Chapter 3

3.1Then the Blessed One addressed the venerable Subhūti: “Subhūti, commencing with the perfection of wisdom, be inspired to give a Dharma discourse to bodhisattva great beings on how bodhisattva great beings will go forth in the perfection of wisdom!”

3.2Thereupon, those bodhisattva great beings, those great śrāvakas, and those gods who were present thought, “Will the venerable Subhūti reveal the perfection of wisdom to these bodhisattva great beings through the strong and mighty armor of his own wisdom and inspired eloquence, or will he reveal it through the power of the Buddha?”

3.3Then, through the power of the Buddha, the venerable Subhūti comprehended in his mind the thoughts of those bodhisattva great beings, those śrāvakas, and those gods, and said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, whatever the śrāvakas of the Blessed One say, whatever they teach, and whatever they expound, it is all through the power of the Tathāgata. None of the doctrines that the Tathāgata has taught contradict the nature of reality. It is in this way that those children of good family are training in that Dharma teaching and also actualizing such a nature of reality. Śāradvatīputra, it is just the Tathāgata who, through skillful means, [F.199.a] will teach the perfection of wisdom to bodhisattva great beings. Venerable Śāradvatīputra, this teaching of the perfection of wisdom for bodhisattva great beings is not within the capacity of any śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas.”

3.4The venerable Subhūti then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, you have spoken of ‘bodhisattvas, bodhisattvas,’ yet what is it that has the designation bodhisattva or perfection of wisdom ? Blessed Lord, I do not observe any such ‘bodhisattva’ or ‘perfection of wisdom’ at all.

3.5“Blessed Lord, since I do not observe those bodhisattva great beings, or that perfection of wisdom, or even that name ‘bodhisattva,’ which bodhisattva great beings should I teach and instruct, and in which perfection of wisdom?”

3.6The Blessed One replied to the venerable Subhūti, “Subhūti, those‍—namely, the perfection of wisdom , a bodhisattva , and the term bodhisattva ‍—are all mere names. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.7“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘being, being,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, [F.199.b] and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.8“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘self, self,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.9“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘life form, life form,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.10“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘ living being , living being ,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.11“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘ life , life ,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.12“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘ individual , individual ,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.13“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘ person , person ,’ for instance, [F.200.a] is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.14“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘one born of Manu, one born of Manu,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.15“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘a child of Manu, a child of Manu,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.16“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘agent, agent,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.17“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘instigator, instigator,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.18“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘motivator, motivator,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. [F.200.b] Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.19“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘inciter, inciter,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.20“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘experiencer, experiencer,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.21“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘instigator of an experiencer, instigator of an experiencer,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.22“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘knower, knower,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.23“Subhūti, it is like this: that name that is the designation when you say ‘viewer, viewer,’ for instance, is a name that is merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, anything that has been designated [F.201.a] neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.24“Subhūti, in the same way, the perfection of wisdom , a bodhisattva , and the term bodhisattva are all merely designated. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name or conventional term, anything that has been designated neither arises nor ceases. These names neither exist internally nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.25“Subhūti, it is like this: the term inner physical forms , for instance, is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, a designation for something neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.26“Subhūti, it is like this: the term inner feelings , for instance, is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, a designation for something neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.27“Subhūti, it is like this: the term inner perceptions , for instance, is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, a designation for something neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.28“Subhūti, it is like this: the term inner formative predispositions , for instance, is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, a designation for something neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, [F.201.b] and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.29“Subhūti, it is like this: the term inner consciousness , for instance, is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, a designation for something neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.30“Subhūti, in the same way, the perfection of wisdom , a bodhisattva , the term bodhisattva , and all those phenomena are simply mere designations for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, a designation for something neither arises nor ceases. These names do not exist internally, nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.31“Subhūti, the eyes is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the eyes‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.32“Subhūti, the ears is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the ears‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.33“Subhūti, the nose is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the nose‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.34“Subhūti, the tongue is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, [F.202.a] this designation for something‍—namely, the tongue‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.35“Subhūti, the body is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the body‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.36“Subhūti, the mental faculty is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the mental faculty ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.37“Subhūti, sights is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, sights‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.38“Subhūti, sounds is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, sounds‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.39“Subhūti, odors is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, odors‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.40“Subhūti, tastes is simply a mere designation for something. [F.202.b] Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, tastes‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.41“Subhūti, tangibles is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, tangibles‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.42“Subhūti, mental phenomena is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, mental phenomena‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.43“Subhūti, the sensory element of the eyes is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of the eyes ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.44“Subhūti, the sensory element of sights is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of sights ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.45“Subhūti, the sensory element of visual consciousness is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of visual consciousness ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, [F.203.a] and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.46“Subhūti, the sensory element of the ears is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of the ears ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.47“Subhūti, the sensory element of sounds is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of sounds ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.48“Subhūti, the sensory element of auditory consciousness is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of auditory consciousness ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.49“Subhūti, the sensory element of the nose is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of the nose ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.50“Subhūti, the sensory element of odors is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of odors ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.51“Subhūti, the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is simply a mere [F.203.b] designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of olfactory consciousness ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.52“Subhūti, the sensory element of the tongue is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of the tongue ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.53“Subhūti, the sensory element of tastes is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of tastes ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.54“Subhūti, the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of gustatory consciousness ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.55“Subhūti, the sensory element of the body is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of the body ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.56“Subhūti, the sensory element of tangibles is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, [F.204.a] this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of tangibles ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.57“Subhūti, the sensory element of tactile consciousness , is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of tactile consciousness ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.58“Subhūti, the sensory element of the mental faculty is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of the mental faculty ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.59“Subhūti, the sensory element of mental phenomena is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of mental phenomena ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.60“Subhūti, the sensory element of mental consciousness is simply a mere designation for something. Apart from being used conventionally as a mere name and conventional term, this designation for something‍—namely, the sensory element of mental consciousness ‍—neither arises nor ceases. This name does not exist internally, nor does it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.61“Subhūti, in the same way, the perfection of wisdom , a bodhisattva , and the term bodhisattva are simply mere designations for something. Apart from being used conventionally as mere names and conventional terms, these designations for things‍—namely, the perfection of wisdom , [F.204.b] a bodhisattva , and the term bodhisattva ‍—neither arise nor cease. These names do not exist internally, nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.62“Subhūti, it is like this: inner body, for instance, is being used conventionally as a mere name. Bones of the head is being used conventionally as a mere name; bones of the neck is being used conventionally as a mere name; shoulder blades is being used conventionally as a mere name; bones of the shoulders is being used conventionally as a mere name; bones of the spine is being used conventionally as a mere name; bones of the ribs is being used conventionally as a mere name; bones of the hips is being used conventionally as a mere name; bones of the thighs is being used conventionally as a mere name; bones of the shins is being used conventionally as a mere name; and bones of the feet is being used conventionally as a mere name. But these are simply mere designations for something. Apart from being used conventionally as mere names and conventional terms, these designations for things‍—namely, bones of the head, bones of the neck, shoulder blades, bones of the shoulders, bones of the spine, bones of the ribs, bones of the hips, bones of the thighs, bones of the shins, and bones of the feet‍—neither arise nor cease. These names do not exist internally, nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.63“Subhūti, in the same way, these‍—the perfection of wisdom , a bodhisattva , and the term bodhisattva ‍—are simply mere designations for something. Apart from being used conventionally as mere names and conventional terms, these designations for things‍—namely, the perfection of wisdom , [F.205.a] a bodhisattva , and the term bodhisattva ‍—neither arise nor cease. These names do not exist internally, nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.64“For example, Subhūti, it is like outer grass, trees, branches, leaves, and petals. They are all expressed conventionally with their diverse names, but apart from being used conventionally as mere names and conventional terms, they neither arise nor cease. These names do not exist internally, nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.65“Subhūti, in the same way, these‍—the perfection of wisdom , a bodhisattva , and the term bodhisattva ‍—are simply mere designations for something. Apart from being used conventionally as mere names and conventional terms, these designations for things‍—namely, the perfection of wisdom , a bodhisattva , and the term bodhisattva ‍—neither arise nor cease. These names do not exist internally, nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.66“For example, Subhūti, simply the mere name of the blessed lord buddhas of the past remains. That name does not exist internally, nor does not it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.67“For example, Subhūti, all those phenomena of dreams, echoes, reflections, illusions , mirages, the moon’s appearance in water, and a magical display of the tathāgata are simply mere designations for something. Apart from being used conventionally as mere names and conventional terms, these designations for things neither arise nor cease. These names do not exist internally, nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two. Subhūti, in the same way, all those phenomena‍—the perfection of wisdom , a bodhisattva , and the term [F.205.b] bodhisattva ‍—are simply mere designations for something. Apart from being used conventionally as mere names and conventional terms, these designations for things neither arise nor cease. These names do not exist internally, nor do they exist externally, and they cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

3.68“Subhūti, when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom in that manner, they should train in names and conventional terms that are designations, in advice that is a designation, and in phenomena that are designations.

3.69“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings who practice the perfection of wisdom in that manner do not observe that physical forms are permanent, and do not observe that physical forms are impermanent. They do not observe that physical forms are happiness, and do not observe that physical forms are suffering. They do not observe that physical forms are a self, and do not observe that physical forms are nonself. They do not observe that physical forms are at peace, and do not observe that physical forms are not at peace. They do not observe that physical forms are empty, and do not observe that physical forms are not empty. They do not observe that physical forms are with signs, and do not observe that physical forms are signless. They do not observe that physical forms are with wishes, and do not observe that physical forms are wishless. They do not observe that physical forms are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that physical forms are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that physical forms are defilement, [F.206.a] and do not observe that physical forms are purification. They do not observe that physical forms arise, and do not observe that physical forms cease. They do not observe that physical forms are void, and do not observe that physical forms are not void. They do not observe that physical forms are virtuous, and do not observe that physical forms are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that physical forms are basically unethical, and do not observe that physical forms are not basically unethical. They do not observe that physical forms are contaminated, and do not observe that physical forms are uncontaminated. They do not observe that physical forms are afflicted, and do not observe that physical forms are unafflicted. They do not observe that physical forms are mundane, and do not observe that physical forms are supramundane. They do not observe that physical forms are saṃsāra, and do not observe that physical forms are nirvāṇa.

3.70“They do not observe that feelings are permanent, and do not observe that feelings are impermanent. They do not observe that feelings are happiness, and do not observe that feelings are suffering. They do not observe that feelings are a self, and do not observe that feelings are nonself. They do not observe that feelings are at peace, [F.206.b] and do not observe that feelings are not at peace. They do not observe that feelings are empty, and do not observe that feelings are not empty. They do not observe that feelings are with signs, and do not observe that feelings are signless. They do not observe that feelings are with wishes, and do not observe that feelings are wishless. They do not observe that feelings are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that feelings are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that feelings are defilement, and do not observe that feelings are purification. They do not observe that feelings arise, and do not observe that feelings cease. They do not observe that feelings are void, and do not observe that feelings are not void. They do not observe that feelings are virtuous, and do not observe that feelings are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that feelings are basically unethical, and do not observe that feelings are not basically unethical. They do not observe that feelings are contaminated, and do not observe that feelings are uncontaminated. They do not observe that feelings are afflicted, and do not observe that feelings are unafflicted. They do not observe that feelings are mundane, and do not observe that feelings are supramundane. They do not observe that feelings are saṃsāra, and do not observe that [F.207.a] feelings are nirvāṇa.

3.71“They do not observe that perceptions are permanent, and do not observe that perceptions are impermanent. They do not observe that perceptions are happiness, and do not observe that perceptions are suffering. They do not observe that perceptions are a self, and do not observe that perceptions are nonself. They do not observe that perceptions are at peace, and do not observe that perceptions are not at peace. They do not observe that perceptions are empty, and do not observe that perceptions are not empty. They do not observe that perceptions are with signs, and do not observe that perceptions are signless. They do not observe that perceptions are with wishes, and do not observe that perceptions are wishless. They do not observe that perceptions are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that perceptions are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that perceptions are defilement, and do not observe that perceptions are purification. They do not observe that perceptions arise, and do not observe that perceptions cease. They do not observe that perceptions are void, and do not observe that perceptions are not void. They do not observe that perceptions are virtuous, and do not observe that perceptions are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that perceptions are basically unethical, [F.207.b] and do not observe that perceptions are not basically unethical. They do not observe that perceptions are contaminated, and do not observe that perceptions are uncontaminated. They do not observe that perceptions are afflicted, and do not observe that perceptions are unafflicted. They do not observe that perceptions are mundane, and do not observe that perceptions are supramundane. They do not observe that perceptions are saṃsāra, and do not observe that perceptions are nirvāṇa.

3.72“They do not observe that formative predispositions are permanent, and do not observe that formative predispositions are impermanent. They do not observe that formative predispositions are happiness, and do not observe that formative predispositions are suffering. They do not observe that formative predispositions are a self, and do not observe that formative predispositions are nonself. They do not observe that formative predispositions are at peace, and do not observe that formative predispositions are not at peace. They do not observe that formative predispositions are empty, and do not observe that formative predispositions are not empty. They do not observe that formative predispositions are with signs, and do not observe that formative predispositions are signless. They do not observe that formative predispositions are with wishes, and do not observe that formative predispositions are wishless. They do not observe that formative predispositions are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that formative predispositions are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that formative predispositions [F.208.a] are defilement, and do not observe that formative predispositions are purification. They do not observe that formative predispositions arise, and do not observe that formative predispositions cease. They do not observe that formative predispositions are void, and do not observe that formative predispositions are not void. They do not observe that formative predispositions are virtuous, and do not observe that formative predispositions are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that formative predispositions are basically unethical, and do not observe that formative predispositions are not basically unethical. They do not observe that formative predispositions are contaminated, and do not observe that formative predispositions are uncontaminated. They do not observe that formative predispositions are afflicted, and do not observe that formative predispositions are unafflicted. They do not observe that formative predispositions are mundane, and do not observe that formative predispositions are supramundane. They do not observe that formative predispositions are saṃsāra, and do not observe that formative predispositions are nirvāṇa.

3.73“They do not observe that consciousness is permanent, and do not observe that consciousness is impermanent. They do not observe that consciousness is happiness, and do not observe that consciousness is suffering. They do not observe that consciousness is a self, and do not observe that consciousness is nonself. They do not observe that consciousness [F.208.b] is at peace, and do not observe that consciousness is not at peace. They do not observe that consciousness is empty, and do not observe that consciousness is not empty. They do not observe that consciousness is with a sign, and do not observe that consciousness is signless. They do not observe that consciousness is with wishes, and do not observe that consciousness is wishless. They do not observe that consciousness is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that consciousness is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that consciousness is defilement, and do not observe that consciousness is purification. They do not observe that consciousness arises, and do not observe that consciousness ceases. They do not observe that consciousness is void, and do not observe that consciousness is not void. They do not observe that consciousness is virtuous, and do not observe that consciousness is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that consciousness is basically unethical, and do not observe that consciousness is not basically unethical. They do not observe that consciousness is contaminated, and do not observe that consciousness is uncontaminated. They do not observe that consciousness is afflicted, [F.209.a] and do not observe that consciousness is unafflicted. They do not observe that consciousness is mundane, and do not observe that consciousness is supramundane. They do not observe that consciousness is saṃsāra, and do not observe that consciousness is nirvāṇa.

3.74“They do not observe that the eyes are permanent, and do not observe that the eyes are impermanent. They do not observe that the eyes are happiness, and do not observe that the eyes are suffering. They do not observe that the eyes are a self, and do not observe that the eyes are nonself. They do not observe that the eyes are at peace, and do not observe that the eyes are not at peace. They do not observe that the eyes are empty, and do not observe that the eyes are not empty. They do not observe that the eyes are with signs, and do not observe that the eyes are signless. They do not observe that the eyes are with wishes, and do not observe that the eyes are wishless. They do not observe that the eyes are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that the eyes are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that the eyes are defilement, and do not observe that the eyes are purification. They do not observe that the eyes arise, and do not observe that the eyes cease. [F.209.b] They do not observe that the eyes are void, and do not observe that ‘the eyes are not void. They do not observe that the eyes are virtuous, and do not observe that the eyes are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that the eyes are basically unethical, and do not observe that the eyes are not basically unethical. They do not observe that the eyes are contaminated, and do not observe that the eyes are uncontaminated. They do not observe that the eyes are afflicted, and do not observe that the eyes are unafflicted. They do not observe that the eyes are mundane, and do not observe that the eyes are supramundane. They do not observe that the eyes are saṃsāra, and do not observe that the eyes are nirvāṇa.

3.75“They do not observe that sights are permanent, and do not observe that sights are impermanent. They do not observe that sights are happiness, and do not observe that sights are suffering. They do not observe that sights are a self, and do not observe that sights are nonself. They do not observe that sights are at peace, and do not observe that sights are not at peace. They do not observe that sights are empty, and do not observe that sights are not empty. They do not observe that sights are with signs, and do not observe that sights are signless. [F.210.a] They do not observe that sights are with wishes, and do not observe that sights are wishless. They do not observe that sights are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that sights are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that sights are defilement, and do not observe that sights are purification. They do not observe that sights arise, and do not observe that sights cease. They do not observe that sights are void, and do not observe that sights are not void. They do not observe that sights are virtuous, and do not observe that sights are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that sights are basically unethical, and do not observe that sights are not basically unethical. They do not observe that sights are contaminated, and do not observe that sights are uncontaminated. They do not observe that sights are afflicted, and do not observe that sights are unafflicted. They do not observe that sights are mundane, and do not observe that sights are supramundane. They do not observe that sights are saṃsāra, and do not observe that sights are nirvāṇa.

3.76“They do not observe that visual consciousness is permanent, and do not observe that visual consciousness is impermanent. [F.210.b] They do not observe that visual consciousness is happiness, and do not observe that visual consciousness is suffering. They do not observe that visual consciousness is a self, and do not observe that visual consciousness is nonself. They do not observe that visual consciousness is at peace, and do not observe that visual consciousness is not at peace. They do not observe that visual consciousness is empty, and do not observe that visual consciousness is not empty. They do not observe that visual consciousness is with a sign, and do not observe that visual consciousness is signless. They do not observe that visual consciousness is with wishes, and do not observe that visual consciousness is wishless. They do not observe that visual consciousness is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that visual consciousness is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that visual consciousness is defilement, and do not observe that visual consciousness is purification. They do not observe that visual consciousness arises, and do not observe that visual consciousness ceases. They do not observe that visual consciousness is void, and do not observe that visual consciousness is not void. They do not observe that visual consciousness is virtuous, and do not observe that visual consciousness [F.211.a] is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that visual consciousness is basically unethical, and do not observe that visual consciousness is not basically unethical. They do not observe that visual consciousness is contaminated, and do not observe that visual consciousness is uncontaminated. They do not observe that visual consciousness is afflicted, and do not observe that visual consciousness is unafflicted. They do not observe that visual consciousness is mundane, and do not observe that visual consciousness is supramundane. They do not observe that visual consciousness is saṃsāra, and do not observe that visual consciousness is nirvāṇa.

3.77“They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is permanent, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is impermanent. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is happiness, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is suffering. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is a self, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is nonself. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is at peace, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is not at peace. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is empty, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact [F.211.b] is not empty. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is with a sign, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is signless. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is with wishes, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is wishless. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is defilement, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is purification. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact arises, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact ceases. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is void, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is not void. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is virtuous, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is basically unethical, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is not basically unethical. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is contaminated, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is uncontaminated. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is afflicted, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is unafflicted. They do not observe that [F.212.a] visually compounded sensory contact is mundane, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is supramundane. They do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is saṃsāra, and do not observe that visually compounded sensory contact is nirvāṇa.

3.78“They do not observe that feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering, conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the eyes, sights, and visual consciousness, are permanent, and do not observe that they are impermanent. They do not observe that they are happiness, and do not observe that they are suffering. They do not observe that they are a self, and do not observe that they are nonself. They do not observe that they are at peace, and do not observe that they are not at peace. They do not observe that they are empty, and do not observe that they are not empty. They do not observe that they are with signs, and do not observe that they are signless. They do not observe that they are with wishes, and do not observe that they are wishless. They do not observe that they are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that they are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that they are defilement, and do not observe that they are purification. They do not observe that they arise, and do not observe that they cease. They do not observe that they are void, and do not observe that they are not void. They do not observe that they are virtuous, and do not observe that they are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that they are basically unethical, [F.212.b] and do not observe that they are not basically unethical. They do not observe that they are contaminated, and do not observe that they are uncontaminated. They do not observe that they are afflicted, and do not observe that they are unafflicted. They do not observe that they are mundane, and do not observe that they are supramundane. They do not observe that they are saṃsāra, and do not observe that they are nirvāṇa. [B14]

3.79“They do not observe that the ears are permanent, and do not observe that the ears are impermanent. They do not observe that the ears are happiness, and do not observe that the ears are suffering. They do not observe that the ears are a self, and do not observe that the ears are nonself. They do not observe that the ears are at peace, and do not observe that the ears are not at peace. They do not observe that the ears are empty, and do not observe that the ears are not empty. They do not observe that the ears are with signs, and do not observe that the ears are signless. They do not observe that the ears are with wishes, and do not observe that the ears are wishless. They do not observe that the ears are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that the ears are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that the ears are defilement, and do not observe that the ears are purification. [F.213.a] They do not observe that the ears arise, and do not observe that the ears cease. They do not observe that the ears are void, and do not observe that the ears are not void. They do not observe that the ears are virtuous, and do not observe that the ears are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that the ears are basically unethical, and do not observe that the ears are not basically unethical. They do not observe that the ears are contaminated, and do not observe that the ears are uncontaminated. They do not observe that the ears are afflicted, and do not observe that the ears are unafflicted. They do not observe that the ears are mundane, and do not observe that the ears are supramundane. They do not observe that the ears are saṃsāra, and do not observe that the ears are nirvāṇa.

3.80“They do not observe that sounds are permanent, and do not observe that sounds are impermanent. They do not observe that sounds are happiness, and do not observe that sounds are suffering. They do not observe that sounds are a self, and do not observe that sounds are nonself. They do not observe that sounds are at peace, and do not observe that sounds are not at peace. They do not observe that sounds are empty, and do not observe that sounds are not empty. They do not observe that sounds are with signs, [F.213.b] and do not observe that sounds are signless. They do not observe that sounds are with wishes, and do not observe that sounds are wishless. They do not observe that sounds are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that sounds are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that sounds are defilement, and do not observe that sounds are purification. They do not observe that sounds arise, and do not observe that sounds cease. They do not observe that sounds are void, and do not observe that sounds are not void. They do not observe that sounds are virtuous, and do not observe that sounds are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that sounds are basically unethical, and do not observe that sounds are not basically unethical. They do not observe that sounds are contaminated, and do not observe that sounds are uncontaminated. They do not observe that sounds are afflicted, and do not observe that sounds are unafflicted. They do not observe that sounds are mundane, and do not observe that sounds are supramundane. They do not observe that sounds are saṃsāra, and do not observe that sounds are nirvāṇa.

3.81“They do not observe that auditory consciousness is permanent, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is impermanent. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is happiness, and do not observe that auditory consciousness [F.214.a] is suffering. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is a self, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is nonself. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is at peace, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is not at peace. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is empty, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is not empty. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is with a sign, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is signless. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is with wishes, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is wishless. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is defilement, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is purification. They do not observe that auditory consciousness arises, and do not observe that auditory consciousness ceases. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is void, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is not void. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is virtuous, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that auditory consciousness [F.214.b] is basically unethical, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is not basically unethical. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is contaminated, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is uncontaminated. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is afflicted, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is unafflicted. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is mundane, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is supramundane. They do not observe that auditory consciousness is saṃsāra, and do not observe that auditory consciousness is nirvāṇa.

3.82“They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is permanent, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is impermanent. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is happiness, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is suffering. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is a self, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is nonself. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is at peace, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is not at peace. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is empty, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is not empty. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is with a sign, [F.215.a] and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is signless. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is with wishes, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is wishless. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is defilement, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is purification. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact arises, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact ceases. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is void, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is not void. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is virtuous, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is basically unethical, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is not basically unethical. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is contaminated, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is uncontaminated. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is afflicted, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is unafflicted. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is mundane, and do not observe that [F.215.b] aurally compounded sensory contact is supramundane. They do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is saṃsāra, and do not observe that aurally compounded sensory contact is nirvāṇa.

3.83“They do not observe that feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering, conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the ears, sounds, and auditory consciousness, are permanent, and do not observe that they are impermanent. They do not observe that they are happiness, and do not observe that they are suffering. They do not observe that they are a self, and do not observe that they are nonself. They do not observe that they are at peace, and do not observe that they are not at peace. They do not observe that they are empty, and do not observe that they are not empty. They do not observe that they are with signs, and do not observe that they are signless. They do not observe that they are with wishes, and do not observe that they are wishless. They do not observe that they are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that they are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that they are defilement, and do not observe that they are purification. They do not observe that they arise, and do not observe that they cease. They do not observe that they are void, and do not observe that they are not void. They do not observe that they are virtuous, and do not observe that they are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that they are basically unethical, and do not observe that they are not basically unethical. They do not observe that they are contaminated, [F.216.a] and do not observe that they are uncontaminated. They do not observe that they are afflicted, and do not observe that they are unafflicted. They do not observe that they are mundane, and do not observe that they are supramundane. They do not observe that they are saṃsāra, and do not observe that they are nirvāṇa.

