Analogies by Such Reasoning Are Not Inferential Reasoning

In the secular world, there is an analogy: for things of the same kind, proving one or a part of them proves that all others of the same kind are the same; it is not necessary to prove every single one. This is a rule in the secular world, and it similarly applies in the Dharma. For instance, the sampling surveys conducted by humans investigate a part to prove the whole group. Does this constitute inferential cognition? It is not inferential cognition.

When I observe and analyze my own five aggregates and prove that they are characterized by suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and non-self, I then conclude that others' five aggregates are the same, and that the five aggregates of all sentient beings are likewise. Is this inferential cognition? It is not inferential cognition. For example, if I attain enlightenment through Chan meditation, realizing the eighth consciousness within myself, I then know that others' eighth consciousness is the same, and that the eighth consciousness of all sentient beings is likewise. Is this inferential cognition? It is not inferential cognition. In geometry, arithmetic, and all academic experiments and reasoning, this method of proof is frequently used: "by analogy." When writing articles to analyze principles, the phrase "by analogy" is often used, indicating that what follows is the same as this case and does not require further proof or deduction; this is the conclusion for the same category. Is this inferential cognition? It is not inferential cognition.

To prove the correctness of any conclusion or principle, sometimes one does not start from direct perception but from other forms of cognition. Through thinking and investigation, one finally arrives at a conclusion based on direct perception. Other forms of cognition also have many great uses. For a person whose mind is sharp enough, if their seemingly random thoughts turn out to be reasonable, then it is not random thinking; it is called a brilliant mind.

For a person whose mind is not sharp, no matter how much data from direct perception they are given, they simply cannot arrive at a correct conclusion based on direct perception. There are far too many such people. Having experienced countless sufferings, they still do not recognize suffering; their minds are numb and dull—this is essentially ignorance. The ignorant constitute over ninety percent. Having undergone innumerable setbacks, they do not know to turn back but still persist down dead ends, exhibiting single-track foolishness. Suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and non-self are all plainly matters of direct perception. With so much evidence from direct perception proving this, everyone still fails to see it clearly. They still need to study the Dharma, contemplate, and analyze, yet fail to perceive it through observation and analysis. This is called ignorance. The five desires and six dusts (objects of the senses) are clearly impermanent, arising and ceasing, changing and transforming—ungraspable and impossible to cling to. The truth of the matter is already directly presented, glaringly obvious. Countless people simply cannot understand it, cannot control themselves, and still desperately try to grasp and cling, refusing to relax their grip or rest even for a moment. They are pitiable and ignorant.