Reflections on the Problem of Neither One nor Different

Ruchun: In the past couple of days, while contemplating the Dharma teaching “The aggregate of form is neither identical to nor different from the Tathāgatagarbha,” a question flashed through my mind: Are “the five aggregates are not self, are not different from self, and do not exist within self” and “neither identical nor different” the same meaning? If so, why use such different expressions? I thought about it but couldn’t figure it out, so I set it aside without forcing it, yet it still lingered in my mind, and I would occasionally recall it from time to time.

Last night while sitting in meditation, this question surfaced in my mind. First, my consciousness analyzed and gave examples. For instance: rice and cooked rice. Cooked rice is not rice, yet it comes from rice being cooked, so it is not different from rice. Cooked rice is not within rice, and rice is not within cooked rice; they do not coexist within each other. Rice and cooked rice cannot exist simultaneously. Rice and cooked rice are different forms of the same substance; they are neither identical nor different. Rice can also become popcorn, or be ground into flour to make rice cakes, New Year cakes, osmanthus cakes, and various other foods, yet their essence remains rice. This is the same principle as the Tathāgatagarbha manifesting various five aggregates, whose essence is all the Tathāgatagarbha. The answer can be understood as one meaning expressed in two ways.

Consciousness continued to ponder whether this answer was reasonable, finding objections from different angles. After verification, it seemed largely plausible. Soon, two images appeared sequentially in my mind: a lit cigarette emitting smoke, and a character’s image on a movie screen. My consciousness intuitively grasped their meaning: Smoke is not the cigarette, yet it comes from the cigarette, so it is not different from the cigarette. The smoke is not within the cigarette, and the cigarette is not within the smoke; they do not coexist within each other. That is, smoke is not the cigarette, is not different from the cigarette, and does not coexist within the cigarette. A lit cigarette can emit smoke of various forms, but the smoke and the cigarette are not the same substance. They are neither identical nor different.

The image on the screen is not the person themselves, yet it is performed by the person, so it is not different from the person. The image is not within the person, and the person is not within the image; they do not coexist within each other. That is, the image is not the person, is not different from the person, and does not coexist within the person. An actor can portray many different roles, and we can see various role images performed by them simultaneously on different screens, from modern to ancient, from young to old, from male to female, yet we cannot see the person themselves on the screen. The person and the role images may differ greatly. The image and the person are neither identical nor different. This is like how we can only see the images manifested by the Tathāgatagarbha, but cannot see the Tathāgatagarbha itself.

May I ask: Are these contemplations correct? Are the two images that appeared later the answer from the mind-organ, given that consciousness had previously engaged in such contemplation, thereby perfuming the mind-organ?

Comment: The direction and method of the above contemplations are both correct, and the metaphors used are very apt. Following the principle of analogous reasoning, it can be proven that the Tathāgatagarbha and the five aggregates it generates are in a relationship of neither identical nor different. Anything directly derived from one dharma into another is a relationship of neither identical nor different. The five aggregates are derived and evolved from the Tathāgatagarbha, and thus the two are in a relationship of neither identical nor different.

When the images appeared during the examination of the reasonableness of the contemplation afterward, were they a solitary image realm generated by consciousness, or a meditative form-color manifested by the mind-organ? This depends on whether one was in a state of meditative absorption at the time. When consciousness reflects on the correctness of the contemplation process and result, if it is in a relatively deep meditative absorption, causing the activity of consciousness to gradually weaken and disappear, then if the mind-organ is in a state of meditative reflection, the images are the meditative form-color automatically manifested by the mind-organ, which is a reliable state of direct perception. If consciousness is contemplating without meditative absorption or in a shallow meditative state, the images are a solitary image realm generated by consciousness, a state of non-valid cognition that cannot be relied upon. Judging the reliability of images in the mind depends on the depth of meditative absorption, on whether the mind is highly focused, and on whether they are generated by the contemplation of consciousness or the reflection of the mind-organ.