The Surangama Sutra

by Hsuan Hua

  “Suppose, Ānanda, that these flavors came into being from the tongue. Now, you have only one tongue. Suppose then that the flavor of the curds does come from the tongue. Then if a lump of sugar were placed on the tongue, the tongue would not be able to taste it unless it could change its nature. If the tongue cannot change its nature so that it can taste a variety of flavors, it cannot be capable of tasting. If it could change, that would mean you would have several tongues. How then does the one tongue you do have recognize a variety of flavors?

  “Suppose the flavors come from the food. But the food has no consciousness; how could it be aware of flavors? If the food were aware of its own flavors, then it would be as if someone else were eating. How would you be able to taste it?

  “Suppose that the flavors come from space. But suppose you were to take a mouthful of space: would it have a flavor? Let us say that it does — that it has a salty taste. If it could place a salty taste on your tongue, it would inevitably make your face salty as well. Everyone in the world would be like fish in the sea. Since you would perpetually be tasting salt, you would never be aware of a bland taste; and if you were never aware of a bland taste, you would not be able to distinguish a salty taste either. Indeed, you would not be able to taste at all. How then could you be said to have an awareness of flavors?

  “Therefore, you should know that food and the tongue-faculty have no real existence. These two sites — the tongue-faculty and flavors — are illusions. Fundamentally, they are not dependent on causes or conditions, and yet they do not come into being on their own.

  E. The Body-Faculty and Objects of Touch

  “Ānanda, every morning at daybreak you touch your head with your hand. What do you think? Is the awareness of the contact present in your hand or in your head? If it is only your hand that is aware of the contact, then your head will not be aware of it; how can that amount to the sensation you experience? And if it is just your head that is aware of the contact, then your hand must not be aware of it; how could that be what we mean by the sensation you experience?

  The practice of passing the hands over the head was adopted when the Buddha Śākyamuni was in the world. Many people who had followed other paths later became his disciples. As a result, the Buddha taught the monks to touch their own heads, which they keep shaved, three times every day in order to help them remember that they were monks. The practice continues to this day. (III, 77–8)

  “If both your head and your hand had a separate awareness of the contact, Ānanda, you must have two bodies.21 Conversely, if your head and hand together experience a single awareness of contact, then your head and your hand must be a single object. If they were a single object, how could there be contact between them? Given that your head and your hand are two separate objects, which of them is aware of the contact? The one that is aware cannot be the perceived object, and the one that is the perceived object cannot be what is aware. Nor can the contact be between you and space.

  “Therefore, you should know that, in fact, your body-faculty and objects of touch have no real existence. These two sites — the body-faculty and the objects of touch — are illusions. Fundamentally, they are not dependent on causes or conditions, and yet they do not come into being on their own.

  F. The Cognitive Faculty and Objects of Cognition

  “Ānanda, objects of cognition are always arising in your mind in three categories: pleasant, unpleasant, and neither pleasant nor unpleasant.22

  Now, do these objects of cognition arise from your cognitive faculty, or do they arise from some source other than your cognitive faculty?

  “Ānanda, if these objects of cognition arose from your cognitive faculty, they could not be objects of cognition,23 and they would not then be what your cognitive faculty can interact with.24 How then could they be a site for the arising of your mind-consciousness?

  “Suppose they arose from some source other than your cognitive faculty. Would they be aware of themselves as objects of cognition, or would they not? If they were aware, they would have to be part of your cognitive faculty. If they were aware and yet arose from some place other than your cognitive faculty, but were not objects of cognition, they could only be located in someone else’s cognitive faculty. But given that these objects of cognition are something you are aware of, they must be present in your cognitive faculty, and so they cannot after all be present in someone else’s cognitive faculty.

  “Finally, if these objects of cognition are not aware and arise from some other source than your mind, then at what site might they be located, given that they are neither visible objects, nor sounds, nor odors, nor flavors, nor such attributes as separation, contact, cold, and warmth? Nor are they space. Since there is nothing in the world humans perceive beyond visible objects, the other perceived objects, and space, and since objects of cognition are distinct from the cognitive faculty, what place is left for objects of cognition to be located?

  “Therefore, you should know that, in fact, your cognitive faculty and objects of cognition have no real existence. These two sites of perception — the cognitive faculty and objects of cognition — are illusions. Fundamentally, they are not dependent on causes or conditions, and yet they do not come into being on their own.”

  The Eighteen Constituents Are the Matrix of the Thus-Come One

  A. The Coming into Being of the Eye-Consciousness

  “Moreover, Ānanda, how is it that, fundamentally, the eighteen constituents are the Matrix of the Thus-Come One, which is the wondrous suchness of reality? Ānanda, according to your understanding of it, the eye-faculty and visible objects are the conditions for the coming into being of the eye-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the eyes, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the eye-faculty? Or does it come into being from visible objects, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of visible objects?

