The Major Issue of Direct Perception and Non-Valid Cognition

Yesterday, someone analyzed and predicted based on various data indicators that a certain stock would rise 10% today, and today it indeed rose 10%, exactly, very accurate. Was this person's prediction yesterday a direct perception? This person then analyzed and predicted based on today's stock trends and technical data indicators that the stock would fall 2% tomorrow, and when tomorrow came, sure enough, the stock fell 2%. Was this person's analysis and prediction today a direct perception? Neither was direct perception; predictions are all non-valid cognition. Even if the data is perfectly accurate, the stock market situation was not witnessed with one's own eyes, and therefore it is not direct perception. Relying on data indicators to deduce, deliberate, analyze, conjecture, and infer is non-valid cognition. If I predict that you will do something bad tomorrow, but at present you have after all not done anything bad, so doing something bad is not a fact—it is something predicted and conjectured by the solitary consciousness (mano-vijñāna-eka-citta), and therefore it is not direct perception but non-valid cognition. Direct perception would be seeing him doing the bad deed on the spot, but in reality he is doing a good deed—what you saw would also be non-valid cognition. 

I clench both hands into fists, one fist holding a one-yuan coin and the other fist empty. Then I extend my right fist and ask a person: "Is there a coin in this fist?" The person thinks for a moment and says: "There is a coin." I congratulate him on guessing correctly, but even so, it is still non-valid cognition, not direct perception. Because this answer was not obtained through his direct perception and observation, but was guessed. If it were said to be observed through direct perception, he did not actually see whether there was a coin in the fist. If he had supernatural powers, what is seen with the divine eye would also be direct perception, but he has no supernatural powers. What cannot be seen with the naked eye is not personally witnessed; it can only be guessing, conjecture, and speculation, which is non-valid cognition. Not seeing the fact is non-valid cognition, not direct perception. 

What exactly is direct perception? Can everyone now genuinely understand it? Direct perception is a dharma that exists right before one, witnessed with one's own eyes, seen truly and without error—only this is direct-perception observation, cognition with the wisdom of direct perception. A dharma that does not actually exist, a dharma that cannot be seen right before one, deliberated, conjectured, and imagined by the solitary consciousness, is purely non-valid cognition. The stock market situation does not exist right now; it can only be seen the next day. The present viewpoint and conclusion were not drawn from what was witnessed with one's own eyes; the mental conjecture and estimate are of course imagined non-valid cognition. No matter how accurate the estimate, it is not what was witnessed with one's own eyes, not what was obtained by directly observing the stock market trends, so it is one hundred percent non-valid cognition.

At the same time, it is also not inference, because there is no equal comparison between dharma and dharma. Inference is a conclusion drawn by comparing two or more dharmas with each other; it is a relationship of coexistence between two or more dharmas that can be compared with each other. Without comparison, no conclusion can be drawn, nor can a decision be made. Can the wisdom-cognition, mental state, and felt experience of personally witnessing be the same as those of imagining? Watching the scene of a loved one gradually dying, versus imagining the scene of the loved one dying in the future—can the mental states and felt experiences be the same? Imagining the death of a loved one—although anyone will certainly die in the future, the loved one is after all still alive now—can the mental state and felt experience be the same as witnessing the death with one's own eyes?

Quite a few people, based on the tathāgatagarbha theory they have learned, and based on the various functions, roles, and natures of the tathāgatagarbha they have studied, conjecture that the tathāgatagarbha is at some place, some realm, some faculty, or some dharma, performing some function or role, and then believe they have personally realized the tathāgatagarbha, attained enlightenment and seen the mind, and become sages. This misunderstanding is simply enormous, and the consequences are also considerable. It is like a poor, lowly person who imagines himself to have become an emperor, takes this imagined state as real, and declares himself to be the emperor. When the real emperor finds out, he flies into a rage, sends troops to arrest him, and beheads him as a public example. Imagining that the tathāgatagarbha performs some function and then declaring oneself an enlightened sage has far more severe consequences than being beheaded as a public example—one cannot be too cautious in cultivation. 

Where does the problem of great false speech lie? It lies in not understanding the difference between direct perception and non-valid cognition, not understanding what constitutes direct-perception observation, not understanding that what is deduced, analyzed, and deliberated is in essence non-valid cognition, not direct-perception observation. Being unable to distinguish direct perception from non-valid cognition makes this problem very serious. Quite a few people are unclear that the conclusions they have drawn are guesses and conjectures, not at all the direct-perception seeing of what was witnessed with their own eyes. So when they deduce some conclusion, they believe they have realized it through direct perception, when in fact it is not at all—it is non-valid cognition, imagination, conjecture, and inference. Especially for those without meditative concentration, it is all the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Even those who have meditative concentration or shallow meditative concentration also have the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Even those with deep meditative concentration, when deliberating, happen not to be in deep meditative concentration and instead use the deliberation of the mind consciousness—all of it is the deductive function of the mind consciousness. Therefore, having meditative concentration does not necessarily mean one's realization is direct perception.