Indra’s Net Life Community and the Ecological Thought of Tobŏp (道法)

Abstract

This study primarily aims to articulate and analyze the Engaged Buddhism movement’s Indra’s Net Life Community in Korea and the ecological thoughts of its founder, Tobŏp. This study examines Reverend Tobŏp’s ideas, which form the foundation and drive the operations of the community. These ideas are informed by the Hua-yen worldview, expressed in the doctrine of “interdependent co-arising,” as put forth in his writings. This movement offers a new ecological vision beyond today’s neoliberal economic model. This study also suggests that ecologically Engaged Korean Buddhism can provide empowering religious teachings with important suggestions for how religio-ethical values might address contemporary ecological problems. Indra’s Net Life Community has the potential to address the shortcomings in most environmental ethics proposals, which often overlook the importance of “practical participatory projects” to promote ecological justice. Finally, this study argues that the focal point of Buddhist enlightenment is “in this place and in this body, in this world and not some other.” Venerable Tobŏp also emphasizes the present situation through the experience of “the here and now.” However, Indra’s Net and Engaged Buddhism are still works in progress.

1. Introduction

Western scholars since Max Weber have held “an implicit understanding that Buddhism avoids the worldly arena” (Eppsteiner 1985, p. ix). Early Western scholars of Buddhism, including Max Weber, have perceived Buddhism as “other-worldly” and without specific formulations of social ethics (Yarnall 2003, p. 294; Weber 1958, pp. 206, 213). On the contrary, Buddhism has been dynamically involved in its societies’ economic life throughout history; however, its social teachings have not been developed as much as its teachings on inner spirituality. Thus, Engaged Buddhism emerged to fill this gap.

According to Eppsteiner, the recognition of Buddhism’s social aspect has grown recently (Eppsteiner 1985, preface). Today, Engaged Buddhists readily apply ancient teachings to contemporary social crises. Examples include the work of reformist monk Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu (1906–1993) in Thailand; social critic Sulak Sivaraksa, founder of the International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB); and the anti-poverty project Gandhian Sarvōdaya Śramadāna Movement founded by A. T. Ariyaratne in Sri Lanka. Vietnamese monk, Thích Nhất Hạnh, coined the term “Engaged Buddhism” in 1963 (King 2005, p. 5; Queen and King 1996, p. 34). Worldwide, Engaged Buddhism moves beyond the stereotype of other-worldly introspection. Contrary to the stereotype of Buddhism as a world-denying religion, Engaged Buddhism critiques social injustice and confronts the world, even at the risk of compromising its spiritual ideals.

Regarding the relationship between world religions and environmental issues, Lynn White argues that the Judeo-Christian tradition is anthropocentric (White 1967). If Lynn White’s thesis about Christian anthropocentrism as a cause of our present ecological crisis holds true, are there ecological values from Asian religions—particularly Buddhism—that could benefit Western society? If so, which Buddhist virtues? Many ecological issues were overlooked during the rapid economic growth in Japan, South Korea, and China since the 1960s, despite the region facing some of the world’s worst ecological conditions. Nevertheless, in the current context of East Asia’s severe ecological devastation, can Buddhists put their ecological teachings into practice?

In essence, Buddhism views humans as part of a broader class of “sentient beings with awareness.” Thus, the Buddha’s teaching on non-violence and non-harmfulness applies not just to human beings but to all life forms. At the same time, Buddhists regard humans as a special group. Environmental issues have thus become a major focus of Buddhist social activism. Therefore, the Buddhist idea of “happiness of all beings” is all-inclusive. Contemporary Buddhism includes a spiritual journey toward ecological enlightenment. In particular, the Hua-yen worldview aligns with the modern understanding of an ecosystem, where nature is a network of interwoven relationships among organisms, often called “cosmic ecology” by scholars (Cook 1990). Socially Engaged Buddhists who seek environmental activism with Buddhist motivation refer to “the Hua-yen image of Indra’s Net, in which each item of existence in the universe “inter-penetrates” every other, in an all-encompassing network of interdependence” (Harvey 2007, p. 13). However, scholars such as Ian Harris (2000) claim that the causal explanation of Hua-yen’s worldview is incoherent, questioning whether the Buddhist environmental teaching was originally flawed. By exploring how Buddhist environmentalism has evolved, this study aims to address Harris’s critique through a reinterpretation of the ecological crisis via a specific Korean Buddhist initiative.

