The Major Issue of Direct Perception and Non-Valid Cognition

Yesterday, someone analyzed and predicted, based on various data indicators, that a certain stock would rise 10% today, and today it indeed rose by exactly 10%, not a bit off—very accurate. Was this person's prediction yesterday a direct perception (pratyakṣa)? Based on today's stock trends and technical data indicators, this person analyzed and predicted that the stock would fall 2% tomorrow, and when tomorrow came, sure enough, the stock fell 2%. So was what this person analyzed and predicted today a direct perception? Neither is a direct perception; predictions are all non-valid cognition (non-pratyakṣa). Even if the data is perfectly accurate, the stock market situation was not witnessed with one's own eyes, and therefore it is not a direct perception. Relying on data indicators to deduce, deliberate, analyze, conjecture, and infer is non-valid cognition. If I predict that you will do something bad tomorrow, but right now you have after all not done anything bad, then doing something bad is not a fact—it is something conjectured and inferred by the solitary consciousness (mano-vijñāna-eka-citta), and therefore it is not a direct perception but non-valid cognition. A direct perception would be seeing him doing the bad deed right on the spot; but if in fact he was actually doing a good deed, then what you saw is also non-valid cognition.

I clench both hands into fists, one fist holding a one-yuan coin and the other fist empty. Then I extend my right fist and ask a person: "Is there a coin in this fist?" The person thinks for a moment and says: "There is a coin." I congratulate him on guessing correctly, but even so, it is still non-valid cognition, not a direct perception. Because that answer was not obtained through his direct observation, but was guessed. If it is said to have been observed directly, he did not actually see whether there was a coin in the fist. If he had supernatural powers, then seeing with the divine eye would also count as direct perception, but he has no supernatural powers. What the naked eye cannot see is not personal witnessing—it can only be guessing, imagining, and conjecturing, which is non-valid cognition. Not having seen the fact means it is non-valid cognition, not a direct perception.

What exactly is a direct perception? Can everyone now genuinely understand it? A direct perception is a dharma that exists right in the present, witnessed with one's own eyes, seen truly and without error—only this is direct observation, cognition with the wisdom of direct perception. If it is not a dharma that actually exists, not a dharma seen in the present, but something merely thought up, conjectured, and imagined by the solitary consciousness, it is purely non-valid cognition. The stock market situation does not exist in the present; it can only be seen the next day. The current viewpoint and conclusion were not arrived at through personal witnessing; the mental conjecture and estimate are of course imagined non-valid cognition. No matter how accurate the estimate, it is not personally witnessed, not obtained by directly observing the stock market trends in the present, so it is one hundred percent non-valid cognition.

At the same time, it is also not inference (anumāna), because there is no equal comparison between dharma and dharma. Inference is a conclusion drawn by comparing two or more dharmas with each other; it is a relationship of two or more dharmas coexisting, capable of being compared with each other. Without comparison, no conclusion can be drawn, and no determination can be made. Can the wisdom-cognition, mental state, and felt experience of personally witnessing be the same as those of imagining? Watching the scene of a loved one gradually dying, versus imagining the scene of the loved one's future death—can the mental states and felt experiences be the same? Imagining the death of a loved one—even though anyone will certainly die in the future, the loved one is, after all, still alive now. Can the mental state and felt experience be the same as personally witnessing the death?

Quite a few people, based on the tathāgatagarbha theory they have studied, and based on the various functions, operations, and intrinsic nature of the tathāgatagarbha they have learned, conjecture that the tathāgatagarbha is located at some place, some realm, some faculty, or some dharma, performing some function—and then believe they have personally realized the tathāgatagarbha, attained enlightenment and seen the mind, and become a sage. This misunderstanding is simply enormous, and the consequences are also considerable. It is like a poor, lowly person who imagines himself to be an emperor, takes this imagined state as real, and declares himself to be the emperor. When the real emperor finds out, he flies into a rage, sends troops to arrest him, beheads him as a public display, and even exterminates his entire clan to the ninth degree. To imagine the tathāgatagarbha performing some function and then declare oneself an enlightened sage—the consequences are far more serious than being beheaded as a public display. One cannot be too cautious in cultivation.

Where does the problem of great false speech (mahā-vāṅ-mṛṣā-vāda) lie? It lies in not understanding the difference between direct perception and non-valid cognition, not understanding what constitutes direct observation, not understanding that what is conjectured, analyzed, and deliberated is in essence non-valid cognition, not direct observation. Being unable to distinguish direct perception from non-valid cognition makes this problem very serious. Quite a few people are unclear that the conclusions they have reached are guesses and conjectures, not at all the direct perception of personally witnessing. So when they deduce some conclusion, they believe they have realized it directly, when in fact it is not at all—it is non-valid cognition, imagination, conjecture, and inference. Especially for those without meditative concentration (samādhi), it is all the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Even those who have meditative concentration, or whose meditative concentration is shallow, still have the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Even those with deep meditative concentration, when deliberating, happen not to be in deep meditative concentration at that moment and instead employ the deliberation of the mind consciousness—all of it is the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Therefore, having meditative concentration does not necessarily mean direct realization.