Protocols of Conversion: Indigenous Gods and Eminent Monks in East Asian Buddhism

Abstract

This article examines the relationships between eminent monks and local gods in East Asian Buddhism, problematizing the ill-defined and much-employed concept of “protector deity of the dharma” (Skt. dharmapāla). By carefully examining various stories of the interactions between eminent monks and various gods found mostly in the biographies of eminent monks in Buddhist literature, we find three recognizable patterns when an indigenous god transforms into a “Buddhist” god. This study illustrates the ways in which local gods obtain Buddhist identities and deciphers how the “conversion” becomes possible via the spiritual power of the eminent monks, whose drive from their moral strength serves as the foundation of their spiritual essence. In this long process of localization of the dharma, the most effective narratives link the idea of the dharmapāla with the virtue of eminent monks. Hence, these narratives in GSZ, XGSZ, and Samugykusa contain colorful examples of taming local gods and malicious spirits with their mental power and moral virtue, finding a place for those gods to fit into the new Buddhist order. This study provides insights into the complex interactions between different religious traditions and sheds light on the ways in which religious ideas and practices are adapted and transformed in new cultural contexts.

1. Introduction

The localization of Buddhism in East Asia was a long and arduous process. In fact, the issue of sinification was the dominant subject in Buddhist studies over several decades. Although numerous scholars scrutinized various aspects of the domestication of the dharma in the Sinitic Buddhist world, most remained in the human-centered narrative, researching the doctrinal, political, and socioeconomic histories of the localization in East Asia (Zürcher [1959] 2007; Ch’en 1964; Ebrey and Gregory 1993; Sharf 2005; McBride 2007; Heirman and Bumbacher 2007). What was left out in this traditional anthropocentric framework is how divine beings such as local gods fit into the longer arc of the localization process. While some scholarship gradually turned to the study of gods and myth in the medieval period and highlighted the seminal presence of gods in the Buddhist devotionalism and their role in the formation of a distinctive localization of Buddhism (Shahar 2015; Faure 2015a, 2015b, 2021), the place of gods in the localization of Buddhism in China and Korea was inadequately explored. Following and building upon this recent interest in the study of gods, this article hopes to illuminate some significant patterns of how local gods gain Buddhist identity and agency in major Buddhist literature.

This study argues that indigenous gods obtained legitimacy as they closely interacted with eminent Buddhist monks. In other words, eminent monks were the source of their divine power, although this idea may appear counterintuitive at first. We have numerous stories where gods express their desire to receive Buddhist precepts as humans do. At times, they also desired to escape from their bodies. Pious “Buddhist” acts, such as worshipping the relics of Buddha, were encouraged. Sometimes they also asked eminent Buddhist monks to recite Buddhist sutras so that they could benefit from the merits; at other times, they asked them to grant Buddhist precepts so that they could assume Buddhist identities. In this article, a particular type of Buddhist literature—the biographies of eminent monks, such as Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (Biographies of Eminent Monks, 6th c., T. 2059, hereafter, GSZ) and Xu Gaoseung zhuan 續高僧傳 (Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, 7th c., T. 2060, hereafter, XGSZ)—is discussed to understand early examples of the narrative of the localization of gods in Chinese Buddhism. Sections from Samgukyusa 三國遺事 (Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms, 13th c. T. 2039) that deal with the miracle stories of eminent monks and local gods are also examined to see how the same strategy plays out in different cultural settings. By paying special attention to the discernible patterns of how indigenous gods were embraced in the larger Buddhist ethics and order, the article ultimately illustrates the ways in which local gods obtain Buddhist identities and shows how these “conversions” became possible via the power of eminent monks whose spiritual source derives from their high moral power.

