Critiquing the Monk Beopsang, Part 1: If We Are Already Awakened, Why Listen to You?

Returning to Criticism Without Sanctuaries

Tonight is Wednesday, October 21, 2026. I originally planned a session of questions and conversation, but I changed the subject. For a while, I have been reporting on artificial intelligence and exchanging questions and answers with you. Today I am returning to “Criticism Without Sanctuaries.” This is a time to examine people who speak in the name of Buddhism or enlightenment as though they themselves were awakened.

The previous AI broadcast received an unexpectedly large number of impressions and clicks. Venerable Dao and Jolgae Seorou greeted me at the beginning but said little afterward, so I worked hard to keep the broadcast going on my own. Apparently people thought it had something worth hearing: it has even brought new subscribers. Seeing the greeting that says, “I won’t doze off today,” I suppose someone fell asleep last time. Among my AI videos, perhaps this one was relatively easy to watch from beginning to end. This would be the moment to keep talking about AI, but being contrary, I am returning to Buddhism.

The person I am criticizing today is the monk Beopsang. He continually discusses Buddhism and awakening online through his channel, “Beopsang Sunim’s Moktak Sound.” For quite some time, people have asked me, “Is Venerable Beopsang awakened?” How would I know whether he is awakened? I did, however, have things to criticize. I had kept them to myself, but after watching more, I felt I could no longer remain silent.

I criticize these discussions because their speakers act as though they are awakened, as though they are Buddhas. You might ask, “Don’t you call yourself a twenty-first-century arahant?” Yes. I also call myself an arahant, an awakened person. Then what is the difference? At a minimum, an awakened person should be able to show others a direction toward wisdom. People have different circumstances and conditions, but one should still be able to explain what to examine and how. The claim we will examine today goes in the opposite direction: “You are already awakened,” or “You are originally a Buddha.”

Why I Say “Monk” Instead of “Sunim”

Anyone involved in Buddhism will have heard the claim that we are originally Buddhas countless times. People practicing Seon Buddhism say it particularly often, and YouTube is full of people speaking as though they are awakened. Beopsang is one prominent example. Here I will use the word “monk,” rather than the honorific “sunim.” That title itself deserves some thought.

When criticizing Jeon Kwang-hoon, people do not normally add an honorific to “Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon.” They simply name his position. I understand “sunim” as an honorific for a monk. “Monk” identifies a position, and one may add an honorific when addressing someone worthy of respect, an older person, or someone in a private encounter. But when criticizing a monk whose conduct deserves criticism, we are not obliged to add a term of reverence. My point concerns the use of words when we call the object of criticism “sunim.”

There is also the Korean word “jung,” but its tone can create problems, so I use the comparatively neutral designation “monk.” Moreover, I think naming one’s own channel “Beopsang Sunim’s Moktak Sound” is itself a mistake. “Beopsang’s Moktak Sound” or “The Monk Beopsang’s Moktak Sound” would do. Referring to oneself with an honorific shows a failure to grasp the basics.

Even if people have addressed you that way since childhood, when identifying yourself, “the monk Beopsang,” “Beopsang,” or “Bhikkhu Beopsang” is sufficient. Some monks elevate themselves even in their own introductions, speaking of themselves as “sunim.” Please stop doing that. It reveals ignorance at a very elementary level.

People Said to Have Awakened Without Practice, and the Heart Sutra

The title of the video we are examining already reveals the problem. It concerns “Byron Katie, Eckhart Tolle: People Who Awakened Without Practice.” In a lecture on the Heart Sutra, Beopsang discusses the awakening of Western spiritual figures. I have repeatedly said that the heart of the Heart Sutra is breaking through concepts. Breaking through concepts is the alpha and omega of Buddhism. If you do not understand that, and instead pull everything into your own Seon framework, you can lecture on the Heart Sutra while saying something entirely beside the point.

