Political Tool of “Immoral Rituals” and Resilience of Buddhism in Chosŏn Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confucians in Chosŏn Korea (1392–1910) employed the notion of “immoral rituals” as a tool to control Buddhist and shamanic rituals in a selective manner. In Confucian terms, immoral rituals specified those that were dedicated to “ghosts or deities who do not deserve worship”, and, in most cases, they referred to non-Confucian prayer rituals. Buddhist prayer rituals (and shamanic rituals) were largely subject to control by Confucian state officials. Through the Confucian prism of immoral rituals, this article explores the question of which aspects of Buddhist rituals were denounced by the Confucian critics and which goals the Confucians tried to achieve by wielding the tool of immoral rituals against Buddhism. Based on an analysis of four episodes in which Buddhist prayer rituals were denounced as immoral rituals, the article suggests that the Confucians tried to construct a new collective identity of distinction and privilege, to keep in check the royal family and, by extension, the sovereign, to control the female body, and, in collaboration with the king, to suppress people’s discontent with governance. In this process, Buddhism—caught in the politics of immoral rituals, as this article suggests—nevertheless remained vibrant by conducting prayer rituals in the social margins. And for their part, Confucians benefited by continuing to exploit the notion of immoral rituals up to the end of the dynasty. The trajectory of immoral rituals reflected how Buddhism functioned and evolved in Chosŏn Korea.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".