Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra 25K
(The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines)
Chapter 3 – What is a Bodhisattva (or any dharma)?
Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra 25K
(The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines)
Chapter 3 – What is a Bodhisattva (or any dharma)?
Last update: November 30, 2025
Image from: Stoneflower013
Source: https://84000.co/translation/toh9
(The chapter stresses that ultimate wisdom arises from recognizing all as empty designations, free from conceptual proliferation. Bodhisattvas practice by "not apprehending / accepting anything at all, nor rejecting them completely," which is the core instruction for emancipation. This non-dual, non-conceptual approach prevents fear and enables progress toward enlightenment.)
(Summary 1: This introductory section sets up the dialogue and affirms the Buddha's role.
The Buddha instructs Subhūti to inspire bodhisattvas on emancipation through the perfection of wisdom.
Attendees (bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, and gods) wonder if Subhūti teaches from his own wisdom or the Buddha's power. Subhūti affirms it's the Buddha's power, as all teachings align with the nature of reality (dharmatā), and only the Buddha can skillfully teach this to bodhisattvas — beyond the capacity of dualistic śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas.)
.
TEXT: Then the Blessed One addressed the venerable Subhūti: “Subhūti, commencing with the perfection of wisdom, you should be inspired to tell bodhisattva great beings how bodhisattva great beings will become emancipated in the perfection of wisdom!”
Thereupon, those bodhisattva great beings, those great śrāvakas, and those gods who were present thought,
“Will this venerable Subhūti teach the perfection of wisdom to these bodhisattva great beings through the armor of the strength and force just of his own wisdom and inspired speech, or will he teach it through the power of the Buddha?”
Through the power of the Buddha, the venerable Subhūti knew in his own mind the thoughts in the minds of those bodhisattva great beings, those śrāvakas, and those gods, and he said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, whatever the śrāvakas of the Blessed One say, whatever they teach, whatever they expound, it is the power of the Tathāgata. None of the doctrines that the Tathāgata have taught go against the nature of reality. It is in this way that these noble children will train in the doctrines he teaches and actualize the nature of reality. Śāradvatīputra, it is the Tathāgata himself who through skillful means teaches the perfection of wisdom to bodhisattva great beings. However, Venerable Śāradvatīputra, this teaching of the perfection of wisdom to bodhisattva great beings is not within the capacity of any śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas.”
(i.e. Madhyamaka Logic: All dharmas are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed, relatively functional, mere designation, conventional truth [T1] ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ and vice versa, one truth supports/implies the other, they are equal = Union of the Two Truths [U2T] ⇐⇒ Tetralemma: not ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both, or neither, for whatever ‘this’ is ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ ⇐⇒ with no real (i) origination / coming, (ii) duration / change (ex. increase or decrease), (iii) cessation / going ⇐⇒ Middle Way: nothing to accept, nothing to reject, nothing to change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ everything is primordially interconnected, equal, pure, perfect, complete, divine, ‘One’, in the non-dual sense of those terms. (Where ‘⇐⇒’ means one side implies the other.)
(Summary 2: This section focuses on Subhūti's query and the Buddha's explanations of phenomena as mere designations [T1] ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ and vice versa [U2T], with examples (e.g., self, aggregates, senses, elements, illusions – and their characteristics / marks / properties / attributes / signs / names).
Subhūti questions the Buddha:
What is designated as "bodhisattva" or "perfection of wisdom"?
He observes no such entities.
The Buddha explains that these, like all phenomena
(e.g., self, aggregates/skandhas: form, feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness; sense bases/āyatanas: eyes, sights, etc.; elements/dhātus: earth, water, etc.; dependent origination/pratītyasamutpāda: ignorance, aging and death, etc. – and their characteristics / marks / properties / attributes / signs / names),
are mere conventional designations (names/symbols) [T1] (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
They (the dharmas) neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going),
the names exist neither inside nor outside,
and (the dharmas) cannot be apprehended.
Examples include inner body parts (bones),
outer phenomena (grass, trees), past buddhas,
and illusions (dreams, echoes, mirages).
.
TEXT: [Question:] Then the venerable Subhūti asked the Blessed One,
“Blessed Lord, you have spoken of ‘bodhisattvas, bodhisattvas,’
yet what is it that has the designation bodhisattva or perfection of wisdom?
Blessed Lord, I do not observe any such thing [T2]
that is called ‘bodhisattva’ or ‘perfection of wisdom [T1] [U2T].’
Blessed Lord, since I do not observe such a ‘bodhisattva,’
such a ‘perfection of wisdom,’ or even such a term as ‘bodhisattva,’
what bodhisattva great being should I instruct and teach,
and in what perfection of wisdom?”
The Blessed One replied to the venerable Subhūti,
“Subhūti, it is like this:
the perfection of wisdom, a bodhisattva, and the term ‘bodhisattva’
are all just names [T1] (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside
(non-dual: not ‘this’ / one / inner, ‘non-this’ / two / outer, both, or neither),
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, it is like this:
the name used to refer to a being, for instance,
is just a designation [T1 (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Besides its assignment by convention to be a mere name or symbol,
something that is a designation neither arises nor ceases
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“The self, life forms, living beings, life, living creatures, individuals, human beings, people, agents, actors, petitioners, instigators, experiencers, instigators of experience, knowers, and viewers
are all just designations [T1] (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols,
things that are designations neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“In the same way, Subhūti, the perfection of wisdom, a bodhisattva, and the term ‘bodhisattva’
are all just designations [T1] (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols,
things that are designations neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, it is like this: the name used to refer to inner physical form, for instance,
is no more than just a designation [T1] for something (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Besides its assignment by convention to be a mere name or symbol,
a designation for something neither arises nor ceases
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
That name does not exist [T2] inside, does not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, the terms feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness
are no more than just designations [T1] for things (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols,
designations for things neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“In the same way, Subhūti, the perfection of wisdom, a bodhisattva, the term ‘bodhisattva’ and
all those phenomena are no more than just designations [T1] for things (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols,
designations for things neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, the eyes
is no more than just a designation [T1] for something (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
That designation for something is like this:
besides its assignment by convention to be a mere name or symbol for the eyes,
it neither arises nor ceases
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
That name does not exist [T2] inside, does not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the mental faculty
are no more than just designations [T1] for things (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things are like this:
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols for the mental faculty [and so forth],
they neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, sights
is no more than just a designation [T1] for things (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
A designation for things is like this:
besides its assignment by convention to be a mere name or symbol for sights,
it neither arises nor ceases
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
That name does not exist [T2] inside, does not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“In the same way, Subhūti, sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles, and mental phenomena
are no more than just designations [T1] for things (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things are like this:
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols for mental phenomena [and so forth],
they neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, the sensory element of the eyes
is no more than just a designation [T1] for something (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
That designation for something is like this:
besides its assignment by convention to be a mere name or symbol for the sensory element of the eyes,
it neither arises nor ceases.
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
That name does not exist [T2] inside, does not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, the sensory element of sights
is no more than just a designation [T1] for something (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
That designation for something is like this:
besides its assignment by convention to be a mere name or symbol for the sensory element of sights,
it neither arises nor ceases
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
That name does not exist [T2] inside, does not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, the sensory element of visual consciousness
is no more than just a designation [T1] for something (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
That designation for something is like this:
besides its assignment by convention to be a mere name or symbol for the sensory element of visual consciousness,
it neither arises nor ceases
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
That name does not exist [T2] inside, does not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, 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
are no more than just designations [T1] for things (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things are like this:
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols for the sensory element of mental consciousness [and so forth],
they neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“In the same way, Subhūti, the perfection of wisdom, a bodhisattva, and the term ‘bodhisattva’
are no more than just designations [T1] for things (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things are like this:
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols for the perfection of wisdom, a bodhisattva, and the term ‘bodhisattva,’
they neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, it is like this: associated with what is called the inner [dependent origination of] the physical body, as another instance,
there are terms assigned by convention that are just designations [T1].
The bones of the head is a conventionally assigned designation, the bones of the neck is a conventionally assigned designation, and the bones of the shoulders, the bones of the arms, the bones of the joints, the bones of the ribs, the bones of the hips, the bones of the thighs, the bones of the shins, and the bones of the feet
are conventionally assigned designations,
but these are all no more than just designations [T1] (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things are like this:
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols for the bones of the head and [the other bones of the body], up to and including the bones of the feet,
they neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“In the same way, Subhūti, the perfection of wisdom, a bodhisattva, and the term ‘bodhisattva’
are no more than just designations [T1] (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things are like this:
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols,
they neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, it is like this: associated with what is called outer [dependent origination], as yet another instance, there are diverse terms assigned by convention — grass, trees, branches, leaves, and petals —
that are all no more than just designations [T1] (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things are like this:
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols,
they neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“In the same way, Subhūti, the perfection of wisdom, a bodhisattva, and the term ‘bodhisattva’
are no more than just designations [T1] (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things are like this:
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols,
they neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, it is like this: for ‘the blessed lord buddhas of the past,’ for instance,
there is a mere name (thus empty) [T2] [U2T],
but that name does not exist [T2] inside, does not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“Subhūti, it is like this: phenomena such as, for instance, dreams, echoes, reflections, magical displays, mirages, the moon’s appearance in water, and phantom emanations of the tathāgatas
are no more than just designations [T1] (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things,
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols,
neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
“In the same way, Subhūti, the perfection of wisdom, a bodhisattva, and the term ‘bodhisattva’
are all phenomena that are no more than just designations [T1] for things (thus empty) [T2] [U2T].
