The Shurangama Sutra Volume 2

Manjushri Asks a Question

P5 Manjushri asks a question.
Q1 He brings up a doubt and formulates a question.

Sutra: 

Then Manjushri, son of the Dharma King, took pity on the four assemblies, rose from his seat in the midst of the great assembly, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, placed his palms together respectfully, and said to the Buddha, “World Honored One, the great assembly has not awakened to the principle of the Thus Come One’s two-fold disclosure of the essence of seeing as being both form and emptiness and as being neither of them.

Commentary:

Then Manjushri, son of the Dharma King – Manjushri, the Greatly Wise Bodhisattva, had already understood, but he looked at those in the assembly who had something left to learn, the first-stage, second-stage, and third-stage arhats, and saw that they were extremely pitiful. So he brought up a question.

”Manjushri” is a Sanskrit name that means “wonderful virtue.” He is also called “Wonderfully Auspicious.” The Buddha is the Dharma King, and a Bodhisattva is a son of the Dharma King. Manjushri was an elder among the sons of the Dharma King; he was the leader among the Bodhisattvas.

He took pity on the four assemblies – the bhikshus, bhikshunis, upasakas, and upasikas – rose from his seat in the midst of the great assembly, and bowed at the Buddha’s feet. He stood up and then bowed down to the Buddha and held the Buddha’s feet with his two hands. This is 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 when you bow to the Buddha, you turn your palms up, and in this position you should contemplate that your two hands are under the Buddha’s feet. This represents the purity of the body-karma, because while showing respect in this way, you are not committing any offenses with your body.

He placed his palms together respectfully. This represents the purity of the mind-karma. In your mind you also give rise to thoughts of true respect. Placing your palms together, with the ten fingers placed carefully side by side, represents single-minded respect. It means that you “turn to one” and give undivided attention to revering the Buddha. Placing the palms together is also called “uniting the ten to become one.”

And said to the Buddha: this represents the purity of mouth-karma. Body, mouth, and mind all pay respect. The karma of the body, the karma of the mouth, and the karma of the mind are all pure. This is the purity of the three karmas. Why do people commit karmic offenses? Offenses are most often committed by the mouth. It is said,

Calamities come forth from the mouth;
Sickness enters by way of the mouth.

When catastrophes befall us, when adverse circumstances arise, they are usually brought on by the mouth. You say someone is wrong, and that person comes and treats you rudely. Isn’t that a disaster brought about by the mouth? “Sickness enters by way of the mouth.” When we eat things, we should be careful what we take in. If you are not careful about what you eat, you can get sick. The sickness referred to here does not just mean a temporary illness. It means that, over a long period of time, what you eat as well as other conditions can cause your breath and blood to be out of balance. When that happens, sickness arises.

World Honored One, the great assembly has not awakened. He says that no one understood. But did Manjushri Bodhisattva understand?

He understood. But he still wanted to ask on behalf of those who had the opportunity to be present in the great assembly. If he had not asked, no one else would have known how to phrase the question. The Buddha could have explained it, but if no one knew how to ask, there would have been no way to take advantage of the Buddha’s knowledge.

We know that Manjushri understood because the text says he “took pity on the four assemblies.” But even if it weren’t for that phrase, we would know that he understood because he has the greatest wisdom and is referred to as “the Greatly Wise Manjushri Bodhisattva.” His question was asked on behalf of those who have not awakened to the principle of the Thus Come One’s two-fold disclosure of the essence of seeing as being both form and emptiness and as being neither of them. This refers to the doctrine involving the seeing-essence, things, and emptiness. Ultimately, is the seeing a thing or is it emptiness? Nobody else knew how to ask about this doctrine, so Manjushri Bodhisattva decided to ask about it.

P6 The Thus Come One’s compassionate instruction.
Q1 First he explains it is not because of .is. or .is not..
R1 He makes clear the one truth neither .is. nor .is not..

Sutra:

“World Honored One, if the causal form, emptiness and other phenomena mentioned above were the seeing, there should be an indication of its distance; and if they were not the seeing, there should be nothing visible to be seen. Now we do not know what is meant, and this is why we are alarmed and concerned.

Commentary:

Do you see how Manjushri phrases things completely differently from Ananda? Ananda is not clear about what is going on. But when Manjushri Bodhisattva speaks, his reasoning is quite complete. He says: World Honored One, if these conditions before us – the appearance of form and emptiness alike – were the seeing, one would be able to point to it. “These conditions before us” refers to the dust before one, the causes and conditions discussed above. “Form” refers to things, “emptiness” to space. “Alike” refers to both these characteristics, and “appearance” means there is not necessarily such a thing, but they are used by way of analogy.

Manjushri says that if form and emptiness are the seeing, there would be some representation of it, that one could point to the seeing. If they were not the seeing, then one would not see anything. The World Honored One first said that the seeing was not a thing. Afterward, he said that seeing is a thing – that is, he asked what things are not the seeing. Nobody knew what he meant. Now we do not know what is meant. Just what is happening here? In the end, is there seeing or isn’t there?

Manjushri Bodhisattva says “we” because he doesn’t have a self. He says that everyone does not understand. His question is a lot clearer than any asked by Ananda. You see how simply he states it, yet the meaning is very wonderful. This is why we are alarmed and concern. This is something we never paid much attention to before and now that we have taken notice of it, the doctrine is so wonderful that we are not sure what it is ultimately all about. I look at this lamp, for example: is the seeing the lamp or is the lamp the seeing? This doctrine hasn’t been explained clearly. If you say the lamp is not the seeing, then I don’t see the lamp. You may say the lamp is the seeing, but the lamp itself cannot see. So you say it is the seeing and yet it is not the seeing.

Q2 He picks up on the past and seeks instruction. 

Sutra:

“It is not that our good roots from former lives are deficient. We only hope the Thus Come One will have the great compassion to reveal exactly what all the things are and what the seeing-essence is. Is it that there is no question of ‘is’ or ‘is not’ in all of this?”

Commentary:

It is not that our good roots from former lives are deficient. The reason for our alarm and concern is not that our good roots from our last lives or from other previous lives are deficient. It wasn’t that the members of the assembly had few good roots. It was that they didn’t understand the doctrine at all. Sometimes people whose good roots are slight will become very afraid when they cultivate the Way. What should you do if this happens? Do more good deeds, to nourish your good roots. When your good roots are nourished and grow deeper, then you will have samadhi-power. If your good roots are insufficient, your samadhi-power will be insufficient too. So we all should nourish our good roots.

We only hope the Thus Come One will have the great compassion to reveal exactly what all the things are and what the seeing-essence is. Is it that there is no question of “is” or “is not” in all of this? In the end, is it that there is no “is” and no “is not” in the midst of things, emptiness, and the seeing-essence? Manjushri Bodhisattva is really clear about this doctrine, and so he makes this deduction.

P6 The Thus Come One’s compassionate instruction.
Q1 First he explains it is not because of .is. or .is not..
R1 He makes clear that the one truth is not .is. or .is not..

Sutra: 

The Buddha told Manjushri and the great assembly, “To the Thus Come Ones and the great Bodhisattvas of the ten directions, who dwell in this samadhi, seeing and the conditions of seeing, as well as the characteristics of thought, are like flowers in space – fundamentally non-existent.

