The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines
Chapter 20: Not Two

Then venerable Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇī­putra said to the Lord, “Lord, tasked343 with the perfection of wisdom by the tathāgata, worthy one, perfectly complete Buddha, this elder Subhūti thinks he has to give instruction in the Great Vehicle.”

Venerable Subhūti then said to the Lord, “Let it not be the case, Lord, that I am giving instruction in the Great Vehicle, having violated the perfection of wisdom.”

“No, you have not,” replied the Lord. “You are giving instruction in the Great Vehicle in harmony with the perfection of wisdom. And why? Because, Subhūti, śrāvaka dharmas, pratyekabuddha dharmas, bodhisattva dharmas, or buddha dharmas‍—or any wholesome dharmas, whatever they are‍—they all come together and stream into the perfection of wisdom.”

Subhūti then asked, “Lord, what are the wholesome dharmas on the side of awakening in the perfection of wisdom in which śrāvaka dharmas, pratyekabuddha dharmas, bodhisattva dharmas, and buddha dharmas all come together, and into which they stream?”344

The Lord replied, “The four applications of mindfulness, four right efforts, four legs of miraculous power, five faculties, five powers, seven limbs of awakening, and eightfold noble path; emptiness meditative stabilization, signless meditative stabilization, and wishless meditative stabilization; the four concentrations, four immeasurables, and four formless absorptions; [F.210.a] the perfection of giving, perfection of morality, perfection of patience, perfection of perseverance, perfection of concentration, and perfection of wisdom; the ten tathāgata powers, four fearlessnesses, four detailed and thorough knowledges, great love, great compassion, and the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha; and constant dwelling in the natural state not robbed of mindfulness and in equanimity‍—these, Subhūti, are the wholesome dharmas on the side of awakening in the perfection of wisdom in which śrāvaka dharmas, pratyekabuddha dharmas, bodhisattva dharmas, and buddha dharmas all come together, and into which they stream.

“Subhūti, whatever the dharma‍—the Great Vehicle, perfection of wisdom, perfection of concentration, perfection of perseverance, perfection of patience, perfection of morality, and perfection of giving; form, feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness; eyes, a form, eye consciousness, eye contact, feeling from the condition of eye contact; ears . . . nose . . . tongue . . . body . . . and thinking mind, a dharma, thinking-mind consciousness, thinking-mind contact, and the feeling from the condition of thinking-mind contact; the applications of mindfulness, right efforts, legs of miraculous power, [F.210.b] faculties, powers, limbs of awakening, path, tathāgata powers, fearlessnesses, and detailed and thorough knowledges; emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness; compounded dharmas and uncompounded dharmas; suffering, origination, cessation, and path; the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm; from inner emptiness up to the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature; the meditative stabilizations, dhāraṇī gateways, up to the distinct attributes of a buddha, the tathāgata, the Dharma and Vinaya spoken by the tathāgata, the dharma-constituent, suchness, very limit of reality, the inconceivable element, and nirvāṇa‍—all these dharmas are not conjoined, are not disjoined, are formless, cannot be pointed out, do not obstruct, and have only one mark‍—that is, no mark. In this way, Subhūti, you give instruction in the Great Vehicle in accord with the perfection of wisdom.

“And why? Because, Subhūti, it is not that the Great Vehicle is one thing and the perfection of wisdom another, or the perfection of concentration, perfection of perseverance, perfection of patience, perfection of morality, and perfection of giving one thing and the Great Vehicle another, or the applications of mindfulness one thing and the Great Vehicle another; so the Great Vehicle and those applications [F.211.a] of mindfulness are not two, nor are they divided, up to it is not that the Great Vehicle is one thing and the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha another; so the Great Vehicle and those distinct attributes of a buddha are not two, nor are they divided. It is because of this, Subhūti, that by giving instruction in the Great Vehicle you have given instruction in the perfection of wisdom, and by giving instruction in the perfection of wisdom you have given instruction in the Great Vehicle.”

Then venerable Subhūti said to the Lord, “But still, Lord, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the later limit, and one does not assert a bodhisattva in the middle. One has to know the limitlessness of a bodhisattva through the limitlessness of form, and one has to know the limitlessness of a bodhisattva through the limitlessness of feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness. Lord, even such an idea as ‘form is a bodhisattva’ does not exist345 and is not found; even such ideas as ‘feeling . . . ,’ ‘perception . . . ,’ ‘volitional factors . . . ,’ and ‘consciousness is a bodhisattva’ do not exist and are not found. So, Lord, I, who thus do not see and do not find a bodhisattva great being as anyone at all in any way at all‍—to which bodhisattva great being will I give advice and instruction in which perfection of wisdom?

“You say this, Lord, that is, ‘bodhisattva.’ It is just a word. To illustrate, Lord, you say ‘self’ again and again, but it absolutely has not come into being. [F.211.b] Similarly, Lord, you say ‘bodhisattva’ again and again, but a bodhisattva absolutely has not come into being. Lord, given that all phenomena thus have no intrinsic nature, what is that form that has come into being? What is that feeling . . . perception . . . volitional factors . . . and consciousness that has come into being? Lord, what has not come into being is not form, and what has not come into being is not feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness. Lord, you cannot apprehend those bodhisattva great beings who would practice for awakening other than those who have not come into being, so does what has not come into being give advice and instruction in a perfection of wisdom that has not come into being?