Those designations for things,
besides their assignment by convention to be mere names or symbols,
neither arise nor cease
(i.e. No real origination / coming, duration / lasting / changing, cessation / going).
Those names do not exist [T2] inside, do not exist outside,
and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two.
(i.e. Madhyamaka Logic: Because all dharmas cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both, or neither, for whatever ‘this’ is (as each position leads to contradiction / absurdity) ⇐⇒ all dharmas are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ they are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed, relatively functional, mere designation, conventional truth [T1] ⇐⇒ and vice versa, one truth supports/implies the other, they are equal = Union of the Two Truths [U2T] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ ⇐⇒ with no real (i) origination / coming, (ii) duration / change (ex. increase or decrease), (iii) cessation / going ⇐⇒ Middle Way: nothing to accept, nothing to reject, nothing to change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ everything is primordially interconnected, equal, pure, perfect, complete, divine, ‘One’, in the non-dual sense of those terms. (Where ‘⇐⇒’ means one side implies the other.)
(Summary 3: This core practice section lists non-considerations of dualities (dualistic characteristics / marks) (e.g., permanent/impermanent, good/bad, desirable/undesirable/neutral) across aggregates, senses, contacts, and feelings. It's highly repetitive.
Bodhisattvas practicing prajñāpāramitā should not consider (in absolute terms) phenomena (e.g., 5-aggregates, subject/action/object, senses, contacts, 12-links of dependent origination) through dualities (inherent dualistic characteristics / marks): ex. permanent/impermanent, happy/suffering, self/non-self, peaceful/not-peaceful, empty/not-empty, with-signs/without-signs, with-aspirations/without-aspirations, conditioned/unconditioned, impure/pure, arising/ceasing, void/not-void, virtuous/non-virtuous, objectionable/not-objectionable, contaminated/not-contaminated, tainted/not-tainted, mundane/supramundane, saṃsāra /nirvāṇa, etc.
This applies extensively to the five aggregates, the six senses, their objects, consciousnesses, contacts, and resulting feelings (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, mental).
Reason: Phenomena are not in conditioned or unconditioned elements;
bodhisattvas remain in non-conceptual states (not grasping at concepts)
(using without grasping tools, concepts and dualities as if inherent),
focusing on all-aspect omniscience [U2T]
without observing [T2] even prajñāpāramitā, bodhisattva, or buddha [T1].)
.
TEXT: “Subhūti, thus it is that when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom,
they should train in names and symbols that are designations, instructions that are designations, and dharmas that are designations [T1] (without training in them, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute [T2], without acceptation [T2] or rejection [T1] in absolute terms [U2T-in-action]).
[i.e. It is about “acting / practicing without acting / practicing”;
Transcending entities, marks/characteristics, triads, dualities without completely rejecting them.
Transcending conventional truths, methods, goals… without completely rejecting them.
Transcending our conditioned dualistic conceptual mind without completely rejecting it.
Using them conventionally/relatively without using them in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute, without acceptation or rejection in absolute terms, thus more and more in accord with the Middle Way free from all extremes (‘this’, ‘non-this’) and middle (both, neither), more and more in accord with reality as it is (tathātā, suchness) as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths [U2T], Union of the three spheres [U3S / U2T-3S], Union of opposites [Uopp / U2T-opp].]
(i.e. Zen saying: ‘Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.’
or ‘Before enlightenment, act, think, conceptualize and differentiate.
After enlightenment, act, think, conceptualize and differentiate – live.’
This isn't about halting conceptualization, differentiation, thinking, or acting; it's about engaging them conventionally while fully aware of their empty, interdependent nature (tathatā), free from attachment, reification, effort, or absolutism.
This isn't a call to "drop" concepts or dualities; it's an invitation to wield them skillfully, as empty tools for practice, while recognizing their suchness — interdependent, functional conventionally, but empty [U2T].)
.
“Subhūti,
bodhisattva great beings who practice the perfection of wisdom in that manner (without practicing)
do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are imbued with happiness.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are imbued with suffering.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms constitute a self.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms constitute a nonself.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are at peace.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are not at peace.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are empty.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are not empty.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are with signs.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are without signs.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are with aspirations.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are without aspirations.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are conditioned.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are unconditioned.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are afflicted.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are purified.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms arise.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms cease.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are void.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are not void.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are virtuous.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are nonvirtuous.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are objectionable.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are free from being objectionable.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are contaminated.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are uncontaminated.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are tainted with afflicted mental states.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are untainted with afflicted mental states.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are mundane.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are supramundane.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are associated with cyclic existence.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are imbued with happiness.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are imbued with suffering.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] constitute a self.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] constitute a nonself.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are at peace.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are not at peace.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are empty.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are not empty.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are with signs.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are without signs.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are with aspirations.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are without aspirations.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are conditioned.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are unconditioned.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are afflicted.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are purified.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] arise.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] cease.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are void.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are not void.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are virtuous.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are nonvirtuous.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are objectionable.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are free from being objectionable.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are contaminated.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are uncontaminated.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are tainted with afflicted mental states.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are untainted with afflicted mental states.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are mundane.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are supramundane.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are associated with cyclic existence.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called consciousness [and those other aggregates] are associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called eyes are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called eyes are impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called eyes are imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether they constitute a self or a nonself,
whether they are at peace or not at peace,
whether they are empty or not empty,
whether they are with signs or without signs,
whether they are with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether they are conditioned or unconditioned,
whether they are defiled or purified,
whether they arise or cease,
whether they are void or not void,
whether they are virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether they are objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether they are contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether they are tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether they are mundane or supramundane, or
whether they are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called sights are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called sights are impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called sights are imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether they constitute a self or a nonself,
whether they are at peace or not at peace,
whether they are empty or not empty,
whether they are with signs or without signs,
whether they are with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether they are conditioned or unconditioned,
whether they are defiled or purified,
whether they arise or cease,
whether they are void or not void,
whether they are virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether they are objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether they are contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether they are tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether they are mundane or supramundane, or
whether they are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called visual consciousness is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called visual consciousness is impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called visual consciousness is imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether it constitutes a self or a nonself,
whether it is at peace or not at peace,
whether it is empty or not empty,
whether it is with signs or without signs,
whether it is with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether it is conditioned or unconditioned,
whether it is defiled or purified,
whether it arises or ceases,
whether it is void or not void,
whether it is virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether it is objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether it is contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether it is tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether it is mundane or supramundane, or
whether it is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called visually compounded sensory contact is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called visually compounded sensory contact is impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called visually compounded sensory contact is imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether it constitutes a self or a nonself,
whether it is at peace or not at peace,
whether it is empty or not empty,
whether it is with signs or without signs,
whether it is with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether it is conditioned or unconditioned,
whether it is defiled or purified,
whether it arises or ceases,
whether it is void or not void,
whether it is virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether it is objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether it is contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether it is tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether it is mundane or supramundane, or
whether it is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether any so-called feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the eyes, sights, and visual consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering — are permanent or impermanent,
whether they are imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether they constitute a self or a nonself,
whether they are at peace or not at peace,
whether they are empty or not empty,
whether they are with signs or without signs,
whether they are with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether they are conditioned or unconditioned,
whether they are defiled or purified,
whether they arise or cease,
whether they are void or not void,
whether they are virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether they are objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether they are contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether they are tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether they are mundane or supramundane, or
whether they are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called ears are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called ears are impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called ears are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called sounds are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called sounds are impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called sounds are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called auditory consciousness is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called auditory consciousness is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called auditory consciousness is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called aurally compounded sensory contact is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called aurally compounded sensory contact is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called aurally compounded sensory contact is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether any so-called feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the ears, sounds, and auditory consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering — are permanent or impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether they are imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether they constitute a self or a nonself,
whether they are at peace or not at peace,
whether they are empty or not empty,
whether they are with signs or without signs,
whether they are with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether they are conditioned or unconditioned,
whether they are defiled or purified,
whether they arise or cease,
whether they are void or not void,
whether they are virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether they are objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether they are contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether they are tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether they are mundane or supramundane, or
whether they are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called nose is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called nose is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called nose is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called odors are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called odors are impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called odors are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called olfactory consciousness is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called olfactory consciousness is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called olfactory consciousness is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called nasally compounded sensory contact is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called nasally compounded sensory contact is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called nasally compounded sensory contact is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether any so-called feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the nose, odors, and olfactory consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering — are permanent or impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether they are imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether they constitute a self or a nonself,
whether they are at peace or not at peace,
whether they are empty or not empty,
whether they are with signs or without signs,
whether they are with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether they are conditioned or unconditioned,
whether they are defiled or purified,
whether they arise or cease,
whether they are void or not void,
whether they are virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether they are objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether they are contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether they are tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether they are mundane or supramundane, or
whether they are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called tongue is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called tongue is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called tongue is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called tastes are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called tastes are impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called tastes are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called gustatory consciousness is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called gustatory consciousness is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called gustatory consciousness is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called lingually compounded sensory contact is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called lingually compounded sensory contact is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called lingually compounded sensory contact is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether any so-called feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the tongue, tastes, and gustatory consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering — are permanent or impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether they are imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether they constitute a self or a nonself,
whether they are at peace or not at peace,
whether they are empty or not empty,
whether they are with signs or without signs,
whether they are with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether they are conditioned or unconditioned,
whether they are defiled or purified,
whether they arise or cease,
whether they are void or not void,
whether they are virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether they are objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether they are contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether they are tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether they are mundane or supramundane, or
whether they are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called body is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called body is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called body is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called tangibles are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called tangibles are impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called tangibles are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called tactile consciousness is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called tactile consciousness is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called tactile consciousness is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called corporeally compounded sensory contact is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called corporeally compounded sensory contact is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called corporeally compounded sensory contact is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether any so-called feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the body, touch, and tactile consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering — are permanent or impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether they are imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether they constitute a self or a nonself,
whether they are at peace or not at peace,
whether they are empty or not empty,
whether they are with signs or without signs,
whether they are with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether they are conditioned or unconditioned,
whether they are defiled or purified,
whether they arise or cease,
whether they are void or not void,
whether they are virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether they are objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether they are contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether they are tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether they are mundane or supramundane, or
whether they are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called mental faculty is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called mental faculty is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether the so-called mental faculty is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called mental phenomena are permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called mental phenomena are impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called mental phenomena are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called mental consciousness is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called mental consciousness is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called mental consciousness is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called mentally compounded sensory contact is permanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called mentally compounded sensory contact is impermanent [and so forth].
