楞嚴經 卷第三・陰入處界七大The Śūraṅgama Sūtra · Fascicle Three: The Aggregates, Entrances, Bases, Realms, and Seven Elements

Stare long enough, and the eye grows tired.

“Both the eye and the strain are alike the strained appearance of bodhi staring.”

The tiredness is false. So is the eye.

The Six Entrances

Seeing arises between light and dark; apart from light and dark, it has no substance.

From the light? From the dark? Out of the faculty? Out of space?

“What has that to do with your entrance?”

The Twelve Bases

Bell and drum sound together. Does the sound come to the ear, or does the ear go to the sound?

If the sound came to Ānanda’s ear, “Maudgalyāyana and Kāśyapa ought not to hear it at the same time.”

“Alike have no place.”

The Eighteen Realms

This consciousness—does it arise because of the faculty, or because of the dust?

“If both fragrant and foul can be smelled, then you, one person, ought to have two noses, and there would be two Ānandas asking me about the Way—which is your body?”

“Nothing at any of the three places.”

Ānanda Asks

The Buddha used to speak of the union of the four elements. Now causes and conditions and spontaneity are set aside together. Which account counts?

“Like one who can talk of medicines but, when the true medicine is before him, cannot tell it.”

The Seven Elements

Split the dust bordering on void once more, and it is emptiness. That one grain—“how many spaces were united to make it?”

Mirror, sun, and tinder are far apart. Where does the fire come from?

Dig a well; one foot of earth comes out, and there is one foot of space. Does the space come out because of the earth? Because of the digging?

“Neither in union nor in combination.” Nowhere is where it comes from.

One Sentence, Said Six Times

“Pure and originally so, pervading the dharma-realm, answering to the minds of beings according to the measure of their knowing.”

Earth, fire, water, wind, space, seeing: six times. At consciousness the sentence changes: “wondrous awakening, profound and still, pervading the dharma-realm, holding and releasing the ten directions of space.”

Hold up a mirror in one place, and fire arises in one place. Hold them up throughout the dharma-realm, and it springs up throughout the world.

“How could it have a place?”

Seeing and Consciousness

“Alike called the six elements.” “Alike called the seven elements.”

Seeing and consciousness are also called elements. This is this sūtra’s distinctive teaching.

The Verse

“The nature of śūnyatā may be dissolved away; the vajra-firm mind will not be moved!”

Space can cease to be. This mind does not move.

Fascicle Three of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, translated by Pramiti of the Tang, from the fascicle title to the closing title of the fascicle. Carrying on the meaning, from Fascicle Two, that the five aggregates are originally the tathāgatagarbha, it next refutes the six entrances, the twelve bases, and the eighteen realms, revealing of each one that it is originally the tathāgatagarbha, the wondrous nature of true suchness. When Ānanda asks about union and causes and conditions, the Tathāgata opens up the seven elements—earth, water, fire, wind, space, seeing, and consciousness—all pure and originally so, pervading the dharma-realm, manifesting in accordance with action. At the end Ānanda and the great assembly awaken and enter, and a verse is spoken in praise of the Buddha. The figures in parentheses at the head of each segment give the Taishō page, register, and line.

〔0 · Title and Translator’s Attribution〕（0114c16）The head of the fascicle bears the title “The Great Buddha-Crown Sūtra of the Tathāgata’s Secret Cause, Cultivation and Realization of the Complete Meaning, and the Myriad Practices of All Bodhisattvas, Called Śūraṅgama, Fascicle Three [also called the Great Bodhimaṇḍa Sūtra of Nālandā in Central India, copied out from the Consecration Section to circulate separately]”: the name of the sūtra is The Great Buddha-Crown Sūtra of the Tathāgata’s Secret Cause, Cultivation and Realization of the Complete Meaning, and the Myriad Practices of All Bodhisattvas, Called Śūraṅgama, and this is Fascicle Three; the interlinear note beneath the title says that this sūtra is also called the Great Bodhimaṇḍa Sūtra of Nālandā in Central India, and that it was copied out from the Consecration Section and circulates on its own. The translator’s attribution is a single line, “Translated by the śramaṇa Pramiti of India, of the Tang.”—Pramiti, a śramaṇa of India in the Tang dynasty, translated it. In the Taishō text, the head of the fascicle has no collation notes on the fascicle title or the attribution.

