English
(and so on). Are the noble Factors of Awakening having the signless as their object... ...having the undirected as their object? Yes. Is the Tathāgata's power of knowing what is possible and impossible as it really is, noble, having the undirected as its object? It should not be said thus... (and so on). 359. Should it not be said that the Tathāgata's power of knowing what is possible and impossible as it really is, noble, has emptiness as its object? Yes. Should it not be said that the noble Foundations of Mindfulness have emptiness as their object? It should not be said thus... (and so on). Should it not be said that the Tathāgata's power of knowing what is possible and impossible as it really is, noble, has the signless as its object... ...has the undirected as its object? Yes. Should it not be said that the noble Foundations of Mindfulness have the undirected as their object? It should not be said thus... (and so on). Should it not be said that the Tathāgata's power of knowing what is possible and impossible as it really is, noble, has emptiness as its object... ...has the signless as its object... ...has the undirected as its object? Yes. Should it not be said that the noble Right Exertions... ...Factors of Awakening have the undirected as their object? It should not be said thus... (and so on). 360. Is the Tathāgata's power of knowing the passing away and reappearance of beings as it really is, noble? Yes. Is it the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the stream-entry path, the stream-entry fruit... ...the factors of awakening? It should not be said thus... (and so on). Is the Tathāgata's power of knowing the passing away and reappearance of beings as it really is, noble? Yes. Is it having emptiness as its object? It should not be said thus... (and so on). Is it having emptiness as its object? Yes. Does one attend to the passing away and reappearance of beings, and also attend to emptiness? It should not be said thus... (and so on). Does one attend to the passing away and reappearance of beings, and also attend to emptiness? Yes. Is there a conjunction of two contacts, of two consciousnesses? It should not be said thus... (and so on). Is the Tathāgata's power, the knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings as it really is, noble? Yes. Is it a signless object, an undesired object? It should not be said thus… Is it an undesired object? Yes. Does one attend to both the passing away and reappearing of beings, and the undesired? It should not be said thus… Does one attend to both the passing away and reappearing of beings, and the undesired? Yes. Is there a conjunction of two contacts, of two consciousnesses? It should not be said thus… 361. Are the noble foundations of mindfulness having emptiness as object… having signlessness as object… having undesire as object? Yes. Does the noble Tathāgata's power, the knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings as it really is, have undesire as object? It should not be said thus… Are the right exertions… the noble factors of awakening having emptiness as object… having signlessness as object… having undesire as object? Yes. Does the noble Tathāgata's power, the knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings as it really is, have undesire as object? It should not be said thus… Should it not be said that the noble Tathāgata's power, the knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings as it really is, has emptiness as object… has signlessness as object… has undesire as object? Yes. Should it not be said that the noble foundations of mindfulness have undesire as object? It should not be said thus… 362. Should it not be said that the noble Tathāgata's power, the knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings as it really is, has emptiness as object… has signlessness as object… has undesire as object? Yes. Should it not be said that the right exertions… the noble factors of awakening have undesire as object? It should not be said thus… Is the Tathāgata's power, the knowledge of the destruction of the taints as it really is, noble? Yes. Is the Tathāgata's power, the knowledge of what is possible and impossible as it really is, noble? It should not be said thus… Is the Tathāgata's power, the knowledge of the destruction of the taints as it really is, noble? Yes. Is the Tathāgata's power, the knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings as it really is, noble? It should not be said thus… Possible Knowledge as it really is of what is possible and impossible, a power of the Tathāgata, should it not be called "noble"? Yes. Knowledge as it really is of the destruction of the taints, a power of the Tathāgata, should it not be called "noble"? No, it should not be said so... (and so on). Knowledge as it really is of the passing away and reappearance of beings, a power of the Tathāgata, should it not be called "noble"? Yes. Knowledge as it really is of the destruction of the