May 26, 2025 – Day 99 of the 100-Day Dharma Talk, Sutra Lecture and Dharma Q&A, Buddhist Social Studies Course Lecture 22
Hello. Today is the 99th day of Venerable Pomnyun Sunim’s 100-Day Dharma Talk. Today, there will be a sutra lecture and a Buddhist Social Studies Course lecture.
After completing morning practice and meditation, Sunim headed to the Jungto Social and Cultural Center to give the sutra lecture.
About 110 people were seated in the Dharma Hall on the third floor, and about 560 people connected via online live broadcast. When the assembly requested the Dharma teaching with three prostrations, Sunim took the Dharma seat in response to the assembly’s request.
Continuing from the previous session, today’s session provided a comprehensive review of the Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra that had been studied, with time for freely asking questions about any uncertainties. After responding to questions submitted in writing in advance, Sunim also answered those who raised their hands to ask questions on-site. One person recalled Sunim’s previous teaching about being able to live happily without money and asked again about Sunim’s thoughts, expressing doubt about whether this was really possible.
Can You Really Live Happily Without Money?
“You can live happily without money. The reason you suffer is simply because you think ‘I must have money.’ Even in the Buddha’s time, people believed they needed status, wealth, and family. They especially believed that family was essential to conduct ancestral rites and manage posthumous matters. They thought that having no children meant the end of their lineage, which was unimaginable to them.
However, monastic life transcends the very concept of ‘continuing the lineage.’ Thoughts like ‘I must have money’ or ‘I must continue the family line’ simply don’t apply to monastics. Moreover, today’s society has better systems in place than in the past for living without money. If you’re elderly with no income and no home, the government provides basic welfare benefits. For example, if you’re homeless and have no assets, you get priority for public rental apartments, can receive living support funds, and hospital treatment is guaranteed. When you become unable to move around, you get first priority for admission to care facilities. 
The most challenging cases are actually those with moderate assets. The most difficult situations I’ve witnessed in rural areas fall into this category. They have children who don’t visit, own a house and land but can’t maintain them due to physical limitations. In the past, it was difficult for such individuals to receive government caregiving support. However, the situation has improved recently with the introduction of a system where caregivers regularly visit elderly people with mobility issues. Still, those with some assets or children are often excluded from free welfare programs.
The best conditions are having no children and no assets. It’s easier to receive government support, whether for nursing homes or other services. In reality, however, it becomes problematic when children exist but don’t help their parents. Those with modest assets can sell them for living expenses or nowadays receive reverse mortgages using their homes as collateral. But elderly people in rural areas feel duty-bound to pass down their homes and land to their children, no matter how unfilial they may be. This leaves them in welfare blind spots.
In the past, elderly monks were often left out of the social safety net, making their welfare a recurring concern in Buddhist communities. Now, however, monks actually receive the best welfare benefits. They have neither children nor assets. I recently visited an apartment where elderly monks live, and relatively young bhikkhuni monks in their 60s had obtained caregiver certifications. They were paid to care for elderly monks, creating a mutually supportive system. While Buddhism traditionally expects younger monks to unconditionally care for elderly monks, as legally they aren’t family, so they become eligible for public assistance since they are not legally recognized as family members. Even when caring for their teachers, since they’re not family, those with caregiver certifications can be recognized as care workers and receive salaries.
In the United States, there’s a system where the government pays children who care for their parents. For example, someone with nursing qualifications can rent a house with multiple rooms to care for elderly people and operate a private care facility. They receive both salary and rent support. Once, a nice house became available in Seattle with a large lot and good price – excellent conditions. The only issue was finding someone to operate it. Someone then suggested an idea: use the large room as a Dharma hall and the remaining rooms as a care facility. Since some Jungto Society members have nursing qualifications, they could operate it. This is possible because in the U.S., nurses with certain experience can perform doctor’s roles like prescribing medication. Recently, our government tried to implement a similar system, but it was blocked due to opposition from doctors. 
The same applies to Jungto Society. Lay practitioners who live in the Jungto Society community receive support for food, housing, transportation, and healthcare. Once they reach 65, they can use the government-provided senior pension entirely as personal spending money. While they had no income when young due to their volunteer activities, in their later years they can live more stably because the community takes shared responsibility for their basic living needs.
Ultimately, in today’s era, the problem is not so much a lack of money but rather having an ambiguous amount of assets remaining. The same is true in the United States. If you have absolutely no assets, the government supports most of your living expenses. If you’re very wealthy, you likewise have no worries. The problem arises when you have a moderate amount. Moreover, hospital bills and medical insurance premiums are extremely expensive in the United States. In comparison, Korea’s hospital costs and medical insurance premiums are quite affordable. When compared internationally, Korea’s medical and welfare systems are relatively well-established. Therefore, the notions that “you need money to go to the hospital” or “you need money to live well in old age” don’t necessarily hold true today. Not having money doesn’t mean you can’t receive hospital treatment or get help when you have mobility issues. While basic living and medical services are guaranteed, difficulties arise when seeking a higher quality of life or additional support. However, for practitioners who pursue a simple life, it’s entirely possible to live without substantial funds.
Moreover, even without earning money, if you simply don’t spend it, you’ll naturally have some left over. The reason for insufficient funds is often not because you don’t earn, but because you spend. Through a life of practice, one can live without spending money. From an environmental movement perspective as well, rather than thinking “I can’t spend because I don’t have it,” one should adopt the viewpoint of “I won’t spend even if I have it.” While being unable to spend due to lack tends to make one feel constrained, maintaining an attitude of “I won’t spend even if I have it, for the sake of the Earth” allows one to live truly freely. Whether income is high or low is a secondary issue. 
With just a little practice of living without spending money, anyone can live freely. It helps the environmental movement, you don’t have to be self-conscious about what others think, and most importantly, you don’t have to be servile. However, if you think ‘I can’t spend because I don’t have money,’ your mind becomes constricted. You keep comparing yourself to others and lose confidence. Then suffering follows. But what if you have the perspective of ‘I choose not to spend’ even if you’re sitting on a mountain of money? Which is more comfortable – not spending while having lots of money, or not spending because you don’t have money? Not spending because you don’t have money is much more comfortable for the mind. It’s the same with clothes. Is it comfortable to have a closet full of clothes and not wear them? Or is it comfortable not to wear many clothes because you only have a few? What about you? It seems you feel secure only when your house is packed with things even if you don’t use them, but that’s actually more difficult.
The very thought that you must have money is a fixed idea and a cause of suffering. Since times have changed, we need to change our thinking accordingly. Now we live in a society where you can live sufficiently even when you’re old without children or money. You just need the courage and a shift in perspective to live that way.”
After finishing his answer to the question, Sunim concluded the lecture, agreeing to have another Dharma Q&A session next time.
The 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, Sunim had meetings with guests who visited The Peace Foundation. Afterward, he worked in the office and prepared for the Buddhist Social Studies Course lecture in the evening.
After sunset, at 7:30 PM, Sunim gave the 22nd lecture of the Buddhist Social Studies Course in the underground auditorium of the Jungto Social and Cultural Center. About 170 people attended in person, and approximately 1,900 people connected online.
In the previous session, Sunim examined Buddhism’s role in resolving conflicts under the theme of ‘Practical Buddhist Practice Theory.’ Today, he continued the lecture on the theme of ‘Buddhist Wisdom for Dealing with Social Trauma.’
First, they watched a video together showing survey results from various research institutes about diverse pathological phenomena and trauma in Korean society. It revealed that the spread of mental anxiety and collective depression, national disasters, division between North and South Korea, and trauma from class and regional disparities are having a significant impact on Korean society.
When the video ended, Sunim began his lecture on the topic.
“We have examined survey reports on various pathological phenomena and trauma appearing in our society. While modern people have become economically more affluent than in the past, it’s difficult to say they are happier than before due to mental conflicts and disorders. Since the practice taught in Buddhism can help heal such mental disorders, Buddhism can be accepted as a universal teaching by all humanity, beyond being merely a religion. For this reason, Jungto Society has recognized for 30 years that social problems are not merely social phenomena, but that individual mental health is also a very important factor.
The content we just saw in the video was the result of research institutes analyzing modern people’s mental disorders as social phenomena, and I deeply empathize with that content. However, there is one more factor that affects modern people’s mental health. What do you think it is?”
Various answers emerged. Sunim continued speaking.
“It’s the childhood growth environment. First, prenatal care is very important from the moment a child is conceived. If a pregnant woman experiences excessive stress, overwork, smoking, drinking, or drug use during pregnancy and is not physically healthy, these effects are transmitted directly to the fetus. In severe cases, it can cause disabilities or congenital neurological disorders, and the child may be born with sensitive psychological and physical anxiety. Therefore, institutional measures are absolutely necessary to ensure the psychological stability and physical health of pregnant women in society.
The Most Significant Factor Affecting Modern People’s Mental Health
The second important period is from birth to age three. This is a critical period when a child’s ego is formed, and the person who has the greatest impact on the child’s mental and physical health is the mother. Marital conflicts, the mother’s psychological anxiety, and anger or irritation from physical fatigue are transmitted directly to the child, having negative effects. If a child is not warmly protected, is abandoned or abused, or grows up amid continuous marital conflicts, it has a very negative impact on the child’s mental health. If we divide the growth environment that affects a child’s ego formation by period, it includes the fetal period, ages 0 to 3, and kindergarten and elementary school years. Among these, the period that has the greatest lifelong impact is from the womb to age 3. Therefore, if a child doesn’t receive warm care during this period, just as an improperly developed immune system makes illnesses difficult to cure no matter how much treatment is given, they will experience continuous difficulties in social life and relationships even as adults.
Although not included in the survey results we saw in the video earlier, I believe that childhood growth environment has the greatest impact on modern people’s mental health. Of course, even if childhood is difficult, the incidence of mental illness can be reduced to some extent if school education and social protection are well provided. Conversely, people who grew up in an emotionally stable environment during childhood are like having a well-equipped immune system, so they experience less mental difficulty even if the social environment is somewhat poor. However, the problem arises when someone who was emotionally unstable in childhood is placed in a highly competitive and discriminatory society. When these two factors work together, mental suffering becomes even more severe. This phenomenon is expected to worsen in the future. This is because the impact of maternal mental health, family conflicts, and growth processes where emotional health is not preserved has a much greater effect on children’s mental health than the social environment. 
Why Society Must Now Share Responsibility for Childbirth and Childcare
To fundamentally solve this problem, we first need systems that help mothers maintain both physical and mental health. Additionally, we must establish social systems that enable children to grow stably during their early years. For example, providing education to help mothers achieve psychological stability, or creating environments where children can receive sufficient love and care until age three. While these responsibilities were once considered solely the mother’s duty or the family’s role, with today’s low birth rates, society must step forward together. Having and raising children is no longer just an individual matter but should be viewed as a contribution to society. For instance, special systems like three-year paid parental leave must be established to improve these issues. 
Mothers themselves must also recognize how crucial the family environment during early childhood is for a child’s mental health. It is extremely foolish to think that marital fights or emotional behavior are acceptable just because the child is young. From age three, when children begin attending kindergarten and start formal learning, they need warm and dedicated teachers. From this period, society should support mothers in entrusting part of their childcare role to teachers while they return to work. Of course, mothers also need to be willing to sacrifice part of their lives for their children. Without this commitment, it might be better for the child’s health not to have children, or if born, not to raise them.
This issue must be approached from a different dimension than gender discrimination. Among the claims of radical women’s movements or feminism, some overlook the principles of natural ecosystems or the healthy developmental order of individuals. These side effects are gradually becoming apparent over time, and society is in the process of self-adjustment. Because women have long suffered oppression and discrimination, somewhat extreme claims have emerged in the process of overcoming this. There has been a tendency to overemphasize the value of gender equality without considering the mother’s role. However, from the perspective of species preservation or the entire human community, such views risk being one-sided. It seems premature to achieve this balance now. Over time, through trial and error and facing opposing social opinions, these views will gradually be modified. This will undergo a process similar to how class liberation movements found reasonable paths through thesis-antithesis-synthesis processes, oscillating between radical and moderate approaches. 
Currently, our society is not sufficiently aware, both individually and socially, of the need to prepare for emotional stability during the prenatal and infant periods. It seems it will take more time before this becomes a universal understanding. In Japan, a former prime minister once proposed three years of paid parental leave as a campaign promise, but it was never implemented. Even if immediate implementation is difficult due to practical issues like budget constraints, I believe it would be desirable to start with at least “one year paid, two years unpaid parental leave.” Even if unpaid, as long as employment is guaranteed, women can care for their children without career interruption. Without such a system, women must re-enter the job market after raising their children to a certain age, and the career gap makes it difficult to maintain professional expertise. This puts women in a position where they must sacrifice their careers for childbirth and childcare. As a result, many women either choose not to have children at all, or if they do, they have no choice but to leave their babies with others and return to work before the child is even one year old. This issue requires sufficient social discussion and debate to build consensus and find common ground.
Comprehensive Redesign of Early Treatment and Care Systems
When individual efforts alone cannot solve the problem, how should we approach it from a social and institutional perspective? Early detection and treatment are crucial for mental illnesses such as depression and schizophrenia. To achieve this, sufficient mental health professionals must be deployed not only in schools but also in community centers and other local facilities. While the development of artificial intelligence may reduce many jobs in the future, employment in this field will actually increase. Just as nutritionists are essential when providing school meals, psychiatrists are essential for mental health care. If there is a shortage of psychiatrists, qualified personnel such as counseling psychologists or psychiatric nurse specialists should be deployed. Just as we manage physical health, we must be able to detect and treat mental illnesses early. If such a system is established, I believe we can reduce mental illness-related issues, including suicide, by more than half compared to the current situation. 
However, in reality, mental illness is not taken as seriously as physical illness. Rather than viewing mental illness as a medical condition, it is often dismissed as a personality issue or a matter of mindset. People say things like “Pull yourself together!” or “You’ll be fine with time,” and leave it at that. It’s especially difficult for those close to the person to notice the problem. While strangers might notice changes, those who are close become desensitized to changes due to familiarity. When these problems are not detected early and are left unaddressed, conflicts arise between teachers and students at school. Situations occur where teachers abuse children, or parents harass teachers to the point where teachers can no longer endure. However, if these problems are detected and treated early, they can be resolved naturally. When problems are discovered, they must be handled by dedicated counseling teachers, not homeroom teachers. The student in question should be connected with a psychiatrist, and parents should also participate in counseling. In this way, teachers can focus on teaching and caring for children, while mental health issues should be handled by specialized professionals.
However, currently parents shift all problems onto homeroom teachers. They file complaints and make phone calls to apply psychological pressure, causing mentally vulnerable teachers to be unable to cope. This leads to tragic incidents where teachers commit suicide. Otherwise, the reverse happens where teachers abuse children. These problems are occurring in kindergartens as well. In this context, it is not appropriate to place young women in their 20s who have just graduated from early childhood education programs as caregivers in daycare centers or kindergartens. What is needed to care for children is not a license or degree, but actual experience of having and raising children. The experience of having raised two or more children is a tremendous asset. If someone with this experience cares for children, they can do so much more effectively than someone who merely majored in early childhood education at university. This is because what children need is not knowledge but warm love. A professional system that reflects this perspective needs to be established.
Some of the current systems are being operated in the wrong direction. For example, when sending a child to daycare, childcare fees are provided, and when caring for a child at home, parenting allowances are given. However, support is relatively less when caring for a child directly at home. Ultimately, this system encourages the separation of mothers and children. To receive government support, people send their children to daycare and use that time to go swimming or enjoy outings. They can only receive support if they send their children away. As a result, this system is not designed with children at the center but is a system for adults. It was not created by people with professional insight who understand and can care for children, but by adults who know nothing about the field and prioritized women’s rights. While I agree that women should be liberated from childbirth and child-rearing to enjoy their rights, the position that children are placed in during this process is not being considered. In this regard, most policies are not child-centered. This is because children do not have voting rights. So they are simply dragged around according to decisions made by adults. 
To Give Voice to Those Who Cannot Speak for Themselves
In the past, there was a time when workers, women, and the poor could not assert their rights. Activists stepped forward to advocate for these people. Today, most socially disadvantaged groups can express their opinions and form organizations to build solidarity. However, there are still two groups in our society who cannot represent their own positions. One is young children. In a broader sense, this includes children yet to be born. The other is North Korean residents. North Korean residents also cannot express their opinions at all within the confrontational structure between North and South Korea. We must consider these people who have no right to represent themselves. 
However, when I try to represent the position of young children, I immediately get responses like ‘You’re saying that because you’re a man’ or ‘Why are you ignoring women’s rights?’ So when I say these things, I inevitably face criticism. But I don’t hate or condemn those who criticize me. From their perspective, it’s understandable that they might say such things. I’m simply suggesting that we give more consideration to the positions of young children and North Korean residents, whom we haven’t sufficiently considered until now.
The same applies to environmental movements. We shouldn’t only represent human interests but also advocate for nature’s perspective. Today, I wanted to talk about factors that don’t appear in survey results from various research institutes. Of course, as shown in surveys, our society faces many social challenges: resolving the division issue, establishing peace between North and South Korea, eliminating regional discrimination, overcoming generational conflicts, overcoming ostentatious culture, and breaking down academic elitism. We must work through social movements to solve these problems. However, I want to say that if we don’t also consider the fundamental causes within human nature that create these social challenges, genuine change will be difficult.” 
Today, Sunim finished the lecture early and held an extended Q&A session to address questions that had arisen during previous classes. After answering various questions, he announced that the next class would cover the topic “The Role of Buddhism in Civilizational Transformation from the Buddha’s Perspective.” The class concluded after 9 PM.
Tomorrow marks the 100th day of the 100-Day Dharma Talk series. In the morning, Sunim will teach the fourth lesson of “The Human Buddha” for the weekday Jungto Dharma School class, and in the evening, he will teach the same fourth lesson for the evening class.
