(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.”

(1) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If an enlightened disciple, in the exercise of charity, bestowed as considerable an amount of the seven treasures as might fill worlds numerous as the sands of the Ganges; and if a disciple, realising that within the meaning and purport of the Law, there is no abstract individual existence, perfects himself in the virtue of endurance, this latter disciple will have a cumulative merit, relatively greater than the other. And why? Because, enlightened disciples are entirely unaffected by considerations of ‘reward or merit.’”

(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.”

(6) The Lord Buddha, thereupon, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Thus it is with an enlightened disciple: if he were to expatiate after this manner, ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life,’ he could not be described as fully enlightened. And why? Because, there is no Law whereby a disciple can be approved as ‘fully enlightened.’ Therefore, the Lord Buddha declared that within the realm of spiritual Law, there is neither an entity, a being, a living being, nor a personality.”

(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.”

(3) The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Enlightened disciples ought therefore to engender within themselves a pure and holy mind; they ought not to depend on the phenomena of form, sound, odour, taste, touch, or Law; they ought to sedulously cultivate a mind independent of every material aid.”

(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.”

(2) The Lord Buddha thereafter addressed Subhuti, saying: “Those who aspire to the attainment of supreme spiritual wisdom ought thus to know, believe in, and interpret phenomena. They ought to eliminate from their minds every tangible evidence of every visible object. Subhuti, concerning ‘visible objects,’ the Lord Buddha declared that these are not really ‘visible objects’ they are merely termed ‘visible objects.’”