Non-Buddhist False-Cause Doctrine — Xiao Pingshi’s “God-Making” Movement

John Tan recently brought to my attention a Taiwanese Buddhist group known as the 佛教正覺同修會, which is commonly rendered in English as the Buddhist True Enlightenment Practitioners Association, led by Xiao Pingshi (萧平实). He mentioned that this group has established a significant presence in various temples across Singapore.

I had encountered their name before and had the impression that they resemble a Chinese counterpart to the Dark Zen movement. They appear to be highly critical and dismissive of Buddhist teachings and masters outside their own circle, while promoting their interpretation of the Ātman doctrine as the definitive understanding of Buddhadharma. Ironically, they seem unaware that their views align more closely with tīrthika, or non-Buddhist, philosophies that traditional Buddhist frameworks regard as erroneous.

Upon further investigation, I confirmed that my concerns were valid. The group in question is indeed the 佛教正覺同修會, led by Xiao Pingshi. For more information, you can refer to their Wikipedia page: Wikipedia.

I appreciate Venerable Da Zhao’s critique of this group’s Ātman-centered views, as it gives a clear example of how a Buddhist vocabulary can be used while, in his judgment, the underlying view departs from orthodox Buddhist teaching.

English Translation

Non-Buddhist False-Cause Doctrine — Xiao Pingshi’s “God-Making” Movement

Publication date: 2006-01-01. Views: 13,944.

Da Zhao

As the saying goes, “A good person is bullied, just as a good horse is ridden.” In this era of social transition, this has become especially conspicuous; the repeated abuse of Buddhism’s compassion is even more striking. After reading twenty or thirty books by Taiwan’s Xiao Pingshi, including Wuxiang Nianfo (Buddha-Recollection Without Marks), Stages of Practice in Nianfo Samādhi, Treasury of the True Dharma Eye — Collection on Protecting the Dharma, Discerning the True Reality of Life, A Simple Method for Discerning True and False Awakening, The Perfect Fusion of Chan and Pure Land, The True Tathāgatagarbha, How to Enter the Nianfo Dharma Gate, The Mahāyāna View of Non-Self, The Crisis of Buddhism, Mastery of the Essential Doctrine and Mastery of Exposition, Self and Non-Self, Crazy Tantra and True Tantra (vols. 1–4), The Mani Jewel Collection of the Chan School (gong’an commentaries, vols. 1–5), Detailed Explanation of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (vols. 1–6), together with the concurrently published The Mindset of Studying Buddhism, The Voice of Compassion, and others, I felt deeply moved and troubled.

At first, even looking only at the surface narration, explanations of terms, and doctrinal inquiry, I found major problems. I always felt something was very awkward, especially the author’s inexplicably strong urge toward self-display: everywhere he remembers the “self,” everywhere he packages the “self.” This is truly incompatible with the spirit of Buddhadharma. Later, I gradually saw that everything good was linked to the author himself, and everything bad was linked to the great contemporary Buddhist masters. Apart from what the author says, there was already no Buddhadharma left to learn or practice; apart from the True Enlightenment Practitioners Association founded by the author, there was essentially no place that was a genuine Buddhist practice center. This too contradicts the myriad virtues and solemn dignity of Buddhadharma.

Later still, I finally saw clearly that behind the cover of Buddhist terminology and doctrine there was deeply hidden his own non-Buddhist false-cause view centered on a “First Cause,” revealing the tail of a cunning fox and causing profound harm to Buddhism. Going one step further, I fully understood that this was a “god-making” movement arising from the decline of the human heart, yet it had stolen Buddhist terminology and doctrine to serve as a divine altar for deceiving the world. Is this not a tragedy for Buddhism? Thus I lament contemporary Buddhism: externally, it suffers from the Falun Gong cult stealing the emblem of the Dharma wheel and running rampant; internally, it suffers from the First-Cause non-Buddhist doctrine borrowing Buddhist terminology and doctrine as a cover while slandering the Dharma and dividing the Sangha.

Magnificent Buddhism, magnificent wondrous Dharma, magnificent Sangha Jewel — vast, solemn, and a beacon for the world — has been humiliated to this extent by non-Buddhists and cults. Thinking of this in the quiet of night, alas, how sorrowful! The Falun Gong cult is like a thief entering the courtyard and merely stealing the ornaments inside; a single alert cry from the family will make him flee. The First-Cause non-Buddhist doctrine, however, is like entering the main hall and stealing the treasures from the safe — the principles, meanings, and terminology of Buddhadharma. Even if driven out of the house, the place has already been left in shambles. What can be done? What can be done!

Modern thieves’ methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated; their plagiarism goes ever deeper, and the harm becomes ever more severe. The critical danger is that Xiao Pingshi’s exposition, in its wording and language, basically appears to conform to the meaning of Buddhadharma. Not only is it hard for beginners in Buddhism to distinguish the genuine from the false, even long-time practitioners can easily be misled by his beautiful descriptions. Some in academic circles have even said that he is “quite penetrating,” not realizing that at the most critical and fundamental point, his conduct is that of a non-Buddhist. He also flaunts “True Dharma” everywhere and proposes “discernment of Dharma meaning” everywhere. Now, drawing from his writings, we will expose the non-Buddhist face concealed beneath his cover of “the True Dharma of the Three Vehicles,” focusing on his First-Cause non-Buddhist thought, the “god-making” movement born of the decline of the human heart, his “ingratitude” in betraying teachers and ancestors, and his “slandering the Dharma and dividing the Sangha” through word manipulation, thereby restoring the purity of our Buddhism.

I. The Non-Buddhist False-Cause Thought of the “First Cause”

So-called First-Cause non-Buddhists are those who maintain that the cause by which all things in the world are established belongs to one single cause. In the Deva Bodhisattva’s Explanation of the Nirvāṇa Theories of Non-Buddhists and Hīnayāna in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, twenty kinds of non-Buddhists are identified, each seeking the first cause of the universe and all things and offering its own explanation. Among them, the fourth, the Vedic theorists; the fifth, the Īśāna theorists; the ninth, the Women-and-Retinue theorists; the twelfth, the Mādhara theorists; the fourteenth, the Sāṃkhya theorists; the fifteenth, the Maheśvara theorists; and the twentieth, the Aṇḍa theorists, though differing in detail, all belong to the category of one-cause non-Buddhists. They all believe that the arising of all dharmas has a “First Cause,” that there is always a source able to “produce” all things, and that all things are derived from one source.

For example, the fifth non-Buddhist, the Īśāna theorist, asserts: “That which has no form or characteristics yet can produce all animate and inanimate things is called nirvāṇa.” (T32, 157a) The fourteenth non-Buddhist, the Sāṃkhya theorist, asserts: “By truly knowing that all arises from Prakṛti and returns to Prakṛti, one can leave all birth and death and attain nirvāṇa. Thus, from Prakṛti all sentient beings arise. Therefore the non-Buddhist Sāṃkhya teaches that Prakṛti is permanent, can produce all dharmas, and is the cause of nirvāṇa.” (T32, 157c)

This is the non-Buddhist wrong view of “mistaking a non-cause for a cause” — the wrong view of a “First Cause.”

Closely related to the wrong view that a “First Cause” gives rise to all things is “monism,” which also occupies many schools of Indian philosophy. For example, Vedic philosophy maintains that the essence of the universe is Brahman and that the essence of the individual subject is Ātman; these two essential principles are one and the same. This is “Brahman and self are one.” Since it is not easy to express the essential content of this monism, there arose such descriptions as reality or being, consciousness or knowing, and supreme bliss. Yet this kind of absolute essential monism has difficulty explaining the occurrence of the various phenomenal realms, such as the material natural world, suffering, evil, and the many phenomena of human existence. Dualism, which posits the opposition between a spiritual principle, the Self or puruṣa, and a material principle, Prakṛti or nature, arose in order to resolve such problems. All these theories contain internal contradictions, belong to non-Buddhist wrong views, and are refuted by Buddhadharma.

Within Buddhadharma, whether Hīnayāna or Mahāyāna, there is absolutely no such non-Buddhist wrong view of a “First Cause” or monism. As the Abhidharmakośa, fascicle 6, says, “That dharmas arise from one cause is definitely not the case.” (T29, 36b) The Avataṃsaka Sūtra, fascicle 30, says, “Those children of the Buddha thus know that the nature of all dharmas is always empty and quiescent; not one dharma can create anything; they are identical with all Buddhas in awakening to non-self.” The verse of Kāśyapa Buddha in the Verses on the Transmission of the Dharma by the Seven Buddhas says, “The nature of all sentient beings is pure; from the beginning it is unborn and indestructible.”

The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, fascicle 3, says: “If, before conditions have converged, an effect had already arisen, this would not be correct. Since an effect apart from causes and conditions would be called causeless, your claim that an effect arises before conditions have converged is therefore not correct. Question: What fault is there if the cause ceases and transforms into the effect? Answer: If the cause transforms into the effect, then the cause reaches the effect. In that case, the previously arisen cause, having arisen, would arise again.” (T30, 26c)

Bodhidharma’s Six Gates of Shaoshi: Treatise on the Bloodline also says: “Question: If one does not see the nature, can one attain Buddhahood through reciting the Buddha’s name, chanting sūtras, giving, keeping precepts, diligence, and widely performing meritorious deeds? Answer: No. Question: Why not? Answer: If there is the slightest dharma that can be attained, it is conditioned dharma; it is cause and effect; it involves receiving retribution; it is the dharma of saṃsāra; and one does not escape birth and death. When could one attain the path to Buddhahood? To attain Buddhahood, one must see the nature. If one does not see the nature, talk of cause and effect and so forth is the dharma of non-Buddhists. If one is a Buddha, one does not practice non-Buddhist dharma. A Buddha is a person of no karma, no cause and effect. If there is the slightest dharma that can be attained, all of it is slandering the Buddha. How could one attain it? If there is attachment to one mind, one capacity, one understanding, or one view, the Buddha permits none of it. The Buddha has no upholding or violating; the mind-nature is originally empty, neither defiled nor pure. All dharmas are without practice and without realization, without cause and without effect.” (T48, 374a)

It also says: “Buddha is also called Dharmakāya and also called the fundamental mind. This mind has no form or characteristics, no cause or effect, no sinews or bones; it is like empty space, ungraspable, unlike obstructive matter, and unlike non-Buddhists.” (T48, 376a)

In summary, within the various Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises, there is definitely no erroneous theory that a “First Cause” can produce all dharmas. Because all dharmas arise through the convergence of myriad conditions, like illusions and transformations; from the beginning, they are unborn and unceasing. True Suchness, dharmatā, tathāgatagarbha, and all dharmas of birth-and-death and affliction are like water and waves: they are entirely mutually identical and entirely mutually inclusive. Arising is total arising; ceasing is total ceasing. They arise right where they are and cease wherever they are. Apart from waves, no water can be spoken of; apart from water, no waves can be found. One cannot say that water is the first cause of waves, nor can one say that waves are “derived” from water. Water and waves cannot become a duality of producer and produced.

