Chapter 7: The Distinction Between Direct Perception, Inference, and Non-Valid Cognition

I. The Mental Factors Employed in Direct Perception, Inference, and Non-Valid Cognition

Among the three types of cognition, it is not predetermined which of the fifty-one mental factors must be utilized. The specific situation must be analyzed concretely, as the mental factors employed differ according to the context. Different individuals employ different mental factors due to various reasons. Even for the same person, the mental factors used vary with different times, scenarios, bodily states, psychological states, levels of knowledge, and wisdom. The five universal mental factors are always employed. The five object-determining mental factors may not necessarily all be used. The eleven wholesome mental factors may not necessarily arise. The fundamental afflictions and the major, middling, and minor derivative afflictions may not necessarily manifest. All depend on the circumstances.

Direct perception cognition requires sufficient data, which necessitates profound wisdom. The mental factor of conviction (adhimokṣa) must be very strong, the mental factor of concentration (samādhi) must be present, and the mental factor of mindfulness (smṛti) must be fully established, achieving uninterrupted mindfulness. Inference cognition, relatively speaking, involves shallower wisdom; it necessarily relies on comparison. Without comparison and reference, nothing can be known. If there is no relative condition, there is no starting point. In contrast, direct perception cognition knows directly without comparison, or knows immediately, indicating sharper faculties. Non-valid cognition occurs when evidence cannot be found, lacking sufficient data or objects for comparison, forcing the use of imagination, conjecture, reasoning, and other methods. The more methods used, the more limited the wisdom and the weaker the power of conviction. Naturally, concentration and mindfulness are both insufficient, preventing direct judgment or the drawing of direct conclusions.

Inference is like a person whose ability is insufficient to accomplish something alone, forcing them to seek help from others to get it done. Non-valid cognition is when not even someone to help can be found, forcing one to fumble around alone, left and right. Perhaps by chance they get it right, but even if correct, the wisdom is insufficient, and it does not constitute direct perception. It’s like not seeing what clothes someone is wearing now and having nothing to compare it to, forcing one to imagine and guess. Even if guessed correctly, it is not directly seen.

Some people lack sufficient wisdom and do not know how to guide others step by step in cultivation and realization to achieve direct perception and insight into the truth. Yet they still attempt to guide, resorting to the method of elimination. For example, suppose there are five roads from this place leading to five other areas outside the city, only one of which leads to Beijing. Unable to guide others on how to make the correct choice, they use elimination. First, they point to the first road; the other person points hesitantly, unsure. Seeing the hint in their eyes that it’s wrong, they then choose the second road. The other person, again sensing from their expression that it’s wrong, eliminates the second road. Thus, all four roads are rejected, leaving only the last one. The other person then says, "This is the road, this one leads to Beijing." The guide then says, "You said it yourself, I didn’t instruct you. Congratulations on your insight into the truth!" Tell me, does this count as insight into the truth? What kind of wisdom does such "insight" produce? Those who mislead and harm others are precisely this kind of person—deceit without any hesitation. The deceived are also happily fooled—a pair of fools!

II. The Major Issue of Direct Perception and Non-Valid Cognition

Yesterday, someone analyzed various data indicators and predicted that today’s stock would rise by 10%. Indeed, today it rose exactly 10%, spot on. Was this person’s prediction yesterday direct perception? Based on today’s stock trend and technical data indicators, this person analyzed and predicted that tomorrow’s stock would fall by 2%. When tomorrow comes, the stock indeed falls by 2%. Was this person’s analysis and prediction today direct perception? Neither is direct perception. Predictions are non-valid cognition. Even if the data is perfectly accurate, the stock market situation is not seen with one’s own eyes, hence it is not direct perception. Relying on data indicators to deduce, think, analyze, speculate, and reason is non-valid cognition. If I predict you will do something bad tomorrow, but right now you haven’t done it, so the bad deed is not a fact. It is predicted or speculated by isolated consciousness. Therefore, it is not direct perception; it is non-valid cognition. Direct perception is seeing him doing the bad deed right now. But if he is actually doing a good deed, what you see is also non-valid cognition.

