영성, 몸-마음, 젠더, 생태, 평화 Scapbook

2020/11/09

Buddhism and psychology - Wikipedia

Buddhism and psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (July 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article contains too many or overly lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by presenting facts as a neutrally worded summary with appropriate citations. Consider transferring direct quotations to Wikiquote. (July 2016)

Buddhist monk Barry Kerzin participating in neuropsychology meditation research with EEG.

Part of a series on

Buddhism

Dharma Wheel.svg

History[show]

DharmaConcepts

[show]

Buddhist texts[show]

Practices[show]

Nirvāṇa[show]

Traditions[show]

Buddhism by country[show]

Outline

P religion world.svg Religion portal

vte

Part of a series on

Mindfulness

Sati in sanskrit transparent.png

Buddhism[show]

Psychology[show]

Other[show]

Similar concepts[show]

Category:Mindfulness

vte

Buddhism includes an analysis of human psychology, emotion, cognition, behavior and motivation along with therapeutic practices. Buddhist psychology is embedded within the greater Buddhist ethical and philosophical system, and its psychological terminology is colored by ethical overtones.[1] Buddhist psychology has two therapeutic goals: the healthy and virtuous life of a householder (samacariya, "harmonious living") and the ultimate goal of nirvana, the total cessation of dissatisfaction and suffering (dukkha).[2]

Buddhism and the modern discipline of Psychology have multiple parallels and points of overlap. This includes a descriptive phenomenology of mental states, emotions and behaviors as well as theories of perception and unconscious mental factors. Psychotherapists such as Erich Fromm have found in Buddhist enlightenment experiences (e.g. kensho) the potential for transformation, healing and finding existential meaning. Some contemporary mental-health practitioners such as Jon Kabat-Zinn find ancient Buddhist practices (such as the development of mindfulness) of empirically therapeutic value,[3] while Buddhist teachers such as Jack Kornfield see Western psychology as providing complementary practices for Buddhists.

Contents

1 Interaction

2 Psychology in the Tripitaka

2.1 Perception and the self

2.2 Motivation and emotion

2.3 The Unconscious

2.4 Self development and cognitive behavioral practices

2.5 Abnormal Psychology

2.6 Abhidhamma psychology

3 Buddhism and psychology

3.1 Psychology

3.2 Japanese Psychology

3.3 Buddhism and Psychoanalysis

3.3.1 D.T. Suzuki's influence

3.3.2 Buddhist psychoanalytic dialogue and integration

3.3.3 David Brazier

3.4 Gestalt therapy

3.5 Existential and Humanistic psychology

3.6 Positive Psychology

3.7 Naropa University

3.8 Mind and life institute

4 Buddhist techniques in clinical settings

4.1 Mindfulness practices

4.1.1 Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)

4.1.2 Mindfulness-based pain management

4.1.3 Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT)

4.1.4 Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)

4.1.5 Adaptation Practice

4.2 Cognitive restructuring

5 Reaction from Buddhist traditionalists

6 Popular psychology and spirituality

6.1 Mainstream teachers and popularizers

7 Education and research

8 See also

9 Notes

10 References

11 Sources and bibliography

11.1 Related texts

12 External links

12.1 Early scholarship

12.2 Mainstream teachers and popularizers

12.3 Caveats and criticisms

12.4 Psychotherapy and Buddhism

Interaction

The establishment of Buddhism predates the field of psychology by over two millennia; thus, any assessment of Buddhism in terms of psychology is necessarily a modern invention.[a] One of the first such assessments occurred when British Indologists started translating Buddhist texts from Pali and Sanskrit. The modern growth of Buddhism in the West and particularly the development of Buddhist modernism worldwide has led to the comparing and contrasting of European psychology and psychiatry with Buddhist theory and practice. According to Austrian psychologist Gerald Virtbauer,[4] the contact of Buddhism and European Psychology has generally followed three main approaches:[5]

The presentation and exploration of parts of Buddhist teachings as a Psychology and psychological method for analyzing and modifying human experience.

The integration of parts of the Buddhist teachings in already existing psychological or psychotherapeutic lines of thought (such as in Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and in Acceptance and commitment therapy).

Buddhist integration of Western psychological and social science knowledge into the Buddhist system (e.g., Buddhist modernism, Vipassana movement)

Psychology in the Tripitaka

The earliest Buddhist writings are preserved in three-part collections called Tipitaka (Pali; Skt. Tripitaka). The first part, the Sutta Pitaka contains a series of discourses attributed to the Buddha containing much psychological material.

A central feature of Buddhist psychology is its methodology which is based on personal experience through introspection and phenomenological self observation.[6] According to the Buddha while initially unreliable, one's mind can be trained, calmed and cultivated so as to make introspection a refined and reliable method. This methodology is the foundation for the personal insight into the nature of the mind the Buddha is said to have achieved. While introspection is a key aspect of the Buddhist method; observation of a person's behavior is also important.[7]

Perception and the self

Figure 1: The Pali Canon's Six Sextets:

sense bases

→ f

→ c

"internal"

sense

organs <–> "external"

sense

objects

↓ ↓

↓ contact

↓ ↑

consciousness

The six internal sense bases are the eye, ear,

nose, tongue, body & mind.

The six external sense bases are visible forms,

sound, odor, flavors, touch & mental objects.

Sense-specific consciousness arises dependent

on an internal & an external sense base.

Contact is the meeting of an internal sense

base, external sense base & consciousness.

Feeling is dependent on contact.

Craving is dependent on feeling.

Source: MN 148 (Thanissaro, 1998) diagram details

The Five Aggregates (pañca khandha)

according to the Pali Canon.

form (rūpa)

4 elements

(mahābhūta)

↓

contact

(phassa)

↓ ↑

consciousness

(viññāna)

→

←

mental factors (cetasika)

feeling

(vedanā)

perception

(sañña)

formation

(saṅkhāra)

Form is derived from the Four Great Elements.

Consciousness arises from other aggregates.

Mental Factors arise from the Contact of

Consciousness and other aggregates.

Source: MN 109 (Thanissaro, 2001) | diagram details

The early Buddhist texts outline a theory of perception and cognition based on the ayatanas (sense bases, sense media, sense spheres) which are categorized into sense organs, sense objects and awareness. The contact between these bases leads to a perceptual event as explained in Buddhist texts: "when the eye that is internal is intact and external visible forms come within its range and when there is an appropriate act of attention on the part of the mind, there is the emergence of perceptual consciousness."[8]

The usual process of sense cognition is entangled with what the Buddha terms "papañca" (conceptual proliferation), a distortion and elaboration in the cognitive process of the raw sensation or feeling (vedana).[9] This process of confabulation feeds back into the perceptual process itself. Therefore, perception for the Buddhists is not just based on the senses but also on our desires, interests and concepts and hence it is in a way unrealistic and misleading.[10] The goal of Buddhist practice is then to remove these distractions and gain knowledge of things as they are (yatha-bhuta ñānadassanam).

This psycho-physical process is further linked with psychological craving, manas (conceit) and ditthi (dogmas, views). One of the most problematic views according to the Buddha, is the notion of a permanent and solid Self or 'pure ego'. This is because in early Buddhist psychology, there is no fixed self (atta; Sanskrit atman) but the delusion of self and clinging to a self concept affects all one's behaviors and leads to suffering.[9] For the Buddha there is nothing uniform or substantial about a person, only a constantly changing stream of events or processes categorized under five categories called skandhas (heaps, aggregates), which includes the stream of consciousness (Vijñāna-sotam). False belief and attachment to an abiding ego-entity is at the root of most negative emotions.

The psychologist Daniel Goleman states:

The notion of an "empty self" posits that there is no "CEO of the mind," but rather something like committees constantly vying for power. In this view, the "self" is not a stable, enduring entity in control, but rather a mirage of the mind—not actually real, but merely seemingly so. While that notion seems contrary to our own everyday experience, it actually describes the deconstruction of self that cognitive neuroscience finds as it dissects the mind (most famously, Marvin Minsky's "society of mind"). So the Buddhist model of the self may turn out to fit the data far better than the notions that have dominated Psychological thinking for the last century.[11]

The Buddha saw the human mind as a psycho-physical complex, a dynamic continuum called namarupa. Nama refers to the non-physical elements and rupa to the physical components. According to Padmasiri de Silva, "The mental and physical constitutents form one complex, and there is a mutual dependency of the mind on the body and of the body on the mind."[12]

Motivation and emotion

Buddha's theory of human motivation is based on certain key factors shared by all human beings and is primarily concerned with the nature of human dissatisfaction (dukkha) and how to dispel it. In the suttas, human beings are said to be motivated by craving (tanha, literally 'thirst') of three types:[9]

Kama tanha - craving for sensory gratification, sex, novel stimuli, and pleasure.

Bhava tanha - craving for survival or continued existence, also includes hunger and sleep as well as desire for power, wealth and fame.

Vibhava tanha - craving for annihilation, non-existence, also associated with aggression and violence towards oneself and others[13]

These three basic drives have been compared to the Freudian drive theory of libido, ego, and thanatos respectively (de Silva, 1973). The arousal of these three cravings is derived from pleasant or unpleasant feelings (vedana), reactions to sense impressions with positive or negative hedonic tone. Cravings condition clinging or obsession (upadana) to sense impressions, leading to a vicious cycle of further craving and striving, which is ultimately unsatisfactory and stressful.

The suttas also enumerate three "unwholesome roots" (akusala mulas) of suffering, negative emotions and behavior: raga (passion or lust); dosa (hatred or malice); and moha (delusion, or false belief).[9] These are opposed by three wholesome roots: liberality, kindness and wisdom.

Feeling or affective reaction (vedana) is also at the source of the emotions and it is categorized in various ways; as physical or mental, as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral; and as rooted in the different senses.[14] The Buddha also makes a distinction between worldly and unworldly or spiritual feelings, seeing spiritual feelings as superior. Out of these basic immediate reactions as well as our situational context, conceptualization and personal history arise more complex emotions, such as fear, hatred, hope or despair. The Buddhist theory of emotions also highlights the ethical and spiritual importance of positive emotions such as compassion and friendliness as antidotes for negative emotions and as vehicles for self development.

According to Padmasiri de Silva, in the early Buddhist texts emotions can be divided into four groups: "those which obstruct the ideal of the virtuous life sought by the layman, emotions that interfere with the recluse seeking the path of perfection, emotions enhancing the layman's ideal of the virtuous life and emotions developed by the recluse seeking the path of perfection."[15]

The Unconscious

The early Buddhist texts such as the Pali Canon present a theory about latent mental tendencies (Anusaya, "latent bias," "predisposition", "latent disposition") which are pre-conscious or non-conscious[9][16] These habitual patterns are later termed "Vāsanā" (impression) by the later Yogacara Buddhists and were held to reside in an unconscious mental layer. The term "fetter" is also associated with the latent tendencies.

A later Theravada text, the Abhidhammattha-sangaha (11th-12th century) says: “The latent dispositions are defilements which ‘lie along with’ the mental process to which they belong, rising to the surface as obsessions whenever they meet with suitable conditions” (Abhs 7.9).[16] The Theravada school also holds that there is a subconscious stream of awareness termed the Bhavanga.

Another set of unconscious mental factors responsible for influencing one's behavior include the asavas (Sanskrit asrava, "influx, canker, inflows"). These factors are said to "intoxicate" and "befuddle" the mind. The Buddha taught that one had to remove them from the mind through practice in order to reach liberation. The asavas are said to arise from different factors: sensuality, aggression, cruelty, body, and individuality are some of the factors given.[9]

The Yogacara school of Mahayana Buddhism (starting from the 3rd to 5th century CE) extended these ideas into what has been called a Buddhist theory of the Unconscious mind.[17] This concept was termed the ālaya-vijñāna (the foundation consciousness) which stores karmic seeds (bija) and undergoes rebirth. This theory was incorporated into a wider Yogacara theory of the Eight Consciousnesses and is also held in Tibetan Buddhism.

Self development and cognitive behavioral practices

Meditating Buddhist monk in Khao Luang.

Main article: Buddhist meditation

According to Padmal de Silva "Buddhist strategies represent a therapeutic model which treats the person as his/her agent of change, rather than as the recipient of externally imposed interventions."[18] Silva argues that the Buddha saw each person responsible for their own personal development and considers this as being similar to the humanistic approach to psychology. Humanistic psychotherapy places much emphasis on helping the client achieve self-actualization and personal growth (e.g. Maslow).[18]

Since Buddhist practice also encompasses practical wisdom, spiritual virtues and morality, it cannot be seen exclusively as another form of psychotherapy. It is more accurate to see it as a way of life or a way of being (Dharma).