By charting out these patterns, this article arrives at a better delineation of a convenient but ill-defined concept, “the protector god of the dharma” (Skt. dharmapāla; Ch. hufa shanshen; and Kr. hobŏp sŏnsin 護法善神). This idea first became prominent during the time of the Northern and Southern dynasties (420–589 CE) in China, and continued to become the most frequently used label for the invisible world. As I explain below, the rhetoric of the dharmapāla is found abundantly in XGSZ.1 While scholars of Buddhism lumped most converted gods together as dharmapāla in the Buddhist pantheon (Tsuda 1937, 1938a, 1938b, 1938c, 1938d, 1939a, 1939b; Hojo 2010, pp. 14–30; Yoshida 2020), this study suggests that there are more noticeable differences in individual cases.

We present selected examples of stories featuring interactions of eminent monks and gods to discuss how the dharmapāla were traditionally understood. They allow us to identify three major patterns in how a non-Buddhist god turns into a “Buddhist” god: (1) by desiring to escape from their body (transcending from the realm of form to the realm of the formless, according to the traditional Buddhist cosmology); (2) by receiving Buddhist precepts (戒) from eminent monks; and (3) by interacting with Buddhist monks, such as having them teach Buddhist texts.

2. Gods Who Wish to Discard Their Form

Narratives in GSZ and XGSZ are replete with gods who wish to discard their current body because they regard it as the source of suffering in this realm (Skt. rūpa). One may think this a very Chinese strategy, but in fact, the concept was introduced in early Indian Buddhism. One of the most salient examples is found in both Zhong ahanjing 中阿含經 (Skt. Madhyma Āgama) and Zabaozang jing 雜寶藏經 (Skt. Saṃyukta-ratna-piṭaka-sūtra). A famous episode, known as “the Visit of Indra,” in the life of Śākyamuni Buddha documented in the older corpus of the Buddhist text, is widely illustrated in the forms of sculptures found in the Gandhara region of India. The depictions of the Bharhut relief, for example, go back to the first century BCE. With the story from Zhong ahanjing and Zabaozang jing, we find a more detailed narrative of Śakra (帝釋天) below, who supposedly lives for an unimaginable stretch of time and possesses supreme power.

When Śākyamuni was practicing the Way in Indasālaguha, the east of Rājagṛha (王舍城), Śakra (帝釋天), a god of kāmadhātu (欲界), visited Śākyamuni. Śakra did not like his body and wanted to be born again into Brahma Heaven, in the heavenly realm. Śakra had long been eager to hear Śākyamuni’s teachings. His previous visit had been fruitless, because Śākyamuni was in dhyāna and samādhi (mediation). However, in this visit, Śakra listened to the fundamental teachings of Buddhism and realized that śamatha (寂靜) and joy, which he had felt since the victory over Asura, were not real. He also came to believe that discarding all desires and correctly cultivating the mind would result in the ultimate enlightenment, or at least the rebirth from Rūpa-dhātu (色界) into the heavenly realm. Śakra (帝釋天) swore to abide by the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha.2

The idea is also found in vinaya literature, for example, in texts such as Fobenxingjijing (佛本行集經, Skt. Abhiniṣkramaṇa sūtra), Sifen lü (四分律, Skt. Dharmaguptaka-vinaya), and Wufen lü (五分律, Skt. Pañcavarka vinaya).

Erāpattra (伊羅鉢龍王) used to be a monk and practiced the path of enlightenment with Kāśyapa (迦葉佛). However, he was reincarnated as a dragon because of a sin he committed. Due to his resentment toward the mundane world, he came to have a strong desire to discard his body. Later, Erāpattra awaited the appearance of Śākyamuni (釋尊), who, according to Kāśyapa, would help him return to a human body. The king of the Yakṣha (夜叉王), a friend of Erāpattra, told him that there was a Gāthā that could be understood only when the Buddha came to this world. He finally met Śākyamuni, who understood the Gāthā. Śākyamuni predicted that Erāpattra would be reborn as a human in the world of Maitreya Buddha, become a monk, and be emancipated from suffering. Erāpattra swore to abide by the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha, and received the five precepts (五戒 pañcaśīla). Śākyamuni expounded on the fundamental teachings of the Buddha for 84,000 people.3

