The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines
Chapter 72: The Divisions of a Bodhisattva’s Training

Then the bodhisattva great being Maitreya asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord,570 how should bodhisattva great beings who seek to practice the perfection of wisdom, and train in the trainings of the bodhisattvas, {Ki.VIII: 146} train with regard to physical forms? How should they train with regard to feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness? How should they train with regard to the sense field of the eyes, the sense field of the ears, the sense field of the nose, the sense field of the tongue, the sense field of the body, and the sense field of the mental faculty? How should they train with regard to the sense field of sights, the sense field of sounds, the sense field of odors, the sense field of tastes, the sense field of touch, and [F.343.a] the sense field of mental phenomena? How should they train with regard to the sensory element of the eyes, the sensory element of sights, the sensory element of visual consciousness, the sensory element of the ears, the sensory element of sounds, the sensory element of auditory consciousness, the sensory element of the nose, the sensory element of odors, the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, the sensory element of the tongue, the sensory element of tastes, the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, the sensory element of the body, the sensory element of touch, the sensory element of tactile consciousness, the sensory element of the mental faculty, the sensory element of mental phenomena, and the sensory element of mental consciousness? How should they train with regard to the sense field of visually compounded sensory contact and the sense fields of aurally, nasally, lingually, corporeally, and mentally compounded sensory contact? How should they train with regard to ignorance? How should they train with regard to formative predispositions, consciousness, name and form, the six sense fields, sensory contact, sensation, craving, grasping, the rebirth process, actual birth, and aging and death? How should they train with regard to the truth of suffering? How should they train with regard to the truth of the origin of suffering, the truth of cessation, and the truth of the path? How should they train with regard to material phenomena? How should they train with regard to phenomena that are immaterial, visible, invisible, impeded, unimpeded, conditioned, unconditioned, contaminated, uncontaminated, inadmissible, admissible, revealed, unrevealed, positive, negative, internal, external, seen, heard, known, cognized, past, future, present, virtuous, nonvirtuous, specific, indeterminate, included [and not included] in the realm of desire, included [and not included] in the realm of form, [F.343.b] included and not included in the realm of formlessness, associated with [the paths of] learning, no more learning, and neither learning nor no more learning, and associated with desire, anger, pride, ignorance, wrong view, and hesitation? How should they train with regard to phenomena that are generous, miserly, ethical, unethical, tolerant, malicious, persevering, indolent, concentrated, distracted, wise, and stupid? How should they train with regard to emptiness and conceptual thought, signlessness and signs, wishlessness and false aspirations, nonvirtuous phenomena, impermanence, suffering, and nonself? How should they train with regard to afflicted mental states, the abandoning of afflicted mental states, affliction, purification, cyclic existence, nirvāṇa, enlightenment, and the qualities of the buddhas?”

The Blessed One then replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, bodhisattva great beings who seek to practice the perfection of wisdom and train in the training of a bodhisattva should train [in the view] that physical forms are merely names. They should train [in the view] that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness are merely names, and that [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are merely names.” {Ki.VIII: 147}

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, when this name physical forms is apprehended as having a [corresponding] entity; when the names feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness are apprehended as having [corresponding] entities; and when the names [of all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are [F.344.a] apprehended as having [corresponding] entities‍—that is to say, when these are apprehended as having [corresponding] entities owing to this or that sign consisting in conditioning‍—how could bodhisattva great beings train [in the view] that physical forms are merely names; that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness are merely names; and that [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are merely names? Since these names would lack a [corresponding] entity, one could not use571 a mere name such as physical forms at all. One could not use the mere names feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and one could not use the mere names of all these [aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas.”572

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, the name physical forms is adventitiously imputed to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning. [Similarly,] the names feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness are adventitiously imputed, and the names [of all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are also adventitiously imputed.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One,573 “Blessed Lord, since there is therefore a conviction, understanding, and recognition of the name physical forms as an entity called physical forms whose signs consist of conditioning‍—that is to say, since there is conviction, understanding, and recognition that the name physical forms does indeed refer to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning‍—how then is the name physical forms adventitiously imputed to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning?

