Does the manas only take as its object the mental sense-objects arising from major changes in the five sense-objects?

The Buddha said that the mind, like the sharp edge of a sword, cannot cut itself—this refers to the seventh consciousness, the manas, also known as the mind root (manas). The Buddha called this seventh consciousness the mind root because it is the dynamic force by which the seeds of the mind consciousness manifest from the eighth consciousness; the mind consciousness can only arise depending on the manas's intentional attention (manaskāra), and after arising, it operates entirely in accordance with the manas's intentional attention. Therefore, it is said that the manas is the root of the mind consciousness. The distinct-faculty wisdom (prajñā among the five universal faculties) of this mind root is extremely weak; it can only make extremely simple discriminations of the mental sense-objects (dharma-objects) present upon the five sense-objects—for example, whether there are any major changes in the dharma-objects upon the five sense-objects. This seventh consciousness, unlike the mind consciousness (a knowing mind), cannot operate nimbly with the five distinct mental factors; it lacks the mental factors of "aspiration (chanda), determination (adhimokṣa), mindfulness (smṛti), and meditative concentration (samādhi)," and its faculty of wisdom (the distinct-faculty wisdom) is also extremely weak, being able only to make extremely simple discriminations of changes in the dharma-objects.

Thus, since it cannot even discriminate the five sense-objects and must summon the mind consciousness, and only by relying on the mind consciousness's distinct-faculty wisdom 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 take as object all dharmas, and can further, relying on the mind consciousness's distinct-faculty wisdom, act as master everywhere and at all times, and can deliberate and decide various mental actions, nevertheless, if separated from the mind consciousness's distinct-faculty wisdom, 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 nimbleness in universally taking as object all dharmas; the mind consciousness, though possessing distinct-faculty wisdom, cannot universally take as object all dharmas), yet it cannot cut itself (a metaphor for its lack of the "self-validating cognition (sva-saṃvitti-saṃvitti-bhāga)" of distinct-faculty wisdom, and hence its inability to correct its own wholesome and unwholesome mental actions). 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 mind consciousness's distinct-faculty wisdom and deliberative wisdom in order to undergo transformation; it cannot eliminate 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.

Question: Master, something about the passage above always feels off to me. Could you explain it?

Answer: Since the manas can universally take as object all dharmas, then any dharma whatsoever can be taken as object—there is nothing it cannot objectify. Yet he says the manas only takes as object the dharma-objects upon the five sense-objects, and moreover only major changes therein. This is self-contradictory.

If the manas had no aspiration (chanda) and did not wish to act, the six consciousnesses would not emerge, and all dharmas would not appear.

When the eye consciousness selects only the color purple from a mass of colors, it is the manas that decides this. This shows that the manas also takes the five sense-objects as object; only then can it act as master and let the six consciousnesses discriminate which of the five sense-objects to cognize.

If there were dharmas the manas cannot take as object, then the manas would not be universally taking as object all dharmas.

If the manas could not exercise determination (adhimokṣa) and were always muddled and confused, it could not act as master to make correct, reasonable, truthful, and Dharma-conformant decisions. It could not then avoid danger, nor could it transform the consciousnesses into wisdom.

If the manas had no mindfulness (smṛti), it could not let the mind consciousness emerge to recite; no dharma could appear then—there would be no recollection of the Buddha (buddhānusmṛti), no desire to investigate Chan, and no dharmas would manifest at all.

If the manas could not deliberate and contemplate, then the mind consciousness's perfuming of the manas would be meaningless; still less could the consciousnesses be transformed into wisdom, and no wisdom whatsoever would ever arise.

If the manas could not possess meditative concentration (samādhi), then no matter how the six consciousnesses cultivated concentration, concentration could never be attained.

If the manas could not cultivate and realize wholesome and unwholesome mental actions, then wholesome and unwholesome mental actions could never be changed—wholesome would forever be wholesome, unwholesome forever unwholesome. How then could afflictions be subdued and eliminated? The mind consciousness's perfuming of the manas would have no effect whatsoever, its efforts wasted. If the manas had 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 obstinate, is precisely the self-validating cognition of the manas in function.

The manas has the function of continual scrutiny and deliberation: all dharmas must pass through His approval before they can be accepted and before choices can be made. If the manas's wisdom were always so lowly, how could it review and approve matters reasonably, how could it make wise choices? If it could not make wise choices, then sentient beings' bodily, verbal, and mental actions would at all times and places display foolishness and lack of wisdom—how could there be intelligent people in the world? What use would learning Buddhism be? How could one develop wisdom and become a Buddha?

The whole passage is erroneous.