The Diamond Sutra · 15 of 30
Chapter 17
Upon that occasion, the venerable Subhuti addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! if a good disciple, whether man or woman, having desired to attain to supreme spiritual wisdom, what immutable Law shall support the mind of that disciple, and bring into subjection every inordinate desire?”[1]
The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “A good disciple, whether man or woman, ought thus to habituate his mind:[2] ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life; and having become oblivious to every idea of sentient life, there is no one to whom the idea of sentient life has become oblivious.’[3] And why? Because, Subhuti, if an enlightened disciple retains within his mind such arbitrary ideas of sentient life as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality, he has not attained to supreme spiritual wisdom. And why? Because, Subhuti, there is no Law by means of which a disciple may be defined as one having obtained supreme spiritual wisdom.”[4]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? When the Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, was there bequeathed to him any Law whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! inasmuch as I am able to comprehend the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse, when the Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, there was no Law bequeathed to him whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom.”
The Lord Buddha endorsed these words, saying:[5] “Truly there is no Law by means of which the Lord Buddha obtained supreme spiritual wisdom. Subhuti, if there existed a Law by means of which the Lord Buddha obtained supreme spiritual wisdom, Dipankara Buddha would not have foretold at my initiation, ‘In future ages[6] thou shalt become Sakyamuni Buddha.’ But, in reality, there is no Law by means of which supreme spiritual wisdom can be obtained. Therefore, at my initiation, Dipankara Buddha foretold concerning me, ‘In future ages, thou shalt become Sakyamuni Buddha.’ And why? Because, in the word Buddha.[7] every Law is summarily and intelligibly comprehended.” “If a disciple affirmed that the Lord Buddha attained to supreme spiritual wisdom, it is necessary to state that there is no Law whereby this condition of mind can be realised. The supreme spiritual wisdom to which the Lord Buddha attained, cannot, in its essence, be defined as real or unreal. Thus, the Lord Buddha declared that the ordinarily accepted term, ‘the Buddhic Law,’ is synonymous with every moral and spiritual Law. Subhuti, what are ordinarily declared to be ‘systems of Law,’ are not in reality ‘systems of Law,’ they are merely termed ‘systems of Law.’”
The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “Can you imagine a man having a great physical body?” Subhuti replied, saying: “The Lord Buddha, discoursing upon the proportions of a physical body, did not maintain for these any real greatness, therefore it is merely termed ‘a great body.”’
The Lord Buddha, thereupon, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Thus it is with an enlightened disciple: if he were to expatiate after this manner, ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life,’[8] he could not be described as fully enlightened. And why? Because, there is no Law whereby a disciple can be approved as ‘fully enlightened.’[9] Therefore, the Lord Buddha declared that within the realm of spiritual Law, there is neither an entity, a being, a living being, nor a personality.”
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If an enlightened disciple were to speak in this wise, ‘I shall create numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ he could not be designated ‘fully enlightened.’ And why? Because, the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon ‘creating numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ did not affirm the idea of creating numerous ‘material’ Buddhist kingdoms, hence the ‘creation of numerous Buddhist kingdoms’ is merely a figure of speech. Subhuti, the Lord Buddha declared that a disciple may be regarded as ‘truly enlightened,’ whose mind is thoroughly imbued with the Law of non-individuality.”[10]
[1] “Let a man restraining all these remain in devotion.... For he, whose senses are under his control, possesses spiritual knowledge. Attachments to objects of sense arise in a man who meditates upon them; from attachment arises desire; from desire passion springs up; from passion comes bewilderment; from bewilderment, confusion of the memory; from confusion of the memory, destruction of the intellect; from destruction of the intellect, he perishes.”—Bhagavad-Gita. J. Cockburn Thomson.
[2] “He should thus frame his thought: all things must be delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirvana.... And why? Because, O Subhuti, there is no such thing as one who has entered on the path of the Bodhisattva.”—The Vagrakkhedika. Max Müller.
[3] “Such scenes as the following, illustrating the beliefs of the time and the locality, would not seldom occur. A wayfarer in the country of the Getæ (Jats) (Afghanistan) knocks at the door of a Brahman family. A young man within answers: ‘There is No One in this house.’ The traveller was too well taught in Buddhism not to know the meaning of this philosophical nihilism, and at once answered, ‘Who is No One?’ The young man, when he heard this, felt that he was understood. A kindred spirit was outside. Hurriedly he opened the door, and invited the stranger to enter. The visitor was the patriarch of the time (seventeenth), with staff and rice bowl, travelling to teach and make new disciples.”—Chinese Buddhism. Edkins.
[4] Most writers on the Buddhist faith and religion have occasion to refer to the series of events which culminated in the Lord Buddha obtaining “supreme enlightenment.” The founder of the Buddhist faith, dissatisfied with the practice of asceticism, and disappointed by his unfaithful disciples, walked meditatively towards the river Nairanjara, where Sujata, “the daughter of a neighbouring villager,” provided him with his morning meal. Seating himself under a sacred Bo-Tree, immediately he became engaged in the severest of mental conflicts. The Buddhist authors describe their Master as sitting “sublime,” “calm,” and “serene” throughout the sustained assault of a “visible” and wicked tempter, assisted by legions of evil spirits. So unrelenting was the fierce encounter, that the forces of nature shook and were convulsed under the dreadful onslaught. As the day advanced, the spiritual elements in Buddha’s nature gradually gained the ascendency; and when he became “fully enlightened,” there was revealed to him an antidote for human woe. The mind of the Lord Buddha thereafter assumed an aspect of perfect peace; “and in the power over the human heart of inward culture, and of love to others,” the great Teacher discovered a foundation of Truth, where, with assurance of faith, he could securely rest. As Milton regarded “Paradise” to be “regained” in the wilderness, and not on Calvary; in like manner the Buddhist poets indicate a belief that the experience of their Master under the Bo-Tree was the most eventful in his history. That is the reason they regard the Bo-Tree with a reverence resembling the Christian veneration of the Cross. (Compare Davids’ Buddhism.)
[5] Buddha said: “Right! Right! Subhuti, there is in truth no fixed Law (by which) Tathagata attained this condition. Subhuti, if there had been such a Law, then Dipankara Buddha would not have said in delivering the prediction concerning me: ‘you in after ages must attain to the state of Buddha, and your name shall be Sakyamuni,’ so that because there is indeed no fixed Law for attaining the condition of ‘the perfect heart,’ on that account it was Dipankara Buddha delivered his prediction in such words.”—Kin-Kong-King. Beal.
[6] “To the pious Buddhist it is a constant source of joy and gratitude that ‘the Buddha,’ not only then, but in many former births, when emancipation from all the cares and troubles of life was already within his reach, should again and again, in mere love for man, have condescended to enter the world, and live amidst the sorrows inseparable from finite existence.”—Buddhism. T. W. Rhys Davids.
[7] “And why, O Subhuti, the name of Tathagata? It expresses ‘true suchness.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses that ‘he had no origin.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses ‘the destruction of all qualities.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses ‘one who has no origin whatever.’ And why this? Because, O Subhuti, ‘no origin is the highest goal.’”—The Vagrakkhedika. Max Müller.
The familiar word Buddha, seems to convey to devout Buddhist minds, a meaning consonant with the ethical idea of Love, as understood generally by the followers of Christ. Within it are potential spiritual elements, which, according to their judgment, perfectly fulfil the Law. The Chinese text, Ju-Lai-che, chi-chu-fah-ru-i, may bear the following interpretation, Buddha is the One in whom all Laws become intelligible. With this particular definition before us, and bearing in mind the general substance of the Mahayana faith, we may perhaps appreciate the sense in which the distinguished missionary, Dr Richard of Shanghai, ventured to render the Chinese term Ju-Lai (Buddha), in a translation of Asvaghocha’s The Awakening of Faith, by the English synonym God. Few Christians would controvert the statement that God, is the One in whom all Laws become intelligible!
[8] “And if a Bodhisattva were to say: ‘I shall deliver all beings,’ he ought not to be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Is there anything, O Subhuti, that is called a Bodhisattva? Subhuti said: ‘Not indeed!’ Bhagavat said: ‘Those who were spoken of as beings, beings indeed, O Subhuti, they were spoken of as no beings by the Tathagata, and, therefore, they are called beings. Therefore Tathagata says: “All beings are without self, all beings are without life, without manhood, without personality.”’”—The Vagrakkhedika. Max Müller.
“Subhuti, so it is with the Bodhisatwa, if he should say: ‘I ought to destroy all recollection of the countless kinds of creatures,’ this Bodhisatwa would not be really one, but only a nominal one.... Hence Buddha says that all things ought to be without any individual distinction.”—Kin-Kong-King. Beal.
[9] “The fountain of knowledge is the pure, bright, self-enlightening mind.”—Twan-Tsi-Sin-Yao (Tang Dynasty). Compare Edkins’ Chinese Buddhism.
[10] “A Bodhisattva, O Subhuti, who believes that all things are without self, he has faith, he is called a noble-minded Bodhisattva by the holy and fully enlightened Tathagata.”—The Vagrakkhedika. Max Müller.
In the Mo-Wei-Sutra, the ordinary concepts of an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality, are referred to as blots or stains upon the mind.