The Tathagata explains that the myriad dharmas are a single substance

O2 The Tathagata explains that the myriad dharmas are a single substance.
P1 He scolds him for his false proposal.

Sutra:

The Buddha told Ananda, “What you have now said - that the seeing is in front of you - is actually not the case.

Commentary:

You could say that Ananda is confused within confusion. Actually, though, Ananda is certainly not confused. But he manifests the appearance of being confused in order to cause living beings not to be confused. He is acting as a model for living beings. He enables them to see that Ananda, confused to such an extent, is able to become enlightened. Now as we look into the meaning of the sutra, some people may be more intelligent than Ananda, and they will be even less confused. That is the meaning of it. Earlier in the sutra, Ananda said that his seeing was in front of him and had no connection with his body. Then he asked the Buddha to instruct him about this doctrine. The Buddha told Ananda - since Ananda asked, Shakyamuni Buddha is now going to tell him. “What you have now said - that the seeing is in front of you - is actually not the case. You say that the seeing which can see is in front of you, but your assertion is totally mistaken, completely incorrect.” The Buddha straightened him out immediately.

P2 He dismisses it as the seeing.
Q1 The Tathagata’s question.

Sutra:

"If it were actually in front of you, it would be something you would actually see, and then the seeing-essence would have a location. It wouldn’t be that there is no evidence of it.

Commentary:

If it were actually in front of you - if it really were the case that the seeing is in front of you, it would be something you would actually see. You should see the seeing. But you haven’t seen the seeing, so what you have said is wrong. If you actually could see it, then the seeing-essence would have a location. To be in front of you would be to have a location. It wouldn’t be that there is no evidence of it. If the seeing is in front of you, what indication is there of it that makes you think it is there?

 

Sutra:

"Now as you sit in the Jeta Grove you look about everywhere at the grove, the ponds, the halls, as far as the sun and moon, with the Ganges River before you. Now, before my lion’s seat, point out these various appearances: what is dark is the groves, what is bright is the sun, what is obstructing is the walls, what is clear is emptiness, and so on from the grasses and trees to the finest particle of hair. Their sizes vary, and since they all have appearances, none cannot be located.

Commentary:

This section of text is spoken to break up Ananda’s attachment. Now as you sit in the Jeta Grove you look about everywhere at the grove, the ponds, the halls, as far as the sun and moon, with the Ganges River before you. Sitting in Prince War-Victor’s grove, among small pools of water here in the sublime abode, looking upward to the palaces of the sun and moon, and facing the Ganges River, now, before my lion’s seat, point out these various appearances. With your hand, point to these various forms, these various shapes and appearances. What is dark is the groves - the places in darkness are the groves of trees; what is bright is the sun - the places where the sun is shining; what is obstructing is the walls, which impede and do not allow things to go through; what is clear is emptiness, which goes through and offers no obstructions; and so on from the grasses and trees to the finest particle of hair. I have been speaking generally; “and so on” includes everything in between that has not been mentioned, from blades of grass to the finest particle of hair. Didn’t I just say,

On the tip of a hair
the lands of the Buddha appear.
Sitting in a fine mote of dust
one turns the great dharma wheel.

A particle, that is, a fine mote of dust, and a strand of fine hair represent the very smallest possible things. Their sizes vary, and since they all have appearances, none cannot be located. Big or small, all these things have a form and appearance, and everything which has form and appearance can be pointed out. Now which among them would you say your seeing is? Which thing is your seeing?

The seeing has been discussed again and again, but Ananda still does not understand, and so the seeing is still being explained. These are the ten manifestations of seeing, ten kinds of distinctions made to point out that the seeing is neither produced nor extinguished, and that it does not come or go. Actually, Ananda had perhaps already understood, but on behalf of living beings he has requested dharma, since many living beings still do not understand. As he investigated the seeing-nature with Shakyamuni Buddha, it was as if they were reciting a play line by line, each in harmony with the other.

 

Sutra:

"If it is certain that your seeing is in front of you, then with your hand you should with certainty point out what the seeing is. Ananda, if emptiness is the seeing, then how can it remain empty since it has already become your seeing? If a thing is the seeing, how can it be external to you as an object, since it has already become your seeing?

Commentary:

If it is certain that your seeing is in front of you: if you definitely want to say that your seeing is a thing that appears before you, then certainly it is like an object which has been placed there. Then with your hand you should with certainty point out what the seeing is. If it is in front of you, you should be able to point right to it. Well? Hurry up and speak.

But Ananda did not make a sound. Why? He wasn’t in control. He wanted to bring up another point to discuss, but he hadn’t thought of one yet, so he was still tongue-tied.

