The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines
Chapter 18: The Exposition of Going Forth in the Great Vehicle
Toh 10
Degé Kangyur, vol. 29 (shes phyin, ka), folios 1.a–300.a; vol. 30 (shes phyin, kha), folios 1.a–304.a; vol. 31 (shes phyin, ga), folios 1.a–206.a
Translated by Gareth Sparham
under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha
First published 2022
Current version v 1.0.13 (2022)
Generated by 84000 Reading Room v2.17.7
84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha is a global non-profit initiative to translate all the Buddha’s words into modern languages, and to make them available to everyone.
This work is provided under the protection of a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution - Non-commercial - No-derivatives) 3.0 copyright. It may be copied or printed for fair use, but only with full attribution, and not for commercial advantage or personal compensation. For full details, see the Creative Commons license.
Table of Contents
Summary
The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines is one version of the Long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras that developed in South and South-Central Asia in tandem with the Eight Thousand version, probably during the first five hundred years of the Common Era. It contains many of the passages in the oldest extant Long Perfection of Wisdom text (the Gilgit manuscript in Sanskrit), and is similar in structure to the other versions of the Long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras (the One Hundred Thousand and Twenty-Five Thousand) in Tibetan in the Kangyur. While setting forth the sacred fundamental doctrines of Buddhist practice with veneration, it simultaneously exhorts the reader to reject them as an object of attachment, its recurring message being that all dharmas without exception lack any intrinsic nature.
The sūtra can be divided loosely into three parts: an introductory section that sets the scene, a long central section, and three concluding chapters that consist of two important summaries of the long central section. The first of these (chapter 84) is in verse and also circulates as a separate work called The Verse Summary of the Jewel Qualities (Toh 13). The second summary is in the form of the story of Sadāprarudita and his guru Dharmodgata (chapters 85 and 86), after which the text concludes with the Buddha entrusting the work to his close companion Ānanda.
Acknowledgements
This sūtra was translated by Gareth Sparham under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The Translator’s Acknowledgments
This is a good occasion to remember and thank my friend Nicholas Ribush, who first gave me a copy of Edward Conze’s translation of The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines in 1973. I also thank the Tibetan teachers and students at the Riklam Lobdra in Dharamshala, India, where I began to study the Perfection of Wisdom, for their kindness and patience; Jeffrey Hopkins and Elizabeth Napper, who steered me in the direction of the Perfection of Wisdom and have been very kind to me over the years; and Ashok Aklujkar and others at the University of British Columbia in Canada, who taught me Sanskrit and Indian culture while I was writing my dissertation on Haribhadra’s Perfection of Wisdom commentary. I thank the hermits in the hills above Riklam Lobdra and the many Tibetan scholars and practitioners who encouraged me while I continued working on the Perfection of Wisdom after I graduated from the University of British Columbia. I thank all those who continued to support me as a monk and scholar after the violent death of my friend and mentor toward the end of the millennium. I thank those at the University of Michigan and then at the University of California (Berkeley), particularly Donald Lopez and Jacob Dalton, who enabled me to complete the set of four volumes of translations from Sanskrit of the Perfection of Wisdom commentaries by Haribhadra and Āryavimuktisena and four volumes of the fourteenth-century Tibetan commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom by Tsongkhapa. I thank Gene Smith, who introduced me to 84000. I thank everyone at 84000: Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche and the sponsors; the scholars, translators, editors, and technicians; and all the other indispensable people whose work has made this translation of The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines and its accompanying commentary possible.
Around me everything I see would be part of a perfect road if I had better driving skills.Where I was born, where everything is made of concrete, it too is a perfect place.Everyone I have been with, everyone who is near me now, and even those I have forgotten—there is no one who has not helped me.So, I bow to everyone and to the world and ask for patience, and, as a boon, a smile.
Acknowledgment of Sponsors
We gratefully acknowledge the generous sponsorship of Matthew Yizhen Kong, Steven Ye Kong and family; An Zhang, Hannah Zhang, Lucas Zhang, Aiden Zhang, Jinglan Chi, Jingcan Chi, Jinghui Chi and family, Hong Zhang and family; Mao Guirong, Zhang Yikun, Chi Linlin; and Joseph Tse, Patricia Tse and family. Their support has helped make the work on this translation possible.
