The Formation of Chan Ideology in China and Korea
·期刊原文
The Formation of Chan Ideology in China and Korea:
The Vajrasamaadhisuutra, A Buddhist Apocryphon, by Robert E. Buswell, Jr.
Reviewed by Peter N. Gregory
Philosophy East and West
Vol.42 No.01
1992.01
pp.182-184
Copyright by University of Hawaii Press
182
Robert Buswell's The Formation of Ch'an ldeology in China and Korea
is a major contribution to the growing field of Ch'an (Zen) studies. Appearing 5
in the Princeton Library of Asian Translations series, it centers on a study
and annotated translation of the Vajrasamaadhi-Suutra (Kn, Kumgang
sammae-kyong; Chin, Chin-kang san-mei ching), an apocryphal scripture
that played an important role in the development of East Asian Bud-
dhism, especially Ch'an. The book is accordingly divided into two parts:
the first, in four chapters, contains a derailed study of the text, and the
second presents an annotated translation. The translation is expertly
rendered, and the annotation is thorough; yet, for all of Buswell's consid-
erable skill, the text still makes difficult reading and is not something to
be taken up lightly. Rather, I suspect that it is the first part of the
book that most readers will find to be of greatest interest and value, and
it is on that that my review will concentrate.
The book is much more than a textual study. Buswell's investigation
of the question of the authorship and provenance of the Vajrasamaadhi
opens several new and exciting avenues of pursuit. Although the
Vajrasamaadhi had long been accepted into the Buddhist canon, modern
scholars--beginning with Mizuno koogen and Walter Liebenthal--have
suspected that it was really a Chinese composition and not the translation
of an Indian scripture that it was purported to be. Buswell pushes
speculation on the apocryphal character of the text beyond previous
studies by demonstrating convincingly that the text was not only not a
translation of an Indian original, but that it was also not composed in
China. Buswell's startling (but utterly persuasive) new conclusion is that
the Vajrasamaadhi was "written in Korea, sometime around AD 685,
by an early adept of the nascent Soh [that is, Ch'an] tradition on the
peninsula, a man I shall call Pomnang" (p.23). Although the biographical
details are sparse, Pomnang is regarded by the tradition as having brought
Son to Korea; he is also alleged to have studied with the fourth Chinese
Ch'an patriarch, Tao-hsin (580-651). According to Buswell's deductions,
he could not have returned to Korea until sometime after 676. In his
analysis of the Vajrasamaadhi, Buswell shows how it tailors its latent Ch'an
183
(Or Son) message in such a way as to legitimate this nascent Korean
school of Buddhism in the eyes of its Silla scholastic audience. Wonhyo's
(617-686) famous commentary (Kuumgang sammaegyoongron) was
probably written just before his death. The first reference to the Vajrasamaadhi
in China occurs in an early eighth-century work by Fa-tsang (643-712),
who, significantly, had close connections with Korea. The text is not
mentioned in Chinese catalogs until 730.
Buswell's argument is complexly textured, and, in the course of
developing it, he not only quantitatively adds to our knowledge of the
development of early Chinese Ch'an but also qualitatively enriches our
understanding of it by introducing several important new dimensions. In
this regard, chapter two is especially impressive. In his treatment of
Wonhyo's biographies, Buswell ventures beyond the often narrow purview
of the buddhologist to explore the legendary and mythical themes
that locate the text within a Korean context; his analysis is sophisticated
and exciting. Overall, his four-chapter introduction to the tea clearly
establishes its importance for our understanding of the origins of Ch'an,
and, in so doing, Buswell makes at least four significant contributions.
First of all, he establishes the undeniable role that Korean Buddhists
played in the development of Chinese Ch'an--a point little recognized
in previous scholarship. This lends credence to Buswell's larger point that
Ch'an cannot properly be understood as an exclusively Chinese phenomenon
but must rather be seen in the context of a broader East Asian
cultural matrix (in which China was, of course, the center of gravity). His
work thus not only helps to redress the prevailing assumption that
Koreans (and later Japanese) were largely passive recipients of the
benefits of Chinese culture but also demonstrates the value of a "continental
approach" of considering Ch'an as a pan-East Asian phenomenon. Only
someone like Buswell, who had established his preeminence in the field
of Korean Buddhism with his excellent study and translation of Chinul's
works (A Korean Approach to Zen, published by the University of Hawaii
Press in 1983), could have put the various clues together to solve the
riddle of who wrote the Vajrasamaadhi
Second, Buswell's discussion of the Vajrasamaadhi clarifies the
importance of apocryphal scriptures for understanding East Asian Buddhism in
general and Ch'an in particular. Because of their non-Indic provenance,
such works are often not given their just due in the scholarship in the
field (with its often unacknowledged bias toward India as the source of
scriptural authenticity). Buswell's approach establishes that it is precisely
because such works are apocryphal that they deserve our special attention.
His work in this area is truly pioneering and opens up new avenues
of research in East Asian Buddhism. Hopefully some of these avenues will
be explored in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Buswell and
recently published by the University of Hawaii Press.
184
The important role that apocryphal scriptures played in the
development of the Ch'an tradition points to the third major contribution of
Buswell's study: he succeeds in clarifying the doctrinal basis out of which
Ch'an developed. Because of its own iconoclastic attitude toward traditional
Buddhist doctrine, Ch'an is often seen as a unique teaching that
does not depend on written words. Buswell's study not only establishes
the importance of standard Chinese Buddhist doctrines in the formation
of Ch'an but also defines the specific complex of ideas that were
involved. The study is especially valuable for showing how Ch'an grew out
of the evolving Sinitic interpretation of Buddhism built around the under-
standing of mind detailed in the Awakening of Faith (another apocryphal
text). In particular Buswell shows how the Chinese adaptation of the
tathaagatagarbha doctrine in apocryphal works like the Vajrasamaadhi and
Awakening of Faith laid the ontological basis for the development of the
subitist soteriology associated with Ch'an. The kind of doctrinal context
that Buswell articulates helps to integrate Ch'an studies into the larger
field of Buddhist studies.
Fourth, in discussing apocryphal texts and Ch'an doctrine, Buswell's
study also contributes further to our understanding of the process by
which Buddhism was "Sinicized." It demonstrates how apocryphal texts
played a key role in the adaptation of Buddhism to East Asian religious
sensitivities by legitimating indigenous insights and approaches to
practice. It thereby helps to clarify how Ch'an gave uniquely Sinitic form
and expression to mainstream Chinese Buddhist doctrine. Especially
valuable in this regard is Buswell's discussion, in chapter four, of the
Vajrasamaadhi's adaptation of the "two accesses" soteriology associated
with Bodhidharma and "guarding the one/guarding the mind" meditative
theory of the East Mountain teaching of Tao-hsin and Hung-jen (601-674).
I realize that it is customary for a reviewer to balance his praise for a
book with a set of well-tempered criticisms. I must confess, however, that
I find The Formation of Ch'an ldeology in China and Korea a difficult
work to fault. The few quibbles that I might have are of such a minor
character that it would be wholly inappropriate to mention them here.
Overall, this is an outstanding work of scholarship that will richly reward
those who read it.
欢迎投稿:lianxiwo@fjdh.cn
2.佛教导航欢迎广大读者踊跃投稿,佛教导航将优先发布高质量的稿件,如果有必要,在不破坏关键事实和中心思想的前提下,佛教导航将会对原始稿件做适当润色和修饰,并主动联系作者确认修改稿后,才会正式发布。如果作者希望披露自己的联系方式和个人简单背景资料,佛教导航会尽量满足您的需求;
3.文章来源注明“佛教导航”的文章,为本站编辑组原创文章,其版权归佛教导航所有。欢迎非营利性电子刊物、网站转载,但须清楚注明来源“佛教导航”或作者“佛教导航”。