The rise of the movement referred to as the Mahāyāna, some four hundred years after the Buddha’s death, is sometimes marked by the appearance of new sūtras that were called the ‘perfection of wisdom’ (prajñāpāramitā). Like many other Mahāyāna sūtras, the perfection of wisdom texts were not systematic treatises that set forth philosophical points and doctrinal categories in a straightforward manner. Instead, they strike the modern reader as having something of the nature of revelations, bold pronouncements proclaimed with certainty, rather than speculative arguments developed in a linear fashion. The perfection of wisdom that the sūtras repeatedly praised was often identified as the knowledge of emptiness (śūnyatā), and it was this knowledge that was required for all who sought to become buddhas. This emptiness was often presented in a series of negations, with statements like ‘that which is a world system, that is said by the Tathāgata not to be a system. In that sense [the term] “world system” is used.’ The precise meaning of such statements would be explored by generations of commentators in India, East Asia and Tibet.
Many of the perfection of wisdom sūtras came to be known by their length, hence the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Stanzas, the Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-five Thousand Stanzas, the Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Stanzas, the Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter. Others had titles, the most famous of these being what has come to be known in the West as the Heart Sūtra and the text known as the Diamond Sūtra. Probably composed in Sanskrit sometime between the second and fourth centuries of the Common Era, the latter was to become one of the most famous, and most commented upon, of the Mahāyāna sūtras. Yet much of its meaning remains elusive, beginning with the title. In Sanskrit, it is Vajrac-chedikā Prajnñpāramitā. The Sanskrit term vajra refers to a kind of magical weapon, sometimes described as a thunderbolt or discus, and which is said to be hard and unbreakable, like a diamond. Thus, the title might be rendered into English as ‘The Perfection of Wisdom that Cuts like a Thunderbolt’.
The present selection is from the manuscript of the sūtra unearthed at Gilgit, in modern Pakistan. It represents roughly the last half of the sūtra, often considered the more difficult half. The sūtra opens with the Buddha residing in the Jeta Grove with 1,250 monks and a large number of bodhisattvas. After returning from his begging round and eating his meal, the Buddha is approached by the great arhat Subhūti, who asks him about the practice of the bodhisattva. The Buddha says that a bodhisattva must vow to lead all beings in the universe into nirvana, with the knowledge that there are no beings to be led into nirvāṇa. ‘If, Subhūti, a conception of a living being were to occur to a bodhisattva, a conception of a personal soul, or a conception of a person, he is not to be called “a bodhisattva”.’ This is one of many famous statements in the sūtra, regarded by commentators as setting forth the doctrine of emptiness (although the term śūnyatā or emptiness does not appear in the sūtra), that all phenomena are falsely imagined to have a self, a soul, an ‘own-being’, a reality which they, in fact, lack. Any meritorious deed, from the giving of a gift to the vow to free all beings, is not a deed of a bodhisattva if it is tainted with the misconception of self. The Buddha asks Subhūti whether the Buddha is to be seen by the possession of the thirty-two physical marks of a superman that adorn his body. Subhūti says that he is not, because what the Buddha has described as the possession of marks is in fact the possession of no marks. This formula of question and response, with the correct answer being ‘A is in fact not A, therefore it is called A’ is repeated throughout the text.
