April 3, 2025 – Day 46 of the 100-Day Dharma Talk, Sutra Lecture 8, Buddhist Social Studies Course Lecture 8
Hello. Today is the 46th day of Venerable Pomnyun Sunim’s 100-Day Dharma Talk. Today features both a sutra lecture and a Buddhist Social Studies Course lecture.
After completing his morning practice and meditation, Sunim headed to the Jungto Social and Cultural Center to deliver the sutra lecture.
About 120 people were seated in the third-floor Dharma hall, while approximately 560 people joined the live online broadcast. After the audience requested the Dharma talk with three full bows, Sunim took his seat on the Dharma platform.
Sunim first summarized the key points from the previous session on Chapter 13 of the Diamond Sutra before beginning his explanation of Chapter 14.
“Chapter 14 of the Diamond Sutra, ‘離相寂滅分’ (Leaving Appearances to Reach Tranquility), is about ‘departing from appearances to reach serenity.’ Chapter 14 introduces the perfection of patience (忍辱波羅蜜). When we face unjust treatment and suppress the urge to seek revenge out of anger, we call this ‘enduring humiliation’ (忍辱). This kind of patience involves having something to endure. However, patience without anything to endure is called ‘the perfection of patience’ (忍辱波羅蜜).
Mother-in-Law’s Nagging Is Making Me Miserable
For example, let’s say a mother-in-law constantly nags her daughter-in-law. If the daughter-in-law can’t bear it and talks back, conflict arises between them. But if she endures the nagging, thinking, ‘This will pass eventually,’ people might say, ‘That daughter-in-law is so patient. She’s like a Bodhisattva of patience.’ However, there are limits to patience. If the situation continues, she will eventually explode, or if she keeps suppressing her feelings, she’ll become ill. When you suppress too much anger, your neck becomes stiff, you get headaches, and your vision becomes blurry. This is called ‘hwa-byung’ (anger syndrome). In the old days, women who faced difficulties after marriage would often release their anger at the washing place, beating clothes with washing paddles while freely cursing their mothers-in-law and husbands. In psychology, when anger syndrome becomes severe, therapists might suggest venting anger on substitute objects or allowing the person to curse freely as a form of release. This isn’t because expressing anger is good, but because suppressed anger has already caused illness and needs treatment. Without such release, it could develop into mental disorders. However, this kind of patience has side effects. You might not experience immediate consequences, but they accumulate and eventually manifest as side effects. You might receive praise from others, but you yourself suffer. If expressing anger hurts others, suppressing anger hurts yourself. In spiritual practice, you should neither hurt others nor yourself.
What is the perfection of patience? It means listening quietly to your mother-in-law and accepting that “Actually, there’s something to learn here.” When your mother-in-law says, “Why didn’t you iron the underwear?” or “This vegetable should be boiled, not stir-fried,” it’s easy to hear it as nagging. But if you think about it, your mother-in-law raised your husband. She knows more about him than you do. From this perspective, you begin to understand why your husband frowns every morning. You might have thought he was just a difficult person, but through your mother-in-law’s words, you realize, “So this was his childhood habit. That’s why he always frowns.” With this mindset, you learn more when your mother-in-law visits. In fact, if she nags less, you should ask her to nag more. When your mind shifts like this, your mother-in-law’s words no longer cause stress. Others might think, “That mother-in-law nags so much, but the daughter-in-law is so patient.” But if you ask the daughter-in-law, she’ll say, “My mother-in-law is wonderful.” This is the perfection of patience. Through patience, you actually move toward a world without suffering. Patience doesn’t become suffering or self-sacrifice; rather, it becomes learning and joy. Others may say you’re practicing patience, but if you think, “I’m practicing patience right now,” then you’re merely enduring. That’s why it’s important to understand the deeper meaning of the perfection of patience.
Similarly, the perfection of giving (dana paramita) doesn’t simply mean the act of giving, but giving with the heart of repaying a debt, saying “Thank you for accepting” as you give. In the Diamond Sutra, this is called “giving without attachment to form” (無住相布施). Only when practicing giving without attachment does it become the perfection of giving. Merely giving something is just ordinary giving. When we give, we often want to receive something in return, with interest. But this is only half-giving, not complete giving. Seeds of suffering still remain in this kind of giving. True giving happens naturally, like a bird eating fruit or a bee pollinating flowers—giving that leaves no trace of the act itself. When no impression remains from the act of giving, that is the perfection of giving. This is the content of Chapter 14 of the Diamond Sutra, “Dwelling in Peace through Non-attachment to Form.” 