Ananda, if emptiness is the seeing, then how can it remain empty since it has already become your seeing? You ought to know this! Don’t you understand yet? At this point the Buddha gets nervous. Basically the Buddha hasn’t any fire but by now it seems likely that his fire rose up. If emptiness is the seeing, it should not have the name “emptiness.” Where has emptiness itself gone off to? Where there is seeing, there should not be emptiness. If your seeing is located there, emptiness should not be there. So which is the emptiness - emptiness or seeing?

If a thing is the seeing, how can it be external to you as an object, since it has already become your seeing? Perhaps you say, “It’s not that my seeing is the emptiness. It’s rather that all the things I see before me are my seeing.” Well, then, what are things? If things are your seeing, they should not be called things. If they aren’t things, what are? Speak up! The Buddha confronts him directly and presses him to answer.

 

Sutra:

"You can cut through and peel away the myriad appearances to the finest degree in order to distinguish and bring forth the essential brightness and pure wonder of the source of seeing, pointing it out and showing it to me from among all these things, so that it is perfectly clear beyond any doubt.”

Commentary:

You can cut through and peel away the myriad appearances to the finest degree. Make special use of your brain to think it over and investigate clearly and in minute detail, so that you don’t speak casually and confusedly again. Don’t just answer me without a moment’s hesitation. Now you should exhaust your brain-power to investigate this question. Cut through the myriad appearances - distinguish among the appearances of the ten thousand things as if you were cutting through them and dissecting them with a knife, and peel them away, as if you were using a knife to take the skin off bit by bit.

To distinguish and bring forth the essential brightness and pure wonder of the source of seeing. Clearly distinguish the essential brightness which everyone can see and understand, the most pure and most wonderful source of the seeing that can see. Pointing it out and showing it to me from among all these things. You tell me; you indicate clearly which is your seeing and which are things, so that it is perfectly clear beyond any doubt. Can you make this distinction? Try it out.

 

Q2 Ananda answers.
Q3 The Buddha seals and certifies him.

Sutra:

Ananda said, “From where I am now in this many-storied lecture hall, as far as the distant Ganges River and the sun and moon overhead, all that I might raise my hand to point to, all that I indulge my eyes in seeing, are all things; they are not the seeing. World Honored One, it is as the Buddha has said. Not merely myself, who am a shravaka of the first stage who still has outflows, but even Bodhisattvas cannot break open and reveal, among the myriad appearances which are before them, an essence of seeing which has a special self-nature apart from all things.”

The Buddha said, “So it is, so it is.”

Commentary:

Ananda said, in answer to the Buddha’s instruction: From where I am now in this many-storied lecture hall - the lecture hall had two stories - as far as the distant Ganges River - when I look into the distance I see the Ganges River - and the sun and moon overhead, all that I might raise my hand to point to, all that I indulge my eyes in seeing, are all things; they are not the seeing. When the eyes are lowered or closed they are “stored away,” but to open them up wide is to indulge them. “Anything that I see when I open them and indulge them, anything that can be pointed to, is a thing; it is not the seeing-essence. Nothing can be shown to be the seeing.”

World Honored One, it is as the Buddha has said. It is like the doctrine which the Buddha explained before, namely, that not merely myself, who am a shravaka of the first stage who still has outflows, but even Bodhisattvas cannot break open and reveal, among the myriad appearances which are before them, an essence of seeing which has a special self-nature apart from all things. I am a shravaka who has just begun to study, a sound-hearer who has attained only, the first fruition and whose power of spiritual penetrations is quite small. Therefore I still have outflows, since one becomes a being without outflows only upon attaining the fourth fruition of arhatship. But the Buddha said that not even at the level of a Bodhisattva can one break open the myriad appearances before one, as if one were to cut them open with a knife, and find the seeing-essence among them. “For your seeing-nature is not a thing, and you cannot locate it as a thing among the myriad things.”

The Buddha said, “So it is, so it is. This time you have spoken correctly. That is the way it is.” He said it twice: “Correct; correct.” The Buddha emphasizes the point by repeating himself. This shows that he very much agrees with Ananda’s opinion. He said, “Now your view is not mistaken. It is not like the mistakes you made before.”

 

P3 He reiterates that what is lost is not the seeing.
Q1 The Tathagata asks a question.

Sutra:

The Buddha said further to Ananda, “It is as you have said. There is no seeing-essence to be found existing separately among all the things. Therefore, all the things you point to are things, and none is the seeing.

Commentary:

The Buddha will ask another question in order to reveal the seeing-essence. The Buddha said further to Ananda, “It is as you have said. There is no seeing-essence to be found existing separately among all the things. There is no special thing that is the seeing. Therefore, all the things you point to are things, and none is the seeing. Among all the things, everything you point to is a thing. None of these things is the seeing-essence.”

 

Sutra:

"Now I will tell you: you and the Tathagata sit in the Jeta Grove and look again at the groves and gardens, as far as the sun and moon, and at all the various different appearances, and it is certain that the seeing-essence is not among whatever you point to. You can go ahead and reveal what, among these things, is not your seeing.”

Commentary:

Now I will speak another doctrine for you. Now I will tell you: you and the Tathagata sit in the Jeta Grove - Ananda and the Buddha and everyone else are sitting in the Jeta Grove - and look again at the groves and gardens, as far as the sun and moon - the flower gardens, everything that can be seen from here to the sun and moon in the sky above - at all the various different appearances, and it is certain that the seeing-essence is not among whatever you point to. You can go ahead and reveal what, among these things, is not your seeing. Which among all these things is not your seeing?

"The Buddha’s joking,” you say. “He said before that things were not the seeing, and now he asks Ananda to tell him which things are not the seeing.” That’s how the Shurangama Sutra is: if you don’t understand this place in the text clearly, you will become confused. “It said before that the things were not the seeing, and now it says they are the seeing.” You’ll say. “Now it asks which aren’t the seeing, but before it said none of them was the seeing.”

 

Q2 Ananda answers.

Sutra:

Ananda said, ”I see clearly all over this Jeta Grove, and I do not know what in the midst of it is not my seeing.

Commentary:

Ananda knew earlier that they were not his seeing, but now that the Buddha has asked him which are not his seeing, he’s confused again. He doesn’t understand the question again. Ananda said, “I see clearly all over this Jeta Grove. I can see everywhere all around this grove of trees of Prince War-Victor, and I do not know what in the midst of it is not my seeing. Which isn’t my seeing? Now I don’t know.” As soon as the Buddha asked that last question, Ananda got confused again. Thus the Shurangama Sutra is just confusion upon confusion until the very end, when it is all made clear. So don’t be afraid of confusion and say, “I don’t understand, I don’t know what is going on now.” The Buddha is just turning the principle back and forth, explaining it over and over. It is a thorough investigation of the principle. He brings up one doctrine and says, “Do you think that’s right?” He explains that it isn’t right, and he brings up another doctrine and says, “Do you think thats wrong?” And he shows how that, too, is not correct. It is simply to reveal the principle.

"What is not the seeing?” the Buddha asks. “Speak up and tell me.”

Ananda says, “I don’t know which isn’t the seeing. Now I’m confused again.”

 

Sutra:

"Why? If trees are not the seeing, why do I see trees? If trees are the seeing, then what becomes of trees? The same is true of everything up to and including emptiness: if emptiness is not the seeing, why do I see emptiness? If emptiness is the seeing, then what becomes of emptiness?

Commentary:

Why? If trees are not the seeing, why do I see trees? Ananda says that if the trees are not the seeing, then he wouldn’t see the trees. So he can’t say that the trees are not the seeing. If trees are the seeing, then what becomes of trees? If I were to say the trees are the seeing, then where would the trees have gone off to? Originally the trees were simply trees, but now he is saying that they are the seeing, and so now he can’t find a name for them. As for myself, I would just say they were wood. The same is true of everything up to and including emptiness. Trees are by nature things with form. But it is not only true of things which have an appearance, it is the same with emptiness, and of all the things in between, which he doesn’t mention by name because there would be no time to explain them all. It is the same with my explanation of the sutra. To lecture the entire sutra in three months means that many doctrines within it must go unspoken.

If emptiness is not the seeing, why do I see emptiness? My seeing of emptiness is the seeing. If I say that emptiness is not the seeing, then why do I see emptiness? If emptiness is the seeing, then what becomes of emptiness? If it is the seeing, how can it also be called emptiness? So I don’t know how this doctrine is to be explained.

Now Ananda has a mouth but finds it difficult to speak.

 

Sutra:

"As I consider it again and reveal the subtlest aspects of the myriad appearances, none is not my seeing.”

Commentary:

As I consider it again. Ananda has once again taken hold of his conscious mind that makes distinctions. Earlier, he constantly trotted out the sixth mind-consciousness to debate with the Buddha and now he has brought it out again. So he says, “I am thinking again, and I reveal the subtlest aspects of the myriad appearances. I think about them in minute detail. I think it over and over, backwards and forwards, up and down, and I think I have reached it. In the subtlest aspects of the myriad appearances, none is not my seeing. All alike are the seeing. None is not the seeing. Every single thing is the seeing. Which is to say, I see them after all.”

 

Q3 The Buddha seals and certifies him.

Sutra:

The Buddha said, “So it is, so it is.”

Commentary:

The Buddha certified him again. “Ah, what you say is correct. That is the way it is. You understand what I mean.” The Buddha was happy and said, “So it is, so it is.”

What do all of you say? Ultimately, what is the seeing and what are the things? Are the things the seeing or not?

 

P4 The members of the great assembly are startled, prostrate themselves seeking consolation.

Sutra:

Then all in the great assembly who had not reached the stage beyond learning were stunned upon hearing these words of the Buddha, and could not perceive where the meaning began or ended. They were agitated and taken aback at the same time, having lost what they had adhered to.

Commentary:

Everyone heard this dialogue, and heard that the seeing both is a thing and is not a thing. Then which is it? All the opinions which everyone had held before no longer held up.

Then all in the great assembly who had not reached the stage beyond learning. Bodhisattvahood is called the “stage beyond learning.” The fourth fruition of arhatship is also called the stage beyond learning. There were many in the Shurangama assembly who had not yet been certified as having attained the fourth fruition of arhatship. They were at the first fruition, the second fruition, or the third fruition - the positions with something left to study. They were stunned upon hearing these words of the Buddha. When the Buddha said it was the seeing and then said it was not the seeing, saying it was a thing and then saying it was not a thing, investigating back and forth like that, they didn’t understand; they were stunned. They had eyes and yet could not see. They had ears and yet could not hear. They couldn’t perceive anything at all. I’ll give you an example. When people are confused by a ghost, they don’t know anything at all. They forget everything that went on before. However, this is only an example; don’t think that the people in the Shurangama assembly were actually confused by a ghost. They weren’t. I just said they were like people who had been confused by a ghost, and now I say they were not like people who have been confused by a ghost. That’s like saying seeing and things are one and then saying that they are not one. It’s the same principle.

They were stunned and could not perceive where the meaning began or ended. They did not know where this doctrine began or what it would be like in the end result. “What is being talked about?” they wondered. They didn’t understand. They were agitated and taken aback at the same time, having lost what they had adhered to. Everyone was afraid. Their hearts pounded as if a rabbit was jumping around inside. They couldn’t believe what they’d heard. All the opinions they had held before had been rendered invalid and destroyed. It was as if they had lost all the treasures which they previously possessed, and so they were trying to figure out where to go to find them. Should they notify the authorities? Should they call the police? But in those days there probably weren’t any policemen. The things they had lost, moreover, were invisible. So even if they called the police, the police would be helpless. They wouldn’t be able to find them.

 

Sutra:

The Tathagata, knowing they were anxious and uneasy in spirit, let pity rise in his heart as he consoled Ananda and everyone in the great assembly. “Good people, what the unsurpassed Dharma King says is true and real. He speaks things as they are. He does not deceive. He does not lie. He is not Maskari Goshaliputra with his four kinds of non-dying theories that are deceptive and confusing. You should consider this attentively. It is no disgrace to pity or to implore.”

Commentary:

When the Buddha saw that the great assembly was agitated, he gave rise to compassion in his heart and took pity on everyone. “Ah, you people are truly pitiable.” The Tathagata, knowing they were anxious and uneasy in spirit, let pity rise in his heart as he consoled Ananda and everyone in the great assembly. He knew that their spirits were not at peace so he compassionately gave a little of the gift of fearlessness. He said, “None of you should be frightened. I will now speak to you. Good people.” The Buddha addressed everyone in the great assembly as “good children.” “Good children, listen carefully. Don’t be rambunctious. Now I will tell you what the unsurpassed Dharma King says - what the Buddha says - is true and real. What he says is really so. You should have no doubts about that. There is a decided principle in what I said earlier, that the seeing is a thing and is not a thing. I am truly and really telling you something reliable. I am not cheating you. He speaks things as they are. What I say is in accord with principle. I rely on the principle in expressing my doctrines. It is impossible for it not to be in accord with principle. He does not deceive. He does not lie. He does not say deceptive or untrue things. He is not Maskari Goshaliputra.”

"Maskari” is a Sanskrit name which is interpreted to mean “not seeing the way.” His mother’s name was Goshali; “putra” means “son of.” Maskari Goshaliputra is one of the six masters of external paths. He was called “not seeing the way” because he did not understand the Way. He could not see it and could not walk it. All he did was traverse a confused way. He ran around with his eyes closed and eventually he walked right into the sea, where he drowned. It was because he did not see the Way. That is what I think, several thousand years later. It is for certain the salt water was very uncomfortable. It was not as comfortable as drinking wine or drinking pure water. Once he had drunk the salt water of the sea, it is likely that no doctor could cure him.

