Genuine Realization of the Buddha-Dharma Must Be Observation through Direct Perception (Pratyakṣa)

The actual realization of the Buddha-dharma does not rely on inference (anumāna), but on direct observation (pratyakṣa); it does not rely on reasoning, speculation, and deduction, nor on research, but on contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā) and investigation within meditative concentration (samādhi). Only conclusions drawn in this way are direct perception, are reliable, and can discover the truth and realize the truth, thereby gaining genuine benefit, eliminating doubt, and giving rise to faith.

Inference is akin to guessing; correct guesses are not frequent, and the proportion of correct guesses is not high. Even when a guess is correct, it is still not equivalent to direct observation. For example, seeing smoke rising from behind a mountain, one infers by inference that there must be a fire on the other side of the mountain; but in reality it is not necessarily a fire—perhaps wet grass is being smoked, and so on, and no flame may necessarily appear. Another example: seeing a woman pregnant, one assumes she must have conceived through sexual desire; but in reality, a person of high meditative concentration can enter the womb without going through sexual desire. This was the case with the Fifth Patriarch's conception, and in the Tang and Song dynasties, some Chan masters of high meditative concentration also entered the womb in this way.

There are extremely many examples showing that inference is not equivalent to direct perception. Inference relies entirely on the mind consciousness's understanding, its analogizing, its reasoning, and its speculation; as long as the mind consciousness is a bit clever, it can be done, and this is not difficult. The world has plenty of people with petty cleverness. The difficulty lies in direct observation, and this is why countless people cultivate in search of liberation, yet those who truly attain liberation are as rare as phoenix feathers and unicorn horns. Genuine sages and saints are forever and always an extreme minority; sages and ordinary beings are not in proportion.

A conclusion reached by speculation and reasoning is not equivalent to actual realization. Even if the deduction is correct and happens to accord with the facts, it still cannot eliminate doubt, and there is no liberating benefit of merit. For example, all ordinary sentient beings believe that their five aggregates (pañcaskandha) and eighteen realms are the real self. On the surface, every ordinary sentient being appears to have no doubt and to be fully convinced. But if sentient beings were truly and genuinely convinced of this, then why is it that when the Buddha expounded that the five aggregates are not the self, some sentient beings gave rise to doubt, and went on to cultivate meditative concentration, contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā), and investigation of the principle of the Four Noble Truths, ultimately eliminated their doubt, and proved that their former understanding was wrong? This shows that sentient beings' so-called unwavering conviction is also unreliable; otherwise, how could the Buddha liberate sentient beings? By the same token, many people's mind-consciousness reasoning, deduction, and research have not eliminated doubt in their minds; sooner or later they will overturn the conclusions they themselves derived, and genuinely and truly realize it themselves.

Take another example: scientists, through research using various scientific means, arrive at a conclusion. Even if everyone agrees with this conclusion, it is not necessarily fact, not necessarily true. Otherwise, later scientists would not have overturned the conclusions of earlier scientists through more modern technological means. If scientists' deductions and research were all correct and error-free, all according with fact, then scientists should possess great wisdom completely equal to the Buddha's, being able to fully explore what the truth of the universe is and to know what the essence of worldly phenomena is; their conclusions should not contradict the Buddha's noble teachings, and they would all become sages and saints within the Buddha-dharma and become teachers of sentient beings. But the facts are not so: they all have very deep and heavy ignorance (avidyā) and remain utter ordinary beings (pṛthagjana), not knowing what the true reality of the dharma realm is.

From this it can be seen that inferential methods such as reasoning, deduction, and research cannot be used in the cultivation of the Buddha-dharma, and cannot be taken as a means of actually realizing the Buddha-dharma. As for the results of reasoning, even if one has great faith in and acceptance of them, it is not true faith and acceptance; the manas has doubt and cannot decide, and one does not know it oneself. At the end of life, the answer will become clear—by then, will it still be too late to turn back?