The true reality of all dharmas is originally thus; the true nature of suchness is also thus; the phenomena of dependent origination are likewise thus. As it is said, “All dharmas have such characteristics, such nature, such essence, such power, such function, such causes, such conditions, such effects, such retributions, and such beginning-and-end ultimately equal.” (T9, 5c)

The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, fascicle 2, says: “All floating dust, all illusory and transformational appearances, arise right where they are and cease wherever they are. What is called illusory delusion is appearance; its nature is truly the wondrously awakened luminous essence. So it is down to the five aggregates and six entrances, from the twelve sense fields to the eighteen realms. Through the convergence of causes and conditions, they falsely seem to arise; through the separation of causes and conditions, they are falsely named as ceasing. They are fundamentally unable to know that arising, ceasing, going, and coming are originally the tathāgatagarbha: the eternally abiding wondrous clarity, unmoving, all-pervasive, perfectly complete wondrous true nature of suchness. Within the true eternal nature, seeking for going and coming, delusion and awakening, death and birth, nothing whatsoever can be obtained.” (T19, 114a)

Likewise, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: “Ordinary beings have no wisdom; the storehouse consciousness is like a great ocean; karmic characteristics are like waves; based on this analogy, one understands.” It also says: “Just as ocean water transforms and various waves turn, so too the seven consciousnesses arise together in conjunction with mind.”

Such is the fundamental correct view of Buddhadharma, distinct from non-Buddhist views. It is the ultimate principle of the Buddhist worldview and view of life, and indeed the very lifeblood of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

However, Xiao Pingshi sets “dependently arisen dharmas” in opposition to the “true reality of the tathāgatagarbha ālayavijñāna,” just as if he were setting ocean water and waves in opposition. He treats dependently arisen dharmas as “derivatives” of true reality and treats true suchness as the “generative cause” of dependently arisen dharmas. He believes that the tathāgatagarbha ālayavijñāna is the “First Cause” of the arising and ceasing phenomena of the universe and all things, and that dependently arisen dharmas are “derived” from the tathāgatagarbha ālayavijñāna. He says:

“After your True Suchness gives rise to the aggregates, sense fields, and realms, it then works together with the aggregates, sense fields, and realms and can give rise to all dharmas.” (The Mahāyāna View of Non-Self, p. 39)

“Because you realize your own True Suchness, the eighth consciousness, and from this eighth consciousness observe its purity and freedom, its uninterrupted continuity throughout all times, its ability to give rise to all dharmas, and that the eighteen realms are entirely produced by it.” (Self and Non-Self, p. 39)

“Although this physical body is not the true ‘I,’ it is not completely unrelated to the ‘true I,’ because it is produced by that ‘true I’ — your physical body is created by your eighth consciousness.” (Self and Non-Self, p. 41)

“Therefore, all worldly and transmundane dharmas are produced only by the eight consciousnesses, the mind-kings; hence it is said, ‘All dharmas are consciousness-only.’” (Mastery of the Essential Doctrine and Mastery of Exposition, p. 216)

“Thus it is said that mastery of the essential doctrine and mastery of exposition are not separate from all dharmas produced by the eight consciousnesses, the mind-kings; and after all these dharmas are resolved back into the eight consciousnesses, the mind-kings, they must further be resolved back into the root of the eight consciousnesses — the eighth consciousness, ālaya.” (Mastery of the Essential Doctrine and Mastery of Exposition, p. 217)

“Apart from the eighteen realms, there is a separate self-existent mind that is the cause of the eighteen realms.” (Mastery of the Essential Doctrine and Mastery of Exposition, p. 82)

“The cause of the dependent arising and dependent ceasing of all dharmas — the true reality of the storehouse consciousness.” (Mastery of the Essential Doctrine and Mastery of Exposition, p. 54)

In Xiao Pingshi’s view, the expressions “give rise to,” “able to give rise to,” “produced by,” “produced,” and “created by” all indicate a relationship in which producer and produced stand in opposition. The eighth consciousness is the “creator of all things,” and from this he reaches the absurd conclusion that the eighth consciousness is the “First Cause.” The “cause” mentioned here explicitly means the “First Cause.” As his favored disciple explains:

The Taoist principle of Taiji is correct with regard to worldly dharmas, but wrong in its cognition of the fundamental reality of the Dharma realm. Fellow practitioners can look at the text Teacher Xiao wrote on the book cover: “Taiji is mere speculation; the root is truly the True Consciousness. Ignorance gives rise to the two polarities; all dharmas arise from this. Within non-self there is self; within self there is no self. In nirvāṇa only the True Consciousness remains; self and non-self are both extinguished.” Taoism takes Wuji-Taiji as the root and derives the doctrine of the eight trigrams. The principle it describes concerning the arising and ceasing phenomena of the universe and all things is correct, but it does not know the First Cause; it does not know that the tathāgatagarbha is the true root; it does not know that the so-called Wuji-Taiji is actually the tathāgatagarbha. From the verse Teacher Xiao wrote, you should be able to understand the principle. If one who studies Buddhadharma can thoroughly awaken to the principle of the True Consciousness of ultimate truth — the tathāgatagarbha — then from that point onward, with regard to worldly and transmundane dharmas, from the liberation path of conventional truth to the Buddha-bodhi path of ultimate truth, one can penetrate them all, not to mention the relative principles of worldly existence. (The Mindset of Studying Buddhism, pp. 22–23)

This passage completely exposes Xiao Pingshi’s non-Buddhist First-Cause wrong view, leaving no room for denial. At this point, we suddenly understand that his constant cry of “the true tathāgatagarbha” is aimed precisely at finding the origin of the universe and all dharmas, from which origin, as First Cause, all dependently arisen dharmas are produced. This is exactly the claim of the fifth non-Buddhist, the Īśāna theorist, mentioned above: “That which has no form or characteristics yet can produce all animate and inanimate things.” (T32, 157a) It also blatantly echoes Taoist non-Buddhist doctrine.

Claims such as “Taoism takes Wuji-Taiji as the root,” “the tathāgatagarbha is the true root,” and “Wuji-Taiji is actually the tathāgatagarbha,” and even openly saying that “the Taoist principle of Taiji is correct with regard to worldly dharmas,” completely disregard Buddhadharma’s perfect explanation of the arising and ceasing phenomena of the universe — “All dharmas arise from causes and conditions; all dharmas cease through causes and conditions.” They insist instead on imposing a “First Cause” onto the tathāgatagarbha and the true reality of dharmas, arbitrarily replacing and trampling upon the ultimate truth of Buddhadharma. What is his intention? If he so admires the non-Buddhist principle of Taiji and the fallacy of a First Cause, why does he not simply become an openly acknowledged non-Buddhist? Why must he expound Buddhist terminology and doctrine so “penetratingly”? Why must he still present himself as a Buddhist “true kalyāṇamitra” and representative of the “True Dharma of the Three Vehicles”? There are inner reasons for this, which will be shown below.

Even Xiao Pingshi himself admits that this is a non-Buddhist wrong view, saying, “Distance oneself from the non-Buddhist wrong view of falsely establishing a First Cause of the universe.” (Mastery of the Essential Doctrine and Mastery of Exposition, p. 32) Yet all his own writings plagiarize the terminology and doctrines of the Three Vehicles of Buddhadharma, especially the tathāgatagarbha and ālayavijñāna, where his effort “cannot be called insufficient.” But regarding the correct meaning of tathāgatagarbha and ālayavijñāna in Buddhadharma, he understands only the surface meaning of words or their imagined connotations. All his descriptions of tathāgatagarbha, ālayavijñāna, true reality, and so on may seem error-free at first glance — in reality, this is because of his skill in manipulating words, as will be shown below — yet their essence is the non-Buddhist doctrine that understands True Suchness and true reality as a “First Cause.” Truly, a deviation of a hair’s breadth becomes an error of a thousand miles.

Why is this so? Because his so-called “personal realization of the tathāgatagarbha” comes from “speculation,” as shown by the verse printed on the cover of Self and Non-Self: “Taiji is mere speculation; the root is truly the True Consciousness. Ignorance gives rise to the two polarities; all dharmas arise from this.” His disciple explains that “Wuji-Taiji is actually the tathāgatagarbha.” Since Taiji is the tathāgatagarbha, and Taiji belongs to speculation, the tathāgatagarbha, like Taiji, naturally also comes from speculation. Yet he insists that “the root is truly the True Consciousness,” meaning “the tathāgatagarbha is the true root.” Therefore the tathāgatagarbha becomes the “First Cause,” and from this First Cause arise ignorance, the two polarities, and then all dharmas.

Looking more closely, he says, “Ignorance gives rise to the two polarities; all dharmas arise from this.” Here “ignorance” becomes the Taoist Taiji, because “the Taoist principle of Taiji is correct with regard to worldly dharmas,” while “Wuji-Taiji is actually the tathāgatagarbha.” Thus ignorance, Taiji, and tathāgatagarbha all become the “First Cause” that can “give rise to” all dharmas. His so-called Buddhist “ultimate truth,” “True Suchness,” “ālayavijñāna,” and so forth are all similar or equivalent to the tathāgatagarbha, and naturally they all become the “First Cause” from which “all dharmas arise.” Therefore, on the cover of Self and Non-Self, he directly uses the non-Buddhist Taiji diagram to represent the relationship between self and non-self. Truly unheard of — utterly absurd in the extreme!

