Does the Mind Come into Being in Response to Conditions?
Ananda said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, on second thought, the viscera are located inside the bodies in darkness, while the orifices are open to the outside and seeing light. For instance, as I am now facing the Buddha with my eyes open, I see light. I would call seeing the light as ‘seeing outside’. And when I close my eyes, I see darkness, which I would call ‘seeing inside’. How does that sound?”
The Buddha said, “When you close your eyes and see darkness, is that darkness in front of your eyes? If the darkness is in front of your eyes, how can it be inside? If you equalized seeing darkness as seeing inside, then suppose you were in a completely dark room unlit by either the sun or the moon or any lamp, the darkness in the room would have to be your ‘inside’ as well. And if the darkness of your inside were not in front of you, how could you see it? Suppose you did see inside in a way that is distinct from the way you see outside – in that case, if we grant that closing your eyes and seeing darkness would be to see the inside of your body, then when you open your eyes and see light, why couldn’t you see your own face? Of course you don’t see your own face, because if you did, your eyes and your mind that knows what you see would be all suspended in the air – then how could they be inside of your body?
“If your eyes and mind were suspended in the air, they would not be part of your body. Otherwise, the Buddha who is looking at your face right now would be part of your body too. If your eyes and mind were not part of your body, then when your eyes became aware of something, your body would not be able to simultaneously be aware of it. Suppose you press the point and say that the body and the eyes each have a separate awareness, then you would have two awarenesses, thus you would have two Buddhas in one body. Therefore, when you say that seeing darkness is seeing inside, you’re stating what is impossible.”
Ananda said, “Now I recall that the Buddha has taught the four assemblies that when a state of mind arises, various perceived objects arise, and that because perceived objects arise, various states of mind arise. So, I am wondering that my very act of thinking right now, which is an instance of a state of mind arising in response to perceived objects, is my mind’s true nature. If it is, then the mind doesn’t exist in any of these three locations — inside, outside, or the eyes. Rather, it comes into being as it responds to objects wherever they arise.”
The Buddha said, “Now you are saying that when perceived objects arise, various states of mind arise, and therefore the mind comes into being in response to those perceived objects. But such a mind would have no essential nature of its own, and so it could not join with anything. If, although having no essential nature of its own, it’s still able to join with perceived objects, then that would constitute a nineteenth element of perception, because such a mind would be in union with a seventh category of perceived object — and that is impossible.
“Furthermore, if such a mind did have an essential nature of its own, then when you pinch yourself and your mind becomes aware of the pinch, would the awareness come from inside your body or from outside? If it came from inside, then once again, you would see the inside of your body. If it came from outside, you should be able to see your face.”
Ananda said, “But it is the eyes that see, and it is the mind that knows. Mental perception is not seeing.”
The Buddha said, “If the eyes alone could see, then when you’re in a room, could your eyes become the doorway and see what is outside the room? Or when a person dies with his eyes organ still being intact, could his eyes still see?
“Ananda, suppose your mind which knows and makes distinctions indeed has an essential nature of its own, then would it be a single nature or multiple natures? Would the essential nature pervade your entire body, or would it not? Suppose it were a single essential nature, then if you pinch one limb, why wouldn’t you feel that pinch in all four limbs? Since you only feel the pinch in one limb, then it’s obvious your mind doesn’t have just a single nature. But if your mind had multiple natures, you would be multiple people. Which of those natures would be you then? Besides, if a single essential nature did pervade your entire body, then a single pinch would be felt throughout your body. On the other hand, if the single nature did not pervade your body, then when you touch your head and your foot at the same time, you would only feel the touch on one part instead of both parts.
“Therefore, when you say the mind comes into being in response to perceived objects wherever they arise, you’re stating what is impossible.”
阿难白佛言：世尊！我今又作如是思惟：是众生身，腑脏在中，窍穴居外，有藏则暗，有窍则明。今我对佛，开眼见明，名为见外；闭眼见暗，名为见内。是义云何？
佛告阿难：汝当闭眼见暗之时，此暗境界，为与眼对？为不对眼？若与眼对，暗在眼前，云何成内？若成内者，居暗室中，无日 月灯，此室暗中，皆汝焦腑。若不对者，云何成见？若离外见，内对所成，合眼见暗，名为身中；开眼见明，何不见面？若不见面，内对不成；见面若成，此了知心，及与眼根，乃在虚空，何成在内？若在虚空，自非汝体 ；即应如来今见汝面，亦是汝身。汝眼已知，身合非觉。必汝执言，身眼两觉，应有二知；即汝一身，应成两佛 。是故应知，汝言见暗名见内者，无有是处。
阿难言：我尝闻佛开示四众：由心生故，种种法生；由法生故，种种心生。我今思惟，即思惟体，实我心性 。随所合处，心则随有，亦非内外中间三处。
佛告阿难：汝今说言，由法生故，种种心生，随所合处，心随有者。是心无体，则无所合；若无有体，而能合者，则十九界，因七尘合 。是义不然！若有体者，如汝以手自挃其体，汝所知心，为复内出？为从外入？若复内出，还见身中；若从外来，先合见面。阿难言：见是其眼，心知非眼，为见非义。佛言：若眼能见，汝在室中，门能见不？则诸已死，尚有眼存，应皆见物；若见物者，云何名死？阿难！又汝觉了能知之心，若必有体，为复一体？为有多体？今在汝身，为复遍体？为不遍体？若一体者，则汝以手挃一支时，四支应觉 ，若咸觉者，挃应无在；若挃有所，则汝一体，自不能成。若多体者，则成多人，何体为汝？若遍体者，同前所挃 ；若不遍者，当汝触头，亦触其足，头有所觉，足应无知。今汝不然！是故应知，随所合处，心则随有，无有是处。
Buddha Mind 