3.84“They do not observe that the nose is permanent, and do not observe that the nose is impermanent. They do not observe that the nose is happiness, and do not observe that the nose is suffering. They do not observe that the nose is a self, and do not observe that the nose is nonself. They do not observe that the nose is at peace, and do not observe that the nose is not at peace. They do not observe that the nose is empty, and do not observe that the nose is not empty. They do not observe that the nose is with a sign, and do not observe that the nose is signless. They do not observe that the nose is with wishes, and do not observe that the nose is wishless. They do not observe that the nose is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that the nose is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that the nose is defilement, and do not observe that the nose is purification. They do not observe that the nose arises, and do not observe that the nose ceases. They do not observe that the nose is void, and do not observe that the nose is not void. [F.216.b] They do not observe that the nose is virtuous, and do not observe that the nose is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that the nose is basically unethical, and do not observe that the nose is not basically unethical. They do not observe that the nose is contaminated, and do not observe that the nose is uncontaminated. They do not observe that the nose is afflicted, and do not observe that the nose is unafflicted. They do not observe that the nose is mundane, and do not observe that the nose is supramundane. They do not observe that the nose is saṃsāra, and do not observe that the nose is nirvāṇa.

3.85“They do not observe that odors are permanent, and do not observe that odors are impermanent. They do not observe that odors are happiness, and do not observe that odors are suffering. They do not observe that odors are a self, and do not observe that odors are nonself. They do not observe that odors are at peace, and do not observe that odors are not at peace. They do not observe that odors are empty, and do not observe that odors are not empty. They do not observe that odors are with signs, and do not observe that odors are signless. They do not observe that odors are with wishes, and do not observe that odors are wishless. They do not observe that odors are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that odors [F.217.a] are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that odors are defilement, and do not observe that odors are purification. They do not observe that odors arise, and do not observe that odors cease. They do not observe that odors are void, and do not observe that odors are not void. They do not observe that odors are virtuous, and do not observe that odors are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that odors are basically unethical, and do not observe that odors are not basically unethical. They do not observe that odors are contaminated, and do not observe that odors are uncontaminated. They do not observe that odors are afflicted, and do not observe that odors are unafflicted. They do not observe that odors are mundane, and do not observe that odors are supramundane. They do not observe that odors are saṃsāra, and do not observe that odors are nirvāṇa.

3.86“They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is permanent, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is impermanent. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is happiness, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is suffering. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is a self, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is nonself. They do not observe that [F.217.b] olfactory consciousness is at peace, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is not at peace. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is empty, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is not empty. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is with a sign, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is signless. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is with wishes, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is wishless. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is defilement, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is purification. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness arises, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness ceases. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is void, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is not void. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is virtuous, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is basically unethical, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is not basically unethical. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is contaminated, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness [F.218.a] is uncontaminated. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is afflicted, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is unafflicted. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is mundane, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is supramundane. They do not observe that olfactory consciousness is saṃsāra, and do not observe that olfactory consciousness is nirvāṇa.

3.87“They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is permanent, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is impermanent. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is happiness, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is suffering. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is a self, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is nonself. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is at peace, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is not at peace. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is empty, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is not empty. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is with a sign, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is signless. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is with wishes, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is wishless. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact [F.218.b] is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is defilement, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is purification. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact arises, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact ceases. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is void, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is not void. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is virtuous, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is basically unethical, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is not basically unethical. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is contaminated, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is uncontaminated. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is afflicted, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is unafflicted. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is mundane, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is supramundane. They do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is saṃsāra, and do not observe that nasally compounded sensory contact is nirvāṇa.

3.88“They do not observe that feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering, conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the nose, odors, [F.219.a] and olfactory consciousness, are permanent, and do not observe that they are impermanent. They do not observe that they are happiness, and do not observe that they are suffering. They do not observe that they are a self, and do not observe that they are nonself. They do not observe that they are at peace, and do not observe that they are not at peace. They do not observe that they are empty, and do not observe that they are not empty. They do not observe that they are with signs, and do not observe that they are signless. They do not observe that they are with wishes, and do not observe that they are wishless. They do not observe that they are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that they are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that they are defilement, and do not observe that they are purification. They do not observe that they arise, and do not observe that they cease. They do not observe that they are void, and do not observe that they are not void. They do not observe that they are virtuous, and do not observe that they are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that they are basically unethical, and do not observe that they are not basically unethical. They do not observe that they are contaminated, and do not observe that they are uncontaminated. They do not observe that they are afflicted, and do not observe that they are unafflicted. They do not observe that they are mundane, and do not observe that they are supramundane. They do not observe that they are saṃsāra, [F.219.b] and do not observe that they are nirvāṇa.

3.89“They do not observe that the tongue is permanent, and do not observe that the tongue is impermanent. They do not observe that the tongue is happiness, and do not observe that the tongue is suffering. They do not observe that the tongue is a self, and do not observe that the tongue is nonself. They do not observe that the tongue is at peace, and do not observe that the tongue is not at peace. They do not observe that the tongue is empty, and do not observe that the tongue is not empty. They do not observe that the tongue is with a sign, and do not observe that the tongue is signless. They do not observe that the tongue is with wishes, and do not observe that the tongue is wishless. They do not observe that the tongue is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that the tongue is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that the tongue is defilement, and do not observe that the tongue is purification. They do not observe that the tongue arises, and do not observe that the tongue ceases. They do not observe that the tongue is void, and do not observe that the tongue is not void. They do not observe that the tongue is virtuous, and do not observe that the tongue is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that the tongue is basically unethical, and do not observe that the tongue is not basically unethical. They do not observe that the tongue is contaminated, [F.220.a] and do not observe that the tongue is uncontaminated. They do not observe that the tongue is afflicted, and do not observe that the tongue is unafflicted. They do not observe that the tongue is mundane, and do not observe that the tongue is supramundane. They do not observe that the tongue is saṃsāra, and do not observe that the tongue is nirvāṇa.

3.90“They do not observe that tastes are permanent, and do not observe that tastes are impermanent. They do not observe that tastes are happiness, and do not observe that tastes are suffering. They do not observe that tastes are a self, and do not observe that tastes are nonself. They do not observe that tastes are at peace, and do not observe that tastes are not at peace. They do not observe that tastes are empty, and do not observe that tastes are not empty. They do not observe that tastes are with signs, and do not observe that tastes are signless. They do not observe that tastes are with wishes, and do not observe that tastes are wishless. They do not observe that tastes are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that tastes are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that tastes are defilement, and do not observe that tastes are purification. They do not observe that tastes arise, and do not observe that tastes cease. [F.220.b] They do not observe that tastes are void, and do not observe that tastes are not void. They do not observe that tastes are virtuous, and do not observe that tastes are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that tastes are basically unethical, and do not observe that tastes are not basically unethical. They do not observe that tastes are contaminated, and do not observe that tastes are uncontaminated. They do not observe that tastes are afflicted, and do not observe that tastes are unafflicted. They do not observe that tastes are mundane, and do not observe that tastes are supramundane. They do not observe that tastes are saṃsāra, and do not observe that tastes are nirvāṇa.

3.91“They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is permanent, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is impermanent. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is happiness, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is suffering. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is a self, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is nonself. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is at peace, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is not at peace. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is empty, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is not empty. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is with a sign, [F.221.a] and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is signless. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is with wishes, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is wishless. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is defilement, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is purification. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness arises, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness ceases. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is void, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is not void. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is virtuous, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is basically unethical, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is not basically unethical. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is contaminated, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is uncontaminated. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is afflicted, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is unafflicted. They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is mundane, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is supramundane. [F.221.b] They do not observe that gustatory consciousness is saṃsāra, and do not observe that gustatory consciousness is nirvāṇa.

3.92“They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is permanent, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is impermanent. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is happiness, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is suffering. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is a self, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is nonself. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is at peace, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is not at peace. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is empty, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is not empty. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is with a sign, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is signless. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is with wishes, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is wishless. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is defilement, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is purification. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact arises, and do not observe that [F.222.a] lingually compounded sensory contact ceases. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is void, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is not void. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is virtuous, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is basically unethical, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is not basically unethical. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is contaminated, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is uncontaminated. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is afflicted, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is unafflicted. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is mundane, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is supramundane. They do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is saṃsāra, and do not observe that lingually compounded sensory contact is nirvāṇa.

3.93“They do not observe that feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering, conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the tongue, tastes, and gustatory consciousness, are permanent, and do not observe that they are impermanent. They do not observe that they are happiness, and do not observe that they are suffering. They do not observe that they are a self, and do not observe that they are nonself. They do not observe that they are at peace, [F.222.b] and do not observe that they are not at peace. They do not observe that they are empty, and do not observe that they are not empty. They do not observe that they are with signs, and do not observe that they are signless. They do not observe that they are with wishes, and do not observe that they are wishless. They do not observe that they are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that they are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that they are defilement, and do not observe that they are purification. They do not observe that they arise, and do not observe that they cease. They do not observe that they are void, and do not observe that they are not void. They do not observe that they are virtuous, and do not observe that they are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that they are basically unethical, and do not observe that they are not basically unethical. They do not observe that they are contaminated, and do not observe that they are uncontaminated. They do not observe that they are afflicted, and do not observe that they are unafflicted. They do not observe that they are mundane, and do not observe that they are supramundane. They do not observe that they are saṃsāra, and do not observe that they are nirvāṇa.

3.94“They do not observe that the body is permanent, and do not observe that the body is impermanent. They do not observe that the body is happiness, and do not observe that the body is suffering. They do not observe that the body [F.223.a] is a self, and do not observe that the body is nonself. They do not observe that the body is at peace, and do not observe that the body is not at peace. They do not observe that the body is empty, and do not observe that the body is not empty. They do not observe that the body is with a sign, and do not observe that the body is signless. They do not observe that the body is with wishes, and do not observe that the body is wishless. They do not observe that the body is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that the body is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that the body is defilement, and do not observe that the body is purification. They do not observe that the body arises, and do not observe that the body ceases. They do not observe that the body is void, and do not observe that the body is not void. They do not observe that the body is virtuous, and do not observe that the body is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that the body is basically unethical, and do not observe that the body is not basically unethical. They do not observe that the body is contaminated, and do not observe that the body is uncontaminated. They do not observe that the body is afflicted, and do not observe that the body is unafflicted. They do not observe that the body is mundane, [F.223.b] and do not observe that the body is supramundane. They do not observe that the body is saṃsāra, and do not observe that the body is nirvāṇa.

3.95“They do not observe that tangibles are permanent, and do not observe that tangibles are impermanent. They do not observe that tangibles are happiness, and do not observe that tangibles are suffering. They do not observe that tangibles are a self, and do not observe that tangibles are nonself. They do not observe that tangibles are at peace, and do not observe that tangibles are not at peace. They do not observe that tangibles are empty, and do not observe that tangibles are not empty. They do not observe that tangibles are with signs, and do not observe that tangibles are signless. They do not observe that tangibles are with wishes, and do not observe that tangibles are wishless. They do not observe that tangibles are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that tangibles are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that tangibles are defilement, and do not observe that tangibles are purification. They do not observe that tangibles arise, and do not observe that tangibles cease. They do not observe that tangibles are void, and do not observe that tangibles are not void. They do not observe that tangibles are virtuous, and do not observe that [F.224.a] tangibles are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that tangibles are basically unethical, and do not observe that tangibles are not basically unethical. They do not observe that tangibles are contaminated, and do not observe that tangibles are uncontaminated. They do not observe that tangibles are afflicted, and do not observe that tangibles are unafflicted. They do not observe that tangibles are mundane, and do not observe that tangibles are supramundane. They do not observe that tangibles are saṃsāra, and do not observe that tangibles are nirvāṇa.

3.96“They do not observe that tactile consciousness is permanent, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is impermanent. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is happiness, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is suffering. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is a self, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is nonself. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is at peace, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is not at peace. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is empty, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is not empty. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is with a sign, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is signless. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is with wishes, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is wishless. They do not observe that [F.224.b] tactile consciousness is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is defilement, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is purification. They do not observe that tactile consciousness arises, and do not observe that tactile consciousness ceases. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is void, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is not void. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is virtuous, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is basically unethical, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is not basically unethical. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is contaminated, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is uncontaminated. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is afflicted, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is unafflicted. They do not observe that tactile consciousness is mundane, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is supramundane. They do not observe that tactile consciousness [F.225.a] is saṃsāra, and do not observe that tactile consciousness is nirvāṇa.

3.97“They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is permanent, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is impermanent. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is happiness, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is suffering. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is a self, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is nonself. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is at peace, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is not at peace. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is empty, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is not empty. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is with a sign, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is signless. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is with wishes, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is wishless. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is defilement, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is purification. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact arises, [F.225.b] and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact ceases. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is void, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is not void. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is virtuous, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is basically unethical, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is not basically unethical. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is contaminated, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is uncontaminated. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is afflicted, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is unafflicted. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is mundane, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is supramundane. They do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is saṃsāra, and do not observe that corporeally compounded sensory contact is nirvāṇa. [B15]

3.98“They do not observe that feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering, conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the body, tangibles, and tactile consciousness, are permanent, and do not observe that they are impermanent. They do not observe that they are happiness, and do not observe that they are suffering. [F.226.a] They do not observe that they are a self, and do not observe that they are nonself. They do not observe that they are at peace, and do not observe that they are not at peace. They do not observe that they are empty, and do not observe that they are not empty. They do not observe that they are with signs, and do not observe that they are signless. They do not observe that they are with wishes, and do not observe that they are wishless. They do not observe that they are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that they are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that they are defilement, and do not observe that they are purification. They do not observe that they arise, and do not observe that they cease. They do not observe that they are void, and do not observe that they are not void. They do not observe that they are virtuous, and do not observe that they are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that they are basically unethical, and do not observe that they are not basically unethical. They do not observe that they are contaminated, and do not observe that they are uncontaminated. They do not observe that they are afflicted, and do not observe that they are unafflicted. They do not observe that they are mundane, and do not observe that they are supramundane. They do not observe that they are saṃsāra, and do not observe that they are nirvāṇa.

3.99“They do not observe that the mental faculty is permanent, and do not observe that the mental faculty is impermanent. They do not observe that the mental faculty is happiness, [F.226.b] and do not observe that the mental faculty is suffering. They do not observe that the mental faculty is a self, and do not observe that the mental faculty is nonself. They do not observe that the mental faculty is at peace, and do not observe that the mental faculty is not at peace. They do not observe that the mental faculty is empty, and do not observe that the mental faculty is not empty. They do not observe that the mental faculty is with a sign, and do not observe that the mental faculty is signless. They do not observe that the mental faculty is with wishes, and do not observe that the mental faculty is wishless. They do not observe that the mental faculty is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that the mental faculty is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that the mental faculty is defilement, and do not observe that the mental faculty is purification. They do not observe that the mental faculty arises, and do not observe that the mental faculty ceases. They do not observe that the mental faculty is void, and do not observe that the mental faculty is not void. They do not observe that the mental faculty is virtuous, and do not observe that the mental faculty is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that the mental faculty is basically unethical, and do not observe that the mental faculty is not basically unethical. They do not observe that the mental faculty is contaminated, and do not observe that the mental faculty is uncontaminated. They do not observe that the mental faculty is afflicted, and do not observe that the mental faculty is unafflicted. They do not observe that the mental faculty [F.227.a] is mundane, and do not observe that the mental faculty is supramundane. They do not observe that the mental faculty is saṃsāra, and do not observe that the mental faculty is nirvāṇa.

3.100“They do not observe that mental phenomena are permanent, and do not observe that mental phenomena are impermanent. They do not observe that mental phenomena are happiness, and do not observe that mental phenomena are suffering. They do not observe that mental phenomena are a self, and do not observe that mental phenomena are nonself. They do not observe that mental phenomena are at peace, and do not observe that mental phenomena are not at peace. They do not observe that mental phenomena are empty, and do not observe that mental phenomena are not empty. They do not observe that mental phenomena are with signs, and do not observe that mental phenomena are signless. They do not observe that mental phenomena are with wishes, and do not observe that mental phenomena are wishless. They do not observe that mental phenomena are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that mental phenomena are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that mental phenomena are defilement, and do not observe that mental phenomena are purification. They do not observe that mental phenomena arise, and do not observe that mental phenomena cease. They do not observe that mental phenomena are void, and do not observe that mental phenomena are not void. They do not observe that mental phenomena are virtuous, and do not observe that mental phenomena are nonvirtuous. [F.227.b] They do not observe that mental phenomena are basically unethical, and do not observe that mental phenomena are not basically unethical. They do not observe that mental phenomena are contaminated, and do not observe that mental phenomena are uncontaminated. They do not observe that mental phenomena are afflicted, and do not observe that mental phenomena are unafflicted. They do not observe that mental phenomena are mundane, and do not observe that mental phenomena are supramundane. They do not observe that mental phenomena are saṃsāra, and do not observe that mental phenomena are nirvāṇa.

3.101“They do not observe that mental consciousness is permanent, and do not observe that mental consciousness is impermanent. They do not observe that mental consciousness is happiness, and do not observe that mental consciousness is suffering. They do not observe that mental consciousness is a self, and do not observe that mental consciousness is nonself. They do not observe that mental consciousness is at peace, and do not observe that mental consciousness is not at peace. They do not observe that mental consciousness is empty, and do not observe that mental consciousness is not empty. They do not observe that mental consciousness is with a sign, and do not observe that mental consciousness is signless. They do not observe that mental consciousness is with wishes, [F.228.a] and do not observe that mental consciousness is wishless. They do not observe that mental consciousness is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that mental consciousness is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that mental consciousness is defilement, and do not observe that mental consciousness is purification. They do not observe that mental consciousness arises, and do not observe that mental consciousness ceases. They do not observe that mental consciousness is void, and do not observe that mental consciousness is not void. They do not observe that mental consciousness is virtuous, and do not observe that mental consciousness is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that mental consciousness is basically unethical, and do not observe that mental consciousness is not basically unethical. They do not observe that mental consciousness is contaminated, and do not observe that mental consciousness is uncontaminated. They do not observe that mental consciousness is afflicted, and do not observe that mental consciousness is unafflicted. They do not observe that mental consciousness is mundane, and do not observe that mental consciousness is supramundane. [F.228.b] They do not observe that mental consciousness is saṃsāra, and do not observe that mental consciousness is nirvāṇa.

3.102“They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is permanent, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is impermanent. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is happiness, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is suffering. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is a self, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is nonself. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is at peace, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is not at peace. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is empty, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is not empty. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is with a sign, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is signless. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is with wishes, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is wishless. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is a conditioned phenomenon, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is an unconditioned phenomenon. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is defilement, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is purification. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact arises, and do not observe that [F.229.a] mentally compounded sensory contact ceases. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is void, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is not void. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is virtuous, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is nonvirtuous. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is basically unethical, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is not basically unethical. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is contaminated, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is uncontaminated. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is afflicted, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is unafflicted. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is mundane, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is supramundane. They do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is saṃsāra, and do not observe that mentally compounded sensory contact is nirvāṇa.

3.103“They do not observe that feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering, conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the mental faculty, mental phenomena, and mental consciousness, are permanent, and do not observe that they are impermanent. They do not observe that they are happiness, and do not observe that they are suffering. They do not observe that they are a self, and do not observe that they are nonself. They do not observe that they are at peace, [F.229.b] and do not observe that they are not at peace. They do not observe that they are empty, and do not observe that they are not empty. They do not observe that they are with signs, and do not observe that they are signless. They do not observe that they are with wishes, and do not observe that they are wishless. They do not observe that they are conditioned phenomena, and do not observe that they are unconditioned phenomena. They do not observe that they are defilement, and do not observe that they are purification. They do not observe that they arise, and do not observe that they cease. They do not observe that they are void, and do not observe that they are not void. They do not observe that they are virtuous, and do not observe that they are nonvirtuous. They do not observe that they are basically unethical, and do not observe that they are not basically unethical. They do not observe that they are contaminated, and do not observe that they are uncontaminated. They do not observe that they are afflicted, and do not observe that they are unafflicted. They do not observe that they are mundane, and do not observe that they are supramundane. They do not observe that they are saṃsāra, and do not observe that they are nirvāṇa.

3.104“If you ask why, it is because when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom, they do not observe that that perfection of wisdom, that bodhisattva, or that term bodhisattva are present in the conditioned element. They do not observe that they are present in the unconditioned element.

3.105“If you ask why, [F.230.a] Subhūti, it is because when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom, they do not mentally construct and do not conceptualize any of those phenomena. When they practice the perfection of wisdom they remain in a state without conceptualization, and in order to cultivate the applications of mindfulness, while practicing the perfection of wisdom, apart from focusing their attention on all-aspect omniscience, they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the correct exertions, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the supports for miraculous ability, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe [F.230.b] the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the faculties , while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the powers, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the branches of enlightenment, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the path, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . [F.231.a] Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha.

3.106“In order to cultivate the perfection of generosity, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the perfection of ethical discipline, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the perfection of tolerance, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe [F.231.b] the name buddha. In order to cultivate the perfection of perseverance, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the perfection of meditative concentration, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the perfection of wisdom, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha.

3.107“In order to cultivate the emptiness of internal phenomena, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. [F.232.a] They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of external phenomena, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of external and internal phenomena, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of emptiness, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of great extent, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. [F.232.b] Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of ultimate reality, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of conditioned phenomena, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of unconditioned phenomena, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness [F.233.a] of the unlimited, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of that which has neither beginning nor end, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of nonexclusion, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of inherent nature, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe [F.233.b] the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of all phenomena, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of intrinsic defining characteristics, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of that which cannot be apprehended, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of nonentities, while practicing the perfection of wisdom [F.234.a] they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of essential nature, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the emptiness of an essential nature of nonentities, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha.

3.108“In order to cultivate the truths of the noble ones, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . [F.234.b] Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the meditative concentrations, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the immeasurable attitudes, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the formless absorptions, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the eight liberations, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe [F.235.a] the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the nine serial steps of meditative absorption, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha.

3.109“In order to cultivate the emptiness gateway to liberation, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the signlessness gateway to liberation, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . [F.235.b] Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the wishlessness gateway to liberation, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha.

3.110“In order to cultivate the extrasensory powers, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the meditative stabilities, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the dhāraṇī gateways, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe [F.236.a] the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha.

3.111“In order to cultivate the ten powers of the tathāgatas, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the four fearlessnesses, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the four kinds of exact knowledge, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. [F.236.b] They do not even observe the name buddha. In order to cultivate the eighteen distinct qualities of the buddhas, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they do not observe a perfection of wisdom. Nor do they observe the name perfection of wisdom . Nor do they observe the bodhisattvas. They do not even observe the name bodhisattva . Nor do they observe the buddhas. They do not even observe the name buddha.

3.112“Those bodhisattva great beings, when they practice the perfection of wisdom, absolutely understand the characteristics of a phenomenon that define it as a phenomenon, and those characteristics of a phenomenon that define it as a phenomenon are that it neither becomes defiled nor does it become purified.

3.113“So, Subhūti, when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom, they should comprehend that it is just a designation that is a name or conventional term for something. Having thus comprehended that it is just a designation that is a name or conventional term for something, they will not be attached to physical forms, will not be attached to feelings, will not be attached to perceptions, will not be attached to formative predispositions, and will not be attached to consciousness.

3.114“They will not be attached to the eyes. They will not be attached to sights. They will not be attached to visual consciousness. They will not be attached to visually compounded sensory contact. They will not even be attached to feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the eyes, sights, and visual consciousness. They will not be attached [F.237.a] to the ears. They will not be attached to sounds. They will not be attached to auditory consciousness. They will not be attached to aurally compounded sensory contact. They will not even be attached to feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the ears, sounds, and auditory consciousness. They will not be attached to the nose. They will not be attached to odors. They will not be attached to olfactory consciousness. They will not be attached to nasally compounded sensory contact. They will not even be attached to feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the nose, odors, and olfactory consciousness. They will not be attached to the tongue. They will not be attached to tastes. They will not be attached to gustatory consciousness. They will not be attached to lingually compounded sensory contact. They will not even be attached to feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the tongue, tastes, and gustatory consciousness. They will not be attached to the body. They will not be attached to tangibles. They will not be attached to tactile consciousness. They will not be attached to corporeally compounded sensory contact. They will not even be attached to feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the body, tangibles, and tactile consciousness. They will not be attached to the mental faculty. They will not be attached to mental phenomena. They will not be attached [F.237.b] to mental consciousness. They will not be attached to mentally compounded sensory contact. They will not even be attached to feelings of happiness, or suffering, or neither happiness nor suffering conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the mental faculty, mental phenomena, and mental consciousness.

3.115“They will not be attached to the perfection of generosity, will not be attached to the perfection of ethical discipline, will not be attached to the perfection of tolerance, will not be attached to the perfection of perseverance, will not be attached to the perfection of meditative concentration, and will not be attached to the perfection of wisdom. They will not even be attached to their names or their defining characteristics.

“They will not even be attached to the body of a bodhisattva.

