Why Do Worldly Rules and Laws Have Limitations?

Shui Ru: Some issues are conclusions I've pondered over for a long time, and I feel that the answers derived from the manas can be mutually coherent. However, 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 those who defined them didn't truly understand in the first place. Why do others dismiss what I find genuinely useful and coherent with theory? Or is it that people at different levels find it difficult to communicate?

Reply: 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 theories recognized by the world as fixed, unchanging rules and laws. In reality, they are not. Almost all rules, standards, theories, and understandings in the Saha World are erroneous. Even those that appear correct are merely temporary, relative, and limited in scope—not absolute, unchanging, true, and genuine truth. Therefore, as cultivation progresses and wisdom grows, cognition changes. Once you see through worldly rules and truths and transcend them, contradictions arise.

In terms of the Buddha Dharma, the past dharmas in the Saha World—those parts not spoken by the Buddha—are not absolutely correct. This is because those who expounded them did not grasp absolute truth and did not practice all dharmas. Their wisdom was limited, so the dharmas were incomplete and inevitably contained errors. For example, regarding the mental factors (caitasika) of the manas, modern psychology has broken through old cognitive theories from the level of actual direct perception, revealing that the mental factors of the manas are not as ancient Yogācāra masters described—with only a few mental factors and the manas being almost inactive.

In practice, it has been proven otherwise. The manas is extremely active; its activity is everywhere. Where there is no manas, there are no six dusts (objects of sense) and six consciousnesses. Since the manas emerges and acts everywhere, exhibiting various mental activities, how could it not bring forth mental factors? Does the manas function without relying on mental factors? This is fundamentally illogical. Why did ancient Yogācāra masters still define the mental factors of the manas that way? The reason is their limited cognition, insufficient practical experience, and inability to connect theory with practice.

The various rules and standards in the world cannot withstand verification and testing. All societal laws, regulations, and systems are artificially established, and ordinary people are certainly lacking in wisdom—how could they establish anything perfectly? Anything set by humans is incomplete and cannot be perfected; ultimately, it will all change and vanish. All habits and customs of sentient beings are similarly foolish and unwise. None can be taken as absolute truth; all will change and be altered—different at different times, so where is the truth? Therefore, the human world is but a stage, a theater where everyone acts out their roles. All kinds of rules, laws, systems, and regulations should not be taken seriously. Once past, they vanish or change, and what changes is likewise not truth—just play along with the game.

Human language and writing are also part of this game—unreliable, impermanent, and ever-changing. These game rules are likewise set by humans. When people change, the rules must change; otherwise, contradictions arise. And why should artificially established rules be unconditionally adhered to? For example, punctuation marks, character forms, word meanings, sentence structures—all are artificially set and change according to human will. Since they can be set however one wishes, why should we cling to one particular game, setting, or algorithm?

What is the purpose of language and writing? They are used to express meaning and facilitate communication. If the meaning can be accurately and unmistakably conveyed to achieve the purpose of communication, why rigidly adhere to so many rules? Why use so many meaningless modifiers? Therefore, authentic people with genuine temperaments—those unwilling to follow conventions—can completely ignore these rules and conventions. No game rules should constrain a person of true temperament. An authentic person does not play by worldly norms; otherwise, they would be an ordinary person drifting with the tide, not an authentic one. Being adept at breaking common sense and conventions is the act of a wise person; mediocrities are the ones who rigidly follow rules.

I have a quiet, still body that does nothing, yet I also possess a wild heart that breaks through all established rules, unwilling to be confined and defined by fixed customs. All rules exist neither in my heart nor before my eyes; sometimes, they merely lie beneath my words. Would the world tolerate such a me? Certainly not. Are there companions? Certainly none. Is it lonely? Certainly lonely. I often wish to end my life because there is no way to change anything except my own fate. Yet responsibilities lie there, unavoidable, so I reluctantly live on without interest.

Jun Ruo Lan: Yes, Master. In the past, I encountered many people studying the Buddha Dharma. As soon as they heard I had studied psychology, they would almost invariably tell me psychology is not ultimate—too shallow, unable to reach the seventh consciousness. I am of course aware of psychology's limitations, and I know that shallowly trained counselors indeed operate mostly at the level of consciousness. However, a few deeply trained psychological counselors have conducted extensive practical research on the seventh consciousness, even gaining deeper insights than many ordinary students of the Buddha Dharma.

Nevertheless, the main theoretical content of psychology does indeed have its own limitations. If those deeply engaged counselors were to further study Yogācāra, many of their confusions could be resolved, and their perspectives and limitations could be further broadened. It's a pity many of them do not study the Buddha Dharma—this is what I must further pursue. Recently, after conversing with you a few times, Master, I feel I have gained immensely.