The passages given above are the locus classicus explaining why indigenous gods desired to discard their own bodies. The key message in both narratives is that all gods of the heavenly realm went to Śākyamuni to receive the dharma. Śākyamuni’s teachings were so powerful that all gods and spirits could attain enlightenment. An interesting aspect is that when Buddhism was first introduced into China during the Eastern Han dynasty (25–220 CE), the Buddha himself was perceived as a “foreign god”.4 The early reception of this idea was thus ambivalent. Sometimes he was understood as the equivalent of a Chinese god, so there are visual examples in which the Buddha and Daoist hermits are juxtaposed, especially in ancient bronze mirrors (Kr. pulsukyŏng 佛獸鏡; Hosaka 1986, p. 23). Nevertheless, the opposite view was also prominent: “since the Buddha is a foreign god, however virtuous he is, his power does not influence the Chinese people. Therefore, the Chinese, including the emperor, need not worship him”.5

The majority of the non-Buddhist-origin Indian gods were absorbed under the category of the heavenly deity (Skt. deva) in later Buddhist orders of Indian Buddhism. Early Buddhists in China, however, devised other categories and schemata to deal with various types of divine beings, such as Daoist divinities, shamanic spirits, and other local deities and malicious beings believed to constantly interact with the human world. As Daniel Stevenson explains, “by definition, the Chinese gods derive their sovereign status and authority from their professed fealty to the authentic (cheng) order of the Buddhist dharma” (Stevenson 1999, p. 372). However, even though these numerous types of local gods were given to the guardians of the dharma in the mundane world, by cooperating with the Buddhist ideology, they were still accorded a lower position in the larger Buddhist cosmic order. Major Buddhist sutras routinely supported the model of the “good/beneficent guardian deity”. The Golden Light Sūtra 金光明最勝王經 (Skt. Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra), for example, considers all the gods dharmapāla, and repeatedly emphasizes the necessity of the protection of a “good” deva (Kr. sŏnsin 善神). However, what needs to be highlighted here is that they are “good” guardians so long as they adhere to Buddhism. It is not difficult to detect inherent violence in this concept.6

Returning to the idea that a god wishes to discard its body can be read along these lines. It is very likely that the real voice behind this concept is that of the learned Buddhist community members, who firmly believed that gods need to comply with the Buddhist order. As in the case of other committed members of the dharma community, as soon as these gods enter the bounds of Buddhism, they are expected to transform their corporeal body to the Buddha body—transcending the realm of the formless, the highest realm after the realms of form and desire—as their end goal. Moreover, by labeling those who followed the Buddhist dharma “good”, this notion communicated the idea of moralization. It also expressed the idea that Buddhism (not Buddhist gods) should be placed at a higher pedestal in the spiritual world because of its higher moral ground. Thus, captured within the wheel of saṃsāra, deva and asura gods were supposed to feel the strong desire to emancipate themselves from the never-ending cycle.

Perhaps one of the earliest stories to describe a god’s desire to discard their body concerns the second century historical figure, An Shigao (安世高 148–189 CE) of the Eastern Han dynasty (東漢) in China. According to legend, a spirit of the Gongting Shrine (宮亭廟神) donated a precious treasure to An Shigao. It decided to cease to exist, hoping that An Shigao would become an eminent monk one day and build a stupa for it so that the deity would receive a merit and be fully liberated from its corporeal body.7 During his career as a god at the Gongting Shrine, the god was known to be a very powerful spirit, and appears in Zhiguai’s (志怪) tales of the Six Dynasties (Son 2014, pp. 181–85). Here, the god is described as demanding offerings of meat and drink in return for the protection of Lake Gongting (宮亭湖; Terakawa 1994, pp. 25–26). While possessing such power, this spirit passed through several lives, as in the case of other beings in the Buddhist universe. In fact, the spirit was once a monk who practiced the dharma with An Shigao. However, in a previous life, it could not overcome aversion, one of the three poisons in Buddhism of which one must rid oneself to achieve Buddhahood. This spirit, a rebirth of the monk, wanted to change the course of its karmic retribution. When the spirit encountered its former fellow monk An Shigao, it confessed how much suffering it underwent and asked the monk how to save itself. Salvation was granted thanks to An Shigao. Overall, the story is clearly interlaced with the life of An Shigao and how the monk’s power helped the god.

