The Surangama Sutra

by Hsuan Hua

  Ānanda said, “Looking from this many-storied Dharma hall as far as the distant Ganges and as far as the sun and the moon, I can point out all the things that my eyes observe, and all of them are perceived objects. None is my visual awareness. World-Honored One, it is as the Buddha said. Neither I nor any other Arhat who is at the first stage and still has outflows, nor even a Bodhisattva, could analyze the myriad objects and show us a visual awareness with a nature of its own that is distinct from all the objects.”

  The Buddha said, “So it is. So it is.”

  The Buddha continued, saying to Ānanda, “It is as you said. Our visual awareness does not have a nature of its own that is distinct from the myriad things. Thus your awareness is not something you can point out. I will explain this to you again. As you and I are seated here looking at Prince Jetri’s Grove, let us look once more at the trees and garden and as far as the sun and moon. It is clear that not one of all the many different sights that you can point to is your visual awareness. But let us continue to explore this: are any of these things separate from your visual awareness?”

  Ānanda said, “In fact, I do not think that anything I see, as I look around Prince Jetri’s Grove, is separate from my awareness. Why? If the trees were separate from my awareness, how could I be seeing them? But if the trees were identical to my awareness, how could they still be trees? The same is true of every other perceived object and of space as well. If space were separate from my awareness, how could I be seeing it? But if it were identical to my awareness, how could it still be space? Having reexamined this — having considered in detail the myriad sights around us, I realize that not even the smallest of them is separate from my awareness.”31

  The Buddha said, “So it is. So it is.”

  The Buddha’s words stunned everyone in the assembly who still needed instruction.32 None of them had understood his meaning. Having lost what they had been relying on, they were distressed and fearful. The Thus-Come One took pity on them, knowing that their spirits were anxious and troubled, and he said in order to console Ānanda and the others in the great assembly, “Good people, the king of highest Dharma has been telling you the truth. He explains reality just as it is. He does not deceive or lie. What he has expounded for you is different from the four theories concerning what is everlasting33 propounded by Maskari Gośālīputra and the others. Consider this carefully; in earnestly seeking instruction, be worthy of my sympathy.”

  Then Mañjuśrī, Prince of Dharma, taking pity on the four assemblies, stood up amidst the gathering. Having bowed at the Buddha’s feet, he put his palms together in respect and said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, the great assembly has not understood the two disclosures that the Thus-Come One has made: first, that the essence of our visual awareness and visible objects, and space as well, are identical; and, second, that they are not identical.

  Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva stood up and then bowed down before the Buddha and held the Buddha’s feet with his two hands. In India this was a gesture of utmost respect. People’s feet are most unclean, and so to use one’s hands to hold the Buddha’s feet indicates, “I am beneath your feet.” So now when we bow to the Buddha, we turn our palms up, and in this position we should contemplate that our two hands are under the Buddha’s feet. This represents purity in the karma of the body, because while showing respect in this way, we are not committing any offenses with the body. Placing our palms together in respect represents purity in the karma of the mind; placing the fingers together carefully side by side while placing our palms together represents single-minded respect. It means that your mind has returned to oneness and now gives undivided attention to revering the Buddha.... Finally, Mañjuśrī’s speaking to the Buddha represents purity in the karma of speech.... He says that the great assembly has not understood. Did he himself not understand, then? He understood. He asked because no one else knew how to phrase the question.... We know that Mañjuśrī understood because the text says that he took pity on the four assemblies. But even without that phrase, we would know that he understood because he is the Bodhisattva of Great Wisdom. (II, 129–31)

  “World-Honored One, if our visual awareness were identical to the conditions before us — space and visible objects — then we should be able to point to our awareness just as we can point to visible objects and to space. But if our awareness were separate from visible objects and from space, we would not be able to observe them. People in the assembly are alarmed because they do not understand the basis of this argument; it is not that their roots in the Dharma from their previous lives are shallow. Therefore, I hope that the Thus-Come One will compassionately reveal exactly what the essence of visual awareness is, what the essence of observed objects is, and what it means to say that the essence of visual awareness is neither identical nor not identical to the objects we observe.”

  Ānanda does not understand, but when Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva speaks, his reasoning is perfect.... He mentions that some people in the assembly are alarmed although their foundations in the Dharma are not weak. But they haven’t understand the principle at all. Sometimes people whose foundations in the Dharma are slight will become very afraid when they undertake a spiritual practice. In that case, they should do more good deeds; this will strengthen their foundation, and then their samādhi will grow strong. (II, 131–3)

  The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī and to the rest of the great assembly, “To the Thus-Come Ones of the ten directions and to the Great Bodhisattvas who dwell in samādhi, visual awareness and visible objects, and objects of mind as well, are like elaborate mirages that appear in space. They have no real existence of their own. Fundamentally, visual awareness and all its conditioned objects are the pure, wondrously understanding enlightenment itself. In enlightenment, how could there be identity or a lack of it? Mañjuśrī, I now ask you: you are Mañjuśrī; is there a Mañjuśrī about whom one can say, ‘That is Mañjuśrī’? Or is there no such Mañjuśrī?”

