Book Review: Buddhist and Christian Monasticism in Korea
An encounter between two monks
Monasticism Buddhist and Christian:
The Korean Experience
Eerdmans Publishing Company
2008
Monasticism Buddhist and Christian: The Korean Experience is a compilation of essays that compares and contrasts monasticism in Sŏn (Japanese Zen) Buddhism and Christianity. The book is a product from a series of monthly lectures on the encounter of Korean Christianity with Asian religions that was organized by the Seton Interreligious Research Center in Seoul, Korea.
The majority of the essays (eight out of the eleven) are written by a Korean Buddhist monk, Jaemon Seok (Yun), who has practiced Zen for over forty years, and a German Benedictine, Thomas Timpte, who has been a Christian monk for over fifty-five years; both have advanced degrees and have lectured in various forums. Their essays, which are presented as a dialogue, are especially insightful since they provide insiders’ perspectives on the monastic life and practices in Buddhism and Christianity.
In the introductory chapter, Sunghae Kim, professor at the Sogang Jesuit University in Seoul, Korea, and co-editor of this volume, gives a brief historical overview of the life of renunciation in six religious traditions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. She also discusses the theme of monasticism found in their sacred texts and briefly examines the monastic lifestyle of significant individuals: the Hindu Śankara, Sufi Al-Hasan al-Başrī, Daoist Wang Che, and Jesus. This background information, though basic, provides the reader a good orientation on the topic to be discussed.
In chapter two, Bernard Senécal, Kim’s colleague at Sogang, provides a helpful overview of the historical development of Buddhism in Korea from its inception in the late fourth century CE until modern times and assesses the contributions made by some prominent Buddhist masters: Wŏnhyo (617–86), Ŭisang (625–702), Ŭich’ŏn (1055–1101), Chinul (1158–1210), Sŏsan (1520–1604), Sŏngch’ŏl (1912–93), Seung Sahn (1927–2004), Kusan (1901–1983), and Kwangdŏk (1927–99). In the latter part of chapter two, however, there are a couple of areas where Senécal either misunderstands classical teachings in Zen Buddhism or misapplies his category of comparison. First, Senécal asserts that enlightenment is a goal to be pursued by Zen practitioners, which is a misunderstanding. On page 54, he says, “an authentic Sŏn monk must pursue every means possible to achieve the ultimate goal of his tradition: Buddhahood.” Again on page 55 he says, “there is nothing in Christianity . . . to compare directly with the radical quest for enlightenment found in the Sŏn tradition.” These statements reveal Senécal’s misunderstanding of enlightenment as a goal. Rather, Zen practice is based on the premise that practitioners already possess inherent Buddhahood or Tathāgata-garbha (“womb of Buddha”), a classic teaching found in the Lankavatara Sūtra. So meditation is not done for the “radical quest for enlightenment,” as Senécal contends. When a Zen practitioner meditates, he or she is simply being and doing what he or she already is. For this reason, in his Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen described zazen as jijuyu zanmai (self-fulfilling samādhi or deep meditation), a kind of activity that one does to enjoy one’s nature.
Additionally, Senécal’s attempt to relate Buddha’s enlightenment to Jesus’ “awakening” at his baptism (55–57) is unsuccessful. Although the words “awakening” and “enlightenment” may denote similar characteristics, Jesus’ “awakening” to his identity as the Son of God and Buddha’s enlightenment cannot be compared as being of the same type because they are fundamentally and qualitatively different. Buddha’s enlightenment was based on his realization of phenomena as “emptiness” (śūnyatā) and self as illusory (anātman), whereas, Jesus’ awakening to his identity—in other words, selfhood (cf. ātman)—at baptism would contradict the classic teaching of anātman (non-self) in Buddhism. Actually, Senécal’s explanation of Jesus’ awakening is also flawed because it is based on his assumption that Jesus was not aware of his identity as Son of God before his baptism. However, when Jesus was a boy, on one occasion, he slipped away from his parents to be with religious teachers in the synagogue in Jerusalem (Luke 2:39-52). When his parents returned and found him, Jesus said to them, “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” That is to say, Jesus was already “awakened” to his identity as the Son of God before his baptism some years later.
Presented in a dialogue format in the main section of the book, covering chapters three to ten, the Zen monk Yun and German Benedictine Timpte identify several common areas for comparison—monastic rules and vows, poverty and the use of property, and communal life and celibacy—to help readers better understand and appreciate some of the similarities and differences in Sŏn Buddhism and Christianity.
Chapters three and four, the “History and Spirit of the Sangha” and “History and Spirit of Monastic Rules,” examine monastic rules in the respective traditions. For the most part, these essays provide a good summary of the historical development of the monastic community and discussion of significant events, such as the First and Second Council of 500 arahats at Rājagrha and lives of anchoritic and cenobitic monks, such as Saint Anthony of Egypt and Saint Benedict of Nursia. A recurring problem, however, is the Korean monk’s comment regarding the pursuit of enlightenment in Zen practice. On page 78 he says, “The ultimate aim of all (Zen) Buddhists is to attain nirvana.” Once again, this teleological view does not reflect the notion of enlightenment in the Zen tradition, as previously explained.
