25/05/22_Is There No Substance to Enlightenment? 깨달음의 실체가 없나요?

[Frida]

A Day in the Life of Sunim(스님의 하루)

Is There No Substance to Enlightenment? Then What Does It Mean to Be Enlightened? 깨달음의 실체가 없다고 하는데, 그럼 깨달았다는 것은 무엇인가요?

May 22, 2025 - Day 95 of 100-Day Dharma Talk 2025.5.22. 백일법문 95일째

Heart Sutra Lecture 8  반야심경 8강

Buddhist Social Studies Course Lecture 21 불교사회대학 21강

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.  법륜스님의 백일법문 95일째 날입니다. 오늘은 경전 강의와 불교사회대학 강의가 열리는 날입니다. 스님은 새벽 수행과 명상을 마친 후 경전 강의를 하기 위해 정토사회문화회관으로 향했습니다.

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? 3층 설법전에는 110여 명이 자리하고, 온라인 생방송으로 560여 명이 접속했습니다. 대중이 삼배의 예로 법문을 청하자 스님이 법상에 올랐습니다. 오늘은 그동안 배운 금강경과 반야심경을 총정리하면서 궁금했던 점에 대해 자유롭게 질문하는 시간을 가졌습니다. 사전에 서면으로 신청한 질문에 차례대로 답변한 후, 현장에서 손을 들어 질문한 분들에게도 답을 했습니다. 그중 한 명은 반야심경에서 깨달음의 실체가 없다고 했는데 그렇다면 깨달았다고 하는 것은 무엇을 말하는 것인지 스님에게 질문했습니다. 깨달음의 실체가 없다고 하는데, 그럼 깨달았다는 것은 무엇인가요?

“I learned to view situations from a spiritual perspective when my relationship with my  mother was difficult. Listening to Sunim’s Dharma talks has also broadened my understanding of human nature. However, the Heart Sutra says, ‘There is no enlightenment, and nothing to be attained through enlightenment.’ Then what is it when we realize ‘Ah, I see!’?” “저는 어머니와의 관계가 힘들 때 영적인 관점으로 상황을 바라보는 법을 배웠습니다. 스님의 법문을 들으며 인간에 대한 이해도 넓어졌습니다. 그런데 반야심경에서는 ‘깨달음도 없고, 깨달음을 얻었다고 할 것도 없다.’라고 말합니다. 그렇다면 ‘아, 그렇구나!’ 하고 깨닫는 것은 무엇인가요?”

“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.'” “반야심경은 깨달음이라는 개념에 집착하는 마음을 내려놓게 하려고 설해진 법문입니다. ‘아, 그렇구나!’ 하는 것을 그냥 ‘깨달음’이라고 이름 붙여 부를 뿐입니다. 그렇게 부를 뿐이지 ‘깨달음이란 이런 것이다.’ 하고 정해진 바는 없다는 거예요. 우리가 꿈을 꾸다가 눈을 뜨면 ‘내가 꿈에서 깼다.’라고 말하죠. 꿈속에서는 강도도 나오고 도와주는 사람도 나와요. 그러나 눈을 뜨고 나면 다 사라집니다. 그냥 꿈속에서 있었던 이야기일 뿐이에요. 이처럼 깨달음이라는 것도 어떤 실체가 있어서 ‘이것이 깨달음이다.’ 하고 말할 수 있는 게 아니라는 겁니다. 우리는 언어를 통해 자꾸 무언가를 지칭합니다. ‘내가 간다.’, ‘내가 믿는다.’ 이렇게 말은 하지만 그런 ‘나’가 실제로 존재하는 건 아닙니다. 마찬가지로 어리석음에서 벗어날 때를 이름하여 ‘깨달음’이라고 부를 뿐이지, 실제로 ‘깨달음’이라는 실체가 있는 것은 아니라는 거예요.”

“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. “그런데 이 몸뚱이는 분명히 있잖아요. 몸도 있고 생각도 있으면, ‘나’라는 것도 있는 게 아닌가요?” “그러면 ‘나’라는 것이 있다고 할 때 그 ‘나’가 정확히 무엇인가요? 몸뚱이가 있다는 것은 맞습니다. 저도 몸뚱이가 없다고 말한 적은 없습니다. 느낌도 있고, 생각도 있습니다. 그걸 부정하지는 않아요. 그런데 ‘나’라고 할 때 그것이 무엇을 말하냐는 겁니다. ‘나’라는 것은 단지 지칭하는 말일 뿐이지 구체적인 실체가 없다는 거예요.

