Twelve. Did Ānanda Commit a Transgression?

Question: In the Śūraṃgama Sūtra, it is said that Ānanda attained the first fruition, yet he was tempted by Mātaṅgī and nearly broke the precepts. If he had not been saved by the Śūraṃgama Mantra, would he have fallen into the three evil paths due to breaking the precepts?

Answer: Ānanda was lured into the courtesan’s dwelling by Mātaṅgī’s mother using a heterodox mantra; he did not enter of his own volition. The meditative power of Ānanda’s first fruition was clearly insufficient to resist the potent heterodox mantra. The heterodox mantra had an obstructive effect on Ānanda, causing him to lose his power of resistance. However, Ānanda would never actively violate any precept and would not fall into the three evil paths. It is like a person whose meditative power is insufficient being unable to resist the deluding power of alcohol. Once alcohol affects the mind, it causes confusion and loss of clarity. This alcohol might not have been consumed voluntarily but was forcibly poured into them or administered through deceit.

Ānanda’s situation was that he was forcibly subjected to a heterodox spell by an external path. Due to insufficient spiritual power, he was unable to resist; it was not that Ānanda willingly accepted the heterodox spell. Once the heterodox spell entered his mind, Ānanda could no longer remain clear-headed. When a person is under the influence of a hallucinogen, they become unconscious; this is not a matter of personal will, nor is it a voluntary act of losing oneself. Therefore, since it does not constitute an active act of breaking precepts arising from afflictions of the mind, he would not fall into the three evil paths. If, while under the spell, Ānanda did not give rise to a mind of craving, then regardless of the circumstances, he would not be considered to have broken the precepts, nor would it be passive transgression. To remain completely unmoved and free from craving requires cultivation up to the third fruition or higher, where craving is completely severed. Ordinary people rely on the control of consciousness, but consciousness is easily controlled by external forces. Thus, merely cultivating consciousness and pursuing extensive learning cannot lead to complete spiritual strength, resulting in situations like Ānanda’s.

If subjected to extremely powerful external forces, a practitioner with insufficient spiritual power will inevitably be affected. This is because if the form aggregate within the five aggregates is not exhausted, one will be influenced by the form aggregate; if the feeling aggregate is not exhausted, one will be influenced by the feeling aggregate; if the perception aggregate is not exhausted, one will be influenced by the perception aggregate. There is no avoiding this.

When can one be free from the influence of the five aggregates and exhaust the form, feeling, and perception aggregates? At the very least, this is achieved upon attaining the fourth dhyāna. Only within the fourth dhyāna can the form, feeling, and perception aggregates be completely severed. Otherwise, everyone will be influenced by the five aggregates. Having a body entails this great affliction; without a body, there is no affliction. Therefore, one must cultivate the path, cultivate dhyāna, and cultivate up to the mental faculty to sever the five clinging aggregates and liberate the mind.

Hīnayāna practitioners determine whether a person has broken precepts based solely on external behavior. As long as the behavior aligns with the five precepts, bhikṣu precepts, or bhikṣuṇī precepts, it is considered unbroken. Mahāyāna, however, determines whether a bodhisattva has broken precepts primarily by examining the mind—whether the bodhisattva’s mind has transgressed and whether there was any stirring of the mind during the act. If there was no stirring of the mind, it is pure. However, ordinary people can only observe external behavior and cannot discern a person’s true mental conduct, leading to frequent misjudgments. If a person outwardly performs good deeds and appears to benefit others, but their mental conduct is entirely self-serving, with their behavior serving as a cover and pretense—where the mind’s intent does not align with the action—then this person is not doing good deeds or benefiting others but is benefiting themselves. Such deception, using actions as a façade, not only brings no merit but incurs karmic retribution.