translation-files/translate-files/我们靠什么认识世界/target.dj

# How Do We Know the World?

——A Dialogue with Philosopher Zhou Guoping, Summer 2016

- I. The Role and Limits of Reason
- II. How We Know Determines What We Know
- III. Direct Perception and Inference
- IV. The Role and Limits of Reason
- V. The Essence and Function of Wisdom
- VI. Reason, Emotion, and Will
- VII. Happiness and Awakening
- VIII. The Limits of Our Means of Knowing
- IX. The Principle Lies in the Mind
- X. Duality or Oneness

In the summer of 2016, at the invitation of Pengpai News (The Paper), Master Jiqun and the philosopher Zhou Guoping held a dialogue on "How Do We Know the World?" at the Daning Theatre in Shanghai, which left them wanting more. Soon after, while giving lectures in Beijing, Master Jiqun met with Professor Zhou again at the Reclining Buddha Villa to continue their earlier discussion, exploring the question of human knowing further. This article is a record of these exchanges.

## I. The Role and Limits of Reason

Master Jiqun: "What do we rely on to know the world?" That is a fascinating topic. Speaking of knowing the world, we cannot do so apart from knowing itself. Westerners value reason and, to a certain extent, intuition as well, and they take scientific tools and methods as important supportive conditions. So how does the Western way of knowing the world differ from the Eastern one? And what do they have in common?

Zhou Guoping: The mainstream Western view takes reason as humanity's most important characteristic; it is also what distinguishes humans from animals. If we were to define the human being, it would basically be this: man is a rational animal. Reason is the capacity for logical thinking, comprising concepts and inference---abstracting concrete things into concepts, with inference being the connection between concepts. It is a tool of thought. But can reason alone know the world? Western philosophy has always been skeptical on this point.

Master Jiqun: As a human cognitive capacity, reason reveals the law of cause and effect. When we use reason to know the world, how do we bring our knowing into line with that law? What logical thinking does is regulate reason through certain rules. If there is something wrong with your way of thinking, the conclusions you draw will naturally fail to accord with cause and effect---and so fail to accord with the truth.

Zhou Guoping: Western philosophy has a big problem here: your thinking must conform to the law of cause and effect. But press the question further---is this law of cause and effect the true face of the world?---and trouble starts. How can you prove it? On what grounds do you assert that it is the true face of the world? With rational thinking you organize sense data into a logic---what is necessary and what is contingent---but on what grounds do you claim that this is the order of the world? You cannot prove it.

So Hume said that this is not the order of the world itself but a habit of the senses: we often see A appear, and then B follows. Repeat this enough, and it becomes a habitual association---it is actually subjective. Kant then rejected the question outright: causality is entirely an a priori structure of consciousness; human beings innately possess a structure for causality. Without this structure, we simply could not know the world. Once we have it, we fit empirical material into its frame, and that counts as giving an explanation of the world. He held that causality has nothing whatsoever to do with the world as it is in itself---it is entirely subjective. But not subjective feeling, for it is universal to all humankind, not something individual.

Master Jiqun: Take the example given in logical thinking: all men must die; so-and-so is a man; therefore so-and-so must die. This major premise is problematic---it contains an unknowable factor, because we cannot be certain how every single person will fare. But the conclusion drawn through the minor premise on the basis of the major premise does rest on a corresponding basis in reality---at least the part of reality you have seen is so: of all the people you can name, not one has escaped death.

The Buddhist logic of hetuvidya explains the issue through "similar and dissimilar instances." Among similar instances, all objects of the same type and nature share the same regularity. If you can produce even one counterexample, the thesis cannot stand---this is reasoning forward from actual states of affairs. If causality were merely human subjective knowledge, what basis would such knowledge have? And if it had nothing to do with the truth of the world, the world would become unknowable.

Zhou Guoping: That is precisely Kant's view---the world is unknowable, and human knowledge can never escape the bounds of the rational structure. The senses receive all kinds of impressions from outside, and when reason organizes these sensory impressions, it organizes them entirely according to the structure it possesses. The conclusions it reaches still belong to phenomena, not to the essence. The essence is something human knowledge cannot touch.

Master Jiqun: So it can be known at the level of phenomena?

Zhou Guoping: Yes. That is why science is entirely valid---there is no problem with science studying causal relations.

Master Jiqun: And at the level of philosophy?

Zhou Guoping: Philosophy must speak of essence, of the true face of the world. Kant's conclusion is that the true face of the world simply cannot be spoken of, because what you know is forever phenomena---you cannot possibly reach the thing in itself. Yet he also said that in order to act, in order to practice, human beings must make certain assumptions about the ultimate, and he proposed three basic postulates. The first is the thing-in-itself: things in themselves exist, and we must assume their existence. The second is God. The third is the immortality of the soul. We need the three postulates of free will, the existence of God, and the immortality of the soul---only then does being a moral person have any grounding. For these cannot be analyzed theoretically; you cannot prove whether or not they exist. But we can approach them through our own feelings---with a kind of moral sentiment.

