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.
Synopsis
Venerable Da Zhao’s article is a severe critique of Xiao Pingshi and the Buddhist True Enlightenment Practitioners Association. Da Zhao argues that, beneath the surface use of Buddhist terminology and extensive writing, Xiao propagates a non-Buddhist false-cause doctrine centered on a First Cause, incompatible with Buddhist teachings on dependent origination and emptiness. In Da Zhao’s view, that doctrinal error drives a “god-making” movement centered on Xiao’s self-aggrandizement and the deception of followers.
Core doctrinal critique: the “First Cause” wrong view
Da Zhao contends that Xiao misconstrues foundational Buddhist ideas such as tathāgatagarbha, True Suchness, and ālayavijñāna, turning them into a single permanent generative source from which phenomena are derived. Da Zhao treats this as resembling non-Buddhist eternalistic doctrines, rather than orthodox Buddhist dependent origination.
The alleged “god-making” movement
- Self-deification: Xiao is portrayed as presenting himself as a uniquely awakened sage or high-level bodhisattva whose lay manifestation was “arranged by the Buddha,” and as someone who knows past and future lives.
- Self-centeredness: Da Zhao says Xiao insists that only his own teachings and methods lead to true awakening, thereby implying that his books surpass the Tripiṭaka and all other contemporary Buddhist teachers.
- Overt compliance and covert rejection: While using Buddhist terminology, Xiao is accused of systematically invalidating other Buddhist traditions, especially Tibetan Tantra, respected teachers such as his former teacher Master Sheng Yen, and even canonical scriptures.
- Enticement and mental control: Followers are said to be drawn in by promises of rapid awakening and then led into uncritical devotion, repeating Xiao’s denunciations of others and believing in his unique status.
Betrayal, word manipulation, and condemnation
Da Zhao further accuses Xiao of ingratitude toward former teachers, manipulation of Buddhist terms, attempted usurpation of Sangha authority, and the creation of an environment in which followers repeat Xiao’s denunciations of other Buddhist teachers and traditions.
Revised English Article Translation
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.
Chinese Commentary and Original
以下为中文评论，评论之后附上原文：
John Tan 最近让我注意到一个名为“佛教正覺同修會”（True Enlightenment Practitioners Association）的台湾佛教团体，该团体由 萧平实 (Xiao Ping Shi) 领导。他提到这个团体已经在新加坡的多个寺庙建立了相当大的影响力。
我以前听过他们的名字，印象中他们像是“Dark Zen”的华人版。他们似乎对自身圈子以外的佛教教义和法师们极为挑剔和不屑一顾，同时宣扬他们对“Atman doctrine”（我论/神我论）的解读是佛法的最终理解。讽刺的是，他们似乎没有意识到自己的观点更接近于“tirthika”（外道）哲学，而这些哲学在传统佛教框架内被认为是错误的。
经过进一步调查，我确认了我的担忧是正确的。该团体确实是 佛教正覺同修會，由 萧平实 领导。更多信息，您可以参考他们的维基百科页面：Wikipedia。
我非常感谢 达照法师 (Venerable Da Zhao) 对该团体以“Atman”（神我）为中心的观点的批判，这些批判为我们提供了宝贵的洞见，让我们了解其偏离正统佛教教义之处。
以下是 达照法师 (Venerable Da Zhao) 的文章《邪因外道——萧平实的“造神运动”》的概要：
达照法师的文章对台湾心灵导师萧平实及其“佛教正覺同修會”发起了严厉而明确的谴责。作者断言，萧平实表面上展现出深厚的佛学知识和大量著述，实则传播着一种“邪因外道”的教义，这与佛教关于缘起和空性的教导从根本上不相容。达照法师认为，这种核心的邪见是驱动一场旨在萧平实自我神化和欺骗追随者的“造神运动”的引擎。
核心教义批判：“第一因”邪见
达照法师指出，萧平实曲解了如“如来藏”（真如）和“阿赖耶识”（第八识）等基本佛教概念，将它们转变成一个单一的、永恒的、能创造万物的“第一因”，所有现象都由此衍生。达照法师认为，这反映了非佛教的“常见外道”邪说（例如某些对“僧佉派”(Sāṃkhya)或道教“太极”的解读，据称萧的弟子们明确地将这些与其导师的教义联系起来），并直接否定了佛教对这类创造者实体的否认。达照法师引用萧平实及其弟子的著述来证实这一说法，并将萧平实所谓的“证悟”斥为纯粹的“臆想”。任何不符合萧平实“第一因”理论的佛教教义或法师，都被诬蔑为“伪造”、“错解”或“未悟”。
“造神运动”
文章细致地勾勒出萧平实据称是如何经营个人崇拜的，其特征包括：
* 自我神化：萧平实将自己描绘成一位独特觉悟的圣者、一位高级菩萨，其当前的在家身份是“佛所安排”，并且拥有了知过去未来的能力。