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.” 영혼이 있는지 없는지를 질문자가 어떻게 알 수 있을까요? 다만 질문자가 영혼이 있다고 믿는 것뿐이에요. 영혼이 있다, 없다 하는 것은 어느 한 사람이 결정할 수 있는 문제가 아닙니다. 사실 우리는 죽은 뒤에 영혼이 있는지 없는지 정확하게 알 수 없습니다. 결국 모르는 거예요. 모르는 것을 모른다고 인정하면 되는데, 아는 척을 하는 것이 문제입니다. 사람들은 흔히 ‘죽으면 영혼이 사후 세계에 간다.’라고 말합니다. 어떤 종교에서는 ‘죽으면 천당에 간다.’, ‘죽으면 지옥에 간다.’ 이렇게 말하기도 합니다. 그러나 지옥과 천당이 과연 있는지 아무도 정확하게 알 수 없어요. 다만 그렇게 믿고 그렇게 생각할 뿐이에요. 있는지 없는지 분명하게 알 수 없기 때문에 ‘없다’고 단정하는 것도 맞지 않아요. 다만 그런 믿음과 생각을 하는 사람이 있다는 것만은 분명합니다.”

“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. “이 ‘나’라고 하는 것을 놓기가 쉽지 않습니다.” “놓기 어려우면 그대로 들고 계세요. 그런데 ‘나’가 뭔지도 모르는데 어떻게 들고 있는지 모르겠네요. (웃음) ‘나’가 안 놓아진다고 하는데, 도대체 그 안 놓아지는 ‘나’라는 게 뭡니까? 잘 모르겠죠? 잘 모르면서 어떻게 들고 있나요? 제가 이렇게 질문하면 ‘모르지만 아무튼 뭔가 있습니다.’라고 대답합니다. 이 말은 무슨 뜻일까요? 사실은 잘 모르면서 그냥 ‘있다’고 단정하는 겁니다. ‘나’라는 것이 있다는 걸 어떻게 압니까? 그런 느낌이 들 수는 있습니다. 느낌까지 부정하는 건 아니에요. 그러나 불교의 가르침은 ‘있다’ 혹은 ‘없다’ 하는 데에 있지 않습니다. 

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?” 누군가 ‘나라고 하는 것이 있다.’라고 하니까 그 근거가 무엇이냐고 묻는 거예요. 그런데 대개는 근거가 없어요. 근거가 없다는 것을 스스로 알게 되면, 이번에는 생각이 탁 바뀌어서 ‘나라고 하는 것이 없다.’라고 말합니다. 사실 ‘없다’고 말할 것도 없어요. 문제는 ‘나라고 하는 것이 있다.’라고 생각할 때 괴로움이 생긴다는 점입니다. 그래서 '내가 괴롭다.'라고 할 때, 과연 그 ‘나’란 무엇인가? 하고 묻는 겁니다. 그러나 결국은 ‘모르겠다.’ 하는 대답이 돌아옵니다. 세 번만 물어보면 다 그렇게 되죠. 그런데도 사람들은 ‘모르긴 하지만 아무튼 있습니다.’ 이렇게 생각하는 것 같아요. 그게 바로 문제입니다. 왜 꼭 있어야 한다고 생각하나요? ‘나’라는 것이 없다고 해도 아무 문제가 없습니다. 질문자는 왜 ‘나’라는 것이 있어야 한다고 생각합니까?”

“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.” “따로 더 공부할 게 없습니다. “나에 대한 이해가 넓어지니 제가 나아졌습니다. ‘아, 그렇구나!’ 하고 깨닫고 제 행동이 많이 변했습니다. 그런데 ‘나’라는 것이 없다고 한다면 앞으로 어떻게 공부해 나가야 할지 모르겠습니다.” ‘저 사람은 저렇게 믿는구나.’, ‘이 사람은 이렇게 믿는구나.’, ‘저 사람은 빨리 가네’, ‘이 사람은 늦게 가네.’ 이렇게 바라만 보면 됩니다. 예를 들어, 남편이 늦게 들어오면 ‘늦게 들어오셨네요.’ 하고, 술을 마시고 들어오면 ‘술 많이 드셨네요.’ 하고, 성질을 내면 ‘화나셨네요.’ 하고, 이렇게만 하면 아무 문제가 없습니다. 온갖 시비가 다 내 머릿속에서 만들어지는 거예요. 실제로는 아무 일이 없는데 내가 상상해서 시비하고 문제를 만들어낼 뿐입니다. 불교가 말하는 핵심은 바로 ‘아무런 괴로울 일이 없다.’ 하는 것입니다.” “네, 잘 알겠습니다.”