〔1 · Refuting the Six Entrances · the eye entrance〕（0114c21）The Buddha went on: ‘Further, Ānanda! Why do I say that the six entrances are originally the tathāgatagarbha, the wondrous nature of true suchness? Ānanda! It is that very eye which stares and gives rise to the appearance of strain: the eye and the strain are both the strained appearance of bodhi staring. Because of the two kinds of false dusts, brightness and darkness, seeing arises and dwells in their midst, absorbing these images of the dusts; this is called the nature of seeing. This seeing, apart from those two dusts of brightness and darkness, in the end has no substance of its own. So it is, Ānanda! You should know: this seeing does not come from brightness or darkness, does not come out of the faculty, and is not born from space. Why? If it came from brightness, then in darkness seeing would perish along with brightness, and one ought not to see darkness. If it came from darkness, then in brightness seeing would perish along with darkness, and one ought not to see brightness. If it were born from the faculty, there would surely be no brightness and darkness, and such an essence of seeing originally has no self-nature. If it came out of space, then as it gazes forward at the images of the dusts, on turning back it ought to see your eye-faculty; moreover, it would be space itself that looks—what would that have to do with your entrance? Therefore you should know: the eye entrance is false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔1 · Refuting the Six Entrances · the ear entrance〕（0115a01）‘Ānanda! It is like a person who with the fingers of both hands quickly stops up his ears; the ear-faculty grows strained, and a sound arises in his head; the ear and the strain are both the strained appearance of bodhi staring. Because of the two kinds of false dusts, movement and stillness, hearing arises and dwells in their midst, absorbing these images of the dusts; this is called the nature of listening and hearing. This hearing, apart from those two dusts of movement and stillness, in the end has no substance of its own. So it is, Ānanda! You should know: this hearing does not come from movement or stillness, does not come out of the faculty, and is not born from space. Why? If it came from stillness, then in movement hearing would perish along with stillness, and one ought not to hear movement; if it came from movement, then in stillness hearing would perish along with movement, and one ought not to be aware of stillness. If it were born from the faculty, there would surely be no movement and stillness, and such a substance of hearing originally has no self-nature. If it came out of space, then, having hearing and forming its nature, it would no longer be space; moreover, it would be space itself that hears—what would that have to do with your entrance? Therefore you should know: the ear entrance is false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔1 · Refuting the Six Entrances · the nose entrance〕（0115a12）‘Ānanda! It is like a person who quickly draws in breath through his nose; when he has drawn it in for long, strain arises, and in his nose a cold touch is smelled. Because of this touch he distinguishes open and blocked, empty and full, and so on to all kinds of fragrant and foul odors; the nose and the strain are both the strained appearance of bodhi staring. Because of the two kinds of false dusts, openness and blockage, smelling arises and dwells in their midst, absorbing these images of the dusts; this is called the nature of smelling. This smelling, apart from those two dusts of openness and blockage, in the end has no substance of its own. You should know: this smelling does not come from openness or blockage, does not come out of the faculty, and is not born from space. Why? If it came from openness, then in blockage smelling would perish along with openness—how could one know blockage? If it existed because of blockage, then in openness there would be no smelling—how could it bring to light fragrance, foulness, and such touches? If it were born from the faculty, there would surely be no openness and blockage, and such a substance of smelling originally has no self-nature. If it came out of space, this smelling ought itself to turn back and smell your nose; it would be space itself that smells—what would that have to do with your entrance? Therefore you should know: the nose entrance is false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔1 · Refuting the Six Entrances · the tongue entrance〕（0115a23）‘Ānanda! It is like a person who licks his lips with his tongue; when he has licked for long, strain arises. If this person is ill, there is a bitter taste; for a person without illness there is a faint touch of sweetness; by sweetness and bitterness this tongue-faculty is shown, and when it does not move, the nature of blandness is constantly present. The tongue and the strain are both the strained appearance of bodhi staring. Because of the two kinds of false dusts, sweet-and-bitter and bland, knowing arises and dwells in their midst, absorbing these images of the dusts; this is called the nature of knowing taste. This nature of knowing taste, apart from those two dusts of sweet, bitter, and bland, in the end has no substance of its own. So it is, Ānanda! You should know: such knowing that tastes bitterness and blandness does not come from sweetness or bitterness, does not exist because of blandness, does not come out of the faculty, and is not born from space. Why? If it came from sweetness and bitterness, then in blandness knowing would perish—how could it know blandness? If it came out of blandness, then in sweetness knowing would vanish—how again could it know the two characteristics of sweet and bitter? If it were born from the tongue, there would surely be no sweet, bland, or bitter dusts, and such a faculty of knowing taste originally has no self-nature. If it came out of space, it would be space itself that tastes, not your mouth that knows; moreover, it would be space itself that knows—what would that have to do with your entrance? Therefore you should know: the tongue entrance is false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔1 · Refuting the Six Entrances · the body entrance〕（0115b07）‘Ānanda! It is like a person who touches a hot hand with a cold hand: if the force of the cold is greater, the hot one follows the cold; if the power of the heat prevails, the cold one becomes hot. Thus by the touch felt at the time of joining, the knowing at the time of parting is shown; if the force of entering is accomplished, it is because of the strain of touch. The body and the strain are both the strained appearance of bodhi staring. Because of the two kinds of false dusts, parting and joining, awareness arises and dwells in their midst, absorbing these images of the dusts; this is called the nature of knowing awareness. This substance of knowing awareness, apart from those two dusts of parting and joining, adverse and agreeable, in the end has no substance of its own. So it is, Ānanda! You should know: this awareness does not come from parting or joining, does not exist because of adverse or agreeable, does not come out of the faculty, and is not born from space. Why? If it came at the time of joining, then at parting awareness ought already to have perished—how could it be aware of parting? The two characteristics of adverse and agreeable are also like this. If it came out of the faculty, there would surely be none of the four characteristics of parting, joining, adverse, and agreeable, and so the knowing of your body originally has no self-nature. If it surely came out of space, it would be space itself that is aware—what would that have to do with your entrance? Therefore you should know: the body entrance is false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔1 · Refuting the Six Entrances · the mind entrance〕（0115b19）‘Ānanda! It is like a person who, wearied, falls asleep, and when fully slept wakes; seeing objects he remembers, and losing memory is forgetting. This is its inverted arising, abiding, changing, and perishing; absorbing habits and returning them within, in sequence, not overstepping one another—this is called the faculty of mental knowing. The mind and the strain are both the strained appearance of bodhi staring. Because of the two kinds of false dusts, arising and perishing, knowing gathers and dwells in their midst, absorbing and gathering the inner dusts; seeing and hearing flow back against the current, and the ground the flow does not reach is called the nature of awareness and knowing. This nature of awareness and knowing, apart from those two dusts of waking and sleeping, arising and perishing, in the end has no substance of its own. So it is, Ānanda! You should know: such a faculty of awareness and knowing does not come from waking or sleeping, does not exist because of arising or perishing, does not come out of the faculty, and is not born from space. Why? If it came from waking, then in sleep it would perish along with waking—what would do the sleeping? If it surely existed only at arising, then at perishing it would be gone along with it—whom would you have undergo the perishing? If it existed from perishing, then at arising perishing would be absent—who would know the arising? If it came out of the faculty, the two characteristics of waking and sleeping open and close along with the body; apart from these two substances, this awareness and knowing is the same as flowers in space, in the end without self-nature. If it were born from space, then naturally it would be space that knows—what would that have to do with your entrance? Therefore you should know: the mind entrance is false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔2 · Refuting the Twelve Bases · the base of eye and form〕（0115c04）‘Further, Ānanda! Why do I say that the twelve bases are originally the tathāgatagarbha, the wondrous nature of true suchness? Ānanda! Look now at the trees of this Jeta Grove and at the springs and pools. What do you think? Does form give rise to the eye’s seeing, or does the eye give rise to the characteristic of form? Ānanda! If the eye-faculty gave rise to the characteristic of form, then when it sees space, space not being form, the nature of form ought to dissolve away; once dissolved, it would disclose that all is altogether absent; the characteristic of form being gone, who would make clear the substance of space? Space is also like this. If the dust of form gave rise to the eye’s seeing, then when it looks at space, space not being form, seeing ought to dissolve and vanish; once vanished, all would be absent—who would make clear space and form? Therefore you should know: seeing, together with form and space, has no location; that is, the two bases of form and seeing are false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔2 · Refuting the Twelve Bases · the base of ear and sound〕（0115c13）‘Ānanda! Listen again: in this Jeta Park, when the meal is ready the drum is struck, and when the assembly gathers the bell is rung; the sounds of bell and drum follow one after another. What do you think? Do these sounds come to the side of the ear, or does the ear go to the place of the sound? Ānanda! If this sound came to the side of the ear, it would be like my going on alms round in the city of Śrāvastī: in the Jeta Grove, then, I am not present. This sound must come to the place of Ānanda’s ear; then Maudgalyāyana and Kāśyapa ought not both to hear it—how much less the one thousand two hundred and fifty śramaṇas among them, who, on hearing the sound of the bell, all come together to the place of the meal? If your ear went to the side of that sound, it would be like my returning to dwell in the Jeta Grove: in the city of Śrāvastī, then, I am not present. When you hear the sound of the drum, your ear has already gone to the place where the drum is struck; when the sound of the bell rings out at the same time, you ought not to hear both—how much less the various sounds of elephants, horses, oxen, and sheep among them? If there were no coming and going, would there then be no hearing either? Therefore you should know: listening and sound have no location; that is, the two bases of listening and sound are false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔2 · Refuting the Twelve Bases · the base of nose and scent〕（0115c25）‘Ānanda! Smell again the sandalwood in this censer: if this incense is burned to the amount of a single zhu, the whole city of Śrāvastī within forty li smells its scent at the same time. What do you think? Is this scent born from the sandalwood wood, born from your nose, or born from space? Ānanda! If this scent were born from your nose, since it is said to be born of the nose, it ought to come out of the nose; the nose is not sandalwood—how is there the scent of sandalwood in the nose? Since it is said that you smell the scent, the scent ought to enter through the nose; for scent to come out of the nose and be called smelling the scent does not accord with reason. If it were born from space, the nature of space is constant and abiding, and the scent ought always to be present—why need one rely on burning this dry wood in the censer? If it were born from the wood, then the substance of this incense becomes smoke through burning; if the nose can smell it, it ought to be suffused with smoke; that smoke rises into the air and has not yet reached far away—how, within forty li, has it already been smelled? Therefore you should know: scent, nose, and smelling have no location; that is, the two bases of smelling and scent are