← Home
Vajrakkhedika (Diamond Cutter) · 7 of 19 · tr. E.B. Cowell, F. Max Müller, and J. Kakakusu

Section 1g

Therefore he is called an Anâgâmin.' Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, does an Arhat think in this wise: The fruit of an Arhat has been obtained by me?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, an Arhat does not think in this wise: The fruit of an Arhat has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual being, who is called an Arhat. Therefore he is called an Arhat. And if, O Bhagavat, an Arhat were to think in this wise: The state of an Arhat has been obtained by me, he would believe in a self, he would believe in a being, he would believe in a living being, he would believe in a person. 'And why? I have been pointed out, O Bhagavat, by the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata, as the foremost of those who dwell in virtue[1]. [1. Ara n âvihârin. Ra n a is strife, then sin, therefore ara n a might be peace and virtue, only the a would be short. Probably ara n avihârin was formed with reference to âra n ya-vihârin, living in the forest, retired from the world, and in peace, just as arhan, worthy, was changed into arahan, the destroyer of sin. Beal translates, 'one who delights in the mortification of an Ara n yaka (forest devotee).' De Harlez: 'chey de ceux qui ne sont plus attachés à la jouissance.'] I, O Bhagavat, am an Arhat, freed from passion. And yet, O Bhagavat, I do not think in this wise: I am an Arhat, I am freed from passion. If, O Bhagavat, I should think in this wise, that the state of an Arhat has been obtained by me, then the Tathâgata would not have truly prophesied of me, saying: "Subhûti, the son of a good family, the foremost of those dwelling in virtue, does not dwell anywhere, and therefore he is called a dweller in virtue, a dweller in virtue indeed!"' (9) X. Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, is there anything (dharma) which the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata Dîpankara[1], the holy and fully enlightened?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat; there is not anything which the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata Dîpankara, the holy and fully enlightened.' Bhagavat said: 'If, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva should say: "I shall create numbers of worlds," he would say what is untrue. And why? Because, O Subhûti, when the Tathâgata preached: Numbers of worlds, numbers of worlds indeed! they were preached by him as no-numbers. Therefore they are called numbers of worlds. 'Therefore, O Subhûti, a noble-minded Bodhisattva should in this wise frame an independent [1. A former Buddha.] mind, which is to be framed as a mind not believing in anything, not believing in form, not believing in sound, smell, taste, and anything that can be touched. Now, for instance, O Subhûti, a man might have a body and a large body, so that his size should be as large as the king of mountains, Sumeru.
Themes
Detachment Gelassenheitpraxis

Eckhart's Abgeschiedenheit/Gelassenheit — radical letting-go of will, image, and grasping that opens the soul to God; distinct from inner_silence (quietness) and from material renunciation, and adjacent to Sufi tark and Buddhist non-grasping as a practice rather than a metaphysical claim.

Subhuti emphasizes non-grasping of spiritual attainments, aligning with radical letting-go of will and image.

All passages →
Opposites Transcendedanthropology

The dissolution of binary oppositions (male/female, inner/outer, above/below) as a mark of spiritual completion.

The passage transcends the binary of existence versus non-existence regarding spiritual states by negating the belief in a 'being' who obtains them.

All passages →
Paradox As Teachingethics

Using apparent contradiction, reversal, or riddle to destabilise ordinary understanding and induce insight.

The text uses the paradox that one is named an Arhat precisely because they do not conceive themselves as such.

All passages →
Poverty Of Spiritanthropology

Eckhart's radical reading of Matthew 5:3 — the saint as one who wants nothing, knows nothing, and has nothing, having emptied even the will and the self with which to receive God; distinct from renunciation_of_wealth (material poverty).

The Arhat claims no possession of the state, reflecting a spiritual poverty of wanting or knowing nothing.

All passages →
Apophatic Theologytheology

Describing the divine only by negation—God transcends all positive categories and concepts; the via negativa.

[auto] The Tathagata and Arhat states are described entirely through negation of attributes and conceptualization.

All passages →
Sunyata Emptinesssoteriology

The Buddhist doctrine that all phenomena lack independent self-nature; emptiness as the positive recognition that things arise only in dependence on conditions — distinct from kenoma's mere deficiency.

[auto] The passage explicitly defines enlightenment states by the absence of inherent self-nature or individual being.