In chapters five and six, the monks compare “Non-Possession and the Use of Property in the Buddhist Sangha” and “Poverty and the Use of Property in Christian Monasticism.” Non-possession simply reflects the Buddhist idea of renunciation to eliminate cravings to alleviate suffering. In his essay on “Poverty and the Use of Property in Christian Monasticism,” Timpte relates the Buddhist concept of “detachment” to the Christian idea of poverty. On page 117 he says, “Detachment is certainly a much more accurate expression of what we mean by poverty in a religious and monastic context.” However, the Buddhist idea of “detachment” cannot be equated with the Christian idea of poverty. In the Christian notion, the underlying spirit of poverty is not detachment but love and compassion for the poor. For example, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus instructs a rich man about what to do with his possessions in order to inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:16-30). Jesus tells the rich man to not just give up his possessions, as a way of detachment, but instructs him to sell his possessions in order to give the money to the poor, out of love and compassion.
In chapters seven and eight, “The Structure of the Buddhist Sangha and Communal Life” and “Community, Obedience, and Authority in Christian Monasticism,” Yun and Timpte compare community in both traditions. Most of the descriptions here are general information about the relationship that existed between monks and the laity. There is, however, one important point that Timpte alluded to but did not elaborate fully for readers to better appreciate the profound influence that Buddhists can give to Christians. On page 176, Timpte says, “In Buddhist doctrine, there is one point in particular that might inspire Christians to practice love, namely, its strong insistence on interdependence.” This important Buddhist concept of pratītya-samutpāda (dependent origination) provides a deep, profound, and philosophical basis that can inspire Christians to express agapē love, an unconditional love expressed even to one’s enemies. Applying this Buddhist principle, a Christian can come to realize that his neighbor or enemy was once his caring mother or a reflection of himself as a person created in the imago Dei, as in Indra’s Jeweled Net, and can then begin to truly love that person as himself, indiscriminately.
Overall, the book’s highlights are those insights offered by the Zen monk Yun and German Benedictine Timpte. Their testimonials provide the reader with a good firsthand account on the life of monks in the sangha and monastery. On the other hand, the problematic areas are the doctrinal misunderstandings and misapplications of categories of comparison, which may be overlooked by average readers, but will surely be detected by those more educated in Buddhism and Christianity. In any case, this book represents a good attempt by scholars and practitioners of Zen Buddhism and Christianity to open a dialogue about their beliefs and practices to enhance mutual understanding and appreciation. It is, of course, an ongoing trial-and-error process. But in continuing to do so, Buddhist and Christian scholars and practitioners must take extra precautions to ensure that they express orthodox doctrinal teachings respective to both traditions and avoid projecting erroneous assumptions or reducing important teachings in the other tradition to fit their own imposed categories of comparison.
The majority of the essays (eight out of the eleven) are written by a Korean Buddhist monk, Jaemon Seok (Yun), who has practiced Zen for over forty years, and a German Benedictine, Thomas Timpte, who has been a Christian monk for over fifty-five years; both have advanced degrees and have lectured in various forums. Their essays, which are presented as a dialogue, are especially insightful since they provide insiders’ perspectives on the monastic life and practices in Buddhism and Christianity.
In the introductory chapter, Sunghae Kim, professor at the Sogang Jesuit University in Seoul, Korea, and co-editor of this volume, gives a brief historical overview of the life of renunciation in six religious traditions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. She also discusses the theme of monasticism found in their sacred texts and briefly examines the monastic lifestyle of significant individuals: the Hindu Śankara, Sufi Al-Hasan al-Başrī, Daoist Wang Che, and Jesus. This background information, though basic, provides the reader a good orientation on the topic to be discussed.
In chapter two, Bernard Senécal, Kim’s colleague at Sogang, provides a helpful overview of the historical development of Buddhism in Korea from its inception in the late fourth century CE until modern times and assesses the contributions made by some prominent Buddhist masters: Wŏnhyo (617–86), Ŭisang (625–702), Ŭich’ŏn (1055–1101), Chinul (1158–1210), Sŏsan (1520–1604), Sŏngch’ŏl (1912–93), Seung Sahn (1927–2004), Kusan (1901–1983), and Kwangdŏk (1927–99). In the latter part of chapter two, however, there are a couple of areas where Senécal either misunderstands classical teachings in Zen Buddhism or misapplies his category of comparison. First, Senécal asserts that enlightenment is a goal to be pursued by Zen practitioners, which is a misunderstanding. On page 54, he says, “an authentic Sŏn monk must pursue every means possible to achieve the ultimate goal of his tradition: Buddhahood.” Again on page 55 he says, “there is nothing in Christianity . . . to compare directly with the radical quest for enlightenment found in the Sŏn tradition.” These statements reveal Senécal’s misunderstanding of enlightenment as a goal. Rather, Zen practice is based on the premise that practitioners already possess inherent Buddhahood or Tathāgata-garbha (“womb of Buddha”), a classic teaching found in the Lankavatara Sūtra. So meditation is not done for the “radical quest for enlightenment,” as Senécal contends. When a Zen practitioner meditates, he or she is simply being and doing what he or she already is. For this reason, in his Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen described zazen as jijuyu zanmai (self-fulfilling samādhi or deep meditation), a kind of activity that one does to enjoy one’s nature.