3.116“They will not be attached to the eyes of flesh, will not be attached to the eye of divine clairvoyance, will not be attached to the eye of wisdom, will not be attached to the eye of the Dharma, and will not be attached to the eye of the buddhas.

“They will not be attached to the perfection of the extrasensory powers.

3.117“They will not be attached to the emptiness of internal phenomena. They will not be attached to the emptiness of external phenomena. They will not be attached to the emptiness of external and internal phenomena. They will not be attached to the emptiness of emptiness. They will not be attached to the emptiness of great extent. They will not be attached to the emptiness of ultimate reality. They will not be attached to the emptiness of conditioned phenomena. They will not be attached to the emptiness of unconditioned phenomena. They will not be attached to the emptiness of the unlimited. They will not be attached to the emptiness of that which has neither beginning nor end. [F.238.a] They will not be attached to the emptiness of nonexclusion. They will not be attached to the emptiness of inherent nature. They will not be attached to the emptiness of all phenomena. They will not be attached to the emptiness of intrinsic defining characteristics. They will not be attached to the emptiness of that which cannot be apprehended. They will not be attached to the emptiness of nonentities. They will not be attached to the emptiness of essential nature. They will not be attached to the emptiness of an essential nature of nonentities.

3.118“They will not be attached to the applications of mindfulness. They will not be attached to the correct exertions. They will not be attached to the supports for miraculous ability. They will not be attached to the faculties . They will not be attached to the powers. They will not be attached to the branches of enlightenment. They will not be attached to the noble eightfold path.

3.119“They will not be attached to the truths of the noble ones. They will not be attached to the meditative concentrations. They will not be attached to the immeasurable attitudes. They will not be attached to the formless absorptions. They will not be attached to the eight liberations. They will not be attached to the nine serial steps of meditative absorption. They will not be attached to emptiness. They will not be attached to signlessness. They will not be attached to wishlessness. They will not be attached to the extrasensory powers. They will not be attached to the meditative stabilities. They will not be attached to the dhāraṇī gateways. They will not be attached to the ten powers of the tathāgatas. They will not be attached [F.238.b] to the four fearlessnesses. They will not be attached to the four kinds of exact knowledge. They will not be attached to great loving kindness. They will not be attached to great compassion. They will not be attached to the eighteen distinct qualities of the buddhas.

3.120“They will not be attached to the real nature. They will not be attached to the very limit of reality. They will not be attached to the realm of phenomena. They will not be attached to the maturation of beings. They will not be attached to the refinement of the buddhafields. They will not be attached to skillful means.

3.121“If you ask why, it is because something that might be attached, something on account of which it becomes attached, and something to which it might be attached‍—all such phenomena do not exist.

3.122“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings who practice the perfection of wisdom in that manner will flourish through the perfection of generosity. They will flourish through the perfection of ethical discipline. They will flourish through the perfection of tolerance. They will flourish through the perfection of perseverance. They will flourish through the perfection of meditative concentration. And they will flourish through the perfection of wisdom.

3.123“They enter into a bodhisattva’s maturity , and ascend to the level at which progress has become irreversible. They will perfect the extrasensory powers, and having indeed perfected the extrasensory powers, they will work to bring beings to maturity, and to serve, respect, honor, and worship the blessed lord buddhas. They move from buddhafield to buddhafield [F.239.a] in order to refine a buddhafield and behold the blessed lord buddhas. And, having seen those blessed lord buddhas, they will also manifest the roots of virtue through which they seek to serve, respect, honor, and worship those blessed lord buddhas. Also, through those roots of virtue they will be born in proximity to those blessed lord buddhas. They will hear the Dharma from those blessed lord buddhas, and the continuum of the doctrine they have heard will never be interrupted until they have fully awakened in unsurpassed, perfect, complete enlightenment. They will obtain the dhāraṇī gateways and they will also obtain the gateways of the meditative stabilities.

3.124“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom should thus comprehend those designations that are the names and conventional terms for things. [B16]

3.125“You have asked, Subhūti, ‘Blessed Lord, you have spoken of “bodhisattvas, bodhisattvas…” ’ Do you think, Subhūti, that a bodhisattva is physical forms?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.126The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than physical forms?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.127The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in physical forms?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [F.239.b]

3.128The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that physical forms are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.129The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of physical forms?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.130The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is feelings?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.131The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than feelings?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.132The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in feelings?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.133The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that feelings are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.134The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of feelings?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.135The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is perceptions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.136The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than [F.240.a] perceptions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.137The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in perceptions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.138The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that perceptions are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.139The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of perceptions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.140The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.141The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.142The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.143The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that formative predispositions are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.144The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.145The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.146The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than [F.240.b] consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.147The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.148The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.149The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.150The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.151The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.152The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.153The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the eyes are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.154The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.155The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the ears?” [F.241.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.156The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.157The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.158The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the ears are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.159The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.160The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the nose is a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.161The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the nose is a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.162The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.163The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the nose is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.164The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.165The Blessed One then asked, [F.241.b] “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.166The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.167The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.168The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the tongue is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.169The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.170The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.171The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.172The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.173The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the body is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.174The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the [F.242.a] absence of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.175The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.176The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.177The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.178The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the mental faculty is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.179The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.180The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is sights?

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.181The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.182The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.183The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that sights are in a bodhisattva?” [F.242.b]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.184The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.185The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.186The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.187The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.188The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that sounds are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.189The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.190The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.191The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.192The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [F.243.a]

3.193The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that odors are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.194The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.195The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.196The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.197The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.198The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that tastes are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.199The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.200The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.201The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.202The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.203The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that tangibles [F.243.b] are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.204The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.205The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.206The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.207The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.208The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that mental phenomena are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.209The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.210The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.211The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that [F.244.a] a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.212The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.213The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of the eyes is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.214The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.215The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.216The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.217The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.218The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of sights is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.219The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of sights?”

“No, [F.244.b] Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.220The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of visual consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.221The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of visual consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.222The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of visual consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.223The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of visual consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.224The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of visual consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.225The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.226The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.227The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.228The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of the ears [F.245.a] is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.229The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.230The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.231The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.232The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.233The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of sounds is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.234The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.235The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of auditory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.236The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of auditory consciousness?” [F.245.b]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.237The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of auditory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.238The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of auditory consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.239The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of auditory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.240The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.241The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.242The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.243The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of the nose is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.244The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.245The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think [F.246.a] that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.246The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.247The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.248The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of odors is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.249The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.250The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of olfactory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.251The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of olfactory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.252The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of olfactory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.253The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is in a bodhisattva?” [F.246.b]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.254The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.255The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.256The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of the tongue?

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.257The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.258The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of the tongue is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.259The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.260The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.261The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.262The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of tastes?” [F.247.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.263The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of tastes is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.264The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.265The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of gustatory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.266The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of gustatory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.267The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of gustatory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.268The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.269The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.270The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.271The Blessed One [F.247.b] then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.272The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.273The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of the body is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.274The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.275The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.276The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.277The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.278The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of tangibles is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.279The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of tangibles?”

“No, [F.248.a] Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.280The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of tactile consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.281The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of tactile consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.282The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of tactile consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.283The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of tactile consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.284The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of tactile consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.285The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.286The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.287The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.288The Blessed One [F.248.b] then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of the mental faculty is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.289The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.290The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.291The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.292The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.293The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of mental phenomena is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.294The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.295The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the sensory element of mental consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.296The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the sensory element of mental consciousness?”

“No, [F.249.a] Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.297The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the sensory element of mental consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.298The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of mental consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.299The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the sensory element of mental consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.300The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the earth element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.301The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the earth element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.302The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the earth element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.303The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the earth element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.304The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the earth element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.305The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think [F.249.b] that a bodhisattva is the water element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.306The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the water element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.307The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the water element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.308The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the water element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.309The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the water element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.310The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the fire element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.311The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the fire element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.312The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the fire element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.313The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the fire element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.314The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think [F.250.a] that a bodhisattva is the absence of the fire element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.315The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the wind element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.316The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the wind element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.317The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the wind element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.318The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the wind element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.319The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the wind element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.320The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the space element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.321The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the space element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.322The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the space element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [F.250.b]

3.323The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the space element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.324The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the space element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.325The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the consciousness element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.326The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the consciousness element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.327The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the consciousness element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.328The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the consciousness element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.329The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the consciousness element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.330The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is ignorance?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.331The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is [F.251.a] anything other than ignorance?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.332The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in ignorance?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.333The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that ignorance is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.334The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of ignorance?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.335The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.336The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.337The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.338The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that formative predispositions are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.339The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.340The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.341The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that [F.251.b] a bodhisattva is anything other than consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.342The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.343The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.344The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.345The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is name and form?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.346The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than name and form?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.347The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in name and form?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.348The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that name and form are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.349The Blessed One [F.252.a] then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of name and form?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.350The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the six sense fields?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.351The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the six sense fields?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.352The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the six sense fields?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.353The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the six sense fields are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.354The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the six sense fields?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.355The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is sensory contact?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.356The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than sensory contact?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.357The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in sensory contact?” [F.252.b]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.358The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that sensory contact is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.359The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of sensory contact?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.360The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is sensation?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.361The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than sensation?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.362The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in sensation?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.363The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that sensation is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.364The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of sensation?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.365The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is craving?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.366The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than craving?” [F.253.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.367The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in craving?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.368The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that craving is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.369The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of craving?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.370The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is grasping?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.371The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than grasping?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.372The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in grasping?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.373The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that grasping is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.374The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of grasping?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.375The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the rebirth process?

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [F.253.b]

3.376The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the rebirth process?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.377The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the rebirth process?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.378The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the rebirth process is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.379The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the rebirth process?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.380The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is birth ?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.381The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than birth ?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.382The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in birth ?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.383The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that birth is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.384The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of birth ?”

“No, [F.254.a] Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.385The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is aging and death?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.386The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than aging and death?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.387The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in aging and death?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.388The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that aging and death are in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.389The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of aging and death?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [B17]

3.390The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of physical forms?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.391The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of physical forms?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.392The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of physical forms?” [F.254.b]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.393The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of physical forms is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.394The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of physical forms?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.395The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of feelings?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.396The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of feelings?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.397The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of feelings?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.398The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of feelings is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.399The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of feelings?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.400The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of perceptions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.401The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that [F.255.a] a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of perceptions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.402The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of perceptions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.403The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of perceptions is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.404The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of perceptions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.405The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.406The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.407The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.408The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of formative predispositions is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.409The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is [F.255.b] the absence of the real nature of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.410The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.411The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.412The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.413The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.414The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.415The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.416The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.417The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the eyes?”

“No, [F.256.a] Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.418The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the eyes is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.419The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.420The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.421The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.422The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.423The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the ears is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.424The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.425The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.426The Blessed One then asked, [F.256.b] “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.427The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.428The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the nose is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.429The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.430The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.431The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.432The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.433The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the tongue is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.434The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.435The Blessed One [F.257.a] then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.436The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.437The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.438The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the body is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.439The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.440The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.441The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.442The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.443The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the mental faculty is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” [F.257.b] he replied.

3.444The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.445The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.446The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.447The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.448The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of sights is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.449The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.450The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.451The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.452The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of sounds?” [F.258.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.453The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of sounds is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.454The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.455The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.456The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.457The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.458The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of odors is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.459The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.460The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.461The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that [F.258.b] a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.462The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.463The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of tastes is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.464The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.465The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.466The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.467The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.468The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of tangibles is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.469The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.470The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that [F.259.a] a bodhisattva is the real nature of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.471The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.472The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.473The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of mental phenomena is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.474The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.475The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.476The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.477The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.478The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes is [F.259.b] in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.479The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.480The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.481The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.482The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.483The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of sights is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.484The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of sights?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.485The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.486The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness?” [F.260.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.487The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.488The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.489The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.490The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.491The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.492The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of the ears?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.493The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the ears is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.494The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the ears?” [F.260.b]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.495The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.496The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.497The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.498The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of sounds is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.499The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of sounds?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.500The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.501The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.502The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness?” [F.261.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.503The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.504The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.505The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.506The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.507The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.508The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the nose is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.509The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the nose?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.510The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” [F.261.b] he replied.

