Buddhadharma Is Surprisingly Less Rigorous and Serious than Worldly Dharmas

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

Yet the Buddhist dharma spoken by some of us is not like this. Inference, imagination, thinking, organizing, summarizing, pondering, reminding, hinting—things produced in these ways can all be called attaining the fruits of realization and enlightenment, and it is even claimed that they came from investigating through Chan meditation (can-chan, can-jiu). If evidence is demanded, then whatever is inferred counts as evidence, whatever others hint at counts as evidence, and with a bit of pondering the evidence can be pondered into existence—as if the Buddhist dharma were not hard to figure out. Having logical thinking is enough; having rigorous thinking is even better; lacking rigorous thinking is also acceptable. After all, who cannot imagine? It all counts, because the honor and reputation of being a sage are more captivating and more worth pursuing, while the means and methods are secondary.

Those who wish to cultivate their capacity for logical thinking can look into some criminal investigation cases, read some philosophy and philosophical principles, and study some psychology; then their minds will become broadened in their thinking. The process of investigating and solving a case always involves rigorous logical thinking, and when combined with evidence, the case can be solved. 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 admitted. 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; using it would result in wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice.

If the mind consciousness's thinking within meditative concentration (samādhi) is as rigorous and careful as solving a case, and logically sound, would it then be easier for the manas to attain a thorough awakening when the matter is handed over to it for deliberation (manasikāra)? 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 Buddhist teachings, and to lead the manas into the state of meditative investigation. The mind consciousness should not think about dharma meanings that are too specific and too detailed—that is the province of the manas's investigation and should be left for 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.