Additionally, Senécal’s attempt to relate Buddha’s enlightenment to Jesus’ “awakening” at his baptism (55–57) is unsuccessful. Although the words “awakening” and “enlightenment” may denote similar characteristics, Jesus’ “awakening” to his identity as the Son of God and Buddha’s enlightenment cannot be compared as being of the same type because they are fundamentally and qualitatively different. Buddha’s enlightenment was based on his realization of phenomena as “emptiness” (śūnyatā) and self as illusory (anātman), whereas, Jesus’ awakening to his identity—in other words, selfhood (cf. ātman)—at baptism would contradict the classic teaching of anātman (non-self) in Buddhism. Actually, Senécal’s explanation of Jesus’ awakening is also flawed because it is based on his assumption that Jesus was not aware of his identity as Son of God before his baptism. However, when Jesus was a boy, on one occasion, he slipped away from his parents to be with religious teachers in the synagogue in Jerusalem (Luke 2:39-52). When his parents returned and found him, Jesus said to them, “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” That is to say, Jesus was already “awakened” to his identity as the Son of God before his baptism some years later.
Presented in a dialogue format in the main section of the book, covering chapters three to ten, the Zen monk Yun and German Benedictine Timpte identify several common areas for comparison—monastic rules and vows, poverty and the use of property, and communal life and celibacy—to help readers better understand and appreciate some of the similarities and differences in Sŏn Buddhism and Christianity.
Chapters three and four, the “History and Spirit of the Sangha” and “History and Spirit of Monastic Rules,” examine monastic rules in the respective traditions. For the most part, these essays provide a good summary of the historical development of the monastic community and discussion of significant events, such as the First and Second Council of 500 arahats at Rājagrha and lives of anchoritic and cenobitic monks, such as Saint Anthony of Egypt and Saint Benedict of Nursia. A recurring problem, however, is the Korean monk’s comment regarding the pursuit of enlightenment in Zen practice. On page 78 he says, “The ultimate aim of all (Zen) Buddhists is to attain nirvana.” Once again, this teleological view does not reflect the notion of enlightenment in the Zen tradition, as previously explained.
In chapters five and six, the monks compare “Non-Possession and the Use of Property in the Buddhist Sangha” and “Poverty and the Use of Property in Christian Monasticism.” Non-possession simply reflects the Buddhist idea of renunciation to eliminate cravings to alleviate suffering. In his essay on “Poverty and the Use of Property in Christian Monasticism,” Timpte relates the Buddhist concept of “detachment” to the Christian idea of poverty. On page 117 he says, “Detachment is certainly a much more accurate expression of what we mean by poverty in a religious and monastic context.” However, the Buddhist idea of “detachment” cannot be equated with the Christian idea of poverty. In the Christian notion, the underlying spirit of poverty is not detachment but love and compassion for the poor. For example, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus instructs a rich man about what to do with his possessions in order to inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:16-30). Jesus tells the rich man to not just give up his possessions, as a way of detachment, but instructs him to sell his possessions in order to give the money to the poor, out of love and compassion.
In chapters seven and eight, “The Structure of the Buddhist Sangha and Communal Life” and “Community, Obedience, and Authority in Christian Monasticism,” Yun and Timpte compare community in both traditions. Most of the descriptions here are general information about the relationship that existed between monks and the laity. There is, however, one important point that Timpte alluded to but did not elaborate fully for readers to better appreciate the profound influence that Buddhists can give to Christians. On page 176, Timpte says, “In Buddhist doctrine, there is one point in particular that might inspire Christians to practice love, namely, its strong insistence on interdependence.” This important Buddhist concept of pratītya-samutpāda (dependent origination) provides a deep, profound, and philosophical basis that can inspire Christians to express agapē love, an unconditional love expressed even to one’s enemies. Applying this Buddhist principle, a Christian can come to realize that his neighbor or enemy was once his caring mother or a reflection of himself as a person created in the imago Dei, as in Indra’s Jeweled Net, and can then begin to truly love that person as himself, indiscriminately.
Overall, the book’s highlights are those insights offered by the Zen monk Yun and German Benedictine Timpte. Their testimonials provide the reader with a good firsthand account on the life of monks in the sangha and monastery. On the other hand, the problematic areas are the doctrinal misunderstandings and misapplications of categories of comparison, which may be overlooked by average readers, but will surely be detected by those more educated in Buddhism and Christianity. In any case, this book represents a good attempt by scholars and practitioners of Zen Buddhism and Christianity to open a dialogue about their beliefs and practices to enhance mutual understanding and appreciation. It is, of course, an ongoing trial-and-error process. But in continuing to do so, Buddhist and Christian scholars and practitioners must take extra precautions to ensure that they express orthodox doctrinal teachings respective to both traditions and avoid projecting erroneous assumptions or reducing important teachings in the other tradition to fit their own imposed categories of comparison.