“Ānanda, as you understand it, the nose and odors serve as conditions for the arising of nose consciousness. Does this consciousness arise from the nose, taking the nose as its boundary? Or does it arise from odors, taking odors as its boundary?”

As you understand it, “the nose and odors serve as conditions for the arising of nose consciousness.”

The nose is the nose faculty, and odors are odor objects. If nose consciousness arises from the nose faculty and odor objects as causes and conditions, then does this consciousness arise from the nose, taking the nose as its boundary? Or does it arise from odors, taking odors as its boundary? If this nose consciousness arises from the nose faculty, it should be identical with the nose and know nothing apart from the nose; hence it takes the nose as its boundary. If it arises because of odors, it should be identical with odors and know nothing apart from odors; hence it is said to take odors as its boundary. Can such a boundary be established in this way?

“Ānanda, if it arises from the nose, then what in your mind do you take to be the nose? Do you take the form of the fleshy twin claws, or the nature of the awareness of smelling and movement?”

The World-Honored One asks Ānanda: If nose consciousness arises from the nose faculty, then what in your mind do you take to be the nose? What do you use as the nose faculty? Our external nose has two nostrils, resembling two claws joined together, and so it is called the form of twin claws. Do you take the form of the fleshy twin claws, or the nature of the awareness of smelling and movement?

“If you take the fleshy form, its substance belongs to the body.”

If you take this external form of twin claws as the nose faculty, then this fleshy nose belongs to the body faculty.

“The body’s awareness is touch; it is called the body, not the nose.”

The awareness experienced by the body is tactile awareness. It can only perceive separation and contact, cold and heat; it cannot smell fragrance or stench. Since this fleshy nose can receive only tactile awareness, it is called the body faculty, not the nose faculty.

“What is called touch is an object; when even the nose has no name, how can a boundary be established?”

This tactile awareness is itself the object of touch. Since there are only the object of touch and the body faculty, and not even the name “nose,” how could there be a nose entity? Without a nose entity, what could you use to establish a boundary?

“If you take the awareness of smelling, then what in your mind do you take to be awareness?”

The question now goes further. Since the nose is said to be the body faculty, might one say: I do not take the physical nose; I take the nature of the awareness of smelling—the nature of the awareness of smelling and movement mentioned above—as my nose faculty. Would that work? If you take this nature of the awareness of smelling as the nose faculty, then “what in your mind do you take to be awareness?” This awareness has already become the nose faculty, so what could you still take in your mind to be awareness?

“If you take flesh as awareness, then the flesh’s awareness is originally touch, not the nose.”

If you take the sensation of the fleshy nose as the nature of nose consciousness, then what this flesh can know is touch, not your nose consciousness. This is what is meant by “originally touch, not the nose.” This shows that it is incorrect to take flesh as awareness. But what of the converse?

“If you take space as awareness, then space itself would be aware, and the flesh should lack awareness.”

Since it is wrong to take flesh as awareness, can you take the space within the nostrils as awareness? If you take this space as awareness, then “space itself would be aware, and the flesh should lack awareness.” If the space within the nostrils can be awareness, then space itself knows, and the flesh of the nose should not know.

“Then space should be you.”

If space knows, then space should be you; space would become you yourself.

“If your body lacks awareness, then Ānanda today should have no location.”

If it is space that knows and your body does not know, is that really so? Of course not. In fact, it is your body that knows, while space does not.

This proves that your nose faculty cannot be found at all. Since there is no nose faculty, what boundary could be established? If you say that space is awareness and that space is my body, then you, Ānanda, should be space. Space has no body, so you, Ānanda, should have no location today. Yet in fact you have this body; your body is still here. This proves that space cannot be taken as awareness. Then, could odors be taken as awareness?

“If you take odors as awareness, awareness itself belongs to odors. What does that have to do with you?”

Since it is incorrect to take the faculty as awareness, does this nose consciousness arise from odor objects? If nose consciousness arises from odor objects, then what arises from odors should have the same nature as odors. This knowing nature belongs to odor objects. What does that have to do with you? Since it has nothing to do with you, you naturally should not be aware of it.

“If fragrant and foul odors must arise in your nose, then these two streams of fragrant and foul vapors would not arise from the yilan tree and sandalwood.”

I smell fragrant and foul odors with my nose. If fragrance and stench necessarily arose within my nose, then these two streams of fragrant and foul vapors would “not arise from the yilan tree and sandalwood.” As stated earlier, the yilan tree produces a foul odor, while sandalwood produces a fragrance. If these fragrant and foul vapors arose within your nose, then the two streams of vapor would not arise from the yilan tree and sandalwood.

“When these two things do not come, do you yourself smell your nose to see whether it is fragrant or foul?”

If there is no yilan tree or sandalwood before you, and these two things of fragrance and stench do not come, then smell your own nose: is it fragrant or foul? How could the nose itself have fragrance or stench? Without yilan and sandalwood, these two odors of fragrance and stench cannot be found at all.

“If it is foul, then it is not fragrant; if it is fragrant, then it should not be foul.”

Suppose that fragrant and foul odors arise from your nose. Then, “if it is foul, then it is not fragrant; if it is fragrant, then it should not be foul.” If what arises is a foul odor, it should not be fragrant; if what arises is a fragrant odor, it should not be foul. Yet you can now smell both fragrance and stench. This shows that your nose is neither fragrant nor foul.

“If you can smell both fragrance and stench, then you, one person, should have two noses.”

If you can smell both fragrance and stench, then as one person you should have two noses. One nose cannot produce two odors: if it produces fragrance, it should not also produce stench; if it produces stench, it likewise cannot produce fragrance. What belongs to fragrance can smell only fragrance, and what belongs to stench can smell only stench. To smell both fragrant and foul odors at the same time, “you, one person, should have two noses.”

“Then, as you question me about the Way, there would be two Ānandas. Which one would be your true body?”

Each of us can have only one set of six sense faculties. If you had two noses, you should also have two mouths, two pairs of eyes, two pairs of ears, and two bodies. Then there should likewise be two Ānandas now questioning me about the Way. In that case, “which one would be your true body?” One would be real and one false; which would be the real you?

“If the nose is one, then fragrance and stench are not two. Stench would become fragrance, and fragrance would become stench. Since the two natures do not exist, from what could a boundary be established?”

If the nose is one entity, and fragrance and stench enter and mingle in a single nose, then they should be one entity rather than two.

In that case, fragrance and stench could not be distinguished: fragrance would become stench, and stench would become fragrance. Fragrance would no longer be fragrance, and stench would no longer be stench; neither fragrance nor stench could be found. Since even the two natures of fragrance and stench do not exist, from what could a boundary be established? Because these two natures of fragrance and stench do not exist, they are one entity, the same thing. You cannot distinguish the same thing, so how could you establish a boundary? Thus fragrance and stench do not arise from the nose.

Stench arises from the yilan tree, and fragrance arises from sandalwood. When these two things do not come, there is no fragrance or stench within the nose. Then does this nose consciousness arise from fragrance and stench? Certainly not. If it arose from fragrance, nose consciousness would already belong to fragrance, and it should not smell stench apart from fragrance.

If it arose from stench, this nose consciousness would already be stench, and it likewise should not smell fragrance. Thus this nose consciousness arises neither from the nose faculty nor from fragrance and stench. This proves that it does not arise from itself or from another.

“If it arises from odors, consciousness exists because of odors. Just as the eye has seeing but cannot see itself, so, because it exists through odors, it should not know odors. If it knows, then it is not arisen from odors; if it does not know, then it is not consciousness. Since odors do not exist because of knowing, the realm of odors cannot be established. If consciousness does not know odors, then the realm of consciousness cannot be established from odors.”

“If it arises from odors, consciousness exists because of odors.” If nose consciousness arises from fragrance, then this nose consciousness should be identical with fragrance; it should be the same as fragrance.

