Major Issues Concerning Pratyakṣa and A-pramāṇa

Yesterday, someone analyzed various data indicators and predicted that the stock would rise by 10% today. The result indeed showed a 10% increase, precisely as forecasted—highly accurate. Was this person's prediction yesterday a case of direct perception (pratyakṣa)? Based on today's stock movements and technical data indicators, the same person analyzed and predicted that the stock will fall by 2% tomorrow. When tomorrow arrives, the stock indeed falls by 2%. Then, is today’s analysis and prediction a case of direct perception? Neither is direct perception. What was predicted is non-valid cognition (apramāṇa). Even if the data is perfectly accurate, the stock market situation is not directly witnessed with one’s own eyes; therefore, it is not direct perception. Relying on data indicators to deduce, ponder, analyze, speculate, and reason is non-valid cognition. If I predict that you will commit a misdeed tomorrow, but as of now, you have not actually done it, then the misdeed is not a fact. It is a prediction or speculation arising from isolated mental consciousness; thus, it is not direct perception but non-valid cognition. Direct perception would be witnessing him committing the misdeed right at this moment. But if, in reality, he is doing a good deed, what you see is still non-valid cognition.

I clench both fists, one holding a one-yuan coin and the other empty. Then I extend my right fist and ask someone, "Is there a coin in this fist?" After thinking for a moment, the other person says, "There is a coin." Congratulations, they guessed correctly, but even so, it is non-valid cognition, not direct perception. This answer was not obtained through direct observation but through guessing. If it were claimed to be directly observed, they did not actually see whether there was a coin in the fist. If they possessed supernatural powers, clairvoyant vision would count as direct perception, but since they lack such powers, what the naked eye cannot see is not firsthand perception. It can only be guessing, imagining, or speculating—non-valid cognition. Not witnessing the fact is non-valid cognition, not direct perception.

What, then, truly constitutes direct perception? Can everyone truly understand this now? Direct perception is a presently existing dharmā (phenomenon) witnessed firsthand, seen accurately and without error. This is direct observation, possessing the wisdom of direct perception. If it is not a dharmā that exists in reality, not a dharmā witnessed in the present, but merely deduced, speculated, or imagined by isolated mental consciousness, it is purely non-valid cognition. The stock market situation does not exist in the present; it can only be seen the next day. The current viewpoint or conclusion is not derived from firsthand observation. The mental speculation or prediction is, of course, imagined non-valid cognition. No matter how accurate the prediction, it is not seen with one’s own eyes, nor is it obtained through observing the stock market trend in the present moment. Therefore, it is one hundred percent non-valid cognition.

At the same time, it is not inferential cognition (anumāṇa) either, because there is no equal comparison between dharmās. Inferential cognition involves drawing a conclusion through comparing two or more dharmās, which coexist and can be mutually compared. Without comparison, no conclusion can be drawn, nor can a decision be made. Can the wisdom, cognitive state, mental state, and experiential feeling be the same between direct perception and imagination? Is the mental state and experiential feeling the same when witnessing a loved one gradually dying right before your eyes versus imagining the future scene of that loved one’s death? Imagining the death of a loved one—though everyone must inevitably die someday—is still different from directly witnessing death, for the loved one is still alive now. Can the mental state and experiential feeling be the same?

Many people, based on the Tathāgatagarbha theory they have studied, and relying on the various functions, roles, and intrinsic nature of Tathāgatagarbha, speculate that Tathāgatagarbha exists in a certain place, realm, root, or dharmā, performing certain functions. Then they believe they have directly realized Tathāgatagarbha, attained enlightenment, awakened the mind, and become sages. This misunderstanding is enormous, and the consequences are severe. It is like a poor and lowly person imagining themselves becoming an emperor, taking this imagined state as real, and declaring themselves the emperor. When the real emperor finds out, he becomes furious, sends troops to arrest them, executes them as a public example, and even exterminates nine generations of their clan. To imagine Tathāgatagarbha performing a certain function and then claim to be an enlightened sage carries consequences far more severe than public execution. Thus, one must be exceedingly cautious in practice.

Where does the problem of grave false speech (mahā-mṛṣāvāda) lie? It lies in not understanding the difference between direct perception and non-valid cognition, not knowing what constitutes direct observation, not realizing that what is deduced, analyzed, and pondered is essentially non-valid cognition and not direct observation. Failing to distinguish between direct perception and non-valid cognition is a very serious problem. Many people are unaware that the conclusions they draw are products of guessing and speculation, not at all the direct perception of firsthand seeing. Therefore, when they deduce certain conclusions, they believe they have attained direct realization, when in fact it is not so at all—it is non-valid imagination, speculation, and reasoning. Especially for those without meditative concentration (dhyāna), it is all the derivative function of mental consciousness. Even those with shallow meditative concentration still engage in the derivative function of mental consciousness. Even those with deep meditative concentration, if they happen to be thinking while not in profound meditative absorption and instead use mental thought, are still engaging in the derivative function of mental consciousness. Therefore, it cannot be said that having meditative concentration necessarily means direct realization.