"Ananda, your mind is always conditioned by the three qualities of good, bad, and indeterminate, which produce patterns of dharmas. Are these dharmas produced by the mind, or do they have a special place apart from the mind? Ananda, if they were the mind, the dharmas would not be its defiling objects. Since they would not be conditions of the mind, how could you say that they had a location? If they were to have a special place apart form the mind, then would the dharmas themselves be able to know? If they had a sense of knowing, they would be called a mind. Being something other than you and yet not defiling objects, they would be someóne else’s mind. Being the same as you, they would be your own mind. But, how could your mind exist apart from you? If they had no sense of knowing, and yet these defiling objects were not forms, sounds, smells, or tastes, neither cold nor warmth, nor emptiness. Where would they be located? They are not represented in form or emptiness, nor is it likely that they exist somewhere in the human realm beyond emptiness, for if they did, the mind could not be aware of them. From where, then, would they arise? From this you should understand that neither dharmas nor the mind can be located, and thus the two places of mind and dharmas are empty and false. Fundamentally their natures cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.

"Moreover, Ananda, why do I say that the eighteen realms are basically the wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata?

"Ananda, as you understand it, the eyes and forms create the conditions that produce the eye-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced because of the eyes, such that the eyes are its realm? Or is it produced because of forms, such that forms are its realm? Ananda, if it were produced because of the eyes, then in the absence of emptiness and form it would not be able to make distinctions; and so, even if you had a consciousness, of what use would it be? Moreover, your seeing is neither green, yellow, red, nor white. There is virtually nothing in which it is represented. Therefore, from what would the realm be established? If it were produced because of form, then when no forms were present in emptiness, your consciousness would cease to be. Then, why is it that the consciousness recognizes emptiness? If a form changes, you are also conscious of the form’s changing appearance, but your eye-consciousness does not change. Where is the boundary established? If the eye-consciousness did change when form changed, then such a realm would have no attributes. If it did not change, it would be constant, and given that it was produced from form, it should have no conscious knowledge of where emptiness was. If they were combined, then there would be a crack inbetween. If they were separate, then half of your eye-consciousness would possess awareness and half of it would lack awareness. With such chaotic and disordered substances and natures, how could they comprise a realm? From this you should understand that as to the eyes and form being the conditions that produce the realm of eye-consciousness, none of the three places exists. Fundamentally the natures of the eyes, forms, and the form realm, these three, cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.

"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the ear and sound create the conditions that produce the ear-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced because of the ear such that the ear is its realm, or is it produced because of sound, such that sound is its realm? Ananda, if it were produced because of the ear, then since motion and stillness would be lacking, the ear would not be aware of anything. Certainly in the absence of awareness, nothing could be known and so what would characterize the consciousness? You may hold that the ears hear, but without motion and stillness, hearing cannot occur. Besides, how could the combination of the ears, which are but physical forms, and external objects be called the realm of consciousness? Once again, then, how would the realm of ear-consciousness be established? If it were produced from sound, then the consciousness would exist because of sound, and would have no connection with hearing. Without hearing, the attributes of sound would have no location. If the ear-consciousness came from sound, given that sound exists because of hearing, then what you heard would be the ear-consciousness itself. If the ear-consciousness were not heard, then there would be no realm. If it were heard, then it would be the same as sound. If the consciousness were being heard, who would the perceiver and hearer of the consciousness be? If there were no perceiver, then in the end you would be like grass or wood. Nor should the sound and hearing mix together to form a realm in between. Lacking a realm in between them, how could those internal and external phenomena be delineated? From this you should understand that as to the ears and sounds being the conditions that produce the realm of ear-consciousness, none of the three places exists. Fundamentally the natures of the ears, sounds, and the realm of awareness of sounds, these three, cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.

"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the nose and smells create the conditions that produce the nose-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced because of the nose such that the nose is its realm, or is it produced because of smells, such that smells are its realm? Ananda, if it were produced because of the nose, then in your mind, what do you take to be the nose? Do you hold that it takes the form of two fleshy claws, or do you hold it is an inherent ability of the nature which perceives smells as a result of motion? If you hold that the nose is fleshy claws, flesh is an integral part of your body and the body’s perception is touch. Then it should be called ‘body’ instead of ‘nose’ and its objects would be those of touch. Since it would not even be called a nose, how could a realm be established for it? If you hold that the act of smelling is perceived, then, in your opinion, what is the perceiver? Were the flesh the perceiver, basically what the flesh perceives is objects of touch, which have nothing to do with the nose. Were emptiness the perceiver, then emptiness would perceive by itself and the flesh would have no awareness. If that were the case, then empty space would be you, and since your body would be without perception, Ananda would not exist.

"If the smells were the perceiver, perception itself would lie with the smells. What would that have to do with you? If you insist that smells of both fragrance and stench are produced from your nose, then these two wafting smells of fragrance and stench would not arise from the wood of airavana or chandana. Given that the smells would not come from those two things, when you smelled your own nose, would it be fragrant or would it stink? What stinks does not give off fragrance; what is fragrant does not stink. If you could smell both the fragrance and the stench, then you, a single person, would have two noses, and I would now be addressing questions to two Anandas. Which one would be you? If you only have one nose, then fragrance and stench would not have two separate identities. Since stench would be fragrance and fragrance would be stench, thereby lacking two distinctive natures, what would make up the realm? If the nose-consciousness were produced because of smells, it would exist because of smells. Just as the eyes can see but are unable to see themselves, so, too, if the nose-consciousness existed because of smells, it should not be aware of smells. If it had no awareness, it could not be a consciousness. If the consciousness were not aware of smells, then the realm could not be established from smells. If the consciousness was not aware of smells, then the realm could not be established due to smells. Since no realm of consciousness would exist between them, then how could any of the internal or external phenomena exist either? A nature of smelling like that would be ultimately empty and false. From this you should understand that as to the nose and smells being the conditions that produce the realm of nose-consciousness, none of the three places exists. Fundamentally the natures of the nose, smells and the realm of smelling, these three, cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.

"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the tongue and flavors create the conditions that produce the tongue-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced because of the tongue so that the tongue is its realm, or is it produced because of the flavors, so that the flavors are its realm?

"Ananda, if it were produced because of the tongue, then all the sugar cane, black plums, huang-lien, salt, xixing, ginger, and cassia in the world would be entirely without flavor. Also, when you tasted your own tongue, would it be sweet or bitter? If your tongue’s natural flavor were bitter, then what would taste the tongue? Since the tongue cannot taste itself, who would have the sense of taste? If the natural flavor of the tongue was not bitter, then it could not engender tastes. How, then, could a realm be established?

"If the tongue-consciousness were produced because of flavor, the consciousness itself would be a flavor. Then the case would be the same as with the tongue-organ being unable to taste itself. How could the consciousness know whether it had flavor or not? Moreover, the many flavors do not all come from one thing. Since flavors are produced from many things, the consciousness would have many substances. If the consciousness were a single substance and that substance was definitely produced from flavor, then when salt, bland, sweet, and pungent flavors were combined, their various differences would change into a single flavor and there would be no distinctions among them. If there were no distinctions, it could not be called consciousness. So, how could it further be called the realm of tongue, flavor, and consciousness? Nor could empty space produce your conscious awareness. The tongue and flavors could not combine without each losing its basic nature. How, then, could a realm be produced? From this you should understand that as to the tongue and flavors being the conditions that produce the realm of tongue-consciousness, none of the three places exists. Fundamentally the natures of the tongue, flavors, and the realm of the tongue-consciousness, these three, cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.

"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the body and objects of touch create the conditions that produce the body-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced because of the body, such that the body is its realm, or is it produced because of objects of touch, such that objects of touch are its realm?

"Ananda, if it were produced because of the body, the body alone cannot generate the awareness of contact or separation. What would the body be conscious of? If it were produced because of objects of touch, then your body shouldnot be necessary. But who can perceive contact with something other than the body? Ananda, things do not perceive objects of touch; the body does. What the body knows is objects of touch, and what is aware of objects of touch is the body. Objects of touch are not the body, and the body is not objects of touch. The two entities of body and objects of touch basically have no location. If it were the body-consciousness that came in contact with the body, then it would be the body’s own substance and nature. If the body-consciousness were separate from the body, then it would be like empty space. Since the internal and external aspects can’t be established, how can something be set up between them? Since no such middle can be set up, the internal and external aspects are by nature empty. From what, then, would your consciousness be produced? From this you should understand that as to the body and objects of touch being the conditions that produce the realm of body-consciousness, none of the three places exists. Fundamentally the body, objects of touch, and the realm of body-consciousness, these three, cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.

"Moreover, Ananda, as you understand it, the mind and dharmas create the conditions that produce the mind-consciousness. Is this consciousness produced because of the mind, such that the mind is its realm, or is it produced because of dharmas, such that dharmas are its realm?

"Ananda, if it were produced because of the mind, in your mind there certainly must be thoughts that give expression to your mind. If there were no dharmas before you, the mind would not give rise to anything. Apart from conditions, it would have no shape; thus, of what use would the consciousness be? Moreover, is your mind-consciousness the same as your mind-organ with its thought processes and discriminations, or is it different? If it were the same as the mind, then it would be the mind, how could it be something produced from it? If it were different from the mind, it shouldn’t have any consciousness. If it didn’t have any consciousness, how could it bee produced from the mind? If it did have consciousness, how could the mind be conscious of itself? Since it is by nature neither the same nor different, how can a realm be established?

"If it were produced because of dharmas, none of the mundane dharmas exist apart form the five defiling objects. Consider the dharmas of form, of sound, of smell, of taste, and of touch: each has a clearly distinguishable appearance and is matched with one of the five organs. They are not what the mind takes in. If your consciousness were indeed produced through a reliance on dharmas, then take a look at them now: what does each and every dharma look like? Apart from the attributes of form and emptiness, motion and stillness, penetration and obstruction, unity and separation, and arising and ceasing there is nothing at all. When there is arising, then form, emptiness, and all dharmas arise. When there is ceasing, then form, emptiness, and all dharmas cease to be. Since the objective causes do not exist, then what does the consciousness which those causes produce look like? If there is nothing discernible about the consciousness, how can a realm be established for it? From this you should understand that as to the mind and dharmas being the conditions that produce the realm of mind-consciousness, none of the three places exists. Fundamentally the mind, dharmas, and the realm of the mind-consciousness, these three, cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.

Ananda said to the Budha, "World Honored One, in discussing the dharmas of mixing and uniting and of causes and conditions, the Tathagata has often said that the transformations of all mundane phenomena can be discovered in the mixing and uniting of the four elements. Why does the Tathagata now reject causes and conditions and spontaneity as well? I do not know what your meaning pertains to. Please be so compassionate as to instruct us beings in dharmas that adhere to the complete meaning of the Middle Way and are not philosophical speculations.

At that time the World Honored One said to Ananda, "You have already renounced the Small Vehicle dharmas of the Hearers and Those Enlightened to Conditions and have resolved to diligently seek unsurpassed Bodhi. Because of that, I will now explain the Complete Meaning of the Middle Way to you. Why do you still bind yourself up in mundane philosophical speculations and false thoughts about causes and conditions? Although you are very learned, you are like someóne who can discuss medicines but annot recognize a real medicine when it is placed before you. The Tathagata says that you are truly pitiable. Listen attentively now as I explain this point in detail to enable you and those of the future who cultivate the Great Vehicle to penetrate to the ultimate reality."

Ananda was silent and awaited the Budha’s sagely instruction.

"Ananda, according to what you say, the mixing and uniting of the four elements can be discovered in the myriad transformations of all mundane phenomena. Ananda, if the natures of those elements did not mix and unite, then they could not combine with other elements, just as empty space cannot combine with forms. If the natures of those elements do not mix and unite, they are themselves transformations in a never-ending process of bringing each other into being. The continuation of comings into being and ceasings to be, of births and deaths, of deaths and births is like the unbroken wheel of flame that appears when a torch is spun in a circle.

"Ananda, the process is like water becoming ice and ice turning into water again.

"Consider the nature of earth: its coarsest aspect is the earth itself; its subtlest aspect is a mote of dust, which at its smallest would be a particle of dust bordering on emptiness. If one divided one of those particles of dust that is barely form to begin with into seven parts and then split one of those parts, emptiness itself would be arrived at. Ananda, if a particle of dust bordering on emptiness can be divided to arrive at emptiness, it should be that emptiness can give rise to form.