As a successful Buddhist movement opposed to capitalist globalization, Indra’s Net Life Community (Indramang saengmyŏng gongdongch’e) has become the most prominent religious environmental activist group in Korea by applying Hua-yen Buddhism’s philosophy to ecological and agricultural problems and supporting urban residents. In the Hua-yen school’s text, the Avatamsaka Sūtra (華嚴經, “Flower Garland Scripture”), the world is depicted as “Indra’s Net” (Indra–jāla), connected by endless numbers of jewels that both reflect and are reflected by one another. The principle of the universe (dharmadhātu) is described as Yŏn’gi (interdependently co-arising 緣起 pratītyasamutpāda) (Barnhill 2000). Indra’s Net Life Community was founded by head monk Tobŏp (道法, “Dharma Way”) of Silsang-sa temple (true-nature temple 實相寺) in 1997. This monastery is one of the founding Nine Sŏn (禪; Zen in Japanese) Mountain temples. Venerable Tobŏp used Silsang-sa temple’s land to begin an ecological farm community. In Korean Buddhism, Tobŏp is renowned for his commitment to social and environmental causes.

2. Context and Significance of This Study

2.1. Context of This Study

Joseph Kitagawa notes that the Buddha never attempted to change society: “The Buddha’s concern is not to reform the world.” Buddhism as “an other-worldly religion” does not show any special “role in changing society.” Essentially, “Theravāda Buddhism has no basis for a social ethic” (Kitagawa 1980, pp. 241–66). However, for the Engaged Buddhist’s worldview, “no enlightenment can be complete as long as others remain trapped in delusion; genuine wisdom is manifested in compassionate action” (Kraft 1996, p. 65). From a Buddhist perspective, Lily de Silva argued that the pollution of the environment is nothing but an outward expression of inner pollution, originating from the human mind (De Silva 1987). When moral corruption is widespread in human societies, it produces a harmful change in the environment as well as in our mind and body. The current ecological crisis calls for the extension of the purview of ethics to include all living organisms. Western philosophers, in more recent times, have begun to widen their circle of moral consideration beyond the human species (Leopold 1968; Rolston 1988), although in Buddhist thought, this concept had already been well established and understood, according to Damien Keown and Pragati Sahni (Keown 2000, pp. 57–79; Sahni 2008). By contrast, Noriaki Hakamaya rejects the possibility of Buddhist ecological ethics because the doctrines of early Buddhism show a negation of nature (Hakamaya 1997). Lambert Schmithausen also points out that many Buddhist documents and virtues are directed toward humans and society rather than ecological systems, and they therefore lack environmental ethics and ecological concerns (Schmithausen 1991, p. 7). Beyond this question, David Eckel’s contention remains the most compelling: historically, no single unified approach to understanding the relationship between humans and nature has existed (Eckel 1997, pp. 327–29; 1992). Venerable Tobŏp of Indra’s Net Life Community emphasizes the present situation through the experience of “the here and now.”

2.2. Literature Review

Soyoung Lee (2008) and Pori Park (2010) introduce Indra’s Net Life Community to the English-speaking world as an example of an ecological Buddhist perspective. Lee (Pusan University, Korea) considers Indra’s Net Life Community with relation to traditional Korean religions. In contrast, Park (Arizona State University) cites Indra’s Net Life Community as a prime example of Engaged Buddhism in Korea. According to Park, Engaged Buddhists aim to actively participate in the resolution of social and political issues within their community. Park also regards the founder, Venerable Tobŏp, as one of the more progressive leaders of the sangha reforms of Korean Buddhism. However, both scholars show little concern for the socio-ecological teachings of Hua-yen Buddhism and Wŏnhyo, and the uniquely Korean Buddhist environmentalism emphasized by Venerable Tobŏp. This study analyzes the thoughts of Venerable Tobŏp as the “glue” that holds the community together. However, further questions arise: Are ancient Buddhists’ teachings trivialized when linked to specific social goals? As many formerly Buddhist nations are now under the sway of capitalism, can some aspects of Buddhism and environmentalism coexist or even support each other?

2.3. Korean Engaged Eco-Buddhism

The Korean people believe that human beings are connected to nature and the environment. In pre-modern Korea (before Christianity arrived), many religions existed side by side: Shamanism, Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, P’ung–su (風水, lit. “wind and water”; feng shui in Chinese) thought, and some other indigenous religions. Yin–yang (陰–陽, dark and bright), which is the fundamental principle of Taoism, is one of the elements that connects all of these religions. P’ungsu thought also depends on the yin–yang as its philosophical basis (Vermeersch 2007, pp. 76–79).

