Anumāna Is Not Pratyakṣa

The Buddha perceives all phenomena with direct perception, knowing what is and what is not immediately, without any need for inference. Only when direct perception is lacking does one resort to inference, which indicates insufficient wisdom in the manas (mind-root) and mano-vijnana (consciousness), necessitating reliance on reasoning to obtain accurate information. The Buddha, however, possesses supreme wisdom, perfect and complete in both merit and wisdom; there is no phenomenon He does not perceive directly.

Bodhisattvas on the causal ground, as well as all sentient beings, lack perfect wisdom. As there are phenomena they cannot directly perceive and realize, they sometimes must resort to inference. The more one relies on inference, the more it reveals a deficiency in wisdom. Those with sufficient wisdom perceive instantly, without obstruction. Therefore, in the process of investigation and verification, if one employs inference, it indicates a lack of direct wisdom, compelling them to adopt a secondary, less direct method to acquire information. Inference resembles conjecture or speculation—a method used when observational and judgmental capacities are insufficient, resulting in tentative judgments rather than definitive ones. Conclusions drawn this way are not direct perceptions and cannot be entirely correct; even when correct, it is merely coincidental.

Those with the wisdom of direct perception express their views with absolute certainty. Those with insufficient wisdom use partially certain statements, while those without wisdom express themselves with questions, revealing a lack of confidence. Those who rely on inference lack confidence; when questioned or challenged, their minds waver and hesitate, lacking firmness. This shows their source of information is uncertain.

In summary, within the practice and realization of the Dharma, inference is merely an auxiliary method, used only out of necessity. One must then employ direct investigation to verify the correctness of the inference. This is because inference relies on the mano-vijnana (consciousness), while genuine investigation employs the manas (mind-root). The manas is the sovereign; its conclusions are therefore resolute, resonating with unwavering certainty, unshakable by anyone. Conclusions derived from consciousness, however, are not like this. Consciousness does not govern; it must await the approval of the sovereign to be finalized. Thus, the mind remains unsettled and anxious. At the critical juncture of Dharma practice and realization, it is best—indeed, most profound—to minimize or entirely avoid relying on consciousness. This is the conduct of the great, not to be compared with those of shallow capacity.