The Governing Function of Manas Determines Its Wholesome and Unwholesome Nature

The phrase "the mind root silently accommodates all dharmas" means that the mind root corresponds, harmonizes, integrates, and interacts with all dharmas, including wholesome and unwholesome dharmas. This is quite understandable. If the mind root did not correspond to wholesome and unwholesome dharmas, how could the mental consciousness correspond to them? If there are dharmas that the mind root neither corresponds to nor interacts with, how could the mental consciousness possibly correspond to or interact with them?

Regarding the actual functional role of the mind root, if the mind root were solely of neutral nature, then neutral karmas like washing clothes and cooking would be determined and chosen by the mind root. However, performing wholesome deeds like helping others would not be determined by the mind root, nor would unwholesome acts like stealing, robbing, or lying. This would imply that the mind root can only make determinations and choices regarding some dharmas but not others. What then causes the mind root to be capable of determining some dharmas but incapable of determining others? Are the dharmas that the mind root cannot determine instead determined by the mental consciousness? Does the mental consciousness then become the determining consciousness? Is there any logic in fragmenting the mind root and fragmenting the dharmas in this way?

If a person is virtuous, is it the mind root that is virtuous, or the mental consciousness, or both? If a person’s virtue lies solely in the mental consciousness being virtuous while the mind root is not, then after the mental consciousness ceases, only the mind root remains. Would this person still be considered virtuous at that point? If the mind root is not virtuous, then the person would no longer be virtuous. If a virtuous person, upon falling asleep and losing mental consciousness, ceases to be virtuous, how then are their virtuous deeds accounted for? Isn’t this situation utterly perplexing? It seems utterly inconceivable and logically inconsistent.

Following this reasoning, after a virtuous person dies, the mental consciousness of that life permanently vanishes, making it even more impossible for them to remain virtuous. A person who has performed virtuous deeds throughout their life, upon death, would not be recognized as virtuous. Wouldn’t that be a grievance? If someone died for their country or their people, their death would not be considered honorable either, because the consciousness that held the honor is gone. Consequently, they could not be posthumously awarded any honors, nor could their family receive spiritual or material compensation. If all the virtuous deeds and contributions made by a virtuous person vanish with the cessation of their mental consciousness—because the remaining mind root is not virtuous—then virtuous people might become most afraid of death, unwilling to make sacrifices easily. They might also fear sleep and unconsciousness, because once mental consciousness ceases, the label and reputation of being virtuous disappear, and they would not go to a fortunate realm after death. Conversely, an evil person would cease to be evil upon death, thus avoiding the three evil paths. How advantageous would committing evil then be? Such reasoning is truly illogical. Therefore, the mind root of a virtuous person possesses a wholesome nature, and the mind root of an evil person possesses an unwholesome nature. Alternatively, the mind roots of both virtuous and evil people may possess both wholesome and unwholesome natures, plus a neutral nature—thus having three natures.

If only mental consciousness possesses wholesome and unwholesome qualities while the mind root does not, then when a virtuous person acts in a play, portraying an evil character doing evil deeds, is the actor virtuous or evil at that moment? In work and daily life, some people are exceptionally skilled at disguise, presenting one facade publicly while acting differently behind the scenes. Outwardly, they appear impeccable, like righteous gentlemen whose behavior earns praise, yet secretly they scheme and harm others. Is such a person virtuous or evil?

When sentient beings perform wholesome deeds or commit unwholesome acts, it is a time of duality—overt and covert. The six consciousnesses operate overtly, while the mind root remains hidden in the background. How do these two achieve such seamless coordination and connection? Superficially, it seems the six consciousnesses are performing the wholesome or unwholesome acts, but what is the mind root doing? What are its mental activities? How does it operate? Does it exert control over these wholesome and unwholesome matters? Does it allow mental consciousness to take charge and create wholesome or unwholesome karma? How does the mind root cause the six consciousnesses to arise and function? How does it ensure the six consciousnesses arise precisely in relation to the wholesome or unwholesome dharmas being engaged with? If these matters cannot be discerned, how can one definitively assert that the mind root has no wholesome or unwholesome mental activities and possesses no wholesome or unwholesome nature?