3.511The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.512The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.513The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of odors is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.514The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of odors?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.515The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.516The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.517The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.518The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is in a bodhisattva?” [F.262.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.519The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.520The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.521The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.522The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.523The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.524The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.525The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.526The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of tastes?” [F.262.b]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.527The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.528The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of tastes is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.529The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tastes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.530The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.531The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.532The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.533The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.534The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is [F.263.a] the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.535The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.536The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.537The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.538The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the body is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.539The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the body?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.540The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.541The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.542The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is [F.263.b] in the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.543The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.544The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.545The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.546The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.547The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.548The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.549The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.550The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that [F.264.a] a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.551The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.552The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.553The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.554The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.555The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.556The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.557The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.558The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena is [F.264.b] in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.559The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.560The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.561The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.562The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.563The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.564The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.565The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the earth element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.566The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of [F.265.a] the earth element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.567The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the earth element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.568The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the earth element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.569The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the earth element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.570The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the water element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.571The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the water element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.572The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the water element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.573The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the water element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.574The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the water element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [F.265.b]

3.575The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the fire element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.576The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the fire element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.577The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the fire element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.578The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the fire element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.579The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the fire element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.580The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the wind element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.581The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the wind element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.582The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the wind element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.583The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the wind element is [F.266.a] in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.584The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the wind element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.585The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the space element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.586The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the space element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.587The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the space element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.588The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the space element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.589The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the space element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.590The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the consciousness element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.591The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that [F.266.b] a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the consciousness element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.592The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the consciousness element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.593The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the consciousness element is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.594The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the consciousness element?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.595The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of ignorance?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.596The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of ignorance?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.597The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of ignorance?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.598The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of ignorance is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.599The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of ignorance?” [F.267.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.600The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.601The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.602The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.603The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of formative predispositions is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.604The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.605The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.606The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.607The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of consciousness?”

“No, [F.267.b] Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.608The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of consciousness is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.609The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.610The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of name and form?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.611The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of name and form?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.612The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of name and form?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.613The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of name and form is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.614The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of name and form?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.615The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the six sense fields?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.616The Blessed One then asked, [F.268.a] “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the six sense fields?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.617The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the six sense fields?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.618The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the six sense fields is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.619The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the six sense fields?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.620The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of sensory contact?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.621The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of sensory contact?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.622The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of sensory contact?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.623The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of sensory contact is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.624The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is [F.268.b] the absence of the real nature of sensory contact?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.625The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of sensation?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.626The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of sensation?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.627The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of sensation?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.628The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of sensation is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.629The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of sensation?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.630The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of craving?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.631The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of craving?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.632The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of craving?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.633The Blessed One then asked, [F.269.a] “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of craving is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.634The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of craving?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.635The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of grasping?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.636The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of grasping?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.637The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of grasping?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.638The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of grasping is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.639The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of grasping?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.640The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of the rebirth process?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.641The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of the rebirth process?”

“No, [F.269.b] Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.642The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of the rebirth process?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.643The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the rebirth process is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.644The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of the rebirth process?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.645The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of birth ?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.646The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of birth ?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.647The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of birth ?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.648The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of birth is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.649The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of birth ?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.650The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the real nature of aging and death?” [F.270.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.651The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is anything other than the real nature of aging and death?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.652The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in the real nature of aging and death?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.653The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of aging and death is in a bodhisattva?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.654The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of the real nature of aging and death?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [B18]

3.655“Subhūti, for what reason have you said that physical forms are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than physical forms is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in physical forms, that physical forms are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of physical forms is not a bodhisattva; that feelings are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than feelings is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in feelings, that feelings are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of feelings is not a bodhisattva; that perceptions are not a bodhisattva, [F.270.b] that anything other than perceptions is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in perceptions, that perceptions are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of perceptions is not a bodhisattva; that formative predispositions are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in formative predispositions, that formative predispositions are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva; and that consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in consciousness, that consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the eyes are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the eyes is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the eyes, that the eyes are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the eyes is not a bodhisattva; that the ears are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the ears is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the ears, that the ears are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the ears is not a bodhisattva; that the nose is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the nose is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the nose, that the nose is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the nose is not a bodhisattva; that the tongue is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the tongue is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the tongue, that the tongue is not in a bodhisattva, [F.271.a] and that the absence of the tongue is not a bodhisattva; that the body is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the body is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the body, that the body is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the body is not a bodhisattva; and that the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the mental faculty, that the mental faculty is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva; that sights are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than sights is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in sights, that sights are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of sights is not a bodhisattva; that sounds are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than sounds is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in sounds, that sounds are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of sounds is not a bodhisattva; that odors are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than odors is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in odors, that odors are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of odors is not a bodhisattva; that tastes are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than tastes is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in tastes, that tastes are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of tastes is not a bodhisattva; that tangibles are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than tangibles is not a bodhisattva, [F.271.b] that a bodhisattva is not in tangibles, that tangibles are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of tangibles is not a bodhisattva; and that mental phenomena are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in mental phenomena, that mental phenomena are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of the eyes is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of the eyes is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of the eyes, that the sensory element of the eyes is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of the eyes is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of sights is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of sights is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of sights, that the sensory element of sights is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of sights is not a bodhisattva; and that the sensory element of visual consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of visual consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of visual consciousness, that the sensory element of visual consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of visual consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of the ears is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of the ears is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of the ears, that the sensory element of the ears is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence [F.272.a] of the sensory element of the ears is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of sounds is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of sounds is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of sounds, that the sensory element of sounds is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of sounds is not a bodhisattva; and that the sensory element of auditory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of auditory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of auditory consciousness, that the sensory element of auditory consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of auditory consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of the nose is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of the nose is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of the nose, that the sensory element of the nose is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence [F.272.b] of the sensory element of the nose is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of odors is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of odors is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of odors, that the sensory element of odors is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of odors is not a bodhisattva; and that the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, that the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of the tongue is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of the tongue is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of the tongue, that the sensory element of the tongue is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of the tongue is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of tastes is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of tastes is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of tastes, that the sensory element of tastes is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of tastes is not a bodhisattva; and that the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, that the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of the body is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of the body is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of the body, that the sensory element of the body is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of the body is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of tangibles is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of tangibles is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of tangibles, that the sensory element of tangibles is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of tangibles is not a bodhisattva; and that the sensory element of tactile consciousness [F.273.a] is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of tactile consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of tactile consciousness, that the sensory element of tactile consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of tactile consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of the mental faculty, that the sensory element of the mental faculty is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva; that the sensory element of mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of mental phenomena, that the sensory element of mental phenomena is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva; and that the sensory element of mental consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the sensory element of mental consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the sensory element of mental consciousness, that the sensory element of mental consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the sensory element of mental consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the earth element is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the earth element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the earth element, that the earth element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the earth element is not a bodhisattva; that the water element is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the water element [F.273.b] is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the water element, that the water element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the water element is not a bodhisattva; that the fire element is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the fire element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the fire element, that the fire element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the fire element is not a bodhisattva; that the wind element is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the wind element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the wind element, that the wind element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the wind element is not a bodhisattva; that the space element is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the space element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the space element, that the space element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the space element is not a bodhisattva; and that the consciousness element is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the consciousness element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the consciousness element, that the consciousness element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the consciousness element is not a bodhisattva; that ignorance is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than ignorance is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in ignorance, that ignorance is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of ignorance [F.274.a] is not a bodhisattva; that formative predispositions are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in formative predispositions, that formative predispositions are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva; that consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in consciousness, that consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that name and form are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than name and form is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in name and form, that name and form are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of name and form is not a bodhisattva; that the six sense fields are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the six sense fields is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the six sense fields, that the six sense fields are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the six sense fields is not a bodhisattva; that sensory contact is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than sensory contact is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in sensory contact, that sensory contact is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of sensory contact is not a bodhisattva; that sensation is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than sensation is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in sensation, that sensation is not [F.274.b] in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of sensation is not a bodhisattva; that craving is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than craving is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in craving, that craving is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of craving is not a bodhisattva; that grasping is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than grasping is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in grasping, that grasping is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of grasping is not a bodhisattva; that the rebirth process is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than the rebirth process is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the rebirth process, that the rebirth process is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the rebirth process is not a bodhisattva; that birth is not a bodhisattva, that anything other than birth is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in birth , that birth is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of birth is not a bodhisattva; and that aging and death are not a bodhisattva, that anything other than aging and death is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in aging and death, that aging and death are not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of aging and death is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of physical forms is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than physical forms is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of physical forms, that the real nature of physical forms is not in a bodhisattva, and that the real nature of the absence [F.275.a] of physical forms is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of feelings is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than feelings is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of feelings, that the real nature of feelings is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of feelings is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of perceptions is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than perceptions is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of perceptions, that the real nature of perceptions is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of perceptions is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of formative predispositions, that the real nature of formative predispositions is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of consciousness, that the real nature of consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the eyes is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the eyes is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the eyes, that the real nature of the eyes is not [F.275.b] in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the eyes is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the ears is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the ears is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the ears, that the real nature of the ears is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the ears is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the nose is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the nose is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the nose, that the real nature of the nose is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the nose is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the tongue is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the tongue is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the tongue, that the real nature of the tongue is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the tongue is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the body is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the body is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the body, that the real nature of the body is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the body is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the mental faculty, that the real nature of the mental faculty is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature [F.276.a] of sights is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than sights is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of sights, that the real nature of sights is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of sights is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of sounds is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than sounds is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of sounds, that the real nature of sounds is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of sounds is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of odors is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than odors is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of odors, that the real nature of odors is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of odors is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of tastes is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than tastes is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of tastes, that the real nature of tastes is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of tastes is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of tangibles is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than tangibles is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of tangibles, that the real nature of tangibles is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of tangibles is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature [F.276.b] of anything other than mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of mental phenomena, that the real nature of mental phenomena is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of the eyes is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes, that the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of sights is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of sights is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of sights, that the real nature of the sensory element of sights is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of sights is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of visual consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness, that the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of the ears is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of the ears is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in [F.277.a] the real nature of the sensory element of the ears, that the real nature of the sensory element of the ears is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the ears is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of sounds is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of sounds is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of sounds, that the real nature of the sensory element of sounds is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of sounds is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of auditory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, that the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of the nose is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of the nose is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of the nose, that the real nature of the sensory element of the nose is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the nose is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of odors is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of odors is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of odors, that the real nature of the sensory element of odors [F.277.b] is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of odors is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, that the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of the tongue is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue, that the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of tastes is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of tastes is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of tastes, that the real nature of the sensory element of tastes is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tastes is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, that the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of the body is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of the body is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of the body, that the real nature of the sensory element [F.278.a] of the body is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the body is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of tangibles is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles, that the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of tactile consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, that the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of the mental faculty is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty, that the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty [F.278.b] is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena, that the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the sensory element of mental consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness, that the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the earth element is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the earth element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the earth element, that the real nature of the earth element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the earth element is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the water element is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the water element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the water element, that the real nature of the water element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the water element is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the fire element is not [F.279.a] a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the fire element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the fire element, that the real nature of the fire element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the fire element is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the wind element is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the wind element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the wind element, that the real nature of the wind element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the wind element is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the space element is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the space element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the space element, that the real nature of the space element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the space element is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of the consciousness element is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the consciousness element is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the consciousness element, that the real nature of the consciousness element is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the consciousness element is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of ignorance is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than ignorance is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of ignorance, [F.279.b] that the real nature of ignorance is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of ignorance is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of formative predispositions, that the real nature of formative predispositions is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than consciousness is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of consciousness, that the real nature of consciousness is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of consciousness is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of name and form is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than name and form is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of name and form, that the real nature of name and form is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of name and form is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the six sense fields is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the six sense fields is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the six sense fields, that the real nature of the six sense fields is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the six sense fields is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of sensory contact is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature [F.280.a] of anything other than sensory contact is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of sensory contact, that the real nature of sensory contact is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of sensory contact is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of sensation is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than sensation is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of sensation, that the real nature of sensation is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of sensation is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of craving is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than craving is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of craving, that the real nature of craving is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of craving is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of grasping is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than grasping is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of grasping, that the real nature of grasping is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of grasping is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of the rebirth process is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than the rebirth process is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of the rebirth process, that the real nature of the rebirth process is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of the rebirth process is not a bodhisattva; that the real nature of birth is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than birth is not [F.280.b] a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of birth , that the real nature of birth is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of birth is not a bodhisattva; and that the real nature of aging and death is not a bodhisattva, that the real nature of anything other than aging and death is not a bodhisattva, that a bodhisattva is not in the real nature of aging and death, that the real nature of aging and death is not in a bodhisattva, and that the absence of the real nature of aging and death is not a bodhisattva?”

