There are many theoretical explanations of Buddha’s thought in the sutra. “… form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness,” is a very traditional way to perceive the skandhas, or elements [of mind]. “Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind,” is a very brief classification of our sense organs. “Color, sound, smell, taste, touch, object of mind,” these are objects of our sense organs. “Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind,” these are six. “Color, sound, smell, taste, touch, object,” makes twelve. And “realm of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind,” make eighteen. Thus, eighteen elements of knowing are expressed. This is Abhidharma. Before the Mahayana school arose in history, already this theory of knowing was found in Hinayanistic schools.
In Mahayana Buddhism, a negative expression often appears. “No eyes, no ears, no nose…” is saying the eye is not eye, nose is not nose. Even though our usual understanding is “nose is nose”, the Mahayana idea is that nose is not nose, so it can be nose. This is the basic logic of the Diamond Sutra, which is in the same family as the Heart Sutra. In order to let things exist, you negate them. If you don’t do so, you are the same as yesterday. The “you” of today is not the “you” of yesterday. You cut off yesterday’s you. This is not just ontological negation, it is also the epistemological function of negation. For example, when people say, “The enlightened one follows the law of causation,” you may say, “No. He is free from karma.” But by saying so, you live in the air! You start to walk in the air, not on the ground, step by step. But if you agree, “The awakened one follows karma,” that is not right, either. For an awakened one, there is no karma, so there’s no way to follow to it. But there is something there which takes the place of karmic force. This is the constant action of the vow. Instead of being pushed by past force, you use that natural force to go a completely different way. The karma which appears without this consciousness, without this awakened vow, is called “white karma.” It is very ethical discipline, doing things the “right way.” In other words, everyone, everything, is constantly freed from karma. That is reality. So when someone asks you, “Give me the last moment before…” you answer, “I’m sorry, I cannot give it to you. It is gone!”
There are the five senses, and their aggregate, mind. In Sanskrit the subjective side of knowing, through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind, is called prajna, and the objective side of knowing, e.g. color, sound, smell, taste, touch, object of mind, is called vijnana. Together these make twelve elements. When I hold up my teacup my eyes see form and color and my hand is feeling something, its shape and warmth. If I put it closer to my nose, there is smell, when I touch it there is warmth, and when I drink it, my tongue feels something. Smell and warmth and taste are examples of the objective side which causes your knowing. The subjective side is maybe the path through which all elements of knowing come in and go out, like nose, body, tongue. When my skin senses the warm teacup in my hand, this warmth is called vijnana.
Alaya vijnana is the storehouse of all senses, all consciousness. It is phenomenal existence. So it is not God, and it is not something which never changes. It changes. It exists in time and space, very deep and very broad. Our mind covers it, and yet, when every knowledge, every understanding, every capacity, is oriented by your self, it is still blind. It can be compared to Plato’s metaphor of the cave. You live in this kingdom alone. If the world is arranged from yourself, this alaya vijnana is the continuous growth of the kingdom in which only you are living. People appear, things appear, but they are not really understood.
Vi means “to divide.” Jnana means knowledge, knowing. Because of our senses, by touching the cup, we can feel it. This particular knowing is vi, vijnana. So to know is to discriminate. To not know is to not discriminate. But it is not ignorance. To not know is to accept the whole thing, to not ignore it. So not knowing is a kind of knowing. By discrimination you understand part of the whole. By no discrimination you cannot know in the sense of knowing, but you essentially know. This is why we have a little difficulty when someone approaches and wants to know, “What are you thinking? How are you living?” Finally I get angry. “Leave me alone!” I say.