Taking the Knowing of Consciousness as Knowledge Is Avidyā

What does the "authentication of self-confirmation" (svasaṃvitti-pratyakṣa) of each consciousness mean? Can you know what the perceived aspect (nimitta) of the self-confirmation (svasaṃvitti) of each consciousness consists of? For example, the eighth consciousness has a perceiving aspect (darśana-bhāga), which is its perceiving nature. The perceived aspect (nimitta) of the eighth consciousness is the form perceived by the eighth consciousness, such as seeds (bīja). The self-confirmation (svasaṃvitti) of the eighth consciousness is the eighth consciousness itself perceiving the perceived aspect of seeds, knowing and discerning the perceived aspect of seeds. The authentication of self-confirmation (svasaṃvitti-pratyakṣa) of the eighth consciousness is the eighth consciousness proving and realizing its own self-confirmation, knowing that it has discerned the perceived aspect of seeds, knowing that it has completed the discernment of the perceived aspect of seeds, knowing that it has discerned the perceived aspect of seeds. Whatever the eighth consciousness itself has done, it is clear to itself; the sixth and seventh consciousnesses are not clear about it, unless one possesses profound bodhisattva wisdom (bodhisattva-jñāna).

Are we clear whether the eighth consciousness has discerned the perceived aspect of seeds? We are not clear. The eighth consciousness does not substitute for the knowing of the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna). What the mental consciousness does not know does not mean other consciousnesses do not know. One cannot use the mental consciousness's lack of knowledge to represent the knowledge of other consciousnesses. Using A to represent the eighth consciousness and B to represent the mental consciousness, the dharmas known by A are not necessarily known by B. B's lack of knowledge does not mean A also lacks knowledge. The authentication of self-confirmation of A does not represent the authentication of self-confirmation of B. B's lack of clarity about the perceived aspect realized by A does not mean A has not realized it, nor does it mean A is unaware. There is also much knowledge of the manas (seventh consciousness) that the mental consciousness is unaware of. Since it is unclear, one should not claim that the manas also lacks knowledge.

The knowledge of sentient beings is mostly based on the knowledge of the mental consciousness. What the mental consciousness does not know, they say "I do not know," or claim that something did not happen or does not exist. In reality, the seventh consciousness knows that something happened, knows that something exists. But the seventh consciousness lacks the function of language and expression; it cannot express itself and cannot make the mental consciousness aware. The mental consciousness then assumes that what it does not know does not exist, and that other consciousnesses are similarly unaware. Making such a determination is extremely arbitrary and unreasonable.

To what extent is the mental consciousness of ordinary sentient beings arbitrary? The mental consciousness itself cannot realize the manas, cannot observe the manas. Therefore, it refuses to acknowledge the existence of the self-confirmation and authentication of self-confirmation of the manas. The manas has introspective capability, the ability to introspect upon its own discernment. The mental consciousness is unaware of this, cannot observe it, yet claims that the manas lacks introspective power, lacks authentication of self-confirmation, and even lacks certain aspects of self-confirmation. When the mental consciousness thinks this way, it precisely demonstrates its own stupidity, ignorance, dullness, shallow and limited knowledge, and numerous misunderstandings—all without self-awareness. The Buddha said, "Be careful not to trust your mind (mental consciousness), your mind is not to be trusted." Why? Because of profound ignorance.