The Diamond Sutra (Chin-Kang-Ching) or Prajna-ParamitaUnknown
Religion
The Diamond Sutra (Chin-Kang-Ching) or Prajna-Paramita
Unknown
Buddhism; Buddhism -- Sacred books
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.
In these words are exemplified another profound aspect of Buddhist
doctrine. Apart from interesting questions concerning the
existence of an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality,
another problem seems to arise regarding our ability to entirely
perceive or “comprehend” those admitted abstract ideas. If we
interpret aright the Buddhist doctrine, there are variously
compounded within those abstract ideas, so many elusive spiritual
elements, that the human mind is incapable of resolving them by
any process of reasoning. In short—an entity, a being, a living
being, or a personality, represents to the Buddhist mind, much
more than it attempts to express in terms of philosophy.
[2] “Thus then, O Subhuti, are all things to be perceived, to be
looked upon, and to be believed by one who has entered upon the
path of the Bodhisattvas. And in this wise are they to be
perceived, to be looked upon, and to be believed, neither in the
idea of a thing, nor in the idea of a no-thing? And why? Because
by saying: the idea of a thing, the idea of a thing indeed, it has
been preached by the Tathagata as the no-idea of a thing.”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.
“Subhuti, the persons who aspire to the perfectly enlightened
heart, ought to know accordingly that this is true with respect to
all things, and thus prevent the exhibition of any characteristics
on any point whatever. Subhuti, these very characteristics of
which we speak are after all no characteristics, but a mere
name.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.
[Chapter 32]
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple, having
immeasurable spheres filled with the seven treasures,[1] bestowed
these in the exercise of charity; and if a disciple, whether man or
woman, having aspired to supreme spiritual wisdom, selected from this
Scripture a stanza comprising four lines, then rigorously observed it,
studied it, and diligently explained it to others; the cumulative
merit of such a disciple would be relatively greater than the other.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account