The Diamond Sutra

[inavalan]

May 28, 2021 11:23:03 GMT -5 Reefs said:

*********************************************************************

The Diamond Sutra

Chapter 5

*********************************************************************

Sanskrit (Conze):
The Lord continued: 'What do you think, Subhuti, can the Tathagata be seen by the possession of his marks?' Subhuti replied:
'No indeed, O Lord.
The Lord said: 'Wherever there is possession of marks, there is fraud, wherever there is no-possession of no-marks there is no fraud. Hence the Tathagata is to be seen from no marks as marks.' And why? What has been taught by the Tathagata as the possession of marks, that is truly a no-possession of no-marks.' The Lord said: 'Wherever there is possession of marks, there is fraud, wherever there is no-possession of no-marks there is no fraud. Hence the Tathagata is to be seen from no marks as marks.'

Sanskrit (Harrison):
"What do you think, Subhūti, can a Realized One be seen by virtue of the possession of distinctive features?"
"A Realized One cannot be seen by virtue of the possession of distinctive features.
Why is that? The very thing which the Realized One has preached as the possession of distinctive features lacks any possession of distinctive features."
"Subhūti, as long as there is any distinctive feature there is falsehood, and as long as there is no distinctive feature there is no falsehood. Accordingly it is by virtue of the featurelessness of his distinctive features that a Realized One can be seen."

Tibetan (Roach):
Now Subhuti, what do you think? Should we consider someone to be One Thus Gone, just because they possess the totally exquisite marks that we find on a Buddha's body?
And Subhuti respectfully replied, O Conquering One, we should not. We should not consider anyone One Thus Gone just because they possess the totally exquisite marks that we find on a Buddha's body. And why not? Because when the One Thus Gone himself described the totally exquisite marks on a Buddha's body, he stated at the same time that they were impossible.

Chinese (TNH):
“What do you think, Subhuti? Is it possible to grasp the Tathagata by means of bodily signs?”
“No, World-Honored One. When the Tathagata speaks of bodily signs, there are no signs being talked about.”
The Buddha said to Subhuti, “In a place where there is something that can be distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of signs, then you can see the Tathagata.”

*********************************************************************

If we take ‘signs’ to be what Alan Watts calls ‘symbols’, i.e. signs = symbols = concepts, then this is basically the whole seeker dilemma in a nutshell. One has to see beyond the conceptual in order to realize THIS.

Commentary from TNH:

Our usual way of perceiving is according to the principle of identity: “A is A” and “A is not B.” However, in this passage, Subhuti says, “A is not A.”

When the Buddha sees a rose, does he recognize it as a rose in the same way that we do? Of course he does. But before he says the rose is a rose, the Buddha has seen that the rose is not a rose. He has seen that it is made of non-rose elements, with no clear demarcation between the rose and those elements that are not the rose. When we perceive things, we generally use the sword of conceptualization to cut reality into pieces, saying, “This piece is A, and A cannot be B, C, or D.” But when A is looked at in light of dependent co- arising, we see that A is comprised of B, C, D, and everything else in the universe. “A” can never exist by itself alone. When we look deeply into A, we see B, C,D, and so on. Once we understand that A is not just A, we understand the true nature of A and are qualified to say “A is A,” or “A is not A.” But until then, the A we see is just an illusion of the true A.

If we look deeply into A and see that A is not A, we see A in its fullest flowering. At that time, love becomes true love, generosity becomes true generosity, practicing the precepts becomes truly practicing the precepts, and support becomes true support. This is the way the Buddha looks at a rose, and it is why he is not attached to the rose. When we are still caught in signs, we are still attached to the rose. A Chinese Zen master once said, “Before practicing Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. While practicing Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers. After practicing, mountains are mountains again and rivers are rivers again.” These are the dialectics of prajñaparamita.

We must be able to see through the form in order to be in touch with the substance. Recognizing the Tathagata by means of the thirty-two marks or the eighty signs of beauty is dangerous, because Mara and the Wheel-Turning Kings (cakravarti-raja) also have the same signs. “Do not look for the Tathagata by means of bodily signs,” the Buddha said. He also said, “Where there is sign, there is illusion.” That is, whenthere is perception, there is deception. The substance of any perception is its sign. Our task is to practice until signs no longer deceive us and our perceptions become insight and understanding.

Tathagata is the true nature of life, wisdom, love, and happiness. Only when we can see the signless nature of signs do we have a chance of seeing the Tathagata. When we look at a rose without being caught by its signs, we see the nature of non-rose and therefore we begin to see the Tathagata in the rose. If we look into a pebble, a tree, or a child in this way, we also see the Tathagata in them. Tathagata means coming from nowhere and going nowhere, showing no sign of coming and no sign of going, no sign of being and no sign of non-being, no sign of birth and no sign of death.

Thich Nhat Hanh, The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion

This is what A-H call 'seeing the world thru the eyes of Source'. And it is also what AW means by the veil of thoughts, the symbol vs. the real. The one who sees a rose and only a rose doesn’t actually see but is lost in imagination.

But why do they have to explain it in such an abstract and complicated way? I am starting to feel sorry for those who had to study these sutras on their own without someone explaining to them what is said there in plain English. Buddhists really like to make things seem more complex and mysterious than they actually are. I am also not (yet) seeing how Harrison’s translation is in any way more accurate or superior to the other translations. Conze’s translations at times seem unintelligible. That surprised me a little. The Tibetan translation seems to be taking great liberties. So far Thich’s translation seems the best, especially in combination with his comments. Nevertheless, whatever translation we may choose, it all seems a bit too wordy and unnecessarily complicated to me. If we compare that to let’s say Laozi, even with classical Chinese being extremely vague, it still has more precision and especially more economy of words than these Buddhist texts. I am honestly a bit disappointed in that regard. I really expected something better.

This is another interesting and informative translation and commentary of the Chapter 5:


Diamond Sūtra Discussion - The principle of true perception 如理實見分


Text:

「須菩提！于意云何？可以身相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以身相得見如來。何以故？如來所說身相，即非身相。」　佛告須菩提：「凡所有相，皆是虛妄。若見諸相非相，則見如來。」

Yifa: “Subhuti, what does your mind say? The Tathagata can be seen by bodily appearances, can he not?”

“No, World-Honored One. The Tathagata cannot be seen by bodily appearances. Why is this? The Tathagata has said bodily appearances are not bodily appearances.”

The Buddha told Subhuti, “Every appearance whatsoever is a deception. If you can see all appearances not as appearances, then you see the Tathagata.”

Sanskrit: tatkiṃ manyase subhūte lakṣaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato draṣṭavyaḥ ? subhūtirāha-no hīdaṃ bhagavan| na lakṣaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato draṣṭavyaḥ| tatkasya hetoḥ ? yā sā bhagavan lakṣaṇasaṃpattathāgatena bhāṣitā saivālakṣaṇasaṃpat| evamukte bhagavānāyuṣmantaṃ subhūtimetadavocat yāvatsubhūte lakṣaṇasaṃpat tāvanmṛṣā, yāvadalakṣaṇasaṃpat tāvanna mṛṣeti hi lakṣaṇālakṣaṇatastathāgato draṣṭavyaḥ||5||


Commentary:

At a high level this means do not judge things by appearances.

The Buddha want us to transcend appearance. This is discussed further in Section 20. It is also mentioned in Section 13 and Section 26.

The word mark translates the Chinese 相, Sanskrit lakṣaṇa. In discussing bodily marks the text is referring to the thirty two marks of excellence of the Buddha (Sanskrit: dvātrijśan mahā-purusa-laksanāni, Chinese: 三十二相). In fact, the Sanskrit term mahā-purusa literally means "great man." Wheel-turning kings also have the thirty two marks of excellence. The bodily signs include feet with flat soles, wheels on the soles of the feet, and so on. These bodily signs are wonderfully symbollic and make for nice artwork but they are not reasons to revere the Buddha. The elder Asita saw that the Buddha possessed the thirty two marks when he visited King Suddhhodana to see the Sidartha just after his birth. (Hsing Yun 2013, p24)

Vakkali was a monk who wanted to see the Buddha but could not because of chronic sickness. The Buddha menions not seeing him by his bodily form in the Vakkali Sutta,

"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see the Blessed One."

"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

("Vakkali Sutta: Vakkali" (SN 22.87), translated from the Pali by Maurice O'Connell Walshe. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.087x.wlsh.html.)


The Three Dharma Seals, also known as the Three Marks of Existence (Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa, Chinese: 三法印) are (1) impermanence (Sanskrit: anitya, Chinese: 無常), (2) non-self (Sanskrit: anātman, Chinese: 無我), and (3) Nirvāṇa (Chinese: 涅盤) or that all phenomena (dharmas), except Nirvāṇa, are subject to suffering (Fo Guang Shan Online Dictionary). The lakṣaṇa part of the the Sanskrit word trilakṣaṇa is the same word as appears here in the text.

Coming back to the text, signs are deceptive and false because they are impermanent, do not have an independent self, and lead to suffering. So the problems with the bodily signs are (1) not only the Buddha has the thirty two marks of excellence, (2) these marks of excellence are not substantial in themselves because they arise from the Buddha's previous practice and the merit accumulated, and (3) the marks may lead to suffering.

[inavalan]

May 30, 2021 19:15:24 GMT -5 inavalan said:

May 27, 2021 8:08:23 GMT -5 Reefs said:

*********************************************************************

The Diamond Sutra

Chapter 4

*********************************************************************

Sanskrit (Conze):

When he gives gifts he should not be supported by sight objects, nor by sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or mind-objects; or, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being should give gifts in such a way that he is not supported by the notion of a sign. And why? Because the heap of merit of that Bodhi-being, who unsupported gives a gift, is not easy to measure.

“What do you think, Subhuti, is the extent of space in the East easy to measure?” Subhuti replied: No indeed, O Lord. The Lord asked: In like manner, is it easy to measure the extent of space in the South, West or North, downwards, upwards, in the intermediate directions, in all the ten directions all round? Subhuti replied: No indeed, O Lord. The Lord said: Even so the heap of merit of that Bodhibeing who unsupported gives a gift is not easy to measure. That is why, Subhuti, those who have set out in the Bodhisattva-vehicle, should give gifts without being supported by the notion of a sign.

Sanskrit (Harrison):

“However, a bodhisattva should not give a gift while fixing on an object, Subhuti. He should not give a gift while fixing on anything. He should not give a gift while fixing on physical forms. He should not give a gift while fixing on sounds, smells, tastes or objects of touch or on dharmas. For this is the way, Subhuti, a bodhisattva should give a gift, so that he does not fix on the idea of the distinctive features (of any object). Why is that? Subhuti, it is not easy to take the measure of the quantity of merit, Subhuti, of the bodhisattva who gives a gift without fixation.

What do you think, Subhuti, is it easy to take the measure of space in the east?” Subhuti said, “Indeed not, Lord.” “Similarly, is it easy to take the measure of space in the south, west, north, nadir, zenith, all the intermediate directions and any direction besides them, in the ten directions?”Subhuti said, “Indeed not, Lord.” The Lord said, “Quite so, Subhuti. Quite so, Subhuti. It is not easy to take the measure of the quantity of merit of the bodhisattva who gives a gift without fixation. However, this is the way a bodhisattva should give a gift, Subhuti, as an instance of the meritorious activity which consists in giving.

