(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.”

(1) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple asserts that the Lord Buddha comes or goes, sits or reclines, obviously he has not understood the meaning of my discourse. And why? Because, the idea ‘Buddha’ implies neither coming from anywhere, nor going to anywhere, and hence the synonym ‘Buddha!’”

(1) The Lord Buddha interrogated Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Is it possible that by means of his physical body, the Lord Buddha may be clearly perceived?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! It is impossible that by means of his physical body, the Lord Buddha may be clearly perceived. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as a physical body, is in reality not merely a physical body.” Thereupon the Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “Every form or quality of phenomena is transient and illusive. When the mind realises that the phenomena of life are not real phenomena, the Lord Buddha may then be clearly perceived.”

(3) The Lord Buddha once again enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? May an Anagami (having entire immunity from reincarnation) thus reflect within himself, ‘I have obtained the fruits which accord with the merit of an Anagami?’” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! And why? Because, Anagami is merely a designation meaning ‘immunity from reincarnation’; but in reality there is no such condition as ‘immunity from reincarnation,’ hence Anagami is merely a convenient designation.”

(6) “Subhuti, five hundred incarnations ago, I recollect that as a recluse practising the ordinances of the Kshanti-Paramita, even then I had no such arbitrary ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality. Therefore, Subhuti, an enlightened disciple ought to discard as being unreal and illusive, every conceivable form of phenomena. In aspiring to supreme spiritual wisdom, the mind ought to be insensible to every sensuous influence, and independent of everything pertaining to sound, odour, taste, touch, or Law. There ought to be cultivated a condition of complete independence of mind; because, if the mind is depending upon any external aid, it is obviously deluded—there is in reality nothing external to depend upon. Therefore, the Lord Buddha declared that in the exercise of charity, the mind of an enlightened disciple ought not to depend upon any form of phenomena. Subhuti, an enlightened disciple desirous to confer benefits upon the whole realm of being, ought thus to be animated in the exercise of charity.”

(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.”

(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.”

(8) The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Within these innumerable worlds, every form of sentient life, with their various mental dispositions, are entirely known to the Lord Buddha. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as their ‘various mental dispositions,’ are not in reality their ‘various mental dispositions,’ these are merely termed their ‘various mental dispositions.’ And why? Because, Subhuti, dispositions of mind, or modes of thought, whether relating to the past, the present, or the future, are alike unreal and illusory.”