I do not know what kind of person Byron Katie is. Beopsang mentions Eckhart Tolle so frequently that I have looked him up and watched some material on YouTube. I have seen what kinds of claims he makes. What I criticize here is the treatment of such claims as equivalent to Buddhist awakening. So-called yogis, such as Rajneesh, also elevate themselves enormously. Beopsang read Rajneesh when he was young and admired him.

The problem is that people stop at “the absence of thought,” without reaching the core of Buddhism, and mistake that for awakening. I consider Beopsang one of these self-deluded sages. I raise the same problem with Rajneesh and Tolle. If they regard remaining in a state without thought as awakening, they fail to recognize contradictions and mistakes in their own speech. By watching the beginning of the video together, I want to show where Seon Buddhism can lead when it goes wrong.

Can “No Attainment” Replace the Context of an Entire Sutra?

Explaining the title of the Heart Sutra, the Mahaprajnaparamita Heart Sutra, Beopsang says that he has already spent several hours discussing paramita. His question is how a sentient being crosses to the shore of awakening, and what practice makes us awaken. He then explains that what early Buddhism called the Middle Way was called prajnaparamita in Mahayana Buddhism. His explanation continues as follows.

Beopsang: “The Buddha’s Middle Way, or Mahayana Buddhism’s prajnaparamita, is a method that is not a method, a path that is not a path, that awakens us. All worldly methods have a route and a destination, but this study is no attainment. The phrase at the semantic core of the Heart Sutra is ‘because there is no attainment.’”

I stopped the video here. If you do not understand the context of the entire Heart Sutra, you seize on “because there is no attainment” alone. The statement that there is nothing to awaken to challenges the concept of awakening itself. Earlier, the text speaks of neither arising nor ceasing, neither defilement nor purity, neither increase nor decrease. It questions even the concepts of the Four Noble Truths: suffering, its origin, cessation, and the path. Then, in “nothing to attain,” we should also read a challenge to the concept of attaining something.

Instead, the whole sutra is pinned to “there is nothing to attain.” Without understanding the whole, the explanation drifts into saying that there is nothing to awaken to, that we are already awakened, and that people awaken without practice. What we should learn from the Heart Sutra, and how our thinking might change, disappear. This is less a matter of interpreting one word than of reading the surrounding context.

Let us hear a little more of Beopsang’s explanation. He says that hearing “no attainment” may make it seem that study is unnecessary, and continues:

Beopsang: “Buddhism is not a teaching about acquiring something called enlightenment. It is simply confirming, ‘Ah, I was already awakened.’”

If We Are Already Awakened, Why Should We Listen to You?

This is the central point of today’s criticism. What does it mean to “confirm” that you were already awakened? It means noticing something you did not know and becoming different from before. In that case, something must be involved in the change. Yet the explanation begins by saying, “You are already awakened.” I consider that claim itself a lie. Saying that we are originally Buddhas makes fools of people.

It is a misuse of language. If you tell people that they are awakened as soon as they confirm one thing, they begin declaring themselves enlightened after some flash of experience. My own comment section is full of claims that simply confirming “this moment” constitutes awakening. This is what I mean by self-deluded sages. Claiming to have had an experience and living wisely are not the same thing.

A wise person should know at least something about guiding others toward wisdom. They should understand their judgments about society, their own ways of judging and the results, and the meaning of what they say. They should also know how to help someone else understand. Without such wisdom, what comes out of their mouth is nonsense. Beopsang seems not even to know what he himself is saying.

If we are already awakened, why should we listen to you? Why do we need to confirm anything if we are already awakened? Because the initial statement is wrong, additional explanations keep getting attached to it. If all that is required is to confirm, “I was originally a Buddha,” becoming a Buddha must be very easy. He himself says it is easy. Then why must people listen endlessly to the same words across hundreds of videos?

I previously criticized Dharma teacher Kim Tae-wan strongly for telling people, in effect, “Just listen to me.” I see the same structure in Beopsang. Listen, listen, and listen again, and you will awaken. He needs to answer the question: if I am already awakened, why must I listen to you? The word “enlightenment” must not become an excuse for stopping questions.