false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔2 · Refuting the Twelve Bases · the base of tongue and taste〕（0116a07）‘Ānanda! At the two times you constantly take up your bowl among the assembly, and at times among the food you meet with butter, curds, and ghee, which are called supreme tastes. What do you think? Is this taste born in space? Born in the tongue? Or born in the food? Ānanda! If this taste were born from your tongue, there is only one tongue in your mouth; that tongue having at that time already become the taste of butter, on meeting black rock-sugar it ought not to shift. If it does not change and shift, it is not called knowing taste; if it does change and shift, the tongue is not many substances—how are many tastes known by one tongue? If it were born from the food, the food has no consciousness—how could it know of itself? Moreover, if the food knew of itself, it would be the same as another person eating—what has it to do with your knowing that is called taste? If it were born from space, when you chew on space, what taste ought it to have? Suppose space made a salty taste: since it has salted your tongue, it would also salt your face, and then the people of this world would be the same as fish in the sea. Since they constantly receive the salty taste, they would not know blandness at all; if they do not recognize blandness, they would also not feel saltiness; surely knowing nothing, how could it be called taste? Therefore you should know: taste, tongue, and tasting have no location; that is, tasting and taste are both false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔2 · Refuting the Twelve Bases · the base of body and touch〕（0116a20）‘Ānanda! Every morning you constantly rub your head with your hand. What do you think? In the knowing born of this rubbing, who is the one that touches? Is the one that touches in the hand, or in the head? If in the hand, the head would have no knowing—how would touch be formed? If in the head, the hand would be of no use—how could it be called touch? If each had it, then you, Ānanda, ought to have two bodies. If head and hand were born of one touch, then hand and head ought to be one substance; if one substance, touch could not be formed. If two substances, where is the touch? If it is in what touches, it is not in what is touched; if it is in what is touched, it is not in what touches; nor should it be space that forms touch with you. Therefore you should know: awareness, touch, and body have no location; that is, body and touch are both false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔2 · Refuting the Twelve Bases · the base of mind and dharmas〕（0116a29）‘Ānanda! In your mind you constantly take as objects the three natures of good, bad, and indeterminate, which give rise to and form the patterns of dharmas. Are these dharmas the mind itself, born of it? Or do they have a separate location apart from the mind? Ānanda! If they were the mind itself, dharmas would not be dusts, not objects of the mind—how could they form a base? If they had a separate location apart from the mind, then is the self-nature of dharmas knowing, or not knowing? If knowing, it would be called mind; being different from you and not a dust, it would be the same as the measure of another person’s mind. If it were you and were the mind, how would your mind again become two with you? If it were not knowing, this dust being neither form, sound, scent, taste, parting, joining, cold, warmth, nor the characteristic of space, where ought it to be? Now within form and space there is nothing that shows it; there should not be, in the human world, a further place outside space. The mind having nothing it takes as object, from whom is the base established? Therefore you should know: the patterns of dharmas and the mind have no location; that is, mind and dharmas are both false, originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔3 · Refuting the Eighteen Realms · the realm of eye-consciousness〕（0116b10）‘Further, Ānanda! Why do I say that the eighteen realms are originally the tathāgatagarbha, the wondrous nature of true suchness? Ānanda! As you understand it, with eye and form as conditions, eye-consciousness arises. Is this consciousness born because of the eye, taking the eye as its realm? Or born because of form, taking form as its realm? Ānanda! If it were born because of the eye, then, there being neither form nor space, there would be nothing to discriminate; even if you had consciousness, what use would it be? Your seeing, moreover, is not blue, yellow, red, or white, and has nothing that shows it—from what would a realm be established? If it were born because of form, then in space, when there is no form, your consciousness ought to perish—how could consciousness know that it is the nature of space? If, when form changes, you can also recognize the shifting of the characteristic of form, while your consciousness does not shift, from what would a realm be established? If it changed along with the change, the characteristic of the realm would naturally be absent; if it did not change, it would be constant. Since it is born from form, it ought not to recognize where space is? If it combined both, eye and form born together, then united, they are again parted in between; parted, the two sides each unite; its substance and nature would be mixed and confused—how could it form a realm? Therefore you should know: of the realm of eye-consciousness born with eye and form as conditions, the three places are all nonexistent; so eye and form and the realm of form, these three, are originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔3 · Refuting the Eighteen Realms · the realm of ear-consciousness〕（0116b23）‘Ānanda! Again, as you understand it, with ear and sound as conditions, ear-consciousness arises. Is this consciousness born because of the ear, taking the ear as its realm? Or born because of sound, taking sound as its realm? Ānanda! If it were born because of the ear, then since the two characteristics of movement and stillness are not present, the faculty does not form knowing and surely knows nothing. Since knowing is not even formed, what shape would consciousness have? If you take the hearing of the ear, because there are no conditions of movement and stillness, hearing too forms nothing. How could the bodily shape of the ear, mixed with the dusts of form and touch, be called a realm of consciousness? Then from whom would the realm of ear-consciousness be established! If it were born from sound, consciousness exists because of sound and has nothing to do with hearing; without hearing, the location of the characteristic of sound is lost. If consciousness is born from sound, then even granting that sound has its characteristic of sound because of hearing, hearing ought to hear consciousness; if it does not hear, it does not form a realm. If it hears, it is the same as sound; consciousness having been heard, who would know the hearing of consciousness? If there is no knower, in the end it would be like grass and trees; sound and hearing should not mix to form a realm in between. If the realm has no middle position, then from what would the characteristics of inner and outer be formed? Therefore you should know: of the realm of ear-consciousness born with ear and sound as conditions, the three places are all nonexistent; so ear and sound and the realm of sound, these three, are originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔3 · Refuting the Eighteen Realms · the realm of nose-consciousness〕（0116c07）‘Ānanda! Again, as you understand it, with nose and scent as conditions, nose-consciousness arises. Is this consciousness born because of the nose, taking the nose as its realm? Or born because of scent, taking scent as its realm? Ānanda! If it were born because of the nose, then in your mind what do you take as the nose? Do you take that fleshly shape like a pair of claws? Or that nature of smelling and knowing, moving and stirring? If you take the fleshly shape, the substance of flesh is the body, and the knowing of the body is touch; named body, it is not the nose; named touch, it is a dust; the nose does not even have a name—how is a realm established? If you take smelling and knowing, then in your mind what again do you take as knowing? If you take flesh as knowing, then the knowing of flesh is originally touch, not the nose. If you take space as knowing, space would know of itself, and the flesh ought not to be aware. Thus space ought to be you, your body would not know, and the Ānanda of today ought to be nowhere. If you take scent as knowing, the knowing would naturally belong to the scent—what has it to do with you? If the airs of fragrance and foulness are surely born from your nose, then those two flowing airs of fragrance and foulness would not be born from the eraṇḍa and the sandalwood. When these two things do not come, you smell your own nose: is it fragrant or foul? What is foul is not fragrant; what is fragrant ought not to be foul. If both fragrance and foulness can be smelled, then you, one person, ought to have two noses, and there would be two Ānandas facing me and asking about the path—which is your substance? If the nose is one, fragrance and foulness would not be two; foulness having become fragrance and fragrance having become foulness, the two natures do not exist—from whom is a realm established? If it were born because of scent, consciousness exists because of scent; just as the eye has seeing but cannot see the eye, consciousness, existing because of scent, ought not to know scent. If it knows, it is not born from scent; if it does not know, it is not consciousness; scent not existing because of knowing, the realm of scent is not formed. If consciousness does not know scent, then this realm is not established from scent. There being no middle, inner and outer are also not formed, and all that nature of smelling is in the end false! Therefore you should know: of the realm of nose-consciousness born with nose and scent as conditions, the three places are all nonexistent; so nose and scent and the realm of scent, these three, are originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔3 · Refuting the Eighteen Realms · the realm of tongue-consciousness〕（0116c29）‘Ānanda! Again, as you understand it, with tongue and taste as conditions, tongue-consciousness arises. Is this consciousness born because of the tongue, taking the tongue as its realm? Or born because of taste, taking taste as its realm? Ānanda! If it were born because of the tongue, then the sugarcane, black plum, coptis, rock salt, wild ginger, ginger, and cassia of the world would all be without taste. Taste your own tongue: is it sweet or bitter? If the nature of the tongue were bitter, who would taste the tongue? The tongue cannot taste itself—who would be aware? If the nature of the tongue is not bitter, taste naturally does not arise—how is a realm established? If it were born because of taste, consciousness itself would be taste, the same as the tongue-faculty, and ought not to taste itself—how could consciousness know what is taste and what is not taste? Moreover, all tastes are not born of one thing; since tastes are born of many kinds, consciousness ought to have many substances! If the substance of consciousness is one, and that substance is surely born of taste, then salty, bland, sweet, and pungent, and the various changing characteristics born together in union, would all be of one taste and ought to have no discrimination! Since there is no discrimination, it is not called consciousness—how again could it be called the realm of tongue-taste-consciousness? It should not be that space gives rise to your mind’s consciousness! When tongue and taste unite, right within this there is originally no self-nature—how is a realm born? Therefore you should know: of the realm of tongue-consciousness born with tongue and taste as conditions, the three places are all nonexistent; so tongue and taste and the realm of the tongue, these three, are originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔3 · Refuting the Eighteen Realms · the realm of body-consciousness〕（0117a14）‘Ānanda! Again, as you understand it, with body and touch as conditions, body-consciousness arises. Is this consciousness born because of the body, taking the body as its realm? Or born because of touch, taking touch as its realm? Ānanda! If it were born because of the body, there would surely be no conditions of the two kinds of awareness and contemplation, joining and parting—what would body-consciousness know? If it were born because of touch, there would surely be no body of yours—who is there that, not being a body, can know joining and parting? Ānanda! Things cannot touch and know; it is because the body knows that there is touch. To know the body is touch; to know touch is the body; speaking of touch, it is not the body; speaking of the body, it is not touch; the two characteristics of body and touch originally have no location. Joined to the body, it is the body’s own substance and nature; apart from the body, it is the characteristics of space and the like; inner and outer are both not formed—how is the middle established? The middle cannot be established further, and the natures of inner and outer are both empty; then when your consciousness arises, from whom is a realm established? Therefore you should know: of the realm of body-consciousness born with body and touch as conditions, the three places are all nonexistent; so body and touch and the realm of the body, these three, are originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.