But the sūtra is not simply a radical challenge to the ordinary conception of the world, of language and of thought. It is also a Mahāyāna sūtra, seeking, like others (see chapter 5 and 38), to declare its supremacy and to promise rewards to those who exalt it. It is noteworthy that here, as in many other perfection of wisdom sūtras, the Buddha’s interlocutor is not a bodhisattva, but an arhat, the wise Subhūti, suggesting that even those who have completed the path to nirvāṇa still have more to learn. The Buddha predicts that this sūtra will be understood far into the future, into the period of the last five hundred years that his teaching remains in the world. At that time, anyone who has even a moment of faith in this sūtra will be honoured by millions of buddhas. Indeed, even now, long before this point in the distant future, anyone who would teach just four lines of this sūtra to others would win incalculable merit. In a statement that appears in other perfection of wisdom sūtras, the Buddha declares, ‘on whatever piece of ground one will proclaim this sūtra, that piece of ground will become an object of worship. That piece of ground will become for the world together with its devas, men and asuras a true shrine to be revered and circumambulated.’ Scholars have seen in this statement the possibility that the perfection of wisdom sūtras were something of a ‘cult of the book’, in which the sūtra itself was worshipped, serving as a substitute for more traditional sites of worship, such as stüpas. And the sūtra suggests that such practices were not always condoned by others; the Buddha goes on to say that those who worship the sūtra will be ridiculed for doing so, but by suffering ridicule they will destroy the great stores of negative karma accumulated over many lifetimes. The Buddha’s exhortations seem to have been taken to heart. The recitation and copying of the sūtra was widely practised and miracle tales of the benefits of so doing were told across Asia.
The sūtra is, above all, a discourse on the wisdom that shatters our ordinary conceptions, returning again and again to the negation of the fundamental elements of the dharma, suggesting that it is the very absence of self that is their true nature.
[Folio 5a] The Blessed One said: ‘The number, Subhūti, of particles of dust in a world-system of three thousand great-thousand worlds – is that great?’
He said: ‘It is great, Blessed One. That particle of dust is said to be not a particle by the Tathāgata. In that sense “a particle of dust” is used. Also, that which is a world-system, that is said by the Tathāgata not to be a system. In that sense “world-system” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘What do you think, Subhūti? Is a tathāgata to be seen through the thirty-two characteristic marks of a great man?’
He said: ‘No, Blessed One. Why is that? Each of the thirty-two characteristic marks of a great man is said to be not a characteristic mark by the Tathāgata. In that sense “the thirty-two characteristic marks of a great man” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘But again, Subhūti, if a woman or a man were to give away their person as many times as there are sands in the River Ganges, and if someone else, after taking from this discourse on doctrine a verse of even four lines, were to teach it to others, the latter alone would on that account produce great merit, immeasurable and incalculable.’
Then, indeed, the venerable Subhūti, through the shock of the doctrine, burst into tears. Wiping away his tears, he said this to the Blessed One: ‘It is astonishing, O Blessed One, it is truly astonishing, O Sugata, how this discourse on doctrine was spoken by the Tathāgata, as a consequence of which knowledge has arisen for me! I have never heard this discourse on doctrine before. They, Blessed One, who will produce a true conception when this sūtra is being taught here will be possessed by the greatest astonishment. And that, Blessed One, which is a true conception, that indeed is not a conception. On that account the Tathāgata says [5b] “A true conception, a true conception”.
‘Blessed One, it is not astonishing to me that I am prepared for the teaching of this discourse on doctrine, since I have been intent upon it. Blessed One, those living beings who will take up this discourse on doctrine… and master it will be possessed by the greatest astonishment. But again, Blessed One, a conception of a self will not occur to them, nor a conception of a living being, nor a conception of a personal soul, nor a conception of a person. And why is that? Because the buddhas, the blessed ones, have walked away from all conceptions.’
The Blessed One said: ‘That is so, Subhūti. Those who, after hearing this discourse on doctrine, will not be terrified, will not tremble, will not be overcome by dread, they will be possessed by the greatest astonishment. And why is that? This, Subhūti, has been declared by the Tathāgata to be the greatest perfection. And that which the Tathāgata declares the greatest perfection is declared as well by immeasurable buddhas and blessed ones. In that sense “greatest perfection” is used.
‘But again, Subhūti, that which is the perfection of patience of the Thatāgata, just that is not a perfection. And why is that? When, Subhūti, an evil king hacked the flesh from all my limbs, there was for me on that occasion no conception of a self, no conception of a living being, no conception of a personal soul, no conception of a person. Nor, moreover, could there have been a conception of injury for me at that time. Subhūti, I remember five hundred births in the past when I was a seer who taught patience. Then too there was for me no conception of a self, no conception of a living being, no conception of a personal soul, no conception of a person. Therefore, Subhūti, a bodhisattva, a mahāsattva, having abandoned all conception…’ [folio 6 is missing].
[‘Those who will take up this discourse on doctrine, will preserve it, will declare it, will recite it, will master it…], [7a] all those living beings will carry my awakening on their shoulder. And why is that? It is not possible for this discourse on doctrine to be heard by living beings who have but little resolve. Nor is it possible for it to be heard, taken up… or mastered, by those who have a view of a self, nor by those who have a view of a living being or a personal soul or a person. That situation simply does not occur.
‘But again, Subhūti, on whatever piece of ground one will proclaim this sūtra, that piece of ground will become an object of worship. That piece of ground will become for the world together with its devas, men and asuras a true shrine to be revered and circumambulated. Subhūti, those sons and daughters of good family who will take up sūtras such as these… and master them, they will be ridiculed, severely ridiculed. But, through that ridicule, their demeritorious actions in former lives which should lead to rebirth in an unfortunate destiny will here and now come to be exhausted, and they will obtain the awakening of a buddha.
‘Subhūti, I remember that in the past, during incalculable and more than incalculable aeons – before the time of the tathāgata, arhat, fully and completely awakened one Dīpaṃkara – there were eighty-four hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of buddhas who were attended to by me and, having been attended to, were not neglected. [7b] If, Subhūti, after having attended to them, all those buddhas were not neglected by me; and if in the final period, when the last five hundred years have begun, someone will take up these sūtras… and master them, then, Subhūti, the quantity of merit resulting from the former does not approach even a hundredth part of the quantity of merit of the latter, nor a thousandth part, nor a hundred-thousandth. That quantity of merit is not open to enumeration, nor measure, nor calculation, nor comparison, nor likening. Subhūti, those living beings, those sons and daughters of good family will acquire then such a quantity of merit that if I were to declare the quantity of merit of those sons and daughters of good family, living beings [who heard that declaration] would go mad, they would be totally disoriented. But again, Subhūti, this discourse on doctrine is unthinkable – unthinkable indeed is its effect.’
He said: ‘How, Blessed One, should one who has set out on the way of a bodhisattva stand? How should he actually practise? How should he direct his thought?’
The Blessed One said: ‘Here, Subhūti, one who has set out on the way of a bodhisattva should produce a thought in this manner: “All living beings should be led by me to final nirvāṇa in the realm of nirvāṇa which leaves nothing behind. But after having led living beings thus to final nirvāṇa, there is no living being whatsoever who has been led to final nirvāṇa.” And why is that? If, [8a] Subhūti, a conception of a living being were to occur to a bodhisattva, a conception of a personal soul, or a conception of a person, he is not to be called “a bodhisattva”. And why is that? Subhūti, that which is called “one who has set out on the way of a bodhisattva”, that is not a thing.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? Is that some thing which was awakened to by the Tathāgata, in the presence of the tathāgata Dīpaṃkara, as the utmost, full and perfect awakening?’
He said: ‘Blessed One, that which was awakened to by the Tathāgata, in the presence of the tathāgata Dīpaṃkara, as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is not some thing.’
He said: ‘Because of that was I assured by the tathāgata Dīpaṃkara: “You, young man, will be at a future time a tathāgata, arhat, fully and perfectly awakened one named Śākyamuni.” And why is that? “Tathāgata”, Subhūti, that is a designation for thusness. Subhūti, someone might speak thus, “The utmost, full and perfect awakening is fully and perfectly awakened to by the Tathāgata.” But that which is the utmost, full and perfect awakening fully and perfectly awakened to by the Tathāgata is not some thing. Subhūti, the thing which is fully and perfectly awakened to by the Tathāgata – in that there is neither truth nor falsehood. On that account the Tathāgata says “all characteristics are the characteristics of a buddha”. “All characteristics”, Subhūti, all those are not characteristics. In that sense “all characteristics” is used. Suppose, for example, Subhūti, there would be a man endowed with a body, a great body.’
