Why Is the Analogy of Homogeneous Entities Considered Pratyakṣa Rather Than Anumāna?

Why is it said that the analogy of homogeneous categories is not inferential cognition but direct perception? For example, humans must all share identical characteristics. An individual person certainly possesses commonalities with humanity; there is no need to compare this person with others of the same category to determine that this person is indeed human and not another category. When a newborn infant arrives, one knows without comparison that it is human, not another category. Even in the womb, one knows the child is human, not another category. Such cognition is direct perception, not inferential cognition.

Products manufactured from a single mold all bear identical features. Knowing the characteristics of one means knowing the characteristics of all other products. This cognition is direct perception, not inferential cognition.

If a comparison is made between entities of the same category to discern their differences, this is known through inferential cognition. For instance, if one does not know whether a person is tall or short, one must compare them with another person of standard height or with the majority of people, and only then can one know. This is known through inferential cognition. However, the result of this inferential cognition may be correct or incorrect—that is to say, the result may be direct perception or invalid cognition.

Inferentially cognizing whether someone is tall or short is less astute than directly perceiving it. One who possesses direct perception can immediately judge based on experiential wisdom upon encountering the person, without needing to compare or measure. Resorting to comparison and measurement indicates a lack of direct perceptual wisdom, where both observational and judgmental faculties are insufficient, thus compelling one to rely on inference. If the result of direct perception does not align with reality, then it is not direct perception but invalid cognition, indicating that their wisdom is also insufficient and possibly overconfident—indeed, less humble and prudent than those who rely on inference.