Continuing, Sunim read and explained chapters 15 and 16 of the Diamond Sutra.
Chapter 15, ‘The Merit of Upholding the Sutra,’ discusses the great merit gained from reciting and upholding the Diamond Sutra. It means that just having the Diamond Sutra present causes all devas, humans, and asuras to come and make offerings and pay homage as if to a stupa of the Buddha. Needless to say, the merit of reciting and upholding this sutra would be even greater. However, in reality, even while reciting and upholding the Diamond Sutra, we may still be criticized and insulted by others. What might you think then? You might doubt and think, ‘This is all lies.’ But what happens when people point fingers and insult you despite your recitation of the Diamond Sutra? Due to negative karma created unknowingly in past lives, you should rightfully go to hell, but through people’s criticism and insults, that karma dissolves completely. In this way, being criticized and insulted actually becomes beneficial. This leads to an attitude of ‘Please insult me more!’ This is the essence of Chapter 16, ‘Purification of Evil Karma.’
When You Face Criticism After Doing Good Deeds
In the Korean folktale “Heungbu and Nolbu,” there’s a story where Heungbu goes to his older brother Nolbu’s house to ask for rice. His sister-in-law slaps his left cheek with a rice paddle, leaving grains of rice stuck to his face. Heungbu then eats the rice grains from his cheek and offers his right cheek, asking to be slapped there as well. Jesus also said, “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also!” In some ways, Heungbu’s example might even surpass Jesus’s teaching. When Heungbu ate the rice grains from his left cheek and said, “Please slap this side too!” he was likely feeling joy rather than anger. When we willingly accept criticism from others like Heungbu did, resentment and afflictions do not arise, and our negative karma dissolves.
Similarly, when you properly receive and uphold the Diamond Sutra and understand the principle that all phenomena are empty (śūnya), you will not be shaken by circumstances. So when you face criticism or insults, don’t discriminate between right and wrong, correct and incorrect. The Diamond Sutra teaches that if you face insults while reciting and upholding the sutra, it means that negative karma from past lives is being eliminated, so you should willingly accept it. 
Chapter 16, “The Chapter on the Ability to Purify Karmic Hindrances,” explains how one can purify all karmic hindrances. In other words, this sutra has the power to eliminate all karmic hindrances and make them pure.
This sentence means that the meaning of the Diamond Sutra is difficult for us to comprehend with our minds, and the merits that arise from reciting and upholding the Diamond Sutra are also beyond our comprehension.
Do Not Form Any Conception
This concludes Chapter 16 of the Diamond Sutra, which marks the end of the first half. The second half begins again from the beginning. Chapter 17, “The Chapter on Ultimate Non-self,” starts with Subhuti asking the Buddha another question.
“World-Honored One! If good men and good women give rise to the mind of Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi, how should they abide and how should they subdue their minds?” 
This is the same question that appeared in Chapter 2 of the Diamond Sutra, “The Chapter on Subhuti’s Request.” Why did Subhuti ask the same question again? After hearing the Dharma teaching about letting go of attachments, he formed a new conception of “having let go of attachments.” This too must be broken. Ultimately, the core teaching of the Diamond Sutra is “Do not form any conception.” By repeating the same content, the sutra emphasizes that sentient beings should let go of their attachment to conceptions.
After this, everyone recited Chapters 14 through 16 of the Diamond Sutra together to the rhythm of the moktak wooden instrument, reflecting on their meaning once more before concluding the lecture.
The participants gathered in groups for mindful sharing, while Sunim moved to the dining hall on the first basement floor to have lunch with the Sangha.
From 2 PM, Sunim held consecutive meetings with social figures who visited The Peace Foundation. By the time the meetings were over, the day had come to an end.
As the sun set, at 7:30 PM, Sunim gave the 8th lecture of the Buddhist Social Studies Course in the main hall on the basement floor of the Jungto Social and Cultural Center. In the previous session, participants learned about Buddhist values under the theme “Life’s Compass for Navigating the World.” Today’s lecture topic was “What is Justice from a Buddhist Perspective?”
