Section Three: The Third Inquiry into the Mind — The Conscious Mind Latent Within the Sense Faculties

Original Text: Ānanda said to the Buddha: “World-Honored One. As the Buddha has stated, since [the conscious mind] does not perceive the interior, it does not reside within the body. Since the body and the conscious mind are mutually aware and inseparable, it is not outside the body. I have now contemplated and realized that it is in one place.”

Explanation: Ānanda said to the Buddha: “World-Honored One, just as the Buddha stated, since the conscious mind cannot see the interior of the body, it does not dwell within the body. Yet the body and the conscious mind are mutually aware and inseparable, so the conscious mind is not outside the body. After contemplation, I have now realized that the conscious mind is in one place.”

Ānanda said that since the conscious mind does not perceive the interior, such as the internal organs, it cannot reside within the body. If the visual consciousness cannot see the internal organs, it certainly is not within the body. “Interior” refers to the internal organs, bones, tendons, muscles, blood, and so forth. The Buddha refuted the notion that the conscious mind resides in seven locations, primarily using the visual consciousness as an example to demonstrate that since the six consciousnesses do not perceive the interior, they are not within the body. Once it is proven that the visual consciousness is not inside, outside, in between, or in any of the seven locations, it follows by the same reasoning that the other consciousnesses—auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and mental—are likewise not inside, outside, in between, or in any of the seven locations.

Ānanda said that the body and the conscious mind are interconnected, and because of this connection, they function together in harmony to perceive external objects. Therefore, the body and the conscious mind cannot be separated. Since they cannot be separated, the conscious mind cannot be outside the body; if it were outside, it would be separate from the body, becoming two distinct entities. Two distinct entities cannot function together harmoniously and simultaneously to perceive external objects. Having understood these two points, Ānanda now proposed another argument. However, his contemplation was merely intellectual reasoning; he had not engaged in profound analysis or contemplation, so his viewpoint remained superficial, and his argument and evidence were incorrect.

Original Text: The Buddha said: “Where is this place now?” Ānanda said: “Since this perceiving mind does not know the interior yet can perceive the exterior, as I contemplate, it must be latent within the faculties. It is like a person who takes a crystal bowl and covers both eyes.”

Explanation: The Buddha said: “Where is the conscious mind?” Ānanda said: “Since this perceiving mind does not know the interior yet can perceive the exterior, it must be hidden within the faculties, as I have considered. It is like someone taking a crystal bowl and covering the eye faculties.”

Using the eye faculty as an example, the visual consciousness is latent within the eye faculty. Similarly, the auditory consciousness must be latent within the ear faculty, the olfactory consciousness within the nose faculty, the gustatory consciousness within the tongue faculty, and the tactile consciousness within the body faculty. The root of the mental consciousness is called the mental faculty, the seventh consciousness, or manas. The mental consciousness is latent within the mental faculty. At a glance, we know this is incorrect. Why? Because the mental faculty is formless and without characteristics; it has no inside or outside. How, then, can the mental consciousness be latent within it? This point will be addressed later.

After proposing the argument that the conscious mind is latent within the faculties, Ānanda presented evidence to support his claim. Ānanda said it is like someone taking two crystal bowls and covering their eye faculties—one on the left and one on the right. The crystal bowl is a transparent object, shaped like a small bowl used for eating or holding things, with a round rim and a concave-convex center. The rim of the crystal bowl must fit against the area around the eye, covering the eye socket. It cannot adhere to the eyeball or the vitreous humor, as it would be intolerable for the eye. Therefore, it must fit against the eye socket. Since the crystal bowl is round and concave-convex, with a hollow center, the bottom of the bowl is outside the eye faculty, transparent and facing the eye, with a space in between.

Because there is space between the bottom of the crystal bowl and the eye faculty, the bottom of the bowl can form an image on the eye faculty. Initially, the image formed on the vitreous humor of the eye is inverted. When this inverted image is transmitted from the retina and vitreous humor through the visual neurons to the back of the brain, it becomes upright again. Then, the image in the subtle faculty (the brain) contacts the subtle faculty, the Tathāgatagarbha gives rise to the visual consciousness, and the visual consciousness discerns the image of the bottom of the crystal bowl, seeing an upright image identical to the external crystal bowl’s bottom. The initial image is inverted, but the second image is upright. What we see is an image formed through this dual transformation, which closely resembles the external object.

The image formed a second time at the back of the brain is called a shadow. What we see and perceive are shadows. Because they are identical to the external objects, we mistake these shadows for reality, never doubting the authenticity of what we see. Consequently, we develop attachments and become bound to the cycle of rebirth, suffering immeasurably. In truth, every sentient being sees only the shadow of the real object, formed through the dual imaging of the eye faculty—a concept explained in basic physics.

When a crystal bowl is placed over the eye faculty, the eye faculty can see the crystal bowl. What are the modern tools that assist vision? They are eyeglasses and contact lenses. Eyeglasses with frames are worn outside the eyes. Contact lenses are thin, soft films that adhere directly to the eyeball or vitreous humor without harming the eye. Since they adhere directly, there is no space or distance between the eye and the contact lens. The arising of visual consciousness lacks one condition, so the contact lens cannot form an image on the vitreous humor. Without forming an image on the eye faculty, it cannot form a second image at the back of the brain.

If neither image is formed, the visual consciousness cannot discern the contact lens because it fails to arise. However, with framed eyeglasses, since there is distance between the lens and the eye faculty or vitreous humor, the conditions for the arising of visual consciousness are met, and it can discern the framed glasses but not the contact lens adhering to the eyeball, precisely because there is no distance. The visual consciousness requires nine conditions to perceive form, one of which is spatial distance, necessary for image formation. There must be spatial distance between the object and the eye for an image to form. The initial image is inverted; this inverted image is transmitted to the subtle faculty at the back of the brain, where it becomes upright. Thus, what the visual consciousness ultimately discerns is an upright image. In truth, the visual consciousness is not located at the eye faculty.

Original Text: “Although there is an object covering [the eyes], it does not obstruct [vision]. The faculty, upon encountering [objects], immediately discerns them.”

Explanation: Ānanda said that when the crystal bowl covers both eyes, although the object is in contact with the eye faculty, it does not hinder the eye faculty’s ability to perceive form. The eye faculty can see material objects outside the crystal bowl through it. Thus, the eye faculty, upon encountering external objects, immediately discerns them.

“Upon encountering” means whenever and wherever it contacts something, it can see and discern it. “Immediately” means almost simultaneously, though there is actually a very brief time lag. It is not that the object appears and is seen at the exact same moment; there is an instantaneous transmission process. This process is so fast that the visual consciousness cannot detect it, making it seem simultaneous. In reality, the object appears first, and after one or two moments, we see it. What discerns is actually the conscious mind—the discerning nature of the visual consciousness, which is the seeing nature of the eye. After discernment, it cognizes the form.

Original Text: “However, my conscious mind, which perceives and knows, does not see the interior because it is within the faculty. It clearly perceives the exterior without obstruction because it is latent within the faculty.”

Explanation: However, my conscious mind, which perceives and knows all things, does not see the interior of the body because it is latent within the faculty. Although it cannot see the internal organs within the body, it can see external material forms through the eye faculty without obstruction because it is hidden within the faculty.

If the conscious mind is within the faculty, it should perceive both the external world and the faculty itself. For example, if the visual consciousness is within the eye faculty, while seeing the external world, it should also see the eyelids, eyeballs, vitreous humor, and retina. Yet when we open our eyes, we cannot see our own eyes, proving that the visual consciousness is not within the eye faculty.

Ānanda proposed a third argument: the conscious mind is latent within the faculties. To support this, he used the analogy of the crystal bowl: Suppose someone places a transparent crystal bowl over the eye faculty (referring mainly to the physical eye faculty). Although the crystal bowl covers the eye faculty, the eyes can still see external forms without obstruction.

Here, the visual consciousness is likened to the eyes, and the eye faculty to the crystal bowl. The visual consciousness, latent within the eye faculty, is neither separate from it nor does it perceive the body’s interior. It functions in harmony with the eye faculty: when the eye faculty contacts a form, the visual consciousness simultaneously cognizes it. Ānanda believed this argument resolved the contradictions the Buddha pointed out—that the conscious mind is neither inside nor outside the body—and thought he was now correct. Yet he was still mistaken. After Ānanda presented this analogy, the Buddha refuted it from both positive and negative angles, rendering the argument invalid. Ultimately, Ānanda had nothing to say and admitted his argument was wrong.

Original Text: The Buddha said to Ānanda: “As you stated, if [the conscious mind] is latent within the faculty like the crystal [bowl], when a person covers his eyes with the crystal [bowl], he sees the mountains and rivers. Does he see the crystal [bowl]?”

Explanation: The Buddha asked Ānanda: “As you just said, the visual consciousness is latent within the eye faculty, and all conscious minds are latent within their respective faculties, like the crystal bowl. When someone covers his eyes with a crystal bowl and sees the mountains and rivers, can he also see the crystal bowl? You saw the mountains and rivers outside the crystal bowl, but can you see the crystal bowl itself?”

The crystal bowl now represents the eye faculty, and the eye faculty is analogous to the crystal bowl, while the conscious mind is analogous to the eyes covered by the crystal bowl. You said that when a crystal bowl covers the eye faculty, the eye faculty can see objects outside the bowl. If this conclusion holds, and the visual consciousness is within the eye faculty while the eye faculty is outside the visual consciousness, then can your visual consciousness perceive external objects through the eye faculty?

Original Text: Ānanda said: “Yes, World-Honored One. When a person covers his eyes with the crystal [bowl], he indeed sees the crystal.” The Buddha said to Ānanda: “If your mind is like [the eyes] covered by the crystal, and you can see the mountains and rivers, why do you not see your eyes?”

Explanation: Without hesitation, Ānanda replied: “Yes, World-Honored One. If someone covers his eyes with a crystal bowl, he can certainly see the crystal bowl.” The Buddha said to Ānanda: “If your visual consciousness is covered like the crystal [bowl] and can see the crystal and the mountains and rivers outside, why do you not see your eye faculty? If the visual consciousness is within the eye faculty and merged with it, and can see the mountains and rivers, it should also see the eye faculty. Why can you not see your own eye faculty?”

If the conscious mind were within the eye faculty, it should see the eye faculty. No one can see their own eye faculty—neither the retina, vitreous humor, nor optic nerves. This proves the visual consciousness is not merged with the eye faculty and is not within it. Without waiting for Ānanda’s answer, the Buddha refuted his argument.

Original Text: “If you could see your eyes, your eyes would be the same as external objects and could not function as faculties. If you cannot see [your eyes], how can you say that this perceiving mind is latent within the faculty like [the eyes] covered by the crystal? Therefore, you should know that your statement—that the perceiving and knowing mind is latent within the faculty like [the eyes] covered by the crystal—is incorrect.”

Explanation: The Buddha continued: “If your visual consciousness could see your eye faculty, then your eye faculty would be like the external mountains and rivers—merely an object of the six dusts, not a faculty, and could not function as one. If the conscious mind cannot see the eye faculty, how can you say the perceiving conscious mind is latent within the faculty, like the eyes covered by the crystal bowl? Therefore, you should know that your statement—that the perceiving and knowing mind is latent within the faculty like [the eyes] covered by the crystal—is incorrect and unreasonable.”

If the visual consciousness could see the eye faculty, the eye faculty would be the same as external objects, not a faculty. If your visual consciousness cannot see the eye faculty, then your analogy of the crystal bowl is invalid. Neither seeing nor not seeing the eye faculty supports your argument. The evidence that the eye faculty, covered by a crystal bowl, can see external objects, and thus the visual consciousness is within the eye faculty, is flawed. With flawed evidence, the argument collapses. The Buddha refuted Ānanda’s evidence from both perspectives, rendering the argument untenable.

This point is slightly complex, but careful reflection reveals the flaw. Ānanda likened the eye faculty to a crystal bowl and the visual consciousness to the eyes. This comparison shows that the crystal bowl analogy is incorrect, and thus the analogy that the visual consciousness is within the eye faculty is also wrong.

Using the example of the eye faculty and visual consciousness, the Buddha demonstrated that the conscious mind is not within the faculties. By the same reasoning, the auditory consciousness is not within the ear faculty, the olfactory consciousness not within the nose faculty, the gustatory consciousness not within the tongue faculty, the tactile consciousness not within the body faculty, and the mental consciousness not within the mental faculty. How are these refuted? Consider a counterexample: If the auditory consciousness were within the ear faculty, it should hear sounds within the ear faculty. What sounds are within the ear? The eardrum must vibrate to produce sound. If the auditory consciousness were latent within the ear faculty, while hearing external sounds, we should also hear the vibration of the eardrum. Yet we do not hear the eardrum’s vibration, only external sounds, proving the auditory consciousness is not within the ear faculty.

To refute the notion that the olfactory consciousness is within the nose faculty: If it were, it should smell odors within the nose faculty. What odors are within the nose? There is the smell of raw flesh and blood. Yet the olfactory consciousness cannot smell the flesh and blood scent of its own nose faculty, proving it is not within the nose faculty.

Regarding the gustatory consciousness: The tongue faculty is part of the body, serving both as body faculty and tongue faculty. If the gustatory consciousness were within the tongue faculty, it should taste the bloody, fleshy flavor of the tongue itself. Yet it cannot taste the flesh and blood within the tongue, proving it is not within the tongue faculty.

The tactile consciousness perceives tactile objects. If it were within the body, it should perceive internal tactile objects, such as cold, heat, softness, hardness, etc. When cells are compressed against tactile nerves, creating the sensation of touch, why do you not feel the electrical discharge itself? For example, bones within the body are hard; the tactile consciousness should perceive this, yet it does not. Blood within the body is warm; the tactile consciousness does not feel its temperature. Blood flows, and its fluidity contacts the body faculty, creating a tactile object, yet the tactile consciousness does not feel the flow of blood. Thus, from various perspectives, it is clear the tactile consciousness is not within the body faculty. This refutes the erroneous view that the first five consciousnesses reside within their respective faculties.

Finally, the mental consciousness: This is easily refuted. If the mental consciousness were within the mental faculty, consider that the mental faculty is the seventh consciousness, which is not material form but mental. Since the mental faculty is formless, without characteristics, and without obstruction, it has no inside or outside. How, then, could the mental consciousness be within it? If it were, whatever the mental faculty cognizes, the mental consciousness should also cognize. Yet the mental faculty cognizes countless karmic seeds unknown to the mental consciousness. If the mental consciousness knew them, it would be called supernatural power. The mental faculty cognizes plans unknown to the mental consciousness, dharmas of other worlds, and past lives—all beyond the mental consciousness’s reach. This proves the mental consciousness is not within the mental faculty. Thus, the argument that the six consciousnesses reside within the six faculties is refuted, ultimately demonstrating that the conscious mind is not within the faculties. This concludes the third inquiry into the mind.