爾時，世尊憐愍阿難及諸大眾，將欲敷演大陀羅尼諸三摩提妙修行路，告阿難言：「汝雖強記，但益多聞；於奢摩他 微密觀照心猶未了。汝今諦聽，吾今為汝分別開示，亦令將來諸有漏者獲菩提果。阿難！一切眾生輪迴世間，由二顛倒分別見妄，當處發生當業輪轉。云何二見？一者眾生別業妄見；二者眾生同分妄見。
At that time, the World-Honored One took pity on Ānanda and the great assembly and, wishing to proclaim the great dhāraṇī for the wonderous cultivation of the path of all samādhis, said to Ānanda, “Though your memory is strong, you have only broadened your hearing. When it comes to śamatha and the most subtle forms of observation (vipaśyanā), you still do not understand. Listen attentively, I will now make it clear to you and those in the future who still have outflows wishing to attain the fruit of Bodhi. Ānanda! All sentient beings are subject to transmigration through various worlds because of two inverted differentiations of erroneous views that, wherever they occur, there is turning on the wheel of karma. What are these two views? The first is the erroneous view of sentient beings’ individual karma. The second the the erroneous view of sentient beings’ shared karma.”
Two Kinds of Karma
「云何名為別業妄見？阿難！如世間人目有赤眚，夜見燈光別有圓影五色重疊。於意云何？此夜燈明所現圓光，為是燈色為當見色？阿難！此若燈色，則非眚人何不同見，而此圓影唯眚之觀？若是見色，見已成色，則彼眚人見圓影者名為何等？復次，阿難！若此圓影離燈別有，則合傍觀屏帳几筵有圓影出；離見別有，應非眼矚，云何眚人目見圓影？是故當知色實在燈，見病為影，影見俱眚，見眚非病。終不應言是燈是見，於是中有非燈非見。如第二月，非體非影。何以故？第二之觀，揑所成故。諸有智者不應說言，此揑根元是形非形離見非見；此亦如是，目眚所成，今欲名誰是燈是見，何況分別非燈非見。
“What is the erroneous view of sentient beings’ individual karma? Ānanda! Like someone in the world whose eyes are inflamed, and at night, when the look at a lamp, they see five-colored circular shadows around the lamp. What do you think? Are the circular bands of light that appear around the lamp at night color-forms of the lamp or are they forms of the seeing? If these are forms of lamp, then why can’t someone without diseased sight see the same thing? Why are they only seen by the the person with diseased sight? If they are forms of the seeing, seeing already has these forms, why then are they called the circular shadows seen by the diseased person. Furthermore, Ānanda! If these circular shadows have an independent existent apart from the lamp, they should come about when looking at nearby curtains, tables and mats. If they are independent of seeing, they should not be seen at all. Why then does the diseased person’s eyes see the circular shadows? Therefore, you should know that color-forms are actually the lamp, the shadows are the diseased seeing and while both the shadow and the seeing are the disease, that which sees the disease is not sick. Thus you should not say that it is either the lamp or the seeing, or further that [the circular shadows] are neither of the lamp nor of the eyes. Like a second moon, which is neither the real moon nor its shadow. How so? The second moon seen is a fabrication. So the wise should not say that this fabrication fundamentally ‘is’ or ‘is not’, or that it exists apart from seeing or not seeing. In the same way, how can you prove that an illusion caused by diseased eyes is the lamp or the seeing? How much the less could you say that it is neither the lamp nor the seeing.”
「云何名為同分妄見？阿難！此閻浮提除大海水，中間平陸有三千洲，正中大洲東西括量，大國凡有二千三百，其餘小洲在諸海中，其間或有三兩百國，或一或二，至于三十、四十、五十。阿難！若復此中有一小洲只有兩國，唯一國人同感惡緣，則彼小洲當土眾生，覩諸一切不祥境界。或見二日或見兩月，其中乃至暈蝕珮玦彗勃飛流，負耳虹蜺種種惡相，但此國見；彼國眾生，本所不見亦復不聞。阿難！吾今為汝以此二事進退合明。
“What is the erroneous view of what is called collective [karma]? Ānanda! This Jambudvīpa continent comprises, in addition to the great oceans; 3,000 continents, with the largest at the center, containing altogether, from east to west, 2,300 countries and other small continents each consisting of two to three hundred countries, or just 1, 2, 30, 40, or 50. Ānanda! In a small continent there may be only two countries, one of which is inhabited by people who, as a result of evil conditions, may witness all sorts of unfortunate objective realms, like seeing two suns or two moons, or rings or half rings between them, or they may see comets streaking across the sky, but these evil signs are only seen by the inhabitants of one country. The people in the other country do not see or hear of them. Ānanda! I will now compare these two situations for you in order to clarify them.
「阿難！如彼眾生別業妄見，矚燈光中所現圓影雖現似境，終彼見者目眚所成，眚即見勞非色所造，然見眚者終無見咎。例汝今日以目觀見山河國土及諸眾生，皆是無始見病所成，見與見緣似現前境，元我覺明見所緣眚，覺見即眚本覺明心，覺緣非眚覺所覺眚，覺非眚中此實見見。云何復名覺聞知見？是故汝今見我及汝并諸世間十類眾生，皆即見眚；非見眚者，彼見真精，性非眚者故不名見。
“Ānanda! The erroneous view of sentient beings’ individual karma is like seeing circular shadows of light appearing around a lamp that seem to be external objects, yet are actually products of the diseased eyes of the seer, made of the disease of strained seeing, not form (rūpa), while the seeing of the disease is actually without the defect of seeing. Just like now, you say it is by using your eyes that you see mountains, rivers, countries, and all sentient beings, but they are all products of diseased seeing since a time without beginning. Seeing and the conditions of seeing appear to appear as objective objects, and your fundamentally awakened brightness sees what is diseased, and this seeing that is aware [of something] then ‘diseases’ the originally awakened, bright Mind. That which realizes this awareness as diseased does not fall into diseased awareness, and awareness that is not from within disease, this is seeing True Seeing. How could this be called awareness, hearing, knowing, or seeing? Therefore, you seeing me now along with yourself and all sentient beings of the ten types of birth, it is all the disease of seeing, not the seeing of the disease. That Seeing [which is] the True Essence, its nature is not the disease, therefore it is not called seeing (or, ‘is not called a view’).”
「阿難！如彼眾生同分妄見，例彼妄見別業一人，一病目人同彼一國，彼見圓影眚妄所生，此眾同分所現不祥，同見業中瘴惡所起，俱是無始見妄所生。例閻浮提三千洲中，兼四大海娑婆世界，并洎十方諸有漏國及諸眾生，同是覺明無漏妙心，見聞覺知虛妄病緣，和合妄生、和合妄死。若能遠離諸和合緣及不和合，則復滅除諸生死因，圓滿菩提不生滅性清淨本心本覺常住。
“Ānanda! Let us now compare the erroneous view of what is called collective [karma] with what appears to be the erroneous view of the individual karma of one person; one person with diseased eyes compared to that one country; that seeing of circular shadows of light that arise due to diseased error, this person compared to the differentiations of unfortunate conditions; comparing visual karma to the arising of an evil [collective] miasma, both arising from erroneous seeing. Likewise, the 3,000 continents within Jambudvīpa, the four great oceans, the Sahà World, even all the sentient beings with outflows throughout the Ten Directions, they are the awakened brightness of the wonderous Mind without outflows. Seeing, hearing, sensory awareness, and knowing are the conditions of the unreal (abhūta) and disease, being born united with the unreal, and dying united with the unreal. If one is able to transcend the conditions of unification and non-unification, then the causes of birth and death are entirely ceased without remainder. The perfectly full nature of Bodhi neither arises nor ceases, and the pure, original Mind eternally abides awakened from the beginning.
No ‘things’ combined in dependent-origination
「阿難！汝雖先悟本覺妙明，性非因緣、非自然性，而猶未明如是覺元，非和合生及不和合。阿難！吾今復以前塵問汝。汝今猶以一切世間妄想，和合諸因緣性，而自疑惑。證菩提心和合起者，則汝今者妙淨見精，為與明和？為與闇和？為與通和？為與塞和？若明和者，且汝觀明，當明現前，何處雜見？見相可辨，雜何形像？若非見者，云何見明？若即見者，云何見見？必見圓滿，何處和明。若明圓滿，不合見和，見必異明；雜則失彼性明名字。雜失明性，和明非義，彼暗與通及諸群塞亦復如是。
“Ānanda! Though you have understood the originally awakened, wonderous brightness, the nature of which is neither dependently-originated nor with an inherent self-nature, you are still not clear about this fundamental awakening, which neither arises from unification nor is not unified. Ānanda! I will now inquire further about the dust before you. You are still using false, worldly perception of the nature of dependent-origination as being about arisings from unifications [of things], therefore you are still in doubt and worry. If it is the case the Bodhi Mind arises from unification, then right now, the wonderous, pure essence of seeing, does it unite with light? Does it unite with darkness? Does it unite with clearance? Does it unite with obstruction? If it unites with light, when you see light it should appear before you, so where does the mixing with seeing happen? Seeing and characteristics can be differentiated, so what is the shape of their mixture? If there is no seeing [at all], how can you see light? If then there is seeing, can you see seeing? Indeed, seeing is perfectly full, where is there room to unite with light? If light is perfectly full, it does not unite with seeing. Seeing is, indeed, different than light, and if they are mixed up, light would lose its nature and cease to be what we call ‘light.’ Mixing with loses the nature of light, while a unified entity light is meaningless. And darkness, clearance, and obstruction are also like this.”
「復次，阿難！又汝今者妙淨見精，為與明合？為與暗合？為與通合？為與塞合？若明合者，至於暗時明相已滅，此見即不與諸暗合。云何見暗？若見暗時不與暗合，與明合者應非見明，既不見明云何明合？了明非暗彼暗與通，及諸群塞，亦復如是。」
“Furthermore, Ānanda! Does the wonderous, pure essence of seeing unite with light? Does it unite with darkness? Does it unite with clearance? Does it unite with obstruction? If it unites with light, then when light vanishes and is replaced by darkness, this seeing should not unite with the darkness, but why do you still see darkness? When you see darkness, if your seeing does not unite with it, then when it unites with light, you should not see light as well. If light is not seen, then when there is light, do you know that it is light and not darkness? Likewise, a union of seeing with darkness, clarity and obstruction is equally false.”
阿難白佛言：「世尊！如我思惟，此妙覺元與諸緣塵及心念慮非和合耶？」
Ānanda addressed the Buddha saying, “World-Honored One! As I now think about it, this fundamental, wonderous awakening does it not unite with all the conditional dust and worries of the mind?”
佛言：「汝今又言覺非和合。吾復問汝。此妙見精非和合者，為非明和？為非暗和？為非通和？為非塞和？若非明和，則見與明必有邊畔。汝且諦觀，何處是明？何處是見？在見在明自何為畔？阿難！若明際中必無見者，則不相及，自不知其明相所在，畔云何成？彼暗與通及諸群塞，亦復如是。
The Buddha replied, “You now speak of an awakening not through uniting. I will further ask you, do you mean that this wonderous essence of seeing, which is not a unification [of anything] does not unite with light? Does it unite with darkness? Does it unite with clearance? Does it unite with obstruction? If so, then when you see the light, there should be a demarcation line between seeing and light. Now look carefully, where are the fields of light and of your seeing, and where are their boundaries? Ānanda! If you do not see where light is, then your seeing will not reach it; if so, you will not even know where the light is, and how can there be a border line? It is the same with darkness, clarity and obstruction.”
「又妙見精非和合者，為非明合？為非暗合？為非通合？為非塞合？若非明合，則見與明性相乖角，如耳與明了不相觸，見且不知明相所在，云何甄明合非合理？彼暗與通及諸群塞，亦復如是。阿難！汝猶未明一切浮塵諸幻化相，當處出生隨處滅盡，幻妄稱相，其性真為妙覺明體，如是乃至五陰、六入，從十二處至十八界，因緣和合虛妄有生，因緣別離虛妄名滅，殊不能知生滅去來，本如來藏常住妙明，不動周圓妙真如性，性真常中求於去來、迷悟、死生，了無所得。
“Again, do you mean that this wonderous essence of seeing does not unite with light, darkness, clarity and obstruction? If it does not unite with light, then both the seeing and light are in opposition, like your ears and the light which can never meet. So your seeing would not perceive anything where there is light; then how can you cause them either to unite or not? Darkness, clarity, and obstruction are also like this. Ānanda! You are still not clear about the illusory characteristics of all transient dust which vanish immediately wherever they arise. These illusions called characteristics are the bright substance of wonderous awakening. So also are the five aggregates, the six entrances (organs), the twelve bases (āyatana; the six sense organs and six sense data) and the eighteen realms (six senses, six sense objects, and six consciousnesses) which falsely arise from the unification of causes and conditions, and which falsely vanish when the same causes and conditions are disunified. They are but creation and destruction appearing and vanishing within the permanent, wonderfully bright, immutable, all-embracing and profound nature of True Suchness (bhūtatathatā) of the Womb of Thus Come Ones (Tathāgatagarbha), the True Nature wherein neither coming nor going, neither delusion nor enlightenment, and neither birth nor death can be found.”
The Five Aggregates
「阿難！云何五陰本如來藏妙真如性？阿難！譬如有人以清淨目觀晴明空，唯一精虛逈無所有，其人無故不動目睛瞪以發勞，則於虛空別見狂花，復有一切狂亂非相；色陰當知亦復如是。阿難！是諸狂花，非從空來，非從目出。如是，阿難！若空來者，既從空來還從空入，若有出入即非虛空，空若非空，自不容其花相起滅，如阿難體，不容阿難。若目出者，既從目出還從目入，即此花性從目出故，當合有見。若有見者，去既花空旋合見眼；若無見者，出既翳空，旋當翳眼。又見花時，目應無翳，云何晴空號清明眼？是故當知色陰虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! How is it that the five aggregates are originally the Tathāgatagarbha’s wonderous nature of True Suchness? Ānanda! Just like someone who looks up at a clear sky with clear eyes sees only empty space which contains nothing. If this person, for no reason, strains their seeing, it will be disturbed and they will see delusional flowers in the sky, and other delusional, characteristicless objects. The aggregate Form (rūpa), you should know, is also like this. Ānanda! These delusional flowers come neither from space nor out of the eyes. Therefore, Ānanda! If they came from space, they would return to it. If there was really such a coming and going out of space, then it would not be empty. If space is not empty, it cannot, itself, contain the appearance and vanishing of these flowers. Like how the substance that is Ānanda does not contain Ānanda. If the flowers come from the eyes, they should return and enter back into the eyes. Then, because the nature of these flowers is of the eyes, they should be able to see. If they have sight, when they go out into the air they should be able to turn around and see the eyes. If they are without sight, then when they leave the eyes and obscure the sky, returning they should obscure the eyes. But then, if when seeing the flowers this is the eyes unobscured, why do you wait until the sky is clear (of flowers) to say that the eyes are really clear? Therefore, you should know that the aggregate Form is illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！譬如有人手足宴安百骸調適，忽如忘生性無違順，其人無故以二手掌於空相摩，於二手中妄生澁滑冷熱諸相；受陰當知亦復如是。阿難！是諸幻觸，不從空來，不從掌出。如是，阿難！若空來者，既能觸掌，何不觸身？不應虛空選擇來觸。若從掌出，應非待合。又掌出故，合則掌知，離即觸入，臂腕骨髓應亦覺知入時蹤跡，必有覺心知出知入，自有一物身中往來，何待合知要名為觸？是故當知受陰虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Just like someone in good health with limbs in good condition does not feel anything, but if suddenly, without any reason, they rub their palms together, in the space between them they feel coarseness, smoothness, cold and warmth, and other characteristics. The aggregate Sensation (vedanā) is also like this. Ānanda! All these illusory feelings come from neither space nor the palms. If they come from space, why are they felt by the person’s palms only and not by the body? It should not be up to space to choose the palms to feel them. If they come from the palms, they should not wait for the palms to be brought together to be felt. Moreover, if the sensations really come from the palms and are felt when the latter are brought together, when they are separated, these sensations should re-enter the palms, arms, shoulders, bones and marrow which should also feel their reentry. They should also be felt by the mind as coming in and out, as if something had moved in and out of the body. If so, there is no need to bring the two palms together to feel these sensations. Therefore, you should know that the aggregate Sensation is illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！譬如有人談說醋梅口中水出，思踏懸崖足心酸澁；想陰當知亦復如是。阿難！如是醋說，不從梅生，非從口入。如是，阿難！若梅生者，梅合自談，何待人說？若從口入，自合口聞，何須待耳？若獨耳聞，此水何不耳中而出？想踏懸崖與說相類。是故當知想陰虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Just like someone who speaks of sour plums and their mouth waters, or if they think of walking above an overhanging cliff, they will have the sensation of shivering in the soles of their feet. The aggregate Perception (saṃjñā) is also like this. Ānanda! The sourness does not come from the plum, nor from the mouth. If it comes from the plum, why does it wait for someone to speak of it to be sour? If it is from the mouth, it should be your mouth which is called sour [not the plum], why does it wait until your ears hear about plums? If it is your ears which alone hear, why doesn’t the saliva come out of the ears? This is the same with the thought of (walking above) an overhanging cliff. Therefore, you should know that the third aggregate Perception is illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！譬如暴流波浪相續，前際後際不相踰越；行陰當知亦復如是。阿難！如是流性，不因空生，不因水有；亦非水性，非離空水。如是，阿難！若因空生，則諸十方無盡虛空成無盡流，世界自然俱受淪溺。若因水有，則此暴流性應非水，有所有相今應現在。若即水性，則澄清時應非水體。若離空水，空非有外水外無流。是故當知行陰虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Just like the continuous flow of the waves of a raging torrent, the waves coming before do not overtake the waves coming after. The aggregate Conditioning (saṃskāra) is also like this. Ānanda! Just as the nature of this flow does not arise from space nor is it due to the water; it is neither the water itself nor does it exist apart from space and the water. Just so, Ānanda! If it is created by space, boundless space would become an endless flow of water and the whole world would be submerged. If it is due to the water, then it should not be water and should have its own form and location which should be apparent. If it is water, then absolutly still and clear water should not be water. If it exists apart from space and water, (this is impossible because) space (is all-embracing and) has (nothing) outside (it) and because there is no flow without water. Therefore, you should know that the aggregate Conditioning is illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！譬如有人取頻伽瓶，塞其兩孔滿中擎空，千里遠行用餉他國；識陰當知亦復如是。阿難！如是虛空，非彼方來，非此方入。如是，阿難！若彼方來，則本瓶中既貯空去，於本瓶地應少虛空。若此方入，開孔倒瓶應見空出。是故當知識陰虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Just like someone who takes an empty pitcher with two mouths and blocks both mouths and carries it to another country, space does not go from one place to another. The aggregate Consciousness (vijñāna), you should know, is also like this. Ānanda! Like this space, which does not leave that place and go to this place. Just so, Ānanda! If space comes from somewhere, that place should lose some of its space, and on arrival elsewhere, when the mouths are opened and the pitcher reversed, one should see space poured out of it. Therefore you should know that the aggregate Consciousness is illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
The Six Entrances
「復次，阿難！云何六入本如來藏妙真如性？阿難！即彼目精瞪發勞者，兼目與勞同是菩提，瞪發勞相因于明暗二種妄塵，發見居中吸此塵象，名為見性，此見離彼明暗二塵，畢竟無體。如是，阿難！當知是見非明暗來，非於根出，不於空生。何以故？若從明來，暗即隨滅，應非見暗。若從暗來，明即隨滅，應無見明。若從根生，必無明暗。如是見精，本無自性。若於空出，前矚塵象歸當見根；又空自觀，何關汝入。是故當知眼入虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Moreover, Ānanda! How is it that, fundamentally, the six entrances (indriya, sense organs) are originally the Tathāgatagarbha’s wonderous nature of True Suchness? Ānanda! Like that person who stares into space to the point that their eyes become strained [and they see things], both the eyes and the strained [things seen] are together Bodhi. From the strain of staring there are two kinds of ‘erroneous dust’, light and dark, generating a center where seeing is housed, from which blows the dust of objects, and this is called the nature of seeing. This seeing, which transcends those two dusts, light and dark, is utterly insubstantial. Therefore, Ānanda! You should know, seeing does not come from illumination or darkness, nor does it come out the eyes, and it does not arise from space. How so? If it came from light, it would cease in total darkness, and you would not see darkness. If it came from darkness, it would cease once light were present, and you would not see the light. If it came from the eyes, there wouldn’t be a need for light or for darkness [to see]. And so, the essence of seeing fundamentally lacks inherent existence. If it arises from space, then when we gaze at objects before us, we should be able to look back on our own eyes [from space]; And if space, itself, can see, what does it have to do with your eyes? For this reason you should know that the eyes are illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！譬如有人以兩手指急塞其耳，耳根勞故頭中作聲，兼耳與勞同是菩提。瞪發勞相因于動靜二種妄塵，發聞居中吸此塵象，名聽聞性，此聞離彼動靜二塵，畢竟無體。如是，阿難！當知是聞非動靜來，非於根出，不於空生。何以故？若從靜來，動即隨滅，應非聞動。若從動來，靜即隨滅，應無覺靜。若從根生，必無動靜。如是聞體，本無自性。若於空出，有聞成性即非虛空；又空自聞，何關汝入。是故當知耳入虛妄，本非因緣，非自然性。
“Ānanda! Just like someone who forcefully stops up their ears with two fingers and the strain exerted on the ears causes a sound to be heard inside his head, both the ear and the strained [noises heard] are together Bodhi. From the strain there are two kinds of ‘erroneous dust’, sound and silence, generating a center where hearing is housed, from which blows the dust of objects, and this is called the nature of hearing. This hearing, which transcends those two dusts, sound and silence, is utterly insubstantial. Therefore, Ānanda! You should know, hearing does not come from sound or silence, nor does it come out the ears, and it does not arise from space. How so? If it came from silence, it would cease once sounds were present, and we would not hear sounds. If it came from the sound, hearing would cease in total silence, and we would not be aware of the silence. If it came from the ears, there wouldn’t be a need for sound or silence [to hear]. And so, the substance of hearing fundamentally lacks inherent existence. If it comes from space, then having the nature of hearing, it would not be what we call space. And if space, itself, can hear, what does it have to do with your ears? For this reason you should know that the ears are illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！譬如有人急畜其鼻畜久成勞，則於鼻中聞有冷觸，因觸分別通塞虛實，如是乃至諸香臭氣，兼鼻與勞同是菩提。瞪發勞相因于通塞二種妄塵，發聞居中吸此塵象，名嗅聞性，此聞離彼通塞二塵，畢竟無體。當知是聞非通塞來，非於根出，不於空生。何以故？若從通來，塞自隨滅，云何知塞？如因塞有，通則無聞，云何發明香臭等觸？若從根生，必無通塞。如是聞體，本無自性。若從空出，是聞自當迴嗅汝鼻，空自有聞，何關汝入。是故當知鼻入虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Just like someone who breathes in through the nose, inhaling sharply until at length the strain gives rise to an illusory sensation of cold, both the nose and the strained [sense of cold] are Bodhi. From the strain there are two kinds of ‘erroneous dust’, clearance and obstruction, generating a center where sensing is housed, from which blows the dust of objects, and this is called the nature of smelling. This sensing, which transcends those two dusts, clarity and obstruction, is utterly insubstantial. You should know, sensing does not come from clearance or obstruction, nor does it come out the nose, and it does not arise from space. How so? If it came from clearance, it would cease when there is obstruction, and you would not be aware of the obstruction. If it took place because of obstruction, there would be no sensing when there is clearance, so how you would not be aware of odors, whether they are pleasant, unpleasant, or neither pleasant nor unpleasant. If it arose from the nose, there wouldn’t be a need for clearance and obstruction. And so, the substance of smelling fundamentally lacks inherent existence. If it comes from space, then space, itself, would be able to smell your nose. And if space, itself, is smelling, what does it have to do with your nose? For this reason you should know that the nose is illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！譬如有人以舌舐吻熟舐令勞，其人若病則有苦味，無病之人微有甜觸，由甜與苦顯此舌根，不動之時淡性常在。兼舌與勞同是菩提，瞪發勞相因甜苦淡二種妄塵，發知居中吸此塵象，名知味性，此知味性離彼甜苦及淡二塵，畢竟無體。如是，阿難！當知如是嘗苦淡知，非甜苦來，非因淡有，又非根出，不於空生。何以故？若甜苦來，淡即知滅，云何知淡？若從淡出，甜即知亡，復云何知甜苦二相？若從舌生，必無甜淡及與苦塵。斯知味根本無自性。若於空出，虛空自味非汝口知，又空自知，何關汝入。是故當知舌入虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Just like someone who licks their lips repeatedly to the point that their tongue is strained. If they are are sick, they will experience a bitter (i.e. suffering) taste, if they are not sick they will experience something slightly sweet (i.e. pleasant). Bitterness and sweetness reveal the tongue organ, or if there is no movement, a bland, tastelessness is always there. Both the tongue and the strained [sense of flavor] are Bodhi. From the strain there are two kinds of ‘erroneous dust’, sweet and bitter flavors, generating a center where knowledge is housed, from which blows the dust of objects, and this is called the nature of knowing flavors. The nature of this knowing of flavors, which transcends those two dusts sweet and bitter, as well as the bland, is utterly insubstantial. Therefore, Ānanda! You should know, the knowledge of taste, bitterness, and blandness does not come from sweetness and bitterness, nor is it from blandness. It does not come from the tongue, nor does it arise from empty space. How so? If it came from sweetness and bitterness, knowledge of taste would cease when something was bland. But then, how do you know it’s bland? If it came from blandness, it would be forgotten in the presence of something sweet. How then are you aware of sweetness or bitterness? If it came from the tongue, there wouldn’t be a need for the dust of the sweet, bland, and bitter. And so, the sense organ associated with knowing flavors fundamentally lacks inherent existence. If it came from space, empty space itself tastes and is not something known by your mouth, and if space, itself, has knowledge, what does it have to do with your tongue? For this reason you should know that the tongue is illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！譬如有人以一冷手觸於熱手，若冷勢多熱者從冷，若熱功勝冷者成熱，如是以此合覺之觸顯於離知，涉勢若成因于勞觸。兼身與勞同是菩提，瞪發勞相因于離合二種妄塵，發覺居中吸此塵象，名知覺性。此知覺體，離彼離合違順二塵，畢竟無體。如是，阿難！當知是覺，非離合來，非違順有，不於根出，又非空生。何以故？若合時來，離當已滅，云何覺離？違順二相，亦復如是。若從根出，必無離合違順四相。則汝身知，元無自性。必於空出，空自知覺，何關汝入。是故當知身入虛妄，本非因緣，非自然性。
“Ānanda! Just like someone who touches their cold hand to their warm hand. If the cold hand is colder than the warm hand is warm, it will make the warm hand become cold, and if the warm hand is warmer than the cold hand is cold, it will make the cold hand become warm. From the prolonged contact between the two hands, the person becomes aware of contact and, subsequently, separation. Both the body and the strained [sense of contact] are Bodhi. From the strain there are two kinds of ‘erroneous dust’, separation and union, generating a center where awareness is housed, from which blows the dust of objects, and this is called the nature of knowing awareness (知覺). This substance of knowing awareness transcends (’is separate from’) attraction and aversion to the two dusts ‘separation’ and ‘unity’, and is utterly insubstantial. Therefore, Ānanda! You should know that this awareness does not come from separation or unity, has no aversion or attraction to anything, does not come from the body, and does not arise from space. How so? If [the sense of touch] arrived when there was union [with an object], it would cease when there was separation. But then, how are you aware of separation? The two characteristics aversive and attractive are also like this. If it came from the body then there would be no need for the four characteristics contact, separation, aversive and attractive [for awareness to occur]. Your knowing body, then, fundamentally lacks inherent nature. And it can’t come from space because if space, itself, is knowingly aware, what does it have to do with your body? For this reason you should know that the body is illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！譬如有人勞倦則眠睡熟便寤，覽塵斯憶失憶為妄，是其顛倒生住異滅，吸習中歸不相踰越，稱意知根。兼意與勞同是菩提，瞪發勞相因于生滅二種妄塵，集知居中吸撮內塵，見聞逆流流不及地，名覺知性。此覺知性，離彼寤寐生滅二塵，畢竟無體。如是，阿難！當知如是覺知之根，非寤寐來，非生滅有，不於根出，亦非空生。何以故？若從寤來，寐即隨滅，將何為寐？必生時有，滅即同無，令誰受滅？若從滅有，生即滅無，孰知生者？若從根出，寤寐二相隨身開合，離斯二體，此覺知者同於空花，畢竟無性。若從空生，自是空知，何關汝入。是故當知意入虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Just like someone who is tired and falls asleep, and then later wakes up. Looking around, they see things and start thinking about them, and they forget what they were thinking (i.e. dreaming) about. This arising, abiding, difference, and ceasing is their inverted thinking, which blows out, flutters about, and returns without being noticed. It is called the thought organ (manaīndriya). Both thought and the strained [objects of thought] are Bodhi. From the strain there are two kinds of ‘erroneous dust’, arising and ceasing, [generating] a center where knowledge accumulates, from which blows the dust of inner objects, to which there is attraction. Seeing and hearing flow against the flow for no reason, and this is called the nature of aware knowing (覺知). This nature of aware knowing transcends the arising and ceasing of the two states (’dusts’) waking up (寤) and being asleep (寐), and is utterly insubstantial. Therefore, Ānanda! You should know aware knowing does not come from being awake or asleep, is not from arising and ceasing, does not come out of an organ, and it does not arise from space. How so? If it came from being awake, when you are asleep it should cease. But then, what’s asleep? If it’s only existent when arisen, upon cessation its the same as absolute nothingness, then what is it that has ceased? If it comes from cessation, upon arising, it would cease. But then what is aware of the arising? If it comes from the organ, the two characteristics of awake and asleep just correspond to the body (moving or not), but beyond these two states, this aware knowing is the same as (delusional) flowers in the sky, fundamentally lacking inherent nature. If it arises from space, space, itself, is knowing, what does it have to do with your [mental] faculty? For this reason you should know that thought is illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
The Twelve Bases
「復次，阿難！云何十二處本如來藏妙真如性？阿難！汝且觀此祇陀樹林及諸泉池。於意云何，此等為是色生眼見？眼生色相？阿難！若復眼根生色相者，見空非色，色性應銷，銷則顯發一切都無，色相既無，誰明空質？空亦如是。若復色塵生眼見者，觀空非色，見即銷亡，亡則都無，誰明空色？是故當知，見與色空俱無處所，即色與見二處虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Furthermore, Ānanda! How is it that, fundamentally, the twelve bases (āyatana) are originally the Tathāgatagarbha’s wonderous nature of True Suchness? Ānanda! Look once again at the fountains, the pools, and the trees of the Jeta Grove. What do you think? Do all these forms give rise to the eyes’ seeing? Or do the eyes’ seeing give rise to the characteristics of form? Ananda! If the eyes caused forms to arise, then when you looked at empty space, which is not form, anything with the nature of form ought disappear. If everything disappears, such that nothing is present, then how can you know what space is? Space is also like this. If, moreover, objective forms gave rise to the eyes’ seeing, observing empty space, which is not form, seeing should then vanish. What has vanished is absolutely non-existent, then what knows space from form? Therefore, you should know, seeing along with form and space have no location (i.e. base, āyatana), hence the two bases, form and seeing, are illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！汝更聽此祇陀園中，食辦擊鼓、眾集撞鐘，鐘鼓音聲前後相續。於意云何，此等為是聲來耳邊？耳往聲處？阿難！若復此聲來於耳邊，如我乞食室羅筏城，在祇陀林則無有我；此聲必來阿難耳處，目連、迦葉應不俱聞，何況其中一千二百五十沙門，一聞鐘聲同來食處。若復汝耳往彼聲邊，如我歸住祇陀林中，在室羅城則無有我；汝聞鼓聲，其耳已往擊鼓之處，鐘聲齊出應不俱聞，何況其中象馬牛羊種種音響。若無來往，亦復無聞。是故當知聽與音聲俱無處所，即聽與聲二處虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! You have heard the beating of the drum in this Jeta Park when a meal is ready. The assembly gathers, and then the bell is struck. The sound of the bell and the drum follow one upon another in succession. What do you think? Do the sounds come to the ears? Or do the ears go out to the sounds? Ānanda! If sounds came to the location of Ānanda’s ears, then neither Mahākāśyapa nor Mahāmaudgalyāyana would hear the bell calling them to the meal, not to mention the rest of the twelve-hundred fifty śramaṇas. The sound of one bell and they call come to eat. If your ears go out to meet the sounds, then it’s like my returning to the Jeta Grove, there is no longer a ‘me’ in Śrāvastī. When you hear the drum and then the bell, your hearing has already gone to where the drum is, so when the bell sounds, you should not be able to hear it at the same time, not to mention other sounds, such as the noise made by elephants, horses, oxen, and sheep. And if there’s no coming of or going to sounds, then there is also no hearing. For this reason, you should know, hearing and sounds have no location, hence the two bases hearing and sound are illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！