The Diamond Sutra

by Red Pine

  Textual note: Neither the Gilgit nor the Stein Sanskrit edition mentions the donor of this first offering. The Gilgit and Stein editions also do not mention the recipient. The only Chinese edition to do so is that of Dharmagupta.

  and a noble son or daughter grasped but a single

  four-line gatha of this dharma teaching of the

  perfection of wisdom and made it known to others,

  Subhuti, their body of merit would be greater by

  more than a hundredfold, indeed, by an amount

  beyond comparison.”

  Once again, the Buddha puts aside the non-existence of bodies of merit and reminds Subhuti that the difference in such merit is based on the difference in the gift and the recipient. Also, without such a body of merit, non-existent though it is, no realization or teaching is possible. Without such a body there is no buddhahood and no liberation. But such existence through non-existence is only possible because they are both reflections of the perfection of wisdom, the dharma body of reality. The fact that the name of this teaching is mentioned here for the second and last time in this sutra has suggested to some commentators that this marks the conclusion of the main body of the text, or the third of its four parts—each of which includes eight chapters.

  Asanga says, “Although these words are neutral, they sow the seeds of knowledge. Thus, a single dharma jewel outmatches countless treasures.” (59) Vasubandhu comments, “How can one attain enlightenment and fulfill all auspicious dharmas if one does not obtain enlightenment from dharma teachings precisely because they turn out to be neutral?” To which Tao-ch’uan adds, “His words are neutral because the dharmas he teaches are free of the concepts of words or teachings. Because they are free of such concepts, they can serve as the cause of enlightenment.”

  Asanga says, “Number, rank, and likeness, and causal ties define. Search the whole world over. Nothing can compare.” (60) Number, rank, likeness, and causal ties were four factors used to define or establish differences among things. According to Vasubandhu, they are applied here to the differences in the two forms of merit and demonstrate the superiority of the latter in all four respects.

  Seng-chao says, “A pile of jewels has its limits; a profound understanding is never exhausted.”

  Sheng-yi says, “To gather as many jewels as all the Mount Sumerus and use them as an offering naturally results in great merit. But it is an offering by the self, and the resulting merit is obtained by the self. This is karmic merit, and such merit doesn’t last. By reciting we gain merit, and by upholding we gain wisdom. By using merit to aid wisdom, we can see the marvelous reality of the dharma body. And after we see our nature, if we explain this to others, others will be able to see their buddha nature. The merit from seeing our nature and becoming a buddha is everlasting and free of karma. It is inexhaustible and endless. How can the karmic merit from an offering of the seven jewels compare?”

  Hui-neng says, “If such a mountain as Sumeru can wear away, how much more so an offering of the seven jewels. Even if the merit one attains is without limits or bounds, it is based on causal conditions and provides no means of liberation. Even though a four-line gatha of the great Prajnaparamita is small, if you rely on it in your practice, you will achieve buddhahood. Thus, we know that because the merit of upholding this sutra can enable beings to realize enlightenment, it is, therefore, beyond compare.”

  Hung-lien says, “The nature of enlightenment is all-inclusive. You don’t cut off what is created to realize what is uncreated or eliminate delusion to find what is real. When you reach the ultimate truth, in the space of a single thought you gain uncreated merit. Uncreated merit is like space. It is inconceivable.”

  Yen Ping says, “This reminds me of the lines in the Cold Mountain poem (5): ‘Nothing can compare / what more can I say?’”

  Ch’en Hsiung says, “The Fifth Patriarch once said, ‘If people are blind to their own nature, how can merit help?’ And the Sixth Patriarch added, ‘They spend endless ages at sea searching for pearls unaware of the seven jewels within themselves.’ These two buddhas were concerned that instead of cultivating themselves and realizing their own nature, people would take the path of seeking merit through the offering of jewels.”

  Fu Hsi says, “Offering jewels in numbers like grains of sand only creates the basis for more karma and does not compare to the contemplation of selflessness. The end of delusions is called reality. If you want to realize the forbearance of birthlessness, you need to get free of greed and anger, understand that there is no self in people or things, and wander freely beyond the realm of sensation.”

