The Moral Systems of Confucianiam And Buddhism

·期刊原文
Won Buddhism: A Synthesis of The Moral Systems of Confucianiam And Buddhism

Bongkil Chung
Journal of Chinese Philosophy
Vol.15 1988
P.425-448
Copyright @ 1984 by Dialogue Publishing Company,
Honolulu, U.S.A.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

P.425

I INTRODUCTION

When two moral systems have incompatible moral tenets
such as Buddhism and Confucianism, and if a third moral
system claims to have integrated the two conflicating moral
teachings; serious questions arise on on theoretical and
practical grounds. One of the questions is whether the
integration is syncretism or synthesis. According to Thomas
F. Hoult, "all religious doctrines are syncretic.''(1)If the
Nagarjuna asked: If one, keeping the precepts for laymen,
can be born in the celestial world, attain the way of
Bodhisattva, and realize nirvana, why does one need the
precepts for monks? He answered: Although both ways lead
to emancipation, there are differences of difficulty and
easiness. Laymen have to make a living, which requires
various toilsome work. Hence, if one wishes to devote
oneself to the Buddha dharma, one's family life will be
ruined. However, if one devotes oneself to one's family
the way of the Buddha dharma will be neglected. One can
neither take nor discard the Way;

P.426

to follow the Way properly is difficult. However, if one
becomes a monk, one frees oneself from worldly
responsibility, anger, and disturbance and finds it easy
to devote oneself to practicing the Way.(2)

Sosan(c) (1520-1604), a great Korean patriarch, supplied this
justification:

To become a monk and leave one's family behind is not a
trivial matter. The purpose is not to seek for physical
ease, nor is it to eat and to be clad luxuriously, nor is
it to seek for fame and property. It is to avoid birth
and death, to sever worldly passions, to succeed to the
wisdom of the Buddha, and to deliver all sentient beings
by transcending the three worlds.(3)

The moral issue is whether the Buddha dharma can be followed
without jettisoning one's filial duty to one's parents.
Buddhist monks were subjected to harsh criticism from
Neo-Confucian philosophers. Thus Chu Hsi(d) (1130-1200)
wrote:

The mere fact that they discard the Three Bonds
(between ruler and minister, father and son, and
husband and wife) and the Five Constant Virtues
(righteousness on the part of the father, deep love on
the part of the mother, friendliness on the part of the
elder brother, respect on the part of the younger
brother, and filial piety on the part of the son) is
already a crime of the greatest magnitude. Nothing more
need be said about the
rest.(4)

Wittgenstein seems to be right: "When two principles really
do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then
each man declares the other a fool and heretic."(5) Chu Hsi
regarded the Buddhist way as harmful to the morality of
mankind. He pointed out that the Buddhists "renounce the
family to attend to their own virtue in solitude. This shows
they are different in substance from the way...."(6) His
advice was that

P.427

"a student should forthwith get as far away from Buddhist
doctrines as from licentious songs and beautiful women.
Otherwise they will soon infiltrate him."(7)
As Chu Hsi's influence was strongly felt in Korea during
the Yi dynasty (1392-1910), during that period Buddhist monks
became one of the seven despised low classes of the social
structure. Charles Weihsun Fu, (e) noting that the
Neo-Confucianists' criticisms were exaggerations and distortions,
has written:

Mahayana Buddhists should learn a good lesson from the
challenge of Neo-Confucianism and engage in a necessary
and urgent inquiry into the moral dimension of their own
tradition, by shifting their traditional emphasis on
transcendental truth to a new emphasis on worldly truth
in terms of everyday ethic-social practice... It is now
time for them to develop a new and modern philosophy of
the Middle Way by placing equal emphasis on morality as
well as on wisdom (prajna) and meditation (samadhi)...
But it remains to be seen whether Mahayana Buddhism can
work out in this modern age an ethical system to tackle
most, if not all, human and secular problelms they
encounter in everyday life.(8)

As Fu has pointed out, answers are contained in the texts of
Mahayana Buddhism.(9) In this paper I will show how the
ethico-religious system of Won Buddhism has attempted to
answer this question by analyzing its central moral tenets.
This paper will consider Sot'aesan's(f) motives in founding
Won Buddhism and the points of renovation (II), his synthesis
of metaphysical tenets (III), his synthesis of the perfection
of human nature (IV), and his synthesis of moral duties (V).
A concluding remark (VI) is added.

II. RENOVATION OF BUDDHISM

At the turn of the century Sot'aesan had " a precognition
upon the

P.428

great enlightenment" (1916) of the danger the world was about
to face on account of humanity being enslaved by the power of
material civilization. He felt that something had to be done
to save the world from becoming a Frankenstein's Monste. In
the Founding Motive of the new religious order he wrote:

...The motive therefore lies in an attempt to deliver all
sentient beings suffering in the tormenting seas to a
vast and limitless paradise. This goal shall be realized
by expanding the spiritual power in order to conquer the
power of matter and the spiritual power will be expanded
by the faith in a truthful religion and training in sound
morality (K.19).(10)

When Sot'aesan needed a moral system as a means to his
goal, neither Buddhism nor Confucianism as then understood by
Korean society could help. The Yi dynasty Confucianists were
divided into several factions involved in academic controversies
and endless factional, bloody wranglings.(11) Sot'aesan,
accepting the truthful tenets of the three teachings of the
East, intended to integrate them into the new ethico-religious
sytem that took the Buddha dharma as the core doctrine of a new
religious order. He explained his intentions to integrate them
as follows:

In the past, the founders of various religions came to
the world in accordance with the call of the times and
taught the ways man ought to follow: yet the central
doctrines have been different from one another depending
on the places and times. This is like the various areas
of specialization in medicine.(12)

... Thus the substance of the three teachings are
different from one another; they however agree in their
goals of correcting the world and benefiting sentient
beings. In the past each of the three religions
exclusively taught their own areas of speciality;
however, in the future, any one of them individually will
not be sufficient to deliver the world. Hence, we intend
to integrate all these doctrines into one system...(K.
125-6).