Analyzing in terms of causality, when someone does something bad, you can find many causes---his family background, the influence of his environment, or that he was poor and came to this for the sake of survival---as if he himself should not be held responsible. But Kant said we all have an intuition: once you have done something bad, no matter how many causes there are, you still feel bad about it. Where does this unease come from? It proves that human beings also have a conscience he called "practical reason," which knows what should be done and what should not. How do we explain the existence of this conscience? He said it is because the human soul is ordained by God that we have such feelings. We cannot prove the human soul, but from moral sentiment we can infer that it must exist.

## II. How We Know Determines What We Know

Master Jiqun: The Buddhadharma attaches great importance to a correct understanding of the phenomenal world. Madhyamaka views the world through a twofold division---the conventional truth and the ultimate truth; Consciousness-Only views it through a threefold division---the falsely conceived nature, the dependent nature, and the perfectly realized nature. Why do we fail to see the truth? Because we cannot know phenomena correctly. And why can't we know phenomena? That, in turn, has to do with our capacity for knowing. *Discerning the Middle and the Extremes* points out that human knowing includes distorted attention and undistorted attention. "Attention" means how you use your mind---whether the mind you use is distorted or undistorted; this is the crux of both knowing and practice.

If there is no distortion, it means you can observe the world as it truly is: however phenomena are, that is what you see. When you see phenomena as they truly exist, they no longer form a veil, and you can reach the truth---emptiness---through phenomena. Otherwise, it is distorted attention. Because our minds are based on ignorance, the reason built upon it is constrained by sensation and influenced by emotion, and the cognition it forms is distorted attention. If you observe the world with distorted attention, what you see is the display of an illusion, not phenomena themselves. For the image is projected onto a platform of illusion---like what appears in a funhouse mirror, it is bound to be twisted. This illusion blocks us from knowing the truth; Consciousness-Only calls it attachment arising out of pervasive discrimination. With such attachment come afflictions, the creation of karma, and the cycle of birth and death.

Zhou Guoping: The Buddhadharma strongly emphasizes knowing---not only knowing through logical thinking, but also the state of the knowing subject: whether that state is correct and clean. Distorted attention means the state has gone wrong---the knowing subject itself makes correct knowledge impossible.

Master Jiqun: There are two kinds of knowing subjects. One is the state of wisdom: what the noble ones see is, right then and there, the truth of the world. The other is the state of ignorance: in the cognitive system of ordinary beings, knowing is subject to the limitations of sensation and the interference of emotion, so it is distorted to varying degrees. But we can establish correct reason through hearing and contemplating, and on that basis form a set of conclusions akin to logical thinking---what Buddhism calls inference (anumana). Besides that, there is direct perception (pratyaksha): a pure intuition that sees only what presents itself in the moment, without any thinking, and beyond names and concepts.

The Consciousness-Only school was established precisely through rigorous three-part inference. Speaking of inference, one cannot do without hetuvidya. Buddhist hetuvidya comprises two aspects: proof and refutation. Proof establishes correct propositions; refutation demolishes the opponent's views. The *Nyayapravesha* (Primer on Logic) says: "Proof and refutation, along with their pseudo-forms, are for awakening others; direct perception and inference, along with their pseudo-forms, are for awakening oneself." This tells us that proof and refutation are mainly for communicating with others---to refute or to teach them---while direct perception and inference are mainly for establishing correct knowledge: through these two, we can correct misunderstandings, for the sake of liberating ourselves and others. There are also pseudo-proof and pseudo-refutation; "pseudo" means a seemingly valid inference---reasoning that is actually flawed, not genuine refutation or proof.

Hetuvidya is extremely rigorous. For instance, establishing a thesis must be free of nine faults. In its mode of reasoning, logic first states the major premise, then the minor premise, and finally draws the conclusion; and since the major premise is assumed, logic reaches its conclusions from assumed premises. Hetuvidya, by contrast, first puts forward the thesis---the claim comes first. Can this claim stand? It is then proven with reasons, which must be free of fourteen faults. In addition, there is the example, which sets out various instances. For instance: "So-and-so will die" (the thesis); "because he is a human being, he will die" (the reason); then, "such-and-such persons have all died" (the example). If even one person does not die, the thesis "so-and-so will die" cannot stand. Conversely, as long as no instance overturns it, the thesis stands. Examples are further divided into positive and negative examples, and an example must be free of ten faults.

## III. Direct Perception and Inference

Master Jiqun: What is established through hetuvidya is only the right view of hearing and contemplating---cognition at the level of consciousness. The right view spoken of in the Buddhadharma has two levels. One is the right view of hearing and contemplating, which belongs to inference. The other is inner right view, which belongs to direct perception: it is inherent in the mind itself, but it is latent and cannot function---it must be opened through meditation. In early hetuvidya there were three means of knowledge: besides direct perception and inference, there was also scriptural testimony---taking the scriptures and teachings as the basis for establishing a theory or refuting others. Later, mainly direct perception and inference were discussed.

Zhou Guoping: That is very interesting. Is this from the Consciousness-Only school?

Master Jiqun: The Consciousness-Only school applied the methodology of hetuvidya to form a Buddhist logic. Hetuvidya itself belongs to India's traditional art of debate. India's religious philosophy was highly developed; the various schools often debated one another, and the loser had to convert---or might even lose his head. Among the six early schools of Indian philosophy, the Nyaya school placed special emphasis on the study of nyaya (roughly equivalent to hetuvidya); the *Nyaya Sutra* was written by this school's founder. Borrowing and applying hetuvidya gave the Consciousness-Only school its meticulous logic.

