A Guide to the Cultivation and Realization of the Mind: Part Two
Chapter 9: The Distinction Between Direct Perception, Inference, and Non-Valid Cognition
1. The Mental Factors Employed in the Cognition of Direct Perception, Inference, and Non-Valid Cognition
Among the three types of cognition, it is not fixed which of the fifty-one mental factors will be employed; each specific situation must be analyzed specifically. When circumstances differ, the mental factors employed differ. Different people, due to various reasons, employ different mental factors. Even for the same person, at different times and in different settings, with different physical and psychological states, different levels of knowledge, and different levels of wisdom, the mental factors employed are also not the same. The five universal mental factors will all be employed; the five object-specific mental factors are not necessarily all employed; the eleven wholesome mental factors do not necessarily appear; the fundamental afflictions and the mental factors of the great, middle, and minor derivative afflictions also do not necessarily appear—all depending on the circumstances.
Cognition through direct perception requires sufficient data, which in turn requires very deep wisdom. The mental factor of determination (adhimokṣa) must be extremely strong, the mental factor of meditative concentration must be manifest, and the mental factor of mindfulness must be complete, achieving uninterrupted continuity of thought, moment after moment. Cognition through inference is relatively shallower in wisdom; it must proceed through comparison—without comparison and without a reference point, one cannot know. If there is no relative condition, there is no place to begin. Cognition through direct perception, however, requires no comparison and knows directly, or knows in the very moment—the faculties being sharper. Non-valid cognition occurs when evidence truly cannot be found; when there is insufficient data and no object for comparison, one has no choice but to employ means such as imagination, conjecture, and reasoning. The more methods used, the more it indicates that wisdom is limited and the power of determination is weaker; naturally, the power of meditative concentration and the power of mindfulness are both insufficient, such that one cannot judge directly or draw a conclusion directly.
Inference is like a person whose ability is insufficient to accomplish a task alone, who must find someone to help in order to get it done. Non-valid cognition is when not even a person who could help can be found, and one has no choice but to fiddle around on one's own; perhaps by luck one gets it right, but even if one gets it right, the wisdom is insufficient and it does not belong to direct perception. It is like being unable to see what clothes someone is wearing now, and having nothing to compare against, so one has no choice but to imagine and guess; even if the guess is correct, it is not something directly seen.
Some people lack wisdom and do not know how to guide others step by step in practice and realization to attain direct-perception seeing of the path, yet they still insist on guiding others, so they resort to the process of elimination. For example, suppose there are five roads here leading out of the city to five other regions, and only one of them leads to Beijing. Not knowing how to guide a person to make the correct choice, he resorts to elimination. First he points to the first road; the other person, hesitating, points and points again without daring to be certain, then reads his eye signals suggesting it is wrong, and then the second road is chosen. The other person looks at his facial expression again and feels that is also wrong, so the second road is eliminated. In this way, four roads are all rejected, leaving only the last road. The other person then says, "It must be this road; this is the road that leads to Beijing." Then this person says: "Well, that's what you said, not what I taught you. Congratulations on seeing the path." Everyone, tell me—does this count as seeing the path? What wisdom has arisen from such "seeing of the path"? Those who deceive people and mislead students are precisely such people—utter swindlers through and through, and the other person is cheated happily besides—a pair of fools!
2. The Major Problem of Direct Perception Versus Non-Valid Cognition
Yesterday, someone analyzed and predicted based on various data indicators that a certain stock would rise 10% today, and indeed today it rose exactly 10%, not off by a bit—very accurate. Was this person's prediction yesterday direct perception? Based on today's stock trends and technical data indicators, this person analyzed and predicted that tomorrow the stock would fall 2%, and when tomorrow came, sure enough, the stock fell 2%. Was what this person analyzed and predicted today direct perception? Neither was direct perception; all predictions are non-valid cognition. No matter how accurate the data, the stock market situation was not witnessed with one's own eyes, and therefore it is not direct perception.
Relying on data indicators to deduce, think, analyze, conjecture, and reason is non-valid cognition. If I predict that you will do something bad tomorrow, but right now you have after all not done anything bad, then doing something bad is not a fact—it is something predicted and conjectured by the solitary consciousness (mano-vijñāna-eka-citta), and therefore it is not direct perception; it is non-valid cognition. Direct perception would be seeing him in the very act of doing something bad on the spot; but if in reality he is actually doing something good, then what you saw is also non-valid cognition.
