The Eighteen Realms of Perception
“Ananda, why do I say that the eighteen realms of the senses are the Nature of suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata?
“As you already know, the eyes and form are the conditions that produce sight-perception. Is this sight-perception created by the eyes or by form? If it were created by the eyes, in the absence of form and emptiness it would not be able to make distinctions, then what would be the use of this perception even if you had a consciousness?
“If it were created by form, in emptiness your perception would cease to exist. When form changes, you are conscious of the change, but your sight-perception does not change, where is the boundary established then? If the sight-perception were to change when form changes, then there would be no boundary. If it were not to change, it would be permanent, then it should have no consciousness of the voidness, given that it was created by form. If it were created by both the eyes and form, (which are separate when you think they are united, and uniting when you think they are separate), then the substance and nature would be all chaotic, how could a boundary be set up?
“Therefore, you should know that as the eyes and form being the conditions that produce the realm of sight-consciousness, none of them exists. Thus, the three aspects of the eyes, form, and the realm of form are neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.
“Now, Ananda, as you already know, the ears and sound create the conditions that produce sound-perception. Is this sound-perception created by the ears or by sound? If it were created by the ears, in the absence of both disturbance and stillness the ears would not discern anything, then how could it create perception?
“If it were created by sound, if the sound-perception existed solely because of sound, then it would have no relation to hearing. Without hearing, the sound would have no location. Suppose it’s really created by sound and that sound existed because of hearing, then the hearing of sound should be perceived by the ears. If the hearing consciousness is not heard, there would be no realm of ear-perception; if the consciousness is heard, who is it that perceives and hears the consciousness? If there’s no such perceiver, you would be like grass and plants. There cannot be a realm created by a mixing of sound and hearing either.
“Therefore, you should know that as the ears and sound creating the conditions which produce the realm of sound-perception, none of them actually exists. Thus, the three aspects of the ears, sound, and sound-consciousness are neither causal, nor conditional, nor self-existent.
“And, Ananda, as you already know, the nose and smell are the conditions that produce the smell-perception. Is this perception created by the nose or by smell? Suppose it’s created by the nose, what do you take to be this nose then? Is it the fleshy part of your face with which you sniff?
“Since it belongs to the body and the body’s perception is called touch, this organ of smelling would be named ‘body’ instead of ‘nose’ and the objects of smelling would be objects of touch. If the nose could not even be named, how could a realm of it be established? If it’s the emptiness that perceived the smell, then emptiness would be the perceiver, and the flesh would have no awareness. If so, the emptiness should be the body, and the body would have no perception. Then there would be no Ananda.
“If it’s the smell that perceived, perception itself would lie with the smell and would have nothing to do with you. If fragrance and stench were produced from your nose, then they would not come from the sandalwood or fetid herbs.
“Smell your own nose, what kind of smell does it have? Given that fragrance does not stink, and stink does not give off fragrance, since you can smell both, you should have two noses, and I would be addressing questions to two Anandas now.
“If there is only one nose, then fragrance and stench would not be two – stench could be fragrance and fragrance would become stench, where could the realm of smell-perception be established? If the smell-perception existed because of smells, it would not be aware of smells, just as your eyes can see things but not themselves. If it’s aware of smells, then it could not be created by smells. If it’s not aware of smells, then the realm of smelling would not come into being. Since there’s no intermediate perception between nose and smell, there would be neither inner organ nor outer object.
“Therefore, the nature of smelling is empty and false. And so you should know that as the nose and smells being the conditions which produce the realm of smell-consciousness, none of them exists. Thus, the three aspects of the nose, smells, and the realm of smell-perception are neither causal, nor conditional, nor self-existent.
“Now, Ananda, as you already know, the tongue and flavors create the conditions that produce the taste-perception. Is this perception created by the tongue or by taste? If it were created by the tongue, then sugar cane, sour plums, bitter wort, wild spikenard, ginger and salt would be entirely tasteless.
“Just taste your own tongue and see if it is sweet or bitter. If it’s bitter or sweet, who would be the taster that had the sense of taste (since the tongue cannot taste itself)? If no flavor engendered, then how could a realm of tasting be established? If perception were created because of flavor, the consciousness itself would be a flavor.
“Just like the tongue cannot taste itself, how could the consciousness know whether it has flavor or not? Moreover, since there are many flavors, there should be as many corresponding perceptions. If there’s only one perception and it’s created by different flavors, then all flavors (be it salt, insipid, sweet or bitter) would become a single flavor without distinctions. If there were no distinctions, there would be no perception by the tongue, then how could the tongue, taste and perception be conditioned? The voidness cannot make your mind perceive either. Neither can an intermediate perception be created, since the tongue and flavors could not unite without each losing its basic nature.
“Therefore, you should know that, as the tongue and flavors being the conditions that produce the realm of taste-perception, none of them exists. Thus, the tongue, flavors, and the taste-perception are neither causal, nor conditional, nor self-existent.
“Ananda, now as you understand it, the body and touch create the conditions that produce the touch-perception. Is it created by the body or by touch? If it were created by the body, what would the body perceive when there is neither contact nor separation? If it were created by touch, you would not need the body then. But without a body, who would feel contact and separation? Objects do not perceive touch. It is the body that perceives objects of touch. The body’s perception is revealed by touch and touch through the body. The body and touch are inseparable yet not the same, and they have no home originally. When touch contacts the body, it becomes the body and when it ceases, it becomes the empty space. Since there are no such things as inner body and outer touch, there can be no intermediate perception between them either. From what then, would the realm of touch-perception be born?
“Therefore, you should know that, as the body and objects of touch being the conditions that produce the realm of touch-consciousness, none of them actually exists. Thus, the three aspects of the body, objects of touch, and the touch-perception are neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.
“Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the intellect and ideas create the conditions that produce the sixth consciousness. Is this consciousness created by the intellect or by ideas? If it were produced by the intellect, the intellect as organ should contain the idea as object to express its own existence. In the absence of idea your intellect would not exist, then what use would the consciousness be?
“Moreover, since both the intellect and the sixth consciousness discern things, are they the same or are they different from each other? If they’re the same, with consciousness being just intellect, then how could it be created by intellect? If they’re different, consciousness would be ‘unconscious’, then how could it arise from intellect? If they’re neither the same nor different, then how could a realm of sixth consciousness be established?
“All things in the world are inseparable from the five sense-data of form, sound, smell, taste and touch, which clearly correspond with the sense organs and are not affected by the intellect. Underlying the characteristics of form and emptiness, movement and stillness, clearness and obstruction, union and separation, production and extinction, there is nothing at all. When there is production, then form, emptiness, and all dharmas are produced. When there is extinction, then form, emptiness, and all dharmas are extinguished. When there are no causes leading to their creation, what are the forms and shapes of dharma? When they do not exist, what then conditions dharma?
“Therefore, you should know that, as the intellect and dharmas being the conditions that produce the realm of sixth consciousness, none of them exists. Thus, the three aspects of the intellect, dharmas, and the realm of sixth consciousness are neither causal nor conditional nor self-existent.”
复次阿难！云何十八界，本如来藏妙真如性？
阿难！如汝所明，眼色为缘，生于眼识。此识为复因眼所生，以眼为界？因色所生，以色为界？阿难！若因眼生，既无色空，无可分别 ，纵有汝识，欲将何用？汝见又非青黄赤白，无所表示，从何立界？若因色生，空无色时，汝识应灭，云何识知是虚空性？若色变时，汝亦识其色相迁变 ；汝识不迁，界从何立？从变则变，界相自无，不变则恒。既从色生，应不识知，虚空所在。若兼二种，眼色共生，合则中离，离则两合，体性杂乱，云何成界？是故当知，眼色为缘，生眼识界，三处都无。则眼与色及色界三，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！又汝所明，耳声为缘，生于耳识。此识为复因耳所生，以耳为界？因声所生，以声为界？阿难！若因耳生，动静二相，既不现前，根不成知 ；必无所知，知尚无成，识何形貌？若取耳闻，无动静故，闻无所成。云何耳形，杂色触尘，名为识界？则耳识界，复从谁立？若生于声，识因声有，则不关闻 ；无闻则亡声相所在。识从声生，许声因闻，而有声相，闻应闻识。不闻非界，闻则同声；识已被闻，谁知闻识？若无知者，终如草木。不应声闻，杂成中界 ，界无中位，则内外相，复从何成？是故当知，耳声为缘，生耳识界，三处都无。则耳与声及声界三，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！又汝所明，鼻香为缘，生于鼻识。此识为复因鼻所生，以鼻为界？因香所生，以香为界？阿难！若因鼻生，则汝心中 ，以何为鼻？为取肉形双爪之相？为取嗅知动摇之性？若取肉形，肉质乃身，身知即触；名身非鼻，名触即尘 。鼻尚无名，云何立界？若取嗅知，又汝心中，以何为知？以肉为知，则肉之知，元触非鼻。以空为知，空则自知，肉应非觉 。如是则应虚空是汝，汝身非知，今日阿难，应无所在。以香为知，知自属香，何预于汝？若香臭气，必生汝鼻，则彼香臭二种流气，不生伊兰及旃檀木；二物不来，汝自嗅鼻 ，为香为臭？臭则非香，香应非臭。若香臭二俱能闻者，则汝一人，应有两鼻，对我问道，有二阿难，谁为汝体？若鼻是一，香臭无二；臭既为香，香复成臭 。二性不有，界从谁立？若因香生，识因香有。如眼有见，不能观眼；因香有故，应不知香。知即非生，不知非识 ；香非知有，香界不成。识不知香，因界则非从香建立。既无中间，不成内外，彼诸闻性，毕竟虚妄。是故当知 ，鼻香为缘，生鼻识界，三处都无。则鼻与香及香界三，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！又汝所明，舌味为缘，生于舌识。此识为复因舌所生，以舌为界？因味所生，以味为界？阿难！若因舌生，则诸世间甘蔗乌梅 ，黄连石盐，细辛姜桂，都无有味。汝自尝舌，为甜为苦？若舌性苦，谁来尝舌？舌不自尝，孰为知觉？舌性非苦，味自不生，云何立界？若因味生，识自为味，同于舌根，应不自尝 ，云何识知是味非味？又一切味，非一物生；味既多生，识应多体。识体若一，体必味生，咸淡甘辛，和合俱生，诸变异相，同为一味，应无分别 。分别既无，则不名识，云何复名舌味识界？不应虚空，生汝心识。舌味和合，即于是中，元无自性，云何界生？是故当知 ，舌味为缘，生舌识界，三处都无。则舌与味即舌界三，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！又汝所明，身触为缘，生于身识。此识为复因身所生，以身为界？因触所生，以触为界？阿难！若因身生，必无合离二觉观缘，身何所识？若因触生，必无汝身，谁有非身 ，知合离者？阿难！物不触知，身知有触。知身即触，知触即身；即触非身，即身非触。身触二相，元无处所 ，合身即为身自体性，离身即是虚空等相。内外不成，中云何立？中不复立，内外性空，则汝识生，从谁立界？是故当知 ，身触为缘，生身识界，三处都无。则身与触及身界三，本非因缘，非自然性。
阿难！又汝所明，意法为缘，生于意识。此识为复因意所生，以意为界？因法所生，以法为界？阿难！若因意生，于汝意中，必有所思，发明汝意 ；若无前法，意无所生。离缘无形，识将何用？又汝识心与诸思量，兼了别性，为同为异？同意即意，云何所生？异意不同，应无所识。若无所识，云何意生？若有所识，云何识意？唯同与异，二性无成，界云何立？若因法生，世间诸法，不离五尘。汝观色法，及诸声法 ，香法味法，及与触法，相状分明，以对五根，非意所摄。汝识决定依于法生，汝今谛观，法法何状？若离色空，动静通塞 ，合离生灭，越此诸相，终无所得。生则色空诸法等生，灭则色空诸法等灭。所因既无，因生有识，作何形相？相状不有，界云何生？是故当知 ，意法为缘，生意识界，三处都无。则意与法及意界三，本非因缘，非自然性。
Buddha Mind 