汝又嗅此鑪中栴檀，此香若復然於一銖，室羅筏城四十里內同時聞氣。於意云何，此香為復生栴檀木？生於汝鼻？為生於空？阿難！若復此香生於汝鼻，稱鼻所生當從鼻出，鼻非栴檀，云何鼻中有栴檀氣？稱汝聞香當於鼻入，鼻中出香說聞非義。若生於空，空性常恒，香應常在，何藉鑪中爇此枯木？若生於木，則此香質因爇成煙，若鼻得聞合蒙煙氣，其煙騰空未及遙遠，四十里內云何已聞？是故當知香臭與聞俱無處所，即嗅與香二處虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! You can also smell the sandalwood incense burning in a censer. The scent of a pinch of this incense, once lit, can be smelled throughout Śrāvastī for a distance of forty li. What do you think? Does the scent arise from the sandalwood incense? Does it arise from your nose? Does it arise from space? Ānanda! If the scent arises from your nose, then the nose emits fragrance. But the nose is not made of sandalwood. How then could it produce the fragrance of sandalwood? Clearly, the scent must enter the nose in order for you to smell it. It is meaningless to say that you smell it when the fragrance comes out of the nose. If it arises from space, the nature of space is to be ever unchanging, so the scent should last forever. But then, what need is there to burn sandalwood in the censer? If it arises from wood, then this scent comes from the burning wood. For the nose to smell the smoke, the smoke must come into contact with the nose. Yet the fragrance has already spread forty li in every direction long before the smoke itself has risen. For this reason, you should know, scents and odors along with awareness of them have no location, hence the two bases of smelling and scents are illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！汝常二時眾中持鉢，其間或遇酥酪醍醐名為上味。於意云何，此味為復生於空中？生於舌中？為生食中？阿難！若復此味生於汝舌，在汝口中秖有一舌，其舌爾時已成酥味，遇黑石蜜應不推移，若不變移不名知味，若變移者舌非多體，云何多味一舌之知？若生於食，食非有識，云何自知？又食自知，即同他食，何預於汝，名味之知？若生於空，汝噉虛空當作何味？必其虛空若作鹹味，既鹹汝舌亦鹹汝面，則此界人同於海魚；既常受鹹了不知淡，若不識淡亦不覺鹹，必無所知，云何名味？是故當知味舌與甞俱無處所，即甞與味二俱虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Every day, at the two times, among the masses, you hold your bowl, sometimes receiving curds, cheese or fine ghee, known as the most excellent flavors. What do you think? Do these flavors arise from the middle of empty space? Do they arise from the middle of your tongue? Do the arise from the food? Ānanda! If these flavors arose from the tongue, inside your mouth there is only one tongue, and if the tongue is already the flavor of curds and a lump rock candy were placed on the tongue, the tongue shouldn’t be able to taste it. If it doesn’t change taste, this isn’t what is called knowing flavors. If it is something that changes its taste, that would mean you would have several tongues. But then, how does the one tongue know a variety of flavors? If [flavors] arise from food, food does not have consciousness, how then is it aware of [the flavor of] itself? And if food is self-aware, then what does it and other food have to do with what you’re calling ‘knowing flavor.’ If it arises from space, take a mouthful of space. What flavor is it? Suppose this space does have a salty taste. The salty taste on your tongue would inevitably make your face salty as well. Everyone in the world would be like fish in the sea. Since you would perpetually be tasting salt, you would never be aware of a bland taste; and if you were never conscious of a bland taste, you would be unaware of salty tastes too. Indeed, you would have no taste at all. How is this knowing flavors? Therefore, you should know that flavors, food and the taste have no location, hence the two bases of tasting and flavors are illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！汝常晨朝以手摩頭。於意云何，此摩所知，唯為能觸。能為在手？為復在頭？若在於手，頭則無知，云何成觸？若在於頭，手則無用，云何名觸？若各各有，則汝阿難應有二身。若頭與手一觸所生，則手與頭當為一體，若一體者觸則無成；若二體者，觸誰為在？在能非所，在所非能。不應虛空與汝成觸。是故當知覺觸與身俱無處所，即身與觸二俱虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Every morning at daybreak you palm your head with your hand. What do you think? The knowing awareness of the ‘palming’, is contact only on the hand? Is it on the head? If it is on your hand, the head should be unaware of it. But then, how can there be contact? If it is on the head, then the hand is useless. How could that be what we mean by contact? If both your head and your hand have [awareness of the contact], then Ānanda, you must have two bodies. If the head and the hand experience a single awareness of contact, then your hand and you head are of a single substance, and if they are a single substance, how then can there be contact between them? If they are two different substances, where [exactly] is the location of the awareness of contact? The located is not the location, the location is not what is located. Nor is there contact be between you and space. Therefore, you should know that tactile awareness and the body have not location, hence the two bases, body and contact, are illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！汝常意中所緣善、惡、無記三性，生成法則。此法為復即心所生？為當離心別有方所？
“Ānanda! The dharmas that are constantly arising within your thinking, conditioned by the three qualities: good, bad, and neutral. Do these dharmas arise from the mind? Or do they exist apart from the mind with their own location?
「阿難！若即心者，法則非塵，非心所緣，云何成處？若離於心別有方所，則法自性為知？非知？知則名心，異汝非塵，同他心量即汝即心，云何汝心更二於汝？若非知者，此塵既非色、聲、香、味、離合冷煖及虛空相，當於何在？今於色空都無表示，不應人間更有空外，心非所緣，處從誰立。是故當知法則與心俱無處所，則意與法二俱虛妄，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! If they are the same as the mind, dharmas are not objects (’dust’) and are not what are conditioning the mind. How then is thought a base? If they are separate from the mind with their own location, then is their self-nature to have knowledge [of themselves], or to not have knowledge. If they have knowledge, then that is called mind, but they are neither you nor the objects [of your awareness], like they are in someone else’s mind having thoughts of you and your mind. But given that these objects are something you are aware of, they must be present in your mind, and so they cannot after all be present in someone else’s mind. If dharmas do not have knowledge, then at what site might they be located, given that they are neither visible, nor audible, nor odorous, nor flavorful, nor have such attributes as separation, unity, cold, and warmth? Since there is no form or emptiness manifest, and there isn’t another emptiness outside of emptiness, what place is left for uncognized objects to be located? Therefore, you should know, dharmas and the mind have not location, hence thinking and thoughts (dharmas) are both illusory, neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
The Eighteen Realms
「復次，阿難！云何十八界本如來藏妙真如性？阿難！如汝所明，眼色為緣生於眼識，此識為復因眼所生，以眼為界？因色所生，以色為界？阿難！若因眼生，既無色空無可分別，縱有汝識欲將何用？汝見又非青黃赤白，無所表示從何立界？若因色生，空無色時汝識應滅，云何識知是虛空性？若色變時，汝亦識其色相遷變，汝識不遷，界從何立？從變則變，界相自無；不變則恒。既從色生，應不識知虛空所在。若兼二種眼色共生，合則中離，離則兩合，體性雜亂云何成界？是故當知眼色為緣生眼識界，三處都無，則眼與色及色界三，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Moreover, Ānanda! How is it that, fundamentally, the eighteen realms (dhātu, ’boundaries’) are originally the Tathāgatagarbha’s wonderous nature of True Suchness? Ānanda! As you understand it, with eyes and forms as conditions, there arises visual-consciousness. Does this consciousness arise due to the eyes, having the eyes as its realm (i.e. limited to the realm of the eyes)? Or does it arise due to form and have form as its realm? Ānanda! If it arises due to the eyes, then it is both without form or emptiness and there is nothing to differentiate, and even if this were your consciousness, what use would it be? You would not see blue, yellow, red, or white. Without anything appearing, what realm could be established? If it arises due to forms, your consciousness should cease when there is emptiness and no form. How is it that there is conscious awareness of the nature of empty space? When forms change you are also conscious of the changes in their characteristics, yet your consciousness does not change. Where could a realm be established? It if did change from the changes, the characteristic of a realm ceases to be, and if it doesn’t change, then it is eternal. It cannot arise from form, because you shouldn’t be consciously aware of the location of empty space. If it arises due to both the eyes and forms, then in union they are separated within, and when separated they are two unions. How could such a mixed-up nature be a realm? Therefore, you should know, the eyes, forms and the realm of visual consciousness arising with them as conditions, these three do not exist, hence the eyes and forms, as well as realms of form, these three are neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！又汝所明，耳聲為緣生於耳識。此識為復因耳所生，以耳為界？因聲所生，以聲為界？
“Ānanda! Also as you understand it, with the ear and sounds as conditions there arises auditory consciousness. Does this consciousness arise due to the ear, with the ear as its realm. Or does it arise due to sounds, with sounds as its realm?
「阿難！若因耳生，動靜二相既不現前，根不成知，必無所知；知尚無成，識何形貌？若取耳聞，無動靜故，聞無所成。云何耳形雜色觸塵，名為識界，則耳識界復從誰立？若生於聲，識因聲有，則不關聞，無聞則亡聲相所在；識從聲生，許聲因聞而有聲相，聞應聞識不聞非界，聞則同聲，識已被聞誰知聞識，若無知者終如草木。不應聲聞雜成中界，界無中位，則內外相復從何成？是故當知耳聲為緣生耳識界，三處都無，則耳與聲及聲界三，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! If it arises due to the ear, then if the two characteristics noisy or silent have not appeared, the faculty would not be aware of it. If, indeed, there’s nothing to be aware of, there is still no knowledge. What attributes could such consciousness have? If you insist that it is the ears that are hearing, then when there’s no noise or silence, hearing does not occur, but the ears are a mixture of form, tactile objects, which is its own conscious realm, where could an auditory conscious realm take place? If it arises from sound, the cause of [auditory] consciousness is in sound and it has nothing to do with hearing. If no hearing is taking place, the locations of sounds would become lost. Assuming consciousness does arise from sounds, and that sounds are the cause of hearing, since a sound must be heard if it is to be what we know as a sound, auditory-consciousness would also be heard as a sound. And when it is not heard, it would not exist. Besides, if it is heard, then it would be the same thing as a sound; it would be something that is heard. But what would be able to hear it? And if you had no awareness, you would be as insentient as grass or wood. Do not say that sounds, which have no awareness, and the ear-faculty, which is aware, can intermingle to create the ear-consciousness. There can be no such place where these two can mix together, since one is internal and the other is external. Where else then could auditory consciousness come into being? Therefore, you should know that the ear, sounds, and auditory consciousness arising from them as conditions, these three constituents are non-existent, hence the ear, sounds, and the realm of sounds, these three are neither dependently-originated nor inherently self-existent from the beginning.”
「阿難！又汝所明，鼻香為緣生於鼻識。此識為復因鼻所生，以鼻為界？因香所生，以香為界？
“Ānanda! According to your understanding of it, the nose-faculty and odors are the conditions for the coming into being of the nose-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the nose-faculty, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the nose-faculty? Or does it come into being from odors, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of odors?
「阿難！若因鼻生，則汝心中以何為鼻？為取肉形雙爪之相？為取嗅知動搖之性？若取肉形，肉質乃身，身知即觸，名身非鼻，名觸即塵，鼻尚無名云何立界？若取嗅知，又汝心中以何為知？以肉為知，則肉之知元觸非鼻；以空為知，空則自知肉應非覺，如是則應虛空是汝，汝身非知，今日阿難應無所在；以香為知，知自屬香，何預於汝？若香臭氣必生汝鼻，則彼香臭二種流氣，不生伊蘭及栴檀木，二物不來，汝自嗅鼻為香為臭。臭則非香，香應非臭，若香臭二俱能聞者，則汝一人應有兩鼻，對我問道有二阿難，誰為汝體？若鼻是一，香臭無二，臭既為香香復成臭，二性不有，界從誰立？若因香生識因香有，如眼有見不能觀眼，因香有故應不知香，知則非生，不知非識。香非知有，香界不成；識不知香，因界則非從香建立，既無中間不成內外，彼諸聞性畢竟虛妄。是故當知鼻香為緣生鼻識界，三處都無，則鼻與香及香界三，本非因緣、非自然性。
”Ānanda! Suppose it came into being from the nose. Now, in your opinion, what should we consider the nose to be? Should we take it to be a part of the body that is shaped like a pair of talons? Or should we take it to be the faculty that is aware of the natures of various odors? Suppose we take the nose to be a part of the body shaped like a pair of talons. But then the nose belongs to the body-faculty, which is aware of objects of touch. What belongs to the body-faculty is not the nose-faculty, and the body-faculty perceives objects of touch. Nothing would remain to be called ‘nose-faculty.’ How could the nose-consciousness be based on it? Ānanda, suppose that we take the nose to be the faculty that is aware of odors, then once again, in your opinion, what is it that is aware? Is it the part of the body shaped like a pair of talons? If so, then it would be its nature to be aware of objects of touch. It could not be the nose-faculty that is aware of odors. Suppose it is space that is aware of odors. If space were itself aware, then it would not be a part of your body that would be aware. In that case, space, given that it is aware, would have to be you, and your body would have no awareness. Then you, Ānanda, would not be here now at all. Suppose it is odors that are aware. If awareness were really a function of odors, how would you expect to be involved? If your nose were what produced odors, both pleasant and unpleasant, then such odors would not come from sandalwood incense or from the foul-smelling airāvaṇa fruit. If those odors don’t come from those two things, then clearly it must be your nose itself that has an odor. Would its odor be pleasant or unpleasant? If it were pleasant, it could not be unpleasant, and if unpleasant, it could not be pleasant. Thus if it really were odors, both pleasant and unpleasant, that were aware, then you would have to have two noses, or else I would be questioning two people about the Path. Which one would be you? Since you after all have only one nose, which cannot both stink and be fragrant, then if odors were in fact aware, stench would have to be fragrant and fragrance would have to stink. Neither would have a nature of its own. On what then would the nose-consciousness be based? Suppose, again, that the nose-consciousness came into being from odors. If that were the case, then just as the eye-faculty can see everything but itself, so the nose-consciousness, if it came into being from odors, could not be aware of odors. Since it is aware of odors, it cannot come into being from them; and if after all it were not aware of odors, it would not be the nose-consciousness. Besides, since odors have no awareness, the constituent element of the nose-consciousness cannot come into being from them; and if it did, the consciousness could not become aware of odors. Therefore the nose-consciousness cannot come into being from odors. Finally, since there can be no place that is intermediate between a faculty, which is internal, and its object, which is external, the nose-consciousness must ultimately be a distortion and an illusion. Therefore, you should know that the nose-faculty and odors cannot be the conditions for the coming into being of the nose-consciousness, because none of these three constituents — nose-faculty, odors, and the nose-consciousness — has an independent existence. Fundamentally, they do not come into being from causes and conditions; nor do they come into being on their own.”
「阿難！又汝所明，舌味為緣生於舌識。此識為復因舌所生，以舌為界？因味所生，以味為界？
“Ānanda! According to your understanding of it, the tongue-faculty and flavors are the conditions for the coming into being of the tongue-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the tongue-faculty, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the tongue-faculty? Or does it come into being from flavors, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of flavors?
「阿難！若因舌生，則諸世間甘蔗、烏梅、黃連、石鹽、細辛、薑桂都無有味。汝自嘗舌為甜為苦？若舌性苦，誰來嘗舌？舌不自嘗，孰為知覺？舌性非苦，味自不生，云何立界？若因味生，識自為味，同於舌根應不自嘗，云何識知是味非味？又一切味非一物生，味既多生識應多體，識體若一體必味生。鹹淡甘辛和合俱生，諸變異相同為一味應無分別，分別既無則不名識，云何復名舌味識界？不應虛空生汝心識。舌味和合，即於是中元無自性，云何界生？是故當知舌味為緣生舌識界，三處都無，則舌與味及舌界三，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Suppose it came into being from the tongue-faculty. Then you would not be able to taste the flavors that we find in the world, such as sugar cane, sour plums, coptis rhizome, salt, wild ginger, ginger, and cinnamon. You would only be able to taste your own tongue-faculty. Would it be sweet or bitter? Suppose it were bitter: what would be tasting it? Since the tongue-faculty cannot taste itself, what would the tongue-consciousness consist of? If your tongue-faculty were not bitter, bitter flavor could not come into being from it. On what then would the tongue-consciousness be based? Suppose the tongue-consciousness came into being from flavors. Then the tongue-consciousness would itself have flavor, and just as in the previous case of the nose-faculty, the tongue-consciousness would not be able to taste its own flavor. How then would it be aware of the presence or absence of any flavor? Further, flavors do not come into being from any one thing. Since flavors come from many different things, there would have to be many tongue-consciousnesses. But given that there is after all just one tongue-consciousness, then if that single tongue-consciousness indeed came into being from flavors, it would have to itself be a combination of such flavors as salty, bland, sweet, and hot. Their various characteristics would have to change into a single flavor, and you would not be able to distinguish one from another. Since your tongue-consciousness could not make distinctions among them, it could not be what we call a consciousness, and so could not be the constituent that is the tongue-consciousness. Nor could it come into being from space. Do not say that the tongue faculty and flavors come into contact and combine to create a constituent at their place of contact. If flavors, which are external, and the tongue-faculty, which is internal, did combine, then there would be no place of contact. They would cease to exist as separate constituents. Therefore, you should know that the tongue-faculty and flavors cannot be the conditions for the coming into being of the tongue-consciousness, because none of these three constituents — tongue-faculty, flavors, and tongue-consciousness — has an independent existence. Fundamentally, they do not come into being from causes and conditions; nor do they come into being on their own.”
「阿難！又汝所明，身觸為緣生於身識。此識為復因身所生，以身為界？因觸所生，以觸為界？
“Ānanda! According to your understanding of it, the body-faculty and objects of touch are the conditions for the coming into being of the body-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the body-faculty, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the body-faculty? Or does it come into being from objects of touch, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of objects of touch?”
「阿難！若因身生必無合離，二覺觀緣身何所識。若因觸生必無汝身，誰有非身知合離者？阿難！物不觸知，身知有觸；知身即觸，知觸即身。即觸非身，即身非觸，身觸二相元無處所，合身即為身自體性，離身即是虛空等相，內外不成中云何立？中不復立內外性空，即汝識生從誰立界？是故當知身觸為緣生身識界，三處都無，則身與觸及身界三，本非因緣、非自然性。
“Ānanda! Suppose it came into being from the body-faculty. Then there could be no contact with objects of touch or separation from them, and these are said to be two conditions for the body-consciousness’s awareness. How then could the body-consciousness be limited to the body? Suppose it came into being from objects of touch. Then your body would not be involved. Yet who can be without a body and still be aware of contact with and separation from objects of touch? Insentient things cannot have tactile awareness; and it is the body-consciousness that is aware of objects of touch. Only with a body-faculty can there be awareness of contact with objects. Further, for you to be aware of your body as an object of touch in itself, there needs to be contact, but it is your body-faculty that comes into contact with objects. But an object cannot be identical with a faculty; the body-faculty cannot be an object. Fundamentally, neither the body-faculty nor objects of touch are sufficient as places of support for the body-consciousness. If the body-consciousness were joined to the body-faculty, it would have the essential nature of the body-faculty; yet if it were not joined to the body-faculty, it would have the same nature as space. Since the body-consciousness cannot come into being either from the faculty, which is internal, or its objects, which are external, how could it exist between them? Since it cannot exist between them, and since the internal faculty and the external objects are all empty of an inherent nature, what could the body-consciousness be based on? Therefore, you should know that the body-faculty and objects of touch cannot be the conditions for the coming into being of the body-consciousness, because none of these three constituents — body-faculty, objects of touch, and body-consciousness — has an independent existence. Fundamentally, they do not come into being from causes and conditions; nor do they come into being on their own.”
「阿難！又汝所明，意法為緣生於意識。此識為復因意所生，以意為界？因法所生，以法為界？
“Ānanda! According to your understanding of it, the cognitive faculty (manas) and its objects (dharmas) are the conditions for the coming into being of mind-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the cognitive faculty, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the cognitive faculty? Or does it come into being from its objects, such that it is restricted to the boundaries of its objects?”