3.656Subhūti replied, “Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of physical forms become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than physical forms become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in physical forms, how could physical forms be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of physical forms become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of feelings become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than feelings become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in feelings, how could feelings be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of feelings become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of perceptions become a bodhisattva, [F.281.a] how could anything other than perceptions become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in perceptions, how could perceptions be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of perceptions become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than formative predispositions become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in formative predispositions, how could formative predispositions be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in consciousness, how could consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the eyes become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the eyes become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the eyes, how could the eyes be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the eyes become a bodhisattva? [F.281.b] Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the ears become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the ears become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the ears, how could the ears be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the ears become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the nose become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the nose become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the nose, how could the nose be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the nose become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the tongue become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the tongue become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the tongue, how could the tongue be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the tongue become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the body become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the body become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the body, how could the body be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the body become a bodhisattva? [F.282.a] Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, how could the designation of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the mental faculty become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the mental faculty, how could the mental faculty be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, how could sights become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than sights become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in sights, how could sights be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of sights become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of sounds become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than sounds become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in sounds, how could sounds be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of sounds become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of odors become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than odors become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in odors, how could odors be in a bodhisattva, [F.282.b] and how could the absence of odors become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of tastes become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than tastes become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in tastes, how could tastes be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of tastes become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of tangibles become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than tangibles become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in tangibles, how could tangibles be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of tangibles become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than mental phenomena become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in mental phenomena, how could mental phenomena be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of the eyes become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of the eyes become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of the eyes, [F.283.a] how could the sensory element of the eyes be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of the eyes become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of sights become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of sights become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of sights, how could the sensory element of sights be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of sights become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of visual consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of visual consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of visual consciousness, how could the sensory element of visual consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of visual consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of the ears become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of the ears become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of the ears, how could the sensory element of the ears be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of the ears become a bodhisattva? [F.283.b] Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of sounds become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of sounds become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of sounds, how could the sensory element of sounds be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of sounds become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of auditory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of auditory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of auditory consciousness, how could the sensory element of auditory consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of auditory consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of the nose become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of the nose become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of the nose, how could the sensory element of the nose be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of the nose become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of odors become a bodhisattva, how could anything other [F.284.a] than the sensory element of odors become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of odors, how could the sensory element of odors be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of odors become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of olfactory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, how could the sensory element of olfactory consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of the tongue become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of the tongue become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of the tongue, how could the sensory element of the tongue be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of the tongue become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of tastes become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of tastes become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of tastes, [F.284.b] how could the sensory element of tastes be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of tastes become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of gustatory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, how could the sensory element of gustatory consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of the body become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of the body become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of the body, how could the sensory element of the body be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of the body become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of tangibles become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of tangibles become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of tangibles, how could the sensory element of tangibles be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of tangibles become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of tactile consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of tactile consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of tactile consciousness, how could the sensory element of tactile consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of tactile consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, [F.285.a] if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of the mental faculty, how could the sensory element of the mental faculty be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of mental phenomena, how could the sensory element of mental phenomena be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the sensory element of mental consciousness become [F.285.b] a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the sensory element of mental consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the sensory element of mental consciousness, how could the sensory element of mental consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the sensory element of mental consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the earth element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the earth element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the earth element, how could the earth element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the earth element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the water element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the water element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the water element, how could the water element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the water element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the fire element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the fire element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the fire element, [F.286.a] how could the fire element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the fire element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the wind element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the wind element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the wind element, how could the wind element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the wind element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the space element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the space element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the space element, how could the space element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the space element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the consciousness element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the consciousness element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the consciousness element, how could the consciousness element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the consciousness element become [F.286.b] a bodhisattva? [B19]

3.657“Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of ignorance become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than ignorance become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in ignorance, how could ignorance be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of ignorance become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than formative predispositions become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in formative predispositions, how could formative predispositions be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in consciousness, how could consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of name and form become a bodhisattva, [F.287.a] how could anything other than name and form become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in name and form, how could name and form be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of name and form become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the six sense fields become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the six sense fields become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the six sense fields, how could the six sense fields be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the six sense fields become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of sensory contact become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than sensory contact become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in sensory contact, how could sensory contact be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of sensory contact become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of sensation become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than sensation become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in sensation, how could sensation be in a bodhisattva, and how [F.287.b] could the absence of sensation become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of craving become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than craving become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in craving, how could craving be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of craving become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of grasping become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than grasping become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in grasping, how could grasping be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of grasping become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the rebirth process become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the rebirth process become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the rebirth process, how could the rebirth process be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the rebirth process become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of birth become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than birth become a bodhisattva, [F.288.a] how could a bodhisattva be in birth , how could birth be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of birth become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of aging and death become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than aging and death become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in aging and death, how could aging and death be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of aging and death become a bodhisattva?

3.658Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the real nature of physical forms become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of physical forms become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of physical forms, how could the real nature of physical forms be in a bodhisattva, and how could the real nature of the absence of physical forms become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the real nature of feelings become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of feelings become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of feelings, how could the real nature of feelings be in a bodhisattva, and how could the real nature of the absence of feelings become [F.288.b] a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of perceptions become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of perceptions become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of perceptions, how could the real nature of perceptions be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of perceptions become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of formative predispositions, how could the real nature of formative predispositions be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of consciousness, how could the real nature of consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of consciousness become a bodhisattva? [F.289.a] Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the eyes become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the eyes become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the eyes, how could the real nature of the eyes be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the eyes become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the ears become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the ears become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the ears, how could the real nature of the ears be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the ears become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the nose become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the nose become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the nose, how could the real nature of the nose be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the nose become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the tongue become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than [F.289.b] the real nature of the tongue become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the tongue, how could the real nature of the tongue be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the tongue become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the body become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the body become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the body, how could the real nature of the body be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the body become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the mental faculty, how could the real nature of the mental faculty be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of sights become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of sights become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva [F.290.a] be in the real nature of sights, how could the real nature of sights be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of sights become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of sounds become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of sounds become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of sounds, how could the real nature of sounds be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of sounds become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of odors become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of odors become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of odors, how could the real nature of odors be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of odors become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of tastes become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of tastes become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of tastes, how could the real nature of tastes be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of tastes [F.290.b] become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of tangibles become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of tangibles become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of tangibles, how could the real nature of tangibles be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of tangibles become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva, how could the real nature of anything other than mental phenomena become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of mental phenomena, how could the real nature of mental phenomena be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes, how could the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes become a bodhisattva? [F.291.a] Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of sights become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of sights become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of sights, how could the real nature of the sensory element of sights be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of sights become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness, how could the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of the ears become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the ears become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of the ears, how could the real nature of the sensory element of the ears be in a bodhisattva, and how could [F.291.b] the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the ears become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of sounds become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of sounds become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of sounds, how could the real nature of the sensory element of sounds be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of sounds become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, how could the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of the nose become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the nose become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of the nose, how could the real nature of the sensory element of the nose be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of [F.292.a] the real nature of the sensory element of the nose become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of odors become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of odors become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of odors, how could the real nature of the sensory element of odors be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of odors become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, how could the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue, how could the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence [F.292.b] of the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of tastes become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of tastes become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of tastes, how could the real nature of the sensory element of tastes be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tastes become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, how could the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of the body become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the body become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of the body, how could the real nature of the sensory element of the body be in [F.293.a] a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the body become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles, how could the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tangibles become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, how could the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva, [F.293.b] how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty, how could the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena, how could the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness, how could the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the earth element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the earth element [F.294.a] become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the earth element, how could the real nature of the earth element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the earth element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the water element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the water element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the water element, how could the real nature of the water element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the water element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the fire element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the fire element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the fire element, how could the real nature of the fire element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the fire element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the wind element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the wind element become a bodhisattva, [F.294.b] how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the wind element, how could the real nature of the wind element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the wind element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the space element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the space element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the space element, how could the real nature of the space element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the space element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the consciousness element become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the consciousness element become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the consciousness element, how could the real nature of the consciousness element be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the consciousness element become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of ignorance become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of ignorance [F.295.a] become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of ignorance, how could the real nature of ignorance be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of ignorance become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of formative predispositions, how could the real nature of formative predispositions be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of formative predispositions become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of consciousness become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of consciousness, how could the real nature of consciousness be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of consciousness become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of name and form become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of name and form become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in [F.295.b] the real nature of name and form, how could the real nature of name and form be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of name and form become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the six sense fields become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the six sense fields become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the six sense fields, how could the real nature of the six sense fields be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the six sense fields become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of sensory contact become a bodhisattva, how could the real nature of anything other than sensory contact become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of sensory contact, how could the real nature of sensory contact be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of sensory contact become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of sensation become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of sensation become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of sensation, how could the real nature of sensation be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence [F.296.a] of the real nature of sensation become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of craving become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of craving become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of craving, how could the real nature of craving be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of craving become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of grasping become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of grasping become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of grasping, how could the real nature of grasping be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of grasping become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of the rebirth process become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of the rebirth process become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of the rebirth process, how could the real nature of the rebirth process be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of the rebirth process become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, [F.296.b] then how could the designation of the real nature of birth become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of birth become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of birth , how could the real nature of birth be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of birth become a bodhisattva? Blessed Lord, if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent and are not apprehended, then how could the designation of the real nature of aging and death become a bodhisattva, how could anything other than the real nature of aging and death become a bodhisattva, how could a bodhisattva be in the real nature of aging and death, how could the real nature of aging and death be in a bodhisattva, and how could the absence of the real nature of aging and death become a bodhisattva? That would be impossible.”

3.659“Excellent, excellent, Subhūti!” said the Blessed One. “Bodhisattva great beings, Subhūti, as beings that cannot be apprehended, should train accordingly in a perfection of wisdom that cannot be apprehended.

3.660“Subhūti, where you said, ‘What is it that has the designation bodhisattva ?’ do you think, Subhūti, this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.661The Blessed One [F.297.a] asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.662The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.663The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.664The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.665The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as permanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.666The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as impermanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.667The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as permanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.668The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as impermanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.669The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as permanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [F.297.b]

3.670The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as impermanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.671The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as permanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.672The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as impermanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.673The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as permanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.674The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as impermanent?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.675The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as happiness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.676The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as suffering?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.677The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as happiness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [F.298.a]

3.678The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as suffering?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.679The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as happiness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.680The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as suffering?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.681The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as happiness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.682The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as suffering?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.683The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as happiness?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.684The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as suffering?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.685The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as self?” [F.298.b]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.686The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as nonself?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.687The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as self?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.688The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as nonself?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.689The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as self?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.690The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as nonself?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.691The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as self?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.692The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as nonself?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.693The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think [F.299.a] this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as self?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.694The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as nonself?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.695The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.696The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as not at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.697The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.698The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as not at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.699The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.700The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as not at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.701The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think [F.299.b] this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.702The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as not at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.703The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.704The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as not at peace?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.705The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.706The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as not empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.707The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.708The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as not empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.709The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think [F.300.a] this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.710The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as not empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.711The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.712The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as not empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.713The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.714The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as not empty?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.715The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as a sign?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.716The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as signless?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.717The Blessed One [F.300.b] asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as a sign?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.718The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as a sign?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.719The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as a sign?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.720The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as signless?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.721The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as a sign?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.722The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as signless?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.723The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as a sign?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.724The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as signless?” [F.301.a]

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.725The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as with wishes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.726The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of physical form as wishless?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.727The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as with wishes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.728The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of feeling as wishless?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.729The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as with wishes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.730The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of perception as wishless?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.731The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ [F.301.b] is the designation of formative predispositions as with wishes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.732The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of formative predispositions as wishless?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.733The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as with wishes?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.734The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, do you think this ‘bodhisattva’ is the designation of consciousness as wishless?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

3.735The Blessed One then said, “Subhūti, based on what reason do you say that the designation of physical form is not a bodhisattva, that the designation of feeling is not a bodhisattva, that the designation of perception is not a bodhisattva, that the designation of formative predispositions is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of consciousness is not a bodhisattva? Based on what reason do you say that the designation of physical form as permanent is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of physical form as impermanent is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of feeling as permanent is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of feeling as impermanent is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of perception as permanent is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of perception as impermanent is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of formative predispositions as permanent is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of formative predispositions as impermanent is not a bodhisattva; and that the designation of consciousness as permanent is not a bodhisattva, [F.302.a] and that the designation of consciousness as impermanent is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of physical form as happiness is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of physical form as suffering is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of feeling as happiness is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of feeling as suffering is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of perception as happiness is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of perception as suffering is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of formative predispositions as happiness is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of formative predispositions as suffering is not a bodhisattva; and that the designation of consciousness as happiness is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of consciousness as suffering is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of physical form as self is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of physical form as nonself is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of feeling as self is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of feeling as nonself is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of perception as self is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of perception as nonself is not a bodhisattva, that the designation of formative predispositions as self is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of formative predispositions as nonself is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of consciousness as self is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of consciousness as nonself is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of physical form [F.302.b] as at peace is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of physical form as not at peace is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of feeling as at peace is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of feeling as not at peace is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of perception as at peace is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of perception as not at peace is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of formative predispositions as at peace is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of formative predispositions as not at peace is not a bodhisattva; and that the designation of consciousness as at peace is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of consciousness as not at peace is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of physical form as empty is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of physical form as not empty is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of feeling as empty is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of feeling as not empty is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of perception as empty is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of perception as not empty is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of formative predispositions as empty is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of formative predispositions as not empty is not a bodhisattva; and that the designation of consciousness as empty is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of consciousness as not empty is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of physical form as a sign is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of physical form as signless is not a bodhisattva; [F.303.a] that the designation of feeling as a sign is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of feeling as signless is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of perception as a sign is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of perception as signless is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of formative predispositions as a sign is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of formative predispositions as signless is not a bodhisattva; and that the designation of consciousness as a sign is not a bodhisattva, that the designation of consciousness as signless is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of physical form as with wishes is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of physical form as wishless is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of feeling as with wishes is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of feeling as wishless is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of perception as with wishes is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of perception as wishless is not a bodhisattva; that the designation of formative predispositions as with wishes is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of formative predispositions as wishless is not a bodhisattva; and that the designation of consciousness as with wishes is not a bodhisattva, and that the designation of consciousness as wishless is not a bodhisattva?”