"Just now you asked if mixing and uniting doesn’t bring about all mundane transformations.

You should carefully consider how much emptiness mixes and unites with itself to arrive at a single particle of dust bordering upon emptiness. Such a particle could not be composed of other particles of dust bordering upon emptiness. Moreover, since particles of dust bordering upon emptiness can be reduced to emptiness, of how many particles of such form would emptiness be composed? When those particles of form mass together, a mass of form does not make emptiness; when emptiness is massed together, a mass of emptiness does not make form. Besides, although form can be divided, how can emptiness be massed together?

"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata, the nature of form is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true form. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Reealm. Beings’ minds absorb itaccording to their capacity to know. Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words.

"Ananda, the nature of fire is devoid of identity, being dependent upon various causes and conditions for its existence. Consider a family in the city that has not yet eaten. When they wish to prepare food, they hold up a brass mirror to the sun, seeking fire.

"Ananda, speaking of mixing and uniting, you and I and the twelve hundred and fifty Bhikshus unite a form a community. However, a careful analysis of the community reveals that every member composing it has his own body, family name, clan, and name. For instance, Shariputra is a Brahman, Uruvilva is of the Kashyapa clan, and you, Ananda, come from the Gautama family.

"Ananda, if fire existed because of mixing and uniting, then when your hand holds up the mirror to the sun to seek fire, does the fire come out of the mirror? Does it come out of the moxa tinder? Or does it come from the sun? Ananda, if the fire came from the sun, then only would it burn the moxa tinder in your hand, but as it came across the groves of trees, it should burn them up as well. Suppose it came from the mirror, since it would come out to the mirror to ignite the moxa tinder, why doesn’t the mirror melt? Yet, as your hand that holds the mirror feels no heat; how could the mirror melt? If the fire came from the moxa tinder, then why would fire be generated only when the bright mirror came into contact with the dazzling light? Furthermore, on closer examination, you will find that the mirror is held in your hands, the sun is high in the sky, and moxa is grown from the ground. So where does the fire come from? The sun and the mirror cannot mix and unite, since they are far apart. Nor can it be that the fire arises spontaneously without an origin.

"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata the nature of fire is true emptiness, and the nature of emptiness is true fire. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings’ minds absorb it according to their capacity to know. Ananda, you should know that fire can be generated anyplace where a mirror is held up to the sunlight. If mirrors were held up to the sunlight everywhere in the Dharma Realm, fire would be generated everywhere. Since fire can come forth throughout the whole world, can there be any fixed place to which it is confined? Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people in the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words.

"Ananda, the nature of water is mutable, its flowing and stopping are erratic. Kapila, Chakra, Padma, Hasta, and other great magicians of Shravasti often hold up instruments to the light of the full moon at midnight to extract from it the essence of water to mix with their drugs. Does the water come out of the crystal ball that is used, or does it exist naturally in space? Or does it come from the moon? Ananda, if the water came from the distant moon, then, water should also flow from all the grasses and trees when the moonlight passes over them on its way to the crystal ball. If it did flow from them, why wait for it to condense on the surface of the crystal ball? Since it does not flow from the trees, then the water clearly cannot descend from the moon. If it came from the crystal ball, then it should flow from the crystal at all times. Why would one have to wait for midnight and the light of the full moon to receive it? If the water came from space, which is by nature boundless, it would flow everywhere until everything between heaven and earth was submerged. How, then, could there still be travel by water, land, and air? Furthermore, upon closer examination you will find that the moon moves through the sky, the crystal ball is held in the hand, and the pan for receiving the eater is put there by someóne. So where does the water that flows into the pan come from? The moon and the crystal ball cannot mix and unite, since they are far apart. Nor should the essence of water arise spontaneously without an origin.

"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata the nature of water is true emptiness, and the nature of emptiness is true water. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings’ minds absorb it according to their capacity to know. A crystal ball can be held up at a certain place, and water will come forth. If crystal balls were held up throughout the Dharma Realm, then throughout the Dharma Realm water would come forth. Since water can come forth throughout the entire world, can there be any fixed place to which it is confined? Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign their origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words.

Subir