Author Topic: Mind is neither within nor without:)  (Read 2083 times)

Offline Lotusmile

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Mind is neither within nor without:)
« on: April 02, 2018, 01:03:21 am »
Ananda said: World Honoured One, I have heard the Buddha discuss Reality with other sons of the King of the Law (i.e. Bodhisattvas); He also said that the mind is neither within nor without. I now deduce that if the mind is in the body, it does not see anything within and if it is outside, they both cease to feel each other. To say that it is within is wrong for it does not know anything in the body. To say that it is without is also faulty since body and mind can perceive each other. As they do so and since nothing is seen in the body, the mind should be between the two (i.e. the inside and outside).
The Buddha said: If your conception of a mind ìin between is correct, it implies a position for it. Now according to your inference, where is this intermediate position? Do you mean that it is (in or on) the body? If it is on the surface of the body, it cannot be in its center, and the conception of a mind in the center is no different from that of a mind in the body (which was refuted earlier). (Moreover) is its position manifest or not? If it is not, it does not exist. If it is, it is not fixed. Why? For instance, if a stake is driven into the ground to mark a center, when seen from the east it is in the west and when seen from the south it is in the north. As this stake can only lead to confusion, so is (your conception of) a mind in between completely chaotic.
Ananda said: The intermediate position that I men- tioned is not these two. As the World Honoured One has said, the eyes and form are causes from which sight-perception arises. While the eyes can distinguish, form does not follow anything and perception lies between them; hence the mind arises.
The Buddha said: If the mind lies between sense organs and sense data, does it include both or not? If it does, its substance and what is outside will be mixed up to- gether, and since the mind perceives while its objects do not, two opposites will be set up; then how can there be an intermediate (position)? If it is not inclusive, (that is if it is independent of the sense organs and sense data), being neither the knower (subject) nor the known (object), it has no substance; then what is this intermediate? Therefore, your contention that it is in between is groundless.í
‚nanda said: ëWorld Honoured One, previously when I saw the Buddha, with His four chief disciples, MahaMaudgalyayana, Subhuti, Purnamaitrayaniputra and Sariputs, turn the Wheel of the Law, He always said that the nature of the knowing and discriminating mind is neither within nor without nor between the two, exists nowhere and clings to nothing, hence it is called mind. Is that which does not cling to things called mind?
The Buddha replied: ëYou just said that the nature of the knowing and discriminating mind exists nowhere. Now in this world, all things in the air, in water and on the ground, including those that fly and walk, make the exist- ing whole. By that which does not cling to anything, do you mean that it exists or not? If it “is” not,it is just the hair of a tortoise or the horn of a hare, then how can there be (this extra) non-clinging? If it “is” it cannot be said not to exist. That which “is not” is simply non-existent and that which “is” should have a position; then how can there be no clinging? Therefore, your contention that that which does not cling to anything is the knowing mind is groundless.


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal