张律师欢迎您的访问。
Shurangama Sutra Chapter 2 Shurangama Sutra 楞严经
Shurangama Sutra
Śūraṅgama Sūtra
Shurangama Sutra
(The full title:)
Sutra of the Foremost Shurangama at the Crown of the Great Buddha; and of All
the Bodhisattvas' Myriad Practices for Cultivating and Certifying to the
Complete Meaning of the Tathagata's Secret Cause.
(Taisho Tripitaka 0945)
Translated during the Tang Dynasty by Shramana Paramiti from central India.
Chapter 3
"Furthermore, Ananda, why do I say that the six entrances are basically the
wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata? Ananda,
although the eyes' staring causes fatigue, both the eye and the fatigue
originate in Bodhi. The attributes of the fatigue come from the staring. Because
of the two false defiling attributes of light and dark, a sense of seeing is
stimulated which in turn draws in those two defiling attributes. That is called
the ability to see. Apart from these two defiling attributes of light and dark,
this seeing is ultimately without substance. In fact, Ananda, you should know
that seeing does not originate from light or dark, nor from the sense organ, nor
from emptiness. Why not? If it originated from light, then it would be
extinguished when there was darkness, and you would not see darkness. If it came
from darkness, then it would be extinguished when there was light, and you would
not see light. If the essence of seeing came from the sense organ, which is
obviously devoid of light and dark, then in that case, basically no seeing could
take place. If it came from emptiness, then looking ahead it would see the
shapes of mundane phenomena; looking back, it should see the eye itself.
Moreover, if emptiness itself did the seeing, what would that have to do with
your eye? From this you should understand that the eye-entrance is empty and
false. Fundamentally its nature cannot be attributed to either causes and
conditions or spontaneity.
"Ananda, suppose a person suddenly stops up his ears with his fingers. Because
the sense organ of hearing become fatigued, he hears a sound in his head.
However, both the ear and its fatigue originate in Bodhi. The attribute of
fatigue comes from the monotony. Because of the two false defiling attributes of
motion and stillness, a sense of hearing is stimulated which in turn draws in
those two defiling attributes. That is called the ability to hear. Apart from
the two defiling attributes of motion and stillness, this hearing is ultimately
without substance. In fact, Ananda, you should know that hearing does not
originate from motion and stillness; nor from the sense organ, nor from
emptiness. Why not? If it came from stillness, it would be extinguished when
there was motion, and you would not hear motion. If it came from motion, then it
would be extinguished when there was stillness, and you would not be aware of
the stillness. If the capacity to hear came from the sense organ, which is
obviously devoid of motion and stillness, then in that case basically the
hearing would not have a nature of its own. Suppose it came from emptiness, then
emptiness would become hearing and would no longer be empty. Moreover, if
emptiness itself did the hearing, what would that have to do with your ear? From
this you should understand that the ear-entrance is empty and false.
Fundamentally its nature cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or
spontaneity.
"Ananda, suppose a person inhaled deeply through his nose. After he inhaled for
a long time he became fatigued, and then there is a sensation of coldness in the
nose. Because of that sensation, distinctions of penetration and obstruction, of
emptiness and actuality, and so forth, including all fragrant and stinking
vapors are made. However, both the nose and its fatigue originate in Bodhi. The
attribute of fatigue comes from overexertion. Because of the two false defiling
attributes of penetration and obstruction, a sense of smelling is stimulated
which in turn draws in those two defiling attributes. That is called the ability
to smell. Apart from the two defiling attributes of penetration and obstruction,
this smelling is ultimately without substance. You should know that smelling
does not come from penetration and obstruction, nor from the sense organ, nor
from emptiness. Why not? If it came from penetration, the smelling would be
extinguished when there was obstruction, and then how could it experience
obstruction? If i t existed because of obstruction, then where there was
penetration there would be no smelling; in that case, how would the awareness of
fragrance, stench, and other such sensations come into being? If the mechanism
of hearing came from the sense organ, which is obviously devoid of penetration
and obstruction, then in that case basically smelling would not have a nature.
If it came from emptiness then smelling itself should be able to turn around and
smell your own nose. Moreover, if emptiness itself did the smelling, what would
that have to do with your ability to smell? From this you should understand that
the nose-entrance is empty and false. Fundamentally its nature cannot be
attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Ananda, suppose a person licks his lips with his tongue. His excessive licking
causes fatigue. If the person is sick, he will taste a bitter flavor; A person
who is not sick will taste a subtle sweetness. Sweetness and bitterness
demonstrate the tongue's sense of taste. When the organ is inactive, a sense of
tastelessness prevails. However, both the tongue and the fatigue originate in
Bodhi. The attributes of fatigue come from prolonged licking. Because the two
false defiling attributes of sweetness and bitterness and of tastelessness, a
sense of hearing is stimulated which in turn draws in those two defiling
attributes. That is called the ability to taste. Apart from the two defiling
attributes of sweetness and bitterness and apart from tastelessness, the sense
of taste is originally without substance. In fact, Ananda, you should know that
the perception of sweetness, bitterness, or tastelessness does not originate
from sweetness or bitterness, nor from tastelessness, nor from the sense organ,
nor from emptiness. Why not? If it came from sweetness or bitterness, it would
cease to exist when tastelessness was experienced, so how could it recognize
tastelessness? If it arose from tastelessness, it would vanish when the flavor
of sweetness was tasted, so how could it perceive the two flavors of sweet and
bitter? If it came from the tongue which is obviously devoid of sweetness,
bitterness, and tastelessness, then in that case taste would not have a nature.
If it came from emptiness, then the sense of taste should be experienced by
emptiness instead of by the mouth. Moreover, if emptiness itself did the
tasting, what would that have to do with your tongue? From this you should
understand that the tongue-entrance is empty and false. Fundamentally its nature
cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Ananda, suppose a person were to touch his warm hand with his cold hand. If the
cold were greater than the warmth, the warm hand would become cold; if the warm
were greater than the cold, the cold hand would become warm. That sensation of
warmth and cold is felt through the contact and separation of the two hands.
Fatiguing contact results in the mingling of warmth and cold. However, both the
body and the fatigue originate in Bodhi. The attribute of fatigue comes from
protracted contact. Because of the two false defiling attributes of separation
and union, a physical awareness is stimulated which in turn draws in those two
defiling attributes. That is called the awareness of physical sensation. Apart
from the two sets of defiling attributes of separation and union, and pleasure
and pain, the awareness of sensation is originally without a substance. In fact,
Ananda, you should know that this sensation does not come from separation and
union, nor does it exist because of pleasure and pain, nor does it arise from
the sense organ, nor is it produced from emptiness. Why not? If it arose when
there was union, it would disappear when there was separation, so how could it
sense the separation? The two characteristics of pleasure and pain would be the
same way. If it came from the sense organ, which is obviously devoid of the four
characteristics of union, separation, pleasure, and pain, then in that case
basically no awareness of physical sensation could take place. If it came from
emptiness, then the awareness of sensations would be experienced by emptiness
itself. What would that have to do with your body? From this you should
understand that the body-entrance is empty and false. Fundamentally its nature
cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Ananda, suppose a person becomes so fatigued that he goes to sleep. Having
slept soundly, he awakens and tries to recollect what he experienced while
asleep. He recalls some things and forgets others. Thus, his upsidedownness goes
through production, dwelling, change, and extinction, which are taken in and
processed through the mind's central system habitually, each following the next
without ever being overtaken. That is called the ability to know. The mind and
its fatigue are both Bodhi. The attributes of fatigue come from persistent
thinking. The two defiling attributes of arising and ending stimulate a sense of
knowing which in turn grasps these inner sense data, reversing the flow of
seeing and hearing. The place beyond the reach of this flow is known as the
faculty of intellect. Apart from the two sets of defiling attributes of waking
and sleeping and of arising and ceasing, the faculty of intellect is originally
without substance. In fact, Ananda, you should know that the faculty of
intellect does not come from waking, sleeping, arising or ceasing, nor from the
mind organ, nor from emptiness. Why not? If it came from waking, it would
disappear during sleep, so how could it experience sleep? If it came from
arising, it would cease to exist at the time of ceasing, so how could it
experience ceasing? If it came from ceasing it would disappear at the time of
arising, so how could it experience arising? If mental awareness came from the
faculty of the intellect, it would be no more than the physical opening and
closing caused by the waking and sleep states respectively. Apart from these two
movements, the faculty of intellect would be as insubstantial as flowers in
space, and in that case basically no cognition could exist. If mental awareness
came from emptiness, then emptiness itself should become cognition. What would
that have to do with the mind entrance. From this you should understand that the
mind-entrance is empty and false. Fundamentally its nature cannot be attributed
to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Moreover, Ananda, why do I say that the twelve places are basically the
wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata? Ananda, look
again at the trees in the Jeta Grove and the river and pools. What do you think:
do these things come into being because the forms arise and thus the eyes see
them, or because the eyes produce the attributes of form? Ananda, if the eyes
were to produce the attributes of forms, then when the eyes looked at empty
space, the forms should be obliterated. Once they were obliterated, everything
that had manifested would disappear. Since the attributes of forms would then be
absent, who would be able to recognize emptiness? The same principle applied to
emptiness. If, moreover, forms arose and the eyes saw them, then seeing should
perish upon looking at space, which has no form. Once seeing perished,
everything would disappear and then who would be able to recognize either
emptiness or form? From this you should understand that neither seeing, nor
form, nor emptiness can be located, and thus the two places of form and seeing
are empty and false. Fundamentally their natures cannot be attributed to either
causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Ananda, listen again to the drum being beaten in the Jeta Garden when the food
is ready. The assembly gathers as the bell is struck. The sounds of the bell and
the drum follow one another in succession. What do you think: do these things
come into existence because the sound arrives in the vicinity of the ear, or
because the ear's hearing extends to the source of the sound. Ananda, once
again, if the sound arrived in the vicinity of the ear, then that would be like
when I go on alms rounds to the city of Shravasti, I am no longer in the Jeta
Grove. And so, if the sound definitely arrived in the vicinity of Ananda's ear,
then neither Maudgalyayana nor Kashyapa would hear it, much less the twelve
hundred and fifty Shramanas who, upon hearing the sound of the bell, come to the
dining hall at the same time. Again, if the ear arrived in the vicinity of the
sound, that would be like when I return to the Jeta Grove, I am no longer in the
city of Shravasti. When you hear the sound of the drum, your hearing would
already have gone to the place where the drum was being beaten. Thus, when the
bell pealed, you could not hear that sound--even the less those of the
elephants, horses, cattle, sheep, and all the other various sounds around you.
However, without coming or going, there would be no hearing. From this you
should understand that neither hearing nor sound can be located, and thus the
two places of hearing and sound are empty and false. Fundamentally their natures
cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Moreover, Ananda, you smell the chandana in this censer. When one particle of
this incense is lit, it can be smelled simultaneously through forty miles around
the city of Shravasti. What do you think? Is this fragrance produced from the
chandana wood? Is it produced in your nose, or does it arise within emptiness?
Ananda, once again, if the fragrance were produced from your nose, what is said
to be produced from the nose should come forth from the nose Your nose is not
chandana, so how can your nose have the fragrance of chandana? When you say you
smell a fragrance, it should enter your nose. Smelling is not defined as the
nose emitting fragrance. If it were produced from within emptiness, since the
nature of emptiness is eternal and unchanging, the fragrance should be
constantly present. Why should the presence of the fragrance be contingent on
the burning of dry wood in the censer? If it were produced from the wood, since
the nature of this incense is such that it gives off smoke when it is burned,
then when the nose smelled it, the nose should be filled with smoke, which does
not happen. The smoke rises into the air, and before it has reached the
distance, how can the fragrance already be smelled at a distance of more than
ten miles? From this you should understand that neither the fragrance nor the
nose's smelling can be located, and thus the two places of smelling and
fragrance are empty and false. Fundamentally their natures cannot be attributed
to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Ananda, twice every day you take up your bowl along with the rest of the
assembly, and among what you receive may be fine-tasting foods, such as curds,
buttermilk, and clarified butter. What do you think? Are these flavors produced
from emptiness, do they come forth from the tongue, or does the food produce
them? Ananda, once again, if the flavors came from your tongue, since you only
have one tongue in your mouth, when that tongue had already tasted the flavor of
curds, then it would not change if it encountered some dark rock candy. If it
did not change then it could not be said to be aware of tastes. Yet if it did
change, since the tongue is not made up of many substances, how could one tongue
know so many tastes? If the tastes were produced from the food, since food does
not have consciousness, how could it know tastes? Moreover, if the food itself
were to recognize them, that would be the same as someone else eating. Then what
connection would that have with what is called your recognition of tastes? If
the tastes were produced in emptiness, then when you eat emptiness, what flavor
does it have? Suppose that emptiness had the flavor of salt. Then since your
tongue was salty, your face should also be salty , and likewise everyone in the
world would be like fish in the sea. Since you would be constantly influenced by
salt, you would never know tastelessness. Yet, if you did not recognize
tastelessness, you could not be aware of the saltiness, either. You would not
know anything at all. How could that be called taste? From this you should
understand that neither the flavors nor the tongue's tasting can be located, and
thus the two places of tasting and flavors are empty and false. Fundamentally
their natures cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or
spontaneity.
"Ananda, early every morning you rub your head with your hand. What do you
think? When the sensation of rubbing occurs, what does the touching? Does the
head or the hand do the touching? If the ability to touch were in the hand, then
the head should have no knowledge of it. How could we then say that the head was
touched? If it were in the head, then the hand would be useless, and how could
it be said to have touched? If each had the ability to touch, then you, Ananda,
should have two bodies. If between the head and the hand only one touch took
place, then the hand and the head would be of one substance. If they were one
substance, then no touch would be possible. If they were two substances, to
which would the touch belong? The one that was capable of touch would not be the
one that was touched. The one that was touched would not be the one that was
capable of touch. Nor should it be that the touch came into being between you
and emptiness. From this you should understand that neither the sensation of
touch nor the body can be located, and thus the two places of body and touch are
empty and false. Fundamentally their natures cannot be attributed to either
causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Ananda, your mind is always conditioned by the three qualities of good, bad,
and indeterminate, which produce patterns of dharmas. Are these dharmas produced
by the mind, or do they have a special place apart from the mind? Ananda, if
they were the mind, the dharmas would not be its defiling objects. Since they
would not be conditions of the mind, how could you say that they had a location?
If they were to have a special place apart form the mind, then would the dharmas
themselves be able to know? If they had a sense of knowing, they would be called
a mind. Being something other than you and yet not defiling objects, they would
be someone else's mind. Being the same as you, they would be your own mind. But,
how could your mind exist apart from you? If they had no sense of knowing, and
yet these defiling objects were not forms, sounds, smells, or tastes, neither
cold nor warmth, nor emptiness. Where would they be located? They are not
represented in form or emptiness, nor is it likely that they exist somewhere in
the human realm beyond emptiness, for if they did, the mind could not be aware
of them. From where, then, would they arise? From this you should understand
that neither dharmas nor the mind can be located, and thus the two places of
mind and dharmas are empty and false. Fundamentally their natures cannot be
attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Moreover, Ananda, why do I say that the eighteen realms are basically the
wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata?
"Ananda, as you understand it, the eyes and forms create the conditions that
produce the eye-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced because of the
eyes, such that the eyes are its realm? Or is it produced because of forms, such
that forms are its realm? Ananda, if it were produced because of the eyes, then
in the absence of emptiness and form it would not be able to make distinctions;
and so, even if you had a consciousness, of what use would it be? Moreover, your
seeing is neither green, yellow, red, nor white. There is virtually nothing in
which it is represented. Therefore, from what would the realm be established? If
it were produced because of form, then when no forms were present in emptiness,
your consciousness would cease to be. Then, why is it that the consciousness
recognizes emptiness? If a form changes, you are also conscious of the form's
changing appearance, but your eye-consciousness does not change. Where is the
boundary established? If the eye-consciousness did change when form changed,
then such a realm would have no attributes. If it did not change, it would be
constant, and given that it was produced from form, it should have no conscious
knowledge of where emptiness was. If they were combined, then there would be a
crack inbetween. If they were separate, then half of your eye-consciousness
would possess awareness and half of it would lack awareness. With such chaotic
and disordered substances and natures, how could they comprise a realm? From
this you should understand that as to the eyes and form being the conditions
that produce the realm of eye-consciousness, none of the three places exists.
Fundamentally the natures of the eyes, forms, and the form realm, these three,
cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the ear and sound create the conditions
that produce the ear-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced because of
the ear such that the ear is its realm, or is it produced because of sound, such
that sound is its realm? Ananda, if it were produced because of the ear, then
since motion and stillness would be lacking, the ear would not be aware of
anything. Certainly in the absence of awareness, nothing could be known and so
what would characterize the consciousness? You may hold that the ears hear, but
without motion and stillness, hearing cannot occur. Besides, how could the
combination of the ears, which are but physical forms, and external objects be
called the realm of consciousness? Once again, then, how would the realm of
ear-consciousness be established? If it were produced from sound, then the
consciousness would exist because of sound, and would have no connection with
hearing. Without hearing, the attributes of sound would have no location. If the
ear-consciousness came from sound, given that sound exists because of hearing,
then what you heard would be the ear-consciousness itself. If the
ear-consciousness were not heard, then there would be no realm. If it were
heard, then it would be the same as sound. If the consciousness were being
heard, who would the perceiver and hearer of the consciousness be? If there were
no perceiver, then in the end you would be like grass or wood. Nor should the
sound and hearing mix together to form a realm in between. Lacking a realm in
between them, how could those internal and external phenomena be delineated?
From this you should understand that as to the ears and sounds being the
conditions that produce the realm of ear-consciousness, none of the three places
exists. Fundamentally the natures of the ears, sounds, and the realm of
awareness of sounds, these three, cannot be attributed to either causes and
conditions or spontaneity.
"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the nose and smells create the
conditions that produce the nose-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced
because of the nose such that the nose is its realm, or is it produced because
of smells, such that smells are its realm? Ananda, if it were produced because
of the nose, then in your mind, what do you take to be the nose? Do you hold
that it takes the form of two fleshy claws, or do you hold it is an inherent
ability of the nature which perceives smells as a result of motion? If you hold
that the nose is fleshy claws, flesh is an integral part of your body and the
body's perception is touch. Then it should be called 'body' instead of 'nose'
and its objects would be those of touch. Since it would not even be called a
nose, how could a realm be established for it? If you hold that the act of
smelling is perceived, then, in your opinion, what is the perceiver? Were the
flesh the perceiver, basically what the flesh perceives is objects of touch,
which have nothing to do with the nose. Were emptiness the perceiver, then
emptiness would perceive by itself and the flesh would have no awareness. If
that were the case, then empty space would be you, and since your body would be
without perception, Ananda would not exist.
"If the smells were the perceiver, perception itself would lie with the smells.
What would that have to do with you? If you insist that smells of both fragrance
and stench are produced from your nose, then these two wafting smells of
fragrance and stench would not arise from the wood of airavana or chandana.
Given that the smells would not come from those two things, when you smelled
your own nose, would it be fragrant or would it stink? What stinks does not give
off fragrance; what is fragrant does not stink. If you could smell both the
fragrance and the stench, then you, a single person, would have two noses, and I
would now be addressing questions to two Anandas. Which one would be you? If you
only have one nose, then fragrance and stench would not have two separate
identities. Since stench would be fragrance and fragrance would be stench,
thereby lacking two distinctive natures, what would make up the realm? If the
nose-consciousness were produced because of smells, it would exist because of
smells. Just as the eyes can see but are unable to see themselves, so, too, if
the nose-consciousness existed because of smells, it should not be aware of
smells. If it had no awareness, it could not be a consciousness. If the
consciousness were not aware of smells, then the realm could not be established
from smells. If the consciousness was not aware of smells, then the realm could
not be established due to smells. Since no realm of consciousness would exist
between them, then how could any of the internal or external phenomena exist
either? A nature of smelling like that would be ultimately empty and false. From
this you should understand that as to the nose and smells being the conditions
that produce the realm of nose-consciousness, none of the three places exists.
Fundamentally the natures of the nose, smells and the realm of smelling, these
three, cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the tongue and flavors create the
conditions that produce the tongue-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced
because of the tongue so that the tongue is its realm, or is it produced because
of the flavors, so that the flavors are its realm?
"Ananda, if it were produced because of the tongue, then all the sugar cane,
black plums, huang-lien, salt, xixing, ginger, and cassia in the world would be
entirely without flavor. Also, when you tasted your own tongue, would it be
sweet or bitter? If your tongue's natural flavor were bitter, then what would
taste the tongue? Since the tongue cannot taste itself, who would have the sense
of taste? If the natural flavor of the tongue was not bitter, then it could not
engender tastes. How, then, could a realm be established?
"If the tongue-consciousness were produced because of flavor, the consciousness
itself would be a flavor. Then the case would be the same as with the
tongue-organ being unable to taste itself. How could the consciousness know
whether it had flavor or not? Moreover, the many flavors do not all come from
one thing. Since flavors are produced from many things, the consciousness would
have many substances. If the consciousness were a single substance and that
substance was definitely produced from flavor, then when salt, bland, sweet, and
pungent flavors were combined, their various differences would change into a
single flavor and there would be no distinctions among them. If there were no
distinctions, it could not be called consciousness. So, how could it further be
called the realm of tongue, flavor, and consciousness? Nor could empty space
produce your conscious awareness. The tongue and flavors could not combine
without each losing its basic nature. How, then, could a realm be produced? From
this you should understand that as to the tongue and flavors being the
conditions that produce the realm of tongue-consciousness, none of the three
places exists. Fundamentally the natures of the tongue, flavors, and the realm
of the tongue-consciousness, these three, cannot be attributed to either causes
and conditions or spontaneity.
"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the body and objects of touch create
the conditions that produce the body-consciousness. Is this consciousness
produced because of the body, such that the body is its realm, or is it produced
because of objects of touch, such that objects of touch are its realm?
"Ananda, if it were produced because of the body, the body alone cannot generate
the awareness of contact or separation. What would the body be conscious of? If
it were produced because of objects of touch, then your body shouldnot be
necessary. But who can perceive contact with something other than the body?
Ananda, things do not perceive objects of touch; the body does. What the body
knows is objects of touch, and what is aware of objects of touch is the body.
Objects of touch are not the body, and the body is not objects of touch. The two
entities of body and objects of touch basically have no location. If it were the
body-consciousness that came in contact with the body, then it would be the
body's own substance and nature. If the body-consciousness were separate from
the body, then it would be like empty space. Since the internal and external
aspects can't be established, how can something be set up between them? Since no
such middle can be set up, the internal and external aspects are by nature
empty. From what, then, would your consciousness be produced? From this you
should understand that as to the body and objects of touch being the conditions
that produce the realm of body-consciousness, none of the three places exists.
Fundamentally the body, objects of touch, and the realm of body-consciousness,
these three, cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or
spontaneity.
"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the mind and dharmas create the
conditions that produce the mind-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced
because of the mind, such that the mind is its realm, or is it produced because
of dharmas, such that dharmas are its realm?
"Ananda, if it were produced because of the mind, in your mind there certainly
must be thoughts that give expression to your mind. If there were no dharmas
before you, the mind would not give rise to anything. Apart from conditions, it
would have no shape; thus, of what use would the consciousness be? Moreover, is
your mind-consciousness the same as your mind-organ with its thought processes
and discriminations, or is it different? If it were the same as the mind, then
it would be the mind, how could it be something produced from it? If it were
different from the mind, it shouldn't have any consciousness. If it didn't have
any consciousness, how could it bee produced from the mind? If it did have
consciousness, how could the mind be conscious of itself? Since it is by nature
neither the same nor different, how can a realm be established?
"If it were produced because of dharmas, none of the mundane dharmas exist apart
form the five defiling objects. Consider the dharmas of form, of sound, of
smell, of taste, and of touch: each has a clearly distinguishable appearance and
is matched with one of the five organs. They are not what the mind takes in. If
your consciousness were indeed produced through a reliance on dharmas, then take
a look at them now: what does each and every dharma look like? Apart from the
attributes of form and emptiness, motion and stillness, penetration and
obstruction, unity and separation, and arising and ceasing there is nothing at
all. When there is arising, then form, emptiness, and all dharmas arise. When
there is ceasing, then form, emptiness, and all dharmas cease to be. Since the
objective causes do not exist, then what does the consciousness which those
causes produce look like? If there is nothing discernible about the
consciousness, how can a realm be established for it? From this you should
understand that as to the mind and dharmas being the conditions that produce the
realm of mind-consciousness, none of the three places exists. Fundamentally the
mind, dharmas, and the realm of the mind-consciousness, these three, cannot be
attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.
Ananda said to the Buddha, "Bhagavan, in discussing the dharmas of mixing and
uniting and of causes and conditions, the Tathagata has often said that the
transformations of all mundane phenomena can be discovered in the mixing and
uniting of the four elements. Why does the Tathagata now reject causes and
conditions and spontaneity as well? I do not know what your meaning pertains to.
Please be so compassionate as to instruct us beings in dharmas that adhere to
the complete meaning of the Middle Way and are not philosophical speculations.
At that time the Bhagavan said to Ananda, "You have already renounced the Small
Vehicle dharmas of the Hearers and Those Enlightened to Conditions and have
resolved to diligently seek unsurpassed Bodhi. Because of that, I will now
explain the Complete Meaning of the Middle Way to you. Why do you still bind
yourself up in mundane philosophical speculations and false thoughts about
causes and conditions? Although you are very learned, you are like someone who
can discuss medicines but annot recognize a real medicine when it is placed
before you. The Tathagata says that you are truly pitiable. Listen attentively
now as I explain this point in detail to enable you and those of the future who
cultivate the Mahayana(Great vehicle) to penetrate to the ultimate reality."
Ananda was silent and awaited the Buddha's sagely instruction.
"Ananda, according to what you say, the mixing and uniting of the four elements
can be discovered in the myriad transformations of all mundane phenomena.
Ananda, if the natures of those elements did not mix and unite, then they could
not combine with other elements, just as empty space cannot combine with forms.
If the natures of those elements do not mix and unite, they are themselves
transformations in a never-ending process of bringing each other into being. The
continuation of comings into being and ceasings to be, of births and deaths, of
deaths and births is like the unbroken wheel of flame that appears when a torch
is spun in a circle.
"Ananda, the process is like water becoming ice and ice turning into water
again.
"Consider the nature of earth: its coarsest aspect is the earth itself; its
subtlest aspect is a mote of dust, which at its smallest would be a particle of
dust bordering on emptiness. If one divided one of those particles of dust that
is barely form to begin with into seven parts and then split one of those parts,
emptiness itself would be arrived at. Ananda, if a particle of dust bordering on
emptiness can be divided to arrive at emptiness, it should be that emptiness can
give rise to form.
"Just now you asked if mixing and uniting doesn't bring about all mundane
transformations.
You should carefully consider how much emptiness mixes and unites with itself to
arrive at a single particle of dust bordering upon emptiness. Such a particle
could not be composed of other particles of dust bordering upon emptiness.
Moreover, since particles of dust bordering upon emptiness can be reduced to
emptiness, of how many particles of such form would emptiness be composed? When
those particles of form mass together, a mass of form does not make emptiness;
when emptiness is massed together, a mass of emptiness does not make form.
