"Supposing it was composed of many substances: then you would be many people. Which of those substances would be you?
"Supposing it were composed of a pervasive substance: the case would be the same as before in the instance of pinching. But supposing it were not pervasive; then when you touched your head and touched your foot simultaneously, the foot would not perceive being touched if the head did. But that is not how you are.
"Therefore you should know that declaring that wherever it comes together with things, the mind exists in response is an impossible statement."
�nanda said to the Buddha, "World Honored One, I also have heard the Buddha discuss reality with Manjushri and other disciples of the Dharma King. The World Honored One also said, ‘The mind is neither inside nor outside.’
"As I now consider it, it cannot be inside since it cannot see within, and it cannot be outside since in that case there would be no shared perception. Since it cannot see inside, it cannot be inside; and since the body and mind do have shared perception, it does not make sense to say it is outside. Therefore, since there is a shared perception and since there is no seeing within, it must be in the middle."
The Buddha said, "You say it is in the middle. That middle must not be haphazard or without a fixed location. Where is this middle that you propose? Is it in an external place, or is it in the body?
"If it were in the body, the surface of the body cannot be counted as being the middle. If it were in the middle of the body, that would be the same as being inside. If it were in an external place, would there be some evidence of it, or not? If there would not be any evidence of it, that amounts to it not existing at all. If there were some evidence of it, then it would have no fixed location.
"Why not? Suppose that middle were indicated by a marker. When seen from the east, it would be to the west, and when seen from the south, it would be to the north. Just as such a tangible marker would be unclear, so too the location of the mind would be chaotic."
�nanda said, "The middle I speak of is neither one of those. As the World Honored One has said, the eyes and forms are the conditions, which create the eye-consciousness. The eyes make discriminations; forms have no perception, but a consciousness is created between them: that is where my mind is."
The Buddha said, "If your mind were between the eyes and their object, would such a mindÂ’s substance combine with the two or not?
"If it did combine with the two, then objects and the mind-substance would form a chaotic mixture. Since objects have no perception, while the substance has perception, the two would stand in opposition. Where could the middle be? If it did not combine with the two, it would then be neither the perceiver nor the perceived. Since it would lack both substance and nature, what would such a middle be like?
"Therefore you should know that declaring the mind to be in the middle is an impossible statement."
�nanda said to the Buddha, "World Honored One, when I have seen the Buddha turn the Dharma Wheel in the past with Mahamaudgalyayana, Subhuti, Purna, and Shariputra, four of the great disciples, he often said that the nature of the mind which is aware, perceives, and makes discriminations is located neither within nor outside nor in the middle; it is not located anywhere at all. That very non-attachment to everything is what is called the mind. Therefore, is my non-attachment my mind?"
The Buddha said to �nanda, "You say that the mind with its aware nature that perceives and makes discriminations is not located anywhere at all. Everything existing in the world consists of space, the waters, and the land, the creatures that fly and walk, and all external objects. Would your non-attachment also exist?
"If it did not exist, it would be the same as fur on a tortoise or horns on a rabbit. Just what would that non-attachment be?
"If non-attachment did exist, it couldnÂ’t be described as a negation. The absence of attributes indicates negation. Anything not negated has attributes. Anything with attributes exists. How could that define non-attachment?
"Therefore you should know that to declare that the aware, knowing mind is non-attachment to anything is an impossible statement."