The Diamond Sutra

by Red Pine

  Having examined the nature of a tathagata and the realization and teaching of a tathagata, the Buddha once again recalls the cosmic being who sacrificed his body to create the world and the human race. The Buddha also mentioned this myth in Chapters Ten and Thirteen where he used it in regard to the thought of enlightenment and the renunciation of self-existence. Here, the Buddha summons Purusha again to make sure that Subhuti understands the nature of a tathagata’s body. In later expositions of the bodhisattva path, such as the Dashabhumika Sutra, it is said that upon reaching the eighth of the ten stages that lead to buddhahood, bodhisattvas give up their physical body at this point in exchange for the dharma body. But while the Buddha asks Subhuti if the attainment of bodhisattvas is like that of Purusha, Subhuti answers that bodhisattvas find no body to sacrifice.

  Vasubandhu says, “What does the metaphor of Purusha reveal?”

  Asanga says, “A buddha’s dharma body is like that of Purusha, free of all obstructions, an all-pervading body.” (45) Vasubandhu comments, “This great body represents the final transcendence of the twin obstructions of passion and worldly knowledge because it is the complete dharma body. It also contains two meanings: it pervades all places and its merit is great. Such merit and such an immense body pervade all places because suchness and dharmas are undifferentiated. This immense body is the body of suchness.”

  Asanga says, “Because his merit is immense, we say his body is immense. Because his body does not exist, we say it is no body.” (46) Vasubandhu comments, “What is it that such a great body shows? Because what does not exist is his body, it is called ‘no body.’ This is the nature of suchness. Because he has no body, this is called an ‘immense, perfect body.’”

  Hui-neng says, “The Buddha says that this immense, perfect human body is not an immense body in order to show that all beings are not different from the dharma body. Because it has no boundaries, such a body is immense. And because the dharma body does not occupy a space or a place, he says it is not an immense body. Moreover, a person’s physical body might be immense, but if there is no wisdom inside, it is not an immense body. And although a physical body might be small, if there is wisdom within, it can be called an immense body. But even if someone does possess wisdom, if they cannot practice accordingly, theirs is not an immense body. While someone who practices according to the teaching, who awakens to the peerless knowledge of buddhas, whose mind is not limited by subject or object, theirs is an immense body.”

  Textual note: This section repeats material that also appears in Chapter Ten. Neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, nor Yi-ching includes upeta-kaya (perfect body). In place of akaya (no body), Kumarajiva and Bodhiruci have fei-ta-shen (no great body).

  The Buddha said, “So it is, Subhuti. And if a bodhisattva

  says, ‘I shall liberate other beings,’ that person

  is not called a ‘bodhisattva.’ And why not? Subhuti,

  is there any such dharma as a bodhisattva?”

  The venerable Subhuti replied, “No, indeed, Bhagavan.

  There is no such dharma as a bodhisattva.”

  The Buddha said, “And beings, Subhuti, ‘beings’ are

  said by the Tathagata to be no beings. Thus are they

  called ‘beings.’ And thus does the Tathagata say ‘all

  dharmas have no self, all dharmas have no life, no

  individuality, and no soul.’

  Having established that there is no body to renounce, the Buddha returns to Subhuti’s questions. Bodhisattvas do not practice or rely on such dharmas as “setting forth on the bodhisattva path” because there is no such dharma as a “bodhisattva.” And there is no such dharma as a bodhi-sattva (enlightened being), because there is no such dharma as a sattva (being). And there is no being because no being or any other dharma comes into existence. This is how bodhisattvas control their thoughts.

  Hui-neng says, “If bodhisattvas say, ‘Because I teach dharmas, I eliminate the passions of others,’ this is a dharma of individuality. If they say, ‘I have liberated beings,’ this is to possess something. Although they liberate other beings, if they think about a subject or object and don’t get rid of self and other, they can’t be called bodhisattvas. Whereas even if they zealously teach all sorts of expedients to help and liberate other beings, as long as their minds remain free of subject and object, they are bodhisattvas, indeed.”

  Textual note: This section also repeats material that appears in Chapters Two, Three, and Nine and later in Chapter Twenty-five. Kumarajiva and Bodhiruci begin this section with p’u-sa yi ju-shih juo tso shih-yen (so it is with bodhisattvas if they should say). Kumarajiva does not include most of what follows, beginning with “Subhuti, is there any such dharma” and ending with “Thus are they called beings.” Paramartha and Yi-ching limit Subhuti’s reply to “No, Bhagavan.” Following Subhuti’s denial, Bodhiruci attributes the rest of this section to Subhuti. Neither the Stein, Gilgit, nor the Tibetan edition includes sattvah sattva iti subhute asattvas te tathagatena bhashitas tenocyante sattva iti (and beings, Subhuti, ‘beings’ are said by the Tathagata to be no beings, thus are they called ‘beings’). Neither Bodhiruci nor Hsuan-tsang includes atman (self) in the list, while neither the Gilgit, Stein nor Khotanese edition includes posha (individuality).

