(7) The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? If there were as many rivers Ganges as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, and if there were as many Buddhist worlds as the grains of sand in those innumerable rivers, would these Buddhist worlds be numerous?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! these Buddhist worlds would be very numerous.”

(1) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If there were rivers Ganges as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, would the aggregate grains of sand be of considerable number?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Of very considerable number, Honoured of the Worlds! The rivers Ganges alone would be innumerable, and much more innumerable would be the grains of sand.”

(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.’”

(8) The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Within these innumerable worlds, every form of sentient life, with their various mental dispositions, are entirely known to the Lord Buddha. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as their ‘various mental dispositions,’ are not in reality their ‘various mental dispositions,’ these are merely termed their ‘various mental dispositions.’ And why? Because, Subhuti, dispositions of mind, or modes of thought, whether relating to the past, the present, or the future, are alike unreal and illusory.”

(2) The Lord Buddha again enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? May a Sakridagami (who is subject only to one more reincarnation) thus muse within himself, ‘I have obtained the fruits consonant with the merit of a Sakridagami’?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! And why? Because, Sakridagami is merely a descriptive title denoting ‘only one more reincarnation’; but in reality there is no such condition as ‘only one more reincarnation,’ hence Sakridagami is merely a descriptive title.”

(6) The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Concerning the sands of the Ganges, did the Lord Buddha declare that these were grains of sand?” Subhuti assenting, said: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha declared that these were grains of sand.”

(2) Subhuti continuing, addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! what the Lord Buddha discoursed upon as ‘infinite worlds,’ these are not in reality ‘infinite worlds,’ they are merely termed ‘infinite worlds.’ And why? Because, if these were in reality ‘infinite worlds,’ there would of necessity be unity and eternity of matter. But the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon the ‘unity and eternity of matter,’ declared that there is neither ‘unity’ nor ‘eternity of matter,’ therefore it is merely termed ‘unity and eternity of matter.’”

(2) Upon that occasion, the virtuous and venerable Subhuti enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! in ages to come, will sentient beings destined to hear this Law, engender within their minds the essential elements of faith?” The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “Subhuti, it cannot be asserted that these are sentient beings, or that these are not sentient beings. And why? Because, Subhuti, regarding ‘sentient beings,’ the Lord Buddha declared that in reality these are not ‘sentient beings,’ they are merely termed ‘sentient beings.’”

(1) Subhuti enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! did the Lord Buddha, in attaining to supreme spiritual wisdom, obtain nothing of a real or tangible nature?” The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “In attaining to supreme spiritual wisdom, not a vestige of Law or doctrine was obtained, and therefore it is termed ‘supreme spiritual wisdom.’”

(7) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If an enlightened disciple were to speak in this wise, ‘I shall create numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ he could not be designated ‘fully enlightened.’ And why? Because, the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon ‘creating numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ did not affirm the idea of creating numerous ‘material’ Buddhist kingdoms, hence the ‘creation of numerous Buddhist kingdoms’ is merely a figure of speech. Subhuti, the Lord Buddha declared that a disciple may be regarded as ‘truly enlightened,’ whose mind is thoroughly imbued with the Law of non-individuality.”

(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) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good disciple, whether man or woman, were to take infinite worlds and ‘reduce’ them to minute particles of dust; what think you, would the aggregate of all those particles of dust be great?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the aggregate of all those particles of dust would be exceedingly great. And why? Because, if all those were in reality ‘minute particles of dust,’ the Lord Buddha would not have declared them to be ‘minute particles of dust.’ And why? Because, the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon ‘minute particles of dust,’ declared that in reality those are not ‘minute particles of dust,’ they are merely termed ‘minute particles of dust.’”

(2) The Lord Buddha replied to Subhuti, saying: “Have no such apprehensive thought! Even at the remote period of five centuries subsequent to the Nirvana of the Lord Buddha, there will be many disciples observing the monastic vows, and assiduously devoted to good works. These, hearing this scripture proclaimed, will believe in its immutability, and similarly conceive within their minds a pure, unmingled faith. Besides, it is important to realise that faith thus conceived, is not exclusively in virtue of the insular thought of any particular Buddha, but because of its affiliation with the concrete thoughts of myriad Buddhas, throughout infinite ages. Therefore, amongst the beings destined to hear this Scripture proclaimed, many, by momentary reflection, will intuitively conceive a pure and holy faith.”

(2) The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “A good disciple, whether man or woman, ought thus to habituate his mind: ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life; and having become oblivious to every idea of sentient life, there is no one to whom the idea of sentient life has become oblivious.’ And why? Because, Subhuti, if an enlightened disciple retains within his mind such arbitrary ideas of sentient life as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality, he has not attained to supreme spiritual wisdom. And why? Because, Subhuti, there is no Law by means of which a disciple may be defined as one having obtained supreme spiritual wisdom.”

(1) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Has the Lord Buddha really attained to supreme spiritual wisdom? Or has he a system of doctrine which can be specifically formulated?”