Direct Perception Wisdom Is the Highest Wisdom

Someone cited Volume Nine of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (Dazhidu lun): 佛语为第一量，比量为第二，现量为第三。 And said: In studying and practicing the Buddha-dharma, the Buddha's scriptural authority is the highest standard, for the ordinary being's direct perception can be obscured by afflictions, delusive thoughts, and meditative states. The process of practice is to establish right view on the basis of scriptural authority, and then, in accordance with right view, to practice and realize it through direct perception—not to take the imperfect direct perception of an ordinary being and use it to overturn the teachings of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Therefore everything I say is checked against the original texts of the scriptures; if it does not accord with the scriptures, it is merely talking to oneself, with no standard to go by.

Comment: The states of wisdom spoken of in Buddhism are divided into three kinds: direct perception, inference, and mistaken perception/non-valid cognition. Among these, the most wise, the most accurate and infallible, and the most trustworthy is direct perception; only then come inference and mistaken perception. Direct perception is the wisdom of sages and worthies attained by realizing the Buddha's holy teachings and holy words through practice; ordinary beings have no share in it—if an ordinary being had direct perception, he would no longer be an ordinary being. The term "direct perception," if it refers to realized dharma-wisdom corresponding to contemplative observation, does not apply to ordinary sentient beings; especially with regard to the deeper dharmas—even the Yogācāra dharmas—ordinary sentient beings have not the slightest wisdom of direct-perception observation. Even with regard to meditative states that ordinary beings can attain, ordinary beings themselves have no wisdom of direct-perception observation; even with regard to the six sense objects with which ordinary beings are in constant, close contact, they have no wisdom of direct-perception observation. Therefore, for an ordinary being without realization, even if he never strays from the sutras, that is still mistaken perception, not his own state of wisdom.

A sage with the wisdom of direct perception, within the range of what he has realized, is either perfect or close to perfect, and holds absolute authority to speak; he need not open and close every utterance with "the Buddha said," citing scriptures and quoting classics. "Direct perception," in plain terms, represents the measure of what is presently present; that it is presently present shows it has been realized, has been witnessed, has been personally experienced—and so this wisdom is the most trustworthy and reliable of all.

To use an analogy: a person with the wisdom of direct perception has been to Beijing and is thoroughly familiar with the routes leading there, and is qualified to point out the way to Beijing without consulting a map. If someone asks him for directions and he goes to check a map, it shows he is unfamiliar with the route; in the end it may turn into the asker and the guide studying the map together—but then the asker, having a map of his own, could study it alone without needing anyone to read it for him. Take another example: teaching someone to swim. If the coach holds a swimming-training manual while teaching, with the trainee waiting in the water for the explanation, one moment of inattention and the trainee may be choked by the water and sink to the bottom. It is the same with learning to drive: if the coach clutches a training manual, and the trainee encounters a problem during practice and must wait for the coach to flip through the book to explain the braking method, one moment of inattention may cause a collision or a rollover. When a patient goes to the hospital and describes his symptoms, if the doctor says, "Wait while I look through some books and compare before making a diagnosis," a smart patient should run away at once and find an experienced doctor instead.

In every trade and profession, whoever cannot do without books shows that he is unfamiliar with his own work and has not yet graduated; all are crossing the river by feeling for the stones, and such people have no qualification to teach others. If workers in every trade and profession all operated with textbooks in hand, they would hardly manage to earn a living. Enterprises and institutions of every kind hire experienced hands when recruiting; they do not hire students who cannot leave their books—otherwise the organization faces the danger of going under.

The Buddha-dharma is just the same. Without realized wisdom of direct perception, one certainly cannot do without the guidance of the sutras; once realized, that portion of content becomes familiar, and speaking of it is like recounting the treasures of one's own household, with no further need to flip through books for comparison. Moreover, many specific dharmas are not taught even in the sutras and cannot be found by searching through books; only a realized person who has been through it himself can discern the true from the false within them, because it is all direct perception, readily at hand in the mind. Ordinary beings, because they lack realization, have no self-confidence and are compelled to search through books for answers constantly, at a complete loss once they leave their books. Such people are not qualified to teach the Dharma and gather in sentient beings; they are still novices who themselves need to learn.

When a bodhisattva with the wisdom of direct perception teaches the Dharma—a sage teaching the Dharma—he does not check against the sutras and scriptures, but teaches while looking at his own mind, speaking whatever is in his mind; the Dharma flows out from his own mind. Whatever dharma he has realized and whatever wisdom has arisen, he uses the wisdom he has realized to teach the dharma he has realized. Only for the part he has not realized does he consult the sutras and scriptures in teaching—but that belongs to the level of intellectual understanding, which goes beyond what he has realized and seen; whether that understanding is right or wrong is another matter. After realizing the Buddha-dharma, one possesses the wisdom of direct-perception observation of the realized dharma, and one teaches the Dharma on the basis of this observational wisdom, not checking against the sutras while speaking—that is what people without the wisdom of direct perception do. Holding a sutra while teaching the Dharma is called translating or expounding the sutra. For a true teacher of the Dharma, teaching from the sutras occupies only a very small part; the majority consists of using one's own wisdom of direct perception to solve actual and concrete problems, which are not in the sutras—what is in the sutras is called copying, transcribing.

During the Tang and Song dynasties, the many Chan masters left behind seventeen hundred koans; each koan is a concrete, exceptional case. If one insists on judging right and wrong by checking against the sutras, one could search through the entire Tripitaka without finding them; they can only be discerned by the wisdom of direct perception of realized sages and worthies. Moreover, not a single one of the Chan masters gathered in sentient beings by holding a sutra in hand; their wisdom of direct perception and practical experience were more than sufficient—there was no need to consult the sutras. Some Chan masters, when their disciples were engaged in Chan practice, forbade the disciples to read the sutras, requiring them to devote themselves wholeheartedly to Chan practice and meditative effort. The Chan school is also called "a special transmission outside the teachings"; although it does not emphasize the sutras, what it cultivates all follows the Buddha's guidance and does not contradict the scriptural teachings. Therefore, when the bodhisattvas teach the Dharma to deliver sentient beings, they teach from their own wisdom of direct perception, which does not contradict the Buddha's holy teachings.