“Blessed One,” Śāriputra then inquired, “how must one explain these teachings so that one does not become an evil friend? Blessed One, how must one instruct and teach to be referred to as a virtuous friend?”

“Śāriputra,” replied the Blessed One, “a monk should instruct and teach another monk about this as follows: ‘Come, monk. Cultivate recollecting the Buddha and have conviction in it. Do not engage your attention on some state that is attained. Since there are no entities when you see correctly, you must have the convinction that the intrinsic nature of phenomena is not an object of correct seeing, and let go of the notion that something lacking intrinsic nature possesses any essence.

“ ‘Let go of the notion that it has distinguishing marks, while at the same time do not apprehend any entity that is without distinguishing marks—let alone any act of recollection. Because you thus let go of its not having any essence, of its not having any distinguishing marks, and of the very notion of distinguishing marks, it has nothing added, but it is also not an absence of anything added—that, the cessation of all phenomena, is the cultivation of recollecting the Buddha. Because it is without thoughts of virtuous and unwholesome qualities or any examination of them, you therefore let go of concepts and analysis; the Buddha is thus the absence of conceptual thought, and it is without conceptual thought that you should direct your attention to the Buddha. To be without concepts, analysis, or distinguishing marks is to recollect the Buddha, and that is a matter of there being not even the slightest act of recollecting dharmas that are mental states—let alone physical acts, let alone verbal acts, let alone mental acts—for there is no place for them. To let go of characteristics, without movement, without distinguishing marks, without characteristics, and without any engagement of attention is to recollect the Buddha. To be without names, without distinguishing marks, without possessiveness, without reflection, without attainment, without acquisition, and without attitudes involving concepts and analysis is to recollect the Buddha.’

“Why is that? Śāriputra, as long as the engagement of attention continues, there is grasping at distinguishing marks, and that, Śāriputra, is a wrong view. But, Śāriputra, as long as there are no distinguishing marks, no discernment, no entities, no concepts, no analysis, no signs, no cessation, no origination, no movement, no arising, and the acceptance of nonarising, this is called recollecting the Buddha. Moreover, that which is without attachments, without cravings, without noncessation, without refutations, without names, and without distinguishing marks—that, Śāriputra, is recollecting the Buddha. It is the absence of characteristics and conventions, and involves not even the slightest act of recollection, let alone any physical or verbal actions, for there is no place for them. Where there are no acts of body, no acts of speech, and no acts of mind, there is no craving, no grasping, no clinging, no noncessation, no refutation, no origination, no birth, no separating, no coming together, no extension, no entities, and where all aspects of concepts and analysis are interrupted, that likewise is what is called recollecting the Buddha.

“Those who possess just such a recollection of the Buddha can, if they wish, transform this entire great trichiliocosm, or overcome trillions of demons, so what they can do for those who apprehend and are motivated by ignorance, which is baseless and not the truth, goes without saying. Once you have understood for yourself, without getting corrupted by Māra or Māra’s attendants, that phenomena are without distinguishing marks, without elaboration, without nonelaboration, without cessation, without refutation, without characteristics, without conventions, without designation, without appearance, and without clarity, since this is therefore recollecting the Buddha, while instructing and teaching it using mere conventions, do not engage your attention on even the slightest belief in distinguishing marks. Do not conceptualize. Do not think. Do not elaborate. Why is that? This teaching that is without entities has no distinguishing marks, has no characteristics, and is not engaged by attention. It is because it has no distinguishing marks, has no characteristics, and is not engaged by attention that it is called recollecting the Buddha, and so it is—it has no distinguishing marks, has no characteristics, and is not engaged by attention. Why is that? Because the buddhas are not something on which attention is engaged through their physical distinguishing marks, nor through concepts, nor through thoughts, nor through clinging, nor through nonclinging, nor through absorption, nor through wisdom, nor through knowledge, nor through the absence of knowledge. Why is that? Because the thus-gone ones are without designations, are inconceivable, entirely inconceivable. Therefore, do not grasp at distinguishing marks. Without clinging even in the slightest to letting go of, attaining, or cultivating any dharma, do not apprehend even the thus-gone ones themselves—let alone an act of recollection.