Personal development in Buddhism is based upon the noble eightfold path which integrates ethics, wisdom or understanding (pañña) and psychological practices such as meditation (bhavana, cultivation, development). Self-actualization in traditional Buddhism is based on the ideas of Nirvana and Buddhahood. The highest state a human can achieve (an Arahant or a Buddha) is seen as being completely free from any kind of dissatisfaction or suffering, all negative mental tendencies, roots and influxes have been eliminated and there are only positive emotions like compassion and loving-kindness present.[9]

Buddhist meditation is of two main types: Samatha is meant to calm and relax the mind, as well as develop focus and concentration by training attention on a single object; Vipassana is a means to gain insight or understanding into the nature of the mental processes and their impermanent, stressful and self-less qualities through the application of continuous and stable mindfulness and comprehension (Sampajañña).[9] Though the ultimate goal of these practices are nirvana, the Buddha stated that they also bring mundane benefits such as relaxation, good sleep and pain reduction.[9]

Buddhist texts also contain mental strategies of thought modification which are similar to Cognitive behavioral therapy techniques.[19] A comparison of these systems of cognitive behavioral modification has been discussed by professor William Mikulas[20] and Padmal de Silva.[21]

According to Padmal de Silva these similarities include: "fear reduction by graded exposure and reciprocal inhibition; using rewards for promoting desirable behavior; modelling for inducing behavioral change; the use of stimulus control to eliminate undesirable behavior; the use of aversion to eliminate undesirable behavior; training in social skills; self-monitoring; control of intrusive thoughts by distraction, switching/stopping, incompatible thoughts, and by prolonged exposure to them; intense, covert, focusing on the unpleasant aspects of a stimulus or the unpleasant consequences of a response, to reduce attachment to the former and eliminate the latter; graded approach to the development of positive feelings towards others: use of external cues in behavior control; use of response cost to aid elimination of undesirable behavior; use of family members for carrying out behavior change programs; and cognitive-behavioral methods--for example, for grief."[9]

An important early text for these cognitive therapeutic methods is the Vitakkasanthana Sutta (MN 20) (The Removal of Distracting Thoughts) and its commentary, the Papancasudani. For removing negative or intrusive thoughts, the Buddha recommended five methods in this sutta:

Focus on an opposite or incompatible thought or object.

Ponder on the perils and disadvantages of the thought, its harmful consequences.

Ignore the thought and distract yourself from it through some other activity.

Reflect on the removal or stopping of the causes of the target thought.

Make a forceful mental effort.

Another recommended technique is from the Satipatthana Sutta, which outlines the practice of mindfulness, which is not just a formal meditation, but a skill of attentive awareness and self monitoring. In developing mindfulness, one is advised to be aware of all thoughts and sensations that arise, even unwanted or unpleasant ones and continuously attend to such thoughts. Eventually, through habituation and exposure, the intensity and unpleasantness of such thoughts will disappear.[9] Buddhist texts also promote the training of positive emotions such as loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity.

Abnormal Psychology

The Pali Canon records that the Buddha distinguished between two kinds of illness (rogo): physical illness (kāyiko rogo) and mental illness (cetasiko rogo). The Buddha attributed mental illness to the arising of mental defilements (Kleshas) which are ultimately based on the unwholesome roots (three poisons) of greed, hatred and confusion.[22] From the perspective of the Buddha, mental illness is a matter of degree, and ultimately, everyone who is not an awakened being is in some sense mentally ill. As the Buddha in the Pali canon states: "those beings are hard to find in the world who can admit freedom from mental disease even for one moment, save only those in whom the asavas are destroyed."[23] Another set of negative qualities outlined by the Buddha are the five hindrances, which are said to prevent proper mental cultivation, these are: sense desire, hostility, sloth-torpor, restlessness-worry and doubt.

According to Edwina Pio, Buddhist texts see mental illness as being mainly psychogenic in nature (rooted mainly in "environmental stress and inappropriate learning").[24]

The Pali canon also describes Buddhist monks (epitomized by the monk Gagga) with symptoms of what would today be called mental illness. An act which is against the monk's code of discipline (Vinaya) committed by someone who was "ummatta" - "out of his mind" was said by the Buddha to be pardonable. This was termed the madmans leave (ummattakasammuti)[25] The texts also assume that this 'madness' can be cured or recovered from, or is at least an impermanent phenomenon, after which, during confession, the monk is considered sane by the sangha once more.[24]

There are also stories of lay folk who show abnormal behavior due to the loss of their loved ones.[26] Other Buddhist sources such as the Milinda Panha echo the theory that madness is caused mainly by personal and environmental circumstances.[26]

Other abnormal behaviors described by the early sources include Intellectual disability, epilepsy, alcoholism, and suicide. Buddhagosa posits that the cause of suicide is mental illness based on factors such as loss of personal relations and physical illness.[27]

Abhidhamma psychology

Main article: Abhidharma

The third part (or pitaka, literally "basket") of the Tripitaka is known as the Abhidhamma (Pali; Skt. Abhidharma). The Abhidhamma works are historically later than the two other collections of the Tipitaka (3rd century BCE and later) and focus on phenomenological psychology. The Buddhist Abhidhamma works analyze the mind into elementary factors of experience called dharmas (Pali: dhammas). Dhammas are phenomenal factors or "psycho-physical events" whose interrelations and connections make up all streams of human experience. There are four categories of dharmas in the Theravada Abhidhamma: Citta (awareness), Cetasika (mental factors), Rūpa (physical occurrences, material form) and Nibbāna (cessation).[28] Abhidhamma texts are then an attempt to list all possible factors of experience and all possible relationships between them. Among the achievements of the Abhidhamma psychologists was the outlining of a theory of emotions, a theory of personality types, and a psychology of ethical behavior.

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, president of the Buddhist Publication Society, has synopsized the Abhidhamma as follows:

The system that the Abhidhamma Pitaka articulates is simultaneously a philosophy, a psychology, and an ethics, all integrated into the framework of a program for liberation.... The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary to that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality.... For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation. It classifies consciousness into a variety of types, specifies the factors and functions of each type, correlates them with their objects and physiological bases, and shows how the different types of consciousness link up with each other and with material phenomena to constitute the ongoing process of experience.[29]

Buddhism and psychology

Buddhism and psychology overlap in theory and in practice. Since the beginning of the 20th century, four strands of interplay have evolved:

descriptive phenomenology: scholars[30] have found in Buddhist teachings a detailed introspective phenomenological psychology (particularly in the Abhidhamma which outlines various traits, emotions and personality types).

psychotherapeutic meaning: humanistic psychotherapists have found in Buddhism's non-dualistic approach and enlightenment experiences (such as in Zen kensho) the potential for transformation, healing and finding existential meaning. This connection was explained by a modification of Piaget's theory of cognitive development introducing the process of initiation.[31]

clinical utility: some contemporary mental-health practitioners increasingly find ancient Buddhist practices (such as the development of mindfulness) of empirically proven therapeutic value.[32]

popular psychology and spirituality: psychology has been popularized,[33] and has become blended with spirituality in some forms of modern spirituality. Buddhist notions form an important ingredient of this modern mix.

Psychology

Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids was one of the first modern Psychologist to conceptualize canonical Buddhist writings in terms of psychology.

The contact between Buddhism and Psychology began with the work of the Pali Text Society scholars, whose main work was translating the Buddhist Pali Canon. In 1900, Indologist Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids published through the Pali Text Society a translation of the Theravada Abhidhamma's first book, the Dhamma Sangani, and entitled the translation, "Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics".[34] In the introduction to this seminal work, Rhys Davids praised the sophistication of the Buddhist psychological system based on "a complex continuum of subjective phenomena" (dhammas) and the relationships and laws of causation that bound them (Rhys Davids, 1900, pp. xvi-xvii.).[b] Buddhism's psychological orientation is a theme Rhys Davids pursued for decades as evidenced by her further publications, Buddhist Psychology: An Inquiry into the Analysis and Theory of Mind in Pali Literature (1914) and The Birth of Indian Psychology and its Development in Buddhism (1936).

An important event in the interchange of East and West occurred when American psychologist William James invited the Sri Lankan Buddhist Anagarika Dharmapala to lecture in his classes at Harvard University in December 1903. After Dharmapala lectured on Buddhism, James remarked, “This is the psychology everybody will be studying 25 years from now.”[35] Later scholars such as David Kalupahana (The principles of Buddhist psychology, 1987), Padmal de Silva (Buddhism and behaviour modification, 1984), Edwina Pio (Buddhist Psychology: A Modern Perspective, 1988) and Hubert Benoit (Zen and the Psychology of Transformation, 1990) wrote about and compared Buddhism and Psychology directly. Writers in the field of Transpersonal psychology (which deals with religious experience, altered states of consciousness and similar topics) such as Ken Wilber also integrated Buddhist thought and practice into their work.

The 1960s and '70s saw the rapid growth of Western Buddhism, especially in the United States. In the 1970s, psychotherapeutic techniques using “mindfulness” were developed such as Hakomi therapy by Ron Kurtz (1934–2011), possibly the first mindfulness based therapy.[35] Jon Kabat-Zinn's Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) was a very influential development, introducing the term into Western Cognitive behavioral therapy practice. Kabat-Zinn's students Zindel V. Segal, J. Mark G. Williams and John D. Teasdale later developed Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in 1987.[35] In the early 2000s Vidyamala Burch and her organization Breathworks developed Mindfulness-Based Pain Management (MBPM).

Research by Sarah Lazar et al (2005) found brain areas that are thicker in practitioners of Insight meditation than control subjects who do not meditate.[36]

More recent work has focused on clinical research of particular practices derived from Buddhism such as mindfulness meditation and compassion development (ex. the work of Jon Kabat-Zinn, Daniel Goleman) and on psycho-therapeutic practices which integrate meditative practices derived from Buddhism. From the perspective of Buddhism, various modern Buddhist teachers such as Jack Kornfield and Tara Brach have academic degrees in psychology.

Applying the tools of modern Neuropsychology (EEG, fMRI) to study Buddhist meditation is also an area of integration. One of the first figures in this area was neurologist James H. Austin, who wrote Zen and the Brain (1998). Others who have studied and written about this type of research include Richard Davidson, Alan Wallace, Rick Hanson (Buddha's Brain, 2009) and Zoran Josipovic.[37] A recent review of the literature on the Neural mechanisms of mindfulness meditation concludes that the practice "exerts beneficial effects on physical and mental health, and cognitive performance" but that "the underlying neural mechanisms remain unclear." [38]

Japanese Psychology

Dr. Shoma Morita (1874-1938)

In Japan, a different strand of comparative thought developed, beginning with the publication, "Psychology of Zen Sect" (1893) and "Buddhist psychology" (1897), by Inoue Enryō (1858–1919).[39] In 1920, Tomosada Iritani (1887–1957) administered a questionnaire to 43 persons dealing with Zen practice, in what was probably the first empirical psychological study of Zen.[39] In the field of psychotherapy, Morita therapy was developed by Shoma Morita (1874-1938) who was influenced by Zen Buddhism.

Koji Sato (1905–1971) began the publication of the journal, Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient in 1957 with the aim of providing a comparative psychological dialogue between East and West (with contributions from Bruner, Fromm, and Jung). In the 1960s, Kasamatsu and Hirai used Electroencephalography to monitor the brains of Zen meditators. This led to the promotion of various studies covering psychiatry, physiology, and psychology of Zen by the Japanese ministry of education which were carried out in various laboratories.[39] Another important researcher in this field, Prof. Yoshiharu Akishige, promoted Zen Psychology, the idea that the insights of Zen should not just be studied but that they should inform psychological practice. Research in this field continues with the work of Japanese psychologists such as Akira Onda and Osamu Ando.[39]

In Japan, a popular psychotherapy based on Buddhism is Naikan therapy, developed from Jōdo Shinshū Buddhist introspection by Ishin Yoshimoto (1916–1988). Naikan therapy is used in correctional institutions, education, to treat alcohol dependence as well as by individuals seeking self development.[35]

Buddhism and Psychoanalysis

Buddhism has some views which are comparable to Psychoanalytic theory. These include a view of the unconscious mind and unconscious thought processes, the view that unwholesome unconscious forces cause much of human suffering and the idea that one may gain insight into these thought processes through various practices, including what Freud called "evenly suspended attention." A variety of teachers, clinicians and writers such as D.T. Suzuki, Carl Jung, Erich Fromm, Alan Watts, Tara Brach, Jack Kornfield and Sharon Salzberg have attempted to bridge and integrate psycho-analysis and Buddhism. British barrister Christmas Humphreys has referred to mid-twentieth century collaborations between psychoanalysts and Buddhist scholars as a meeting between: "Two of the most powerful forces operating in the Western mind today."[c]

D.T. Suzuki's influence

One of the most important influences on the spread of Buddhism in the west was Zen scholar D.T. Suzuki. He collaborated with psycho-analysts Carl Jung, Karen Horney and Erich Fromm.

Carl Jung wrote the foreword to Suzuki's Introduction to Zen Buddhism, first published together in 1948.[d] In his foreword, Jung highlights the enlightenment experience of satori as the "unsurpassed transformation to wholeness" for Zen practitioners. And while acknowledging the inadequacy of Psychologist attempts to comprehend satori through the lens of intellectualism,[e] Jung nonetheless contends that due to their shared goal of self transformation: "The only movement within our culture which partly has, and partly should have, some understanding of these aspirations [for such enlightenment] is psychotherapy."[40]

Referencing Jung and Suzuki's collaboration as well as the efforts of others, humanistic philosopher and psychoanalyst Erich Fromm noted that: "There is an unmistakable and increasing interest in Zen Buddhism among psychoanalysts". One influential psychoanalyst who explored Zen was Karen Horney, who traveled to Japan in 1952 to meet with Suzuki and who advised her colleagues to listen to their clients with a "Zen-like concentration and non attachment".[41][42][f]

Suzuki, Fromm and other psychoanalysts collaborated at a 1957 workshop on "Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis" in Cuernavaca, Mexico.[g] Fromm contends that, at the turn of the twentieth century, most psychotherapeutic patients sought treatment due to medical-like symptoms that hindered their social functioning. However, by mid-century, the majority of psychoanalytic patients lacked overt symptoms and functioned well but instead suffered from an "inner deadness" and an "alienation from oneself".[43] Paraphrasing Suzuki broadly, Fromm continues:

Zen is the art of seeing into the nature of one's being; it is a way from bondage to freedom; it liberates our natural energies; ... and it impels us to express our faculty for happiness and love.[44] [...] [W]hat can be said with more certainty is that the knowledge of Zen, and a concern with it, can have a most fertile and clarifying influence on the theory and technique of psychoanalysis. Zen, different as it is in its method from psychoanalysis, can sharpen the focus, throw new light on the nature of insight, and heighten the sense of what it is to see, what it is to be creative, what it is to overcome the affective contaminations and false intellectualizations which are the necessary results of experience based on the subject-object split"[45]

Buddhist psychoanalytic dialogue and integration

The dialogue between Buddhism and psychoanalysis has continued with the work of psychiatrists such as Mark Epstein, Nina Coltart, Jack Engler, Axel Hoffer, Jeremy D. Safran, David Brazier, and Jeffrey B. Rubin.

