The Mental Factors Employed in the Cognition of Direct Perception, Inference, and Non-Valid Cognition

Among the three types of discernment, it is not fixed which of the fifty-one mental factors will be employed; each case must be analyzed specifically. Different situations call for different mental factors, and different people, for various reasons, employ different mental factors. Even the same person, at different times and in different settings, with different physical and mental states, different levels of knowledge, and different levels of wisdom, will employ different mental factors. The five universal mental factors will all be used; the five object-specific mental factors are not necessarily all used; the eleven wholesome mental factors do not necessarily appear; and the fundamental afflictions and the great, intermediate, and minor derivative affliction mental factors also may not appear—it depends on the circumstances. 

Discernment by direct perception requires gathering sufficient data, which demands very deep wisdom: the determination (adhimokṣa) mental factor must be strong, the meditative concentration (samādhi) mental factor must be present, and the mindfulness mental factor must be complete, so that thought after thought is uninterrupted. Discernment by inference requires comparatively shallower wisdom; it must proceed through comparison—without comparison, one does not know. If there is no relative condition, there is no place to begin. Discernment by direct perception, however, requires no comparison and knows directly, or knows in the very moment—this indicates sharper faculties. Non-valid cognition is employed when evidence truly cannot be found—when there is insufficient data and no object for comparison, one has no choice but to resort to imagination, guessing, reasoning, and other such means. Many methods are used, and the more methods used, the more limited the wisdom and the weaker the power of determination (adhimokṣa); of course, the power of concentration and the power of mindfulness are also insufficient, so that one cannot judge directly or draw a conclusion directly. 

Inference is like a person whose ability is insufficient to accomplish a task alone, who must find someone to help in order to get it done. Non-valid cognition is when not even a single person who could help can be found, and one has no choice but to fiddle around on one's own, and by sheer luck may get it right. Even if one gets it right, the wisdom is insufficient, and it does not count as direct perception. It is like being unable to see what clothes someone is wearing now, with nothing to compare against, so one has no choice but to imagine and guess; even if the guess is correct, it is not something directly seen.

Some people lack wisdom and do not know how to guide others step by step in cultivation and realization so as to attain direct perception and see the Way, yet they still insist on guiding others, and so they resort to the process of elimination. For example, suppose there are five roads here leading out of the city to five other regions, and only one of them leads to Beijing. Not knowing how to guide a person to make the correct choice, he uses the process of elimination: first he points to the first road; the other person, hesitating, points at it again and again, not daring to be certain; seeing the hesitation in his eyes, the guide signals that it is wrong. Then the second road is chosen; the other person looks at the guide's expression and feels it is also wrong, and so the second road is eliminated. In this way, four roads are all rejected, leaving only the last one. The other person then says, "It must be this road—this is the road that leads to Beijing." Whereupon the guide says: "Well, that's what you said, not what I taught you. Congratulations on seeing the Way!" Everyone, tell me—does this count as seeing the Way? What wisdom has arisen from such "seeing of the Way"? Those who deceive people and lead students astray are precisely such people—utter swindlers through and through, cheating you without negotiation, while the other person is cheated and delighted all the same—a pair of fools!