Dharmas That Cannot Be Observed Do Not Equate to Non-Existence

The mind consciousness and the manas are comparable to two persons. When one person cannot observe another person's mental states, one cannot categorically assert that the other person has no such mental state, no such thoughts or emotions, and so on; to say so is a fault. Therefore, since the mind consciousness is limited by afflictions and has not transformed consciousness into wisdom, it is very difficult for it to observe the various functions and operations of the manas. When it cannot observe them, it cannot pass definitive judgment on the manas.

When the standard for defining a dharma is unclear, one cannot compare two dharmas against each other; one cannot say that A does not accord with B, is inconsistent with B, and therefore A is wrong—such a judgment is too hasty and irrational. Because B is not necessarily the standard, not necessarily correct, the fact that A is inconsistent with B does not prove that A is wrong.

When a person's wisdom is lofty, understanding both A and B, and also knowing what the correct standard is, then that person can judge and definitively determine whether A is in fact correct, and can likewise judge and determine whether B is correct. This is called "relying on the Dharma, not on persons." Conversely, if one does not know what the ultimate standard of the Dharma is, lacks the wisdom to discern whether A and B accord with the standard, and yet wishfully concludes that B is the standard—because it is commonly acknowledged by the masses that A does not accord with B, A must be wrong—then this situation absolutely constitutes relying on persons rather than on the Dharma; it belongs to emotional attachment and to the mentality of ignorance.