* 自我中心：他坚称只有他的教导和方法才能带来真正的觉悟，宣称自己的书籍举世无双，从而含蓄地（有时是明确地）贬低整个三藏以及所有其他当代法师。
* 欺骗性陈述：萧平实虽然使用佛教术语，却系统性地攻击并试图否定其他佛教传统（尤其是藏传密宗）、受人尊敬的法师（包括他自己的前任老师圣严法师），甚至包括正典经文。
* 利诱与精神控制：追随者被迅速觉悟的承诺所引诱，然后受到精神控制，导致他们表现出不加批判的忠诚，鹦鹉学舌般重复萧平实对其他人的谴责，并相信其至高无上、独一无二的地位。
达照法师将这场运动归因于萧平实极度的“自我膨胀”、精心策划的“图利”（无论是通过诋毁其他佛教组织来获取经济利益，还是为了留名后世），以及对社会性“人心没落”的利用，这种没落使人们容易受到简单化、权威性说辞的影响。
背叛与欺骗伎俩
达照法师指控萧平实严重“忘恩负义”和“欺师灭祖”，特别是在其对圣严法师的谴责上，据称萧平实是在圣严法师的指导下获得了初步体验。达照法师声称，这种行为也被传授给了他的弟子们，他们随后也开始诋毁自己以前的老师。
此外，萧平实的影响力被归因于其“超凡的文字驾驭能力”。据称，他扭曲佛教术语以适应自己的叙事，从相互矛盾的立场攻击他人，并使用误导性语言来宣扬自己著作的优越性。达照法师强调了萧平实试图篡夺僧伽（僧团）权威和象征的行径，例如鼓励在家弟子称他为“和尚”（僧侣的称谓），重新定义“胜义僧”以将自己包含在内，甚至在著作封面上将自己描绘成僧人形象。
毫不妥协的谴责
在整篇文章中，达照法师的语气充满了急迫的警示和深切的谴责。萧平实被描绘成一个窃取佛教内核宝藏的“盗贼”，一个用“邪法”引人入歧途的当代“魔”头。其行为被描述为“谤法破僧”、“破坏三宝”，并造成了“无法估量的伤害”。作者总结道，萧平实的邪见及其破坏性个人崇拜活动的证据“确凿无疑，不容抵赖”，并呼吁萧平实及其追随者忏悔，同时呼吁广大佛教界坚决抵制其教义。
原文：
邪因外道——萧平实的“造神运动”
发布日期: 2006-01-01 浏览量: 13,944 次浏览
达 照
俗话说：“人善被人欺，马善被人骑。”在这个社会转型的年代里，已显突出！佛门慈悲，屡屡遭人欺侮，尤更突出！在读完台湾萧平实所著《无相念佛》、《念佛三昧修学次第》、《正法眼藏——护法集》、《生命实相之辨正》、《真假开悟之简易辨正法》、《禅净圆融》、《真实如来藏》、《如何契入念佛法门》、《大乘无我观》、《佛教之危机》、《宗通与说通》、《我与无我》、《狂密与真密》（一到四辑）、《禅门摩尼宝聚》等（公案拈提一到五辑）、《楞伽经详解》（一到六辑），以及一起出版的《学佛之心态》、《慈悲的心声》等二三十部书后，感慨良深！起初只看表面的文字叙述、名相解释，乃至义理参究存在很大的问题，总是觉得很别扭，特别感到作者一股莫名强大的自我表现欲，处处不忘记“自我”，处处为“自我”包装，与佛法精神实不相符。后来渐渐看到，一切好事都跟作者本人联系起来，一切坏事都跟现今佛门大德联系起来，除了作者所说之外，已经没有任何佛法可学可修，除了作者创办的正觉同修会之外，根本没有任何地方是真正的佛教道场，这亦与佛法万德庄严相悖逆。再后来终于看清楚在以佛法名相义理为掩护的背后，深深隐藏着他自己“第一因”的邪因外道见，露出了狡猾的狐狸尾巴，实是佛教致深之伤害！再进一步才完全明白了，这是一次人心没落的“造神运动”，却将佛法名相义理窃为他招摇惑世之神坛，岂非佛教之悲哀？遂感慨现今之佛教，外遭法轮功邪教盗窃法轮之标致而横行霸道，内患第一因外道假借佛法名相义理为掩护而谤法破僧！堂堂佛教，堂堂妙法，堂堂僧宝，广大庄严，为世明灯，竟遭外道邪教凌辱至此，静夜思之，哀哉可伤！法轮功邪教犹如贼人进入院子，仅仅偷窃了院子里面的摆设（标致），只需家人警觉一呼，便会隐遁而去；第一因外道譬如登堂入室，盗取了保险箱里面的财宝（佛法义理名相），纵然被赶出家门，已然狼藉一片！如之奈何？如之奈何！
现代贼人的手段越来越高明，剽窃越来越深入，伤害也越来越严重！致命之处就在于萧平实之叙述，文字语言基本上都符合佛法之意，不要说初学佛法者难以赝别其真伪，就是久参者也容易被其美妙的文字叙述所误导，甚至学界还有人说他“颇为精到”，而不知在最为关键的根本处却是外道之行径。他还处处标榜“正法”，处处提出“法义辨正”。现在，我们从他的论著中，就其“第一因”的外道思想、人心没落的“造神运动”、欺师灭祖的“忘恩负义”、玩弄文字的“谤法破僧”等要点，来揭示其以“三乘正法”为掩护的外道嘴脸，还我佛教之清白！
一、“第一因”的外道思想
所谓第一因外道，就是主张世界万物成立之原因乃同属一因的外道。在《提婆菩萨释楞伽经中外道小乘涅槃论》中指出了二十种外道，个个都推求宇宙万物的第一因，并且作出自己的解释。其中第四韦陀论师、第五伊赊那论师、第九女人眷属论师、第十二摩陀罗论师、第十四僧佉论师、第十五摩醯首罗论师、第二十安荼论师等，所说虽各有异同，然同属一因外道之部类。他们都认为一切法的生起有一个“第一因”，总有一个“能生”万物的本源，万物都是由一个本源而衍生出来的。如第五外道伊赊那论师的主张：“以无形相而能生诸有命、无命一切万物，名为涅槃。”（T32，157a）第十四外道僧佉论师之主张：“如实知从自性生，还入自性，能离一切生死得涅槃，如是从自性生一切众生。是故外道僧佉说自性是常，能生诸法，是涅槃因。”（T32，157c）这就是外道“非因计因”的“第一因”邪见！
与“第一因”生出万物的邪见相接近的，要算是“一元论”了，这也占印度哲学的许多流派。如吠陀哲学即主张宇宙之本质为梵，个人主体之本质为我，此两种本质的原理是同为一体的，这就是“梵我一如”。欲表现此一元论之本质内容实非易事，故有实在（有）、精神（知）、至福（欢喜）等说法的产生。然而，此种绝对本质之一元论，却难以解释各种现象界之发生，如物质自然界、苦、恶等人世间的种种现象。判定精神原理（神我）与物质原理（自性）对立之二元论，就是为了解决这类问题而应运出现。以上诸论，皆有其自相矛盾之处，都属于外道之邪见，为佛法所破斥。
于佛法中，无论小乘还是大乘，绝对都没有这样的“第一因”或一元论外道之邪见，如《俱舍论》卷六说：“一因生法，决定无有。”（T29，36b）《华严经》卷三十说：“彼诸佛子如是知，一切法性常空寂，无有一法能造作，同于诸佛悟无我。”《七佛传法偈》迦叶佛说：“一切众生性清净，从本无生无可灭。”《中论》卷三说：“若众缘未合，而先有果生者，是事不然，果离因缘故，则名无因果。是故汝说众缘未合时先有果生者，是事则不然。问曰：因灭变为果者，有何咎？答曰：若因变为果，因即至于果，是则前生因，生已而复生。”（T30，26c）达摩祖师的《少室六门？血脉论》也说：“问曰：若不见性，念佛、诵经、布施、持戒、精进、广兴福利，得成佛否？答曰：不得。又问：因何不得？答曰：有少法可得，是有为法，是因果，是受报，是轮回法，不免生死，何时得成佛道！成佛须是见性，若不见性，因果等语，是外道法。若是佛，不习外道法。佛是无业人，无因果。但有少法可得，尽是谤佛，凭何得成？但有住着一心、一能、一解、一见，佛都不许。佛无持犯，心性本空，亦非垢净，诸法无修无证，无因无果。”（T48，374a）又说：“佛者，亦名法身，亦名本心。此心无形相、无因果、无筋骨，犹如虚空，取不得，不同质碍，不同外道。”（T48，376a）
总之，在大小乘的各种经论中，决定都没有“第一因”能生一切法的邪见谬论。因为一切法众缘和合，如幻如化，从本以来不生不灭，真如法性如来藏与生死烦恼一切法，譬如水之与波，都是全体相即全体相具的，生即全生，灭亦全灭，当处出生，随处灭尽，离波无水可言，离水无波可得。不能说水为波之第一因，也不能说波是由水“衍生”出来，水与波不能成为能生所生之对立。诸法实相，本来如如；真如实性，也是如如；缘起现象，亦复如如。所谓“诸法如是相、如是性、如是体、如是力、如是作、如是因、如是缘、如是果、如是报、如是本末究竟等。”（T9，5c）如《首楞严经》卷第二说：“一切浮尘，诸幻化相，当处出生，随处灭尽，幻妄称相，其性真为妙觉明体。如是乃至五阴六入，从十二处至十八界，因缘和合虚妄有生，因缘别离虚妄名灭。殊不能知生灭去来，本如来藏常住妙明，不动周圆妙真如性，性真常中求于去来，迷悟死生了无所得。”（T19，114a）亦如《楞伽经》说：“凡夫无智慧，藏识如巨海，业相犹波浪，依彼譬类通。”又说：“譬如海水变，种种波浪转；七识亦如是，心俱和合生。”如是佛法不共外道之根本正见，亦即佛法世界观、人生观之究竟义理，更为大乘佛教之命根所在！
