大般若波羅蜜多經

24

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great man are with afflictions or without afflictions, and whether the eighty minor characteristics are with afflictions or without afflictions, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the designations “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” applied to the eighty minor characteristics!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “worldly” or “supramundane” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “worldly” or “supramundane” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great man are worldly or supramundane, and whether the eighty minor characteristics are worldly or supramundane, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “worldly” and “supramundane” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the designations “worldly” and “supramundane” applied to the eighty minor characteristics! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “worldly” or “supramundane” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “worldly” or “supramundane” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great man are defiled or purified, and whether the eighty minor characteristics are defiled or purified, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “defiled” and “purified” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the designations “defiled” and “purified” applied to the eighty minor characteristics! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “defiled” or “purified” applied to the eighty minor characteristics 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 thirty-two marks of a great man is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great man belong to samsara or to nirvana, and whether the eighty minor characteristics belong to samsara or to nirvana, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “belonging to samsara” and “belonging to nirvana” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the designations “belonging to samsara” and “belonging to nirvana” applied to the eighty minor characteristics!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “internal,” “external,” or “between the two” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “internal,” “external,” or “between the two” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great man are internal, external, or between the two, and whether the eighty minor characteristics are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “internal,” “external,” and “between the two” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the designations “internal,” “external,” and “between the two” applied to the eighty minor characteristics!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “internal,” “external,” or “between the two” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “internal,” “external,” or “between the two” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “apprehensible” or “inapprehensible” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “apprehensible” or “inapprehensible” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the thirty-two marks of a great man are apprehensible or inapprehensible, and whether the eighty minor characteristics are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “apprehensible” and “inapprehensible” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man, or the designations “apprehensible” and “inapprehensible” applied to the eighty minor characteristics!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “apprehensible” or “inapprehensible” applied to the thirty-two marks of a great man is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “apprehensible” or “inapprehensible” applied to the eighty minor characteristics is a great bodhisattva?

Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you contemplate when you say that the very designation of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?

The Venerable Subhuti addressed the Buddha: Blessed One! Whether it is the Dharma of non-forgetfulness or the nature of constant equanimity, ultimately it cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness or the designation of the nature of constant equanimity! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “permanent” or “impermanent” applied to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “permanent” or “impermanent” applied to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is permanent or impermanent, and whether the nature of constant equanimity is permanent or impermanent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “permanent” and “impermanent” applied to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the designations “permanent” and “impermanent” applied to the nature of constant equanimity! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “permanent” or “impermanent” applied to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “permanent” or “impermanent” applied to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “pleasant” or “painful” applied to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “pleasant” or “painful” applied to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the pleasure or suffering of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the pleasure or suffering of the nature of constant equanimity, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designation “pleasure or suffering of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” or the designation “pleasure or suffering of the nature of constant equanimity”! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “pleasure or suffering of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “pleasure or suffering of the nature of constant equanimity” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation “self or non-self of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “self or non-self of the nature of constant equanimity” is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the self or non-self of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the self or non-self of the nature of constant equanimity, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designation “self or non-self of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” or the designation “self or non-self of the nature of constant equanimity”! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “self or non-self of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “self or non-self of the nature of constant equanimity” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation “purity or impurity of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “purity or impurity of the nature of constant equanimity” is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the purity or impurity of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the purity or impurity of the nature of constant equanimity, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designation “purity or impurity of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” or the designation “purity or impurity of the nature of constant equanimity”! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “purity or impurity of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “purity or impurity of the nature of constant equanimity” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation “emptiness or non-emptiness of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “emptiness or non-emptiness of the nature of constant equanimity” is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the emptiness or non-emptiness of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the emptiness or non-emptiness of the nature of constant equanimity, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designation “emptiness or non-emptiness of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” or the designation “emptiness or non-emptiness of the nature of constant equanimity”! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “emptiness or non-emptiness of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “emptiness or non-emptiness of the nature of constant equanimity” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation “having characteristics or being without characteristics of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “having characteristics or being without characteristics of the nature of constant equanimity” is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether having characteristics or being without characteristics of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or having characteristics or being without characteristics of the nature of constant equanimity, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designation “having characteristics or being without characteristics of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” or the designation “having characteristics or being without characteristics of the nature of constant equanimity”!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “having characteristics or being without characteristics of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “having characteristics or being without characteristics of the nature of constant equanimity” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation “having aspirations or being without aspirations of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “having aspirations or being without aspirations of the nature of constant equanimity” is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether having aspirations or being without aspirations of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or having aspirations or being without aspirations of the nature of constant equanimity, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designation “having aspirations or being without aspirations of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” or the designation “having aspirations or being without aspirations of the nature of constant equanimity”!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “having aspirations or being without aspirations of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “having aspirations or being without aspirations of the nature of constant equanimity” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation “quiescent or non-quiescent of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “quiescent or non-quiescent of the nature of constant equanimity” is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the quiescence or non-quiescence of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the quiescence or non-quiescence of the nature of constant equanimity, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designation “quiescence or non-quiescence of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” or the designation “quiescence or non-quiescence of the nature of constant equanimity”! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “quiescence or non-quiescence of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “quiescence or non-quiescence of the nature of constant equanimity” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation “seclusion or non-seclusion of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “seclusion or non-seclusion of the nature of constant equanimity” is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the seclusion or non-seclusion of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the seclusion or non-seclusion of the nature of constant equanimity, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designation “seclusion or non-seclusion of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” or the designation “seclusion or non-seclusion of the nature of constant equanimity”! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “seclusion or non-seclusion of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “seclusion or non-seclusion of the nature of constant equanimity” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation “conditioned or unconditioned of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “conditioned or unconditioned of the nature of constant equanimity” is not a great bodhisattva?