An older version of a story that features a god’s desire to be emancipated from its own body reveals another interesting dimension of the concept. One of the main questions that people who developed the notion had to answer was the possibility of salvation for an evil god, which also reminds us of the heated doctrinal debate around icchantika—a deluded being who is portrayed in Indian Buddhism as unable to attain enlightenment. However, in Chinese Buddhism later, Buddhists finally accepted the notion that enlightenment should be available to all. A similar logic was applied to comprehend the world of the gods and malicious spirits.

Gods, whether beneficent or malicious, fully populated the traditional Chinese religious world. Shrines were built and ceremonies were given to any god if people assumed that they were what the gods would demand. A story that supposedly took place before the Qin period sums up the overall picture. A spirit of Marquis Jiang demanded that Sun Quan (孫權) of the Wu (吳, 222–280 CE) dynasty build a shrine. Nonetheless, following his personal principle that no service should be offered to any malicious spirits, Sun Quan (孫權) refused to build the shrine. As soon as he made the decision, an epidemic hit the Wu area, and as a result, many innocent lives were lost. A large fire and a disaster followed, and similar catastrophes occurred one after the other. Understanding these events as a sign from the god, Sun changed his mind and decided to build a shrine on the condition that “these ghosts not turn evil and cause any more troubles in the future” (Wu 2018, p. 43). Often a malicious spirit (Ch. ligui 厲鬼) was regarded as the result of an unnatural or tragic death and had to be appeased for the living to exist peacefully. Thus, even though these malicious spirits were not necessarily related to them, people embraced them in family rites and held memorial services for them at their family shrine. Confucianism and Daoism also endorsed this idea.8 As the concept was already rooted in Chinese culture when Buddhism arrived from India, the story could be reframed to add the Buddhist goal of enlightenment. An Shigao’s story thus fits into this model. Confucian and Daoist tradition, however, did not entail a change in the god’s status or form. In those contexts, they did not have to discard their body to become a higher being.

In the following section, I explicate a second pattern in the conversion of local gods, focusing on how it was rationalized and what roles were played by the eminent monks.

3. Deities Requesting Buddhist Precepts in the GSZ and XGSZ

First, we would like to highlight that the involvement of eminent monks in granting Buddhist precepts to local deities played a central role in the narrative of conversion during early and medieval Chinese Buddhism. In Buddhist tradition, receiving precepts marks a significant step towards entering the Buddhist community and adopting a Buddhist identity. It is considered a fundamental milestone, as the act of receiving a precept is seen as a pivotal moment in one’s commitment to the principles and practices of Buddhism (Park and Kim 2023; Lee 2021; McRae 1990, pp. 59–82). In addition, very significantly, as I discuss below, gods received precepts from great monks, because Buddhists traditionally believed that Buddhist masters were the only ones qualified to give precepts to the aspirant. In other words, it was a very human thing to do. To reconcile the problem of a god receiving precepts that was originally designed for humans, a new idea emerged of attributing supernatural power to the eminent monks. In this way, these monks were not just human, but superhuman. Simultaneously, the narratives tend to emphasize the human sides of the gods.

