The Dharma Unobservable to Consciousness Does Not Imply Nonexistence

The analysis of the mental faculty (manas) and consciousness (mano-vijñāna) differs in some respects. The analysis of consciousness is relatively subtle and clear in its reasoning, whereas the mental faculty cannot analyze with such precision; it can only grasp the general outline, consider matters roughly, and perceive coarse conditions. If there are dharmas that the mental faculty cannot contact, the six consciousnesses are even less capable of contacting and discerning them. The mental faculty can perceive all dharmas; all dharmas are the objective aspect (ālambana) of the mental faculty. The five aggregates and eighteen elements (dhātus) can be perceived by consciousness, and even more so by the mental faculty. Therefore, the five aggregates and eighteen elements are the objective aspect of the mental faculty.

If the mental faculty experiences various sensations (vedanā), can consciousness observe them? For example, if a mute person eats bitter coptis (huanglian), feels the bitterness but does not speak, can others know that he feels the bitterness? Bitterness is a sensation experienced within one's own mind; others can only speculate. If no one knows the mute person ate coptis, there isn't even room for speculation. If the person who ate the coptis has impaired taste, he will not feel the bitterness, and others speculating that he feels bitter will certainly be mistaken. When consciousness lacks wisdom, speculating about the mental activities (caitasika) and sensations (vedanā) of the mental faculty will often also lead to mistaken guesses.

All actions of the mental faculty must be manifested through consciousness; only then can consciousness or others become aware of them. If the mental faculty is not manifested through consciousness, can it be concluded that the mental faculty has no mental states or activities? Does the fact that consciousness does not know and cannot observe a dharma mean that dharma does not exist? Clearly, it does not. Ordinary people (pṛthagjana), being unable to observe the Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature), claim that the Tathāgatagarbha does not exist and is not real—this is not truthful speech. Similarly, it is also inappropriate for consciousness, being unable to observe the mental state of the mental faculty, to draw definitive conclusions about it. Bodhisattvas below the first bhūmi (ground), if not taught by a Bodhisattva with realization (pratibhāna), cannot directly perceive (pratyakṣa-pramāṇa) the mental state of the mental faculty. Therefore, it is inappropriate for them to draw definitive conclusions about the mental faculty, especially for those who have not yet attained enlightenment. Only after the obstructions of afflictions (kleśa-āvaraṇa) are eliminated, and after consciousness and the mental faculty are transformed into wisdom (āśraya-parāvṛtti), can consciousness gradually, with wisdom, directly observe the functioning and mental states of the mental faculty. Even then, it may not necessarily be able to observe very much or with great accuracy.