Reviewed by:

• New Perspectives on Modern Korean Buddhism by Hwansoo Ilmee Kim and Jin Y. Park
• Jonathan C. Feuer

In the introduction, editor Hwansoo Kim states that this book is a sequel to Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism, published in 2010. That book has served as a foundational work for many scholars, like me, who began their academic study of modern Korean Buddhism in the last decade. I believe this new work can serve the same purpose for the next generation of scholars, while also being a must-read for senior scholars in the field. Wonderfully detailed but still accessible, it covers a broad range of topics, importantly building off, and occasionally overcoming, the themes of “colonialism, nationalism, and modernity” that have dominated scholarship on modern Korean Buddhism. Turning their focus to “contemporary religious practice, gender issues, ethical concerns about clerical marriage and scandals, and engagement with secular society,” the authors’ works reflect the changing dynamics of the field. Indeed, many of the authors have also published their own seminal books in the field in recent years.

In Part I, Jin Y. Park and Mark A. Nathan look at two important figures in modern Korean Buddhism: Hyeam Sŏnggwan [Hyeam Seonggwan] (1920–2001) and Paek Yongsŏng [Baek Yongseong] (1864–1940). Hyeam is a “relatively unknown figure in English-language scholarship,” but his life and teachings reflect both the institutional and philosophical changes in Korean Buddhism during the twentieth century. Park attempts to relate Hyeam’s core Zen Buddhist beliefs, such as “freedom” and “doubt,” as well as his steadfast hwadu meditation practice, to the lives of ordinary laypeople. Although Park’s [End Page 353] chapter occasionally reads like a dharma talk in which she interprets Korean Zen concepts for a lay audience, her emphasis on understanding Hyeam’s “personal philosophy,” without judging it based on existing frameworks (nationalism, modernization, etc.), is the key takeaway. Nathan’s chapter looks at Paek Yongsŏng in a similar vein. Moving beyond the nationalist/collaborator binary that has dominated studies on Paek, Nathan centers Paek’s propagation work and his unrelenting drive to bring Korean Buddhism to lay audiences. Nathan compellingly evaluates religion as a network of individuals comprised of small and large-scale “systems” in order to deconstruct longstanding tropes and grand narratives in the study of modern Korean Buddhism.

In part II, Hwansoo Kim and Eunsu Cho contribute to the burgeoning academic discourse on women in Korean Buddhism. They center the lives of Lady Ch’ŏn [Jeon] (1848–1934?) and nun Chŏng Suok [Jeong Suok] (1902–1966). These chapters are women’s histories; they highlight important women’s stories that have previously been muted in the male-centered telling of modern Korean Buddhism’s history. Kim shows how Lady Ch’ŏn is representative of the many former Yi Royal Household court ladies who had an outsized impact on Korean Buddhism. From reading Kim’s chapter, I am convinced that much more research needs to be done on the relationship between court ladies and Buddhism in the late Chosŏn [Joseon] and Japanese colonial periods.

The issue of clerical celibacy has always been connected to Japanese influence on colonized Korean Buddhism and often judged strictly through the nationalist/collaborator lens. In part III, however, Jeongeun Park and Su Jung Kim take a different tack, tracing the history of clerical marriage from late Chosŏn-period monastic regulations to contemporary public debates. Park explains how Korean and Japanese Buddhists, as well as the colonial Japanese government, created the oxymoronic “married bhiksu” status of Korean monks, reflecting “weakness” in Chosŏn Buddhism’s “ordination tradition” and the colonial government’s strong influence on monastic rules. Like many of the best recent works on late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Korean Buddhism, Park’s chapter shows how all parties involved in the clerical marriage issue had agency and approached it from a diverse range of perspectives. Kim’s insights into the “secret wife” and monastic scandals reveal some of the most pressing issues in contemporary Korean Buddhism. Though Kim...

审阅者：

• Hwansoo Ilmee Kim 和 Jin Y. Park对现代韩国佛教的新视角
• 乔纳森·C·福尔

编辑金焕秀在序言中表示，本书是《现代韩国佛教的创造者》的续集，出版于 2010 年。这本书是许多像我一样在过去十年开始对现代韩国佛教进行学术研究的学者的基础著作。我相信这部新书可以为下一代学者服务于同样的目的，同时也是该领域资深学者的必读之作。它非常详细，但仍然易于理解，涵盖了广泛的主题，重要的是建立并偶尔克服了主导现代韩国佛教学术的“殖民主义、民族主义和现代性”主题。作者的作品将焦点转向“当代宗教实践、性别问题、对神职人员婚姻和丑闻的道德担忧以及与世俗社会的接触”，反映了该领域不断变化的动态。的确，

在第一部分中，Jin Y. Park 和 Mark A. Nathan 着眼于现代韩国佛教中的两位重要人物：Hyeam Sŏnggwan [Hyeam Seonggwan] (1920-2001) 和 Paek Yongsŏng [Baek Yongseong] (1864-1940)。海岩是“英语学术界相对不知名的人物”，但他的生活和教义反映了二十世纪韩国佛教制度和哲学的变化。朴试图将海岩的核心禅宗信仰（例如“自由”和“怀疑”）以及他坚定的华都冥想实践与普通俗人的生活联系起来。虽然朴的[完第353页]这一章有时读起来像一场佛法讲座，其中她向非专业观众解释了韩国禅宗概念，她强调理解海姆的“个人哲学”，而不是根据现有框架（民族主义、现代化等）来评判它，这是关键的收获。Nathan 的章节以类似的方式看待 Paek Yongsŏng。内森超越了主导白南汉研究的民族主义者/合作者二元论，集中关注白南南的传播工作以及他将韩国佛教带给普通观众的不懈努力。内森令人信服地将宗教视为由小型和大型“系统”组成的个体网络，以解构现代韩国佛教研究中长期存在的比喻和宏大叙事。

在第二部分中，Hwansoo Kim 和 Eunsu Cho 为韩国佛教中关于女性的学术讨论做出了贡献。它们以 Ch'ŏn 女士 [Jeon]（1848-1934？）和尼姑 Chŏng Suok [Jeong Suok]（1902-1966）的生活为中心。这些章节是女性的历史；它们强调了重要的女性故事，而这些故事以前在以男性为中心的现代韩国佛教历史的讲述中被忽视。金展示了陈夫人如何成为对韩国佛教产生巨大影响的众多前彝族皇室宫女的代表。通过阅读金氏的章节，我确信需要对朝鲜晚期和日本殖民时期的宫女与佛教之间的关系进行更多的研究。

神职人员独身问题一直与日本对殖民地韩国佛教的影响有关，并且经常通过民族主义者/合作者的视角来严格评判。然而，在第三部分中，朴正根和金秀正采取了不同的策略，追溯了从朝鲜时代晚期的寺院规定到当代公共辩论的僧侣婚姻的历史。朴解释了韩国和日本的佛教徒以及日本殖民政府如何创造了矛盾的“已婚比丘””韩国僧人的地位，反映了朝鲜佛教“出家传统”的“弱点”以及殖民政府对寺院规则的强大影响。与许多最近关于十九世纪末和二十世纪初韩国佛教的最佳著作一样，朴的章节展示了卷入神职人员婚姻问题的所有各方如何发挥作用，并从不同的角度来处理这个问题。金对“秘密妻子”和寺院丑闻的见解揭示了当代韩国佛教中一些最紧迫的问题。虽然金...