“Lord, one should know that when the mind of a bodhisattva given such instruction is not cowed, does not tense up, does not experience regret, and does not tremble, feel frightened, or become terrified, then that bodhisattva great being is practicing the perfection of wisdom.”

Śāriputra then asked venerable Subhūti, “Why, Venerable Subhūti, does one not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, does one not assert a bodhisattva at the later limit, and does one not assert a bodhisattva in the middle? Why, Venerable Subhūti, should one know the limitlessness of a bodhisattva through the limitlessness of form, and why should one know the limitlessness of a bodhisattva through the limitlessness of feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness? Why, Venerable Subhūti, does even such an idea as ‘a bodhisattva is form’ not exist and why is it not found, [F.212.a] and why do even such ideas as ‘feeling . . . ,’ ‘perception . . . ,’ ‘volitional factors . . . ,’ and ‘consciousness is a bodhisattva’ not exist and why are they not found? Why, Venerable Subhūti, do you say, ‘So Lord, I, who thus do not see and do not find a bodhisattva great being as anyone at all in any way at all‍—to which bodhisattva great being will I give advice and instruction in which perfection of wisdom?’ Why, Venerable Subhūti, do you go so far as to say,346 ‘You say this, Lord, that is, “bodhisattva.” It is just a word’? Why, Venerable Subhūti, do you say, ‘For example, Lord, you say “self” again and again, but it absolutely has not come into being. Similarly, Lord, you say “bodhisattva” again and again, but a bodhisattva absolutely has not come into being’? Why, Venerable Subhūti, do you say, ‘Lord, given that all dharmas thus are the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, what is that form that has come into being?347 What is that feeling . . . , perception . . . , volitional factors . . . , and consciousness that has come into being? Lord, what has not come into being is not form, and what has not come into being is not feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness’? Why, Venerable Subhūti, do you say, ‘Lord, does what has not come into being give advice and instruction in a perfection of wisdom that has not come into being?’ Why, Venerable Subhūti, do you say, ‘Lord, you cannot apprehend bodhisattva great beings [F.212.b] who would practice for awakening other than those who have not come into being’? And why, Venerable Subhūti, do you say, ‘Lord, one should know that when the mind of a bodhisattva given such instruction is not cowed, does not tense up, does not experience regret, and does not tremble, feel frightened, or become terrified, then that bodhisattva great being is practicing the perfection of wisdom’?”

Subhūti then replied, “Venerable Śāriputra, because beings348 are nonexistent, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit. Venerable Śāriputra, because beings are empty one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit. Venerable Śāriputra, because beings are isolated one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit. Venerable Śāriputra, because beings are nonexistent things one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because form is nonexistent one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit. Venerable Śāriputra, because form is empty, form is isolated, and form has no intrinsic nature, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit. Similarly, because feeling . . . perception . . . volitional factors . . . and because consciousness is nonexistent, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit. Because consciousness is empty, consciousness is isolated, and consciousness has no intrinsic nature, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because the perfection of giving is nonexistent, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit. Venerable Śāriputra, because the perfection of giving is empty, the perfection of giving is isolated, and the perfection of giving has no intrinsic nature, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit. Similarly, because the perfection of morality . . . [F.213.a] the perfection of patience . . . the perfection of perseverance . . . the perfection of concentration . . . and because the perfection of wisdom is nonexistent, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit. Because the perfection of wisdom is empty, the perfection of wisdom is isolated, and the perfection of wisdom has no intrinsic nature, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit.

“And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because you cannot apprehend a prior limit, a later limit, or a middle in emptiness; emptiness is not one thing, a bodhisattva another, and a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle another, so, Venerable Śāriputra, therefore, all these‍—emptiness, a bodhisattva, a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle‍—are not two, nor are they divided.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“Venerable Śāriputra, nonexistence is not one thing, emptiness another, isolation another, having no intrinsic nature another, a bodhisattva another, the perfection of giving another, the perfection of morality another, the perfection of patience another, the perfection of perseverance another, the perfection of concentration another, the perfection of wisdom another, and a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle another, so, Venerable Śāriputra, therefore, all these‍—nonexistence, emptiness, isolation, having no intrinsic nature, the six perfections, a bodhisattva, [F.213.b] a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle‍—are not two, nor are they divided.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“And why? Venerable Śāriputra because inner emptiness is nonexistent, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, up to because emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature is nonexistent, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because one does apprehend a prior limit, a later limit, or a middle in the nonexistence of inner emptiness, the emptiness of inner emptiness, or the isolation of inner emptiness, or any intrinsic nature of inner emptiness, up to it is because they cannot apprehend a prior limit, a later limit, or a middle in the nonexistence of emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, the emptiness of emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, or the isolation of emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, or any intrinsic nature of emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature. The nonexistence, emptiness, isolation, and no intrinsic nature of inner emptiness is not one thing, up to the nonexistence, emptiness, isolation, and no intrinsic nature of emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature is not another, a bodhisattva another, and a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle another, so, Venerable Śāriputra, therefore, all these‍—the nonexistence, emptiness, isolation, and no intrinsic nature of inner emptiness, up to the nonexistence, emptiness, isolation, and no intrinsic nature of emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, a bodhisattva, a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle‍—are not two, nor are they divided. [F.214.a]

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“Furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, because the applications of mindfulness are nonexistent, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle; because the applications of mindfulness are empty, the applications of mindfulness are isolated, and the applications of mindfulness have no intrinsic nature, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle either.

