The Major Issue of Direct Perception and Non-Valid Cognition

Yesterday, someone analyzed various data indicators and predicted that a certain stock would rise 10% today, and indeed today it rose exactly 10%, without the slightest deviation—very accurate. Was this person's prediction yesterday a valid direct cognition? Today, based on the stock's movement and technical data indicators, this person analyzed and predicted that the stock would fall 2% tomorrow, and when tomorrow came, the stock indeed fell 2%. Was this person's analysis and prediction today a valid direct cognition? Neither was valid direct cognition; all predictions are erroneous cognition. No matter how accurate the data, the stock market movement was not witnessed with one's own eyes, and therefore it is not valid direct cognition. Relying on data indicators to deduce, deliberate, analyze, conjecture, and infer is erroneous cognition. If I predict that you will do something bad tomorrow, but right now you have not actually done anything bad, then doing something bad is not a fact—it is something projected and conjectured by the solitary mental consciousness, and therefore it is not valid direct cognition; it is erroneous cognition. Valid direct cognition would be seeing him in the very act of doing something bad on the spot—but in reality he is actually doing something good, so what you saw is also erroneous cognition.

I clench both hands into fists, one fist holding a one-yuan coin, the other fist empty. Then I extend my right fist and ask a person: "Is there a coin inside this fist?" The person thinks for a moment and says: "There is a coin." Congratulations—he guessed right. But even so, it is still erroneous cognition, not valid direct cognition. Because this answer was not obtained through his direct observation; it was guessed. If one claims it was observed through valid direct cognition, he did not actually see whether there was a coin inside the fist. If he had supernatural powers, what is seen by the divine eye would also count as valid direct cognition—but he has no supernatural powers. What the fleshly eye cannot see is not firsthand seeing; it can only be guessing, conjecture, and speculation, which is erroneous cognition. Not seeing the fact itself is erroneous cognition, not valid direct cognition.

What exactly is valid direct cognition—can everyone now genuinely understand it? Valid direct cognition is a dharma that exists presently before one, witnessed with one's own eyes, seen truly and without error. Only this is observation through valid direct cognition, cognition with the wisdom of direct perception. If it is not a dharma that actually exists, not a dharma seen presently before one, but merely something thought up through conjecture and imagination by the solitary mental consciousness, it is purely erroneous cognition. The stock market movement does not exist presently before one; it can only be seen the next day. One's present opinions and conclusions are not drawn from firsthand seeing; the mental conjectures and estimates are of course imagined erroneous cognition. No matter how accurate the estimate, it is not firsthand seeing, not obtained from present observation of the stock market's trends, so it is one hundred percent erroneous cognition.

At the same time, it is also not inference, 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 coexistence between two or more dharmas that can be mutually compared. Without comparison, no conclusion can be drawn, and no decision can be made. Can the wisdom-cognition, mental state, and felt experience of firsthand seeing be the same as those of imagination? The scene of watching 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—although anyone will undoubtedly die in the future, the loved one is, after all, still alive now—can the mental state and felt experience be the same as witnessing the death with one's own eyes?

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

Where does the problem of great false speech lie? It lies in not understanding the difference between valid direct cognition and erroneous cognition, not understanding what constitutes observation through valid direct cognition, not understanding that what is deduced, analyzed, and deliberated is in essence erroneous cognition, not observation through valid direct cognition. Being unable to distinguish valid direct cognition from erroneous cognition makes this problem very serious. Quite a few people are unclear that the conclusions they reach are guesses and conjectures, not at all the firsthand seeing of valid direct cognition. So when they deduce some conclusion, they believe they have realized it through valid direct cognition, when in fact it is not at all—it is erroneous cognition, imagination, conjecture, and inference. Especially for those without meditative concentration, it is all the deductive function of the consciousness. Even those who have meditative concentration, or only shallow meditative concentration, still have the deductive function of the consciousness. Even those with deep meditative concentration, when deliberating, are at that moment not in deep meditative concentration and are using the consciousness's deliberation—all of it is the consciousness's deductive function. Therefore, having meditative concentration does not necessarily mean realization through valid direct cognition.