With his four kinds of non-dying theories that are deceptive and confusing. What did he say? “It is both changeable and constant.” Things both change and are permanent. “It is both defiled and pure.” It is both clean and unclean. “It is both produced and extinguished.” It gets born and dies. “It both increases and decreases.” These are his four theories. Originally the Buddha said, “It is neither produced nor extinguished,” but Maskari said, “It is both produced and extinguished.” His theory is off by just that much.

The Buddha said, “Everything is unmoving. Unmoving, it accords with conditions; it accords with conditions, but does not move.” But Maskari said, “It neither changes nor is constant.”

Maskari’s theories are just talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says one thing has principle and also says its opposite has principle. And right down the line he is in direct opposition to the doctrine the Buddha explained. So the Buddha refers to his four kinds of non-dying as “deceptive and confusing theories.” “Deceptive” means that they go to the other extreme and in so doing confuse people. But his theories are not correct. They are wrong. To reassure the assembly, the Buddha says that his doctrines are not like the confused and deceptive theories propounded by Maskari.

You should consider this attentively. You should think about this in detail. It is no disgrace to pity or to implore. Don’t worry. Don’t be afraid. Don’t be sad. “Pity” refers to what the Buddha expressed. “I am very sympathetic toward you.” “Implore” refers to what those in the great assembly were doing when they looked up to the Buddha’s compassionate countenance as he consoled them.

 

P5 Manjushri asks a question.
Q1 He brings up a doubt and formulates a question.

Sutra:

Then Manjushri, son of the Dharma King, took pity on the four assemblies, rose from his seat in the midst of the great assembly, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, placed his palms together respectfully, and said to the Buddha, “World Honored One, the great assembly has not awakened to the principle of the Tathagata’s two-fold disclosure of the essence of seeing as being both form and emptiness and as being neither of them.

Commentary:

Then Manjushri, son of the Dharma King - Manjushri, the Greatly Wise Bodhisattva, had already understood, but he looked at those in the assembly who had something left to learn, the first-stage, second-stage, and third-stage arhats, and saw that they were extremely pitiful. So he brought up a question.

”Manjushri” is a Sanskrit name that means “wonderful virtue.” He is also called “Wonderfully Auspicious.” The Buddha is the Dharma King, and a Bodhisattva is a son of the Dharma King. Manjushri was an elder among the sons of the Dharma King; he was the leader among the Bodhisattvas. He took pity on the four assemblies - the bhikshus, bhikshunis, upasakas, and upasikas - rose from his seat in the midst of the great assembly, and bowed at the Buddha’s feet. He stood up and then bowed down to the Buddha and held the Buddha’s feet with his two hands. This is a gesture of utmost respect. People’s feet are most unclean, and so to use one’s hands to hold the Buddha’s feet indicates, “I am beneath your feet.” So when you bow to the Buddha, you turn your palms up, and in this position you should contemplate that your two hands are under the Buddha’s feet. This represents the purity of the body-karma, because while showing respect in this way, you are not committing any offenses with your body. He placed his palms together respectfully. This represents the purity of the mind-karma. In your mind you also give rise to thoughts of true respect. Placing your palms together, with the ten fingers placed carefully side by side, represents single-minded respect. It means that you “turn to one” and give undivided attention to revering the Buddha. Placing the palms together is also called “uniting the ten to become one.”

And said to the Buddha: this represents the purity of mouth-karma. Body, mouth, and mind all pay respect. The karma of the body, the karma of the mouth, and the karma of the mind are all pure. This is the purity of the three karmas. Why do people commit karmic offenses? Offenses are most often committed by the mouth. It is said,

Calamities come forth from the mouth;
Sickness enters by way of the mouth.

When catastrophes befall us, when adverse circumstances arise, they are usually brought on by the mouth. You say someone is wrong, and that person comes and treats you rudely. Isn’t that a disaster brought about by the mouth? “Sickness enters by way of the mouth.” When we eat things, we should be careful what we take in. If you are not careful about what you eat, you can get sick. The sickness referred to here does not just mean a temporary illness. It means that, over a long period of time, what you eat as well as other conditions can cause your breath and blood to be out of balance. When that happens, sickness arises.

World Honored One, the great assembly has not awakened. He says that no one understood. But did Manjushri Bodhisattva understand?

He understood. But he still wanted to ask on behalf of those who had the opportunity to be present in the great assembly. If he had not asked, no one else would have known how to phrase the question. The Buddha could have explained it, but if no one knew how to ask, there would have been no way to take advantage of the Buddha’s knowledge.

We know that Manjushri understood because the text says he “took pity on the four assemblies.” But even if it weren’t for that phrase, we would know that he understood because he has the greatest wisdom and is referred to as “the Greatly Wise Manjushri Bodhisattva.” His question was asked on behalf of those who have not awakened to the principle of the Tathagata’s two-fold disclosure of the essence of seeing as being both form and emptiness and as being neither of them. This refers to the doctrine involving the seeing-essence, things, and emptiness. Ultimately, is the seeing a thing or is it emptiness? Nobody else knew how to ask about this doctrine, so Manjushri Bodhisattva decided to ask about it.

 

P6 The Tathagata’s compassionate instruction.
Q1 First he explains it is not because of .is. or .is not..
R1 He makes clear the one truth neither .is. nor .is not..

Sutra:

"World Honored One, if the causal form, emptiness and other phenomena mentioned above were the seeing, there should be an indication of its distance; and if they were not the seeing, there should be nothing visible to be seen. Now we do not know what is meant, and this is why we are alarmed and concerned.

Commentary:

Do you see how Manjushri phrases things completely differently from Ananda? Ananda is not clear about what is going on. But when Manjushri Bodhisattva speaks, his reasoning is quite complete. He says: World Honored One, if these conditions before us - the appearance of form and emptiness alike - were the seeing, one would be able to point to it. “These conditions before us” refers to the dust before one, the causes and conditions discussed above. “Form” refers to things, “emptiness” to space. “Alike” refers to both these characteristics, and “appearance” means there is not necessarily such a thing, but they are used by way of analogy. Manjushri says that if form and emptiness are the seeing, there would be some representation of it, that one could point to the seeing. If they were not the seeing, then one would not see anything. The World Honored One first said that the seeing was not a thing. Afterward, he said that seeing is a thing - that is, he asked what things are not the seeing. Nobody knew what he meant. Now we do not know what is meant. Just what is happening here? In the end, is there seeing or isn’t there? Manjushri Bodhisattva says “we” because he doesn’t have a self. He says that everyone does not understand. His question is a lot clearer than any asked by Ananda. You see how simply he states it, yet the meaning is very wonderful. This is why we are alarmed and concern. This is something we never paid much attention to before and now that we have taken notice of it, the doctrine is so wonderful that we are not sure what it is ultimately all about. I look at this lamp, for example: is the seeing the lamp or is the lamp the seeing? This doctrine hasn’t been explained clearly. If you say the lamp is not the seeing, then I don’t see the lamp. You may say the lamp is the seeing, but the lamp itself cannot see. So you say it is the seeing and yet it is not the seeing.

 

Q2 He picks up on the past and seeks instruction.

Sutra:

"It is not that our good roots from former lives are deficient. We only hope the Tathagata will have the great compassion to reveal exactly what all the things are and what the seeing-essence is. Is it that there is no question of ‘is’ or ‘is not’ in all of this?”

Commentary:

It is not that our good roots from former lives are deficient. The reason for our alarm and concern is not that our good roots from our last lives or from other previous lives are deficient. It wasn’t that the members of the assembly had few good roots. It was that they didn’t understand the doctrine at all. Sometimes people whose good roots are slight will become very afraid when they cultivate the Way. What should you do if this happens? Do more good deeds, to nourish your good roots. When your good roots are nourished and grow deeper, then you will have samadhi-power. If your good roots are insufficient, your samadhi-power will be insufficient too. So we all should nourish our good roots.

We only hope the Tathagata will have the great compassion to reveal exactly what all the things are and what the seeing-essence is. Is it that there is no question of “is” or “is not” in all of this? In the end, is it that there is no “is” and no “is not” in the midst of things, emptiness, and the seeing-essence? Manjushri Bodhisattva is really clear about this doctrine, and so he makes this deduction.

 

P6 The Tathagata’s compassionate instruction.
Q1 First he explains it is not because of .is. or .is not..
R1 He makes clear that the one truth is not .is. or .is not..

Sutra:

The Buddha told Manjushri and the great assembly, “To the Tathagatas and the great Bodhisattvas of the ten directions, who dwell in this samadhi, seeing and the conditions of seeing, as well as the characteristics of thought, are like flowers in space - fundamentally non-existent.

Commentary:

The Buddha told Manjushri and the great assembly, “To the Tathagatas and the great Bodhisattvas of the ten directions, who dwell in this samadhi - in the great Shurangama Samadhi - seeing and the conditions of seeing - the causes and conditions which arise in their seeing - as well as the characteristics of thought - as well as the things they think about - are like flowers in space - fundamentally non-existent.” Basically, there aren’t any flowers in space. When your eyes are defective, you see them, but if there’s nothing wrong with your eyes, there are no flowers in space. Or perhaps if you look at the sun for too long, you may see flowers all over empty space. That is one way to explain it. Another way to explain it is that if you open the Buddha eye, whatever flowers you want to look at exist in space. These are flowers in space also. So there are two principles here.

