大般若波羅蜜多經

20

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the four establishments of mindfulness as defiled or purified is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as defiled or purified is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One, whether the four establishments of mindfulness are defiled or purified, or whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path are defiled or purified, ultimately they cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the four establishments of mindfulness as defiled or purified, or designations of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as defiled or purified! Since these designations do not exist, how could one say that the very designation of the four establishments of mindfulness as defiled or purified is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as defiled or purified is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the four establishments of mindfulness as belonging to samsara or nirvana is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as belonging to samsara or nirvana is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One, whether the four establishments of mindfulness belong to samsara or nirvana, or whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path belong to samsara or nirvana, ultimately they cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the four establishments of mindfulness as belonging to samsara or nirvana, or designations of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as belonging to samsara or nirvana!

Since these designations do not exist, how could one say that the very designation of the four establishments of mindfulness as belonging to samsara or nirvana is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as belonging to samsara or nirvana is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the four establishments of mindfulness as internal, external, or both internal and external is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as internal, external, or both internal and external is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One, whether the four establishments of mindfulness are internal, external, or both internal and external, or whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path are internal, external, or both internal and external, ultimately they cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the four establishments of mindfulness as internal, external, or both internal and external, or designations of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as internal, external, or both internal and external!

Since these designations do not exist, how could one say that the very designation of the four establishments of mindfulness as internal, external, or both internal and external is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as internal, external, or both internal and external is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the four establishments of mindfulness as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One, whether the four establishments of mindfulness are apprehensible or inapprehensible, or whether the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the four establishments of mindfulness as apprehensible or inapprehensible, or designations of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as apprehensible or inapprehensible!

Since these designations do not exist, how could one say that the very designation of the four establishments of mindfulness as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the four right efforts through the Noble Eightfold Path as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the very designation of the Noble Truth of suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path is not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One, whether it is the Noble Truth of suffering or the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path, ultimately they cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a designation of the Noble Truth of suffering or designations of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path! Since these designations do not exist, how could one say that the very designation of the Noble Truth of suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the Noble Truth of suffering as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One, whether the Noble Truth of suffering is permanent or impermanent, or whether the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path are permanent or impermanent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the Noble Truth of suffering as permanent or impermanent, or designations of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as permanent or impermanent! Since these designations do not exist, how could one say that the very designation of the Noble Truth of suffering as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the Noble Truth of suffering as pleasurable or painful is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as pleasurable or painful is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One, whether the Noble Truth of suffering is pleasurable or painful, or whether the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path are pleasurable or painful, ultimately they cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the Noble Truth of suffering as pleasurable or painful, or designations of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as pleasurable or painful! Since these designations do not exist, how could one say that the very designation of the Noble Truth of suffering as pleasurable or painful is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as pleasurable or painful is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the Noble Truth of suffering as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One, whether the Noble Truth of suffering is self or non-self, or whether the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path are self or non-self, ultimately they cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the Noble Truth of suffering as self or non-self, or designations of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as self or non-self! Since these designations do not exist, how could one say that the very designation of the Noble Truth of suffering as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the Noble Truth of suffering as pure or impure is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path as pure or impure is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Noble Truth of Suffering is pure or impure, and whether the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the 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’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering, or the names ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Noble Truth of Suffering is empty or not empty, and whether the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the 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’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering, or the names ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘characterized’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘characterized’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Noble Truth of Suffering is characterized or signless, and whether the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path are characterized or signless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘characterized’ and ‘signless’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering, or the names ‘characterized’ and ‘signless’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘characterized’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘characterized’ or ‘signless’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘wishful’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wishful’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Noble Truth of Suffering is wishful or wishless, and whether the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path are wishful or wishless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘wishful’ and ‘wishless’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering, or the names ‘wishful’ and ‘wishless’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wishful’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wishful’ or ‘wishless’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Noble Truth of Suffering is quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the 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’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering, or the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Noble Truth of Suffering is separated or not separated, and whether the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path are separated or not separated, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘separated’ and ‘not separated’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering, or the names ‘separated’ and ‘not separated’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Noble Truth of Suffering is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the 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’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering, or the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Noble Truth of Suffering is with outflows or without outflows, and whether the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the 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’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering, or the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Noble Truth of Suffering is arising or ceasing, and whether the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path are arising or ceasing, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘arising’ and ‘ceasing’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering, or the names ‘arising’ and ‘ceasing’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the Noble Truth of Suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the Noble Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the noble truth of suffering is wholesome or unwholesome, and whether the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering, or the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the noble truth of suffering is culpable or blameless, and whether the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path are culpable or blameless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering, or the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the noble truth of suffering is afflicted or unafflicted, and whether the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path are afflicted or unafflicted, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘afflicted’ and ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering, or the names ‘afflicted’ and ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the noble truth of suffering is mundane or supramundane, and whether the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path are mundane or supramundane, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering, or the names ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the noble truth of suffering is defiled or pure, and whether the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path are defiled or pure, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ and ‘pure’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering, or the names ‘defiled’ and ‘pure’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the noble truth of suffering belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana, and whether the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path belong to samsara or belong to nirvana, 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’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering, or the names ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the noble truth of suffering is internal, external, or between the two, and whether the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering, or the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the noble truth of suffering is apprehensible or inapprehensible, and whether the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘apprehensible’ and ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering, or the names ‘apprehensible’ and ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the noble truth of suffering is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the noble truths of origination, cessation, and the path is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘the four dhyanas’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the four immeasurables’ and ‘the four formless absorptions’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas, the four immeasurables, or the four formless absorptions, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the four dhyanas’ or the names ‘the four immeasurables’ and ‘the four formless absorptions’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the four dhyanas’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the four immeasurables’ and ‘the four formless absorptions’ are a great bodhisattva?”

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “permanent” or “impermanent” with respect to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “permanent” or “impermanent” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are permanent or impermanent, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments are permanent or impermanent, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “permanent” and “impermanent” with respect to the four dhyanas, or the designations “permanent” and “impermanent” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “permanent” or “impermanent” with respect to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “permanent” or “impermanent” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “pleasant” or “painful” with respect to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “pleasant” or “painful” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are pleasant or painful, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments are pleasant or painful, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “pleasant” and “painful” with respect to the four dhyanas, or the designations “pleasant” and “painful” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “pleasant” or “painful” with respect to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “pleasant” or “painful” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “self” or “non-self” with respect to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “self” or “non-self” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are self or non-self, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments are self or non-self, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “self” and “non-self” with respect to the four dhyanas, or the designations “self” and “non-self” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “self” or “non-self” with respect to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “self” or “non-self” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “pure” or “impure” with respect to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “pure” or “impure” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are pure or impure, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments are pure or impure, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “pure” and “impure” with respect to the four dhyanas, or the designations “pure” and “impure” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “pure” or “impure” with respect to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “pure” or “impure” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” with respect to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are empty or not empty, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments are empty or not empty, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “empty” and “not empty” with respect to the four dhyanas, or the designations “empty” and “not empty” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” with respect to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “possessing characteristics” or “characterless” with respect to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “possessing characteristics” or “characterless” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas possess characteristics or are characterless, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments possess characteristics or are characterless, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “possessing characteristics” and “characterless” with respect to the four dhyanas, or the designations “possessing characteristics” and “characterless” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “possessing characteristics” or “characterless” with respect to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “possessing characteristics” or “characterless” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” with respect to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are with aspiration or without aspiration, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments are with aspiration or without aspiration, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with aspiration” and “without aspiration” with respect to the four dhyanas, or the designations “with aspiration” and “without aspiration” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” with respect to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” with respect to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “quiescent” and “not quiescent” with respect to the four dhyanas, or the designations “quiescent” and “not quiescent” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” with respect to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “secluded” or “not secluded” with respect to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “secluded” or “not secluded” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are secluded or not secluded, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments are secluded or not secluded, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “secluded” and “not secluded” with respect to the four dhyanas, or the designations “secluded” and “not secluded” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “secluded” or “not secluded” with respect to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “secluded” or “not secluded” with respect to the four immeasurables and the four formless attainments is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” applied to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Even the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the four dhyanas, and the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” applied to the four dhyanas, or the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” applied to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” applied to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Even the nature with outflows or without outflows of the four dhyanas, and the nature with outflows or without outflows of the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” applied to the four dhyanas, or the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” applied to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” applied to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Even the arising or ceasing of the four dhyanas, and the arising or ceasing of the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations “arising” and “ceasing” applied to the four dhyanas, or the designations “arising” and “ceasing” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” applied to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” applied to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Even the wholesome or unwholesome nature of the four dhyanas, and the wholesome or unwholesome nature of the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations “wholesome” and “unwholesome” applied to the four dhyanas, or the designations “wholesome” and “unwholesome” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” applied to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” applied to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Even the culpable or blameless nature of the four dhyanas, and the culpable or blameless nature of the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations “culpable” and “blameless” applied to the four dhyanas, or the designations “culpable” and “blameless” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” applied to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “culpable” or “blameless” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” applied to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Even the nature with afflictions or without afflictions of the four dhyanas, and the nature with afflictions or without afflictions of the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” applied to the four dhyanas, or the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” applied to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” applied to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Even the mundane or supramundane nature of the four dhyanas, and the mundane or supramundane nature of the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations “mundane” and “supramundane” applied to the four dhyanas, or the designations “mundane” and “supramundane” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” applied to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “mundane” or “supramundane” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” applied to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Even the defiled or purified nature of the four dhyanas, and the defiled or purified nature of the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations “defiled” and “purified” applied to the four dhyanas, or the designations “defiled” and “purified” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” applied to the four dhyanas is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” applied to the four dhyanas is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” applied to the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas belong to samsara or to nirvana, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions belong to samsara or to nirvana, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be names for the four dhyanas as belonging to samsara or to nirvana, and names for the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions as belonging to samsara or to nirvana! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the four dhyanas as belonging to samsara or to nirvana is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions as belonging to samsara or to nirvana is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern in saying that the very name for the four dhyanas as internal, external, or between the two is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions as internal, external, or between the two is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are internal, external, or between the two, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be names for the four dhyanas as internal, external, or between the two, and names for the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions as internal, external, or between the two! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the four dhyanas as internal, external, or between the two is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions as internal, external, or between the two is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern in saying that the very name for the four dhyanas as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the four dhyanas are apprehensible or inapprehensible, and whether the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be names for the four dhyanas as apprehensible or inapprehensible, and names for the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions as apprehensible or inapprehensible! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the four dhyanas as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you discern in saying that the very name ‘eight liberations’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘eight spheres of mastery,’ ‘nine successive absorptions,’ and ‘ten spheres of totality’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied: “Blessed One! Whether the eight liberations, the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, or the ten spheres of totality, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the name ‘eight liberations’ and the names ‘eight spheres of mastery,’ ‘nine successive absorptions,’ and ‘ten spheres of totality’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘eight liberations’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘eight spheres of mastery,’ ‘nine successive absorptions,’ and ‘ten spheres of totality’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern in saying that the very name for the eight liberations as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eight liberations are permanent or impermanent, and whether the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality are permanent or impermanent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be names for the eight liberations as permanent or impermanent, and names for the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality as permanent or impermanent!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the eight liberations as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern in saying that the very name for the eight liberations as pleasurable or painful is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality as pleasurable or painful is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eight liberations are pleasurable or painful, and whether the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality are pleasurable or painful, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be names for the eight liberations as pleasurable or painful, and names for the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality as pleasurable or painful!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the eight liberations as pleasurable or painful is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality as pleasurable or painful is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern in saying that the very name for the eight liberations as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eight liberations are self or non-self, and whether the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality are self or non-self, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be names for the eight liberations as self or non-self, and names for the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality as self or non-self! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the eight liberations as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive absorptions, and the ten spheres of totality as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva?”

Fascicle 30

End