大般若波羅蜜多經
Chinese title:大般若波羅蜜多經
Save your scripture progress
Create a free account to save scriptures, track progress, and continue your daily learning path.
13
Furthermore, Subhuti, what do you think? Is the mere designation “fruit of stream-entry” itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Are the mere designations “fruit of once-returning,” “fruit of non-returning,” and “fruit of arhatship” themselves a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “permanent” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “permanent” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impermanent” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impermanent” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “blissful” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “blissful” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “suffering” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “suffering” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “self” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “self” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “non-self” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “non-self” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “pure” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “pure” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impure” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impure” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “empty” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “empty” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not empty” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not empty” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “possessing characteristics” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “possessing characteristics” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “characterless” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “characterless” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “possessing aspiration” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “possessing aspiration” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “aspirationless” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “aspirationless” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “quiescent” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “quiescent” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not quiescent” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not quiescent” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “detached” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “detached” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not detached” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not detached” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “conditioned” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “conditioned” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unconditioned” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unconditioned” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “with outflows” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “with outflows” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “without outflows” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “without outflows” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “arising” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “arising” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “cessation” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “cessation” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “wholesome” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “wholesome” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unwholesome” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unwholesome” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “culpable” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “culpable” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “blameless” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “blameless” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “with afflictions” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “with afflictions” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “without afflictions” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “without afflictions” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “mundane” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “mundane” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “supramundane” with regard to the fruit of stream-entry itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “supramundane” with regard to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship itself a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “defiled” in relation to the fruit of stream-entry a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “defiled” in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “pure” in relation to the fruit of stream-entry a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “pure” in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “belonging to samsara” in relation to the fruit of stream-entry a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “belonging to samsara” in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “belonging to nirvana” in relation to the fruit of stream-entry a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “belonging to nirvana” in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “internal” in relation to the fruit of stream-entry a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “internal” in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “external” in relation to the fruit of stream-entry a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “external” in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “between the two” in relation to the fruit of stream-entry a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “between the two” in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “apprehensible” in relation to the fruit of stream-entry a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “apprehensible” in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “inapprehensible” in relation to the fruit of stream-entry a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “inapprehensible” in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
Furthermore, Subhuti, regarding what is called a great bodhisattva, what do you think? Is the designation “the attainment of a pratyekabuddha” a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “permanent” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impermanent” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “blissful” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “suffering” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “self” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “non-self” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “pure” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impure” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “empty” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not empty” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “characterized” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “signless” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “associated with aspiration” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “wishless” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “quiescent” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not quiescent” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “detached” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not detached” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “conditioned” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unconditioned” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “with outflows” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “without outflows” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “arising” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “cessation” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “wholesome” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unwholesome” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “culpable” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “blameless” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “with afflictions” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “without afflictions” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “mundane” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “supramundane” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “defiled” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “pure” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “belonging to samsara” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “belonging to nirvana” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “internal” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “external” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “between the two” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “apprehensible” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “inapprehensible” in relation to the attainment of a pratyekabuddha a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
Furthermore, Subhuti, regarding what is called a great bodhisattva, what do you think? Is the designation “all the practices of a great bodhisattva” a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas” a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “permanent” in relation to all the practices of a great bodhisattva a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “permanent” in relation to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impermanent” in relation to all the practices of a great bodhisattva a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impermanent” in relation to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “blissful” in relation to all the practices of a great bodhisattva a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “bliss” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “bliss” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “suffering” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “suffering” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “self” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “self” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “nonself” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “nonself” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “pure” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “pure” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impure” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “impure” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “empty” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “empty” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not empty” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not empty” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “possessing characteristics” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “possessing characteristics” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “characterless” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “characterless” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “having aspirations” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “having aspirations” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “wishless” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “wishless” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “quiescent” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “quiescent” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not quiescent” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not quiescent” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “detached” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “detached” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not detached” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “not detached” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “conditioned” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “conditioned” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unconditioned” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unconditioned” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “contaminated” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “contaminated” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “uncontaminated” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “uncontaminated” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “arising” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “arising” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “cessation” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “cessation” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “wholesome” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “wholesome” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unwholesome” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unwholesome” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “culpable” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “culpable” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “blameless” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “blameless” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “afflicted” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “afflicted” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unafflicted” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “unafflicted” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “mundane” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “mundane” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “supramundane” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “supramundane” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “defiled” with respect to all bodhisattva practices itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the designation “defiled” with respect to the unsurpassed enlightenment of the Buddhas itself a bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name of the purity of all great bodhisattva practices a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name of the purity of the supreme enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name pertaining to samsara of all great bodhisattva practices a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name pertaining to samsara of the supreme enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name pertaining to nirvana of all great bodhisattva practices a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name pertaining to nirvana of the supreme enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that is internal to all great bodhisattva practices a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that is internal to the supreme enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that is external to all great bodhisattva practices a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that is external to the supreme enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that lies between the two in regard to all great bodhisattva practices a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that lies between the two in regard to the supreme enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that is apprehensible in regard to all great bodhisattva practices a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that is apprehensible in regard to the supreme enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that is inapprehensible in regard to all great bodhisattva practices a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
– Is the very name that is inapprehensible in regard to the supreme enlightenment of the Buddhas a great bodhisattva?
– No, Blessed One!
At that time, the Buddha said to the Venerable Subhuti: What meaning did you contemplate when you said that the very name of form is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are not a great bodhisattva?
The Venerable Subhuti replied: Blessed One! Whether form or feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the name of form or the names of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning did you further contemplate when you said that the very names of the permanence or impermanence of form are not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names of the permanence or impermanence of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Whether the permanence or impermanence of form, or the permanence or impermanence of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names of the permanence or impermanence of form or the names of the permanence or impermanence of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the permanence or impermanence of form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the permanence or impermanence of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning did you further contemplate when you said that the very names of the pleasure or suffering of form are not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names of the pleasure or suffering of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Whether the pleasure or suffering of form, or the pleasure or suffering of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names of the pleasure or suffering of form or the names of the pleasure or suffering of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the pleasure or suffering of form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the pleasure or suffering of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning did you further contemplate when you said that the very names of the self or non-self of form are not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names of the self or non-self of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Whether the self or non-self of form, or the self or non-self of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names of the self or non-self of form or the names of the self or non-self of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the self or non-self of form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the self or non-self of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning did you further contemplate when you said that the very names of the purity or impurity of form are not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names of the purity or impurity of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Whether the purity or impurity of form, or the purity or impurity of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names of the purity or impurity of form or the names of the purity or impurity of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the purity or impurity of form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the purity or impurity of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning did you further contemplate when you said that the very names of the emptiness or non-emptiness of form are not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names of the emptiness or non-emptiness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Whether the emptiness or non-emptiness of form, or the emptiness or non-emptiness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names of the emptiness or non-emptiness of form or the names of the emptiness or non-emptiness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the emptiness or non-emptiness of form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the emptiness or non-emptiness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning did you further contemplate when you said that the very names of form as possessing characteristics or being signless are not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as possessing characteristics or being signless are not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Whether form possesses characteristics or is signless, or whether feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness possess characteristics or are signless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names of form as possessing characteristics or being signless, or the names of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as possessing characteristics or being signless! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of form as possessing characteristics or being signless is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as possessing characteristics or being signless is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning did you further contemplate when you said that the very names of form as associated with wishes or wishless are not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as associated with wishes or wishless are not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Form with aspiration or without aspiration, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness with aspiration or without aspiration, are ultimately ungraspable, for their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “form with aspiration or without aspiration” and “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness with aspiration or without aspiration”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “form with aspiration or without aspiration” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness with aspiration or without aspiration” is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “form, tranquil or untranquil,” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, tranquil or untranquil,” is not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Form, whether tranquil or untranquil, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, whether tranquil or untranquil, are ultimately ungraspable, for their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “form, tranquil or untranquil” and “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, tranquil or untranquil”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “form, tranquil or untranquil,” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, tranquil or untranquil,” is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “form, detached or not detached,” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, detached or not detached,” is not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Form, whether detached or not detached, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, whether detached or not detached, are ultimately ungraspable, for their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “form, detached or not detached” and “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, detached or not detached”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “form, detached or not detached,” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, detached or not detached,” is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “form, conditioned or unconditioned,” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, conditioned or unconditioned,” is not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Form, whether conditioned or unconditioned, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, whether conditioned or unconditioned, are ultimately ungraspable, for their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “form, conditioned or unconditioned” and “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, conditioned or unconditioned”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “form, conditioned or unconditioned,” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, conditioned or unconditioned,” is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “form, contaminated or uncontaminated,” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, contaminated or uncontaminated,” is not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Form, whether contaminated or uncontaminated, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, whether contaminated or uncontaminated, are ultimately ungraspable, for their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “form, contaminated or uncontaminated” and “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, contaminated or uncontaminated”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “form, contaminated or uncontaminated,” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, contaminated or uncontaminated,” is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “form, arising or ceasing,” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, arising or ceasing,” is not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Form, whether arising or ceasing, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, whether arising or ceasing, are ultimately ungraspable, for their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “form, arising or ceasing” and “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, arising or ceasing”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “form, arising or ceasing,” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, arising or ceasing,” is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “form, wholesome or unwholesome,” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, wholesome or unwholesome,” is not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Form, whether wholesome or unwholesome, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, whether wholesome or unwholesome, are ultimately ungraspable, for their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “form, wholesome or unwholesome” and “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, wholesome or unwholesome”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “form, wholesome or unwholesome,” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, wholesome or unwholesome,” is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “form, blameworthy or blameless,” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, blameworthy or blameless,” is not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Form, whether blameworthy or blameless, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, whether blameworthy or blameless, are ultimately ungraspable, for their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “form, blameworthy or blameless” and “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, blameworthy or blameless”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “form, blameworthy or blameless,” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, blameworthy or blameless,” is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “form, afflicted or unafflicted,” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, afflicted or unafflicted,” is not a great bodhisattva?
Blessed One! Form, whether afflicted or unafflicted, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, whether afflicted or unafflicted, are ultimately ungraspable, for their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “form, afflicted or unafflicted” and “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, afflicted or unafflicted”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “form, afflicted or unafflicted,” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, afflicted or unafflicted,” is a great bodhisattva?
Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “form, mundane or supramundane,” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, mundane or supramundane,” is not a great bodhisattva?
“Blessed One! Whether the worldly or supramundane aspect of form, or the worldly or supramundane aspect of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ with respect to form, or the designation ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ with respect to form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?”
“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with respect to form is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is not a great bodhisattva?”
“Blessed One! Whether the defilement or purification of form, or the defilement or purification of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with respect to form, or the designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with respect to form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?”
“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ with respect to form is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is not a great bodhisattva?”
“Blessed One! Whether that which belongs to samsara or nirvana with respect to form, or that which belongs to samsara or nirvana with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ with respect to form, or the designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness!
Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ with respect to form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?”
“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ with respect to form is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is not a great bodhisattva?”
“Blessed One! Whether the internal, external, or intermediate aspect of form, or the internal, external, or intermediate aspect of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ with respect to form, or the designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness!
Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ with respect to form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?”
“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ with respect to form is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is not a great bodhisattva?”
“Blessed One! Whether the apprehensible or inapprehensible aspect of form, or the apprehensible or inapprehensible aspect of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ with respect to form, or the designation ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness!
Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ with respect to form is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ with respect to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is a great bodhisattva?”
Fascicle 23
End
The version you're viewing was faithfully rendered by Inti AI in keeping with the tradition. Switch to the other language tab to read a human translation.
Translations belong to the translator/source credited above. The bilingual compilation, presentation, and AI translations compiled by Inti are © Inti Foundation. Please attribute when quoting; do not bulk-copy or use commercially without permission.