by Hsuan Hua
“He does, World Honored One. He sees the crystal cups when he places them over his eyes.”
The Buddha said to Ānanda, “If in fact your mind can be compared to someone’s eyes with crystals placed over them, then when you look at the world of perceived objects, why don’t you see your own eyes? If you could see your eyes, your eyes would be part of your external surroundings. But then your mind and eyes could not work together to make distinctions. And since you cannot see your eyes, why did you say that the mind that is aware and makes distinctions is concealed within the eye-faculty, as in the example of the eyes with crystal cups placed on them? Know then that when you say the mind that is aware and makes distinctions is concealed in the eye-faculty, like eyes with crystal cups placed on them, you state what is impossible.”
The Buddha points out that if Ānanda could see his eyes, that would mean that his eyes would be outside of him, not part of his body. But if they were outside of his body, he would not be able to see, because the eyes need to be connected to the mind to complete the process of seeing. (I, 187)
D. Ānanda Reconsiders Seeing Inside and Seeing Outside
Ānanda said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, I now offer this reconsideration. Our viscera are located inside our bodies, while our orifices are open to the outside. Our viscera lie concealed in darkness, but at the orifices there is light. Now, facing the Buddha, with my eyes open, I see light. Seeing that light I would call ‘seeing outside.’ Seeing darkness when I close my eyes I would call ‘seeing inside.’ How does that idea sound?”14
Ānanda is more intelligent than we are. We couldn’t think of so many ways to answer. How many options has he come up with already? He has one opinion after another. Whatever the Buddha asks, he has an answer. He’s always got something to say; he’s full of theories and arguments and thoughts and considerations. He was, after all, foremost among the disciples in learning. (I, 189)
The Buddha said to Ānanda, “Consider this question, then: when you close your eyes and see darkness, is that darkness in front of your eyes? If the darkness is in front of your eyes, how can it be inside? But if in fact it were inside, then if you were in a room that was completely dark because it was not lit by the sun or by the moon or by lamps, the darkness in the room would have to be the darkness of your own insides. Besides, if the darkness were not in front of you, how could you see it?15 But suppose you did see inside in a way that is distinct from how you see outside. In that case — if we grant that closing your eyes and thus seeing darkness would be to see the inside of your body — then when you open your eyes and see light, why don’t you see your own face? Since you can’t see your own face, there can be no seeing inside, because if you could see your face, then your eyes and also your mind that knows and understands would be suspended in the air. How then could they be part of your body?16
The Buddha continues his questioning.... Ānanda argues that to see darkness is to see inside the body; then when one opens one’s eyes to look outside, one ought to be able to see one’s own face.... But if one can’t see one’s own face with one’s eyes open, how could it be that upon closing one’s eyes, one would see inside? What Ānanda has contended has no basis in fact. (I, 191)
“If your eyes and mind were actually suspended in the air, then it would follow that they would not be part of your body. If, however, they were part of your body and yet they were suspended in the air, then the Buddha, who now sees your face, would be part of your body as well. Thus, when your eyes became aware of something, your own body would be unaware of it. If you press the point and say the body and the eyes each have a separate awareness, then you would have two awarenesses so that you, one person, would eventually become two Buddhas. Therefore, you should know that when you say that to see darkness is to see inside, you state what is impossible.”17
E. Ānanda Proposes That the Mind Comes into Being in Response to Conditions
Ānanda said to the Buddha, “I have heard the Buddha teach the four assemblies18 that because a state of mind arises, various perceived objects arise, and that because perceived objects arise, various states of mind arise. I am now thinking, and that very act of thinking, which is an instance of a state of mind arising in response to perceived objects, is my mind’s true nature. Thus the mind comes into being by combining with perceived objects wherever they arise. It does not exist in just one of the three locations — inside, outside, and the middle.”
Then the Buddha said to Ānanda, “Now you are saying that when perceived objects arise, various states of mind arise, and therefore that the mind comes into being by combining with those perceived objects wherever they arise. But such a mind as this would have no essential nature of its own, and so could not combine with anything. If, having no essential nature of its own, it still were able to combine with perceived objects, then there would be a nineteenth constituent element of perception, because such a mind would be combining with a seventh category of perceived object — and that is impossible.19
The Buddha refutes Ānanda’s new proposition as follows. If the mind had location but no essential nature, it would lie outside of the eighteen constituent elements of perception. The eighteen constituents are the six perceptual faculties, the six kinds of perceived objects corresponding to the perceptual faculties, and the six consciousnesses.20... The Buddha points out that the logical extension of Ānanda’s argument is that there is a nineteenth constituent, the place in which a supposedly insubstantial mind comes into being when it “combines with perceived objects.” The objects the mind would combine with would constitute a seventh category of perceived object. But there is no such category of object. (I, 195–6)
“Furthermore, if such a mind did have an essential nature of its own, then if you were to pinch yourself, where would your mind that has awareness of the pinch be coming from? Would it be coming forth from the inside of your body, or would it be coming in from outside? If it came out from inside, then once again, you would see the inside of your body. If it came in from outside, it would see your face first.”21
Ānanda said, “It is the eyes that see. It is the mind, and not the eyes, that is aware. To suppose that the mind sees is not my idea.”
The Buddha said, “If the eyes could see, then by analogy, when you were in a room, it would be the doorway, not you, that would see what is outside the room. Not only that: when someone has died with his eyes still intact, his eyes would see. But how could a dead person see?
“Ānanda, if your mind which is aware and knows and makes distinctions indeed has an essential nature of its own, then would it have a single essential nature or multiple essential natures? Would this essential nature pervade your body or wouldn’t it? Suppose it were a single essential nature: then if you were to pinch one limb, wouldn’t you feel that pinch in all four limbs? If you did, the feeling of the pinch would not be confined to one place. And if the feeling of the pinch were confined to one place, it would follow that your mind cannot have only one essential nature. But if your mind had multiple essential natures, you would be many people. Which of those essential natures would you be? Furthermore, if a single essential nature did pervade your body, then a single pinch — as in the previous instance — would be felt throughout your body. But if this mental essence does not pervade your body, then if you touched your head and touched your foot at the same moment, you would feel the touch on your head but would not feel the touch on your foot. Yet that is not what your experience is.22
“Therefore, you should know that when you say the mind comes into being by combining with perceived objects wherever they arise, you state what is impossible.”
F. Ānanda Proposes That the Mind Is in the Middle
Ānanda said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, I have also listened when the Buddha was discussing true reality23 with Mañjuśrī and other disciples of the Dharma-King. The World-Honored One then said that the mind is neither inside the body nor outside of it. And so I am now thinking that if the mind were inside
, it would not see anything, and if it were outside, its awareness would be separate from the body. But since the mind is not aware of what is inside,24 it cannot be inside; and since the awareness of the mind is not separate from the body, it makes no sense to say the mind is outside. Therefore, since the mind’s awareness and the body’s awareness are not separate, and since the mind does not see what is inside, the mind must be in the middle.”
The Buddha replied, “You say that it is in the middle. A middle must be in some certain place. Propose a middle. Where is this ‘middle’ of yours?
Is it outside the body or inside it? If your ‘middle’ were inside the body, it might exist at the surface of the body or else somewhere within it. If it existed at the surface, it would not be in the middle, and to be within it would be the same as to be inside it. Does this ‘middle’ have a location, then? If so, is there some indication of that location? If there were no indication of its location, then the middle would not exist. And even if there were some indication of its location, that location would be indefinite. Why? Suppose that someone were to place a marker to indicate the location of a middle. Seen from the east, it would be in the west; seen from the south, it would lie to the north. Such a marker would not mark a definite middle, and in the same way, it is unclear what it might mean for the mind to be located in a ‘middle.’”
Ānanda said, “The middle I speak of is in neither of those places. For seeing to occur — as the World-Honored One has said — the eyes and visible objects are necessary conditions. The eyes record visual distinctions; the objects that are seen have no awareness. Between them, eye-consciousness is produced. The mind is there.”25
The Buddha said, “If your mind were located between the eye-faculty and the objects it perceives, would the mind’s essential nature be the same as the essential natures of the eye-faculty and of its objects, or would it not? If the mind’s essential nature were the same as the essential natures of the eye-faculty and of its objects, it would be a confused combination of what is aware and what is not aware. That is contradictory. Where would this ‘middle’ be, then? And even if the mind’s essential nature were not the same as the essential natures either of the eye-faculty or of its objects, then the mind would be neither aware nor unaware. Such a mind would have no essential nature at all. How then could it be in the middle?26
Therefore, you should know that it would be impossible for the mind to be in the middle.”
G. Ānanda Proposes That the Mind Has No Specific Location
Ānanda said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, when, along with Mahā-Maudgalyāyana, Subhūti, Pūrṇamaitrāyaṇīputra, and Śāriputra — four of the great disciples — I have listened to the Buddha as he turned the Wheel of Dharma, I have often heard him say that the mind that is aware and makes distinctions is not located inside or outside or in the middle; it is not located in any one of those places. That which has no specific location must be what is called the mind. Can what has no specific location be called my mind?”
The aware, perceiving mind is not located anywhere at all.... Basically, Ānanda’s view here would be acceptable from the point of view of ordinary people. But the mind the Buddha is speaking of is not the ordinary conscious mind. It is the everlasting true mind, not the mind of deluded mental processes. Yet Ānanda still thinks his deluded mind is his true mind; he has mistaken a burglar for his child. (I, 208)
The Buddha said to Ānanda, “You say the mind that is aware and makes distinctions is not located in a specific place. However, the air, the lands, the waters, and the creatures that fly over them or move on them or in them — all things, in fact, existing in the world — do have specific locations.
“Then does the mind that you suppose has no specific location exist in some place, or else does it exist in no place? If it is located nowhere, then it is an absurdity — like a turtle with fur or a hare with horns. How can you speak of something that does not have a specific location? Suppose, however, things could in fact exist without a definite location. Now, what does not exist lacks attributes. What does exist has attributes. And whatever has attributes does have a location. How can you say then that the mind has no specific location?27 Therefore, you should know that when you say the mind which knows and is aware has no specific location, you state what is impossible.”