  How can identity and lack of identity be found within the true mind, which does not admit of duality? The true mind is not in the realm of opposites. (II, 134)

  “Neither, World-Honored One. I am simply Mañjuśrī. There is no one about whom one can say, ‘That is Mañjuśrī.’ Why? If there were, there would be two Mañjuśrīs. Nor is it the case that there is no such Mañjuśrī. In fact, neither the affirmation nor the denial of the statement ‘That is Mañjuśrī’ is true.”

  The Buddha said, “The same is true of the wondrously understanding essence of our visual awareness and also of the objects we observe and of space. All are the wondrously understanding, supreme enlightenment — the pure, perfect, true mind. It is a mistake to consider them as separate — as observed objects, space, and visual awareness — or as awareness of sound and the other kinds of awareness.

  There is no “is” or “not.”... Space and objects, like our awareness, are the true mind. Later, it is explained that the four primary elements — earth, water, fire, and wind — are the Matrix of the Thus-Come One.... Identity and separation are relative concepts, but what is spoken of here is absolute. (II, 136–8)

  “Similarly, in the analogy of the second moon,34 which moon is the one about which one can say, ‘That is the moon,’ and which one is not in fact the moon? Actually, Mañjuśrī, there is really only one moon. We can neither affirm nor deny the statement, ‘That is the moon.’ Therefore, all your various interpretations of visual awareness and visible objects are nothing but delusion, and in the midst of delusion one cannot avoid thinking ‘That is’ and ‘That is not.’ Only from within the true, essential, wondrously understanding, awakened mind can one escape the error of trying to point to what ‘is’ and what ‘is not.’”

  Visual Awareness Arises Neither on Its Own nor from Causes

  “World-Honored One,” Ānanda said respectfully to the Buddha, “It truly is as the Dharma-King has said. Our enlightened nature can be involved with things throughout all ten directions, and yet it remains clear and still. It is eternal
ly present. It neither comes into being nor ceases to be.

  “But how does what the Buddha has said in this regard differ from the ‘truth of the unmanifested nature’ as taught by the Brahmin Kapila,35 or from the ‘true self’ as taught by the ascetics who smear ashes on themselves,36 or by others who are not on the right path? Also, on Mount Laṅkā37 the World-Honored One explained this principle to the Bodhisattva Mahāmati and to others, and he said then that those who are not on the right path are always speaking of things existing in and of themselves,38 whereas the Buddha speaks of something else: he speaks of causes and conditions. But as I see it now, the enlightened nature exists in and of itself; it neither comes into being nor ceases to be; it far transcends all that is distorted and unreal. It seems it does not arise from causes and conditions; instead it seems that it exists in and of itself. I only hope that the Buddha will explain this to us so that we may realize our true and genuine mind, which is our wondrously understanding, enlightened nature, and avoid all the wrong paths.”

  The primary cause is like a seed, and the conditions are what aid the growth of a seed, such as soil, water, fertilizer, sunlight, etc. (II, 144)

  The Buddha said to Ānanda, “Just now, by various means I have explained this to you in order that the truth would be made clear to you. But you have not understood, and you mistakenly suppose that the enlightened nature exists in and of itself.

  “Ānanda, if the enlightened nature indeed exists in and of itself, as you say, then you should be able to discern what it essentially consists of. Consider your wondrously understanding visual awareness: what about it exists in and of itself? Does it consist of light that exists in and of itself? Does it consist of darkness that exists in and of itself? Does it consist of space that exists in and of itself? Does it consist of solid objects that exist in and of themselves? If it consisted of light that existed in and of itself, Ānanda, you would not be able to see when it is dark. If it consisted of space that existed in and of itself, you would not be able to see solid objects. In the same way, if it consisted of darkness that existed in and of itself, the essential nature of your visual awareness would cease to exist, and so you would not be able to see when it is light.”

  Ānanda said, “It must be then that the wondrously understanding nature of this visual awareness does not exist in and of itself after all. It now seems to me that it comes into being due to causes and conditions. But I do not understand this clearly yet. May I inquire of the Thus-Come One how this idea fits with the Buddha’s teachings about causes and conditions?”

  The Buddha said, “You are saying that the luminous nature of visual awareness comes into being from causes and conditions. I ask you to consider, then: what is the primary cause of your being aware of what you see before you? Is light the primary cause of your being aware of what you see before you? Is darkness the primary cause? Is space the primary cause? Are solid objects the primary cause?

  “Ānanda, if light were the cause of your being aware of what you see before you, you could not see when it is dark. If darkness were the cause, you could not see when it is light. And what is true of light and darkness as causes is equally true of space and objects as causes.

  “Moreover, Ānanda, is light or darkness a condition of your being aware of what you see before you? Are objects conditions? Is space a condition? If space were a condition of your being aware of what you see before you, Ānanda, then you could not see solid objects. If solid objects were a condition of your being aware of what you see before you, you would be unable to perceive space. And what is true of space and solid objects as conditions is equally true of light and darkness as conditions.

  “Therefore, you should understand that the existence of the essential, wondrously understanding, enlightened visual awareness is not dependent for its existence on causes and conditions, nor does it exist in and of itself. Nevertheless, one cannot say that it does not exist in and of itself, nor can one say that it is independent of causes and conditions. Statements that account for its existence cannot be negated, yet one cannot say that they cannot be negated. Such statements cannot be affirmed, yet one cannot say that they cannot be affirmed. What is entirely beyond all defining attributes — that is the entirety of Dharma.

  “In making all these distinctions, why have you resorted to terms used in the reckless fabrications of worldly discourse? You might as well try to seize a handful of space. However much you weary yourself in the attempt, space will forever elude your grasp.”

  True Visual Awareness

  Ānanda said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, if the wondrous enlightened nature is indeed not dependent on causes and conditions, why then has the Buddha often taught the monks that our visual awareness requires four conditions to be present: space, light, mind,39 and the eye-faculty. What did you mean then?”

  The Buddha said, “Ānanda, what I have said about causes and conditions as they function in the world is not an ultimate truth. I have another question for you, Ānanda. When ordinary people say, ‘I see’ or ‘I do not see,’ what do they mean by ‘seeing’ and ‘not seeing’?”

  Ānanda said, “Relying on the light of the sun, of the moon, or of lamps, ordinary people can see various objects. That is what they mean by ‘seeing.’ Without at least one of these three sources of light, they would not be able to see.”

  “Ānanda, if people cannot see when light is absent, they would have no visual awareness of total darkness. Since they are visually aware of total darkness, you cannot say that they cannot see in the absence of light. Further, if their inability to see light when they are in total darkness indeed means they cannot see when it is dark, then conversely, their inability to see darkness when it is light must also mean that they cannot see when it is light, since the cases are parallel and both involve instances of not seeing.

  “Light and darkness are mutually exclusive; still, regardless of which one is present, your visual awareness does not lapse for an instant. Therefore you should understand that in both cases there is seeing. How can you say that there is not?40

  “You should understand then that when people see light, their awareness of it does not come into being because of the light. When people see darkness, their awareness of it does not come into being because of the darkness. When people see space, their awareness of it does not come into being because of the space, and when people see solid objects, their awareness of them does not come into being because of the solid objects.

  “Now that we have arrived at the conclusion that visual awareness does not come into being because of any of these four, you should also understand that when you are able to use your true awareness to be aware of the essence of your visual awareness, you will know that your true awareness is not the same as the essence of your awareness. The two are quite separate from one another. The essence of awareness is not the equal of true awareness.41 How can you still be speaking of the attributes of causes and conditions and of things existing in and of themselves, or even coming into being from inhering or combining?42 You Hearers of the Teaching are deficient in knowledge; your views are narrow and your attainment limited. Because you have not yet been able to break through to true reality in its purity, I will now instruct you further. Consider well what I say. Do not become weary and lose heart on the road to the wonder of full awakening.”

  “To break through” here means to understand. The Buddha tells the Arhats that at present their minds are too strongly attached, the distinctions they make are too numerous, for them to understand the teachings of the Mahāyāna, the Greater Vehicle, concerning the purity of true reality.... True reality has no attributes. That is the first explanation. Yet nothing is apart from true reality: that is the second explanation. All attributes are produced from within it.... The third explanation is that true reality has no attributes, and yet there is nothing which is not an attribute. All phenomena are born from true reality, and so true reality is the essential nature of all phenomena.... What then is true reality ultimately
like? You cannot see it. It has merely been given a name, “true reality.” The idea is similar to the idea expressed in Laozi’s saying, “The Way that can be spoken of is not the eternal Way.”...

  True reality is true emptiness, and it is also wondrous existence. Do you say that true emptiness is empty? It is not, because within it, all that exists comes into being. True emptiness is said to be true because it is not in fact empty, and all that exists is wondrous because it does not in fact exist. What exists within emptiness is wondrous existence. Emptiness therefore is not empty, and that lack of emptiness within emptiness is true emptiness. Since true emptiness is not empty, it is called “wondrous existence.” Since wondrous existence does not exist, it is called “true emptiness.” These two names are one. If you investigate this in detail, you will find, however, that even that “one” does not exist.... Fundamentally, there isn’t anything at all.... To truly be apart from all attributes is to have real samādhi. If you can separate yourself from all attributes, Mt. Tai could come crashing down in front of you and you would not be startled.... Demonic obstructions... can only disturb your samādhi because your mind moves. As soon as your mind moves, the obstacles slip right in. If you don’t move, no demon in existence will have any way to get at you. No spell that can be recited can influence you. It was because Ānanda didn’t have sufficient power of mental concentration that the Mātaṅga woman was able to confuse him. If he had had the genuine Śūraṅgama Samādhi, there would have been no need for the Buddha to speak the Śūraṅgama Sūtra or the Śūraṅgama Mantra. And you and I would not be able to study them now. (II, 166–8)