Apr 9, 2025 – Day 52 of the 100-Day Dharma Talk, Weekly Dharma Assembly, New Dharma Teacher Training
Hello. Today is the 52nd day of Venerable Pomnyun Sunim’s 100-Day Dharma Talk. Out of the total 105 days of the 100-Day Dharma Talk, today marks exactly the halfway point.
After completing his morning practice and meditation, Sunim headed to the Jungto Social and Cultural Center for the Weekly Dharma Assembly. Spring is in full bloom. Cherry blossoms, lilacs, and magnolias are flourishing throughout downtown Seoul.
At 10:15 AM, with about 180 people gathered in the third-floor Dharma hall, the Weekly Dharma Assembly began with the recitation of the Three Refuges and the Heart Sutra. Jungto Society members also joined online through a video conference. The assembly formally requested Sunim’s Dharma talk with three bows.
Last week, former President Yoon Seok-yeol was removed from office following a Constitutional Court ruling. Immediately after the impeachment verdict, Sunim spoke at a Dharma Q&A session, stating that “to prevent such misfortunes from recurring, we must address the problems of the imperial presidency.” He discussed the necessity of constitutional reform for South Korea’s resurgence. The National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik also mentioned the need for constitutional reform as a forward-looking alternative to resolve the four months of conflict over impeachment. During this process, some Jungto Society members raised questions about the current political situation.
Sunim began his Dharma talk by addressing questions from Jungto Society members one by one, including the illegality of martial law, the national division over impeachment, and the necessity of constitutional reform. Regarding constitutional reform, he explained in detail why this discussion is happening now.
“When I mentioned constitutional reform in the last assembly, someone asked me, ‘If the problem arose because the president did something wrong, shouldn’t we just replace the president? Why do we need constitutional reform?’ They questioned why I was suddenly bringing up constitutional reform at this particular moment.
For someone unfamiliar with our history, this question is understandable. However, I haven’t suddenly started talking about constitutional reform. For the past ten years, I’ve consistently emphasized the need for constitutional reform to reduce the harmful effects of the imperial presidency. So this issue isn’t being raised out of nowhere.
How can we prevent the recurring tragedies of the imperial presidency?
In our country, too much power is concentrated in the hands of one person—the president. Most national agenda items are decided by the president and his closest advisors. As a result, the country remains divided, and with each change of administration, we see a recurring pattern: presidents being impeached, imprisoned, or their close associates being detained.
Looking at modern South Korean history, eight presidents have met unfortunate ends. This suggests that whoever becomes the next president also has a high probability of ending up in prison. After a long period of dictatorship, as our country entered the era of democratization, we saw alternating periods of conservative and progressive rule: Presidents Roh Tae-woo and Kim Young-sam, followed by Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, then Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye—each side holding power for two terms. More recently, Presidents Moon Jae-in and Yoon Seok-yeol each served one term, with the latter not even completing his full term. This pattern suggests the next president might also fail to complete their term. That’s why I’m advocating for change—to prevent such misfortunes regardless of who becomes president. The unfortunate history experienced by eight former presidents wasn’t solely due to their personal failings.
If all eight cases were purely due to the presidents’ personal shortcomings, then the citizens who elected them would also bear responsibility. While a president’s personal qualities are certainly important, I believe these recurring tragedies stem from systemic issues. Unless we change the structure that concentrates enormous power in one person, any president will likely face the same tragic fate. To fundamentally prevent such misfortunes, we must improve the system. The problem arises because too much authority is concentrated in a single individual—the president.
Constitutional reform discussions aren’t new. Proposals for constitutional amendments began during the late President Roh Moo-hyun’s administration. The intention was to distribute the power concentrated in the president and establish an institutional foundation for cooperative governance to prevent national division. However, since this was proposed toward the end of President Roh’s term, the leading opposition candidate who was likely to become the next president opposed it, and the reform didn’t materialize. Since then, presidential candidates have repeatedly promised to amend the constitution during their terms, but once elected, they prioritize other national reforms and the issue fades away. Then, when they try to pursue constitutional reform after the midpoint of their term, the potential successor to power opposes it. This pattern has repeated through five administrations, with each passing the responsibility for constitutional reform to the next. From this history, we can guess who advocates for constitutional reform and who delays it. Regardless of party affiliation, those with favorable election prospects oppose reform, while those at a disadvantage support it. This cycle has continued to the present day.
The 1987 constitutional amendment is considered a very important event in modern Korean history and a symbol of democratization. At that time, the direct presidential election system was established through the will of the people who wanted to elect the president with their own hands. However, while the election method changed to direct voting, there was a limitation in that the “imperial powers granted to the president” did not differ significantly from the presidential system during the dictatorship era. As a result, we are repeatedly experiencing the national misfortune of incumbent presidents being impeached due to the misuse of presidential authority.
Dispersing Presidential Power and Implementing Cabinet-Centered Responsible Politics
From the perspective of those who gain power, the more authority they have, the better, so even those who advocated for constitutional amendments change their stance as they get closer to being elected. Former President Yoon Seok-yeol was no exception. Eventually, he ended up being impeached after abusing his power. That’s why we need to adjust some of the presidential authority. As you all know, the president and the Blue House staff hold all decision-making power in state affairs. In today’s South Korea, the prime minister and cabinet ministers are little more than figureheads. The prime minister should have substantial responsibility for some administrative matters, and ministers should also be given authority. This way, when major problems arise, the president doesn’t have to take all the responsibility; instead, the prime minister and ministers can be held accountable. However, currently, when tragic accidents occur, the public doesn’t demand accountability from ministers or the prime minister because they are merely figureheads. They only demand that the president take full responsibility. That’s why it’s not easy for presidents to complete their five-year terms.
To solve this problem, some presidential powers need to be transferred to the cabinet. The idea is that the president directly oversees external affairs (外治) such as defense, diplomacy, security, and unification, while the prime minister oversees internal affairs (內治) such as education, economy, health, and labor. When things go wrong, the minister takes responsibility first, and if things go seriously wrong, the prime minister takes responsibility. Currently, among the 38 OECD countries, only six countries—South Korea, the United States, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, and Türkiye—have adopted the presidential system. The 32 countries classified as advanced nations operate their states with power-dispersed systems such as parliamentary cabinet systems or semi-presidential systems.
Of course, after enduring a long period of dictatorship, there is a deep-seated desire among our citizens to directly elect the president. So regardless of whether a parliamentary system is better or worse, people are reluctant to give up the direct presidential election system. However, for a country of our size, a cabinet system would be more appropriate. This is because stable governance requires addressing diverse public demands through multi-party cooperation. Considering the current public sentiment, it would be difficult to gain citizens’ consent to completely change from a presidential to a parliamentary system. That’s why I’m proposing to “transfer some presidential powers to the cabinet!” This is not suggesting a full parliamentary system.
Even now, the Prime Minister is supposed to recommend cabinet ministers. However, the Prime Minister has no real authority, and when the President exercises power, it’s merely following legal procedures. As we saw with the recent declaration of martial law, although it should have gone through a cabinet meeting, didn’t the President make the decision unilaterally? So I’m proposing that the cabinet should bear more responsibility. You seem to misunderstand that I’m advocating for a parliamentary system because I used the word “cabinet.” What I’m suggesting is giving ministers, as cabinet members, more authority so they can work with greater accountability.
The President is the head of state representing the country. When a head of state is impeached, it causes tremendous damage to national interests, such as the inability to participate in summit meetings. Therefore, we need to protect the head of state, and one way to do this is to give ministers authority and make them accountable when problems arise. In other words, transfer some presidential powers to the cabinet and shift some central powers to local governments. Similarly, to prevent local governors from ruling like kings, some powers of provincial governors should be distributed to municipal leaders, who in turn should delegate authority to residents. For example, if a waste disposal facility is to be built in our neighborhood, the county mayor should not decide directly but should go through a residents’ vote. This way, we can bring democracy closer to people’s everyday lives.
This has nothing to do with being conservative or progressive. Everyone who has served as the Speaker of the National Assembly, all former Prime Ministers, and most politicians agree with this. Those who disagree are mostly people close to power. This proposal is not intended to benefit or harm specific individuals. It’s a proposal to change the system minimally to create a foundation for ending winner-takes-all politics.
Why We Need an One-Point Constitutional Amendment Before the Presidential Election
Why is now, before the presidential election, the right time for constitutional reform? Based on past experience, there’s a high probability that constitutional amendments won’t happen after the presidential election. That’s why we’re proposing to focus first on just “dispersing presidential powers and creating a flexible constitution” before the election. A flexible constitution means making constitutional amendments easier to implement. We cannot change everything at once. Constitutional reform needs to happen in two stages. Before the election, we should make an One-point amendment focusing only on dispersing presidential powers and creating a flexible constitution. The remaining numerous issues can be addressed after the election. Constitutional amendments needed to address institutional improvements for overcoming the climate crisis or guaranteeing citizens’ basic rights in response to wealth inequality can be gradually implemented after the election. Making even these minimal amendments now will help prevent recurring misfortunes. I am making this proposal because I hope that the entire nation will no longer have to pay the price for the mistakes and excessive concentration of power in the hands of those who hold authority.
Would constitutional reform now disadvantage the leading candidate for the next presidency? Not at all. Since the Democratic Party currently holds the majority, if the National Assembly elects the Prime Minister, naturally someone from the Democratic Party would become Prime Minister. So if we consider presidential authority as 100, moving about 20 of that authority to the cabinet doesn’t transfer power to another party. Ultimately, it’s a redistribution within their own sphere of influence. By relinquishing some power, those who have criticized them for being authoritarian may develop a more positive perspective. Therefore, there’s nothing to lose. Conversely, would the People Power Party, the relative minority, be at a disadvantage? Since the People Power Party currently has lower chances of winning this election, dispersing presidential powers might actually be advantageous for them. And if they win the parliamentary elections a few years later, they could secure part of that power, making them likely to support constitutional reform. Until now, if the opposition agreed, the ruling party opposed, and if the ruling party agreed, the opposition opposed. But now, no side would be disadvantaged by constitutional reform. That’s why this is the perfect opportunity for constitutional amendment.
Beyond Partisan Interests: A Path for the Future of the People and the Nation
The Buddha left home with questions like “Why must one die for another to live?” and “Isn’t there a way for all to live together?” and eventually attained enlightenment. That’s why I propose a path where everyone can benefit. Yet people constantly try to act in ways where one gains at another’s expense. Constitutional reform is a method where both sides benefit. The ruling party benefits, the opposition benefits. The people benefit, and the nation regains stability. The likelihood of accepting election results also increases, as absolute power tends to face stronger resistance and refusal to concede.
Why do some people oppose constitutional reform? First, they claim there isn’t enough time. However, after speaking with many lawmakers and constitutional scholars, I’ve found that constitutional amendments focused on dispersing presidential powers could be completed in just one day.
Second, some argue that rooting out those who aided in rebellion should take priority. But rooting out such forces has no relation to constitutional reform. The National Assembly can form a special committee for constitutional reform, put it to a national referendum, implement it if passed, or abandon it if rejected. Even if the ruling and opposition parties can’t reach an agreement in the National Assembly, the process can be dropped. Therefore, there’s no reason for a presidential candidate to refuse this approach. The work of eliminating those who aided in rebellion can continue separately. However, this elimination cannot happen overnight. Just as a president who violates the constitution and declares an illegal state of emergency cannot be immediately removed from office, the same applies to those who aided in rebellion. Criminal proceedings must go through three levels of courts before a verdict is reached and elimination occurs. The true path to eliminating such forces is to capture the centrist vote and increase the chances of election victory. Even after being elected, legal procedures must be followed; one cannot eliminate at will. Therefore, there is no connection between eliminating those who aided in rebellion and constitutional reform.
To Prevent the Recurrence of the Unfortunate Presidential Impeachment
The reason I’m saying we need to amend the constitution now is to prevent future misfortunes. To eradicate those who aided in the rebellion, whether investigated by the police or prosecutors, or judged by the courts, legal procedures must be followed. Currently, from the Acting President to all cabinet ministers, people appointed by the previous administration remain in position—can a purge really happen now? Eradicating those who aided in the rebellion is only possible after winning an election. And while one side calls it eradication, to the opposing side, it inevitably sounds like retaliation. Therefore, we should strive to embrace the opposition and move toward integration. Those who clearly deserve disciplinary action can be handled within the judicial framework going forward.
There are no values that can be called absolute good or absolute evil. All values are relative. Nevertheless, Buddhism pursues universality as much as possible. In this respect, we too should strive for universality. We should be mindful that when we laugh, someone else might be crying. It is not appropriate for practitioners learning the Buddha’s teachings to vehemently advocate for purging opponents. Of course, as citizens of the Republic of Korea, everyone has the right to express their opinions, but maintaining a balanced perspective causes less suffering. Even those who have broken the law should be embraced if they reflect on their wrongdoings. The Buddha rehabilitated even Angulimala, who had killed a hundred people. While we may not be at the Buddha’s level, the Buddha’s teaching opens a path to salvation even for those who committed murder due to ignorance.