I clench both fists; one fist holds a one-yuan coin, the other is empty. Then I extend my right fist and ask someone: "Is there a coin in this fist?" The other person thinks and says, "There is a coin." Congratulations, they guessed correctly. But even so, it is non-valid cognition, not direct perception. Because this answer was not obtained through their direct perception observation; it was guessed. If it were said to be observed through direct perception, they did not see whether there was a coin in the fist. If they had supernormal powers, heavenly eye vision would also be direct perception, but they lack such powers. Therefore, what the physical eye cannot see is not directly witnessed; it can only be guessed, imagined, or speculated—non-valid cognition. Not seeing the fact is non-valid cognition, not direct perception.

Can everyone now truly understand what direct perception actually is? Direct perception is a presently existing dhamma, directly seen with one’s own eyes, seen truly and without error. This is direct perception observation, possessing the wisdom cognition of direct perception. If it is not a presently existing dhamma, not a dhamma seen in the present, but merely speculated and imagined by isolated consciousness through thinking, it is purely non-valid cognition. The stock market situation does not exist presently; it can only be seen the next day. The current viewpoint and conclusion are not derived from direct observation; the mental speculation and prediction are naturally imagined non-valid cognition. No matter how accurate the prediction, it is not seen with one’s own eyes, not obtained through present observation of the stock market trend, so it is one hundred percent non-valid cognition.

Simultaneously, it is not inference either, because there is no equal comparison between dhammas. Inference is a conclusion drawn from comparing two or more dhammas with each other; it involves the coexisting relationship of two or more dhammas that can be mutually compared. Without comparison, a conclusion cannot be reached, nor can a decision be made. Are the wisdom cognition, mental state, and feeling of directly seeing and imagining the same? Is the mental state and feeling of watching a loved one gradually die the same as imagining the future scene of the loved one’s death? Imagining the death of a loved one—although everyone will inevitably die someday, the loved one is still alive now—is the mental state and feeling the same as directly witnessing the death?

Many people, based on the Tathāgatagarbha theory they have learned, its various functions, activities, and nature, speculate that Tathāgatagarbha is located in a certain place, realm, faculty, or dhamma, performing certain functions. Then they consider themselves to have personally realized Tathāgatagarbha, attained enlightenment, understood the mind, and become sages. This misunderstanding is enormous, and the consequences are extremely severe. It’s like a poor, lowly person imagining themselves becoming an emperor, taking this imagined state as real, and claiming to be the emperor. When the real emperor finds out, he becomes furious, sends soldiers to arrest and behead them, displaying the head as a warning, and executes their nine family clans. Imagining Tathāgatagarbha performing a certain function and then claiming to be an enlightened sage has far more severe consequences than beheading and public display. Cultivation must be undertaken with utmost caution.

Where does the problem of major false speech lie? It lies in not understanding the distinction between direct perception and non-valid cognition, not knowing what constitutes direct perception observation, not realizing that what is derived through speculation, analysis, and thinking is essentially non-valid cognition, not direct perception observation. Failing to distinguish between direct perception and non-valid cognition is a very serious problem. Many people are unaware that the conclusions they draw are products of guessing and speculation, not direct perception seen with their own eyes. Therefore, when they derive certain conclusions, they believe they have attained direct perception realization, but in reality, it is not; it is non-valid imagination, speculation, and reasoning. Especially those without meditative concentration (dhyāna) rely entirely on the deductive function of consciousness. Even those with shallow concentration still rely on the deductive function of consciousness. Even those with deep concentration, when thinking, may not be in profound dhyāna and instead use conscious thought, which is still the deductive function of consciousness. Therefore, having dhyāna does not necessarily mean it is direct perception realization.

III. Is the Wisdom of Knowing the Past and Future Through the Knowledge of the Permanence of the Dhamma (dharmasthitijñāna) Direct Perception, Inference, or Non-Valid Cognition?

Possessing the knowledge of the permanence of the dhamma enables liberation. Therefore, the knowledge of the permanence of the dhamma is the wisdom of directly perceiving the twelve links of dependent origination. Even knowing the past and future through it is direct perception knowledge, not inference. Inferential knowledge is very shallow; wisdom that must rely on a specific dhamma is unreliable and unultimate. Once the dhamma it relies upon does not appear, the inferential knowledge vanishes. Within inferential knowledge, there is no process of the mental faculty (manas) personally investigating, so the mental faculty cannot realize it directly, nor can consciousness know it independently. Reasoning partly belongs to inference and partly to non-valid cognition. Even if the reasoning is correct, it is not direct perception because the mental faculty does not know it. The knowing of the mental faculty is immediate: it knows or doesn't know, presenting itself instantly without the slow, deliberate thinking and research of consciousness.