“Similarly, because the right efforts, legs of miraculous power, faculties, powers, limbs of awakening, and path, powers, fearlessnesses, detailed and thorough knowledges, and distinct attributes of a buddha are nonexistent one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle. Similarly, connect this with because the distinct attributes of a buddha are empty, the distinct attributes of a buddha are isolated, and the distinct attributes of a buddha have no intrinsic nature, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because one cannot apprehend a prior limit, a later limit, or a middle in nonexistence, in emptiness, in isolation, or in no intrinsic nature. Nonexistence is not one thing, emptiness another, isolation another, not having an intrinsic nature another, the applications of mindfulness another, up to the distinct attributes of a buddha another, and a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle another, so, Venerable Śāriputra, therefore, all these‍—the nonexistence, [F.214.b] emptiness, isolation, and no intrinsic nature of the applications of mindfulness, up to the distinct attributes of a buddha, a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle‍—are not two, nor are they divided.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“Furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, because all the meditative stabilizations are nonexistent . . . because all the dhāraṇī gateways are nonexistent . . . because the dharma-constituent is nonexistent . . . because suchness is nonexistent . . . and because the very limit of reality is nonexistent, the very limit of reality is empty, the very limit of reality is isolated, and the very limit of reality has no intrinsic nature, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because one does apprehend a prior limit, a later limit, or a middle in the nonexistence of the meditative stabilizations, in the nonexistence of the very limit of reality, up to in the nonexistence of the absence of an intrinsic nature of the very limit of reality. Venerable Śāriputra, nonexistence is not one thing, emptiness another, isolation another, not having an intrinsic nature another, a bodhisattva another, up to the very limit of reality another, and a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle another, so, Venerable Śāriputra, therefore, as anything at all in any way at all, these‍—nonexistence, emptiness, isolation, and no intrinsic nature, meditative stabilization, up to the very limit of reality, a bodhisattva, a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle‍—are not two, nor are they divided.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“Furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, [F.215.a] because śrāvakas are nonexistent, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle; because śrāvakas are empty, isolated, and have no intrinsic nature, one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle; and because pratyekabuddhas are nonexistent, bodhisattvas are nonexistent, the knowledge of all aspects is nonexistent, the knowledge of all aspects is empty, the knowledge of all aspects is isolated, and the knowledge of all aspects has no intrinsic nature, they do not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because one cannot apprehend a prior limit, a later limit, or a middle in nonexistence, emptiness, isolation, and no intrinsic nature. Nonexistence, emptiness, isolation, and not having an intrinsic nature are not one thing, and bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas another, the knowledge of all aspects another, and a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle another, so, Venerable Śāriputra, therefore, all these‍—the nonexistence, emptiness, isolation, and no intrinsic nature, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas‍—they are not two, nor are they divided.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations one does not assert a bodhisattva at the prior limit, at the later limit, or in the middle.

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why, Venerable Subhūti, should one know the limitlessness of a bodhisattva through the limitlessness of form, and why should one know the limitlessness of a bodhisattva through the limitlessness of feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness?’‍—Venerable Śāriputra, [F.215.b] form is equal to space, and feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness are equal to space. And why? To illustrate, Venerable Śāriputra, one cannot apprehend a limit, a middle, or an end in space, but still space works as a conventional label. Similarly, Venerable Śāriputra, because form is empty, one cannot apprehend the prior limit, one cannot apprehend the later limit, and one cannot apprehend the middle of form, because one cannot apprehend the end or the middle of emptiness. Similarly, Venerable Śāriputra, because feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness are empty one cannot apprehend the prior limit, one cannot apprehend the later limit, and one cannot apprehend the middle of feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness, because one cannot apprehend the end or the middle of emptiness.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations one should know the limitlessness of a bodhisattva through the limitlessness of form, and should know the limitlessness of a bodhisattva through the limitlessness of feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness.

“Similarly, Venerable Śāriputra, the constituents, sense fields, applications of mindfulness, right efforts, legs of miraculous power, faculties, powers, limbs of awakening, and path, and the ten powers, fearlessnesses, detailed and thorough knowledges, and distinct attributes of a buddha, are equal to space.

“And why? To illustrate, Venerable Śāriputra, because the limitless is boundless349 one cannot apprehend an end or a middle of space, but still space works as a conventional label. Similarly, Venerable Śāriputra, because of the emptiness of . . . up to the buddhadharmas, [F.216.a] one cannot apprehend the end or the middle of the buddhadharmas, because one cannot apprehend the end or the middle of emptiness.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations one should know the limitlessness of a bodhisattva through the limitlessness of the buddhadharmas.

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why, Venerable Subhūti, does even such an idea as “a bodhisattva is form” not exist and why is it not found, and why does even such an idea as “feeling . . . ,” “perception . . . ,” “volitional factors . . . ,” and “consciousness is a bodhisattva” not exist and why is it not found?’‍—Venerable Śāriputra, form is empty of form. Venerable Śāriputra, feeling . . . perception . . . volitional factors . . . and consciousness is empty of consciousness.