Commentary:

The Buddha told Manjushri and the great assembly, “To the Thus Come Ones and the great Bodhisattvas of the ten directions, who dwell in this samadhi – in the great Shurangama Samadhi – seeing and the conditions of seeing – the causes and conditions which arise in their seeing – as well as the characteristics of thought – as well as the things they think about – are like flowers in space – fundamentally non-existent.” Basically, there aren’t any flowers in space. When your eyes are defective, you see them, but if there’s nothing wrong with your eyes, there are no flowers in space. Or perhaps if you look at the sun for too long, you may see flowers all over empty space. That is one way to explain it. Another way to explain it is that if you open the Buddha eye, whatever flowers you want to look at exist in space. These are flowers in space also. So there are two principles here.

Are the flowers seen by those who have opened their Buddha eye real? No. They are not real either. They are also illusory transformations. But if you think you want to see them they come into being.

Then are there any flowers in space? No. Basically there isn’t anything at all. Basically they do not exist. Basically there isn’t anything. What are you trying to find? Why are you trying to find out if the seeing is a thing or if it is emptiness, or what? What are you looking for? You are all caught up in seeking outside – in running outside yourself to look for things.

Sutra: 

“This seeing and its conditions are originally the wonderful pure bright substance of Bodhi. How can one speak of ‘is’ and ‘is not’?

Commentary:

The Buddha said: This seeing and its conditions are originally the wonderful pure bright substance of Bodhi. The seeing and the conditions of seeing are themselves the wonderful pure bright substance of your Bodhi mind. It is also the pure nature and bright substance of the everlasting true mind. Here for purposes of literary style the name “Bodhi” has been used instead. How can one speak of “is” and “is not”? How can you say that “is” and “is not” can be found within the true mind, which defies duality? There is nothing dual about the true mind; it is absolute, and not in the realm of opposites, and so how can you be so confused as to speak of an “is” and “is not” there?

R2 He uses an analogy to ask if the one truth “is” or “is not.”

Sutra:

“Manjushri, I now ask you: take yourself as an example, Manjushri. Is there still another Manjushri? Is there a Manjushri who is and a Manjushri who is not?”

Commentary:

Now the Buddha asks Manjushri Bodhisattva a question: Manjushri, I now ask you: take yourself as an example, Manjushri. Is there still another Manjushri? Is there a Manjushri who is and a Manjushri who is not? You say, “This is Manjushri.” That’s what is meant by “a Manjushri who is.” Then is there a Manjushri who is not? What do you say? That is what the Buddha asked Manjushri Bodhisattva, and he waits to see what Manjushri Bodhisattva will answer. You should learn to ask questions like Manjushri Bodhisattva. Don’t imitate Ananda’s way of asking questions. Ananda’s questions are really obtuse.

R3 He answers that originally truth does not have a dual aspect.

Sutra: 

“So it is, World Honored One: I am truly Manjushri. There is no Manjushri who ‘is.’ Why? If there were still another Manjushri who ‘is’ Manjushri, there would be two Manjushris. But it is not that now I am not Manjushri. In fact, neither of the two characteristics ‘is’ and ‘is not’ exist.”

Commentary:

So it is, World Honored One. Manjushri Bodhisattva says, “It is just as you explain it, Buddha. There is no Manjushri who ‘is’ and no Manjushri who ‘is not.’ There isn’t any ‘is’ or ‘is not.’ I am truly Manjushri. I am the real Manjushri. There is no Manjushri who ‘is.’ There isn’t anyone beyond me that is Manjushri. There isn’t anything else. I am just Manjushri. There isn’t any ‘is’ Manjushri or ‘is not’ Manjushri. Why? Why do I say that? If you say this Manjushri is, then what Manjushri is not? If there were two Manjushris, then that would be acceptable.

If there were still another Manjushri who ‘is’ Manjushri, there would be two Manjushris. If there is an ‘is,’ then there is an ‘is not,’ and that becomes two Manjushris. But it is not that now I am not Manjushri. But it certainly isn’t that I am not Manjushri today. There is a Manjushri; but there is no ‘is’ Manjushri. In fact, neither of the two characteristics ‘is’ and ‘is not’ exist. In terms of myself, Manjushri, a particular person, the two aspects of ‘is’ and ‘is not’ do not exist, and to speak of one that ‘is’ Manjushri and one that ‘is not’ Manjushri is incorrect.”

At that time he caused everyone in the great assembly to understand that there isn’t something that “is” the seeing and something that “is not” the seeing. The seeing is the everlasting seeing. There is no such thing as saying that things are the seeing or that emptiness is the seeing. The seeing is the wonderfully pure bright substance of the nature of Bodhi. So you cannot set up “is” and “is not” with regard to it.

R4 He concludes by tying the analogy to the principle. 

Sutra: 

The Buddha said, “This is not only the case with the seeing, the basic substance of wonderful Bodhi, but also with emptiness and mundane objects.

Commentary:

The more he explains, the more all-encompassing this sutra becomes. Not only is the seeing the basic substance of wonderful bright Bodhi, but emptiness and mundane dust are also. They are just like the seeing. The Buddha said, “The wonderful brightness of the seeing is this way and so are emptiness and mundane objects.” They are just as wonderful as the seeing. There is no “is” and “is not.” It is not that things are the seeing or that emptiness is the seeing. Rather, emptiness and mundane things – dust – are, like the seeing, the basic substance of the true mind. Later the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind are explained to be the wonderful true suchness nature of the treasury of the Thus Come One. So the more this sutra is explained, the more wonderful it becomes. The more it is explained, the less you understand it, and so you say, “Since I can’t understand it, I won’t study it.”

If you don’t study it, you will never understand it. You will never open your wisdom. Now you are studying it, and so now you can open your wisdom. You can perceive that the mysterious wonder of the Buddha’s doctrines is inexhaustible. So the Shurangama Sutra is unsurpassed.

Q2 He teaches him the method to transcend “is” and “is not.”
R1 He displays the two appearances of true and false. 

Sutra:

“They are basically the projections or manifestations of the wonderful brightness of unsurpassed Bodhi, the pure, perfect, true mind. They are falsely taken to be form and emptiness, as well as hearing and seeing.

Commentary:

They are basically the projections or manifestations of the wonderful brightness of unsurpassed Bodhi. Basically, everything is the subtle wonderful, light, highest Bodhi, the enlightenment to the Way, the pure, perfect, true mind. The true mind is clean. They are falsely taken to be form and emptiness, as well as hearing and seeing. Originally the basic substance is the pure true mind. But with the production of a single thought of false dust – mundane objects – one is turned around by form, that is, by things, and by emptiness. You are turned around by things. Earlier I said, “If you can turn things around, you are the same as the Thus Come One.” Because there are false thoughts, one is turned around by form and emptiness. You also do not understand your hearing-nature and your seeing-nature.

Why don’t we understand? Because of the production of false thoughts. When one thought is wrong, thought after thought becomes wrong. There is a saying:

In one false move,
You lose the whole chess game.

Likewise, because of one wrong thought, you recognize the false as true. You take false things to be the real one.

R2 He uses an analogy for the true and false.

Sutra:

“Just as with the second moon: which one ‘is’ the moon and which ‘is not’ the moon? Manjushri, there is only one true moon, and within it there is not a moon that ‘is’ or a moon that ‘is not.’

Commentary:

Just as with the second moon. Basically, it is one moon, but if you look at it with defective eyes, you see two moons. Which one “is” the moon and which “is not” the moon? Which moon is not the moon? Manjushri, there is only one true moon, and within it there is not a moon that “is” or a moon that “is not.” When you have “is” and “is not,” you have relative dharmas. But what is spoken of now is absolute. The basic nature of Bodhi is beyond opposites.