“Blessed Lord, since there is a conviction, understanding, and recognition of the name feelings, and the names perceptions, [F.344.b] formative predispositions, and consciousness, as entities whose signs consist of conditioning, and, Blessed Lord, since there is a conviction, understanding, and recognition of the names [of all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, as entities whose signs consist of conditioning‍—that is to say, since there is conviction, understanding, and recognition that the names feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions and consciousness, and the names [of all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, do indeed refer to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning‍—how then are the names feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness. and how are the names [of the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, adventitiously imputed to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “For this I will ask you a question, and you may answer as best you can. Maitreya, do you think that the name physical forms refers to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning, without taking as a basis, depending on, or settling on this or that entity whose signs consist of a conditioning that derives from the name itself, such as physical forms?”

“No, Blessed Lord!”

“Maitreya, do you think the name feelings, and the names perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and, Maitreya, do you think that the names [of all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, refer to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning, without taking as a basis, depending on, or settling on this or that entity whose signs consist of a conditioning that derives from those names, such as the qualities of the buddhas and so forth?” [F.345.a]

“No, Blessed Lord!”

“Maitreya, you should know that according to this discourse the designation physical forms, and the designations feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, are adventitiously imputed to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning. The designations [of the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are adventitiously imputed to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning.

“Maitreya, do you think that through diverse names, symbols, conventions, and imputations, one engages in, conventionally expresses, conceives of, and becomes fixated on this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning?”

“Yes, Blessed Lord!”

“Maitreya, you should know that, according to this discourse, the designation physical forms, the designations feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and the designations [of all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are adventitiously imputed to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning.

“In this regard, are there some who would harbor notions of self and other, and conceive of, name, express conventionally, or become fixated on those entities whose signs consist of conditioning?”

“Yes, Blessed Lord!”

“Maitreya, you should know that, according to this discourse, the designation physical forms, the designations feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and the designations [of all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are adventitiously imputed to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, {Ki.VIII: 148} “Blessed Lord, if this is so, [F.345.b] would an entity whose signs consist of conditioning not be apprehended as the inherent existence of physical forms [and so forth], and dependent on that would notions, conceptions, and conventional designations of physical forms, feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and of [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, not be apprehended?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, the expression physical forms is a name, an imputation, and a conventional term applied to entities whose signs consist of conditioning. Do you think that they have an essential nature or inherent existence, or else are they merely imputed?”

“They have been merely imputed, Blessed Lord!”

“Well then, Maitreya, how do you think that there could be any apprehending of the inherent existence of physical forms? Maitreya, the expressions feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and the expression [of all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are names, imputations, and conventional terms applied to entities whose signs consist of conditioning. Do you think that they have an essential nature or inherent existence, or else are feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, merely imputed?”

“They have been merely imputed, Blessed Lord!”

“Well then, Maitreya, how do you think that there could be any apprehending of the inherent existence of feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and of [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas?”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, if physical forms are merely names, notions, symbols, imputations, and conventional expressions, and, Blessed Lord, if feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness, and [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, [F.346.a] are merely names, notions, symbols, imputations, and conventional expressions‍—if that is so, would there not be apprehending of the inherent existence of physical forms? If that is so, would there not be apprehending of the inherent existence of feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness, and of [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, which are all merely names, notions, symbols, imputations, and conventional expressions?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, do you think that physical forms are merely names, notions, symbols, imputations, and conventional expressions, or else do they arise and perish, or are they afflicted and purified?”

“No, Blessed Lord, they are not and do not!”

“Well then, Maitreya, how do you think that the inherent existence of physical forms could be [apprehended]?574

“Maitreya, do you think that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, {Ki.VIII: 149} and consciousness, and [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are merely names, notions, symbols, imputations and conventional expressions, or else do they arise and perish, or are they afflicted and purified?”

“No, Blessed Lord, they are not and do not!”

“Well then, Maitreya, how do you think that the inherent existence of feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and of [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, could be [apprehended]?”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, do physical forms not exist in all their aspects and in all their defining characteristics? Blessed Lord, do feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, [F.346.b] and [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, not exist in all their aspects and in all their defining characteristics?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, I do not say that physical forms do not exist in all their aspects and in all their defining characteristics. Maitreya, I do not say that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, do not exist in all their aspects and in all their defining characteristics.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, how then do physical forms exist? How do feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, exist?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, physical forms exist in terms of mundane symbols and conventional expressions, but not in ultimate reality. Maitreya, feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, and [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, exist in terms of mundane symbols and conventional expressions, but not in ultimate reality.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then said to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, as I understand the meaning of the words spoken by the Blessed One, this expanse [of reality] is inexpressible in ultimate reality. Blessed Lord, if the expanse is inexpressible in ultimate reality, how then, Blessed Lord, [from the perspective of ultimate reality,] is the designation physical forms adventitiously imputed to entities whose signs consist of conditioning? How are the designations feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness, [F.347.a] and [all the aforementioned phenomena], up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, adventitiously imputed to entities whose signs consist of conditioning? Since these [entities] do not exist in ultimate reality, how are entities whose signs consist of conditioning [equated with] the inexpressible [reality]? Rather, it is illogical that they should be identified with the inexpressible expanse [of reality].”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, for this I will ask you a question, and you may answer as best you can. Maitreya, do you think that whenever you engage with wisdom in the inexpressible expanse, you apprehend any entity whose signs consist of conditioning to which the designations physical forms, feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, should be adventitiously imputed?” {Ki.VIII: 150}

“No, Blessed Lord!”

“Maitreya,” continued the Blessed One, “as this discourse explains, you should know that those [posited] entities whose signs consist of conditioning are not the inexpressible expanse, but also that the inexpressible expanse is not anything other than those [posited] entities to which the designations physical forms, and feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are adventitiously imputed. Maitreya, if [posited] entities whose signs consist of conditioning were the inexpressible expanse, even all ordinary, simple persons would pass into nirvāṇa or attain buddhahood in unsurpassed, complete enlightenment. Maitreya, if the inexpressible expanse were not other than those [posited] entities whose signs consist of conditioning, any sign in relation to that inexpressible expanse that is to be comprehended would be nonapprehensible. [F.347.b] Maitreya, for this reason, also, you should know that those [posited] entities whose signs consist of conditioning are not the inexpressible expanse, and the inexpressible expanse is not anything other than those [posited] entities to which the designations physical forms, and feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are adventitiously imputed.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, when bodhisattvas dwell in the perfection of wisdom in association with the inexpressible expanse, if they do not apprehend any [posited] entities whose signs consist of conditioning to which the designations physical forms, and feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are adventitiously imputed, in that case, Blessed Lord, is it an existent or a nonexistent that they would not apprehend?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, those [posited] entities whose signs consist of conditioning are without any independent existence or nonexistence at all. If you ask why, Maitreya, when you conceptualize those [posited] entities whose signs consist of conditioning, are those [posited] entities whose signs consist of conditioning not grasped by way of conceptualization? When you dwell in the practice of wisdom in association with the inexpressible expanse, and are without conceptual thoughts, are they then not grasped by way of nonconceptualization?”

“They are not, Blessed Lord!”575

“Maitreya, if they were, would any [posited] entities, whose signs consist of conditioning to which the designations physical forms, and feelings, perceptions, [F.348.a] formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are adventitiously imputed, not merely be conceptualizations? {Ki.VIII: 151} And even if they are mere conceptualizations, if you seek to conceptualize while abiding in the nonconceptual expanse, what could be apprehended as an existent [or nonexistent] to which the designations physical forms, and feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, [might be adventitiously imputed]?”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, in how many ways should bodhisattvas who practice the perfection of wisdom and maintain the skill that distinguishes phenomena understand the conceptual subdivision of physical forms? In how many ways should they understand the conceptual subdivision of feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, bodhisattvas who practice the perfection of wisdom and maintain the skill that distinguishes phenomena should understand the conceptual subdivision of physical forms in three ways. They should understand the conceptual subdivision of feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, in three ways. That is to say, [they should understand in this way] ‘these are imagined physical forms, these are conceptualized physical forms, these are real physical forms; these are imagined feelings, these are conceptualized feelings, these are real feelings; these are imagined perceptions, these are conceptualized perceptions, these [F.348.b] are real perceptions; these are imagined formative predispositions, these are conceptualized formative predispositions, these are real formative predispositions; this is imagined consciousness, this is conceptualized consciousness, this is real consciousness,’ and so on, up to and including ‘these are imagined qualities of the buddhas, these are conceptualized qualities of the buddhas, and these are real qualities of the buddhas.’ ”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, what are imagined physical forms, what are conceptualized physical forms, and what are real physical forms? Blessed Lord, what are imagined, [conceptualized, and real] feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness [and so forth]? Blessed Lord, what are imagined qualities of the buddhas? What are conceptualized qualities of the buddhas? What are real qualities of the buddhas?”

“Maitreya, imagined physical forms are those that have been imagined in accordance with the [false] inherent existence of physical forms, dependent on the name, notion, [imputation,] and conventional expression physical forms, and with respect to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning. {Ki.VIII: 152} Maitreya, imagined feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness, [F.349.a] and so on, up to and including [imagined] qualities of the buddhas, are those that have been imagined in accordance with the [false] inherent existence of feelings and the [false] inherent existence of perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness, and so on, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, dependent on the names, notions, imputations, and conventional expressions feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, and with respect to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning.

“Conceptualized physical forms, conceptualized feelings, conceptualized perceptions, conceptualized formative predispositions, conceptualized consciousness and so forth, up to and including conceptualized qualities of the buddhas, are those nominal, notional, imputed, and conventionally expressed physical forms, feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, that have been verbalized dependent on conceptualizations that are merely posited as reality, and with respect to this or that entity whose signs consist of conditioning.

“ ‘Real physical forms, and real feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness, and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas,’ denote reality and the expanse of the abiding nature of reality, whether the tathāgatas have appeared or whether the tathāgatas have not appeared. This abiding nature is the absence of inherent existence, nonself, real nature, and very limit of reality, eternal through all eternity, and constant through all time, of those [aforementioned] conceptualized physical forms [and so forth], and owing to those [aforementioned] imagined physical forms [and so forth].”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, among those three aspects of physical forms, which physical forms are regarded as insubstantial, which are substantial, and which are neither substantial nor insubstantial, as distinguished in accordance with ultimate reality? Blessed Lord, among those three aspects of feelings, three aspects of perceptions, three aspects of formative predispositions, three aspects of consciousness, [F.349.b] and so forth, up to and including the three aspects of the qualities of the buddhas, which qualities of the buddhas [and so forth] are regarded as insubstantial, which are substantial, and which are neither insubstantial nor substantial, as distinguished in accordance with ultimate reality?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, physical forms that are imagined are regarded as insubstantial. Physical forms that are conceptualized are regarded as substantial because conceptualization is substantial, although they lack independent existence. Physical forms that are real are regarded as neither insubstantial nor substantial, as distinguished in accordance with ultimate reality. Feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness that are imagined, and so forth, up to and including qualities of the buddhas that are imagined, are regarded as insubstantial. {Ki.VIII: 153} Feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness that are conceptualized, and so forth, up to and including qualities of the buddhas that are conceptualized, are regarded as substantial because conceptualization is substantial, although they lack independent existence. Feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness that are real, and so forth, up to and including qualities of the buddhas that are real, are regarded as neither insubstantial nor substantial, as distinguished in accordance with ultimate reality.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, when the Blessed One distinguishes physical forms and distinguishes feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, reckoning that physical forms are without duality, and reckoning that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, [F.350.a] are without duality, what did the Blessed One intend when he taught, reckoning that physical forms are without duality and reckoning that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, are without duality?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, do you think that with respect to imagined physical forms, that insubstantiality is material or else is it not material?”

“Blessed Lord, it is not [material]!”

“Are these ‘nominal, notional, imputed, and conventionally expressed physical forms’ material?”

“Blessed Lord, they are not!”