Zhou Guoping: Xuanzang debated everyone back then.

Master Jiqun: During Xuanzang Sanzang's studies in India, non-Buddhists often came to challenge him, and Buddhists of the Mahayana and Hinayana also debated each other. The king at the time, King Harsha, favored the Mahayana and specially organized a grand debate open to all the schools of India. In that debate, the thesis Xuanzang Sanzang established was: "Truly and commonly acknowledged, form is not necessarily separate from the eye-consciousness; for what I myself admit is comprised in the first three, which the eye does not comprise---like the eye-consciousness." And he declared that if there were anything improper in these words, or if they could be refuted, he would offer his head in apology. As a result, in eighteen days no one could change a single word, and Xuanzang Sanzang won the unanimous esteem of every school. Buddhism transmitted in such an environment prized dialectics and rigorous logic, for many of its tenets had withstood repeated debate and never been defeated. In today's terms, they had been tested by practice.

Zhou Guoping: The debating tradition is not very visible in Chinese Buddhism, but I see it is still thriving in Tibetan Buddhism---it continues even now.

Master Jiqun: The entry of hetuvidya into Chinese Buddhism is closely tied to the Consciousness-Only school, so how much attention it received was bound up with that school's fate. Xuanzang Sanzang journeyed west in search of the Dharma and, after untold hardships, translated scriptures and treatises such as the *Yogacarabhumi Shastra* into Chinese, forming the Consciousness-Only school. Though counted among the eight major schools of Chinese Buddhism, it was passed down only two or three generations before failing to find successors, nearly vanishing. Not until the Republican era did it show signs of revival, and even then it never gained real momentum. With no arena in which to use it, the hetuvidya we learn today is only from books, not from application---yet the whole point of hetuvidya lies in application.

Zhou Guoping: Direct perception and inference are very interesting. They are really two states of knowing. One relies on experience and logical thinking---that is how most people know. The other relies on inner wisdom, on genius-like intuition---and that belongs to a tiny minority. There is a gulf between the two: ordinary people cannot reach direct perception, no matter how hard they try.

Master Jiqun: The Buddhadharma holds that among the six consciousnesses, the knowing of the first five belongs to direct perception---the consciousnesses of ear, eye, nose, tongue, and body. But this intuition is extremely brief, only an instant. As soon as the five sense consciousnesses operate, the mental consciousness arising together with them immediately comes into play, and we fall into the state of conceptual consciousness; the innate intuition of direct perception then no longer functions.

Zhou Guoping: The intuitive component of the five sense consciousnesses you speak of is actually the unconscious and the subconscious.

Master Jiqun: The five sense consciousnesses are not the subconscious; they belong to the category of consciousness. The Consciousness-Only school speaks of eight consciousnesses: consciousness proper includes the six---eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mental consciousness---while the subconscious is the seventh, the Manas consciousness, and the eighth, the Alaya consciousness.

Zhou Guoping: So the sensations of the five faculties carry an intuitive component.

Master Jiqun: The functioning of the five sense consciousnesses belongs to direct perception. But when they operate, conceptual consciousness immediately follows, stuffing in all kinds of information and interfering with knowing, so that what the five consciousnesses see, hear, and sense becomes what has been refashioned by conceptual consciousness.

The *Yogacarabhumi Shastra* says there are four levels of reality in the world. The first is reality as formulated by mundane cognition---what is commonly accepted by everyone. The second is reality as formulated by accurate reasoning---established by philosophers through logical reflection. The third is reality as formulated by the cognition purified of the afflictive hindrances---the world seen after afflictions are shed. The fourth is reality as formulated by the cognition purified of the cognitive hindrances---the truth of the world seen after ignorance is thoroughly shed. Of these four, the latter two enter the realm of the noble ones. The knowing of ordinary beings is affected by emotion, affliction, and other factors; however rational we may think ourselves, we cannot avoid this interference. Very often, our reason even serves our afflictions, forming what we call standpoints---that is, clinging to self.

Zhou Guoping: We can also grant that the first two have existential value. Every kind of reality has its place and function. If we only acknowledged the latter two and dismissed the first two as false, ordinary people could not go on living.

Master Jiqun: The four realities simply indicate different levels of knowing; each is valuable at its own stage. In the Buddhadharma, the cognition of things as they really are is most important---it tells us what the world and human life actually are. With such guidance, we can make choices about our own mental conduct.

## IV. The Role and Limits of Reason

Master Jiqun: On "how we know the world," Professor Zhou spoke of reason and intuition---two things Buddhism also values highly. Buddhism prizes the human state, holding that truth and wisdom belong to the human realm, precisely because human beings possess reason. Among the six realms, the devas are too happy---they need not use their minds much; beings in the lower realms suffer too much and are too deluded---they are incapable of using their minds. Humans have both suffering and joy, and so we reflect on life and the world and look for ways to change our situation.

