[Author’s Note: This and ensuing sequels are excerpts of a new development from the original essay sequels on Korean Temple Bells and Magoism that first published January 11, 2013 in this current magazine. See (Bell Essay 1) Ancient Korean Bells and Magoism by Helen Hye-Sook Hwang.]
Sources and Methods of Studying the Magoist Whale Bell
It is not possible to present the topic in any comprehensive manner due to its complex and outlandish nature. As a whole, its elusive manifestations makes some of this essay’s premises provisional, leaving room for definite conclusions. I suggest that this essay be read as a primer to the large topic, Korean Magoist cetaceanism. I have built this essay on my previously published essay sequels on the Korean temple bell as well as my book, The Mago Way: Re-discovering the Great Goddess Mago from East Asia, on the Magoist Cosmogony.[1] It also draws from my forthcoming essay on Korean Magoist cetacean culture.
Importantly, I am indebted to the work of Sungkyu Kim, advocate of Korean cetaceanism, for his valuable insights on the Korean temple bell and Korean cetaceanism in general. While his cross-cultural assessments of ancient Korean cetacean customs are often compelling, his cetacean hermeneutic on the pacifying flute story is in particular indispensable in securing the evidence of Sillan cetacean worship by the generations of Sillan rulers. That said, however, what distinguishes this essay from his work lies in the recognition that Korean cetaceanism is not monolithic totem worship. I hold that Korean cetaceanism was born and flowered within the context of Old Magoism. Here Old Magoism refers to the pre-patriarchal (read pre-Chinese) tradition of East Asia that venerates the Great Goddess, Mago.[2] In turn, the cetacean consciousness of ancient East Asian Magoists enabled a revelation of the Magoist Cosmogony.
Thus, Korean cetaceanism is inextricably intertwined with the mytho-history of Magoism. It went underground, as the symbolic power of women inscribed in Magoism was removed from the public space in the course of history. In this light, Kim’s cetacean thought remains revisionist rather than reconstructionist, meaning not radical enough, unable to ask such critical questions as how the Sinocentric mytho-history of Korea or the Buddhist historiography has rendered Korean cetaceanism invisible and what that means to Koreans and the world. Most critically, Kim’s discussion of the Sillan whale bell and the pacifying flute underestimates their musical (read cosmogonic) implications. They are not of a mere musical instrument to call the whale to dance. True that the concept of music is much underestimated outside the context of the Magoist Cosmogony as a whole. The whale bell as well as the pacifying flute represents the regalia of Sillan Magoist rulers who undertook the Magoist mandate of bringing the terrestrial sonic resonance to harmonize the cosmic music of Yulryeo. The whale bell marks a new watershed wherein Sillan rulers successfully reinvented the legacy of Magoist shaman rulers of Old Magoism from the ancient inland mountain culture into the maritime culture of Silla.
Stories on the pacifying flute and Manbulsan (Mountain of Ten Thousand Buddhas), the two major myths directly concerning the cetacean code of Korean temple bells, are drawn from the Samguk Yusa (Memorabilia of the Three States), the 13th century text that recounts myths, legends, and historical events of ancient Korean States including Silla (57 BCE-935), Goguryeo (37 BCE-668), Baekje (18 BCE-660), and Gaya (42-562) from an orthodox Buddhist perspective.[3] To be noted is that the Samguk Yusa (1281), together with another official historical text of Korea, the Samguk Sagi (1145), is a Sinocentric text that tailors ancient Korean history and territory to fit the historical framework of China. As a Sinocentric text, the Samguk Yusa takes a pro-Chinese perspective and presents ancient Korea as a humble little brother who owes Imperial China for his civilized culture. In it, Korean history and territory are curtailed to fit those of Imperial China. Put differently, the Samguk Yusa is a product of a Buddhist evangelist author, Ilyeon (1206-1289), whose interest was in establishing Buddhism of China and India at the cost of traditional Korean Magoism.
