Taking the Knowing of Consciousness as Knowing Is Precisely Avidyā

What is meant by the self-witnessing portion (svasaṃvitti-bhāga) of each consciousness? Can you know the content of the self-cognizing portion's perceived aspect (nimitta-bhāga) of each consciousness? For example, the eighth consciousness has a perceiving portion (darśana-bhāga), which is its perceiving nature; the perceived aspect (nimitta-bhāga) of the eighth consciousness is the aspect perceived by the eighth consciousness, such as seeds (bīja); the self-cognizing portion (svasaṃvedana-bhāga) of the eighth consciousness is the eighth consciousness itself perceiving the perceived aspect (the seeds), knowing and cognizing the perceived aspect (the seeds); the self-witnessing portion (svasaṃvitti-bhāga) of the eighth consciousness is the eighth consciousness proving and realizing its own self-cognizing portion, knowing that it has cognized the perceived aspect (the seeds), knowing that it has completed the cognition of the perceived aspect (the seeds), knowing that it has cognized the perceived aspect (the seeds). What the eighth consciousness itself does, it itself is clear about; the sixth and seventh consciousnesses are not clear, unless one possesses profound path-knowledge (mārgajñatā).

Do we know whether the eighth consciousness has cognized the perceived aspect (the seeds)? We do not know. The eighth consciousness does not substitute for the knowing of the mental consciousness (manovijñāna); what the mental consciousness does not know does not mean that other consciousnesses do not know. One cannot use the mental consciousness's lack of knowledge to substitute for the knowledge of other consciousnesses. Using "A" to represent the eighth consciousness and "B" to represent the mental consciousness, the dharmas known by A are not necessarily known by B; B's lack of knowledge does not mean A also lacks knowledge. A's self-witnessing portion does not represent B's self-witnessing portion; B's lack of clarity about the perceived aspect realized by A does not mean A has not realized it, nor does it mean A does not know it. There is also much knowledge of the mental faculty (manas, the seventh consciousness) that the mental consciousness is not clear about; since it is not clear, one should not say that the mental faculty does not know either.

The knowledge of sentient beings mostly takes the knowledge of the mental consciousness as the standard; what the mental consciousness does not know, one says "I do not know," and says that something did not happen, that it does not exist. In reality, the seventh consciousness knows that something happened, knows that something. But the seventh consciousness lacks the function of language and words; it cannot express itself and cannot make the mental consciousness know. The mental consciousness then feels that what it does not know does not exist, and that other consciousnesses similarly do not know. To conclude this way is extremely arbitrary and unreasonable.

To what degree is the mental consciousness of ordinary sentient beings arbitrary? The mental consciousness itself cannot realize the mental faculty, cannot observe the mental faculty; it then does not admit the existence of the mental faculty's self-cognizing portion and self-witnessing portion. The mental faculty has reflexivity towards itself, it has the capacity for self-reflection, it can introspectively perceive its own cognizing; the mental consciousness does not know this, cannot observe it, yet says the mental faculty has no power of self-reflection, no self-witnessing portion, and even lacks certain self-cognizing portions. When the mental consciousness thinks this way, it precisely demonstrates the mental consciousness's own foolishness, ignorance, dullness, its shallow and meager knowledge, its many misunderstandings, all without self-awareness. The Buddha said: "Be careful not to trust your mind (mental consciousness), your mind is not to be trusted." Why? Because ignorance (avidyā) is profound and heavy.