THE GREAT PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ SUTRA
VOLUME 426
Chapter 25: ŚAKRA (2)
At that time, the gods thought: “The Venerable Subhūti, regarding this Prajñāpāramitā, although he uses many skillful means to explain it in order to make it easy to understand, its meaning becomes even deeper and more wondrous, truly difficult to measure or comprehend.”
The Elder Subhūti, knowing what the gods were thinking, said:
“O gods, form up to consciousness are not profound, are not wondrous; the self-nature of form up to the self-nature of consciousness is also not profound, not wondrous. The eye-base up to the mind-base are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of the eye-base up to the self-nature of the mind-base are also not profound, not wondrous. The form-base up to the dharma-base are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of the form-base up to the self-nature of the dharma-base are also not profound, not wondrous. The eye-element up to the mind-element are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of the eye-element up to the self-nature of the mind-element are also not profound, not wondrous. The form-element up to the dharma-element are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of the form-element up to the self-nature of the dharma-element are also not profound, not wondrous. The eye-consciousness element up to the mind-consciousness element are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of the eye-consciousness element up to the self-nature of the mind-consciousness element are also not profound, not wondrous. Eye-contact up to mind-contact are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of eye-contact up to the self-nature of mind-contact are also not profound, not wondrous. The feelings arising from eye-contact as condition, up to the feelings arising from mind-contact as condition, are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of the feelings arising from eye-contact as condition up to the self-nature of the feelings arising from mind-contact as condition are also not profound, not wondrous. The perfection of giving up to the perfection of wisdom are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of the perfection of giving up to the self-nature of the perfection of wisdom are also not profound, not wondrous. Inner emptiness up to emptiness of the emptiness of self-nature are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of inner emptiness up to the self-nature of emptiness of the emptiness of self-nature are also not profound, not wondrous. The four foundations of mindfulness, broadly speaking up to the eighteen exclusive Buddha-dharmas, are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of the four foundations of mindfulness broadly speaking up to the self-nature of the eighteen exclusive Buddha-dharmas are also not profound, not wondrous. All samādhi dharma-gates and all dhāraṇī dharma-gates are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of all samādhi dharma-gates and the self-nature of all dhāraṇī dharma-gates are also not profound, not wondrous. Up to all-knowledge, knowledge of the paths, and knowledge of all aspects are not profound, not wondrous; the self-nature of all-knowledge, the self-nature of knowledge of the paths, and knowledge of all aspects are also not profound, not wondrous.”
The gods again thought: “In the teaching that the Venerable Subhūti has spoken, he does not establish form up to consciousness. He does not establish the eye-base up to the mind-base. He does not establish the form-base up to the dharma-base. He does not establish the eye-element up to the mind-element. He does not establish the form-element up to the dharma-element. He does not establish the eye-consciousness element up to the mind-consciousness element. He does not establish eye-contact up to mind-contact. He does not establish the feelings arising from eye-contact as condition up to the feelings arising from mind-contact as condition. He does not establish the perfection of giving up to the perfection of wisdom. He does not establish inner emptiness up to emptiness of the emptiness of self-nature. He does not establish the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen exclusive Buddha-dharmas. He does not establish all samādhi dharma-gates or all dhāraṇī dharma-gates. He does not establish all-knowledge, knowledge of the paths, or knowledge of all aspects. He does not establish Stream-entry or the fruit of Stream-entry, up to not establishing Arhatship or the fruit of Arhatship. He does not establish the Pratyekabuddha and Pratyekabuddha enlightenment. He does not establish Bodhisattvas and the stages of Bodhisattvas. He does not establish the Tathāgata, Arhat, Perfectly Enlightened One, or the supreme state of enlightenment, and he also does not establish words or language.”
The Elder Subhūti, knowing what the gods were thinking, said to them:
“Indeed, indeed! It is just as you have thought. The dharmas from form up to the supreme state of enlightenment are all free from words and cannot be expressed. Therefore, in the Prajñāpāramitā there is no speaking, no hearing, and no one who understands. Thus, regarding all dharmas, you should follow what has been spoken and cultivate the profound and firm patience of the Dharma. Those who wish to abide in and attain the fruit of Stream-entry, Once-returning, Non-returning, or Arhatship can do so only through this Dharma-patience. Those who wish to abide in and attain the supreme state of enlightenment must rely on this Dharma-patience in order to abide and attain it.
