Merge other-review and self-review

translate-files/我们靠什么认识世界/human-review-findings.dj

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Truncated sentence: Whether you use a distorted mind or an undistorted mind is the key to cognition a…
+

translate-files/我们靠什么认识世界/readme.dj

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+translated by omp

translate-files/我们靠什么认识世界/source.dj

@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+# 我们靠什么认识世界
+
+------2016年夏与哲学家周国平对话
+
+2016年夏，应澎湃新闻邀请，济群法师和哲学家周国平在上海大宁剧院，围绕《我们靠什么认识世界》展开对话，意犹未尽。随后，济群法师又在北京讲座之余，与周老师在卧佛山庄再续前缘，对于人类的认识问题做了进一步探讨，本文是此次交流的整理。
+
+
+## 一、理性的作用和局限
+
+济：我们靠什么认识世界？是很有意思的话题。讲到认识世界，一定离不开认识。西方人重视理性，一定程度上也重视直觉，并以科学的工具和手段作为重要助缘。那么，西方认识世界的方式和东方有什么差异？共同点又在哪里？
+
+周：从西方的主流来说，是把理性作为人最重要的特征，这也是人和动物的区别所在。如果给人下个定义的话，基本就是------人是理性的动物。理性即逻辑思维能力，包括概念和推理，把具体事物抽象为概念，概念之间的联系就是推理，是思维工具。但光凭理性能不能认识世界？西方哲学对这一点始终是怀疑的。
+
+济：作为人的认识能力，理性揭示的是因果规律。当我们用理性认识世界时，如何让自己的认识符合这种规律？逻辑思维所做的，是通过一些准则来规范理性。如果你的思维方式有问题，得出的结论自然和因果不符，也就和真相不符。
+
+周：西方哲学有个大问题，即你的思维要符合因果规律。但进一步追问下去------这个因果规律是不是世界本相？就出问题了。因为你怎么证明，凭什么断言，它就是世界本相？你用理性思维，把感性材料整理出一个逻辑------什么是必然的，什么是偶然的，但凭什么说这就是世界的秩序？你无法证明。
+
+所以休谟说，这其实不是世界本身的秩序，而是感觉的习惯。因为我们经常看到甲出现后，乙跟着出现。重复多了，成为习惯性的联想，它其实是主观的。到康德就对这个问题作了彻底否决，说因果关系完全是意识的先天结构，人先天就有关于因果的结构。如果没有这种意识，根本无法认识世界。人有了这个结构以后，把经验材料套到框里，就算对世界作出了解释。他认为这个因果关系和世界本相毫无关系，完全是主观的。但不是主观感觉，因为这是人类普遍的，不是个别的。
+
+济：通过逻辑思维所举的例子，比如人都要死，某某是人，所以某某一定要死。这个大前提就有问题，有不可知的因素，因为我们无法断定所有人会如何。但在大前提的基础上，通过小前提得出结论，是立足于相应的现实基础------至少你看到的这部分现实是这样。凡是你举出的人，没有谁会不死。
+
+佛教的因明学是以"同异品”说明问题。在同品中，所有同一类型和性质的对象，具有相同的规律。只要你能举出不同的例子，这个宗就不能成立，这是从现实状况往前推。如果因果仅仅是人的主观认识，那这种认识的基础是什么？如果和世界真相无关，世界就变成不可知的。
+
+周：这就是康德的看法------世界是不可知的，人类认识永远跳不出理性结构的范围。感官从外面接受各种印象，而当理性对感官印象加以整理时，完全是按自己具有的结构来整理，得出的结论还是属于现象，不是本质。本质是人类认识无法触及的。
+
+济：在现象层面可以认识？
+
+周：可以。所以科学完全可以成立，科学去研究因果关系没有问题。
+
+济：那在哲学层面呢？
+
+周：哲学就要谈本质问题，谈世界的本相。康德的结论是，世界本相是根本不能谈的，因为你认识的永远是现象，不可能达到本相。但他又说，人为了行动，为了实践，必须对本相有所假定，并提出三个基本假定。第一是自在之物，物本身是存在的，我们必须假定它的存在；第二是上帝；第三是灵魂不死。必须有自由意志、上帝存在、灵魂不死三个假定，你要做有道德的人才有根据。因为这从理论上是无法分析的，你无法证明，它到底是不是存在。但我们可以凭自己的感受，用一种道德情感来看。
+
+按因果分析，某人做了坏事，可以找到很多原因，比如他的家庭出身、环境影响，或是他很穷，为了生存走到这一步等等，好像不应该由他本人负责任。但康德说，我们都有种直觉，只要做了坏事，哪怕有再多原因 ，仍会感到难受。这种难受从哪里来？它就证明，人还有一种他称为"实践理性”的良知，知道应该怎么做，不该怎么做。怎么解释这种良知的存在？他说，因为人的灵魂受上帝安排，所以会有这种感受。我们无法证明人的灵魂，但从道德情感可以推导出，这个应该存在。
+
+
+## 二、认识决定了所认识
+
+济：佛法非常重视对现象世界的正确认识。中观是以二分法看世界，即世俗谛和胜义谛；唯识是以三分法看世界，即遍计所执、依他起、圆成实。我们为什么看不到真相？是因为不能正确认识现象。为什么不能认识现象？又和我们的认识能力有关。《辩中边论》指出，人的认识有颠倒作意和无倒作意。作意就是用心，你用什么心------是颠倒的心，还是不颠倒的心，是认识和修行的关键所在。
+
+如果没有颠倒，意味着你能如实观察世界。现象是怎么回事，你看到的就是怎么回事。当你看到现象的真实存在，就不会构成遮蔽，可以通过现象抵达真相，也就是空性。反之，则属于颠倒作意。因为我们的心是以无明为基础，由此建立的理性会受到感觉的制约、情绪的影响，所形成的认知就是颠倒作意。如果带着颠倒作意观察世界，会看到错觉的呈现，而不是现象本身。因为影像是投射在错觉的平台，就像哈哈镜中呈现的，必然是扭曲的。这种错觉会阻碍我们认识真相，唯识叫作遍计所执。有了遍计所执，就会烦恼、造业、生死轮回。
+
+周：佛法很强调认识，不仅是凭逻辑思维去认识，还强调认识主体的状态------这个状态是不是正确的、干净的。颠倒作意的就是状态错了，即认识主体本身造成他不可能有正确认识。
+
+济：认识主体有两类。一是智慧的状态，如圣贤所见，当下就是世界真相。一是无明的状态，在凡夫的认识系统中，会受到感觉的局限、情绪的干扰，使认识不同程度地被扭曲。但我们可以通过闻思建立正确理性，在此基础上，形成一套类似逻辑思维的结论，佛教称为比量。此外还有现量，属于纯净的直觉，只看到当下的呈现，不带任何思考，而且是超越名言概念的。
+
+唯识宗就是通过严谨的三支比量建立的。说到比量，离不开因明。佛教的因明包括能立和能破两方面，能立是建立正确命题，能破是破斥对方观点。《因明入正理论》说："能立与能破，及似唯悟他。现量与比量，及似唯自悟。”告诉我们，能立和能破主要用于和对方交流，是为了破斥或教导他人。而现量和比量主要用于建立正确认识，可以通过这两种方式纠正误解，是为了自度及度他。此外还有似能立和似能破，所谓似，即相似的比量------这个推理其实有问题，并不是真的能破和能立。
+
+因明是非常严谨的，比如命题的建立，必须离开九种过失。在推理方式上，逻辑先是指出大前提，然后是小前提，最后得出结论。而大前提是假设的，所以逻辑是在假设的前提下得出结论。但因明是先举出命题（宗），把观点放在前面。这个观点能不能成立？接着以理由（因）证明，这些理由必须离开十四种过失。此外还有喻，即展开种种例证。比如某人会死（宗）；因为他是人，所以会死（因）；接着举出某人、某人都死了（喻）。如果有一人不死，那么"某人会死”这个宗就不能成立。反之，只要没有推翻的例证，这个宗就能成立。喻还有同喻和异喻之分，喻要远离十种过失。
+
+
+## 三、现量和比量
+
+济：通过因明建立的只是闻思正见，属于意识的认知。而佛法所说的正见包括两个层面，一是闻思正见，属于比量；一是内在正见，属于现量，是心本身具备的，但它是潜在的，并不能产生作用，需要通过禅修开启。因明早期说三种量，除了现量、比量，还有圣言量，即以经教作为建立理论或反驳他人的依据，后来主要说现量和比量。
+
+周：这很有意思，是唯识宗说的吗？
+
+济：唯识宗运用因明的方法论，形成佛教的逻辑学。因明本身属于印度传统的辩论术。印度的宗教哲学非常发达，各宗之间经常展开辩论，输了就要改宗，甚至砍头。在印度早期的六派哲学中，正理派特别重视正理（相当于因明）的研究，《正理经》即此派创始人所撰写的。对因明的借鉴和运用，使唯识宗具有缜密的逻辑性。
+
+周：玄奘当时就和所有人辩过了。
+
+济：玄奘三藏在印度求学期间，常有外道来挑战，佛教大小乘之间也会互相辩论。当时的国王戒日王推崇大乘，特别组织了一场面向全印度各宗派的大辩论。在这场辩论中，玄奘三藏所立的宗（命题）是"真故极成色，非定离眼识。自许初三摄，眼所不摄故，如眼识”，并提出，此言如有不妥或被驳倒，愿斩首相谢。结果十八天没人能更改一字，玄奘三藏因此受到各宗的一致推崇。在这种环境中传播的佛教，重视思辨且逻辑严谨。因为很多论点已经过反复辩论，始终立于不败之地。用现在的话说，是经过实践检验的。
+
+周：汉传佛教辩论的传统不明显，我看藏传还是很兴盛的，现在还有。
+
