Managing the Dead, Governing the Living: Ritualization, Power, and the Water and Land Ritual in Korea

Abstract

By examining the Water and Land Ritual in Korea from the fifteenth century to the present, this article challenges the conventional assumption that Buddhist ritual practice directly embodies the doctrinal principles of Buddhism. Drawing on ritual manuals, Buddhist scriptures, official historical records, and fieldwork observations, it adopts a historical-philosophical and practice-centered approach informed by Gregory Schopen’s critique of text-centrism and Catherine Bell’s theory of ritualization. The study argues that the ritual is best understood as a historically constructed and continuously reconfigured system shaped by the interaction of Buddhist concepts with traditional Chinese cosmology, Confucian ethics, and institutional interests. While the ritual incorporates ideas such as karma, rebirth, and merit-making, its performative structure often generates tensions with core Buddhist doctrines, including no-self and the limits of merit transfer. Rather than embodying doctrinal coherence, the ritual functions as a strategic practice that produces religious authority and mediates relations between the living and the dead. This analysis highlights the need to foreground practice, context, and power in the study of Buddhist ritual.

1. Introduction

Suryuk chae (水陸齋, Water and Land Ritual), one of East Asia’s most elaborate Buddhist ceremonies, originated in India as a memorial rite intended to save neglected spirits and hungry ghosts, which refer to the spirits of people who died an unnatural death or under unavoidable circumstances and consequently failed to receive proper ancestral rites,1 inhabiting both water and land (U. Yi 2001, p. 171). Over time, it assumed multiple roles in Korean history and came to be performed with Buddhist chants, incantations, and ritual music (H. Sim 2004, p. 234).

This article examines the Water and Land Ritual in Korea from the fifteenth century to the present,2 challenging the conventional assumption that Buddhist ritual practice directly embodies the doctrinal principles of Buddhism (Han’guk ŭirye munhwa ŭi kujo wa yŏksa 1988, p. 78; Song 1999, pp. 4, 31; Sunmi Kim 2005, p. 63; P’i 2005, pp. 4, 6; Chŏnggak [1993] 2023, p. 6). To this end, it is organized into four sections: historical transformation and ritual configuration; intellectual and doctrinal foundations;3 philosophical implications and doctrinal tensions; and ritualization, power, and contemporary challenges. Doctrinal analysis has long dominated Buddhist studies; however, this approach risks obscuring the complex social, institutional, and historical processes through which rituals are formed, transmitted, and transformed (Schopen 1997, pp. 1–25; Sharf 2002, pp. 253–55). Rituals are frequently treated as performative extensions of Buddhist soteriology, translating doctrinal principles into liturgical practice (Teiser 1988, pp. 1–5; Stevenson 1995, pp. 30–35). Likewise, from the tenth century onward, the Water and Land Ritual in East Asia functioned as a ritual intended to guide the souls of the deceased to the afterlife (Kang 2013, pp. 193–226; S. Sim 2020, pp. 231–65). According to extant records, the most common form of the Water and Land Ritual performed during the Koryŏ (高麗) dynasty (918–1392) was that conducted for the benefit of the deceased (Sŏng and Pak 2020, p. 43). Criticism of this tendency emerged as early as the ritual’s initial introduction to Korea. For example, in his “Twenty-Eight Articles of State Affairs,” submitted to King Sŏngjong (成宗, r. 981–97) in 982, the scholar-official Ch’oe Sŭngno (崔承老, 927–89) criticized the Water and Land Ritual performed by the king for its purported meritorious benefits (Ko 2011, pp. 19–20).

Nevertheless, the ritual continued to be performed even during periods of state-sponsored anti-Buddhist policies. During the Chosŏn (朝鮮) dynasty (1392–1910), many Water and Land Rituals were conducted primarily to avert disasters, seek blessings, and cure illness, rather than to secure the salvation of the deceased (Y. Sŏ 2006, p. 824). At that time, state-sponsored Water and Land Rituals also served important political functions by appeasing public sentiment and maintaining social stability. Accordingly, high-ranking court officials were customarily dispatched as royal envoys to offer incense and ritual offerings during these rituals (S. Sim 2020, p. 242).

Contrary to the widespread belief that Buddhist rituals faithfully embody Buddhist doctrine, the present study argues that the coherence of the Water and Land Ritual in Korea cannot be explained solely through doctrinal frameworks. Rather, it emerged as a historically contingent, institutionally shaped practice in which doctrinal elements were selectively mobilized within a state-regulated ritual system. Instead of expressing a stable theological vision, the ritual functioned as a technology of mediation linking the living and the dead, clergy and laity, and doctrine and practice.

Building on the methodological insights of Gregory Schopen and Catherine Bell, this study adopts a historical-philosophical, practice-centered approach. Schopen’s critique of text-centered Buddhist studies highlights the divergence between canonical ideals and lived practices, while Bell’s theory of ritualization4 emphasizes that ritual actively produces and legitimizes social and religious authority rather than passively reflecting doctrine (Bell 1992, pp. 74–90).

Although ritual studies5 emerged as a distinct academic field in the late 1970s (K’aesŏrin Pel [2007] 2013, p. 641) and Buddhist rituals have played a crucial role in the historical globalization of Buddhism (Raynolds and Hallisey [1987] 1989, pp. 22–24), Buddhist rituals remain comparatively understudied (J. Kim 2021, pp. 196–213; 2025; C. Pak 2026, pp. 179–200), partly due to modern constructions of Buddhism as primarily a philosophical system. This neglect is particularly striking in the Korean context, where ritual performance has occupied a central place in religious and social life (J. Kim 1994, pp. 1–3; 2001a, pp. 23–26).

The Water and Land Ritual is especially significant as the only Buddhist ritual recorded in the Six Codes (Yukchŏn 六典), the first national legal code of the Chosŏn dynasty,6 where it was incorporated in part due to its functional similarity to yŏje (厲祭), a Confucian ritual unique to Korea that was intended to protect the populace from epidemics.7 Its inclusion, despite the state’s Neo-Confucian and officially anti-Buddhist orientation, reflects the ritual’s close association with royal authority and its enduring institutional utility (Yŏnghwa Yi 1993, pp. 22–23; Yong’ae Yi 2014, pp. 536–37).8

Although the ritual declined during the Japanese colonial period (1910–45) and the Korean War (1950–53), it has reemerged in contemporary Korea with support from public institutions (TPC 2013, 2014, 2015). While previous scholarship has tended to interpret Buddhist rituals as enactments of canonical doctrines, this study shifts attention to the ritual’s ideological foundations as shaped through institutional conditions, patronage, and practice. It argues that the Water and Land Ritual was grounded in a synthesis of practical considerations and both Buddhist and Confucian ideas, thereby challenging doctrine-first models of interpretation.

