Shurangama Qingx (snax-16)

"Ananda, qycjaiww liw soxx bingvik :ee, hni-aw qapp snia'imx juewjniaa inenn snix cud hnirsig. Jitt xee hnirsig si knikib hni-aw ee qinkir soxx snix :ee, ixx hni-aw jyr hanrqair? Iacc knikib snia'imx soxx snix :ee, ixx snia'imx jyr hanrqair? Ananda, narr knikib hni-aw soxx snix :ee, drang qapp jing nng xee siongwtew, qacc byy henxhen dirr binrjingg, qinkir dyrr byy juewjniaa qakdix, vitdnia byy soxx qakdix :ee. Qakdix dy' byy juewjniaa, hnirsig si sniaw hingboo? Narr caixcuw hni-aw tniax :ee jitt xee qongxhuad, byy drang byy jing soxx drir, tniax dyrr byy soxx juewjniaa. Anwjnuw hni-aw ee hingboo, camcab sikdinn qapp tapkab, qra hy miaa qiyr sikbad-hanrqair? Anxnex hni ee sikbad-hanrqair qycc an' sniaw laii juewjniaa? Narr an' snia'imx snix .cud .laii .ee, hnirsig in'ui u snia'imx jiacc u, dyrr qapp tniax byy dirdai. Byy tniax, snia'imx siongwtew ee soxjai dyrr brongg .kir. Hnirsig an' snia'imx snix :ee, snia'imx in'ui tniax u sniax ee siongwtew. Tniax ingdongx tniax e diyc hnirsig. Tniax e diyc dyrr byy hanrqair. Tniax qapp sniaimx qangrkuanw, hnirsig ixx virr tniax .diyc, si'angw jaix hnirsig? Narr byy qacc jit xee jai'ngiaw :ee, quibuew bersux cauxbok, byy ingqaix sniax qapp tniax camcab juewjniaa diongqanx ee hanrqair. Hanrqair byy diongx:a ee xui, anxnex lairgua ee siongwtew beh an' dyhh juewjniaa? Soxiw qongw qaidongx jaix, hni-aw qapp snia'imx juewjniaa inenn snix cud hnirsig ee hanrqair, jitt snax xui longxx byy junjai. Anxnex hni-aw qapp snia'imx ixqip sniax ee hanrqair jitt snax xee vunxguann m si inenn camcab, iarr m si jurhuad tenzenn :ee."

(Shurangama Sutra, Volume 3 --16)

"Moreover, Ánanda, 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? Ánanda, 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."

(楞嚴經卷第三之16)

阿難。又汝所明。耳聲為緣。生於耳識。此識為復因耳所生。以耳為界。因聲所生。以聲為界。 阿難。若因耳生。動靜二相。既不現前。根不成知。必無所知。知尚無成。識何形貌。若取耳聞。無動靜故。聞無所成。云何耳形。雜色觸塵。名為識界。則耳識界。復從誰立。若生於聲。識因聲有。則不關聞。無聞則亡聲相所在。識從聲生。許聲因聞而有聲相。聞應聞識。不聞非界。聞則同聲。識已被聞。誰知聞識。若無知者。終如草木。不應聲聞雜成中界。界無中位。則內外相。復從何成。是故當知。耳聲為緣。生耳識界。三處都無。則耳與聲。及聲界三。本非因緣。非自然性。

Shurangama Qingx (snax-15)

"Ananda, dyrr cincniu liw soxx bingvik :ee, bagjiux qapp sikdinn juewjniaa inenn snix cud ganxsig. Jitt xee ganxsig si knikib bagjiux ee qinkir soxx snix :ee, ixx bagjiux jyr hanrqair? Iacc knikib sikdinn soxx snix :ee, ixx sikdinn jyr hanrqair? Ananda,narr knikib bagjiux soxx snix :ee, qacc byy sikdinn qapp kanghux, dyrr byy sniaw tangx hunvet :ee. Dyrr junw u liw ee ganxsig, u sniaw loring lehh? Liw ee qenwsingr iarr m si cnix :ee, ngg :ee, angg :ee, iacc vec :ee. Byy sniaw soxx viauxsi :ee beh an' dyhh qenwlip hanrqair? Narr knikib sikdinn soxx snix :ee, kanghux byy sikdinn ee sii, liw ee ganxsig ingdongx bet .kir. Anwjnuaw ganxsig jaix jitt xee hukongsingr? Narr siksiong quexvnir ee sii, liw iarr jaix hitt xee siksiong venwcenx. Mrqycc liw ee ganxsig byy venwcenx, hanrqair an' dyhh qenwlip? Duer quexvnir laii quewvnir, vitdnia byy hanrqair ee siongwtew. Byy quexvnir dyrr si vutsii ciangjai. Qacc an' sikdinn soxx snix :ee, ingqaix m jaix hukongx ee soxjai. Narr liongw qiamx, ganxsig si bagjiux ee qinkir qapp sikdinn snaqab snisingg :ee. Hap jywhuew dyrr ganxsig diongx:a u lirpang; hunlii dyrr ganxsig nng jiongw longxx u camcab. Texsingr capjap, hanrqair anwjnuaw singlip? Soxiw qongxx qaidongx jaix bagjiux qapp sikdinn juewjniaa inenn snix ganxsig ee hanrqair, jitt snax xui longxx byy junjai. Dyrr si bagjiux qapp sikdinn, ixqip sikdinn ee hanrqair jitt snax xee vunxguann m si inenn camcab, iarr m si jurhuad tenzenn :ee."

(Shurangama Sutra, Volume 3 --15)

"Ánanda, 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? Ánanda, 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 in-between. 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."

(楞嚴經卷第三之15)

阿難。如汝所明。眼色為緣。生於眼識。此識為復因眼所生。以眼為界。因色所生。以色為界。 阿難。若因眼生。既無色空。無可分別。縱有汝識。欲將何用。汝見又非青黃赤白。無所表示。從何立界。若因色生。空無色時。汝識應滅。云何識知是虛空性。若色變時。汝亦識其色相遷變。汝識不遷。界從何立。從變則變。界相自無。不變則恒。既從色生。應不識知虛空所在。若兼二種。眼色共生。合則中離。離則兩合。 體性雜亂。云何成界。是故當知眼色為緣。生眼識界。三處都無。則眼與色。及色界三。本非因緣。非自然性。  

Shurangama Qingx (snax-14)

"Iauxqycc u, Ananda. Anwjnuaw qongw jitt jap-veh xee qaiwjiw vunxdew dyrr si Zulaijongr bibiau jinsit jurzuu ee vunxsingr?"

(Shurangama Sutra, Volume 3 --14)

"Moreover, Ánanda, why do I say that the eighteen realms are basically the wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Thus Come One?" 

(楞嚴經卷第三之14)

復次阿難。云何十八界。本如來藏妙真如性。

Shurangama Qingx (snax-13)

"Ananda, liw dniardnia dirr iwliam lairdew knikib sxenx, og, qapp byy soxx qir jitt snax jiongw jitsingr laii snijniaa jingwhuad ee junxjig. Jitt xee jingwhuad si simx soxx snix :ee iacc lirkuix simx dirr vadd xui soxx snix :ee? Ananda, narr junw si simx soxx snix :ee, jingwhuad dyrr m si dinenn, m si simx soxx knikib :ee. Anwjnuaw qongw u jit xui dilehh? Narr lirkuix simx lingrgua dirr vadd xui, anxnex jingwhuad ee jursingr si u qakdix iacc byy qakdix? U qakdix dyrr hy miaa qiyr juer simx. Qapp liw byy qang, m si sriok dinenn. Cincniu vadd langg ee simx. Liw dyrr si simx. Anwjnuaw qongw liw ee simx qapp liw dirr nng xui? Narr m si u qakdix :ee, Jitt xee dinenn qacc m si siktew, snia'imx, pangkuir, iacc kiwbi, lirkuix lingxluanw qapp hukongx ee siongr, qaidongx dirr dyc'ui? Dnaxx dirr sikdinn kanghux dy' byy viauxsi .cud .laii, byy ingqaix dirr zinsewqanx qycc u vadd xee kanghux ee soxjai dilehh. Simx m si soxx knikib :ee, an' sniaw laii qenwlip jit xee soxjai? Soxiw qongxx qaidongx jaix, jingwhuad ee junxjig qapp simx longxx byy jit xee jursow. Dyrr si qongxx iwliam qapp jingwhuad jitt nng xee si hubuu bongrsiongw, vunxguann m si inenn camcab, iarr m si jurhuad tenzenn :ee."