〔3 · Refuting the Eighteen Realms · the realm of mind-consciousness〕（0117a25）‘Ānanda! Again, as you understand it, with mind and dharmas as conditions, mind-consciousness arises. Is this consciousness born because of the mind, taking the mind as its realm? Or born because of dharmas, taking dharmas as its realm? Ānanda! If it were born because of the mind, in your mind there must be something thought of, bringing your mind to light; if there are no dharmas before it, the mind has nothing from which to arise; apart from conditions it has no shape—what use would consciousness be? Further, your cognizing mind, together with the various kinds of thinking and pondering and the nature of discerning—are they the same or different? If the same as the mind, it is the mind—how is it what is born? If different from the mind and not the same, it ought to be conscious of nothing! If it is conscious of nothing, how can one say it is born from the mind? If it is conscious of something, how does it recognize the mind? Only the two natures of same and different cannot be formed—how is a realm established? If it were born because of dharmas, the dharmas of the world do not depart from the five dusts. Look at form-dharmas and the various sound-dharmas, scent-dharmas, taste-dharmas, and touch-dharmas: their characteristics and appearances are distinct, facing the five faculties, and are not what the mind takes in. If your consciousness surely arises in dependence on dharmas, now observe closely: what shape are dharmas and dharmas? If, apart from form and space, movement and stillness, openness and blockage, joining and parting, arising and perishing, one goes beyond these characteristics, in the end nothing whatever is obtained. At arising, form, space, and the other dharmas arise together; at perishing, form, space, and the other dharmas perish together; what it depends on being absent, what shape would the consciousness born because of it have? The characteristics and appearances being absent, how is a realm born? Therefore you should know: of the realm of mind-consciousness born with mind and dharmas as conditions, the three places are all nonexistent; so mind and dharmas and the realm of mind, these three, are originally neither causes and conditions nor the nature of spontaneity.’

