Why do the rules and laws of the world have limitations?

Ru She: Some of the questions are things I pondered over for a long time and figured out on my own. I feel that the answers derived from the manas can be mutually interconnected. But when others asked and I explained, they said it did not quite match the definitions. In fact, definitions are sometimes very vague and cannot be put into practice, because the people who made the definitions themselves did not understand. Why is it that content which I clearly find useful and which can interconnect with theory is not taken seriously by others? Or is it that people of different levels find it hard to communicate with each other?

Reply: Your question is a universal one in the Saha world. The reason you have this doubt is that you—or everyone—take the previously established conclusions and definitions as correct and infallible standards, and regard all the theories recognized by worldly people as fixed, unchanging rules and principles. In fact, this is not so. Nearly all the rules, standards, and theoretical understandings in the Saha world are erroneous; even those that appear correct are only temporary, relative, and limited in scope—not the absolutely unchanging, genuine truth. Therefore, as one cultivates and wisdom grows, one's understanding changes; when one sees through the worldly rules and truths and transcends them, contradictions appear.

In terms of the Buddha-dharma, the previous teachings in 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 practical level of direct perception, 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.

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

The various rules and standards in the world can withstand verification and examination even less. All the laws, rules, and regulations of society are established by human beings, and ordinary people certainly lack sufficient wisdom—how could they establish anything perfectly? Whatever is established by human beings is not perfect and cannot be perfect, and in the end it will all change and disappear. All the habits and customs of sentient beings are likewise ignorant and unwise; none of them can be taken as absolute truth—they all change and are altered, different at different times. Where is there anything true? So the human world is a stage, a theater; everyone is just acting in it. Do not take any of the various rules, principles, systems, and regulations seriously—once they pass, they are gone, changed; and what they change into 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 as true—it is impermanent and mutable. 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, phrases and sentences—all are established by human beings, all change with people; they can be set up however one wishes. So why should we be attached to one kind of game, one kind of setup, one kind of 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 nature, 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 nature. A genuine person does not play by worldly conventions; otherwise one is just a mediocre 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, but at the same time I also have a wild heart that breaks through all established rules, unwilling to be trapped and confined by fixed customs. No rules are in my heart or in my eyes; at times they are merely beneath my words. Would such a me be tolerated by the world? Certainly not. Do I have companions? Certainly none. Am I lonely? Certainly lonely. I always want to end it all with death, because there is no way to change anything—only to change my own destiny. 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, when I met many people studying the Buddha-dharma, as soon as they heard that I had studied psychology, they would almost all tell me that psychology is not ultimate, 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. Unfortunately, many of them do not study the Buddha-dharma—this is something your disciple will work on further. Recently I have talked with Shifu several times, and I feel I have gained a great deal.