How to Determine Whether a Conclusion Is Derived from Manas-Vijñāna Analysis or Manas-Indriya Deliberation

Is the conclusion that 1+1 equals 2 derived through the thinking of the conscious mind or the deliberation of the manas? The conclusion that 1+1=2, if you can be certain of it, with reasoned justification, and clearly understand the principle behind it, is a conclusion reached by the manas. If, although you can calculate that 1+1=2, you do not understand the underlying principle, cannot articulate it clearly, and merely know the conclusion, then it is a conclusion drawn by the consciousness based on referencing or comparing learned theories, similar to rote memorization. Otherwise, why would scientists delve deeply into why 1+1 equals 2? How much of the knowledge we learn from elementary school to university has actually been empirically realized? Although we pass every exam, perhaps even scoring perfectly, exams test the understanding and memorization of knowledge, the grasp of its quantity; very little tests empirical realization. Laboratory work involves empirical realization; it is only upon entering society that empirical realization comes into play. Hence, many top students often struggle to adapt to society, failing to keep pace with its rhythm and unable to apply their learning.

Conclusions derived solely through conscious thinking and analysis cannot eradicate doubt. When encountering conditions, doubts will multiply, and one will cease to believe in previous conclusions. Therefore, conclusions drawn by conscious thought are not firm. The master has doubts; the master makes the decisions; the master has their own views. At critical moments, the master discards the assistant's conclusion. This is why many who attain fruition and realize the mind through consciousness constantly regress. The thinking and analysis of consciousness can occur without the aid of samadhi, even in a scattered state of mind. However, the deeper the samadhi, the more precise, accurate, thorough, and reasonable the conscious thinking becomes. Yet, no matter how precise, accurate, or reasonable, it is not a conclusion the manas arrives at itself. Therefore, it is not called direct realization; it lacks the virtue of cessation and offers no genuine benefit, unable to withstand birth and death.

The thinking of consciousness is often perceived and observed by consciousness itself; it is relatively superficial and coarse compared to that of the manas. The deliberation of the manas is deeper and more concealed, not easily detected, yet it can be continuous and unbroken. Only when doubt is very deep does the manas deliberate to resolve it. This involves samadhi. Continuous, unbroken thought constitutes samadhi; the ability to fixate on investigating doubt is concentration. No matter what one is doing or whether awake or asleep, the question remains in the heart. Failing to resolve it can even cause agitation, poor eating, and sleeplessness, like losing one's mind.

When the conscious mind is coarse, it remains unaware and ignorant of the deliberation of the manas, unable to detect it. One fails to discover matters within one's own mind; one does not know what one truly wants or intends to do, unable to grasp one's own thoughts. This is why so many people cannot discover the manas, understand it, master it, or observe it. Deliberation using the manas requires samadhi; the deeper the samadhi, the better. It is best to eliminate interference from other miscellaneous affairs; ideally, the six consciousnesses should not disturb the manas either, merely cooperating with it lightly and subtly for awareness, without provoking scattered thoughts in the manas.