Volume 3 of the Commentary on the Surangama Sutra's Perfect Penetration
Master Chuandeng of Youxi, Tiantai Mountain
Master Xuebang said: “This teacher often creates disputes and wastes words because he is confused by names and loses the meaning. If we examine his reasoning, it’s like this: When he says, ‘If one observes and first questions false conditions, it seems like understanding how to break through consciousness, but then he ends by saying to stop scatteredness and enter stillness,’ then his understanding is not precise. The problem is precisely that he separates false conditions and a scattered mind into two different things, and doesn’t understand the origin of the phrase ‘stop scatteredness and enter stillness.’”
“The two states—dullness and scatteredness—are the great illness of birth and death for beings in the world. Even at the stage of almost-enlightenment, we still speak of stillness and clarity. Therefore, we know that subtle dullness and scatteredness must still be observed and broken through even at the very end of the diamond-like mind. So scatteredness as false conditions—how shallow could it be? As for the phrase ‘stop scatteredness and enter stillness,’ this originally came from Ananda, who tired of his abundant learning and minor wisdom and begged for great concentration. Then the falsehood of abundant learning and minor wisdom belongs to scatteredness, while concentration is its opposite, so this is just a pair of contrasting terms. What follows reveals the constant mind and realization of true nature as the substance of still concentration; ‘stopping scatteredness and entering stillness’ simply means entering this stillness. Gu Shan said: ‘This perfect principle is the foundation of great concentration.’ That’s what it means.”
“However, there are cases where scatteredness is stopped first, leading to entry into still concentration, and cases where one enters still concentration and scatteredness naturally ceases. If one wishes to discuss this principle, one might first question false conditions, so breaking falsehood and stopping scatteredness come first. If one illuminates principle and enters concentration, and falsehood and scatteredness naturally subside, then illuminating principle comes first. One adapts the medicine to the disease; there’s no fixed rule. Yet Jiao Guang said: ‘It’s not merely entering into still concentration.’ If that were so, then the words of Guan Yin in the sutra—‘what is entered becomes still’ and ‘stillness and cessation appear’—could he also criticize them? This is extremely unreasonable.”
“Moreover, he quotes the sutra: ‘Even if you extinguish all seeing, hearing, sensation, and knowledge, and dwell internally in a quiet, secluded state, it is still just a conditioned, mental shadow.’ And: ‘Although practitioners may achieve the nine successive concentrations in the present, if they don’t end the outflows to become Arhats, it’s because they cling to these false thoughts and mistake them for reality.’ Then he says, ‘Is it simply right to stop scatteredness and enter stillness?’ And so on. This shows again that he doesn’t understand why the Tathagata reproves them.”
“For all cultivation, one must understand true and false, recognize what to accept and what to reject, and know how to choose between the two paths of truth and falsity. Once that’s clear, one chooses the true and accepts it, and rejects the false. When the Tathagata established the two roots, he was precisely clarifying this acceptance and rejection. When he says, ‘Even if you extinguish all seeing, hearing, etc., up to ‘cling to this false thought and mistake it for reality,’ this is one criticism of ordinary people and non-Buddhists, and another criticism of those among lesser-vehicle practitioners who are still on the ordinary path. These two kinds of people don’t see the path truly; their acceptance and rejection are not accurate. Sometimes they accept what shouldn’t be accepted, or reject what shouldn’t be rejected. This is called confused and mistaken cultivation. How could someone who cultivates still concentration according to this sutra be compared to the lesser-vehicle’s nine successive concentrations or the non-Buddhist’s inward dwelling in quiet seclusion? This point is already understood.”
“What follows distinguishes the five types of superior goodness—I need not speak of them further. The false can be clearly distinguished from the true; it’s like knowing the difference between a fish-eye and a genuine pearl.”
The Slanderer says: "This is also extremely illogical. The interpretation of scriptures in the degenerate age differs greatly from the situations when the Buddha personally taught during his lifetime. If the Buddha were still alive, when he was right in the midst of refuting false consciousness, a figure like Tianru suddenly stepped forward to defend Ananda in this way, that would be a direct opposition to the Buddha's words and a serious violation of the scriptures' intent. But today, in the degenerate age, those who propagate the scriptures must view them from beginning to end and explain them with a thorough understanding. Is not the 'Preliminary Discourse' at the very start of the sutra, which uses the 'Opening and Revealing' principle from the Lotus Sutra for classification, also a public opposition to the Buddha's words? Moreover, the Buddha's fundamental intention is to reveal the Truth; refuting falsehood is merely a necessary measure.
