The Mental Faculty Possesses Reflective Power as Evidenced by the Self-Cognizing Portion

Some say that the manas lacks the self-witnessing portion and introspective power, that it has never known its own past and relies entirely on the observation of the consciousness to know its own history. This view is gravely mistaken, for only the manas and the Tathāgatagarbha continue unbroken through life after life. The manas possesses awareness; it can perceive all dharmas manifested by the Tathāgatagarbha. It also corresponds with karmic seeds, retaining without forgetfulness all dharmas experienced from countless past lives to the present. The dharmas known by the manas far exceed those known by the consciousness of a single lifetime. The information known by the consciousness of one life is far too limited, utterly incomparable to the manas. Yet, the experiences of the past were not encountered by the consciousness of this life, so how could the consciousness become the reliance of the manas? On the contrary, much information, especially that of past lives, is known by the consciousness only through reliance on the manas. This is true for those without supernatural powers as well as for those with them, without exception.

For example, when a person encounters another in a certain setting and feels an immediate sense of familiarity and closeness, as if meeting a long-lost relative, experiencing an overwhelming surge of emotion, even to the point of tears welling up uncontrollably. In truth, these two were family in a past life, sharing deep karmic ties, hence the profound sense of closeness upon meeting in this life. This is absolutely not something perceived by the consciousness after cognition; the consciousness knows nothing and can only know through reliance on the manas. It is always the belated knower, and only when the consciousness possesses wisdom can it come to know. When the consciousness lacks wisdom, even if tears well up, it remains ignorant of the reason, utterly confused. The consciousness, not knowing why tears well up, is of course because the manas, unable to control itself, causes the tears. If the manas were not stirred, even if the consciousness were agitated, tears would not well up—except for actors performing a role.

Another example: A person feels uncomfortable upon meeting someone, while the consciousness remains unaware of the reason. But the manas knows; it simply cannot express it clearly for the consciousness to understand: This person has often spoken ill of them behind their back. The consciousness did not witness these events, so naturally it does not know. The feeling of discomfort is certainly the result of the manas alerting the consciousness.

Now, does the manas possess the introspective power of the self-witnessing portion? Of course it does, unequivocally. For a cultivated person, the manas constantly introspects and examines whether it has done wrong, whether it has harmed others, whether its speech and actions are appropriate and proper, and so on. For an uncultivated person, the manas, when encountering major, urgent matters or very important individuals, will also introspect and examine whether what it said or did was appropriate, whether there might be negative consequences, etc. Only the extremely foolish might have a manas lacking introspective and self-examining power, often remaining ignorant and unaware, even when causing great calamity.

The introspection of the manas belongs to the manas, and the introspection of the consciousness belongs to the consciousness. The two cannot substitute for each other, as each has its own distinct mental factors and does not share them, though they do influence each other. The manas cannot take the introspection of the consciousness as its own and thus affirm it, ceasing its own self-examination. Even if such a situation occurs, it happens only under the special circumstance of the manas lacking sufficient wisdom. Later, once the manas is able to introspect, it will often regret its past decisions. For instance, a person does something and afterward forgets it, thinking no more of the matter. Yet soon after, encountering a certain condition, they remember it and slap their thigh, exclaiming: "I did that wrong!" Is this regret the regret of the consciousness or the regret of the manas? Did the consciousness introspect and discover the mistake, or did the manas introspect and discover it?

Here, there is no time or opportunity for the consciousness to analyze; the manas very rapidly decides to slap the thigh, expressing regret. The faster the thigh is slapped, the more it indicates the manas discovered the error through introspection, even though the act of slapping the thigh is a behavior jointly created by the consciousness and the body consciousness. The harder the thigh is slapped, the deeper the regret of the manas. It is like flicking the hand away instantly when scalded by hot water—there is no time for the consciousness to analyze. If one waited for the consciousness to analyze before flicking the hand, the hand would already be severely scalded beyond recognition, making flicking it useless. If everything required the involvement of the consciousness, many things would become as cold as yesterday's cucumber, beyond remedy. When one does wrong, deep repentance, sincere repentance, earnest repentance, genuine repentance—these are all the contrition, self-reflection, and introspection of the manas. The repentance of the consciousness is fundamentally insincere; speaking but not acting refers to the consciousness being untrustworthy in word—this is its nature of lacking autonomy.