Diamond Sutra translations and commentary

This is what I heard: Once, the Buddha was in Shravasti, at the Donated Park, with a great group of monks. Then, when it was time  to eat, he grabbed his robe, took his bowl, and entered Shravasti to beg food. After begging door to door, he went back to where he started, finished his food, put away has robe and bowl, spread out his mat and sat.

"The Buddha has seen through the illusion of self, so he is beyond desires. This is what he has taught me."

It was a bit of a puzzle for early Buddhism why the Buddha didn't simply disappear without a self. Why did he teach?

Then old Musta Wake, who was in the group at the time, got up, bowed, and said. "It is wonderful, Real Thing, the way you pay attention to these good people and trust in them. Sir, when a nice young man or woman tries to wake up, where should they dwell and how should they direct their thoughts?" 

The Buddha said, "Good, good, Musta Wake! As you say, I do think about these good people and look out for them. Now pay attention and I will tell you where a nice young man or woman should dwell and how they should direct their thoughts when they try to wake up." 

"Yes, please, sir. I look forward to hearing it."

The good people (bodhisattvas) are ordinary people who donate food. Musta Wake doesn't really understand their their role yet; that is what he is going to learn over the course of this teaching. His description of them at this point as "good people" may be somewhat condescending, since he does not understand bodhisattvas as the equals of "real followers," arhats such as himself (ch. 9). He's indulging the JV team.

The Buddha said, Good people should direct their thought like this: All living things, no matter what kind, I will lead out completely. And though having led out uncountable living things, no living things will really have been led out. Why? Because good people who think in terms of self, other, life, or death are not good people.

I thought these bodhisattvas would have a lesser mission because they are not as serious as us arhats, but this much, much more. I was only trying to save myself but they try to save everyone, which sounds overwhelming. And no matter how hard they try, no one is saved, which sounds demoralizing. And he tells them to direct their thoughts in this way without thinking in these terms, which makes no sense. I don't understand what is going on here. 

On top of that, good people do not dwell on things when helping. I mean they don't dwell on sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, or thoughts. This is the way good people help, not dwelling on anything at all. Why not? When good people help without dwelling on things, the good they do is immeasurable. What do you think, can you measure of all the space to the west? 

No, sir. 

Can you measure all the space to south, east, north, up, and down?  

No, sir. 

When good people help without dwelling on anything, the good they do is similarly immeasurable. Good people only have to dwell here.

Personally, "doing good" has no interest for me, since I don't want anything (ch. 9). What they do sounds like nothing, "not dwelling on anything," yet he describes it as everything at the same time, as infinite as space. They say they are helping, but what exactly do they do? What good comes from it?

[The issue of "dwelling" brings up the homelessness of the Buddha and his original disciples. Later Buddhists relaxed this requirement but evidently replace it here with a kind of spiritualized intellectual or psychological homelessness.]

What do you think, Musta Wake? Do you see the Real Thing in this physical thing? 

No sir, I don't see the Real Thing in this physical thing. Why? What you call this physical thing is no  physical thing. 

The Buddha said to Musta Wake, All things whatever are deceptive. But when you see that no things are things, then you see the Real Thing.

"The Buddha is not his body since the Buddha has no self. There is no self to see! And this is not just true for the Buddha's body but for all things whatsoever.

But I was looking at the Buddha's body when I learned this. So did I learn it from the body or not? I learned it from the Buddha's body not being the Buddha's body. 'The Buddha' is not just 'emptiness' but 'the teaching of emptiness.' That is the inconceivable good that these good people, the bodhisattvas, contribute to with their donations."

Musta Wake said to the Buddha, Sir, will there ever be people who hear these words and have real belief? 

The Buddha said, Don't say such things! Hundreds of years after I'm gone there will be disciplined hard-working people, if they hear these words will be able to believe them and take them for real. Know that these people will not have planted a few roots under one, two, or three buddhas but will already have planted all good roots under countless thousands of buddhas. Hearing these words, in a single thought their minds will be clear. I know them, I can see that all these people will do infinite good.

Q: It makes sense to me that the Buddha is no Buddha because I learned it from the Buddha himself. But is this a message that can make sense for people who have not had the privilege of seeing you themselves?

A (What Subhuti hears): They will understand but not because they learned it from me. They will understand because they will have learned to see this truth everywhere in the emptiness of the world around them.

How so? These people will have no perception of self, no perception of other, no perception of life, no perception of death, no perception of truth, and no perception of falsehood. How so? If these people's minds picked out any perception at all, they would take hold of a self, other, life, or death. If they picked out a truth, they would take hold of a self, other, life, or death. How so? If they picked out a falsehood, they would take hold a self, other, life, or death. So you shouldn't pick out truths and shouldn't pick out falsehoods. This is the reason why I always say, You monks! Know the truths I speak are like rafts: If you have to know when to let go even of true rafts, how much more so of false ones!

The people who will understand this, not just because he told them but because they understand it on their own, will do so because their minds are empty--empty not only of truths but even of the distinction between truth and falsehood. In the same way one has to give up not just particular truths but the idea of truth, one has to let go of particular falsehoods (obviously) but even the idea of falsehood. Truth and falsehood both are rafts you have to hold tightly to when they help you cross the river but let go of when reaching the shore.

What do you think, Musta Wake? Did I wake? Do I say anything? 

As I understand what the buddha has said, there is no particular things called "awake." There is no particular things that the buddha says. How so? What the buddha says can't be pointed to, can't be put into words. It's not truth, but not not truth. [not a thing but not not a thing] How come? Because sages are set apart by taking nothing as their truth [by making nothing their thing].

Enlightenment as I understand it is nothing, emptiness. If the Buddha's message is emptiness, how can there be anything that he says? 

Musta Wake, what do you think? If someone filled the universe with money and used it to help others, would this do a lot of good?

Musta Wake said, Very much, sir. Why? This good would not really be good; this is why you say it would do a lot of good.

If someone took just a few lines from this teaching and explained it to others, their good would be greater. Why? Musta Wake, because all buddhas and all buddhas' awakened truths come from this teaching. Musta Wake, what I called buddhas and truths are not buddhas and truths.

If someone donates cash to the buddha, the value of that gift does not lie in the money. The buddha does not care. The value of that gift lies in the realization on the part of the giver that the money is not important. 

The value also lies in perpetuating the Buddha's teaching mission, which is the source not just of enlightened individuals but, even more importantly, in the teaching of enlightenment (ch. 5).

Although it is not explicitly stated, this may be the first occurrence of X≠X, so =X (ch. 10.2).

But what does that last line mean?

What do you think, Musta Wake? Does a beginner ever think, "I have begun"? [Or, "As a beginner, did you . . ."] 

Musta Wake answered, No, sir. Why not? The beginner has begun to do nothing, nothing they can see, hear, smell, taste, touch, or think. That's what they've begun.

He's trying to trick me! If one thought in terms of a self trying to achieve selflessness, that would be a contradiction. So the right answer is that the beginner does not think in terms of a self; that is what makes them a beginner. From the outside, there may be a beginner in the room. But they don't think of themselves that way, which is what means they've begun.