What are direct perception, inference, and non-valid cognition?

Direct perception means being able to observe and contemplate a dharma directly in its presence, seeing its true appearance and confirming its current state, without distorting reality. 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. Inference may yield a correct result, or it may not. For inference to be correct, there is a prerequisite: the dharma used as the reference object must be accurate and free of error; 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, deep meditative concentration is not needed—one can even be without meditative concentration—and still arrive at a result, though whether it is accurate is uncertain.

If one's wisdom of direct perception is insufficient, one can adopt another method, namely imagination, fantasy, and conjecture. One may follow a certain line of thought or track, or one may indulge in wild flights of fancy with no order or logic—this is non-valid cognition. Non-valid cognition is thinking without much evidence, with a large element of baseless imagination; only when one lacks the ability to gather and grasp evidence is one forced to do this. It is evident that non-valid cognition requires even shallower wisdom and no meditative concentration at all. From this we can see that direct perception requires considerable meditative concentration and wisdom; its wisdom is extremely precious and trustworthy, for the actual realization of the Buddha-dharma relies on the wisdom of direct perception.

In non-valid cognition, because there is no evidence, everything relies on the mind consciousness's imagination, 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 soar freely through the sky like the mind consciousness's, cannot imagine or conjecture. Whatever the mind consciousness thinks is simply 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 a dissimilar problem later, 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, two matters or principles are compared, relying mainly on the mind consciousness's deductive and comparative function; the manas's wisdom cannot exert much force, and the manas can only watch from the sidelines. The manas cannot truly confirm the result, though correct results from inference cannot be ruled out. But it cannot resolve the manas's inner doubt; the manas's wisdom will not grow—only the mind consciousness's wisdom grows.

For example, take a towering tree whose height one wishes to determine. There are three channels: one is observation by direct perception, one is inference, and one is non-valid cognition. The method of non-valid cognition is thinking, imagining, and guessing without any basis—having no experience with the tree's height, not knowing how to compare it, and even less knowing how to observe it as it truly is. The result is predictable: probably not even oneself can confirm it, let alone others. The method of inference is to compare it with the utility pole nearby, with tall buildings, with mountains, and then derive 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 pressing the point, or if more conclusive evidence comes to refute it, one loses all inner confidence. Of course, if someone else agrees with this result, one's confidence will increase somewhat.

Besides these, there is another channel and method: observation by direct perception. But this is extremely difficult—it requires a great deal of evidence and data, rich experience, keen and accurate observational power, meticulous thinking, and precise data. Having rich experience and a large body of accurate, error-free data requires painstaking effort and a considerable period of exploration; the hardship is beyond what ordinary people can match, the meditative concentration during observation is beyond what ordinary people can match, and the resulting wisdom is likewise beyond what ordinary people can match.

Throughout the process of exploring and collecting data, the manas has been watching all along, gradually being influenced and permeated. Once the mind consciousness draws a conclusion that is highly convincing, and the manas deliberates on it further, it will confirm it, because there is sound reasoning and evidence. Since the manas's wisdom is shallow and it lacks analytical ability, it believes what has ample evidence and believes the realm of direct perception. In fact, this result is also one the manas arrived at itself: all the data is laid out there, very concrete, and the manas will naturally engage in deliberation and reach a conclusion. Only a conclusion one arrives at oneself can be believed without doubt; of course, what one believes most is one's own. No matter what others say, one can resolutely take responsibility for it, with no room for negotiation, and it is not easy to tear up one's own conclusion.

Because observation by direct perception is so arduous and difficult, those who seek short-term results and fear hardship are unwilling to explore painstakingly over the long term, and those who have practiced for a short time lack both meditative concentration and wisdom, unable to accumulate sufficient experience; therefore they cannot accord with observation by direct perception. 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 power of wisdom, yet still produce a final result—how easy! Such people want only the result, not the process in between.

Yet precisely this process in between is extremely important: it is the process of refining evidence, the process of permeating and edifying the manas, the process of subduing various afflicted states of mind, 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 there are some people who 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. To then falsely claim to be a Dharma King will only invite destruction—the consequences are dreadful.

At this point, some may ask: after all this talk, you still have not made clear what observation by direct perception actually is. But let me tell you: the direct perception that others describe, once you learn of it, becomes inference—it is no longer direct perception. True direct perception requires you to observe and verify it personally. 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; and if the results are fished out from someone who arrived at them by inference, they are even less one's own and even less reliable. And when results are further relayed and passed around, the outcome becomes truly dreadful. Here I solemnly warn those unwilling to put in painstaking effort: 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 tasted by oneself alone. Karmic retribution is never false.