  The eighteen constituents are the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind; visible objects, sounds, odors, flavors, objects of touch, and objects of cognition; and eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness. The six faculties are matched to the six sense-objects, and between them are produced the six consciousnesses. The consciousnesses are what make distinctions.... Thus the eyes see visible objects and distinguish them as being attractive or unattractive. With the ears it is the same: they hear sounds as pleasing or displeasing.... Visible objects, sounds, odors, flavors, and objects of touch all have physical attributes. Only objects of cognition lack physical attributes. Nonetheless, when the cognitive faculty is matched with objects of cognition, distinctions are made in the mind; thus the mind also has a consciousness. (III, 91–2)

  “Suppose, Ānanda, that the eye-consciousness came into being from the eye-faculty. Now, without the presence of visible objects or of space, the eye-consciousness could not make distinctions, and even if it existed in this situation, what use would it be? Your eye-consciousness is neither blue, yellow, red, nor white. There is nothing to indicate where it is. On what then would the constituent that is the eye-consciousness be based?

  “Suppose the eye-consciousness came into being from visible objects. Then in the presence of space, where there are no visible objects, your eye-consciousness would cease to be. How then could it be aware of space?

  “Again, if your eye-consciousness came into being from visible objects, then when the objects changed, your eye-consciousness would change along with them. If it came into being from visible objects and yet did not change along with them, where would it exist? But if it did change, it would no longer have the characteristics of eye-consciousness. Also, it cannot come from visible objects because, if it did, given that it does not change, it could not become aware of space.

  “Suppose then that the eye-consciousness came into being from both the eye-faculty and visible objects. But it cannot arise from a combination of the two, because then it would be internally divided. Nor can the eye-c
onsciousness arise from the two as separate entities, because then it would be a chaotic mixture. How could the eye-consciousness be something so undefined?

  “Therefore, you should know that the eye-faculty and visible objects cannot be the conditions for the coming into being of the eye-consciousness, because none of these three constituents — eye-faculty, visible objects, and eye-consciousness — has an independent existence. Fundamentally, they do not come into being from causes and conditions; nor do they come into being on their own.

  B. The Coming into Being of the Ear-Consciousness

  “Moreover, Ānanda, according to your understanding of it, the ear-faculty and sounds are the conditions for the coming into being of the ear-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the ear-faculty such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the ear-faculty? Or does it come into being from sounds, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of sound?

  “Suppose, Ānanda, that it came into being from the ear-faculty. But without the presence of either sound or silence, the ear-faculty would not be aware of anything. If the ear-faculty lacked awareness, because there would be no objects for it to be aware of, then what attributes could the consciousness have? You may insist that it is the ears that hear. But without the presence of sound or silence, no hearing can take place. Also, the ear is covered with skin, and the body-faculty is involved with objects of touch. Could the ear-consciousness come into being from that faculty? Since it cannot, what can the ear-consciousness be based on?

  “Suppose the ear-consciousness came into being from sounds. If the ear-consciousness owed its existence to sounds, then it would have nothing to do with hearing. But if no hearing is taking place, how would you know where sounds are coming from? Suppose, nevertheless, that the ear-consciousness did arise from sound. Since a sound must be heard if it is to be what we know as a sound, the ear-consciousness would also be heard as a sound. And when it is not heard, it would not exist. Besides, if it is heard, then it would be the same thing as a sound; it would be something that is heard. But what would be able to hear it? And if you had no awareness, you would be as insentient as grass or wood.

  “Do not say that sounds, which have no awareness, and the ear-faculty, which is aware, can intermingle to create the ear-consciousness. There can be no such place where these two can mix together, since one is internal and the other is external. Where else then could the ear-consciousness come into being?

  “Therefore, you should know that the ear-faculty and sounds cannot be the conditions for the coming into being of the ear-consciousness, because none of these three constituents — ear-faculty, sounds, and ear-consciousness — has an independent existence. Fundamentally, they do not come into being from causes and conditions; nor do they come into being on their own.

  C. The Coming into Being of the Nose-Consciousness

  “Moreover, Ānanda, according to your understanding of it, the nose-faculty and odors are the conditions for the coming into being of the nose-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the nose-faculty, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the nose-faculty? Or does it come into being from odors, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of odors?

  “Ānanda, suppose it came into being from the nose. Now, in your opinion, what should we consider the nose to be? Should we take it to be a part of the body that is shaped like a pair of talons? Or should we take it to be the faculty that is aware of the natures of various odors?

  “Suppose we take the nose to be a part of the body shaped like a pair of talons. But then the nose belongs to the body-faculty, which is aware of objects of touch. What belongs to the body-faculty is not the nose-faculty, and the body-faculty perceives objects of touch. Nothing would remain to be called ‘nose-faculty.’ How could the nose-consciousness be based on it?