Nowadays, when people read Buddhist scriptures, they may want to explore the entire text thoroughly, or sometimes their lifelong doubts and attachments are gradually dissolved by the Buddha's words. Sometimes, doubts arise from the earlier parts of a scripture, and they must read the later parts to gain sudden enlightenment. For instance, the 'Main Vein' text first presents a 'Preliminary Explanation,' specifically using the 'manifestation of the seeing nature' as its guiding principle. Does this mean that readers are thereby forced to regard the six faculties of ordinary beings—which are the sources of life, death, and suffering—as Bodhi and Nirvana? Although the six faculties are indeed themselves Bodhi and Nirvana, one must certainly discard the discriminating vision and the essence of seeing, only taking the 'nature which can see seeing itself.' Moreover, when the Tathagata taught this 'seeing nature,' he did not explain it directly; he first had to refute the false mind before revealing it. Isn't the 'Preliminary Explanation' at the start of your 'Main Vein' also a public opposition to the Buddha's words?
After this passage, Tianru further sets a metaphor: 'For example, when using a mirror to view images, no image is separate from the mirror. Ananda seems not to recognize the mirror's essence, mistaking the coming and going images for it.' This is precisely where Tianru silently reveals the 'Precious Mirror Samadhi' to people, but readers fail to directly accept it, instead slandering it here, wasting much of his compassionate intention. Moreover, saying 'Ananda seems not to recognize the mirror's essence, mistaking the coming and going images for it' is itself a way to untie people's knots and remove their attachments—once again an extremely earnest act of compassion. If we worry that people, upon hearing this, will still stubbornly hold on and refuse to let go, then these are the dullest of beings; even the Buddha would be helpless against them. What can Tianru do about it?"
The guest again asked: "If the cognitive mind is indeed entirely illusory and must ultimately be broken down, why does the scripture later, in the section on the four elements, also acknowledge it as being the same as the Tathagatagarbha mind?"
Answer: The root of Tianru’s doubt lies precisely here, because he has not yet comprehended the two approaches: Upaya (expedient means) and Samata (equality). Upaya means discerning choice; Samata means universal integration. Early in the scripture, the mind is described as entirely illusory, and we are warned not to rely on it. This is the gate of Upaya—the method of discernment. Later in the scripture, the same mind is acknowledged as also real, and is called part of the Tathagatagarbha nature. This is the gate of Samata—the method of universal integration.
If we follow the Buddha’s intention without disrupting the order, these two approaches can support each other. If we go against the Buddha’s intention and confuse things forcibly, they will contradict each other.
The guest asked: "What do you mean by 'following intention leads to mutual support'?"
Answer: Although the cognitive mind is the Tathagatagarbha mind, it is also the root of birth and death. If it is not broken down, one will practice in confusion, like trying to cook sand to make rice. Therefore, breaking it down is the expedient means to enter the perfect state. Conversely, although the mind is the origin of illusion, it does not exist outside the mind’s own manifestation. If it is not integrated, one will believe in a reality outside the mind, blocking the holy nature. Thus, integration prevents expedient means from becoming rigid. In this way, both earlier and later teachings only follow the Buddha’s words, each achieving its own profound purpose. How could they not support each other?
The guest asked: "What do you mean by 'going against intention leads to contradiction'?"
Answer: When the Buddha was teaching the discerning approach, if one took the later idea of equality to argue, saying, "This is all the Tathagatagarbha mind, so how could it be false? Why must we break it down?"—then the root of illusion would become firm, and true practice would be blocked forever. Similarly, when the Buddha later taught universal integration, if one took the earlier expedient approach to argue, saying, "This is the root of birth and death, not the true Tathagatagarbha mind; why must we include everything?"—then expedient means would become rigid, and the perfect teaching would be forever obstructed. This would twist the Buddha’s profound intentions, turning his own words into contradictions. How could they not oppose each other?
You should understand that in the gate of equality and universal integration, all phenomena must be included. In the gate of discerning choice, selection and rejection must be strict. The later universal inclusion does not hinder the earlier breaking down and rejecting. How can you doubt the earlier teaching because of the later one, and refuse to follow the Buddha’s instruction to break down the mind?
If you insist that because the cognitive mind is the Tathagatagarbha mind, you doubt the need for its decisive rejection, then consider this: the elements of water and fire are also the Tathagatagarbha mind, yet those who venerate and practice with water or fire are definitely following false views. Could it be that practitioners of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra are also allowed to venerate and practice with water and fire? This makes it clear: although water and fire are the Tathagatagarbha mind, venerating and practicing with them will certainly lead to false views, not correct enlightenment. Therefore, they must be decisively rejected. Similarly, although the six consciousnesses are the Tathagatagarbha mind, using and cultivating them will certainly keep you stuck in birth and death, not achieving bodhi. Therefore, they also must be decisively rejected. Why are you still confused about this?
The guest asked: "If the cognitive mind is the Tathagatagarbha mind but is ultimately not to be used in practice, why do you and others still rely on it to establish the six perfect penetrations?"
Answer: This is another point that has caused doubt for many. Since Mañjuśrī already rejected it in the scripture, why trouble yourself further? If you still do not understand, examine the later verses and the commentary on that passage—then everything will become clear.