“O gods, from the time great Bodhisattvas first generate the mind of enlightenment until they accomplish the supreme state of enlightenment, they should abide in the Prajñāpāramitā, without speaking, hearing, or understanding, and should constantly diligently cultivate and learn.”
Chapter 26: FAITH AND ACCEPTANCE
At that time, the gods thought: “Today, for what kinds of sentient beings does the Venerable Subhūti wish to teach, and what kind of Dharma does he delight in explaining?”
The Elder Subhūti, knowing the thoughts of the gods, said:
“O gods, now I wish to teach for sentient beings who are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams, and I delight in explaining Dharma that is like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. Why? O gods, because in this way, the listener does not hear what is taught, does not understand it, and does not attain realization.”
At that moment, the gods again asked:
“Are the speaker, the listener, and the Dharma being taught all like illusions, like transformations, and like dreams?”
The Venerable Subhūti replied:
“Indeed, indeed, it is just as you have said. Sentient beings are like illusions; for people who are like illusions, Dharma like illusions is taught. Sentient beings are like transformations; for people who are like transformations, Dharma like transformations is taught. Sentient beings are like dreams; for people who are like dreams, Dharma like dreams is taught.
“O gods, the self up to views are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. Form up to consciousness are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. The eye up to the mind are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. Form up to dharmas are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. Eye-consciousness up to mind-consciousness are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. Eye-contact up to mind-contact are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. The feelings arising from eye-contact up to the feelings arising from mind-contact are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. The perfection of giving up to the perfection of wisdom are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. Inner emptiness up to emptiness of the emptiness of self-nature are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. The four foundations of mindfulness, broadly speaking up to the eighteen exclusive Buddha-dharmas, are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. Likewise, up to the fruit of Stream-entry and the fruit of Arhatship, they are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams. Pratyekabuddha enlightenment and the supreme state of enlightenment are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams.”
The gods asked the Venerable Subhūti:
“Now the Venerable One not only says that the self, form, and up to the supreme state of enlightenment are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams, but does he also say that Nirvāṇa is likewise a perception that is like illusion, like transformation, like dream?”
The Venerable Subhūti replied:
“O gods, not only do I say that the self, form, and up to the supreme state of enlightenment are all perceptions that are like illusions, like transformations, like dreams, but I also say that Nirvāṇa itself is likewise a perception that is like illusion, like transformation, like dream.
“O gods, if there were any Dharma surpassing Nirvāṇa, I would also say that it is a perception like illusion, like transformation, like dream. Why? O gods, because the phenomenon of illusion, transformation, and dream, together with all dharmas up to Nirvāṇa, are also non-dual and have no two places.”
At that time, the Venerable Śāriputra, Great Maudgalyāyana, Great Keeper of the Treasury, Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra, Mahākātyāyana, Mahākāśyapa, and the entire assembly of great Śrāvakas, together with countless hundreds of thousands of great Bodhisattvas, asked the Elder Subhūti:
“You have taught such profound Prajñāpāramitā, difficult to see, difficult to know, peaceful, subtle, deeply hidden, supremely wondrous and excellent. Who can have faith in and accept it?”
The Venerable Ānanda, hearing the assembly ask this, said to the great Śrāvakas and great Bodhisattvas:
“There are irreversible great Bodhisattvas who can have faith in and accept this profound Prajñāpāramitā, difficult to see, difficult to know, peaceful, subtle, deeply hidden, supremely wondrous and excellent. There are also countless beings who have seen the noble truths and can penetrate profound Dharma to its very source. Arhats whose aspirations have been fulfilled can also have faith in and accept what has been taught about this profound Prajñāpāramitā. There are also countless great Bodhisattvas who, in past times, have drawn near to and made offerings to tens of thousands of millions of Buddhas, made vast vows, planted many roots of virtue, and can have faith in and accept this profound Prajñāpāramitā. There are also countless virtuous men and women who, in past times, made vast vows before innumerable Buddhas and planted wholesome roots, whose faculties and natures are intelligent and sharp, who are protected by spiritual friends, and who can also have faith in and accept this profound Prajñāpāramitā. Why? Because such people do not use emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, non-arising, non-ceasing, peace, and detachment to discriminate form up to consciousness. Nor do they use form up to consciousness to discriminate emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, non-arising, non-ceasing, peace, and detachment. In this way, they do not use emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, non-arising, non-ceasing, peace, and detachment to discriminate the eye up to the mind; form up to dharmas; eye-consciousness up to mind-consciousness; eye-contact up to mind-contact; feelings arising from eye-contact as condition up to feelings arising from mind-contact as condition; the perfection of giving up up to the perfection of wisdom; inner emptiness up to emptiness of the emptiness of self-nature; the four foundations of mindfulness, broadly speaking up to the eighteen exclusive Buddha-dharmas; all samādhi dharma-gates; all dhāraṇī dharma-gates; the fruit of Stream-entry up to the fruit of Arhatship; Pratyekabuddha enlightenment; all practices of great Bodhisattvas; the supreme enlightenment of all Buddhas; all-knowledge, knowledge of the paths, and knowledge of all aspects; the conditioned realm and the unconditioned realm. They also do not use the eye up to the unconditioned realm to discriminate emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, non-arising, non-ceasing, peace, and detachment. Because of this cause and condition, such people are able to have faith in and accept what has been taught about this profound Prajñāpāramitā, difficult to see, difficult to know, peaceful, subtle, deeply hidden, supremely wondrous and excellent.”
