Everyday Zen Podcast

The Diamond Sutra is a Mahayana sutra from the genre of Prajnaparamita (‘perfection of wisdom’) sutras. In this series Norman will referernce the Diamond Sutra – Red Pine Edition.  Norman covers Chapters 16 thru 32 (the end)of the Diamond Sutra, Red Pine Edition. Due to recording issues the first five minutes of the talk are missing.

Diamond Sutra 5

By Zoketsu Norman Fischer | November 26, 2008

Abridged and edited by Barbara Byrum and Cynthia Schrager

Chapter 17:

Again the venerable Subhuti asked the Buddha, “Bhagavan if someone sets forth on the bodhisattva path, how should they stand? How should they walk? And how should they control their thoughts?”

The Buddha said, “Subhuti, someone who sets forth on the bodhisattva path should give birth to the thought: ‘In the realm of complete nirvana I shall liberate all beings. And while I thus liberate beings, not a single being is liberated.’ And why not? Subhuti, a bodhisattva who creates the perception of a being cannot be called a ‘bodhisattva.’ Neither can someone who creates the perception of a life, or even the perception of a soul, be called a ‘bodhisattva.’ And why not? Subhuti, there is no such dharma as setting forth on the bodhisattva path.”

Here we see the combination of compassion and emptiness. The bodhisattvas are all about saving beings, all about this universal desire to benefit others, but with the recognition that the bodhisattva himself – herself – and the beings are empty of any separation. So in a way, it is not a big problem to save all beings, because the thought of saving in your own mind is also saving all beings, because there is no separation. There is no real difference. There is no such dharma as setting forth on the bodhisattva path. It is empty of any separation, any distinction.

“What do you think, Subhuti? When the Tathagata was with Dipankara Tathagatha, did he realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment?”

To this the venerable Subhuti answered, “Bhagavan, as I understand the meaning of what the Tathagatha has taught, when the Tathagatha was with Dipankara Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One, he did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.” [You can imagine an innocent, faithful Buddhist hearing that and saying, “What are you saying?”]

And to this the Buddha replied, “So it is, Subhuti. When the Tathagatha was with Dipankara Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One, he did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment. If the Tathagatha had realized any dharma, then Dipankara would not have prophesied of him, ‘Young man, in the future you shall become the tathagata, the arhan, the fully-enlightened one, named Shakyamuni.'”

Why? Because if you think there is an unexcelled, perfect “something,” you have a conceptual belief in something that isn’t empty. That’s exactly the opposite of awakening. Awakening is the recognition that there is no such thing as awakening. That is awakening – recognizing that there is no such thing as a being; no such thing as a person; no such thing as a self. That is awakening.

“Subhuti, imagine a perfect person with an immense, perfect body.” The venerable Subhuti said, “This perfect person whom the Tathagata says has an ‘immense, perfect body,’ has no body.” The Buddha said, “So it is, Subhuti, and if a bodhisattva says ‘I shall liberate other beings,’ that person is not called a ‘bodhisattva’. And why not? Subhuti, is there any such dharma as a bodhisattva? ‘Beings,’ Subhuti, are said by the Tathagata to be no beings. Thus are they called ‘beings.’ Thus does the Tathagata say that all dharmas have no self. All dharmas have no life, no individuality, and no soul.”

When you read this, you can see how people would think this is nihilistic. It sounds kind of bleak – no dharmas, no life, no soul, no nothing, no individuality. But maybe to get the sense of it better, we could say it like this: “Thus the Tathagata says that all dharmas have no limiting, suffering self. All dharmas have no limited, suffering life. All dharmas have no limited, suffering individuality. No limited, suffering soul.” The “no” part that is put before each of these words stands for liberation – freedom from the restrictions and the constrictions of person, being, dharma, life, soul.

“Subhuti, if a bodhisattva should thus claim ‘I will bring about the transformation of a world,’ such a claim would be untrue. And how so? The transformation of a world, Subhuti, is said by the Tathagata to be no transformation. Thus is it called a ‘transformation of a world.’ Subhuti, when a bodhisattva resolves on selfless dharmas, as ‘selfless dharmas,’ the Tathagata, the Arhat, the Fully Enlightened One pronounces that person a fearless bodhisattva.” [Selfless dharmas meaning empty dharmas, non-dharmas, no dharmas.]

I am going to Chapter 21. The Buddha is constantly in dialogue with Subhuti to clarify the teachings.

The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does it occur to the Tathagata: ‘I teach a dharma’?” Subhuti replied, “No, indeed. It does not occur to the Tathagata, ‘I teach a dharma.'” The Buddha said, “Subhuti, if someone should claim ‘The Tathagata teaches a dharma, such a claim would be untrue. Such a view of me would be a misconception. And how so? In the teaching of a dharma, there is no such dharma to be found as the teaching of a dharma.” Upon hearing this, the venerable Subhuti asked the Buddha, “Will there be any beings in the final epoch, in the final period, in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age, who hear such a dharma as this and believe it?” The Buddha said, “Neither beings, Subhuti, nor no beings. And how so? Beings, Subhuti, ‘beings’ are all spoken by the Tathagatha as no beings. Thus are they called ‘beings.'”

So there is no hard and fast doctrine; there is no truth that the Buddha is upholding as such. Instead, the Buddha is articulating a sense of how life is – fleeting, free, and empty of any limitation that causes suffering. It is not a particular teaching that he is giving. It is a flavor, a feeling for life, that he is trying to get across by defeating all teachings, rather than by positing a teaching. In other words, reality is inherently love. Everything is inherently sharing and mingling and mixing and freely aiding everything else. But not as a doctrine or a concept, but as a feeling for living. Are there “beings” who can hear and understand this? There are, but they are “non-beings” in the sense that they are not separate, not limited, not apart. We are this. It is not as if we are going to understand this. We are this already.