  “Subhuti, if a bodhisattva should thus claim,

  ‘I shall bring about the transformation of a world,’

  such a claim would be untrue. And how so?

  The transformation of a world, Subhuti,

  the ‘transformation of a world’ is said by the

  Tathagata to be no transformation. Thus is it called

  the ‘transformation of a world.’

  This is one of the most puzzling concepts to Western students of Buddhism, but it is an essential part of every bodhisattva’s repertoire of expedient skills. To liberate beings is to transform the world. And vice versa, to transform the world is to liberate beings. This conception of leading beings to a provisional, transformed spiritual state where they are more easily liberated became the basis of Pure Land Buddhism as well as Tantric Buddhism. But here, in the radical teaching of the perfection of wisdom, not only are beings not liberated, the world is not transformed by the bodhisattva’s acts of renunciation or self-sacrifice. For unlike Purusha, bodhisattvas cannot find any self to sacrifice, much less a world to transform.

  Vasubandhu says, “If there are no bodhisattvas, and enlightenment is not only not realized but does not exist, and there are no beings to liberate and no buddhalands to transform, why do bodhisattvas liberate beings in the realm of complete nirvana and think they transform a buddhaland? The following verses explain why.”

  Asanga says, “They don’t perceive the dharma realm who - liberate other beings or purify their world. Such views are upside-down.” (47)

  Hui-neng says, “If bodhisattvas say, ‘I can create a world,’ they’re not bodhisattvas. Although they create worlds, if they think about a subject or object, they are not bodhisattvas. On the other hand, even if they zealously create worlds, as long as they don’t give birth to thoughts of a subject or object, they’re called bodhisattvas. The sutras say, ‘Even if someone fills the universe with temples of silver, this cannot compare to one thought of the mind in samadhi.’ Where there is subject or object, there is no samadhi. Where subject and object do not arise, this is called samadhi. Samadhi means a pure mind.”

  Textual note: This and the following section repeat material that also appears in Chapter Ten. The only major textual issue concerns the interpretation of kshetra-vyuha (transformation of a world). For kshetra (world), all Chinese editions specify fo-t’u (buddha lands). And for vyuha (transformation), most Chinese editions give chuang-yen (adornment), while Paramartha adds ch’ing-ching (purification), Hsuan-tsang adds kung-te (merit), and Yi-ching has yen-sheng (splendor). In place of sa vitathan vadet (such a claim would be untrue), Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, and the Khotanese anticipate the following section with shih pu p’u-sa (is not a bodhis
attva). Meanwhile, Dharmagupta has pi yi ju-shih pu mingshuo ying (that person should not speak like this), Hsuan-tsang has yi ju-shih shuo (and that person speaks like this). Yi-ching does not include the phrase at all. In the Stein and Gilgit Sanskrit editions as well as in the Tibetan, it is rendered “that person should thus realize this is not true.” Kumarajiva does not include the final kshetra (world of). See also the textual notes to a similar passage in Chapter Twenty-seven.

  “Subhuti, when a bodhisattva resolves on selfless

  dharmas as ‘selfless dharmas,’ the Tathagata,

  the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One pronounces

  that person a fearless bodhisattva.”

  The end is the beginning, and the beginning is the end. Bodhisattvas begin by not being attached to perceptions of self and end by not being attached to perceptions of self. The difference is the difference between our personal self and the dharma self. Because we imagine we have a self, all things to which we attribute reality must also have a self, or they would not be real. But on closer examination, our self turns out to be no self, and the self-nature of dharmas also turns out to be empty of any self. And yet, such selflessness is what constitutes a dharma. Only those who perceive such selflessness can be called bodhisattvas. Thus, the end is no beginning, and no beginning is the end.

  Vasubandhu says, “If such views are upside down and those who hold them are not bodhisattvas, then who is a bodhisattva? One who believes that all dharmas are without any nature of their own.”

  Asanga says, “Bodhisattvas, beings and dharmas have no self. Those who know and fathom this, saints or not, all are wise.” (48)

  Hui-neng says, “Not to be blocked by the form of any dharma is to understand. Not to think about understanding is what is meant by the absence of a self. Those without a self, the Buddha says are true bodhisattvas. Those who practice according to their capacity are also called bodhisattvas, but they are not yet true bodhisattvas. Only those whose understanding and practice are perfect and complete and who have eliminated all thoughts of subject and object are called true bodhisattvas.”

  Textual note: The Khotanese mixes parts of this with the previous section. Kumarajiva does not include niratmano-dharma iti (as ‘selfless dharmas’). Neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, nor Yi-ching includes the Buddha’s additional titles. Yi-ching has hsing (nature) in place of atman (self). And neither Kumarajiva, the Gilgit Sanskrit edition, nor the Tibetan includes mahasattva (fearless).

  Chapter Eighteen: The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a physical eye?”

  Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a physical eye.”

  The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a divine eye?”

  Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a divine eye.”

  The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a prajna eye?”

  Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a prajna eye.”

  The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a dharma eye?”

  Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a dharma eye.”

  The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a buddha eye?”

  Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a buddha eye.”