Chapter 18: The Exposition of Going Forth in the Great Vehicle
“Subhūti, in regard to what you have asked—‘From where321 will the Great Vehicle go forth?’—it will go forth from the three realms and will stand wherever there is knowledge of all aspects, and it will stand, furthermore, by way of nonduality. And why? Because, Subhūti, these two dharmas—the Great Vehicle and the knowledge of all aspects—are not conjoined and not disjoined, are formless, cannot be pointed out, do not obstruct, and have only one mark—that is, no mark. And why? Because, Subhūti, a dharma without a mark is not going forth, nor will it go forth, nor has it gone forth. [F.180.b] Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth322 might as well assert of suchness that it goes forth. Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the very limit of reality, the inconceivable element, the abandonment element, the detachment element, and the cessation element that they go forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of suchness does not go forth from the three realms. And why? Because suchness is empty of the intrinsic nature of suchness.”
Connect this in the same way with each, up to the cessation element.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of form that it goes forth. Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of feeling . . . perception . . . volitional factors . . . and consciousness that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the emptiness of form will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. The emptiness of feeling . . . perception . . . volitional factors . . . and consciousness will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, form is empty of form, and feeling . . . perception . . . volitional factors . . . and consciousness is empty of consciousness.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of the eyes that it goes forth. [F.181.a] Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of the ears . . . the nose . . . the tongue . . . the body . . . and the thinking mind that it goes forth. Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of a form . . . , and the emptiness of a sound . . . , a smell . . . , a taste . . . , a feeling . . . , and a dharma . . . ; the emptiness of the eye consciousness . . . , and the emptiness of the ear . . . , the nose . . . , the tongue . . . , the body . . . , and the thinking-mind consciousness . . . ; the emptiness of eye contact . . . , and the emptiness of ear . . . , nose . . . , tongue . . . , body . . . , and thinking-mind contact; the emptiness of the feeling that arises from eye contact . . . , and the emptiness of the feeling that arises from ear . . . , nose . . . , tongue . . . , body . . . , and thinking-mind contact that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the emptiness of the eyes will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. Connect this in the same way with each, up to the emptiness of the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, eyes are empty of eyes. Connect this in the same way with each, up to because the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact is empty of the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of a dream that it goes forth. Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of an illusion, a mirage, an echo, an apparition, or a tathāgata’s [F.181.b] magical creation that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of a dream will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects, and similarly, Subhūti, because the intrinsic nature of an illusion, a mirage, an echo, an apparition, or a tathāgata’s magical creation will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of a dream is empty of the intrinsic nature of a dream, the intrinsic nature of an illusion is empty of the intrinsic nature of an illusion, the intrinsic nature of a mirage is empty of the intrinsic nature of a mirage, the intrinsic nature of an echo is empty of the intrinsic nature of an echo, the intrinsic nature of an apparition is empty of the intrinsic nature of an apparition, and the intrinsic nature of a tathāgata’s magical creation is empty of the intrinsic nature of a tathāgata’s magical creation.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the perfection of giving that it goes forth. Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the perfection of morality, the perfection of patience, the perfection of perseverance, the perfection of concentration, or the perfection of wisdom that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the perfection of giving will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects, and similarly, because the intrinsic nature of the perfection of morality, perfection of patience, perfection of perseverance, perfection of concentration, and perfection of wisdom will not go forth [F.182.a] from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the perfection of giving is empty of the intrinsic nature of the perfection of giving, and similarly, the intrinsic nature of the perfection of morality . . . the perfection of patience . . . the perfection of perseverance . . . the perfection of concentration . . . and the perfection of wisdom is empty of the intrinsic nature of the perfection of wisdom.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of inner emptiness that it goes forth. Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of . . . up to the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of inner emptiness . . . up to the intrinsic nature of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of inner emptiness is empty of the intrinsic nature of inner emptiness . . . up to the intrinsic nature of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature is empty of the intrinsic nature of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the applications of mindfulness that they go forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the applications of mindfulness will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the applications of mindfulness is empty of the intrinsic nature of the applications of mindfulness. [F.182.b]
“Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the right efforts, legs of miraculous power, faculties, powers, limbs of awakening, or the path that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of . . . up to the path will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, the path is empty of the path.
“Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four detailed and thorough knowledges, and the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha that they go forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the buddhadharmas will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, the buddhadharmas are empty of the buddhadharmas.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the worthy ones that they go forth. And similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the pratyekabuddhas, the bodhisattvas, and the tathāgatas, worthy ones, perfectly complete buddhas that they go forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the worthy one, the intrinsic nature of the pratyekabuddha, the intrinsic nature of the bodhisattva, and the intrinsic nature of the tathāgata, worthy one, perfectly [F.183.a] complete buddha will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the worthy one is empty of the intrinsic nature of the worthy one, the intrinsic nature of the pratyekabuddha is empty of the intrinsic nature of the pratyekabuddha, the intrinsic nature of the bodhisattva is empty of the intrinsic nature of the bodhisattva, and the intrinsic nature of the tathāgata, worthy one, perfectly complete buddha is empty of the intrinsic nature of the tathāgata, worthy one, perfectly complete buddha.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the result of stream enterer that it goes forth. And similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the result of once-returner, the result of non-returner, the state of a worthy one, a pratyekabuddha’s awakening, the knowledge of path aspects, and the knowledge of all aspects that they go forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the result of stream enterer will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects, and similarly, Subhūti, because the intrinsic nature of the result of once-returner, the result of non-returner, the state of a worthy one, a pratyekabuddha’s awakening, the knowledge of path aspects, and the knowledge of all aspects will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the result of stream enterer is empty of the intrinsic nature of the result of stream enterer, and similarly, Subhūti, because the intrinsic nature of the result of once-returner . . . the result of non-returner . . . the state of a worthy one . . . a pratyekabuddha’s awakening . . . [F.183.b] the knowledge of path aspects . . . and the knowledge of all aspects is empty of the intrinsic nature of the knowledge of all aspects.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of a name that it goes forth. And similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of a causal sign . . . a conventional term . . . a communication . . . or a designation that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of a designation will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, a designation is empty of the intrinsic nature of a designation.
“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of nonproduction that it goes forth. Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of nonstopping . . . nondefilement . . . nonpurification . . . and not occasioning anything that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of not occasioning anything will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, not occasioning anything is empty of the intrinsic nature of not occasioning anything.
“Thus, Subhūti, the Great Vehicle will not go forth from the three realms and will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. That vehicle does not move. [B14]
“Subhūti, in regard to what you have asked323—‘Where will the Great Vehicle stand?’—that [F.184.a] vehicle will not stand anywhere. And why? Because no dharma stands. And yet, Subhūti, that vehicle will stand by way of not standing. Subhūti, it is like this: suchness does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. Subhūti, it is like this: the very limit of reality and the inconceivable element do not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of suchness does not stand or not stand, and the intrinsic nature of the very limit of reality and the inconceivable element does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of suchness is empty of the intrinsic nature of suchness, and similarly the intrinsic nature of the very limit of reality is empty of the intrinsic nature of the very limit of reality, and the intrinsic nature of the inconceivable element is empty of the intrinsic nature of the inconceivable element.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the space element does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. Subhūti, it is like this: the abandonment element, detachment element, and cessation element do not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the space element does not stand or not stand, [F.184.b] and the intrinsic nature of the abandonment element, the intrinsic nature of the detachment element, and the intrinsic nature of the cessation element does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of the space element is empty of the intrinsic nature of the space element, the intrinsic nature of the abandonment element is empty of the intrinsic nature of the abandonment element, the intrinsic nature of the detachment element is empty of the intrinsic nature of the detachment element, and the intrinsic nature of the cessation element is empty of the intrinsic nature of the cessation element.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the emptiness of form does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. Subhūti, it is like this: the emptiness of feeling, emptiness of perception, emptiness of volitional factors, and emptiness of consciousness does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of form does not stand or not stand, up to the intrinsic nature of consciousness does not stand or not stand. And why? Because form is empty of form, up to consciousness is empty of consciousness.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the emptiness of the eyes does not stand or not stand, up to the emptiness of the thinking mind does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the eyes does not stand or not stand, [F.185.a] up to the intrinsic nature of the thinking mind does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the eyes are empty of eyes, up to the thinking mind is empty of thinking mind.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the emptiness of a form does not stand or not stand, up to the emptiness of a dharma does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of a form does not stand or not stand, up to the intrinsic nature of a dharma does not stand or not stand. And why? Subhūti, it is because a form is empty of a form, up to a dharma is empty of a dharma.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the emptiness of the eye consciousness does not stand or not stand, up to the emptiness of the thinking-mind consciousness does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the eye consciousness does not stand or not stand, up to the intrinsic nature of the thinking-mind consciousness does not stand or not stand. And why? Subhūti, it is because the eye consciousness is empty of eye consciousness, up to the thinking-mind consciousness is empty of thinking mind consciousness.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the emptiness of eye contact does not stand or not stand, up to the emptiness of thinking-mind contact does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, [F.185.b] the intrinsic nature of eye contact does not stand or not stand, up to the intrinsic nature of thinking-mind contact does not stand or not stand. And why? Subhūti, it is because eye contact is empty of eye contact, up to thinking-mind contact is empty of thinking-mind contact.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the emptiness of the feeling that arises from eye contact does not stand or not stand, up to the emptiness of the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why, Subhūti? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the feeling that arises from eye contact does not stand or not stand, up to the intrinsic nature of the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact does not stand or not stand. And why? Subhūti, it is because the feeling that arises from eye contact is empty of the feeling that arises from eye contact, up to the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact is empty of the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact.
“Subhūti, it is like this: a dream does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. Subhūti, it is like this: an illusion, mirage, echo, apparition, or tathāgata’s magical creation does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of a dream does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of a dream is empty of the intrinsic nature of a dream. [F.186.a] It is also because the intrinsic nature of an illusion, mirage, echo, apparition, and tathāgata’s magical creation does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of an illusion is empty of the intrinsic nature of an illusion, the intrinsic nature of a mirage is empty of the intrinsic nature of a mirage, the intrinsic nature of an echo is empty of the intrinsic nature of an echo, the intrinsic nature of an apparition is empty of the intrinsic nature of an apparition, and the intrinsic nature of a tathāgata’s magical creation is empty of the intrinsic nature of a tathāgata’s magical creation.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the perfection of giving does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. Subhūti, it is like this: the perfection of morality, perfection of patience, perfection of perseverance, perfection of concentration, and perfection of wisdom do not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the perfection of giving does not stand or not stand, and the intrinsic nature of the perfection of morality, the perfection of patience, the perfection of perseverance, the perfection of concentration, and the perfection of wisdom does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of the perfection of giving is empty of the intrinsic nature of the perfection of giving, up to and because the intrinsic nature of the perfection of wisdom is empty of the intrinsic nature of the perfection of wisdom.
“Subhūti, it is like this: inner emptiness does not stand or not stand, [F.186.b] and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. Subhūti, it is like this: . . . up to the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of inner emptiness does not stand or not stand, up to the intrinsic nature of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of inner emptiness is empty of the intrinsic nature of inner emptiness, up to and because the intrinsic nature of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature is empty of the intrinsic nature of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the applications of mindfulness do not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the applications of mindfulness does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of the applications of mindfulness is empty of the intrinsic nature of the applications of mindfulness.
“Subhūti, it is like this: . . . up to the eightfold noble path does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the eightfold noble path does not stand or not stand. And why? It is because the path is empty of the path.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the ten powers of a tathāgata do not stand or not stand, up to the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha [F.187.a] do not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the ten powers of a tathāgata does not stand or not stand, up to the intrinsic nature of the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the ten powers of a tathāgata are empty of the ten powers of a tathāgata, up to the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha are empty of the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the worthy one with outflows extinguished does not stand or not stand, the pratyekabuddha does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the worthy one does not stand or not stand, and the intrinsic nature of the pratyekabuddha does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of the worthy one is empty of the intrinsic nature of the worthy one, and the intrinsic nature of the pratyekabuddha is empty of the intrinsic nature of the pratyekabuddha.
