“Because, what was preached as a mass of many atoms by the Tathagata, that was preached as no-mass of atoms by the Tathagata, and therefore it is called ‘a mass of many atoms.’”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller. “What then, if Buddha speaks of all these particles, then they are not really what they are called, it is but a mere name, World-Honoured One!”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal. [2] “Bhagavat said, and a belief in matter itself, O Subhuti, is inestimable and inexpressible; it is neither a thing nor a no-thing, and this is known by children and ignorant persons.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller. “Annihilation of matter is inconceivable, but annihilation of all its forms and qualities is conceivable.” _The World as Idea and Will_. Schopenhauer. If the worlds were real and permanent, they would always retain their original forms and primordial natures, and be subject neither to the influence of time nor the Law of change.—_Chinese Annotation_. “Subhuti, this characteristic of the one ‘harmonious principle,’ is a thing which cannot be spoken of in words; it is only the vain philosophy of the world, which has grasped the idea of explaining this.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal. This noteworthy statement seems to militate against some opinions expressed in Europe regarding the Buddhist theory of “matter.” According to our Chinese text, it does not appear that Sakyamuni Buddha categorically denied the “presence” or “existence” of matter in the universe, but endeavoured rather to indicate the diversified and evanescent nature of its “forms” and “qualities.” Many devout Buddhists regard even the smallest particle of dust as containing a mysterious and elusive element—probably what we are disposed to term “a spiritual element,” or “principle of life”—and these are not unreasonably regarded as being altogether inscrutable, and therefore “incomprehensible.” [Chapter 31] The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple affirmed that the Lord Buddha enunciated a belief[1] that the mind can comprehend the idea of an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality; what think you, Subhuti, would that disciple be interpreting aright the meaning of my discourse?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! that disciple would not be interpreting aright the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse. And why? Because, Honoured of the Worlds! discoursing upon comprehending such ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality, it was declared that these are entirely unreal and illusive, and therefore they are merely termed an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality.”