Theoretical Realization and Practical Realization
Chapter 7: The Characteristics and Drawbacks of Intellectual Understanding (jie wu)
1. When eradicating the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi-prahāṇa) and seeing the mind, if there is no change in one's body, mind, and world at the time or afterward, then it is a theoretical eradication of the view of self and seeing of the mind—both are intellectual understanding, the manas does not accept it, and there is no realization-enlightenment. If the manas does not awaken, one cannot break through the beginningless ignorance, cannot give rise to wisdom; without wisdom there is no liberation, one cannot eradicate afflictions and habitual tendencies, cannot eradicate the self-grasping of persons and the self-grasping of dharmas, much less transform consciousness into wisdom, cannot eliminate defiled karmic seeds, can never attain purity, and thus can never become a Buddha.
Seeing the mind is, on the one hand, the awakening of the mind consciousness; this awakening is not mere comprehension but is well-founded with solid evidence—this is a state of direct perception. In this way the manas also realizes it simultaneously. When the manas accepts the state of direct perception and realizes it at the same time, it knows that the five aggregates originally belong to the tathāgatagarbha and are not one's own, and so it relaxes its grip on the five aggregates and no longer controls the body. Immediately the body becomes light, at ease, and comfortable; the mind becomes extremely clear, and at that moment body and mind undergo a transformation, different from before. The better the meditative concentration, the greater the transformation, the lighter the afflictions, and the better the experiences—only these changes in body and mind cannot be fully described in words.
If it is merely intellectual comprehension by the mind consciousness, with insufficient evidence and much guesswork and imagination, it is not a state of direct perception and cannot persuade the manas. The manas then does not know that the five aggregates belong to the tathāgatagarbha, does not know that the five aggregates are not one's own, and so will still take the five aggregates as one's own, grasping and controlling them. The body undergoes no transformation, the mind undergoes no transformation, there is no spiritual shock, and nothing differs from before—this is the state of intellectual understanding. During intellectual understanding the manas still holds onto the body and the perceiving mind, so the body does not change, the perceiving mind does not change, everything remains as before—afflictions remain afflictions, the mind cannot be purified, ignorance cannot be broken, and one remains deluded and inverted.
2. The changes in the five aggregates are controlled and determined by the manas. At the true eradication of the view of self and seeing of the mind, the manas understands the principle and no longer controls the body; knowing the body is not one's own, the body shows reactions of liberation. The manas also no longer controls the perceiving mind; knowing it is not one's own, the perceiving mind feels as if relieved of a heavy burden, and various sublime states appear. Sleep is controlled by the manas, so afterward sleep also changes; afflictions are initiated by the manas, so at this time afflictions also become lighter. There are many other wondrous states, which simply cannot be revealed one by one.
Direct observation is far more persuasive than theory. One who can observe directly possesses both meditative concentration and wisdom, whereas theory may not be correct, and even if correct, has nothing to do with oneself. With direct observation, the manas realizes it and affirms it, and then one can transform body and mind and world, and only then can one obtain the meritorious benefit of liberation of body and mind. Once the manas affirms, those useless theories are no longer needed. In studying the Dharma we must not only learn theory but also actually observe, observe directly, and personally verify the correctness of the theory; then the theory becomes our own state of direct perception, the mind constantly accords with the theory, principle and phenomena are unobstructed, and later every matter will be unobstructed—that is great liberation. Mere theoretical knowledge cannot liberate us; please remember this point.
3. "Knowing Is Easy, Doing Is Hard" Is the Result of Intellectual Understanding
"Knowing is easy, doing is hard"—the key is where this knowing is established, and which consciousness's knowing it is. If it is only established in the mind consciousness, then do not even speak of practice—it is mere talk, cannot be practiced, and one cannot be one's own master. If the manas does not know, it cannot break through the darkness of inner ignorance and cannot take corresponding action; its practice becomes difficult upon difficult.
When the mind consciousness knows the five aggregates are without self, there is not the slightest meritorious benefit of liberation; therefore a person of the first fruit absolutely is not one whose mind consciousness merely knows the five aggregates are without self—the manas must know it. Only then does eradicating the view of self have meritorious benefit and initial liberation, establishing a clear dividing line from ordinary beings. If the person of the first fruit has partial realization of liberation and some meritorious benefit of liberation, then the principle that the five aggregates are without self must be realized by the manas; if realized only by the mind consciousness, there will be no meritorious benefit, because the manas has not partially realized liberation.
4. The State of Understanding Rather Than Realizing
Practitioner A's contemplative experience: Just now I suddenly felt that there is no mark of self, no marks of anything; all states are like flowers in a mirror or the moon in water, illusory and unreal. There is only the true suchness of mind-nature, like a treasure mountain that can generate the myriad dharmas, without form, suchness is immovable (tathatā-acalita), the mind-nature pure, yet the mind without craving or attachment, without gain or loss, and without a mark of self. (Although these are only understood and felt, the mind has still become a bit purer.)
Analysis: Understanding has depth and shallowness, and so feeling has depth and shallowness, and so the degree of mental purity has depth and shallowness. What does depth and shallowness mean? The depth of understanding is whether this cognition resides on the surface of the mind consciousness or in the deeper levels of the manas. The degree of depth involves both the mind consciousness and the manas, indicating the degree to which the principles cognized by the manas and the mind consciousness accord, and also involves the degree of meditative concentration. The deeper the contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā) and deliberation, the deeper the concentration, the more the manas accords with the cognition, and the purer the mind.
Practitioner A's contemplative experience is still shallow-level cognition of the mind consciousness and a temporary, unstable feeling; it can easily and quickly regress, especially without concentration or with insufficient concentration—it is hard to maintain for long. This understanding and insight has not yet touched the manas; the manas has not yet realized this state and does not accord with it. For matters and principles the manas has not awakened to, the response is not strong, or there is no response at all.
Nevertheless, this is already quite good. Many people study Buddhism for a long time without any insight at all; their minds remain flat and dull, without much comprehension of the Buddha-dharma, and thus it is hard to change anything. If one can continue deepening practice and contemplative practice, gratifying phenomena may appear. Taking this as a starting point and continuing contemplative practice, at a certain point one can realize the falsity of the five-aggregate body, realize no-self, and realize the illusory nature of all dharmas.
In daily life, everywhere are objects of our contemplative practice; as long as we apply our minds, practice can achieve something. All dharmas are ready-made; we need only reach out and take them. But to actually obtain them requires certain conditions—the degree of cultivation of the bodhisattva's six perfections.
5. "If one sees that all marks are no-marks, then one sees the Tathāgata." If someone understands it this way—regarding everything they perceive (like the content displayed on a TV screen), they can at all times and places be aware that it is all the illusory transformation of the materials and functions within the tathāgatagarbha (like the TV screen)—has this person then realized the tathāgatagarbha? Absolutely not; they are still far from it. Hearing and imagining are still vastly distant from actual realization; the gap between them is the practice of the bodhisattva's six perfections.
All the above content is the mind consciousness's crudest, most superficial understanding, similar to hearsay—except heard from sutras or from some book—and has not been actually realized; it is not directly observed. No matter who says it, it belongs to understanding. When one truly and actually realizes it, who knows what bhūmi bodhisattva one would be. Those contents are spoken in the sutras and spoken by others; things spoken by others do not belong to personal realization. Personal realization knows very concretely and precisely, not generally, roughly, or vaguely. To realize what specific function the tathāgatagarbha performs in the five-aggregate body, one must go through Chan investigation, actually put in the effort to investigate, and grope and explore the process bit by bit. Without doing the work, relying on one's feelings and guesses and understanding a little, in reality one has no idea what specific function the tathāgatagarbha performs—completely blank—then all ignorance remains intact, and no wisdom is born.
