Why Do the Rules and Laws of the World Have Limitations?

Shui Ru asked: Some issues are conclusions I've pondered for a long time, and I feel the answers derived from the manas are mutually coherent. But when others ask and I explain, they say it doesn't quite align with the definitions. Actually, definitions are sometimes very vague and impractical because the definers themselves don't truly understand. Why do others dismiss what I find useful and logically consistent with theory? Or is it that people at different levels struggle to communicate?

Answer: Your question is a common one in the Saha World. The reason for this doubt is that you—or everyone—treat past conclusions and definitions as infallible standards, regarding all worldly theories as fixed, unchanging rules. In reality, they are not. Almost all principles, standards, and theoretical understandings in the Saha World are erroneous. Even those that appear correct are only temporarily, relatively true within a limited scope—not absolute, unchanging, genuine truth. Therefore, as cultivation progresses and wisdom grows, perceptions change. Once you see through worldly laws and truths, transcending them, contradictions arise.

In terms of Buddhadharma, the past dharmas in the Saha World—the non-Buddha parts—are not absolutely correct. Because those who expounded them did not grasp absolute truth, nor did they practice all dharmas. Their wisdom was limited, so the dharmas were incomplete and inevitably flawed. For example, regarding the mental factors of the manas, modern psychology has broken through old cognitive theories at the empirical level, demonstrating that the mental factors of the manas are not as minimal as ancient Yogacara masters claimed, nor is the manas nearly inactive.

Evidence shows otherwise: the manas is extremely active, present everywhere. Where the manas is absent, neither the six dusts nor the six consciousnesses exist. Since the manas emerges and engages in various mental activities, how could it not bring forth mental factors? Does the manas operate without mental factors? This is fundamentally illogical. Why did ancient Yogacara masters define the mental factors of the manas that way? The reason is their limited cognition, insufficient practical experience, and inability to connect theory with reality.

Worldly rules and standards cannot withstand verification and testing. All national laws, regulations, and systems are human-made. Since humans are so foolish and lacking in wisdom, how could they create anything complete? Anything human-made is inherently incomplete, incapable of perfection, and will ultimately change and vanish. All habits and customs of sentient beings are equally foolish and unwise. None should be treated as absolute truth; all are subject to change. What holds true now may not later—where is the real? Thus, the human world is a stage, a theater. Everyone is merely acting. Do not take any rules, laws, systems, or regulations seriously. They pass away, change, and what changes is likewise not truth. Just play the game.

Human language and writing are also part of this game—unreliable, impermanent, and ever-changing. These game rules are likewise human-made. When people change, rules must change; otherwise, contradictions arise. Why should we unconditionally conform to human-made rules? For instance, punctuation, character forms, word meanings, sentence structures—all are human constructs, changing according to human will. Since they can be set arbitrarily, why should we cling to any particular game, setting, or algorithm?

What is language for? To express meaning and enable communication. If the meaning is conveyed accurately and the purpose of communication is achieved, why rigidly adhere to so many rules? Why use so many meaningless modifiers? Thus, authentic beings with genuine temperament—those unwilling to follow conventions—can completely ignore these rules and formulas. No game rules should confine a person of true temperament. Authentic beings don’t play by worldly logic; otherwise, they’d be ordinary people drifting with the current, not genuine beings. Wisdom lies in breaking conventions; mediocrity follows rules.

I have a quiet, still body, inactive. Yet I also have a wild heart that breaks through all established rules, refusing to be confined by fixed customs. No rules reside in my heart or eyes; sometimes they merely pass my lips. Will the world tolerate such a me? Certainly not. Are there companions? Certainly none. Is it lonely? Utterly lonely. I often wish for death, since nothing can be changed except my own fate. Yet responsibilities remain, inescapable. So I force myself to live on, without interest.

Jun Ruo Lan: Yes, Master. In the past, I met many who study Buddhadharma. Upon hearing I studied psychology, most would immediately tell me psychology is incomplete, too shallow, unable to reach the seventh consciousness. I’m well aware of psychology’s limitations, and I know superficial counselors indeed operate mostly at the conscious level. But a few deeply learned psychological counselors have conducted extensive practical research on the seventh consciousness, even gaining deeper insights than many ordinary Dharma practitioners.

However, mainstream psychological theory does have its own limitations. If those advanced counselors studied Yogacara, many of their confusions could be resolved, and their perspectives and limitations could further expand. Sadly, most don’t study Buddhadharma—this is what I must work on next. After speaking with you several times recently, Master, I feel I’ve gained immensely.