「阿難！若因意生，於汝意中必有所思，發明汝意。若無前法，意無所生，離緣無形，識將何用？又汝識心與諸思量，兼了別性，為同為異？同意即意，云何所生？異意不同，應無所識。若無所識，云何意生？若有所識，云何識意？唯同與異，二性無成，界云何立？若因法生，世間諸法不離五塵。汝觀色法，及諸聲法、香法、味法，及與觸法，相狀分明以對五根，非意所攝。汝識決定依於法生，汝今諦觀法法何狀？若離色空、動靜、通塞、合離、生滅，越此諸相終無所得。生則色空諸法等生，滅則色空諸法等滅，所因既無，因生有識作何形相？相狀不有界云何生？是故當知意法為緣生意識界，三處都無，則意與法及意界三，本非因緣、非自然性。」
“Ānanda! Suppose the mind-consciousness came into being from the cognitive faculty. Now, your cognitive faculty has to be considering something in order for it to be functioning. If no objects of cognition are present, the cognitive faculty does not arise. If the cognitive faculty has not manifested, how would the mind-consciousness function? Further, the natures of both your mind-consciousness and your cognitive faculty are such that they make distinctions. Do they differ from one another, or are they the same? If the mind-consciousness were the same as the cognitive faculty, it would be the cognitive faculty; then how could the mind-consciousness come into being from the cognitive faculty? If the mind-consciousness were different from the cognitive faculty, it would not be conscious of anything. If it were not conscious of anything, how could it come into being from the cognitive faculty? If it is conscious, how can you differentiate it from the cognitive faculty? Since neither a sameness nor a difference can be identified, on what can the mind-consciousness be based? Suppose, finally, that the mind-consciousness came into being from objects of cognition. Now, all your experiences of the external world are experiences of visible objects, of sounds, of odors, of flavors, or of objects of touch. Each of these categories of objects has the attribute of complementing one of five faculties. None of them complements the cognitive faculty. If you nevertheless insist that your mind-consciousness must come into being from objects of cognition, you should consider carefully what the essential attributes of objects of cognition and the other perceived objects might be. If you exclude the essential attributes of visible objects and if you exclude their absence — as well as excluding the essential attributes of sound and silence, openness and blockage, and separation and contact — beyond these, what would be left for objects of cognition to be? Visible objects, the absence of visible objects, and the other kinds of perceived objects and their absence are what arise, and they are what perish, while objects of cognition, which we are now supposing to be the cause of the mind-consciousness, cannot come into being independently without another perceived object being present. Therefore, if objects of cognition were what cause the mind-consciousness to come into being, what essential attributes would it have? Since objects of cognition have no independent attributes, how could the mind-consciousness arise from them? Therefore, you should know that the cognitive faculty and objects of cognition cannot be the conditions that are necessary for the coming into being of the mind-consciousness, because none of these three constituents — cognitive faculty, objects of cognition, and mind-consciousness — has an independent existence. Fundamentally, they do not come into being from causes and conditions, nor do they come into being on their own.”
The Seven Elements
阿難白佛言：「世尊！如來常說和合因緣，一切世間種種變化，皆因四大和合發明。云何如來因緣、自然二俱排擯？我今不知斯義所屬，惟垂哀愍，開示眾生中道了義無戲論法。」
Ānanda addressed the Buddha saying, “World-Honored One! The Thus-Come One has often discussed the unifying of causes and conditions, and that the various phenomena that we see in the world are caused by the unification of the four great elements. Why has the Thus-Come One now rejected causes and conditions and inherent self-existence as explanations? I cannot reconcile this idea with the Buddha’s previous teachings. Only pity us and instruct us and all beings how to know the ultimate truth of the Middle Way. Teach us the Dharma that is not mere words devoid of meaning.”
爾時，世尊告阿難言：「汝先厭離聲聞、緣覺諸小乘法，發心勤求無上菩提，故我今時為汝開示第一義諦。如何復將世間戲論、妄想因緣而自纏繞？汝雖多聞如說藥人，真藥現前不能分別，如來說為真可憐愍。汝今諦聽，吾當為汝分別開示，亦令當來修大乘者通達實相。」阿難默然，承佛聖旨。
At the time, the World-Honored One said to Ānanda, “You have renounced being a Voice Hearer and the conditional awakening of the Dharma of the Small Vehicle, and have generated bodhicitta, striving for the unsurpassable Bodhi, therefore I will now reveal for you the Ultimate Truth. How can you continue to bind yourself up with words that are devoid of meaning and with distorted thinking about causes and conditions. You have heard much but, like someone who can discuss medicines, you cannot differentiate real medicine when it is before you. The Thus-Come One says that you are indeed to be pitied. Listen carefully now. For your sake and for the sake of all who in the future will cultivate the Great Vehicle, I will reveal in detail how you can come to thoroughly penetrate (通達 comprehend, understand) the True Characteristic.” Ānanda was silent and waited for the Buddha’s enlightened instruction.
「阿難！如汝所言，四大和合，發明世間種種變化。阿難！若彼大性體非和合，則不能與諸大雜和，猶如虛空不和諸色；若和合者，同於變化，始終相成生滅相續，生死死生生生死死，如旋火輪未有休息。阿難！如水成氷氷還成水。汝觀地性，麁為大地細為微塵，至隣虛塵析彼極微，色邊際相七分所成，更析隣虛即實空性。阿難！若此隣虛析成虛空，當知虛空出生色相。汝今問言：『由和合故，出生世間諸變化相。』汝且觀此一隣虛塵，用幾虛空和合而有？不應隣虛合成隣虛。又隣虛塵析入空者，用幾色相合成虛空？若色合時，合色非空；若空合時，合空非色。色猶可析，空云何合？汝元不知如來藏中，性色真空性空真色，清淨本然周遍法界；隨眾生心應所知量，循業發現。世間無知，惑為因緣及自然性，皆是識心分別計度，但有言說，都無實義。
“Ānanda! As you have said, the unification of the four great elements brings about the various phenomena that are found in the world and that are subject to change. Ānanda! Let us suppose that the substantial natures of those elements cannot merge and unify. In that case, their external attributes, too, could not unify any more than space can unify with form. If they can unify, then their unification would not differ from the various changes that take place in the world and that cause things to arise and cease through an unending continuity (相續) of coming into being and ceasing to be, dying and be reborn, reborn and reborn again and again, and dying and dying again and again, like a wheel of fire from a torch swung endlessly in a circle. Ānanda! Like water turns to ice and then ice returns to being water.
Earth
Observe the nature of the earth element. It may be as large as a continent or as small as a mote of dust. In its most subtle aspect, earth appears as particles that are so fine that they can hardly be distinguished from space itself. If these minute particles were divided further into seven parts, they would then be as small as perceived objects can be. If they were divided yet further, nothing would be left but space. Ānanda! If these most minute particles could be divided until they became space, then space would be capable of bringing the characteristic(s) of form into being. You asked just now, ‘Because of unification there arises all the various characteristics that we see in the world.’ You should observe that empty space, in whatever amount, could never be accumulated in order to bring into being even a single one of these most minute particles. Nor can it be true that these most minute particles are created by the particles themselves. Further, if these most minute particles could be divided to assume the nature of empty space, then conversely, how many such particles must be unified in order to bring empty space [out of a state of emptiness and] into being? In fact, when form aggregates, that aggregated form is not empty/space, and when empty/space accumulates, it does not become (a) form. Besides, although form can indeed be divided, how can space be accumulated? You simply do not know that, in the tathāgatagarbha, the true nature of form is identical to the true nature of space. The true nature of form is fundamentally pure and extends throughout the Dharmadhātu. The extent to which beings are aware of that true nature depends on the capacity of their understanding, and appears to them in accord with their karma. Ordinary beings, in their ignorance, mistakenly suppose that the earth element comes into being from causes and conditions or that it comes into being on its own. These are distinctions and constructs made by the conscious mind. They are mere words, devoid of meaning.
「阿難！火性無我，寄於諸緣。汝觀城中未食之家欲炊爨時，手執陽燧日前求火。阿難！名和合者，如我與汝一千二百五十比丘今為一眾，眾雖為一，詰其根本各各有身，皆有所生氏族名字，如舍利弗婆羅門種、優盧頻螺迦葉波種，乃至阿難瞿曇種姓。阿難！若此火性因和合有，彼手執鏡於日求火，此火為從鏡中而出？為從艾出？為於日來？阿難！若日來者，自能燒汝手中之艾，來處林木皆應受焚。若鏡中出，自能於鏡出然于艾，鏡何不鎔。紆汝手執尚無熱相，云何融泮。若生於艾，何藉日鏡、光明相接，然後火生。汝又諦觀鏡因手執、日從天來、艾本地生，火從何方遊歷於此？日鏡相遠非和非合，不應火光無從自有。汝猶不知如來藏中，性火真空性空真火，清淨本然周遍法界；隨眾生心應所知量。阿難當知！世人一處執鏡一處火生，遍法界執滿世間起，起遍世間寧有方所，循業發現。世間無知，惑為因緣及自然性，皆是識心分別計度，但有言說，都無實義。
Fire
“Ānanda! The nature of fire is without selfhood. It is dependent upon conditions. Let us observe a family in the city that has not yet eaten. When they set about to cook their meal, someone holds up a reflecting surface (ādarśa) to the sun in order to start a fire. Ānanda! A so-called unification, like me and you, and the twelve hundred and fifty monks, although there is but one community, we can discern that it consists of separate individuals, each of whom was born into a certain class, clan, and family. For example, there is Śāriputra, who is a Brahmin; Uruvilvā, who belongs to the Kāśyapa clan; and you, Ānanda, who are of the Gautama family. Ānanda! If the nature of fire is a unified thing, when someone holds a mirror to the sun to start a fire, does this fire come out of the mirror? Does it come out of the tinder? Does it come from the sun? Ānanda! If it came from the sun, such that the sun by itself would be able to set fire to some tinder that you were holding, then it should set fire to a grove of trees merely by shining on it. If it comes out of the mirror, such that the fire as it emerges ignites the tinder, why doesn’t the mirror melt in your hand? Far from melting, it doesn’t even become very hot. If it arises from the tinder, what need is there for sunlight to be reflected by the mirror? Carefully observe this further, the mirror in their hand, the sunlight coming from the sky, the tinder coming from an herb that has been grown in soil, but where does the fire come from? The sun and the mirror are not unified, they cannot come into contact. Yet it cannot be that the Fire comes into being on its own. You still do not know that, in the tathāgatagarbha, the true nature of the fire element is identical to the true nature of space. The true nature of fire is fundamentally pure and is pervasive throughout the Dharmadhātu. The extent to which beings are aware of this real nature depends on the capacity of their understanding. Ānanda, you should know! Anywhere in the entire world, throughout the Dharmadhātu, a mirror can be held up to the sun to start a fire. Since a fire can be started anywhere in the world, how could it be limited to one particular place? In fact, Fire becomes apparent to beings in accord with their karma. Ordinary beings do not know, and they mistakenly suppose that Fire comes into being from causes and conditions or that it has an inherent self-nature. These are distinctions and constructs made by the conscious mind. They are mere words, devoid of any real meaning.