Until the late 1980s, Korea’s environmental movement, driven by civic activists, focused on anti-pollution efforts to counter industrial development. In the 1990s, Environmental Buddhism emerged as a grassroots movement, introducing new forms of Buddhist social engagement outside of mainstream South Korean Buddhism (Tedesco 2003). Since the late 1990s, these movements have emphasized ecological perspectives, aiming to address fundamental environmental issues by reshaping Korean lifestyles and values. Buddhist groups have led environmental activism, supported by the Jogye Order 曹溪宗, Korea’s largest Buddhist order (Yang 2006, pp. 655–89). Unlike earlier civic groups, these Buddhists seek to change attitudes toward ecological issues based on Buddha’s teachings while addressing environmental problems. The Jogye Order actively participates in these efforts.

Several key Buddhist movements have led environmental thought and action. The Buddhist Academy for Ecological Awakening inspired Korean Buddhist environmentalism. In March 1988, Venerable Beopryun’s JungTo Society (Pure Land Society) launched environmental campaigns, developing programs like the “Zero Waste Movement” and “No Food Waste Movement” to promote sustainable lifestyles. In February 1992, Venerable Wŏlchu’s Green Cosmos Movement issued the “Buddhists’ Environmental Declaration” and “Practical Rules for Buddhists to Preserve the Environment,” and has recently focused on youth environmental education through annual poster contests. Founded in 1994 by Venerable Pŏpchong, Clean and Fragrant promotes a clean natural and social environment. Moreover, Gilsang temple offers Sŏn meditation and eco-cultural activities. Thus, through these efforts, Buddhist temples have become eco-cultural hubs in Korea.

Korean Buddhist environmental activism stems from innovative ecological ideas and movements, driven by dedicated religious leaders. At the same time, the Buddhist anti-development movement did not receive full support from local residents who wanted government-led development projects (Yang 2006, pp. 680–81). While monk–lay relationships were sometimes unequal, movements like the Buddhist Academy for Ecological Awakening and Indra’s Net Community fostered equality. Unlike earlier environmental policies, such as the concern for Buddhist temple preservation before the 1990s, the Jogye Order and civic environmental activists outside of the temple collaborated for ecological justice, proposing concrete steps toward a sustainable society.

3. Indra’s Net Life Community Movement

3.1. The Beginning of Indra’s Net

Seeking alternatives to capitalist society’s challenges, Indra’s Net Life Community began with the Back to the Farm School and the Han Saengmyŏng (One Life) Cooperative Association. Silsang-sa temple (Abbot Tobŏp) established the Back to the Farm School in 1998 and the Silsang-sa Small School in 2001, the first Buddhist alternative school. In 1995, “Venerable Tobŏp began the Forest Retreat for Hwaŏm Studies (Hwaŏm haklim) that provides an intensive two-year course on the Hwaŏmgyŏng 華嚴石經 to diagnose modern society and suggested alternative remedies based on the Buddhist understanding of the world” (Park 2010, p. 45; Tedesco 2003). Located in the southern basin of the Chirisan mountain in Chŏllabuk-do, Silsang-sa temple was founded in the ninth century during the Unified Shilla period as one of the Kusan Sŏnmun (the Nine Mountains Sŏn temples). The Nine Mountains Sŏn Sect was the first Sŏn school, established mostly around the ninth century by adepts who studied in Tang China (Buswell 1987).

Indra’s Net Community operates a cooperative livelihood association (Indra saenghyŏp) through which rural farmers provide environmentally healthy food to city dwellers. In 2001, it began a non-profit cooperative, Han Saengmyŏng (One Life), to manage the Back to the Farm School, Small School, cooperative living association (farmers’ market), and eco-festivals (every fall) (See

Table 1. The organization of Indra’s Net Life Community.

Education for youth	Small School (junior high) (alternative education school)	Curriculum for ecological life
Education for adults	The Back to the Farm School	Farmer training program based on Buddhist environmentalism and eco-friendly farming
	Cooperative Living: One Life (Han Saengmyŏng)	Supplying eco-friendly products and coordinating farmers’ markets and eco-festivals
Eco-activism	Environmental movements with civic groups	Solidarity with civic environmental NGOs outside Indra’s Net Community

).

Monk Tobŏp played a key role in resolving Jogye Order conflicts in 1994, then returned to Silsang-sa temple, stepping away from Seoul’s central office. He began the rural-based Indra’s Net Life Community soon after. According to Pori Park, “Tobŏp was one of the main progressive monks who resolved the 1994 intervention in the sangha and the sangha fights in 1998 and 1999. As soon as a sense of peace was restored in the sangha, he resigned as deputy director in the central administration of Jogye Order and returned to his mountain temple Silsang-sa” (Park 2010, p. 37). For this, he used Silsang-sa temple’s resources and land to start the community. A reform leader in the Jogye Order and active in social movements, Tobŏp was named the fourth most revered Buddhist priest in a survey of 500 Buddhists. He explains the community’s purpose as follows:

“Indra’s Net has been considering, for a long time, restoring a Buddhist village community within modern life. My idea matched to the needs of our times somehow. Social activists were only concerned about the democratization movement in the past, but in the nineties they became interested in my idea. When Indra’s Net came to the Silsang-sa temple as head monk in 1992, the idea became reality,”

(Lee 2008, p. 129).

This community has an “Indramang Ch’ŏnggyu” (Nine Green Oaths):

First, I will live according to the order of nature.

Second, I will live a life of sharing and less.

Third, I will seek the sameness rather than difference.

Fourth, I will resolve problems through reflection and dialogue.

Fifth, I will live as a Zen practitioner.

Sixth, I will follow “the One Hundred Oaths” (Buddhist meditation).

Seventh, I will read more than one book a month.

Eighth, I will donate 10 cents for the Life foundation.

Ninth, I will buy locally-grown food.

The “Declaration of Establishment of Indramang Life Community” reflects environmental consciousness and social responsibility amid the socio-ecological crisis. Criticizing industrialization’s environmental toll, it warns that Koreans have lost their way. It proposes three principles: first, the universe is an organic life community where all is interconnected; second, mutual relationships are a prime virtue to resolve suffering; and finally, these ideas are realized through the Indramang Life Community.

3.2. The Back to the Farm School and Small School

Silsang-sa’s 4500 acres serve as a hub for an ecological community based on Hwaŏm philosophy, symbolized by Indra’s Net, representing universal interconnection (Tobŏp 2000, p. 248). The Back to the Farm School teaches eco-friendly agriculture, such as organic farming with animal and vegetable fertilizers, through a three-month course combining theory and practice. By 2014, it had held 31 terms, averaging 50 students per session (Park 2010, p. 21). Graduates are part of an alumni association that shares agricultural knowledge, supports new farmers, and sells goods via Han Saengmyŏng (One Life), which became an NGO in 2003 and has established farmers’ markets in Seoul and other cities (Park 2010, p. 39).

Silsang-sa Small School, Korea’s first Buddhist alternative boarding school, serves junior high students and locals seeking education beyond the centralized curriculum. It offers hands-on farming, outdoor sports, social services, and project-based studies. Tobŏp emphasizes educational reform: “Education in general has failed to let students understand the true meaning of life while exclusively emphasizing subject-based competition” (Seo 2001). According to Tobŏp,

“All phenomena (objects) exist only interdependent on other phenomena… (Therefore) without a star in the sky, not a single flower can blossom on Earth. Supporting other beings is the forming of my life…My life is connected and supported by and through them. With these relationships, I can live. It is the truth of my life…You and I are one”

(Sullivan 2009, p. 8).

3.3. Indra’s Net Life Community’s Environmental Activism

From its start, Indra’s Net Life Community engaged in movements like the Chirisan Mountain Reservoir Construction protests and Life and Peace Marches. Korean religious leaders began 100 days of prayer in the Chirisan Mountains for life, peace, and South–North reconciliation. After a second 1000-day prayer, the group led the “Korean Environmental Alliance” with religious and other civic leaders. Venerable Tobŏp notes, “The Life and Peace movement seeks coexistence, reconciliation, and peace as an alternative to dominant world values centered on power, profits, and victory” (Yonhap News Agency 2003). In the meantime, Silsang-sa temple and Indra’s Net Community became the center of Korean environmental activism. This movement’s logo shows that “everything in the universe, including sentient and insentient beings, is connected to one another and thus depends on each other for their existence; this also reflects the very message of the Indra’s Net” (Park 2010, p. 42).

Tobŏp called for the participation of all who want ecologically sustainable peace and life on the Korean peninsula. In March 2004, hundreds of thousands of members were called to be tŭngbul (lamps) against violence and war. In five years (12,000 km) of walking, they met about eighty thousand people. Activists of the movement believe that philosophical reorientation enable people to realize interdependent relationships between various life forms and consequently lead society to peace and harmony (Tobŏp 2011, p. 56). Tobŏp argues, “I hope more people will recognize we need philosophical reorientation to view the Earth as one organic body, to rectify ill consequences that the modern lifestyle has brought about” (Seo 2001; Tobŏp 2000, pp. 52–53).

In summary, Indra’s Net Life Community movement began as a result of serious reflection and discussion on widespread environmental destruction and human alienation by rampant consumerism and endless competition in a capitalistic society (Tobŏp 2011, pp. 37–38). Venerable Tobŏp and Buddhist activists believe Buddhism-based communal life is the last hope for humankind, so they developed Hua-yen Buddhism’s central idea, Yŏn’gi (interdependent co-arising) into their ecological community and movement. When Tobŏp initiated the ecological community movement in 1999, he proclaimed, “This movement will contribute to solving the current ecological crisis by encouraging people to recognize their positions as participants in an interdependent ecological system” (Tobŏp 1999, p. 24). He issued a “Life–Peace Declaration,” which included his ideas on the Life–Peace Worldview, Life–Peace Society, Reflection, Repentance for Life–Peace, Attitude toward Life–Peace, and Humans for Life–Peace World (Tobŏp 2011).

4. The Ecological Thought of Tobŏp

4.1. Life of Tobŏp

Born in 1949 on Jeju Island, Tobŏp lost his father in the Jeju Uprising (1948–1949). His family later moved to Chŏlla province, in mainland South Korea. At 17, he entered Kŭmsan Buddhist temple’s ordination process. Like the Buddha, he vowed to sit in order to find the truth through “Zen meditation” (Ch’amsŏn 參禪). He understood intuitively that he must find a “middle way.” After practicing Ch’amsŏn for ten years, he came to know that the traditional ways included in the practice of Zen meditation (Kanhwasŏn 看話禪) in sangha were not enough to awaken the Buddhist truth. Zen masters use Hwadu (話頭, a “topic” for Ch’amsŏn awakening practice) to lead meditation; students are to concentrate all day on a Hwadu until they understand the meaning of it. Venerable Sŏngch’ŏl, a highly respected master, (性徹, 1912–1993) suggested three ways of practicing Zen with a Hwadu: concentrating in tongjŏngiryŏ (動靜一如, in the waking state, one mind), mongjŏngiryŏ (夢中一如, in the dreaming state, one mind), and sukmyŏniryŏ (熟眠一如, in deep sleep, one mind) (Tobŏp 2009, chap. 2).

He finally acknowledged that all empirical phenomena have a causal origin. Nothing is self-existing, which implies a socio-ecological responsibility for all creatures. He also realized that Buddha was not a god but a mere mortal, distinguished from others only by his enlightenment. Buddha did not withdraw to the bliss of Nibbāna, the imperturbable stillness of mind, but remained to teach others the way to the end of suffering from Saṃsāra. The Gandhian movement and Hwaŏm Buddhism inspired Indra’s Net Life Community movement as well as Venerable Tobŏp’s ideas (Tobŏp 2009, pp. 248–52). In particular, his vision was shaped by Gandhi’s ideas of village and non-violence, Hwaŏm Buddhism’s interdependent co-arising, and Wŏnhyo’s 元曉 (617–686) Hwajaeng (harmonization of disputes 和諍).

4.2. Hua-yen Buddhism and Yŏn’gi

The Hua-yen (“Flower Garland”) School was founded by its first patriarch Dushun (557–640), although the third patriarch Fazang 法藏 (643–712) is usually understood to have been the school’s true architect. It entered Korea via Ŭisang 義湘 (625–702), who studied Hua-yen Buddhism under the second patriarch, Zhiyan 智儼 (602–668). The school reached Japan by the eighth century. According to Tobŏp, “Dharma-nature” (Tathāgata-garbha) designates interdependent co-arising (Yŏn’gi, pratītyasamupāda). All beings exist according to the law of Yŏn’gi, which means “the state of living caused by others” (Kim 2006, p. 80; Tobŏp 2011, pp. 45–53). Tobŏp says, “Buddha sat himself under a Bodhi tree and determined not to move until he had found the answers to the ultimate questions such as the root cause of human suffering. Complete enlightenment came to him. Buddha understood the true nature of all living beings. It is the law of Yŏn’gi” (Tobŏp 2009, pp. 127–28). Thus, Tobŏp asserts that humans cannot exist independently, but need someone, such as a parent or guardian, and something, such as food, in order to exist. Thus, no one exists by oneself, including God. “Nothing exists in isolation, independent of other life. … Everything affects everything else. Nothing is unchangeable” (Ibid.). Quoting the words, ilmijinjunghamshippang (一味塵中含十方), from Venerable Ŭisang (A.D. 625–702), Tobŏp explains, “The Universe is in a grain of sand. Humans have a magic pearl of an eternal life. … The potential for greatness lives within each of us. Everything depends on our mind. There is a light of eternal life in our heart” (Tobŏp 1999, p. 65). To Tobŏp, therefore, “nobody is superior, nobody is inferior. We are equal, unique, and incomparable beings” (Tobŏp 1999, p. 68). Tobŏp criticizes the human-centered way of thinking, which sees nature in terms of its value for economic development. In Hua-yen Buddhism, Tobŏp says, “every living being forms a large ocean of life that is united by interdependence and emptiness” (Tobŏp 1999, pp. 93, 117).