“Just as the eye has seeing but cannot see itself, so, because it exists through odors, it should not know odors.” Just as the seeing nature of my eyes can see objects but cannot see the eyes themselves, nose consciousness arising from fragrance likewise should not smell fragrance. The eye is used as an analogy here: because the eye cannot see itself, nose consciousness arising from fragrance should likewise not smell fragrance.

“If it knows, then it is not arisen from odors.” Since it should not smell fragrance if it arose from fragrance, yet you can now smell fragrance, this nose consciousness does not arise from fragrance.

“If it does not know, then it is not consciousness.” Consciousness is discrimination and should have awareness. If you do not know and cannot distinguish odors, then there is no awareness. Without awareness, how can it be called consciousness? If it lacks the ability to discriminate and sense odors, it cannot be called nose consciousness.

“If fragrance is not known, the realm of fragrance cannot be established.” Suppose that this fragrance is not known by nasal consciousness, but exists outside nasal consciousness and is not known by my nose. Then this fragrance has no connection with my nose, and thus the realm of fragrance cannot arise. A realm is a boundary: when the internal faculty and the external object come together, the nasal consciousness that arises between them is the realm. Now, if this fragrance lies outside my nasal consciousness and has nothing to do with it, then this realm does not exist. Hence it is said that the realm of fragrance cannot be established.

“If consciousness does not know fragrance, then the realm conditioned by fragrance cannot be established from fragrance.” The realm of consciousness arising because of fragrance is called the causal realm. If this nasal consciousness cannot know fragrance, but consciousness exists apart from fragrance, then the realm of consciousness that you say arises because of fragrance cannot be established from that fragrance.

Since consciousness does not know fragrance, from where could the realm of consciousness arising because of fragrance be established? The realm of nasal consciousness arises because of fragrance. If your consciousness does not know fragrance, but consciousness exists outside fragrance, what does that consciousness outside fragrance have to do with fragrance? Thus, the consciousness arising because of fragrance cannot be established. Nor is it possible for fragrance to exist outside consciousness or consciousness to exist outside fragrance. This proves that nasal consciousness does not arise from the object of fragrance.

“Since there is no middle, inner and outer cannot be established. Those faculties of hearing are ultimately illusory.”

Only when there are two sides can there be a middle. Since neither side has the capacity to give rise to consciousness—that is, since neither the nasal faculty nor the object of fragrance can produce consciousness—the realm of nasal consciousness in between cannot be established. Conversely, if there is no middle, the two sides of inner and outer cannot be constituted either. Without the nasal consciousness in the middle, the internal faculty and external object likewise cannot be established.

Apart from the internal faculty and the external object, “those faculties of hearing are ultimately illusory.” Without a faculty or a basis, what could possibly arise? Your faculty of hearing is fundamentally illusory. Thus, whatever fragrance or stench you smell is false, illusory, and unreal—fundamentally unobtainable. Do not cling to it.

“Therefore, you should know that the nose and fragrance as conditions for the arising of the realm of nasal consciousness are all nonexistent in these three locations. Thus, the three—the nose, fragrance, and realm of fragrance—are fundamentally neither causes and conditions nor self-arising nature.”

Therefore, you should know that when the nasal faculty takes the object of fragrance as its condition and gives rise to the realm of nasal consciousness, these three—the faculty, object, and consciousness—are all unobtainable. Thus, “the three—the nose, fragrance, and realm of fragrance—are fundamentally neither causes and conditions nor self-arising nature.” The nasal faculty, the object of fragrance, and even nasal consciousness—these three are neither causes and conditions nor self-arising.

As we said above, not arising from itself, from another, or from both together is the nature of not arising from causes and conditions; not arising without a cause is the nature of not being self-arising.

Now these three are all unobtainable and illusory. This proves that their essential nature is suchness, Buddha-nature. Therefore, we should not cling to appearances anywhere; we should see our true nature! Śākyamuni Buddha, with tireless compassion, dismantles our attachments point by point. With each point he dismantles, he removes one faculty. In this way, all six faculties are released and all eighteen realms are dismantled. What remains?

