When I first saw the title of this book I was really pleased, because very few books have been published on Korean religious and philosophical traditions in English. The author, Kevin N. Cawley (University College Cork), introduces Korean philosophical traditions, most of which have developed within or around the systems that are often regarded as religions, in a chronological order. However, from the perspective of a Korean, it is hard to ignore the numerous errors, omissions, and biases in this book.
First, this book provides too much incorrect information, which is a very serious problem for an academic book. Because of lack of space, I will enumerate just a few notable mistakes:
1) The number of the passengers who boarded the Sewol ferry was 476, not 496 (xv).
2)The Flower Garland Sutra is the translated title of the Hwaeomgyeong, not the Beophwagyeong, which is the Lotus Sutra (35).
3) It is the Amnok River that today forms a natural border between North Korea and China, not the Daedong River (48). The Daedong River is 150 km to the south of the Amnok River.
4) The map of Goryeo (918-1392) does not mark Korean islands as Goryeo territory, which creates the impression that Jeju Island, the biggest island in Korea, was a part of Japan (51). The leaders of Jeju Island began to pay tribute to Goryeo from 925, and the island became a province of Goryeo in 1105.
5) The author writes that Gyeon Hwon was killed in battle (52). But it is recorded that he died of an abscess (or repressed anger). Though there are controversies over his name, it is not correct to write his name as “Yi Gyeonhwon.” Some say that Gyeon Hwon’s family name was originally Yi, which he changed to Gyeon later.
6) The eighth of King Taejo’s Ten Injunctions (943) reflects “a biased distrust” of “people from beyond the Gongju River” not “people from Gongju” (53–54).
7) Yi Saek was not the “son of Yi Jehyeon” (66) but his student. Yi Saek’s father was Yi Gok.
8) The author argues that Korean shamans “have risen like a phoenix” (171), citing journal articles reporting that “Shamanism enjoys a revival” in Korea (176). But this may cause serious misunderstanding about the situation of Korean Shamanism. Many shamans are using the internet or social media because they are losing traditional ritual sites.
9) He writes “In Korea, Won Buddhism continues to grow from strength to strength” (160). But he does not provide any evidence for this statement. According to official censuses taken by Korean government, the number of Won Buddhists in 2005 was 129,907 (0.28%), while in 2015 it went down to 84,141 (0.17%).
Second, the author shows lack of understanding of the context of some issues that are very sensitive to Koreans. I would like to highlight two contemporary events that Cawley treats, one in the “Prologue” and the other in “Epilogue.” In the “Prologue,” he applies the Confucian idea of moral authority to the tragedy of the Sewol ferry, which sank on April 15, 2014, killing 304 of its 476 passengers. Two-hundred and fifty students from Danwon High school, many of whom followed the ferry’s intercom announcement not to move and to stay where they were, died on the way to Jeju Island, the destination of their school trip. He argues that the dead teenagers were “at the end of the hierarchical relationship” and that they were “taught to respect and heed the word of their elders” (xvi). Most Koreans would not agree with this assertion. Though he claims that “authority in Korea is rooted in hierarchical relations, which for almost two millennia, have been shaped by Confucian ideals” (xv), Confucianism cannot explain the complex mentality of contemporary Korean people. Many elements should be considered for this purpose, including Koreans’ antipathy towards authority that is often thought to stem from the experience of the Japanese colony, rapid modernization, and economic development.
In the “Epilogue,” Cawley deals with the impeachment of the President Park Geun-hye in 2017. He claims that some would say that her sentence of 24 years in prison reflects “a patriarchal Confucian legacy in modern Korea, which discriminates women” (185). Again, Cawley overestimates Confucian influence in modern Korea. How would this rhyme with the fact that Koreans elected a female president, something that many supposedly more enlightened countries have not managed? He also points out the headline of a Korean journal that misreported Park’s link to a shamanistic cult (84-85). It is true that some unfounded rumors were circulating, which nevertheless should not be regarded as an important reason for the impeachment. The undemocratic policies and procedures Park employed, such as drawing up a blacklist of cultural figures and her reliance on the private counsellor Choi, to who she even revealing matters of national security, caused Korean people’s indignation and finally led to the Candlelight Revolution. Cawley emphasizes the difference between East Asia and the West concerning the idea of the relation between religion and philosophy (2, 18), but it should be noted that modern East Asians including Koreans are often more “modern,” that is more rational and democratic, than many Westerners think.
Third, although the author insists that he is trying to show how religion and philosophy have always been historically and intellectually intertwined in Korea (xviii, 2-4, 18, 53, etc.), actually he focuses only on the philosophical traditions of elite intellectuals. By illuminating only intellectuals, he himself distinguishes philosophy from religion. For example, when discussing Confucianism he writes that “[while it is] understood as a socio-political philosophy, it nevertheless does refer to the spirit world and boasts of intricate and elaborate rites for the ancestors.” (3). However, he gives no further explanations on this spirit world and elaborate rites. Though he is aware that Neo-Confucians of Joseon were “ritual-obsessed” (95) and that many of the first converts to Catholicism were martyred because they refused to perform ancestral rites, not because they did not appreciate traditional teachings (99, 116), he never articulates the objects of state ritual or the process of the ancestral rites. This book also puts undue emphasis on intellectual aspects, mostly doctrines, of newly adopted or newly created religions in Korea since the eighteenth century, such as Catholicism, Cheondogyo, Daejonggyo, Jeungsangyo, and Protestantism, while practices and ideas of the commoners who accepted those new religions are not discussed.
To explain why Daoism did not become “a dominant mainstream tradition in Korea,” Cawley writes that “the more superstitious Daoist ideas [compared with Buddhism; YY] may not have fitted the intellectual milieu of Korea” (32). In this passage, his overemphasis on intellectual aspects is clearly revealed, neglecting the influence of the commoners who had their own way of developing and appropriating religious ideas and practices. What he terms “superstitious Daoist ideas” cannot be a persuasive reason for not being included in the mainstream traditions, considering that Buddhism accepted a lot from folk religion and took firm root among the general public.
Though Cawley seems to regard Shamanism as the most important religious tradition for Korean commoners, he devotes just several pages to Shamanism. He recognizes that “it is almost impossible to look at Korea’s religious history without also mentioning Shamanism from the outset” (17). However, after briefly introducing Korean Shamanism in the first chapter, he barely mentions pre-modern Shamanism except when it attracts the criticism of elite Confucians. Even if Shamanism in pre-modern Korea did not produce sophisticated philosophy, it included the general common people’s understanding of the world, both visible and invisible, which is missing in this book. He writes that “early records and writings on these religious elements fall between scarce and virtually non-existence” (17). But various documentary materials on Shamanism are available, at least from the Joseon dynasty (1392–1910). If the author hopes to show “the intersecting trajectories of both religious and philosophical traditions” (53), he should also include the religious practices and ideas of Korean commoners.
I know it is extremely difficult for a Western scholar to write a book on religious and philosophical traditions of an Eastern Asian country. To ensure that the broadest range of materials is gathered and meticulously examined, this ideal textbook that remains to be written would be a collaborative project engaging both Korean and Western scholars.
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
