The Esoteric Significance of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra
Section Two The Second Inquiry into the Mind — The Mind Is Outside the Body
Original text:阿难稽首。而白佛言。我闻如来。如是法音。悟知我心。实居身外。所以者何。譬如灯光。然于室中。是灯必能。先照室内。从其室门。后及庭际。一切众生。不见身中。独见身外。亦如灯光。居在室外。不能照室。是义必明。将无所惑。同佛了义。得无妄耶。
Explanation: After bowing in homage to the World-Honored One, Ānanda said to the Buddha: Having heard the Tathāgata speak such Dharma sounds, I have finally understood that my mind truly resides outside the body. Why do I say this? For example, when a lamp is lit inside a room, the lamplight appears within the room, and that lamplight will certainly first illuminate the interior of the room, and then, passing through the door of the room, spread outside to illuminate the courtyard and its surroundings. All sentient beings cannot see inside their bodies but can only see outside their bodies; this is just like the lamplight—if the lamplight resided outside the room, it could not illuminate the interior of the room. This principle is very evident and easy to understand; there should be no more doubts about it. The principle I have stated should accord with your truly definitive teaching, World-Honored One; surely I cannot be wrong again this time?
Ānanda proposed that the conscious mind is outside the body—this is his thesis. What, then, is his evidence? He gave an example: for instance, lamplight inside a room will certainly illuminate the inside of the room first and the outside afterward, meaning that the conscious mind is outside the body, and that is why one cannot see inside the body.
After putting forward a thesis, one finds evidence to prove the correctness of one's thesis; this is called hetuvidyā (the science of logic). A thesis must be accompanied by evidence, and evidence is what proves the thesis. To prove a thesis, it is best to be able to demonstrate its correctness from both the positive and the negative side; the logic must be rigorous for the thesis to stand and not be easily refuted. If even one aspect fails to prove the correctness and validity of the thesis, the thesis does not stand.
If one can prove the thesis correct only from the positive side or from a single aspect, without considering the situation from the other aspect, others may find a flaw from that other aspect and prove your thesis wrong; then, in the end, your thesis still does not stand. Therefore, if a bodhisattva is to compose treatises and to debate and expound the Dharma to sentient beings, he must understand hetuvidyā. When one puts forward a thesis, one must be able to prove its correctness and validity from the positive side, the negative side, and every angle; the evidence must be ample, leaving the opponent no opening to attack, so that he can only accept your viewpoint. Then he will be won over and receive instruction from it. As bodhisattvas, we should all learn hetuvidyā in the future.
Original text:佛告阿难。是诸比丘。适来从我。室罗筏城。循乞抟食。归祇陀林。我已宿斋。汝观比丘。一人食时。诸人饱不。阿难答言。不也世尊。何以故。是诸比丘。虽阿罗汉。躯命不同。云何一人。能令众饱。
Explanation: The Buddha told Ānanda: Just now the bhikṣus followed me through Śrāvastī, going from place to place on alms rounds with their bowls, and then returned to Jeta's Grove to eat. I have already finished my meal. Look at these bhikṣus: if one bhikṣu, while eating, takes food into his stomach, do the other bhikṣus feel full? Ānanda replied that the other bhikṣus would not be full, because although these bhikṣus were all arhats, their bodies were different—how could one person's eating make the whole assembly full?
In fact, there is a hidden subtlety here: how does food get into the stomach? Certainly it is eaten by means of the conscious mind; without the conscious mind, the body alone cannot eat. Since a bhikṣu can eat and his stomach becomes full, he eats with his body; yet the body by itself cannot eat—it is the conscious mind that makes use of the body. The conscious mind and the body operate in conjunction, and thereby the food is taken into the stomach. Then there is awareness on the body and also awareness on the conscious mind; the conscious mind feels that there is food in the stomach and that it is full. This is the combined function of the conscious mind and the body working together; the two cannot be separated. Once separated, one can neither eat nor feel full. Feeling full and feeling that there is food in the stomach—both the body and the conscious mind have awareness; without either one, one can neither eat nor feel full. Moreover, any awareness on the body is the awareness of the body consciousness—it is still the awareness of the conscious mind.
However, the World-Honored One did not refute this point; instead, he asked Ānanda whether, when one person has eaten and is full, the others who have not eaten could feel full, and whether one person could eat in place of the others. The meaning was to ask Ānanda whether this person and the others are connected. Certainly they are not connected: two bodies and two conscious minds—each of the two persons is a separate individual, with no connection between them. What this individual contacts necessarily belongs to this individual; the dharmas that the other individual contacts necessarily belong to that other individual. The conscious mind and the body cannot be shared, nor can they substitute for one another.
The Buddha used this analogy to show that individuals are different and cannot substitute for one another. If the conscious mind and the body were separated, the conscious mind would be one individual and the body another—these would be two individuals, and two individuals cannot combine and function together. Then the dharmas known by the conscious mind would not be known by the body, and the dharmas of which the body is aware would not be known by the conscious mind. For example, if the eye consciousness were outside the body and saw external objects, while the eye faculty had no awareness, then seeing form would have nothing to do with the eye faculty, and the act of seeing form would not be established. Therefore, the conscious mind and the body cannot be separated.
If the ear consciousness heard sounds outside the body, while the ear faculty did not hear the sounds, there would be no awareness on the ear faculty; the awareness would have nothing to do with the ear faculty, and the ear faculty would not have heard the sound—the act of hearing sound would not be established. If the nose consciousness smelled the scent-objects of fragrance and foulness outside the body, while the nose faculty had no awareness, then smelling scents would have nothing to do with the nose faculty, and the act of smelling would not be established. If the body consciousness felt cold or thirsty outside the body, while the body had no sensation—since they are two separate individuals, unrelated to each other—and the body had no sensation, then the act of feeling cold and thirsty would not be established.
Original text:佛告阿难。若汝觉了。知见之心。实在身外。身心相外。自不相干。则心所知。身不能觉。觉在身际。心不能知。
Explanation: The Buddha said to Ānanda: If your mind that perceives and discerns truly exists outside the body, then body and mind are apart from each other; body and mind have neither connection nor relation to each other. Then what the conscious mind perceives, the body cannot feel; and when there is sensation on the body, the conscious mind does not know it.
For example, if a flower contacts the eye faculty, can you see the flower? With the eye faculty and the eye consciousness separated, and no conscious mind on the body, one cannot see the flower. Although the flower is before the eyes and can contact the eye faculty, the eye consciousness cannot see the flower, which is just the same as your not having seen the flower. Because the eye faculty, the body, and the conscious mind are separated, the eye faculty contacts the flower but the eye consciousness does not contact the flower; if the eye consciousness does not contact the flower, it cannot see the flower—just as if you had not seen it. If the conscious mind outside the body could see the flower, the body would not be aware of the flower, and seeing the flower would have nothing to do with the body—again just as if the flower had not been seen. The eye faculty and the eye consciousness cannot jointly contact one form-object; the body and the conscious mind cannot operate in conjunction, and their functions cannot substitute for one another—otherwise a dead person could also see flowers.
The same applies to the ear consciousness: if there is a sound at the location of the ear faculty, and the sound contacts the ear faculty, but the ear consciousness cannot hear it, then it is the same as not having heard the sound—the act of hearing sound is not established; otherwise a dead person could also hear sounds. Because the ear faculty and the ear consciousness are two separate individuals, they cannot jointly and in conjunction contact one sound-object. If the nose faculty contacts a scent-object but there is no nose consciousness—the nose consciousness being outside the body—no odor can be smelled. Therefore, when someone slaps you, the tactile object contacts the body faculty, but without the body consciousness—the body consciousness being outside the body—one cannot feel being struck, nor feel any pain. If the five consciousnesses and the sixth consciousness were all outside the body, it would be no different from being a dead person. If the five consciousnesses outside the body had awareness while the body had none, it would be the same as having no perception at all.
Original text:我今示汝。兜罗绵手。汝眼见时。心分别不。阿难答言。如是世尊。佛告阿难。若相知者。云何在外。是故应知。汝言觉了。能知之心。住在身外。无有是处。
Explanation: The Buddha said: Ānanda, I let you look at my tūla-cotton hand. When your eyes saw my hand, did your conscious mind discriminate it? Ānanda said: Yes, World-Honored One, my conscious mind discriminated it; I have seen the Buddha's hand. The Buddha told Ānanda: If both the eyes and the conscious mind knew it at the same time, how could the conscious mind be outside the body? Therefore you should know that what you said—that the conscious mind capable of perceiving and discriminating is outside the body—is utterly wrong. Since you have seen my hand, it shows that not only did your eye faculty contact the appearance of my hand, but your conscious mind also simultaneously contacted and knew the appearance of my hand. This shows that your eye faculty and your conscious mind are joined together as one body; the conscious mind is not outside your body, and the claim that the conscious mind resides outside the body does not stand.
In studying Buddhism, we should study the Buddha's great wisdom and his rigorous, thorough, and meticulous capacity for logical thinking and reasoning. We can see that the Buddha's logical thinking is extremely rigorous, leaving no opening for anyone to attack. When the Buddha was in the world propagating the Dharma, he often debated with the non-Buddhists (tīrthikas); yet whenever the Buddha put forward a thesis and presented evidence, those non-Buddhists could never prevail in the debate, while the Buddha was able to refute all of the non-Buddhists' theses and evidence. Therefore, the Buddha's hetuvidyā is perfectly complete and rigorous, capable of destroying all the non-Buddhists' assertions, while the Buddha's own theses can never be refuted by the non-Buddhists. This is the great wisdom the Buddha accomplished, showing that the Buddha's hetuvidyā is already perfectly and completely endowed, and that with respect to all dharmas he has reached the stage beyond training (aśaikṣa).
We should also learn hetuvidyā well from the Buddha. When composing a treatise, one should first put forward one's own correct and truthful thesis, and then find evidence to prove its correctness and credibility; the evidence must clearly elucidate the thesis, so that one's thesis is firmly substantiated by conclusive evidence. In this way, the opponent cannot refute your thesis and cannot find a single flaw in it. When proving a thesis, one must not only present evidence from the positive side, but also present different evidence from the negative side and from various angles; the evidence from all these aspects must be sufficient to demonstrate that one's thesis is correct. When the opponent can find no flaw in any aspect and cannot destroy your thesis, he has no choice but to acknowledge that your viewpoint is correct—and thus you have delivered sentient beings.
