Buddhist Empirical Realization Must Be Pratyakṣa Observation

The realization of the Dharma is not reliant on inferential cognition but on direct perception through observation. It is not attained through reasoning, speculation, inference, or research, but through contemplative practice and investigation within meditative concentration. Only conclusions derived in this manner constitute direct perception, are reliable, can reveal the truth, enable the realization of truth, and thus yield genuine benefit, dispelling doubt and giving rise to faith.

So-called inferential cognition is akin to guessing. Guesses are rarely correct, and the proportion of accurate guesses is low. Even when a guess happens to be correct, it does not equate to direct perception through observation. For example, seeing smoke rise from behind a mountain, one might inferentially guess and deduce that there must be a fire on the other side. In reality, it might not be a fire; it could be someone smoking wet grass, etc., and flames may not necessarily appear. Another example: seeing a woman pregnant, one might assume she must have engaged in sexual desire to conceive. In reality, individuals with high meditative attainment can enter the womb without sexual desire; the Fifth Patriarch's birth was such a case, and some highly attained Chan masters during the Tang and Song dynasties were similarly born.

There are countless examples illustrating that inferential cognition is not equivalent to direct perception. Inferential cognition relies entirely on the understanding of the mind, the mind's analogies, the mind's reasoning, and the mind's speculation. Anyone with a bit of cleverness can do this; it is not difficult. There are many people in the world with petty cleverness. The difficulty lies in direct perception through observation. This is precisely why countless people cultivate the path seeking liberation, yet those who truly attain liberation are as rare as phoenix feathers. Genuine sages will always, forever, be an extremely small minority; the proportion between sages and ordinary beings is imbalanced.

Conclusions derived from speculation and reasoning do not constitute genuine realization. Even if the inference is correct and happens to align with the facts, it cannot dispel doubt and lacks the meritorious benefit of liberation. For instance, all ordinary sentient beings consider their five aggregates and eighteen elements to be the real self. Superficially, it seems every ordinary being has no doubts and is convinced of this. But if sentient beings were truly, genuinely certain of this, then why is it that when the Buddha expounded the non-self of the five aggregates, some sentient beings developed doubts, subsequently cultivated meditative concentration, contemplated, investigated the truths of the Four Noble Truths, and finally dispelled their doubts, proving their previous understanding was wrong? This shows that the so-called unwavering certainty of sentient beings is also unreliable. Otherwise, how would the Buddha liberate sentient beings? Similarly, many people engage in mental reasoning, inference, and research without dispelling doubt in their hearts. Sooner or later, they will overturn the conclusions they derived, seeking true, genuine realization.

Another example: scientists, through various scientific research methods, arrive at a conclusion. Even if everyone agrees with this conclusion, it is not necessarily factual or true. Otherwise, later scientists using more modern technological means would not overturn the conclusions of previous scientists. If the inferences and research of scientists were all correct, flawless, and aligned with the facts, then scientists should possess great wisdom identical to the Buddha's, be able to fully explore the true nature of the universe, know the essence of worldly phenomena, and their conclusions should not contradict the Buddha's sacred teachings. They should all become sages within the Buddha Dharma and teachers for sentient beings. The reality, however, is not like this. They all possess profound ignorance, remain thorough ordinary beings, and do not know the true reality of the Dharma realm.

From this, it is evident that inferential methods such as reasoning, inference, and research cannot be applied to Buddhist practice and cannot be used as means to realize the Dharma. Results derived from reasoning, even if one strongly believes in them, are not genuine acceptance. The mental faculty harbors unresolved doubt, unknown even to oneself. The truth will be revealed at the end of life. When that time comes, will it still be possible to turn back?