Vajrakkhedika (Diamond Cutter) · 16 of 19 · tr. E.B. Cowell, F. Max Müller, and J. Kakakusu
Section 1p
If, O Subhûti, there existed a stock of merit, the Tathâgata would not have preached: "A stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed!"'(19) XX.
'What do you think then, O Subhûti, is a Tathâgata to be seen (known) by the shape of his visible body?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the shape of his visible body.
And why?
Because, what was preached, O Bhagavat, as the shape of the visible body, the shape of the visible body indeed, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-shape of the visible body, and therefore it is called the shape of the visible body.' Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, should a Tathâgata be seen (known) by the possession of signs?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.
And why?
Because, what was preached by the Tathâgata as the possession of signs, that was preached as no-possession of signs by the Tathâgata, and therefore it is called the possession of signs.' (20) XXI.
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, does the Tathâgata think in this wise: The Law has been taught by me?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, does the Tathâgata think in this wise: The Law has been taught by me.' Bhagavat said: 'If a man should say that the Law has been taught by the Tathâgata, he would say what is not true; he would slander me with untruth which he has learned.
And why?
Because, O Subhûti, it is said the teaching of the Law, the teaching of the Law indeed.
O Subhûti, there is nothing that can be perceived by the name of the teaching of the Law.' After this, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'Forsooth, O Bhagavat, will there be any beings 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, when they have heard these very Laws, will believe?' Bhagavat said: 'These, O Subhûti, are neither beings nor no-beings.
And why?
Because, O Subhûti, those who were preached as beings, beings indeed, they were preached as no-beings by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called beings.' (2 1) XXII.
'What do you think then, O Subhûti, is there anything which has been known by the Tathâgata in the form of the highest perfect knowledge?' The venerable Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, there is nothing, O Bhagavat, that has been known by the Tathâgata in the form of the highest perfect knowledge.' Bhagavat said: 'So it is, Subhûti, so it is.
Even the smallest thing is not known or perceived there, therefore it is called the highest perfect knowledge.' (22) XXIII.
'Also, Subhûti, all is the same there, there is no difference there, and therefore it is called the highest perfect knowledge.
Describing the divine only by negation—God transcends all positive categories and concepts; the via negativa.
The Tathāgata is defined exclusively by negation — not by visible body, not by marks, not by teaching, not by knowledge — making the via negativa the structural method of the entire passage.
The supreme God's radical concealment beyond ordinary knowledge or perception; the Hidden Father.
The Tathāgata is placed beyond all perceptual and conceptual access — not to be seen by body, not by marks, not by any form of knowing — expressing radical concealment of the ultimate.
The dissolution of binary oppositions (male/female, inner/outer, above/below) as a mark of spiritual completion.
The passage systematically dissolves binary oppositions — being/no-being, shape/no-shape, knowledge/no-knowledge, teaching/no-teaching — as a mark of the highest state.
Using apparent contradiction, reversal, or riddle to destabilise ordinary understanding and induce insight.
The recurring formula 'X is preached as no-X, and therefore it is called X' is the deliberate structural engine of the passage, using apparent contradiction to destabilise ordinary conceptual grasping.
The doctrine that reality has two registers — an Absolute truth as the divine or ultimate mind knows it, and a Relative truth as finite human reason perceives and must act on — with both held as legitimate on their own plane rather than the second being simply an error to correct. Distinct from apophatic_theology (a claim about how the divine may be described, by negation) and unity_of_being (a claim that being is ultimately one) in being a claim about two coexisting registers of truth-claim itself.
The passage explicitly holds two registers simultaneously: the conventional naming ('it is called the shape of the visible body') and the ultimate (no-shape), with both treated as legitimate on their own plane.
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 merit, body, signs, and law by negating their inherent existence (e.g., 'preached as no-stock of merit', 'no-shape of the visible body').
The doctrine that all existence is ultimately one substance or one divine reality; non-duality as a theological claim.
The closing statement 'all is the same there, there is no difference there, and therefore it is called the highest perfect knowledge' is a direct assertion of non-duality.