The Esoteric Significance of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

Section 3  The Third Location in the Interrogation of the Mind — The Conscious Mind Lies Hidden Within the Faculties

Original text: 阿难白佛言。世尊。如佛所言。不见内故。不居身内。身心相知。不相离故。不在身外。我今思惟。知在一处。

Explanation: Ānanda said to the Buddha: World-Honored One, just as the Buddha has said, because the conscious mind cannot see inside, it does not dwell within the body; because the body and the conscious mind can still know each other and are not separate from each other, the conscious mind is not outside the body. Having now deliberated, I realize that the conscious mind is in one place.

Ānanda said that the conscious mind does not see within—it does not see the five internal organs and six viscera—so it cannot dwell inside the body. If the eye consciousness cannot see the five internal organs and six viscera, it is certainly not within the body; "within" refers to the five internal organs and six viscera, the sinews, bones, and muscles, the blood, and so forth. When the Buddha taught the Dharma to refute the [claim that the] conscious mind was in the seven locations, he mainly took the eye consciousness as an example to show that if the six consciousnesses cannot see within, they are not inside the body. Having proven that the eye consciousness is not inside, outside, or in between, and not in any of the seven locations, then by the same reasoning it can be proven that the other consciousnesses—such as the ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and mind consciousness—are none of them inside, outside, or in between the body, and none of them in the seven locations.

Ānanda said that the body and the conscious mind also have an interdependent relationship with each other, and that because of this interdependent relationship they can operate together in harmony and know external objects; therefore the body and the conscious mind cannot be separated from each other. Since the body and the conscious mind cannot be separated, the conscious mind is not outside the body; if it were outside the body, it would be separated from the body and become two individual entities, and two individual entities cannot operate together in harmony and function at the same time, and cannot know external objects. Now that Ānanda understood these two points, he put forward another thesis. Of course, his deliberation was the conscious mind's emotional thinking and mental interpretation; he had not gone through deep and detailed argumentation and contemplation, his views were still rather superficial, his thesis was incorrect, and the arguments he proposed were also incorrect.

Original text: 佛言。处今何在。阿难言。此了知心。既不知内。而能见外。如我思忖。潜伏根里。犹如有人。取琉璃碗。合其两眼。

Explanation: The Buddha said: Where is the conscious mind located? Ānanda said: Since this knowing mind is not inside the body, yet can see outside the body, it should be hidden within the faculties, just as I have considered and pondered. It is like a person taking a crystal bowl and placing it over the eye faculty.

Taking the eye faculty as an example, if the eye consciousness lies hidden within the eye faculty, then by the same reasoning the ear consciousness would certainly lie hidden within the ear faculty, the nose consciousness within the nose faculty, the tongue consciousness within the tongue faculty, and the body consciousness within the body faculty. The faculty of the mind consciousness is called the manas, the seventh consciousness, the manas-consciousness (manas-vijñāna); the mind consciousness would then lie hidden within the manas. At a glance we can see that this is wrong: the mind consciousness cannot lie hidden within the manas. Why? Because the manas is without form and without appearance, having no inside and no outside; how then could the mind consciousness lie hidden within the manas? This point will be discussed later.

After Ānanda put forward the thesis that the conscious mind lies hidden within the faculties, he then presented his arguments, wanting to prove the correctness of his thesis. Ānanda said: It is like a person taking two crystal bowls and placing them over his own eye faculties—"joining" means joining together, that is, joining the crystal bowls and the eye faculties together, one on the left and one on the right. A crystal bowl is a transparent object; its shape is like the small bowls we use for eating or holding things, with a rounded rim and a concave-convex middle. The rim of the crystal bowl would certainly be joined with the eyes, placed around the eye faculty. It could not possibly be joined onto the eyeball or onto the vitreous body of the eye—it cannot attach there, and even if it could, the eyeball could not bear it—so it must be joined onto the eye socket. Because the crystal bowl is both rounded and concave-convex, with a gap in the middle, the bottom of the crystal bowl lies outside the eye faculty; it is also transparent, facing the eye faculty, with a distance between them called space.

