The Esoteric Significance of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

Section 2  The Twelve Sense Bases Are Illusory

1. Original text: 复次阿难。云何十二处。本如来藏。妙真如性。阿难。汝且观此。祇陀树林。及诸泉池。于意云何。此等为是。色生眼见。眼生色相。

阿难。若复眼根。生色相者。见空非色。色性应销。销则显发。一切都无。色相既无。谁明空质。空亦如是。

Explanation: The World-Honored One said: Ānanda, why is it said that the twelve sense bases are originally the wondrous true suchness nature of the tathāgatagarbha? Ānanda, for now look at this Jeta Grove and all the springs and ponds. What do you think—how has this phenomenon of seeing form come about? Is it that the form appearance itself produced the seeing of the eye consciousness, or is it the form appearance produced by the eye faculty?

Ānanda, if the eye faculty could produce form appearances, then when seeing empty space, since empty space has no form appearance, when the eye faculty sees empty space the form appearance would vanish. Once the form appearance vanished, the seeing that sees form would also vanish. If the seeing of form vanished, one could not see empty space, nor could one see anything at all. If the form appearance no longer existed, the eye faculty would have no seeing, yet one can still know that empty space contains nothing—who is it that perceives the nothingness and the empty space? Yet you clearly can see empty space; your seeing has not vanished, nor has it vanished along with the disappearance of the form appearance. This shows that the eye faculty cannot produce form appearances; rather, there is another thing that produces the form appearance.

Original text: 若复色尘。生眼见者。观空非色。见即销亡。亡则都无。谁明空色。

Explanation: If form dust could produce eye-seeing, then when seeing empty space, since empty space has no form appearance, empty space could not produce eye-seeing; at that time the seeing nature would be gone, and then all appearances would be gone. If so, who is it that knows and perceives that empty space is without form? Therefore it is said that the seeing nature, empty space, and form dust all have no location; form dust and the seeing nature are both illusory—neither of the nature of causes and conditions nor of the nature of spontaneity—and are of course the nature of the tathāgatagarbha.

Here the Buddha implies that the tathāgatagarbha produced the form appearance, and this form appearance is an internal object-aspect (nimitta), a shadow of external form, a secondary manifestation of the tathāgatagarbha, or what may be called its revelation. If the form appearance produced the seeing of the eye consciousness, then since empty space is not a form appearance, it could not produce seeing. When seeing empty space, there would be no seeing; since there is no seeing, how could one see empty space and know it to be empty space?

Original text: 是故当知。见与色空。俱无处所。即色与见。二处虚妄。本非因缘。非自然性。

Explanation: Therefore it should be known that the seeing of the eye consciousness, form appearances, and empty space all have no location; form appearances and the seeing of the eye consciousness are both illusory—neither of the nature of causes and conditions nor of the nature of spontaneity—but are the tathāgatagarbha nature, all coming from the tathāgatagarbha. Thus the thesis that the tathāgatagarbha produces all dharmas is established; therefore the World-Honored One draws a substantive conclusion: all dharmas are born from the tathāgatagarbha and are manifested solely by the mind of the tathāgatagarbha.

The twelve sense bases—the six faculties and six consciousnesses—the World-Honored One tells sentient beings, are all the tathāgatagarbha nature, all born of the tathāgatagarbha. The six faculties and six consciousnesses have no self-nature or reality of their own; they are all dharmas that have been born, illusory and unreal. Form appearances and the seeing of the eye consciousness have no location and no self-nature; they do not exist inherently, and therefore the World-Honored One says these dharmas are all illusory.

If one thoroughly understands the faculties, dusts, and consciousnesses in the Āgama sūtras, reading the Śūraṅgama Sūtra becomes somewhat easier. The six faculties contact the six dusts, then the tathāgatagarbha gives birth to the six consciousnesses, and the six consciousnesses then contact the six dusts, and there is seeing. In fact, it is because the three are in continual combined contact that there is uninterrupted seeing. The six faculties have already been born, the external six dusts have already been produced, and the tathāgatagarbha then transforms the external six dusts into the internal six dusts; the supreme faculties (indriya) then contact the internal six dusts, and when the six consciousnesses emerge they discriminate the internal six dusts. Viewed this way, are not the six faculties, six dusts, and twelve sense bases very illusory? One then also knows from where these dharmas were born.

2. Original text: 阿难。汝更听此祇陀园中。食办击鼓。众集撞钟。钟鼓音声。前后相续。于意云何。此等为是声来耳边。耳往声处。阿难。若复此声。来于耳边。如我乞食室罗筏城。在祇陀林。则无有我。此声必来阿难耳处。目连迦叶。应不俱闻。何况其中一千二百五十沙门。一闻钟声。同来食处。

Explanation: Ānanda, listen again within this Jeta Grove: the sound of the drum beaten when the meal is ready, and the sound of the bell struck to summon the assembly to gather; the sounds of bell and drum continue one after another without interruption. What do you think? Do you hear the sounds because the sounds came to your ears, or did your ears go to where the sounds were? Ānanda, if these sounds came to your ears, then, for example, when I was begging for food in the city of Śrāvastī, there was no 'me' in the Jeta Grove. By the same token, if the sounds came to your ears, then there would be no sounds where Mahāmaudgalyāyana and Mahākāśyapa were, and they could not have heard the sounds at the same time. Those twelve hundred and fifty bhikṣus would have heard even less—how could they all arrive at the eating place simultaneously as soon as they heard the bell sound?

Original text: 若复汝耳。往彼声边。如我归住祇陀林中。在室罗城。则无有我。汝闻鼓声。其耳已往击鼓之处。钟声齐出。应不俱闻。何况其中象马牛羊。种种音响。若无来往。亦复无闻。是故当知听与音声。俱无处所。即听与声。二处虚妄。本非因缘。非自然性。

Explanation: If your ears went to where the sounds were—just as when I returned from begging for food to stay in the Jeta Grove and there was no longer any 'me' in Śrāvastī—then when you heard the drum sound, your ears would have gone to the drum; when the bell sound rang out at the same time, you should not have been able to hear it simultaneously. Even less would you hear the sounds of elephants, horses, cattle, and sheep, and all kinds of other sounds. If your ears and the sounds did not go to each other, you would hear nothing at all. Therefore it should be known that both of these two locations—hearing and sound—are illusory; originally they are neither of the nature of causes and conditions nor of the nature of spontaneity, but are the wondrous true suchness nature of the tathāgatagarbha.

3. Sounds Are Illusory, Originally the Tathāgatagarbha. Sounds do not come to the ear, and the ear does not go to where the sound is, yet sound can be heard, which shows that what is heard is not real sound but false sound, and the matter of hearing sound is illusory. If a sound went to one person's ear, it could not go to another person's ear; then one person could hear it while the others could not.

If the ear faculty went to the location of the sound and thereby heard the sound, then the ear faculty, being able to go to the location of one sound, could not at the same time go to the location of another sound and could not hear other sounds. In fact, we can simultaneously hear sounds from many different places, so the sounds we hear are not real sounds.

By the same token, in seeing form: if form came to the eye faculty and there was seeing, others could not see it, because form cannot go to two or more places at the same time. If the eye faculty went to where the form was and thereby saw the form, then the eye faculty could not simultaneously go to other locations of form, and thus could not see other forms. In fact, we can simultaneously see form appearances in many places, which shows that the form we see is not real form but illusory, and the matter of seeing form is not real.

Therefore, the six dusts that sentient beings contact are illusory, and the discrimination of the six dusts is an illusory dharma, not real. The vibration and propagation of sound is a false appearance: it seems to be transmitted into everyone's ears, but in reality it is not. Sound is a kind of material form, composed of earth, water, fire, and wind. Matter is a fixed single body; if this matter goes to one place, it cannot reach another place. Sound is the same: if it reaches one person's ears, it cannot reach another person's ears.

Yet everyone hears the same sound, which shows that what all people hear is not the real external sound but the shadow of sound manifested anew by the tathāgatagarbha—the internal object-aspect (nimitta). Therefore what sentient beings hear is all the internal object-aspect—a shadow, a false appearance. The World-Honored One said it is all the tathāgatagarbha nature: sounds and form appearances are both the tathāgatagarbha nature. When hearing a sound, it feels as if one is hearing the sound, but in fact this is an illusion; there is no such thing.

All phenomena in the world are not truly existent; our conscious minds are deceived by surface appearances, believing that everything we contact is so very real. After enlightenment, once various contemplative practices (vipaśyanā-caryā) have been undertaken, one will feel that everything is illusory and transformed—like a mirage, like a dream, like watching shadows on the surface of a mirror. Although afflictive habits still remain at that time, one's inner feelings will often be different. If it were not for the support of the power of vows, there would be no need to go on living—who would be willing to live amid false appearances?

Everything we contact is unreal and illusory; yet the fundamental substance that gives birth to all dharmas—including the substance that gives birth to the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), the eighteen realms, and the receptacle world of the universe—this fundamental mind is real. Only by realizing Him and observing Him can one truly know His reality and all His natures. Before enlightenment, one can study His nature through permeating cultivation and reach a similar understanding.

4. Original text: 阿难。汝又嗅此炉中栴檀。此香若复然于一铢。室罗筏城四十里内。同时闻气。于意云何。此香为复生栴檀木。生于汝鼻。为生于空。阿难。若复此香。生于汝鼻。称鼻所生。当从鼻出。鼻非栴檀。云何鼻中有栴檀气。称汝闻香。当于鼻入。鼻中出香。说闻非义。

Explanation: Ānanda, smell again the sandalwood fragrance in the censer. If one zhu of this sandalwood incense were lit, all sentient beings within forty li around Śrāvastī could smell it at the same time. What do you think? Does this fragrance arise from the sandalwood incense, arise from your nose, or arise from empty space? Ānanda, if this fragrance arose from your nose and were called a fragrance produced by the nose, then the fragrance should come out from the nose. But the nose is not sandalwood—how could there be a sandalwood fragrance in the nose? The reason it is said that you can smell the fragrance is that the fragrance should enter your nose and the nose smells it; if the fragrance were produced from within the nose and one said the nose smelled the fragrance, that would be wrong.

Original text: 若生于空。空性常恒。香应常在。何藉炉中。爇此枯木。若生于木。则此香质。因爇成烟。若鼻得闻。合蒙烟气。其烟腾空。未及遥远。四十里内。云何已闻。是故当知。香鼻与闻。俱无处所。即嗅与香。二处虚妄。本非因缘。非自然性。

 Explanation: If the fragrance arose from within empty space, since empty space is constant and imperishable, the fragrance should constantly arise and constantly exist—why then rely on lighting sandalwood in a censer? If the fragrance arose from the sandalwood, then the essence of this sandalwood incense, upon being lit, turned into smoke. If your nose smelled it, it should have been smoked by the smoke. But after the smoke rises into the air, it does not reach very far—how could it be smelled within forty li? Therefore it should be known that the fragrance, the nose, and the smelling nature all have no location; of these, the two locations—the smelling nature and the fragrance—are both illusory, neither of the nature of causes and conditions nor of the nature of spontaneity, but the nature of the tathāgatagarbha.

5. Original text: 阿难。汝常二时。众中持钵。其间或遇。酥酪醍醐。名为上味。于意云何。此味为复生于空中。生于舌中。为生食中。阿难。若复此味。生于汝舌。在汝口中。只有一舌。其舌尔时。已成酥味。遇黑石蜜。应不推移。若不变移。不名知味。若变移者。舌非多体。云何多味。一舌之知。

Explanation: Ānanda, you regularly hold your alms bowl and beg for food among the assembly during two periods of the day; while begging for food you may encounter butter, curds, and ghee—the finest delicacies among foods. What do you think? Does this delicious flavor arise from empty space, arise from within the tongue, or arise from the food? Ānanda, if this delicious flavor arose from your tongue—within your mouth there is only one tongue—once the tongue had produced the flavor of butter, curds, and ghee, then upon encountering black rock honey it should still be the flavor of butter, curds, and ghee and should not also take on the taste of black rock honey. If the flavor on the tongue did not change, one could not say the tongue can taste and know flavors. If the flavor on the tongue can change, yet each person has only one tongue and not multiple tongues—why could one tongue taste so many flavors?

Original text: 若生于食。食非有识。云何自知。又食自知。即同他食。何预于汝。名味之知。若生于空。汝啖虚空。当作何味。必其虚空。若作碱味。既碱汝舌。亦碱汝面。则此界人。同于海鱼。既常受碱。了不知淡。若不识淡。亦不觉碱。必无所知。云何名味。是故当知。味舌与尝。俱无处所。即尝与味。二俱虚妄。本非因缘。非自然性。

Explanation: If the delicious flavor of butter, curds, and ghee arose from the food, the food has no tongue consciousness—how could it taste its own flavor dust? Moreover, if the food knew its own delicious flavor, that would amount to a knowing outside your tongue; it would not be your tongue tasting the food, and the matter of eating would have nothing to do with you—how then could you know the flavor of butter, curds, and ghee?

If the delicious flavor arose from empty space, then if you tasted empty space, what flavor would you taste? If empty space were salty, then tasting empty space would not only make your tongue salty but also make your face salty, and the people of this world would be just like fish in the sea. Since people of the world constantly experience saltiness, they would no longer know blandness. If people could not know blandness, they also could not perceive saltiness, and would know no flavor at all. In that case, how could there be tasting and knowing of flavor? Therefore it should be known that the flavor dust, the tongue, and the tasting consciousness all have no location; tasting and flavor dust are both illusory—originally neither of the nature of causes and conditions nor of the nature of spontaneity, but the nature of the tathāgatagarbha.

6. Original text: 阿难。汝常晨朝以手摩头。于意云何。此摩所知。谁为能触。能为在手。为复在头。若在于手。头则无知。云何成触。若在于头。手则无用。云何名触。

Explanation: Ānanda, you often rub your head with your hand in the morning. What do you think? Of the knowing produced by this rubbing, whose is the knowing of being able to touch? Is it the hand that can touch and know, or the head that can touch and know? If the hand could touch and know, then the head could not know the touch—how then could it be called the hand touching the head? If the head had the tactile knowing, the hand would be useless, not knowing the touch—how then could it be called the hand touching the head?

Original text: 若各各有。则汝阿难。应有二身。若头与手一触所生。则手与头。当为一体。若一体者。触则无成。若二体者。触谁为在。在能非所。在所非能。不应虚空。与汝成触。是故当知。觉触与身。俱无处所。即身与触。二俱虚妄。本非因缘。非自然性。

Explanation: If both the hand and the head could touch and know, then you, Ānanda, would have two bodies capable of touching and knowing. If the head and the hand were perceptions born of a single touch, then the head and the hand would be one body; if they were one body, touch could not be established, because a self cannot touch itself—for instance, the nose cannot touch the nose, the neck cannot touch the neck, A cannot touch A itself, and B cannot touch B itself; only when A and B touch each other can touch be established.

If the head and the hand were two bodies, then which one would be the toucher? The toucher has knowing, while the touched has no knowing. If the hand were the toucher, the head would be the touched; the touched has no knowing, so the head would have no knowing—yet the head has knowing just like the hand. If the head were the toucher, the hand would be the touched; the hand would have no knowing—yet the hand has knowing at the same time as the head. It should not be that the head and hand touch empty space: empty space, being the touched, has no knowing, while the head and hand, being the toucher, both have knowing—this principle does not hold. Therefore it is said that the tactile dust that is perceived and the body both have no location; the body and the tactile dust are both illusory—originally neither of the nature of causes and conditions nor of the nature of spontaneity, but all the tathāgatagarbha nature.

7. Original text: 阿难。汝常意中。所缘善恶。无记三性。生成法则。此法为复。即心所生。为当离心。别有方所。阿难。若即心者。法则非尘。非心所缘。云何成处。若离于心。别有方所。则法自性。为知非知。知则名心。异汝非尘。同他心量。即汝即心。云何汝心。更二于汝。

Explanation: Ānanda, the dharmas that your manas mind constantly conditions—dharmas of the three natures of wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral (avyākṛta)—generate dharmas and their principles. Is the dharma dust born within the manas mind, or does it have another location of birth apart from the manas mind? Ānanda, if the dharma dust were produced by the manas mind, then the dharma dust would not be dust, and the manas would be unable to condition it—how then could the manas serve as the location where faculty and dust contact? If the dharma dust, apart from the manas, had another location where it is born, then does the self-nature of the dharma dust possess knowing or lack knowing? If the dharma dust had knowing, it would be called a mind; a mind apart from the manas is neither the manas nor the dharma dust—it would be another mind, the same in nature as the manas. Of the two minds, one is you, Ānanda, and one is the mind—why then would you, Ānanda, have two minds?

Original text: 若非知者。此尘既非。色声香味。离合冷暖。及虚空相。当于何在。今于色空。都无表示。不应人间。更有空外。心非所缘。处从谁立。是故当知。法则与心。俱无处所。则意与法。二俱虚妄。本非因缘。非自然性。

Explanation: If the dharma dust has no knowing, then it is not a mind but dust; yet this dharma dust is not form, sound, smell, or taste, has none of the form appearances of the five dusts such as separation and contact, cold and warmth, and has no appearance of empty space—where then would this dharma dust, which is neither form nor space, be? There is no way to represent the dharma dust by means of material form, nor can it be represented by means of space; in the human world there should not exist a dharma dust beyond empty space—beyond empty space there are no dharmas. A dharma dust apart from the manas cannot be conditioned by the manas, so no location could be established for it: the manas is not the location of the dharma dust, and the dharma dust is not the location of the manas. Therefore it is said that the dharma dust and the manas mind both have no location; the manas and the dharma dust are both illusory—originally neither of the nature of causes and conditions nor of the nature of spontaneity, but all the tathāgatagarbha nature.

The manas contacts the dharma dust and gives rise to the mind consciousness. The dharma dust includes the dharma dust upon the five dusts and the subjectively imagined realm; its natures comprise the three kinds of dharmas: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. For example, when someone practices generosity (dāna) and performs good deeds, the tathāgatagarbha manifests this dharma dust and transmits it to the manas; the manas contacts the dharma dust and thereby conditions this dharma dust. If it is interested, it will give birth to the consciousness accompanied by the five senses (pañca-sahagata-mano-vijñāna) to further discriminate this dharma dust; if not interested, the consciousness accompanied by the five senses will not arise. The tathāgatagarbha manifests the event of yesterday's fight and transmits it to the manas; the manas contacts this subjectively imagined realm, and if interested, a solitary consciousness (mano-vijñāna-eka-citta) will arise to discriminate and deliberate upon this dharma dust of the subjectively imagined realm. Therefore the manas must be together with the dharma dust, in the same location, and cannot be separated from it; otherwise there would be no dharma dust, and the manas would not condition it.

8. How to Contemplate That All Dharmas Are the Tathāgatagarbha Nature

In the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the World-Honored One repeatedly teaches that the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) and the eighteen realms are all of the nature of the tathāgatagarbha—neither of the nature of causes and conditions nor of the nature of spontaneity. That they are neither of the nature of causes and conditions nor of the nature of spontaneity can be understood through ample deliberation (manasikāra/manana). But the tathāgatagarbha nature is extremely difficult to understand; even after realizing the tathāgatagarbha, it is hard to observe, and understanding it is not so easy either.

The formless, markless seeds of the four great elements compose the tiniest of particles; the particles then gather to compose slightly larger particles; then the seeds of the four great elements continually compose particles, and the particles continually gather together, finally forming material form visible to the naked eye. From nothing to something—from empty, formless seeds to tangible, tiniest particles—this in itself is most miraculous, just like magic; that is why it is said that the tathāgatagarbha is the magician.

It is said that the tathāgatagarbha outputs the seeds of the four great elements, but in reality the seeds of the four great elements have never gone outside the tathāgatagarbha; the particles composed of them have not gone outside the tathāgatagarbha, nor has the material form formed from them gone outside the tathāgatagarbha. Our material bodies arise and cease within the tathāgatagarbha, never going outside it. The tathāgatagarbha is formless and markless, so the material body cannot possibly have form and marks—what state, then, is it actually in?

If it is said that material form has birth, it would necessarily have to separate from the tathāgatagarbha, go outside it, and possess an independent form; the seeds of the four great elements would go outside the tathāgatagarbha, and when the seeds of the four great elements ceased, they would return into the tathāgatagarbha. But the seeds of the four great elements are formless—how could they transform into tangible matter? How does the conversion take place? Outside the tathāgatagarbha, how would matter exist and change? What would serve as its support?

The seeds of the four great elements compose particles; the particles gather to compose larger particles; the seeds of the four great elements continually compose particles, and the particles continually gather, until finally the material body appears, with form and marks. Yet the material body has no birth: it has not gone outside the tathāgatagarbha. Since the seeds of the four great elements have not gone outside the tathāgatagarbha, the material body cannot go outside the tathāgatagarbha. If the seeds of the four great elements left the tathāgatagarbha and formed particles, then once the seeds left the tathāgatagarbha, how would they have functions and powers? Who would bestow these upon them? If the seeds left the tathāgatagarbha, how would they operate? How could the formless be transformed and fabricated into the tangible? If the material body went outside the tathāgatagarbha, how would it exist and change? What would serve as its support? At death, when the four great elements separate and the seeds return into the tathāgatagarbha, how do they return? If they never went outside the tathāgatagarbha, there can be no talk of returning into it. It turns out that it is all the tathāgatagarbha playing by itself, playing games with itself, performing magic for itself to watch, amusing itself.

When consciousness seeds are produced, they form the conscious mind; since the consciousness seeds do not go outside the tathāgatagarbha, the conscious mind does not go outside the tathāgatagarbha. Apart from the tathāgatagarbha there are no seeds; apart from the tathāgatagarbha there is no conscious mind and no mental factors (caitasika) of the conscious mind—no feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness. If feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness operate within the tathāgatagarbha, arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing in disorder, then form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are all affairs within the tathāgatagarbha's own home; the illusory transformations have never transformed beyond its home. The tathāgatagarbha enjoys them alone, amusing itself.

Since no dharma has gone outside the tathāgatagarbha, there is no birth; and since none will return into the tathāgatagarbha, there is no cessation. In the world there are no phenomena at all, nor even a world; there is nothing, nothing exists—so one might as well just sleep all day long. But who is it that sleeps all day? The rules and principles within the tathāgatagarbha are so mysterious, so uncanny; without figuring them out, one probably could not sleep well anyway.