Sunim began the lecture by offering his own definition of what it means to be just from a Buddhist perspective.
“The Buddha never directly stated ‘This is justice.’ So how should we understand today’s concept of ‘justice’ from a Buddhist perspective? Buddhism does not clearly define concepts by saying ‘This is it.’ This is because Buddhism takes the view that ‘nothing is fixed.’ In Buddhism, being ‘just’ is more important than ‘justice.’ The concept of being ‘just’ can be explained more clearly from a Buddhist perspective.
What is Justice from a Buddhist Perspective?
From a Buddhist perspective, when there is an unequal state in reality, if we move even slightly toward a more equal state, that can be considered ‘just.’ We cannot simply assert that ‘justice is equality,’ but we can express the process of moving toward equality as being ‘just.’ This is consistent with the overall teachings of Buddhism. 
What kinds of inequality do we face in reality? Broadly speaking, there are two types. First, there is inequality that stems from conditions determined at birth that individuals cannot change. The inequality that comes from this can be expressed as ‘discrimination.’ Second, there is inequality that arises from differences that gradually widen as we live our lives after birth. The inequality that comes from this can be expressed as ‘unfairness.’ Thus, inequality includes both ‘discrimination’ and ‘unfairness.’
What are some examples of unequal conditions from birth? First, there is social status or class. In India, people were traditionally divided into classes: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras, and Untouchables. In old Korea as well, people were divided into classes such as royalty, nobility, middle class, commoners, and the lowest class, and their living conditions varied completely according to their class. Second, there is gender. In the past, being born female meant not being treated properly as a human being. One might wonder if princesses were treated differently, but that was like a rich family’s dog living comfortably. No matter how much of a princess one was, she was not treated as a complete human being. In this way, patriarchy centered on men and the class system centered on social status dominated society in the past.
Globally, there are five major forms of discrimination, known as the five major discriminations. First, class or status discrimination. Second, gender discrimination. Third, racial discrimination. Fourth, ethnic discrimination. Fifth, religious discrimination. These discriminations continue in various parts of the world today. Overlapping with these five but slightly different is ‘minority discrimination.’ People have been discriminated against for no reason other than being few in number, being considered as punished by God, or being seen as pathological. Minority ethnic groups have been discriminated against by mainstream society, as have minority religions and minority races. People with disabilities have been discriminated against as abnormal, and in our society in particular, homosexuals are discriminated against as sinful. 
The Buddha Who Eliminated Class and Gender Discrimination 2600 Years Ago
How did the Buddha view such discrimination? The Buddha saw all people as equal. The most problematic issues in India at that time were class discrimination and gender discrimination. The Buddha opened the path of renunciation to lower-class people and women as well. By renouncing the secular life, those from lower classes could escape the shackles of the caste system, and women could be liberated from the male-dominated society. At that time, slaves from lower classes had masters, and women also had men as their masters. However, renunciation was a path for anyone, whether from a lower class or a woman, to become the master of their own life. This meant both “class liberation” and “women’s liberation.”
The Buddha took a very critical stance toward the class discrimination of his time. In the scriptures, there is a scene where seven princes of the Shakya clan were reluctant to bow to Upali, who was from the Sudra class and had renounced before them, and the Buddha reprimanded them. The renunciants of that time had to abandon class consciousness to become monastics. Regarding female ordination, there was strong opposition even within the Sangha. Eventually, the deep-rooted gender discrimination led to the abolition of the female ordination system 500 years after the Buddha’s passing. Despite such social environment, the Buddha permitted women to renounce secular life. 
Throughout history, many of these walls of discrimination have crumbled in modern times. However, gender discrimination still remains a significant barrier and continues to be a source of social conflict. From a Buddhist perspective, justice means that people should not be discriminated against for any reason, whether it be physical disability, gender identity, sexuality, skin color, or social class. It is particularly unjust to discriminate against people based on characteristics they are born with. Such discrimination must be eliminated.
Are Opportunities Equal, Processes Fair, and Results Equitable?
Yet in many parts of the world, there still exists a culture where sons are educated through university while daughters receive only basic education. This was once common in Korea and remains prevalent in Southeast Asia today. Wealthy families provide more educational opportunities for their children, while poor families cannot offer sufficient educational opportunities. This is not so much discrimination as it is an issue of unfairness. Everyone competes without discrimination, but the conditions of competition are advantageous for some and disadvantageous for others. This can be described as a problem of unequal opportunity. When we apply the concept of equality to opportunity, we express it as “equal opportunity.” Justice means equal opportunities for everyone.
In our society today, opportunities are not equal. Not everyone is given the same chance. Beyond opportunities, there are also questions of “Is the process fair?” and “Are the results equitable?” In our society, there are still many instances where people are treated unfairly because they are foreigners or women. People are sometimes evaluated based on their academic background rather than their abilities. These are examples of “unfairness.” We must examine whether opportunities, processes, and results are fair. 
What does fairness in outcomes mean? For example, seven children are having a running race. In the past, when we were poor, only the first, second, and third place winners received prizes, while the remaining four received nothing. If there were six pencils to distribute as prizes, first place would get three, second place would get two, third place would get one, and those who didn’t place in the top three would receive nothing.
But what if there were 20 pencils available as prizes? Following the old method, first place would get 10, second place would get 7, third place would get 3, and the remaining four children would receive nothing. In this case, we feel it’s unfair. So how could we distribute the prizes more equitably? First, we could give each of the seven participants one pencil as a basic allocation. After distributing these 7 pencils, 13 remain. From these, we could give 7 additional pencils to first place, 4 to second place, and 2 to third place. Since everyone started with one pencil, first place ends up with 8 pencils, second place with 5, third place with 3, and everyone else with 1 pencil each. This distribution of pencils can be considered relatively fair. Providing something basic to all participants regardless of winning or losing—this is what we call a “basic right.”
The same principle applies to our real lives. We should provide equal opportunities whenever possible. While perfect equality may not be achievable, at least “opportunities” should be open to everyone. For example, it’s desirable to provide identical uniforms, school bags, and shoes to all children entering elementary school. At least during school hours, no one should feel inequality. However, items shouldn’t just look the same but differ significantly in quality. In this respect, boarding school life is the best approach, as children can grow up together without experiencing disparities. The idea is to provide equal opportunities during childhood, and later allow individuals to follow different paths according to their capabilities. Common education could be provided through middle school, and from high school onward, paths may diverge based on individual abilities and family circumstances. Which university one attends or what benefits one receives will inevitably differ according to individual choices and situations. We cannot make everything completely equal. The approach should be to guarantee basic equality during childhood, then allow free competition afterward, while using tax and fiscal policies to prevent excessive imbalances. This is how we can eliminate unfairness and move toward equality. 
When we become too old to live independently, we need assistance from others. In other words, we require care. At this point, regardless of how much wealth an individual has accumulated, all assets should be contributed to the state, and everyone should receive care based on the same standard. Currently, Austria in Europe actually implements such a system. Those without assets can enter care facilities for free, while those with assets, say 1 billion won, contribute this to the state before entering a care facility. Inside these facilities, everyone receives identical services. Necessary personnel such as doctors and caregivers are assigned, and the state takes responsibility for all aspects of life until death. In such a society, people are less likely to complain even if they pay slightly higher taxes. This is because they can receive almost free medical treatment when sick and the state provides protection when disasters strike.
Extreme Wealth Disparity and the Collapse of the Middle Class
In the 1980s, it became a topic of discussion when the income gap widened to the point where the top 20 percent matched the bottom 80 percent. At some point, it was reported that the top 10 percent was comparable to the remaining 90 percent, and now the gap has widened to the extent that the top 1 percent nearly equals the income of the remaining 99 percent.
According to recent statistics, globally, the top 1.2 percent owns 47.8 percent of the total wealth. This can be viewed as nearly half. If we take the exact middle point and add up all the income and assets owned by half of humanity, it amounts to only 1 percent of the total income. 