+济：因明进入汉传佛教和唯识宗有很大关系，所以它的受重视程度，也和唯识宗的命运息息相关。玄奘三藏西行求法，历尽艰辛，把《瑜伽师地论》等经论翻译到中国，形成唯识宗。虽然位列汉传佛教八大宗派之一，但仅仅传了二三传，就后继乏人，几至湮没了。直到民国期间才有复兴之势，可还是未能形成气候。因为没有用武之地，我们现在学到的因明只是书本上的，不是应用中的，而因明的重点在于应用。
+
+周：现量和比量很有意思。实际上是认识的两种状态，一种是靠经验、逻辑思维去认识，一般人都这样；另一种是靠内在的智慧、天才的直觉去认识，这是极少数人。其中是有鸿沟的，一般人达不到现量，再努力也达不到。
+
+济：佛法认为，六识中前五识的认识就属于现量，即耳识、眼识、鼻识、舌识、身识。但这种直觉非常短，只是刹那而已。一旦前五识活动，马上有与之同步的五俱意识产生作用，使我们落入意识状态，现量本有的直觉就不起作用了。
+
+周：你说的前五识的直觉成分，其实就是无意识和潜意识。
+
+济：前五识不是潜意识，是属于意识的范畴。唯识宗讲八识，意识包括眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六识，潜意识是第七末那识和第八阿赖耶识。
+
+周：就是五官的感觉带有直觉成分。
+
+济：前五识的作用属于现量，但它们活动时，意识立刻随之出现，把各种信息塞进来，对认识形成干扰，使前五识的所见、所闻、所感知，成为被意识改造过的所见、所闻、所感知。
+
+《瑜珈师地论》说，世上有四种真实。一是世间极成真实，即大众共同认可的；二是道理极成真实，即哲人通过逻辑思考建立的；三是烦恼障净智所行真实，即摆脱烦恼后看到的世界；四是所知障净智所行真实，是彻底摆脱无明后看到的世界真相。在四种真实中，后两种进入了圣贤境界。而凡夫的认识会受到情绪、烦恼等因素的影响，不论自以为多么理性，都无法避免这种干扰。很多时候，我们的理性还会为烦恼服务，形成所谓的立场，也就是我执。
+
+周：我们也可以承认前两种有存在价值。各种真实都有它的位置和作用，如果只承认后两种真实，认为前两种是虚假的，普通人就无法生活了。
+
+济：四种真实只是说明认识的不同层次，在不同阶段都是有价值的。在佛法中，如实智非常重要，告诉我们世界和人生到底是怎么回事。有了这样的指引，我们才能对自己的心行作出抉择。
+
+
+## 四、理性的作用和局限
+
+济：关于"我们靠什么认识世界”，周老师讲到理性和直觉，佛教也很看重这两点。佛教重视人的身份，认为真理和智慧属于人间，就是因为人有理性。六道中，天人太快乐了，不必动什么脑筋；恶道众生太痛苦、太愚痴了，没能力动脑筋。而人有苦有乐，才会对生命和世界加以思考，寻找改变处境的方法。
+
+佛法认为，我们的烦恼、造业、轮回都和意识活动有关，根源就在于错误认识。如何改变？必须靠理性重新探索和思考世界。所以佛教特别重视无倒作意，将此作为修行关键，比如闻思修的思，八正道的正思维。在四法行中，亲近善知识是为了听闻正法，然后通过如理作意，才能法随法行。但理性只是意识层面的活动，无法直接抵达真理，也无法究竟解决人生烦恼。
+
+心理学家弗洛伊德说，生命就像大海，意识活动只是浮在海面的冰山，潜意识才是深入海底的巨大山体。在认识过程中，一般人会卡在念头中，无法深入。从表面看，每个人是活在这个世界，其实是活在各自的念头中。当某个念头被无限夸大或强化后，一个念头就会成为我们的整个世界，甚至一生就为这个念头活着。而现代人往往是另一个极端，外境的诱惑、声色的刺激，使人被此起彼伏的念头重重包围。时而被这个念头控制，时而被那个念头控制，我们以为自己的生活丰富多彩，其实却在不断地被控，被左右。
+
+怎样才能跳出念头，超越理性的局限？必须通过禅修，开发内心本具的圆满智慧。这是一条向内找寻的道路，也是佛教和西方哲学最大的不同。在禅修训练中，修行者会进入不同状态，产生相应觉受。尤其是定乐，远远超过欲望带来的快乐。如果沉浸其中，同样会被卡住，成为修行障碍。所以对禅修来说，一方面要让心定下来，一方面要有指导修行的正见。只有具备认识的高度，才能抵达生命的深度。
+
+其实禅修并非佛教所特有，而是印度各宗教共同重视的。尤其是神通，是修定后出现的。宿命通可以看到过去无数生，天眼通可以看到未来将要发生的事，还有神足通、天耳通等。其实这些能力并不神奇，正是说明生命的巨大潜能。当然，佛教并不以神通为究竟，而是重视智慧。因为神通是双刃剑，在人格不完善的情况下，有了这种能力破坏性更大。
+
+西方的认识系统，从最初重视对世界本体的探索，到十六世纪开始重视认识论，包括经验论、理性论。此后，存在主义关注的是存在。不论哪一种，用的都是理性，由此产生的认识也存在局限。
+
+周：其实康德就知道理性的局限，所以试图突破局限，开发非理性的精神能力，包括内心体验、潜意识的感悟等。存在主义是重视这一点的。我想知道在佛教中，智慧和理性的界限在哪里？理性肯定是意识层面的，可以说是比量，这是统一区别的概念。那么智慧是不是要突破理性的局限，深入潜意识，把那种能力开发出来？智慧也好，比量也好，是不是都属于潜意识，或潜意识和意识的结合？
+
+
+## 五、智慧的体和用
+
+济：我们刚才所说的理性，是属于意识层面的，无法直接抵达空性。那智慧又是什么？和理性是什么关系？首先，智慧是超越理性的。佛法中常常说到，以智慧通达空性（这个智慧属于般若，不是理性层面的认知）。大家会觉得是两个东西，一是主观，一是客观；一是能，一是所，其实不然。
+
+般若思想传入中国初期，僧肇大师曾撰写《肇论》，被誉为"秦人解空第一”。其中的"物不迁论”说明，事物的流动变化是一种假象，只是我们把它联系起来；"不真空论”说明，一切现象都不真实，只是假象而已，所以是空；还有"般若无知论”，所谓无知，其实是超越妄知的遍知，即"般若无知，无所不知”。这是从体和用的角度说明般若和空性的关系------"言用即同而异，言寂即异而同”。"同而异”是说本质相同，但表现在作用上似乎是两个，一是智慧，一是空性；"异而同”是从它的体而言，虽然有两个名字，但本质是相同的。简单地说，智慧来自空性，反过来又体认空性。就像我们经常说，心的本质就是世界的本质，其实并不是两个东西。
+
+空性有什么特点呢？一是空，空旷无限，可以把山河大地容纳其中，也可以产生山河大地；二是明，了了明知，不是死的、没知觉的；三是乐，会源源不断地产生喜悦和快乐。如何通达空性？除了如理思维，还要超越分别，所以般若又称无分别智。这种智慧属于遍知，就像镜子一样，本身就能对一切一目了然，不是靠思考、判断得来的。
+
+周：这种智慧的状态，是不是像庄子说的万物与我为一？我和宇宙合为一体了，所以它是同一个东西，我就是空性，我就是宇宙。
+
+济：在这个层面是不二的，在差别的层面，就各是各的。
+
+周：这两个层面是一高一低，还是同时存在、统一的？
+
+济：在佛法中，对空性的体认有两个层面，一是根本智，一是差别智。通过根本智体认无差别的层面，但这种无差别又不妨碍差别。如果你已体认空性智慧，就能同时活在两个层面，既了知万物差别，又能超越差别，那就自在无碍了。而普通人总是陷入相对层面的执著，就会卡在局部现象中，就像当局者迷那样，其实是看不清的。只有体认到绝对的层面，才能真正看清，种种相对的现象只是假象而已。
+
+周：看见假象，就可以对假象抱有自由的心态，一种游戏的态度。我跟你玩玩，我知道你是假的。
+
+
+## 六、理性、情感和意志
+
+济：西方从哲学到科学都是向外探索。随着科学的发展，各种工具也在不断延伸人的认识能力。但东方文化，尤其是佛教，是向内发展。
+
+周：人的精神能力包括理性、情感和意志，但说到认知世界，往往只说到理性，其他两个是不参与的。实际上不是这么回事。当你认识外部世界时，一定是三个同时在起作用，情感和意志也会参与，不完全是抽象的逻辑思维，也是情感投入的过程，意志有所追求的过程。我不知道佛法对这三种能力的参与和认识，有没有什么说明？
+
+济：从佛法角度说，认识并不仅仅是某种心理活动，而是系统性的综合作用。我们认知事物时，既有意志的作用，会和目标、动机相结合，还受情感的影响，比如我们对某人某事的好恶不同，思维方式也会全然不同。所以认知绝不单纯是理性的作用，你的系统什么样，决定了你有什么样的认知。如果系统比较纯净，认知会更客观。反之，如果系统中情绪、经验的力量强大，就会影响我们的观察、思考和判断。
+
+周：这三种能力本身无所谓好坏，都可以起好的作用，也可以起坏的作用。因为人是具备这些能力的。
+
+济：每个人的意志不一样，情感不一样，既会发展出高尚心理，也会发展出负面情绪。当我们在思考问题时，这些心理或情绪又会参与其中。所以，每个人的心理状态决定了你有什么样的认知。
+
+周：我们习惯说的真善美，就是这三种能力得到正确反馈时，理性去认识就是真，情感去感受就是美，意志去追求就是善。如果这三种能力被欲望和负面情绪控制了，对认知就有不良作用。
+
+济：如果被欲望、烦恼控制，这三种能力就可能为欲望、烦恼服务。反过来说，如果和高尚的情操、德行相结合，也会为其所用。
+
+周：理性可以用来追求真理，也可以用来满足欲望，让人变得越来越复杂，越来越可怕。情感也是同样，可能是一种美，一种爱，也可能是很多负面情绪。
+
+济：改变这样一种状态，还是要靠理性。因为纠偏离不开认知，而认知离不开理性。只有以理性重新审视生命，接受智慧、道德的教化，才能调整观念、心态乃至生命品质。人的内心还是对真善美有一份向往，当他接受智慧文化后，会以理性纠正生命存在的偏差。所以佛法对理性的看法有两面性，既是众妙之门，可以成就道德和智慧；又是众祸之根，会成为一切灾难的根源。
+
+周：总的来说，理性是一个工具，本身没有善恶。为什么有人的理性为善服务，有人的理性为恶服务？其中起决定性作用的是什么？觉悟离不开理性，但理性本身是中性的，这个开端在哪里？
+