Are the flowers seen by those who have opened their Buddha eye real? No. They are not real either. They are also illusory transformations. But if you think you want to see them they come into being.

Then are there any flowers in space? No. Basically there isn’t anything at all. Basically they do not exist. Basically there isn’t anything. What are you trying to find? Why are you trying to find out if the seeing is a thing or if it is emptiness, or what? What are you looking for? You are all caught up in seeking outside - in running outside yourself to look for things.

 

Sutra:

"This seeing and its conditions are originally the wonderful pure bright substance of Bodhi. How can one speak of ‘is’ and ‘is not’?

Commentary:

The Buddha said: This seeing and its conditions are originally the wonderful pure bright substance of Bodhi. The seeing and the conditions of seeing are themselves the wonderful pure bright substance of your Bodhi mind. It is also the pure nature and bright substance of the everlasting true mind. Here for purposes of literary style the name “Bodhi” has been used instead. How can one speak of “is” and “is not”? How can you say that “is” and “is not” can be found within the true mind, which defies duality? There is nothing dual about the true mind; it is absolute, and not in the realm of opposites, and so how can you be so confused as to speak of an “is” and “is not” there?

 

R2 He uses an analogy to ask if the one truth “is” or “is not.”

Sutra:

"Manjushri, I now ask you: take yourself as an example, Manjushri. Is there still another Manjushri? Is there a Manjushri who is and a Manjushri who is not?”

Commentary:

Now the Buddha asks Manjushri Bodhisattva a question: Manjushri, I now ask you: take yourself as an example, Manjushri. Is there still another Manjushri? Is there a Manjushri who is and a Manjushri who is not? You say, “This is Manjushri.” That’s what is meant by “a Manjushri who is.” Then is there a Manjushri who is not? What do you say? That is what the Buddha asked Manjushri Bodhisattva, and he waits to see what Manjushri Bodhisattva will answer. You should learn to ask questions like Manjushri Bodhisattva. Don’t imitate Ananda’s way of asking questions. Ananda’s questions are really obtuse.

 

R3 He answers that originally truth does not have a dual aspect.

Sutra:

"So it is, World Honored One: I am truly Manjushri. There is no Manjushri who ‘is.’ Why? If there were still another Manjushri who ‘is’ Manjushri, there would be two Manjushris. But it is not that now I am not Manjushri. In fact, neither of the two characteristics ‘is’ and ‘is not’ exist.”

Commentary:

So it is, World Honored One. Manjushri Bodhisattva says, “It is just as you explain it, Buddha. There is no Manjushri who ‘is’ and no Manjushri who ‘is not.’ There isn’t any ‘is’ or ‘is not.’ I am truly Manjushri. I am the real Manjushri. There is no Manjushri who ‘is.’ There isn’t anyone beyond me that is Manjushri. There isn’t anything else. I am just Manjushri. There isn’t any ‘is’ Manjushri or ‘is not’ Manjushri. Why? Why do I say that? If you say this Manjushri is, then what Manjushri is not? If there were two Manjushris, then that would be acceptable. If there were still another Manjushri who ‘is’ Manjushri, there would be two Manjushris. If there is an ‘is,’ then there is an ‘is not,’ and that becomes two Manjushris. But it is not that now I am not Manjushri. But it certainly isn’t that I am not Manjushri today. There is a Manjushri; but there is no ‘is’ Manjushri. In fact, neither of the two characteristics ‘is’ and ‘is not’ exist. In terms of myself, Manjushri, a particular person, the two aspects of ‘is’ and ‘is not’ do not exist, and to speak of one that ‘is’ Manjushri and one that ‘is not’ Manjushri is incorrect.”

At that time he caused everyone in the great assembly to understand that there isn’t something that “is” the seeing and something that “is not” the seeing. The seeing is the everlasting seeing. There is no such thing as saying that things are the seeing or that emptiness is the seeing. The seeing is the wonderfully pure bright substance of the nature of Bodhi. So you cannot set up “is” and “is not” with regard to it.

 

R4 He concludes by tying the analogy to the principle.

Sutra:

The Buddha said, “This is not only the case with the seeing, the basic substance of wonderful Bodhi, but also with emptiness and mundane objects.

Commentary:

The more he explains, the more all-encompassing this sutra becomes. Not only is the seeing the basic substance of wonderful bright Bodhi, but emptiness and mundane dust are also. They are just like the seeing. The Buddha said, “The wonderful brightness of the seeing is this way and so are emptiness and mundane objects.” They are just as wonderful as the seeing. There is no “is” and “is not.” It is not that things are the seeing or that emptiness is the seeing. Rather, emptiness and mundane things - dust - are, like the seeing, the basic substance of the true mind. Later the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind are explained to be the wonderful true suchness nature of the treasury of the Tathagata. So the more this sutra is explained, the more wonderful it becomes. The more it is explained, the less you understand it, and so you say, “Since I can’t understand it, I won’t study it.”