The Buddhadharma holds that our afflictions, karma creation, and samsara are all related to the activity of consciousness, and that their root lies in wrong understanding. How do we change? We must rely on reason to explore and rethink the world. That is why Buddhism especially values undistorted attention, taking it as the key to practice---for example, the contemplation in hearing, contemplating, and practicing, and Right Thought in the Noble Eightfold Path. Among the four Dharma practices, drawing close to wise teachers is for the sake of hearing the true Dharma; then, through thinking in line with the Dharma, we can practice in accordance with the Dharma. But reason is only activity at the level of consciousness: it cannot directly reach the truth, nor can it ultimately resolve the afflictions of human life.

The psychologist Freud said that life is like the ocean: the activity of consciousness is only the tip of an iceberg floating on the surface, while the subconscious is the enormous mass extending deep into the sea. In the process of knowing, most people get stuck in their thoughts and cannot go deeper. On the surface, everyone lives in this world; in fact, each person lives in his own thoughts. When a certain thought is infinitely magnified or reinforced, a single thought can become our entire world---we may even spend our whole lives living for that one thought. Modern people often go to the other extreme: the temptations of the external world and the stimulation of the senses surround us with thoughts rising one after another. Controlled now by this thought, now by that one, we imagine our lives are rich and colorful, when in fact we are constantly being controlled and swayed.

How can we jump out of our thoughts and transcend the limits of reason? We must practice meditation and develop the complete wisdom inherent in our minds. This is a path of inward seeking---the greatest difference between Buddhism and Western philosophy. In meditative training, practitioners enter different states and have corresponding experiences. The bliss of concentration, in particular, far surpasses the happiness brought by desire. Yet if you indulge in it, you will likewise get stuck---it becomes an obstacle to practice. So meditation requires two things: on one hand, settling the mind; on the other, right view to guide the practice. Only with the height of understanding can we reach the depth of life.

In fact, meditation is not unique to Buddhism; it was valued by all the religions of India. Supernormal powers, in particular, appear after the cultivation of concentration. With the knowledge of past lives one can see countless previous lives; with divine sight one can see what will happen in the future; there are also teleportation and heavenly hearing. In fact, these abilities are not so miraculous---they demonstrate the immense potential of life. Of course, Buddhism does not regard supernormal powers as the ultimate; it values wisdom. For such powers are a double-edged sword: with an immature character, possessing them is all the more destructive.

The Western system of knowledge began by emphasizing inquiry into the world's ultimate nature; from the sixteenth century it turned to epistemology, including empiricism and rationalism. After that came existentialism, concerned with existence. Whichever it is, all employ reason, and the knowledge thereby produced has its limits.

Zhou Guoping: Actually, Kant already knew the limits of reason, so he tried to break through them and develop non-rational spiritual capacities, including inner experience and the insights of the subconscious. Existentialism attaches importance to this. What I would like to know is: in Buddhism, where is the boundary between wisdom and reason? Reason certainly belongs to the level of consciousness---one could call it inference; these are unified and distinct concepts. So must wisdom break through the limits of reason and go deep into the subconscious to develop that capacity? And do wisdom and inference both belong to the subconscious, or to a combination of the subconscious and consciousness?

## V. The Essence and Function of Wisdom

Master Jiqun: The reason we just discussed belongs to the level of consciousness; it cannot directly reach emptiness. Then what is wisdom, and how does it relate to reason? First of all, wisdom transcends reason. The Buddhadharma often says that through wisdom we penetrate emptiness (this wisdom belongs to prajna, not to cognition at the rational level). People tend to think of them as two things---one subjective, one objective; one the knower, one the known. In fact, it is not so.

When the prajna teachings first came to China, Master Seng Zhao wrote the *Zhao Lun* and was hailed as "the foremost in the land of Qin in understanding emptiness." In it, "On the Immutability of Things" explains that the flux and change of things is an illusion---we merely connect them into a sequence. "On the Emptiness of the Unreal" explains that all phenomena are unreal, mere illusions, and therefore empty. And there is "On Prajna as Being Without Knowledge": "without knowledge" is in fact an all-knowing that transcends deluded knowing---"prajna is without knowledge, yet there is nothing it does not know." This explains the relationship between prajna and emptiness from the angle of essence and function: "Speak of function, and they are the same yet different; speak of quiescence, and they are different yet the same." "The same yet different" means that in essence they are identical, but in manifestation they appear as two---wisdom and emptiness. "Different yet the same" means that in essence, though they have two names, they are identical. Simply put, wisdom comes from emptiness, and in turn realizes emptiness. Just as we often say, the essence of the mind is the essence of the world---they are actually not two things.

What are the characteristics of emptiness? First, it is empty: boundlessly open, it can contain the mountains, rivers, and earth within it, and can also give rise to them. Second, it is luminous: clear and aware knowing---not dead or insentient. Third, it is blissful: it continuously produces joy and happiness. How do we penetrate emptiness? Besides thinking in line with the Dharma, we must also transcend discrimination---that is why prajna is also called non-discriminating wisdom. This wisdom is all-knowing: like a mirror, it sees everything clearly of itself; it is not obtained through thinking and judgment.

Zhou Guoping: Is this state of wisdom like Zhuangzi's "all things and I are one"? I merge with the universe into one body, so it is all the same thing: I am emptiness, I am the universe.

