…………

“If they came forth from the eyes, then, having come forth from the eyes, they should also reenter through the eyes. Since the nature of these flowers comes forth from the eyes, it should be capable of seeing. If it is capable of seeing, then, having gone out as flowers in empty space, it should return and see the eyes. If it is incapable of seeing, then, having gone out, it should obstruct empty space; upon returning, it should obstruct the eyes. Moreover, when one sees the flowers, the eyes should be free of obstruction. How, then, can clear empty space be called clear and luminous eyes? Therefore, you should know that the form aggregate is illusory and unreal, and is fundamentally neither produced by causes and conditions nor of a self-arising nature.”

“If they came forth from the eyes, then, having come forth from the eyes, they should also reenter through the eyes.” If the flowers in empty space that you see came forth from your eyes, then, since they can come forth from the eyes, they should naturally also be able to return into them.

All things exist only in relation to one another. This is true not only of flowers in empty space, but of everything else as well. Coming forth and entering are relative terms. Good and bad, long and short, square and round are likewise relative.

Because wherever there is coming forth, there must be entering; likewise, wherever there is good, there must be bad, and wherever there is long, there must be short. … If there were no entering, there could be no coming forth. This is the principle—the principle governing illusory appearances. Precisely for this reason, we say that all appearances exist only relatively. The principles and criteria must first be made clear; what follows must be explained in accordance with them. If the criteria are broken down, the teaching becomes difficult to explain.

Why does it say, “Since the nature of these flowers comes forth from the eyes, it should be capable of seeing”? It is because the nature of the flowers comes forth from the eyes. We know that the faculty of the eye is able to see forms and appearances; therefore, what is produced by the eyes should likewise be able to see. Just as human beings give birth to human beings, horses to horses, and cattle to cattle, what is produced within the same kind should resemble the preceding generation. Thus, what is produced by the eyes should also possess the nature of seeing and should be able to see.

“If it is capable of seeing, then, having gone out as flowers in empty space, it should return and see the eyes.” If the nature of the flowers possessed seeing, it should be able to see forms and appearances. But in fact these flowers are empty and insubstantial; they do not exist at all, and so they cannot see. This applies not only to flowers in empty space. Even flowers that we ourselves plant have no spiritual awareness; they are insentient things and cannot see either.

Now suppose that the flowers in empty space arise from the eyes and are capable of seeing; this is why it says, “Having gone out as flowers in empty space, it should return and see the eyes.” “Gone out” means that the flowers leave the eyes and enter empty space. If the flowers are in empty space, then when they return, they should see the eyes.

“Return” means to come back. Since coming forth entails entering, when the flowers return from empty space, they stand in relation to the eyes and should be able to see them. But can flowers actually see the eyes? Of course not. This shows that the flowers do not come forth from the eyes, because they have no nature of seeing. This is the first analogy, which positively supposes that they are “capable of seeing.”

Then, conversely, an analogy is made by supposing that they are “incapable of seeing.” Being capable of seeing is paired with being incapable of seeing.

It has already been shown that the supposition of being capable of seeing does not hold. Now let us see whether being incapable of seeing can hold. Since flowers are insentient things, how could they possess seeing? If the flowers are incapable of seeing, then “having gone out, they should obstruct empty space; upon returning, they should obstruct the eyes.”

“Obstruct” means to impede. That is, when the flowers emerge into empty space, they should be able to obstruct it, and the empty space in which the flowers are found should be obstructed by them. If the flowers could obstruct empty space, then when they returned, they should likewise obstruct the eyes. If the eyes were obstructed, they would become impeded and would be unable to see things. This is the argument from the opposite side.

But do the flowers actually obstruct the eyes? No. In truth, there are originally no flowers in empty space. We see flowers there only because the eyes are obstructed. When one sees that there are no flowers in empty space, one sees pure empty space; this shows that the eyes are sound and free of obstruction.

If the eyes were obstructed, one would not see empty space as free of flowers. This further shows that the claim that the flowers come forth from the eyes does not hold. Since coming forth entails entering, if the eyes were obstructed when the flowers came forth, they should still be obstructed after the flowers returned. After encountering an obstruction, the eyes should see flowers in empty space. Yet your eyes are now clear—that is, free of obstruction. Since they are unobstructed, they should see that there are no flowers in empty space. This proves that the flowers do not come forth from the eyes either.