The Conditioned Mind and the True Mind
Then Ānanda stood up in the midst of the great assembly. He uncovered his right shoulder, placed his right knee on the ground, put his palms together respectfully, and said to the Buddha, “The Buddha has bestowed his loving-kindness on me as his youngest cousin, but now that I have entered the monastic life, I have continued to presume upon his kindness, and as a result, all I have done is to become learned, and so I am not yet free of outflows.
According to the customs of India, uncovering the right shoulder is a gesture of respect, especially in the Buddhist tradition. It represents the purification of the karma of the body. Putting the palms together represents the purification of the karma of the mind, and speaking to the Buddha represents the purification of the karma of speech. (I, 211–2)
“Since I could not resist the Kapila spell, I was lured into a house of courtesans, all because I did not know how to find the realm of true reality.28 I only hope that the World-Honored One, out of pity and great kindness, will instruct us in the path of calming the mind, will guide people who have no trust in the Dharma,29 and will counteract the wrong tendencies of the uncivilized.”30 When he had finished speaking, Ānanda bowed to the ground and, with the rest of the great assembly, prepared himself with keen anticipation to listen reverently to the teaching.
At that time, an array of lights as dazzling and as brilliant as a hundred thousand suns poured forth from the World-Honored One’s face. Six kinds of quaking shook the lands of the Thus-Come Ones, and an infinite number of worlds appeared throughout all ten directions all at the same time. The Buddha’s awe-inspiring spiritual power caused all these worlds to merge into a single world, and in that world, all the great Bodhisattvas — while remaining in their own lands — placed their palms together and listened.
Earthquakes occurred in their six aspects in all the billions of worlds in which there were Buddhas — not only in our Sahā world,31 but all the others. Three of these aspects involve movement: quaking, erupting, and upward heaving. “Quaking” is the motion of the earth during an earthquake. “Erupting” refers to intermittent agitations which cause lava to little by little seep forth like water from a fountain. “Heaving upward” refers to continual, violent upward movements of the earth.... At present our planet earth is in the midst of changes brought about by the six aspects of earthquakes. The other aspects of earthquakes — cracking, roaring, and striking — involve sound. When there is cracking, whole sections of the earth are torn asunder. The earth splits apart and often rends whole buildings in the process. Roaring occurs when the earth emits strange sounds. Striking occur after the ground has split apart and the two faces of the crevasse strike against one another. (I, 218–9)
The Buddha used his awe-inspiring spiritual power to bring all the lands together into one.... Nowadays we can greatly enlarge a very small photograph and reduce a large photograph into a very small one.... In the same way, the Buddha, by means of his spiritual power, made distant places close, brought all the myriad lands throughout the universe into one, as if he were reducing a photograph. And yet, though the lands were united into one, each remained located in its respective position without being mixed up.... The Buddha brought these lands together so that everyone, including Bodhisattvas in every land, could listen as he spoke about the Great Śūraṅgama Samādhi. (I, 220–1)
The Buddha said to Ānanda, “Since time without beginning, all beings, because of the many distortions in their minds, have been creating seeds of karma, which then grow and ripen naturally, like a cluster of fruit on a rūkṣa tree.32
The rūkṣa represents delusion, intentional action, and the consequences of
action, which are interconnected as if they were joined on a single stem. You can’t say which precedes the other; they follow after one another in a continuing cycle, life after life, eon after eon. When would you say it all began? It has no beginning. It’s an endless cycle as one is bound to the cycle of death and rebirth in the six destinies.33 Each of us born here in the world is like a fine mote of dust which suddenly rises high and suddenly falls low. When your actions are meritorious, you are born higher. When you commit offenses, you fall. Therefore, we people should only do things that are good. Don’t commit offenses, because the world runs on the principle of cause and effect, the principle of karma. The seeds of karma develop of their own accord, bringing you the appropriate consequences of whatever you have done, for good or for evil. (I, 225)
“People who undertake a spiritual practice but who fail to realize the ultimate enlightenment — people such as the Hearers of the Teaching34 and the Solitary Sages, as well as celestial beings and others, such as demon-kings and members of the demons’ retinues, who follow wrong paths35 — all fail because they do not understand two fundamentals and are mistaken and confused in their practice. They are like someone who cooks sand, hoping to prepare a delicious meal. Even if the sand were cooked for eons36 numberless as motes of dust, no meal would result from it.
People are born in a stupor and die in the midst of a dream.... With nothing to do, they go looking for something to do. They fail to recognize their pure and fundamental nature and devote themselves to deluded thinking instead.... They divide experiences into good and bad, right and wrong.... But in the Matrix of the Thus-Come One37 there are no such distinctions. In the Matrix of the Thus-Come One there isn’t anything at all. It is absolutely pure. Our eyes may see the world of perceived objects, but they are simply manifestations of consciousness. When you really understand the truth that there isn’t anything that comes into being and ceases to be, then you will understand that basically there isn’t anything at all. But this principle is not easy to comprehend. We must come to understand its meaning gradually. (I, 224–5)
