What Are Pratyakṣa, Anumāna, and Apramāṇa?

Direct perception (pratyakṣa) refers to the immediate observation and contemplation of dharmas, perceiving their true characteristics and ascertaining their current state without distorting reality. If one cannot perceive the immediate state of dharmas as they truly are or observe their genuine characteristics accurately, one may resort to other methods, such as comparison with reference objects. This is inferential cognition (anumāna), which may or may not yield a correct result. For inferential cognition to be accurate, there is a prerequisite: the dharmas used as references must be precise and error-free. Only then can the comparative result achieve higher accuracy. Since ready-made reference points exist, it does not require meticulous contemplation, profound wisdom, or deep meditative concentration (dhyāna). A result can be obtained through comparison, though its accuracy remains uncertain.

If direct perception is insufficient, another method may be adopted: imagination, fantasy, and conjecture. This may follow a certain line of thought or structure, or it may indulge in flights of fancy without method or logic. This is erroneous cognition (viparyaya). Erroneous cognition arises from contemplation without evidence, relying heavily on baseless imagination. It is a last resort when one lacks the ability to gather and grasp evidence. Evidently, erroneous cognition requires even shallower wisdom than inference and does not necessitate meditative concentration. Thus, it is clear that direct perception requires considerable meditative concentration and wisdom. Such wisdom is extremely valuable and trustworthy, for the realization of the Buddha Dharma relies precisely on the wisdom of direct perception.

Within erroneous cognition, due to the absence of evidence, everything relies on the imagination of mental consciousness (manovijñāna). It is like a kite in the sky—sometimes tethered by a string, sometimes not. In this state, the mental faculty (manas) cannot exert its force. The wisdom of manas cannot soar freely like consciousness; it cannot engage in imagination or conjecture. Whatever consciousness imagines is accepted as is; manas cannot confirm it. Therefore, realization is impossible, though coincidence or sheer luck cannot be ruled out. Consequently, the wisdom of manas does not increase; only the wisdom of consciousness grows. When encountering dissimilar problems, one cannot extrapolate or apply insights analogically. Consciousness must then engage in another round of erroneous cognition, indicating that its wisdom grows very little.

In inferential cognition, when comparing two principles or phenomena, it primarily relies on the deductive and analogical functions of consciousness. The wisdom of manas cannot contribute much; it can only observe from the sidelines. Manas cannot truly confirm the result, though an accurate inference may occur. Nevertheless, this fails to resolve the doubts within manas. The wisdom of manas does not increase; only the wisdom of consciousness grows.

For example, consider determining the height of a towering tree. There are three approaches: direct perception, inference, and erroneous cognition. The erroneous cognition approach involves baseless imagination, conjecture, and guesswork. Without experience regarding the tree's height, one knows neither how to compare it nor how to observe it accurately. The result is predictable—one likely cannot even convince oneself, let alone others. The inferential approach involves comparing the tree to nearby objects like utility poles, tall buildings, or mountains to derive an approximate value. The result is one of partial certainty and partial doubt. Outwardly, one may appear confident, but if someone insists on precision or presents more definitive evidence to refute it, that confidence evaporates. Of course, if others agree with the result, one’s confidence may increase somewhat.

Beyond these, there is another approach: direct perception. This, however, is extremely difficult. It requires substantial evidence and data, rich experience, sharp and accurate powers of observation, meticulous attention to detail, and precise data. Possessing extensive experience and a wealth of accurate data demands arduous effort and a considerable period of exploration. The hardship involved is beyond what ordinary people can endure; the meditative concentration required during observation surpasses ordinary capacity; and the ultimate wisdom gained likewise exceeds that of ordinary people.

During the process of exploration and data collection, manas continuously observes and is gradually influenced. Once consciousness arrives at a conclusion backed by compelling evidence, manas, after its own deliberation, will confirm it because it is reasoned and supported. Since manas possesses shallow wisdom and lacks analytical power, it trusts what is well-evidenced and believes in the state of direct perception. In truth, this result is also derived by manas itself. All the data are laid out plainly and realistically. Manas itself initiates the deliberation and arrives at a conclusion. Only a conclusion one arrives at personally can be believed without doubt. Naturally, one is most convinced by one’s own conclusion. Regardless of what others say, one can decisively accept it without room for negotiation, and it is difficult to discard one’s own conclusion.

Because direct perception is so arduous and difficult, those seeking short-term results and fearing hardship are unwilling to engage in prolonged, painstaking exploration. Those with short periods of practice lack sufficient meditative concentration and wisdom to accumulate adequate experience and thus cannot attain direct perception. Therefore, many prefer inference and erroneous cognition—conjecture and comparison—because these methods require less effort. They do not take much time, nor do they demand deep meditative concentration or wisdom, yet they yield a final result. How easy that is! Such people only want the result; the process in between is unnecessary.

Yet, precisely this intermediate process is crucial. It is the process of refining evidence, influencing manas, subduing various afflictions (kleśa), and transitioning from quantitative to qualitative change. Without this process, there is no qualitative change. The afflictions within one’s own mind can never be subdued or transformed. Therefore, some people seek results everywhere, attempting to gain the fruit effortlessly without undergoing the hard work of investigation. This fruit does not belong to them; they cannot enjoy it. They remain impoverished. If they then falsely claim to be a Dharma King, they invite destruction. The consequences are terrifying.

At this point, some might ask: "You've spoken at length without clearly explaining how direct perception is done." But I tell you, what others describe as direct perception, once you know it, becomes inference—it is no longer direct perception. Genuine direct perception requires personal observation and verification. Results obtained through inquiry or guesswork are highly unreliable. Even results inquired from someone who attained them through direct perception do not belong to you. If the results are inquired from someone who arrived at them through inference, they are even less your own and even less reliable. The further results are spread through hearsay and inquiry, the more terrifying the outcome becomes. Here, I solemnly warn those unwilling to exert diligent effort: Only through personal investigation can you personally attain the fruit and freely use it. Otherwise, it will be a bitter fruit. This bitter fruit must be personally experienced and endured alone. The karmic retribution is real and inescapable.