The contents and procedures of the Water and Land Ritual in Korea remain relatively consistent across sites. After surveying its premodern forms, this study focuses on contemporary performances at Samhwa Monastery (三和寺) in Tonghae9 and Paegun Monastery (白雲寺) in Masan, where ritual schedules are clearly documented. The Samhwa ritual serves as the primary case, with Paegun providing a comparative perspective. Designated as National Intangible Cultural Assets10 and supported by public institutions, these rituals are typically performed annually over two to three days. This study combines textual analysis of Buddhist scriptures, ritual manuals, official records, and literary sources with fieldwork observation conducted as a participant-observer at both sites.11

By integrating historical analysis with ethnographic observation, this article demonstrates that ritual practice not only reflects but also precedes and shapes doctrinal formulation. It argues that the Water and Land Ritual developed in Korea as a historically Koreanized form of practice whose underlying structures and meanings were shaped by changing institutional and sociopolitical conditions. Its apparent coherence, therefore, cannot be understood solely through doctrine or canonical texts but must be analyzed in relation to the practical realities of ritual performance. In doing so, this study contributes to broader debates on the relationship between doctrine and ritual, theory and practice, and the historical formation of religious traditions in East Asian Buddhism.

• Historical Transformation and Ritual Configuration

• Historical Formation and Transformation

Although its precise origins remain unclear, the Water and Land Ritual has a long history and was developed in India and practiced in both East Asia and Central Asia. While tradition attributes the ritual’s start to Emperor Wu (武帝) of Liang (梁) China in 505 CE, this is likely a later Tiantai (天台) school construction (H. Sim 2004, p. 223). Its present form took shape in eleventh-century Sung (宋, 960–1279) China, with Tiantai monks and Pure Land devotees playing central roles in its development. This tradition continued into the Yuan (元, 1206–1368) and Ming (明, 1368–1662) dynasties12 and thereafter into the present in China.13

The ritual was introduced to Korea in 94014 from Sung China (H. Sim 2004, p. 221). According to extant records, the most common form of the Water and Land Ritual performed during the Koryŏ dynasty was that conducted for the benefit of the deceased (Sŏng and Pak 2020, p. 43). However, it did not achieve widespread popularity during the Koryŏ dynasty,15 despite that period’s reputation as the high point of Korean Buddhist culture (J. Kim 2001a, pp. 23–26). It was instead in the subsequent Chosŏn dynasty that the ritual reached its fullest development.

In the early Chosŏn period, the ritual was incorporated into the state ceremonial system and performed under royal patronage.16 It gradually assumed a distinctly Korean form (H. Sim 2004, p. 242)17 and received official support until its abolition in 1493,18 prompted by Confucian opposition and the growing influence of medical approaches to epidemics (U. Yi 2001, pp. 174–76).19 Thereafter, it was maintained by temples and private patrons. In contemporary Korea, it survives both as a temple-based practice and as part of the nation’s Buddhist cultural heritage.

2.

Ritual Configuration

Historical and contemporary records document the purposes, structure, contents, and procedures of the Water and Land Ritual.

(1)

Purposes

The Chosŏn wangjo sillok 朝鮮王朝實錄 (Veritable Records of the Chosŏn Dynasty)20 and the writings of scholar-officials document numerous performances of the Water and Land Ritual for the deceased. From the founding of the Chosŏn dynasty, the ritual served multiple purposes, including the consolation of spirits,21 protection against war, disease,22 and disaster, and the invocation of blessings.23

King T’aejo (太祖, r. 1392–98) established a suryuk toryang (水陸道場, site for the Water and Land Ritual) at an existing temple and mandated the annual performance of the ritual for the repose of his ancestors and the welfare of the populace” (Yangch’on chip 12, 17a2–5). In particular, he sought to console the spirits of the Wang (王) clan, the former royal lineage of the Koryŏ dynasty, in Samch’ŏk.24 King T’aejong (太宗, r. 1400–18), for his part, commissioned a complete gold-ink transcription of the Lotus Sūtra for the benefit of his deceased son and, as the anniversary of his death approached, ordered the performance of a Buddhist rite identified as the Water and Land Ritual.25

In his literary collection (Yangch’on chip 12, 16b9–10), the scholar-official Kwŏn Kŭn (權近, 1352–1409) clarifies the nature of the ritual, stating that “the Water and Land Ritual is a Buddhist ceremony intended to ensure postmortem judgment based on one’s actions, to invoke the Buddha’s compassion through offerings made by the living, and thereby to facilitate the enlightenment of the deceased while conferring blessings upon the living.” He thus interprets the ritual as a postmortem Buddhist rite that benefits both the living and the diseased.

In contemporary Korea, the ritual often emphasizes themes of national protection. The Water and Land Ritul at Paegun Monastery, for example, was conducted over two days, from 4 October to 5, 2024, under the theme: “2024 nyŏn sun’guk sŏnyŏl hoguk yŏngnyŏng ŭl wihan Araennyŏk Suryuk Chae ch’ŏnji myŏngyang suryuk much’a p’yŏngdŭng taejae konggae haengsa” (The 2024 Lower Water and Land Ritual for the Spirits of the Martyrs Who Protected the Nation: A Public Event of the Great, Unconfined, and Equal Memorial Service for All Sentient Beings in Heaven and Earth, This World and the Next, and Across Water and Land). At Samhwa Monastery, the ritual was presented under the theme “Kukka muhyŏng yusan Samhwa sa Suryuk Chae” (The National Intangible Heritage: Samhwa Monastery Water and Land Ritual).26

In particular, the consolation of spirits has remained the most consistent feature27 and constitutes the primary focus of this study. In both premodern and modern Korea, the Water and Land Ritual has centered on providing solace for the deceased.

(2)

Structure, Contents, and Procedures

Ritual practice is inherently dynamic,28 and the Water and Land Ritual reflects an ongoing balance between continuity29 and adaptation.30

The Excerpts and the Protocols,31 both published in 1470, provide the earliest extant evidence for its Chosŏn-period procedures (H. Sim 2004, p. 236). These texts indicate a structure organized around three altars—upper, middle, and lower—32 and a standardized sequence of invitation,33 offerings,34 and sending off.35 Based on these texts, the Water and Land Ritual in the Chosŏn period was performed both day and night, whereas in contemporary Korea it is performed exclusively during the daytime.

The ritual conducted by Grand Prince Hyoryŏng and supported by King Sejong (世宗, r. 1418–50) in 143236 serves as a representative example of its performance during the Chosŏn dynasty:

Grand Prince Hyoryŏng, whose personal name was [Yi] Po, performed the Water and Land Ritual on the banks of the Han River over seven days on a grand scale. The king [King Sejong] granted incense, established a three-tiered altar, provided provisions for 1000 monks, and distributed donations to all participants. Food was also given to passersby, while several sŏm (bushels) of rice were cast into the river each day to feed fish and terrapins. Flags and parasols filled the riverbank, and the sound of bells and drums resounded through the sky. Scholars and women of the capital gathered in great numbers, with elite women contributing offerings of fine food. Notably, no distinction based on sex or gender was made between men and women in the ritual.

This mid-fifteenth-century ritual, conducted with royal patronage and broad social participation, was characterized by its scale, spectacle, and inclusivity. The distribution of food, the casting of rice into the river and the elaborate use of ritual paraphernalia suggest that the ceremony functioned not only as a rite for the dead but also as a means of invoking blessings and addressing worldly concerns such as illnesses (Yong’ae Yi 2014, p. 536).

Paegun Monastery is affiliated with the T’aego Order (太古宗) today, a lineage that permits married clergy and emphasizes the preservation of ritual traditions. Drawing upon the Excerpts while incorporating elements of folk belief, the Water and Land Ritual at the monastery was conducted over two-day period, from 4 October to 5 October 2024. The ritual spanned thirteen and a half hours in total and was attended by fewer than fifty participants, a cohort comprising monastics, lay practitioners, and tourists. Despite the relatively small scale of the congregation, the ritual was characterized by its liturgical complexity, featuring elaborate ritual music and traditional dance that functioned as integral components of the merit-making (Skt. puṇya-kriyā) process.37

In contrast, Samhwa Monastery belongs to the Chogye Order (曹溪宗),38 a celibate Sŏn (or Seon 禪, Ch. Ch’an, Jp. Zen) community that traditionally prioritizes meditative praxis over formal liturgy. Adhering to a tradition rooted in court-centered ritual and based on the Excerpts, the Samhwa ritual was conducted over three days, from 18 October to 20, 2024, totaling eighteen hours and ten minutes of liturgical performance. With several hundred participants, among whom I was included, the ritual’s content focused primarily on the recitation of dhāraṇī, accompanied by elaborate ritual music and dance. The participants, myself included, remained silent observers throughout the ritual. However, I asked questions to both monastic and lay participants during and after the ritual to gain a better understanding of its meaning and practice. These conversations suggested that, unlike the monastics, many lay participants possessed only a limited understanding of the significance of the ritual’s individual components. Differences in ritual procedures and content among monasteries often reflect the significant influence of the presiding monk. (T. Hong 2017, p. 19). The ritual at Samhwa Monastery proceeds as follows.

The first day’s rites lasted about six hours and forty minutes and included the invitation of Buddhas and Buddhist deities; a Dharma assembly; a snack offering; the enshrinement of a memorial tablet; the offering of paper gold and silver money to attendants of the netherworld; the recitation of the Ch’ŏnsu kyŏng (千手經, Thousand Hands Sūtra);39 and the invitation of netherworld attendants. The sequence from the invitation of Buddhas to the offering of paper money constituted the preparatory rites, occupying approximately five hours. The subsequent rites formed the main segment, lasting about one hour and forty minutes.

The second day’s rites lasted approximately six hours and thirty minutes and included the invitation of deities from the five directions, offerings at the upper altar; a communal meal; a tea offering to the deceased; a Dharma lecture by an eminent monk; and offerings at the middle altar.

The third and final day’s rites lasted five hours and included the release of fish; offerings to the deceased at the lower altar; a communal meal, the recitation of the Diamond Sūtra, sending off rites, and acts of merit-making. Notably, the offerings at the lower altar lasted one hour.

Taken together, the ritual’s purposes, procedures, and contents indicate a structured yet selective allocation of time and emphasis within the overall liturgical framework.

II.

Intellectual and Doctrinal Foundations

The ideological foundations reflected in the literature related to the Water and Land Ritual, as performed from the fifteenth century to the present, draw on both traditional Chinese thought and Buddhist teachings.

• Traditional Chinese Thought

The Water and Land Ritual incorporates key elements of traditional Chinese thought, including ancestor worship, cosmology, theories of illness, Confucian ethics, and conceptions of death.

In 1396, King T’aejo declared that his kingdom had been founded through the virtue of his ancestors and that he was therefore obliged to repay their beneficence. He accordingly sponsored the Water and Land Ritual for those who had died in service to the throne, as well as for those who, lacking descendants to perform ancestral rites, were believed to wander as hungry and neglected spirits in the otherworld.40

The cosmological framework underlying the ritual is grounded in the notion of a single vital force, identified with the Supreme Ultimate (Taiji 太極), which differentiates into yin (陰, the negative cosmic force) and yang (陽, the positive cosmic force) and thereby generates heaven and earth. Within this framework, the Water and Land Ritual in the Chosŏn period was also understood as a means of addressing epidemics. Disease was attributed to multiple causes, including malevolent spirits (U. Yi 2001, p. 176), emotional distress, hunger,41 climatic fluctuations, and imbalances between yin and yang.42

In particular, the “Suryuk toryang kŏnhoe so” (水陸道場建會所, Temporary Office for the Establishment of the Water and Land Ritual) in the contemporary Samhwa Monastery ritual reflects the influence of traditional Chinese cosmology. It states:

In the beginning, all things originated from a single vital energy, which then divided into yin and yang, thereby forming heaven and earth. Only those endowed with virtue may approach this force and move the spirits of heaven and earth… The king established a thousand regulations. Filial piety is the foundation of all conduct, and benevolence is the root of the Five Cardinal Virtues (Oryun 五倫)—benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trust.

The notion that all things originate from a single vital energy and subsequently divide into yin and yang reflects a traditional Chinese cosmological framework rather than a Buddhist ontological model, which posits that all phenomena arise as projections of mind. The emphasis on royal regulations, benevolence, filial piety, virtue, and the Five Cardinal Virtues likewise demonstrates a clear grounding in Confucian ethical thought. These elements indicate that the ideological foundations of the Water and Land Ritual are shaped less by canonical Buddhist teachings than by a synthesis of Chinese cosmology and Confucian moral discourse (Teiser 1988, pp. 30–60; Stevenson 1995, pp. 40–50).

Conceptions of death further underscore this orientation. As articulated in the Liji (禮記, Book of Rites), a person at death was believed to divide into hun (魂), the spiritual soul, and po (魄), the corporeal soul. Following the transmission of Chinese culture to Korea around the second century BCE, these views increasingly informed Korean understandings of death and found ritual expression in practices such as the Water and Land Ritual.

The Korean concept of hungry ghosts or solitary spirits appears to have been shaped largely by the Confucian worldview. According to this worldview, the spiritual soul and the corporeal soul normally separate and disperse after death. A hungry ghost, however, was believed to arise when the spiritual and corporeal souls became entangled and failed to disperse properly. Such spirits were thought to interfere in the lives of the living by bringing misfortune or illness. Consequently, rituals were performed to pacify these solitary spirits in the hope of preventing them from causing harm in the human world (C. Ch’oe 2022, pp. 215–50).

This suggests that the Water and Land Ritual’s underlying model of death and postmortem existence derives not from early Buddhist teachings but from historically contingent processes of cultural adaptation and reinterpretation.

2.

Buddhist Thought

In Chosŏn Korea, the Buddha was widely perceived as a supernatural being who protected people from disasters43 and determined human destiny in both this life and the afterlife.44 This tradition has been widely maintained in Korea since the fourth century, when Buddhism was officially recognized (J. Kim 2020, pp. 255–83), and has persisted among contemporary Korean Buddhists. In this context, the Water and Land Ritual incorporates a range of Buddhist philosophical concepts.45 While notions such as emptiness (Skt. śūnyatā; K. kong 空), karma, compassion, the Six Perfections, precepts, and illness are associated with this life, concepts such as death, the intermediate state, and rebirth pertain to the afterlife. In addition, the concept of merit-making46 spans both.

Central Mahāyāna scriptures emphasizing emptiness such as the Panya simgyŏng (般若心經, Heart Sūtra) and the Kŭmgang kyŏng (金剛經, Diamond Sūtra) are recited or chanted according to prescribed rhythms. The recitation of the Thousand Hands Sūtra highlights the compassion of Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, while the Six Perfections—generosity, ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and wisdom—are presented as essential practices on the bodhisattva path toward Buddhahood and are explicitly invoked within the ritual context.

The emphasis on observing precepts—such as abstaining from alcohol and meat—and on making offerings for both the living and the deceased reflects core Buddhist ethical and ritual practices. Historical records further indicate that the Water and Land Ritual functioned as a therapeutic and protective practice. During the Chosŏn dynasty, Koreans widely believed that misfortune and illness were caused by ghosts (C. Ch’oe 2022, pp. 215–37). During an epidemic in the mid-fifteenth century, both the king and local magistrates sponsored the Water and Land Ritual47 in response to popular demand.48

The fact that the state’s leaders held the ritual in response to the demands of the people during a period of widespread disease suggest that the ritual was understood not only as a religious ceremony but also as an efficacious means of addressing suffering, grounded in the perceived power of the Buddha.

Taken together, these Confucian and Buddhist elements are not merely juxtaposed but are integrated within the ritual setting, forming a synthesized ideological framework.

III.

Philosophical Implications and Doctrinal Tensions

This section critically analyzes the Confucian and Buddhist ideological foundations reflected in the Water and Land Ritual.

• Traditional Chinese Philosophical Ideas

The traditional Chinese philosophical ideas embedded in the Water and Land Ritual encompass a cosmological worldview, perspectives on illness and death, and Confucian ethical values.

The cosmological claim that heaven and earth originated from a single primordial force that differentiates into yin and yang is metaphysical in nature and lacks empirical substantiation. Similarly, explanations of illness based on imbalances of yin and yang or the activity of malevolent spirits resist verification. Conceptions of the soul’s continued existence after death—such as the division into hun or hon and po or paek—likewise pose philosophical difficulties due to the absence of demonstrable evidence. Confucian values, including filial piety and the Five Cardinal Virtues, are primarily in ethical and sociopolitical norms rather than philosophical doctrines.

Taken together, the traditional Chinese ideas reflected in the Water and Land Ritual are better understood as products of abstract reasoning and cultural convention than as empirically grounded knowledge.

2.

Buddhist Philosophical Ideas

Early Buddhism did not prioritize ritual practice. The Buddha is often portrayed as rejecting ritualism in Brahmanical traditions, arguing that attachment to ritual could hinder ethical and spiritual cultivation (Premasiri 1991, p. 151). Over time, however, ritual came to occupy a central place in Buddhist traditions across diverse historical and regional contexts.

(1)

This Life: Ethical and Ontological Frameworks

Buddhist concepts relevant to this life in the context of the ritual include emptiness, karma, compassion, the Six Perfections and precepts, and conceptions of illness.

1)

Emptiness

Emptiness is a central concept in Buddhist philosophy, particularly in Mahāyāna traditions, where the realization of emptiness constitutes the ultimate goal. Ritual practice, however, is not a sine qua non for attaining such realization. Accordingly, classical Buddhist doctrine provides no intrinsic justification for ritual as a means of realizing emptiness.

Texts such as the Heart Sūtra and the Diamond Sūtra, which emphasize emptiness, are employed in the Water and Land Ritual. They are recited in unison by both monastics and lay participants using the Korean pronunciation of classical Chinese. However, recitation functions primarily as a performative act, and their textual meaning and philosophical content remain largely inaccessible to most lay participants due to linguistic and educational barriers.49

2)

Karma

The doctrine of karma posits that intentional actions generate corresponding consequences. While notions of moral causation predate Buddhism, the concept of karma was reformulated within early Buddhist communities. Epigraphical evidence from third-century BCE inscriptions indicates that both monastics and lay donors made offerings with the expectation of karmic benefit (Schopen 1997, pp. 5–7).

Transmitted to China and subsequently to Korea, karma became one of the most influential concepts in Korean religious life (Sanghyŏn Kim 1999, pp. 266–72) and persisted even under the anti-Buddhist policies (P. Yi 2011, p. 83). In this context, ritual practices developed as practical means of negotiating karmic causality. The Water and Land Ritual, in particular, functioned as a performative intervention intended to alleviate postmortem suffering and generate merit for the living.

Scholarly opinion remains divided on the centrality of karma in the Buddha’s original teachings. While scholars such as Gombrich (2009, pp. 11–16) and many Korean scholars (K. Yi 2011, p. 20) argue for its foundational role, others, including Bronkhorst (1998, p. 11) and Kalupahana (1975, p. 51), adopt more cautious positions, and still others such as Lambert Schmithausen, Tilmann Vetter, and Hirakawa Akira, question its centrality altogether (K. Yi 2011, p. 24).

This study questions the centrality of karma. Given the empirical and pragmatic orientation of core teachings of the Buddha such as dependent origination and the Four Noble Truths, the doctrine of karma appears difficult to reconcile with this methodological restraint. The precise correspondence between specific actions and outcomes cannot be empirically verified, and everyday experience often contradicts counterexamples to strict moral causation.

