A Brief Discourse on the Essence of Consciousness
Chapter 10: The Direct Perception (pratyakṣa) Cognition of the Six Consciousnesses
1. What Are Direct Perception, Inference, and Non-valid Cognition
Direct perception (pratyakṣa) means being able to observe and contemplate a dharma directly in the present, seeing its true appearance and confirming its current state, without distorting its true characteristics. If one cannot see the present state of a dharma as it truly is, and cannot observe its true appearance as it really is, one will resort to other methods, such as comparing and contrasting with a reference object; this is inference (anumāna). Inference may yield a correct result, or it may not. For inference to be relatively accurate, there is a prerequisite: the dharma used as the reference object must be accurate and error-free; then the accuracy of the comparison will be somewhat higher. Because there is a ready-made reference object, no overly detailed deliberation is needed; not much wisdom is required, nor deep meditative concentration—there may not even be any meditative concentration—yet a result can be produced, though whether it is accurate is uncertain.
If one's wisdom of direct perception is insufficient, one can adopt another method: imagination, fantasy, and conjecture. One may follow a certain line of thought and track, or one may indulge in wild fantasies entirely without order or logic; this is non-valid cognition (non-pramāṇa). Non-valid cognition is thinking without any evidence, with a large element of groundless imagination; only when one lacks the ability to gather and grasp evidence is one forced to proceed this way. It can be seen that non-valid cognition requires even shallower wisdom and no meditative concentration. From this it is evident that direct perception requires considerable meditative concentration and wisdom; its wisdom is extremely precious and trustworthy, and the realization of the Buddha-dharma depends precisely on the wisdom of direct perception.
In non-valid cognition, because there is no evidence and everything relies on the mind consciousness's imagination, it is like a kite in the sky—perhaps held by a string, perhaps not. In this process, the manas cannot exert any force; the manas's wisdom cannot soar freely through the sky like the mind consciousness's, and it cannot imagine or conjecture. Whatever the mind consciousness thinks is what it is, and the manas cannot confirm it; therefore realization is impossible, though coincidences and strokes of luck cannot be ruled out. In this way the manas's wisdom will not grow; only the mind consciousness's wisdom grows. When encountering dissimilar problems later, unable to draw inferences from one instance to others, the mind consciousness must engage in non-valid cognition all over again, showing that the growth of its wisdom is very limited.
In inference, when two matters or principles are compared, it mainly relies on the mind consciousness's deductive and comparative functions; the manas's wisdom cannot exert much force and can only watch from the sidelines. The manas cannot truly confirm the result, though correct inferential results cannot be ruled out; but it cannot resolve the manas's mental doubt. The manas's wisdom will not grow; only the mind consciousness's wisdom grows.
2. For example, with a towering tree, if one wants to obtain its height, there are three channels: direct perception observation, inference, and non-valid cognition. Adopting the method of non-valid cognition means thinking, imagining, and guessing without any basis; having no experience with the tree's height, not knowing how to compare, and even less able to observe it as it truly is, the result is predictable—probably not even oneself can confirm it, let alone others. Adopting the method of inference means comparing it with the utility pole nearby, with tall buildings, with mountains, and then arriving at an approximate value. The result is a mind that is half certain and half uncertain; outwardly one may appear more confident, but if someone insists on being exacting, or if more conclusive evidence comes to refute it, one loses one's inner confidence. Of course, if someone agrees with this result, one's confidence will increase somewhat.
Besides these, there is another channel and method: direct perception observation. But this is extremely difficult; it requires a great deal of evidence and data, rich experience, keen and accurate observational power, meticulous thinking, and accurate data. Having rich experience and a large amount of accurate, error-free data requires painstaking effort and a considerable period of exploration; the hardship involved is beyond what ordinary people can match, the meditative concentration during observation is beyond what ordinary people can match, and therefore the resulting wisdom is likewise beyond what ordinary people can match.
During the process of exploring and collecting data, the manas has been watching all along, gradually being permeated. Once the mind consciousness reaches a conclusion that is highly convincing, and the manas deliberates on it itself, it will confirm it, because there is reason and evidence. Since the manas, with its shallow wisdom, lacks analytical ability, it easily corresponds to what has ample evidence and believes in realms of direct perception. In fact, this result is also one the manas reached itself: all the data is laid out there, very concrete, and the manas will itself engage in deliberation and produce a conclusion. Only a conclusion one reaches oneself can be believed without doubt; of course, what one believes most is one's own conclusion. No matter what others say, one can resolutely take responsibility for it, with no room for negotiation, and it is not easily retracted.
Because direct perception observation is so arduous and difficult, those who seek short-term results and fear hardship are unwilling to explore laboriously over the long term; those who have practiced for a short time lack both meditative concentration and wisdom, and cannot accumulate sufficient experience; therefore they cannot correspond to direct perception observation. Hence many people prefer inference and non-valid cognition, preferring conjecture and comparison, because these methods are relatively effortless, do not take much time, and require little meditative concentration or wisdom to produce a final result—how easy! These people want only the result, not the intermediate process.
