Surangama Sutra Exposition
by Living Buddha Lian Sheng, Grandmaster Sheng-Yen Lu
In this excerpt, Ananda and Sakyamuni Buddha continue discussing where the mind is. Hearing that the Buddha and Manjusri discussed the mind being neither inside nor outside the body, Ananda proposed that it must be in the middle. The Buddha rejects this notion as well.
Ananda said to the Buddha, “World-honored One, I have also heard you speak with Manjusri and other dharma princes about the nature of reality, and at that time you said, ‘The mind is neither inside nor outside.’
What is a dharma prince? A dharma prince is a buddha’s heart-son who has received the true lineage. Manjusri is the dharma prince of Sakyamuni in the Avatamsaka World, whereas Avalokitesvara is the dharma prince of Amitabha in Sukhavati. In Tantrayana, Vajrasattva is the dharma prince of the Five Dhyani Buddhas.
The Buddha and the dharma princes were discussing the true nature of reality—meaning how things truly are.
As I reflect: ‘There is no seeing within, and no mutual awareness without. Since there is no knowing within, the mind cannot be inside. Since the body and mind are mutually aware, the mind cannot be outside either. Now, because there is mutual knowing, but no seeing within, it must be in the middle.’”
The Buddha said, “You say it is in the middle—that the middle surely cannot be ambiguous and must have a specific location. Now, you say it is in the middle, where exactly is this middle?
Is it in a location? Or within the body? If it is on the body, one cannot say that the edges are the middle, so the middle must be inside the body.
If it is a location, does it have a marker or not? If it has no marker, then it is basically nonexistent; even if it has a marker, it is not fixed.
Why is that? If someone places a marker and calls it the middle, then viewed from the east, it appears west; from the south, it appears north. Since the marker itself is ambiguous, the mind that relies on it will likewise be unreliable.”
Since Sakyamuni Buddha states that the mind is neither inside nor outside the body, Ananda presumed that the mind must be in the middle.
Yet the Buddha pressed him by asking where exactly the middle is. Since the middle cannot be on the surface of the body, it must be inside the body. But it has already been established that the mind cannot be inside the body. If this so-called “middle” lacks a specific marker, then it is essentially nonexistent. Even if it does have a marker, its position cannot be fixed.
The earth is round, and in ancient times there were no compasses—so whether something is east or west, south or north, depends on one’s standpoint. [Does one say that America is to the east or west of Asia?] For example, prior to our dharma practice we visualize our paternal relatives to our left and maternal relatives to our right. However, Grandmaster is facing the assembly—so Grandmaster’s left is the assembly’s right and vice versa.
Ananda replied, “The ‘middle’ I speak of is neither of those two. As the World-Honored One has said, ‘Eye and form as conditions give rise to eye-consciousness.’ The eye can discern, whereas the form is inanimate. Consciousness arises between them—this is where the mind resides.”
Ananda clarified that he believed the mind lies somewhere in between the eyes and the object seen. Grandmaster used the example of looking at the microphone with his eyes. The eyes, connected with the mind, have consciousness and awareness. Together, they can perceive that this is a microphone. But the microphone does not know or feel that Grandmaster is looking at it, as objects have no awareness or consciousness. According to Ananda, the mind lies in between the eyes and the microphone. In such a case, that would mean that the mind is outside the body—and as previously discussed, the mind cannot be outside the body.
The Buddha said, “If your mind exists between the sense organ and its object, then does this mind encompass both? Or not?
If it encompasses both, then the entities are intermixed. But material things do not have the capacity to know—so they are not of the same kind. How could there be a middle between them? Therefore, encompassing both is not viable.
If it is neither knowing nor unknowing, then it lacks inherent nature. So how could it be called the middle? Thus, you should understand: claiming the mind is in the middle is meaningless.”
The Buddha now asked, if the mind is in the middle between the eyes and the object, does the mind encompass both the organ and the object? How can it encompass both since the object has no awareness? How can there be a middle between a living being and a non-living thing? And where is it exactly? Is it here, here, here, here, or here?
If the mind does not encompass both the organ and the object, then how can it relate what the eyes perceive with the external object? It is neither aware nor unaware and thus lack any essence at all. How can there be a middle between them?
Thus, to say the mind is in the middle is incorrect.