大般若波羅蜜多經

23

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the ten powers of the Buddha are with aspiration or without aspiration, and whether the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are with aspiration or without aspiration, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with aspiration” and “without aspiration” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha, or the designations “with aspiration” and “without aspiration” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the ten powers of the Buddha are quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “quiescent” and “not quiescent” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha, or the designations “quiescent” and “not quiescent” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the ten powers of the Buddha are separated or not separated, and whether the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are separated or not separated, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “separated” and “not separated” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha, or the designations “separated” and “not separated” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “separated” or “not separated” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the ten powers of the Buddha are conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha, or the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “contaminated” or “uncontaminated” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “contaminated” or “uncontaminated” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the ten powers of the Buddha are contaminated or uncontaminated, and whether the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are contaminated or uncontaminated, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “contaminated” and “uncontaminated” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha, or the designations “contaminated” and “uncontaminated” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “contaminated” or “uncontaminated” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “contaminated” or “uncontaminated” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the ten powers of the Buddha arise or cease, and whether the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha arise or cease, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “arising” and “ceasing” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha, or the designations “arising” and “ceasing” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “arising” or “ceasing” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” regarding the ten powers of the Buddha is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation “wholesome” or “unwholesome” regarding the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered knowledges, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether wholesome or unwholesome, the ten powers of a Buddha; and whether wholesome or unwholesome, the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be names for the wholesome or unwholesome ten powers of a Buddha, or names for the wholesome or unwholesome four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the wholesome or unwholesome ten powers of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the wholesome or unwholesome four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name of the culpable or blameless ten powers of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of the culpable or blameless four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether culpable or blameless, the ten powers of a Buddha; and whether culpable or blameless, the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be names for the culpable or blameless ten powers of a Buddha, or names for the culpable or blameless four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the culpable or blameless ten powers of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the culpable or blameless four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name of the ten powers of a Buddha as accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of the four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions, the ten powers of a Buddha; and whether accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions, the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be names for the ten powers of a Buddha as accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions, or names for the four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the ten powers of a Buddha as accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name of the mundane or supramundane ten powers of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of the mundane or supramundane four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether mundane or supramundane, the ten powers of a Buddha; and whether mundane or supramundane, the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be names for the mundane or supramundane ten powers of a Buddha, or names for the mundane or supramundane four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the mundane or supramundane ten powers of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the mundane or supramundane four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name of the defiled or purified ten powers of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of the defiled or purified four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether defiled or purified, the ten powers of a Buddha; and whether defiled or purified, the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be names for the defiled or purified ten powers of a Buddha, or names for the defiled or purified four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the defiled or purified ten powers of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the defiled or purified four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name of the ten powers of a Buddha as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of the four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, the ten powers of a Buddha; and whether belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be names for the ten powers of a Buddha as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, or names for the four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the ten powers of a Buddha as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name of the ten powers of a Buddha as internal, external, or between the two is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of the four fearlessnesses, four unhindered understandings, and eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as internal, external, or between the two is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the internal, the external, or that which lies between the two with respect to the ten powers of the Buddha; or the internal, the external, or that which lies between the two with respect to the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha—all are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of the internal, the external, or that which lies between the two with respect to the ten powers of the Buddha, or the designation of the internal, the external, or that which lies between the two with respect to the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the internal, the external, or that which lies between the two with respect to the ten powers of the Buddha is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation of the internal, the external, or that which lies between the two with respect to the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the ten powers of the Buddha as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the apprehensibility or inapprehensibility of the ten powers of the Buddha, or the apprehensibility or inapprehensibility of the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha—all are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of the ten powers of the Buddha as apprehensible or inapprehensible, or the designation of the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as apprehensible or inapprehensible!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the ten powers of the Buddha as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation of the four fearlessnesses, the four unhindered understandings, and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva?

Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you contemplate when you say that the very designation of great loving-kindness is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?

The Venerable Subhuti replied: World-Honored One! Whether great loving-kindness, or great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity—all are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of great loving-kindness or the designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of great loving-kindness is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of great loving-kindness as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the permanence or impermanence of great loving-kindness, or the permanence or impermanence of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity—all are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of great loving-kindness as permanent or impermanent, or the designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as permanent or impermanent! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of great loving-kindness as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of great loving-kindness as pleasant or painful is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as pleasant or painful is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the pleasantness or painfulness of great loving-kindness, or the pleasantness or painfulness of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity—all are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of great loving-kindness as pleasant or painful, or the designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as pleasant or painful! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of great loving-kindness as pleasant or painful is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as pleasant or painful is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of great loving-kindness as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the self or non-self of great loving-kindness, or the self or non-self of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity—all are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of great loving-kindness as self or non-self, or the designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as self or non-self! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of great loving-kindness as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of great loving-kindness as pure or impure is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as pure or impure is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the purity or impurity of great loving-kindness, or the purity or impurity of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity—all are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of great loving-kindness as pure or impure, or the designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as pure or impure! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of great loving-kindness as pure or impure is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as pure or impure is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of great loving-kindness as empty or not empty is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as empty or not empty is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the emptiness or non-emptiness of great loving-kindness, or the emptiness or non-emptiness of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity—all are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of great loving-kindness as empty or not empty, or the designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as empty or not empty! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of great loving-kindness as empty or not empty is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as empty or not empty is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of great loving-kindness as having characteristics or being without characteristics is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as having characteristics or being without characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the having of characteristics or absence of characteristics of great loving-kindness, or the having of characteristics or absence of characteristics of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity—all are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of great loving-kindness as having characteristics or being without characteristics, or the designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as having characteristics or being without characteristics!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of great loving-kindness as having characteristics or being without characteristics is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as having characteristics or being without characteristics is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of great loving-kindness as involving aspiration or being without aspiration is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as involving aspiration or being without aspiration is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether great loving-kindness is associated with aspiration or without aspiration, and whether great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity are associated with aspiration or without aspiration, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘great loving-kindness associated with aspiration or without aspiration’ and ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity associated with aspiration or without aspiration’!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘great loving-kindness associated with aspiration or without aspiration’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity associated with aspiration or without aspiration’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! On what grounds do you further say that the very name ‘great loving-kindness, quiescent or not quiescent,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity, quiescent or not quiescent,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether great loving-kindness is quiescent or not quiescent, and whether great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘great loving-kindness, quiescent or not quiescent’ and ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity, quiescent or not quiescent’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘great loving-kindness, quiescent or not quiescent,’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity, quiescent or not quiescent,’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! On what grounds do you further say that the very name ‘great loving-kindness, detached or not detached,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity, detached or not detached,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether great loving-kindness is detached or not detached, and whether great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity are detached or not detached, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘great loving-kindness, detached or not detached’ and ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity, detached or not detached’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘great loving-kindness, detached or not detached,’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity, detached or not detached,’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! On what grounds do you further say that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned great loving-kindness’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether great loving-kindness is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘conditioned or unconditioned great loving-kindness’ and ‘conditioned or unconditioned great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned great loving-kindness’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned or unconditioned great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! On what grounds do you further say that the very name ‘great loving-kindness with outflows or without outflows’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity with outflows or without outflows’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether great loving-kindness is with outflows or without outflows, and whether great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity are with outflows or without outflows, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘great loving-kindness with outflows or without outflows’ and ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity with outflows or without outflows’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘great loving-kindness with outflows or without outflows’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity with outflows or without outflows’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! On what grounds do you further say that the very name ‘the arising or cessation of great loving-kindness’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘the arising or cessation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether it is the arising or cessation of great loving-kindness, and whether it is the arising or cessation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘the arising or cessation of great loving-kindness’ and ‘the arising or cessation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the arising or cessation of great loving-kindness’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the arising or cessation of great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! On what grounds do you further say that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome great loving-kindness’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether great loving-kindness is wholesome or unwholesome, and whether great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome or unwholesome great loving-kindness’ and ‘wholesome or unwholesome great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome great loving-kindness’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! On what grounds do you further say that the very name ‘culpable or blameless great loving-kindness’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable or blameless great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether great loving-kindness is culpable or blameless, and whether great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity are culpable or blameless, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘culpable or blameless great loving-kindness’ and ‘culpable or blameless great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable or blameless great loving-kindness’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable or blameless great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! On what grounds do you further say that the very name ‘great loving-kindness with afflictions or without afflictions’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity with afflictions or without afflictions’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether great loving-kindness is with afflictions or without afflictions, and whether great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity are with afflictions or without afflictions, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘great loving-kindness with afflictions or without afflictions’ and ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity with afflictions or without afflictions’!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘great loving-kindness with afflictions or without afflictions’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity with afflictions or without afflictions’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! On what grounds do you further say that the very name ‘mundane or supramundane great loving-kindness’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘mundane or supramundane great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the great loving-kindness that is worldly or supramundane, or the great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity that are worldly or supramundane, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to great loving-kindness, or the names ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to great loving-kindness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to great loving-kindness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the great loving-kindness that is defiled or purified, or the great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity that are defiled or purified, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to great loving-kindness, or the names ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to great loving-kindness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to great loving-kindness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the great loving-kindness belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, or the great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to great loving-kindness, or the names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity!

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 great loving-kindness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to great loving-kindness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the great loving-kindness that is internal, external, or between the two, or the great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity that 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,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to great loving-kindness, or the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to great loving-kindness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to great loving-kindness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the great loving-kindness that is apprehensible or inapprehensible, or the great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity that are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to great loving-kindness, or the names ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to great loving-kindness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘the thirty-two marks of a great being’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘the eighty subsidiary characteristics’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great being or the eighty subsidiary characteristics, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the thirty-two marks of a great being’ or the name ‘the eighty subsidiary characteristics’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the thirty-two marks of a great being’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the eighty subsidiary characteristics’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great being are permanent or impermanent, or the eighty subsidiary characteristics are permanent or impermanent, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being, or the names ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great being are pleasant or painful, or the eighty subsidiary characteristics are pleasant or painful, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being, or the names ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great being are self or non-self, or the eighty subsidiary characteristics are self or non-self, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being, or the names ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great being is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ in relation to the eighty subsidiary characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?”

Blessed One! The purity or impurity of the thirty-two marks of a great man, and the purity or impurity of the eighty accompanying characteristics, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “purity” and “impurity” of the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the names “purity” and “impurity” of the eighty accompanying characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “pure” or “impure” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “pure” or “impure” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Subhuti! In consideration of what meaning do you further say that the very name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Blessed One! The emptiness or non-emptiness of the thirty-two marks of a great man, and the emptiness or non-emptiness of the eighty accompanying characteristics, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “empty” and “not empty” of the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the names “empty” and “not empty” of the eighty accompanying characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Subhuti! In consideration of what meaning do you further say that the very name “with marks” or “without marks” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “with marks” or “without marks” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Blessed One! The possession or absence of marks in the thirty-two marks of a great man, and the possession or absence of marks in the eighty accompanying characteristics, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “with marks” and “without marks” of the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the names “with marks” and “without marks” of the eighty accompanying characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “with marks” or “without marks” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “with marks” or “without marks” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Subhuti! In consideration of what meaning do you further say that the very name “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Blessed One! The presence or absence of aspiration in the thirty-two marks of a great man, and the presence or absence of aspiration in the eighty accompanying characteristics, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “with aspiration” and “without aspiration” of the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the names “with aspiration” and “without aspiration” of the eighty accompanying characteristics!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Subhuti! In consideration of what meaning do you further say that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Blessed One! The quiescence or non-quiescence of the thirty-two marks of a great man, and the quiescence or non-quiescence of the eighty accompanying characteristics, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “quiescent” and “not quiescent” of the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the names “quiescent” and “not quiescent” of the eighty accompanying characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Subhuti! In consideration of what meaning do you further say that the very name “detached” or “not detached” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “detached” or “not detached” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Blessed One! The detachment or non-detachment of the thirty-two marks of a great man, and the detachment or non-detachment of the eighty accompanying characteristics, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “detached” and “not detached” of the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the names “detached” and “not detached” of the eighty accompanying characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “detached” or “not detached” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “detached” or “not detached” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Subhuti! In consideration of what meaning do you further say that the very name “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Blessed One! The conditioned or unconditioned nature of the thirty-two marks of a great man, and the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the eighty accompanying characteristics, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “conditioned” and “unconditioned” of the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the names “conditioned” and “unconditioned” of the eighty accompanying characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Subhuti! In consideration of what meaning do you further say that the very name “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Blessed One! The presence or absence of outflows in the thirty-two marks of a great man, and the presence or absence of outflows in the eighty accompanying characteristics, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “with outflows” and “without outflows” of the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the names “with outflows” and “without outflows” of the eighty accompanying characteristics! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “with outflows” or “without outflows” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

Subhuti! In consideration of what meaning do you further say that the very name “arising” or “ceasing” in relation to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva, or that the very name “arising” or “ceasing” in relation to the eighty accompanying characteristics is not a bodhisattva-mahasattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the arising and cessation of the thirty-two marks of a great being, or the arising and cessation of the eighty accompanying characteristics, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the arising and cessation of the thirty-two marks of a great being’ or the name ‘the arising and cessation of the eighty accompanying characteristics’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the arising or cessation of the thirty-two marks of a great being’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the arising or cessation of the eighty accompanying characteristics’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome with respect to the thirty-two marks of a great being’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome with respect to the eighty accompanying characteristics’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the wholesome and unwholesome with respect to the thirty-two marks of a great being, or the wholesome and unwholesome with respect to the eighty accompanying characteristics, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘wholesome and unwholesome with respect to the thirty-two marks of a great being’ or the name ‘wholesome and unwholesome with respect to the eighty accompanying characteristics’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome with respect to the thirty-two marks of a great being’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome or unwholesome with respect to the eighty accompanying characteristics’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very name ‘culpable or blameless with respect to the thirty-two marks of a great being’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable or blameless with respect to the eighty accompanying characteristics’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the culpable and blameless with respect to the thirty-two marks of a great being, or the culpable and blameless with respect to the eighty accompanying characteristics, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘culpable and blameless with respect to the thirty-two marks of a great being’ or the name ‘culpable and blameless with respect to the eighty accompanying characteristics’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable or blameless with respect to the thirty-two marks of a great being’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable or blameless with respect to the eighty accompanying characteristics’ is a great bodhisattva?”

Fascicle 33

End