The Mental Factors Employed in the Discriminative Awareness Through Pratyakṣa, Anumāna, and A-pramāṇa

Among the three types of discernment, the fifty-one mental factors are not necessarily all employed; specific circumstances require specific analysis. The mental factors used vary with different situations and individuals due to various reasons. Even for the same person, the mental factors applied differ across time, scenarios, physical and mental states, levels of knowledge, and degrees of wisdom. The five universal mental factors are always utilized, while the five particular mental factors are not necessarily all employed. The eleven wholesome mental factors may not necessarily arise, nor are the root afflictions and the major, intermediate, and minor derivative afflictions guaranteed to manifest—all depending on the circumstances.

Perceptual discernment requires sufficient data, which demands profound wisdom. The mental factor of decisive resolution must be exceptionally strong, the mental factor of concentration must be present, and the mental factor of mindfulness must be fully established, achieving uninterrupted continuity of thought. Inferential discernment, by comparison, requires relatively shallower wisdom and necessitates comparison; without a reference point for comparison, one cannot know. Without a relative condition, there is no starting point. Perceptual discernment, however, requires no comparison and is known directly or immediately, being a sharper faculty. Erroneous discernment occurs when evidence is genuinely unavailable—lacking sufficient data and objects for comparison—compelling one to resort to imagination, conjecture, reasoning, and other methods. The more such methods are employed, the more limited the wisdom and the weaker the power of decisive resolution. Naturally, both concentration and mindfulness are insufficient, preventing direct judgment or the immediate drawing of conclusions.

Inferential discernment is like a person whose ability is insufficient to accomplish something alone, forcing them to seek help from others to get it done. Erroneous discernment is when not even someone to help can be found, compelling one to fumble about alone, perhaps stumbling upon the correct answer by chance. Even if correct, the wisdom is still insufficient, and it does not constitute perceptual discernment. It is like being unable to see what clothes someone is wearing and having no reference for comparison, thus being forced to imagine and guess. Even if guessed correctly, it is not directly seen.

Some individuals, lacking sufficient wisdom and not knowing how to guide others step by step in cultivation to attain perceptual realization, nevertheless attempt to guide others and resort to the method of elimination. For example, suppose there are five roads here leading to five different regions outside the city, only one of which leads to Beijing. Unable to guide others in making the correct choice, they employ elimination. First, they point to the first road; the other person hesitates, pointing uncertainly, not daring to confirm. Then, by reading the guide’s eye expression hinting it’s wrong, they choose the second road. The other person, again sensing from the guide’s expression that it’s wrong, eliminates the second road. Thus, all four roads are rejected, leaving only the last one. The other person then declares, “This is the road; this road leads to Beijing.” The guide then says, “You said it yourself; I didn’t instruct you. Congratulations on attaining realization.” Tell me, does this count as realization? What wisdom arises from such realization? Those who mislead others and lead disciples astray are precisely such people—they deceive you without hesitation, and the deceived rejoice in their deception. What a pair of fools!