Manas Is More Than Just Non-Defined

Qingfeng: Secondary afflictions such as torpor and restlessness should be categorized as having an obscured non-defined nature. Although non-defined, they obstruct the holy path. The ten minor secondary afflictions belong to habitual afflictions, lying dormant in the seventh consciousness, and can only be severed by bodhisattvas who have attained the bhūmis (stages). These should all be classified as having an obscured non-defined nature. Earlier, I saw online a reckless person using this to attack the Master's teachings, claiming that all afflictions of the seventh consciousness are of an obscured non-defined nature.

The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* defines self-view, self-love, self-conceit, and self-ignorance as having an obscured non-defined nature. For example, self-view—mistaking this body as the real self—is a wrong view, merely an erroneous perception. This obstructs the holy path, preventing us from severing self-view, so it being obscured non-defined is understandable. However, self-conceit, like when a non-Buddhist sees Buddhist scriptures, cannot understand them, and concludes they are deceptive, thinking themselves superior to the Buddha—such people are not uncommon. This involves self-conceit, which creates the karma of slandering the Buddha and the Dharma; thus, it should not be considered non-defined. Therefore, obscured non-defined should refer to those afflictions and habits that are relatively mild or subtle.

Commentary: Afflictions and wholesome states are opposites. Afflicted mental factors and wholesome mental factors are mutually antagonistic. Mental factors that are neither wholesome nor unwholesome belong to the non-defined nature. Afflicted and wholesome mental factors are not non-defined. Therefore, minor secondary afflicted mental factors are not non-defined; they are unwholesome mental factors, opposite to the wholesome, and should be eradicated. All afflicted mental factors lead to unwholesome karma; they are definitely unwholesome—how could they be non-defined?

"Obscured non-defined" — "obscured" means covering, veiling, obstructing. Who is obscured? It is the seventh consciousness, the mental faculty (manas). What does it obscure? It obscures the inherent pure wisdom of the mental faculty, preventing the mind from recognizing the truths and realities of both the Mahayana and Hinayana paths. Why does it have this obscuring function? Because of the mind's own ignorance and afflictions. Therefore, the mental faculty possesses ignorance and afflictions, which lead to the cycle of birth and death in the six realms. Since the mental faculty has ignorance and afflictions and is the sovereign consciousness, then the bodily, verbal, and mental actions created by the five aggregates—including unwholesome karmic actions—are they not created under the sovereignty of the mental faculty? Of course, they are created under the sovereignty of the mental faculty. These bodily, verbal, and mental actions all manifest the mental activities and nature of the mental faculty. Unwholesome karma manifests the unwholesome mental factors, the afflicted mental factors, of the mental faculty. So, can the mental faculty merely be a non-defined mind, neither wholesome nor unwholesome? Absolutely not. The mental faculty has wholesome minds, unwholesome minds, and minds that are neither wholesome nor unwholesome.

Afflictions belong to the unwholesome; they do not belong to the wholesome, nor to the neither-wholesome-nor-unwholesome. Since afflicted mental factors belong to the unwholesome category, they do not belong to the non-defined nature of neither-wholesome-nor-unwholesome. This is not difficult to understand. The fundamental practice of cultivation is to cultivate the mental faculty. If the mental faculty were without unwholesome minds, afflicted minds, or ignorant minds, what would there be to cultivate? The six consciousnesses would also lack unwholesome minds, afflicted minds, and ignorant minds. In that case, even if sentient beings were not Buddhas, they would be very close to Buddhahood.

The assertion that the mental faculty has an obscured non-defined nature does not come from the Buddhist sutras but from the treatises of ancient Yogācāra masters. And anyone, unless their wisdom has reached the level of a bhūmi bodhisattva, cannot directly perceive (through pratyakṣa) the nature of the mental faculty due to insufficient meditative concentration (samādhi) and wisdom (prajñā). Therefore, Yogācāra masters are not equivalent to bhūmi bodhisattvas; they do not possess the path-wisdom (mārgajñāna) or the specific wisdom of Yogācāra (vijñapti-jñāna) needed for direct perception of the profound Yogācāra Dharma. Thus, their composed treatises cannot be perfect; it is not surprising that they contain flaws and deficiencies. One should not, because of their great fame, uphold their works as entirely correct and flawless. Only the Dharma spoken by the Buddha is entirely correct and flawless. The Buddha's teaching to rely on the Dharma, not on the person, is something the vast majority cannot achieve because their wisdom is insufficient and their discernment is extremely low—especially regarding the profound Yogācāra Dharma practiced by bhūmi bodhisattvas; they have no ability to discern it. Therefore, they should not voice opinions or make statements lightly.

I began lecturing on Yogācāra in 2016. At that time, my wisdom was still somewhat superficial, and my understanding of the Yogācāra Dharma was not very thorough. Some people asked me questions about Yogācāra, extracted from treatises like the *Cheng Weishi Lun* (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only). At that time, I was completely unable to think independently or observe apart from these treatises, so I took those viewpoints as absolutely correct and answered accordingly. Later, I gradually discovered some contradictions and inconsistencies; I couldn't explain them coherently. So, I gradually abandoned the original treatises and began my own observation and practice. I originally planned to explain the entire *Cheng Weishi Lun*, but after discovering problems, I only explained a very few sections and stopped. Because following the treatise would lead me to make mistakes and mislead others, while not following it would lead to slander that I was contradicting the treatise—both outcomes were undesirable. In my initial explanations of Yogācāra doctrine, a few places where I followed the Yogācāra treatises contained errors. When revising the books later, I tried to correct them all.

The ancient Yogācāra treatises state that the mental faculty only experiences neutral feeling (upekṣā-vedanā). I had doubts about this at the time because observing the feelings in body and mind revealed contradictions; it didn't match reality. If the mental faculty only experienced neutral feeling, then a person's mind would be extremely peaceful and calm—almost like the ālaya-vijñāna—without emotions, without afflictions, without agitation, not competing with others, not fighting back, not retaliating, without liking or disliking. Would such a mind still need cultivation? Could it create unwholesome karma, even major unwholesome karma? Absolutely not. Such a peaceful and pure mind would easily possess meditative concentration; there would be no need to specifically cultivate samādhi; it would naturally be complete. But the facts are the opposite, which shows that the mental faculty does not only experience neutral feeling; it also experiences painful and pleasant feelings. Therefore, it has afflictions and purity, creates wholesome and unwholesome karma, and leads to the cycle of birth and death.

A disciple said: Most people only know how to recite texts by rote, and their emotional attachments are deep-rooted. Once implanted with preconceived notions, it becomes very difficult to change them. Mencius said, "It is better to have no books at all than to believe everything in books" (盡信書不如無書), meaning to break people's blind faith in books. The principle in Buddhism of relying on the Dharma, not on the person, I feel, is also aimed at this major weakness in human nature.