(2) Samjaya said:

Having spoken thus to Hrishikesa, Gudakesa, the tormenter of foes, said to Govinda, 'I will not fight,' and verily remained silent.

(2) Subhuti replied, saying: “As I understand the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse, he has no system of doctrine which can be specifically formulated; nor can the Lord Buddha express, in explicit terms, a form of knowledge which can be described as supreme spiritual wisdom. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha adumbrated in terms of the Law, is transcendental and inexpressible. Being a purely spiritual concept, it is neither consonant with Law, nor synonymous with anything apart from the Law. Thus is exemplified the manner by which wise disciples and holy Buddhas, regarding intuition as the Law of their minds, severally attained to different planes of spiritual wisdom.”

(134) If, like a shattered metal plate (gong), thou utter not, then thou hast reached Nirvâna; contention is not known to thee.

(3) She said: 'Venerable Brahmans, you may think it a great thing if you escape from this man with [merely] making a bow. Not one of you will surpass him in discussions about Brahma/ Thereupon [Gargi] Vacaknavl held her peace.

(2) The high priest arose, and asked Jesus, Answerest thou nothing? But Jesus held his peace, and answered nothing.

(3) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? When the Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, was there bequeathed to him any Law whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! inasmuch as I am able to comprehend the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse, when the Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, there was no Law bequeathed to him whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom.”

(4) The Lord Buddha yet again enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? May an Arhat (having attained to absolute quiescence of mind) thus meditate within himself, ‘I have obtained the condition of an Arhat’?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! And why? Because, there is not in reality a condition synonymous with the term Arhat. Honoured of the Worlds! if an Arhat thus meditates within himself, ‘I have obtained the condition of an Arhat,’ there would be obvious recurrence of such arbitrary concepts as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality. Honoured of the Worlds! When the Lord Buddha declared that in absolute quiescence of mind, perfect observance of the Law, and true spiritual perception, I was pre-eminent amongst the disciples, I did not cogitate thus within myself, ‘I am an Arhat, freed from desire!’ Had I thus cogitated, ‘I have obtained the condition of an Arhat,’ the ‘Honoured of the Worlds’ would not have declared concerning me, ‘Subhuti delights in the austerities practised by the Aranyaka’; but, in reality, Subhuti was perfectly quiescent and oblivious to phenomena; hence the allusion, ‘Subhuti delights in the austerities practised by the Aranyaka.’”