According to Tobŏp, the law of Yŏn’gi (interdependent co-arising) is not an abstract metaphysical philosophy, but an expressive character of the universe for all living things. Tobŏp writes, “In essence, I exist because you exist. I am here because you are there. We are truly all together in this way. … I am created because you are created. Conversely, if you are diminished, I also will be diminished” (Tobŏp 1999, p. 111). We, therefore, create each other. His words resemble the teaching of Ubuntu, the traditional South African worldview. Tobŏp proclaims, “Listen to me, bhikkhus, Yŏn’gi is an absolute law of the universe. Everything affects everything else. Everything arises in dependence. … All beings exist only through mutual relationships” (Tobŏp 1999, pp. 111, 114).

Tobŏp describes the central ideas of Hwaŏm philosophy through the notions of Samsegansanghojangŏm (三世間相互莊嚴) and Wŏnyungmuae (圓融無碍). Samsegansanghojangŏm expresses the magnificence of the cosmic order through the mutual relationship of humans, Buddha, and nature. “Our existence only becomes meaningful through mutual relationships with others. Wŏnyungmuae means literally that “subjects are united with objects; they are one”” (Tobŏp 1999, pp. 117–18). To Tobŏp, while subjects (observers/our mind) and objects (entities/other minds) can be seen differently, the nature of their reality is equal.

While acting as Secretary General of the Jogye Order in 1994, Tobŏp applied Korean Hwaŏm (Hua-yen) Buddhism, advanced by master Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686), to the Korean sangha reform as well as to ecological and agricultural problems. Master Wŏnhyo’s thought was based on the philosophy of Ilsim (one mind) and Tathāgata–garbha (如來藏, Buddha–Nature). In Korean Buddhism, master Wŏnhyo and Tobŏp became known for their strong commitment to a Korean Buddhist movement that could realize Chŏngt’o (淨土, the Pure Land) for all Sattva (people) and as practitioners of Hwajaeng (harmonization of disputes). The discourse of Wŏnhyo’s Hwajaeng thoroughly penetrates all of Tobŏp’s writings. Tobŏp says that Indra’s Net reflects the central idea of Yŏn’gi in Hwaŏm Buddhism. Critical of a dichotomous way of thinking and “substantialists” who do not understand the relationship between the concept of substance and subject, Tobŏp argues that everything is interdependent and unsubstantial (Tobŏp 2009, p. 132). He says, “Nature can be explained by Yŏn’gi… The order of living things keeps its sustainability in solidarity like the Net of Indra, in which nothing can exist without helping each other in harmonious relationship” (Tobŏp 2009, p. 346). According to Buddhist scholar Jong-wook Kim,

“The causal relationship between components of nature also becomes one of dynamic emptiness in which no one is fastened to any fixed order or a substantial character (self-nature). This idea can be easily associated with the theory of the contemporary eco-system in which nature is a network of closely interwoven relationships between organisms.”

(Kim 2006, p. 88)

In this system of interdependence, living organisms give and take from each other’s influences. Tobŏp continues, “Such interdependence is the key to the living world and defines the ‘ecosystem’ as a system of interaction between living organisms and their environment heading for the formation of the right place to live on the basis of such interdependence” (Tobŏp 2011, p. 50). Like Kim, Venerable Tobŏp calls for the order of all living creatures to be in solidarity and equality.

4.3. Humans and Nature

Tobŏp says that musang (anicca, 無常, impermanence) and mua (anattā, 無我, non-self) are closely related to the doctrine of Indra’s Net (Tobŏp 1999, pp. 24–25). When we acknowledge musang and mua—that all things are transient and constantly changing—we can be free from self-absorption (Tobŏp 2009, pp. 141–42). Thus, to Tobŏp, the prime virtue of Buddhist compassion is a responsive appreciation of the need of others (Tobŏp 2000, pp. 124–26). According to him, at the personal level, we actualize Indra’s Net by treating other people and things with the same scrupulous and intimate attention we normally reserve for our own bodies (Tobŏp 2011, pp. 50–52, 56). He argues, “This sacredness born of Indra’s Net is the quality of attention we give to the most casual and the least satisfying of encounters and tasks. To the extent that we can do these things without getting in our own way, we actualize Indra’s net” (Tobŏp 2000, p. 38).

He believes that the Net is valuable as a working ideal for society and its organizations, in which we are mutual brothers and sisters (Tobŏp 2011, pp. 59–60).

In summary, the reality of all things (dharmatā) is in interdependence characterized by impermanence (anityatā), selflessness (anātmatva), and emptiness (śūnyatā). The true nature of both humans and nature is based on the doctrine of interdependent co-arising. Tobŏp’s “Saengmyŏng p’yŏnghwa sasang” (Life–Peace thought) is founded on the principles of interdependence, non-substantiality, and mutual respect. Humans and nature are co-arisen interdependently with mutual respect (Tobŏp 2009, p. 319). According to Tobŏp, communal life ought to be characterized by social solidarity based on intimacy, friendliness, and deep feeling (Tobŏp 2009, pp. 325, 335).

4.4. On Agricultural and Ecological Community

Tobŏp says, “Whether we like it or not, humans are facing a turning point to create a new communal life model” (Tobŏp 2009, p. 339). Endless desires have destabilized ecology (Tobŏp 2009, pp. 339–40). Tobŏp says that we can no longer avoid the fundamental transformation of our attitudes to human society and nature. He urges a change in thinking.

Korea’s economic growth, called the “Miracle on the Han River,” between 1961 and 1996, was amazingly rapid. According to Tobŏp, the irreversible damage to nature in Korea by economic development was caused by, essentially, endless greed (Tobŏp 2009, p. 160). He calls for a fundamental transformation of the way of life through Buddhist thinking, based on dependent origination. Moreover, he suggests the maŭl community movement (the Korean agricultural village) as an example: seeking harmony with nature through the cycle of the land (Tobŏp 2009, pp. 153, 158, 162–63).

Tobŏp criticizes modern industrialization and capitalism for pushing both nature and human life into danger. He warns that people have lost their own original nature with other humans and non-humans. Like the Buddha, Tobŏp states that today’s ecological problems originate from the mind. Thus, he states the importance of transforming the mind. Tobŏp then reiterates that humans have to reconsider our relationships between people, other organisms, and also with the natural environment (Tobŏp 2010, pp. 332–33). Tobŏp asserts that humans therefore need to cultivate the “right attitude” toward life (Tobŏp 2010, p. 323).

Venerable Tobŏp claims that nature has its own intrinsic value. He states that humans deny the intrinsic value of nature and have exploited it. According to Tobŏp, human beings forget that they are products of nature and are sustained by nature. “If we care for nature, nature will care for us. If we destroy nature, nature will destroy us as well. This is the principle of interdependence” (Tobŏp 2010, p. 335). As expressed in Tobŏp’s idea of Yŏn’gi (interdependent co-arising), the Buddhist teachings help humans build a vision for ecological wisdom: a widening of moral consciousness. To Tobŏp, the practice of Yŏn’gi thought can be actualized only by community movements, because the world and its inhabitants are communal by nature (Tobŏp 2009, pp. 156–58). While early Buddhism aims for awakening and self-perfection for Bhikkhus, Mahāyāna (literally the “Great Vehicle”) Buddhism seeks complete enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings.

4.5. Tobŏp and Mahatma Gandhi

Tobŏp emphasizes that Buddhism is more than just other-worldly, spiritual teachings; in fact, he seeks to reconcile the social principles of early Buddhism and the best of rural values. He says, “From the beginning of early Buddhism, monks and laypeople lived together around the sangha, sadaebujung kongdongch’e (a community of monks–laypeople). But monks became a landlord of sangha and its land.” He has a romantic image of this ancient Buddhist commune.

In this old Buddhist society, the monks lived in a sangha and laypeople lived in a village outside of the sangha. The blacksmiths’ and farmers’ worth and dignity were well recognized. All equally received their share. It is evident that Tobŏp seeks an ideal Buddhism-based society. Critical of the current industry-centered Korean society, he suggests a Buddhism-based agricultural community governed by Buddhist values as a means for helping rural societies to renew their vitality and regenerate their culture. Tobŏp laments the fact that a rural economy based on cooperation and sharing has been displaced by an urban-centered one, in which individualism and competition have become prevalent. The traditionally agricultural-based rural lifestyle was overlooked through modernization and industrialization. Tobŏp wishes to recover the best of rural values (Tobŏp 2009, p. 161). That is his last hope.