R3 He puts analogy and principle together.

Sutra:

“Therefore, now as you contemplate the seeing and the mundane things together, all the things you disclose are called false thoughts. You cannot transcend ‘is’ and ‘is not’ from within them.

Commentary:

Therefore, because of this, now as you contemplate the seeing and the mundane things together, all the things you disclose are called false thoughts. You contemplate your seeing and things, and you disclose all kinds of forms and appearances. They are all false thoughts; they appear because of your false thoughts. You cannot transcend “is” and “is not” from within them. Within emptiness you cannot find something that “is” emptiness and something that “is not” emptiness. Emptiness is simply emptiness; how could there further be an emptiness that is and an emptiness that is not? Nor can you say of things that a thing “is” and “is not.” It is the same with the seeing. You cannot say there is a seeing that “is” a thing or “is” emptiness, or that the seeing “is” or “is not” seeing. This will not work. In this you cannot find an “is” or an “is not.”

Sutra:

“With the true essence, the wonderful enlightened bright nature, you can get beyond trying to point out or not point out.”

Commentary:

”With the true essence, the genuine seeing-essence, the wonderful enlightened bright nature, the subtle wonderful inconceivable bright nature, you can get beyond trying to point out or not point out. The bright nature can teach you to get beyond trying to pinpoint things as being or not being. You felt that your doctrine was correct when you said that the seeing is a thing, and then you said the seeing is not a thing. But ultimately, is it a thing or isn’t it?” the Buddha is asking Ananda. Fundamentally there is no such distinction of “is” and “is not.” Your doctrine was wrong. You tried to point to things as “is” or “is not,” but basically it cannot be done. It is a complete mistake to try. But now you can get beyond that.

Seeing Transcends the Ordinary

N9 He shows that the seeing transcends the ordinary.
O1 He rejects spontaneity.
P1 Ananda expands on the doctrine of permanence and asks about spontaneity.
Q1 He starts with the permanence of the nature of things.
Q2 He wonders how it compares to the teaching of externalists.

Sutra: 

In response to Shakyamuni Buddha’s discussion of “is” and “is not,” Ananda said to the Buddha, “World Honored One, it is truly as the Dharma King has said: the condition of enlightenment pervades the ten directions: clear, everlasting, and by nature neither produced nor extinguished.” “Clear” refers to what is pure and tranquil. Take for example a bowl of muddy water. We wouldn’t say it was clear. But after the silt and sand have settled, so that you can see to the bottom, we say it is clear. The nature of the condition of enlightenment is pure, clear, everlasting, and neither produced nor extinguished.

How does it differ, then, from the first brahma Kapila’s teaching of the “profound truth” or from the teaching of the ascetics who throw ashes on themselves or from the other externalist sects that say there is a “real self” which pervades the ten directions? The first brahman Kapila said that he had descended from the Great Brahma Heaven, a god born among people, and that in the future he would be born in the Great Brahma Heaven according to his resolve.

He said, “In the future all of us will return to the Great Brahma Heaven.” He was a proponent of the Brahma Heaven. “Brahma” means “pure,” and Kapila, as I explained earlier – however, I believe that no one remembers – means “the external path of the yellow-haired.” Do you remember Matangi’s daughter? She made her mother make use of the former Brahma Heaven mantra of the Kapilas, the very sect being discussed here.

The “profound truth” discussed by external paths has also been explained. In that dull dark inactive state, one doesn’t know anything at all. “Profound” means a total lack of perception. You might say that one becomes drunk, and yet one isn’t drunk. You might say that one has taken drugs, and yet one hasn’t. It is simply that one doesn’t know anything at all.

In India there is an external path which practices asceticism. The adherents say they want to live a “natural” existence, so they don’t wear very much clothing or wash their bodies, and they lie in ashes and roll around in them until their entire bodies are covered with them. These are the externalist ascetics who throw ashes on themselves.

There is another externalist sect whose adherents sleep on beds of nails. They hammer nails into a bed and they sleep on top of them. The nails don’t pierce their flesh, and they say it is because they have a “vajra indestructible body.” Would you say that is cheating people, or isn’t it? There are other externalist sects whose adherents cultivate non-beneficial ascetic practices, such as those who don’t eat food but only eat grass or the leaves of trees.

All of these sects are included in those Ananda refers to as believing in a true self that pervades the ten directions. But as to the worth of their practices, although they endure extreme discomfort, their work will not lead to ultimate success. For instance, the non-beneficial practice of sleeping on beds of nails, and having the nails not pierce one’s flesh is not of any particular worth. After all, a pig’s skin is more or less impenetrable by nails; do pigs therefore have the Way? Nails can’t pierce a cow’s hide; do cows therefore have the Way? No. So this is a bitter practice which is not beneficial.

You should not make a mistake here and think they are necessarily endowed with a vajra indestructible body just because I said they consider themselves endowed with one. In fact it is a false notion. It’s just like having a pig’s skin or a cow’s hide and is certainly not anything extraordinary. They practice this method every day, and so they accomplish that kind of fruition and become endowed with that particular talent. But it does not count as any kind of spiritual skill, nor does it mean they have the Way.

Ananda asked the Thus Come One, “You say the condition of enlightenment pervades the ten directions; what is the difference between it and the true self which they say pervades the ten directions?”

Q3 He also wonders if the Buddha is opposing his own doctrine.

Sutra: 

“Also, in the past, the World Honored One gave a lecture on Mount Lanka explaining the principle thoroughly for the sake of Great Wisdom Bodhisattva and others: ‘Externalist sects always speak of spontaneity. I speak of causes and conditions which is an entirely different principle.’

Ananda continues: Also, in the past, the World Honored One gave a lecture on Mount Lanka explaining the principle thoroughly for the sake of Great Wisdom Bodhisattva and others. When the Lankavatara Sutra was spoken, the Bodhisattva Great Wisdom was the interlocutor, just as in the Shurangama Sutra the Venerable Ananda is the interlocutor. “And others” means that not only Great Wisdom Bodhisattva but many other Bodhisattvas were there as well. The World Honored One spoke the doctrine that externalist sects always speak of spontaneity. The various externalist sects at that time constantly explained the doctrine of spontaneity. What doctrine is that? This is what they say:

Who unloosed the rivers and seas
and piled up the mountain peaks?
Who sharpened the thorns and brambles,
who painted the birds and beasts?
Of all there is,
none has a creator;
Therefore I say
that it comes into being spontaneously.

Who started the seas? You can’t name the person who began the seas. Nor can you find the person who initiated the rivers. Although in China there was an Emperor Yu who tamed the waters, there probably wasn’t that kind of talent yet in India. Who took the earth and piled it into mountains? Who created the mountain peaks? How is it they are so high? By asking who made them, they come to the conclusion that they arose spontaneously. Spontaneously a river appeared, a sea came into existence. Spontaneously there were mountains. The thorns and brambles, the birds and beasts – absolutely everything, without any help from people, is produced of itself. “Of all there is, none has a creator; therefore I say that it comes into being spontaneously.”

But I speak of causes and conditions. Here Ananda is quoting what the Buddha said earlier. Buddha, you explained the dharma of causes and conditions, which is not the same state. It is not the same as the externalist sects’ view of spontaneity. However, the doctrine I hear you speaking now seems the same as the doctrine spoken by externalist sects. You say that the condition of enlightenment pervades the ten directions, and the externalist sects say that their true self also pervades the ten directions. Isn’t that the same? The name is different, that’s all. Your condition of enlightenment is more than likely the true self. And their true self is more than likely the condition of enlightenment. Isn’t that the way it is?