Master Jiqun: At this level, there is non-duality; at the level of differentiation, each thing is itself.

Zhou Guoping: Are these two levels one higher and one lower, or do they exist simultaneously, unified?

Master Jiqun: In the Buddhadharma, the realization of emptiness has two levels: fundamental wisdom and discerning wisdom. Through fundamental wisdom, one realizes the level of non-differentiation, yet this non-differentiation does not obstruct differentiation. If you have realized the wisdom of emptiness, you can live on both levels at once---knowing the differences among all things while also transcending them---and then you are free and unhindered. Ordinary people, always caught in attachments at the relative level, get stuck in partial phenomena---like players lost in the game, they actually cannot see clearly. Only by realizing the absolute level can one truly see clearly that all the various relative phenomena are but illusions.

Zhou Guoping: Seeing that they are illusions, one can adopt a free attitude toward them---a playful attitude. I'll play along with you, knowing you are not real.

## VI. Reason, Emotion, and Will

Master Jiqun: From philosophy to science, the West explores outward. With the development of science, all kinds of tools keep extending the human capacity to know. Eastern culture, however---especially Buddhism---develops inward.

Zhou Guoping: The spiritual capacities of the human being include reason, emotion, and will, but when it comes to knowing the world, we usually speak only of reason, as if the other two take no part. In fact, it is not so. When you know the external world, all three are surely at work at the same time. Emotion and will also participate: it is not entirely abstract logical thinking, but also a process of emotional engagement and of the will's pursuit. I wonder whether the Buddhadharma has anything to say about how these three capacities participate in knowing.

Master Jiqun: From the perspective of the Buddhadharma, knowing is not merely some mental activity, but the combined functioning of a whole system. When we know something, the will plays its part, bound up with goals and motives; we are also influenced by emotion---for instance, our likes and dislikes toward a person or a matter make our ways of thinking utterly different. So cognition is by no means the work of reason alone: what your system is like determines what kind of cognition you have. If the system is relatively pure, cognition will be more objective. Conversely, if the forces of emotion and past experience are strong in the system, they will affect our observation, thinking, and judgment.

Zhou Guoping: These three capacities are in themselves neither good nor bad; they can work for good or for ill, simply because human beings are endowed with them.

Master Jiqun: Everyone's will is different, and everyone's emotions are different; they can develop into noble states of mind, and also into negative emotions. And when we think about problems, these mental states and emotions join in. So each person's mental state determines what kind of cognition he has.

Zhou Guoping: The truth, goodness, and beauty we customarily speak of are what arise when these three capacities receive their proper expression: when reason knows, that is truth; when emotion feels, that is beauty; when the will pursues, that is goodness. If these three capacities are controlled by desire and negative emotions, the effect on cognition is harmful.

Master Jiqun: If they are controlled by desire and afflictions, these three capacities may come to serve desire and affliction. Conversely, if they are joined with noble sentiments and virtue, they will serve those instead.

Zhou Guoping: Reason can be used to pursue truth, and also to satisfy desires---making people ever more complicated and ever more fearsome. Emotion is the same: it can be a kind of beauty, a kind of love, or a host of negative emotions.

Master Jiqun: To change such a state, we still have to rely on reason, because correcting deviations requires cognition, and cognition requires reason. Only by re-examining life with reason and receiving the edification of wisdom and morality can we adjust our views, our mental states, and even the quality of our lives. Deep down, human beings do yearn for truth, goodness, and beauty; once they receive a wisdom culture, they will use reason to correct the deviations in their lives. So the Buddhadharma's view of reason is twofold: it is both the gateway to all wonders, capable of accomplishing morality and wisdom, and the root of all calamities, capable of becoming the source of every disaster.

Zhou Guoping: All in all, reason is a tool, without good or evil in itself. Why does one person's reason serve the good while another's serves evil? What plays the decisive role? Awakening cannot do without reason, yet reason itself is neutral---where is the starting point?

Master Jiqun: In the course of learning various cultures, we build up cognition of the world and of life, forming value judgments. Once we have judgment, reason makes choices on that basis---for everyone hopes his life will become better and better.

Zhou Guoping: That is an assumption.

Master Jiqun: But we all want happiness---surely that is not an assumption.

Zhou Guoping: Right. We want this state of life to be good; we don't want it to be bad.

## VII. Happiness and Awakening

Master Jiqun: Hoping to live happily and joyfully---seeking benefit and avoiding harm, leaving suffering and finding happiness---is the instinct of life. If through rational reflection we realize that truth, goodness, and beauty can help us seek benefit and avoid harm, leave suffering and find happiness, we will naturally make that choice.

Zhou Guoping: This relies on reason to recognize the connection between pursuing truth, goodness, and beauty on one hand, and happiness and joy on the other.

Master Jiqun: Because one realizes that only in this way can there be lasting pleasure. It is like Epicurus in the West: satisfying desires brings pleasure, he held, but there must be moderation for the pleasure to last.