(Shurangama Sutra, Volume 3 --13)

"Ánanda, 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? Ánanda, 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 someone 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"

(楞嚴經卷第三之13)

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。

Shurangama Qingx (snax-12)

"Ananda, liw dniardnia dirr jaixkiw iong ciuw syx tauu. Jex sniaxmih iwbi? Jai'ngiaw u syx tauu, jex si si'angw u bongkab ee qakdix? Si ciuxqud jaix iacc taukag jaix? Narr qakdix dirr ciuw, tauu dyrr ingqaix m jaix. Anwjnuaw qongw ho'ngg bongx .diyc? Narr qakdix dirr tauu, dyrr byy ing diyc ciuw. Anwjnuaw qongw kir bongx .diyc? Narr tauu qapp ciuw longxx u qakdix, anxnex, liw Ananda ingdongx u nng xee sintew. Narr junw bongkab ee qakdix si tauu qapp ciuw soxx snix .cud .ee, anxnex ciuw qapp tauu ingdongx si ittew. Narr si ittew, bongkab ee qakdix dyrr be singlip. Narr junw u nng xee sintew, si'angw u bongkab ee qakdix? U jaidiau bongx :ee byy qakdix. Ho'ngg bongx :ee byy jaidiau kir bongx. Byy ingdongx hukongx qapp liw e snix cud bongkab ee qakdix. Soxiw qongxx qaidongx jaix, bongkab ee qakdix qapp sintew longxx byy jitt xee jursow. Dyrr si qongxx sintew qapp bongkab jitt nng xee si hubuu bongrsiongw, vunxguann m si inenn camcab, iarr m si jurhuad tenzenn :ee."

(Shurangama Sutra, Volume 3 --12)

"Ánanda, early every morning you rub your head with your hand. What do you think? When the sensation of rubbing occurs, what does the touching? Does the head or the hand do the touching? If the ability to touch were in the hand, then the head should have no knowledge of it. How could we then say that the head was touched? If it were in the head, then the hand would be useless, and how could it be said to have touched? If each had the ability to touch, then you, Ánanda, should have two bodies. If between the head and the hand only one touch took place, then the hand and the head would be of one substance. If they were one substance, then no touch would be possible. If they were two substances, to which would the touch belong? The one that was capable of touch would not be the one that was touched. The one that was touched would not be the one that was capable of touch. Nor should it be that the touch came into being between you and emptiness. From this you should understand that neither the sensation of touch nor the body can be located, and thus the two places of body and touch are empty and false. Fundamentally their natures cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity."

(楞嚴經卷第三之12)

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。

 

Shurangama Qingx (snax-11)

"Ananda, liw suwsiongg dirr nng xee sisinn kir jinglangg lairdew tog vxuah. Qiqanx qiamxcaiw e duw diyc kauxsox, gulingdangr, iacc qiamm gulingx, qra qiyr juer siongrdingw hyw bi. Jex sniaxmih iwbi? Jitt xee jubi si an' kanghux lairdew snix :ee, an' cuiwjic lairdew snix :ee, iacc an' jiahsit lairdew snix :ee? Ananda, narr jitt xee jubi si an' liw ee cuiwjic snix :ee, dirr liw ee cuir lairdew qandna' u jit xee cuiwjic. Jitt xee cuiwjic hitt sii ixqingx vniwjniaa kauxsox ee jubi, duw diyc ox jiyc bit ingqaix be qaixii. Narr byy venwsii, berdangr qiyr juer jaix jubi. Narr e venwii :ee, cuiwjic vingrr byy je xee, anwjnuaw jit xee cuiwjic tangx jaix je jiongw jubi? Narr junw an' jiahsit snix :ee. Jiahsit vingrr byy qakdix, anwjnuaw qongw qaqi jaix jubi? Qycc narr jiahsit qaqi jaix jubi, bersux vadd langg decc jiac mihqnia, qapp liw sniaw dirdai? Miaa qiyr juer jaix jubi :ee, narr an' kanghux snix :ee, liw jiac hukongx, qaidongx si sniaw kuanw jubi? Jitt xee hukongx narr si qiamm bi, qacc hro liw ee cuiwjih e qiamm, iarr tangx hro liw ee bin e qiamm. Anxnex jitt xee sewqair ee langg qapp haiw nirr ee hii qangrkuanw, qacc suwsiongg sriu qiamm bi, juanzenn m jaix jniaw si sniaw jubi. Narr m bad jniaw ee jubi, iarr be qamxqag qiamm. Anxnex vitdnia sniaxmih jubi longxx m jaix, anwjnuaw qiyr juer jaix jubi? Soxiw qongxx qaidongx jaix, jubi, cuiwjic, qapp damx longxx byy jit xee jursow. Dyrr si qongxx damx qapp jubi jitt nng xee si hubuu bongrsiongw, vunxguann m si inenn camcab, iarr m si jurhuad tenzenn :ee."

