Issue 280

“If it were in the body, it could not be on the surface of the body since that is not the middle. But to be in the middle is no different than being inside. If it were in an external place, would there be some evidence of it, or not? If there were no evidence of it, that would be the same as if it did not exist. If there were evidence of it, then it would have no fixed location. Why? Suppose that someone were to indicate the middle by a marker. When regarded from the east, it would be to the west, and when regarded from the south, it would be to the north. The marker is unclear, and the mind would be equally chaotic.”

If it were in the body, it could not be on the surface of the body since that is not the middle. But to be in the middle is no different than being inside. Supposing this middle you say is the mind located in the body: is it on the surface of the body? But then it isn’t in the middle. You say that it’s on your body, but where is it? If you say that it’s in the middle of the body, then that’s the same as what you said before as ‘being inside’, and we’ve already rejected that as impossible.

If it were in an external place, would there be some evidence of it, or not? If you say that the middle is somewhere else, can you point out where it is? Is there something about it that allows us to detect it? If there were no evidence of it, that would be the same as if it did not exist. You still haven’t shown me a middle. If there is nothing to indicate its presence, if you can’t point to it as being in a certain place, then it does not exist. If there were evidence of it, then this ‘middle’ would have no fixed location.

Why? Why do we say that there is no fixed location? Suppose that someone were to indicate the middle by a marker. Someone pounds a sign in the ground reading: “This place is the middle.” When regarded from the east, it would be to the west, and when regarded from the south, it would be to the north. Your sign may say “middle” but if you stand to the east of it, the sign is west of you: how is this the middle? Then you might stand to the south of it: now it is to the north of you. This is also not the middle.

Basically, as I said earlier, the ten directions do not exist. You might say that something is south of you, but if you go south of it, it becomes north. You could then say it is north, but if you go north of that north, it becomes south again. So which is it? There is nothing fixed about it. The principle is the same here.

The marker is unclear, and the mind would be equally chaotic. The marker doesn’t indicate anything at all; it cannot fix a middle. If the mind were in the middle, it would be as unfixed as your marker; it would be chaotic. Ultimately, which place is the middle? There isn’t any place that is the middle. So the middle you speak of is probably also a mistake.

Ananda said, “The middle I speak of is neither of those. As the World Honored One has said, the eyes and forms are the conditions which create the eye-consciousness. The eyes make discriminations; forms have no perception, but a consciousness is created between them. That is where my mind is.”

In the above text, Ananda declared a ‘middle’ which was shattered by the Buddha who asked him ultimately where this ‘middle’ was located. This ‘middle’ must not be confused, it must be definite in order to count as a ‘middle’. Now the Buddha cited various principles to ask him where this ‘middle’ was.

Ananda said: Having heard the World Honor One’s inquiry, Ananda replied, “The middle I speak of is neither of those. The mind isn’t located inside or outside; this isn’t what I meant, World Honored One. As the World Honored One has said, the eyes and forms are the conditions which create the eye-consciousness. It’s just as you explained before, World Honored One.”Ananda is still using statements the Buddha made in the past as evidence for his points of view. “World Honored One, you said that when the eye encounters forms, the eye-consciousness is created between them. The eyes make discriminations. Why are the conditions for eye-consciousness, of seeing, created when the eyes encounter form? Because the eyes make discriminations. Forms have no perception, but a consciousness is created between them. That is where my mind is. The defiling object of form has no awareness of its own, but when the eyes encounter it, a kind of discriminating mind arises in their midst, and this is where my mind is. The middle I’m talking about is the place where the eyes and forms meet to create the eye-consciousness. That is the mind!”

The Buddha said, “If your mind were between the eye and an object, does the mind’s substance combine with the two or does it not?”

The Buddha listened to Ananda dispute his explanation and replied, “If your mind were between the eye and an object, does the mind’s substance combine with the two or does it not?” Suppose it is as you say, and the mind is in the middle between the eye and the defiling object of form. Do they combine? Are they one or are they two?

“If it did combine with the two, then objects and the mind substance would form a chaotic mixture. Since objects have no perception, while the substance has perception, the two would stand in opposition. Which is the middle? If it did not combine with the two, it would then be neither perceiver nor perceived and would have no substance or nature. Where would the characteristic of ‘middle’ be?”

