The Diamond Sutra

by Red Pine

  Chapter Twenty-six: “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the possession of attributes?”

  Subhuti replied, “No, indeed, Bhagavan. As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes.”

  The Buddha said, “Well done, Subhuti. Well done. So it is, Subhuti. It is as you claim. The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes. And why not? Subhuti, if the Tathagata could be seen by means of the possession of attributes, a universal king would be a tathagata. Hence, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes.”

  The venerable Subhuti said to the Buddha, “As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes.”

  On that occasion the Buddha then spoke this gatha: “Who looks for me in form

  who seeks me in a voice

  indulges in wasted effort

  such people see me not.”

  CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

  IF A BUDDHA HAS NO SELF, who is it that Subhuti sees? And if this is not the real buddha, where is the real buddha? This is the fourth time the Buddha has asked Subhuti about this. The first time was in Chapter Five, where he asked Subhuti his view of buddhahood as seen from the beginning of the bodhisattva path. The Buddha asked the same question again in Chapters Thirteen and Twenty where the view was that of someone who had taken up this teaching and was well along the path. Here, the view is from the end of the path. Is there any difference? Hence, the Buddha repeats his question.

  Following the Buddha’s Nirvana, Buddhists have had to deal with the problem of the Buddha’s apparent impermanence. Their solution, if it was not part of the Buddha’s original teaching, was to view buddhas as possessing three bodies: a real body, or dharma-kaya, a reward body, or sanbhoga-kaya, and an apparition body, or nirmana-kaya. Briefly stated, when a noble son or daughter sets forth on the bodhisattva path, they plant the seed that results in buddhahood. When bodhisattvas become buddhas, they reap the fruit of their practice. Both the seed and the fruit are different aspects of a buddha’s reward body, whose attributes are physical as well as spiritual, but are too perfect to be visible to the human eye. Having achieved enlightenment, buddhas manifest countless apparition bodies for use in the countless worlds where they teach and liberate others. These bodies are also physical and possess a set of visible attributes. But both the nirmana-kaya and the sanbhoga kaya are subject to creation and destruction, and are not real. They are not the body that the Buddha does not obtain and has never been without. Ultimately, however, these three bodies are one and the same, and the former two are seen as but manifestations of the latter, for the real body is not separate from anything, physical, psychological, or spiritual. Thus, when the Buddha asks Subhuti to consider his apparition body, such a body is still subject to impermanence and is not what distinguishes a buddha. What distinguishes a buddha is the dharma body. The dharma body is the body that fills the dharma realm. It is the body of reality. Thus, Subhuti can see the Buddha’s apparition body, and over the course of this sutra he has begun to comprehend the immensity of the Buddha’s reward body, but he still cannot see the Buddha’s dharma body, just as a fish cannot see the whole ocean.

  Chao-ming titles this: “The Dharma Body Is Not an Attribute.”

  Hui-neng says, “To look for a form or search for a sound is to walk down the wrong path. Here, intuitive insight alone reveals what is permanent and real. Thus follows a chapter on how the dharma body is not an attribute.”

  Vasubandhu says, “Again, the doubt arises, although we cannot see the Tathagata’s dharma body, because the dharma body has no attributes, we infer the Tathagata’s dharma body through attributes, for the Tathagata possesses the attributes of merit.”

  Te-ch’ing says, “Since the dharma body has no self, and the reward body cannot be seen by means of attributes, are these thirty-two attributes not the Buddha? This chapter explains that the apparition body is not true in order to show that the dharma body is free of attributes.”

  “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be

  seen by means of the possession of attributes?”

  Subhuti replied, “No, indeed, Bhagavan. As I understand

  the meaning of what the Buddha says, the Tathagata

  cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes.”

  If the Buddha has no self, being, life, or soul, what exactly is the Buddha? The Buddha is, by definition, the embodiment of enlightenment, the buddha nature personified. But what is the nature of such a nature? On several occasions, Chao-chou’s disciples asked him if a dog had the buddha nature. On one occasion he answered, “No.” On another he answered, “Yes.” The difference depended on the disciple and whether Chao-chou perceived the disciple was attached to the phenomenal or to the nuomenal world, to existence or non-existence. Over time, however, Chao-chou’s “no” (wu in Chinese, mu in Japanese) became one of the most popular koans of Zen, and his “yes” was forgotten. It would appear that Subhuti, too, preferred “no” to “yes.”

  The Maha Prajnaparamita Shastra says, “If the thirty-two attributes of the Mahayana are the result of karma, and the attributes of all the buddhas of the ten directions and the dharmas of the past, present, and future are not attributes, why now speak of thirty-two attributes? If even one attribute is false, how much more so thirty-two.” Answer: “There are two kinds of buddha dharmas. One is provisional, worldly truth, and the other is ultimate, final truth. In terms of provisional truth, we speak of thirty-two attributes. In terms of ultimate truth, we speak of no attributes. Thus, there are two kinds of path. The first leads beings to cultivate the path of merit. The second is the path of wisdom. Because of the path of merit, we speak of thirty-two attributes. Because of the path of wisdom, we speak of no attributes. In terms of the apparition body, we speak of thirty-two attributes. In terms of the real body, we speak of no attributes.” (29)

  Tao-ch’uan says, “Mold clay, carve wood, and paint some silk / add blue and green and gild it all with gold / but if you think the Buddha looks like this / the Goddess of Compassion will die from laughter.”