“And why? Because, Venerable Śāriputra, in emptiness form does not exist and is not found; in emptiness a bodhisattva does not exist and is not found. Similarly, in emptiness feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness do not exist and are not found. In emptiness a bodhisattva does not exist and is not found.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, even such an idea as ‘a bodhisattva is form’ does not exist and is not found, and even such an idea as ‘a bodhisattva is feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness’ does not exist and is not found.

“Furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, the perfection of giving is empty of the perfection of giving. Venerable Śāriputra, 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 perfection of wisdom.

“And why? Because, Venerable Śāriputra, in emptiness the perfection of wisdom [F.216.b] does not exist and is not found; in emptiness a bodhisattva does not exist and is not found.

“Venerable Śāriputra, inner emptiness is empty of inner emptiness, up to the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature is empty of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature. The applications of mindfulness are empty of the applications of mindfulness. The right efforts . . . the legs of miraculous power . . . the faculties . . . the powers . . . the limbs of awakening . . . and the path; . . . and the ten powers . . . the fearlessnesses . . . the detailed and thorough knowledges . . . and the distinct attributes of a buddha are empty of the distinct attributes of a buddha. The dharma-constituent is empty of the dharma-constituent, suchness is empty of suchness, the very limit of reality is empty of the very limit of reality, and the inconceivable element is empty of the inconceivable element. Meditative stabilization is empty of meditative stabilization, the dhāraṇī gateways are empty of the dhāraṇī gateways, all-knowledge is empty of all-knowledge, the knowledge of path aspects is empty of the knowledge of path aspects, and the knowledge of all aspects is empty of the knowledge of all aspects. The Śrāvaka Vehicle is empty of the Śrāvaka Vehicle, the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle is empty of the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and the Buddha Vehicle is empty of the Buddha Vehicle. Śrāvakas are empty of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas are empty of pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas are empty of bodhisattvas, and tathāgatas are empty of tathāgatas. Venerable Śāriputra, in the emptiness of the tathāgata, form does not exist and is not found, and in the emptiness of the tathāgata, feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness do not exist and are not found.

“Venerable [F.217.a] Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations even such an idea as ‘a bodhisattva is form’ does not exist and is not found, and even such an idea as ‘a bodhisattva is feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness’ does not exist and is not found.

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why, Venerable Subhūti, do you say, “So Lord, I, who thus do not see and do not find a bodhisattva great being as anyone at all in any way at all‍—to which bodhisattva great being will I give advice and instruction in which perfection of wisdom?” ’‍—Venerable Śāriputra, form is not found in form, form is not found in feeling; feeling is not found in feeling, feeling is not found in form. Form and feeling are not found in perception, perception is not found in perception, and perception is not found in form or feeling. Volitional factors do not exist and are not found in perception. Volitional factors do not exist and are not found in volitional factors. Perception does not exist and is not found in volitional factors. Consciousness does not exist and is not found in volitional factors; volitional factors do not exist and are not found in consciousness. Form, feeling, perception, and volitional factors do not exist and are not found in consciousness. Consciousness does not exist and is not found in form, feeling, perception, or volitional factors.

“Venerable Śāriputra, the eyes do not exist and are not found in the eyes; the eyes do not exist and are not found in the ears. The ears do not exist [F.217.b] and are not found in the eyes; the ears do not exist and are not found in the ears. The ears do not exist and are not found in the nose. The nose does not exist and is not found in the nose. The nose does not exist and is not found in the eyes or ears. The nose does not exist and is not found in the tongue. The tongue does not exist and is not found in the tongue. The tongue does not exist and is not found in the eyes, ears, or nose. The tongue does not exist and is not found in the body. The body does not exist and is not found in the body. The body does not exist and is not found in the eyes, ears, nose, or tongue. The body does not exist and is not found in the thinking mind. The thinking mind does not exist and is not found in the thinking mind. The thinking mind does not exist and is not found in the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, or body.

“A form does not exist and is not found in a form. A form does not exist and is not found in a sound, a smell, a taste, a feeling, or a dharma. A sound does not exist and is not found in a sound; a sound does not exist and is not found in the others. Similarly, a smell does not exist and is not found in a smell or in the others, a taste does not exist and is not found in a taste or in the others, a feeling does not exist and is not found in a feeling or in the others, and a dharma does not exist and is not found in a dharma or in the others.

“Eye consciousness does not exist and is not found in eye consciousness, the others also do not exist and are not found in it, and it also does not exist and is not found in the others. Ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and thinking-mind consciousness are similar: thinking-mind consciousness does not exist and is not found in thinking-mind consciousness, the others also do not exist and are not found in it, and it also does not exist and is not found in the others.

“Eye contact does not exist and is not found in eye contact, it [F.218.a] also does not exist and is not found in the others, and the others also do not exist and are not found in it. Ear contact, nose contact, tongue contact, body contact, and thinking-mind contact are similar: thinking-mind contact does not exist and is not found in thinking-mind contact, and the other contacts also do not exist and are not found in thinking-mind contact.

“Feeling from the condition of eye contact does not exist and is not found in feeling from the condition of eye contact, and the others also do not exist and are not found in it, nor the others in the others. Feeling from the condition of ear contact . . . nose contact . . . tongue contact . . . body contact . . . and feeling from the condition of thinking-mind contact does not exist and is not found in feeling from the condition of thinking-mind contact, and the others also do not exist and are not found in it, nor the others in the others.