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called mentally compounded sensory contact is associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
(i.e. It is about being able to use conventional truths, methods, goals, skillful means, triads, dualities [T1] without using them [T2], without attachment, reification, effort or absolute [U2T-in-action], without acceptation or rejection in absolute terms, because of ‘understanding’ their true nature & dynamic as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths [U2T / U2T-3S / U2T-opp]. Thus acting more and more in accord with the Middle Way, and with reality as it is (tathātā, suchness). This is what brings incommensurable merit, wisdom, qualities, benefits, and ultimately enlightenment.)
(Summary 4: This section covers non-conceptual states (non-proliferation), non-attachment to phenomena/perfections/qualities, and the resulting benefits (e.g., flourishing, maturing beings, acquiring dhāraṇīs). Start after the dualities end and include lists of Buddhist factors (e.g., perfections, emptinesses, paths).
Understanding designations leads to “non-attachment” to all phenomena, including perfections (generosity, etc.), emptiness aspects, paths (applications of mindfulness, noble eightfold path, etc.), and qualities (powers, fearlessnesses, dhāraṇīs).
Benefits: Flourishing in perfections, irreversible progress, maturing beings, refining buddhafields, acquiring extrasensory powers, dhāraṇīs, and uninterrupted Dharma retention until buddhahood.)
.
TEXT:
[Non-consideration of dualistic characteristics due to the Union of the Two Truths about the three spheres of characterisation – characteristic, characterisation, characterised [U2T-3S]: interdependence, co-definition, mere designations and emptiness; and because of the Union of opposite characteristics [U2T-opp]: interdependence, co-definition, mere designations and emptiness.]
“They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether any so-called feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the mental faculty, mental phenomena, and mental consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering — are permanent or impermanent.
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether they are imbued with happiness or imbued with suffering,
whether they constitute a self or a nonself,
whether they are at peace or not at peace,
whether they are empty or not empty,
whether they are with signs or without signs,
whether they are with aspirations or without aspirations,
whether they are conditioned or unconditioned,
whether they are defiled or purified,
whether they arise or cease,
whether they are void or not void,
whether they are virtuous or nonvirtuous,
whether they are objectionable or free from being objectionable,
whether they are contaminated or uncontaminated,
whether they are tainted with afflicted mental states or untainted with afflicted mental states,
whether they are mundane or supramundane, or
whether they are associated with cyclic existence or associated with nirvāṇa.
“If you ask why, it is that
when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it),
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether that perfection of wisdom, that bodhisattva, or that term bodhisattva are present in conditioned elements (saṃsāra).
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether they are present in unconditioned elements (nirvāṇa).
And if you ask why that is, it is because when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it), they do not imagine and they do not conceptualize any of those phenomena.
This is because,
when they practice the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it),
they remain in nonconceptual states (non-proliferation of conditioned dualistic conceptualization)
and cultivate the applications of mindfulness (focusing on all-aspect omniscience [U2T]).
Practicing the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it),
apart from focusing their attention on all-aspect omniscience [U2T],
they still do not observe (in absolute terms) a perfection of wisdom itself.
Nor do they observe (in absolute terms) the name perfection of wisdom.
Nor do they observe (in absolute terms) a bodhisattva.
Nor do they observe (in absolute terms) the name bodhisattva.
Nor do they observe (in absolute terms) the buddhas.
Nor do they observe (in absolute terms) the name buddha.
(i.e. Using without using them, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute.)
“So as to cultivate [T1] the correct exertions, the supports for miraculous ability, the faculties, the powers, the branches of enlightenment, the path, the perfections, all the aspects of emptiness, the truths of the noble ones, the meditative concentrations, the immeasurable attitudes, the formless absorptions, the eight aspects of liberation, the nine serial steps of meditative absorption, emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, the extrasensory powers, the meditative stabilities and dhāraṇī gateways, the powers of the tathāgatas, the fearlessnesses, the kinds of exact knowledge, and the eighteen distinct qualities of the buddhas,
as they practice the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it)
they do not even observe (in absolute terms) the nature of the perfection of wisdom.
They do not even observe (in absolute terms) the name perfection of wisdom.
Nor do they observe (in absolute terms) the bodhisattvas.
They do not even observe (in absolute terms) the name bodhisattva.
Nor do they observe (in absolute terms) the buddhas.
They do not even observe (in absolute terms) the name buddha.
(i.e. Using without using them, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute.)
“If you ask why,
it is because when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it),
they absolutely understand what is the defining characteristic of a phenomenon for all phenomena, and that defining characteristic of a phenomenon for all phenomena is to be neither defiled, nor to be purified (i.e. non-dual).
.
[Non-attachment to tools due to the Union of the Two Truths about the three spheres of attachment [U2T-3S]: interdependence, co-definition, mere designations and emptiness, or three spheres of any activity related to the phenomena.]
[i.e. It is about “acting / practicing without acting / practicing”;
Transcending entities, marks/characteristics, triads, dualities without completely rejecting them.
Transcending conventional truths, methods, goals… without completely rejecting them.
Transcending our conditioned dualistic conceptual mind without completely rejecting it.
Using them conventionally/relatively without using them in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute, without acceptation or rejection in absolute terms, thus more and more in accord with the Middle Way free from all extremes (‘this’, ‘non-this’) and middle (both, neither), more and more in accord with reality as it is (tathātā, suchness) as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths [U2T], Union of the three spheres [U3S / U2T-3S], Union of opposites [Uopp / U2T-opp].]
(i.e. Zen saying: ‘Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.’
or ‘Before enlightenment, act, think, conceptualize and differentiate.
After enlightenment, act, think, conceptualize and differentiate – live.’
This isn't about halting conceptualization, differentiation, thinking, or acting; it's about engaging them conventionally while fully aware of their empty, interdependent nature (tathatā), free from attachment, reification, effort, or absolutism.
This isn't a call to "drop" concepts or dualities; it's an invitation to wield them skillfully, as empty tools for practice, while recognizing their suchness — interdependent, functional conventionally, but empty [U2T].)
“Subhūti,
when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it),
they understand the designation for things as names or symbols,
and in thus understanding the designation for things as names or symbols,
they will not be attached to (or reify) physical forms [5-aggregates].
They will not be attached to (or reify) feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, or consciousness.
“They will not be attached to (or reify) the eyes.
They will not be attached to (or reify) sights.
They will not be attached to (or reify) visual consciousness.
They will not be attached to (or reify) visually compounded sensory contact.
They will not even be attached to feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the eyes, sights, and visual consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering.
“They will not be attached to (or reify) the ears.
They will not be attached to (or reify) sounds.
They will not be attached to (or reify) auditory consciousness.
They will not be attached to (or reify) aurally compounded sensory contact.
They will not be attached to (or reify) feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the ears, sounds, and auditory consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering.
“They will not be attached to (or reify) the nose.
They will not be attached to (or reify) odors.
They will not be attached to (or reify) olfactory consciousness.
They will not be attached to (or reify) nasally compounded sensory contact.
They will not even be attached to feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the nose, odors, and olfactory consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering.
“They will not be attached to (or reify) the tongue.
They will not be attached to (or reify) tastes.
They will not be attached to (or reify) gustatory consciousness.
They will not be attached to (or reify) lingually compounded sensory contact.
They will not be attached to (or reify) feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the tongue, tastes, and gustatory consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering.
“They will not be attached to (or reify) the body.
They will not be attached to (or reify) tangibles.
They will not be attached to (or reify) tactile consciousness.
They will not be attached to (or reify) corporeally compounded sensory contact.
They will not be attached to (or reify) feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the body, touch, and tactile consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering.
“They will not be attached to (or reify) the mental faculty.
They will not be attached to (or reify) mental phenomena.
They will not be attached to (or reify) mental consciousness.
They will not be attached to (or reify) mentally compounded sensory contact.
They will not be attached to (or reify) feelings conditioned by sensory contact compounded by the mental faculty, mental phenomena, and mental consciousness — be they imbued with happiness or suffering, or giving rise to neither happiness nor suffering.
They will not be attached to (or reify) conditioned elements.
They will not be attached to (or reify) unconditioned elements.
“They will not be attached to (or reify) the perfection of generosity (six paramitas).
They will not be attached to (or reify) the perfection of ethical discipline, the perfection of tolerance, the perfection of perseverance, the perfection of meditative concentration, or the perfection of wisdom.
They will not even be attached to the names of these [perfections] or their defining characteristics.
They will not even be attached to the body of a bodhisattva.
