Reflections on the Question of Neither One nor Different

Ru Chun: Over these two days, while studying the teaching that "the aggregate of form and the tathāgatagarbha are neither the same nor different," a question flashed through my mind: The five aggregates are not the self, not different from the self, and not located in each other — is this the same meaning as "neither the same nor different"? If so, why use such different expressions? I thought about it, could not 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 I would recall it again, whether or not anything prompted it.

Last night while sitting in meditation, this question surfaced in my mind. First, the mind consciousness analyzed and reasoned 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 at the same time. Rice grains and cooked rice are different forms manifested by the same substance; cooked rice and rice grains are neither the same nor different. Rice grains can also be turned into popcorn, or ground into flour to make rice cakes, rice puddings, osmanthus cakes, and various other foods, but their essence is still rice grains. This is the same principle as the tathāgatagarbha conjuring up 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, and after checking, it seemed basically sound. Before long, two images appeared in my mind in succession: 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 in each other. That is, the smoke is not the cigarette, yet not different from the cigarette, and they are not located in each other. A single lit cigarette can give off many forms of smoke of different shapes, but the smoke and the cigarette are not the same substance. They are neither the same 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 in each other. That is, the image is not the person, yet not different from the person, and they are not located in each other. One actor can portray many different roles; we can simultaneously see on different screens the images of the various different roles he plays — from modern to ancient times, from young to old, from male to female — but we cannot see the actor himself on the screen, and the actor himself may differ greatly from the images of his roles. The screen image and the actor himself are neither the same nor different. It is just like how we can only see the images conjured 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 from the manas, since the mind consciousness had previously engaged in such thinking and thus perfumed the manas?

Assessment: 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 the same logic, it can be demonstrated that the tathāgatagarbha and the five aggregates it gives rise to are neither the same nor different. Whenever one dharma is directly generated and transformed into another dharma, the relationship is one of neither the same nor different. The five aggregates are generated and evolved from the tathāgatagarbha, so the relationship between the two is neither the same nor different.

As for the images that appeared when checking the reasonableness after the reflection — are they the Image-Only Object generated by the mind consciousness, or the form born of samādhi manifested by the manas? This depends on whether one was in samādhi at the time. When the mind consciousness introspected on the correctness of the process and result of the thinking, was it in a relatively deep state of meditative concentration, causing the mind consciousness's thinking to gradually weaken and fade away? If it was the manas introspecting while in samādhi, then the images were the form born of samādhi spontaneously manifested by the manas, a realm of valid direct perception that can be trusted. If it was the mind consciousness thinking without meditative concentration or in shallow concentration, then the images were the Image-Only Object generated by the mind consciousness, a realm of mistaken perception/non-valid cognition, which cannot 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.