Nina Coltart (1927-1997) was the Director of the London Clinic of Psychoanalysis, a neo-Freudian and a Buddhist. She theorized that there are distinct similarities in the transformation of the self that occurs in both psychoanalysis and Buddhism.[46] She believed that the practice of Buddhism and Psychoanalysis where "mutually reinforcing and clarifying" (Coltart, The practice of psychoanalysis and Buddhism).

Mark Epstein is an American psychiatrist who practiced Buddhism in Thailand under Ajahn Chah and has since written several books on psychoanalysis and Buddhism (Thoughts Without a Thinker 1995, Psychotherapy Without the Self, 2008).[47] Epstein relates the Buddhist Four Noble Truths to primary narcissism as described by Donald Winnicott in his theory on the true self and false self.[48][49] The first truth highlights the inevitability of humiliation in our lives of our narcissistic self-esteem. The second truth speaks of the primal thirst that makes such humiliation inevitable. The third truth promises release by developing a realistic self-image, and the fourth truth spells out the means of accomplishing that.[50][51]

Jeffrey B. Rubin has also written on the integration of these two practices in Psychotherapy and Buddhism, Toward an Integration (1996). In this text, he criticizes the Buddhist idea of enlightenment as a total purification of mind: "From the psychoanalytic perspective, a static, conflict-free sphere-a psychological "safehouse" -beyond the vicissitudes of conflict and conditioning where mind is immune to various aspects of affective life such as self-interest, egocentricity, fear, lust, greed, and suffering is quixotic. Since conflict and suffering seem to be inevitable aspects of human life, the ideal of Enlightenment may be asymptotic, that is, an unreachable ideal."[52] He points to scandals and abuses by American Buddhist teachers as examples. Rubin also outlines a case study of the psychoanalytic treatment of a Buddhist meditator and notes that meditation has been largely ignored and devalued by psychoanalysts.[53] He argues that Buddhist meditation can provide an important contribution to the practice of psychoanalytic listening by improving an analyst's capacity for attention and recommends meditation for psychoanalysts.[54]

Axel Hoffer has contributed to this area as editor of "Freud and the Buddha", which collects several essays by psychoanalysts and a Buddhist scholar, Andrew Olendzki. Olendzki outlines an important problematic between the two systems, the Freudian practice of free association, which from the Buddhist perspective is based on: “The reflexive tendency of the mind to incessantly make a narrative of everything that arises in experience is itself the cause of much of our suffering, and meditation offers a refreshing refuge from mapping every datum of sensory input to the macro-construction of a meaningful self.”[55] Olendzki also argues that for the Buddhist, the psychoanalytic focus on linguistic narrativity distracts us from immediate experience.

David Brazier

See also: Four Noble Truths § David Brazier: existence is imperfect

David Brazier is a psychotherapist who combines psychotherapy and Buddhism (Zen therapy, 1995). Brazier points to various possible translations of the Pali terms of the Four Noble Truths, which give a new insight into these truths. The traditional translations of samudhaya and nirodha are "origin" and "cessation". Coupled with the translation of dukkha as "suffering", this gives rise to a causal explanation of suffering, and the impression that suffering can be totally terminated. The translation given by David Brazier[56] gives a different interpretation to the Four Noble Truths.

Dukkha: existence is imperfect, it's like a wheel that's not straight into the axis;

Samudhaya: simultaneously with the experience of dukkha there arises tanha, thirst: the dissatisfaction with what is and the yearning that life should be different from what it is. We keep imprisoned in this yearning when we don't see reality as it is, namely imperfect and ever-changing;

Nirodha: we can confine this yearning (that reality is different from what it is), and perceive reality as it is, whereby our suffering from the imperfectness becomes confined;

Marga: this confinement is possible by following the Eightfold Path.

In this translation, samudhaya means that the uneasiness that's inherent to life arises together with the craving that life's event would be different. The translation of nirodha as confinement means that this craving is a natural reaction, which cannot be totally escaped or ceased, but can be limited, which gives us freedom.[56]

Gestalt therapy

Gestalt Therapy, an approach created by Fritz Perls, was based on phenomenology, existentialism and also Zen Buddhism and Taoism.[57] Perls spent some time in Japanese Zen monasteries and his therapeutic techniques include mindfulness practices and focusing on the present moment.[58] Practices outlined by Perls himself in Ego, hunger and aggression (1969), such as “concentration on eating” (“we have to be fully aware of the fact that we are eating”) and “awareness continuum” are strikingly similar to Buddhist mindfulness training.[59] Other authors in Gestalt Therapy who were influenced by Buddhism are Barry Stevens (therapist) and Dick Price (who developed Gestalt Practice by including Buddhist meditation).

According to Crocker, an important Buddhist element of Gestalt is that a “person is simply allowing what-is in the present moment to reveal itself to him and out of that receptivity is responding with ‘no-mind’”.[57]

More recently, Claudio Naranjo has written about the practice of Gestalt and Tibetan Buddhism.

Existential and Humanistic psychology

Both existential and humanistic models of human psychology stress the importance of personal responsibility and freedom of choice, ideas which are central to Buddhist ethics and psychology.[60]

Humanistic psychology's focus on developing the ‘fully functioning person’ (Carl Rogers) and self actualization (Maslow) is similar to the Buddhist attitude of self development as an ultimate human end. The idea of person-centered therapy can also be compared to the Buddhist view that the individual is ultimately responsible for their own development, that a Buddhist teacher is just a guide and that the patient can be “a light unto themselves”.[58]

Carl Rogers's idea of "unconditional positive regard" and his stress on the importance of empathy has been compared to Buddhist conceptions of compassion (Karuṇā).[61][62]

Mindfulness meditation has been seen as a way to aid the practice of person centered psychotherapy. Person centered therapist Manu Buzzano has written that "It seemed clear that regular meditation practice did help me in offering congruence, empathy and unconditional positive regard."[63] He subsequently interviewed other person centered therapists who practiced meditation and found that it enhanced their empathy, nonjudgmental openness and quality of the relationship with their clients.[63]

A comparison has also been made between Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication and Buddhist ideals of right speech, both in theory and in manifesting Buddhist ideals in practice.[64][65][66]

Padmasiri de Silva sees the focus of existential psychology on the "tragic sense of life" just a different expression of the Buddhist concept of dukkha. The existential concept of anxiety or angst as a response to the human condition also resonates with the Buddhist analysis of fear and despair.[60] The Buddhist monk Nanavira Thera in the preface to his "Notes on Dhamma" wrote that the work of the existential philosophers offered a way to approach the Buddhist texts, as they ask the type of questions about feelings of anxiety and the nature of existence with which the Buddha begins his analysis. Nanavira also states that those who have understood the Buddha's message have gone beyond the existentialists and no longer see their questions as valid. Edward Conze likewise sees the parallel between the Buddhists and Existentialists only preliminary: "In terms of the Four Truths, the existentialists have only the first, which teaches that everything is ill. Of the second, which assigns the origin of ill to craving, they have only a very imperfect grasp. As for the third and fourth, they are quite unheard of...Knowing no way out, they are manufacturers of their own woes."[67]

Positive Psychology

The growing field of Positive psychology shares with Buddhism a focus on developing a positive emotions and personal strengths and virtues with the goal of improving human well-being. Positive psychology also describes the futility of the "hedonic treadmill", the chasing of ephemeral pleasures and gains in search of lasting happiness. Buddhism holds that this very same striving is at the very root of human unhappiness.[68]

The Buddhist concept and practice of mindfulness meditation has been adopted by psychologists such as Rick Hanson (Buddha's brain, 2009), T.B. Kashdan & J. Ciarrochi (Mindfulness, acceptance, and positive psychology, 2013) and Itai Ivtzan (Mindfulness in Positive Psychology, 2016). Kirk W. Brown and Richard M. Ryan of the University of Pennsylvania have developed a 15-item "Mindful attention awareness scale" to measure dispositional mindfulness.[69]

The concept of Flow studied by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has been compared to Buddhist meditative states such as samadhi and mindfulness. Ronald Siegel describes flow as “mindfulness while accomplishing something.”[70] Nobo Komagata and Sachiko Komagata, however, are critical of characterizing the notion of “flow” as a special case of mindfulness, noting that the connection is more complicated.[71] Zen Buddhism has a concept called Mushin (無心, no mind) which is also similar to flow.

Christopher K. Germer, clinical instructor in psychology at Harvard Medical School and a founding member of the Institute for Meditation and Psychotherapy, has stated: "Positive psychology, which focuses on human flourishing rather than mental illness, is also learning a lot from Buddhism, particularly how mindfulness and compassion can enhance wellbeing. This has been the domain of Buddhism for the past two millennia and we’re just adding a scientific perspective."[72]

Martin Seligman and Buddhist monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu have pointed out that the framework of Positive psychology is ethically neutral, and hence within that framework, you could argue that "a serial killer leads a pleasant life, a skilled Mafia hit man leads a good life, and a fanatical terrorist leads a meaningful life."[73] Thanissaro argues that Positive psychology should also look into the ethical dimensions of the good life. Regarding the example of flow states he writes:

A common assumption is that what you do to induce a sense of flow is purely a personal issue, and ultimately what you do doesn’t really matter. What matters is the fact of psychological flow. You’re most likely to experience flow wherever you have the skill, and you're most likely to develop skill wherever you have the aptitude, whether it’s in music, sport, hunting, meditating, etc. From the Buddha’s point of view, however, it really does matter what you do to gain gratification, for some skills are more conducive to stable, long-term happiness than others, due to their long-term consequences.[73]

The skills that Thanissaro argues are more conductive to happiness include Buddhist virtues like harmlessness, generosity, moral restraint, and the development of good will as well as mindfulness, concentration, discernment.

Naropa University

"Buddhism will come to the West as a psychology."

- Chogyam Trungpa, 1974[h]

In his introduction to his 1975 book, Glimpses of the Abhidharma, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche wrote:

Many modern psychologists have found that the discoveries and explanations of the abhidharma coincide with their own recent discoveries and new ideas; as though the Abhidharma, which was taught 2,500 years ago, had been redeveloped in the modern idiom.[74]

Trungpa Rinpoche's book goes on to describe the nanosecond phenomenological sequence by which a sensation becomes conscious using the Buddhist concepts of the "five aggregates."

In 1974, Trungpa Rinpoche founded the Naropa Institute, now called Naropa University. Since 1975, this accredited university has offered degrees in "contemplative psychology."[75][i]

Mind and life institute

Every two years, since 1987, the Dalai Lama has convened "Mind and Life" gatherings of Buddhists and scientists.[j] Reflecting on one Mind and Life session in March 2000, psychologist Daniel Goleman notes:

Since the time of Gautama Buddha in the fifth century BC, an analysis of the mind and its workings has been central to the practices of his followers. This analysis was codified during the first millennium after his death within the system called, in the Pali language of Buddha's day, Abhidhamma (or Abhidharma in Sanskrit), which means 'ultimate doctrine'.... Every branch of Buddhism today has a version of these basic psychological teachings on the mind, as well as its own refinements.[76]

Buddhist techniques in clinical settings

For over a millennium, throughout the world, Buddhist practices have been used for non-Buddhist ends.[k] More recently, clinical psychologists, theorists and researchers have incorporated Buddhist practices in widespread formalized psychotherapies. Buddhist mindfulness practices have been explicitly incorporated into a variety of psychological treatments.[77] More tangentially, psychotherapies dealing with cognitive restructuring share core principles with ancient Buddhist antidotes to personal suffering.

Mindfulness practices

Fromm [78] distinguishes between two types of meditative techniques that have been used in psychotherapy:

auto-suggestion used to induce relaxation;

meditation "to achieve a higher degree of non-attachment, of non-greed, and of non-illusion; briefly, those that serve to reach a higher level of being" (p. 50).

Fromm attributes techniques associated with the latter to Buddhist mindfulness practices.[l]

Two increasingly popular therapeutic practices using Buddhist mindfulness techniques are Jon Kabat-Zinn's Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Marsha M. Linehan's Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT). Other prominent therapies that use mindfulness include Steven C. Hayes' Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Adaptation Practice founded in 1978 by the British psychiatrist and Zen Buddhist Clive Sherlock and, based on MBSR, Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) (Segal et al., 2002).

Clinical researchers have found Buddhist mindfulness practices to help alleviate anxiety, depression and certain personality disorders.

Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)

Kabat-Zinn developed the eight-week MBSR program over a ten-year period with over four thousand patients at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.[79] Describing the MBSR program, Kabat-Zinn writes:

This 'work' involves above all the regular, disciplined practice of moment-to-moment awareness or mindfulness, the complete 'owning' of each moment of your experience, good, bad, or ugly. This is the essence of full catastrophe living.[80]

According to Kabat-Zinn, a one-time Zen practitioner,[m]

Although at this time mindfulness meditation is most commonly taught and practiced within the context of Buddhism, its essence is universal.... Yet it is no accident that mindfulness comes out of Buddhism, which has as its overriding concerns the relief of suffering and the dispelling of illusions.[81]

It would be based on relatively intensive training in Buddhist meditation without the Buddhism (as I liked to put it), and yoga.[82]

Kabat-Zinn describes the MBSR program, as well as its scientific basis and the evidence for its clinical effectiveness, in his 1990 book Full Catastrophe Living, which was revised and reissued in 2013.[83]

Mindfulness-based pain management

Mindfulness-based pain management (MBPM) is a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) providing specific applications for people living with chronic pain and illness.[84][85] Adapting the core concepts and practices of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), MBPM includes a distinctive emphasis on the practice of 'loving-kindness', and has been seen as sensitive to concerns about removing mindfulness teaching from its original ethical framework within Buddhism.[84][86] It was developed by Vidyamala Burch and is delivered through the programs of Breathworks.[84][85] It has been subject to a range of clinical studies demonstrating its effectiveness.[87][88][89][90][91][92][93][84]

Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT)

In writing about DBT, Zen practitioner[n] Linehan [94] states:

As its name suggests, its overriding characteristic is an emphasis on 'dialectics' – that is, the reconciliation of opposites in a continual process of synthesis.... This emphasis on acceptance as a balance to change flows directly from the integration of a perspective drawn from Eastern (Zen) practice with Western psychological practice.[o]

Similarly, Linehan [95] writes:

Mindfulness skills are central to DBT.... They are the first skills taught and are [reviewed] ... every week.... The skills are psychological and behavioral versions of meditation practices from Eastern spiritual training. I have drawn most heavily from the practice of Zen

Controlled clinical studies have demonstrated DBT's effectiveness for people with borderline personality disorder.[p]

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)

ACT did not explicitly emerge from Buddhism, but its concepts often parallel ideas from Buddhist and mystical traditions.[96][97] ACT has been defined by its originators as a method that "uses acceptance and mindfulness processes, and commitment and behavioral activation processes to produce psychological flexibility.".[98]

Mindfulness in ACT is defined to be a combination of four aspects of the psychological flexibility model, which is ACT's applied theory:

Acceptance (openness to and engagement with present experience);

Cognitive defusion (attending to the ongoing process of thought instead of automatically interacting with events as structured by prediction, judgment, and interpretation);

Contact with the present moment (attention to the present external and internal world in a manner that is flexible, fluid, and voluntary);

A transcendent sense of self or "self as context" (an interconnected sense of consciousness that maintains contact with the "I/Here/Nowness" of awareness and its interconnection with "You/There/Then").[98]

These four aspects of mindfulness in ACT are argued to stem from Relational Frame Theory, the research program on language and cognition that underlies ACT at the basic level. For example, "self as context" is argued to emerge from deictic verbal relations such as I/You, or Here/There, which RFT laboratories have shown to help establish perspective taking skills and interconnection with others.[99][100]

Most ACT self-help books (e.g.,[101]) and many tested ACT protocols teach formal contemplative practice skills, but by this definition of mindfulness, such defusion skills as word repetition (taking a difficult thought, distilling it to a single word, and saying it repeatedly out loud for 30 seconds) are also viewed as mindfulness methods.

Adaptation Practice

The British psychiatrist Clive Sherlock, who trained in the traditional Rinzai School of Zen, developed Adaptation Practice (Ap), the foundation of mindfulness, in 1977 based on the profound mindfulness/awareness training of Zen daily-life practice and meditation. Adaptation Practice is used for long-term relief of depression, anxiety, anger, stress and other emotional problems.

Cognitive restructuring

Dr. Albert Ellis, considered the "grandfather of cognitive-behavioral therapy" (CBT), has written:

Many of the principles incorporated in the theory of rational-emotive psychotherapy are not new; some of them, in fact, were originally stated several thousands of years ago, especially by the Greek and Roman Stoic philosophers (such as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius) and by some of the ancient Taoist and Buddhist thinkers (see Suzuki, 1956, and Watts, 1959, 1960).[102][q]

To give but one example, Buddhism identifies anger and ill-will as basic hindrances to spiritual development (see, for instance, the Five Hindrances, Ten Fetters and kilesas). A common Buddhist antidote for anger is the use of active contemplation of loving thoughts (see, for instance, metta). This is similar to using a CBT technique known as "emotional training" which Ellis [103] describes in the following manner:

Think of an intensely pleasant experience you have had with the person with whom you now feel angry. When you have fantasized such a pleasant experience and have actually given yourself unusually good, intensely warm feelings toward that person as a result of this remembrance, continue the process. Recall pleasant experiences and good feelings, and try to make these feelings paramount over your feelings of hostility.[r]

Reaction from Buddhist traditionalists

Some traditional Buddhist practitioners have expressed concern that attempts to view Buddhism through the lens of psychology diminishes the Buddha's liberating message.

Patrick Kearney has written that the effort to integrate the teachings of the Buddha by interpreting it through the view of psychologies has led to "a growing confusion about the nature of Buddhist teachings and a willingness to distort and dilute these teachings".[104] He is critical of Jack Kornfield and Mark Epstein for holding that psychological techniques are a necessity for some Buddhists and of Jeffrey Rubin for writing that enlightenment might not be possible. Kearney writes:

Epstein and Rubin want to rewrite Buddhism on their own terms, taking the ocean of the Buddha’s wisdom and reducing it to a puddle small enough to accommodate the views of Freud and his successors.[104]

Romantic /

humanistic

psychology early

Buddhism

spiritual

illness divided self clinging

ultimate

experience feeling of

oneness knowledge of

Awakening

cure on-going

personal

integration Awakening

American Theravada monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu[105] has also criticized the interpretation of Buddhism through Psychology, which has different values and goals, derived from roots such as European Romanticism and Protestant Christianity. He also identifies broad commonalities between "Romantic/humanistic psychology" and early Buddhism: beliefs in human (versus divine) intervention with an approach that is experiential, pragmatic and therapeutic. Thanissaro Bhikkhu traces the roots of modern spiritual ideals from German Romantic Era philosopher Immanuel Kant through American psychologist and philosopher William James, Jung and humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow.[106] Thanissaro sees their view as centered on the idea of healing the 'divided self', an idea which is alien to Buddhism.[106] Thanissaro asserts that there are also core differences between Romantic/humanistic psychology and Buddhism. These are summarized in the adjacent table. Thanissaro implicitly deems those who impose Romantic/humanistic goals on the Buddha's message as "Buddhist Romantics."

The same similarities have been recognized by David McMahan when describing Buddhist modernism.[107]

Recognizing the widespread alienation and social fragmentation of modern life, Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes:

When Buddhist Romanticism speaks to these needs, it opens the gate to areas of dharma [the Buddha's teachings] that can help many people find the solace they’re looking for. In doing so, it augments the work of psychotherapy [...] However, Buddhist Romanticism also helps close the gate to areas of the dharma that would challenge people in their hope for an ultimate happiness based on interconnectedness. Traditional dharma calls for renunciation and sacrifice, on the grounds that all interconnectedness is essentially unstable, and any happiness based on this instability is an invitation to suffering. True happiness has to go beyond interdependence and interconnectedness to the unconditioned [...] [T]he gate [of Buddhist Romanticism] closes off radical areas of the dharma designed to address levels of suffering remaining even when a sense of wholeness has been mastered."[105]

Another Theravada monk, Bhikkhu Bodhi has also criticized the presentation of certain Buddhist teachings mixed with psychological and Humanistic views as being authentic Buddhism. This risks losing the essence of the liberating and radical message of the Buddha, which is focused on attaining nirvana:

What I am concerned about is the trend, common among present-day Buddhist teachers, of recasting the core principles of the Buddha's teachings into largely psychological terms and then saying, "This is Dhamma." When this is done we may never get to see that the real purpose of the teaching, in its own framework, is not to induce "healing" or "wholeness" or "self-acceptance," but to propel the mind in the direction of deliverance – and to do so by attenuating, and finally extricating, all those mental factors responsible for our bondage and suffering. We should remember that the Buddha did not teach the Dhamma as an "art of living" – though it includes that – but above all as a path to deliverance, a path to final liberation and enlightenment. And what the Buddha means by enlightenment is not a celebration of the limitations of the human condition, not a passive submission to our frailties, but an overcoming of those limitations by making a radical, revolutionary breakthrough to an altogether different dimension of being.[108]

Popular psychology and spirituality

Mainstream teachers and popularizers

In 1961, philosopher and professor Alan Watts wrote:

If we look deeply into such ways of life as Buddhism and Taoism, Vedanta and Yoga, we do not find either philosophy or religion as these are understood in the West. We find something more nearly resembling psychotherapy.... The main resemblance between these Eastern ways of life and Psychotherapy is in the concern of both with bringing about changes of consciousness, changes in our ways of feeling our own existence and our relation to human society and the natural world. The psychotherapist has, for the most part, been interested in changing the consciousness of peculiarly disturbed individuals. The disciplines of Buddhism and Taoism are, however, concerned with changing the consciousness of normal, socially adjusted people.[109]

Since Watts's early observations and musings, there have been many other important contributors to the contemporary popularization of the integration of Buddhist meditation with psychology including Kornfield (1993), Joseph Goldstein, Tara Brach, Epstein (1995) and Nhat Hanh (1998).

Education and research

Researchers interested in studying the intersection of Buddhism and psychology in North America have had to either fit themselves into Eastern Studies programs, psychology programs or engage in a program of private study. North American programs at accredited institutions dedicated to Buddhism and psychology are few. There is a minor (soon to be major) program at the University of Toronto called Buddhism and Mental Health.[110]

As for clinical training, there is an accredited Master's program in Contemplative Psychotherapy offered at Naropa University in Boulder, CO. The curriculum is a hybrid of Buddhist psychology and psychotherapeutic approaches, and incorporates several group retreats and ongoing meditation practice. The program, which was founded in 1978, is designed to prepare for licensure as a professional counselor.[111]

중국, 이번엔 '재생에너지 굴기'…태양광, 10년새 700배 성장 | 연합뉴스

중국, 이번엔 '재생에너지 굴기'…태양광, 10년새 700배 성장 | 연합뉴스:

중국, 이번엔 '재생에너지 굴기'…태양광, 10년새 700배 성장

송고시간2019-08-14 11:43

풍력 22배 늘어…기술 특허, 미국의 1.6배·일본의 2배
'보조금 없이도 보급 가능 수준'

(서울=연합뉴스) 이해영 기자 = 중동 석유에 주로 의존해온 세계의 에너지 구도가 크게 변하고 있다. 태양광과 풍력 등 재생에너지가 본격 보급되면서 화석연료는 전환기를 맞고 있다. 특히 태양광 발전은 중국의 존재를 빼놓고는 성립되지 않을 정도로 중국이 재생에너지 분야를 석권해 가고 있다고 니혼게이자이(日本經濟)신문이 14일 지적했다.

상하이(上海) 사무용 빌딩의 한켠에 있는 풍력발전기 세계 5위 메이커인 엔비전은 일본 전체의 규모와 맞먹는 총 1억㎾의 재생에너지 시설을 불과 십여명의 운영요원이 감시하고 있다. 이 회사의 시스템은 전기자동차(EV) 충전시설과 엘리베이터, 실내온도 센서 등 약 5천만개의 기기와 인터넷으로 연결돼 있다. 여기서 수집되는 정보를 토대로 전력 수요를 예측한다. 태양광과 풍력발전이 순조롭게 이뤄지는지 살피면서 전기차 충전 등을 제어한다. 재생에너지 시설의 고장 사전징후도 등도 파악한다.

태양광 발전

[게티이미지뱅크 제공]

재생에너지 분야에서 중국 기업의 존재감이 높아지고 있다. 국제재생에너지기구(IRENA)에 따르면 2018년까지의 10년간 중국의 풍력발전용량은 22배, 태양광발전용량은 무려 700배나 커졌다. 세계 전체로는 풍력이 5배, 태양광이 33배다. 수력을 포함한 세계 재생에너지에서 중국이 차지하는 비중은 작년 30%에 달해 2위인 미국의 10%와 큰 차이를 보였다.

시진핑(習近平) 주석이 이끄는 중국 최고지도부는 첨단산업육성정책인 '중국 제조 2025'에서 재생에너지를 중점 분야로 정해놓고 있다. 늘어나는 전기수요를 화력발전에 의존하면 대기오염이 심각해질 수 있다. 이에 따라 중국은 풍력과 태양광 발전을 합한 재생에너지 발전비율을 작년 10% 미만에서 2030년에는 30% 정도로 높인다는 목표다.

상하이 교외에는 직선으로 250여㎞ 사이에 실리콘 부품과 유리, 케이블 등을 생산하는 기업들이 몰려있는 '태양광패널벨트'가 있다. 이곳에 있는 론지솔라는 세계 6위지만 일본 수요의 70%를 공급할 수 있는 거대한 공장을 운영한다. 중국제 태양광 패널은 일본제 보다 30-50% 싸 2017년 세계시장의 71%를 차지했다. 한때 수위이던 일본의 시장점유율은 2%였다.

트럼프 미 행정부는 작년 1월 "미국의 태양광 패널산업이 사라질 위기"라며 중국제품을 겨냥, 세이프가드(긴급수입제한)를 발동했다. 미국에서는 2016년까지의 4년간 수입급증으로 패널가격이 무려 60%나 내려갔다. 미국 최대업체인 퍼스트솔라는 최종 적자상태에 빠졌다.

세계의 태양광 발전은 중국을 빼놓고는 성립할 수 없다. 작년 7월 세이프가드를 발동한 인도에는 동남아시아에 있는 중국 기업의 공장에서 생산한 제품이 밀려들었다. "해외판로를 확대해온 게 효과를 발휘했다". 세계 최대 메이커인 징코솔라 전정(銭晶) 부회장의 말이다.

중국 국내의 태양광발전 비용도 낮아져 "보조금 없이도 보급이 가능한 수준에 가까워지고 있다"(중국국가기후변화전략연구 국제협력센터 리쥔펑<李俊峰> 교수)고 한다. 중국은 2015년 기준 석유의 60%를 수입에 의존해 재생에너지는 안보에도 필수적이다.

제품에서 시장을 석권한 중국은 기술에서도 압도적이다. 재생에너지 관련 특허출원은 2009년에 일찌감치 일본을 제치고 1위를 차지했다. 2016년 기준 보유 특허는 약 17만건으로 미국의 1.6배, 일본의 2배다. 공장과 사무실에 전력공급을 최적화하도록 제어하는 에너지 관리에서도 앞서 가고 있다.

IRENA는 올해 1월 보고서에서 재생에너지로의 전환이 세계적으로 진전되면 에너지 자원보유 국가를 대신해 큰 투자를 계속해온 중국의 영향력이 강해질 것으로 내다봤다.

lhy5018@yna.co.kr

Constructing Korea’s Won Buddhism as a New Religion Don Baker

Constructing Korea’s Won Buddhism as a New Religion:

Self-differentiation and Inter-religious Dialogue

Don Baker

University of British Columbia

Published in International Journal for the Study of New Religions 3:1 (2012), pp. 47-70.

(Image courtesy of Won Buddhist Headquarters)

Abstract: Won Buddhism is one of the largest and most respected of Korea’s new religions, yet it still encounters difficulties in wining recognition as a new religion because of the use of Buddhism in its name and some Buddhist elements in its doctrines. To strengthen its claim to independent religious status, Won Buddhism makes sure its worship halls, its rituals, and its clerical wear are quite different from what is seen in traditional Korean Buddhism. It also emphasizes elements in its teachings that differ from those of traditional Buddhism. In addition, over the last few decades, it has become one of the most active promoters of inter-religious dialogue in Korea. Acting as an independent partner in inter-religious dialogue strengthens Won Buddhism’s claim that it is not simply another Buddhist denomination but is a separate and distinct religion in its own right.

Key Words: Won Buddhism, Sot’aesan, Ilwŏnsang, Chŏngsan, Ethics of Triple Identity

Won Buddhism is one of the oldest, largest, and most respected members of what are called “the native religions of the Korean people” (minjok chonggyo). (Yoon, Kim, Yook, and Park. 2005) Koreans use that term to refer to organized religions that emerged in Korea, distinguishing them from religions such as Buddhism, Confucianism, and Christianity that were imported onto the peninsula. Outsiders usually refer to the 14 religious organizations that are members of the Association of Korean Native Religions (Han’guk minjok chonggyo hyŏbŭihoe), as well as many other new Korean religious movements such as the Unification Church, as new religions. Some of the members of that association, such as Taejonggyo [the Religion of the Grand Progenitor], reject that label, insisting that they are not new religions. Instead, they are revivals of the original religion of the Korean people. Won Buddhism, however, does not shy away from being described as new. In fact, it proudly proclaims that it is “a new religion for a new age.” The founder himself stated he had founded what he considered to be a new religious movement. (Won Buddhism website b)

There are some among the leadership of Korea’s mainstream Buddhist community, however, who dispute Won Buddhism’s claim that it is a new religion. They are joined by a few scholars who agree with them that Won Buddhism is more Buddhist than new. (Kim Bokin 2000, 12) In fact, a recent book on Buddhism in the twentieth century included Won Buddhism as an example of the “renovation and reformation of Buddhist faith and practice.” (Heine and Prebish 2003, 7) Such mainstream Buddhists and scholars do not deny that the religious movement known today as Won Buddhism traces its origins to a group brought together in the second decade of the twentieth century by Park Chungbin (1891-1943), usually referred to by his sobriquet as Sot’aesan. However, they insist that Won Buddhism is nothing but another Buddhist denomination and therefore is quite different from the other “native religions of the Korean people,” those which worship Korean gods such as Tan’gun (worshipped by Taejonggyo) or Kang Chŭngsan (worshipped by Daesoon Jinrihoe and several other new religious groups).

Park Chungbin (Image courtesy of Won Buddhist Headquarters)

To understand the relationship of Won Buddhism to mainstream Korean Buddhism as well as to Korea’s community of new religions, it is necessary to examine briefly the religious environment in the Republic of Korea. (Won Buddhism has no presence in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, on the northern side of the demilitarized zone that divides the Korean peninsula.) Korea differs from most countries in that it has no single dominant religious community. According to the last government census, taken in 2005, almost 23% of South Koreans said they were Buddhists, around 18% said they were Protestant Christians, and almost 11% said they were Roman Catholics. 47% said they had no religious affiliation at all. That leaves very few left to check the “Won Buddhist” box on the government census form. Only 129,907 did so, out of a total South Korean population of 47,041,434 at that time. (T’onggyero sesang pogi website) It is likely that there are more Won Buddhists than that, since, even twenty years ago when census takers found less that 90,000 people affirming that they were Won Buddhists, there were already at least 500 Won Buddhist ritual halls in Korea and over 7,500 Won Buddhist clergy. Won Buddhist officials claimed at that time that their religious community numbered over 1,175,000. (Han’guk Chonggyo sahoe yŏn’guso 1993, 1084) The actual figure of active Won Buddhists was probably somewhere in between the census figures and what Won Buddhist headquarters claimed. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Won Buddhism community is much smaller than the Protestant, Catholic, and mainstream Buddhist communities and therefore Won Buddhist leaders have to work hard to make sure their organization is not overlooked.

Attracting attention as a new Korean religion is made more difficult for Won Buddhists by two features of Korean Buddhism today: the dominance of the Jogye order and the large number of small Buddhist denominations. The Jogye order dominates the image of Korean Buddhism among both Koreans themselves and among non-Koreans who study Korean Buddhism today. The Jogye order is a Mahayana order founded in the aftermath of Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule in 1945. It claims to be the legitimate successor to a long tradition of Buddhism in Korea because of its promotion of traditional meditative practices and also because it is run by celibate monks. Most monks during the 35 years of Japanese colonial rule were married, following the example set by modern Japanese Buddhism. After 1945, successive nationalistic governments in South Korea favored the celibate monks over married monks, seeing them as free of any taint of contamination from Japanese Buddhism. The government even took major temples away from married monks and gave them to the Jogye order. (Sørensen 1999) As a result, the Jogye order is the richest and most powerful Buddhist order in Korea today. On its websites, it even portrays itself as simply Korean Buddhism, rather than one of many denominations of Buddhism in Korea. (Jogye order website)

However, the Jogye order is not the only Buddhist organization in Korea today. In fact, besides the Jogye order, there are 26 other Korean Buddhist orders enrolled in the Association of Korean Buddhist Orders, ranging from the large T’aego order of married clerics and the esoteric-ritual oriented Ch’ŏnt’ae order, which is large enough to operate its own university, to many smaller orders, such as the Korean Maitreya order and the Korean Pure Land order, that are much smaller than Won Buddhism is. (Association of Korean Buddhist Orders website)

Won Buddhism is not a member of that association of Korean Buddhist denominations, though there was an attempt to convince Won Buddhism to join several years ago. Actually, that was an attempt, in 1999, to convince the Won Buddhist authorities to rejoin that association, since Won Buddhism had been among the original members but had left in the 1980s to protect its properties from disputes within the mainstream Buddhism community over the ownership of religious assets. (Pulgyo chongbo sent’ŏ website) Instead of joining that umbrella Korean Buddhist organization, Won Buddhists authorities strive to maintain their order’s autonomy as a separate and distinct indigenous Korean religion, even though it differs significantly from other indigenous Korean religions in that its worship services are not centered on worship of a Korean god.

Not only does Won Buddhism not promote the worship of a Korean god, it does not promote the worship of any God at all. Instead, its practitioners direct their spiritual gaze at an empty circle. Some might question, therefore, whether it is a religion at all. There are at least two other new spiritual movements emerging from modern Korea that do not promote worship of any particular God: Dahn World and Maum Meditation. (Dahn World website, Maum Meditation website) Both, because of their promises of spiritual enlightenment, their reliance on prescribed rituals, and their use of terminology similar to that used by Daoism and Buddhism respectively, appear to some outside observers to be new religions. However, both Dahn World and Maum Meditation insist that they are not religions at all. Won Buddhism does not share their aversion to the “religion” label. Instead, as already noted, despite the fact that it is more anthropocentric than theocentric, it insists that it is a real religion. After all, if Zen Buddhism can be called a religion, why can’t Won Buddhism be likewise?

If we accept self-definition as sufficient, then Won Buddhism is without a doubt a new religion. However, just as some groups that say they are not religious have the religion label pinned on them by outside observers, it is possible that outsiders may not agree with the self-labeling of Won Buddhism as a new religion, separate and distinct from “old Buddhism.” We therefore should examine its origins, its doctrines, its scriptures, its rituals, and its distinctive practices to see whether, in fact, it is truly a new religion or is merely one more occupant of the big tent that is Buddhism. We should also examine how Won Buddhist authorities have tried to convince others that Won Buddhism should be treated as a distinct religious organization rather than as a minor member of the broader Korean Buddhist community. If we engage in such an examination, we will discover that Won Buddhism has established itself as a new religion in two ways: first of all, it has distinguished itself internally by developing not only its own scriptures and rituals but even its own architecture and terminology, and, second, it has gained recognition externally that it constitutes as separate and distinct religious community in its own right through ecumenical interaction with other religious communities.

The non-Buddhist origins of Won Buddhism

There is already enough English-language scholarship on the teachings and practices of Won Buddhism that I do not need to go into much detail here. (Chung, 1984; Pye 2002) Instead, I will focus on aspects the leaders of Won Buddhism have emphasized in order to promote an image of Won Buddhism in which its distinctiveness is highlighted.

There are two reasons often cited for declaring Won Buddhism a new religion rather than just another Buddhist denomination. First of all, when Sot’aesan has his enlightenment experience on April 28, 1916, he had not received any Buddhist training or been directed in his search for enlightenment by a Buddhist master. (Kim Pokin 2000, 3-4, Yang 2008, 81) In fact, he claimed that he didn’t even realize that his insight into the interconnectedness of all phenomena, and that behind all those interconnected phenomena lay one unified cosmic Thusness, was similar to what the Buddha had taught 2,500 years earlier until he read the Diamond Sutra. (Park Kwangsoo 2003, 170) Since he reached his insight independently, Won Buddhists say, it is accurate to say that his insight is similar to that of the Buddha but is not a Buddhist insight.

Secondly, Won Buddhism emerged out of a series of non-Buddhist changes to Korea’s religious culture in the late eighteenth and into the nineteenth century, before Won Buddhism itself was formed. The first non-Buddhist alteration to Korea’s traditional religious culture in modern times came from the introduction of Christianity, in the form of Roman Catholicism, in the last quarter of the 18th century. Catholicism introduced a radical new idea to Korea--monotheism. Traditionally Koreans, when they believed in gods, believed in many gods. They may have believed that some of those gods were more powerful than the other gods, but they never singled out one God and one God only for worship. (Baker 2002) Even Buddhists in Korea worshipped many different manifestations of Buddha and never used the sort of exclusivist language we associate with monotheism (There was no equivalent of Japan’s Nichiren Buddhism in pre-modern Korean). However, Catholics insisted that there was only one God and no other spirits should be worshipped.

The first modern Korean new religion, Tonghak, which emerged in the 1860s, accepted this Catholic notion of monotheism. Although it did not teach worship of the Catholic God, it focused its spiritual gaze on a single supernatural presence called Sangje (C. Shangdi), Ch’ŏnju (the Lord of Heaven, the Catholic word for God in Korea), or Hannullim (a variant vernacular version of the Lord of Heaven) and did not talk about or try to interact with other supernatural personalities. Early in the 20th century, another new religion appeared which then fragmented into a cluster of new religious organizations focused on the worship of Kang Chŭngsan (1871-1909), whom they call Sangjenim, the Lord of High. Though the Kang Chŭngsan religions are not strictly monotheistic, since they preach the existence of many powerful supernatural personalities, their emphasis on Sangjenim as the incarnation on earth of the supreme lord on high and the most powerful by far of all the gods shows that they, too, have been influenced by the monotheism Catholicism introduced to Korea. Won Buddhism emerged after Tonghak had been preaching its theology for over half a century, and a decade after Kang Chŭngsan left this earth. However, Won Buddhists didn’t adopt the God of Catholicism, of Tonghak, or of the Chŭngsan religions. Instead, they promoted what may be called a mono-devotional rather than a monotheistic approach. Influenced by the new trend away from polytheism, Won Buddhists have excluded from their worship halls the many statues found in traditional Korean Buddhist temples. In their place, they have a circle, called Ilwŏnsang, which they use to represent the undifferentiated thusness of ultimate reality. (In a bow to the Buddhist elements in Won Buddhist teachings, they also call that circle the Dharmakaya Buddha). (Chung, 1987)

Directing the spiritual gaze at the Ilwŏnsang (Photo courtesy of Won Buddhist Headquarters)

Moreover, Won Buddhism shows in its scriptures that it picked up some key ideas from earlier non-Buddhist Korean new religions. A very important idea in Won Buddhism is that Korea is undergoing a great transformation (Kaebyŏk) that will create a paradise on this earth. This is an idea that had been earlier promoted by Tonghak as well as by Kang Chŭngsan. The Won Buddhist notion of Kaebyŏk is a little different from theirs. In Won Buddhism, Kaebyŏk does not refer to an actual physical cosmic cataclysm out of which the new world will emerge. Instead, it is used in a more metaphorical sense to refer to the dramatic changes science and technology are bringing to the modern world, and the spiritual transformation that should accompany that transformation in the material world. This is not a Buddhist notion, yet it is core to the teachings of Won Buddhism. Won Buddhism also reflects some influence from the “there is a spark of the divine in every human being” teaching of the Tonghak religion as well as some influence from the assertion of Kang Chŭngsan that the problems of the world today arise from the competitive nature of the human community and that those problems can be overcome if we learn to work together for mutual benefit rather than against each other for individual benefit. (Chung, 2003b) These are not traditional Buddhist ideas either. Yet they are core to the Won Buddhism worldview. Nor are the similarities between Won Buddhist ideas and those of Tonghak and the Chŭngsan religions simply a coincidence. Both Sot’aesan and his most important immediate disciple, Song Kyu, better known today as Chŏngsan (1900-1962), had contact with the ideas of Tonghak and Kang Chŭngsan before the founding of Won Buddhism as a separate religious tradition. (Chung 2003b)

Buddhist elements in Won Buddhism

Won Buddhist leaders do not claim, however, that there are no traditional Buddhist elements in Won Buddhism. Won Buddhists do not hide the fact that they believe in karma and reincarnation. For example, Sot’aesan is quoted as saying, in support of belief in karma and reincarnation,

"A person who upsets someone deeply by making false insinuations will suffer from heartburn in his next life. A person who enjoys furtively probing into or eavesdropping on others’ secrets will suffer humiliation and embarrassment in his next life by being born as a bastard, and so forth. A person who readily exposes others’ secrets and readily embarrasses them in front of other people so that they blush with shame will, in his next life, have some ugly marks or scars on his face that will hamper him all his life." (Committee for the Authorized Translation of Won-Buddhist Scriptures 2006, 241)

Won Buddhists also believe that the problems we see in the world around us are caused by our own minds and can be cured when we become enlightened. Won Buddhism is similar to traditional Buddhism in its assertion that we do not need to rely on a divine being to help us overcome our problems. Instead, we only need to look within to discover the strength that lies within our own true nature. Moreover, Won Buddhist publications promote sitting meditation as one approach to discovering our own true nature. Though it is not as central in Won Buddhist practice as it is in the monasteries of Korea’s dominant Jogye order, many Won Buddhists find it a favored spiritual practice. (Ch’a 2003) Most of these traditional Buddhist ideas are not as prominent in Won Buddhism as they are in mainstream Buddhism in Korea. In addition, they are often overshadowed by Won Buddhist teachings that are quite different from what is taught in Buddhist temples and in Mahayana sutras.

One traditional Buddhist idea that is prominent in Won Buddhism appears in the founder’s statement of why he founded this new religious movement: “our founding motive is to lead all sentient beings, who are drowning in the turbulent sea of suffering, to a vast and immeasurable paradise by expanding spiritual power and conquering material power.” (Committee for the Authorized Translation of Won-Buddhist Scriptures 2006, 1) However, the Won Buddhist approach to saving all sentient beings from suffering differs in many significant aspects from traditional Buddhist approaches.

The Unique Appearance of Won Buddhism

After Won Buddhism gained formal recognition as an independent religious body separate and distinct from mainstream Buddhist organizations in Korea in 1948, it took steps to reduce its use of traditional Buddhist terminology in order to highlight its distinctiveness. Won Buddhists still refer to their meditation practices as sŏn, the Korean pronunciation for the Chinese character Japanese pronounce Zen. They also refer to chanting the Buddha’s name as “yŏmbul,” the same term used in Jogye and other mainstream Korean Buddhist temples for that practice. However, in 1963, when they issued a new edition of their scriptures, they distanced themselves from mainstream Buddhism by dropping from those scriptures some technical Buddhist terms that had not become part of everyday Korean Buddhist discourse.

For example, in the doctrinal chart in which Won Buddhism displays what it considers its most important tenets and practices, there is a significant difference between what is seen in the 1962 edition from what was seen in the 1943 edition. The current version of that chart has near the top a box in which is written “The Threefold Study: Cultivating the Spirit, Inquiry into Human Affairs and Universal Principles, Choice in Action.” That box replaces a box in which had been written “Threefold Practice: Mindful karmic action (sīla —follow the nature), Spiritual Cultivation (samādhi —nourish nature), Inquiry into facts and principles ( prajñā—see into the Nature).” (Compare Chung 2003a, 116, with Committee for the Authorized Translation of Won-Buddhist Scriptures 2006, viii-ix.) It is obvious that Won Buddhist authorities have tried to expunge from their scriptures terms that Koreans would see as imported Buddhist terms rather than original Korean terms.

The official explanation for this change appear in the History of Won Buddhism, where it is explained that “the parts that underwent partial revision and reprinting in Won Buddhist year 34 (1949), the parts that could be interpreted as if Sot’aesan’s original purpose had been confined to a certain region or a certain religious denomination, were rectified to follow his real intention.” (Department of International Affairs 2010, 108) In other words, they did not want Sot’aesan to appear as if he were tailoring his message to the followers of a “certain religious denomination,” meaning traditional Buddhism. However, in the eyes of one scholar of Won Buddhism, “During the redaction process some tenets crucial to the integrity of the doctrine were altered with the effect that the light of the original writer’s wisdom was significantly dimmed.” (Chung 2003a, xiv)

That same scholar is also unhappy with the shift within Won Buddhism away from a focus on Ilwŏn, the Buddha-body perceived as the ultimate undifferentiated ground of reality, to a focus on the Ilwŏnsang, an actual circle drawn to represent Ilwŏn. Bongkil Chung writes, “Beings of lower capacity might mistake Ilwŏnsang, the circular symbol, for Dharmakâya Buddha just as they mistake the finger for the moon when the moon is behind the clouds.” He changes the line in the official scriptures today from “ to know one's own mind which as perfect, complete, utterly fair as impartial as Irwŏnsang” to what he says is the original wording: “ to know one's own mind which as perfect, complete, utterly fair as impartial as Irwŏn, namely prajñā-wisdom.” (Chung 2003a, 81)

Won-Buddhism is not only moving away from some traditional Buddhist terminology, its leaders have also taken steps to make it look quite different from traditional Korean Buddhism. Not only have Won Buddhists coined their own terminology, Won Buddhists also wear distinctive clerical clothing, and conduct their distinctive weekly rituals in buildings with their own distinctive architecture. Won Buddhist clerics, both men and women, are called “kyomunim,” which literally means “someone devoted to the teachings.” Mainstream Buddhist clerics in Korea are called “sŭnim” instead. Moreover, the majority of Won Buddhist clerics are women (1,300 Won Buddhist clerics are women compared to only 700 men) and wear a modified version of the traditional Korean women’s clothing rather than the traditional Buddhist nun’s robes. They also do not shave their head like traditional nuns do. Instead, they wear their hair up in the bun worn traditionally by married Korean women. Despite their hairstyle, like mainstream Buddhist nuns Won Buddhist nuns are celibate. However, male Won Buddhist clerics tend to be married. Moreover, except when they are performing some ritual function, male Won Buddhist clerics dress like any other Korean man living a white-collar life style. They do not shave their head or wear monk’s robes. The clothing styles and hair styles for Won Buddhist clerics are not used just to distinguish them from traditional Buddhist monks and nuns. Instead, they dress the way they do to emphasize that Won Buddhism is a Buddhism that is integrated into everyday urban life, not a Buddhism of remote mountain monasteries. (According to Won Buddhists, as well as many scholars of the history of Korean Buddhism, under government pressure mainstream Buddhism during the Chosŏn dynasty (1392-1910) withdrew from society into isolated temples in the foothills of Korea’s many mountains.)

From left to right, a Won Buddhist nun, a mainstream Buddhist nun, and a Catholic nun.

(Photo courtesy of Won Buddhist headquarters)

Similarly, Won Buddhist temples, both inside and outside, tend to look more like the Christian churches so common in Korean cities than like traditional Korean temples found in mountain valleys. They call their temples “kyodang,” which means “a place for teaching,” and do not use the mainstream Korean Buddhist terms “sach’al” or “chŏl.” Moreover, you enter a typical Won Buddhist parish temple through a foyer, where you can pick up a copy of the weekly parish bulletin. On a Sunday morning, you then normally sit in pews during a service that one prominent contemporary Won Buddhist admits, “is similar to that of a Protestant service. The ceremony is held on Sundays, and includes meditation, hymns, and preaching.” (Yang 2008, 87) I have found some newer Won Buddhist temples that have pushed the pews to the sides of the main worship hall to leave room in the middle for cushions for the use of those who prefer the traditional Buddhist practice of sitting on the floor during rituals. Nevertheless, no one familiar with traditional Korean temples would mistake a Won Buddhist temple for a typical Korean Buddhist temple or a Won Buddhist ritual for a traditional Korean Buddhist ritual. Someone who walked into a Won Buddhist temple expecting the usual display of multiple Buddhist statues would be particularly struck by the lack of such statues. In their place, prominently displayed on the front wall, in front of an altar, is a large circle, the Ilwŏnsang. It is toward that circle, rather than Buddhist statues, that Won Buddhists direct their devotions.

A typical Won Buddhist urban temple. (Photo by author)

A typical Sunday service (Photo courtesy of Won Buddhist Headquarters)

Unique aspects of Won Buddhist Teachings

The central role of the Ilwŏnsang is just one feature of Won Buddhist ritual that Won Buddhist leaders point to as evidence that the differences between Won Buddhism and mainstream Korean Buddhism are more than matters of appearance. Significant doctrinal and philosophical differences can also be found. For example, little is said in Won Buddhist scriptures or Won Buddhist sermons about the world being “unreal” or about a need to cultivate detachment from the phenomenal world of constant change. Nor are Won Buddhists told to still all their desires. Instead, they are told that they need to make sure that their actions are informed by correct knowledge and appropriate desires.

Though Won Buddhists agree with mainstream Buddhists that everything in the world is connected to everything else, for Won Buddhists, as it was for Korea’s Neo-Confucians, those interconnections do not subtract from the reality of the world of experience. Instead, they constitute reality. Won Buddhists are encouraged to understand the network of interconnections so that they can act in accordance with it. They are not encouraged to try to rise above it.

Similarly, though Won Buddhists sound at first like mainstream Buddhists when they describe the original human mind as “empty,” they do not use that term to focus on the mind as originally undifferentiated thusness. Instead, their discussions of the human mind resonate with Neo-Confucian descriptions of the fundamental human mind as empty of biases and partiality. In other words, an empty mind is not a mind empty of all specific content. Rather, it is a mind that is calm and clear and therefore is able to perceive the world around it as that world really is, in all its complexity and diversity. Just as in mainstream Buddhism, one goal of Won Buddhist cultivation is cognitive clarity. However, in mainstream Buddhism cognitive clarity is a tool for gaining release from this world of suffering by seeing clearly the illusory nature of the things of this world. In Won Buddhism, on the other hand, cognitive clarity is presented as an important pre-condition for the sort of appropriate action that will bring an end of human suffering by making this world a better place. Even when Won Buddhists engage in the quiet sitting-meditation that is a hallmark of Buddhism, they do not do so simply to cultivate an awareness of the true nature of the universe. Their main objective is to calm the mind so that it can show them how to act appropriately. (Chong 1997, 19) As Sot’aesan explained,

"The reason a person cultivating the Way endeavors to see the nature is to know the original realm of the nature and, by using one’s mind and body without fault like that realm, to achieve perfect buddhahood. If one only tries to see one’s nature but not to achieve Buddhahood, this would be of little use, like an axe that is well crafted, but made of lead." (Committee for the Authorized Translation of Won-Buddhist Scriptures 2006, 285)

In other words, enlightenment is not true enlightenment if the insight enlightenment has provided is not realized in action.

Another way to promote recognition that Won Buddhism is very different from mainstream Buddism is to point to the originality of the Won Buddhist solution to the problems of human suffering. According to Won Buddhist texts, ignorance of the illusory nature of the world of everyday experience is not the primary reason we suffer. Nor do we suffer primarily because we look for permanence in an impermanent world. According to those texts, those traditional Buddhist explanations are too vague to serve as useful guides for how to overcome suffering. Won Buddhism focuses instead on four specific reasons it identifies for unhappiness and suffering. They are 1) our inability to rely on our own resources, which causes us to be financially dependent on others who may not be able to provide us what we need; 2) the lack of wisdom in our leaders, who therefore mislead us into acting against our own best self-interest and the best interest of our community; 3) the lack of universal education, which keeps us from learning how to better our lives, and 4) selfishness, which leads us to act in ways that in the long run hurt us more than they help us. (Chung 1984, 24)

Won Buddhists often draw outside observers’ attention to the fact that, according to Won Buddhist doctrine, the most effective way to relieve human suffering is not to encourage detachment from the things of this world but instead to promote more appropriate ways of interacting with this world. That includes promoting universal education in all sorts of subjects, no just religion, since universal education allows everyone to gain the education they need to become economically self-reliant. Won Buddhist texts also encourage helping people recognize which potential leaders are wise and which are not, and encouraging them to follow those who are wise rather than those who are not (though Won Buddhism, as an organization, does not endorse any particular political leaders). And Won Buddhists, both clergy and laity, engage in various public service and charitable activities in order to counteract selfish tendencies.

These are not just abstract prescriptions. One of the first things Sot’aesan did after his enlightenment experience was lead his followers in a project to reclaim some coastal wasteland for farming. (Chong 1997, 5, Adams 2009, 5) The Won Buddhist organization has also built schools, including Wonkwang University, which includes one of Korea’s best medical schools teaching traditional (Chinese-style) medicine. And the Won Buddhist organization runs orphanages and social welfare centers in Korea and also dispatches medical missionaries overseas. (Won Buddhism website b)

Won Buddhist leaders try to direct our attention to the fact that Sot’aesan taught that appropriate action in this world to reduce and eventually eliminate human suffering should be based on the assumption that we suffer because we do not realize what the interconnectedness of all things means to us personally and therefore we do not let our connections to everything around us direct our actions. In other words, we suffer because we do not realize how dependent we are on others, and how much we owe to others, and as a consequence we end up acting inappropriately, acting in ways that are contrary to both our own long-term self-interest as well as the best interest of our community.

In another striking departure from traditional Buddhist teachings Won Buddhist leaders like to point out, according to Won Buddhist publications it is more important to cultivate an attitude of gratitude than an attitude of detachment. In particular, according to Won Buddhist teachings, there are four things we need to be grateful for. These “four graces,” as Won Buddhist texts call them, are “heaven and earth” (nature), for providing us with the air we need to breathe, the water we need to drink, and the earth we need to stand on and cultivate crops in; our parents, for giving us our lives; our fellow human beings, for providing us with such things as houses, roads, machines, medical care, and all other things we cannot provide for ourselves acting alone; and, finally, law, by which Won Buddhists mean the rules and regulations that make a safe, orderly, and predictable society possible. (Committee for the Authorized Translation of Won-Buddhist Scriptures 2006, 9-22, Chung 1988, 437-38)

Sot’aesan was not the first to talk about the need to cultivate an attitude of gratitude. In Japan several centuries earlier Nichiren (1222-1282) has also preached about four things to be grateful for. However, Nichiren taught the need to be grateful for those things that had made it possible for him to live as a boddhisattva on this earth. Sot’aesan was more down to earth. He taught that we need to cultivate an attitude of gratitude toward nature, our parents, our fellow human beings, and our laws in order to work together more effectively with others to reduce and eventually eliminate the causes of suffering in this world. (McCormick 1997)

Interfaith Dialogue and Independence of Won Buddhism

Differences in doctrine and practice are not the only features Won Buddhist leaders point to in order to argue that Won Buddhism is separate and distinct from mainstream Buddhism. Before 1945 the relationship between Won Buddhism and mainstream Korean Buddhism was somewhat blurred, although Won Buddhists already had established a distinct community marked off by differences in both doctrine and practice from other Buddhist groups in Korea at that time. However, the term Won Buddhism was not used. Instead, the group we now call “Won Buddhism” called itself the “Society for the study of the Buddhist Dharma.” It was only in 1948 that Won Buddhism formally became Won Buddhism. (Chong 1997, 34)

That raises the question of why Won Buddhist leaders waited until after 1945 to insist on a separate and distinct identity for their religious community. I would like to suggest a possible answer. Before 1945, Korea was under Japanese colonial rule, and the Japanese imperial government tried to bring all Buddhist organizations in Korea under Japanese rule. The main concern of Won Buddhists at that time was shared by other Korean Buddhist groups. They all wanted to maintain some autonomy within the parameters established by the Japanese colonial government. In 1945, the Japanese were sent home and were no longer a threat. However, Won Buddhist leaders wanted to disassociate themselves from the battle within mainstream Buddhism that broke out after the Japanese withdrew. As noted earlier, the Japanese had strongly encouraged monks to marry, as Japanese monks did. Most Korean monks in the 1920s and 1930s did so. The new government of the Republic of Korea (better known as South Korea), which emerged in 1948, viewed married monks as a legacy of the despised Japanese colonial rule. Married monks were treated as collaborators with the Japanese and therefore the anti-Japanese government of South Korea wanted to keep them from playing an important or respected role in post-colonial Korea. This led to a battle between married and celibate monks for control of temples and Buddhist institutions that lasted into the 1970s. (Sørensen 1999, Kim Kwangsik 2000)

Male clerics in Won Buddhism are more often married than not. However, Won Buddhists did not want to be associated with the married monks in mainstream Buddhism for fear of incurring the disfavor of the government. Nor did they want to join the government-favored organization of celibate monks, since that would have forced them to conform to mainstream Buddhist expectations of what Buddhist rituals, Buddhist scriptures, Buddhist clergy, and Buddhist temples should look like. In order to maintain the autonomy that allowed them to practice their unique approach to Buddhism, they resisted pressure to become a sub-denomination within the umbrella Jogye Order that dominates mainstream Korean Buddhism today.

Once Won Buddhism felt confident that the government recognized it as a new religious order (that recognition wasn’t official until the early 1960s) (Department of International Affairs of Won Buddhism 2010, 123-24), it began reaching out to other religious communities to try to gain their recognition as well. Interfaith dialogue became an important means for Won Buddhism to establish its distinctive identity. By convincing leaders and representatives of other religious organizations to meet with Won Buddhist leaders and representatives and treat them as worthy of dialogue in their own right, rather than as representatives of the Jogye order or other branches of mainstream Buddhism, Won Buddhism gained recognition as separate and distinct from mainstream Buddhism.

Inter-faith dialogue is particularly important in a country like South Korea, in which, as noted earlier, no one religion dominates. According to the most recent census, in 2005 53% of Koreans claimed a specific religious affiliation. (There are over 100,000 practicing shamans in Korea, but their clients do not appear on the census as “shamanists,” so it is likely that that actual percentage of the South Korean population engaging in religious practices is far above 53%.) Of those 53%, as noted earlier, 22.8% (10.7 million) said they were Buddhists, 18.3% (8.6 million) said they were Protestant Christians, 10.9% (5.1 million) said they were Roman Catholics, and only 0.03% said they were Won Buddhists. Such division of the religious community provides Won Buddhism room to maneuver for attention, since no one religious organization is so dominant that it can ignore the rest. Moreover, religious leaders in Korea have tried to create broad-based coalitions of religious leaders to ensure that they will not be ignored by the government, which otherwise might be inclined to dismiss individual religious organizations as representing only a minority of the population. Bringing Won Buddhism into such coalitions allows them to add one more person to their executive committees, making them appear even larger and more powerful. Won Buddhism has taken advantage of this situation and has become very active on the inter-faith front in Korea.

This is despite the fact that, officially, there are very few Won Buddhists. The number of Won Buddhists is surely higher than the 130,000 the government’s census takers found. There may be as many as half a million to one million Won Buddhists out of a South Korean population of 50 million today. Nevertheless, it is clear that Won Buddhism is a relatively small religion, when compared to the size of the mainstream Buddhist, Protestant, and Catholic communities. There is a real danger that Won Buddhism will be overlooked when religions in Korea are counted. To ensure that does not happen, Won Buddhism has actively participated in inter-faith dialogues with its larger partners.

Won Buddhist interest in inter-faith dialogue is not simply out of a desire to be recognized, however. There is an inter-faith element to the core teachings of Won Buddhism. That inter-faith element reaches all the way to the founder, Sot’aesan. We already pointed out that Sot’aesan reported that he reached enlightenment without going through the usual formal Buddhist training or guidance given those pursuing that goal. Moreover, after his original enlightenment experience, he read seminal books from a variety of religious traditions, including Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, and even Christianity (he read the Bible). Only then, he says, did he realize that the insights he gained from his enlightenment, insights into the nature of reality and how to overcome the suffering living in this world entails, were closer to those of the Buddha than to those of the founders of other religious traditions. (Department of International Affairs of Won Buddhism 2010, 16)

The Scriptures of Won Buddhism relate the story of a conversation between Sot’aesan and a Christian minister. Sot’aesan advises that minister to widen his perspective. He warns him that people who only pay attention to their own ways of doing things “fall into onesideness, producing gaps that become like mountains of silver and ramparts of iron. This is the reason for all the antagonism and conflicts between countries, churches, and individuals.” (Committee for the Authorized Translation of Won-Buddhist Scriptures 2006, 314) This particular anecdote is interpreted not as a criticism of Christianity –-Won Buddhist criticisms of other religions tend to be muted–-but as a call for his own disciples to be open to the insights of other religions. That interpretation is supported by another statement of Sot’aesan. He is quoted in the Scriptures as saying, “In all matters, I do not gain knowledge only by inquiring to myself, but I acquire knowledge for my use when meeting with various people….when I talk with adherents of other religions, I gain knowledge of those religions.” (Committee for the Authorized Translation of Won-Buddhist Scriptures2006, 166)

When Sot’aesan was alive (he died in 1943), he was too concerned with putting his order on a sound footing and maintaining its distinctive identity to devote much time or energy to dialogues with other religions. The same was true of his successor as head of Won Buddhism Song Kyu (1900-1962), known as Chŏngsan) for the first decade or so he was Head Dharma Master. However, in the last years of his life, Chŏngsan brought inter-faith dialogue to the fore with his proclamation in 1961 of the “Ethics of Triple Identity.”

There are three principles to the Ethics of Triple Identity. The first principle is the principle of Identical Origin. “This implies that all people of religion must harmonize with one another, with the knowledge that the fundamental origin of all religions and religious sects is one…. Although their doctrines are expressed in different names and forms, a careful inquiry into their fundamental sources will show that the fundamental tenets are not contrary to the truth of Ilwŏn. Therefore, all religions are generally of identical origin.” (Chung 2012, 217) The Won Buddhist belief that Ilwŏn means that ultimately everything is one, without any real differences among them, is utilized to support an attitude of respect for, and outreach toward, other religions.

The second principle of the Ethics of Triple Identity is the “bond of one vital force. This principle implies that all races and all sentient beings should be united in grand harmony by awakening to the truth that they are all fellow beings bonded together by the one vital force.” (Chung 2012, 217) This principle draws on the traditional Sino-Korean belief that everything in the universe is composed of ki (C. Qi), the matter-and-energy that both provides the material substance for everything in the material world and animates those entities that are animated. It also draws on the teachings in Tonghak (a new Korean religion which preceded Won Buddhism by half a century) that elevate ki into a new level of importance as the spark of the divine, the Creative Force in the Cosmos, that can be found within the heart-and-mind of every human being.

The third principle is the principle of “renewal with one aim. This implies that, being awakened to the truth that all enterprises and proposals help toward the renewal of the world, all should unite in grand harmony.” He wrote that there is a great variety of political and business projects. However, “their original aims, as an inquiry into their fundamental sources shows, are all to make this world a better place.” (Chung 2012, 218) This third principle reflects the beginnings of the Won Buddhist community in a project to make the world a better place by getting residents of some impoverished villages to work together in order to reclaim tidal land for agriculture. (Chong 1997, 13, Department of International Affairs of Won Buddhism 2010, 23-24)

The stress on the ultimate unity of all religions was continued by the next Head Dharma Master, Kim Daega (1914-1998), better known as Taesan. Taesan declared

“The doctrines and institutions advocated by each religion can be different. However, consider that there can be no difference when it comes to the ultimate goal aspired to by each religion, the ultimate goal being the salvation of mankind founded on truth and love. Consider that this world is one. If we consider these two things, we see that the truth which is fundamental to each religion can only be one…. “All religions must, without conditions and excuses, mutually open their doors, talk seriously and meet as brothers and sisters.” (Taesan 2005, 18-19)

He went to say that the tremendous advance in material civilization in the modern world is pulling human beings deeper and deeper into materialism and “the power of the human spirit is becoming weakened…. At this point, as we, without hesitation, earnestly appeal for all religions to unite harmoniously for the sake of happiness and peace, I present the establishment of United Religions…which will, from a position of equality with the United Nations, do the job of humanity’s spiritual mother.” (Taesa 2005, 20)

The official hymnal of Won Buddhism even includes a couple of hymns proclaiming that all religions are essentially the same. One of those hymns, “Song of the Principle of Nature,” goes as follows:

“So many different branches, such a myriad of leaves, so many brilliant colors spring out of only one root. All that exists we see as countless variations. Looking again, we see there is only one energy.”

The other hymn, “Song of Three Equal Morals,” provides an even more explicit statement of the Won Buddhist doctrine that all religions are really just variations on one religion: “Many churches, many priests, preaching of their many beliefs. Many ways to see the same thing, one source, one principle. We are just one household; we are one, just one, circle. We are all working for the same goal.” (Department of International Affairs of Won Buddhism 2003, 86-87)

Taesan hoped that his proposed United Religions would be a religious equivalent to the United Nations, with “special representatives of each nation's religion.” United Religions was not envisioned as a form for inter-faith dialogue only. Rather, he hoped it would provide an institutional foundation for various religions from around the world to

“make a combined effort performing all activities from a religious dimension and for the promotion of human prosperity: activities of communication and friendship between religions, activities of combined education for the sake of the salvation of the human spirit, activities of united service for the sake of wiping out the disease of human poverty and ignorance, activities for the sake of a solution to the moral problems of humanity, and religious activities for the sake of prevention of war.” (Taesam 2005, 21)

Won Buddhism was never able to realize its dream of a religious equivalent of the United Nations. Instead, it has had to settle for active involvement in a number of inter-religious organizations, including the United Religions Initiative, which originated in the United States but had a monk from Korea’s mainstream Jogye Order among its founding members. (United Religions Initiative website)

Won Buddhist clerics, Roman Catholics nuns, and Buddhist clerics from the Jogye order join hands to encircle the monument honoring Sot’aesan’s enlightenment. (Photo courtesy of Won Buddhist Headquarters)

Motivated by the “Ethics of Triple Identity,” Won Buddhism has asserted its distinctive character through participation in inter-faith organizations in three distinct ways. First of all, it is an active member of the Association of Native Korean Religions. This is a way to proclaim that it is an indigenous Korean religion, not an imported religion using scriptures of foreign origin like the Jogye order. Second, it participates as an independent organization in international Buddhist organizations such as the World Fellowship of Buddhists, both to strengthen its identity as Buddhist and to show on the world stage that it is a different religious organization from mainstream Korean Buddhism. Third, at home it is an active member of the Korean Council of Religious Leaders (which includes Catholic, Protestant, mainstream Buddhist, and Confucian representatives, as well as representatives from Won Buddhism and another new religion, Ch’ŏndogyo) and the Korean Conference of Religion for Peace (which also includes Muslim representatives). By placing its representatives alongside Jogye representatives in such Korean ecumenical organizations, Won Buddhist enhances its visibility as a separate and distinct religious community. It has done the same thing outside of Korea. It has joined the Asian Council of Religion for Peace as well as the World Conference on Religion and Peace. It also has an office at the United Nations as a recognized NGO. Won Buddhism is using its inter-faith activities to ensure that other religious organizations, both inside and outside of Korea, recognize Won Buddhism as a separate and distinct religion.

One more inter-faith activity deserves mention: Samsohoe, “The Association of Three Smiles,” established in 1988 to bring together Roman Catholic nuns, Jogye Buddhist nuns, and Won Buddhist nuns to present concerts of their respective sacred music together and to also travel around the world together, visiting the sacred sites of each others’ religions. (Joongang Daily 1997) Again, by standing alongside Jogye representatives, Won Buddhist clerics proudly proclaim their independent status. In this particular case, photos of the nuns from those three traditions standing together in their markedly different clerical clothing strengthens the image of Won Buddhism as just as distinct from mainstream Korean Buddhism as Roman Catholicism is.

Conclusion

Are the various differences we have noted between Won Buddhism and other forms of Buddhism in Korea sufficient to create a gap between Won Buddhism and mainstream Korean Buddhist organizations large enough to justify labeling Won Buddhism a new religion? Have the leaders of Won Buddhism managed to carve out a separate space for Won Buddhism on Korea’s diverse religious landscape? I agree with Won Buddhists as well as scholars such as Daniel J. Adams and Michael Pye that the answer is “yes,” particularly when we take into account the direction Won Buddhism has been moving in the last few decades.

Won Buddhism called itself an “association for the study of the Buddhist dharma” until 1947 when, taking advantage of the religious freedom that appeared on the Korean peninsula after the Japanese occupation of Korea ended with Japan’s defeat in World War II, Won Buddhism registered for the first time as a new religion and adopted the name Won Buddhism. (Chong 1997, 34) Moreover, as noted earlier, in 1962 Won Buddhism revised some of its earlier scriptures to minimize terminology that appeared too close to mainstream Buddhist terminology. (Chung 2003a, xiv, 353-356, Jin Park 2004) On top of that, rank-and-file Won Buddhists themselves appear to be becoming more conscious of themselves as Won Buddhists rather than as simply Buddhists. In the 2005 census in South Korea, as noted above, around 130,000 people declared that they were Won Buddhists, compared to only 86,000 ten years earlier, in the 1995 census. At noted earlier, there are probably more Won Buddhists than that in South Korea. Won Buddhist authorities recently claimed to have over a million members, attending over 550 temples in South Korea alone as well as over 50 temples outside of Korea. (Won Buddhism website b) The number of temples in Korea, as well as the size of the membership claimed by Won Buddhist headquarters, has stayed roughly the same over the last twenty years, though the number of Won Buddhist temples overseas has grown from 30 to 50 or so. Though that claim of over one million Won Buddhists may be somewhat exaggerated, still it is probably safe to assume that quite a few of the 10.7 million South Koreans who wrote on government census forms that they were Buddhists frequently attend services at Won Buddhist temples, which would make them Won Buddhists in the eyes of Won Buddhist authorities. Moreover, given the almost 46% increase in those declaring themselves Won Buddhists in 2005, compared to the 1995 census, it is also safe to assume that there is a growing trend among Won Buddhists to identify themselves specifically as such. In other words, the distinction between mainstream Buddhism and Won Buddhism, and the identity of Won Buddhism as a new religion, among the rank-and file appears to be strengthening.

Won Buddhism has also gained more visibility in the public arena. In 2009, when a state funeral was held for former president Kim Daejung, representatives for four different religious traditions were asked to participate in the funeral rites. Even though Kim was a devout Roman Catholic, those who watched that funeral on television could see that, in addition to Catholic clerics, there were also clerics representing Korea’s Protestant community, the Buddhist Jogye community, and Won Buddhism. (Adams 2009, 1) That was a sign that Won Buddhism had gained recognition as one of the four major religious communities on the Korean peninsula.

Ironically, while Won Buddhism appears to be winning the battle for independent recognition in Korea itself, it has found that, outside of Korea, it needs to emphasize its Buddhist roots. A recent newspaper article by a Won Buddhist missionary in the United States revealed that the Westerners most likely to show an interest in Won Buddhism are those who have grown tired of the highly defined religiosity of Christianity and are looking for a spiritual philosophy or what they might term “spirituality” instead. Often they are drawn to Buddhist philosophy and meditation practices. Won Buddhism, to attract such potential converts, needs to point to its similarities with Buddhism while at the same time distinguishing itself from its many other Buddhist competitors in the West by presented itself as a reformed Buddhism more appropriate for the modern world than traditional Buddhism. (Ha Sangŭi 2011)

That strategy is apparent on the home page of the Won Buddhism meditation center outside the city of Philadelphia in the US. There Won Buddhism is described as “a reformed Buddhism in that it embraces the original Buddha’s teachings and makes it relevant and suitable to contemporary society.” (Won Buddhist website c) Michael Pye, who observed Won Buddhism in Korea, argued that it should not be considered a reformed Buddhism because it has diverged too much from original Buddhism. However, if he had observed Won Buddhist missionaries in the West, he may have modified his conclusion. Won Buddhist missionaries define Won Buddhism as a reform of Buddhism, not in the sense of a “true or loyal form of an original tradition which had been overlaid or lost,” (Pye 2002, 132) but in the sense of an improvement on that original tradition to match changes in the world in which Buddhism must operate.

Won Buddhist leaders, both in Korea and abroad, will tell you that Won Buddhism is both a Buddhist religion and a new religion, since it is a new form of Buddhism for a new age. In other words, it is a new Buddhist religion, a conclusion Pye and I share. (Pye 2002, 141) Although Won Buddhism has enough Buddhist coloring that the use of Buddhism in its name is not unjustified, and Won Buddhism is not being disingenuous when it presents itself to potential Western converts as a from of Buddhism, its leaders have ensured that it is different enough from the many varieties of traditional Buddhism that it looks like a new religion and should be accepted as such. After all, if we can talk about Soka Gakkai as a new religion rather than as just another Buddhist denomination, surely we can grant Won Buddhism the same independent existence.

Print References:

Adams, Daniel J.

2009 “Won Buddhism in Korea: A New Religious Movement Comes of Age.” Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch 84: 1-35

Baker, Don

2002 “Hananim, Hanŭnim, Hanullim, and Hanŏllim: The Construction of Terminology for Korean Monotheism.” Review of Korean Studies, 5 (1): 105-131

Ch'a Oksung

2003 Chŭngsan'gyo. Wŏnbulgyo: Han'gugin ŭi chonggyo kyŏnghŏm [Chŭngsan'gyo and Wŏnbulgyo: the religious experiences of Koreans]. Seoul: Seokwangsa.

Chong, Key Ray

1997 Won Buddhism: A History and Theology of Korea’s New Religion. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Committee for the Authorized Translation of Won-Buddhist Scriptures

2006 The Scriptures of Won-Buddhism. Iksan, Korea: Wonkwang Publishing, 2006.

Chung, Bong-kil

1984 “What is Won Buddhism?” Korea Journal 24 (5) :18-31

1987 “The Concept of Dharmakaya in Won Buddhism: Metaphysical and Religious Dimensions,” Korea Journal 27 (1): 4-15

1988 “Won Buddhism: A Synthesis of The Moral Systems of Confucianism And Buddhism,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 15 (4): 425-448

2003a The Scriptures of Won Buddhism: A Translation of the Wŏnbulgyo Kyojŏn with Introduction Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

2003b “Won Buddhism: the historical context of Sot’aesan’s reformation of Buddhism for the modern world, ” in Steven Heine and Charles S. Prebish, ed. Buddhism in the Modern World New York: Oxford University Press: 143-167

2012 The Dharma Master Chongsan of Won Buddhism: Analects and Writings Albany, NY: SUNY Press

Department of International Affairs of Won Buddhism, ed.

2003 Hymns of Won Buddhism Iksan, Korea; WonKwang Publishing Company

2010 History of Won Buddhism, Published online. Available at

http://www.wonbuddhism.org/resources Accessed 15/01/2012.

Ha Sangŭi

2011 “Mirae chonggyorosŏ wōnbulgyoŭi [The significance of Won Buddhism as a religion for the future,” Wŏnbulgyo sinmun Sept. 30, 2011 Accessed on June 4, 2012, at http://www.wonnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=102006

Han’guk Chonggyo sahoe yŏn’guso, ed.

1993 Han’guk chonggyo yŏn’gam [A yearbook of religion in Korea] Seoul: Korea Halimwon

Heine, Steven and Charles S. Prebish, ed.

2003 Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition New York: Oxford University Press

Joongang Daily

1997 “Three Smiles---- lessons in faith and true spiritual understanding.” November 16, 1997. Accessed January 14, 2011 at http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id=2949094http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id=2949094

Kim, Bokin

2000 Concerns and Issues in Won Buddhism Philadelphia: Won Publications, 2000

Kim Dogong

2010 “The Relation between Buddhism and Won Buddhism” Journal of the Korean Academy of New Religions, Special Edition, August 2010: 166-98

Kim Kwangsik

2000 Uriga sara-on han’guk pulgyo paengnyŏn [A hundred years of Korean Buddhism we have lived through] Seoul: Minjoksa

McCormick, Ryuei Michael

1997 “The Four Graces According to Sot’aesan and Nichren, ” Won Buddhist Studies, Vol. II (1997). Available on the internet at http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/4Graces.html Accessed June 14, 2011.

Park, Jin

2004 “Review of Chung, Bongkil, The Scriptures of Won Buddhism: A Translation of the WOnbulgyo kyojOn with Introduction. H-Buddhism, H-Net Reviews. January, 2004. Accessed at http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=8735 on 11/6/2012

Park Kwangsoo

2003 “Sot’aesan’s Essays on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism,” International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture, 3: 169-94

Michael Pye

2002 “Won Buddhism as a Korean New Religion,” Numen 49:2: 113-41

Sørensen, Henrik H.

1999 “Buddhism and Secular Power in Twentieth-Century Korea,” Ian Harris, ed, Buddhism and Politics in Twentieth-century Asia London: Continuum:127-152

Taesan

2005 “The Necessity of the Establishment of the United Religions,” Living Buddha: The Won-Buddhist Review, vol. 1 (1):18-21

Yang Eun-yong

2008 “The History, Basic Beliefs, Rituals, and Structure of Won-Buddhism,” in Kim Sunghae and James Heisig, Encounters: The New Religions of Korea and Christianity Seoul: Royal Asiatic Society: 73-93

Yoon Yee-heum, Kim Sang-yil, Yook Suk-san, and Park Kwang-soo, ed.

2005 Korean Native Religions (Seoul: Association of Korean New Religions

Websites:

Association of Korean Buddhist Orders Accessed at http://kboa.or.kr/ on 9/12/2012

Pulgyo chongbo sent’ŏ, ed [Buddhist information Center], “Wŏnbulgyonŭn Pulgyo in’ga? Minjok chonggyo in’ga? [Is Won Buddhism Buddhism or an indigenous religion?] Accessed at http://www.budgate.net/Scripts/poll/poll.asp?prot=article&id=8 on 3/6, 2012

Dahn World Accessed at http://www.dahnyoga.com On 9/6. 2012

Jogye order Accessed at http://www.koreanbuddhism.net on 3/6/2012

Maum Meditation Accessed at http://maum.org/eng/ on 9.6/2012

T ’onggyero sesang pogi [Looking at the world through statistics], On RainbowsBlog, accessed at http://instatistics.officetutor.org/380 on 3/6, 2012.

United Religions Initiative Accessed at http://www.uri.org/ on 9/6/2011.

Won Buddhism (English-language web pages)

a http://www.wonbuddhism.org/resources Accessed 11/6/2012

b http://www.wonbuddhism.info/info/page/3.html This page is now off-line. Last accessed 6/6/2011.

c. http://phila.wonbuddhism.info/eng2/won/won1.html Accessed 4/6/2012

WonKwang University http://www.wku.ac.kr/english Accessed 11/6/2012