+济：我们学习各种文化的过程中，会对世界和生命建立认知，形成价值判断。当我们有了判断之后，理性会立足于这一基础作出选择。因为每个人还是希望自己的生命越来越美好。
+
+周：这是一个假设。
+
+济：但我们都希望幸福，这一点不是假设吧。
+
+周：对，希望这个生命状态是好的，不愿意它是坏的。
+
+
+## 七、幸福和觉醒
+
+济：希望过得幸福快乐，包括趋利避害、离苦得乐，都是生命的本能。如果我们通过理性思考，认识到真善美可以使人趋利避害、离苦得乐，自然会作出这样的选择。
+
+周：这是靠理性来认识，追求真善美和幸福快乐之间的连接。
+
+济：因为他认识到这样做才能有长久的快乐。就像西方的伊壁鸠鲁认为，一个人满足欲望会快乐，但需要有节制，快乐才能长久。
+
+周：这就承认快乐是更加根本的东西，真善美成为手段。伊壁鸠鲁是这样的，快乐本身就是目的，是最高价值。为了得到快乐，所以要躲避假恶丑，追求真善美。完善主义则认为，真善美本身就是最高价值，体现了人的尊严，是神圣的。可能你在追求过程中伴随着快乐，但这只是副产品，不是最高目的。这两派都承认真善美是好的，但为什么好的理由不一样，一个是手段，一个是目的本身。按照佛教来说，应该接近完善主义------这些价值都是好的。
+
+济：佛法看重的是生命品质，不是简单地说快乐。佛法认为，任何一种行为和品质，与苦乐是有内在因果的。行为的价值在哪里？为什么要遵循道德？因为这是造就高尚生命品质的材料。用好这些材料，生命才会不断增上。
+
+我们现在说到幸福，更多会依赖环境，认为得到什么才能幸福。这样的幸福其实很脆弱，因为环境会不断改变。当不如人意的改变发生时，幸福就会随之失去。所以，真正的幸福是源于内在生命品质。如果你的存在是慈悲和智慧，就会源源不断地带来喜悦。佛法的因果观告诉我们，有什么样的观念和行为，就会造就相应的心态、人格乃至生命品质。
+
+周：品质是因，幸福不幸福是果。
+
+济：也不是说因果，应该是它直接派生的，是这种品质产生的作用。
+
+周：它是一个副产品，是附加的。
+
+济：佛法也会从苦乐感受来谈。因为对很多人来说，生命品质听起来有点抽象，但苦乐就很直接。
+
+周：释迦牟尼出家的开端就是因为苦吧？因为要解决苦的问题。
+
+济：佛陀出家是因为看到老病死，这些都是苦。
+
+周：幸福和觉醒到底有什么关系？我想到三个问题。第一是生命层面，有平常心，可以得到平凡的幸福；第二是社会层面，要有进取心，可以得到世间的幸福；第三是灵性层面，要有觉悟和菩提心，可以得到超越的幸福。
+
+中国古代没有幸福的概念，只有"福”。英文中也没有，happy不是幸福，是快乐。德文是Glück，是幸运、好运的抽象名词，可以翻译成幸福。最早讨论幸福问题的是亚里士多德，他所用的词翻译成英文，并不是幸福和快乐，而是一种好的存在。有人译为良好生活，我觉得比较准确。生命处于一种好的状态，就是幸福了吧。关于什么状态是好的，会有不同看法，但都是用"幸福”这个词来体现。
+
+济：我作过过几次关于幸福的讲座，题目是"心灵创造幸福”，主要讲到几点。首先是如何面对逆境，天有不测风云，很多人的幸福往往会被逆境打破，所以要学会和逆境相处。其次是幸福要有福，主要讲到五福临门。我觉得古人说的五福比较全面，一是长寿；二是富贵，不仅指物质富有和地位尊贵，也包括精神的富有，生命品质的高贵；三是康宁，身体健康，内心安宁；四是有德，这是幸福的基础和保障；五是善终，能安详地离开人世。相比之下，现代人对幸福的理解反而单一，无非是各种享乐。
+
+
+## 八、认识手段的局限
+
+济：认识世界的手段，决定了我们对世界的认知程度。
+
+周：对个人来说，这种手段是不可能自由选择的。也就是说，他想用正确的、直达本质的手段，但没这个自由。他是什么样的人，决定了怎么认识世界。作为人的限度，就是他认识世界的限度。因为悟性是天生的，经过努力可以达到一定高度，但这个高度其实已经规定了，差距很大。
+
+济：佛法认为，业力构成的色身有很大局限性。在物质层面，我们眼睛看到、耳朵听到、身体感受到的，其实都很迟钝。在精神层面，意识和潜意识的活动会积累种种经验，进而形成感受，带来爱取有，干扰我们看世界的方式。
+
+人受制于自身系统，只能这样看世界，看自己。好在人有理性，可以接受智慧文化，所以读书和思考特别重要，会让我们看到自身不足。只要有开放的心，都可以通过学习提升自己。所有的文化传承，佛法也好，西方哲学也好，能否对生命系统产生作用，取决于我们对它的认可。这种认可来自你的选择和判断，如果你特别自我，固执己见，即使学习也难以提升。
+
+周：从人类整体来说，受到认识器官和认识能力的限制，这是必然的，不可摆脱。设想有另一种存在，比如外星人，拥有比人类理性更高级的认识，就会看到不一样的世界。所以我们一定是在局限中看世界，而且不知道自己的局限在哪里。因为我们不可能跳出现有认识，以另一种认识能力来看，然后再作比较。有些哲学家是这样解释的：人的这种能力对于生存来说已经足够，更多的能力是不必要的，也就不会具备。
+
+从个人来说，我觉得两方面都很重要。一方面是自身悟性，人的灵性程度、把握生活本质的能力很不一样，有些人会表现出非常好的直觉。另一方面，接受人类积累的经验也很重要。阅读无非是把人类积累的经验放在自己面前，看哪些对自己有参考价值。其中非常重要的一点，如果内心没有需求，即使摆在面前，他也是看不到的。比如一个人从来不思考人生意义，你给他看佛经，看哲学书，他看了完全不明白，和他没关系。所以对人类经验的接受，也受到他所具备的素质支配，这是循环的关系。
+
+济：确实如此，我们在弘法过程中经常遇到。每个人都活在自己的需求和认知中，如果所说超出需求范围，不是他关心的，他是听不进的。但人并不是没有这些问题，所以需要启发。通过有效的启发让他认识到：人生确实有这些问题，而且特别重要，因为这是人类永恒的困惑。如果在以前的时代，或许还能安于现状，混混沌沌地活着。但在今天这个全球化的世界，我们比以往更能感受到作为个体的渺小和脆弱，也比以往更浮躁，更缺乏安全感。在这种背景下，给他一些提醒，可以引发思考。
+
+周：我的意思是说，对于处理阅读和自己内心经验的关系上，更看重内心经验，那是一个基础。我很赞成美国哲学家爱默生说过的一句话：要把自己的生活当作正文，把书籍当作注解。那些东西是来注解你的，但你必须有正文。如果你没有正文的话，注解放在哪儿？没地方放。
+
+济：如果太看重自己的经验和感觉，会不会受制于此？因为经验和感觉有很大的局限性和片面性。
+
+周：我是这样看的，很多人所谓的经验和感觉都是假的。他经历了一些事，但从中得出的东西，并不是从事情本身，经过感受和思考得来的。他在经历过程中，头脑中往往已经有了从外部接受的观念，始终是用现成观念解释这些事，最后得到的仍是观念。这种情况很多。你在这里活着，但没有真正经历过，没有用心体验你的经历。
+
+
+## 九、理在心中
+
+周：我想，如果真正用自己的心去体验，不受观念、舆论、意见的支配，得出的东西一定是很好的。要不我们还有什么标准呢？我们没有标准，自己真实的经验就是标准，但一定不能用虚假的经验去影响它。确实存在虚假的经验，就是被观念操纵的。
+
+济：你看重的是基于自身经验产生的标准，还是智者、哲学家提供的标准？是自己来解读经验，为经验做注解，还是通过这些智慧认识，重新看待并修正自己的经验？
+
+周：肯定有这个过程，要用他们的认识来修正自身经验，但这种修正并不是否定。实际上，是通过读他们的书，发现对经验的解释不全面，可以解释得更准确一些。当我们将自身经验上升到认识并加以归纳时，可能会发生偏差。我的体会是，看哲学大师的著作，那些让我心中一亮的，是自己体验到的，他也这么说。这样的东西一定是深刻的。所以读大师著作最重要的作用，是把我已有的好东西发掘出来------原来我还不知道自己有。这种感觉是最愉快的，更让我相信宇宙中有共同真理。大师们的心是真理存在的地方，我的心也是真理存在的地方，真理本身是一样的。
+
+济：这里有两种情况。我们内心有经验的层面，也有超出经验的层面。在学习过程中，有些理论会因自己曾有相关经验引起共鸣，也有的时候，我们可以由此看到自己未曾思考的，乃至生命中未知的部分。
+
+周：是这样，我有点把它混在一起了。我说的"经验”是两个含义，一种是你外部经历了一些事，看到一些人，对世界有一些了解。这种经验当然也需要，但不是最重要的。另一种就是你所说的，超越经验的经验。实际上，我们内心深处总有一块东西是超越经验的，是和宇宙相通的。用佛教的话说，就是你的觉性。这部分是相通的，而且会产生很多东西。你平时可能不知道，然后在看大师们表达的真理时，会发现这个东西自己心中也有。也就是宋明理学说的"理在心中”------天理和人心是一致的。关于人心和宇宙真理有内在联系的观点，其实中西哲学都有。我们更看重的是这一块。
+
+当我们讲真理时，就是讲和自己内在最深刻的经验相一致的道理，我们把它称之为真理。一般性的外部经验，比如这事怎么处理那事怎么处理，那些规律性的东西，我觉得不重要，和人的觉悟没关系，无非是处世工具而已。
+
+
+## 十、二元还是一体
+
+济：东方的哲学和宗教中，印度教说梵我一如，儒家说天人合一，佛教说依正不二。所谓依正，即作为依报的山河大地，和作为正报的个体生命。宋明理学说，我心就是宇宙；佛教说，心的本质就是世界的本质。西方哲学中有这样的思想吗？西方的哲学包括宗教，会不会更偏向二元对立？
+
+周：西方哲学强调理性，要在宇宙中寻找理性的根源。从柏拉图开始就有这个传统，他说，我们为什么会用抽象概念来归纳事物？因为这些我们以为是抽象概念的东西，在另一个世界是存在的。那就是理念世界，即纯粹精神的世界。我们曾在那里生活过，灵魂来自那里，现在投胎到这个世界时，还带着一些模糊的记忆。慢慢的，记忆清晰起来，我们就能用这些概念来认识事物。也就是说，认识能力是我们对理念世界的回忆。他是把人的认识能力和天连了起来。
+
+德国理性主义哲学家莱布尼兹则说，人能用理性认识世界，因为人和宇宙之间存在前定的和谐。人生来就有这种和谐，在你的思维能力和宇宙规律之间，本来就是同样的结构，所以你才能认识。这和天人合一的思想很像。
+
+如果要为人的理性能力做认证的话，可能天人合一最方便证明这一点------老天给的，老天也是这样。这是最方便的一种解释，所以我觉得并不神秘，实际上是比较容易找到的解释。
+
+济：这表达起来不是很清晰。
+
+周：它没有明确地说：我心就是宇宙，万物皆备于我，万物与我为一。而中国的儒家、道家、孟子、庄子都这么说。
+
+济：是不是可以说，西方从宗教到哲学的思维，总体还是偏向二元对立？
+
+周：它是偏向二元对立，而且想从二走向一，极力把其他元素统一起来。而中国开始就是一，没有分离为二，不需要经过这个过程。
+
+西方哲学的开端，是看到世界变化不定，所以它不是真实的，背后一定有真实的世界，是永恒、不动、不变的。哲学就是要寻找这个世界，可见它的前提就是二元。而中国道家开始就是"道”，没有把它分成二元。宋明理学是中国哲学比较兴旺的时期，还是把理作为最根本的本原。西方哲学的逻辑性特别强，世界到底是什么样的？一定要用逻辑一步步推出来，解释得清清楚楚。这当然是一个优点，但也是弱点。因为世界究竟是什么，不可能从逻辑上推出来。
+
+济：唯识宗也有这个特点。对整个世界怎么建立，有一套严谨的理论，说得清清楚楚。
+
+周：问题是把它说清楚了吗？西方哲学最后说不下去了。玄奘把唯识宗带到中国，其实它后来在印度也没有很大的发展。
+
+济：玄奘离开印度不久，印度佛教就进入了密宗时代。在此过程中，多少吸收了一些印度教的内容，信仰成分加重，教理部分减弱。唯识宗传入中国后，国人对如此哲学化的教义也不太感兴趣。中国传统文化中，就没有对心性和世界作系统性的思考。从哲学层面说，诸子百家对宇宙人生的思考还是比较简单，提出一些概念，没有形成理论体系。
+
+周：老子和庄子还是对世界作了解释，孔子没解释。我觉得这也是孔子的聪明之处，他知道解释不了。佛教传入后，中国哲学开始讨论这些玄的问题，所以佛教对中国哲学的发展有很大推动。我最近写了一本书，就讲到这个问题。王国维是国学大师，可以说是中国近代史学中最伟大的。他年轻时研究德国哲学，对康德、叔本华、尼采下了很大功夫，可根本没人理他，发表文章也没有任何反应。他可能灰心了，得出的结论是------中国不是哲学的民族。他当时用德国哲学的眼光来分析，认为中国没有纯粹的哲学，孔子、孟子、荀子这些人都是道德家、政治家，不是哲学家。因为哲学是两个东西，一是关注根本问题，宇宙的根本是什么；一是要有严格的理论体系，逻辑上要成立。但中国的理论体系中就没有严格的逻辑推理，也很少对宇宙根本的思考，道家有一些，儒家基本没有，到宋明理学才有。
+
+西方走了那么长时间的哲学理论，承认自己失败了。康德以后，西方哲学基本是很悲观的情绪，普遍知道理性是有局限的------哲学这条路走不通。所以开始讨论一些简单的，比如社会问题，不讨论根本问题了。
+
+济：在东方，印度教差不多有三千多年历史。印度人很早就重视禅修，由此形成对生命和世界的解读，所以各种宗教特别发达。
+
+周：印度的宗教仍然发达吗？我看他们很分散，崇拜的偶像都不一样。
+
+济：印度的宗教很多。比如耆那教，佛教称为苦行外道，现在还有大量信众。我们原来在佛经看到各种关于苦行的描写，觉得太不可思议了。但现在用网络一搜，真的还有。这些人对信仰的坚定追求，在印度是受尊重的。当然从佛教角度来看，其中很多属于无益苦行。释迦牟尼出家后也参访了很多宗教，最后发现这些都不是他要的，不是真正的解脱和涅槃。所以，修行这条路并不容易。

translate-files/我们靠什么认识世界/target.dj

@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+# What Do We Rely On to Know the World?
+
+— A Dialogue with Philosopher Zhou Guoping, Summer 2016
+
+In the summer of 2016, at the invitation of *The Paper*, Master Jiqun and philosopher Zhou Guoping held a dialogue at the Shanghai Daning Theatre on the topic "What Do We Rely On to Know the World?" The conversation left them wanting more. Later, during a lecture tour in Beijing, Master Jiqun continued the conversation with Teacher Zhou at Wofu Villa, exploring questions of human cognition further. This article is a record of that exchange.
+
+
+## 1. The Role and Limits of Reason
+
+Jiqun: What do we rely on to know the world? This is a fascinating topic. To talk about knowing the world, we cannot separate it from cognition itself. Westerners emphasize reason, and to some extent intuition as well, using scientific tools and methods as important supporting conditions. So what are the differences and commonalities between the Western and Eastern ways of knowing the world?
+
+Zhou: From the Western mainstream perspective, Western thought regards reason as the most important feature of human beings, and this is also what distinguishes humans from animals. If we were to define human beings, it would basically be this: human beings are rational animals. Reason is the capacity for logical thinking, including concepts and inference. We abstract concrete things into concepts, and the connections between concepts are inference. This is the tool of thought. But can reason alone know the world? Western philosophy has always been skeptical about this.
+
+Jiqun: As a human cognitive capacity, reason reveals the law of causality. When we use reason to know the world, how do we make our thinking fit this law? What logical thinking does is to regulate reason through certain norms. If there is a problem with your way of thinking, the conclusions you draw will naturally not accord with causality, and therefore not accord with truth.
+
+Zhou: A major problem in Western philosophy is that your thinking must conform to the law of causality. But push further: is this law of causality the true face of the world? This is where the problem arises. Because how do you prove, on what basis do you assert, that it is the true face of the world? You use rational thinking to organize sensory data into a logic—what is necessary and what is accidental—but on what basis do you say this is the order of the world? You cannot prove it.
