In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS123 tally, perhaps, Lee was the only scholar who traveled alone, and he spent somewhat longer in North Korea than the group members. The essential mystery of North Korea does not lie in its economic statistics, nor its unification policy, nor its educational system, nor even in the externalities ofthe leadership cult. Rather, it lies in the realm ofpsychology: how and to what extent have this people, once feisty and independent ofview, come to subject themselves seemingly willingly to such monolithic and unprecedented socio-political-religious integration? Lee addresses himself with much conviction to aspects of this essential problem: the curious North Korean definition of freedom; the almost total paucity of knowledge—or even curiosity—about the rest of the world; the unnerving unanimity of thought; the paranioc siege mentality lurking behind the propaganda and braggadocio; the unyielding self-righteousness and lack of the capacity to listen; and the myths and misperceptions about the much-disdained rest of mankind. Lee is guilty of some overconfidence and exaggeration. We little know the North Korean mind, but its unanimity is less than Lee estimates. My trip showed me indications, at least, of differences of opinion and emphasis. The silence, reticence, and distance from us of 99 percent of the North Koreans likely conceals much that evades our suspicions today and may even open us to blame tomorrow. Nevertheless, Manwoo Lee carries us further than does anybody else on thejourney we must take. Journey to North Korea is a good book. Yet we must bring all our skills to bear, as this book does not, if the northern sphinx is to reveal its secrets. When the editors broadened their coverage beyond the travelling group, they did so only within ethnic Korean academics; three competent American political scientists and specialists on Korea who visited that country the same summer were not approached for contributions. The borders oí chuch'e's exclusivist, nationalist, and racist spirit are not, it seems, coterminous with those of North Korea. Gregory Henderson The Free University, Berlin Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment. By Sung Bae Park. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983. x, 211 pp. Glossary, bibliography , index. Cloth, $29.50. Paper, $8.95. Sung Bae Park belongs to that new breed of Buddhologist who have come to their study as much from personal commitment as from intellectual curiosity. Drawing upon his own academic and monastic backgrounds, Park undertakes in his new book a consideration of one of the major issues in Buddhist soteriology: the role of faith in catalyzing the initial experience of spiritual awakening. Park attempts no historical or philological study of his subject, but rather an exegesis ofthe underlying principles that make sudden enlightenment possible in 124BOOK REVIEWS Buddhism, and especially in Ch'an. While this problem has been treated at length by Buddhist exegetes, the discussion has so often been obscured by Buddhist terminology that very little sense is conveyed of the actual processes involved. Happily, such is not the case in Park's treatment. He draws upon parallels with Christian theological interpretations of faith and ancillary topics to clarify the underpinnings of Buddhist soteriology without glossing over the differences between the two religions. Hence, his study also treats important cross-cultural issues that should prove of interest to the historian of religion. Park adopts as the focus for his discussion the distinction drawn by Chinul (1158-1210), the founder of the Korean Son school, between two types of faith: doctrinal (kyomun sin) and patriarchal (chomun sin; Chinul actually never used the term chosa sin that Park has adopted for his discussion). Park characterizes the typical Western theistic view of faith as a faith in a construction that sustains a sense of separation between the worshipper and the object of worship (neng-so, "subject/object"; pp. 35 ff). In Mahayana Buddhism, especially as interpreted in the Hua-yen school of the mature Chinese tradition, faith was seen as the natural functioning (yung) of the essence (t'i) of one's own mind. Thus it is nondual. Following Chinul's analysis, however, two distinct types of Mahayana faith are distinguished. The first, doctrinal faith, is defined as faith in one's potential to become...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 123-126
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.