「阿難！水性不定，流息無恒。如室羅城迦毘羅仙、斫迦羅仙及鉢頭摩訶薩多等諸大幻師，求太陰精用和幻藥，是諸師等，於白月晝手執方諸承月中水。此水為復從珠中出？空中自有？為從月來？阿難！若從月來，尚能遠方令珠出水，所經林木皆應吐流。流，則何待方珠所出；不流，明水非從月降。若從珠出，則此珠中常應流水，何待中宵承白月晝。若從空生，空性無邊水當無際，從人洎天皆同陷溺，云何復有水陸空行？汝更諦觀，月從天陟，珠因手持，承珠水盤本人敷設，水從何方流注於此？月珠相遠非和非合，不應水精無從自有。汝尚不知如來藏中，性水真空性空真水，清淨本然周遍法界；隨眾生心應所知量，一處執珠一處水出，遍法界執滿法界生，生滿世間寧有方所，循業發現。世間無知，惑為因緣及自然性，皆是識心分別計度，但有言說，都無實義。
Water
“Ānanda! The nature of water is not fixed, neither always flowing nor always still. Consider the ascetic masters Kapila, Cakra, Padma, and Hastā, and other great magicians in the city of Śrāvastī. On bright nights with the full moon shining, these magicians each hold up a bowl to the moon in order to collect water (dew) which contains the moon’s essence, and this they mix with their hallucinatory herbs. Now, does the water come out of the bowl? Is it inherent to space? Or does it come from the Moon? Ānanda! Suppose that it came from the moon. If moonlight coming from such a distance could cause water to emerge from the bowl, then while crossing that distance it would cause water to emerge from the trees that it passed. Then what need would there be for the bowl? But since water does not emerge from the trees, it is clear that the water does not in fact come from the moon. Suppose the water came from the bowl. Then the water would be flowing out of the bowl all the time. What need would there be to wait for a bright full moon at midnight? Suppose the water came from space. Since space is boundless, the water too should be boundless. Then the heavens and the world of people would all be immersed in a deluge. What then will have happened to the beings that move on land, in water, and in the air? Carefully consider this further. The moon moves through the sky. The magician holds up the bowl to collect the water. Where in fact does the water come from? The moon and the bowl are far apart; they cannot come into contact and they cannot merge. Yet it cannot be that water comes into being on its own. You do not yet know that, in the tathāgatagarbha, the real nature of water is identical to the real nature of emptiness. The real nature of the water is fundamentally pure and extends throughout the Dharmadhātu. The extent to which beings are aware of that real nature depends on the capacity of their understanding. One person holds up a bowl in one place and water comes forth there and anywhere throughout the Dharmadhātu, such a bowl can be held up so that water will come forth. Since water can be found anywhere in the world, how could it be limited to one particular place? In fact, Water becomes apparent to beings in accord with their karma. Ordinary beings, in their ignorance, mistakenly suppose that Water comes into being from causes and conditions or that it comes into being on its own. These are distinctions and constructs made by the conscious mind. They are mere words, devoid of meaning.
「阿難！風性無體，動靜不常。汝常整衣入於大眾，僧伽梨角動及傍人，則有微風拂彼人面。此風為復出袈裟角？發於虛空？生彼人面？阿難！此風若復出袈裟角，汝乃披風，其衣飛搖應離汝體；我今說法，會中垂衣，汝看我衣風何所在？不應衣中有藏風地。若生虛空，汝衣不動，何因無拂？空性常住，風應常生；若無風時，虛空當滅。滅風可見，滅空何狀？若有生滅，不名虛空；名為虛空，云何風出？若風自生彼拂之面，從彼面生當應拂汝，自汝整衣云何倒拂？汝審諦觀，整衣在汝，面屬彼人，虛空寂然不參流動，風自誰方鼓動來此？風空性隔非和非合，不應風性無從自有。汝宛不知如來藏中，性風真空性空真風，清淨本然周遍法界；隨眾生心應所知量。阿難！如汝一人微動服衣有微風出，遍法界拂滿國土生，周遍世間寧有方所，循業發現。世間無知，惑為因緣及自然性，皆是識心分別計度，但有言說，都無實義。
Wind
“Ānanda! The nature of wind is insubstantial. It is neither always in motion nor always still. When you take your place in the great assembly, you always adjust your precept robe. Suppose that as you do so, the corner of your robe moves toward the person next to you. As a result, that person will feel a slight puff of wind against his face. Does this puff of wind arise from the corner of your robe? Does it arise from the space around it? Or does it come into being from that person’s face? Ānanda! If wind arises from the corner of your robe, then you would be wearing wind, and your robe would billow out and fly off your body. Yet as I now expound upon the Dharma in the midst of the assembly, my robe hangs straight down. Look at my robe: where is the wind? In fact there is nowhere in the robe for the wind to be hidden. If wind comes into being from space, then what need would there be for your robe to move in order for someone to feel that puff of wind? Further, space is always present; if the wind arose from it, then the wind would always have to be blowing. Conversely, if no wind were blowing, then space would cease to exist. But, while we can observe an absence of wind, what would the absence of space look like? In truth, if space came into being and ceased to be, it would not be what we call space. Therefore, wind cannot come into being from what we do call space. Suppose then that the wind came into being from your neighbor’s face. Then it would be you, rather than your neighbor, who would feel the puff of wind. Why is it your neighbor who in fact feels the puff of wind when you adjust your robe? Consider this matter with care. It is you who adjust your robe. It is your neighbor who feels the puff of wind on his face. Space itself is still; it is never observed to move. From where then does the wind come when it blows against your neighbor’s face? Wind and space have different natures and cannot aggregate or merge with each other. And yet it cannot be that wind comes into being on its own, independent of anything else. You apparently do not know that, in the tathāgatagarbha, the true nature of wind is identical to the real nature of empty/space. The true nature of wind is fundamentally pure and extends throughout the Dharmadhātu. The extent to which beings are aware of that real nature depends on the capacity of their understanding. Ānanda! Just as a puff of wind arises with a small movement of your robe, so a puff of wind will arise anywhere throughout the Dharmadhātu, in any land, when someone moves their robe. Since wind can arise anywhere in the world, how could it be limited to one particular place? In fact, Wind becomes apparent to beings in accord with their karma. Ordinary beings, in their ignorance, mistakenly suppose that Wind comes into being from causes and conditions or that it is inherently self-existent. These are distinctions and constructs made by the conscious mind. They are mere words, devoid of any real meaning.”
「阿難！空性無形，因色顯發。如室羅城去河遙處，諸剎利種及婆羅門、毘舍、首陀兼頗羅墮、旃陀羅等，新立安居鑿井求水，出土一尺於中則有一尺虛空，如是乃至出土一丈中間還得一丈虛空，空虛淺深隨出多少。此空為當因土所出？因鑿所有？無因自生？阿難！若復此空無因自生，未鑿土前何不無礙，唯見大地逈無通達？若因土出，則土出時應見空入，若土先出無空入者，云何虛空因土而出？若無出入，則應空土元無異因，無異則同，則土出時空何不出？若因鑿出，則鑿出空，應非出土？不因鑿出，鑿自出土，云何見空？汝更審諦諦審諦觀，鑿從人手隨方運轉，土因地移，如是虛空因何所出？鑿空虛實不相為用、非和非合，不應虛空無從自出。若此虛空，性圓周遍本不動搖，當知現前地水火風均名五大性真圓融，皆如來藏本無生滅。阿難！汝心昏迷，不悟四大元如來藏，當觀虛空為出為入，為非出入。汝全不知如來藏中，性覺真空性空真覺，清淨本然周遍法界，隨眾生心應所知量。
Space
“Ānanda! The nature of space is that it is invisible because it is only discerned in the presence of visible objects. Consider, for example, how the Brahmins — for example, the Bhāradvāja clan — and the Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, Śūdras, and Caṇdālas in the city of Śrāvastī dig wells to find water when they build a new dwelling, since the city is far from the river. When they dig out the soil to the depth of one foot, space will be discernable in the well to the depth of one foot. When they dig out the soil to the depth of ten feet, space will be discernable in the well to the depth of ten feet. How much space is discerned depends on how much soil has been removed. Now, does the space in the well come into being out of the soil? Does it come into being because of the digging? Or does it come into being on its own? Ānanda! Suppose the space in the well came into being on its own, without a cause. Why then in the place where the well is to be dug, is there no space before the soil is removed? Why can one see only solid land, which one cannot pass through? Suppose the space in the well comes into existence from the soil. Then when the soil is removed, space should be seen to enter the well. If no space enters in as the soil comes out, how could the space in the well be said to come into being from the soil? But if space does not come out of the soil to enter the well, then the soil and the space must be bound together with no distinction between them. Then, when the soil is removed, why doesn’t the space comes out with it? Suppose the space in the well comes into existence because of the digging. Then the digging should bring space out of the well, along with the soil. But if the space does not come into existence from the digging, then only the soil would have been moved. Why then does the space appear? Carefully consider this further; consider it closely and carefully. The well-digger chooses the appropriate place to dig. The soil comes out as the well is dug. But what of the space? How does it come into existence? The soil that is removed is solid matter, while the space is insubstantial, so they cannot function together. They cannot be aggregated or combined with each other. And yet it cannot be that space comes into existence on its own, without any cause. Given that the fundamental nature of space is all-pervasive and does not move, you should know that the true natures of earth, water, fire, and wind which, together with space, these five elements are completely interfused with one another (圓融), neither coming into being nor ceasing to be within the tathāgatagarbha. Ānanda! When we discussed the first four primary elements, you did not understand that fundamentally they are the tathāgatagarbha; therefore, you still need to ponder whether or not the element Space can come out of a well that has been dug and whether or not space can enter into the well. You have altogether failed to realize that the element space is inherent in the tathāgatagarbha and is identical to the true nature of emptiness. The true nature of space is fundamentally pure and extends throughout the Dharmadhātu. The extent to which beings are aware of that real nature depends on the capacity of their understanding.
「阿難！如一井空空生一井，十方虛空亦復如是，圓滿十方寧有方所，循業發現。世間無知，惑為因緣及自然性，皆是識心分別計度，但有言說，都無實義。
“Ānanda! Just as when one well is dug, space appears in it, so space will appear in any well that is dug anywhere in the Ten Directions. Since empty space is everywhere throughout the ten directions, how could it be limited to one particular place? Space becomes apparent to beings in accord with their karma. In their ignorance, beings in this world mistakenly suppose that space comes into existence from causes and conditions or that it is inherently self-existent. These are distinctions and constructs made by the conscious mind. They are mere words, devoid of meaning.”