“The applications of mindfulness do not exist and are not found in the applications of mindfulness, and similarly the right efforts, legs of miraculous power, faculties, powers, limbs of awakening, and eightfold noble path, and the ten powers, four fearlessnesses, four detailed and thorough knowledges, and eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha do not exist and are not found in the buddhadharmas. The four detailed and thorough knowledges do not exist and are not found in the four detailed and thorough knowledges. The buddhadharmas do not exist and are not found in the four detailed and thorough knowledges. The four detailed and thorough knowledges do not exist and are not found in the buddhadharmas. All dharmas do not exist and are not found in all dharmas. All dharmas do not exist and are not found in the buddhadharmas.

“Inner emptiness does not exist and is not found in inner emptiness. [F.218.b] Inner emptiness does not exist and is not found in . . . up to the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature. The emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature does not exist and is not found in the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature. The emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature does not exist and is not found in . . . up to inner emptiness.

“Meditative stabilization does not exist and is not found in meditative stabilization. Meditative stabilization does not exist and is not found in the dhāraṇīs. Dhāraṇī does not exist and is not found in dhāraṇī. Dhāraṇī does not exist and is not found in meditative stabilization.

“The level of an ordinary person does not exist and is not found in the level of an ordinary person, and the Gotra level . . . the Aṣṭamaka level . . . the Darśana level . . . the Vītarāga level . . . the Tanū level . . . the Kṛtāvin level . . . the Pratyekabuddha level . . . the Bodhisattva level . . . the Tathāgata level . . . and the level of the knowledge of all aspects does not exist and is not found in the level of the knowledge of all aspects. Similarly, a stream enterer does not exist and is not found in a stream enterer; a once-returner . . . a non-returner . . . a worthy one . . . and a pratyekabuddha does not exist and is not found in a pratyekabuddha; a bodhisattva . . . ; and a perfectly complete buddha does not exist and is not found in a perfectly complete buddha.

“A bodhisattva does not exist and is not found in the perfection of wisdom. The perfection of wisdom also does not exist and is not found in the perfection of wisdom. Advice and instruction do not exist and are not found in the perfection of wisdom. Advice and instruction do not exist and are not found in advice and instruction. A bodhisattva does not exist and is not found in advice and instruction. Therefore, Venerable Śāriputra, given that all dharmas do not exist and are not found, a bodhisattva also [F.219.a] does not exist and is not found, that is, cannot be pointed out.

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why, Venerable Subhūti, do you say, “You say this, Lord, that is, ‘bodhisattva.’ It is just a word”?’‍—Venerable Śāriputra, this‍—that is, ‘bodhisattva’‍—is designated by a name plucked out of thin air, so, Venerable Śāriputra, one says ‘this, that is, “bodhisattva,” is just a word.’ Because, Venerable Śāriputra, the words for all dharmas do not come from anywhere in the ten directions and do not go anywhere, so too the word for a bodhisattva does not come from anywhere and does not go anywhere, because these‍—that is, ‘form,’ ‘feeling,’ ‘perception,’ ‘volitional factors,’ and ‘consciousness’‍—are designated by names plucked out of thin air. That name is not form, nor is it feeling, or perception, or volitional factors, or consciousness. And why? Because a name is empty of the intrinsic nature of a name. That which is empty is not the name, so, Venerable Śāriputra, one says ‘this, that is, “bodhisattva,” is just a word.’

“Furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, this ‘perfection of giving’ is just words, and in those words there is no perfection of giving, and in that perfection of giving also there are no words. And why? Because, Venerable Śāriputra, both those words and that perfection of giving do not exist and cannot be found. Therefore this ‘bodhisattva’ is simply just a word.

“Similarly, this ‘perfection of morality’ . . . ‘perfection of patience’ . . . ‘perfection of perseverance’ . . . ‘perfection of concentration’ . . . and ‘perfection of wisdom,’ is just [F.219.b] words, and in those words there is no perfection of wisdom and in that perfection of wisdom there is also no word. And why? Because, Venerable Śāriputra, both those words and that perfection of wisdom do not exist and cannot be found. Therefore, Venerable Śāriputra, this ‘bodhisattva’ is a name plucked out of thin air, so this ‘bodhisattva’ is simply just a word.

“Venerable Śāriputra, ‘inner emptiness’ up to ‘emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature’ is just words. Other than inner emptiness there are no words, and in those words there is no inner emptiness, up to other than the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature there are no words, and in those words there is no emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature. And why? Because, Venerable Śāriputra, both those words and that inner emptiness, up to that emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature do not exist and cannot be found. Therefore, Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, this ‘bodhisattva’ is simply just a word.

“Venerable Śāriputra, this ‘applications of mindfulness’ is a name plucked out of thin air. Other than applications of mindfulness there are no words, and in those words there are no applications of mindfulness. And why? Because, Venerable Śāriputra, both those words and those applications of mindfulness do not exist and cannot be found. Similarly, these ‘right efforts,’ ‘legs of miraculous power,’ ‘faculties,’ ‘powers,’ ‘limbs of awakening,’ ‘eightfold noble path,’ ‘ten powers,’ ‘four fearlessnesses,’ ‘four detailed and thorough knowledges,’ and ‘eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha’ [F.220.a] are names plucked out of thin air. Other than buddhadharmas there are no words, and in those words there are no buddhadharmas. And why? Because, Venerable Śāriputra, both those words and those buddhadharmas do not exist and cannot be found.