World-Honored One! Whether the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the conditioned or unconditioned nature of constant equanimity, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designation “conditioned or unconditioned of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” or the designation “conditioned or unconditioned of the nature of constant equanimity”! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “conditioned or unconditioned of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation “conditioned or unconditioned of the nature of constant equanimity” is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation “with outflows or without outflows of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness” is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation “with outflows or without outflows of the nature of constant equanimity” is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is with outflows or without outflows, and whether the nature of constant equanimity is with outflows or without outflows, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness arises or ceases, and whether the nature of constant equanimity arises or ceases, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the names ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is wholesome or unwholesome, and whether the nature of constant equanimity is wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is culpable or blameless, and whether the nature of constant equanimity is culpable or blameless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is with afflictions or without afflictions, and whether the nature of constant equanimity is with afflictions or without afflictions, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the names ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is mundane or supramundane, and whether the nature of constant equanimity is mundane or supramundane, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the names ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is defiled or purified, and whether the nature of constant equanimity is defiled or purified, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ and ‘purified’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the names ‘defiled’ and ‘purified’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana, and whether the nature of constant equanimity belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the names ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the nature of constant 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 the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you perceive in saying that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is internal, external, or between the two, and whether the nature of constant equanimity is internal, external, or between the two, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ in relation to the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, or the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ in relation to the nature of constant 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 the Dharma of non-forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?”

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very designation of the attainability or unattainability of the Dharma of freedom from forgetfulness is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the attainability or unattainability of the nature of constant equanimity is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The attainability or unattainability of the Dharma of freedom from forgetfulness, and the attainability or unattainability of the nature of constant equanimity, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of the attainability or unattainability of the Dharma of freedom from forgetfulness, or the designation of the attainability or unattainability of the nature of constant equanimity! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the attainability or unattainability of the Dharma of freedom from forgetfulness is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the attainability or unattainability of the nature of constant equanimity is a great bodhisattva?

Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that you say the very designation of knowledge of all things is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of knowledge of path aspects or knowledge of all aspects is not a great bodhisattva?

