Syncretism of Buddhism and Shamanism in Korea. By Hyun-key Kim Hogarth. Seoul: Jimoondang, 2002. 432 pp., \38,000 (paperback). Choi Jong Seong Models, History, and Subject of Religious Syncretism Syncretism is to be found not only in Korea or only between Buddhism and shamanism. Between two religious cultures, not only are there synthesis and borrowing but also exclusion and ostracism. It is natural that there can be both syncretism and anti-syncretism in the process of acculturation between two religions. 1 While elite traditions lay great emphasis on anti-syncretism to protect their own religious authenticity and purity, popular traditions actually accept syncretism in order to expand and widen their soteriology. Most exclusive religions have developed heresiography in the historical processes by which they have formed orthodoxy. 2 But it is not easy to find heresiography or anti-syncretism in the relationship between Korean Buddhism and shamanism. Although, as Kim Hogarth put it, some elite Buddhists or some young shamans are reluctant to accept syncretism in order to emphasize their own distinctiveness, we can not confirm a thoroughgoing anti-syncretism between Korean Buddhism and musok. Kim Hogarth attempts to analyze syncretism and the relationship between the two. She discusses Buddhist elements in Korean shamanism and shamanistic elements in Korean Buddhism by examining the divinities, rituals, and paraphernalia in the two religions. Her book is more descriptive than analytical. Still, it is a valuable survey of the general syncretism between Buddhism and shamanism. Her book provides a foundation from which we can tackle syncretism. 1. For religious syncretism and anti-syncretism, see Charles Stewart and Rosalind Shaw eds., Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism, New York: Routledge, 1994. 2. Henderson has dealt with the examples of orthodoxy and constructed heresiography which early Christianity, premodern Islam, rabbinic Judaism, and Neo-Confucianism have established. On the construction of orthodoxy and heresy, see John B. Henderson s The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy: Neo-Confucian, Islamic, Jewish, and Early Christian Patterns, New York: State University of New York, 1988.
218 The Review of Korean Studies Models of Syncretism Previously, some scholars were hesitant to use the term religious syncretism because of its theological nuance. But the phenomena of religious syncretism cannot be denied or ignored. The concept of syncretism will still help to describe the encounter and acculturation of religious cultures despite the past misuse of the term. What is important at present is to discuss not the validity of the use of this term, but the problem of how to understand and analyze this complex phenomenon. Religious syncretism is so complex and subtle that we cannot explain it within the single word syncretism. Accordingly, we need to classify syncretic phenomena into types. Kim Hogarth categorizes religious syncretism according to the intentionality or consciousness of it. She suggests that there are two types: gradual syncretism and conscious syncretism. According to Kim Hogarth, the first type takes place over a long period of time without loss of respective religious identities, while the second takes place intentionally in the process of synthesizing two different religious cultures into a new religion. The author claims that syncretism of Korean Buddhism and shamanism belongs to gradual syncretism and that the two religious cultures have a vertical affinity. Comparatively, Buddhist elements in Korean shamanism rather than shamanistic elements in Korean Buddhism have always had supremacy. Musok has actually accepted many Buddhist elements to ameliorate its weaknesses. In contrast, Korean Buddhism has adopted shamanistic and indigenous beliefs but have otherwise tried to minimize syncretism as much as possible. Kim Hogarth starts the book by tediously describing the general history of religions in order to examine the syncretism of Korean Buddhism (mahayana Buddhism) and shamanism. It goes without saying that Kim Hogarth aims to guide the western readers through the Korean religious background and to place it within the universal context of world religions. That is precisely the reason why the book lacks theoretical perspectives and analytical discussions. In order to analyze seriously the syncretism of Korean Buddhism and musok, we need to theorize and structuralize the syncretic phenomenon. It is worth while referring to James Huntley Grayson s discussion about the models of syncretism of Korean Buddhism and folk religion. 3 While Kim 3. It is worthwhile to refer to James Huntley Grayson s discussion about the models of syncretism
Book Reviews 219 Hogarth s interest is in the intentionality of syncretism, Grayson pays attention to the process of syncretism between foreign religion (world religion) and indigenous religion. He presents two types of processes of syncretism resulting from the contact between Korean Buddhism and musok. They are a high degree of syncretism and a low degree of syncretism. He explains that Low Syncretism occurs when Buddhism synthesizes with an autochthonous religion. In this case, the core value of Buddhism occupies the central position in the new religion with musok playing a superficial part. On the other hand, in the case of High Syncretism, the core ideas of musok are the central part of the new religion with Buddhism supplying the external features. He refers to High Syncretism as reverse syncretism, for High Syncretism is the opposite of normal syncretism. Although there are some differences between Kim Hogarth and Grayson in their focus, Buddhist Elements in Korean Shamanism (Chapter 6) can be in accordance with High Syncretism, and Shamanistic Elements in Korean Buddhism (Chapter 7) with Low Syncretism. Now, let us try to understand syncretism on a theoretical basis. All the materials that the author provides in this book must be understood from a dynamic perspective. Syncretism itself is not the end to our studies but the starting point. The main concern is not the fact that two religious cultures have synthesized but deciphering theoretically the types or models of syncretism. Syncretism and Historical Approach Typology or patterns in religious syncretism are not enough to understand the interrelationship between two religions. The study of typology will help to acquire a logical comprehension, and it will also aid in partial understanding because of its stationary and ahistorical nature. Therefore we need to historicize and contextualize the typology of religious syncretism. We may assume that gradual syncretism of Korean Buddhism and musok has slowly continued without sudden or conspicuous anomalies. From this standpoint, we can arrange Buddhist elements in Korean shamanism and shamanistic of Korean Buddhism and folk religion. James Huntley Grayson. The Accommodation of Korean Folk Religion to the Religious Forms of Buddhism: An Example of Reverse Syncretism. Asian Folklore Studies, Volume 51, Nagoya, 1992,
