[KS] Three topics - Re: Senyeon-ga; Dan'gun discourse; teaching Buddhist history
geumgangsan at gmail.com
Mon Sep 7 14:39:23 EDT 2015
As for teaching early Korean Buddhist history, you might want to
consider incorporating Buddhist art and material culture into your
syllabus. In my classes, I generally assign some books on
Buddhist philosophy and theory as well as articles from the Journal
of Korean Religions (available on Project MUSE), and portions of the
Ide Seinosuke. “The world of Goryeo Buddhist painting.” Goryeo
dynasty: Korea’s age of enlightenment, 918 to 1392, ed. Kumja Paik
Kim, 34-47. San Francisco: Asian Art Museum, 2003.
Kang Woo-bang. “The art of Avatamsaka Sutra in the Unified Silla
period: The sanctuary of Sŏkkuram and Hwaŏm-kyŏng Pyŏnsangdo
(Narrative Portrayal in the Avatamsaka Sutra).” Transmitting the forms
of divinity: Early Buddhist Art from Korea and Japan, ed. Washizuka
Hiromitsu, Park Youngbok, and Kang Woo-bang, 168-177. New York: Japan
McBride, Richard. Domesticating the Dharma: Buddhist Cults and the
Hwaŏm Synthesis in Silla Korea. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 2008.
Pak Youngsook/Whitfield, Roderick. Handbook of Korean Art: Buddhist
sculpture. London: Laurence King, 2003.
Vermeersch, Sem. The Power of the Buddhas: The politics of Buddhism
during the Koryŏ dynasty (918-1392). Cambridge: Harvard University,
Please feel free to contact me off-list if you have any further
questions (particularly about Buddhist art).
mstiller at ku.edu
On 9/7/15, Andrew <zatouichi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Three separate topics/questions.
> 1) *Se'nyeon-ga response*
> Thank-you kindly for the very useful links.
> I've taken the Han Yong-u (韓永愚) 해재 article on the SNY library site, but
> couldn't see the Chin Chaegyo article Sem Vermeesch mentions, but certainly
> I'd be interested.
> At first glance the 歷代世年歌 原本(縮小影印) 외 version also available from the SNU
> library doesn't seem to be the same as the book version I had photographed,
> but I should spend some time looking at it before making assumptions!
> 2)* Dan'gun*
> Because my thesis is a survey of popular historiography focusing on early
> Korea, much of it discusses treatment of Dan'gun. I've developed some of my
> own thoughts/observations on this subject and recently drafted a conference
> paper, a part of which is an attempted response to Breuker's treatment of
> Dan'gun in his *Establishing a Pluralist Society in Medieval Korea* (2010);
> this is meant only in the spirit of developing (or at least revisiting) the
> discourse, as in all other respects I've found Breuker (2010) - and his
> other writings on historiography - extremely enlightening and infinitely
> more sophisticated than anything I am capable of myself.
> In relation to Korean mythography (and my thesis), I have just been reading
> Gardiner's 1982 Korean Journal articles "The Legends of Koguryŏ" which are
> essentially annotated translations of the primary sources.
> My question is, are there any classic (or recent) articles of this high
> quality that discuss the Hwan'ung-Dan'gun myth? I recognize there has been
> a greater tradition of scholarly interest in the Dongmyeong/Jumong myths
> (going back to Japanese colonial work such as Shiratori's seminal 1938
> article "The Legend of Kin Tung-ming.." in *Memoirs of the Research
> Department of the Toyo Bunko*), no doubt in large part because it is much
> earlier attested mythology; meanwhile Dan'gun has been largely high-jacked
> by pseudo scholarship and modern nationalist discourse, which I imagine has
> turned most people off.
> (If anyone might be interested in my draft paper - although it's rather a
> mess - I would be happy to share it in order to stimulate some discussion
> and ideas).
> 3) *Teaching Buddhist history*
> This term I am teaching an introductory undergraduate course "Premodern
> Korean history" which I last prepared and taught two years ago. Whilst I
> need to revise my notes in general, a point I remember is that I was
> unsatisfied with the narrative of Korean Buddhist history (or rather lack
> of). My problem was, the way I taught it, each of the famous monks seem to
> unify disparate or polarized schools of Buddhist thought at different
> periods, culminating with Jinul (知訥). No doubt this is a shallow
> understanding, so my question is how can I improve on this. How can Korean
> Buddhist history be taught as an interesting narrative? (Recognizing
> developmental narratives maybe artificial - but still useful), or are there
> better approaches? Has anyone else encountered similar problems?
> For reference, I mainly rely on Grayson's *Korea-A Religious History*
> which I find works quite well as a general survey on premodern Korean
> intellectual history (and even Korean history in general); I take a few
> more details from Buswell's works too.
> Andrew Logie
More information about the Koreanstudies