Some say that since the past and future cannot be seen, and the dhammas of past and future are not present, knowledge of past and future dhammas should be inferential. This view is incorrect. "Present" does not necessarily mean appearing before the eyes. Wisdom is not initiated by the eye consciousness; it is initiated jointly by consciousness and the mental faculty. Consciousness and the mental faculty can fully realize and confirm the dhammas of the past and future. Especially the mental faculty, which fundamentally is not obstructed by time and space, can know all dhammas along with Tathāgatagarbha. The dhammas of past lives can be recalled at will; the dhammas of future lives can be known as stated. Dream states and meditative states illustrate this point. Therefore, what the mental faculty does not know cannot be direct perception wisdom. When consciousness knows through direct perception, the mental faculty may not necessarily know through direct perception, and the knowing of consciousness may be neglected or canceled out due to different conditions.

IV. Is the Wisdom Obtained by Consciousness Alone Through Thinking, Analysis, Understanding, and Reasoning Direct Perception Wisdom?

Conclusions drawn by conscious thinking and reasoning are not empirically verified, not personally realized, lack genuinely usable evidence for support, and do not eliminate inner doubts. When encountering contradictory facts at some point, one will regret and overturn previous conclusions. The deep-seated doubts within the mental faculty cannot be detected by consciousness when it lacks wisdom. Therefore, conscious deduction cannot resolve doubts or cause the mental faculty to generate faith; it has no practical use or benefit.

Even if the reasoning result is completely correct, one hundred percent accurate, it is still non-valid cognition. Why? For example, you reason that I must have stolen your things, and indeed I did steal them. But since you did not see it with your own eyes or catch me red-handed, your reasoning is useless. The court will not convict or sentence me based on your reasoning or anyone else's. Even if I confess to stealing but cannot provide strong evidence proving I stole, the court still cannot convict me. Some people, to absolve the karma of someone connected to them, are willing to take the blame and punishment themselves. Without truly convincing evidence, even if they go to court to confess, admitting they personally committed the crime and it has nothing to do with others, the court cannot convict and sentence based solely on their testimony.

In the Dharma, without meditative concentration, if one deduces the eighth consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) during the activities of the five aggregates and eighteen realms, imagining that the eighth consciousness has certain functions, certain activities, yet without personally realizing and attaining it, such reasoning has no meritorious benefit or effect. It changes nothing. Self-view (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) still remains; the three fetters still bind one. The karmic retribution of falling into the three evil destinies at life’s end cannot be avoided. Suppose you are allowed to deduce the eighth consciousness correctly, allowed to imagine five or six, six or seven, even seven or eight parts of it. Still, great wisdom will not arise, there will still be no samādhi state, still no meritorious benefit, still an ordinary being. One will never eradicate ignorance and afflictions through such imagination and reasoning.

The cultivation methods and paths taken by patriarchs through the ages are absolutely correct, conforming to direct perception. Their achievements are genuine and credible, exerting immensely positive influence and impetus on Buddhism. The teachings of the patriarchs all reveal the truth of cultivation and realization, born from practical, genuine knowledge. Later generations of sentient beings, due to meager merit and deep obstructions, cannot exert diligent effort with body and mind like the patriarchs. Mostly, a mindset seeking opportunistic shortcuts prevails; all want to take the easy path. Cultivation requires abandoning the self, regardless of cost. Where is there any shortcut to take? Taking one less step means gaining one less portion of merit, experiencing one less portion physically and mentally, suffering one more loss. In reality, this is self-deception followed by deceiving others. If there were a shortcut, wouldn’t the Buddha have told us and guided us? Sentient beings suffer so much; wouldn’t the Buddha wish for them to achieve Buddhahood quickly, avoiding detours?

Any cultivation that does not accord with the Buddha’s teachings, that violates the Buddha’s original intent and harms the interests of sentient beings, will ultimately be destroyed and eliminated from Buddhism—it’s only a matter of time.