Direct Perception and Non-Valid Cognition

Perceiving a rope as a snake belongs to non-conceptual knowledge; is it inferential knowledge? Because there is neither correct discernment of the rope nor true recognition of the snake; both are erroneous discernments, not factual, hence it is non-conceptual knowledge. Riding a donkey while searching for a donkey—what kind of knowledge is this? Not recognizing the donkey one is riding, not taking the donkey as a donkey, yet seeking another donkey elsewhere—this inability to correctly recognize the donkey is non-conceptual knowledge. One’s entire five aggregates are the eighth consciousness, yet one does not understand this and still seeks another eighth consciousness elsewhere—what kind of knowledge is this? The same non-conceptual knowledge. When ordinary people see their parents and recognize them as parents, see their children and grandchildren and call them as such, this is not perceptual knowledge; it is non-conceptual knowledge. Therefore, the Buddha taught King Ajātaśatru to contemplate that there is no such person as his father and no act of killing his father, enabling him to realize the emptiness and non-self of the five aggregates, eliminate non-conceptual cognition, and return to perceptual knowledge. Only then could the karmic retribution for killing his father be eradicated.

The non-self and non-different-from-self of the five aggregates realized by Arhats, their emptiness of arising, cessation, and change—what kind of knowledge is this? The emptiness and non-self of the five aggregates realized by Arhats, though perceptual knowledge, is only half perceptual knowledge, not yet ultimate. Therefore, they still need to study the Mahayana Dharma to realize the ultimate truth. After Bodhisattvas realize the eighth consciousness and attain various levels of wisdom—what kind of knowledge is this? The Dharma realized by Arhats and Bodhisattvas, though perceived through perceptual knowledge, is relative perceptual knowledge, not entirely perceptual knowledge, and still contains elements of non-conceptual knowledge.

When Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara perceives the five aggregates as entirely empty—what kind of knowledge is this? If Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara’s perception of the five aggregates as entirely empty were completely perceptual knowledge, then practice would be complete; he would have become a Buddha and would not need to continue practicing. Because even the Dharma realized by Equal Enlightenment and Wonderful Enlightenment Bodhisattvas is not yet ultimate, they still need to eliminate the last trace of ignorance to fully become Buddhas. Only when ignorance is utterly eradicated is it complete perceptual wisdom.

Strictly speaking, only the Buddha’s wisdom and cognition are completely perceptual wisdom, ultimate and beyond doubt, fully in accordance with reality and truth. The wisdom and cognition of other Bodhisattvas contain varying degrees of perceptual components but are not yet ultimate. The wisdom and cognition of Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas are even less ultimate than those of Bodhisattvas; their level of realization of emptiness is insufficient. Ordinary beings are entirely in non-conceptual knowledge, devoid of perceptual knowledge. Even when seeing a mountain as a mountain, water as water, parents as parents, or adversaries as adversaries—without the slightest confusion—all of this is still non-conceptual knowledge, deluded and inverted. Non-conceptual cognition is equivalent to mentally disordered cognition; all beings have varying degrees of mental illness; none are healthy.