Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! in ages to come, will
sentient beings destined to hear this Law,[2] engender within their
minds the essential elements of faith?” The Lord Buddha replied,
saying: “Subhuti, it cannot be asserted that these are sentient
beings, or that these are not sentient beings. And why? Because,
Subhuti, regarding ‘sentient beings,’ the Lord Buddha declared that in
reality these are not ‘sentient beings,’ they are merely termed
‘sentient beings.’” [3]
[1] “Bhagavat said: What do you think, O Subhuti, does Tathagata
think in this wise: the Law has been taught by me? Subhuti said:
Not indeed, O Bhagavat, does the Tathagata think in this wise: the
Law has been taught by me. Bhagavat said: If a man should say that
the Law has been taught by the Tathagata, he would say what is not
true; he would slander me with untruth which he has learned. And
why? Because, O Subhuti, it is said the teaching of the Law, the
teaching of the Law indeed, O Subhuti, there is nothing that can
be perceived by the name of the teaching of the Law.”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
Eminent wisdom possesses the natural beauty of a pellucid stream,
flowing swiftly between rugged mountain crags; but a mind at rest
from ‘systems of Law or doctrine,’ is reminiscent of the
loveliness of a waterfall, frozen into shining icicles, and
resplendent in the light of the moon.—_Chinese Annotation_.
[2] “He is the best of all guides of men, no other being is like
unto him; he is like a jewel, of imperishable glory, who hears
this Law with a pure heart.”—_The Buddha-Karita_. E. B. Cowell.
[3] “Bhagavat said: These, O Subhuti, are neither beings nor
no-beings. And why? Because, O Subhuti, those who were preached as
beings, beings indeed, they were preached as no-beings by the
Tathagata, and therefore they are called beings.”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
Although these are ordinarily referred to as sentient beings,
there are spiritual elements in their real natures, which place
them in a category only imperfectly described by the term
“sentient beings”; but possessing also evident material qualities,
it might be an error to assert that these are not “sentient
beings”; hence the declaration of the Lord Buddha, “they are
merely termed sentient beings.”—_Chinese Annotation_.
[Chapter 22]
Subhuti enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds!
did the Lord Buddha, in attaining to supreme spiritual wisdom, obtain
nothing of a real or tangible nature?” The Lord Buddha replied,
saying: “In attaining to supreme spiritual wisdom, not a vestige of
Law or doctrine was obtained,[1] and therefore it is termed ‘supreme
spiritual wisdom.’”
[1]“To affirm the existence of anything real or tangible in the
nature of the Law, would be tantamount to being firmly bound by
the Law; but to affirm that ‘not even the vestige of Law or
doctrine was obtained,’ is the equivalent of being absolutely free
from the Law.”—_Yen-Ping_ (a Chinese monk).
“Buddha said: ‘True, true, Subhuti! I, as possessed of this heart,
have come into the condition above described. This term the
unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart, is but a mere
name.’”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.
[Chapter 23]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “This Law is coherent and
indivisible,[1] it is neither ‘above’ nor ‘below,’[2] therefore it is
termed ‘supreme spiritual wisdom.’ It excludes such arbitrary ideas as
an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality; but includes
every Law pertaining to the cultivation of goodness.[3] Subhuti, what
were referred to as ‘Laws pertaining to goodness,’ these the Lord
Buddha declared are not in reality ‘Laws pertaining to goodness,’ they
are merely termed ‘Laws pertaining to goodness.’”[4]
[1] The Abbé Dubois in his valuable book, _Hindu Manners, Customs,
and Ceremonies_, carefully observes that amongst the attributes
which the Jains ascribe to the Supreme Being, the first is that He
is “one” and “indivisible”; and this observation of the learned
Abbé becomes quite illuminating, when we remember the intimate
relationship which has existed between the Jains and the Law of
Buddha.
[2] “Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,
Which nothing with existence links, as sages searching find.
The cord, transversely stretched, that spanned this universal
frame,
Was it beneath? was it above? can any sage proclaim?”
“Progress of the Vedic religion towards abstract conceptions of
the Deity.” J. Muir (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_).