Next, “Moreover, when one sees the flowers, the eyes should be free of obstruction” means that, if the flowers leave the eyes, one should see them in empty space. Since the flowers are in empty space, the eyes ought to be clear and should not be obstructed. But the facts are otherwise. When one sees flowers in empty space, that is precisely when the eyes are obstructed.

If the eyes were unobstructed, one should see no flowers in empty space. In fact, there are no flowers in empty space; one sees them only because the eyes are impaired. Similarly, of two people, one may have sound eyes while the other's eyes are obstructed. The one with sound eyes sees no flowers in empty space, whereas the one whose eyes are obstructed sees flowers there.

If these flowers came forth from the eyes, then when they emerged into empty space your eyes should be clear. In fact, when you see flowers in empty space, you should be without discriminating consciousness and without deliberate intention; you are not intentionally trying to prove that the flowers do not come forth from the eyes.

Next, the passage argues conversely: “How, then, can clear empty space be called clear and luminous eyes?” Clear empty space means that there are no flowers in empty space; clear and luminous eyes are also called pure eyes. Why is clear empty space called pure eyes? Pure eyes are eyes free of obstruction—sound eyes. Since they are unobstructed, they should see that there are no flowers in empty space.

But when one sees clear empty space, it is said that the flowers have gone out from the eyes; and having gone out from the eyes, they must of course return into them. When the flowers return into the eyes, the eyes should be obstructed.

If the eyes were obstructed, one would certainly see flowers in empty space and would not see empty space as free of flowers. If one sees no flowers in clear empty space, the eyes must be clear and luminous; it is because they are unobstructed that there are no flowers in empty space. Repeated examination and verification from both the positive and negative sides show that the flowers do not arise from the eyes, and that their coming forth from the eyes cannot be established. Thus, when you see clear empty space without flowers, your eyes are pure and unstained, free of obstruction.

Earlier, the statement that when one sees the flowers the eyes should be free of obstruction demonstrated that the flowers do not come forth from the eyes. Later, “How, then, can clear empty space be called clear and luminous eyes?” demonstrates that the flowers have not entered the eyes. Since coming forth entails entering, the fact that there is now no entering proves that there was originally no coming forth.

“Therefore, you should know that the form aggregate is illusory and unreal, and is fundamentally neither produced by causes and conditions nor of a self-arising nature.” Form refers to all the various things outside us—that is, forms and appearances. “Aggregate” means that these forms and appearances obscure the radiance of our suchness Buddha-nature; it also refers to the deluded mind and deluded thoughts that arise in response to forms.

Sentient beings have their own suchness Buddha-nature obscured by the shadows of these forms and appearances because they entertain deluded thoughts and attachments.

Although the form aggregate is an illusory appearance produced by ignorance, its very substance is our suchness Buddha-nature. Without suchness Buddha-nature as its substance, how could we see all the various things? We previously used clouds in the sky as an analogy. Clouds originally have no fixed form, but when stirred by the wind, they move and can manifest all manner of appearances—cats, dogs, lions, and so forth.

Though the forms of clouds may change in a thousand ways, their substance remains clouds; that substance does not change with changes in shape. Our suchness Buddha-nature is the same. It is not something dead and motionless; rather, it is an all-capable spiritual awareness that can give rise to various functions in accordance with conditions.

This all-capable substance can manifest not only human bodies, cat bodies, ox bodies, and horse bodies in accordance with conditions, but also the bodies of Buddhas, bodhisattvas, devas, and all manner of bodies. Although it manifests, nothing is truly manifested; although there is birth, nothing is truly born, because its substance is neither arising nor ceasing, unchanging and unmoving.

If our suchness Buddha-nature were not spiritual awareness, it would become something dull and lifeless, like bricks, stones, or roof tiles, and could not function in accordance with conditions. Therefore, the form aggregate is originally our suchness Buddha-nature. We must learn to see the nature through appearances. If, upon seeing appearances, we become attached to them, they become illusory and unreal.

Therefore, we repeatedly say that one should not chase after appearances; this means that one should not become attached to them. For example, when we see plates and cups made of gold, we should not recognize only the appearances of plates and cups, but should recognize the substance of gold. To recognize only the appearances is mistaken. The shape of gold may change, but its essential substance does not.

For instance, I can remake a cup into a plate, or remake a plate into a cup. The appearances of these vessels may change back and forth, but the gold always remains one piece. Our suchness Buddha-nature is the same: although it can manifest various appearances in accordance with conditions, its substance is one and the same, without any difference.

