大般若波羅蜜多經

17

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “pure” or “impure” in regard to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “pure” or “impure” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is pure or impure, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are pure or impure, ultimately they cannot even be apprehended, because their intrinsic nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “pure” and “impure” in regard to the earth dhatu, or the designations “pure” and “impure” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “pure” or “impure” in regard to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation “pure” or “impure” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” in regard to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is empty or not empty, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are empty or not empty, ultimately they cannot even be apprehended, because their intrinsic nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “empty” and “not empty” in regard to the earth dhatu, or the designations “empty” and “not empty” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” in regard to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation “empty” or “not empty” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with characteristics” or “without characteristics” in regard to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “with characteristics” or “without characteristics” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu has characteristics or is without characteristics, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus have characteristics or are without characteristics, ultimately they cannot even be apprehended, because their intrinsic nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with characteristics” and “without characteristics” in regard to the earth dhatu, or the designations “with characteristics” and “without characteristics” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with characteristics” or “without characteristics” in regard to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation “with characteristics” or “without characteristics” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in regard to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is with aspiration or without aspiration, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are with aspiration or without aspiration, ultimately they cannot even be apprehended, because their intrinsic nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with aspiration” and “without aspiration” in regard to the earth dhatu, or the designations “with aspiration” and “without aspiration” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in regard to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation “with aspiration” or “without aspiration” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in regard to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is quiescent or not quiescent, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately they cannot even be apprehended, because their intrinsic nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “quiescent” and “not quiescent” in regard to the earth dhatu, or the designations “quiescent” and “not quiescent” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in regard to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation “quiescent” or “not quiescent” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “separate” or “not separate” in regard to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “separate” or “not separate” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is separate or not separate, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are separate or not separate, ultimately they cannot even be apprehended, because their intrinsic nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “separate” and “not separate” in regard to the earth dhatu, or the designations “separate” and “not separate” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “separate” or “not separate” in regard to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation “separate” or “not separate” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in regard to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is conditioned or unconditioned, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately they cannot even be apprehended, because their intrinsic nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” in regard to the earth dhatu, or the designations “conditioned” and “unconditioned” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in regard to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation “conditioned” or “unconditioned” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in regard to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is with outflows or without outflows, and whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are with outflows or without outflows, ultimately they cannot even be apprehended, because their intrinsic nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” in regard to the earth dhatu, or the designations “with outflows” and “without outflows” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in regard to the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva; or that the very designation “with outflows” or “without outflows” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is a great bodhisattva?

Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” in regard to the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva; that the very designation “arising” or “cessation” in regard to the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus is not a great bodhisattva?

“Blessed One! Whether the arising and cessation of the earth dhatu, or the arising and cessation of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ of the earth dhatu, or the designations ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ of the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the wholesome or unwholesome nature of the earth dhatu, or the wholesome or unwholesome nature of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ of the earth dhatu, or the designations ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the culpable or blameless nature of the earth dhatu, or the culpable or blameless nature of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ of the earth dhatu, or the designations ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ of the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the state of having afflictions or being without afflictions in the earth dhatu, or the state of having afflictions or being without afflictions in the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ of the earth dhatu, or the designations ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ of the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the mundane or supramundane nature of the earth dhatu, or the mundane or supramundane nature of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ of the earth dhatu, or the designations ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ of the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the defiled or pure nature of the earth dhatu, or the defiled or pure nature of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘defiled’ and ‘pure’ of the earth dhatu, or the designations ‘defiled’ and ‘pure’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ of the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘defiled’ or ‘pure’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether that which belongs to samsara or that which belongs to nirvana in the earth dhatu, or that which belongs to samsara or that which belongs to nirvana in the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the earth dhatu, or the designations ‘belonging to samsara’ and ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ of the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the internal, external, or intermediate aspect of the earth dhatu, or the internal, external, or intermediate aspect of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the designations ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ of the earth dhatu, or the designations ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ and ‘between the two’ of the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus!

Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the very designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ of the earth dhatu is a great bodhisattva, or that the very designation ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you discern that leads you to say that the very designation ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ of the earth dhatu is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very designation ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ of the water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness dhatu is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the earth dhatu is apprehensible or inapprehensible; whether the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are apprehensible or inapprehensible—all these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘the earth dhatu is apprehensible or inapprehensible’ and ‘the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are apprehensible or inapprehensible’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘the earth dhatu is apprehensible or inapprehensible’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘the water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness dhatus are apprehensible or inapprehensible’ is a great bodhisattva?