Thus Xiao Pingshi uses the Mahāyāna True Dharma as a cover to propagate his own non-Buddhist wrong view of a “First Cause,” repeatedly slandering ancient and modern Buddhist masters as “eternalistic non-Buddhists,” while his own statements are the true eternalistic non-Buddhist view. This plainly reveals his tactic of the thief crying “Stop thief!” Why? Because “Ignorance gives rise to the two polarities; all dharmas arise from this” is non-Buddhist doctrine; because a First Cause producing all things is not Buddhadharma; because making the First Cause into the tathāgatagarbha is not the correct principle; because making the First Cause into true reality is not correct view; because making the First Cause into ālayavijñāna is not Consciousness-Only doctrine; because a First Cause producing dependently arisen dharmas is not the truth; because it is not the ultimate truth of Buddhadharma; because it is not the conventional truth of Buddhadharma; because it is not the bodhi path of Buddhadharma; because it is not the liberation path of the Two Vehicles; because it is not the Buddhist worldview; because it is not the Buddhist view of life; because it is not the Buddhist theory of liberation; because it is not the direct perception or valid cognition of Buddhadharma; and because the “First Cause” contradicts all principles of Buddhadharma. On this basis, we judge that Xiao Pingshi’s “First Cause” is indeed a non-Buddhist wrong view.

He constantly boasts of “personally realizing the tathāgatagarbha,” “seeing the Buddha-nature with his own eyes,” and being a “true kalyāṇamitra.” All this means that he claims to have personally realized the “First Cause,” the root source of the universe and all things. He establishes his arguments on this First Cause while using tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-nature as synonyms for it. This comes from his own contemplative “speculation,” completely departing from all Buddhist sūtras and from Buddhadharma itself, while still plagiarizing Buddhist scriptures by reading them literally and out of context to serve as his cover.

The so-called seeing of the path by his followers likewise comes from their pride in believing that they have “found the First Cause of the universe and all dharmas — tathāgatagarbha/Buddha-nature,” and thus feel that they have transcended ordinary beings and become sages or bodhisattvas. Although they understand or conform to the non-Buddhist principle of a First Cause and feel “inexhaustible benefit and endless gratitude,” they have never even dreamed of the Buddha’s true Dharma. Therefore, when they use this non-Buddhist doctrine of the First Cause to measure the Tripiṭaka and the teachings of the Five Vehicles, anything they do not know or cannot understand, anything that does not conform to the literal description of the “First Cause,” or anything that cannot serve as a cover for their wrong view of the “First Cause,” is uniformly slandered as “forged Buddhist scriptures,” “unawakened,” or “mistakenly awakened.” They openly provoke and wantonly slander all aspects of the Three Jewels, the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles, and the sacred exoteric and esoteric teachings. Thus they show no faith in cause and effect, no fear of bitter retribution, and broadly create the evil karma of destroying the Dharma and slandering the Sangha. Yet he himself and his followers remain full of boastful confidence and deluded speech, each claiming to have seen the path, realized the path, and awakened to the bodhi path.

If you, Xiao Pingshi, are still a man whose conscience is not completely obscured, you should honestly and thoroughly overturn your fallacy of a “First Cause,” lead your disciples out of the wrong path of destroying the Dharma and slandering the Sangha, stand up, and respectfully and earnestly repent before all Three Jewels of the ten directions and three times. From now on, stop creating boundless evil karma; stop injuring the Dharma-body and wisdom-life of the masses; stop confusing the vast Buddhist faithful, whether already believing or not. Buddhadharma is compassionate and universally liberates those with affinity. This is sincerely hoped for.

If, however, you continue to ignore the correct view of Buddhadharma and cling to non-Buddhist wrong doctrines, or use even more cunning sophistry to appropriate Buddhist terminology as a shield for your wrong view of a “First Cause,” then not only will this be “one blind person leading many blind people, pulling one another into the fire pit,” it will also be “destroying the honored Three Jewels and plunging the world into long darkness.” The terrifying nature of such retribution is hinted at, warned of, earnestly advised against, and described chillingly throughout your own books, Xiao Pingshi. You ought to reflect on this yourself. There is no need to elaborate further here.

What saddens us, however, is that Xiao Pingshi will likely not change his stance on the First-Cause non-Buddhist doctrine. Why? Because the view-delusion of his self-view has not been severed. He thinks he has found the origin of the universe and verified the real existence of a “First Cause.” He disregards the causal law of dependent origination, plagiarizes the rich and complete terminology and principles of Buddhist practice and realization, and couples this with a superhuman ability to play language games. He has already formed his own “unique” style of preaching and is gradually attracting kind-hearted and easily deceived people into a foolish “god-making movement.” Therefore, he will not return from his mistaken path. Since his actual actions have already severely damaged the purity and solemnity of Buddhism and directly affected the propagation of the True Dharma in the world, it is necessary for us to make a clear assessment of his “god-making movement,” clarify the humiliation suffered by ancient and modern masters and the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles, and restore the sacred purity and solemn dignity of our Buddhist Three Jewels.

II. The “God-Making” Movement Born of the Decline of the Human Heart

“God-making movements” are common phenomena in history. Whether in cult organizations or the emergence of non-Buddhist paths, this particular kind of man-made deification is unavoidable. Generally speaking, human “god-making” movements have five characteristics and three causes. The five characteristics are self-deification, self-centeredness, overt following with covert rejection, enticement and bewitchment, and mental control. The three causes are self-inflation, profit to be gained, and the decline of the human heart. After reading Xiao Pingshi’s writings, we quickly discover that he completely possesses these five characteristics and three causes. Given his frenzied attacks on and blasphemy against ancient and modern masters and the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles, we must rationally analyze these five characteristics and three causes, present evidence of this “god-making” movement, and expose both the inner workings and outward appearance of his destroying the Dharma and slandering the Sangha.

1. The five characteristics of Xiao Pingshi’s “god-making” movement

First, self-deification. This is the primary characteristic of all “god-making” movements. They either claim direct communication with spirits and deities, proclaim themselves executors of divine will, boast of superhuman abilities to lead ordinary people into the realm of the divine, or directly style themselves as Buddhas, bodhisattvas on the noble levels, saints, saviors, and so forth. These features are extremely blatant in Xiao Pingshi’s writings. Besides constantly branding himself as a truly awakened “true kalyāṇamitra” and “Mahāyāna noble Sangha member,” his various writings everywhere present him as a bodhisattva on the first bhūmi or above. He often boasts of knowing countless past lives, saying, for example, “In recent years, often in samādhi, I have seen the pure practices of propagating the Dharma in past lives, as well as the erroneous karma of slandering the Dharma countless eons ago and the retribution received,” and “I see my future lives, also mostly as a householder and rarely as a monastic.” Such statements appear everywhere. He presents himself as a sage who “can know the past and future,” even knowing karmic acts and retributions from “countless eons ago.”

Under the cover of these two self-deifying tactics — being a “noble-level bodhisattva” and “knowing past and future” — his followers come to worship him as a saint, praising him as “the awakened monastic form of the past two thousand-plus years, now manifesting in these two present lives as an awakened lay form.” They shamelessly claim, “His manifestation in lay form in this life was arranged by the Buddha.” Thus the aim of self-deification is achieved. Similar claims are too numerous to count and can be seen everywhere; we cite these merely as evidence that he clearly possesses the characteristic of “self-deification.” Setting aside whether he has such “divine powers,” given the actual substance of his above-mentioned First-Cause non-Buddhist doctrine, his self-grasping and self-view have fundamentally not been broken. He is merely an afflicted sentient being in saṃsāra, at most a non-Buddhist who confuses Buddhadharma and even worldly dharma. How can he call himself a Buddhist sage who has seen the path and realized the path? This also proves that his claims are purely the great false speech of self-deification and are utterly unworthy of belief. Moreover, if his coming into this world was “arranged by the Buddha,” would that not make the Buddha into an “omnipotent God”? This absurd deification tactic collapses as soon as one looks at it carefully; sadly, many people are still deceived.

Second, self-centeredness. All “god-making” movements in history are carried out by ordinary people whose self-grasping has not been broken. Because self-grasping is not eliminated, self-love, self-craving, and attachment to what is “mine” bind the mind, and one therefore always becomes self-centered. Thus one cannot objectively understand the meaning of others’ words and instead promotes one’s own assertions as “the only one honored,” intentionally or unintentionally revealing the idea that one surpasses all sages of past and present, even Buddhas and bodhisattvas. This too is seen everywhere in Xiao Pingshi’s writings.

He says: “You all must be half-believing and half-doubting today. Let alone completing the path-work of the first bhūmi in one lifetime; even with the simplest matter of awakening the mind, you must all be half-believing and half-doubting. So how can you believe without doubt? There is only one way: try to practice according to the methods and views taught in these books of mine.” (The Mahāyāna View of Non-Self, p. 68)

He also says: “We have explained this principle a great deal in the Pingshi Letters. When you go back, do not be polite; take one copy of each kind of book. Do not feel embarrassed about taking two or three copies. No! We printed them to give to everyone. Since we have formed this Dharma connection today, take them back properly. The Dharma spoken in those books is something you have never seen on the market; you could travel the whole globe and still not find books like these.” (The Mahāyāna View of Non-Self, p. 112)

From these two quotations, Xiao Pingshi’s strong desire for self-centeredness is very clear: only the methods taught in his books can lead to awakening the mind, and the Dharma spoken in those books is something one could not find anywhere in the world. This obviously negates the entire Buddhist Tripiṭaka throughout the world. Because “there is only one way,” namely the methods taught in his books, and because one cannot find the Dharma spoken in his books anywhere in the world, when he said this did he still have the Buddhist Tripiṭaka in mind? Fundamentally, no. Such statements slandering and destroying the Buddhist Tripiṭaka emerge entirely from the depths of his own mind. On the basis of his own wrong view of a “First Cause,” he feels justified in scorning the Tripiṭaka and placing his own books in a “supreme” position. The books he wrote are indeed advertising signboards for a “god-making” movement that “cannot be found anywhere in the world.”