Believing that all dharmas are like the content on a TV screen—believing is not equal to realization and personal verification, and is not called realization, because there is no evidence. Believing that all dharmas are created by the tathāgatagarbha and that we all live in the one true dharma realm—this is not called enlightenment. If one sentence from the Buddha could let sentient beings become enlightened so easily, the Buddha-dharma would be far too easy: a three-year-old child hearing this sentence and roughly understanding a bit would count as enlightened—then becoming a Buddha would be so relaxed and easy, and eons upon countless eons of karmic obstructions of birth and death could not obstruct anything, and all that ignorance would count for nothing. In reality, nothing is so easy.
Without having gone through Chan investigation, without investigation and evidence-gathering, without collecting data and evidence, how can the manas confirm that these statements are truth and accept them with faith? True realization-enlightenment requires knowing the details of how the eighth consciousness operates—specifically how it gives rise to the myriad dharmas, to the five aggregates and eighteen realms of sentient beings—all of this must be understood and known, and the bodhisattva's six perfections must all be cultivated. It is not a matter of understanding some portion of content; those portions were spoken by the Buddha or by others, and no matter how one understands and elaborates them, they are not personally deliberated, investigated, and realized through one's own inquiry. Without direct observation, the mind does not land solidly; the mind feels hollow.
From this understanding to realization-enlightenment may take one year, or thirty years, or a hundred years, or ten thousand years, or an incalculable eon—there is no telling. What the mind consciousness understands is useless; it vanishes the moment it is said to vanish. Even the mind consciousness does not know or realize the details, so how could the manas know and realize them? At critical moments it is still the manas that is in charge. If the manas has not confirmed, ignorance remains, and all the mind consciousness's understanding, at the time of death, is like child's play, dissolving into bubbles, unable to determine the destination of the next life.
Ask yourself "why" often in your mind, and answer all the whys—perhaps you may touch the edge of realization-enlightenment, but even then it is not necessarily realization-enlightenment. The Buddha-dharma is thus sacred and not to be conjectured.
6. The Drawbacks of Intellectual Understanding
Question: Why is it said that if everyone's Buddhist practice consists only of intellectual understanding, the true Buddha-dharma will gradually disappear and perish? The vast majority of us cannot even touch the edge of intellectual understanding—isn't intellectually understanding the Buddha-dharma still quite good?
Answer: To give an example: suppose everyone buys a book to learn driving techniques, or listens to someone explain driving techniques in person, and everyone masters the technical knowledge and all feel they can drive. Yet they have never actually driven a car, never touched a steering wheel. Then these people write books and teach others to learn driving techniques. In that case, what would driving technique become as it is passed down? Would this skill still have any practical value? Would anyone drive in the future? Would there be anyone who can drive? After this, would driving technique be lost and become a paper exercise, an armchair game?
The Buddha-dharma is the same. If everyone merely intellectually understands without actual realization, one person passing it to another, in the end even those with intellectual understanding will cease to exist, even the intellectually understood Buddha-dharma will become deformed, and the true Buddha-dharma will be lost. This is a situation the Buddha could not bear to see, and as the Buddha's true disciples, we would also be deeply pained by it.
Comprehension, understanding, and intellectual understanding are essentially different. Intellectual understanding is roughly guessing how the tathāgatagarbha functions; it is not observed through direct perception, not as clear as seeing an object before one's eyes. What is guessed at—the manas still does not understand; the mind is not at ease, does not land on solid ground, and is easily overturned. Thus one cannot observe the specific operations of the tathāgatagarbha and cannot give birth to genuine great wisdom. Ordinary comprehension and understanding means one has learned and mastered knowledge fairly well but has not yet entered the stage of actual deliberation and contemplative investigation, and has not the slightest knowing of the tathāgatagarbha's operation—still far from the degree of intellectual understanding, and even farther from realization-enlightenment.
7. What Are Direct Perception, Inference, and Non-Valid Cognition
Direct perception means being able to observe and deliberate upon a dharma directly in the present, seeing the true appearance of the dharma and confirming its current state, without distorting the true appearance. If one cannot truly see the dharma's present state or truly observe its true appearance, one will adopt other methods, such as comparing and contrasting with a reference object—this is inference. Inference may yield a correct result, or may not. For inference to be correct, there is a prerequisite: the dharma used as the reference object must be accurate and error-free; then the accuracy of the compared result can be somewhat higher. Because there is a ready-made reference object, no detailed deliberation is needed; not much wisdom is required, not deep concentration is required, and even without dhyāna one can compare out a result—though whether it is accurate is uncertain.
