Issue 279

“Furthermore, Ananda, if your mind which is aware, understands, and knows in fact has substance, then is it a single substance or many substances? Does its substance perceive the body as it now resides in it or does it not perceive it?”

The Buddha continues to address his disciple. Furthermore, Ananda, if your mind which is aware, understands, and knows in fact has substance: if you are determined by saying that your mind which calculates and discerns all things has a substance, then is it a single substance or many substances? Does your mind have one substance or many? Does its substance perceive the body as it now resides in it or does it not perceive it? Where is this substance in your body? Does it spread throughout the body or not?

“Supposing that it were a single substance, then when you pinched one limb with your fingers, the four limbs would be aware of it. If they all were aware of it, the pinch could not be at any one place. If the pinch were confined to one place, then the single substance you propose would not be possible. Supposing that it were many substances: then you would be many people. Which substance would be you? Supposing it were a pervasive substance: the case would be the same as before in the instance of pinching. But supposing it were not pervasive; then when you touched your head and touched your foot simultaneously, the foot would not perceive it if the head does. But that is not how you are.”

Supposing that it were a single substance, then when you pinched one limb with your fingers, the four limbs would be aware of it. Let us suppose the mind is composed of a single substance which resides within the body. Then if you pinch one of your legs or arms, both legs and both arms should all have an awareness of it. Why? Because you said the mind is of a single substance. But in fact, if you pinch one limb, only that one limb feels pain. The other three limbs are unaware of the pinch. If they all were aware of it, the pinch could not be at any one place. If you say that when you pinch one leg, the other leg and both arms feel it, then how could you locate the pinch on your body? It would feel the same as if you had pinched all four limbs. If the pinch were confined to one place, then the single substance you propose would not be possible. If you can feel the pinch in a certain single place, then you can’t contend the mind is a single substance which pervades the body.

Supposing that it were many substances. This would explain why the three limbs don’t feel a pinch on the fourth limb. But then you would be many people. If your mind has many mind substances, then you wouldn’t be just one person. In that case, which substance would be you? Which mind-substance is your mind-substance?

Supposing it were a pervasive substance: the case is the same as before in the instance of pinching. The Buddha patiently repeats his earlier explanation. If you say that the mind is a single substance that pervades the body, then when you pinch one spot, your whole body should hurt.

But supposing it were not pervasive; then when you touched your head and touched your foot simultaneously, the foot would not perceive it if the head does. But that is not how you are. But if you say the substance of the mind does not entirely pervade the body, then your foot would have no feeling when you bump your head. Bump your head or not, your foot still feels things. So you can’t say the mind does pervade the body, and you can’t say it doesn’t, either.

“Therefore you should know that you state the impossible when you say that wherever it comes together with things, the mind exists in response.”

Therefore you should know: Because of this, you should know that you state the impossible when you say that wherever it comes together with things, the mind exists in response: You say that wherever it comes together is where you mind exists, this too is incorrect!

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

Ananda was in defensive mode. Hence, he thought to use the Buddha’s principle to justify his opinion. The principle spoken by the Buddha was to reveal the true mind and the seeing nature. However, Ananda was using the false mind, the discriminating mind to seek the true mind and the seeing nature. Therefore, though Ananda had spoken many times in the past, he hadn’t said it right. Now he was running further and further away —to every place. This ‘every place’ means anywhere will do.

Wherever it comes with things: Ananda says that this is his mind and his seeing. Now it’s inevitable that he has ran further and further away, and the more he spoke, the more unreasonable he gets! He explained that it is not inside, outside, or in the middle. He says it is ‘wherever it comes with things’. That is to say, the location includes inside, outside, and in the middle. It includes every place. Before when he said it was inside, outside, or in the middle, the Buddha criticized that he was incorrect. Now Ananda includes all locations, and that is the same as the three locations he said before. He still had not understood his mind and see his nature. He had not completely awakened to his original face. Speaking of this ‘mind’, ‘seeing’, and ‘dharma’, it is using them as a metaphor and not pinpointing a specific entity. By using his conditioned and worrisome mind to seek for the eternal true mind that is pure in nature and clear in substance, Ananda will never find it.