Although Buddhist scriptures serve as the primary evidence for those who affirm karmic doctrine, these texts are chronologically distant from the Buddha’s lifetime.50 Accordingly, karma is interpreted here not as an original doctrinal core but as a later development functioning as a form of skillful means, facilitating the expansion of Buddhism and addressing lay concerns.

At the same time, ritual texts emphasize moral preconditions for efficacy. The juxtaposition of the Buddha’s precepts with the king’s regulations suggests an alignment between religious discipline and political order, while personal abstinence is presented as the ethical foundation of ritual performance. Thus, moral cultivation and ritual action are rhetorically intertwined and context-dependent.51

3)

Compassion

Compassion constitutes a central theme within the ritual tradition. As reflected in historical records, the Buddha is portrayed as one who alleviates suffering and bestows well-being. In his “Chin’gwan-sa Suryuk-sa chosŏng ki” (津寬寺水陸社造成記, Records on the Construction of the Hall of Water and Land at Chin’gwan Monastery),52 Kwŏn Kŭn observes that “out of compassion, the Buddha can liberate beings from suffering, bestow joy, and relieve them from affliction.” This interpretive framework has persisted to the present. The Thousand Hands Sūtra, widely used in ritual contexts, consists primarily of dhāraṇīs invoking the compassion of Avalokiteśvara rather than offering sustained philosophical exposition. Although sincerity in recitation is emphasized, it does not necessarily follow that the mere act of recitation itself produces tangible benefits. As Clifford Geertz has described as the performative aspect of religion (Geertz 1973, pp. 87–125), its function appears primarily symbolic and performative.

4)

Six Perfections

The Six Perfections are best understood as ethical practices rather than philosophical doctrines. While wisdom (Skt. prajñā) is defined as insight into impermanence, suffering, and no-self (Skt. anātman), and in Mahāyāna thought, as the realization of emptiness, these elements receive limited emphasis in actual ritual performance. By contrast, behavioral prescriptions such as abstinence from alcohol and meat are more consistently observed within the ritual setting.

5)

Conceptions of Illness

The Water and Land Ritual’s understanding of illness aligns more closely with traditional Chinese cosmology than with early Buddhist doctrine. Early Buddhism primarily understood illness in terms of mental affliction. The Buddha’s role as the “Supreme Physician” refers to the eradication of the three poisons—craving, hatred, and delusion—rather than to the treatment of physical disease.

Longevity and the prevention of epidemics were not central aims of early Buddhism (Birnbaum [1979] 1989, p. 238). Canonical texts instead frame suffering through medical metaphors: ignorance is the illness, the Buddha the healer, the Dharma the medicine, and insight the cure (J. Kim 2013, 2001a, p. 263). Although later Mahāyāna traditions developed more explicit healing imagery, most notably in the cult of the Medicine Buddha (Skt. Bhaiṣajyaguru) (Birnbaum [1979] 1989, p. xv; Schopen 2004, p. 497),53 this development did not displace the fundamentally soteriological orientation of Buddhist thought.

From this perspective, the ritual’s pronounced concern with warding off calamity, appeasing spirits, and securing worldly well-being signals not a direct extension of early Buddhist doctrine, but rather a reconfiguration within its historical context, shaped by frameworks more closely aligned with Confucian cosmology and ethical concerns.

(2)

Death and the Afterlife

1)

Death

From a Buddhist philosophical standpoint, life and death are not separate or opposing states but interconnected phases within the continuous cycle of existence (Skt. saṃsāra). Death is therefore not an absolute end but the dissolution of the Four Great Elements—earth, water, fire, and wind—that temporarily constitute the body.

By contrast, the conception of death reflected in the Water and Land Ritual aligns more closely with traditional Chinese thought, which affirms the continued existence of souls. In contemporary Korea, understandings of Buddhism among monks and nuns are largely shaped by Sinicized forms of Buddhism, often lacking familiarity with early Buddhist teachings, or emphasizing mediation rather than doctrinal engagement (J. Kim 2001b, pp. 485–518). Self-identified Buddhists number approximately eight million, or sixteen percent of the population, and a 2014 survey indicates that only thirty-eight percent of Buddhist adherents in Korea accept the doctrine of transmigration (S. Yun 2015, pp. 252–53). In addition, more than ninety percent of the deceased in contemporary Korea are cremated. However, this practice cannot be attributed solely to Buddhist influence, as many Koreans, including Buddhists, continue to construct tombs and perform ancestral rites in accordance with Confucian traditions. This suggests that a majority of Buddhists do not fully accept Buddhist concepts related to death.

From a Buddhist philosophical perspective, such views generate tensions with core doctrines such as impermanence (Skt. anicca) and no-self.

2)

Intermediate State

Although the concept of an intermediate existence (Skt. antarābhava, Ch. zhongyin 中陰 or zhongyou 中有, Kor. chung’ŭm 中陰 or chung’yu 中有)54 does not appear explicitly in extant liturgies of the Water and Land Ritual, Chosŏn-period sources presuppose postmortem continuity leading to rebirth. In the “Records on the Construction of the Hall of Water and Land at Chin’gwan Monastery,” (Chin’gwan-sa Suryuk-sa chosŏng ki, 津寬寺水陸社造成記). Kwŏn Kŭn presents rebirth as conditioned by karma implying a form of persistence after death. Similarly, in his Chōsen Zenkyō shi (朝鮮禪敎史, The History of Korean Zen Teachings), Nukariya Kaiten (忽滑谷快天) argued that belief in the continuity of the soul among Zen monks in Chosŏn Korea contributed to the frequent performance of the ritual (Chŏng 2015, pp. 180–90).

Doctrinally, antarābhava emerged in later Buddhist scholasticism and was never universally accepted. It was affirmed within the Sarvāstivāda tradition but rejected by Theravāda exegetes. The concept was systematized in texts such as the Yogācārabhūmi (Treatise on the Stage of Yoga Practice) and the Abhidharmakośa (Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma), where it was incorporated into theories of rebirth and consciousness. Its relatively late formulation, its tension with core doctrines, and its reliance on temporally distant sources raise questions about its status as an original teaching. Even the Antarābhava Sūtra (C. Zhongyin jing 中陰經, Sūtra of the Intermediate), translated in mid-fourth century by Zhu Fonian (竺佛念), asserts that “the intermediate state is regarded as so subtle in appearance that it can be seen only by the Buddha” (T 12, 385, 1059a9–10)—an appeal that ultimately precludes verification.

In the context of the Water and Land Ritual, no Korean sources consistently articulate a systematic doctrine of intermediate existence. Rather than reflecting a fixed metaphysical position, the ritual operates within a pragmatic soteriological framework: ignorance conditions action, and karma leads to death, continued existence, and eventual rebirth. The intermediate state is therefore best understood not as a doctrinal foundation, but as a later interpretive construct shaped by institutional and soteriological concerns. Moreover, the concept of the intermediate state remains inaccessible to the majority of Buddhists in contemporary Korea.

3)

Rebirth

In Buddhist thought, rebirth is generally understood as conditioned by karma. Although ideas of postmortem continuity predate Buddhism, Buddhist theories of rebirth developed distinctive formulations,55 including the schema of the Six Realms (Skt. ṣaḍgati),56 which represents the moral geography of rebirth: heavens, demi-gods, humans, animals, ghosts, and hells. The first three constitute the three good realms, while the latter three comprise the three evil realms. Unlike the linear eschatologies of monotheistic traditions such as Christianity, Buddhist cosmology presupposes cyclical existence governed by moral causation.

The concept of rebirth was not indigenous to early Chinese thought but became central to Chinese Buddhism and popular religious practice, including Pure Land devotion (Hayashi 2015, p. 184). Transmitted to Korea, these Sinicized interpretations profoundly shaped Korean ritual culture.57 The Water and Land Ritual exemplifies this process by translating abstract doctrines into liturgical forms intended to benefit both the living and the dead. As Kwŏn Kŭn states, beings are reborn according to the moral quality of their actions,58 reflecting the integration of karmic causality into ritual discourse.

However, rebirth has not been doctrinally uniform. Early scholastic formulations of transmigration and the intermediate state emerged centuries after the Buddha’s death. During the formative period of Chan Buddhism in seventh-century China, masters treated rebirth as skillful means (Skt. upāya) rather than as ultimate truth (Ibuki Atsushi 2005, p. 66). However, later Chinese traditions introduced more substantial notions of personal continuity, which were subsequently transmitted to Korea. As a result, Korean understandings of Buddhism were mediated by Chinese Buddhist traditions (McBride 2008, p. vii).

Doctrinally, rebirth remains in tension with core principles such as impermanence and no-self, as well as with the Buddha’s reluctance to engage in speculative metaphysics. Modern scholarship reflects this ambivalence: while some scholars (Gombrich 2009, pp. 11–16; Bronkhorst 1998, p. 16; C. Sŏ 2003, p. 139; K. Pak 2011, pp. 163–93; K. Yi 2011, pp. 20–26) argue for its centrality, others, including Lambert Schmithausen, question its foundational status (K. Yi 2011, pp. 11–24).

From this perspective, rebirth is best understood as a historically conditioned and pragmatic development within Buddhist tradition. Accordingly, its role in the Water and Land Ritual should be interpreted as a ritualized expression of a Sinified and institutionally mediated soteriological framework (McBride 2008, p. vii).

(3)

Merit-Making and Its Problematics

Merit-making refers to the intentional performance of virtuous actions believed to generate favorable karmic outcomes. The Water and Land Ritual was widely understood to generate merit for both the living and the deceased, despite its tension with the early Buddhist emphasis on individual moral responsibility.

In early Indian Buddhism, merit-making was primarily associated with lay practice and personal karmic accumulation (Schopen 1997, pp. 16–25). Over time, however, particularly in Chinese Buddhism, more elaborate theories of merit transfer developed. Chinese apocryphal texts59 such as the Fu shuo guanding jing (佛說灌頂經, Consecration Scripture Spoken by the Buddha) and the writings of high monks such as Fazang (法藏, 643–712) and Chengguan (澄觀, 738–839) articulated the idea that ritual actions could generate benefits transferable to others.

Korean sources reflect these assumptions. In the “Records on the Construction of the Hall of Water and Land at Chin’gwan Monastery,” Kwŏn Kŭn maintains that offerings to the Buddha and the saṅgha relieve the suffering of hungry spirits, enable their eventual liberation, and confer blessings upon the living. Yet this notion is difficult to reconcile with the early Buddhist principle that individuals inherit the results of their own actions, a logic that appears to preclude the transfer of merit across persons. The Buddha’s reluctance to endorse ritualized appeals for secular benefit further complicates later soteriological interpretations.60

The Dizang pusa benyuan jing (地藏菩薩本願經, Sūtra of the Original Vows of Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva), commonly known as the Kṣitigarbha Sūtra and translated by Śikṣānanda (實叉難陀, 652–710), provides a doctrinal foundation for postmortem rites (Ch’asŏk Ch’a 2012, p. 33), particularly within the forty-nine-day period following death. It also advances the notion that only a portion of the merit generated is transferred to the deceased, with the majority retained by the living,

If the surviving relatives perform extensive meritorious deeds on behalf of the deceased within forty-nine-day intermediate period, they facilitate the permanent liberation of all sentient beings from the lower realms of existence. Consequently, the deceased may achieve rebirth in the human and heavenly realms, attaining a state of supreme and sublime bliss (T 13, 412, 784a13–15)…“If one practices diligently, upholds the pure precepts, and makes offerings to the Buddha and the monastic community, the deceased receives one-seventh of the accrued merit” (T 13, 412, 784b25).

This passage reinforces the doctrinal basis for postmortem rites within the forty-nine-day period and underscores the salvific efficacy attributed to merit generated by the living. It further articulates a logic of merit transfer whereby the ritual actions of the living produce karmic benefits that are proportionally shared with the deceased. However, the claim that the deceased receives only one-seventh of the merit, while the living retain six-sevenths, is particularly salient. Given that the Water and Land Ritual is explicitly oriented toward the salvation of the deceased, this disproportionate distribution reveals an internal tension within the merit-transfer framework—a discrepancy that appears to lack clear doctrinal or empirical grounding.

More broadly, the philosophical elements embedded in the Water and Land Ritual reflect a historical synthesis of Buddhist and traditional Chinese ideas. Although ritual came to play a central role in East Asian Buddhism, many of the doctrinal concepts invoked in the ritual—emptiness, karma, compassion, intermediate existence, rebirth, and merit-making—are only minimally articulated in actual performance. Dominated by recitation and spectacle, the ritual operates less as a coherent expression of early Buddhist philosophy than as a historically conditioned liturgical system shaped by institutional, ethical, and soteriological concerns.

IV.

Ritualization, Power, and Contemporary Challenges

• Characteristics of the Ritual Tradition

The Water and Land Ritual in Korea is best understood through four interrelated processes: Sinicization, ritualization, strategic traditionalization, and institutional pragmatism.

(1)

Sinicization

Early Buddhism emphasized self-cultivation grounded in the principles of impermanence and no-self, functioning as “a life education system” (Thurman 1999) rather than as a religion centered on reliance upon an external salvific power. However, when Buddhism was transmitted to China in the first century CE, it encountered Confucian and Daoist traditions and underwent substantial transformation.

Within this Sinicized milieu, new doctrinal elaborations—such as universal Buddha-nature, expanded miracle narratives, and a heightened ritual emphasis—emerged alongside cosmological and ethical frameworks not central to early Buddhist thought (J. Kim 2011, p. 10). The Water and Land Ritual, as developed in Korea, must therefore be understood within this inherited Sinified context, reflecting processes of historical reinterpretation rather than direct continuity with early Buddhist doctrine.

(2)

Ritualization

Rather than treating ritual as a transparent embodiment of doctrine, the Water and Land Ritual exemplifies what Catherine Bell terms “ritualization:” the strategic reorganization of symbolic resources to construct authority and negotiate social relations (Bell 1992, pp. 74–85). Within this process, performative efficacy and public spectacle frequently outweigh philosophical coherence. Royal patronage and elite sponsorship played decisive roles in shaping the ritual’s ideological configuration.

At the same time, the doctrinal teachings of various Buddhist schools were often articulated in sophisticated philosophical language accessible primarily to monastic specialists and educated elites. The Water and Land Ritual emerged within this broader socio-political and religious context.

(3)

Strategic Traditionalization

Tradition is not simply an unbroken inheritance but a constructed continuity. Comparative studies of “invented traditions” (Fujitani 1998; Hobsbawm and Ranger 2012) demonstrate that many rituals presented as ancient are, in fact, products of conscious adaptation and political negotiation (Sango 2015, pp. xviii–xxi). By framing practices as continuous with an authoritative past, ritualization serves to naturalize contemporary hierarchies (Takashi 2003, pp. 20–23).

The traditional status of the Water and Land Ritual was thus actively constructed rather than passively transmitted. Its claim to antiquity functions to legitimize prevailing institutional and political arrangements. At the same time, devotional reverence for tradition may inhibit critical engagement with these historically contingent processes.61

(4)

Institutional Pragmatism

Ritual practice has been deeply intertwined with institutional survival. In both China (Welch [1967] 1973, p. 197) and Chosŏn Korea, monastic communities operated within economic structures that made ritual specialization central to their viability. Differentiated roles within the saṅgha—including specialists in liturgical performance—underscore the extent to which ritual functioned as an institutional necessity as much as a form of religious expression.

Even in modern Korea, where Buddhist affiliation has declined (S. Yun 2015, p. 269), shifts in religious identification have not diminished the adaptability of ritual practice.

Taken together, these dynamics indicate that the ideological foundations of the Water and Land Ritual are not straightforward expressions of early Buddhist philosophy. While doctrine provides a symbolic vocabulary, ritual practice reorganizes that vocabulary in response to historical contingencies, patronage structures, and institutional imperatives.

2.

Contemporary and Methodological Challenges

(1)

Contemporary Transformations

After the Buddha’s death, efforts were made to canonize the Dharma and Vīnaya, which were regarded as embodying his teachings. In monastic life, the preservation, transmission, and mastery of these sacred texts came to occupy a central place, and the scriptures themselves were accorded the highest authority. However, the attempt to establish a standard Buddhist canon has never been fully successful. Because the Dharma and the Vīnaya initially survived only through the collective memory of monks and lay followers, the oral transmission of the Buddha’s teachings inevitably allowed for variation, including omission, modification, and addition. Over the course of Buddhist history, new scriptures—notably the Mahāyāna sūtras—were composed and subsequently accepted within many Buddhist traditions as authentic expressions of the Buddha’s word. (An 2003, pp. 1–13).

Catherine Bell notes that religious identity in East Asia is often defined by ritual participation rather than doctrinal literacy (K’aesŏrin Pel [2007] 2013, p. 642). The Shi Egui Hui (施餓鬼會, Ritual of Feeding Hungry Ghosts), regarded as the precursor of the Water and Land Ritual, was originally not intended to guide the souls of the dead to the afterlife. Over time, however, it evolved into a ritual for guiding the souls of the deceased, including wandering spirits and beings in the Six Realms of Rebirth (Kang 2013, p. 143). As in the imperial courts of the Song and Yuan dynasties in China, the Water and Land Ritual became an important component of royal funerary rites in the late Koryŏ dynasty. Given that this tradition continued into the Chosŏn dynasty, it can be inferred that the doctrinal orientation reflected in the ritual was likewise reshaped to serve the royal family’s practical objectives and political interests (Kang 2013, pp. 193–226; Yu 2023, pp. 171–72). This transformation is also evident in the changing character of the Water and Land Ritual performed at Pong’ŭn Monastery (奉恩寺), one of the principal royal mausoleum monasteries of the Chosŏn dynasty (T’ak 2018, pp. 123–51). In contemporary Korea, the Water and Land Ritual reveals structural tensions that highlight the gap between doctrinal discourse and ritual practice.

Its increasingly visible political dimension—evident in the participation of government officials and public dignitaries62—suggests that the ritual functions not only as a soteriological rite but also as a public performance that constructs and legitimizes institutional authority. In terms of Catherine Bell’s framework, it can be understood as a process of ritualization embedded in specific social and political contexts.

At the same time, the Water and Land Ritual lacks a single authoritative textual foundation,63 and doctrinal elements remain only loosely integrated into its liturgical structure.64 From a perspective inspired by Gregory Schopen—which prioritizes practice over normative prescription—this disjunction suggests that the ritual’s meaning is shaped less by canonical ideals than by the practical concerns of its organizers. Contemporary observations further substantiate this perspective: rites at the Lower Altar, traditionally central to the salvation of the deceased, are frequently simplified in modern practice. At Samhwa Monastery, offerings at the Lower Altar accounted for only 5.6% of the total ritual duration. A similar pattern was observed in the Paegun ritual, where they accounted for 3.5%, as confirmed through personal correspondence with Hong T’aehan on 10 October 2025. This stands in sharp contrast to the Protocols and H. Sim’s (2004, pp. 237–38) analysis, in which these rites constitute over half of the prescribed content.65 Despite this reduction in time allocated to the deceased, the ritual as a whole remains dominated by monastic specialists,66 highlighting a persistent gap between liturgical ideas and contemporary performance.

Accessibility further reinforces this dynamic. Ritual participation does not necessarily presuppose or produce doctrinal understanding (Sharf 2002, pp. 255–58). The liturgy of the Water and Land Ritual in Korea, composed in classical Chinese and largely restricted to monastics, remains unintelligible to most lay participants,67 whose involvement is typically limited to passive listening or mechanical recitation. This restricted access both reproduces clerical authority and underscores the limited role of doctrinal comprehension in ritual performance. Moreover, the growing emphasis on fundraising and aesthetic display68 points to a pragmatic reorientation of the ritual.

