The Diamond Sutra (Chin-Kang-Ching) or Prajna-Paramita

The Diamond Sutra is one of the most valued and widely read philosophical works in Buddhist literature. It is very popular amongst ardent Buddhists in China, and excepting the Lotus of the Good Law, and the Leng-Yen-Ching,1 perhaps no other Sutra ascribed to Buddha is regarded by the Chinese with so great esteem.

The Diamond Sutra was written originally in Sanscrit, and in process of time translated into the Tibetan, Chinese, Mongol, and Manchu languages. It represents the Mahayana school of Buddhist thought, a school founded by Nagarjuna,3 which flourished primarily at Tchakuka, and thereafter influenced appreciably a considerable part of the Buddhist Church.

In the year 1836, Csomo Körösi published an account of the Tibetan translation, which interesting document may be consulted in Vol. XX. of the Asiatic Researches. The Diamond Sutra is therein designated “The Sutra of Wonderful Effects,” a treatise by means of which Sakyamuni Buddha instructs Subhuti, one of his conspicuous disciples, in The Prajna-Paramita of transcendent wisdom.4

To Kumarajiva,5 a native of Kashmir, who gained distinction as a monk of the later Chin dynasty6 (a.d. 384–417), is conceded the honour of having first translated The Diamond Sutra into the Chinese language. Of subsequent Chinese translations, perhaps the most noteworthy is the text ascribed to the scholarly Hiuen-Tsang, and completed about the middle of the seventh century.7

A rendering into English of Kumarajiva’s Chinese translation was accomplished by the Rev. S. Beal, and published in The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1864–65. The text and German translation of the Tibetan version were published in 1873 by M. Schmidt, in The Mémoires de l’Académie St Pétersbourg. The Mongolian translation was presented by the Baron de Constadt to the library of the Institut de France. The Manchu translation is in the possession of M. de Harlez, who, with the aid of the Tibetan, Manchu, and Chinese versions, published a French translation of the Sanscrit text of The Diamond Sutra in the Journal Asiatique, 1892.8 It has been observed9 that “at first sight it may seem as if this metaphysical treatise hardly deserved the world-wide reputation which it has attained.” Regarding this descriptive “world-wide reputation,” devout Buddhists might suggest in extenuation, that throughout many centuries, the “spiritual wisdom” of The Diamond Sutra produced in countless minds a “conscious blessedness of perfect peace.” This “spiritual wisdom” also appeared to be a “strong incentive to holiness,” and a grateful inspiration to those who had entered “the path which leads to Nirvana.” In a few renowned monasteries of Central China, our Buddhist friends frequently affirmed that, by contemplating the “spiritual wisdom” of The Diamond Sutra, the mind would inevitably become “transfused with the mellow light of imperishable truth.”

In the preface to The Vagrakkhedika, Max Müller made a critical observation regarding certain peculiarities of “‘style’ adopted in this treatise by the Buddhist philosophers who wished to convince their hearers of the truth of their philosophy.” From the Sanscrit text, perhaps it is difficult to realise fully what Asvaghocha10 described as the “persuasiveness of Buddha’s eloquence”;11 yet we may quite appreciate the academic instinct of Kumarajiva, whose work on The Diamond Sutra bears evidence of a laudable endeavour to produce a classic, which in the Chinese language is almost entirely beyond reproach.

Max Müller stated12 that The Diamond Sutra represents a treatise on “metaphysical agnosticism,” and he excused its “endless repetition of the same process of reasoning” on the assumption, that the subject-matter of the Sutra was probably “perfectly familiar to children and ignorant persons.”

By referring to our Chinese text, we are led to suppose that The Diamond Sutra was “delivered expressly for those who had entered the Path which leads to Nirvana,” and for those who are “attaining to the ultimate plane of Buddhic thought.” Our Chinese annotators also appear to be unanimous in suggesting, that the “spiritual wisdom” of The Diamond Sutra is understood only in its rudimentary forms, by those of immature or uninitiated mind.

Concerning what has been termed the “agnosticism” of The Diamond Sutra, Sakyamuni Buddha, when he admissibly delivered the text, indicated clearly that there is a sense in which the “highest perfect knowledge”13 may be referred to as “unknown.” Dante appears to have had a similar difficulty regarding “knowledge” and “power” wherewith to express the higher forms of spiritual experience; and the following lines, constituting the opening stanzas of The Paradiso, may serve to elucidate the Buddhist position, and make it perhaps more intelligible to those who are as yet unfamiliar with its peculiar modes of thought:—

In order to appreciate fully the philosophy of The Diamond Sutra, doubtless it is necessary to interpret aright the meaning of the Buddhist terminology. In this connection, the Sanscrit Dharma—usually rendered into Chinese by “Fah,” and into English by “Law”—appears to merit our immediate attention.

Max Müller, with his ample knowledge, stated that Dharma, “in the ordinary Buddhist phraseology, may be correctly rendered by Law; and thus the whole teaching of Buddha is named Saddharma—‘The Good Law.’ What The Diamond Sutra wishes to teach is that all objects, differing one from the other by their Dharmas, are illusive, or as we should say, phenomenal and subjective, that they are, in fact, of our own making, the products of our own mind.” With those noteworthy observations, there is embodied in the preface to The Vagrakkhedika, the following interesting suggestion, that the Greek εῖδος—whatever is seen, form, shape, figure—appears to be the equivalent of the Sanscrit Dharma.

Spence Hardy, a distinguished writer on Buddhism, made a suggestion of perhaps equal importance, with reference to the correct interpretation of Dharma. In his well-known volume Eastern Monachism, there occurs the following relevant passage: “The second of the three great treasures is called Dhammo, or in Singhalese Dharmma. This word has various meanings, but is here to be understood in the sense of truth.”

Perhaps it may be opportune to remark, that had Kumarajiva regarded “form,” “truth,” or “righteousness,” as expressing adequately the Sanscrit Dharma, these familiar terms being obviously at his command, might have been utilised at pleasure. Like the cultured Asvaghocha, Kumarajiva may have regarded the “nature” of the Law as “co-extensive with the illimitable ocean of being”;17 and within that ample compass, perhaps he thought there might synthetically be included those beautifully-defined concepts “form,” “truth,” and “righteousness.”

Chinese annotators of The Diamond Sutra seldom criticise adversely its classic terminology, or suggest many inapplicable alternative renderings. They appear to have surveyed the realm of “spiritual wisdom” enunciated by Sakyamuni Buddha, and thereafter to have become greatly impressed by the thought that, in its Essence, it might possibly be inexhaustible. This may in part explain their motive for incorporating in the commentary a familiar passage from Lao-Tsz, “Infinite truth is inexpressible”18—which in a measure illustrates the appreciable difficulty of stating, in exact terms of philosophy, the equivalent of the Buddhic “Law.”

In our intercourse with Buddhist monks, we heard the rather engaging suggestion, that the familiar Christian phrase, “the law of the spirit of life,” contains a spiritual concept which appears to approximate closely to the idea of the “Law” of Buddha. Those monks seemed to believe that the “Law”19 enters quietly and operates imperceptibly within every natural and spiritual sphere; and that they have at least a semblance of reason for their belief, the following exquisite lines clearly indicate:—