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_.”