–Volume 1 (Part 3)
Author: Fafu
Translator : Lotus
Dear Dharma friends, Greetings to all. Welcome to this episode of the podcast contributed by the Buddhas’ Practice Incorporated of Australia.
Today, we continue to deeply explore the essence of the “Seven Locations Searching for the Mind,” focusing on the Fourth Refutation, “Seeing brightness and seeing darkness,” and the Fifth Refutation, “The Mind comes into being by combining with perceived objects wherever they arise.” Through these two refutations, the Buddha skillfully employs rigorous logic and profound wisdom to peel away step by step the mistaken attachments of Venerable Ananda regarding the mind. This reveals the true nature of the subtle and luminous true mind.
First, The Fourth Refutation: Refuting the False View that “Seeing Darkness is Seeing Inside”
The Buddha reveals that “seeing nature” is neither inside nor outside, and cannot be limited to the eye.
Analysis of “Object-Condition”: Is seeing darkness facing the eyes?
The Buddha first asked Ananda: When you close your eyes and see darkness, is this “darkness” truly “facing” the eyes or “not facing” them?
If it is “facing,” the darkness should appear before the eyes like light does. If it is before the eyes, how can it be called “internal”? If the darkness in a dark room were to become your “viscera” (internal organs), that would clearly be absurd.
If it is “not facing,” how can the eyes “see” the darkness? The Buddha pointed out that seeing necessarily involves an object facing the eyes; without an object, there is no seeing. Ananda’s logic of “seeing darkness is seeing within” contradicts itself.
Refutation of the View of Internal Perception: Why Can’t One See One’s Face When Eyes Are Open?
Ananda might argue that seeing darkness when closing the eyes is due to “the view of internal perception,” arising from observing within the body. The Buddha counters: If closing the eyes allows one to see within the body, why, when opening the eyes, can one not see one’s own face? If one cannot see the “face” when the eyes are open, the notion of “internal facing” does not hold, as the eyes lack the ability to perceive themselves.
Inference on the “location of the mind and eyes”: If the mind and eyes are in the Void, how are they Part of your body?
The Buddha further reasons: If closing the eyes and seeing darkness truly allows one to “see within” and perceive oneself, then where are the “spiritual mind” and the “eye faculty” located? If they are within the body, why cannot one see one’s own face when the eyes are open? If they are in the void, then the mind and eyes would no longer belong to Ananda’s body. The Buddha refutes this with an analogy: If the mind and eyes were in the void, would not the Tathagata’s seeing of your face also make it part of your body? This is clearly absurd!
Refutation of “Dual Awareness, Two Buddhas”: Can One Body Become Two Buddhas?
The Buddha further asks: If the body and the eyes each have their own “awareness,” does this result in “dual awareness”? If there is dual awareness, then Ananda’s single body would become “two Buddhas,” which clearly defies reason. The Buddha uses the contradiction of the body lacking independent awareness to thoroughly negate the notion that “seeing darkness is seeing the inner self.”
Second, Fifth Refutation: Refuting the Delusion of “The mind comes into being by combining with those perceived objects wherever they arise”.
The Buddha reveals the falsehood of the notion that the mind arises following external conditions, exposing it as a delusive appearance.
Refutation of the Contradiction of “A Mind Without Substance Interacting with Conditions”
The Buddha first points out: If the mind has no substance, how can it “interact” with external conditions? Interaction requires two substantial entities to engage with each other. If the mind lacks substance, there can be no such thing as “interaction.” If a mind without substance could still interact, it would lead to the absurd conclusion of “nineteen realms arising from the interaction with the seven elements.” The Buddha clearly states: There are no nineteen realms or seven elements in the world, and Ananda’s notion of “the mind arising following conditions” is entirely baseless.
Refutation of the Confusion of “Internal or External” When Assuming the Mind Has Substance
The Buddha posits that if the mind has substance and asks Ananda: When you grasp your body with your hand, does the “spiritual mind” arise from within the body or come from outside it?
If it arises from within the body, it should be able to perceive things inside the body. If it comes from outside, it should first perceive things outside the body. However, neither case holds true, as the mind does not arise following conditions. Through logical reasoning, the Buddha dismantles the delusion that the mind has a fixed location.
Refutation of the Distinction Between “Seeing Belongs to the Eyes, and Knowing Belongs to the Mind, Not the Eyes”
Ananda hastily argues: “Seeing pertains to the eye faculty, while the mind only knows; it is not the eyes that can know.” The Buddha counters: If the eyes alone can see, why cannot a door see? If a deceased person’s eyes remain intact, why can they not see objects? If the eyes can see but the person is dead, how can they be called deceased? With this, the Buddha proves that seeing is not solely the function of the eye faculty but is the wondrous function of the clear, true mind.
Refutation of the “Mind Substance” as a Single Essential Nature or Multiple Essential Natures, Pervading or Non-Pervading
The Buddha further questions: If the “knowing mind” has substance, is it singular or multiple? Does it pervade the entire body or only a part?
If it is a single essential nature: When the hand touches a specific spot, the whole body should feel it uniformly. If the whole body feels it uniformly, the specific point of contact should not exist independently, which is contradictory!
If it is multiple essential natures: Then one body would become multiple persons. Which one is you? The notion of a fragmented self is absurd!
If it pervades the body: This falls into the same problem as the singular case, where the specific point of contact should not exist independently.
If it does not pervade the body: When the head or foot is touched, the head may feel it, but the foot should not know. Yet, in reality, Ananda can perceive both simultaneously.
Third, Conclusion
Through the fourth and fifth refutation, the Buddha used a “subtractive” approach to peel away Ananda’s erroneous attachments layer by layer. Let us follow the Buddha’s wisdom, eradicate attachments to the internal, external, and conditioned phenomena, return to our true mind, and swiftly attain enlightenment! Thank you all for listening!