“Subhūti, it is like this: a bodhisattva great being does not stand or not stand, the tathāgata, worthy one, perfectly complete buddha does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the bodhisattva does not stand or not stand, and the intrinsic nature of the Tathāgata does not stand or not stand. [F.187.b] And why? Because the intrinsic nature of the bodhisattva is empty of the intrinsic nature of the bodhisattva, and the intrinsic nature of the Tathāgata is empty of the intrinsic nature of the Tathāgata.
“Subhūti, it is like this, the result of stream enterer does not stand or not stand, up to the state of a worthy one does not stand or not stand, a pratyekabuddha’s awakening does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the result of stream enterer does not stand or not stand, up to the intrinsic nature of the state of a worthy one does not stand or not stand, and the intrinsic nature of a pratyekabuddha’s awakening does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of the result of stream enterer is empty of the intrinsic nature of the result of stream enterer, up to the intrinsic nature of the state of a worthy one is empty of the intrinsic nature of the state of a worthy one, and the intrinsic nature of a pratyekabuddha’s awakening is empty of the intrinsic nature of a pratyekabuddha’s awakening.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the knowledge of path aspects does not stand or not stand, and the knowledge of all aspects does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of the knowledge of path aspects does not stand or not stand, and the intrinsic nature of the knowledge of all aspects does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of the knowledge of path aspects is empty of the intrinsic nature of the knowledge of path aspects, and the intrinsic nature [F.188.a] of the knowledge of all aspects is empty of the intrinsic nature of the knowledge of all aspects.
“Subhūti, it is like this: a name does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. Subhūti, it is like this: a causal sign, a conventional term, a communication, and a designation do not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of a name does not stand or not stand, and the intrinsic nature of a causal sign, the intrinsic nature of a conventional term, the intrinsic nature of a communication, and the intrinsic nature of a designation does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of a name is empty of the intrinsic nature of a name, the intrinsic nature of a causal sign is empty of the intrinsic nature of a causal sign, the intrinsic nature of a conventional term is empty of the intrinsic nature of a conventional term, the intrinsic nature of a communication is empty of the intrinsic nature of a communication, and the intrinsic nature of a designation is empty of the intrinsic nature of a designation.
“Subhūti, it is like this: nonproduction does not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. Subhūti, it is like this: nonstopping, nondefilement, nonpurification, and not occasioning anything do not stand or not stand, and similarly, Subhūti, this Great Vehicle does not stand or not stand either. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of nonproduction does not stand or not stand, and the intrinsic nature of nonstopping, nondefilement, nonpurification, and not occasioning anything [F.188.b] does not stand or not stand. And why? Because the intrinsic nature of nonproduction is empty of the intrinsic nature of nonproduction, the intrinsic nature of nonstopping . . . nondefilement . . . nonpurification . . . and the intrinsic nature of not occasioning anything is empty of the intrinsic nature of not occasioning anything.
“Thus, Subhūti, that vehicle, standing by way of not standing and by way of not moving, will not stand anywhere.
“Subhūti, in regard to what you have asked324—‘Who will go forth in the Great Vehicle?’—no one will go forth in that vehicle. And why? Because, Subhūti, that vehicle, one who goes forth, that by which one goes forth, and from where one goes forth—all those dharmas do not exist and are not apprehended; and given that all the dharmas do not exist and are not apprehended, what dharma will go forth by means of what dharma?
“And why? Subhūti, it is because you cannot apprehend a self because a self is extremely325 pure, and you cannot apprehend a sentient being, a living being, a person, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, or one who sees because they are extremely pure; you cannot apprehend suchness and you cannot apprehend the very limit of reality because they are extremely pure, and you cannot apprehend the inconceivable element because it is extremely pure; you cannot apprehend the aggregates, constituents, or sense fields because they are extremely pure; you cannot apprehend the perfection of giving because it is extremely pure, and similarly you cannot apprehend the perfection of morality, perfection of patience, perfection of perseverance, perfection of concentration, or perfection of wisdom because they are extremely pure; you cannot apprehend [F.189.a] inner emptiness because it is extremely pure, up to you cannot apprehend the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature because it is extremely pure; you cannot apprehend the thirty-seven dharmas on the side of awakening because they are extremely pure; and you cannot apprehend the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four detailed and thorough knowledges, and the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha because they are extremely pure. Similarly, you cannot apprehend the stream enterer, once-returner, non-returner, worthy one, pratyekabuddha, bodhisattva, or tathāgata, worthy one, perfectly complete buddha because they are extremely pure; and similarly, you cannot apprehend the result of stream enterer, the result of once-returner, the result of non-returner, the state of a worthy one, a pratyekabuddha’s awakening, the knowledge of path aspects, or the knowledge of all aspects because they are extremely pure.326 You cannot apprehend nonproduction because it is extremely pure, and similarly, you cannot apprehend nonstopping, nondefilement, nonpurification, and not occasioning anything because they are extremely pure. You cannot apprehend a prior limit because it is extremely pure, and similarly you cannot apprehend a later limit or the present because they are extremely pure; similarly, you cannot apprehend coming, going, remaining, death, or birth because they are extremely pure, and similarly you cannot apprehend decrease and increase because they are extremely pure.
“It is because of not apprehending the dharma-constituent that all dharmas are not apprehended.327 And why? Subhūti, because of not apprehending the dharma-constituent, the dharma-constituent is not apprehended; because of not apprehending nonproduction . . . nonstopping . . . [F.189.b] nondefilement . . . nonpurification . . . and not occasioning anything, not occasioning anything is not apprehended; because of not apprehending suchness, suchness is not apprehended; because of not apprehending the very limit of reality, the very limit of reality is not apprehended; because of not apprehending the perfection of giving, the perfection of giving is not apprehended, and because of not apprehending the perfection of morality . . . the perfection of patience . . . the perfection of perseverance . . . the perfection of concentration . . . and the perfection of wisdom, the perfection of wisdom is not apprehended; because of not apprehending inner emptiness, inner emptiness is not apprehended, up to because of not apprehending the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature is not apprehended; and because of not apprehending the applications of mindfulness, the applications of mindfulness are not apprehended. Similarly, because of not apprehending the right efforts . . . the legs of miraculous power . . . the faculties . . . the powers . . . the limbs of awakening . . . and the path, the path is not apprehended; and similarly, because of not apprehending the ten powers . . . the four fearlessnesses . . . the four detailed and thorough knowledges . . . and the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha, the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha are not apprehended. Because of not apprehending a stream enterer, a stream enterer is not apprehended; because of not apprehending a once-returner . . . a non-returner . . . and a worthy one, a worthy one is not apprehended; because of not apprehending a pratyekabuddha, a pratyekabuddha is not apprehended, up to because of not apprehending a tathāgata, a tathāgata is not apprehended; and because of not apprehending the result of stream enterer . . . the result of once-returner . . . the result of non-returner . . . [F.190.a] the state of a worthy one . . . a pratyekabuddha’s awakening . . . and the state of a buddha, the state of a buddha is not apprehended. Similarly, because of not apprehending a level, the Pramuditā level is not apprehended; and because of not apprehending a level, because it is extremely pure, the Vimalā, Prabhākarī, Arciṣmatī, Sudurjayā, Abhimukhī, Dūraṃgamā, Acalā, Sādhumatī, and Dharmameghā levels are not apprehended. And also, because of not apprehending a level, ten levels are not apprehended. What are the ten? They are the first Śuklavipaśyanā level, the Gotra level, the Aṣṭamaka level, the Darśana level, the Tanū level, the Vītarāga level, the Kṛtāvin level, the Pratyekabuddha level, the Bodhisattva level, and the Buddha level.
“Because of inner emptiness the first level is not apprehended, up to because of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, the first level is not apprehended; because it is extremely pure, because of inner emptiness, up to because of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, up to the tenth level is not apprehended. Because it is extremely pure, because of inner emptiness, up to because of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, bringing beings to maturity is not apprehended. Because it is extremely pure, because of inner emptiness, up to because of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, purification of a buddhafield is not apprehended. Because they are extremely pure, because of inner emptiness, up to because of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, the five eyes are not apprehended.
“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom like that will go forth328 in the Great Vehicle to the knowledge of all aspects by way of not apprehending all dharmas.” [F.190.b]
This was the eighteenth chapter, “The Exposition of Going Forth in the Great Vehicle,” of “The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines.”