THE
DIAMOND SUTRA
(CHIN-KANG-CHING)
OR
PRAJNA-PARAMITA
TRANSLATED FROM THE CHINESE
WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
BY
WILLIAM GEMMELL
金剛經
LONDON
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÜBNER & CO., LTD.
BROADWAY HOUSE, 68–74 CARTER LANE, E.C.
1912
THIS VOLUME
IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED TO
MY FRIEND
WILLIAM NIVEN, Esq.,
BY
THE AUTHOR.
PREFACE
This English version of _The Diamond Sutra_,[1] translated from the
Chinese text of Kumarajiva, owes its inception to successive
conversations with a friend, profoundly interested in the
interpretation of oriental systems of philosophy. During those
conversations renderings into English were made of numerous passages
from the works of Confucius, Mencius, and Lao-Tsz.
Having surveyed briefly those fertile fields of thought, we passed, by
a natural transition, into the delectable Buddhist realm. Some
passages from the _Chinese Sutras_, comprising texts and annotations,
were consecutively examined, and variously considered. Eventually it
was suggested that _The Diamond Sutra_, perhaps one of the most
metaphysical of the works ascribed to Buddha, be conveniently rendered
into the English language.
In order that the rather unfamiliar text might assume due
intelligibility, parallel passages and numerous annotations were
subjoined, as the pleasant work of translating proceeded. The idea of
printing and publishing the text seemed to follow as a natural sequence.
Already there exist in the English language, renderings of _The Diamond
Sutra_ from the Sanscrit by Max Müller, and from the Chinese by Beal.
This new version does not seek to enter into rivalry with those
erudite works; and a possible apology which might readily be offered
for the publication of this modest volume is, that the scholarly
productions of Müller and Beal, in their present forms, are perhaps
slightly inaccessible to the general English reader.
It would appear that the peculiar charm of the Buddhist philosophy,
and the remarkable purity of the Buddhist faith, are becoming more
generally appreciated in Europe. Should this imperfect rendering of
_The Diamond Sutra_, even in the faintest degree, confirm this just
sense of appreciation, or prove a gentle incentive to further enquiry,
then its unexpected publication may prove to be not entirely
unjustified.
In recording our many obligations to those scholars whose works were
frequently consulted, we also give expression to a hope that nothing
of importance is omitted which ought to be gratefully acknowledged.
It may also be permissible to express admiration of the piety, and
appreciation of the friendship, of those learned monks in Central
China, to whom we are everlastingly indebted for even a slight
initiation into those inexhaustible truths, which are alike the
heritage, and the glory, of the disciples of Buddha. Amongst those we
should like to specify are Chang-Ming, the chief monk (Seng-Kwan) of
Chen-Chou prefecture, Hu-Nan, and the aged and affectionate Chioh-Hsien.
WM. GEMMELL.
POLLOKSHIELDS, GLASGOW,
_6th September_ 1912.
[1] A learned Chinese commentator thus explained the rather striking
title: “As the diamond exceeds all other precious gems in brilliance
and indestructibility; so, also, does the wisdom of _The Diamond Sutra_
transcend, and shall outlive, all other knowledge known to philosophy.”
INTRODUCTION
_The Diamond Sutra_ is one of the most valued and widely read
philosophical works in Buddhist literature. It is very popular amongst
ardent Buddhists in China, and excepting the _Lotus of the Good Law_,
and the _Leng-Yen-Ching_,[1] perhaps no other Sutra ascribed to Buddha
is regarded by the Chinese with so great esteem.
In Japan, _The Diamond Sutra_ appears to be perused extensively by
what Max Müller[2] termed the Shin-Gon sect, founded by Ko-Bo, a
disciple of the renowned pilgrim Hiuen-Tsang, about the year 816 A.D.
_The Diamond Sutra_ was written originally in Sanscrit, and in process
of time translated into the Tibetan, Chinese, Mongol, and Manchu
languages. It represents the Mahayana school of Buddhist thought, a
school founded by Nagarjuna,[3] which flourished primarily at
Tchakuka, and thereafter influenced appreciably a considerable part of
the Buddhist Church.
In the year 1836, Csomo Körösi published an account of the Tibetan
translation, which interesting document may be consulted in Vol. XX.
of the _Asiatic Researches_. _The Diamond Sutra_ is therein designated
“The Sutra of Wonderful Effects,” a treatise by means of which
Sakyamuni Buddha instructs Subhuti, one of his conspicuous disciples,
in _The Prajna-Paramita_ of transcendent wisdom.[4]
To Kumarajiva,[5] a native of Kashmir, who gained distinction as a
monk of the later Chin dynasty[6] (A.D. 384–417), is conceded the
honour of having first translated _The Diamond Sutra_ into the Chinese
language. Of subsequent Chinese translations, perhaps the most
noteworthy is the text ascribed to the scholarly _Hiuen-Tsang_, and
completed about the middle of the seventh century.[7]
A rendering into English of Kumarajiva’s Chinese translation was
accomplished by the Rev. S. Beal, and published in The _Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society_, 1864–65. The text and German translation of
the Tibetan version were published in 1873 by M. Schmidt, in _The
Mémoires de l’Académie St Pétersbourg_. The Mongolian translation was
presented by the Baron de Constadt to the library of the Institut de
France. The Manchu translation is in the possession of M. de Harlez,
who, with the aid of the Tibetan, Manchu, and Chinese versions,
published a French translation of the Sanscrit text of _The Diamond
Sutra_ in the _Journal Asiatique_, 1892.[8] It has been observed[9]
that “at first sight it may seem as if this metaphysical treatise
hardly deserved the world-wide reputation which it has attained.”
Regarding this descriptive “world-wide reputation,” devout Buddhists
might suggest in extenuation, that throughout many centuries, the
“spiritual wisdom” of _The Diamond Sutra_ produced in countless minds
a “conscious blessedness of perfect peace.” This “spiritual wisdom”
also appeared to be a “strong incentive to holiness,” and a grateful
inspiration to those who had entered “the path which leads to
Nirvana.” In a few renowned monasteries of Central China, our Buddhist
friends frequently affirmed that, by contemplating the “spiritual
wisdom” of _The Diamond Sutra_, the mind would inevitably become
“transfused with the mellow light of imperishable truth.”
In the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_, Max Müller made a critical
observation regarding certain peculiarities of “‘style’ adopted in
this treatise by the Buddhist philosophers who wished to convince
their hearers of the truth of their philosophy.” From the Sanscrit
text, perhaps it is difficult to realise fully what Asvaghocha[10]
described as the “persuasiveness of Buddha’s eloquence”;[11] yet we may
quite appreciate the academic instinct of Kumarajiva, whose work on
_The Diamond Sutra_ bears evidence of a laudable endeavour to produce
a classic, which in the Chinese language is almost entirely beyond
reproach.
In all our aspirations to translate or to interpret Buddhist texts,
perhaps it might prove advantageous to bear in mind the significant
words incorporated in the _Light of Asia_:—
“And time hath blurred their script and ancient sense,
Which once was new and mighty, moving all.”
Max Müller stated[12] that _The Diamond Sutra_ represents a treatise on
“metaphysical agnosticism,” and he excused its “endless repetition of
the same process of reasoning” on the assumption, that the
subject-matter of the _Sutra_ was probably “perfectly familiar to
children and ignorant persons.”
By referring to our Chinese text, we are led to suppose that _The
Diamond Sutra_ was “delivered expressly for those who had entered the
Path which leads to Nirvana,” and for those who are “attaining to the
ultimate plane of Buddhic thought.” Our Chinese annotators also appear
to be unanimous in suggesting, that the “spiritual wisdom” of _The
Diamond Sutra_ is understood only in its rudimentary forms, by those
of immature or uninitiated mind.
Concerning what has been termed the “agnosticism” of _The Diamond
Sutra_, Sakyamuni Buddha, when he admissibly delivered the text,
indicated clearly that there is a sense in which the “highest perfect
knowledge”[13] may be referred to as “unknown.” Dante appears to have
had a similar difficulty regarding “knowledge” and “power” wherewith
to express the higher forms of spiritual experience; and the following
lines, constituting the opening stanzas of _The Paradiso_, may serve
to elucidate the Buddhist position, and make it perhaps more
intelligible to those who are as yet unfamiliar with its peculiar
modes of thought:—
_“La gloria di colui che tutto move
Per l’universo penetra, e risplende
In una parte più, e meno altrove.”_
_“Nel ciel che più della sua luce prende
Fu’io; e vidi cose che ridire
Nè sa nè può qual di lassù discende;”_
_“Perchè, appressando sè al suo disire,
Nostro intelletto[14] si profonda tanto,
Che retro la memoria non può ire.”_[15]
In order to appreciate fully the philosophy of _The Diamond Sutra_,
doubtless it is necessary to interpret aright the meaning of the
Buddhist terminology. In this connection, the Sanscrit Dharma—usually
rendered into Chinese by “Fah,” and into English by “Law”—appears to
merit our immediate attention.
Max Müller, with his ample knowledge, stated that Dharma, “in the
ordinary Buddhist phraseology, may be correctly rendered by Law; and
thus the whole teaching of Buddha is named _Saddharma_—‘The Good Law.’
What _The Diamond Sutra_ wishes to teach is that all objects,
differing one from the other by their Dharmas, are illusive, or as we
should say, phenomenal and subjective, that they are, in fact, of our
own making, the products of our own mind.” With those noteworthy
observations, there is embodied in the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_,
the following interesting suggestion, that the Greek εῖδος—whatever is
seen, form, shape, figure—appears to be the equivalent of the Sanscrit
Dharma.
Spence Hardy, a distinguished writer on Buddhism, made a suggestion of
perhaps equal importance, with reference to the correct interpretation
of Dharma. In his well-known volume _Eastern Monachism_, there occurs
the following relevant passage: “The second of the three great
treasures is called Dhammo, or in Singhalese Dharmma. This word has
various meanings, but is here to be understood in the sense of _truth_.”
Rhys Davids in his useful volume _Buddhism_, indicated that “Dharma
(Pali Dhamma) is not law, but that which underlies and includes the
law—a word often most difficult to translate, but best rendered here
by Truth and Righteousness.”[16]
Perhaps it may be opportune to remark, that had Kumarajiva regarded
“form,” “truth,” or “righteousness,” as expressing adequately the
Sanscrit Dharma, these familiar terms being obviously at his command,
might have been utilised at pleasure. Like the cultured Asvaghocha,
Kumarajiva may have regarded the “nature” of the Law as “co-extensive
with the illimitable ocean of being”;[17] and within that ample
compass, perhaps he thought there might synthetically be included
those beautifully-defined concepts “form,” “truth,” and “righteousness.”
Chinese annotators of _The Diamond Sutra_ seldom criticise adversely
its classic terminology, or suggest many inapplicable alternative
renderings. They appear to have surveyed the realm of “spiritual
wisdom” enunciated by Sakyamuni Buddha, and thereafter to have become
greatly impressed by the thought that, in its _Essence_, it might
possibly be inexhaustible. This may in part explain their motive for
incorporating in the commentary a familiar passage from _Lao-Tsz_,
“Infinite truth is inexpressible”[18]—which in a measure illustrates
the appreciable difficulty of stating, in exact terms of philosophy,
the equivalent of the Buddhic “Law.”
In our intercourse with Buddhist monks, we heard the rather engaging
suggestion, that the familiar Christian phrase, “the law of the spirit
of life,” contains a spiritual concept which appears to approximate
closely to the idea of the “Law” of Buddha. Those monks seemed to
believe that the “Law”[19] enters quietly and operates imperceptibly
within every natural and spiritual sphere; and that they have at least
a semblance of reason for their belief, the following exquisite lines
clearly indicate:—
_“This is its touch upon the blossomed rose,
The fashion of its hand shaped lotus-leaves.”_
_“That is its painting on the glorious clouds,
And these its emeralds on the peacock’s train.”_
_“Out of the dark it wrought the heart of man,
Out of dull shells the pheasant’s pencilled neck.”_
_“It spreadeth forth for flight the eagle’s wings
What time she beareth home her prey.”_
_“This is its work upon the things ye see
The unseen things are more; men’s hearts and minds,
The thoughts of peoples and their ways and wills,
Those, too, the great Law binds.”_[20]
As we consider the manifold operations of this “Law which moves to
righteousness,” perhaps we may gradually appreciate the dignified mind
of Sakyamuni, when he addressed Subhuti, saying: “What is usually
referred to as the ‘Law’ of Buddha, is not in reality a ‘Law’
attributive to Buddha, it is merely termed the ‘Law’ of Buddha.”[21]
The Sanscrit term Samgna,[22] usually rendered into Chinese by “Ming”
and into English by “Name,” seems to deserve our further attention.
Like the term Dharma, a clear knowledge of “Samgna” is indispensable
for a correct understanding of our text.
In one of the opening passages of _The Diamond Sutra_, we find that
Sakyamuni Buddha, in reply to an enquiry by Subhuti, suggests that by
means of this “wisdom,” enlightened disciples shall be enabled to
bring into subjection every inordinate desire.
“_Every species of life, whether hatched in the egg, formed in the
womb, evolved from spawn, produced by metamorphosis, with or without
form or intelligence, possessing or devoid of natural instinct—from
these changeful conditions of being I command you to seek deliverance
in the transcendental concept of Nirvana. Thus you shall obtain
deliverance from the idea of an immeasurable, innumerable, and
illimitable world of sentient life; but, in reality there is no idea
of a world of sentient life from which to obtain deliverance. And why?
Because, in the mind of an enlightened disciple, there have ceased to
exist such arbitrary ideas of phenomena as an entity, a being, a
living being, or a personality._”
A similar process of reasoning appears to permeate the whole of _The
Diamond Sutra_, and whether appertaining to a living being,[23] a
virtue,[24] a condition of mind,[25] a Buddhist kingdom,[26] or a
personal Buddha,[27] there is implied in each concept a spiritual
essence, only imperfectly described, if not entirely overlooked, in
the ordinary use of each particular name. Shakespeare enquired,
“What’s in a name?” and in a thought inspired by the rose and its
delicious fragrance, suggested with Buddha, that there is little, or
nothing, in a name which explains the real nature of an object. Even a
“particle of dust” seems, to the Buddhist mind, to embody in its
composition a subtle spiritual element, entirely “inscrutable,” and
quite “incomprehensible.”
According to the Mahayana School of Buddhist thought, objects and
their respective names are alike unreal and illusory. Objects and
names, in the abstract, represent merely the products of untutored and
unenlightened minds. Nothing is real, in the sense that it is
permanent. Everything appears to be subject to irrevocable Laws of
change and decay. As the things which we see are temporal, it is
essential for our intellectual development, that we focus our thoughts
upon the things which are Unseen and Eternal. Many minds are
susceptible of deception by the fleeting phenomena of life; but behind
these phenomena there is an essential element, entirely spiritual,[28]
uninfluenced by arbitrary ideas or changeful conditions, which
“pervades all things,” and is “pure” and “unchanging.”
Perhaps it might prove of interest to quote the following outline of
Mahayana doctrine[29] prepared by Mr S. Kuroda, which was approved by
several influential Buddhist communions in Japan, “and published with
authority at Tokyo in 1893”:—
“All things that are produced by causes and conditions are inevitably
destined to extinction. There is nothing that has any reality; when
conditions come things begin to appear, when conditions cease these
things likewise cease to exist. Like the foam of the water, like the
lightning flash,[30] and like the floating, swiftly vanishing clouds,
they are only of momentary duration. As all things have no constant
nature of their own, so there is no actuality in pure and impure,
rough and fine, large and small, far and near, knowable and
unknowable, etc. On this account it is sometimes said that all things
are nothing. The apparent phenomena around us are, however, produced
by mental operations within us, and thus distinctions are
established....”
“All things are included under subject and object. The subject is an
entity in which mental operations are awakened whenever there are
objects, while the object consists of all things, visible and
invisible, knowable and unknowable, etc. The subject is not something
that occupies some space in the body alone, nor does the object exist
outside of the subject....”[31]
“The various phenomena which appear as subjects and objects are
divided into two kinds:—the perceptible and knowable, the
imperceptible and unknowable.... Now, what are the imperceptible and
unknowable phenomena?”
“Through the influence of habitual delusions, boundless worlds,
innumerable varieties of things spring up in the mind. This boundless
universe and these subtle ideas are not perceptible and knowable;[32]
only Bodhisattvas[33] believe, understand, and become perfectly
convinced of these through the contemplation of Vidyamatara[34] (all
things are nothing but phenomena in mind); hence they are called
imperceptible and unknowable. What are the perceptible and knowable
phenomena?”
“Not knowing that these imperceptible and unknowable phenomena are the
productions of their own minds, men from their habitual delusions
invest them with an existence outside of mind, as perceptible mental
phenomena, as things visible, audible, etc. These phenomena are called
perceptible and knowable.”
“Though there are thus two kinds, perceptible and imperceptible
phenomena, they occur upon the same things, and are inseparably bound
together even in the smallest particle. Their difference in appearance
is caused only by differences, both in mental phenomena and in the
depth of conviction. Those who know only the perceptible things,
without knowing the imperceptible, are called the unenlightened by
Buddha....”
“In contradistinction to the fallacious phenomena, there is the true
Essence of Mind. Underlying the phenomena of mind, there is an
unchanging principle which we call essence of mind.... The essence of
mind is the entity without ideas and without phenomena, and is always
the same. It pervades all things, and is pure and unchanging.... The
essence and the phenomena of mind are inseparable; and as the former
is all-pervading and ever-existing, so the phenomena occur everywhere
and continually, wherever suitable conditions accompany it. Thus the
perceptible and imperceptible phenomena are manifestations of the
essence of mind that, according to the number and nature of
conditions, develop without restraint. All things in the universe,
therefore, are mind itself.”
“By this we do not mean that all things combine into a mental unity
called mind, nor that all things are emanations from it, but that,
without changing their places or appearance, they are mind itself
everywhere. Buddha saw this truth and said that the whole universe was
his own. Hence it is clear that where the essence of mind is found,
and the necessary conditions accompany it, the phenomena of mind never
fail to appear.... Though there is a distinction between the essence
and the phenomena of mind, yet they are nothing but one and the same
substance, that is, _mind_. So we say that there exists nothing but
mind. Though both the world of the pure and impure, and the generation
of all things, are very wide and deep, yet they owe their existence to
our mind.”
Perhaps we might appropriately indicate that however interesting, or
even fascinating, may be the nice distinction between _mind_ and
_essence of mind_, in relation to phenomena, so far as we are aware,
the distinction may be implied, but is never precisely stated, in the
text of _The Diamond Sutra_. Nevertheless, we may readily appreciate
the subtle intellectual movement, which endeavours to distinguish
clearly between the phenomena of mind, and an unchanging principle
underlying it, capable of being defined as Essence of Mind. Yet we
have a notion that our Japanese Buddhist friends intuitively find in
their beautiful concept, infinitely more of a purely spiritual nature,
than they attempt to express by the mere metaphysical term. Doubtless
they have frequently applied to it the incisive logic of Sakyamuni
Buddha, and found simultaneously, that what is ordinarily referred to
as “essence of mind,” is not in reality “essence of mind,” it is
merely termed “essence of mind.”[35]
The term Buddha, as defined in _The Diamond Sutra_, seems to merit a
brief consideration. In fulfilment of our present purpose, it seems
almost unnecessary to enter into questions regarding the historical
Buddha, or to the authenticity of Sutras ascribed to his genius.
Therefore, without indicating any particular reservation, we meantime
accept the traditional statements that the Buddha of _The Diamond
Sutra_ was the son of Suddhodana, the husband of Yasodhara, and the
father of Rahula. But, incorporated with the text, there is embodied
in the familiar term Buddha, a lofty spiritual concept, which seems to
place it in a category where fresh interest is imparted to the
question of its interpretation.
Concluding the twenty-sixth chapter of _The Diamond Sutra_, wherein
“the spiritual[36] body is entirely differentiated from external
phenomena” Sakyamuni, in reply to an enquiry regarding the possibility
of perceiving “Buddha” by means of his bodily distinctions, delivered
the following remarkable Gatha[37]:—
_I am not to be perceived by means of any visible form,
Nor sought after by means of any audible sound;
Whosoever walks in the way of iniquity,
Cannot perceive the blessedness of the Lord Buddha._[38]
In the twenty-ninth chapter of _The Diamond Sutra_, wherein is
expounded “the majesty of the absolute,” Sakyamuni declared that a
disciple who affirms that “Buddha” comes or goes, obviously has not
understood the meaning of his instruction. Because, as we learn from
our text, the idea “Buddha” implies neither coming from anywhere, nor
going to anywhere. This purely spiritual concept of Buddha seems to
have seized the imagination, and inspired the writer of the
_Yuen-Chioh Sutra_,[39] to whom are ascribed the following significant
lines:—
“_Like drifting clouds, like the waning moon, like ships that sail the
ocean, like shores that are washed away—these are symbolic of endless
change. But the blessed Buddha, in his essential, absolute nature, is
changeless and everlasting._”
Again, in the seventeenth chapter of _The Diamond Sutra_, it is
declared that in the word “Buddha,” every Law is intelligibly
comprehended.[40] To Western minds, it might become necessary to resist
a natural inclination to ascribe to those elements of thought, an
influence which had its inception in a nation other than the
Indian.[41] But, lest we should appear to detract from the native glory
of Sakyamuni Buddha, perhaps it might prove opportune to remark, that
there is sufficient evidence in the ancient Vedic hymns, Upanishads,
etc., to indicate clearly the probable starting-points in the
evolution of his thought. It seems to be to the everlasting honour of
some early Indian philosophers, that they endeavoured carefully to
combine in an abstract spiritual unity, all the essential elements
usually comprehended under the term “Divinity.”[42] This may in a
manner explain why the devout Buddhist, possessing a natural mental
tendency—induced by persistent Hindoo influence—is enabled to regard
“Buddha”[43] in a purely spiritual sense, as the One[44] in whom all
Laws are comprehended and become perfectly intelligible.
In _The Diamond Sutra_ it may be observed that incidental reference is
made by Sakyamuni Buddha to the doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation.
It seems to be an old truth to which expression is given in the
_Epistle to the Galatians_: “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he
also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap
life everlasting.”[45]
To the Buddhist mind, Karma is indissolubly associated with “the Law
which moves to Righteousness.” Thus it is accustomed to view the
traditional Christian idea of “justification by Faith,” rather as a
devoutly-conceived theory, than as a reasonably-constructed truth.
Occasionally we have heard a gentle affirmation, that the Western mind
seems unwittingly inclined to confound the doctrine of Karma with a
concept which is almost suggestive of Fatalism. If Karma contains even
a germ of thought which corresponds to “blind fatalism,” the idea is
perhaps quite felicitously expressed in the following sentences,
culled from a valued letter written by an aged Chinese monk: “Karma is
a universal Law which gently binds us to the rhythmic cycle of
evolving life. It operates so quietly and imperceptibly that we
scarcely are conscious of its presence. The absolute truth of Karma
greatly attracts our minds, which approve naturally of its consummate
justice and perfect righteousness.”
Those ideas of “consummate justice” and “perfect righteousness,” seem
to be faithfully portrayed in the following quotation, gleaned from
_The Light of Asia_:—
“_What hath been bringeth what shall be, and is,
Worse—better—last for first and first for last:
The Angels in the Heavens of Gladness reap
Fruits of a holy past._”
It would therefore appear that Karma may be regarded generally, as
comprising the constituent moral elements derived consecutively from
the thoughts, words, and actions of an interminable life’s cycle.
Perhaps it is in this connection that Chinese Buddhists frequently
assume Karma to resemble “a moral fibre, indissolubly entwined in
sentient life.” It may be believed to recede far into the past, and to
extend indefinitely into the future.
Although realising the significance of Karma,[46] the devout Buddhist
mind is not usually disturbed by fearful forebodings. Ostensibly, it
has evolved to a condition of holiness, wherein “the dross of sin” is
entirely consumed in the “white flames” of Sakyamuni’s “transcendent
wisdom” and “boundless love.”
Within the realm of Buddhist philosophy, the doctrine of
reincarnation is conspicuous by reason of its peculiarly attractive
charms. On first acquaintance, the European mind may be somewhat
“startled” to discover, that a satisfactory explanation of the
interminable evolution of life, is sought for by the earnest Buddhist
in the theory of reincarnation.
In the text of _The Diamond Sutra_, it may be observed that Sakyamuni
Buddha, in discoursing to Subhuti, referred incidentally to personal
reminiscences, one of which belonged to a distant period of five
hundred incarnations.
According to the text of _The Light of Asia_, the spiritual
consciousness of Sakyamuni Buddha extended to a period even more
remote, as may be judged by these remarkable lines:—
“_I now remember, myriad rains ago,
What time I roamed Himâla’s hanging woods._”
In considering briefly the doctrine of reincarnation, perhaps it might
readily be conceded to our Buddhist friends, that there were
exemplified in the Founder of their faith, a wonderful potency of
intellect, and a marvellous degree of spiritual intuition. Quite
agreeable, also, may be the suggestion, that this potency of intellect
might become intensified, and probably “rendered subjective,” by
“ascetic exercises,” abstract contemplation, and “determined effort.”
Spence Hardy indicated in _Eastern Monachism_ that the Buddhist mind
conceives of “spiritual powers” arising from the aforementioned
“potency of intellect” and “spiritual intuition,” which in other
systems of religion are usually regarded as partaking of the nature of
“Divinity.” If it be admitted that those potential “powers” are
probably susceptible of affiliation with the Divine Spirit, then the
way of approach to an understanding of the Buddhist theory of
intuition becomes, perhaps, tolerably clear. Concrete knowledge
acquired by intuition, appears to assure our Buddhist friends of the
_fact_ of reincarnation. But they invariably refrain from a vain
attempt to _prove_ the “fact,” by an authorised—and consequently
stereotyped—process of reasoning.
The unknown Hindoo author of The _Bhagavad-Gita_ revealed in simple
phraseology the native idea of reincarnation; and suggested, happily,
an instructive theory concerning the advent of great Teachers and
Saviours in every age. To Krishna are ascribed the following sayings;—
“_Manifold the renewals of my birth
Have been.... When Righteousness
Declines, O Bharata, when Wickedness
Is strong, I rise, from age to age, and take
Visible shape, and move a man with men,
Succouring the good, thrusting the evil back,
And setting Virtue on her seat again._”
Rhys Davids justly observed that “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.”[47] Perhaps in a
more general sense the idea of reincarnation appealed strongly to the
imagination of Wordsworth, when he was inspired to write these
familiar, yet exquisite, lines:—
“_Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;
The soul that rises with us, our life’s star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting
And cometh from afar._”
Regarding the doctrines of Individuality and non-Individuality, which
characterise the text of _The Diamond Sutra_, wherein are found to
occur frequently Chinese equivalents for the ordinary concepts of an
entity, a being, a living being and a personality, the following
passage from _The Bhagavad-Gita_, suggestive almost of complete
harmony with the Buddhist doctrine, may serve to make even a cursory
consideration of the subject perhaps more illuminating. The passage,
rendered by Sir Edwin Arnold, is as follows:—
“_There is ‘true’ Knowledge, Learn it thou in this:
To see one changeless Life in all the Lives,
And in the Separate, One Inseparable.
There is imperfect Knowledge: that which sees
The separate existences apart,
And, being separated, holds them real._”
As Nirvana is only referred to casually in _The Diamond Sutra_, that
familiar Buddhist term hardly calls for any present detailed
explanation. Within a brief compass probably no better explanation may
be forthcoming than what is already given in this concise exposition
gathered from _The Light of Asia_:—
“_If any teach Nirvana is to cease,
Say unto such they lie.
If any teach Nirvana is to live,
Say unto such they err; not knowing this,
Nor what light shines beyond their broken lamps,
Nor lifeless, timeless bliss._”
In concluding, it might be opportune to observe, that the
_Werthurtheile_,[48] known amongst modern theologians as characterising
the teaching of Albrecht Ritschl—sounds, upon intimate acquaintance,
merely as a faint echo of the logic of Sakyamuni Buddha. Ritschl might
apply his _Werthurtheile_ to the presumed interpretation of a
“miracle,” etc. Buddha suggested by his “method,” that what is
ordinarily referred to as a “miracle,” is not in _reality_ a “miracle,”
therefore it is merely _defined_ as a “miracle.” So, also, with the
various dogmas which distinguish every religious creed. By many
Chinese it is regarded as an evidence of Divinity, that in the mind of
Sakyamuni Buddha there was conceived this incisive logical method; and
amongst the learned monks, profound homage is rendered, and much
wonder expressed, because the Lord Buddha[49] did not hesitate to apply
its principles to every doctrine synonymous with his own accredited
“Law.”
[1] “The Sutra of firm establishment in all doctrine, describing
clearly the secret merit and attainments in the religious life of
Tathagata.” (Compare Edkins’ _Chinese Buddhism_.)
[2] See the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.
[3] “A native of Western India who lived as a hermit under an
Arguna tree, whence he derived his name. Converted by Kapimala,
he laboured in Southern India as the fourteenth patriarch....
He is the chief representative, if not originator, of the
Mahayana school, the greatest philosopher of the Buddhists,
and as such styled ‘one of the four suns which illuminate the
world.’ His own peculiar tenets have been perpetuated by a
distinct metaphysical school called Madhyamika (_Lit_. Juste
Milieu), the characteristics of which are a sophistic nihilism
which dissolves every proposition into a thesis and its
antithesis, and denies both. ‘The soul,’ said Nagarjuna,
‘has neither existence nor non-existence, it is neither eternal
nor non-eternal, neither annihilated by death nor
non-annihilated.’ The tenets of this school are condensed in
Nagardjuna’s commentary on the Mahaprajna Paramita S’astra. He
spent the later part of his life in a monastery at Kosala ...
(correct date probably A.D. 194). After his death he received
the title Bodhisattva. He is the author of many S’atras.”
(Compare Eitel’s _Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_.)
[4] _See_ the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.
[5] Kumarajiva was referred to as “one of the four suns of
Buddhism” (Tchatvara Suryas). He laboured in China as a most
active and judicious translator, and is credited with having
introduced a new alphabet. One of Kumarajiva’s Chinese
designations—Tung-Sheo—meant that, although young in years, he
was ripe in the wisdom and virtues of old age. (Compare Eitel’s
_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_.)
[6] Beal stated in his preface to the _Kin-Kong-King_, that “it
was translated first into the Chinese by Kumara-Jiva (A.D. 405),
who was brought into China from Thibet.”
[7] Other translations, worthy of recognition, are those
attributed respectively to Bodhiruki (A.D. 509), Paramartha (A.D.
562), Dharmagupa, of the Sui dynasty (A.D. 589–618), and I-Tsing
(A.D. 703). (Compare the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.)
[8] This information may be found in Max Müller’s
_Vagrakkhedika_, and represented, doubtless, at the period when
it was written, a considerable part of the knowledge available on
the subject.
[9] By Max Müller.
[10] The Chinese Ma-Ming.
[11] Compare the Chinese text of the Chi-Sin-Pien—_The
Awakening of Faith_.
[12] In the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.
[13] “Supreme spiritual wisdom.” In Beal’s _Kin-Kong-King_,
“The unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart.”
(Sanscrit, “_Annuttara Samyak Sambodhi Hridaya_.”)
[14] According to the text of _The Diamond Sutra_, the intellect
of Sakyamuni Buddha sank so profoundly into the past, that he was
enabled to speak confidently of his experiences in previous
incarnations. (Compare pp. 56, 57.)
[15] From the text adopted by Mr H. Oelsner, M.A., Ph.D., for
_The Temple Classics_.
[16] Dr Edkins, in his scholarly work _Chinese Buddhism_, seems
to have regarded “the Law or body of doctrine” as an accurate
definition of Dharma.
Dr Eitel, in his _Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_, explained Dharma
by “Fah”—“Law”; and observed that it is “a general term for
religious objects, especially for the Buddhistic Canon.”
Mr Vincent A. Smith, in _Asoka, Buddhist Emperor of India_,
suggested that the Chinese _Hsiao_ (piety), and the Latin Pietas,
coincide with the Sanscrit term Dharma.
[17] The Chinese phrase is “Fah-sing-chen-ru-hai.”
[18] _See_ the _Tao-Teh-Ching_. Compare, also, the statement
attributed to Confucius—“Nature and Truth cannot be adequately
expressed.”
[19] Or Dharma.
[20] Compare _The Light of Asia_. Perhaps this aspect of the “Law”
of Buddha may be conceived of as harmonising with Shakespeare’s
idea of a “Divinity.”
[21] It may be interesting to observe that, according to our
Chinese text, Sakyamuni Buddha evidently disclaimed any desire to
formulate, or to perpetuate, a stereotyped system of “Law” or
“doctrine.” Sakyamuni Buddha also made it plain, that the “Law”
which he enunciated, was presented before the minds of his
disciples in the simile of a “raft”—a thing to be abandoned when
the mind “touched the further shore” of everlasting truth. It
seems to be in this tentative sense that intellectual Buddhists
regard all ecclesiastical institutions, priesthoods, dogmas,
ordinances, etc.; and we have met monks who would classify
belief in the “efficacy” of religious rites or ceremonies, with
obnoxious forms of “heresy” and “immorality.” (Compare Rhys
Davids’ _Buddhism_.) With regard to the Buddhist objection
concerning the “efficacy” of religious “rites,” compare the noble
sentiments expressed in the following lines, delightfully
rendered by Sir Edwin Arnold from the _Bhagavad-Gita_ (_The Song
Celestial_):—
“Serenity of soul, benignity,
Sway of the silent spirit, constant stress
To sanctify the nature,—these things make
Good rite, and true religiousness of mind.”
[22] Max Müller suggests that Samgna and Dharma “correspond in many
respects to the Vedantic Namarupe”—in Chinese Ming-Seh—name,
form, or characteristic.
[23] Compare p. 86.
[24] Compare p. 55.
[25] Compare p. 80.
[26] Compare p. 76.
[27] Compare p. 95.
[28] Some modern Japanese Buddhists appear to regard this purely
spiritual element as “essence of mind.”
[29] From the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.
[30] Compare p. 110.
[31] Compare the interesting dialogue entitled _The Enlightenment
of Ananda_, in which Sakyamuni instructs his distinguished
disciple in ideas concerning the subjective and objective
phenomena of mind.
[32] Compare pp. 102, 103.
[33] Bodhisattvas—greatly enlightened disciples.
[34] _Vidya Matra Siddhi_, a philosophical work by Vasubandhu, a
native of Radjagriha, and disciple of Nagarjuna, founder of the
Mahayana school. (Compare Eitel’s _Handbook of Chinese
Buddhism_.)
[35] Compare the process of reasoning which permeates the entire
_Diamond Sutra_. We hope no injustice is done to our Japanese
friends, by applying to their beautiful concept “essence of
mind,” this familiar logical method of Sakyamuni Buddha.
[36] Fah-Shen—the Law, or spiritual body. Compare Shen-Shen, the
term usually employed in the Chinese rendering of the New
Testament Scriptures to denote the spiritual body.
[37] Gatha—usually a Scripture verse comprising four lines.
[38] Compare the following lines from _The Song Celestial_.—
“I am not known
To evil-doers, ... nor to those
Whose mind is cheated by the show of things.”
[39] In Buddhist phraseology, Yuen-Chioh means the study, by means
of contemplation, of primary spiritual causes.
[40] Compare Beal’s rendering in the Kin-Kong-King, “Tathagata is
the explanation as it were of all systems of Law.” See also _The
Book of the Manifesting of the One and Manifold_ in _The Song
Celestial_, the verse commencing:—
“Thou, of all souls the Soul!
The comprehending whole!”
In conversation with Chinese monks regarding the meaning of this
impressive passage, we found that they invariably approved of a
suggested rendering, that “Buddha is the _One_ in whom all Laws
become intelligible.”
[41] Compare the observations made by Sir Edwin Arnold in his
preface to _The Song Celestial_, regarding the date when that
famous Brahmanic poem was composed; and the gentle indication
that in its teaching may be found “echoes of the lessons of
Galilee, and of the Syrian incarnation.”
[42] An instructive exposition of this subject by J. Muir, Esq.,
entitled _The Progress of the Vedic Religion towards Abstract
Conceptions of the Deity_, may be consulted in the _Jour.
R.A.S.,_ 1864–65.
[43] In colloquial Chinese there is a noteworthy saying, that
“Buddha is simply a condition of mind.” This “condition of mind”
is beautifully expressed by a “classic” couplet, which, rendered
into English, means “as pure as the image of the moon in a
river,” and “as lovely as the bloom of a flower in a mirror”
(Shui-Li-Chï-Yüeh, Ching-Li-Chï-Wha).
[44] Compare the beautifully expressed sentiment of Akhnaton,
Pharaoh of Egypt, concerning “the One in whom all Laws are
intelligibly comprehended.” “There is no poverty for him who hath
Thee in his heart.” (See _Life and Times of Akhnaton_.)
[45] Rhys Davids, when he expounded the doctrine of Karma in
_Buddhism_, clearly indicated the Buddhist position, “that
whatever a man reaps, that he must also have sown.” Chinese
Buddhists appear to be assured, “that if a man reaps sorrow,
disappointment, pain, he himself, and no other, must at some time
have sown folly, error, sin; and if not in this life, then in
some former birth. Where then, in the latter case, is the
identity between him who sows and him who reaps? _In that which
alone remains_ when a man dies, and the constituent parts of the
sentient being are dissolved; in the result, namely, of his
action, speech, and thought, in his good or evil _Karma_
(literally his ‘doing’) which _does not_ die.”
[46] In the concept Karma, Sakyamuni Buddha suggested the
revealing of a _moral cause_ which explained the otherwise
insoluble riddle of the evident inequalities, and consequent
sufferings of life.
[47] Compare _Buddhism_.
[48] “The much-canvassed Ritschlian doctrine of the _Worth_—or
‘value-judgments,’ in which the peculiarity of religious
knowledge is supposed to lie.” For the introduction of the term
into theology we are indebted to Herrmann, _Die Religion, etc._,
and Kaftan, _Das Wesen_. _See_ Orr’s, _The Ritschlian Theology and
The Evangelical Faith_.
[49] It may be observed in this English version of _The Diamond
Sutra_, that the Chinese term _Fuh_, in deference to our Oriental
friends, is invariably rendered “Lord Buddha”—a designation
consonant with _their_ concepts of devotion and piety.
THE DIAMOND SUTRA
[Chapter 1]
Thus have I heard[1] concerning our Lord Buddha:—
Upon a memorable occasion, the Lord Buddha[2] sojourned in the kingdom
of Shravasti,[3] lodging in the grove of Jeta,[4] a park within the
imperial domain, which Jeta, the heir-apparent, bestowed upon
Sutana,[5] a benevolent Minister of State, renowned for his charities
and benefactions.
With the Lord Buddha, there were assembled together twelve hundred and
fifty mendicant disciples,[6] all of whom had attained to eminent
degrees of spiritual wisdom.
As it approached the hour for the morning meal, Lord Buddha, Honoured
of the Worlds,[7] attired himself in a mendicant’s robe,[8] and
bearing an alms-bowl in his hands, walked towards the great city of
Shravasti, which he entered to beg for food.[9] Within the city he
proceeded from door to door,[10] and received such donations as the
good people severally bestowed.[11] Concluding this religious
exercise, the Lord Buddha returned to the grove of Jeta, and partook
of the frugal meal[12] received as alms. Thereafter he divested
himself of his mendicant’s robe, laid aside the venerated
alms-bowl,[13] bathed his sacred feet, and accepted the honoured seat
reserved for him by his disciples.
[1] It is generally supposed that the familiar introductory
phrase, “Thus have I heard,” was adopted by the writers or
editors of Buddhist Sutras in order that their scriptures might
assume the same high degree of authority as the Brahmanas and the
Mantras, “as forming the ‘S’ruti’ or sacred revelation of the
followers of the Vedas.” (Compare Max Müller’s _History of
Sanscrit Literature_ and the valuable note in Beal’s
_Kin-Kong-King_)
[2] “The term (Buddha) means ‘every intelligent being who has
thrown off the bondage of sense perception and self, knows the
utter unreality of all phenomena, and is ready to enter
Nirvana.’”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.
[3] Shravasti is variously described as the city (or kingdom) of
philosophy, of good doctrine, of abundant virtue, and as the
abode of immortals. It was situated on the north bank of the
Ganges, about 200 miles above Benares. Much interesting
information regarding the sacred city Shravasti, is fortunately
preserved in the instructive records of the distinguished Chinese
pilgrims, _Fa-Hien_ and _Hiuen-Tsang_.
[4] “Prasenajit, the king of Shravasti, was very favourable to
the Buddhist religion. It was his minister who bought the garden
of Jeta from the prince of that name, and erected in it a
residence for Buddha (_see_ Julien’s _Memoirs sur les Contrées
Occidentales_). Many of the Sutras attributed to Buddha are said
to have been delivered here. _Hiuen-Tsang_ observed the remains
of the monastery formerly standing on the site of the garden of
Jeta, 2 miles below the city.”—_Chinese Buddhism_. Edkins.
[5] “A person of extraordinary piety and goodness. One of the
former Djatakas of Sakyamuni when he was a prince, and forfeited
the throne by liberality in almsgiving.”—_Handbook of Chinese
Buddhism_. Eitel.
[6] The Chinese text is _ta-pi-k’u_—greater disciples. Our Chinese
editor of _The Diamond Sutra_ suggests that there are different
grades of discipleship. The “lesser disciples” are those who have
abandoned every form of vice, and are striving after virtue. The
“greater disciples” are those to whom virtue has become
spontaneous, and who have ceased to strive after its attainment.
[7] A title conferred by Chinese Buddhists upon the founder of
their faith, believing him to be a Teacher and Saviour whose
merit is acclaimed in worlds beyond our own.
[8] Having taken vows of poverty, a robe is one of the following
eight articles which Buddhist monks are permitted to possess:
three garments of different descriptions, a girdle for the loins,
an alms-bowl, a razor, a needle, and a water-strainer.
[9] Buddha has said, “the wise priest never asks for anything; he
disdains to beg; it is a proper thing for which he carries the
alms-bowl; and this is his only mode of solicitation. But when he
is sick, he is permitted to ask for any medicine that he may
require, without being guilty of any transgression.”—_Eastern
Monachism_. Spence Hardy.
[10] Concerning the manner of begging an alms: “As a bee,
injuring not the flower, or its colour, or its scent, flies away,
taking the nectar, so let a sage go through the
village.”—_Questions of King Milinda_. T. W. Rhys Davids.
[11] “By many of the Buddhists it is considered to be an act of
great merit to make a vow never to partake of food without giving
a portion to the priests.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence Hardy.