大般若波羅蜜多經

19

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether with aspiration or without aspiration in relation to internal emptiness, or with aspiration or without aspiration in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to internal emptiness, or the designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether quiescent or not quiescent in relation to internal emptiness, or quiescent or not quiescent in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to internal emptiness, or the designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” in relation to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether separated or not separated in relation to internal emptiness, or separated or not separated in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “separated” or “not separated” in relation to internal emptiness, or the designation “separated” or “not separated” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” in relation to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether conditioned or unconditioned in relation to internal emptiness, or conditioned or unconditioned in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to internal emptiness, or the designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether with outflows or without outflows in relation to internal emptiness, or with outflows or without outflows in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to internal emptiness, or the designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” in relation to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether arising or cessation in relation to internal emptiness, or arising or cessation in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “arising” or “cessation” in relation to internal emptiness, or the designation “arising” or “cessation” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” in relation to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” in relation to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether wholesome or unwholesome in relation to internal emptiness, or wholesome or unwholesome in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” in relation to internal emptiness, or the designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” in relation to internal emptiness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” in relation to internal emptiness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” in relation to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether blameworthy or blameless with respect to internal emptiness, or blameworthy or blameless with respect to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “blameworthy or blameless with respect to internal emptiness,” or the designation “blameworthy or blameless with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence”!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “blameworthy or blameless with respect to internal emptiness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “blameworthy or blameless with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that leads you to say that the very designation “afflicted or unafflicted with respect to internal emptiness” is not a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “afflicted or unafflicted with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether afflicted or unafflicted with respect to internal emptiness, or afflicted or unafflicted with respect to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “afflicted or unafflicted with respect to internal emptiness,” or the designation “afflicted or unafflicted with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence”!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “afflicted or unafflicted with respect to internal emptiness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “afflicted or unafflicted with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that leads you to say that the very designation “mundane or supramundane with respect to internal emptiness” is not a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “mundane or supramundane with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether mundane or supramundane with respect to internal emptiness, or mundane or supramundane with respect to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “mundane or supramundane with respect to internal emptiness,” or the designation “mundane or supramundane with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence”!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “mundane or supramundane with respect to internal emptiness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “mundane or supramundane with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that leads you to say that the very designation “defiled or purified with respect to internal emptiness” is not a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “defiled or purified with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether defiled or purified with respect to internal emptiness, or defiled or purified with respect to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “defiled or purified with respect to internal emptiness,” or the designation “defiled or purified with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence”!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “defiled or purified with respect to internal emptiness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “defiled or purified with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that leads you to say that the very designation “belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana with respect to internal emptiness” is not a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana with respect to internal emptiness, or belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana with respect to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana with respect to internal emptiness,” or the designation “belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence”!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana with respect to internal emptiness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that leads you to say that the very designation “within, without, or between the two with respect to internal emptiness” is not a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “within, without, or between the two with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether within, without, or between the two with respect to internal emptiness, or within, without, or between the two with respect to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “within, without, or between the two with respect to internal emptiness,” or the designation “within, without, or between the two with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence”!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “within, without, or between the two with respect to internal emptiness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “within, without, or between the two with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that leads you to say that the very designation “apprehensible or inapprehensible with respect to internal emptiness” is not a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “apprehensible or inapprehensible with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether apprehensible or inapprehensible with respect to internal emptiness, or apprehensible or inapprehensible with respect to external emptiness, up to and including the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation “apprehensible or inapprehensible with respect to internal emptiness,” or the designation “apprehensible or inapprehensible with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence”!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “apprehensible or inapprehensible with respect to internal emptiness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “apprehensible or inapprehensible with respect to external emptiness,” up to and including “the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of nonexistence,” is a great bodhisattva?

Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that leads you to say that the very designation “suchness” is not a great bodhisattva, or that the very designations “Dharma realm, Dharma-nature, the nature free from falsity, the unchanging nature, the nature of equality, the nature of freedom from arising, the certainty of Dharma, the abiding of Dharma, the limit of reality, the realm of space, and the inconceivable realm” are not a great bodhisattva?

The Venerable Subhuti said: “Blessed One! Whether true suchness, or the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the name ‘true suchness,’ or the name ‘dharma realm,’ up to and including the name ‘inconceivable realm’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘true suchness’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘dharma realm,’ up to and including the name ‘inconceivable realm,’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that you say the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the permanence or impermanence of true suchness, or the permanence or impermanence of the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’ in relation to true suchness, or the names ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that you say the very name ‘bliss’ or ‘suffering’ in relation to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘bliss’ or ‘suffering’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the bliss or suffering of true suchness, or the bliss or suffering of the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names ‘bliss’ and ‘suffering’ in relation to true suchness, or the names ‘bliss’ and ‘suffering’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘bliss’ or ‘suffering’ in relation to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘bliss’ or ‘suffering’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that you say the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the self or non-self of true suchness, or the self or non-self of the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names ‘self’ and ‘non-self’ in relation to true suchness, or the names ‘self’ and ‘non-self’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that you say the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the purity or impurity of true suchness, or the purity or impurity of the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ in relation to true suchness, or the names ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that you say the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the emptiness or non-emptiness of true suchness, or the emptiness or non-emptiness of the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ in relation to true suchness, or the names ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that you say the very name ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether having characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to true suchness, or having characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names ‘with characteristics’ and ‘without characteristics’ in relation to true suchness, or the names ‘with characteristics’ and ‘without characteristics’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that you say the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether having aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to true suchness, or having aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names ‘with aspiration’ and ‘without aspiration’ in relation to true suchness, or the names ‘with aspiration’ and ‘without aspiration’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that you say the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the quiescence or non-quiescence of true suchness, or the quiescence or non-quiescence of the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ in relation to true suchness, or the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the dharma realm, up to and including the inconceivable realm, 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 suchness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the separation or non-separation of suchness, or the separation or non-separation of the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, none can ultimately be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations “separated” and “not separated” with respect to suchness, or the designations “separated” and “not separated” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” with respect to suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” with respect to suchness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the conditioned or unconditioned nature of suchness, or the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, none can ultimately be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” with respect to suchness, or the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” with respect to suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, 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 suchness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the nature with outflows or without outflows of suchness, or the nature with outflows or without outflows of the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, none can ultimately be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” with respect to suchness, or the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” with respect to suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” with respect to suchness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the arising or cessation of suchness, or the arising or cessation of the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, none can ultimately be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations “arising” and “ceasing” with respect to suchness, or the designations “arising” and “ceasing” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” with respect to suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” with respect to suchness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the wholesome or unwholesome nature of suchness, or the wholesome or unwholesome nature of the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, none can ultimately be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations “wholesome” and “unwholesome” with respect to suchness, or the designations “wholesome” and “unwholesome” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” with respect to suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” with respect to suchness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the culpable or blameless nature of suchness, or the culpable or blameless nature of the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, none can ultimately be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations “culpable” and “blameless” with respect to suchness, or the designations “culpable” and “blameless” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” with respect to suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” with respect to suchness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the nature with afflictions or without afflictions of suchness, or the nature with afflictions or without afflictions of the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, none can ultimately be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” with respect to suchness, or the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” with respect to suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” with respect to suchness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the mundane or supramundane nature of suchness, or the mundane or supramundane nature of the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, none can ultimately be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations “mundane” and “supramundane” with respect to suchness, or the designations “mundane” and “supramundane” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” with respect to suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” with respect to suchness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” with respect to the dharmadhatu, up to and including the inconceivable realm, is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the true suchness is defiled or purified, or whether the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, is defiled or purified, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘the defilement or purification of true suchness,’ or the designation ‘the defilement or purification of the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the defilement or purification of true suchness’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘the defilement or purification of the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ in regard to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ in regard to the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether true suchness belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana, or whether the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ in regard to true suchness, or the designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ in regard to the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ in regard to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ in regard to the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ in regard to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ in regard to the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether true suchness is internal, external, or between the two, or whether the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, is internal, external, or between the two, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ in regard to true suchness, or the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ in regard to the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ in regard to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ in regard to the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very designation ‘apprehensible or nonapprehensible’ in regard to true suchness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘apprehensible or nonapprehensible’ in regard to the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether true suchness is apprehensible or nonapprehensible, or whether the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, is apprehensible or nonapprehensible, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘apprehensible or nonapprehensible’ in regard to true suchness, or the designation ‘apprehensible or nonapprehensible’ in regard to the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘apprehensible or nonapprehensible’ in regard to true suchness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘apprehensible or nonapprehensible’ in regard to the Dharma realm, up to and including the realm of the inconceivable, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive that leads you to say that the very designation ‘the four foundations of mindfulness’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designations ‘the four right efforts, the four bases of spiritual power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of enlightenment, and the Noble Eightfold Path’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness or the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘the four foundations of mindfulness,’ or the designations ‘the four right efforts,’ up to and including ‘the Noble Eightfold Path’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the four foundations of mindfulness’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designations ‘the four right efforts,’ up to and including ‘the Noble Eightfold Path,’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness are permanent or impermanent, or whether the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, are permanent or impermanent, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘permanent or impermanent’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness are pleasant or painful, or whether the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, are pleasant or painful, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘pleasant or painful’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the designation ‘pleasant or painful’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘pleasant or painful’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness are self or non-self, or whether the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, are self or non-self, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘self or non-self’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the designation ‘self or non-self’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘self or non-self’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that leads you to say that the very designation ‘pure or impure’ in regard to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘pure or impure’ in regard to the four right efforts, up to and including the Noble Eightfold Path, is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness are pure or impure, and whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path are pure or impure, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the names ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness are empty or not empty, and whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path are empty or not empty, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the names ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘having characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘having characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness have characteristics or are without characteristics, and whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path have characteristics or are without characteristics, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘having characteristics’ and ‘without characteristics’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the names ‘having characteristics’ and ‘without characteristics’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘having characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘having characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘having aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘having aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness have aspiration or are without aspiration, and whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path have aspiration or are without aspiration, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘having aspiration’ and ‘without aspiration’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the names ‘having aspiration’ and ‘without aspiration’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘having aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘having aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness are quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path 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’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness are detached or not detached, and whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path 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’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the names ‘detached’ and ‘not detached’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness are conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path 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’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four foundations of mindfulness are with outflows or without outflows, and whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path are with outflows or without outflows, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, or the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is a great bodhisattva?

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ with respect to the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

World-Honored One! Whether the arising and cessation of the four foundations of mindfulness, or the arising and cessation of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “arising and cessation of the four foundations of mindfulness” and the names “arising and cessation of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path”! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “arising” or “cessation” of the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “arising” or “cessation” of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the wholesome and unwholesome aspects of the four foundations of mindfulness, or the wholesome and unwholesome aspects of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “wholesome and unwholesome aspects of the four foundations of mindfulness” and the names “wholesome and unwholesome aspects of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path”!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “culpable” or “blameless” of the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “culpable” or “blameless” of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the culpable and blameless aspects of the four foundations of mindfulness, or the culpable and blameless aspects of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “culpable and blameless aspects of the four foundations of mindfulness” and the names “culpable and blameless aspects of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path”!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “culpable” or “blameless” of the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “culpable” or “blameless” of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the aspects with afflictions and without afflictions of the four foundations of mindfulness, or the aspects with afflictions and without afflictions of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “with afflictions and without afflictions of the four foundations of mindfulness” and the names “with afflictions and without afflictions of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path”!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “mundane” or “supramundane” of the four foundations of mindfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name “mundane” or “supramundane” of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the mundane and supramundane aspects of the four foundations of mindfulness, or the mundane and supramundane aspects of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “mundane and supramundane aspects of the four foundations of mindfulness” and the names “mundane and supramundane aspects of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path”!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “mundane” or “supramundane” of the four foundations of mindfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name “mundane” or “supramundane” of the four right efforts up to the eight factors of the Noble Path is a great bodhisattva?

Fascicle 29

End