然而，萧平实却把“缘起诸法”与“如来藏阿赖耶识实相”对立起来，譬如把“海水与波浪”对立起来，把缘起诸法当作实相的“衍生物”，把真如实相当作缘起诸法的“生因”，并且认为：如来藏阿赖耶识是宇宙万物生灭现象的“第一因”，缘起诸法是由如来藏阿赖耶识“衍生”出来的。他说：
“你的真如出生蕴处界以后，再与蕴、处、界配合，就能出生一切法。” （《大乘无我观》第39页）“由于你证得你的自身真如第八识，从这个第八识来观察祂的清净自在、遍一切时不断、能生一切法，而十八界全部由祂所生。”（《我与无我》第39页）“虽然这个色身不是真正的我，但他也不是跟‘真正的我’完全无关，因为他是由那个‘真正的我’生出来的——你的色身是你的第八识所创造出来的。”（《我与无我》第41页）“是故世出世间万法，皆唯八识心王所生，故说万法唯识。”（《宗通与说通》第216页）“故云宗通与说通不离八识心王所生一切法；而此一切法归结于八识心王后，复须归结于八识之根本——第八识阿赖耶。”（《宗通与说通》第217页）“十八界外别有自在心为十八界之因”（《宗通与说通》第82页）“诸法缘起缘灭之因——藏识实相。”（《宗通与说通》第54页）上述的“出生”、“能生”、“所生”、“生出来”、“所创造”等，在萧平实看来，都是“能生与所生相对立”的关系，第八识就是“能创造万物”者，所以就得出了第八识就是“第一因”的谬论。而此处所谓的“因”，就是明确地指“第一因”而言！正如他的得意门人所解说：
道教这个太极的义理，在世间法上是正确的，但是在法界根本的认知上是错误的。师兄可以看看萧老师在封面书衣上写的文字说明：“太极唯臆想，根本实真识；无明生两仪，万法由兹生。无我中有我，我中无有我；涅槃余真识，我无我俱泯。”道教以无极太极为根本，衍生出八卦的学理，对于宇宙万物的生灭现象所说的理是正确的，但是却不知第一因——不知如来藏才是真正的根本——不知所谓的无极太极其实就是如来藏；你从萧老师所写的偈中，应该可以知道是甚么道理了。修学佛法的人，如果能澈悟第一义谛真实识——如来藏的义理，从此以后，对世间与出世间的法：从世俗谛的解脱道，到第一义谛的佛菩提道，都能贯通，更何况是世间相对存在的道理呢？（《学佛之心态》第22～23页）
这段话就把萧平实的“第一因”外道邪见完全透露无遗，无法抵赖！于此，我们已恍然大悟，他声声口口“真实如来藏”的用心处，就是寻找到了宇宙万法的本源，由此本源为第一因而生出一切缘起诸法，这正是上文所述第五外道伊赊那论师的主张：“以无形相而能生诸有命、无命一切万物。”（T32，157a）并且更加赤裸裸地附和了道教的外道学说。所谓“道教以无极太极为根本”、“如来藏才是真正的根本”、“无极太极其实就是如来藏”，还公然认为：“道教这个太极的义理，在世间法上是正确的”、“道教以无极太极为根本，衍生出八卦的学理，对于宇宙万物的生灭现象所说的理是正确的。”把佛法对宇宙生灭现象的完美解释“诸法因缘生，诸法因缘灭”置之不顾，一定要拿出一个“第一因”强加给“如来藏”和“诸法实相”的头上，竟将佛法的究竟真理任意偷换糟践！居心何在？如果这么欣赏外道的“太极的义理”和“第一因”的谬论，那就干脆名正言顺的去当外道好了，为何却要将佛法的名相义理说得如此“精到”呢？为何还要标榜自己为佛教的“真善知识”、“三乘正法”呢？然这自有他内在的原因，且待下文举证！
这一点，就连萧平实自己也承认是外道的邪见，他说：“远离外道虚妄建立宇宙第一因邪见。”（《宗通与说通》第32页）而他自己所有的著作都是剽窃三乘佛法的名相和义理，特别在“如来藏”和“阿赖耶识”上，用心“不可谓不勤”！而对于佛法如来藏和阿赖耶识的正义，却只是懂得文字的表面含义或者臆想的内涵而已，在一切关于“如来藏”和“阿赖耶识”乃至“实相”等等的叙述上，乍看似乎没有错误（实际上是他玩弄文字游戏的绝招所致，将在下文举证）。然其本质，则是把真如实相理解成“第一因”的外道邪说，真是“谬以千里”。为何如此？因为他所谓的“亲证如来藏”是由“臆想”而来的，如他在《我与无我》的封面书衣上有颂曰：“太极唯臆想，根本实真识；无明生两仪，万法由兹生。”其弟子解释说：“无极太极其实就是如来藏”，太极既然就是如来藏，太极是属于臆想，那么如来藏也就自然同太极一样也是属于臆想而来的了，但他要说“根本实真识”，即“如来藏才是真正的根本”，因此如来藏就成了“第一因”，由此第一因而生出无明两仪乃至万法了。再细细看，他说“无明生两仪，万法由兹生。”可见这里的“无明”又成为道教所说的“太极”了，因为“道教这个太极的义理，在世间法上是正确的”，然而“无极太极其实就是如来藏”，那么，无明、太极、如来藏，在这里就都成为“能生”万法的“第一因”了。而其所谓的佛法“第一义谛”、“真如”、“阿赖耶识”等等，都是相似或者等同于如来藏，自然也就都成为“万法由兹生”的“第一因”了。因此，他在《我与无我》的封面上，直接用外道太极图来表示我与无我的关系。真是“闻所未闻”！实在荒谬之极！！
如是，萧平实以大乘正法为掩护而宣传他自己的“第一因”外道邪见，声声诬谤佛教古今大德为“常见外道”，然他自己所述才是真正的“常见外道”，足可见其“贼喊抓贼”之伎俩！何以故？“无明生两仪，万法由兹生”是外道学说故，第一因能生万物非佛法故，第一因就是如来藏非正理故，第一因就是实相非正见故，第一因就是阿赖耶识非唯识理论故，第一因能生缘起诸法非真理故，非佛法第一义谛故，非佛法世俗谛故，非佛法菩提道故，非二乘解脱道故，非佛教世界观故，非佛教人生观故，非佛教解脱论故，非佛法现量正量故，“第一因”违背佛法之一切义理故，由此判知萧平实的“第一因”实乃外道之邪见！
他处处标榜自己“亲证如来藏”、“眼见佛性”、“真善知识”，皆是亲证到了宇宙万物之根源的“第一因”，以第一因作为自己的立论根本，却以如来藏佛性作为第一因的代名词，这是他自己通过冥思“臆想”而来，完全背离了一切佛经乃至佛法，并且还望文生义地剽窃佛经为其掩护。他的追随者们所谓之见道，也是自以为“找到了宇宙万法的第一因——如来藏佛性”而自豪，遂感到超出凡夫而成为圣人菩萨了。虽然明白或者附会了外道的第一因之理，而深感“受用无穷、感恩无尽”，但是对于佛陀之正法却未曾梦见。因此，以这个“第一因”的外道学说来衡量三藏经典、五乘教法，于其无知不解之处，或者不与“第一因”文字叙述相符之处，或者不能为其“第一因”邪见作掩护之处，就一概被诬谤为“伪造佛经”、“未悟错悟”！对一切三宝，五乘正法，显密圣教，进行了公然挑衅，肆意诋毁，才会不信因果，不畏苦报，广造破法谤僧之恶业。而其自身乃至追随者们，却还信誓坦坦，狂言妄语，各各自称见道、证道、觉菩提道！
倘若萧平实您还是一个良知未昧的男子汉，就应该老老实实地把自己的“第一因”谬论彻底推翻，带领徒众走出破法谤僧的邪路，站出来恭恭敬敬地向十方三世一切三宝恳切忏悔，从此以后不再造作无边之恶业，不再夭伤大众之法身慧命，不再惑乱已信未信之广大佛教信众，佛法慈悲普渡有缘之人！是所诚盼！！倘若依然无视佛法之正见，而执取外道之邪说，或者以更狡猾的诡辩而袭取佛法名相来作自己“第一因”邪见的挡箭牌，那就非但“一盲引众盲，相牵入火坑。”亦且“破坏三宝尊，令世长暗冥！”其果报之可怕，在萧平实您的书中，处处提示警告！处处婆心规劝！处处毛骨悚然！合当自己反省！此处不再赘言。
然而，让我们感到遗憾的是，萧平实不会改变他的“第一因”外道立场。何以故？因为他“我见”之见惑没有断除，自以为找到了宇宙之本源，证验了“第一因”之真实存在，漠视了缘起法的因果规律，又剽取了丰富圆满的佛法修证之名相义理，加上超人的文字游戏之能力，业已形成了自己“独特”的说教方式，正在逐渐吸引着善良易骗的人们，进行了愚蠢的“造神运动”！所以，他是不会迷途知返的。由于他的实际行动已经严重地破坏了佛教的清净庄严，直接影响了正法在世间的弘扬！因此，我们有必要对他的“造神运动”做一次明确的鉴定，以澄清古今大德、五乘正法所蒙受之羞辱，还我佛教三宝之圣洁庄严。
二、人心没落的“造神运动”
“造神运动”是历史上常见的现象，无论是邪教组织，还是外道出现，都免不了这种人为“造神”的特殊运动。一般而言，人类造神运动都具有五个特征和三个原因。五个特征就是：自我神化、自我中心、明从暗排、诱引蛊惑、精神控制，三个原因就是：自我膨胀、有利可图、人心没落。而在看完萧平实的著作之后，我们很快就发现他完全具备了这样的五个特征和三个原因。在他疯狂地攻亵古今大德和五乘正法的情况下，我们不得不对其五个特征和三个原因进行理性的分析，举证此一造神运动的事实，揭批其破法谤僧的内幕和表相。
1、萧平实造神运动的五个特征：
第一、自我神化，这是所有造神运动的首要特征，或者鼓吹自己与神灵有直接沟通的本事，或者自命为奉行神灵的旨意，或者标榜自己有超人的能力带领凡人进入神灵的世界，或者径直自诩为佛、圣位菩萨、圣人、救世主等。这些特征在萧平实的著作中表现得非常露骨！他除了处处标榜自己是真悟的“真善知识”、“大乘胜义僧”外，在其各种著作中处处显示他自己是初地以上的圣位菩萨，还时常自吹能知过去无量世的情况，如他说：“近年往往于定中观见往昔世之弘法净行，及无量世前之误造谤法业而受报等等”（《宗通与说通》第2页），“看见未来世的我，也是在家时多，出家时少”（《大乘无我观》第92页），这种言论到处都是，自诩为“能知过去未来”的圣人，而且还能知“无量世前”的造业受报。就在这“圣位菩萨”和“能知过去未来”两类自我神化伎俩的笼罩下，他的追随者们便将其奉为圣人，吹捧他是“往昔二千多年来的出家悟道之身，而今时二世示现在家悟道之身。”（《学佛之心态》第141页）并且厚颜无耻地说“今生示现在家相，是佛所安排。”（《学佛之心态》第140页）从而达到了自我神化的目的！类似的说法实在太多，处处可见，我们这里仅作举证，知其具有明显“自我神化”之特征。暂且不论他有否如此的“神功”，就其上述“第一因”外道的实际内涵，我执我见根本未破，只是轮回中的一个烦恼众生，最多也只能算是一个惑乱佛法乃至世间法的外道而已，怎么可以自称为见道证道的佛教圣人呢？由此亦可证明其纯粹是自我神化的大妄语而已，丝毫不足为信。再者，如果“佛所安排”他来到这个世界，那佛不就成为“万能的上帝”了吗？这种荒谬的造神伎俩，只要认真注意一下，就会不攻自破的，可惜还有许多人却仍在上当受骗！
第二、自我中心，所有历史上的造神运动都是我执未破的凡夫俗子所为，因为我执未除，我爱我贪我所等法缠缚于心，所以就总是以自我为中心。这样，既不能客观地理解别人的言论内涵，又鼓吹自己的言论为“唯我独尊”，有意无意之间，就透露出自己超越了一切古今圣人，乃至诸佛菩萨。这在萧平实的著作中，也同样随处可见！如他说：“诸位今天一定是半信半疑的，不要说一生完成初地的道业，就算最简单的一个明心开悟就好，诸位也是一定半信半疑的，那么你要如何才能相信不疑呢？只有一个办法：试着依照我这些书上所讲的方法与知见去用功。”（《大乘无我观》第68页）又说：“那么这个道理我们在《平实书笺》里面解说了很多，诸位回去的时候不要客气，每一种书都把它拿一本回去。不要说拿两本三本不好意思，不会！我们印出来就是要送给大家的；既然今天结了这个法缘，那你就好好把它带回去啊！那些书籍里所说的法，都是诸位在市面上没见过的，你走遍了全球也见不到这种书的。”（《大乘无我观》第112页）从这两处引文，可以非常清晰地看出萧平实自我中心的强烈欲望，只有他的书上所讲的方法才能明心开悟，他的那些书籍里所说的法是走遍全球也见不到的，这显然把全球的所有佛教三藏经典全都一概否定掉了！因为“只有一个办法”就是他的书上所讲的方法，全球也见不到他的书里所说的法了。他在说这句话的时候，还有没有想到佛教的三藏经典呢？根本没有。这种诽谤破灭佛教三藏经典的言论，完全是从他自己内心深处透露出来的，在他自己的“第一因”邪见基础上，他才会这样理直气壮地蔑视三藏经典，而把自己的书籍放到了“至高无上”的位置上。他写的那些书确实是“走遍了全球也见不到”的造神运动的广告招牌！
第三、明从暗排，“明从”是指所有造神运动的理论背景，表面上他的理论都是有所依据的，“暗排”则指事实上都是借助某种理论当掩护来宣说其个人的思想理论，甚至实际上是排斥表面上所依据的那些理论，比如以“伪科学”、“伪宗教”等幌子，排斥真正的科学和宗教，从而达到自己造神运动的目的。萧平实也是如此，表面上是“明从佛法”，实际上却是“暗排佛教”，他以“佛教正觉”、“三乘正法”、“真善知识”乃至一切佛法名相义理为掩护，说得还“头头是道”，而实际上却是在诽谤古今大德、破坏五乘正法，甚至连佛陀、经典都不在他的眼里。在他的各类著作中，可以看出这样的一种内幕：首先把藏传佛教的密宗全部破除（详见《狂密与真密》一到四辑），再把整个佛教的许多古今大德一概否定（所有著作随处误会曲解古今大德原意，肆意毁谤，不胜枚举），再把汉传大藏经中“密教部”《大日经》、《金刚顶经》等多种佛经毁为伪经（见《狂密与真密》第9～10页），最后他胡言：“明心开悟只有一个办法：依照我这些书所讲的方法与知见去用功，”就连佛陀也不如他本人，一切佛说经典都没有他的“那些书籍里所说的法”更为精采，他说：“我们《真实如来藏》写出来，证实是有如来藏；诸位有机会的话，应该去买那本书来看，那本书非常精采，保证是你前所未读。”（《大乘无我观》第71页）“那些书籍里所说的法，都是诸位在市面上没见过的，你走遍了全球也见不到这种书的。”（《大乘无我观》第112页）所以，表面上是依据三乘正法，暗地里却是在破坏三宝，排斥一切佛经法宝、五乘正法、住持僧宝。但他却还要打着“真善知识”、“三乘正法”的旗号，这就是“明从佛法，暗排佛教”的造神运动之特征。
第四、诱引蛊惑，这也是造神运动的一种卑鄙手段，一般都是以长者或救世主的身份自诩，无中生有的毁谤名人、呵斥社会，唯独自己能够救世，别人都是为名为利，一切善良智慧光明伟大都是自己的，一切邪恶愚蠢黑暗卑鄙都是别人（特别是同时代的名人）的，这样就能给社会人心造成伤害和迷茫，然后自己俨然一位济世救人的长者面貌出现，“用外道法来广泛的毒害善良易骗的佛弟子们。”（《佛教之危机》第126页）从而渔翁得利。因此，萧平实打着“真善知识”、“大乘胜义僧”、“三乘正法”的招牌，搅乱佛教的各种弘法机构、古今大德，乃至佛经法宝，动摇社会人心乃至信仰群众，如他说：“大乘佛法的实质，能不能够继续再延续下去，还要看我们这一代怎么做；因为大陆现在没有宗门正法，全球都没有，目前只有台湾有。可是说一句不客气的话，全台湾也只有正觉同修会有，目前确是这个样子。”（《大乘无我观》第89页）这种蛊惑“善良易骗的佛弟子们”之卖狗皮膏药的广告辞，自能起到一定的效用，所以他的追随者们便揶揄其：“可谓当代全球独一无二‘宗’‘教’俱通之大善知识。”（《宗通与说通》第5页）遂否定一切佛教的任何形式之弘法事业，并以各种所谓的“见道报告”来迷惑急于求成的“善良易骗的佛弟子们”。好象古今中外、天地之间一切事态都在他的手掌心，什么“全球都没有”、“独一无二”这种商业炒作的把戏也全都派上用场了，所以才会这么有“诱惑力”。另外，在《公案拈提》的百则公案中，竟有四十则以上放出了“来正觉同修会，为你开悟”的诱饵，所有的《公案拈提》中，除了宣说或者暗示“第一因”外道邪见之外，就是以“且到正觉讲堂来”为机锋，诱引蛊惑未信已信的广大信众，用心之毒令人发指！
第五、精神控制，这是一切造神运动最为无耻和最为危害的一大特征，在前面四种特征的连环圈套运作之下，只要不小心一脚踏入这个魔鬼区域，就难免落入他精心设计的陷阱之中，不知不觉就被其精神控制，欲罢不能！或者为他卖命宣扬不切实际的功德能力，或者为他所教之法、所指见解倾倒执著不近人情，或者无根诽谤古今圣贤不畏报应，种种颠倒错乱之表现，都是受到了严重之精神控制的症状。这在萧平实的书中也已有所表现！如他的得意门人张果圜说：“可谓当代全球独一无二‘宗’‘教’俱通之大善知识。”（《宗通与说通》第5页）正德说：“萧老师今生示现在家相，是佛所安排，为完成护持正法的大业，必须以在家身，才能方便放手去做，出家身便无法做这个工作，所以今生示现在家相。”（《学佛之心态》第140页）这里的“独一无二”和“佛所安排”等语，纯粹是精神错乱的信口雌黄，你凭什么就说全球“独一无二”？凭什么就说是“佛所安排”？这不是睁着眼睛说瞎话吗？自己过着在家人的五欲生活，却硬要往自己脸上贴金，反而在佛的脸上抹黑，说是“佛所安排”。佛教历史上护持正法的基本上都是出家佛弟子，如龙树、提婆、无著、世亲等大菩萨都是出家身，怎么就“出家身便无法做这个工作”了？再说，你一个萧平实的弟子就知道“佛所安排”这佛陀的“旨意”了？凡此种种无根据的任意胡言，都是由于精神受到了控制之后，失去理智才会说出来的笑话、胡话。特别是在“第一因”这个邪因外道见的惑乱下，他的追随者们基本上都对古今大德、五乘正法评首论足，乃至胡乱诽谤的，各各都把自己当成了救世的圣人，很无辜、很深情的样子，他们希望全球所有的佛教弘法机构全部停止关闭，或者全部改为萧平实的“邪因外道”知见，然后才会有一种“护法”事业的成就感，这简直是痴人说梦话，胡言乱语！
一般受到萧平实精神控制的有三类人：第一类是急于求悟之人，第二类是自我中心之人，第三类是善良易骗之人。对于第一类人，萧平实就是用“第一因”的外道见来笼罩他们的，所以被他印证为“明心”或者“见性”的人，都是有一个共同的感受，那就是：终于找到宇宙万法的根源了，一切万法都是由此第一因根源所生出来。然后把自己误解的阿赖耶识、如来藏等佛法名相和义理作为印证的标准，自鸣得意，各各自称觉菩提道，“就以圣人自居，那就变成大妄语业，那是地狱罪，那问题就很严重了。”（《大乘无我观》第15页）这都是由于不懂佛法的体、相、用之关系，不明白圆教实相和华严境界，所以才会偏离唯识佛法，落入第一因外道的邪见之中，受到精神控制而不能自拔！这在《公案拈提》各辑、各种“见道报告”中透露出来，所有的心、性、阿赖耶识、如来藏、真如、佛性等，都成了萧平实“第一因”的代名词而已，如上述第一节所揭露的那样。对于第二类人，这是与萧平实意气相投的一类人，与其说受到精神控制，不如说狼狈为奸，各取所需，互相吹捧，相互利用，毁谤破坏了他人的佛教弘法事业，他们就会有一种事业的成就感，自我膨胀的欲望得到了暂时的满足，并且为此努力不懈！这在《狂密与真密》（一到四辑）、《护法集》、《佛教之危机》等书中显现出来，这也是萧平实造神运动的内在思路和动力，也是以“佛所安排”为幌子来控制这类人。对于第三类人，萧平实需要比较纯正的佛法名相和义理作为掩护，同时点缀一些“自我神化”的故事，施加一些“别处没有正法”、“我是真善知识”、“不能毁谤大乘胜义僧”、“若有毁谤就堕无间地狱”的压力，这是在《无相念佛》、《禅净圆融》、《大乘无我观》、《楞伽经详解》（一到六辑）等书中所作的努力，文字叙述几乎可以乱真，但所谓的究竟了义却是第一因外道邪见！这样可以帮助他完成造神运动的三类人，都得到了相应的安排，所以这些人的精神也就自然会受到了他的控制，应该说是“萧平实所安排”，而非“佛所安排”！因“第一因”的外道邪见非佛陀正法故！萧平实的著作都是以“第一因”外道见作为立论根本故！印证弟子见道均是证验宇宙万法本源第一因故！盗取佛法名相义理而非佛法实质故！肆意毁破五乘正法而不懂圆教实相故！只是用佛教表相，以及佛法名相、果位名相包装起来而已！
如是，萧平实造神运动的五个特征悉已具备，首先神化自我、自我中心、明从佛暗排佛，然后诱引蛊惑、精神控制，是故理应判别其为真正的“造神运动”！然而，“对于平实而言，既不受钱财供养，亦不受众生之异性身分供养，亦不求名闻，亦不曾寄望于众生——不曾一念于众生身上获得任何世间利益。”（《佛教之危机》第14页）那么，他为何却要如此艰辛的进行造神运动呢？这自有台湾的佛教现状和社会环境为背景，加上自我意识和社会情绪、人心没落等因素所引起的，我们从以下三个方面的原因来进行讨论。
2、萧平实造神运动的三个原因：
第一、自我膨胀，一切造神运动的主谋者都是我执我见未破的凡夫俗子，并且特别强烈地关注自己之我执和我见，所以都是自我膨胀的极端表现，这是造神运动的首要原因。倘若不是自我膨胀到了难以容受的地步，还可以通过追名求利的其它世间相对正当的渠道来获得名誉和荣耀，便无需神化自我的“造神运动”了。因此，一切造神运动都根植于极端自我膨胀的基础上，都是极为强烈的自我表现欲之体现。在萧平实的造神运动中，其自我膨胀之意识和表现也是非常明显的，如他的《禅净圆融》背后说：“言净宗诸祖所未曾言，示诸宗祖师所未曾示。……乃前无古人之超胜见地。”《禅门摩尼宝聚》背后说：“悲智双运，禅味十足，数百年来难得一睹之禅门巨著也。”《禅——悟前与悟后》则说：“本书能使人明自真心、见自本性。迟者七次人天往返，便出三界，速者一生取办。学人欲求开悟者，不可不读。”《真实如来藏》则说：“此书是一切哲学家、宗教家、学佛者、及欲升华心智之人必读之巨著。”等等广告辞，显示了自我意识的“前无古人”之超佛越祖心态。又在《宗通与说通》自序等处称“大乘末法孤子”，强调了：“开悟明心，要如何才能相信不疑呢？只有一个办法：试着依照我这些书上所讲的方法与知见去用功。”（《大乘无我观》第68页）又说：“那么这个道理我们在《平实书笺》里面解说了很多，诸位回去的时候不要客气，每一种书都把它拿一本回去。那些书籍里所说的法，都是诸位在市面上没见过的，你走遍了全球也见不到这种书的。”（《大乘无我观》第112页）“大乘佛法的实质，全球都没有，只有正觉同修会有。”（《大乘无我观》第89页）“我们《真实如来藏》那本书非常精采，保证是你前所未读。”（《大乘无我观》第71页）所以，他说：“我们就应该把《我与无我》这个正理广为宣扬，要护持正觉同修会，使同修会可以正常的、完整地继续运作。”（《我与无我》第80页）除了这些言论上的自我膨胀不可一世之外，更明显的是他各种著作中破法谤僧的种种刻薄言词，捕风捉影，搅乱是非，任意曲解，糟践五乘正法和古今大德，凡此情状，罄竹难书！这些在“第一因”外道的邪见基础上，在“造神运动”的事实面前，显然都是自我膨胀的真实写照。
第二、有利可图，造神运动其实就是一种愚弄百姓的欺骗行为，在自我膨胀的基础上，每一种造神运动的另一原因就是有利可图，尽管对于可图之“利”的理解和追求各不相同，但他们绝不是象萧平实所说的“既不受钱财供养，亦不求名闻，亦不曾寄望于众生——不曾一念于众生身上获得任何世间利益。”相反的，他们就是为了获得世间的某种利益，才胆大妄为地进行造神运动的。我们先来看看萧平实所谓的“破邪显正”，标榜自己为“真善知识”、“三乘正法”、“大乘胜义僧”，以这些为掩护来进行“造神运动”的着眼点何在？
首先，他受到了某种现象的启发，如他说：“那些外道们公开的、大张旗鼓的争佛教的正统，说他们才有佛法的证量，言外之意是：台湾所有佛教道场及所有一切法师居士们都不是真正的佛教。”（《佛教之危机》第69页）所以他更为大胆地进行了模仿，明白着说：“大乘佛法的实质，全球都没有，目前只有台湾有。全台湾也只有正觉同修会有。”（《大乘无我观》第89页）就“这样公开的、混淆是非，把台湾佛教界搞得乌烟瘴气。”（《佛教之危机》第69页）这两段话的说话方式之一致性，足见其深邃的世故洞察力，其目的除了“争佛教的正统”而“把佛教界搞得乌烟瘴气”之外，更为根本的又是何在呢？
其次，他注意到了台湾佛教的资源，他说：“法鼓山，由圣严法师以法鼓山文教基金会之名义，募集台币百二十亿元创建之；今年又成立人文教育基金会，欲再吸收台币五十亿元，专门从事世间法之人文教育事项。圣严法师所设之如是二大财团法人，已成为台湾最巨大之吸金机。”（《佛教之危机》第8页，加粗字体为萧平实所注目者）又说：“复观佛光山、法鼓山、中台山、慈济功德会四大山头，广聚佛教资源，犹如四台超级大型之吸金机，吸取超过九成以上之台湾佛教资源，显然已经产生严重之排挤效应。”（《佛教之危机》第15页）还蛊惑着说：“由于四大道场之吸取九成以上佛教资源，导致多数小法师不能弘传正法。”（《佛教之危机》第页）如此，他看清楚佛教资源之后，于是呼吁佛教信众：不应供养这些佛教弘法机构和道场，因为把钱财供养给这些道场，就等于作了破坏正法的帮凶，后果都是下地狱；而要供养给真正的道场，才有无量无边的功德利益，才是护持佛法的善行。然而，“大乘佛法的实质，全球都没有，目前只有台湾有。全台湾也只有正觉同修会有。”（《大乘无我观》第89页）所以，就很自然的得出并没有指明的结论：只能把钱财供养给佛教正觉同修会！否则，都难免会“成就谤法及谤菩萨僧之大恶业”。
这样，他首先看到正统佛教地位的重要性，然后他也看到了台湾佛教资源的丰富，所以才会戴着“真善知识”、“三乘正法”的面具出现，先“争正统”，后“劝供养”，只是掩护手段做得比较隐秘和熟练，甚至连弟子都帮他说“完全不为私心己利，一切所作所为都是为众生、学人。”如果在萧平实的心里自我感觉还真的以为是“既不受钱财供养，亦不求名闻，亦不曾寄望于众生——不曾一念于众生身上获得任何世间利益。”那么，他就是完全陷入于“第一因”外道的邪见之中，所以才会对三藏经典、五乘正法进行无情的毁破，利用丰富的佛法修证次第之名相义理，包装自己那个第一因能生万物的邪说。不过，从他那么艰辛地进行造神运动的事实来观察，不管怎么说，“有利可图”是他这一运动的原始动力，也是铁证如山无可抵赖的。至于说这个“利”的实际内涵，是不是钱财、名闻等等，如他说：“目的仅是在忠实呈现当时之情景以及内涵，作为未来佛教历史上之见证。”（《大乘无我观》第5页）他的追随者也说：“萧老师书中所评论的法，在篇幅比率上，是出家的大法师为多，而且都是当代最有名、最有势力的大法师，都不评论名声较小的法师。因为小法师与在家居士的道场小，信众少，影响力较小。”（《学佛之心态》第104页）是否为了“名留千古”呢？因此，这个结论则可以由时间来说明一切！
第三、人心没落，这是一切造神运动的社会环境，现代社会的自我意识和自我中心情况非常严重，或者生活和工作的压力太重，使现代人的精神感到紧张。同时现代社会的经济发展，物质生活相对富裕之后，也使现代人的精神感到空虚。所以精神引导和心理学乃至宗教接引就显得特别重要。而当人们对于古老的宗教感到不再新颖和刺激的时候，新兴宗教的出现也就是很自然的了。人是万物之灵，同时人也是最为脆弱的生灵！因为人的情感和灵性都相当的丰富，所以也就很容易自我夸大表现或者自我沉迷堕落！就在这个自我夸大和自我沉迷的人心没落区域里，“造神运动”者便伺机乘虚而入。因此社会人心的没落，是造神运动的必要环境。萧平实的造神运动也具备了这样的社会环境！他首先看到了“用外道法来广泛的毒害台湾善良易骗的佛弟子们；收取台湾善良的佛弟子们千万元的钜金供养。”（《佛教之危机》第126页）这样的社会现况，是他着手造神运动的前提和动力！其次，在外道猖獗、新兴宗教林立的情况下，各大山头的法师们都在忙于自己的弘法事业，并未对他们作必要深入的破斥，如他说：“可是印顺、昭慧及星云…等四大法师们，却都个个装聋作哑、默不吭声，藉词不值得辨正，大家一起作滥好人，不肯负起破邪显正、救护佛子、维护佛教的责任。”（《佛教之危机》第69页）这样又在佛教内部找到了他所认为的“弱点”，于是就心中有数地创立起佛教正觉同修会，进行从头到尾、自始至终、由内到外的造神运动，便有了可乘之机。如此，在台湾佛教资源很丰富的情况下，佛弟子们既是“善良易骗”，佛教大法师们又是“默不吭声”，也就给他“以第一因外道全面取代佛教”的野心，提供了滋生的土壤！
佛经上说佛陀入灭两千年后，佛教就进入了“末法时代”，这个“末法时代”的阴影，也会时常笼罩着许多佛弟子们的心。特别是一些急功近利和自我表现欲极强的现代人，多么喜欢快餐文化的出现！广告炒作和商业运行，能够使一个无名小卒一夜之间成为名人圣人，而萧平实便是利用“全球独一无二”、“佛所安排”等等权威的口号、而又极其诱惑人的虚狂妄语，来引诱蛊惑善良易骗或者急功近利的社会大众。而人心没落急于求成的功利主义，也正是需要有这样的“佛所安排”来填补内心的空虚。于是能够一拍即合，并且根本不愿意认真地面对自己进行彻底客观的审察，因为一旦确认了萧平实的思想根本就是第一因外道的邪见，根本不是真正的佛法，那就意味着自己并没有真的开悟，又只能从自我幻觉的“开悟”喜悦中退出，身心还会陷入于另一种不可知的迷茫与没落！因此这样的造神运动是虚幻和可耻的行为，其后果必定是可叹而又可悲的！
社会环境的人心没落，也是佛教需要依据佛法来进行引导开示的，佛法在现实世间的社会功用便要使烦恼痛苦的众生能够离苦得乐。但是，佛教的开示和引导都是扎扎实实的来引领众生走上觉悟的光明大道，绝对不会利用“造神运动”这种低级的、卑鄙的手段来欺骗百姓！绝对不会说“这是佛所安排”的妄语来哄骗佛弟子，也绝对不会说“走遍全球也没有”来示意自己的著作高超于一切佛经法宝之上的狂妄颠倒，更绝对不会说“全球也只有我这里才有佛法”的蛊惑言词！如果萧平实和他的追随者们还要声声口口说“我们的法都有三藏经典为依据”的话，那真是毫无羞耻的瞎说了！佛在何经说“萧平实示现在家相是佛所安排”的？佛在何处说“萧平实的书走遍全球也没有”的？佛在何时说“萧平实是全球独一无二的大善知识”的？佛在何所说“阿赖耶识就是第一因”的？佛在哪里说“第一因能生缘起万物”的？
综观萧平实的种种言论，从根本到表相，都是在“第一因外道”和“造神运动”相互作用、互为表里之情况下诞生的。他要剽窃佛教的名相义理来破坏世间三宝，他要取代佛教的弘法机构而争夺佛教资源，他要挑战佛教的古今大德而创建名留千古，他要惑乱佛教的广大信众而制造迷茫恐慌！通过上述萧平实造神运动的五个特征和三个原因之理性分析，大略可以了知萧平实在剽窃佛法名相义理而大肆宣扬“第一因”外道见的基础上，进行了隐秘而又放肆的造神运动；或者说萧平实为了进行造神运动，而以第一因外道见、丰富圆满的佛法名相义理、神化自我的虚狂妄语等手段作掩护！总之，正如他在《佛教之危机》所引的：“正觉同修会所传的法是邪法，是外道法。”（第69￣70页）我们可以肯定他迄今为止所传的“法”确实有毒，已如上述。如果我们现在还不肯正式出面破斥平实的法错误所在，以救平实“错误弘法”的来世因果，真是无慈无悲啊！
正如《首楞严经》所说：“尔时天魔候得其便，飞精附人，口说经法。其人殊不觉知魔著，亦言自得无上涅槃。来彼求知善男子处，敷座说法。身著白衣，受比丘礼。诽谤禅律，骂詈徒众。讦露人事，不避讥嫌。口中常说神通自在。各各自谓成无上道。”造神运动的真正原因，其实还是由于内心不净，而感召了外魔的入侵，魔胆包天，胡作非为，欺师灭祖，毁破三宝！其实，萧平实除了上述的“第一因外道见”和“造神运动”等事实外，他的著作和言教之所以能够笼罩那些善良易骗的佛弟子们，是因为它具有“忘恩负义”的厚黑嘴脸和“玩弄文字”的奇异能力，所以被他教唆出来的弟子们，也就自然而然地学会了忘恩负义和狂妄自大。于此再作进一步的揭示和分析。
三、欺师灭祖的“忘恩负义”
儒家有“一日为师，终身为父”之优良传统，佛教有“法身父母，恩重山岳”之报恩思想！时值末法，世道人心，江河日下，忘恩负义，甚至恩将仇报，亦是大有人在。萧平实在疯狂地讥谤佛门古今大德的同时，还用一些似是而非的文字游戏来任意蹂躏五乘正法，对于佛法在世间的弘扬进行了无情的搅惑毁破。特别卑鄙的是，在他那造神运动之野心、第一因外道之邪见的驱动下，他逐渐走上了欺师灭祖、忘恩负义之危险境地，令人深感惋惜，深感怜悯！或许这也是造神运动的一个组成部分吧，因为他不但自己忘恩负义，而且连他的那些追随者们也陷入了忘恩负义的深坑，岂不悲哀！而其中有些人竟然还毫无知晓，真是如来所谓可怜悯者啊！这里就简单地从萧平实的著作中，举例来揭示他自作、教他的忘恩负义，乃至欺师灭祖和破坏三宝的事实，以正视听！
1、自作“忘恩负义”欺师灭祖
首先我们看到了萧平实自作的“忘恩负义”欺师灭祖，他说：“虽然我是在打坐中破参的，但是我发觉用打坐的方法来参禅求悟，是错误的观念；因为我这一世的师父教给我的观念和知见都是错误的，所以我才会在打坐中参禅求悟；所以在证悟之后，我反而劝大家参禅时不要在打坐里面参。”（《大乘无我观》第17页）这里他讲述了三个问题：一是“我是在打坐中破参的”，二是“师父教给我的观念（指：在打坐中参禅求悟）都是错误的”，三是“我反而劝大家参禅时不要在打坐里面参。”这三句话有一个背景，那就是他是在他的师父教他打坐的时候，就在打坐当中破参开悟的。那么，“打坐中求悟”是否可行呢？我们知道中国禅堂里面的参禅也叫做“坐禅”，虽然有时候因为个别机缘的不同，祖师们曾经点化过“禅不是坐出来的”，但是佛经上处处都说了“端坐念实相”的功夫，禅门也有“行亦禅，坐亦禅”的传唱，佛教史上虽不乏于行住坐卧四威仪中见性开悟的，但也有更多的禅和子是在蒲团上打破黑漆桶的，不在方法入手处找根本，却在威仪表相上做文章，却是千古未闻之“观念和知见”，况且释迦世尊就是端坐在菩提树下夜睹明星开悟成佛的。我们就不谈佛教历史的事实情况，专就萧平实上述这段话进行分析，看他到底想说明什么问题，到底能否“打坐中求悟”？
如果按他所说“师父教给我的（打坐中求悟的）观念都是错误的”，那么打坐中就是不能开悟了。可是他又说“我是在打坐中破参的”，这又证明了他师父教他打坐求开悟是可行的，已经有了事实的证据落实在他自己的身上了，又如何可以排除“打坐中可以求悟”的观念和知见呢？应该说他自己“根本就没有开悟”或者“根本就不是在打坐中开悟的”才是啊！可是他自己偏偏说自己是“在打坐中破参的”，这样的事实与理论，显然是自相矛盾的。但是如果他说的“我是在打坐中破参的”，属于真实的（起码萧平实自己承认是真实破参开悟的），那么，这就已有事实证明“可以在打坐中开悟”的了，既然已经事实上可以证明能在打坐中开悟，却又为何说“师父教给我的观念（在打坐中参禅求悟）都是错误的”呢？实在是令人费解！这又如何解释他的矛盾说词呢？
再者，根据这种说法的逻辑推理，可以得出两个结论：一是萧平实没有开悟，或者是错误的以为自己开悟，因为教他打坐中求悟的本身就都是错误的；二是他故意跟师父作对，从师父那儿得到了利益，却反过来恩将仇报，猪八戒倒打一耙。可是这两个结果其实都不是萧平实所敢于直接承认的，但他的话已经印在这儿，白纸黑字如何抵赖得掉？他一方面鼓吹自己是“真开悟者”、“真善知识”、“大乘胜义僧”，处处标榜自己“破参出道弘法”，所以决不会翻出自己的老底“第一因外道邪见”，而并没有开悟，更不具备佛法的正见。另一方面神化自己是“能知过去无量世、未来无量世”的“圣人”，要以自己的身形言论取代佛教三宝，因此任意胡作非为，诽谤诬陷自己的师父，乃至现今佛教的所有大德。
从上述这段话，我们可以想见：一个不会修行的人，来到了师父跟前，师父为他证明皈依佛法僧三宝，为他解说佛法和解答种种疑问，并且在实践佛法方面，师父还教给他打坐参禅的方法（我们知道他的师父就是圣严法师，法师慈悲指导学人禅修，并且所指导之禅修方法也包括很多种），萧平实这个人就是这样在他师父的教导下，打坐习禅听闻师父慈悲的教诲。有一天突发奇想，感到自己开悟了，于是离开了师父的教导，另立山头占山为王。从此之后，便以自己的外道邪见来衡量其师父，对师父发起了猛烈恶毒的攻亵，诬陷师父“支持邪淫的外道”。从世间法的角度来看，譬如善良穷人的儿子，后来遇上有钱的恶棍，就站到了有钱人的那边，声声口口诬骂自己的亲生父母，认贼作父昧尽天良。亦如上了大学之后，就对以前小学老师乃至幼稚园老师刻薄讥讽，甚至无中生有进行侮辱，如此恶劣品行，就是忘恩负义之行径。更何况他的师父乃是宣扬禅法修证之大德？释尊过去，舍全身而求半偈。儒家偿谓，闻一言而益终生。世间法还讲“受人滴水之恩，应当涌泉相报。”萧平实在第一因外道见的惑乱下，竟然公开指名道姓地诬谤自己的皈依师父（《佛教之危机》第8页及各书中），其欺师灭祖之忘恩负义，亦是铁证如山。因此他的追随者们，也被其染上了此种恶疾！
2、教他“忘恩负义”破坏三宝
由于萧平实就是这样“忘恩负义”的，因此在第一因外道见的笼罩下，被他教导出来的那些人，也几乎个个都是或多或少染上了这个忘恩负义的恶疾，真令人感到非常担忧，他们还都自以为是“慈悲的心声”，言语间时而透露出对以前师父、老师们的不满和藐视，乃至对于自己犯菩萨根本重戒也“不怕”。如说：“为何末学不怕犯菩萨根本重戒呢？（说四种过、自赞毁他及谤三宝戒）只因末学已经现前观察：五蕴、十八界确实生灭无常、苦、无我、无我所，必定得要有这个不生不灭贯通三世的心——‘如来藏、真我’，才能成就一切法，因果才能成立；而且，在现量上，第八识‘如来’是确实可以亲证的。所以不怕犯根本重戒，而敢提笔评论。”（《慈悲的心声》第38页）他根本没有把如来藏、第八识的真义弄明白，就以“宇宙本源第一因”来比对，似是而非的自以为已经“不迷惑、不彷徨”了，病入膏肓而不自知，破坏三宝还有理由，岂不可悲！
再比如他的追随者说：“听李祖原居士讲中道实相，他把中道讲得非常的玄，那时很多人跟我一样听不懂，总觉得他很有学问。”（《佛教之危机》／《见道报告》第273页）在经过萧平实的教导之后，他说：“李居士根本不谈如来藏，只告诉我们：中道就是觉知心不要落入两边，也就是一切非有、非没有、非常、非不常。然后在字里行间翻搅，让人越听越玄。”（《佛教之危机》／《见道报告》第274页）这种只要“不谈如来藏”这个名相，就不能讲中道实相的观点，何曾梦见《法华经》诸法实相的“十如是”妙理？而在自己不懂佛法的时候听人讲法，后来却反过来说曾经教导他的老师在“翻搅”。说一句浅白的话：真是没良心啊！而言外之意却是连自己看佛经也没有看懂，直到后来看萧平实的《真实如来藏》，才知道什么是中道实相。等于轻易的就把佛经、老师看作都不如萧平实及其著作。
君子和而不同，小人同而不和。在萧平实的教唆下，自以为明心见性的那些追随者们，几乎都是针对以前教导过他们的师父、老师反咬一口（详见各种《见道报告》），依据实际上的第一因外道见，个个都是大言不惭，指鹿为马！五乘佛法接引众生方式本来就有无数种，所谓：方便有多门，归元无二路。十如是的每一如是，皆可契入诸法实相，祖师大德乃至现今佛门法师，亦是各从不同角度随方指示，解粘去缚。倘若真是萧平实和他的追随者们所批评诽谤的那样，全球也没有大乘正法，只有他们的正觉同修会有，萧平实的书是走遍全球也见不到的，连佛经法宝也没有他写的书精采。那么，世间的弘法事业不能做，出世间的弘法事业也不能做，这些佛门的各种弘法机构早就应该消灭了。那么，萧平实和他的追随者们又拿什么来标榜自己“完全符合三乘正法”？拿什么来作他们“第一因外道见”的挡箭牌呢？如果都按照他们现在的愿望，佛教岂不是在他们正觉同修会还没有出现的时候，早就已经消灭殆尽了吗？那种小人得志、过河拆桥的嘴脸，岂不是忘恩负义的全盘写真？岂不是欺师灭祖的恶毒居心？
每一个人在修习佛法的过程中，哪怕是听到某位老师说过“诸行无常，是生灭法”这样半句偈子，也应该感恩无尽，更何况是对自己的皈依师父、学法老师，无根而指名道姓地进行诋毁呢？这些忘恩负义之徒，正在破坏世间三宝，纵然个别人没有直言谤师，也是怀疑古今大德，都与萧平实一起造作了忘恩负义“欺师灭祖”之极恶重业，将来果报之可怕，令人感到心惊胆寒！
四、谤法破僧的“玩弄文字”
尽管古人说：“天之道，不争而善胜，不争而自来”，然而往往是“谎言说一千遍便成了‘真理’”。萧平实之所以能够迷惑那么多人，能够写出那么多书，除了他聪明能干、辛勤苦读、才思敏捷、努力笔耕的客观情形之外，最根本之处还是因为他具有超人的玩弄文字之能力。他不明白大乘佛法体、相、用三者之关系，亦复不知阿赖耶识、种子、现行之关系，更不懂大乘佛法圆教实相、华严境界，所以才会把阿赖耶识当作能生一切缘起诸法的第一因，而把宇宙万有身心世界都当作自性的衍生物，落入了外道邪见之中。但是，其语言叙述实在美妙，玩弄文字的手段极其高明，所以才能剽窃唯识佛法之名相义理，作为宣扬第一因外道见的掩护材料，更加大胆地进行了“破法谤僧”。于此仅作如下举证：
他说：“如果原来的妄心意识没有了——没有这个能够了境分别的觉知心——那就应该只剩下“恒而不审”的真心了，真心既然“恒而不审”，那么请问：“佛悟了以后是不是就变成痴呆汉了？”变成“不审”一切境界的心了，跟白痴一样了！所以问题就很严重了。”（《大乘无我观》第14页）又说：“这样参禅而证得“恒而不审”的如来藏，才叫做明心，这样才能够经得起小乘、中乘以及大乘佛法的检点。”（《大乘无我观》第15页）
同样对“恒而不审”的解释，前者别人所说的真心“恒而不审”就变成痴呆汉了，后者自己所谓的真心“恒而不审”就叫做明心。这种任意曲解、无根诽谤的做法，只是在文字上搅惑的把戏，并无实际的内在区分，因其根本没有任何心性方面的证悟，有的也只是臆想出来一个“宇宙第一因”，以如来藏等佛法名相作为代名词而已。当别人说到佛性妙用恒沙、不生不灭时，他就讲“佛性一定要用父母所生肉眼看见”，而当说到父母所生之肉眼属于有相，凡所有相皆是虚妄时，则在“父母所生肉眼”的后面加上了“一念相应慧”，或者标上“其它五根亦然”。而当别人从“用”上来讲述或者直示自性时，他就从“体”上来进行毁谤破斥，别人从“体”上来说自性本体时，他却又要从“用”上进行破斥，然实际上，他自己又没有真正明白诸法实相之体用关系，这种卖弄文字的伎俩，屡屡使用。所以他的一切所作所为，都落入外道邪见之中，才疯狂地破坏三宝。
再如，他在《狂密与真密》的各辑中，处处误称藏传密教的双身法为“欲界法”，欲界法就是世间法，就是外道法。并以此为借口，全盘否定了一切密宗教法，这是他自己以为“抓得最紧”的一条密宗的辫子，根本没有任何回旋的余地，要将藏传佛教乃至汉传密宗经典置于死地。但他自己却又说：“菩萨如是未断三界贪嗔烦恼而证菩提，非诸凡愚所知，故名不可思议。”（《宗通与说通》第33页）这里的“三界贪”就已经指出是“欲界的贪”，在他的口中，欲界法、贪欲法又都成为“不可思议”的了。而对藏传密教的双身法，也是非诸凡愚所知，不可思议的法，他却偏面的将其当作可思议法，诽谤为邪淫法。这种文字游戏，真是翻手为云，覆手为雨，欲加之罪，何患无词！
更为可笑的是他在有意无意间透露出来的文字游戏，让人不得不感叹其手法之高明、胆魄之宏伟、脸皮之厚、心地之黑、唇舌之利，如他说：“那么这个道理我们在《平实书笺》里面解说了很多，诸位回去的时候不要客气，每一种书都把它拿一本回去。不要说拿两本三本不好意思，不会！我们印出来就是要送给大家的；既然今天结了这个法缘，那你就好好把它带回去啊！那些书籍里所说的法，都是诸位在市面上没见过的，你走遍了全球也见不到这种书的。”（《大乘无我观》第112页）这段话真是把他的玩弄文字水平发挥到了极致！我们首先看他的“那些书籍里所说的法，都是诸位在市面上没见过的，你走遍了全球也见不到这种书的。”这句话的文字表面意思，一点儿也没有毛病，非常符合语言逻辑，在文字上看，那绝对就是“走遍了全球也见不到这种书的”，因为他写的书只在这里有，全球别的地方都没有，不要说是谈论佛法义理名相的书了，就算是淫秽的书刊，只要是萧平实写的，也一定是“走遍全球都没有的”，所以文字上看一点问题都没有。但是他这句话的真正含义就是这个吗？并不是！他的真正意思是：那些书里面所说的内容，是在全球其它地方都见不到的，也就是超过了全球的任何其它书，唯有他写的这些书是最好的。当时在场的所有听众，肯定也都会顺着他的这句话而顺理成章地理解为：除了这些书外，全球也没有能与此相比的书了，当然任何在市面上流通的佛教经典法宝，也就都不如他写的这些书了。如此一来，就达到了萧平实说这句话的目的了。这是一种语言误导法，他自己并没有直接说出“那些书比全球所有的佛经法宝更好”，但是他却要让人就这样去理解他的意思，那些被他这种迷魂汤灌醉了的追随者们，就会更加如痴如狂地走上他所设置的陷阱，不能自拔！因为他的真正目的就想彻底破坏佛、法、僧三宝，最终以第一因邪见外道全面取代佛、法、僧三宝。而事实上，他现在已经着手“取代三宝”的罪恶行为。他用自己写的书和外道邪见来取代一切佛法经典，而他和他的追随者们声声口口妄言“萧老师所说的法，完全符合三乘佛法”，也只是漂亮的烟雾弹而已，已经在上述文中举证说明。此处就他玩弄文字游戏，混乱和破坏佛法世间三宝之阴谋事实，“全面取代僧宝”的伎俩，进行简要的揭露。
他企图“以白衣身而充当僧宝”之行径，着实表现得露骨且又愚蠢！
首先，他从两方面来掩饰自己的白衣身份，从而凸显出他具备僧宝的“资格”：第一，特别强调了对“胜义僧”的解释，从理论上认定自己是“大乘胜义僧”。如他说：“宗说俱通之菩萨僧，唯在大乘，二乘所无；本书所述之宗通与说通，亦依大乘法中宗通与说通为准，是故此下不述二乘之宗说二通。”（《宗通与说通》第58页）并且直接自吹为“在人间，胜义菩萨僧极难可遇，特别是已证道种智之宗通与说通菩萨。”（《宗通与说通》第59页），这样就能使那些糊涂的追随者们误以为他就是殊胜的“僧宝”，从而完全失去对世间三宝之僧宝的皈依敬仰。《大乘大集地藏十轮经》卷五说：“云何名胜义僧？谓佛世尊、若诸菩萨摩诃萨众其德尊高于一切法得自在者、若独胜觉、若阿罗汉、若不还、若一来、若预流，如是七种补特伽罗，胜义僧摄。”（T13，749c）而实际上，萧平实连第七种预流果都不是，因为他的整个思想理论都是以“第一因”邪见为根本，属于纯粹的常见外道，见惑尚且未破，我执边见非常严重，何以自名胜义僧？显然是想以“胜义僧”的理论来掩护自己的白衣身份，从而达到用在家五欲之身，取代出家清净僧宝。第二，鼓吹自己二千年来都是出家悟道的高僧，只是最近这两世“佛所安排”而以在家白衣身来护持佛法，实际的内涵依然是出家悟道的高僧。如说：“我们应该有智慧来作比较：往昔二千多年来的出家悟道之身，而今时二世示现在家悟道之身；如果与别人往昔二千多年来的出家未悟之身，至今世仍是出家未悟之身，二者互相比较之下，佛弟子究竟应该依止何人？这个道理其实很容易判断，只是无人提醒，所以大家忽略了这个道理。”（《学佛之心态》第141页）这样在毫无根据的前提下，就把自己说成超过现在的僧宝，让人们不要去依止其他僧宝，如此，唯有依止萧平实才能算是佛弟子了。此是其以在家白衣之身，取代佛教僧宝的初步策划，并且已经得到了他那些追随者们的认可与迷信。
其次，他在称呼上取代了出家僧宝的“和尚”。和尚是梵语upadhya＾ya，音译作乌波陀耶、优婆陀诃、郁波第耶夜，意译为亲教师、近诵、依学、依生。乃戒坛三师之一。亦即传授戒法时，除教授、羯磨阿阇梨（轨范师）二师以外之“亲教师”。传到中国之后，原指懿德高僧，后世用于作为弟子对师父的尊称，世人则约定俗成地作为对出家男众的特有称呼，也就是现在住持三宝的僧宝。萧平实为了要取代住持三宝的僧宝，就荒唐地将自己称呼为和尚。如他的追随者们称呼他：“主三和尚 萧导师”（《大乘无我观》第155页）、“一心顶礼法身慧命父母上平下实和上”（《禅净圆融》第133页）、“一心顶礼法身慧命父母上平下实和尚”（《我与无我》第95页）等等，这种破坏世俗谛名言安立的做法，以在家白衣身说为出家“和尚”，破坏世俗谛就是破坏胜义谛，破坏世俗谛和胜义谛，就是破坏了整个佛法圣教。正如《中论》卷四说：“诸佛依二谛，为众生说法：一以世俗谛，二第一义谛。若人不能知，分别于二谛，则于深佛法，不知真实义。”（T30，32c￣33a）如此再联系上述他的第一因外道邪见和造神运动等等情形，这种伎俩显然就是混淆视听、取代僧宝的卑鄙行径。《维摩诘所说经》云：“始在佛树力降魔，得甘露灭觉道成；已无心意无受行，而悉摧伏诸外道。三转法轮于大千，其轮本来常清净；天人得道此为证，三宝于是现世间。”（T14，537c）经中说明了佛陀在鹿野苑三转四谛法轮，度五比丘为出家僧宝之后，三宝于是现世间。世间三宝必以佛、法、僧为住持，倘若一个在家白衣第一因常见外道都能称为和尚僧宝的话，那么佛法也将就此消灭了。观察萧平实的所作所为，就是朝着这个方向全面推进的。
再者，我们还可以从另一个方面看出他“取代僧宝”的巨大野心。在萧平实设计的《宗通与说通》一书之封面，封面上所画的是正觉讲堂之说法处，佛像前的讲台两边分别为木鱼和大罄，讲台正面写着“正觉”二字，证明这就是正觉讲堂的讲台桌，而在讲台正中的主讲位置上，俨然坐着一位身披袈裟、项挂念珠、手举一指、光头僧相的大法师，而这个讲堂的主讲导师就是他自己。可见他不但自吹为胜义菩萨僧，让那些追随者们对他以僧宝来恭敬，而且还把自己的世俗白衣在家相画成了出家僧宝相。说得再清楚一点，就是以他白衣之身来取代僧宝庄严之法相。自己不能舍离世俗五欲生活，却要画一个出家僧相来象征自己，把自己包装为大乘胜义僧，从而达到他全面取代佛法僧三宝的造神运动之目的！
他们还狂妄自大地诽谤佛教史上的历代祖师大德，盲目无根地批评“无情有佛性”之深奥思想，他根本都不懂华严境界、圆教实相，更不明白《华严经》所说的：“于一尘中尘数佛，各处菩萨众会中。无尽法界尘亦然，深信诸佛皆充满。”之深妙义理，这个“尘”字，不是指“根”，也不是指“识”，就是指“尘”。他何有能力评判此等高深之华严境界大乘妙理！却还处处自吹自擂，自称“真善知识”，自诩“完全符合三乘正法”，自谓“走遍全球也没有”，自许“全球独一无二”之“大乘胜义僧”。譬如井蛙以管窥天，诬谤圣贤破坏三宝，拔舌造业自鸣得意，皮厚心黑无过于此。真是：蚍蜉撼大树，可笑不自量！
综上所述，从萧平实的这些著作中，明白地表现出一个“邪因外道”的根本思想立场，在他造神运动的笼罩下，剽窃了佛法的名相义理，却反过来想要全面取代佛法僧三宝，破坏佛法，惑乱社会，混淆视听，欺骗众生。无论是外道邪见、造神运动，还是忘恩负义、谤法破僧，都已经罪据确凿、铁证如山，不容抵赖。于此事实面前，提出两点希望：第一，希望萧平实以及他的追随者们，赶紧走出外道邪见之深坑，停止一切破法谤僧之恶行，消毁一切已经出版破法谤僧之书籍，并向十方三宝虔诚忏悔！第二，希望已信未信佛弟子们，以及社会大众，不可染着萧平实所有著作中的谤法破僧之恶习，防范第一因外道邪见和造神运动之陷阱，依据佛经祖述五乘正法认真修学，发菩提心，成无上道。阿弥陀佛！
.png)
