大般若波羅蜜多經

XXXVI. CHAPTER ON PRIOR AND

NOT PRIOR TO CHARACTERISTICS

03

The Venerable Subhuti again addressed the Buddha:

“Blessed One! How should a great bodhisattva practice prajnaparamita?”

The Buddha said: “Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice form, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice form as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice form as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice form as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice form as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of form itself has no existence; how much less could there be form that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness itself has no existence; how much less could there be feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the eye ayatana, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind ayatana, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the eye ayatana as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind ayatana as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the eye ayatana as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind ayatana as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the eye ayatana as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind ayatana as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the eye ayatana as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind ayatana as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the eye ayatana itself has no existence; how much less could there be an eye ayatana that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind ayatanas itself has no existence; how much less could there be ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind ayatanas that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the form ayatana, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, or dharma ayatana, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the form ayatana as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, or dharma ayatana as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the form ayatana as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, or dharma ayatana as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the form ayatana as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, or dharma ayatana as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the form ayatana as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, or dharma ayatana as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the form ayatana itself has no existence; how much less could there be a form ayatana that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and dharma ayatanas itself has no existence; how much less could there be sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, or dharma ayatanas that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the eye dhatu, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the form dhatu, the eye-consciousness dhatu, eye-contact, or the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the eye dhatu as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the form dhatu through the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the eye dhatu as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the form dhatu through the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the eye dhatu as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the form dhatu through the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the eye dhatu as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the form dhatu through the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the eye dhatu itself has no existence; how much less could there be an eye dhatu that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the form dhatu through the intrinsic nature of the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition itself has no existence; how much less could there be the form dhatu through the feelings arising with eye-contact as condition that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the ear dhatu, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound dhatu, the ear-consciousness dhatu, ear-contact, or the feelings arising with ear-contact as condition, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the ear dhatu as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound dhatu through the feelings arising with ear-contact as condition as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the ear dhatu as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound dhatu through the feelings arising with ear-contact as condition as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the ear dhatu as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound dhatu through the feelings arising with ear-contact as condition as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the ear dhatu as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the sound dhatu through the feelings arising with ear-contact as condition as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the ear dhatu itself has no existence; how much less could there be an ear dhatu that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the sound dhatu through the intrinsic nature of the feelings arising with ear-contact as condition itself has no existence; how much less could there be the sound dhatu through the feelings arising with ear-contact as condition that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the nose dhatu, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the odor dhatu, the nose-consciousness dhatu, nose-contact, or the feelings arising with nose-contact as condition, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the nose dhatu as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the odor dhatu through the feelings arising with nose-contact as condition as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the nose dhatu as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the odor dhatu through the feelings arising with nose-contact as condition as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the nose dhatu as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the odor dhatu through the feelings arising with nose-contact as condition as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the nose dhatu as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the odor dhatu through the feelings arising with nose-contact as condition as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the nose dhatu itself has no existence; how much less could there be a nose dhatu that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the odor dhatu through the intrinsic nature of the feelings arising with nose-contact as condition itself has no existence; how much less could there be the odor dhatu through the feelings arising with nose-contact as condition that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the tongue dhatu, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the taste dhatu, the tongue-consciousness dhatu, tongue-contact, or the feelings arising with tongue-contact as condition, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the tongue dhatu as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the taste dhatu through the feelings arising with tongue-contact as condition as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the tongue dhatu as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the taste dhatu through the feelings arising with tongue-contact as condition as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the tongue dhatu as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the taste dhatu through the feelings arising with tongue-contact as condition as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the tongue dhatu