大般若波羅蜜多經

15

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as conditioned or unconditioned is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as conditioned or unconditioned is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the eye dhatu is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as conditioned or unconditioned and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as conditioned or unconditioned! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as conditioned or unconditioned is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as conditioned or unconditioned is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as with outflows or without outflows is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as with outflows or without outflows is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the eye dhatu is with outflows or without outflows, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are with outflows or without outflows, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as with outflows or without outflows and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as with outflows or without outflows! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as with outflows or without outflows is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as with outflows or without outflows is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as arising or ceasing is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as arising or ceasing is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the eye dhatu arises or ceases, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus arise or cease, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as arising or ceasing and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as arising or ceasing! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as arising or ceasing is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as arising or ceasing is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as wholesome or unwholesome is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as wholesome or unwholesome is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the eye dhatu is wholesome or unwholesome, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as wholesome or unwholesome and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as wholesome or unwholesome! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as wholesome or unwholesome is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as wholesome or unwholesome is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as blameworthy or blameless is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as blameworthy or blameless is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the eye dhatu is blameworthy or blameless, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are blameworthy or blameless, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as blameworthy or blameless and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as blameworthy or blameless! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as blameworthy or blameless is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as blameworthy or blameless is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as afflicted or unafflicted is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as afflicted or unafflicted is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the eye dhatu is afflicted or unafflicted, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are afflicted or unafflicted, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as afflicted or unafflicted and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as afflicted or unafflicted! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as afflicted or unafflicted is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as afflicted or unafflicted is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as mundane or supramundane is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as mundane or supramundane is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the eye dhatu is mundane or supramundane, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are mundane or supramundane, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as mundane or supramundane and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as mundane or supramundane! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as mundane or supramundane is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as mundane or supramundane is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as defiled or purified is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as defiled or purified is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the eye dhatu is defiled or purified, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are defiled or purified, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as defiled or purified and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as defiled or purified! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as defiled or purified is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as defiled or purified is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether belonging to samsara or to nirvana, the eye dhatu; and whether belonging to samsara or to nirvana, the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the eye dhatu belonging to samsara or to nirvana,’ or the names ‘the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus belonging to samsara or to nirvana’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the eye dhatu belonging to samsara or to nirvana’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus belonging to samsara or to nirvana’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name ‘the eye dhatu as internal, external, or between the two’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as internal, external, or between the two’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether internal, external, or between the two, the eye dhatu; and whether internal, external, or between the two, the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the eye dhatu as internal, external, or between the two,’ or the names ‘the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as internal, external, or between the two’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the eye dhatu as internal, external, or between the two’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as internal, external, or between the two’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name ‘the eye dhatu as apprehensible or inapprehensible’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as apprehensible or inapprehensible’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether apprehensible or inapprehensible, the eye dhatu; and whether apprehensible or inapprehensible, the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the eye dhatu as apprehensible or inapprehensible,’ or the names ‘the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as apprehensible or inapprehensible’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the eye dhatu as apprehensible or inapprehensible’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as apprehensible or inapprehensible’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that leads you to say that the very name ‘the form dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu or the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus, they are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the form dhatu’ or the names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the form dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name ‘the form dhatu as permanent or impermanent’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as permanent or impermanent’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether permanent or impermanent, the form dhatu; and whether permanent or impermanent, the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the form dhatu as permanent or impermanent,’ or the names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as permanent or impermanent’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the form dhatu as permanent or impermanent’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as permanent or impermanent’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name ‘the form dhatu as pleasurable or painful’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as pleasurable or painful’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether pleasurable or painful, the form dhatu; and whether pleasurable or painful, the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the form dhatu as pleasurable or painful,’ or the names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as pleasurable or painful’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the form dhatu as pleasurable or painful’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as pleasurable or painful’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name ‘the form dhatu as self or non-self’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as self or non-self’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether self or non-self, the form dhatu; and whether self or non-self, the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the form dhatu as self or non-self,’ or the names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as self or non-self’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the form dhatu as self or non-self’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as self or non-self’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name ‘the form dhatu as pure or impure’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as pure or impure’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether pure or impure, the form dhatu; and whether pure or impure, the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the form dhatu as pure or impure,’ or the names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as pure or impure’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the form dhatu as pure or impure’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as pure or impure’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name ‘the form dhatu as empty or not empty’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as empty or not empty’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether empty or not empty, the form dhatu; and whether empty or not empty, the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the form dhatu as empty or not empty,’ or the names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as empty or not empty’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the form dhatu as empty or not empty’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as empty or not empty’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name ‘the form dhatu as having characteristics or being signless’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus as having characteristics or being signless’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu has characteristics or is without characteristics, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus have characteristics or are without characteristics, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names “the form dhatu with characteristics” and “the form dhatu without characteristics,” or the names “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus with characteristics” and “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus without characteristics”!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “the form dhatu with characteristics” or “the form dhatu without characteristics” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus with characteristics” or “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus without characteristics” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very name “the form dhatu with aspiration” or “the form dhatu without aspiration” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus with aspiration” or “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus without aspiration” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu has aspiration or is without aspiration, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus have aspiration or are without aspiration, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names “the form dhatu with aspiration” and “the form dhatu without aspiration,” or the names “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus with aspiration” and “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus without aspiration”!