All passages →
Related passages · 8 parallels · 1 contrast
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 2, Section 1h
Even so if any one says that Very Life lives, or that Very Light is enlightened, he will be wrong (according to my view) unless, perchance, he were to use these terms in a different sense from the ordinary one to mean that the qualities of…”
Both passages discuss the nature of enlightenment and the transcendence of conventional categories. The Diamond Sutra emphasizes the non-dualistic nature of the Arhat and the Tathagata, while the Christian mystical text discusses the transcendence of God and the ineffable nature of divine actions, both pointing towards a reality beyond ordinary conceptual understanding.
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 13 (part 1)
p. 263 CHAPTER XIII. REGENERATION. "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not of those things?" — John iii. 10. "Whoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."— Luke ix. 23. No man c…”
Both passages discuss the nature of spiritual attainment and the avoidance of egoistic claims about one's spiritual state. The Diamond Sutra emphasizes the non-individual nature of enlightened beings, while Boehme's text discusses the necessity of spiritual regeneration and the denial of the self to attain divine knowledge.
gnosticism|Gospel of Thomas|Logion 13
Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is who…”
Both passages explore the theme of transcendence and the inability to define or possess spiritual states. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus emphasizes the ineffability of his true nature, while in the Buddhist text, Subhûti denies the possession of spiritual attainments, highlighting the non-individual nature of enlightenment.
gnosticism|Gospel of Thomas|Logion 43
His disciples said to him, "Who are you, that you should say these things to us?" <Jesus said to them,> "You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews, for they (either) love the tree and hate its fru…”
Both passages explore the theme of non-attachment to identity and the paradoxical nature of self-realization. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus critiques the disciples' attachment to dualistic thinking, while in the Diamond Sutra, Subhûti emphasizes the non-existence of a self even in the attainment of Arhat-ship.
platonism|Plato: Symposium|Section 1u
True, he said. Then Love wants and has not beauty? Certainly, he replied. And would you call that beautiful which wants and does not possess beauty? Certainly not. Then would you still say that love is beautiful? Agathon replied: I fe…”
Both passages explore the nature of love and enlightenment, respectively, through a dialogue that challenges conventional understanding. They both emphasize the importance of transcending dualistic thinking, whether it be the duality of beauty and ugliness in Plato's Symposium or the duality of self and non-self in the Buddhist text.
taoism|Tao Te Ching|Chapter 56
He who knows (the Tao) does not (care to) speak (about it); he who is (ever ready to) speak about it does not know it. He (who knows it) will keep his mouth shut and close the portals (of his nostrils). He will blunt his sharp points and un…”
Both passages discuss the nature of enlightened beings who transcend conventional notions of self and achievement. The Taoist text emphasizes the mysterious agreement and non-attachment, while the Buddhist text highlights the Arhat's lack of ego and the Bodhisattva's non-attachment to form and phenomena.
taoism|The Writings of Chuang Tzu (Inner Chapters)|Book 125 (part 2)
or from Man?' Then he added 2 , 'It must be from Heaven, and not from Man. Heaven's making of this man caused him to have but one foot. In the person of man, each foot has its marrow. By this I know that his peculiarity is from Heaven, a…”
Both passages explore the theme of non-attachment and the transcendence of individual identity. The Diamond Sutra emphasizes the absence of a fixed self in the context of Buddhist enlightenment, while the Taoist passage discusses the acceptance of natural order and the impermanence of life, both of which align with the idea of transcending individual existence.
taoism|The Writings of Chuang Tzu (Inner Chapters)|Book 129 (part 2)
Yang Dze-kü 5 , having an interview with Lao Tan, said to him, 'Here is a man, alert and vigorous p. 262 in responding to all matters 1 , clearsighted and widely intelligent, and an unwearied student of the Tâo;--can he be compared to one…”
Both passages emphasize the importance of non-attachment and the absence of a fixed self or ego in achieving a higher state of being or enlightenment. They both advocate for a state of being where one does not claim personal achievement or identity, aligning with the mystical traditions of Taoism and Buddhism respectively.
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 4 (part 2)CONTRASTS
91 "Christ never said, 'I, in my human selfhood, am the voice of God, I am speaking as God, in or with God,' &c.; but He said, 'The words which I speak are the Father's, who lives in me '—that is to say, who lives in my human or natural sel…”
The passages contrast in their views on the nature of enlightenment and the divine. Passage A emphasizes the non-individual nature of enlightenment and the rejection of a permanent self, while Passage B emphasizes a personal, individual God and the divine nature of Christ.