Only Confirm It—But There Is No Method?

When I resumed the video, Beopsang explained:

Beopsang: “I was originally a Buddha. There was nothing more I needed to acquire. When you simply and suddenly confirm that you were originally complete and lacked nothing, you see that it was like this yesterday and is like this today. I have always been this awakening. You simply confirm this all at once. So you are not going anywhere. There is no method. For there to be a method, you would have to go from here to there.”

Here the second problem appears. First he tells us to confirm that we are originally awakened; now he says there is no method for confirming it. I criticize this as a prime example of gaslighting that makes fools of people. Since you are already awakened, there is no path or method to awakening—yet you are still told to confirm it. It is the same logic I saw in Kim Tae-wan’s claim that all you need to do is confirm non-discrimination or the Dharma-mind.

Of course people cannot understand this, however often they hear it. The result is that paramita seems impossibly difficult. Paramita concerns crossing over, the other shore, transcendence. I often speak of “escaping from both ora and param.” When I say to escape from param as well, I mean not seeking transcendence. Suppose Beopsang uses paramita in a different sense. Even then, the contradiction remains: he explains the matter of crossing over while saying that there is no method.

If there is no method, why read the Heart Sutra? What wisdom does it contain that makes it worth reading? I say it contains the important wisdom of breaking through concepts. If you read it without understanding that, you end up talking about something else. Why does Buddhism tell us to awaken? To see the delusions in which we are caught now. I recall this verse:

“Bound to a cave, covered by countless things, a person who has hardened becomes lost in delusion.”

We must recognize that this is what human beings are like. I too am bound and covered by countless things, and therefore judge wrongly, pursue and desire the wrong things, and live accordingly. Buddhism means noticing what I am attached to now and breaking through my concepts and delusions one by one. But if I cling only to no attainment and say, “There is nothing to gain,” what on earth will I learn from reading the Heart Sutra?

After Saying There Is No Method, He Asks How People Awakened

Beopsang goes on to describe paramita as the completion of wisdom, the extinction of sentient beings’ afflictions, delusions, and suffering. In terms of the Four Noble Truths, he says, it means removing the causes of suffering and reaching a state without suffering. He then proposes looking at prajnaparamita from another angle and changes the question.

Beopsang: “Was the Buddha the only one who awakened? Surely many other people have awakened throughout human history. So, to examine this question of awakening, the question of how one can awaken…”

Did he not just say there was no method and no path? Now he wants to examine how people awaken. Within only a few minutes, the lecturer has contradicted himself. If we are already awakened, what are we seeking a method for? The person making this thirty-nine-minute video needs first to reflect on what he is saying.

A person who speaks of wisdom should be able to communicate wisely. Whether through logic and reason, emotional impact, or showing someone what they have not seen, the speaker should help the listener understand and awaken for themselves. Even a single video should offer a train of thought that can be followed. Instead, the statements repeatedly conflict. That happens because “you are originally awakened” was fixed in place at the start. He says one can awaken without practice, but then what exactly is awakening?

The Title “Spiritual Teacher” and “This Present Moment”

Beopsang proposes examining how apparently different awakenings are no different from Buddhist awakening. In the period when the video being played was recorded, he says, Thich Nhat Hanh’s death had been major news. He introduces the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, and Eckhart Tolle as three people spoken of in the West as spiritual teachers.

I do not agree with elevating Tolle to the status of an awakened teacher in this way. I think the problems emerge after even a brief examination of his claims. The NamuWiki introduction includes the message to live in the present moment. I also value attending to the present moment. But that alone does not constitute Buddhism. If one stops at that phrase, one remains at the absence of thought.

The introduction I read during the broadcast described claims that psychological suffering, war, ideological conflict, and other real-world problems could be overcome through nondual awakening, and that an ultimate moral value could be found in realizing that everything is one. I say that such claims alone do not take us into Buddhism. It can be good for striving to stop temporarily. But one should not call that alone enlightenment. It does not, by itself, produce wisdom.

