1771, 38.263c–264a. 26. Mile jing youyi, T 1771, 38.269b7–9. 27. See Guan Wuliangshou jing yishu, T 1752, 37.236a–237c. 28. See Anle ji 1, T 1958, 47.9b–c. 29. See Jingtu lun 3, T 1963, 47.100a24–b18. These seven reasons are as following: (1) The classification of those who are reborn. Human beings may be reborn in Sukhāvatī while heavenly beings are reborn in Tuṣita. (2) The cause of rebirth. The five precepts to be reborn in Sukhāvatī; the ten wholesome acts for Tuṣita. (3) Practice. The ten recollections (shinian 十念) for Sukhāvatī; donations and precepts for Tuṣita. (4) Power. Amitābha’s power based on his vow (no. 18) for Sukhavati; versus the aspirant’s own power for Tuṣita. (5) Support. When reborn in Sukhāvatī the practitioner is welcomed by Amitābha and his great ­entourage, 150

Notes to Pages 70–71 i­ ncluding Avalokiteśvara; Maitreya alone greets the aspirant reborn in Tuṣita. (6) Scriptural support. Many sūtras and commentaries for Sukhāvatī; few references for Tuṣita. (7) Masters. Many great Buddhist teachers have sought rebirth in Sukhāvatī; few have desired rebirth in Tuṣita. See Jingtu lun 3, T 1963, 47.100b18–c7; chart adapted from Minamoto Hiroyuki, “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla,” 159. 30. The Two Vehicles refer to the vehicle of the disciples whose goal is arhatship (śrāvaka) and to the vehicle of the solitary buddhas who are enlightened but do not teach the path to ordinary beings (pratyekabuddha). They are supposed to be inferior ways to enlightenment. See Miaofa lianhua jing (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra) 3, T 262, 9.25c10–24. 31. Wuliangshou jing yubodishe yuansheng jie, T 1524, 26.231a14, 232b18–19. 32. The sūtra says that “one cannot attain birth in that land with few roots of good or a small store of merit.” See Amituo jing, T 366, 12.347b9–10; Inagaki and Stewart, The Three Pure Land Sūtras, 93. 33. For the allusion of getting a thousand coins for one coin see She dasheng lun shi 6, T 1595, 31.194b5–7. 34. This is a paraphrase of the following passage from the Guan Wuliangshou jing: “The white tuft of hair curling to the right between the eyebrows is five times as big as Mount Sumeru.” Guan Wuliangshou jing 1, T 365, 12.343b17–19; Inagaki and Stewart, The Three Pure Land Sutras, 75; cf. Takakusu, Amitūr-dhyāna-sūtra, 180. 35. This is the “four-fold congregation,” which is comprised of monks, nuns, male postulants, and female postulants. See Zhong ahan jing (Madhyamāgama) 22, T 26, 1.567c15–16; Miaofa lianhua jing 2, T 262, 9.12a7. 36. This may refer to either the eight classes of supernatural beings (Ch. babu zhong 八部衆): deva, nāga, yakṣa, gandharva, asura, garuda, kinnara, and mahoraga; or to the eight groups of ghosts (Ch. babu guizhong 八部鬼衆): gandharva, piśāca, kumbhāṇḍa, preta, nāga, pūtana, yakṣa, and rākṣasa. See Miaofa lianhua jing 2, T 262, 9.12a7–9. 37. Guan Mile shangsheng Doushuaitian jing zan 1, T 1772, 38.277a–c; final quote 277c2–4. 38. Huaigan’s list is as follows: (1) teachers, (2) location, (3) associates, (4) life span, (5) the interior and exterior of the Three Realms, (6) color of the body, (7) characteristics of the Buddhas, (8) five understandings, (9) existence of unwholesomeness, (10) elimination of evil, (11) feeling of happiness, and (12) way of rebirth. The differences are numbers 1, 6, 7, and 10. See Minamoto, “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla,” 161. 39. Huaigan’s fifteen points of similarity between rebirth in Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī are (1) meditation, (2) precepts, (3) ten wholesome acts, (4) ­confession, (5) the 151

Notes to Pages 71–79 virtue of making images, (6) greeting, (7) reciting the name of the Buddha, (8) worship, (9) merit transference, (10) sūtra chanting, (11) rebirth, (12) greeting when entering the land, (13) homage, (14), hearing the teachings, and (15) falling back into transmigration. See Minamoto, “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla,” 161. 40. The eight differences are in reference to (1) the original vow, (2) light, (3)  protection, (4) length of tongue, (5) assembly, (6) elimination of evil, (7) the most serious evil acts, [and] (8) teachings. See Minamoto, “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla,” 162. 41. She dasheng lun shi 6, T 1595, 31.194b5–7. 42. Shi jingtu qunyi lun 4, T 1960, 47.52c–54c, esp. 54b26–c9. 43. Mirŭk sangsaeng-gyŏng chongyo, T 1773, 38.300b18–c4; HPC 1.549a5–b7. 44. For an overview of the main theories on authorship see Han Pogwang, Shiragi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū, 217–226. My own opinion—that the Yusim allak to was compiled by an adherent of the Japanese Tendai school in the late tenth or early eleventh century as a primer dealing with some of the most ­compelling and prevalent Pure Land doctrines and arguments of the time— is forthcoming in print. See my introduction to the translation, “Yusim allak to: A New Translation and Introduction.” 45. The three natures are wholesome nature, unwholesome nature, and indeterminate nature. See Cheng weishi lun (Vijñapatimātratāsiddiśāstra) 5, T 1585, 31.36c11–20. 46. The six sense desires or six sense impurities are qualities produced by the objects and organs of sense: sight, sound, small, taste, touch, and idea (mind). See Dafangguang yuanjue xiuduoluo liaoyi jing 1, T 842, 17.914b28–c2. 47. Yusim allak to, T 1965, 47.118a27–b3, HPC 1.578a. 48. Yusim allak to, T 1965, 47.118b6–13, HPC 1.578a–b. 49. Yusim allak to, T 1965, 47.118b14–c1, HPC 1.578b–c. 50. Jingtu lun 3, T 1963, 47.100a24–c7; Guan Mile shangsheng Doushuaitian jing zan 1, T 1772, 38.277a–c. 51. Minamoto, “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla,” 164. 52. Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 3, T 1748, 37.164a; HPC 2.66c; translation with slight changes based on Minamoto, “Characteristics of Pure Land ­Buddhism of Silla,” 156, 163.

Chapter 5: The Amitābha Cult in Practice 1. Best, “Imagery, Iconography and Belief in Early Korean Buddhism,” 29–30; Hwang Suyŏng et al., Han’guk pulsing sambaeksŏn, 128 (no. 30), 130 (no. 32), 147 (no. 48), 149 (no. 50), 157 (no. 58). 152

Notes to Pages 79–92 2. The height of this icon, National Treasure no. 85, is 15.5 centimeters; the height of the main Buddha is 11.5 centimeters. See Kyŏngsanyŏn inmyomyŏng kŭmdong Muryangsu samjonbul 景四年辛卯銘金銅無量壽 三尊佛, in Yŏkchu Han’guk kodae kŭmsŏngmun, 1.129–131; cf. Samguk Silla sidae Pulgyo kŭmsŏngmun kojŭng, 13–14. 3. Kang, Han’guk Pulgyo chogak ŭi hŭrŭm, 133–135. 4. Kang, Han’guk Pulgyo chogak ŭi hŭrŭm, 180–186. 5. Yun Kyŏngnyul, Kyŏngju Namsan, 48–49, 51; Lee and Cho, Treasures of Gyeongju, 214. 6. Kang, Han’guk Pulgyo chogak ŭi hŭrŭm, 240–243. 7. Lee and Cho, Treasures of Gyeongju, 73. 8. On the Imhaejŏn see Lee Ki-baik, Silla sasangsa yŏn’gu, 287–292. 9. Rhie, “The Korean Buddhist Image,” 11; Lee and Cho, Treasures of Gyeongju, 153. 10. Han’guk Pulgyo Yŏn’guwŏn, ed., Silla ŭi p’yesa II, 31–37; Kang, Han’guk Pulgyo chogak ŭi hŭrŭm, 281–284, Lee and Cho, Treasures of Gyeongju, 95. 11. Lena Kim, “Kyŏngju Kulbulsaji ŭi samyŏn sŏkpul e taehayŏ”; Cho Wŏnyŏng, “Silla sabangbul ŭi hyŏngsik kwa chosŏng paegyŏng”; and Rhi Ki-yong, Han’guk Pulgyo yŏn’gu, 524–534. 12. Kang, Han’guk Pulgyo chogak ŭi hŭrŭm, 285–288. 13. Samguk yusa 3, T 2039, 49.991b–c. 14. Lee and Cho, Treasures of Gyeongju, 219. 15. Lee and Cho, Treasures of Gyeongju, 83. 16. Wŏnjong mullyu 22, HPC 4.647b14–c2. The poem translated here differs in some details to the version translated in McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 124–125, because the latter was based on versions of the poem found in the Koun chip (Collected Works of Lone Cloud [Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn]) and the monastery records of Pulguk Monastery, both of which, I believe, date to the nineteenth century. 17. McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 125. 18. McBride, “Practical Buddhist Thaumaturgy,” 51–52. 19. No Myŏngho, “Muksŏjip’yŏn munsŏ tŭl ŭi kusŏng kwa naeyong e taehan kich’ojŏk kŏmt’o,” 58–61. 20. Ch’oe Yŏngch’ang, “‘Mugu chŏnggwang kyŏng’ Koryŏ ponginsŏl kŭn’gŏ hŭibak.” 21. The full name of the dhāraṇī sūtra is Yiqie rulaixin mimi chuanshen sheli bao­ qieyin tuoluoni jing (Dhāraṇī of the Jeweled Casket Seal of the Secret Whole Body Relic of All the Tathāgatas; Skt. Sarvatathāgatādhiṣṭānahṛdayaguhyadhā 153

Notes to Pages 92–97 tukaraṇḍamudrā-dhāraṇī, T 1022). It was translated into Chinese by Amoghavajra in Chang’an between 746 and 774. Other examples of this dhāraṇī have been discovered in Korea dating to the Koryŏ period. See Ch’ŏn Hae-bong, “Dharani-sutra of Early Koryŏ.” 22. Schopen, “Sukhāvatī as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature.” 23. Aside from Pure Land scriptures directly associated with the cult of Amitābha/Amitāyus, most Buddhist sūtras in Chinese that present rebirth in Sukhāvatī as a general goal do so only once or twice. The Great Dhāraṇī has it four times, but another dhāraṇī sūtra lists it seven times; see Aliduoli tuoluoni aluli jing, T 1039, 20.23c (twice), 24a, 27a, 28b, 28c, 30b. 24. McBride, “Practical Buddhist Thaumaturgy.” 25. See Weimoji suoshuo jing 1, T 475, 14.539a, 540c; roll 2, 14.546a. 26. Stevenson, “The Four Kinds of Samādhi in Early T’ien-t’ai Buddhism.” 27. Stevenson, “The Four Kinds of Samādhi in Early T’ien-t’ai Buddhism,” 72–75. 28. Fayuan zhulin 60, T 2122.53.735a6–11. 29. Fayuan zhulin 60, T 2122.53.735a17–19, b18–20. 30. Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, T 1747, 37.126b20–22. He also refers to it extensively in his Amit’a-gyŏng so; see McBride, “Wŏnhyo’s Commentary on the Amitābha Sūtra.” 31. Fayuan zhulin 60, T 2122, 53.736a. 32. Fayuan zhulin 60, T 2122, 53.736b. The received text of the sūtra does not have an individual spell with this name, although part of the word appears in a dhāraṇī (Qifo bapusa suoshuo da tuoluoni shenzhou jing 3, T 1332, 21.547b4– 15) and also appears as a name of a red-colored demon in roll 4, T 1332, 21.560c9–12. 33. See Kyeyumyŏng Amit’a samyŏn sŏksang (also called Kyeyumyŏng samjonbul pisang, National Treasure no. 108), in Yŏkchu Han’guk kodae kŭmsŏngmun, 2.187; cf. Samguk Silla sidae Pulgyo kŭmsŏngmun kojŭng, 35. This work is preserved in the Kongju National Museum. See also Kang, Han’guk Pulgyo chogak ŭi hŭrŭm, 201–205. 34. See Kich’ukmyŏng Amit’abul sŏksang (also called Kich’ukmyŏng Amit’a yŏrae chebul posal sŏksang, Treasure no. 367), in Yŏkchu Han’guk kodae kŭmsŏngmun, 2.193. 35. For annotated translations of the two inscriptions, see McBride, “The Inscriptions on the Standing Maitreya and Amitābha Images of Kamsan Monastery and Devotional Buddhism of the Mid-Silla Period.” 36. The three bodies of the Buddha are (1) the Dharmakāya (pŏpsin 法身), (2) the saṃbhogakāya (posin 報身), and (3) the nirmāṇakāya (ŭngsin 應身, or 154

Notes to Pages 97–98 ­hwasin  化身). The Dharmakāya is the dharma body or body of truth, the nature of reality; it is represented iconically as the Buddha Vairocana. The saṃbhogakāya is the reward body; the type of body the Buddha manifests in a buddha-land, buddha-field (buddhakṣetra) or Pure Land, such as that manifested by Amitābha in Sukhāvatī. The nirmāṇakāya is the response or transformational body that Buddha manifests to living beings on the earth, such as the body of Śākyamuni while he lived on the earth. 37. For instance, the Taishang dongxuan baoyuan shangjing (Superior Scripture of Treasuring the Origin, from the Dongxuan Canon) contains a list of ten “inner” (nei 内) and ten “outer” (wai 外) names of the Celestial Master. The inner names are (1) Source (yuan 源), (2) Turbid (hun 混), (3) Confused (dun 沌), (4) Boundless (ming 溟), (5) Infinite (xing 涬), (6) Nebulous (meng 濛), (7) Chaotic (hong 澒), (8) Beginning (shi 始), (9) Prime (yuan 元), and (10) Dark (xuan 玄). The outer names are (1) “As it is”/Nature (ziran 自然), “this is the most mysterious and honored unsurpassed one”; (2) Illimitable (wuji 無極); (3) Great Dao (dadao 大道); (4) Most Pure (zhizhen 至眞); (5) Grand Superior/ Heaven (taishang 太上); (6) Lord Lao (laojun 老君); (7) Eminent August (gaohuang 高皇); (8) Celestial Honored One (tianzun 天尊); (9) Jade Emperor (yudi 玉帝); and (10) His Majesty (bixia 陛下). See D 368, 10.7880b–81a. A similar list of “ten names of the Celestial Honored-One” (Ch. tianzun zhi shihao 天尊 之十號) appears in the Taishang dongxuan lingbao shihao gongde yinyuan miaojing: (1) Unsurpassed Dao (wushang dao 無上道), (2) Beginning Prime (yuanshi 元始), (3) Great Ultimate (taiji 太極), (4) Eminent August (gaohuang 高皇), (5)  Brilliant Clarity (guangming 光明), (6) the Jade Emperor (yudi 玉帝), (7) the King of the Right Law (zhengfa wang 正法王), (8) the Father of Great Mercy (daci fu 大慈父), (9) the Master of Transcendence and Perfection (xianzhen shi 仙眞師), and (10) the Celestial Honored One (tianzun 天尊). See D 337, 10.7689b; see also Ren Jiyu and Zhong Zhaopeng, Daozang tiyao, 255 (no. 336). I would like to thank Terry Kleeman for informing me about the Taishang dongxuan baoyuan shangjing’s lists of the ten inner and ten outer titles of the Celestial Masters. 38. See, for instance, Barrett, Li Ao, Buddhist, Taoist, or Neo-Confucian; Waley, The Life and Times of Po Chü-i; Ch’oe Chunok, Koun Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn sŏnsaeng sajŏk ko; and Kim Injong et al., Koun Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn. 39. Kim Pusik mistakenly reports that the Tang shu 唐書 says that Kim Chisŏng was a name given to Silla King Sŏngdŏk (r. 702–737) since his given name Yunggi 隆基 was the same as that of Tang Emperor Xuanzong 玄宗 (r. 712– 756): Longji 隆基; Samguk sagi 8.83. The Tang shu does not say that Kim Chisŏng was the given name of Sŏngdŏk. The Cefu yuangui contains a faulty entry that says, “The Silla king Kim Chisŏng dispatched an emissary bearing tribute during the third month of the first year of the Shenlong 神龍 reign period of Zhongzong.” See Cefu yuangui 970.18b5. It should read that 155