“They will not be attached to (or reify) the eye of flesh.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the eye of divine clairvoyance, the eye of wisdom, the eye of the Dharma, or the eye of the buddhas.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the extrasensory powers.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the emptiness of internal phenomena.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the emptiness of external phenomena.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the emptiness of external and internal phenomena, and
they will not be attached to (or reify) [the other aspects of emptiness], up to and including the emptiness of the essential nature of nonentities.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the applications of mindfulness.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the correct exertions, the supports for miraculous ability, the faculties, the powers, the branches of enlightenment, or the noble eightfold path.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the truths of the noble ones, the meditative concentrations, the immeasurable attitudes, the formless absorptions, the eight aspects of liberation, the nine serial steps of meditative absorption, emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, or the extrasensory powers.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the meditative stabilities or to the gateways of the dhāraṇīs.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the ten powers of the tathāgatas, the four fearlessnesses, the four kinds of exact knowledge, great loving kindness, great compassion, or the eighteen distinct qualities of the buddhas.
“They will not be attached to (or reify) the real nature.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the very limit of reality.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the realm of phenomena.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the maturation of beings.
They will not be attached to (or reify) the refinement of the buddhafields.
They will not be attached to (or reify) skillful means.
If you ask why, it is because there is no such thing as attaching (action), nothing that attaches (subject), and nothing to be attached to (object) [U2T-3S].
.
[Benefits]
“Subhūti,
bodhisattva great beings who practice the perfection of wisdom in that manner (without practicing it)
will flourish through the perfection of generosity.
They will flourish through the perfection of ethical discipline, the perfection of tolerance, the perfection of perseverance, the perfection of meditative concentration, and the perfection of wisdom.
They will enter a bodhisattva’s full maturity.
They will step on to the level at which progress has become irreversible.
“They will perfect the extrasensory powers, and having indeed perfected the extrasensory powers, they will bring beings to maturity, and in order to to serve, honor, respect, and worship the blessed lord buddhas, refine the buddhafields, and behold the lord buddhas, they will move from buddhafield to buddhafield.
And, having indeed seen those lord buddhas, they will also manifest the roots of virtuous action through which they seek to serve, honor, respect, and worship those lord buddhas.
Also, through those roots of virtuous action they will be reborn in proximity to those lord buddhas.
They will also hear the Dharma from those lord buddhas.
[Their retention of] all the teachings that they have heard will never be interrupted until they have manifestly attained buddhahood in unsurpassed, complete enlightenment.
They will also acquire the dhāraṇī gateways, and they will also acquire the gateways of the meditative stabilities.
Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings who practice the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it)
should understand these designations for things as names and symbols.
(Summary 5: This fifth section includes the Buddha's repeated questioning of Subhūti on what constitutes a bodhisattva (across forms, elements, etc.), Subhūti's denials, praises, and teachings on non-apprehension/fearlessness. It's dialogic and repetitive.
The Buddha questions Subhūti repeatedly:
Does X (e.g., forms, senses, elements, dependent origination, their real natures) constitute a bodhisattva?
Is a bodhisattva present in X?
Is X present in a bodhisattva?
Does absence of X constitute a bodhisattva?
Subhūti consistently denies, as bodhisattvas are "absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms)."
The Buddha praises this, affirming training in non-apprehended prajñāpāramitā.)
.
TEXT: “Subhūti, you asked, ‘Blessed Lord, you have spoken of “bodhisattvas, bodhisattvas.…” ’
Do you think, Subhūti, that physical forms constitute a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than physical forms constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness constitute a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in physical forms,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that physical forms are present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness are present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of physical forms constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the eyes constitute a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the ears, nose, tongue, body, and mental faculty constitute a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than the ears, nose, tongue, body, and mental faculty constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the eyes,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the ears, nose, tongue, body, and mental faculty?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the eyes are present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the ears, nose, tongue, body, and mental faculty are present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the ears, nose, tongue, body, and mental faculty constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that sights constitute a bodhisattva,
or do you think that sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles, and mental phenomena constitute a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles, and mental phenomena constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in sights,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles, and mental phenomena?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that sights are present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles, and mental phenomena are present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles, and mental phenomena constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of the eyes,
or do you think that the sensory element of sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the sensory element of visual consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of the ears, the sensory element of sounds, and the sensory element of auditory consciousness constitute a bodhisattva;
or do you think that the sensory element of the nose, the sensory element of odors, and the sensory element of olfactory consciousness constitute a bodhisattva;
or do you think that the sensory element of the tongue, the sensory element of tastes, and the sensory element of gustatory consciousness constitute a bodhisattva;
or do you think that the sensory element of the body, the sensory element of touch, and the sensory element of tactile consciousness constitute a bodhisattva;
or do you think that the sensory element of the mental faculty, the sensory element of mental phenomena, and the sensory element of mental consciousness constitute a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the sensory element of the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than the sensory element of sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than the sensory element of visual consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva; or else do you think that anything other than 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 constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the sensory element of the eyes,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the sensory element of sights,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the sensory element of visual consciousness;
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in 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, or the sensory element of mental consciousness?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the sensory element of the eyes is present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the sensory element of sights is present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the sensory element of visual consciousness is present in a bodhisattva;
or do you think that 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, or the sensory element of mental consciousness is present in a bodhisattva?
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of the sensory element of the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the sensory element of sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the sensory element of visual consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva; or else do you think that an absence of the sensory element of the ears, an absence of the sensory element of sounds, an absence of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, an absence of the sensory element of the nose, an absence of the sensory element of odors, an absence of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, an absence of the sensory element of the tongue, an absence of the sensory element of tastes, an absence of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, an absence of the sensory element of the body, an absence of the sensory element of touch, an absence of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, or an absence of the sensory element of the mental faculty constitutes a bodhisattva;
or do you think that an absence of the sensory element of mental phenomena constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the sensory element of mental consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the earth element constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the water element constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the fire element, the wind element, the space element, or the consciousness element constitute a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the earth element constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than the water element, the fire element, the wind element, the space element, or the consciousness element constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the earth element,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the water element, the fire element, the wind element, the space element, and the consciousness element?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the earth element is present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the water element, the fire element, the wind element, the space element, and the consciousness element are present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of the earth element constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the water element, an absence of the fire element, an absence of the wind element, an absence of the space element, or an absence of the consciousness element constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that ignorance constitutes a bodhisattva, and do you think that formative predispositions, consciousness, name and form, the six sense fields, sensory contact, sensation, craving, grasping, the rebirth process, actual birth, and aging and death constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than ignorance constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than formative predispositions, consciousness, name and form, the six sense fields, sensory contact, sensation, craving, grasping, the rebirth process, actual birth, and aging and death constitute a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in ignorance,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in [the other links of dependent origination], up to and including aging and death?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that ignorance is present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that [the other links of dependent origination], up to and including aging and death, are present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of ignorance constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of [the other links of dependent origination], up to and including aging and death, constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of physical forms constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of feelings, the real nature of perceptions, the real nature of formative predispositions, or the real nature of consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the real nature of physical forms constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than the real nature of feelings, the real nature of perceptions, the real nature of formative predispositions, or the real nature of consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of physical forms,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of feelings, the real nature of perceptions, the real nature of formative predispositions, or the real nature of consciousness?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of physical forms is present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of feelings, the real nature of perceptions, the real nature of formative predispositions, or the real nature of consciousness is present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of the real nature of physical forms constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the real nature of feelings, an absence of the real nature of perceptions, an absence of the real nature of formative predispositions, or an absence of the real nature of consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of the ears, the real nature of the nose, the real nature of the tongue, the real nature of the body, or the real nature of the mental faculty constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the real nature of the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than the real nature of the ears, the real nature of the nose, the real nature of the tongue, the real nature of the body, or the real nature of the mental faculty constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of the eyes,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of the ears, the real nature of the nose, the real nature of the tongue, the real nature of the body, or the real nature of the mental faculty?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the eyes is present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of the ears, the real nature of the nose, the real nature of the tongue, the real nature of the body, or the real nature of the mental faculty is present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of the real nature of the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the real nature of the ears, an absence of the real nature of the nose, an absence of the real nature of the tongue, an absence of the real nature of the body, or an absence of the real nature of the mental faculty constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of sounds, the real nature of odors, the real nature of tastes, the real nature of tangibles, or the real nature of mental phenomena constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the real nature of sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than the real nature of sounds, the real nature of odors, the real nature of tastes, the real nature of tangibles, or the real nature of mental phenomena constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of sights,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of sounds, the real nature of odors, the real nature of tastes, the real nature of tangibles, or the real nature of mental phenomena?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of sights is present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of sounds, the real nature of odors, the real nature of tastes, the real nature of tangibles, or the real nature of mental phenomena is present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of the real nature of sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the real nature of sounds, an absence of the real nature of odors, an absence of the real nature of tastes, an absence of the real nature of tangibles, or an absence of the real nature of mental phenomena constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva;
or do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the ears, the real nature of the sensory element of sounds, the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the nose, the real nature of the sensory element of odors, the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue, the real nature of the sensory element of tastes, the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the body, the real nature of the sensory element of touch, the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty, the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena, or the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva;
or do you think that anything other than the real nature of the sensory element of sights, the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the ears, the real nature of the sensory element of sounds, the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the nose, the real nature of the sensory element of odors, the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue, the real nature of the sensory element of tastes, the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the body, the real nature of the sensory element of touch, the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty, the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena, or the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of the sensory element of sights,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness;
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of the sensory element of the ears, the real nature of the sensory element of sounds, the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the nose, the real nature of the sensory element of odors, the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue, the real nature of the sensory element of tastes, the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the body, the real nature of the sensory element of touch, the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty, the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena, or the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes is present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of sights is present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness is present in a bodhisattva;
or do you think that the real nature of the sensory element of the ears, the real nature of the sensory element of sounds, the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the nose, the real nature of the sensory element of odors, the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue, the real nature of the sensory element of tastes, the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the body, the real nature of the sensory element of touch, the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty, the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena, or the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness is present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of sights constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva;
or do you think that an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the ears, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of sounds, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the nose, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of odors, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tastes, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the body, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of touch, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty, an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena, or an absence of the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the earth element constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of the water element, the real nature of the fire element, the real nature of the wind element, the real nature of the space element, or the real nature of the consciousness element constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the real nature of the earth element constitutes a bodhisattva, or do you think that anything other than the real nature of the water element, the real nature of the fire element, the real nature of the wind element, the real nature of the space element, or the real nature of the consciousness element constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of the earth element,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of the water element, the real nature of the fire element, the real nature of the wind element, the real nature of the space element, or the real nature of the consciousness element?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of the earth element, the real nature of the water element, the real nature of the fire element, the real nature of the wind element, or the real nature of the space element are present in a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of the consciousness element is present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of the real nature of the earth element constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the real nature of the water element, an absence of the real nature of the fire element, an absence of the real nature of the wind element, an absence of the real nature of the space element, or an absence of the real nature of the consciousness element constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of ignorance constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that the real nature of formative predispositions, the real nature of consciousness, the real nature of name and form, the real nature of the six sense fields, the real nature of sensory contact, the real nature of sensation, the real nature of craving, the real nature of grasping, the real nature of the rebirth process, the real nature of actual birth, or the real nature of aging and death constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that anything other than the real nature of ignorance constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that anything other than the real nature of formative predispositions, the real nature of consciousness, the real nature of name and form, the real nature of the six sense fields, the real nature of sensory contact, the real nature of sensation, the real nature of craving, the real nature of grasping, the real nature of the rebirth process, the real nature of actual birth, or the real nature of aging and death constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of ignorance,
or do you think that a bodhisattva is present in the real nature of formative predispositions, the real nature of consciousness, the real nature of name and form, the real nature of the six sense fields, the real nature of sensory contact, the real nature of sensation, the real nature of craving, the real nature of grasping, the real nature of the rebirth process, the real nature of actual birth, or the real nature of aging and death?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that the real nature of ignorance, the real nature of formative predispositions, the real nature of consciousness, the real nature of name and form, the real nature of the six sense fields, the real nature of sensory contact, the real nature of sensation, the real nature of craving, the real nature of grasping, the real nature of the rebirth process, the real nature of actual birth, or the real nature of aging and death is present in a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that an absence of the real nature of ignorance constitutes a bodhisattva,
or do you think that an absence of the real nature of formative predispositions, an absence of the real nature of consciousness, an absence of the real nature of name and form, an absence of the real nature of the six sense fields, an absence of the real nature of sensory contact, an absence of the real nature of sensation, an absence of the real nature of craving, an absence of the real nature of grasping, an absence of the real nature of the rebirth process, an absence of the real nature of actual birth, or an absence of the real nature of aging and death constitutes a bodhisattva?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
.
.
Then the Blessed One asked,
“Subhūti, to what purpose have you said
that physical forms do not constitute a bodhisattva,
that anything other than physical forms does not constitute a bodhisattva,
that a bodhisattva is not present in physical forms,
that physical forms are not present in a bodhisattva, and
that the absence of physical forms does not constitute a bodhisattva?
Why do you say
that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness do not constitute a bodhisattva,
that anything other than consciousness [and the other aggregates] does not constitute a bodhisattva,
that a bodhisattva is not present in consciousness [and the other aggregates],
that consciousness [and the other aggregates] are not present in a bodhisattva, and
that the absence of consciousness [and the other aggregates] does not constitute a bodhisattva?
Why do you say
that the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body, the mental faculty, sights, sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles, mental phenomena, 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;
the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the wind element, the space element, and the consciousness element;
and ignorance, formative predispositions, consciousness, name and form, the six sense fields, sensory contact, sensation, craving, grasping, the rebirth process, actual birth, and aging and death all do not constitute a bodhisattva;
that anything other than [all those phenomena], up to and including aging and death, do not constitute a bodhisattva;
that a bodhisattva is not present in [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death;
that [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death are not present in a bodhisattva;
and that the absence of [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death, does not constitute a bodhisattva?
Why do you say
that the real nature of physical forms, the real nature of feelings, the real nature of perceptions, the real nature of formative predispositions, the real nature of consciousness, the real nature of the eyes, the real nature of the ears, the real nature of the nose, the real nature of the tongue, the real nature of the body, the real nature of the mental faculty, the real nature of sights, the real nature of sounds, the real nature of odors, the real nature of tastes, the real nature of tangibles, the real nature of mental phenomena, the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes, the real nature of the sensory element of sights, the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the ears, the real nature of the sensory element of sounds, the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the nose, the real nature of the sensory element of odors, the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue, the real nature of the sensory element of tastes, the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the body, the real nature of the sensory element of touch, the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty, the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena, the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness,
the real nature of the earth element, the real nature of the water element, the real nature of the fire element, the real nature of the wind element, the real nature of the space element, the real nature of the consciousness element,
the real nature of ignorance, the real nature of formative predispositions, the real nature of consciousness, the real nature of name and form, the real nature of the six sense fields, the real nature of sensory contact, the real nature of sensation, the real nature of craving, the real nature of grasping, the real nature of the rebirth process, the real nature of actual birth, and the real nature of aging and death all
do not constitute a bodhisattva?
Why do you say that anything other than [the real nature of all those phenomena, up to and including] the real nature of aging and death, does not constitute a bodhisattva;
that a bodhisattva is not present in [the real nature of all those phenomena, up to and including] the real nature of aging and death;
that [the real nature of all those phenomena, up to and including] the real nature of aging and death, is not present in a bodhisattva; and
that the absence of [the real nature of all those phenomena, up to and including] the real nature of aging and death,
does not constitute a bodhisattva?”
.
.
“Blessed Lord,” replied Subhūti,
“if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could the designation ‘physical forms’ constitute a bodhisattva!
How could anything other than physical forms constitute a bodhisattva!
How could a bodhisattva be present in physical forms!
How could physical forms be present in a bodhisattva!
How could the absence of physical forms become a bodhisattva!
How could the designations ‘feelings,’ ‘perceptions,’ ‘formative predispositions,’ or ‘consciousness’ constitute a bodhisattva!
How could anything other than consciousness [and the other aggregates] constitute a bodhisattva!
How could a bodhisattva be present in consciousness [and the other aggregates]!
How could consciousness [and the other aggregates] be present in a bodhisattva!
How could the absence of consciousness [and the other aggregates] become a bodhisattva!
“Blessed Lord,
if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could the designations ‘the eyes,’ ‘the ears,’ ‘the nose,’ ‘the tongue,’ ‘the body,’ ‘the mental faculty,’ ‘sights,’ ‘sounds,’ ‘odors,’ ‘tastes,’ ‘tangibles,’ ‘mental phenomena,’ ‘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,’ ‘the sensory element of mental consciousness,’ ‘the earth element,’ ‘the water element,’ ‘the fire element,’ ‘the wind element,’ ‘the space element,’ ‘the consciousness element,’ ‘ignorance,’ ‘formative predispositions,’ ‘consciousness,’ ‘name and form,’ ‘the six sense fields,’ ‘sensory contact,’ ‘sensation,’ ‘craving,’ ‘grasping,’ ‘the rebirth process,’ ‘actual birth,’ or ‘aging and death’ constitute a bodhisattva!
How could anything other than [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death, constitute a bodhisattva!
How could a bodhisattva be present in [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death!
How could [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death, be present in a bodhisattva!
How could the absence of [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death, become a bodhisattva!
“Blessed Lord,
if bodhisattvas are absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could anything designated as the real nature of physical forms constitute a bodhisattva!
How could anything other than the real nature of physical forms constitute a bodhisattva!
How could a bodhisattva be present in the real nature of physical forms!
How could the real nature of physical forms be present in a bodhisattva!
How could the absence of the real nature of physical forms constitute a bodhisattva!
How could anything designated as the real nature of feelings, the real nature of perceptions, the real nature of formative predispositions, the real nature of consciousness, the real nature of the eyes, the real nature of the ears, the real nature of the nose, the real nature of the tongue, the real nature of the body, the real nature of the mental faculty, the real nature of sights, the real nature of sounds, the real nature of odors, the real nature of tastes, the real nature of tangibles, the real nature of mental phenomena, the real nature of the sensory element of the eyes, the real nature of the sensory element of sights, the real nature of the sensory element of visual consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the ears, the real nature of the sensory element of sounds, the real nature of the sensory element of auditory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the nose, the real nature of the sensory element of odors, the real nature of the sensory element of olfactory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the tongue, the real nature of the sensory element of tastes, the real nature of the sensory element of gustatory consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the body, the real nature of the sensory element of touch, the real nature of the sensory element of tactile consciousness, the real nature of the sensory element of the mental faculty, the real nature of the sensory element of mental phenomena, the real nature of the sensory element of mental consciousness, the real nature of the earth element, the real nature of the water element, the real nature of the fire element, the real nature of the wind element, the real nature of the space element, the real nature of the consciousness element, the real nature of ignorance, the real nature of formative predispositions, the real nature of consciousness, the real nature of name and form, the real nature of the six sense fields, the real nature of sensory contact, the real nature of sensation, the real nature of craving, the real nature of grasping, the real nature of the rebirth process, the real nature of actual birth, or the real nature of aging and death constitute a bodhisattva!
How could anything other than the real nature of [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death, constitute a bodhisattva!