Subhūti said: ‘That which [8b] the Tathāgata has called a man endowed with a body, a great body – he, Blessed One, is said to be without a body by the Tathāgata. In that sense “endowed with a body, a great body” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘Just so, Subhūti, the bodhisattva who would speak thus: “I will lead beings to final nirvāṇa” – he is not to be called a bodhisattva. And why is that? Is there, Subhūti, some thing which is named “bodhisattva”?’
He said: ‘No indeed, Blessed One.’
The Blessed One said: ‘On that account the Tathāgata says “all things are without living being, without personal soul, without person”. Subhūti, a bodhisattva who would speak thus: “I will bring about wonderful arrangements in [my] sphere of activity” – he too is not to be called a bodhisattva. And why is that? “Wonderful arrangements in [one’s] sphere of activity, wonderful arrangements in [one’s] sphere of activity”, Subhūti, those have been said by the Tathāgata not to be wonderful arrangements. In that sense “wonderful arrangements in [one’s] sphere of activity” is used. Subhūti, that bodhisattva who is intent on saying “without a self are things, without a self are things” – he is declared “a bodhisattva, a bodhisattva” by the Tathāgata, arhat, fully and perfectly Awakened One.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? Does the physical eye of the Tathāgata exist?’
He said: ‘So it is Blessed One. The physical eye of the Tathāgata exists.’
The Blessed One said: ‘What do you think, Subhūti? Does the divine eye of the Tathāgata exist, the eye of wisdom, the eye of dharma, the awakened eye?’
He said: ‘So it is Blessed One. [9a] The divine eye of the Tathāgata, the eye of wisdom, the eye of dharma, the awakened eye exists.’
The Blessed One said: ‘What do you think, Subhūti? There could be as many Ganges rivers as there are sands in the River Ganges, and there could be as many world-systems as there are sands in that many rivers. Would those world-systems then be many?’
The Blessed One said: ‘Subhūti, I could know the various streams of thought of living beings as numerous as those in that many world-systems. And why is that? “Stream of thought, stream of thought”, Subhuti, that has been said by the Tathāgata not to be a stream. In that sense “stream of thought” is used. And why is that? Subhūti, a past thought is not apprehended. A future thought is not apprehended. A present [thought] is not apprehended.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? He who, after having filled this three thousand great-thousand world-system with the seven precious things, would give it as a gift – surely that son or daughter of good family would, as a result, produce much merit?’
He said: ‘Much, Blessed One, much, Sugata.’
The Blessed One said: ‘So it is, Subhūti, so it is much. That son or daughter of good family would, as a result, produce much merit. If, Subhūti, there would have been a quantity of merit, the Tathāgata would not have said “quantity of merit, quantity of merit”.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? Should the Tathāgata be seen through the perfect development of his physical body?’ [9b]
He said: ‘No Blessed One. It is not through the perfect development of his physical body that the Tathāgata is to be seen. And why is that? “A perfect development of the physical body, a perfect development of the physical body”, that is said to be not a perfect development by the Tathāgata. In that sense “perfect development of the physical body” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘What do you think, Subhūti? Should the Tathāgata be seen through the possession of characteristic marks?’
He said: ‘No Blessed One. It is not through the possession of characteristic marks that the Tathāgata is to be seen. And why is that? That which is the possession of characteristic marks is said to be not the possession of characteristic marks by the Tathāgata. In that sense “possession of characteristic marks” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘What do you think, Subhūti? Surely it occurs to the Tathāgata: “Not by me has a doctrine been taught.” He, Subhūti, who would speak thus: “By the Tathāgata a doctrine has been taught”, he, Subhūti, would falsely accuse me by taking something up from what is not there. Why is that? “A teaching of doctrine, a teaching of doctrine”, Subhūti, that is not some thing which receives the name “a teaching of doctrine”.’
He said: ‘Blessed One, will there be any living beings at a future time who, after hearing such doctrines being taught, will believe?’
The Blessed One said: ‘They, Subhūti, are neither living beings nor non-living beings. Why is that? “All living beings”, Subhūti, they are said to be not living beings by the Tathāgata. In that sense [10a] “all living beings” is used.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? Surely that which was awakened to by the Tathāgata as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is some thing?’
He said: ‘Blessed One, that which was awakened to by the Tathāgata as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is not some thing.’
The Blessed One said: ‘So it is, Subhūti, so it is. Not even the most minute thing exists or is found there. In that sense “utmost, full and perfect awakening” is used. But again, Subhūti, that thing is the same; there is no difference. In that sense “utmost, full and perfect awakening” is used. Through the fact of there being no personal soul, no living being, no person, that utmost, full and perfect awakening is fully and perfectly awakened to as identical with all meritorious things. “Meritorious things, meritorious things”, Subhūti – but just those are said by the Tathāgata not to be things. In that sense “meritorious things” is used.
‘But once again, Subhūti, if someone, after collecting piles of the seven precious things as large as the kings of mountains, the Sumerus, here in this three thousand great-thousand world-system, were to give them as a gift; and someone else, after having taken from this Perfection of Wisdom a verse of even four lines, were to teach it to others – Subhūti, the quantity of merit from the former case does not approach a hundredth part of the quantity of merit of the latter… [10b] it is not open to comparison.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? Surely it occurs to the Thatūgata: “living beings are released by me”. Not, again, Subhūti, is it to be seen thus. Why is that? That which is released by the Thatāgata is not some living being. If again, Subhūti, there would have been some living being who was released by the Tathāgata, that indeed would have been for him the holding on to a self, the holding on to a living being, the holding on to a personal soul, the holding on to a personal entity. “Holding on to a self”, Subhūti, this is said by the Tathāgata to be not holding on, but it is held on to by simple ordinary people. “Simple ordinary people”, Subhūti, these are said by the Tathāgata not to be people. In that sense “simple ordinary people” is used.
‘What do you think, Subhūti, should the Tathāgata be seen through the possession of characteristic marks?’
He said: ‘That is so, Blessed One. The Thatūgata is to be seen through the possession of characteristic marks.’
The Blessed One said: ‘But if, Subhūti, the Tathāgata were to be seen through the possession of characteristic marks, a wheel-turning king [cakravartin] would also be a Tathāgata.’
He said: ‘As I understand the meaning of what was said by the Blessed One, the Tathāgata is not to be seen through the possession of characteristic marks.’
Then, again, on that occasion the Blessed One spoke these verses:
Those who saw me through form,
Those who associated me with sound – [11a]
They have engaged in a misguided effort.
Those people will not see me.
The Awakened One is to be seen from the doctrine;
The Tathāgata is the body of doctrine;
But, indeed, the substance of the doctrine is not to be understood,
Nor is it possible for it to be understood.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? Is the utmost, full and perfect awakening fully and perfectly awakened to by the Tathāgata through the possession of characteristic marks? Again, Subhūti, it is not to be seen thus. The utmost, full and perfect awakening, Subhūti, is not fully and perfectly awakened to by the Tathāgata through the possession of characteristic marks.
‘If, again, Subhūti, it should occur thus: “by someone set out on the way of a bodhisattva the destruction of some thing is taught, or its annihilation”, again, Subhūti, it is not to be seen thus. The destruction of some thing, or its annihilation, is not taught by someone who has set out on the way of a bodhisattva.
‘If, again, Subhūti, a son or daughter of good family, after filling world-systems similar in number to the sands of the Ganges with the seven precious things, were to give them as a gift to the Tathāgata, arhat, fully and perfectly Awakened One; and if a bodhisattva were to achieve composure in the midst of things that have no self – the latter would indeed produce much greater merit than the former. However, Subhūti, a quantity of merit is not to be acquired by a bodhisattva.’
He said: ‘A quantity of merit, Blessed One, is to be acquired, surely?’
The Blessed One said: ‘ “Is to be acquired”, Subhūti, not “is to be held on to”. In that sense “is to be acquired” is used, [11b]
‘But once again, Subhūti, if someone were to speak thus: “The Tathāgata goes, or he comes, or he stands, or he sits, or he lies down” – he does not understand the meaning of what I said. Why is that? A “ tathāgata”, Subhūti, has not come from anywhere, has not gone anywhere. In that sense“ tathāgata, arhat, fully and perfect awakened one” is used.
‘And if again, Subhūti, a son or daughter of good family were to grind into powder as many world-systems as there are particles of dust in this three thousand great-thousand world-system so that there would be just a pile of the finest atoms – what do you think, Subhūti? Would that pile of atoms be huge?’
He said: ‘That is so, Blessed One, that would be a huge pile of atoms. And why is that? If, Blessed One, there would have been a pile, the Blessed One would not have said “a pile of atoms”. Why is that? That which is said to be a pile of atoms, that is said by the Blessed One not to be a pile. In that sense “a pile of atoms” is used. That which the Tathāgata calls “three thousand great-thousand world-system”, that is said by the Thatāgata not to be a system. In that sense “three thousand great-thousand world-system” is used. Why is that? If, Blessed One, there would have been a system, just that, Blessed One, would have been the holding on to a solid mass. And that which is said by the Tathāgata [12a] to be the holding on to a solid mass is said to be not holding on. In that sense “holding on to a solid mass” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘And holding on to a solid mass is itself, Subhūti, a thing not open to verbal expression; it cannot be put into words. It, however, has been held on to by simply ordinary people. Why is that? If, Subhūti, someone were to speak thus, “A view of a self was taught by the Tathāgata, a view of a living being, a view of a personal soul, a view of a person” – would he indeed, Subhūti, speak correctly?’
He said: ‘No, Blessed One. And why is that? Blessed One, that which is said by the Tathāgata to be a view of a self, that is said by the Tathāgata to be not a view. In that sense “a view of a self” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘In this way, Subhūti, one who has set out on the way of a bodhisattva should know all things, should be intent on them. And he should be intent on them in such a way that even the conception of a thing would not be present. Why is that? “Conception of a thing, conception of a thing”, Subhūti, that is said by the Tathāgata not to be a conception. In that sense “conception of a thing” is used.
‘And again, Subhūti, if a bodhisattva, mahāsattva, having filled immeasurable, incalculable world-systems with the seven precious things, were to give them as a gift; and if a son or daughter of good family, having taken up from this perfection of wisdom a verse of even four lines, were to preserve it, were to teach it, were to master it [12b] – the latter certainly would produce immeasurable, incalculable merit, much greater than the first.
‘And how would he fully cause it to appear? In such a way that he would not cause it to appear. In that sense “fully cause it to appear” is used.’
A shooting star, a fault of vision, a lamp;
An illusion and dew and a bubble;
A dream, a flash of lightning, a thundercloud –
In this way is the conditioned to be seen.
The Blessed One said this.
Delighted, the elder Subhūti, and the monks and nuns, the laymen and women, and the world with its devas, men, asuras and gandharvas rejoiced in that spoken by the Blessed One.
The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā is concluded.
Translated by Gregory Schopen from the manuscript of the Vajracchedikā found at Gilgit. The translation was first published in Luis O. Gómez and Jonathan A. Silk (eds.), The Great Vehicle: Three Mahāyāna Texts (Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), pp. 123–31.