Section Six   The Sixth Investigation into the Mind’s Location—The Mind Residing in the Middle

Original Text: Ānanda addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honored One, I also heard when the Buddha, together with Mañjuśrī and the other Dharma Princes, discussed the true reality. The World-Honored One also said that the mind is not inside, nor is it outside."

Explanation: Ānanda said to the Buddha: World-Honored One, I also heard when the Buddha, together with Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva and some Dharma Princes, discussed the true reality, the World-Honored One also said that the mind is not inside the body nor outside the body.

As the Buddha’s attendant, Ānanda often followed the Buddha to various Dharma assemblies to listen to the Dharma. When the Buddha went to the heavens of the desire realm, he also empowered Ānanda with his majestic spiritual power, taking him to the heavenly palaces of the desire realm. When the Buddha went to the heavens of the form realm, he also, with his own majestic spiritual power, brought Ānanda to the heavens of the form realm. When the Buddha discussed the true reality of all dharmas with the Dharma Princes, Ānanda followed the Buddha and participated in the Dharma assembly, listening to the Dharma beside him by relying on the Buddha’s majestic spiritual power. This matter demonstrates that whatever the Buddha could see, Ānanda, relying on the Buddha’s power, could also see; this is called seeing what the Buddha sees. However, the result of seeing was vastly different from that of the Buddha because their wisdom differed. The Buddha possesses unsurpassed, perfect wisdom, while Ānanda’s wisdom is obscured by karmic obstructions.

We can liken Ānanda to the seventh consciousness, the manas, and the Buddha to the fundamental mind of the Tathāgatagarbha, the mind of great wisdom. The seventh consciousness, following the Tathāgatagarbha, can have its own seeing; whatever the Tathāgatagarbha can see, the seventh consciousness, the manas, following the Tathāgatagarbha, can also see. However, the substance and degree of what is seen differ, resulting in entirely different outcomes. Because the Tathāgatagarbha is the mind of great wisdom, free from ignorance, it not only sees all dharmas but also penetrates to the source of all dharmas. The seventh consciousness, the manas, due to ignorance, has inverted views and cannot see the true reality of all dharmas. It is the same with the Buddha and Ānanda. The Buddha is the honored one of the three realms, possessing ultimate, unsurpassed great wisdom. Ānanda, with ignorance still present, is merely a first-stage śrāvaka. With the status of a first-stage śrāvaka, as the Buddha’s attendant, riding on the Buddha’s majestic power, he followed the Buddha everywhere in the world, above and below, without obstruction, going where the Buddha went, seeing what the Buddha saw—only he could not reach the Buddha’s realm of great wisdom.

When the Buddha discussed the Mahāyāna true reality Dharma with the Bodhisattvas, the Buddha could see the fundamental appearance of all dharmas, penetrating to the very source. However, Ānanda, due to ignorance, could not see the true reality of all dharmas. His understanding of the Buddha’s Dharma words contained much incomprehension and misunderstanding. Of course, this was a deliberate manifestation by Ānanda to assist the World-Honored One in propagating the Dharma. The relationship between the Buddha and Ānanda can be likened to that between the Tathāgatagarbha and the manas; this analogy can be considered quite appropriate. Therefore, in what follows, when the World-Honored One discussed the true reality with the Dharma Princes, Ānanda, listening beside them, misunderstood the true reality Dharma spoken by the Buddha.

The Dharma Princes, led by Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva, are all equal-enlightenment Bodhisattvas, or even wondrous-enlightenment Bodhisattvas; they are all Dharma Princes. Dharma Princes are great Bodhisattvas of equal-enlightenment and wondrous-enlightenment who are to inherit the throne of the Dharma King. The Dharma King refers to the king of the Buddha-Dharma, the master of the Buddha-Dharma, in the three realms. Only Buddhas in the three realms can be called Dharma Kings; they are kings of the Buddha-Dharma, kings of all dharmas in the mundane and supramundane, residing on the throne. Only Buddhas can be honored as Dharma Kings; no one else can be called a Dharma King. Even equal-enlightenment or wondrous-enlightenment Bodhisattvas cannot be called Dharma Kings because they have not yet fully realized all Buddha-Dharma and have not yet ascended to the throne of the Dharma King.

