Shurangama Sutra, Volume III: The Great Illusion of Perception

Original Text: Ānanda, the faculty of seeing is devoid of awareness; it arises due to form and emptiness. For instance, as you are now in the Jetavana Grove, it is bright in the morning and dark in the evening. If it is midnight, during the waxing moon there is light, while during the waning moon it becomes dark. These phenomena of brightness and darkness are discerned through the faculty of seeing. Now, is this seeing that perceives brightness and darkness of one substance with brightness, darkness, and the great void, or not? Is it both identical and non-identical, or both distinct and non-distinct?

Explanation: Ānanda, seeing and perception themselves lack innate knowing; it is due to the two conditions of form and emptiness that seeing and perception arise. For example, as you are now in the Jetavana Grove, it is bright in the morning and dark in the evening. If at midnight during the bright fortnight (waxing moon) there is moonlight, and during the dark fortnight (waning moon) there is darkness. These appearances of brightness and darkness are manifested through the analytical function of the faculty of seeing. Is this seeing that perceives brightness and darkness of the same substance as the appearances of brightness and darkness and the great void, or not? Or is it both identical and non-identical, both distinct and non-distinct?

Original Text: Ānanda, if this seeing were of one substance with brightness, darkness, and the void, then brightness and darkness are two distinct entities that cannot coexist—when darkness is present, brightness is absent; when brightness is present, darkness is absent. If seeing were one with darkness, then when brightness appears, seeing would cease to exist. If seeing were necessarily one with brightness, then when darkness comes, seeing should perish. If it perishes, how could it perceive darkness? If brightness and darkness are distinct and not of one substance, and the seeing nature is without birth or cessation, how could they be considered one?

Explanation: Ānanda, if this seeing were of one substance with brightness, darkness, and the void, then the two entities of brightness and darkness cannot coexist simultaneously—when darkness arises, brightness is absent; when brightness arises, darkness is absent. If seeing were one with darkness, then when brightness appears, seeing would vanish, and thus it could not perceive brightness. If seeing were one with brightness, then when darkness arrives, seeing would cease. If seeing ceases, how could it perceive darkness? If brightness and darkness are distinct and not of one substance, and the seeing nature is without birth or cessation, how could the three be considered one?

Original Text: If this seeing essence is not of one substance with darkness and brightness, then apart from brightness, darkness, and the void, analyze the fundamental nature of seeing—what form does it take? Apart from brightness, darkness, and the void, this seeing essence is fundamentally like tortoise hair and rabbit horns—nonexistent. Brightness, darkness, and the void are three distinct things; upon which appearance can the seeing essence be established? Brightness and darkness are mutually opposed; how could they be said to be identical? Apart from these three, there is fundamentally no seeing; how could it be said to be possibly distinct? There is no basis for speaking of identity or distinction. To divide the void and seeing reveals they have no boundary or connection; how could they be said to be non-identical? There is no basis for speaking of identity or non-identity. Whether seeing darkness or seeing brightness, the seeing nature never changes; how could it be said to be non-distinct?

Explanation: If this seeing essence is not of one substance with brightness and darkness, then apart from brightness, darkness, and the void, analyze the fundamental nature of seeing—what form does it take? Apart from brightness, darkness, and the void, this seeing essence is fundamentally like tortoise hair and rabbit horns—utterly nonexistent. Brightness, darkness, and the void are three distinct phenomena; upon which appearance can the seeing essence be established? Brightness and darkness are mutually contradictory; how could they be said to be identical? Apart from brightness, darkness, and the void, there is fundamentally no seeing; how could it be said to be possibly distinct? There is no basis for speaking of identity or distinction. To separate the void and seeing reveals they have no boundary or connection; how could they be said to be non-identical? There is no basis for speaking of identity or non-identity. Whether perceiving darkness or brightness, the seeing nature never changes; how could it be said to be non-distinct?

Original Text: Examine this more minutely and contemplate with utmost care: brightness comes from the sun, darkness follows the waning moon, unobstructedness belongs to the void, and obstruction pertains to the earth. Thus, from what does this seeing essence arise? Seeing and perception are formless; the void is inert. They neither harmonize nor combine. It should not be that the seeing essence arises spontaneously without any source. If the natures of seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing are perfect, all-pervading, and fundamentally unmoving, you should understand that the boundless, unmoving void, along with the moving earth, water, fire, and wind, are equally named the Six Great Elements. Their nature is truly perfect and interpenetrating; all are the Tathāgata-garbha, fundamentally without birth or cessation.

Explanation: Examine this more minutely, contemplate with detailed and careful observation: brightness originates from the sun, darkness accompanies the waning moon, unobstructedness belongs to the void, and obstruction belongs to the earth. From what, then, does this seeing essence arise? Seeing and perception are formless; the void is inert and unresponsive. They lack the nature of harmony or combination. It should not be that the seeing essence arises spontaneously without any source. If the natures of seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing are perfect, all-pervading throughout the Dharma Realm, and fundamentally unmoving, you should know that the boundless, unmoving void, along with the moving earth, water, fire, and wind, are equally termed the Six Great Elements. Their inherent nature is truly perfect and interpenetrating; all are the Tathāgata-garbha, fundamentally without birth or cessation.

Original Text: Ānanda, your nature is submerged and adrift; you have not yet realized that your seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing are originally the Tathāgata-garbha. You should contemplate this: are seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing subject to birth and cessation? Are they identical or distinct? Are they beyond birth and cessation? Are they neither identical nor distinct? You have never known that within the Tathāgata-garbha, the nature of seeing is the enlightened luminosity; the essence of perception is the luminous seeing. Both are fundamentally pure, all-pervading throughout the Dharma Realm, responding to the capacity of sentient beings’ minds. Like a single faculty of sight that sees throughout the Dharma Realm, the faculties of hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and mental awareness—their wondrous virtues shine brilliantly, pervading the Dharma Realm, perfectly filling the ten directions. How could they have fixed locations? They manifest according to karma. The world, in ignorance, mistakenly takes them as arising from causes and conditions or as spontaneous natures. These are all discriminations and calculations of the conscious mind. Where there is verbal expression, there is no real meaning.

Explanation: Ānanda, your intrinsic nature is submerged and adrift; you have not yet awakened to the fact that your seeing, hearing, perception, and knowing are originally the Tathāgata-garbha. You should contemplate this: are seeing, hearing, perception, and knowing subject to birth and cessation? Are they identical or distinct from their perceived objects? Are they beyond birth and cessation? Are they neither identical nor distinct? You have never known that within the Tathāgata-garbha, the nature of seeing is the enlightened luminosity; the essence of perception is the luminous seeing. Both are fundamentally pure, all-pervading throughout the Dharma Realm, manifesting according to the measure of what sentient beings’ minds should know. For example, the single faculty of sight sees throughout the Dharma Realm. The faculties of hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and mental awareness—their wondrous virtues are luminous and pure, pervading the Dharma Realm, perfectly filling the ten directions of space. How could they have fixed locations? They manifest according to beings’ karma. Sentient beings in the world, in their ignorance, mistakenly regard them as arising from causes and conditions or as having a spontaneous nature. These notions all stem from the discriminating, calculating mind of sentient beings’ consciousness. Whatever is expressed in words lacks true meaning.