Yet precisely this intermediate process is extremely important: it is the process of refining evidence, the process of permeating the manas, the process of subduing various afflictions, the process of quantitative change leading to qualitative change. Without this process there is no qualitative change, and the afflictions of one's own mind can never be subdued or transformed. So some people go around fishing for results, attempting to obtain the fruit easily without going through the arduous process of investigation; such a fruit is not one's own and cannot be enjoyed—one remains a pauper. If one then falsely claims to be a Dharma King, one will only invite destruction; the consequences are fearsome.
At this point, some may ask: after all this talk, you still haven't explained clearly what direct perception observation is. But let me tell you: the direct perception observation described by others, once you learn of it, becomes inference—it is no longer direct perception. True direct perception requires observing and verifying it personally oneself. Therefore results obtained by fishing around, results obtained by guessing, are extremely unreliable. Even results fished out from someone who observed by direct perception are not one's own; if the results are fished out from someone who reached them by inference, they are even less one's own and even less reliable. And when results are relayed and fished for again and again, the outcome becomes dreadful. Here I solemnly warn those unwilling to put in hard work: only by personally investigating can one personally attain the fruit and freely use the fruit; otherwise it is a bitter fruit, and this bitter fruit must be fully and solely enjoyed by oneself alone—the retribution is not in vain.
3. What we usually call the realm of direct perception refers to the various realms currently, presently, and now occurring. Direct perception cognition means that the six consciousnesses can observe, cognize, and verify in the present the true existence of certain dharmas among the six sense objects, without comparative, contrastive, imaginative, or inferential mental activities; what is cognized is all factual truth. The first five consciousnesses cognize the realms of the five sense objects entirely by direct perception—cognizing the five sense-object realms that exist right now, that are occurring and operating at present. The sixth consciousness has cognition of all three: inference, non-valid cognition, and direct perception; but the sixth consciousness can also cognize by direct perception the realms existing in the present. In many situations, the sixth consciousness's cognition is inferential or non-valid. When the six consciousnesses cognize realms by direct perception, they cognize the present moment, the realms existing right before them, without comparison, imagination, or investigation; the result of cognition fully accords with the facts—this is called direct perception cognition.
When the mind consciousness cognizes realms present before it—for example, while observing the mountains, rivers, and great earth before one's eyes—at that time the eye consciousness is cognizing by direct perception the manifest color of the mountains, rivers, and great earth, such as the hues of the landscape and the colors of the land; when seeing form, what first enters the eye is precisely this scene. The mind consciousness, meanwhile, cognizes the visible form, expressive form, and non-expressive form of the mountains, rivers, and great earth—for example, the mountains' size, height, shape, and so on, and the rivers' length, width, depth, and so on: these are visible form. The mountain's contours, the water's momentum, the state of the current, and so on are expressive form; the mountains' majesty, steepness, bareness, or loftiness, and the water's surging turbulence, deep serenity, or tranquility, and so on are non-expressive form. These realms all exist in the present; what can be observed and identified by the mind consciousness in the present is the realm of direct perception—no comparison, no fantasy, the cognition is real—therefore both the mind consciousness and the eye consciousness are cognizing by direct perception. The mind consciousness also has inferential and non-valid cognition; some realms can only be cognized clearly through comparison and imaginative thinking—this is the mind consciousness's inferential cognition. Of course, there may also occur mistaken cognition, mistaken judgment, and mistaken thinking; such erroneous cognition necessarily belongs to non-valid cognition.
When thinking and judgment go wrong, compounded by insufficient experience and wisdom, conclusions drawn by inference are often erroneous; when the conclusion does not accord with the facts, it is not cognition as things truly are, and cognition that is not as things truly are is non-valid cognition, because such cognition does not match the actual situation. Among foolish sentient beings, the probability of non-valid cognition is relatively high; in the solitary consciousness (mano-vijñāna-eka-citta), the probability of non-valid cognition is also relatively high; and among people with neurological and mental abnormalities, the probability of non-valid cognition is even greater. For example, a person is wolfing down some food, eating as if it were delicious; the person nearby thinks: "This food that person is eating must be very tasty—otherwise how could he eat with such relish?"—never imagining that the person had been hungry for a long time, so anything he ate seemed delicious. So this person eats along with him, but after the first bite and a chew, he immediately spits it out, sensing a moldy taste in the food, and feels nauseated. This is erroneous cognition by inference, a mistaken judgment caused by insufficient experience. There are extremely many such examples, too numerous to count.
4. When the mind consciousness cognizes things together with the eye consciousness, the mind consciousness has direct perception cognition, inferential cognition, and possibly non-valid cognition. For example, the height of a mountain: the mind consciousness sometimes cannot judge it immediately and must compare it with other reference objects to judge it accurately—this is inferential cognition. When the mind consciousness's judgment and thinking are wrong, that is non-valid cognition. When mountains, rivers, and the great earth are right before one's eyes, generally the mind consciousness does not need imagination, thinking, or comparison to know them; it can directly cognize them without error—at that time the mind consciousness is cognizing the realm of direct perception by direct perception. If one sees white clouds drifting over a distant mountaintop, and the great mountain set off by the drifting clouds seems to be moving, and the mind consciousness judges that the mountain is moving, then the mind consciousness is engaged in non-valid cognition—a misjudgment.
