The Diamond Sutra

by Red Pine

  Tao-ch’uan says, “When you’re in the ocean, why search for water? When you’re on the peak, why look for the mountain? The mountain is a mountain. Water is water. But where is the Buddha? My song goes: ‘Searching for attributes is wrong / seeing no form is like death / don’t ask if it’s vast or small / a ray of winter light flickers in the Void.’”

  Textual note: In addition to the variations noted above, Paramartha does not include the line na lakshana-sanpada tathagato drashtavyah (the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes).

  This having been said, the Buddha told the venerable

  Subhuti, “Since the possession of attributes is an

  illusion, Subhuti, and no possession of attributes is no

  illusion, by means of attributes that are no attributes

  the Tathagata can, indeed, be seen.”

  In Subhuti’s answer, we see the beginning but not the conclusion of the dialectic developed by the Buddha to convey the concept of shunyata (emptiness). To see that an entity is no entity is not enough. At this point, Subhuti presents the Hinayana view of emptiness, not the Mahayana view, which sees emptiness as also empty. Thus, the Buddha adds to Subhuti’s response in order to complete the dialectic for him. The Chinese Zen Master Ch’ing-yuan explained it this way: “When I first began to practice, the mountains and rivers were simply mountains and rivers. After I advanced in my practice, the mountains and rivers were no longer mountains and rivers. But when I reached the end of my practice, the mountains and rivers were simply mountains and rivers again.” (Sung Kaosengchuan: 9)

  The Buddha’s point is that while we can view the attributes of a body as an illusion, if we can see them as no attributes, as not severed from the seamless fabric of reality, we see the Buddha’s true body, which necessarily includes the very attributes whose reality was just denied. Thus, the arhan’s denial of reality becomes the bodhisattva’s affirmation. This technique is used repeatedly throughout this sutra to demonstrate through logic what the word “emptiness” often fails to convey by itself. Meanwhile, Zen masters often shortened this logical technique even further by holding up one finger, by refusing to speak, by striking their disciples, or by offering them a cup of tea.

  Asanga says, “A body made of parts possesses nothing perfect. The absence of three signs of change is what we call a ‘tathagata.’” (6) Asanga turns our attention from the physical and spiritual bodies to the real body of the Buddha. For while each of the Buddha’s bodies is marked by a set of attributes, his real body is marked by the absence of the characteristics of birth, duration, and death (differentiation normally appears in this list but is omitted by Asanga since it is implied in the first two lines, and the emphasis of the last two lines is on change).

  Chi-fo says, “In teaching his disciples how to focus their minds, the Buddha is concerned that they will now think they are enlightened while remaining deluded. So he asks Subhuti if he can see the Tathagata’s physical body in order to see if Subhuti has understood his instruction on how to focus the mind while remaining free of appearances. For not only can ordinary people not see the Tathagata’s true body, Hinayana monks can’t see it either. Thus, once he hears Subhuti’s answer, the Buddha says that not only is this the case for the Tathagata’s physical attributes, it is true for all attributes, all of which are fictions.”

  Ting Fu-pao says, “The Buddha broadens his meaning here. Not only are physical attributes included but all attributes. To cultivate prajna there is no other path, only the path of returning to one’s original body of no attributes. However, the absence of attributes is the original face of prajna. The absence of attributes is the true attribute. This is what it means to see one’s nature. Those who understand this see the tathagata.”

  Tseng Feng-yi says, “Subhuti realizes that the dharma body has no attributes, but he does not yet understand that the dharma body is not separate from attributes. Thus, the Buddha approves what he says but adds that since all conditioned attributes arise from illusions, and illusions are essentially empty and lack any nature of their own, all attributes are false. But since attributes are false, what is not an attribute is real. Thus, you don’t have to leave these illusory attributes to seek a buddha of no attributes somewhere else. ‘Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.’ Just stop your discrimination.”

