“Ānanda, each morning you touch your head with your hand. What do you think? In this awareness produced by touching, what is the faculty that touches? Is it in the hand, or is it in the head?”
Monastics should touch their heads three times each day. Why do this? It is to arouse vigilance. Monastics have shaved their heads. They touch their own heads and think: “Ah, I have left home. Why did I leave home? To transcend birth and death—not merely to make a living. To transcend birth and death, I must practice with earnest urgency!” Touching one’s head three times a day is an admonition to oneself: remain vigilant and do not waste time.
Practitioners in former times were often like this: “Those who carry their bowls and inquire into the mysteries do not waste time.” In the past, practitioners would call out their own names: “So-and-so! Hey! Wake up!” You must be clear and awake; you must awaken. Do not remain muddleheaded, and do not cling to appearances. This is why they touched their heads three times a day. Seeing this in the Buddhist scriptures, one realizes: “Ah, monastics practiced with such diligence!”
Then should we lay practitioners not do so all the more? The Buddha’s fourfold assembly consists of bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, and upāsikās. Upāsakas and upāsikās, too, should practice diligently. They likewise must transcend birth and death and remain vigilant at every moment.
Therefore, I say that it is absolutely not enough merely to sit for a while in the morning and again in the evening, or to chant once in the morning and once in the evening. One should practice at every moment and remain vigilant at every moment. One must see one’s true nature through appearances. All these appearances are the wondrous functioning of true nature; they are illusory and unsubstantial, and one must not cling to them.
The twelve bases of perception we are now discussing are illusory and unsubstantial. They have no independent essence; all arise from the true nature of suchness. Yet this does not mean that they lack illusory appearances, nor does it mean that they lack illusory functioning. Illusory appearances and illusory functioning do exist, but we must not cling to them. Nor should we try to eliminate illusory appearances. If they were eliminated, the true mind would be gone.
Illusory appearances are manifested by the true mind. The illusory is itself true. Although the appearances of the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss are provisionally manifested and illusory, they are manifested through the vow-power of Amitābha Buddha. Amitābha Buddha’s vow-power is the wondrous true nature of suchness, the true nature of reality; therefore, these appearances too are the true nature of suchness. When one is true, all are true—but one must not cling to them.
They manifest and function, but cannot be regarded as truly existent. They are wondrous presence, yet wondrous presence is not existence; thus, one must not cling to anything. We should constantly practice in this way: all phenomenal appearances are wondrous presence that is not existence. If one says that the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss exists, the Sahā world also exists; if one says that the Sahā world does not exist, the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss does not exist either.
The Sahā world is brought about by sentient beings’ karmic obstacles and is the fruit of suffering. The Western Land of Ultimate Bliss is brought about by Amitābha Buddha’s vow-power and is a Pure Land. One is defiled and the other pure. As for the appearances that manifest, if called deluded, they are all deluded; if called true, they are all true. If you recognize them, they are wondrous functioning; if you cling to them, they are false and illusory. The Western Land has distinctions of nine grades and four lands for this very reason, so one must not cling to it.
The Buddha asked Ānanda: each morning, you touch your head with your hand, and when you do so, there is a tactile sensation. “In this awareness produced by touching, what is the faculty that touches?” The faculty that touches is tactile sensation. Where does this tactile sensation arise? “Is it in the hand, or is it in the head?” Is this faculty of touching in the hand, or in the head? Where there is a faculty that touches, there is an object touched.
Without a subject and an object, tactile sensation cannot be established. The Buddha now asks Ānanda about touching his own head with his own hand, not about another person touching it. If another person’s hand were used, it would be difficult to distinguish the illusory nature of this. If someone else touched my head, my head would be the object touched by that person, while that person’s hand, which touches it, would be the faculty that touches.
In that case, it would be difficult to refute its illusory nature. One’s own hand and one’s own head are a single entity: the hand is you, and the head is also you. Thus, it is not easy to arbitrarily posit subject and object, and the matter can be explained more readily. When you touch your head with your hand and tactile sensation arises, examine it carefully: where is the faculty that touches, and where is the object touched? Is the faculty that touches in the hand or in the head?
“If it is in the hand, then the head has no awareness; how can there be touching? If it is in the head, then the hand is useless; how can it be called touching? If each has it, then you, Ānanda, should have two bodies. If a single touch arises from the head and hand, then hand and head should be one entity. If they are one entity, touching cannot occur. If they are two entities, on which is the touch located? If it is on the subject, it is not on the object; if it is on the object, it is not on the subject. Empty space cannot make contact with you.”
Suppose the faculty that touches were rooted in your hand. Then the head should have no sensation. If the head has no awareness, how could touching occur? For touching to occur, there must necessarily be a subject and an object. “If it is in the head, then the hand is useless.” If the root of the faculty that touches were in the head, the head would know the touch, while the hand, lacking that root, would not be needed.
“How can it be called touching?” If the hand serves no function, this cannot be called touching. Suppose one says that “each has it”—that both hand and head possess the root of the faculty that touches. Then Ānanda should have two bodies. “If a single touch arises from the head and hand, then hand and head should be one entity.”
If head and hand together share the same tactile sensation, then hand and head are one entity. Since they are one and the same thing, how could there be a subject and an object? For example, if I clap with one hand, it cannot make a sound. How could one hand have a subject and an object? “If they are one entity, touching cannot occur.” If they are one entity, tactile sensation cannot arise.
“If they are two entities, on which is the touch located?” If they are two entities, then on which side is tactile sensation found? “If it is on the subject, it is not on the object; if it is on the object, it is not on the subject.” If both head and hand are faculties that touch, there is no object touched. If head and hand are both objects touched, then there is no tactile sensation that touches. One entity cannot produce touching at all, and two entities cannot produce touching either.
“Empty space cannot make contact with you.” Touching means coming into contact with something. Empty space contains nothing; for empty space to make contact with you is simply impossible. “Therefore, you should know that the awareness of touch and the body have no location. That is, body and touch are both illusory; they are neither dependent arising nor natural in origin.” Therefore, you should understand that neither tactile awareness nor the body has a location.
That is to say, the body and tactile awareness—these two bases are both illusory. Since these two bases are illusory, they are “neither dependent arising nor natural in origin.” Having no point of arising, they are not of the nature of dependent arising; having no abiding place, they are not of a natural nature. Because they are neither dependent arising nor natural, they are the wondrous true nature of suchness in the Tathāgata-garbha.
Next, we discuss the mind faculty and dharma objects:
