What Was a Monk in Joseon Korea?: Competing Monastic Identities According to the State, a Monastic Biographer, and a Confucian Literatus

Abstract

The question, what was a monastic? is a complex issue, whether in the context of China, Korea or even in the homeland of Buddhism, India. Nonetheless, this is especially so in the case of Joseon Korea due to the dramatic historical changes that took place with the Imjin War. This obviously brought about shifts not only in the social status but also in the societal role of the monastics. The most substantive factors in the late-Joseon period (1600–1910) was the loss of state patronage and no longer being under the auspices of the state. Simply put, the discussed materials in this paper evince diverse images and roles of monks that range from being state officials, laborers, soldier-monks, and Seon meditators, to thieving bandits. A single descriptor would be unable to capture the diverse identities of the late-Joseon monks. Moreover, the monastics also presented themselves as highly organized with organizational aims, no different from an organization existing inescapably in everyday socio-economic and political conditions. The shared goal of the Buddhist community, by way of presenting certain images, was to regain social recognition and legitimation, to a position of power and privilege perhaps similar to what it once had during the Goryeo period (918–1392).

“How on earth do all these thousands of monks spend their time? How are they supported? And what good, if any, do they do?”

(Spencer Chapman [1938] 1984, p. 171)

1. Introduction: What Was a Monastic?

What were the monks and what exactly did they do? Were they, as we often imagine them to be, spiritual practitioners and of priestly vocation living in communities with the common aim of spiritual enlightenment? Who were the monks to the Joseon state or the scholar-officials? Or, how did the monks present themselves to such people in the late-Joseon period? Oftentimes, there is a tendency to refract the image of the monks through the prism of modern notions or based on prescriptive doctrinal literature with, for instance, notions such as “otherworldly adepts” or the “lonely rhinoceros in the forest”1 who have withdrawn from the world. However, such refractions do little in elucidating what they did and who they were in the historical past and in the socio-historical settings.2

The approach of this paper is to focus on what may be called provisional manifestations of the monastics, which did not fit the proscriptions found in the Buddhist doctrinal literature such as the Vinaya. The relationship between the prescribed norms and the actual actions of monks proves to be complicated, and at times contentious. Historical records, for example, reveal that despite the existence of clear proscriptions, what the monastics were described to be or how they acted were at odds with the prescriptions of the Buddhist doctrine or monastic regulations as in the Vinaya.3

To add to the complexity of the matter, we know that the monastic image varies and is diverse even within a fixed timeframe and location. In the case of Korea, the pre- and early-modern images can vary from being a ritual specialist, a royal advisor, to a soldier-monk who fought in war battles.4 Indeed, what a monk was cannot be rigidly defined and will change depending on the social and historical circumstances. Often, it appears that one of the most consequential elements in shaping the image was that Buddhism was highly dependent on the state for its continued existence. The Joseon period monastic community did not exist in a vacuum but under powerful external forces, namely the state and the ruling elites. Historically, the state played an important part in how the saṃgha was administered and how it functioned, determining to a great extent who they were and what they did.5

For instance, in early-Joseon Korea (1392–1600), it is true that the legitimacy afforded the monastics, both socially and politically, was heavily based on the criteria determined by the state. An example is that of monks as state bureaucrats whose license, title, and rank were determined by criteria set by the state. Furthermore, the state as a source of monastic image becomes eroded towards the late-Joseon period (1600–1910)6 with the dissociation of the saṃgha from the state, as will be discussed.

Although the state-based portrayal of Buddhist monks played an important part in establishing the monastic image, such portrayal must be accepted with nuance and applied differently in the latter part of Joseon Korea. On top of the dissociation of the saṃgha from the state, dramatic historical and social changes take place with the Imjin War (1592–1598), which would have brought about shifts within the saṃgha, its relationship with the state, and its role in society. It is also important to keep in mind that new identifies were formed, in particular, in the late-Joseon period, which eventually come to determine the identity of the modern Korean monastics (S.-E. T. Kim 2023, pp. 105–6).

There are various materials, aside from state sources, that we can turn to in order to gather how the monastics were envisioned during the late-Joseon period. Extant historical sources that will be used in the current paper include the following: chronicles of the Joseon dynasty, steles of eminent monks, and monastic biographies by both a monastic author and a Confucian literatus.7 Some main factors to be considered when exploring the issue of “what was a monk” include their identity, institutional role, and societal functions.