If it did combine with the two – if your mind, the mind you say is in the middle, includes the sensory organs and their objects – then objects and the mind-substance would form a chaotic mixture. Which, then, is the substance of your mind, and which are the objects? Can you make a distinction? If you cannot, they are mixed chaotically together in confusing disorder.

Since objects have no perception, while the substance has perception, the two would stand in opposition. Things don’t know anything, while your eye organ has a mind-substance. They are opposites. Which is the middle? Where is the middle you speak of? Is your mind in the middle of your eye, or is it in the middle of the objects the eye sees?

If it did not combine with the two, it would then be neither perceiver nor perceived and would have no substance or nature. If your mind does not combine with the eye and the object the eye sees, it will not be perceiving anything; it will have no nature to be aware. Where would the characteristic of ‘middle’ be? In the final analysis, where is your mind?

Therefore you should know that for the mind to be in the middle is impossible.

Therefore you should know that for the mind to be in the middle is impossible: For these reasons, Ananda, you should understand that your argument that the mind is in the middle won’t stand. There is no such principle.

Ananda said to the Buddha, “World Honored One, when I have seen the Buddha turn the Dharma wheel in the past with great Maudgalyayana, Subhuti, Purna, and Shariputra, four of the great disciples, he often said that the nature of the mind which perceives, makes discriminations, and is aware, is located neither within nor outside nor in the middle; it is not located anywhere at all. That very non-attachment to anything is what is called the mind. Therefore, is my non-attachment my mind?”

One suspects that Ananda began to get nervous after hearing the Buddha refute yet another of his arguments. He had exhausted his knowledge and reached the end of his wits. By this time, there was no way out for him; there was no escape. So once again he transferred some of the principles the Buddha had spoken previously to the present situation in an attempt to save himself from defeat.

Ananda said to the Buddha, “World Honored One, when I have seen the Buddha turn the Dharma wheel in the past with great Maudgalyayana, whose name means “descendent of a family of bean-gatherers”; Subhuti, whose name means “born into emptiness”; Purna, whose name means “son of completion and compassion”; and Shariputra, whose name means “son of an egret”, four of the great disciples. They turn the Dharma wheel together.

What does it mean to “turn the Dharma wheel”? It means to use the words spoken by the Buddha to teach and transform living beings. They are spoken this way and that way and all around, just as the principles of the Shurangama Sutra are now being explained over and over. That’s why it is called a “wheel.” Turning the Dharma wheel reveals the principles and it crushes the heavenly demons and followers of heretic religions. When those heretic religions encounter this wheel they are smashed by it. Obliterated.

He often said, he repeated many times in the Agama Sutras and the Vaipulya Sutras, that the nature of the mind which perceives, makes discriminations, and is aware, is located neither within nor outside nor in the middle; it is not located anywhere at all. If the nature of the mind which calculates, knows, and makes distinctions is located neither inside nor outside, it should be located between them, in the middle; but it isn’t there either. It isn’t anywhere. That very non-attachment to anything is what is called the mind. The aware, perceptive mind is not attached anywhere at all, and since it has no place of attachment, it is called the mind.

Therefore, is my non-attachment my mind? “Now, I’m not attached. The mind I speak of is also not attached. But I don’t know whether one can call it ‘mind.'” Ananda thought that if he asked it this way, the Buddha would certainly agree that what he referred to was the mind. After all, the Buddha himself had said so before! But what the Buddha had said previously was said in accordance with worldly dharmas. His explanation then was geared to the understanding of the people he was speaking to then. People of the Small Vehicle do not understand Great Vehicle Dharma, and if one were to explain the true mind to them without any introduction, they would not believe it; so the Buddha spoke to them about the conscious mind. He was complying with worldly dharmas. Now Ananda wishes to take the conscious mind of ordinary people as his mind. Is he right? Basically, Ananda’s view would be acceptable from the point of view of ordinary people. But the mind the Buddha is speaking of is not the conscious mind. It is the ‘permanently dwelling true mind’, not the mind which has false thinking. Yet Ananda still thinks his false-thinking mind is his true mind; he continues to mistake a thief for his son.