Besides, although form can be divided, how can emptiness be massed together?
"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata, the nature
of form is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true form. That
fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Reealm. Beings' minds absorb itaccording
to their capacity to know. Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma.
Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign its
origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise
from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but
the play of empty and meaningless words.
"Ananda, the nature of fire is devoid of identity, being dependent upon various
causes and conditions for its existence. Consider a family in the city that has
not yet eaten. When they wish to prepare food, they hold up a brass mirror to
the sun, seeking fire.
"Ananda, speaking of mixing and uniting, you and I and the twelve hundred and
fifty Bhikshus unite a form a community. However, a careful analysis of the
community reveals that every member composing it has his own body, family name,
clan, and name. For instance, Shariputra is a Brahman, Uruvilva is of the
Kashyapa clan, and you, Ananda, come from the Gautama family.
"Ananda, if fire existed because of mixing and uniting, then when your hand
holds up the mirror to the sun to seek fire, does the fire come out of the
mirror? Does it come out of the moxa tinder? Or does it come from the sun?
Ananda, if the fire came from the sun, then only would it burn the moxa tinder
in your hand, but as it came across the groves of trees, it should burn them up
as well. Suppose it came from the mirror, since it would come out to the mirror
to ignite the moxa tinder, why doesn't the mirror melt? Yet, as your hand that
holds the mirror feels no heat; how could the mirror melt? If the fire came from
the moxa tinder, then why would fire be generated only when the bright mirror
came into contact with the dazzling light? Furthermore, on closer examination,
you will find that the mirror is held in your hands, the sun is high in the sky,
and moxa is grown from the ground. So where does the fire come from? The sun and
the mirror cannot mix and unite, since they are far apart. Nor can it be that
the fire arises spontaneously without an origin.
"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata the nature of
fire is true emptiness, and the nature of emptiness is true fire. That
fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings' minds absorb it according
to their capacity to know. Ananda, you should know that fire can be generated
anyplace where a mirror is held up to the sunlight. If mirrors were held up to
the sunlight everywhere in the Dharma Realm, fire would be generated everywhere.
Since fire can come forth throughout the whole world, can there be any fixed
place to which it is confined? Whatever manifests does so in compliance with
karma. Ignorant of that fact, people in the world are so deluded as to assign
its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which
arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing
but the play of empty and meaningless words.
"Ananda, the nature of water is mutable, its flowing and stopping are erratic.
Kapila, Chakra, Padma, Hasta, and other great magicians of Shravasti often hold
up instruments to the light of the full moon at midnight to extract from it the
essence of water to mix with their drugs. Does the water come out of the crystal
ball that is used, or does it exist naturally in space? Or does it come from the
moon? Ananda, if the water came from the distant moon, then, water should also
flow from all the grasses and trees when the moonlight passes over them on its
way to the crystal ball. If it did flow from them, why wait for it to condense
on the surface of the crystal ball? Since it does not flow from the trees, then
the water clearly cannot descend from the moon. If it came from the crystal
ball, then it should flow from the crystal at all times. Why would one have to
wait for midnight and the light of the full moon to receive it? If the water
came from space, which is by nature boundless, it would flow everywhere until
everything between heaven and earth was submerged. How, then, could there still
be travel by water, land, and air? Furthermore, upon closer examination you will
find that the moon moves through the sky, the crystal ball is held in the hand,
and the pan for receiving the eater is put there by someone. So where does the
water that flows into the pan come from? The moon and the crystal ball cannot
mix and unite, since they are far apart. Nor should the essence of water arise
spontaneously without an origin.
"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata the nature of
water is true emptiness, and the nature of emptiness is true water. That
fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings' minds absorb it according
to their capacity to know. A crystal ball can be held up at a certain place, and
water will come forth. If crystal balls were held up throughout the Dharma
Realm, then throughout the Dharma Realm water would come forth. Since water can
come forth throughout the entire world, can there be any fixed place to which it
is confined? Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of
that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign their origin to
causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the
discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of
empty and meaningless words.
"Ananda, the nature of wind has no substance, and it is patterns of movement and
stillness are erratic. You always adjust your robe as you enter the great
assembly. When the corner of your samghati robe brushes the person next to you,
the air stirs against that person's face. Does that wind come from the corner of
the Kashaya sash, does it arise from emptiness, or is it produced from the face
of the person brushed by the air" "Ananda, if that wind came from the corner of
the Kashaya, then you would be clad in the wind, and your kashaya should fly off
and leave your body. But my robe remains motionless and hangs straight down as I
now speak Dharma in the midst of the assembly. Observing my robe closely, where
is the wind in it? The wind could not be stored somewhere in the robe.
"If the wind arose from emptiness, why wouldn't there be a brushing motion even
when your robe did not move? Since the nature of emptiness is constant, the
nature of the wind should be too. And so when the wind stopped, emptiness should
also cease to be. The lack of wind can be detected, but what would signify the
disappearance of emptiness? If emptiness came and went, it wouldn't be
emptiness. And since it is empty, how can it generate wind?
"If the wind came from the face of the person it brushed, it would blow upon
you, too. Then while you were setting your robe in order, how could it blow
backwards upon other people?
"Upon closer examination, you will find that the robe is set in order by
yourself, the face blown by the wind belongs to the person by your side, and the
emptiness is tranquil and not involved in movement. So where does the wind come
from that blows in this place? The wind and emptiness cannot mix and unite,
since they are different from each other. Nor could the wind exist spontaneously
without an origin. You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the
Tathagata the nature of wind is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is
true wind. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings' minds
absorb it according to their capacity to know. Ananda, in the same way that you
alone shift your robe slightly and the air is stirred, so, too, if a similar
movement were made throughout the Dharma Realm, the air would stir everywhere.