2. Joseon State Definition of Monastics

When Buddhism was first transmitted to the Korean peninsula, it was adopted by the three kingdoms of Goguryo (traditional dates, 37 BCE–668 CE), Baekje (traditional dates, 18 BCE–660 CE), and Silla (ca. 300–935) as part of the ruling ideology, to provide justification of the rulers’ mandate. Buddhism was incorporated into the political governing structure, and during the Goryeo period (918–1392) the government office of the Saṃgha Registry (Seungnoksa 僧錄司) was established; it was staffed by monk-officials and administered the saṃgha and its affairs.8 The Saṃgha Registry was continued into the early-Joseon period up to the beginning of the sixteenth century, when it was dismantled soon after King Jungjong 中宗 (r. 1506–1544) assumed the throne.

In early Joseon, the criteria for the state recognition of the monastics were adopted into the National Code (Gyeongguk dejeon 經國大典) for the governance of the Buddhist monastics and the monasteries throughout the peninsula. The sub-section “Certified Monastics” (Doseung 度僧) in the chapter “Code of Rites” (Yejeon 禮典) detailed the criteria outlining the monastic qualifications. These codes provided the foundation for administering the clerical system through the methods of monastic examination (seunggwa 僧科) and granting of monastic certification (doseungcheop 度僧牒 or docheop 度牒) (Yang 2019; Son 2020, p. 39 endnote 3).9 Accordingly, a certified monastic was an officially recognized monk validated by a monastic certificate bestowed on passing the state monastic examination.10

Furthermore, the state recognized the monastics as having a unique status of “people not of the mundane world” 非俗人, which meant that from the beginning of the Joseon period, they were not bound by the requisites that were placed on regular people (Lee 2023, pp. 41–42). In other words, this state definition provided the basis for the identity of the monastics as state officials, and consisting of a separate class of people that was beyond secular rules and worldly obligations. Those who were given official monastic recognition were exempt from taxes and military labor. This however changed in the sixteenth century when such unique status was abolished, as will be explained below, and the monks were used for monastic labor (seungyeok 僧役) consisting of work as monastic soldiers (seunggun 僧軍) and other compulsory labor (buyeonk 赴役).11 There was also an effort by the government in the late seventeenth century to use the monastics for government use in an effort to increase the pool of people used for corvee labor. A suggestion was put forward and discussed in the court in the late 1660s and into the 1670s and accepted for implementation where, no different from the lay people, monastics would be included and registered into the family registry (hojeok 戶籍),12 which continued to the end of the nineteenth century (Jang 2006, pp. 264–66, 270).

The system of monastic certification was annulled in the early-Joseon period, in 1516, only a few years after the monastic bureaucracy was suspended, in 1512, at the start of King Jungjong’s reign. Its annulment was certain upon its deletion from the National Code voiding any official recognition of the monks (Y. Kim 2011, pp. 10–11; Yang 2018). The initial suspension of the monastic bureaucracy indicated that the state abrogated any burden of overseeing the administration of the saṃgha, its members and temples, although it did not forgo powers over the monastic buildings such as to demolish or to transform its use nor the power over the monks as subjects of the state. Being a monastic no longer held any legal or official significance.13

About forty years after the monastic bureaucracy was abolished, Buddhism experienced a brief period of revival during King Myeongjong’s rule (r. 1545–1567) and the monastic bureaucracy was re-enacted into law and state policy in 1550. This was due to the support of Queen Munjeong (1501–1565), the queen regent. This brief period of revival lasted sixteen years. The following year, in 1566, after the death of the regent, the monastic bureaucracy was abolished and state recognition was once again rescinded from which full state recognition of the monastics was never recovered.

This, however, did not mean the eradication of all forms of relationship with the state. Despite the cessation of official recognition of Buddhism, the state enlisted the labor power of the monastics, especially during times of desperate need such as for large projects. Such courses of action continued during wars and into the late-Joseon period.

The Saṃgha as a Source of Labor

From the viewpoint of the late-Joseon state, monastics were an important and reliable source of labor. Particularly in times of war, the saṃgha was a critical source of fighting force and organized labor. For instance, Buddhist monks were called on to help in the war efforts such as in the Imjin War and the Byeongja War (1636); monks were easily mobilized and organized into combat or supply units, no different from an army of soldiers.

Considering this fact, it was not the intention nor in the best interests of the state to entirely disconnect the monks from the sphere of state power, though such actions were called for by the zealous scholar-officials. The truth of the matter was that despite Buddhism being deemed a heretical tradition according to the doctrine of hwairon 華夷論 (Ch. huayi lun), or the “doctrine of the civilized and the barbarian”, in the Joseon court, the state needed the monks. For instance, towards the late sixteenth century, monks were given incentives to join the large-scale government organized work force and in exchange were given monastic certificates (H. Kim 2017, p. 121). In the case of the Imjin War, King Seonjo (r. 1567–1608) promulgated a system for recruiting and organizing monastic soldier-laborers who were put to work in various roles guarding and repairing forts, and providing and transporting supplies. In exchange, the monks were awarded appointments with token titles that were not promulgated into law. It was intended to be a provisional system but continued even after the war to the end of the Joseon period (Son 2020, p. 21; B. Yi 2015, pp. 580–81).

Furthermore, the method of including monks into the family registries in the late seventeenth century increased the pool of people for corvée labor (Jang 2006, pp. 264–70). This, however, does not seem to lead to the entire loss of their monastic recognition. There must have been some degree of recognition in the bestowal of monastic titles although not legally recognized, and which continued to the end of the Joseon period. There was still a semblance of a mutually beneficial relationship between the state and the monastic community wherein the monastics gained some degree of state legitimation and the state was able to maintain a source of labor, a well-organized and dependable labor force. In addition, the fact that the saṃgha had the means and resources to produce products needed by the state made them all the more valuable to the state, if not essential.14

The ambivalent position of the saṃgha with quasi-recognition from the state but increased independence and growing self-identity is reflected in the two media, memorial steles and monastic biographies. I now turn to these media, valuable in determining how the monastic community perceived itself within the midst of historical changes.

3. Ideal Images According to Memorial Steles

The iconic monastic image that stands out in the late-Goryeo and early-Joseon periods are of the royal and state preceptors. In medieval Korea, these preceptors acted as legitimators of the rulers, and mostly as symbolic figures embodying the reliance of the dynasty on Buddhism. They were the highest posts that monks were able to attain within the monastic community. Their power and status, though highly symbolic, still demonstrated the socio-political power and prestige that Buddhism possessed up to the early part of Joseon but lost thereafter (Vermeersch 2008, p. 267).15 Nonetheless, legitimating aspects from this image were consistently used in the late-Joseon, notable in the memorial steles, indicating the enduring importance of the state in the monastic identity narrative. At the same time, steles were also one of the indicators of a transition where the state-centeredness in the monastic identity was to an extent continued while there were signs of an increasingly independent saṃgha. Though seemingly paradoxical, the claims of identity contained in the stele inscriptions corresponded to this dual narrative.16

The last stele raised in the early-Joseon period for an eminent monk was for the royal preceptor Muhak Jacho 無學自超 (1327–1405; hereafter, Muhak), in 1410. From then on, no steles for eminent monks were erected for over 200 years until after the Imjin War.17 Steles were once again raised twenty-four years after the invading Hideyoshi’s forces were driven off the peninsula, the first one in 1612. Buddhist participation in the Imjin War provided an opportune timing for the saṃgha to regain recognition from the state and society (Y. Kim 2012, pp. 240–57).18

In other words, Joseon monastic soldiers in particular gained recognition for their contributions in defending against the Japanese forces and driving them back. This change of fate for the monastic community acted as a boon—their war merits and societal recognition were used to claim societal legitimacy. This was much needed after facing polemic attacks from the strident Confucian scholar-officials in the early-Joseon period deriding Buddhism as a heretical teaching that led the people to evil ways. In this way, war time merits were a significant part in formulating a monastic image evident in the memorial steles. For instance, loyalty (chung 忠), among other claims, appear to be an important and consistent subtext in the steles to be raised in the 1600s.

Monastic Images

One of the on-going images that was maintained from early to late-Joseon was the portrayal of figures who were closely associated with the state. This was expressed by way of state-bestowed monastic titles and at other times by personal recognition by the king or as loyal subjects to the monarchs.19 Other often repeated images include being steeped in spiritual cultivation and being highly educated, ironically, in the Confucian teachings.

Given the importance of the state to the saṃgha, it is not surprising that the late-Goryeo and early-Joseon steles were focused on an image that emphasized the office of preceptorships, which were likely the ultimate proof of legitimation. For instance, in the 1410 stele for Muhak, not only was his connection to Naong Hyegeun 懶翁惠勤 (1320–1375; hereafter, Naong), the previous royal preceptor and his dharma master, emphasized but also his connection to the king was described, affirming Muhak’s closeness to the center of power.20

For comparison’s sake, if we take arguably the most eminent monk of the late-Joseon period, Cheongheo Hyujeong 淸虛休靜 (1520–1604; hereafter, Hyujeong), as a model monk, we can observe in his stele inscription the adoption of similar monastic images from the early-Joseon steles.21 For instance, association with the state via state bestowal of a posthumous title on the first line of the stele text can be noted; “Great National Seon Master—Supreme Overseer of the Meditation and Scholastic Schools—Custodian of Schools and Edifier—Comprehensive Protector and Superior Worthy” (Jigwan Yi 2000, p. 222)22.

The close connections with the state and the king are further described in Hyujeong’s stele inscription, mainly depicted through his involvement in the war. It is described that King Seonjo personally requested Hyujeong to raise an army of monks and Hyujeong replies that he will follow the king’s wishes. This illustrates the master’s virtue of loyalty as a subject to the king. The pattern of loyalty, in serving the king and the country, is a continued theme throughout Hyujeong’s stele. As a result, King Seonjo awards Hyujeong the position of Supreme Overseer of the Sixteen Schools in the Eight Provinces (Paldo sibyukjong dochong seop 八道 十六宗 都摠攝) (Jigwan Yi 2000, p. 229)

Hyujeong’s loyal dedication to the king and protection of the kingdom were further described in a section of the gāthā at the end of the stele inscription as follows:

• …Though cultivating the body in the mountains;
• The sense of loyalty [towards the king] has never left the king’s side,
• Having been summoned, the state in crisis;
• The [monastic] righteous army was gathered in throngs like clouds…
• Coming out of the mountains and saving the people,
• His name has become famous even outside Joseon…
(Jigwan Yi 2000, pp. 237–38)

Continuing with Hyujeong’s stele, Buddhist ideals of spiritual cultivation were mixed with the ardent duties of loyalty and Buddhism for the protection of the kingdom (hoguk bulgyo 護國佛敎), including bringing peace and prosperity to the people, a long self-claimed role of Buddhism. In all, it is a strategy aimed at reviving and establishing the image of monks as beneficial to the state and therefore entitled to Buddhism’s rightful and legitimate place in society. Such efforts coincided with the timing of this stele for Hyujeong, raised in 1630, which was about a generation (sixty-four years) since state recognition was lost in 1566.

Another common image that was relayed in the stele inscriptions is the eminent monks as being highly learned in the Confucian tradition. According to Hyujeong’s stele, he purportedly started his education at an early age of ten. He was educated at a private academic institute for wealthy families and high officials (Jigwan Yi 2003, pp. 226–27). Being learned, Hyujeong was also described as a skilled poet—an important trait in a society where literary skills were highly prized and admired. The composer of Hyujeong’s stele inscription, Yi Jeonggu 李廷龜 (1564–1635), explains, “Having read [Hyujeong’s] poems, his attainment of the Way is evident, and his high level of mastery is obvious” (Jigwan Yi 2003, p. 233). This literary connection as skilled poets between the monastics and the Confucian scholar-officials was common and the monastics as skilled poets was well-known among the Confucian literati (S. Kim 2018; Seong Uk Kim 2025).

Spiritual attainment was also prominently featured in the stele inscriptions. Towards the end of Hyujeong’s stele text, he was described as abruptly relinquishing his title and role as the Presider of the Meditational and Doctrinal Schools (Seonkyo yangjong pansa 禪敎兩宗判事) and entering the mountain to continue his spiritual cultivation. It is described that Hyujeong after realizing that he had deviated from his initial pure intentions of a spiritual life, cast aside his belt used for carrying his seal of office (Jigwan Yi 2003, pp. 226–28).

There were also paranormal elements associated with the eminent monks as indicators of their high spiritual energy. For example, births of eminent monks are often associated with unusual events such as mysterious figures appearing to foretell the birth of the master. Similarly, mysterious events take place at the time of eminent monks’ death such as the appearance of a bright light or fragrance arising from the master’s room. In Hyujeong’s case, he is described as having passed away while sitting in a meditational pose. His room was then filled with a fragrance for up to “three seven days”, or twenty-one days (Jigwan Yi 2003, pp. 231–32).

As can be witnessed in the inscription for Hyujeong, characteristics for an eminent monk are many: close relations with the state and the ruler, loyalty towards the ruler, protecting the state and the people, high level of Confucian education and literary skills, and spiritual cultivation and appearance of paranormal events. Despite these various characteristics in constructing the image of eminent monks, what comes across as consistently important is the state connections through the listing of the titles and state appointments. They are typically presented on the first lines of the stele inscriptions.23

In this sense, we notice between the late-Joseon steles and those of early-Joseon a similarity in the borrowing of the legitimating power of the state. However, in the early-Joseon steles, the image of power and legitimacy came from the office of the royal and state preceptorships. In the late-Joseon steles, especially the early seventeenth century, legitimacy was demonstrated mostly by the participation of the monastics in the Imjin War as monastic soldiers and support laborers.

However, the claims of who or what eminent monks were contained in the inscriptions illustrate the intentions of the community to project an ideal image of monastics in an effort to improve its situational condition, at an unfavorable time. When considering the reason for raising the steles in the late-Joseon period with such images, the nature of a stele is such that it is imbued with organizational intent especially when taking into account the exorbitant costs and the planning that would have been necessary.24 Not only would the steles have been expensive to procure, they would have required logistic planning which would most likely not be possible without institutional support and invested intentions of a well-organized community.

4. Monastic Images According to a Monastic Biography

Monastic biographies share similarities with memorial steles. They both contain biographical information on the esteemed monks and patriarchs that also traces and documents the long-lasting tradition of Buddhism. There are also substantial differences—steles would have been more costly, both the raw material and the required labor. Moreover, the biography, in contrast, included a wider range of monks whose lives were considered worthy of recording and so would have included mid- as well as high-ranking monks.

The earliest biographies of eminent or famous monks on the Korean peninsula is the Silla period Tales of Eminent Monks (Goseung jeon, 高僧傳) composed by a layperson, Kim Daemun 金大問 (d.u.). The next well-known biography is the Goryeo period Biographies of the Eminent Masters of Korea (Haedong goseung jeon, 海東高僧傳) written by the Goryeo monk Gakun 覺訓 (fl. early 13th cen.) in 1215. In comparison, monastic biographies composed in the Joseon period are the most numerous among which the earliest is the Essential Summary of the Entire Record of the Origin of the Patriarchs (Jowon tongnonk chwaryo 祖源通錄撮要), published in 1529, whose author is Milgye 密契 (d.u.).25

Thereafter, more biographies appeared after the Imjin War when developments in the saṃgha took place.26 Among the various biographical compositions of the late-Joseon period was Biographies of Korean Masters (Dongsa yeoljeon, 東師列傳; hereafter, Biographies)27 by Beomhae Gag’an 梵海覺岸 (1820–1896; hereafter, Gag’an), published in 1894. This composition mainly contains Joseon monks and will thus be the focus of further examination in this paper. One further biography that will be discussed is Records of Korean Monks and Nuns (Dongguk seungni rok 東國僧尼錄) that is all the more valuable for comparison sake because it is believed to be composed by a Confucian literatus, published post 1794.

4.1. Biographies of Korean Masters

Biographies28 is an extensive record of distinguished monastics organized into Silla of the Three Kingdoms and Unified Silla, Goryeo, and Joseon, while Goguryeo and Paekjae monks are not included.29 One of the main reasons why this biography warrants our attention is because the majority of the figures are Joseon period monks. Out of the total of 199 figures in this biography, the number of Joseon monks is 176 (196 are monks, one nun, and two laymen).30 Furthermore, the majority are late-Joseon monastics; of the 176 Joseon monks, 168 monks are from the late-Joseon period. Although it is a valuable source of information on a great number of esteemed monks of the Joseon period, it has been underutilized in current scholarship for examining late-Joseon saṃgha.

It is not surprising that among all the monks described in Biographies, Hyujeong was given the greatest amount of attention, taking up 186 lines of text (HBJ 10, 1014c1–1017b7) whereas, surprisingly, the royal preceptor Muhak was given only sixty-eight lines (HBJ 10, 1006b–1007b9). It is a clear indication of the high esteem given to Hyujeong and, in effect, his dharma lineage. Also, Hyujeong’s biography does not appear to be that much different from that of the stele inscription, suggesting Gag’an may have depended heavily on information from Hyujeong’s stele. Biographies, no different from the stele, recount life events of Hyujeong starting from his family background to the circumstances of his entering the path, awakening experiences, participation in the Imjin War, close relationship with King Seonjo, his return to the mountains to continue his spiritual cultivation, and finally, events surrounding his death.

The portrayed image of the biography of Hyujeong contains descriptors expected of an eminent monk: emphasis on official titles and appointments such as the Supreme Overseer of the Sixteen Schools in the Eight Provinces, the Head of the Meditation School (Seonjong pansa 禪宗判事), and the Head of the Doctrinal School (Gyojong pansa 敎宗判事). Also evident is the relationship with King Seonjo, which includes exchanges of poems and even a bestowal of gifts by the king to Hyujeong. This, of course, relays an image of closeness with the king but it also reflects a desire to portray Hyujeong, and consequently monastics in general, in the image of a loyal vassal of the state. Nevertheless, in the end, Hyujeong gives up his endowed title and appointment as the head of the two schools and returns to his spiritual practices, whereupon many monks sought his audience at his residence (Beomhae Gag’an [1894] 2015, pp. 189–93).

Further shared themes amongst the monks described in Biographies similar to those from the stele inscriptions include information on the Confucian education of the monks or otherwise their scholastic skills. For instance, Yeondam 蓮潭 (1720–1799) is described as a prolific writer who also received monastic training at an early age of eighteen and was instructed by various great monastic masters. It is noted, he had exceptional scholarly skills and read widely and respected the ideas of Confucius. He too was noted to have been skilled in poetry composition. It is described that “when he held a brush, poetry flowed out naturally” (Beomhae Gag’an [1894] 2015, pp. 305–6).

Another notable pattern in Biographies is the recording of monastic ordinations, which has been the basic hallmark, not to mention an essential criterion, for becoming a monk. It is worth noting that, in comparison to the stele texts, records of receiving monastic precepts (sugye 受戒) are more common in the descriptions of Biographies. At times, the names of the masters involved in a monk’s vocation, and those whose presence was necessary for the ordination ceremony, are mentioned. This confirms not only that the monk in question was ordained but highlights the lineal background (beoptong 法統)—the dharma master, the disciples, and therefore comprising a short lineal record, an important part of monastic identity.

Tracing and outlining the lineage of monks defines to which school of thought a monastic belongs or to which well-known lineage, or tradition, one belongs. In this sense, Gag’an focuses on a certain well-known lineage, namely on Hyujeong’s disciple Pyeongyang Eongi’s 鞭羊彦機 (1581–1644) lineal clan. This is evident from the recorded biographies of the lineal descendants of Pyeongyang included in Biographies—a total of seventy-three descendant monks. Other lineal clans were scantly covered or not even included.31 In the case of Pyeongyang’s biography, his lineage is described as consisting of his preceptor master Hyeonbin 玄賔 (d.u.), his dharma master Hyujeong, and his disciple Pungdam 楓潭 (1592–1665) as follows:

Upon getting older, Pyeongyang resided under Seosan 西山 (Hyujeong) and received the transmission of the mind dharma… Of the descendants of Pyeongyang, Pungdam’s lineage flourished the most, and the disciples who received the dharma (from Pungdam) are about thirty in number.

(HBJ 10, 1020a18, a21–a22; Beomhae Gag’an [1894] 2015, p. 221)

In contrast to Pyeongyang’s biography, Yujeong’s record does not even mention a lineage nor a disciple. Moreover, for such an iconic figure as Yujeong, his biography is relatively short and mostly focuses on his connections to the state, namely his involvement in the Imjin War and the post-war merits. This includes descriptions of travelling to Japan as an envoy to repatriate Joseon prisoners and of a shrine built for Yujeong and Hyujeong. It is described that the king bestowed on this shrine a fascia board with his personal calligraphy. Yujeong’s connection to the state was further demonstrated by his association with the renowned monks Jigong 指空, Naong, and Muhak. It is noted that together with their spirit tablets, Yujeong and Hyujeong’s tablets were placed at the Suchung gak shrine (Beomhae Gag’an [1894] 2015, p. 204). Still, given Yujeong’s illustrious life, one cannot help but notice the relatively reduced level of attention afforded to Yujeong (54 lines, HBJ 10, 1017b9–1018a19), especially when compared to the recognition and esteem lavished on him in his memorial stele.32

However, not that different from the steles, the following is a summary of similarly emphasized characteristics of distinguished monks as listed in Biographies: state connections evidenced by state endowed titles, Confucian education and literary skills, and dharma lineages though focused on select eminent monks. On this point of lineal records, a difference from the steles is the greater attention given to lineal records, specifically on Pyeongyang’s lineal descendants. In hindsight, Biographies seems to reflect a lineal trend that took place in favor of Pyeongyang’s lineal clan, as it appears to have flourished in the late-Joseon period.

There were also changes noted in Biographies that took place of what a monk was as the community moved towards the late-Joseon period. A unique aspect of Biographies is that this single volume listed both the early- and late-Joseon period monks, and based on the biographies of these two groups, we are able to conjecture on the transformation during the Joseon period of what it was to be a monastic.

4.2. Changes in the Monastic Images

Historical circumstances effected changes in the vocation of the monastics, an indication of changes in their role in society and within their own community. Significant shifts in the monastic vocations can be noted especially if the Joseon period is divided into pre- and post-Imjin eras, corresponding to early- and late-Joseon periods. Various monastic titles given to the pre-Imjin masters include state preceptor 國師, royal preceptor 王師, great master 大師, eminent master 宗師, patriarch 祖師, reverend monk 高僧, dharma master 法師, and venerable 尊者. Among these, the greatest number of listed monks were state or royal preceptors, twelve and four, respectively, from a total of twenty-four pre-Imjin figures. In contrast, the post-Imjin era monastics are described using different titles: Seon master 禪師, Seon worthy 禪德, senior meditator 禪伯, great worthy 大德, great master 大師, lecturer 講師, senior lecturer 講伯, and venerable 和尙.

