(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.”

(11) Now behold here in My body, O Gudakesa, the whole world established in one, — including the moving and the unmoving — and whatever else thou desirest to see.

(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.’”

(18) Furthermore, the bodies of the largest of the Peaceful and Wrathful Deities are equal [in vastness] to the limits of the heaves; the intermediate, as big as Mt. Meru; the smallest, equal to eighteen bodies such as thine own body, set one upon another. Be not terrified at that; be not awed. If all existing phenomena shining forth as divine shapes and radiances be recognized to be the emanations of one's own intellect, Buddhahood will be obtained at that very instant of recognition. The saying, 'Buddhahood will be obtained in a moment [of time]' is that which applieth now. Bearing this in mind, one will obtain Buddhahood by merging, in at-one-ment, into the Radiances and the Kdyas.

(2) The Lord Buddha, continuing, said unto Subhuti: “If by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions it were possible to perceive the Lord Buddha, then the Lord Buddha would merely resemble one of the great wheel-turning kings.”

(4) The Lord Buddha continuing his discourse, said: “Subhuti, the Lord Buddha declares that all these ‘atoms of dust’ are not essentially ‘atoms of dust,’ they are merely termed ‘atoms of dust.’ The Lord Buddha also declares that those ‘myriad worlds’ are not really ‘myriad worlds,’ they are merely designated ‘myriad worlds.’”

(5) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the Lord Buddha be perceived by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha cannot be perceived by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as his ‘thirty-two bodily distinctions,’ are not in reality ‘bodily distinctions,’ they are merely defined as ‘bodily distinctions.’”

(1) The Lord Buddha said unto Subhuti: “If you think thus within yourself ‘The Lord Buddha did not, by means of his perfect bodily distinctions, obtain supreme spiritual wisdom,’ Subhuti, have no such deceptive thought! Or if you think thus within yourself, ‘In obtaining supreme spiritual wisdom, the Lord Buddha declared the abrogation of every Law,’ Subhuti, have no such delusive thought! And why? Because, those disciples who obtain supreme spiritual wisdom, neither affirm the abrogation of any Law, nor the destruction of any distinctive quality of phenomena.”

(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.”

(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.”

(3) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? within the myriad worlds which comprise this universe, are the atoms of dust numerous?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Very numerous, Honoured of the Worlds!”

(1) The Lord Buddha interrogated Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Is it possible that by means of his physical body, the Lord Buddha may be clearly perceived?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! It is impossible that by means of his physical body, the Lord Buddha may be clearly perceived. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as a physical body, is in reality not merely a physical body.” Thereupon the Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “Every form or quality of phenomena is transient and illusive. When the mind realises that the phenomena of life are not real phenomena, the Lord Buddha may then be clearly perceived.”

(1) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “This Law is coherent and indivisible, it is neither ‘above’ nor ‘below,’ therefore it is termed ‘supreme spiritual wisdom.’ It excludes such arbitrary ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality; but includes every Law pertaining to the cultivation of goodness. Subhuti, what were referred to as ‘Laws pertaining to goodness,’ these the Lord Buddha declared are not in reality ‘Laws pertaining to goodness,’ they are merely termed ‘Laws pertaining to goodness.’”

(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.”