大般若波羅蜜多經

25

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of purity or impurity of the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of purity or impurity of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The purity or impurity of the fruit of stream-entry, and the purity or impurity of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name of purity or impurity of the fruit of stream-entry, or the name of purity or impurity of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of purity or impurity of the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of purity or impurity of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of emptiness or non-emptiness of the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of emptiness or non-emptiness of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The emptiness or non-emptiness of the fruit of stream-entry, and the emptiness or non-emptiness of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name of emptiness or non-emptiness of the fruit of stream-entry, or the name of emptiness or non-emptiness of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of emptiness or non-emptiness of the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of emptiness or non-emptiness of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of possessing characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of possessing characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Possessing characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to the fruit of stream-entry, and possessing characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name of possessing characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to the fruit of stream-entry, or the name of possessing characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of possessing characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of possessing characteristics or being without characteristics in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of possessing aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of possessing aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Possessing aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to the fruit of stream-entry, and possessing aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name of possessing aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to the fruit of stream-entry, or the name of possessing aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of possessing aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of possessing aspiration or being without aspiration in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of quiescence or non-quiescence of the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of quiescence or non-quiescence of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The quiescence or non-quiescence of the fruit of stream-entry, and the quiescence or non-quiescence of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name of quiescence or non-quiescence of the fruit of stream-entry, or the name of quiescence or non-quiescence of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of quiescence or non-quiescence of the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of quiescence or non-quiescence of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of detachment or non-detachment of the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of detachment or non-detachment of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The detachment or non-detachment of the fruit of stream-entry, and the detachment or non-detachment of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name of detachment or non-detachment of the fruit of stream-entry, or the name of detachment or non-detachment of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of detachment or non-detachment of the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of detachment or non-detachment of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! The conditioned or unconditioned nature of the fruit of stream-entry, and the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name of the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the fruit of stream-entry, or the name of the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of the conditioned or unconditioned nature of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of being with outflows or without outflows in relation to the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of being with outflows or without outflows in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Being with outflows or without outflows in relation to the fruit of stream-entry, and being with outflows or without outflows in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name of being with outflows or without outflows in relation to the fruit of stream-entry, or the name of being with outflows or without outflows in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name of being with outflows or without outflows in relation to the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name of being with outflows or without outflows in relation to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name of arising or cessation of the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name of arising or cessation of the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the fruit of stream-entry arises or ceases, or whether the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship arises or ceases, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the arising or cessation of the fruit of stream-entry, or a name for the arising or cessation of the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the arising or cessation of the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for the arising or cessation of the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name for what is wholesome or unwholesome in the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for what is wholesome or unwholesome in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether wholesome or unwholesome in the fruit of stream-entry, or wholesome or unwholesome in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for what is wholesome or unwholesome in the fruit of stream-entry, or a name for what is wholesome or unwholesome in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for what is wholesome or unwholesome in the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for what is wholesome or unwholesome in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name for what is blameworthy or blameless in the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for what is blameworthy or blameless in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether blameworthy or blameless in the fruit of stream-entry, or blameworthy or blameless in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for what is blameworthy or blameless in the fruit of stream-entry, or a name for what is blameworthy or blameless in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for what is blameworthy or blameless in the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for what is blameworthy or blameless in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name for what is accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions in the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for what is accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions in the fruit of stream-entry, or accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for what is accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions in the fruit of stream-entry, or a name for what is accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for what is accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions in the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for what is accompanied by afflictions or free from afflictions in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name for what is worldly or supramundane in the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for what is worldly or supramundane in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether worldly or supramundane in the fruit of stream-entry, or worldly or supramundane in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for what is worldly or supramundane in the fruit of stream-entry, or a name for what is worldly or supramundane in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for what is worldly or supramundane in the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for what is worldly or supramundane in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name for what is defiled or purified in the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for what is defiled or purified in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether defiled or purified in the fruit of stream-entry, or defiled or purified in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for what is defiled or purified in the fruit of stream-entry, or a name for what is defiled or purified in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for what is defiled or purified in the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for what is defiled or purified in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name for what belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana in the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for what belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana in the fruit of stream-entry, or belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for what belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana in the fruit of stream-entry, or a name for what belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for what belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana in the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for what belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name for what is internal, external, or in between in the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for what is internal, external, or in between in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether internal, external, or in between in the fruit of stream-entry, or internal, external, or in between in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship, ultimately none of these can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for what is internal, external, or in between in the fruit of stream-entry, or a name for what is internal, external, or in between in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for what is internal, external, or in between in the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name for what is internal, external, or in between in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you further say that the very name for what is apprehensible or inapprehensible in the fruit of stream-entry is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name for what is apprehensible or inapprehensible in the fruit of once-returning, non-returning, or arhatship is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the fruit of stream-entry is attainable or unattainable; whether the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship are attainable or unattainable—all these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘attainable’ and ‘unattainable’ with respect to the fruit of stream-entry, or the names ‘attainable’ and ‘unattainable’ with respect to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘attainable’ or ‘unattainable’ with respect to the fruit of stream-entry is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘attainable’ or ‘unattainable’ with respect to the fruits of once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! The fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha’! Since this name does not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The permanence or impermanence of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The pleasantness or painfulness of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘pleasant’ and ‘painful’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The self or non-self of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘self’ and ‘non-self’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The purity or impurity of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The emptiness or non-emptiness of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The possession or absence of characteristics in the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘with characteristics’ and ‘without characteristics’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The presence or absence of aspiration in the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘with aspiration’ and ‘without aspiration’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The quiescence or non-quiescence of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The separation or non-separation of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘separated’ and ‘not separated’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The conditioned or unconditioned nature of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The presence or absence of outflows in the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The arising or ceasing of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘arising’ and ‘ceasing’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, in view of what meaning do you further say that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ with respect to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is with fault or without fault in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘with fault’ and ‘without fault’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with fault’ or ‘without fault’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is with afflictions or without afflictions in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is mundane or supramundane in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is defiled or purified in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ and ‘purified’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is internal, external, or between the two in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is apprehensible or inapprehensible in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘apprehensible’ and ‘inapprehensible’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in the attainment of a Pratyekabuddha is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! In view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘all the practices of a great bodhisattva’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti addressed the Buddha: “Blessed One! All the practices of a great bodhisattva are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the name ‘all the practices of a great bodhisattva’! Since this name does not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘all the practices of a great bodhisattva’ is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is permanent or impermanent with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is pleasant or painful with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘pleasant’ and ‘painful’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is self or non-self with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘self’ and ‘non-self’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is pure or impure with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is empty or not empty with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! That which is with characteristics or without characteristics with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘with characteristics’ and ‘without characteristics’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, in view of what meaning do you say that the very name ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ with respect to all the practices of a great bodhisattva is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being with aspiration and being without aspiration of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘with aspiration’ and ‘without aspiration’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being quiescent and being not quiescent of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being detached and being not detached of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘detached’ and ‘not detached’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being conditioned and being unconditioned of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being with outflows and being without outflows of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the arising and ceasing of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘arising’ and ‘ceasing’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being wholesome and being unwholesome of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being culpable and being blameless of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being with afflictions and being without afflictions of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being mundane and being supramundane of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being defiled and being pure of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ and ‘pure’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the belonging to samsara and belonging to nirvana of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being internal, being external, and being between the two of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very names ‘obtainable’ or ‘unobtainable’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are not the great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the being obtainable and being unobtainable of all the practices of great bodhisattvas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names ‘obtainable’ and ‘unobtainable’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names ‘obtainable’ or ‘unobtainable’ pertaining to all the practices of great bodhisattvas are the great bodhisattva?”

Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you contemplate when you say that the very name of the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

The Venerable Subhuti replied: Blessed One! Even the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the name of the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since this name does not exist, how could it be said that the very name of the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Permanence and impermanence in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names “permanent” and “impermanent” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “permanent” or “impermanent” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “bliss” or “suffering” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Bliss and suffering in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names “bliss” and “suffering” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “bliss” or “suffering” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “self” or “non-self” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Self and non-self in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names “self” and “non-self” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “self” or “non-self” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “pure” or “impure” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Purity and impurity in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names “pure” and “impure” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “pure” or “impure” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Emptiness and non-emptiness in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names “empty” and “not empty” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “empty” or “not empty” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “marked” or “markless” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Being marked and being markless in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names “marked” and “markless” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “marked” or “markless” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Having aspiration and having no aspiration in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names “with aspiration” and “without aspiration” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Quiescence and non-quiescence in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names “quiescent” and “not quiescent” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “detached” or “not detached” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Detachment and non-detachment in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature is nonexistent; how much less could there be the names “detached” and “not detached” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “detached” or “not detached” in relation to the Buddhas’ unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a great bodhisattva?

Fascicle 35

End