The
VAGRAKKHEDIKÂ
OR
DIAMOND-CUTTER.
Translated
by F. Max Muller
Modified by Antihubris.com
ADORATION
to the blessed Ârya-pragñâ-pâramitâ
(perfection of wisdom).
I.
Thus
it was heard by me: At one time Bhagavat (the blessed
Buddha) dwelt in Srâvastî,
in the grove of Geta[1],
in the garden of Anâthapindada[2],
together with a large company of Bhikshus (mendicants),
viz. with 1250 Bhikshus[3], with many noble-minded
Bodhisattvas[4].
[1.
Geta,
son of king Prasenagit,
to whom the park belonged before it was sold to
Anâthapindada.
2.
Another name of Sudatta, meaning, literally, he who gives
food to the poor.
3. The number of 1250 is explained by a Chinese priest
Lun-hin, in his commentary on the Amitâyur-dhyâna-sûtra.
According to the Dharmagupta-vinaya, which he quotes, the
number consisted of 500 disciples of
Uruvilva-kâsyapa,
300 of Gayâ-kâsyapa,
200 of Nadî-kâsyapa,
150 of Sâriputra,
and 100 of Maudgalyâyana. The Chinese translators often
mistook the Sanskrit expression 'half-thirteen hundred,'
i.e. 1250. See Bunyiu Nanjio, Catalogue of Tripitaka, p. 6.
4.
Higher beings on the road to Bodhi or perfect knowledge.
They are destined hereafter to become Buddhas themselves.]
{p. 112}
Then Bhagavat having in the forenoon put
on his undergarment[1], and having taken his bowl and
cloak, entered the great city of Srâvastî
to collect alms. Then Bhagavat, after he had gone to the
great city of Srâvastî
to collect alms, performed the act of eating[2], and having
returned from his round in the afternoon[3], he put away
his bowl and cloak, washed his feet, and sat down on the
seat intended[4] for him, crossing his legs[5], holding his
body upright, and turning his reflection upon himself. Then
many Bhikshus approached to where Bhagavat was, saluted his
feet with their heads, turned three times round hira to the
right, and sat down on one side. (1)
II.
At
that time again the venerable Subhûti came to that assembly
and sat down. Then rising from his seat and putting his
robe over one shoulder, kneeling on the earth with his
right knee, he stretched out his folded hands towards
Bhagavat and said to him: 'It is wonderful, O Bhagavat, it
is exceedingly wonderful, O Sugata, how much the
noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been favoured with the
highest favour by the Tathâgata, the holy and
[1. In
Pâli pubbamhasmayam
nivâsetva,
the technical expression for putting on the robes early in
the morning; see Childers, s.v.
nivâseti.
2. In
Pâli katabhattakikko,
see Childers, s.v.
3. In Pâli pakkhâbhattam
pindapâtapatikkânta,
see Childers, s.v. pindapâta.
Vig.
observes that pakkhabhattam
pindapâtapatikkânto
is a {Greek ú!oteron
próteron}, as it
means, having returned from his rounds, and then made his
meal on the food obtained on his rounds.
4. Pâli paññata.
5.
Burnouf, Lotus, p. 334.]
{p. 113}
fully enlightened! It is wonderful how much the
noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been instructed[1] with the
highest instruction by the Tathâgata, the holy and fully
enlightened! How then, O Bhagavat, should the son or the
daughter of a good family, after having entered on the path
of the Bodhisattvas, behave, how should he advance, and how
should he restrain his thoughts?'
After the venerable Subhûti had thus
spoken, Bhagavat said to him: 'Well said, well said,
Subhûti! So it is, Subhûti, so it is, as you say. The
noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been favoured with the
highest favour by the Tathâgata, the noble-minded
Bodhisattvas have been instructed with the highest
instruction by the Tathâgata. Therefore, O Subhûti, listen
and take it to heart, well and rightly. I shall tell you,
how any one who has entered on the path of Bodhisanvas
should behave, how he should advance, and how he should
restrain his thoughts.' Then the venerable Subhûti answered
the Bhagavat and said: 'So be it, O Bhagavat.' (2)
III.
Then
the Bhagavat thus spoke to him: 'Any one, O Subhûti, who
has entered here on the path of the Bodhisattvas must thus
frame his thought: As many beings as there are in this
world of beings, comprehended under the term of beings
(either born of eggs, or from the womb, or from moisture,
or miraculously), with form or without form, with name or
without name, or neither with nor without name, as far as
[1. I
have followed the Chinese translator, who translates
parîndita by instructed, entrusted, not by
protected.]
{p. 114}
any known world of beings is known, all these must be
delivered by me in the perfect world of
Nirvâna.
