Then the Lord Buddha continued, saying:
Ananda! Though you had previously realized that the mysterious enlightening nature of Intuitive Essence was subject to neither cause nor condition nor nature, yet you were not clear as to its intuitive origin which is made up neither by conformity to causes and conditions, nor by non-conformity to them.
You still appear to be in bondage to the objects that are in your presence and are still constrained to conform to the false conceptions of the world, for you still cherish doubts within your mind when you hear that your enlightening Mind is not to be attained by conformity to the principle of cause and condition. Let me ask you some more questions. Tell me, Ananda. Regarding your present mysterious and pure Essence of the perception of your eyes, is it in conformity with brightness, or is it in conformity with darkness? Is it in conformity with the clearness of space, or is it in conformity with the impenetrability of obstacles? If it is in conformity with brightness, then when you are seeing the brightness which is manifested in your presence, can you detect what part of the brightness is mixed up with the perception of eyes? It is quite clear that there is the perception of eyes, but when you are seeing the brightness, do you notice what kind of appearance comes from the brightness to be mixed up with your perception of eyes? If the viewing of brightness does not belong to the perception of eyes, then how is it you can see brightness at all? If it does belong to the perception of eyes, then how is it that there is some nature that perceives the perception of eyes? If it is asserted that the perception of eyes is perfect by itself, then what part of it is in conformity with brightness? If brightness is perfect by itself, then it should be in conformity with the perception of eyes. Thus the perception of eyes must be a different thing from brightness. If they are blurred together, then each of them would lose something of its own nature. Since by blurring they lose something of their own natures, the perception of eyes would, by no means, be in conformity with brightness. And the same deduction can be made as to the other phenomena, darkness, space and impenetrable objects.
Again, Ananda. As regards your mysterious, pure Essence of the perception of Sight, is it compounded with brightness, or is it compounded with darkness, or with space, or with impenetrable objects? If the perception of sight is compounded with brightness, then, supposing you were in darkness, and the phenomena of brightness had disappeared so that it does not become mixed with darkness, how is it that you can still see darkness? Or, when you are seeing darkness and the perception of eyes does not combine with darkness, then when it combines with brightness, how can it see brightness, also? Since the perception of eyes has not seen brightness, then how is it that the perception of eyes can distinguish brightness from darkness. And the same deduction can be made with the other phenomena of darkness, space and impenetrable objects.
Then Ananda interposed, saying to the Lord Buddha: Noble Lord! It seems to me that this mysterious, intuitive Nature and all of these conditioning objects and thoughts of the mind must be in some kind of mutual conformity, or mixed compound.
The Lord Buddha replied: Ananda, you have just now asserted that the intuitive Nature is not in conformity nor in compound with other phenomena. I will ask you some more questions. As to what you have just said, that this Mysterious Essence of the perception of Sight is neither in conformity nor in compound with other phenomena. Do you mean by this, that it is not in conformity with brightness, nor with darkness, nor space, nor impenetrable objects? If it is not in conformity with brightness, then the perception of eyes and brightness must have each their individual and exclusive sphere. Can you show the boundary line between them, which part belongs to perception of eyes and which to brightness? If within the sphere of brightness, there must be no admission of the perception of eyes, how could they influence each other as the perception of eyes would naturally not know the proper limits of manifested brightness. And if perception of eyes could not know, how could you? The same can be said of all other phenomena, darkness, space and impenetrable objects.
Again, Ananda. If it is true as suggested by you, that the Essence of this mysterious perception of Sight is neither in conformity or in combination with conditions, then do you mean that it is not in conformity with brightness, nor with darkness, nor space, nor impenetrable objects? If the perception of eyes is not in combination with brightness, then they would be like two diverging horns. They would be like the relation of the ear and brightness which do not influence each other at all. Since the perception of eyes does not know the exact location where brightness manifests itself, how can it make distinctions between combining and not combining? And the same can be said of the other phenomena, darkness, space and impenetrable objects.
Ananda, you have not yet realized that the True Nature of all transitory perceptions of sights of objects and fleeting illusions that become manifest when they are in the presence of objects and which disappear when out of the presence of objects, IS this mysterious, enlightening, intuitive Essence. This is true of all these five sense ingredients, six kinds of perceptions, and is true from all the twelve locations of contact between consciousness and objects, into the eighteen spheres of mentation in contact with objects through the sense organs. When they are in conformity or in combination with causes and conditions, they manifest these fleeting, illusive conceptions, and when they are disconnected from causes and conditions, the illusions disappear. As you do not realize the foregoing — that the true nature of the perceptions of the senses is the Intuitive Essence of Mind — how can you realize that all the phenomena of death and rebirth — their appearing, going to and fro, disappearing — is simply the permanent, mysterious, enlightening, unchanging, all-perfect, Wonderful Mind-Essence of Tathagata’s Womb (wherein all is in perfect purity and unity and potentiality)?
If you still think that these conceptions of the senses and discriminations concerning them have some self-nature of their own then you should seek for it within the purity of this Permanent Reality, but not a sign of their individual characteristics or of conceptions concerning them will you find there.
Ananda! What is involved in the assertion that the five sense-ingredients and discriminations concerning them belong to the mysterious Mind-Essence of Tathagata’s Womb? Suppose a man with good fresh eyes looks steadily into the bright shining space of the sky without glancing about or winking. After long staring, there arise contaminations of the eyes and in the emptiness of space, he sees fantastic blossoms and many other strange phantasms. These fantastic blossoms that the contaminated eyes see in the open space of the sky come neither from the sky nor from the eyes. If you suppose they come from the sky then, when they disappear, they must return to the sky. However, as soon as you have the notion of “coming from and going to” then the sky is no longer open space. If open space is not open space then the fantastic blossoms could not have come into manifestation nor disappear.
Ananda, you should know that all the sights of the eyes are like that. Since beginningless time, sentient beings have been regarding the purity of Intuitive Mind-Essence and their eyes have become contaminated and they see the myriads of sense conceptions, and from liking them, birth after birth, and grasping them by force of habit, the false conceptions of the senses have seemingly become real, and have set up a conception of Ananda and that which is not Ananda, and resent the coming in of the true Ananda.
If you suppose that these fantastic blossoms come from the eyes, they should also return to the eyes, but do they? If they come from the eyes naturally they would have the nature of perception of sight and, going out from these eyes, having the perception of sight, they should see their own eyes. If they did not have the nature of seeing when they went out, they would be the objects and would cast shadows on the sky, and when they return to the eyes they should cast shadows in their own eyes. According to our supposition, the eyes that saw the clear space of the sky were good, fresh eyes, now when they have seen the fantastic blossoms they have shadows in them; how can they be called good, fresh, eyes? Therefore, Ananda, you should know that the ingredients of sight are false and illusion; they are neither manifested naturally by causes and conditions, nor do they arise spontaneously from their own nature.
Suppose, Ananda, a man sitting at ease, with hands and feet at rest, and all the bones of his body in harmony and comfort, with his mind in a state of tranquillity, neither happy nor unhappy, sitting almost unconscious of his own existence. With no especial purpose in mind, he rubs the palms of his two hands together and forthwith there arises from his hands perceptions of roughness, smoothness, coldness, warmness. So you should know that the ingredients of the perception of touch are fanciful and illusion, also. Ananda, all these fantastic feelings that arise from rubbing the hands together, neither come from the air nor from the palms of the hands. If it comes from the air, since it can touch the palms of the hands, why does it not touch the body elsewhere? What caused the selection? Or, if it comes from the palms, why does this feeling-perception not arise until the palms are pressed together? Because of its arising from the palms when they are pressed together, they naturally become conscious of each other, and when the palms are separated, the perception of touch naturally retreats into the body. Naturally there is something in the body that is passing to and fro, but how is it that the body has to wait until the hands are pressed together before it becomes conscious of a perception of touch? Therefore, Ananda, you should know that the perception ingredients of touch are fanciful and an illusion that are neither manifested by causes and conditions, nor do they arise spontaneously from their own nature.