〔4 · Ānanda Presses the Difficulty · The Buddha Consents to Expound · Establishing the Principle and Refuting in General〕（0117b13）Ānanda said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! The Tathāgata has always said, “Union and causes and conditions: all the various transformations of the world are brought to light by the union of the four elements.” Why does the Tathāgata reject and cast out both causes and conditions and spontaneity? I do not now know to what this meaning belongs; I only ask that you bestow your pity, and open up for beings the dharma of the complete meaning of the middle way, without idle disputation!’

〔4 · Ānanda Presses the Difficulty · The Buddha Consents to Expound · Establishing the Principle and Refuting in General〕（0117b17）At that time the World-Honored One said to Ānanda: ‘You earlier turned in weariness from the śrāvakas, the pratyekabuddhas, and the various dharmas of the Lesser Vehicle, and resolved to seek diligently unsurpassed bodhi; therefore I now open up for you the truth of the foremost meaning. Why do you again entangle yourself with the idle disputation of the world and the causes and conditions of false thinking? Although you have heard much, you are like one who talks of medicine: when the true medicine is before him he cannot distinguish it; the Tathāgata says this is truly pitiable! Listen carefully now! I will distinguish and show it for you, and also enable those in the future who cultivate the Great Vehicle to penetrate true reality.’ Ānanda was silent and received the Buddha’s sagely intent.

〔4 · Ānanda Presses the Difficulty · The Buddha Consents to Expound · Establishing the Principle and Refuting in General〕（0117b24）‘Ānanda! As you say, “the union of the four elements brings to light all the various transformations of the world.” Ānanda! If the substance of the nature of the elements were not union, it could not mix and blend with the elements, just as space does not blend with forms. If it were union, it would be the same as transformation, beginning and end forming each other, arising and perishing following one another, born and dying, dying and born, birth upon birth and death upon death, like a whirling ring of fire with no rest. Ānanda! It is like water becoming ice, and ice turning back into water.

〔5 · The Nature of Earth〕（0117b29）‘Look at the nature of earth: coarse, it becomes the great earth; fine, it becomes fine dust; reaching the dust bordering on void, splitting that most minute particle—the boundary-characteristic of form—it is formed of seven parts; splitting the dust bordering on void further, it is truly the nature of emptiness.

〔5 · The Nature of Earth〕（0117c02）‘Ānanda! If this dust bordering on void can be split into space, you should know that space can also give rise to the characteristic of form. You now ask, ‘Because of union, all the various transformed characteristics of the world arise’; look then at this one mote of dust bordering on void: how much space must be united to have it? It should not be that dust bordering on void unites to form dust bordering on void. Further, when the dust bordering on void is split into emptiness, how many characteristics of form must unite to form space? If it is when characteristics of form unite, what is formed by uniting is form, not emptiness; if it is when characteristics of emptiness unite, what is formed by uniting is emptiness, not form. Form can still be split—how can emptiness be united?

〔5 · The Nature of Earth〕（0117c08）‘You originally did not know that in the tathāgatagarbha the nature of form is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true form, pure and originally so, pervading the dharma-realm, answering to the minds of beings according to the measure of their knowing. It manifests in accordance with action; the people of the world, without knowing, are deluded and take it to be causes and conditions and the nature of spontaneity; all this is the discrimination and calculation of the cognizing mind: there are only words, with no real meaning at all!

〔6 · The Nature of Fire〕（0117c12）‘Ānanda! The nature of fire has no self; it lodges in the various conditions. Look at the households in the city that have not yet eaten: when they are about to cook, they hold the burning-mirror in their hands and seek fire before the sun. Ānanda! What is called union is like my now forming one assembly with you, the one thousand two hundred and fifty bhikṣus; although the assembly is one, when one inquires into its root, each person has his own body, and each has the clan and name of his birth—as Śāriputra is of the brahmin caste, Uruvilvā is of the Kāśyapa clan, and so on to Ānanda, who is of the Gautama clan.

〔6 · The Nature of Fire〕（0117c17）‘Ānanda! If this nature of fire existed because of union, then when that person holds the mirror and seeks fire beneath the sun, does this fire come out of the mirror? Does it come out of the mugwort? Or does it come from the sun? Ānanda! If it came from the sun, since it can of itself burn the mugwort in your hand, then the forests and trees of the place it comes from ought all to be burned? If it came out of the mirror, since it can of itself come out of the mirror and set the mugwort alight, why does the mirror not melt? The mirror held in your hand does not even have a characteristic of heat—how could it melt? If it were born from the mugwort, why need one rely on the light of the sun and the mirror meeting before the fire is born? Observe again closely: the mirror is held by the hand, the sun comes from the heavens, the mugwort is originally born from the earth—from what direction does the fire travel to come here? The sun and the mirror are far apart, neither union nor combination; it should not be that the light of fire exists of itself, coming from nowhere.

〔6 · The Nature of Fire〕（0117c25）‘You still do not know that in the tathāgatagarbha the nature of fire is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true fire, pure and originally so, pervading the dharma-realm, answering to the minds of beings according to the measure of their knowing. Ānanda! You should know: when people of the world hold a mirror in one place, fire arises in one place; when mirrors are held throughout the dharma-realm, fire arises filling the world; fire arising throughout the world—where is there a fixed location? It manifests in accordance with action; the people of the world, without knowing, are deluded and take it to be causes and conditions and the nature of spontaneity; all this is the discrimination and calculation of the cognizing mind: there are only words, with no real meaning at all!

〔7 · The Nature of Water〕（0118a03）‘Ānanda! The nature of water is not fixed; flowing and stopping have no constancy. For instance, in the city of Śrāvastī, the great masters of illusion—the ṛṣi Kapila, the ṛṣi Cakra, Padmahasata, and others—seek the essence of the moon in order to blend their illusion potions. These masters of illusion, at the time of the white moon, hold the fang-zhu moon-mirror in their hands and catch the water in the moon. Does this water come out of the pearl? Does it exist in space of itself? Or does it come from the moon?

〔7 · The Nature of Water〕（0118a07）‘Ānanda! If it came from the moon, since it can even from afar make the pearl give forth water, then the forests and trees it passes through ought all to pour out streams of water. If they all pour forth, why need one wait for what the fang-zhu gives forth? If they do not pour forth, this shows that the water does not descend from the moon. If it came out of the pearl, then water ought constantly to flow from within this pearl—why need one wait until midnight, at the time of the white moon, to catch it? If it were born from space, the nature of space is boundless, and the water ought to be limitless; from the human world up to the heavens all would alike be overwhelmed and drowned—how would there still be beings that move in water, on land, and in the air? Observe again closely: the moon rises from the heavens, the pearl is held by the hand, and the water basin that receives the pearl is set out by the person himself—from what direction does the water flow to pour in here? The moon and the pearl are far apart, neither union nor combination; it should not be that the essence of water exists of itself, coming from nowhere.

〔7 · The Nature of Water〕（0118a15）‘You do not yet know that in the tathāgatagarbha the nature of water is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true water, pure and originally so, pervading the dharma-realm, answering to the minds of beings according to the measure of their knowing. When a pearl is held in one place, water comes forth in one place; when pearls are held throughout the dharma-realm, water arises filling the dharma-realm; water arising filling the world—where is there a fixed location? It manifests in accordance with action; the people of the world, without knowing, are deluded and take it to be causes and conditions and the nature of spontaneity; all this is the discrimination and calculation of the cognizing mind: there are only words, with no real meaning at all!

〔8 · The Nature of Wind〕（0118a21）‘Ānanda! The nature of wind has no substance; movement and stillness are not constant. You constantly arrange your robes and enter the great assembly; the corner of your saṃghāṭī moves and reaches the person beside you, and a faint wind brushes that person’s face. Does this wind come out of the corner of the kāṣāya? Does it arise from space? Or is it born from that person’s face?

〔8 · The Nature of Wind〕（0118a23）‘Ānanda! If this wind came out of the corner of the kāṣāya, you would be wearing wind; that robe, flying and fluttering, ought to leave your body! I am now speaking the Dharma, letting my robe hang down in the assembly; look at my robe—where is the wind? There should not be within the robe a place where wind is stored. If it were born from space, when your robe does not move, why is there no brushing of wind? The nature of space is constantly abiding, and wind ought constantly to arise; if there were times without wind, space ought to perish. Perished wind can still be seen—what would perished space look like! If it had arising and perishing, it would not be called space; since it is called space, how could it give forth wind? If wind were born of itself from the face of the person brushed, being born from that person’s face, it ought to brush toward you! You yourself arrange your robe—how does it instead brush back toward him? Observe closely: arranging the robe lies with you, the face belongs to that person, space is still and does not take part in flowing—from whose direction does the wind blow to come here? The natures of wind and space are separated, neither union nor combination; it should not be that the nature of wind exists of itself, coming from nowhere.

