The Critical Question of Pratyakṣa and Apramāṇa

Yesterday, someone analyzed and predicted based on various data indicators that the stock would rise by 10% today, and indeed, it rose exactly 10% today, perfectly accurate. Was this person’s prediction from yesterday a case of direct perception (pratyakṣa)? This person, based on today's stock trend and technical data indicators, analyzed and predicted that the stock will fall by 2% tomorrow. When tomorrow comes and indeed the stock falls by 2%, is the analysis and prediction made today by this person a case of direct perception? Neither is direct perception; both predictions are cases of non-valid cognition (non-valid pramāṇa). Even if the data is completely accurate, the stock market situation is not personally witnessed; therefore, it is not direct perception. Relying on data indicators to deduce, think, analyze, speculate, and reason is non-valid cognition. If I predict that you will do something bad tomorrow, but right now you have not done it, then the act of doing something bad is not a fact; it is predicted and speculated upon by isolated mental consciousness. Therefore, it is not direct perception; it is non-valid cognition. Direct perception would be witnessing him in the act of doing something bad right now. But if, in essence, he is actually doing something good, what you see is also non-valid cognition.

I clench both hands into fists, one fist holding a one-yuan coin and the other an empty fist. Then I extend my right fist and ask someone: "Is there a coin in this fist?" The other person thinks for a moment and says: "There is a coin." Congratulations, he guessed correctly, but even so, it is non-valid cognition, not direct perception. Because this answer was not obtained through his direct perception; it was guessed. If it were said to be observed through direct perception, he did not see whether there was a coin in the fist. If he had supernatural powers (ṛddhi), seeing with the divine eye (divya-cakṣus) would also be direct perception. But since he has no supernatural powers, what is invisible to the physical eye is not personally witnessed; it can only be guessing, imagining, or speculation—non-valid cognition. Not witnessing the fact is non-valid cognition, not direct perception.

Can everyone truly understand now what exactly constitutes direct perception? Direct perception is a presently existing dharmā (phenomenon), personally witnessed, seen truly and without error—this is direct perception observation, possessing the wisdom cognition of direct perception. If it is not a dharmā existing in reality, not a dharmā seen in the present, but merely speculated, imagined, or deduced by isolated mental consciousness, it is purely non-valid cognition. The stock market situation does not exist presently; it can only be seen the next day. The current view or conclusion is not derived from personal witnessing; the mental speculation and estimation are, of course, imagined non-valid cognition. No matter how accurate the estimation is, it is not personally witnessed, not obtained by directly observing the stock market trend in the present; therefore, it is one hundred percent non-valid cognition.

At the same time, it is not inferential cognition (anumāna) either, because there is no equal comparison between dharmās. Inferential cognition is a conclusion drawn by comparing two or more dharmās with each other; it is a relationship where two or more dharmās coexist and can be mutually compared. Without comparison, a conclusion cannot be drawn, nor can a decision be made. Is the wisdom cognition, mental state, and feeling of direct perception the same as that of imagination? Is the mental state and feeling of watching a loved one gradually dying before one’s eyes the same as imagining the future scene of a loved one’s death? Imagining a loved one’s death—though everyone will inevitably die someday—since the loved one is still alive now, is the mental state and feeling the same as witnessing the death directly?

Many people, based on the Tathāgatagarbha theory they have learned and the various functions, roles, and intrinsic nature of Tathāgatagarbha, speculate that Tathāgatagarbha is in a certain place, realm, root, or dharmā, performing a certain function. Then they believe they have personally realized Tathāgatagarbha, attained enlightenment and clarity of mind, and become sages. This misunderstanding is enormous, and the consequences are extremely severe. It is like a poor and lowly person imagining himself becoming an emperor, taking this imagined state as real, and claiming to be the emperor. When the real emperor learns of this, he becomes furious, sends soldiers to arrest him, executes him, displays his head as a warning, and executes nine generations of his family along with him. Imagining Tathāgatagarbha performing a certain function and then claiming to be an enlightened sage has far more severe consequences than execution and public display. Therefore, one must be extremely cautious in practice.

Where does the problem of grave false speech (mahā-mṛṣāvāda) lie? It lies in not understanding the difference between direct perception and non-valid cognition, not knowing what constitutes direct perception observation, not realizing that what is deduced, analyzed, and thought out is essentially non-valid cognition and not direct perception observation. Failing to distinguish between direct perception and non-valid cognition is a very serious problem. Many people are unaware that the conclusions they draw are guessed and speculated upon, not at all the direct perception of personal witnessing. Therefore, when they deduce certain conclusions, they believe they have attained direct perception realization, when in fact it is not; it is non-valid imagination, speculation, and reasoning. Especially for those without meditative concentration (dhyāna), it is all the function of mental consciousness deduction. Even those with shallow meditative concentration also have the function of mental consciousness deduction. Even those with deep meditative concentration, when thinking, may not be in profound meditative concentration and instead use mental consciousness thinking—all are functions of mental consciousness deduction. Therefore, it cannot be said that having meditative concentration necessarily means direct perception realization.