May 22, 2025 – Day 95 of 100-Day Dharma Talk, Heart Sutra Lecture 8, Buddhist Social Studies Course Lecture 21
Hello. This is Day 95 of Venerable Pomnyun Sunim’s 100-Day Dharma Talk. Today is the day for sutra lectures and Buddhist Social Studies Course lectures.
After completing morning practice and meditation, Sunim headed to the Jungto Social and Cultural Center to give a sutra lecture.
Around 110 people were seated in the Dharma Hall on the third floor, and about 560 people joined via online live broadcast. When the assembly requested the Dharma teaching with three prostrations, Sunim ascended the Dharma seat.
Today, Sunim provided a comprehensive review of the Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra studied so far, and opened the floor for questions on any curiosities. After answering questions submitted in writing in advance, he also responded to those who raised their hands at the venue. One person asked Sunim about what it means to be enlightened when the Heart Sutra says there is no substance to enlightenment.
Is There No Substance to Enlightenment? Then What Does It Mean to Be Enlightened?
“The Heart Sutra is a teaching meant to help us let go of our attachment to the concept of enlightenment. We simply call that ‘Ah, I see!’ moment ‘enlightenment.’ It’s just a name we give it; there’s nothing fixed that says ‘This is what enlightenment is.’ When we wake up from a dream, we say ‘I woke up from the dream.’ In dreams, robbers appear and people who help us appear. But when we open our eyes, they all disappear. They were just stories in the dream. Similarly, enlightenment isn’t something with substance that we can point to and say ‘This is enlightenment.’
We constantly refer to things through language. We say ‘I go,’ ‘I believe,’ but such an ‘I’ doesn’t actually exist. Similarly, we call the state of being free from ignorance ‘enlightenment,’ but there’s no actual substance called ‘enlightenment.'”
“But this body clearly exists. If there’s a body and thoughts, doesn’t that mean ‘I’ exist?”
“Then when you say ‘I’ exists, what exactly is this ‘I’? It’s true that the body exists. I’ve never said the body doesn’t exist. There are feelings and thoughts too. I don’t deny that. But when we say ‘I,’ what does it refer to? ‘I’ is just a word we use to refer to something; it has no concrete substance.
How can you know whether a soul exists or not? You just believe that a soul exists. Whether a soul exists or not isn’t something one person can determine. In fact, we can’t know for certain whether a soul exists after death. We simply don’t know. We should acknowledge what we don’t know, but the problem is pretending to know. People often say, ‘When you die, your soul goes to the afterlife.’ Some religions say, ‘When you die, you go to heaven,’ or ‘When you die, you go to hell.’ But no one can know for certain whether hell and heaven exist. We just believe and think that way. Since we can’t clearly know whether they exist or not, it’s also wrong to conclude they don’t exist. What’s clear is that there are people who have such beliefs and thoughts.”
“It’s not easy to let go of this ‘I.'”
“If it’s hard to let go, then keep holding on to it. But I don’t understand how you can hold on to ‘I’ when you don’t even know what it is. (Laughter) You say you can’t let go of ‘I,’ but what exactly is this ‘I’ that you can’t let go of? You don’t really know, do you? If you don’t know, how can you hold on to it? When I ask this question, people answer, ‘I don’t know, but something is there anyway.’ What does this mean? It means you’re asserting something exists without really knowing. How do you know ‘I’ exists? You might have such a feeling. I’m not denying feelings. But Buddhist teaching isn’t about whether something exists or doesn’t exist. When someone says ‘I exist,’ I ask what the basis for that is. Usually, there’s no basis. When people realize there’s no basis, their thinking suddenly changes and they say, ‘There is no I.’ Actually, there’s no need to say it doesn’t exist either. The problem is that suffering arises when we think ‘I exist.’ So when we say ‘I suffer,’ we ask: What is this ‘I’? But the answer that comes back is ultimately ‘I don’t know.’ Ask three times and everyone gives that answer. Yet people still think, ‘I don’t know, but it exists anyway.’ That’s the problem. Why must it exist? There’s no problem even if ‘I’ doesn’t exist. Why do you think ‘I’ must exist?”
“My understanding of myself has broadened, and I’ve improved. I’ve had many ‘Ah, I see!’ moments of realization, and my behavior has changed significantly. However, if there is no ‘self,’ I don’t know how I should continue my practice going forward.”