As this wealth gap widens, doing business with the top 1 percent becomes far more advantageous than targeting the bottom 50 percent in terms of income. It could be considered almost 50 times better. Consequently, money concentrates in one direction, inevitably leading to upscale trends. When wealth flows to one side, luxury and hedonism intensify and become increasingly high-end. Looking at Korea’s housing market, we see that luxury homes have more active transactions than modest homes. Price-wise, luxury homes appreciate much more significantly. Properties in Apgujeong-dong increase in value much more than affordable housing in provincial areas. That’s why people say owning one house in Gangnam is better than owning ten houses in a provincial city. This phenomenon occurs because money flows in one direction. The prices of items that wealthy people invest in, such as art, gold, and antiques, increase significantly. Therefore, to make money, businesses increasingly pursue upscale products because that’s where the money flows.
This phenomenon is not limited to the wealthy. It’s a society-wide trend. People may eat a simple kimbap roll for lunch while working at their companies, but when they go on vacation once a year, they stay at luxury hotels overseas. As a result, mid-to-low-priced accommodations all go out of business. This is what happens when wealth concentrates in one direction.
If this trend continues, the path to making a living through self-employment becomes increasingly narrow. While the growth of online shopping is one factor, there’s an overall decrease in mid-to-low-priced consumption. Everyone lives frugally in their daily lives but seeks only luxury items when they do spend, causing businesses dealing with mid-to-low-priced products to collapse. As this continues, the dissatisfaction of the majority low-income population grows, and at some point, the latent anger explodes, sometimes resulting in riots. 
Is Equal Distribution Always Just?
The issue of unfairness is not an absolute concept but a relative one. For example, if hunting alone yields one rabbit, while two people cooperating can catch three rabbits, then cooperation is better from a production standpoint. However, even though cooperation increases production, it doesn’t necessarily mean your individual income increases. This is because distribution is a variable factor. If one person takes all three rabbits, then working alone would have been better. Therefore, distribution is crucial for sustainable cooperation. We often mistakenly think that economy is all about production activities, but this is incorrect. In economics, production and distribution are equally important; neither can be considered more important than the other. We shouldn’t emphasize distribution without production, nor should we emphasize production while distorting distribution.
When two people hunt rabbits together, from a distribution perspective, the minimum one person can take is one rabbit, and the maximum is two rabbits. Realistically, it’s possible for one person to take all three, but when the concept of distribution is applied, the range for fair distribution falls between one and two rabbits per person. If distribution falls outside this range, cooperation breaks down. So, would dividing the rabbits equally at 1.5 each be equitable? Not necessarily. The concept of equity can vary depending on each person’s contribution to the hunt. 
So the distribution is made according to one’s contribution to the hunt, ranging from one to two rabbits per person. However, if one person takes more than two rabbits, it becomes exploitation. In ancient slave societies, slaves were exploited. The upper class lived by exploiting others, while slaves lived being exploited. The ruling class used what they exploited from slaves to build massive mansions and enjoy all kinds of luxuries. But wealth obtained this way doesn’t last long. Therefore, a distribution of one to two rabbits out of three can be considered an equal society. Anything beyond this can be called an unequal society.
In reality, we must accept some degree of difference. We can establish standards for how much wage difference between lower-income and higher-income earners should be permitted. If people working the same hours have a tenfold difference in wages, that could be considered a huge gap. But in today’s Korean society, the difference might be a hundredfold or even more. If a worker receives a monthly salary of 5 million won, someone making a hundred times more would earn 500 million won, and some CEOs at large corporations might earn even more when stock options are calculated. Such a society can be called unfair.
When discussing fairness, we shouldn’t base it solely on absolute equality. Conversely, acknowledging some inequality in reality doesn’t mean we should accept everything. For a society to be healthy, it’s better when this range is relatively narrow. Small differences can motivate people and make earning money enjoyable. Just as having a small reward when doing something makes us work harder, it can bring vitality. So these small differences are fine in reality, but we should maintain the perspective that if the gap becomes too wide, society loses its vitality.” 
Today was a time to learn about what it means to implement justice. After taking a question from one student, Sunim concluded the eighth session of the Buddhist Social Studies Course.
Participants gathered in groups for mindful sharing. During this time, they were able to reflect once more on what they had learned today.
Tomorrow will be the 47th day of the 100-Day Dharma Talk. In the morning, Sunim will conduct the Friday Dharma Q&A for the daytime session in the basement auditorium of the Jungto Social and Cultural Center, followed by the evening session of the Friday Dharma Q&A.
