Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies ISSN:1598-0642(Print) 불교학연구

This contribution is an attempt to re-evaluate the activities of the two Seon masters Gyeong-heo Seong-u (1846-1912) and Man-gong Wol-myeon (1871-1946) in early modern Korea after the opening of the country from the perspective of the modern Korean Buddhist reform movement.In the history of Korean Buddhism the modern era is a crucial period which caused a profound concussion in Buddhism because of the abrupt and sudden transformation of the state and society which itself confronted Buddhism from without. Also the early modern era is the era in which Buddhism had already suffered a loss of internal energy and livelihood because of the policy of Appraising Confucianism and Rejecting Buddhism, which had prevailed since the beginning of the Joseon Dynasty, and especially the traditional Buddhist practice which ought to have lead to the attainment of enlightenment turning out to be in a state of obvious weakness. Under such conditions Gyeong-heo achieved enlightenment solely by the precepts of Ganhwa Seon practice. Thereafter Gyeong-heo made efforts to spread this kind of meditation rules for the benefit of maintaining the true dharma. Moreover he founded and developed an association movement in which monks and laymen stood united without discrimination. His influence caused and supported the initiation of such associations for the promotion of meditation in various temples in the Jeonra and Gyeongsang provinces. Gyeong-heos’ dharma successor Man-gong endeavored the protection of Korean Buddhism’s traditional practice during the Japanese colonial period, for example by means of the Seon Hakwon (Academy) Movement and the Seon instruction he provided his students with.Gyeong-heo and Man-gong regarded the protection of the true dharma tradition, by whose means alone the meditation training could lead towards enlightenment, as their foremost duty. Their activities raised the strength of the weakened Ganhwa Seon tradition and furthered its distribution, furthermore their students later became the majority within Korean Buddhism. But still they can be held responsible for a number of various negative or problematic developments, because they considered issues other than those concerning the field of meditation practice unimportant. Gyeong-heo displayed an immoral and socially deviant demeanor by keeping up the attitude euphemistically called Muaehaeng , and Man-gong likewise showed little respect towards Buddhist education and the abidance by Buddhist monastic rules. Thus their activities can be regarded as one of the reasons for the problem of the successively low qualification of the Buddhist monastic community. Additionally, neither did Gyeong-heo show any serious social interest or engagement during the times of national crisis at the end of the Joseon Dynasty nor was Man-gong able to act meaningfully in social or political matters, although the initiation of an independent Korean Buddhist community would have been an immensely important issue in those days. The narrowness of their social perception in these things becomes quite obvious.It seems justified from the perspective of the modern Buddhist reform movement to state that both Gyeong-heo’ s and Man-gong’s activities offered a number of positive directions for development concerning the “right” Buddhist practice while at the same time they revealed serious shortcomings in view of other aspects such as the important challenges of education, the adherence to Buddhist rules, the social position of Buddhism and its independence in Korea, to name but a few examples which they treated with little esteem.