3.736“Blessed Lord,” replied Subhūti, “if physical forms [F.303.b] are absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form? Blessed Lord, if feelings are absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling? Blessed Lord, if perceptions are absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception? Blessed Lord, if formative predispositions are absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions? Blessed Lord, if consciousness is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness?

3.737“Blessed Lord, if ‘permanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as permanent? Blessed Lord, if ‘impermanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as impermanent? Blessed Lord, if ‘permanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as permanent? Blessed Lord, if ‘impermanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as impermanent? Blessed Lord, if ‘permanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as permanent? Blessed Lord, if ‘impermanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as impermanent? [F.304.a] Blessed Lord, if ‘permanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as permanent? Blessed Lord, if ‘impermanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as impermanent? Blessed Lord, if ‘permanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as permanent? Blessed Lord, if ‘impermanent’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as impermanent?

3.738“Blessed Lord, if happiness is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as happiness? Blessed Lord, if suffering is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as suffering? Blessed Lord, if happiness is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as happiness? Blessed Lord, if suffering is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as suffering? Blessed Lord, if happiness is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as happiness? Blessed Lord, if suffering is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as suffering? Blessed Lord, if happiness is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as happiness? Blessed [F.304.b] Lord, if suffering is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of suffering as impermanent? Blessed Lord, if happiness is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as happiness? Blessed Lord, if suffering is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as suffering?

3.739“Blessed Lord, if self is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as self? Blessed Lord, if nonself is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as nonself? Blessed Lord, if self is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as self? Blessed Lord, if nonself is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as nonself? Blessed Lord, if self is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as self? Blessed Lord, if nonself is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as nonself? Blessed Lord, if self is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as self? Blessed Lord, if nonself is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, [F.305.a] how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as nonself? Blessed Lord, if self is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as self? Blessed Lord, if nonself is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as nonself?

3.740“Blessed Lord, if peace is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as at peace? Blessed Lord, if ‘not at peace’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as not at peace? Blessed Lord, if peace is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as at peace? Blessed Lord, if ‘not at peace’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as not at peace? Blessed Lord, if peace is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as at peace? Blessed Lord, if ‘not at peace’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as not at peace? Blessed Lord, if peace is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as at peace? Blessed Lord, if ‘not at peace’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as not at peace? Blessed Lord, if peace is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be [F.305.b] the designation of consciousness as at peace? Blessed Lord, if ‘not at peace’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as not at peace?

3.741“Blessed Lord, if ‘empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as empty? Blessed Lord, if ‘not empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as not empty? Blessed Lord, if ‘empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as empty? Blessed Lord, if ‘not empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as not empty? Blessed Lord, if ‘empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as empty? Blessed Lord, if ‘not empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as not empty? Blessed Lord, if ‘empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva become the designation of formative predispositions as empty? Blessed Lord, if ‘not empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as not empty? Blessed Lord, if ‘empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as empty? Blessed Lord, if ‘not empty’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as not empty?

3.742“Blessed Lord, if a sign is absolutely nonexistent [F.306.a] and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as a sign? Blessed Lord, if ‘signless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as signless? Blessed Lord, if a sign is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as a sign? Blessed Lord, if ‘signless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as signless? Blessed Lord, if a sign is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as a sign? Blessed Lord, if ‘signless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as signless? Blessed Lord, if a sign is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as a sign? Blessed Lord, if ‘signless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as signless? Blessed Lord, if a sign is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as a sign? Blessed Lord, if ‘signless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as signless?

3.743“Blessed Lord, if ‘with wishes’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, [F.306.b] how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as with wishes? Blessed Lord, if ‘wishless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of physical form as wishless? Blessed Lord, if ‘with wishes’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as with wishes? Blessed Lord, if ‘wishless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of feeling as wishless? Blessed Lord, if ‘with wishes’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as with wishes? Blessed Lord, if ‘wishless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of perception as wishless? Blessed Lord, if ‘with wishes’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as with wishes? Blessed Lord, if ‘wishless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of formative predispositions as wishless? Blessed Lord, if ‘with wishes’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as with wishes? Blessed Lord, if ‘wishless’ is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, how could a bodhisattva be the designation of consciousness as wishless?”

3.744“Excellent, excellent, Subhūti!” said the Blessed One. “When bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom [F.307.a] in that manner, they should train in the perfection of wisdom without apprehending the designation of physical form, without apprehending the designation of feeling, without apprehending the designation of perception, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions, and without apprehending the designation of consciousness; without apprehending the designation of physical form as permanent, without apprehending the designation of physical form as impermanent, without apprehending the designation of feeling as permanent, without apprehending the designation of feeling as impermanent, without apprehending the designation of perception as permanent, without apprehending the designation of perception as impermanent, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as permanent, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as impermanent, without apprehending the designation of consciousness as permanent, and without apprehending the designation of consciousness as impermanent; without apprehending the designation of physical form as happiness, without apprehending the designation of physical form as suffering, without apprehending the designation of feeling as happiness, without apprehending the designation of feeling as suffering, without apprehending the designation of perception as happiness, without apprehending the designation of perception as suffering, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as happiness, without apprehending the designation of consciousness as suffering, without apprehending the designation of consciousness as happiness, and without apprehending the designation of consciousness as suffering; without apprehending the designation of physical form as self, without apprehending the designation of physical form as nonself, without apprehending the designation of feeling as self, without apprehending the designation of feeling as nonself, without apprehending the designation of [F.307.b] perception as self, without apprehending the designation of perception as nonself, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as self, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as nonself, without apprehending the designation of consciousness as self, and without apprehending the designation of consciousness as nonself; without apprehending the designation of physical form as at peace, without apprehending the designation of physical form as not at peace, without apprehending the designation of feeling as at peace, without apprehending the designation of feeling as not at peace, without apprehending the designation of perception as at peace, without apprehending the designation of perception as not at peace, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as at peace, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as not at peace, without apprehending the designation of consciousness as at peace, and without apprehending the designation of consciousness as not at peace; without apprehending the designation of physical form as empty, without apprehending the designation of physical form as not empty, without apprehending the designation of feeling as empty, without apprehending the designation of feeling as not empty, without apprehending the designation of perception as empty, without apprehending the designation of perception as not empty, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as empty, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as not empty, without apprehending the designation of consciousness as empty, and without apprehending the designation of consciousness as not empty; without apprehending the designation of physical form as a sign, without apprehending the designation of physical form as signless, without apprehending the designation of feeling as a sign, without apprehending the designation of feeling as signless, without apprehending [F.308.a] the designation of perception as a sign, without apprehending the designation of perception as signless, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as a sign, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as signless, without apprehending the designation of consciousness as a sign, and without apprehending the designation of consciousness as signless; and without apprehending the designation of physical form as with wishes, without apprehending the designation of physical form as wishless, without apprehending the designation of feeling as with wishes, without apprehending the designation of feeling as wishless, without apprehending the designation of perception as with wishes, without apprehending the designation of perception as wishless, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as with wishes, without apprehending the designation of formative predispositions as wishless, without apprehending the designation of consciousness as with wishes, and without apprehending the designation of consciousness as wishless.

3.745“With regard to what you said, Subhūti, namely, ‘I do not observe any such phenomenon as a “bodhisattva,” ’ Subhūti, a mental phenomenon does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a mental phenomenon. Subhūti, a sensory element of sights does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of sights. Subhūti, a sensory element of feeling does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of feeling. Subhūti, a sensory element of perception does not observe [F.308.b] a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of perception. Subhūti, a sensory element of formative predispositions does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of formative predispositions. Subhūti, a sensory element of consciousness does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of consciousness.

3.746“Subhūti, a sensory element of the eyes does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of the eyes. Subhūti, a sensory element of the ears does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of the ears. Subhūti, a sensory element of the nose does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of the nose. Subhūti, a sensory element of the tongue does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of the tongue. Subhūti, a sensory element of the body does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of the body. Subhūti, a sensory element of the mental faculty does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of the mental faculty.

3.747“Subhūti, a sensory element of sights does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of sights. Subhūti, a sensory element of sounds does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of sounds. Subhūti, a sensory element of odors does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of odors. Subhūti, a sensory element of tastes does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of tastes. Subhūti, a sensory element of tangibles does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of tangibles. Subhūti, a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena; a sensory element of mental phenomena does not observe a sensory element of mental phenomena.

3.748“Subhūti, a conditioned element does not observe an unconditioned element; an unconditioned element does not observe a conditioned element. Neither can an unconditioned element be designated without a conditioned element, nor can a conditioned element be designated without an unconditioned element. Accordingly, Subhūti, [F.309.a] when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom, they do not observe any phenomenon at all. Since they do not observe anything, they are not afraid, not frightened, and not terrified. They are not disheartened by anything. They are not regretful. If you ask why, Subhūti, it is because when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom, they do not observe physical forms, do not observe feelings, do not observe perceptions, do not observe formative predispositions, and do not observe consciousness; do not observe the eyes, do not observe the ears, do not observe the nose, do not observe the tongue, do not observe the body, and do not observe the mental faculty; do not observe sights, do not observe sounds, do not observe odors, do not observe tastes, do not observe tangibles, and do not observe mental phenomena; and do not observe the earth element, do not observe the water element, do not observe the fire element, do not observe the wind element, do not observe the space element, and do not observe the consciousness element. They do not observe ignorance, do not observe formative predispositions, do not observe consciousness, do not observe name and form, [F.309.b] do not observe the six sense fields, do not observe sensory contact, do not observe sensation, do not observe craving, do not observe grasping, do not observe the rebirth process, do not observe birth , and do not observe aging and death. They do not observe attachment. They do not observe hatred or delusion. They do not observe the self. They do not observe a being, do not observe a life form, do not observe a living being , do not observe a life , do not observe an individual , do not observe a person , do not observe one born of Manu, do not observe a child of Manu, do not observe an agent, do not observe an instigator of an agent, do not observe an experiencer do not observe an instigator of an experiencer, do not observe a knower, and do not observe a viewer. They do not observe the realm of desire, do not observe the realm of form, and do not observe the realm of formlessness. They do not observe the mind of śrāvakas, do not observe the mind of pratyekabuddhas, and do not observe [F.310.a] the mind of enlightenment. They do not observe śrāvakas. They do not observe the attributes of śrāvakas. They do not observe pratyekabuddhas. They do not observe the attributes of pratyekabuddhas. They do not observe bodhisattvas. They do not observe the attributes of bodhisattvas. They do not observe buddhas. They do not observe the attributes of buddhas. They do not observe enlightenment. They do not observe the attributes of enlightenment. They do not observe anything, up to and including all mundane and supramundane phenomena. Since they do not observe anything at all, they are not afraid, not frightened, and not terrified.”

3.749“Blessed Lord, when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom in that manner, why does their mind not become disheartened or intimidated by all phenomena?” asked Subhūti.

3.750The Blessed One replied, “Subhūti, it is because bodhisattva great beings do not observe the phenomena that are mind and mental factors. Therefore, Subhūti, when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom in that manner, their mind does not become disheartened or intimidated by all phenomena.”

3.751Subhūti asked, “Why does the mental faculty of bodhisattva great beings not become afraid?”

The Blessed One [F.310.b] replied, “Subhūti, it is because bodhisattva great beings do not observe the mental faculty or the sensory element of the mental faculty. Therefore, Subhūti, the mental faculty of bodhisattva great beings does not become afraid.

3.752“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings should train in the perfection of wisdom accordingly by not apprehending anything at all. Subhūti, if, when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom, they do not apprehend that perfection of wisdom, also do not apprehend a bodhisattva, also do not apprehend the term bodhisattva , and also do not apprehend the mind of enlightenment, then that itself is the teaching for bodhisattva great beings, that itself is the instruction.”

3.753This completes the third chapter from The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines. [B20]