Notes to Pages 98–103 Kim Chisŏng was an emissary dispatched to Tang at that time. See Yi Pyŏngdo, Kugyŏk Samguk sagi, 137 n. 1. 40. Tang huiyao 50.865; 49.859. See Charles D. Benn, “Taoism as Ideology in the Reign of Emperor Hsüan-tsung (712–756),” 58; and Ren Jiyu, Zhongguo daojiao shi, 1.290. 41. For a quick list of the seventeen stages see Yuga shidi lun (Yogācārabhūmi) 1, T 1579, 30.279a. They are described in the “Section on Basic Stages” (bendi fen 本地分), Yuga shidi lun, T 1579, 30.279a–577c. 42. See Samguk sagi 5.53 (Muyŏl 2), 6.62 (Munmu 7); 8.80 (Sinmun 3); and 8.82 (Hyoso 4). Kaewŏn probably died in the first month of 706 (Sŏngdŏk 5), since a new senior grandee (sangdaedŭng 上大等) named Inp’um 仁品 was selected at that time. However, Kaewŏn’s death was not recorded; see Samguk sagi 8.84 (Sŏngdŏk 5). 43. SYKY 3.305–306; Samguk yusa 3, T 2039, 49.1000b19–20. 44. Samguk sagi 7.93 (Munmu 21). 45. Samguk sagi 9.107 (Hyosŏng 6); Samguk sagi 9.113 (Sŏndŏk 6). 46. Saitō, “Shiragi no sōsei kara mita Kanzanjiseki sekizō Amida nyoraizō·Miroku bosatsuzō kinsekibun no ichikaishaku,” 134–137. 47. Sinjŭng Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam 21.20a6–7. The editors of this Chosŏn-period work, however, say that the monastery has its name because Koryŏ king T’aejo (Wang Kŏn) stored weapons and helmets in the valley. See also Lee and Cho, Treasures of Gyeongju, 86. 48. For a discussion of the rediscovery of the fragments and an analysis of the fragmented text see Yŏkchu Han’guk kodae kŭmsŏngmun, 3.305–309; cf. Samguk Silla sidae Pulgyo kŭmsŏngmun kojŭng, 120–124. 49. Samguk yusa 3, T 2039, 49.1000c–1001a. 50. For a more detailed discussion of the divine assembly see McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 133–138. 51. There are essentially four classes of Āgamas: (1) Chang ahan jing長阿含經 (Dīrghāgama-sūtra, T 1), (2) Zhong ahan jing 中阿含經 (Madhyamāgama, T 26), (3) Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 (Saṁyuktāgama-sūtra, T 99), and (4) Zengyi ahan jing 增壹阿含經 (Ekottarāgama-sūtra, T 125). 52. Sanbao ganying yaolüe lu 2, T 2084, 51.839a8–17. 53. For more detailed speculation on the practices associated with this story see Kim Young-tai, “Samguk sidae Mit’a sinang ŭi suyong kwa kŭ chŏn’gae,” 44–48. 54. See McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 20–21; Rutt, “The Flower Boys of Silla (Hwarang)”; and Lee Ki-baik, “Early Silla Buddhism and the Power of the Aristocracy.” 156

Notes to Pages 103–109 55. See the story of King Sīvī (Ch. Shipi 尸毘), Xianyu jing 1, T 202, 4.351c5–352b8, specifically 352a8–9. I would like to thank my mentor Robert E. Buswell Jr. for this reference. 56. Samguk yusa 4, T 2039, 49.1005a–1006a. 57. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039, 49.1012a. 58. The account of Hyesuk is listed as being related to Amitābha worship by Minamoto Hiroyuki in a chart in his article “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla,” 134; and Peter H. Lee suggests that Hyesuk taught the people “to utter Amita’s name” in The Sourcebook of Korean Civilization, 192. 59. For a concise discussion of the peninsular war of unification, see Jamieson, “The Samguk Sagi and the Unification Wars,” and Jamieson, “Collapse of the T’ang Silla alliance.” 60. Great Compassion Spell (Ch. dabei zhou), in Qianyan qianbi Guanshiyin pusa tuoluoni shenzhou jing 1, T 1057a, 20.84a–c; T 1057b, 20.90b–91a; Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin pusa guangda yuanman wuai dabeixin tuoluoni jing 1, T 1060, 20.107b–c. 61. Ŭisang, Paekhwa toryang parwŏn mun, HPC 2.9a. 62. For my earlier view see McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 72–74; for my revised view, see McBride, “Ŭisang’s Vow Texts: Koryŏ-Period Imaginaire of Silla Hwaŏm Buddhism on the Ground?” 63. Qianyan qianbi Guanshiyin pusa tuoluoni shenzhou jing 1, T 1057a, 20.85b22–23; T 1057b, 20.92a2–3; Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin pusa guangda yuanman wuai dabeixin tuoluoni jing 1, T 1060, 20.109a20–25, 111a20. 64. Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 235. 65. Song gaoseng zhuan 4, T 2061, 50.729a5–16. 66. Samguk yusa 4, T 2039, 49.1006b15–16. See also Buswell, “Hagiographies of the Korean Monk Wŏnhyo,” 561. 67. Mit’a chŭngsŏng ke, HPC 1.843a. 68. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039, 49.1012a–b. The translation of the poem was adapted from Lee, Studies in the Saenaenorae: Old Korean Poetry, 58–59. 69. This account is a composite from the following sources: Samguk yusa 2, T 2039, 49.972c, and Samguk sagi 8.82 and 44.412–414. Cf. Kim Young-tai, “Silla ŭi Mit’a sasang: Sinang saryorŭl chungsimuro,” 63, and Jang Hwee-ok, “Silla Mit’a chŏngt’o sasang ŭi sajŏk koch’al,” 29. The Samguk yusa says that “Inmun died at sea,” but this contradicts evidence from his biography in the Samguk sagi. For a more detailed discussion see McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 68–69. 70. Samguk yusa 3, T 2039, 49.995b–996b. 71. Ch’angwŏn Taehakkyo Pangmulgwan, Ch’angwŏn-gun munhwa yujŏk chŏngmil chip’yo chosa pogoso, 132–137, 330–333 (images). 157

Notes to Pages 110–117 72. See McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 19–20. 73. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039, 49.1017b. 74. The notion of Ten-Thousand-Day Convocations for the Recollection of the Buddha (manil yŏmburhoe 萬日念佛會) is more fully developed in Mok Chŏngbae, “Manil yŏmbul-hoe sŏngnip ŭi ŭimi,” 275–295. 75. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039, 49.1012a. There is different version of this narrative, but since it is fundamentally the same as the foregoing account I will not paraphrase it. Samguk yusa 5, T. 2039, 49.1012b. 76. For a detailed discussion of such practices in the Chinese context see James A. Benn, Burning for the Buddha. 77. Kŏnbongsa ponmal sajŏk, 28–30, 39–41. 78. Yi Chigwan, “Chŏsŏ rŭl t’onghae pon Chosŏngi ŭi Chŏngt’o sasang,” 233. 79. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039, 49.1016b–c. For more on the Ten-Thousand-Day Assemblies see Mok Chŏngbae, “Manil yŏmburhoe sŏngnip ŭi ŭimi” and Han Pogwang, Shiragi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū, 545–555. 80. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039, 49.1017b. 81. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039, 49.1013b–c. 82. Samguk yusa 5, T 2039.49.1013a–b. Translation following Lee, Sourcebook of Korean Civilization, 207–208. 83. Hayami Tasuku, Jōdo shinkōron, 51. 84. Shigematsu Akihisa, “An Overview of Early Japanese Pure Land,” 270–272. 85. Pradel, “The Fragments of the Tenjukoku Shūchō Mandara: Reconstruction of the Iconography and the Historical Contexts,” 226–234. See also Pradel, “The Tenjukoku Shūchō Mandara: Reconstruction of the Iconography and Ritual Context.” 86. Nihon shoki 25.319 (Kōtoku: Hakuchi 3.4.15). Cf. Aston, trans., Nihongi, 2.241– 242. 87. Nara ibun, 2.963b. 88. Tsukamoto Zenryū, “Nihon kodai Bukkyō no Jōdokyō-teki juyō,”13; Fujishima Tatsurō, “Nara jidai ni okeru Amida shinkō.” 89. Nihon ryōki 1.122–125 (no. 22); Kyoko Motomochi Nakamura, Miraculous Tales from the Japanese Buddhist Tradition, 133–134. 90. Shigematsu, “An Overview of the Early Japanese Pure Land,” 282–283. 91. Shigematsu, “An Overview of the Early Japanese Pure Land,” 283.

Epilogue 1. See Buswell, The Formation of Ch’an Ideology in China and Korea: The Vajrasamādhi-Sūtra, A Buddhist Apocryphon. 158

Notes to Pages 117–119 2. For Chinul’s Yŏmbul yomun 念佛要門, see Buswell, “The Essentials of Pure Land Practice”; for T’aego Pou, T’aego hwasang ŏrok 1, HPC 6.679c–680a; see also Cleary, A Buddha from Korea: The Zen Teachings of T’aego, 109–110. 3. See McBride, Doctrine and Practice in Medieval Korean Buddhism, 27, 91. For a more speculative approach to Ŭich’ŏn’s views on Pure Land, see Kim Yŏngmi, “Taegak kuksa Ŭich’ŏn ŭi Amit’a sinang kwa chŏngt’ogwan.” 4. Suh Yoon-kil, “Koryŏ Ch’ŏnt’ae wa milgyo ŭi chŏngt’o sasang,” 144–146; Ch’ae Sangsik, “Koryŏ hugi Ch’ŏnt’aejong Paengnyŏnsa kyŏlsa” 5. For example, see Kim Cheonhak, “The Cult of the Hwaŏm Pure Land of the Koryŏ Period as Seen through Self-Power and Other Power.” 6. The “Practices and Vows of Samantabhadra” is often rendered in Sanskrit as the Bhadracarīpraṇdhāna (Dedication or Devotion to Virtuous Practice). Although it gained its most widespread fame when it was attached to the Zhenyuan edition of the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra in forty rolls, it had been circulating as an independent text for several hundred years. Buddha­ bhadra, who translated the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra in sixty rolls, had translated it already in 420 with the title Wenshuishili fayuan jing (*Mañjuśrīpraṇdhāna, T 296). Sengyou’s sixth-century catalog of the Buddhist canon says that the sūtra was popular “in foreign countries.” See Chu sanzang ji 9, T 2145, 67c7–8. Amoghavajra (Bukong, 705–774) also rendered a translation of this text in the middle of the eighth century, the Puxian pusa xingyuan zan (T 297). Amoghavajra’s translation was commonly recited as part of ritual procedures associated with the Lotus Sūtra; see Chengjiu miaofa lianhua jing wang youjia guanzhi yigui, T 1000, 19.596b10–13. In the intervening centuries the proponent/speaker of the sūtra had switched from Mañjuśrī to Samanta­ bhadra, yet both are important figures on the Huayan/Hwaŏm tradition. Prajñā’s version, appended to his translation of the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra, became the most famous version of this text. For a brief study and summary, see Buzo and Prince, Kyunyŏ-jŏn, 75–88. 7. Dafangguang fo huayan jing 40, T 293, 10.846c8–29. 8. Ide Seinosuke, “Tayō no naka no tōitsu: Kōrai butsuga no ryōbun,” 90–91; Ide, “The World of Goryeo Buddhist Painting,” 36–37; and McBride, Domesticating the Dharma, 86–138. 9. There are three primary translations of the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra, or Dafangguang fo huayan jing, into Buddhist Chinese: the sixty-roll edition translated in the fifth-century in the Eastern Jin period ( Jinben 晉本, T 278), the eighty-roll edition tradition translated at the end of the seventh century during the time of Empress Wu (Zhouben 周本, T 279), and the forty-roll ­edition translated during the Zhenyuan reign period (785–805) of the midTang period (Zhenyuanben 貞元本, T 293). 159

Notes to Pages 119–130 10. Dafangguang fo huayan jing 40, T 293, 10.848a9–11; Moon Myung Dae, “Top’an haesŏl,” 244; Ide, Nihon no Sōgen butsuga, 15 pl. 26 11. Kyunyŏ chŏn, HPC 4.515b–516a. For English translations of Kyunyŏ’s poems, see Buzo and Prince, Kyunyŏ-jŏn, 42–67. 12. On Ŭich’ŏn’ considering Chengguan, Zongmi, and other Huayan/Hwaŏm masters as his patriarchs, see McBride, Doctrine and Practice in Medieval Korean Buddhism, 9–10, 19, 21, 27, 40, 67, 75, 76. 13. Huayan jing xingyuan pin shu 10, X 227, 5.198a9–18; Dafangguang fo huayan jing puxian xingyuan pin biexing shu chao 6, X 229, 5.322b17–c12). 14. Dafangguang fo huayan jing puxian xingyuan pin biexing shu chao 4, X 229, 5.280c8–281a1; Kim Yŏngjae, “Koryŏ purhwa ŭi Hwaŏm sasangsŏng yŏn’gu,” 577. 15. See McBride, “Koryŏ Buddhist Paintings and the Cult of Amitābha.” 16. Tomatsu Norichiyo, “Chikō no Jōdokyō shisō ni tsuite,” 150–152. See also Shigematsu, “An Overview of the Early Japanese Pure Land,” 283–287, esp. 285. 17. Etani, Jōdokyō no shin kenkyū, 394–395. 18. Etani, Jōdokyō no shin kenkyū, 410. 19. See McBride, “Yusim allak to (The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss): Annotated Translation and Introduction;” Etani Ryūkai, “Shiragi Gangyō no Yu shinanraku dō wa gisakuka”; cf. Han Pogwang, Shiragi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū, 213–331. 20. Minamoto, “Shiragi Jōdōkyō no tokushoku,” 307. 21. See the chart in Ahn, Silla chŏngt’o sasangsa yŏn’gu, 214; see also pp. 267–268 for the influence of Kyŏnghŭng on Gizan; and see pp. 273–280 for the influence of Pŏbwi and Hyŏnil on Japanese monks. Ahn refers to the work of Kasuga Reichi 春日禮智, who conducted the first attempt at reconstructing the Wuliangshou jing commentary of Pŏbwi in 1940; Etani Ryūkai’s first attempt was in 1958; see 278 n. 28. 22. See Han Pogwang, Shiragi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū, 227, 231; and McBride, “Yusim allak to (The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss): Annotated Translation and Introduction.” 23. For example, see Keel, “Kyŏnghŭng in Shinran’s Pure Land Thought.”

Appendix 1. The evidence is not conclusive that Wŏnhyo authored a text with this title, since no such attribution exists in any catalog of East Asian commentarial literature. The reference is based on citations to a book with this title made in Minamoto Takakuni’s Anyō shū (ca. 1070), in rolls 3, 9, and 10. See Satō Tetsuei, Eizan jōdokyō no kenkyū, 451–452. 160

Selected Bibliography

Classical and Canonical Sources Aliduoluo tuoluoni aluli jing 阿唎多羅陀羅尼阿嚕力經 (*Āryatārā-dhāraṇī-arolika). One roll. Translated by Amoghavajra (Bukong, 704–774). T 1039, 20.23b–30c. Amit’a-gyŏng sŏ 阿彌陀經疏 (Commentary on the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra). One roll. By Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686). T 1759, 37.348a–350b; HPC 562c–566a. Amituo guyin shengwang tuoluoni jing 阿彌陀鼓音聲王陀羅尼經 (Aparimitāyur­ jñānahṛdaya-dhāraṇī). One roll. Translator unknown, Liang 梁 dynasty (502– 557). T 370, 12.352b–353a. Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 (Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra). One roll. Translated by Kumārajīva (343–413) in 402. T 366, 12.346b–348b. Anle ji 安樂集 (Pure Land Collection). Two rolls. By Daochuo 道綽 (562–645). T 1958, 47.4a–22b. Apidamo jushe lun 阿毘達磨俱舍論 (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya). 30 rolls. By Vasubandhu (Shiqin 世親, 400–480). Translated by Xuanzang 玄奘 (ca. 600–664). T 1558, 29.1a-159b. Cefu yuangui 冊府元龜 (Outstanding Models from the Storehouse of Literature). 31 main sections and 1,104 subsections. Edited by Wang Qinruo 王欽若 et al., completed in 1013. 12 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1960. Chengjiu miaofa lianhua jing wang youjia guanzhi yigui 成就妙法蓮華經王瑜伽觀智 儀軌 (Ritual Manual on Yogic Insight on the Completion of the King of Sūtras the Lotus of the Sublime Dharma). One roll. By Amoghavajra (­Bukong 不空, 704–774). T 1000, 19.594a–602a27. Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (Vijñapatimātratāsiddhi). 10 rolls. By Dharmapāla (Hufa 護法); trans. Xuanzang 玄奘 (ca. 600–664) in 659. T 1585, 31.1a–60a. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 (Compilation of Notices on the Translation of the Tripiṭaka). 15 rolls. By Sengyou 僧祐 (445–518). T 2145, 55.1a–114a. Da Amituo jing 大阿彌陀經 (Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra). Two rolls. Translated by Wang Rixiu 王日休. T 364, 12.326c–340b. Da baoji jing 大寶積經 (Mahāratnakūṭa, A Great Heap of Jewels). 120 rolls. Translated by Bodhiruci II (Putiliuzhi 菩提流支, d. 727). T 310, 11.1a–685a. 161