Third, overt following with covert rejection. “Overt following” refers to the theoretical background of all “god-making” movements: on the surface, their theories appear to have some basis. “Covert rejection” means that in reality they use a certain theory as cover to preach their own personal thought, while in fact rejecting the theory on which they outwardly rely. For example, under banners such as “pseudo-science” or “pseudo-religion,” they reject genuine science and religion, thereby achieving the goal of their “god-making” movement. Xiao Pingshi is the same: on the surface he “overtly follows Buddhadharma,” but in reality he “covertly rejects Buddhism.” He uses “Buddhist True Enlightenment,” “True Dharma of the Three Vehicles,” “true kalyāṇamitra,” and all kinds of Buddhist terminology and doctrine as cover. His words even sound quite orderly and plausible. In reality, however, he slanders ancient and modern masters, destroys the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles, and does not even place the Buddha and the scriptures in his eyes.

From his various writings, one can see this inner agenda: first, completely destroy Tibetan Buddhist tantra; second, comprehensively negate many ancient and modern Buddhist masters; third, destroy many Buddhist scriptures in the “Esoteric Section” of the Chinese Tripiṭaka, such as the Mahāvairocana Sūtra and the Vajraśekhara Sūtra, declaring them counterfeit; and finally, he talks nonsense, saying, “There is only one method for awakening the mind: practice according to the methods and views taught in these books of mine.” Even the Buddha is inferior to him, and all the scriptures spoken by the Buddha are not as splendid as “the Dharma spoken in those books of mine.” He says, “We wrote The True Tathāgatagarbha to prove that there is a tathāgatagarbha; if you have the opportunity, you should buy that book and read it. That book is extremely splendid, guaranteed to be something you have never read before.” Therefore, while on the surface he bases himself on the True Dharma of the Three Vehicles, secretly he destroys the Three Jewels, rejecting all Buddhist scriptures, the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles, and the Sangha Jewel that upholds it. Yet he still flies the banner of “true kalyāṇamitra” and “True Dharma of the Three Vehicles.” This is the god-making characteristic of “overtly following Buddhadharma while covertly rejecting Buddhism.”

Fourth, enticement and bewitchment. This too is a despicable tactic of “god-making” movements. Typically, the leader presents himself as an elder or savior, fabricates slanders against famous people, rebukes society, positions himself alone as capable of saving the world, and portrays others, especially famous contemporaries, as being motivated by fame and profit. All goodness, wisdom, light, and greatness belong to himself; all evil, stupidity, darkness, and baseness belong to others. This harms and confuses society and the human heart, after which he appears with the face of a world-saving elder, “using non-Buddhist dharma to widely poison kind-hearted and easily deceived Buddhist disciples,” thereby profiting like the fisherman.

Thus Xiao Pingshi, under the banners of “true kalyāṇamitra,” “Mahāyāna noble Sangha member,” and “True Dharma of the Three Vehicles,” disrupts Buddhist Dharma-propagation institutions, ancient and modern masters, and even Buddhist scriptures, shaking the faith of society and believers. He says, “Whether the substance of Mahāyāna Buddhadharma can continue depends on what our generation does. Because mainland China currently has no true Dharma of the Chan school; the whole world has none; only Taiwan currently has it. But to speak frankly, in all of Taiwan only the True Enlightenment Practitioners Association has it. This is indeed the current situation.” This kind of snake-oil advertisement that bewitches “kind-hearted and easily deceived Buddhist disciples” naturally has some effect. Consequently, his followers praise him as “the contemporary world’s unique great kalyāṇamitra who has mastered both the essential doctrine and exposition.” In this way he negates every form of Buddhist Dharma-propagation activity and uses various so-called “reports of seeing the path” to confuse kind-hearted and easily deceived Buddhist disciples eager for quick results. It is as though all affairs under heaven, past and present, were in the palm of his hand. Commercial hype such as “nowhere in the world” and “unique” is fully deployed, and so it has “alluring power.” Furthermore, in the hundred cases of his gongan commentaries, more than forty dangle the bait: “Come to the True Enlightenment Practitioners Association, and I will awaken you.” In all those gongan commentaries, besides proclaiming or hinting at the non-Buddhist wrong view of the “First Cause,” the pivotal phrase used to entice and bewitch the vast number of believers, whether already believing or not, is “come to the True Enlightenment lecture hall.” The malice of this intention is outrageous.

Fifth, mental control. This is the most shameless and harmful characteristic of all “god-making” movements. Under the interlocking traps of the previous four characteristics, once one carelessly steps into this demonic territory, it is hard not to fall into the snare he has carefully designed. Without realizing it, one becomes mentally controlled and cannot stop. One may slave for him, propagating unrealistic merits and abilities; become irrationally devoted to and fixated on the Dharma he teaches and the views he points out; or groundlessly slander ancient and modern sages without fear of retribution. Various manifestations of inversion and confusion are symptoms of severe mental control. This is also evident in Xiao Pingshi’s books.

For example, his favored disciple Zhang Guoyuan says, “He can be called the contemporary world’s unique great kalyāṇamitra who has mastered both the essential doctrine and exposition.” Zheng De says, “Teacher Xiao’s manifestation in lay form in this life was arranged by the Buddha. To complete the great work of protecting the True Dharma, he had to use a lay body so that he could freely and conveniently do the work; a monastic form could not do this work, so in this life he manifests in lay form.”

Expressions such as “unique” and “arranged by the Buddha” are purely deranged nonsense. On what basis do you say he is “unique” in the world? On what basis do you say it was “arranged by the Buddha”? Is this not lying with one’s eyes open? He lives the five desires of a householder, yet insists on gilding his own face and instead smearing the Buddha’s face, saying it was “arranged by the Buddha.” In Buddhist history, those who protected the True Dharma were basically monastic disciples, such as Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu, all great bodhisattvas in monastic form. How can it be that “a monastic form could not do this work”? Moreover, how would you, a disciple of Xiao Pingshi, know the Buddha’s “decree,” that this was “arranged by the Buddha”? All such groundless and arbitrary nonsense reveals the loss of reason after mental control, producing laughable and foolish talk.

Especially under the confusion of the “First Cause” wrong view, his followers basically criticize and even recklessly slander ancient and modern masters and the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles, each taking themselves to be world-saving sages while appearing innocent and deeply emotional. They hope that all Buddhist Dharma-propagation institutions throughout the world will stop, shut down, or all convert to Xiao Pingshi’s “non-Buddhist wrong views,” only then feeling that their “Dharma-protection” work has achieved something. This is simply the foolish talk of people dreaming with open eyes.

Generally, three kinds of people come under Xiao Pingshi’s mental control: first, people eager for awakening; second, self-centered people; third, kind-hearted and easily deceived people. For the first kind, Xiao Pingshi uses the non-Buddhist view of the “First Cause” to envelop them. Thus those certified by him as having “awakened the mind” or “seen the nature” all share one common feeling: they have finally found the root source of the universe and all dharmas, and all dharmas are produced from this root source, the First Cause. They then take the Buddhist terms and doctrines they have misunderstood, such as ālayavijñāna and tathāgatagarbha, as the standard of certification, feel self-satisfied, and each claims to have awakened to the bodhi path, “regarding themselves as sages, which becomes the karma of great false speech, a hell offense, and a very serious problem.” This is all because they do not understand the relationship of essence, characteristics, and function in Buddhadharma, and do not understand the true reality of the Perfect Teaching or the Avataṃsaka realm. Therefore they depart from Consciousness-Only Buddhadharma, fall into the non-Buddhist wrong view of the First Cause, and come under mental control, unable to extricate themselves.

For the second kind, these are people congenial to Xiao Pingshi. Rather than saying they are mentally controlled, it is more like they are colluding together, each taking what they need, praising and exploiting each other. By slandering and destroying others’ Buddhist Dharma-propagation work, they gain a sense of accomplishment; the desire of self-inflation is temporarily satisfied, and they work tirelessly for this. This is apparent in books such as Crazy Tantra and True Tantra, Collection on Protecting the Dharma, and The Crisis of Buddhism. This is also the inner logic and driving force of Xiao Pingshi’s “god-making” movement, using “arranged by the Buddha” as a pretext to control this group. For the third kind, Xiao Pingshi needs relatively pure Buddhist terminology and doctrine as cover, embellished with some self-deifying stories, and applies pressure with claims such as “there is no True Dharma elsewhere,” “I am the true kalyāṇamitra,” “one must not slander a Mahāyāna noble Sangha member,” and “if one slanders, one falls into Avīci hell.” This is the work done in books such as Wuxiang Nianfo (Buddha-Recollection Without Marks), The Perfect Fusion of Chan and Pure Land, The Mahāyāna View of Non-Self, and Detailed Explanation of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Their language is almost indistinguishable from the genuine, but the so-called ultimate definitive meaning is the non-Buddhist wrong view of a First Cause.

Thus the three kinds of people who can help him complete his “god-making” movement are all suitably arranged, and their minds naturally come under his control. It should be said that this is “arranged by Xiao Pingshi,” not “arranged by the Buddha.” Because the non-Buddhist wrong view of a “First Cause” is not the Buddha’s True Dharma; because Xiao Pingshi’s writings all take the “First Cause” non-Buddhist view as their argumentative root; because the certification of disciples’ seeing the path is based on verifying the First Cause, the source of the universe and all dharmas; because he steals Buddhist terminology and doctrine but not the substance of Buddhadharma; because he wantonly destroys the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles without understanding the true reality of the Perfect Teaching; and because he merely packages himself with the appearance of Buddhism, Buddhist terminology, and terms for fruition levels.

Thus Xiao Pingshi’s “god-making” movement possesses all five characteristics. First it deifies the self, centers on the self, outwardly follows Buddhadharma while covertly rejecting Buddhism, then entices, bewitches, and mentally controls. Therefore it should rightly be judged a genuine “god-making movement.” However, he says, “As for Pingshi, he neither accepts monetary offerings, nor offerings of companions of the opposite sex from sentient beings, nor seeks fame, nor has ever hoped for anything from sentient beings — never has a single thought of obtaining any worldly benefit from sentient beings.” Why, then, does he work so hard to carry out this “god-making” movement? This has its causes in Taiwan’s Buddhist situation and social environment, together with factors such as ego-consciousness, social sentiment, and the decline of the human heart. We discuss this through the following three causes.