End of ‘Driving Force of Subjective Wisdom’ seminar

Ananda said to the Buddha, “World Honored One, I also have heard the Buddha discuss true appearance with Manjushri and the other disciples of the Dharma king. The World Honored One also said, ‘the mind is not inside and it is not outside.'”
Ananda again uses the Buddha’s words as a basis for his argument, to prove that his own opinion is valid. This is how you explained it, Buddha; it’s not something I made up. You said it that way.” Ananda has a lot of nerve!

Ananda said to the Buddha, “World Honored One! I also have heard the Buddha discuss true appearance with Manjushri and the other disciples of the Dharma king. As soon as he opens his mouth, he tries to justify himself by turning the Buddha’s words to his own use to subjugate him! With whom did he heard the Buddha speak to? It’s Manjushri and other great bodhisattvas when the subject of the ‘true appearance’ was discussed. Manjushri is Wonderfully Auspicious Bodhisattva, also called Wonderful Virtue Bodhisattva. The other disciples of the Dharma King include Gwan Yin Bodhisattva, the Bodhisattva who regards the sounds of the world; Mahasthamaprapta Bodhisattva, the Bodhisattva of great strength, and other great Bodhisattvas. The Buddha is the Dharma King, and Bodhisattvas are his disciples.

What is meant by “true appearance”? When there is not a thing, it is ‘true appearance’. You say it has not a thing, and yet it has everything. Everything is produced from true appearance. There is nothing which does not come forth from within it. We speak of true emptiness, wonderful existence, and true suchness; these come down to ‘true appearance’. Within true emptiness is wonderful existence; within wonderful existence is true emptiness. Hence, it is said that true emptiness does not obstruct wonderful existence, and wonderful existence does not obstruct true emptiness. At the ultimate point of emptiness there is existence. At the ultimate point of existence there is nothing at all. This, is true appearance.

When the Buddha was discussing the ‘true appearance’ with the dharma prince, The World Honored One also said, ‘The mind is not inside and it is not outside.’ “Buddha, this is just what you’ve said. If I repeat it, how can you say it is wrong?” is what Ananda is implying.

“As I now consider it, if it were within, it would see things it does not see; if it were outside, there would be no common perception. Since it cannot see inside, it cannot be inside; and since the body and mind have common perception, it does not make sense to say it is outside. Therefore, since there is a common perception and since there is no seeing within, it must be in the middle.”

“As I now consider it: I am thinking it over again. If it were within, it would see things it does not see. Saying the mind is within the body would imply that we could see within the body. If it were outside, there would be no common perception. The Buddha has just demonstrated that if the mind were outside the body, the mind and body could not have the kind of common perception that they do have. Since it cannot see inside, it cannot be inside. Since the mind does not know what is inside the body, it won’t work to say that it is located inside. And since the body and mind have common perception, it does not make sense to say it is outside.” Our bodies and minds share knowledge of one another, as the Buddha just explained when he pointed out that Ananda experiences a common perception when his eyes see the Buddha’s hand and his mind distinguishes it. If the mind were outside the body, there would be no common perception. So it can’t be outside.

Therefore, since there is a common perception and since there is no seeing within – now that I understand this, I realize that it must be in the middle. Ananda now decides that the mind is in the middle. Precisely where this middle is he doesn’t say. Is it in the middle of the body, or in a middle outside the body? That is how the Buddha proceeds to question him.

The Buddha said, “You say it is in the middle. That middle must not be haphazard or without a fixed location. Where is this middle that you propose? Is it in an external place, or is it in the body?”

The Buddha said, “You say it is in the middle. That middle must not be haphazard or without a fixed location. This middle of yours has to be somewhere; that middle must not be haphazard or without a fixed location. There has to be some sense and certainty about it. Therefore, where is this middle that you propose? Consider that question. The Buddha presses the point: Is it in an external place, or is it in the body? Is your middle someplace outside, or it is in your body?