And yet, after I have thus delivered immeasurable beings,
not one single being has been delivered. And why? If, O
Subhûti, a Bodhisattva had any idea of (belief in) a being,
he could not be called a Bodhisattva (one who is fit to
become a Buddha). And why? Because, O Subhûti, no one is to
be called a Bodhisattva, for whom there should exist the
idea of a being, the idea of a living being, or the idea of
a person.' (3)
IV.
'And
again, O Subhûti, a gift should not be given by a
Bodhisattva, while he believes[1] in objects; a gift should
not be given by him, while he believes in anything; a gift
should not be given by him, while he believes in form; a
gift should not be given by him, while he believes in the
special qualities of sound, smell, taste, and touch. For
thus, O Subhûti, should a gift be given by a noble-minded
Bodhisattva, that he should not believe even in the idea of
cause. And why? Because that Bodhisattva, O Subhûti, who
gives a gift, without believing in anything, the measure of
his stock of merit is not easy to learn.'--'What do you
think, O Subhûti, is it easy to learn the measure of space
in the eastern quarter?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O
Bhagavat.'--Bhagavat said: 'In like manner, is it easy to
learn the measure of space in the southern, western,
northern quarters, below and above (nadir and zenith), in
quarters and subquarters, in the ten quarters all round?'
Subhûti said: 'Not indeed,
[1. To
believe here means to depend on or ta accept as
real.]
{p. 115}
O Bhagavat.' Bhagavat said: 'In the same manner, O Subhûti,
the measure of the stock of merit of a Bodhisattva, who
gives a gift without believing in anything, is not easy to
learn. And thus indeed, O Subhûti, should one who has
entered on the path of Bodhisattvas give a gift, that he
should not believe even in the idea of cause.' (4)
V.
'Now,
what do you think, O Subhûti, should a Tathâgata be seen
(known) by the possession of signs[1]?' Subhûti said: 'Not
indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known)
by the possession of signs. And why? Because what has been
preached by the Tathâgata as the possession of signs, that
is indeed the possession of no-signs.'
After this, Bhagavat spoke thus to the
venerable Subhûti: 'Wherever there is, O Subhûti, the
possession of signs, there is falsehood; wherever there is
no possession of signs, there is no falsehood. Hence the
Tathâgata is to be seen (known) from no-signs as signs[2].'
(5)
VI.
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[3], during the time
[1.
Qualities by which he could be known.
2.
It would be easier to read lakshanâlakshanatvatah,
from the signs having the character of no-signs. M. de
Harlez translates rightly, 'c'est par le non-marque de
marquer que la Tathâgata doit être vu et reconnu.'
3. I have changed Pañkâsatî
into Pañkasatî,
because what is intended here is evidently the last of the
periods of 500 years each, which, according to the
Mahâyâna-Buddhists, elapsed after the death of Buddha. The
following extract from the Mahâsannipâta-sûtra
(Ta-tsi-king, No. 61 in Tripitaka),
given to me by Mr. B. Nanjio, fully explains the subject.
'It is stated in the fifty-first section of the
Mahâsannipâta-sûtra, that Buddha said: "After my
Nirvâna,
in the first 500 years, all the Bhikshus and others will be
strong in deliberation in my correct Law. (Those who first
obtain the 'holy fruit,' i.e. the Srota-âpannas, are called
those who have obtained deliberation.) In the next or
second 500 years, they will be strong in meditation. In the
next or third 500 years, they will be strong in 'much
learning,' i.e. bahusruta,
religious knowledge. In the next or fourth 500 years, they
will be strong in founding monasteries, &c. In the last
or fifth 500 years, they will be strong in fighting and
reproving. The pure (lit. white) Law will then become
invisible."'
The
question therefore amounts to this, whether in that corrupt
age the law of Buddha will be understood? and the answer
is, that there will be always some excellent Boddhisatvas
who, even in the age of corruption, can understand the
preaching of the Law.]
{p. 116}
of the decay of the good Law, who, when these very words of
the Sûtras are being preached, will frame a true idea[1]?'
The Bhagavat said: 'Do not speak thus, Subhûti. Yes, there
will be some beings in the future, in the last time, in the
last moment, in the last 500 years, during the decay of the
good Law, who will frame a true idea when these very words
are being preached.
'And again, O Subhûti, there will be
noble-minded Bodhisattvas, in the future, in the last time,
in the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the decay
of the good Law, there will be strong and good and wise
beings, who, when these very words of the Sûtras are being
preached, will frame a true idea. But those noble-minded
Bodhisattvas, O Subhûti, will not have served one Buddha
only, and the stock
[1. Will
understand them properly.]