Tibetan (Roach):

And I say, o Subhuti, that a bodhisattva performs the act of giving without staying in things. They perform the act of giving without staying in any object at all. They perform the act of giving without staying in things that you see. They perform the act of giving without staying in sounds, and without staying in smells, or tastes, or things that you touch, or in objects of the thought. O Subhuti, bodhisattvas perform the act of giving without conceiving of any thing in any way as a sign. That is how they give. Why is it so? Think, o Subhuti, of the mountains of merit collected by any bodhisattva who performs the act of giving without staying. This merit, o Subhuti, is not something that you could easily ever measure.

O Subhuti, what do you think? Would it be easy to measure the space to the east of us?
And Subhuti respectfully replied, O Conqueror, it would not.
The Conqueror said, And just so, would it be easy to measure the space in any of the main directions to the south of us, or to the west of us, or to the north of us, or above us, or below us, or in any of the other directions from us? Would it be easy to measure the space to any of the ten directions from where we now stand?
And Subhuti respectfully replied, Conqueror, it would not.
Then the Conqueror said: And just so, Subhuti, it would be no easy thing to measure the mountains of merit collected by any bodhisattva who performs the act of giving without staying.

Chinese (TNH):
“Moreover, Subhuti, when a bodhisattva practices generosity, he does not rely on any object—that is to say he does not rely on any form, sound, smell, taste, tactile object, or dharma—to practice generosity.”

“That, Subhuti, is the spirit in which a bodhisattva should practice generosity, not relying on signs. Why? If a bodhisattva practices generosity without relying on signs, the happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured.

Subhuti, do you think that the space in the Eastern Quarter can be measured?”
“No, World-Honored One.”
“Subhuti, can space in the Western, Southern, and Northern Quarters, above and below be measured?” “No, World-Honored One.”
“Subhuti, if a bodhisattva does not rely on any concept when practicing generosity, then the happiness that results from that virtuous act is as great as space. It cannot be measured. Subhuti, the bodhisattvas should let their minds dwell in the teachings I have just given.”

*********************************************************************

Sounds like karma yoga to me.


Commentary from TNH:

There is a first sentence that isn't included in the above quotes:

    《link》: अपि तु खलु पुनः सुभुते न बोधिसत्त्वेन वस्तुप्रतिष्ठितेन दानं दातव्यम्, न क्वचित्प्रतिष्ठितेन दानं दातव्यम्।

    《IAST》: api tu khalu punaḥ subhute na bodhisattvena vastu-pratiṣṭhitena dānaṃ dātavyam, na kvacit-pratiṣṭhitena dānaṃ dātavyam|

    《Müller》 'And again, O Subhûti, a gift should not be given by a Bodhisattva, while he believes in objects; a gift should not be given by him, while he believes in anything; a gift should not be given by him,

    《Colgate》 "Moreover, Subhuti, a bodhisattva who shares with others should free
 themselves.

    《Conze》 Moreover, Subhuti, a Bodhisattva who gives a gift should not be supported by a thing, nor should he be supported anywhere.


With the explanation:

    vastu-pratiṣṭhitena: 執著實物、住於事

    vastu: n. s. nominative vastu, any really existing or abiding substance or essence, thing, object, article substance, thing, as a fact 實體物(漢譯己類或事，是指有形的事物); f. becoming light, dawning, morning 凌晨

    pratiṣṭhitena: m. f. n. s. pp. instrumental pratiṣṭhita, standing, stationed, placed, situated in or on (locative case or compound) 住, 住立, 依, 依住, 依託, 堅固, 安住, 安立, 所依住;


Looking up those words in a more detailed (French version) dictionary:

    वस्तु vastu_1 [vas_1-tu] n. biens, richesses | chose ; matière, substance | phil. réalité concrète ; fait | (au fig.) propriété, nature, caractère | gram. sens propre (opp. alaṅkāra sens figuré) | ce dont il est question ; thème ; sujet ; affaire ; contenu factuel | lit. intrigue d'un récit ; scenario ; composition musicale | substance, essence. link

    प्रतिष्ठित pratiṣṭhita [pp. pratiṣṭhā_1] a. m. n. f. pratiṣṭhitā situé, placé, posé ; établi, fondé ; fixé, ferme, prouvé. link


So this may be a reference to the philosophical concept of "concrete reality". Just calling it a "thing" or "object" can actually be misleading, which emphasizes the difficulty of translating, and passing on a message you don't understand. Surely, I could be the one who misunderstood here.

There is also the difference between the gift not being part of a "concrete reality", or the Bodhisattva not believing in a "concrete reality". I believe to be the former.

The rest of the quote should clarify more the message, but as you mentioned elsewhere, that isn't really the case.

I'm sure that many that contributed to the transmission of this ancient sutra, as well as some translators, didn't understand and misinterpreted parts of it. This doesn't diminish too much the value and importance of the message we can read now, nor the contribution of those people; it just tells us that we have to find out the intended message, and not to get tripped by distortions.

See bellow the Chapter 4 from the same ntireader.org source; again, interesting and informative, but I feel that many of these translations with commentaries are more about the translator / interpreter than faithful to the original-author's intention. They are more essays than genuine-wisdom sources. Disseminating misinformation is wrong, even when unintentional; they should add some disclaimers.

When these interpretations get to "mushy", too new-ageish, probably the messenger is out of the reservation.