Chapter 23:

“Furthermore, Subhuti, undifferentiated is this dharma. [There are no distinctions, no limitations, no separations.] Thus it is called ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.’ Without a self, without a being, without a life, without a soul, undifferentiated is this unexcelled, perfect enlightenment, by means of which all auspicious dharmas are realized. And how so? Auspicious dharmas are ‘no dharmas.’ Thus they are called ‘auspicious dharmas.'”

To make the world sensible to us, we need distinctions and differentiations. But they are all provisional, relative, and illusory. We need them, because that is our life; and yet, when you think about it, that is exactly the source of all suffering. All suffering comes from distinctions, separations, divisions. Suffering comes because something happens that we really don’t like. It really bothers us. And all liking and disliking depend on distinctions. I like this one. I don’t like that one.

So we have to admit that we will always be moved by distinctions. Being a person is exactly that, right? Being a person is not being another person. So we will never live a human life beyond distinctions. And yet, the sutra is trying to point out to us by its relentless, incantatory logic that in addition to those distinctions, there is another side to our human life. On the one hand, I am myself and myself alone, and you are you alone. On the other hand, we are joined together, and we are joined with everything in being.

The problem we are having in this life is that we are not recognizing that part of it. We are only recognizing the relative part of it – only the distinctions. There is a lot of strife and trouble. We forget about the inherent boundlessness of our lives, and if we remember that, and if we can feel for that part of our lives, then even while we are suffering, there can be some relief. So it is not that we are going to stop making distinctions, or stop being human beings. It is just that we are only seeing the half of it. We are not seeing the most important half, and the half that liberates us. So that is the job the sutra is taking on: hammering away at us until finally, maybe, we will give up and say, “Okay, okay. I think I get it. Let me try to live it now.”

Chapter 27, the Buddha said:

“Furthermore, Subhuti, someone may claim, ‘Those who set forth on the bodhisattva path announce the destruction or the end of some dharma.’ Subhuti, you should hold no such view. And why not? Those who set forth on the bodhisattva path do not announce the destruction or the end of any dharma.”

I think this is a direct answer to those who would have thought (and it is easy to see how they would have) that what is being preached here is a nihilistic doctrine that implies: “Since there are no beings to be saved, there are no beings at all; there is no bodhisattva; there is no dharma; practice is unnecessary; do whatever you like until you die – because what is the point?” You could easily get that idea. Clearly, the proponents of the emptiness teachings were being accused of that.

In fact, the proponents of the emptiness teachings are really saying, “No, the emptiness of dharma does not mean there are no dharmas. It doesn’t mean that things don’t exist. This is not about the destruction or the end of anything. This is about the liberation and openness of things.” Another way to translate sunyata might be openness – boundlessness. Boundless is completely open, right? Open has no boundaries, and everything freely flows in and out. That is what is being argued for here. It’s not that something doesn’t exist or the end of something.

You might wonder, “Well, okay, I get that. So why all this negative language? Why ‘no this, no that, no dharma?'” Whatever word you use for sunyata, there is no denying that in the Sanskrit there are the words “no this, no that.” The Heart Sutra says, “No eyes, no ears.” Why do they express it that way if it puts them in jeopardy of being accused of nihilism? I think that it is expressed that way to forcefully – in the starkest way possible – militate against our tremendous, human habit of asserting the existence of something and then attaching to it. As soon as we are convinced that something is there, we are immediately either attached to it or averse to it. There is no middle ground.

So it is a kind of frontal assault on our strong tendency to be attached to something. Even subtly, whenever we assert the real existence of something – hard and fast existence of something – there is always a reaction to it. Always. So that’s why this very strong language – this very courageous language – recognizes that it is very apt to be misunderstood. I think if we use “boundlessness” or use prettier words, we like that! We don’t like it so much when we are told, “no this, no that.” It is a little depressing. That in itself should tell us something, right? Something we like. Something we don’t like. We think, “‘No eyes?’ I’m not so sure about that, but ‘boundless eyes,’ that sounds better. Now I have something!” So there is a point to the language.

Chapter 30:

“Furthermore, Subhuti, if a noble son or daughter took as many worlds as there are specks of dust in the billion-world universe, and by expenditure of limitless energy ground them into a multitude of atoms, Subhuti, what would you think? Would there be a great multitude of atoms? That would be a great multitude of atoms. And why? If a great multitude of atoms existed, the Tathagata would not have spoken of a ‘multitude of atoms.’ And why? This multitude of atoms of which the Tathagata speaks is said by the Tathagatha to be no multitude of atoms. This is called ‘a multitude of atoms.’ Also, this ‘billion-world universe’ of which the Tathagata speaks is said by the Tathagata to be no universe, thus it is called ‘a billion-world universe.’ And how so? [Here’s the punch line.] Because, if a universe existed, attachment to an entity would exist.”

As long as we are here, and we think that something else is there, there is attachment to an entity, and with that attachment comes suffering. Not only a little personal suffering, but violence, greed, war, oppression, holocausts, and conflagrations come from attachment.

“But whenever the Tathagata speaks of an attachment to an entity, the Tathagata speaks of it as no attachment. [Even the attachment is empty, because we are in danger here of setting up attachment as the one thing in the world that is not empty, right? Even attachment and the attendant suffering is empty.] Thus it is called ‘attachment to an entity.’ Attachment to an entity is called unexplainable and inexpressible. For it is neither a dharma nor no dharma. Still, foolish people are attached.”

So if a universe existed – and what this means is a hard and fast, unchanging something, that we would call absolutely real – there would be attachment to it. But there actually isn’t anything like that to attach to. So what we think of as attachment, what we experience as attachment, is actually not really attachment, because if it were attachment, there would have to be something to be attached to. That’s why the Buddha says that it is no attachment. It’s unexplainable. It’s inconceivable.

The logic of the Diamond Sutra seems so illogical and so untenable,because we are coming from a totally different system of logic, a whole different conceptual framework, which actually doesn’t make sense. In other words, conventional reality, and the way that we look at life, doesn’t really make sense. And so when we are presented with an unimpeachable logic of things that actually does make sense, we think it sounds illogical. We think it sounds crazy. We think that it sounds like nihilism. But that is exactly what is being proposed here. There can’t be a world as we understand it. It doesn’t make sense. There can’t be attachment as we understand it. It doesn’t make sense. There can’t be you and me as separate individuals, paranoid of each other. This is impossible! It actually makes no sense, even though the whole mess that we are in has to do with the fact that we all make these assumptions.

Attachment is unexplainable and inexpressible. The pain of our attachment is just not what it seems to be. The very pain of our attachment is itself the emptiness teaching, the expression of the emptiness teaching.

The sutra ends with this wonderful verse. He is no longer hammering a logic; he is using a metaphor:

And how should they explain it? By not explaining. Thus it is called ‘explaining.’

“As a lamp, a cataract, a star in space,

An illusion, a dewdrop, a bubble,

A dream, a cloud, a flash of lightening,

View all created things like this.”

What a wonderful sutra. We all did a good job on this sutra!

The Diamond Sutra is a Mahayana sutra from the genre of Prajnaparamita (‘perfection of wisdom’) sutras. In this series Norman will referernce the Diamond Sutra – Red Pine Edition. This is the fourth talk in this series.

Diamond Sutra 4

By Zoketsu Norman Fischer | November 12, 2008

Abridged and edited by Barbara Byrum and Deborah Russell

Last time we were discussing the Diamond Sutra and the earlier Buddhist path of the arhat, the path of renunciation. We feel our own pain, and we know that there is something to be done; there is something to let go of, so we let go. We renounce. But, then, maybe we get attached to that brilliant sacrifice that we have made, to our renunciation and our sense of identity with the renunciation, to our holiness, and to our difference from others, who have not yet done this great thing that we have done.

In contrast, in the bodhisattva path – the path of emptiness and compassion – we don’t have the imperative to take a moral action, which is to renounce self, the world, and so on. Rather than the compunction to take a moral action, we have an ontological commitment to seeing that things are empty of anything that could be held on to. We understand that there is nothing to renounce, and there is nobody to renounce anything. Even if we do renounce something, we know that it is not an actual renunciation. So we are liberated from renunciation, and we are liberated from our sense of our difference from others. We are fully identified with others as non-others, and so, without any others, naturally, just living is an act of compassion.

In other words, there is nothing but love and compassion, because we have realized that there is really non-difference. So we love the world and others as we love ourselves. Life by its very nature is loving-kindness, no matter what goes on. You know the wonderful phrase in the Zen koan, speaking of compassion, “It is as natural as reaching behind in the night for your pillow.” Nothing special, just that natural action to bring comfort to a weary head, whether it is your own or someone else’s. It hardly matters.

So in the Diamond Sutra a shift is being proposed from a religious act to what I am calling an ontological commitment; to an understanding of the way that the world really is.

So let’s read Chapter 13:

This having been said, the venerable Subhuti asked, “Bhagavan, what is the name of this dharma teaching, and how should we remember it?”

The Buddha told the venerable Subhuti, “The name of this dharma teaching, Subhuti, is the Perfection of Wisdom. Thus should you remember it. And how so? Subhuti, what the Tathagata says is the perfection of wisdom the Tathagata says is no perfection. Thus it is called the ‘perfection of wisdom.'”

“Subhuti, what do you think? Is there any such dharma spoken by the Tathagata?” Subhuti said, “No, indeed, Bhagavan. There is no such dharma spoken by the Tathagata.” The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Are all the specks of dust in the billion-world-system of a universe many?” Subhuti said, “Many, Bhagavan. The specks of dust are many. And how so? Because, Bhagavan, what the Tathagata says is a speck of dust is no speck. Thus it is called ‘a speck of dust.’ And what the Tathagata says is a world system, the Tathagata says is no system. Thus it is called ‘a world system.'”

The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Tathagata, the Arhat, the Fully Enlightened One be seen by means of the thirty-two attributes of a perfect person?” Subhuti said, “No, indeed, Bhagavan. The Tathagata, the Arhat, the Fully Enlightened One cannot be seen by means of the thirty-two attributes of a perfect person. And why not? Because, Bhagavan, what the Tathagata says are the thirty-two attributes of a perfect person, Bhagavan, the Tathagata says are no attributes. Thus are they called the ‘thirty-two attributes of a perfect person.'”

This is the famous and strange logic of the Diamond Sutra. A dharma is a no-dharma, and that is why we call it a dharma. This is repeated throughout this passage. This is the main and most important logic of the Diamond Sutra. A is not A, and that is why it is called A. Since this is repeated throughout this passage and the whole sutra, obviously it is a very important point, and we need to go into it a little bit.

When you hear it, it is almost funny. It seems ridiculous. It sounds like some kind of absurd, fractured joke or word play. I think that there are probably other ways of saying this, and so probably the authors of the Diamond Sutra were aware of the shock value and the quasi-humor of this form of expression. But it is a very clever and short-form way of saying something that is very profound and very, very important about the nature of being, the nature of things that are. It is also saying something about our human need to understand, name, and speak about what is.

So this is what the Diamond Sutra is getting at. It is saying something about the nature of being itself, and it is saying something about the nature of our need to understand being in order to be human. It is not as if we are in the world, and then later on, we speak about it or think about it. Our being in the world requires from the beginning our thinking about it and speaking about it. There is no being for us in the world without our thinking and speaking about it. We don’t see anything unless we think about it or make it into something.

