The Inheritance of the Precept Tradition in 18th- and 19th-Century East Asian Buddhism and the Prelude to Modernity: Comparing the Korean and Japanese Precept Revival Movements

Abstract

This article compares the precept revival movements in Korean and Japanese Buddhism in the early modern period. It examines how monks in both countries, in particular, in the Korean Hyujŏng lineage and the Japanese Shingon sect, restored and utilized the precept tradition to re-establish Buddhist identity in the midst of rapid political and social change. Although in different ways, Buddhism in the early modern period in both countries experienced state control and an anti-Buddhist milieu, making it difficult to maintain its religious identity. Various efforts were made to overcome this hardship, the most prominent of which was the precept revival movement. In the early 19th century, in Chosŏn Korea, Taeŭn and Paekp’a sought to restore the bhikṣu lineage by overhauling the bhikṣu ordination rituals through the “reception of the precepts through an auspicious sign” and “the reception of the ten wholesome precepts”, respectively, while in mid-to-late 18th-century Japan, the Shingon master Jiun advocated a return to the teachings of Śākyamuni through the Shōbō-ritsu movement. While both countries focused on precept revival as a way to solidify Buddhist religious identity, Korea emphasized the restoration of the bhikṣu lineage, while Japan, especially in the Shingon-shū, emphasized a return to the fundamental teachings of the Buddha. These differences stem from the unique historical backgrounds of the two countries and the distinctive developments of their Buddhist traditions. By comparing the precept revival movements in both countries, this study examines how different precept traditions influenced the identity of East Asian Buddhism in the early modern period and how these efforts have been fundamental in maintaining Buddhist orthodoxy into the modern era.

1. Introduction

Each of China, Korea, and Japan in East Asia has formed a unique culture of its own, interacting with Buddhism in its unique historical context. Buddhist ideas and doctrines have influenced a wide range of fields in these countries, including politics, society, literature, art, and architecture, and the precepts have influenced each of these fields as they have been adapted to suit the historical and regional characteristics of each country. The precepts created in India were recognized as a religious authority in Buddhist cultures in East Asia. However, they were often incompatible with the cultural and climatic conditions of East Asia, leading to the creation of various apocryphal texts, such as the Fanwang jing 梵網經 in China, from the mid-to-late 5th century. Thus, the former functioned as the full precepts (lesser vehicle precepts), which are bestowed upon the candidates for the fully ordained monks and nuns (bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs), and the latter functioned as the bodhisattva precepts (great vehicle precepts), which presents the ideal way of life as a bodhisattva to all Buddhist followers, regardless of their status, and was widely utilized in Buddhist circles in China, Korea, and Japan. The convergence or conflict between these two precept traditions is one of the main characteristics of East Asian Buddhism (Getz 2004, p. 675) and has continued to the present day, sometimes in a complementary relationship, sometimes at odds with each other.

It was in the early modern period that there were strong attempts to establish a Buddhist identity through precepts based on the convergence or conflict between the two precept traditions. The early modern period in Korea and Japan, the 17th–19th centuries, corresponding to the late Chosŏn and Edo periods, was a time of rapid political, social, and ideological change, and Buddhism had to make various efforts to maintain its identity in response to the demands of the new era. One of these efforts was the revival of the precepts. The precepts are the religious norms that allow the Buddhist community to exist in an idealized form and are more than just virtues to be practiced on an individual level; they are essential to maintaining and strengthening Buddhist orthodoxy. It is because of this importance of the precepts that attempts have often been made to maintain Buddhist orthodoxy through the restoration of the precepts when political and social pressures have made it difficult for Buddhism to maintain its orthodoxy, or when conflicts or divisions have arisen between members of the order and Buddhism has shown the signs of decline. From this vantage point, it is natural that attempts to establish an identity through the revival of the precepts occurred in the Buddhist communities of Korea and Japan in the early modern period, when they faced state control and anti-Buddhist atmosphere due to the influx of various ideologies, and the early modern period can be defined as a time when the need for the three learnings of the precepts, meditation, and wisdom was greatly emphasized.

With this in mind, this article analyzes the content and background of the precept revival movements that occurred in both Korea and Japan in the 18th and 19th centuries and examines the efforts of Buddhism to secure its identity through the precept revival amidst the rapidly changing conditions of the early modern period. In the past, scholars’ views of the early modern period have been negative,1 but in recent years, the direction of research on the history of Buddhism in the early modern period in both Korea and Japan has changed significantly, taking into account a wide range of political, social, doctrinal, and institutional aspects, and paying attention to how Buddhist monks responded practically and sought to survive in the rapidly changing times.2 These studies demonstrate how Buddhist monks made efforts to maintain the identity of Buddhism as a religion and secure its orthodoxy in the early modern period, when many factors threatened the existence of Buddhism, including discrimination and control by political power, the rise in anti-Buddhist views from the Confucian and Kokugaku circles, and the emergence of foreign ideas such as Christianity. Based on this perspective, this article will approach the issue through the lens of the precept revival phenomenon.

The early modern period in both Korea and Japan is significant in that it was a bridge between the medieval and modern periods, and it is also the period that laid the foundation for the current era. Therefore, analyzing the changes in the precept tradition during this period will provide important information for understanding the history of the precept tradition in both Korea and Japan in a diachronic manner. Until now, there has been no comparative study on the precept revival movements that occurred in Korea and Japan in the late early modern period.3 This is not a phenomenon unique to the early modern period or to the topic of the precepts. Because Korean and Japanese scholars have been primarily concerned with their own Buddhist traditions and histories, there have been relatively few comparative studies of each other’s Buddhism. However, comparative studies can help us better understand the distinctive features of Buddhism in both countries by clarifying commonalities and differences. Although Korea and Japan share the historical process of Buddhism’s spread through China, differences in political, social, and cultural backgrounds have shaped their doctrines and practices differently. As we can see from the contemporary situation, the precept traditions, in particular, have developed in very different directions.