“Furthermore, Subhuti, what meaning do you discern when you say that the very name ‘causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

The Venerable Subhuti replied, “Blessed One! Whether the causal condition, or the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition—all these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘causal condition’ or the names ‘immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘permanent or impermanent causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘permanent or impermanent immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is permanent or impermanent, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition are permanent or impermanent—all these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘permanent or impermanent causal condition’ or the names ‘permanent or impermanent immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘permanent or impermanent causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘permanent or impermanent immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘pleasant or painful causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘pleasant or painful immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is pleasant or painful, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition are pleasant or painful—all these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘pleasant or painful causal condition’ or the names ‘pleasant or painful immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pleasant or painful causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘pleasant or painful immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘self or non-self of the causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘self or non-self of the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether there is self or non-self in the causal condition, or whether there is self or non-self in the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition—all these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘self or non-self of the causal condition’ or the names ‘self or non-self of the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘self or non-self of the causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘self or non-self of the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘pure or impure causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘pure or impure immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is pure or impure, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition are pure or impure—all these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘pure or impure causal condition’ or the names ‘pure or impure immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pure or impure causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘pure or impure immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘empty or not empty causal condition’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘empty or not empty immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is empty or not empty, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition are empty or not empty—all these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘empty or not empty causal condition’ or the names ‘empty or not empty immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘empty or not empty causal condition’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘empty or not empty immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘causal condition possessing characteristics or without characteristics’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition possessing characteristics or without characteristics’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition possesses characteristics or is without characteristics, or whether the immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition possess characteristics or are without characteristics—all these ultimately cannot be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the name ‘causal condition possessing characteristics or without characteristics’ or the names ‘immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition possessing characteristics or without characteristics’!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘causal condition possessing characteristics or without characteristics’ is a great bodhisattva, or that the very names ‘immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition possessing characteristics or without characteristics’ are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti, what meaning do you further discern when you say that the very name ‘causal condition possessing aspiration or without aspiration’ is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very names ‘immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and dominant condition possessing aspiration or without aspiration’ are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is accompanied by aspiration or free from aspiration, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are accompanied by aspiration or free from aspiration, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘accompanied by aspiration’ and ‘free from aspiration’ in reference to the causal condition, or the names ‘accompanied by aspiration’ and ‘free from aspiration’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘accompanied by aspiration’ or ‘free from aspiration’ in reference to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘accompanied by aspiration’ or ‘free from aspiration’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that causes you to say that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in reference to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is quiescent or not quiescent, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are quiescent or not quiescent, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ in reference to the causal condition, or the names ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in reference to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that causes you to say that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in reference to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is separated or not separated, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are separated or not separated, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘separated’ and ‘not separated’ in reference to the causal condition, or the names ‘separated’ and ‘not separated’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in reference to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that causes you to say that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in reference to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is conditioned or unconditioned, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are conditioned or unconditioned, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ in reference to the causal condition, or the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in reference to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that causes you to say that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in reference to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is with outflows or without outflows, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are with outflows or without outflows, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ in reference to the causal condition, or the names ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in reference to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that causes you to say that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in reference to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether there is arising or cessation in reference to the causal condition, or whether there is arising or cessation in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ in reference to the causal condition, or the names ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in reference to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that causes you to say that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in reference to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is wholesome or unwholesome, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are wholesome or unwholesome, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ in reference to the causal condition, or the names ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in reference to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that causes you to say that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in reference to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is culpable or blameless, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are culpable or blameless, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature is nonexistent. How much less could there be the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ in reference to the causal condition, or the names ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in reference to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further perceive that causes you to say that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in reference to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ in reference to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is afflicted or unafflicted, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are afflicted or unafflicted, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘afflicted’ or ‘unafflicted’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is mundane or supramundane, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are mundane or supramundane, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition 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 causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is defiled or purified, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are defiled or purified, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition 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 causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition belongs to samsara or to nirvana, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition belong to samsara or to nirvana, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

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 causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘belonging to samsara’ or ‘belonging to nirvana’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition 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 causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is internal, external, or between the two, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are internal, external, or between the two, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

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 causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ or ‘between the two’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition 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 causal condition is not a great bodhisattva, and that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Whether the causal condition is apprehensible or inapprehensible, or whether the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition are apprehensible or inapprehensible, ultimately none can be apprehended, because their nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the causal condition, or the names ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition!

Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the causal condition is a great bodhisattva, or that the very name ‘apprehensible’ or ‘inapprehensible’ in relation to the immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition is a great bodhisattva?”

“Furthermore, Subhuti! What meaning do you contemplate when you say that the very name ‘a dharma arisen from conditions’ is not a great bodhisattva?”

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

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘permanent’ or ‘impermanent’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions is not a great bodhisattva?”

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

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The pleasure or pain of a dharma arisen from conditions ultimately cannot be apprehended, because its nature does not exist. How much less could there be the names ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very name ‘pleasant’ or ‘painful’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions is a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further contemplate when you say that the very name ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ in relation to a dharma arisen from conditions is not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The self and non-self of dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘self’ and ‘non-self’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘self’ or ‘non-self’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The purity and impurity of dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The emptiness and non-emptiness of dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘empty’ and ‘not empty’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘empty’ or ‘not empty’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The possession and absence of characteristics in dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘with characteristics’ and ‘without characteristics’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘with characteristics’ or ‘without characteristics’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The presence and absence of aspiration in dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘with aspiration’ and ‘without aspiration’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘with aspiration’ or ‘without aspiration’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The quiescence and non-quiescence of dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘quiescent’ and ‘not quiescent’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘quiescent’ or ‘not quiescent’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The separation and non-separation of dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘separated’ and ‘not separated’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘separated’ or ‘not separated’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The conditioned and unconditioned nature of dharmas arisen through conditions is ultimately itself ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘conditioned’ or ‘unconditioned’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The presence and absence of outflows in dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘with outflows’ and ‘without outflows’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘with outflows’ or ‘without outflows’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The arising and cessation of dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘arising’ and ‘cessation’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘arising’ or ‘cessation’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The wholesomeness and unwholesomeness of dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘wholesome’ and ‘unwholesome’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘wholesome’ or ‘unwholesome’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The culpability and blamelessness of dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘culpable’ and ‘blameless’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘culpable’ or ‘blameless’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The presence and absence of afflictions in dharmas arisen through conditions are ultimately themselves ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘with afflictions’ and ‘without afflictions’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘with afflictions’ or ‘without afflictions’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! The mundane and supramundane nature of dharmas arisen through conditions is ultimately itself ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be the designations ‘mundane’ and ‘supramundane’ of dharmas arisen through conditions! Since these designations do not exist, how could it be said that the designation ‘mundane’ or ‘supramundane’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! Again, what meaning do you contemplate when you say that the designation ‘defiled’ or ‘purified’ of dharmas arisen through conditions is itself not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even the defilement and purification of dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be names for the defilement and purification of dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names for the defilement or purification of dependently arisen dharmas are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very names for that which pertains to samsara or pertains to nirvana among dependently arisen dharmas are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even that which pertains to samsara and that which pertains to nirvana among dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately ungraspable, because their nature does not exist; how much less could there be names for that which pertains to samsara and that which pertains to nirvana among dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names for that which pertains to samsara or pertains to nirvana among dependently arisen dharmas are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very names for what is internal, external, or between the two among dependently arisen dharmas are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even what is internal, external, and between the two among dependently arisen dharmas is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be names for what is internal, external, and between the two among dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names for what is internal, external, or between the two among dependently arisen dharmas are a great bodhisattva?”

“Subhuti! What meaning do you further discern that you say the very names for what is apprehensible or inapprehensible among dependently arisen dharmas are not a great bodhisattva?”

“Blessed One! Even what is apprehensible and inapprehensible among dependently arisen dharmas is ultimately ungraspable, because its nature does not exist; how much less could there be names for what is apprehensible and inapprehensible among dependently arisen dharmas! Since these names do not exist, how could it be said that the very names for what is apprehensible or inapprehensible among dependently arisen dharmas are a great bodhisattva?”

Scroll 27

End