“Similarly, Venerable Śāriputra, these‍—‘meditative stabilization,’ ‘dhāraṇī gateways,’ up to ‘knowledge of all aspects’‍—are names plucked out of thin air. Other than knowledge of all aspects there are no words, and in those words there is also no knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Venerable Śāriputra, both those words and up to that knowledge of all aspects do not exist and cannot be found.

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why, Venerable Subhūti, do you say, “For example, Lord, you say ‘self’ again and again, but it has absolutely not come into being”?’‍—Venerable Śāriputra, given that a self absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could it have ever come into being? Venerable Śāriputra, given that a being, a living being, a creature, one who lives, an individual, a person, one born of Manu, a child of Manu, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, and one who sees absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could someone like that have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that form absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could it have ever come into being? And given that feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness absolutely do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that the eyes absolutely do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being? Similarly, [F.220.b] given that the ears, nose, tongue, body, and thinking mind absolutely do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that a form absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could it have ever come into being? Similarly, given that a sound, a smell, a taste, a feeling, and a dharma do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that eye consciousness absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could it have ever come into being? And given that ear, nose, tongue, body, and thinking-mind consciousness do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that eye contact absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could it have ever come into being? And given that ear, nose, tongue, body, and thinking-mind contact do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that feeling from the condition of eye contact absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could it have ever come into being? And given that feelings from the condition of ear, nose, tongue, body, and thinking-mind contact do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that the perfection of giving absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could it have ever come into being? And given that the perfection of morality, perfection of patience, perfection of perseverance, perfection of concentration, and perfection of wisdom do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that inner emptiness absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could it have ever come into being? And given that up to the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature do not exist [F.221.a] and are not found, how could they have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that the applications of mindfulness absolutely do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being? And given that the right efforts, legs of miraculous power, faculties, powers, limbs of awakening, eightfold noble path, ten powers, fearlessnesses, detailed and thorough knowledges, and eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, given that the meditative stabilizations and dhāraṇī gateways absolutely do not exist and are not found, how could they have ever come into being? And given that a śrāvaka absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could someone like that have ever come into being? And given that a pratyekabuddha absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could someone like that have ever come into being? And given that a bodhisattva absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could someone like that have ever come into being? And given that a tathāgata, worthy one, perfectly complete buddha absolutely does not exist and is not found, how could someone like that have ever come into being?

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, even though one says ‘self’ again and again, a self has absolutely not come into being.

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why do you say, “Given that all dharmas thus are the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature”?’350‍—Venerable Śāriputra, exactly so! And why? Because, Venerable Śāriputra, an intrinsic nature arisen from a union351 does not exist.”

Śāriputra then asked, “Venerable Subhūti, what does not have an intrinsic nature arisen from a union?”

“Venerable Śāriputra,” replied Subhūti, “form has no intrinsic nature arisen [F.221.b] from a union; feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness have no intrinsic nature arisen from a union. Venerable Śāriputra, the eyes have no intrinsic nature arisen from a union; similarly, the ears, nose, tongue, body, and thinking mind have no intrinsic nature arisen from a union. Similarly, Venerable Śāriputra, a form, a sound, a smell, a taste, a feeling, and a dharma; eye consciousness, and ear, nose, tongue, body, and thinking-mind consciousness; eye contact, and ear, nose, tongue, body, and thinking-mind contact; feeling from the condition of eye contact; and feeling from the condition of ear, nose, tongue, body, and thinking-mind contact have no intrinsic nature arisen from a union. Venerable Śāriputra, the perfection of giving has no intrinsic nature arisen from a union. The perfection of morality, perfection of patience, perfection of perseverance, perfection of concentration, and perfection of wisdom have no intrinsic nature arisen from a union.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, all dharmas are the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.

“Furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, all dharmas are impermanent, but not because anything disappears.”352

“What are those dharmas that are impermanent even though nothing disappears?” asked Śāriputra.

Subhūti replied, “Venerable Śāriputra, form is impermanent, but not because anything disappears. Venerable Śāriputra, feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness are impermanent, but not because anything disappears. And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because that which is impermanent has come to an end, is a nonexistent thing.353 Similarly, all dharmas [F.222.a] are suffering, selfless, calm, empty, signless, and wishless, but not because anything disappears. And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because that which is wishless has come to an end, is a nonexistent thing. Similarly, all dharmas are wholesome, not a basic immorality, without outflows, without afflictions, extraordinary, purified, and uncompounded, but not because anything disappears. And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because that which is uncompounded has come to an end, is a nonexistent thing.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, all dharmas have no intrinsic nature, but not because anything disappears.

“Furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, all dharmas are neither unmoved354 nor destroyed.”

“Why are dharmas neither unmoved nor destroyed?” asked Śāriputra.

Subhūti replied, “Venerable Śāriputra, form is neither unmoved nor destroyed. And why? Because that is its basic nature. Venerable Śāriputra, feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness are neither unmoved nor destroyed. And why? Because that is their basic nature. Similarly, wholesome and unwholesome, basic immorality and not basic immorality, with outflows and without outflows, with afflictions and without afflictions, ordinary and extraordinary, compounded and uncompounded, defiled and purified, and saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are neither unmoved nor [F.222.b] destroyed. And why? Because that is their basic nature.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, all dharmas are the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, even though nothing disappears.

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why do you say, “What is that form that has come into being? What is that feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness that has come into being?” ’‍—Venerable Śāriputra, it is because form has not occasioned anything, because feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness have not occasioned anything. And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because there is nothing that occasions them. Venerable Śāriputra, the eyes do not occasion anything. And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because there is nothing that occasions them. Venerable Śāriputra, similarly, the ears, nose, tongue, body, and thinking mind have not occasioned anything. And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because there is nothing that occasions them. Furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, a form, a sound, a smell, a taste, a feeling, and a dharma have not occasioned anything. And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because someone to enact them does not exist. Up to, all dharmas have not occasioned anything. And why? Venerable Śāriputra, it is because nothing that occasions them is apprehended.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, ‘form, feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness have not come into being.’355

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why do you say, “What has not come into being is not form, and what has not come into being is not feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness?” ’‍—Venerable [F.223.a] Śāriputra, exactly so, exactly so! Because, Venerable Śāriputra, form is empty of a basic nature, and what is empty of a basic nature does not arise and does not pass away, and in what does not arise and does not pass away there is no transformation. Similarly, feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness are empty of a basic nature, and what is empty of a basic nature does not arise and does not pass away, and in what does not arise and does not pass away there is no transformation, up to all dharmas are empty of a basic nature, and what are empty of a basic nature do not arise and do not pass away, and in what do not arise and do not pass away there is no transformation.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, what has not come into being is not form, and what has not come into being is not feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness.

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why do you say, “Does what has not come into being give advice and instruction in a perfection of wisdom that has not come into being?” ’‍—Venerable Śāriputra, because what has not come into being is the perfection of wisdom, and the perfection of wisdom is what has not come into being, therefore, what has not come into being and the perfection of wisdom are not two, nor are they divided. Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, I said, ‘Does what has not come into being give advice and instruction in a perfection of wisdom that has not come into being?’

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘Why do you say, “They cannot apprehend a bodhisattva great being who would practice for awakening other than one who has not come into being”?’‍—Venerable Śāriputra, [F.223.b] because bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not see ‘what has not come into being as one thing and a bodhisattva as another,’356 what has not come into being and the bodhisattva are not two, nor are they divided. They do not see form other than what has not come into being, and they do not see feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness other than what has not come into being; therefore, what has not come into being and form are not two, nor are they divided, and therefore, what has not come into being and feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness are not two, nor are they divided. Similarly, up to they do not see all dharmas other than what has not come into being, and therefore, what has not come into being and all dharmas are not two, nor are they divided.

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, one cannot apprehend a bodhisattva great being who would practice for awakening other than one who has not come into being. [B17]

“Venerable Śāriputra, in regard to what you asked‍—‘And why do you say, “One should know that when the mind of a bodhisattva great being given such instruction is not cowed, does not tense up, does not experience regret, and does not tremble, feel frightened, or become terrified, then that bodhisattva great being is practicing the perfection of wisdom”?’‍—Venerable Śāriputra, it is because bodhisattva great beings see all dharmas not stirring, and they see them like a dream, [F.224.a] like an illusion, like a mirage, like an echo, like an apparition, like a reflection in the mirror, and like a magical creation. Because of this one of many explanations, Venerable Śāriputra, when bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom hear this they do not tremble, feel frightened, or become terrified.”

Then venerable Subhūti said to the Lord, “When bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom investigate those dharmas like that they do not then assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on form, and neither do they label anything ‘this is form’; they also do not assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on feeling . . . perception . . . volitional factors . . . or consciousness, and neither do they label anything ‘this is consciousness.’ Similarly, they do not then assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on the eyes, and neither do they label anything ‘these are the eyes’; and similarly, they do not then assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on the ears . . . the nose . . . the tongue . . . the body . . . or the thinking mind, and neither do they label anything ‘this is the thinking mind.’ Similarly, they do not then assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on the perfection of giving, and neither do they label anything ‘this is the perfection of giving’; and similarly, they do not then assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on the perfection of morality . . . the perfection of patience . . . the perfection of perseverance . . . the perfection of concentration . . . or the perfection of wisdom, [F.224.b] and neither do they label anything ‘this is the perfection of wisdom.’ They do not then assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on inner emptiness, and neither do they label anything ‘this is inner emptiness’; and similarly they do not then assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on . . . up to the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, and neither do they label anything ‘this is the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.’

“Furthermore, Lord, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on the applications of mindfulness, and neither do they label anything ‘these are the applications of mindfulness.’ Similarly, bodhisattvas do not then assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on the right efforts . . . , the legs of miraculous power . . . , the faculties . . . , the powers . . . , the limbs of awakening . . . , the eightfold noble path . . . , the ten powers . . . , the fearlessnesses . . . , the detailed and thorough knowledges . . . , or eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha, and neither do they label anything ‘these are the buddhadharmas.’

