불교 바로알기 제 1

[불교 바로알기 1제] 무애거사

위빠사나라는 건 대체 뭐냐?
우리가 출가수도하는 것은 처음부터 끝까지 부처님 말씀에 의지하는 거거든요. 이걸 위법망구(爲法忘軀)라 하는데… 이 세상 좋은 줄 알았는데 말씀 듣고 보니 고해였다 세상이 공허해서 꿈처럼 실체 없는 헛모양 뿐이다 그래서 무얼 바란다는 것 자체가 헛 될 뿐 아니라 삼계 만물이나 나조차도 공(空)하고 무상(無相)이고 무원(無願)이고 무아(無我)다. 이런 이치가 누구나 다 아는 것처럼 보여도 이거 부처님께서 최초로 하신 겁니다. 또한 부처님 지혜의 정수예요. 무아(無我)다 중도(中道)다 말은 쉽지만 불교 이치는 중생으로서는 알아먹기가 참 어려운 거요. 유식(唯識)을 예로 들면 요새 말만 유식(唯識)한다 떠벌리는 거지 종당엔 다 유식(唯識) 이치를 못 믿고 저 편한 대로 반만 믿는 반식(半識)으로 돌아서거든요.
지금 한국이나 외국이나 유식 공부한다 하는 똑똑하신 학자님들 다 이 모양이라오. 사실 부처님 말씀을 한번 귀로 들었으면 이치도 마음에 비춰져서 바로 담겨져야 하는데. 실상은 안 그렇습니다.
듣기는 들었는데 자기가 안 게 아니라 부처님께 얻어듣고 겨우 알 듯도 한 건 대 마음속 깊이 체득하지는 못하지요. 만약에 한 번 듣고 심득(心得)했다 하면 그건 타고난 도인이요. 또 자기가 스스로 알았다 하면 그건 연각ᆞ벽지불이라 하는 겁니다.
겨우 귀동냥해서 말만 그럴 듯 해진 것이라, 그래서 성문(聲聞) 즉 귀가 보배인 중생이다 그러는 건데 어쨌든 이걸 어찌 말하냐 하면, 얻어 들은 부처님 지혜법문은 달빛인데 중생 마음이 탐ᆞ진ᆞ치에 마냥 흔들려서 저 달빛 같은 부처님 지혜 법문이 호수 같은 내 마음에 비춰지지 못하여서 지행합일(知行合一)이 안 되기 때문이다 그러는 겁니다.
그래서 정말이지 귀동냥해서 겨우 얻은 지혜를 믿음 속에서 진짜 내 것으로 만들려고 흔들리는 마음을 부처님 말씀 속에서 조용히 가라앉히는 거예요. 이걸 지(止) ᆞ 정(定) 또는 ‘사마타’라 하는데 흔히 선정에 든다 이렇게 말하지요. 그러면 귀동냥한 부처님 지혜 법문은 이치만 그런 줄 알지 실제로 번뇌를 끊는 힘이 없다 해서 말라죽은 건혜(乾慧)라 하는데. 이 건혜를 살려서 한 번 번뇌를 끊어보자 해서 선정을 닦아 자꾸 관찰 사유(思惟)하는 것을 지(止)에 상대해서는 관(觀)이라 하고 정(定)에 상대해서는 혜(慧)라 하고 사마타에 상대해서는 위빠사나라 부르는 거요.
그런데 처음 선정을 닦는 때는 마음이 자꾸 흩어져서 부처님 말씀에 염주(念住)하기는커녕 자기 마음도 갈피를 못 잡거든요. 이때는 수식관(數息觀) 등등 방편을 써서 마음을 다잡게 하고 부처님 지혜 법문을 관찰해야 하는 법인데 막상 마음이 침착 조용해지면 그만 부처님 지혜 법문도 묻혀져서 멍해지거든요. 그래서 무기(無記)에 빠져 멍해지는 외도선(外道禪) 즉 명상(冥想)에 빠지지 않도록, 아침마다 부처님 말씀을 외우는 것을 송경(誦經)이라 하는 겁니다.
여러분들 수타비 사원에서 새벽마다 들었을 텐데 송경과 선정은 이렇게 같이 가는 겁니다. 화두 참선은 송경과 참선이 통합된 거라 볼 수도 있는데… 어쨌든 송경을 잘해야 선정 즉 사마타 수행도 바로 서는 겁니다.
사마타는 위빠사나의 인(因)이고 위빠사나는 사마타의 과(果)인데, 사마타가 부처님 말씀을 독송하는 송경을 통해서 정화 감득(感得)되면 이를 이계인(離繫因) 즉 해탈하는 원인이라 그럽니다. 다시 말하면 선정 즉 사마타는 과일나무에 물을 주고 거름을 주어서 잘 키우는 거고 송경은 부처님 지혜에 의지해서 열매가 잘 맺도록 가지를 유인하고 전지 전정 해주는 것이다 이렇게 말할 수도 있답니다.
이렇게 선정을 닦아 가면 점차로 부처님 말씀 즉 관혜(觀慧) 속에서 선정이 점점 깊어지는데… 문제는 잡념 때문에 또 바깥 사물경계에 마음이 흘러가서 집중이 잘 안 된다는 거죠.
밥을 먹으면서도 문득 맛이 있다 없다는 한 생각, 공양하는 사람 보고는 잘 사네 못 사네 잘 생겼네 못 생겼네… 이런 잡념 한 번에 몇 일동안 밤새서 공부한 것이 그냥 날아갑니다.
이런 경우 화두를 실참(實參)하는 간화선에서는 조도(助道)로 삼는 것이 예참 아니면 주력인데, 남방에서의 고(苦)ᆞ집(集)ᆞ멸(滅)ᆞ도(道) 사제(四諦)의 행상(行相)을 순차적으로 수습하는 선법(禪法)에서는 사념처(四念處)라는 방편을 쓰지만 실제로 조절하기 매우 어려운 게 문제. 그래서 결국 계율로 외행(外行)부터 콘트롤 하는 겁니다.
마음의 이탈을 겉으로 드러나지 않게 108중학법(衆學法)으로 신업(身業)과 구업(口業)을 절제하고 의업(意業)으로는 생각이 밖으로 흐르면 일체가 공(空)하고 무상(無常)하고 무원(無願)인데 너는 무엇에 집착하는고 되새겨서 마음을 추스립니다. 결국은 내 심원의마(心猿意馬)를 부처님의 지혜 말씀으로 조복시킨다 해서 관혜(觀慧)의 관(觀) 즉 진짜 위빠사나인 제현관(諦現觀)이라 부르는 거지 요새 엉덩이 뿔난 것들이 저 남방에 가서 고잉카 아무개 등등 사이비한테 배웠다 자랑하는 소위 <마음 챙긴다는 가짜 위빠사나> 하곤 아주 다른 거요.

<내 소견(所見)으로 내 마음을 관(觀)하는 것을 관(觀) 즉 위빠사나라 하지 못하는 이치>는 중생의 시커먼 무명심(無明心)에 일체가 다 깜깜 절벽인데 본디 없는 마음을 스스로 본다거나 원래 없는 망상을 자기가 알아차린다 하는 것은 다 소경이 개꿈 꾸는 헛소리기 때문예요. 이런 이치를 바로 알아야 합니다.
이 위빠사나는 사실 비구율의의 구족계에 포함되는 것인지라 미얀마나 태국에 가서 단기 출가라도 해야 작동하는 선법(禪法)인데도 이를 율법(律法)이라 안하고 염처(念處)라 하는 것은 그 심행(心行)을 단속하는 바탕이 혜심(慧心)에 주(住)하기 때문에 이름을 염처(念處)라 그러는 거랍니다
그렇게 계속 위빠사나를 감득하는 사마타를 열심히 가행 정진하다 보면 마음도 부처님의 혜심과 하나 되어 잡념 없이 성성(惺惺)해지다가 마침내 삼계가 고해임을 증득하는 부처님 말씀의 지혜 법문 즉 사제(四諦)의 도(道)에 들어가면 비로소 불도(佛道)를 수행하는 도인(道人)이라 하고 또 이때부터 현관(現觀)이라 하여 공부길이 열리는 거지 소나 개나 겉모양 흉내 낸다고 공부라 하는 게 아니예요.
요새 저 위빠사나니 뭐니 깨춤 추는 것들 알고 보면 집에서 새는 바가지 나가서 깨진 꼴예요.
우리 앞산에도 절이 하나 거창한 게 생겼는데 선방이랍시고 하나 지어놓고 참선하실 분 위빠사나 하는 분 이렇게 섞어놨대요. 그래서 총무하고 한번 가봤더니 법당은 쥐새끼 한 마리도 없는데 옆의 산신각에서는 목탁소리 염불소리가 진진하니 낭자한데 신발이 주변에 가득 발 디딜 틈도 없이 벗어놨더라는… 이렇도록 본분사의 본 자도 모르는 그 절 주인을 가지고 다들 큰스님으로 대접하는가 본데….. 이런 꼴들 안 보고 안 듣고 사는 것도 사실 오복 중 하나예요.
나는 법전대사 열반하시고는 아무데도 안 가는데. 하여튼 님들 아잔간하 존자(尊者)님을 부지런히 참방(參訪)해서 성불하는 선근(善根)을 깊이 심어가셔요.
사두,!

보충1)
송경(誦經)은 자꾸 신구의(身口意) 삼업(三業)으로 부처님 말씀을 깊이 억념(憶念)해서 전오식(前五識)의 무의식(無意識) 속에 훈습(熏習)이 되도록 하는 거예요. 그러면서 선정의 길이 되게 만드는 거지요. 요새 먹물 도깨비들 교리공부 한답시고 알음알이로 문자 희롱하는 희론(戱論) 즉 간경(看經)하곤 근본적으로 달라요.
그래서 예전의 강원의 송경(誦經)하는 이력(履歷)이 참선하는데 아주 중요했던 거예요. 근데 다 망가졌죠. 강원의 이력(履歷)이 망하니까 선방(禪房)도 망가진 거지요.
우리가 배움터라 생각하는 대학이란 데는 자칫하면 사실 수행과 아무 상관없는 희론처(戱論處)로 빠진다는 걸 모르니. 송경(誦經)을 중심하던 강원이 희론(戱論)의 알음알이 간경 위주로 바뀌는 것도 다 시절인연이고 말세라서 그런 거요. 그나마 해인사가 겨우 겨우 강맥(講脈)을 잇다가 종당엔 간경의 알음알이에 목 매달던 주지 하나 잘못 만나서 박살나지 않았나요.
그래도 여러분들은 복 받은 사람들예요. 멀리 아잔간하 존자(尊者)까지 찿아뵈었으니… 열심히들 심방(尋訪)해서 공부 많이들 하셔.

보충2)
이렇게 송경과 선정을 수습하면서 마음이 흩어질 때마다 마음 챙긴다 하여 스스로 공(空)ᆞ무상(無常)ᆞ무원(無願)을 되새기면서 선정을 수습하다보면 드디어 부처님 말씀이 눈앞에 현전(現前)되거든요.
이걸 발심했다 하는데… 이처럼 지행(知行)이 일치(一致)되기 시작하면 이제 부처님 지혜 법문에 들어 계속 선정을 닦아 지혜를 발명해서 심지(心地) 즉 마음의 팔만사천 번뇌를 하나하나 단계적으로 끊어 가는데… (이걸 감업[減業]이라 그럼) 처음 공부할 때 학교 보내자면 똥오줌부터 가려야 한다 해서는… 간신히 부처님 말씀 한 두 마디 익혀 마음을 단속하는 단계를 가지고 마구니들이 공부인척 증상만(增上慢)을 내는데. 다 쓸데없는 짓입니다. 그러니까 머리 몸통 다 버리고 달랑 꼬랑지 하나 줏어다 자랑하는 모양인데.. 이에 대해 아잔간하 존자(尊者)께서는 면도칼이 아무리 날카롭다 해도 도끼마냥 선정(禪定)의 무게가 보태지지 않으면 나무 못 자른다 말씀하셨거든요
사실 남방에도 한국 못지 않게 사기꾼 득실거리니까 조심해야 되요. 한국에서 돌아다니는 위빠사나 패거리들도 알고 보면 다 일지반해(一知半解)하는 이상한 작자들이니까 조심 또 조심.!
저것들 모이는 데가 무슨무슨 마을이래요. 그래서 휴게소에서 파는 호두과자 모두 저들이 만들어 파는 줄 알았어요. 하여튼 엉덩이에 뿔 난 것들 이름도 개판으로 지어서 사람 헛갈리게 만드는 데는 재주가 비상한 것 같아요
부처님 지혜 법문이 내 마음에 감득(感得)되면 일체 경계의 묘법(妙法)이 즉시에 환해져서 눈을 떠도 보이고 감아도 환해지는데 이걸 현관(現觀) 즉 abhisamaya라 합니다. 현관(現觀)이 깊어져서 승진하다가 고집멸도(苦集滅道)의 도제(道諦) 단계에 들어가면 드디어 몽중일여(夢中一如)나 오매일여(寤昧一如)가 차례로 열리는데 남방에서는 그냥 수다원 사다함 아나함 그래요. 이것만을 공부라 하는 거지 개코도 모르면서 맘 챙긴다고 돌아다니는 건 그냥 병이요. 병.
제대로 묵묵히 깊이 하심해서 공부 수행할 생각은 안 하고 그저 인기나 얻고 돈이나 벌고 남들 안 하는거 좀 신기해 보이는 거 이런 못난 짓들만 찿아다니며 잘난 척하는 것은 말예요… 내가 보기엔 모두 업장이 두터워서 그러는 걸로 보이거든요. 이거 스스로 업장부터 녹이게끔 잘 가르쳐 줘야 해요. 시급해요.
사두.!

보충3)
지금 사마타와 위빠사나 관계가 어떠하냐? 이렇게 질문이 하나 들어왔는데… 사마타[지(止)]는 마음을 적정 고요케 하되 심일경성(心一境性)이라 해서 하나의 경계에 안정(安定)시키는 거요.
왜 그래야 하냐 하면 부처님의 지혜 말씀이 달빛처럼 비춰져도 내 마음이 요동치면 비춰지질 않으니까 마음을 명경(明鏡)처럼 맑게 삼매에 들게 해서 부처님의 지혜 법문과 하나 되는 대원경지(大圓鏡智)를 위빠사나[관(觀)]해서 대각(大覺)을 성취하자는 건데… 여기에 <경계의 내용>이란 문제가 하나 있거든요.
달은 중천에 떠 있는데 대야에 담긴 물과 같은 내 마음을 방구석에다 숨겨놓거나 방향을 반대로 놓았다 하면 제 아무리 삼매에 들어 마음이 잔잔해진들 달빛이 비춰지지 않을 겁니다. 그래서 대야를 들어다 달빛이 잘 비추는 곳에 놓고 잔잔해지도록 돌보는 건데 <이처럼 달빛 비추는 곳에 옮겨 놓는 것>을 뭐라 그래요? 삼귀의(三歸依)라 그러지 않나요? 이게 바로 외도의 선정과 불교의 선정이 여기서 갈라지는 거거든요. 하나의 경계라 해서 외도가 제 아무리 선정을 닦는다 한들 달빛이 비춰지질 못해요. 그래서 이걸 지혜가 없어 번뇌를 끊지 못하는 명상(冥想)이다 그렇게 달리 부르는 겁니다. 만약에 비춰졌다 하면 그건 이미 삼귀의가 전제 되어 그리 된 거니까 이미 불자(佛子)가 된 겁니다.
결국 삼귀의(三歸依)가 안 되면 실상 깨달음도 없는 거나 마찬가지요. 어떤 얼간이 목사 하나가 자기도 깨달았다 떠벌리는 모양인데 그건 악귀(惡鬼)에 홀려서 미쳐 발광하는 거나 진배 없소이다.
왜냐? <삼귀의가 없으면 깨달음도 없다는 이치>를 꿈에도 모르니까 그렇게 멋대로 사기 치는 거거든요. 이처럼 하나의 경계에 안정(安定)되는 것이 사마타인데 여기에다 귀의(歸依)를 통해서 달빛이 비춰지면 급기야 보일 관(觀) 자를 써서 <위빠사나> 그러는 겁니다. 처음에 방향 위치 제대로 잡는다고… 흔들리지 않게 잘 놓는다고… 바람이 불면 막아준다고… 알뜰살뜰 돌보는 데만 37가지 조도(助道)의 품목(品目)이 있고 여기다 추가로 사마타를 보조하는 것이 저 사이비 위빠사나 패거리들이 한다는 소위 <마음 챙기기> plus +1 인데… 마음 챙기는 게 무조건 나쁘다는 것이 아니라 무슨 마음으로 챙기냐가 관건예요.
시커먼 중생심(衆生心)으로 심사(尋伺) 각찰(覺察)하는 것을 공부라 할 건지 아니면 부처님께 지극히 귀의하여 불심(佛心)의 불지(佛智) 즉 삼법인(三法印)으로 내 마음을 다스릴 건지에 정사(正邪)가 갈려지는 겁니다.
저 사이비 위빠사나 패거리가 위빠사나 놀음 한지 이미 한 이십년 되었지 않나요?
그러면 이제 도인(道人)이 하나는 고사하고 반쪽이라도 충분히 나올 때가 된 것 같은데… 소식은커녕 여전히 쥐 죽은 듯 조용하잖아요.

불교는 함부로 나대는 거 아니거든요.
만약에 위빠사나를 한다 치면, 위빠사나로 크게 한소식해서 참선하는 제방(諸方)의 선지식(善知識)들을 두루 찿아가 점검하고 끝내… 심심상인(心心相印)해서 인가(印可)마저 받고나면 그때서야 건당(建幢)하여 개산(開山)하는 거지, 미친 넘들 원숭이 흉내 내는 걸 가지고 공부한다 하는 거 아니거든요. 제발 정신 좀 차리셔… 비싼 밥 처먹고 왜들 그러시는지 참 이해가 안 갑니다.
인과적으로는 사마타가 없으면 위빠사나도 없는 까닭에 초학자들에게 송경(誦經)을 가르쳐서 위빠사나 하는 성문(聲聞)의 혜심(慧心)을 길러 사마타의 길로 인도하고자 하는 게 소위 염처(念處)의 심사(尋伺)하는 마음 챙기기인데… 이것만 중뿔나게 연습한다? 잘 해보슈…

ex) 요새 참 재미있는 말이… 저 불법승(佛法僧) 삼보(三寶) 가운데 법은 진리니까 진리는 객관적이고 보편적이니까 나는 부처도 안 믿고 중들도 안 믿고 오로지 진리만 믿겠다 하는 말인데… 부처 다음에 법이 있지 법 다음에 부처 있는 게 아녜요.
부처님이야말로 진리의 당체고 진리의 화신인 것이지 진리가 따로 있어서 부처 버리고 중 들도 내치고서 달리 구할 수 있는 게 절대 아니거든요. 만약 그렇다 하면 이건 이른바 축물(逐物)이라 해서 한나라 강아지 마냥 죽자하고 뼈다귀 물어다 주인 갖다 주고… 주고… 주고 하다 끝장나는 거요. 이런 건 공부가 아니요. 바깥 경계에 끝없이 매인거지. 이런 이치를 어찌 말하냐 하면 진리가 사람을 따라오도록 공부해야지 사람이 진리를 따라다녀서는 평생 중생 노릇 못 면한다 그렇게 말하는 거요.
정말로 쇠뿔은 단김에 뽑는 건지 잘 모르겠으나 공부에는 영과(盈科)라 해서 다 순서가 있답니다.
먼저 복을 많이 쌓고 다시 삼세제불(三世諸佛)에 귀의 참회해서 업장을 녹이고 다시 부처님 말씀을 잘 새겨서 오매불망 잊지 앉게 된 연후에나 선방에 가서 참선 한다거나 남방에 가서 공부한다거나 하는 거지, 지 성질 못 이기고 세상 상대로 땡깡 부리는 걸 공부라 하지 못한다는 거… 좀 새겨 들으슈… 철 좀 드셔… 파리 마냥 여기저기 들러붙는 누구 누구들 말이요. 나이도 먹을만치 먹었으면 이제는 좀 나이값을 하셔야지…

The Fundamental Mind of Supreme Enlightenment (Daegak)

What is the meaning behind Buddhism being called daegak (Supreme Enlightenment)?

I shall analyze this in two explanations. First, the things we commonly comprehend as the biggest things around us are the sky, the earth, the sea, the air, and the like. But what we call “big” in Buddhism are not those things. When we refer to the “bigness” of the original and natural mind in Buddhism, it is not big in the sense that the sky, the earth, sea or air can be compared with it; in fact, is it so big that nothing can become a thing that can be contrasted with it. Enlightenment is not something that can be stated, like “I am enlightened” or “I am becoming enlightened.” Therefore, it is impossible to teach the fundamental mind of enlightenment with words or writings, or to show it with any concrete shape.

Even though the air is full of electric currents and the sea is full of salt, it’s impossible to listen to the electric current in the air with our ears, or see the salinity of the sea with our eyes. Likewise, though there is definitely an essential nature of Supreme Enlightenment (daegak), since it doesn’t have any specific name or form, you cannot see it with your eyes, hear it with your ears, or think about it with your mind.

Though it is said this essential nature of Supreme Enlightenment originally doesn’t exist because it has no name or form, it doesn’t mean that is really nonexistent. Because there’s nothing, neither is it mind, nor Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha, nor is it a ghost, nor is it any thing, nor the sky or the earth. At the same time it is both immensely big, immensely small, immensely empty, immensely spiritual, immensely firm and strong, but immensely soft at the same time, so it’s not analyzable through thinking.

Though this nature has no name or form, it links the past and the present, surrounds the universe, exists as a subject of the sky, the earth, and humans. As a king of all the laws, it is so big and broad that there’s nothing comparable; so lofty that there is no equal. Also, it has been even before the heaven and earth, so there is no beginning, and it will exist even after the end of days, so there is no ending. This big and round essential nature of enlightenment shows that heaven and earth and the self have the same root and the universe and the self are the same body.

This nature is equal in every body. Just because some are sages, it doesn’t mean they have more of this nature than ordinary men. Also, since there is no becoming, dying, any particular shape, or name for this nature, when it’s in the sky it becomes a part of the sky, in the earth it becomes a part of the earth, and in humans it becomes a part of humans. This is the fundamental mind of attaining divine enlightenment.

Second, attaining divine enlightenment for oneself, then guiding other people to the way of enlightenment, are not two things but one, so it is called the final enlightenment. Every person is pure and undefiled just where s/he is, and it shows that the enlightenment itself is always there, inside of them. Even though enlightenment always exists inside of them, if s/he doesn’t realize it, s/he is ordinary. Even though they realize it’s there, if they don’t strive, they also are ordinary. Why is that?

Even if something is gold, if it is not tempered several times, it cannot become pure gold. But after it becomes pure gold there is no change. Attaining the true mind through striving is like becoming pure gold. This is called actualizing enlightenment.

The original enlightenment (Buddhahood) and actualizing enlightenment are not two things, so it is the final enlightenment, and if somebody realizes everything mentioned above, now they can be said to have attained divine enlightenment.

Yongseong Jinjong ( 1864 ~ 1940 )

Jinjong


His dharma name was Yongseong and his ordination name was Jinjong.

 

Career

Master Yongseong was born in Namwon, North Jeolla-do Province. He began studying the Chinese classics at the age of six, and by the age of eight he could even write poetry, exhibiting exemplary literary skill. At the age of thirteen, he had a dream that he had received a dharma transmission from the Buddha, and then some time later when by chance he came upon some monastery, he discovered that the enshrined Buddha there looked exactly like the Buddha he had seen in his dream. After that incident, he stayed at the monastery wanting to live there, but his parents persuaded him to return home. At the age of fifteen, he ordained at Geungnagam Hermitage at Haeinsa Monastery on Mt. Gayasan.

 

Following his ordination, he learned the practice of Buddha recitation from Master Suwol and as he was continuing with his memorization of the daebiju (the dharani of Gwanseeum Bodhisattva), he had an awakening experience after six days of deep Seon meditation practice at the Dosoram Hermitage at Bogwangsa Monastery in Yangju. However, feeling himself that this awakening was insufficient, he continued further by taking on the investigation of the “MU” hwadu. Finally, in 1884, at the age of twenty, he broke through his mass of doubt and awakened to the fact that emptiness and form were not two. Following this, during a period of intense practice he again had a great awakening while reading the Jeondeungnok (The Record of the Transmission of the Lamp) in the Samiram Hermitage at Songgwangsa Monastery.

 

After this great awakening, the Master went to Sangseonam Hermitage in Mt. Jirisan where he practiced both Seon and Gyo (doctrinal study) with voracity, teaching Seon meditation to other monks and also reading various sutras, including the Awakening of Mahayana Faith, the Lotus Sutra, and the Flower Adornment Sutra. In addition, while cultivating the perfection of effort (virya paramita), he engaged in discourse on the nature of truth with masters such as Hyewol, Mangong and others, gradually expanding his own awakening. Regardless of where he went, his presence made it as if a Seon assembly was being held and the spirit of Seon flourished.

 

In 1907, at the age of 43, the Master headed for China. To a Chinese monk who arrogantly praised the superiority of Chinese Buddhism and disparaged Korean Buddhism, he replied, “Is the Sun and the Moon in the sky your country’s alone? Buddhist dharma is a public truth of the world, so how can the public truth of the world be limited to China?” In this way, he defended the legitimacy of Korean Buddhism.

 

In 1910, he was invited to the position of Head Master of Chilburam Meditation Hall (Seonwon) in Mt. Jirisan, guiding and encouraging many monastics. He composed the first work that analyzed and criticized the teachings of Christianity from a Korean Buddhist perspective, Gwiwon Jeongjong (Correct Teachings Returning to the Origin). As a response to the growing strength of Christianity in Korea, which was more organized and successful in its outreach efforts, he set out on an effort to write books systematizing Buddhist doctrines and tenets, as well as translating sutras written in Classical Chinese into Korean native script (hangeul).

 

In 1911, he went to Seoul for the propagation of urban Buddhism. The following year, he established a Seon Center in Daesa-dong to lead a modernized propagation movement, and then later, he founded Daegaksa Temple in Seoul’s Bongik-dong where he offered Buddhist instruction to the general public.

 

In 1919, during the March 1st Independence Movement against the Japanese colonial regime, together with Master Manhae, he served as a representative of the Buddhist community among the 33 national representatives, devoting themselves to the work of restoring the nation and serving as an encouragement to all Buddhists to join in the patriotic movement. As a result, he was apprehended by the Japanese police, put on trial, and endured three years of hardship in prison. Even after his release, he was put under constant surveillance by the Japanese authorities. During his three year confinement, upon seeing that another prisoner had a Bible that had been translated into the Korean script, he came to again recognize the necessity of translating the Buddhist scriptures into vernacular Korean. Thus, after his release from prison, he formed the “Tripitaka Translation Group” (Samjang Yeokhoe) and immersed himself in the work of translation, for the purpose of propagating Buddhism to the public. In addition, while serving as Head Master of the 10,000 days Meditation Hall (Manil Seonwon) at Naewonsa Monastery in Yangsan, he translated the 80 volumes of the Flower Garland Sutra, an effort regarded as an epoch-making accomplishment in the Korean translation of the Buddhist sutras.

 

In 1925, at the age of 61, he established the “Supreme Enlightenment Foundation” (Daegakgyo) at Daegaksa in Seoul, beginning new Buddhist and Public Education movements. A movement to arouse self-awareness in each of his fellow countrymen that they are truthful beings who possess infinite possibilities and wisdom, this activity was grounded in the idea of putting into practice the Mahayana Bodhisattva path of serving others and serving one’s self.

 

Following this, he went to Longjing in Manchuria where he cleared the land in the Mt. Baegunsan to both manage the Hwagwawon, where he established a “Supreme Enlightenment Foundation”, and spread the “Seon and Agriculture, Combined” (seonnong ilchi) movement. As a means of bringing about the economic independence of Buddhist temples, this movement especially emphasized agricultural cultivation and development alongside Seon meditation; the Master personally grabbed a hoe to join in the labor. In addition, to concentrate the activity of Buddhist propagation, together with Master Hanyeong he published the “Buddha Day” (Buril) magazine and inaugurated the practice of holding Buddhist services every Sunday. Furthermore, they brought about the complete translation and standardization of Buddhist rituals and recitations into vernacular Korean, and authored the “Chanbulga,” a series of odes to the virtues of the Buddha that could be sung in Korean.

 

Living with an unmatched intensity during these difficult times, Master Yongseong left to us a diversity of lifetime achievements, including his defense of traditional Buddhism, his reform and popularization of Buddhism, the simultaneous practice of Seon and Vinaya, the implementation of the Agricultural Seon movement, as well as the idea of “Supreme Enlightenment” and the advocacy of “Supreme Enlightenment Foundation” movements. Finally in 1940, at the age of 76, after 61 years in the sangha, he entered Nirvana. Among his disciples were Masters Dongsan Hyeil, Goam, Jaun, Deongheon, Gobong and others.        

 

Writings

The Master’s written work includes twenty-one volumes, including the Gwiwon Jeongjong (Correct Teachings Returning to the Origin), Gakhae Illyun (The Sea of Enlightenment and the Circle of the Sun), Seonmun Yoji (Essential Teachings of Seon Buddhism), and others. He also produced a 22 volume work of translations and commentaries including the Suneungeomgyeong Seonhan Yeonui (Commentaries on the Suramgama-sutra in Korean) and his published essays which amounted to nine volumes, including Manil chamseon gyeolsahoe changnipgi (The Story of Establishing the 10,000 Days Seon Community), Hwalgu chamseon manil gyeolsa barwonmun (Dedication for the 10,000 Days Live Phrase Seon Meditation), Beomgye saenghwal-e daehan geonbaekseo (Admonition for the Keeping of the Precepts), and others.

 

Doctrinal Distinction

To bring about the popularization and reform of Buddhism, Master Yongseong strove endlessly to find and implement the dynamic path of Buddhism, embodied in the idea of daegak “supreme enlightenment.”

 

Because the thinking of daegak as emphasized by Master Yongseong was advocated through the idea of jagak gakta, that the self-awakening to one’s fundamental nature and the awakening of others are not two separate things, the combined notions of awakening to bongak (original enlightenment), sigak (initial enlightenment), and gugyeonggak (ultimate enlightenment) comprised the idea referred to as daegak (supreme enlightenment). Based on self-enlightenment (gak), it can be said that “Buddha” is nothing other than daegak and “Buddhism” is nothing other than the “teaching of daegak.”

 

Master Yongeong’s thinking of daegak was an individualized and powerful Buddhist teaching that matched the spiritual capability rooted within each sentient being who lived and breathed just as he. His method was similar to treating patients with medicines that suit their disease, or how the Buddha always modified his dharma sermons to communicate the truth in accordance with the interpretive capabilities of his audience.

 

The epochal circumstances of Japanese colonization that brought an end to the Joseon Dynasty perhaps cut more deeply into the heart of Master Yongseong than anyone else, and he strove to make the 2500 year-old teachings of the Buddha relevant to the long-suffering Korean people, struggling under the Japanese colonial regime. As a result, he abandoned the life of “Buddhism in the mountains,” presenting for the first time an alternate model propagating Buddhism within an urban setting. Moreover, he perceived the obstacles for the public to approach Buddhism, due to the fact that ordinary Buddhist believers faced great difficulties in understanding the Buddhist sutras written in classical Chinese, he also began the immense undertaking of translating the sutras into Korean script (hangeul). The result of this undertaking was that numerous sutras were written in the vernacular, including the Diamond Sutra, the Flower Garland Sutra and others, and in this way he supplied a shortcut by which the public could more easily come into contact with the wisdom of Buddhism. This translation project was not his only propagation effort, as he also introduced the modern method of setting the framework for Buddhism’s economic independence through the establishment and management of urban propagation groups.

 

In addition, within his practice, he gave weight to both the Vinaya and the practice methods of the “observing the hwadu” (Ganhwa) Method of Seon meditation, and through setting an example of exhaustive practice, he showed a path of guidance to those who sought the dharma.

Even under the sharp gleaming edge of the Japanese blade, poised as it was to annihilate Korean national culture, the unyielding strength of the Master, who always stood at the forefront of efforts to propagate of Buddhism to the public, was a result of the power of his practice and activities that literally put his life at stake. As a monk who had already transcended the boundaries of life and death, he was able to overcome each and every fear without hesitation.

The Argument on Seon in Late Joseon Period

From Book “Seon Thought in Korean Buddhism”, 1998

Written by Han Ki-tu

Professor

Dept. of Buddhist Studies

Won-gwang University

A. Preface

 

Ever since Seon was introduced to Korea, there was a drive to prove the superiority of Seon over Kyo throughout the Korean Buddhist world, especially in the late Goryeo Dynasty.

After the seventh century CE, when Seon had taken root in China and was well established, various disputes arose within the Seon School. These arguments began with the difference of opinion between Master Huineng of Southern Seon and Master Shenxiu of Northern Seon. Then the conflict between the Mahayana Seon claimed by the Northern Order and Seon of the Tathagata (Kor. Yeorae Seon) of the Southern Order became prominent in the Seon world. That is, Master Heze Shenhui claimed that the Seon of the Tathagata is superior to Mahayana Seon, and the former is named so, for it is equal to the Tathagata.

But the newly established Hongzhou Order of Master Mazu’s lineage criticized Master Shenhui, calling him a master of mere intellectual understanding, one who searches for meaning and rea­son. And the Hongzhou Order developed an independent Seon pur­port, which investigates the Dharma transmitted by Master Bodhidharma This is the Seon of the patriarchs (Kor. Josa Seon), and this Seon was claimed as being superior to and surpassing the Seon of the Tathagata.

This claim is based on the idea that Seon is superior to Kyo. The realization of Seon as being “a direct transmission, outside the texts, not relying on words and letters, direct transmission from mind to mind, seeing into one’s nature and attaining Buddhahood” is not achieved through texts but through a transmission from mind to mind. Here, the awakening of the Tathagata is the center in the Seon of the Tathagata, but what is more important is the Seon purport of the patriarchs in the Seon of the patriarchs. This pur­port of Seon later even influenced academic lecturers who studied Kyo, so that these Kyo scholars who did not have any Seon prac­tice emphasized the superiority of Seon.

In Korea, the main dispute was started by scholarly monks who lived in the southern and southwestern areas of the peninsula of Korea. They published personal records on various theories of Buddhism in 18th century and from this the disputes arose in the Seon families during the reigns of King Jeongjo (r. 1777-1800), King Soonjo (r. 1801-1834), King Heonjong (r. 1835-1849), King Cheoljong (r. 1850-1863) and King Gojong (r. 1864-1907).

The leading roles were taken by Master Baekpa Geungseon (1767-1852), Master Choui Uiseon (1786-1856), lay scholar Chusa (1786-1856), Master Udam Honggi (1822-1881), Master Seoldu Yuhyeong (1822-1881), Master Chugwon Jinha (1861-1926) and lay scholar Jeong Dasan (1762-1836), each one partic­ipating more or less directly. Beginning with Master Baekpa’s Hand Glass of Seon Literature (Kor. Seonmun-sugyong), the monks took up and started arguing about Seon. Let us investigate the main point of their argument.

 

B. The Beginning: Master Baekpa Geungseon’s Hand Glass of Seon Literature

 

Master Baekpa wrote Hand Glass of Seon Literature in order to lay out a standard by which to discriminate the relative superi­ority of the various forms of Seon. The book considers three phrases of Master Linji’s teaching as the standard, depending foe its source mainly on Records of Linji. In addition there are other ref­erences such as Master Chiso’s Insight of Man and Heaven (Kor. Incheon-anmok), Master Hwanseong Jian’s Essentials of Five Or­ders of Seon (Kor. Seonmun-ojong-kangyo), Master Cheonchaek’s Precious Storehouse of Seon (Kor. Seonmun-bojang-nok), and Essentials of Seon (Kor. Seonmun-kangyo).

Before we examine whether the Seon thesis revealed in Hand Glass of Seon is a correct way of looking at things or not, it is important to first understand the general idea of the book.

The book reveals that all Seon can be originally discriminated into three kinds, that is, Seon of the patriarchs, Seon of the Tathagata, and Seon of meaning and reason (Kor. Uiri Seon), a theory derived from the Seon teachings of the three phrases of Linji. Mas­ter Baekpa evaluates and analyses the phrases, coming to the con­clusion that the first phrase is the Seon of the patriarchs, the sec­ond phrase is the Seon of the Tathagata, and the third is the Seon of meaning and reason.

 

1) The “Three Phrases of Master Linji” is the Standard of Seon

 

Master Baekpa goes on to argue that this correct view of the three phrases solves all problems of searching for standards of Seon. The first phrase is the phrase before host and guest are divided and it is achieved when a practitioner has insight into the true void and sublime existence. Such a practitioner has a high faculty, and becomes a master of Buddhas and patriarchs, when attaining the first phrase. It is a stage of Seon of the patriarchs.

The second phrase is such in which confrontation is ceased and which removes any clue of argument. It is to reach the “three mysterious gates” of Linji, and they are the mystery in the word, the mystery in the function, and the mystery in the mystery. The first signifies the essence of language, the second the final use of language, the third the place where no language is to be found. The third phrase started from theory, but there is no language found in the end, hence the final mystery is analyzed by Master Baekpa to be that of the true stage.

The background of the true stage of the mystery is a place of truth where there is no foolishness. The three mysteries show that the way of Son starts from language and reaches the stage which cannot be expressed by language.

The third phrase is bound by form and conception. It signifies dealing with expedient means. To borrow the expression of Re­cords of Linji, it is “giving speech to arahats when they meet arahats, and to hungry ghosts when they meet hungry ghosts.” This describes the stage of teaching sentient beings in endless ways, and finding that these beings firmly believe the ways that they are being taught in.

The third phrase corresponds to the Buddhist logic of “being, non-being, and in between.” This stage is the Seon of meaning and reason.

 

2) Master Baekpa’s Interpretation

 

Having delineated the three phrases and accepted them as the standard, Master Baekpa classifies Seon traditions. One of the char­acteristics of the Seon tradition is the system of transmission which the Buddha used with Mahakasyapa. This method is the mind-to-mind transmission at three different locations and it is this that is the theory of Extraordinary Seon.

But Master Baekpa thinks that the description of Extraordi­nary Seon consists of elements from the Seon of the Tathagata and the Seon of the patriarchs.

According to Master Baekpa, the first phrase corresponds to Vulture’s Peak, where the Buddha held up a flower and Mahakasyapa smiled, and it is the principle reason of Seon of the patri­archs. The second phrase falls under Stupa of Many Sons, where the Buddha sat with Mahakasyapa, and it is the principle of Seon of the Tathagata The last phrase corresponds to the Sala Tree Grove at Kusinara, where Mahakasyapa saw the Buddha’s feet, and it is the stage of both Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata.

This idea caused many arguments. But it was not only Master Baekpa who began the idea.

 

(1) New Influence and Original Duty

“New influence” means “practice newly.” It signifies ignorant new practice depending on the expedient means of the Buddha, for the practitioner’s faculty is low. Accordingly, practice only by new influence produces results which are bounded by “corrupt practice,” that is, practice which is the result of the dirt of habit.

“Original duty” signifies finding out how to be a Buddha through reflection, without separate cultivation, and to develop the true aspect of original duty. Therefore, one is bounded by the practice of dirty habit if there is only new influence, but can pos­sibly reach the original stage of Seon if one finds out one’s original duty by reflection. It is a state of abiding in original duty, and it is regarded by Master Baekpa as being included in the Seon of the Tathagata

Master Baekpa explains that when one reaches the stage of firm progress of one’s original duty, then it is possible to reach the Seon of the patriarchs. That is, when new influence exists along with the vitality of original duty to overcome old habits, this is the Seon of the Tathagata In addition, to achieve the key point in one’s Nature is Seon of the patriarchs. The Seon of meaning and reason is a state of only new influence without finding one’s origi­nal duty.

 

(2) Live Sword and Dead Sword

The expressions “live” and “dead” are one of the important family treasures of the Seon family. These expressions come from a Seon phrase accepted as one of the Linji tradition which is revealed in The Blue Cliff Records (Kor. Pyogam-nok). “Dead sword” sig­nifies the cutting of all defilements and erroneous thoughts with one sword and making all equal, and the “live sword” is to save all people with a sword that is kept in its scabbard.

Master Baekpa revealed that the “dead sword’ signifies the Seon of the Tathagata, and the “live sword” Seon of the patriarchs. And “to use both dead and live” is a stage of both the Seon of the Tathagata and the Seon of the patriarchs. He further stated that this view has continued right from the time of the Buddha up to the time of the Sixth Patriarch Master Huineng.

Master Baekpa also pointed out that Master Huineng transmit­ted the Seon of the patriarchs of the “live sword” to his disciple Master Nanyue Huairang, and the Seon of the Tathagata of the “dead sword” to Master Qingyuan Xingsi.

 

(3) Analysis of a Stanza of Diamond Sutra

Master Baekpa analyzes a stanza of four lines of Diamond Sutra as follows:

 

Those who by my form did see me,

And those who followed me by voice

Wrong the efforts they engaged in,

Me those people will not see.

 

“Those who by my form did see me corresponds to mystery in the function” of the three phrases of Seon of the Tathagata, and the phrase of “being” in the Seon of meaning and reason. “And those who followed me by voice” corresponds to “mystery in the essence” and the in between phrase. 3″ Wrong the efforts they engaged in” corresponds to “mystery in the mystery” and the phase of non-being. Last Me those people will not see” corresponds to the Seon of the Tathagata.

 

(4) The Analysis of the Four Vows

The Four Vows are the fountainhead of Mahayana Buddhism. The Four Vows are as follows:

 

I vow to save all beings.

I vow to end all sufferings.

I vow to learn all Dharma teachings.

I vow to attain Enlightenment.

 

Master Huineng has advised us to discover the Four Vows in our Self Nature. To that Master Baekpa gives the following analy­sis.

“I vow to save all beings” teaches us not to ponder the three poisons of our own mind. For this, Master Baekpa’s quotes the teaching of Master Huineng, “Do not think of good or evil.”

“I vow to end all sufferings” teaches us to cut off defilements by not, thinking of good.

“I vow to learn all Dharma teachings” teaches us that to vow to attain awakening is the greatest vow of learning.

“I vow to attain Enlightenment” teaches us to vow to at­tain Buddhahood. The way to vow is completed only when one from the stage of the true void reaches sublime existence.

 

(5) The Division of the Five Orders of Seon into Three Kinds of Seon

Insight of Man and Heaven and Essentials to Five Orders of Seon are books which generally focused on revealing the family tradi­tions of the Five Orders. However, many Seon families criticized this attitude. In order to see this problem clearly, the family tradi­tions of identification of the main traditions of general Seon need to be considered objectively. Especially Korean Seon students regard­ed this understanding of the Seon traditions of the Five Orders of Seon as one process in and a part of Seon study.

Master Baekpa used the division of the three categories of Seon in order to discriminate their relative superiority. This certainly caused a problem to the Buddhist world of the time and to later generations as well. Also Master Baekpa’s evaluation of other orders was totally based on his understanding of the attitude taught in Linji Seon, so it was not objective.

The Five Orders are Fayan Order (Kor. Beoban), Weiyang Order (Kor. Wiang), Caodong Order (Kor. Jodong), Yunmen Order (Kor. Unmun), and Linji Order (Kor. Imje). The first three are of the lineage of Master Qingyuan Xingsi, and they are consid­ered to belong to the Seon of the Tathagata. The last two are of the lineage of Master Nanyue Huairang, and they are classified as belonging to the Seon of the patriarchs. The Five Orders, according to Master Baekpa have different family tradition as follows:

 

1)    Fayan Order reveals “Mind Only.”

2)    Weiyang Order reveals “essence and function.”

3)    Caodong Order reveals the way of elevation.

4)    Yunmen Order reveals cutting.

5)    Linji Order reveals the crux and function.

 

What is notable here is that the Heze Order (Kor. Hataek) or Southern Order of Master Heze Shenhui is omitted Master Baekpa thought that this order belongs to the Seon of meaning and reason, which is centered around mere logic. This order does not seek original duty but merely depends on new influence.

 

(6) The Core Point of Hand Glass of Seon Literature

To summarize the content of Hand Glass of Seon Literature, the book explains the three kinds of Seon on the basis of three phrases of Linji. Both Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata are regarded as the principle of Extraordinary Seon, but the Seon of meaning and reason falls under the limitation of logic. Accordingly, Seon of meaning and reason is nothing but a theory of expedients through study. Hence it is nothing but a view of Seon, which is not different from Kyo study.

 

C. The First Refutation of Hand Glass of Seon Literature:

Master Choui Uisun’s Four Defenses and Random Words

 

When Master Baekpa’s Hand Glass of Seon was introduced to the Buddhist world, Master Choui Uisun of Taedun-sa Monastery first criti­cized Master Baekpa in his Four Defenses and Random Words (Kor. Sabyeon-maneo).

In this book, Master Choui pointed out Master Baekpa’s fault of merely judging the superiority of the various types of Son according to language, saying, “Old masters said that Seon is Buddha Mind So when one achieves the mind, both teachings of masters and all worldly noises are the purport of Seon, and if one loses one’s mind, then both ‘The Buddha held up a flower and Mahakasyapa smiled’ and ‘a direct transmission outside the texts’ of Seon are merely traces of Kyo.”

 

(1) The Real Meaning of the “Three Phrases of Master Linji”

Master Baekpa reveals that the ranks of all of Son are, through the three phrases of Linji, divided into three different types of Son. And he provides, for the first phrase, the Son of the patriarchs, for the second phrase the Son of the Tathagata, and for the third phrase the Son of meaning and reason, and he proposes an argument on Son to substantiate his claim.

In answer to this, Master Ch’oui interprets the meaning of the three phrases from fundamentally different viewpoints. Unlike Mas­ter Baekpa who understood the three phrases separately, Master Ch’oui regarded the third phrase as a phrase in which the first and the second phrases join together. Hence, according to Master Ch’oui, the third phrase is valuable, and should not be regarded as a mere dead phrase which can be thrown away.

 

(2) The Origin of Seon of the Patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata

From where do the Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata originate? Master Baekpa finds the origin in a discussion between Master Yangshan Huiji and Master Xiangyan Zhixian, the disciples of Master Weishan Lingyou who is the fifth generation of Master Nanyue Huairang. Master Yangshan divided Seon of the pa­triarchs and Seon of the Tathagata and he valued the former high­ly.

But according to Master Choui, there is really no way to distinguish between the two. Unlike Master Baekpa’s position, Master Choui does not consider the two in a relationship of su­periority and inferiority.

