Unobservable Dharmas Do Not Equal Nonexistence.

The mind consciousness and the manas are like two people. 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, emotions, and so on; to say so is a fault. Therefore, because 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 with each other; one cannot say that A does not accord with B, is inconsistent with B, and therefore conclude that A is wrong—such a judgment is too hasty and irrational. Because B is not necessarily the standard, not necessarily correct, the inconsistency between A and B cannot demonstrate that A is wrong.

When a person has lofty wisdom, understanding both A and B, and also knows what the correct standard is, then that person can judge and determine whether A is in fact correct, and can also judge and determine whether B is correct. This is called relying on the Dharma, not on persons. Conversely, not knowing what the definitive standard of the Dharma is, lacking the wisdom to discern whether A and B accord with the standard, yet wishfully concluding that B is the standard—because it is commonly acknowledged by the masses—and that since A does not accord with B, A must be wrong: such a case absolutely belongs to relying on persons rather than on the Dharma; it belongs to emotional attachment and to the mentality of ignorance.