Since wind can arise throughout the world, how could there be any fixed place to
which it is confined? Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma.
Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign their
origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise
from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the conscious mind, are
nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words.
"Ananda, the nature of emptiness has no shape; it is only apparent because of
form. For instance, Shravasti is far from the river, so when the Kshatriyas,
Brahmans, Vaishyas, Shudras, Bharadvajas, Chandalas, and so forth build their
homes there, they dig wells seeking water. As a square foot of earth is removed,
a square foot of emptiness becomes evident. As ten square feet of earth are
removed, ten feet of emptiness become evident. The depth of the emptiness
corresponds to the amount of earth removed. Does that emptiness come out of the
earth? Or does it exist because of the digging? Or does it arise by itself,
without a cause?
"Ananda, if that emptiness arose by itself without any cause, why wasn't it
evident even before the earth was dug? All that could be seen was the vast
expanse of solid, impenetrable earth.
"If emptiness came about because of the removal of the earth, then, as the earth
was removed, the entering of the emptiness should be visible. If no emptiness
entered when the earth was first removed, then how could the emptiness come
about because of the removal of the earth? If no removal or entering took place,
then there would be no difference between the earth and emptiness. Not being
different, they would be the same. In that case, wouldn't the emptiness be
removed from the well along with the earth in the process of digging?
"If emptiness appeared because of the digging, then the digging would bring out
emptiness instead of the earth. If emptiness did not emerge because of the
digging, then the digging should only remove the earth. Why, then, do we see
emptiness appear as the well is dug?
"Consider this even more carefully. Look into it deeply, and you will find that
the digging comes from the person's hands engaged in that act, and the earth
exists because of its removal from the ground. So what causes the emptiness to
appear? The digging and the emptiness, one being substantial and the other
insubstantial, are not compatible. They do not mix and unite. Nor could
emptiness exists spontaneously without an origin. Although the nature of
emptiness is completely pervasive and basically unmoving, you should know that
emptiness, earth, water, fire, and wind are called the five elements. Their
natures are true, perfectly fused, identical with the Treasury of the Tathagata,
and neither come into being nor cease to be.
"Ananda, your mind is murky and confused, and you do not awaken to the fact that
the source of the four elements is none other than the Treasury of the Tathagata
. Is the emptiness you see subject to removal or entering or is it not subject
to removal or entering? You still do not realize that in the Treasury of the
Tathagata the nature of enlightenment is true emptiness, and the nature of
emptiness is true enlightenment. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma
Realm. Beings' minds absorb it according to their capacity to know. Ananda,
wherever there is an empty well, emptiness fills that well. The same is true of
emptiness in the ten directions. Since emptiness fills the ten directions, how
could there be any fixed place in which it was found? Whatever manifests does so
in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so
deluded as to assign their origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity.
These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of
the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words.
"Ananda, the seeing-awareness does not perceive by itself. It depends upon form
and emptiness for its existence. You are now in the Jeta Grove where you see the
brightness of the morning and the darkness of the evening. Deep in the night you
see brightness when the moon arises and darkness are discerned by the seeing. Is
the seeing identical in substance with brightness, darkness, or emptiness, or
are they not of the same substance? Are they the same and yet different, or are
they neither the same nor different?
"Ananda, suppose seeing shared a single substance with brightness, darkness, or
emptiness. Darkness and brightness cancel each other out. When it is dark, there
is no light; when it is light, there is no darkness. If seeing were one with
darkness, it would cease to exists in brightness; if it were one with
brightness, it would cease to exist in darkness? Since it would cease to exists,
how could it perceive both brightness and darkness? If brightness and darkness
differ from each other and that seeing has neither existence nor ceasing to
exist how can it be of the same substance with brightness and darkness?
"If the essence of seeing were not of one substance with brightness and
darkness, and you were separate from light, darkness, and emptiness, then what
shape and appearance would the source of the seeing have? In the absence of
darkness, brightness, and emptiness, the seeing would be the same as fur on a
tortoise or horns on a hare. How could there be seeing without the presence of
the three attributes of brightness, darkness, and emptiness?
"How could the seeing be one with darkness and brightness since they are
opposites? Yet, how could it be different from these three attributes, since in
their absence there would be no seeing?
"How could the seeing not be one with emptiness, since no boundary exists
between them? But how could the seeing not differ from emptiness, since the
seeing remains unchanged, regardless of whether it is perceiving brightness or
darkness?
"Examine this in even greater detail, investigate it minutely, consider and
contemplate it carefully. The light comes from the sun and darkness from the new
moon; penetration belongs to emptiness, and solidity returns to the earth, so
where does the essence of seeing arise from? Seeing has awareness while
emptiness is inanimate: they do not mix and unite. Nor could the essence of
seeing arise spontaneously without an origin.
"If the natures of seeing, hearing, and knowing are pervasive and unmoving, you
should know that the stable, boundless emptiness, together with the unstable
elements such as earth, water, fire, and wind, are together known as the six
elements. Their natures are true, perfectly fused, identical with the Treasury
of the Tathagata, and fundamentally devoid of coming into being and ceasing to
be.
"Ananda, your nature is so submerged that you have not realized that your
seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing are basically the Treasury of the
Tathagata. Contemplate seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing to see whether
they are subject to coming into being and ceasing to be; whether they are
identical or different; whether they are not subject to coming into being and
ceasing to be; and whether they are neither identical nor different.