+
+So Hume said that this is not really the order of the world itself, but a habit of sensation. Because we often see that after A appears, B follows. After repeated occurrences, this becomes a habitual association. It is subjective. Kant rejected this outright, saying that causality is entirely an a priori structure of consciousness. Human beings are born with a structure of causality. Without this consciousness, we could not know the world at all. Once human beings have this structure, they fit empirical material into the framework, and this counts as an explanation of the world. He believed that this causal relationship has nothing to do with the true face of the world; it is entirely subjective. But it is not subjective sensation, because it is universal to humanity, not particular.
+
+Jiqun: Take the example used in logical thinking: all human beings die, so-and-so is a human being, therefore so-and-so must die. There is a problem with this major premise, because there are unknowable factors. We cannot determine what will happen to all human beings. But on the basis of the major premise, through the minor premise we draw a conclusion, and this rests on a corresponding empirical basis—at least the part of reality you have seen is like this. Anyone you point out will die.
+
+Buddhist logic (*hetuvidyā*) uses "homogeneous and heterogeneous examples" to explain things. Among homogeneous examples, all objects of the same type and nature follow the same law. As long as you can produce a different example, this thesis cannot be established. This is reasoning from actual states of affairs. If causality were merely a subjective cognition, what would be the basis of this cognition? If it has nothing to do with the truth of the world, the world becomes unknowable.
+
+Zhou: This is Kant's view: the world is unknowable. Human cognition can never escape the scope of the rational structure. The senses receive impressions from outside, and when reason organizes these sensory impressions, it does so entirely according to its own structure. The conclusions still belong to phenomena, not essence. Essence is beyond the reach of human cognition.
+
+Jiqun: So at the level of phenomena, we can know?
+
+Zhou: Yes. So science is perfectly valid; there is no problem with science studying causal relationships.
+
+Jiqun: What about at the philosophical level?
+
+Zhou: Philosophy deals with the question of essence, with the true face of the world. Kant's conclusion is that we simply cannot discuss the true face of the world, because what we know is always phenomena, and we can never reach the true face. But he also said that to act, to practice, human beings must make certain assumptions about the true face, and he put forward three basic assumptions. The first is the thing-in-itself: things exist in themselves, and we must assume their existence. The second is God. The third is the immortality of the soul. Only with free will, the existence of God, and the immortality of the soul do we have a basis for being moral people. Because this cannot be analyzed theoretically, and we cannot prove whether they exist or not. But we can rely on our own feeling, viewing it through a kind of moral emotion.
+
+According to causal analysis, when someone does something bad, we can find many causes: their family background, environmental influence, or being poor and driven to this point for survival, and so on. It seems as if the person should not be held responsible. But Kant said that we all have an intuition: as long as we have done something bad, no matter how many reasons there are, we still feel bad. Where does this bad feeling come from? It proves that human beings also have what he calls "practical reason," a conscience that knows what should and should not be done. How to explain the existence of this conscience? He said it is because the human soul is arranged by God, so we have this feeling. We cannot prove the human soul, but from moral emotion we can infer that this should exist.
+
+
+## 2. Cognition Determines What Is Known
+
+Jiqun: Buddhism attaches great importance to correct understanding of the phenomenal world. Madhyamaka (the Middle Way school) views the world through a twofold division: conventional truth and ultimate truth. Yogācāra (Consciousness-Only) views the world through a threefold division: the imputed nature, the dependent nature, and the perfected nature. Why do we not see the truth? Because we cannot correctly understand phenomena. Why can we not understand phenomena? This is related to our cognitive capacity. *Discerning the Middle and the Extremes* (*Madhyānta-vibhāga*) points out that human cognition has both wrong attention and right attention. Attention is the way the mind is directed. Whether you use a distorted mind or an undistorted mind is the key to cognition and practice.
+
+If there is no distortion, it means you can observe the world as it is. Whatever a phenomenon is, that is what you see. When you see the real existence of phenomena, they will not block us. We can pass through phenomena to reach the truth, which is emptiness. Conversely, it belongs to wrong attention. Because our mind is based on ignorance, sensation and emotion constrain and disturb the reason built upon it. The cognition formed in this way is wrong attention. If you observe the world with wrong attention, what you see is the projection of illusion, not the phenomena themselves. Because the image is projected onto a platform of illusion, just like what is seen in a funhouse mirror, it is inevitably distorted. This illusion obstructs our cognition of truth. In Yogācāra, this is called the imputed nature (*parikalpita*). With the imputed nature, there is affliction, karmic activity, and the cycle of birth and death.
+
+Zhou: Buddhism strongly emphasizes cognition—not just logical thinking to know, but also the state of the knowing subject. Is this state correct and pure? Wrong attention means the state is wrong. The knowing subject itself makes correct cognition impossible for him.
+
+Jiqun: There are two kinds of knowing subjects. One is the state of wisdom, such as what the sages and saints see. In that state, what is present is the true face of the world. The other is the state of ignorance. In the ordinary person's cognitive system, sensation and emotion limit and disturb it, distorting cognition to varying degrees. But we can establish correct reason through learning and reflection. On this basis, we form a set of conclusions similar to logical thinking, which Buddhism calls inference (*anumāna*). In addition, there is direct perception (*pratyakṣa*), which belongs to pure intuition. It only sees what is present in the moment, without any thinking, and is beyond names and concepts.
+
+Yogācāra developed through rigorous three-member inference. Speaking of inference, we cannot separate it from Buddhist logic (*hetuvidyā*). Buddhist logic includes two aspects: valid proof and valid refutation. Valid proof establishes correct propositions; valid refutation refutes the views of others. *Nyāyapraveśa* says: "Valid proof and valid refutation are for instructing others. Direct perception and inference are for self-enlightenment." This tells us that valid proof and valid refutation are mainly used in communicating with others, in order to refute or teach others. Direct perception and inference are mainly used to establish correct cognition. Through these two means, we can correct misconceptions, for the sake of liberating ourselves and others. In addition, there is pseudo-valid proof and pseudo-valid refutation. The word "pseudo" means similar inference. This reasoning actually has problems; it is not genuine refutation or proof.
+
+Buddhist logic is extremely rigorous. For example, in establishing a proposition, one must avoid nine kinds of fallacy. In the form of reasoning, logic first states the major premise, then the minor premise, and finally draws the conclusion. And the major premise is assumed, so logic draws conclusions on the basis of assumptions. But Buddhist logic first presents the proposition (*thesis*), putting the view in front. Can this view be established? Then it proves it with reasons (*hetu*), and these reasons must avoid fourteen kinds of fallacy. In addition, there are examples, which set forth various instances. For example, so-and-so will die (thesis); because he is a human being, he will die (reason); then we cite that so-and-so and so-and-so have died (example). If there is one person who does not die, then the thesis "so-and-so will die" cannot be established. Conversely, as long as there is no counterexample, the thesis can be established. Examples are further divided into homogeneous examples and heterogeneous examples; examples must avoid ten kinds of fallacy.
+
+
+## 3. Direct Perception and Inference
+
+Jiqun: What is established through Buddhist logic is only the right view derived from learning and reflection; it belongs to the cognition of consciousness. But the right view spoken of in Buddhism includes two levels. One is the right view derived from learning and reflection, which belongs to inference. The other is the inner right view, which belongs to direct perception. It is inherent in the mind itself, but it is latent and cannot function. It needs to be opened through meditation. Early Buddhist logic spoke of three means of valid cognition: in addition to direct perception and inference, there was scriptural testimony, which takes the scriptures as a basis for establishing theories or refuting others. Later, it mainly spoke of direct perception and inference.
+
+Zhou: This is very interesting. Is this what Yogācāra says?
+
+Jiqun: Yogācāra employs the methodology of Buddhist logic to form the Buddhist study of logic. Buddhist logic itself belongs to the Indian tradition of debate. Indian religion and philosophy flourished, and the various schools often engaged in debate. If you lost, you had to convert to the other school, or even be beheaded. Among the six early schools of Indian philosophy, the Nyāya school paid special attention to the study of nyāya (equivalent to Buddhist logic), and the *Nyāya Sūtras* were written by the founder of this school. The adoption and use of Buddhist logic gave Yogācāra a rigorous logical character.
+
+Zhou: Xuanzang debated with everyone at that time.
+
+Jiqun: During Xuanzang's studies in India, he was often challenged by non-Buddhists, and there were also debates between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna Buddhism. At that time, King Harṣa favored Mahāyāna and specially organized a great debate open to all schools in India. In this debate, Xuanzang's thesis was: "The truly ultimate form is not necessarily separate from the eye consciousness. It is included in the first three divisions as you admit, and is not included in what the eye perceives, like the eye consciousness." He further stated that if there was any fault in this statement or if it was refuted, he would be willing to cut off his head in apology. For eighteen days, no one was able to change a single word. Therefore, Xuanzang was universally respected by all schools. Buddhism as propagated in such an environment valued conceptual reasoning and was logically rigorous. Because many arguments had been repeatedly debated and stood unrefuted. In modern terms, they had been tested in practice.
+
+Zhou: The tradition of debate is not obvious in Chinese Buddhism, but I see it is still flourishing in Tibetan Buddhism, and it still exists today.
+
+Jiqun: Buddhist logic entered Chinese Buddhism closely tied to Yogācāra, so the attention it received also depended on the fate of Yogācāra. Xuanzang traveled west to seek the Dharma, enduring hardships, and translated texts such as the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* into China, forming the Yogācāra school. Although it is listed as one of the eight schools of Chinese Buddhism, it was transmitted for only two or three generations before it declined and almost disappeared. It was not until the Republican period that there was a revival, but it still failed to flourish. Because there was no place to use it, the Buddhist logic we learn now is only from books, not from application, and the emphasis of Buddhist logic lies in application.
+
+Zhou: Direct perception and inference are very interesting. They are two ways of knowing. One is knowing through experience and logical thinking; most people are like this. The other is knowing through inner wisdom and the intuition of genius; this is extremely rare. There is a gap between them. Ordinary people cannot reach direct perception, no matter how hard they try.
+
+Jiqun: Buddhism believes that the cognition of the five sense consciousnesses among the six consciousnesses belongs to direct perception: the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses. But this intuition is very brief; it is only a single instant. Once the five sense consciousnesses are active, the five-sense accompanying consciousness immediately arises, causing us to fall into the state of mind consciousness, and the inherent intuition of direct perception no longer functions.
+
+Zhou: What you call the intuitive component of the first five consciousnesses is the unconscious and subconscious.
+
+Jiqun: The first five consciousnesses are not the subconscious; they belong to the realm of consciousness. Yogācāra speaks of eight consciousnesses. Consciousness includes the six consciousnesses: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. The subconscious is the seventh Manas consciousness (the afflicted mind) and the eighth Ālaya consciousness (the storehouse consciousness).
+
+Zhou: So the sensations of the five sense organs have an intuitive component.
+
+Jiqun: The functioning of the five sense consciousnesses belongs to direct perception, but when they are active, the mind consciousness immediately follows, stuffing all kinds of information in and interfering with cognition. So what the five sense consciousnesses see, hear, and perceive becomes reshaped by the mind consciousness.
+
+The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* says that there are four kinds of reality in the world. The first is worldly consensus reality, that is, what is commonly accepted by people. The second is reasoned reality, that is, what is established by philosophers through logical thinking. The third is the reality apprehended by the wisdom purified of the afflictive hindrances, that is, the world seen after being free from afflictions. The fourth is the reality apprehended by the wisdom purified of the cognitive hindrances, the true face of the world seen after thoroughly transcending ignorance. Among these four kinds of reality, the latter two enter the realm of sages and saints. The cognition of ordinary people is influenced by emotion, affliction, and other factors. No matter how rational they think themselves to be, they cannot avoid this disturbance. Often, our reason also serves afflictions, forming what is called a stance, which is self-grasping.
+
+Zhou: We can also acknowledge that the first two have value. Every kind of reality has its place and function. If we only acknowledge the latter two and consider the first two false, ordinary people would be unable to live.
+
+Jiqun: The four kinds of reality simply illustrate different levels of cognition, and at different stages they all have value. In Buddhism, the wisdom of seeing things as they are is very important. It tells us what the world and life are really like. With such guidance, we can make choices about our own mental conduct.
+
+
+## 4. The Role and Limits of Reason
+
+Jiqun: Regarding "what do we rely on to know the world," Teacher Zhou spoke of reason and intuition. Buddhism also values these two points. Buddhism values the human condition and believes that truth and wisdom belong to the human realm, precisely because humans have reason. Among the six realms, the gods are too happy and do not need to think much; the beings in the evil destinies are too miserable and too deluded to have the capacity to think. But human beings have both suffering and happiness, so they will think about life and the world and look for ways to change their situation.
+
+Buddhism believes that our afflictions, karmic actions, and cyclic existence are all related to the activity of consciousness, and the root lies in wrong cognition. How to change? We must rely on reason to re-examine and rethink the world. Therefore, Buddhism attaches great importance to right attention, taking it as the key to practice, such as the reflective aspect in the triad of learning, reflection, and practice, and right thinking in the Noble Eightfold Path. Among the four practices of the Dharma, approaching a good teacher is to hear the true Dharma, and then through right attention we can practice in accordance with the Dharma. But reason is only activity at the level of consciousness; it cannot directly reach truth, nor can it ultimately resolve the afflictions of human life.
+
+The psychologist Freud said that life is like the ocean. Conscious activity is only the tip of the iceberg, while the subconscious is the huge mountain hidden deep beneath. In cognition, ordinary people get stuck in thoughts and cannot go deeper. On the surface, everyone lives in this world, but they live in their own thoughts. When a certain thought is greatly exaggerated or strengthened, a single thought can become our whole world, and even a whole life can be lived for this thought. Modern people often go to the other extreme: the temptations of the external environment and the stimulation of sensual pleasures surround them with layer upon layer of thoughts rising and falling. Sometimes controlled by this thought, sometimes by that thought, we think our lives are rich and colorful, but in fact we are constantly being controlled and swayed.
+
+How can we jump out of thoughts and transcend the limits of reason? We must do so through meditation, developing the perfect wisdom inherent in the mind. This is a path of inward inquiry, and it is also the greatest difference between Buddhism and Western philosophy. In meditation training, practitioners enter different states and produce corresponding experiences. Especially the bliss of concentration far exceeds the pleasure brought by desire. If one becomes immersed in it, one can also get stuck, which becomes an obstacle to practice. So for meditation, on the one hand, we must let the mind settle, and on the other hand, we must have the right view that guides practice. Only with the height of cognition can we reach the depth of life.
+
+Meditation is not unique to Buddhism; it is valued by all Indian religions. Supernormal powers arise after developing concentration. The knowledge of past lives allows one to see countless former lives; with the heavenly eye, one can see future events; and there are also psychic powers, heavenly ear, and so on. These abilities are not miraculous. They simply demonstrate the great potential of life. Of course, Buddhism does not regard supernormal powers as ultimate; it values wisdom. Because supernormal powers are a double-edged sword. When the personality is not perfected, having such abilities can cause even greater destruction.
+
+The Western cognitive system, from its initial emphasis on exploring the noumenon of the world, began in the sixteenth century to focus on epistemology, including empiricism and rationalism. After that, existentialism focused on existence. Whatever the approach, it used reason, and the cognition thus produced has its limits.
+
+Zhou: Actually, Kant already knew the limits of reason, so he tried to break through these limits and develop non-rational spiritual capacities, including inner experience and insights from the subconscious. Existentialism values this. I would like to know where the boundary between wisdom and reason lies in Buddhism. Reason is definitely at the level of consciousness; it can be said to be inference, and this is a concept that both unifies and distinguishes. Then does wisdom break through the limits of reason, go deep into the subconscious, and develop that capacity? Are wisdom and inference both part of the subconscious, or a combination of the subconscious and consciousness?
+
+
+## 5. The Essence and Function of Wisdom
+
+Jiqun: The reason we have been discussing belongs to the level of consciousness and cannot directly reach emptiness. Then what is wisdom? What is its relationship with reason? First, wisdom transcends reason. In Buddhism, it is often said that one penetrates emptiness through wisdom. This wisdom belongs to prajñā (transcendent wisdom), not to cognition at the level of reason. We may feel these are two things: one is subjective, the other objective; one is the knower, the other the known. But actually this is not the case.
+
+In the early period when prajñā thought was transmitted to China, Master Sengzhao wrote the *Zhao Lun* (his collected treatises), praised as "the foremost interpreter of emptiness in the Qin region." Among them, "Treatise on the Non-Migration of Things" explains that the flow and change of things is a kind of illusion; it is only that we connect them. "Treatise on the Emptiness of the Unreal" explains that all phenomena are unreal; they are only illusions, and therefore they are empty. There is also "Treatise on the Non-Knowledge of Prajñā." The so-called ignorance is actually the all-knowing that transcends deluded knowing, that is, "prajñā is without knowing, yet there is nothing it does not know." This explains the relationship between prajñā and emptiness from the perspective of essence and function: "In terms of function, they are the same yet different; in terms of stillness, they are different yet the same." "The same yet different" means that in essence they are the same, but in their function they appear as two—one is wisdom, the other is emptiness. "Different yet the same" means that in terms of essence, although they have two names, their essence is the same. In short, wisdom comes from emptiness, and in turn cognizes emptiness. As we often say, the essence of the mind is the essence of the world; in fact, they are not two things.
+
+What are the characteristics of emptiness? First, it is empty—vast and infinite, able to contain mountains and rivers, and also able to produce them. Second, it is luminous—clearly aware, not dead or insensate. Third, it is blissful—it continuously gives rise to joy and happiness. How to penetrate emptiness? In addition to right thinking, one must transcend discrimination, so prajñā is also called non-discriminating wisdom. This wisdom is all-knowing. It is like a mirror: it sees everything at a glance, not through thinking or judgment.
+
+Zhou: Is this state of wisdom like what Zhuangzi said: all things and I are one? I and the universe are merged into one, so it is the same thing. I am emptiness; I am the universe.
+
+Jiqun: At this level, it is non-dual. At the level of difference, each remains distinct.
+
+Zhou: Are these two levels one high and one low, or do they exist simultaneously, unified?
+
+Jiqun: In Buddhism, there are two levels of realization of emptiness: one is fundamental wisdom, and the other is discriminating wisdom. Through fundamental wisdom, one realizes the non-differentiated level, but this non-differentiation does not obstruct differentiation. If we realize the wisdom of emptiness, we can live on both levels at once: we know the differences of all things and also transcend difference. Then we are free and unobstructed. Ordinary people always fall into attachment at the relative level, so they get stuck in partial phenomena. It is like the saying that those in the game are confused; in fact, they cannot see clearly. Only by realizing the absolute level can one truly see clearly that all relative phenomena are only illusions.
+
+Zhou: Seeing the illusion, we can have a free attitude toward it, a playful attitude. I play with you; I know you are unreal.
+
+
+## 6. Reason, Emotion, and Will
+
+Jiqun: From philosophy to science, the West explores outward. As science has developed, tools have also extended human cognitive capacity. But Eastern culture, especially Buddhism, develops inward.
+
+Zhou: Human spiritual capacities include reason, emotion, and will. But when we speak of knowing the world, we usually only mention reason; the other two are not involved. Actually, this is not the case. When you know the external world, all three are functioning at the same time. Emotion and will also participate. It is not all abstract logic; it is also a matter of emotional investment and willful pursuit. I wonder whether Buddhism has anything to say about the participation of these three capacities in cognition.
+
+Jiqun: From the Buddhist perspective, cognition is not merely a certain mental activity, but a systematic, comprehensive function. When we perceive things, the will also functions, combining with goals and motives, and we are also influenced by emotion. For example, our likes and dislikes can make us think very differently. So cognition is never simply the function of reason. What your system is like determines how you see things. If your system is relatively pure, you see things more objectively. Conversely, if the system is dominated by emotion and experience, it will affect our observation, thinking, and judgment.
+
+Zhou: These three capacities themselves are neither good nor bad. They can all function for good or for ill. Because human beings possess these capacities.
+
+Jiqun: Each person's will is different, and emotions are different. They can develop noble states of mind or negative emotions. When we think about problems, these mental states or emotions participate. So each person's mental state determines what kind of cognition they have.
+
+Zhou: What we habitually call the true, the good, and the beautiful corresponds to these three capacities when they receive correct feedback. Reason knows the true; emotion feels the beautiful; will pursues the good. If these three capacities are controlled by desire and negative emotions, they have a harmful effect on cognition.
+
+Jiqun: If controlled by desire and affliction, these three capacities may serve desire and affliction. Conversely, if combined with noble sentiments and virtue, they will also serve these.
+
+Zhou: Reason can be used to pursue truth, or to satisfy desire, making people increasingly complex and frightening. Emotion is the same: it may be a kind of beauty, a kind of love, or it may be many negative emotions.
+
+Jiqun: To change this state, we still must rely on reason. Correcting deviation cannot be separated from cognition, and cognition cannot be separated from reason. Only by re-examining life with reason and accepting the teachings of wisdom and morality can we adjust our views, mental states, and even the quality of life. Our hearts still aspire toward the true, the good, and the beautiful. When we accept wisdom culture, we use reason to correct the deviations of our existence. Therefore, Buddhism has a two-sided view of reason: it is the door to all wonder, able to accomplish morality and wisdom; and it is the root of all calamity, able to become the source of all disasters.
+
+Zhou: In general, reason is a tool; it has no good or evil in itself. Why does one person's reason serve good, while another's serves evil? What is the decisive factor? Enlightenment cannot be separated from reason, but reason itself is neutral. Where does this beginning lie?
+
+Jiqun: In the process of learning different cultures, we form an understanding of the world and life and make value judgments. Once we have these judgments, reason will make choices based on this foundation. Because everyone still hopes that their life will become increasingly beautiful.
+
+Zhou: This is an assumption.
+
+Jiqun: But we all hope for happiness. This is not an assumption, is it?
+
+Zhou: Yes, we hope that this state of life is good and do not want it to be bad.
+
+
+## 7. Happiness and Awakening
+
+Jiqun: Hoping to live a happy and joyful life is an instinct of life. This includes seeking benefit and avoiding harm, and moving away from suffering toward happiness. If through rational reflection we recognize that the true, the good, and the beautiful can enable people to seek benefit and avoid harm and move away from suffering toward happiness, we will naturally make such a choice.
+
+Zhou: This is using reason to recognize the connection between the true, the good, and the beautiful on the one hand, and happiness and joy on the other.
+
+Jiqun: Because one recognizes that only by doing so can there be lasting happiness. Just as the Western philosopher Epicurus believed that satisfying desire brings pleasure, but moderation is needed for pleasure to last.
+
+Zhou: This acknowledges that pleasure is more fundamental, and the true, the good, and the beautiful become means. Epicurus is like this: pleasure itself is the goal, the highest value. To obtain pleasure, one avoids the false, evil, and ugly and pursues the true, good, and beautiful. Perfectionism, on the other hand, holds that the true, the good, and the beautiful are themselves the highest values, reflecting human dignity; they are sacred. Pleasure may accompany the pursuit, but it is only a byproduct, not the highest goal. Both schools acknowledge that the true, the good, and the beautiful are good, but the reasons why they are good differ. One is a means; the other is an end in itself. According to Buddhism, it should be closer to perfectionism—these values are all good.
+
+Jiqun: What Buddhism values is the quality of life, not simply pleasure. Buddhism believes that any action or quality is causally linked to suffering and pleasure. Where is the value of action? Why follow morality? Because this is the material for building a noble quality of life. Using these materials well, life continually improves.
+
+When we speak of happiness now, we mostly depend on circumstances, thinking that obtaining something will bring happiness. Such happiness is fragile, because circumstances constantly change. When unwelcome changes occur, happiness is lost. Therefore, true happiness comes from the inner quality of life. If your being is compassion and wisdom, it will continuously bring joy. Buddhism's view of cause and effect tells us that whatever kind of views and actions we have will create corresponding mental states, personalities, and even qualities of life.
+
+Zhou: Quality is the cause; happiness or unhappiness is the effect.
+
+Jiqun: It is not exactly cause and effect; it is directly derived—the function produced by this quality.
+
+Zhou: It is a byproduct, something additional.
+
+Jiqun: Buddhism also speaks from the perspective of suffering and pleasure. Because for many people, the quality of life sounds a bit abstract, but suffering and pleasure are very direct.
+
+Zhou: Śākyamuni's renunciation began because of suffering, right? Because he wanted to solve the problem of suffering.
+
+Jiqun: The Buddha left home because he saw aging, sickness, and death. These are all suffering.
+
+Zhou: What is the relationship between happiness and awakening after all? I think of three questions. First, at the level of life, having an ordinary mind can bring ordinary happiness. Second, at the social level, we need a striving mind to obtain worldly happiness. Third, at the spiritual level, we need awakening and bodhicitta (the mind of awakening) to obtain transcendent happiness.
+
+Ancient China did not have the concept of happiness, only "good fortune." English also does not have an exact equivalent; "happy" is not happiness, but pleasure. In German, it is *Glück*, an abstract noun for luck and good fortune, which can be translated as happiness. The earliest to discuss happiness was Aristotle. The word he used was translated into English not as happiness or pleasure, but as a kind of good existence. Some translate it as "well-being" or "the good life," which I think is more accurate. Life in a good state is happiness, right? There will be different views on what state is good, but the word "happiness" is used to express it.
+
+Jiqun: I have given several talks on happiness, titled "The Mind Creates Happiness." I mainly spoke about a few points. First, how to face adversity. Fortune is unpredictable, and many people's happiness is often broken by adversity, so we must learn to live with adversity. Second, happiness requires good fortune, mainly the five blessings arriving at your door. I think the ancient saying of the five blessings is quite comprehensive: first, longevity; second, prosperity and honor, which mean not only material wealth and high status, but also spiritual abundance and noble quality of life; third, health and peace, meaning a healthy body and a peaceful mind; fourth, virtue, which is the foundation and guarantee of happiness; fifth, a good death, being able to leave the world peacefully. By comparison, modern people's understanding of happiness is rather one-dimensional, nothing more than various enjoyments.
+
+
+## 8. The Limits of Means of Cognition
+
+Jiqun: The means by which we know the world determine how well we know it.
+
+Zhou: For the individual, this means of cognition is not freely chosen. That is, we may want to use the correct means that directly reach essence, but we do not have this freedom. What kind of person we are determines how we know the world. The limits of being human are the limits of our knowledge of the world. Because aptitude is innate, we can reach a certain height through effort, but this height is fixed, and the differences are great.
+
+Jiqun: Buddhism believes that the physical body formed by karma (the results of our actions) has great limitations. At the material level, what our eyes see, ears hear, and body feels is very dull. At the mental level, the activities of consciousness and the subconscious accumulate experiences, forming feelings that bring craving, grasping, and becoming, and distorting the way we see the world.
+
+Human beings are constrained by their own systems and can only see the world and themselves in this way. Fortunately, we have reason and can accept wisdom culture, so reading and thinking are especially important. They show us our own inadequacies. As long as we have an open mind, we can improve ourselves through learning. Whether all cultural traditions, Buddhism or Western philosophy, can affect our life system depends on our recognition of them. This recognition comes from your choice and judgment. If you are very self-centered and stubborn in your own views, even learning will not help much.
+
+Zhou: For humanity as a whole, we cannot escape the limits of our cognitive organs and capacities. Imagine another kind of being, such as aliens, with a higher form of cognition than human reason. They would see a different world. So we certainly see the world within limits, and we do not know where our limits are. Because we cannot step outside our present cognition, use another cognitive capacity to look, and then make a comparison. Some philosophers explain it this way: this capacity of human beings is sufficient for survival, and more capacity is unnecessary, so we will not possess it.
+
+From the individual perspective, I think both aspects are important. On the one hand is our own aptitude. People's spiritual sensitivity and ability to grasp the essence of life differ greatly. Some people show very good intuition. On the other hand, accepting humanity's accumulated experience is also important. Reading is nothing more than placing humanity's accumulated experience before ourselves and seeing which parts have reference value for us. Without inner need, even if it is placed before us, we cannot see it. For example, if a person never thinks about the meaning of life, and you give him Buddhist scriptures or philosophy books to read, he will not understand them at all and they will have nothing to do with him. So the acceptance of human experience is also governed by the qualities one possesses. This is a circular relationship.
+
+Jiqun: Indeed, we often encounter this in our Dharma work. Everyone lives in their own needs and cognition. If what is said exceeds the scope of their needs and is not what they care about, they will not listen. But people do not lack these problems, so they need to be inspired. Through effective inspiration, they can recognize that life indeed has these problems, and they are especially important, because these are the eternal puzzles of humanity. If in earlier times one might still have been content with the status quo and lived muddled lives, in today's globalized world we feel more than ever the smallness and fragility of the individual as well as more restlessness and insecurity. Against this background, giving them some reminders can provoke thought.
+
+Zhou: What I mean is that when it comes to the relationship between reading and one's own inner experience, I value inner experience more. That is the foundation. I very much agree with what the American philosopher Emerson said: make your own life the text, and books the commentary. Those things come to comment on you, but you must have the text. If you do not have the text, where does the commentary go? There is nowhere to put it.
+
+Jiqun: If you value your own experience and feelings too much, will you not be constrained by them? Because experience and feelings have great limitations and one-sidedness.
+
+Zhou: This is how I see it. Many so-called experiences and feelings are false. They have experienced some things, but what they derive from these experiences is not obtained from the things themselves through feeling and thinking. In experience, their minds often already hold ideas taken in from outside. They are always using ready-made ideas to interpret what happens, and in the end what they get is still ideas. This situation is very common. You are living here, but you have not truly experienced it, and you have not experienced your experiences with your heart.
+
+
+## 9. Principle Lies in the Mind
+
+Zhou: I think that if you truly use your own mind to experience, without being dominated by ideas, public opinion, or personal opinions, what you arrive at will be good. Otherwise, what standard do we have? We have no standard; our own real experience is the standard. But we must not let false experience influence it. False experience indeed exists, and it is experience manipulated by ideas.
+
+Jiqun: Do you value the standard produced from your own experience, or the standard provided by the wise and philosophers? Do you interpret experience and comment on it yourself, or do you re-examine and correct your experience through this wisdom?
+
+Zhou: This process definitely exists. We must use their cognition to correct our own experience, but this correction is not negation. Actually, through reading their books, we discover that the explanation of experience is not comprehensive and can be explained more accurately. When we elevate our own experience to cognition and generalize it, deviation may occur. My experience is that when reading the works of great philosophers, what makes my heart light up is something I have experienced myself, and the masters also say so. That must be profound. So the most important function of reading the works of masters is to unearth the good things I already have—only to realize I did not know I had it. This feeling is the most pleasant, and it makes me more convinced that there is a common truth in the universe. The minds of the masters are dwelling places of truth; my mind is also a dwelling place of truth; truth itself is the same.
+
+Jiqun: There are two situations here. Within our minds there is the level of experience, and there is also the level beyond experience. In learning, some theories resonate because we have had related experiences, and at other times we can thereby see what we have not thought about, even the unknown parts of life.
+
+Zhou: Yes, I somewhat conflated them. What I mean by "experience" has two meanings. One is that you have external experiences, seen some people, and have some understanding of the world. This kind of experience is certainly needed, but it is not the most important. The other is what you spoke of, experience beyond experience. In fact, there is always a part deep in our minds that transcends experience and is connected to the universe. In Buddhist terms, this is your awakened nature. This part is connected and gives rise to many things. Usually you may not know it, but when you see the masters expressing truth, you will discover that this thing also exists in your own mind. That is what Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism said: "Principle lies in the mind"—heavenly principle and the human mind are one. The view that the human mind and the truth of the universe have an inner connection actually exists in both Chinese and Western philosophy. What we value more is this part.
+
+When we speak of truth, we mean the principle that is consistent with our own innermost experience. We call it truth. General external experience, such as how to handle this or that matter, those regularities, I think are unimportant and have nothing to do with human awakening. They are nothing more than tools for dealing with the world.
+
+
+## 10. Duality or Oneness?
+
+Jiqun: In Eastern philosophy and religion, Hinduism says the identity of Brahman and Ātman; Confucianism says the unity of heaven and humanity; Buddhism says the non-duality of environment and self. Environment and self refer to the mountains and rivers that form the dependent reward (the environment we share), and the individual life that forms the direct reward (the body and mind we individually inhabit). Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism says my mind is the universe; Buddhism says the essence of the mind is the essence of the world. Are there such ideas in Western philosophy? Does Western philosophy, including religion, tend more toward dualistic opposition?
+
+Zhou: Western philosophy emphasizes reason and seeks the root of reason in the universe. From Plato onward there is this tradition. He asked why we use abstract concepts to generalize things. Because what we think are abstract concepts actually exist in another world. That is the world of ideas, the purely spiritual world. We once lived there; our souls come from there. When we are born into this world, we still carry some vague memories. Gradually, the memories become clear, and we can use these concepts to know things. That is, cognition is our recollection of the world of ideas. He connected the human capacity for cognition with heaven.
+
+The German rationalist philosopher Leibniz said that human beings can use reason to know the world because there is pre-established harmony between human beings and the universe. Human beings are born with this harmony. Our thinking capacity and the laws of the universe share the same fundamental structure, so we can know. This is very similar to the idea of the unity of heaven and humanity.
+
+If we want to account for the human capacity for reason, the unity of heaven and humanity may be the most convenient proof of this—heaven gave it, and heaven is also like this. This is the most convenient explanation, so I think it is not mysterious; it is a relatively easy explanation.
+
+Jiqun: This expression is not very clear.
+
+Zhou: It does not explicitly say: my mind is the universe; all things are complete within me; all things and I are one. But Chinese Confucianism, Daoism, Mencius, and Zhuangzi all say this.
+
+Jiqun: Could we say that, overall, Western thought from religion to philosophy still tends toward dualistic opposition?
+
+Zhou: It tends toward dualistic opposition, and it wants to go from two to one, trying hard to unify all other elements. But China began with one and did not separate into two, so it does not need to go through this process.
+
+Western philosophy began by seeing that the world changes unpredictably, so it is not real. Behind it there must be a real world that is eternal, unmoving, and unchanging. The task of philosophy is to seek this world. From the start, its premise was dualistic. But Chinese Daoism began with the "Dao" and did not divide it into two. Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism was a relatively flourishing period of Chinese philosophy, and still regarded principle as the most fundamental origin. Western philosophy is especially strong in logic. What is the world like? It must be derived step by step through logic and explained clearly. This is a strength, but also a weakness. Because what the world is ultimately like cannot be derived from logic.
+
+Jiqun: Yogācāra also has this characteristic. It has a rigorous theory of how the whole world is established and explains it clearly.
+
+Zhou: The question is whether it explained it clearly. Western philosophy finally could not go on. Xuanzang brought Yogācāra to China, but in fact it did not develop much later in India either.
+
+Jiqun: Not long after Xuanzang left India, Indian Buddhism entered the tantric era. In this process, it absorbed some Hindu content, the element of faith increased, and the doctrinal part weakened. After Yogācāra reached China, the Chinese were not very interested in such a philosophical teaching. In traditional Chinese culture, there was no systematic reflection on the nature of the mind and the world. Philosophically, the various philosophers' thinking about the universe and life was still relatively simple. They put forward some concepts but did not form theoretical systems.
+
+Zhou: Laozi and Zhuangzi still explained the world; Confucius did not. I think this was Confucius's wisdom: he knew it could not be explained. After Buddhism was transmitted to China, Chinese philosophy began to discuss these profound questions, so Buddhism gave a great impetus to the development of Chinese philosophy. I recently wrote a book about this issue. Wang Guowei was a great master of Chinese studies and can be considered the greatest modern Chinese historian. In his youth, he studied German philosophy, making great efforts on Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, but no one paid any attention to him, and his published articles received no response. He may have become discouraged. His conclusion was that China is not a philosophical nation. At that time, he analyzed through the lens of German philosophy and held that China had no pure philosophy. Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi were moralists and politicians, not philosophers. Because philosophy is two things: one is attention to fundamental questions, such as what is the root of the universe; the other is a strict theoretical system that must be logically valid. But Chinese theoretical systems lack strict logical inference and rarely think about the root of the universe. Daoism has some; Confucianism basically has none. Only Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism had it.
+
+The West went down the philosophical path for so long and admitted failure. After Kant, Western philosophy was pessimistic, generally recognizing that reason has limits—the path of philosophy is blocked. So it began to discuss some simple things, such as social issues, and no longer discussed fundamental questions.
+
+Jiqun: In the East, Hinduism has a history of more than three thousand years. Indians attached great importance to meditation early on, forming interpretations of life and the world, so all kinds of religions are especially developed.
+
+Zhou: Are Indian religions still developed? I see they are very fragmented, with different idols worshipped.
+
+Jiqun: India has many religions. For example, Jainism, which Buddhism calls the ascetic non-Buddhist teaching, still has many followers. We used to read in Buddhist scriptures descriptions of asceticism and found them hard to believe. But now with a quick online search, they really still exist. Their firm faith is respected in India. Of course, from the Buddhist perspective, much of this is useless asceticism. After Śākyamuni left home, he visited many religions and finally discovered that these were not what he wanted—not true liberation and nirvāṇa (the cessation of suffering). So the path of practice is not easy.