The Esoteric Significance of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra
Section 6 The Sixth Location Where the Mind Is Sought — The Mind Is in the Middle
Original text: 阿难白佛言。世尊。我亦闻佛。与文殊等。诸法王子。谈实相时。世尊亦言。心不在内。亦不在外。
Explanation: Ānanda said to the Buddha: World-Honored One, I have also heard that when the Buddha was discussing ultimate reality with Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva and some Dharma princes, the World-Honored One also said that the mind is neither within the body nor outside the body.
As the Buddha's attendant, Ānanda frequently followed the Buddha to Dharma assemblies in various places to listen to the Dharma. When the Buddha went to the various heavens of the desire realm, the Buddha also used His majestic spiritual power to bless Ānanda and bring him along to the heavenly palaces of the desire realm; when the Buddha went to the various heavens of the form realm, the Buddha also used His own majestic spiritual power to gather and receive Ānanda, bringing him to the heavenly palaces of the form realm. When the Buddha discussed the ultimate reality of all dharmas with the Dharma princes, Ānanda followed the Buddha to take part in the Dharma assembly, listening to the Dharma at the side by relying on the Buddha's majestic spiritual power. This matter shows that whatever the Buddha could see, Ānanda, relying on the Buddha's spiritual power, could also see — this is called seeing what the Buddha sees. However, the result of that seeing was vastly different from the Buddha's, because their wisdom differed: the Buddha possessed unsurpassed, perfect wisdom, while Ānanda's wisdom was obscured and obstructed by karmic obstructions.
We may therefore take Ānanda as an analogy for the manas, the seventh consciousness, and the Buddha as an analogy for the tathāgatagarbha, the fundamental mind, the mind of great wisdom. Only by following the tathāgatagarbha can the seventh consciousness have its own seeing; whatever the tathāgatagarbha can see, the seventh consciousness, the manas, following the tathāgatagarbha, can also see. But the substance and degree of the dharmas seen differ, and so the results are utterly different. Because the tathāgatagarbha is the mind of great wisdom and is without ignorance, He can not only see all dharmas but also penetrate to the very bottom and source of all dharmas; whereas the seventh consciousness, the manas, because it has ignorance, holds inverted views and cannot see the ultimate reality of all dharmas. The Buddha and Ānanda were just like this: the Buddha is the honored one of the three realms, possessing ultimate and unsurpassed great wisdom, while Ānanda still had ignorance in full and was merely a śrāvaka of the first fruit. In the capacity of a first-fruit person, serving as the Buddha's attendant, he rode on the Buddha's majestic power and followed the Buddha to all places in the world, unobstructed in the heavens above and on the earth below; he went wherever the Buddha went and saw what the Buddha saw, yet he could not reach the Buddha's realm of great wisdom.
When the Buddha discussed the Mahāyāna Dharma of ultimate reality with the bodhisattvas, the Buddha could see the features of the original source of all dharmas, penetrating to the very bottom of the dharma-source, whereas Ānanda, because of ignorance, could not see the ultimate reality of all dharmas. Of the Buddha's Dharma sounds that he grasped, there was much he did not understand or misunderstood; of course, this was a deliberate display Ānanda made in order to assist the World-Honored One in propagating the Dharma. The relationship between the Buddha and Ānanda can be likened to the relationship between the tathāgatagarbha and the manas, and this analogy may be considered quite apt. Hence what follows: when the World-Honored One discussed ultimate reality with the Dharma princes and Ānanda was listening to the Dharma at the side, he did not understand the Dharma of ultimate reality the Buddha taught and thus developed misunderstanding.