“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. “꿈에서는 열심히 도망가야 할 것 같지만, 눈을 탁 뜨면 애초에 도망갈 일 자체가 없어지는 법입니다.”  질문에 답변을 마치고, 다음 시간에도 현장에서 손을 들고 질문을 받기로 하고 강의를 마쳤습니다. 참가자들은 조별로 모여 마음 나누기를 하고, 스님은 지하 공양간으로 이동하여 대중과 함께 점심 식사를 했습니다. 오후에는 사무실에서 업무를 보고, 저녁에 있을 불교사회대학 강의 준비를 했습니다.

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.  우리가 좋은 곡식을 풍성하게 수확하려면, 우선 씨앗의 영향을 많이 받습니다. 동시에 씨앗이 자라날 밭의 상태도 중요합니다. 씨앗만 좋아서는 안 되고 밭만 좋아서도 안 됩니다. 결국 수확은 씨앗과 밭이 함께 어우러져야 좋은 결과를 얻을 수 있습니다.

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. 이것을 우리가 살아가는 사회에 적용해 보면, 각 개인은 씨앗에 해당하고, 그 개인이 태어나 성장하고 활동하는 가정이나 지역 사회는 밭에 해당합니다. 만약 씨앗인 개인이 다소 부족하더라도 밭인 환경이 양호하다면 그 사람은 비교적 괜찮은 삶을 살아갈 수 있습니다. 반면 아무리 좋은 자질을 지닌 개인이라 하더라도, 자란 환경이 나쁘다면 삶은 고단해지고 좋은 결과를 기대하기 어렵습니다.

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. 더 나아가 개인도 형편없고 환경도 나쁘다면 결과는 더욱 좋지 않겠죠. 반대로 개인의 자질이 뛰어나고 집안 환경까지 뒷받침이 된다면 결과는 그만큼 더 좋아질 것입니다. 그런데 개인 입장에서는 사회를 마음대로 바꾸기가 어렵습니다. 하지만 그에 비해 개인이 자기를 변화시키는 일은 비교적 쉬운 편입니다. 스스로 결정하면 되니까요. 그러나 우리는 종종 자기 변화를 사회 변화보다 더 어렵게 여깁니다. 실제로는 그 반대입니다. 자기 변화는 본인에게 결정권이 있지만, 사회 변화는 많은 사람의 뜻이 모여야 가능하기 때문입니다.

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. 수행과 사회 실천, 왜 함께 가야 할까요? 자신을 변화시키고 주어진 환경에 적절히 대응하는 것이 곧 ‘수행’입니다. 나아가 그 환경까지 정의롭고 평화롭게 변화시켜 나가는 것이 바로 ‘사회 실천’이고 ‘정토 구현’입니다. 수행자는 이 두 가지를 함께 실천해야 하며, 이것을 행하는 사람이 곧 ‘대승 수행자’입니다. 좁은 의미의 수행은 한 개인이 자신의 변화를 도모하는 것이지만, 넓은 의미의 수행은 개인과 사회 변화를 위한 실천을 동시에 하는 것을 말합니다. 소승적 관점은 개인 수행이 먼저이고 그 결과를 가지고 사회적 실천으로 나아가는 방식입니다. 반면 대승적 관점에서는 개인의 수행과 사회적 실천을 동시에 행하는 것을 보살행으로 여깁니다.

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. 그러므로 여러분은 남녀 차별이든 계급 차별이든 인종 차별이든 어떤 차별이 있더라도 자신이 태어난 현실 속에서 먼저 적응하고 살아갈 줄 알아야 합니다. 주어진 조건이 불리하다고 해서 불행에 머무를 수는 없기 때문입니다. 이렇게 어떤 환경에서도 마음의 평화를 누리면서 동시에 성차별, 계급 차별, 인종 차별을 개선하는 사회 활동에 함께 나선다면, 그것이 곧 자신을 더 행복하게 만드는 길이 됩니다. 그래서 사회를 원망하거나 불평만 하기보다는, 수행을 하면서 동시에 이 사회를 변화시키는 일에 동참해야 합니다. 그래야 나의 재능과 능력도 사회 속에서 의미 있게 쓰이게 됩니다.

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. 그래서 우리는 어떤 상황에서도 스스로를 자유롭고 행복한 방향으로 적응해 나가야 하며, 동시에 누구나 차별 없이 평화롭게 살아갈 수 있는 사회를 만드는 일에도 힘써야 합니다. 정토회는 개인 수행과 사회적 실천을 함께 하는 것을 목표로 하는 공동체입니다. 그런데 만약 개인 수행만 하고 사회 활동에는 관심이 없다면, 일반 절이나 명상 센터를 찾아가는 것이 더 맞을 수 있습니다. 반대로 사회 문제 해결에만 관심을 두고 수행을 소홀히 여긴다면 NGO 단체에서 활동하는 편이 나을 수도 있습니다. 이것은 '무엇이 옳고 무엇이 그르다.' 하는 차원의 문제가 아니라, 정토회가 애초에 이 두 과제를 함께 실천하겠다는 목적 아래 만들어졌기 때문입니다.