What is meant by the “cause” and the “condition” that the Buddha speaks of? I have often told you. The cause is the seed. What contributes to its growth are the conditions. Planting a seed in the ground is a cause. Conditions are the aiding factors which contribute to the growth – mud, dirt, water, manure, sunlight, and other such things are called the conditions which aid and contribute to its growth. Buddha, you said that everything consists of causes and conditions, and that the causes and conditions break up the externalist sects’ dharma of spontaneity. Causes and conditions are not the same as spontaneity, and so they destroy the theory of spontaneity. But your condition of enlightenment and the externalist sects’ true self both pervade the ten directions. The ten directions extend only so far, and if yours pervades it and theirs pervades it, they must be the same.

Sutra: 

“Now as I contemplate the nature of enlightenment as spontaneous, as neither produced nor extinguished, and as apart from all empty falseness and inversion, it seems to have nothing to do with your causes and conditions or the spontaneity advocated by others. Would you please enlighten us on this point lest we should fall into deviant paths, thus enabling us to obtain the true mind, the bright nature of wonderful enlightenment?”

Now as I contemplate the nature of enlightenment as spontaneous – I carefully contemplate the enlightened nature which the World Honored One spoke of as being spontaneous. It is neither produced nor extinguished; isn’t that spontaneity? It is apart from all empty falseness and inversion – apart from all upside-down characteristics and from the upside-down mind. It seems to have nothing to do with your causes and conditions or the spontaneity advocated by others. It doesn’t seem to be causes and conditions and it also is different from spontaneity.

But, then again, it seems to be the same. This is what is meant by “seems to be and yet is not.” Would you please enlighten us on this point lest we should fall into deviant paths. Buddha, how can you teach me so that I won’t believe in the theories of those externalist sects? “Deviant paths” refers to externalist sects. Thus enabling us to obtain the true mind, the bright nature of wonderful enlightenment? How can I obtain my true mind? I ask the Buddha to have compassion and instruct me.

P2 The Thus Come One refutes this by bringing up the doctrine of according with conditions.
Q1 He upbraids him for doubting and asks about the substance. 

Sutra: 

The Buddha is devoid of a temper, but it is probable he was frowning when he said this, because that small disciple was much too confused. The Buddha told Ananda, “Now I have instructed you with such expedients in order to tell you the truth. I have been explaining this and that aspect of it – I have already explained it seven or eight ways. This is the ninth of the ten manifestations of seeing, and you still don’t understand. How can you be this way?” “Expedients” are skillful, provisional dharma-doors which are not actual. They are a case of “regarding the opportunities and dispensing the teaching in order to speak dharma for people.”

The Buddha looks to see what doctrine he should use to instruct Ananda and then uses a clever, wonderful, provisional, expedient dharma, such as the various analogies and ways of manifesting the seeing he has already used, and such as his questioning Ananda about the mind. “Truths” refer to the true and actual dharma the Buddha has also explained. And you still have not awaken. The Buddha was very put out with Ananda when he said that, “After all that I’ve said to you, after all the principles I’ve explained, you still don’t listen, and you haven’t understood in the least. Instead, you produce doubts about its being spontaneity. You still compare the doctrine I explain with the spontaneity of the externalist sects. You are really making a mistake. How can you be so dense? How can you compare them? They are not the same at all.”

Sutra:

“Ananda, if it definitely were spontaneous, you should be able to distinguish the substance of the spontaneity.

Ananda, let me tell you: if it definitely were spontaneous – if you are determined to say that the doctrine I explain is the same as the spontaneity of the externalist sects, you should be able to distinguish the substance of the spontaneity. Now we will examine this spontaneity and make it clear and delineate it. The spontaneity has a substance. They say, for example, “Who loosed the rivers?” Rivers come into existence spontaneously, and so there is still a river. “Who loosed the seas?” They say the seas exist spontaneously, so there is still a sea. The sea is the basic substance of spontaneity. It still has a substance. They say, “Why piled up the mountains?” No person could make a mountain, so the mountains are spontaneously born. So there is still the substance of a mountain. The substance of the mountain is the substance of spontaneity. Now where is the spontaneous substance of my dharma? Speak up.

Q2 He questions him and immediately offers a refutation.

Sutra:

“Now you look into the wonderful bright seeing. What is its self? Does the seeing take bright light as its self? Does it take darkness as its self? Does it take emptiness as its self? Does it take solid objects as its self?

Commentary: 

“You still have not understood, so I will explain it for you further. You listen.” The Buddha presents another theory to reveal to him that it is separate from all ordinary seeing. “Now you look into the wonderful bright seeing. What is its self? Use your mind again to take a look. What self is there in the condition of your enlightened seeing’s wonderful brightness? What is your seeing’s basic substance? You say the seeing is spontaneous? If it is spontaneous, it must have a substance. What is the basic substance of the seeing? Tell me.

Does the seeing take bright light as its self? Does the seeing take light as its spontaneous basic substance? Does it take darkness as its self? Does darkness make up the spontaneous substance of the seeing? Does it take emptiness as its self? Does it take emptiness to make up its spontaneous basic substance? Or does it take solid objects as its self? Or does form make up its spontaneous basic substance? Speak up.” Now he has asked Ananda, and Ananda will have a comeback. But before he can speak, the Buddha offers his own refutations.

Sutra: 

The Buddha explains it for Ananda a little more deeply. Ananda, if its self consists in light, you should not see darkness. If you take light to be the basic substance of spontaneity, and if you say seeing is the same as spontaneity, then when it is dark, the light should be cut off and extinguished, that is, it should disappear; and so you should not see darkness. After all, you say light is its basic substance, so how could it see when it is dark?

Moreover, if it takes emptiness as the substance of its self, you should not see solid objects. By solid objects is meant places which cannot be seen through. If you take emptiness to be the spontaneous basic substance of your seeing, your seeing should disappear in the face of solid objects. Without emptiness, its own substance is gone.

Continuing in the same way, if it takes all dark appearances as its self, then when it is light, the seeing-nature is cut off and extinguished, and how can you see light? The principle holds in every case. The seeing-nature would be extinguished when there is light. Thus to say that darkness is its basic substance is also a mistake.

O2 He rejects causes and conditions.
P1 Ananda relents on spontaneity and wonders about causes and conditions. 

Sutra:

Ananda said before that it was not causes and conditions; now he says that it is. Ananda also can fluctuate. Ananda said, “I am certain that the nature of this wonderful seeing is not spontaneous. Certainly, just as you say, the subtle wonderful seeing-essence which sees everything is not spontaneous, because it has no substance. Now I discern that it is produced from causes and conditions.” He doesn’t say now that he considers; he says he discerns the doctrine.

“But I do not yet have it clear in my mind. I think the seeing is produced from causes and conditions, but then again it seems to not be in accord with principle. It seems that there is no such thing. That’s what I think, but my mind is not absolutely clear about it.” What do you think of him? He doesn’t understand, but he still keeps trying on hats. Now he’s trying on the causes-and-conditions hat. “I now ask the Thus Come One how this idea is consonant with the nature of causes and conditions. World Honored One, how can this doctrine be explained? How can it fit with the nature of causes and conditions? Please explain this to me, Buddha.”