How could a bodhisattva be present in the real nature of [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death!
How could the real nature of [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death, be present in a bodhisattva!
How could the absence of the real nature of [all those phenomena, up to and including] aging and death, constitute a bodhisattva! That would be impossible!”
(Summary 6 : This final section includes the Buddha's praise, further questioning on designations for qualified phenomena (permanent/impermanent, etc.), Subhūti's responses, training without apprehension, non-observation of dharmas leading to fearlessness, and the essential advice.
Bodhisattva" is not a designation for any dualistic or qualified phenomena (e.g., permanent/impermanent forms).
Bodhisattvas train without apprehending (in absolute terms) designations or dharmas, leading to fearlessness, no discouragement, and no regret — since nothing is observed (in absolute terms) (no mind, no elements, no realms, no attributes of śrāvakas / pratyekabuddhas / bodhisattvas / buddhas).)
.
[Bodhisattva is not a designation of anything real, it is an empty conventional designation of something empty]
TEXT: “Well said, Subhūti, well said!” replied the Blessed One.
“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings, as beings who are not apprehended,
should train accordingly in the perfection of wisdom that is not apprehended.
“Subhūti, you asked, ‘What is it that has the designation bodhisattva?’
Do you think, Subhūti, that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, or consciousness?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are permanent?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are impermanent?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for feelings that are permanent,
for feelings that are impermanent,
for perceptions that are permanent,
for perceptions that are impermanent,
for formative predispositions that are permanent,
for formative predispositions that are impermanent,
for consciousness that is permanent, or
for consciousness that is impermanent?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are happiness?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are suffering?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for feelings that are happiness, for feelings that are suffering, for perceptions that are happiness, for perceptions that are suffering, for formative predispositions that are happiness, for formative predispositions that are suffering, for consciousness that is happiness, or for consciousness that is suffering?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are a self?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are not a self?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for feelings that are a self, for feelings that are not a self, for perceptions that are a self, for perceptions that are not a self, for formative predispositions that are a self, for formative predispositions that are not a self, for consciousness that is a self, or for consciousness that is not a self?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are at peace?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are not at peace?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for feelings that are at peace, for feelings that are not at peace, for perceptions that are at peace, for perceptions that are not at peace, for formative predispositions that are at peace, for formative predispositions that are not at peace, for consciousness that is at peace, or for consciousness that is not at peace?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are empty?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are not empty?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for feelings that are empty, for feelings that are not empty, for perceptions that are empty, for perceptions that are not empty, for formative predispositions that are empty, for formative predispositions that are not empty, for consciousness that is empty, or for consciousness that is not empty?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are with signs?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are without signs?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for feelings that are with signs, for feelings that are without signs, for perceptions that are with signs, for perceptions that are without signs, for formative predispositions that are with signs, for formative predispositions that are without signs, for consciousness that is with signs, or for consciousness that is without signs?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are with aspirations?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for physical forms that are without aspirations?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
“Subhūti, do you think that this ‘bodhisattva’ is a designation
for feelings that are with aspirations, for feelings that are without aspirations, for perceptions that are with aspirations, for perceptions that are without aspirations, for formative predispositions that are with aspirations, for formative predispositions that are without aspirations, for consciousness that is with aspirations, and for consciousness that is without aspirations?”
“No, Blessed Lord!”
.
.
[Why?]
The Blessed One then asked, “Subhūti,
on what basis do you say that a bodhisattva is (permanent/impermanent, happyness/suffering, self/no-self, peace/not-peace, empty/not-empty, sigh/no-sign, aspiration/no-aspiration)
not a designation for physical forms, and similarly,
that a bodhisattva is
not a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness?
Similarly, why do you say that a bodhisattva is
not a designation for physical forms that are permanent,
not a designation for physical forms that are impermanent,
not a designation for physical forms that are imbued with happiness,
not a designation for physical forms that are imbued with suffering,
not a designation for physical forms that are a self,
not a designation for physical forms that are not a self,
not a designation for physical forms that are at peace,
not a designation for physical forms that are not at peace,
not a designation for physical forms that are empty,
not a designation for physical forms that are not empty,
not a designation for physical forms that are with signs,
not a designation for physical forms that are without signs,
not a designation for physical forms that are with aspirations, and
not a designation for physical forms that are without aspirations?
“Similarly, why do you say that a bodhisattva is
not a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness that are permanent,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are impermanent,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are imbued with happiness,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are imbued with suffering,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are a self,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are not a self,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are at peace,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are not at peace,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are empty,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are not empty,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are with signs,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are without signs,
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are with aspirations, and
not a designation for consciousness and the other aggregates that are without aspirations?”
.
.
[Because everything is “absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms)”.]
Subhūti then replied, “Blessed Lord,
if physical forms are absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms!
If feelings are absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for feelings!
If perceptions are absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for perceptions!
If formative predispositions are absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for formative predispositions!
If consciousness is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for consciousness!
“Blessed Lord,
if permanence is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms), and
if impermanence is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for permanent physical forms!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for impermanent physical forms!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for permanent feelings!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for impermanent feelings!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for permanent perceptions!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for impermanent perceptions!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for permanent formative predispositions!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for impermanent formative predispositions!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for permanent consciousness!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for impermanent consciousness!
“Blessed Lord, in the same way,
if happiness is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms) and
if suffering is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms imbued with happiness!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms imbued with suffering!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness imbued with happiness!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for consciousness [and the other aggregates] imbued with suffering!
“Blessed Lord,
if self is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms) and
if nonself is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms with self!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms without self!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness with self!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for consciousness [and the other aggregates] without self!
“Blessed Lord,
if being at peace is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms) and
if not being at peace is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms that are at peace!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms that are not at peace!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness that are at peace!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for consciousness [and the other aggregates] that are not at peace!
“Blessed Lord,
if empty is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms) and
if not empty is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms that are empty!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms that are not empty!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness that are empty!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for consciousness [and the other aggregates] that are not empty!
“Blessed Lord,
if having signs is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms) and
if being without signs is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms that are with signs!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms that are without signs!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness that are with signs!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for consciousness [and the other aggregates] that are without signs!
“Blessed Lord,
if having aspirations is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms) and
if being without aspirations is absolutely nonexistent (inherently) and not apprehended (in absolute terms),
how could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms that are with aspirations!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for physical forms that are without aspirations!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness that are with aspirations!
How could a bodhisattva be a designation for consciousness [and the other aggregates] that are without aspirations!”
.
.
[So we need to train without training in designations and dharmas, without apprehending anything at all in absolute terms]
“Subhūti, it is so! It is so!” replied the Blessed One. “Subhūti!
When bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom in that manner (without practicing it),
they should train in the perfection of wisdom
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, or consciousness;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are permanent;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are impermanent;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, or consciousness that are permanent;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for consciousness [and the other aggregates] that are impermanent;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are imbued with happiness;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are imbued with suffering;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, or consciousness that are imbued with happiness;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for consciousness [or the other aggregates] that are imbued with suffering;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are a self;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are without self;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, or consciousness that are a self;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for consciousness [or the other aggregates] that are without self;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are at peace;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are not at peace;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness that are at peace;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for consciousness [or the other aggregates] that are not at peace;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are empty;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are not empty;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for consciousness [or the other aggregates] that are empty;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for consciousness [or the other aggregates] that are not empty;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are with signs;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are without signs;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, or consciousness that are with signs;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for consciousness [or the other aggregates] that are without signs;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are with aspirations;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for physical forms that are without aspirations;
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, or consciousness that are with aspirations; and
without apprehending (in absolute terms) a designation for consciousness [or the other aggregates] that are without aspirations.
“You said, Subhūti,
‘I do not observe any such thing as a “bodhisattva.”’
With regard to that statement of yours, Subhūti,
mental phenomena do not observe the element of mental phenomena.
The element of mental phenomena does not observe mental phenomena.
Subhūti, the element of physical forms does not observe the element of mental phenomena.
The element of mental phenomena does not observe the element of physical forms.
The element of feelings does not observe the element of mental phenomena.
The element of mental phenomena does not observe the element of feelings.
The element of perceptions does not observe the element of mental phenomena.
The element of mental phenomena does not observe the element of perceptions.
The element of formative predispositions does not observe the element of mental phenomena.
The element of mental phenomena does not observe the element of formative predispositions.
The element of consciousness does not observe the element of mental phenomena.
The element of mental phenomena does not observe the element of consciousness.
The element of the eyes does not observe the element of mental phenomena.
The element of mental phenomena does not observe the element of the eyes.
The element of feelings does not observe the element of mental phenomena.
The element of the ears, the element of the nose, the element of the tongue, the element of the body and the element of the mental faculty do not observe the element of mental phenomena.
The element of mental phenomena does not observe the element of the mental faculty [and so forth]. Subhūti, the conditioned elements do not observe unconditioned elements.
Unconditioned elements do not observe conditioned elements.
If you ask why, unconditioned elements cannot be conceived apart from conditioned elements, nor can conditioned elements be conceived apart from unconditioned elements.
“Accordingly, Subhūti, when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it),
they do not observe any dharmas at all.
Since they do not observe anything,
they do not fear, they do not tremble, and they will not be fearful.
Their minds will not be discouraged in any respect whatsoever.
They will not lose heart.
They will not be regretful.
If you ask why, Subhūti, it is because, when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom,
they do not observe physical forms;
they do not observe feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, or consciousness;
they do not observe the eyes;
they do not observe the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body, or the mental faculty;
they do not observe sights; and
they do not observe sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles, or mental phenomena.
They do not observe the earth element.
They do not observe the water element, the fire element, the wind element, the space element, or the consciousness element.