If you don’t study it, you will never understand it. You will never open your wisdom. Now you are studying it, and so now you can open your wisdom. You can perceive that the mysterious wonder of the Buddha’s doctrines is inexhaustible. So the Shurangama Sutra is unsurpassed.

 

Q2 He teaches him the method to transcend “is” and “is not.”
R1 He displays the two appearances of true and false.

Sutra:

"They are basically the projections or manifestations of the wonderful brightness of unsurpassed Bodhi, the pure, perfect, true mind. They are falsely taken to be form and emptiness, as well as hearing and seeing.

Commentary:

They are basically the projections or manifestations of the wonderful brightness of unsurpassed Bodhi. Basically, everything is the subtle wonderful, light, highest Bodhi, the enlightenment to the Way, the pure, perfect, true mind. The true mind is clean. They are falsely taken to be form and emptiness, as well as hearing and seeing. Originally the basic substance is the pure true mind. But with the production of a single thought of false dust - mundane objects - one is turned around by form, that is, by things, and by emptiness. You are turned around by things. Earlier I said, “If you can turn things around, you are the same as the Tathagata.” Because there are false thoughts, one is turned around by form and emptiness. You also do not understand your hearing-nature and your seeing-nature.

Why don’t we understand? Because of the production of false thoughts. When one thought is wrong, thought after thought becomes wrong. There is a saying:

In one false move,
You lose the whole chess game.

Likewise, because of one wrong thought, you recognize the false as true. You take false things to be the real one.

 

R2 He uses an analogy for the true and false.

Sutra:

"Just as with the second moon: which one ‘is’ the moon and which ‘is not’ the moon? Manjushri, there is only one true moon, and within it there is not a moon that ‘is’ or a moon that ‘is not.’

Commentary:

Just as with the second moon. Basically, it is one moon, but if you look at it with defective eyes, you see two moons. Which one “is” the moon and which “is not” the moon? Which moon is not the moon? Manjushri, there is only one true moon, and within it there is not a moon that “is” or a moon that “is not.” When you have “is” and “is not,” you have relative dharmas. But what is spoken of now is absolute. The basic nature of Bodhi is beyond opposites.

 

R3 He puts analogy and principle together.

Sutra:

"Therefore, now as you contemplate the seeing and the mundane things together, all the things you disclose are called false thoughts. You cannot transcend ‘is’ and ‘is not’ from within them.

Commentary:

Therefore, because of this, now as you contemplate the seeing and the mundane things together, all the things you disclose are called false thoughts. You contemplate your seeing and things, and you disclose all kinds of forms and appearances. They are all false thoughts; they appear because of your false thoughts. You cannot transcend “is” and “is not” from within them. Within emptiness you cannot find something that “is” emptiness and something that “is not” emptiness. Emptiness is simply emptiness; how could there further be an emptiness that is and an emptiness that is not? Nor can you say of things that a thing “is” and “is not.” It is the same with the seeing. You cannot say there is a seeing that “is” a thing or “is” emptiness, or that the seeing “is” or “is not” seeing. This will not work. In this you cannot find an “is” or an “is not.”

 

Sutra:

"With the true essence, the wonderful enlightened bright nature, you can get beyond trying to point out or not point out.”

Commentary:

”With the true essence, the genuine seeing-essence, the wonderful enlightened bright nature, the subtle wonderful inconceivable bright nature, you can get beyond trying to point out or not point out. The bright nature can teach you to get beyond trying to pinpoint things as being or not being. You felt that your doctrine was correct when you said that the seeing is a thing, and then you said the seeing is not a thing. But ultimately, is it a thing or isn’t it?” the Buddha is asking Ananda. Fundamentally there is no such distinction of “is” and “is not.” Your doctrine was wrong. You tried to point to things as “is” or “is not,” but basically it cannot be done. It is a complete mistake to try. But now you can get beyond that.

Other Mahayana Concepts:

[back to top]

Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘The Tathagata explains that the myriad dharmas are a single substance’. Further sources in the context of Mahayana might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:

Bodhisattva, Tathagata, Manjushri, Shravaka, Living Being, Attachment, Thinking, Great Compassion, Great Assembly, Four assemblies, Absolute truth, Jeta Grove, False thought, Buddha's instruction, World-honored One, Buddha enlightenment, Illusion and reality, Compassionate instruction.