大般若波羅蜜多經

18

Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you contemplate when you say that the mere name “ignorance” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere names “volitional formations,” “consciousness,” “name-and-form,” “the six sense bases,” “contact,” “feeling,” “craving,” “clinging,” “existence,” “birth,” and “aging-and-death” are not great bodhisattvas?

The Venerable Subhuti replied: Blessed One! Ignorance and volitional formations through aging-and-death are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the name “ignorance” or the names “volitional formations” through “aging-and-death”! Since these names do not exist, how could one say that the mere name “ignorance” is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere names “volitional formations” through “aging-and-death” are great bodhisattvas?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the mere name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to ignorance is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether ignorance is permanent or impermanent, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death are permanent or impermanent, are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “permanent” and “impermanent” in relation to ignorance, or the names “permanent” and “impermanent” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death! Since these names do not exist, how could one say that the mere name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to ignorance is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the mere name “pleasant” or “painful” in relation to ignorance is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “pleasant” or “painful” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether ignorance is pleasant or painful, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death are pleasant or painful, are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “pleasant” and “painful” in relation to ignorance, or the names “pleasant” and “painful” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death! Since these names do not exist, how could one say that the mere name “pleasant” or “painful” in relation to ignorance is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “pleasant” or “painful” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the mere name “self” or “non-self” in relation to ignorance is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “self” or “non-self” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether ignorance is self or non-self, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death are self or non-self, are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “self” and “non-self” in relation to ignorance, or the names “self” and “non-self” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death! Since these names do not exist, how could one say that the mere name “self” or “non-self” in relation to ignorance is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “self” or “non-self” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the mere name “pure” or “impure” in relation to ignorance is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “pure” or “impure” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether ignorance is pure or impure, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death are pure or impure, are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “pure” and “impure” in relation to ignorance, or the names “pure” and “impure” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death! Since these names do not exist, how could one say that the mere name “pure” or “impure” in relation to ignorance is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “pure” or “impure” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the mere name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to ignorance is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether ignorance is empty or not empty, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death are empty or not empty, are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “empty” and “not empty” in relation to ignorance, or the names “empty” and “not empty” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death! Since these names do not exist, how could one say that the mere name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to ignorance is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the mere name “having signs” or “signless” in relation to ignorance is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “having signs” or “signless” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether ignorance has signs or is signless, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death have signs or are signless, are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “having signs” and “signless” in relation to ignorance, or the names “having signs” and “signless” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death! Since these names do not exist, how could one say that the mere name “having signs” or “signless” in relation to ignorance is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “having signs” or “signless” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the mere name “having aspiration” or “aspirationless” in relation to ignorance is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “having aspiration” or “aspirationless” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether ignorance has aspiration or is aspirationless, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death have aspiration or are aspirationless, are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “having aspiration” and “aspirationless” in relation to ignorance, or the names “having aspiration” and “aspirationless” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death! Since these names do not exist, how could one say that the mere name “having aspiration” or “aspirationless” in relation to ignorance is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “having aspiration” or “aspirationless” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the mere name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to ignorance is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether ignorance is quiescent or not quiescent, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death are quiescent or not quiescent, are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “quiescent” and “not quiescent” in relation to ignorance, or the names “quiescent” and “not quiescent” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death! Since these names do not exist, how could one say that the mere name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to ignorance is a great bodhisattva, or that the mere name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the mere name “detached” or “not detached” in relation to ignorance is not a great bodhisattva, and that the mere name “detached” or “not detached” in relation to volitional formations through aging-and-death is not a great bodhisattva?

