Vajrakkhedika (Diamond Cutter) · 17 of 19 · tr. E.B. Cowell, F. Max Müller, and J. Kakakusu
Section 1q
Free from self, free from being, free from life, free from personality, that highest perfect knowledge is always the same, and thus known with all good things.
And why?
Because, what were preached as good things, good things indeed, O Subhûti, they were preached as no-things by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called good things.' (23) XXIV.
'And if, O Subhûti, a woman or man, putting together as many heaps of the seven treasures as there are Sumerus, kings of mountains, in the sphere of a million millions of worlds, should give them as a gift to holy and fully enlightened Tathâgatas; and, if a son or a daughter of a good family, after taking from this treatise of the Law, this Pra gñ âpâramitâ, one Gâthâ of four lines only, should teach it to others, then, O Subhûti, compared with his stock of merit, the former stock of merit would not come to the one hundredth part,' &c.[1], till 'it will not bear an approach.' (24) XXV.
'What do you think then, O Subhûti, does a Tathâgatas think in this wise: Beings have been delivered by me?
You should not think so, O Subhûti.
And why?
Because there is no being, O Subhûti, that has been delivered by the Tathâgata.
And, if there were a being, O Subhûti, that has been delivered by the Tathâgatas, then the Tathâgata would believe in self, believe in a being, believe in a living being, and believe in a person.
And what is called a belief in self, O Subhûti, that is preached [1.
As before, in chap.
xvi.] as no-belief by the Tathâgata.
And this is learned by children and ignorant persons; and they who were preached as children and ignorant persons, O Subhûti, were preached as no-persons by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called children and ignorant persons.' (25) XXVI.
'What do you think then, O Subhûti, is the Tathâgata to be seen (known) by the possession of signs?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat.
So far as I know the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, the Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.' Bhagavat said: 'Good, good, Subhûti, so it is, Subhûti; so it is, as you say; a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.
And why?
Because, O Subhûti, if the Tathâgata were to be seen (known) by the possession of signs, a wheel-turning king also would be a Tathâgata[1]; therefore a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.' The venerable Subhûti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'As I understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.' Then the Bhagavat at that moment preached these two Gâthâs: They who saw me by form, and they who heard me by sound, They engaged in false endeavours, will not see me.
[1.
Themes
◆Apophatic Theologytheology
Describing the divine only by negation—God transcends all positive categories and concepts; the via negativa.
The passage defines the highest knowledge and beings primarily through negation, stating they are 'no-beings' and that 'nothing... has been known'.
All passages →◆Gnosis Direct Knowledgesoteriology
Salvation through direct experiential knowledge of the divine nature, not through faith, ritual, or moral works alone.
The passage centers on the nature of 'highest perfect knowledge' as the ultimate realization, even while negating its conceptual form.
All passages →◆Opposites Transcendedanthropology
The dissolution of binary oppositions (male/female, inner/outer, above/below) as a mark of spiritual completion.
It explicitly states 'all is the same there, there is no difference there,' dissolving binary oppositions like being and non-being.
All passages →◆Paradox As Teachingethics
Using apparent contradiction, reversal, or riddle to destabilise ordinary understanding and induce insight.
The text employs apparent contradictions such as 'beings... preached as no-beings' to destabilize ordinary 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 beings as 'no-beings' and highest knowledge as knowing 'nothing', directly expressing the doctrine of emptiness.
All passages →Related passages · 8 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 nature of ultimate reality and the transcendence of conventional concepts such as self, being, and good things. They emphasize the non-dualistic and formless nature of the highest truth, which is beyond ordinary perception and conceptualization.
◆christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 4, Section 1~
“And such was the Incarnate Life of Christ and such is the Life of God in eternity.
So too the wisdom of Christ is, from a worldly point of view, foolishness.
For worldly wisdom = self-seeking, but the Wisdom of Christ = self-abandonment.…”
Both passages emphasize the transcendence of ultimate reality beyond conventional categories and the importance of selflessness or non-attachment. The Diamond Sutra discusses the emptiness of all phenomena and the non-existence of a self, while the Christian mystical text highlights the foolishness of worldly wisdom and the self-abandonment of Christ's wisdom.
◆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 explore the concept of transcendent wisdom that is beyond ordinary understanding and description. They emphasize the ineffable nature of ultimate reality and the limitations of human perception and language in grasping it.
◆neoplatonism|Select Works of Plotinus|Select Works, Section 462
“Section 9 9. Everything brought into being under some principle not itself is contained either within its maker or, if there is any intermediate, within that: having a prior essential to its being, it needs that prior always, otherwise it w…”
Both passages explore the nature of ultimate reality and knowledge. Plotinus discusses the Intellectual-Principle and its inherent truth, while Subhûti and the Bhagavat discuss the highest perfect knowledge and its nature as non-being. Both traditions emphasize the transcendence of conventional categories and the direct, immediate nature of ultimate knowledge.
◆neoplatonism|Select Works of Plotinus|Select Works, Section 489
“Section 11 11. Similarly any one, unable to see himself, but possessed by that God, has but to bring that divine- within before his consciousness and at once he sees an image of himself, himself lifted to a better beauty: now let him ignore…”
Both passages discuss the nature of ultimate reality and knowledge, emphasizing the unity and non-duality of existence. Plotinus speaks of the One as encompassing all beings and being wisdom itself, while the Buddhist text discusses the highest perfect knowledge as being free from self, being, and personality, highlighting the non-dual nature of reality.
◆neoplatonism|Select Works of Plotinus|Select Works, Section 663
“Section 24 24. But ourselves- how does it touch us? We may recall what we have said of the nature of the light shining from it into Intellectual-Principle and so by participation into the soul. But for the moment let us leave that aside and…”
Both passages explore the nature of ultimate reality and goodness, questioning the conventional understanding of these concepts. Plotinus delves into the nature of The Good and its relationship with Intellectual-Principle and the soul, while the Buddhist text discusses the emptiness of all things, including the Tathāgata, and the nature of good deeds and merit. Both texts challenge the conventional understanding of goodness and reality, emphasizing a deeper, more abstract understanding.
◆neoplatonism|Select Works of Plotinus|Select Works, Section 677
“Section 38 38. And yet this "He Is" does not truly apply: the Supreme has no need of Being: even "He is good" does not apply since it indicates Being: the "is" should not suggest something predicated of another thing; it is to state identit…”
Both passages explore the concept of the ultimate reality or principle that transcends being and self-awareness. Plotinus discusses the Supreme as beyond being and self-knowledge, while the Buddhist text describes the Tathāgata as free from self, being, and personality, emphasizing the transcendence of conventional categories.
◆platonism|Plato: Republic|Section 1m
“Yes, I said, that they should begin by reproaching us with our ignorance of the good, and then presume our knowledge of it-- for the good they define to be knowledge of the good, just as if we understood them when they use the term `good'--…”
Both passages explore the nature of ultimate reality and the limitations of conventional understanding. The Vajrakkhedika emphasizes the emptiness of all phenomena and the non-dual nature of reality, while the Platonic dialogue discusses the nature of the good and the limitations of human knowledge, both pointing towards a deeper, more profound understanding beyond ordinary perception.