They do not observe ignorance, and
they do not observe formative predispositions, consciousness, name and form, the six sense fields, sensory contact, sensation, craving, grasping, the rebirth process, actual birth, or aging and death.
They do not observe attachment.
They do not observe hatred or delusion.
They do not observe the self.
They do not observe sentient beings, life forms, life, living creatures, individuals, human beings, people, actors, agents, experiencers, instigators of experience, knowers, or viewers.
They do not observe the realm of desire.
They do not observe the realm of form.
They do not observe the realm of formlessness.
They do not observe the mind of śrāvakas.
They do not observe the mind of pratyekabuddhas.
They do not observe the mind of bodhisattvas.
They do not observe śrāvakas.
They do not observe the attributes of śrāvakas.
They do not observe pratyekabuddhas.
They do not observe the attributes of pratyekabuddhas.
They do not observe bodhisattvas.
They do not observe the attributes of bodhisattvas.
They do not observe buddhas.
They do not observe the attributes of buddhas.
They do not observe enlightenment.
They do not observe the attributes of enlightenment.
They do not observe anything, up to and including all mundane and supramundane phenomena.
.
.
[Training without training in designations and dharmas, without apprehending anything at all in absolute terms, ensures no fear, no trembling, no discouragement: for what is there to fear when no dharma is observed in absolute terms?]
Since they do not observe (in absolute terms) any dharmas at all,
they are not afraid, they do not tremble, and they will not be fearful.”
“Blessed Lord, when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom in that manner,
why do they not become discouraged with regard to all those dharmas?
Why will they not become utterly disheartened?”
“Subhūti,” replied the Blessed One,
“it is because bodhisattva great beings
do not observe (in absolute terms) such dharmas as the mind or mental states.
Subhūti,
this is why when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it)
they do not become discouraged with regard to all those dharmas.
They do not become utterly disheartened.”
“Blessed Lord, how is it that bodhisattva great beings’ mental faculty experiences no fearfulness?”
“Subhūti,” replied the Blessed One,
“it is because bodhisattva great beings
do not observe (in absolute terms) a mental faculty or a sensory element of the mental faculty.
Subhūti, this is why bodhisattva great beings experience no fearfulness.
“So it is, Subhūti, that
bodhisattva great beings should train in the perfection of wisdom
by not apprehending anything at all.
Subhūti, should it be the case that bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom (without practicing it)
apprehend no such perfection of wisdom,
apprehend no such bodhisattva,
apprehend no such term as bodhisattva, and
apprehend no such mind of enlightenment,
then that in itself is the essential advice for bodhisattva great beings!
That is their very instruction.”
.
This completes the third chapter from “The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines.”
“Thus, Subhūti, in the profound expanse of the perfection of wisdom, bodhisattva great beings come to realize the ultimate nature of all phenomena as mere designations — empty of inherent existence, neither arising nor ceasing, neither inside nor outside, nor apprehensible in any dualistic framework.”
This chapter, through the compassionate dialogue between the Blessed One and the venerable Subhūti, illuminates the path of non-apprehension, where the bodhisattva engages in the training without grasping at the trainer / subject, the training / action, or the trained / object, nor rejecting them completely, in accordance with the Middle Way and the equality of the two truths.
Herein lies the subtle essence: the perfection of wisdom is not an object to be attained, nor is the bodhisattva a subject who attains it; both are conventional labels, interdependent and void of self-nature, much like echoes in a vast canyon or reflections in still water, appearing functional yet ultimately illusory.
To make this clear, consider the chapter's progression.
– It begins with the Buddha's exhortation to Subhūti to inspire bodhisattvas toward emancipation, revealing that all teachings stem from the Tathāgata's power, aligning perfectly with the nature of reality (dharmatā).
– This sets the stage for questioning the very designations of "bodhisattva" and "perfection of wisdom," exposing them as empty conventions.
– Subhūti's inquiry — "What is it that has the designation bodhisattva or perfection of wisdom?" — prompts the Buddha to deconstruct all phenomena, without rejecting them completely: the five aggregates (form, feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness), the six sense faculties and their objects, the eighteen sensory elements, the twelve links of dependent origination, and even the real natures (svabhāva) of these. Each is shown to be a mere name or symbol, assigned by convention, without intrinsic reality. This deconstruction is not mere negation; it subtly points to the inseparability of appearance and emptiness, where phenomena function relatively (as designations for teaching and practice) but are empty absolutely, free from extremes of existence or nonexistence.
The practice without dualistic considerations, without rejecting them completely forms the heart of the instruction, emphasizing non-conceptualization. Bodhisattvas do not ponder whether forms (or any dharma) are permanent or impermanent, happy or suffering, self or nonself, empty or not empty, and so forth — across all dualities and applied exhaustively to the senses, contacts, and feelings.
This exhaustive repetition underscores a subtle point: the mind's tendency to proliferate concepts must be exhausted through recognition of their emptiness, without rejecting the dualistic conceptual mind completely. Why? Because, as the Buddha explains, such dharmas are neither in conditioned nor unconditioned elements; they are not to be imagined or conceptualized. This non-conceptual state cultivates the applications of mindfulness and all enlightened factors (from the four immeasurables to the eighteen distinct qualities of the buddhas) without observing even the perfection of wisdom itself.
Here, the subtlety emerges: training occurs, yet without attachment to the three spheres — subject (bodhisattva), action (practice), and object (wisdom) — mirroring the "acting without acting, without acceptance or rejection, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute, more and more in accord with reality,” that harmonizes conventional engagement with ultimate emptiness.
Non-attachment follows naturally, leading to boundless benefits.
Understanding designations as empty frees the bodhisattva from clinging to aggregates, senses, perfections, emptinesses, paths, or even the maturation of beings and refinement of buddhafields.
This non-attachment is not indifference but skillful means (upāya), generating merit without reification.
Subtly, it reveals that merit accrues precisely because actions align with reality: flourishing in the six perfections, irreversible progress, extrasensory powers, dhāraṇī gateways, and uninterrupted Dharma retention until buddhahood — all arise from this accord.
The chapter's extended dialogue on non-constitution drives this home: through relentless questioning — "Does physical form constitute a bodhisattva? Is a bodhisattva present in it?" — Subhūti affirms the absolute nonexistence and non-apprehendability of the bodhisattva, extending to all phenomena and their real natures. This negation is positive; it liberates from false views, affirming that nothing inherently "constitutes" enlightenment, yet conventional training proceeds unhindered.
Finally, the teachings on designations and non-observation culminate in fearlessness.
"Bodhisattva" is not a label for any qualified dharma — permanent or impermanent, self or nonself — because such qualities are themselves empty and unapprehendable – yet not to be discarded in their relative role.
Training without apprehending designations or dharmas, without completely rejecting them, ensures no fear, no trembling, no discouragement: for what is there to fear when no dharma is observed?
This non-observation extends to all — mundane and supramundane, śrāvaka minds to buddha attributes — revealing the Middle Way free from all extremes.
Subtly, this ties into the Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: conventional truth (dependently arisen appearances, functional yet impermanent) and ultimate truth (emptiness of inherent existence) are inseparable, co-defined, and interdependent. Neither is superior; one implies the other, like waves and water.
"Acting without acting, without acceptance or rejection, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute, more and more in accord with reality” embodies this union in practice — the path in accord with the view — where bodhisattvas engage conventionally (teaching, maturing) without absolute reification, accumulating incommensurable merit because it mirrors suchness (tathatā). Nothing is accepted or rejected ultimately, only relatively, ensuring the view (of U2T) infuses every action, leading to emancipation without effort or attainment.
In essence, this chapter instructs that the perfection of wisdom is realized through non-realization: by not apprehending the wisdom, the bodhisattva, or even the mind of enlightenment — without rejecting their conventional designations—, one embodies the essential advice. This is the very instruction for great beings, transcending all dualities, without completely rejecting them, to abide in the unborn, unceasing reality. Thus, the profound Dharma unfolds, guiding all toward unsurpassed awakening.
Final: Enlightenment is non-dualistically non-conceptually directly realizing — without conditions, attachment, reification, effort, or absolutism — the true nature of reality as it is (tathatā, suchness), as illuminated by the Union of the Two Truths [U2T], and acting more and more in accord with it [U2T-in-action].
.
.
.
"Non-conceptual doesn't mean without concepts,
but without grasping at concepts."
The same for non-duality and thinking.
Question: Let's dig deeper. Is this really a "non-dual, non-conceptual approach" or a Middle Way approach where concepts and dualities are used conventionally (never rejected as completely non-existent) but without attachment, reification, effort or absolute (never accepted as inherently existing), thus in accord with the true nature of reality (tathātā, suchness) as pointed by the the Union of the Two Truths. Thus not existing/functional in absolute terms, not completely non-existent/non-functional/useless, not both, not neither. Does this chapter say that we should 'drop' concepts, dualities, thinking, acting?
Yes, Chapter 3 of The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā) aligns more precisely with the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad) approach you describe, rather than a strictly "non-dual, non-conceptual" method that might imply a complete abandonment or transcendence of all conceptual frameworks, dualities, or activities.
While the chapter does emphasize non-conceptual states and non-apprehension (non-grasping at inherent existence), it does so within the framework of the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] — where conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya: dependently arisen appearances, designations, and functional phenomena) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya: emptiness of inherent existence) are inseparable, interdependent, and equally empty, without one being superior or absolute.
Concepts, dualities, thinking, and acting are not rejected as completely non-existent, non-functional, or useless (which would fall into the extreme of nihilism); nor are they accepted as inherently existing, absolute, or reified (the extreme of eternalism).