2. The three causes of Xiao Pingshi’s “god-making” movement

First, self-inflation. The masterminds of all “god-making” movements are ordinary beings whose self-grasping and self-view have not been broken, and who pay especially strong attention to their self-grasping and self-view. Therefore such movements are extreme manifestations of self-inflation, the primary cause of “god-making” movements. If self-inflation had not become intolerably severe, one could seek fame and glory through other relatively legitimate worldly channels, and there would be no need for a self-deifying “god-making movement.” Therefore all “god-making” movements are rooted in extreme self-inflation and are manifestations of an extremely strong urge for self-display.

In Xiao Pingshi’s “god-making” movement, his self-inflated consciousness and behavior are also very obvious. For example, the back cover of The Perfect Fusion of Chan and Pure Land says, “Speaking what the Pure Land patriarchs never spoke, revealing what the patriarchs of various schools never revealed… a superior view with no predecessor.” The back cover of The Mani Jewel Collection of the Chan School says, “Compassion and wisdom in union, rich in Chan flavor, a monumental Chan work rarely seen in centuries.” Chan — Before and After Awakening says, “This book enables people to understand their own true mind and see their own original nature. The slow will leave the three realms after seven round trips through heaven and human realms; the fast will accomplish it in one lifetime. Practitioners seeking awakening must read it.” The True Tathāgatagarbha says, “This book is a magnum opus that all philosophers, religious figures, Buddhists, and those wishing to elevate their minds must read.” These advertising slogans display a self-conscious attitude of surpassing Buddhas and patriarchs, “with no predecessor.”

In prefaces such as that to Mastery of the Essential Doctrine and Mastery of Exposition, he calls himself the “lone child of Mahāyāna in the Dharma-ending age,” and emphasizes, “For awakening the mind, how can one believe without doubt? There is only one way: try to practice according to the methods and views taught in these books of mine.” He also says that the Dharma in his books “is something you have never seen on the market; you could travel the whole globe and still not find books like these,” and that “the substance of Mahāyāna Buddhadharma exists nowhere in the world; only the True Enlightenment Practitioners Association has it.” Aside from these statements of incomparable self-inflation, even more obvious are the harsh words in his writings that destroy the Dharma and slander the Sangha: grasping at shadows, stirring up right and wrong, arbitrarily distorting, and trampling on the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles and ancient and modern masters. Such cases are too numerous to record. On the basis of the First-Cause wrong view and in the fact of the “god-making” movement, these are clearly true portraits of self-inflation.

Second, profit to be gained. A “god-making” movement is in fact a deceptive act that fools the populace. On the basis of self-inflation, another cause of every “god-making” movement is that there is profit to be gained. Although the understanding and pursuit of this “profit” vary, they are certainly not as Xiao Pingshi says: “neither accepting monetary offerings, nor seeking fame, nor ever hoping for anything from sentient beings — never having a single thought of obtaining any worldly benefit from sentient beings.” On the contrary, it is precisely in order to obtain some kind of worldly benefit that they dare to carry out a “god-making” movement so audaciously. Let us first examine Xiao Pingshi’s so-called “refuting heterodoxy and revealing orthodoxy,” his self-branding as “true kalyāṇamitra,” “True Dharma of the Three Vehicles,” and “Mahāyāna noble Sangha member,” and ask what his focus is in using these as cover for his “god-making movement.”

First, he was inspired by certain phenomena. He says, “Those non-Buddhists openly and ostentatiously contend for Buddhist orthodoxy, saying that they alone have the realization of Buddhadharma, implying that all Buddhist practice centers and all Dharma masters and laypeople in Taiwan are not truly Buddhist.” Therefore he imitated them even more boldly, openly saying, “The substance of Mahāyāna Buddhadharma exists nowhere in the world; currently only Taiwan has it. And in all of Taiwan, only the True Enlightenment Practitioners Association has it.” In this way, he “openly confuses right and wrong and makes the Taiwan Buddhist community foul and chaotic.” The consistency in the manner of speaking in these two passages shows his deep worldly shrewdness. Apart from “contending for Buddhist orthodoxy” and “making the Buddhist community chaotic,” what is the more fundamental aim?

Second, he noticed the resources of Taiwanese Buddhism. He says that Dharma Drum Mountain, founded by Master Sheng Yen in the name of the Dharma Drum Mountain Cultural and Educational Foundation, raised NT$12 billion, and that another humanities and education foundation sought to absorb NT$5 billion, becoming a huge “money-absorbing machine.” He also says that Fo Guang Shan, Dharma Drum Mountain, Chung Tai Chan Monastery, and Tzu Chi gather more than ninety percent of Taiwan’s Buddhist resources like four super-large “money-absorbing machines,” creating a serious crowding-out effect. Having seen these Buddhist resources clearly, he appeals to Buddhist followers not to make offerings to such institutions and centers, because giving money to them is equivalent to helping destroy the True Dharma, with consequences leading to hell. Offerings, he says, should be made to genuine practice centers to gain immeasurable merit and benefit and to support Buddhadharma. Yet “the substance of Mahāyāna Buddhadharma exists nowhere in the world; currently only Taiwan has it. And in all of Taiwan, only the True Enlightenment Practitioners Association has it.” Therefore the unstated conclusion naturally follows: one can only donate money to the Buddhist True Enlightenment Practitioners Association. Otherwise, one will inevitably “accomplish the great evil karma of slandering the Dharma and slandering the bodhisattva Sangha.”

Thus he first saw the importance of orthodox Buddhist status, and then he saw the richness of Taiwan’s Buddhist resources. That is why he appeared wearing the mask of “true kalyāṇamitra” and “True Dharma of the Three Vehicles,” first “contending for orthodoxy,” then “exhorting offerings.” His cover tactics are merely more concealed and practiced, even to the point that his disciples help him say that he acts “entirely without selfish motives or personal benefit; everything he does is for sentient beings and practitioners.” If Xiao Pingshi truly feels in his heart that he “neither accepts monetary offerings, nor seeks fame, nor has ever hoped for anything from sentient beings,” then he is completely trapped in the non-Buddhist wrong view of the “First Cause,” and that is why he ruthlessly destroys the Tripiṭaka and the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles, using the rich terminology and doctrine of Buddhist stages of practice and realization to package his own non-Buddhist theory that a First Cause gives rise to all things. Yet from the fact that he works so hard to carry out a “god-making” movement, no matter how one puts it, “profit to be gained” is the original driving force of this movement and is ironclad evidence that cannot be denied. As for whether the actual content of this “profit” is money, fame, or something else, he says, “The purpose is merely to faithfully present the situation and content of that time, serving as evidence for future Buddhist history.” His followers also say that the Dharma masters he criticizes are mostly famous and influential monastic great Dharma masters, not less famous teachers, because smaller practice centers and lay communities have few followers and little influence. Is it for “leaving a name for posterity”? Time can reveal the conclusion.

Third, the decline of the human heart. This is the social environment for all “god-making” movements. Modern society has a very serious condition of self-consciousness and self-centeredness. Heavy pressures from life and work make modern people mentally tense. At the same time, after economic development and relative material abundance, modern people also experience spiritual emptiness. Therefore spiritual guidance, psychology, and religious outreach become especially important. When people feel that ancient religions are no longer novel or stimulating, the appearance of new religious movements becomes natural. Human beings are the crown of creation, yet also the most fragile beings. Because human emotions and spirituality are so rich, it is easy to fall into self-aggrandizing display or self-indulgent decline. In precisely this zone of decline — self-aggrandizement and self-indulgence — those who make gods seize the opportunity to enter. Therefore the decline of the human heart in society is a necessary environment for “god-making” movements. Xiao Pingshi’s “god-making” movement also possesses such a social environment.

He first saw the social reality of people “using non-Buddhist dharma to widely poison Taiwan’s kind-hearted and easily deceived Buddhist disciples” and collecting tens of millions in large offerings from them. This social reality was the precondition and motivation for beginning his “god-making” movement. Second, amid rampant non-Buddhist teachings and numerous new religious movements, the Dharma masters of the major centers were busy with their own Dharma-propagation work and did not carry out necessary and in-depth refutation. He found what he regarded as a “weakness” within Buddhism itself, and thus established the Buddhist True Enlightenment Practitioners Association, carrying out a “god-making” movement from beginning to end, from inside to outside, seizing the opportunity. Taiwan’s abundant Buddhist resources, Buddhist disciples who were “kind-hearted and easily deceived,” and great Buddhist Dharma masters who were “silent” provided soil for his ambition to “comprehensively replace Buddhism with First-Cause non-Buddhist doctrine.”

The Buddhist sūtras say that two thousand years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, Buddhism enters the “Dharma-ending age.” The shadow of this Dharma-ending age often hangs over the minds of many Buddhist disciples. Modern people who are eager for quick results and have strong desires for self-expression especially welcome the appearance of fast-food culture. Advertising hype and commercial operations can turn an unknown person into a celebrity or saint overnight. Xiao Pingshi uses authoritative, extremely enticing, baseless, and delusional slogans such as “globally unique” and “arranged by the Buddha” to lure and bewitch the kind-hearted, easily deceived, or success-hungry public. The utilitarianism born of the decline of the human heart, eager for quick achievement, precisely needs such an “arrangement by the Buddha” to fill the inner emptiness. Thus the two click instantly, and people are fundamentally unwilling to examine themselves seriously and objectively. Once they confirm that Xiao Pingshi’s thought is fundamentally the non-Buddhist wrong view of a First Cause and not true Buddhadharma, it means that they themselves have not truly awakened, and they would have to withdraw from the self-deluding joy of “awakening,” with body and mind falling into another unknown state of confusion and decline. Therefore this kind of “god-making” movement is illusory and shameful; its consequences must be lamentable and tragic.

The decline of the human heart in the social environment also needs guidance and exposition based on Buddhadharma. The social function of Buddhadharma in the real world is to enable afflicted and suffering beings to leave suffering and attain happiness. However, Buddhist exposition and guidance lead sentient beings solidly and practically onto the bright path of awakening. They absolutely never use low and despicable means such as “god-making movements” to deceive the populace. They absolutely do not tell lies such as “this was arranged by the Buddha” to fool Buddhist disciples; they absolutely do not make wildly arrogant and inverted claims such as “you could travel the world and not find this” to imply that their writings surpass all Buddhist scriptures, the Dharma Jewel; and they absolutely do not use bewitching language such as “only here in the whole world is there Buddhadharma.” If Xiao Pingshi and his followers still insist again and again that “our Dharma is entirely based on the Tripiṭaka,” that is truly shameless nonsense. In which sūtra did the Buddha say that Xiao Pingshi’s manifestation in lay form was arranged by the Buddha? Where did the Buddha say that Xiao Pingshi’s books cannot be found by traveling the whole world? When did the Buddha say that Xiao Pingshi is the globally unique great kalyāṇamitra? In what place did the Buddha say that ālayavijñāna is the First Cause? Where did the Buddha say that the First Cause can produce the myriad things of dependent origination?

