A Brief Discourse on the Essence of Consciousness
Chapter Ten The Direct Perception of the Six Consciousnesses
I. What are Direct Perception, Inference, and Non-Valid Cognition
Direct perception (pratyakṣa) is the immediate observation and contemplation of dharmas (phenomena), perceiving their true characteristics and confirming their current state without distorting reality. If one cannot directly perceive the present state of dharmas or accurately observe their true characteristics, one resorts to other methods, such as comparison with reference objects—this is inference (anumāna). Inference may yield a correct result or it may not. For inference to be correct, a prerequisite is that the dharma used as a reference must be accurate; then the accuracy of the comparison can be higher. Since there is a ready reference, it does not require meticulous contemplation; the wisdom needed is not profound, the concentration (samādhi) required is not deep, and one may not even need meditative absorption to arrive at a result, though its accuracy is uncertain.
If the wisdom of direct perception is insufficient, another method can be adopted: imagination, fantasy, and conjecture. This can follow a certain line of thought or be entirely fanciful, lacking method or logic—this is non-valid cognition (abhāva or apramāṇa). Non-valid cognition is contemplation without evidence, relying heavily on baseless imagination, arising from an inability to gather and grasp evidence. Thus, the wisdom required for non-valid cognition is even shallower, and it does not require any meditative absorption. This shows that direct perception requires considerable concentration and wisdom; such wisdom is extremely valuable and trustworthy, as the realization of the Dharma relies on the wisdom of direct perception.
In non-valid cognition, due to the lack of evidence, it relies entirely on the imagination of the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna), like a kite in the sky—perhaps tethered, perhaps untethered. In this process, the mental faculty (manas) cannot exert its force; the wisdom of manas cannot soar freely like the mental consciousness, cannot imagine or conjecture. Whatever the mental consciousness thinks, manas cannot confirm it, thus realization is impossible, though coincidence or luck is not ruled out. Consequently, the wisdom of manas does not increase; only the wisdom of the mental consciousness grows. When encountering dissimilar problems, one cannot extrapolate; the mental consciousness has to engage in non-valid cognition again, indicating that its wisdom growth is very limited.
In inference, comparing two principles relies mainly on the deductive and comparative function of the mental consciousness; the wisdom of manas cannot exert much force. Manas can only observe from the sidelines, unable to truly confirm the result, though a correct inference is not ruled out. However, it cannot resolve the doubts of manas; the wisdom of manas does not increase, only the wisdom of the mental consciousness does.
II. For example, consider a towering tree. To determine its height, there are three approaches: direct perception, inference, and non-valid cognition. The non-valid method involves baseless imagination, conjecture, and guessing—having no experience with tree height, not knowing how to compare, and being unable to observe it directly. The result is predictable; one may not even convince oneself, let alone others. The inferential method involves comparing it to nearby objects like utility poles, tall buildings, or mountains to arrive at an approximate value. The result is a state of half-certainty and half-doubt; superficially, one may appear confident, but if someone insists on precision or presents more accurate evidence to refute it, one loses confidence. Of course, if others agree with the result, one gains some confidence.
Another approach is direct perception, but this is very difficult. It requires substantial evidence, rich experience, sharp and accurate observation, meticulous thinking, and precise data. Acquiring rich experience and a large amount of accurate data demands hard work and considerable time spent in exploration—its difficulty is beyond ordinary people, the concentration during observation is beyond ordinary people, and thus the resulting wisdom is similarly beyond ordinary people.
During the process of exploring and gathering data, manas is always observing, gradually being influenced. Once the mental consciousness reaches a conclusion that is highly convincing, manas, after its own consideration, will confirm it because it is well-reasoned and evidenced. Since manas has shallow wisdom and lacks analytical ability, it easily corresponds to well-evidenced facts and believes in the realm of direct perception. In fact, this result is also derived by manas itself; all the data are present, very real, so manas itself will engage in consideration and reach a conclusion. Only a conclusion one reaches oneself can be believed without doubt; of course, one trusts it most, regardless of what others say, and can decisively accept it without room for negotiation, making it difficult to abandon one's own conclusion.
Because direct perception is so arduous and difficult, those seeking short-term results and afraid of hardship are unwilling to engage in long, hard exploration. Those with short practice time lack sufficient concentration and wisdom and cannot accumulate enough experience; thus, they cannot correspond to direct perception. Therefore, many prefer inference and non-valid cognition, conjecture and comparison, because these methods are less labor-intensive, require little time, and demand little concentration or wisdom to produce a final result—how easy! Such people only want the result, not the process.
Yet precisely this intermediate process is crucial. It is the process of refining evidence, influencing manas, subduing various afflictions (kleśa), and the transformation from quantitative to qualitative change. Without this process, there is no qualitative change; one's afflictions can never be subdued or transformed. Thus, some people seek results everywhere, attempting to gain the fruit without going through the hard work of investigation. This fruit is not their own; they cannot enjoy it. They remain poor; if they falsely claim to be Dharma Kings, they will only face destruction—a fearsome consequence.
At this point, some may ask: "You've spoken at length without clarifying how direct perception works." But I tell you, what others call direct perception, once known by you, becomes inference, no longer direct perception. True direct perception requires you to observe and verify it personally. Results obtained through inquiry or conjecture are highly unreliable. Even results inquired from someone who used direct perception do not belong to you. If results are inquired from someone who used inference, they are even less yours and even less reliable. Further transmission and inquiry make the result terrifying. Here, I solemnly warn those unwilling to work hard: only through personal investigation can you personally gain the fruit and freely use it. Otherwise, it is a bitter fruit, which you alone must fully and solely endure—the karmic retribution is real.
III. What we usually call the realm of direct perception refers to the various realms currently, presently, and right now occurring. Direct perception and discernment (pratyakṣa-vijñapti) mean that the six consciousnesses can presently observe, discern, and verify the true existence of certain dharmas without comparative, imaginative, or inferential mental activities; what is discerned is the true reality. The first five consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) are entirely direct perception of the five sense objects (rūpa, sound, smell, taste, touch), discerning the five sense objects that currently exist, are happening, and are functioning. The sixth consciousness (mental consciousness) has discernment through inference, non-valid cognition, and direct perception, but it can also directly perceive currently existing realms. In many situations, the discernment of the sixth consciousness is inferential or non-valid. The six consciousnesses directly perceiving a realm means discerning the present, discerning the realm that currently exists, without comparison or imaginative investigation; the discerned result fully conforms to reality—this is called direct perception and discernment.
When the mental consciousness discerns a present realm—for example, observing the mountains and rivers before one—the eye consciousness directly perceives the manifest colors (varṇa) of the mountains and rivers, such as the hues of the landscape and the color of the earth; the very first moment of seeing the color is this image. The mental consciousness discerns the form colors (saṃsthāna-rūpa), expressive colors (vijñapti-rūpa), and non-expressive colors (avijñapti-rūpa) of the mountains and rivers. For instance, the size, height, and shape of a mountain are form colors. The length, width, and depth of a river are also form colors. The mountain's imposing presence, water's flow state, etc., are expressive colors. The mountain's majesty, steepness, barrenness, uprightness, the water's surging torrent, depth, tranquility, etc., are non-expressive colors. These realms are all presently existing; what can be presently observed and recognized by the mental consciousness is the realm of direct perception—no comparison, no fantasy, true discernment. Thus, both the mental and eye consciousnesses are directly perceiving. The mental consciousness also has inferential and non-valid discernment; some realms require comparison and imaginative thought to discern clearly and understand—this is the mental consciousness's inferential discernment. Of course, there may also be erroneous discernment, misjudgment, and mistaken thought—such erroneous discernment definitely belongs to non-valid discernment.
With mistaken thought and judgment, plus insufficient experience and wisdom, conclusions drawn through inference are often wrong, not conforming to facts—this is non-veridical discernment. Non-veridical discernment is non-valid discernment because it does not accord with reality. Among foolish sentient beings, the probability of non-valid discernment is relatively high; within solitary mental consciousness (detached from the five senses), the probability is also high; among those with abnormal nerves or minds, it is even higher. For example, someone is wolfing down food, seeming to enjoy it immensely. An onlooker thinks: "This food must be delicious; otherwise, how could he eat it so heartily?" They completely fail to consider that the person was starving and finds anything delicious. This person then tries the food, takes one bite, chews, and immediately spits it out, sensing a moldy taste and feeling nauseated. This is erroneous inferential discernment, misjudgment due to lack of experience. Such examples are extremely numerous, beyond count.
IV. When the mental and eye consciousnesses together discern an object, the mental consciousness may use direct perception, inference, or non-valid cognition. For example, regarding a mountain's height, the mental consciousness may not immediately determine it and must compare it with other objects to judge accurately—this is inferential discernment. When the mental consciousness thinks or judges erroneously, it is non-valid discernment. When mountains and rivers are directly before one, generally the mental consciousness does not need imagination, thought, or comparison to know; it directly discerns without error—this is the mental consciousness directly perceiving a direct perception realm. If one sees white clouds floating over a distant mountaintop and, against the drifting clouds, the mountain seems to move, and the mental consciousness judges that the mountain is moving, this is non-valid discernment—a misjudgment.