This article compares the precept revival movements in Chosŏn led by the Hyujŏng lineage monks, Taeŭn Nango 大隱朗旿 (1780–1841) and Paekp’a Kŭngŏn 白坡亘璇 (1767–1852), in the early 19th century and the Japanese precept revival movement led by the Shingon monk Jiun Onkō 慈雲飮光 (1718–1804) in the mid-to-late 18th century. While these movements were similar in that they encouraged the overhaul of the ordination ritual (i.e., the ritual of conferring and receiving the precepts) and the practice of the ten wholesome precepts, they differed in the direction of their focus on restoring orthodoxy: Chosŏn monks, such as Taeŭn and Paekp’a, emphasized the restoration of the bhikṣu lineage, while Japanese monks, centering around Jiun, were engaged in the so-called shōbō-ritsu 正法律 (precepts of the true law) movement, which sought to return to the teachings of Śākyamuni Buddha. This article examines the ways in which the harmony and tension between the full and bodhisattva precepts culminated in the early modern period and contributed to the establishment of the Buddhist identity, with particular emphasis on the differences observed between the precept revival movements in Korea and Japan, focusing on the Hyujŏng lineage and the Shingon sect, respectively. The analysis of the differences in the precept revival movements in the two countries serves as a good example of how the precepts, which have the same value as Buddhist norms, can be transformed in different historical contexts. These efforts also had a significant impact on modern Buddhism, serving as a driving force for the survival of Buddhism and the maintaining of its orthodoxy in both countries in the midst of major political and social upheavals, such as the Japanese occupation and the Meiji (1868–1912) government’s advocation for the abolition of Buddhism, and have still influenced contemporary Buddhism. Therefore, the task in this article not only helps us to understand the characteristics of early modern Buddhism as a bridge between the early modern and contemporary periods but also has significance in terms of identifying the prototype of contemporary Buddhism.

2. Early Modern Buddhism in Korea and Japan: Historical Background of the Precept Revival Movement

The early modern period in both Korea and Japan was a time of great political, social, and ideological changes, and Buddhism had to make various efforts to become self-reliant and independent in the face of the new circumstances. Buddhism in both countries during this period was subject to state control, albeit to varying degrees. In the case of Chosŏn, the foundation of Chosŏn in 1392 with Confucianism as the state ideology pushed Buddhism out of the position of the mainstream religion. Buddhism’s official status declined through a series of state measures after King T’aejong (r. 1400–1418) confiscated the property of Buddhist temples to the state, King Sejong (r. 1418–1450) restricted monks from entering the capital, and King Yŏnsan (r. 1494–1506) abolished the recognition of the Sŏn and Kyo schools, along with the monk exam system. Then, during the reign of King Chungjong (r. 1506–1544), the laws related to Buddhism became obsolete, and the abolition of Buddhism in the official sphere was carried out. Throughout the early modern period, the policy of suppressing Buddhism continued, albeit with periodic ups and downs. Meanwhile, in Japan, the Tokugawa shogunate was established in 1603 after the fall of the Toyotomi regime at the Battle of Sekigahara on 21 October 1600, and the victor, Tokugawa Ieyasu 德川家康 (1543–1616), gained immense power, marking the beginning of the Edo period. Buddhism, which had already been sanctioned under the absolute power of Oda Nobunaga 織田信長 (1534–1582) and Toyotomi at the end of the Senkoku period, was incorporated into the shogunate system at the beginning of the Edo shogunate, having lost its power to oppose secular power (Sueki Humihiko 1996, pp. 236–37).

While the Chosŏn dynasty treated Buddhism by neglect and exploitation, maintaining a policy of suppression, the Edo shogunate managed Buddhism by protection and control, thoroughly utilizing Buddhism as a means of governing the people. In the case of Chosŏn, the abolition of Buddhism in the official sphere began in the early 16th century with the removal of the monk certificate law from the Kyŏngguk taejŏn 經國大典 (Great Code of Administration), and Buddhist monks were no longer legally recognized as monks. Afterward, temporary measures were sometimes taken to recognize monks’ activities in exchange for the use of monks’ labor in large-scale state projects (Y. Kim 2021, p. 181). The shogunate, meanwhile, used Buddhism as a means of controlling the people as it sought to stabilize and establish its political base. The main Buddhist policies of the shogunate were the head–branch and temple–patron (jidan 寺檀) systems. The head–branch system institutionally organized each sect’s temples into a relationship of the head and branch temples, with the head temple enjoying great power over the branch temples, such as receiving monetary offerings from its branch temples and having personnel rights. This top-down management allowed the shogunate to efficiently control and supervise the Buddhist temples by incorporating them under its governance system. The temple–patron system, on the other hand, fixated the relationship between the temple and its affiliated families by making a certain family or individual belong to one single temple. It was originally used as a measure to prohibit the practice of Christianity, which was introduced to Japan around the middle of the 16th century, but the shogunate gradually used the system as a pretext to control the people.4 In other words, all Japanese people were supposed to be affiliated with temples, and when changes occurred, such as death or marriage, the affiliated temple (dannadera 檀那寺) to which each person belonged was required to issue a certificate of affiliation. Buddhist temples helped the government maintain anti-Christian sectarian registers (Shūmon ninbetsu aratamechō 宗門人別改帳) to serve this purpose, which functioned as the equivalent of a household register. In exchange for receiving a temple affiliation certificate, the patrons were expected to attend temple events and have ancestral rituals such as funeral and mourning ceremonies at their affiliated temple (Iwata Shigenori 2010, pp. 289–316). If the head–branch system was a means of vertical control of Buddhist temples, the temple–patron system was a means of horizontal control. Thus, Buddhism in Japan’s early modern period came to exist as a political instrument under the protection and control of the shogunate. This resulted in Buddhism achieving stable development in the modern period under the protection of the shogunate, but on the other hand, it also led to a weakening of its identity as a religion as it became complacent. For example, in the case of the temple–patron system, as state power guaranteed the relationship between temples and patrons, the burden on Buddhist temples was relieved to secure followers and financial stability, and thereby a stable environment was ensured. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in this environment, monks were also engaged in activities unrelated to religious practice. Meanwhile, early modern Buddhism in both countries was facing intense criticism from a variety of schools of thought, including Confucianism. In both Chosŏn Koera and early modern Japan, the criticism centered on two points: Buddhism’s transcendental stance and the corruption and decadence of the Buddhist sangha. In the case of Chosŏn, the criticism of Buddhism was initially directed at problems such as the enormous wealth of Buddhism and the corruption of monks in the late Koryŏ period, but it gradually turned to the transcendental stance of Buddhism, which was said to be detrimental to social ethics. In other words, Buddhism was condemned as a teaching of an immoral barbarian who obeyed neither parents nor monarchs. In Japan, too, the anti-Buddhist view, which had begun with the Cheng-Zhu learning scholar Fujiwara Seika 藤原惺窩 (1561–1619), was spread throughout the early modern period among Confucian and Kokugaku scholars, as well as Shintoists. Although Fujiwara was originally a Zen monk at Shōkoku-ji 相國寺 in Kyōto, he became an ardent adherent of Confucianism and critical of Buddhism after his encounters with Chosŏn scholars, such as Hŏ Sŏng 許筬 (1548–1612) who had visited Japan as a Chosŏn correspondent in 1590 and Kang Hang 姜沆 (1567–1618) who was taken prisoner in Japan during the Imjin War, both of whom were influenced by the eminent Confucian scholar Yi T’oegye 李退溪 (1501–1570) (Yi 2014, pp. 287–88). Fujiwara criticized Buddhism as a heresy that violated ethics, saying that the way to truth lies solely in ethics (Hayashi Razan 1975, p. 191). According to him, unlike Confucianism, which emphasizes ethical norms in this world, such as filial piety and loyalty, Buddhism seeks transcendence from this world, which is why it should be condemned. In addition to the criticism from the Confucian side, Buddhism was also criticized from the Christian and Kokugaku sides, and in the mid-to-late 18th century, there were even people who questioned the reliability of Buddhist scriptures from a scientific standpoint, for example, criticizing the Buddhist worldview of Mt. Sumeru.5