 

(3) The Origin of Extraordinary Seon and Seon of Mean­ing and Reason

Master Choui points out that Master Baekpa commits an error of changing the traditional purport of Seon on his own authority without any proper reason. Master Choui indicates that Seon of the patriarchs is Extraordinary Seon, and Seon of the Tathagata is Seon of meaning and reason. Hence one can traditionally divide Seon into Ex­traordinary Seon and Seon of meaning and reason, and into Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata. This idea was already asserted by Master Hoam and Yeondam earlier to Master Choui.

Thereby, according to Master Choui, it is false to divide Seon into Seon of the patriarchs, Seon of the Tathagata, and Seon of meaning and reason, because the last two Seon fundamentally agree with each other. He claimed that one should not make the mistake of regarding the Seon of meaning and reason as inferior to Seon of the Tathagata,

 

D. The Second Refutation of Hand Glass of Seon Literature:

Master Udam Honggi’s Records of Right Awakening of Seon Family

Master Udam Honggi was the 10th generation after Master Buhyu, and the Dharma grandson of Master Baekpa because Mas­ter Udam was taught by Master Hanseong Pungmyeong, the disciple of Master Baekpa But Master Udam realized that Master Baekpa’s position was wrong and wrote Records of Right Awakening of Seon Family (Kor. Seonmun-jeungjeong-nok).

 

(1) About the Titles of Seon

Master Udam agreed with Master Baekpa’s opinion and both of them regarded the first and second phrases of Linji as Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata, respectively. But he, like Master Choui, claimed that Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata should be regarded as the reasoning of Extraordinary Seon and of Seon of meaning and reason, respectively.

 

(2) The Metaphor of Son: Live Sword and Dead Sword

Live and dead swords are one of basic traditional metaphors used in Seon. To kill with the sword means to kill the thief of ignorance, and to make alive in order to represent the Buddha of Dharma-body. But Master Udam pointed out that Master Baekpa applied “dead” and “live” to the Seon of the Tathagata and Seon of the patriarchs respectively and in this way he made the direction of the Seon tradition unclear.

Master Udam found these expressions used as standard descrip­tions in the records of Master Shitou and Master Mazu. In Records of Shitou, it is written that “It is not achieved by doing this or by not doing this. Hence it is a dead sword.” And in Records of Mazu, it is written, “It is achieved by doing this and by not doing this. Hence it is a live sword.”

Hence Master Udam thinks that if the phrase of Master Shitou “It is not achieved by doing this” belongs to the third phrase, then the phrase “or by not doing this” belongs to the first phrase. Therefore, the first phrase contains the dead sword. And in the case of Master Mazu, “It is achieved by doing this” belongs to the third phrase and “and by not doing this” belongs to the first phrase. Hence both the first and the third phrases are “live sword” and they can coexist.

Master Udam finally concludes that both dead and live phrases belong to the first phrase of Linji, and it was wrong of Master Baekpa to distinguish certain aspects as belonging to the Seon of the Tathagata or to the Seon of the patriarchs.

 

(3) The Beautiful Coloring of Seon

In the Diamond Sutra, it is revealed that “there is no fixed Dharma which is ‘the utmost, right and perfect enlightenment.'” Therefore, Master Udam thinks that the teachings of the Buddha and the patriarchs are not bound by anything, and it is the beauti­ful coloring of the Buddha and patriarchs, that they are free.

Master Udam considers that the coloring of the Buddha and patriarchs are divided into three; the substance, the function, and in between. And the original names for the three phrases of Linji consist of the substance, the function and in between. The mean­ings of these three essentials are arranged by meaning and reason which, because they are difficult to be revealed by mere words, are seen as three mysteries.

Meaning and reason vary according to the level of faculties of the people involved To people of high faculty, meaning and rea­son are revealed as essentials and called the first phrase of Linji. The second phrase of Linji reveals three mysteries as well as reflection on the first phrase. But the reflection (the second phrase) and the body (the first phrase) for Master Udam are inter­connected, and both of them are finally one.

 

E. The Defense of Hand Glass of Seon Literature:

Master Seoldu Yuhyong’s Origin of Son and the Course

 

Master Seoldu Yuhyong is the fourth generation after Master Baekpa. Master Seoldu claimed that the Seon views of Four Defenses and Random Words and Records of Right Awakening of the Seon Family are all wrong when one looks at the origin of Seon, and that a practitioner will finally come back to Master Baekpa’s position. Accordingly, Master Seoldu wrote Origin of Seon and the Course (Kor. Seonwon-soyu) with the aim of searching for the origin of Seon. As he reveals in the preface, he claims that one should search for the origin of Seon and return to the spirit. And when the origin is revealed, it will be seen that the origin is not the position of Master Choui, but the three kinds of Seon claimed by Master Baekpa.

 

1) The Three Kinds of Seon

 

Master Seoldu claims that it should be noted that there are two aspects to Seon: the “purport of Seon” and the “explanation of Seon.” The purport of Seon signifies the realization of the Buddha Mind through Seon. As Master Seosan expounded in Mirror of Seon, “If one gets lost in speech, even ‘holding up a flower and smiling’ is all just the reactions of Kyo.” It shows the “explanation of Seon.” But “On the other hand, if one realizes it within one’s own Mind, then all of the crass words and refined talk of the world become the Seon teaching of ‘a direct transmission outside the texts.’” This is the purport of Seon.

The above quotations of Master Seosan were also already used by Master Choui when he refuted Master Baekpa. But quoting the same content, Master Seoldu puts a different commentary to it, that one should not, in fact, cast aside the “explanation of Seon” at random. Because we are able to understand the writings with the help of the “explanation of Seon” and we have an opportunity to clearly understand through these writings. This claim is meaningful in the sense that Master Seoldu developed the idea of Master Baekpa further.

Anyway, what is regarded as the most important of the “explanation of Seon” for Master Seoldu is the three kinds of Seon; Seon of the Tathagata, Seon of the patriarchs, and Seon of meaning and reason. Master Seoldu defends Master Baekpa’s division of Seon into the three, saying that it is inevitable and the normal course of action to divide Seon and use it to explain and measure the facul­ties of sentient beings.

According to Master Seoldu, the logic that Seon of meaning and reason is not Extraordinary Seon is only right, hence it is also right that the Seon of meaning and reason is not regarded as equal to the Seon of the Tathagata or the Seon of the patriarchs. In this sense, it is right to divide Seon into these three kinds.

 

2) The Theory of “Transmission of the Mind in Three Places”

 

Master Baekpa interpreted the theory of transmission of the mind at three places as follows.

 

1)     The First Place: The Buddha was giving a Dharma talk to the masses in the heaven and in the world at the Stupa of Many Sons when Mahakasyapa appeared. Then the Buddha sat with Mahakasyapa. This sitting is expressed as dead sword, for it is a place where no trace of Dharma is found.

 

2)     The Second Place: The Buddha was giving a Dharma talk at Vultures’ Peak, when the rain of many flowers fell from the sky. The Buddha held up a flower and only Mahakasyapa smiled. It is the principle of live sword, for the holding up of a flower is the Buddha’s live Dharma speech to Mahakasyapa.

 

3)     The Third Place: The Buddha was in Final Nirvana at the Sala Tree Grove at Kusinara, when Mahakasyapa arrived seven days after the Buddha’s passing away. Mahakasyapa tapped the coffin three times and the Buddha stuck out his two feet and Mahakasyapa vowed three times. It is Seon purport which shows the Buddha’s bestowing of both live and dead forms.

 

Master Seoldu explains that generations of patriarchs who received transmission of the mind at the three places did not distinguish between the “dead” or “live” sword. But it is after the Sixth Patriarch Huineng that the swords were divided and transmitted separately, for the faculties became varied. Hence the transmission was divided into “dead,” “live,” and “in between.”

