(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.’”

(6) The Perfections, Charity, and the rest, are of an ascending order of excellence; he will not forsake a more excellent for another, save in respect of the dyke of virtue. Thus minded, he will be always active for the welfare of others; even a forbidden deed is permitted to him in his kindliness, if he foresees a good result. He will give of his alms to the fallen, the masterless, and the religious, and eat himself but a moderate portion; he will surrender everything but his three robes. He will not for slight purpose afflict his body, which is in the service of the Good Law; for thus it will speedily fulfil the desires of living beings. And therefore he will not cast away his life for one whose spirit of mercy is impure, but only for one whose spirit is like his own; and thus naught is lost....

(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.”