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. 그럼에도 스님이 사회 문제에 대해 언급할 때면 가끔, ‘스님, 수행에 관한 법문만 해 주세요. 자꾸 그런 이야기하시면 정토회 그만둘래요.’라고 하는 분이 있습니다. 이런 말을 듣는다고 해서 제가 ‘그럼 나가세요.’라고 하지는 않지만, 정토회의 방향과 맞지 않는다면 떠나는 것이 오히려 옳은 선택일지도 모릅니다. 왜냐하면 정토회는 창립할 때부터 ‘일과 수행의 통일’을 중요한 원칙으로 삼고 출발했기 때문입니다.

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!” 환경을 말하면서, 나는 얼마나 실천하고 있을까요? 우리 사회에는 환경 파괴를 막는 운동에 열심히 참여하면서 일상에서는 환경 실천을 하지 않는 사람들이 있습니다. 사회적으로 환경에 해가 될 만한 사안에는 거세게 반대하면서도, 정작 자기 집에서 사용하는 전기나 생활용품 소비에 대해서는 무감각한 겁니다. 예전에 정부가 한 지역에 댐 건설을 추진한 일이 있었습니다. 그러나 환경 단체들의 반대로 무산되었어요. 그때 저는 환경 운동가들에게 ‘이겼다고 축배 들지 마세요!’라고 말했습니다. 

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. 댐 건설을 추진한 공무원들도 지역 발전과 물 부족 문제를 고려해서 나름대로 필요하다고 판단했던 것이지, 그들의 의도가 나쁘다고만 볼 수 없기 때문입니다. 댐 건설이 철회되었을 때는 ‘중단해 주어서 고맙습니다. 대신 우리가 물과 전기를 아끼겠습니다.’ 이렇게 말할 수 있어야 합니다. 이런 태도여야 비로소 지속적인 상호 협력이 가능해집니다. 주민들이 자발적으로 물과 전기를 절약함으로써 댐 없이도 충분히 물과 전기 수요를 감당할 수 있다는 사실을 실천으로 보여 주는 것이야말로 상호 공존하는 운동인 것입니다.

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. 오늘날 대한민국의 발전은 분명 개발을 통해 이루어진 부분이 있습니다. 만약 환경론자 입장에서 ‘나는 원시적으로 자연인처럼 살겠다.’라고 한다면, 그것도 괜찮습니다. 그런 입장이라면 개발 자체를 모두 부정해도 무방해요. 그러나 개발이 가져다 주는 편리를 누리면서 동시에 모든 개발을 반대하는 것은 앞뒤가 맞지 않습니다. 예를 들어 매일 경부 고속 도로를 타고 다니면서 ‘이 고속 도로는 잘못 만들었다.’라고 비판하는 건 모순입니다. 물론 이용하면서도 ‘이게 없었으면 더 좋았을지도 모르겠다.’라고 생각할 수는 있습니다. 그러나 실제로 도움이 된다고 느낀다면 그 역시 필요한 것이라고 인정할 수 있어야죠.

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. 마찬가지로 원자력 발전소도 무조건 나쁘다고 할 수만은 없습니다. 방사능 위험이라는 폐해는 분명 존재하지만, 기후 위기 시대에는 이산화탄소 배출이 없다는 점에서 화석 연료보다 나은 면도 있습니다. 이런 두 가지 면을 함께 고려해야 합니다. 무조건 나쁘다고만 할 것이 아니라 균형 잡힌 시각을 갖는 것이 필요합니다. 원자력 발전의 위험성을 지적하려면 전기를 절약해야 논리적으로 맞습니다. 내가 전기를 쓰지 않으면서 그런 주장을 한다면 설득력이 있지만, 현실적으로 전기를 많이 소비하면서 발전에 반대하는 건 이율배반적입니다.

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. 요즘처럼 인공 지능 산업에서 뒤처지지 않으려면 많은 수의 데이터 센터 건설이 필수적입니다. 그런데 이 분야는 막대한 전력을 소모할 수밖에 없습니다. 용인이나 평택에 이런 공장을 세우려면, 화력 발전소를 짓든 원자력 발전을 도입하든 해야 합니다. 하지만 화력은 이산화탄소 배출로, 원자력은 방사능 위험으로 각각 또 반대에 부딪힙니다. 또, 경제가 발전해야 한다고 하면서 결국 우리 집 근처에는 짓지 말고 멀리 지으라고 요구하는 식입니다. 이런 태도는 균형 잡힌 자세라고 보기 어렵습니다.