The Dharma princes headed by Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva were all bodhisattvas of Equal Enlightenment, or even bodhisattvas of Wonderful Enlightenment; they were all Dharma princes. The Dharma princes are the great bodhisattvas of Equal Enlightenment and Wonderful Enlightenment who are to inherit the throne of the Dharma King. The Dharma King refers to the king of the Buddha's Dharma, the master of the Buddha's Dharma, in the world of the three realms. In the world of the three realms, only the Buddhas can be called Dharma Kings — kings of the Buddha's Dharma, kings of all dharmas mundane and supramundane, occupying the royal throne. The title of Dharma King can only be honorifically applied to a Buddha; no one else may be called a Dharma King. Even bodhisattvas of Equal Enlightenment or Wonderful Enlightenment cannot be called Dharma Kings, because they have not yet fully realized all of the Buddha's Dharma and have not yet ascended to the throne of the Dharma King.
If one is not a bodhisattva of Equal Enlightenment or Wonderful Enlightenment, one also cannot succeed to the Buddha's position. Therefore, those who can succeed to the Buddha's position and immediately become Buddhas can only be bodhisattvas of Equal Enlightenment or Wonderful Enlightenment; they may be called Dharma Princes, while bodhisattvas below the ten bhūmis cannot be called Dharma Princes. As for the titles of Dharma King and Dharma Lord, only a Buddha can bear them; the other bodhisattvas cannot serve as Dharma King or Dharma Lord, nor may they claim these titles for themselves.
When the Buddha and the Dharma princes such as Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva gathered together to discuss the ultimate reality of all dharmas, Ānanda was present in the assembly listening along with the Buddha, yet he did not understand the true meaning of the ultimate reality of all dharmas. The "real" (实) in "ultimate reality" is the "real" of "as-it-really-is" and the "real" of "actuality"; "real" signifies what is true, what exists, what is present. "Mark" (相) means appearance and mode of activity. Marks can be divided into many kinds: there are object-marks of material form and object-marks of mental dharmas. The object-marks of material form are the marks of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharmas; the object-marks of mental dharmas are the modes of operation of the seven consciousnesses and all the mental factors (caittas), and also include the modes of operation and mental factors of the eighth consciousness. "Real" and "mark" together mean the mark of true reality: the true mark is that which truly exists, which can never be extinguished, and which need not be produced by other dharmas — the mind-substance of the tathāgatagarbha. Because ultimate reality itself truly exists, it can give rise to the myriad dharmas; because He is real, all the myriad dharmas can, relying on Him, exist in a deluded manner, illusorily arising and illusorily ceasing.
The tathāgatagarbha can be likened to a magician. Through the power of mental intention, a magician can conjure up all forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and dharmas, producing all the mountains, rivers, and great earth, the vessel-world of the universe, and all sentient beings. Since he can conjure up mountains, rivers, and the great earth, the vessel-world of the universe, and various sentient beings and so forth, the magician must be truly existent; if the magician himself were illusory and unreal, he could not in turn conjure up these illusory dharmas. Therefore, the magician must be a dharma that truly exists before he can conjure up unreal dharmas. The mind of ultimate reality (dharmatā-citta), the tathāgatagarbha, is also like this.
The truly existent tathāgatagarbha, like the magician, can conjure up sentient beings' worlds of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), the world of the three realms, and the great-thousand world; therefore the world of the three realms is also called the one true dharma realm. All dharmas exist by relying on the tathāgatagarbha, this mind of ultimate reality; all dharmas are conjured forth by the tathāgatagarbha, and only by relying on the tathāgatagarbha can these dharmas exist. However, the existence of all dharmas is illusory arising and illusory ceasing: conjured into birth, they vanish again like illusions — present at one moment and gone the next; this is impermanence. What arises and ceases is subject to change; what changes is impermanent; dharmas that are impermanent, changing, and subject to arising and ceasing are not real dharmas. Real dharmas have no impermanence; they abide forever, eternally existing.
If the magician did not exist forever, then once the magician ceased, all the dharmas he conjured up would cease along with him. Once the magician has ceased, how could he come into being again? Who would give birth to him? There is no dharma that gives birth to the magician; the tathāgatagarbha is also like this. Yet the great-thousand worlds of the universe and the Buddha-lands of the ten directions must always exist: when this land ceases, that land arises; ceasing at one time, arising at another. What does this show? It shows that the tathāgatagarbha, this magician, exists forever without ceasing; only thus can He continuously conjure up the vessel-world of the universe of the three realms, conjuring up the three thousand great-thousand worlds. Only when this eternally existing tathāgatagarbha exists can all dharmas continuously arise, cease, and change — this dharma arises, that dharma ceases; arising at this time, ceasing at that time.
Original text: 如我思惟。内无所见。外不相知。内无知故。在内不成。身心相知。在外非义。今相知故。复内无见。当在中间。
Explanation: As I have deliberated: when the mind is within the body, it sees nothing; when the mind is outside the body, it and the body cannot know each other. Because it does not know what is within the body, the mind cannot be inside the body; and since body and mind do know each other, the mind being outside the body does not hold either. Because body and mind know each other, and yet the mind cannot see within the body, the mind should be in the middle.
When the World-Honored One told the Dharma princes that the mind of the ultimate reality of all dharmas is neither within nor without, He discussed a great deal more as well, which Ānanda probably did not remember; he recounted only this one sentence — that the mind is neither within nor without — not knowing that this referred to the mind of ultimate reality being neither inside nor outside. Now that he recalled this sentence, he still took it to mean that his own deliberating mind, the mind capable of inference and reasoning, the mind capable of feeling love and delight toward the Buddha, is neither within nor without.
When the World-Honored One said that the mind of ultimate reality is neither within nor without, Ānanda instead associated it with his own deluded mind, taking his own deluded mind to be the mind of ultimate reality — such was the severity of his misapprehension. That is why Ānanda is likened to the manas endowed with ignorance. Ānanda, who resembles the manas, is inverted: although, relying on the Buddha, the World-Honored One — this tathāgatagarbha — he can see all dharmas, after seeing the dharmas there are many misunderstandings. By pondering this analogy carefully, one can properly understand the seventh consciousness, the manas: He can see all dharmas and silently contain all dharmas, yet He cannot see the true reality of all dharmas; that is why sentient beings undergo birth-and-death transmigration through the six paths, and why it is necessary to eradicate all the ignorance of the manas.
After recalling this sentence, Ānanda went on to state his own view, which became the sixth location where the mind is sought. He said: Now at last I understand. Since my mind that can deliberate, my mind that can feel love and delight toward the Buddha, cannot see inside the body and does not know what is within the body, it is wrong for the conscious mind to be inside the body; and it is also not outside the body, for if it were outside the body, then the conscious mind would have knowing while the body would not, which is wrong. The mind knows and the body also knows; only when body and mind are joined together can there be knowing, and knowing cannot leave the body — it must be connected with the body. Therefore the conscious mind is not outside the body. This conscious mind must be in a middle place. This time he took a compromise — in the middle.
Original text: 佛言。汝言中间。中必不迷。非无所在。今汝推中。中何为在。为复在处。为当在身。若在身者。在边非中。在中同内。
Explanation: The Buddha said to Ānanda: If you say there is a middle, this middle place must be able to be pointed out; you must know where the middle is, without being confused and ignorant of it. If you do not know where the middle is, then the conclusion of "middle" you have arrived at is mistaken. This middle must have a position; so tell me, where exactly is this middle? Is it at a place of sense objects, or on the body? If this middle position is on the body, then being on the surface of the body is being at the edge, not in the middle; if the middle position is within the body, it is the same as being inside the body — both are equally wrong.
The conscious mind is not at a place of sense objects, nor between the body and a place; there is no such middle position. If the conscious mind were on the body, it would not be the middle; and if you say your conscious mind is within the body, it is the same as being inside the body. Therefore your claim that the conscious mind is within the body does not stand, because the conscious mind cannot see the five viscera and six bowels inside the body. Thus your assertion that the conscious mind being on the body amounts to being in the middle is wrong.
Original text: 若在处者。为有所表。为无所表。无表同无。表则无定。何以故。如人以表。表为中时。东看则西。南观成北。表体既混。心应杂乱。
Explanation: If you say your conscious mind is at a place, can this place be pointed out, or can it not be pointed out? If you cannot point out this place, then it is the same as there being no place, and your thesis is wrong; if this place can be pointed out, the place pointed out is still not fixed — this place is not necessarily the middle, nor necessarily east, west, south, or north. Why is this said? If someone can point out a place called the middle, and this place is taken as the middle, then when you look from the east, this place is on the west; when you look from the south, this place becomes the north — there is no middle at all. In that case, the substance that can be indicated becomes confused, and the mind will accordingly become jumbled.
Original text: 阿难言。我所说中。非此二种。如世尊言。眼色为缘。生于眼识。眼有分别。色尘无知。识生其中。则为心在。
Explanation: Ānanda rebutted: The middle I speak of is not these two meanings; it does not refer to being on the body, nor to being at some place of the body. The middle I speak of has no place; it is not at any location. Just as the World-Honored One has said, the eye faculty and form objects serve as contributing conditions, giving rise to the eye consciousness. The eye faculty has the nature of discrimination, while the form object is devoid of knowing; yet the moment they contact each other, the eye consciousness arises therein — thus the conscious mind becomes manifest.
Ānanda said that the conscious mind is born between the eye faculty and the form object; this "middle" refers to the middle between faculty and object. The conscious mind is born in the middle between the eye faculty and the form object; the conscious mind is in the middle between the eye faculty and the form object — this is what I mean by "middle."
Original text: 佛言。汝心若在。根尘之中。此之心体。为复兼二。为不兼二。若兼二者。物体杂乱。物非体知。成敌两立。云何为中。
Explanation: The Buddha said: If your conscious mind is in the middle between the eye faculty and the form object, then does this mind-substance combine both — faculty and object — or does it not combine both? If your conscious substance combines both faculty and object, then object and substance are jumbled: the form object has no capacity for knowing, while the substance of the faculty has the capacity for knowing; thus the two stand opposed to each other. What, then, would be called the middle?
The Buddha again refuted, from two aspects, the claim that the conscious mind is in the middle between faculty and object. If the mind you speak of is in the middle between faculty and object, does this mind-substance combine faculty and object, or does it not combine them? The faculty can produce knowing; it is the basis from which knowing is produced, whereas the object has no knowing. Faculty and object are two different attributes: one has the capacity for knowing, the other does not. If your conscious mind combines the attribute of the faculty and also combines the attribute of the object, being in the middle between faculty and object, then such a conscious mind is confused. How is this middle to be reckoned? Does it have the nature of consciousness or not? Does it have the capacity for knowing or not?
If you say the conscious mind has the capacity for knowing, that is wrong, because you have combined the form object, and the form object has no capacity for knowing. If the conscious mind has no capacity for knowing, that is also wrong, because this conscious mind of yours combines the substance-nature of the faculty, and the faculty has the capacity for knowing, being able to emit the knowing of the conscious mind. Therefore, your claim that the conscious mind is in the middle between faculty and object is confused. Faculty and object are two mutually opposing attributes; the conscious mind cannot combine both attributes. Therefore, saying the conscious mind is in the middle between faculty and object is wrong. This is what the Buddha said from the aspect of combining.
Original text: 兼二不成。非知不知。即无体性。中何为相。是故应知。当在中间。无有是处。
Explanation: From the other aspect: if the conscious mind does not combine the attribute of the faculty and the attribute of the object, not merging the two attributes together — given that the object has no capacity for knowing and the faculty has the capacity for knowing — then does the conscious mind, after all, have the capacity for knowing or not? To say the conscious mind has knowing is wrong; to say the conscious mind has no knowing is also wrong. The conscious mind then has no substance-nature; what, then, would be the appearance of the middle? Therefore, to say the conscious mind is in the middle between faculty and object is utterly untenable. Upon hearing this, Ānanda did not dispute further, tacitly admitting that his view was mistaken.
