The True Meaning of Feeling Being the Self and Being Different from the Self

Original text of the Samyukta Āgama, Volume 5: 「云何见受即是我？谓六受身——眼触生受，耳、鼻、舌、身、意触生受。此六受身一一见是我，我是受，是名受即是我。云何见受异我？谓见色是我，受是我所；谓想、行、识是我，受是我所，是名受异我。

云何见我中受？谓色是我，受在其中，想、行、识是我，受在其中。云何见受中我？谓色是我，于受中住，周遍其四体；想、行、识是我，于受中住，周遍其四体，是名受中我。」

Explanation: What does it mean to view the aggregate of feeling as the self? The aggregate of feeling is the six feeling-bodies: when the eye faculty contacts material sense-objects, eye consciousness arises, and eye consciousness has feeling; when the ear faculty contacts sounds, ear consciousness arises, and ear consciousness has feeling; when the nose faculty contacts scents, nose consciousness arises, and nose consciousness has feeling; when the tongue faculty contacts flavors, tongue consciousness arises, and tongue consciousness has feeling; when the manas contacts mental sense-objects, mind consciousness arises, and mind consciousness has feeling. The manas takes these six feelings all as "me," believing that I (the manas) am the feeling—this is called "feeling is the self" (the self of the manas).

What does it mean to view feeling as different from the self? When the manas regards the aggregate of form as the self, then the aggregate of feeling is what I possess; when the manas takes the aggregates of perception, formations, and consciousness as the self, it will regard the aggregate of feeling as what I possess. This is called "feeling is different from the self."

What does it mean to view feeling as existing within the self? When the manas regards the aggregate of form as the self, the aggregate of feeling exists within the aggregate of form; when the manas takes the aggregates of perception, formations, and consciousness as the self, the aggregate of feeling exists within those aggregates. The aggregate of feeling is what I possess.

What does it mean to view the self as existing within feeling? When the manas regards the aggregate of form as the self, the aggregate of form dwells within the aggregate of feeling—I dwell within the aggregate of feeling, and the aggregate of feeling pervades the four limbs and the whole body. When the manas takes the aggregates of perception, formations, and consciousness as the self, those aggregates dwell within the aggregate of feeling—I dwell within the aggregate of feeling, and I pervade the entire body. This is called "the self within feeling."

In the passage above, the "self" is, in sequence, the self that takes the aggregate of form as itself and the other aggregates as its possessions, then the self that takes the aggregate of feeling as itself and the other aggregates as its possessions, and so on—and this self is the self of the manas. If you substitute the eighth consciousness, the meaning of the entire passage falls apart. The "self" here has nothing to do with the eighth consciousness; if you replace the self with the eighth consciousness, it simply cannot be made to make sense. So how could the conclusion of the contemplative practice be that the aggregate of perception is not the eighth consciousness?

Here, likewise, the subject-self cannot be replaced with the eighth consciousness; if it were replaced with the eighth consciousness, the text before and after would become incoherent and disconnected. It is the manas that claims these functions and operations as its own, not the eighth consciousness. The mind consciousness also takes these as its own functions in the same way. However, with respect to the functions and operations of the five sense consciousnesses, the mind consciousness has no way to claim them as its own, because the mind consciousness cannot command the five sense consciousnesses—both the five sense consciousnesses and the mind consciousness are directed by the manas.

Only the consciousness that can direct and decide is the master, the so-called self. Whatever the manas wishes to do, the eighth consciousness can enable Him to accomplish it; once it is done, the manas believes "I accomplished such-and-such a thing, and so on." Thus the "I" emerges, wrong views emerge, and the guest usurps the host's role.

Whatever the manas intends to do, the six consciousnesses immediately carry out; once it is done, it is believed that "I" accomplished it, without knowing that it was all done by the six consciousnesses, and their functions and operations are taken as one's own. If it is not accomplished, the manas believes it failed to accomplish anything, becomes dejected and unhappy, not knowing that it may be that the tools—the six consciousnesses—were simply not up to the task.

A general of an army commands thousands of troops. When battle is imminent, he tells the soldiers: "Our army's morale is high; we will surely win." Only a general is qualified to say "our army, our army," for he holds the authority of command, wields the great power, and has the final say over the army. Thus, if the general is subdued, the entire army is subdued, and the battle is over. But the foolish person is not like this: he goes about subduing the soldiers one by one, believing that capturing a few soldiers means the great task is accomplished, and beats the gong and shouts: "We have won!" Yet before long, the enemy general sweeps in with a great force, and the foolish person's troops collapse in rout and are defeated.

Letting the mind consciousness eliminate self-view and then being satisfied with that, loudly proclaiming victory—yet the self-view of the manas, the master of the house, blazes fiercely, grasping at "I" everywhere. The mind consciousness, having no choice, must still obey its master and do what benefits the "I"; the "my mind" and "my actions" continue to manifest as before. What use is such cultivation? A person of intelligence and wisdom, wanting to fell a great tree, will certainly cut at the roots; only a fool goes to pluck the leaves and break the branches. Having broken off the branches, he believes the great tree will surely fall—but the fallen branches do not affect the growth of the great tree, which will continue to live on.

The manas, the master of the house, connects both ends: with one hand it grasps the functions and operations of the eighth consciousness, and with the other it holds the functions and operations of the six consciousnesses, claiming them all as its own and putting them all to use for itself. This "I" is formidable and very hard to shake, and that is why birth-and-death is so firmly entrenched, with kalpa after kalpa, measureless kalpas of transmigration—this is why eliminating the self-view of the manas is so difficult. Many people, in order to eliminate self-view sooner, construct a "conjured city": the mind consciousness mulls things over, thinks a bit, and considers self-view eliminated, then rests within this conjured city, believing itself safe. Then one day, the master flies into a great rage, the conjured city collapses, houses tumble down, and one must still endure the wind, rain, and scorching sun.

In fact, whether in the Mahāyāna sūtras or the Hīnayāna Āgamas, this subject-self always implicitly refers to the manas, not to the mind consciousness. Those with wisdom may go to the sūtras themselves and savor this. If I were to explain it all clearly at once, some people would go mad, unable to bear it. Nevertheless, I will still slowly, bit by bit, excavate the meanings in this regard, in order to make the truth manifest and to rescue the deluded masses.