The Venerable Subhuti said: Blessed One! Knowledge of all things, knowledge of path aspects, and knowledge of all aspects are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of knowledge of all things, or the designation of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of knowledge of all things is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very designation of the permanence or impermanence of knowledge of all things is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the permanence or impermanence of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The permanence or impermanence of knowledge of all things, and the permanence or impermanence of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of the permanence or impermanence of knowledge of all things, or the designation of the permanence or impermanence of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the permanence or impermanence of knowledge of all things is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the permanence or impermanence of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very designation of the pleasure or suffering of knowledge of all things is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the pleasure or suffering of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The pleasure or suffering of knowledge of all things, and the pleasure or suffering of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of the pleasure or suffering of knowledge of all things, or the designation of the pleasure or suffering of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the pleasure or suffering of knowledge of all things is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the pleasure or suffering of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very designation of the self or non-self of knowledge of all things is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the self or non-self of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The self or non-self of knowledge of all things, and the self or non-self of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of the self or non-self of knowledge of all things, or the designation of the self or non-self of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the self or non-self of knowledge of all things is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the self or non-self of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very designation of the purity or impurity of knowledge of all things is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the purity or impurity of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The purity or impurity of knowledge of all things, and the purity or impurity of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of the purity or impurity of knowledge of all things, or the designation of the purity or impurity of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the purity or impurity of knowledge of all things is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the purity or impurity of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very designation of the emptiness or non-emptiness of knowledge of all things is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of the emptiness or non-emptiness of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The emptiness or non-emptiness of knowledge of all things, and the emptiness or non-emptiness of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of the emptiness or non-emptiness of knowledge of all things, or the designation of the emptiness or non-emptiness of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the emptiness or non-emptiness of knowledge of all things is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the emptiness or non-emptiness of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very designation of knowledge of all things as possessing characteristics or being signless is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects as possessing characteristics or being signless is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Knowledge of all things as possessing characteristics or being signless, and knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects as possessing characteristics or being signless, are ultimately ungraspable because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation of knowledge of all things as possessing characteristics or being signless, or the designation of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects as possessing characteristics or being signless!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of knowledge of all things as possessing characteristics or being signless is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects as possessing characteristics or being signless is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very designation of knowledge of all things as involving aspiration or being aspirationless is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation of knowledge of path aspects and knowledge of all aspects as involving aspiration or being aspirationless is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the knowledge of all things is possessed of aspiration or free from aspiration, and whether the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects are possessed of aspiration or free from aspiration, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations ‘the knowledge of all things possessed of aspiration or free from aspiration’ and ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects possessed of aspiration or free from aspiration’!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things possessed of aspiration or free from aspiration’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects possessed of aspiration or free from aspiration’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, quiescent or not quiescent,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, quiescent or not quiescent,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the knowledge of all things is quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations ‘the knowledge of all things, quiescent or not quiescent’ and ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, quiescent or not quiescent’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, quiescent or not quiescent’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, quiescent or not quiescent’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, withdrawn or not withdrawn,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, withdrawn or not withdrawn,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the knowledge of all things is withdrawn or not withdrawn, and whether the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects are withdrawn or not withdrawn, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations ‘the knowledge of all things, withdrawn or not withdrawn’ and ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, withdrawn or not withdrawn’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, withdrawn or not withdrawn’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, withdrawn or not withdrawn’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, conditioned or unconditioned,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, conditioned or unconditioned,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the knowledge of all things is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations ‘the knowledge of all things, conditioned or unconditioned’ and ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, conditioned or unconditioned’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, conditioned or unconditioned’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, conditioned or unconditioned’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, contaminated or uncontaminated,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, contaminated or uncontaminated,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the knowledge of all things is contaminated or uncontaminated, and whether the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects are contaminated or uncontaminated, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations ‘the knowledge of all things, contaminated or uncontaminated’ and ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, contaminated or uncontaminated’!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, contaminated or uncontaminated’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, contaminated or uncontaminated’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, arising or ceasing,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, arising or ceasing,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the knowledge of all things is arising or ceasing, and whether the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects are arising or ceasing, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations ‘the knowledge of all things, arising or ceasing’ and ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, arising or ceasing’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, arising or ceasing’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, arising or ceasing’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, wholesome or unwholesome,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, wholesome or unwholesome,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the knowledge of all things is wholesome or unwholesome, and whether the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations ‘the knowledge of all things, wholesome or unwholesome’ and ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, wholesome or unwholesome’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, wholesome or unwholesome’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, wholesome or unwholesome’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, culpable or blameless,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, culpable or blameless,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the knowledge of all things is culpable or blameless, and whether the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects are culpable or blameless, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designations ‘the knowledge of all things, culpable or blameless’ and ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, culpable or blameless’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, culpable or blameless’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, culpable or blameless’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very designation ‘the knowledge of all things, with afflictions or without afflictions,’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘the knowledge of path-aspects and the knowledge of all aspects, with afflictions or without afflictions,’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the all-knowledge is accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions, and whether the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects are accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘the all-knowledge accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions’ and ‘the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions’!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the all-knowledge accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘the mundane or supramundane all-knowledge’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘the mundane or supramundane knowledge of paths and knowledge of all aspects’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the all-knowledge is mundane or supramundane, and whether the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects are mundane or supramundane, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘the mundane or supramundane all-knowledge’ and ‘the mundane or supramundane knowledge of paths and knowledge of all aspects’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the mundane or supramundane all-knowledge’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the mundane or supramundane knowledge of paths and knowledge of all aspects’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘the defiled or purified all-knowledge’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘the defiled or purified knowledge of paths and knowledge of all aspects’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the all-knowledge is defiled or purified, and whether the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects are defiled or purified, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘the defiled or purified all-knowledge’ and ‘the defiled or purified knowledge of paths and knowledge of all aspects’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the defiled or purified all-knowledge’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the defiled or purified knowledge of paths and knowledge of all aspects’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘the all-knowledge belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the all-knowledge belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana, and whether the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects belong to samsara or belong to nirvana, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘the all-knowledge belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ and ‘the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the all-knowledge belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘the all-knowledge situated internally, externally, or between the two’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects situated internally, externally, or between the two’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the all-knowledge is situated internally, externally, or between the two, and whether the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects are situated internally, externally, or between the two, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘the all-knowledge situated internally, externally, or between the two’ and ‘the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects situated internally, externally, or between the two’!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the all-knowledge situated internally, externally, or between the two’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects situated internally, externally, or between the two’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘the apprehensible or inapprehensible all-knowledge’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘the apprehensible or inapprehensible knowledge of paths and knowledge of all aspects’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the all-knowledge is apprehensible or inapprehensible, and whether the knowledge of paths and the knowledge of all aspects are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘the apprehensible or inapprehensible all-knowledge’ and ‘the apprehensible or inapprehensible knowledge of paths and knowledge of all aspects’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the apprehensible or inapprehensible all-knowledge’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the apprehensible or inapprehensible knowledge of paths and knowledge of all aspects’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘the fruit of stream-entry’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Whether it is the fruit of stream-entry or the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘the fruit of stream-entry’ and ‘the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the fruit of stream-entry’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘the permanent or impermanent fruit of stream-entry’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the permanent or impermanent fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the fruit of stream-entry is permanent or impermanent, and whether the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are permanent or impermanent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, for their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘the permanent or impermanent fruit of stream-entry’ and ‘the permanent or impermanent fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the permanent or impermanent fruit of stream-entry’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘the permanent or impermanent fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘the pleasant or painful fruit of stream-entry’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘the pleasant or painful fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the happiness or suffering of the fruit of stream-entry, or the happiness or suffering of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘happiness or suffering of the fruit of stream-entry,’ or the designations ‘happiness or suffering of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘happiness or suffering of the fruit of stream-entry’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designations ‘happiness or suffering of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation ‘self or non-self of the fruit of stream-entry’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designations ‘self or non-self of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the self or non-self of the fruit of stream-entry, or the self or non-self of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designation ‘self or non-self of the fruit of stream-entry,’ or the designations ‘self or non-self of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘self or non-self of the fruit of stream-entry’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designations ‘self or non-self of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship’ are a great bodhisattva?”

Fascicle 34

End