Why is it said that it is “fundamentally neither produced by causes and conditions nor of a self-arising nature”? Of the two characters in “causes and conditions,” cause means self-arising, while condition means assisted arising, or arising from another. Cause and condition combined mean co-arising. But the form aggregate is an illusory appearance; originally it does not exist. Since it originally does not exist, what is there to arise? Therefore, it does not arise from itself, from another, or from both together.

A self-arising nature means arising without a cause. Since the form aggregate is fundamentally illusory and unreal, neither does it arise without a cause. Suchness Buddha-nature is originally thus: it neither arises nor ceases. If anything did arise, it would be of the nature of causes and conditions or of self-arising.

Because it does not arise from itself, from another, from both, or without a cause, it is said to be originally neither conditioned by causes and conditions nor of a self-existing nature. From the standpoint of the essence of suchness, it arises without there being anything that arises, and is unborn yet manifests birth. For example, however clouds may change, their essential nature does not change: they remain clouds. This is what is meant by “nothing arises.”

Although it is originally unborn, it is not without change. It can take the forms of cats, dogs, lions, and so forth; this is what is meant by being unborn yet manifesting birth. Our suchness and Buddha-nature can, in accordance with conditions, give rise to every kind of wondrous functioning; therefore, it is called unborn yet manifesting birth. This unborn-yet-manifesting birth is an illusory appearance, produced by sentient beings’ attachment.

If sentient beings did not cling to it, then illusory appearances would become the wondrous nature of suchness—the wondrous functioning that suchness gives rise to in accordance with conditions. All the forms that appear to us are the wondrous functioning of suchness. The reason sentient beings sink and drift in the six realms is attachment; if one can break through this clinging mind, all karmic conditions are immediately resolved.

For example, suppose a family has a precious only son, whom everyone in the household dearly loves. Later, the child falls ill and passes away. When their precious son dies, the adults naturally weep with great grief. At such a time, if you were to tell them, “Your son has not actually died at all, because this birth is itself no birth,”

you might say: “When conditions arose in the past, he came; now that the conditions have ceased, he has gone.”

In fact, not only did his life never truly exist; you yourself do not truly exist either. Why, then, do you still cling to the appearance of this son? After hearing this, they would say, “What you say is quite right. But when the child was with us, he brought us so much joy and so much family affection.”

“Now our precious son is gone; we can no longer see him. How can we not feel sorrow? How can we not grieve? Look—his corpse lies here. How wonderful he was when he was once so lively and active; now he lies here, unable to speak or move. How could this not break one’s heart?” This is precisely what they cannot get past.

What is so tragic about sentient beings is their deluded thoughts and attachments. If deluded thoughts are cast off, one can see one’s intrinsic nature and will no longer run after false appearances. For example, take the gold cup and gold plate we mentioned just now: their forms may undergo all kinds of changes, but their substance does not change.

If the cup and plate are melted down, their original forms may be gone, but the nature of the gold has not changed, and it can still be fashioned into other things.

Sentient beings are the same. When their causes and conditions here come to an end, they again follow conditions to another place and enter a womb. Although the appearances of arising and ceasing occur one after another, the essence of their intrinsic nature has never moved. This is called fundamental immutability. Because this fundamental basis has never changed, it is said that they neither arise nor cease.

Sentient beings go wrong precisely through attachment. Attachment gives rise to deluded thoughts, and they take illusory appearances to be truly existent. Thus the mind of arising and ceasing comes into being.

If we now turn back and understand that false appearances are our suchness and Buddha-nature, the wondrous functioning manifested by intrinsic nature in accordance with conditions, then although false appearances arise and cease, the substance of the true mind remains still and unmoving. If from then on we never again cling to false appearances, we can see the essence of suchness through them.

Nature and appearance are related as essence and function. If one knows only that “nature is precisely appearance,” turning nature into appearance, that is the realm of sentient beings. Because sentient beings cling to appearances and, thought after thought, see only appearances arising and ceasing, they cannot see their intrinsic nature. To understand that “appearance is precisely nature,” and to know that appearance itself is nature, is the realm of Buddhas and bodhisattvas.

Because bodhisattvas have already broken through the illusory appearances of ignorance, they see that every appearance is a manifestation of the wondrous, luminous true mind. Thus, whenever they see appearances, they see intrinsic nature everywhere. Where do sentient beings’ birth and death come from? They come from clinging to appearances. Because of such clinging, one thinks, “My son has died; he has left me.”

Your son has not actually left you. His suchness-mind and your suchness-mind are originally one. Intrinsic nature is also called the dharmakāya. The dharmakāya is one shared body of a thousand Buddhas and ten thousand Buddhas. That is, not only do Buddhas share one dharmakāya with other Buddhas, but Buddhas and sentient beings, as well as sentient beings with one another, all share one dharmakāya.

We can use the water of the great ocean as an analogy for the dharmakāya. The ocean’s water is one whole, without distinction between this and that, just as the dharmakāya does not distinguish between you and me. Although the seawater is one whole, bubbles can rise one after another on its surface; each bubble is like the body of a sentient being.

Although the bubbles on the ocean’s surface seem separate and independent from one another, they all arise from the ocean and never leave it. Sentient beings’ bodies are likewise separate and independent from one another, yet they all arise from the same suchness and Buddha-nature and never depart from it.

When a bubble bursts with a pop, it dissolves back into the ocean. Its arising and ceasing have never departed from the ocean. When a sentient being’s conditions are exhausted and the karmic retribution of this life is relinquished, that being again merges into the essence of suchness. Because suchness and Buddha-nature remain thus, thus, unmoving, that being’s birth and death never depart from Buddha-nature.

At birth, Buddha-nature does not increase; at death, Buddha-nature does not decrease. This is called: although there is arising and ceasing, there has never been arising or ceasing; although there is coming and going, there has never been coming or going. What we call awakening is understanding this principle. Once one understands it and never again clings, that is awakening; that is seeing one’s intrinsic nature.

Therefore, realizing the mind and seeing one’s true nature is not difficult. It is not necessary to shut oneself away somewhere to practice, nor is it necessary to hide in the mountains to cultivate. Still less must one investigate Chan for a fixed number of years or recite the Buddha’s name a fixed number of times before one can awaken.

The effort of practice does not depend on the length of time. Whether one awakens immediately or only after investigating Chan or reciting the Buddha’s name for many years, the experience of awakening is the same. There is a saying: “Practice for decades; awaken in an instant.” Thus, awakening to the Way upon hearing a single word is no different from awakening to the Way after decades of Chan practice.

What is called awakening to the Way is awakening to the fact that there is no mind to be called mind. For example, Chan practice emphasizes arousing a sense of doubt. Thus, I investigate, “Who is it that recites the Buddha’s name?” and the sense of doubt arises.

When the time and conditions are ripe, the sense of doubt suddenly bursts open, and one clearly understands: “Ah! Buddha-nature has never been separated from me by even the slightest amount. It shines forth at the gateways of my six sense faculties!” It is truly as the saying goes: “Having worn out iron shoes in a fruitless search, one finds it without the slightest effort.”

Investigating Chan and awakening to the Way are not inherently complicated. To use an analogy, our suchness and Buddha-nature are like a storehouse filled with treasures. Now its door has been locked, and to enter we must first unlock it.

So we find a key to open the lock. If the key is wrong—meaning that we are using the mind wrongly—the lock naturally will not open. But if we find the right key, the lock opens with a snap. Awakening to the Way is really as simple as opening a lock.

Last time we spoke of the saying, “Had I known earlier that the lamp was fire, the rice would have been cooked long ago!” If we had known from the start that this lamp was fire, we would not have needed to seek a source of fire elsewhere, and the rice would long since have been cooked. Likewise, awakening to the Way is right here in the present moment. To be able to let go completely, unstained by a single speck of dust and untainted by the slightest trace—this is it. Thus, “originally neither conditioned by causes and conditions nor of a self-existing nature” means exactly this.

Why do we say that it arises yet does not arise, and is unborn yet manifests birth? Because intrinsic nature is not dead; it is not inert and motionless. If intrinsic nature were dead, it would become annihilation.

If there were no world, and if intrinsic nature gave rise to no wondrous functioning at all, what meaning or positive value would Buddhism have? We say that Buddhism is positive and engaged with the world, because the Buddhadharma is in the world. To leave the world in search of one’s individual liberation is both impossible and meaningless.

To be a qualified Buddhist and disciple of the Buddha, one must first learn how to be a decent human being. Only then does one’s life in this world have meaning and value. Having understood suchness and Buddha-nature, we cannot remain inert and unmoving. We must learn to give rise to wondrous functioning and, through our own efforts and through invention and innovation, enable all sentient beings to live in happiness and fulfillment.