220 The Review of Korean Studies elements in Korean Buddhism in order to verify the extended syncretism. And then we may also classify two or more types of religious syncretism. But the purpose of our study is not merely to complete the whole typology. We need to examine historical changes, even if small, and then to take into consideration the historical developments of the typology. Let us take some examples. Sanshin gak (a shrine dedicated to the Mountain Spirit in Buddhist temples) can be a typical example of shamanistic elements in Korean Buddhism, or Low Syncretism. We must pay close attention to when or why sanshin gak appeared in Buddhist temples. Generally, sanshin gak is known to have appeared in Buddhist temples around the seventeenth century and became popularized in the nineteenth century. 4 We can therefore assume that the sanshin gak in Buddhist temples was the starting point of syncretism between Korean Buddhism and shamanism around the eighteenth century. On the other hand, Jeseok (literally Buddha Emperor) is a representative example of Buddhist elements in Korean shamanism, or High Syncretism. In Buddhism, Jeseok is considered to be a dharma protecting deity. Musok adopted this Buddhist deity as a shamanistic god who provided long life and abundant harvests. This deity in Korean shamanism also plays the part of a heavenly god in rituals. Buddhist belief in Jeseok was transmitted to musok and became a central part of musok at a specific time. The central Jeseok belief was transferred from Buddhism to musok in the latter half of the Goryeo dynasty. 5 According to a poem entitled Nomu p yon (The Old Shaman) by Lee Kyubo (1168-1241), we know that Jeseok was regarded as a spirit who descended into shamans in the middle of the Goryeo dynasty. Finally, around the middle of the Goryeo dynasty, a new syncretism of Buddhism and shamanism appeared as Jeseok faith. The above two examples give us a clue to the historicized typology of syncretism between Korean Buddhism and shamanism. These examples can be utilized not only for classifying the typology of syncretism, but also for understanding of the formation and transformation of syncretism. 4. See David A. Mason s Spirit of the Mountains: Korea s San-Shin and Traditions of Mountain- Worship, Hollym, 1999, pp. 181-182. 5. See An s doctoral thesis on national Buddhist rituals in Goryeo dynasty, cf. Ji-won An, A Study on the National Buddhist Rituals of Koryo Dynasty: focusing on Yeondeunghoe, Palgwanhoe and Cheseoktoryang. Seoul National University, 1999.
Book Reviews 221 How Does Syncretism Take Place? As we saw, there are changes in the models or types of syncretism. What makes the process of syncretism change? Why and how can new syncretism appear? Two religious cultures can encounter and synthesize through their respective religious devotees. Perhaps that is why Kim Hogarth also pays attention to the beliefs and rituals of devotees. We are bound to take notice of subjects who adopt religious symbols, form them, and transform them, rather than religious symbols themselves transforming. But religious devotees are not all the same. Therefore, their attitudes toward syncretism with other religions are not unified. For example, as Kim Hogarth says, Buddhist s views on the syncretism of Buddhism and shamanism are numerous. Some Buddhists strongly advocate anti-syncretism while others adopt syncretism enthusiastically, and still others covertly tolerate it. On the other hand, most devotees of musok accept syncretism with Buddhism. However, some young shamans oppose syncretism to maintain the distinctiveness of shamanism. In some religious traditions the elite s viewpoint of syncretism may be different from that of the masses. That is why there are two aspects in a religious culture, the official and the popular traditions. 6 We must note that the subjects of religion do not passively accept syncretism. Sometimes they try to create new meanings of symbols and to add other meanings. Therefore, when studying the relationship between two religions, we should pay attention to new meanings that were cumulated or removed by religious subjects, rather than focusing on the process of syncretism only. In the end, syncretism itself is not the most important aspect but rather the hermeneutical appropriation by the devotees. 7 For example, Gwanwoo (an Army General s Spirit) transmitted from China into Korea was appropriated into Confucian national rituals, musok, Buddhist temples, and Korean New Religions. What we should understand regarding this phenomenon is not the syncretism of Confucianism, shamanism, Buddhism, and Korean New Religions, but the hermeneutical appropriation by many religious subjects who accepted the sym- 6. For a discussion on many models of official and popular religion. see Pieter Hendrik Vrijhof and Jacques Waardenburg eds., Official and Popular Religion, Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1979. 7. See Chang-han Kim s On the Problem of Mythical Texts and Hermeneutical Appropriation. Myth and History, Seoul: Seoul National University Press, 2003.
222 The Review of Korean Studies bols of Gwanwoo and created new meanings from these symbols. In other words, we need to understand how Gwanwoo was appropriated rather than the process of syncretism with Gwanwoo belief. Syncretism is renewed constantly by religious subjects in their own ways. The Unitary symbol shared with every subject is a mere myth. Many different symbols which are variously appropriated according to the viewpoint of religious subjects are awaiting our study. Kim Hogarth does not deal with the above three themes analytically and concretely in her book, Syncretism of Buddhism and Shamanism in Korea., however, implicitly refers to them in the process of providing general and historical facts. Despite these shortcomings, her book will play an important part in helping readers understand the background and structure of Korean Buddhism and shamanism. I only hope that she will in the future include 1) an analytical typology of syncretism, 2) a historical contextualization of typology, and 3) religious subjects and their hermeneutical appropriation in order to provide a more complete understanding of syncretism between Korean Buddhism and shamanism. (Professor, Religious Studies, Seoul National University)