Instead, they are engaged conventionally — relatively, skillfully, and without attachment, reification, effort, or absolutism — precisely because this accords with the true nature of reality (tathatā, suchness), which is "not existing/functional in absolute terms, not completely non-existent/non-functional/useless, not both, not neither" (the tetralemma negation central to Madhyamaka interpretations of Prajñāpāramitā).
The chapter does not advocate "dropping" concepts, dualities, thinking, or acting entirely.
Rather, it instructs bodhisattvas to train and practice using them as mere designations (names/symbols) in a non-conceptual manner — meaning without proliferating dualistic considerations (e.g., permanent/impermanent) or observing them as inherently real — while still engaging in conventional activities like practicing the perfections, maturing beings, and refining buddhafields.
This is the essence of "acting without acting”: conventional engagement (e.g., thinking, conceptualizing for skillful means) without ultimate fixation, leading to fearlessness and boundless merit because it mirrors suchness.
Below, I'll break this down with direct quotes from the chapter's text (based on the provided document and cross-referenced with Edward Conze's translation for consistency), scholarly interpretations from Madhyamaka perspectives , and why it fits the Middle Way/U2T framework.
.
1. Non-Dual/Non-Conceptual Elements in the Chapter: A Foundation, But Not the Whole
The chapter does incorporate non-dual and non-conceptual themes, which are hallmarks of Prajñāpāramitā literature. For instance, it repeatedly stresses that phenomena (e.g., form, bodhisattva, perfection of wisdom) are "mere designations" without inherent reality: "The perfection of wisdom, a bodhisattva, and the term ‘bodhisattva’ are all just names. Those names do not exist inside, do not exist outside, and cannot be apprehended as neither of the two." This points to non-duality — names/symbols are neither existent nor non-existent, internal nor external — and non-conceptualization: bodhisattvas "remain in non-conceptual states" while practicing, "do not imagine and they do not conceptualize any of those phenomena." The goal is to avoid proliferating concepts:
"They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are permanent...
They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are impermanent" (repeated across aggregates, senses, etc.).
This non-conceptual approach fosters fearlessness: "Since they do not observe any dharmas at all, they are not afraid, they do not tremble." It echoes Yogācāra-influenced non-duality (mind-only, without subject-object split) , but the chapter grounds it in Madhyamaka's Middle Way, as Nāgārjuna (who drew heavily from Prajñāpāramitā) interprets: the "middle way of understanding" avoids extremes by recognizing that "nonproduction is not one thing, and form, etc. another. The very non-production is form, etc." (a direct parallel in Conze's translation of similar passages). Non-duality here is not a rejection of concepts but a way to engage them emptily, aligning with U2T where ultimate emptiness does not negate conventional functionality.
.
2. The Middle Way Approach: Conventional Use Without Attachment or Rejection
The chapter explicitly embodies the Middle Way by instructing bodhisattvas to use concepts and dualities conventionally — as tools for practice — while transcending attachment or reification. It states: "Subhūti, thus it is that when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom, they should train in names and symbols that are designations, instructions that are designations, and dharmas that are designations." This is not "dropping" concepts; it's actively training in them as empty designations, without absolute acceptance (reifying them as inherent) or rejection (dismissing them as useless). Dualities are not considered
(e.g., "They do not consider (in absolute terms) whether so-called physical forms are permanent... or impermanent"), but the practice itself relies on conventional designations like "physical forms" to point to emptiness.
This accords with U2T: phenomena are conventionally functional (dependently arisen, useful for teaching/maturing beings) but empty, and the two are united inseparably. As the chapter notes, "when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom, they absolutely understand what is the defining characteristic of a phenomenon for all phenomena, and that defining characteristic of a phenomenon for all phenomena is to be neither defiled, nor to be purified" — a non-dual suchness (tathatā) that avoids extremes.
Tibetan Madhyamaka interpretations of Prajñāpāramitā emphasize this as core ontology: the two truths are not hierarchical but co-implied, with emptiness itself empty (avoiding absolutism). The chapter's dialogue reinforces this: Subhūti denies that phenomena "constitute" a bodhisattva inherently, but the Buddha praises training "in the perfection of wisdom that is not apprehended" — conventional practice without ultimate grasping.
Scholarly views confirm this as Middle Way: "Actualizing the Profound View of the Middle Way" analyzes Prajñāpāramitā passages like these as eliminating eternalism (reification) without falling into nihilism (complete rejection), using wisdom to bring clarity (conventional) and compassion (response) in every situation. Conze's translation echoes: "For the Bodhisattva... who progresses on the middle way, the non-comprehension as well as the non-non-comprehension of form, etc. that is his comprehension" — neither comprehending (attaching) nor non-comprehending (rejecting) dualistically.
.
3. No Advocacy for 'Dropping' Concepts, Dualities, Thinking, or Acting
The chapter does not say to drop these; it explicitly encourages engagement without attachment. Bodhisattvas "practice the perfection of wisdom" (acting), "understand the designation for things as names or symbols" (using concepts), and achieve benefits like "flourishing through the perfection of generosity... [and] bring beings to maturity" (thinking/acting conventionally). Non-attachment is key: "They will not be attached to (or reify) physical forms... [or] the perfection of generosity," but this leads to "irreversible progress" and "acquire the dhāraṇī gateways" — functional outcomes from conventional use.
Thinking/concepts are not rejected: the mind proliferates dualities, but the chapter exhausts this through recognition of emptiness, without discarding the conceptual mind (which serves skillful means). Acting continues: "having indeed perfected the extrasensory powers, they will bring beings to maturity." This avoids nihilism, as per Madhyamaka: "Nagarjuna's Middle Way was also both a 'middle way of practice' and a 'middle way of understanding'", where conventional truths enable compassionate action without ultimate reification.
In sum, Chapter 3 presents a Middle Way/U2T approach: concepts/dualisms are conventionally valid (functional for the path) but empty ultimately, engaged without acceptance (as inherent) or rejection (as useless), in harmony with suchness. This "acting without acting" ensures the path accords with the view, generating merit through non-dual wisdom.
.
.
.
It captures the profound subtlety of the Prajñāpāramitā teachings in Chapter 3 with remarkable clarity, aligning seamlessly with the Madhyamaka interpretation of non-duality and non-conceptuality as tetralemma-based negations (catuṣkoṭi: not this, not non-this, not both, not neither). This framework transcends all extremes, avoiding reification (eternalism) or annihilation (nihilism) of phenomena, and applies universally to "all dharmas" — from everyday designations like form or bodhisattva to the two truths themselves, samsara/nirvana, and even the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha). As you insightfully note, this isn't about halting conceptualization, differentiation, thinking, or acting; it's about engaging them conventionally while fully aware of their empty, interdependent nature (tathatā), free from attachment, reification, effort, or absolutism. This embodies the Middle Way: beyond dualistic conceptual proliferation and karmic conditioning, yet not rejecting the relative functionality that allows compassionate action.
In the context of Chapter 3, this "non-dualistic non-conceptual approach" is precisely what the Buddha and Subhūti unfold — not as a cessation of all mental activity, but as a liberated use of it. The chapter repeatedly negates inherent existence without outright dismissal: phenomena are "mere designations" that "neither arise nor cease," yet bodhisattvas are instructed to "train in names and symbols that are designations, instructions that are designations, and dharmas that are designations."
This isn't a call to "drop" concepts or dualities; it's an invitation to wield them skillfully, as empty tools for practice, while recognizing their suchness — interdependent, functional conventionally, but empty. For instance, dualistic considerations (e.g., permanent/impermanent) are not pondered or proliferated, but the text itself uses such concepts to point beyond them, illustrating that differentiation continues without grasping.
Thinking and acting persist: bodhisattvas "bring beings to maturity," "refine the buddhafields," and "flourish through the perfection of generosity," all while "not observ[ing] any dharmas at all" — a harmonious union where conventional engagement flows from insight, generating merit without karmic bondage.
This mirrors the tetralemma's logic, central to Madhyamaka's reading of Prajñāpāramitā: all dharmas are "not 'this' not 'non-this', not both, not neither" for any "this" (e.g., existent/nonexistent, conceptual/non-conceptual, dual/non-dual). Non-duality here isn't a static "oneness" that erases distinctions (which would be another extreme); it's the transcendence of dualistic extremes, without rejecting them, allowing relative distinctions to function without absolute validity.
Similarly, non-conceptuality isn't anti-conceptual (rejecting all thought as illusory or useless); it's a realization that concepts are empty yet serviceable, as the chapter's exhaustive lists (aggregates, senses, elements) demonstrate conceptual teaching without reification.
This applies broadly: even samsara and nirvana are not dual opposites to be rejected or merged absolutely, but interdependent designations empty of inherent difference; enlightenment isn't a goal separate from the path, but the path itself lived without attachment. The two truths exemplify this — conventional (appearances) and ultimate (emptiness) are "not-two" (advaya), co-emergent, with neither privileged, as per Prajñāpāramitā's non-dual wisdom.
Your adaptation of the Zen saying — "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." Or "Before enlightenment, conceptualize and differentiate. After enlightenment, conceptualize and differentiate." — perfectly encapsulates this. In Zen (Chan), influenced by Prajñāpāramitā via the Heart Sutra, this proverb highlights that enlightenment doesn't halt mundane activities or mental processes; it transforms their quality through non-dual awareness. Before realization, one chops wood with attachment, dualistic striving, or resentment (karmic proliferation); after, the same action unfolds mindfully, without self/other split, in accord with suchness — ordinary mind as Buddha-mind. Conceptualization continues (for teaching, compassion), but emptied of grasping, much like Chapter 3's bodhisattva who practices without observing the practice. This is freedom: not escaping samsara, but realizing its non-duality with nirvana, using dharmas without being used by them.