Therefore, Śākyamuni Buddha taught us that, after recognizing intrinsic nature, we must also study the five fields of knowledge. Seeing one’s nature yields only the bare dharmakāya; if one wishes to benefit sentient beings, one must learn other forms of knowledge as well. The field of crafts and technical arts among the five fields of knowledge refers to natural science, invention, and innovation. The more advanced science becomes and the more inventions and innovations there are, the better people’s living environment and quality of life can become. The field of medicine refers to medical arts and medicines. The more skilled the medicine and the more effective the medicines, the fewer illnesses humanity will suffer and the healthier people will live.

Yet the research we conduct and the inventions and innovations we undertake are not truly existent; all arise dependently and are empty in nature. This is called arising yet not arising. Conversely, true emptiness does not obstruct wondrous presence. Although the essential nature of all dharmas is originally empty, this does not hinder us from conducting research and creating. This is called being unborn yet manifesting birth.

If everyone worked, invented, and created with the intention of serving society and benefiting sentient beings, they would have no selfish thoughts or distracting intentions. Only then could humanity truly be happy and harmonious.

What is now called scientific research, however, often begins from desire and personal benefit. The more inventions there are, the greater their negative impact on society may instead become.

For after I develop something, I may gain this or that benefit, make a great fortune, and ensure that I eat well, dress well, and live well; consequently, personal desires grow ever greater. From the standpoint of desire as the point of departure, it may be said that the more science and technology advance, the greater the karmic evil that is created.

Why is this so? Because such advances in material life cause people's desires to grow ever stronger. When those desires cannot be fulfilled or satisfied, conflicts arise, and people may commit wrongful acts.

Whether wars and conflicts between nations and ethnic groups on a large scale, or gains and losses of interest among groups and individuals on a small scale, what is not directly related to desire? Since the reform and opening-up, our country's economy has developed rapidly, but the crime rate has also risen steadily. This is the result of some individuals' personal desires expanding excessively.

Conversely, if we understand the principle that though birth is manifested, there is ultimately no birth, and that birth has no place from which it arises; if we know that all appearances, all dharmas, and all thoughts are wondrous functioning of suchness and Buddha-nature, illusory and unreal shadows; and that apart from suchness and Buddha-nature there is fundamentally nothing at all, then we will no longer cling. Nor will we resort to any means for the sake of our own gain and loss, committing criminal acts that violate heaven's principle and conscience.

Knowing that everything is the wondrous functioning of intrinsic nature, and that apart from suchness and Buddha-nature there is fundamentally neither person nor self, neither gain nor loss, we will no longer approach everything from selfish intentions and distracting thoughts. Instead, we will truly give rise to vast and profound vows to benefit, serve, and liberate sentient beings.

We will make vows before the Buddhas and bodhisattvas that, in the future, we too will bring to accomplishment a land as sublime as the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss. May all sentient beings be born into my world, leave behind all suffering, attain every happiness, and each become a bodhisattva in the final life before Buddhahood; in time, they too will become Buddhas and bring benefit and happiness to immeasurable, boundless sentient beings.

Such people will no longer have the slightest selfish intention. They will no longer think about how to become wealthy or how to enjoy themselves after their own wishes have been fulfilled. Such people no longer worry over personal gain and loss, nor do they break the law or commit crimes in order to satisfy their desires.

Thus, Buddhism has a profoundly positive role in the progress of human society. If everyone could plan their lives according to the Buddha's teachings, regulate their words and conduct, and purify their minds, then this world would surely be filled with peace, tranquility, mutual assistance, and friendship.

Now let us return to the earlier question. If the flowers in empty space came of themselves, then those flowers would possess a natural nature. But flowers in empty space have no place from which they come, so they do not possess a natural nature. If the flowers in empty space arose through causes and conditions—for example, by emerging from empty space or flying out from the eye faculty—then they could be said to possess a nature arising from causes and conditions.

But they neither emerge from empty space nor fly out from the eye faculty. They are manifested as arising, yet ultimately do not arise; thus, they also do not possess a nature arising from causes and conditions. Since they are fundamentally nonexistent, illusory appearances, it is said: “The aggregate of form is illusory; originally, it is neither produced by causes and conditions nor of a natural nature.”