大般若波羅蜜多經

17

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “pure” or “impure” with respect to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “pure” or “impure” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is pure or impure, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are pure or impure, ultimately cannot be apprehended at all, because they are devoid of intrinsic nature. How much less could there be the designations “pure” and “impure” with respect to the earth dhatu, or the designations “pure” and “impure” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “pure” or “impure” with respect to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “pure” or “impure” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” with respect to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

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

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “having characteristics” or “without characteristics” with respect to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “having characteristics” or “without characteristics” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu has characteristics or is without characteristics, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus have characteristics or are without characteristics, ultimately cannot be apprehended at all, because they are devoid of intrinsic nature. How much less could there be the designations “having characteristics” and “without characteristics” with respect to the earth dhatu, or the designations “having characteristics” and “without characteristics” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “having characteristics” or “without characteristics” with respect to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “having characteristics” or “without characteristics” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “having aspiration” or “without aspiration” with respect to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “having aspiration” or “without aspiration” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu has aspiration or is without aspiration, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus have aspiration or are without aspiration, ultimately cannot be apprehended at all, because they are devoid of intrinsic nature. How much less could there be the designations “having aspiration” and “without aspiration” with respect to the earth dhatu, or the designations “having aspiration” and “without aspiration” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “having aspiration” or “without aspiration” with respect to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “having aspiration” or “without aspiration” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” with respect to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately cannot be apprehended at all, because they are devoid of intrinsic nature. How much less could there be the designations “quiescent” and “not quiescent” with respect to the earth dhatu, or the designations “quiescent” and “not quiescent” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” with respect to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” with respect to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is separated or not separated, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are separated or not separated, ultimately cannot be apprehended at all, because they are devoid of intrinsic nature. How much less could there be the designations “separated” and “not separated” with respect to the earth dhatu, or the designations “separated” and “not separated” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” with respect to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” with respect to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately cannot be apprehended at all, because they are devoid of intrinsic nature. How much less could there be the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” with respect to the earth dhatu, or the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” with respect to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” with respect to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is with outflows or without outflows, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are with outflows or without outflows, ultimately cannot be apprehended at all, because they are devoid of intrinsic nature. How much less could there be the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” with respect to the earth dhatu, or the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” with respect to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” with respect to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” with respect to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the arising and cessation of the earth dhatu, or the arising and cessation of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘arising and cessation of the earth dhatu’ and ‘arising and cessation of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising or cessation of the earth dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘arising or cessation of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome earth dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the wholesome and unwholesome qualities of the earth dhatu, or the wholesome and unwholesome qualities of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome and unwholesome earth dhatu’ and ‘wholesome and unwholesome water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome earth dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘culpable or blameless earth dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable or blameless water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the culpable and blameless qualities of the earth dhatu, or the culpable and blameless qualities of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘culpable and blameless earth dhatu’ and ‘culpable and blameless water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable or blameless earth dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable or blameless water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘earth dhatu with afflictions or without afflictions’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu with afflictions or without afflictions’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu with afflictions or without afflictions, or the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus with afflictions or without afflictions, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘earth dhatu with afflictions and without afflictions’ and ‘water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus with afflictions and without afflictions’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘earth dhatu with afflictions or without afflictions’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu with afflictions or without afflictions’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘mundane or supramundane earth dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘mundane or supramundane water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the mundane and supramundane qualities of the earth dhatu, or the mundane and supramundane qualities of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘mundane and supramundane earth dhatu’ and ‘mundane and supramundane water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘mundane or supramundane earth dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘mundane or supramundane water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘defiled or purified earth dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled or purified water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the defilement and purification of the earth dhatu, or the defilement and purification of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘defilement and purification of the earth dhatu’ and ‘defilement and purification of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled or purified earth dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled or purified water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘earth dhatu belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, or the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘earth dhatu belonging to samsara and belonging to nirvana’ and ‘water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus belonging to samsara and belonging to nirvana’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘earth dhatu belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘earth dhatu existing internally, externally, or between the two’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu existing internally, externally, or between the two’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu existing internally, externally, or between the two, or the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus existing internally, externally, or between the two, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘earth dhatu existing internally, externally, and between the two’ and ‘water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus existing internally, externally, and between the two’!