Now it was not the Buddha who said that the seeing-essence is produced from the nature of causes and conditions; it was Ananda who said it, and he himself doesn’t understand. He wants the Buddha to explain it. Basically what Ananda said lacks principle. He doesn’t understand the doctrine. First he says it is spontaneity, then he says it is causes and conditions, and then because he doesn’t understand how it could be, he wants someone else to explain it. Meeting someone like Ananda is enough to give one a headache.

P2 The Thus Come One refutes it by bringing up the doctrine used to refute spontaneity.
Q1 First he refutes causes.

Sutra: 

The Buddha said, “You say it is causes and conditions. You want me to explain to you how it is consonant with the nature of causes and conditions. But it’s you who say it is causes and conditions. Well, I will explain about causes and conditions for you. But first I want to ask you something. I ask you again: because you are now seeing, the seeing-nature manifests. Your seeing-nature appears before you. Is it because of light that the seeing exists? Is it because of darkness that the seeing exists? Is it because of emptiness that the seeing exists? Is it because of solid objects that the seeing exists? In the end, how does your seeing-essence come into being?”

The Buddha is truly one of great kindness and great compassion. He encounters someone who keeps “kneading the bean curd” so to speak – who keeps going back and forth and around and about – and with the utmost compassion, he still keeps explaining to him. It’s probably the case that Ananda has been spoiled by the Buddha. He was the Buddha’s favorite cousin and he was in the habit of being allowed to say and do as he pleased. He’s just like these disciples of mine now who are not afraid of their teacher. They dare to say anything at all – right to the teacher’s face.

When I was in Hong Kong, my disciples didn’t dare open their mouths when they were around me. They were very afraid of me. You American disciples are not afraid of your teacher. And I don’t wish to make you afraid of me, so for now it’s “yes.” “Okay.”

Sutra:

“Ananda, if light brings it into existence, you should not see darkness, and if it exists because of darkness, you should not see light. It is the same with emptiness and solid objects.

Ananda, you should know that I have already explained many similar doctrines. Now I will explain it once again for you. Ananda, if light brings it into existence – if you say the seeing exists because of light – you should not see darkness. When it is dark, you should not be able to see darkness. If it exists because of darkness, you should not see light. If you say, “Ah, it is not because of light that it exists, but because of darkness, there is seeing because of darkness,” then when it is light your seeing would disappear. Why? You rely on the darkness in order to see; now that the darkness is gone, your seeing is also gone. The very same doctrine applies in other cases. If it is because of emptiness that the seeing exists, then where there are solid objects it would disappear.

If it is because of solid objects that the seeing exists, then where there is emptiness it would disappear. But that isn’t how it is with you. You can see when it is light, you can see when it is dark, you can see where there is emptiness, and you can see where there are solid objects. How could your suggestion that the seeing is based on causes and conditions be correct?

Q2 He refutes conditions.

Sutra:

“Moreover, Ananda, does the seeing derive from the condition of light? Does the seeing derive from the condition of darkness? Does the seeing derive from the condition of emptiness? Does the seeing derive from the condition of solid objects?

Commentary:

”I spoke before about causes: now I will ask you about conditions. I will explain it a little more clearly for you.” Do you see how compassionate the Buddha is? He sees Ananda still standing there wide-eyed and staring, having still not understood, so he explains it again. Moreover, Ananda, does the seeing derive from the condition of light? Does the seeing derive from the condition of darkness? Does the seeing follow upon light, or does it follow upon darkness? Does the seeing derive from the condition of emptiness? Does the seeing derive from the condition of solid objects? Is it from the causal condition of emptiness that there is seeing? Or is it from the causal condition of solid objects that there is seeing?

Sutra:

“Ananda, if it exists because of the condition of emptiness, you should not see solid objects. If it exists because of the condition of solid objects, you should not see emptiness: it is the same with light and darkness.

Ananda, if it exists because of the condition of emptiness – if it is because of the emptiness that there is seeing, you should not see solid objects. The principle here is about the same as the one explained above. But because of the Buddha’s compassion, he explains it in great detail, not fearing the trouble involved. If it exists because of the condition of solid objects – if it is due to solid objects that there is seeing, you should not see emptiness: it is the same with light and darkness. The doctrine of it being from the condition of light or from the condition of darkness is the same as the doctrine of its being from emptiness or from solid objects.

O3 He rules out the false and ordinary. 

Sutra: 

“Thus you should know that the essential, enlightened wonderful brightness is due to neither causes nor conditions and it does not arise spontaneously.

Now the Buddha again rouses Ananda from his stupidity: Thus you should know – don’t continue to be so confused! – that the essential, enlightened wonderful brightness, the seeing, is due to neither causes nor conditions. It is not because of causes, it is not because of conditions, and it does not arise spontaneously. Now do you know?

Sutra: 

It is something transcending all contraries, relativities, and partialities. It is not that which is not spontaneous. Now this certainly does not say that the seeing-essence does rise spontaneously. The double negative means that there is not even no spontaneous arisal. It is not that it is not; nor is it that it is not not. There is neither a negation nor a lack of negation. There is no is, and there is no is not. It is not that which “is” or “is not.” There isn’t any correct or incorrect. You can’t think about this with your mind that makes distinctions. Once you think about “is” and “is not,” you have left the doctrine of the seeing essence. Then what is there?

Sutra:

“Any dharma is that which is apart from all characteristics.

If you separate from all empty and false characteristics, that is the true and actual dharma. Don’t base your skill on empty and false characteristics. Any dharma is that which is apart from all characteristics. If you can be separate from all empty and false characteristics, that is your genuine seeing-essence, that is the genuine wonderful dharma. What are these characteristics? They are the characteristics of false thought. To be apart from false thought is the wonderful dharma of true suchness. If you do not separate yourself from the characteristics of false thinking, you do not unite with the wonderful dharma of true suchness.

O4 He scolds him for bringing up the ordinary.

Sutra:

“Now in the midst of dharmas, how can you use your mind to make distinctions that are based on worldly sophistries, terms, and characteristics? That is like grasping at empty space with your hand: you only succeed in tiring yourself out. How could empty space possibly yield to your grasp?”

The World Honored One continues speaking to Ananda: Now in the midst of dharmas, how can you use your mind to make distinctions that are based on worldly sophistries, terms, and characteristics? Why do you dwell in false thoughts and use your mind? Why do you base your skill on false thought? Worldly doctrines of spontaneity and causes and conditions are sophistries. Sophistries are clever discussions of unreal things. You use the terms and characteristics of sophistries to make distinctions about my wonderful Dharma, to make distinctions about my wonderful Shurangama Samadhi. How can you do that?

That is like grasping at empty space with your hand. To use your mind which has false thinking, your conscious mind that makes distinctions, to fathom the wonderful Shurangama Samadhi is like trying to grab hold of empty space and stroke it with your hand. How can you capture empty space? Were you to ask a child if empty space can be grasped, even the child would say it can’t be done. What you are doing now is grasping at empty space.

It is like Teng Hua Feng, who said, “First capture empty space, then you can capture Teng Hua Feng.” He said it to a ghost which had captured him. Upon being captured, he reasoned with the ghost: “Wait a bit, can’t you?” he said. “There’s a small matter I haven’t finished attending to. When I have finished that up, I’ll accompany you to see King Yama.”

Who was Teng Hua Feng?

