Shurangama Qingx (zi-36)

Ananda, liw suizenn dairsingx liauxgno diyc vunxguann u qakdix bibiau bingqngx ee vunxsingr m si inenn iarr m si jurhuad tenzenn, mrqycc iauxx bue bingvik jitt xee u qakdix ee vunxguann m si in'ui camcab iacc byy camcab laii sanxsingx :ee. Ananda, guaw jitmaw qycc iong taujingg ee huandinn siogsu mng liw. Liw dnaxx iauxx uirdiyhh itcer sewqanx bongrsiongw ee camcab ixqip soxu inenn ee vinxsingr qaqi decc gignaiw, sniu be crunx. Beh jingwbingg potesimx si camcab kixinx :ee, anxnex liw jitmaw bibiau cingjing jinglen ee quanqnir si qapp bingqngx camcab iacc si qapp oamr camcab? Si qapp tongtaur camcab iacc si qapp satbat camcab? Narr qapp bingqngx camcab, liw quanknuar qngsnuar, qngsnuar henxhen dirr binrjingg, dyc'ui u camcab quanqnir? Qnir ee siongwtew narr tangx venrved, jabcyr si sniaw hingsiong? Narr junw knuar be diyc, anwjnuaw qongw qnir diyc bingqngx? Narr junw jex dyrr si qnir ee vunxsingr, anwjnuaw qongw qnir diyc qnir ee vunxsingr? Narr qnir ee vunxsingr vitdnia si uanbuanw, dyc'ui qapp bingqngx camcab? Narr bingqngx uanbuanw, dyrr be qapp quanqnir camcab. Quanqnir vitdnia qapp bingqngx byy siyqang. Narr jabcyr dyrr srid kir vinxsngr qapp bingqngx inx miaa ee iwsur. Jabcyr srid kir bingqngx vinxsingr. Qapp bingqngx camcab qycc byy hac lixlo. Hiaxee oamr qapp tongtaur ixqip soxu satbat ee vixzu iarr qangrkuanw si anxnex. Qycjaiww qongw, Ananda, liw jitmaw bibiau cingjing jinglen ee quanqnir si qapp bingqngx camcab iacc si qapp oamr camcab? Si qapp tongtaur camcab iacc si qapp satbat camcab? Narr qapp bingqngx camcab, qaur qaxx amwsii, bingqngx ee siongwtew bet .kir. Jitt xee qnir ee vunxsingr dyrr byy qapp soxu ee oamr camcab. Anwjnuaw qongw knuar diyc oamr? Narr qapp oamr camcab, jitt xee qnir ee vunxsingr byy qapp oamr camcab, si qapp bingqngx camcab, anxnex ingqaix be knuar diyc bingqngx. Qacc be tangx knuar diyc bingqngx, anwjnuaw qongw qapp bingqngx camcab? Liauxqaiw bingqngx m si oamr ee ywgi, hiaxee oamr qapp tongtaur ixqip soxu satbat ee vixzu iarr si qangrkuanw."

(Shurangama Sutra, Volume 2 --36)

"Ánanda, although you have already realized that the wonderful bright fundamental enlightenment is not originated by conditions nor is it originated by spontaneity, you have not yet understood that the source of enlightenment does not originate from mixing and uniting or from a lack of mixing and uniting. Ánanda, now I will once again make use of the mundane objects before you to question you.  You now hold that false thoughts mix and unite with the causes and conditions of everything in the world, and you wonder if the Bodhi mind one realizes might arise from mixing and uniting. To follow that line of thinking, right now, does the wonderful pure seeing-essence mix with light, does it mix with darkness, does it mix with penetration or does it mix with obstructions?  If it mixed with light, then when you looked at light, when light appeared before you, at what point would it mix with your seeing? Given that seeing has certain attributes, what would the altered shape of such a mixture be? If that mixture were not the seeing, how could you see the light?  If it were the seeing, how could the seeing see itself? If you insist that seeing is complete, what room would there be for it to mix with the light?  And if light were complete in itself, it could not unite and mix with the seeing. If seeing were different from light, then, when mixed together, both its quality and the light would lose their identity.  Since the mixture would result in the loss of the light and the quality of seeing, the proposal that the seeing-essence mixes with light doesn’t hold. The same principle applies to its mixing with darkness, with penetration, or with all kinds of solid objects. Moreover, Ánanda, as you are right now, once again, does the wonderful pure seeing-essence unite with light, does it unite with darkness, does it unite with penetration, or does it unite with solid objects? If it united with light, then when darkness came and the attributes of light ceased to be, how could you see darkness since the seeing would not be united with darkness?  If you could see darkness and yet at the same time there was no union with darkness, but rather a union with light, you should not be able to see light. Since you could not be seeing light, then why is it that when your seeing comes in contact with light, it recognizes light, not darkness? The same would be true of its union with darkness, with penetration, or with any kind of solid object."

(楞嚴經卷第二之36)

阿難。汝雖先悟本覺妙明。性非因緣。非自然性。而猶未明如是覺元。非和合生。及不和合。阿難。吾今復以前塵問汝。汝今猶以一切世間妄想和合。諸因緣性。而自疑惑。證菩提心和合起者。則汝今者妙淨見精。為與明和。為與暗和。為與通和。為與塞和。 若明和者。且汝觀明。當明現前。何處雜見。見相可辨。雜何形像。若非見者。云何見明。若即見者。云何見見。必見圓滿。何處和明。若明圓滿。不合見和。見必異明。雜則失彼性明名字。雜失明性。和明非義。彼暗與通。及諸群塞。亦復如是。復次阿難。又汝今者妙淨見精。為與明合。為與暗合。為與通合。為與塞合。若明合者。至於暗時。明相已滅。此見即不與諸暗合。云何見暗。若見暗時。不與暗合。與明合者。應非見明。既不見明。云何明合。了明非暗。彼暗與通。及諸群塞。亦復如是。