If they are not equal-enlightenment or wondrous-enlightenment Bodhisattvas, they cannot succeed the Buddha’s position. Therefore, only equal-enlightenment or wondrous-enlightenment Bodhisattvas, who can immediately become Buddhas upon succeeding the Buddha’s position, can be called Dharma Princes. Bodhisattvas below the tenth stage cannot be called Dharma Princes. Thus, the title of Dharma King or Dharma Master can only be borne by Buddhas; other Bodhisattvas cannot act as Dharma Kings or Dharma Masters, nor can they claim such titles.

When the Buddha gathered with Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva and the other Dharma Princes to discuss the true reality of all dharmas, Ānanda followed the Buddha and listened in the assembly, yet he did not understand the true meaning of the true reality of all dharmas. The "true" in true reality is the "true" of "as it truly is," the "true" of "actual." "True" means real, existing, present. "Reality" means appearance, manifestation. Reality can be divided into many kinds: there is the reality of form dharmas, and the reality of mind dharmas. The reality of form dharmas is the appearance of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharmas. The reality of mind dharmas is the functioning manifestations of the seven consciousnesses and all mental factors, including the functioning manifestations and mental factors of the eighth consciousness. "True" and "reality" combined mean the true reality—the true appearance that is truly existent, can never be extinguished, and does not need to be produced by other dharmas—the substance of the Tathāgatagarbha mind. Because the true reality itself truly exists, it can produce all dharmas. Because it is true, all dharmas can depend on it to exist illusorily, arising and ceasing like illusions.

The Tathāgatagarbha can be likened to an illusionist. The illusionist, through the power of intention, can manifest all forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and dharmas, manifesting all mountains, rivers, the great earth, the universe, the vessel world, and all sentient beings. Since he can manifest mountains, rivers, the great earth, the universe, the vessel world, and various sentient beings, etc., the illusionist must truly exist. If the illusionist himself were illusory and unreal, he could not manifest these illusory dharmas. Therefore, the illusionist must be a truly existing dharma to be able to transform and manifest unreal dharmas. The true reality mind, the Tathāgatagarbha, is likewise.

The truly existing Tathāgatagarbha, like an illusionist, can manifest the five-aggregate world of sentient beings, the three-realm world, and the great-thousand world. Therefore, the three-realm world is also called the One True Dharma Realm. All dharmas depend on the true reality mind, the Tathāgatagarbha, to exist. All dharmas are manifested by the Tathāgatagarbha; relying on the Tathāgatagarbha, these dharmas can exist. However, the existence of all dharmas is illusory: they arise like illusions and cease like illusions, existing at one moment and not at another—they are impermanent. What arises and ceases is changing; what changes is impermanent. Impermanent, changing, arising-and-ceasing dharmas are not true dharmas; true dharmas have no impermanence; they are permanent, existing forever.

If the illusionist were not eternal, once the illusionist ceased, all dharmas manifested by him would cease along with him. If the illusionist ceased, how would he be produced? Who produces him? There is no dharma that produces the illusionist. The Tathāgatagarbha is likewise. However, the universe, the great-thousand world, and the Buddha-lands of the ten directions must always exist. When this land ceases, that land arises; when it ceases here, it arises there. What does this indicate? It indicates that the Tathāgatagarbha, this illusionist, eternally exists without cessation. Therefore, it can continuously manifest the universe and vessel world of the three realms, manifesting the three-thousand great-thousand worlds. Only with the existence of this eternally existing Tathāgatagarbha can all dharmas continuously arise and cease, change and transform—this dharma arises, that dharma ceases; now it arises, then it ceases.

Original Text: "As I contemplate, [if the mind is] inside, it cannot see within; [if it is] outside, it does not perceive mutually. Since it does not know the inside, residing inside does not hold. Body and mind perceive mutually; [residing] outside is not reasonable. Now, since they perceive mutually, and again it cannot see within, it must be in the middle."

Explanation: As I contemplate, if the mind is inside the body, it cannot see anything within the body. If the mind is outside the body, it and the body cannot perceive each other mutually. Because it does not perceive the inside of the body, the mind cannot reside inside the body. Body and mind perceive each other mutually; therefore, the mind residing outside the body is also untenable. Because body and mind perceive each other mutually, and it cannot see within the body, the mind must be in the middle.

The World-Honored One told the Dharma Princes that the true reality mind is not inside nor outside and discussed much more. Ānanda probably did not remember; he only recounted this one sentence, saying the mind is not inside nor outside, not realizing this referred to the true reality mind not being inside or outside. Now he recalled this sentence and mistakenly thought it referred to his own thinking mind—the mind that can reason, infer, and love the Buddha—not being inside or outside.

The World-Honored One said the true reality mind is not inside nor outside, but Ānanda associated it with his own deluded mind, mistaking his deluded mind for the true reality mind. His misunderstanding was so severe that it is fitting to liken Ānanda to the ignorant manas. Ānanda, similar to the manas, is inverted. Although he relies on the Buddha, the World-Honored One—this Tathāgatagarbha—to see all dharmas, after seeing the dharmas, he has many misunderstandings. By carefully contemplating this analogy, one can appropriately understand the seventh consciousness, the manas. It can see all dharmas and silently contain all dharmas, but it cannot see the true reality of all dharmas. Therefore, sentient beings experience the birth-and-death cycle of the six paths, and it is necessary to eliminate all ignorance of the manas.

After recalling this statement, Ānanda proceeded to express his view, forming the sixth investigation into the mind’s location. He said: I now finally understand. My thinking mind, the mind that can love the Buddha, since it cannot see within the body and does not perceive the inside of the body, the conscious mind residing inside the body must be incorrect. Moreover, it is not outside the body. If it were outside the body, then the conscious mind would know, but the body would not know—this is incorrect. The mind knows, and the body also knows; body and mind together can have knowing. Knowing cannot be separated from the body; it must be connected with the body. Therefore, the conscious mind is not outside the body. This conscious mind must be in a middle place. This time he took a compromise—in the middle.

Original Text: The Buddha said: "You speak of a middle. This middle must not be obscure; it is not without a location. Now you deduce a middle. What is this middle? Is it in a location, or is it on the body? If it is on the body, being on the edge is not the middle; being in the center is the same as being inside."

Explanation: The Buddha said to Ānanda: If you say there is a middle, this middle place must be able to be pointed out; you must know where the middle is and not be confused about it. If you do not know where the middle is, then your conclusion about the middle is wrong. This middle must have a location. So, tell me, where exactly is this middle? Is it in a location (an external place), or is it on the body? If this middle location is on the body, being on the surface of the body is at the edge, not the middle. If the middle location is within the body, it is the same as being inside the body; both are incorrect.

The conscious mind is not in an external location, nor is it in the middle between the body and a location; there is no middle position. If the conscious mind is on the body, it is not the middle. If you say your conscious mind is in the body, it is the same as being inside the body. Therefore, saying the conscious mind is in the body, meaning in the middle, is untenable because the conscious mind cannot see the internal organs within the body. Thus, saying the conscious mind is in the body, equating it to being in the middle, is wrong.

Original Text: "If it is in a location, does it have a marker, or does it lack a marker? Lacking a marker is the same as non-existence. Having a marker lacks fixity. Why? For example, when a person uses a marker to mark the middle, from the east it is west; from the south it becomes north. The marked entity is thus confused; the mind should be chaotic."

