(2) “Honoured of the Worlds! having heard this unprecedented Scripture, faith, clear understanding, and firm resolve to observe its precepts, follow as a natural sequence. If, in future ages, disciples destined to hear this Scripture, likewise believe, understand, and observe its precepts, their merit will incite the highest wonder and praise. And why? Because, the minds of those disciples will have outgrown such arbitrary ideas of phenomena as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality. And why? Because, the entity is in reality non-entity; and a being, a living being, or a personality, are ideas equally nebulous and hypothetical. Wherefore, discarding every arbitrary idea of phenomena, the wise and wholly enlightened were severally designated Buddha.”

(3) Subhuti thereupon addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! According as I am able to interpret the Lord Buddha’s instruction, it is improbable that the Lord Buddha may be perceived by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions.”

(4) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “Supposing a man with a body as pretentious as Sumeru, prince among mountains, would you esteem such a body as being great?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Exceedingly great, Honoured of the Worlds! And why? Because, the Lord Buddha referred not to a physical body, but to mental and spiritual concepts of bodies, in which sense a body may be regarded as really Great.”

(12) 'There is one ruler, the Self within all things, who makes the one form manifold. The wise who perceive him within their Self, to them belongs eternal happiness, not to others.'

(4) The Lord Buddha yet again enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? May an Arhat (having attained to absolute quiescence of mind) thus meditate within himself, ‘I have obtained the condition of an Arhat’?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! And why? Because, there is not in reality a condition synonymous with the term Arhat. Honoured of the Worlds! if an Arhat thus meditates within himself, ‘I have obtained the condition of an Arhat,’ there would be obvious recurrence of such arbitrary concepts as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality. Honoured of the Worlds! When the Lord Buddha declared that in absolute quiescence of mind, perfect observance of the Law, and true spiritual perception, I was pre-eminent amongst the disciples, I did not cogitate thus within myself, ‘I am an Arhat, freed from desire!’ Had I thus cogitated, ‘I have obtained the condition of an Arhat,’ the ‘Honoured of the Worlds’ would not have declared concerning me, ‘Subhuti delights in the austerities practised by the Aranyaka’; but, in reality, Subhuti was perfectly quiescent and oblivious to phenomena; hence the allusion, ‘Subhuti delights in the austerities practised by the Aranyaka.’”

(1) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the Lord Buddha be perceived by means of his perfect material body?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! it is improbable that the Lord Buddha can be perceived by means of his perfect material body. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as a ‘perfect material body,’ is not in reality a ‘perfect material body,’ it is merely termed a ‘perfect material body.’”

(11) 'Even by the mind this (Brahman) is to be obtained, and then there is no difference whatsoever. He goes from death to death who sees any difference here.'

(15) He who, undeluded, knows Me thus as the Supreme Self— he knows all, Ο Bhārata, and he worships Me with all his heart.

(11) For, given territory, there is the great thing—Man. Given man, he must not be managed as if he were a mere thing; though by not managing him at all he may actually be managed as if he were a mere thing. And for those who understand that the management of man as if he were a mere thing is not the way to manage him, the issue is not confined to mere government of the empire. Such men may wander at will between the six limits of space or travel over the continent of earth, unrestrained in coming and in going. This is to be distinguished from one's fellows, and this distinction is the highest attainable by man. The doctrine of the perfect man is to him as shadow to form, as echo to sound. Ask and it responds, fulfilling its mission as the help-mate of humanity. Noiseless in repose, objectless in motion, it guides you to the goal, free to come and free to go for ever without end. Alone in its exits and its entrances, it rivals the eternity of the sun. As for his body, that is in accordance with the usual standard. Being in accordance with the usual standard it is not distinguished in any way. But if not distinguished in any way, what becomes of the distinction by which he is distinguished? Those who see what is to be seen,—of such were the perfect men of old. Those who see what is not to be seen,—they are the chosen of the universe.

(3) Then Ushasta Cakrayana questioned him. ' Yajnavalkya/ said he, ' explain to me him who is the Brahma present and not beyond our ken, him who is the Soul in all things.' ' He is your soul (dtman), which is in all things.' c Which one, O Yajnavalkya, is in all things? ' in Soul of yours, which is in all things. He who breathes out with your breathing out (apand] is the Soul of yours, which is in all things. He who breathes about with your breathing about (vyana] is the Soul of yours, which is in all things. He who breathes up with your breathing up (uddna) is the Soul of yours, which is in all things. He is your soul, which is in all things.' a. Ushasta Cakrayana said: ' This has been explained to me just as one might say, <cThis is a cow. This is a horse." Explain to me him who is just the Brahma present and not beyond our ken, him who is the Soul in all things. c He is your soul, which is in all things/ £ Which one, O Yajnavalkya, is in all things? ' c You could not see the seer of seeing. You could not hear the hearer of hearing. You could not think the thinker of thinking. You could not understand the undcrstander of understanding. He is your soul, which is in all things. Aught else than Him [or, than this] is wretched.' Thereupon Ushasta Cakrayana held his peace.

(2) 'Whatever there is, the whole world, when gone forth (from the Brahman), trembles in its breath. That Brahman is a great terror, like a drawn sword. Those who know it become immortal.'

(2) And if by this means the indubitable truths are not seen in the soul , then as better (than these words) I will come to you all (in my person) with that power, and in that way according to which Ahura Mazda knows and appoints His ruler , that ruler over both the two (struggling) bands , in order that we (in obedience to him), may live according to Righteousness .

(1) Then he said to Auddâlaka Âruni: 'O Gautama, whom do you meditate on as the Self?' He replied: 'The earth only, venerable king.' He said: 'The Self which you meditate on is the Vaisvânara Self, called Pratishthâ (firm rest). Therefore you stand firm with offspring and cattle.

(14) A: What say'st thou ever, then, God is? H: God, therefore, is not Mind, but Cause that the Mind is; God is not Spirit, but Cause that Spirit is; God is not Light, but Cause that the Light is. Hence one should honor God with these two names [the Good and Father] - names which pertain to Him alone and no one else. For no one of the other so-called gods, no one of men, or daimones, can be in any measure Good, but God alone; and He is Good alone and nothing else. The rest of things are separable all from the Good's nature; for [all the rest] are soul and body, which have no place that can contain the Good.

(392) The philosopher who is an outer body, he is not the one to whom it is fitting to pay respect, but (the) philosopher according to the inner man.

(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.’”

(50) But now in man's body, in the government or dominion of the birth or geniture, there are three several things, each of them being distinct, and yet they are not divided asunder one from another; but all three together are one only man, after the kind and manner of the Ternary or Trinity in the divine being [or essence].

(4) The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the eye of truth?” Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the eye of truth.”

(5) The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “Can you imagine a man having a great physical body?” Subhuti replied, saying: “The Lord Buddha, discoursing upon the proportions of a physical body, did not maintain for these any real greatness, therefore it is merely termed ‘a great body.”’

(479) This being premised, I would ask the gentleman who is of opinion that there is no absolute or unchangeable idea of beauty—in whose opinion the beautiful is the manifold—he, I say, your lover of beautiful sights, who cannot bear to be told that the beautiful is one, and the just is one, or that anything is one—to him I would appeal, saying, Will you be so very kind, sir, as to tell us whether, of all these beautiful things, there is one which will not be found ugly; or of the just, which will not be found unjust; or of the holy, which will not also be unholy? No, he replied; the beautiful will in some point of view be found ugly; and the same is true of the rest. And may not the many which are doubles be also halves?—doubles, that is, of one thing, and halves of another? Quite true. And things great and small, heavy and light, as they are termed, will not be denoted by these any more than by the opposite names? True; both these and the opposite names will always attach to all of them. And can any one of those many things which are called by particular names be said to be this rather than not to be this? He replied: They are like the punning riddles which are asked at feasts or the children’s puzzle about the eunuch aiming at the bat, with what he hit him, as they say in the puzzle, and upon what the bat was sitting. The individual objects of which I am speaking are also a riddle, and have a double sense: nor can you fix them in your mind, either as being or not-being, or both, or neither. Then what will you do with them? I said. Can they have a better place than between being and not-being? For they are clearly not in greater darkness or negation than not-being,