大般若波羅蜜多經

15

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as conditioned or unconditioned is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as conditioned or unconditioned is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the eye dhatu is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as conditioned or unconditioned, and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as conditioned or unconditioned! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as conditioned or unconditioned is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as conditioned or unconditioned is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as with outflows or without outflows is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as with outflows or without outflows is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the eye dhatu is with outflows or without outflows, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are with outflows or without outflows, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as with outflows or without outflows, and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as with outflows or without outflows! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as with outflows or without outflows is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as with outflows or without outflows is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as arising or ceasing is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as arising or ceasing is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the eye dhatu arises or ceases, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus arise or cease, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as arising or ceasing, and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as arising or ceasing! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as arising or ceasing is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as arising or ceasing is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as wholesome or unwholesome is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as wholesome or unwholesome is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the eye dhatu is wholesome or unwholesome, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as wholesome or unwholesome, and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as wholesome or unwholesome! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as wholesome or unwholesome is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as wholesome or unwholesome is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as culpable or blameless is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as culpable or blameless is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the eye dhatu is culpable or blameless, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are culpable or blameless, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as culpable or blameless, and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as culpable or blameless! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as culpable or blameless is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as culpable or blameless is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as afflicted or unafflicted is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as afflicted or unafflicted is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the eye dhatu is afflicted or unafflicted, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are afflicted or unafflicted, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as afflicted or unafflicted, and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as afflicted or unafflicted! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as afflicted or unafflicted is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as afflicted or unafflicted is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as worldly or supramundane is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as worldly or supramundane is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the eye dhatu is worldly or supramundane, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are worldly or supramundane, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as worldly or supramundane, and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as worldly or supramundane! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as worldly or supramundane is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as worldly or supramundane is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as defiled or purified is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as defiled or purified is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the eye dhatu is defiled or purified, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus are defiled or purified, ultimately they cannot be apprehended at all, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be designations of the eye dhatu as defiled or purified, and designations of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as defiled or purified! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation of the eye dhatu as defiled or purified is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as defiled or purified is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation of the eye dhatu as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana is not a great bodhisattva; and that the very designation of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind dhatus as belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the eye element belongs to samsara or to nirvana, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements belong to samsara or to nirvana, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the eye element as belonging to samsara or to nirvana, or names for the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements as belonging to samsara or to nirvana! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the eye element as belonging to samsara or to nirvana is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements as belonging to samsara or to nirvana are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name for the eye element as internal, external, or between the two is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names for the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements as internal, external, or between the two are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye element is internal, external, or between the two, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the eye element as internal, external, or between the two, or names for the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements as internal, external, or between the two! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the eye element as internal, external, or between the two is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements as internal, external, or between the two are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name for the eye element as apprehensible or inapprehensible is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names for the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements as apprehensible or inapprehensible are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye element is apprehensible or inapprehensible, and whether the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the eye element as apprehensible or inapprehensible, or names for the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements as apprehensible or inapprehensible! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the eye element as apprehensible or inapprehensible is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind elements as apprehensible or inapprehensible are a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you contemplate when you say that the very name ‘form element’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti said, “Blessed One! Whether it is the form element or the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name ‘form element’ or names ‘sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘form element’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name for the form element as permanent or impermanent is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as permanent or impermanent are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form element is permanent or impermanent, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements are permanent or impermanent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the form element as permanent or impermanent, or names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as permanent or impermanent! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the form element as permanent or impermanent is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as permanent or impermanent are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name for the form element as pleasurable or painful is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as pleasurable or painful are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form element is pleasurable or painful, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements are pleasurable or painful, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the form element as pleasurable or painful, or names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as pleasurable or painful! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the form element as pleasurable or painful is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as pleasurable or painful are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name for the form element as self or non-self is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as self or non-self are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form element is self or non-self, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements are self or non-self, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the form element as self or non-self, or names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as self or non-self! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the form element as self or non-self is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as self or non-self are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name for the form element as pure or impure is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as pure or impure are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form element is pure or impure, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements are pure or impure, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the form element as pure or impure, or names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as pure or impure! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the form element as pure or impure is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as pure or impure are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name for the form element as empty or nonempty is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as empty or nonempty are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form element is empty or nonempty, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements are empty or nonempty, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be a name for the form element as empty or nonempty, or names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as empty or nonempty! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name for the form element as empty or nonempty is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as empty or nonempty are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name for the form element as possessing characteristics or being signless is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names for the sound, odor, taste, tangible object, and dharma elements as possessing characteristics or being signless are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is characterized or uncharacterized, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are characterized or uncharacterized, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘characterized’ and ‘uncharacterized’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘characterized’ and ‘uncharacterized’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘characterized’ or ‘uncharacterized’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘characterized’ or ‘uncharacterized’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘subject to aspiration’ or ‘free from aspiration’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘subject to aspiration’ or ‘free from aspiration’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is subject to aspiration or free from aspiration, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are subject to aspiration or free from aspiration, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘subject to aspiration’ and ‘free from aspiration’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘subject to aspiration’ and ‘free from aspiration’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘subject to aspiration’ or ‘free from aspiration’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘subject to aspiration’ or ‘free from aspiration’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is detached or not detached, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are detached or not detached, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘detached’ and ‘not detached’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘detached’ and ‘not detached’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘detached’ or ‘not detached’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is with outflows or without outflows, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are with outflows or without outflows, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu arises or ceases, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus arise or cease, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘arising’ and ‘ceasing’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘arising’ and ‘ceasing’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘ceasing’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is wholesome or unwholesome, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is culpable or blameless, and whether the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus are culpable or blameless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you say that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, tangible-object, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is afflicted or unafflicted, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus are afflicted or unafflicted, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is worldly or supramundane, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus are worldly or supramundane, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘worldly’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is defiled or purified, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus are defiled or purified, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu belongs to samsara or belongs to nirvana, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus belong to samsara or belong to nirvana, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is internal, external, or between the two, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the form dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the form dhatu is apprehensible or inapprehensible, and whether the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the form dhatu, or the names ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the form dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental-object dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you contemplate when you say that the very name ‘eye-consciousness dhatu’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti said, “Blessed One! Whether it is the eye-consciousness dhatu or the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘eye-consciousness dhatu’ or the names ‘ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘eye-consciousness dhatu’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness dhatu is permanent or impermanent, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus are permanent or impermanent, ultimately they cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

