Shurangama Sutra

Here is the opening argument of this incredible sutra...

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf

Wiping Out the Five aggregates & Eight Consciousnesses to Expose the Unreality of Ego.

Probing into the false mind to wipe out the first two aggregates and first five consciousnesses

…

‘Now tell me where your mind and eyes are.’

Ananda replied: ‘World Honoured One, all living beings born in the world through the ten types of birth hold that this knowing mind is in the body. As I look at the lotus- blue eyes of the Buddha, I see that they are on His face.

Hence my understanding that my eyes are on my face whereas my knowing mind is in my body.

The Buddha asked: ‘Now as you sit in this hall, where do you see Jetavana park?’

Ananda replied: ‘World Honoured One, this great hall is in Jetavana park which is, therefore, outside the hall.’

The Buddha asked: ‘What do you see first in this hall.?’

Ananda replied: ‘World Honoured One, in this hall, I see first the Tathargata, then the assembly, and only when looking outside do I see the park.’

The Buddha asked: ‘When you see the park, what causes you to do so?’

Ananda replied: It is because the doors and windows are open that I, though sitting in this hall, see the park outside.’

The Buddha then extended His golden-hued arm and touched Ananda’s head with His hand, saying: ‘There is a samardhi called the all-embracing Supreme shuraÔgama, a gate- way through which all Buddhas in the ten directions attained to the wondrous Majestic Path. Ananda, listen now attentively.’

Ananda prostrated himself at the Buddha’s feet and knelt to receive the holy instruction.

The Buddha said: ‘If you (are right) that, while sitting in this hall, you see the park outside through open doors and windows it would be possible for someone sitting here to see only things outside without seeing the Buddha (within).’

Ananda replied: ‘One cannot see the grove and stream outside without seeing the Buddha (here).’

(The Buddha said:) ‘Ananda, it is the same with you; (if your mind is not deluded), it will be clear about all this. How- ever, if your knowing mind was really in your body, you should first be clear about everything inside it. You should, therefore, see everything in your body before seeing things outside it; even if you cannot see your heart, liver, spleen, and stomach, at least you should be clear about your grow- ing nails and hair, about that which moves along your nerves and the pulsing of your veins. Why are you not clear about all this? If you do not see things within, how can you see those outside? Therefore, your contention that your knowing mind is inside your body is groundless.’

Ananda bowed and said: ‘After hearing the Buddha’s Dharma-voice, I now understand that my mind is really out- side my body. For instance a lamp should light up everything in a room before the courtyard outside through the open door. If I do not see what is in my body but see things outside it, this is like a lamp placed outside a room which cannot light what is in it. This being so clear that there can be no doubt, am I still wrong about what the Buddha means?’

The Buddha said: ‘All the bhikhus followed me to Srarvasti, to beg for food and have now returned to Jetavana park. I have taken my meal but as one bhikhu is still eating, is the whole community well-fed?’

Ananda replied: ‘No, World Honoured One, though they are arhats, they have not the same body or life span then how can one by eating cause all the others to satisfy their hunger?’

The Buddha said: ‘If your knowing mind is outside your body, the two are separate. Thus when your mind knows something, your body should not feel it and when your body feels something, your mind should not be aware of it. Now as I show you my hand, when your eyes see it, does your mind discern it?’

Ananda replied: ‘Yes, World Honoured One, my mind discerns it:’

The Buddha said: If so, how can your mind be outside your body? Therefore, your contention that your knowing and discerning mind is outside your body is groundless.’

Ananda said: ‘World Honoured One, as you have said, if my mind does not see what is in my body, it is not within it, and if my body and mind know each other, they are not separate and my mind is, therefore, not outside my body.

Now after thinking about this, I know where my mind is.

‘The Buddha asked: ‘Where is it?’

Ananda replied: ‘Since my knowing mind does not see what is in my body but can see things outside, I think it is hidden in my sense organ. For instance, if one covers one’s eyes with a crystal bowl, the latter does not obstruct this sense organ which simply follows the (faculty of) seeing to distinguish all things seen. Thus if my knowing mind does not see what is in (my body), it is because it is in the sense organ, and if it sees clearly what is outside without being obstructed, it is because it is hidden in that organ.’

The Buddha asked: ‘As you just said, the mind is hidden in the same way that the eyes are covered by the crystal bowl: now when one so covers them and sees the mountain and river, does one also see the bowl?’

Ananda replied: ‘Yes, World Honoured One, one also sees the bowl.’

The Buddha said: ‘If your mind is like the crystal bowl, when you see the mountain and river, why do you not see your own eyes? If you do they should be outside and should not follow your faculty of seeing. If they cannot be seen, how can you say that this knowing mind is hidden in the sense organ, like the (eyes) covered by the crystal bowl? Therefore, your contention that the knowing mind is hidden in the sense organ is groundless.’

Ananda asked: ‘World Honoured One, I now think of the bowels concealed in the body and of the apertures on its surface. Therefore, where there is concealment there is dark- ness and where there are openings there is light. As I am now before the Buddha, I open my eyes and see clearly and this is called outward seeing, and when I close them, I see (only) darkness and this is called inward seeing. What does the Buddha think of this?’

The Buddha said: ‘When you close your eyes and see darkness, is this darkness opposite to your eyes or not? If it is, it is in front of them, then how can this be inward seeing? Even if there is really such inward seeing, when you sit in a dark room without the light of the sun, moon or a lamp, this darkness should also be in your bowels. If it is not opposite to your eyes, how can there be any seeing? Now let us forget (your so-called) outward seeing and assume that there is inward seeing, then when you close your eyes and see only darkness, which you call seeing what is in your body, why when you open them and see clearly, do you not see your face? If you do not, there is no such inward seeing. Now as- suming that you can see your face, your knowing mind and organ of sight should be in the air, and then how can there be inward seeing? If they were in the air, they should not belong to your body, and the Buddha who now sees your face, should be your body as well. Thus when your eyes see some- thing, your body should have no feeling. If you insist that both body and mind have separate feelings, there should be two separate perceptions and then your body should (one day) become two Buddhas. Therefore, your contention that to see darkness is inward seeing is groundless.’

Ananda said: ‘I have. always heard the Buddha when teaching monks, nuns and male and female devotees say: “When the mind stirs all sorts of things are created and then all kinds of mind appear.” I now think that the substance of (my) thinking is the nature of mind which arises when it unites with externals and which is neither within nor without nor in between.’

The Buddha said: ‘You have just said that because phenomena are created, all kinds of mind appear when unit- ing with them. So this mind has no substance and cannot unite with anything. If that which has no substance can unite with externals, this is union of the nineteenth realm of sense with the seventh sense datum.

Ananda said: ‘It is the eyes that see and the mind that knows is not the eyes: to say that it sees is wrong.’

The Buddha said; ‘If the eyes can see, when you are in a room, do you see the door (outside)? Those who are dead and still have eyes, should see things if they still see, how can they be dead? Ananda, if your knowing mind has substance, is that substance single or manifold? As it is in your body, does it spread to every part of it or not? If it is one substance, when you grasp a limb, all four should feel that they are grasped; if so there would be no grasping (of any particular limb). If there is, the contention of a single substance does not hold good. If it is a manifold substance there should be many persons; then which substance is yours if it spreads to every part of your body, this is the same as in the previous case of grasping. If it does not spread, then when you touch your head and foot at the same time, while your head feels that it is touched; your foot should not, but this is not so.

Therefore, your contention that the mind arises where there is union with externals is groundless.’

Ananda said: ‘World Honoured One, I have heard the Buddha discuss Reality with other sons of the King of the Law (i.e. Bodhisattvas); He also said that the mind is neither within nor without. I now deduce that if the mind is in the body, it does not see anything within and if it is outside, they both cease to feel each other. To say that it is within is wrong for it does not know anything in the body. To say that it is without is also faulty since body and mind can perceive each other. As they do so and since nothing is seen in the body, the mind should be between the two (i.e. the inside and outside).’

The Buddha said: ‘If your conception of a mind “in be- tween” is correct, it implies a position for it. Now according to your inference, where is this intermediate position? Do you mean that it is (in or on) the body? If it is on the surface of the body, it cannot be in its center, and the conception of a mind in the center is no different from that of a mind in the body (which was refuted earlier). (Moreover) is its position manifest or not? If it is not, it does not exist. If it is, it is not fixed. Why? For instance, if a stake is driven into the ground to mark a center, when seen from the east it is in the west and when seen from the south it is in the north. As this stake can only lead to confusion, so is (your conception of) a mind in between completely chaotic.’

Ananda said: ‘The intermediate position that I men- tioned is not these two. As the World Honoured One has said, the eyes and form are causes from which sight- perception arises. While the eyes can distinguish, form does not follow anything and perception lies between them; hence the mind arises.’

The Buddha said: ‘If the mind lies between sense organs and sense data, does it include both or not? If it does, its substance and what is outside will be mixed up to- gether, and since the mind perceives while its objects do not, two opposites will be set up; then how can there be an intermediate (position)? If it is not inclusive, (that is if it is independent of the sense organs and sense data), being neither the knower (subject) nor the known (object), it has no substance; then what is this intermediate? Therefore, your contention that it is in between is groundless.’

Ananda said: ‘World Honoured One, previously when I saw the Buddha, with His four chief disciples, Mahar-Maudgalyaryana, Subhuti, Purnamaitraryaniputra and Sarriputra, turn the Wheel of the Law, He always said that the nature of the knowing and discriminating mind is neither within nor without nor between the two, exists nowhere and clings to nothing, hence it is called mind. Is that which does not cling to things called mind?’

The Buddha replied: ‘You just said that the nature of the knowing and discriminating mind exists nowhere. Now in this world, all things in the air, in water and on the ground, including those that fly and walk, make the exist- ing whole. By that which does not cling to anything, do you mean that it exists or not? If it “is not,” it is just the hair of a tortoise or the horn of a hare, then how can there be (this extra) non-clinging? If it “is” it cannot be said not to exist.

That which “is not” is simply non-existent and that which “is” should have a position; then how can there be no clinging? Therefore, your contention that that which does not cling to anything is the knowing mind is groundless.’