Section Four: The Fourth Inquiry into the Mind – Opening the Eyes to See Brightness, Closing Them to See Darkness

Original Text:

Ānanda addressed the Buddha, “World-Honored One, I now ponder thus: In the body of sentient beings, the internal organs are hidden within, while the apertures reside externally. What is hidden is dark; what is apertured is bright.”

Explanation:

Ānanda said, “I now ponder as follows: In every sentient being’s body, the five viscera and six bowels are concealed within the body (‘hidden within’—here, ‘hidden’ means concealed, not pronounced as ‘zàng’ but as ‘cáng’). The apertures of the five sense faculties—the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body—are located externally. Whatever is hidden within the body appears dark, while whatever opens outward through apertures appears bright.”

“Apertures reside externally”—apertures are passages connecting the inside and outside, while “points” refer to acupoints. Passages that connect inside and outside are called “aperture-points,” primarily referring to the four sense faculties including the eye faculty, as well as the body faculty, which is entirely connected to the external world and thus entirely bright. Ānanda stated that the five viscera and six bowels hidden within the body are dark, and the discerning mind seeing darkness equates to seeing the five viscera and six bowels. Therefore, the discerning mind resides within the body—this is Ānanda’s view. Ānanda believed that since the discerning mind is within the body, it can perceive the brightness, forms, and emptiness outside through the eye faculty’s aperture, all of which belong to external phenomena. Ānanda raised these two points to argue that the discerning mind remains within the body.

Original Text:

“Now, as I face the Buddha, when I open my eyes and see brightness, it is called seeing the outside. When I close my eyes and see darkness, it is called seeing the inside. What do you make of this reasoning?”

Explanation:

Ānanda said, “As I now face the Buddha, when I open my eyes, I see brightness—this is called seeing outside the body. When I close my eyes, I see darkness—this is called seeing inside the body. Is this view of mine correct or not?”

Ānanda used “opening the eyes to see brightness” to argue that the discerning mind must be within the body, as it perceives the brightness outside through the eye faculty’s aperture, thus seeing the outside world, including the Buddha. This, he claimed, proved the discerning mind resides within the body and sees externally. When closing the eyes and seeing darkness, since the discerning mind is within the body and no longer looks outward through the eye aperture but instead inward, it sees darkness. Seeing darkness equates to seeing the five viscera and six bowels within the body, as the interior lacks brightness and is entirely dark. Thus, seeing darkness means seeing the body’s interior. With this argument, Ānanda sought to prove that the eye-consciousness resides within the body. After stating this, he remained uncertain and asked the Buddha whether his reasoning was correct.

After the Buddha refuted Ānanda’s three previous propositions, Ānanda proposed another view, telling the Buddha: “This discerning mind can see externally when the eyes are open and internally when they are closed—thus, it resides within the body.” What was his evidence? How did he prove the discerning mind was still within the body? Ānanda offered two points: First, when the eyes are open, it sees brightness. Since the discerning mind is within the body and brightness is outside, opening the eyes allows it to see brightness and the outside world—this proves the discerning mind must be within the body. Second, when the eyes close, it sees darkness. Since the body’s interior lacks brightness and the five viscera and six bowels are dark, darkness equates to one’s internal organs. Seeing darkness thus means seeing the five viscera and six bowels within the body. Ānanda presented these two points to support his fourth proposition.

Original Text:

The Buddha told Ānanda, “When you close your eyes and see darkness, is this dark state confronting your eyes or not? If it confronts your eyes, then the darkness is before your eyes. How can it be considered inside? If it is inside, then when you dwell in a dark room without sun, moon, or lamp, should all the darkness in that room be your internal organs? If it does not confront your eyes, how can there be seeing?”

Explanation:

The Buddha asked Ānanda, “When you close your eyes and see darkness, is this dark state confronting your eye faculty or not? If the darkness confronts your eye faculty, then it is before your eyes. Since it is before your eyes, how can it be inside your body? If the darkness is inside your body and is your five viscera and six bowels, then when you dwell in a dark room without sunlight, moonlight, or lamplight, all the darkness in that room should be your triple burner and five viscera and six bowels. If the darkness does not confront your eye faculty, how can there be seeing by your discerning mind?”

The Buddha did not refute the first point about opening the eyes to see brightness. Instead, he focused on refuting the claim about closing the eyes to see darkness, as this evidence failed to prove the discerning mind resides within the body. For the second point—closing the eyes to see darkness—the Buddha refuted it by examining two scenarios, each addressed from opposing angles, thereby dismantling the argument and overturning the proposition that the discerning mind resides within the body.

Regarding “closing the eyes to see darkness,” the Buddha refuted it from two perspectives. He asked Ānanda whether, when closing the eyes and seeing darkness, the darkness is before his eyes or not. Either way, the Buddha would refute the view that the discerning mind is within the body. First, the Buddha stated that if the darkness confronts Ānanda’s eye faculty, then it is before his eyes. But if darkness is before the eyes, it is not within the body and thus cannot be his internal organs.

The Buddha said that if darkness confronts the eye faculty and is before the eyes, how can it be considered the five viscera and six bowels? This is incorrect. Thus, “closing the eyes to see darkness” does not mean seeing darkness within the body, and the claim that the discerning mind resides within the body is invalid. This refutes the argument from the affirmative side. Brightness is a state, and its opposite, darkness, is also a state—both are form-dust perceived by eye-consciousness. If the dark state confronts the eye faculty, it is before the eyes. The eye faculty is on the body’s surface, or externally—not within the body—contradicting Ānanda’s claim that seeing darkness means seeing inside.

Moreover, even if darkness confronts the eye faculty and is considered part of the internal organs, then when dwelling in a dark room without sunlight, moonlight, or lamplight, the room’s darkness should all be one’s five viscera and six bowels. But this is impossible. Since Ānanda claimed that seeing darkness equates to seeing the five viscera and six bowels, then in a pitch-dark room, the room’s darkness would become his five viscera and six bowels? Thus, the Buddha refuted the argument that darkness confronts the eye faculty.

On the other hand, if darkness does not confront the eye faculty but is within the body, belonging to the five viscera and six bowels, then there would be no darkness before the eyes. In that case, the sense faculty and its object would not confront each other, and no consciousness would arise—thus, there could be no seeing. Since there is no darkness, it cannot be seen, and the discerning mind’s seeing would not occur. Therefore, the claim that the discerning mind resides within the body and sees darkness when the eyes are closed is invalid. Thus, whether darkness confronts the eye faculty or not—whether it is before the eyes or within the body—both scenarios are incorrect.

Original Text:

“If seeing can occur apart from the outside, and the internal confrontation is established—closing the eyes to see darkness is called seeing within the body—then when opening the eyes to see brightness, why do you not see your face? If you cannot see your face, then the internal confrontation is not established.”

Explanation:

“If seeing can occur apart from the outside, and the eye faculty confronting the darkness within the body is established—meaning closing the eyes to see darkness is called seeing within the body—then when you open your eyes to see brightness, why do you not see your own face? (Thus, the discerning mind is not within the body.) If opening the eyes does not allow you to see your own face, then the eye faculty confronting the darkness within the body is not established. (Thus, the eye faculty does not confront the darkness within the body; closing the eyes to see darkness is invalid; and the discerning mind does not reside within the body, the apertures, or the five sense faculties.)”

The Buddha said: If closing the eyes and seeing darkness equates to seeing within the body and the five viscera and six bowels, and the discerning mind within your body can see the darkness inside, then if this claim holds, opening your eyes should allow your discerning mind, through the eye faculty, to see external brightness and also see your own face. The face is outside your eye faculty, and since your discerning mind is within the body, it should see the face first through the body and eye faculty. If your discerning mind cannot see your face, then it is not within the body and does not confront the five viscera and six bowels.

Original Text:

“If seeing the face is established, then this discerning mind and the eye faculty must be in empty space. How can they be considered inside?”

Explanation:

The Buddha said, “If your discerning mind can see your face, and this is established, then the discerning mind that sees the face and your eye faculty must be in empty space. How can they be considered within the body?”

The discerning mind and the eye faculty must function together inseparably. If the discerning mind can see one’s own face, it must confront the face and thus reside outside the face, and the eye faculty must also be outside the face, confronting it. If the discerning mind and eye faculty are outside the face, they are in empty space. How then can you claim the discerning mind is within the body? This is self-contradictory. Moreover, the eye faculty is clearly on the face—not within the body, nor in empty space. Thus, the Buddha thoroughly refuted Ānanda’s proposition, proving the view that the discerning mind resides within the body is invalid.

Original Text:

“If they are in empty space, they are not part of your body. Then, the Tathāgata now sees your face—should he also be your body? Your eye faculty already possesses awareness; if your body also possesses awareness, then you would have two awarenesses. Thus, your single body would become two Buddhas. Therefore, you should know that your statement ‘seeing darkness is called seeing within’ is incorrect.”

Explanation:

“If your discerning mind and eye faculty are in empty space, they do not belong to your body. If they belong to your body, then now, as I face you, since I see your face, I should also be your body. Your eye-consciousness already possesses a cognitive awareness; if your body also possesses awareness, then you, Ānanda, would have two awarenesses. Thus, your single body would become two Buddhas. Therefore, you should know that your statement ‘seeing darkness is called seeing within’ is incorrect.”

The Buddha said that if one body possesses two awarenesses, one individual would have two entities: the body and the eye-consciousness/eye faculty. These two entities would be independent, each requiring its own Tathāgata-garbha. The body, having one Tathāgata-garbha, would become one Buddha. The discerning mind and eye faculty in empty space, possessing cognitive awareness, would also require a Tathāgata-garbha to become another Buddha—otherwise, they would lack the eye faculty and cognitive awareness. If you possess two Tathāgata-garbhas, your single sentient body would become two Buddhas—which is clearly untenable.

Through these refutations, the Buddha concluded that Ānanda’s claim “seeing darkness is called seeing within” is incorrect. Here, the Buddha refuted Ānanda’s view by examining whether darkness confronts the eye faculty or not, and in each case, dismantling it from multiple angles. Step by step, he refuted all possible evidence Ānanda might present, proving none could establish that the discerning mind resides within the body and sees the five viscera and six bowels inside. Thus, the fourth inquiry into the mind—that opening the eyes sees brightness and closing them sees darkness—was refuted.