(4) For where there is a duality, as it were, there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes another; there one speaks to another; there one hears another; theie one thinks of another; there one touches another; there one understands another. But where everything has become just one's own self, then whereby and whom would one see? then whereby and whom would one smell? then whereby and whom would one taste? then whereby and to whom would one speak? then whereby and whom would one hear? then whereby and of whom would one think? then whereby and whom would one touch? then whereby and whom would one understand? whereby would one understand him by means of whom one understands this All? That Soul (Atman) is not this, it is not that (neti, neti). It is unseizable, for it can not be seized; indestructible, for it can not be destroyed; unattached, for it does not attach itself; is unbound, does not tremble, is not injured. Lo, whereby would one understand the understander? Thus you have the instruction told to you, Maitreyl. Such, lo, indeed, is immortality.' After speaking thus, Yajnavalkya departed, 1 La

(2) For where there is a duality (dvaita), as it were (iva\ there one sees another; there one smells another; there one hears another; there one speaks to another; there one thinks of another; there one understands another. Where, verily, everything has become just one's own self, then whereby and whom would one smell? then whereby and whom would one see? then whereby and whom would one hear? then whereby and to whom would one speak? then whereby and on whom would one think? then whereby and forth whom would one understand? Whereby would one under- stand him by whom one understands this All? Lo, whereby would one understand the understander? '

(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.”

(6) “Subhuti, five hundred incarnations ago, I recollect that as a recluse practising the ordinances of the Kshanti-Paramita, even then I had no such arbitrary ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality. Therefore, Subhuti, an enlightened disciple ought to discard as being unreal and illusive, every conceivable form of phenomena. In aspiring to supreme spiritual wisdom, the mind ought to be insensible to every sensuous influence, and independent of everything pertaining to sound, odour, taste, touch, or Law. There ought to be cultivated a condition of complete independence of mind; because, if the mind is depending upon any external aid, it is obviously deluded—there is in reality nothing external to depend upon. Therefore, the Lord Buddha declared that in the exercise of charity, the mind of an enlightened disciple ought not to depend upon any form of phenomena. Subhuti, an enlightened disciple desirous to confer benefits upon the whole realm of being, ought thus to be animated in the exercise of charity.”

(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.”

(1) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple affirmed that the Lord Buddha enunciated a belief that the mind can comprehend the idea of an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality; what think you, Subhuti, would that disciple be interpreting aright the meaning of my discourse?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! that disciple would not be interpreting aright the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse. And why? Because, Honoured of the Worlds! discoursing upon comprehending such ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality, it was declared that these are entirely unreal and illusive, and therefore they are merely termed an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality.”