Is Buddhadharma Truly Less Rigorous and Serious Than Worldly Dharmas?

Legally, a murder case cannot be filed without conclusive evidence. Even when one intuitively feels certain that a person has died—and such intuitions are often accurate—the absence of a body prevents the case from being initiated. Similarly, even if one strongly suspects a specific individual committed the murder, the lack of concrete evidence of the act itself precludes their arrest. The evidence required by criminal law must be tangible, concrete, and demonstrable. No matter how accurate an intuition may seem, it cannot be admitted as evidence. The law operates with this level of rigor and seriousness.

However, the "Dharma" as expounded by some individuals is not like this. Reasoning, imagination, contemplation, organization, induction, pondering, reminders, hints—anything produced through such methods can be called "attaining fruition" or "enlightenment," and is claimed to result from Chan meditation and investigation. If evidence is sought, reasoning becomes the evidence; hints from others become the evidence; one can simply ponder and reflect to "uncover" the evidence. The Dharma, it seems, is not difficult to fathom. Logical thinking suffices; rigorous thinking is better, but even without it, imagination—something anyone can do—counts. After all, the honor and reputation of a sage are more captivating and worthy of pursuit, with the means and methods being secondary.

Those wishing to cultivate their logical thinking skills can study criminal investigation cases, read philosophical texts, and learn some psychology; this will broaden their mental faculties. The process of solving criminal cases involves rigorous logical thinking combined with evidence to reach a resolution. However, without evidence, or with insufficient evidence, no matter how logical or rigorous the reasoning, it cannot be accepted. While logical thinking can guide the direction of evidence gathering, in the absence of evidence, no amount of flawless logical reasoning can be used, as doing so could lead to wrongful convictions.

If the thinking of the conscious mind (mano-vijñāna) during meditative concentration (samādhi) is as meticulous and cautious as solving a case, with sound logic, would this make it easier for the mental faculty (manas) to grasp the truth thoroughly during its deliberation? This depends on the content of the conscious mind's thinking. The function of the conscious mind is to guide the direction and general objective of the mental faculty's deliberation on the meaning of the Dharma, clarifying the overall framework and conceptual flow of the Buddhist teachings, and guiding the mental faculty into a state of investigative contemplation. The conscious mind should not ponder overly specific or minute details of the Dharma's meaning; this is the domain of the mental faculty's investigation and should be left for it to resolve. The final answer must be derived through the mental faculty's investigation. The functions of the mental faculty (manas) and the conscious mind (mano-vijñāna) are mutually exclusive; the more the conscious mind is used, the less the mental faculty is engaged. The wisdom of the mental faculty cannot be replaced by the conscious mind.