The Elder Subhūti said to the gods:
“Thus, what has been said about this profound Prajñāpāramitā, difficult to see, difficult to know, peaceful, subtle, deeply hidden, supremely wondrous and excellent, is not an object of thought because it transcends the realm of thought. Within it, there truly is no person capable of having faith and acceptance. Why? O gods, because within this there is no Dharma that can be displayed. Since there truly is no Dharma that can be displayed, the one who has faith and acceptance truly cannot be found.”
At that time, the Venerable Śāriputra asked the Venerable Subhūti:
“Within the profound Prajñāpāramitā Dharma that you have spoken of, does it encompass all Dharma corresponding to the three vehicles? Namely, the Śrāvaka vehicle, the Pratyekabuddha vehicle, and the Unsurpassed Vehicle. Does it universally include and teach great Bodhisattvas from the time they first generate the mind of enlightenment until the ten stages of the Bodhisattva path? That is, the perfection of giving up up to the perfection of wisdom, the four foundations of mindfulness, broadly speaking up to the eighteen exclusive Buddha-dharmas, all samādhi dharma-gates, all dhāraṇī dharma-gates, and, broadly speaking, the supreme miraculous powers for teaching and transforming great Bodhisattvas: namely, great Bodhisattvas who diligently practice this Prajñāpāramitā are born wherever they wish through transformation, their miraculous powers do not decline, and they abide in freedom and mastery, completely penetrating limitless Dharma-gates. From one Buddha-land to another, they respectfully make offerings, honor, and praise the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones. According to their wishes and aspirations, they can cultivate all wholesome roots, quickly accomplish perfection, receive and preserve the true Dharma in the presence of Buddhas until attaining supreme enlightenment, always remember without forgetting, constantly abide in superior meditation, remain free from scattered thoughts, and through this condition obtain unobstructed eloquence, inexhaustible eloquence, appropriate eloquence, swift eloquence, faultless eloquence, eloquence that explains meanings richly and fully, and wondrous eloquence surpassing all the world.”
The Venerable Subhūti replied:
“Indeed, indeed, it is just as you have said. In this profound teaching of the Prajñāpāramitā, by using non-attainment as the means, the Dharma corresponding to the three vehicles is broadly explained, up to broadly explaining the supreme miraculous powers for teaching and transforming great Bodhisattvas, causing them to attain wondrous eloquence surpassing all the world, using non-attainment as the means. Here, regarding which Dharma is non-attainment used as the means? It is regarding the self up to views that non-attainment is used as the means. Regarding form up to consciousness, non-attainment is used as the means. Regarding the eye up to the mind, non-attainment is used as the means. Regarding form up to dharmas, non-attainment is used as the means. Regarding eye-consciousness up to mind-consciousness, non-attainment is used as the means. Regarding eye-contact up to mind-contact, non-attainment is used as the means. Regarding feelings arising from eye-contact as condition up to mind-contact, non-attainment is used as the means. Regarding the perfection of giving up up to the perfection of wisdom, non-attainment is used as the means. Regarding inner emptiness up to emptiness of the emptiness of self-nature, non-attainment is used as the means. Regarding the four foundations of mindfulness, broadly speaking up to the eighteen exclusive Buddha-dharmas, non-attainment is used as the means. Likewise, up to all-knowledge, knowledge of the paths, and knowledge of all aspects, non-attainment is used as the means.”
