Does the Manas Merely Condition the Dharma Dust Arising from Significant Changes in the Five Sense Objects?

The Buddha said that the mind is like the edge of a blade, yet it cannot cut itself. This refers to the seventh consciousness, the mind faculty, also known as the manas-vijñāna. The Buddha stated that this seventh consciousness is called the mind faculty because it serves as the dynamic force enabling the seeds of mental consciousness to arise from the eighth consciousness. Mental consciousness relies on the volition (manaskāra) of the manas-vijñāna to arise; once arisen, it operates entirely according to the volition of the mind faculty, the manas-vijñāna. Hence, it is said that the manas-vijñāna is the root of mental consciousness. The discernment (prajñā) regarding specific objects (viniyata-viṣaya) of this mind faculty is extremely inferior; it can only perform very simple discrimination upon the mental objects (dharmas) associated with the five sense objects — for instance, discerning whether there is any major change in the mental objects upon the five sense objects. This seventh consciousness is not like the conscious mind (mental consciousness), which can skillfully operate the five object-specific mental factors (viniyata-caitta). It does not possess the mental factors of "desire (chanda), conviction (adhimokṣa), mindfulness (smṛti), or concentration (samādhi)." Its function of discernment (prajñā, the object-specific wisdom) is also extremely inferior; it can only perform very simple discrimination regarding changes upon mental objects.

Thus, since it cannot even discriminate upon the objects of the five senses and must arouse mental consciousness, relying on the object-specific discernment of mental consciousness to engage in various contemplations about all phenomena, how could it possibly have the capacity to introspect itself? How could it have the ability to contemplate all dharmas? How could it have the capability to correct its own mental conduct and habits? Therefore, although this seventh consciousness is extremely agile and can perceive all dharmas everywhere, and though it can rely on the object-specific discernment of the conscious mind to act as the master everywhere and at all times, and can contemplate and determine various mental actions, yet if separated from the object-specific discernment of mental consciousness, it becomes incapable of any action. Due to this inherent nature, the Buddha said that the mind (the mind faculty, the manas-vijñāna) is like the sharpness of a blade (metaphorically indicating its agility in perceiving all dharmas. Mental consciousness, though possessing object-specific discernment, cannot perceive all dharmas everywhere), yet it cannot cut itself (metaphorically indicating that, lacking the "self-witnessing portion" (svasamvitti) of object-specific discernment, it cannot correct its own wholesome or unwholesome mental conduct). This means that for this consciousness "to change its defiled nature, to transform into a pure mind faculty," it must rely on the object-specific discernment and contemplative wisdom of mental consciousness to effect any transformation. It cannot, solely by its own functions, eradicate the afflictions associated with itself. Hence, the Buddha said the mind is like the edge of a blade, yet it cannot cut itself.

Question: Master, the passage above feels somewhat off. Could you please explain?

Answer: Since the mind faculty can perceive all dharmas everywhere, then it should be able to perceive any dharma; there is nothing it cannot perceive. Yet it states that the mind faculty only perceives the mental objects upon the five sense objects, and only major changes at that. This is self-contradictory.

If the mind faculty has no desire and does not wish to act, then none of the six consciousnesses would arise, and no phenomena would appear.

When the eye consciousness selects only the color purple from a multitude of colors, it is decided by the mind faculty. This shows that the mind faculty also perceives the objects of the five senses, enabling it to direct the six consciousnesses to discriminate which objects of the five senses to perceive.

If there were dharmas that the mind faculty could not perceive, then it would not be perceiving all dharmas everywhere.

If the mind faculty lacks conviction (adhimokṣa) and is always muddled, it cannot act as the master to perform actions that are correct, true to principle, and in accordance with the Dharma. Consequently, it cannot avoid dangers and cannot transform consciousness into wisdom.

If the mind faculty lacks mindfulness (smṛti), it cannot cause mental consciousness to arise and be mindful. Then no dharma could appear. One could not recite the Buddha's name, nor would one wish to engage in Chan meditation. No phenomena would appear.

If the mind faculty cannot contemplate or deliberate, then the mental consciousness influencing the mind faculty becomes meaningless. It certainly cannot transform consciousness into wisdom, and no wisdom would ever arise.

If the mind faculty cannot attain concentration (samādhi), then no matter how much the six consciousnesses cultivate concentration, they cannot achieve stability.

If the mind faculty cannot cultivate and realize wholesome or unwholesome mental conduct, then wholesome conduct would forever remain wholesome and unwholesome conduct forever unwholesome. How then could one subdue afflictions and eradicate them? The mental consciousness influencing the mind faculty would then be utterly fruitless, a wasted effort. The mind faculty lacks introspective power; it lacks the self-witnessing portion (svasamvitti). Yet the Buddha stated that all eight consciousnesses possess the self-witnessing portion. Sentient beings trust themselves so much and are extremely stubborn precisely because the self-witnessing portion of the mind faculty is functioning.

The mind faculty has the function of constant examination and contemplation (nityaṃ vicāra). All dharmas must undergo its examination and approval before they can pass and decisions can be made. If the discernment (prajñā) of the mind faculty is always so inferior, how can it reasonably examine, approve, and make wise decisions? If it cannot make wise decisions, then the bodily, verbal, and mental actions of sentient beings would constantly and everywhere exhibit foolishness and lack of wisdom. How then could intelligent people exist in the world? What use would studying Buddhism be? How could one develop wisdom and attain Buddhahood?

The entire piece is erroneous.