In GSZ, we have four examples where a god receives a precept: the Biography of Zhu Fachong (竺法崇), the Biography of Shi Tanyong (釋曇邕), the Biography of Shi Fadu (釋法度), and the Biography of Zhu Tanlan (支曇蘭).9 In XGSZ, we have further examples: the Biography of Shi Shanfu (釋善伏),10 the Biography of Shi Huizhu (釋慧主),11 the Biography of Shi Huimin (釋慧旻),12 the Biography of Shi Xuanwan (釋玄琬),13 the Biography of Shi Zhixiang (釋植相),14 the Biography of Shi Hongxian (釋洪獻),15 the Biography of Shi Daomu (釋道穆),16 the Biography of Shi Fayun (釋法運),17 and the Biography of Shi Facong (釋法聰).18 In XGSZ, we also find terms such as “the precept-granted deity” (Ch. jieshen 戒神), which refers to those gods who received the precepts. The term is found in various texts, including the Biography of Shi Sengzhao (釋僧照),19 the Biography of Shi Zhiman (釋智滿),20 the Biography of Shi Cicang (釋慈藏),21 and the Biography of Shi Fajin (釋法進).22

These jieshen deities had a strong karmic bond with their masters, who made them “Buddhist” gods. Numerous such stories are found throughout XGSZ. For instance, the Biography of Shi Sengzhao (釋僧照) recounts that Yang Su (楊素), the gallant Left Vice Director of Imperial Secretariat (Zuo Pushe 左僕射), could not approach Sengzhao because he was protected by the spirits to whom he gave the Buddhist precept.23 The Biography of Shi Zhiman (釋智滿) tells us that Xueju (薛擧), who was exceptionally strong, felt his body shaking and weaken when he met the monk Zhiman, because jieshen were protecting him.24 Everyone who met Fajin had goosebumps from fear because of the jieshen protecting him, as is revealed in the Biography of Shi Fajin (釋法進).25 Similarly, the jieshen treated Shi Cicang’s mild illness in the Biography of Shi Cicang (釋慈藏, Kor. Seok Chajang).26 These jieshen deities were there to “protect” their master monks, but symbolically, they are also a manifestation of the eminent monks’ spiritual and physical power. Moreover, the human–divine dyad creates a symbiotic relationship. Once tamed by the spiritual power of the monks, they redirect their physical power to fight against other “evil” beings who threaten the dharma. For the monks, having jieshen saved them from unnecessary troubles, but more importantly, it exhibited the eminence of their power.

As the narrative around jieshen explodes in XGSZ, we can also extrapolate that during the transition period of the Sui (581–618 CE) and Tang (618–907 CE) dynasties, Chinese Buddhist circles were fond of this narrative as an effective tool to explain how eminent monks came to be, and to imagine the relationship between the seen and the unseen world. The author of XGSZ was an expert in vinaya, the Buddhist precepts. Placing these stories across XGSZ reflects the author Daoxuan’s (道宣) intention, as he was from the Southern Mountain Vinaya School (Nanshan lüzong 南山律宗; Yoshida 1996, pp. 79–80). Some may find it rather difficult to reconcile the logic between keeping the precept, a self-reliant practice, and relying on the protective power of the deities. Perhaps, however, in Daoxuan’s mind, this was not necessarily the case. Adherence to precepts was the most fundamental aspect of monastic life and of maintaining one’s identity as a Buddhist. To keep the core alive, stories were necessary to signify the precepts, whether kept by humans or gods. Moreover, the presence of gods was required more to uphold people’s faith and help devotionalism thrive (Yamazaki 1967, p. 170).

4. Deities Requesting Buddhist Precepts in Samgukyusa

The discussion so far examined cases of gods’ precepts in Chinese Buddhism. By making a spatial and temporal leap for the sake of comparison, we find numerous stories of god’s precepts in the thirteenth century Korean Buddhist work Samgukyusa. This section provides representative examples selected from the text. As we see below, the rhetorical strategy employed in this text bears some resemblance to that of XGSZ; Iryŏn, the compiler of the text, adopted a localized approach. Obviously, in these examples, we have stories of eminent Silla monks who interact with gods who needed to receive precepts. We also see further reasoning regarding why gods needed precepts in the first place. One of the most common ways to rationalize it was that they needed purification, thus suggesting the spiritual significance of receiving the precepts (Son 2015, pp. 1070–66).

