How to Determine Whether a Conclusion Is Derived from Manas-Vijñāna Analysis or Manas-Indriya Deliberation

Is the conclusion that 1+1 equals 2 derived from the conscious mind's thinking or from the deliberation of the manas? If you can be absolutely certain of the conclusion that 1+1=2, with clear reasoning and a thorough understanding of its underlying principle, then it is a conclusion reached by the manas. If, however, you can calculate that 1+1=2 but do not understand the principle behind it, cannot articulate it clearly, and simply know the conclusion, then it is a conclusion drawn by the conscious mind based on referencing or comparing learned theories, similar to rote memorization. Otherwise, why would scientists delve deeply into researching why 1+1 equals 2? How much of the knowledge we acquire from elementary school through university have we actually verified through direct experience? Although we pass every exam, perhaps even scoring perfectly, exams test our understanding and memorization of knowledge, the grasp of its volume, rather than the actual verification of it. Verification is only involved in laboratory work and after stepping into society. This is why many top students often struggle to adapt socially, fail to keep pace with societal rhythms, and cannot apply their knowledge to practice.

Conclusions derived solely from conscious thinking and analysis cannot eradicate doubt; encountering conditions will lead to layers of doubt, causing one to disbelieve previous conclusions. Therefore, conclusions reached through conscious thinking and analysis are not firm. The master (manas) harbors doubt; the master is in charge, holding its own views, and at critical moments, it will reject the assistant's (consciousness's) conclusions. This is why many who realize the fruit and understand the mind through consciousness often regress. Conscious thinking and analysis can proceed without the aid of meditative concentration (dhyāna), even in a scattered state of mind. However, the deeper the meditative concentration, the more refined, accurate, precise, and logically sound conscious thinking becomes. Yet, no matter how refined, accurate, or logical it is, it is not a conclusion the manas has reached itself. Therefore, it is not called direct realization (亲证). It lacks the virtue of cessation (断德), offers no true benefit (受用), and cannot withstand the cycle of birth and death.

Conscious thinking is often perceived, observed, and discovered by consciousness itself; it is relatively superficial and coarse compared to the thinking of the manas. The thinking of the manas is deeper, more concealed, and not easily detected, yet it can be continuous thought after thought. Only when doubt is very deep does the manas deliberate to resolve it. This involves meditative concentration. Continuous thought after thought constitutes meditative concentration; the ability to fixate on investigating doubt is concentration (定). Regardless of when or what one is doing, whether awake or asleep, the question remains in the heart. Failing to resolve it can even lead to agitation, poor appetite, and sleeplessness, as if one's spirit is lost.

When the conscious mind is coarse, it remains unaware and ignorant of the thinking of the manas, unable to detect it. It fails to discover matters within one's own heart, unaware of what one truly desires or intends to do, unable to grasp one's own thoughts. This is why so many people cannot discover the manas, do not understand it, cannot master it, and cannot observe it. Deliberation using the manas requires meditative concentration; the deeper the concentration, the better. It is best to eliminate interference from other miscellaneous affairs; ideally, the six consciousnesses should not disturb the manas either. They should only cooperate with the manas, lightly and subtly knowing, without provoking distracting thoughts in the manas.