Under these circumstances, Buddhism in the early modern period in both countries sought to establish its identity as a religion and ensure the survival of the Buddhist sangha. The precept revival movement, which will be discussed in this article, is one of these efforts.

3. The Precept Revival Movement in Both Korea and Japan

3.1. The Restoration of the Bhikṣu Lineage in 19th-Century Chosŏn

The early nineteenth century was the first time that an attempt at the revival of the precepts occurred in Chosŏn Buddhism. It came in the form of overhauling the bhikṣu system and restoring the bhikṣu lineage. Prior to that time, some precept-related texts were published from the mid-Chosŏn period: for example, the Pŏmmanggyŏng nosanabulsŏl simji pŏmmunp’um posalgyebon 梵網經盧舍那佛說心地法門品菩薩戒本 in 1569 at Ansimsa in Tongbok; the Sanbunyul ch’ilch’wi taemokch’o 四分律七聚大目抄 in 1691 at Sŏnamsa in Sunch’ŏn; and the Posalgye ŭiso 菩薩戒義疏 and the Sabongye pon 四分戒本 in 1769 at Pongjŏngsa in Andong. Other than these publications, it is difficult to confirm that Chosŏn monks engaged in any specific activities related to the precepts (J.-S. Lee 2024, p. 199). The ordination ceremony for the bhikṣu is also believed to have ceased to be performed in the traditional manner from the late 17th century (J. R. Lee 2021, pp. 3–4).

Under these circumstances, more systematic efforts to revitalize the bhikṣu ordination ritual emerged in the early 19th century. In 1826, Paekp’a and Taeŭn each sought to restore the bhikṣu precepts in ways that differed from the traditional way of receiving the full precepts prescribed in vinaya texts, including the Sifen lu 四分律. Paekp’a, a renowned Sŏn and vinaya monk in the late Chosŏn period, advocated for the reception of the ten wholesome precepts for the bhikṣu in his Chakpŏp kwigam 作法龜鑑, meaning that one could become a bhikṣu by receiving only the ten wholesome precepts. These ten precepts are as follows: not killing, not stealing, not engaging in adultery, not lying, not using false speech, not speaking bad words, not speaking divisively, not being greedy, not being angry, and not having wrong views. The ten wholesome precepts are sort of great vehicle precepts and are important precepts in East Asian Buddhist cultures. Paekp’a knew that having three superior monks and seven witnesses, as stipulated in the Sifen lu, was the traditional way for the reception of the precepts. However, this traditional way was hardly followed anymore in the Chosŏn Buddhist community of his time. Prospective monks received only ten precepts for śrāmaṇera and still acted like full bhikṣu monks. It was also difficult to have ten bhikṣus for the ordination ritual, and even if they did, it would be impossible to expect monks to observe all of the 250 full precepts. In this circumstance, Paekp’a prioritized the ten wholesome precepts that would make it easy to become a bhikṣu and be easy to keep even after becoming a bhikṣu.6 Apparently, he believed that it would be a realistic way to improve the quality of bhikṣus to observe only the ten precepts that still addressed all three modes of activities of word, thought, and deed.

On the other hand, in the same year that Paekp’a proposed the reception of the ten precepts, Taeŭn of Tokgapsa in Yŏngam, along with his teacher Kŭmdam 金潭 (1765–1848), lamented the state that the transmission of the precept learning had discontinued and vowed for the so-called “reception of the precepts through an auspicious sign” (sŏsang sugye 瑞祥受戒) at Ch’ilburam 七佛庵 (Kasan Chigwan 2005, pp. 152–54). “Sŏsang sugye” is a type of self-proclaimed reception of the precepts that is allowed in scriptures related to the bodhisattva precepts such as the Fanwang jing.7 According to this method, if a person takes the vow of receiving the precepts and witnesses an auspicious sign while praying for penance, the person is recognized as receiving the precepts. On the seventh day of prayer, Taeŭn himself is said to have experienced a ray of light shining down on the top of his head (Kasan Chigwan 2005, pp. 152–54). After Taeŭn’s reception of the precepts through an auspicious sign, his master, Kŭmdam, with whom he had prayed, asked him to transmit the precepts to him, and he transmitted to his master the bhikṣu and bodhisattva precepts he had received through his wondrous experience. From there, Taeŭn’s lineage spread through Kŭmdam to other prominent monks in Chosŏn, such as Ch’oŭi Ŭisun 草衣意恂 (1786–1866) and Pŏmhae Kagan 梵海覺岸 (1820–1896). While Paekp’a focused on the bodhisattva precepts which were simple but addressed the whole range of activities of word, thought, and deed, to enhance the qualitative improvement of the order, Taeŭn utilized the method of receiving the bodhisattva precepts through an auspicious sign to restore the precept lineage. Chosŏn monks of later generations seemed to give more significance to Taeŭn’s cause than Paekp’a’s. This was because, as mentioned, Taeŭn’s lineage was extensively transmitted through renowned masters, and even during the Japanese occupation, many monks received this lineage, as it was regarded to be an autonomously restored precept lineage by Chosŏn monks.

