Relying on the Dharma, Not on Persons, and Relying on Persons, Not on the Dharma

The mind consciousness and the manas are like two people. When one person cannot observe another person's mental states, one cannot categorically assert that the other person has no such mental state, no such thoughts, emotions, and so on—to say so is a fault. Therefore, because the mind consciousness is limited by afflictions and has not transformed consciousness into wisdom, it is very difficult for it to observe the various functions and roles of the manas. When it cannot observe them, it cannot draw conclusions about the manas.

When the standard for defining a dharma is unclear, one cannot compare two dharmas with each other, and one cannot say that A does not conform to B and is inconsistent with B, and therefore conclude that A is wrong—such a judgment is too hasty and irrational. Because B is not necessarily the standard, not necessarily correct, the inconsistency between A and B does not prove that A is wrong.

When a person has lofty wisdom, understanding both A and B, and also knowing what the correct standard is, then that person can judge and conclude whether A is in fact correct, and can likewise judge and conclude whether B is correct. This is called relying on the Dharma, not on persons. Conversely, not knowing what the ultimate standard of the Dharma is, and lacking the wisdom to discern whether A and B conform to the standard, yet wishfully concluding that B is the standard—because it is commonly acknowledged by the masses—and that since A does not conform to B, A must be wrong: such a case absolutely constitutes relying on persons rather than on the Dharma; it belongs to emotional attachment and to the mentality of ignorance.