He was a cultivator of the Way, a monk with samadhi-power. When he was in samadhi, the ghosts and spirits couldn’t see him. But he was visible to the ghosts and spirits when he left the samadhi. That time he had left samadhi, and the ghost of impermanence paid him a visit.

What is the ghost of impermanence?

When your time comes to die, it is the friend who comes to accompany you to see King Yama. That friend came and captured Teng Hua Feng and said, “Your life should end. Come with me to see King Yama.” And he locked Teng Hua Feng up in hand cuffs and iron chains.

Teng Hua Feng said to him, “Friend, don’t be so impolite. I still have one thing to attend to, and then I will go with you.”

The ghost thought, “You’re opposing me for having captured you. Well, it doesn’t matter if I show you a little courtesy.” So he said, “What do you have to attend to?”

Whereupon Teng Hua Feng folded up his legs into full lotus posture, and as soon as he was settled he entered samadhi. The samadhi he entered was the no-thought samadhi. Just before he entered it, he said, “Now go and capture empty space, and then you can take along Teng Hua Feng.” He said, “If you can capture empty space, then come back and take me to see King Yama.” Once he had entered samadhi, the ghost had no way of capturing him. So everyone should know that samadhi-power is extremely important.

Samadhi-power is not being turned around by things, but being able to turn everything around. Didn’t it say earlier in the text, “If you can turn things around, then you are the same as the Thus Come One.” Cultivating to develop samadhi-power is the same. You have it no matter what circumstance you encounter.

I will explain a doctrine to you which is not a joke, but is true: if a man truly has samadhi-power, when he sees a woman, no matter how pretty she is, he can refrain from moving his mind. He can avoid giving rise to emotional desire. That is samadhi-power. If as soon as you see a woman you grow unsteady and start to shake and a hand suddenly grows right out of your throat, that’s a lack of samadhi-power.

We can switch the sentence around and say that is the same for women when they see men. They should remain in a state of unmoving suchness, and if they are able to remain unturned by the emotional desire, they have samadhi-power. That’s just the first step. You shouldn’t think that that is something extraordinary in itself. That’s the first step. The first step is to gain the ability to not be turned around by emotional desire, so that seeing is the same as not having seen. You face situations without a mind. You’re confronted with the experience and still haven’t any mind. That is samadhi-power.

You can measure the extent of your samadhi-power by yourself. For example, if you can remain unmoved when the emotional desire between men and women comes to mind, then you have a little bit of samadhi-power. To take it farther, if you can remain in the company of your girlfriend without the arising of the least incident, that is genuine skill. But the skill is not easily developed. If you have that kind of samadhi-power, you certainly can cultivate and develop a vajra indestructible body.

If you lack that samadhi-power, what is to be done? Don’t be satisfied with the status quo, saying, “I haven’t got that much samadhi-power, so forget it, I’m not going to cultivate. I’ll just give in to it.” That’s useless. You’re just riding for a fall. The less samadhi power you have, the more you must cultivate. For instance, “I sit in meditation and the pain comes. The more pain there is, the more I want to sit. I will force myself to do what is difficult.” That is also samadhi-power.

You only succeed in tiring yourself out. The Buddha tells Ananda that using his mind to invent sophistries about the seeing-nature is like trying to grasp empty space. All you do is toil bitterly, to no avail. You wear yourself out and exhaust your own energy. You lose your strength. After all, if you continually paw at empty space with your hand, can you deny that your arm would get tired? Eventually your hand would hurt and would start to ache from weariness.

You knead and clutch and grasp and can’t get hold of empty space. You grasp it and there’s nothing, you grasp again and again there is nothing. It would truly be a case of having nothing to do and going to look for something to do. And that’s the way Ananda was. He didn’t have anything to do. It was probably the case that as a monk he ate his fill and for lack of anything to do he began clutching at empty space.

How could empty space possibly yield to your grasp? How could empty space comply so that you could catch it? Empty space is basically empty; how could you capture it? If there were something you could grasp, then it would not be empty space. There has to be a thing before you can grasp it.

For instance, this cup: because there is a cup, I am able to grasp it. If the cup weren’t there you could grasp back and forth and up and down and there still wouldn’t be anything. So the Buddha likens Ananda, who develops his skill based exclusively on the conscious mind that makes distinctions, to someone who grasps at empty space. The principle is the same. You just increase your own weariness, which is not of the least benefit to the self-nature.

Seeing is Apart from Seeing

N10 He shows seeing is apart from seeing.
O1 Ananda leads with the teaching and asks a question.

Sutra:

How much gall would you say Ananda has? He sasses his teacher. He rudely tries to argue publicly with the Buddha. More than anything else, it’s like a game of chess. Ananda said to the Buddha, “World Honored One, if the nature of the wonderful enlightenment, the seeing-essence, has neither causes nor conditions, then why does the World Honored One always tell the bhikshus that the nature of seeing derives from the four conditions?” Ananda is borrowing the Buddha’s principles. “It’s you that said this, Buddha, not me. You talked about the nature of seeing that way.”

Listen to him! He is protesting against the Buddha. Ananda had got snagged left and right so many times he hasn’t said one thing right – that by now he’s probably heedless of everything. “I’m going to have it out with the Buddha.” So he says, “World Honored One, you keep saying that the seeing-nature is complete with four conditions, and so why does the Buddha now say that it is not causes and conditions?” He certainly must have had enough gall to fill the skies to be prompted to argue with the Buddha like this.

What are the four conditions? Emptiness, brightness, the mind, and the eyes. “What does that mean? How do you explain this doctrine? In the past you explained it according to these four conditions, and now you are going back on what you said. How can you do that? Is it possible for the Buddha to say things which don’t count? The Buddha doesn’t lie. How can you say it is that way and now say it isn’t?” You can see that meeting up with this kind of disciple is not an easy task. Thank goodness the Buddha is the Buddha. If it were I, I’d have no way to handle him.

O2 He makes clear that the former teaching was expedient.

Sutra: 

Ananda’s ability in debate is so good that he has subdued the Buddha. The Buddha said, “Ananda, what I have said about all the worldly causes and conditions has nothing to do with the primary meaning. It is not the principal doctrine. What I said then was provisional and expedient. You should not think that the things I said then are true. At that time it was as if I were rearing little children by telling you to be good and not be rambunctious. When you grow up, you can be an official. You can do important things.” It was an expedient, and provisional dharma-door. Doesn’t it seem from the tone of what he says that the Buddha has been subdued by Ananda?

In the Vimalakirti Sutra, Manjushri Bodhisattva asks the layman Vimalakirti, “What is the primary meaning?”

What do you suppose the layman Vimalakirti said? Can you guess? If any of you know, then you are truly a present-day Vimalakirti. Do any of you know what the primary meaning is?

Anyone who has read the Vimalakirti Sutra will know. But if I tell you, you should not go around posturing in front of people, imitating the layman Vimalakirti’s gesture, because you haven’t reached his status. Don’t be like some people who make the mistake of pretending to be what they aren’t.

Vimalakirti closed his eyes and did not open his mouth. He didn’t say a word. Manjushri Bodhisattva said, “Oh, you understand.” That’s the way it was, but you can’t do the same thing when you go someplace and someone asks you what the primary meaning is. That is unacceptable. It’s fine to know about it, to be aware of the principle, but you can’t go about putting on airs, as if you were the same as Vimalakirti. That is impermissible.

The same is true when reading the Sixth Patriarch’s Sutra, which contains a lot of principle. Sometimes people make “verbal Zen” out of these principles. If you genuinely understand the doctrine, then it is all right. But it is not all right to indulge in “verbal Zen.” I will repeat this because it is very important. You can’t go around trying to carry on “Chan banter” with people.

