Sujung Kim on Women and Buddhist Philosophy: Engaging Zen Master
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Jin Park. Women and Buddhist Philosophy: Engaging Zen Master Kim Iryŏp. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2017. 280 pp. $65.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8248-5878-0. Reviewed by Sujung Kim Published on H-Buddhism (October, 2017) Commissioned by Hwansoo Kim (Duke University) The most pervasive image of philosophers is the author’s long and in-depth engagement with that of old, and largely white, men with beards. It Kim Iryŏp's literary writings. Park has also trans‐ is considerably more rare to encounter studies lated Iryŏp’s collected essays into English, which that break with this iconography. In this much- came out as Reflections of a Zen Buddhist Nun: Es‐ needed book, Women and Buddhist Philosophy: says by Zen Master Kim Iryŏp (2014). As I ex‐ Engaging Zen Master Kim Iryŏp, Jin Y. Park prob‐ plained in the review of this translation, there lematizes traditional modes of philosophizing— have only been a handful of studies on modern androcentric and Western-centered tendencies— Korean Buddhist nuns—a doubly marginalized and attempts to deconstruct the stereotypical im‐ topic.[2] Women and Buddhist Philosophy marks age of philosophy and philosopher. Park tackles a major breakthrough in the research on Iryŏp in these issues by thoroughly examining the life and any language, since even in Korean scholarship philosophy of Kim Iryŏp (1896–1971), a Christian- her Buddhist side has been less explored. The born feminist activist, writer, and Buddhist nun. book likewise goes beyond the feld of Korean As a leading female intellectual in colonial and Buddhism because this is also one of the frst postcolonial Korea, almost every phase of Kim book-length studies to engage the philosophy of Iryŏp’s life intersects with significant moments of modern Buddhist nuns more broadly. colonialism, feminism, and modernity in Korea. Just like the life of Iryŏp, Women and Bud‐ In a way, her life itself is the integral embodiment dhist Philosophy is multifaceted. While the book of modern Korean history. follows a conventional structure of biography, it is The study of women in Buddhism is a rather organized by themes, which reflect different more recent subject of inquiry. The slowly grow‐ stages of Iryŏp’s life. This format invites the read‐ ing interest in the topic has produced a number of er to “think with Kim Iryŏp as much as about her” significant works that examine Buddhist nuns.[1] (p. 2). While closely following the life experiences While these previous studies mostly deal with the of Iryŏp, throughout the book, Park argues that challenges that Buddhist females encountered in Iryŏp’s philosophy is “narrative philosophy, a phi‐ the patriarchal Buddhist order, Women and Bud‐ losophy that engages itself with the narrative dis‐ dhist Philosophy sharpens the focus on the philos‐ course of our daily experiences instead of relying ophy of a particularly noteworthy Buddhist nun. heavily on theorization and abstraction” (p. 6). Women and Buddhist Philosophy is the product of H-Net Reviews The book consists of seven chapters, divided dhism. As the core parts of the book, chapters 5 into two parts. The bipartite structure of the book and 6 present the main philosophy of Iryŏp. In deliberately mirrors the two distinctive phases of chapter 5, based on Iryŏp’s collected essays pub‐ Iryŏp’s life: before and after she becomes a Bud‐ lished in 1960, the author compares the nun’s un‐ dhist nun. Part 1 focuses on Iryŏp’s life as Sin yŏ‐ derstanding of Buddhism with two modern Japa‐ sŏng (New Woman), whereas part 2 deals with nese thinkers, Inoue Enryō (1858–1919) and Tan‐ her life as a nun. The two parts not only represent abe Hajime (1885–1962). Chapter 6 continues the her two seemingly contradictory lives, but also discussion of Iryŏp’s ideas, and Park demonstrates parallel the “small-I” and the “great-I” that consti‐ here that 1) her writings themselves prove that tute a central realization of Iryŏp’s understanding she was still engaging in social issues and that she of Buddhism and her life as a whole. used them as a medium to teach Buddhism to her Following a clearly written overview of the readers; 2) Iryŏp’s recounting of her life can be project in the introduction, chapter 1 opens with best understood when it is viewed as her unique Iryŏp’s literary works that reflect her childhood way of doing “narrative philosophy.” Chapter 7 and young adult life. Iryŏp experienced a series of ends with a discussion of the larger implications deaths of close family members during this peri‐ of the experiential dimension of Iryŏp’s philoso‐ od, and Park identifies these tragic events as a ma‐ phy by emphasizing, with a nod to Jacques Derri‐ jor force for shaping her philosophy in later life. da, how lived