A Rhetoric of Zen in contemporary Korean Buddhism-Pomnyun’s Quote

The rhetoric of Zen in contemporary Korea-Pomnyun’s Discourse.

Hello, it is an honor to give my presentation on contemporary Korean Seon dialogue here. Seon in Korean is the same term as Zen in Japanese and Chan in Chinese. Today I will talk about the adaptation of Seon dialogues by the present-day monk Pomnyun (1953~ ). The title of his lecture series is Pomnyun’s Discourse. I’ve used Pomnyun’s Quote based on his interview article in New York times, but the word ‘quote’ does not work well with his dialogues.1 So I changed it. Pomnyun has embodied the idea of integrating Buddhist teaching into daily practice by adapting traditional Seon dialogues and practices. How has the monk Pomnyun modified them? To get a sense of his dialogues, let’s first watch part of one of his talks. (video playing, The Discourse part would be in subtitle) A follower asked, “I grasped the last of three chances in my life to get a job and have been working hard. I am in my mid-fifties but I still don’t have a wife. That would be my personal flaw. Could you let me know a way to find a good woman to be my wife?” The Monk Pomnyun said, “My suggestion is that you shave your head and become a monk.” What do you think about that? It is nonsense, isn’t it? Why did the monk say that? Some of you might be familiar with this feeling of absurdity while reading Zen dialogues. But at the same time, you may feel that this dialogue is a little different from a traditional Zen talk. The similarities and differences between traditional dialogues and Pomnyun’s dialogues are my topic today. I will introduce you to the monk Pomnyun. Please hold your questions about the dialogue that we’ve just watched until later. The monk Pomnyun has been recognized as the founder leading a new movement of Buddhism in Korea. He succeeds to the lineage of the monk Paekyongsung, who is famous for modernizing Korean

1

Pomnyun’s Discourse, Questions, dialogues, This English title is base on his interview in New York times in 2012.

Buddhism, like the monk Taixu did in China. Pomnyun entered a Buddhist monastery in 1969 when he was 16 years old and was sent to society as a disciple in training by his teacher in 1971. He was called back to a temple by his teacher in 1991 for private ordination. Instead of practicing deep in the mountains, he spent his novice period living in society for 20 years. During that time, he worked as a lay dharma teacher of college students and engaged in the democratic movement. After Korea achieved democracy, he established the ‘Jungto Society’ in 1988, which means Pure Land Society. Unlike traditional Korean Buddhism, the Jungto Society is a laity-centered Buddhist organization in Korea. Pomnyun veered away from traditional distinctions in Korean Buddhism such as the relationship between a monk and laity, between sacred life and secular life, and between Buddhist practice and social activity by suggesting a practice that combines daily life and Buddhist practice. “Pomnyun’s Discourse,” which is today’s topic, was designed to promote people’s happiness in 2002. The name of the talk in Korean is JeukmunJeuksul (卽問卽說), which means “An immediate comment in response to a question.” This talk is an interactive dialogue rather than one way preaching on Buddhist teachings. Pomnyun is asked questions from the audience and then answers them directly. This form is different from a traditional Buddhist dharma talk. According to his explanation, his talk centers on problems in daily life and then moves toward truth or Buddhist teaching. Unlike traditional preaching, his way is initiated from the bottom up, which is from everyday issues to worldly truth. Therefore, as you’ve seen, the topics of the questions are generally related to daily life. Some examples of problems that might be raised are avoiding stress, getting a job, a business going bankrupt, a cheating partner, conflicts with parents, etc. He gave 300 special interactive talks in 2012, touring all over Korea and the world, and in 2013, spoke over 100 times in Korea. Pomnyun is now one of the most powerful mentors to the young people of Korea. It might be a strange and interesting phenomenon to people outside Korea. So let me briefly touch on the background for the popularity of his style, before we move on to analyze his rhetoric.