The transmission of the Taeŭn lineage is illustrated in modern scholar Park Jeongeun’s article, which examines the issue of the bhikṣu precepts and clerical marriage in Korea in the 1920s. She analyzes the examples of monks’ receptions of the precepts in Pŏmhae’s Tongsa yŏlchŏn 東師列傳 of 1894, and finds that a prominent feature of 19th-century Buddhism was the increase in the conferral of the bhikṣu and bodhisattva precepts. According to her analysis, the number of cases of Korean monks receiving the bhikṣu and bodhisattva precepts increased as the 19th century progressed, and in some cases, monks who had already received the bhikṣu precepts from another monk received the bhikṣu or bodhisattva precepts again from such renowned monks as Ch’oŭi or Pŏmhae, suggesting that Chosŏn monks of the time sought to secure their status as bhikṣus by receiving the precepts from those who were deemed authoritative (Park 2017, pp. 136–43). In other words, they believed that by receiving the lineage of an authoritative monk, their identity or authenticity as a Buddhist monk would be more recognized. Paekp’a’s lineage also seems to have been passed down through a few eminent monks, though not as many as Taeŭn’s lineage.8 By the 18th century, monks in Chosŏn, who had already found it difficult to secure official status as bhikṣus as early as the 16th century due to the removal of the monk-certificate law from the Kyŏngguk taejŏn, had all but lost the means to obtain or prove their bhikṣu status. In response, Paekp’a and Taeŭn revitalized the tradition of the precept perception in new ways, and monks sought to secure their bhikṣu status by inheriting their lineage.

In this way, Taeŭn and Paekp’a attempted to restore the bhikṣu lineage by borrowing the two great vehicle methods for the precept reception, that is, the reception of the ten wholesome precepts and the reception of the precepts through an auspicious sign, rather than the traditional way of the bhikṣu precept reception based on the Sifen lu. Although these methods were chosen as alternatives in the face of the collapse of the ordination ritual, it is inevitable that deviating from the traditional method would lead to the view that the identity of the bhikṣu produced through such a system is also unreliable. In the late 19th century, a number of monks chose to travel to China in search of a legitimate bhikṣu lineage, the most prominent of whom was Manha Sŭngnim 萬下勝林 (fl. 19th cent.). He traveled to Qing in 1892 and received the precept lineage from the vinaya master Changtao Hanbo 昌濤漢波 (fl. late 19th cent.) on the platform of Fayuansi temple in Beijing, receiving the precepts of both great and lesser vehicles (Kasan Chigwan 2005, p. 254). This incident illustrates the clash of two precept traditions in the midst of a crisis of the existence of Buddhism due to the collapse of the precept tradition: whether to secure orthodoxy by securing the traditional way for the precept reception or to restore the bhikṣu precept lineage through the alternative of the bodhisattva precepts, which has had a profound influence on the Korean Buddhist precept tradition. Ironically, the precept lineage that Manha received in China was also the lineage that had been restored by the late Ming monk Guxin Ruxin 古心如馨 (1541–1615) through an auspicious sign (J. R. Lee 2022, p. 113). However, Manha’s lineage had since become one of the two major precept lineages of Korean Buddhism alongside Taeŭn’s lineage. As such, monks in Chosŏn were keenly interested in the restoration of the bhikṣu lineage throughout the 19th century, and even afterward, the transmission of the authentic bhikṣu lineage was seen as a key condition for their identity as monks.

3.2. Shōbō-Ritsu Movement in 18th-Century Japan

Probably, the most prominent precept revival movement in early modern Japan was the Shōbō-ritsu movement, founded in the mid-to-late 18th century by the Shingon risshū monk Jiun. Buddhism in Japan’s early modern period was plagued by various problems, such as political control by the shogunate, the rise in anti-Buddhist theories by diverse schools of thought, and the corruption of the sangha and its closed, sectarian activities. Jiun understood this situation better than anyone else, and through his Shōbō-ritsu movement, he sought to improve the quality of Buddhist morals and restore Buddhism’s religious identity. But what was the “shōbō” (true law) that he proposed? Jiun defined “shōbō” as “practicing only as the Buddha practiced and thinking only as the Buddha thought.”9 In other words, the Shōbō-ritsu movement was about returning to and practicing the dharma that Śākyamuni realized. Jiun is also widely known for composing the Bongak shinryō 梵學津梁 in a thousand volumes through his study of siddhaṃ, which was also the result of his efforts to discover the Buddha’s direct teaching, or the true law, from original Sanskrit texts. In her study of Jiun’s thought of the true law, Sim Inja summarizes that Jiun’s practice of the true law was carried out in four different directions: first, the study of trans-sectarian thought and Sanskrit learning in order to attain the Buddha’s wisdom; second, the shōbō-ritsu movement in order to practice the Buddha’s precepts; third, the production of Buddhist robes in order to wear what the Buddha wore; and fourth, the practice of Zen in order to cultivate the Buddha’s practice (Sim 2003, pp. 47–61). As this analysis shows, the essence of the true law for Jiun was to return to the Buddhism of the Buddha’s time and to practice the three learnings of the precepts, meditation, and wisdom as practiced by the Buddha. It was an attitude of returning to the origin. Now, we will turn to his efforts regarding the precept revival.

At the age of 13 in 1730, following the death of his father, Jiun entered the sangha under Ninkō Teiki 忍綱貞紀 (1671–1750) at Hōraku-ji, and at the age of 21 in 1738, he became a bhikṣu at Yachū-ji, where he received the precepts through the “jisei tsūju” 自誓通受 method, i.e., he himself took the vow in front of the Buddha statue and received the three categories of pure precepts. These three categories are the full set of precepts, the precepts related to good deeds, and the precepts related to the practice for sentient beings. In short, he received the bodhisattva and bhikṣu precepts simultaneously by using these three categories of precepts for his full ordination. This method was, in fact, created by Kakujō 覺盛 (1194–1249) and Eizon 叡尊 (1201–1290) during the Kamakura period (1185–1333) and then practiced among Shingi-ritsu monks. It was revived in the early Edo period. In particular, Myōnin 明忍 (1576–1610) and five other monks received the precepts following this model, and began the precept revival movement based on the Sifen lu (Matsuo Kenji 2022, pp. 137–42).

Jiun was determined to return the monks’ morals to the norms of Śākyamuni’s time, and in 1746, he received the full precepts at Chōei-ji through the “betsuju” 別受, i.e., the traditional way of the precept reception that follows the Sifen lu. Jiun’s way of receiving the precepts expressed his intention to become a bhikṣu according to the precepts of the Buddha’s time. After this reception, Jiun devoted himself to writing about the precept reception method and teaching the bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī. In July 1749, he launched the shōbō-ritsu movement. In Jiun’s view, the precepts practiced by Śākyamuni were contained in all the vinaya texts, regardless of the type of vinaya. At the time, there was a debate among Shingon monks over Sifen lu and Youbu lu (有部律 Sarvāstivāda vinaya), and Jiun warned that all vinaya texts are equally the door to liberation and that one should not be attached to a single vinaya text, as it is only due to coincidence to meet a certain vinaya.10 In other words, Jiun’s shōbō-ritsu movement did not distinguish between vinayas but accepted them all as Śākyamuni Buddha’s words and followed the rules as they were. Jiun’s efforts to make robes were part of these efforts. At the time, Japanese monks were confused by the different robes worn by different sects, and Jiun composed the Hōfuku zugi 方服圖儀 to reveal the original style of the robes. He apparently believed that observing the precepts that would regulate the outer appearance was the foundation for the survival of the true law.11

Meanwhile, Jiun’s shōbō-ritsu movement also led to public enlightenment activities. When lay practitioners of Kyoto, deeply moved by his teachings, provided him with a temple called Amida-ji, Ji-un moved to live there and edified many people through the ten wholesome precepts, which Paekp’a of Chosŏn also valued.12 Jiun’s fame spread to the court, and even the emperor’s family and court ladies came to him to receive the ten wholesome precepts. Jiun gradually established the ten wholesome precepts as the content of the true law and sought to harmonize them with secular morality. The popularization of the ten precepts was a response to the growing emphasis on secular ethics. As mentioned earlier, throughout the early modern period, Buddhism had been sharply criticized by Confucian scholars for its transcendentalism. In addition to Confucianism, the new ideas of the time emphasized secular ethics, and Buddhism was, therefore, criticized as an unethical religion. As Jiun began to study Shinto around 1788, he came to understand the true law as something universal beyond the framework of Buddhism, such as “the law of all the worlds” or “the law of the natural law,” both of which ultimately refers to the same in that they indicate the law as it is, without anything artificial (Sim 2003, pp. 32–33). He also explained that the ten wholesome precepts are the path that a person must follow in order to exist as a human being, and this path is the path to enlightenment (Koganemaru Taisen 2020, pp. 31–41). Jiun saw the ten wholesome precepts as the law of the natural law and identified them with Buddha nature and dharma nature.13 He added that since Śākyamuni was a person who simply followed the true nature as it is, without any selfish thoughts or ulterior intentions, thus, practicing the ten wholesome precepts means to do as Śākyamuni did.14 In short, for him, the true law is the ten wholesome precepts, and practicing the ten wholesome precepts is the way to practice the original way that Śākyamuni practiced. In this way, Jiun carried out his precept revival movement that aimed to return to the origin.

4. Comparison of the 18th and 19th-Century Precept Revival Movements in Korea and Japan

4.1. Restoration of the Bhikṣu Precept Lineage

The precept revival movements that occurred in Korea and Japan in the late early modern period have in common that they sought to secure Buddhist identity internally and externally through the re-establishment of the sangha. However, the historical background and actual situation of Buddhism in each country led the two countries to develop the precept revival movement in different directions. The most prominent difference is the direction in which the movement aimed to rebuild the sangha. In Chosŏn, the focus was on restoring the bhikṣu lineage by overhauling the bhikṣu ordination ritual, whereas in Japan, it was the so-called “returning to the origin,” that is, establishing the identity of the sangha and presenting secular ethics by returning to Śākyamuni’s teachings and practicing them. In the following, we will examine the background of why these differences between the two countries’ precept revival movements emerged.

The exact reason why monks in Chosŏn suddenly became so interested in the restoration of the bhikṣu lineage in the early 19th century is unknown due to a lack of material, but we can speculate on several factors given the political, social, and historical circumstances. First, it is important to consider that the Buddhist order had been in decline since the end of the 18th century and had become estranged from the state. The activities of the monks’ militia in the Imjin War proved Buddhism’s usefulness,15 and the Buddhist community then made full-scale efforts to preserve its existence, including publishing texts, erecting steles for eminent masters, and establishing the dharma lineage. In addition, from the late 17th century to the 18th century, the relationship between the state and the Buddhist community was stable, and the state Buddhist policy that realistically recognized monks and temples was maintained (Son Sŏngp’il 2015, p. 291). Toward the end of the 18th century, however, Buddhist activities declined markedly, and relations with the state became more distant. Regarding the situation of the Buddhist community during this period, Son Sŏngp’il points out that in the 19th century, the number of Buddhist texts published, the number of monks’ literary collections published, and the number of steles erected had decreased significantly, and in the late 18th century, there was a realization in the Chosŏn government that the number of monks was decreasing and temples were in decay (Son Sŏngp’il 2015, pp. 292–93). Ch’oe Pyŏnghŏn also describes the situation of Buddhism in the late 18th century, noting that in 1779, King Chŏngjo had a government office survey the nation’s temples and compile the Pŏmugo and wrote a preface himself affirming the edifying role of Buddhist monks, but that the decline of the Buddhist order made state suppression unnecessary, the temples were ravaged by private plunder from the government and Confucian literati, and the quality of the monks declined within the negative social treatment of them (Ch’oe Pyŏnghŏn 2013, pp. 19–20). It is not clear at this time why this phenomenon occurred, but it is thought that these changes in the late 18th century may have prompted the monks to seek a new way of existence.

