Issue 278

Ananda said to the Buddha, “I have heard the Buddha instruct the four assemblies that because the mind arises every kind of phenomena arises, and that because phenomena arises, every kind of mind arises. As I now consider it, the substance of that very consideration is truly the nature of the mind. Wherever it comes together with things, the mind exists in response. It does not exist in the three locations of inside, outside and in between.”

Now Ananda questions the Buddha again. Ananda said to the Buddha, “I have heard the Buddha instruct the four assemblies.”Before, Ananda used his own ideas to think of places where the mind and seeing might be located, and each idea was refuted by the Buddha. So now he doesn’t speak for himself; he quotes the Buddha. He said, “I have heard the Buddha instruct the four assemblies.” The four assemblies are the bhikshus, bhikshunis, upasakas, and upasikas. Bhikshus and bhikshunis are men and women who have left the home-life. Upasakas and upasikas are men and women at home who have received the five precepts (not to kill, not to steal, not to commit sexual misconduct, not to lie, and not to take intoxicants.) Upasakas and upasikas are also called laypeople. These four groups comprise the four assemblies.

Because the mind arises every kind of phenomena arises. Because you have a mind – Ananda is speaking of the conscious mind – all kinds of phenomena arise. This refers to the manifestation, within the consciousness, of various states of being. Phenomena has no self-nature, but only comes into being due to conditions. Because phenomena arises, every kind of mind arises. Because causes and conditions produce phenomena, every kind of thought arises. That is what you said, Buddha; this is a doctrine which the World Honored One explained, and so no doubt it is right, Ananda says. Now, based on that doctrine of the World Honored One, I have an opinion.

As I now consider it. Ananda’s thinking again. What is he thinking? I’ve heard this dharma spoken by the Buddha – Because the mind arises every kind of phenomena arises. Because phenomena arises, every kind of mind arises. Now I am thinking from a deeper level. The substance of that very consideration is truly the nature of the mind. The substance of my thought is the nature of my mind. My being aware, my understanding, my knowing, these conditions are the nature of my mind (the nature he refers to is not the self-nature but is still the conscious mind).

Wherever it comes together with things: Wherever the mind encounters causes and conditions, it joins together with those causes and conditions, and the mind comes into being in response. Whenever there is a joining together, there is the mind. If there isn’t any joining together, there isn’t any mind. It does not exist in the three locations of inside, outside and in between. It isn’t inside, it isn’t outside, and it isn’t in between; rather, anywhere that it meets with causes and conditions, the mind comes into being. If there are no conditions then there probably isn’t any mind. Once again, what Ananda says seems to be right but isn’t. He still has not recognized it clearly!

The Buddha said to Ananda, “Now you say that because phenomena arises, every kind of mind arises. Wherever it comes together with things, the mind exists in response. But if it has no substance, the mind cannot come together with anything. While having no substance, it can yet come together with things, that would constitute a nineteenth realm brought about by a union with the seventh defiling object, and there is no such principle.

The Buddha repeats Ananda’s explanation back at him. The Buddha said to Ananda, “Now you say that because phenomena arises, every kind of mind arises. Wherever it comes together with things, the mind exists in response. You say that the mind comes into being wherever it comes together with things. If there is no coming together, then, of course, there is no mind. That’s the way you explain it.
But if it has no substance, the mind cannot come together with anything. But does this mind you speak of actually have any substance? If it has no substance or appearance it cannot unite with anything. If there were no form or appearance, what would join with what? While having no substance, it can yet come together with things. This would be unreasonable to insist that it can unite with things even though it has no substance, yet you do insist. That would constitute a nineteenth realm brought about by a union with the seventh defiling object and there is no such principle. The eighteen realms would turn into the nineteen realms: the additional realm would be the one where, as you explain it, your mind comes into being. The Buddha points out that the logical extension of Ananda’s argument is that there is a nineteenth realm, the place in which a supposed mind that lacks substance comes into being when it “comes together with things.” These things the mind joins with would be a seventh defiling object. However, how did this extra defiling object and realm come about? There is no such principle. What Ananda said is wrong again.

What are the eighteen realms? Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind are the six organs. Forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and mental constructs are the six defiling objects. And between the six organs and the six defiling objects are produced discriminations, called the six consciousnesses. Altogether, these make up the eighteen realms. The six organs and the corresponding six defiling objects are called the twelve places or twelve entrances. The six consciousnesses of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and mind are added to make eighteen realms.

“If it does have substance, when you pinch your body with your hand, does your mind which perceives it come out from the inside or in from the outside? If it comes out from the inside, then, once again, it should see within your body. If it comes in from outside, it should see your face first.”

The Buddha now explains his reason for saying Ananda is wrong again. If it does have substance: if your mind has a mind-substance, when you pinch your body with your hand, does your mind which perceives it come out from the inside or in from the outside? Let’s assume that your mind has a body; for example, if you use your hand to pinch your body, it knows pain! You know how to pinch pain. This is your mind that knows. Does the mind come forth from within or does its substance enter from outside?
If it comes out from the inside, then, once again, it should see within your body. It’s already been proven that the mind cannot be inside, since otherwise it would see inside the body. At first you maintained that your mind is inside, but now you have stated that it is not inside, outside, or in between. If it’s not in these three locations; and wherever it comes together with things, the mind exists in response. Where, then, does your mind come from when it comes together with things as you say it does? Now I tell you to pinch yourself, and your mind comes together with that. Does your mind which perceives the pinch come from outside or from inside? If you say “Oh, when I pinch it I know, it comes from inside!” However, since it comes from inside, then you should first see what’s inside your body.

If it comes in from outside, it should see your face first. If your mind is outside, it would be seeing your face before it perceives the pinch. Does your mind see your own face?

Ananda said, “Seeing is done with the eyes. The mind’s perception is not that of the eyes. To say it sees doesn’t make sense.”

Ananda got irritated with the Buddha at this point. Ananda decided that the Buddha’s explanation was too illogical, so he thereupon disagreed and began to argue.

Ananda said, “Seeing is done with the eyes. The mind’s perception is not that of the eyes. It is the eyes which see things. The mind just knows things. To say it sees doesn’t make sense. You said the mind sees, but that is certainly wrong. That also lacks principle. Before, the Buddha criticized Ananda’s idea and said “there is no such principle.” And now Ananda retorts with the same criticism. “You say that if the mind comes from outside, it should see the face. But the mind merely knows things; it doesn’t see them. What sees are the eyes.” The farther he runs, the farther away he gets! What Ananda means is that what he can see are the eyes, what he can know is the mind, so he said that the Buddha was wrong.

The Buddha said, “To suppose that the eyes can see is like supposing that the doors of a room can see. Also, when someone has died but his eyes are still intact, his eyes should see things. How can it be death if one can still see?

The Buddha said, “To suppose that the eyes can see is like supposing that the doors of a room can see.” Can doors of a room see things? Also, when someone has died but his eyes are still intact, his eyes should see things. How can it be death if one can still see? In fact, of course, once you’re dead your eyes cease to see, though they may still be physically intact. If it were the case that after death the eyes can still see, how can this be death?

What does this prove about the Buddha’s contention in the Sutra that eyes can’t see after death? But these days dead people’s eyes are removed and put in eye banks. They still can be used. Although it may be that the eyes can see, they still need to borrow the efficacious quality of the self-nature in order to see. If there is just an eye all by itself, although it has the potential to see, it is devoid of awareness. So it cannot see. It needs the efficacious bright awareness nature of a person to enable it to see. The eyes are like doors or windows. They do not see by themselves. They are transparent bodies which act as windows through which people can look at things. In the body of a dead man they have no power. If it were the case that after death the eyes can still see, how can this be death?