experiences are the essential source The chapter also introduces her involvement with of one’s philosophy. the New Women, an elitist feminist movement Women and Buddhist Philosophy exhibits a that fourished in colonial Korea. As a leading carefully constructed organizational schema and New Woman, she even published the frst femi‐ sophistication in writing. A couple of parts from nist magazine, Sin yŏja (New Woman) in 1920. chapters 5 and 6 stand out as points for further Through her numerous articles and essays, Iryŏp discussion and perhaps as future research av‐ publicly challenged Confucian-prescribed norms, enues. First, Iryŏp’s philosophy is profoundly me‐ especially the ideology of chastity. One of the most diated by Japanese thinkers in the context of colo‐ famous arguments that she made was that the nialism. In chapter 5, her Buddhist philosophy is core of chastity lies not in the body but in true compared to that of Inoue and Tanabe. The au‐ love and individual happiness. Chapters 2 and 3 thor states: “I place Iryŏp’s religious thoughts in further examine Iryŏp’s feminism within the the context of the emergence of philosophy and broader feminist movement. But her involvement religion in East Asia and contextualize her ideas with the activist movement quickly faded away. with two Japanese thinkers in order to consider When she began to fnd herself detached from the an East Asian philosophy of religion” (pp. 137– feminist movement, Iryŏp became more interest‐ 138). While readers might want to know more ed in the philosophical question of searching for about why Inoue and Tanabe, in particular, were one’s identity, or in her terms, a “new individual‐ chosen for this comparative project, it would also ism.” have been interesting if another influential Chi‐ Part 2 moves to Iryŏp’s life as a Buddhist nun. nese thinker, Liang Qichao (1873–1929) was con‐ Chapter 4 deals with herfrst encounter with Bud‐ sidered in this discussion. Considering the popu‐ dhism. Here, the author contextualizes Iryŏp’s de‐ larity of Liang’s works among the intellectuals in cision to renounce the world by focusing on what colonial Korea and his role as the leading Bud‐ it meant to be a Sŏn/Zen Buddhist nun in 1920s dhist fgure in China, Liang would seem to be a Korea and offering a brief history of Korean Bud‐ missing piece of the puzzle in the intellectual to‐ 2 H-Net Reviews pography of Buddhist modernity and East Asian in Iryŏp’s philosophy, further contextualization of philosophers of religion.[3] their usage would seem to be merited. Second, while readers might be left wonder‐ Another intriguing point is found in chapter ing whether Iryŏp had been exposed to or directly 6, where the author discusses a Korean scholar’s influenced by any of Inoue’s works, as a point of harsh criticism of Iryŏp’s life. In her defense, Park convergence between the two thinkers, Park con‐ argues that Kim Iryŏp played an immense role in tends that his “discussion of the logic of the ‘con‐ the lives of Korean nuns, Buddhist practitioners, tradiction’ and ‘mutually contained identity’ re‐ and other women in Korea. Park makes it clear minds us of Iryŏp’s claim that contradiction is the that Iryŏp’s several publications themselves prove principle of the universe. The logic of contradic‐ her social engagement and feminist commit‐ tion and mutually contained identity was the ments. But Iryŏp’s life as a Sŏn (Zen) master and ground on which Iryŏp built her notion of the her role as a teacher for the monastic communi‐ ‘small-I’ and the ‘great-I’” (p. 141). This dual con‐ ties would be another point that deserves more cept of the self—the “small-I” and the “great-I”— scrutiny. For instance, Iryŏp was quite active in seems to demand a fuller treatment in future promoting Buddhism as a lay Buddhist before she scholarship, for the terms have an intriguing joined the convent in 1933.[5] Yet, we do not know background in the intellectual history of modern much about how influential her philosophy has East Asia. The idea of the two types of self and the been and her legacy in contemporary Korean terms themselves originate in the Buddhist scrip‐ Buddhism. Lastly, related to this point, in this tures. For instance, the “great-I (大我)” is a term same chapter readers are told of contradictions found in numerous Buddhist texts, including the that appear in Iryŏp’s attitude toward Buddhism Nirvana Sūtra, and the practice of contrasting the in her writings, but only in passing (p. 168). Con‐ small-I and the great-I is prominent in several sidering that the bulk of the discussions in Wom‐ Buddhist commentaries in the Chinese Buddhist en and Buddhist Philosophy are centered on canon. But, the modern rendering (either reli‐ Iryŏp’s Buddhist philosophy, her inconsistent atti‐ gious or sociological) of the term transcends the tude toward Buddhism is a rather significant original connotation.