Buddhism involves understanding myself. That requires observation, thought, and understanding how I actually am. I need to recognize what is wrong with what I say. If Seon Buddhism, Rajneesh, and Tolle remain at the same point, giving someone the title “spiritual teacher” does not remove that problem.

Beopsang again describes Tolle as a distinctive voice of awakening in Western spirituality. He says that Western films sometimes show stressed people sitting down to meditate and listen to Tolle’s words. But what exactly is spirituality? We should not begin by attaching such a label. If the issue is meditation and a reduction in stress, we should discuss concretely what happens and how.

Being Absorbed in a Game Also Stops Distracting Thoughts

It is understandable that a mind tangled in certain thoughts can feel clearer after meditation. This is related to the reason for meditative concentration in Buddhism. The problem is stopping there. The experience of feeling comfortable because one no longer follows thoughts and distinctions is immediately called awakening. That the mind can become more comfortable and that this is the end of Buddhism are entirely different propositions.

Think about playing a card game. While absorbed in it, are you continually thinking about your mother’s nagging, the need to study, wanting a nicer home, or wanting to meet an attractive partner? What about playing League of Legends or World of Warcraft? For people of my generation, imagine producing Zerg units and fighting the Protoss in StarCraft. At that moment, are your usual worries filling your head?

When absorbed, there are moments when those thoughts do not arise. Meditation makes use of something similar. The stream of irrelevant thoughts that kept popping up takes a temporary rest. The mind may feel peaceful in that state. I explain this in terms of meditative concentration. But feeling comfortable does not mean that you have awakened. Losing your distracting thoughts in a game does not make you wise about the world.

Then are you going to make no judgments at all? Should you avoid even thinking about whether to criticize Yoon Suk Yeol? Suppose we brought in Tolle as the world’s greatest spiritual figure and asked, “What would you do about the Yoon Suk Yeol issue?” What would he answer? Would he say he does not know, or simply have no thoughts? If you cannot address social issues, economic issues, and people’s actual suffering, what kind of wisdom is that?

Escaping concepts is not the end. Nor does Buddhism end with saying that everything is empty. While breaking through concepts, we must think about concepts again and study. We must understand changes in the world and consider what may happen next. What will you say about artificial intelligence? If you stop at non-discrimination and the absence of thought, merely repeating, “I was already awakened, so I am a Buddha,” you become ignorant, not wise.

The video then begins explaining how Tolle awakened. Beopsang says that, unlike the Buddha, Tolle did not discover a Middle Way after practicing asceticism or concentrating on meditative absorption. He starts describing childhood alienation, bullying, and continuing depression and distress. I stopped the playback because the broadcast would become too long. I directed anyone interested in the rest to the original video. The problem I wanted to identify today was already apparent.

An Individual’s Suffering Does Not End Within Their Mind

Suppose someone claims to be awakened in the Buddhist sense. Let us suppose Beopsang is. Then he should be able to explain to a suffering person why they suffer and how they might escape it. And he must not forget that Buddhism means living in terms of dependent arising. Does an individual’s suffering end within that individual?

Someone loses their job because of AI. They struggle to afford food and cannot easily go to the hospital. They suffer and are in pain. Would you tell them, “If you awaken, you will not suffer”? The moment we speak of a life of dependent arising, we should understand that we cannot focus only on an individual’s mind. Wisdom begins with understanding how oneself and the world are connected.

By a Buddha, an arahant, an awakened person, I mean someone whose understanding of the world deepens and who lives in terms of dependent arising even after breaking through concepts. If you can watch a hundred or a thousand of someone’s broadcasts and find only indifference to worldly affairs—“What is AI? What are society, economics, and culture? I don’t know. You simply awaken in an instant and were originally a Buddha”—then that person does not even understand dependent arising, the most basic element of Buddhism.