"You still do not realize that in the Treasury of the Tathagata the nature of
seeing is enlightened brightness, the essence of enlightenment is bright seeing.
That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings' minds absorb it
according to their capacity to know. Just as the eyes capacity to see pervades
the Dharma Realm, so, too, do the capacities to hear, smell, taste, make
contact, and know. All those capacities are glorious, magnificent qualities.
Since they pervade the Dharma Realm and fill all emptiness in the ten
directions, how could they be found in any fixed location? Whatever manifests
does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are
so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity.
These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of
the conscious mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words.
"Ananda, the nature of consciousness has no source, but is a false manifestation
based on the six organs and their corresponding objects. Now, take a look at the
entire sagely assembly gathered here. The observations made by your eyes are
similar to reflections in a mirror, both being devoid of distinction-making.
However, your consciousness will systematically identify what is seen: that is
Manjushri, that is Purna, there is Maudgalyayana, there is Subhuti, and that one
is Shariputra. Does the consciousness which is aware and knows comes from
seeing, from forms, from emptiness, or does it arise suddenly without a cause?
"Ananda, if your consciousness came from seeing, then in the absence of the four
attributes of brightness, darkness, form, and emptiness, you would not be able
to see. Since those attributes would not exist where would your consciousness
come form?
"If your consciousness arose from form rather than form seeing, it would see
neither brightness nor darkness. In the absence of brightness and darkness, it
would not see form or emptiness, either. Since those attributes would not exist,
where would your consciousness come from?
"If it came from emptiness, it would be neither an appearance nor the seeing.
Without seeing, it could not function, being unable to discern brightness,
darkness, forms, or emptiness by itself. Without appearances there would be no
external conditions, and thus no location where seeing, hearing, awareness, and
knowing could be established. Being located at neither of those two places, the
consciousness would be empty, as if non-existent. If it did exist, it would not
be a phenomenon. Even if you could exercise a consciousness, how would it
discern anything.
"If it suddenly comes forth without a cause, why can't you discern the moonlight
within the sunlight?
"Investigate this even more carefully, discriminate it in detail, and look into
it. The seeing belongs to your eyes; the appearances are considered to be the
environment, what has an appearance exists. What lacks appearances does not.
What, then, are the conditions that cause the consciousness to come into being?
The consciousness moves and the seeing is still; they do not mix and unite.
Smelling, hearing, awareness, and knowing are the same way. Nor could the
condition of consciousness exist spontaneously without an origin.
"If the consciousness pertaining to the mind did not come from anywhere, the
same would be true of the natures of the seeing, hearing, awareness, and
knowing, which are all complete and tranquil and do not come from anywhere. They
together with emptiness, earth, water, fire, and wind are together called the
seven elements. Their natures are true, perfectly fused, identical with the
Treasury of the Tathagata, and fundamentally devoid of coming into being and
ceasing to be.
"Ananda, your mind is coarse and shallow, and so you do not perceive that
seeing, hearing, and the resulting awareness are Treasury of the Tathagata.
Contemplate these six locations of consciousness to see whether they are
identical or different; empty or existent; neither identical nor different; or
neither empty nor existent. You still do not realize that in the Treasury of the
Tathagata the nature of consciousness is bright knowing; enlightened brightness
is the true consciousness. Wonderful enlightenment is tranquil and pervades the
Dharma Realm. It encompasses the emptiness of the ten directions and issues
forth from it. How could it have a location? Whatever manifests does so in
compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded
as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These
mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the
conscious mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words.
At that time, Ananda and the great assembly, filled with the subtle, wonderful
instruction of the Buddha, the Tathagata, experienced unhindered physical and
mental peace. Everyone in the great assembly became aware of how his mind
pervaded the ten directions, beholding emptiness in the ten directions as one
might look at a leaf or other held in the palm of one's hand. All mundane
phenomena became the wonderfully bright primal mind of Bodhi. The essence of the
mind became completely pervasive, containing the ten directions. Each person
regarded his physical body as being like a particle of dust blown about in the
emptiness of the ten directions; sometimes visible, sometimes not, or as being
lie a single bubble floating on the clear, vast sea, appearing from nowhere and
disappearing into oblivion. Each person comprehended and knew personally the
fundamental wonderful mind possessed by all as being eternal and never ceasing
to be. They bowed to the Buddha and placed their palms together, having gone
through this unprecedented experience. Then, before the Tathagata, Ananda spoke
a gatha(verse) in praise of the Buddha:
(Shurangama Vows:)
"The wonderful and recondite Dharani,
the moveless Honored One,
the foremost Shurangama King,
is unique in the world.
It dissolves away my inverted thoughts that
gathered through billions of eons,
so I needn't endure Asamkhyeya aeons
to consummate the Dharma-Body.
I wish now to achieve the result
and become an honored king,
who then returns to save beings
as many as Ganges' sands.
I give this deepmost heart to all worlds
as many as atoms of universe,
to repay the kindness given to me by Buddhas.
Humbly I ask the Bhagavan to
certify my vow to come back to the five turbid evil realms,
and as long as even one being has not yet become a Buddha,
I will never enter Nirvana.
Great hero with great strength, great kindness and compassion,
please further search out and dispel my subtlest doubts,
cause me to quickly attain the supreme enlightenment,
and sit in Way-places in worlds of the ten directions.
Were even the nature of sunyata(emptiness) to entirely melt away,
This vajra mind will never waver."
Further Reading:
Sūtra Shurangama Heart Sutra The Diamond Sutra
张律师感谢您的访问。