If the wisdom of direct perception is insufficient, one can adopt another method: imagination, fantasy, and conjecture. One may follow a certain line of thought, or may indulge in pure flights of fancy without any order or logic—this is non-valid cognition. Non-valid cognition is deliberation without evidence, with a large component of baseless imagination; only when one lacks the ability to collect and grasp evidence must one resort to this. Clearly non-valid cognition requires even shallower wisdom and no dhyāna at all. From this we can see that direct perception requires considerable concentration and wisdom; its wisdom is extremely precious and trustworthy—realizing the Buddha-dharma relies 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, the manas cannot exert any force; the manas's wisdom cannot flutter about the sky like the mind consciousness's, cannot imagine or conjecture. Whatever the mind consciousness thinks is what it is; the manas cannot confirm it, and therefore cannot realize it—though coincidences and strokes of luck are not excluded. Thus the manas's wisdom does not grow; only the mind consciousness's wisdom grows. When encountering a dissimilar problem, unable to draw inferences from one instance to others, the mind consciousness must engage in non-valid cognition all over again—showing that its growth in wisdom is very limited.
In inference, comparing two matters and principles relies mainly on the mind consciousness's deductive and comparative function; the manas's wisdom cannot exert much force and can only watch from the sidelines. The manas cannot truly confirm the result. Although correct results of inference are not excluded, it cannot resolve the manas's mental doubt; the manas's wisdom does not grow, only the mind consciousness's wisdom grows.
For example, take a towering tree: to obtain its height, there are three channels—direct observation, inference, and non-valid cognition. Adopting non-valid cognition means deliberation, imagination, and guessing without any basis; having no experience with the tree's height, not knowing how to compare, much less how to observe truthfully—the result is imaginable; probably not even oneself can confirm it, let alone others. Adopting inference means comparing with the utility pole nearby, with tall buildings, with mountains, and then deriving an approximate value. The result is a mind half-affirming and half-doubting; on the surface one may appear more confident, but if someone insists on being serious, or more conclusive evidence comes to negate it, one loses one's inner confidence. Of course, if someone agrees with this result, one's confidence increases somewhat.
Besides these, there is another channel and method: direct observation. But this is extremely difficult—it requires much evidence and data, rich experience, keen and accurate observational power, meticulous, can bring benefit, and has the meritorious benefit of liberation. For a dharma known in the present moment, the manas certainly knows it, without the mind consciousness's prompting. Only what the manas does not know requires the mind consciousness's logical reasoning, analysis, comparison, and guessing.
The manas's actual realization is similar to intuitive experience. Without dhyāna there is no intuitive experience—even at moments of fright there is brief dhyāna. The seven factors of enlightenment are the necessary path to realizing the Buddha-dharma; among them, the factor of joy, the factor of tranquility, and the factor of concentration gradually appear in actual practice, all related to dhyāna—this is graduated dhyāna. Without this process, do not speak of realization; believe what the Buddha taught—believe the Buddha's words are not wrong. And the mind consciousness's discriminating deliberation can lead to the manas's intuitive experience, which also has great merit. In practice, neither of these two knowing capacities can be absent; both are important.
But if there is no dhyāna and the mind consciousness's function is overly strong, it will cover and obscure the manas's deliberative nature; then intellectual understanding is easy but actual realization is extremely difficult. Therefore the Chan patriarchs of the past opposed the mind consciousness being too active, and also opposed dead sitting in dhyāna without arising contemplative deliberation. Getting the mind consciousness's function just right is very difficult. For example, with a fixed amount of work done by two people, if A does more, B does less—the principle is just so. If the mind consciousness is strong, while alive one can rely on it; but once the mind consciousness's activity weakens or the mind consciousness ceases, the manas has nothing to rely on—at that time everything depends on the manas. Everyone think about it: at death and in future lives, if the manas has not grown strong, what will that be like? The purpose and result of a strong mind consciousness should be to make the manas strong; if the manas is not strong, what will we do in the future? If the manas is weak, we are weak. Once the manas becomes extremely strong, it can function even without the mind consciousness—for example, the interfunctioning of the six faculties, the interfunctioning of the six faculties.
9. Realizing the Buddha-Dharma Necessarily Requires Direct Observation
Realizing the Buddha-dharma does not rely on inference but on direct observation; not on reasoning, conjecture, and deduction, nor on research, but on contemplative practice and investigation within dhyāna. Only conclusions drawn this way are direct perception, are reliable, can discover truth and realize truth, thereby obtaining genuine benefit, severing doubt and giving rise to faith.
So-called inference is akin to guessing; correct guesses are not many, and the proportion of correct guesses is not high. Even if a guess is correct, it is not equal to direct observation. For example, seeing smoke rising from behind a mountain, one infers and reasons that there must be a fire on the other side of the mountain—but in reality it may not be a fire; perhaps grass is being smoked to dry it, etc.; flames do not necessarily appear. Another example: seeing a woman pregnant, one believes she must have engaged in sexual intercourse to become pregnant—but in reality, a person of high dhyāna can enter the womb without sexual intercourse; the Fifth Patriarch's conception was thus, and some Chan masters of high dhyāna in the Tang and Song dynasties also conceived thus.
There are extremely many examples showing that inference is not equal to direct perception. Inference relies entirely on the mind consciousness's understanding, the mind consciousness's analogizing, the mind consciousness's reasoning, the mind consciousness's conjecturing—as long as the mind consciousness is a bit clever, it can be done; this is not difficult. People with petty cleverness in the world are extremely numerous. The difficulty lies in direct observation—this is why countless people practice seeking liberation, yet those truly liberated are as rare as phoenix feathers and unicorn horns; true sages have always and forever been an extreme minority; sages and ordinary beings are out of all proportion.
Conclusions drawn by conjecture and reasoning are not equal to actual realization. Even if the deduction is correct and happens to match the facts, it cannot sever doubt and has no meritorious benefit of liberation. For example, ordinary sentient beings all believe their five aggregates and eighteen realms are a real self; on the surface, every ordinary being seems to have no doubt and is fully convinced. But if sentient beings were truly and genuinely convinced of this, why is it that when the Buddha expounded that the five aggregates are without self, some sentient beings gave rise to doubt, went to cultivate concentration, contemplative practice, and investigate the truth of the Four Noble Truths, finally severed their doubt, and proved their former cognition was wrong? Clearly sentient beings' so-called unwavering conviction is also unreliable—otherwise how would the Buddha liberate sentient beings? Likewise, many people's mind consciousness reasoning, deduction, and research have not severed their mental doubt; sooner or later they will overturn their own deduced conclusions and truly and genuinely realize it themselves.
Another example: scientists, through various scientific means of research, reach a conclusion. Even if everyone accepts this conclusion, it is not necessarily fact, not necessarily true. Otherwise later scientists would not overturn earlier scientists' conclusions through more modern technological means. If scientists' deductions and research were all correct and error-free, all matching facts, then scientists should possess great wisdom fully equal to the Buddha's, able to fully explore what the truth of the universe is and know what the essence of worldly phenomena is; their conclusions should not contradict the Buddha's noble teachings, and they would all become sages within the Buddha-dharma and teachers of sentient beings. But the facts are not so: they all have very deep and heavy ignorance and remain utter ordinary beings, not knowing what the true reality of the dharma realm is.
From this we can see that inferential methods such as reasoning, deduction, and research cannot be used in Buddhist practice and cannot be taken as a means of realizing the Buddha-dharma. A result obtained by reasoning, even if one accepts it deeply, is not true acceptance; the manas has doubt and cannot decide, and one does not even know it oneself. At the end of life it will become clear—at that point, will it still be too late to turn back?