The claim that suffering has stopped also needs examination. Does a needle prick not hurt? Are you not miserable with a fever? Are you fine when a bomb explodes nearby? Let us stop the nonsense. Meditative concentration can help with personal psychological distress, as can recognizing, “This is why I was suffering.” We explain these things because even that relatively simple process can be difficult for some people. But Buddhism does not end there.

I must understand why I suffered, where I was bound, how I act and function, and how the world works. Only then does Buddhism begin to apply to life. Can you manage your working life through non-discrimination alone? Can you judge and choose in actual society? If I invited Beopsang to talk with me, could we discuss these matters? If he were handed a microphone and asked about a social problem, what could he say? That is precisely what I am asking.

If the World Is Full of Buddhas, Why Is It Like This?

Every time they open their mouths, it is enlightenment and original Buddhahood. Then why is this world, supposedly full of Buddhas, such a mess? Is Yoon Suk Yeol a Buddha? Are the people killing others with bombs in Israel Buddhas too? Place the claim that everyone is originally a Buddha before these realities. Its utter inadequacy becomes apparent.

Buddhism instead describes the condition in which I remain when I do not examine myself and live accordingly. A person bound to a cave, covered by countless things and hardened, is lost in delusion. I need to go through a kind of adolescence with respect to what I have seen, heard, and learned. I must critically reconsider what I took for granted and keep trying to free myself from it. That is Buddhism, not the claim that we were originally Buddhas.

Saying that something already exists and only needs to be confirmed is no different from seeking atman. It follows the same route as saying there is a true self that only needs to be noticed. There is no method, but you should confirm it—and this is called spirituality. I consider that deranged nonsense. It is a search for a true self rather than the practice of Buddhism.

Among people who claimed to awaken in that fashion, I have not seen anyone speak properly, logically, and in terms of dependent arising. They merely insisted that they were awakened and told people to listen to them. That concludes the direct criticism for today. I will now take your questions. Questions about my remarks are welcome, as are criticisms. You can also share whatever thoughts occurred to you.

What Is Liberation? Questioning a Rule About Boys and Girls

Kim Bok-jin asked four questions: What is liberation? What is becoming a Buddha? After becoming a Buddha, does something else arise through dependent arising? Are Buddhahood and liberation separate from dependent arising? Let us begin with liberation. Liberation means escaping what has bound me. Buddhism sees a person who has not broken through concepts as hardened and lost in delusion. So I must examine what binds me.

An example I often give is the rule that boys and girls should not sit together after age seven. Someone taught that rule in the Joseon period would have considered it natural. But was it really? If we moved to Central Asia, China, India, or Europe in the same period, would the societies there have been identical? Customs differ by place. Now let us stay in the same place and change the time. Would the same standard have applied in Goryeo before Joseon, in the Three Kingdoms before that, or still earlier?

Things changed after Joseon as well. Under Japanese colonial rule, after liberation, and in South Korea today, concepts concerning relations between men and women and sexuality continue to change. Can I therefore treat the standard I learned as absolute? Yet we are usually bound by the ideas we acquired. We fail to question the fact that we learned them in a particular time and place. This is a concrete example of being bound.

Liberation means understanding what binds and covers me. After recognizing, “Ah, this is how I am,” I work at not remaining trapped in my thoughts and concepts. I look at other circumstances, talk to people, and change. Even after stating an opinion, I should be able to hear someone else and say, “That is possible too.” Then I do not cling to my own statement.

The basis of this is understanding that what I hold is a concept. It belongs to the “name” in name-and-form. I should not treat a concept I have formed as absolute. Liberation is therefore also the breaking of concepts: understanding what binds and surrounds me, and escaping from it. This is what I mean by liberation.

Buddhahood Is an Attitude to Life, Not a Perfect State

Then what is becoming a Buddha? What is a Buddha? I call someone who continually practices the liberation I just described a Buddha. When I call myself an arahant, I am also saying that I am a Buddha, an awakened person. I am not saying that I once saw something and completed everything.

Pyeongbeom asked, “Among the spiritual teachers known in the world, is there even one person who is truly awakened and a Buddha?” I do not really know. I can criticize, but it is difficult to declare someone awakened. There are people who seem a little closer to me. However, perfection cannot be the criterion. What matters is whether the person’s attitude to life corresponds to what I have described.

We cannot prophesy the future or predict it with one hundred percent certainty. Nevertheless, we must choose in our present lives. A choice we thought best may turn out not to have been the best. But we cannot live without choosing. Wisdom concerns precisely how to choose. We must understand that we are not infallible and refrain from saying our judgment is absolutely right, while continuing to judge and live.

We need to observe, think, and reflect critically without becoming tightly bound to our conclusions. Instead of becoming rigid and overbearing, we should remain flexible in understanding, judging, discussing, and persuading. I call someone in whom observation, questioning, thought in terms of dependent arising, and a liberating attitude to life have become established a Buddha. If you asked such a person a question, they would discuss causes and conditions at a level you could understand and help you understand for yourself. That is a Buddha.

Can Liberation Be Separated from Dependent Arising?

Let us return to whether Buddhahood and liberation are separate from dependent arising. Dependent arising concerns understanding the world and myself. It means that nothing occurs independently. We examine which parts of our suffering arise from our own minds and which arise because society is wrong. If my stomach hurts, perhaps I have been unable to move my bowels. If I have diarrhea, perhaps I ate spoiled food last night. Looking at concrete causes like these is thinking in terms of dependent arising.

What, by contrast, are representative examples of claims within Buddhism that contradict dependent arising? An unchanging soul that continues to reincarnate, or a god that exists independently. Speaking of Avalokiteshvara or Amitabha as such beings is no different. If the world arises dependently, things affect one another and nothing can remain permanent. Neither rocks nor people are eternal. Yet people speak as though something continues unchanged after death, as though there is an afterlife and reincarnation, or as though past-life karma explains what I am now. I criticize such claims as contrary to dependent arising.

By observing the world, we can understand it in terms of dependent arising. We are not seeking something supreme, eternal, and independent. Even without a perfect answer, we must find the next-best option available now. If Israel fires missiles and people suffer, we should tell it to stop. If Russia and Ukraine are at war, we should speak out against war. That is what religious people should do. Seeing and addressing the conditions of suffering is Buddhist.

How can someone who has no interest in society, yet broadcasts advertisements for their own enlightenment every day, be called a Buddha? In that respect they fall short even of the Pope. Their indifference to society comes from failing to understand dependent arising. Please stop beginning with the claim that you are awakened. The problem is declaring enlightenment while saying things that lack even its first syllable.

Do Not Believe Even the Heart Sutra Completely

I said liberation means escaping. Does one liberation make someone a completed Buddha? No. Liberation continues, because a human being cannot become infallible. If you have heard of unsurpassed perfect awakening or absolutely flawless enlightenment in the Heart Sutra, examine that in terms of dependent arising too. I consider claims of such perfection contrary to dependent arising.

The Heart Sutra explains the breaking of concepts well, but it also contains bullshit alongside it—mantras, Avalokiteshvara, and unsurpassed perfect awakening. That is why a scripture must not be believed one hundred percent. It must be read through thinking about dependent arising. The presence of good passages does not make everything in the book right.

This is also what I mean by escaping from both ora and param. Do not try to transcend; do not seek absolute flawlessness or perfect purity. Stop making the non-dependent claim that we are originally Buddhas. One should not appear under the title of monk and keep saying such things without understanding even the first thing about Buddhism.

Jolgae Seorou described an acquaintance who practices Seon Buddhism and endlessly repeats the same statements as if reciting them. Exhausted by it, the viewer no longer wanted to talk and had stopped contacting the person. The viewer also said Seon had a cult-like quality that made fools of people. I replied that Seon can have merits of its own. Meditative concentration is useful. But it is never the end. It should not be elevated beyond its place as one means of helping us.