Considering that monks were eager to receive Taeŭn’s lineage after his reception of the precepts, it is clear that the interest of Chosŏn monks in this period was to secure their legitimate status as monks. This can be understood as a desire to restore the bhikṣu lineage through the overhaul of the ordination ceremony in order to gain recognition as an authentic Buddhist monk and to secure Buddhist authority both within and outside the order, given the loss of official monk status due to the elimination of the monk certificate law and the collapse of the traditional ordination ceremony. The establishment of the dharma lineage in Chosŏn Buddhism in the seventeenth century likely played a role here (J. R. Lee 2021, pp. 6–7). As mentioned earlier, once monks proved the efficacy of Buddhism through the activities of the monks’ militia, they made various efforts to secure their existence, one of which was the establishment of the dharma lineage. In particular, the theory of the Imje T’aego dharma lineage advocated in 1625 by P’yŏnyang Ŏn’gi 鞭羊彦機 (1581–1644), a disciple of Ch’ŏnghŏ Hyujŏng 淸虛休靜 (1520–1604), who had made great contributions during the Japanese Invasions, clarified the identity of Chosŏn Buddhism by placing the identity of Chosŏn Sŏn Buddhism in the Imje lineage. According to this theory, T’aego Pou 太古普愚 (1301–1382) in late Koryŏ received the dharma lineage of the Chinese Linji school from Shiwu Qinggong 石屋淸珙 (1272–1352) in Yuan Dynasty, and this lineage was passed down to Hyujŏng. This lineage theory was accepted in and outside the order, being recognized as being in line with the needs of the times with its Sino-centric nature (S.-E. T. Kim 2012, p. 122). The dharma lineage is a powerful tool for shaping a community and plays an important role in conferring authority on both community members and external powers (Marco 2023, p. 43). In fact, after the establishment of the Imje T’aego dharma lineage theory, the P’yŏnyang branch became mainstream in Hyujŏng’s lineage, and after the 18th century, it became influential nationwide.

It is worth noting that Taeŭn and Paekp’a, who attempted to restore the precept lineage in the early 19th century, and the renowned masters who followed in their footsteps, belonged to the P’yŏnyang branch. Although it originated in Mt. Myohyang, its power expanded to cover the entire country, including the southern part of the peninsula, after the 18th century. In particular, the majority of the branch was centered in the Chŏlla area, and both Ch’oŭi and Pŏmhae, who received Taeŭn’s lineage, were centered at Taedunsa in Haenam. In addition, it is worth considering that in the 17th and 18th centuries, precept-related Buddhist texts were being compiled continuously, mainly in the southern part of the country. Although the Pusa jieben had been published since the late 16th century, it would be pretty difficult to fully understand the Buddhist precepts, and thus it is possible that the importance of the precepts was emphasized through the publication and distribution of related texts in the Buddhist canon of the Jiaxing era picked up from the Chinese ship that was stranded on Imja Island of Chŏlla province in 1681 (J. R. Lee 2021, pp. 8–9; J.-S. Lee 2024, p. 201). In short, it is thought that there was a movement to rebuild the Buddhist order, which had been in decline since the end of the 18th century, through the restoration of the precept lineage, centered on P’yŏnyang branch monks who had already had an experience of restoring the dharma lineage. It is likely that the importance of the precepts in the order became more prominent as the decline in the quality of monks became a serious problem. This was because, with the abolition of the monk certificate law during King Chungjong’s reign, the government no longer recognized the official status of monks, and individual temples produced monks, conferring precepts on their own. In addition, the killing of monks after the Imjin War also caused a crisis in the Buddhist practice of the precepts.

The phenomenon of establishing the identity of an order through the establishment of a dharma lineage or precept lineage is thought to be related to the “unified” nature of Korean Buddhism, which is cited as one of its characteristics. Unlike Chinese Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism, which have a strong sectarian character, Korean Buddhism has a unified character that avoids sectarianism and returns to the path of the same Buddhahood.16 In the Chosŏn Pulgyo, Ch’oe Namsŏn (1890–1957) wrote, “While Buddhism of India and Central Asia is introductory and Buddhism of China is itemic, Chosŏn established a conclusive Buddhism” (Ch’oe Namsŏn 1930, p. 12), characterizing Korean Buddhism as a unified Buddhism and promoting Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686) as the founder of unified Buddhism. Wŏnhyo was a Silla monk who emphasized unified Buddhism by preaching that all things are one mind and three realms are only the mind. After Wŏnhyo, Ŭich’ŏn 義天 (1055–1101) of Koryŏ embraced Sŏn based on Kyo, and Chinul 知訥 (1158–1210) embraced Kyo based on Sŏn. In the Chosŏn period, during the reign of King T’aejong, the 11 Buddhist schools, which had existed since the end of Koryŏ, were reduced to seven, and, during the reign of King Sejong, these seven schools were unified into the two schools of Sŏn and Kyo. Hyujŏng then established a system of practice that incorporated both Sŏn meditation and Kyŏ doctrinal studies, and from the perspective of Sŏn Buddhism, unified Sŏn and Kyo to form a single school. In order to secure its identity as a Sŏn Buddhist order, the Buddhist order of Chosŏn utilized the discourse of the dharma lineage based on the traditional theory of the lamp transmission in Sŏn Buddhism and presented the theory of the dharma lineage that could correspond to the theory of the transmission of the way in Cheng-Zhu learning and thereby tried to assert its orthodoxy and establish its identity. Kim Yongtae points out that the theory of the Imje T’aego dharma lineage and the theory of the transmission of the way are similar in that both of them attempted to establish an orthodoxy: the former brought to the fore T’aego Pou of the late Koryŏ to argue that the authentic lineage of the Chinese Linji school, rather than the Sŏn tradition of Koryŏ, was being transmitted to Chosŏn while the latter argued that Cheng-Zhu learning of Song was transmitted to Koryŏ and further passed down to Chosŏn (Y. Kim 2010, pp. 365–67). Given the various forms of material collection and identity recognition regarding the Buddhist tradition in late Chosŏn, and the proliferation of compilations of various lineages, genealogies, and literary collections, especially from the late 18th century onward, the attempts to restore the precept lineage in the early 19th century should be viewed with the backdrop of similar perceptions of the 17th-century restoration of the dharma lineage.