 

F. The Last Refutation of Hand Glass of Seon Literature:

Master Chugwon Jinha’s Records of Reawakening of Seon Family

 

Master Chugwon Jinha was the last one who joined the argument over Seon. He learned the texts from masters Baekpa and Seoldu, but he developed his own logic of Seon, in which he criti­cizes the two masters in his Records of Reawakening of Seon Family (Kor. Seonmun-chaejeung-nok). He believed that the Seon thought of masters Choui and Udam was correct and that their arguments were right.

The master lived at a time in which national prestige was at a very low level because of annexation of the country to Japan. To Master Chugwon, the issue of the Seon argument could fall into the category of a leisurely discourse which was not right for the time. Hence it seems that he tried to reveal the problem of this argument on Seon in the sense of adjusting and arranging it rather than adding to and criticizing the problem. His position was simply to reveal the Seon position of masters Choui and Udam again as a form of conclusion.

 

1) The Problem of the Three Phrases and the Three Seon

 

Traditionally, masters have been used to the words of the Seon of the Tathagata and Seon of the patriarchs on the one hand, and Seon of meaning and reason and Extraordinary Seon on the other. But it is only Master Baekpa who put the first two Seon together and regarded them as Extraordinary Seon, looking down on the Seon of meaning and reason. Besides, Master Baekpa gave the wrong explanation about the three phrases of Linji because he arranged them wrongly and it seems wrong to contend for the superiority or the inferiority of the three Seon.

Master Chugwon pointed out that the titles Seon of the patri­archs and Seon of the Tathagata themselves are not correct. The very concept of Seon of the Tathagata being the teacher of humans and those in the heaven, and Seon of the patriarchs being for the Buddhas and the patriarchs seems wrong.

Master Chugwon emphasized that the superiority of Seon can­not be distinguished by revealing it, whether it is Seon of the patri­archs or Seon of the Tathagata, and Extraordinary Seon or Seon of meaning and reason. There must only be a difference whether the Seon is in a live phrase or in a dead phrase, and one cannot differentiate Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata.

 

2) The Problem of Seon of Meaning and Reason

 

In Seon, the expression “direct transmission outside the texts” is often used. Master Chugwon thought that Master Baekpa regarded “outside the texts” the same as the “extraordinary” of “Extraordi­nary Seon.” But Master Chugwon considered Master Seoldu’s “out­side the texts and “extraordinary” the same from one point of view and different from another. According to Master Chugwon, Master Seoldu considered both Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata to be “outside the texts” and   “extraordinary.”

Here, Master Chugwon thought that though the Seon of mean­ing and reason are not “extraordinary,” it should be regarded as “outside the texts.” The Seon of meaning and reason is, in the strictest sense, “a direct transmission outside the texts.”

What matters here is whether Seon is free from every trace of Kyo or not. When the road to reason is cut off, there opens a road to the “extraordinary.” Hence the way left for the Seon of meaning and reason is to cut the meaning and reason.

 

3) The Problem of “Live and Dead”

 

“Dead sword” and, “live sword” mean “sitting with Mahakasyapa” and “holding up a flower” respectively. Masters Baekpa and Seoldu explained that “sitting with Mahakasyapa” signifies the Seon of the Tathagata, and “holding up a flower” signifies the Seon of the patriarchs. Master Chugwon, here criticizes that “dead” and “live” should be in the same family, and they must not be separated from each other.

 

G. Conclusion

 

1) The Starting Point of the Seon Argument

 

The argument on Seon in the late Joseon Dynasty was started by Master Baekpa Geungseon of Seonun-sa Monastery. Master Baekpa’s idea of dividing Seon into three kinds created a dispute in the Korean Buddhist world which lasted through the 18th and 19th centuries. This argument can be criticized because it stirred up a problem of a pointless argument which was nothing but a desk theory. But it is certainly significant in the sense that the argument made the issue of searching for our Original Nature to be the Seon logic of the general Buddhist world.

Therefore, it is right to value the argument as a process of stretching for Korean Buddhist thinking before its modernization. The material on the basis of which the argument was begun was The Essence and the Songs of Seon (Kor. Seonmun-yeomsong) writ­ten in 1226 by Goryeo National Teacher Jingak Hyeshim. This book includes 1,125 hwadus and it is they that became the basis for reaching the way to awakening. On the basis of this book, there were various movements according to the different periods of time to search for simpler, better and newer methods for practicing the way.

The time of Master Baekpa was not exceptional. Master Baekpa wished to discriminate and show the superiority of Seon in order to reveal its true stages. To this end he wrote Hand Glass of Seon literature to arrange the basic texts of Seon which were most often used by students. The texts are: Master Chiso’s Insight of Man and Heaven, Master Hwanseong Jian’s Essentials of Five Orders of Seon, Master Cheonchaek’s Precious Storehouse of Seon, and Essentials of of Seon.

 

2) The Application of Seon of the Patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata

 

Master Baekpa established three ways of reaching the final stage of Seon of the patriarchs. He identified three kinds of facul­ties, that is, high, middle, and low faculties with the first, second, and third phrases of Linji respectively. In addition he regarded the characteristics of these three phrases to be expressed as Seon of the patriarchs, Seon of the Tathagata, and Seon of meaning and reason.

What is very particular here is that Master Baekpa put Seon of the patriarchs in a higher place than Seon of the Tathagata. But this position caused a fundamental problem in that everyone won­dered how the Tathagata, that is, Sakyamuni Buddha, can be con­sidered inferior to the patriarchs.

This position that Seon of the patriarchs is superior to Seon of the Tathagata has several meanings in Seon. Firstly, Seon sees that which has been transmitted by the patriarchs as superior to the stage which the Tathagata attained Secondly, the stages of true void and sublime existence should be realized together in Seon, and the former is the stage of Seon of the Tathagata, and the latter is of Seon of the patriarchs. Thirdly, the principles of the Seon of the patriarchs and of the Seon of the Tathagata are divided and explained separately in texts. Fourthly, the Flower Garland study also distinguishes the Seon of the patriarchs from the Seon of the Tathagata.

 

3) The Problem of Seon Argument of Master Baekpa’s Lineage

 

Master Baekpa gave the explanation that Linji and Yunmen orders belong to the Seon of the patriarchs, and that Caodong, Weiyang, and Fayan orders belong to the Seon of the Tathagata, and Heze Order to Seon of meaning and reason. But these distinc­tions were very troublesome. Each of the Seon orders had its own family tradition, and it is not right to try to evaluate the superior­ity or inferiority of the different orders. Hence it is natural that Master Baekpa’s idea was severely criticized.

In this sense, lay scholar Chusa Kim Jeong-hui criticized Master Baekpa saying that “The truth of Seon is like a light new dress without stitching, just like a heavenly dress. But the dress is patched and repatched by the inventiveness of humans, and so be­comes a worn-out piece of clothing.” Chusa thought that one can only reveal the traditions of the Seon orders, but to discriminate between their relative superiority and inferiority is like fighting for food which has been begged for by a beggar. To discriminate between the Five Orders of Seon is to destroy the real meaning of Seon.

 

4) The Problem of Seon Argument of Master Choui’s Lineage

As Master Baekpa made a mistake, masters Choui and Udam also committed an error. They claimed that Seon should be divided into Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata on the one hand, and into Extraordinary Seon and Seon of meaning and reason on the other. Then, it should be accepted by the masters that the Seon of meaning and reason and Seon of the Tathagata of the three phrases of Linji are the same. But they thought that the third phrase contains both Seon of the patriarchs and Seon of the Tathagata, and then it is not clear whether Seon of the Tathagata and Seon of meaning and reason fundamentally agree or not. If the source of Seon is nothing but the overcoming of opponents, then it only creates a misunderstanding of the true quality of Seon.

In this sense, any of the positions of Master Baekpa or those of Master Choui are not something for us to agree with. But in the process of searching for solutions to the problems created by this argument, we can develop an important and significant way to realizing the essence of Seon. Hence, the masters were pioneers who cultivated the way to understanding the purport of Seon. It was a new development in a new direction of Seon on a new stage through a new way of practice, just when the Korean nation faced a period of extreme hardship, and it is for this reason that the argument was so important in the Korean Buddhist world.