For us there is an intimate connection between our human understanding of things and things that are. So the Diamond Sutra is saying something about both of these things. When you just look at this in a simple-minded way, it is not a very strange thing. This is a fact. It is true for me, and it is true for all of you. I can only be myself because I am not myself. Now what do I mean by that? This is the way that the Diamond Sutra puts it. I myself, because I am a living creature, am alive in time. When I say that I am myself, you recognize me as a person, and you recognize yourself as a person. That’s what this means. You are alive and we are alive in time, which means that I must, of necessity, always be changing, always be different, always be in development. Things that happen to me and interactions that I have with others are constantly making a new me. So I am in a constant process of revision. If I weren’t alive in that way, in a constant process of revision, I could not be myself. Right? What would I be? I would be like a stone or something, or I wouldn’t exist at all.

My being myself requires that I also not be myself. I am also in a constant state of not being myself. That’s what makes me myself. Even though the way that the Diamond Sutra puts this is very strange, it is also common sense. I am myself exactly because I am not myself. If I were not myself, I could not be myself.

So that is the first part: A is not A. Everything is not that thing. That’s how it gets to be that thing. But the next part of the sutra is very pointed. A is not A, so that is why it is called A. I am not myself; that is why I am called myself.

This is distinctly about language and conceptualization. I see myself, and I think of myself as myself. I have to do that, because otherwise I would not have a coherent experience of myself. I can do this only because I am not myself. “Myself” is changing, self-cancelling, and constantly influenced by everything; but, in fact, I don’t live this way. We all live as if we were a fixed entity called “myself.” Now I am caught by this calling myself “myself.”

I am resisting the fact that I am evolving, because I don’t want to change that much. It is difficult to change, and there are certain ways in which I am not going to change. I don’t care what anybody says! I am not changing in that way. So if bad things are happening to me, I am denying them. I am not going to stand for that. If they happen anyway, I am going to be in crisis, because I have a very fixed idea of who I am and what should be happening. So the fact that I have called myself “myself” in a particular way, and I am fixated on that, is causing me a great deal of pain. If only I realized that I am not myself – that’s why I am called myself – then I could call myself “myself” in a different way.

What the sutra is saying to us, in effect, is, “Understand the names, the things, the language of self and other – dharma, world, and so on. We have to have these things in order to live coherently in the world; but understand these things differently now, please. Understand that names don’t refer to fixed things, but rather, they are floating markers within the flux of fluid, ongoing experience that no one is in control of. And so, hold everything as lightly as possible. As openly as possible. Don’t look at the names and the words and what you think they stand for. Remember these spaces between the words. The spaces between the letters. Open up the way that you hold your world.”

So this is a very important teaching, and it is not so strange, although the Diamond Sutra takes a certain delight in expressing it in this semi-strange manner. But it is a very arresting thing. It makes you sit up and take notice. The very fact that it strikes at the heart of our binary logic is probably a very skillful expression.

So this passage ends with:

The Buddha said, “Furthermore, Subhuti, if a man or woman renounced their self-existence every day as many times as there are grains in the Ganges, and renounced their self-existence in this manner for as many kalpas as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, and someone grasped but one four-line verse of this dharma teaching and made it known and explained it to others, the body of merit produced as a result would be immeasurably, infinitely greater.”

Before this, the sutra has been comparing “What’s a greater benefit? What is more meritorious? Giving lavish things all over the place, or reciting one verse of this sutra?” The conclusion is always that it is much more meritorious to recite one verse of the sutra. Here, instead of giving lavish gifts and benefits to others, it now takes up giving up one’s own self. What is more meritorious? Completely giving over one’s self – as if one had a self to give over – or four lines of the sutra? And there is no comparison, because these words of the sutra are non-words, and they are much more precious, and they provide much more merit – boundless, measureless merit.

This is also a trope that is repeated over and over again in the sutra. It is kind of like the ultimate in self-promotion. It is like a political ad on TV. “I am the greatest, and nothing else can compare with me.”

On the one hand, I think the sutra is doing this, and maybe is actually promoting itself. Maybe when they wrote this sutra, they realized that this is pretty radical stuff, so we better convince people. Maybe there is an outrageous polemic for the benefit of the sutra. But in another sense, there is some profound meaning here. What is the most precious thing in the world? The most precious thing is not giving anything, renouncing anything, doing all these great meritorious things. The most precious thing is sharing with others this teaching. Words are the means by which we share this teaching. It isn’t even the teaching, per se, because, literally speaking, there is nothing to the teaching. What is the most precious thing is the sharing itself. The sharing of one another in appreciation of this sense of reality.

So what are we sharing? Nothing, really. And nothing is the one thing that actually is boundless and limitless. You can never exhaust nothing. The sense, as the sutra is telling us, is that everything in this world is basically nothing. The basis of everything is this boundless nothingness, this emptiness – free of limitations; free of weight and substance; free of suffering and pain; free of difficulty.

To share that sense of reality is the most precious thing. Because if I give you a gift, and you are dissatisfied, and you are crabby about it, then it is not that good a gift. If I renounce myself, and I am proud of it, and I am in your face about it, then that is not such a great thing either. But if I share this boundless freedom, then even if you are without anything and in need of a great many things, and you are in a lot of pain, you can find a great relief when you recognize that behind everything that we ever thought we had, we never had it to begin with, because there is nothing behind it.

We ourselves are that way. So everything is freely given, freely flows, and there is no suffering, no limitation.

he Diamond Sutra is a Mahayana sutra from the genre of Prajnaparamita (‘perfection of wisdom’) sutras. In this series Norman will referernce the Diamond Sutra – Red Pine Edition.  This is the third of four talks on the Diamond Sutra.Third in a series on the Diamond Sutra, Red Pine Edition

Diamond Sutra

Third in a series on the Diamond Sutra – Red Pine Edition

By Zoketsu Norman Fischer | May 28, 2008

Abridged and edited by Barbara Byrum and Cynthia Schrager

So tonight chapter six:

This having been said, the venerable Subhuti asked the Buddha, “Bhagavan, will there be any beings in the future, in the final epoch, in the final period, in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age, who give birth to a perception of the truth of the words of a sutra, such as that spoken here?”