Diamond Sūtra Discussion - The wondrous practice of non-abiding 妙行無住分

[inavalan]

May 30, 2021 21:14:29 GMT -5 inavalan said:

May 28, 2021 11:23:03 GMT -5 Reefs said:

*********************************************************************

The Diamond Sutra

Chapter 5

*********************************************************************

Sanskrit (Conze):
The Lord continued: 'What do you think, Subhuti, can the Tathagata be seen by the possession of his marks?' Subhuti replied:
'No indeed, O Lord.
The Lord said: 'Wherever there is possession of marks, there is fraud, wherever there is no-possession of no-marks there is no fraud. Hence the Tathagata is to be seen from no marks as marks.' And why? What has been taught by the Tathagata as the possession of marks, that is truly a no-possession of no-marks.' The Lord said: 'Wherever there is possession of marks, there is fraud, wherever there is no-possession of no-marks there is no fraud. Hence the Tathagata is to be seen from no marks as marks.'

Sanskrit (Harrison):
"What do you think, Subhūti, can a Realized One be seen by virtue of the possession of distinctive features?"
"A Realized One cannot be seen by virtue of the possession of distinctive features.
Why is that? The very thing which the Realized One has preached as the possession of distinctive features lacks any possession of distinctive features."
"Subhūti, as long as there is any distinctive feature there is falsehood, and as long as there is no distinctive feature there is no falsehood. Accordingly it is by virtue of the featurelessness of his distinctive features that a Realized One can be seen."

Tibetan (Roach):
Now Subhuti, what do you think? Should we consider someone to be One Thus Gone, just because they possess the totally exquisite marks that we find on a Buddha's body?
And Subhuti respectfully replied, O Conquering One, we should not. We should not consider anyone One Thus Gone just because they possess the totally exquisite marks that we find on a Buddha's body. And why not? Because when the One Thus Gone himself described the totally exquisite marks on a Buddha's body, he stated at the same time that they were impossible.

Chinese (TNH):
“What do you think, Subhuti? Is it possible to grasp the Tathagata by means of bodily signs?”
“No, World-Honored One. When the Tathagata speaks of bodily signs, there are no signs being talked about.”
The Buddha said to Subhuti, “In a place where there is something that can be distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of signs, then you can see the Tathagata.”

*********************************************************************

If we take ‘signs’ to be what Alan Watts calls ‘symbols’, i.e. signs = symbols = concepts, then this is basically the whole seeker dilemma in a nutshell. One has to see beyond the conceptual in order to realize THIS.

Commentary from TNH:

This is what A-H call 'seeing the world thru the eyes of Source'. And it is also what AW means by the veil of thoughts, the symbol vs. the real. The one who sees a rose and only a rose doesn’t actually see but is lost in imagination.

But why do they have to explain it in such an abstract and complicated way? I am starting to feel sorry for those who had to study these sutras on their own without someone explaining to them what is said there in plain English. Buddhists really like to make things seem more complex and mysterious than they actually are. I am also not (yet) seeing how Harrison’s translation is in any way more accurate or superior to the other translations. Conze’s translations at times seem unintelligible. That surprised me a little. The Tibetan translation seems to be taking great liberties. So far Thich’s translation seems the best, especially in combination with his comments. Nevertheless, whatever translation we may choose, it all seems a bit too wordy and unnecessarily complicated to me. If we compare that to let’s say Laozi, even with classical Chinese being extremely vague, it still has more precision and especially more economy of words than these Buddhist texts. I am honestly a bit disappointed in that regard. I really expected something better.

This is another interesting and informative translation and commentary of the Chapter 5:


Diamond Sūtra Discussion - The principle of true perception 如理實見分


Text:

「須菩提！于意云何？可以身相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以身相得見如來。何以故？如來所說身相，即非身相。」　佛告須菩提：「凡所有相，皆是虛妄。若見諸相非相，則見如來。」

Yifa: “Subhuti, what does your mind say? The Tathagata can be seen by bodily appearances, can he not?”

“No, World-Honored One. The Tathagata cannot be seen by bodily appearances. Why is this? The Tathagata has said bodily appearances are not bodily appearances.”

The Buddha told Subhuti, “Every appearance whatsoever is a deception. If you can see all appearances not as appearances, then you see the Tathagata.”

Sanskrit: tatkiṃ manyase subhūte lakṣaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato draṣṭavyaḥ ? subhūtirāha-no hīdaṃ bhagavan| na lakṣaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato draṣṭavyaḥ| tatkasya hetoḥ ? yā sā bhagavan lakṣaṇasaṃpattathāgatena bhāṣitā saivālakṣaṇasaṃpat| evamukte bhagavānāyuṣmantaṃ subhūtimetadavocat yāvatsubhūte lakṣaṇasaṃpat tāvanmṛṣā, yāvadalakṣaṇasaṃpat tāvanna mṛṣeti hi lakṣaṇālakṣaṇatastathāgato draṣṭavyaḥ||5||


Commentary:

At a high level this means do not judge things by appearances.

The Buddha want us to transcend appearance. This is discussed further in Section 20. It is also mentioned in Section 13 and Section 26.

The word mark translates the Chinese 相, Sanskrit lakṣaṇa. In discussing bodily marks the text is referring to the thirty two marks of excellence of the Buddha (Sanskrit: dvātrijśan mahā-purusa-laksanāni, Chinese: 三十二相). In fact, the Sanskrit term mahā-purusa literally means "great man." Wheel-turning kings also have the thirty two marks of excellence. The bodily signs include feet with flat soles, wheels on the soles of the feet, and so on. These bodily signs are wonderfully symbollic and make for nice artwork but they are not reasons to revere the Buddha. The elder Asita saw that the Buddha possessed the thirty two marks when he visited King Suddhhodana to see the Sidartha just after his birth. (Hsing Yun 2013, p24)

Vakkali was a monk who wanted to see the Buddha but could not because of chronic sickness. The Buddha menions not seeing him by his bodily form in the Vakkali Sutta,

"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see the Blessed One."

