<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 9pt;
font-family:굴림
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I may be wrong on this (and would much appreciate being corrected if I am) but I've always thought that Tianzhu was such a minor deity in Chinese Buddhism that few Chinese Buddhists were even aware of that term.   Critics of Catholicism in both China and Korea regularly accused the Catholics of being just like the Buddhists because of their promise of heaven and their threat of hell, but I haven't come across any critics who accused them of stealing the name of their deity from Buddhism. Those critics were usually more concerned about the early Catholic claim that Tianzhu was another name for the ancient Chinese deity called Shangdi. <br><br>Don Baker <div>Professor</div><div>Department of Asian Studies </div><div>University of British Columbia </div><div>Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z2 </div><div>don.baker@ubc.ca</div><br><br><br><br><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 04:16:24 +0900<br>From: baeksuki@yahoo.co.kr<br>To: koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<br>Subject: Re: [KS] Exclusively(?) Catholic terms in pre-20th c. Chinese and       Korean texts<br><br><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="font:inherit"><p class="ecxMsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;word-break:keep-all"><font class="ecxApple-style-span" color="#444444" face="'Times New Roman', serif" size="4"><span class="ecxApple-style-span" style="font-size:16px"></span></font></p><font class="ecxApple-style-span" color="#444444" face="'Times New Roman', serif" size="4"><p class="ecxMsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;word-break:keep-all"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif'">The term <i style="">Cheonju</i> (C. <i style="">Tianzhu </i>and not <i style="">Tianju</i>)
is nowadays considered as exclusively Catholic, but one should keep in mind
that it has Buddhist (and, I read somewhere, Taoist) origin, since it refers to
a Buddhist divinity. For this reason, European missionaries in China proposed
to remove this term from the Chinese Catholic terminology on two occasions, the
first time in 1627 and the second at the end of the 19th century (I forgot the
exact date).</span></p>

<p class="ecxMsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;word-break:keep-all"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif'">But this Buddhist origin
of the term <i style="">tianzhu</i> also let some
less cultivated missionaries to think that Christianity had a long history in
China … since <i style="">tianzhu</i> appeared in
some Buddhist temples.</span></p>

<p class="ecxMsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;word-break:keep-all"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif'"> </span></p>

<p class="ecxMsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;word-break:keep-all"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif'">Regarding the two last
terms, <i style="">ch’eondang </i>(<i style="">tiantang</i>)<i style=""> </i>ang <i style="">chiok</i> (<i style="">diyu</i>), keep also in mind that they were
used in antichristian texts of the 18th and 19th centuries China and Korea in
order to show that Catholicism was nothing but a heterodox teaching similar to
Buddhism (or an avatar of Buddhism). <i style="">Tiantang
</i>and <i style="">diyu </i>were of course Buddhist
terms as well.</span></p>

<p class="ecxMsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;word-break:keep-all"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif'"> </span></p>

<p class="ecxMsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;word-break:keep-all"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif'">Regards,</span></p>

<p class="ecxMsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;word-break:keep-all"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif'"> </span></p>

<p class="ecxMsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;word-break:keep-all"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif'">Pierre-Emmanuel Roux</span></p></font><BR><br>--- <b>10/1/16 (토)에 Kwang On Yoo <i><lovehankook@gmail.com></i></b>님이 쓰신 메시지:<br><blockquote style="margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px"><br>보낸 사람: Kwang On Yoo <lovehankook@gmail.com><br>제목: Re: [KS] Exclusively(?) Catholic terms in pre-20th c. Chinese and Korean texts<br>받는 사람: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws><br>날짜: 2010년 1월 16일 (토요일) 오전 11:29<br><br><div id="ecxyiv896026689">Dear Debererniere Janet Torrey,<br><br>Yes, <span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Cheonju (C. </span><span style="font-size:12pt">Tianju 天主</span><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">) is one of the exclusive Catholic </span>Terms but other <br>
4 are nothing but common nouns.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Kwang-On Yoo<br><br><div class="ecxgmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:33 PM, DEBERNIERE JANET TORREY <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" href="http:///mc/compose?to=djt188@psu.edu">djt188@psu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="padding-left:1ex"><div>Dear Members,<br><br>In a 2002 book on Korean Literature and the early
Catholic movement (<span style="font-style:italic">Hanguk Munhak gwa
Cheonjugyo</span>), Kim Inseop states that the following terms were exclusively
Catholic:<br><br><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Cheonju (C. </span><span style="font-size:12pt">Tianju 天主</span><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">), <i><br>
yeonghon</i>  for soul (C.
<i>linghun</i> </span><span style="font-size:12pt">靈魂</span><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">)<br><i>bulmyeol</i> for immortality (C. <i>bumie</i> </span><span style="font-size:12pt">不滅</span><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">)<br>
 <i>ji-ok</i> for hell
(C. <i>di’yu</i> </span><span style="font-size:12pt">地獄</span><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">)<br><i>cheondang</i> for heaven (C. <i>tiantang</i> </span><span style="font-size:12pt">天堂</span><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">)</span><br>
<br>Does anyone know if there's a difference of opinion on this, especially in regards to the last two terms?<br><br>Thank you,<br><br>Deberniere Torrey<br><br><br><br><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><br>
      <hr size="1">
<p style="color:#808080;font:12px dotum"><b>180° 달라진 야후! 메일</b><br>
알아서 척척! <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_kr/taglines/mail7/*http://kr.content.mail.yahoo.com/cgland">새로운 야후! 메일</a>은 새로운 메일이 도착할때 마다 새 메시지를 받아온답니다.</p><img id="ecxmail-read-receipt" src="http://kr.rr.mail.yahoo.com/beacon?from=baeksuki@yahoo.co.kr&to=koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws&subj=UmU6IFtLU10gRXhjbHVzaXZlbHkoPykgQ2F0aG9saWMgdGVybXMgaW4gcHJlLTIwdGggYy4gQ2hpbmVzZSBhbmQgS29yZWFuIHRleHRz&sent=1263669384&sig=YcwP9JHybADN1f8hcShSF.5GAds-" width="0" height="0">                                      </body>
</html>