The Mental Factors Employed in the Discriminative Awareness Through Pratyakṣa, Anumāna, and A-pramāṇa

Among the three types of discernment, which of the fifty-one mental factors are employed is not fixed; it requires specific analysis based on the context. Different situations call for different mental factors, and individuals vary in their usage due to various reasons. Even for the same person, the mental factors applied differ across time, scenarios, physical and mental states, levels of knowledge, and degrees of wisdom. The five universal mental factors are always utilized, whereas the five object-specific mental factors may not necessarily all be employed. The eleven wholesome mental factors may not arise, and the root afflictions along with the major, medium, and minor secondary afflictions may not necessarily manifest—all depending on the circumstances.

Direct perception requires sufficient data, which in turn demands profound wisdom. The mental factor of determination must be exceptionally strong, the mental factor of concentration must be present, and the mental factor of mindfulness must be fully established, achieving uninterrupted continuity of thought. Discriminative discernment, by comparison, requires relatively shallower wisdom; it necessitates comparison, as without reference points, nothing can be known. Without relative conditions, there is no starting point. In contrast, direct perception knows directly without comparison, or knows immediately—it is more acute. Non-valid discernment arises when no evidence can be found, when there is insufficient data and no objects for comparison, compelling the use of imagination, conjecture, inference, and other methods. The more methods employed, the more limited the wisdom, the weaker the power of determination, and certainly, the concentration and mindfulness are insufficient, rendering one unable to judge directly or draw immediate conclusions.

Discriminative discernment is like a person whose ability is insufficient to accomplish a task alone and who must seek help from others to get it done. Non-valid discernment is when not even someone to help can be found, forcing one to fumble about alone. By chance, one might get it right, but even if correct, the wisdom is still insufficient, and it does not constitute direct perception. It is like being unable to see what clothes someone is wearing and having no reference for comparison, thus being compelled to imagine and guess. Even if the guess is correct, it is not directly seen.

Some people lack sufficient wisdom and do not know how to guide others step by step in cultivation and verification to achieve direct perception and realization of the truth. Yet, they insist on guiding others and resort to the method of elimination. For example, suppose there are five roads from this place leading to five different regions outside the city, only one of which leads to Beijing. Unable to guide others in making correct choices, they adopt the elimination method. First, they point to the first road; the other person hesitates, pointing uncertainly. By reading the guide’s eye expression hinting it’s wrong, they then choose the second road. The other person, again sensing from the guide’s expression that it’s incorrect, eliminates the second road. This way, all four roads are rejected, leaving only the last one. The other person then declares, “This is the road; this road leads to Beijing.” The guide then says, “You said it yourself; I didn’t teach you. Congratulations on realizing the truth!” Tell me, does this count as realizing the truth? What wisdom arises from such realization? Those who deceive others and mislead students are precisely this kind of person—utterly deceptive without consultation. The deceived, too, are joyfully fooled—a pair of fools!