  Tao-ch’uan says, “Stabbing the earth with an awl a thousand times can’t compare to one whack with a dull shovel. My song goes, ‘Unicorns and phoenixes don’t form flocks / great pearls and jade aren’t found in a market / a high-spirited horse isn’t part of a team / a swordsman from heaven seldom finds a match / Heaven and Earth aren’t high or low / the kalpa-ending fire doesn’t burn / an awesome great light fills the whole sky / gods and humans have nothing like it.’”

  Textual note: Hsuan-tsang has shan-nan-tzu shan-nu-jen (noble son or daughter) for the first donor, which would not agree with the Buddha’s usage in previous comparisons. However, he is the only translator who has “a noble son or daughter” for the second donor, which would agree with previous usage. Meanwhile, all other Chinese editions have jen (person) for both donors, except Dharmagupta, who does not mention the second donor. The Gilgit and Stein Sanskrit editions also do not mention the second donor. All Chinese editions, except that of Dharmagupta, have ching (sutra) for dharma-paryayat (dharma teaching), while Dharmagupta does not include the phrase. The Khotan edition replaces prajna-paramita dharma-paryayat with vajracchedika-sutra (diamond cutting sutra). Yi-ching does not have prajna-paramita (perfection of wisdom). Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, and Paramartha have tu-sung wei-t’a-jen shuo (recited and made known to others), to which Hsuan-tsang, as elsewhere, adds chiu-ching t’ung-li (thoroughly penetrate) as well as ju-li tso-yi (according to its meaning). None of the Chinese editions are satisfied with this comparison. After shatatamin api kalan na upaiti (not one hundredfold), Kumarajiva and Paramartha have “not one millionfold,” while the other Chinese editions have “not one thousandfold, not one millionfold, not one billionfold, not one trillionfold.” Paramartha goes beyond even this and at the very end adds “beyond the greatest categories or metaphors.”

  Chapter Twenty-five: “Subhuti, what do you think? Does it occur to the Tathagata: ‘I rescue beings’? Surely, Subhuti, you should hold no such view. And why not? Subhuti, the being does not exist who is rescued by the Tathagata. Subhuti, if any being were rescued by the Tathagata, the Tathagata would be attached to a self. He would be attached to a being, attached to a life, and attached to a soul. ‘Attachment to a self,’ Subhuti, is said by the Tathagata to be no attachment. Yet foolish people remain attached. And ‘foolish people,’ Subhuti, are said by the Tathagata to be no people. Thus are they called ‘foolish people.’”

  CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE

  IN CHAPTER THREE, the Buddha tells us that a bodhisattva sets forth on the path to enlightenment by resolving to liberate all beings but does so while remaining unattached to perceptions of a self, a being, a life or a soul. Here, the Buddha says that after having achieved the goal of enlightenment, a bodhisattva does not now become exempt from this dictum. Just as a bodhisattva liberates no beings, neither does a buddha rescue beings, for to do so would amount to belief in an entity and thus an attachment. But because neither the subject who is attached nor the object of attachment is real, every attachment is essentially no attachment. And yet people are attached. Thus, such people are called “foolish” because they do not see that their attachments are empty of any self-nature and therefore “no attachments.” Still, even though they are foolish in clinging to what isn’t real, they are but a thought away from buddhahood. Thus, buddhas rescue no one. Foolish people rescue foolish people.

  Chao-ming titles th
is: “Instructing without Instructing.”

  Hui-neng says, “Although no school of instruction exists without its expedient tools, essentially there is nothing to hold on to. Thus follows a chapter on instructing without instructing.”

  Te-ch’ing says, “Subhuti had previously heard that buddhas and beings are not different. But if they are not different, there are no beings. Why then say the Tathagata saves beings, since this would involve the concepts of self and other? In what follows, self and other both disappear.”

  “Subhuti, what do you think? Does it occur to the

  Tathagata: ‘I rescue beings’? Surely, Subhuti, you

  should hold no such view. And why not? Subhuti,

  the being does not exist who is rescued by the

  Tathagata. Subhuti, if any being were rescued by

  the Tathagata, the Tathagata would be attached to

  a self. He would be attached to a being, attached

  to a life, and attached to a soul.

  In Chapter Three, the Buddha tells Subhuti that those who set forth on the bodhisattva path resolve to parinirvapya (liberate) all beings and to lead them into the nirvanadhatu (realm of nirvana) but do so without being attached to such perceptions as self or being, which they are able to transcend or transform through the cultivation of wisdom. But traveling the bodhisattva path requires more than wisdom, and here the Buddha uses the word parimocita (rescue) to emphasize the compassion of such resolve. The emphasis is not on liberation in the realm of nirvana but on rescue from the realm of sansara (birth-and-death). Another crucial difference is that previously the emphasis was on the point of view of a bodhisattva. Here, the point of view is that of a buddha.

  Vasubandhu says, “Again the doubt arises, if dharmas are undifferentiated and neither superior nor inferior, why does the Tathagata talk about saving beings?”

  Asanga says, “Undifferentiated is the dharma realm, where buddhas save no beings. For neither name nor body exists outside the dharma realm.” (60) Vasubandhu comments, “If it were said that there was a soul within the body to be liberated, this would amount to asserting the existence of a being. Thus, the sutra says attachment to a self is no attachment.”

  Seng-chao says, “Enlightenment is the fruit that isn’t picked. Teaching is the doctrine that forgets the words.”

  Hui-neng says, “All beings are themselves buddhas. If someone said that the Tathagata rescues beings and they become buddhas, this would be a falsehood. The reason it’s false is because it concerns a self, a soul, a being, and a life. This is intended to drive out such thoughts of possession. But while all beings have the buddha nature, if they did not rely on the dharma teachings of buddhas, they would have no means of realizing it themselves. How else can they cultivate and reach the path to buddhahood?”

  As Hui-neng prepared to leave the Fifth Patriarch, he said, “When we are deluded, our teacher liberates us. When we are enlightened, we liberate ourselves.” (Sixth Patriarch Sutra: 1)

  Te-ch’ing says, “As long as a self or individual exists, the four perceptions have not yet been eliminated. In Zen, this is what we call ‘finding the dharma body but not the next word.’”

  Sheng-yi says, “When a tathagata teaches a dharma, after beings hear the dharma, they enlighten themselves and liberate themselves. It isn’t the Tathagata who can liberate beings. For example, a father can only tell his children to eat. His children have to eat by themselves. The father can’t eat for them. The Tathagata realized the Dharma and became a buddha. And after he became a buddha, he taught dharmas to liberate beings. It isn’t the Buddha who can liberate beings. If the Buddha could liberate beings, beings wouldn’t have to cultivate. Beings are themselves tathagatas by nature. But because their nature has become concealed by the Five Skandhas, they are blind to it. But they are only blind, they haven’t lost it. Beings can never lose their self-nature, and their self-nature can never leave beings. Fu Hsi said, ‘Hold on to the buddha eye every night / get up every morning as usual / it follows you standing or sitting / speaking or silent it’s there / never a hair’s breadth away / just like the body’s shadow / to find where buddhas dwell / it’s right here in this sound.’ The Buddha teaches dharmas, and the buddha nature of beings hears dharmas, finds itself, enlightens itself and liberates itself.”

  Tao-ch’uan says, “Spring orchids, autumn chrysanthemums, each has its fragrance. My song goes: ‘After his birth he walked seven steps / everyone has a nose and two brows / sadness and joy, war and peace are the same / who was it who sat in the teacher’s seat / do you recall what it was like?’”

  Textual note: For the second sentence, Yi-ching has ju-lai tu chung-sheng pu (does the Tathagata rescue beings or not). And at the end of the third sentence, he has ju-lai tu chung-sheng (the Tathagata rescues beings). The Gilgit edition has mocita (set free) in place of parimocita (rescue). The Stein edition has both. In place of atmagraho (attached to a self), etc., Kumarajiva has yu wo (have a self), etc. Bodhiruci and Yi-ching have yu wo . . . hsiang (have a perception of a self), etc. Hsuan-tsang inserts yu shih-fu chih (attachment to a person) for a total of five instead of four attachments. This entire chapter is missing in the Khotanese.

  ‘Attachment to a self,’ Subhuti, is said by the

  Tathagata to be no attachment. Yet foolish people

  remain attached. And ‘foolish people,’ Subhuti, are

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

  called ‘foolish people.’”

  All attachments are manifestations of attachment to a self. The self is the only reality of which we are aware since birth. All other realities are simply reflections and transformations of this one underlying reality. At least, we assume this reality to be real. Yet when we examine our self in the light of wisdom, it is found to be without any basis at all. This is the only obstruction standing between foolish people and buddhas. If foolish people realized that they are not people, much less foolish, they would be buddhas. As long as they don’t, they remain foolish people.

  Asanga says, “Attachment to a self is the same mistake as attachment to a dharma. Attachment to saving beings is attachment to what allows no attachment.” (61)

  Seng-chao says, “Foolish people aren’t real. They can thus be transformed into sages.”

  Li Wen-hui says, “Who has a self is a foolish person. Who has no self is the master of wherever they are and acts without limits. Thus is it said foolish people are the cause of buddhas, and buddhas are the result of foolish people.”

  Hui-neng says, “When the Tathagata says there is a self, he is referring to our perfectly pure self-nature, our eternal, blissful, individual, and pure self. This is not the same as the greedy, angry, ignorant, false, unsubstantial self of foolish people. Thus, he says foolish people think there is a self. But whoever thinks there is a self or individual is a foolish person. Whoever does not give birth to a self or individual is not a foolish person. As long as thoughts rise and fall, you’re a foolish person. When thoughts don’t rise or fall, you’re not a foolish person. As long as you don’t understand the prajna-paramita, you’re a foolish person. When you understand the prajna-paramita, you’re not a foolish person. As long as your thoughts include a subject or object, you’re a foolish person. When your thoughts don’t include a subject or object, you’re not a foolish person.”

  Wang Jih-hsiu says, “The Buddha tells Subhuti that foolish people are not really foolish people but are merely called foolish people. This is a case of bringing up a point only to negate it. But if he is going to negate it, why should he bring it up? If he didn’t bring it up, there would be no means of understanding the truth. It would be like trying to cross a river without using a raft. And if he didn’t negate it, people might cling to his teaching. This would be like reaching the far shore and not disembarking but staying on the raft. This is why he has to bring it up and why he has to negate it as well.”

  Meng-ts’an says, “The previous chapter concerned the true dharma body. What appea
rs now is the Buddha’s apparitional body. Those who are saved are apparitional beings. None of them has a real body. This is how we should understand them. However, we are now in the realm of life and death and not yet able to get free because we are still ‘foolish people.’ But ‘foolish people’ is just a term of convenience. Among those who hear the Dharma or cultivate the Path or obtain Liberation, there are no real foolish people to be found. This is why foolish people are not people. It is only because of conditions that we say there are foolish people. But this name is a false name.”

  Tao-ch’uan says, “One thought you’re a mortal, the next you’re a buddha. But what sort of things are mortals and buddhas? My song goes: ‘You don’t have three heads or six arms / still you can use chopsticks and a spoon / sometimes you’re drunk and obnoxious / then you light incense and bow / you hold a plate made of crystal / and wear a robe of fine silk / you never stop showing off / but the one led off by the nose is you.’”

  Textual note: In place of atma-graha iti subhute agraha esha tathagatena bhashitah, sa ca bala-prithag-janair udgrhita (‘attachment to a self’ is said by the Tathagata to be no attachment, yet foolish people remain attached), Kumarajiva and Bodhiruci have ju-lai shuo yu wo-che tse fei yu wo, erh fan-fu-chih-jen yi-wei yu wo (the Tathagata says to have a self is not to have a self, yet ordinary people think there is a self). At the end of the first sentence, Hsuan-tsang adds ku ming wo teng-chih (thus is it called ‘attachment to a self’), etc. Chinese editions differ as to how they render bala-prithag-jana (foolish people). Kumarajiva has fan-fu (ordinary people); Bodhiruci has the unique mao-tao fan-fu-sheng-che (hairbrained ordinary people); Paramartha has ying-er fan-fu-chung-sheng (childish ordinary people); Dharmagupta has hsiao-er fan-fu-sheng (childish ordinary beings); Hsuan-tsang has yu-fu-yi-sheng (foolish myriad beings), and Yi-ching has yu-fu-chung-sheng (foolish beings). Müller has “children and ignorant persons,” and Conze has “foolish common people.”