as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the taste dhatu through the feelings arising with tongue-contact as condition as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the tongue dhatu itself has no existence; how much less could there be a tongue dhatu that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the taste dhatu through the intrinsic nature of the feelings arising with tongue-contact as condition itself has no existence; how much less could there be the taste dhatu through the feelings arising with tongue-contact as condition that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the body dhatu, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the tangible-object dhatu, the body-consciousness dhatu, body-contact, or the feelings arising with body-contact as condition, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the body dhatu as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the tangible-object dhatu through the feelings arising with body-contact as condition as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the body dhatu as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the tangible-object dhatu through the feelings arising with body-contact as condition as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the body dhatu as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the tangible-object dhatu through the feelings arising with body-contact as condition as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the body dhatu as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the tangible-object dhatu through the feelings arising with body-contact as condition as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the body dhatu itself has no existence; how much less could there be a body dhatu that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the tangible-object dhatu through the intrinsic nature of the feelings arising with body-contact as condition itself has no existence; how much less could there be the tangible-object dhatu through the feelings arising with body-contact as condition that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the mind dhatu, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu, the mind-consciousness dhatu, mind-contact, or the feelings arising with mind-contact as condition, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the mind dhatu as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu through the feelings arising with mind-contact as condition as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the mind dhatu as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu through the feelings arising with mind-contact as condition as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the mind dhatu as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu through the feelings arising with mind-contact as condition as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the mind dhatu as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu through the feelings arising with mind-contact as condition as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the mind dhatu itself has no existence; how much less could there be a mind dhatu that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the dharma dhatu through the intrinsic nature of the feelings arising with mind-contact as condition itself has no existence; how much less could there be the dharma dhatu through the feelings arising with mind-contact as condition that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the earth dhatu, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the earth dhatu as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the earth dhatu as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the earth dhatu as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the earth dhatu as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the earth dhatu itself has no existence; how much less could there be an earth dhatu that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus itself has no existence; how much less could there be water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatus that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice ignorance, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice formations, consciousness, name-and-form, the six ayatanas, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, existence, birth, aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, or distress, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice ignorance as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice formations through aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and distress as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice ignorance as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice formations through aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and distress as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice ignorance as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice formations through aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and distress as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice ignorance as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice formations through aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and distress as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of ignorance itself has no existence; how much less could there be ignorance that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of formations through the intrinsic nature of aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and distress itself has no existence; how much less could there be formations through aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and distress that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the perfection of generosity, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the perfections of pure morality, patience, diligence, meditation, or prajnaparamita, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the perfection of generosity as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the perfection of pure morality through prajnaparamita as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the perfection of generosity as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the perfection of pure morality through prajnaparamita as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the perfection of generosity as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the perfection of pure morality through prajnaparamita as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the perfection of generosity as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the perfection of pure morality through prajnaparamita as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the perfection of generosity itself has no existence; how much less could there be a perfection of generosity that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the perfection of pure morality through the intrinsic nature of prajnaparamita itself has no existence; how much less could there be the perfection of pure morality through prajnaparamita that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice internal emptiness, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice external emptiness, internal-and-external emptiness, the emptiness of emptiness, great emptiness, the emptiness of ultimate meaning, the emptiness of the conditioned, the emptiness of the unconditioned, ultimate emptiness, boundless emptiness, the emptiness of dispersion, the emptiness of non-change, the emptiness of intrinsic nature, the emptiness of individual characteristics, the emptiness of common characteristics, the emptiness of all dharmas, the emptiness of the ungraspable, the emptiness of nonexistence, the emptiness of self-nature, or the emptiness of the self-nature of nonexistence,

that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice internal emptiness as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice external emptiness through the emptiness of the self-nature of nonexistence as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice internal emptiness as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice external emptiness through the emptiness of the self-nature of nonexistence as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice internal emptiness as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice external emptiness through the emptiness of the self-nature of nonexistence as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice internal emptiness as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice external emptiness through the emptiness of the self-nature of nonexistence as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

Why is this? Subhuti! The intrinsic nature of internal emptiness itself has no existence; how much less could there be internal emptiness that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

The intrinsic nature of external emptiness through the intrinsic nature of the emptiness of the self-nature of nonexistence itself has no existence; how much less could there be external emptiness through the emptiness of the self-nature of nonexistence that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice suchness, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu, dharma-nature, the nature free from falsity, the unchanging nature, the nature of equality, the nature beyond arising, the certainty of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the limit of reality, the realm of space, or the inconceivable realm, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice suchness as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu through the inconceivable realm as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice suchness as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu through the inconceivable realm as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice suchness as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu through the inconceivable realm as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice suchness as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the dharma dhatu through the inconceivable realm as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

Why is this? Subhuti! The intrinsic nature of suchness itself has no existence; how much less could there be suchness that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

The intrinsic nature of the dharma dhatu through the intrinsic nature of the inconceivable realm itself has no existence; how much less could there be the dharma dhatu through the inconceivable realm that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the Noble Truth of suffering, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, or path, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the Noble Truth of suffering as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, or path as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the Noble Truth of suffering as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, or path as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the Noble Truth of suffering as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, or path as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the Noble Truth of suffering as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, or path as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the Noble Truth of suffering itself has no existence; how much less could there be a Noble Truth of suffering that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path itself has no existence; how much less could there be Noble Truths of the origin, cessation, and path that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the four meditative absorptions, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four immeasurables or the four formless concentrations, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the four meditative absorptions as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four immeasurables or four formless concentrations as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the four meditative absorptions as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four immeasurables or four formless concentrations as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the four meditative absorptions as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four immeasurables or four formless concentrations as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the four meditative absorptions as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four immeasurables or four formless concentrations as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the four meditative absorptions itself has no existence; how much less could there be four meditative absorptions that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the four immeasurables and four formless concentrations itself has no existence; how much less could there be four immeasurables or four formless concentrations that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the eight liberations, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the eight spheres of mastery, the nine successive attainments, or the ten totalities, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the eight liberations as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the eight spheres of mastery, nine successive attainments, or ten totalities as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the eight liberations as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the eight spheres of mastery, nine successive attainments, or ten totalities as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the eight liberations as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the eight spheres of mastery, nine successive attainments, or ten totalities as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the eight liberations as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the eight spheres of mastery, nine successive attainments, or ten totalities as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the eight liberations itself has no existence; how much less could there be eight liberations that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the eight spheres of mastery, nine successive attainments, and ten totalities itself has no existence; how much less could there be eight spheres of mastery, nine successive attainments, or ten totalities that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the four foundations of mindfulness, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four right efforts, four bases of spiritual power, five faculties, five powers, seven factors of awakening, or eightfold Noble Path, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the four foundations of mindfulness as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four right efforts through the eightfold Noble Path as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the four foundations of mindfulness as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four right efforts through the eightfold Noble Path as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the four foundations of mindfulness as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four right efforts through the eightfold Noble Path as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the four foundations of mindfulness as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four right efforts through the eightfold Noble Path as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the four foundations of mindfulness itself has no existence; how much less could there be four foundations of mindfulness that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the four right efforts through the intrinsic nature of the eightfold Noble Path itself has no existence; how much less could there be the four right efforts through the eightfold Noble Path that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the gateway to liberation through emptiness, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the gateways to liberation through signlessness or wishlessness, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the gateway to liberation through emptiness as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the gateways to liberation through signlessness or wishlessness as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the gateway to liberation through emptiness as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the gateways to liberation through signlessness or wishlessness as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the gateway to liberation through emptiness as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the gateways to liberation through signlessness or wishlessness as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the gateway to liberation through emptiness as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the gateways to liberation through signlessness or wishlessness as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the gateway to liberation through emptiness itself has no existence; how much less could there be a gateway to liberation through emptiness that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the gateways to liberation through signlessness and wishlessness itself has no existence; how much less could there be gateways to liberation through signlessness or wishlessness that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the ten bodhisattva grounds, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the ten bodhisattva grounds as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the ten bodhisattva grounds as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the ten bodhisattva grounds as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the ten bodhisattva grounds as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

Why is this? Subhuti! The intrinsic nature of the ten bodhisattva grounds itself has no existence; how much less could there be ten bodhisattva grounds that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the five kinds of eyes, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the six superknowledges, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the five kinds of eyes as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the six superknowledges as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the five kinds of eyes as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the six superknowledges as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the five kinds of eyes as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the six superknowledges as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the five kinds of eyes as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the six superknowledges as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the five kinds of eyes itself has no existence; how much less could there be five kinds of eyes that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the six superknowledges itself has no existence; how much less could there be six superknowledges that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the ten powers of a Buddha, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four fearlessnesses, four unobstructed understandings, great loving-kindness, great compassion, great sympathetic joy, great equanimity, or the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the ten powers of a Buddha as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four fearlessnesses through the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the ten powers of a Buddha as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four fearlessnesses through the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the ten powers of a Buddha as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four fearlessnesses through the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the ten powers of a Buddha as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the four fearlessnesses through the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the ten powers of a Buddha itself has no existence; how much less could there be ten powers of a Buddha that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the four fearlessnesses through the intrinsic nature of the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha itself has no existence; how much less could there be the four fearlessnesses through the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha that are either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

“Subhuti! When a great bodhisattva practices prajnaparamita, if he does not practice the Dharma of non-forgetfulness, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the nature of perpetual equanimity, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the Dharma of non-forgetfulness as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the nature of perpetual equanimity as either permanent or impermanent, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the Dharma of non-forgetfulness as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the nature of perpetual equanimity as either pleasant or painful, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. If he does not practice the Dharma of non-forgetfulness as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the nature of perpetual equanimity as either self or non-self, that is the practice of prajnaparamita.

If he does not practice the Dharma of non-forgetfulness as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita; if he does not practice the nature of perpetual equanimity as either pure or impure, that is the practice of prajnaparamita. Why is this? Subhuti!

The intrinsic nature of the Dharma of non-forgetfulness itself has no existence; how much less could there be a Dharma of non-forgetfulness that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure? The intrinsic nature of the nature of perpetual equanimity itself has no existence; how much less could there be a nature of perpetual equanimity that is either permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, self or non-self, pure or impure?

Fascicle 289

END