The Twelve Ayatana (Six Sense Organs & Six Sense Data)
“Moreover, why do I say that the twelve ayatana are fundamentally the Absolute of true suchness?
“Ananda, look at the trees in the grove and the fountains in the park – are they created by the eye’s seeing or do they produce the eye’s seeing? If form were created by the organ of sight, then form would vanish when you see emptiness, which means nothing would exist. But without form, what could be used to reveal the emptiness?
“If the eye’s seeing were produced by form, then seeing would vanish upon looking at emptiness, then who would distinguish the emptiness from form? Therefore, you should know that neither seeing nor form nor the emptiness has a place of abode, and that both form and seeing are empty, neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.
“Ananda, when you hear the drumbeats in Jeta Garden announcing mealtime, or the bell that gathers the Assembly, you find those sounds follow one another in succession – do they come to the ears or do the ears go to them? If the sounds came to your ears, then neither Maudgalyayana nor Kashyapa would hear it. But in fact, all the 1,250 monks could hear it, and they all come to the dining hall at the same time. Suppose the ears go to the sounds, then when you hear the drumbeats, you should not also hear the bell that rings at the same time, or the sounds of elephants, horses, buffaloes and sheep in the park. Therefore, we can conclude that hearing and sound have no location, and that both of them are empty, being neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.
“Ananda, when you smell the sandalwood in this burner, you find that although one particle of a lit incense is tiny, the smell of its fragrance can spread to the neighborhood of Shravasti. Does the smell come from the sandalwood, from your nose, or from nowhere? If it came from your nose, it would have been produced by it, but since your nose is not sandalwood, how can it have the fragrance of sandalwood? If it came from emptiness, since the nature of emptiness is everlasting, the fragrance should be always present and there would be no need to burn sandalwood. If it came from the sandalwood, its substance has become smoke when it is burned, your nose should be filled with smoke while smelling it, and it should not be smelled throughout the neighborhood before the smoke has traveled the distance. Therefore, we can conclude that neither the fragrance nor the smelling has a location, and so they are both empty, being neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.
“Ananda, twice a day you go out to ask for alms, sometimes receiving tasty delicacies such as butter and cream – do the flavors come from the emptiness, or from your tongue, or from the food? If it came from your tongue, the tongue must be butter itself, but then how can you taste honey? Suppose the tongue changes to honey when it tastes honey, but it wouldn’t make sense because your tongue is of one substance. If it came from the food, the food does not have consciousness, how could it know tastes? If it came from the emptiness, when you ‘bite’ the air, what does it taste like? Assuming it tastes salty, then both your tongue and your face would be salty, and all humans would be like fish in the sea. Moreover, if you’re salty, you would not know what is tasteless, then how could there be taste? Therefore, we can conclude that neither taste nor tongue nor tasting has location, that they are all empty, noncausal, nonconditional, and non-self-existent.
“Ananda, every morning when you rub your head with your hands, do you know whether it is your hand or your head that rubs? If it’s your hand, then your head would have no knowledge of it; if it’s the head, then the hands would be useless; if it were both, the hands as well as the head, then you would have two bodies. If it came from the contact of your hand with your head, then both your hand and head should be one, and one thing cannot contact itself. Neither can there be touch when your head comes into contact with the emptiness. Therefore, we can conclude that neither the feeling of touch nor your body has location, and that they are both being neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.
“Ananda, your mind is always conditioned by three qualities – good, bad, and neutral, which gives rise to dharmas. Are the dharmas created by the mind? Or do they exist apart from the mind and have their own place? If the dharmas are the mind, they would not be the mind’s objects. Since they would not be the mind’s causal phenomena, how could they have a location of their own? Suppose they do have a place apart from the mind, then do they possess the faculty of knowing? If they do possess the faculty of knowing but differ from you, then they must be someone else’s mind. If they have the faculty of knowing and they are your mind, then how could your mind exist apart from you? If they differ from you and do not have the faculty of knowing, then where would they be located, since they are neither forms nor emptiness? Therefore, you should know that neither dharma nor mind has location, and that they are both false, being neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.
复次阿难！云何十二处，本如来藏妙真如性？
阿难！汝且观此，祇陀树林，及诸泉池。于意云何？此等为是，色生眼见？眼生色相？阿难！若复眼根生色相者，见空非色，色性应销 ；销则显发一切都无。色相既无，谁明空质？空亦如是。若复色尘生眼见者，观空非色，见即销亡；亡则都无，谁明空色？是故当知 ，见与色空，俱无处所；即色与见，二处虚妄，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！汝更听此，祇陀园中，食办击鼓，众集撞钟，钟鼓音声，前后相续。于意云何？此等为是，声来耳边？耳往声处？阿难！若复此声来于耳边，如我乞食室罗筏城，在祇陀林则无有我 。此声必来阿难耳处，目连迦叶，应不俱闻；何况其中一千二百五十沙门，一闻钟声，同来食处？若复汝耳 ，往彼声边；如我归住祇陀林中，在室罗城则无有我。汝闻鼓声，其耳已往击鼓之处；钟声齐出，应不俱闻 ，何况其中，象马牛羊，种种音响？若无来往，亦复无闻。是故当知，听与音声，俱无处所。即听与声，二处虚妄，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！汝又嗅此，炉中旃檀，此香若复然于一铢，室罗筏城四十里内，同时闻气。于意云何？此香为复生旃檀木，生于汝鼻，为生于空？阿难 ！若复此香，生于汝鼻，称鼻所生，当从鼻出；鼻非旃檀，云何鼻中有旃檀气？称汝闻香，当于鼻入；鼻中出香，说闻非义 。若生于空，空性常恒，香应常在，何藉炉中，爇此枯木？若生于木，则此香质，因爇成烟。若鼻得闻，合蒙烟气 ；其烟腾空，未及遥远，四十里内，云何已闻？是故当知，香鼻与闻，俱无处所。即嗅与香，二处虚妄，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！汝常二时，众中持钵，其间或遇酥酪醍醐，名为上味。于意云何？此味为复生于空中？生于舌中？为生食中？阿难 ！若复此味生于汝舌，在汝口中，只有一舌；其舌尔时已成酥味，遇黑石蜜，应不推移。若不变移，不名知味；若变移者，舌非多体 ，云何多味，一舌之知？若生于食，食非有识，云何自知？又食自知，即同他食，何预于汝，名味之知？若生于空，汝啖虚空，当作何味？必其虚空，若作咸味 ，既咸汝舌，亦咸汝面；则此界人，同于海鱼 。既常受咸，了不知淡；若不识淡，亦不觉咸。必无所知，云何名味？是故当知，味舌与尝，俱无处所；既尝与味，二处虚妄，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！汝常晨朝，以手摩头。于意云何？此摩所知，谁为能触？能为在手？为复在头？若在于手，头则无知，云何成触？若在于头，手则无用，云何名触？若各各有，则汝阿难，应有二身 。若头与手，一触所生，则手与头，当为一体。若一体者，触则无成。若二体者，触谁为在？在能非所，在所非能 ，不应虚空，与汝成触。是故当知，觉触与身，俱无处所；即身与触，二处虚妄，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！汝常意中，所缘善恶无记三性，生成法则。此法为复即心所生？为当离心，别有方所？阿难！若即心者，法则非尘，非心所缘，云何成处？若离于心，别有方所，则法自性，为知非知？知则名心，异汝非尘，同他心量；即汝即心，云何汝心更二于汝？若非知者，此尘既非色 声香味，离合冷暖，及虚空相，当于何在？今于色空，都无表示；不应人间，更有空外，心非所缘，处从谁立？是故当知 ，法则与心，俱无处所。则意与法，二俱虚妄，本非因缘，非自然性。
Buddha Mind 