Tobŏp’s social ideas are influenced by Mahatma Gandhi (Tobŏp 2009, p. 248), who said, “The spiritual law expresses itself only through the ordinary activities of life. It thus affects the economic, the social and the political” (Gandhi 1925, p. 304). Such an economic–religious order should be achieved in a village. Gandhi opposed industrialization that sought only wealth. Suggesting the principle of “swadeshi,” which means a local self-sufficient economy, Gandhi campaigned for khadi, homespun cloth, to make a home economy based in a village supported by appropriate technology. Its economy is self-sufficient, and its people live a robust, austere life.

5. Conclusions

This community movement has some limitations. The teachers of the Small School run by this community do not participate in physical labor on the farm. Venerable Tobŏp, therefore, suggested a rotation system for all members, but it has not been implemented yet (Lee 2009, pp. 142–43). Additionally, he served as the head of the Hwajaeng Committee under the supreme patriarch, a position that drew criticism from many progressive Buddhists during the division of Korean Buddhism. Nevertheless, while believing in the law of Yŏn’gi (interdependent co-arising), which views the enemy not as separate but as part of oneself, Tobŏp successfully brought stability to the sangha, despite the opposition and criticism he faced. He actively practiced the spirit of Hwajaeng (harmonization of disputes).

Another challenge to this movement is the village where the Indramang community is located. It has become one of the only rural villages in Korea where the influx of new residents far exceeds the number of those leaving. For Tobŏp, life in the village is “an ecological and self-sufficient, simple and humble life,” and since the Buddhist temple is the center of the village, he has emphasized that this movement is a new form of Mahāyāna Buddhism as well as of mountain Buddhism (sanjungbulgyo 山中佛敎) (Kim 2008). The Indramang Community has transformed the area into an ecological mountain village. Local government and tourism companies promote ecotourism, and the region has gained a reputation abroad as an ideal model for ecological development.

In summary, Korean Buddhists effectively use Buddhism’s ethical principles to provide a foundation for environmental movements that push for ecological sustainability in a post-capitalist era. Focusing on Indra’s Net Life through the concept of ecological community and the Hua-yen worldview, this article examines Venerable Tobŏp’s thoughts through his writings that built the foundation and operations of the community. It also analyzes contemporary Korean Buddhism in terms of ecological responsibility and shows the development of Buddhist monks’ collaborative environmental activism with secular groups, as well as with Buddhist environmental groups such as Indra’s Net Life Community, embracing their activities and the extent to which they have influenced the broader Korean community through the years.

This study explores Korea’s Indra’s Net Life Community and the beliefs of its founder, Venerable Tobŏp, questioning whether Buddhists—as one of the major traditional religions—can fulfill their ecological teachings in practice. Buddhist ethics appear more nature-friendly than Western religions, per eco-apologetics. Indra’s Net Community is leading environmental movements against Korean central and local governments’ environmental policies and programs, such as the controversial construction plans for Mt. Chiri National Park. This study investigates how Indra’s Net Community could develop alternative values and practices to make it an exemplar for environmental movements in modern Korea. Venerable Tobŏp’s work links ecosystems with Buddhist philosophy, which could inspire future faith-based socio-ecological communities. Socially Engaged Korean Buddhism, as evidenced by Indra’s Net, applies a dynamic social–spiritual ideology consistent with its developing ecological consciousness, thereby promoting the wellbeing of Earth, humanity, and all life.

Venerable Tobŏp extends membership of this moral community to beyond the human species. He claims that all sentient beings deserve mutuality and participatory living. From the doctrine of interdependent co-arising, ecological Buddhism’s approach to ecological issues is holistic and integral. To Tobŏp, Hua-yen Buddhism insufficiently entertains human–nature, theory–praxis, and thought–action dichotomies. Tobŏp’s ecological Buddhism broadens moral sensitivity.

From Tobŏp’s interpretation of Buddha’s teachings, another lesson can be learned: ecology requires practice, not just theory. Korean Engaged Buddhism emphasizes the transformation of society through social engagement and responsibility. Tobŏp is dedicated to an ecological philosophy that remains true to his own traditions. To Tobŏp, liberation is, as stated earlier, “in this place and in this body, in this world and not some other” through “the here and now.” Indra’s Net Life movement and its leader contend that ecological justice can only be achieved with interactive ecological engagement.