"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

("Vakkali Sutta: Vakkali" (SN 22.87), translated from the Pali by Maurice O'Connell Walshe. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.087x.wlsh.html.)


The Three Dharma Seals, also known as the Three Marks of Existence (Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa, Chinese: 三法印) are (1) impermanence (Sanskrit: anitya, Chinese: 無常), (2) non-self (Sanskrit: anātman, Chinese: 無我), and (3) Nirvāṇa (Chinese: 涅盤) or that all phenomena (dharmas), except Nirvāṇa, are subject to suffering (Fo Guang Shan Online Dictionary). The lakṣaṇa part of the the Sanskrit word trilakṣaṇa is the same word as appears here in the text.

Coming back to the text, signs are deceptive and false because they are impermanent, do not have an independent self, and lead to suffering. So the problems with the bodily signs are (1) not only the Buddha has the thirty two marks of excellence, (2) these marks of excellence are not substantial in themselves because they arise from the Buddha's previous practice and the merit accumulated, and (3) the marks may lead to suffering.

Chapter 5, first phrase:

《link》: तत्किं मन्यसे सुभूते लक्षणसंपदा तथागतो द्रष्टव्यः ?

《IAST》: tat-kiṃ manyase subhūte lakṣaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato draṣṭavyaḥ?

《Müller》 'Now, what do you think, O Subhûti, should a Tathâgata be seen (known) by the possession of signs?

《Colgate》 "What do you think, Subhuti? Can someone see the well-traveled one in the phenomena of physical presence?"

《Conze》 The Lord continued: 'What do you think, Subhuti, can the Tathagata be seen by the possession of his marks?'


lakṣaṇasaṃpadā: = lakṣaṇa saṃpat 身相具足

.lakṣaṇa: n. s. locative lakṣaṇa, a mark, sign, symbol, token, characteristic, attribute, quality 記號、特徵

.saṃpadā: f. s. nominative sampada, saṃpad, success, accomplishment, completion, fulfilment, perfection, 具足、成就、聖德、具足勝;


लक्षण lakṣaṇa [act. lakṣ] n. signe ; signe favorable ; marque, attribut ; désignation, nom, description | bd. l'un des 32 signes canoniques d'un accompli [bodhisattva] ou d'un buddha | gram. sens figuratif ou métaphorique d'un mot ; opp. abhidhā_2 | phon. [śikṣā] enseignement traditionnel du sens des syllabes et de leur intonation correcte dans le Veda | phil. [Nyāya] définition ; opp. lakṣya | gram. règle grammaticale | [mus.] théorie musicale | lit. l'un des 5 sujets traités par les recueils mythologiques [pañcalakṣaṇa] | méd. symptôme — ifc. caractérisé par ; possédé de <iic.> — f. cf. lakṣaṇā || pali lakkhaṇa.

संपद् saṃpad_2 var. sampad_2 [act. saṃpad_1] f. succès, bonheur, gloire ; possession, richesse ; prospérité, bonne fortune | destinée, lot ; avantage, bénéfice ; chance | accomplissement, perfection ; correction | excellence ; splendeur, beauté | abondance ; excès | agrément, accord ; égalisation | astr. équinoxe (vasanta sampad de Printemps, śarad sampad d'Automne) | phil. [vedānta] vertu cardinale ; cf. ṣaṭsampad.

Again, to me, this isn't about Buddha's physical marks, nor about judging things by appearances.

[Reefs]

May 29, 2021 2:22:28 GMT -5 laughter said:

May 28, 2021 11:23:03 GMT -5 Reefs said:

If we take ‘signs’ to be what Alan Watts calls ‘symbols’, i.e. signs = symbols = concepts, then this is basically the whole seeker dilemma in a nutshell. One has to see beyond the conceptual in order to realize THIS.

".. you don't even see THIS!" (** smacks table .. flicks lit beedi at the seeker and flips table over on the way out ... **)

He's exactly right! And that was definitely one of UG's most memorable performances, hehe.

[Reefs]

May 29, 2021 16:59:36 GMT -5 inavalan said:

May 28, 2021 11:23:03 GMT -5 Reefs said:

*********************************************************************

The Diamond Sutra

Chapter 5

*********************************************************************

...

But why do they have to explain it in such an abstract and complicated way? I am starting to feel sorry for those who had to study these sutras on their own without someone explaining to them what is said there in plain English. Buddhists really like to make things seem more complex and mysterious than they actually are. I am also not (yet) seeing how Harrison’s translation is in any way more accurate or superior to the other translations. Conze’s translations at times seem unintelligible. That surprised me a little. The Tibetan translation seems to be taking great liberties. So far Thich’s translation seems the best, especially in combination with his comments. Nevertheless, whatever translation we may choose, it all seems a bit too wordy and unnecessarily complicated to me. If we compare that to let’s say Laozi, even with classical Chinese being extremely vague, it still has more precision and especially more economy of words than these Buddhist texts. I am honestly a bit disappointed in that regard. I really expected something better.

The way I see these, there probably wasn't / isn't a better way of dealing with such ineffable knowledge.

The original source, the Buddha accessed some knowledge in a symbolical form, that he interpreted (or it was interpreted for him by his inner guidance). He had the choice to share that information as he got it, or to interpret it, which inherently would've added some distortions, even if for the simple reason that communication through language implies distortions.

That information was received, and passed on by people who inherently further distorted it through their own comprehension, memorization, use of language.

