Why Are Worldly Rules and Laws Limited?

Shuiru asked: Some of the questions are conclusions I arrived at after pondering for a long time on my own. I believe the answers derived from the manas can be mutually interconnected. But when others asked and I answered, they said it did not quite match the definitions. In fact, definitions are sometimes very vague and cannot be put into practice, because the person who defined them did not truly understand them in the first place. Why is it that content which I clearly find useful and which can be interconnected with theory is not taken seriously by others? Or is it that people of different levels find it hard to communicate with each other?

Answer: Your question is a universal one in the Saha world. The reason this doubt arises is that you—or everyone—take previously held, fixed conclusions and definitions as correct and infallible standards, and take all the theories recognized by worldly people as fixed, unchanging rules and principles. But it is not so. Almost all the rules, principles, theories, and cognitions in the Saha world are erroneous. Even those that appear to be correct are only temporary, relative, and limited in scope; they are not the absolutely unchanging, genuine truth. Therefore, as one cultivates and wisdom grows, one's cognition changes; when one sees through the worldly rules and truths and transcends them, contradictions appear.

In terms of the Buddha-dharma, the former dharmas of the Saha world—the portion not spoken by the Buddha—are not completely and absolutely correct, because the Dharma speakers have not grasped absolute truth and have not practiced all the dharmas; their wisdom is therefore limited, their Dharma is not perfect, and mistakes are inevitable. For example, regarding the mental factors (caittas) of the manas: modern psychology has broken through the old cognitive theories from the level of actual direct perception (pratyakṣa), showing that the mental factors of the manas are not as the former Yogācāra masters claimed—only a very few mental factors, with the manas doing almost nothing at all.

Actual evidence proves this is not the case. The manas is extremely active; its activity is present everywhere. Where there is no manas, there are no six sense objects and no six consciousnesses. Since the manas comes out and is active everywhere, with all kinds of mental activities, how could it not bring forth mental factors? Does the manas not rely on mental factors to function? This simply does not make sense. Why did the ancient Yogācāra masters still set it up that way—that the manas has only a few mental factors? The reason is that their cognition was limited, their practical experience insufficient, and they could not connect theory with reality.

The various rules and principles in the world can withstand verification and examination even less. All the laws, rules, and regulations of every country are established by human beings, and human beings are so foolish and devoid of wisdom—how could they establish anything perfectly? Whatever is established by human beings is not perfect and can never be perfect; in the end, all will change and disappear. All the habits and customs of sentient beings are likewise foolish and devoid of wisdom, and none can be taken as absolute truth; all will change and be altered. Things are different at different times—where is there any truth? So the human world is a stage, a theater; everyone is just acting in it. Do not take any of the various principles, rules, systems, and regulations seriously. Once they pass, they are gone, changed; and what has changed is likewise not truth. Just play the game and be done with it.

Human language and writing are also part of the game; none of it can be taken seriously—it is impermanent and subject to change. The rules of this game are likewise established by human beings. When people change, the rules must change, otherwise contradictions appear. And why should rules established by human beings be adapted to unconditionally and completely? For example, punctuation marks, the forms of written characters, the meanings of words, the structure of sentences and phrases—all are established by human beings, all change with people, and can be set up however one wishes. So why should we cling to one particular game, one particular setup, or one particular algorithm?

What are language and writing for? They are for expressing meaning and for communication. If the meaning can be expressed accurately and the purpose of communication is achieved, why bother strictly observing so many rules? Why use so many meaningless embellishments? Therefore, a genuine person, a person of true temperament, one who is unwilling to follow conventions, can completely disregard these rules and formulas. No rules of any game should bind a person of true temperament. A genuine person does not play cards according to worldly conventions; otherwise one is just a vulgar person drifting with the current, not a genuine person. Being adept at breaking conventions and norms is what the wise do; only the mediocre follow the rules step by step.

I have a quiet, tranquil body that does nothing, yet at the same time I have a wild heart that breaks through all established rules, unwilling to be trapped and confined by fixed customs. No rules or principles are in my heart or in my eyes; at times they are merely beneath my words. Would such a person as me be tolerated by the world? Certainly not. Do I have companions? Certainly none. Am I lonely? Certainly lonely. I often wish to end it all with death, because there is no way to change anything—only to change my own fate. Yet responsibility lies there and cannot be shirked, so I can only live on with difficulty, without interest.

Jun Ruolan: Yes, Shifu. In the past, whenever I met people who studied the Buddha-dharma, as soon as they heard that I had studied psychology, they would almost all tell me that psychology is not ultimate, that it is too shallow and cannot reach the seventh consciousness. Of course I know the limitations of psychology, and I also know that those counselors who have studied it only superficially indeed mostly operate at the level of the mind consciousness. But a few deeply trained psychological counselors have done a great deal of practical research on the seventh consciousness, and their insights are even deeper than those of many ordinary students of the Buddha-dharma.

However, the main theoretical content of psychology does indeed have its own limitations. If the counselors who have gone deep were to further study Yogācāra, many of their confusions could be resolved, and their horizons and limitations could be further opened up. It is a pity that many of them do not study the Buddha-dharma—this is something your disciple will work on further. Recently, after conversing with Shifu a few times, I feel I have gained a great deal.