← Home
Vajrakkhedika (Diamond Cutter) · 10 of 19 · tr. E.B. Cowell, F. Max Müller, and J. Kakakusu

Section 1j

Therefore the Tathâgata preaches: "A true idea, a true idea indeed!" 'It is no wonder to me, O Bhagavat, that I accept and believe this treatise of the Law, which has been preached. And those beings also, O Bhagavat, [1. Will possess miraculous powers, and will be admired.] who will exist in the future, in the last time, in the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the time of the decay of the good Law, who will learn this treatise of the Law, O Bhagavat, remember it, recite it, understand it, and fully explain it to others, they will indeed be endowed with the highest wonder. 'But, O Bhagavat, there will not arise in them any idea of a self, any idea of a being, of a living being, or a person, nor does there exist for them any idea or no-idea. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, the idea of a self is no-idea, and the idea of a being, or a living being, or a person is no-idea. And why? Because the blessed Buddhas are freed from all ideas.' After these words, Bhagavat thus spoke to the venerable Subhûti: 'So it is, O Subhûti, so it is. Those beings, O Subhûti, who when this Sûtra was being recited here will not be disturbed or frightened or become alarmed, will be endowed with the highest wonder. And why? Because, O Subhûti, this was preached by the Tathâgata, as the Paramapâramitâ, which is no-Pâramitâ. And, O Subhûti, what the Tathâgata preaches as the Paramapâramitâ, that was preached also by immeasurable blessed Buddhas. Therefore it is called the Paramapâramitâ. 'And, O Subhûti, the Pâramitâ or the highest perfection of endurance (kshânti) belonging to a Tathâgata, that also is no-Pâramitâ. And why? Because, O Subhûti, at the time when the king of Kalinga[1] cut my flesh from every limb, I had no idea of a self, of a being, of a living being, or of [1. The Chinese text points to Kalirâ g â. On this Kalirâ g â or Kalin ri pa see Lalita-vistara, p. 191.] a person; I had neither an idea nor no-idea. And why? Because, O Subhûti, if I at that time had had an idea of a self, I should also have had an idea of malevolence. If I had had an idea of a being, or of a living being, or of a person, I should also have had an idea of malevolence. And why? Because, O Subhûti, I remember the past 500 births, when I was the Ri shi Kshântivâdin (preacher of endurance). At that time also, I had no idea of a self, of a being, of a living being, of a person. Therefore then, O Subhûti, a noble-minded Bodhisattva, after putting aside all ideas, should raise his mind to the highest perfect knowledge. He should frame his mind so as not to believe (depend) in form, sound, smell, taste, or anything that can be touched, in something (dharma), in nothing or anything. And why? Because what is believed is not believed (not to be depended on).
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.

The passage emphasizes being freed from all ideas and having no idea of self or person, reflecting radical non-grasping.

All passages →
Gnosis Direct Knowledgesoteriology

Salvation through direct experiential knowledge of the divine nature, not through faith, ritual, or moral works alone.

Subhuti states that 'knowledge has been produced in me' through hearing the teaching, emphasizing direct realization over ritual.

All passages →
Love Of Neighbourethics

Active compassionate care for others as a central spiritual obligation or expression of divine love.

Subhuti praises the teaching for the benefit of beings on the foremost path, reflecting Bodhisattva compassion.

All passages →
Meditationpraxis

Disciplined inward attention — sitting, focused, or open-awareness practice — as a stand-alone term that umbrellas active_contemplation, inner_silence, and dhyana-style sitting.

Subhuti mentions beings who will remember, recite, understand, and explain the treatise as spiritual practice.

All passages →
Opposites Transcendedanthropology

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

The declaration that a true idea is not a true idea dissolves the binary opposition between truth and falsehood regarding concepts.

All passages →
Self Knowledgesoteriology

The recognition of one's own true divine nature as the primary path to liberation; 'know thyself' as soteriology.

Subhuti states that knowledge has been produced in him through the realization of the lack of self and being.

All passages →
Unity Of Beingtheology

The doctrine that all existence is ultimately one substance or one divine reality; non-duality as a theological claim.

The negation of distinctions between self, being, and person points toward an underlying non-dual reality.

All passages →
Apophatic Theologytheology

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

[auto] The Tathagata's teaching is described through negation, such as 'no-Pâramitâ' and 'no-idea,' transcending positive categories.

All passages →
Paradox As Teachingethics

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

[auto] The text utilizes contradictory statements like 'a true idea is not a true idea' to destabilize conceptual understanding.

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 centrally defines true ideas and self as 'no-idea' and Paramita as 'no-Paramita,' embodying the doctrine of emptiness.

All passages →
Related passages · 9 parallels
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 4, Section 1a
CHAPTER IV Concerning ” Good ,” ” Light ,” ” Beautiful ,” “ Desire ,” ” Ecstasy ,” “ Jealousy .” Also that Evil is neither existent nor Sprung from anything existent nor inherent in existent things . 1. Now let us consider the name of “Go…”
Both passages discuss the transcendence of conventional concepts and the nature of ultimate reality. The Diamond Sutra emphasizes the absence of self and ideas, while Dionysius focuses on the transcendence of the divine goodness beyond creation, but both explore the idea of moving beyond ordinary conceptual frameworks to understand ultimate truth.
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 7, Section 1a
CHAPTER VII Concerning “Wisdom,” “Mind,” “Reason,” “Truth,” “Faith.” 1. Now, if it like thee, let us consider the Good and Eternal Life as Wise and as Very Wisdom, or rather as the Fount of all wisdom and as Transcending all wisdom and und…”
Both passages discuss the transcendence of conventional ideas and the need to move beyond dualistic thinking. The Vajrakkhedika emphasizes the absence of self and ideas, while the Christian mystical text speaks of transcending human reason and understanding to perceive divine truth.
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 4 (part 2)
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…”
Both passages emphasize the transcendence of conventional ideas and the nature of the divine or ultimate reality beyond conceptualization. The Diamond Sutra discusses the absence of self and the transcendence of ideas, while the Christian mystical text emphasizes the personal and all-encompassing nature of God beyond human comprehension.
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 10 (part 15)
"The Spirit of Christ in His children is not bound to a certain form, so that He could say nothing but what is found in the writings of the apostles; but as the Spirit was free in the apostles, and as they did not all use the same expressio…”
Both passages emphasize the transcendence of conventional ideas and the importance of a deeper, non-dualistic understanding. The Diamond Sutra discusses the emptiness of all concepts, including the idea of a self, while the Christian mysticism passage highlights the unity of spirit beyond literal words and forms.
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 transcendence of conventional ideas and the attainment of a higher spiritual understanding. The Diamond Sutra emphasizes the emptiness of all concepts, including the idea of self, while Boehme's text discusses the need to transcend the carnal, natural man to attain spiritual self-knowledge and become a temple of the Holy Spirit.
jewish_mysticism|The Greater Holy Assembly (Idra Rabba Qadisha)|Idra Rabba, Chapter 1 (part 2)
1 12. "For it is written, Deut. xxxiii. 29: 'Blessed art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee?' Also it is written, Exod. xv. 11: 'Who is like unto thee among the gods, O Tetragrammaton?'" 2 13. He called Rabbi Eleazer, his son, and…”
Both passages explore the concept of non-attachment to ideas or concepts, emphasizing the transcendence of conventional understanding. The Diamond Sutra discusses the emptiness of all ideas, while the Idra Rabba emphasizes the need for secrecy and the transcendence of worldly understanding, both pointing towards a higher, ineffable reality.
platonism|Plato: Phaedo|Section 1
I dare say that the simile is not perfect-for I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existence through the medium of ideas, sees them only "through a glass darkly," any more than he who sees them in their working and effects.…”
Both passages explore the nature of reality and the avoidance of dualistic thinking. Plato discusses the absolute forms and the participation of particulars in these forms, while the Buddhist text emphasizes the absence of a self or any fixed ideas, focusing on non-attachment and the transcendence of dualistic concepts.
platonism|Plato: Phaedrus|Section 1ƒ
The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear…”
Both passages emphasize the limitations of written or spoken words as a means of conveying true knowledge or wisdom. They advocate for a deeper, internalized understanding that transcends mere textual or verbal communication.
platonism|Plato: Republic|Section 1n
And you would say the same of the conception of the good? Until the person is able to abstract and define rationally the idea of good, and unless he can run the gauntlet of all objections, and is ready to disprove them, not by appeals to o…”
Both passages emphasize the importance of transcending ordinary perceptions and ideas to attain a higher understanding. Plato's passage discusses the ascent to the knowledge of the Good through dialectic and rational abstraction, while the Buddhist passage emphasizes the transcendence of all ideas, including those of self and being, to achieve the highest perfect knowledge.