“For this reason, Maitreya, you should indeed know that imagined physical forms are neither material nor immaterial. That which is neither material nor immaterial is without duality. It is with this intention that I have said that these ‘physical forms’ are reckoned to be without duality.

“Maitreya, do you think that anything nominal, notional, imputed, and conventionally expressed, dependent on those conceptualized physical forms that are substantially existing, is material?”

“No, Blessed Lord, it is not!”

“Maitreya, do you think that with regard to these same conceptualized physical forms, the lack of inherent existence of imagined physical forms and their lack of defining characteristics [F.350.b] is material?” {Ki.VIII: 154}

“No, Blessed Lord, it is not!”

“Maitreya, as this discourse also explains, you should know that those conceptualized physical forms, also, are neither material nor immaterial. That which is neither material nor immaterial is indeed without duality. It is with this intention that I have said that these ‘physical forms’ are reckoned to be without duality.

“Maitreya, do you think that those physical forms that are real and distinguished as nonself of physical forms are material?”

“No, Blessed Lord, they are not!”

“Is the reality of physical forms, with respect to those physical forms that are real, material?”

“No, Blessed Lord, it is not!”

“Maitreya, as this discourse also explains, you should know that those real physical forms, also, are neither material nor immaterial. That which is neither material nor immaterial is indeed without duality. It is with this intention that I have said that these ‘physical forms’ are reckoned to be without duality.

“This [reasoning] should be similarly applied in the case of feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, how should bodhisattvas who practice the perfection of wisdom, who are skilled in that manner in the nondual defining characteristics of physical forms, who have abandoned the two extremes, and who have embarked on the path of the middle way regard the comprehension of defining characteristics? How should they [regard] the abandoning of defining characteristics? How should they [regard] the actualizing of defining characteristics? [F.351.a] How should they [regard] the cultivating of defining characteristics?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, for bodhisattvas who practice the perfection of wisdom, who have abandoned the two extremes, and who have embarked on the path of the middle way, their comprehension with respect to these physical forms is just that there is neither comprehension nor noncomprehension. Similarly, their comprehension with respect to those feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, is just that there is neither comprehension nor noncomprehension. {Ki.VIII: 155} Their exertion with respect to these physical forms is just that there is neither exertion nor nonexertion. Similarly, their exertion with respect to those feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness, and so forth, up to and including the attributes of the buddhas, is just that there is neither exertion nor nonexertion. Their actualization with respect to the abandoning of those physical forms is just that there is neither actualization nor nonactualization. Their cultivation with respect to the abandoning of those physical forms is just that there is neither cultivation nor noncultivation of the path.

“This [reasoning] should be similarly applied in the case of feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, what is the nirvāṇa of bodhisattvas who practice the perfection of wisdom and are endowed with such comprehension, abandoning, actualization, and cultivation?”

“Maitreya, [F.351.b] the nirvāṇa of the bodhisattvas is profound, very profound,” replied the Blessed One to the bodhisattva Maitreya.

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, why is the nirvāṇa of the bodhisattvas profound, very profound?”

“Maitreya,” replied the Blessed One, “the nirvāṇa of the bodhisattvas is that which is neither nirvāṇa, nor not nirvāṇa. That is why it is profound, very profound.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, in what way is the nirvāṇa of the bodhisattvas neither nirvāṇa, nor not nirvāṇa?”

“Maitreya,” replied the Blessed One, “taking into account the benefit of others, it is not nirvāṇa because cyclic existence is not forsaken. Taking into account their own benefit, it is nirvāṇa because nirvāṇa is not forsaken.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, taking into account the benefit of others, if bodhisattvas do not forsake cyclic existence, how through the nonforsaking of cyclic existence do they not also forsake nirvāṇa? Blessed Lord, taking into account their own benefit, if bodhisattvas do not forsake nirvāṇa, how do they not also forsake cyclic existence?”

