Copyright by University of Hawaii Press

182

Robert Buswell's The Formation of Ch'an ldeology in China and Korea

is a major contribution to the growing field of Ch'an (Zen) studies. Appearing 5

in the Princeton Library of Asian Translations series, it centers on a study

and annotated translation of the Vajrasamaadhi-Suutra (Kn, Kumgang

sammae-kyong; Chin, Chin-kang san-mei ching), an apocryphal scripture

that played an important role in the development of East Asian Bud-

dhism, especially Ch'an. The book is accordingly divided into two parts:

the first, in four chapters, contains a derailed study of the text, and the

second presents an annotated translation. The translation is expertly

rendered, and the annotation is thorough; yet, for all of Buswell's consid-

erable skill, the text still makes difficult reading and is not something to

be taken up lightly. Rather, I suspect that it is the first part of the

book that most readers will find to be of greatest interest and value, and

it is on that that my review will concentrate.

The book is much more than a textual study. Buswell's investigation

of the question of the authorship and provenance of the Vajrasamaadhi

opens several new and exciting avenues of pursuit. Although the

Vajrasamaadhi had long been accepted into the Buddhist canon, modern

scholars--beginning with Mizuno koogen and Walter Liebenthal--have

suspected that it was really a Chinese composition and not the translation

of an Indian scripture that it was purported to be. Buswell pushes

speculation on the apocryphal character of the text beyond previous

studies by demonstrating convincingly that the text was not only not a

translation of an Indian original, but that it was also not composed in

China. Buswell's startling (but utterly persuasive) new conclusion is that

the Vajrasamaadhi was "written in Korea, sometime around AD 685,

by an early adept of the nascent Soh [that is, Ch'an] tradition on the

peninsula, a man I shall call Pomnang" (p.23). Although the biographical

details are sparse, Pomnang is regarded by the tradition as having brought

Son to Korea; he is also alleged to have studied with the fourth Chinese

Ch'an patriarch, Tao-hsin (580-651). According to Buswell's deductions,

he could not have returned to Korea until sometime after 676. In his

analysis of the Vajrasamaadhi, Buswell shows how it tailors its latent Ch'an

183

(Or Son) message in such a way as to legitimate this nascent Korean

school of Buddhism in the eyes of its Silla scholastic audience. Wonhyo's

(617-686) famous commentary (Kuumgang sammaegyoongron) was

probably written just before his death. The first reference to the Vajrasamaadhi

in China occurs in an early eighth-century work by Fa-tsang (643-712),

who, significantly, had close connections with Korea. The text is not

mentioned in Chinese catalogs until 730.

Buswell's argument is complexly textured, and, in the course of

developing it, he not only quantitatively adds to our knowledge of the

development of early Chinese Ch'an but also qualitatively enriches our

understanding of it by introducing several important new dimensions. In

this regard, chapter two is especially impressive. In his treatment of

Wonhyo's biographies, Buswell ventures beyond the often narrow purview

of the buddhologist to explore the legendary and mythical themes

that locate the text within a Korean context; his analysis is sophisticated

and exciting. Overall, his four-chapter introduction to the tea clearly

establishes its importance for our understanding of the origins of Ch'an,

and, in so doing, Buswell makes at least four significant contributions.

First of all, he establishes the undeniable role that Korean Buddhists

played in the development of Chinese Ch'an--a point little recognized

in previous scholarship. This lends credence to Buswell's larger point that

Ch'an cannot properly be understood as an exclusively Chinese phenomenon

but must rather be seen in the context of a broader East Asian

cultural matrix (in which China was, of course, the center of gravity). His

work thus not only helps to redress the prevailing assumption that

Koreans (and later Japanese) were largely passive recipients of the

benefits of Chinese culture but also demonstrates the value of a "continental

approach" of considering Ch'an as a pan-East Asian phenomenon. Only

someone like Buswell, who had established his preeminence in the field

of Korean Buddhism with his excellent study and translation of Chinul's

works (A Korean Approach to Zen, published by the University of Hawaii

Press in 1983), could have put the various clues together to solve the

riddle of who wrote the Vajrasamaadhi

Second, Buswell's discussion of the Vajrasamaadhi clarifies the

importance of apocryphal scriptures for understanding East Asian Buddhism in

general and Ch'an in particular. Because of their non-Indic provenance,

such works are often not given their just due in the scholarship in the

field (with its often unacknowledged bias toward India as the source of

scriptural authenticity). Buswell's approach establishes that it is precisely

because such works are apocryphal that they deserve our special attention.

His work in this area is truly pioneering and opens up new avenues

of research in East Asian Buddhism. Hopefully some of these avenues will

be explored in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Buswell and

recently published by the University of Hawaii Press.

184

The important role that apocryphal scriptures played in the

development of the Ch'an tradition points to the third major contribution of

Buswell's study: he succeeds in clarifying the doctrinal basis out of which

Ch'an developed. Because of its own iconoclastic attitude toward traditional

Buddhist doctrine, Ch'an is often seen as a unique teaching that

does not depend on written words. Buswell's study not only establishes

the importance of standard Chinese Buddhist doctrines in the formation

of Ch'an but also defines the specific complex of ideas that were

involved. The study is especially valuable for showing how Ch'an grew out

of the evolving Sinitic interpretation of Buddhism built around the under-

standing of mind detailed in the Awakening of Faith (another apocryphal

text). In particular Buswell shows how the Chinese adaptation of the

tathaagatagarbha doctrine in apocryphal works like the Vajrasamaadhi and

Awakening of Faith laid the ontological basis for the development of the

subitist soteriology associated with Ch'an. The kind of doctrinal context

that Buswell articulates helps to integrate Ch'an studies into the larger

field of Buddhist studies.

Fourth, in discussing apocryphal texts and Ch'an doctrine, Buswell's

study also contributes further to our understanding of the process by

which Buddhism was "Sinicized." It demonstrates how apocryphal texts

played a key role in the adaptation of Buddhism to East Asian religious

sensitivities by legitimating indigenous insights and approaches to

practice. It thereby helps to clarify how Ch'an gave uniquely Sinitic form

and expression to mainstream Chinese Buddhist doctrine. Especially

valuable in this regard is Buswell's discussion, in chapter four, of the

Vajrasamaadhi's adaptation of the "two accesses" soteriology associated

with Bodhidharma and "guarding the one/guarding the mind" meditative

theory of the East Mountain teaching of Tao-hsin and Hung-jen (601-674).

I realize that it is customary for a reviewer to balance his praise for a

book with a set of well-tempered criticisms. I must confess, however, that

I find The Formation of Ch'an ldeology in China and Korea a difficult

work to fault. The few quibbles that I might have are of such a minor

character that it would be wholly inappropriate to mention them here.

Overall, this is an outstanding work of scholarship that will richly reward

those who read it.