{"title":"Ch'ŏnt'ae after Ŭich'ŏn: The Formative Period of the Korean Ch'ŏnt'ae Order","authors":"S. Vermeersch","doi":"10.1353/seo.2019.0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Observing the English-language literature on Ch'ŏnt'ae, one might get the impression that Ch'ŏnt'ae begins and ends with Ŭich'ŏn (1055–1101). Most scholars agree Ŭich'ŏn was the founder of the Ch'ŏnt'ae school, the Korean counterpart of Tiantai, but what happened after him? The next figure about whom we have fairly substantial information is Yose (1163–1245), leaving a gap of nearly eighty years; and when Yose comes into his own, it is by founding the White Lotus society at Mandŏk-sa in 1216, reflecting a type of devotional practice not traditionally associated with Ŭich'ŏn. This shift is usually explained in Korean scholarship by referring to the historical background. Yose lived during a period of military rule (1170–1256) when many monks seem to have foregone the traditional bureaucratic institutions of Buddhism and founded their own faith-based societies; for example, Chinul's founding of Chŏnghye-sa in 1190 and Susŏn-sa (later Songgwang-sa) in 1200. In what sense is Yose's movement a departure from Ŭich'ŏn? Should we take Ŭich'ŏn's writings as the be-all and end-all of Korean Ch'ŏnt'ae? I argue that Ŭich'ŏn failed to put in place any clear structure, ideology, or training course for the school he founded, and hence disciples selected through the first Ch'ŏnt'ae examination of 1101 had to fend for themselves. Riven by conflict, they likely failed to develop a clear identity, perhaps because they were mostly originally trained in other schools. Ŭich'ŏn seems to have perceived the need to implement Pure Land societies as an essential component of the Tiantai tradition as it had formed in Song China, but it was only Yose who finally managed to integrate all the various practices of the Tiantai tradition into the Ch'ŏnt'ae school.","PeriodicalId":41678,"journal":{"name":"Seoul Journal of Korean Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/seo.2019.0014","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seoul Journal of Korean Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/seo.2019.0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract:Observing the English-language literature on Ch'ŏnt'ae, one might get the impression that Ch'ŏnt'ae begins and ends with Ŭich'ŏn (1055–1101). Most scholars agree Ŭich'ŏn was the founder of the Ch'ŏnt'ae school, the Korean counterpart of Tiantai, but what happened after him? The next figure about whom we have fairly substantial information is Yose (1163–1245), leaving a gap of nearly eighty years; and when Yose comes into his own, it is by founding the White Lotus society at Mandŏk-sa in 1216, reflecting a type of devotional practice not traditionally associated with Ŭich'ŏn. This shift is usually explained in Korean scholarship by referring to the historical background. Yose lived during a period of military rule (1170–1256) when many monks seem to have foregone the traditional bureaucratic institutions of Buddhism and founded their own faith-based societies; for example, Chinul's founding of Chŏnghye-sa in 1190 and Susŏn-sa (later Songgwang-sa) in 1200. In what sense is Yose's movement a departure from Ŭich'ŏn? Should we take Ŭich'ŏn's writings as the be-all and end-all of Korean Ch'ŏnt'ae? I argue that Ŭich'ŏn failed to put in place any clear structure, ideology, or training course for the school he founded, and hence disciples selected through the first Ch'ŏnt'ae examination of 1101 had to fend for themselves. Riven by conflict, they likely failed to develop a clear identity, perhaps because they were mostly originally trained in other schools. Ŭich'ŏn seems to have perceived the need to implement Pure Land societies as an essential component of the Tiantai tradition as it had formed in Song China, but it was only Yose who finally managed to integrate all the various practices of the Tiantai tradition into the Ch'ŏnt'ae school.
期刊介绍:
Published twice a year under the auspices of the Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies at Seoul National University, the Seoul Journal of Korean Studies (SJKS) publishes original, state of the field research on Korea''s past and present. A peer-refereed journal, the Seoul Journal of Korean Studies is distributed to institutions and scholars both internationally and domestically. Work published by SJKS comprise in-depth research on established topics as well as new areas of concern, including transnational studies, that reconfigure scholarship devoted to Korean culture, history, literature, religion, and the arts. Unique features of this journal include the explicit aim of providing an English language forum to shape the field of Korean studies both in and outside of Korea. In addition to articles that represent state of the field research, the Seoul Journal of Korean Studies publishes an extensive "Book Notes" section that places particular emphasis on introducing the very best in Korean language scholarship to scholars around the world.