I clench both hands into fists, one fist holding a one-yuan coin and the other fist empty. Then I extend my right fist and ask a person: "Is there a coin in this fist?" The other person thinks and says: "There is a coin." Congratulations—he guessed right. But even so, it is still non-valid cognition, not direct perception, because the answer was not obtained through his direct-perception observation; it was guessed. If it is said to have been observed through direct perception—he did not actually see whether there was a coin in the fist. If he had supernatural powers, what is seen by the divine eye would also count as direct-perception seeing, but he has no supernatural powers. What the fleshly eye cannot see is not personally seen; it can only be conjecture, speculation, and inference—which is non-valid cognition. Not seeing the fact is non-valid cognition, not direct perception.
What exactly is direct perception? Can everyone now genuinely understand it? Direct perception is a dharma that exists presently, witnessed with one's own eyes, seen truly and without error—only this is direct-perception observation, cognition with the wisdom of direct perception. If it is not a dharma that actually exists, not a dharma seen in the present, but merely something thought up, conjectured, and imagined by the solitary consciousness, it is purely non-valid cognition. The stock market situation does not exist in the present; it can only be seen the next day. One's present views and conclusions are not drawn from what is witnessed with one's own eyes; the mental conjectures and estimates are of course imagined non-valid cognition. However accurate the estimate, it is not personally witnessed, not obtained from directly observing the stock market trends in the present—so it is one hundred percent non-valid cognition.
At the same time, it is also not inference, because there is no equal comparison between dharma and dharma. Inference is a conclusion drawn from comparing two or more dharmas with each other; it is a relationship of coexistence between two or more dharmas that can be mutually compared. Without comparison, no conclusion can be drawn, and no decision can be made. Can the wisdom-cognition, mental state, and felt experience of personally witnessing be the same as imagining? Watching the scene of a loved one gradually dying, versus imagining the scene of the loved one's future death—can the mental state and felt experience be the same? Imagining the death of a loved one—although anyone will inevitably die someday, after all the loved one is still alive now—versus personally witnessing the death: can the mental state and felt experience be the same?
Quite a few people, based on the tathāgatagarbha theory they have studied, based on the various functions, operations, and natures of the tathāgatagarbha they have learned, conjecture that the tathāgatagarbha is located at such-and-such place, such-and-such realm, such-and-such faculty, such-and-such dharma, performing such-and-such function, and then believe they have personally realized the tathāgatagarbha, attained enlightenment and seen the mind, and become sages. This misunderstanding is simply enormous, and the consequences are also considerable. It is like a poor, lowly person who imagines himself to have become an emperor, takes this imagined state as real, and declares himself emperor; when the real emperor finds out, he flies into a rage, sends troops to arrest him and behead him as a public example, and even implicates his entire clan to the ninth degree. To imagine the tathāgatagarbha performing some function and then claim to be an enlightened sage—the consequences are far more serious than being beheaded as a public example. In practice, one cannot afford not to be cautious.
Where does the problem of great false speech lie? It lies in not understanding the distinction between direct perception and non-valid cognition, not understanding what constitutes direct-perception observation, not understanding that what is deduced, analyzed, and thought out is in substance non-valid cognition, not direct-perception observation. When one cannot distinguish direct perception from non-valid cognition, the problem is very serious. Quite a few people are unclear that the conclusions they reach are conjectured and inferred, not at all the direct-perception seeing of personally witnessing. So when they deduce some conclusions, they believe they have realized them through direct perception, when in fact that is not the case at all—it is non-valid cognition of imagination, conjecture, and reasoning. Especially for those without meditative concentration, it is all the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Even those who have meditative concentration or shallow meditative concentration also have the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Even those with deep meditative concentration, when thinking, happen not to be in deep meditative concentration and employ the thinking of the mind consciousness—all of it is the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Therefore, having meditative concentration does not necessarily mean realization through direct perception.
3. The Wisdom of the Abiding of Dharmas Can Know the Past and Future—Is This Direct-Perception Knowledge, Inference Knowledge, or Non-Valid Knowledge?
With the wisdom of the abiding of dharmas, one can attain liberation. The wisdom of the abiding of dharmas is the wisdom of realizing the twelve links of dependent origination through direct perception. Even if it can know the past and future, it is still direct-perception knowledge, without inference. The wisdom known through inference is very shallow; wisdom that must rely on some dharma in order to know is unreliable and not ultimate—once the dharma relied upon does not appear, inference knowledge disappears. Within inference knowledge, there is no process of the manas personally investigating, so the manas cannot personally realize it, and the mind consciousness also cannot know independently. Of reasoning, part belongs to inference and part belongs to non-valid cognition; even if the reasoning is correct, it is not direct perception, because the manas does not know. As for the knowing of the manas—if it knows, it knows; if it does not know, it does not know. The dividing line appears extremely quickly, manifesting in the very moment, without the mind consciousness slowly and laboriously thinking and investigating.
Some say: since the past and future cannot be seen, and the dharmas of the past and future cannot be present, knowledge of past and future dharmas should be inference knowledge. Such a statement is incorrect. "Present" does not necessarily mean appearing before one's eyes. Wisdom is not initiated by the eye consciousness; it is initiated jointly by the mind consciousness and the manas. The mind consciousness and the manas can fully realize and verify the dharmas of the past and future. Especially the manas is not obstructed by time and space at all; following the tathāgatagarbha, it can know all dharmas. The dharmas of past lives can be recalled the moment one intends to recall them, and the dharmas of future lives can be known the moment one intends to know them—dream states and meditative states demonstrate this point. Therefore, what the manas does not know cannot be the wisdom of direct perception. When the mind consciousness knows through direct perception, the manas does not necessarily know through direct perception, and the knowing of the mind consciousness will be neglected and canceled out depending on different conditions.
4. Is the Knowledge Obtained When the Mind Consciousness Alone Thinks, Analyzes, Understands, and Reasons About Dharmas the Wisdom of Direct Perception?
Conclusions drawn by the mind consciousness through thinking and reasoning are not realized through practice, not personally attained, and lack genuine usable evidence as support. The inner doubt has not been eradicated; at a certain point, when encountering facts that contradict them, one will regret and overturn one's previous conclusions. Moreover, the deep inner doubt of the manas cannot be discovered at all when the mind consciousness lacks wisdom. Therefore, the inferences of the mind consciousness cannot eradicate doubt and cannot generate faith in the manas—consequently there is no practical use and no personal benefit.
Even if the result of reasoning is completely correct, one hundred percent correct, it is still non-valid cognition. Why? For example, suppose you reason that I must have stolen your things, and in fact I really did steal them. But since you did not see it with your own eyes or catch me red-handed, your reasoning is useless; the court will not convict and sentence me based on your reasoning or anyone's reasoning. Even if I myself admit that I stole, if I cannot produce strong evidence proving that I stole, the court still cannot convict. Some people, in order to exonerate those with karmic affinity to them from their offenses, are willing to take the punishment in their place; but without genuine, convincing evidence, even if they go to court to confess, admitting that they personally committed the offense and it had nothing to do with the other person, the court still cannot convict and sentence based on one-sided claims.
In the Buddhadharma, when there is no meditative concentration, and one deduces the eighth consciousness amid the activities of the five aggregates and eighteen realms, imagining that the eighth consciousness has some function or certain functions—because there is no personal realization and attainment, such reasoning has no benefit of merit, changes nothing; the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) still remains, the three fetters still bind oneself, and one cannot escape the retribution of the three evil destinies at the end of life. You may be allowed to reason correctly about the eighth consciousness; you may be allowed to imagine fifty or sixty percent, sixty or seventy percent, seventy or eighty percent of it—but still no great wisdom will be born, still there will be no state of meditative absorption (samādhi), still no benefit of merit, still one remains an ordinary person, and one will never, through such imagination and reasoning, eradicate ignorance and afflictions.
The methods and means of practice used by the patriarchs through the kalpas and generations, the paths they walked, were absolutely correct, conforming to direct perception; their accomplishments were genuine and credible, and had an enormously positive influence and driving force on Buddhism. The teachings of the patriarchs all display the truth of practice and realization—they are all true knowledge born of practice. Later-generation sentient beings, due to meager merit and deep obstructions, are unable to devote body and mind to diligent practice as the patriarchs did; mostly a mentality of opportunism and shortcut-seeking is at work—everyone wants to take shortcuts. Practice means relinquishing the self, regardless of all cost—where is there any shortcut to take? One step less walked means one portion less merit gained, one portion less bodily and mental experience, one portion more loss suffered. In fact, this is a practice of first deceiving oneself and then deceiving others. If there were a shortcut to take, would the Buddha not have told us and guided us? Sentient beings suffer so much—would the Buddha not wish for sentient beings to attain buddhahood as quickly as possible and avoid detours?
Any practice that does not conform to the Buddha's teachings, any practice that violates the Buddha's original intent and harms the interests of sentient beings, will in the end be destroyed and expelled from Buddhism—it is only a matter of time, sooner or later.
5. The General-Mark Wisdom After Enlightenment Is Direct-Perception Observation
A lay Buddhist asked: "Master, when one first attains enlightenment and realizes the tathāgatagarbha, general-mark wisdom arises. Using this general-mark wisdom to observe the tathāgatagarbha, within what range can one observe?" I replied: "This range is not very large at the time of initial enlightenment; the observation is not yet comprehensive. The range is within the simple operations of the five aggregates, rather rough and coarse; in complex operations, the tathāgatagarbha is very difficult to observe. Among them, the aggregate of form and the aggregate of volitional formations are primary; the aggregates of feeling, perception, and consciousness can be observed to a slight degree, but not much and not deeply. Because the aggregate of form and the aggregate of volitional formations are more obvious, they are easier to observe; on the aggregate of feeling, one can also observe roughly; on the aggregates of perception and consciousness, observation is somewhat more difficult. All of it is rough, general observation, unable to penetrate into the details; the observation is not deep or subtle.
"But this observation is direct-perception observation, that is, observation in the present. In the very moment of the operation of the five aggregates, if it is seen, it is seen; if not seen, it is not seen. One must not fall into a moment of thinking; in between, no language, words, or sounds appear, and one does not fall into the appearance of thinking, pondering, analyzing, and mulling. Once one falls into thinking, it is no longer direct-perception observation in the present. During investigation, once language, words, or sounds appear, it certainly means meditative concentration is insufficient, the emotional thinking and intellectualizing function of the mind consciousness has gained the upper hand, and the function of the manas has weakened—it is not the wisdom of direct perception. Therefore, direct perception must be the manas personally present on the scene, observing, discovering, and witnessing—not the kind of mental imagining and mental filling-in of the mind consciousness. In ancient times, when Chan masters tested their disciples, if the disciple hesitated even slightly and wanted to use words to describe, the master would often strike down with a blow of the staff, not permitting them to fall into thinking and intellectualization."
The thinking activity of the mind consciousness is obvious; especially when the mind consciousness thinks alone, it is not direct perception. Only what is observed simultaneously together with the manas is direct perception, with the mind consciousness playing an auxiliary role, not a dominant role. The smaller the proportion and weight it occupies, the deeper the wisdom, the more it is direct perception, the more it cannot be denied, cannot be retracted, and is not hesitant and indecisive, but very firm and resolute, without doubt. It can be seen that this kind of direct-perception observation is extremely difficult, requiring both skill and wisdom to be very high.
From the Tang and Song dynasties onward, after the Sixth Patriarch, it is said that more than a thousand people attained enlightenment, and some seventeen hundred Chan public cases (gong'an) have been handed down. But not all of these are pure realization-enlightenment; there are also understanding-enlightenments, and the specific numbers cannot be examined or tallied. From the few words of those enlightenment verses, and from the brief dialogues and suggestive descriptions, because there are no details, one cannot discern from them whether it was realization-enlightenment or understanding-enlightenment. Even if they all had meditative concentration, this does not show that anyone with meditative concentration necessarily attained realization-enlightenment; of course, those without meditative concentration even less could attain realization-enlightenment. Only when one attains enlightenment within meditative concentration, precisely while the manas is deeply investigating, seeing instantaneously without falling into the thinking of the mind consciousness, does it count as realization-enlightenment; anything leaning toward the mind consciousness is understanding-enlightenment, or may not even count as understanding-enlightenment. Of course, if it is genuine understanding-enlightenment, through cultivating meditative concentration and strengthening the manas's power of investigation, it can be transformed into realization-enlightenment.
To have this power of investigation, meditative concentration is indispensable. To have meditative concentration, the physical body must gather qi; when qi gathers, the body is settled; when the body is settled, the mind is settled. To gather qi: first, the physical body must be healthy, with the qi channels flowing smoothly, able to form a strong force that gathers and concentrates the mind; second, there must be no scattered, miscellaneous thoughts, no fantasies or mental wandering—that is, not grasping at various dharmas, which means being able to let go of worldly affairs. If the physical body lacks qi, qi cannot be gathered. To make qi sufficient, one can practice qi cultivation or supplement qi; dietary and medicinal supplementation also work. Once qi arises, one must follow along with the movement of qi, letting both body and mind quiet down; once the momentum of qi forms, meditative concentration appears. Therefore, practice should still be started early, while the body is healthy and strength is abundant. Do not wait until old age and decline, when nothing works anymore, and only then remember that one should practice—at that point it is probably too late, and the skill cannot be built up. Although practice is not about cultivating the body, apart from the body's cooperation, how can one practice?
A seventy-five-year-old elderly lay Buddhist spoke with me on the phone; his voice was resounding like a bell, with very ample inner qi. As soon as I heard it, this momentum surpassed even mine, and surpassed many young people in their twenties and thirties; from the sound of his voice, he could live another twenty years without problem. I asked how his meditative concentration was. He said his meditative concentration was very good, reaching the level of investigating with the manas, without stray thoughts, with a very strong sense of qi. I asked about his level of wisdom. He asked me about the general-mark wisdom at the time of initial enlightenment—within what range could one observe the operation of the tathāgatagarbha. As soon as I heard, I understood: over these years his skill and wisdom had both greatly advanced, his mind was broad in scope, his good roots were deep—he is a person who will become a great vessel for the Path.
6. Conjecture Based on Comparing Learned Theories Is a State of Non-Valid Cognition
Question: Taking the example of scratching an itch: after faculty and object make contact, if there is attention (manaskāra), consciousness arises (here the manas's attention comes first; at some times the manas's attention comes after), and at this time the manas is directing the body consciousness to operate. So I thought: the seventh and eighth consciousnesses depend on each other (the eighth consciousness has nine conditions); since the manas has appeared, the eighth consciousness should be nearby. So it should be that at the moment of faculty-object contact and the manas's attention, the eighth consciousness manifests the body consciousness (the three transformative agencies, tri-vipāka), and then the manas directs the body consciousness to operate and scratch the itch. Regarding the existence of the eighth consciousness in this passage—is this the student's deluded inversion, or is it merely a problem-solving approach, still very far from realizing the eighth consciousness?
Answer: At this moment you have neither directly observed the operation of the manas nor directly observed the operation of the eighth consciousness. Therefore, what you have described is not fact, but thinking, imagining, reasoning, and conjecturing based on comparing learned theoretical knowledge—all of these are states of non-valid cognition, without direct-perception observation, and therefore none of it can be taken as true. This is how people without meditative concentration study the Dharma: the function of the mind consciousness is strong and runs ahead. In reality it is all conjecture; even if every dharma is conjectured correctly, it is after all still conjecture and cannot count.
I have encountered quite a few people in this state of studying the Dharma. They look quite clever, able to find the key points and focal points of problems, and then they take shortcuts, using the mind consciousness to think, analyze, summarize, organize, and conjecture. But doing this obstructs their own path of practice and hinders actual practice and realization; the result is that cleverness is undone by cleverness itself. There are also quite a few people who take this kind of imagining and conjecturing as personal realization, propagating everywhere that they have attained enlightenment and become sages. But this is still at the beginner stage: meditative concentration has not yet arisen, and the precepts, concentration, and wisdom, the bodhisattva's six perfections, and even the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment have not yet been cultivated; the causes and conditions for realization-enlightenment are still lacking by far. Sentient beings in the Dharma-ending age have meager merit: they cannot cultivate meditative concentration, cannot uphold the precepts, and are unwilling to cultivate merit, so they can only engage in dry wisdom—and it is precisely this dry wisdom that obstructs the Path most and delays things most, often blocking one's own gate of enlightenment.