〔8 · The Nature of Wind〕（0118b04）‘You actually do not know that in the tathāgatagarbha the nature of wind is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true wind, pure and originally so, pervading the dharma-realm, answering to the minds of beings according to the measure of their knowing. Ānanda! As when you, one person, slightly move your robe, a faint wind comes forth; when there is brushing throughout the dharma-realm, wind arises filling the lands, pervading the world—where is there a fixed location? It manifests in accordance with action; the people of the world, without knowing, are deluded and take it to be causes and conditions and the nature of spontaneity; all this is the discrimination and calculation of the cognizing mind: there are only words, with no real meaning at all!

〔9 · The Nature of Space〕（0118b11）‘Ānanda! The nature of space has no shape; it is disclosed because of form. For instance, in the city of Śrāvastī, in places far from the river, the kṣatriyas and the brahmins, vaiśyas, and śūdras, together with the Bhāradvājas, caṇḍālas, and others, newly setting up dwellings for the rains retreat, dig wells in search of water. When a foot of earth is dug out, there is within it a foot of space; and so on until a zhang of earth is dug out, and in the middle again a zhang of space is obtained. The depth of space follows how much is dug out. Does this space come out because of the earth? Does it exist because of the digging? Or is it born of itself without cause?

〔9 · The Nature of Space〕（0118b16）‘Ānanda! If this space were born of itself without cause, before the earth was dug, why was it not unobstructed? Only the great earth was seen, with no opening far and wide. If it came out because of the earth, then when the earth came out, one ought to see space go in. If the earth came out first and no space went in, how can one say that space comes out because of the earth? If there were no coming out and going in, then space and earth originally have no different cause; not being different, they are the same; then when the earth comes out, why does space not come out? If it came out because of the digging, then what the digging brings out is space, and it ought not to bring out earth; if it does not come out because of the digging, the digging itself brings out earth—how is space seen? Examine again, closely examine, closely contemplate: the digging follows the person’s hand, turning according to direction; the earth moves because of the ground; so because of what does space come out? Digging and space—one empty, one solid—do not serve each other, neither union nor combination; it should not be that space comes out of itself from nowhere.

〔9 · The Nature of Space〕（0118b25）‘If the nature of this space is perfectly full and pervasive, originally unmoving, you should know that the present earth, water, fire, and wind are equally called the five elements, their nature true and perfectly interfused, all the tathāgatagarbha, originally without arising or perishing. Ānanda! Your mind is dim and confused and does not awaken to the four elements as originally the tathāgatagarbha; you should observe space: does it come out, does it go in, or is it neither coming out nor going in? You do not know at all that in the tathāgatagarbha the nature of awakening is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true awakening, pure and originally so, pervading the dharma-realm, answering to the minds of beings according to the measure of their knowing.

〔9 · The Nature of Space〕（0118c03）‘Ānanda! It is like the space of one well: space gives rise to one well; the space of the ten directions is also like this, perfectly filling the ten directions—where is there a fixed location? It manifests in accordance with action; the people of the world, without knowing, are deluded and take it to be causes and conditions and the nature of spontaneity; all this is the discrimination and calculation of the cognizing mind: there are only words, with no real meaning at all!

〔10 · Seeing-Awareness〕（0118c07）‘Ānanda! Seeing-awareness has no knowing; it exists because of form and space. As you are now in the Jeta Grove, in the morning it is bright and in the evening dim; suppose you are there at midnight: under the white moon it is light, under the dark moon it is dark; thus brightness, darkness, and the rest are distinguished by means of seeing. Is this seeing, together with brightness and darkness and with the great void of space, one substance? Or not one substance? Or the same yet not the same? Or different yet not different?

〔10 · Seeing-Awareness〕（0118c11）‘Ānanda! If this seeing were originally one substance with brightness, darkness, and space, then the two substances of brightness and darkness cancel each other out: in darkness there is no brightness, and in brightness it is not darkness. If it were one with darkness, then in brightness seeing would vanish; if it were surely one with brightness, then in darkness seeing ought to perish; perished, how could it see brightness and see darkness? If darkness and brightness differ while seeing has no arising or perishing, how is one substance established? If this essence of seeing were not one substance with darkness and brightness, then apart from brightness, darkness, and space, analyze the origin of seeing: what shape does it have? Apart from brightness, apart from darkness, and apart from space, this origin of seeing is the same as the hair of a tortoise or the horn of a hare. The three things—brightness, darkness, and space—being all different, from what is seeing established? Brightness and darkness being opposed to each other, how can one say it is the same? Apart from the three, the origin is absent—how can one say it is different? Dividing space and dividing seeing, there is originally no boundary—how can one say it is not the same? Seeing darkness and seeing brightness, the nature does not shift or change—how can one say it is not different? Examine again finely, examine minutely, examine in detail, examine closely, and observe: brightness comes from the sun, darkness follows the dark moon, openness belongs to space, obstruction returns to the great earth; so from what does such an essence of seeing come forth? Seeing is aware, space is insensate, neither union nor combination; it should not be that the essence of seeing comes forth of itself from nowhere.

〔10 · Seeing-Awareness〕（0118c24）‘If the natures of seeing, hearing, and knowing are perfectly full and pervasive, originally unmoving, you should know that boundless, unmoving space, together with the moving earth, water, fire, and wind, are equally called the six elements, their nature true and perfectly interfused, all the tathāgatagarbha, originally without arising or perishing. Ānanda! Your nature is sunk and submerged, and does not awaken to your seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing as originally the tathāgatagarbha. You should observe this seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing: is it arising, is it perishing? Is it the same, is it different? Is it neither arising nor perishing? Is it neither the same nor different?

