What Is Seon?

<What Is Zen?>

(Questioner) Good morning, Sunim.
This is my question.

I'm curious about what Zen is.

How is it different from
other schools of Buddhism?

What does it mean to say
that talking about Zen in true words

will still miss the point
Zen is trying to convey?

What does it mean to say that
Zen has nothing to say or teach at all?

And how can Zen help people
in today's modern society

who are overly civilized,
overly self-conscious, too anxious,

and tend to thinking too much
about unnecessary things

that cause unnecessary problems
and suffering? Thank you.

(Interpreter translating the question
into Korean for Sunim)

(Sunim) You can classify Zen as Zen,
or Zen as a form of Buddhism.

The perspective of Zen supersedes Buddhism
in the actual taxonomy of religion.

At that point, Zen is not necessarily
classified as part of Buddhism.

Zen is in itself Zen.

On the other hand, there is Zen,
which is a part of Buddhism.

It is another tradition of Buddhism.

Zen started in China.

It came out of a sense of repentance of
the state of Buddhism in China at that time.

The time when Zen arose
in China was the time

in which Buddhism was
a national religion of China.

That means the ruling monarch
used Buddhism

as the ruling ideology of the country.

He built a lot of temples and pagodas.

And there was a lot of translation
and publication of original Indian sutras

into Chinese.

There was also extensive education
and ordainment of Buddhist monks.

There was a perception that
this was the advancement of Buddhism.

But whether that was Buddhism,
Islam, Hinduism, or something else,

it just became another core principle
or a way of ruling the country.

Then people started questioning,
"Is this really Buddhism?"

Is studying the sutras,
the word on the sutras,

really Buddhism?

Isn't that just academic study?

Is Building temples really Buddhism?

Isn't that just construction projects?

Is ordainment in graduation
of a lot of monks Buddhism,

or is it just producing more clergy?

They said, "This is not Buddhism."

The core of Buddhism is
awaken the ignorance in our hearts

and liberate ourselves
from that ignorance.

The Buddha is somebody who has
liberated himself from his own ignorance,

not somebody who sits far away
or far beyond.

So, I am a Buddha as soon as I break through
and liberate myself from my own ignorance.

Reading all these sutras is
about academic achievements,

but you are not liberating yourself
from your own ignorance.

You can't study words
and arrive at enlightenment,

through intellectual pursuit.

In other words, truth cannot be
examined or validated through words.

The only way to get to that truth is
to awaken your own mind.

Therefore, you don't need large temples,

you don't need to build pagodas,

or you don't need to memorize
thousands of sutras and study Buddhism.

The only thing you need to do is
awaken your own mind,

which means you can do this anywhere.

Anybody can do it.
You don't have to be ordained as a monk.

Those were the questions
in the perspective

that drove a new Buddhist movement.

The mainstream Buddhism at that time
denied Zen as a Buddhism

because there was a certain discipline,
hierarchy, and process

by which you became
an ordained monk.

But these new Zen people were saying that
if you awaken your own mind,

you can be a spiritual practitioner.

So, they were going against
the prevailing order of things.

At the time, you had to study
for 10, 20, 30 years reading the sutras

and disciplining yourself to get
to the enlightenment.

And even then,
it was very hard.

But these new people were saying
that they could be enlightened

by awakening just their own hearts.

A spiritual practitioner was believed
to be a monk living in temples,

not someone who lives
in their house, a cave, or a forest.

So, they could not be recognized
as fellow spiritual practitioners

and were prohibited from temples.

But the new Zen practitioners
did not need to live in temples.

So, they lived wherever in the forest,
in nature, or in caves,

and they practiced on their own.

The methodology by which they taught
others was through a Q&A system

by engaging in dialogue and
in conversation with everyday people.

Sometimes, they would ask
abstract questions like, "Who are you?"

That is how they made inroads
into mainstream society.

After a certain time has passed,
many intellectuals started joining them.

Then what happened in China was
that a new dynasty came to power,

and they were prosecuting Buddhists.

In this new dynasty where mainstream
and conventional Buddhism was persecuted,

they gradually lost a lot of their power.

On the other hand, Zen Buddhists
did not have a lot of huge temples.

They weren't getting sponsored
by the government.

So, their influence actually grew
in this new environment.

But as Zen Buddhism became bigger
and more mainstream,

they had felt the need to justify itself.

The most vulnerable question
they had to respond to was

that they weren't traditional Buddhists.

So, they created
their own vernacular.

They said that Zen represents
the mind of the Buddha

while Buddhism represents the teaching,
the words of the Buddha.

When people heard that,
the mind seemed more important than words.

In a way, they created this new term,
Zen Buddhism,

with each word representing
different aspects of the Buddha,

and established a kind of hierarchy.

Then they started claiming that
this did not start indigenously in China,

but this was a longstanding tradition
that came over from India.

One of the claims they made was that
Zen started with the Buddha in India

and was transmitted from disciple
to disciple through the mind,

and that the Venerable Bodhidharma,

reputed to have brought it from India
to China, was the 28th patriarch.

They claimed that the fate of Buddhism
in India had come to an end,

and it would flourish in China now.

They claimed that since this was
the original mind of the Buddha

that has been transmitted,
Zen started with the Buddha himself.

It was his mind that was transmitted
and handed down

to his closest disciple,
Mahakassapa.

What is important is that,
the legend has it that

this wasn't taught through words
but was transmitted directly

from mind to mind,
without verbal instruction.

They created the concept of transmitting
the Buddha's mind without words

(gyo oe byeol jeon)

in three different places
(sam cheo jeon sim).

By creating this narrative,
Zen Buddhists were able to claim

that they were the true inheritors
of the original mind of the Buddha.

But since Zen Buddhism had the advantage
of a simple transmission of his teachings

through the conversational Q&A method

and with the decline of Buddhism as a religion
along with the changing dinasties,

Zen Buddhism had become a mainstream
Buddhist tradition across Northeast Asia.

So, when people saw
high-ranking Buddhist monks

serving as teachers of the monarchs,
living in luxury in palaces,

and having a lot of influence
in the state of affairs,

people saw them
not as spiritual practitioners

but as just another powerful figure.

In comparison, when people saw
the Zen practitioners living simple lives,

eating meagre food,
but focusing on spiritual practice,

they garnered
deep public respect and support.

After several hundred years
of this phenomenon,

Zen has now become the mainstream
Buddhism in many countries

or at least a huge part of a tradition
of the taxonomy of Buddhism.

It is mostly mainstream
in China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.

As Zen evolved in Buddhism,
it started consuming other parts

of the traditional Buddhism,

eventually becoming a more inclusive
and comprehensive set of Buddhism.

In that sense, the original purity
of Zen tradition and thought

in the beginning of its journey
has largely disappeared in today's Zen.

(Questioner) So as follow-up question,
I want to ask,

why in today's society
like in Japan or Korea,

Zen Buddhism is not so popular
among the younger generation.

Why not so many people in Korea or Japan
showing interest in learning about Zen?

I noticed that many people,
especially in younger generation,

are developing depression
and mental health problem.

What might be the reason for this?
Thank you.

(Interpreter translating the question
into Korean for Sunim)

(Sunim) I think many young people
find it difficult to approach Zen because,

over the years,
it has become too rigid as a tradition.

As it has become mainstream,
authoritative and heavy tone.

Instead of using simple,
everyday language it once used,

now, it has been jargonized
and complex terminology.

So, this really makes it difficult
for young people to approach it.

If we want to go back and draw
the interests of the young people,

I think Zen Buddhism really needs
to be made much easier and much simpler.

And try to approach them through
the suffering they are experiencing

by asking the question like,
"Why do you suffer?"

Let go of the dogmatic aspect
of Zen Buddhism,

but approach them through
everyday questions and problems.

For example, as a young people,
I'm more concerned about dating or school.

Then if someone tries to teach me by force
to meditate on the concept of emptiness,

it doesn't really touch me
and I get bored.

I think if Zen were
to go back to its original genesis,

which started as a simple and accessible
way of trying to liberate oneself,

and try to approach young people
by questioning and trying to resolve

their everyday issues,
it will be much more approachable.

(Questioner) Thank you for
the wonderful answers for my question.

I really appreciate it.
Thank you so much.