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “the form dhatu with aspiration” or “the form dhatu without aspiration” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus with aspiration” or “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus without aspiration” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very name “the peaceful form dhatu” or “the unpeaceful form dhatu” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “the peaceful sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the unpeaceful sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is peaceful or unpeaceful, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are peaceful or unpeaceful, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names “the peaceful form dhatu” and “the unpeaceful form dhatu,” or the names “the peaceful sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” and “the unpeaceful sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “the peaceful form dhatu” or “the unpeaceful form dhatu” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “the peaceful sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the unpeaceful sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very name “the form dhatu in seclusion” or “the form dhatu not in seclusion” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus in seclusion” or “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus not in seclusion” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is in seclusion or not in seclusion, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are in seclusion or not in seclusion, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names “the form dhatu in seclusion” and “the form dhatu not in seclusion,” or the names “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus in seclusion” and “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus not in seclusion”!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “the form dhatu in seclusion” or “the form dhatu not in seclusion” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus in seclusion” or “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus not in seclusion” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very name “the conditioned form dhatu” or “the unconditioned form dhatu” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “the conditioned sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the unconditioned sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names “the conditioned form dhatu” and “the unconditioned form dhatu,” or the names “the conditioned sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” and “the unconditioned sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus”!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “the conditioned form dhatu” or “the unconditioned form dhatu” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “the conditioned sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the unconditioned sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very name “the contaminated form dhatu” or “the uncontaminated form dhatu” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “the contaminated sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the uncontaminated sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is contaminated or uncontaminated, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are contaminated or uncontaminated, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names “the contaminated form dhatu” and “the uncontaminated form dhatu,” or the names “the contaminated sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” and “the uncontaminated sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus”!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “the contaminated form dhatu” or “the uncontaminated form dhatu” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “the contaminated sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the uncontaminated sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very name “the arising form dhatu” or “the ceasing form dhatu” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “the arising sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the ceasing sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu arises or ceases, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus arise or cease, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names “the arising form dhatu” and “the ceasing form dhatu,” or the names “the arising sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” and “the ceasing sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “the arising form dhatu” or “the ceasing form dhatu” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “the arising sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the ceasing sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very name “the wholesome form dhatu” or “the unwholesome form dhatu” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “the wholesome sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the unwholesome sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is wholesome or unwholesome, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names “the wholesome form dhatu” and “the unwholesome form dhatu,” or the names “the wholesome sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” and “the unwholesome sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “the wholesome form dhatu” or “the unwholesome form dhatu” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “the wholesome sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the unwholesome sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very name “the culpable form dhatu” or “the blameless form dhatu” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “the culpable sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the blameless sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is culpable or blameless, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus are culpable or blameless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names “the culpable form dhatu” and “the blameless form dhatu,” or the names “the culpable sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” and “the blameless sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “the culpable form dhatu” or “the blameless form dhatu” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “the culpable sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” or “the blameless sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very name “the form dhatu with afflictions” or “the form dhatu without afflictions” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus with afflictions” or “the sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharma dhatus without afflictions” is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is afflicted or unafflicted, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are afflicted or unafflicted, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘afflicted’ and ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘afflicted’ and ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive when you say that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is worldly or supramundane, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are worldly or supramundane, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘worldly’ and ‘supramundane’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘worldly’ and ‘supramundane’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive when you say that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is defiled or purified, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are defiled or purified, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ and ‘purified’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘defiled’ and ‘purified’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive when you say that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu belongs to samsara or to nirvana, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus belong to samsara or to nirvana, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive when you say that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is internal, external, or between the two, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive when you say that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is apprehensible or inapprehensible, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘apprehensible’ and ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘apprehensible’ and ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive when you say that the very name ‘eye-consciousness dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied: “Blessed One! Whether it is the eye-consciousness dhatu or the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘eye-consciousness dhatu’ or the names ‘ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘eye-consciousness dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive when you say that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness dhatu is permanent or impermanent, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus are permanent or impermanent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’ in relation to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive when you say that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness element is pleasant or painful, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are pleasant or painful, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element, or the names ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness element is self or non-self, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are self or non-self, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element, or the names ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness element is pure or impure, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are pure or impure, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element, or the names ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness element is empty or not empty, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are empty or not empty, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element, or the names ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘marked’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘marked’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness element is marked or signless, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are marked or signless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘marked’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element, or the names ‘marked’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘marked’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘marked’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness element is with aspiration or wishless, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are with aspiration or wishless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘with aspiration’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element, or the names ‘with aspiration’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness element is quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element, or the names ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness element is separated or not separated, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are separated or not separated, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element, or the names ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness element is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element, or the names ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?”

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” of the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether with outflows or without outflows, the eye-consciousness element; whether with outflows or without outflows, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” of the eye-consciousness element, and the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” of the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” of the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether arising or ceasing, the eye-consciousness element; whether arising or ceasing, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “arising” and “ceasing” of the eye-consciousness element, and the designations “arising” and “ceasing” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” of the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether wholesome or unwholesome, the eye-consciousness element; whether wholesome or unwholesome, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “wholesome” and “unwholesome” of the eye-consciousness element, and the designations “wholesome” and “unwholesome” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very designation “blameworthy” or “blameless” of the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “blameworthy” or “blameless” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether blameworthy or blameless, the eye-consciousness element; whether blameworthy or blameless, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “blameworthy” and “blameless” of the eye-consciousness element, and the designations “blameworthy” and “blameless” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “blameworthy” or “blameless” of the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “blameworthy” or “blameless” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether with afflictions or without afflictions, the eye-consciousness element; whether with afflictions or without afflictions, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” of the eye-consciousness element, and the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” of the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether mundane or supramundane, the eye-consciousness element; whether mundane or supramundane, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “mundane” and “supramundane” of the eye-consciousness element, and the designations “mundane” and “supramundane” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” of the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very designation “defiled” or “pure” of the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “defiled” or “pure” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether defiled or pure, the eye-consciousness element; whether defiled or pure, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “defiled” and “pure” of the eye-consciousness element, and the designations “defiled” and “pure” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “defiled” or “pure” of the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “defiled” or “pure” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very designation “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” of the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, the eye-consciousness element; whether belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “belonging to samsara” and “belonging to nirvana” of the eye-consciousness element, and the designations “belonging to samsara” and “belonging to nirvana” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” of the eye-consciousness element is a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that leads you to say that the very designation “internal,” “external,” or “between the two” of the eye-consciousness element is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “internal,” “external,” or “between the two” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness elements is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the consciousness-element of the eye is internal, external, or between the two; or whether the consciousness-elements of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be names for the consciousness-element of the eye as internal, external, or between the two, or names for the consciousness-elements of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind as internal, external, or between the two!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the consciousness-element of the eye as internal, external, or between the two is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the consciousness-elements of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind as internal, external, or between the two are a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With regard to what meaning do you further contemplate and say that the very name for the consciousness-element of the eye as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the consciousness-elements of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind as apprehensible or inapprehensible are not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the consciousness-element of the eye is apprehensible or inapprehensible, or whether the consciousness-elements of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the consciousness-element of the eye as apprehensible or inapprehensible, or names for the consciousness-elements of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind as apprehensible or inapprehensible!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the consciousness-element of the eye as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the consciousness-elements of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind as apprehensible or inapprehensible are a great bodhisattva?

Fascicle 25

End