When the mental consciousness is directly perceiving the mental objects (dharmas) arising from the five sense objects, the first five consciousnesses must exist and be simultaneously directly perceiving the five sense objects; otherwise, the mental consciousness cannot discern the directly perceived mental objects manifested on the five sense objects. But even with a presently existing direct perception realm, the mental consciousness may engage in inferential or non-valid discernment—sometimes accurate, sometimes not; inaccurate discernment is entirely non-valid discernment, erroneous discernment.
When the ear hears sound, the ear consciousness directly perceives the sound's volume and vibration frequency. The mental consciousness also has direct perception regarding sound, and its discerned content is far richer than that of the ear consciousness. The direct perception realm discerned by the mental consciousness is the subtle mental objects of the currently transmitted sound—not recalling past sounds nor fantasizing about non-existent sounds. Without comparing or analyzing the sound, the mental consciousness knows its meaning—this is the mental consciousness's direct perception. For example, hearing speech, the mental consciousness immediately knows the source, timbre, content, etc., without error—this is direct perception. The mental consciousness may also engage in inferential discernment, using thought, reasoning, judgment, comparison, etc., to discern the meaning, hidden intentions, or motives of the speaker. Sometimes it discerns correctly, sometimes erroneously; when erroneous, it is entirely non-valid discernment.
Another example: hearing the sound of wind and rain, the ear consciousness directly perceives the vibration of the wind and rain sounds and their impact on the eardrum. The mental consciousness discerns aspects like the loudness, pitch, source, direction, urgency, etc., of the wind and rain sounds. The mental consciousness directly discerns these aspects without comparison or analysis—this is direct perception. But sometimes there is comparison, analysis, thought, and reasoning; the mental consciousness needs comparative and imaginative thought to distinguish clearly—this is inferential discernment. If discernment is erroneous, it is entirely non-valid discernment. The mental consciousness can engage in inferential and non-valid discernment alone, without the ear consciousness. When the mental consciousness discerns, if the ear consciousness is not active, it cannot discern sound; both consciousnesses must coexist to directly perceive sound. Therefore, the mental consciousness's direct perception of the five sense objects requires the participation of the first five consciousnesses.
When smelling a scent, the odor is a presently existing direct perception realm; both the nose consciousness and mental consciousness can discern it. The nose consciousness, in the first moment, directly perceives the degree of stimulation the odor has on the nasal mucosa. Subsequently, the mental consciousness, in the second moment, discerns whether the odor is fragrant or foul. Later, the mental consciousness discerns what kind of fragrance or foulness it is, its intensity, what object it emanates from, how far or near it is, etc. These mental objects may be directly perceived by the mental consciousness, or it may engage in inferential or non-valid discernment because the mental consciousness's knowledge of odors may be incomplete, preventing pure direct perception. Only when wisdom is perfect can one directly perceive all dharmas—perhaps only the Buddha can do this.
If the Buddha still needed to engage in inferential or non-valid discernment, then He would not be the possessor of all-knowing wisdom (sarvajñā), meaning His wisdom would be incomplete, with dharmas He could not directly know. Then He could not be called the Buddha of all-knowing wisdom, at best a Wonderful Enlightenment Bodhisattva. The Buddha can directly and perfectly know all dharmas in the world without comparison or imaginative thought, because His wisdom and virtues are perfectly complete.
When tasting food, the tongue consciousness directly perceives the coarse taste object. The first moment of discernment is definitely the tongue consciousness; the second moment is the mental consciousness; after the second moment, both discern simultaneously. The mental consciousness discerns the subtle taste objects, the specific sour, sweet, bitter, spicy, salty, bland tastes and their intensity. If the taste is too strong and one cannot adapt, one spits it out—this is the result of the mental consciousness's direct perception. Of course, there is also inferential and non-valid discernment: discerning based on memory is inference; imagining a certain food's taste is non-valid cognition. If knowledge of taste objects is limited, one must use inferential or non-valid discernment, and the result is often wrong. Even direct perception can sometimes be erroneous, not always completely correct. When the mental consciousness engages in inferential or non-valid discernment, it is the solitary realm of the mental consciousness; the first five consciousnesses do not participate in such discernment.
When experiencing tactile objects on the body, the body consciousness, in the first moment, directly perceives the coarse aspect of the tactile object. The mental consciousness, in the second moment, directly perceives the subtle aspect. Subsequently, both engage in direct perception again. But when the contacted tactile object is very special, the body and mental consciousnesses each discern for one, two, or three moments and must immediately withdraw, unable to contact the tactile object further. For example, when the body touches fire, the body consciousness immediately feels the heat but has no concept; the mental consciousness immediately discerns the degree of heat. Before it can analyze, compare, or think, manas immediately decides to move away from the fire source. This is manas's direct perception based on the discernment of the body faculty, body consciousness, and mental consciousness, so it directly decides: withdraw. Here, the body consciousness, mental consciousness, and manas are all engaged in pure direct perception—no inference or non-valid cognition—because the mental consciousness has no time for inference or non-valid cognition; manas decides to withdraw immediately, and the body and mental consciousnesses then vanish from the tactile object of fire.
Another example: a finger accidentally touches the tip of a needle. Both the body and mental consciousnesses perceive pain in the first moment. The mental consciousness has no time to think, analyze, or decide; manas directly decides to withdraw the hand, so the hand suddenly jerks. Here, all three consciousnesses are engaged in direct perception; there is no inferential or non-valid discernment by the mental consciousness because there is no time. After the finger withdraws from the needle tip, the mental consciousness continues to discern the sudden event and understands what happened: the finger accidentally touched the needle tip. Only then does inferential or non-valid discernment by the mental consciousness occur. Inferential discernment may be correct, leading to a correct conclusion; non-valid discernment is incorrect, completely inconsistent with facts.
The six consciousnesses in meditative absorption (dhyāna) also have direct perception. In the preliminary dhyāna (anāgamya-samādhi), all six consciousnesses exist and can directly perceive the currently existing or manifest six sense objects. States like the body's lightness, expansiveness, comfort, and ease are the joint direct perception of the body and mental consciousnesses. An inner feeling of emptiness, ethereality, and tranquility is the mental consciousness's solitary direct perception, belonging to its solitary realm. The mental consciousness may also, due to insufficient wisdom or meditative knowledge, fail to fully directly perceive the meditative state, resulting in inferential or non-valid discernment.
In the first dhyāna, the mental consciousness together with the eye, ear, and body consciousnesses jointly directly perceive the four sense objects: form, sound, touch, and mental objects. The mental consciousness can alone directly perceive inner feelings like lightness, joy, tranquility, and illusoriness, and can alone directly perceive the mental objects of the meditative state. The mental consciousness can also have inferential and non-valid discernment of the meditative mental objects. In the second dhyāna state, only the mental consciousness exists alone, without the first five consciousnesses. Thus, in the second dhyāna state, the mental consciousness alone directly perceives the subtle mental objects of deep meditation. At this time, the mental consciousness's direct perception is extremely subtle, almost imperceptible to itself; one hardly feels there is knowing, nor feels there is deep inner joy and comfort because it is too profound. In this realm, there is no inferential or non-valid discernment by the mental consciousness because there are no chaotic, illusory meditative states; the mental consciousness is in a state without coarse or subtle examination (avitarka, avicāra), already devoid of thought and analysis.
When severing the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), the mental consciousness can directly observe the impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and falsity of the five aggregates (skandhas), clearly knowing within that the five aggregates are not the self, are not different from the self, and that the five aggregates and the eighth consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) do not reside in each other. This knowing is direct perception because "the five aggregates are not self" is a true principle, called truth. The mental consciousness's cognition of this truth is real and immediate, simultaneously overturning all previous erroneous views. Therefore, what the consciousness sees at this time is true seeing, complete direct discernment, correcting previous non-valid cognition. This is the direct perception of wisdom. Thus, true severance of the view of self is a direct perception realm.
At the moment of realizing the mind (cittotpāda), the mental consciousness attains the true self, the eighth consciousness. Then one can directly observe the essence and functioning of the eighth consciousness, observing its purity, suchness (tathatā), unborn and unceasing nature, immovability, etc. Such observation by the consciousness is direct discernment, a direct perception realm. The Sixth Patriarch's (Huineng) five "How unexpected is the self-nature!" upon enlightenment were the direct perception realm of his realization. The combined functioning of the eighth consciousness and the five aggregates/seven consciousnesses is an activity currently happening, real and present. The consciousness's observation and discernment at this time is direct perception; that is, the consciousness's realization of the eighth consciousness is a direct perception wisdom realm, without a trace of inference or non-valid cognition. If it were non-valid discernment, there would be no true realization of the mind; such enlightenment would be imagined enlightenment, not true enlightenment, because it lacks personal verification.
When seeing the Buddha-nature (buddha-dhātu), one realizes the illusory nature of the entire body-mind world, able to directly and vividly perceive the wonderful functioning of the Buddha-nature, directly and truly experience the illusory and transformative nature of one's own body-mind world. Thus, the mental consciousness at this time is direct discernment, a direct perception wisdom realm, not inference or non-valid cognition. Otherwise, it would be imagined seeing of the nature, not true seeing, because it lacks personal verification. In the practice after realizing the mind and seeing the nature, all attainments through contemplation are the mental consciousness's direct discernment, all are direct perception realms. The deeper the practice, the more direct perception realms the mental consciousness has, and the fewer inferential and non-valid realms. This continues until Buddhahood, where the Buddha's mental consciousness is entirely direct perception realms, without inference, let alone non-valid cognition.
V. Direct perception and discernment is the accurate observation and discernment of the presently occurring and existing phenomenal world without error. Inferential discernment is the mental consciousness's ability to engage in thought, analysis, reasoning, and judgment, which may be veridical or non-veridical discernment. Non-valid discernment relies on the mental consciousness's fantasy, reasoning, and imagination; its result may be right or wrong. Knowing the existence of a direct perception realm involves the discriminating and discerning activity of the consciousnesses; otherwise, one wouldn't know of its existence. Without the discrimination or discernment of consciousnesses, we would truly know nothing of the world.
A direct perception realm is a presently existing realm that the seven consciousnesses can directly discern without comparing it to other sense objects, without thought or imagination, without hypothesis. Without these steps, one can still directly discover the presently existing five sense objects. The first five consciousnesses definitely directly perceive the presently existing five sense objects. The mental consciousness, relying on the five consciousnesses, can also directly perceive the presently existing five sense objects. If one still needs comparison, hypothesis, or imagination to make a discernment, it is clearly the mental consciousness's inferential discernment. Thus, the mental consciousness has three types of discernment: direct perception, inference, and non-valid cognition.
The seventh consciousness (manas) only believes in reality and facts; five sense objects and principles with insufficient or unreliable evidence, manas refuses to believe. Of course, reality and facts also have hierarchical distinctions and are relative; evidence also has true and false evidence. Manas, since beginningless time, has believed false evidence, considering the five aggregates as self and what belongs to self. Now, one must overturn those false facts and evidence to seek the truth.
Even if the mental consciousness engages in non-valid discernment, if the conclusion drawn under conclusive evidence fully accords with facts, manas can believe it. Only after manas believes can it make a decision; otherwise, manas temporarily refrains from deciding. Therefore, manas must decide based on direct perception. Thus, only under conclusive evidence without doubt will manas be willing to believe, because its own wisdom is insufficient; only when the sense objects and principles are placed clearly before it will it believe. It cannot conduct detailed comparison or imagination itself due to its lack of specific analytical wisdom.
Therefore, for any principle, to gain manas's recognition or affirmation, there must be ample evidence. This requires the mental consciousness to engage in meticulous thought and analysis, presenting persuasive grounds. Thus, contemplative thought and organization are particularly important. If manas's wisdom were also complete, we wouldn't need such great effort in learning Buddhism.
VI. What kind of observation is direct perception? For example, we observe the falsity of the form aggregate (rūpa-skandha), its birth, aging, sickness, and death—we can all directly observe this; this is direct perception. But the instantaneous birth and cessation of the physical body cannot be observed by ordinary people. If one uses the principle from physics of the instantaneous birth and cessation of electrons to infer that the physical body is instantaneously arising and ceasing, is this inference still considered direct perception? Actually, the phenomenon of the instantaneous birth and cessation of the physical body may only be directly observable by the Buddha alone. This requires extremely deep concentration and profound wisdom; without extremely deep concentration, it is absolutely unobservable. We can only know through inference. If inferential knowledge is correct and accords with the Buddha's authoritative teaching (āgama-pramāṇa), it can provisionally be called direct perception.
For example, following the Buddha's teaching, we contemplate the birth, cessation, and falsity of the universe (world-receptacle). Actually, we cannot use the eye consciousness to directly perceive the birth, cessation, and falsity of the universe before us because our lifespan is too short; we lack sufficient time to observe the phenomenon of the universe's birth, cessation, and falsity. The universe is also too vast, and our vision is too limited to observe the entire universe. But if, through proper reasoning in our mind, we can truly accept this principle, this can also be considered directly realizing the birth, cessation, and falsity of the universe—it is the result of proper and dharmic contemplation, not non-valid cognition.
Another example: a detective solves a case. Based on evidence from the crime scene, using inferential and non-valid thinking, reasoning, and deduction, they finally solve the case, revealing the truth to the world. The result of such inferential and non-valid observation, being correct, is also a direct perception realm. That is to say, any inferential or non-valid reasoning that accords with facts can also be considered a direct perception realm. Another example: a student solving a geometry problem also uses inferential and non-valid thinking to finally prove the problem's correctness; this is also a direct perception realm. Although we cannot directly perceive the instantaneous birth and cessation of the physical body, through proper and dharmic contemplative practice, we can finally prove this point; then the result obtained is a direct perception realm.
