The Diamond Sutra

by Red Pine

  Chiang Wei-nung says, “If you know that those who reach the goal reach by not reaching, then those who set forth must set forth by not setting forth. In the previous question about whether any dharma is realized, the stress is on ‘realized.’ In this question, the stress is on ‘dharma.’ In the previous question about whether any dharma is realized, ‘dharma’ referred to the ‘forbearance of birthlessness. ’ Here it refers to ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.’”

  Textual note: Again, only Dharmagupta and Hsuan-tsang translate evam ukte (this having been said / and to this). Dharmagupta’s is the only Chinese translation that includes the additional titles of Dipankara. Yi-ching does not include anuttara-samyak-sanbodhi (unexcelled, perfect enlightenment).

  To this the venerable Subhuti answered, “Bhagavan,

  as I understand the meaning of what the Tathagata

  has taught, when the Tathagata was with Dipankara

  Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One,

  he did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled,

  perfect enlightenment.”

  If a bodhisattva reached a goal, that would establish limits to what is necessarily without limits. We have heard in previous chapters that the body of merit of a bodhisattva who practices this teaching has no limits and thus transcends the boundaries of time and space. Why, then, should a bodhisattva belittle such attainment with perceptions of attainment? Still, while Subhuti understands that any attainment is necessarily no attainment, he does not yet understand the nature of the attainment not attained, for he has not yet attained it.

  Sheng-yi says, “If there is a dharma, then there is a mind. If there is a mind, then we cannot empty the mind. And if the mind isn’t empty, how can we understand it? If there is a dharma, then that dharma isn’t empty either. And if that dharma isn’t empty, how can we grasp it? But if Shakyamuni didn’t understand the mind and didn’t grasp any dharma, how could Dipankara prophecy his future buddhahood?”

  Tao-yuan says, “When there is no dharma you can realize, this is true realization. For only when there is no dharma you can realize, can you get rid of ‘attachment to dharmas.’ As long as there is some dharma you can realize, you end up with delusions and end up with ‘attachment to dharmas.’”

  Textual note: Among Chinese translations, only those of Dharmagupta and Hsuan-tsang reflect the presence of the expression evam ukte (this having been said / to this). Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, and Paramartha begin Subhuti’s reply with pu-yeh (no). Neither Paramartha, Dharmagupta, nor Yi-ching includes yathahan bhagavan bhagavato bhashitasya-artham ajanami (as I understand the meaning of what the Tathagata has taught). Here and in the next section, Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, and Yi-ching do not include the additional titles of Dipankara.

  And to this the Buddha replied, “So it is, Subhuti.

  So it is. When the Tathagata was with Dipankara

  Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One,

  he did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled,

  perfect enlightenment.

  The dimensions of time and space to which material karma is restricted limit our body of merit. But the body of merit of those who practice this teaching is limitless. Such an inconceivable, incomparable, immeasurable, boundless body is only visible to buddhas. Hence, Dipankara prophesied Shakyamuni’s future buddhahood because he could see Shakyamuni’s body of merit, inconceivable though it was. For it was during his meeting with Dipankara that Shakyamuni finally freed himself of attachment to the perception of dharmas by realizing that no dharmas come into existence. This is why such realization is said to be no realization.

  Seng-chao says, “The Sage’s mind is hard to fathom, though we can try by means of deductions. He obtained this prophecy because he was not attached to appearances. In something that lacks appearance, there is nothing that one can obtain.”

  Hui-neng says, “The Buddha is asking Subhuti, ‘When I was with my teacher, did I not eliminate the four perceptions (self, being, life, and soul) and obtain the prophecy of buddhahood?’ Since Subhuti deeply understands the principle of no perception, he answers, ‘No.’ Thus the Buddha says, ‘So it is.’ To say ‘it is’ is an expression of approval.”

  Tao-yuan says, “The first half of the Diamond Sutra explains how to think about liberating other beings while remaining free of the perception of being. From Chapter Seventeen on, the second half explains how to get free of the perception of liberation and even the perception of future buddhahood.”

  Tao-ch’uan says, “If you don’t share the same bed, how can you know how a paper blanket [bedding of the poor] works? My song goes: ‘Strike the drum and strum the lute / here where these two meet / you walk the willow-lined shore / while I stand here at the ferry / dusk on the river once the rain passes / count the green peaks that touch the red sky.”

  Textual note: This is missing in the Gilgit edition.

  Subhuti, if the Tathagata had realized any dharma,

  Dipankara Tathagata would not have prophesied, ‘Young

  man, in the future you shall become the tathagata, the

  arhan, the fully-enlightened one named Shakyamuni.’

  The Shakyas were the tribe into which the Buddha was born, and Shakyamuni means the “Sage of the Shakyas.” From their capital of Kapilavastu, they governed an area on what is now the Nepal-India border. But because of an offense against the kingdom of Kaushala, where this sermon was spoken, they were virtually exterminated shortly before the Buddha’s Nirvana.

  Lung-ya says, “Consider the tree outside the door. Although it serves as a resting place for birds, it doesn’t make an effort to call those that come. Nor does it care whether those that leave return. When a person’s mind is like the tree’s, they no longer oppose the Tao.”