  Sheng-yi says, “When you cultivate, make sure you don’t become attached to appearances or forms. Some people practice with such diligence, they acquire powers and see lights or flowers or other wonderful forms, and they think they’re enlightened. But all such scenes are related to one’s practice and are very, very far from enlightenment. We should not become attached to anything we see. Thus, an old Zen master once said, ‘Better nothing than something fine.’”

  Textual note: In place of lakshana-sanpad (possession of attributes), Kumarajiva specifies san-shih-er hsiang (thirty-two attributes). Following the Buddha’s initial question, Kumarajiva has Subhuti replying ju-shih, ju-shih, yi san-shih-er hsiang kuan ju-lai (so it is, so it is, the Tathagata is seen by means of his thirty-two attributes). This affirmative answer is also present in the Gilgit and Stein Sanskrit editions as evam (eva) bhagaval lakshana-sanpada tathagato drashtavyah (so it is, Bhagavan, the Tathagata is seen by means of the possession of attributes). Kumarajiva and the Gilgit and Stein editions have the reverse below, where Subhuti is seen correcting himself in light of the Buddha’s response to his initial answer. Yi-ching does not include yatha ahan bhagavatas bhashitasya artham ajanami (as I understand the meaning of what the Bhagavan says). To avoid the apparent repetition of Subhuti’s answer below, Conze limits Subhuti to a simple “No, Bhagavan.” His Sanskrit text, however, includes the full answer, in the negative.

  The Buddha said, “Well done, Subhuti. Well done.

  So it is, Subhuti. It is as you claim. The Tathagata

  cannot be seen by means of the possession of

  attributes. And why not? Subhuti, if the Tathagata

  could be seen by means of the possession of

  attributes, a universal king would be a tathagata.

  Hence,
the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of

  the possession of attributes.”

  One Zen master became so fed up with his disciples’ attachment to the concepts of buddhas and buddhahood, he announced that henceforth if he spoke the word “buddha,” he would go down to the stream and wash out his mouth. One of his disciples rose to the occasion and responded, “And if you do, I will go down to the stream and wash out my ears.” Thus, as the sutra nears its conclusion, the Buddha asks Subhuti to consider the nature of buddhahood, lest bodhisattvas become attached to a goal.

  According to ancient Indian legends, a monarch was expected to appear at some future date whose rule would extend throughout the subcontinent, if not the entire world. Such a ruler was expected to have the same thirty-two auspicious bodily signs as a future tathagata. When Shakyamuni was born, the sage Asita visited the child and noted the presence of these signs and predicted the child would become either a buddha or a universal monarch. The term for such a monarch, cakravartin (wheel-turning king), was interpreted to mean someone whose chariot, and thus whose rule, was not impeded by any border.

  Asanga says, “Not by his physical body is a tathagata known. But by his dharma body does a buddha differ from a wheel-turning king.” (62) Vasubandhu comments, “Though his attributes are the result of long aeons of accumulated merit, they are not the cause but merely the precursor of enlightenment.”

  Li Wen-hui says, “If someone has not yet understood the four perceptions of self, being, life, and soul, their mind is subject to birth and death. Birth and death is the meaning of the turning wheel, while the king refers to the mind. Although a person cultivates the thirty-two pure practices, as long as their rising and falling mind keeps turning, they will never understand their perfect original mind. Thus, we cannot use the thirty-two attributes to see the Tathagata.”

  Tao-ch’uan says, “In a body of form is a body with none / the golden, perfumed, iron mountains of the cauldron-mind / every one of them belongs to me / why ask the Buddha on Vulture Peak / who is it who wields the royal sword?”

  Textual note: As noted above, Kumarajiva attributes the first half of this section to Subhuti. Neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, nor Paramartha includes sadhu sadhu subhute (well done, Subhuti. Well done). Yi-ching does not include this or the subsequent evam etat subhute, evam etad yatha vadasi (so it is, Subhuti. It is as you claim). Kumarajiva also does not include the last sentence of this section. At the end of this section, Dharmagupta, Hsuan-tsang, and Yi-ching have the following, apparently interpolated from Chapter Five: ying yi chu-hsiang fei-hsiang kuan yu ju-lai (you should look on the Tathagata by regarding his attributes as no attributes). But this is not present in any Sanskrit edition or in the translations of Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, and Paramartha, or in the Khotanese.

  The venerable Subhuti said to the Buddha,

  “As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha

  says, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the

  possession of attributes.”

  I have sometimes wondered whether the repetition of Subhuti’s answer is not a mistake by some early copyist. It is not, for example, present in four of the six Chinese translations. But perhaps Subhuti was simply saying as much as he dared, or could, say concerning the real body of the Buddha, and he was still working on the koan that is the subject of this sutra: “Can you see the Tathagata?” And “no” was as far as he got or needed to go. Meanwhile, the Avatamsaka Sutra says, “People who do not comprehend their own true nature see no buddha.”

  Asanga says, “The reward of perfect attributes results from perfect merit. The dharma body is obtained by different means.” (63)

  Thich Nhat Hanh says, “In fact, we should make just as great an effort to look for the Buddha where the thirty-two marks are absent—in stagnant water and in beggars who have leprosy. When we can see the Buddha in these kinds of places, we have a signless view of the Buddha.”

  Textual note: Neither Bodhiruci, Paramartha, Hsuan-tsang, nor Yi-ching includes this section.

  On that occasion the Buddha then spoke this gatha:

  “Who looks for me in form / who seeks me in a voice /

  indulges in wasted effort / such people see me not.”

  The Buddha usually uses gathas to summarize much longer sections of prose. Hence, the question presents itself, is this gatha meant to summarize this chapter or the whole sutra? Since this chapter is hardly long enough to require a gatha to summarize it, I suggest this gatha was meant to provide Subhuti with a synopsis of the entire sutra. Poems are much easier to memorize and hold in the mind, and this particular poem is the Buddha’s answer to Subhuti concerning the observations that gave rise to his initial set of questions. Subhuti saw the Buddha going about his daily round, was awestruck by the Buddha’s example, and wanted to know how he and others might follow in the Buddha’s footsteps. But the source of the Buddha’s example was not a set of moral proscriptions or meditative techniques but the perfection of wisdom. Hence, throughout this sutra, the Buddha has repeatedly come back to this question and comes back to it one last time. What is the nature of buddhahood? And why is it so important that we see the real buddha? Because the Buddha’s real body is the same as our real body. Hence, the Buddha provides us with a simple poem to keep in mind while considering this question and our own answer to it. Where is the real buddha?

  Asanga says, “Who only sees and hears him doesn’t know the Buddha. The Tathagata’s dharma body isn’t in the realm of cognition.” (64)

  Seng-chao says, “His attributes dazzle the eyes but are not his form. His sounds fill the ears but are not his voice. An apparition is not the true Buddha, nor the one who speaks the Dharma. The dharma body is pure and like space and contains no impurity or obstruction. It does not fall into the realm of sensation.” (quoted by Hung-lien)

  Hui-neng says, “The ‘me’ here refers to the inherently and essentially pure, uncreated, formless, eternally real body of all beings. If we look for buddhas in attributes or seek dharmas in sounds, our thoughts will rise and fall, and we will remain unaware of the Tathagata.”

  Tao-ch’uan says, “If you don’t search for the Tathagata in sound or see him in form, how can you find him? Don’t ask. Don’t ask. My song goes: ‘Seeing forms and hearing sounds is normal in the world / a layer of frost on a layer of snow / if you want to meet the golden sage / enter the sanctum of Maya’s womb.’ Hey! After thirty years, throw these words on the ground, and hear the sound of gold.” (The Buddha’s Enlightenment occurred thirty years from the date of his conception in his mother’s womb.)

  Thich Nhat Hanh says, “When we first learn to meditate, we may visualize the Buddha with his thirty-two special marks. But once our wounds are healed, we should leave those images and see the Buddha in birth, sickness, old age, and death. Nirvana is made of the same substance as attachment, and awakening of the same substance as ignorance. We should be able to sow the seeds of awakening right here on Earth and not just in empty space. The beautiful lotus grows out of the mud. Without afflictions and suffering, we cannot make a Buddha.”

  Hsuan-hua says, “Once Maha Maudgalyayana wanted to see how far the Buddha’s voice carried, so he used his spiritual powers and went as far east as he could. He passed through thousands and ten thousands and millions of buddha lands. But even when he had traveled that great distance, the Buddha’s voice was still as clear as if he were speaking Dharma right in his ear. This is a case of searching for the Buddha in sound.”

  Sheng-yi says, “Form itself contains no suffering. It is attachment that contains suffering.”

  Textual note: The third line of the first gatha, mithya-prahana-prasrita, has been interpreted by Chinese translators (and thus by Chinese commentators) as shih-jen hsing hsieh-tao / ch’i hsieh-kuan/lu hsieh-tuan (this person follows a wrong path / gives birth to erroneous views/travels a dead-end). A second gatha is present in all editions consulted, except those of Kumarajiva and Aurel Stein: “By the Dharma is the Buddha seen / all teach
ers rely on the dharma body / but dharma nature shall not be known / nor can it be known.”

  Most commentators are of the opinion that its omission in the editions of Stein and Kumarajiva coupled with the appearance of such terms as dharma-kaya (dharma body) and dharmata (dharma nature), which appear nowhere else in this sutra, suggest it was added later. Hence, I have omitted it. A variant form of the first gatha, attributed to Lavana Bhadrika, is also found in the Theragatha (469). Thus, some scholars suggest that the Diamond Sutra is quoting here from the Theragatha. But it is just as likely the opposite is true.