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.

Save my name in this browser for the next time I comment.

Is Looking at Everything Positively Perhaps Self-Rationalization?
 May 23, 2025 0 70

May 21, 2025 - Day 94 of the 100-Day Dharma Talk, Religious Leaders' Meeting, Weekly Dharma  Assembly

The Middle Way: Neither Pleasure nor Asceticism, the Path Discovered by the Buddha
May 22, 2025 0 83

May 20, 2025 - 93rd Day of the 100-Day Dharma Talk, Jungto Buddhism Course "Human Buddha" 

Lecture 3, Meeting to...

Jungto Society is a community of Buddhist practitioners who seek to free themselves of suffering in their daily lives and to make the world a better place.



해가 저물고 저녁 7시 30분에는 정토사회문화회관 지하 대강당에서 불교사회대학 21강 강의를 했습니다. 현장에는 170여 명이 자리하고, 온라인 수업에는 1900여 명이 접속했습니다.


지난 시간에는 ‘아시아의 종교 간 갈등과 대화’를 주제로 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 불교의 역할에 대해 살펴보았습니다. 오늘은 ‘실천 불교 수행론’을 주제로 강의를 이어 갔습니다.

“오늘은 수행자가 사회 변화를 위해 실천 활동을 하는 이유가 무엇인지에 대해 이야기를 나누어 보겠습니다.



보다 적극적인 대승 수행은 사회 변화를 추구하는 그 자체를 수행의 과제로 삼는 것입니다. 이것은 훨씬 더 적극적인 보살행의 자세라 할 수 있습니다. 소승 불교에서는 먼저 자신을 수행으로 정비한 뒤, 그 결과로 타인의 고통을 덜어 주며 세상을 변화시키려 합니다. 이것을 ‘베푼다’라고 합니다. 그러나 대승 불교는 세상 사람들의 고통을 해결하는 일을 자신이 성불하기 위한 수행 과제로 삼습니다. 즉 사회를 더 나은 방향으로 바꾸는 활동이 곧 수행이며, 이것이 수행자의 길이라고 보는 것입니다.

소승 불교 수행자는 더러운 세상에 물들지 않기 위해 세상을 떠나 있습니다. 세상에 있으면 자꾸 물들기 때문에 세상을 떠나서 자기 정비를 먼저 한 다음에 다시 세상에 돌아오는 것입니다. 마음이 흔들리지 않도록 준비한 후에야 세상과 마주하는 것이죠. 그러나 대승 불교는 다릅니다. 대승 수행자는 세상을 떠나지 않고 오히려 이 세상을 정화하는 일을 수행 과제로 삼습니다. 사회 문제를 자신의 수행 과제로 받아들이는 거예요. 이것이 소승 수행과 대승 수행의 차이점입니다.

그런데 오늘날 우리는 개인이 겪는 문제를 온전히 그 사람의 책임으로만 돌리는 경향이 있습니다. 이렇게 되면 사회 제도나 구조 같은 더 근본적인 문제들은 자꾸 외면하게 됩니다. 반대로 모든 문제를 사회 탓으로만 돌리게 되면, 개인이 자기 자신을 돌아보고 변화하려는 노력에는 소홀해지기 쉽습니다. 이처럼 오늘날 많은 NGO 단체가 사회 변화를 강조하면서 정작 자기 변화에는 소홀한 경우가 많습니다. 반대로 종교인이나 명상을 하는 사람들은 자기 변화만 중요시하고 사회 문제에는 무관심한 경우도 있습니다. 겉으로는 이들이 정반대로 보이지만 사실 한쪽에만 치우쳐 있다는 점에서는 비슷합니다. 모든 문제를 자신이 부족하기 때문이라고 여긴다면 결국 세상을 외면하게 되고, 또 모든 책임을 사회로 돌린다면 자기 변화에는 소홀해집니다. 그러나 불교에서 말하는 수행은 이 두 가지를 분리해서 보지 않습니다. 자기 자신을 변화시키는 일과 사회를 변화시키는 일은 서로 떨어진 것이 아니라 하나로 이어진 실천이라는 것입니다.



분노 없이도 세상을 바꿀 수 있을까요?
세상에서 벌어지는 여러 문제를 접하다 보면 마음속에 분노가 일기도 합니다. 그런 분노가 생기면 우리는 사회 문제에 더 적극적으로 참여하게 됩니다. 실제로 많은 경우 분노는 강력한 사회 변화의 원동력이 됩니다. 분노하면 눈에 뵈는 게 없어서 죽음조차 두렵지 않게 느껴지기 때문이에요. 그래서 역사적으로도 혁명의 동력은 대부분 분노에서 비롯되었습니다.