We can trace a pattern that corresponds with historical events: previous to the late-Joseon period, connection to the state was a common part of the monastic identity where state preceptor and royal preceptor took the lion share. In comparison, given the loss of state recognition and privilege in late-Joseon, we notice that the saṃgha had turned inward to the monastic community. The majority of the post-Imjin titles indicate that the vocations of the monks were associated with being lecturers, meditational practitioners, or meditational masters. Seon master, Seon worthy, and senior meditator. These are titles associated with meditational activities at meditation halls. On the other hand, great master, lecturer, and senior lecturer were associated with doctrinal studies at lecture halls. Accordingly, it appears that high-ranking and famous monks came to be more narrowly defined by their relationship to the practices of meditation and scriptural studies. This accords with the trend of monastic communities having turning less toward the state but more inward to its own community as a place of practice and study.

This is all the more apparent when contrasted with the early-Joseon period when the monastic titles were less practice focused and more associated with the state. Put briefly, it appears that before and after the Imjin War, the point of reference in identifying and defining the monastics shifted inward, to the activities within the monasteries. References to internal matters within the community such as cultivation became more central in describing the monastics.

5. Monastic Biography by a Confucian Literatus

Another biographical record, Records of the Eastern Monks and Nuns (Dongguk seungni rok 東國僧尼錄; hereafter Records) published post-179433 is an example of a text that reflects the societal perspective on the monastics. It is not a description from within the monastic community, as were the steles and Biographies, but an observation from without, most likely by a Confucian literatus. That this biography is a plain and not an embellished description of the monastics also coincides with the arguable assumption that the author was a Confucian literatus. Simply, the content of this text presents a different approach in describing the monks in contrast to the stele inscriptions and monastic authored biographies.34

Unlike the complexity of the titles of numerous monastic vocations listed in Biographies, in the current Records, monks are categorized into simple descriptive appellations, some even critical: “Famous Monks” (myeongseung 名僧), “Nuns” (igo 尼姑), “Poet Monks” (siseung 詩僧), “Rebel Monks” (yeokseung 逆僧), and “Evil Monks” (ganseung 奸僧).35

If we were to determine the most common perception of a Buddhist monk based purely on the number of monks listed under the titles, we have the most number of monks in the following order, in the order of the most to the least commonly perceived image: First, the category of “Famous Monks” contained the most number of monks, and given the assumption that this was written by a Confucian literatus, it is noticeably positive in comparison to the typically critical descriptions of the early-Joseon Confucian scholar-officials. In the current category, there is no description of monks stealing the wealth of the people or leading the people astray to evil ways. Instead, it is arguable that the category of Famous Monks afforded the monastics social recognition and respect.

The second most populated category is that of “Poet Monks”. This comes as no surprise given that throughout premodern Korea, there has been a long history of a literary tradition of poetry composition as a commonly shared cultural activity between Confucian literati and scholar-officials with Buddhist monks, going back to the Silla period. Even during the Joseon period, known as one of the worst periods of state suppression of Buddhism, the shared literary tradition continued and flourished. There remains during this period one of the richest literary records of poetry exchanges between poet monks (siseung 詩僧) and the Confucian literati and scholar-officials.36 Moreover, the association between monks and Confucians in the literary sphere appear to be extensive and not only limited to poetry. The Confucian–Buddhist relationship spread broadly to other literary spheres such as the composition of eminent monk stele inscriptions by mostly Confucian scholar-officials or their composition of introductory chapters and biographies of masters when compiling the collected works of eminent monks (S. Kim 2018, pp. 311–14).

Equally interesting about Records, if not more, are the categories of the critical monikers “Rebel Monks”, “Evil Monks”, and “Nuns”. That is because the least number of monks were listed in these categories—only one monk in each of the three categories. One would have expected a higher number given that the Joseon dynasty is known as a Confucian dominated and a time of suppression of Buddhism under anti-Buddhist state policies. Given the small numbers in these categories, one can accept that the majority of monks were in fact, unexpectedly, well looked upon by the author, and even highly regarded. One might even conjecture that monks were fairly assessed without prejudice.

To give an example, included in the Rebel Monks is the late-Goryeo monastic Sindon 辛旽 (d.u.).37 He was described as initially a close and trusted confidant and counsel to King Gongmin 恭愍王 (r. 1351–1374), who abused his influence and closeness with the king to enrich himself accepting bribes and living a decadent and lascivious life with his ill-gotten riches. However, in public life, especially in the presence of the king, Sindon dressed and behaved as a monk. With increasing power, Sindon schemed to usurp the throne but was discovered and as a result, suffered capital punishment. Simply from this description, it would have been difficult to defend Sindon, and his label as a rebel monk would have been similar amongst the Buddhist as well as the Confucianist.

In the case of the category of Evil Monks,38 the sixteenth century monk Heoeung Bou 虛應普雨 (1510–1565) was listed. He is known to have restored the monastic state examinations and the monastic certification system in the mid-sixteenth century by which Buddhism was revived. He became the head of the Sŏn school, and was named Supreme Sŏn Master and the abbot of Pongŭnsa monastery, obviously an important figure in the Buddhist community. It was during this time of revival of Buddhism that Bou was implicated in a political plot and ended up being despised by the scholar-officials and Confucian students, resulting in his exile where he was killed, not by the state, but by the Confucian students (Y. Kim 2000, pp. 65–66). Bou, in Records, was labelled an evil monk seemingly based on his antagonism with the scholar-officials and the Confucian students.39 However, a different judgement may have been made about him in the Buddhist community simply because Bou would have been revered for having revived Buddhism, albeit only briefly between 1550 and 1565. Bou appears to be an example of a viewpoint from the side of the ruling elites.

A similar derogatory reference to the monastics is the term igo 尼姑, a disparaging moniker for a bhikṣuṇī during the Joseon period. Within the Confucian ethos, women who left their role within the family structure would have been disparaged. Thus, such a degrading notion of nuns would most likely have reflected a greater and pervasive societal perception of Buddhist nuns.40

For comparison’s sake and a better example of how evil monks were perceived, we can turn to state records. It was reported in the Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, in 1891, of a bandit in the region of Goseong (高城郡) of Gangwondo province. At court, the State Council reported that an evil monk named Giwon 機越 (d.u.) took part in crimes with lay perpetrators named Bak Ilwon 朴一源 and Jang Eungjo 張應祚. Giwon was described as being involved in a ploy where all sorts of goods were extorted from the local people (Gojong sillok 28[1891]/8/27, entry 1). Though the reported details do not reveal more about Giwon, there indeed have been cases of monks not only violating the Vinaya but committing crimes. This provides a good example of monks on the opposite end of the spectrum, in contrast to the eminent and highly regarded monastics described in the monastic biographies or memorial steles.

Although, according to Records, relatively few monks were labelled in a demeaning way, the Buddhist clergy has so far been commonly described in modern scholarship as marginalized and even of the “lowest” class. Some monastics have also been described as having an ambiguous status, the result of “monastic-yet-layperson identity”, or their connections, on occasion, with peasant revolts and insurrections (H. Kim 2012, pp. 30–31).

While scholarship on Buddhism has focused mostly on famous and high-ranking monks, Records depict a subset of less well-known monks, and in doing so gives reflection on this complex amalgam of a group who were called monks (seung 僧) embedded in the everyday life and not limited to only temple settings. Furthermore, Records also indicates a high degree of recognition for famous monks and poet monks who had close interactions with their Confucian counterparts. This puts into question how modern scholarship has mistakenly viewed Joseon period monks as socially and culturally isolated and disparaged.

6. Concluding Remarks

The question, what was a monastic? is a complex issue, whether in the context of China, Korea or even in the homeland of Buddhism, India. Nonetheless, this is especially so in the case of Joseon Korea, due to the dramatic historical changes that took place with the Imjin War. This obviously brought about shifts not only in the social status but also in the societal role of the monastics. One of the most substantive factors in late-Joseon was the loss of state patronage and no longer being under the auspices of the state. The saṃgha had to turn to means of reviving itself and finding a different source for its identity and legitimation. This was evident in the early seventeenth century in the claims made in the memorial steles for eminent Joseon monks.

The Joseon monastics do not easily fit the putative model of monks such as the sixth patriarch Huineng or the great Silla monk Wonhyo (617–686). While the mentioned spiritual practitioners may fit these nominal figures, other aspects such as the close relationship with the rulers, or as literary poets who cited poems with the Confucian literati over rice wine are also an important part of the identity that need to be discussed in order to come to a full and nuanced understanding of the late-Joseon monks. Furthermore, the current materials such as the memorial stele inscriptions and the monastic biographies indicate that monastic identities have shifted with historical circumstance, turning more inward towards the community and defined by their roles and functions in the Buddhist institutional settings.

Put simply, the presented materials evince diverse images and roles of monks that range from being state officials, laborers, soldier-monks, Seon meditators to a thieving bandit. A single descriptor would be unable to capture the diverse identities of the late-Joseon monks. Furthermore, the samgha also presents itself as highly organized with aims that betray the monastic community as an organization existing inescapably in the everyday socio-economic and political conditions. The shared goal of the Buddhist community, by way of presenting its images, was to regain social recognition and ultimately legitimation, to a position perhaps similar to what it once had during the Goryeo period.

Such determination of the criteria in the formation of the monastic identity in the late-Joseon period set the stage heading into the modern era. Some identities provided a foundation that allowed the Buddhist community to meet the challenges that the modern era brought about, such as the encroachment of the Christian missionaries in the late nineteenth century, and later, the Japanese colonization of Korea in 1910 with the inroads of the Japanese Buddhist missionaries. It was also the establishment of this foundation of Korean Buddhist identity on which the contemporary Buddhist community has been formed.