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?
復次阿難。云何十二處，本如來藏妙真如性。
Ananda, look at the trees in the grove and the fountains in the park – are they created by the eyes’ seeing or do they produce the eyes’ seeing? If the organ of sight creates form, 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 form produces the eye’s seeing, 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 thus 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 either 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 are empty, being neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.
阿難。汝且觀此祇陀樹林，及諸泉池。於意云何。此等為是色生眼見，眼生色相。阿難。若復眼根，生色相者。見空非色，色性應銷。銷則顯發一切都無。色相既無，誰明空質。空亦口是。若復色塵，生眼見者，觀空非色，見即銷亡。亡則都無，誰明空色。是故當知見與色空，俱無處所。即色與見，二處虛妄。本非因緣，非自然性。阿難。汝更聽此祇陀園中，食辦擊鼓，眾集撞鐘，鐘鼓音聲，前後相續。於意云何。此等為是聲來耳邊，耳往聲處。阿難。若復此聲，來於耳邊，如我乞食室羅筏城。在祇陀林，則無有我。此聲必來阿難耳處。目連迦葉，應不俱聞。何況其中一千二百五十沙門，一聞鐘聲。同來食處。若復汝耳，往彼聲邊。如我歸住祇陀林中。在室羅城，則無有我。汝聞鼓聲，其耳已往擊鼓之處，鐘聲齊出，應不俱聞。何況其中象馬牛羊，種種音響。若無來往，亦復無聞。是故當知聽與音聲，俱無處所，即聽與聲，二處虛妄。本非因緣，非自然性。
“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 both are empty, being neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.
阿難。汝又嗅此鑪中栴檀，此香若復然於一銖，室羅筏城四十里內，同時聞氣。於意云何。此香為復生栴檀木，生於汝鼻，為生於空。阿難。若復此香，生於汝鼻，稱鼻所生，當從鼻出。鼻非栴檀，云何鼻中有栴檀氣。稱汝聞香，當於鼻入。鼻中出香，說聞非義。若生於空，空性常恒，香應常在，何藉鑪中，爇此枯木。若生於木，則此香質，因爇成煙。若鼻得聞，合蒙煙氣。其煙騰空，未及遙遠，四十里內，云何已聞。是故當知，香鼻與聞，俱無處所。即嗅與香，二處虛妄。本非因緣，非自然性。
“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? If the tongue changed to honey when it tastes honey, 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 empty, noncausal, nonconditional, and non-self-existent.
阿難。汝常二時，眾中持砵，其間或遇酥酪醍醐，名為上味。於意云何。此味為復生於空中，生於舌中，為生食中。阿難。若復此味，生於汝舌，在汝口中，祇有一舌，其舌爾時已成酥味，遇黑石蜜應不推移。若不變移，不名知味。若變移者，舌非多體，云何多味一舌之知。若生於食，食非有識，云何自知。又食自知，即同他食，何預於汝，名味之知。若生於空，汝噉虛空，當作何味。必其虛空若作鹹味，既鹹汝舌，亦鹹汝面，則此界人，同於海魚。既常受鹹，了不知淡。若不識淡，亦不覺鹹。必無所知，云何名味。是故當知，味舌與嘗，俱無處所。即嘗與味，二俱虛妄。本非因緣，非自然性。
“Ananda, every morning while rubbing 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.
阿難。汝常晨朝以手摩頭。於意云何。此摩所知，誰為能觸，能為在手，為復在頭。若在於手，頭則無知，云何成觸。若在於頭，手則無用，云何名觸。若各各有，則汝阿難，應有二身。若頭與手一觸所生，則手與頭，當為一體。若一體者，觸則無成。若二體者，觸誰為在。在能非所，在所非能。不應虛空與汝成觸。是故當知，覺觸與身，俱無處所。即身與觸，二俱虛妄。本非因緣，非自然性。
“Ananda, your mind is always conditioned by three qualities – good, bad, and neutral, which gives rise to dharma. Are the dharmas created by the mind? Or do they exist apart from the mind and have their own place? If the dharmas were 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.
阿難。汝常意中。所緣善惡無記三性，生成法則。此法為復即心所生，為當離心，別有方所。阿難。若即心者，法則非塵。非心所緣，云何成處。若離於心，別有方所，則法自性，為知非知。知則名心，異汝非塵，同他心量。即汝即心，云何汝心，更二於汝。若非知者，此塵既非色聲香味，離合冷煖，及虛空相，當於何在。今於色空，都無表示，不應人間，更有空外。心非所緣，處從誰立。是故當知，法則與心，俱無處所。則意與法，二俱虛妄。本非因緣，非自然性。
Buddha Mind 