  Tao-ch’uan says, “His poverty was like that of Fan Tan. His valor was like that of Hsiang Yu. My song goes: ‘No roof above / no possessions below / the sun sets, the moon rises / who knows who this is?’ Hey!” (Fan Tan was a Chinese Midas, and Hsiang Yu contended with Liu Pang for the right to succeed the Ch’in dynasty at the end of the third century B.C. Both appear in Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s Shihchi [Records of the Historian], for which see Burton Watson’s translation into English.)

  Textual note: In place of kashcid-dharmo (any dharma), Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, and Hsuan-tsang specify anutarra-samyak-sanbodhi (unexcelled, perfect enlightenment). Neither Kumarajiva nor Dharmagupta includes manava (young man). Throughout this section, neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, nor Yi-ching includes the additional titles of Dipankara. This section is missing in the Gilgit edition.

  Subhuti, it was because the Tathagata, the Arhan, the

  Fully-Enlightened One did not realize any such

  dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment, that

  Dipankara Tathagata prophesied, ‘Young man, in

  the future you shall become the tathagata, the arhan,

  the fully-enlightened one named Shakyamuni.’

  The Buddha uses his own example to convey the importance of non-attainment and non-attachment. How could he make this any clearer? Only by means of such non-attainment and non-attachment does a bodhisattva realize enlightenment and liberate other beings. Instead of going forwards, the bodhisattva goes backwards. Instead of reaching the end, the bodhisattva finds no beginning. In his Taoteching, Lao-tzu says, “The Tao moves the other way.” (40)

  Vasubandhu says, “If there is no such dharma as a bodhisattva, how did the Tathagata practice the bodhisattva path in the presence of Dipankara? The answer to this doubt is that there was no such dharma.”

  Asanga says, “Dipankara’s prophecy meant his path was not complete. Nor could buddhahood be real if it was created.” (43) Vasubandhu comments, “The Buddha’s meaning here is, ‘If I had realized enlightenment, then Dipankara would not have prophesied that I would later become a buddha. Also, if I was to become a buddha and there was no enlightenment or buddhas, then nothing would exist.’ In order to eliminate th
is difficulty, the Buddha tells Subhuti, ‘the Tathagata is another name for what is truly real.’”

  The Nirvana Sutra says, “When nothing is realized, it is called wisdom. When something is realized, it is called delusion.” (17)

  Tao-yuan says, “The Buddha is saying, ‘Because my inner mind was empty, there wasn’t a single thought that could realize anything. And because the external world was extinguished, there wasn’t any dharma that I could realize. Because there was no subject or object, Dipankara prophesied my buddhahood.’”

  Textual note: The second half of this section is missing in the Khotanese, and part of it in Stein’s Sanskrit edition as well.

  “And how so? ‘Tathagata,’ Subhuti, is another name

  for what is truly real. ‘Tathagata,’ Subhuti, is another

  name for the dharma with no beginning. ‘Tathagata,’

  Subhuti, is another name for the end of dharmas.

  ‘Tathagata,’ Subhuti, is another name for what never

  begins. And how so? No beginning, Subhuti, is the

  highest truth.

  In Sanskrit, tatha points to what is real and is usually translated as “thus” or “truly.” It can also be shortened to tath. Hence, tathagata can be parsed as tatha-gata and mean “thus gone” or as tath-agata and mean “thus come,” with the meaning dependent on the situation. It usually means “thus gone” when the emphasis is on liberation from sansara and realization of nirvana, and it means “thus come” when the emphasis is on appearing in the world to teach others. But regardless of whether a tathagata comes or goes or neither comes nor goes, a tathagata remains bhutatathata (truly real) because a tathagata puts an end to all existence, past, present, and future and is free of such perceptions as coming or going. What is tatha-ta (truly so) cannot be seen or realized because it has no beginning. Hence, a bodhisattva cannot set forth on a path that does not begin nor realize what never exists. This is the dharma-kaya, the real body of every buddha. This is what Dipankara saw without seeing and Sumedha realized without realizing.

  Among the fourteen subjects about which the Buddha refused to speak, eight concerned the nature of a universe, two concerned the nature of life, and four concerned the nature of a tathagata: whether a tathagata exists after death, whether a tathagata does not exist after death, whether a tathagata both exists and does not exist after death, and whether a tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.

  In The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines, the Buddha asked, “You call me a tathagata. But do you really think I am a tathagata?” And the Bodhisattva of Wisdom answered, “No, Bhagavan, I do not think you are a tathagata. For there is nothing in what is real that distinguishes it as real. Nor does a tathagata possess any wisdom capable of knowing what is real, because a tathagata and wisdom are not two different things. A tathagata is emptiness. Thus, ‘tathagata’ is only a name. How, then, can I consider anyone a tathagata?”

  Hui-neng says, “By the ‘reality’ of all dharmas, the Buddha is referring to the ability to discriminate with skill among the six sensations of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and thought while remaining unperturbed, unaffected, unattached, unchanged, immovable as space, perfectly clear, and existing for kalpas. This is the meaning of the ‘reality’ of all dharmas.”

