Why Are Worldly Rules and Laws Limited?

Shui Ru: Some of the questions are things I pondered over for a long time on my own, and I feel that the answers derived through 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 those who define them do not truly understand them in the first place. Why is it that content I clearly find useful and that can be interconnected with theory is not taken seriously by others? Or is it that people at different levels find it hard to communicate?

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

In terms of the Buddha-dharma, the previous 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 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 at all.

In actual fact, 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? Could the manas operate without mental factors? This simply does not make sense. Why then did the ancient Yogācāra masters set up the mental factors of the manas in that way? The reason is that their cognition was limited and their practical experience insufficient, so they could not connect theory with reality.

The various rules and standards of the world can withstand verification and examination even less. All of society's laws, rules, and regulations are established by human beings, and ordinary people certainly lack sufficient wisdom—how could they establish anything perfectly? Whatever is established by humans 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 foolish and unwise; none of them can be taken as absolute truth, and all will change and be altered—now one way, now another. 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 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 as true, for it is impermanent and changing. The rules of this game are likewise established by humans. When people change, the rules must change, or contradictions appear. And why should one unconditionally and completely conform to rules established by humans? For example, punctuation marks, the forms of written characters, the meanings of words, phrases and expressions—all are established by humans and all change with people; they may be set up however one wishes. So why should we be attached to one particular game, one particular setup, 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 achieved, why insist on observing so many rules? Why use so many meaningless embellishments? Therefore, a genuine person of true temperament, one 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 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 the conduct of the wise; only mediocrities follow rules and routines.

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 laws 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 always 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, Master. In the past I met quite a few people who study 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 vision 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, through several conversations with Master, I feel I have gained a great deal.