The manas cannot possibly discern only the significant mental sense-objects (dharma-viṣaya)

Question: Someone says: "The statement 'The mind is like the sharp 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 motive force by which the seeds of the mind consciousness arise from the eighth consciousness; the mind consciousness can only arise depending on the manas's attention (manaskāra), and after arising it operates entirely in accordance with the attention of the mind root, the manas; hence it is said that the manas is the root of the mind consciousness. The specific-faculty wisdom 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 lacks the mental factors of 'desire (chanda), determination (adhimokṣa), mindfulness (smṛti), and concentration (samādhi),' and its function of the wisdom mental factor (specific-faculty wisdom) is likewise 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 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 think about 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 keen and can universally attend to all dharmas, and can further, relying on the specific-faculty wisdom of the mind consciousness, act as the master everywhere and at all times, and can further deliberate and decide upon various mental activities, yet if it is apart 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 manas, the mind root) is like the sharp edge of a sword (a metaphor for its keenness in universally attending to all dharmas; the mind consciousness, though it has specific-faculty wisdom, cannot universally attend to all dharmas), yet it cannot cut itself (a metaphor for its lack of the specific-faculty wisdom's 'self-validating cognition (svasaṃvedana),' and hence 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 root,' it must rely on the specific-faculty wisdom and deliberative wisdom of the mind consciousness before any transformation can occur; it cannot eradicate its own corresponding afflictions by relying solely on its own functions. Therefore the Buddha said: the mind is like the sharp edge of a sword, which cannot cut itself."

Something about the above passage always feels off—could you analyze it and explain?

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 none 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—so many limitations. If the manas has so many dharmas it cannot universally attend to, this contradicts the Buddha's teaching that the manas universally attends to all dharmas and silently encompasses all dharmas.

For example, in contemplating the sun, one can contemplate for an hour, or for a whole day or half a day; the sun does not undergo any change within an hour, 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 it; 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 that are upon the five sense objects, and moreover only the major, changing ones? The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says the manas silently encompasses all dharmas. If the manas could not attend to the subtle and 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 and 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, this 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 the master and let the six consciousnesses discern that state 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 states of 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 the 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 the consciousnesses into wisdom. If the manas had no mindfulness, it could not let the mind consciousness come out to be mindful; then no dharma could appear either—recollection of the Buddha (buddhānusmṛti) could not be practiced, and one would not wish to investigate Chan either, and the myriad dharmas would not appear. If the manas could not deliberate, then the mind consciousness's perfuming of the manas would be meaningless, let alone transforming the consciousnesses into wisdom, and no wisdom whatsoever would appear. If the manas had no concentration, 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 activities, then it could never change its mental activities; the unwholesome would forever be unwholesome—how could it subdue afflictions and eradicate afflictions? The mind consciousness's perfuming of the manas would likewise have no effect whatsoever, and its effort would be wasted 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 have self-validating cognition. That sentient beings trust themselves so much, being extremely stubborn, is precisely the self-validating cognition of the manas in function. Being stubborn to the death, believing firmly without doubt—this is the manas's self-validating cognition; he simply believes he is right.

The manas has the function of constant deliberative examination (恒审思量); all dharmas must pass His review and approval before they can be adopted, before a decision can be made. If the manas's wisdom were always so lowly, how could it review and examine 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 those who study Buddhism open wisdom and become Buddhas? 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 A, in thinking through a problem, 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 dissect it in detail.