Ananda, suppose a man speaks of sour plums, he immediately is conscious of saliva flowing out from his tongue, or as he thinks of falling from a high cliff, he immediately feels a trembling in his feet. It is just the same with all thinking ingredients of perception. In this case it neither comes from the plum, nor from an actual plum going into his mouth. If sourness is manifested by a plum, then it must be speaking for itself, how is it that it was perceived in this case by some one speaking about it? Or, if the perception arises from the going into the mouth, then it should be heard by the mouth; why did the saliva have to wait until the ear heard of the sourness? If it was the ear that heard it why did not the saliva come out of the ear? The same is true of the effect of thinking of falling from a steep cliff. Therefore, Ananda, you should know that the thinking ingredients of perception are fanciful and illusion, they are neither manifested naturally by causes and condition, nor spontaneously by their own nature.
Ananda! A river flows on with no gaps between the water that goes before and the water that flows after, so is the current of the activity-ingredients of our perceptions. The nature of such an everflowing current of water neither arises from the air nor from the waters; it is neither of the nature of water or air, nor is it independent of them. If it arises from the air, then all the infinite spaces of the ten quarters of the universe would become torrents of water and the whole universe would suffer denudation. If it is manifested by means of water alone, then the substance and potentialities of water would be manifested for once only, it wouldn’t be a current. If it arises from the nature of water, then when water is stilled, the current would be of some other substance than water. Therefore, Ananda, you should know that the action-ingredients of perception are not manifested naturally by causes and conditions nor spontaneously by their own nature.
Ananda, suppose a man fills a jar with air in his native country, plugs up the mouth of the jar and journeys many hundred of miles to a distant country, for the purpose of bringing some of his native air to that far country. This is in likeness to the conscious-ingredient of perception. When the jar is opened the air mingles with the other air and can neither be said to come from the native country nor to be the pure air of the far country. If it came from the native country, then the air there should be decreased, and the air in the far country increased, but on the contrary, when he opens the jar he sees nothing going in and nothing coming out. Therefore,Ananda, you should know that the conscious ingredients are fanciful and illusive; they are neither manifested naturally by causes and conditions, nor spontaneously by their own nature.
Then the Lord Buddha asked Ananda: Ananda, if we think of Ultimate Reality as the Womb of Tathagata from which every manifestation emerges, in what sense can it be said that the six sense perceptions belong to this true, mysterious Mind-Essence?
Let me explain this relation to you. Referring to what I said to you a little while ago, that long staring at the clear bright sky was the cause of contaminations in the perception of the eyes. In that teaching, both the perception of the eyes and the contaminated state were shown to be restraints placed upon the pure Wisdom (Bodhi) nature. It is because of this constraint placed upon it by the two opposing but false notions of brightness and darkness that the perception of sight, which perceives the phenomenal object, is spoken of as having the nature of perceiving sights. But this perception of sight, apart from brightness and darkness, has no substantiality of existence. I will show this to be a fact. Ananda, you know very well that this perception of sight is independent of brightness and darkness, nor does it have its origin in the sense organ (which only records sensation), nor does it arise from the surrounding space. Because, if it comes from brightness, then it could not perceive darkness; and if it comes from darkness, it ought not to perceive brightness any more. If it comes from the sense-organ, its sensations will vary, but it will know nothing of brightness or darkness. Such is the essence of the perception of sight that it has no nature of its own. Because, if it comes from space, then as it goes forth to view an object in its presence, so it should be able to view the eye-organ on its return. If it comes from space, moreover, then space must have its own organ of sight, and what relation would it have with your eyes? Therefore, Ananda, you should know that the perception of the eyes is false and fantastic and that it is neither manifested by causes and conditions, nor spontaneously by its own nature, (for it has no nature of its own).
(The same is proven in the text, to hold true as to the unsubstantiality and falsity of the perception of the other senses, of hearing, tasting, and smelling.)
Ananda, supposing a man has one warm hand and the other cold, and they touch each other. If the coldness exceeds the warmth, then both hands will become cold, or if the warm hand is greater in force, both hands will become warm. Thus by means of this perception of two sensations at the same time, and of the one being greater than the other, the conditions are set up by the phenomena of contamination, the same being manifested by means of the contact of two hands in different degrees of warmth and coldness. This perception of two hands and their contaminations are both to be included in the contaminated state manifested on account of the constraint of the Wisdom nature. It is by means of the conflict between these two false notions of separation and contact that there is manifested the sense of touching, which perceives the notion of contact, which provides the basis of the perception of touching. If this perception of touching can be shown to be independent both of the unpleasant notion of separation and the pleasant notion of contact, then it has no substantiality of existence after all. I will now show this to be a fact. But first you should know that this perception of touch does not come from separation or contact, nor does it reveal its existence by means of a feeling of unpleasantness or of pleasantness, nor does it arise spontaneously from its own sense of touch, and, finally, it is not manifested from space, either. And why? Because if the perception of touch comes when it is in contact with something then when it is separated from something, the perception of touching should have disappeared but, as it is, it still perceives its separation. And the same is true in regard to the phenomena of unpleasantness and pleasantness for, if the perception of touch springs up from the sense of body there can be none of these four phenomena of separation; contact, unpleasantness and pleasantness. And, moreover, the perception of your body naturally has no nature of its own. If the perception of touch must be regarded as springing out of space, and space would be availing itself of the perception of touch, and then, what would be the relation between the perceptions arising out of space and the perceptions arising within our own bodies? Therefore, Ananda, you should know that the perception of the sense of touch is false and fantastic, that it is neither manifested by cause and condition, nor spontaneously by its own nature.
Then the Lord Buddha, continued: Ananda, when a man becomes weary, he lies down to sleep; when his sleep is satisfied, he wakes up; when he opens his eyes, he sees objects and begins to think about them; when he loses his memory he becomes worried. These are to be considered as reversed conceptions of death and rebirth, and transformations and continuity, which develop in a more orderly succession and to which the mind becomes accustomed. These phenomena (analogous to the phenomena connected with the senses of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching) are connected with the mental or thinking sense. The perception of thinking (or the consciousness of thinking), with its contaminations is to be included with the other sense perceptions and their contaminations, as being restraints placed upon our Bodhi nature.
It is because of being placed between two false notions, such as death and rebirth, that the perception of thinking becomes manifested. The mind-sense, (considered as an object) in contact with the other senses receives notions of ideas, and thoughts and recollections, which being in reversed order (i.e. moving toward diversity) are ever moving away from True Mind (which is in a state of primal and unchanging unity and purity), and thus will never reach their source in the Wisdom of True Mind. This is characteristic of all conscious and discriminative thinking.
If this perception of thinking becomes separated from the dualism of phenomena, such as deaths and rebirths, waking and sleeping, etc., it loses all substantiality. I will now prove this to be a fact.
Ananda, you should know that this sense of thinking does not come from waking and sleeping, nor from deaths and rebirths, nor from its own nature, nor from space. And why? Because if the perception of thought comes from the awakened state, then when sleep predominates it should disappear completely, and who would be the one to awake? If the perception of thinking exists only when we are in the presence of something, then when nothing is present, it would be in resemblance to non-existence, and who is it that would suffer death? If it is manifested from death, then thinking would immediately disappear with the approach of death and, thus, who would be able to recognize his rebirth? If the perception of thinking springs from its own nature, then the two phenomena of waking and sleeping would be like the opening and closing of the lotus flower. If it is independent of both waking and sleeping, it would be like the visionary flowers seen in the air by inflamed eyes, which have no substantiality whatever. If it is manifested from space, it would naturally belong to the perception of space and what, then, would be its relation to our sense of thinking? Therefore, Ananda, you should know that the perception of thinking is false and fantastic, that it is not manifested by causes and conditions, nor spontaneously by its own nature.
Then the Lord Buddha continued, saying: Again, Ananda, what is meant when it is said that the twelve locations of contact between consciousness and objects belong by nature to the Mysterious Mind-Essence considered as the Womb of Tathagata?