〔10 · Seeing-Awareness〕（0118c29）‘You have never known that in the tathāgatagarbha the nature of seeing is awakened brightness and the essence of awakening is bright seeing, pure and originally so, pervading the dharma-realm, answering to the minds of beings according to the measure of their knowing. As with the one faculty of seeing, seeing pervades the dharma-realm; listening, smelling, tasting, touching, the awareness of touch, and the awareness of knowing—wondrous virtue, lustrous and clear—pervade the dharma-realm everywhere, perfectly filling the space of the ten directions—where is there a fixed location? It manifests in accordance with action; the people of the world, without knowing, are deluded and take it to be causes and conditions and the nature of spontaneity; all this is the discrimination and calculation of the cognizing mind: there are only words, with no real meaning at all!

〔11 · The Nature of Consciousness〕（0119a06）‘Ānanda! The nature of consciousness has no source; it comes forth falsely because of the six kinds of faculties and dusts. You now look all around at the sagely assembly in this gathering, letting your eyes pass over them in turn; those eyes look all around, just as in a mirror, without any other analysis; your consciousness within this points them out in sequence: this is Mañjuśrī, this is Pūrṇa, this is Maudgalyāyana, this is Subhūti, this is Śāriputra. This discerning knowing of consciousness—is it born from seeing? Born from characteristics? Born from space? Or does it come forth suddenly without any cause?

〔11 · The Nature of Consciousness〕（0119a11）‘Ānanda! If your nature of consciousness were born within seeing, then if there were no brightness and darkness and no form and space—these four being surely absent—originally there would be no seeing of yours; since even the nature of seeing is absent, from what would consciousness arise? If your nature of consciousness were born within characteristics and not from seeing, then it would see neither brightness nor darkness; brightness and darkness both not being seen, there would be no form or space; since even those characteristics are absent, from what would consciousness arise? If it were born from space, it is neither characteristic nor seeing; not being seeing, it has nothing to discern, and naturally cannot know brightness, darkness, form, or space; not being characteristic, conditions are extinguished, and seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing have no place to be established. Dwelling within these two negations, emptiness is not the same as nothing, and existence is not the same as a thing; even if your consciousness came forth, what would it discriminate? If it came forth suddenly without any cause, why does it not, at midday, separately recognize the bright moon? Examine again finely, minutely and in detail: seeing relies on your eyes, characteristics are referred to the objects before you; what can be described becomes existence, what has no characteristic becomes nonexistence; so from what do such conditions of consciousness come forth? Consciousness is moving, seeing is still, neither union nor combination; hearing, listening, feeling, and knowing are also like this; it should not be that the conditions of consciousness come forth of themselves from nowhere.

〔11 · The Nature of Consciousness〕（0119a22）‘If this cognizing mind originally comes from nowhere, you should know that discerning and seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing are perfect, full, and profoundly clear, their nature not coming from anywhere; together with space, earth, water, fire, and wind, they are equally called the seven elements, their nature true and perfectly interfused, all the tathāgatagarbha, originally without arising or perishing. Ānanda! Your mind is coarse and shallow, and does not awaken to the knowing brought to light by seeing and hearing as originally the tathāgatagarbha. You should observe this cognizing mind of the six places: is it the same, is it different? Is it empty, is it existent? Is it neither the same nor different? Is it neither empty nor existent?

〔11 · The Nature of Consciousness〕（0119a28）‘You originally do not know that in the tathāgatagarbha the nature of consciousness is bright knowing and awakened brightness is true consciousness, wondrous awakening, profoundly clear, pervading the dharma-realm everywhere, holding in and breathing out the space of the ten directions—where is there a fixed location? It manifests in accordance with action; the people of the world, without knowing, are deluded and take it to be causes and conditions and the nature of spontaneity; all this is the discrimination and calculation of the cognizing mind: there are only words, with no real meaning at all.’

〔12 · Carrying On the Preceding Disclosure, the Assembly Attains Awakening〕（0119b03）At that time Ānanda and all the great assembly, receiving the subtle and wondrous disclosure of the Buddha, the Tathāgata, were vast and open in body and mind, and attained freedom from obstruction. These great assemblies each knew of themselves that the mind pervades the ten directions, seeing the space of the ten directions as one looks at a leaf held in the palm of one’s hand. All that exists in all the worlds is simply the wondrous, bright, original mind of bodhi; the essence of mind is all-pervading and perfect, containing and enfolding the ten directions. Looking back on the body born of father and mother, it was like a single mote of dust blown about in the space of the ten directions, as if there, as if gone; or like a single floating bubble drifting on the vast, clear ocean, arising and perishing from nowhere. Clearly they knew of themselves that they had obtained the originally wondrous mind, constantly abiding and imperishable. Ānanda bowed to the Buddha and joined his palms, gaining what he had never had, and before the Tathāgata spoke a verse in praise of the Buddha:

〔12 · Carrying On the Preceding Disclosure, the Assembly Attains Awakening〕（0119b12）

　　Wondrous, profound, all-retaining, unmoving Honored One, the Śūraṅgama King, rare in the world!
　　You dissolve my inverted thinking of a hundred million kalpas; without passing through asaṃkhyeya kalpas I obtain the Dharma body.
　　I vow now to attain the fruit and become the Jeweled King, and in turn to deliver beings as many as the sands of the Ganges;
　　this profound mind I offer up to lands as many as dust-motes: this is what is called repaying the Buddha’s kindness.
　　I humbly ask the World-Honored One to bear witness: into the evil world of the five turbidities I vow to enter first;
　　if a single being has not yet become a buddha, I will never here take nirvāṇa.
　　Great Hero, Great Power, Great Compassion! I hope you will further examine and remove my subtle delusions,
　　so that I may soon ascend to unsurpassed awakening and sit at the bodhimaṇḍa in the realms of the ten directions.
　　The nature of śūnyatā may dissolve and vanish, but the vajra-firm mind has no moving or turning!

The closing title of the fascicle: ‘The Great Buddha-Crown Sūtra of the Myriad Practices, Śūraṅgama, Fascicle Three’.