The Buddha said, “Subhuti do not ask, ‘Will be any beings in the future, in the final epoch, in the final period, in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age, who give birth to a perception of the truth of the words of a sutra, such as that spoken here?’ Surely, Subhuti, in the final epoch, in the final period, in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age, there will be fearless bodhisattvas who are virtuous, capable, and wise, who give birth to a perception of the truth of the words of a sutra, such as that spoken here.

“Indeed, Subhuti, such fearless bodhisattvas will have honored not just one buddha, and they will have planted auspicious roots before not just before one buddha. Surely, Subhuti, such fearless bodhisattvas will have honored countless hundreds and thousands of buddhas, and they will have planted auspicious roots before countless hundreds and thousands of buddhas. In the words of a sutra such as that spoken here, they are sure to gain perfect clarity of mind. The Tathagata knows them, Subhuti, by means of his buddha knowledge. And the Tathagata sees them, Subhuti , by means of his buddha vision. The Tathagata is aware of them, Subhuti. For they all produce and receive a measureless, infinite body of merit.

“And how so? Because, Subhuti, these fearless bodhisattvas do not create a perception of a self, nor do they create a perception of a being, a life, or a soul. Nor, Subhuti, do these fearless bodhisattvas create the perception of a dharma, much less the perception of no dharma. Subhuti, they do not create a perception nor no perception.

“And why not? Because, Subhuti, if these fearless bodhisattvas created the perception of a dharma, they would be attached to a self, a being, a life, and a soul. Likewise, if they created a perception of no dharma, they would be attached to a self, a being, a life, and a soul.

“And why not? Because surely, Subhuti, fearless bodhisattvas do not cling to a dharma, much less to no dharma. This is the meaning behind the Tathagata’s saying, ‘A dharma teaching is like a raft. If you should let go of dharmas, how much more so no dharmas.'”

What are attributes of the Buddha? That was the question we discussed last week. How is a Buddha, a Buddha? How are we, as awakened human beings, awakened human beings? What are the attributes? The Buddha has said that we can see and appreciate an awakened person by means of attributes that are no attributes. So there are attributes, but they are no attributes.

So, on the one hand, there are no specific qualities that would identify an awakened person – no graspable, identifiable attributes or qualities. On the other hand, we know an awakened person. There are attributes; that is, there is a difference between us when we are awakened and us when we are not. But the difference is not a difference that is distinct or graspable. When we come to practice, we are always looking for a distinction, a difference that we can identify and grasp, and we don’t find that kind of difference. Yet, at the same time, there is a distinct and important difference. It’s just that it is hard to put your finger on it. It’s hard to point to it. This is called attributes that are no attributes.

In a way, it also suggests a radical non-self-consciousness. That is, the awakened person does not perceive in himself or herself any attributes that make him or her awakened. She is striving for awakening; she is making efforts in that direction; but she doesn’t see anyone who is awakened; and she doesn’t see any awakened qualities in herself.

So there is a tremendous simplicity in this and a tremendous humility that comes from not seeing within oneself anything that can be called awakening – some kind of benefit that you got, some kind of awakening that you have, or some kind of awakening that you are trying to get. It is beyond that.

Maybe when we from the outside are looking at a person who evidences these qualities, which are no qualities, we can appreciate that some such person may be awakened, although we can’t put our finger on it exactly. We can’t really be sure exactly.

I think all the things about awakening that we can be sure of, that we can put our finger on – all the special qualities that we can identify in great spiritual masters – are probably entirely our projections, not the actual qualities of awakening. These projections can be useful, but in the end, they will all prove to be false. We may be crestfallen and disappointed, if we think that those projections are supposed to be true.

The point is that this really does make sense. It is not just the Buddha trying to say paradoxical things. It is very directly how it really is, but it is hard to appreciate and understand, because we are so used to thinking in a very different way. In this passage that we just read, Subhuti also finds it hard to understand and appreciate, and so that is why he asks this question. In Buddhism there is a tradition that as time goes on, human beings become less disciplined and less able to practice. There is the teaching that everything is impermanent, so why isn’t the dharma impermanent? The dharma is impermanent, because things go on in such a way that people have less capacity to understand, and so the dharma eventually passes away. So Subhuti is saying to the Buddha, “If this is so hard to understand now, and you, Buddha, are right here in front of us teaching, and I am barely getting it, how are they going to get it at that time when everybody is so dimwitted, and the conditions for understanding are so much less than they are now? Surely they won’t be able to understand it then.”

The Buddha reassures Subhuti, “Yes, Subhuti. Don’t worry. Even in the darkest of times, even in the least advantageous times, there will be beings who will be capable of understanding this. These fearless bodhisattvas will be able to understand, because although they themselves might lack the skill and the talent and the discipline to understand, they will be able to understand, because in the unknown past, many lifetimes ago, they have served and made offerings to countless buddhas. In doing so, they have planted powerful and auspicious roots. They have accrued so much good karma that despite their shortcomings, they will blossom in their understanding, because of this past heritage of devotion.”

So despite our many problems and present difficulties, our lack of seriousness and discipline, our fading memories, and our flagging energies, we have a human birthright from the past. The Buddha is telling us that we are capable of practice. Because of this, as he says in the very beginning of the sutra, the Buddha sees us, and the Buddha knows us. He says, “We all, by virtue of this birthright and this being seen and this being known by the Buddha, will equally produce and receive measureless bodies of merit.”

Why is this measureless merit possible for us? Because we don’t create the perception of a self or a person. Or the reverse: we don’t create the perception of no-self or non-person. Why is that? Because if we perceived a self or a no-self – in either case – we would automatically be stuck. We would be clinging and grasping one way or the other. It is the clinging and the grasping that is the problem. It is not that we are trying to come up with correct, philosophical, Buddhist concepts to be able to talk about and believe in. The issue is not that. The issue is that clinging and grasping causes us to make a mess out of things and to be unhappy.

This is the bottom line message of the sutra, which is not so hard to grasp or understand. It is not so different from all of Buddhist teaching. The root of human problems is the hanging on, the grasping, and the clutching for something that we can’t ever clutch and can’t ever grasp. We can’t hold onto it. It’s always leaving us, and we are desperately trying to hold onto it, and so we are suffering. That is the problem. We are going to lose the things that we want to hold onto, and yet we keep holding on.

In early Buddhism, the idea was that if that’s the truth, then we know what we have to do. We have to stop holding on. Through discipline and cultivation, we have to practice renunciation. We have to let go. That was basically, in a nutshell, the early teachings of Buddhism, and then all the practices are for the purpose of doing that – which is not so easy to do. But we can do it.

Here, in the emptiness teachings of the Diamond Sutra, the notion is one stage more subtle. Okay, you did all that discipline, you did all that training, all that cultivation, and learned not to hold on. But if you still think that there is anything at all – a self, a soul, a person, others, the world to grasp – even if you think that there is something to let go of and someone who is going to do the letting go, you will be right back where you were before.

So recognize how it really is. Nothing is there in the way we think it’s there. Everything is empty of any hard and fast reality. There is nothing to hold onto. So why hold on? Why hold on when you understand this? There is no-one to hold on to anything. How can you try to hold on when this is clear to you? You can’t even hold on to the teachings. You can’t even hold on to the practice.

With this more subtle understanding and recognition, the basic ground of practice shifts from a moral act, renouncing the world, to a metaphysical or spiritual commitment. It is not a matter of renouncing the world, letting go of the world. It is matter of recognizing the nature of the world and the nature of the self. When you recognize the nature of the world and the nature of the self, by this very recognition, grasping is dissolved. You recognize that the world is exactly ungraspable. The self is exactly ungraspable, which is why all our grasping is so painful. Grasping the ungraspable is a frustrating thing, and life is very frustrating. It’s as if exactly what we think we want and need, is exactly what we can’t get, by virtue of our projection of that something that we think we need.

At the end of the passage the Buddha says, “A dharma teaching is like a raft.” It is an expedient device; it is a vehicle to get to the other side, the other shore, but once you are there on the other side on solid ground, which is no ground, then why would you need this clunky, heavy-duty raft? Why would you want to be carrying it around all the time? So you can safely discard it.

The Buddha says here, “If you should let go of dharmas, how much more so no dharmas.” In other words, you let go of everything, and also you let go of the insistence that you let go of everything. You let go of the raft, but also you let go of the need to assert, “Look at me! I let go of the raft!”

Letting go of dharmas and letting go of no dharmas means being free of reactivity, of compulsion, of being driven. It means being free to go up or down; right or left; to hold on or let go according to circumstances, in a natural, commonsensical, free way. It is being motivated by kindness and a simple spirit.

Zooming along, we are now going to chapter seven:

The Buddha asked the venerable Subhuti, “What do you think, Subhuti? Did the Tathagata realize any such dharma as ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment?’ And does the Tathagata teach any such dharma?” [In other words, “Okay, I’ve just said don’t be attached to dharma or no dharma; cast the teaching aside like a raft. So am I teaching anything? Can you identify any teaching here, Subhuti?”]

The venerable Subhuti thereupon answered, “Bhagavan, as I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, the Tathagata did not realize any such dharma as ‘unexcelled perfect enlightenment.’ Nor does the Tathagata teach such a dharma. And why? Because this dharma realized and taught by the Tathagata is incomprehensible and inexpressible and is neither a dharma nor no dharma. And why? Because sages arise from what is uncreated.

So that requires some explanation also. Don’t you think? Following along carefully with the sutra, as we have been doing, it certainly raises the question, “Is there anything to all this? Shouldn’t we just pack up and go home? Why are we wasting all of our time here?” Maybe this question is raised to test Subhuti, and Subhuti answers, “No, there is no such thing as unexcelled perfect enlightenment. It doesn’t exist. The Buddha never taught any such thing. And why is that? Because such a thing as ‘unexcelled perfect enlightenment,’ if it were taught by the Buddha, would be understandable; it would be graspable; it would be a concept that somehow we could manifest or master. But this dharma that has been realized and taught is incomprehensible and inexpressible. It is beyond anything that could be identified.”

It can’t be an object of perception or conceptual thought. It can’t be reduced in any way to something, or pinned down in any way. It’s not a something or a nothing. It is the ever-present, empty nature of things that has always been. It’s us! We already are and have always been the ever present empty nature of things. It is nothing outside of us, or beyond us, or extra. So, in a way, how could you say that it is anything? It’s neither a dharma nor a no dharma. It’s not a something or a nothing.

I will read you a comment of Thich Nhat Hanh:

This section of the sutra shows that all dharmas are without form and transcend conceptual knowledge. When we realize this, we are freed from our conceptual prisons. In daily life, we usually use our conceptual knowledge to grasp reality. But this is impossible. Meditation aims at breaking through all conceptual limitations and barriers so that we can move freely in the boundless ocean of reality.

I am glad that Thich Nhat Hanh brings us back to the practice, to why we sit. We are taking a step backwards out of our concepts and our needs and our clinging and our desires into the uncreated, the unconditioned. Even though things might still arise in the mind while we are sitting, when we step back into this background of the unconditioned, it changes the picture. The same things might be there, but they are no longer sticky. They are no longer substantial. They are no longer real. Even though, to be sure, we don’t get that perfectly, this is the effort that we are making when we are sitting. This is why sitting is so deeply comforting – at least to me. Sitting is so comforting.

What a great thing that we can return to the unconditioned. Of course, one realizes that doing that is not just a matter of sitting. It is not a characteristic of somebody ringing a bell to return to the unconditioned! It is a characteristic of our consciousness. So once we get the idea through the sitting practice over time, the unconditioned is always one step away, literally, from wherever we are. One step back, and there it is. This inconceivable, incomprehensible dharma is not verified. It is not distant. It is always right here, if we take a step back into it. It is as close as the breath.

I think that this saying – “the absolute exalts the holy person” – means that the absolute exalts practitioners; the absolute gives strength to practitioners; it gives dignity to practitioners. Coming at the end of all this expression about the inexpressibility and the incomprehensibility of the dharma, this is a positive, powerful statement of what it feels like to be embraced by and to be embracing the truth, the absolute, the uncreated.

Second talk on the Diamond Sutra, Red Pine Edition

Diamond Sutra 2

By Zoketsu Norman Fischer | May 21, 2008

Abridged and edited by Barbara Byrum and Deborah Russell

The sutra begins with Subhuti asking the Buddha about the bodhisattva path that we are following. How should a bodhisattva stand, walk, and control her thoughts? That is the question that elicits the whole material of this sutra. This is to be taken literally – how to stand, how to walk, and how to work with our thoughts – but also figuratively. How to “stand” might mean what qualities should we develop; what guidelines to ethical conduct should we have; how can we control our thoughts; what attitudes should we be developing?

The Buddha’s surprising and wonderful response was not to take up the details of that question, but instead to say that all a bodhisattva has to do is to give rise to a thought, to give birth to a thought. And the thought is, “I will save all beings.” All kinds of beings, no matter what kind, will be saved, and having saved all beings, no being at all will be saved. Why? Because bodhisattvas have no perception of a self, no perception of a being, and no perception of a person.

So in the beginning of the sutra, we see the point of the sutra and also the point of the bodhisattva path: the twin or double-edged sword of compassion and emptiness. Compassion and emptiness are two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, a tremendous altruism and love for all beings; and not only love, but a desire to be active in benefitting them. On the other hand, emptiness – the recognition that beings are not what we think they are, and that “saving” is not what we think it is. In emptiness, beings are without separateness, without substance, without fixed reality. That recognition is itself their salvation.

Beings are suffering – we are suffering – because of not knowing who we are. And as soon as we know who we are, beings are saved, and we are saved. Seeing the empty nature of ourselves and beings is the salvation.

This emptiness of beings could, on the one hand, certainly be seen as a philosophical assertion and a religious doctrine; but in this sutra we learn that emptiness does not have to do with a philosophical assertion or a religious doctrine. It actually has to do with our very acts of perception. Emptiness is a psycho-physical reality. It is there in the acts of perception.

In English, as well as in Sanskrit, perception means literally “to grasp.” To perceive something is to grasp something. On a practical level – apart from religious or philosophical interpretations – emptiness means physically to recognize that there is nothing to grasp, and, therefore, nothing to perceive. So perception can be soft, knowing that the perception that we usually practice is based on separate objects and is a kind of illusion, a kind of magic show. We are seeing something and interpreting it as being something that isn’t actually there – a person, a being, a separate autonomous entity.

So the compassion of the bodhisattva is a compassion that recognizes that perception – grasping objects – is false. This compassion is not an exhausting compassion, an obligatory compassion, a burdensome compassion, but a soft, energizing, non-exhausting compassion. So it is not hard, not troublesome, and not difficult.

Then it makes sense that dana paramita is the next topic that is taken up in the sutra. How does a bodhisattva conduct herself? Having this altruism and emptiness at the same time, how do you practice giving? How do you practice benefitting others? The essence of giving as a bodhisattva practice – being a bodhisattva who practices emptiness as well as compassion – is giving without attachment. Giving based on non-perception, non-grasping of sights, smells, and so on.

When you read this in the sutra, at first it seems esoteric or unusual; but actually we are quite used to this kind of talk. It goes to the question of intention and motivation. In almost all moral systems, including the moral systems that most of us grew up with, it is always taught that one ought to do good without ulterior motives, right? Not doing good so that you can get credit, or so that you can get powerful, or you can get praise. If I am doing good for personal gain, this is not as good as my doing good for altruistic reasons or for reasons of kindness.

So we know the difference, and we can really appreciate that to do good – to give a gift out of pure motivation – feels good to the one who receives the gift. It is not just some moral equation. Practically speaking, it makes a big difference in the way you feel. That is the best kind of giving: without expecting anything in return; without accruing some merit; just giving out of love and kindness. The Buddha seems to be saying that the essence of the bodhisattva path is to practice giving in this spirit, with a pure heart, with a selfless motivation.

If you follow this very simple moral equation deeply enough – just to do good – you eventually come to the recognition that in doing good – without any arrogance at all, without any grasping – there is actually no such thing as “doing good.” There is no such thing as “giving.” There is no such thing as “receiving a gift,” and no such thing as the “gift” itself. You begin to realize that as soon as you have a gift, a receiver, and a giver, there is some arrogance. What do we actually have? Who has anything that you produced or earned on your own, that you actually have? What is it that the other person you are giving to actually lacks? Do they really lack something that you are giving them, that they didn’t have already? How real is the separation between us, the fortunate and the unfortunate one? Is there a real difference between us?

So in this way, we arrive very organically at emptiness, at non-perception. Non-perception, in the Buddhist terminology, sounds drastic to us. It doesn’t mean that the world suddenly disappears, and we are seeing a blank, but that we see in a heartfelt way – almost viscerally – the vanity of all of our perceptions and all of our conceptions.

The sutra goes on (page three of the Red Pine translation):

Thus, Subhuti, the fearless bodhisattva who sets forth on the bodhisattva path should give a gift without being attached to the perception of an object. And why? Subhuti, the body of merit of those bodhisattvas who give a gift without being attached is not easy to measure. [In other words, it is immeasurable.]