Among modern Korean historians who are critical of Sinocentric Korean historiography is Sin Chaeho (1880-1936). As Sin’s advocacy of Korean ethnic historiography is largely aligned with the mytho-historical reconstruction of Magoism, I borrow his assessments of the Samguk Yusa and the Samguk Sagi here. Sin maintains that the loss of pre-Chinese Korean history primarily owes to the two survived Korean history books, the Samguk Yusa and the Samguk Sagi, that reduce and distort ancient Korean history. Precisely because of the Sinocentric (read patriarchal and imperialist) take, these two books have survived the persecution of pre-Chinese Korean Magoist historical books. Sin’s poignant criticism goes on to say that the Samguk Yusa employs the Sanskrit words for the names of people and places from the pre-Buddhist period of Wanggeom Joseon and that the Samguk Sagi ascribes Confucian phrases to the speech of Korean warriors who dismiss Confucius thought.[4] What Sin does not see is, however, that the authors of both books chose to be pro-Chinese or pro-Indian to subvert the female-centered tradition of Old Korea, Magoism. In short, they resort to Buddhism and Confucianism, the two major patriarchal religions of East Asia, respectively over against indigenous Magoism. The patriarchal time was waging a war against Magoists and life in general. I hold that both texts mark the milestones that escalated the process of patriarchalization in Korea, which took place much slowerly and later than in China.
Damage is not done to Korean history only. A lie brings more lies. In the case of the Samguk Yusa, the portrayal of Sillan Buddhism is distorted. On the surface, the Samguk Yusa treats Esoteric Buddhism as a reservoir of miraculous legendary stories that fertilized orthodox Buddhism. On a deeper level, it dismantles a tie between Magoist cetacean worship and Esoteric Buddhism. The Samguk Yusa’s Buddhist perspective aligned with the Sinocentric historical framework is inherently inadequate in defining Sillan Esoteric Buddhism. For Sillan Esoteric Buddhism does not neatly fit the androcentric model of the Mayahana and the Theravada traditions. History proves that the Samguk Yusa has accomplished its goal: The Mahayana and the Theravada branches (read androcentric schools) are normalized over against the Esoteric tradition, the Vajrayana or the Tantric, as well as pre-Buddhist Magoist faith practices (read gynocentric religious traditions). Consequently, Esoteric Buddhism remains mystified and misrepresented to this day as a derivative kind of Buddhism prone to corruption by being intermixed with Shamanism. Sillan Esoteric Buddhism was a creative response of the Sillan Magoist royal house to the escalating pressure of foreign-originated Buddhism in the 6th century by transmuting Magoism into a new form of Buddhism that celebrates traditional cetaceanism at the core. In short, the Sillan court forged a gynocentric Buddhism based on Magoist cetaceanism. And the temple bell is the hallmark of this syncretic religion of Sillan Magoist cetacean worship and the Vajrayna tradition. Discussing Sillan Esoteric Buddhism is a topic that escapes the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say that the Korean temple bell IS the Magoist cetacean emblem of Sillan Esoteric Buddhism. Our methods include the following; reading the text unspoken, debunking the preposition assumed, outsourcing lore and customs across borders, and applying the Magoist hermeneutical perspective consistently.
(To be continued)
(Meet Mago Contributor) Helen Hye-Sook Hwang, Ph.D.
[1] See Helen Hye-Sook Hwang, “Ancient Korean Bells and Magoism” in Return to Mago E-Magazine (January 11, 2013). https://www.magoism.net/2013/01/bell-essay-ancient-korean-bells-and-magoism-part-1-by-helen-hwang/ (Janunary 26, 2018). Also see Helen Hye-Sook Hwang, The Mago Way: Re-discovering the Great Goddess Mago from East Asia (Lytle Creek, CA: Mago Books 2015).
[2] For Old Magoism, see Helen Hye-Sook Hwang, “Goma, the Shaman Ruler of Old Magoist East Asia/Korea, and Her Mythology” in Goddesses in Myth, History and Culture, edited by Mary Ann Beavis and Helen Hye-Sook Hwang (Lytle Creek, CA: Mago Books, 2018), 256-258. I am using the color version of the book (ISBN-10: 1976331021) hereafter.
[3] I hold that the Three States in “Memorabilia of the Three States” refers to Three Hans or Three Joseons better known as Dangun Joseon, which I call Budo Joseon, not necessarily post-Budo states of Silla, Goguryeo, Baekje and Gaya, which are four not three.
[4] Sin Chaeho, Joseon Sanggosa (The Early History of Joseon), 12 volumes (Seoul: Jongro Seowon, 1948). https://bit.ly/2GSA9XJ (February 19, 2019).