The Difference Between the Discernment of Manas and Mano-Consciousness

Question: So-called memory refers to the storage of experiences from the first six consciousnesses with the participation of the manas, which can later be recalled under the direction of the mental consciousness when needed. Understanding, however, involves the mental consciousness guiding with wisdom, prompting the manas to contemplate, thereby enabling the manas to grasp the internal connections and principles of things. Consequently, when encountering related issues, there's no need for recall; the manas directly provides answers and handles the matter. Therefore, when the manas possesses wisdom, it handles matters concisely and swiftly. When the manas lacks wisdom, it must search through memories, resulting in prolonged and inefficient problem-solving. Is the above understanding correct?

Answer: The above understanding is largely correct. When the manas lacks wisdom, it requires recollection by the mental consciousness, followed by comparison, weighing, and deliberation before it can make a decision, whether right or wrong. The shallower the wisdom, the longer the time spent comparing and weighing, the greater the indecisiveness, and the less the confidence. That kind of decisive choice, like cutting the Gordian knot, which requires no mental consciousness deliberation, analysis, comparison, or weighing, is a direct choice made by the manas, whether wise or unwise. Resolving matters calmly, without mental exertion, without turning things over repeatedly in thought, silently and automatically—all this is the wisdom of the manas. People who are adept at handling affairs possess wisdom in their manas; they are experienced and can manage matters perfectly unimpeded, leaving no room for others to find fault.

Students whose manas lack wisdom generally rely on rote memorization by the mental consciousness. They cannot freely apply their knowledge and are helpless when encountering non-knowledge-based problems. Students whose manas possess wisdom, however, never prefer memorization; they understand the problem and then apply their knowledge freely. Therefore, in school exams, those who score high are not necessarily the truly wise students. It depends on whether the exam questions are knowledge-based or application-based, whether they test knowledge or test wisdom.

The same applies to the Buddha Dharma. Someone who can expound a whole set of theories upon speaking is not necessarily someone with realized wisdom. If they have read extensively, possess broad learning and wide knowledge, have a retentive memory, and can skillfully use their mental consciousness to organize, categorize, summarize, and analyze the Dharma they have learned, they may compile a theoretical system. However, this does not represent realized wisdom; it could merely be an accumulation of knowledge. The accumulation of knowledge cannot eradicate afflictions; it only indicates that the mental consciousness is clever. Learning the Dharma from someone with a clever mental consciousness can yield much theoretical knowledge, but realization is difficult. Learning the Dharma from someone with realization makes realization easier, even though their knowledge may not be particularly extensive. However, after realization, wisdom increases, enabling them to gradually expand their scope of knowledge and supplement necessary theoretical understanding.

When the manas possesses wisdom, the wisdom is profound, free from afflictions, with a grand perspective and broad-mindedness. It possesses boldness, vision, foresight, accurately discerns major rights and wrongs, and does not make mistakes. The cleverness of the mental consciousness, however, lacks profound, deep wisdom; its mental capacity is not sufficiently expansive, and it risks being misled by its own cleverness. The innate wisdom of a person is brought by the manas; it is the wisdom of the manas. Acquired wisdom is newly learned; it is the wisdom of the mental consciousness, but it may also involve the wisdom of the manas.