How I See Venerable Pomnyun, and the Need for Self-Reflection

Pyeongbeom asked again, “Then please name just one person who is close to being a Buddha.” I could not say how close, but among monks broadcasting in Korea today, I named Venerable Pomnyun of Jungto Society as someone who is gradually improving, speaks relatively less nonsense, and shows at least some self-critical thinking. He occasionally says nonsense too, but I consider him comparatively decent. This does not mean he is perfect. Please do not demand one hundred percent from anyone.

Calling myself an arahant means that I am aiming at such an attitude to life. There is no perfectly fixed form called a Buddha. Try thinking critically for yourselves. Were my attitude, thinking, emotional state, words, and conversations today Buddhist? Did I see things in terms of dependent arising? Was I wise? Did I help the other person? Did I make it possible for them to understand? Did I help them realize even one thing? What delusions am I caught in?

Such reflection and self-criticism must accompany life. The Buddha is a process, not a state of perfection. Buddhahood is a life that establishes this attitude. When I say “May you become a Buddha” at the end of every broadcast, I mean that I hope you live with this attitude. I am not telling you to announce one day, “I have become a Buddha.”

When Did Superstition Enter Buddhism?

Giyu asked why so much superstition has seeped into temples these days. This is not merely a problem with temples today. We cannot even be certain that Gautama Siddhartha existed, but let us provisionally take the transmitted stories as true and ask: while the Buddha was alive, were his disciples caught in superstition or not? Going further, was the Buddha himself not caught in superstition right up until becoming a Buddha?

Look at the image of the ascetic Buddha that people admire. Buddhist events display it with reverence as an image of the great Buddha. But that is not an image of a Buddha; it is an image of foolishness. Why did he practice such austerities? Because he sought to transcend being human and find something complete, perfect, pure, and supreme. I describe that as being caught in superstition.

Body and mind are not separate. If you starve, fail to eat properly, and cannot excrete properly, your mind becomes clouded too. Severe fasting and constant sitting without even one proper meal can ruin your back as well. That is living contrary to dependent arising. We do not know whether the accounts of Gautama Siddhartha are factual or merely recorded stories. But if they are true, then right up to awakening he was living foolishly, caught in superstition.

Consider the disciples too. As I describe it, most of those disciples were Brahmins, members of the priestly class. There are later accounts of people from other classes entering, but if that had been easy, there would not have been so much discussion about it. If anyone could simply become a monk, who would remain to work? The point is that even disciples beside the Buddha were not free of superstition merely because they were there, unless they themselves were Buddhas.

A Religion That Explains Social Status Through Past-Life Karma

Buddhism has been full of reincarnation stories from the beginning. The Buddha is said to have descended from a heaven into his mother’s womb, then taken seven steps immediately after birth and declared himself supreme throughout heaven and earth. Are stories about the Heaven of the Thirty-Three or living for hundreds of thousands of years in celestial realms not superstition? The problem is not limited to Mahayana figures such as Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha. The Pali scriptures, the Nikayas called early Buddhism, also contain countless superstitions.

The scriptures contain stories of heavenly demons appearing, the ground splitting open, and people being born beautiful because they behaved well in a past life. I criticize such statements as garbage. Why? Because saying someone was born rich through past-life merit is a logic that attaches itself to power. A king is said to be a king because he did well before. Then a slave must have been born a slave because they behaved badly before. These stories serve to justify that hierarchy.

Why are these rotten concepts so abundant in Buddhism? Because not everyone was a Buddha, and most people lived amid superstition. In my view, roughly eighty or ninety percent of those who wrote Buddhist scriptures were also people living in superstition. We should not talk as though Buddhism suddenly became corrupted when it came to Korea and acquired mountain-spirit shrines, rites, prayers, and petitions for blessings. Chanting spells and calling on Amitabha have a long history. Buddhism has lived amid superstition since ancient times.

