(1) Upon that occasion, the venerable Subhuti occupied a place in the midst of the assembly. Rising from his seat, with cloak arranged in such manner that his right shoulder was disclosed, Subhuti knelt upon his right knee, then pressing together the palms of his hands, he respectfully raised them towards Lord Buddha, saying: “Thou art of transcendent wisdom, Honoured of the Worlds! With wonderful solicitude, Thou dost preserve in the faith, and instruct in the Law, this illustrious assembly of enlightened disciples. Honoured of the Worlds! if a good disciple, whether man or woman, seeks to obtain supreme spiritual wisdom, what immutable Law shall sustain the mind of that disciple, and bring into subjection every inordinate desire?”

(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.’”

(1) The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? May a Scrotapatti (having entered the stream which bears on to Nirvana) thus moralise within himself, ‘I have obtained the fruits commensurate with the merit of a Scrotapatti’?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! And why? Because, Scrotapatti is simply a descriptive term signifying ‘having entered the stream.’ A disciple who avoids the seductive phenomena of form, sound, odour, taste, touch, and Law, is named a Scrotapatti.”

(1) Upon that occasion, the venerable Subhuti, hearing the text of this scripture proclaimed, and profoundly realising its meaning, was moved to tears. Addressing the Lord Buddha, he said: “Thou art of transcendent wisdom, Honoured of the Worlds! The Lord Buddha in expounding this supreme canon of Scripture, surpassed in perspicuity every exposition previously heard by me, since my eyes were privileged to perceive this most excellent wisdom. Honoured of the Worlds! In years to come, if disciples hearing this scripture proclaimed, and having within their minds a pure and holy faith, engender true concepts of the ephemeral nature of phenomena—we ought to realise that the cumulative merit of such disciples will be intrinsic and wonderful. Honoured of the Worlds! The true concept of phenomena is, that these are not essentially phenomena, and hence the Lord Buddha declared that they are merely termed phenomena.”

(1) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple, having immeasurable spheres filled with the seven treasures, bestowed these in the exercise of charity; and if a disciple, whether man or woman, having aspired to supreme spiritual wisdom, selected from this Scripture a stanza comprising four lines, then rigorously observed it, studied it, and diligently explained it to others; the cumulative merit of such a disciple would be relatively greater than the other.”

(3) “Subhuti, the Lord Buddha by his prescience, is perfectly cognisant of all such potential disciples, and for these also there is reserved an immeasurable merit. And why? Because, the minds of these disciples will not revert to such arbitrary concepts of phenomena as an entity, a being, a living being, a personality, qualities or ideas coincident with Law, or existing apart from the idea of Law. And why? Because, assuming the permanency and reality of phenomena, the minds of these disciples would be involved in such distinctive ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality. Affirming the permanency and reality of qualities or ideas coincident with Law, their minds would inevitably be involved in resolving these same definitions. Postulating the inviolate nature of qualities or ideas which have an existence apart from the Law, there yet remain to be explained these abstruse distinctions—an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality. Therefore, enlightened disciples ought not to affirm the permanency or reality of qualities or ideas coincident with Law, nor postulate as being of an inviolate nature, qualities or ideas having an existence apart from the concept of Law.”