Zhou Guoping: That acknowledges pleasure as the more fundamental thing, with truth, goodness, and beauty as means. Such was Epicurus: pleasure itself is the end, the highest value. To obtain pleasure, one must avoid the false, the evil, and the ugly, and pursue the true, the good, and the beautiful. Perfectionism, by contrast, holds that truth, goodness, and beauty are themselves the highest value---they manifest human dignity and are sacred. Happiness may accompany you in the pursuit, but it is only a by-product, not the highest end. Both schools agree that truth, goodness, and beauty are good, but their reasons differ: one takes them as means, the other as the end itself. Buddhism, I think, should be closer to perfectionism---these values are good in themselves.

Master Jiqun: What the Buddhadharma values is the quality of life---not simply pleasure. The Buddhadharma holds that every kind of conduct and quality has an inner causality with suffering and happiness. Where does the value of conduct lie? Why should we follow morality? Because these are the materials from which a noble quality of life is made. Make good use of these materials, and life will keep ascending.

When we speak of happiness today, we mostly depend on circumstances---thinking that only by getting something can we be happy. Such happiness is actually very fragile, because circumstances keep changing. When unwelcome changes occur, the happiness goes with them. So true happiness springs from the inner quality of life. If your being is compassion and wisdom, they will continuously bring you joy. The Buddhist view of cause and effect tells us that whatever views and actions we have will shape the corresponding mental states, character, and even quality of life.

Zhou Guoping: Quality is the cause; happiness or unhappiness is the effect.

Master Jiqun: It isn't exactly cause and effect---rather, happiness is derived directly from that quality; it is the effect the quality produces.

Zhou Guoping: It is a by-product, something additional.

Master Jiqun: The Buddhadharma also discusses this in terms of the feelings of suffering and happiness. For many people, "quality of life" sounds rather abstract, but suffering and happiness are quite direct.

Zhou Guoping: Shakyamuni's renunciation began with suffering, didn't it? He wanted to solve the problem of suffering.

Master Jiqun: The Buddha left home because he saw old age, sickness, and death---all of these are suffering.

Zhou Guoping: What exactly is the relationship between happiness and awakening? Three points come to mind. First, on the level of life: with an ordinary mind, one can have ordinary happiness. Second, on the level of society: with an enterprising mind, one can have worldly happiness. Third, on the spiritual level: with awakening and bodhicitta, one can have transcendent happiness.

Ancient China had no concept of "happiness" (xingfu), only "fortune" (fu). English has none either: "happy" is not "happiness" but pleasure. German has *Glück*, an abstract noun for luck and good fortune, which can be translated as "happiness." The first to discuss happiness was Aristotle, and the word he used, translated into English, is neither "happiness" nor "pleasure" but a kind of good existence. Some render it as "living well," which I find more accurate. When life is in a good state, that is happiness. Views differ on what state counts as good, but all are expressed with the word "happiness."

Master Jiqun: I have given several lectures on happiness titled "The Mind Creates Happiness," covering a few main points. First, how to face adversity. As the saying goes, the weather is unpredictable: many people's happiness is shattered by adversity, so we must learn to live with it. Second, to be happy one must have good fortune---this concerns the five blessings descending upon the home. I find the ancients' five blessings quite comprehensive. The first is longevity. The second is wealth and honor---not only material riches and high status, but also spiritual riches and nobility of character. The third is health and peace---a healthy body and a tranquil mind. The fourth is virtue, which is the foundation and safeguard of happiness. The fifth is a good death---being able to leave this world peacefully. By comparison, modern people's understanding of happiness is rather one-sided---nothing but various pleasures.

## VIII. The Limits of Our Means of Knowing

Master Jiqun: The means by which we know the world determine the extent of what we can know of it.

Zhou Guoping: For the individual, this means cannot be freely chosen. That is to say, a person may wish to use the correct means that goes straight to the essence, but he does not have that freedom. What kind of person he is determines how he knows the world. His limits as a human being are his limits in knowing the world. For the capacity for insight is inborn; through effort one can reach a certain height, but that height is in fact already set---and the gaps between people are great.

Master Jiqun: The Buddhadharma holds that the physical body formed by karma has great limitations. On the material level, what our eyes see, our ears hear, and our bodies sense is actually quite dull. On the mental level, the activities of consciousness and the subconscious accumulate all kinds of experiences, which in turn form feelings and bring about craving, grasping, and becoming, interfering with the way we see the world.

Human beings are bound by their own systems and can only see the world and themselves in this way. Fortunately, people have reason and can receive a wisdom culture, so reading and reflection are especially important---they let us see our own inadequacies. As long as we have an open mind, we can all improve ourselves through learning. Whether any cultural heritage---the Buddhadharma or Western philosophy---can act upon our life system depends on our acceptance of it. That acceptance comes from your own choice and judgment. If you are particularly self-important and stubborn in your opinions, you can hardly improve even with study.

Zhou Guoping: For humanity as a whole, being limited by our cognitive organs and cognitive capacities is inevitable and inescapable. Imagine another kind of being---extraterrestrials, say---possessing a mode of knowing higher than human reason: they would see a different world. So we are bound to see the world within our limits, and we do not even know where those limits lie. For we cannot jump out of our present mode of knowing to look with a different capacity and then compare. Some philosophers explain it this way: the capacities humans have are already sufficient for survival; anything more is unnecessary, and so we do not possess it.

For the individual, I think both aspects are important. One is one's own insight: people differ greatly in their spirituality and in their ability to grasp the essence of life---some show remarkably good intuition. The other is accepting the experience accumulated by humanity. Reading is nothing more than placing humanity's accumulated experience before you, to see what has reference value for you. One point is crucial: if there is no need in your heart, then even if it is placed before you, you will not see it. For example, if someone never thinks about the meaning of life, and you give him Buddhist scriptures and philosophy books, he will read them and understand nothing---they have nothing to do with him. So the reception of human experience is also governed by the qualities one possesses; it is a circular relationship.

Master Jiqun: Indeed---we encounter this constantly in spreading the Dharma. Everyone lives within his own needs and understanding; if what is said goes beyond the range of his needs and is not what he cares about, he will not take it in. But it is not that people do not have these questions---they need to be awakened to them. Through effective prompting, let them realize: life truly does have these questions, and they are especially important, for they are humanity's eternal perplexities. In earlier times, perhaps one could still settle for the status quo and live in a muddle. But in today's globalized world, we feel more keenly than ever our smallness and fragility as individuals, and we are more restless than ever, with less sense of security. Against this backdrop, offering some reminders can spark reflection.

Zhou Guoping: What I mean is that in handling the relationship between reading and one's own inner experience, inner experience matters more---it is the foundation. I quite agree with a saying of the American philosopher Emerson: treat your own life as the main text, and books as the annotations. Those things come to annotate you, but you must have a main text. If you have no main text, where would the annotations go? There is no place to put them.

Master Jiqun: If you value your own experience and feelings too much, might you not be constrained by them? Experience and feelings are, after all, very limited and one-sided.

Zhou Guoping: Here is how I see it: what many people call experience and feeling is fake. A person goes through certain events, but what he draws from them does not come from the events themselves, through feeling and reflection. In the course of the experience, his mind already holds ideas absorbed from outside; he keeps interpreting these events through ready-made ideas, and what he gets in the end is still just ideas. This is very common. You live here, but you have not truly experienced---you have not mindfully lived through your own experience.

## IX. The Principle Lies in the Mind

Zhou Guoping: I think that if you truly experience with your own mind, free from the sway of concepts, public opinion, and others' opinions, what you arrive at is bound to be good. Otherwise, what standard do we have left? We have no standard---our own genuine experience is the standard. But we must not let fake experience interfere with it. Fake experience does exist---the kind manipulated by concepts.

Master Jiqun: Which do you value more: the standard arising from your own experience, or the standard offered by sages and philosophers? Should you interpret your own experience and annotate it yourself, or should you use these wise understandings to look at your experience anew and correct it?

Zhou Guoping: That process certainly exists---using their understanding to correct one's own experience. But this correction is not a negation. In fact, by reading their books, you find that your interpretation of experience is incomplete and could be more accurate. When we elevate our own experience into understanding and generalize it, deviations may occur. My own experience is this: reading the works of the great philosophical masters, the passages that light up my mind are the ones where I have experienced it myself, and he says the same. Such things are bound to be profound. So the most important function of reading the masters is to unearth the good things I already have---things I didn't even know I had. That feeling is the most delightful, and it makes me believe all the more that there is a common truth in the universe. The masters' minds are places where truth dwells; my mind is also a place where truth dwells; truth itself is one and the same.

Master Jiqun: There are two situations here. Within us there is the level of experience, and also a level beyond experience. In the course of learning, some theories resonate because we have had related experiences; at other times, they let us see what we have never thought about---even the unknown parts of our lives.

Zhou Guoping: That's right---I was mixing the two together a bit. The "experience" I speak of has two meanings. One is that outwardly you have gone through certain events, met certain people, and gained some understanding of the world. That kind of experience is certainly needed, but it is not the most important. The other is what you just described---experience beyond experience. In fact, deep inside us there is always something that transcends experience and connects with the universe. In Buddhist terms, that is your awakened nature. This part is shared by all, and it produces many things. Ordinarily you may not know it; then, reading the truth expressed by the masters, you discover that you have this same thing in your own mind. This is what the Song-Ming Neo-Confucians meant by "the principle lies in the mind"---the Heavenly principle and the human mind are in accord. The view that the human mind is inwardly connected to the truth of the universe exists in both Chinese and Western philosophy. And this is the part we value most.

When we speak of truth, we mean principles that accord with our own deepest inner experience---that is what we call truth. Ordinary external experience---how to handle this matter or that one, those regularities---I consider unimportant; they have nothing to do with awakening. They are merely tools for getting along in the world.

## X. Duality or Oneness

Master Jiqun: Among Eastern philosophies and religions, Hinduism speaks of the oneness of Brahman and the self; Confucianism speaks of the unity of Heaven and humanity; Buddhism speaks of the non-duality of the circumstantial and the direct---that is, the mountains, rivers, and lands that are the circumstantial reward, and the individual lives that are the direct reward. The Song-Ming Neo-Confucians said: my mind is the universe. Buddhism says: the essence of the mind is the essence of the world. Does Western philosophy have such ideas? Do Western philosophy and religion lean more toward dualistic opposition?

Zhou Guoping: Western philosophy emphasizes reason and seeks the root of reason in the universe. This tradition goes back to Plato. Why, he asked, can we use abstract concepts to generalize about things? Because these things we take to be abstract concepts exist in another world---the world of Ideas, a purely spiritual world. We once lived there; our souls come from there, and when we were born into this world, we brought some vague memories along. Gradually the memories become clear, and we can use these concepts to know things. In other words, our cognitive capacity is our recollection of the world of Ideas. He connected human cognitive capacity with Heaven.

The German rationalist philosopher Leibniz said that human beings can know the world through reason because there is a pre-established harmony between man and the universe. We are born with this harmony: your capacity for thought and the laws of the universe are of the same structure from the start---that is why you can know. This is quite similar to the idea of the unity of Heaven and humanity.

If one wants to certify the human rational capacity, the unity of Heaven and humanity is perhaps the most convenient proof---it is given by Heaven, and Heaven is the same way. This is the most convenient explanation, so I don't find it mysterious; it is actually a rather easy explanation to come by.

Master Jiqun: That is not expressed very clearly.

Zhou Guoping: It does not say it explicitly: my mind is the universe; all things are complete within me; all things and I are one. But in China, the Confucians, the Daoists, Mencius, and Zhuangzi all say exactly that.

Master Jiqun: So may we say that Western thinking, from religion to philosophy, overall leans toward dualistic opposition?

Zhou Guoping: It does lean toward dualistic opposition, and then wants to move from two toward one, striving hard to unify the other elements. China, by contrast, began with oneness---it never split into two, so it never needed that process.

Western philosophy began by seeing that the world is in constant flux and therefore not real; behind it there must be a real world---eternal, unmoving, unchanging. Philosophy is the search for that world---so its very premise is duality. Chinese Daoism, by contrast, began with the Dao, never splitting it into two. The Song-Ming Neo-Confucian period was a comparatively flourishing time for Chinese philosophy, and it still took principle as the most fundamental origin. Western philosophy is especially strong in logic: What exactly is the world like? It must be deduced step by step through logic and explained with complete clarity. That is certainly a strength, but also a weakness---because what the world ultimately is cannot be deduced logically.

Master Jiqun: The Consciousness-Only school has this same feature. How the whole world is constituted---it has a rigorous theory for that, laid out with complete clarity.

Zhou Guoping: The question is: did it actually explain it clearly? Western philosophy in the end could not go on. Xuanzang brought the Consciousness-Only school to China, but in India, in fact, it did not develop much afterward either.

Master Jiqun: Not long after Xuanzang left India, Indian Buddhism entered the era of Esoteric Buddhism. In that process, it absorbed a fair amount of Hindu content---the element of faith grew heavier, while the doctrinal part weakened. After the Consciousness-Only school was transmitted to China, the Chinese were not much interested in such a philosophical doctrine either. In traditional Chinese culture, there was no systematic reflection on the mind-nature and the world. Philosophically speaking, the various schools of the pre-Qin masters thought about the universe and human life rather simply---they proposed some concepts but formed no theoretical systems.

Zhou Guoping: Laozi and Zhuangzi did offer explanations of the world; Confucius did not. I think that is exactly where Confucius's cleverness lay---he knew it could not be explained. After Buddhism was introduced, Chinese philosophy began to discuss these mysterious matters, so Buddhism greatly advanced the development of Chinese philosophy. In a book I wrote recently, I discussed this very question. Wang Guowei was a great master of Chinese learning---arguably the greatest in modern Chinese historiography. In his youth he studied German philosophy, working hard at Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, but no one paid him any attention; his published articles met with no response at all. Perhaps disheartened, he reached this conclusion: China is not a philosophical people. At the time, he was analyzing with the yardstick of German philosophy, and he held that China had no pure philosophy: Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi, and the rest were all moralists and statesmen, not philosophers. For philosophy is two things: first, concern with ultimate questions---what is the ultimate reality of the universe; second, a rigorous theoretical system that holds up logically. But Chinese theoretical systems had no strict logical deduction, and rarely any reflection on the ultimate reality of the universe. Daoism had some; Confucianism basically none---only with Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism did it appear.

The West pursued philosophical theory for so long, and in the end admitted its failure. After Kant, Western philosophy fell into a basically pessimistic mood---it was generally recognized that reason has its limits, that the philosophical road does not get through. So it began discussing simpler things, such as social questions, and stopped discussing ultimate questions.

Master Jiqun: In the East, Hinduism has a history of nearly three thousand years. Indians valued meditation from very early on, and from that formed their interpretations of life and the world---which is why their religions are so highly developed.

Zhou Guoping: Is religion in India still thriving? I see they are quite fragmented---the idols they worship are all different.

Master Jiqun: India has a great many religions. Jainism, for example---which Buddhism calls an ascetic non-Buddhist path---still has a large following today. In the Buddhist scriptures we used to read all sorts of descriptions of ascetic practices and found them incredible. But search online now, and they really still exist. Such steadfast pursuit of faith is respected in India. Of course, from the Buddhist point of view, much of it is useless austerity. After leaving home, Shakyamuni also studied with many religions, and in the end found that none of them was what he sought---not true liberation and nirvana. So the path of practice is not an easy one.