Chapter 2. The Diamond Sūtra: variants of the three statements and comparisons of merit¶

I. Its origins¶

The Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, translated by Kumārajīva during the Hongshi era of the Later Qin, is the version most widely circulated in China.¹ Five other translations, by Bodhiruci, Paramārtha, Dharmagupta, Xuanzang, and Yijing, bring the total to six. Yijing's version is titled The Buddha's Discourse on the Perfection of Wisdom That Cuts the Diamond.²

The Sanskrit title is Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā. Vajra means "diamond," and cchedikā means "that which can cut." The title means cutting the diamond with prajñā. The diamond is what is cut, not the instrument that cuts. Kumārajīva's rendering, "Diamond Prajñāpāramitā," permits both readings at the level of its wording. Chinese readers have consequently tended to take it as referring to the diamond's hardness and sharpness, its ability to break through anything. Yijing's addition of the two characters 能断, "can cut," is precisely intended to mark this order.

Commonly circulated versions have thirty-two sections, each with a heading, such as "Section 1. The occasion of the Dharma assembly" and "Section 2. Subhūti's request." These thirty-two divisions do not appear in the body of Kumārajīva's version in the Taishō canon. They are traditionally said to have been added by Xiao Tong, Crown Prince Zhaoming of the Liang. The attribution is extremely widespread, but no evidence for it has been found in pre-Tang documents. It is left in doubt here.³

The earliest surviving printed book with an explicit date is the Diamond Sūtra scroll printed by Wang Jie in the ninth year of Xiantong (868), found at Dunhuang and now held by the British Library.⁴ That a sūtra became one of the earliest objects of mass printing at the outset of woodblock technology is itself corroborating evidence of the scale of its circulation.

II. What it actually says¶

There is only one question. The whole sūtra begins with a question from Subhūti. Its wording differs slightly between two occurrences. One reads 云何应住？云何降伏其心？; the other reads 应云何住？云何降伏其心？. Both ask, "How should one abide? How should one subdue one's mind?"¹ The difference in word order does not change the question. Where should someone who has aroused the aspiration to unsurpassed complete awakening place the mind, and how should that person bring it under control? The whole sūtra repeatedly answers this question.

The answer performs only one act. From beginning to end, the Buddha's answer performs the same act on different objects. On liberating sentient beings, "Though immeasurable, innumerable, boundless sentient beings are thus brought to liberation, in reality, no sentient being attains liberation."¹ On giving, "A bodhisattva should give without abiding in any dharma."¹ On seeing the Buddha, "Whatever marks there are, all are false and deceptive. If one sees all marks as nonmarks, then one sees the Tathāgata."¹ All three passages do the same thing. They acknowledge the act as valid in conventional discourse while cancelling the reading of its object as really existent by intrinsic nature.

The so-called three statements are a family of formulations. The most frequent expression of this act in the sūtra is the sentence pattern that later readers called the "three statements." What matters is that it does not have just one formulation in the text. It has the following five.

The five formulations coexist, and 即, "precisely," and 则, "then," both occur. Commonly circulated versions often change every 则非 to 即非, so that readers see a uniform pattern. In the Taishō text, however, 则非 and 即非 are both used, and two passages omit "is named" and proceed directly to a judgment. If this pattern were a strict logical operator, such variations should not occur within the same sūtra. Since they do occur, calling it a special logic lacks support from the text. It is a repeatedly applied pragmatic format. First it takes up the other party's formulation, then cancels its interpretation in terms of real existence, and then hands the category back for continued use under the same name.

This book's reading of the format appears in Chapter 10 of Essay 18 in Part II. The three segments, "what is called X," "is precisely not X," and "is named X," operate at different levels. They reject the reading of X as really existent while preserving its force in conventional discourse.⁵ What this chapter adds is the actual textual situation. The format has not become fixed within the sūtra, and commentators have rarely accounted for the differences among its five formulations.

Two points of practical application. Two sentences in the sūtra put this act into practice. The first is "Without abiding anywhere, one should arouse the mind."¹ The first half cancels and the second arouses. The two operate at the same time, with neither preceding the other. The second is "One who is neither startled nor frightened nor afraid should be known to be exceedingly rare."¹ This gives readers a criterion. To hear this teaching without becoming startled or frightened is something rare.

Comparisons of merit occupy nearly thirty percent of the text. There are ten passages comparing merit in the sūtra. Giving the seven treasures of a trichiliocosm is worth less than upholding even a four-line verse from this sūtra and teaching it to others. Giving bodies and lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges is worth less than upholding this sūtra. Giving bodies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in each of the early, middle, and late parts of the day, for countless hundreds, thousands, myriads, and hundred-millions of kalpas, is worth less than hearing this scripture and accepting it in faith without rejection. Another passage says that those who uphold the sūtra yet "are despised by others" have "sinful karman from past lives that should cause them to fall into bad destinies." Because they are despised in this life, that past sinful karman is eliminated.¹ Together these passages occupy about thirty percent of the sūtra's main text, while the doctrinal passages occupy about sixty-five percent. In extent, the comparisons are smaller than the doctrinal portion. In density, however, they far exceed comparable texts. Counting such terms as 功德 and 福德, "merit," 受持, "uphold," 读诵, "read and recite," and 四句偈, "four-line verse," their frequency per ten thousand Chinese characters is nearly three times that in the Lotus Sūtra and twelve times that in the Saṃyuktāgama.⁶ The comparisons do not occupy the largest share of this sūtra, but they are exceptionally dense among comparable texts. Any faithful restatement must include them.

