(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.”

(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.”

(254) There is no path through the air, a man is not a Samana by outward acts. The world delights in vanity, the Tathâgatas (the Buddhas) are free from vanity.

(255) There is no path through the air, a man is not a Samana by outward acts. No creatures are eternal; but the awakened (Buddha) are never shaken.

(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.”