Issue 277

Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from the ‘Driving Force of Subjective Wisdom’ seminar on August 30, 1988

This passage of text is argumentative! It’s a debate between Ananda and the Buddha! Ananda said it is so and the Buddha always finds away to appraise and challenge him. Hence the back and forth. This passage of text has no fixed dharma. It doesn’t have to be this or that. So, don’t get attach to whether it’s within or external or whether it’s inside one’s faculties. The theory doesn’t support either the within or external constructs. It is even more useless to say that it’s in the middle. Speaking of which, that’s what I said!

If you investigate further, the theory proposed by the Buddha is also empty and false. It is also non-existent. Because Ananda’s theory is empty and false to begin with, the Buddha also used an empty and false theory, to demonstrate how Ananda’s theory is false. These states are also analogies and have no real entities. All dharmas have nothing-in-itself. Hence these are all debates.

Now Ananda said: “If I close my eyes and see darkness, then that’s seeing within; if I open my eyes and see light, that’s seeing outside.” However, he had not truly seen within. To see within, one should also see one’s heart, liver, spleen, lungs and kidneys. But Ananda did not see anything else other than darkness. It’s not that when you close your eyes, you can see everything within you.
If when you open your eyes and you see light – this is the most important phrase accentuated by the Buddha. He said if you open your eyes and that is seeing outside, that means you can see inside and out, then when you open your eyes and see outside, why can’t you return the light to reflect and see your own face? If you can see your own face, then this seeing and your mind should be in empty space.

Since when you are outside and can’t see what’s within, then if you’re within, you should also be unable to see what’s outside. When you close your eyes and see darkness, you say that this is ‘seeing darkness’. When you open your eyes and you see light, you say that you’re ‘seeing outside’. Since you can see both darkness and light, then your eyes should also be able to turn back and see your own face. But you can’t see it! Moreover, can you see your eyes and mind running to the void? You can’t see it. Then how can you say it is within? Your theory has no justification on both within and outside.

Previously the translator said “hang in empty space”. Just where would it hang? I’ll ask you, where in this empty space would the eyes and mind hang? You said it’s hanging in an empty space, are there hooks in the void? If you want to hang them but there are no hooks, then how can you say that they hang? There is no such thing! The mind is not located in empty space, and the eyes are also not located in empty space. Since there is nothing, how can you possibly hang anything?

This is just an analogy to say ‘be in empty space’. The word ‘be’ means if you can see your face, then both your mind and eyes would run off to an empty space! If you don’t run off to an empty space, how can you see your own face? Hence, if you can’t see your face, then both your mind and eyes would not have gone to the void. Do you understand? Then where would you hang them? Basically, there is no such thing! What do you hang? This is unimpeded and has no fear. If you hang something in the void, this is really adding a head on top of a head!
If your mind did run into empty space, how can you say that ‘your mind is within?’ ‘It can’t be within’, that’s it! When you translated this section that way, the meaning of the entire sutra text is lost! Therefore, space cannot be ‘hung’. It is unimpeded! Where would you ‘hang’ it? The phrase ‘be in empty space’: the word ‘be’ indicated that it’s really not what it seems to be. It is saying that if one can see one’s face, then one’s mind and eyes must have ran off to empty space before one can look back and see. Hence, the phrase ‘be in empty space’ is used here to attest that the mind and eyes are not in empty space. Whose heart and eyes are in empty space? The eye faculty manifests ‘seeing’, and seeing is also non-seeing. Since you cannot see your own ‘seeing’, then your ‘seeing’ will not see anything! There’s a saying that ‘seeing cannot be fathomed.’ ‘Seeing’ will not see your own self. If you look at ‘seeing’, what’s it like? That ‘seeing’ is nothing and non-existent. Hence, the whole sutra should not have the word ‘hang’. It cannot be ‘hung’ because it is unimpeded!

End of the ‘Driving Force of Subjective Wisdom’ seminar

If they are in empty space, then they are not your body. Otherwise, the Tathagata who now sees your face should be part of your body as well. In that case, when your eyes perceive something, your body would remain unaware of it. If you press the point and say that the body and eyes each have an awareness, then you should have two perceptions, and your one body should eventually become two Buddhas.

If they are in empty space, then they are not part of your body. The Buddha told him, “If you want to say that your eyes and mind are in an empty space, then they are not part of your body. Empty space is not your body, and it has no connection with you. Otherwise – if you say that it has a connection with you – if you say that those separate entities in empty space are part of your substance – the Tathagata who now sees your face should be part of your body as well. It should be that the Tathagata, who sees your face from the vantage-point of empty space, is also part of your substance. In that case, I’d be you. I have become you. Is that possible?”

In that case, when your eyes perceive something: Your eyes perceive that the Buddha saw you, your body would remain unaware of it. Is that the way it is? If you press the point and say that the body and eyes each have an awareness, then you should have two perceptions. If you insist on this line of reasoning, then it follows that there are two kinds of awareness, that of the body and that of the mind. Each would have its own separate perception. And your one body should eventually become two Buddhas. Why? It is a single perception which realizes Buddhahood. Now that you have dual perception, you should become two Buddhas. Can you become two Buddhas?

Therefore, you should know that you state the impossible when you say that to see darkness is to see within.

Therefore, you should know: because of the various doctrines just discussed, you should know that you state the impossible when you say that to see darkness is to see within. Once again, your argument is incorrect.

Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from the ‘Driving Force of Subjective Wisdom’ seminar on September 8, 1988

The Tathagata who now sees your face should be part of your body as well: Who’s seeing whose face? You’ve all made a mistake! Let me explain it to you. This is said according to the previous passage of the sutra. The previous text said ‘be in empty space’. Didn’t you translated it as ‘hang in empty space?’ I also asked you where do you ‘hang’ in empty space? This is the continuation of that text.

If they are in empty space: If your body, mind and your seeing are in empty space, then they are not part of your body. Since they are in empty space, what connection does it have with you? This is pretty obvious! If you must say it is not so, then the Tathagata: the Buddha, who now sees your face should be part of your body as well: Now that the Buddha can see your face, is the Buddha your body? This is when the Buddha saw Ananda’s face, not when Ananda saw his own face.

In that case, when your eyes perceive something, your body would remain unaware of it: Your eyes perceive that the Buddha saw you. You knew it in your mind, did your body feel anything? There was no perception!

If you press the point: If you insist and attach to your strong opinion that disputes the principle, if you must use an ill-fitting reason as principle, if you must say that the body and eyes each have an awareness, then you should have two perceptions: then your body should have two perceptions even though your body have only one perception. If you must say there are two perceptions, then your one body should eventually become two Buddhas. When you realize Buddhahood in the future, you should become two Buddhas and not one Buddha. It’s because you have two perceptions – two kinds of wisdom! Hence you would become two Buddhas. This is all empty talk, worthless talk. It’s truly not this way! All of you shouldn’t make it so hard to fail even if you want to put a head on top of a head!

Therefore, you should know: Because of this, you should know – noted that this is a decisive sentence. that you state the impossible when you say that to see darkness is to see within: This is incorrect!

It’s very simple! It is all gibberish and yet you said it’s pretty good! In fact, not only is the speaker confused, the one who commented on it is also confused! Those speaking on ‘the mind and things are all in space?’ What’s going on? What is in space? Here, we are not talking about science or chemistry, or the four great elements. This is about a theory that is obvious and clearly expounded. Nothing else is more well-defined than this. You should not drill holes that bore into the tip of a bull’s horn! As to this talk, no one should need to speak nine times. Just address the text and that’s enough! If you can address it smoothly, then you would have passed. However, if you talk more, then you will never finish it.

End of the ‘Driving Force of Subjective Wisdom’ seminar