“Furthermore, Lord, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not assert, do not accept, do not base themselves on, and do not settle down on all the meditative stabilization gateways and all the dhāraṇī gateways, and neither do they label anything ‘these are the meditative stabilization and dhāraṇī gateways.’

“And why? Lord, it is because bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not see form; similarly, because they do not see the aggregates, constituents, or sense fields, [F.225.a] they do not see the thirty-seven dharmas on the side of awakening, they do not see the perfections, up to and they do not see the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha or the knowledge of all aspects.

“And why? Lord, it is because form is not produced, and the nonproduction of form is not form. Therefore, form and the nonproduction of form are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Lord, it is because that nonproduction is not one, nor is it many.

“The nonproduction of feeling . . . perception . . . volitional factors . . . and consciousness is not consciousness; the nonproduction of the eyes is not the eyes; the nonproduction of the ears . . . the nose . . . the tongue . . . the body . . . and the thinking mind is not the thinking mind; the nonproduction of the perfection of giving is not the perfection of giving; and the nonproduction of the perfection of morality . . . the perfection of patience . . . the perfection of perseverance . . . the perfection of concentration . . . and the perfection of wisdom is not the perfection of wisdom. Therefore, the perfection of wisdom and nonproduction are not two, nor are they divided.

“The nonproduction of inner emptiness is not inner emptiness, up to the nonproduction of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature is not the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature. Therefore, [F.225.b] the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature and nonproduction are not two, nor are they divided.

“Lord, the nonproduction of the applications of mindfulness is not the applications of mindfulness. Therefore, the applications of mindfulness and nonproduction are not two, nor are they divided. Similarly, the nonproduction of the right efforts . . . the legs of miraculous power . . . the faculties . . . the powers . . . the limbs of awakening . . . the path . . . the fearlessnesses . . . the clairvoyances . . . the ten powers . . . the detailed and thorough knowledges . . . and the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha is not the buddhadharmas. Therefore, the buddhadharmas and nonproduction are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Because those nonproductions of the buddhadharmas are not the buddhadharmas.

“Lord, it is because suchness is not produced, and the nonproduction of suchness is not suchness. Therefore, suchness and nonproduction are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Lord, it is because nonproduction is not one, nor is it many. For that reason, the nonproduction of suchness is not suchness. The nonproduction of unmistaken suchness . . . unaltered suchness . . . the true nature of dharmas . . . the dharma-constituent . . . the establishment of dharmas . . . the certification of dharmas . . . the very limit of reality . . . and [F.226.a] the inconceivable element is not the inconceivable element. And why? Because the inconceivable element and nonproduction are not two, nor are they divided.

“Lord, the nonproduction of awakening . . . and the knowledge of all aspects is not the knowledge of all aspects. Therefore, the knowledge of all aspects and nonproduction are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Lord, it is because nonproduction is not one, nor is it many. For that reason, the knowledge of all aspects and nonproduction are not two, nor are they divided.

“Lord, it is because form is impermanent, so a decrease in form is not form. A decrease in feeling . . . perception . . . volitional factors . . . and consciousness is not consciousness. Therefore, the aggregates and a decrease are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Lord, it is because a decrease is not one, nor is it many. A decrease in the constituents and sense fields is not the constituents and sense fields. Therefore, the constituents and sense fields and a decrease are not two, nor are they divided.

“Lord, a decrease in the perfection of giving is not the perfection of giving, so the perfection of giving and a decrease are not two, nor are they divided. [F.226.b] Similarly, a decrease in the perfection of morality . . . the perfection of patience . . . the perfection of perseverance . . . the perfection of concentration . . . and the perfection of wisdom is not the perfection of wisdom, so the perfection of wisdom and a decrease are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Because a decrease is not one, nor is it many. Therefore, a decrease in the perfection of wisdom is not the perfection of wisdom.

“Lord, a decrease in inner emptiness is not inner emptiness, so inner emptiness and a decrease are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Lord, it is because a decrease is not one, nor is it many. Therefore, a decrease in inner emptiness is not inner emptiness. Similarly, up to a decrease in the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature is not the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, so the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature and a decrease are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Lord, it is because a decrease is not one, nor is it many. Therefore, a decrease in the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature is not the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.

“Lord, a decrease in the applications of mindfulness is not the applications of mindfulness, so the applications of mindfulness and a decrease are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Lord, it is because [F.227.a] a decrease is not one, nor is it many. Therefore, a decrease in the applications of mindfulness is not the applications of mindfulness. A decrease in the right efforts . . . the legs of miraculous power . . . the faculties . . . the powers . . . the limbs of awakening . . . and the eightfold noble path is not the path, so the path and a decrease are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Lord, it is because a decrease is not one, nor is it many. Therefore, a decrease in the path is not the path. Similarly, up to a decrease in the clairvoyances . . . the fearlessnesses . . . the detailed and thorough knowledges . . . the ten powers . . . and the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha is not the distinct attributes of a buddha, so the distinct attributes of a buddha and a decrease are not two, nor are they divided. And why? Lord, it is because a decrease is not one, nor is it many. Therefore, a decrease in the distinct attributes of a buddha is not the distinct attributes of a buddha.

“Lord, anything called form is counted as not two. Similarly, anything called feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness is counted as not two, up to anything called the knowledge of all aspects is counted as not two.”