VII. The mental consciousness in concentration (samādhi) has three types of objects. If it focuses on bodily sensations, it is direct perception. If it engages in visualization or thought, there is non-valid discernment, inferential discernment, and direct perception. For example, visualizing oneself in the local place, transforming into a certain form and flying to another place, imagining various realms—all belong to non-valid discernment. Like the Sun Visualization (sūrya-pratyavekṣaṇā) in the Contemplation Sūtra (Amitāyurdhyāna Sūtra), initially it is non-valid discernment; when the contemplation succeeds, the setting sun appears automatically without contemplation—a concentration-produced form (dhyāna-nirmita-rūpa) appears, and the mental consciousness's discernment becomes direct perception.
If comparing bodily changes from before, or comparing the good/bad, beautiful/ugly of realms, it is inferential discernment. If thought yields a correct and realistic conclusion, it is direct perception. In the concentration of the second dhyāna and above, all discernment by the mental consciousness is direct perception because there is no thought, no visualization; it merely discerns the mental objects of the meditative state, only perceiving without being able to reflect on its own discerning nature. The deeper the concentration, the more its discernment is direct perception. If past-life images appear in concentration, the mental consciousness directly perceives them; if future-life realms manifest, the mental consciousness also directly perceives them.
VIII. Can the mind discern realms without thoughts? Sitting on the sofa at home, looking at familiar furniture, with no thoughts in mind—can one still clearly know the names, attributes, and functions of each piece of furniture? Upon just opening one's eyes in the morning, without words or thoughts in mind, can one know one is at home, lying in bed, and just woke up? If yes, then it is clear awareness (liǎoliǎo fēnmíng).
The six consciousnesses directly perceive; there is always knowing (vijñapti), but not necessarily thought (manasikāra). Thought (smṛti) is a specific mental factor (caitasika) among the five object-determining mental factors (viṣayaniyata-caitta), not always manifesting everywhere. But knowing, discerning, are among the five universal mental factors (sarvatraga-caitta), which must always manifest. Wherever there is a conscious mind, there are the five universal mental factors, but not necessarily the five object-determining ones. Therefore, when the conscious mind knows and discerns, there isn't necessarily thought or mental activity. Some people, when lazy, are unwilling to generate thoughts; when concentration is good, they are also unwilling to generate thoughts, but there is definitely knowing, discernment. If it is inferential or non-valid discernment, there must be the thought mental factor among the five object-determining mental factors—there must be thoughts, thinking, mental movement.
IX. The mental consciousness's direct perception: correct knowing is direct perception; understanding the dharma accurately without error is direct perception; conforming to facts is direct perception; embodying truth is direct perception; knowing correctly without comparison is direct perception; knowing correctly without imagination or fantasy, conforming to reality, is direct perception; recalling childhood events and understanding something is also direct perception; observing that past-life bodies were not self, observing that future-life bodies are not self—when observed correctly, it is direct perception. Having psychic powers and knowing people and events from countless eons ago is direct perception; knowing people and events countless eons later is direct perception. Seeing an apple with the eyes but thinking it is a pear is non-valid cognition, not direct perception; speaking nonsense while wide awake is non-valid cognition. If the mental consciousness is entirely direct perception, the non-valid cognition of manas will necessarily be corrected accordingly, and one will know all dharmas as they are.
X. The Three Modes of Discernment for the Seven Consciousnesses
Does non-valid cognition mean that the result of the consciousness's discernment is erroneous and inconsistent with facts, or does it mean that the mode of the consciousness's discernment can involve imagination, fantasy, conjecture, prediction? It means that the mode of the consciousness's discernment can involve imagination, fantasy, conjecture, prediction.
Then only the mental consciousness can have the non-valid mode of discernment. The five consciousnesses must directly perceive; manas must directly perceive; the eighth consciousness always directly perceives, discerning only direct perception realms because all dharmas are manifested by the eighth consciousness in the present moment; for the eighth consciousness, they are all presently existing dharmas, thus all are direct perception realms.
Dharmas that are not direct perception realms cannot be apprehended or cognized by the seventh consciousness, manas. Therefore, to make manas accept or recognize any dharma, it must be a direct perception dharma, with factual basis, very real, clear reasoning, and methodical structure. Thus, for manas to sever the view of self is much harder than for the mental consciousness; one cannot just think or ponder a bit and be done. It requires deep contemplative practice, manas constantly weighing and choosing until reasons are sufficient, principles are clear, and facts are presented; only then will manas accept it.
The five consciousnesses also directly perceive the five sense objects. For five sense objects not currently present, the five consciousnesses cannot imagine discerning them; they cannot fantasize any five sense objects. Any dharma the mental consciousness imagines, fantasizes, recalls, or anticipates must be an image presented by the eighth consciousness. One could say it arises from nothing, but it is all illusorily created and sustained by the eighth consciousness. Therefore, the eighth consciousness discerns only direct perception dharmas; it does not need to engage in non-valid or inferential discernment of any dharma. Everyone's mental consciousness has three modes of discernment: direct perception, inference, and non-valid cognition. Direct perception knows dharmas presently existing; it does not know dharmas not currently present; it does not recall, imagine, or compare; it does not process dharmas—what is present is what is known.