Nevertheless, I use the name Buddhism because a small part of its verses preserves a core of escaping superstition, religion, and concepts. Wisdom remains that we can consult today, and I have benefited from it. That does not mean I intend to conceal the fact that Buddhism itself is a mass of superstition. The books written down and called Buddhist scriptures are full of it. Are mountain spirits and the Seven Stars the only superstitions? All those heavens inside the scriptures are no different.

Christianity can be viewed similarly. I think the Bible is almost ninety-nine percent superstition as well. Yet it contains words of wisdom that strike the mind forcefully. I do not know whether Jesus was a historical person, but passages such as the Sermon on the Mount, transmitted in his name, contain good words. That is the core. In Buddhism, the core is breaking through concepts, asking why we suffer, and seeing the world in terms of dependent arising. Most of the remainder is superstition.

Religion today should discard that superstition and speak from its core. What determines whether someone is a genuine Christian or Buddhist is whether they can offer wisdom to people living now. Can they speak against war? What will they say, and how will they live in present reality? Those are the questions to ask.

Not Wanting to Visit Temples, and the Authority That Receives Prostrations

A viewer said, “This makes me not want to go to temples.” I asked in return: why go? Are you going because there is an awakened person there, or to a place that sells superstition? Why go even after seeing a gilded stone being sold as a Buddha? I say you do not need to go. This is why I go so far as to say that almost ninety percent of temple monks are rotten.

Venerable Dao, who is a monk, was watching, so telling people not to visit temples felt rather harsh, and I felt sorry. Still, visiting a place that tells fortunes, indulges in unrelated superstitions, and does not understand Buddhism wastes money, physical effort, and time. Study Buddhism’s core and work to establish it as an attitude to life. There is no requirement to visit a temple to do that.

It does not stop at prostrating three times before a statue. Some monks sit expecting three prostrations themselves, claiming to be elevated and enlightened. I consider that madness. What have they awakened to when they have awakened to nothing? Would an awakened person sit receiving other people’s bows? We can simply lower our heads and greet each other. If someone supposedly living in terms of dependent arising stiffens their neck and expects three prostrations, that is the very image of a rotten religion.

To the Viewers Who Described the Cost of Rites for the Dead

I intend to continue the criticism of Beopsang for another two or three installments rather than finish with this one. I do not know whether they will follow immediately, but today I began with why the claim of original Buddhahood is a problem. Near the end, Giyu said they had recently paid five million won for a rite for the dead at a temple. I replied that these rites are extraordinarily expensive. Criticizing the temple that had charged so much, I said I was sorry as someone who also bears the name Buddhist.

Sometimes I feel ashamed to call myself Buddhist. How proud and happy I would be if Buddhists benefited the world and monks offered people helpful words. Instead, those appearing on YouTube or television as enlightened people spout nonsense, while temples are busy extracting money. Places that blocked entrances unless visitors paid, invoking cultural heritage and similar justifications, existed under the name of temples. It is deeply shameful.

Pyeongbeom also wrote about paying three million won each time for three rites that a temple said would drive away ghosts. Hearing that, I said the temples and monks were rotten through. I feel frustrated and sorry. We cannot simply pass over such realities by saying that religion deserves respect.

When the conversation turned to temples living on what others give them, I laughed and said that I too live on support, so please support me. But living on donations and living by fraud are different. One must not defraud people. If you lie and mislead people, how are you different from a cult? Selling superstition to get people to pay must not be justified in the name of Buddhism.

Merely being placed in the same category of Buddhism makes me ashamed, and I want to apologize again. Things should not be this way, but this is the reality, so we must recognize and discuss it. Your questions and comments allowed us to talk about these issues today. Thank you for participating in the broadcast and watching the video. I hope you live with an attitude of observing, questioning, criticizing yourselves, and helping others understand. In that sense, once again, may you become Buddhas.