大般若波羅蜜多經

16

Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that you say the mere name “eye-contact” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere names “ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact” are not a great bodhisattva?

The Venerable Subhuti said: Blessed One! Eye-contact, as well as ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less can there be the name “eye-contact” or the names “ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the mere name “eye-contact” is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere names “ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact” are a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that you say the mere name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The permanence or impermanence of eye-contact, as well as the permanence or impermanence of ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less can there be the names “permanent” and “impermanent” in relation to eye-contact or the names “permanent” and “impermanent” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the mere name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that you say the mere name “pleasant” or “painful” in relation to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “pleasant” or “painful” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The pleasantness or painfulness of eye-contact, as well as the pleasantness or painfulness of ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less can there be the names “pleasant” and “painful” in relation to eye-contact or the names “pleasant” and “painful” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the mere name “pleasant” or “painful” in relation to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “pleasant” or “painful” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that you say the mere name “self” or “non-self” in relation to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “self” or “non-self” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The self or non-self of eye-contact, as well as the self or non-self of ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less can there be the names “self” and “non-self” in relation to eye-contact or the names “self” and “non-self” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the mere name “self” or “non-self” in relation to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “self” or “non-self” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that you say the mere name “pure” or “impure” in relation to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “pure” or “impure” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The purity or impurity of eye-contact, as well as the purity or impurity of ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less can there be the names “pure” and “impure” in relation to eye-contact or the names “pure” and “impure” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the mere name “pure” or “impure” in relation to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “pure” or “impure” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that you say the mere name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The emptiness or non-emptiness of eye-contact, as well as the emptiness or non-emptiness of ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less can there be the names “empty” and “not empty” in relation to eye-contact or the names “empty” and “not empty” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the mere name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that you say the mere name “marked” or “signless” in relation to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “marked” or “signless” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The presence or absence of marks in eye-contact, as well as the presence or absence of marks in ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less can there be the names “marked” and “signless” in relation to eye-contact or the names “marked” and “signless” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the mere name “marked” or “signless” in relation to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “marked” or “signless” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that you say the mere name “wishful” or “wishless” in relation to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “wishful” or “wishless” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The presence or absence of wishes in eye-contact, as well as the presence or absence of wishes in ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less can there be the names “wishful” and “wishless” in relation to eye-contact or the names “wishful” and “wishless” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the mere name “wishful” or “wishless” in relation to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “wishful” or “wishless” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that you say the mere name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The quiescence or non-quiescence of eye-contact, as well as the quiescence or non-quiescence of ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less can there be the names “quiescent” and “not quiescent” in relation to eye-contact or the names “quiescent” and “not quiescent” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the mere name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that you say the mere name “separated” or “not separated” in relation to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “separated” or “not separated” in relation to ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-contact is detached or not detached, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact are detached or not detached, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘detached’ and ‘not detached’ with regard to eye-contact, or the designations ‘detached’ and ‘not detached’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ with regard to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with regard to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ with regard to eye-contact, or the designations ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with regard to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with regard to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact is with outflows or without outflows, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact are with outflows or without outflows, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ with regard to eye-contact, or the designations ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with regard to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ with regard to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact arises or ceases, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact arise or cease, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘arising’ and ‘ceasing’ with regard to eye-contact, or the designations ‘arising’ and ‘ceasing’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ with regard to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ with regard to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact is wholesome or unwholesome, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ with regard to eye-contact, or the designations ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ with regard to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ with regard to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact is culpable or blameless, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact are culpable or blameless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ with regard to eye-contact, or the designations ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ with regard to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ with regard to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact is with afflictions or without afflictions, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact are with afflictions or without afflictions, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ with regard to eye-contact, or the designations ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ with regard to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ with regard to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact is mundane or supramundane, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact are mundane or supramundane, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ with regard to eye-contact, or the designations ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ with regard to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with regard to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact is defiled or purified, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact are defiled or purified, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘defiled’ and ‘purified’ with regard to eye-contact, or the designations ‘defiled’ and ‘purified’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with regard to eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact 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 regard to eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ with regard to ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact belongs to samsara or to nirvana, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact belongs to samsara or to nirvana, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be a name for eye-contact as belonging to samsara or to nirvana, or a name for ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as belonging to samsara or to nirvana! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for eye-contact as belonging to samsara or to nirvana is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as belonging to samsara or to nirvana is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name for eye-contact as internal, external, or both internal and external is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as internal, external, or both internal and external is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact is internal, external, or both internal and external, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact is internal, external, or both internal and external, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be a name for eye-contact as internal, external, or both internal and external, or a name for ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as internal, external, or both internal and external!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for eye-contact as internal, external, or both internal and external is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as internal, external, or both internal and external is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name for eye-contact as apprehensible or unapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as apprehensible or unapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether eye-contact is apprehensible or unapprehensible, and whether ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact is apprehensible or unapprehensible, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be a name for eye-contact as apprehensible or unapprehensible, or a name for ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as apprehensible or unapprehensible! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for eye-contact as apprehensible or unapprehensible is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as apprehensible or unapprehensible is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact is not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied: “Blessed One! Whether the feelings arise conditioned by eye-contact or arise conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact, ultimately none of them can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be a name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact, or a name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact are permanent or impermanent, and whether the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact are permanent or impermanent, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be a name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as permanent or impermanent, or a name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as permanent or impermanent!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as pleasant or painful is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as pleasant or painful is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact are pleasant or painful, and whether the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact are pleasant or painful, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be a name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as pleasant or painful, or a name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as pleasant or painful!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as pleasant or painful is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as pleasant or painful is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact are self or non-self, and whether the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact are self or non-self, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be a name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as self or non-self, or a name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as self or non-self!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by eye-contact as pure or impure is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the feelings arising conditioned by ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as pure or impure is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition are pure or impure, and whether the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are pure or impure, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature has no existence. How much less could there be the name ‘pure or impure’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the name ‘pure or impure’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pure or impure’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘pure or impure’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘empty or not empty’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘empty or not empty’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition are empty or not empty, and whether the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are empty or not empty, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature has no existence. How much less could there be the name ‘empty or not empty’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the name ‘empty or not empty’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty or not empty’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘empty or not empty’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘characterized or uncharacterized’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘characterized or uncharacterized’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition are characterized or uncharacterized, and whether the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are characterized or uncharacterized, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature has no existence. How much less could there be the name ‘characterized or uncharacterized’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the name ‘characterized or uncharacterized’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘characterized or uncharacterized’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘characterized or uncharacterized’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘aspiring or aspirationless’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘aspiring or aspirationless’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition are aspiring or aspirationless, and whether the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are aspiring or aspirationless, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature has no existence. How much less could there be the name ‘aspiring or aspirationless’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the name ‘aspiring or aspirationless’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘aspiring or aspirationless’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘aspiring or aspirationless’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘quiescent or not quiescent’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘quiescent or not quiescent’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition are quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature has no existence. How much less could there be the name ‘quiescent or not quiescent’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the name ‘quiescent or not quiescent’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent or not quiescent’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘quiescent or not quiescent’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘secluded or not secluded’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘secluded or not secluded’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition are secluded or not secluded, and whether the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are secluded or not secluded, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature has no existence. How much less could there be the name ‘secluded or not secluded’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the name ‘secluded or not secluded’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘secluded or not secluded’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘secluded or not secluded’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition are conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature has no existence. How much less could there be the name ‘conditioned or unconditioned’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the name ‘conditioned or unconditioned’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned’ for the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned’ for the feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?”