P.429

As Sot'aesan had taken the Buddha dharma as the central tenet
of the new religion, there arose a question of whether
Sot'aesan's form of Buddhism could avoid the kind of
criticism which Chu Hsi poured on Buddhism without leaving
the new system in a state of mere syncretism.

Sot'aesan's integration also poses the question of
whether the problem Dogen perceived could also be solved. A
brief consideration of the spirit of Sot'aesan's reformation
of Buddhism will help clarify the points of synthesis in
question. Sot'aesan's renovation of Buddhism is reflected in
the Four Grand Platforms of Won Buddhism, which summarize the
central tenets of its doctrine.
In the first platform, "Right Enlightenment and Right
Conduct," Sot'aesan grasps the heart of Buddhism and throws
it to the world for realization. The Buddha dharma should not
hide itself in a deep mountain valley for a few monks to
follow. Everyone should "be enlightened by the Mind Seal of
all Buddhas and patriarchs, symbolized by the truth of
Irwon(g) or one circle, and to model oneself thereafter to
act perfectly without partiality, excessiveness or deficiency
when using the six roots (eyes,ears,nose,tongue, body, and
mind)" (K.58).Asanecessaryfirst step toward this goal temples
and monasteries are to be erected in urban and rural areas.
The second platform, "Be Aware of Grace and Requite It",
requires one to realize one's indebtedness to what Sot'aesan
calls the "Four Graces," namely, Heaven and Earth, Parents,
Brethren, and Law; one is also required to requite them by
modeling oneself on the way of indebtedness to them. A life
of resentment can thus be transformed into a life of
gratitude even in situations where one can justifiably find
an object of resentment (K.58).Theidea of "the requital of
grace" is not new with Sot'aesan as it can be found in the
traditional Buddhist texts.(13)
This platform reflects more of Confucian filial piety
extended initially to Heaven and Earth, and then to Brethren
and Law. In Sot'aesan's enlightened view the Four Graces are
the incarnation of Dharmakaya Buddha. Sot'aesan thought that
the first step in curing the world of illness is to change a
life of resentment to one of gratitude. Here Sot'aesan saw no
theoretical problem or practical difficulty in integrating
Confucian moral duty into a Buddhist moral system.

P.430

In the third platform, "Proper Application of the Buddha
Dharma" Sot'aesan gane a new direction to the practice of the
Buddha dharma, a direction which can be seen as a response to
the Neo-Confucian criticism of Buddhism; he taught that one
must make the best use of the Buddha dhrama without
neglecting to take better care of worldly affairs. One should
not become useless to the world by becoming a Buddhist;
rather one, making the best use of it, should become a
capable and useful person rendering help to oneself, one's
family, one's state, and the world (K.59). Dogen and Sosan
would wonder how this is possible. Again the idea is not new
with Sot'aesan, as it is found Mahayana Buddhist texts.(14)
The Buddha dharma Sot'aesan advocates, however, was expressed
in a few tenets simple enough for anyone to understand and
yet sufficient enough to allow anyone to realize Buddhahood
without leaving the mundane world.
The fourth platform, "Egoless Service to the Public", set
a general rule of altruism that one, forsaking the egoistic
mentality of only caring for oneself or one's family, ought
to exert oneself to help deliver the world by Mahayana
altruism. This platform reflects not only the Bodhisattva
ideal of Mahayana Buddhism but also, no doubt, the Confucian
moral and political thought elaborated in the Tahsueh(h)
[Great Learning].(15)
Sot'aesan's spirit of renovation and revival of the
Buddha dharma as expressed in several mottos can certainly
blunt the edge of Chu Hsi's criticism of Buddhism, even
though they might make Dogen and Sosan wonder.
The first motto, "Everywhere is the image of the Buddha,
hence do all things as a Buddhist mass", reflects the
Hua-yen(i) doctrine that the Buddha Vairocana is manifesting
himself everywhere.(l6) Sot'aesan by this motto intended to
renovate the way of worshipping the Buddha. In his view it
was hard to prove whether the Buddha statue had any potency
to bless or punish tire faithful; the practice in question
was obsolete and superstitious, unable to keep pace with the
growth of human intelligence. In Sot'aesan's view the
practice could do more harm than service to the original
teachings of the Buddha (K. 131).
The second motto, "Practice ch'an(j) (sort, zen) at all
times and places". reflects Sot'aesan's intention of bringing
the heart of the Buddhist

P.431

way into the daily life of all. If this could be done, Won
Buddhism could solve the problems of the opposing parties.
Sot'aesan described thus the essence of son:

True ch'a(j) lies in taking the True Emptiness
[chen-kung(k)] as the substance of the mind and the
Marvelous Existence [mioo-yu(l)] as the function of the
mind so that the mind is as immovable as a great mountain
in trying situations and, when left alone, the purity and
serenity of the mind is like the empty and vast sky, If
one continues ch'an, all the discriminations of the mind
will be based on samadhi such that the functioning of the
six roots will coincide with the self-nature (svabhava)
of Silent Emptiness [k'ung-chi(m) ] and Numinous
Awareness [ling-chih(n)] (K. 81).

Sot'aesan took this as the Mahayanistic ch'an or zen and the
integrated practice of the Triple Discipline (samadhi,
prajna, sila). Ch'an was to be the way of lving in samsara.
The spirit of reformation of Buddhism was found in still
another motto, "Buddha dharam is worldly living and worldly
living is Buddha dharma itself." This motto challenges
Dogen's way of the Buddha dharma, and is not independent of
the previous two. Sot'aesan here brought the Buddha dharma
which had been hiding, if not lost, in remote mountains into
the urban and rural areas to deliver the sentient beings
there.
The question now becomes whether this Buddhist way was
not the way of the Confucian, or whether one could sincerely
carry out the moral duties spelled out by the Confucian moral
system while one was following the Buddhist way.

III. SYNTHESIS OF METAPHYSICAL TENETS

Once one learns of the Four Grand Platforms and of the
mottos for reformatian, one can feel that the Buddha dharma
is near at hand; yet one can feel it quite implausible to
follow the Buddha dharma as Won

P.432

Buddhism suggests, let alone to graft the Confucian way to
it. Some may even feel that there is a catch in such a claim,
for black and white mixed can only produce gray. For
Sot'aesan, however, it was not only possible but necessary to
so mix. To a newly converted disciple from the Confucian
tradition who worried about the long standing Confucian
prejudice against Buddhism for its nihilism and otherworldly
aspects, Sot'aesan said:

...Wu-chi(o) [Ultimateless] or T'ai-chi(p) [Great
Ultimate] in the Chou-i(q) is true essence of emptiness
[hsu-wu(r) '] and annihilation [chi-mieh(s) ] with no
selfish desires. Tsu-ssu's(t) state of equilibrium cannot
be the Mean unless it is emptiness and annihilation; nor
can the illustrious virtue of the Ta-hsueh be manifested
without emptiness and annihilation. Thus, various
religions use different words and names, but the truth is
identical. However, if you end up with emptiness and
annihilation, you can never become a man of morality.
Hence, you must take emptiness and annihilation as the
substance of the Way and jen, i, li. and chih(u) as the
functions of the way in order to apply the Way to myriads
of human affairs. Only then does the Way become perfect
(K. 28o-281).

Sot'aesan was here disabusing his disciple of the mistaken
Neo-Confucian conception of the metaphysics of sunyata. If
given a proper interpretation, it could imply the meaning of
the term hsing(v) or nature as used in the Chung-yung(w)
[Doctrine of the Mean]: "What Heaven has conferred on man is
called nature."(17) The state of mind before the arousal of
feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, called chung or
equilibrium, was none other than emptiness and annihilation
of this or that feelings. And yet the way of sunyata could
only be a moral way if it functioned as the four cardinal
virtues of Confucianism. Thus there was no problem of
synthesizing the two conflicting views.
To Sot'aesan, different religious doctrines provided
different metaphysical paradigms, to use Thomas Kuhn's
terminology,(18) which would cause one and the same ultimate
reality to be viewed differently. Sot'ae-

P.433

san used the figure of a perfect circle called Irwonsang(x)
(i-yuan-hsiang) to refer to that ultimate reality and the
original nature of all sentient beings.

What is referred to by Irwonsang is called T'ai-chi or
Wu-chi in Confucianism, Tao(y) or nature in Taoism, and
pure Dharmakaya Buddha in Buddhism. However, they are
different names of one and the same principle; no matter
which way you enter, ultimately you return to the truth
of Irwon(g).... (K.320).(19)

The correctness of this view is a thorny question which
cannot be settled here. The same idea, however goes back to
the Vedic period.(20)
With Sot'aesan believing that the best theoretical basis
for the synthesis of the Confucian and Buddhism moral systems
lie in the concept of Irwonsang, it must be shown both how
Buddhistic the concept of Irwonsang is and how some of the
central moral tenets of Confucianism are derived from it.
Sot'aesan identified Irwon or one circle with Dharmakaya
Buddha and said it was "the origin of all beings of the
universe, the Mind Seal of all Buddhas and sages, and the
original nature of all sentient beings" (K. 9).
Here Irwon refers to the realm which Kant called noumenon
and to li-fa-chieh(z) or the realm of principle in the
Hua-yen texts.(21)That Sot'aesan's view of the ultimate
reality of the universe was within the Mahayanistic tradition
can be seen in his description of what Irwon referred to:

...In this realm there is no difference of great
[substance] and small [function], being and nonbeing, nor
is there the change of coming and going of birth and
death. Nor is there the karmic retribution of good and
evil. In this realm words and names are all annihilated
in complete voidness (K. 21).

This description reminds one of Kant's view that the noumenal
realm goes beyond any of the twelve categories of
understanding, especially that of causality.(22)

P.434

Sot'aesan then explained the relation between that
ineffable realm and the phenomenal realm [shi-fa-chieh(aa)]
in terms found in some Mahayana texts, saying:

According to the light of the Numinous Awareness
[ling-chih(n)] of the Silent Void [k'ung-chi(m)] arises
the difference of Great and Small, followed by the
difference of karmic retribution of good and evil, and
the clear manifestation of the phenomena with names and
forms; so that the three realms of ten directions appear
as clearly as a jewel on the palm. Amongst this the
providence of True Emptiness [chen-k'ung(k) ] and
Marvelous Existence [miao-yu(l)] appears and disappears
throughout the myriads of things of the universe
eternally. This is the truth of Irwonsang (K. 21).

This is the central metaphysical tenet of Won Buddhism.
Dharmakaya Buddha or Irwonsang is the object of its religious
worship. This metaphysical tenet reflects Mahayana Buddhist
idealism in the sense that numinous awareness plays the role
of illuminating the ultimate reality into the phenomenal
world.(23) Irwon thus refers to the ultimate reality of the
universe; and Irwonsang to the harmony of noumena and
phenomena arising from numinous awareness.

IV. SYNTHESIS IN THE PERFECTION OF HUMAN NATURE

What is the moral relevauce of the truth of Irwonsang
which in Sot'- aesan's view jields the Confucianistic moral
norms, to the ideal of "Right Enlightenment and Right
Conduct"? Answering how one could realize in everyday life
the truth of Irwonsang as the standard of moral discipline,
Sot'aesan said:

You cultivate your moral character by taking Irwonsang as
the standard of moral perfection and by modeling your
mind after its truth. (I) By getting enlightened [prajna]
to the truth of Irwon you are to know clearly the real
nature of all things

P.435

in the universe, birth, old age, illness, and the death
of human beings, and the principle of karmic retribution.
(II) You are to nourish [samadhi] the perfect original
nature which, like Irwon, is free from selfishness, love
and lust, and attachment. (III) Or, you are to handle
[sila] all human affairs rightly and perfectly like Irwon
without yourself being affected by pleasure, anger,
sorrow, and joy or by favoritism (K. 129).

Thus the three aspects of one's original nature referred to
by Irwon or Dharmakaya, namely, samadhi, prajna, and sila,
should be realized in daily mundane affairs. The language
here is unmistakably that of Huineng(ab); but, it is also
that of the Chung-yung. Hui-neng taught that the six
consciousnesses, when passing through the six roots, should
not be colored by the six dirts [liu-ch'en(ac) ]. The
Chung-yung taught that chung or equilibrium lay in the state
of mind before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or
joy have arisen; and yung or harmony lay in the manifesting
of these feelings in due degree.(24) For Sot'aesan the two
teachings were not incompatible. Irwonsang as the standard of
moral perfection was to remind us of the truth that one's
original nature was perfect like Irwonsang, lacking nothing,
and utterly unselfish as the mind of all Buddhas and sages.
Hence moral discipline aimed at manifesting that nature
completely in daily lives, realizing the Buddha dharma
without leaving one's family.
Sot'aesan's view of moral discipline presupposed that
human nature in its substance transcended good and evil but
could be either in its functioning (K. 292). This view is
found in Wang Yang-ming's(ad) (1472-1529) sayings: "1. In the
original substance of mind there is no distinction between
good and evil. 2. When the will becomes active, however, such
a distinction exisls."(25) Wang, however, also explained
Mencius view that human nature is good: "The nature endowed
in us by Heaven is pure and perfect. The fact that it is
intelligent, clear, and not beclouded is evidence of the
emanation and revelation of the highest good."(26) So some
ask whether or a not Wang's theory of human nature was
influenced by the Buddhist view.
Wang's criticism of the Buddhist theory of human nature
is helpful

P.436

for our understanding of Sot'aesan's position. Wang taught:

in nourishing the mind, we Confucians have never departed
from things and events. By merely following the natural
principles of things we accomplish our task. On the other
hand, the Buddhists insist on getting away from things
and events completely and view the mind as an illusion,
gradually entering into a life of emptiness and silence,
and seem to have nothing to do with the world at all.
This is why they are incapable of governing the World.
(27)

Wang's criticism was based on his observations of the
Buddhist monks of his time;on theoretical grounds it missed
the point of Hua-yen and Ch'an Buddhist tenets.(28)
Wang's criticism had no force on Sot'aesan's way of moral
perfection since the latter intended for one to make the best
use of the Buddha dharma in order to be an active member of
society. Sot'aesan took as the fundamental cause of human
predicament the three evil tendencies of disturbedness,
foolishness, and evil arising in trying situations. Hence the
moral discipline was to let samadhi, prajna, and sila of
one's original nature manifest in trying situations (K.
59-60). Here Sot'aesan reflected Huineng's view of the triple
disciplines.(29) Sot'aesan's originality lay in his statement
of the criteria of moral perfection with regard to the three
aspects of the original nature. He set out three criteria for
each of the three aspects and summarized the truth of
Dharmakaya or Irwonsang in terms of these criteria, namely,
k'ung(ae)[void], yuan(af)[perfect], and cheng(ag)[right] (K.
129-130):

In nourishing the nature [yang hsing(ah)]: (l) the void
lies in one's intuition of the realm which transcends
being and non- being; (2) the mind in which nothing goes
or comes is perfect;and (3)the mind which does not decline
to or lean on anything is right.

