(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.’”

(3) “Again, Subhuti, in future ages, if a good disciple, whether man or woman, be enabled to rigorously observe and to study consecutively the texts of this Scripture, were I to elaborate either the nature or extent of this merit, those who heard it might become delirious, or entirely doubt its credibility. Subhuti, it is necessary to realise, that as the meaning of this Scripture is beyond ordinary comprehension, the scope of its fruitful rewards is equally incomprehensible.”

(10) “Subhuti, in future ages, if a good disciple, whether man or woman, rigorously studies and observes the text of this Scripture; the Lord Buddha, by means of his Buddhic wisdom, entirely knows and perceives that for such a disciple there is reserved a cumulative merit, immeasurable and illimitable.”

(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.”