chapter 4 of Shurangama sutra:
The Buddha said, "You speak of
understanding enlightenment; does the nature understand and is that
called enlightenment? Or does enlightenment initially lack
understanding and so you speak of understanding
enlightenment?"
Purna said, "If a lack of understanding is called enlightenment,
then there would be no understanding at all."
The Buddha said, "If there were no understanding at all, then there
could be no understanding of enlightenment. If understanding is
added, then that is not enlightenment. If understanding is not
added, then there's no understanding. But a lack of understanding
or ignorance is not the lucid bright nature of enlightenment. The
nature of enlightenment certainly includes understanding. It's
redundant to speak of understanding enlightenment. Enlightenment is
not a kind of understanding. Understanding sets up an objective
realm. Once that objective realm is set up, your false subjective
state arises.
As the expression goes, ignorance(aka not knowing) no doubt might
be the overall condition of beings, but it is also through 'Not
wanting to know' that Springs All Knowing of Buddha(s). ie, Not
knowing and enlightenment complement each other.
lastly, be assured that when one attained the wonderful emptiness
of clear enlightenment(ie Buddhahood), one don't become confused
again.
"Purna said, "If this wonderful
enlightenment, the wonderful awareness of fundamental
enlightenment, which is neither greater than nor less than the mind
of the Tathagata, abruptly brings forth the mountains, the rivers,
and the great earth, and all conditioned phenomena, then now that
the Tathagata has attained the wonderful emptiness of clear
enlightenment, will the mountains, the rivers, the great earth, and
all conditioned habitual outflows arise ever again?"
The Buddha said to Purna, "If a person living in a village were
confused about directions, mistaking south for north, would that
confusion be the result of confusion or of awareness?"
Purna said, "His confusion would be the result of neither. Why not?
Confusion is fundamentally baseless, so how could anything arise
because of it? And as awareness does not produce confusion, how
could confusion arise out of it?"
The Buddha said, "If someone who knows the directions points them
out to the confused person, then once the person who was confused
becomes aware, do you suppose, Purna, that he could lose his sense
of direction again in that village?"
"No, World Honored One."
"Purna, the Tathagatas of the ten directions are the same way.
Confusion is groundless and ultimately empty in nature. In the
past, there basically was no confusion. It merely seemed as if
there were confusion and enlightenment. When the delusion about
confusion and enlightenment is ended, enlightenment will not give
rise to confusion. Consider the person who, because of cataracts,
saw flowers in space. Once the cataracts were removed, the flowers
in space disappeared. Were he to rush to the spot where the flowers
disappeared and wait for them to reappear, would you consider that
person to be stupid or wise?"
Purna said, "Originally there weren't any flowers in space. It was
through a seeing disability that they appeared and disappeared. To
see the disappearance of the flowers in space is already a
distortion. To wait for them to reappear is sheer madness. Why
bother to determine further if such a person is stupid or
wise?"
The Buddha said, "Since you explain it that way, why do you ask if
the clear emptiness of wonderful enlightenment can once again give
rise to the mountains, the rivers, and the great earth? Consider a
piece of ore containing gold and other metals mixed together. Once
the pure gold is extracted it will never become ore again. Consider
wood that has burnt to ashes; it will never become wood again. The
Bodhi and Nirvana of all Buddhas, the Tathagatas, are the same way.
"
/\