What is “Chan banter”?

Someone points a finger or makes a fist or some other such gesture. That is impermissible for you to do. Why?

You haven’t the experience. You are not enlightened. It’s not you who can make these kinds of gestures. One who makes these kinds of gestures is one who is enlightened. One who is enlightened has the penetrating understanding of absolutely everything.

I had an encounter recently with someone who was so confused that he acted like he was drunk and supposed himself to be enlightened. So I told him to explain the seven kinds of sutra titles and the six realizations, and he couldn’t come up with one title. He could not complete one realization. What enlightenment do you suppose he had attained? If he were an enlightened person, then even if he didn’t know the answer to the question, he would have been able to expound principle. Why? Because all principles come forth from the mind. If he were an enlightened person, his mind would be full of light. And he would have penetrated to the understanding of all principles, so that even if he didn’t know the particulars, he could explain it with principle.

That’s what is meant by enlightened. So you decidedly cannot steep tea in cold water and drink the dregs. Someone who forces the issue and announces that he is enlightened is totally shameless, completely without a sense of shame. There can be no such people in Buddhism. They are a useless lot, I’ll tell you.

O3 He explains now that it is not conditions. 

Sutra: 

“Ananda, I ask you again: people in the world say, ‘I can see.’ What is meant by seeing? What is not seeing?”

The Buddha felt that Ananda was his little cousin and he should always take pity on him. So again he calls out, Ananda, I ask you again: Child, I will again ask you: people in the world say, “I can see.” Everyone says he can see. The text does not have the Buddha saying he can see. It is each person speaking of himself. What is meant by seeing? What is seeing? What is not seeing? Tell me the doctrine involved.

Ananda has now heard the Buddha subdued by him. He’s been victorious, and so he doesn’t stop to think, he just speaks out. Ananda said, “Due to the light of the sun, the moon, and lamps, people in the world can see all kinds of appearances: that is called seeing. Without them, we can’t see. If it were not for these three kinds of light, they would not be able to see.”

Whenever Ananda says something he contradicts himself. He slaps his own cheek, as it were. He opposes his own principle. Thus he says that if these three kinds of light are lacking there isn’t any seeing. The Buddha challenges his essential point. You say there is no seeing. I’ll ask you about that. Ananda, if it is called “not seeing” when there is no light, you should not see darkness. Didn’t you say that in the absence of light, shed by sun, moon, and lamps, you cannot see? In fact this doctrine has already been explained, but it is to be feared that Ananda, despite his great learning, no longer remembers it, so the Buddha repeats it for him. Since you say there is no seeing in the absence of light, you should not see darkness. In explaining the sutra, I asked you earlier what a blind man sees, and the answer was “black.” It’s the same thing here. Seeing blackness is seeing, too.

If in fact you do see darkness, which is none other than the lack of light, how can you say there is an absence of seeing? You cannot argue with this theory because it has already been established that you do see darkness, which is simply the absence of light. You can’t say it is an absence of seeing. It’s all right to say there is no light, but you cannot say there is no seeing. Ananda has run into another snag.

Sutra:

Ananda, if, when it is dark, you call it “not seeing” because you do not see light – in a dark place you don’t see light, and you say this is not to see at all. Then since it is now light – now you are in a time of light, in the presence of lamp-light, sunlight, and moonlight – and you do not see the characteristic of darkness, it should also be called “not seeing.” When the light comes, the darkness goes, and you no longer see darkness. By your reasoning, there would be no seeing in this situation either. Thus, the two characteristics would both be called “not seeing.” The two characteristics that have been discussed, light and darkness, would both be not seeing. Right? Is that what you mean?

Sutra: 

“Although these two characteristics replace one another, your seeing-nature does not lapse for an instant. Thus you can know that there is seeing in both cases. How, then, can you say there is no seeing?

You see the Buddha is a great debater, and now you would probably be victorious in debate, whoever you debated with. Although these two characteristics replace one another. The two characteristics of light and darkness contend with each other. Light claims that it is the seeing, and darkness contends that it is the seeing. Ananda, you say that neither one is the seeing. What is actually the case? Your seeing-nature does not lapse for an instant. The succession of light and dark does not affect your seeing-nature’s ability to see. It is certain that your seeing-nature does not increase or decrease. It is neither produced nor extinguished. It is not the case that your seeing-nature temporarily disappears.

Thus you can know that there is seeing in both cases. You see light, and you see darkness, and you can’t say that either one is a case of not seeing. How, then, can you say there is no seeing? Since there is seeing in both cases, what do you say is not seeing? Speak up. He questions a level deeper. Speak up.

O4 He actually shows it is apart from seeing.
P1 First he decides the primary meaning of being apart from conditions.

Sutra:

“Therefore, Ananda, you should know that when you see light, the seeing is not the light. When you see darkness, the seeing is not the darkness. When you see emptiness, the seeing is not the emptiness. When you see solid objects, the seeing is not the solid objects.

Therefore, Ananda, because of the doctrine just explained, you should know that when you see light, the seeing is not the light. When you look at light, your looking is certainly not the light; your seeing-nature is certainly not the light. It certainly is not that your seeing-nature follows after the light and turns into it, that your seeing-nature is turned around by that state. When you see darkness, the seeing is not the darkness. When you look at blackness your seeing certainly is not the blackness. Your seeing has still not changed. It is the same as the seeing that sees light; it is identical, without any distinction.

When you see emptiness, the seeing is not the emptiness. When you look at emptiness, your seeing certainly is not turned around by the emptiness. It does not run after emptiness. When you see solid objects, the seeing is not the solid objects. When you see places where there are solid objects, it certainly is not that your seeing follows after that and becomes a solid object. It cannot be turned around by that kind of external situation. It cannot be shaken by external things. It is your everlasting unchanging seeing-nature.

P2 He then establishes the primary meaning is apart from seeing. 

Sutra:

Having realized these four meanings. These are the four meanings spoken of above, the four causal conditions by which the seeing-nature is accomplished. Now that you have realized that the seeing-nature is not contingent upon the four aspects of light, darkness, emptiness, or solid objects, you should also know that when you see your seeing, the seeing is not the seeing to be seen. Here the first “seeing” refers to our genuine seeing, true perception, and the second “seeing” refers to the seeing-essence, which, although it is also said to be a genuine seeing, is ever so slightly false.

The first seeing is a pure seeing. It is the genuine true seeing. The second carries with it a bit of falseness. So when your genuine seeing is able to see the false seeing, the seeing is not the seeing. Your genuine seeing is apart from all characteristics with substance. It has no substantial characteristic. There isn’t anything at all. So it is said, “The seeing is not the seeing.” No seeing is accomplished. Since there is basically nothing at all, you cannot give it a name. This is the point which is called “separation from the spoken word.” It is said:

The mouth wishes to speak
but is at a loss for words.
The mind wants to seize upon conditions,
but reflection ceases.

The mind wants to think but has no way to do so. This is to be apart from the mark of the spoken word – you cannot speak of it – and apart from the mark of the written word. It cannot be represented by any word.

The path of words and language is severed,
The place the mind can go is extinguished.

The way of words and language is gone. The mind has no place to go; this means that the places where the mind thinks are gone. So at this time it is said that the seeing is not the seeing. This doctrine is not at all easy to understand. But also, if you are familiar with Buddhist studies, it is very easy to understand.

