Reflections on the Question of Neither One nor Many

Ru Chun: Over the past two days, while studying the teaching that "the aggregate of form and the tathāgatagarbha are neither identical nor different," a question flashed through my mind: The five aggregates are not self, not different from self, and not located within each other — is this the same meaning as "neither identical nor different"? If so, why use such different expressions? I thought about it, but couldn't figure it out, so I had to set it aside and stop deliberately pondering it. Yet it still lingered in my mind, and from time to time, whether busy or idle, I would recall it again.

Last night while sitting in meditation, this question surfaced in my mind. First, the mind consciousness analyzed and reflected with examples. For instance: rice grains and cooked rice — cooked rice is not rice grains, yet it comes from rice grains being cooked, so it is not different from rice grains. Cooked rice is not inside the rice grains, and the rice grains are not inside the cooked rice; rice grains and cooked rice cannot exist simultaneously. Rice grains and cooked rice are different forms manifested by the same substance; cooked rice and rice grains are neither identical nor different. Rice grains can also be turned into popcorn, or ground into flour to make rice cakes, New Year cakes, osmanthus cakes, and various other foods, but their essence is still rice. This is the same principle as the tathāgatagarbha manifesting the various five aggregates — their essence is all the tathāgatagarbha. The answer can be understood as one meaning expressed in two ways.

The mind consciousness continued to deliberate on whether this answer was reasonable, seeking reasons for objection from different angles. After checking, it seemed basically sound. Before long, two images appeared in my mind one after another: a lit cigarette with smoke drifting from it, and the image of a character on a movie screen. The mind consciousness instantly grasped their meaning: the smoke is not the cigarette, yet it comes from the cigarette, so it is not different from the cigarette. The smoke is not in the cigarette, and the cigarette is not in the smoke — they are not located within each other. That is, the smoke is not the cigarette, yet not different from the cigarette, and they are not located within each other. A lit cigarette can emit many forms of smoke of different shapes, 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 himself, yet it comes from the person's performance, so it is not different from the person. The image is not in the person, and the person is not in the image — they are not located within each other. That is, the image is not the person, yet not different from the person, and they are not located within each other. One actor can portray many different roles; we can simultaneously see on different screens the various role-images he portrays — from modern to ancient times, from young to old, from male to female — but we cannot see the person himself on the screen, and the person and the role-images may differ greatly. The image and the person are neither identical nor different. It is just like how we can only see the images manifested by the tathāgatagarbha, but cannot see the tathāgatagarbha itself.

May I ask: Is the content of these reflections correct? Were the two images that appeared later the answer given by the manas, since the mind consciousness had previously engaged in such thinking and thus perfumed the manas?

Commentary: The direction and method of the above reflection are both correct, and the analogies used are very apt. According to the principle of proof by analogy, one can demonstrate that the tathāgatagarbha and the five aggregates it gives rise to are in a relationship of neither identical nor different. Whenever one dharma directly gives rise to another dharma, they are in a relationship of neither identical nor different. The five aggregates are brought forth and evolved from the tathāgatagarbha, so the two are in a relationship of neither identical nor different.

As for the images that appeared when checking the reasonableness after the reflection — are they a subjectively imagined realm generated by the mind consciousness, or the form produced by meditative concentration manifested by the manas? This depends on whether one was in meditative concentration (samādhi) at the time. When the mind consciousness introspected on the correctness of the process and result of the thinking, was it in relatively deep concentration, causing the mind consciousness's thinking to gradually weaken and fade away? If it was the manas introspecting while in concentration, then the images are the form produced by meditative concentration automatically manifested by the manas, and this is a reliable realm of direct perception. If it was the mind consciousness thinking without meditative concentration or in shallow concentration, then the images are a subjectively imagined realm generated by the mind consciousness — a realm of non-valid cognition, not to be relied upon. Judging the reliability of the images in one's mind depends on the depth of meditative concentration, on whether the mind is extremely single-pointed, and on whether they were generated by the thinking of the mind consciousness or by the thinking of the manas.