. esoteric buddhism under the chosn 639
and intone the dhāraṇī called “limitless majestic virtue, self-so brilliance
and victorious wonder and strength” as taught by our Śākyamuni.^41 What
are the three virtues that this one food-transforming mantra commands?
The “limitless majestic virtue of the self-so” is the liberating virtue. “Bril-
liance” is the virtue of prajñā, and, as for “victorious wonder,” it is the
virtue of the dharmakāya. “Strength” is the strength and function of
these three virtues [together].^42 Dhāraṇī means to maintain and to hold
(ch’ongji ). The maintenance and holding of the three virtues simply
rests on the One Mind. The three virtues of the One Mind, the dharma,
and the Complete Wonder (wŏnmyŏ ) are not different in essence.
Hence the mind is the mantra, and the mantra is the food. (HPC vol. 7,
598a–599b)Following the same logical reduction as we saw above, Pou here
explains how the practitioner’s focused mind and the mantras he
intones are not separate. Hence the mind of the practitioner and the
mantras he intones are not only unified through the sharing of the
same essence, they are actually identical. In this way Pou succeeded in
establishing a viable, doctrinal fusion of Sŏn soteriology and Esoteric
Buddhist practices.^43
Chŏnghŏ Hyujŏng (1520–1604), better known as Great
Master Sŏsan , and one of the most highly venerated Sŏn
monks in the history of Korean Buddhism, was also an adept of Eso-
teric Buddhist practice and liturgy, perhaps more so than Pou. The
Esoteric Buddhist “side” of Hyujŏng’s personality is not so well known,
and has in any case been largely neglected.^44 One possible reason for
(^41) This dhāraṇī is taught by Śākyamuni Buddha to Ānanda in the important Foshuo
jiuba yankou egui tuoluoni jing (Dhāraṇī Scripture on Feeding the Hungry Ghosts).
Cf. T. 1313.21:464c. See also Orzech 1994a, 51–72. The reference to the dhāraṇī from
this scripture may be taken as an indication that Pou was discussing the ritual proce-
dures of a 42 suryuk or Kamnŏ type of ritual.
This constitutes a Sŏn Buddhist interpretation of the three mysteries (sammil
) expounded in Zhenyan Buddhism of the Tang. See Orzech, “Esoteric Buddhism
in the Tang: From Atikūta to Amoghavajra (651–780),” in this volume. ̣
(^43) It is probably correct to say that Esoteric Buddhism was not a major feature
in Hŏung Pou’s teachings, but its presence can nevertheless be felt in much of his
writings. Hence, we may conclude that during his time Esoteric Buddhist practice
was in the process of becoming fully absorbed into Sŏn Buddhism to such a degree
that it was no longer seen as an “external” element or in any way incompatible with
accepted doctrine. This development of course reflects the general harmonization
and compatibility that was achieved with the integration of doctrinal studies and
Sŏn practice during the second half of the Chosŏn, a feature that was in fact further
strengthened as the dynasty wore on. See, for example, Kim 1992, 623–80. See also
U 1985, 139–82.
(^44) For one of the first papers of significance devoted to this aspect of Hyŭjŏng’s
teachings, see Sin 1984, 744–46.