When the mind consciousness is engaged in direct perception cognition of the mental sense-object realms upon the five sense objects, the first five consciousnesses definitely exist and are simultaneously cognizing the five sense objects by direct perception; otherwise the mind consciousness could not cognize the direct-perception realm of the mental sense objects manifested upon the first five sense objects. But even for realms of direct perception that truly exist at present, the mind consciousness may engage in inferential and non-valid cognition—sometimes accurate, sometimes not; inaccurate cognition is entirely non-valid cognition, erroneous cognition.
When the ear hears sounds, the ear consciousness cognizes by direct perception the sound's volume and vibration frequency; the mind consciousness also has direct-perception cognition of sounds, and the content of its cognition is far richer than what the ear consciousness cognizes. The direct-perception realm cognized by the mind consciousness is the subtle mental sense-object of the sounds currently transmitted—not recalling sounds heard in the past, nor fantasizing about some sound that has not appeared. When the mind consciousness can know the content of a sound without comparing and analyzing it, this is the mind consciousness's direct perception cognition. For example, upon hearing a voice speaking, the mind consciousness immediately knows the sound's source, timbre, content, and other information, judging without error—this is direct perception cognition. The mind consciousness may also engage in inferential cognition, cognizing the sound's content and the speaker's hidden intentions and designs through thinking, inference, judgment, comparison, and other means. Sometimes the mind consciousness cognizes correctly, sometimes erroneously; when cognition is erroneous, it is entirely non-valid cognition.
Another example: hearing the sound of wind and rain beating down, the ear consciousness directly cognizes by direct perception the vibrations of the wind and rain sounds and the impact of the sound waves on the eardrum. The mind consciousness cognizes the loudness or softness, coarseness or fineness, source, direction, and tempo of the wind and rain sounds; the mind consciousness can directly cognize these contents without comparison or analysis—this is direct perception cognition. But sometimes there is also comparison, analysis, thinking, and inference: when the mind consciousness must rely on comparative and imaginative thinking to discern clearly, this is inferential cognition; if the cognition is erroneous, it is entirely non-valid cognition. The mind consciousness can, apart from the ear consciousness's participation, engage in inferential and non-valid cognition on its own. When the mind consciousness is cognizing, if the ear consciousness is not currently active, the mind consciousness cannot cognize sounds; the two consciousnesses must exist simultaneously for sounds to be cognized by direct perception. Therefore, the mind consciousness's direct perception cognition of the five sense objects always requires the participation of the first five consciousnesses.
When the nose smells a scent, the odor is a direct-perception realm existing in the present, and both the nose consciousness and the mind consciousness can cognize these direct-perception realms. In the first instant, the nose consciousness cognizes by direct perception the degree to which the odor stimulates the nasal mucosa; then in the second instant, the mind consciousness cognizes whether the odor is fragrant or foul; thereafter the mind consciousness cognizes which kind of fragrance or which kind of foulness it is, to what degree it is fragrant or foul, from what object it emanates, how far or near it is from oneself, and so on. These mental sense objects involve the mind consciousness's direct perception cognition, but it may also engage in inferential and non-valid cognition, because the mind consciousness's knowledge of odors is incomplete and its cognition cannot be entirely direct perception. Only when wisdom reaches perfection will the cognition of all dharmas be direct perception cognition—perhaps only a Buddha can achieve this.
If a Buddha still had to engage in inferential and non-valid cognition, then the Buddha would not be the possessor of omniscience (sarvākārajñatā), indicating that the Buddha's wisdom still had imperfections and that there were dharmas He could not know by direct perception. Then He could not be called a Buddha of omniscience—at most a Bodhisattva of wondrous enlightenment (sattvākṛtya). A Buddha can perfectly know all worldly dharmas by direct perception, without comparison or imaginative thinking, because His wisdom and virtues are perfectly complete.
When tasting food and drink, the tongue consciousness cognizes by direct perception the coarse taste objects of the food and drink; the cognition of the first instant is definitely the tongue consciousness's, the second instant is the mind consciousness's cognition, and after the second instant the two cognize simultaneously. The mind consciousness cognizes the subtle taste objects of food and drink, cognizing the specific sour, sweet, bitter, spicy, salty, and bland flavors and their degrees. If the flavor is too strong and one cannot adapt, one must spit the food out—this is the result of the mind consciousness's direct perception cognition. Of course, there is also inferential and non-valid cognition within it: cognizing based on memory is inference; imagining it to taste like some food is non-valid cognition. If one's knowledge of taste objects is limited, one must use inferential and non-valid cognition, and the results are often erroneous. Even direct perception cognition is sometimes erroneous; it is not necessarily entirely correct. When the mind consciousness engages in inferential and non-valid cognition, it is the solitary realm of the mind consciousness, in which the first five consciousnesses do not participate.