In seeing [awakening to] the nature [chien-hsing(ai)]: (1)
the

P.437

void lies in one's knowledge of the ineffable state with
no trace of mind's whereabouts; (2) the limitless
capacity of intelligence of mind is perfect; and (3)
one's seeing and judging all things correctly owing to
true knowledge of reality.

In following the nature [shuai-hsing(aj)]: (1) the void
lies in one's doing all things with no thought
[wu-nien(ak) ] (2) doing all things with no attachment
[wu-cho(al)] is perfect; and (3) doing all things in
accordance with the Mean [chung-tao(am)] is right.

In the last paragraph, the ideals of Buddhism and
Confucianism, namely, no thought from the Vajracchedika Sutra
and the Mean from the Chung- yung, function as integral parts
of moral perfection in Won Buddhism. These moral perfections
are all to be realized in personal, family, social, and
national affairs as set for in the Ta Hsueh.

V. SYNTHESIS OF MORAL DUTIES

Sat'aesan's synthesis of moral duties is best understood
as the grafting of Confucian moral duties to the Dharmakaya
Buddha or Irwonsang, the object of Won Buddhist religious
worship.
Some of the central tenets of Confucian morality are
embraced in the "Ethics of Grace" of Won Buddhism. With his
fundamental moral principle, "Be aware of grace and requite
it, " Sot'aesan intended to show why a world full of
resentment could be changed to one of gratitude. The former
aggravates the human predicament; the latter ameliorates it
and leads to a paradise on earth. A life of gratitude lies in
requiting the grace one has received in one's own life from
various sources. Sot'aesan listed four such sources of life -
Heaven and Earth, parents, Brethren, and Law - which he
called the Four Graces, a "grace" being anything without
which one's life would be impossible. He challenged people to
question whether they could exist and live without them, and
said that even a man of low intelligence could understand
that life would be

P.438

impossible without them. He argued that nothing could be a
greater favor or grace than that without which life would be
impossible. As to why these graces ought to be requited
prudential reasons were given. Graces requited will being
blessings; graces unrequited will bring punishment. Of the
four graces, those of Heaven and Earth and Parents were
central moral tenets of Confucianism. Sot'aesan attempted to
synthesize the moral systems of Buddhism and Confucianism by
showing that the Four Graces were none other than the
contents or manifestations of Dharmakaya Buddha, symbolized
by Irwonsang(K. 131).
Sot'aesan derived the moral norm to require the graces
from the way men are indebted to them. And how are men
indebted to the grace of Heaven and Earth? Men are indebted
through the eight virtues of the way of Heaven and Earth: (i)
extremely bright, (ii) extremely sincere, (iii) extremely
fair, (iv) natural, (v) vast and limitedless, (vi) eternal
and immortal, (vii) without good or evil fortunes, and (viii)
harboring no false ideas (K.27). Since man is indebted to
these virtues, his duty is to cultivate, to model his moral
character after them. The representative moral virtue to be
cultivated as a way of requiting the grace of Heaven and
Earth is to do good to others without harboring in mind the
idea of having done so. This specific moral character is, of
course, a Buddhist moral ideal.(30)The same virtue is taught
in the Bible: "But when you give alms, do not let your left
hand know what your right hand is doing..."(31)However, the
idea of imitating the moral virtues of Heaven and Earth comes
mainly from the Confucian tradition. Chu Hsi,commenting on a
Chou Tun-i (1017-1073)quotationfromthe I-ching(ao), says:

...Thus (the sage) establishes himself as the ultimate
standard for man. Hence, the character of the sage is
identical with that of Heaven and Earth;his brilliancy is
identical with that of the sun and the moon; his order is
identical with that of the seasons; and his good and evil
fortunes are identical with those of spiritual beings.(32)

Whether Heaven and earth can be said to have such moral
character is a philosophical question; however, some of those
characterizing moral

P.439

norms run through the Confucian texts. For instance,
"Sincerity is the way of Heaven; the attainment of sincerity,
or the attempt to be sincere, is the way of Heaven. To think
how to be sincere is the way of man. Never has there been one
possessed of complete sincerity who did not move others."(34)
Sot'aesan suggested that everyone ought to model himself
after the way of Heaven, with sincerity, as a way of
requiting the Grace of Heaven and Earth. For Chu Hsi
impartiality or fairness, another of the Heavenly virtues,
was a necessary condition for practicing jen:

...a man originally possesses jen. It comes with him from
the very beginning. Simply because he is partial, the jen
is obstructed and cannot be expressed. Therefore, if he
is impartial, his jen will operate.(35)

The virtue of "no mind," the representative virtue of Heaven
and Earth for Sot'aesan, can found in both Confucian and
Buddhist traditions. The Chin-kang ching(ap) (Diamond Sutra),
counsels " [o] ne should develop a mind which does not abide
in anything,"(36) in the same work man is advised to do
charitable works without harboring any idea of having done so
in mind. The Confucian Ch'eng-i(aq) (1033-1107) taught:
"Heaven and Earth create and transform without having any
mind of their own. The sage has a mind of his own but does
not take any (unnatural) action."(37) The moral virtue in
question can thus be found in the allegedly opposing
traditions.
Another tenet of Confucianistic morality round in the
moral system of Won Buddhism is filial piety. Filial piety
was the weapon used by the Neo-Confucianists to criticize the
Buddhist monks who had left their parents for the monastery
life.(38) In the Confucian tradition, filial duty was the
fundamental principle of morality. For Confucius, filial
piety was the foundation of all virtue and the root of
civilization.(39) When Teng Tzu(ar) asked what surpassed
filial piety as the virtue of a sage, Confucius replied,

