Vajrakkhedika (Diamond Cutter) · 18 of 19 · tr. E.B. Cowell, F. Max Müller, and J. Kakakusu
Section 1r
This probably refers to the auspicious signs discovered in S âkyamuni at his birth, which left it open whether he should become a king or a Buddha.] A Buddha is to be seen (known) from the Law; for the Lords (Buddhas) have the Law-body; And the nature of the Law cannot be understood, nor can it be made to be understood.
(26) XXVII.
'What do you think then, O Subhûti, has the highest perfect knowledge been known by the Tathâgata through the possession of signs?
You should not think so, O Subhûti.
And why?
Because, O Subhûti, the highest perfect knowledge would not be known by the Tathâgata through the possession of signs.
Nor should anybody, O Subhûti, say to you that the destruction or annihilation of any thing is proclaimed by those who have entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas.' (27) XXVIII.
'And if, O Subhûti, a son or a daughter of a good family were to fill worlds equal to the number of grains of sand of the river Gangâ with the seven treasures, and give them as a gift to holy and fully enlightened Tathâgatas; and if a Bodhisattva acquired endurance in selfless and uncreated things, then the latter will on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.
'But, O Subhûti, a stock of merit should not be appropriated by a noble-minded Bodhisattva.' The venerable Subhûti said: 'Should a stock of merit, O Bhagavat, not be appropriated by a Bodhisattva?' Bhagavat said: 'It should be appropriated, O Subhûti; it should not be appropriated; and therefore it is said: It should be appropriated.' (28) XXIX.
'And again, O Subhûti, if anybody were to say that the Tathâgata goes, or comes, or stands, or sits, or lies down, he, O Subhûti, does not understand the meaning of my preaching.
And why?
Because the word Tathâgata means one who does not go to anywhere, and does not come from anywhere; and therefore he is called the Tathâgata (truly come), holy and fully enlightened.' (29) XXX.
'And again, O Subhûti, if a son or a daughter of a good family were to take as many worlds as there are grains of earth-dust in this sphere of a million millions of worlds, and reduce them to such fine dust as can be made with immeasurable strength, like what is called a mass of the smallest atoms, do you think, O Subhûti, would that be a mass of many atoms?' Subhûti said: 'Yes, Bhagavat, yes, Sugata, that would be a mass of many atoms.
And why?
Because, O Bhagavat, if it were a mass of many atoms, Bhagavat would not call it a mass of many atoms.
And why?
Because, what was preached as a mass of many atoms by the Tathâgata, that was preached as no-mass of atoms by the Tathâgata; and therefore it is called a mass of many atoms.
And what was preached by the Tathâgata as the sphere of a million millions of worlds, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-sphere of worlds; and therefore it is called the sphere of a million millions of worlds.
And why?
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 defines the Tathagata and Law by negating signs, form, and movement, aligning with the doctrine that phenomena lack independent self-nature.