not preach the law to a hermaphrodite, keeps no intercourse with such a person, nor greets too friendly in return. He does not enter a house alone in order to receive alms, unless having the Tath&gata in his thoughts. And when he happens to preach the law to females, he does not do so by passionate attachment to the law, far less by passionate attachment to a woman. When he is preaching, he does not display his row of teeth, let alone a quick emotion on his physiognomy. He addresses no novice, male or female, no nun, no monk, no young boy, no young girl, nor enters upon a conversation with them; he shows no great readiness in answering their address 1 , nor cares to give too frequent answers. This, Magusrt, is called the first proper sphere of a Bodhisattva Mah&sattva. Further, Mangusrt, a Bodhisattva Mah&sattva looks upon all laws (and things) as void; he sees them duly established 2 , remaining unaltered, as they are in reality, not liable to be disturbed, not to be moved backward, unchangeable, existing in the highest sense of the word (or in an absolute sense), having the nature of space, escaping explanation and expression by means of common speech, not born, composed and simple, aggregated and isolated 3 , not expressible in words, independently established, manifesting them-
Pratisa/rcl&panaguruka, literally 'making much of returning (one's) addressing/
YathavatpratishMit&n, aviparitasth&yino yathdbhfttan, &c. Burnouf adds, 'privies de toute essence/ i.e. nira*tmaka*n.
In the rendering of the last four terms I have followed Burnouf, as the reading in the Camb. MS. is evidently corrupt: asawiskrz't&nasajflt&n&satfzmanasannabhil&pena pravy&hn't&n.
The original reading may have been asawskr/'tdn nisawskrit&n, not composed, not simple; nasaman na sarn£n, not unlike