[M] an excels all the beings in Heaven and Earth. Of man's
acts none is greater than filial piety. In the practice of
filial

P.440

piety, nothing is greater than to reverence one's father.(40)

For Sot'aesan, filial piety was the requital of the grace
of Parents and needed to be expanded. One had to discipline
oneself to become a morally respectable person following the
great moral way. One had to faithfully support one's parents
as much as one could when the parents lacked the ability to
help themselves;one had to help them have spiritual comfort.
Further, as part of the requital of the grace, one had, in
accordance with one's ability, to protect the helpless
parents of others even as one's own during and after the life
of one's parents. This recalls one of Chang Tsai's(as)
(1020-1077) moral tenets that "...even those who are
tired,infirm, crippled, or sick; those who have no brothers
or children, wives or husbands, are all my brothers who are
in distress and have no one to turn to."(41) Sot'aesan,
however, left it open so that, as long as the motive was not
selfish, one could sacrifice the material expressions of
filial piety so that one could contribute to a greater cause
for the public well-being.
The idea that one is indebted to Brethren, fellow humans,
animals, and plants, for life itself needs no argument. In
Sot'aesan's view humans were capable of harming or blessing
others; without the help of others, life would be impossible.
Even though humans are potential Buddhas, they can harm each
other as long as they are moved by the three evils of greed,
anger, and foolishness. At the final analysis, all human
sufferings are based on these three evils. Sot'aesan set a
simple norm which should, be followed in all walks of life in
order to ameliorate the human predicament. He suggested as a
way of requiting the grace of Brethren, that man had to
conform to "the principle of fairness and mutual benefit" as
a moral norm when exchanging goods (K.36).
When Sot'aesan talked about the grace of Law, he meant by
the term "law" the religious and moral teachings of all sages
as well as the penal and civil laws to which one owed a
great deal for one's life. The concept of the grace of dharma
could be found in the traditional Buddhist (42) By including
in it the civil and penal laws of the state, Sot'aesan texts.
prescribed one's duties to the state. He suggested, as a way
of requiting the grace of Law, one ought to do what the law
encouraged one to do and

P.441

to abstain from doing what the law prohibited (K.40). This
reflected the ways of the moral, educational, and political
programs of Confucianism summarized in the Ta-hsueh.(43)
Sot'aesan added what might be called "prudential reasons"
for requiting the Four Graces in terms of the results of
gratitude and ingratitude. If requited one would cultivate the
virtues of Heaven and Earth (K. 30); one's offspring would be
filial (K. 33); there would be peace and prosperity in the
world (K. 37); and one would be protected by the laws (K.
41). If one were ungrateful to them, one's moral character
would suffer from insincerity, partiality, foolishness, and
so on (K. 30); one's offspring would be unfilial (K. 34);
fellow humans would turn out to be mutual enemies (K. 38);
and laws would become shackles (K. 44).
Is it because of prudential resons or because of indebtedness
to the Four Graces, (i.e.,the contents of Dharmakaya Buddha -
Irwonsang)that one ought to follow the four sets of moral
injunctions? Prudential reasons reflect the founding motive
of Won Buddhism, namely, the deliverance of all sentient
beings to a vast paradise, implying a teleological principle.
Buddhist ethics has been based on a teleological principle,
(44)namely, that whatever is conducive to the realization of
nirvana is right. The aim of Buddha's moral teaching was to
help all sentient beings realize nirvana.
Confucian ethics, on the other hand, has been
deontological, namely, that whatever is in accordance with
Tao (the universal moral principle)was right.(45)Confucian
moralists have believed that there are universal principles,
of which moral rules pertaining to human beings are part, and
therefore they ought to be followed regardless of the
consequences.
Sot'aesan's moral thought was essentially teleological,
but relied on some deontological moral rules to realize its
goals. The mere fact that the Four Graces were that without
which one's life would be impossible justified their being
the object of religious worship. Here there were answers to
why the graces ought to be requited. One was based on prud-
ential reasons. The Four Graces were living Buddhas capable
of blessing or punishing; hence, one ought to do all things
as [if offering] a Buddhist mass. The other was deontological
in the sense that it was a matter of

P.442

necessary moral course to return what one owed. Flial piety
cannot be compromised [even if heaven falls!]. Offering a
Buddhist mass was a religious activity, requiting the Grace
of Parents was a moral action. However, Sot'aesan synthesized
the two by suggesting that the way of offering a Buddhist
mass lay in requiting grace (K.9). It followed that a
Buddhist monk did not have to leave his family to offer a
Buddhist mass to the Buddha statue made of wood or gold. The
four sources of grace were all living Buddhas who would be
well served if one requited the appropriate grace in the
mundane world, for nirvana was different from samsara not
ontologically but epistemologically.(46)