When feeling tactile objects on the material body, the body consciousness in the first instant cognizes by direct perception the coarse aspect of the tactile object, and the mind consciousness in the second instant cognizes by direct perception the subtle aspect; thereafter the two continue cognizing by direct perception simultaneously. But when the tactile object contacted is extremely unusual, the body consciousness and mind consciousness each cognize one, two, or three instants and must immediately withdraw, no longer able to contact the tactile object. For example, when the body touches fire, the body consciousness immediately feels the heat but has no concept; the mind consciousness immediately cognizes the degree of the heat, without yet having time to analyze, compare, or think; then the manas decides on the spot to immediately flee the source of fire. This is the manas's direct perception cognition based on the cognitions of the body faculty, body consciousness, and mind consciousness, and it directly makes the decision: flee. Here the three—body consciousness, mind consciousness, and manas—are all engaged entirely in direct perception cognition, without inferential or non-valid cognition, because before the mind consciousness has time for inferential or non-valid cognition, the manas decides to flee immediately, and the body consciousness and mind consciousness then vanish from the tactile object of fire.
Another example: a finger accidentally touches the point of a needle; both the body consciousness and the mind consciousness cognize the pain in the very first instant. The mind consciousness has no time to think, analyze, and decide; the manas directly makes the decision to pull the hand away, and so the hand suddenly jerks. Here all three consciousnesses are cognizing by direct perception, without the mind consciousness's inferential or non-valid cognition, because there is no time for it. After the finger withdraws from the needle point, the mind consciousness continues to cognize the sudden event just now and understands what happened: the finger accidentally touched the needle point. Only then does the mind consciousness's inferential and non-valid cognition occur. Inferential cognition may also be correct cognition, yielding a correct conclusion; non-valid cognition, however, is incorrect cognition, completely at variance with the facts.
The six consciousnesses in meditative concentration also have direct perception cognition. In preparatory concentration (anāgamya-samādhi), all six consciousnesses exist and can cognize by direct perception the six sense-object realms currently existing or manifesting. Among these, the body's lightness, tallness, comfort, and expansiveness are the joint direct perception cognition of the body consciousness and mind consciousness, while an inner feeling of emptiness, weightlessness, and tranquility is the mind consciousness's solitary direct perception cognition, belonging to the solitary realm. The mind consciousness may also, due to insufficient wisdom or insufficient knowledge of meditative concentration, be unable to make complete direct perception cognition of the meditative states, so inferential and non-valid cognition also exist.
In the meditative concentration of the first dhyāna, the mind consciousness together with the three consciousnesses of eye, ear, and body jointly cognize by direct perception the four sense objects of form, sound, touch, and dharma. The mind consciousness can singly cognize by direct perception inner feelings of tranquility (praśrabdhi), joy, peace, and emptiness-illusion, and can singly cognize by direct perception the mental sense objects of the meditative state. The mind consciousness can also have inferential and non-valid cognition of the mental sense objects of the meditative state. In the meditative state of the second dhyāna, only the mind consciousness exists alone, without the first five consciousnesses; therefore in the second dhyāna, the mind consciousness singly cognizes by direct perception the deep and subtle mental sense objects of the meditative state. At this time the mind consciousness's direct perception cognition is extremely deep and subtle—almost imperceptible as one's own cognition; one cannot feel that there is still a "knowing" within the mind, and can barely feel the deep inner joy and comfort, because it is too profound. In this state, there is no inferential or non-valid cognition of the mind consciousness, because no chaotic, illusory meditative states appear; the mind consciousness abides in without initial application and sustained examination (vitarka-vicāra), having already ceased all activity of thinking and analysis.
When eradicating the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi-prahāṇa), the mind consciousness can observe in the present the arising-ceasing, illusory nature, the nature of suffering, and the emptiness (śūnyatā) of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), clearly knowing in the mind that the five aggregates are not self and not different from self, and that the five aggregates and the eighth consciousness do not mutually reside in each other. This knowing is knowing by direct perception, because "the five aggregates are not self" is a true principle, called truth. The mind consciousness's cognition of this truth is real and actual, and at the same time overturns all previous wrong views. Therefore, what the mind consciousness sees at this time is seeing as things truly are—complete direct perception cognition, correcting previous non-valid understanding; this is the direct-perception cognition of wisdom. Therefore, true eradication of the view of self is a realm of direct perception.
At the time of seeing the mind (enlightenment), the mind consciousness realizes one's true self, the eighth consciousness, and can then observe in the present the nature and operation of the eighth consciousness—observing its purity, suchness, non-arising-non-ceasing, immovability, and so on. Such observation by the mind consciousness is direct perception cognition, a realm of direct perception. The five "how unforeseen is self-nature (svabhāva)" statements spoken by the Sixth Patriarch at his enlightenment were realms of direct perception realized through direct perception observation. The harmonious operation of the eighth consciousness with the five aggregates and seven consciousnesses is an activity occurring right now, something actual; the mind consciousness's observation and cognition at this time is direct perception cognition—that is, the mind consciousness's realization of the eighth consciousness is a wisdom realm of direct perception, without a trace of inference or non-valid cognition. If it were non-valid cognition, there could be no true seeing of the mind or enlightenment; such "enlightenment" would be imagined enlightenment, not real enlightenment, because there is no personal realization.