[3] “Free from self, free from life, free from personality, that
highest perfect knowledge is always the same, and thus known with
all good things. And why? Because, what was preached as good
things, good things, indeed, O Subhuti, they were preached by the
Tathagata as no-things, and therefore are they called good
things.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
“This condition which is named the unsurpassed, just, and
enlightened (heart), consists in nothing more than the exclusion
of all individual distinctions. A man who practices all the rules
of virtuous conduct will forthwith attain this condition. But,
Subhuti, when we speak of rules of virtuous conduct, Tathagata
declares that these rules are after all no real and lasting rules;
the term is but a mere name,”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.
[4] The six Paramita—charity, morality, endurance, energy,
contemplation, wisdom, comprehended under the term “Laws
pertaining to goodness,” merely constitute an open door by means
of which disciples are ushered into the presence of
truth.—_Chinese Annotation_.
[Chapter 24]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If within this universe of
universes, the seven treasures[1] were heaped together, forming as
many great elevations as there are Sumerus, prince of mountains, and
these treasures bestowed entirely in the exercise of charity; and if a
disciple were to select a stanza of this Scripture, rigorously observe
it, and diligently explain it to others, the merit[2] thus obtained
would so far exceed the former excellence, that it cannot be stated in
terms of proportion, nor comprehended by any analogy.”[3]
[1] Gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal.
[2] “And whosoever in days when the good Law is abolished, abandons
love for his own body and life, and proclaims day and night these
good words—pre-eminent is his merit from this.”
“He obtains a glorious and endless splendour who teaches even one
word thereof; he will not miss one consonant nor the meaning who
gives this Sutra to others.”
“Therefore let those who are endowed with lofty ambitions, always
hear this Law which causes transcendent merit; let them hear it
and gladly welcome it and lay it up in their minds and continually
worship the three jewels (the Buddha, the Law, and the assembly of
monks) with faith.”—_Buddha-Karita_. E. B. Cowell.
[3] “I declare that his happiness and consequent merit would be
incomparably greater than that of the other, so much so, that no
number could express the excess of one over the
other.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.
[Chapter 25]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? You
disciples, do not affirm that the Lord Buddha reflects thus within
himself, ‘I bring salvation to every living being.’ Subhuti, entertain
no such delusive thought! And why? Because, in reality there are no
living beings to whom the Lord Buddha can bring salvation.[1] If there
were living beings to whom the Lord Buddha could bring salvation, the
Lord Buddha would necessarily assume the reality of such arbitrary
concepts as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality.
Subhuti, what the Lord Buddha adverted to as an entity, is not in
reality an entity; it is only understood to be an entity, and believed
in as such, by the common, uneducated people. Subhuti, what are
ordinarily referred to as the ‘common, uneducated people,’ these the
Lord Buddha declared to be not merely ‘common, uneducated people.’”[2]
[1] As the primordial human mind is void and quiescent, so also is
the wisdom of this Sutra full and overflowing. Therefore, hearing
the text of this Sutra expounded, and meditating upon its truth,
there are formed spontaneously within the minds of those living
beings, all the essential elements of salvation. As these mature
and develop into a Law of spiritual liberty, the Lord Buddha
obviously relinquishes every duty consonant with the idea of a
delegated Saviour.—_Chinese Annotation_.
“What do you think then, O Subhuti, does a Tathagata think in this
wise: beings have been delivered by me? You should not think so.
And why? Because, there is no being that has been delivered by the
Tathagata. And if there were a being, O Subhuti, that had been
delivered by the Tathagata, then Tathagata would believe in a
self, a being, a living being, and a person. And what is called a
belief in self, O Subhuti, that is preached as a no-belief by the
Tathagata. And this is learned by children and ignorant persons,
and they who were preached as children and ignorant persons, O
Subhuti, were preached as no-persons by the Tathagata, and
therefore they are called children and ignorant persons.”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
[2] “Difference there is in beings endowed with bodies, but
amongst men this is not the case, the difference amongst men is
nominal only.”—_Dhammapada_. Max Müller.
“Worldly profit is fleeting and perishable, religious (holy) profit
is eternal and inexhaustible; a man though a king is full of
trouble, a common man who is holy, has everlasting
rest.”—_Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King_. Beal.
[Chapter 26]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “Can the Lord Buddha be
perceived by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions?”[1] Subhuti
replied, saying: “Even so,[2] the Lord Buddha can be perceived by
means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions.”
The Lord Buddha, continuing, said unto Subhuti: “If by means of his
thirty-two bodily distinctions it were possible to perceive the Lord
Buddha, then the Lord Buddha would merely resemble one of the great
wheel-turning kings.”[3]
Subhuti thereupon addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the
Worlds! According as I am able to interpret the Lord Buddha’s
instruction, it is improbable that the Lord Buddha may be perceived by
means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions.”
Thereafter, the “Honoured of the Worlds” delivered this sublime Gatha:
“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.”[4]
[1] “This probably refers to the auspicious signs discovered in
Sakyamuni at his birth, which left it open whether he would become
a king or a Buddha.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
[2] Subhuti failed to apprehend the idea
as expressed by the Lord Buddha, and
inadvertently replied, saying: “Even so, Even
so.”—_Chinese Annotation_.
[3] “The portends troubled, till his dream readers
Augured a prince of earthly dominance,
A Chakravartin, such as rise to rule
Once in a thousand years.”—_The
Light of Asia_. Sir Edwin Arnold.
“A king who rules the world, and causes the wheel of doctrine
everywhere to revolve. The great Asoka (King of Central India, who
reigned near Patna, about 150–200 years after the demise of
Buddha) was a ‘wheel king.’ The word is Chakravarti in Sanscrit,
from Chakra ‘wheel,’ the symbol of activity, whether of Buddha in
preaching, or of kings like Asoka in ruling.”—_Chinese Buddhism_.
Edkins.
“Those of the Bikkhus who carry in their hearts the words of
excellent knowledge that is immeasurable, who are free from bonds,
whose fame and power and glory no man can weigh, who (in imitation
of their master) keep the royal chariot wheel of the kingdom of
righteousness rolling on, who have reached perfection in
knowledge.”—_Questions of King Milinda_. T. W. Rhys Davids.
[4] The following Gatha, translated by Max Müller, and concluding
the twenty-sixth section of _The Vagrakkhedika_, is not
incorporated in the Chinese text.
“A Buddha is to be seen (known) from the Law;
For the Lords (Buddha) have the Law-Body;
And the nature of the Law cannot be understood,
Nor can it be made to be understood.”
[Chapter 27]
The Lord Buddha said unto Subhuti: “If you think thus within yourself
‘The Lord Buddha did not, by means of his perfect bodily distinctions,
obtain supreme spiritual wisdom,’ Subhuti, have no such deceptive
thought! Or if you think thus within yourself, ‘In obtaining supreme
spiritual wisdom, the Lord Buddha declared the abrogation of every
Law,’ Subhuti, have no such delusive thought! And why? Because, those
disciples who obtain supreme spiritual wisdom, neither affirm the
abrogation of any Law, nor the destruction of any distinctive quality
of phenomena.”[1]
[1] “What do you think then, O Subhuti, has the highest perfect
knowledge been known by the Tathagata by the possession of signs?
You should not think so, O Subhuti. And why? Because, the highest
perfect knowledge will not be known by the Tathagata through the
possession of signs. Nor should anybody, O Subhuti, say to you
that the destruction or annihilation of anything is proclaimed by
those who have entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas.”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
“Subhuti, if you should think thus, ‘Tathagata, by means of his
personal distinctions has attained to the unsurpassable
condition,’ you would be wrong.... But, Subhuti, do not come to
such an opinion as this, viz., ‘that what is called the
unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart is nothing more than the
mere neglect and destruction of all rules and conditions.’ Think
not so, for why? the exhibition of this perfect and unsurpassed
heart is not the consequence of having disregarded and destroyed
all rules, in the active discharge of duty.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.
Concerning the phenomena of Law, if these were abrogated and
entirely discarded, where would the mind receive its guiding
light, or the human spirit its power of discernment? To attempt a
process of reasoning apart from such necessary postulates as the
distinctive qualities of Law and phenomena, would prove to be as
futile as an effort to cross a river without a raft, and would
inevitably end in oblivion.—_Chinese Annotation_.
[Chapter 28]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If an enlightened
disciple, in the exercise of charity, bestowed as considerable an
amount of the seven treasures as might fill worlds numerous as the
sands of the Ganges; and if a disciple, realising that within the
meaning and purport of the Law, there is no abstract individual
existence,[1] perfects himself in the virtue of endurance, this latter
disciple will have a cumulative merit, relatively greater than the
other. And why? Because, enlightened disciples are entirely unaffected
by considerations of ‘reward or merit.’”
Subhuti thereupon enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of
the Worlds! in what respect are enlightened disciples unaffected by
considerations of ‘reward or merit’?” The Lord Buddha replied, saying:
“Enlightened disciples do not aspire, in a spirit of covetousness, to
rewards commensurate with their merit; therefore, I declare that they
are entirely unaffected by considerations of ‘reward or merit.’”[2]
[1] “And if a Bodhisattva acquired endurance in selfless and
uncreated things, then he would enjoy a larger stock of merit,
immeasurable and innumerable.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
“Nothing in this world is single,
All things by a law divine
In one another’s being mingle.”—Shelley.
[2] “Subhuti asked Buddha: World-honoured One! what is this you
say, that Bodhisatwas cannot be said to appreciate reward?
‘Subhuti, the reward which a Bodhisatwa enjoys ought to be
connected with no covetous desire; this is what I mean by
non-appreciation of reward.’”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.
This passage, concluding the twenty-eighth section of _The Diamond
Sutra_, not being incorporated in the translation of _The
Vagrakkhedika_ by Max Müller, may be suggestive of a noteworthy
interpolation in the Chinese text, or is it a probable lacuna in
the Sanscrit MSS.?
[Chapter 29]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple asserts that
the Lord Buddha comes or goes, sits or reclines, obviously he has not
understood the meaning of my discourse. And why? Because, the idea
‘Buddha’ implies neither coming from anywhere, nor going to anywhere,
and hence the synonym ‘Buddha!’”[1]
[1] “And why? Because the word Tathagata means one who does not go
to anywhere, and does not come from anywhere, and therefore he is
called the Tathagata (truly come), holy and fully
enlightened.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
“That which is Tathagata has no where whence to come, and no where
whither he can go, and is therefore named
Tathagata.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.
In the heavens above, we cannot discern a place whence he came,
nor whither he may return. In his holy, immaculate, and
marvellously endowed body, were manifested plenary spiritual
powers.—_Hua-Yen-Sutra_.
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.—_Yuen-Chioh-Sutra_.
“If the pool be of pure water, the shining moon is reflected upon
its limpid surface; and yet we cannot affirm that the moon really
came from anywhere, or that it is actually in the pool. If the
pool be disturbed and the dense mud raised, immediately the bright
reflection becomes obscured; and yet we dare not affirm that the
moon has really gone to anywhere, or that it has actually departed
from the pool. It is entirely a question of the purity or impurity
of the water, and has no reasonable affinity with theories
concerning the existence or non-existence of the moon. So, also,
with the true concept of Buddha; only those whose minds are
immaculate in their pristine purity, can ever realise his
transcendent blessedness.”—_Chang-Shui_ (a Chinese monk).
[Chapter 30]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good disciple,
whether man or woman, were to take infinite worlds and ‘reduce’ them
to minute particles of dust; what think you, would the aggregate of
all those particles of dust be great?” Subhuti replied, saying:
“Honoured of the Worlds! the aggregate of all those particles of dust
would be exceedingly great. And why? Because, if all those were in
reality ‘minute particles of dust,’ the Lord Buddha would not have
declared them to be ‘minute particles of dust.’ And why? Because, the
Lord Buddha, discoursing upon ‘minute particles of dust,’ declared
that in reality those are not ‘minute particles of dust,’ they are
merely termed ‘minute particles of dust.’”[1]
Subhuti continuing, addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of
the Worlds! what the Lord Buddha discoursed upon as ‘infinite worlds,’
these are not in reality ‘infinite worlds,’ they are merely termed
‘infinite worlds.’ And why? Because, if these were in reality
‘infinite worlds,’ there would of necessity be unity and eternity of
matter. But the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon the ‘unity and eternity
of matter,’ declared that there is neither ‘unity’ nor ‘eternity of
matter,’ therefore it is merely termed ‘unity and eternity of matter.’”
The Lord Buddha thereupon declared unto Subhuti, “Belief in the unity
or eternity of matter is incomprehensible;[2] and only common,
worldly-minded people, for purely materialistic reasons, covet this
hypothesis.”
[1] These minute particles of dust, like the great worlds which
are composed of them, are deceptive forms of natural phenomena,
equally unreal and evanescent. The minute particles which we
observe floating in space, are carried hither and thither by
atmospheric currents, and eventually pass into regions beyond our
cognisance. So, also, with the immense worlds revolving in space;
their ever-recurring phenomena of light and darkness, heat and
cold, changing seasons, transient scenes of mountain and valley,
river and plain. These things indicate that all are ephemeral, and
entirely subject to irrevocable laws of change and decay.—_Chinese
Annotation_.
“Because, what was preached as a mass of many atoms by the
Tathagata, that was preached as no-mass of atoms by the Tathagata,
and therefore it is called ‘a mass of many atoms.’”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
“What then, if Buddha speaks of all these particles, then they are
not really what they are called, it is but a mere name,
World-Honoured One!”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.
[2] “Bhagavat said, and a belief in matter itself, O Subhuti, is
inestimable and inexpressible; it is neither a thing nor a
no-thing, and this is known by children and ignorant
persons.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
“Annihilation of matter is inconceivable, but annihilation of all
its forms and qualities is conceivable.” _The World as Idea and
Will_. Schopenhauer.
If the worlds were real and permanent, they would always retain
their original forms and primordial natures, and be subject
neither to the influence of time nor the Law of change.—_Chinese
Annotation_.
“Subhuti, this characteristic of the one ‘harmonious principle,’
is a thing which cannot be spoken of in words; it is only the vain
philosophy of the world, which has grasped the idea of explaining
this.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.
This noteworthy statement seems to militate against some opinions
expressed in Europe regarding the Buddhist theory of “matter.”
According to our Chinese text, it does not appear that Sakyamuni
Buddha categorically denied the “presence” or “existence” of
matter in the universe, but endeavoured rather to indicate the
diversified and evanescent nature of its “forms” and “qualities.”
Many devout Buddhists regard even the smallest particle of dust as
containing a mysterious and elusive element—probably what we are
disposed to term “a spiritual element,” or “principle of life”—and
these are not unreasonably regarded as being altogether
inscrutable, and therefore “incomprehensible.”
[Chapter 31]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple affirmed
that the Lord Buddha enunciated a belief[1] that the mind can
comprehend the idea of an entity, a being, a living being, or a
personality; what think you, Subhuti, would that disciple be
interpreting aright the meaning of my discourse?” Subhuti replied,
saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! that disciple would not be
interpreting aright the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse. And
why? Because, Honoured of the Worlds! discoursing upon comprehending
such ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality,
it was declared that these are entirely unreal and illusive, and
therefore they are merely termed an entity, a being, a living being,
and a personality.”
The Lord Buddha thereafter addressed Subhuti, saying:[2] “Those who
aspire to the attainment of supreme spiritual wisdom ought thus to
know, believe in, and interpret phenomena. They ought to eliminate
from their minds every tangible evidence of every visible object.
Subhuti, concerning ‘visible objects,’ the Lord Buddha declared that
these are not really ‘visible objects’ they are merely termed ‘visible
objects.’”
[1] “Because, O Subhuti, if a man were to say that belief in self,
belief in a being, belief in life, belief in personality, had been
preached by the Tathagata, would he be speaking truly? Subhuti
said, not indeed, Bhagavat, he would not be speaking truly. And
why? Because, what was preached by the Tathagata as a belief in
self, that was preached as no-belief, therefore it is called
belief in self.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.