Ananda, suppose you are looking at the Jetavana grove and at all its beautiful springs and pools. What think you? Is it that all these sights develop the perception of the eyes, or is it, that the eye-sense develops the sights. If it is that the sense of the eyes develops sights, then when it sees space, as space is of different nature from sight, then sight should disappear. If the nature of sight disappears, then all the manifestations of sight would become as naught. If all the phenomena of sight become as naught, how can we be sure of the substantiality of space? And the reverse is true also, namely, if all the phenomena of space become naught, how can we be sure of the substantiality of the sights we see? Moreover, if the different sight-objects develop the perception of the eyes, then when the eyes look at space (as the nature of space is different from that of sight) then the perception of sights should immediately disappear. Should the perception of sight disappear, then all the sight-objects would become non-existent. How, then, can we be sure of the phenomena of space and sights? Therefore, Ananda, you should know that the perception of the eyes and the sight-objects it sees and space itself, are all devoid of location, which simply means that both the locations of the sight-objects and the perception of these eyes are alike false and fantastic being neither manifested by causes and conditions, nor spontaneously by their own nature.
(The same is proven in the text, to hold true as to the unsubstantiality and falsity of the perception of the location of contact of the other sense-objects, also.)
Ananda, suppose you have been conceiving within your mind under the conditions of some system of thought regarded as the cause of the conceptions of the sense, and that you have always discriminated among these conceptions by three attributes, namely, good thoughts, bad thoughts and disinterested thoughts. Are these attributes developed within the mind, or in some other locality independent of the mind? If they are developed within the intuitive sense of the mind, then they can not be the same things as the sense-objects themselves, nor as the influences that condition the mind. If this system of conceptions is considered as being developed in some other locality independent of the mind, then is the nature of its attributes to be rightly called, perceiving? If they are to be called perceiving, then it must be our mind that does the perceiving and not some other mind outside our mind. If the perception belongs to some other mind, as the mind is not an object, how can its perception be the same as your perception? Or, if it just means yourself, as being different from your mind, then that would mean that you are two different personalities, or at least that you have two different minds. If the nature of the attributes of our system of conceptions is unperceptive then, as this system (considered as an inner object) has none of the characteristics of sight, sound, odor, taste, touch, independence, conformity, coldness, warmness, where can we locate it? As it has no definite location either in space or form where, in all this terrestrial world can it have location? And since it is not a condition that influences the mind, how can it have a location, anyway? Therefore, Ananda, you should know that the system of sense-conceptions as well as the conceptions of thinking are devoid of any location. This means that the locations of contact of the conceptions within the mind and the system of sense-conceptions are alike false and fantastic; they are neither manifested by causes and conditions or spontaneously by their own nature.
The Lord Buddha continued to question Ananda, saying: What is meant by the assertion that the eighteen spheres of mentation (sense-organs, sense-minds, and sense-perceptions) all belong to the mysterious Essence of Tathagata’s Womb?
We have already shown that the perception of sight is dependent upon the eyes and their power of seeing in combination with the object of sight. Let me ask you, is this consciousness that is dependent upon the eyes, developed solely by means of the eyes and limited by the eyes, or is it developed solely by means of sight and bounded by sight? If the consciousness of sight is developed by means of the eyes only, then as it is independent of sight and space, it can not make any discrimination and thus, in spite of your consciousness, of what avail will it be? Moreover, as the perception of sight does not belong to colors — green, yellow, red, and white — it can not manifest any appearance and, thus, what shall be its boundary lines? Or if the perception of sight is developed by means of sight then, as there is only space and no sight, your consciousness of it will be annihilated and how can you know anything of the nature of space? And if, when the sight changes, you are conscious of the change, it would mean that the sight itself is changing. But as your consciousness does not change, what will be the line between it and your perception of sight? Or, if your consciousness is subject to change along with the changes of sight, then any phenomena of differences will disappear. Or, if your consciousness is permanent and unchangeable, then, as it is developed from sight, it should not recognize any location of space. Or, if consciousness is developed by both eyes and sight, then one part of your consciousness, the part developed from the eyes will be sensitive, and the other part developed from the sight will be insensitive. So, when the sense of your eyes and the sight are in contact, one part of your consciousness will be perceptive and one part unperceptive, it would mean that if these two parts of consciousness become separated from each other, then they must both be independent of the mind. And when the sense of your eyes and the sight are in separation, one part of your consciousness will return to your eyes and one part will return to the sight. That would mean that these two parts of your consciousness are in separate contact with your eyes and the sight. Thus, the body and its attributes are confusingly mixed and what shall be their boundary lines?