VI. CONCLUSION

Sot'aesan did more than merely synthesize Buddhism and
Confucianism into a new religious moral system. His moral
system of Won Buddhism contains solutions to the antithetic
principles of Buddhism [Dogen] and Confucianism [Chu Hsi].
Chu Hsi's criticism of Buddhism has no force on Won Buddhism
since the latter is not other-worldly. The ideal of nirvana
is to be realized in discharging one's duties to Heaven and
Earth, Parents, Brethren, and Law, even though it may be very
difficult as Dogen saw it. Sot'aesan's moral system can blunt
Chu Hsi's criticism only if Dogen's or Nagarjuna's
other-worldly practice of Buddha dharma can be brought to
where sentient beings suffer in samsara. Sot'ae- san has only
to put into practice Nagarjuna's ideal to realize nirvana in
samsara. This can be done when one takes Sunyata as the
substance, and jen, i, li. and chih as the functions of the
Way. Here is the meaning of Charles Fu's phrase, "emptiness
works wonders in everyday life."(47)
This analysis has used a Western concept of morality
suggested by Nowell-Smith,(48) trying to identify the ideals
of their moral system, their beliefs about human nature,the
kind of moral rules adopted for the realization of their
ideals, and their theories of motivation. Sot'aesan's moral
system has remarkably clear answers to these questions. The
ideal is to realize sagehood in the mundane world and to cure
the world of illness. Human nature is neither good nor evil
in its substance, but it can be either in its functions;
hence moral training must manifest the three

P.443

aspects of the Buddha nature. Moral rules are deontological,
prescribing the requital of the Four Graces to which one owes
one's life. Yet the theory of the motivation to do good
contains prudential reasons that reflect the teleological
ground of Won Buddhism. Thus, the moral system of Won
Buddhism is based on Buddhist teleological grounds, but the
specific moral rules as means to that goal come from
Confucian deontology. It is Won Buddhism's achievement to
have synthesized these two seemingly incompatible moral
tenets into a harmonious whole.

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

NOTES

*Wonbulgyo(at), or Won Buddhism, is a form of Mahayana
Buddhism founded by Pak Chung-bin(au), better known by his
style Sot'aesan(f), after great enlightenment in 1916 in
Korea. For a general introduction to Won Buddhism, see my
"What is Won Buddhism?" Korea Journal 24, no.5 (May 1984):
18-32; my "The Ethics of Won Buddhism: A Conceptual Analysis
of the Moral System of Won Buddhism" (Ph.D. diss., Michigan
Stale University, 1979).

1. Quoted by Roland Robertson in The Sociological
Introduction of Religion (New York: Schocken Books,
1970), p.103. "For example Christianity was historically
composed of elements from Eastern and Near Eastern religi
-ons (e.g. virgin birth, baptism, burial services), from
Greek religions (asceticism, cosmology, escatology), from
Judaism (monotheism) and from gnostic religious doctrines."
2. Terada Toru(av) and Mizuno Yaoko(aw) eds. Dogen(a)
(Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1972), p.307. The translation is
mine. For an English translation of Dogen's Shobo-genzo,
see Yuho Yokoi, trans., Zen Master Dogen (New York:
Weatherhill, 1976).
3. So Cheha(ax), ed. Sosan's Son'ga kuigam(ay) [Models from
Ch'an Traditions] (Seoul: Poyon'gak, 1978), p.143, para.
#57.
4. Wing-tsit Chan(az), trans. and ed., A Source Book in
Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1963), p.646, This work is referred to hereafter
in this paper as "Chan, Source Book. "
5. Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, trans. Denis Paul and
E.E.M. Anschombe and G.H. von Wright (NewYorkand Evanston:
J & J Harper, 1969), p. 81.

P.444

6. Chu Hsi and Lu Tsu-ch'ien,(ba) comp., Reflections on
Things ot Hand, trans., Wing-tsit Chan, (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1967), p. 283. Hereafter refer
-red to as "Chan, Reflections."
7. Loc. cit.
8. Charles Wei-hsun Fu, "Morality or Beyond: The
Neo-Confucian Confrontation with Mahayana Buddhism, "
Philosophy East And West XXIII, 3: 395. PEW hereafter.
9. Ibid., p. 390ff. Fu shows how life-affirming and
this-worldly tenets are strongly suggested in the texts
of Hua-yen, T'ien-t'ai (bb) and Ch'an Buddhism.
10. Wonbulgyo kyojon(bc) [Canon of Won Buddhism], comp.
Wonbulgyo Chong- (bd) huasa (Iri: Wonbulgyo kyomubu
1962), p. 19, This work is referred to as "K" in the
text of this paper.
11. Kim Tuhon(be) "Songni ui Yon'gu"(bf) ["A Study of the
Principles of Human Nature"], in Pak Kilchin(bg) ed.,
Kinyom unch'ong(bh) [A Collection of Articles for the
Commemoration of the Half Cenrenniol of Won Buddhism],
(Iri: Wonbulgyo Ch'ulp'ansa, 1971), pp.344-361.
12. Sot'aesan's view of the central teachings of
Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism is: "Thus Buddhism,
taking as the substance of the doctrine the unreality of
all phenomena of the world, has elucidated the way for
turning the deluded to the enlightened by teaching the
truth of no-origination and noannihilation. Confucianism,
taking as the substance of its doctrine the phenomenal
reality of all beings of the universe, has elucidated
mainly the way of individual moral cultivation,
regulating one's family, ruling a state, and putting the
world at peace, by teaching the morality of the Three
Bonds and the Five Human Relation and the four virtues of
jen, i, li, and chi [humanity, righteousness, propriety,
and wisdom]. Taoism, taking as the substance of its
doctrine the way of the nature of the universe,
elucidated the way of purity, serenity, and non-action by
teaching the method of nourishing one's original nature"
(K. 125-6).
13. Sosan, Son'ga kuigam,p.77, mentions the four graces of
parents, state, teacher, and alms giver.
14. For an incisive presentation of this point, see Fu,
"Morality or Beyond" p. 391.
15. James Legge, trans, Confucius: Confucion Analects, The
Great Learning, & The Doctrine of the Mean (Oxford: Clare
-ndon Press, 1893) , pp.356-360. Hereafter "Legge,
Confucius."
16. Taisho shinshu daizokyo(bi) (Tokyo: Taisho shinshu
daizokyo kanko kai, 1976 reprint) 45: 513c. This edition
is referred to by the abbeviation TSD hereafter.
17. Legge, Confucius,p.383.
18. Sot'aesan might have said, using Wittgenstein's expression
(On Certainty,