At the time of seeing the Buddha-nature with the eyes, one realizes the illusion-like contemplation of the entire body-mind world, able to feel in the present the wondrous operation of the Buddha-nature, and to genuinely feel in the present the illusory, conjured nature of one's own body-mind world. Therefore the mind consciousness at this time is cognizing by direct perception—a wisdom realm of direct perception, not a realm of inference or non-valid cognition; otherwise it would be imagined seeing of the nature, not real seeing of the nature, because there is no personal realization. In the practice after seeing the mind and seeing the nature, the attainment of various contemplative practices (vipaśyanā-caryā) is all the mind consciousness's direct perception cognition, all realms of direct perception. The deeper the practice, the more the mind consciousness's realms of direct perception and the fewer its realms of inference and non-valid cognition. Practicing all the way to the Buddha-ground, the mind consciousness at the Buddha-ground is entirely realms of direct perception, without inferential realms, and even less with non-valid realms.
5. Direct perception cognition is the ability to observe and cognize as things truly are the phenomenal realm currently occurring and existing, without error. Inferential cognition is the mind consciousness's ability to think, analyze, infer, and judge—possibly cognition as things truly are, possibly not; non-valid cognition relies on the mind consciousness's fantasy, inference, and imagination, and its results may be right or wrong. Knowing that a direct-perception realm exists means there is the discriminating and cognizing activity of the consciousness-mind; otherwise one would not know of the direct-perception realm's existence. Without the discrimination or cognition of the consciousness-mind, we would truly know nothing at all of the world.
The direct-perception realm is a realm existing in the present, which the seven consciousnesses can directly cognize in the present moment, without comparing with other sense-object realms, without thinking or imagining, without assumptions. Without these steps, one can still directly discover the five sense-object realms existing in the present. The first five consciousnesses definitely directly cognize the five sense-object realms existing in the present; the mind consciousness, relying on the five consciousnesses, can also directly cognize the five sense-object realms existing in the present. If cognition still requires comparison, assumption, or imagination, it is evidently the mind consciousness's inferential cognition; hence the mind consciousness has three kinds of cognition: direct perception, inference, and non-valid cognition.
The seventh consciousness believes only in reality and facts; sense-object realms and matters lacking sufficient or reliable evidence are things the seventh consciousness refuses to believe. Of course, reality and facts also have levels of distinction and are relative; evidence also includes true evidence and false evidence. The manas has believed false evidence since beginningless kalpas, holding that the five aggregates are self and what belongs to self; now those false facts and false evidence must be overturned to seek and verify the truth.
Even if the mind consciousness's cognition is non-valid, if under conclusive evidence the conclusion reached fully accords with the facts, the seventh consciousness can also believe it. Only after the seventh consciousness believes can it make a decision; otherwise the seventh consciousness temporarily makes no decision. Therefore, the seventh consciousness must make decisions based on direct perception. So only when the evidence is conclusive and without doubt will the manas be willing to believe, because its own wisdom is insufficient; only when ready-made sense-object realms and matters are laid before Him will He believe. He Himself cannot make detailed comparisons and imaginings, because His wisdom of concrete analysis is insufficient.
Therefore, when encountering any matter or principle, to have the seventh consciousness accept or affirm it, there must be sufficient evidence; this requires the mind consciousness to perform detailed thinking and analysis and produce persuasive grounds. Thus contemplative practice and organization are especially important. If the manas's wisdom were also complete, we would not need to go to such lengths in learning Buddhism.
6. What kind of observation counts as direct perception? For example, when we observe the illusoriness of the aggregate of form, birth, aging, sickness, and death, all of us can observe this in the present—this is direct perception. But the moment-to-moment arising and ceasing of the material body cannot be observed by ordinary beings. If, based on the principle in physics of the instantaneous arising and ceasing of electrons, one infers that the material body arises and ceases moment to moment, does this inference also count as direct perception? In fact, the moment-to-moment arising and ceasing of the material body can perhaps only be observed by direct perception by a Buddha alone; it requires extremely deep meditative concentration and profound subtle wisdom—without extremely deep concentration it absolutely cannot be observed. We can only know it through inference; and if the inferential knowing is correct and accords with the Buddha's authoritative teaching (āgama), it can provisionally be called direct perception.
For example, following the Buddha's teachings, we observe the arising-ceasing illusoriness of the universe and the material world (bhājana-loka). In fact, we cannot observe with the eye consciousness by direct perception the arising-ceasing illusoriness of the universe and material world before us, because our lifespans are too short—we lack sufficient time to observe the arising-ceasing illusory phenomena of the universe and material world; the universe is also too vast and our visual range too limited to observe the material world as a whole. But if through proper rational thinking in our minds we can finally genuinely affirm this principle, this also counts as realizing by direct perception the arising-ceasing illusoriness of the universe and material world—it is the result of thinking that accords with principle and Dharma, not non-valid cognition.
Another example: a detective solving a case, based on the criminal evidence grasped at the scene, using inferential and non-valid methods of thinking, reasoning, and deliberation, finally solves the case and brings the truth to light. The results of such inferential and non-valid observation are correct—this too is a realm of direct perception. That is to say, any inferential or non-valid reasoning that accords with the facts also counts as a realm of direct perception. Another example: a student solving a geometry problem also uses inferential and non-valid modes of thinking and finally proves the correctness of the problem—this too is a realm of direct perception. Although we cannot observe in the present the moment-to-moment arising and ceasing of the material body, we can through rational, Dharma-accordant thinking and contemplative practice finally prove this point; then the result obtained is a realm of direct perception.
7. The objects the mind consciousness takes in meditative concentration involve the three pramāṇas. If it takes as object the feelings of the material body, it is direct perception cognition; if it engages in contemplation and visualization and thinking, there is non-valid cognition, inferential cognition, and also direct perception cognition. For example, visualizing oneself at one's present location transforming into some form and flying to another place, imagining various realms—all of this is non-valid cognition. For example, in the sun-contemplation of the Contemplation Sūtra (Amitāyurdhyāna Sūtra), at the beginning it is non-valid cognition; when the contemplative practice is accomplished, the setting sun automatically appears without being visualized, the meditative-result form (samādhi-result rūpa) appears, and the mind consciousness's cognition is direct perception cognition.
Comparing the material body with its past differences and changes, comparing the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness, beauty or ugliness of realms—this is inferential cognition; if thinking yields a correct and realistic conclusion, it is direct perception cognition. The cognition of the mind consciousness in concentration at the second dhyāna and above is entirely direct perception cognition, because there is no thinking, no visualization—only pure cognition of the mental sense objects of the meditative state; one merely cannot be aware of it, cannot introspectively observe one's own cognizing nature. The deeper the level of concentration, the more the cognition is direct perception cognition. If images of past lives appear in concentration, the mind consciousness also cognizes them by direct perception; if realms of future lives manifest, the mind consciousness also cognizes them by direct perception.
8. Can one cognize realms when the mind is motionless and without thought? Sitting on the sofa at home, looking at the familiar furniture, with no thoughts in the mind—can the mind at this time clearly know the names, attributes, and functions of each piece of furniture? Early in the morning, just opening one's eyes, with no verbal or mental thoughts, can one know that one is lying in bed at home and has just woken up? If so, that is lucid clarity.
The six consciousnesses' direct-perception knowing definitely has knowing, but not necessarily thought. Thought is one of the five object-specific mental factors (kuśala-mahābhūmika), which do not have to be active at all times and places; but knowing and cognizing are among the five universal mental factors (sarvatraga), which must be active at all times and places. Wherever there is a consciousness-mind, there are the five universal mental factors, but not necessarily the five object-specific mental factors. So when the consciousness-mind has knowing and cognition, it does not necessarily have thoughts and mental ideation. When some people are rather lazy, they are unwilling to generate thoughts; when concentration is good, they are also unwilling to generate thoughts—but there is definitely knowing, definitely a cognizing nature. If it is inferential or non-valid cognition, there must be the mental factor of thought among the five object-specific mental factors—there must be thoughts, ideation, and mental movement.
9. The mind consciousness's direct perception: knowing correctly is direct perception; understanding dharmas as they truly are without error is direct perception; according with facts is direct perception; embodying truth is direct perception; knowing without comparison, knowing correctly, is direct perception; knowing without imagination or fantasy, knowing correctly and according with actual circumstances, is direct perception; recalling childhood events and understanding a matter is also direct perception; observing that the material body of past lives was not self, observing that the material body of future lives will not be self—when the observation is correct, it is direct perception. Having the superknowledge (abhijñā) to know people and events of countless kalpas ago is direct perception; knowing people and events of countless kalpas hence is direct perception. Looking at an apple yet believing it to be a pear—that is non-valid cognition, not direct perception; talking nonsense with eyes open is non-valid cognition. If the mind consciousness were entirely direct perception, the manas's non-valid cognition would necessarily be correspondingly rectified, and it would know all dharmas as they truly are.
10. The Three Modes of Cognition of the Seven Consciousness-Minds
Does non-valid cognition mean that the result of the consciousness-mind's cognition is erroneous and does not accord with facts, or that the mode of the consciousness-mind's cognition can involve imagination, fantasy, conjecture, and prediction? It means that the mode of the consciousness-mind's cognition can involve imagination, fantasy, conjecture, and prediction.
Then only the mind consciousness can have the mode of non-valid cognition. The five consciousnesses must cognize by direct perception; the manas must cognize by direct perception; the eighth consciousness cognizes everything by direct perception—what it cognizes are all realms of direct perception, because all dharmas are manifested by the eighth consciousness in the present moment; for the eighth consciousness they are all dharmas existing in the present, and therefore all are realms of direct perception.
Dharmas that are not realms of direct perception cannot be taken as object by the seventh consciousness, the manas, nor can it know them. So for the manas to accept and affirm any dharma, it must be a dharma of direct perception, with factual basis, very real, with clear reasoning and discernible order. Therefore the manas's eradication of the view of self is far more difficult than the mind consciousness's; it cannot be settled by a bit of musing and pondering. There must be deep and thorough thinking and contemplative practice, with the manas continuously weighing and choosing, until the reasons are sufficient and the principles clear, presenting itself as fact—only then can the manas affirm it.