XI. Why is analogy of similar things not inference but direct perception? For example, regarding humanity, it definitely shares common characteristics. An individual person definitely shares similarities with humanity; one does not need to compare this person with others to confirm they are indeed human and not another category. A newborn baby, at birth, is known to be human without comparison, not another category; even in the womb, it is known this child is human, not another. Such knowing is direct perception, not inferential knowing.
Products made from the same mold all share identical features; knowing the features of one means knowing the features of the others. This knowing is direct perception, not inferential knowing.
If comparing within the same category to know the difference, it is inferential knowing. For example, not knowing someone's height, one must compare them with a standard height person, or with most people, to know—this is inferential knowing. But this inferential knowing result may be correct or erroneous; that is, the result may be direct perception or non-valid cognition.
Inferentially knowing someone's height is less intelligent than directly perceiving it. Direct perception: upon meeting someone, one can immediately judge based on experience and wisdom without needing to compare or measure. Comparing and measuring shows a lack of direct perception wisdom; observation and judgment are not good enough, so one has to resort to inference. If the result of direct perception judgment does not conform to facts, then it is not direct perception but non-valid cognition, showing one's wisdom is also insufficient, perhaps overly confident—even less humble and cautious than those using inference.
XII. Analogical Reasoning "By This Analogy" is Not Inference
In the secular world, there is analogy: for things of the same kind, proving one or some proves the whole category; there is no need to prove all. This is a secular rule, also applicable in Buddhism. Human sampling surveys investigate a part to prove the whole category. Does this belong to inference? It is not inference. I contemplate my own five aggregates, prove they are suffering, empty, impermanent, and not-self, and then conclude others' five aggregates are the same, all sentient beings' five aggregates are the same. Is this inference? It is not inference.
For example, I attain enlightenment through Chan practice, realizing the eighth consciousness within myself, then know others' eighth consciousness is the same, all sentient beings' eighth consciousness is the same. Is this inference? It is not inference. In geometry, mathematics, and all academic experiments and reasoning, this method of proof is often used: "by this analogy" (yǐ cǐ lèi tuī). Writing articles analyzing principles, one often uses the phrase "by this analogy," meaning the subsequent is the same as this, no need for further proof or deduction—this is the conclusion for the same category. Is this inference? It is not inference.
Proving the correctness of any principle or conclusion sometimes does not start from direct perception but from non-valid cognition—through thought and verification, finally arriving at a direct perception conclusion. Non-valid cognition also has many great uses. People with sharp minds, whose "random thoughts" are reasonable, are not just fantasizing; it's called cleverness. People with dull minds, no matter how much direct perception data they are given, just cannot arrive at a correct direct perception conclusion—there are too many such people.
Having undergone countless sufferings yet still not knowing suffering, with numb minds and thoughts—this is actually stupidity. Stupid people constitute over ninety percent. Having experienced countless setbacks, not knowing to turn back, still drilling into dead ends, stubbornly foolish. Suffering, emptiness, impermanence, not-self—clearly all are direct perception, with so much direct perception data proving it—yet everyone fails to see it clearly. They still study Buddhism, contemplate and practice, yet cannot realize it through practice—this is called stupidity. Clearly the five desires and six sense objects are impermanent, arising and ceasing, changing, ungraspable, unattainable—the true facts are already directly presented, glaringly obvious—yet countless people fail to understand, cannot control themselves, still desperately grasp and cling, unwilling to loosen their grip even a little, to rest even a moment—pitiful and stupid.
XIII. Direct Perception and Non-Valid Cognition
Seeing a rope as a snake—does this belong to non-valid cognition or inference? Since one neither correctly discerned the rope nor truly recognized the snake, it's all erroneous discernment, not fact, so it's non-valid cognition. Riding a donkey while searching for a donkey—what mode is this? Not recognizing the donkey one is riding, not treating the donkey as a donkey, yet going to find another donkey—failing to correctly recognize the donkey is non-valid cognition. One's entire five-aggregate body is the eighth consciousness, yet one doesn't understand and goes to find another eighth consciousness—what mode is this? Also non-valid cognition. Ordinary people seeing parents call them parents, seeing children and grandchildren call them such—this is also not direct perception, it's non-valid cognition. Therefore, the Buddha taught King Ajātaśatru to contemplate that there is no such person as his father, no act of killing his father, enabling him to realize the emptiness and non-self of the five aggregates, eliminate non-valid cognition, and return to direct perception. Only then could the karma of killing his father be eradicated.
What the Arhat realizes—the five aggregates are not self, not different from self, arising-ceasing-changing-empty—what mode is this? The Arhat's realization of the emptiness and non-self of the five aggregates, though direct perception, is half direct perception, not ultimate, so they still need to study the Mahāyāna Dharma to realize the ultimate Dharma. After Bodhisattvas realize the eighth consciousness, they attain various levels of wisdom—what mode is this? The dharmas realized by Arhats and Bodhisattvas, though directly perceived, are relative direct perception, not complete direct perception; there is still a non-valid component.
When Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara perceives the five aggregates as empty—what mode is this? If Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara's perception of the five aggregates as empty is entirely direct perception, then practice would be complete; he would be a Buddha, needing no further practice. But since even the dharmas realized by Equal Enlightenment (samyak-saṃbodhi) and Wonderful Enlightenment (miao jue) Bodhisattvas are not ultimate, they still need to eliminate the last trace of ignorance (avidyā) to fully become Buddhas. Only when ignorance is completely eradicated is it complete direct perception wisdom.
Strictly speaking, only the Buddha's wisdom cognition is complete direct perception wisdom, ultimate and beyond doubt, fully conforming to reality and truth. The wisdom cognition of other Bodhisattvas has different degrees of direct perception but is not ultimate. The wisdom cognition of Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas is less ultimate than Bodhisattvas'; their emptiness realization is shallower. Ordinary people are entirely non-valid cognition, without direct perception. Even seeing a mountain as a mountain, water as water, parents as parents, enemies as enemies—without any confusion—is still non-valid cognition, deluded and inverted. Non-valid cognition is equivalent to mentally deranged cognition; sentient beings all have mental illness to varying degrees; none are healthy.
XIV. From the ultimate perspective, all dharmas are direct perception for the Buddha, but non-valid cognition for ordinary people, because the Buddha knows completely as it is, while sentient beings know erroneously. The six consciousnesses of sentient beings, since beginningless time, have always, intentionally or unintentionally, deceived their own manas, transmitting only non-valid realms to it. Thus, manas becomes increasingly defiled, ignorance grows deeper. If the mental consciousness, through contact with correct sacred teachings (āgama-pramāṇa), proper attention (yoniso manasikāra), and correct contemplation, can enable the six consciousnesses and manas to have proper dharmic direct perception realms, then one can know the true reality of all dharmas. Ordinary people directly perceive all dharmas and consider them real, but the results are entirely false; ordinary people have never reached a correct conclusion; the conclusions they reach are often wrong. Ordinary people's so-called direct perception is unreliable because they lack true Dharma wisdom. Relying on this so-called direct perception, they suffer the pain of birth-death transmigration life after life due to these wrong conclusions.
XV. When the mental consciousness contemplates the non-self of the five aggregates, it uses logical thought, analysis, and reasoning. Does this count as direct perception? During contemplative practice, the mental consciousness can manifest all three modes of wisdom. The logical thought, analysis, and reasoning used by the mental consciousness while contemplating the five aggregates also have three modes. The higher the wisdom, the more direct perception there is; the more facts observed, the fuller the evidence, the more sufficient the reasons, the more manas is influenced, and the closer one is to realization.
The more evidence the mental consciousness gathers, the more direct perception the better, because the mental consciousness gathers evidence for manas. Direct perception evidence is persuasive, enabling manas to accept it; reasons are sufficient. The mental consciousness's non-valid imagination and fantasy lack evidence; manas cannot accept it. Thus, it cannot guide or promote manas's consideration and cannot lead to realization.
Direct perception does not necessarily mean personally experienced. Seeing events happening to others, events happening to all sentient beings, all belong to direct perception observation—as long as it accords with facts, principles are clear, and logic is rigorous, it suffices. But something like the issue of the four great elements (mahābhūta) indeed cannot be directly observed due to insufficient wisdom; it can only be considered study, non-valid cognition, though for Buddhas it is direct perception. Each person's mental consciousness wisdom is limited, so there are extremely many facts and truths one cannot directly observe; thus, realization is very, very difficult. One can only realize some relatively shallow truths.
Dharmas difficult for some to contemplate may be easier for others; the difference lies in the varying wisdom of the mental consciousness and manas. Regarding the four great elements, Buddhas of course immediately directly perceive them; we cannot. We can only follow the principle to contemplate and infer, serving a study function. Since beginningless time, sentient beings in the cycle of birth and death have undergone countless sufferings of birth and death—all direct perception—yet sentient beings cannot directly observe it, cannot perceive it, cannot learn any lesson from it, thus birth-death transmigration never ceases, suffering never ends.
