The Mental Faculty Possesses Reflective Power as Evidenced by the Self-Cognizing Portion

Some say that the manas (mind faculty) lacks the self-witnessing portion and introspective faculty, that it has never known its own past, and that it relies entirely on the observations of consciousness to know its own history. This view is profoundly mistaken, for only the manas and the Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) continue unbroken across lifetimes. The manas possesses awareness; it can perceive all dharmas manifested by the Tathāgatagarbha. It also corresponds with karmic seeds. From countless past lives to the present, it has never forgotten any dharma it has experienced. The dharmas known to the manas far exceed those known by consciousness. The information known by consciousness within a single lifetime is exceedingly limited, utterly incomparable to the manas. Since the experiences of past lives were not undergone by the consciousness of this present life, how can consciousness serve as a foundation for the manas? On the contrary, much information, especially that concerning past lives, is known to consciousness only by relying on the manas. This is true for those without psychic powers, and equally true for those with psychic powers—there are no exceptions.

For example, when a person encounters another in a certain setting and feels an immediate sense of familiarity and closeness, as if reuniting with a long-lost relative, experiencing an involuntary surge of emotion, even to the point of tears welling up. In truth, these two individuals were family in a past life, sharing deep karmic ties. The profound sense of closeness felt upon meeting in this life is absolutely not something perceived by consciousness after the fact. Consciousness knows nothing; it can only rely on the manas to know. Consciousness is the belated knower, and even then, only when consciousness possesses wisdom. When consciousness lacks wisdom, even if tears well up, it remains ignorant of the reason, muddled and confused. That tears well up without consciousness understanding why is, of course, because the manas cannot control itself. If the manas were not stirred, even if consciousness were agitated, tears would not well up—except for actors performing a role.

Another example: A person feels uncomfortable upon meeting someone else, yet consciousness does not know why. The manas, however, knows—it simply cannot express the reason clearly to consciousness: "This person often speaks ill of me behind my back." Consciousness did not witness these events, so naturally it does not know. The feeling of discomfort is certainly the result of the manas alerting consciousness.

Now, does the manas possess the introspective faculty and self-witnessing portion? Of course it does, unequivocally. In individuals with cultivation, the manas constantly introspects and examines itself: whether it has done wrong, harmed others, or whether its speech and actions are appropriate and proper. In those without cultivation, when encountering major, urgent matters or very important people, the manas will also introspect and examine whether its words and deeds are appropriate and whether there might be negative consequences. Only in the extremely ignorant might the manas possibly lack introspective and self-examining faculties, often remaining unaware and ignorant, causing great calamity without realizing it.

The introspection of the manas belongs to the manas, and the introspection of consciousness belongs to consciousness. The two cannot substitute for each other because each has its own distinct mental factors (caittas) and does not share them, although they do influence each other. The manas cannot take the introspection of consciousness as its own and thereby confirm it, ceasing its own self-examination. Even if such a situation occurs, it is only under special circumstances where the manas lacks sufficient wisdom. Later, once the manas is able to introspect, it will often regret its past decisions. For instance, a person does something and afterward forgets about it, thinking no more of the matter. But soon after, encountering a certain condition, they recall the event and exclaim, slapping their thigh: "I did that wrong!" Is this regret the regret of consciousness or the regret of the manas? Did consciousness introspect and discover the mistake, or did the manas introspect and discover it?

Here, there is no time or opportunity for consciousness to analyze; the manas very swiftly decides to slap the thigh, expressing regret. The faster the thigh is slapped, the more it indicates that the manas discovered the error through introspection—even though the act of slapping the thigh is a behavior produced jointly by consciousness and the body consciousness. The harder the thigh is slapped, the deeper the regret of the manas. It is like immediately flicking one's hand upon touching hot water—there is no time for consciousness to analyze. If one waited for consciousness to analyze before flicking the hand, the hand would already be severely burned, and flicking it would be useless. If everything required the use of consciousness, many matters would become "cold as cucumber pickles"—beyond remedy. When one does wrong, deep introspection, repentance, sincere repentance, earnest repentance, genuine repentance—these are all the repentance, introspection, and self-examination of the manas. The repentance of consciousness is fundamentally insincere; speaking but not acting refers to the untrustworthiness of consciousness, this lack of autonomy.