그러나 분노를 원동력으로 삼았을 때의 문제는 그 혁명이 대개 ‘폭동’으로 끝난다는 점입니다. 분노가 깊을수록 폭력적으로 대응하기 쉽고, 문제를 지혜롭고 지속적으로 해결하기가 어렵기 때문입니다. 분노를 원동력으로 삼으면 분풀이에는 성공할 수 있어도, 분노의 근원인 본질적인 사회 문제는 해결되지 않은 채 흩어져 버리는 경우가 많습니다. 그래서 분노로 시작한 사회 변화 운동은 대부분 폭동으로 끝나게 됩니다.

하지만 실제로 사회 문제가 개선되기를 바란다면 지속적으로 문제 제기를 해야 합니다. 사회 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 불가피한 상황이 아니면 폭력적인 대응은 지양해야 합니다. 지속적으로 문제 제기를 해야 혁명이 성공할 수 있습니다. 만약 내가 화가 나서 어떤 문제에 대응했는데 그게 성공했다고 가정해 봅시다. 내 기분은 좋겠죠. 하지만 의견 대립이 첨예한 문제에서 한쪽이 성공하면 다른 쪽을 반드시 응징하게 됩니다. 이것은 피의 악순환을 초래할 수 있습니다. 그런데 우리는 복수를 상당히 정당화하는 경향이 있습니다. 요즘에도 한국 사회를 이끌어 가는 정치인들이 어떤 문제에 대해 ‘척결’, ‘청산’이라는 단어를 쓰는데, 이런 말들은 모두 어느 정도 복수와 관련이 있습니다. 물론 혁명을 하기 위해서 어느 정도는 주변 정리가 필요합니다만, 보복의 악순환을 초래하지 않으려면 분노나 복수심으로 해서는 안 됩니다.

반대로 어떤 문제에 대응했다가 실패하면 어떻게 될까요? 엄청난 패배감과 함께 역으로 복수를 당할 수 있다는 두려움이 뒤따르게 됩니다. 그렇다고 외면하는 것도 부작용이 있습니다. 분노하는 마음은 크지만 힘이 부족해서 질 것 같아 문제를 외면해 버리면 스스로 비겁한 사람이라는 생각이 들어 자괴감을 갖게 됩니다.

하지만 어떤 상황이 닥치더라도 ‘그럴 수도 있다.’ 하고 이해하여 화를 내지 않고 평정심을 유지할 수 있다면 어떨까요? 그렇게 되면 성공하든 실패하든, 심지어 외면하는 상황에서도 발전적으로 바꿔 나갈 수 있습니다. 마음속에 분노가 없다면 혁명에 성공했을 때도 상대를 포용할 수 있습니다. 실패하더라도 패배감에 빠지기보다는, 어떻게 해야 다음에 성공할 수 있을지를 연구하며 다시 도전하게 됩니다. 평정심을 유지하게 되면 외면하기보다는 지켜보는 힘이 생깁니다. 지금은 적절한 때가 아니거나 자신의 역량이 부족하다고 판단되면, 때가 올 때까지 기다릴 수가 있습니다. 이것은 비겁함과는 성격이 다릅니다.

그러므로 화가 나지 않은 상태를 유지하는 것이 중요합니다. 이것이 곧 수행이라 할 수 있습니다. 화가 나지 않는다고 해서 아무것도 하지 말아야 한다는 뜻은 아니에요. 어떤 현상에 모순이 있다면 분노 없이 차분하고 지속적으로 행동해야 합니다. 그래야 평화로운 방식으로 변화를 도모할 수 있고, 성공 가능성도 높아집니다. 화가 나서 눈에 뵈는 거 없이 덤벼드는 게 아니라 지혜롭게 대응할 수 있기 때문입니다. 그러면 성공한 뒤에도 상대방을 응징하지 않고 포용할 수 있게 됩니다. 설령 실패하더라도 마음속에 분노가 없다면 자폭하지 않고 그 원인을 연구해서 다음에 다시 도전할 수 있습니다.

정말 나만 옳을 수 있을까요?
우리는 어떤 선택을 할 때 ‘내 선택만 옳다.’ 하고 일방적으로 주장해서는 안 됩니다. 나와 다른 선택을 한 사람에게도 그 나름의 판단과 이유가 있음을 인정해야 합니다. 내가 옳다고 주장하는 것은 곧 상대방이 틀렸다는 말이 되기 때문입니다. 모든 선택을 옳고 그름의 문제로만 본다면 갈등이 생기기 쉽습니다. ‘나는 이렇게 선택했고, 저 사람은 저렇게 선택했구나.’ 하고 바라볼 수 있어야 합니다. 역지사지(易地思之)의 자세가 필요합니다. 남한이라면 북한의 입장도 이해할 수 있어야 한다는 겁니다. 북한에 동조하자는 말이 아니라 상대의 입장을 이해해야 대응도 가능하다는 말이에요. 손자병법에도 ‘적을 알고 나를 알면 백전백승한다.’ 하는 말이 있잖아요. 상대의 입장을 알아야 효과적으로 대처할 수 있다는 뜻입니다. 예를 들어, 내가 대통령 탄핵에 찬성하는 입장이라면 반대하는 입장도 이해해야 합니다. 그 위에서 찬성 입장을 관철하기 위해 어떤 노력을 해야 할지 고민하고 행동하는 것이 중요합니다. 그것이 지혜로운 대응이며 분노 없이도 사회를 변화시키는 길입니다.

정의를 강하게 주장하는 사람들에게는 두려움이 없고 헌신적인 태도가 있습니다. 이러한 장점과 함께 자신만이 옳다는 확신도 매우 강한 경우가 많습니다. 그래서 ‘내가 하면 로맨스, 남이 하면 불륜’이라는 식의 이중적인 시각을 갖기 쉽습니다. 사법부의 판결이 내려졌을 때도 마찬가지입니다. 자신에게 유리한 판결이면 ‘사법부가 살아 있다!’라고 외치고, 불리한 판결이면 곧바로 ‘사법부는 죽었다!’라고 말합니다. 심지어 그 근거를 찾기 위해 판결을 내린 법관의 성향을 문제 삼고, 상대편에 동조하는 세력으로 몰아붙이기도 합니다. 이처럼 항상 ‘내가 옳다!’ 하는 생각에서 모든 갈등이 발생합니다. 내 생각만 옳다고 믿는 사람이 많아질수록 공동체는 점점 분열의 길로 빠지게 됩니다.

공정한 시합에는 모두가 따라야 할 공통의 규칙이 있습니다. 그러나 ‘내로남불’의 태도가 만연하면 기본 전제 자체가 무너지기 쉽습니다. 자신이 규칙을 어기면 ‘그럴 수밖에 없었다.’고 합리화하면서, 정작 타인이 같은 행동을 하면 곧바로 비난부터 합니다. 마치 경기 규칙을 어긴 선수가 자신은 벌점을 받지 않겠다고 우기면서 상대방에게만 규칙을 지키라고 주장하는 것과 같아요.



실천 불교 수행론, 보살이 지옥으로 향하는 이유
대승 불교에서는 수행자를 ‘보디사트바’라고 합니다. 여기서 ‘보디(Bodhi)’는 ‘깨달음’을, ‘사트바(sattva)’는 ‘어리석음’을 말합니다. 즉, 보디사트바는 깨달음과 어리석음이 결합된 존재입니다. 보디는 깨달음이므로 곧 부처를 뜻하고, 사트바는 어리석음이므로 중생을 뜻합니다. 그러므로 보디사트바는 부처와 중생의 중간 지점에 자리한 존재라고 할 수 있습니다.

보디사트바란 부처가 있는 한 그 빛이 중생에게 비추어진다는 것이고, 중생이 있는 한 그 어리석음의 그림자가 부처에게도 드리워진다는 의미입니다. 그래서 이 세상에 부처가 있는 한 우리 모두 부처가 될 성품을 지니고 있으며 동시에, 중생이 있는 한 우리 안에는 여전히 어리석음도 함께 존재합니다.

우리는 중생에서 출발해 부처를 향해 나아가는 존재입니다. 오른편에 있는 중생에서 출발하여 왼편에 있는 부처를 향해 나아가야 합니다. 그러나 대승 불교의 보살 사상에 따르면 아무리 깨달음의 방향으로 나아가더라도 완전히 부처가 될 수는 없습니다. 왜냐하면 중생이 있는 한 그 어리석음의 그림자가 여전히 남아 있기 때문입니다. 우리가 가야 할 최종 목표는 보디, 즉 부처입니다. 하지만 보디를 실현하기 위한 수행의 방향은 역설적으로 사트바, 곧 중생을 향해야 합니다. 깨달음을 이루기 위해서는 오히려 중생이 있는 곳으로, 즉 어리석음이 있는 자리로 가서 어리석음을 없애야 한다는 말이에요. 그 어리석음이 사라질 때 우리는 곧 부처가 되는 것입니다. 결국 우리가 나아가야 할 최종 목적지는 부처이고, 그 길을 실천해 나가는 행위는 중생을 향해 나아가는 것입니다. 이것이 대승 불교의 보살 사상입니다.