4.2. Returning to the Origin

Jiun launched the shōbō-ritsu movement from a perspective of returning to the origin. Returning to the origin meant returning to the law that Śākyamuni, the founder of Buddhism, had realized and practiced. In other words, it refers to returning to the true law or shōbō-ritsu. Before Jiun, several monks, such as Myōnin, a Shingon monk from the early Edo period; Suzuki Shōsan 鈴木正三 (1579–1655) of the Sōtō sect;17 and Myōryū Jisan 妙立慈山 (1637–1690) of the Tendai sect,18 already advocated for the revival of Śākyamuni Buddha’s true law). Jiun’s movement, however, was different from the previous precept revival movements in that it presented more specific ways to return to the origin, such as observing the Sifen lu for the ordination ceremony, wearing the correct style of Buddhist robes, and responding to social ethics through the ten wholesome precepts.

First, Jiun insisted on the performance of the ordination ceremony based on the Sifen lu to uphold the precepts that Śākyamuni Buddha had established and practiced.19 As mentioned, even after he received ordination through the method of jisei tsūju in 1738, he did so again in 1746, receiving the Sifen lu through betsuju in the traditional way, reflecting his firm belief that the bhikṣu ordination should be conducted in accord with the vinaya, including the Sifen lu. Jiun’s emphasis on the Sifen lu for ordination came from the long-standing controversies in Japan between the lesser and great vehicle precepts. The first bhikṣu ordination ritual based on the Sifen lu in Japan was conducted in the mid-8th century. According to the Tang daheshang dongzheng chuan 唐大和上東征傳, the Chinese monk Jianzhen 鑑眞 (688–763), who had come to Japan in December, 753, at the request of the Japanese government, founded an ordination platform at Tōdai-ji in April of the following year and officiated the ordination ritual (T51, 993c8-15). Afterward, two more ordination platforms were established in January 761 at Kanseon-ji in Chikuzen (Fukuoka Prefecture) and Yakushi-ji in Shimotsuke (Tochigi Prefecture), which constituted the three state ordination platforms, along with one at Tōdai-ji. However, in the early 9th century, the Tendai monk Saichō 最澄 (767–822) made the radical claim that one could become a bhikṣu by receiving only ten major and 48 minor precepts in the Fanwang jing and requested the establishment of a great vehicle ordination platform. This claim was fiercely criticized by Tōdai-ji and other Nanto monks, but the platform was eventually authorized by the government and established at Hieizan. This led to the division of the ordination platforms into two types: one centered on the Sifen lu, which was transmitted by Jianzhen, and the great vehicle platform set up by Saichō.20 However, since the precepts in the Fanwang jing were regarded as what all practitioners should keep, whether they were monks or lay people, there had been constant controversies over the validity of those precepts, questioning if they could be allowed to be used for the ordination of a bhikṣu. When there were precept revival movements in medieval or early modern Japan, therefore, the issue of the ordination ceremony often emerged as one of their main concerns.21 Jiun’s movement was also in line with such a historical trend.

Jiun’s emphasis on the ordination ceremony, based on the Sifen lu, was also related to the sectarianization of the Buddhist precepts that emerged in the Buddhist community from the mid-Edo period. According to Nishimura, after Myōnin’s movement, a precept revival movement began to spread in other sects, culminating in the late 17th and mid-18th centuries (Nishimura Ryō 2010, pp. 207–8). Different schools developed different rules: for example, the Anraku rules for Tendai that focused on the practice of the Sifen lu, the Sōzan rules for Nichi that emphasized the faith and practice of the Lotus Sutra, and the Jōdo rules for Jōdo that advocated the harmony between nenbutsu (chanting the Buddha’s name) and the precepts (Sueki Humihiko 1996, pp. 259–61). As the controversies and debates grew intense between sects, contrary to the intentions of the initial precept revival movements, which had begun as a reflection on the weakening of the practice of the precepts, these movements gradually came to more serve sectarian interests; that is, each sect enacted its own precepts and temple rules with its own ordination hall, ordination ritual, and ordination masters to promote itself (Ueda Reijō 1977, p. 162). Jiun was aware of the situation in the Buddhist community at the time, where most of the monks were rejecting the teachings of other sects and indulging in self-righteousness and self-pride. Even his own Shingon sect was divided between the groups supporting the Sifen lu and the Sarvāstivāda vinaya. In this situation, emphasizing that all the precepts were the doorway to liberation, he called on monks to reclaim their roles as monks by adhering to the precepts based on the Buddha’s own words, i.e., the vinaya collection, rather than sectarianized versions of the precepts. Such an urge for the practice of the Buddha’s precepts themselves was the most important feature of Jiun’s precept revival movement.

While advocating the observance of the precepts, based on the vinaya, in all aspects of life, as well as in Buddhist rituals, Jiun particularly focused on the Buddhist robes, or the wearing of proper robes, and published the Hōfuku zugi to teach the proper ways of making and wearing the Buddhist robes. As explained above, different sects had their own precepts, enacting their own monastic rules and regulations. There were different Buddhist robes depending on different sects and different statuses of monks. Monks did not follow the proper way for their robes. Even renowned masters wanted to wear colorful robes to stand out (Nishimura Ryō 2010, p. 215). Jiun lamented the situation where monks wore embroidered colorful robes, which differed from those of the Buddha’s time.22 After completing his first piece in 1766, Jiun worked to make and distribute Buddhist robes, donating 1000 pieces of them to temples for the next 40 years of his life.

