The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines
Chapter 3

Then 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!”

Thereupon, 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 speech, or will he reveal it through the power of the Buddha?”

Then, 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.”

The 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.

“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?”

The 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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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 shoulders252 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.

“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.

“For example, Subhūti, it is like outer253 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.

“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.

“For example, Subhūti, simply the mere name of254 the blessed lord buddhas of the past remains.255 That name does not exist internally, nor does not it exist externally, and it cannot be apprehended in the absence of the two.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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]

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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]

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.256 When they practice the perfection of wisdom they remain in a state without conceptualization, and in order to cultivate257 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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.258

“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.

“They enter into a bodhisattva’s maturity,259 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.

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

“You have asked, Subhūti, ‘Blessed Lord, you have spoken of “bodhisattvas, bodhisattvas…” ’260 Do you think, Subhūti, that a bodhisattva is physical forms?”

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is in261 physical forms?”

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

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is the absence of physical forms?”262

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

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

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

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

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

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

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

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

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied. [B17]

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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]

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

“No, Blessed Lord,” he replied.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

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