(Shurangama Sutra, Volume 3 --11)

"Ánanda, twice every day you take up your bowl along with the rest of the assembly, and among what you receive may be fine-tasting foods, such as curds, buttermilk, and clarified butter. What do you think? Are these flavors produced from emptiness, do they come forth from the tongue, or does the food produce them? Ánanda, once again, if the flavors came from your tongue, since you only have one tongue in your mouth, when that tongue had already tasted the flavor of curds, then it would not change if it encountered some dark rock candy. If it did not change then it could not be said to be aware of tastes. Yet if it did change, since the tongue is not made up of many substances, how could one tongue know so many tastes? If the tastes were produced from the food, since food does not have consciousness, how could it know tastes? Moreover, if the food itself were to recognize them that would be the same as someone else eating. Then what connection would that have with what is called your recognition of tastes? If the tastes were produced in emptiness, then when you eat emptiness, what flavor does it have? Suppose that emptiness had the flavor of salt. Then since your tongue was salty, your face should also be salty, and likewise everyone in the world would be like fish in the sea. Since you would be constantly influenced by salt, you would never know tastelessness. Yet, if you did not recognize tastelessness, you could not be aware of the saltiness, either. You would not know anything at all. How could that be called taste? From this you should understand that neither the flavors nor the tongue’s tasting can be located, and thus the two places of tasting and flavors are empty and false. Fundamentally their natures cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity."

(楞嚴經卷第三之11)

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。

Shurangama Qingx (snax-10)

"Ananda, liw qycc pnri jitt xee hniuloo lairdew ee dancaa knuar mai. Jiaxee hniux narr diamw jit jangg, Shravasti Sniaa sir-jap lxiw lai qang sijun longxx pnri e diyc pangkuir. Jex sniaxmih iwbi? Jitt xee pangkuir si dancaa soxx snix .ee, liw ee pni-aw soxx snix .ee, iacc kanghux soxx snix :ee? Ananda, narr jitt xee pangkuir si an' pni-aw snix .cud .laii, qiyr juer pni-aw soxx snix :ee, qaidongx an' pni-aw cud .laii. Pni-aw m si dancaa. Anwjnuaw qongw pni-aw lairdew u dancaa ee pangkuir? Narr qongw liw pnri .diyc ee pangkuir qaidongx an' pni-aw zip .kir. Pni-aw lairdew cud pangkuir, qongxx liw pnri .diyc si byy hac lixlo. Narr kanghux soxx snix :ee, kanghux ee vunxsingr ciangjai, pangkuir ingdongx marr suwsiongg dilehh. Tacc diyhh jiyh hniuloo laii siyx jitt xee qobok? Narr si caa soxx snix :ee, jitt xee pangkuir ee guanjid in'ui diamw huew siyx vniwjniaa hniuenx. Narr pni-aw tangx pnri .diyc, si qapp huexenx siy' qab. Hitt xee huexenx cingwquann be tangx qaur zuarr iau'uanw. Anwjnuaw sir-jap lxiw lai :ee longxx pnri e diyc? Soxiw qongxx qaidongx jaix, pangkuir, pni-aw, qapp pnri longxx byy jit xee jursow. Dyrr si qongxx pnri qapp pangkuir jitt nng xui si hubuu bongrsiongw, vunxguann m si inenn camcab, iarr m si jurhuad tenzenn :ee."

(Shurangama Sutra, Volume 3 --10)

"Moreover, Ánanda, you smell the chandana in this censer. When one particle of this incense is lit, it can be smelled simultaneously through forty miles around the city of Shravasti. What do you think? Is this fragrance produced from the chandana wood? Is it produced in your nose, or does it arise within emptiness? Ánanda, once again, if the fragrance were produced from your nose, what is said to be produced from the nose should come forth from the nose Your nose is not chandana, so how can your nose have the fragrance of chandana? When you say you smell a fragrance, it should enter your nose. Smelling is not defined as the nose emitting fragrance. If it were produced from within emptiness, since the nature of emptiness is eternal and unchanging, the fragrance should be constantly present. Why should the presence of the fragrance be contingent on the burning of dry wood in the censer? If it were produced from the wood, since the nature of this incense is such that it gives off smoke when it is burned, then when the nose smelled it, the nose should be filled with smoke, which does not happen. The smoke rises into the air, and before it has reached the distance, how can the fragrance already be smelled at a distance of more than ten miles? From this you should understand that neither the fragrance nor the nose’s smelling can be located, and thus the two places of smelling and fragrance are empty and false. Fundamentally their natures cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity."

(楞嚴經卷第三之10)

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。