At that time, the Venerable Śāriputra asked the Venerable Subhūti:
“For what reason does this profound teaching of Prajñāpāramitā use non-attainment as the means to broadly explain the Dharma corresponding to the three vehicles, and for what reason does this profound teaching of Prajñāpāramitā use the Dharma of non-attainment as the means, up to broadly explaining the supreme miraculous powers for teaching and transforming great Bodhisattvas, causing them to attain wondrous eloquence surpassing all the world?”
The Venerable Subhūti replied:
“O Śāriputra, because of inner emptiness up to emptiness of the emptiness of self-nature, this profound teaching of Prajñāpāramitā uses non-attainment as the means to broadly explain the Dharma corresponding to the three vehicles.
“Śāriputra, because of inner emptiness up to emptiness of the emptiness of self-nature, this profound teaching of Prajñāpāramitā uses non-attainment as the means, up to broadly explaining the supreme miraculous powers for teaching and transforming great Bodhisattvas, causing them to attain wondrous eloquence surpassing all the world.”
Chapter 27: SCATTERING FLOWERS (1)
At that time, Śakra, Lord of the Gods, and the gods of the Four Great Kings in this trichiliocosm world, up to the Akanistha Heaven, all thought: “Today, the Venerable Subhūti, relying on the Buddha’s majestic power, is causing a great rain of Dharma to fall upon all sentient beings. At this time, we all should transform beautiful celestial incense and flowers and scatter them as offerings to Śākyamuni Tathāgata, the Great Bodhisattvas, the Bhikṣu Saṅgha, and the Venerable Subhūti; we should also scatter them as offerings to the profound Prajñāpāramitā. How wonderful this is!”
Having thought thus, Śakra, Lord of the Gods, and the celestial multitudes immediately transformed beautiful, fragrant celestial incense and flowers and scattered them as offerings to Śākyamuni Tathāgata, the Great Bodhisattvas, the Bhikṣu Saṅgha, the Venerable Subhūti, and the profound Prajñāpāramitā.
At that time, the Buddha-fields throughout the entire trichiliocosm world were filled with fragrant and beautiful flowers. Through the Buddha’s miraculous power, they gathered together in the sky and formed a magnificent flower pavilion of extraordinary beauty, equal in size to the trichiliocosm world.
The Venerable Subhūti saw this event and thought: “The flowers scattered today have never been seen even in the heavens. These flowers are marvelous; they surely were not born from grass, trees, water, or earth. They must have been manifested by the gods out of their minds in order to make offerings.”
At that time, Śakra, Lord of the Gods, knowing what the Venerable Subhūti was thinking, said:
“These flowers that have been scattered truly were not born from grass, trees, water, or earth; nor were they truly transformed by the mind. They are merely manifestations.”
The Venerable Subhūti said to Śakra, Lord of the Gods:
“Kāśika, you say that these flowers truly were not born from grass, trees, water, or earth; and that they truly were not transformed by the mind. Since they are not phenomena that arise, they cannot be called flowers.”
Śakra, Lord of the Gods, asked the Venerable Subhūti:
“Great Elder, not only are these flowers non-arising, but other phenomena are also the same.”
Subhūti replied:
“Not only are these flowers non-arising, but all other phenomena also have the meaning of non-arising. Why? Kāśika, form is also non-arising, and because it is non-arising, it is not form; feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are also non-arising, and because they are non-arising, they are not feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness. The eye up to the mind; forms up to phenomena; eye-consciousness up to mind-consciousness; eye-contact up to mind-contact; and the feelings arising dependent upon eye-contact up to the feelings arising dependent upon mind-contact are likewise so.
“Kāśika, the perfection of giving is also non-arising, and because it is non-arising, it is not the perfection of giving. The perfection of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom are also non-arising, and because they are non-arising, they are not the perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom. The emptiness of the internal up to the emptiness of the emptiness of intrinsic nature. The four foundations of mindfulness, broadly speaking up to the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha. Thus, up to all-knowledge, knowledge of the path-aspects, and knowledge of all aspects, all are likewise so.”
Śakra, Lord of the Gods, silently thought: “The Venerable Subhūti possesses profound wisdom; he speaks of the nature of phenomena without contradicting conventional designations.”
The Buddha, knowing this thought, said:
“Just as Kāśika has thought, the Venerable Subhūti possesses profound wisdom; he speaks of the nature of phenomena without contradicting conventional designations.”
Śakra, Lord of the Gods, then said to the Buddha:
“World-Honored One, regarding which phenomena does the Venerable Subhūti speak of the nature of phenomena without contradicting conventional designations?”
The Buddha taught:
“Kāśika, form is merely a conventional designation, therefore the Venerable Subhūti speaks of the nature of form without contradicting conventional designations. Feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are merely conventional designations, therefore the Venerable Subhūti speaks of the nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness without contradicting conventional designations. Why? Because the nature of all phenomena of form neither opposes nor conforms, therefore Subhūti’s words also neither oppose nor conform. Regarding the eye up to the mind, forms up to phenomena, eye-consciousness up to mind-consciousness, eye-contact up to mind-contact, and the feelings arising dependent upon eye-contact up to the feelings arising dependent upon mind-contact, it is likewise so.
“Kāśika, the perfection of giving is merely a conventional designation, therefore the Venerable Subhūti speaks of the nature of the perfection of giving without contradicting conventional designations. The perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom are merely conventional designations, therefore the Venerable Subhūti speaks of the nature of the perfections of morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom without contradicting conventional designations. Why? The nature of all phenomena of the perfection of giving neither opposes nor conforms, therefore Subhūti’s words also neither oppose nor conform. Regarding the emptiness of the internal up to the emptiness of the emptiness of intrinsic nature; the four foundations of mindfulness, broadly speaking up to the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha. Likewise, up to the fruit of Stream-Entry, the fruit of Arhatship, Pratyekabuddha awakening, up to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, all-knowledge, knowledge of the path-aspects, knowledge of all aspects, Stream-Entrants up to Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Tathāgatas are also the same.
“Kāśika, the Venerable Subhūti speaks the nature of phenomena without contradicting conventional designations regarding such phenomena.”
At that time, the Venerable Subhūti said to Śakra, Lord of the Gods:
“Kāśika, indeed so, indeed so, just as the Buddha has taught! All existing phenomena are merely conventional designations.
“Kāśika, the Great Bodhisattvas, having understood that all phenomena are merely conventional designations, should train in Prajñāpāramitā.
“Kāśika, when the Great Bodhisattvas train in this way, they do not train in form, nor do they train in feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness. Why? Kāśika, the Great Bodhisattvas do not see form that could be trained in; they do not see feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness that could be trained in. Therefore, regarding the eye up to the mind, forms up to phenomena, eye-consciousness up to mind-consciousness, eye-contact up to mind-contact, and the feelings arising dependent upon eye-contact up to the feelings arising dependent upon mind-contact, it is likewise so.
“Kāśika, when the Great Bodhisattvas train in this way, they do not train in the perfection of giving, nor do they train in morality, patience, diligence, meditation, or wisdom. Why? Kāśika, these Great Bodhisattvas do not see the perfection of giving that could be trained in; they do not see morality, patience, diligence, meditation, or wisdom that could be trained in. Therefore, regarding the emptiness of the internal up to the emptiness of the emptiness of intrinsic nature; the four foundations of mindfulness, broadly speaking up to the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha. Likewise, up to the fruit of Stream-Entry, the fruit of Arhatship, Pratyekabuddha awakening, up to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, all-knowledge, knowledge of the path-aspects, and knowledge of all aspects, it is also the same.
“At that time, Śakra, Lord of the Gods, asked Subhūti:
“For what reason do the Great Bodhisattvas not see form, up to not seeing knowledge of all aspects?”
The Venerable Subhūti replied:
“Kāśika, form is emptiness; up to knowledge of all aspects, knowledge of all aspects is emptiness. Kāśika, for this reason the Great Bodhisattvas do not see form, up to knowledge of all aspects.
“Kāśika, because the Great Bodhisattvas do not see form, they do not train in form; up to because they do not see knowledge of all aspects, they do not train in knowledge of all aspects. Why? Kāśika, one cannot use the emptiness of form, which cannot see the emptiness of form, to see the emptiness of form; up to one cannot use the emptiness of knowledge of all aspects, which cannot see the emptiness of knowledge of all aspects, to see the emptiness of knowledge of all aspects. Likewise, one cannot use the emptiness of form to train in the emptiness of form; up to one cannot use the emptiness of knowledge of all aspects to train in the emptiness of knowledge of all aspects.
“Kāśika, if a Great Bodhisattva does not train in emptiness, then this Great Bodhisattva is training in emptiness. Why? Because it is non-dual.
“Kāśika, if the Great Bodhisattva does not train in the emptiness of form, this is precisely training in the emptiness of form, because there is no duality; up to not training in the emptiness of knowledge of all aspects is precisely training in the emptiness of knowledge of all aspects, because there is no duality.
“Kāśika, if a Great Bodhisattva uses non-duality as a means to train in the emptiness of form, up to using non-duality as a means to train in the emptiness of knowledge of all aspects, this Great Bodhisattva can use non-duality as a means to train in the perfection of giving up to the perfection of wisdom. They can use non-duality as a means to train in the emptiness of the internal up to the emptiness of the emptiness of intrinsic nature. They can use non-duality as a means to train in the four foundations of mindfulness, broadly speaking up to the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha. Thus, they can use non-duality as a means to train in the fruit of Stream-Entry up to the fruit of Arhatship. They can use non-duality as a means to train in Pratyekabuddha awakening up to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment. They can use non-duality as a means to train in all-knowledge, knowledge of the path-aspects, and knowledge of all aspects.
“Kāśika, if a Great Bodhisattva can use non-duality as a means to train in the perfection of giving up to knowledge of all aspects, then this Great Bodhisattva can use non-duality as a means to train in the inconceivable pure Buddha-dharma, which is immeasurable, countless, and boundless.
“Kāśika, if a Great Bodhisattva can train in the inconceivable pure Buddha-dharma, which is immeasurable, countless, and boundless, then this Great Bodhisattva does not train because form increases, nor does this Bodhisattva train because form decreases; up to not training because knowledge of all aspects increases, nor training because knowledge of all aspects decreases.
“Kāśika, if a Great Bodhisattva does not train because form increases, nor because form decreases, up to not training because knowledge of all aspects increases, nor because knowledge of all aspects decreases, then this Great Bodhisattva does not train in order to protect form, nor does this Bodhisattva train in order to destroy form; up to not training in order to protect knowledge of all aspects, nor training in order to destroy knowledge of all aspects.”
At that time, the Venerable Śāriputra asked the Venerable Subhūti:
“When the Great Bodhisattvas train in this way, do they not train in order to protect form, nor do they train in order to destroy form, up to not training in order to protect knowledge of all aspects, nor training in order to destroy knowledge of all aspects?”
Venerable Subhūti replied:
That is right, that is right! Śāriputra, when the Great Bodhisattvas study in this way, they do not study for the sake of protecting form, nor do they study for the sake of destroying form. Likewise, they do not study for the sake of protecting the wisdom of all aspects, nor do they study for the sake of destroying the wisdom of all aspects.
Venerable Śāriputra asked Subhūti:
For what reason do the Great Bodhisattvas not study because they wish to protect form, nor study because they wish to destroy form? Likewise, why do they not study because they wish to protect the wisdom of all aspects, nor study because they wish to destroy the wisdom of all aspects?
Venerable Subhūti replied:
The Great Bodhisattvas do not see that there is form that can be protected or destroyed, nor do they see a person who can protect or destroy form. Likewise, they do not see that there is the wisdom of all aspects that can be protected or destroyed, nor do they see a person who can protect or destroy the wisdom of all aspects. Why? Śāriputra, because all phenomena of form, whether as subject or object, are empty both internally and externally.
Śāriputra, if a Great Bodhisattva, with regard to all phenomena, does not see them as something that can be protected or destroyed, nor does not see a person who can protect or destroy them, and studies the Prajñāpāramitā in this way, then this Great Bodhisattva can accomplish the wisdom of omniscience.
Venerable Śāriputra asked Subhūti:
Can the Great Bodhisattvas who study the Prajñāpāramitā in this way accomplish the wisdom of omniscience?
Venerable Subhūti replied:
Śāriputra, the Great Bodhisattvas who study the Prajñāpāramitā in this way can accomplish the wisdom of omniscience. This is because, with regard to all phenomena, they do not engage in protecting or destroying, but use this as a skillful means.
Venerable Śāriputra asked:
If the Great Bodhisattvas do not engage in protecting or destroying all phenomena, but use this as a skillful means, then how can they accomplish the wisdom of omniscience?
Venerable Subhūti replied:
Śāriputra, when this Great Bodhisattva cultivates the Prajñāpāramitā, they do not see form as arising or ceasing, as being taken up or abandoned, as defiled or purified, as increasing or decreasing. Likewise, they do not see the wisdom of all aspects as arising or ceasing, as being taken up or abandoned, as defiled or purified, as increasing or decreasing. Why? Because form, up to the wisdom of all aspects, is without inherent existence and cannot be grasped.
Thus, Śāriputra, when the Great Bodhisattvas cultivate the Prajñāpāramitā, with regard to all phenomena they do not see arising or ceasing, taking up or abandoning, defilement or purity, increase or decrease; taking the absence of anything to be learned and the absence of anything to be accomplished as a skillful means, they study the Prajñāpāramitā and can accomplish the wisdom of omniscience.
At that time, Śakra, Lord of the Devas, asked Śāriputra:
Venerable sir, how should the Great Bodhisattvas seek the study of the Prajñāpāramitā?
Venerable Śāriputra replied:
Kāśika, the Great Bodhisattvas should seek the study of the Prajñāpāramitā within the words spoken by Venerable Subhūti.
Śakra, Lord of the Devas, said to Venerable Subhūti:
Is it relying on the spiritual power of the Venerable One that Śāriputra speaks such words?
Subhūti said:
Kāśika, it is not my spiritual power that serves as the basis for Śāriputra to speak such words.
Śakra, Lord of the Devas, asked:
Whose spiritual power is that reliance based upon?
Venerable Subhūti said:
It is relying upon the spiritual power of the Buddha.
Śakra, Lord of the Devas, asked:
Venerable sir, all phenomena are without reliance. How then can it be said that the Buddha’s spiritual power is a place of reliance?
Venerable Subhūti said:
Kāśika, that is right, that is right, just as you have said! All phenomena are without reliance. Therefore, the Tathāgata is not a place of reliance, nor does he rely upon anything; it is only in accordance with worldly convention that it is said to be reliance.
Kāśika, it is not by departing from non-reliance that one sees the Tathāgata. It is not by departing from non-reliance on suchness that one sees the Tathāgata. It is not by departing from non-reliance on the nature of phenomena that one sees the Tathāgata. It is not by departing from non-reliance on the Tathāgata that one sees suchness. It is not by departing from non-reliance on the Tathāgata that one sees the nature of phenomena. It is not by departing from non-reliance on suchness and the Tathāgata that one sees suchness. It is not by departing from non-reliance on the nature of phenomena and the Tathāgata that one sees the nature of phenomena.
Kāśika, it is not within non-reliance that one sees the Tathāgata. It is not within the Tathāgata that one sees non-reliance.
It is not within non-reliance on suchness that one sees the Tathāgata. It is not within non-reliance on the Tathāgata that one sees suchness.
One cannot, by not relying on the nature of phenomena, see the Tathāgata. It is not within the Tathāgata that one sees the non-reliance of the nature of phenomena.
It is not within non-reliance that one sees suchness and the Tathāgata. It is not within suchness and the Tathāgata that one sees non-reliance.
It is not within non-reliance that one sees the nature of phenomena and the Tathāgata. It is not within the nature of phenomena and the Tathāgata that one sees non-reliance.
It is not within non-reliance on suchness that one sees suchness and the Tathāgata. It is not within suchness and the Tathāgata that one sees suchness without reliance.
It is not within the non-reliance of the nature of phenomena that one sees the nature of phenomena and the Tathāgata.
It is not within the nature of phenomena of the Tathāgata that one sees the non-reliance of the nature of phenomena.
Kāśika, it is not by being apart from form that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the Tathāgata.
It is not in the suchness of form that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not in the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the Tathāgata.
It is not in the dharma-nature of form that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not in the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the Tathāgata.
It is not by being apart from form that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata.
It is not by being apart from form that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata.
It is not by being apart from the suchness of form that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata.
It is not by being apart from the dharma-nature of form that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata.
Kāśika, it is not by being within form that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see form. It is not by being within feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.
It is not by being within the suchness of form that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see the suchness of form. It is not by being within the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.
It is not by being within the dharma-nature of form that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see the dharma-nature of form. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.
It is not by being within form that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the suchness of the Tathāgata that one is able to see form. It is not by being within feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the suchness of the Tathāgata that one is able to see feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.