“In this regard, Maitreya,” replied the Blessed One, “when bodhisattvas practice the perfection of wisdom, they do not conceptualize cyclic existence as cyclic existence, and they do not conceptualize nirvāṇa as nirvāṇa. [F.352.a] When they do not conceptualize in that manner, cyclic existence and nirvāṇa both become the same. {Ki.VIII: 156} If you ask why, it is because when they do not conceptualize cyclic existence as cyclic existence, they do not become distressed in cyclic existence while they are in nirvāṇa. When they do not conceptualize nirvāṇa as nirvāṇa, they do not become attached to nirvāṇa while they are in cyclic existence. Therefore, you should know that for this reason, while established in the nonconceptual expanse, there is neither the forsaking of cyclic existence nor nonforsaking of nirvāṇa.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then said to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, just as bodhisattvas who practice the perfection of wisdom and are established in the nonconceptual expanse have not forsaken cyclic existence, they have indeed not appropriated it. Just as they have not forsaken nirvāṇa, they have indeed not appropriated that. Blessed Lord, if these have not been appropriated, how do they become something that has not been forsaken?”

“Maitreya,” replied the Blessed One, “I do not speak of the appropriation or nonappropriation of cyclic existence, but, Maitreya, I do say that bodhisattvas who practice the perfection of wisdom and have mastered their minds through the wisdom that has as its object the nonconceptual expanse, and bodhisattvas who have attained final nirvāṇa, do not forsake cyclic existence because they manifest in cyclic existence through skill in means, in all world systems of the ten directions, numerous as the grains of sand of the river Gaṅgā. I also say that they do not forsake nirvāṇa because they dwell in nonapprehensible emptiness.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, how should all defining characteristics be regarded without conceptualizing?” [F.352.b]

“Maitreya,” replied the Blessed One, “through the nonduality of nonentities and entities,576 the absence of conceptual elaboration with respect to all phenomena and aspects of emptiness‍—that is to say, physical forms, feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness and so forth, up to and including the qualities of the buddhas, along with the emptiness of physical forms and so forth, up to and including the emptiness of the qualities of the buddhas‍—Maitreya, the defining characteristics of all these phenomena should be regarded in that manner.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, will all the śrāvakas be established in partial or complete nirvāṇa?”

“No, Maitreya!” replied the Blessed One. “If you ask why, Maitreya, the beings of these realms are of varied dispositions and manifold dispositions. Among the beings of these realms with their varied dispositions and manifold dispositions there are beings of many sorts of heritage and nature. Maitreya, there are some among the classes and categories of beings {Ki.VIII: 157} who from the beginning seek noble distinctions and who attain such noble distinctions, and there are some among the classes and categories of beings who from the beginning seek inferior distinctions and who will attain such inferior distinctions and rejoice in that. There are also some among the classes and categories [of beings] who initially seek and attain inferior distinctions, but, having attained them, do not rejoice in merely that, and then later go on to seek higher, noble distinctions and attain such noble distinctions.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then said to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, if that third class and category of beings, after attaining arhatship, [F.353.a] should seek to attain unsurpassed, complete enlightenment, in that case, the Blessed One has prophesied that rebirth would be impossible for them. If rebirth is impossible, how will they attain [enlightenment]?”

“Maitreya,” replied the Blessed One, “I do not proclaim that they will acquire a rebirth under the sway of past actions and afflicted mental states, but I do proclaim that they will acquire the rebirth [of an arhat], attaining inconceivable nirvāṇa.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then said to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, how wonderful it is that bodhisattva great beings who have magnanimous intentions and most powerful exalted aspirations seek noble distinctions from the very beginning and will attain such noble distinctions. Blessed Lord, what are these magnanimous intentions of bodhisattva great beings?”

“Bodhisattvas dedicate the bliss of their nonattachment, the bliss of their nongrasping, and the bliss of their nirvāṇa to unsurpassed, complete enlightenment, seeking to make common cause with all beings. It is because they do not forsake cyclic existence that this should be regarded as their magnanimous intention.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya then said to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, the Dharma of the bodhisattvas is wonderful and marvelous! The training of the bodhisattvas is wonderful and marvelous! Noble sons and noble daughters who seek to attain this wonderful and marvelous Dharma of the bodhisattvas should set their minds on unsurpassed, complete enlightenment.”577