Another sentence performs a subtraction. "All worthies and sages are differentiated by unconditioned dharmas."¹ This sentence attributes differences of spiritual rank to differences in unconditioned dharmas, rather than to the quantity of conditioned meritorious deeds performed. It stands in the same sūtra alongside the comparisons of merit. Their orientations differ.

III. What it implies¶

The first implication lies in the questioner's identity. Subhūti is a śrāvaka disciple known in the Āgama and sectarian traditions as foremost in understanding emptiness. Throughout the sūtra, he asks and the Buddha answers. What the answers cancel is precisely the śrāvaka tradition's footing in names and marks. Compared with the Heart Sūtra's arrangement of having a bodhisattva teach Śāriputra, this is gentler. The questioner is a śrāvaka; the respondent is the Buddha. The Buddha himself performs the cancellation, rather than someone else imposing it on the śrāvakas.

The second implication lies in the advance rating of readers' responses. The sūtra says that those who can develop true faith in these passages have planted roots of goodness not under just one or two Buddhas. It also says that those who hear this teaching and are "neither startled nor frightened nor afraid" are exceedingly rare.¹ This brings both acceptance and nonacceptance within the sūtra's own explanation. Believers have roots from past lives; unbelief too has been anticipated. Such an arrangement makes the text difficult for external doubt to reach.

The third implication lies in the opposing orientations of the comparisons of merit and the sūtra's doctrine. The text's claims are that there is no attainment, that one abides nowhere, and that in reality no sentient being attains liberation. The comparison passages, by contrast, speak of merit that can be measured, compared, and accumulated. Their terms of comparison grow ever larger, from the seven treasures of a trichiliocosm to bodies and lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, then to countless hundreds, thousands, myriads, and hundred-millions of kalpas. A sūtra that teaches unattainability explains its own value in measurable terms. This need not constitute self-contradiction. The comparisons are language that encourages people to uphold the text; the doctrinal passages are the content to be upheld. They serve two different functions. But the sūtra does not explain that distinction. Readers encounter two orientations juxtaposed within a single text.

The fourth implication lies in the advance incorporation of adversity. According to the sūtra, being despised while upholding it is no evidence that upholding it fails to work. It is evidence that sinful karman from past lives is being eliminated.¹ This arrangement prevents empirical counterevidence from being established. It is very common in religious literature, and deserves to be identified. Its prevalence is no reason to pass over it.

The fifth implication lies in the subtraction performed by the sentence on unconditioned dharmas. If differences of spiritual rank lie in unconditioned dharmas, the various acts on the conditioned side do not constitute the basis of higher and lower rank. The sūtra does not mediate the tension between this sentence and the comparisons of merit.

IV. Where it might lead people¶

First, "Without abiding anywhere, one should arouse the mind" is read as an instruction for meditation. Huineng awakened through this sentence, and Chan has relied on it ever since, as discussed in Essay 10 of Part I of this volume.⁷ In the sūtra's context, however, the sentence answers Subhūti's question about where the mind should abide. It says that when bodhisattvas arouse their aspiration, they should not grasp at form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas. It is a rule for arousing the mind, not a method of practice. Later use of it as a formula for seated meditation changes its purpose. This does not count as a misunderstanding of the doctrine, but it leads readers to think that the sūtra contains a complete method of practice, which it does not.

Second, "Whatever marks there are, all are false and deceptive" is read as saying that the world is a hallucination. The sentence's second half reads, "If one sees all marks as nonmarks, then one sees the Tathāgata."¹ Taken together, the two halves say that one cannot grasp the Tathāgata by relying on marks. They do not say that marks do not exist. The two Chinese characters 虚妄 carry a sense of deception. From this, readers infer something real behind the marks, and turn to expecting something truly permanent apart from them. This route has already been discussed in Essay 5 of Part I of this volume.⁸ A textual variant also deserves notice. Kumārajīva's Taishō version reads 则见如来, "then one sees the Tathāgata," while commonly circulated versions read 即见如来, using 即 in place of 则. Quotations elsewhere in this book likewise follow the circulating version's 即. Here 则 and 即 have the same meaning. This is another example of the coexistence of 即 and 则 noted in Section II.

Third are the six "likes" and the nine similes. Kumārajīva's final passage reads, "All conditioned dharmas are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow, like dew and like lightning. One should contemplate them thus."¹ These are conventionally known as the six "likes." Yijing's version reads, "All conditioned dharmas are like a star, a defect of vision, a lamp, an illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud. One should contemplate them thus."² It has nine similes, agreeing with the surviving Sanskrit text. The number six comes from Kumārajīva's translation, not from the sūtra's original form. The fixed formula of the six "likes" in China, extending even to the naming of pavilions and collected writings, rests on one translation's choice.

Fourth, "abiding nowhere" is read as requiring no responsibility. When the sūtra says to abide in no dharma, it means not grasping at the marks of what one does. At the same time, it says that bodhisattvas should liberate immeasurable sentient beings, give, and uphold, read, and recite the text. What is cancelled is the grasping of an action's objects as really existent. The action itself is not cancelled. But when the three Chinese characters 无所住, "abiding nowhere," circulate on their own, they are readily taken to mean going along with conditions in everything, with no preference either way. Later Chan repeatedly identified this as an abuse, as discussed in Essay 10 of Part I of this volume.⁷

References¶