Since there isn’t anything at all, how can you also say that the seeing is causes and conditions, or that it is spontaneity? Since the former seeing is beyond the latter, the latter cannot reach it. Since your seeing is different from the seeing, your seeing cannot catch up to it. There isn’t anything, so what are you looking for? “The latter cannot reach it” means that your false seeing cannot see it. What is the seeing you cannot see? It is your genuine seeing.

That being the case, how can you say that your absolute intuitive perception has something to do with causes and conditions or spontaneity or that it has something to do with mixing and uniting? Why do you still want to say your seeing-essence, the absolute, intuitive perception, is the causes and conditions that I spoke of in the past? Why do you bring that up as a comparison? And why bring up a comparison with the spontaneity taught by the externalist sects? And why bring up the characteristics of mixing and uniting by saying that everyone mixes together in a mixed-up union? The characteristic of mixing and uniting is like when chao tze –Chinese raviolis – break up when you boil them; you can’t distinguish them one from another.

The Buddha tells Ananda that when he spoke the dharma of causes and conditions, it was for the sake of those who had first begun to study, people of the small vehicle, that is, the provisional vehicle of the sound-hearers and the conditioned-enlightened ones, and also for the adherents of externalist sects, to refute the doctrine of spontaneity.

Now I am explaining the Shurangama Sutra in order to manifest and display the great Shurangama Samadhi. That kind of wonderful meaning absolutely cannot be compared to causes and conditions. How can you still bring up causes and conditions and compare it to the primary meaning? How can you compare it to the great Shurangama Samadhi? That’s like mistaking copper for gold. You are too attached! You can’t think like that!

P3 He concludes by exhorting them to persevere and well consider Bodhi.

Sutra:

Shakyamuni Buddha said: You narrow-minded sound-hearers, you people of the two vehicles, are so inferior and ignorant. Your minds are very narrow and small, your awareness is quite inferior. You are completely without knowledge. You sound-hearers know only how to benefit yourselves and not how to benefit others. You know only how to attend to yourselves, and you pay no attention to the pain and suffering of other living beings. You are “self-ending arhats.”

“Ignorant” means to have no genuine knowledge. The knowledge spoken of here, however, is not that of ordinary worldly knowledge, but the genuine knowledge of the great vehicle Buddhadharma. You lack knowledge of genuine great vehicle Buddhism. This also refers to the wonderful samadhi of the Shurangama’s primary meaning. You sound-hearers don’t understand it, and so you are unable to penetrate through to the purity of the characteristic of reality. “To penetrate through” means to understand.

At present your minds are too heavily attached, the distinctions your mind makes are too profuse, for you to understand what lies in the great vehicle teaching, the great vehicle Buddhadharma, the purity of the characteristic of reality.

What is meant by the characteristic of reality? The characteristic of reality is no characteristic. This is the first explanation. Yet nothing is without the characteristic of reality: that is the second explanation. All characteristics are produced from within it. That is what is meant by the characteristic of reality being no characteristic, yet nothing being without the characteristic of reality. The third explanation is that there are no characteristics and there is nothing which is not a characteristic. All dharmas are born from the characteristic of reality. So the “characteristic of reality” is the basic substance of dharma.

So you want to find the characteristic of reality, since it is the basic substance of dharma? What is it ultimately like? You cannot see it. It just has been given a name, “the characteristic of reality,” that’s all. It’s as Lao Zi said, “The way that can be spoken of is not the eternal Way.” If you can talk about your way, if you can explain it, then it is not the eternal Way. “The name that can be named is not the eternal name.” If you have a name that can be spoken out, it is not an eternal name. So then he said, “The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the myriad things.” That’s what Lao Zi’s philosophy is like. All I’m doing now is bringing it up to help make the doctrine clear.

The characteristic of reality is true emptiness and it is also wonderful existence. Do you say that true emptiness is empty? It is not, because within it is produced wonderful existence. Wonderful existence is certainly not existence. True emptiness is not empty, and wonderful existence does not exist. Because it does not exist, it is said to be wonderful existence. Because it is not empty, it is said to be true emptiness. The characteristic of reality is the same doctrine. If you understand this doctrine, a thorough understanding of a single thing is a thorough understanding of everything.

What is our self-nature like?

The self-nature is like empty space. Would you say there is anything in empty space? There is absolutely everything in empty space. But you cannot see it. The existence within emptiness is wonderful existence. The lack of emptiness within emptiness is true emptiness. Since true emptiness is not empty, it is called wonderful existence. Since wonderful existence is not existence, it is called true emptiness. These two names are one. You investigate them in detail and find, however, that there is not even one. To give it a name is just to put a head on top of a head.

You say, “This is true emptiness, and this is wonderful existence. This is the characteristic of reality.” That allows you to have a certain amount of attachment. As for the genuine basic substance of Dharma, there isn’t anything at all. By sweeping away all Dharmas, one becomes separated from all characteristics. As was said above, “What is apart from all characteristics is Dharma.” To be apart from all mundane marks is Dharma. But most people cannot separate themselves from those characteristics. And since they cannot leave those characteristics, they do not obtain all Dharmas.

”I can be separate from characteristics,” you say. “I don’t attach myself to anything.”

You aren’t attached to anything? There was an earthquake a while ago; were you afraid? I believe there were quite a few people who were very agitated when that earthquake came. That is just because you cannot be apart from characteristics. If you can be apart from characteristics, Mount Tai could come crashing down before you and you would not be startled.

People who can turn things around are not frightened by any state they meet. If you aren’t frightened, then there aren’t any states. Why do states exist? Why are there demonic obstructions? Why can demons come and disturb your samadhi? Because you move. As soon as you move they slip right in. If you don’t move, no demon in existence will have any way to get at you. There won’t be any mantra they can recite to move you.

You say, “Then why was Matangi able to recite a mantra and confuse Ananda in this sutra?”

It was just because he didn’t have any samadhi. If he’d had samadhi, if Ananda had had the genuine Shurangama Samadhi, there would have been no need for the Buddha to speak the Shurangama Sutra or the Shurangama Mantra. And you and I would not be able to listen to the Shurangama Sutra now or study the Shurangama Mantra. So those were the causes and conditions. But if someone has samadhi, no matter what state arises, he or she will not be frightened.

Now I will teach you. I will instruct you, Ananda. You should consider it well. This “considering well” does not refer to the kind of consideration Ananda has been using and speaking about. The word is the same, but it is not meant in the same way. Here “consider” means that he should use his true mind to contemplate and investigate. It isn’t that he should use his conscious mind that makes distinctions.

And do not become weary or negligent on the wonderful road to Bodhi. Don’t be lazy and slack off. Don’t be insolent or perfunctory about it. Don’t be muddled about the wonderful road to Bodhi. You should be particularly attentive and especially aware that this is the path to wonderful enlightenment. It is the way to become a Buddha. It is the wonderful Shurangama Samadhi. If you have the wonderful Shurangama Samadhi, you can walk to the position of wonderful enlightenment, that is, the position of the fruition of Buddhahood.

Buddhas are said to be wonderfully enlightened, and Bodhisattvas are said to be the ones of equal enlightenment; they are equal to wonderful enlightenment. Fifty-five positions lie between the level of sound-hearer, through the levels of the Bodhisattvas, to the position of wonderful enlightenment. The fifty-five position will be explained later on in the Shurangama Sutra.

The Two False Views

END OF VOLUME 2