What Are Pratyakṣa, Anumāna, and Apramāṇa?

Direct perception (pratyakṣa) is the ability to observe and contemplate phenomena as they presently manifest, perceiving their true characteristics and confirming their current state without distorting reality. If one cannot genuinely perceive the present state of phenomena or accurately observe their true characteristics, one resorts to other methods, such as comparing and contrasting with reference objects—this is inferential cognition (anumāna). While inferential cognition may yield a correct result, it might also fail to do so. For inferential cognition to be correct, a prerequisite is that the phenomena used as references must be accurate and reliable. Only then can the comparative result achieve higher accuracy. Since ready-made reference points are available, it does not require meticulous contemplation, nor does it demand profound wisdom or deep meditative concentration (Samadhi). One can arrive at a result without Samadhi, though its accuracy remains uncertain.

If the wisdom of direct perception is insufficient, another method can be adopted: imagination, fantasy, and conjecture. This may follow a certain line of thought or trajectory, or it may be entirely fanciful, lacking methodology or logic—this is erroneous cognition (mithyā-jñāna). Erroneous cognition arises from contemplation without evidence, heavily relying on baseless imagination. It is a last resort when one lacks the ability to gather and grasp evidence, indicating that it requires even shallower wisdom and no Samadhi. Thus, it is evident that direct perception demands considerable meditative concentration and wisdom, and its wisdom is exceedingly precious and trustworthy. The realization of the Dharma relies precisely on the wisdom of direct perception.

Within erroneous cognition, due to the absence of evidence, it relies entirely on the imagination of the conscious mind (mano-vijñāna). Like a kite in the sky, it may be tethered or untethered. In this process, the mental faculty (manas) cannot exert force; its wisdom cannot soar freely like the conscious mind, nor can it imagine or conjecture. Whatever the conscious mind imagines becomes its reality, and the mental faculty cannot confirm it. Therefore, realization is impossible, though coincidence or luck cannot be ruled out. Consequently, the wisdom of the mental faculty does not grow; only the wisdom of the conscious mind increases. When encountering dissimilar problems, one cannot extrapolate or generalize, forcing the conscious mind to engage in erroneous cognition anew. This indicates that the growth of wisdom is severely limited.

In inferential cognition, when comparing two phenomena or principles, it primarily relies on the conscious mind’s deductive and comparative functions. The wisdom of the mental faculty cannot contribute much; it can only observe from the sidelines. As a result, the mental faculty cannot genuinely confirm the outcome, though a correct inference is not impossible. However, this does not resolve the mental faculty’s doubt, and its wisdom does not grow; only the conscious mind’s wisdom increases.

For example, to determine the height of a towering tree, there are three approaches: direct perception, inferential cognition, and erroneous cognition. Adopting erroneous cognition means engaging in baseless imagination, speculation, and conjecture. Without experience regarding the tree’s height, one does not know how to compare it, much less observe it truthfully. The result is predictable: one may not even be able to confirm it oneself, let alone convince others. Adopting inferential cognition involves comparing it to nearby objects, such as utility poles, tall buildings, or mountains, to arrive at an approximate value. The outcome leaves one partially certain yet uncertain in mind. Outwardly, one may appear confident, but if someone insists on precision or presents more definitive evidence to refute it, one’s confidence wavers. Of course, if others agree with the result, one may gain more confidence.

Beyond these, there is another approach: direct perception. However, this is exceedingly difficult. It requires abundant evidence, rich experience, sharp and accurate observation, meticulous thinking, and precise data. Possessing rich experience and a wealth of accurate data demands arduous effort and prolonged exploration, involving hardships beyond ordinary endurance, meditative concentration during observation that surpasses the norm, and ultimately, wisdom that likewise exceeds ordinary capacity.

Throughout the process of exploration and data collection, the mental faculty observes continuously, gradually being influenced. Once the conscious mind arrives at a conclusion, it becomes highly convincing. The mental faculty then contemplates it independently and confirms it, as it is well-reasoned and evidence-based. Due to its shallow wisdom and lack of analytical ability, the mental faculty trusts what is well-supported by evidence and believes in the state of direct perception. In truth, this conclusion is also reached by the mental faculty itself. All the data are laid out plainly and realistically, prompting the mental faculty to contemplate and arrive at its own conclusion. Only a conclusion drawn by oneself can be believed without doubt. Naturally, one trusts one’s own conclusion above all else. Regardless of what others say, one can decisively uphold it without room for negotiation, and it is difficult to discard one’s own conclusion.

Since direct perception is so arduous and challenging, those who pursue short-term results and fear hardship are unwilling to engage in prolonged, laborious exploration. Those with brief spiritual practice lack sufficient meditative concentration and wisdom to accumulate adequate experience and thus cannot align with direct perception. Therefore, many prefer inferential cognition and erroneous cognition, favoring conjecture and comparison, as these methods are less demanding. They require little time, minimal meditative concentration, and scant wisdom to produce a final result. This is far easier. Such individuals seek only the result, disregarding the process entirely.

Yet it is precisely the intermediate process that is crucial. This is the process of refining evidence, nurturing the mental faculty, subduing various afflictions, and transforming quantity into quality. Without this process, there is no qualitative change, and the afflictions of the mind can never be subdued or transformed. Thus, some seek results everywhere, attempting to gain the fruit effortlessly without enduring the toil of diligent investigation. Such fruit does not belong to them; they cannot enjoy it. They remain impoverished, and if they falsely claim to be Dharma Kings, they will face retribution—a dreadful consequence.

At this point, some may ask, “You’ve spoken at length without clarifying what direct perception truly is.” Yet I tell you: what others describe as direct perception, once known to you, becomes inferential cognition—it is no longer direct perception. Genuine direct perception requires personal observation and verification. Results obtained through inquiry or conjecture are highly unreliable. Even results learned from those who practice direct perception do not belong to you. If results are obtained from those who rely on inferential cognition, they are even less your own and even less reliable. Further dissemination and inquiry into such results lead to terrifying outcomes. Here, a solemn warning is issued to those unwilling to exert effort: only through personal investigation can one personally attain the fruit and freely use it. Otherwise, it becomes a bitter fruit—one that must be personally and solely endured. Karmic retribution never fails.