Domesticating the Dharma: Buddhist Cults and the Hwaom Synthesis in Silla Korea

Notes

 Notes Introduction 1. Samgukyusa 4, T 2039, 49.1005a–b; SYKY 4:340–341. Iryŏn’s interlinear notes have been removed. For more discussion on this anecdote see Richard McBride , “The Vision-Quest Motif in Narrative Literature on the Buddhist Traditions of Silla,” 28–31. 2. The traditional dates for Silla are 57 b.c.e –935 c.e. Kim Pusik defines Silla’s three periods as the ancient period (sangdae, 57 b.c.e.–654 c.e.), the middle period (chungdae, 654–780), and the late period (hadae, 780–935) (Samguksagi 12:127 [Kyŏngmun 9]). Following the dynastic chronology (wangnyŏk) attached to the front of the Samgukyusa, wherein Silla’s three periods are defined as high antiquity (sanggo, 57 b.c.e.–514 c.e.), middle antiquity (chunggo, 514–654), late antiquity (hago, 654–935) (Samgukyusa 1, T 2039, 49.958b, 959c; SYKY 1:16, 20), scholars of Korean history typically consider the Silla epoch to belong to ancient Korea. However, since the Silla period also corresponds to what scholars refer to as China’s medieval period (ca. 317–907), and since ancient Silla society corresponds well in many ways, I refer to it as early medieval and medieval in this book. 3. Peter Brown, TheCultoftheSaints, 12–22. 4. See Brown, TheCultoftheSaints; Gregory Schopen, Bones,Stones,andBuddhist Monks; and Michel Strickmann, “The ConsecrationSūtra: A Buddhist Book of Spells,” MantrasetMandarins, and ChineseMagicalMedicine. 5. Catherine Bell, RitualTheory,RitualPractice, 185. Although the ideas expressed by Bell are in the context discussing Hinduism, the same may well be said for Buddhism. See Erik Zürcher, TheBuddhistConquestofChina, “Buddhist Influence on Early Taoism,” and “Prince Moonlight: Messianism and Eschatology in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism”; Tsukamoto Zenryū, ShinaBukkyōshikenkyū. 6. Michel Strickmann, “India in the Chinese Looking-Glass,” 59. 7. Bell, RitualTheory,RitualPractice, 124. 8. Samguksagi 18:166 (Sosurim 2–5); cf. Samgukyusa 3,T 2039, 49.986a; SYKY 3:203–204. According to the LivesofEminentMonks (Gaosengzhuan), the Eastern Jin monk Zhi Dun (Daolin, 314–366) sent a letter to an unnamed Koguryŏ monk speaking highly of another Chinese monk named Zhu Qian (Fashen, 268–374). See Gaosengzhuan 4, T 2059, 50.348a12–15; Ahn Kye-hyŏn, “Koguryŏ Pulgyo ŭi chŏn’gae,” 65–66. 9. Samguksagi 24:222 (Ch’imnyu 2); Samgukyusa 3, T 2039, 49.986a; SYKY 3:204. 10. SamMirŭk-kyŏngso, T 1774, 38.317b21–24; HPC 2.99a13–17. Kyŏnghŭng’s list is actually derived from a list developed by the Chinese Yogācāra monk Kuiji (632–682). See GuanMileshangshengDoushuaitianjingzan 2, T 1772, 38.295b22– 29; Ahn Kye-hyŏn, Sillachŏngt’osasangyŏn’gu, 90n38. 11. SamMirŭk-kyŏngso, T 1774, 38.317b24–29; HPC 2.99a17–23. 12. Schopen, Bones,Stones,andBuddhistMonks, 252. 13. See Arthur Whaley, TheRealTripitaka, 17, 21, 29, 37, 39, 40–41, 47, 93, 98, 113, 129; Sally Hovey Wriggins, Xuanzang:ABuddhistPilgrimontheSilkRoad, 96, 64, 86, 131; Richard McBride, “Dhāraṇī and Spells in Medieval Sinitic Buddhism ,” 101–102. 14. For discussion on Daoshi’s dates see Chen Jinhua, MonksandMonarchs, KinshipandKingship, 24–25n39. For more on the Fayuanzhulin, see Stephen F.Teiser , “T’ang Buddhist Encyclopedias”; Chen Yuzhen, “Daoshi yu Fayuanzhulin.” 15. See, for instance, Stephen F. Teiser, TheGhostFestivalinMedievalChina, 43–112; and Yü Chün-fang, Kuan-yin:TheChineseTransformationofAvalokiteśvara. 16. See Richard McBride, “A Koreanist’s Musings on the Chinese Yishi Genre.” 17. Henrik Sørensen, “Problems with Using the Samgukyusa as a Source for the History of Korean Buddhism,” 271–288; see also Sørensen, “On the Sinin and Ch’ongji Schools and the Nature of Esoteric Buddhist Practice under the Koryŏ,” 49–61. 18. See Richard McBride, “Is the Samgukyusa reliable?” Chapter 1: Buddhism and the State in Silla 1. Samguk sagi 12:123–124 (Kyŏngmyŏng 5, non); Samguk yusa 1, T 2039, 49.968b; SYKY 1:79–80; Koryŏsa 2:12b–13a. 2. Samgukyusa 3, T 2039, 49.986a–b; SYKY 3:205–206. 3. Samgukyusa 3, T 2039, 49.986b; SYKY...