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the state of having outflows or being without outflows of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the state of having outflows or being without outflows of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the arising or cessation of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the arising or cessation of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “arising” and “cessation” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the designations “arising” and “cessation” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “wholesome” and “unwholesome” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the designations “wholesome” and “unwholesome” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “blameworthy” or “blameless” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “blameworthy” or “blameless” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the blameworthiness or blamelessness of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the blameworthiness or blamelessness of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “blameworthy” and “blameless” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the designations “blameworthy” and “blameless” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “blameworthy” or “blameless” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “blameworthy” or “blameless” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the state of having afflictions or being without afflictions of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the state of having afflictions or being without afflictions of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “worldly” or “supramundane” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “worldly” or “supramundane” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the worldliness or supramundaneness of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the worldliness or supramundaneness of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “worldly” and “supramundane” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, or the designations “worldly” and “supramundane” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “worldly” or “supramundane” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “worldly” or “supramundane” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” of feelings arising with eye-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” of feelings arising with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition are defiled or purified, or whether the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are defiled or purified, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘defilement or purification of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition,’ or the designation ‘defilement or purification of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition’!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘defilement or purification of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition’ is the great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘defilement or purification of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition’ is the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition is not the great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition belong to samsara or belong to nirvana, or whether the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition belong to samsara or belong to nirvana, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition, or the designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition is the great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition is not the great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition are internal, external, or between the two, or whether the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition, or the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition is the great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition is not the great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition are apprehensible or inapprehensible, or whether the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition, or the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ of the feelings arisen with eye-contact as condition is the great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ of the feelings arisen with ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-contact as condition is the great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you contemplate when you say that the very designation ‘earth dhatu’ is not the great bodhisattva, and that the very designations ‘water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’ are not the great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu or the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘earth dhatu’ or the designations ‘water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘earth dhatu’ is the great bodhisattva, or that the very designations ‘water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’ are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ of the earth dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is permanent or impermanent, or whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are permanent or impermanent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ of the earth dhatu, or the designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ of the earth dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ of the earth dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is pleasant or painful, or whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are pleasant or painful, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘pleasant or painful’ of the earth dhatu, or the designation ‘pleasant or painful’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ of the earth dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ of the earth dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is self or non-self, or whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are self or non-self, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘self or non-self’ of the earth dhatu, or the designation ‘self or non-self’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ of the earth dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?”

Fascicle 26

End