The reason for his popularity is related to the social context in Korea today. As you know, South Korea has achieved rapid economic growth in a short time. This rapid development was built on the sacrifices of individuals, families and communities, and incorporated traditional moral values. Recently, along with the world economic depression, the younger generation’s employment problems in Korea have been serious but, unfortunately, young people have few intimate supportive communities to buffer the stressful situations of today. Moreover, in recent years, Korea has undergone a paradigm shift from collectivism to individualism. People have been thrown into a multi-dimensional life from a homogenous norm society without any preparation. As a result, people seek guidance to cope with the challenge of changing times. His responses do not suggest one answer that the questioner ought to follow. Rather Pomnyun leads people to make a more rational decision by seeing the issue from different perspectives, and understanding the situation more objectively. He challenges people to think. At first glance, Pomnyun’s talk looks like counseling in public, but the structure of his dialogue borrows from the style of traditional Seon. The basic structure of Seon dialogue consists of a question followed by a provocative response. The provocative response is the crucial part of Seon dialogue denoting an illogical answer which does not follow regular rules of conversation. The response is an instrument to break through a person’s preconceived thought and to help him/her to see non-conceptual reality. A well-known Koan, Zhaozhou’s Dog’s Buddha nature, would be a good example of a provocative response. A monk asked Zhaozhou, a famous Chan monk in the Tang Dynasty, if a dog has a Buddha nature. Zhaozhou answered “No.” At that time, it was common sense among Buddhists in China that all sentient-beings have Buddha nature. So Zhaozhou’s response evoked strong doubt within the questioner and became a trigger breaking his preconceived thoughts. As you saw in the video, Pomnyun’s response to the question is also illogical. The question was how to find a good wife, and Pomnyun’s answer was to become a monk. Another example concerns a mother of a girl who asked Pomyun whether she should have another child and also why human beings exist. Pomnyun’s response was “Have you given birth? Don’t you already understand the meaning of adding another life in this world?” These

unexpected replies gave a mental shock to the questioner and evoked curiosity in the explanation that followed. The structure of “Pomnyun’s Discourse” is comprised of four components. : A question, a provocative response, an explanation of the question, and an expanded commentary on Buddhist teachings for the audience. Unlike traditional Seon dialogue, Pomnyun’s talk features the teacher’s additional explanation. Let’s watch his explanation on the marriage question (video plays with a subtitle. The Discoursed part will be in subtitle) Pomnyun said, “I am 60 years old now so I am 5 years older than you. Then, why am I not worried about marriage? And why are you worried about it even though you are five years younger than me?” Pomnyun continued. “So if you shave your head, you will not be in distress. If one doesn’t shave one’s head and doesn’t marry until his or her fifties, one might be a loser, right? If one shaves one’s head and doesn’t marry until his or her fifties, is one a victor or a loser? Let’s consider him a winner. Many monks can’t sustain the single life until they reach age sixty; they marry a woman and abandon their vows. Why is it that one becomes a failure if he is not married while the other becomes a victor by being unmarried even though they are the same human being? In other words, the status of being unmarried is neither good nor bad. You know, the way one sees this issue is important. Your perspective is negative. You think up to age of fifty-five you haven’t been able to marry, but I think in remaining unmarried up to age sixty that I’ve succeeded. Therefore, please see yourself as a victor who has remained single.” The questioner replied, “Thank you for your good advice.” “You think I am playing with words. But that is the Dao (the way of truth). Look at this. (showing a cup and a dish) Is it big or small? Is it small? Let’s see. Is this cup big or small?” “It’s big.” “How about in this situation? Is this big or small? ” “It’s big.” “Then is it big or small?” (laugh) “When we judge whether this cup is big or small, we think we judge it objectively but this is not true. This cup is neither big nor small. When the cup meets this condition, we say it is big. When the cup meets that