  Textual note: Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, and Yi-ching include the first explanation but not the rest of this section. The rest of the section after bhutatathataya (truly real) is also absent in the Gilgit and Stein editions, the Tibetan and Khotanese translations, and also in Conze’s edition. It is, however, present in Müller’s edition and also in the translations of Dharmagupta and Hsuan-tsang and helps prepare us for the final statement of “selflessness” at the end of this chapter. In place of dharmaucchedasya (the end of dharmas), Dharmagupta and Hsuan-tsang have tao-tuan / tuan-tao-lu (the cutting off of all roads).

  Subhuti, if anyone should claim, ‘The Tathagata, the

  Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One realized unexcelled,

  perfect enlightenment,’ such a claim would be untrue.

  Subhuti, they would be making a false statement about

  me. And how so? Subhuti, the Tathagata did not realize

  any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.

  In the previous section, the Buddha equated the nature of enlightenment with the real body of every buddha, which is the dharma-kaya, which is truly and simply so. Thus, to say that such a body is capable of realizing itself cannot possibly be true, for such a body already includes all dharmas.

  Hui-neng says, “The Buddha says that he actually realized enlightenment because he had no perception that he realized anything and that it was because the thought of realizing something did not arise that he thus realized enlightenment.”

  Textual note: This section repeats material that has appeared in Chapters Six and Seven and that also appears in Chapter Twenty-six. Again, neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, nor Paramartha includes the titles of the Buddha. Nor do Kumarajiva or the Gilgit edition include sa vitathan vadet abhyacakshita man sa subhute asatodgrihitena tat kasya hetoh (such a claim would be untrue, Subhuti, they would be making a false statement about me, and why). Bodhiruci, Paramartha, Yi-ching and the Tibetan include only the first sentence of this. In place of sa vitathan vadet (make a false statement), Dharmagupta and Hsuan-tsang have (fei-)pang-wo (malign me).

  Furthermore, Subhuti, in the dharma realized or taught

  by the Tathagata there is nothing true and nothing

  false. Thus, the Tathagata says ‘all dharmas are buddha

  dharmas.’ And how so? ‘All dharmas,’ Subhuti, are

  said by the Tathagata to be no dharmas. Thus are all

  dharmas called ‘buddha dharmas.’

  The word dharma is derived from the root dhri, meaning “to grasp.” Hence, a dharma is whatever we hold to be real. The Buddha uses the word here to refer to such concepts as the bodhisattva path and enlightenment, the practice and the goal of practice. But while we see some dharmas as true and others as false, buddhas see them all as empty. And yet they use dharmas as expedient means to aid in the liberation of all beings. Hence, buddha dharmas are neither true nor false. Rather, at different times, in different situations, some are more useful than others.

  In the Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines, the Buddha asked the Bodhisattva of Wisdom, “Have you, Manjushri, not yet realized the dharmas of buddhas?” Manjushri answered, “Can anyone, Bhagavan, possibly realize a dharma that does not include all the dharmas of buddhas?” Again, the Buddha asked, “Who, then, has realized these dharmas of buddhas?” And Manjushri answered, “Even in you, Bhagavan, these dharmas of buddhas do not exist and cannot be realized, how much less in others!”

  Asanga says, “Forms devoid of form we say cannot be false. Thus are they all buddha dharmas whose forms do not exist.” (44) This restates the Buddha’s explanation to Subhuti in Chapter Five: “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.”

  Hui-neng says, “Despite all the dharmas established by Dipankara, his mind [the Buddha’s in his previous life] remained empty and unmoved. Thus, he realized that all dharmas are the dharmas of buddhas. But because he is now concerned that deluded people will become attached to all that comes into existence as buddha dharmas, to eliminate this disease, he speaks of ‘no dharmas. ’ And because his mind is free of subject and object, still and always shining, because it combines the practices of meditation and wisdom and unites form with function, he therefore speaks of ‘all dharmas.’”

  Thich Nhat Hanh says, “If those who teach Buddhism in the West keep in mind that all dharmas are Buddhadharma, they will not feel like a drop of oil in a glass of water. If you practice in exactly the same way we practice in Vietnam, Tibet, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Japan, or Korea, the oil drops will always remain separate from the water.”<
br />
  Textual note: No Chinese edition includes ca (furthermore). Also, among Chinese editions, only Hsuan-tsang and Dharmagupta have shuo (taught). To this, Hsuan-tsang also adds szu (conceived). All Chinese editions as well as Conze’s Sanskrit edition specify anuttara-samyak-sanbodhi (unexcelled, perfect enlightenment). Neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, Dharmagupta, nor Hsuan-tsang includes “buddha” in the final “buddha dharmas,” while the entire expression is missing in both the Stein and Gilgit Sanskrit editions.

  “Subhuti, imagine a perfect person with an immense,

  perfect body.”

  The venerable Subhuti said, “Bhagavan, this perfect

  person whom the Tathagata says has an ‘immense,

  perfect body,’ Bhagavan, the Tathagata says has no

  body. Thus is it called an ‘immense, perfect body.’”