  T’ung-li says, “The Buddha’s three bodies are like a reflection on sunlit water. The incarnated body is the reflection. The reward body is the sunlight. And the real body is the water. Here, the Buddha tells Subhuti that if he wants to see the water, he needs to look past the reflection and the sunlight.”

  In the Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines, Manjushri tells the Buddha, “So it is, Bhagavan. I have, indeed, come here to see the Tathagata. And why? Because I delight in truly seeing and thereby benefiting others. For I see the Tathagata’s attributes of suchness, his undifferentiated attributes, his unchanging attributes, his uncreated attributes, his attributes that neither arise nor depart, his attributes that neither exist nor do not exist, his attributes that neither exist in space nor do not exist in space, that neither exist in time nor do not exist in time, his attributes that are neither separate nor not separate, his attributes that are neither impure nor pure. By truly seeing the Tathagata like this, I thus benefit other beings.” The Buddha then told Manjushri, “If you can see the Tathagata like this, your mind clings to nothing while not clinging to nothing, it gathers nothing together while not gathering nothing together.”

  Seng-chao says, “When your practice and understanding meet, you will see the Buddha.”

  Te-ch’ing says, “When we see that the form of other things has no form, we see the Tathagata. It isn’t that the Tathagata’s dharma body exists outside of other things and possesses its own form. Here we see how the seed that has no form is matched by the fruit that has no form. The truth of this is very profound. Hence, it is difficult to believe and difficult to understand.”

  Thich Nhat Hanh says, “Before continuing, please read the first five sections of the sutra again. All of the essentials have been presented, and if you reread these sections, you will come to understand the meaning. Once you understand, you may find the Diamond Sutra like a piece of beautiful music. Without straining at all, the meaning will just enter you.”

  Tao-yuan says, “The meaning of the entire Diamond Sutra has now been presented: the vow, the practice, and now the realization. The next chapter adds belief.”

  Textual note: Among Chinese translations, evam ukte (this having been said) is only present in those of Dharmagupta and Hsuan-tsang. Also, Kumarajiva has nothing for alakshana-sanpat tavan na mrisha (no possession of attributes is no illusion). Inexplicably, Conze adds an extra negative to this line: “wherever there is no-possession of no-marks there is no fraud.” For the same line, Bodhiruci has juo chien chu-hsiang fei hsiang, tse fei wang-yu (to see all attributes as no attributes, that is no fiction). Meanwhile, Paramartha has chi-shih chen-shih (they are real) in place of na mrisha (they are no illusion).

  Chapter Six: This having been said, the venerable Subhuti asked the Buddha, “Bhagavan, will there be any beings in the future, in the final epoch, in the final period, in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age, who give birth to a perception of the truth of the words of a sutra such as that spoken here?’

  The Buddha said, “Subhuti, do not ask ‘Will there be any beings in the future, in the final epoch, in the final period, in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age, who give birth to a perception of the truth of the words of a sutra such as that spoken here?’ Surely, Subhuti, in the future, in the final epoch, in the final period, in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age, there will be fearless bodhisattvas who are capable, virtuous, and wise who give birth to a perception of the truth of the words of a sutra such as that spoken here.

  “Indeed, Subhuti, such fearless bodhisattvas will have honored not just one buddha, and they will have planted auspici
ous roots before not just one buddha. Surely, Subhuti, such fearless bodhisattvas will have honored countless hundreds and thousands of buddhas, and they will have planted auspicious roots before countless hundreds and thousands of buddhas. In the words of a sutra such as that spoken here, they are sure to gain perfect clarity of mind. The Tathagata knows them, Subhuti, by means of his buddha knowledge. And the Tathagata sees them, Subhuti, by means of his buddha vision. The Tathagata is aware of them, Subhuti. For they all produce and receive a measureless, infinite body of merit.

  “And how so? Because, Subhuti, these fearless bodhisattvas do not create the perception of a self. Nor do they create the perception of a being, a life, or a soul. Nor, Subhuti, do these fearless bodhisattvas create the perception of a dharma, much less the perception of no dharma. Subhuti, they do not create a perception nor no perception.

