The skill-in-means (upaaya-kau`salya) of the bodhisattva is both to perceive signs -- the images, ideas, and names mentally abstractable from experience -- and to develop his awareness of the signlessness of reality as it is ultimately. [42] This is an expression of the doctrine of the two truths, conventional and ultimate, applied in a way which reveals the bodhisattva to be a being "in this world but not of it." It is this skill-in-means which enables him to operate in the two modes simultaneously. However, because he does remain in the unattached mode, he is not karmically bound to those experiences which are normally in the sphere of attachment: "He cultivates, devotes himself to, and honors forms, sounds, odors, tastes, touches" -- but he does so because, in fact, he has "overcome" (abhibhuuya) these, he has no attachment or objective supports (aaramba.na), and his acts thus arise out of skill-in-means. [43]

　　 Conventional or transactional truth includes the entire realm of discourse, not only what is invalid in relation to Buddhist discourse but Buddhist discourse as well:

In reality no distinction or difference between [any of] these dharmas can be apprehended (na upalabhyate). As talk are they described by the Tathaagata ... "empty," or "signless," or "wishless." or "without formation," or "non-arising," or "without birth," or "non-existence," or "dispassion," or "cessation," or "nirvaa.na" -- these are [just] talked about ... All dharmas whatever are beyond talk (anabhilaapya). [44]

"Perfection of insight" -- this is only name-giving. And [the possibility of validly asserting:] "that name is this [actual thing]" cannot be apprehended. We say that the name has only speech as its object-of-reference, while that perfection of insight is neither found nor apprehended: just as it is a name, just so is it perfection of insight; just as perfection of insight is, just so is the name. A duality of dharmas here is neither found nor apprehended. [45]

The actual reference of the word "perfection-of-insight" is not to a real thing but to a speech-thing, verbalized reality -- or as the commentary says, the term just reflects the discrimination (vikalpapratibimbaka) of the attached mode. The real thing which is being talked about, that is, the state of perfect insight, is not capable of comparison with the name or concept, since names can only be compared with names -- and it is only when there are no names that the reality of

p. 455

perfect insight is found. Even the negative language associated with ultimate truth has finally to be seen in this light:

Non-arising (anutpaada) appears to you to be talked about, but this same non-arising is [only] talk. [46]

Form is unthinkable and so are the other bundles. [When a bodhisattva] does not even entertain the idea "form is unthinkable," he proceeds in the perfection of insight... [47]

The nonattached mode of knowing is present when one "proceeds but does not arrive at [the considerations] 'I proceed', and 'I will proceed' because all dharmas are neither arrived at nor depended upon [in reality]. This is the bodhisattvas' samaadhi called 'non-dependency upon any dharma (sarvadharma-anupaadaana).'" [48] This mode is spoken of as "standing in emptiness," [49] which is where the Tathaagata stood and where all those who follow him should stand -- precisely nowhere at all -- because his mind was not fixated (aprati.s.thitamaanasa) by any conceptualized dharma or consideration. [50]

　　 The inevitable conclusion is that what is so for the unattached mode has nothing to do with understanding, hence the paradoxic rejoinder by Subhuuti to those who find the teaching on the perfection of insight difficult to understand: "It can't be understood, it can't be understood (na vij~naayate) ... for in it nothing at all is pointed out, nothing at all is learned." [51] And as there is no dharma at all pointed out, illuminated, or communicated no one will ever gain the perfection of insight from Subhuuti's teaching of it. [52]

　　 Looked at from this paradoxic angle, that is, from the point of view of ultimate truth, all doxa -- the points of view of transactional truth -- are equally mere fabrications, none of which can be said to be even relatively adequate to express or describe perfect insight, since the latter is not "available" for comparison with its linguistic descriptions. We are apparently no closer to a possible link between conceptuality and enlightenment, intelligibility and nirvaa.na. But from the very discontinuity between the two, there emerges an interesting corollary: while on the one hand the real and the fictive, or fabricative, cannot be distinguished because distinguishing is itself conceptual, on the other hand what fabrication, discriminations, concepts really are is, in fact, the perfection of insight:

This perfection of insight cannot be taught or learned or distinguished or considered or demonstrated or reflected upon by means of the bundles or by means of the elements (dhaatu) or by means of the sense-fields (aayatana). The reason for this is the isolation (viviktatva) of all dharmas, the absolute isolation of all dharmas... But the perfection of insight is not to be understood apart from the bundles, etc. The reason for this is that it is just the very bundles, etc., which are empty, isolated, quieted. For thus are the perfection of insight and the bundles, etc.: a non-duality which is without division and cannot be apprehended because of its emptiness ... its isolation ... and hence its being quieted. [53]