Because there is a certain space between the bottom of the crystal bowl and the eye faculty, the bottom of the crystal can form an image on the eye faculty. The image initially formed on the vitreous body of the eye faculty is inverted; when this inverted image is transmitted from the retina and vitreous body of the eye through the visual neurons to the back of the brain, it becomes an upright image, having been inverted once again. Then, when the image in the supreme faculty (indriya) at the back of the brain contacts the supreme faculty, the tathāgatagarbha gives rise to the eye consciousness, and the eye consciousness can then discern the image of the bottom of the crystal, seeing an upright image exactly identical to the bottom of the glass bowl outside. The image initially formed is inverted, and then the second image formed is turned upright again; what we see is an image formed through this twofold transformation, very similar to the external object.

The image formed the second time at the back of the brain is called a shadow. What we see and discern are all shadows; we feel that this shadow is the actual object outside, because it is exactly identical to the external object and we cannot tell that it is illusorily produced. Thus all of us take the shadow to be real, believing that what we see are real things, and we never doubt whether what we see is real; because of this we give rise to greed and attachment, and we are bound within the transmigration of the six paths, undergoing immeasurable suffering. In fact, what every sentient being sees is only the shadow of the real object, formed through the twofold imaging of the eye faculty; all of this is taught in junior high school physics.

When a crystal bowl is placed over the eye faculty, the eye faculty can see this crystal bowl. If we do not use a crystal bowl, what are the modern tools that assist the vision of the eyes? They are visible glasses and invisible glasses. There are glasses with frames, worn outside the eyes; there are also contact lenses. A contact lens is a membrane, very soft and gentle, which can adhere to the vitreous body and the eyeball without harming the eyeball. Once they adhere together, there is no space and no distance between the eye and the contact lens, so the arising of the eye consciousness lacks one condition; thus the invisible lens cannot form an image on the vitreous body of the eye. Since it cannot form an image on the eye faculty, it also cannot form an image again at the back of the brain.

If not even one of the twofold images is formed, then the eye consciousness cannot discern the contact lens, because the eye consciousness cannot arise. But framed glasses worn outside, because there is a certain distance between them and the eye faculty and the vitreous body, when the conditions for the arising of the eye consciousness are complete, the eye consciousness can discern the framed glasses, but cannot discern the contact lens hidden on the eyeball—precisely because there is no distance in between. For the eye consciousness to see forms, nine conditions (pratyayas) are required—that is, nine conditions—and one of these conditions is that there must be spatial distance; spatial distance exists for the purpose of forming images, and only when there is spatial distance between the object and the eye can an image be formed. The image formed is at first an inverted image; the inverted image is then transmitted further back to the supreme faculty at the back of the brain, and when inverted again it becomes an upright image. So what the eye consciousness finally discerns is the upright image; in fact, the eye consciousness is not at the eye faculty.

Original text: 虽有物合。而不留碍。彼根随见。随即分别。

Explanation: Ānanda said that when the two eyes are covered with the crystal bowl, although the eye faculty and the object are joined together, the object does not obstruct the eye faculty's function of seeing forms; the eye faculty can see through the crystal bowl object and see the material form objects outside the crystal bowl. Then, following the external objects it contacts, the eye faculty can immediately discern the objects.

"Following" means at any time and in any place: whatever one encounters, one can see; whatever one discerns, one knows what it is. "Immediately" means right away, almost at the same time. In fact, there is still a very brief time lag in between; it is not that when an object arrives one truly sees it simultaneously—there is still a momentary process of transmission in between. This transmission process is too fast for our eye consciousness to detect at all, so we feel that we see the object simultaneously as it arrives. In fact, the object has already arrived for a moment—one or two kṣaṇas later—before we see it; it is not seen simultaneously. In fact, what discerns is still the conscious mind: it is the discerning nature of the eye consciousness, which is also the seeing nature of the eye; after discerning, the form object is cognized.

Original text: 然我觉了。能知之心。不见内者。为在根故。分明瞩外。无障碍者。潜根内故。

Explanation: However, the mind by which I am aware of and know all things—the conscious mind that can know all things—does not see the material things inside the body because the conscious mind lies hidden within the faculty. The conscious mind cannot see the five internal organs and six viscera inside the body, but can see, through the eye faculty and without any obstruction, the material forms (rūpa-dharmas) outside the eye faculty, because the conscious mind is hidden within the faculty.

Since the conscious mind is within the faculty, then while cognizing what is outside the body it should also be able to cognize the faculty-body. For example, if the eye consciousness is within the eye faculty, then while seeing the external world outside the body, it should be able to see the eyelids, should be able to see the eyeball, the vitreous body, and the retina. But now, if we open our eyes and look, we cannot see our own eyes, which shows that the eye consciousness being within the eye faculty is fundamentally wrong.

