An Analogy Drawn by Analogy Is Not Inference

There is an analogy in the secular world: for things of the same kind, proving one of them or a portion of them proves that all of the same kind are so, without needing to prove every single one—this is the rule of the secular world, and the Buddha-dharma applies in the same way. The sampling surveys conducted in human investigations examine a portion and thereby prove the whole of the same kind. Does this belong to inference? It is not inference.

When I contemplate and practice upon my own five aggregates and prove that my five aggregates are suffering, empty, impermanent, and non-self, I will conclude that the five aggregates of others are also so, and that the five aggregates of all sentient beings are so. Is this inference? It is not inference. For example, if I investigate Chan and attain enlightenment, realizing the eighth consciousness within my own body, I then know that the eighth consciousness of others is also so, and that the eighth consciousness of all sentient beings is so. Is this inference? It is not inference. All academic experiments and reasoning in geometry and arithmetic frequently use this method of proof: extrapolating from this to that. When writing articles to analyze matters and principles, the phrase "extrapolating from this to that" is used, indicating that what follows is the same as this and need not be proven or deduced again—this is the conclusion for the same kind. Is this inference? It is not inference.

To prove the correctness of conclusions about all individual matters and principles, sometimes one does not start from direct perception but from non-valid cognition, deliberating and examining, and finally arrives at a conclusion of direct perception. Non-valid cognition also has many great uses. For a person with a sufficiently capable mind, if their wild imaginings are reasonable, then they are not wild imaginings—they are called a sharp mind.

For a person whose mind is not sharp, no matter how much data of direct perception you give them, they simply cannot arrive at a truthful, correct conclusion of direct perception—there are far too many such people. Having experienced countless sufferings, they still do not know suffering; their inner thoughts are numb—this is in fact foolishness. Foolish people make up more than ninety percent. Having experienced countless setbacks, they do not know to turn back and still drill into dead ends, stubbornly foolish with a one-track mind. Suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and non-self are plainly all direct perception, with so much data of direct perception proving them, yet all people simply cannot see clearly. They still want to study the Buddha-dharma, deliberate and contemplate, yet still cannot contemplate it out—this is called foolishness. The five desires and the six sense objects are plainly impermanent, arising, ceasing, and changing; they cannot be grasped or clung to—the true facts have already been presented in direct perception, shining brightly, yet countless people simply cannot see it clearly and cannot control themselves, still going on to grasp and cling tightly, unwilling to loosen their grip a little and rest a while—pitiable and foolish.