  “And why not? Because, Subhuti, if these fearless bodhisattvas created the perception of a dharma, they would be attached to a self, a being, a life, and a soul. Likewise, if they created the perception of no dharma, they would be attached to a self, a being, a life, and a soul.

  “And why not? Because surely, Subhuti, fearless bodhisattvas do not cling to a dharma, much less to no dharma. This is the meaning behind the Tathagata’s saying, ‘A dharma teaching is like a raft. If you should let go of dharmas, how much more so no dharmas.’”

  CHAPTER SIX

  THIS SUTRA HAS JUST BEGUN, and Subhuti is already speaking as if it were over. Ranked foremost among the Buddha’s disciples for his understanding of emptiness, and having just heard the Buddha proclaim that only by seeing the emptiness of emptiness can we have a true perception of reality, Subhuti’s understanding has been shaken, if not turned inside out. What more could the Buddha possibly say? But the Buddha is just beginning. Still, Subhuti has resolved to set forth on the bodhisattva path, and he wonders about beings in the future. How can they possibly grasp a teaching that proclaims appearances to be empty of any self-nature and then proclaims that by means of such emptiness we perceive their real nature? Such a teaching must necessarily be difficult to accept, much less understand. But while arhans see no need to look beyond emptiness, bodhisattvas see emptiness as a raft they can use to cross the River of Impermanence. Morever, despite turning no-dharmas into dharmas, bodhisattvas remain unattached to both.

  Chao-ming titles this: “The Rarity of True Belief.’

  Hui-neng says, “The auspicious roots of those who see and believe are deep and firm. Thus follows a chapter on the rarity of true belief.”

  This having been said, the venerable Subhuti asked

  the Buddha, “Bhagavan, will there be any beings

  in the future, in the final epoch, in the final period,

  in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending

  age, who give birth to a perception of the truth of

  the words of a sutra such as that spoken here?”

  In the preceding three chapters, Subhuti has heard the Buddha proclaim how bodhisattvas resolve to liberate all beings while remaining detached from perceptions of a self, a being, or the liberation of anyone, and how, as a result, they produce a body of merit that has no limits, a body that is the same as the Buddha’s own reward body. Subhuti has also heard the Buddha say that his real body, of which his apparition and reward bodies are but aspects, can be seen, though by means of attributes that are no attributes. Such a teaching is, indeed, difficult to believe and difficult to understand, and it surpasses the reach of Subhuti’s own understanding. Hence, while Subhuti is concerned about how others will be able to believe such a teaching, implicit in his question is his own difficulty in grasping it.

  In presenting his doubts about the future, Subhuti introduces a concept current in ancient India as well as in ancient China: that in every world the length of lives becomes progressively shorter and the ability of beings to understand the truth becomes progressively impaired as time goes on. Commentators, however, disagree as to which period Subhuti and the Buddha are referring. Some sutras, such as the Maha Samnipata Sutra (55), enumerate up to five periods in which the purity of Buddhist practice is expected to degenerate every five hundred years, going from an emphasis on liberation, to meditation, to learning, to religious works, and finally to doctrinal dissension. Since this series is said to have begun with the Buddha’s Nirvana in 383 B.C., the “dharma-ending age” should end soon after the beginning of the twenty-second century. Meanwhile, other sutras say the progressive disappearance of the Dharma spans three periods, the first two of which last one thousand years apiece, and the third of which lasts ten thousand years. Hence, some commentators suggest that Subhuti is referring to the last five hundred years of this longer period. Still others contend (and this is how Kumarajiva as well as Nagarjuna understood it) that the period in question is the one immediately following the Buddha’s Nirvana, which, curiously, coincided with the appearance and widespread acceptance of teachings such as this.

