The Śūraṅgama Sūtra (大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經)

Translated by the Indian Monk Paramiti in the Tang Dynasty

Again, Ananda, how can the six sense faculties be fundamentally the wondrous true suchness of the Tathagata's treasury?

Ananda, that strained, illusory vision—both the eye itself and the strain—are, in essence, nothing but a manifestation of the Bodhi nature's own illusory activity. Based on the two false perceptions of light and darkness, a seeing faculty arises in between, which grasps these perceptions and is called the faculty of sight. This faculty of sight, apart from the perceptions of light and darkness, has no inherent substance of its own.

Thus, Ananda, you should understand that this faculty of sight does not come from light or darkness, does not arise from the eye organ, and does not emerge from emptiness. Why? If it came from light, then when darkness appears, it should vanish and could not perceive darkness. If it came from darkness, then when light appears, it should vanish and could not perceive light. If it arose from the eye organ itself, it would exist independently of light and darkness—yet this faculty of seeing has no inherent nature of its own. If it emerged from emptiness, it would look outward at perceived forms and then turn inward to see the eye organ itself. Moreover, if emptiness itself could see, what would that have to do with your own faculty of sight?

Therefore, you should understand that the faculty of sight is fundamentally illusory. It is not produced by causes and conditions, nor does it arise spontaneously from its own nature.

Ananda, consider this: if someone presses their fingers firmly into both ears, the ear organ becomes strained, and a sound arises within the head. Both the ear and this strained sensation are manifestations arising from the fundamental awareness when it is agitated.

Based on the two illusory perceptions of sound and silence, hearing arises in between, grasping these perceptual objects—this is called the faculty of hearing. Yet this hearing, apart from the perceptions of sound and silence, ultimately has no independent essence.

Thus, Ananda, you should understand that this hearing does not come from sound or silence, does not arise from the ear organ, and does not emerge from emptiness. Why?

If it came from silence, then when sound appears, silence would cease, and you would not be able to hear sound. If it came from sound, then when silence appears, sound would cease, and you would not be able to perceive silence. If it arose from the ear organ itself, it would be independent of sound and silence, and thus the nature of hearing would have no inherent essence. If it emerged from emptiness, then hearing would become an inherent quality, and emptiness would no longer be empty. Moreover, if emptiness itself could hear, what would that have to do with your own faculty of hearing?

Therefore, you should understand that the ear sense is illusory and empty. It is not produced by causes and conditions, nor does it exist independently by nature.

"Ānanda, it is like a person who suddenly pinches their nose shut tightly. Pinching it for a long time creates a sense of strain, and then they feel a cold sensation in the nose. Based on this sensation, they distinguish between blocked and open, empty and full, and eventually all kinds of fragrances and odors. Both the nose itself and this sense of strain are manifestations of the strain produced by the enlightened nature. Because of the two illusory sensory objects of blocked and open, a faculty of smelling arises within, drawing in these sense-object appearances. This is called the sense of smell. This sense of smell, apart from the two sensory objects of blocked and open, ultimately has no substance. You should know that this sense of smell does not come from blocked or open sensations, nor does it arise from the nose-organ, nor is it born from empty space. Why? If it came from openness, then when it is blocked, the sensation would vanish—how then could you perceive being blocked? If it came from being blocked, then when the nose is open, there would be no sense of smell—how could you detect fragrances, odors, and other sensations? If it arose from the nose-organ itself, then there would be no blocked or open states, and the essence of smelling would have no inherent nature. If it came from empty space, that sense of smell ought to turn back and smell your own nose; since space has its own sense of smelling, what connection would it have to your sense organ? Therefore, you should understand that the nose-organ is illusory, fundamentally neither arising from causes and conditions nor from an intrinsic nature."

"Ananda! For example, someone licks their lips with their tongue. When they lick repeatedly until tired, if that person is sick, they will perceive a bitter taste. A healthy person will feel a slight touch of sweetness. It is through such sweetness and bitterness that the tongue faculty is revealed. When it is at rest, the nature of blandness is ever-present. The tongue faculty and its weariness both arise from the manifestation of weariness within Bodhi. Due to the two false objects—sweetness/bitterness and blandness—a perceiving awareness arises in between, absorbing these sense impressions. This is called the nature of taste-awareness. This nature of taste-awareness, apart from the objects of sweetness, bitterness, and blandness, ultimately has no substance. Therefore, Ananda, you should know that this awareness of bitterness and blandness does not come from sweetness/bitterness, nor does it arise from blandness. It does not originate from the tongue faculty, nor from empty space. Why? If it came from sweetness/bitterness, then when blandness appeared, the awareness would vanish—how then could you perceive blandness? If it came from blandness, then when sweetness appeared, the awareness would disappear—how then could you perceive the two characteristics of sweetness and bitterness? If it were born from the tongue, then there would necessarily be no objects of sweetness, blandness, or bitterness. Thus, the root of taste-awareness has no inherent nature. If it came from empty space, space itself would experience taste—not your mouth. Moreover, if space experienced it on its own, what would it have to do with your sense organ? Therefore, you should understand that the tongue faculty is illusory and false. Its nature is fundamentally neither causes-and-conditions nor spontaneity.

