The Esoteric Significance of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra
Section Seven The Seventh Inquiry into the Mind—The Mind Named as Non-Attachment to All
Original Text: Ānanda said to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, I once saw you together with the four great disciples—Mahāmaudgalyāyana (foremost in spiritual powers), Subhūti (foremost in understanding emptiness), Pūrṇamaitrāyaṇīputra (foremost in expounding the Dharma), and Śāriputra (foremost in wisdom)—turning the Dharma-wheel. You often said that the nature of the conscious, discerning mind is neither inside, nor outside, nor in between; it is nowhere at all. Non-attachment to all is called the mind. Then, is my non-attachment called the mind?”
Explanation: Ānanda addressed the Buddha, “World-Honored One, I recall seeing you discussing the Dharma together with the four great disciples: Mahāmaudgalyāyana, foremost in spiritual powers; Subhūti, foremost in understanding emptiness; Pūrṇamaitrāyaṇīputra, foremost in expounding the Dharma; and Śāriputra, foremost in wisdom. At that time, you often spoke of the nature of the conscious, discerning mind—that it is neither absent inside, nor absent outside, nor absent in between; it is nowhere, unattached to all dharmas, and thus is called the mind. So, is that which is unattached in me my mind?”
When the Buddha turned the Dharma-wheel with the śrāvaka disciples, he taught the Hinayāna Dharma. At that time, the World-Honored One could only speak of the conscious, deluded mind of the six consciousnesses; he absolutely did not specifically discuss the conscious nature of the eighth consciousness within the Hinayāna context. Ānanda recalled the Buddha’s words, stating that the nature of the mind capable of conscious discernment of the six dusts and all dharmas is neither inside nor outside, nor in between. “Inside” refers to within the body; “outside” refers to outside the body; there is no “in between,” and it is not located in any place, nor attached to any dharma. This is named the mind. The first part of Ānanda’s statement recounts the Buddha’s original words, while the latter part expresses his own understanding. The Buddha’s original words were without issue, but Ānanda’s own understanding was mistaken.
Ānanda asked the Buddha: “Then, is my non-attachment called the mind?” Since it is unattached to all, and the conscious mind cannot be found in any dharma—since the conscious mind is not attached to any dharma—then is this conscious mind, unattached to any dharma, my conscious mind? Ānanda was like someone guessing at riddles: if this isn’t it, he guesses that; if that isn’t it, he suggests another, always speculating. In the end, Ānanda proposed that what is unattached is his mind, but he was uncertain whether this was correct and thus asked the Buddha. The Buddha responded with great patience. Why was the Buddha so patient? Because the World-Honored One intended to expound the true reality of all dharmas, to teach the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, for the benefit of immeasurable sentient beings. Thus, the Buddha explained patiently and meticulously to Ānanda; in truth, the Buddha was teaching for the sake of all sentient beings of future generations.
Original Text: The Buddha told Ānanda, “You say that the nature of the conscious, discerning mind is nowhere at all. The void of the world, the phenomena of water, land, and sky, all objects are called ‘all.’ That which you do not attach to—does it exist or not? If it does not exist, it is like tortoise fur or rabbit horns.”
Explanation: The Buddha told Ānanda, “You say the nature of the conscious, discerning mind does not exist in any dharma. But the void of the world is one dharma among all dharmas. The animals and plants of water, land, and sky, all material objects and celestial bodies—these dharmas are all individual dharmas among all dharmas. All the phenomena you perceive—forms, sounds, scents, tastes, tactile objects, and dharmas; heavenly palaces; people; sentient beings of the six realms; all celestial bodies; the universe, the vessel-world, and all dharmas—are each a single dharma among all dharmas, and you are able to discern them all. Does the mind to which you do not attach exist or not? If your mind does not exist, it is like tortoise fur or rabbit horns.”
Original Text: “How can it be called non-attachment? If there is that which does not attach, it cannot be called non-existent. Without characteristics, it is non-existent; if it is not non-existent, then it has characteristics. If it has characteristics, then it exists. How can it be non-attachment? Therefore, you should know that to call ‘non-attachment to all’ the conscious mind is incorrect.”
Explanation: How can it be called non-attachment? If you have a mind that does not attach, there is still a mind; it cannot be said that your mind is non-existent—to say there is no mind is incorrect. Only if your mind had no characteristics at all could it truly be said not to exist. But your deluded conscious, discerning mind-nature still has characteristics; it cannot be said that you lack a conscious mind-nature, because you can still consciously discern these six dusts and all dharmas. If your conscious, discerning mind-nature exists, then the conscious mind has operational characteristics; it has the characteristic of conscious discernment. If the characteristic of consciousness exists, that means your mind still exists. Since your mind exists, how can it be said to be unattached to all dharmas?
If your mind were truly unattached to all dharmas, then you could not consciously perceive all dharmas, nor discern all dharmas. Yet your mind can indeed consciously perceive all dharmas and discern all dharmas. If I take you to a heavenly palace, you can still see it; if I take you to hell, you can still see it; all the animals and plants of water, land, and sky, all phenomena you can still see, still consciously perceive and discern. This shows that your conscious mind has characteristics. Since it has characteristics, it exists. How can you say your conscious mind is unattached to all dharmas? Therefore, your statement that what is unattached to all dharmas is your conscious mind is incorrect.
Original Text: “If you obstinately cling to the nature that discerns, perceives, and understands as being the mind, then this mind should, apart from all forms, scents, tastes, tactile objects, and all dust affairs, possess its own complete nature.”
Explanation: If you cling to the mind that discerns forms, sounds, scents, tastes, tactile objects, and dharmas—the mind that perceives the six dusts, that observes the six dusts—as being your true mind, then this mind should exist apart from the realms of forms, sounds, scents, tastes, tactile objects, and dharmas, and should possess its own complete nature. It should not come into being with the arising of the six dusts nor cease with their cessation. This mind should be a self-existent mind, originally present; it cannot be a mind that only appears because of the six dusts. Yet that discerning, perceiving, and observing mind ceases to exist apart from the six dusts; thus, it is not your true mind.
This is the seventh point of inquiry into the mind, and once again, the World-Honored One refuted it. Ānanda had no reply and acknowledged that the seven locations he proposed for the mind were all incorrect. The conscious, discerning mind-nature is not in these seven places—then where is it? At this point, Ānanda was greatly perplexed, making the subsequent discourse crucial. The previous seven inquiries into the mind all sought the mind that Ānanda considered to be the thinking mind, the reasoning mind, the mind capable of loving and delighting in the Buddha. He took this mind to be real and then searched for its location, but the Buddha ultimately negated them all, stating that the mind is indeed not inside, outside, in between, nor in any of the seven places Ānanda proposed. Therefore, such a mind is not the true mind; it is a deluded mind born of arising and ceasing, empty and false, produced by conditions. So where is the true mind? Please see what is to be explained later in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.
The seven inquiries into the mind did not locate the six consciousnesses, demonstrating that the six consciousnesses have no fixed location—they come from nowhere and go nowhere; they are illusory, false, and unreal, dependently arisen, without inherent nature. Although we now have this correct understanding, it is not yet actual realization. To achieve actual realization, one must engage in profound meditation, diligently investigate with the mental faculty (manas), clarify the reasoning, establish irrefutable evidence, eliminate all doubts, and reach a state where both the conscious mind (mano-vijñāna) and the mental faculty (manas) are entirely free from doubt—this is realization.