  The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? As many grains of sand as there are in the great river of the Ganges, does the Tathagata not speak of them as grains of sand?”

  Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. So he does, Sugata. The Tathagata speaks of them as grains of sand.”

  The Buddha said, “What do you think, Subhuti? If there were as many rivers as all the grains of sand in the great river of the Ganges and as many worlds as there are grains of sand in all those rivers, would there be many worlds?”

  Subhuti replied, “So there would, Bhagavan. So there would, Sugata. There would be many worlds.”

  The Buddha said, “And as many beings as there might be in those worlds, Subhuti, I would know their myriad streams of thought. And how so? Streams of thought, Subhuti, what the Tathagata speaks of as ‘streams of thought’ are no streams. Thus are they called ‘streams of thought.’ And how so? Subhuti, a past thought cannot be found. A future thought cannot be found. Nor can a present thought be found.”

  CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

  IN THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER, Subhuti repeated his initial set of questions, and the Buddha responded by telling him how bodhisattvas should stand and walk. In this chapter, he tells Subhuti how they should control their thoughts, which they do by transforming their thoughts into buddha dharmas, which they do by perceiving the selflessness of all dharmas. This is the practice of upaya, or skillful means. But if bodhisattvas are to transform their thoughts, they first need to find their thoughts. Hence, the Buddha summons the concept of five eyes, which takes this teaching beyond the limited cultivation of emptiness and personal salvation characteristic of shravaka practitioners, such as Subhuti. For while Subhuti had acquired the first three of these eyes, he had no experience of the last two that see beyond the nihilism of emptiness to the compassionate awareness and liberation of other beings and by means of which Dipankara was able to see Sumedha’s future buddhahood. The Buddha also mentions these eyes to remind Subhuti that bodhisattvas work in many dimensions and use countless means to liberate countless beings. This is what the Buddha means by “buddha dharmas.” And this is also what he means by “resolving on selfless dharmas.” Seeing that all dharmas are empty and without any self-nature is not enough. The only way bodhisattvas can liberate other beings is by making use of the very selfless dharmas to which beings are attached. Thus, the Buddha introduces us to the dharma eye and the buddha eye.

  Vasubandhu says, “Again the doubt arises, as it was previously said that bodhisattvas see no beings, that bodhisattvas are those who see no self and do not see pure buddhalands, and that those who do not see any dharmas are called buddhas, someone might think buddhas and tathagatas do not see any dharmas. To resolve this doubt, the sutra brings up the five eyes.”

  Asanga says, “Although they see no dharmas, it is not because they have no eyes. Buddhas use five kinds of truth to see our misconceptions.” (49) Vasubandhu comments, “But what isn’t a misconception? To answer this problem, the Buddha first uses a metaphor.”

  Chao-ming titles this: “One Body One Vision.”

  Hui-neng says, “One eye includes five eyes. One grain of sand includes all the sand of the Ganges. One world includes myriad worlds. One thought includes a multitude of thoughts. Thus follows a section on one body with one vision.”

  Te-ch’ing says, “If bodhisattvas don’t see any beings they can liberate, and there are no lands they can purify, what then does a tathagata need five eyes for? The eyes are for knowing the thoughts of beings. However, the five eyes do not really exist.”

  The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think?

  Does the Tathagata possess a physical eye?”

  Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The

  Tathagata possesses a physical eye.”

  The mansa-cakshus (physical eye) perceives objects in the Realm of Desire, but it only perceives their external aspect and cannot penetrate something as thin as a piece of paper, much less such things as walls or mountains. While most humans are born with physical eyes and employ them in the satisfaction of their desires, bodhisattvas use theirs to behold the realm within which they liberate other beings, which can be anywhere from one hundred miles to a billion worlds across—such is a bodhisattva’s physical eye when purified of the concepts of self, being, life, and soul. The Buddha begins with the physical eye to remind Subhuti that the Tathagata shares the same kind of body as humans, and that they, too, can acquire the remaining four eyes that culminate with the buddha eye.

  According to Nagarjuna’s Maha Prajnaparamita Shas
tra, “The physical eye sees the near but not the far, the front but not the back, the outside but not the inside, the light but not the dark, the top but not the bottom. Because it is obstructed, a bodhisattva seeks the divine eye.” (33)

  Textual note: While sanvidyate means “to be possessed of,” it also means “to perceive by means of.”

  The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think?

  Does the Tathagata possess a divine eye?”

  Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The

  Tathagata possesses a divine eye.”

  The divyan-cakshus (divine eye) is the first of six supernatural powers acquired by those whose spiritual practice is centered around meditation, and it continues to be cultivated by members of many religious traditions. The divine eye perceives objects in the Realm of Form. In addition to their external aspect, it also perceives their internal aspect. Thus, it can see through paper as well as walls and mountains. Such vision is characteristic of the devas who live in the various heavens, but it is also acquired by those beings who cultivate samadhi, or the higher trances of meditation. By such means a bodhisattva is also able to see the death and rebirth of all the beings in the ten directions in worlds as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges.