Dialogue with Paying Client K: The Exam Ace’s Spiritual Practice Malaise—Elitism vs. Everyone’s Innate Wholeness

Note: a. K has reviewed this article and agreed to its publication. b. Some of the dialogue consists of supplementary exchanges outside the formal consultation, so it ranges more widely.

Su Huoyi:
Something that often comes up when highly educated people discuss “spiritual practice.”
They cannot live in the present and seek fulfillment outside themselves. They need to stop seeking outward and look inward instead (to see everyone’s innate wholeness).
a. Fantasies about faraway places (other countries, other people); fantasies about art, philosophy, pastoral life, lying flat, retirement, and so on; fantasies about starting a business.
b. Worship of intellect, elitism, omnipotent narcissism.
The craving for some kind of “advanced” philosophy; a fixation on Laozi, Wang Yangming, or Ding Yuanying, with fantasies of narcissistic omnipotence behind it.
An obsession with spiritual practice, seeing it as a skill through which one becomes stronger and stronger, progressing toward becoming Zhang Sanfeng (a problem with many so-called spiritual practitioners).
At root, this is elitism. It can even involve an opportunistic mindset of “overtaking on a bend.”
They see meditation as a technique they can master, a little blue potion that quickly restores their mana. Meditation should be a strategy; its essence is mindfulness, awareness, and connection itself. Marx, Engels, and Einstein did not deliberately meditate.
c. Arrogance and a divisive mindset.
When connecting with nature (feeling the beauty of flowers and plants), they instead feel arrogance and loneliness, believing that only a small number of people like themselves can appreciate this tranquility (artistic ability, aesthetic sensibility, spiritual attainment). The karmic obstructions of separation, arrogance, and superiority run too deep. Their connection with others, with ordinary people, breaks down, making their struggle with loneliness worse.
Instead, they need to see children and ordinary people: everyone has innate wholeness, everyone can appreciate beauty equally, and everyone has the same deep wisdom. Ordinary people struggling at the bottom are not failing to work hard or lacking in ability; they face more suffering and challenges. It is a matter of fate.
Zhuangzi is also against elitism, advocating the abandonment of intellectual cleverness and sagehood. His book often depicts artisans, Cook Ding, farmers, and people with disabilities as innately complete and able to enter the Way, while Yan Hui and Confucius serve as intellectual foils.

Su Huoyi:
In counseling, as well as between friends and spouses, what truly makes a difference in human connection is not wisdom, learning, or instruction, but a humanistic spirit, acceptance, awareness, truth, goodness, beauty, and so on—the deep light of our own nature that everyone possesses. The light of two people’s own nature connects, bypassing their respective karmic obstructions. With this kind of connection, there is no loneliness.

Friend K:
I completely agree.
So you mean that everyone has the light of their own nature and innate wholeness, and that certain karmic obstructions prevent that light from expressing itself? Even bad people, people we dislike and avoid, actually have innate wholeness too; it is just obscured by karmic obstructions, right?

Su Huoyi:
Yes. With so-called bad people, people we avoid, their karmic obstructions run too deep, and those are all acquired. (This also touches on the discussion of what is innate and what is acquired, so philosophical reflection still needs a foundation of strength of character and inner light.)
Those so-called bad people also vary in how bad they are, and some still have a conscience. It is not as though every one of them delights in being bad, or that bad people resonate with one another at the level of the soul. Bad people also like good service and good people. Bad people also dislike and fear other bad people. Behind this, their own nature is still at work. Bad people depend even more on society and the social ecosystem.
Human nature is good, and everyone has innate wholeness: this is a core axiom of the social sciences. Many social-science frameworks start from different basic assumptions.
When I get to know someone now, I also ask whether they think human nature is good or evil. It touches on some fundamental understandings.
In many families of origin, the karmic obstructions run too deep, and both sides’ karmic obstructions and personal issues are too entangled, so keeping a distance is a better approach. You have probably heard the phrase “a bowl of soup’s distance,” while some situations call for something more extreme. In folk language, this is called “being ill-fated for one another.”

Friend K:
Yes, I also firmly believe that human nature is inherently good. It is similar to the Buddhist idea that everyone has Buddha-nature.

Su Huoyi:
I am really happy for you. If you can truly grasp this point, that is what Chan Buddhism calls seeing your own nature. Your own nature has always, all along, been luminous. I previously posted “A Brief History of the Development of the Concept of Innate Wholeness in Chan Buddhism.”
You also know Marx’s theory of alienation: everyone has innate wholeness, but is alienated by external forces. This is also historical materialism, which says that people are influenced by history, their environment, and the outside world. But dialectical materialism says that people are not mechanical; there is still a sliver of freedom. Daoism also speaks of that sliver of human freedom amid nine parts helplessness.

Su Huoyi:
Your pursuit of “comparing all systems to find the best, grand unified social-science framework” is a long way around, and there are obsessive attachments and karmic obstructions within it. Most people who live happily do not have such a framework, and neither do most great masters.
I happen to think I have one myself (of course, countless people think this), namely the Marx + Zhuangzi framework. I went through this process of exploration (though it was not entirely an obsessive fantasy of omnipotence; it was also a growing sense of connection, step by step). “An Overview of My ‘Marx + Zhuangzi + Psychology’ Framework.”
I can introduce it to you while also saying that the path to liberation does not lie in obsessively clinging to it.
People such as Yu Donglai, the owner of Pangdonglai, or the teacher Zhang Guimei do not necessarily have fully coherent social-science frameworks and ideas. If what they have is useful enough, makes them happy enough, and brings them enough peace and well-being, that is enough.
As for “comparing all systems,” people often lack the ability to make that comparison. They cannot even clearly compare the ideas that human nature is good and that human nature is evil. Nor do they have the energy or any need to do so.

Friend K:
Exactly. I understand that deeply.
You can pursue a framework without needing to cling to it. As long as it serves your needs, that is enough. Maybe that is the right approach.
Ultimately, looking inward is something like not needing external books and systems: clearing away karmic obstructions and relying on the original light of human nature is enough.
I used to be fixated on building a coherent framework because I felt that you should read a book from thin to thick, then back to thin again. I thought that the innocence you reach after reading every book and thinking everything through—a return to simplicity and authenticity—was a truly higher form of innocence. That feeling of spiraling upward, seeing through everything, and returning to your original heart.
But after talking with you, I feel that perhaps this is unnecessary. Even if someone has no framework, as long as they have the light of their own nature, perhaps that is enough?

Su Huoyi:

1. The former is still the “exam ace’s malaise,” compulsive striving, and the malaise of elitism. Awareness means seeing the obsessive attachments and karmic obstructions behind your fixation, and breaking that fixation. It is not that Wang Yangming’s teachings are bad, but ordinary readers really can be distracted and misled by many things in them, mistakenly believing that they must read ten thousand books, travel ten thousand miles, and possess exceptional wisdom before they can awaken.
2. The Platform Sutra specifically emphasizes that Huineng had never studied and could not read. This is precisely the point it is making.
3. Connect with ordinary people.
   Think about an elderly village woman who is happy and content, without worries or karmic obstructions. Would that count as awakening?

Friend K:
After talking with you, I am beginning to understand.
I used to think that an elderly village woman was unawakened, unenlightened, not sufficiently advanced—that hers was not a truth reached through critical reflection.
Now I understand what you mean.

Su Huoyi:
When connecting with nature, realize that you could already make that connection as a child. It was not only after growing up, becoming stronger, and developing greater aesthetic sensibility that you became able to connect. In fact, you may be less able to do so now than you were as a child. — Feel the innate wholeness and deep mind that children and ordinary people all possess. Break free of spiritual elitism. That is why I say that connecting with ordinary people and Marxism matters so much. It breaks through petty-bourgeois malaise.

Friend K:
That gets right to the heart of it. I definitely have spiritual elitism at the moment.
A lot has become clearer.

Su Huoyi:
My framework specializes in treating this malaise, haha.
The Chan principle of innate wholeness becomes clearer in the context of Marx and Zhuangzi.
Many people fail to understand Chan practice because they still treat Chan as a matter of spiritual practice and effort in themselves. They treat awakening as the result of effort. In doing so, they lose Chan’s original meaning.

Friend K:
That was how I used to understand it too. I thought you needed spiritual practice, reflection, and an understanding of principles before you could awaken.
Now it sounds as though simply preserving a childlike heart, without letting other karmic obstructions invade and interfere with it, is already a great success.

Su Huoyi:
Exam aces and the petty bourgeoisie have lost their connection with other ordinary rural children because of the elitism that accompanied them along the way. That leaves them even more trapped in elitism.
This is why ordinary people need this framework of Marx plus Zhuangzi plus psychology. Behind it lies the rebuilding of many deeply rooted worldviews, outlooks on life, values, and personality structures. Use Marx plus Zhuangzi plus psychology to refactor the mountain of shitty code that makes up those worldviews, outlooks, and values.

Su Huoyi:
I studied psychology, Daoism, Chan Buddhism, Marx, the history of philosophy, and so on along separate paths, which then converged in humanism, innate wholeness, and socialism. Because if everyone has innate wholeness, we have to ask why bad people are produced in large numbers at a certain rate, and why the world becomes alienated. That requires Marxism.
This long road of reading can also lead to the light. But it is a long road, and people often lose their way.

Friend K:
That is true.
So there is no need to insist that you must finish that journey before you can find happiness and peace. You can take in what is around you as you go.
If you lose your way, you need to reflect and check your thinking against the axioms that human nature is inherently good and that everyone has innate wholeness.

Su Huoyi:
When you lose your way, your own nature is still at work.
You can relax. You do not need to fear becoming bad. Take it easy; the world will support you.

Su Huoyi:
I think that sentence today was wonderful and crucial. Financial freedom is when you feel free, when you feel you have enough.
And freedom in philosophy, freedom in awakening, and freedom in happiness work the same way. I am already sufficiently awakened and happy; I seek nothing more.
At that moment, you know you have awakened. You no longer need a master somewhere far away, because you already have the same thing the master has—your own nature.
The sudden awakening that Chan speaks of is that precise moment: seeing your own nature. I recently wrote “Sudden Awakening and Gradual Change in Life,” which discusses this systematically.
Zhuangzi and Marx let us see that we have always been connected with the great light of the world.
I still have many karmic obstructions and worries every day. I am still an ordinary, mediocre person. Marx, Engels, and Su Dongpo also had many karmic obstructions and worries.
My articles actually explain this quite clearly. Or rather, the writings of all the great masters—Chan, Zhuangzi, psychology, Marx—explain it quite clearly. It is just that people’s karmic obstructions run so deep that they cannot understand it, will not accept it, or skim past it.

Friend K:
Yes, coexistence. Being able to face the existence of confusion and karmic obstructions is enough.

Su Huoyi:
Right. I wrote a series on acceptance: accepting mediocrity, accepting karmic obstructions, and accepting the dark side.

Friend K:
Some people may see Marx mentioned in your posts, misunderstand because they do not know much about him, and stop reading. Many people have misconceptions about Marx’s philosophy, you know what I mean.

Su Huoyi:
Yes, let things take their course. The power of words has its limits.
In the social sciences, there is no getting around Marxism. It is a scientific system, the Newtonian mechanics of the social sciences. We cannot pretend it does not exist, and we also have to rely on it. The petty bourgeoisie need to study Marxism even to heal their own psychological illnesses. This was a particularly interesting point I discovered when I was 31, haha.
Of course, we have already talked a great deal over a long time, and you have seen that I have never been obsessively attached to conveying Marx’s ideas. Petty-bourgeois karmic obstructions are hard to break through. Let things take their course.

Friend K:
Very interesting. These days, petty-bourgeois circles mainly talk about Jung, Freud, existentialism, and Buddhism. Marx is actually quite marginal in the petty-bourgeois world.

Su Huoyi:
That is why they cannot find salvation, haha. I wrote an article saying that existentialism must be combined with Marxism, which also addresses this. Escape from Freedom by Fromm, my favorite psychologist, does precisely this work: why the petty bourgeoisie flee freedom and attach themselves to authority and grand narratives. He was a German Jew who studied why the German petty bourgeoisie turned to Nazism in the 1930s. You have also seen the global rightward turn of the petty bourgeoisie in recent years, in countries across Europe, the United States, and Japan.

Friend K:
That is remarkable. What I have been thinking about over the past year or two is actually exactly what you did before. I feel that I have to resign and leave—find somewhere, for example, where I can read every day for a year or two, reading hundreds or thousands of books. Only then can I finish constructing my framework, think certain things through, and build up enough inner strength.
When it comes to making decisions through intuition, feeling, or even experiential insight, my understanding has always been this: you must first build a deep theoretical framework and think things through rationally before you can rely on feeling. You should not rely on inspiration and feeling without a system of knowledge.
But I really had never considered what you said about “the radiance of one’s own nature” and already having the capacity to awaken.

Su Huoyi:
Your deep mind probably is not all that interested in the idea of shutting yourself away to read vast numbers of books either—it does not feel much connection or resonance with it.
Actually, my leaving my job and reading were not entirely based on an unfounded fantasy that books held something for me.
In 2018, when I had read more than 700 books, I was still very confused. I felt that I had read so many books and wondered whether reading was useless. By then, I had already moved toward value investing. In 2019, when I had read around 900 books, I felt that reading was useful and began to see the dawn. At that stage, I moved toward Su Shi, Daoism, and psychology. After the National Day holiday in October 2020, I embraced Marxism. Before leaving my job in 2021, I had already moved toward Daoism and Marxism-Leninism. It was only in 2023 that I seemed to understand what Chan was saying, and only after arriving in Yunnan in 2024 that I awakened to Zhuangzi. Before leaving my job, I had already established a very good connection with books. I was simply continuing along my own path, naturally, rather than fantasizing that this path contained something unknown that would save me.

Su Huoyi:
People should rely on feeling and sensibility, but their feelings have become disordered, so they can only rely on thought and reason—yet their thought and reason are even more disordered.
Ultimately, we still have to rely on restoring the deep mind: discipline, concentration, and wisdom; uprightness, stillness, clarity, and emptiness. Correct thinking is rooted in a clear deep mind. (For example, when thinking about whether human nature is good or evil.) The dark clouds of karmic obstructions no longer heavily obscure the light of one’s own nature.
Buddhist teachings are a good thing, but there are many systems and schools within Buddhism, and they also contradict one another. Chan is actually a minority current within Buddhism, and many Buddhist schools do not accept its approach that the mind itself is Buddha. This is a huge subject. Add to that the strong spiritual practice malaise and elitism of many people studying Buddhism, and they can study it for a long time without understanding it.
The advantage of Zhuangzi is that his framework is clear, simple, practical, systematic, and more confident in innate wholeness.

Friend K:
I think I understand, thank you.
This may be what we discussed today: everyone yearns for poetry and faraway places. But they may go a very long time without finding them. Or even when they do, they discover that they are different from what they imagined, and then fall into disappointment and confusion.

Su Huoyi:
Exam aces become trapped in a sea of books on abstruse philosophy, with elitism and spiritual practice malaise obscuring the truth. Both Daoism and Marxism specialize in treating these maladies. This is also why Chinese people so often study Su Shi and Zhuangzi.
From the Tang and Song dynasties onward, people such as Su Shi, Wang Anshi, Wang Wei, and Xin Qiji practiced both Chan and Zhuangzi’s teachings. Wang Yangming was not the first to study a combination of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. For ordinary people like us, I recommend Su Shi over Wang Yangming. His writing is more thorough and practical.
Poetry and faraway places are the opposite of living in the present. Su Shi’s daily life was actually full of suffering too.
So the subject of our next conversation will be returning to living in the present and exploring a true “foothold,” rather than continuing to become trapped in philosophy and thought.
“On Living in the Present”