There is nothing to which you can cling. Would that not mean seeing one’s true nature at every moment? And if one sees one’s true nature at every moment, would that not mean that everyone becomes a Buddha? This is the marvel of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra: there is no need for you to labor over morning and evening services, nor need you investigate Chan, recite the Buddha’s name, cultivate Esoteric Buddhism, or cultivate any conditioned merit. You need only let go of everything.

For you see your true nature at every moment! How relaxed, free, and effortless such practice is! Thus, studying and practicing the Buddhadharma is an effortless and unrestrained undertaking; there is no need to be so constrained. If you insist on expending a great deal of effort, that is mistaken—it is merely wearying yourself in vain.

Previously, you did not understand this principle and practiced while clinging to appearances, thinking that you had to perform so much merit and recite the Buddha’s name so many times before you could attain realization. It was like carrying a thousand-pound burden on your shoulders.

Now that you understand the principle, you know that your own mind is originally Buddha, and that its numinous clarity and awakened nature are naturally complete from the beginning. There is no need for contrivance or artificial cultivation. When the thousand-pound burden is set down all at once, how relaxed and joyful you are! There is a Chan koan in which a monk asked Zhaozhou, “What is it like when one brings not a single thing?” Every one of us sentient beings carries a heavy burden on our shoulders: spouse, wealth, children, rank, gold and treasure, food and daily living—every kind of thing weighs upon us until we can scarcely breathe.

So, if I now bring not a single thing and let everything go, what then? This may seem like a good question; it is indeed good to be able to do this. Yet there is still a problem in the question. Chan Master Zhaozhou, in his compassion, said to him, “Put it down.”

Since he had already brought not a single thing, why did Zhaozhou still tell him to put it down? Because he still had this notion of bringing not a single thing; he still had something. It is like the two vehicles: after destroying attachment to existence, they become attached to emptiness, and there is still an emptiness there. This bringing not a single thing is itself still attachment, still an illness. Therefore, Chan Master Zhaozhou told him to let even this go.

But at this point the monk was still not fully awake. Instead, he asked, “If I bring not a single thing, what is there to put down?” Here I have nothing at all—what is there to put down? Seeing that a direct approach would not work, Zhaozhou used a reverse provocation and said, “If you cannot put it down, then carry it away!” If you cannot put it down, that shows there is still something in your mind; then carry it away.

This is wonderfully said. It is like a double-edged sword: one edge kills, while the other gives life. It is truly the finishing touch that brings the dragon to life. Since one speaks of letting go, one must let go until there is nowhere left to let go. There can be nothing else; only then is it your Original Face.

This bringing not a single thing appears to mean that there is nothing at all, but in fact there is still something, because there remains the notion of bringing not a single thing. One must let go even of that. It is like the non-Buddhist Brahmin who went to see the Buddha, bringing fresh flowers as an offering to Śākyamuni Buddha. The Buddha said, “Put it down.”

The Brahmin had originally held flowers in both hands. On hearing the Buddha tell him to put them down, he set down the flowers in one hand. The Buddha again said, “Put it down.” He then set down the flowers in his other hand, but the Buddha still said, “Put it down.”

The Brahmin said, “I have put down all my flowers. What else is there to put down?” The Buddha said, “I am not telling you to put down your flowers. You should relinquish the six external objects, the six internal faculties, and the six consciousnesses between them. Relinquish them all at once. When there is nowhere left to relinquish, that is where you are freed from birth and death.” At these words, the Brahmin awakened to the forbearance of the unborn. The Buddha was not telling him to put down the flowers in his hands, but to relinquish the attachments in his mind; he had to let go even of this letting go.

Here Śākyamuni Buddha explains in succession the six entrances, twelve bases, and eighteen realms. Everywhere, he is dismantling your attachments. This dismantling is itself letting go, and letting go is so that you may see your true nature. Once you have let go of all inverted, deluded thoughts, the wondrous, bright true mind will naturally manifest before you.

Next, he explains the consciousness of the tongue: