In the Yogacara, the Mind-Only school, the objects of the mental consciousness are categorized into three realms: the nature realm, the reflection realm, and the illusion realm. Their corresponding cognitive outcomes are classified as the direct-valid cognition, the inferential-valid cognition, and non-valid cognition.
Do not worry if you are overwhelmed by all the jargon. We will break it down in simple terms that are easy to understand.
The objects of our mental consciousness are things that it thinks about, and they can be grouped into three categories. The first is the nature realm, a direct and true perception of reality. The second is the reflection realm, which involves recalling past perceptions. For example, if you see someone with a round face, you might later have the image of her round face come to mind.Finally, the third category is the projection realm. It is a non-valid form of cognition that includes perceptions like imagining the number of hairs on a turtle’s head, dreams, and even the thoughts of someone with a mental illness. The mental consciousness is able to be aware of them.
The three cognitive processes yield three types of cognitive results: direct-valid cognition, inferential-valid cognition, and non-valid cognition. The nature realm represents direct-valid cognition. In other words, this signifiesthat we have an immediate awareness of our own thoughts and emotions, such as recognizing feelings of animosity towards someone. Inferential-valid cognition employs logical reasoning, like the neither-one-nor-many principle, to analyze whether something can be fully divided. However, even such inferences can sometimes lead to errors. For example, you might conclude from all the evidence that someone is untrustworthy, but if the information was based on rumors and the person is actually trustworthy, then your initial judgment of "he is untrustworthy" would fall into the category of non-valid cognition.
Let us summarize what we have just discussed: The results of cognition fall into three categories: direct valid perception (what you perceive is what it is), inferential valid perception (derived from logical reasoning), and non-valid perception (arising from logical fallacies or mental constructs).
To a certain extent, the natural realm can be verified mutually with shared objects of reference, while the reflection realm and projection realm cannot be verified mutually. They can only communicate and draw conclusions through language using similar objects of reference. Some aspects of the nature realm are relatively public and can be seen by everyone, such as the objects visible to the eye. It’s important to note that this is not an absolute verification but rather a relative one.
Let us talk more about absolute verification and relative verification. For example, if everyone sees her as a person, is this absolute verification? No, it is relative verification because everyone has a different perspective. One person who sees from the left notices a scar on the left side of her face, while another from the right does not see the scar at all. Then the person on the right goes around saying that the person is very beautiful with a clean and clear face. But the person on the left does not think so because of the scar on her face. Therefore, this cannot be absolute verification. Even if she did not have the scar, it still would not be called absolute verification because there are still different angles and factors involved. The cup in front of me is the same; what you see from below is different from what I see from above. Thus, the nature realm does not have absolute verification.
The projection realm and the reflection realm cannot be mutually verified. For instance, in the projection realm: the things you think about in your mind cannot be mutually verified. In the reflection realm: how you and I think after seeing something cannot be mutually verified. Therefore, communication can only occur through language, using similar objects of cognition to finally reach a conclusion.
To illustrate, a fellow practitioner who journeyed from China to attend the Chan meditation retreat in Chiang Mai saw me in person – a chubby man. Another practitioner, who participated online, had no firsthand encounter. When the former returned to China and told the latter, "I saw the chubby man in Chiang Mai," the online participant began to picture the chubby man in his mind. Although both use the same term, their conceptions diverge. The one envisioned by the online participant rests on non-valid cognition, for who knows what image of me – as the "chubby man" – occupies his thoughts? If he envisions me weighing 500 kilograms, that image would be inaccurate.
Let us say that they both see me in person, the shape and appearance of myself in their reflection realms differ. Those who see me from the side might just see my Fuji-mountain-shaped belly, while those who only see me from the front might not notice it and think I am not that chubby. Different angles lead to diverse reflection realms, so mutual verification is impossible. Yet, despite these divergences, similar communication can occur, leading everyone to the same unified conclusion: chubby.
Remember, the words and ideas we share always create different reflection realms and the projection realms in others' minds, often differing from the thoughts they trigger in ours. There is a trending phrase, “no picture, no truth,” indicating that vocabulary alone is insufficient, and images are required for verification. However, even pictures can be deceiving, because they can be retouched. Some people look very beautiful in photos, but when you meet them in person, you might wish you were never born.
Excerpted from:Cognition and Expression Part One