taints, a power of the Tathāgata, should it not be called "noble"? No, it should not be said so... (and so on). Knowledge as it really is of the destruction of the taints, a power of the Tathāgata, is it noble, having emptiness as its object? Yes. Knowledge as it really is of what is possible and impossible, a power of the Tathāgata, is it noble, having emptiness as its object? No, it should not be said so... (and so on). Knowledge as it really is of the destruction of the taints, a power of the Tathāgata, is it noble, having signlessness as its object, ... (and so on) having desirelessness as its object? Yes. Knowledge as it really is of what is possible and impossible, a power of the Tathāgata, is it noble, having desirelessness as its object? No, it should not be said so... (and so on). Knowledge as it really is of the destruction of the taints, a power of the Tathāgata, is it noble, having emptiness as its object, ... (and so on) having signlessness as its object, ... (and so on) having desirelessness as its object? Yes... (and so on). Knowledge as it really is of the passing away and reappearance of beings, a power of the Tathāgata, is it noble, having desirelessness as its object? No, it should not be said so... (and so on). Knowledge as it really is of what is possible and impossible, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, should it not be said to be "having emptiness as its object"? Yes. Knowledge as it really is of the destruction of the taints, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, should it not be said to be "having emptiness as its object"? No, it should not be said so... (and so on). Knowledge as it really is of what is possible and impossible, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, should it not be said to be having signlessness as its object, ... (and so on) having desirelessness as its object? Yes. Knowledge as it really is of the destruction of the taints, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, should it not be said to be "having desirelessness as its object"? No, it should not be said so... (and so on). Knowledge as it really is of the passing away and reappearance of beings, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, should it not be said to be having emptiness as its object, ... (and so on) having signlessness as its object, ... (and so on) having desirelessness as its object? Yes. Knowledge as it really is of the destruction of the taints... That knowledge, the power of the Tathāgata, is noble, should it not be said – "without a willed object"? It should not be said thus... The discourse on 'noble' is finished. 3. The Third Chapter (23) 3. Discourse on Liberation 363. Is a mind with lust liberated? Yes. A mind accompanied by lust, arisen with lust, mixed with lust, associated with lust, co-existent with lust, following after lust, unwholesome, worldly, with defilements, binding, fettering, a flood, a yoke, a hindrance, grasped, clung to, defiled, is it liberated? It should not be said thus... Is a mind with contact liberated? Are both contact and mind liberated? Yes. Is a mind with lust liberated? Are both lust and mind liberated? It should not be said thus... A mind with feeling... with perception... with volition... with wisdom, is it liberated? Are both wisdom and mind liberated? Yes. Is a mind with lust liberated? Are both lust and mind liberated? It should not be said thus... Is a mind with contact and lust liberated? Are both contact and mind liberated? Yes. Are both lust and mind liberated? It should not be said thus... A mind with feeling and lust... with perception and lust... with volition and lust... with wisdom and lust, is it liberated? Are both wisdom and mind liberated? Yes. Are both lust and mind liberated? It should not be said thus... 364. Is a mind with hatred liberated? Yes. A mind accompanied by hatred, arisen with hatred, mixed with hatred, associated with hatred, co-existent with hatred, following after hatred, unwholesome, worldly, with defilements... defiled, is it liberated? It should not be said thus... Is a mind with contact liberated? Are both contact and mind liberated? Yes. Is a mind with hatred liberated? Are both hatred and mind liberated? It should not be said thus... With feeling... with perception... with volition... with wisdom... the mind is liberated. And wisdom and mind, both are liberated? Yes. The mind with hatred is liberated. And hatred and mind, both are liberated? It should not be said thus… The mind with contact, with hatred, is liberated. And contact and mind, both are liberated? Yes. The mind with hatred is liberated. And hatred and mind, both are liberated? It should not be said thus… With feeling, with hatred… with perception, with hatred… with volition, with hatred… with wisdom, with hatred, the mind is liberated. And wisdom and mind, both are liberated? Yes. And hatred and mind, both are liberated? It should not be said thus… 365. Is the mind with delusion liberated? Yes.