“Śāriputra, a monk should instruct and teach other monks as follows: ‘Come, monks. Phenomena having their own intrinsic characteristics—you should break that down. Do not engage your attention on notions of phenomena.’ They will take delight in the very absence of clinging to their attention being engaged in that way, in the very absence of attachment, in the very absence of phenomena, in the very absence of entities, and in the single characteristic itself. They will not entertain any notion of phenomena at all—let alone the notion of a person, for there is no place for that.

“Śāriputra, what do you think: if one does not apprehend phenomena, could it be that one could give rise to a notion of phenomena?”

“No, Blessed One, one could not.”

“If one does not engage one’s attention on a notion of phenomena and does not apprehend phenomena, could it be that there would be any phenomena to break down?”

“No, Blessed One, there would be none.”

“Śāriputra, on a tree that had no roots, could it be that any branches, leaves, or bark would grow?”

“No, Blessed One, they would not.”

“Similarly, Śāriputra, if one does not apprehend phenomena, could it be that a notion of phenomena would arise?”

“No, Blessed One, it would not.”

“If one does not engage one’s attention on a notion of phenomena and does not apprehend phenomena, could it be that there would be any phenomena to break down?”

“No, Blessed One, there would be none.”

“Likewise, if one does not apprehend and engage one’s attention on phenomena or the notion of phenomena, there will be no noncessation and no nonproduction to analyze, and only by not conceptualizing phenomena, not thinking about them, not negating them, not stopping them, not engaging with them, and not reversing them can it be said that one has reached the suchness that is their intrinsic nature.

“Śāriputra, those who instruct and teach in these terms are called virtuous friends, though ultimately they have neither virtue nor nonvirtue. Śāriputra, those who possess such characteristics are rare in the world. The unmistaken and correct view possessed by those of this kind is accordingly known as the correct view. Indeed, Śāriputra, the correct view, correct acceptance, and correct conviction, as unmistakenly and correctly observed by those of this kind, comprise what is said by the Thus-Gone One to be the correct view.

“Śāriputra, the view of those who do not have this unmistaken and correct view, whoever they may be, is not the correct view. Śāriputra, proponents of a self, proponents of a being, proponents of a life force, proponents of a person, proponents of eternity, proponents of nothingness, or of whatever it may be, are in error. Śāriputra, the thus-gone ones and the thus-gone ones’ hearers are not proponents of a self, not proponents of a being, not proponents of a life force, not proponents of a person, not proponents of eternity, and not proponents of nothingness, and that is called the correct view of the thus-gone ones and the thus-gone ones’ hearers.

“Except for those who have the correct view, those who have the unmistaken view, and those who have the view that is how things are, everyone else is ranked among immature ordinary beings. Why is that? Śāriputra, they are immature ordinary beings because there are some who lack the correct view, while there are others who may have the acceptance that concords with the truth and thus have parts of the correct view, but still do not see things as they really are. Thus, Śāriputra, there are both correct and mistaken views, in that it is because of seeing correctly that there is the correct view, and because of generosity with worldly possessions that there is an increase in prosperity.

“Śāriputra, the worst of phenomena, which deceives and causes circling in saṃsāra, the Thus-Gone One has said to be merely conventional pure conduct. Śāriputra, I have not said, ‘This is the correct view, and that is the wrong view,’ for it is not the case. Why is that? Śāriputra, regarding any view there may be, its being wrong is to apprehend it. Śāriputra, whoever it may be who thinks, ‘This is the correct view, and that is a wrong view,’ that in itself is a wrong view. Why is that? Śāriputra, in this Dharma-Vinaya of the noble ones, like space and the palm of the hand, all views there may be are dismissed, and all conventions are annihilated, for such is the Dharma of the mendicants.”