Further, any translation made choices that highly reflected the translator's understanding of the content, besides his proficiency with the languages involved.

Consequently, probably the best way of passing such knowledge was to do it in symbolical way. This is why, a translation that is faithful to the original wording (even if awkward and less intelligible) is probably a better source for the earnest seeker. Commentaries and rewording are okay as long as the reader is aware of the differences from the original, and looks at them from that perspective. The translator should make those differences very clear.

I believe that these texts are to be approached not like an instruction manual, but more like pointers for the seeker to access the true message embedded in the symbolism. Depending on one's preference, that has to be done in an altered state of consciousness, be it mediation, incubated dreaming, trance, ... (I would avoid dietary ways). These texts shouldn't be used as dogmas.

As far as I understand, this kind of ineffable knowledge is associative, and not sequential. You can't build the picture by placing one small clear 'tile of knowledge' next to the others, but you have to start from a fuzzy, larger picture to which you iteratively add more clarity, more detail.

This reminds of the picture formats jpeg (progressive vs. baseline), and png (interlaced vs. not-interlaced).



 

Well, there certainly are much better, shorter and to the point ways of talking about this. Later teachers have demonstrated that. I'd argue that the essence of the Diamond Sutra could probably be put into less than 2 paragraphs. But they made a book with 32 chapters out of it. Not sure why. But it reminds me a bit of Plato's dialogs that drag on endlessly for no apparent reason. And sure, who knows how often these sutras had been rewritten and what got lost or added in translation. Not to mention that this was originally for people of a different culture and a different time. The message comes still thru though. And I don't have any issues with the message itself, only with the presentation, because  a teacher presenting something as simple as THIS in such a complex and abstract way can only invite more abstract and more complex thinking about THIS on the student's part. And that's clearly counterproductive. No wonder that a movement like Zen had to arise in order to shake these people out of their abstractions.

[inavalan]

May 31, 2021 8:41:25 GMT -5 Reefs said:

May 29, 2021 16:59:36 GMT -5 inavalan said:

The way I see these, there probably wasn't / isn't a better way of dealing with such ineffable knowledge.

The original source, the Buddha accessed some knowledge in a symbolical form, that he interpreted (or it was interpreted for him by his inner guidance). He had the choice to share that information as he got it, or to interpret it, which inherently would've added some distortions, even if for the simple reason that communication through language implies distortions.

That information was received, and passed on by people who inherently further distorted it through their own comprehension, memorization, use of language.

Further, any translation made choices that highly reflected the translator's understanding of the content, besides his proficiency with the languages involved.

Consequently, probably the best way of passing such knowledge was to do it in symbolical way. This is why, a translation that is faithful to the original wording (even if awkward and less intelligible) is probably a better source for the earnest seeker. Commentaries and rewording are okay as long as the reader is aware of the differences from the original, and looks at them from that perspective. The translator should make those differences very clear.

I believe that these texts are to be approached not like an instruction manual, but more like pointers for the seeker to access the true message embedded in the symbolism. Depending on one's preference, that has to be done in an altered state of consciousness, be it mediation, incubated dreaming, trance, ... (I would avoid dietary ways). These texts shouldn't be used as dogmas.

As far as I understand, this kind of ineffable knowledge is associative, and not sequential. You can't build the picture by placing one small clear 'tile of knowledge' next to the others, but you have to start from a fuzzy, larger picture to which you iteratively add more clarity, more detail.

This reminds of the picture formats jpeg (progressive vs. baseline), and png (interlaced vs. not-interlaced).



 

Well, there certainly are much better, shorter and to the point ways of talking about this. Later teachers have demonstrated that. I'd argue that the essence of the Diamond Sutra could probably be put into less than 2 paragraphs. But they made a book with 32 chapters out of it. Not sure why. But it reminds me a bit of Plato's dialogs that drag on endlessly for no apparent reason. And sure, who knows how often these sutras had been rewritten and what got lost or added in translation. Not to mention that this was originally for people of a different culture and a different time. The message comes still thru though. And I don't have any issues with the message itself, only with the presentation, because  a teacher presenting something as simple as THIS in such a complex and abstract way can only invite more abstract and more complex thinking about THIS on the student's part. And that's clearly counterproductive. No wonder that a movement like Zen had to arise in order to shake these people out of their abstractions.

That assumes that people (can) know whom to listen to, that they're capable to discern who tells the truth, and understand it.

Take the ‘You Create Your Own Reality’ ...

Before reading it from Seth, based on a quick google search:

• The Buddha said, “What you dwell upon you become.”
  
• Jesus said, “It is done unto you as you believe.”
• Hindu mysticism from Shankaracharya says, “Whatever a person’s mind dwells on intensely and with firm resolve, that is exactly what he becomes.”
• It says in the Talmud, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
• ... I'm sure many others thought, used, and / or expressed similar idea.

How many people believe it today? How many ways this idea is distorted to fit one's limiting beliefs?

I think that from the multitude of ideas about the nature of the physical reality, and about the nature of the wider reality, ideas germinated across the millennia, those that survived were those that were based on, and transmitted as a truer and symbolical message. Most of (if not all) those ideas neatly expressed and interpreted were discarded because at some point they were "clearly and easily" not understood, and thought to be wrong.

For example, from the many Diamond Sutra available translations, the best chance to intuit its originally intended true message is, in my opinion, by starting from the most literal translations, based on the oldest iterations. One should take it from there, and discover himself the meaning that matches his level.

