The manas cannot possibly discern only the significant mental sense-objects (dharmas).

Question: Someone says: “‘The mind is like the sharp edge of a sword, which cannot cut itself’—this refers to the seventh consciousness, the mind faculty (manas), also called the manas-consciousness. The Buddha called this seventh consciousness the mind faculty, because it is the dynamic force by which the seeds of the mind consciousness arise and manifest from the eighth consciousness; the mind consciousness can only arise by relying on the manas-consciousness’s mental engagement (manaskāra), and after arising, it operates entirely in accordance with the mental engagement of the mind faculty, the manas; therefore it is said that the manas-consciousness is the root of the mind consciousness. The object-specific wisdom of this mind faculty is extremely weak; it can only make extremely simple discernments of the mental sense-objects upon the five sense-objects—for example, whether there is any major change 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 object-specific mental factors; it lacks the mental factors of ‘desire (chanda), determination (adhimokṣa), mindfulness (smṛti), and concentration (samādhi),’ and its function of the wisdom mental factor (object-specific wisdom) is also 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 by relying on the mind consciousness’s object-specific wisdom can it engage in various deliberations regarding 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 activities and habitual tendencies? Therefore, although this seventh consciousness is extremely nimble and can universally attend to all dharmas, and can, relying on the mind consciousness’s object-specific wisdom, make decisions everywhere and at all times, and can deliberate and decide various mental activities; nevertheless, if separated from the mind consciousness’s object-specific wisdom, it can accomplish nothing. Because of such a nature, the Buddha said that the mind (the mind faculty, the manas) is like the sharp edge of a sword (a metaphor for its nimble capacity to universally attend to all dharmas; the mind consciousness, though possessing object-specific wisdom, cannot universally attend to all dharmas), yet it cannot cut itself (a metaphor for its lack of the ‘self-validating cognition (sva-saṃvitti-saṃvitti-bhāga)’ of object-specific wisdom, and thus its inability to correct its own wholesome and unwholesome mental activities); the meaning is that for this consciousness to ‘wish to change its defiled nature and transform into a pure mind faculty,’ it must rely on the mind consciousness’s object-specific wisdom and deliberative wisdom in order to undergo transformation; it cannot, by relying on its own functions alone, eliminate the afflictions corresponding to itself. Therefore the Buddha said: ‘The mind is like the sharp edge of a sword, which cannot cut itself.’”

I always feel something is off about the passage above; could you analyze and explain it?

Answer: Saying that the mind faculty only discerns major mental sense-objects contradicts the Buddha’s statement that the mind faculty silently contains all dharma-marks. Since the mind faculty can universally attend to all dharmas, then any dharma whatsoever can be attended to; there is none it cannot attend to. Yet the passage above says the mind faculty only attends to the mental sense-objects upon the five sense-objects, and moreover only the major and changing ones—so many limitations. With so many dharmas the mind faculty cannot universally attend to, this contradicts the Buddha’s teaching that the mind faculty universally attends to all dharmas and silently contains all dharmas.

For example, in contemplating the sun, one may contemplate for an hour, or for a day or half a day; the sun does not change within an hour—why can the mind consciousness keep contemplating it? Does the mind faculty not attend to the unchanging sun? Whatever dharma the mind faculty attends to, only then is the mind consciousness qualified to discern it. What the mind consciousness knows, what the six consciousnesses discern, are all dharmas that the mind faculty has attended to and decided to discern. How could the mind faculty only attend to mental sense-objects that are upon the five sense-objects, and moreover only the major ones, and moreover only the changing ones? The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says the mind faculty silently contains all dharmas. If the mind faculty could not attend to the subtle and minute states of the six sense-objects, then it would not be silently containing all dharmas, and then the six consciousnesses would never know those subtle and minute states of the six sense-objects.

If the mind faculty had no desire and did not wish to act, the six consciousnesses would not be generated, and the myriad dharmas would not appear. When the eye consciousness selects only purple from a pile of colors, it is decided by the mind faculty; this shows that the mind faculty also attends to the states of the five sense-objects, and only then can it make the decision for the six consciousnesses to discern those states of the five sense-objects. If the mind faculty 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 them. If there were dharmas the mind faculty could not attend to, then the mind faculty would not be universally attending to all dharmas.

If the mind faculty could not exercise determination (adhimokṣa) and was always muddled and confused, it could not make decisions, nor could it accomplish 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 mind faculty had no mindfulness (smṛti), it could not bring forth the mind consciousness to recite; no dharma could appear; one could not engage in recollection of the Buddha (buddhānusmṛti), nor would one wish to investigate Chan, and the myriad dharmas would not appear. If the mind faculty could not deliberate, then the mind consciousness’s perfuming of the mind faculty would be meaningless, let alone transforming consciousness into wisdom; no wisdom whatsoever would appear. If the mind faculty had no concentration (samādhi), then no matter how the six consciousnesses cultivated meditative concentration, they could never become concentrated.

If the mind faculty could not correct wholesome and unwholesome mental activities, then it could never change its mental activities; the unwholesome would forever be unwholesome—how could afflictions be subdued and eliminated? The mind consciousness’s perfuming of the mind faculty would have no effect whatsoever, and its efforts would be entirely wasted. The passage above says the mind faculty has no power of introspection and no self-validating cognition (sva-saṃvitti-saṃvitti-bhāga), 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 mind faculty in operation. Being stubborn to the point of death, believing firmly without doubt—this is the mind faculty’s self-validating cognition; it simply believes itself to be right.

The mind faculty has the function of continual scrutiny and deliberation; all dharmas must pass through His review and approval before they can be adopted, before a decision can be made. If the mind faculty’s wisdom were always so lowly, how could it review and approve reasonably, how could it make wise decisions? If it could not make wise decisions, then sentient beings’ bodily, verbal, and mental actions would everywhere and at all times 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 mind faculty is to deliberate, it should deliberate by relying on its own inherent wisdom; how could it deliberate by relying on the mind consciousness’s object-specific wisdom? 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 logic in the slightest. The passage above contains too many errors; when there is time later, I will analyze it in detail.