{p. 117}
of their merit will not have been accumulated under one
Buddha only; on the contrary, O Subhûti, those noble-minded
Bodhisattvas will have served many hundred thousands of
Buddhas, and the stock of their merit will have been
accumulated under many hundred thousands of Buddhas; and
they, when these very words of the Sûtras are being
preached, will obtain one and the same faith[1]. They are
known, O Subhûti, by the Tathâgata through his
Buddha-knowledge; they are seen, O Subhûti, by the
Tathâgata through his Buddha-eye; they are understood, O
Subhûti, by the Tathâgata. All these, O Subhûti, will
produce and will hold fast an immeasurable and innumerable
stock of merit. And why? Because, O Subhûti, there does not
exist in those noble-minded Bodhisattvas the idea of self,
there does not exist the idea of a being, the idea of a
living being, the idea of a person. Nor does there exist, O
Subhûti, for these noble-minded Bodhisattvas the idea of
quality (dharma), nor of no-quality. Neither does there
exist, O Subhûti, any idea (samgñâ)
or no-idea. And why? Because, O Subhûti, if there existed
for these noble-minded Bodhisattvas the idea of quality,
then they would believe in a self, they would believe in a
being, they would believe in a living being, they would
believe in a person. And if there existed for them the idea
of no-quality, even then they would believe in a self,
[1. I am
doubtful about the exact meaning of ekakittaprasâda.
Childers gives ekakitta,
as an adjective, with the meaning of 'having the same
thought,' and kittaprasâda,
as faith in Buddha. But ekakittaprasâda
may also be 'faith producted by one thought,' 'immediate
faith,' and this too is a recognised form of faith in
Buddhism. See Sukhâvatî, pp. 71, 108.]
{p. 118}
they would believe in a being, they would believe in a
living being, they would believe in a person. And why?
Because, O Subhûti, neither quality nor no-quality is to be
accepted by a noble-minded Bodhisattva. Therefore this
hidden saying has been preached by the Tathâgata: "By those
who know the teaching of the Law, as like unto a raft, all
qualities indeed must be abandoned; much more
no-qualities[1]"' (6)
VII.
And
again Bhagavat spoke thus to the venerable Subhûti: 'What
do you think, O Subhûti, is there anything (dharma) that
was known by the Tathâgata under the name of the highest
perfect knowledge, or anything that was taught by the
Tathâgata?'
After these words, the venerable Subhûti
spoke thus to Bhagavat: 'As I, O Bhagavat, understand the
meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, there is nothing
that was known by the Tathâgata under the name of the
highest perfect knowledge, nor is there anything that is
taught by the Tathâgata. And why? Because that thing which
was known or taught by the Tathâgata is incomprehensible
and inexpressible. It is neither a thing nor no-thing. And
why? Because the holy persons[2] are of imperfect
power[3].' (7)
[1. The
same line is quoted in the
Abhidharmakosha-vyâkhyâ.
2.
Âryapudgala need not be Bodhisattvas, but all who have
entered on the path leading to Nirvâna.
3.
Harlez: 'Parceque les entités supérieures sont produites
telles sans être réelles et parfaites pour cela.' If
samskrita
can be used in Buddhist literature in the sense of perfect,
and prabhâvitâ as power, my translation might pass, but
even then the 'because' remains
difficult.]
{p. 119}
VIII.
Bhagavat
said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, if a son or daughter
of a good family filled this sphere of a million millions
of worlds with the seven gems or treasures, and gave it as
a gift to the holy and enlightened Tathâgatas, would that
son or daughter of a good family on the strength of this
produce a large stock of merit?' Subhûti said: 'Yes, O
Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that son or daughter of a good
family would on the strength of this produce a large stock
of merit. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, what was preached
by the Tathâgata as the stock of merit, that was preached
by the Tathâgata as no-stock of merit. Therefore the
Tathâgata preaches: "A stock of merit, a stock of merit
indeed!"' Bhagavat said: 'And if, O Subhûti, the son or
daughter of a good family should fill this sphere of a
million millions of worlds with the seven treasures and
should give it as a gift to the holy and enlightened
Tathâgatas, and if another after taking from this treatise
of the Law one Gâthâ of four lines only should fully teach
others and explain it, he indeed would on the strength of
this produce a larger stock of merit immeasurable and
innumerable. And why? Because, O Subhûti, the highest
perfect knowledge of the holy and enlightened Tathâgatas is
produced from it; the blessed Buddhas are produced from it.
And why? Because, O Subhûti, when the Tathâgata preached:
[1. See
Childers, s.v. Lokadhâtu.
2.
Or should it be, bhâshate*punyaskandhah
punyaskandha
iti, i.e. he preaches no-stock of merit is the stock of
merit? It would not be applicable to later passages, but
the style of the Sûtras varies.]
{p. 120}
"The qualities of Buddha, the qualities of Buddha indeed!"
they were preached by him as no-qualities of Buddha.
Therefore they are called the qualities of Buddha.' (8)
IX.
Bhagavat
said: 'Now, what do you think, O Subhûti, does a
Srota-âpanna think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-âpatti
has been obtained by me?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O
Bhagavat, a Srota-âpanna does not think in this wise: The
fruit of Srota-âpatti has been obtained by me. And why?