condition, we say it is small. Then what does the judgment of big or small depend on? Does it depend on the cup or on our perspective? It depends on our perspective. So we call it emptiness that the cup is neither big nor small.” Now, what do you think? Is Pomyun’s response in the dialogue acceptable and persuasive after his explanation of the reality of the issue? The explanation of “Pomnyun’s Discourse” plays a crucial role in finding solutions to problems and leading people to happiness. Through the explanation part, the questioners understand the meaning of his response and learn a different way to see the problem. In the video, Pomnyun noticed that the real problem of the question is the questioner’s negative perspective on himself instead of ‘finding a good wife.’ Some people might not sympathize with the questioner’s anguish but, in Korean society, many people still view an older unmarried person as abnormal. So, Pomnyun directed the questioner to be free from social pressure and to see himself in a more positive way. According to Pomnyun, there are many perspectives in viewing a problem, as many as there are people in the world. He also believes that, in many cases, suffering is created by adhering to a self-centered perspective and it will end when a perspective changes. So, his explanation focuses on letting people view the problem from a different angle. Pomnyun even declared that viewing a situation from various perspectives can bear wisdom or be called breaking through Hwadu, a critical phrase used for meditation practice. In Korean Seon, breaking through Hwadu means attaining enlightenment. In this context, I noticed that “Pomnyun’s Discourse” also could be a modified Kanwha Seon practice which is a traditional Buddhist Seon practice in Korea. I would call it a provisional Kanhwa Seon practice in the boundary of the mundane truth (俗諦). Kanhwa means observing Hwadu. Hwadu is a critical phrase made from Gongan (Koan in Japanese) that you strive to solve through practice. In Kanhwa Seon, a practitioner uses Hwadu to concentrate his/her mind. Once you fully concentrate on Hwadu all the time, your conceptual and judgmental thought will be blown away at some point and then

you can attain enlightenment. You can break though the Hwadu by yourself or through a conversation with a teacher, generally after a long period of practice. The condition of a good Hwadu is that it can provoke the question ‘Why?’ to a practitioner. If the person doesn’t have any doubt about a Hwadu which he/she holds, the Hwadu should be replaced. Usually a provocative response in the Seon dialogue becomes a Hwadu but in Pomnyun’s talk, the questioner’s problem can play a role like a Hwadu instead of Pomnyun’s response. For example, when a person struggles with his/her own problem, his/her mind is fully present on the issue. The topic is not the Buddhist teaching but is more direct and close to the practitioner and captures the person in the problem. So it holds the practitioner’s attention. Both Hwadu and a questioner’s problem work as an instrument to move forward to see conceptual or non-conceptual reality. Of course, the degree of seeing truth, in other words attaining enlightenment would not be on the same level. In my opinion, whereas Hwadu can directly lead a practitioner to the ultimate truth, a daily problem can generally lead a questioner to a provisional truth.

There is criticism that Pomnyun’s Discourse will be a temporary event. Questioners’ pleasant feeling after the conversation will not last forever and cannot change people’s lives as ultimate enlightenment is believed to do. Also Pomnyun does not take care of the questioner after the conversation like a Seon teacher does to his disciple. So it is hard to call it a practice. These points are possible critiques from the perspective of traditional Buddhist practice. They will be the limitation of his provisional Kanhwa practice in a mundane world. Rather, the crucial problematic part of Pomnyun’s Discourse is that each dialogue is separately relying on a question. His answer is conditionally tailored to this question. Therefore, other audiences easily misunderstand and the questioner cannot apply his insight to other problems in different situation unless he/she has enough ability. In conclusion, Pomnyun’s unique rhetoric suggests a new way to apply Seon dialogue and practice to rethink daily problems within the Korean context. Regardless of its criticisms and limitations,

Pomnyun’s provisional Kanhwa Seon practice could be considered as an alternative method for busy lay people practicing Buddhism in daily life. 2

2

Math tutor/ mentioning his humor, personally interviewed him. Involve social engagement. Committed educating people.