We should always follow the right path, but we must also know how to embrace those who fall behind and journey together. A shepherd protects the one lost sheep. This isn’t about defending wrongdoers, but about maintaining balanced thinking. Labeling those with different opinions as “pro-North Korean communists” or “Japanese collaborators” is something practitioners should avoid. A practitioner should view the world from a universally valid standpoint with a balanced perspective. Only then can one be free from suffering.
Today, as Sunim addressed the public’s questions about current affairs, it was already time to conclude the Dharma assembly. After agreeing to continue the conversation at next week’s Weekly Dharma Assembly, Sunim ended the session as it approached noon.
After leaving the Dharma hall on the third floor, Sunim moved to the dining hall in the basement to have lunch with the Sangha members.
At 2 PM, Sunim held a training session with newly appointed Dharma Teachers who had recently received their certification. A total of 29 Dharma Teachers gathered in the Dharma hall on the third floor of the Jungto Social and Cultural Center, including 10 from the 7th cohort and 19 from the 8th cohort.
The new Dharma Teachers had spent the past day and a half discussing topics such as “Training Volunteers in the Online Era” and “Personal Practice Challenges” through group discussions and self-reflection. This session was an opportunity to address unresolved questions with Sunim.
The Dharma Teachers asked various questions based on their experiences at local centers and branches. Sunim answered each question thoughtfully, using various analogies.
• How should we balance principles and flexibility in our role as Dharma Teachers?
• When local leaders and group facilitators seem less active than expected in achieving Jungto Society’s goals, how much should Dharma Teachers intervene and what perspective should we maintain?
• How should we fund the establishment and operation of multicultural centers?
• When reviewing members’ mindful sharing after prayer sessions, many only write about their aspirations without mentioning their state of mind. What guidance should we provide?
• Managing the main temple is physically demanding. How can we secure the necessary personnel?
• Local branches are becoming increasingly dependent on Dharma Teachers. What are the future plans for training more Dharma Teachers?
• There are requests to translate funeral rituals into Korean. The task seems overwhelming and intricate—where should we begin?
Most Dharma Teachers were experiencing leadership challenges. Sunim emphasized the concept of the Middle Way by vividly explaining the subtle difference between when advice becomes nagging versus when it becomes true Dharma teaching.
The final questioner expressed concern about having to give opening and closing remarks on many occasions since becoming a Dharma Teacher and sought Sunim’s advice.
I worry every time I’m asked to give remarks
“When asked to give opening remarks, just saying ‘It’s nice to meet you’ in a few words is enough. When asked for closing remarks, you can simply say, ‘Did you enjoy it? I did too. Take care.’ It feels difficult because you’re trying to create something to say when you don’t have anything. If you have nothing to say, just greet people with ‘Welcome’ when meeting them and ‘Goodbye’ when parting. People appreciate brief greetings. No one will criticize a Dharma Teacher for being concise. In fact, people prefer shorter remarks at the end. So don’t try to create lengthy speeches—keep your greetings simple. If you feel moved to share something, do so; otherwise, just say ‘Welcome,’ ‘Nice to meet you,’ ‘Goodbye,’ or ‘See you next time!’
In Dharma Q&A sessions, people often ask what words of comfort they should offer when visiting the sick. If you have nothing to say, it’s fine to just hold their hand. Recently, I visited a hospitalized acquaintance and didn’t say much. You seem to feel pressured to say something. Just hold their hand, or if you remember something from the past, say ‘Remember when we went there?’ or talk about past experiences you shared—people like that. Don’t strain yourself trying to say a lot. Just say what comes to mind, and if nothing comes to mind, a simple greeting is enough. If you have something specific to add, you can include that too.”
“Thank you. I understand now.”
Though the session lasted just over two hours, it helped the Dharma Teachers refocus on their roles. After taking a commemorative photo together, the training for new Dharma Teachers concluded.
As the sun set, the evening Weekly Dharma Assembly was broadcast live at 7:30 PM. About 100 people gathered in the third-floor Dharma hall, while Jungto Society members connected through an online meeting platform. The session began with three bows, requesting Dharma teaching from Sunim.
Sunim first took questions. Two people raised their hands. One of them, who drives a school bus for children, asked for advice on managing anger toward discourteous drivers.
I drive a kindergarten bus and get angry at discourteous drivers
“Why do you get irritated when driving the yellow bus?”
“Because I expect other drivers and motorcyclists to be considerate for the safety of the children in my vehicle.”
“That’s reasonable, but to other drivers, it’s just another vehicle.”
“Yellow school buses turn on flashing lights when children are getting on or off, so other vehicles should pay attention. But even when the lights are flashing, some drivers honk from behind wanting me to move, or motorcyclists zoom past even while children are getting off. This really irritates me.”
“Those drivers probably have their own urgent matters. Motorcyclists who speed past a bus while children are getting off probably don’t have young children themselves. They’re likely single or have adult children. When something doesn’t personally affect them, people can be like that. What can you do about it? By the way, do you ever show off that you’re driving a yellow bus when there are no children aboard?”
“When I drive my personal car, I’m very considerate of yellow buses. That’s why I have high expectations of other drivers when I’m driving the yellow bus.”
“You think that way because you drive a yellow bus. People who have never driven one don’t think about it. So you need to understand that ‘they just don’t know.’ I’m not saying those car or motorcycle drivers are right. But what can you do if they don’t know?”
“There are too many people who don’t know.”
“The declining birth rate might be one reason. With fewer people having children, being mindful of school buses is becoming less common in our society. In America, when ambulances or school buses sound their horns, all vehicles move to the side. But in Korea, most people are still in a hurry to get where they’re going. They might make a slight gesture of moving aside when a horn blares right next to them, but rarely do they fully pull over. It’s a cultural issue. Have you lived in America? People who have lived there often question why Korea lacks a culture of consideration for school buses. Currently, our country doesn’t have specific guidelines or education regarding ambulances or school buses. It’s similar to how people in India have driven without traffic rules for a long time. India is now installing traffic lights and lane markings, but few people follow them because they’re not used to them. In Delhi and other major cities, they’ve blocked the middle of two-way streets to encourage better lane discipline.
This is a cultural matter. Through strict regulations with heavy fines or driver education, a culture of consideration might eventually develop as you suggested. In our country, the culture of giving way to ambulances or school buses hasn’t taken root yet. So this problem won’t be solved by you getting angry. Psychologically, you’re too attached to the idea that ‘because I drive a yellow bus, others should be considerate.’ But do other drivers even know you’re angry? Getting angry only harms you and worsens your temperament.
If you want to educate drivers who don’t yield to yellow buses, then do so. When a driver inconsiderately passes while children are getting on or off, blow a whistle or use a microphone to say, ‘That’s not allowed!’ or ‘Children are boarding here!’ That way, they might understand. How would they know if you’re just silently fuming? That’s why I say you’re too attached to driving a yellow bus. Your point is valid, but the reason you get angry is because of your attachment.”
“Even today, while driving, I think to myself, ‘That person didn’t hit my car, they’re just honking!’ But it’s still not easy to let go of my anger.”
“You’re too attached to the idea that you’re driving a yellow car.”
“But children need to be cared for and protected, don’t they?”
“Getting irritated doesn’t help children receive care or protection. You need to call Congress, send letters, post on the internet—engage in activities that raise public awareness to protect children. Getting angry alone in your car doesn’t educate anyone. There are two approaches: First, whenever you encounter drivers who don’t respect yellow cars, you could shout at them on the spot, ‘Can’t you see the yellow car?’ That might change behavior. Second, posting about these situations on internet forums might help improve driver awareness. But getting angry by yourself accomplishes nothing. The reason you get angry is because you’re attached to the yellow car. You need to recognize that this is ultimately your own issue.”
“I understand now. Thank you.”
After the conversation, Sunim continued discussing the presidential impeachment, national division, and constitutional amendments, as he had during the morning Dharma talk. The practitioners were able to find their center in understanding how to view the current political situation.
Tomorrow will be the 53rd day of the 100-Day Dharma Talk. In the morning, Sunim will give the 10th lecture on Buddhist scriptures in the Dharma Hall on the 3rd floor of the Jungto Social and Cultural Center. In the afternoon, he will attend the entrance ceremony for the “Regional Leadership Institute” and give a lecture, and in the evening, he will deliver the 10th lecture of the Buddhist Social Studies Course in the main hall on the basement level.”
