Anumāna Is Not Pratyakṣa

The Buddha possesses direct perception and awareness of all dharmas. What is and what is not, He perceives immediately without any need for inference. Only when direct perception is absent do we resort to inference, which indicates insufficient wisdom power in the manas (mind faculty) and consciousness, necessitating reliance on reasoning to obtain accurate information. The Buddha, however, is the unsurpassed intelligence perfectly complete in both merit and wisdom; there is no dharma of which He is not directly aware.

Bodhisattvas on the causal ground, as well as all sentient beings, possess incomplete wisdom. Regarding all dharmas, there are still those they cannot directly perceive and realize. Therefore, they sometimes have no choice but to use reasoning. The more they rely on it, the more it reveals deficiencies in their wisdom. Those with sufficient wisdom perceive immediately, without obstruction. Thus, during the process of investigation and verification, if someone uses reasoning, it indicates that this person lacks the wisdom of direct perception and has to resort to a secondary, less appropriate method to obtain information. Reasoning resembles guessing or speculation. With insufficient observational and judgmental power, one can only surmise and speculate, making judgments in an uncertain manner. The conclusions drawn are thus not direct perceptions and cannot be entirely correct. Even if they happen to be completely correct, it is merely coincidental.

Those who possess the wisdom of direct observation express their views with great certainty. Those with insufficient wisdom use partially affirmative statements, while those without wisdom use interrogative sentences, revealing a lack of confidence. Those who use reasoning lack confidence. When others raise doubts or objections, their minds become hesitant and wavering, lacking firmness. This shows that the source of their information is unreliable.

In summary, in the practice and verification of the Dharma, reasoning is merely an auxiliary method, used only when necessary. Afterwards, one must use the method of investigation to verify the correctness of the reasoning. This is because reasoning employs consciousness (vijnana), while genuine investigation employs the manas. The manas is the sovereign; the conclusions it draws are naturally resounding, firm, unshakeable, and beyond challenge. The conclusions drawn by consciousness, however, are not like this. Consciousness is not the sovereign; it must await the approval of the sovereign to be finalized. Therefore, the mind feels unsettled and uneasy. At the crucial final stages of Dharma practice and verification, it is best, most wonderful, and most ultimate to use consciousness little or not at all. This is the conduct of a great champion, beyond the reach of those with shallow roots and small capacities.