Relying on the Dharma, Not on Persons, and Relying on Persons, Not on the Dharma

The mind consciousness and the manas are like two people. When one person cannot observe another person's mental states, one cannot categorically assert that the other person has no such mental state, no such thoughts, emotions, and so on—to say so is a fault. Therefore, since the mind consciousness is limited by afflictions and has not transformed consciousness into wisdom, it is very difficult for it to observe the various functions and operations of the manas. When it cannot observe them, it cannot pass a definitive judgment on the manas.

When the standard for defining a dharma is unclear, one cannot compare two dharmas against each other, and one cannot say that because A does not accord with B, is inconsistent with B, A must therefore be wrong. Such a judgment is too hasty and irrational. Because B is not necessarily the standard, not necessarily correct, the inconsistency between A and B does not prove that A is wrong.

When a person has lofty wisdom—understanding both A and B, and also knowing what the correct standard is—then that person can judge and determine whether A is actually correct, and can likewise judge and determine whether B is correct. This is called "relying on the Dharma, not relying on persons." Conversely, if one does not know what the ultimate standard of the Dharma is, and lacks the wisdom to discern whether A and B accord with the standard, yet wishfully concludes that B is the standard—because it is commonly acknowledged by the masses—and that since A does not accord with B, A must certainly be wrong, then this situation absolutely constitutes relying on persons rather than on the Dharma; it belongs to emotional attachment, to the mentality of ignorance.