Taken together, these features suggest that the Water and Land Ritual is best understood not as a coherent doctrinal system but as a flexible institutional practice shaped by political visibility, economic considerations, and performative priorities. This gap between normative texts and lived practice thus calls for a methodological shift beyond text-centered approaches, foregrounding ritual as a site where authority, meaning, and power are actively produced.

(2)

Methodological Reconsiderations

These developments raise broader historical and methodological questions. The Buddha left no written works, and the canon was compiled only after his death through extended processes of redaction and doctrinal elaboration. While teachings such as the Four Noble Truths are widely regarded as central to early Buddhism, certainty regarding the Buddha’s original formulations remains unattainable. What can be examined, however, is how Buddhist doctrine was mediated through Sinicized textual traditions and institutional frameworks before being transmitted to Korea. Korean Buddhism was shaped within these inherited structures; thus, the issue is not doctrinal absence but doctrinal transformation.

Modern Buddhist studies have often privileged philosophical reconstruction over ritual history. Influenced in part by European scholarship, emphasis has been on “original,” “pure,” or “rational” Buddhism (Cho 2012b, pp. 7, 47;69 2012a, p. 92), foregrounding ethical self-cultivation while marginalizing ritual practice. Although such approaches illuminate important aspects of early thought, they risk obscuring the historical centrality of ritual in lived Buddhist traditions.

The Korean case illustrates this divergence clearly. The Buddha’s critique of ritual mediation contrasts with the later Korean emphases on ritual efficacy, merit-making, and worldly benefit. Rather than treating this development as deviation, it is more productive to examine how Buddhist symbols and doctrines were reconfigured within specific cultural, political, and institutional contexts. The central analytical question, therefore, is one of classification rather than authenticity: how, why, and by whom should we categorize practices that—while operating within a Buddhist framework—diverge significantly from foundational doctrinal formulations?

The Water and Land Ritual exemplifies this complexity. Its ideological foundations draw on karmic causality, rebirth, intermediate existence, and merit transfer—concepts elaborated in Chinese Buddhism and incorporated into Korean state and monastic systems. Royal patronage, particularly during the early Chosŏn period, integrated karmic discourse into state ritual. Meanwhile, contemporary evidence suggests that political engagement and beliefs in rebirth continue to shape lay practice, persisting despite varying levels of doctrinal comprehension. Two elements are especially central: precept observance and merit-making. Ritual discourse links moral discipline to ritual efficacy, aligning Buddhist ethics with political order, while merit-making functions as the operative soteriological mechanism, mediating between the living and the dead within a broader ritual economy.

These developments also point to the significant role of Confucianism in shaping Korean Buddhism. From the fourth century, when Buddhism was officially recognized in Korea, through the Koryŏ dynasty, when it flourished, Confucianism remained the dominant political ideology. Under the Chosŏn dynasty, its influence became even more pronounced—a marked contrast with the situation in contemporary China and Japan. Korean Buddhism thus appears to have been shaped more profoundly by Confucianism than Confucianism was by Buddhism—a dynamic that remains insufficiently explored.

Taken together, the Water and Land Ritual cannot be understood either as a direct embodiment of early Buddhist philosophy or as a purely social practice. Rather, as a historically layered configuration, it is best understood as a convergence of Sinicized doctrine, state patronage, institutional interests, and ritual performance. A historical-philosophical approach—one attentive to doctrinal genealogy, ritual practice, and institutional context—thus provides a more adequate framework than models privileging either reconstructed “original” Buddhism or purely anthropological explanation. Building on Gregory Schopen’s practice-centered methodology and Catherine Bell’s theory of ritualization, this approach foregrounds the intertwined historical and philosophical dimensions through which religious meaning, authority, and tradition are continually produced and renegotiated.

2. Conclusions

This article examines the Water and Land Ritual in Korea from the fifteenth century to the present, challenging the conventional assumption that Buddhist ritual practice directly embodies Buddhist doctrinal principles. Drawing on Buddhist scriptures, ritual manuals, official historical records, and literary anthologies, it combines textual analysis with fieldwork observation within a historical-philosophical framework. Focusing on the synthesis of Confucian and Buddhist conceptions of death, as observed at Samhwa and Paegun Monasteries, it challenges doctrine-centered interpretations of the ritual.

Building on the methodological insights of Gregory Schopen and Catherine Bell, this study adopts a historical-philosophical, practice-centered approach that foregrounds how religious meaning and authority are historically produced. The findings demonstrate that the ritual’s concern with warding off calamity, appeasing spirits, and securing worldly well-being does not extend early Buddhist doctrine, but instead reflects a reconfiguration shaped by frameworks aligned with Confucian cosmology and ethical concerns. Although ritual occupies a central place in East Asian Buddhism, key doctrinal concepts—emptiness, karma, compassion, intermediate existence, rebirth, and merit-making—remain only minimally operative in actual performance.

The Water and Land Ritual in Korea thus emerges as a historically contingent and Koreanized form of practice, shaped less by doctrinal coherence than by shifting social, political, and institutional conditions. Its philosophical elements lack clear doctrinal or empirical grounding and are instead structured by practical considerations, including patronage, financial imperatives, and the authority of tradition.

Moreover, Sŏn Buddhism is the dominant tradition in modern Korean Buddhism, and both Samhwa and Paegun Monasteries belong to Sŏn Buddhist orders. Despite their professed commitment to meditation, East Asian Zen Buddhist monasteries have a long history of actively performing Buddhist rituals. As in Song-dynasty China, the Water and Land Ritual was incorporated into the Zen tradition during the Koryŏ period and came to be performed on a large scale. High-ranking monks, including National and Royal Preceptors, officiated at the ritual (Kang 2013, p. 208). This tradition continues at modern Samhwa and Paegun Monasteries.70

The economic foundation of Korean monasteries depends not primarily on meditation or doctrinal instruction, but on the performance of Buddhist rituals, including the Water and Land Ritual. These rituals are sustained largely through the patronage of lay followers. The Buddha’s Birthday, celebrated on the eighth day of the fourth lunar month, remains the single most important annual source of monastery revenue. Together, these processes of Sinicization, ritualization, and institutional pragmatism generate enduring internal tensions, manifested in increasingly visible political dimensions and forms of secularization.

The ritual, therefore, cannot be reduced to an embodiment of Buddhist philosophy. It is more accurately understood as a historically layered configuration in which doctrine, patronage, and performance are strategically reconfigured. By re-centering analysis on historically situated practice, this study challenges assumptions of doctrinal coherence and contributes to ongoing debates on the relationship between doctrine and ritual in Buddhist studies.