[zendancer]

May 31, 2021 15:11:00 GMT -5 inavalan said:

May 31, 2021 8:41:25 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Well, there certainly are much better, shorter and to the point ways of talking about this. Later teachers have demonstrated that. I'd argue that the essence of the Diamond Sutra could probably be put into less than 2 paragraphs. But they made a book with 32 chapters out of it. Not sure why. But it reminds me a bit of Plato's dialogs that drag on endlessly for no apparent reason. And sure, who knows how often these sutras had been rewritten and what got lost or added in translation. Not to mention that this was originally for people of a different culture and a different time. The message comes still thru though. And I don't have any issues with the message itself, only with the presentation, because  a teacher presenting something as simple as THIS in such a complex and abstract way can only invite more abstract and more complex thinking about THIS on the student's part. And that's clearly counterproductive. No wonder that a movement like Zen had to arise in order to shake these people out of their abstractions.

That assumes that people (can) know whom to listen to, that they're capable to discern who tells the truth, and understand it.

Take the ‘You Create Your Own Reality’ ...

Before reading it from Seth, based on a quick google search:

• The Buddha said, “What you dwell upon you become.”
  
• Jesus said, “It is done unto you as you believe.”
• Hindu mysticism from Shankaracharya says, “Whatever a person’s mind dwells on intensely and with firm resolve, that is exactly what he becomes.”
• It says in the Talmud, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
• ... I'm sure many others thought, used, and / or expressed similar idea.

How many people believe it today? How many ways this idea is distorted to fit one's limiting beliefs?

I think that from the multitude of ideas about the nature of the physical reality, and about the nature of the wider reality, ideas germinated across the millennia, those that survived were those that were based on, and transmitted as a truer and symbolical message. Most of (if not all) those ideas neatly expressed and interpreted were discarded because at some point they were "clearly and easily" not understood, and thought to be wrong.

For example, from the many Diamond Sutra available translations, the best chance to intuit its originally intended true message is, in my opinion, by starting from the most literal translations, based on the oldest iterations. One should take it from there, and discover himself the meaning that matches his level.

To be linguistically precise, we can say that people imaginatively create their own "META-reality." Reality, itself, is unimaginable and incomprehensible; it simply is what it is. If we look without imagining, we see "what is." "What is" is a synonym for 'reality," and that phrase, or word, is a pointer, only. The Diamond Sutra, essentially, is pointing to the difference between cognitive distinctions, which are acts of imaginary abstract severance, and that which is indivisible. A "chair" is a cartoon. What a chair IS, is not because "what is" has no boundary.

[inavalan]

May 31, 2021 16:24:43 GMT -5 zendancer said:

May 31, 2021 15:11:00 GMT -5 inavalan said:

That assumes that people (can) know whom to listen to, that they're capable to discern who tells the truth, and understand it.

Take the ‘You Create Your Own Reality’ ...

Before reading it from Seth, based on a quick google search:

• The Buddha said, “What you dwell upon you become.”
  
• Jesus said, “It is done unto you as you believe.”
• Hindu mysticism from Shankaracharya says, “Whatever a person’s mind dwells on intensely and with firm resolve, that is exactly what he becomes.”
• It says in the Talmud, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
• ... I'm sure many others thought, used, and / or expressed similar idea.

How many people believe it today? How many ways this idea is distorted to fit one's limiting beliefs?

I think that from the multitude of ideas about the nature of the physical reality, and about the nature of the wider reality, ideas germinated across the millennia, those that survived were those that were based on, and transmitted as a truer and symbolical message. Most of (if not all) those ideas neatly expressed and interpreted were discarded because at some point they were "clearly and easily" not understood, and thought to be wrong.

For example, from the many Diamond Sutra available translations, the best chance to intuit its originally intended true message is, in my opinion, by starting from the most literal translations, based on the oldest iterations. One should take it from there, and discover himself the meaning that matches his level.

To be linguistically precise, we can say that people imaginatively create their own "META-reality." Reality, itself, is unimaginable and incomprehensible; it simply is what it is. If we look without imagining, we see "what is." "What is" is a synonym for 'reality," and that phrase, or word, is a pointer, only. The Diamond Sutra, essentially, is pointing to the difference between cognitive distinctions, which are acts of imaginary abstract severance, and that which is indivisible. A "chair" is a cartoon. What a chair IS, is not because "what is" has no boundary.

The way I understand it, the ‘You Create Your Own Reality’ doesn't mean 'that people imaginatively create their own "META-reality."'

I disagree with the rest of your interpretations too. That is why I wrote that there are so 'many ways this idea is distorted to fit one's limiting beliefs'. "Limiting" here doesn't have a pejorative connotation. It applies as well to my interpretations as it applies to yours.

[zendancer]

May 31, 2021 18:37:35 GMT -5 inavalan said:

May 31, 2021 16:24:43 GMT -5 zendancer said:

To be linguistically precise, we can say that people imaginatively create their own "META-reality." Reality, itself, is unimaginable and incomprehensible; it simply is what it is. If we look without imagining, we see "what is." "What is" is a synonym for 'reality," and that phrase, or word, is a pointer, only. The Diamond Sutra, essentially, is pointing to the difference between cognitive distinctions, which are acts of imaginary abstract severance, and that which is indivisible. A "chair" is a cartoon. What a chair IS, is not because "what is" has no boundary.

The way I understand it, the ‘You Create Your Own Reality’ doesn't mean 'that people imaginatively create their own "META-reality."'

I disagree with the rest of your interpretations too. That is why I wrote that there are so 'many ways this idea is distorted to fit one's limiting beliefs'. "Limiting" here doesn't have a pejorative connotation. It applies as well to my interpretations as it applies to yours.

Nisargadatta is pointing to the same thing I'm pointing to in this quote:

"When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion; that is all. Stop attributing names and forms to the essentially nameless and formless."

