Is Buddhadharma Truly Less Rigorous and Serious Than Worldly Dharmas?

Legally, a homicide case cannot be filed without conclusive evidence. Even if one intuitively feels that a person has died—and intuition is often accurate—the case cannot be filed if the body remains undiscovered. Similarly, even if one strongly suspects that a particular individual committed the murder, that person cannot be arrested without concrete evidence of the crime. The evidence required by criminal law must be tangible, verifiable, and presentable; no matter how precise intuition may be, it is inadmissible. The law is rigorous and solemn in this regard.

However, the Dharma as expounded by some people is not like this. Reasoning, imagining, thinking, organizing, deducing, pondering, hinting, and suggesting—all such contrived methods are claimed to lead to the attainment of fruition and enlightenment, and are said to be the results of investigating Chan. When evidence is called for, reasoning itself is treated as evidence; hints from others are accepted as evidence; and through mere pondering, evidence is “arrived at.” The Dharma, it seems, is not difficult to figure out. All one needs is logical thinking—rigorous thinking is preferable, but even without it, mere imagination suffices. After all, the honors and reputation of a sage are more alluring and worth pursuing, while the means and methods are secondary.

Those who wish to cultivate their logical thinking abilities can study criminal investigation cases, read philosophical texts, and learn psychology—this will broaden their mental horizons. The process of solving criminal cases relies on rigorous logical thinking, coupled with evidence, to crack the case. However, without evidence or with insufficient evidence, no matter how logical or rigorous the reasoning may be, it cannot be adopted. Logical thinking can guide the direction of evidence collection, but without evidence, no matter how flawless the reasoning, it must not be used—doing so could lead to wrongful convictions.

If the thinking in meditative concentration is as meticulous and prudent as solving a criminal case, with sound logic, would it then be easier for the manas to attain thorough enlightenment when contemplating? This depends on what the consciousness is thinking about. The role of conscious thinking is to guide the manas toward the general direction and overarching goal of contemplating the Dharma’s meaning, to clarify the overall framework and conceptual thread of the Dharma, and to lead the manas into a state of investigation. Consciousness should not think too specifically or minutely about the Dharma’s meanings—this is the domain of the manas’ investigation and should be left to it. The final answer must be derived through the manas’ contemplation. The functions of manas and consciousness wax and wane inversely: the more consciousness is used, the less manas is engaged. The wisdom of manas cannot be replaced by consciousness.