Inferential Results Cannot Be Regarded as Pratyakṣa

For example, in secular law, when police officers handle cases, they rely on gathering evidence from relevant crime scenes; they do not solve cases through conscious analysis and reasoning while sitting at their desks. Even if the reasoning is correct, it can never be considered evidence. Although reasoning activities occur during the investigation and evidence collection process, such reasoning serves to expedite the search for evidence. If no evidence is found, this reasoning becomes invalid and must be discarded and restarted. Without reliable and accurate evidence, no matter how strong the suspicion against a suspect may be, they cannot be convicted and must be acquitted. Courts adjudicate cases entirely based on facts and compelling evidence; they do not convict individuals through reasoning.

The empirical verification in the Dharma strictly adheres to objective principles, even more rigorously than secular law, tolerating not the slightest error. Without conclusive factual evidence, the manas (the seventh consciousness) cannot attain realization—this is an unavoidable necessity.

If Person A tells investigators, "Based on Person B’s daily behavior and habits, my gold watch must have been stolen by Person B," neither the investigators nor the court can convict Person B based on Person A’s inference. Even if Person A’s inference is correct, it is not a fact and cannot serve as the basis for conviction. Even if everyone is certain that Person B stole the watch, they still cannot convict him.

Similarly, in the Dharma, no matter how strong one’s logical thinking may be or how correct the reasoning, it is still not a fact and does not constitute realization. During the reasoning process, one cannot negate oneself to sever the view of self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi), because if the manas has not witnessed the facts and experienced no physical or mental impact, it cannot negate the self within the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) and cannot sever the view of self. Without severing the view of self, one cannot attain realization. While intellectual understanding (解) is permissible, it holds no meritorious benefit, cannot purify the dharma eye (dharma-cakṣus), and cannot give rise to the mind of liberation (vimukti-citta).

Who does the reasoning of the consciousness (mano-vijñāna) serve? It serves the manas, aiming to make the manas understand. Who does the analysis of the consciousness serve? It serves the manas, aiming to make the manas understand. Because the manas does not engage in reasoning or analysis, it often struggles to make decisions when faced with situations. After the consciousness analyzes and reasons, it gains some understanding, enabling it to make judgments and decisions.