“There’s nothing more to study. Just observe: ‘That person believes this way,’ ‘This person believes that way,’ ‘That person walks fast,’ ‘This person walks slowly.’ For example, if your husband comes home late, just say, ‘You came home late.’ If he comes home drunk, say, ‘You drank a lot.’ If he gets angry, say, ‘You’re upset.’ If you do this, there won’t be any problems. All conflicts are created in our own minds. In reality, nothing is happening—we just imagine things and create problems and conflicts. The core teaching of Buddhism is precisely this: ‘There is nothing to suffer about.'”
“Yes, I understand.”
“In a dream, it seems like you must run away desperately, but when you open your eyes, there was never anything to run from in the first place.”
After answering the question, Sunim concluded the lecture, announcing that he would take questions from the audience in the next session.
Participants gathered in groups for mindful sharing, while Sunim moved to the basement dining hall to have lunch with the members of the Sangha. In the afternoon, he worked in his office and prepared for the evening’s Buddhist Social Studies Course lecture.
As the sun set, at 7:30 PM, Sunim gave the 21st lecture of the Buddhist Social Studies Course in the underground auditorium of the Jungto Social and Cultural Center. About 170 people attended in person, while approximately 1,900 people connected online.
In the previous session, the topic was “Religious Conflicts and Dialogue in Asia,” examining Buddhism’s role in resolving disputes. Today, the lecture continued with the theme of “Engaged Buddhism and Practice Theory.”
“Today, let’s discuss why practitioners engage in social action for societal change.
To harvest good crops abundantly, we are first greatly influenced by the quality of the seeds. At the same time, the condition of the field where the seeds grow is also important. Good seeds alone are not enough, nor is a good field alone sufficient. Ultimately, a good harvest requires both seeds and field working together harmoniously. Applying this to our society, each individual is like a seed, while the family and community where that individual is born, grows, and acts is like the field. Even if the seed—the individual—is somewhat lacking, if the field—the environment—is favorable, that person can live a relatively good life. On the other hand, no matter how talented an individual may be, if they grow up in a poor environment, life becomes difficult and good results are hard to expect. Furthermore, if both the individual is inadequate and the environment is poor, the results will be even worse. Conversely, if an individual has excellent qualities and is supported by a good family environment, the results will be that much better.
However, from an individual’s perspective, it is difficult to change society at will. In comparison, it is relatively easier for individuals to change themselves. They can decide for themselves. Yet we often consider self-change to be more difficult than social change. In reality, it’s the opposite. Self-change is within one’s own decision-making power, but social change requires the collective will of many people.
Why Should Practice and Social Action Go Together?
Changing oneself and responding appropriately to given circumstances is what we call ‘practice.’ Furthermore, transforming that environment to be more just and peaceful is ‘social action’ and ‘realizing Jungto.’ Practitioners must engage in both of these together, and those who do this are ‘Mahayana practitioners.’ In a narrow sense, practice is when an individual seeks their own transformation, but in a broader sense, practice means simultaneously engaging in actions for both individual and social change. The Theravada perspective prioritizes individual practice first, then moves toward social action with those results. In contrast, from the Mahayana perspective, simultaneously engaging in individual practice and social action is considered the bodhisattva path.
Therefore, whether it’s gender discrimination, class discrimination, or racial discrimination, you must first learn to adapt and live within the reality into which you were born. You cannot remain in unhappiness just because the given conditions are unfavorable. If you can enjoy peace of mind in any environment while simultaneously participating in social activities to improve gender, class, and racial discrimination, that becomes the path to making yourself happier. So rather than just resenting or complaining about society, you should practice while also participating in transforming this society. Only then will your talents and abilities be meaningfully utilized in society.
A more proactive Mahayana practice is to make the pursuit of social change itself a practice objective. This can be considered a much more active bodhisattva attitude. In Hinayana Buddhism, one first refines oneself through practice, then uses the results to alleviate others’ suffering and change the world. This is called ‘giving.’ However, Mahayana Buddhism considers solving the suffering of people in the world as a practice objective for one’s own enlightenment. In other words, activities that change society for the better are themselves practice, and this is seen as the practitioner’s path.
Theravada Buddhist practitioners leave the world to avoid being tainted by its impurities. Since staying in the world leads to constant contamination, they first leave to purify themselves before returning. They prepare themselves until their minds are unshakeable, only then facing the world again. However, Mahayana Buddhism is different. Mahayana practitioners don’t leave the world; instead, they make purifying this world their practice. They accept social problems as their own practice challenges. This is the difference between Theravada and Mahayana practice.