Ānanda put forward a third thesis, saying: The conscious mind lies hidden within the faculties. To prove that his thesis was correct, Ānanda gave the analogy of the crystal bowl: For example, a person takes a transparent crystal bowl and places it over the eye faculty (here mainly referring to the eye's gross faculty, that is, the physical eye faculty); although a transparent crystal bowl is placed over the eye faculty, the eyes can still see, without any obstruction, the form objects outside the crystal bowl.

Here the eye consciousness is analogized to the eyes, and the eye faculty is analogized to the crystal bowl: the eye consciousness is hidden within the eye faculty, neither separated from the eye faculty nor needing to see inside the body, and it can still operate in harmony with the eye faculty; at the same moment the eye faculty contacts the form objects, the eye consciousness discerns the form objects. Ānanda believed that the thesis he proposed this time seemingly resolved the points of contradiction that the Buddha had refuted in his earlier proposals—the problem that the conscious mind is neither inside the body nor outside the body—and he thought that this time it should be correct. But this time it was also wrong. After Ānanda finished this analogy, the Buddha refuted Ānanda's thesis from both the positive and negative sides, making the thesis untenable; in the end Ānanda had nothing more to say and admitted that his thesis was wrong.

Original text: 佛告阿难。如汝所言。潜根内者。犹如琉璃。彼人当以。琉璃笼眼。当见山河。见琉璃否。

Explanation: The Buddha asked Ānanda: Just as you have just said, the eye consciousness lies hidden within the eye faculty, and all the conscious minds lie hidden within the faculties, like the crystal bowl—if a person places a crystal bowl over the eye faculty and can see the mountains and rivers, can he also see the crystal bowl? You see the mountains, rivers, and the great earth outside the crystal bowl, but can you see this crystal bowl itself?

The crystal bowl is now used as a metaphor for the eye faculty: the eye faculty corresponds to the crystal bowl, and the conscious mind corresponds to the eye faculty over which the crystal bowl is placed. You say that with a crystal bowl placed outside the eye faculty, the eye faculty can see the material objects outside the crystal bowl; if this conclusion of yours holds—the eye consciousness is within the eye faculty, and the eye faculty is outside the eye consciousness—then can your eye consciousness, through the eye faculty, see external objects?

Original text: 如是世尊。是人当以。琉璃笼眼。实见琉璃。佛告阿难。汝心若同。琉璃合者。当见山河。何不见眼。

Explanation: Without hesitation, Ānanda replied: Yes, World-Honored One; if a person places a crystal bowl over the eye faculty, this person can of course see the crystal bowl. The Buddha said to Ānanda: If your eye consciousness is joined together with the crystal, and can still see both the crystal and the mountains, rivers, and great earth beyond the crystal, why can it not see the eye faculty? If the eye consciousness is within the eye faculty, joined together with the eye faculty, and can see the mountains, rivers, and great earth, it should also be able to see the eye faculty—why can it not see its own eye faculty?

If the conscious mind were within the eye faculty, it should be able to see the eye faculty. No one can see their own eye faculty—they cannot see the retina, cannot see the vitreous body, nor can they see the transmitting nerves—which shows that the eye consciousness is not joined with the eye faculty and is not within the eye faculty. Without needing Ānanda's reply, the Buddha refuted Ānanda's thesis.

Original text: 若见眼者。眼即同境。不得成随。若不能见。云何说言。此了知心。潜在根内。如琉璃合。是故应知。汝言觉了。能知之心。潜伏根里。如琉璃合。无有是处。

Explanation: The Buddha continued: If your eye consciousness could see the eye faculty, then your eye faculty would be the same as the mountains, rivers, and great earth outside—both would be marks of the realm of the six sense objects; it would not be an eye faculty and could not perform the function of an eye faculty. If the conscious mind cannot see the eye faculty, how can you say that the conscious mind that knows and cognizes lies hidden within the eye faculty, like the eye faculty joined together with the crystal bowl? Therefore you should know that what you say—the aware and knowing mind lying hidden within the faculty, like being joined with the crystal bowl—is utterly without merit and unreasonable.