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘earth dhatu existing internally, externally, or between the two’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu existing internally, externally, or between the two’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘apprehensible or non-apprehensible earth dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘apprehensible or non-apprehensible water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is apprehensible or inapprehensible; whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are apprehensible or inapprehensible—ultimately, even these cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent, how much less could there be the names ‘the apprehensibility or inapprehensibility of the earth dhatu’ and ‘the apprehensibility or inapprehensibility of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the apprehensibility or inapprehensibility of the earth dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the apprehensibility or inapprehensibility of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Furthermore, Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Whether it is the causal condition or the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition—ultimately, even these cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent, how much less could there be the name ‘causal condition’ and the names ‘immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘the permanence or impermanence of the causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the permanence or impermanence of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether it is the permanence or impermanence of the causal condition, or the permanence or impermanence of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition—ultimately, even these cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent, how much less could there be the name ‘the permanence or impermanence of the causal condition’ and the names ‘the permanence or impermanence of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the permanence or impermanence of the causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the permanence or impermanence of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘the pleasure or suffering of the causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the pleasure or suffering of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether it is the pleasure or suffering of the causal condition, or the pleasure or suffering of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition—ultimately, even these cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent, how much less could there be the name ‘the pleasure or suffering of the causal condition’ and the names ‘the pleasure or suffering of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the pleasure or suffering of the causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the pleasure or suffering of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘the self or non-self of the causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the self or non-self of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether it is the self or non-self of the causal condition, or the self or non-self of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition—ultimately, even these cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent, how much less could there be the name ‘the self or non-self of the causal condition’ and the names ‘the self or non-self of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the self or non-self of the causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the self or non-self of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘the purity or impurity of the causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the purity or impurity of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether it is the purity or impurity of the causal condition, or the purity or impurity of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition—ultimately, even these cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent, how much less could there be the name ‘the purity or impurity of the causal condition’ and the names ‘the purity or impurity of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the purity or impurity of the causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the purity or impurity of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘the emptiness or non-emptiness of the causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the emptiness or non-emptiness of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether it is the emptiness or non-emptiness of the causal condition, or the emptiness or non-emptiness of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition—ultimately, even these cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent, how much less could there be the name ‘the emptiness or non-emptiness of the causal condition’ and the names ‘the emptiness or non-emptiness of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the emptiness or non-emptiness of the causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the emptiness or non-emptiness of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘the possession of marks or absence of marks of the causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the possession of marks or absence of marks of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether it is the possession of marks or absence of marks of the causal condition, or the possession of marks or absence of marks of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition—ultimately, even these cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent, how much less could there be the name ‘the possession of marks or absence of marks of the causal condition’ and the names ‘the possession of marks or absence of marks of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the possession of marks or absence of marks of the causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the possession of marks or absence of marks of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘the presence of aspiration or absence of aspiration of the causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the presence of aspiration or absence of aspiration of the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the cause-condition is with aspiration or without aspiration, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition are with aspiration or without aspiration, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘with aspiration’ and ‘without aspiration’ pertaining to the cause-condition, or the names ‘with aspiration’ and ‘without aspiration’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ pertaining to the cause-condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern in saying that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ pertaining to the cause-condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the cause-condition is quiescent or not quiescent, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ pertaining to the cause-condition, or the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ pertaining to the cause-condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern in saying that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ pertaining to the cause-condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the cause-condition is detached or not detached, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition are detached or not detached, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘detached’ and ‘not detached’ pertaining to the cause-condition, or the names ‘detached’ and ‘not detached’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ pertaining to the cause-condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern in saying that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ pertaining to the cause-condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the cause-condition is conditioned or unconditioned, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ pertaining to the cause-condition, or the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ pertaining to the cause-condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern in saying that the very name ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ pertaining to the cause-condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the cause-condition is contaminated or uncontaminated, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition are contaminated or uncontaminated, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘contaminated’ and ‘uncontaminated’ pertaining to the cause-condition, or the names ‘contaminated’ and ‘uncontaminated’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ pertaining to the cause-condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern in saying that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ pertaining to the cause-condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether there is arising or cessation pertaining to the cause-condition, or arising or cessation pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ pertaining to the cause-condition, or the names ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ pertaining to the cause-condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern in saying that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ pertaining to the cause-condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the cause-condition is wholesome or unwholesome, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ pertaining to the cause-condition, or the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ pertaining to the cause-condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern in saying that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ pertaining to the cause-condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the cause-condition is culpable or blameless, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition are culpable or blameless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ pertaining to the cause-condition, or the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ pertaining to the cause-condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern in saying that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ pertaining to the cause-condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ pertaining to the immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is afflicted or unafflicted, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition are afflicted or unafflicted, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is mundane or supramundane, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition are mundane or supramundane, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is defiled or purified, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition are defiled or purified, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition belongs to samsara or to nirvana, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition belong to samsara or to nirvana, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

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 causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ in relation to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is internal, external, or intermediate, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition are internal, external, or intermediate, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ in relation to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘intermediate’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is apprehensible or inapprehensible, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the immediately antecedent condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you contemplate when you say that the very name ‘a dharma arisen from conditions’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! A dharma arisen from conditions ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the name ‘a dharma arisen from conditions’! Since this name does not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘a dharma arisen from conditions’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The permanence or impermanence of a dharma arisen from conditions ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The pleasantness or painfulness of a dharma arisen from conditions ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions 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 a dharma arisen from conditions is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The self and non-self of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘self’ and ‘non-self’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The purity and impurity of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The emptiness and non-emptiness of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘possessing characteristics’ or ‘characterless’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The possession of characteristics and characterlessness of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘possessing characteristics’ and ‘characterless’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘possessing characteristics’ or ‘characterless’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘wishful’ or ‘wishless’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The wishfulness and wishlessness of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘wishful’ and ‘wishless’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wishful’ or ‘wishless’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The quiescence and non-quiescence of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The detachment and non-detachment of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘detached’ and ‘not detached’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The conditioned and unconditioned nature of dependently arisen dharmas is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The presence and absence of outflows in dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The arising and cessation of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘arising’ and ‘ceasing’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The wholesomeness and unwholesomeness of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The culpability and blamelessness of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The presence and absence of afflictions in dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The mundane and supramundane nature of dependently arisen dharmas is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ of dependently arisen dharmas is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Even the defilement and purification of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because they have no intrinsic nature; how much less could there be names for the defilement and purification of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of either the defilement or purification of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of dependently arisen dharmas as pertaining either to samsara or to nirvana is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Even dependently arisen dharmas as pertaining to samsara or to nirvana are ultimately ungraspable, because they have no intrinsic nature; how much less could there be names for dependently arisen dharmas as pertaining to samsara or to nirvana! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of dependently arisen dharmas as pertaining either to samsara or to nirvana is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of dependently arisen dharmas as being internal, external, or between the two is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Even dependently arisen dharmas as being internal, external, or between the two are ultimately ungraspable, because they have no intrinsic nature; how much less could there be names for dependently arisen dharmas as being internal, external, or between the two! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of dependently arisen dharmas as being internal, external, or between the two is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of dependently arisen dharmas as being apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Even the apprehensibility or inapprehensibility of dependently arisen dharmas is ultimately ungraspable, because it has no intrinsic nature; how much less could there be names for the apprehensibility or inapprehensibility of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the apprehensibility or inapprehensibility of dependently arisen dharmas is a great bodhisattva?”

Fascicle 27

End