However, today we tend to place full responsibility for individual problems solely on the person experiencing them. This leads us to repeatedly ignore more fundamental issues like social systems and structures. Conversely, if we blame all problems solely on society, we easily neglect individual efforts to reflect on and change ourselves. Thus, many NGO organizations today emphasize social change while often neglecting self-transformation. On the other hand, religious practitioners or meditators sometimes focus only on self-change and remain indifferent to social issues. While these two groups appear to be opposites on the surface, they are actually similar in being biased toward only one side.
If we consider all problems to be due to our own inadequacies, we end up turning away from the world. If we place all responsibility on society, we neglect self-transformation. However, Buddhist practice doesn’t view these two aspects separately. Transforming oneself and transforming society are not separate endeavors but interconnected practices.
Therefore, we must adapt ourselves to be free and happy in any situation, while simultaneously working to create a society where everyone can live peacefully without discrimination. Jungto Society is a community that aims to combine individual practice with social action. However, if someone is only interested in individual practice and has no concern for social activities, it might be more appropriate to visit a regular temple or meditation center. Conversely, if someone is only interested in solving social problems and considers practice unimportant, they might be better suited to working with an NGO. This isn’t a matter of what is right or wrong, but rather because Jungto Society was originally founded with the purpose of practicing both of these tasks together.
Nevertheless, when Sunim comments on social issues, some people occasionally say, ‘Sunim, please only give Dharma talks about practice. If you keep talking about such things, I’ll quit Jungto Society.’ While I don’t respond by saying ‘Then please leave,’ if someone’s values don’t align with Jungto Society’s direction, leaving might actually be the right choice. This is because Jungto Society was founded from the beginning with ‘the unity of work and practice’ as an important principle.
Can We Change the World Without Anger?
When we encounter various problems happening in the world, anger sometimes arises in our hearts. When such anger arises, we tend to participate more actively in social issues. In fact, in many cases, anger becomes a powerful driving force for social change. When we are angry, we become blind to everything else and even death doesn’t seem frightening. That’s why historically, the driving force of most revolutions has stemmed from anger.
However, the problem with using anger as a driving force is that such revolutions usually end up as ‘riots.’ The deeper the anger, the easier it is to respond violently, making it difficult to solve problems wisely and sustainably. When anger is the driving force, while we may succeed in venting our frustration, the fundamental social problems that are the source of the anger often remain unresolved and dissipate without being truly addressed. This is why most social change movements that begin with anger end up as riots.
However, if we truly want social problems to improve, we must continuously raise issues. To solve social problems, we should avoid violent responses unless the situation is unavoidable. Only through continuous problem-raising can a revolution succeed. Let’s suppose I responded to a problem out of anger and succeeded. I might feel good about it. But in issues where opinions are sharply divided, when one side succeeds, they inevitably seek retribution against the other. This can lead to a vicious cycle of bloodshed. Yet we tend to justify revenge quite readily. Even today, politicians leading Korean society use words like ‘eradication’ and ‘liquidation’ regarding certain issues, and these terms are all somewhat related to revenge. Of course, some degree of clearing the surroundings is necessary for revolution, but to avoid creating a vicious cycle of retaliation, it shouldn’t be done out of anger or vengeance.
Conversely, what happens if we respond to a problem and fail? We experience tremendous defeat along with the fear that we might suffer revenge in return. But turning away also has its side effects. If we have great anger but turn away from problems because we lack the power and fear we’ll lose, we develop self-loathing, thinking of ourselves as cowards.
But what if we could maintain equanimity without getting angry, understanding that ‘such things can happen’ regardless of the situation? Then we could transform things progressively whether we succeed, fail, or even turn away. Without anger in our hearts, we can embrace our opponents even when the revolution succeeds. Even in failure, rather than falling into defeatism, we research how to succeed next time and challenge ourselves again. When we maintain equanimity, we develop the power to observe rather than turn away. If we judge that now isn’t the right time or that our capabilities are insufficient, we can wait until the time comes. This is different in nature from cowardice.
Therefore, it is important to maintain a state without anger. This is what we can call practice. Not being angry doesn’t mean we should do nothing. If there are contradictions in a situation, we must act calmly and persistently without anger. Only then can we pursue change in a peaceful manner and increase our chances of success. This is because we can respond wisely rather than charging in blindly out of anger. Then, even after succeeding, we can embrace the other party rather than seeking revenge. Even if we fail, if there is no anger in our hearts, we won’t self-destruct but can study the causes and try again next time.
Can I Really Be the Only One Who Is Right?
When making choices, we shouldn’t unilaterally insist that “only my choice is right.” We must acknowledge that those who make different choices from ours have their own judgments and reasons. Claiming that I am right essentially means saying the other person is wrong. If we view every choice only as a matter of right and wrong, conflicts easily arise. We need to be able to see it as “I made this choice, and that person made that choice.” We need an attitude of putting ourselves in others’ shoes. If we’re in South Korea, we should be able to understand North Korea’s position as well. This doesn’t mean sympathizing with North Korea, but rather understanding the other side’s position so we can respond effectively. As Sun Tzu’s Art of War (孫子兵法) says, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you will win every battle.” This means we can respond effectively only when we understand the other side’s position. For example, if I support the impeachment of the president, I should also understand the opposing position. From there, it’s important to consider and act on what efforts are needed to advance the supporting position. This is a wise response and the path to changing society without anger.
People who strongly advocate for justice often possess fearlessness and dedication. Along with these strengths, they frequently have an extremely strong conviction that only they are right. This makes it easy for them to adopt a double standard, thinking “When I do it, it’s romance; when others do it, it’s an affair.” The same applies when judicial rulings are made. If the verdict is favorable to them, they shout “The judiciary is alive!” but if it’s unfavorable, they immediately declare “The judiciary is dead!” They even go so far as to question the judge’s inclinations to find grounds for their criticism, labeling them as forces sympathetic to the opposing side. All conflicts arise from this constant belief that “I am right!” The more people believe that only their thoughts are correct, the more the community falls into division.
Fair competition requires common rules that everyone must follow. However, when the attitude of “rules for thee but not for me” becomes prevalent, the basic premise itself easily collapses. When people break rules themselves, they rationalize it saying “I had no choice,” yet immediately criticize others for the same behavior. It’s like a player who violates game rules insisting they shouldn’t receive a penalty while demanding their opponent follow the rules.
While We Talk About the Environment, How Much Are We Actually Practicing?
In our society, there are people who actively participate in movements to prevent environmental destruction yet fail to practice environmental protection in their daily lives. They fiercely oppose matters that could harm the environment socially, yet remain insensitive to their own household electricity consumption and use of daily products. Previously, the government promoted dam construction in a certain region. However, it was canceled due to opposition from environmental groups. At that time, I told the environmental activists, “Don’t raise a toast to celebrate your victory!” The public officials who promoted the dam construction had judged it necessary after considering regional development and water shortage issues – we cannot simply view their intentions as malicious. When the dam construction was withdrawn, people should have been able to say, “Thank you for stopping it. In return, we will conserve water and electricity.” Only with this attitude can sustainable mutual cooperation become possible. Showing through action that residents can adequately meet water and electricity demands without a dam by voluntarily conserving water and electricity – this is truly a movement of mutual coexistence.
Today’s development of South Korea has certainly been achieved through development to some extent. If someone takes an environmentalist stance and says, ‘I will live primitively like a natural person,’ that’s fine too. From that perspective, it’s acceptable to reject all development. However, enjoying the conveniences that development brings while simultaneously opposing all development is contradictory. For example, it’s inconsistent to criticize the construction of the Gyeongbu Expressway while using it every day. Of course, one can think ‘It might have been better without this’ while using it. But if you actually feel it’s helpful, you should be able to acknowledge that it was necessary.
Similarly, nuclear power plants cannot be considered entirely bad. While the danger of radiation clearly exists, in the era of climate crisis, they have advantages over fossil fuels in that they don’t emit carbon dioxide. We need to consider both aspects together. Rather than condemning them outright, we need to have a balanced perspective. If you want to point out the dangers of nuclear power generation, you should conserve electricity to be logically consistent. If I make such claims while not using electricity, it’s persuasive, but realistically, opposing power generation while consuming a lot of electricity is hypocritical.