P.445

P. 15) , that different religious doctrines provide
different Weltbild through which the faithful of each
religion view one and the same thing differently; and
using Thomas Kuhn's terminology [ The Structure Of
Scientific Revolution, Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 2nd ed., 1970). p. 35],that different religions
provide different religious "paradigms" through which the
faithful see only certain things, and do not see other
things which other people see.
19. This view is found in Kim Unhak,(bj) ed., Chin-k'ang
ching wu-chiao hai(bk) [Interpretations Of The Diamond
Sutra By Five Masters] (Seoul: Hyonam sa, 1980): p. 4,
"Yeh-fu's(bl) 'Eulogy to the Circle'...of all the
dharmas, pure or impure, in the four dharma realms of
three worlds, not a single dharma arises outside of this
Circle. In Ch'an it is called the first phrase; in
Chiao(bm) [textual teaching] it is called the pure dharma
realm. Among the Confucianists is it called T'ai-chi, the
one pervading substance; in Taoism, the mother of all
things under heaven In truth, all these names refer to
this. So someone in the past said of this: 'Before the
birth of past Buddhas existed one circle; even Sakyamuni
could not meet with it, how could Kasyapa transmit it?' "
20. S. Radhakrishnan and C. Moore eds, A Sourcebook in Indian
Philosophy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1957). p.21. "What was that One who in the unborn's image
hath stablished and fixed firm these world's six
religions [regions?]! They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna,
Angi, ]and he is heavently nobly-winged Garutman."
21. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans., Norman
Kemp Smith (New York: St Martin's Press, 1929, 1968), p.
269: TSD, 45: 672c.
22. Kant,Critique of Pure Reoson. p.296.
23. TSD, 30: 1b; 45: 91b; 48: 1007a, b, "... This is the mind
which is empty and silent [k'ung-chi(m)], and is your
original face. This is also the dharma seal transmitted
from Buddha to Buddha, from patriarch to patriarch, and
all those learned under heaven." "...However, in the
voidness of all dharmas is the empty (sic! )awareness
(hsu-chin(n)]. [The Korean edition includes the character
Line missing, see text hsu, emptiness[; 51: 458c,
"...True void [chen-k'ung(k) ] is the substance and
marvelous existence [miao-yu(l)] is the function." It
must be noticed that the central metaphysical ideas of
the truth of irwonsang have been expressed in these terms.
24. Legge,Confucius.p.384 [The Mean.Ch.l,sect.4].
25. Wang Yang-ming, Instructions for Practical Living, trans,
Wing-tsit Chan, (New York: Columbia University Press,
1963), p.243.
26. Chan,Source Book, p.661.
27. Wing-tsit Chan, "How Buddhistic is Wang Yang-ming?" PEW
XII, 3: 214.
28. See Fu, "Morality or Beyond," pp.391-392, for the point in
question.
29. TSD,48:342b.

P.446

30. TSD,8:750c.
31. The Bible, Matthew: 6,3.
32. Chan,Reflections, p.6.
33. Legge, Confucius, p.413.
34. James Legge, trans., The Works Of Mencius, The Chinese
Classics. Vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895), p. 303.
35. Chan,Reflections, p.62.
36. TSD,8:749c.
37. Chan,Source Book, p.646.
38. Ibid,p.l9.
39. Mary 'Lelia Marka, trans, The Hsiao Ching(bn) (NewYork:
St.John's Univer- sity Press, 1961), p. 3.
40. Ibid.p.l9.
41. Chan,Source Book, p. 497.
42. Sosan, Son'ga kuigam, p. 79; In Shin-chi-kwan-ching(bo),
the four graces include the graces of parents, sentient
beings, the king, and the triple treasures (Buddha,
sangha, and dharma](Oda tokuno, (bp) Bukkyo daijiten(bq)).
43. Legge, Confucius, p. 357.
44. Luiz O. Gomez, "Emptiness and Moral Perfection," PEW
XXIII, 3:370.
45. Christian Jochim, "Ethical Analysis of an Ancient Debate:
Moists versus Confucians, " Journal of Religious Erhirs 8,
no.l (1980): 137.
46. TSD, 30: 36a: Kenneth K. Inada. trans., Nagarjuna (Tokyo:
Hokuseido Press, 1970), p.158.
47. Fu."Morality and Beyond,"p.391.
48. Patrick H. Nowell-Smith, "Religion and Morality," Paul
Edward, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1967), 8: 150

P.447