Explanation: If you say your conscious mind is in a location, can this location be pointed out, or can it not? If you cannot point out this location, then it is equivalent to having no location; your proposition is incorrect. If this location can be pointed out, the location pointed out is also indeterminate; this location is not necessarily the middle, not necessarily east, west, south, or north. Why is this so? If someone can point out a location called the middle, and if this location is taken as the middle, when you look from the east, this location is to the west; when you look from the south, this location becomes north. There is simply no fixed middle. In this way, the entity that is marked becomes confused, and the mind would become chaotic along with it.

Original Text: Ānanda said: "The middle I speak of is not these two kinds. As the World-Honored One has said: 'The eye faculty and form are conditions giving rise to eye consciousness. The eye has discernment; form is without awareness. Consciousness arises between them.' Then the mind resides [there]."

Explanation: Ānanda refuted: The middle I speak of is not these two meanings—not referring to being on the body, nor to being in a specific location on the body. The middle I speak of has no location; it is not in some place. Just as you, World-Honored One, have said: The eye faculty and form are a contributing condition, giving rise to eye consciousness. The eye faculty has discerning nature; form is without awareness. Yet when they contact each other, eye consciousness arises between them, and thus the conscious mind becomes present.

Ānanda said: The conscious mind arises between the eye faculty and form. This "middle" refers to the middle between the faculty and the object. The conscious mind arises between the eye faculty and form; it resides in the middle between the faculty and the object. This is the middle I speak of.

Original Text: The Buddha said: "If your mind is in the middle between the faculty and the object, does this substance of mind combine both, or does it not combine both? If it combines both, the entities are chaotic. Objects are not aware; the faculty is aware. They stand as opposing pairs. How can this be called the middle?"

Explanation: The Buddha said: If the conscious mind is between the eye faculty and form, does your mind-substance combine the attributes of both the faculty and the object, or does it not combine them? If your mind-substance combines the attributes of both the faculty and the object, the entities are chaotic. The object (form) has no awareness; the faculty (eye) has awareness. Thus, the two are mutually opposing. Then what is called the middle?

The Buddha again refuted the idea of the conscious mind being in the middle between the faculty and the object from two aspects. If you say the mind is in the middle between the faculty and the object, does this mind-substance combine the faculty and the object, or not? The faculty can generate awareness; it is the root that generates awareness. The object has no awareness. The faculty and the object have two different attributes: one has awareness, the other does not. If your conscious mind combines the attribute of the faculty and also combines the attribute of the object, being in the middle between them, such a conscious mind would be chaotic. How is this middle defined? Does it have the nature of consciousness or not? Does it have awareness or not?

If you say the conscious mind has awareness, that is incorrect because you have combined the object (form), and form has no awareness. Saying the conscious mind has no awareness is also incorrect because your conscious mind combines the substance of the faculty, and the faculty has awareness, being able to generate the awareness of consciousness. Therefore, saying the conscious mind is in the middle between the faculty and the object is chaotic. The faculty and the object are two opposing attributes; the conscious mind cannot combine these two attributes. Thus, saying the conscious mind is in the middle between the faculty and the object is incorrect. The Buddha refuted this from the aspect of combination.

Original Text: "Combining both does not hold. [If] neither aware nor unaware, it lacks substance. What is the mark of the middle? Therefore, you should know: claiming it is in the middle is without basis."

Explanation: From another aspect, if the conscious mind does not combine the attributes of the faculty and the object, does not combine the two attributes together, and the object has no awareness while the faculty has awareness, then does the conscious mind have awareness or not? Saying the conscious mind has awareness is incorrect; saying it has no awareness is also incorrect. The conscious mind lacks substance. What is the characteristic of the middle? Thus, saying the conscious mind is in the middle between the faculty and the object is entirely without basis. Hearing this, Ānanda ceased to argue and silently acknowledged that his view was wrong.