The manas cannot merely discern significant dharma objects.

Question: Someone says: "The statement 'The mind is like the edge of a sword, which cannot cut itself' refers to the seventh consciousness, the manas, also called the manas-vijñāna. The Buddha called this seventh consciousness the mind root (manas), because it is the dynamic force by which the seeds of the mind consciousness arise and manifest from the eighth consciousness, and because the mind consciousness can only arise through the attention (manaskāra) of the manas-vijñāna; after arising, it operates entirely in accordance with the attention of the mind root, the manas-vijñāna. Therefore it is said that the manas-vijñāna is the root of the mind consciousness. The specific-faculty wisdom (viśeṣa-prajñā) of this mind root is extremely weak; it can only make extremely simple discernments of the mental sense-objects (dharma-viṣaya) upon the five sense objects—for example, whether there are any major changes in the mental sense-objects upon the five sense objects. This seventh consciousness, unlike the mind consciousness, the cognizing mind, cannot operate nimbly with the five specific mental factors; it does not possess the mental factors of 'desire (chanda), determination (adhimokṣa), mindfulness (smṛti), and concentration (samādhi),' and even its faculty of the wisdom mental factor (specific-faculty wisdom) is extremely weak; it can only make extremely simple discernments of changes in the mental sense-objects.

Being thus, it cannot even discern the states of the five sense objects; it must summon the mind consciousness, and only through the specific-faculty wisdom of the mind consciousness can it deliberate in various ways upon the various states. How could it have the ability to introspect upon itself? How could it have the ability to contemplate the various dharmas? How could it have the ability to correct its own mental actions and habitual tendencies? Therefore, although this seventh consciousness is extremely nimble and can universally attend to all dharmas, and can further, relying on the specific-faculty wisdom of the mind consciousness, be the master everywhere and at all times, and can further deliberate and decide various mental actions; nevertheless, if separated from the specific-faculty wisdom of the mind consciousness, it can accomplish nothing. Because of such a nature, the Buddha said that the mind (the mind root, the manas-vijñāna) is like the sharp edge of a sword (a metaphor for its nimble quality of being able to universally attend to all dharmas. The mind consciousness, though possessing specific-faculty wisdom, cannot universally attend to all dharmas), yet cannot cut itself (a metaphor for the fact that, lacking the 'self-validating cognition (svasaṃvedana)' of specific-faculty wisdom, it cannot correct its own wholesome and unwholesome mental actions); the meaning is that for this consciousness 'to wish to change its defiled nature, to wish to transform into a pure mind root,' it must rely on the specific-faculty wisdom and deliberative wisdom of the mind consciousness before any transformation can occur; it cannot, by relying solely on its own functions, eradicate the afflictions corresponding to itself. Therefore the Buddha said: the mind is like the edge of a sword, which cannot cut itself."

Answer: Saying that the manas only discerns major mental sense-objects contradicts the Buddha's statement that the manas silently encompasses all dharma-marks. Since the manas can universally attend to all dharmas, then any dharma whatsoever can be attended to; there is nothing it cannot attend to. Yet the passage above says the manas only attends to the mental sense-objects upon the five sense objects, and moreover only the major, changing ones. With so many limitations, there are so many dharmas the manas cannot universally attend to—this contradicts the principle stated by the Buddha that the manas universally attends to all dharmas.

For example, in contemplating the sun, one can contemplate for an hour, or for a whole day or half a day. Within an hour the sun undergoes no change, so why can the mind consciousness keep contemplating it? Does the manas not attend to the sun that never changes? Whatever dharma the manas attends to, only then is the mind consciousness qualified to discern that dharma. What the mind consciousness knows, what the six consciousnesses discern, are all dharmas that the manas has attended to and decided to discern. How could the manas only attend to mental sense-objects upon the five sense objects, and only the major, changing ones at that? The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says the manas silently encompasses all dharmas. If the manas could not attend to the subtle, minute states of the six sense objects, then it would not be silently encompassing all dharmas, and the six consciousnesses would never know those subtle, minute states of the six sense objects.

If the manas had no desire and did not wish to act, the six consciousnesses would not be generated, and the myriad dharmas would not appear either. When the eye consciousness, amid a pile of colors, selects only the color purple, that is decided by the manas. This shows that the manas also attends to the states of the five sense objects, and only then can it act as master, letting the six consciousnesses discern those states of the five sense objects. If the manas did not attend to or contact the states of the five sense objects, the five consciousnesses would not arise to discern the states of the five sense objects, and there would be no capacity for choice regarding the five sense objects. If there were dharmas the manas could not attend to, then the manas would not be universally attending to all dharmas.

If the manas could not exercise determination (adhimokṣa) and were always muddle-headed, it could not act as master, nor could it do things that are correct, reasonable, truthful, and in accord with the Dharma; it could not avoid danger, nor could it transform consciousness into wisdom. If the manas had no mindfulness (smṛti), it could not bring forth the mind consciousness to recite, no dharma could appear, the recollection of the Buddha (buddhānusmṛti) could not be practiced, Chan investigation would not be wished for, and the myriad dharmas would not appear. If the manas could not deliberate (manasikāra), then the mind consciousness perfuming the manas would be meaningless, transformation of consciousness into wisdom could not occur, and no wisdom would ever appear. If the manas had no concentration (samādhi), then no matter how the six consciousnesses cultivated meditative concentration, they could never become concentrated.

If the manas could not correct wholesome and unwholesome mental actions, then mental actions could never be changed; the unwholesome would remain forever unwholesome—how could afflictions be subdued and eradicated? The mind consciousness perfuming the manas would have no effect whatsoever, and all effort would be in vain. The passage above says the manas has no power of introspection (pratyavekṣā-bala) and no self-validating cognition (svasaṃvedana), yet the Buddha said that all eight consciousnesses possess self-validating cognition. That sentient beings trust themselves so much, being extremely stubborn, is precisely the self-validating cognition of the manas in operation. Being stubborn to the death, believing without doubt—this is the self-validating cognition of the manas; he simply believes he is right.

The manas has the function of constant deliberative examination (sātatam-anubhāvanā); all dharmas must pass His review and approval before they can be adopted, before choices can be made. If the wisdom of the manas were always so lowly, how could it review and approve reasonably, how could it make wise choices? If wise choices could not be made, then the bodily, verbal, and mental actions of sentient beings would at all times and places display foolishness and lack of wisdom—how could there be intelligent people in the world? How could studying Buddhism enable one to develop wisdom and become a Buddha? Moreover, if the manas is to deliberate, it should deliberate by relying on its own inherent wisdom; how could it deliberate by relying on the specific-faculty wisdom of the mind consciousness? This claim is too strange—it is like saying that when A thinks about a problem, he must rely on B's wisdom and borrow B's brain, which does not conform to even a shred of logic. The passage above contains too many errors; when there is time later, I will dissect it in detail.