The five consciousnesses also cognize the five sense-object realms by direct perception; for five sense objects not currently present, the five consciousnesses cannot imagine and cognize them, cannot fantasize any five sense-object realms. And any dharma that the mind consciousness imagines, fantasizes, recalls, or anticipates must be an image presented by the eighth consciousness—it may be said to be created from nothing, but all are conjured and upheld by the eighth consciousness. Therefore what the eighth consciousness cognizes are all dharmas of direct perception; it need not engage in non-valid or inferential cognition of any dharma. Anyone's mind consciousness, when cognizing, has all three pramāṇas: direct perception, inference, and non-valid cognition. Direct-perception knowing is knowing dharmas existing in the present moment; dharmas not currently present are not known, without recalling, imagining, or comparing; the dharma is not processed—whatever it is in the present moment, that is what it is.
11. Why Analogy Among Things of the Same Kind Is Not Inference but Direct Perception
For example, human beings certainly all share the same characteristics; any individual certainly has features in common with humanity. One need not compare this person with others of the same kind to determine that this person is indeed a human and not of another kind. A newborn baby, at birth, is known to be human and not of another kind without comparison; even in the womb one knows this child is human and not of another kind. Such knowing is knowing by direct perception, not knowing by inference.
Products made from the same mold all share the same features; knowing the features of one, one knows the features of the other products. This knowing is direct-perception knowing, not inferential knowing.
If comparison is made between members of the same kind to know their differences, that is knowing by inference. For example, not knowing whether someone is tall or short, one must compare with another person of standard height, compare with most people, and only then can one know—this is knowing by inference. But the result of this inferential knowing may be correct or incorrect; that is to say, the result may be direct perception or may be non-valid cognition.
One who knows a person's height by inference is not as intelligent as one who knows it by direct perception. Knowing by direct perception, upon meeting someone one can immediately judge based on experience and wisdom, without needing to compare and measure. Needing to compare and measure shows a lack of direct-perception wisdom—observational and judgmental abilities are not good enough, so one has no choice but to infer. If the result judged by direct perception does not accord with the facts, then it is not direct perception but non-valid cognition, showing that his wisdom is also not good enough; perhaps he is overconfident, and even less modest and prudent than the one who infers.
12. Analogy by Extension Is Not Inference
In the secular world there is a rule of analogy: for things of the same kind, proving one or a portion of them proves that all of the same kind are so, without needing to prove them all—this is the secular world's rule, and it applies equally in the Buddha-dharma. The sampling surveys conducted in human inspections—investigating a portion can prove the whole of the same kind. Does this belong to inference? It is not inference. When I contemplate my own five aggregates and prove that my five aggregates are suffering, empty, impermanent, and not-self, I conclude that others' five aggregates are also so, and that all sentient beings' five aggregates are so. Is this inference? It is not inference.
For example, when I investigate Chan and become enlightened, realizing the eighth consciousness within my own body, I then know that others' eighth consciousnesses are also so, and that all sentient beings' eighth consciousnesses are so. Is this inference? It is not inference. In geometry, arithmetic, and all academic experiments and reasoning, this method of proof is often used: analogy by extension. When writing articles and analyzing matters, the phrase "by analogy" is used, indicating that what follows is the same as this and need not be proven or derived again—this is the conclusion of the same kind. Is this inference? It is not inference.
In proving the correctness of all conclusions of matters and principles, sometimes one does not start from direct perception but from non-valid cognition, thinking and verifying, finally arriving at a conclusion of direct perception—non-valid cognition also has many great uses. For a person with a capable mind, if his wild imaginings are reasonable, they are not wild imaginings but called a quick mind. For a person whose mind is not quick, no matter how much direct-perception data you give him, he simply cannot produce an accurate, correct, direct-perception conclusion—there are too many such people.
Having experienced countless sufferings yet still not knowing suffering, with the inner mind numb—this is in fact folly. Foolish people make up more than ninety percent. Having experienced countless setbacks yet not knowing to turn back, still drilling into dead ends, stubbornly foolish with a one-track mind. Suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and not-self are plainly all direct perception, with so much direct-perception data as proof, yet everyone simply cannot see clearly; they still study the Buddha-dharma, think and contemplate, yet cannot contemplate it out—this is called folly. The five desires and six sense objects are plainly impermanent, arising, ceasing, and changing—cannot be grasped, cannot be clung to; the true facts are already presented by direct perception, plainly visible, yet countless people simply cannot see it clearly, cannot control themselves, and still go on grasping and clinging tightly, unwilling to loosen their grip a little, to rest a while—pitiable and foolish.
13. Direct Perception and Non-valid Cognition
Seeing a rope as a snake—does it belong to non-valid cognition or inference? Since there is neither correct cognition of the rope nor accurate recognition of the snake, both are erroneous cognition, not fact—therefore it is non-valid cognition. Riding a donkey while searching for a donkey—what pramāṇa is this? Not recognizing the donkey one is riding, not taking the donkey as a donkey, and going off to search for another donkey—inability to correctly recognize the donkey is non-valid cognition. One's entire five-aggregate body is the eighth consciousness, yet one does not understand this and goes off searching for another eighth consciousness—what pramāṇa is this? Likewise non-valid cognition. Ordinary beings see their parents and recognize them as parents, see their children and grandchildren and call them children and grandchildren—this is also not direct perception but non-valid cognition. Therefore the Buddha taught King Ajātaśatru to contemplate that there was no such person as his father and no such event as killing his father, having him realize the emptiness and not-self of the five aggregates, eliminating non-valid cognition and returning to direct perception; only then could the karmic offense of patricide be eliminated.