I would like to comment on the phrase “fearless bodhisattva.” The reference to fear is, for me, one of the most important and little remarked-upon aspects of the Diamond Sutra. You can find the same thing in the Heart Sutra: “without any hindrance, no fears exist.” The referencing of fear and the fearlessness of the bodhisattva is a very, very important point.

If we really look within, we have to admit that there is a lot of fear inside of us. This is such a deeply held human emotion. It is impressive how much fear is in us. Most of the time we do not notice, but it arises with great irrationality from time to time. There is anger too. And mostly the anger we feel has behind it the fear.

In fact, fear may be one of the most constant and powerful human emotions. Why would we be so afraid all the time, underneath the surface of our comfort? Because we understand that we are, by our nature, radically vulnerable. Ultimately and inevitably vulnerable. We try to protect ourselves, but it never works. There is always fear, because although we know that it’s not going to work, we keep trying to overcome the fear. The only way to overcome this fear is by completely letting go. This means to see that there has never been anything to hold onto; that everything that we think we are and possess – the body, the mind, the thoughts, the great wisdom, the knowledge – is all ungraspable, all empty, and all insubstantial. This is the emptiness of it all. Bodhisattvas perceive that things are empty, and so, naturally, fearlessness would be the mark of a bodhisattva.

Red Pine emphasizes the idea of the body. This “body of merit,” as we just learned, has no limit. It is measureless. Like space, it has no limitation at all. This body of merit is the body of the Buddha, the body of the bodhisattva. In this commentary, he says this is the dharmakaya body, the true body of the Buddha, which is without limitation and without form. This dharmakaya body of Buddha, the ultimate Buddha body, is contrasted to the nirmanakaya body, which is the human body, which Buddha also possessed. A human body is made up of the four elements, and when the four elements dissipate, the body disintegrates and goes back to the four elements. The sambhogakaya body is called the “reward body” or the “enjoyment body.” This is a pure body of virtue associated with the spiritual life, spiritual practice, and refined states of mind in meditation. We produce a body of refinement, enjoyment of merit, but this body is still a limited body.

Eventually, as long as there are benefits and blessings in this body, we might always have the possibility of running out of blessings after a while. Running out of goodness; running out of benefit. Then we get old and fall apart, and we might even get bored with our practice and soon there is nothing, and we fall into despair. Why? Because we have a perception of a self, a being, soul or a person. That eventually limits us, and we wear down. But this dharmakaya body is like space. It is formless; it’s unlimited; it doesn’t have any marks, so it can never wear out. We could never get tired of it, because it has nothing about it that we could get tired of.

So the practice of giving, this particular way of practicing giving – of objects without givers and gifts without recipients – is just this limitless, measureless, unstoppable space. So it isn’t that I am giving you something. It is really a kind of joyful open-handedness that is the ultimate expression of the real. So it is way beyond apparent acts of giving. Every moment is by its nature this merit body, this ultimate, open-handed, generous expression of the real.

So this is section five:

What do you think, Subhuti, can the Tathagata be seen by means of the possession of attributes? [Which follows from the previous, right? If it is limitless and like space, then what are we talking about? Is there actually a Buddha we could identify with attributes? Are we all floating in space here?] Subhuti replies, “No indeed, Bhagavan, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes. And why not? Bhagavan, what the Tathagata says is the possession of attributes is no possession of attributes.

This having been said, the Buddha told the venerable Subhuti, “Since the possession of attributes is an illusion, Subhuti, and no possession of attributes is no illusion, by means of attributes that are no attributes, the Tathagatha can, indeed, be seen.”

So the question was, in effect, “Can you see the Tathagata? Is there anyone there? Can we discourse with the Buddha? Can we study with the Buddha? You just told me that the Buddha is essentially space, so what about that?”

This is where the Diamond Sutra tends to lose us all. These questions, which are inquiries about the Buddha, are equally inquires about us. Can any of us be said to have attributes? Can we see anybody? And, if so, in what way?

I am going to read Red Pine’s commentary about this section, which will make it a little less abstruse. I think it is pretty clear what he says:

The Buddha’s point is that while we can view the attributes of the body as an illusion, if we can see them as no attributes, as not severed from the seamless fabric of reality [seeing them as no attributes is seeing that they are not separate from the fabric of reality], we see the Buddha’s true body, which necessarily includes the very attributes whose reality was just denied.

Thus, the arhan’s denial of reality becomes the bodhisattva’s affirmation. This technique is used repeatedly throughout this sutra to demonstrate through logic [this technique of logic that says “attribute, no attribute, therefore attribute”] what the word “emptiness” often fails to convey by itself.

Emptiness does conjure up nothing; but it doesn’t mean nothing. It basically means seeing something that is actually there in a totally different aspect. Instead of seeing it as an unpleasant difficulty, you see it as manifested Buddha reality. It’s the same thing; it is there, but now it feels different, and you react to it in a different way. And then he says:

Meanwhile, Zen masters often shortened this logical technique even further by holding up one finger, by refusing to speak, by striking their disciples, or by offering them a cup of tea.

So all these gestures of these Zen masters are expressing this same point.

This is the basic logic of the Diamond Sutra, which is repeated over and over again throughout the sutra. By means of attributes that are no attributes, the Tathagata, in the end, can be seen. There is perception. Perception is known as no perception, non-perception.

In other words, this is a radical and sublime affirmation of attributes. That’s why in Zen the emphasis is not on purifying and improving our character. The emphasis is on affirming the attributes that we have. Once they are really affirmed, by that very fact of seeing them in another light, they are transformed, not by improving them, but by affirming them.

So this is the Diamond Sutra teaching. This is the basic Diamond Sutra logic, which is repeated many times throughout the sutra. It is worth paying attention to it in its first iterations. I would posit a question for you: If this teaching were so and we appreciated it, what attitude toward our lives would we have? Because this could be a wonderful abstraction: “I believe that now, and back to business as usual.” No, this would change our attitude, I think. Not to anybody but you. How would it change it? How would you describe, if you could, that change in attitude?