Is Logical Reasoning a Form of Pratyakṣa?

Question: When the consciousness is contemplating the five aggregates as non-self, it employs logical thinking, analysis, and reasoning. Does this count as pratyakṣa (direct perception)?

Answer: When the consciousness engages in contemplation, it encompasses not only anumāna (inference) and apramāṇa (invalid cognition), but also pratyakṣa. All three pramāṇas (valid means of knowledge) can manifest the wisdom of consciousness. The logical thinking, analysis, and reasoning employed by consciousness while contemplating the five aggregates also involve these three pramāṇas. The higher the wisdom, the more pratyakṣa is present. The more facts observed, the more substantial the evidence, and the more sufficient the reasons, the more it influences the manas (mind root), bringing one closer to direct realization.

It is preferable for consciousness to gather as much evidence as possible, ideally pratyakṣa, because consciousness serves to collect evidence for the manas. Evidence obtained through pratyakṣa is persuasive and allows the manas to accept it, as the reasons are sufficient. The imaginative or illusory evidence from apramāṇa is insufficient, and the manas cannot accept it. In such cases, it fails to guide and propel the deliberation of the manas, making direct realization impossible.

Pratyakṣa does not necessarily require personal experience. Observing events happening to others, or events occurring to all sentient beings, also constitutes pratyakṣa observation, as long as it aligns with facts, the reasoning is clear, and the logic is rigorous. However, matters like the four great elements (mahābhūta) indeed cannot be directly observed through pratyakṣa due to insufficient wisdom. This can only be considered as vāsanā (impression, habituation) and classified as apramāṇa. Yet, for the Buddhas, this is pratyakṣa. The wisdom of each individual's consciousness is limited; thus, there are extremely many facts and truths that cannot be directly observed through pratyakṣa. Therefore, direct realization is extremely difficult, and one can only realize relatively superficial truths.

For some people, certain dharmas (phenomena, teachings) are more challenging to contemplate, while for others, they are easier. The difference lies in the varying levels of wisdom in both consciousness and manas. Regarding the four great elements, the Buddhas can immediately observe them through pratyakṣa, whereas we cannot. We can only follow reasoning to contemplate and infer, which serves the function of vāsanā. Since beginningless time, sentient beings within the cycle of birth and death have undergone countless sufferings of life and death—all experienced as pratyakṣa. Yet, sentient beings cannot observe this through pratyakṣa, remain unaware, and fail to learn any lessons from it. Consequently, the cycle of birth and death continues unbroken, and suffering persists without end.