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

# 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.