If the eye consciousness could see the eye faculty, the eye faculty would be the same in nature as the mountains, rivers, and great earth outside—the same kind of thing, not a faculty. If your eye consciousness cannot see the eye faculty, then your analogy of being joined with the crystal bowl is wrong; saying that the eye consciousness can see the eye faculty is wrong, and saying that it cannot see is also wrong. The argument that "the eye faculty can see external objects through the crystal bowl, therefore the eye consciousness is within the eye faculty" is incorrect; with the argument erroneous, the thesis is also erroneous. The Buddha refuted Ānanda's argument from both the positive and the negative sides, and thus the thesis does not stand.

This part is a little more complicated, but with careful contemplation one can understand it. Ānanda compared the eye faculty to the crystal bowl, and further compared the eye consciousness to the eye faculty. Once we make this comparison, we know that the crystal bowl analogy is wrong, and accordingly the analogy that the eye consciousness is within the eye faculty is also wrong.

Using this single example of the eye faculty and the eye consciousness, the Buddha showed that the conscious mind is not within the faculties; by the same reasoning it can be proven that the ear consciousness is not within the ear faculty, the nose consciousness is not within the nose faculty, the tongue consciousness is not within the tongue faculty, the body consciousness is not within the body faculty, and the mind consciousness is not within the manas. How are these consciousnesses refuted? Let us use a counterproof: if the ear consciousness were within the ear faculty, it would certainly be able to hear the sounds within the ear faculty. What sounds are there within the ear faculty? When the ear faculty hears sounds, the eardrum must vibrate for there to be sound. If the ear consciousness lay hidden within the ear faculty, then at the same time we hear sounds we should also be able to hear the sound of the eardrum vibrating; but we cannot hear the vibration of the eardrum within the ear faculty and can only hear sounds from the external world. This shows that the ear consciousness is not within the ear faculty.

Next, refuting [the claim that] the nose consciousness is within the nose faculty: if the nose consciousness were within the nose faculty, it should be able to smell the odors within the nose faculty. What odors are there within the nose faculty? The odors within the nose faculty include the smell of raw flesh and the smell of blood and flesh; yet the nose consciousness cannot smell the blood-and-flesh odor of its own nose faculty, which shows that the nose consciousness is not within the nose faculty.

Next, the tongue consciousness: the tongue faculty is part of the body and has the two functions of the body faculty and the tongue faculty. If the tongue consciousness were within the tongue faculty, then the bloody taste of the tongue faculty, the taste of flesh, should be tasted by the tongue consciousness; yet the tongue consciousness cannot taste the blood-and-flesh flavor within the tongue faculty, which shows that the tongue consciousness is not within the tongue faculty.

The body consciousness is what senses the contact objects. If the body consciousness were within the body, then the contact objects within the body—contacts such as cold and heat, soft and hard—would all be contact objects. When you are bumped, the cells compress the tactile nerves and a tactile sensation is formed; why can you not feel the sensation of the electric current of the discharge itself? For another example, the bones within the body are hard; the body consciousness should know this, yet the body consciousness cannot feel that the bones are hard and cannot touch the bones. The blood in the body is warm and hot, yet the body consciousness cannot feel the temperature of the blood. Furthermore, the blood is flowing; its flowing nature contacts the body faculty, and there is a contact object, yet the body consciousness cannot feel the flow of the blood. Therefore, from all these aspects it can only be shown that the body consciousness is not within the body faculty. This refutes the erroneous thesis that the first five consciousnesses are within the first five faculties.

There is also the mind consciousness, which is easy to refute. If the mind consciousness were within the manas, let us consider: the manas is the seventh consciousness; the seventh consciousness does not belong to material form but belongs to the conscious mind; the conscious mind has no form and no appearance and is without obstruction. Since the manas has no form and no appearance and is without obstruction, the manas has neither inside nor outside—how then could the mind consciousness be within the manas? If the mind consciousness were within the manas, then the dharmas that the manas cognizes, the mind consciousness should also be able to cognize; yet although the manas cognizes so many dharmas, the mind consciousness does not know any of them—if it knew them, that would be called supernatural powers. The karmic seeds that the manas cognizes, the mind consciousness does not know; the manas's plans, the mind consciousness does not know; the manas can cognize those dharmas of other worlds and can cognize past lives, but the mind consciousness cannot cognize any of these, which shows that the mind consciousness is not within the manas. In this way the thesis that the six consciousnesses are within the six faculties is entirely refuted, finally showing that the conscious mind is not within the six faculties—the conscious mind is not within the faculties. This is the third location in the interrogation of the mind.