The Buddhadharma is actually not as rigorous and serious as worldly dharmas

In law, as long as there is no conclusive evidence, a murder case cannot even be filed. Even though one clearly senses that the person is already dead—and intuition is often quite accurate—the case cannot be filed without finding the body. Even though one feels certain that a particular person committed the murder, without conclusive evidence of the killing, that person cannot be arrested and brought to justice. The evidence required in criminal law must be tangible, concrete things that can be laid out and presented; no matter how accurate one's intuition may be, it cannot be admitted. Such is the rigor and seriousness of the law.

Yet the Dharma as expounded by some of us is not like this. What is produced through inference, imagination, thinking, organizing, summarizing, pondering, reminding, and hinting can all be called the realization of fruits and enlightenment, and it is even claimed to be the result of investigating Chan. If evidence is demanded, then whatever is inferred counts as evidence; whatever others hint at counts as evidence; with a bit of pondering, the evidence can be pondered into existence—the Dharma is not hard to ponder. Having logical thinking is enough; having rigorous thinking is even better; but even without rigorous thinking it is still acceptable—who cannot imagine? It all counts. After all, the honor and reputation of being a sage are more captivating and more worth pursuing; the means and methods are secondary.

Those who wish to cultivate their capacity for logical thinking may look into some criminal investigation cases, read some philosophy and philosophical principles, and study some psychology; then their minds will open up in their thinking. The process of solving a criminal case always involves rigorous logical thinking, and when combined with evidence, the case can be cracked. But if there is no evidence, or the evidence is insufficient, then no matter how logical and rigorous the reasoning may be, it must not be accepted. Logical thinking can guide the direction of gathering evidence, but when there is no evidence, no matter how airtight the logical reasoning is, it cannot be used; if used, it will lead to wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice.

If the mind consciousness's thinking within meditative concentration (samādhi) is as rigorous and cautious as solving a case, with sound logic, would it be easier to attain a thorough awakening when the matter is handed over to the manas for deliberation (manana)? This depends on what content the mind consciousness is thinking about. The function of the mind consciousness's thinking is to guide the direction and general goal of the manas's deliberation on the meaning of the Dharma, to sort out the overall framework and thread of thought of the Buddha's teachings, and to lead the manas into a state of investigation. The mind consciousness cannot think about Dharma meanings that are too specific and too fine-grained—that is for the manas to investigate, and it should be left to the manas to resolve; the final answer must be obtained through the manas's investigation. The functions of the manas and the mind consciousness wax and wane against each other: the more the mind consciousness is used, the less the manas is used. The wisdom of the manas cannot be replaced by the mind consciousness.