  “Ānanda, suppose that we take the nose to be the faculty that is aware of odors, then once again, in your opinion, what is it that is aware? Is it the part of the body shaped like a pair of talons? If so, then it would be its nature to be aware of objects of touch. It could not be the nose-faculty that is aware of odors.

  “Suppose it is space that is aware of odors. If space were itself aware, then it would not be a part of your body that would be aware. In that case, space, given that it is aware, would have to be you, and your body would have no awareness. Then you, Ānanda, would not be here now at all.

  “Suppose it is odors that are aware. If awareness were really a function of odors, how would you expect to be involved? If your nose were what produced odors, both pleasant and unpleasant, then such odors would not come from sandalwood incense or from the foul-smelling airāvaṇa.25

  The airāvaṇa tree emits an extremely foul stench that can be smelled from a long way off. Its stench is like that of a corpse that for several weeks has been decaying under the blazing sun. The red flowers of the airāvaṇa tree are very beautiful but very poisonous and to eat them means immediate death. (III, 108)

  “If those odors don’t come from those two things, then clearly it must be your nose itself that has an odor. Would its odor be pleasant or unpleasant? If it were pleasant, it could not be unpleasant, and if unpleasant, it could not be pleasant. Thus if it really were odors, both pleasant and unpleasant, that were aware, then you would have to have two noses, or else I would be questioning two people about the Path. Which one would be you? Since you after all have only one nose, which cannot both stink and be fragrant, then if odors were in fact aware, stench would have to be fragrant and fragrance would have to stink. Neither would have a nature of its own. On what then would the nose-consciousness be based?

  “Suppose, again, that the nose-consciousness came into being from odors. If that were the case, then just as the eye-faculty can see everything but itself, so the nose-consciousness, if it came into being from odors, could not be aware of odors. Since it is aware of odors, it cannot come into being from them; and if after all it were not aware of odors, it would not be the nose-consciousness. Besides, since odors have no awareness, the constituent element of the nose-consciousness cannot come into being from them; and if it did, the consciousness could not become aware of odors. Therefore the nose-consciousness cannot come into being from odors.

  “Finally, since there can be no place that is intermediate between a faculty, which is internal, and its object, which is external, the nose-consciousness must ultimately be a distortion and an illusion.

  “Therefore, you should know that the nose-faculty and odors cannot be the conditions for the coming into being of the nose-consciousness, because none of these three constituents — nose-faculty, odors, and the nose-consciousness — has an independent existence. Fundamentally, they do not come into being from causes and conditions; nor do they come into being on their own.

  D. The Coming into Being of the Tongue-Consciousness

  “Moreover, Ānanda, according to your understanding of it, the tongue-faculty and flavors are the conditions for the coming into being of the tongue-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the tongue-faculty, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the tongue-faculty? Or does it come into being from flavors, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of flavors?

  “Ānanda, suppose it came into being from the tongue-faculty. Then you would not be able to taste the flavors that we find in the world, such as sugar cane, sour plums, coptis rhizome, salt, wild ginger, ginger, and cinnamon.26 You would only be able to taste your own tongue-faculty. Would it be sweet or bitter? Suppose it were bitter: what would be tasting it? Since the tongue-faculty cannot taste itself, what would the tongue-consciousness consist of? If your tongue-faculty were not bitter, bitter flavor could not come into being from it. On what then would the tongue-consciousness be based?

  “Suppose the tongue-consciousness came into being from flavors. Then the tongue-consciousness would itself have flavor, and just as in the previous case of the nose-faculty, the tongue-consciousness w
ould not be able to taste its own flavor. How then would it be aware of the presence or absence of any flavor? Further, flavors do not come into being from any one thing. Since flavors come from many different things, there would have to be many tongue-consciousnesses. But given that there is after all just one tongue-consciousness, then if that single tongue-consciousness indeed came into being from flavors, it would have to itself be a combination of such flavors as salty, bland, sweet, and hot. Their various characteristics would have to change into a single flavor, and you would not be able to distinguish one from another. Since your tongue-consciousness could not make distinctions among them, it could not be what we call a consciousness, and so could not be the constituent that is the tongue-consciousness. Nor could it come into being from space.

  “Do not say that the tongue faculty and flavors come into contact and combine to create a constituent at their place of contact. If flavors, which are external, and the tongue-faculty, which is internal, did combine, then there would be no place of contact. They would cease to exist as separate constituents.

  “Therefore, you should know that the tongue-faculty and flavors cannot be the conditions for the coming into being of the tongue-consciousness, because none of these three constituents — tongue-faculty, flavors, and tongue-consciousness — has an independent existence. Fundamentally, they do not come into being from causes and conditions; nor do they come into being on their own.

  E. The Coming into Being of the Body-Consciousness

  “Moreover, Ānanda, according to your understanding of it, the body-faculty and objects of touch are the conditions for the coming into being of the body-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the body-faculty, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the body-faculty? Or does it come into being from objects of touch, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of objects of touch?