Looking over Xiao Pingshi’s many statements, from root to surface they are all born from the interaction and mutual reinforcement of the “First-Cause non-Buddhist doctrine” and the “god-making movement.” He wants to plagiarize Buddhist terminology and doctrine to destroy the worldly Three Jewels; he wants to replace Buddhist Dharma-propagation institutions in order to contend for Buddhist resources; he wants to challenge ancient and modern Buddhist masters in order to establish a name for posterity; he wants to confuse the vast Buddhist faithful and create bewilderment and panic. Through the above rational analysis of the five characteristics and three causes of Xiao Pingshi’s “god-making” movement, one can roughly understand how Xiao Pingshi, after plagiarizing Buddhist terminology and doctrine, vigorously promotes the non-Buddhist view of a “First Cause” as the basis for a covert yet reckless “god-making” movement. Or one could say that, in order to carry out his “god-making” movement, Xiao Pingshi uses the non-Buddhist view of a First Cause, rich and complete Buddhist terminology and doctrine, and self-deifying delusional boasts as cover. In short, as quoted in his The Crisis of Buddhism, “The Dharma transmitted by the True Enlightenment Practitioners Association is evil Dharma; it is non-Buddhist Dharma.” We can affirm that the “Dharma” he has transmitted thus far is indeed poisonous, as shown above. If we are still unwilling to formally step forward now to refute the errors in Pingshi’s Dharma and save Pingshi from the future-life consequences of his “erroneous Dharma propagation,” then we are truly lacking compassion.

As the Śūraṅgama Sūtra says: “At that time, the celestial māra, awaiting his opportunity, sends his essence to attach to a person, who then speaks sūtra-Dharma from his mouth. The person is utterly unaware of the demonic attachment and also claims to have attained supreme nirvāṇa. Coming to the place of that good man seeking knowledge, he sets up a seat and preaches the Dharma. Wearing white robes, he receives bows from bhikṣus. He slanders Chan and Vinaya, curses the disciples, exposes personal matters, and avoids neither ridicule nor suspicion. His mouth constantly speaks of spiritual powers and freedom. Each claims to have achieved the unsurpassed path.”

The real cause of “god-making” movements, in fact, is that inner impurity attracts the invasion of external māras. Filled with demonic boldness, they act recklessly, betray teachers and ancestors, and destroy the Three Jewels. In fact, besides the facts already described — the First-Cause non-Buddhist doctrine and the “god-making” movement — Xiao Pingshi’s writings and teachings can envelop those kind-hearted and easily deceived Buddhist disciples because he has the brazen and unscrupulous face of “ingratitude” and the extraordinary ability to “manipulate words.” Therefore the disciples incited by him naturally learn ingratitude and arrogance. Here we further reveal and analyze this.

III. The “Ingratitude” of Betraying Teachers and Ancestors

Confucianism has the excellent tradition, “One day as teacher, a lifetime as father.” Buddhism has the thought of repaying kindness: “Parents of the Dharma-body, kindness heavier than mountains.” In this Dharma-ending age, the ways of the world and the human heart decline day by day. Ingratitude, even repaying kindness with malice, is common. While Xiao Pingshi frantically ridicules and slanders ancient and modern Buddhist masters, he also uses specious word games to arbitrarily trample on the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles, ruthlessly disrupting and destroying the propagation of Buddhadharma in the world. What is especially despicable is that, driven by the ambition of his “god-making” movement and the wrong view of his First-Cause non-Buddhist doctrine, he gradually walked into the dangerous territory of betraying teachers and ancestors and showing ingratitude. This is deeply regrettable and pitiable.

Perhaps this too is a component of the “god-making” movement, because not only does he himself display ingratitude, but his followers also fall into the deep pit of ingratitude. Is this not tragic? Some among them are completely unaware of it, truly among those the Tathāgata called pitiable. Here we simply provide examples from Xiao Pingshi’s writings to expose the facts of his own ingratitude, his teaching of others to be ungrateful, and even his betrayal of teachers and ancestors and destruction of the Three Jewels, in order to set the record straight.

1. His own “ingratitude” in betraying teachers and ancestors

First, let us look at Xiao Pingshi’s own “ingratitude” in betraying teachers and ancestors. He says, “Although I broke through while sitting in meditation, I realized that using the method of seated meditation to investigate Chan and seek awakening is a wrong concept; because the concepts and views taught to me by my teacher in this life were all wrong, that is why I investigated Chan and sought awakening while sitting in meditation. Therefore, after realizing awakening, I instead advise everyone not to investigate Chan while sitting in meditation.” Here he presents three points: first, “I broke through while sitting in meditation”; second, “the concepts taught to me by my teacher” — meaning investigating Chan and seeking awakening while sitting — “were all wrong”; third, “I instead advise everyone not to investigate Chan while sitting in meditation.” These three sentences have a background: he broke through and awakened when his teacher was teaching him seated meditation, precisely while sitting in meditation.

So, is “seeking awakening while sitting in meditation” feasible? We know that investigating Chan in Chinese Chan halls is also called “seated Chan.” Although at times, due to individual conditions, patriarchs have pointed out that “Chan is not produced by sitting,” the Buddhist scriptures everywhere speak of the practice of “sitting upright and contemplating true reality.” Chan also has the verse, “Walking is Chan, sitting is Chan.” While Buddhist history certainly contains examples of seeing the nature and awakening in the four postures of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, there are also many more Chan practitioners who broke through the black lacquer bucket on the meditation cushion. To fail to seek the root at the entry point of the method and instead make an issue of the external deportment is an unheard-of “concept and view.” Moreover, Śākyamuni Buddha himself attained awakening while sitting upright under the bodhi tree and seeing the morning star. Let us set aside the facts of Buddhist history and analyze only Xiao Pingshi’s passage above. What exactly is he trying to explain? Can one “seek awakening while sitting in meditation” or not?

If, according to him, “the concepts taught to me by my teacher” — seeking awakening while sitting — “were all wrong,” then one cannot awaken while sitting. Yet he also says, “I broke through while sitting in meditation.” This proves that his teacher’s instruction to seek awakening through sitting was feasible, with factual evidence embodied in himself. How then can he reject the concept and view that “one can seek awakening while sitting”? He should instead say that he “fundamentally did not awaken” or that he “fundamentally did not awaken while sitting.” Yet he insists that he “broke through while sitting.” This fact and theory are obviously self-contradictory. If his statement “I broke through while sitting in meditation” is true — at least Xiao Pingshi himself admits that it was a true breakthrough awakening — then the fact already proves that one can awaken while sitting. Since it has already been factually proven that one can awaken while sitting, why say that “the concepts taught to me by my teacher were all wrong”? This is truly baffling. How can his contradictory words be explained?

Furthermore, logical inference from this statement leads to two conclusions: first, Xiao Pingshi did not awaken, or mistakenly believed he had awakened, because the very teaching of seeking awakening while sitting was wrong; second, he deliberately opposes his teacher, receiving benefit from him and then repaying kindness with malice, like Zhu Bajie striking back at his own master. Xiao Pingshi, however, would not dare directly admit either conclusion. But his words are printed here in black and white; how can he deny them? On the one hand, he promotes himself as a “truly awakened person,” “true kalyāṇamitra,” and “Mahāyāna noble Sangha member,” everywhere flaunting his “breakthrough and emergence to propagate the Dharma.” Therefore he will certainly not reveal his own bottom line: the non-Buddhist wrong view of a First Cause, the fact that he has not awakened, and the absence of the correct view of Buddhadharma. On the other hand, he deifies himself as a “sage” who “can know countless past and future lives,” wanting to replace the Buddhist Three Jewels with his own body and words. Thus he acts arbitrarily and recklessly, slandering and framing his own teacher and even all the great contemporary Buddhist masters.

From the passage above, we can imagine the situation: a person unskilled in practice comes before a teacher. The teacher certifies his refuge in the Three Jewels — Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha — explains Buddhadharma to him, answers various questions, and, in the practical aspect of Buddhadharma, teaches him methods of seated meditation and Chan investigation. We know that his teacher was Master Sheng Yen, who compassionately guided students in Chan practice and taught various methods. Xiao Pingshi practiced seated Chan meditation under his teacher’s guidance and listened to his compassionate teachings. One day, struck by a sudden fancy, he felt he had awakened. He then left his teacher’s guidance, established his own faction, and claimed territory. From then on, he measured his teacher by his own non-Buddhist wrong views, launching fierce and vicious attacks and blasphemies against him and framing him as “supporting licentious non-Buddhists.”

From the worldly point of view, this is like the son of kind poor parents who later meets a wealthy scoundrel, sides with the wealthy person, and repeatedly curses his own biological parents, recognizing a thief as his father and losing all conscience. It is also like someone who, after entering university, harshly mocks or even groundlessly insults his former primary-school or kindergarten teachers. Such vile conduct is the behavior of ingratitude. How much more so when his teacher is a great master who propagated Chan practice and realization? In the past, Śākyamuni gave his whole body for half a verse. Confucianism says that hearing a single word that benefits one for a lifetime should be repaid. Worldly ethics says, “For the kindness of a single drop of water, repay with a gushing spring.” Under the confusion of the First-Cause non-Buddhist view, Xiao Pingshi publicly names and slanders his own refuge teacher. His ingratitude in betraying his teacher and ancestors is also ironclad evidence. Consequently, his followers have also been infected with this malignant disease.

2. Teaching others “ingratitude” and destroying the Three Jewels

Because Xiao Pingshi himself is thus “ungrateful,” those taught by him, under the cover of the First-Cause non-Buddhist view, have almost all been infected to some degree with this malignant disease of ingratitude. This is deeply worrying. They still think they are giving “the voice of compassion,” while their words sometimes reveal dissatisfaction with and contempt for their former teachers, even claiming that they are “not afraid of violating” fundamental bodhisattva precepts.

For example: “Why is this student not afraid of violating the root bodhisattva precepts? — referring to the precepts against speaking of four kinds of faults, praising oneself and disparaging others, and slandering the Three Jewels. It is simply because this student has directly observed that the five aggregates and eighteen realms are indeed impermanent, suffering, non-self, and not mine. There must be this unborn and undying mind that penetrates the three times — the ‘tathāgatagarbha, True Self’ — in order to accomplish all dharmas and for cause and effect to be established. Moreover, in direct perception, the eighth consciousness, ‘Tathāgata,’ can indeed be personally realized. Therefore I am not afraid of violating root precepts and dare to take up the pen to comment.” (The Voice of Compassion, p. 38)

He has fundamentally failed to understand the true meaning of tathāgatagarbha and the eighth consciousness, and instead compares them to the “First Cause, source of the universe.” In a specious way he believes he is “no longer confused, no longer hesitant,” yet he is terminally ill without knowing it. He even has reasons for destroying the Three Jewels. How lamentable.

Another example: one of his followers says, “Listening to layman Li Zuyuan speak on the Middle Way true reality, he made the Middle Way sound extremely abstruse. At that time, many people, like me, could not understand, and always felt that he was very learned.” After being taught by Xiao Pingshi, he says, “Layman Li fundamentally does not talk about the tathāgatagarbha. He only tells us that the Middle Way means the knowing mind should not fall into the two extremes, meaning that everything is not existent, not non-existent, not permanent, not impermanent. Then he churns around in the words, making people find it more and more mysterious as they listen.” The view that one cannot speak of the Middle Way true reality without mentioning the term tathāgatagarbha has never even dreamed of the wondrous principle of the “Ten Suchnesses” of the true reality of all dharmas in the Lotus Sūtra. When one does not understand Buddhadharma and listens to someone teach it, only later to turn around and say that the teacher who once instructed him was “churning around” words — to put it plainly, this is truly lacking conscience.

The implication is that even when he read Buddhist scriptures himself, he did not understand them, and only after reading Xiao Pingshi’s The True Tathāgatagarbha did he know what the Middle Way true reality was. This amounts to casually regarding Buddhist scriptures and teachers as inferior to Xiao Pingshi and his writings.

A gentleman seeks harmony without demanding sameness; a petty person demands sameness without harmony. Under Xiao Pingshi’s instigation, those followers who believe themselves to have awakened the mind and seen the nature almost universally turn around and bite the teachers who formerly guided them. Based on the actual non-Buddhist wrong view of a First Cause, each speaks boastfully and calls a deer a horse. The Five Vehicles of Buddhadharma have countless ways to guide sentient beings. As it is said, skillful means have many gates, but returning to the source is one path. Each of the Ten Suchnesses can be an entry into the true reality of all dharmas. Patriarchs, great masters, and contemporary Dharma masters all point from different angles according to conditions, loosening attachments and removing bonds. If it were truly as Xiao Pingshi and his followers criticize and slander — that there is no Mahāyāna True Dharma in the whole world, only their True Enlightenment Practitioners Association has it, and Xiao Pingshi’s books are not found anywhere in the world and are more splendid than even Buddhist scriptures, the Dharma Jewel — then worldly Dharma propagation could not be done and transmundane Dharma propagation could not be done either. These various Buddhist Dharma-propagation institutions should already have been eliminated. What then would Xiao Pingshi and his followers use to brand themselves as “completely conforming to the True Dharma of the Three Vehicles”? What would they use as the shield for their First-Cause non-Buddhist view? If everything followed their present wishes, would Buddhism not have been completely extinguished long before their True Enlightenment Practitioners Association appeared? Is not the face of a petty person who succeeds and then kicks away the bridge after crossing it a full portrait of ingratitude? Is it not the malicious intent of betraying teachers and ancestors?

For every person practicing Buddhadharma, even hearing from a teacher half a verse such as “All conditioned things are impermanent; this is the law of arising and ceasing” should inspire endless gratitude. How much more should one be grateful to one’s own refuge teacher and Dharma teachers? Yet they groundlessly name and slander them. These ungrateful people are destroying the worldly Three Jewels. Even if a few individuals do not directly slander their teachers, they doubt ancient and modern masters and join Xiao Pingshi in creating the extremely evil heavy karma of ingratitude and “betraying teachers and ancestors.” The frightening future retribution makes one’s heart pound with fear.

IV. “Manipulating Words” to Slander the Dharma and Divide the Sangha

Although the ancients said, “The Way of Heaven does not contend, yet is good at winning; it does not strive, yet naturally arrives,” it often happens that “a lie repeated a thousand times becomes ‘truth.’” Xiao Pingshi can confuse so many people and write so many books not only because of his intelligence, ability, diligent study, quick thinking, and painstaking writing, but more fundamentally because he has a superhuman ability to manipulate words. He does not understand the relationship between essence, characteristics, and function in Mahāyāna Buddhadharma. Nor does he understand the relationship between ālayavijñāna, seeds, and manifest activity. Still less does he understand the true reality of the Perfect Teaching or the Avataṃsaka realm in Mahāyāna Buddhadharma. That is why he treats ālayavijñāna as the First Cause that can produce all dependently arisen dharmas, and treats the whole universe, body, mind, and world as derivatives of self-nature, falling into non-Buddhist wrong views.

However, his exposition is truly beautiful, and his methods of manipulating words are extremely skillful. Thus he can plagiarize the terminology and doctrine of Consciousness-Only Buddhadharma as cover material for propagating his First-Cause non-Buddhist view, and more boldly engage in “destroying the Dharma and slandering the Sangha.” Here we give just a few examples.

He says: “If the original deluded mind, consciousness, were gone — if there were no knowing mind capable of cognizing objects and discriminating — then only the true mind that is ‘constant yet non-examining’ should remain. Since the true mind is ‘constant yet non-examining,’ may I ask: after the Buddha awakened, did he become an idiot? Did he become a mind that does not examine any object, just like a moron? Then the problem becomes very serious.” (The Mahāyāna View of Non-Self, p. 14)

He also says: “To investigate Chan in this way and realize the tathāgatagarbha that is ‘constant yet non-examining’ is called awakening the mind; only this can withstand the scrutiny of Hīnayāna, Middle Vehicle, and Mahāyāna Buddhadharma.” (The Mahāyāna View of Non-Self, p. 15)

The same explanation of “constant yet non-examining”: when others speak of the true mind as “constant yet non-examining,” it becomes idiocy; when he speaks of his own so-called true mind as “constant yet non-examining,” it is called awakening the mind. This arbitrary distortion and groundless slander is only a trick of stirring up words; there is no real internal distinction. Fundamentally, he has no realization whatsoever of mind-nature. What he has is merely a speculated “First Cause of the universe,” with Buddhist terms such as tathāgatagarbha used as synonyms.

When others speak of the Buddha-nature’s wondrous functions as countless as the sands of the Ganges, unborn and undying, he insists that “Buddha-nature must be seen with the physical eyes born of one’s parents.” When it is said that the physical eyes born of one’s parents have characteristics and that all that has characteristics is illusory, he adds “the wisdom that corresponds in one thought” after “physical eyes born of one’s parents,” or notes that “the other five faculties are also like this.” When others speak from the perspective of function or directly point to self-nature, he attacks from the perspective of essence. When others speak of the essence of self-nature from the perspective of essence, he attacks from the perspective of function. In reality, however, he himself has not truly understood the essence-function relationship of the true reality of dharmas. This tactic of flaunting verbal skill is used repeatedly. Therefore everything he does falls into non-Buddhist wrong views, and he frantically destroys the Three Jewels.

Another example: in the various volumes of Crazy Tantra and True Tantra, he repeatedly mislabels Tibetan tantric union practices as “desire-realm dharma.” Desire-realm dharma is worldly dharma, and thus non-Buddhist dharma. Using this as a pretext, he completely negates all tantric teachings. This is the “handle” of Tantra that he thinks he has most firmly grasped, leaving no room for maneuver, intending to deal a fatal blow to Tibetan Buddhism and even to the Chinese Esoteric scriptures. Yet he himself says, “Bodhisattvas thus realize bodhi without having severed the afflictions of greed and hatred in the three realms; this is not known by ordinary fools, and so it is called inconceivable.” Here “greed in the three realms” already points to “desire-realm greed.” In his mouth, desire-realm dharma and dharma of desire suddenly become “inconceivable.” But regarding Tibetan tantric union practices, which are also not known by ordinary fools and are inconceivable dharmas, he one-sidedly treats them as conceivable dharma and slanders them as licentious dharma. This word game truly turns clouds into rain with a flip of the hand. If one wants to condemn someone, one can always find a pretext.

Even more laughable is the word game he intentionally or unintentionally reveals, which makes one marvel at his skill, boldness, thick skin, black heart, and sharp tongue. He says, “We have explained this principle a great deal in the Pingshi Letters. When you go back, do not be polite; take one copy of each kind of book. Do not feel embarrassed about taking two or three copies. No! We printed them to give to everyone. Since we have formed this Dharma connection today, take them back properly. The Dharma spoken in those books is something you have never seen on the market; you could travel the whole globe and still not find books like these.” This passage truly brings his skill in manipulating words to its extreme.

Let us first look at the sentence: “The Dharma spoken in those books is something you have never seen on the market; you could travel the whole globe and still not find books like these.” On the surface, the wording has no problem at all and conforms perfectly to linguistic logic. Taken literally, “you could travel the whole globe and still not find books like these” is absolutely true, because the books he wrote are available only here and nowhere else in the world. This would be true not only of books discussing Buddhist doctrine and terminology; even if they were obscene books written by Xiao Pingshi, they would certainly be “unavailable anywhere in the world.” Thus there is no problem at the level of words. But is that the real meaning of his sentence? No. His real meaning is that the content discussed in those books cannot be found anywhere else in the world, meaning that they surpass any other book in the world and that only the books he wrote are the best. All listeners present at the time would certainly follow his words and naturally understand them to mean that, apart from these books, there are no comparable books anywhere in the world. Naturally, any Buddhist scriptures, the Dharma Jewel, circulating on the market are inferior to the books he wrote.

In this way, Xiao Pingshi achieves the purpose of his statement. This is a method of linguistic misdirection. He does not directly say, “Those books are better than all Buddhist scriptures and Dharma Jewels in the world,” but he wants people to understand him that way. Those followers intoxicated by his bewitching potion will then more deliriously enter the trap he has set, unable to extricate themselves. His real purpose is to thoroughly destroy the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and ultimately replace them entirely with the non-Buddhist wrong view of a First Cause. In fact, he has already begun the evil act of “replacing the Three Jewels.” He uses his own books and non-Buddhist wrong views to replace all Buddhist scriptures, while he and his followers repeatedly claim, “The Dharma spoken by Teacher Xiao completely conforms to the Three-Vehicle Buddhadharma.” This is merely a beautiful smokescreen, already demonstrated above. Here we briefly expose his word games, his conspiracy to confuse and destroy the worldly Three Jewels of Buddhadharma, and his tactic of “comprehensively replacing the Sangha Jewel.”

His attempt to “act as the Sangha Jewel while in the body of a layperson in white robes” is truly blatant and foolish.

First, he uses two approaches to conceal his white-robed lay status, thereby highlighting his “qualification” to be the Sangha Jewel. The first is that he especially emphasizes the explanation of “noble Sangha,” theoretically asserting that he himself is a “Mahāyāna noble Sangha member.” He says, “Bodhisattva Sangha members who have mastered both the essential doctrine and exposition exist only in Mahāyāna and not in the Two Vehicles; the mastery of essential doctrine and exposition discussed in this book is also based on the standard of Mahāyāna mastery of essential doctrine and exposition, so the mastery of essential doctrine and exposition of the Two Vehicles will not be discussed below.” He directly boasts, “In the human world, noble bodhisattva Sangha members are extremely rare, especially bodhisattvas who have realized the wisdom of path-aspects through mastery of both essential doctrine and exposition.” This misleads confused followers into thinking that he is the supreme “Sangha Jewel,” thereby completely losing reverence and refuge toward the worldly Sangha Jewel of the Three Jewels.

The Mahāmahāsamnipāta Kṣitigarbha Daśacakra Sūtra, fascicle 5, says: “Who are called the noble Sangha? They are the Buddha, the World-Honored One; or the assembly of bodhisattva-mahāsattvas whose virtue is venerable and who are supreme and sovereign over all dharmas; or pratyekabuddhas; or arhats; or non-returners; or once-returners; or stream-enterers. These seven kinds of persons are included in the noble Sangha.” (T13, 749c)

In reality, Xiao Pingshi is not even the seventh kind, a stream-enterer, because his entire thought and theory take the wrong view of a “First Cause” as their root, belonging purely to eternalistic non-Buddhist doctrine. His view-delusion has not been broken, and his self-grasping and extreme views are very severe. How can he call himself a noble Sangha member? Clearly, he wants to use the theory of “noble Sangha” to cover his lay white-robed identity, thereby achieving the aim of using a lay body living amid the five desires to replace the pure monastic Sangha Jewel.

The second approach is that he boasts that for two thousand years he was an awakened eminent monk in monastic form, and that only in the most recent two lives was he “arranged by the Buddha” to uphold Buddhadharma in a lay white-robed body, while his actual substance is still that of an awakened eminent monk. As it is said, “We should have the wisdom to compare: the awakened monastic form of the past two thousand-plus years, and the awakened lay body manifested in these two current lives; if compared with others’ unawakened monastic forms of the past two thousand-plus years, who still remain unawakened monastics in this life, on comparison, whom should Buddhist disciples ultimately rely upon? This principle is actually easy to judge, but no one points it out, so everyone has overlooked it.” In this way, under a completely groundless premise, he presents himself as surpassing the present Sangha Jewel and tells people not to rely on other Sangha members. Thus only by relying on Xiao Pingshi can one count as a Buddhist disciple. This is his preliminary plan to replace the Buddhist Sangha Jewel with a lay white-robed body, and it has already gained the approval and superstitious belief of his followers.

Second, in forms of address he replaces the monastic Sangha Jewel by usurping the title “heshang.” Heshang comes from the Sanskrit upādhyāya, transcribed in Chinese as wubotuoye, youpotuohe, or yubodiye, and translated as personal teacher, close reciter, master on whom one relies for learning, or source of learning. It is one of the three masters of the ordination platform, the “personal teacher” in precept transmission, in addition to the instructing and procedural ācāryas. After transmission to China, it originally referred to monks of great virtue; later it was used by disciples as a respectful address for their teacher, and in social convention became a specific term for male monastics — the present Sangha Jewel that upholds the Three Jewels. In order to replace the Sangha Jewel that upholds the Three Jewels, Xiao Pingshi absurdly has himself called heshang. His followers address him as “Presiding Triple Heshang Teacher Xiao,” “I single-mindedly bow to the parents of my Dharma-body and wisdom-life, Venerable Heshang Pingshi,” and so on.

This act destroys the conventional truth of linguistic designation: calling a lay white-robed person a monastic heshang. To destroy conventional truth is to destroy ultimate truth; to destroy both conventional and ultimate truth is to destroy the entire sacred teaching of Buddhadharma. As the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, fascicle 4, says, “The Buddhas rely on two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings: first conventional truth, second ultimate truth. If a person cannot know how to distinguish the two truths, then with regard to the profound Buddhadharma, he does not know the true meaning.” (T30, 32c–33a) Connecting this with his above-mentioned First-Cause non-Buddhist wrong view and “god-making” movement, this tactic is clearly a despicable act of confusing the public and replacing the Sangha Jewel.

The Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra says: “First, under the Buddha tree, he powerfully subdued māras, attained the nectar of cessation, and realized the path of awakening. Already without mind, intention, reception, or action, he fully vanquished all non-Buddhists. Turning the Dharma wheel three times in the great chiliocosm, its wheel originally ever pure; gods and humans attained the path, and this served as proof; the Three Jewels thus appeared in the world.” (T14, 537c)

The sūtra explains that after the Buddha turned the Dharma wheel of the Four Noble Truths three times in Deer Park and ordained the five bhikṣus as the monastic Sangha Jewel, the Three Jewels appeared in the world. The worldly Three Jewels must be upheld by Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. If a lay white-robed First-Cause eternalistic non-Buddhist can be called heshang and Sangha Jewel, then Buddhadharma will perish. Observing Xiao Pingshi’s actions, he is comprehensively advancing in this direction.

Furthermore, we can see his immense ambition to “replace the Sangha Jewel” from another angle. On the cover that Xiao Pingshi designed for Mastery of the Essential Doctrine and Mastery of Exposition, the illustration depicts the place of teaching in the True Enlightenment lecture hall. On both sides of the lectern in front of the Buddha image are a wooden fish and a large chime bowl; the front of the lectern bears the two characters “True Enlightenment,” proving that this is the lectern of the True Enlightenment lecture hall. In the central teaching seat at the lectern sits imposingly a great Dharma master wearing a kāṣāya robe, with prayer beads around his neck, raising one finger, and with a shaved head — the image of a monk. Yet the main teacher of this lecture hall is he himself. It is evident that he not only boasts of being a noble bodhisattva Sangha member and lets his followers revere him as the Sangha Jewel, but also paints his own worldly white-robed lay form as the form of a monastic Sangha Jewel. To say it more clearly: he uses his lay body to replace the solemn Dharma image of the Sangha Jewel. Unable himself to abandon worldly life and the five desires, he draws a monastic image to symbolize himself, packaging himself as a Mahāyāna noble Sangha member, thereby achieving the purpose of his “god-making” movement: the comprehensive replacement of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha Jewels.

They also arrogantly slander the successive patriarchs and great masters in Buddhist history, blindly and groundlessly criticizing profound ideas such as “insentient beings have Buddha-nature.” He fundamentally does not understand the Avataṃsaka realm or the true reality of the Perfect Teaching, let alone the profound meaning of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra line: “Within a single mote of dust are Buddhas numerous as dust motes, each dwelling amid assemblies of bodhisattvas. So too with the dust motes of the inexhaustible Dharma realm; deeply believe that all are filled with Buddhas.” The word “dust” here does not mean “faculty” and does not mean “consciousness”; it means precisely “dust.” What capacity does he have to judge such profound Mahāyāna wondrous principles of the Avataṃsaka realm? Yet he still constantly boasts and praises himself, calling himself a “true kalyāṇamitra,” claiming to “completely conform to the True Dharma of the Three Vehicles,” asserting that his work is “not found anywhere in the world,” and declaring himself the “globally unique” “Mahāyāna noble Sangha member.” Like a frog in a well looking at the sky through a tube, he slanders sages and worthies, destroys the Three Jewels, creates karma for having his tongue pulled out, and yet feels self-satisfied. None surpasses him in thick skin and black heart. Truly: an ant trying to shake a great tree — laughably overestimating itself.

In summary, Xiao Pingshi’s writings clearly reveal the fundamental ideological stance of a “non-Buddhist false-cause doctrine.” Under the cover of his “god-making” movement, he plagiarizes the terminology and doctrines of Buddhadharma, yet turns around and seeks to comprehensively replace the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, destroy Buddhadharma, unsettle society, distort public perception, and deceive sentient beings. Whether it is the non-Buddhist wrong view, the “god-making” movement, ingratitude, or destroying the Dharma and slandering the Sangha, the evidence of wrongdoing is conclusive and the proof stands like iron mountains, leaving no room for denial.

Faced with these facts, I express two hopes. First, I hope that Xiao Pingshi and his followers will quickly emerge from the deep pit of non-Buddhist wrong views, stop all evil conduct of destroying the Dharma and slandering the Sangha, destroy all published books that destroy the Dharma and slander the Sangha, and sincerely repent before the Three Jewels of the ten directions. Second, I hope that Buddhist disciples, whether already believing or not, as well as the wider public, will not become tainted by the evil habits of destroying the Dharma and slandering the Sangha found in all of Xiao Pingshi’s writings; will guard against the traps of the First-Cause non-Buddhist wrong view and the “god-making” movement; will earnestly study and practice according to the True Dharma of the Five Vehicles based on the Buddhist scriptures and patriarchal traditions; will generate bodhicitta; and will attain the unsurpassed path. Amitābha.