Or, Ramana Maharshi:

The point where all religions meet is the realization, in no mystical sense, but in the most worldly and everyday sense, the fact that the Self is everything and everything is the SELF. One has to cease calling things things,,,,,,and instead of thinking them to be things, to know them to be the Self. The knowledge of things only shows the existence of an organ to cognize."

What both of those sages are pointing to has nothing to do with ideas.

[inavalan]

May 31, 2021 20:52:24 GMT -5 zendancer said:

May 31, 2021 18:37:35 GMT -5 inavalan said:

The way I understand it, the ‘You Create Your Own Reality’ doesn't mean 'that people imaginatively create their own "META-reality."'

I disagree with the rest of your interpretations too. That is why I wrote that there are so 'many ways this idea is distorted to fit one's limiting beliefs'. "Limiting" here doesn't have a pejorative connotation. It applies as well to my interpretations as it applies to yours.

Nisargadatta is pointing to the same thing I'm pointing to in this quote:

"When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion; that is all. Stop attributing names and forms to the essentially nameless and formless."

Or, Ramana Maharshi:

The point where all religions meet is the realization, in no mystical sense, but in the most worldly and everyday sense, the fact that the Self is everything and everything is the SELF. One has to cease calling things things,,,,,,and instead of thinking them to be things, to know them to be the Self. The knowledge of things only shows the existence of an organ to cognize."

What both of those sages are pointing to has nothing to do with ideas.

There is no argument. We can only share how we see things.

It amazes me how you and others can be so sure that you "know". Even if a hypothetical avatar like Jesus or Buddha told me that he knows "thee truth", that would make me chuckle. In my view of the reality, that is not possible because it is infinite, among other reasons.

Reading / hearing somebody claiming "that", it is just a symbolic message for me to learn "humility", lesson injected by my inner guidance into the reality built by my own subconscious. I'm free to choose to accept or discard it. 

Just to be clear: it doesn't matter who says what, nor how many say something. That provides no greater validity.

[zendancer]

May 31, 2021 21:33:21 GMT -5 inavalan said:

May 31, 2021 20:52:24 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Nisargadatta is pointing to the same thing I'm pointing to in this quote:

"When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion; that is all. Stop attributing names and forms to the essentially nameless and formless."

Or, Ramana Maharshi:

The point where all religions meet is the realization, in no mystical sense, but in the most worldly and everyday sense, the fact that the Self is everything and everything is the SELF. One has to cease calling things things,,,,,,and instead of thinking them to be things, to know them to be the Self. The knowledge of things only shows the existence of an organ to cognize."

What both of those sages are pointing to has nothing to do with ideas.

It amazes me how you and others can be so sure that you "know".

If a barefoot man stumps his toe on a rock, how does he know (gnosis) that he stumped his toe? How could he not know what happened? Existential realizations are like stumping one's toe on a rock.

[inavalan]

May 31, 2021 22:36:27 GMT -5 zendancer said:

May 31, 2021 21:33:21 GMT -5 inavalan said:

It amazes me how you and others can be so sure that you "know".

If a barefoot man stumps his toe on a rock, how does he know (gnosis) that he stumped his toe? How could he not know what happened? Existential realizations are like stumping one's toe on a rock.

Sorry, I don't want to seem impolite, but this kind of argumentation leads nowhere. It is a waste of time for both of us. Actually I'm not here to argue anything.  

[Deleted]

May 31, 2021 23:04:08 GMT -5 inavalan said:

May 31, 2021 22:36:27 GMT -5 zendancer said:

If a barefoot man stumps his toe on a rock, how does he know (gnosis) that he stumped his toe? How could he not know what happened? Existential realizations are like stumping one's toe on a rock.

Sorry, I don't want to seem impolite, but this kind of argumentation leads nowhere. It is a waste of time for both of us. Actually I'm not here to argue anything.  

Inavalan appears be certain that Zendancer cannot be certain about anything.

I think you can be certain about some things, but these things are so simple and obvious that we overlook them. Like the water to the fish. Some pointer words: "present moment", "I Am", "being", "consciousness itself (ie, not the content)", etc.  Words partially fail, of course.

If I remember right, Niz said that the "I Am" was the doorway to Reality because it was the only thing in your experience that you cannot doubt.

[laughter]

May 31, 2021 23:04:08 GMT -5 inavalan said:

May 31, 2021 22:36:27 GMT -5 zendancer said:

If a barefoot man stumps his toe on a rock, how does he know (gnosis) that he stumped his toe? How could he not know what happened? Existential realizations are like stumping one's toe on a rock.

Sorry, I don't want to seem impolite, but this kind of argumentation leads nowhere. It is a waste of time for both of us. Actually I'm not here to argue anything.  

Are you certain that was an offer to argue? -- totally serious question, not digging/poking. Is it possible you misinterpreted the tone/intention underlying what he wrote? .. no need to answer, and if you retort I'll just let it lie. As Rod Serling used to say .. "presented for your consideration".

[zendancer]

Jun 1, 2021 0:04:39 GMT -5 @robertc said:

May 31, 2021 23:04:08 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Sorry, I don't want to seem impolite, but this kind of argumentation leads nowhere. It is a waste of time for both of us. Actually I'm not here to argue anything.  

Inavalan appears be certain that Zendancer cannot be certain about anything.

I think you can be certain about some things, but these things are so simple and obvious that we overlook them. Like the water to the fish. Some pointer words: "present moment", "I Am", "being", "consciousness itself (ie, not the content)", etc.  Words partially fail, of course.

If I remember right, Niz said that the "I Am" was the doorway to Reality because it was the only thing in your experience that you cannot doubt.

Correct.