  Among modern commentators, Conze alone stresses the paradox of the words used here: bhuta-sanjna (perception of the truth). If all perceptions are false, how can any perception be true? They can be true if they are known to be false. Once we know them for what they are, we can put them to use in crossing the Sea of Endless Rebirth and Unrelieved Suffering. Such perceptions are what the Buddha means here by “dharmas” or “buddha dharmas.” Bodhisattvas are those who are able to put such perceptions to use and then put them aside. Meanwhile, other translators (both Chinese and English) consider bhuta-sanjna a cliché and render both words by hsin (belief).

  Sung Ch’ang-hsing says, “It isn’t the Great Way that leaves mankind and goes into hiding, but mankind that leaves the Great Way and replaces it with kindness and justice.” (Lao-tzu’s Taoteching : 18)

  Textual note: Among Chinese editions, the initial evam utke (this having been said) is only present in those of Paramartha, Dharmagupta, and Hsuan-tsang. In the question, Kumarajiva does not include pashcimayam panca-shatyam sad-dharma-vipralope (in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age), but he has a shorter version in the Buddha’s response: ju-lai mieh hou, hou wu-pai-sui (during the five-hundred-year period following the Tathagata’s Nirvana). Neither Bodhiruci nor Paramartha has panca-shatyan (five-hundred [years]) in the question or the response, while Dharmagupta has wu-shih (fifty), apparently a mistake.

  The Buddha said, “Subhuti, do not ask, ‘Will there

  be any beings in the future, in the final epoch, in the

  final period, in the final five hundred years of the

  dharma-ending age, who give birth to a perception

  of the truth of the words of a sutra such as that

  spoken here?’ Surely, Subhuti, in the future, in the

  final epoch, in the final period, in the final five

  hundred years of the dharma-ending age, there will

  be fearless bodhisattvas who are capable, virtuous,

  and wise who give birth to a perception of the truth

  of the words of a sutra such as that spoken here.

  In the previous chapter, Subhuti does not see the real Buddha, only emptiness. Here, he does not understand the nature of the real Sangha (Buddhist order) either. Subhuti wonders how anyone in the future can fathom a teaching he himself does not fully understand, especially since beings in the future will not have the advantage of the Buddha’s example and personal instruction. But the Buddha rebukes Subhuti and says there will surely be beings in the future who believe this teaching. They are called bodhisattvas. Subhuti underestimates the power of a bodhisattva’s resolve rightly made. There will, indeed, be those whose faculties and abilities are complete (who know how to stand), whose moral character is pure (who know how to walk), and whose understanding is profound (who know how to control their thoughts). For once they resolve to liberate all beings, there will be no place or age when bodhisattvas do not appear. Time and space are not constraints for the bodhisattva’s body of merit. In fact, such bodhisattvas w
ill necessarily include Subhuti and anyone else who embarks on the bodhisattva path.

  In the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines, some of the gods present thought to themselves, “We understand the gibberish of yakshas [spirits], the speech of yakshas, the howling of yakshas, the sayings of yakshas, the arguments of yakshas, the mumblings of yakshas. But we do not understand the explanations, the teachings, the mumblings of Subhuti.” (2)

  Vasubandhu says, “Subhuti gives birth to another doubt. If people hear that one should practice charity without attachment, which is the subtlest of seeds, and the teaching that the Tathagata is not something created, which is the subtlest of fruits, how are those who live during decadent ages to believe this. In order that they do not discard this fruit in vain, the next verse cuts off this doubt.”

  Asanga says, “To preach the truth of cause and effect in that vile age will not be useless, for there will be bodhisattvas blessed in three respects.” (7) Vasubandhu comments, “Even in that final age there will be bodhisattvas possessed of ability, virtue, and wisdom. If they thereby speak this dharma, the fruit and benefit will not be in vain.”

  Han Ch’ing-ching says, “Only bodhisattvas who are perfect in conduct, perfect in virtue, and perfect in wisdom are able to believe such profound sutras as this. It is beyond the capability of shravakas (followers of the Lesser Path). Thus, the Buddha only mentions bodhisattvas as being capable of such belief.”