To avoid falling behind in the artificial intelligence industry these days, building numerous data centers is essential. However, this field inevitably consumes enormous amounts of electricity. To build such facilities in Yongin or Pyeongtaek, we need either thermal power plants or nuclear power. But thermal power faces opposition due to carbon dioxide emissions, and nuclear power due to radiation risks. Moreover, while saying the economy must develop, people ultimately demand that facilities be built far away, not near their homes. This attitude can hardly be considered balanced.
Practical Buddhist Practice Theory: Why Bodhisattvas Head to Hell
In Mahayana Buddhism, practitioners are called ‘Bodhisattva.’ Here, ‘Bodhi’ means ‘enlightenment,’ and ‘sattva’ means ‘ignorance.’ In other words, a Bodhisattva is a being in whom enlightenment and ignorance are combined. Since Bodhi is enlightenment, it represents Buddha, and since sattva is ignorance, it represents sentient beings. Therefore, a Bodhisattva can be said to be positioned between Buddha and sentient beings.
Being a Bodhisattva means that as long as there is a Buddha, that light shines upon sentient beings, and as long as there are sentient beings, the shadow of their ignorance falls even upon Buddha. So as long as there is a Buddha in this world, we all possess the nature to become Buddha, and at the same time, as long as there are sentient beings, ignorance still exists within us.
We are beings who start from sentient beings and advance toward Buddha. We must start from the sentient beings on the right and advance toward the Buddha on the left. However, according to the Bodhisattva thought of Mahayana Buddhism, no matter how much we advance toward enlightenment, we cannot become completely Buddha. This is because as long as there are sentient beings, the shadow of their ignorance remains. Our ultimate goal is Bodhi, that is, Buddha. But paradoxically, the direction of practice to realize Bodhi must be toward sattva, that is, sentient beings. To achieve enlightenment, we must go to where sentient beings are, to where ignorance exists, and eliminate that ignorance. When that ignorance disappears, we become Buddha. Ultimately, our final destination is Buddha, and the act of practicing that path is advancing toward sentient beings. This is the Bodhisattva thought of Mahayana Buddhism.
Based on the Bodhisattva thought of Mahayana Buddhism, Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva goes to hell to practice. Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva’s vow is ‘As long as there are sentient beings in hell, I will not become a Buddha.’ But from the perspective of Mahayana Buddhist thought, this statement is the same as saying ‘As long as hell exists and there are sentient beings suffering in it, no one can become a Buddha.’ In other words, the principle is that I become Buddha by eliminating hell. Dharmakara Bhikkhu also made vows to create a world without suffering and practiced diligently until that world was realized. The world thus created is the Pure Land, and Dharmakara Bhikkhu eventually became Amitabha Buddha.
The bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism is not about dividing practice for enlightenment and social engagement for realizing Pure Land fifty-fifty, nor is it about doing one first and the other later. When I generate the mind to bear all the suffering that people in our society experience, at that very moment, I enter the path of the Buddha. This is the same context as when the Buddha answered Subhuti’s question in the Diamond Sutra: ‘How should good men and women who have generated the mind of Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi abide, and how should they subdue their minds?’ The Buddha replied, ‘Generate the mind to save all sentient beings.’
Then what is Pure Land for a bodhisattva? For a bodhisattva who is a practitioner, Pure Land is not an already completed world. It is a world where the bodhisattva acts toward completion. So for me, does a unified homeland mean an already unified nation? Or does it mean the state of working toward a unified homeland? I am already living in a unified homeland. While onlookers might say, ‘No matter how hard you try, unification isn’t happening,’ I am already living in a unified homeland. This is precisely ‘Mind-Only Pure Land (唯心淨土).’ If a bodhisattva works with all their might to create a Pure Land world, that itself already constitutes Mind-Only Pure Land. You define something as failure when it doesn’t work out well. However, for a practitioner, there is no concept of failure. A practitioner always just does what needs to be done.”
Following this, there was a Q&A session for questions that arose during the class.
After receiving questions from two people, Sunim agreed to lecture on “Buddhist Wisdom for Dealing with Social Trauma” in the next session and concluded the class after 9 PM.
Tomorrow marks the 96th day of the 100-Day Dharma Talk. In the morning, Sunim will conduct a Friday Dharma Q&A for the weekday class at the underground auditorium of the Jungto Social and Cultural Center. In the afternoon, he will meet with guests visiting The Peace Foundation, and in the evening, he will conduct a Friday Dharma Q&A for the evening class before heading to Dubuk Jungto Retreat Center.
