The Major Issue of Direct Perception and Non-Valid Cognition

Yesterday, someone analyzed various data indicators and predicted that a certain stock would rise 10% today, and today it indeed rose exactly 10%, not a fraction off—very accurate. Was this person's prediction yesterday a valid direct cognition? Based on today's stock trends and technical data indicators, this person analyzed and predicted that the stock would fall 2% tomorrow, and when tomorrow came, the stock indeed fell 2%. So was this person's analysis and prediction today a valid direct cognition? Neither was valid direct cognition; all predictions are erroneous cognition/non-valid cognition. No matter how accurate the data, the stock market situation was not witnessed with one's own eyes, and therefore it is not valid direct cognition. Relying on data indicators to deduce, deliberate, analyze, conjecture, and infer is erroneous cognition. I predict that you will do something bad tomorrow, but right now you have not actually done anything bad, so doing something bad is not a fact—it is something the solitary mental consciousness predicted and conjectured, and therefore it is not valid direct cognition but erroneous cognition. Valid direct cognition is seeing him in the very act of doing something bad on the spot; but if in reality he was actually doing something good, then what you saw is also erroneous cognition. 

I clench both hands into fists, one fist holding a one-yuan coin and the other fist empty. Then I extend my right fist and ask a person: "Is there a coin in this fist?" The person thinks and says: "There is a coin." Congratulations—he guessed right. But even so, it is still erroneous cognition, not valid direct cognition. Because this answer was not obtained through his direct observation; it was guessed. If one claims it was observed through valid direct cognition, he did not actually see whether there was a coin in the fist. If he had supernatural powers, what is seen by the divine eye would also be valid direct cognition, but he has no supernatural powers. What the naked eye cannot see is not personal witnessing; it can only be guessing, imagining, and conjecturing, which is erroneous cognition. Not seeing the fact is erroneous cognition, not valid direct cognition. 

What exactly is valid direct cognition—can everyone now genuinely understand it? Valid direct cognition is a dharma that exists right in front of you, witnessed with your own eyes, seen truly and without error. Only this is observation through valid direct cognition, cognition with the wisdom of direct perception. A dharma that does not actually exist, a dharma not present before you, something the solitary mental consciousness deliberates, conjectures, and imagines—that is purely erroneous cognition. The stock market situation does not exist right now; it can only be seen the next day. The present opinion and conclusion are not derived from personal witnessing; the mental conjecture and estimation are of course the imagined erroneous cognition. However accurate the estimation, it is not personally witnessed, not obtained from directly observing the stock market trends in the present moment, so it is one hundred percent erroneous cognition.

At the same time, it is also not inference, because there is no equal comparison between dharma and dharma. Inference is a conclusion drawn from comparing two or more dharmas with each other; it is a relationship of two or more dharmas coexisting, able to be compared with each other. Without comparison, no conclusion can be drawn, and no decision can be made. Personal witnessing and imagination—can their wisdom-cognition, mental states, and felt experiences be the same? Watching the scene of a loved one gradually dying, versus imagining the scene of the loved one's future death—can the mental states and felt experiences be the same? Imagining the death of a loved one—although anyone will undoubtedly die in the future, the loved one is still alive right now—can the mental state and felt experience be the same as personally witnessing the death?

Quite a few people, based on the tathāgatagarbha theory they have studied, based on the various functions, operations, and natures of the tathāgatagarbha they have learned, conjecture that the tathāgatagarbha is located in some place, some realm, some faculty, or some dharma, performing some function—and then believe they have personally realized the tathāgatagarbha, have awakened and seen their true mind, and have become noble ones. This misunderstanding is enormous, and the consequences are likewise considerable. It is like a poor, lowly person who imagines himself to be an emperor, takes this imagined state as real, and declares himself emperor. When the real emperor finds out, he flies into a rage, sends troops to arrest him, and has him beheaded as a public example. Imagining the tathāgatagarbha performing some function and then declaring oneself an awakened noble one—the consequences are far more severe than being beheaded as a public example. One cannot but be cautious in cultivation. 

Where does the problem of great false speech lie? It lies in not understanding the difference between valid direct cognition and erroneous cognition, not understanding what constitutes observation through valid direct cognition, not understanding that what is deduced, analyzed, and deliberated is in essence erroneous cognition, not observation through valid direct cognition. Being unable to distinguish valid direct cognition from erroneous cognition makes this problem very serious. Quite a few people are unclear that the conclusions they reach are guesses and conjectures, not at all the valid direct cognition of personal witnessing. So when they deduce some conclusion, they believe they have realized it through valid direct cognition, when in fact it is not at all—it is erroneous cognition, imagination, conjecture, and inference. Especially for those without meditative concentration, it is all the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Even those who have meditative concentration or shallow meditative concentration still have the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Even those with deep meditative concentration, when deliberating, happen not to be in deep meditative concentration at that moment and instead employ the mind consciousness's deliberation—all of it is the mind consciousness's deductive function. Therefore, having meditative concentration does not necessarily mean realization through valid direct cognition.