Therefore, Ananda, you should know that these three localities where the perception of sight is under the conditions of the sense of the eyes and the sight, and where the perception of sight arises from your consciousness dependent upon eyes are all devoid of any substantial existence, so these three phenomena of the perception of sight, the sight itself, and the sphere of mentation about sight are neither manifested by causes and conditions, nor spontaneously by their own nature.
(In the text, the same is proven to hold true as to the relation of the other senses, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and are omitted.)
Again, Ananda, you have understood that the perceptions of the thinking mind are under the conditions of the thinking mind and of its conceptions of phenomena, and that it is manifested from the consciousness dependent upon the thinking mind. Is this consciousness that is dependent upon the thinking mind developed by means of the thinking mind and bounded by the thinking mind? Or is it developed by means of its conceptions of phenomena and bounded by its conceptions of phenomena? If it is developed by means of the thinking mind, then within your thinking mind, there must be some consciousness that discovers your thinking mind. Should there be no such kind of thoughts, the thinking mind would not have been developed. Should it then be independent of any such conditions, it would have no appearances of thinking and what, then, would be the use of consciousness? Moreover, in referring to your conscious mind and to all its attributes of thinking and discriminating are they in unity, or are they different things? If they are in unity with the thinking mind, then they are no different from the thinking mind and how could they have any other manifestations? If they are not in unity with the thinking mind, then they are different things and separated from one another, in which case the thinking mind would be unconscious of them. Should the thinking mind be unconscious of them, then how could the thinking mind be developed? If the thinking mind is conscious of them, then what is it that is conscious of the thinking mind? Thus, whether consciousness and its attributes are in unity with the thinking mind or in separation from it, there is no such kind of existence and how can consciousness then be bounded by spheres? If this consciousness that is dependent upon the thinking mind is developed by means of thoughts about phenomena, then all the phenomena of the world belong to the five sense objects. For instance, supposing you are attending to the five phenomena of sight, sound, odor, taste and touch, which are very distinctive in their manifestations, and if these five kinds of phenomena go with their respective sense organs, it shows that they are not managed by the thinking mind. If it is asserted that consciousness must be developed by conceptions of phenomena, then please concentrate your reflections and tell me what is the appearance in your thinking mind of these conceptions of phenomena. If you set aside all such phenomena as sight, space, motion, silence, transmissibility, non-transmissibility, combination, separation, death, rebirth, then you will never be able to think out the appearance of consciousness. As soon as consciousness appears, then all such phenomena as sight, space, motion, etc., will be manifested also; and as soon as consciousness disappears, all such phenomena as sight, space, motion, etc., will disappear, too. As there is, thus, no substantial existence of the objects of the phenomena of conception, which we are regarding as the cause of consciousness, it shows clearly that there is also no substantial nature and manifestation for the consciousness that is manifested by means of the objects of the phenomena of conception. Since consciousness possesses no substantial nature, manifestation, nor existence, how can its sphere be revealed? Therefore, Ananda, you should know that these three localities where the perception of the thinking mind, as being under the conditions of the sense of the thinking mind and of its conceptions of phenomena, develops its thinking process, the thinking process, the consciousness dependent upon it, and its sphere, are all devoid of any substantial existence. So these three phenomena, the perceptions of the thinking mind, its conceptions about them, and its sphere of thinking, are neither manifested by causes and conditions, nor spontaneously by its own nature.