“World-Honored One! Whether ignorance is separated or not separated; whether formations, through old age and death, are separated or not separated—ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘ignorance separated or not separated’ and ‘formations, through old age and death, separated or not separated’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘ignorance separated or not separated’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘formations, through old age and death, separated or not separated’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned ignorance’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned formations, through old age and death,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Whether ignorance is conditioned or unconditioned; whether formations, through old age and death, are conditioned or unconditioned—ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘conditioned or unconditioned ignorance’ and ‘conditioned or unconditioned formations, through old age and death’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned ignorance’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned formations, through old age and death,’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘tainted or untainted ignorance’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘tainted or untainted formations, through old age and death,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Whether ignorance is tainted or untainted; whether formations, through old age and death, are tainted or untainted—ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘tainted or untainted ignorance’ and ‘tainted or untainted formations, through old age and death’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘tainted or untainted ignorance’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘tainted or untainted formations, through old age and death,’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘arising or cessation of ignorance’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘arising or cessation of formations, through old age and death,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Whether ignorance arises or ceases; whether formations, through old age and death, arise or cease—ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘arising or cessation of ignorance’ and ‘arising or cessation of formations, through old age and death’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising or cessation of ignorance’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘arising or cessation of formations, through old age and death,’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome ignorance’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome formations, through old age and death,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Whether ignorance is wholesome or unwholesome; whether formations, through old age and death, are wholesome or unwholesome—ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome or unwholesome ignorance’ and ‘wholesome or unwholesome formations, through old age and death’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome ignorance’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome formations, through old age and death,’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘culpable or blameless ignorance’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable or blameless formations, through old age and death,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Whether ignorance is culpable or blameless; whether formations, through old age and death, are culpable or blameless—ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘culpable or blameless ignorance’ and ‘culpable or blameless formations, through old age and death’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable or blameless ignorance’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable or blameless formations, through old age and death,’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘ignorance with afflictions or without afflictions’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘formations, through old age and death, with afflictions or without afflictions’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Whether ignorance is with afflictions or without afflictions; whether formations, through old age and death, are with afflictions or without afflictions—ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘ignorance with afflictions or without afflictions’ and ‘formations, through old age and death, with afflictions or without afflictions’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘ignorance with afflictions or without afflictions’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘formations, through old age and death, with afflictions or without afflictions’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘worldly or supramundane ignorance’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘worldly or supramundane formations, through old age and death,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Whether ignorance is worldly or supramundane; whether formations, through old age and death, are worldly or supramundane—ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘worldly or supramundane ignorance’ and ‘worldly or supramundane formations, through old age and death’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘worldly or supramundane ignorance’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘worldly or supramundane formations, through old age and death,’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘defiled or purified ignorance’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled or purified formations, through old age and death,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“World-Honored One! Whether ignorance is defiled or purified; whether formations, through old age and death, are defiled or purified—ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘defiled or purified ignorance’ and ‘defiled or purified formations, through old age and death’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled or purified ignorance’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled or purified formations, through old age and death,’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘ignorance belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘formations, through old age and death, belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether ignorance belongs to samsara or to nirvana, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death belong to samsara or to nirvana, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for ignorance as belonging to samsara or nirvana, or a name for volitional formations through aging-and-death as belonging to samsara or nirvana! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for ignorance as belonging to samsara or nirvana is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for volitional formations through aging-and-death as belonging to samsara or nirvana is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name for ignorance as internal, external, or between the two is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for volitional formations through aging-and-death as internal, external, or between the two is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether ignorance is internal, external, or between the two, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for ignorance as internal, external, or between the two, or a name for volitional formations through aging-and-death as internal, external, or between the two! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for ignorance as internal, external, or between the two is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for volitional formations through aging-and-death as internal, external, or between the two is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name for ignorance as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for volitional formations through aging-and-death as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether ignorance is apprehensible or inapprehensible, and whether volitional formations through aging-and-death are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for ignorance as apprehensible or inapprehensible, or a name for volitional formations through aging-and-death as apprehensible or inapprehensible! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for ignorance as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for volitional formations through aging-and-death as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘generosity paramita’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Whether generosity paramita or ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘generosity paramita’ or the names ‘ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘generosity paramita’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name for generosity paramita as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether generosity paramita is permanent or impermanent, and whether ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are permanent or impermanent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for generosity paramita as permanent or impermanent, or a name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as permanent or impermanent!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for generosity paramita as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name for generosity paramita as pleasant or painful is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as pleasant or painful is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether generosity paramita is pleasant or painful, and whether ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are pleasant or painful, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for generosity paramita as pleasant or painful, or a name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as pleasant or painful!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for generosity paramita as pleasant or painful is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as pleasant or painful is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name for generosity paramita as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether generosity paramita is self or non-self, and whether ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are self or non-self, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for generosity paramita as self or non-self, or a name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as self or non-self! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for generosity paramita as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name for generosity paramita as pure or impure is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as pure or impure is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether generosity paramita is pure or impure, and whether ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are pure or impure, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for generosity paramita as pure or impure, or a name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as pure or impure! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for generosity paramita as pure or impure is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as pure or impure is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name for generosity paramita as empty or not empty is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for ethical discipline, patient endurance, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita as empty or not empty is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the perfection of generosity is empty or nonempty, and whether the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are empty or nonempty, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘empty’ or ‘nonempty’ in relation to the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘empty’ or ‘nonempty’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘nonempty’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘nonempty’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘possessing characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘possessing characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the perfection of generosity possesses characteristics or is without characteristics, and whether the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita possess characteristics or are without characteristics, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘possessing characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘possessing characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘possessing characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘possessing characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the perfection of generosity is with aspiration or without aspiration, and whether the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are with aspiration or without aspiration, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the perfection of generosity is quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the perfection of generosity is detached or not detached, and whether the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are detached or not detached, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the perfection of generosity is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the perfection of generosity is contaminated or uncontaminated, and whether the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita are contaminated or uncontaminated, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ in relation to the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘contaminated’ or ‘uncontaminated’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in relation to the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in relation to the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the arising and cessation of the perfection of generosity, or the arising and cessation of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ of the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ of the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the wholesome and unwholesome aspects of the perfection of generosity, or the wholesome and unwholesome aspects of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ of the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the culpable and blameless aspects of the perfection of generosity, or the culpable and blameless aspects of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ of the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ of the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the afflicted and unafflicted aspects of the perfection of generosity, or the afflicted and unafflicted aspects of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘afflicted’ and ‘unafflicted’ of the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘afflicted’ and ‘unafflicted’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ of the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the mundane and supramundane aspects of the perfection of generosity, or the mundane and supramundane aspects of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ of the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ of the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the defiled and pure aspects of the perfection of generosity, or the defiled and pure aspects of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ and ‘pure’ of the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘defiled’ and ‘pure’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ of the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the aspects belonging to samsara and those belonging to nirvana of the perfection of generosity, or the aspects belonging to samsara and those belonging to nirvana of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the perfection of generosity, or the names ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the perfection of generosity is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ of the perfection of generosity is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ of the perfections of ethical discipline, patience, diligence, meditative concentration, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the perfection of giving is internal, external, or between the two; or whether the perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajnaparamita are internal, external, or between the two—even these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist, much less could there be the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ with respect to the perfection of giving, or the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ with respect to the perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajnaparamita!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ with respect to the perfection of giving is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ with respect to the perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you perceive when you say that the very designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the perfection of giving is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajnaparamita is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the perfection of giving is apprehensible or inapprehensible; or whether the perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajnaparamita are apprehensible or inapprehensible—even these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist, much less could there be the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the perfection of giving, or the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajnaparamita!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the perfection of giving is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajnaparamita is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive when you say that the very designation ‘internal emptiness’ is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designations ‘external emptiness, internal-and-external emptiness, emptiness of emptiness, great emptiness, emptiness of ultimate meaning, emptiness of the conditioned, emptiness of the unconditioned, ultimate emptiness, boundless emptiness, emptiness of dispersion, emptiness of the unchanging, emptiness of intrinsic nature, emptiness of individual characteristics, emptiness of common characteristics, emptiness of all dharmas, emptiness of the inapprehensible, emptiness of nonexistence, emptiness of self-nature, and emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Internal emptiness, external emptiness, and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature—even these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist, much less could there be the designation ‘internal emptiness’ or the designations ‘external emptiness’ and so forth, up to ‘the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘internal emptiness’ is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designations ‘external emptiness’ and so forth, up to ‘the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature,’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you perceive when you say that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ with respect to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether internal emptiness is permanent or impermanent; or whether external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, are permanent or impermanent—even these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist, much less could there be the designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ with respect to internal emptiness, or the designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ with respect to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you perceive when you say that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ with respect to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether internal emptiness is pleasant or painful; or whether external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, are pleasant or painful—even these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist, much less could there be the designation ‘pleasant or painful’ with respect to internal emptiness, or the designation ‘pleasant or painful’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ with respect to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you perceive when you say that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ with respect to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether internal emptiness is self or non-self; or whether external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, are self or non-self—even these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist, much less could there be the designation ‘self or non-self’ with respect to internal emptiness, or the designation ‘self or non-self’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ with respect to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you perceive when you say that the very designation ‘pure or impure’ with respect to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation ‘pure or impure’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether internal emptiness is pure or impure; or whether external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, are pure or impure—even these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist, much less could there be the designation ‘pure or impure’ with respect to internal emptiness, or the designation ‘pure or impure’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘pure or impure’ with respect to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation ‘pure or impure’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you perceive when you say that the very designation ‘empty or not empty’ with respect to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation ‘empty or not empty’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether internal emptiness is empty or not empty; or whether external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, are empty or not empty—even these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist, much less could there be the designation ‘empty or not empty’ with respect to internal emptiness, or the designation ‘empty or not empty’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘empty or not empty’ with respect to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation ‘empty or not empty’ with respect to external emptiness and so forth, up to the emptiness of the nonexistence of self-nature, is a great bodhisattva?”

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of the marked or unmarked aspect of inner emptiness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of the marked or unmarked aspect of outer emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the absence of intrinsic nature, is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! The marked or unmarked aspect of inner emptiness, and the marked or unmarked aspect of outer emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the absence of intrinsic nature, are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name of the marked or unmarked aspect of inner emptiness, or the name of the marked or unmarked aspect of outer emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the absence of intrinsic nature!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the marked or unmarked aspect of inner emptiness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the marked or unmarked aspect of outer emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the absence of intrinsic nature, is a great bodhisattva?

Fascicle 28

End