Venerable Blessed One! Whether pleasure or suffering pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or pleasure or suffering pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “pleasure” and “suffering” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names “pleasure” and “suffering” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “pleasure” or “suffering” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “pleasure” or “suffering” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name “self” or “non-self” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “self” or “non-self” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?

Venerable Blessed One! Whether self or non-self pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or self or non-self pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “self” and “non-self” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names “self” and “non-self” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “self” or “non-self” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “self” or “non-self” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name “purity” or “impurity” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “purity” or “impurity” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?

Venerable Blessed One! Whether purity or impurity pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or purity or impurity pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “purity” and “impurity” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names “purity” and “impurity” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “purity” or “impurity” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “purity” or “impurity” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name “empty” or “not empty” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “empty” or “not empty” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?

Venerable Blessed One! Whether empty or not empty pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or empty or not empty pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “empty” and “not empty” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names “empty” and “not empty” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “empty” or “not empty” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “empty” or “not empty” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name “marked” or “signless” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “marked” or “signless” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?

Venerable Blessed One! Whether marked or signless pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or marked or signless pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “marked” and “signless” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names “marked” and “signless” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “marked” or “signless” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “marked” or “signless” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name “wishful” or “wishless” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “wishful” or “wishless” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?

Venerable Blessed One! Whether wishful or wishless pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or wishful or wishless pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “wishful” and “wishless” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names “wishful” and “wishless” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “wishful” or “wishless” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “wishful” or “wishless” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?

Venerable Blessed One! Whether quiescent or not quiescent pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or quiescent or not quiescent pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “quiescent” and “not quiescent” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names “quiescent” and “not quiescent” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “quiescent” or “not quiescent” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name “separated” or “not separated” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “separated” or “not separated” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?

Venerable Blessed One! Whether separated or not separated pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or separated or not separated pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “separated” and “not separated” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names “separated” and “not separated” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “separated” or “not separated” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “separated” or “not separated” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! With what meaning in view do you further say that the very name “conditioned” or “unconditioned” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “conditioned” or “unconditioned” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not the great bodhisattva?

Venerable Blessed One! Whether conditioned or unconditioned pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or conditioned or unconditioned pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus, ultimately cannot be apprehended because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the names “conditioned” and “unconditioned” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the names “conditioned” and “unconditioned” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “conditioned” or “unconditioned” pertaining to the eye-consciousness dhatu is the great bodhisattva, or that the very name “conditioned” or “unconditioned” pertaining to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is the great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “with outflows” or “without outflows” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very name “with outflows” or “without outflows” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether with outflows or without outflows, the eye-consciousness dhatu; whether with outflows or without outflows, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names “with outflows” and “without outflows” of the eye-consciousness dhatu and the names “with outflows” and “without outflows” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “with outflows” or “without outflows” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva; that the very name “with outflows” or “without outflows” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “arising” or “ceasing” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very name “arising” or “ceasing” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether arising or ceasing, the eye-consciousness dhatu; whether arising or ceasing, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names “arising” and “ceasing” of the eye-consciousness dhatu and the names “arising” and “ceasing” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “arising” or “ceasing” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva; that the very name “arising” or “ceasing” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very name “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether wholesome or unwholesome, the eye-consciousness dhatu; whether wholesome or unwholesome, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names “wholesome” and “unwholesome” of the eye-consciousness dhatu and the names “wholesome” and “unwholesome” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva; that the very name “wholesome” or “unwholesome” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “culpable” or “blameless” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very name “culpable” or “blameless” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether culpable or blameless, the eye-consciousness dhatu; whether culpable or blameless, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names “culpable” and “blameless” of the eye-consciousness dhatu and the names “culpable” and “blameless” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “culpable” or “blameless” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva; that the very name “culpable” or “blameless” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very name “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether with afflictions or without afflictions, the eye-consciousness dhatu; whether with afflictions or without afflictions, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” of the eye-consciousness dhatu and the names “with afflictions” and “without afflictions” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva; that the very name “with afflictions” or “without afflictions” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “mundane” or “supramundane” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very name “mundane” or “supramundane” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether mundane or supramundane, the eye-consciousness dhatu; whether mundane or supramundane, ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names “mundane” and “supramundane” of the eye-consciousness dhatu and the names “mundane” and “supramundane” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “mundane” or “supramundane” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva; that the very name “mundane” or “supramundane” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “defiled” or “purified” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very name “defiled” or “purified” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether defiled or purified, the eye-consciousness dhatu; whether defiled or purified, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names “defiled” and “purified” of the eye-consciousness dhatu and the names “defiled” and “purified” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “defiled” or “purified” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva; that the very name “defiled” or “purified” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very name “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, the eye-consciousness dhatu; whether belonging to samsara or belonging to nirvana, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names “belonging to samsara” and “belonging to nirvana” of the eye-consciousness dhatu and the names “belonging to samsara” and “belonging to nirvana” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva; that the very name “belonging to samsara” or “belonging to nirvana” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name “internal,” “external,” or “between the two” of the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very name “internal,” “external,” or “between the two” of the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, or mind-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether internal, external, or between the two, the eye-consciousness dhatu; and whether internal, external, or between the two, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ with respect to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ with respect to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that precisely the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ with respect to the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that precisely the designation ‘internal, external, or between the two’ with respect to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that precisely the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the eye-consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that precisely the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the eye-consciousness dhatu is apprehensible or inapprehensible, and whether the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the eye-consciousness dhatu, or the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that precisely the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the eye-consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that precisely the designation ‘apprehensible or inapprehensible’ with respect to the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?”

Fascicle 25

End