「阿難！見覺無知，因色空有。如汝今者在祇陀林，朝明夕昏；設居中宵，白月則光黑月便暗，則明暗等因見分析。此見為復與明暗相并太虛空，為同一體、為非一體？或同、非同？或異、非異？阿難！此見若復與明與暗及與虛空元一體者，則明與暗二體相亡。暗時無明，明時非暗，若與暗一，明則見亡；必一於明，暗時當滅，滅則云何見明見暗？若暗明殊，見無生滅，一云何成？若此見精與暗與明非一體者，汝離明暗及與虛空，分析見元作何形相？離明離暗及離虛空，是見元同龜毛兔角。明暗虛空三事俱異，從何立見？明暗相背，云何或同？離三元無，云何或異？分空分見本無邊畔，云何非同？見暗見明性非遷改，云何非異？汝更細審、微細審、詳審、諦審，觀明從太陽、暗隨黑月、通屬虛空、擁歸大地，如是見精因何所出？見覺空頑非和非合，不應見精無從自出。若見聞知，性圓周遍本不動搖，當知無邊不動虛空并其動搖，地水火風均名六大性真圓融，皆如來藏本無生滅。阿難！汝性沈淪，不悟汝之見聞覺知本如來藏，汝當觀此見聞覺知，為生為滅？為同為異？為非生滅？為非同異？汝曾不知如來藏中，性見覺明覺精明見，清淨本然周遍法界，隨眾生心應所知量。如一見根見周法界，聽嗅嘗觸覺觸覺知，妙德瑩然遍周法界，圓滿十虛寧有方所，循業發現。世間無知，惑為因緣及自然性，皆是識心分別計度，但有言說，都無實義。
Sensory Awareness
“Ānanda! You do not become visually aware unless space and form are present. For example, you are now in Prince Jeta’s Grove, where it is light in the morning and dark in the evening. It is bright at midnight when a full moon has risen but dark when there is no moon. At these times, you can see light and darkness because of seeing. Now, is your seeing identical to and of the same substance as light and darkness and empty space? Is it separate from them? Is it both identical to them and separate from them? Is it neither identical to them nor different from them? Ānanda! Suppose that your seeing is fundamentally identical to light, darkness, and space. But consider light and darkness: each disappears in the presence of the other. When it is dark, it is not light, and when it is light, it is not dark. Therefore, if your visual awareness were identical to darkness, it would disappear when it is light. If indeed it were identical to light, it would cease to exist when it is dark. Once it had ceased to exist, how could it see either darkness or light? And how could it be identical to light and darkness, given that they are not present at the same time, whereas seeing neither comes into being nor ceases to be? Suppose that the essence of your seeing is not identical to light or to darkness. Then, in the absence of light, darkness, and even space, can you determine what characteristics your seeing might have, in and of itself? In the absence of light, darkness, and space, a seeing such as this would be no more than turtle fur and rabbit horns. Therefore, without these three — light, darkness, and space — from what could seeing be established? Since seeing light and seeing darkness are characteristically opposites, how could seeing be identical to them? Yet, since seeing cannot exist in and of itself apart from these three, how could it be different from them? Further, no division can be discerned between your seeing and space; there is no boundary between them. How is it that they are not identical? Yet when you see light and then darkness, the nature of your seeing does not change. How is it that they are not different? You should examine this question in even greater detail. Examine it minutely; consider it most carefully. Light comes from the sun, and it is dark on a moonless night. We see through space but not through earth. But what causes the essence of seeing, as we have just described it, to come into being? Seeing is awareness, while space is insentient, so they cannot unite or become aggregated with one another. Yet visual awareness cannot come to exist on its own, without any cause. Given that the fundamental natures of seeing, hearing, sensory awareness, and knowing are all-pervasive and do not change, you should know that the natures of infinite, immovable space along with the movements of earth, water, fire, and wind - what we may be called the six great elements - are truly completely interfused with one another (圓融), neither coming into being nor ceasing to be within the tathāgatagarbha. Ānanda! Your basic disposition has become so murky that you do not realize that, fundamentally, your seeing, hearing, sensory awareness, and knowing (見聞覺知) are the tathāgatagarbha. You should contemplate your seeing, hearing, sensory awareness, and knowing; do they come into being and cease to be? Are they identical to each other, or are they different? Or else, do they neither come into being nor cease to be? Are they neither identical to each other nor different? You still do not know that the true nature of visual awareness is inherent in the tathāgatagarbha and identical to awakened understanding, and that the essence of this awakening is illuminated seeing which is fundamentally pure, extending throughout the Dharmadhātu to the extent to which beings are aware of its true nature, depending on the capacity of their understanding. Just as the awareness of one sense-faculty, the eye, extends throughout the Dharmadhātu, so also do the wondrous, resplendent powers of hearing, smelling, tasting, tactile awareness, and cognitive awareness extend throughout the Dharmadhātu. They fill up the entirety of space throughout the Ten Directions. How could they be limited to one particular place? They become apparent to beings in accord with their karma. In their ignorance, ordinary beings mistakenly suppose that sensory awareness comes into existence from causes and conditions or that they are inherently self-existent. These are all distinctions and constructs made by the conscious mind. They are mere words, devoid of real meaning.”
「阿難！識性無源，因於六種根塵妄出。汝今遍觀此會聖眾，用目循歷，其目周視但如鏡中，無別分析，汝識於中次第標指，此是文殊、此富樓那、此目乾連、此須菩提、此舍利弗。此識了知為生於見？為生於相？為生虛空？為無所因突然而出？阿難！若汝識性生於見中，如無明暗及與色空，四種必無元無汝見，見性尚無從何發識？若汝識性生於相中，不從見生，既不見明亦不見暗，明暗不矚即無色空，彼相尚無識從何發？若生於空，非相非見，非見無辯，自不能知明暗色空，非相滅緣，見聞覺知無處安立；處此二非，空非同無，有非同物，縱發汝識欲何分別？若無所因突然而出，何不日中別識明月。汝更細、詳、微細詳審，見託汝睛，相推前境，可狀成有，不相成無，如是識緣因何所出？識動見澄非和非合，聞聽覺知亦復如是，不應識緣無從自出。若此識心本無所從，當知了別見聞覺知圓滿湛然性非從所，兼彼虛空地水火風均名七大性真圓融，皆如來藏本無生滅。阿難！汝心麁浮，不悟見聞發明了知本如來藏。汝應觀此六處識心，為同為異？為空為有？為非同異？為非空有？汝元不知如來藏中，性識明知覺明真識，妙覺湛然遍周法界，含吐十虛寧有方所，循業發現。世間無知，惑為因緣及自然性，皆是識心分別計度，但有言說，都無實義。」
Consciousness
“Ānanda! The nature of consciousness is that it has no real basis. Its coming into existence in response to the six faculties and their objects is an illusion. Look around now and observe the sages assembled here. As you glance from one to another, your eyes see them as if in a mirror, which does not make distinctions. But your consciousness will identify each of the sages in turn as Mañjuśrī, Pūrṇamaitrāyaṇīputra, Maudgalyāyana, Subhūti, and Śāriputra. Now, does this distinction-making consciousness arise from your seeing? Does it arise from perceived characteristics? Does it arise from space? Or does it arise abruptly, without a cause? Ānanda! If the nature of your [distinction-making] consciousness arises from your seeing, then in the absence of light, darkness, form, and space — if none of these four were present — what would there be to generate consciousness? If the nature of your consciousness arises from characteristics, not arising from seeing, there is no seeing light and there is not seeing darkness. Light and dark not being seen, then there is no form or emptiness. If you could not see any of these, how could there be consciousness arising from them? Suppose consciousness arises from space rather than characteristics or seeing, yet without seeing, there’s nothing to discuss. There would be no awareness of light, darkness, form, or space. If there is nothing (no characteristics) to be perceived, then the conditions for seeing would be absent, and there would be no place for seeing, hearing, sensory awareness, and knowing to occur. But suppose it is based on space rather than on sense organs and sense objects. However, space is identical to nothingness. If space nevertheless caused your consciousness to arise, how would you be able to make distinctions about anything? Suppose your consciousness appears abruptly, without any cause. Why then doesn’t the moon suddenly start shining in broad daylight? You should examine this question even more closely and in more detail. Seeing is a function of your eye-faculty. The perceived objects that appear in your environment have form, while space lacks form. Which of them could be the cause of consciousness? Consciousness is active, while the eye-faculty is still, and so they cannot combine or be aggregated with each other. Hearing, sensory awareness, and knowing are also like this. Yet the element consciousness cannot come to exist on its own, without a cause. Given that consciousness is not caused by any of these factors, you should know that your seeing, hearing, sensory awareness, and knowing do not come from anywhere; all are complete and pure and do not come into being from anything. The natures of what we may call the seven great elements — these last two, together with space, earth, water, fire, and wind — are truly completely interfused with one another (圓融), neither coming into being nor ceasing to be within the tathāgatagarbha. Ānanda! your mind is coarse and shallow. You have not realized that, fundamentally, your knowing awareness and distinction-making consciousness are all inherent in the tathāgatagarbha. You should contemplate the mind based on the six consciousnesses; are they identical to each other, or are they different? Do they exist, or are they empty? Are they neither identical to each other nor different? Are they neither existent nor empty? You simply do not know that consciousness is inherent in the tathāgatagarbha and is awakened understanding, and that the illumination of awakening is true consciousness. It is the wondrous and pure enlightenment that extends throughout the Dharmadhātu. It contains all space throughout the Ten Directions. How could it be limited to one particular place? In fact, it becomes apparent to beings in accord with their karma. In their ignorance, ordinary beings mistakenly suppose that consciousness comes into existence from causes and conditions or that it is inherently self-existent. These are distinctions and constructs made by the conscious mind. They are mere words, devoid of real meaning.”
爾時，阿難及諸大眾蒙佛如來微妙開示，身心蕩然得無罣礙。是諸大眾，各各自知心遍十方，見十方空如觀掌中所持葉物，一切世間諸所有物皆即菩提妙明元心，心精遍圓含裹十方；反觀父母所生之身，猶彼十方虛空之中吹一微塵，若存若亡，如湛巨海流一浮漚，起滅無從。了然自知獲本妙心常住不滅，禮佛合掌得未曾有，於如來前說偈讚佛：
At that time, Ānanda and the rest of the great assembly, having received the subtle and wondrous instruction given by the Buddha, the Thus-Come One, felt that their bodies and minds were emptied and hardly seemed to exist. They were free of all concerns and impediments. All in the assembly became aware that their minds pervaded the Ten Directions and that they could see everything throughout space in all Ten Directions as clearly as one might see an object such as a leaf in the palm of one’s hand. They saw that all things in all worlds are the wondrous, fundamental, luminous mind of bodhi that understands, and that this mind, pure, all-pervading, and perfect, envelopes the Ten Directions. They looked back upon their own bodies born of their parents and saw them to be like minute particles of dust drifting about everywhere in the air, arising and perishing, or like solitary bubbles floating on vast, calm seas, appearing and then vanishing without a trace. They fully understood that the fundamental, wondrous Mind is everlasting and does not cease. Then Ānanda, having understood what he had not understood before, bowed to the Thus Come One, and placing his palms together, spoke these verses in the Buddha’s praise:
妙湛總持不動尊， 首楞嚴王世希有， 銷我億劫顛倒想， 不歷僧祇獲法身；
The deep and wondrous honored one, all-knowing, pure, and unmoving, Śūraṅgama, the King of Mantras, rarest in the world, Extinguishes distorted thoughts from countless kalpas past — No need to wait forever to attain the Dharmakāya.
願今得果成寶王， 還度如是恒沙眾， 將此深心奉塵剎， 是則名為報佛恩。
I vow to attain the fruit of the King of Jewels, Returning to rescue beings countless as the Ganges’ sands. This profound mind I offer to the kṣetras [as numerous as] dust By this may I repay the kindness bestowed upon me by the Buddha.
伏請世尊為證明， 五濁惡世誓先入， 如一眾生未成佛， 終不於此取泥洹；
I ask the World-Honored One to be witness to my vow To enter first the murky realms of five turbidities, And if even just one being has still not become a Buddha, I will wait before attaining nirvana.
大雄大力大慈悲， 希更審除微細惑， 令我早登無上覺， 於十方界坐道場， 舜若多性可銷亡， 爍迦囉心無動轉。」
Greatest in valor, great powerful one, Great Compassionate One! I pray you’ll now eradicate the subtlest of my doubts And lead me quickly to attain unsurpassable awakening, And sit upon sites of enlightenment throughout the Ten Directions If emptiness should vanish, even that Will never shake the vajra-solid mind.