Selected Bibliography Dafangguang fo huayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經 (Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra, Flower Garland Sūtra). 60 rolls. Translated by Buddhabhadra (Juexian 覺賢, 359–429) between 418 and 422. T 278, 9.395a–788b. Dafangguang fo huayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經 (Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, Flower Garland Sūtra). 80 rolls. Translated by Śikṣānanda (Shichanantuo 實叉難陀, 652–710) between 695 and 699. T 279, 10.1a–444c. Dafangguang fo huayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經 (Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, Flower Garland Sūtra; Zhenyuan xinyi huayan jing 貞元新譯華嚴經 [New Translation of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra made during the Zhenyuan reign period]). 40 rolls. Translated by Prajñā (Bore 般若); completed in 798. T 293, 10.661a–851c. Dafangguang fo huayan jing puxian xingyuan pin biexing shu chao 大方廣佛華嚴經 普賢品行願別行疏鈔 (Extracts of the Commentary on the Special Practices of the Practices and Vows of the Samantabhadra Chapter of the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra). Six rolls. By Zongmi 宗密 (780–841). X 229, 5.220b–329b. Dafangguang yuanjue xiuduoluo liaoyi jing  大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經 (Yuanjue jing 圓覺, Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment). One roll. Trans. attributed to Buddhatrāta (Fotuoduoluo 佛陀多羅) in 693. T 842, 17.913a–922a. Da Tang Da Ci’ensi sanzang fashi zhuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 (Life of the Dharma Master Sanzang of Dacien Monastery of the Great Tang dynasty). 10 rolls. By Yancong 彥悰 (d.u.) in the seventh century. T 2053, 50.220c– 280a. Dunhuang bianwen jiaozhu 敦煌變文校注 (Annotated collection of Dunhuang transformation tales). Modern compilation edited by Huang Wang 黄往 and Zhang Yongquan 張涌泉. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1997. Fajue jingxin jing 發覺淨心經 (Scripture on arousing enlightenment and a pure mind). One roll. Translated by Jñānagupta (Shenajueduo 闍那崛多, fl. sixth century). T 327, 12.43b–52a. Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 (A forest of pearls in the garden of the Dharma). 100 rolls. Compiled by Daoshi 道世 (ca. 596–683), completed in 668. T 2122, 53.269a– 1030a. Foshuo Amituo jing jiangjing wen 佛說阿彌陀經講經文 (Lecture notes for sermons on the Amituo jing), nos. 1–3. In Dunhuang bianwen jiaozhu 敦煌變文校注 (Annoted collection of Dunhuang transformation tales), edited by Huang Wang 黄往 and Zhang Yongquan 張涌泉, 5.667–705. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1997. Foshuo Amituo jing yazuo wen 佛說阿彌陀經押座文 (Homily on the Amituo jing). In Dunhuang bianwen jiaozhu 敦煌變文校注 (Annoted collection of Dunhuang transformation tales), edited by Huang Wang 黄往 and Zhang Yongquan 張 涌泉, 7.1160–1166. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1997. 162

Selected Bibliography Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經 (Sūtra on the visualization of Maitreya’s rebirth above in Tuṣita Heaven). One roll. Translated by Juqu Jingsheng 洰渠京聲 (d. 464) in 455. T 452, 14.418b–420c. Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing zan 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經贊 (Compendium on the Sūtra on the Visualization of Maitreya’s Rebirth Above in Tuṣita Heaven). Two rolls. By Kuiji 窺基 (632–682). T 1772, 38.272b–299a. Guannian Amituofo xianghai sanmei gongde famen 觀念阿彌陀佛相海三昧功德法門 (The meritorious dharma approach of the samādhi involving visualization of the oceanlike marks of the Buddha Amitābha). One roll. Compiled by Shandao 善導 (613–681). T 1959, 47.22b–30b. Guan Wuliangshoufo jing shu 觀無量壽經疏 (Commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing). Four rolls. By Shandao 善導 (613–681). T 1753, 37.245c–278c. Guan Wuliangshou jing 觀無量壽經 (Book on the visualization of Amitāyus). One roll. Translation attributed to Kalayaśas (Jiangliangyeshe 畺良耶舍) between 422 and 442. T 365, 12.340b–346b. Guan Wuliangshou jing shu 觀無量壽經義疏 (Commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing). One roll. By Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523–592). T 1750, 37.187b–194c. Guan Wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏 (Commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing). One roll. By Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523–592). T 1749, 37.173a– 186b. Guan Wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏 (Commentary on the meaning of the Guan Wuliangshou jing). One roll. By Jizang 吉藏 (549–623). T 1752, 37.233b– 245c. Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ 韓國佛教全書 (Complete works of Korean Buddhism). 14 vols. Seoul: Tongguk Taehakkyo Ch’ulpansa, 1979[–2004]. Hōjisan shiki 法事讚私記 (Personal notes on encomia on the affairs of the Dharma). Three rolls. By Ryōchū 良忠 (1198–1287). In Jōdoshū zensho 淨土敎 全書 (Complete Works of the Pure Land School), 20 vols., edited by Jōdoshū Shūten Kankōkai 淨土宗宗典刊行會 (Committee for the Publication of the Scriptures of the Jōdoshū), 4.33a–92a. Tokyo: Jōdoshū Shūten Kankōkai, 1907–1924. Huayan jing neizhang mendeng li kongmu zhang 華嚴經內章門等離孔目章 (Exposition on various topics of the Huayan jing). Four rolls. By Zhiyan 智儼 (602– 668). T 1870, 45.536c–589b. Huayan jing tanxuan ji 華嚴經探玄記 (Record on searching the mysteries of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra). 20 rolls. By Fazang 法藏 (643–712). T 1733, 35.107a– 492b. 163

Selected Bibliography Huayan jing xingyuan pin shu 華嚴經行願品疏 (Commentary on the Practices and Vows Chapter of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra). 10 rolls. By Chengguan 澄觀 (ca. 738–839). X 227, 5.48b–198c. Jingtu lun 淨土論 (Treatise on the Pure Land). Three rolls. By Jiacai 迦才 (fl. 626– 649). T 1963, 47.83b–104a. Jingtu wangsheng zhuan 淨土往生傳 (Tales of rebirth in the Pure Land). Three rolls. Compiled by Jiezhu 戒珠 between 1068 and 1077. T 2071, 51.108b–126b. Jōdoshū zensho 淨土敎全書 (Complete Works of the Pure Land School). Edited by Jōdoshū Shūten Kankōkai 淨土宗宗典刊行會 (Committee for the Publication of the Scriptures of the Jōdoshū). 20 vols. Tokyo: Jōdoshū Shūten Kankōkai, 1907–1924. Kŏnbongsa ponmal sajŏk 乾鳳寺本末事蹟 (Textual traces of the main and branch monasteries associated with Kŏnbong Monastery). Compiled and edited by Han Yongun 韓龍雲 (1879–1944). Seoul: Asea Munhwasa, 1977. Kyunyŏ chŏn 均如傳 (The life of Kyunyŏ) = Taehwaŏm sujwa Wŏnt’ong yangjung taesa Kyunyŏ chŏn 大華嚴首座圓通兩重大師均如傳 (Life of Kyunyŏ, Double ­Exalted Great Master of Complete Penetration, Senior Monk of the Great Hwaŏm tradition). One roll. By Hyŏngnyŏn Chŏng 赫蓮挺 (fl. 1074–1105) in 1075. HPC 4:511a–517a. Lüelun anle jingtu yi 略論安樂淨土義 (Brief Treatise on the Meaning of Sukhāvatī). One roll. By Tanluan 曇鸞 (ca. 488–554). T 1957, 47.1a–4a. Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮花經 (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra, Lotus Sūtra). Seven rolls. Translated by Kumārajīva (Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什, 343–413) in 406 or 405. T 262, 9.1a-62c. Miaofa lianhua jing yupotishe 妙法蓮華經憂波提舍 (*Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa). Two rolls. By Vasubandhu (Shiqin 世親, 400–480). T 1519, 26.1a–10b. Mile jing youyi 彌勒經遊意 (Wandering thoughts on the Maitreya Sūtras). One roll. By Jizang 吉藏 (549–623). T 1771, 38.263a–272b. Mile pusa suowen benyuan jing 彌勒菩薩所問本願經 (Skt. Maitreyaparipṛcchā). One roll. Translated by Dharmarakṣa (Zhu Fahu 竺法護, fl. fourth century). T 349, 12.186c–189b. Mirŭk sangsaeng-gyŏng chongyo 彌勒上生經宗要 (Doctrinal essentials of the Sūtra on Maitreya’s Rebith Above). One roll. By Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686). T 1773.38.299a–303a; HPC 1.547b–552c. Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo 無量壽經宗要 (Doctrinal essentials of the Wuliangshou jing). One roll. By Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686). T 1747, 37.125b–131c. HPC 1.553c– 562b. Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an 無量壽經連義述文讚 (Narrative Passages and Praises on the Combined Explications of the Wuliangshou jing). Three 164

Selected Bibliography rolls. By Kyŏnghŭng 憬興 (fl. late seventh–early eighth century). T 1748, 37.131c–171a; HPC 2.18a–77a. Nara ibun 寧樂遺文 (Literary remains of Nara). Edited by Takeuchi Rizō 竹内 理三. 2 vols. Tokyo: Tōkyōdō, 1944. Nihon shoki 日本書記 (History of Japan). 30 rolls. Compiled by Imperial command in 720. Edited by Sakamoto Tarō 坂本太郎 et al. Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei 67–68. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1966. Paekhwa toryang parwŏn mun 白花道場發願文 (Vow made at the White Lotus enlightenment site). One segment. By Ŭisang 義湘 (625–702). HPC 2.9a–b. Palsim suhaeng chang 發心修行章 (Arouse your mind and practice!). One roll. By Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686). HPC 1:841a–c. Pŏphwa-gyŏngnon sulgi 法華經論述記 (Record on the Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra). One roll extant. By Ŭijŏk 義寂 (fl. 681–701). HPC 2.300c–320b. Posal kyebon so 菩薩戒本疏 (Commentary on the Text of the Bodhisattva Precepts). Three rolls. By Ŭijŏk 義寂 (fl. 681–701). HPC 2.251c–300b. Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩纓絡本業經 (Sūtra on the original acts that serve as a bodhisattva’s adornments). Two rolls. Translated by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 between 374 and 417. T 1485, 24.1010b–1023a. Puxian pusa xingyuan zan 普賢菩薩行願讚 (Encomia on the Practices and Vows of the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra). One section. Translation attributed to Amoghavajra (Bukong 不空, 705–774). T 297, 10.880a2–881c17. Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin pusa guangda yuanman wuai dabeixin tuoluoni jing 千手 千眼觀世音菩薩廣大圓滿無礙大悲心陀羅尼經 (Nīlakaṇṭha). One roll. Translated by Bhagavaddharma (Qiefandamo 伽梵達磨) between 650 and 661. T 1060, 20.105c–111c. Qianyan qianbi Guanshiyin pusa tuoluoni shenzhou jing 千眼千臂觀世音菩薩陀羅尼 神呪經 (Nīlakaṇṭha; Sūtra on the dhāraṇī spirit spell on the thousand-eyed and thousand-armed Avalokiteśvara). Translated by Zhitong 智通 (fl. 627– 649) between 627 and 649. Two rolls, T 1057a, 20.83b–89a. Qianyan qianbi Guanshiyin pusa tuoluoni shenzhou jing 千眼千臂觀世音菩薩陀羅尼 神呪經 (Nīlakaṇṭha; Sūtra on the dhāraṇī spirit spell on the thousand-eyed and thousand-armed Avalokiteśvara). Translated by Zhitong 智通 (fl. 627– 649) between 627 and 649. Two rolls, T 1057b, 20.90a–96b. Qifo bapusa suoshuo da tuoluoni shenzhou jing 七佛八菩薩所說大陀羅尼神呪經 (Dhāraṇī Spell Sūtra of the Seven Buddhas and Eight Bodhisattvas). Four rolls. Translator unknown; Eastern Jin 東晉 period (317–420). T 1332, 21.536b–561b. Qing Guanshiyin xiaofu duhai tuoluoni jing 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼咒經 (Sūtra on the dhāraṇī that petitions Avalokiteśvara to dissipate poison and 165

Selected Bibliography harm). One roll. Translated by *Nandi (Nanti 難提, d.u.) in 419. T 1043, 20.34b–38a. Renwang bore boluomi jing 仁王般若波羅蜜經 (Perfection of wisdom sūtra for humane kings), Two rolls. Translated by Kumārajīva (Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什, 343–413) between 402 and 409. T 245, 8.825a–834a. Samguk sagi 三國史記 (History of the Three Kingdoms). 50 rolls. By Kim Pusik 金富軾 (1075–1151), completed between 1136–1145. Critical apparatus by Chŏng Kubok 鄭求福, Noh Choong-kook (No Chungguk) 盧重國, Sin Tongha 申東河, Kim T’aesik 金泰植, and Kwŏn Tŏgyŏng 權悳永. Kuksa Ch’ongsŏ 國史叢書 (National History Series) 96–1. Seoul: Han’guk Chŏngsin Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn, 1996. Samguk Silla sidae Pulgyo kŭmsŏngmun kojŭng 三國新羅時代佛教金石文考證 (Compilation of Buddhist epigraphy from the Three Kingdoms and Silla periods). Modern compilation edited by Kim Young-tai 金煐泰 (Kim Yŏngt’ae). Han’guk Pulgyo kŭmsŏngmun kojŭng 韓國佛敎金石文考證 (Annoted ­compilations of Korean Buddhist epigraphy), vol. 1. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1992. Samguk yusa 三國遺事 (Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms). Five rolls. ­Compiled initially by Iryŏn 一然 (1206–1289) and emended further by Mugŭk 無極 (Hon’gu 混丘, 1250–1322) and other later editors. T 2039, 49.953c–1019a. Samguk yusa kyogam yŏn’gu 三國遺事校勘硏究 (Critical Edition of the Samguk yusa). Edited by Ha Chŏngnyong 河延龍 and Yi Kŭnjik 李根直. Seoul: Sinsŏwŏn, 1997. Sam Mirŭkkyŏng so 三彌勒經疏 (Commentary on the three Maitreya scriptures). One roll. By Kyŏnghŭng 憬興 (fl. late seventh–early eighth century). T 1774, 38.303a-327a; X 35.381a–406b; HPC 2.77b–114b. Sanbao ganying yaolüe lu 三寶感應要略錄 (Abbreviated Record of Resonances to the Three Treasures). Three rolls. Edited by Feizhuo 非濁 (d. 1063). T 2084, 51.826a–856c. Senchakushū 選擇集 = Senchaku hongan nenbutsu shū 選擇本願念佛集 (Passages on the Selection of the Nenbutsu in the Original Vow). One roll. Compiled by Genkū 源空 (Hōnen 法然, 1133–1212). T 2608, 83.1a–19c. She dasheng lun shi 攝大乘論釋 (Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya; Commentary on the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha). 15 rolls. Translated by Paramārtha (Zhenti 眞諦, 499– 569) in 563. T 1595, 31.152a–270b. She dasheng lun shilun 攝大乘論釋論 (Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya; Commentary on the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha). 10 rolls. Translated by Dharmagupta (Jiduo 笈多) between 605 and 616. T 1596, 31.271a–321a. Shi jingtu qunyi lun 釋淨土群疑論 (Treatise on a Multitude of Doubts regarding the Interpretation of the Pure Land). Seven rolls. By Huaigan 懷感 (fl. late seventh century). T 1960, 47.30b–76c. 166

Selected Bibliography Sinjŭng Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam 新增東國輿地勝覽 (Augmented survey of Korean geography). 55 chapters. Originally Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam 新增東國輿地勝覽 (Survey of Korean geography). 50 chapters. Compiled by No Sasin 廬思愼 (1427–1498) et al., between 1445–1481. Revised by Kim Chongjik 金宗直 (1431–1492) et al. and published in 1530–1531. Photolithic reprint. Seoul: Tongguk Munhwasa, 1957. Sinp’yŏn chejong kyojang ch’ongnok 新編諸宗敎藏總錄 (Catalog of the newly ­compiled canon of doctrinal teachings of all the schools). Three rolls. By Ŭich’ŏn 義天 (1055–1101) in 1090. T 2184, 55.1165b–1178c. Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 (Lives of eminent monks compiled during the Song). 30 rolls. Compiled by Zanning 贊寧 (919–1001); completed in 988, and further edited by others afterwards. T 2061, 50.709a–900a. T’aego hwasang ŏrok 太古和尚語錄 (Discourse Record of Reverend T’aego). Two rolls. By T’aego Pou 太古普愚 (1301–1382). HPC 6.670a–702a. Taishang dongxuan baoyuan shangjing 太上洞玄寳元上經 (Superior Scripture of Treasuring the Origin, from the Dongxuan Canon). D 368, 10.7880b–7881a. Taishang dongxuan lingbao shihao gongde yinyuan miaojing 太上洞玄靈寳十號功德 因緣妙經 (Marvelous Scripture of the Karmic Retribution of the Merit of the Ten Epithets, from the Dongxuan Lingbao Canon). D 337, 10:7689b. Taishō shinshū dai zōkyō 大正新修大藏經 (Taishō edition of the Buddhist canon). Edited by Takakasu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 et al. 100 vols. Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai, 1924–1932[–1935]. Tang huiyao 唐會要 (Important Documents of the Tang). 100 rolls. Compiled by Wang Pu 王溥 (922–982). 3 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1956. Wangsheng lizan jie 往生禮讚偈 (Gāthā offering praise for rebirth in the Pure Land). One roll. By Shandao 善導 (613–681). T 1980, 47.438b–448a. Wangsheng xifang Jingtu ruiying shanzhuan 往生西方淨土瑞應傳 (Tales of auspicious resonance in seeking rebirth in the Pure Land of the western region). One roll. By Wenshen 文諗and Shaokang 少康; compiled ca. 800. T 2070, 51.104a–108b. Weimoji suoshuo jing 維摩詰所說經 (Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra). Three rolls. Translated by Kumārajīva (Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什, 343–413) in 406. T 475, 14.537a– 557b. Wenshuishili fayuan jing 文殊師利發願經 (Sūtra on the Vows of Mañjuśrī; Mañjuśrīpraṇdhāna). One roll. Translated by Buddhabhadra (Juexian 覺賢, 359–429) in 420. T 296, 10.878c21–879c26. Wŏnjong mullyu 圓宗文類 (Literature of the perfect tradition). Originally 22 rolls; three rolls extant. Compiled by Ŭich’ŏn 義天 (1055–1101). HPC 4.597b–647c. Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 (Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra). Two rolls. Translated by Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 (Saṃghavarman) in 252. T 360, 12.265c–279a. 167

Selected Bibliography Wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏 (Commentary on the meaning of the Guan Wuliangshou jing). Two rolls. By Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523–592). T 1745, 37.91a–116b. Wuliangshou jing yishu 無量壽經義疏 (Commentary on the meaning of the Wuliangshou jing). One roll. By Jizang 吉藏 (549–623). T 1746, 37.116c–125b. Wuliangshou jing youpotishe wangshengjie 無量壽經優波提舍往生偈 (Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa, or Wangsheng lun 往生論 for short). One roll. Attributed to Vasubandhu (Shiqin 世親, ca. 400–480). Translated by Bodhiruci I (Putiliuzhi 菩提流支, fl. 508–535). T 1524, 26.230c–233a. Wuliangshou jing youpotishe yuanshengjie zhu 無量壽經優波提舍願生偈註 (Annotated commentary on the Sukhāvatīvyūhopadeśa; Wangsheng lun zhu 往生論註). One roll. By Tanluan 曇鸞 (ca. 488–554). T 1819, 40.826a–834c. Xianyu jing 賢愚經 (Damamūka-sūtra). 13 rolls. Translated by Huijue 慧覺 in 445. T 202, 4.349a–445a. Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (Further lives of eminent monks [compiled during the Tang]). 30 rolls. Compiled by Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667); completed in 649 and further emended later. T 2060, 50.425a–707a. Xuzangjing 續藏經 (Hong Kong reprint of The Kyoto Supplement to the Canon [Dai Nihon zokuzōkyō 大日本續藏經]). 150 vols. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Buddhist Association, 1967. Yiqie rulaixin mimi chuanshen sheli baoqieyin tuoluoni jing 一切如來心祕密全身舍利 寶篋印陀羅尼經 (*Sarvatathāgatādhiṣṭhānahṛdayaguhyadhātukaraṇḍamudrādhāraṇī). One roll. Translated into Chinese by Amoghavajra (Bukong 不空, 704–774) between 746 and 774. T 1022A, 19.710a–712a. Yŏkchu Han’guk kodae kŭmsŏngmun 譯註古代金石文 (Translated and Annotated Ancient Korean Epigraphy). Edited by Han’guk Kodae Sahoe Yŏn’guso 韓國古代社會硏究所. 3  vols. Seoul: Karakkuk Sajŏk Kaebal Yŏn’guso, 1992. Yuga shidi lun 瑜伽十地論 (Yogācārabhūmi, Treatise on the stages of the Yogācāra). 100 rolls. Attributed to Maitreya (Mile 彌勒), translated by Xuanzang 玄奘 (ca. 600–664) between 646 and 648. T 1579, 30.279a–882a. Yushiki gitō zōmei ki 唯識義燈增明記 (Increasingly Clear Record of the Lamp of Understanding of Consciousness-Only). By Zenshu 善珠 (723–797). T 2261, 65.327–402. Zhengtong daozang 正統道藏 (The Daoist Canon of the Zhengtong Reign Period [1436–1449]). 60 vols. Taipei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1977. Zhong ahan jing 中阿含經 (Madhyamāgama). 60 rolls. Translated by Gautama Saṅghadeva (Qutan Sengjiatipo 瞿曇僧伽提婆, fl. 383–398) between 397– 398. T 26, 1.421a–809c. 168

Selected Bibliography

Secondary Sources Ahn Kye-hyŏn (An Kyehyŏn) 安啓賢. Han’guk Pulgyo sasangsa yŏn’gu 韓國佛敎思想 史硏究 (Studies on the history of Korean Buddhist thought). Seoul: Tongguk Taehakkyo Ch’ulp’anbu, 1983. ———. Han’guk Pulgyosa yŏn’gu 韓國佛敎史硏究 (Research on Korean Buddhist history). Seoul: Tonghwa Ch’ulp’an Kongsa, 1982. ———. “P’algwan-hoe ko” 八關會考 (Study of the Assembly of the Eight Prohibitions). Tongguk sahak 東國史學 4 (1956): 31–54. ———. Silla chŏngt’o sasangsa yŏn’gu 新羅淨土思想史研究 (Research on the history of Pure Land thought in Silla). Seoul: Asea Munhwasa, 1976. Reprint, Seoul: Hyŏnmunsa, 1987. Amstutz, Galen. “The Politics of Independent Pure Land in China.” Journal of Chinese Religions 26 (1998): 21–50. Aston, William G., trans. Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697. Reprint, Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1972. Barrett, T. H. Li Ao, Buddhist, Taoist, or neo-Confucian. London Oriental Series 39. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Benn, Charles D. “Taoism as Ideology in the Reign of Emperor Hsüan-tsung (712– 756).” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1977. Benn, James A. Burning for the Buddha: Self-Immolation in Chinese Buddhism Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2007. Best, Jonathan W. “Buddhism and Polity in Early Sixth-Century Paekche.” Korean Studies 26, no. 2 (2002): 165–215. ———. “Imagery, Iconography and Belief in Early Korean Buddhism.” Korean C­ ulture 13, no. 3 (fall 1992): 23–33. ———. “Kwallŭk’s Testimony Concerning the Date of Buddhism’s Introduction to Paekche.” In Religions of Traditional Korea, ed. Henrik H. Sørensen, 1–21. ­Copenhagen: Seminar for Buddhist Studies, University of Copenhagen, 1995. Buswell, Robert E., Jr. “The Chronology of Wŏnhyo’s Life and Works: Some Preliminary Considerations.” In Wŏnhyo yŏn’gu nonch’ong: kŭ ch’ŏrak kwa in’gan ŭi modŭn kŏt 元曉硏究論叢: 그哲鶴과 人間의 모든 것 (Wŏnhyo studies: His philosophy and all things relating to humankind), ed. Kuksa Ch’ongirwŏn Chosa Yŏn’gusil 國史統一圓調査硏究室, 931–964. Seoul: Kuksa T’ongirwŏn Chosa Yŏn’gusil, 1987. ———, trans. Cultivating Original Enlightenment: Wŏnhyo’s Exposition of the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra (Kumgang Sammaegyŏng Non). International Association of Wŏnhyo Studies’ Collected Works of Wŏnhyo, Vol. 1. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2007. 169

Selected Bibliography Buswell, Robert E., Jr., ed. Currents and Countercurrents: Korean Influences on the East Asian Buddhist Traditions. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005. ———, trans. “The Essentials of Pure Land Practice.” In The Korean Approach to Zen: The Collected Works of Chinul, translated by Robert E. Buswell Jr., 191–198. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1983. ———. The Formation of Ch’an Ideology in China and Korea: The Vajrasamādhi-Sūtra, A Chinese Apocryphon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989. ———. “Hagiographies of the Korean Monk Wŏnhyo.” In Buddhism in Practice, ed. Donald S. Lopez Jr., 553–562. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. ———. “Imagining ‘Korean Buddhism.’ ” In Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity, ed. Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R. Tangherlini, 73–107. Berkeley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1998. ———. The Korean Approach to Zen: The Collected Works of Chinul. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1983. Buzo, Adrian, and Tony Prince, trans. Kyunyŏ-jŏn: The Life, Times and Songs of a Tenth Century Korean Monk. University of Sydney East Asian Series 6. ­Canberra: Wild Peony, 1993. Ch’ae Inhwan 蔡印幻. “Silla sidae ŭi chŏngt’ogyohak” 新羅時代의 淨土敎學 (Pure Land Buddhist scholasticism in the Silla period). In Han’guk Chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu 韓國淨土思想硏究 (Research on Korean Pure Land thought), ed. Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn 佛敎文化硏究院 (Buddhist Culture Research Center), 51–116. Seoul: Tongguk Taehakkyo Ch’ulpanbu, 1985. Ch’ae Sangsik 蔡尙植. “Koryŏ hugi Ch’ŏnt’aejong Paengnyŏnsa kyŏlsa” 高麗後期 天台宗 白蓮社 結社 (The white lotus society compact of the Ch’ŏnt’ae school in the late Koryŏ period). Han’guksa non 韓國史論 5 (1979): 107–196. Ch’angwŏn Taehakkyo Pangmulgwan 昌原大學校博物館 (Museum of Ch’angwŏn National University). Ch’angwŏn-gun munhwa yujŏk chŏngmil chip’yo chosa pogoso 昌原郡 文化遺蹟 精密地表調查報告書 (Intensive Site Survey of Ch’angwŏn District Area County). Ch’angwŏn-si: Ch’angwŏn Taehakkyo Pangmulgwan, December, 1994. Chappell, David. “Chinese Buddhist Interpretations of the Pure Lands,” in Buddhist and Taoist Studies I, Asian Studies at Hawaii 18, ed. Michael Saso and David W. Chappell, 23–53. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1977. ———. “The Formation of the Pure Land Movement in China: Tao-ch’o and Shantao.” In The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, ed. James Foard, ­Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne, 139–171. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Buddhist Studies, 1996. ———. “Tao-ch’o (542–645): A Pioneer of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1976. 170

Selected Bibliography Chen Jinhua. Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002. Ch’en, Kenneth. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964. Cho Myŏnggi 趙明基. Silla Pulgyo ŭi inyŏm kwa yŏksa 新羅佛敎의 理念과 歷史 (The principles and history of Silla Buddhism). Seoul: Sint’aeyangsa, 1962. Cho Wŏnyŏng 조원용. “Silla sabangbul ŭi hyŏngsik kwa chosŏng paegyŏng” 신라 사방불의 형식과 조성 배경 (Background to the form and production of representations of the four directional buddhas in the Silla period). Pusan sahak 釜山史學30 (2006): 381–421. Ch’oe Chunok 崔濬玉, ed. Koun Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn sŏnsaeng sajŏk ko 孤雲崔致遠先生事 蹟考 (A Study of the Vestiges of Master Koun Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn). Seoul: Koun Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn Sŏnsaeng Sajŏk P’yŏnch’anhoe, 1982. Ch’oe Ki-p’yo. “Wŏnhyo(元曉)’s Effect on Fazang(法藏)’s Commentary of Discipline-Faith Chapter, Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, and Their Attitudes toward Quotation.” In Korean Buddhism in East Asian Perspectives, compiled by the Geumgang Center for Buddhist Studies, Geumgang University, 241–263. Seoul: Jimoondang, 2007. Ch’oe Yŏngch’ang 최영창. “Mugu chŏnggwang kyŏng’ Koryŏ ponginsŏl kŭn’gŏ hŭibak” 무구정광경 고려 봉인설 근거 희박 (Basis is weak for the theory that the Great Dhāraṇī on Immaculately Pure Light was enshrined during the Koryŏ period). Munhwa ilbo 문화일보no. 4241, September 22, 2005. Ch’ŏn Hae-bong. “Dharani-sutra of Early Koryŏ.” Korea Journal 6 (June 1972): 4–12. Chŏng Hakkwŏn 鄭學權. “Gangyō Taishi no jūnengi ni tsuite” 元曉大師の十念觀 について (On Master Wŏnhyo’s view of the ten recollections). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 25, no. 1 (December 1976): 269–271. Cleary, J. C. A Buddha from Korea: The Zen Teachings of T’aego. Boston: Shambala, 1988. Corless, Roger J. “T’an-luan: The First Systematizer of Pure Land Buddhism.” In The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, ed. James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne, 107–137. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Buddhist Studies, 1996. ———. “T’an-luan: Taoist Sage and Buddhist Bodhisattva.” In Buddhist and Taoist Practice in Medieval Chinese Society: Buddhist and Taoist Studies II, ed. David W. Chappell, 36–64. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1987. Ducor, Jérôme. “Shandao et Hônen, à propos du livre de Julian F. Pas: Visions of Sukhāvatī.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 22, no. 1 (1999): 93–163. 171

Selected Bibliography Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953. Reprint, Delhi: Motilal, 1998. Etani Ryūkai 恵谷隆戒. “Fukugenbon Muryōjukyō gisho” 復元本無量壽經義疏 (A restoration of the Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso of Pŏbwi of Silla). Bukkyō daigaku kenkyū kiyō 仏教大学研究紀要 40 (1961). ———. Jōdokyō no shin kenkyū 浄土教の新研究 (New research on Pure Land Buddhism). Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1976. ———. “Kankoku Jōdokyō no tokushō” 韓国浄土教の特性 (The characteristics of Korean Pure Land Buddhism). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學 研究 24, no. 2 (March 1976): 519–529. ———. “Shiragi Gangyō no Jōdokyō shisō” 新羅元曉の淨土思想 (Wŏnhyo of Silla’s Pure Land Thought). In Jōdokyō no shin kenkyū 浄土教の新研究 (New research on Pure Land Buddhism), by Etani Ryūkai, 71–92. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1976. ———. “Shiragi Gangyō no Yu shinanraku dō wa gisakuka” 新羅元曉の遊心安樂道 は偽作か (Is Wŏnhyo’s Yusim allak to apocryphal?). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 23, no. 1 (December 1974): 16–23. ———. “Shiragi Giseki Muryōjukyō jutsugiki fukugen ni tsuite” 新羅義寂無量壽經述 義記復元について (On the restoration of the Muryangsu-gyŏng surŭi ki of Ŭijŏk of Silla). In Jōdokyō no shinkenkyū 浄土教の新研究 (New research on Pure Land Buddhism), by Etani Ryūkai, 409–453. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1976. ———. “Shiragi Giseki no Muryōjukyō jutsugiki ni tsuite” 新羅義寂の無量壽經述義 記について (On the Muryangsu-gyŏng surŭi ki of Ŭijŏk of Silla), Bukkyō daigaku kenkyū kiyō 仏教大学研究紀要 35 (1958). Reprinted in Jōdokyō no shinkenkyū 浄土教の新研究 (New research on Pure Land Buddhism), by Etani Ryūkai, 93–107. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1976. ———. “Shiragi Hōi no Muryōjukyō gisho no kenkyū” 新羅法位の無量壽經義疏の 研究 (Studies on the Muryangsu-gyōng ŭiso of Pŏbwi of Silla), Nippon Bukkyōgakkai nenpō 日本仏教学会年報 25 (1960). Reprinted in Jōdokyō no shinkenkyū 浄土教の新研究 (New research on Pure Land Buddhism), by Etani Ryūkai, 55–70. Tokyo: Sankihō Busshorin, 1976. ———. “Shiragi Hōi sen Muryōjukyō gisho no fukugen ni tsuite” 新羅法位撰 無量壽 經義疏の復元について (On the reconstruction of Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso of Pŏbwi of Silla). In Jōdokyō no shinkenkyū 浄土教の新研究 (New research on Pure Land Buddhism), by Etani Ryūkai, 393–408. Tokyo: Sankihō Busshorin, 1976. ———. “Silla Chŏngt’ogyo ŭi t’ŭksaek” 新羅淨土敎의特色 (Characteristics of Silla Pure Land Buddhism). In Han’guk Pulgyo sasangsa: Sungsan Pak Kilchin paksa hwagap kinyŏm 韓國佛教思想史: 崇山朴吉眞華甲記念 (History of Korean Buddhist thought: In commemoration of the sixtieth birthday of [Sungsan] Dr. Pak Kilchin), ed. Sungsan Pak Kilchin Hwagap Kinyŏm Saŏphoe 崇山朴 172

Selected Bibliography 吉眞博士華甲紀念事業會 (Activities Association for the Commemoration of the Sixtieth Birthday of Sungsan Pak Kilchin), 1203–1208. Iri (Chŏlla pukto): Wŏn Pulgyo Sasang Yŏn’guwŏn, Wŏn’gwang Taehakkyo, 1975. Fairbank, John King, Edwin O. Reischauer, and Albert M. Craig. East Asia: Tradition and Transformation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973. Rev. ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989. Forte, Antonino. Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh Century. Naples: Instituto Universitario Orientale Seminario di Studi Asiatci, 1976. Fuji Yoshinari 藤能成. Wŏnhyo ŭi Chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu 元曉의 淨土思想硏究 (Research on Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land thought). Seoul: Minjoksa, 2001. Fujishima Tatsurō 藤島達朗. “Nara jidai ni okeru Amida shinkō” 奈良時代におけ る阿弥陀信仰 (The Amitābha cult in the Nara period). In Nihon Jōdokyō shi no kenkyū 日本浄土教史の研究 (Studies in Japanese Pure Land History), ed. Fujishima Tatsurō and Miyazaki Enjun 宮崎圓遵, 15–47. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1969. Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達. “The Textual Origins of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching: A Canonical Scripture of Pure Land Buddhism.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, ed. Robert E. Buswell Jr., 149–173. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. ———. Zendō 善導 (Shandao). Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1985. Fukushi Jinin 福士慈稔. “Gangyō chojutsu ni okeru Tendai no eikyō ni tsuite” 元暁著述に於ける天台の影響について (On the influence of Tiantai [Zhiyi] on the writings of Wŏnhyo). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 39, no. 1 (December 1990): 122–124. Gimello, Robert M. “Chih-yen (智儼, 602–668) and the Foundations of Hua-yen (華嚴) Buddhism.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1976. Gómez, Luis O. The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1996. Han Pogwang 韓普光. Shiragi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū 新羅淨土思想の研究 (Research on Pure Land thought in Silla). Osaka: Tōhō Shuppan, 1991. Hayami Tasuku 速水侑. Jōdo shinkōron 淨土信仰論 (A discourse on the Pure Land faith). Tokyo: Yuzankaku Shuppan, 1978. Hurvitz, Leon. Chih-i 智顗 (538–597): An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a Chinese Buddhist Monk. Melanges chinios et bouddhiques. Bruxelles: L’Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1962. ———, trans. Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Ide Seinosuke 井手清之輔. Nihon no Sōgen butsuga 日本の宋元仏画 (The Song and Yuan Buddhist paintings of Japan) [Nihon no bijutsu 日本の美術 418 (March)]. Tokyo: Shibundō, 2001. 173

Selected Bibliography Ide Seinosuke 井手清之輔. “Tayō no naka no tōitsu: Kōrai butsuga no ryōbun” 多様のなかの統一―高麗仏画の領分― (Unity amidst diversity: The domain of Koryŏ Buddhist painting). In Kōrai, Richō no Bukkyō bijutsuten 高麗・ 李朝の仏敎美術展 = Buddhist art of Koryo and Choson Dynasties, Korea, ed. Iwai Tomoji 岩井共二 and Fukushima Tsunenori 福島恒徳, 88–94. Yamaguchiken: Yamaguchi Kenritsu Bijutsukan, 1997. ———. “The World of Goryeo Buddhist Painting.” In Goryeo Dynasty: Korea’s Age of Enlightenment, 918–1392, ed. Kumja Paik Kim, 34–47. San Francisco: Asian Art Museum–Chong-Moon Lee Center for Asian Art and Culture in cooperation with the National Museum of Korea and the Nara National Museum, 2003. Inagaki, Hisao, with Harold Stewart, trans. The Three Pure Land Sūtras. Rev. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, BDK America, 2003. Jamieson, John Charles. “Collapse of the T’ang Silla Alliance: Chinese and Korean Accounts Compared.” In “Nothing Concealed”: Essays in Honor of Liu-Yü-yün, ed. Frederic Wakeman Jr., 81–94. Taipei: Ch’eng-wen ch’u-pan-she, 1970. ———. “The Samguk Sagi and the Unification Wars.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1969. Jang Hwee-ok (Chang Hwiok) 章輝玉. “Silla Mit’a chŏngt’o sasang ŭi sajŏk koch’al” 新羅彌陀淨土思想의 史的 考察 (A historical study of the conceptions of the Pure Land in Silla). In Han’guk Pulgyo hakkwangye hagwi nonmun chip 韓國佛敎學關係學位論文集 (Compilation of dissertations on Korean Buddhism) 1. Seoul: Pulgyohak Yŏn’guhoe, 1984. Jung Hee-Soo (Chŏng Hŭisu). “Kyŏnghŭng’s Commentary on the ‘Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra’ and the Formation of Pure Land Buddhism in Silla.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1994. Kakehashi Nobuaki 梯信曉, “Shiragi Jōdokyō no hatten (1): jūnen-ron ni chakuganshite” 新羅淨土教の發展 （一）：十念論 (The development of Silla Pure Land teachings (1): Looking at the theory of the ten recollections). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 42, no. 2 (March 1994): 650–653. Kang Woo-bang 姜友邦 (Kang Ubang). Han’guk Pulgyo chogak ŭi hŭrŭm (The stream of Korean Buddhist statues). Seoul: Taewŏnsa, 1995. Keel, Hee-Sung. “Kyŏnghŭng in Shinran’s Pure Land Thought.” In Currents and Countercurrents: Korean Influences on the East Asian Buddhist Traditions, ed. ­Robert E. Buswell Jr., 43–72. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005. Keenan, John P., trans. The Summary of the Great Vehicle. Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1992. Kim Chaegyŏng 金在庚. “Silla Amit’a sinang ŭi sŏngnip kwa kŭ paegyŏng” 新羅 阿彌陀神仰의 成立과 그 背景 (The establishment of the Amitābha faith in Silla and its background). In Silla Mi’ta chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu: Silla sahoe wa 174

Selected Bibliography Pulgyo 新羅 彌陀淨土思想硏究: 新羅社會와 佛敎 (Research on the Amitābha and pure land thought of Silla: Silla society and Buddhism), ed. Pulgyo Sahakhoe 佛敎史學會 (Buddhist Historical Association), 83–117. Seoul: Minjoksa, 1988. Kim Cheonhak. “The Cult of the Hwaŏm Pure Land of the Koryŏ Period as Seen through Self-Power and Other Power.” Journal of Korean Religions 6, no. 1 (April 2015): 63–92. Kim Chong Sun. “Sources of Cohesion and Fragmentation in the Silla Kingdom.” Journal of Korean Studies 1, no. 1 (July–December 1969): 41–72. Kim Injong 金仁宗 et al., eds. Koun Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn 孤雲崔致遠 (Master Lone Cloud Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn). Seoul: Minŭmsa, 1989. Kim Jongmyung. “Buddhist Rituals in Medieval Korea (918–1392).” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1994. ———. “Chajang (fl. 636–650) and ‘Buddhism as National Protector’ in Korea: A Reconsideration.” In Religions of Traditional Korea, ed. Henrik H. Sørensen, 23–55. Copenhagen: Seminar for Buddhist Studies, University of Copenhagen, 1995. Kim, Lena (Kim Rina 金理那). “Kyŏngju Kulbulsaji ŭi samyŏn sŏkpul e taehayŏ” 慶州 掘佛寺址의 四面石佛에 대하여 (On the four-sided stone Buddha rock at the site of Kulbul Monastery in Kyŏngju). Chindan hakpo 震檀學報 39 (1975): 43–68. Kim Yŏngjae 金永材. “Koryŏ purhwa ŭi Hwaŏm sasangsŏng yŏn’gu” 高麗佛畵의 華嚴思想性硏究 (Research on the nature of Hwaŏm thought in Koryŏ Buddhist paintings). PhD diss., Dongguk University, 2000. Kim Yŏngmi 金英美. Silla Pulgyo sasangsa yŏn’gu 新羅佛敎思想史硏究 (Research on the Buddhist intellectual history of Silla). Seoul: Minjoksa, 1994. ———. “Taegak kuksa Ŭich’ŏn ŭi Amit’a sinang kwa chŏngt’ogwan” 大覺國師 義 天의 阿彌陀信仰과 淨土觀 (State Preceptor Taegak Ŭich’ŏn’s faith in Amitābha and his view of the Pure Land). Yŏksa hakpo 歷史學報 156 (December 1997): 1–27. Reprinted in Han’guk ŭi sasangga 10 in: Ŭich’ŏn 한국의 사상사 10인 (Ten Korean Thinkers: Ŭich’ŏn), ed. Yi Pyŏnguk (Seoul: Yemun sŏwŏn, 2002), 370–396. Kim Young-tai 金煐泰 (Kim Yŏngt’ae). “Samguk sidae Mit’a sinang ŭi suyong kwa kŭ chŏn’gae” 三國時代 彌陀信仰의 受容과 그 展開 (The reception and development of the Amitābha cult in the Three Kingdoms period), in Han’guk Chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu 韓國淨土思想硏究 (Research on Korean ­conceptions of the Pure Land), ed. Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn 佛敎文化硏 究院 (Buddhist Culture Research Center), 11–50. Seoul: Tongguk Taehakkyo Ch’ulpanbu, 1985. ———. “Silla ŭi Mit’a sasang” 新羅의 彌陀思想 (Amitābha thought in Silla). Pulgyo hakpo 佛教學報 12 (1975): 61–77. 175

Selected Bibliography Kiritani Junnin 桐溪順忍. “Namu Amida Butsu ni tsuite: Hi jujutsusei no mondai” 南無阿弥陀佛について：非呪術性の問題 (Homage to the Buddha Amitābha: The issue of their non-magical nature). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 14, no. 1 (December 1965): 118–121. Lai, Whalen W. “The Earliest Folk Buddhist Religion in China: T’i-wei Po-li Ching and Its Historical Significance.” In Buddhist and Taoist Practice in Medieval Chinese Society: Buddhist and Taoist Studies II, ed. David W. Chappell, 11–35. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1987. ———. “Legends of Births and the Pure Land Tradition in China.” In The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, ed. James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne, 173–232. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, 1996. Lancaster, Lewis R. “The Significance of Korean Buddhism in East Asia.” In Papers of the First International Conference on Korean Studies, ed. Academy of Korean Studies, 470–479. Seoul: Academy of Korean Studies, 1979. Lee Ki-baik (Yi Kibaek) 李基白. “Early Silla Buddhism and the Power of the Aristocracy.” In Introduction of Buddhism to Korea: New Cultural Patterns, ed. Lewis R. Lancaster and C. S. Yu, 161–185. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1989. ———. Silla chŏngch’i sahoesa yŏn’gu 新羅政治社會史硏究 (Studies in the socio­ political history of Silla). Seoul: Ilchisa, 1974. Reprint, 1984. ———. “Silla chŏngt’o sinang ŭi cheyangsang” 新羅淨土信仰의諸樣相 (Characteristics of Silla Pure Land Buddhism). In Tongwŏn Kim Hŭngbae paksa kohŭi kinyŏm nonmunjip 東園金興培博士古稀紀念論文集 (Festschrift in commemoration of the seventieth birthday of Dr. Kim Hŭngbae), ed.  P’yŏnjip Tongwŏn Kim Hŭngbae Paksa Kohŭi Kinyŏm Nonmunjip Wiwŏnhoe 編輯東園金興培博士古稀紀念論文集 委員會 (Committee for the compilation of the Festschrift, 129–147. Seoul: Han’guk Oegugŏ Taehakkyo Ch’ulp’anbu, 1984. ———. Silla sasangsa yŏn’gu 新羅思想史硏究 (Studies in the intellectual history of Silla). Seoul: Ilchogak, 1986. Lee Kyong-hee and Cho Yoon-jung. Treasures of Gyeongju: Splendor of Korea’s Golden Age. Gyeongju: Gyeongju City, 2007. Lee, Peter H., ed. Sourcebook of Korean Civilization, Volume One: From Early Times to the Sixteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. ———. Studies in the Saenaenorae: Old Korean Poetry. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1959. Link, Arthur E. “Biography of Shih Tao-an.” T’oung Pao 46, nos. 1–2 (1958): 1–48. Matsubayashi Kōshi 松林弘之. “Chōsen Jōdokyō no kenkyū: Miroku somon no jūnen o meguru gimon” 朝鮮淨土教の研究：彌勒所問の十念をめぐる疑問 176

Selected Bibliography (Study of Korean Pure Land: Focusing on the issue of the ten recollections of the Mile sowen). Ryūkoku Daigaku Bukkyō bunka kenkyū kiyō 竜国大學佛敎 文化硏究紀要 6 (1967): 82–85. ———. “Shiragi Jōdokyō no ikkōsatsu: Gangyō no jōdokyō shisō o megutte” 新羅 淨土教の一考察：元曉の淨土思想をめぐって (An inquiry into the Pure Land teachings of Silla: With an emphasis on Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land teachings and thought). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 15, no. 1 (December 1966): 196–198. McBride, Richard D., II. “Dhāraṇī and Spells in Medieval Sinitic Buddhism.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, no. 1 (2005): 85–114. ———, trans. Doctrine and Practice in Medieval Korean Buddhism: The Collected Works of Ŭich’ŏn. Korean Classics Library: Philosophy and Religion Series. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2017. ———. Domesticating the Dharma: Buddhist Cults and the Hwaŏm Synthesis in Silla Korea. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008. ———. “The Inscriptions on the Standing Maitreya and Amitābha Images of Kamsan Monastery and Devotional Buddhism of the Mid-Silla Period.” Kojŏnhak yŏn’gu (Seoul) 1 (December 2011): 125–159. ———. “Is There Really ‘Esoteric’ Buddhism?” Journal of the International Association for Buddhist Studies 27, no. 2 (2004): 329–356. ———. “Is the Samguk yusa Reliable? Case Studies on Chinese and Korean Sources.” Journal of Korean Studies 11, no. 1 (fall 2006): 163–189. ———. “A Koreanist’s Musings on the Chinese Yishi Genre.” Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies 6, no. 1 (April 2006): 31–59. ———. “Koryŏ Buddhist Paintings and the Cult of Amitābha: Visions of a Hwaŏminspired Pure Land.” Journal of Korean Religions 6, no. 1 (April 2015): 93–130. ———. “Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo (Doctrinal Essentials of the Larger Sukhāva­ tīvyūhasūtra): Annotated Translation and Introduction.” In Arouse Your Mind and Practice: Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land, Ritual, and Didactic Texts. The Collected Works of Wŏnhyo, vol. 3, ed. Robert E. Buswell Jr. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, forthcoming. ———. “Practical Buddhist Thaumaturgy: The Great Dhāraṇī on Immaculately Pure Light in Medieval Sinitic Buddhism.” Journal of Korean Religions 2, no. 1 (March 2011): 33–73. ———. “Preserving the Lore of Korean Antiquity: An Introduction to Native and Local Sources in Iryŏn’s Samguk yusa.” Acta Koreana 10, no. 2 (July 2007): 1–38. ———. “Selections from the Commentary on the Three Maitreya Scriptures (Sam Mireukgyeong so (seon)) by Gyeongheung: Annotated Translation and Introduction.” In Doctrinal Treatises: Selected Works, Collected Works of Korean 177

Selected Bibliography Buddhism 6, ed. A. Charles Muller, 201–294. Seoul: Dae-Han Bulgyo Jogyejong [Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism], 2012. McBride, Richard D., II, ed. State and Society in Middle and Late Silla. Early Korea Project Occasional Series. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2011. ———. “Ŭisang’s Vow Texts: Koryŏ-period Imaginaire of Silla Hwaŏm Buddhism on the Ground?” Seoul Journal of Korean Studies 32, no. 1 (June 2019): 147–172. ———. “Wŏnhyo’s Commentary on the Amitābha Sūtra.” In Pure Lands in Asian Texts and Contexts: An Anthology, ed. Georgios T. Halkias and Richard K. Payne, 420–451. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2019. ———. “Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land Thought on Buddhānusmṛti in Its Sinitic Buddhist Context.” Acta Koreana 18, no. 1 (2015): 45–95. ———. “Yusim allak to (The Way to a Wandering Mind and Peace and Bliss): Annotated Translation and Introduction.” In Arouse Your Mind and Practice: Wŏnhyo’s Pure Land, Ritual, and Didactic Texts. The Collected Works of Wŏnhyo, vol. 3, ed. Robert E. Buswell Jr. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, ­forthcoming. Minamoto Hiroyuki 源弘之. “Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism of Silla.” In Assimilation of Buddhism in Korea: Religious Maturity and Innovation in the Silla Dynasty, ed. Lewis R. Lancaster and C. S. Yu, 131–168. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanties Press, 1991. ———. “Chosen Jōdokyō ni okeru Keikō to Giseki no ikkōsatsu” 朝鮮浄土教におけ る憬興と義寂の一考察 (Kyŏnghŭng and Ŭijŏk in Korean Pure Land Buddhism). Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 仏教学研究 22 (January 1966): 30–34. ———. “Shiragi Jōdōkyō no tokushoku” 新羅淨土敎の特色 (Characteristics of Pure Land Buddhism in Silla). In Shiragi Bukkyō kenkyū 新羅佛教研究 (Research on Silla Buddhism), ed. Kim Chigyŏn 金知見 and Ch’ae Inhwan 蔡印幻, 285–317. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1973. Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨. Chūgoku Jōdo kyōrishi 中國浄土敎理史 (A history of Chinese Pure Land doctrine). Tokyo: Hōzōkan, 1942. Reprint, 1964. Mok Chŏngbae 睦禎培. “Manil yŏmburhoe sŏngnip ŭi ŭimi” 萬日念佛會 成立의 意味 (The meaning of the establishment of ten-thousand day convocations for recollecting the Buddha). In Han’guk Chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu 韓國淨土思想 硏究 (Research on Korean Pure Land thought), ed. Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn 佛敎文化硏究院 (Buddhist Culture Research Center), 275–295. Seoul: Tongguk Taehakkyo Ch’ulpanbu, 1985. Moon Myung Dae (Mun Myŏngdae) 文明大. “Top’an haesŏl” 圖版解說 (Commentary on the Plates). In Koryŏ Purhwa 高麗佛畵 (Korean Buddhist Paintings), comp. Yi Tongju 李東洲 and Yi Yonghŭi 李用熙, 232–256. Seoul: Chungang Ilbosa, 1981. 178

Selected Bibliography Muller, A. Charles. “Wŏnhyo’s Approach to Harmonization of the Mahayana Doctrines (Hwajaeng).” Acta Koreana 18, no. 1 (June 2015): 9–44. Muller, A. Charles, and Cuong T. Nguyen, eds. Wŏnhyo’s Philosophy of Mind. International Association of Wŏnhyo Studies’ Collected Works of Wŏnhyo, vol. 2. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2012. Nabata Ōjun 名畑應順. Kazai Jōdo-ron no kenkyū 迦才淨土論の研究 (Research on Jiacai’s Jingtu lun), Ronkō-hen 論攷篇 (Study) and Honbun-hen 本文篇 (Critical Edition of the Text), 2 vols. Kyoto: Hōzō-kan, 1955. Nakamura Hajime 中村元. Bukkyōgo dai jiten 佛教語大辭典 (Dictionary of Buddhist technical terms). 3 vols. Tokyo: Tōkyō Shoseki, 1975; rpt. 1 vol. [­complete 3 vols. in 1], Tokyo: Tōkyō Shoseki, 1999. Nakamura, Kyoko Motomochi, trans. Miraculous Tales from the Japanese Buddhist Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Reprint, Surrey: Curzon, 1997. No Myŏngho 노명호. “Muksŏjip’yŏn munsŏ tŭl ŭi kusŏng kwa naeyong e taehan kich’ojŏk kŏmt’o” 묵서지편 문서들의 구성과 내용에 대한 검토 (An evaluation of the structure and contents of the documents written in ink on paper). In Sŏkkat’ap palgyŏn yumul chosa chunggan pogo 석가탑 발견 유물 조사 중간 보고 (Intermediate report on the evaluation of objects discovered in Sŏkkat’ap), 49–68. Proceedings of a special conference held at the National Museum of Korea, Seoul, Korea, October 27, 2007. Oh Young Bong. Wonhyo’s Theory of Harmonization (Wŏnhyo ŭi hwajaengsasang yŏn’gu). Seoul: Korea Research Foundation, 1989. Ōtani Kōshin 大谷光真. “Donran to Kegon shisō” 曇鸞と華嚴思想 (Tanluan and Huayan thought). In Jōdokyō no kenkyū: Ishida Mitsuyuki hakushi koki kinen ronbun 浄土敎の研究 : 石田充之博士古稀記念論文 (Studies on Pure Land Doctrine: Festschrift in commemoration of the 77th birthday of Dr. Ishida Mitsuyuki), comp. Ishida Mitsuyuki Hakushi Koki Kinen Ronbunshū Kankōkai 石田充之博士古稀記念論文集刋行会 (Committee for the Compilation of the Festschrift in Commemoration of the 77th Birthday of Dr. Ishida Misuyuki), 121–138. Kyōto: Nagatabunshōdō, 1982. Palais, James B. “Early Korea: Chosŏn, Three Kingdoms, Silla, and Parhae.” In Pre-modern East Asia: To 1800, a Cultural, Social, and Political History, by Patricia Buckley Ebrey, Anne Walthall, and James B. Palais, 116–136. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Park, Sung Bae (Pak Sŏngbae). “Wonhyo’s Commentaries on the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana.” PhD diss., University of California Berkeley, 1979. Park Youngbok (Pak Yŏngbok). “The Monastery Hwangnyongsa and Buddhism of the Early Silla Period,” trans. Karen Hwang and Rick McBride. In ­Transmitting the Forms of Divinity: Early Buddhist Art from Korea and Japan, 179

Selected Bibliography ed. ­Washizuka Hiromitsu, Park Youngbok, and Kang Woo-bang, 140–153. New York: Japan Society, 2003. Pas, Julian. Visions of Sukhāvatī: Shan-Tao’s Commentary on the Kuan Wu-Liang-ShouFo Ching. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Pradel, Maria del Rosario (Chari). “The Fragments of the Tenjukoku Shūchō Mandara: Reconstruction of the Iconography and the Historical Contexts.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1997. ———. “The Tenjukoku Shūchō Mandara: Reconstruction of the Iconography and Ritual Contexts.” In Images in Asian Religions: Text and Contexts, ed. Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara, 257–289. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004. Pruden, Leo. “A Short Essay on the Pure Land by Dharma Master T’an-luan.” Eastern Buddhist n.s. 8, no. 1 (May 1975): 74–95. Reischauer, Edwin O., and John King Fairbank. East Asia: The Great Tradition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960. Reischauer, Edwin O., John King Fairbank, and Albert M. Craig. A History of East Asian Civilization. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960–1965. Ren Jiyu 任繼愈, ed. Zhongguo daojiao shi 中國道教史 (History of Daoism in China). Rev. ed. 2 vols. Bejing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 2001. Ren Jiyu 任繼愈, ed., and further revised and edited by Zhong Zhaopeng 鐘肇鵬, Daozang tiyao 道藏提要 (Summary of the Daoist Canon). Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe; Xinhua shudian jingxiao, 1991. Rhi Ki-yong 李箕永 (Yi Kiyŏng). Han’guk Pulgyo yŏn’gu 韓國佛敎硏究 (Research on Korean Buddhism). Seoul: Han’guk Pulgyo Yŏn’guwŏn, 1982. Rhie, Marilyn Martin. “The Korean Buddhist Image: Embodiment of the Transcendent.” Korean Culture 5, no.1 (March 1984): 4–15. Rutt, Richard. “The Flower Boys of Silla (Hwarang): Notes on the Sources.” Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea 38 (1961): 1–66. Saitō Tadashi 齋藤忠. “Shiragi no sōsei kara mita Kanzanjiseki sekizō Amida nyoraizō·Miroku bosatsuzō kinsekibun no ichikaishaku” 新羅の葬制から見 た甘山寺跡石造阿彌陀如来像·彌勒菩薩像金石文の一解釈 (An interpretation of the epigraphic inscriptions on the stone images of the Buddha Amitābha and the Bodhisattva Maitreya of the site of Kamsan monastery seen from the burial regulations of Silla). Chōsen gakuhō 朝鮮學報 99–100 (July 1981): 131–141. Satō Tetsuei 佐藤哲英. Eizan jōdokyō no kenkyū 叡山浄土教の研究 (Research on the Pure Land Buddhism of Eizan). Kyoto: Hyakkaen, 1979. Schopen, Gregory. “Sukhāvatī as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature.” Indo-Aryan Journal 19 (1977): 177–210. 180

Selected Bibliography Seah, Ingram Samuel. “Shan-tao, His Life and Teachings.” PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1975. Sharf, Robert H. “On Pure Land Buddhism and Ch’an/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval China.” T’oung Pao 88, nos. 4–5 (December 2002): 281–331. Shigematsu Akihisa. “An Overview of Early Japanese Pure Land,” trans. Michael Solomon. In The Pure Land Tradition, ed. James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne, 267–312. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Buddhist Studies, 1996. Shim Jae-ryong. Korean Buddhism: Tradition and Transformation. Seoul: Jimoondang, 1999. ———. “On the General Characteristics of Korean Buddhism: Is Korean Buddhism Syncretic?” Seoul Journal of Korean Studies 2 (December 1989): 147–157. Sin Chongwŏn 辛鐘遠. Silla ch’ogi Pulgyosa yŏn’gu 新羅初期佛敎史硏究 (Research on the early Buddhist history of Silla). Seoul: Minjoksa, 1992. Sørensen, Heinrik H. “On the Sinin and Ch’ongji Schools and the Nature of Esoteric Buddhist Practice under the Koryŏ.” International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture 5 (2005): 49–61. Sørensen, Heinrik H. “Problems with Using the Samguk yusa as a Source for the History of Korean Buddhism.” Cahiers d’Études Coréennes 7 (2000): 271–288. Sponberg, Alan. “Wŏnhyo on Maitreya Visualization.” In Maitreya, the Future ­Buddha, edited by Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre, 94–109. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Stevenson, Daniel B. “The Four Kinds of Samādhi in Early T’ien-t’ai Buddhism.” In Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, ed. Peter N. Gregory, 45–98. Kuroda Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism 4. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1986. ———. “Pure Land Worship and Meditation in China.” In Buddhism in Practice, ed. Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 359–379. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. ———. “Visions of Mañjuśrī on Mount Wutai.” In Religions of China in Practice, ed. Donald S. Lopez Jr., 203–222. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士. Nihon Bukkyōshi: shisōshi toshite no apurōchi 日本仏 教史：思想史としてのアプローチ (Japanese Buddhist history: An intellectual history approach). Tokyo: Shinchōsha, 1992. Suh Yoon-kil (Sŏ Yun’gil) 徐閏吉. “Koryŏ Ch’ŏnt’ae wa milgyo ŭi chŏngt’o sasang” 高麗 天台와 密敎의 淨土思想 (The Pure Land thought of Ch’ŏnt’ae and Milgyo in the Koryŏ period). In Han’guk Chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu 韓國淨土 思想硏究 (Research on Korean Pure Land thought), ed. Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn 佛敎文化硏究院 (Buddhist Culture Research Center), 143–179. Seoul: Tongguk Taehakkyo Ch’ulp’anbu, 1985. 181

Selected Bibliography Takahashi Toru 高橋亭. Richō Bukkyō 李朝佛教 (Buddhism under the Chosŏn ­Dynasty). Osaka: Hōbunkan, 1929. Tanaka, Kenneth K. The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism: Ching-ying Hui-yüan’s Commentary on the Visualization Sūtra. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990. Tōdō Kyōshun 藤堂恭俊, ed. Zendō daishi kenkyū 善導大師研究 (Research on the great master Shandao). Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1980. Tokuno, Kyoko. “Byways in Chinese Buddhism: The Book of Trapuṣa and Indigenous Scriptures.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1994. Tomatsu Norichiyo 戶松憲千代. “Chikō no Jōdokyō shisō ni tsuite” 智光の浄土 教思想に就いて (On the Pure Land thought of Chikō). Ōtani gakuhō 大谷學報 18, no. 1 (February 1937): 126–170. Tongguk Taehakkyo Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn 東國大學校佛敎文化硏究院, ed. Kankoku Bussho kaidai jiten 韓國仏書解題辞典 (Dictionary of Synopses of Korean Buddhist Books). Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1982. Tsukamoto Zenryū 塚本善隆. Chūgoku Bukkyō tsūshi 中国仏敎通史 (Comprehensive history of Chinese Buddhism). Rev. ed. 3 vols. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1979. ———. “Nihon kodai Bukkyō no Jōdokyō-teki juyō” 日本古代仏教の浄土教的受容 (The reception of Pure Land Buddhism in ancient Japan). In Nihon Jōdokyō shi no kenkyū 日本浄土教史の研究 (Studies in Japanese Pure Land History), ed. Fujishima Tatsurō 藤島達朗 and Miyazaki Enjun 宮崎圓遵, 3–13. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1969. ———. Shina Bukkyōshi kenkyū: Hokugi hen 支那佛教史研究：北魏篇 (Studies in Chinese Buddhist History: Northern Wei). Tokyo: Kōbundō, 1942. ———. Tō chūki no Jōdokyō: Tokuni Hōshō Zenji no kenkyū 唐中期の淨土敎 : 特に法照 禪師の研究 (Pure Land Buddhism in the mid-Tang period: With special research on the Chan master Fazhao). Kyoto: Tōhō Bunka Gakuin Kyōto Kenkyūjo: Hatsubaijo Ibundō, 1933. Reprint, Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1975. Ujike Kakusho 氏家覚勝. Darani shisō no kenkyū 陀羅尼思想の研究 (Research on dhāraṇī thought). Osaka: Tōhō Shuppan, 1987. Unno Taitetsu. “Shinran: A New Path to Buddhahood.” In The Pure Land Tradition, ed. James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne, 313–355. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Buddhist Studies, 1996. Uno Sadatoshi 宇野禎敏. “Jōyōji Eion Kanmuryōjūkyōso no sanjōkan” 淨影寺慧 遠 観無量寿経疏の三乗観 (The view of the three vehicles in Jingying Huiyuan’s Guanwuliangshou jing yishu). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教 學研究 31 no. 2 (December 1982): 140–141. ———. “Kasai Jōdoron ni okeru senke” 迦才 淨土論における懺悔 (Confession in Jiacai’s Jingtu lun). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 32, no. 2 (March 1984): 736–737. 182

Selected Bibliography Waley, Arthur. The Life and Times of Po Chü-i. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1949. ———. The Real Tripitaka: And Other Pieces. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1952. Watanabe Kenshō 渡邊顕正. Shiragi Kyōgyō shi Jutsumonsan no kenkyū 新羅憬興師 述文賛の研究 (Research on the Sulmunch’an of Master Kyŏnghŭng of Silla). Kyoto: Nagata Bunshōdō, 1978. Weinstein, Stanley. Buddhism under the T’ang. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Wriggins, Salley Hovey. Xuanzang: A Buddhist Pilgrim on the Silk Road. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996. Xue Zhongsan 薛仲三. Liangqiannian Zhong-Xi li duizhao biao 兩千年中西曆對照表 (A Sino-Western Calendar for Two Thousand Years). Rev. ed. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan chuban, 1957. Reprint, Taipei: Xuehai chubanshe, 1993. Yi Chigwan 李智冠. “Chŏsŏ rŭl t’onghae pon Chosŏngi ŭi Chŏngt’o sasang” 著書를 通해 본 朝鮮朝의 淨土思想 (Pure Land thought of the Chosŏn period as seen through literature). In Han’guk Chŏngt’o sasang yŏn’gu 韓國淨土思想硏究 (Research on Korean Pure Land thought), ed. Pulgyo Munhwa Yŏn’guwŏn 佛敎 文化硏究院 (Buddhist Culture Research Center), 181–240. Seoul: Tongguk Taehakkyo Ch’ulpanbu, 1985. Yi Chongik 李鍾益. Wŏnhyo ŭi kŭnbon sasang: Sinmun hwajaeng non yŏn’gu元曉의根 本思想：十門和諍論硏究 (Wŏnhyo’s Fundamental Ideology: Research on the Treatise on the Reconciliation of Disputes in Ten Approaches). Seoul: Tongbang Sasang Yŏn’guwŏn, 1977 Yi Pyŏngdo 李丙燾. Kugyŏk Samguk sagi 國譯三國史記 (Korean Translation of the History of the Three Kingdoms). Seoul: Ŭryu Munhwasa, 1977. Yi Pyŏngnae 李平來. Silla Pulgyo yŏraejang sasang yŏn’gu 新羅佛教如來思想硏究 (Research on Tathāgatagarbha thought in Silla Buddhism). Seoul: Minjoksa, 1996. Yoshizu Yoshihide 吉津宜英. “Jironshi to iu kōshō ni tsuite” 地論師という考証に ついて (Research on the term “Dilun masters”). Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyōgakubu kenkyū kiyō 駒澤大學佛教部研究紀要 31 (1973): 307–323. Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adoption of Buddhism in Medieval China. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.

183

Index Page numbers in boldface refer to figures. absorption, meditative. See samādhi Achufo. See Akṣobhya Ach’ukpul. See Akṣobhya Ahn Kye-hyŏn 5, 9, 12 Akṣobhya, Buddha, 66, 86, 89 Amitābha, Buddha, chant (recite, recollect) name of, 2, 3, 10; cult of, 3, 6, 9–11; Enlightenment Site, 108; Hall of, 101; methods of veneration interchangeable with those of Maitreya, 57–65; at Minjungsa, 1, 112; Monastery, 103; parents of, 109–110; at Pulguksa, 88–92; symbolic relationship between cults of Maitreya and Amitābha, 79–80; triads, 79–88, 81–83, 85, 87–88, 114, 120; Vairocana and, 89, 120; eighteenth vow of, 12. See also Amitāyus; chanting, Amitābha’s name Amit’a-gyŏng ki, 13 Amit’a-gyŏng kojŏk ki, 123, 131 Amit’a-gyŏng so, 122–123, 125, 129, 131 Amit’a-gyŏng t’ongch’an so, 130 Amit’a-gyŏng ŭigi, 122, 129, 130, 136n29 Amit’a-gyŏng yakki, 123, 130 Amitāyus, 18–20, 23, 32, 35, 39–40, 42–43, 86, 109; dhāraṇī of, 92, 154n23; image of, 79; relationship with name Amitābha, 79. See also Amitābha Amituo guyinshengwang da tuoluoni, 95 Amituo jing, 9–10, 26, 29, 70; Chajang and, 3; commentaries on, 9, 13, 32, 129–132, 136n29; at Dunhuang, 31–32; Fazhao and, 30; and the Four Buddhas, 86 Anle ji, 24, 125 anusaṃdhi. See continuation Anyō shō, 124 Anyō shū, 124–125

aspiration(s), to enlightenment, 93, 143n69; great and lesser, 13–14; for rebirth in Sukhāvatī or Tuṣita, 48, 67, 104, 108, 117, 119–120. See also bodhicitta, arousing the Avalokiteśvara, 73, 89, 94, 104–107, 109–110, 114; with cintāmaṇi, 80; Enlightenment Site, 108; images of, 80, 81–83, 82, 84, 85–88, 85–88 Avataṃsaka Sūtra, 91, 101, 119, 121; in forty rolls, 118–119. See also Huayan jing Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna. See Dasheng qixin lun Bailian she. See White Lotus Society banzhou sanmei. See samādhi; pratyutpanna Baoqieyin tuoluoni jing, 92 Baoxiangfo. See Ratnaketu benefit(s), all beings by teaching dharma, 59; deceased parents and others, 79–80, 97–98; of hearing the dharma, 63–64; of hearing Maitreya sūtras, 63–64; like those found in dhāraṇī, 117; of making image of Amitāyus, 79–80; of Pure Land practice/worshiping Amitābha, 28, 76, 89, 112; of repenting, 64; of venerating Amitābha at royal tombs, 81 Bhaiṣajyaguru, 80, 86, 115 Bodaisenna, 115 bodhcitta, arousal of, in relation to Pure Land practice, 14, 18–20, 25, 55; deemphasis on, 55, 70; as prerequisite for rebirth in Pure Land, 24, as primary cause of rebirth in Pure Land, 34–40, 45, 47, 127; in Sinitic Buddhist tradition, 3; in relation to Tathāgatagarbha, 43; requisite for

185

Index people with advanced spiritual capacities, 49, 117 Bodhiruci I, 21, 138; II, 38, 145n16 bodhisattva, 2, 14–15, 49, 66–67, 97, 117–121, 127; images of, 66, 80, 84, 86, 88, 97 bodhisattva path, above the initial stage, 38; assumption of, 3, 6, 10, 38, 40, 42, 45, 47, 59, 98; fifty-two stages of, 28, 117–121, 141n50; lineage, 36; mainstream practices of, 62–64, 120–121 buddha-land, 17, 44–45, 66, 154–155n36 buddhakṣetra. See buddha-land; Pure Land buddhānusmṛti, 1, 3, 9, 22, 26–29, 36, 47, 55, 117–118, 127–128; early Hwaŏm interpretation of, 50–51; and power of dhāraṇī, 45; and ten recollections, 18, 43, 46, 127. See also nianfo; yŏmbul Buddhas, of the four directions, 78, 86–87 Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra. See Avataṃsakasūtra Buddhism, adoption of, in Korea, 2, 4–5; Korea’s place in, 31, 134n15; Sinitic, exegetical (doctrinal), 2, 14, 31, 61, 66; universal, 2, 15, 29. See Northern Dynasties; Sui; Tang Chajang, 122, 137nn44, 47; Hwangnyong Monastery and, 5, 9; Jingying Huiyuan and, 10, 12–13; mentor to Wŏnhyo, 33; Pure Land commentaries of, 13–14, 129, 136n29; role in origins of Pure Land in Silla, 9, 12–14, 32–34; visit to Mount Zhongnan, 13 Chang’an, 3, 26, 30, 32, 99, 136n40 chant, Amitāyus/Amitābha, 20, 31, 40, 43, 104, 127; Buddha’s name, 19, 25, 31, 43–46, 50, 103; Homage to Buddha, 21, 27, 40, 43–44, 50; scriptures/treatises, 73; ten intonations, 46; vocally, 43. See also chanting chanting, Āgamas, 102–103; Amitābha’s name, xi, 1, 31–32, 46, 49, 103, 112; Amitābha’s name same as buddhānusmṛti, 1, 17, 19, 22–23, 45, 49, 50, 55–56, 127; and continuation, 45; to

186

create wholesome roots, 48; dhāraṇī, xi, 32, 78, 92, 104, 108, 118; in Dunhuang, 31–32; Fazhao’s view of, 30–31; in five practices, 29; to generate samādhi, 48–49; Great Compassion Spell, 104; intoning in five tempos, 30–31; “Homage to Buddha,” 31–32, 39, 47, 50, 112; Maitreya’s name, 61–62; to obtaining rebirth in lowest class, 43, 102, 118; as practice for beings with inferior spiritual capacities, 50–52, 127–128; and repentance practices, 32, 108–109, 118; Shandao’s view of, 27–29; and sincere mind, 34; sole practice of chanting Amitābha’s name, 3, 48; sūtras, 65, 71; for ten intonations, 27–28; ten recollections of, 47–50, 128; for ten thought-moments, 18–19, 43, 50; verbal/vocal, 27–29, 44, 108, 121; as visualization practice, 47; as widespread, popular, or core practice, 69, 108, 128. See also buddhānusmṛti Chengguan, 119 Chengyuan, 30 Chikei, 115 Chikō, 121, 125 Ch’ilburam, 84–87 Ch’ingch’an chŏngt’o-gyŏng kojŏk ki, 131 Chinhŭng, 5, 82 Chinp’yŏng, 103, 110 Chinul, 117 chisim. See sincere mind chisŏng sim. See utmost sincerity Chŏngt’o ch’ongnyogan, 132 Chōsai roku, 122 Chosŏn, 84, 101, 112 Chūgūji, 113 Chūjō, Princess, 115 Ci’en, 52 Ci’en Kuiji, 26, 59, 128, 134–135n19, 137–138n50; on rebirth in Sukhāvatī and Tuṣita, 61–62, 64, 69–71, 74–77; Xuanzang and Kuiji lineage, 8–9, 49, 51–52, 70 Consciousness-only School, 49. See also Yogācāra continuation, 20, 22, 25, 40–42, 45–46, 96

Index crossing the river expedient. See river crossing story cultic practice(s), 5, 32, 43–44, 76–77; for rebirth in Sukhāvatī, 10, 65, 119; of reciting name, 21, 29, 46; of recollection and buddhānusmṛti, 18, 29, 45, 47; for rebirth in Tuṣita, 65–67; for venerating Amitābha, 67; of visualization, 59–60 Daikyō jikidan yōchūki, 124 Daoan, 17 Daochuo, 3, 21–23, 29–30, 32, 103, 105; Amitābha veneration by, 23–28, 42; on differences between Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī, 68–69, 75–76; river crossing story, 40 Daoist doctrine, 97–98 Daoshi, 31–32, 95, 118 Dasheng qixin lun, 8, 33, 34, 39, 58 Dazhidu lun, 42–43 devotional practices, 2, 62, 71, 105, 117; five types of, 20–22, 28–29. See also cultic practice(s) dhāraṇī, xi, 31–32, 78, 91–92, 118; chanting name of Amitābha as, 18, 24, 45, 93–94; rebirth in Sukhāvatī and, 91–93, 95, 104–105, 108–109, 118 Dharma, decline of, 13, 24, 28 Dharmākara, 66, 106; forty-eight vows of, 17, 106, 114, 143n69 Dharmarakṣa, 37 dharma realm, 96, 119–121 Dilun, 14, 137–138n50 doctrinal classification, schemes of, 15, 59 Domesticating the Dharma, xi, 6, 88 Dōshō, 115 Ducor, Jerôme, 27 Dunhuang, 31–32, 86, 96 Duobao. See Many Treasures, Buddha eight classes of supernatural beings, 70, 95, 151n37 Ennin, 31 “Entry into the Dharma Realm” chapter, 119–120 Eon, 114

epigraphy, Buddhist, 6, 7, 78–79, 96–100 Etani Ryūkai, 5, 8–9, 52, 124–125 Fachang, 13 Fajing, 11 Fajue jingxin jing, 38–39 Fanmayue, 110 Fayuan zhulin, 32, 94 Fazang, 8, 26, 58–59 Fazhao, 30–31 five heinous crimes, 11–12, 17, 32, 39, 48–50, 53–54, 103, 106n37 Flower Garland, 89. See also Huayan; Huayan jing; Hwaŏm; Kegon forty-eight vows. See Dharmākara four heavy sins, 32, 143n67 Fujiwara Ryosetsu, 8 Fujiwara Toyonari, 115 Gangōji, 121 Gaoseng zhuan, 22 gāthā, at end of Avataṃsaka-sūtra in forty rolls, 119; by Shandao, 142n54; by Wŏnhyo, 105–106, 130 Genshin, 126 Gikai, 126 Gizan, 126 Great Compassion Spell, 104, 157n60. See also dhāraṇī Guanfo sanmeihai jing, 86 Guangming Monastery, 26 Guanjing, 10, 40, 53, 67–70, 72, 124; contradiction in, 34, 49, 52, 127; exclusively recollect Amitābha in, 19; sixteen visualizations in, 10, 20, 106–107; ten recollections in, 20, 28, 39, 47–49, 51, 53–55. See also Guan Wuliangshou jing Guan Mile pusa shangsheng Doushuaitian jing, 61–62, 67, 70, 72–73 Guan Mile shangsheng Doushuaitian jing zan, 150n15, 151n38, 152n51 Guan Wuliangshou jing, 1, 9, 11–12, 17, 106–107, 120–121, 126–127; Hyŏnil and, 131; Jingying Huiyuan commentaries on, 12, 19; Jizang and, 20; Kyŏnghŭng and, 130; Shandao and, 27, 31, 125;

187

Index Taehyŏn and, 132; Ŭijŏk and, 131; Zhiyi and, 19–20. See also sixteen visualizations Guan Wuliangshou jing shu, 19, 31, 125 Guan Wuliangshou jing yishu, 19–20 Gyōgi, 115 Gyōnen, 126 hagiography, Buddhist, 3, 6, 9, 34 Hell, 19, 42, 73. See also rebirth, in hell Hōnen, 3, 49, 126 Hongfa Monastery 67 Hon’gu, 7 Hōryūji, 85, 113 Hossō, 114–115 Huaigan, 27–28, 32, 54, 74, 124; Kyŏnghŭng and, 55–56; on similarities and differences between Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī, 71–76 Huayan, intellectual tradition of, 8, 10, 39, 127, 138n50; Chajang and, 32; doctrine of, 21, 42, 127, 141n50; Fazang and 8, 58; Jingying Huiyuan and, 8; Shandao and, 28, 127; Tanluan and, 21; Zhiyan and, 13; Zongmi and, 119 Huayan jing, fifty-two stage bodhisattva path, 28, 141–142n50; forty-roll edition, 118; “Practices” chapter, 118–119; relations with Dilun tradition, 137–138n50; Tathāgatagarbha thought in, 34, 39; ten vows of Samantabhadra, 142n52; three Chinese translations of, 119, 159n9; Wŏnhyo and, 39, 147–148n3; Zhiyan commentary on, 39 Huayan jing neizhang mendeng li kongmu zhang, 39 Huijiao, 11, 22 Huiyuan. See Jingying Huiyuan; Lushan Huiyuan Hŭnji on the East Sea (King Munmu’s burial place on East Sea), 99–100 Hŭngnyun Monastery, 5 Hwangnyong Monastery, 5, 34; commentarial lineage of, 8–10 Hwaŏm, 34, 127; cult of divine assembly, 101; Pulguk Monastery and, 89–91; synthesis of and Pure Land, 89–91,

188

100–101, 118–121, 127–128; tradition, 6, 52, 78, 88–89, 127–128; Ŭich’ŏn and, 117; Ŭijŏk and, 50–51; Ŭisang and, 49, 104; Wŏnhyo and, 58; world system of, 120; world system in painting, 120 Hwaŏm Pulguksa Amit’a pul hwasang ch’an, 89–91 hyangga, 106 Hyŏnil, 3, 9–10, 43, 48–49, 52, 56, 123, 127–128, 131; influence of Shandao on, 27, 32; in lineage of Jingying Huiyuan, 52 icchantika, 52 Imhaejŏn, 84 Incantations, 32, 113, 118. See also dhāraṇī Injang, 98–100 Inyong Monastery, 108 Iryŏn, and Samguk yusa, 7, 87, 97–98, 100–101, 103, 106–107, 111 Jiacai, 25, 28, 37, 67, 74–75, 125; why rebirth in Sukhāvatī is easier, 71–73, 75–76; six kinds of practices and, 25–26; on superiority of rebirth in Sukhāvatī, 69–70; ten recollections and, 38 Jiangliangyeshe. See Kālayaśas Jin’gang sanmei jing, 33 Jin’guangming jing, 86 Jingtu lun, 25, 38, 80, 125. See also Jiacai Jingying Huiyuan, 8, 11, 18, 125; lineage of, 8–10; Pure Land commentaries of, 11–12, 14, 18–19, 27, 35 Jiumoluoshi. See Kumārajīva Jizang, 18, 20, 25, 59; on differences between Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī, 67–68, 72, 75 Jñānagupta, 38 Jōdojutsu monsho, 124 Jōdoshū yōshū, 124 Jōjitsu, 114 Kaewŏn, 98–99, 156n42 Kakumyōbō Chōsai, 124 Kālayaśas, 11 Kamakura, 3, 113, 126 Kamp’o, 100. See also Hŭnji on the East Sea

Index Kamsan Monastery, 97 Kangyō shōden zūki, 124 Kanshinji, 114 Kegon, 114–115, 124, 126, 128 Kim, Jongmyung, 13 Kim Chisŏng, 96–99, 155–156n39 Kim Ch’unch’u, 33, 82, 100. See also Muyŏl, King Kim Inmun, 82, 107–108 Kim Pusik, 6, 155–156n39 Kim Yongch’un, 82 Kōben, 124 Kōfukuji, 86 Koguryŏ, 4–5, 33, 80, 82, 104–105, 113; Amitābha image, 79; tomb paintings of, 114 kolp’umje. See bone-rank system Kŏnbong Monastery, 111–112 Korean Buddhism, colonial period rhetoric on, 8; distinctive/ representative characteristics of, 91, 119, 128; relation with Chinese, 2 Koryŏ, xi, 4, 7; Buddhist paintings of, 120; dating of Vow Made at White Lotus Enlightenment Site, 104; dhāraṇī at Pulguk Monastery, 92; Hwaŏm cult in, 101; “Practices” chapter in, 119–120; Silla narratives recorded in, 7; Ŭich’ŏn and, 89 Kubon ōjōgi, 124 Kuiji. See Ci’en Kuiji Kulbul Monastery, 86–87, 87 Kumārajīva, 10, 42–43 Kŭmgang, Mount. See Diamond Mountains Kwangdŏk, 106–107 Kwan Muryangsu-gyŏng kangyo, 122, 131 Kwan Muryangsu-gyŏng ki, 131 Kwan Muryangsu-gyŏng kojŏk ki, 132 Kwan Muryangsu-gyŏng so, 130–131 Kwanseŭm. See Avalokiteśvara Kyehwa, Queen, 101 Kyŏngdŏk, King, 1, 5, 87, 110–113 Kyŏnghŭng, 3, 6, 10, 43, 51, 58, 72; on benefits from hearing Maitreya sūtras and performing visualization exercises ; on five heinous crimes, 53; Pure Land commentaries, 123, 125–126, 130; on

the relationship between Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī, 62, 74–77; response to Huaigan, 28, 32, 54–55; Hyŏnil and, 48; Kuiji and, 64–65, 71; on Maitreya, 57–58, 61, 64–65; on ten intonations, 53; on ten recollections, 55–56, 127; Ŭijŏk and, 49; and Xuanzang-Kuiji lineage, 9, 52, 128 Kyŏngju, 1, 9, 45, 107–108; Amitābha images on, 88; Hwangnyong Monastery, 5, 34; Namsan, 80, 81, 85, 113; Punhwang Monastery in, 106; royal Kim family burials, 82; Small Diamond Mountains, 86, 87 Lancaster, Lew, 8 Laozi, 98 Lee Ki-baik, 9 Longmen Caves, 29, 96 Lotus Storehouse World System, 89, 91, 120 Lu, Mount, 18, 30. See also Lushan Huiyuan Lüelun anle jingtu yi, 22, 42 Luoyang, 22, 29 Lushan Huiyuan, 17–18, 20, 30 Madhayamaka, 24, 30; Chinese, 14, 20, 42, 59, 67 Mahāsthāmaprāpta, 80, 81–83, 82, 85, 85, 87, 87, 94, 114 Mahāyānasaṃgraha, 11, 44, 46; See also Shelun Maitreya, abiding in absorption, 66; cult of, 17, 52, 79–80, 103, 113; three assemblies of, 61, 79; chanting name of, 64–65; Daochuo and, 68; devotional practices interchangeable with those of cult of Amitābha, 57, 60–61, 66–67, 108–109; dhāraṇī of, 95; Huaigan and, 71–72; images of, 29, 86, 96–99, 108–109; Jiacai and, 69; Jizang and, 67–68; Kyŏnghŭng and, 74–76; in Nara period, 115; Kuiji and, 70; parents of, 109–110; Pŏbwi and, 47; Sill exegetes and, 76; Tenjukoku maṇḍala and, 114; visualization techniques, 58–59; and Vow Made at White Flower Enlightenment Site, 104; Wŏnhyo and,

189

Index 34, 37–38, 72–74; Wu Zetian as, 67; and Yogācāra scriptures, 58 manil Mit’a toryang. See Ten-thousand Day Assemblies manil yŏmburhoe. See Ten-thousand Day Assemblies Many Treasures, Buddha, 44 meditative practice, 18, 67, 115. See also samādhi Mile fawen jing, 37–39, 43, 127–128, 145n16 Mile pusa suowen benyuan jing, 37 Mile pusa suowen jing, 39, 47–52, 55, 127–128, 145n16 Mile xiasheng chengfo jing, 67 Mile xiasheng jing, 67, 109–110 Mimyosŏngbul. See Profound Sound Buddha Minamoto Hiroyuki, 49, 74, 126, 139n10 Minamoto Takakuni, 124, 144n1 Minjang Monastery, 1, 112 Mirŭk. See Maitreya Mirŭk sangsaeng-gyŏng chongyo, 59 Mit’a chŭngsŏng ke, 105–106, 130 Mit’a manirhoe. See Ten-thousand Day Assemblies mofa. See Dharma, decline of Mogao Caves, 96 Mohe zhiguan, 92–93 Mugu chŏnggwang tae tarani kyŏng, 91–93, 95 Mugŭk. See Hon’gu Munmu, King, 51, 84, 96, 104, 107; underwater burial of, 100 Muryangsu. See Amitāyus Muryangsu-gyŏng chongyo, 34, 72, 74, 106, 115, 122, 125, 129 Muryangsu-gyŏng ki, 48, 131 Muryangsu-gyŏng kojŏk ki, 123, 132 Muryangsu-gyŏng sagi, 130 Muryangsu-gyŏng so, 122–123, 129–131 Muryangsu-gyŏng surŭi ki, 50, 124, 131 Muryangsu-gyŏng ŭiso, 43, 122, 125, 130 Muryangsu-gyŏng yogan, 130 Muryangsu-gyŏng yŏnŭi sulmunch’an, 52, 75, 122, 125, 130 Muryōjukyō ronshaku, 121, 125 Muryōjukyō shō, 124 Muyŏl, King, 33, 82, 98, 100, 103, 105, 107

190

Namsan (in Kyŏngju), 17, 81, 82, 95 Nara, 2, 84, 114–115 nenbutsu, 1, 114–115, 121, 124. See also Amitābha; chanting nianfo, 1, 21, 23–24, 30, 31–32. See also Amitābha; recollection; chanting Nihon ryōiki, 7, 115 Nohil Pudŭk, 108–110 Northern Dynasties Buddhism, 8, 17–18, 79, 86; Northern Qi, 86; Northern Wei, 79; Northern Zhou, 13, 18, 23 Ŏmjang, 106–107 Paekche, 4, 104, 107, 113; Amitābha worship in, 80–82; Buddhism in, 51; Kyŏnghŭng and, 51; tomb paintings influence in Japan, 114 Paekhwa, Mount, 80 Paekhwa toryang parwŏn mun. See Ŭisang, Vow Made at White Flower Enlightenment Site paengnyŏn-sa. See White Lotus Society Paengnyul Monastery, 87 Paeri, 80, 81 Palching, 112 panjiao. See doctrinal classification, schemes of Panju sammae-gyŏng so, 122 Panju sammae-gyŏng yakki, 122 Paramārtha, 12, 137–138n50 penance practice(s), 24, 53, 118. See also repentance rituals and practices P’iri Monastery, 1, 112 Pŏbwi, 3, 9–10, 43, 52, 122–123, 125, 126–127, 130; chanting and, 45–46; on continuation, 45; influence of Shandao on, 27, 32, 45–46; ten recollections and, 37, 43–48; Ŭijŏk and, 51 Pŏphŭng, 5, 82 Posangbul. See Ratnaketu prabandha. See continuation practices. See cultic practice(s); meditative practice; penance practice(s); repentance rituals and practices Prajñā (Kashmiri monk), 118 Profound Sound Buddha, 86

Index Pulguk Monastery, 88–92, 90 Punhwang Monastery, 34, 106–107 Pure Land, 3, 26; highest grade of highest class, 35; causes of rebirth in, 13, 18, 19, 25, 35, 45; rebirth in lowest grade of lowest class, 19, 35–36; didactic tales of, 102; as a sect, 3, 26, 27, 78, 114, 126; Silla form of practiced at Tōdaiji, 115; synthesis with Esoteric Buddhism, 92; synthesis of with Hwaŏm, 91 Putiliuzhi. See Bodhiruci

reconciliation of disputes, 33, 58–59, 74. See also Wŏnhyo repentance rituals and practices, 12, 24, 32, 53, 60–61, 93–95, 117 river crossing story, 25, 40–42. See also Tanluan; Daochuo; Wŏnhyo Ru fajie pin, 119 Ryōchū, 124 Ryōgen, 124, 126 Ryōkei, 124 Ryōkei Dōkō, 124, 126

Qifo bapusa suoshuo da tuoluoni shenzhou jing, 95 Qing Guanshiyin xiaofu duhai tuoluoni jing, 94 Qixin lun. See Dasheng qixing lun

sabangbul. See Buddhas, of the four directions Śākyamuni, Buddha, 2, 101; cult of, 103; images of, 29, 85–86, 96, 113–114; Silla royal family and, 110; stūpa at Pulguksa, 91–92 samādhi, of Buddha visualization, 60–61; in Mohe zhiguan, 93–94; practice of, 3, 6, 65, 117; pratyutpanna samādhi, 30, 93; on recollecting Amitābha, 22–23, 48–49; on recollecting Maitreya, 59, 128; sūtras on, 33, 86 Samantabhadra, Bodhisattva, 118–119, 148–149n3, 159n6 Samguk sagi, 6, 110 Samguk yusa, 6–7, 9, 99, 101–103, 113 Sam Mirŭk-kyŏng so, 61, 74 Samnŭnggye, 81, 82 Sanlun. See Madhyamaka Sanron, 114, 121. See also Madhyamaka sectarian scholarship, Japanese, 3, 9, 14, 26–27, 114 Seisō, 124 Sekie Ryōgyō, 124 Senkan, 126 separate time, meaning of, 27, 141n46 Shandao, 3, 26, 30, 69, 125; buddhānusmṛti and, 22; Fazhao and, 30; “Homage to Amitābha” and, 31; Hōssō tradition and, 114; Huaigan and, 54–56, 71, 125, 127, 139n10, 140n44; Huayan 52 stages and, 28, 127; Jiacai and, 25; river crossing story and, 25; seven-day rituals, 29; Silla exegetes and, 32, 44, 51; Tathāgatagarbha and, 21; ten

Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhādhāraṇī. See Wugou jingguang da tuoluoni jing; dhāraṇī Ratnaketu, 86 rebirth, in hell, 18, 73; in highest grade/ class, 60, 65; in inferior class/order, 18–19, 35–38, 40, 56, 127; in lowest grade/class, 19–20, 39–40, 55, 61; in middling class/order, 19, 35–36; in superior class/order, 18, 35, 55–56, 127 recitation, vocal, 25, 29, 42, 46 recollecting, Amitābha/Amitāyus, 2, 18–19, 22, 42; the Buddha, 2, 6, 10, 22, 34, 47, 50; characteristics of Amitābha, 42; name of Avalokiteśvara, 104; samādhi on, 23–24; for seven days, 25–26; ten dharmas, 55. See also recollection(s) recollection(s), five approaches to, 21, 63; buddhānusmṛti and, 9, 18, 127–128; Hyŏnil and, 48–49; Jiacai and, 25–26, 69; Jizang and, 20; Kyŏnghŭng and, 52–56; one, 19–20, 22, 40–42, 44, 50; Pŏbwi and, 43–48; Shandao and, 54; six types of, 39; special power of; Tanluan and, 22–23; ten, 2, 6, 9–11; ten in the Huayan tradition, 118, 126–128; Ŭijŏk and, 49–50; vocal, 22, 25; Wŏnhyo and, 34, 37–43; in Yusim allak to, 73; Zhiyan and, 39, 46–47, 50–51; Zhiyi and, 19–20. See also recollecting

191

Index intonations and, 26–29, 46–48, 128; vocal chanting and, 27–29, 127; Wŏnhyo and, 21; worship among masses, 22–23 Shanxi, 3, 24, 29–30, 32 She dasheng lun, 44, 71 She dasheng lun shi, 71 Shelun, 12, 14; and rebirth in Pure Land, 27, 34, 37, 45–46 Shenajueduo. See Jñānagupta Shi jingtu qunyi lun, 28, 54, 125 shiliu guan. See sixteen visualizations shinian. See chanting and ten recollections Shinran, 3, 49 Shiqin. See Vasubandhu shisheng. See ten intonations Shōsan jōdo kyō, 115 Shōsōin bunsho, 122–123 Shōtoku, 114 Shōwa hōbō sōmokuroku, 122–123 Silla, 1, 2, 4–5; adoption of Buddhism, 5; as “country of extreme bliss,” 99; nobility of, 96–100; trade/tribute relations with Tang, 72, 99, 107–108. See also bonerank system Silla Buddhist(s), exegetes, 72, 121; how applied beliefs, 6, 87; mainstream thought, 76–77; thinkers, 6. See also Silla exegetes Silla exegetes, 10, 20, 31–32, 48, 59; influence of, 117, 124 125, 128; influence of Shandao on, 27; participate in Sinitic Buddhist intellectual tradition, 5, 45, 76; on Pure Land, 32, 43, 72; on ten recollections and buddhānusmṛti, 25, 117, 126–128 Silla Pure Land, authority of, 126; commentarial lineage/tradition, 8–9; exegetes, 9, 121–122. See also Silla Buddhist(s) exegetes; Silla exegetes Simmun hwajaeng non, 33, 58 simnyŏn. See recollection(s), ten simnyuk kwan. See sixteen visualizations sincere mind, 112; Daochuo and, 25; Kyŏnghŭng and, 52, 63–64; Ŭijŏk and, 49–50; Wŏnhyo and, 34, 39–43, 106 Sinmun, King, 51, 96, 98, 104

192

Sinp’yŏn chejong kyojang ch’ongnok, 122–123 sipsŏng. See ten intonations sixteen visualizations, 11, 20, 25, 106–107, 120–121. See also visualization slander/slandering, 37–38; practitioners, 37, 101, 103; Right Dharma, 12, 17, 53–54, 102 Sŏbang kŭngnak yoch’an, 131 Sŏkkat’ap, 91 Sŏl Ch’ong, 86–87 Sŏngdŏk, King, 108, 155–156n39 South Mountain. See Namsan spiritual capacities, of a bodhisattva, 2, 48, 62, 68; corresponding to the three grades, 60; distinguishing, 14; limited, 26, 37; inferior, 43, 51, 55, 60, 70, 72, 113, 121, 125, 127; middling, 72; of social elites, 52; superior, 50, 55, 59, 113, 117, 121, 125, 127 Stevenson, Daniel B., 29, 93–94 Sui, 3, 12, 13, 19, 67, 79, 95 Sukhāvatī, 1, 3, 10; Āgamas and, 102; in Amituo jing, 10; Daochuo and, 25; dhāraṇī and, 92; Kyŏnghŭng and, 52, 62–63, 65, 74–77; links with Tuṣita, 57–58, 66–71, 96, 99; literary allusion to, 91; Lushan Huiyuan and, 17; sincere mind and, 106; Shandao and, 27, 29; turning back from, 22; vowing and rebirth in, 17, 78, 104, 119–120; Wŏnhyo and, 35, 44, 60–61, 74; in Yusim allak to, 72–74. See also Pure Land Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra. See Wuliangshou jing (Larger); Amituo jing (Smaller) Sŭngyu, 102–103 Suvarṇaprabhāsottama Sūtra. See Jin’guangming jing Suwŏn wangsaeng-gyŏng ki, 131 taebi chu. See dhāraṇī and Great Compassion Spell Taehyŏn, 123, 131 T’aehyŏn. See Taehyŏn T’aejong Muyŏl, King. See Muyŏl, King Taeseji. See Mahāsthāmaprāpta Taltal Pakpak, 108–110 Tang, 2, 3, 13–14; Amitāyus in, 79; capital, 99; civil service exam, 97–98; court and

Index Amitābha cult, 30; Daode jing in, 98; devotional practice in, 22, 26, 31, 32, 87; Huayan in 127; Indian Buddhist exegetes in, 39; scholars and poets, 97; Silla alliance and tribute relations with, 72, 78, 84, 99, 104, 107–108, 113; Sinitic Yogācāra in, 52; Sukhāvatī and Tuṣita debate in, 67, 71, 74; Ŭisang in, 33, 104; verbal recitation in, 29, 31; White Lotus in, 17; Wŏnhyo and, 33 Tanluan, 3, 10, 125; Bingzhou and, 30; Daochuo and, 23–25; five practices and, 20–23; Kyŏnghŭng and, 62; Pŏbwi and, 45; river crossing story, 25, 40; Shandao and, 27, 29; Wŏnhyo and, 32, 35–43 Tanqian, 12–13 Tanyan, 13 Tathāgatagarbha, 10, 13; Huayan and, 21, 39, 52; Wŏn’gwang and, 13; Wŏnhyo and, 34, 43 Tendaishū, 3, 123, 125, 128 ten evil acts, 11, 49, 50, 136n37 ten intonations, Kyŏnghŭng and, 53–56; Shandao and, 26–28, 142n54; Pŏbwi and, 46–47 Tenjukoku mandara, 113–114 ten recitations, 40, 75 ten recollections. See recollection(s), ten ten thought-moments, 2, 11–12, 18; Jingying Huiyuan and, 19; Tanluan and, 22–23, 25; Ŭijŏk and, 50; Wŏnhyo and, 35–36, 41–43 Ten Thousand Day Assemblies, 111–112 ten wholesome acts, 71, 150n30, 151– 152n40 Tiantai Zhiyi, 10, 18–19; dhāraṇī in the practices encouraged by, 93–94 Tōdaiji, 115 Tōiki dentō mokuroku, 122–123 Tojŭng, 131 T’ongdo Monastery, 110 Tonghae (East Sea), 89, 99–100 Tsukamoto Zenryū, 57 Tudaeri, 88, 88 Tullyun, 131 Tuṣita Heaven, Daochuo and, 67; Huaigan, 71; Jiacai, 69, 73–74; Jizang and, 67–69;

Kuiji and, 70–71; Kyŏnghŭng and, 61–64, 74–77; rebirth in, 67; and Sukhāvatī, 52, 57–58, 66, 71–72; three classes of rebirth in, 20, 35, 40, 48–49, 51; Wŏnhyo and, 58–61; in Yusim allak to, 72–75 Ŭich’ŏn, xi, 89, 117, 119; catalog, 121, 122–123; poem on Pulguk Monastery, 89 Ŭijŏk, 3, 9–10, 43, 49, 52, 76, 122, 131; and buddhānusmṛti, 51; cited in Japanese sources, 124–126; on sincere mind, 49–50; on ten recollection-moments, 50, 127 Ŭisang, 9, 122, 130; Ŭijŏk and, 49, 51; Vow Made at White Flower Enlightenment Site, 104–105; Wŏnhyo and, 32–33, 39, 105 Ungmyŏn, 111–112 utmost sincerity, 19, 35, 36, 101, 142 Vairocana, Buddha; gilt bronze image of, 89; relationship with Amitābha, 119 Vasubandhu, 21, 27, 32, 45, 62, 70, 76; Ŭijŏk subcommentary on, 49 Visualization/visualizing, 11, 14, 17–18, 30, 61, 86, 89; Daochuo and, 23; Jiacai and, 25; Kyŏnghŭng, 64; Pŏbwi and 47; Shandao and, 27, 29; Tanluan and, 20–22; of uṣṇīṣa (white tuft mark), 63–64, 70; Wŏnhyo and, 61, 106; Zhiyi and, 93–94; Zongmi and, 120. See also sixteen visualizations Wangsheng lun, 21, 29, 62, 70 Wangsheng lun zhu, 21–22, 125 Weimiaoshengfo. See Profound Sound Buddha White Lotus Society, 17, 20, 117 Wŏlchi, 84 Wŏlmyŏng, 113 Wŏnch’ŭk, 123 Wŏn’gak Monastery, 112–113 Wŏn’gwang, 5, 9, 14, 136–137n40; study in Sui China, 8–9, 12; Wŏnhyo and, 10, 33 Wŏnhyo, 3, 33, 51–52, 118; and Hwangnyong Monastery, 5, 9; influence

193

Index of commentaries, 8, 34, 51, 115, 117, 125–126; Jingying Huiyuan and, 9–10, 19, 35–36, 40; river crossing story, 25, 40; Tanluan and, 10, 20, 22, 32, 35, 40–42; Tathāgatagarbha and, 13, 39, 43; Zhiyi and, 10 Wŏnjong mullyu, 89 Wugou jingguang da tuoluoni jing, 91–93, 95 Wuliangshou jing, eighteenth vow in, 12, 50; Hyŏnil commentary on, 48, 130; influence in Silla tradition, 9, 124, 126, 129–132; Japanese commentaries on, 121–125; Jingying Huiyuan commentary on, 9, 12, 18–19; Jizang commentary on, 20; Kyŏnghŭng commentary on, 51–56, 130–131; as one of the main Pure Land sūtras, 2; Pŏbwi commentary on, 43, 130; Ŭijŏk commentary on, 49–50, 131; Wŏnhyo commentary on, 34–43, 60–61, 72, 129–130 Wuliangshou jing yishu, 18, 20 Wuliangshou jing youpotishe wangshengjie, 21 Wuliangshou jing youpotishe yuanshengjie zhu, 21 Wu Zetian, Empress, 67, 98 Xuanzang, 26, 128; Avalokiteśvara cult and, 105; and -Kuiji lineage, 9, 52, 134n19, 137–138n50; Maitreya cult and, 58–59, 67, 70; and retranslation of Smaller Pure Land Sūtra, 115; Yogācāra and, 8, 52, 98 Xu gaoseng zhuan, 7, 12–13, 136–137n40

194

Yakṣa. See Bhaiṣajyaguru Yogācāra, doctrine, 12, 57–59; Madhyamaka and, 8; Maitreya cult and, 58; scriptures, 58, 98–99; Sinitic form of, 10, 14, 34, 51, 54, 59, 61, 128; Pŏbwi and, 45; Six Houses of, 49 Xuanzang and, 8; Wŏnhyo and, 34, 58. See also Consciousness-only School Yogācārabhūmiśāstra. See Yuga shidi lun yŏmbul. See recollection; nianfo; nenbutsu Yŏmbul, Master, 1, 112 Yŏmbul Monastery, 1, 112 Yonggung. See Dragon Palace Yosŏkkung, Princess of, mother of Sŏl Ch’ong, 33–34, 105 Yuga shidi lun, 98 Yungang Caves, 86, 96 Yushiki gitō zōmei ki, 49 Yusim allak to, 72, 122, 125–126, 129, 140n35; influence of Huaigan in, 74; reasons for superiority of rebirth in Sukhāvatī, 61, 73–74; why Wŏnhyo is not author of, 72–74 Zaija rin, 124 Zhendi. See Paramārtha zhicheng xin. See sincere mind Zhiyan, 13, 28, 137–138n50; six recollections of, 39, 145n24; ten recollections and, 39, 46–47, 50–51; Ŭisang and, 39, 143n70 zhoushu. See dhāraṇī Zongmi, 119–120

About the Author Richard D. McBride II is associate professor of Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University. He earned a PhD in East Asian Languages and Cultures at UCLA in 2001, specializing in Korean and Chinese Buddhism and early Korean history. He was a Fulbright senior researcher at Dongguk University in Korea in 2007–2008. He is the author of Domesticating the Dharma: Buddhist Cults and the Hwaŏm Synthesis in Silla Korea (2008) and Doctrine and Practice in Medieval Korean Buddhism: The Collected Works of Ŭich’ŏn (2017). He is the editor of State and Society in Middle and Late Silla (2010), the editor and primary translator of Hwaŏm I: The Mainstream Tradition, Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, Volume 4 (2012), and the editor and translator of Hwaŏm II: Selected Works, Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, Volume 5 (2012). McBride is also co-editor of the International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture (Academy of Buddhist Studies, Dongguk University).