Because, O Bhagavat, he has not obtained any particular
state (dharma). Therefore he is called a Srota-âpanna. He
has not obtained any form, nor sounds, nor smells, nor
tastes, nor things that can be touched. Therefore he is
called a Srota-âpanna. If, O Bhagavat, a Srota-âpanna were
to think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-âpatti has been
obtained by me, he would believe in a self, he would
believe in a being, he would believe in a living being, he
would believe in a person.'
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, does a Sakridâgâmin
think in this wise: The fruit of a Sakridâgâmin
has been obtained by me?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O
Bhagavat, a Sakridâgâmin
[1. This
phrase is wanting in the Sanskrit MSS., but it is found in
the Chinese translation of Dharmagupta, of the Sui dynasty
(A. D. 589-618).
2.
Srota-âpanna, a man who has obtained the first grade of
sanctification, literally, who has entered the stream. The
second grade is that of the Sakridâgâmin,
who returns once. The third grade is that of the Anâgâmin,
who does not return at all, but is born in the Brahman
world from whence he becomes an Arhat and may obtain
Nirvâna.]
{p. 121}
does not think in this wise: The fruit of a
Sakridâgâmin
has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an
individual being (dharma), who has obtained the state of a
Sakridâgâmin.
Therefore he is called a Sakridâgâmin.'
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, does an Anâgâmin think in this wise: The fruit of
an Anâgâmin has been obtained by me?' Subhûti said: 'Not
indeed, O Bhagavat, an Anâgâmin does not think in this
wise: The fruit of an Anâgâmin has been obtained by me. And
why? Because he is not an individual being, who has
obtained the state of an Anâgâmin. Therefore he is called
an Anâgâmin.'
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, does an Arhat think in this wise: The fruit of an
Arhat has been obtained by me?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed,
O Bhagavat, an Arhat does not think in this wise: The fruit
of an Arhat has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is
not an individual being, who is called an Arhat. Therefore
he is called an Arhat. And if, O Bhagavat, an Arhat were to
think in this wise: The state of an Arhat has been obtained
by me, he would believe in a self, he would believe in a
being, he would believe in a living being, he would believe
in a person.
'And why? I have been pointed out, O
Bhagavat, by the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata, as
the foremost of those who dwell in virtue[1].
[1.
Aranâvihârin.
Rana
is strife, then sin, therefore arana
might be peace and virtue, only the a would be short.
Probably aranavihârin
was formed with reference to âranya-vihârin,
living in the forest, retired from the world, and in peace,
just as arhan, worthy, was changed into arahan, the
destroyer of sin. Beal translates, 'one who delights in the
mortification of an Aranyaka
(forest devotee).' De Harlez: 'chey de ceux qui ne sont
plus attachés à la jouissance.']
{p. 122}
I, O Bhagavat, am an Arhat, freed from passion. And yet, O
Bhagavat, I do not think in this wise: I am an Arhat, I am
freed from passion. If, O Bhagavat, I should think in this
wise, that the state of an Arhat has been obtained by me,
then the Tathâgata would not have truly prophesied of me,
saying: "Subhûti, the son of a good family, the foremost of
those dwelling in virtue, does not dwell anywhere, and
therefore he is called a dweller in virtue, a dweller in
virtue indeed!"' (9)
X.
Bhagavat
said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, is there anything
(dharma) which the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata
Dîpankara[1], the holy and fully enlightened?' Subhûti
said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat; there is not anything which
the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata Dîpankara, the
holy and fully enlightened.'
Bhagavat said: 'If, O Subhûti, a
Bodhisattva should say: "I shall create numbers of worlds,"
he would say what is untrue. And why? Because, O Subhûti,
when the Tathâgata preached: Numbers of worlds, numbers of
worlds indeed! they were preached by him as no-numbers.
Therefore they are called numbers of worlds.
'Therefore, O Subhûti, a noble-minded
Bodhisattva should in this wise frame an independent
[1. A
former Buddha.]
{p. 123}
mind, which is to be framed as a mind not believing in
anything, not believing in form, not believing in sound,
smell, taste, and anything that can be touched. Now, for
instance, O Subhûti, a man might have a body and a large
body, so that his size should be as large as the king of
mountains, Sumeru. Do you think then, O Subhûti, that his
selfhood (he himself) would be large?' Subhûti said: 'Yes,
O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, his selfhood would be large. And
why? Because, O Bhagavat, when the Tathâgata preached:
"Selfhood, selfhood indeed!" it was preached by him as
no-selfhood. Therefore it is called selfhood.' (10)
XI.