대승 불교의 보살 사상에 근거해서 지장보살이 지옥으로 수행을 하러 가는 것입니다. ‘지옥에 중생이 있는 한 나는 부처가 되지 않겠다.’ 하는 것이 지장보살의 서원입니다. 하지만 대승 불교 사상의 입장에서 이 말은 ‘지옥이 존재하고, 그 속에서 고통받는 중생이 있는 한은 누구도 부처가 될 수가 없다.’ 하는 말과 같습니다. 즉, 지옥을 없애야 내가 부처가 된다는 원리입니다. 법장비구(法藏比丘) 또한 고통 없는 세계를 만들기 위해 원을 세우고 그 세계가 이루어질 때까지 정진했습니다. 그렇게 만들어진 세계가 극락세계이고, 법장비구는 결국 아미타 부처가 되었습니다.

대승 불교의 보살 사상은 성불을 향한 수행과 정토 구현을 위한 사회적 실천을 반반씩 나누거나, 하나를 먼저 하고 다른 하나는 나중에 하자는 식의 개념이 아닙니다. 우리 사회에서 사람들이 겪고 있는 고통을 내가 다 짊어지겠다는 마음을 낼 때, 그 순간 내가 바로 부처의 길로 들어서게 되는 것입니다. 금강경에서 ‘아뇩다라삼먁삼보리심을 발한 선남자 선녀인은 마땅히 어떻게 머무르며 어떻게 그 마음을 항복받아야 합니까?’라는 수보리의 질문에 부처님께서 ‘일체중생을 구제하겠다는 마음을 내라.’ 하고 답한 것도 같은 맥락입니다.

그렇다면 보살에게 있어서 정토란 무엇일까요? 수행자인 보살에게 정토란 이미 완성된 세계가 아닙니다. 완성을 향해 보살이 활동하는 세계입니다. 그러면 저에게 있어서 통일 조국은 통일된 조국을 말하는 걸까요? 아니면 통일 조국을 향해 활동하고 있는 상태일까요? 저는 이미 통일 조국에 살고 있습니다. 옆에 있는 구경꾼이 볼 때는 ‘아무리 노력해도 통일이 안 되네.’라고 말할 수 있지만, 저는 이미 통일 조국에서 살고 있는 것입니다. 이것이 바로 ‘유심정토(唯心淨土)’입니다. 정토 세계를 이루기 위해 보살이 혼신의 힘을 다해 일한다면, 그 자체로 이미 유심정토를 이루고 있는 것과 같습니다. 여러분은 무언가를 하다가 잘 안되면 실패라고 규정합니다. 그러나 수행자에게는 실패라는 개념이 없습니다. 수행자는 늘 다만 할 뿐입니다.”

이어서 수업 시간 중 궁금했던 내용에 대해 질문하는 시간을 가졌습니다. 두 사람의 질문을 받은 후 다음 시간에는 ‘사회적 트라우마에 대처하는 불교의 지혜’를 주제로 강의하기로 하고 밤 9시가 넘어서 수업을 마쳤습니다.
내일은 백일법문 96일째 날입니다. 오전에는 정토사회문화회관 지하 대강당에서 주간반 금요 즉문즉설 강연을 하고, 오후에는 평화재단을 찾아온 손님과 미팅을 한 후, 저녁에는 저녁반 금요 즉문즉설 강연을 하고 두북수련원으로 이동할 예정입니다.

스님 가르침 감사합니다. 부족한 부분을 채울수 있도록 노력하겠습니다.
불교에서는 나 라는 존재가 있다/없다 가 중요한게 아니라 있다라고 생각을 하면 괴로움이 발생하게 된다.
수행자는 자기변화 와 사회변화를 동시에 추구해야 하고 그것이 정토회는 설립목적이다.
수행자는 보디(부처)사트바(중생)로서 부처가 되려고 하는 중생이다.
분노와 화를 내지않고 지속적으로 해야하고 수행자에겐 실패란 없이 그냥 할뿐이다.
를 배웠습니다.

무아의 개념은 좀 어렵습니다. 아는 만큼 그냥 합니다.🙏

“행복은 먼 길 끝에 있을까요, 아니면 지금 돌아서면 될까요?” 
“정토회는 왜 자원봉사자에 의해서만 운영될까요?” 
“머리로는 이치를 받아들이는데, 왜 마음은 여전히 괴로울까요?” 
“불교는 어떻게 현대 문명의 한계를 넘어설 수 있을까요?”
이전글 "무엇이든 긍정적으로 바라보는 것이 혹시 자기 합리화는 아닐까요?"