"Ananda, imagine someone touching one cold hand to one warm hand. If the cold is stronger, the warmth yields to the cold; if the warmth is stronger, the cold becomes warm. Similarly, this sensation of contact arises with awareness of separation. As these forces interact, fatigue-based sensation occurs. Both the body and the sense of fatigue are manifestations of the deluded energy of enlightenment itself.

Sensation arises from the two illusory sense-objects of separation and contact, grasping their images—this is called the nature of perception. This nature of perception, apart from separation, contact, opposition, and harmony—these two sense-objects—ultimately has no essence of its own.

Thus, Ananda, you should understand that this sensation does not come from separation or contact, nor from opposition or harmony. It does not arise from the body's faculty, nor does it emerge from space. Why? If it came from contact, it would disappear when separation occurs—how could you then perceive separation? The same applies to opposition and harmony. If it came from the body's faculty, it would exist independently of these four qualities—separation, contact, opposition, and harmony—meaning bodily sensation would have no intrinsic nature. If it came from space, space itself would be the one perceiving—how would that relate to your body's receptive capacity?

Therefore, you should know that the body's receptive capacity is illusory; its nature is neither dependent on causes nor spontaneously arisen.

"Ananda! For example, when a person grows weary, they fall asleep; deep in sleep, they then wake up. They recall things they've seen, forget what's lost—this is the appearance of arising, dwelling, change, and passing away of their deluded states. These flow together and return to their source without exceeding one another. This is called the faculty of consciousness. This mixture of mind and weariness is both the exhausted state that arises from Enlightenment's stillness. Through the two illusory dusts of arising and ceasing, consciousness gathers in the middle, taking in internal objects. It flows against the current of seeing and hearing, yet never reaches the depths—this is called the nature of awareness and knowing. But this nature of awareness and knowing, apart from the two dusts of waking/sleeping and arising/ceasing, ultimately has no substance. Thus, Ananda, you should recognize that this faculty of awareness and knowing does not come from waking or sleeping, does not arise from arising or ceasing, does not emerge from the faculty itself, nor does it come from empty space. Why? If it came from waking, then in sleep it would cease entirely—so what would experience sleep? If it existed only when things arise, then when things cease it would vanish—so who would experience cessation? If it came from cessation, then when things arise cessation would vanish—so who would know arising? If it came from the faculty itself, the two states of waking and sleeping follow the body's opening and closing functions. Apart from these two states, this awareness and knowing would be like flowers in empty space, ultimately without any true nature. If it came from empty space, then space itself would know—what connection would that have with your entry? Therefore, you should recognize that the mental entry is illusory. It is fundamentally neither conditioned by causes nor inherently existing."

Furthermore, Ananda, what does it mean that the Twelve Sense Fields originate from the fundamentally wondrous true nature of the Tathagata?

"Ānanda, look at this Jeta Grove with its fountains and ponds. What do you think? Does visual form arise from the eye seeing it, or does the eye perceive because form arises?

Now, if the eye faculty gave rise to visual forms, then when seeing empty space, which lacks form, the quality of form should dissolve. Once dissolved, everything is revealed as nothing. Since no form exists, what could define empty space? The same reasoning applies to emptiness.

Similarly, if visual objects produced sight, then when looking at emptiness, which has no form, the act of seeing would be lost. Once lost, there is nothing at all. What would then distinguish emptiness from form?

Therefore, know that visual awareness, forms, and emptiness have no fixed location. Forms and the perception of forms are both illusory. Their fundamental nature is neither dependent arising nor an inherent self-nature."

「Ānanda, listen further: In this Jeta Grove, when the meal is prepared, the drum is struck, and when the community gathers, the bell is rung. The sound of the bell and drum follows one after the other. What do you think? Does this sound come to your ear, or does your ear go to the sound?

Ānanda! If the sound comes to your ear — just as when I go to beg for food in Śrāvastī, I am no longer in the Jeta Grove — then this sound must surely come only to Ānanda’s ear. In that case, why would Maudgalyāyana and Kāśyapa also hear it? And why would all 1,250 śramaṇas, upon hearing the bell, gather together at the dining place?

On the other hand, if your ear goes to the sound — just as when I return to reside in the Jeta Grove, I am no longer in Śrāvastī — then when you hear the drum, your ear would have already gone to the place where the drum is struck. If the bell were sounded at the same time, you should not be able to hear both. And what about the various sounds of elephants, horses, oxen, and sheep — how could you hear them all?

If there is no coming or going, then there would be no hearing at all.

Therefore, you should know: neither hearing nor sound has a fixed location. Both the faculty of hearing and the object of sound are illusory. Their essence is neither causality nor spontaneity.」

"Ānanda! Now consider the sandalwood incense in this burner. If just one pinch of this wood is burned, the fragrance can be smelled simultaneously by everyone within forty miles of Śrāvastī. What do you think? Does this fragrance come from the sandalwood, from your nose, or from empty space?

Ānanda, if this fragrance arises from your nose, then since it is said to be produced by the nose, it should emerge from the nose. But the nose is not sandalwood, so how could your nose contain a sandalwood fragrance? Since the fragrance is supposed to be something you smell, it should enter the nose, not come out of it. If fragrance comes out of the nose, it cannot properly be called 'smelling.'

If the fragrance came from empty space, then since space is constant, the fragrance should always be present. Why would you need to burn this dry wood in the burner to produce it?

If the fragrance came from the wood, then this fragrant material must be burned to produce smoke. For the nose to smell it, it should have to encounter the smoke. But how could people forty miles away, where the smoke has not yet drifted, already smell it?

Therefore, you should understand that the fragrance, the nose, and the act of smelling have no fixed location. The faculty of smelling and the object of fragrance are both illusory. Their nature is neither dependent on causes and conditions, nor is it spontaneous or self-existent."

"Ānanda, you go out among the assembly twice a day, bowl in hand, and sometimes you encounter ghee, butter, or cream—these are considered superior flavors. What do you think? Does this flavor arise from empty space? From your tongue? Or from the food itself?

Ānanda, if this flavor arises from your tongue, then since you only have one tongue in your mouth, at the moment it becomes the flavor of ghee, when it meets black rock honey, it should not change. If it doesn't change, it cannot be called knowing flavor. If it does change, then the tongue is not a single entity—how can the knowledge of a single tongue perceive multiple flavors?

If the flavor arises from the food, the food has no consciousness—how could it know itself? And if the food knows itself, that would be like someone else eating—what does it have to do with you being aware of flavor?

If the flavor arises from empty space, what flavor do you get when you eat empty space? If empty space were to produce a salty flavor, since it would salt your tongue, it would also salt your face, making everyone in this world like ocean fish. Forever tasting salt, they would know nothing of blandness, and if they didn't know blandness, they wouldn't perceive saltiness either. In that case, there would be no awareness at all—how could this be called flavor?

Therefore, you should understand that flavor, tongue, and the experience of tasting all have no fixed location. Thus, both tasting and flavor are illusions, fundamentally neither conditioned nor unconditioned in nature."

Ānanda, every morning you rub your head with your hand. What do you think? When you feel this touch, what is it that perceives the contact? Does the ability to perceive lie in your hand, or in your head?

If it lies in your hand, then your head would have no awareness—how could there be any sensation of touch? If it lies in your head, then your hand would have no function—how could it be called a touch?

If both your hand and your head each had this ability, then you, Ānanda, would have to have two bodies. If the sensation of touch arises from a single contact between your head and hand, then your hand and head should be one body. But if they were one body, contact could not occur. If they were two separate bodies, then which one does the sensation of touch belong to? The one that is the active toucher cannot be the passive touched, and the passive touched cannot be the active toucher. It's not as if empty space could provide you with a sense of touch.

Therefore, you should understand that the qualities of awareness, touch, and the body itself have no fixed location. The body and the sensation of touch are both illusory in nature. They are not originally the product of causes and conditions, nor do they have an intrinsic self-nature.

"Ananda, the good, evil, and neutral qualities that constantly arise in your mind—do they come from the mind itself? Or do they originate from a place apart from the mind?"

Shurangama Sutra, Volume 3