The arhat's realization that the five aggregates are not self and not different from self, arising-ceasing, changing, and empty—what pramāṇa is this? The arhat's realization of the emptiness and not-self of the five aggregates, though direct perception, is half direct perception, not yet ultimate; therefore one still needs to study the Mahāyāna Dharma and realize the definitive Dharma. After the Bodhisattvas realize the eighth consciousness, they obtain wisdom of various levels—what pramāṇa is this? The dharmas realized by arhats and Bodhisattvas, though all realized by direct perception, are relative direct perception, not entirely direct perception—there is still a component of non-valid cognition.
When the Contemplator of Ease (Avalokiteśvara) Bodhisattva illuminates and sees that the five aggregates are all empty—what pramāṇa is this? If the Contemplator of Ease Bodhisattva's illumination and seeing of the five aggregates as all empty were entirely direct perception, then practice would have reached its end—Buddhahood attained, no need to continue practicing. Because even the dharmas realized by Bodhisattvas of equal enlightenment and wondrous enlightenment are not yet ultimate, they still need to shatter the final grade of ignorance to become fully Buddha; only when ignorance is completely shattered is there complete wisdom of direct perception.
Strictly speaking, only the Buddha's wisdom-cognition is complete direct-perception wisdom, ultimate and beyond doubt, fully according with reality and truth. The wisdom-cognition of the other Bodhisattvas has varying components of direct perception and is not yet ultimate. The wisdom-cognition of the arhats and pratyekabuddhas is even less ultimate than the Bodhisattvas'; their degree and level of emptiness are both insufficient. Ordinary beings are entirely non-valid cognition, without direct perception. Even seeing mountains as mountains, seeing water as water, seeing parents as parents, seeing enemies as enemies, without the slightest confusion—all of that is still non-valid cognition, deluded and inverted. Non-valid cognition is equivalent to the cognition of the mentally deranged; all sentient beings have mental illness to varying degrees and are all unhealthy.
14. From the perspective of ultimate meaning, all dharmas are direct perception for a Buddha and non-valid cognition for ordinary beings, because the Buddha knows completely as things truly are, while sentient beings know erroneously. The six consciousnesses of sentient beings, since beginningless kalpas, have always been deliberately or inadvertently deceiving their own manas, transmitting to the manas nothing but realms of non-valid cognition; as a result, the manas's defilement has grown ever more severe and its ignorance ever deeper. If the mind consciousness, through contact with the correct authoritative teaching (āgama), through proper attention (yoniśo-manaskāra) and correct thinking, can give the six consciousnesses and the manas realms of direct perception that accord with principle and Dharma, then it can know the true facts of all dharmas. When ordinary beings observe all dharmas by direct perception, they consider them real, but in fact the results are all illusory; ordinary beings have never reached a single correct conclusion—what they reach are invariably erroneous conclusions. Ordinary beings' direct-perception observation is unreliable, because they lack the true wisdom of the Buddha-dharma; relying on this so-called direct-perception observation, life after life they consequently suffer the misery of birth-and-death saṃsāra because of these erroneous conclusions.
15. When the mind consciousness contemplates the not-self of the five aggregates, it has logical thinking, analysis, and inference—does this count as direct perception? When the mind consciousness engages in thinking and contemplative practice, all three pramāṇas can manifest the mind consciousness's wisdom. The logical thinking, analysis, and inference of the mind consciousness in contemplating the five aggregates also involve the three pramāṇas; the higher the wisdom, the more direct perception; the more facts observed, the more sufficient the evidence, the more ample the reasons, the more it can permeate the manas, and the closer to realization.
The more sufficient and the more direct-perception the evidence the mind consciousness seeks, the better, because the mind consciousness gathers evidence for the manas. Direct-perception evidence is persuasive and can make the manas accept it, with ample reasons. The mind consciousness's non-valid imagination and fantasy lack sufficient evidence, and the manas cannot accept them. In that case it cannot play the role of guiding and propelling the manas's deliberation (manasikāra), and realization is impossible.
Direct perception does not necessarily mean personally experiencing it. Seeing events happening to others, events happening to all sentient beings—these all belong to direct-perception observation, as long as they accord with the facts, the principles are coherent, and the logic is rigorous. But a question like the four great element seeds truly cannot be observed by direct perception; due to insufficient wisdom it can only count as permeation, counting as non-valid cognition—but for all Buddhas it is direct perception. Each of our mind consciousnesses has limited wisdom, so there are extremely many facts and truths we cannot observe by direct perception; therefore realization is extremely difficult, and we can only realize some relatively shallow truths.
Dharmas that are difficult for some people to contemplate are relatively easy for others; the difference lies in the differing wisdom of the mind consciousness and also the differing wisdom of the manas. The four great element seeds, of course, all Buddhas can immediately observe by direct perception, but we cannot—we can only think and infer along the lines of principle, playing a role of permeation. Since beginningless kalpas, sentient beings in the saṃsāra of birth and death have experienced countless sufferings of birth and death—all of it direct perception—yet sentient beings cannot observe it by direct perception, cannot perceive it, and do not draw lessons from it, so that birth-and-death saṃsāra continues unbroken and sufferings never cease.