According to “The Fifty Thousand Images of Buddha on Mt. Odae (臺山五萬眞身)”, Poch’ŏn (寶川) and Hyomyŏng (孝明), the two sons of King Chŏngsin 淨神 of Silla, built a hermitage in Mt. Odae and stayed there to practice Buddhism. One day, Prince Poch’ŏn drank water from the sacred springs of the mountain, which allowed him to fly to the sky and arrive at Changch’ŏn-kul 掌天窟 (Cave of the Heavenly Palm) in Uljinkuk (蔚珍國). There, the prince diligently recited the Mahā-pratisarā dhāranī sūtra 隨求陀羅尼經 (Scripture of the Dhāranī of Wish Fulfillment),27 which enabled him to achieve all his wishes. When he recited the dhārani, the god of the cave appeared before him and stated: “I have lived in this cave for two thousand years, but today I have heard the truth of Mahā-pratisarā Dhāranī for the first time in my life. I wish you to tell me the Bodhisattva precepts (Kr. posalkye 菩薩戒)”.28 The prince gave the Bodhisattva vow as the god desired, and the cave disappeared the following day, leaving neither form nor shadow. Prince Poch’ŏn was surprised and intrigued, so he stayed there for 20 days and then moved to another holy cave on Mt. Odae. Chajang (慈藏 590–658) was another eminent Silla monk who converted numerous local gods to adherence to Buddhism. Chajang’s life is found in the Samgukyusa and XGSZ.29 The ways in which his life is presented are quite different, however, as we shall see below. In the Samgukyusa, for instance, it is stated:

[The emperor showed the master special favor, granting various gifts to him, but] Chajang disliked cumbersome formalities and wrote to the monarch that he would refuse them courteoustly. He built himself a cottage under a rock on Mt. Zhongnan (終南山) to the eastern side of the Yunchi 雲際 Temple. He lived there for three years, giving the precepts to humang beings and gods and working more and more wonders as every day passed, the specific details of which I will not burden the reader with here.30

In XGSZ, however, we find more detailed information on the same event:

After notifying the emperor, he went up the mountain to set up a room to stay on a distant cliff east of the Yunji Temple on Mt. Zhongnan. In the mornings and evenings, people and ghosts took refuge in the precepts and gathered again. One day, Chajang came down with measles, but the rash soon disappeared and the disease was cured when the deities of the precepts (Ch. jieshen 戒神) appeared and touched his ailing part. Chajang had been on this mountain for three years but left and came down to the Yunji Temple to serve the country in the east. This was when he met an immeasurable number of great ghosts, all of whom were equipped with armor and weapons, who told him, “We came to greet you with this golden litter, Master Chajang”. However, another group of gigantic dharmapāla appeared to fight them and refused to let them go. That was when Chajang inhaled the terrible odor that filled the valley, and soon after sat on a corded seat to inform Mahasaṅgha of his departure. One of his disciples was hit and killed after his leg was broken by one of the ghosts. However, he came back to life and Chajang soon gave all his clothes and wealth as alms to the monks and Bhadantas (Kr. taedŏk 大德), and his body gave off his pleasant aroma once more. That was when the dharmapāla told Chajang, “You will live to the age of 80 since you did not die today”.31

XGSZ contains more narratives about gods who received precepts than GSZ. A story from XGSZ describes Chajang’s experience at Mt. Zhongnan during his pilgrimage; this is the mountain on which he built a hermitage and practiced the dharma for three years. The pinnacle of his experience during that time was being healed by the guardian deities of precepts when he became ill, which also reveals that these deities possessed healing powers. These gods in return guarded the monk who gave them precepts and pledged to practice Buddhism thenceforth (Nagasaka 2004, pp. 43–44).

During his time on Mt. Zhongnan, Chajang also faced a severe crisis. A group of ghosts tried to kill him, although he eventually survived with the help of other gods. Many interpretations of this story were proposed in modern scholarship. For example, Chajang’s stay in Tang coincided with the suppression of Buddhism during the era of Emperor Taizong 太宗 (598–649), who favored Daoism. Therefore, Daoxuan, the author of XGSZ, often criticized Emperor Taizong’s favoritism. Based on these historical circumstances, some historians think that Chajang’s story reflects his real-life involvement in the dispute between Buddhism and Daoism (Nam 1992, pp. 11–12). Another interpretation was also suggested of a non-political reading of the narrative, under which the story merely refers to his health crisis during the practice at the mountain due to a local disease (Nam 2009, p. 41). Regardless of which interpretation is more convincing to modern readers, what stands out in this story is that Chajang’s fame was closely tied up with his ability to give precepts to the local gods of Mt. Zhongnan.

Yŏngsim (永深) was a Silla monk who also deserves our attention. He was told that he received the eminent Silla monk Chinp’yo’s (眞表 fl. 752) acknowledgement by receiving inscribed slips for divination (Kr. kanja 簡子). These slips were later passed down to Simji (心地). The story goes that Simji suddenly found two slips caught in his collar when he climbed a mountain to practice Buddhism. Only Yŏngsim perceived that this was the divine design of the Buddha, and hence decided to give the slips to Simji. When Simji returned to the mountain with the slips on his head, the mountain god of Chungak (中岳) appeared and received the precepts.32 This story illustrates that Buddhist groups, led by mountain practitioners, accepted traditional beliefs in mountain gods to extend their influence and dominance. They then gave the gods the role and function of guardians of Buddhism.

In Samgukyusa, there is another entry titled “Hyet’ong Subjugated the Evil Dragon”,33 which presents a complex narrative structure. It concerns a scaly dragon (Kr. kyoryong 蛟龍; De Visser [1913] 2008, pp. 76–81) who originally came from China to the Korean peninsula and first turned into a willow and then became a bear. By combining the story of transformation and rebirth, it communicates folk beliefs and Buddhist concepts. The conflicts between Hyet’ong (惠通) and the scaly dragon were eventually resolved through the Buddhist precept of not taking a life (Kr. pulsalgye 不殺戒). This story, together with the others presented above, reveals a significant aspect of the social responsibilities of eminent monks: their ability as mediators. Hyet’ong did not solve secular issues, but he was supposedly good at resolving conflicts between people and the gods, such as mountain gods and dragon gods. However, more broadly speaking, Hyet’ong’s skill was not just innate, but something that was expected of him. Throughout Buddhist history, when unpredictable events, such as a natural disaster or an epidemic occurred and the world order was damaged, the intervention of eminent monks was expected, as they were problem solvers. People believed that such an abnormal situation could be solved by the monks’ divine power (Kr. shint’ongryŏk 神通力); the accumulation of many years of Buddhist practice propelled by their high ethical capacity.

5. Monks as a Vehicle of the Dharma

Earlier, we discussed the problem of the labeling of the “beneficent deity”. In this section, we show that the term often appears when gods interact with eminent monks. Numerous entries in XGSZ illustrate how eminent monks play a key role in the making of “good” deities. A salient example is the biography of the monk Shi Huiyue (釋慧約), in which two women whose original form was that of water gods appeared in front of Huiyue. It was clear to Huiyue that the two beings had accumulated significant obstacles in their former lives, and thus were reborn as water gods. He gave them Buddhist precepts to release them from their current form and liberate them from their suffering.34 The biography of Shi Huizhen (釋慧瑱) in XGSZ describes a mountain god who uses all his powers to guard Huizhen (慧瑱) during the political suppression of Buddhism in the Tang period.35 In the biography of Shi Sengda (釋僧達), a mountain god asks Sengda, who was already practicing Buddhism at the mountain, to remain there longer so that the god could also benefit from his practice.36 Nevertheless, we have completely different stories as well. In the biography of Shi Sengfan (釋僧範) in XGSZ, a monk who took the significance of upavasatha lightly lost his life.37 In the biography of Shi Zhibao (釋智保), an old woman who intended to give liquor to a monk lost her life.38

As seen above, each god has a different personality, just as humans do. Obviously, some gods are more evil than others, but their evil deeds are necessary for eminent monks to achieve successful subjugation and propagation. Generally speaking, we find fewer stories of evil gods in XGSZ and more of gods’ anger and punishment portrayed in GSZ. Thus, the stories we see in XGSZ tend to emphasize gods’ willingness to receive Buddhist precepts and protect monks. These texts give higher priority to the stories that tell of the active involvement of gods in the lives of monks. Perhaps this spirit of XGSZ creates more fertile ground for monks to play an active role in converting them.

A pronounced ability of eminent Buddhist monks is their knowledge of Buddhist texts and their ritual enactment of their wisdom. XGSZ often describes scenes in which monks preach Buddhist teachings in verbal form, whereby gods may attend a lecture, learn, and be liberated. In the biography of Shi Fachong (釋法聰) in XGSZ, for instance, a god from Haiyan County (海鹽) asks the monk to give a lecture on the Nirvāna Sūtra 涅槃經 (Skt. Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra).39 In the biography of Shi Zhenguan (釋眞觀) in XGSZ, the god of Mt. Tinggao requests the monk to provide a lecture on the Lotus Sūtra 法華經 (Skt. Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra).40 We also find stories of monks whose power stemmed from their mastery of the Buddha’s teachings or their dedication to studying Buddhist sutras. In the biography of Shi Daozhen (釋道珍) in XGSZ, a mountain spirit is so indebted to the Chan master Fagui (法歸) that he invites the master to his mountains and learns the dharma from him.41

Such stories describe the acts of gods in a specific manner. They are also designed to show the readers how gods, as in the case of humans, develop more “personalized” relationships with eminent monks. They guard the monk’s residence, warn them about dangers, and save their lives. Although we may quickly conclude that these are because the gods perform their role as dharma protectors, they are also a necessary proof of how eminent the monks are in the first place. It further suggests that the narrative was created and circulated with a particular audience in mind. A comparison of entries on eminent monks’ conversion of local gods in GSZ and XGSZ reveals a greater volume of such narratives in XGSZ, thereby suggesting that the idea of conversion was more stabilized and accepted among later generations of Chinese Buddhists. The approach adopted by Chinese Buddhism during its early medieval missionary works was contingent upon either dismantling or assimilating the indigenous religion of the respective regions where Buddhism, as a foreign belief system, was introduced. The portrayal of local deities in GSZ and XGSZ differs significantly in terms of two categories: affirmation and denial, or disorganization and subsumption. These contrasting perspectives serve to characterize the distinctions between the two texts.

6. Conclusions

Since its inception and throughout the history of the development of the East Asian Buddhism, Buddhism had a complicated relationship with the existing belief systems. As it becomes even clear by now, the idea of dharmapāla was both the process and the product of this long process of localization of the dharma. As we examined above, in this constant process of negotiation and strategization, the most effective narrative that proved to be effective is to link the idea of the dharmapāla with the virtue of the eminent monks. This is why those narratives of the eminent monks contain such colorful examples of taming local gods and malicious spirits with their mental power and moral virtue, and find a place for those gods to fit into the new Buddhist order.

All the findings of the present study allow us to understand the complexity of the concept of dharmapāla. Although the study could bring a comparative framework by juxtaposing GSZ, XGSZ, and Samugykusa, a further fruitful discussion to understand a more bigger picture of East Asian Buddhism can be conducted when we also look at examples in Japan, Vietnam, and other corners of the East Asian Buddhist tradition altogether. Perhaps another area that this study that could not be included but can be further pursued would explore the relationships between the Buddhist nuns and the conversion of the gods in East Asian Buddhism, noting that the sources that we examined were mostly concerned with the male monastic practitioners. We also should be reminded that what we call “indigenous beliefs” were the source of the innovations and incorporation of the new ideas in the history of East Asian Buddhism. Consequently, the study of the local gods and spirits is not peripheral but central in our understanding of the dynamic development of Buddhism in premodern East Asia.