Bhagavat
said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, if there were as many
Gangâ rivers as there are grains of sand in the large river
Gangâ, would the grains of sand be many?' Subhûti said:
'Those Gangâ rivers would indeed be many, much more the
grains of sand in those Gangâ rivers.' Bhagavat said: 'I
tell you, O Subhûti, I announce to you, If a woman or man
were to fill with the seven treasures as many worlds as
there would be grains of sand in those Gangâ rivers and
present them as a gift to the holy and fully enlightened
Tathâgatas--What do you think, O Subhûti, would that woman
or man on the strength of this produce a large stock of
merit?' Subhûti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that
woman or man would on the strength of this produce a large
stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.' Bhagavat
said: 'And if, O Subhûti, a woman or man having filled so
many worlds with the seven treasures should give them as a
gift to the holy and enlightened Tathâgatas,
{p. 124}
and if another son or daughter of a good family, after
taking from this treatise of the Law one Gâthâ of four
lines only, should fully teach others and explain it, he,
indeed, would on the strength of this produce a larger
stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.' (11)
XII.
'Then
again, O Subhûti, that part of the world in which, after
taking from this treatise of the Law one Gâthâ of four
lines only, it should be preached or explained, would be
like a Kaitya
(holy shrine) for the whole world of gods, men, and
spirits; what should we say then of those who learn the
whole of this treatise of the Law to the end, who repeat
it, understand it, and fully explain it to others? They, O
Subhûti, will be endowed with the highest wonder[1]. And in
that place, O Subhûti, there dwells the teacher[2], or one
after another holding the place of the wise preceptor[3].'
(12)
XIII.
After
these words, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to Bhagavat:
'O Bhagavat, how is this treatise of the Law called, and
how can I learn it?' After this, Bhagavat spoke thus to the
venerable Subhûti: 'This treatise of the Law, O Subhûti, is
called the Pragñâ-pâramitâ
(Transcendent wisdom), and you should learn it by that
name. And why? Because, O Subhûti, what was preached by the
Tathâgata as the Pragñâ-pâramitâ,
that was preached by the
[1. With
what excites the highest wonder.
2.
Sastâ,
often the name of Budha, Pâli sattha.
3. This
may refer to a succession of teachers handing down the
tradition one to the other.]
{p. 125}
Tathâgata as no-Pâramitâ. Therefore it is called the
Pragñâ-pâramitâ.
'Then, what do you think, O Subhûti, is
there anything (dharma) that was preached by the
Tathâgata?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagvat, there is
not anything that was preached by the Tathâgata.'
Bhagavat said. 'What do you think then, O
Subhûti,--the dust of the earth which is found in this
sphere of a million millions of worlds, is that much?'
Subhûti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that dust of
the earth would be much. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, what
was preached by the Tathâgata as the dust of the earth,
that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-dust. Therefore it
is called the dust of the earth. And what was preached by
the Tathâgata as the sphere of worlds, that was preached by
the Tathâgata as no-sphere. Therefore it is called the
sphere of worlds.'
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, is a holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata to be
seen (known) by the thirty-two signs of a hero?' Subhûti
said: 'No indeed, O Bhagavat; a holy and fully enlightened
Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the thirty-two signs
of a hero. And why? Because what was preached by the
Tathâgata as the thirty-two signs of a hero, that was
preached by the Tathâgata as no-signs. Therefore they are
called the thirty-two signs of a hero.'
Bhagavat said: 'If, O Subhûti, a woman or
man should day by day sacrifice his life (selfhood[1]) as
[1.
Âtmabhâva seems to refer here to the living body, not to
the spiritual Âtman, which, according to Buddha, can be got
rid of by knowledge only. Buddha himself sacrificed his
life again and again, and a willingness to die would
probably be accepted for the deed.]
{p. 126}
many times as there are grains of sand in the river Gangâ,
and if he should thus sacrifice his life for as many kalpas
as there are grains of sand in the river Gangâ, and if
another man, after taking from this treatise of the Law one
Gâthâ of four lines only, should fully teach others and
explain it, he indeed would on the strength of this produce
a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.'
(13)
XIV.
At
that time, the venerable Subhûti was moved by the power of
the Law, shed tears, and having wiped his tears, he thus
spoke to Bhagavat: 'It is wonderful, O Bhagavat, it is
exceedingly wonderful, O Sugata, how fully this teaching of
the Law has been preached by the Tathâgata for the benefit
of those beings who entered on the foremost path (the path
that leads to Nirvâna),
and who entered on the best path, from whence, O Bhagavat,
knowledge has been produced in me. Never indeed, O
Bhagavat, has such a teaching of the Law been heard by me
before. Those Bodhisattvas, O Bhagavat, will be endowed
with the highest wonder[1], who when this Sûtra is being
preached hear it and will frame to themselves a true idea.
And why? Because what is a true idea is not a true idea.
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.]
{p. 127}
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 Kalirâgâ.
On this Kalirâgâ
or Kalinripa
see Lalita-vistara, p. 191.]
{p. 128}
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 Rishi
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). Therefore
the Tathâgata preaches: "A gift should not be given by a
Bodhisattva[1] who believes in anything, it should not be
given by one who believes in form, sound, smell, taste, or
anything that can be touched."
'And again, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva
should in such wise give his gift for the benefit of all
beings. And why? Because, O Subhûti, the idea of a being is
no-idea. And those who are thus spoken of by the Tathâgata
as all beings are indeed no-beings. And why? Because, O
Subhûti, a Tathâgata says what is real, says what is true,
says the things as they are; a Tathâgata does not speak
untruth.
'But again, O Subhûti, whatever doctrine
has been
[1. See
before, chap. iv.]
{p. 129}
perceived, taught, and meditated on by a Tathâgata, in it
there is neither truth nor falsehood. And as a man who has
entered the darkness would not see anything, thus a
Bodhisattva is to be considered who is immersed in objects,
and who being immersed in objects gives a gift. But as a
man who has eyes would, when the night becomes light, and
the sun has risen, see many things, thus a Bodhisattva is
to be considered who is not immersed in objects, and who
not being immersed in objects gives a gift.
'And again, O Subhûti, if any sons or
daughters of good families will learn this treatise of the
Law, will remember, recite, and understand it, and fully
explain it to others, they, O Subhûti, are known by the
Tathâgata through his Buddha-knowledge, they are seen, O
Subhûti, by the Tathâgata through his Buddha-eye. All these
beings, O Subhûti, will produce and hold fast an
immeasurable and innumerable stock of merit.' (14)
XV.
'And
if, O Subhûti, a woman or man sacrificed in the morning as
many lives as there are grains of sand in the river Gangâ
and did the same at noon and the same in the evening, and
if in this way they sacrificed their lives for a hundred
thousands of niyutas of kotîs
of ages, and if another, after hearing this treatise of the
Law, should not oppose it, then the latter would on the
strength of this produce a larger stock of merit,
immeasurable and innumerable. What should we say then of
him who after having written it, learns it, remembers it,
understands it, and fully explains it to others?
'And again, O Subhûti, this treatise of
the Law is
{p. 130}
incomprehensible and incomparable. And this treatise of the
Law has been preached by the Tathâgata for the benefit of
those beings who entered on the foremost path (the path
that leads to Nirvâna),
and who entered on the best path. And those who will learn
this treatise of the Law, who will remember it, recite it,
understand it, and fully explain it to others, they are
known, O Subhûti, by the Tathâgata through his
Buddha-knowledge, they are seen, O Subhûti, by the
Tathâgata through his Buddha-eye. All these beings, O
Subhûti, will be endowed with an immeasurable stock of
merit, they will be endowed with an incomprehensible,
incomparable, immeasurable and unmeasured stock of merit.
All these beings, O Subhûti, will equally remember the
Bodhi (the highest Buddha-knowledge), will recite it, and
understand it. And why? Because it is not possible, O
Subhûti, that this treatise of the Law should be heard by
beings of little faith, by those who believe in self, in
beings, in living beings, and in persons. It is impossible
that this treatise of the Law should be heard by beings who
have not acquired the knowledge of Bodhisattvas, or that it
should be learned, remembered, recited, and understood by
them. The thing is impossible.
'And again, O Subhûti, that part of the
world in which this Sûtra will be propounded, will have to
be honoured by the whole world of gods, men, and evil
spirits, will have to be worshipped, and will become like
a Kaitya
(a holy sepulchre).' (15)
XVI.
And,
O Subhûti, sons or daughters of a good family who will
learn these very Sûtras, who will
{p. 131}
remember them. recite them, understand them, thoroughly
take them to heart, and fully explain them to others, they
will be overcome[1], they will be greatly overcome. And
why? Because, O Subhûti, whatever evil deeds these beings
have done in a former birth, deeds that must lead to
suffering, those deeds these beings, owing to their being
overcome, after they have seen the Law, will destroy, and
they will obtain the knowledge of Buddha.
'I remember, O Subhûti, in the past,
before innumerable and more than innumerable kalpas, there
were eighty-four hundred thousands of niyutas of
kotîs
of Buddhas following after the venerable and fully
enlightened Tathâgata Dîpankara, who were pleased by me,
and after being pleased were not displeased. And if, O
Subhûti, these blessed Buddhas were pleased by me, and
after being pleased were not displeased, and if on the
other hand people at the last time, at the last moment, in
the last 500 years, during the time of the decay of the
good Law, will learn these very Sûtras, remember them,
recite them, understand them, and fully explain them to
others, then, O Subhûti, in comparison with their stock of
merit that former stock of merit will not come to one
hundredth part, nay, not to one thousandth part, not to a
hundred thousandth part, not to a ten millionth part, not
to a hundred millionth part, not to a hundred thousand ten
millionth part, not to a hundred thousands of niyutas ten
millionth part. It will not bear number, nor fraction, nor
counting, nor comparison, nor approach, nor analogy.
'And if, O Subhûti, I were to tell you
the stock of
[1.
Paribhûta is explained by despised, but the sense, or even
the non-sense, is difficult to
understand.]
{p. 132}
merit of those sons or daughters of good families, and how
large a stock of merit those sons or daughters of good
families will produce, and hold fast at that time, people
would become distracted and their thoughts would become
bewildered. And again, O Subhûti, as this treatise of the
Law preached by the Tathâgata is incomprehensible and
incomparable, its rewards also must be expected (to be)
incomprehensible.' (16)
XVII.
At
that time the venerable Subhûti thus spoke to the Bhagavat:
'How should a person, after having entered on the path of
the Bodhisattvas, behave, how should he advance, and how
should he restrain his thoughts?' Bhagavat said: 'He who
has entered on the path of the Bodhisativas should thus
frame his thought: All beings must be delivered by me in
the perfect world of Nirvâna;
and yet after I have thus delivered these beings, no being
has been delivered. And why? Because, O Subhûti, if a
Bodhisattva had any idea of beings, he could not be called
a Bodhisattva, and so on[1] from the idea of a living being
to the idea of a person; if he had any such idea, he could
not be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Because, O Subhûti,
there is no such thing (dharma) as one who has entered on
the path of the Bodhisattvas.
'What do you think, O Subhûti, is there
anything which the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata
Dîpankara with regard to the highest perfect knowledge?
'After this, the venerable Subhûti
[1. See
chap. iii, p. 114.]
{p. 133}
spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'As far as I, O Bhagavat,
understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat,
there is nothing which has been adopted by the Tathâgata
from the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata Dîpankara
with regard to the highest perfect knowledge.' After this,
Bhagavat thus spoke to the venerable Subhûti: 'So it is,
Subhûti, so it is. There is not, O Subhûti, anything which
has been adopted by the Tathâgata from the holy and fully
enlightened Tathâgata Dîpankara with regard to the highest
perfect knowledge. And if, O Subhûti, anything had been
adopted by the Tathâgata, the Tathâgata Dîpankara would not
have prophesied of me, saying[1]: "Thou, O boy, wilt be in
the future the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata
called Sâkyamuni."
Because then, O Subhûti, there is nothing that has been
adopted by the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata with
regard to the highest perfect knowledge, therefore I was
prophesied by the Tathâgata Dîpankara, saying: "Thou, boy,
wilt be in the future the holy and fully enlightened
Tathâgata called Sâkyamuni."
'And why, O Subhûti, the name of
Tathâgata? It expresses true suchness. And why Tathâgata, O
Subhûti? It expresses that he had no origin. And why
Tathâgata, O Subhûti? It expresses the destruction of all
qualities. And why Tathâgata, O Subhûti? It expresses one
who had no origin whatever. And why this? Because, O
Subhûti, no-origin is the highest goal.
'And whosoever, O Subhûti, should say
that, by the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata, the
highest
[1. This
prophecy is supposed to have been addressed by Dîpankara
to Sâkyamuni,
before he had become a Buddha.]
{p. 134}
perfect knowledge has been known, he would speak an
untruth, and would slander me, O Subhûti, with some untruth
that he has learned. And why? Because there is no such
thing, O Subhûti, as has been known by the Tathâgata with
regard to the highest perfect knowledge. And in that, O
Subhûti, which has been known and taught by the Tathâgata,
there is neither truth nor falsehood. Thetefore the
Tathâgata preaches: "All things are Buddha-things." And
why? Because what was preached by the Tathâgata, O Subhûti,
as all things, that was preached as no-things; and
therefore all things are called Buddha-things.
'Now, O Subhûti, a man might have a body
and a large body.' The venerable Subhûti said: That man who
was spoken of by the Tathâgata as a man with a body, with a
large body, he, O Bhagavat, was spoken of by the Tathâgata
as without a body, and therefore he is called a man with a
body and with a large body.'
Bhagavat said: 'So it is, O Subhûti; and
if a Bodhisattva were to say: "I shall deliver all beings,"
he ought not to be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Is there
anything, O Subhûti, that is called a Bodhisattva?' Subhûti
said: 'Not indeed, Bhagavat, there is nothing which is
called a Bodhisattva.' Bhagavat said: 'Those who were
spoken of as beings, beings indeed, O Subhûti, they were
spoken of as no-beings by the Tathâgata, and therefore they
are called beings. Therefore the Tathâgata says: "All
beings are without self all beings are without life,
without manhood[1], without a personality."
[1. Sans
croissance, Harlez; see Childers, s.v.
poriso.]
{p. 135}
'If, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva were to
say: "I shall create numbers of worlds," he would say what
is untrue. And why? Because, what were spoken of as numbers
of worlds, numbers of worlds indeed, O Subhûti, these were
spoken of as no-numbers by the Tathâgata, and therefore
they are called numbers of worlds.
'A Bodhisattva, O Subhûti, who believes
that all things are without self, that all things are
without self, he has faith, he is called a noble-minded
Bodhisattva by the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata.'
(17)
XVIII.
Bhagavat
said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the
bodily eye?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the
Tathâgata has the bodily eye.'
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the heavenly eye?' Subhûti said:
'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the heavenly eye.'
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the eye of knowledge?' Subhûti
said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the eye of
knowledge.'
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the eye of the Law?' Subhûti
said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the eye of
the Law.'
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the eye of Buddha?' Subhûti
said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the eye of
Buddha.'
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, as many grains of sand as there are in the great
river Gangâ--were they preached by the Tathâgata
{p. 136}
as grains of sand?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, so
it is, O Sugata, they were preached as grains of sand by
the Tathâgata.' Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O
Subhûti, if there were as many Gangâ rivers as there are
grains of sand in the great river Gangâ; and, if there were
as many worlds as there are grains of sand in these, would
these worlds be many?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat,
so it is, O Sugata, these worlds would be many.' Bhagavat
said: 'As many beings as there are in all those worlds, I
know the manifold trains of thought of them all. And why?
Because what was preached as the train of thoughts, the
train of thoughts indeed, O Subhûti, that was preached by
the Tathâgata as no-train of thoughts, and therefore it is
called the train of thoughts. And why? Because, O Subhûti,
a past thought is not perceived, a future thought is not
perceived, and the present thought is not perceived.' (18)
XIX.
'What
do you think, O Subhûti, if a son or a daughter of a good
family should fill this sphere of a million millions of
worlds with the seven treasures, and give it as a gift to
holy and fully enlightened Buddhas, would that son or
daughter of a good family produce on the strength of this a
large stock of merit?' Subhûti said: 'Yes, a large one.'
Bhagavat said: 'So it is, Subhûti, so it is; that son or
daughter of a good family would produce on the strength of
this a large stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.
And why? Because what was preached as a stock of merit, a
stock of merit indeed, O Subhûti, that was preached as
no-stock
{p. 137}
of merit by the Tathâgata, and therefore it is called a
stock of merit. 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
{p. 138}
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.' (21)
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. Free from self, free from being, free from life,
free from personality, that
{p. 139}
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
Pragñâpâramitâ,
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.]
{p. 140}
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. This
probably refers to the auspicious signs discovered
in Sâkyamuni
at his birth, which left it open whether he should become a
king or a Buddha.]
{p. 141}
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)
{p. 142}
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?
Because, O Bhagavat, if there were a sphere of worlds,
there would exist a belief in matter; and what was preached
as a belief in matter by the Tathâgata, that was
{p. 143}
preached as no-belief by the Tathâgata; and therefore it is
called a belief in matter.' Bhagavat said: 'And a belief in
matter itself, O Subhûti, is unmentionable and
inexpressible; it is neither a thing nor no-thing, and this
is known by children and ignorant persons.' (30)
XXXI.
'And
why? Because, O Subhûti, if a man were to say that belief
in self, belief in a being, belief in life, belief in
personality had been preached by the Tathâgata, would he be
speaking truly?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, Bhagavat, not
indeed, Sugata; he would not be speaking truly. And why?
Because, O Bhagavat, what was preached by the Tathâgata as
a belief in self, that was preached by the Tathâgata as
no-belief; therefore it is called belief in self.'
Bhagavat said: 'Thus then, O Subhûti, are
all things to be perceived, to be looked upon, and to be
believed by one who has entered on the path of the
Bodhisattvas. And in this wise are they to be perceived, to
be looked upon, and to be believed, that a man should
believe neither in the idea of a thing nor in the idea of a
no-thing. And why? Because, by saying: The idea of a thing,
the idea of a thing indeed, it has been preached by the
Tathâgata as no-idea of a thing.' (31)
XXXII.
'And,
O Subhûti, if a noble-minded Bodhisattva were to fill
immeasurable and innumerable spheres of worlds with the
seven treasures, and give them as a gift to holy and fully
enlightened Tathâgatas;
{p. 144}
and if a son or a daughter of a good family, after taking
from this treatise of the Law, this Pragñâpâramitâ,
one Gâthâ of four lines only, should learn it, repeat it,
understand it, and fully explain it to others, then the
latter would on the strength of this produce a larger stock
of merit, immeasurable and innumerable. And how should he
explain it? As in the sky:
Stars,
darkness, a lamp, a phantom, dew, a bubble.
A dream, a flash of lightning, and a cloud--thus we should
look upon the world (all that was made).
Thus he
should explain; therefore it is said: He should explain.'
Thus spoke the Bhagavat enraptured. The
elder Subhûti, and the friars, nuns, the faithful laymen
and women, and the Bodhisattvas also, and the whole world
of gods, men, evil spirits and fairies, praised the
preaching of the Bhagavat. (32)
Thus is finished the Diamond-cutter, the blessed Pragñâpâramitâ.