It is not by being within form that one is able to see the Dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata that one is able to see form. It is not by being within feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata that one is able to see feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.
It is not by being within the suchness of form that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the suchness of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the suchness of form. It is not by being within the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the suchness of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.
It is not by being within the dharma-nature of form that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the dharma-nature of form. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.
Kāśika, ultimately, it is not by being apart from the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the Tathāgata.
It is not by being apart from the suchness of the knowledge of all aspects that one can see the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the suchness of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the dharma-nature of the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the dharma-nature of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the suchness of the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the suchness of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata.
It is not by being apart from the dharma-nature of the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being apart from the dharma-nature of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata.
Kāśika, it is not by being within the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see the knowledge of all aspects. It is not by being within path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge.
It is not by being within the suchness of the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the suchness of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the knowledge of all aspects. It is not by being within the suchness of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see the suchness of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge.
It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the knowledge of all aspects. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the Tathāgata that one is able to see the dharma-nature of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge.
It is not by being within the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the suchness of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the knowledge of all aspects. It is not by being within path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the suchness of the Tathāgata that one is able to see path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge.
It is not by being within the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the knowledge of all aspects. It is not by being within path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the dharma-nature of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge.
It is not by being within the suchness of the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the suchness of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the suchness of the knowledge of all aspects. It is not by being within the suchness of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the suchness of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the suchness of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the suchness of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge.
It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the knowledge of all aspects that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the knowledge of all aspects. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge that one is able to see the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata. It is not by being within the dharma-nature of the Tathāgata that one is able to see path-aspect knowledge and all-aspect knowledge.
Kāśika, the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with form; with feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as well, he is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with the suchness of form; with the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as well, he is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with the dharma-nature of form; with the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as well, he is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The suchness of the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with form; with the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, it is also neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The suchness of the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with the suchness of form; with the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, it is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The dharma-nature of the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with the dharma-nature of form; with the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, it is also neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The dharma-nature of the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with the dharma-nature of form; with the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, it is also neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
Kāśika, the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with being apart from form; with being apart from feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as well, he is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with being apart from the suchness of form; with being apart from the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as well, he is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with being apart from the dharma-nature of form; with being apart from the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as well, he is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The suchness of the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with being apart from form; with being apart from feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as well, it is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The suchness of the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with being apart from the suchness of form; with being apart from the suchness of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as well, it is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The dharma-nature of the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with being apart from form; with being apart from feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as well, it is neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
The dharma-nature of the Tathāgata is neither in agreement nor not in agreement with being apart from the dharma-nature of form; with being apart from the dharma-nature of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, it is also neither in agreement nor not in agreement.
Kāśika, thus, up to the Thus-Gone One, with regard to the Omniscient Knowledge, there is neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it; with regard to the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The Thus-Gone One, with regard to the suchness of the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to the suchness of the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The Thus-Gone One, with regard to the dharma-nature of the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to the dharma-nature of the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it. The suchness of the Thus-Gone One, with regard to the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The suchness of the Thus-Gone One, with regard to the suchness of the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to the suchness of the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The dharma-nature of the Thus-Gone One, with regard to the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The dharma-nature of the Thus-Gone One, with regard to the dharma-nature of the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to the dharma-nature of the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
Kāśika, the Thus-Gone One, with regard to separation from the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to separation from the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The Thus-Gone One, with regard to separation from the suchness of the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to separation from the suchness of the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The Thus-Gone One, with regard to separation from the dharma-nature of the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to separation from the dharma-nature of the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The suchness of the Thus-Gone One, with regard to separation from the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to separation from the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The suchness of the Thus-Gone One, with regard to separation from the suchness of the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to separation from the suchness of the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The dharma-nature of the Thus-Gone One, with regard to separation from the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to separation from the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
The dharma-nature of the Thus-Gone One, with regard to separation from the dharma-nature of the Omniscient Knowledge, is neither in accordance with it nor not in accordance with it; with regard to separation from the dharma-nature of the Knowledge of the Paths and the Knowledge of All Aspects, there is also neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it.
Kāśika, the Venerable Śāriputra said: With regard to all phenomena, it is neither “identical with” nor “separate from”; there is neither being in accordance with it nor not being in accordance with it. The supernatural power of the Thus-Gone One is the place of reliance, taking non-reliance as reliance.