Another major feature of Jiun’s precept revival movement was that it presented the ten wholesome precepts as a direct means to practice secular ethics. According to the conventional understanding of the East Asian precept tradition, monks should practice the precepts in the vinaya, including the Sifen lu, along with ten major and 48 minor precepts in the Fanwang jing, while lay people should practice five precepts and eight purification precepts. Jiun, however, argued for the practice of the ten wholesome precepts for both monks and lay people. He understood that the ten precepts were the true law Śākyamuni Buddha practiced and the ten ways that people should conduct good deeds, following the nature (Buddha nature) they possessed inherently within their mind.23 Buddhist monks from the early Edo period faced the need to respond to the demand for the practice of secular ethics that came from those who criticized Buddhism, including Confucian scholars. Suzuki Shōsan, who was mentioned earlier, and Hakuin Egaku 白隱慧鶴 (1685–1768), who was a Zen master of the mid-Edo period, answered this need. Suzuki insisted that fulfilling one’s role was a Buddhist practice, while Hakuin emphasized the practice of Zen in everyday life.24 Meanwhile, Jiun encouraged the practice of the ten wholesome precepts as part of the shōbō-ritsu movement. He saw the ten precepts as the very true law of the Buddha that was universal.25 He understood that they were the fundamental precepts that penetrated all realms by saying that the mundane and supramundane precepts, as well as the śrāvaka and bodhisattva precepts, were all based on these ten precepts.26

Jiun’s shōbō-ritsu movement seems to have taken on the main characteristic of returning to the origin by thoroughly practicing Śākyamuni Buddha’s teachings against the backdrop of the controversies between the lesser vehicle and great vehicle precepts that emerged from the division of the ordination platforms from the 9th century, together with the sectarianization of the precepts that took place from the mid-Edo period.

5. Conclusions: Influences on Modern Buddhism

This article compares and analyzes the precept revival movements in Chosŏn Korea and early modern Japan in the 18th and 19th centuries, examining how both countries reconstructed Buddhist identity through the precepts within their respective historical contexts. In both countries, monks took different approaches to the precept revival in order to secure the legitimacy of Buddhism amidst rapid political and social changes. In particular, in the Hyujŏng lineage of Chosŏn, the recovery of the bhikṣu lineage took center stage, which became an important means for monks to re-establish their identity and reconstitute the Buddhist community. In the Shingon sect of Japan, on the other hand, the shōbō-ritsu movement, which sought to return to the teachings of Śākyamuni Buddha, re-emphasized the fundamental principles of Buddhism and attempted to move beyond sectarian restrictions. These differences were the result of Korea’s pursuit of a unified Buddhist identity, while Japan grappled with how to maintain and transform its precept tradition amidst the rise in sectarian Buddhism and the conflicts between the lesser and great vehicle precepts.

The precept revival movements in both countries were an important foundation for the development of modern Buddhism and the establishment of Buddhist identity in each country, and these efforts have influenced the maintenance of Buddhist religious orthodoxy into the modern era. The efforts of Taeŭn, Paekp’a, Manha, and others to restore the bhikṣu lineage directly contributed to the establishment of the bhikṣu lineage, and, in particular, the lineages of Taeŭn and Paekp’a have now formed the two main precept lineages of the Jogye Order, the largest order of Korean Buddhism. Indirectly, it also seems to have influenced Chosŏn monks’ consciousness of keeping the precepts. The Sansa yakch’o 山史略抄, a text published in 1863 for the purpose of monastic education, lists keeping the precepts as one of the five ways to practice the Buddhist way. This shows that the practice of the precepts was recognized as a major branch of Buddhist practice at the time.27 Hirokazu Ogawa, who has studied the issue of the formation of perceptions of Chosŏn Buddhism in modern Japan, points out that in the accounts left by Japanese who traveled to Chosŏn in the late nineteenth century and encountered Chosŏn Buddhism, it was the issue of precepts that were repeatedly mentioned when Japanese people positively identified with Chosŏn Buddhism. For example, Takada Seigan 高田栖岸, in his article “Chōsen Bukkyō daiyō,” characterized Chosŏn monks as being very observant of the precepts, saying that they neither ate meat nor engaged in lewd actions (Okawa Hirokazu 2024, p. 78). It is also noteworthy that the importance of the precepts was widely recognized in the 20th century, leading to the establishment of yurwŏn (vinaya academy) within each temple to study the precepts.

Jiun’s shōbō-ritsu ideas also greatly influenced the New Buddhism movement in the Meiji era. Unlike under the shogunate, which was based on a symbiosis of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Shinto, Japanese Buddhism had a more difficult time in the modern period than in the early modern period due to the Meiji government’s push to nationalize Shinto and the subsequent attacks on Buddhism by Shintoists and Kokugaku scholars who sympathized with them. The Meiji government’s separation of Shinto and Buddhism, desecration of Buddhist temples, and official authorization of monks to eat meat, have a wife, and grow hair led to an unprecedented challenge. In response, there was a movement within Buddhist circles to secure self-regulation through the precept revival movement, and Jiun’s shōbō-ritsu movement attracted attention. Major figures include the Shingon-shū monk Unshō 雲照 (1827–1909) and the Jōdō-shū monk Fukuda Gyōkai 福田行誡 (d. 1888). Both had in common that they emphasized the return to Śākyamuni’s Buddha-dharma. Unshō, in particular, greatly developed Jiun’s shōbō-ritsu movement: he founded the Jūzen-kai 十善會, which lay practitioners joined from all over the country and published its bulletin, “Jūzen hōkutsu” 十善寶窟, in 1890 to promote the ten wholesome precepts and to educate the people (Ikeda Eishun 1976, pp. 63–80). Although the two countries’ precept revival movements differed in their approaches, they were significant in that they provided milestones for Buddhism to maintain its identity and exist amidst social pressures and changes in the modern period.