Essence of the Diamondcutter Sutra

version by Petros

 
As many beings as there are
in all the universes of beings,
comprehended under the term "beings",
with or without apparent form or perception;
as far as any conceivable form of beings is conceived:
all these must we enlightened ones lead to perfect clarity,
into that realm which leaves nothing behind.

 
And yet,
although innumerable beings have thus been led to clarity,
no being at all has been led to clarity.

And why?
If in an enlightened one the notion of a 'being' should take place,
that one could not be called an enlightened one.

And why?
That one is not to be called an enlightened being,
in whom the notion of a self or of a being should take place,
or the notion of a living soul or of a person.

 
Can the ones who have gone beyond be seen by the possession of marks or signs?
No.

And why?
What has been taught by the ones who have gone beyond as the possession of marks,
that is truly a no-possession of no-marks!

Wherever there is possession of marks,
there is delusion;
wherever there is no-possession of no-marks
there is no delusion.

Hence the ones who have gone beyond
are to be seen from no marks as marks.

 
Is there any dharma which the "enlightened" have fully known
as the utmost, right and perfect enlightenment,
or is there any dharma which they have demonstrated?
No.

And why?
This dharma cannot be grasped or talked about;
it is neither a dharma nor a no-dharma.

And why?
Because the concept of an absolute,
existing without mutual dependence upon other phenomena,
creates imaginary idols.

 
If any enlightened one would say,
'I will set up a powerful enlightenment field',
It would be an erroneous statement
.

And why?
These 'enlightenment fields,'
as spontaneously generated by enlightened ones,
are really no enlightenment fields at all.

 
The enlightened one
should produce an unsupported thought,
a thought not supported by forms,
sounds,
smells,
tastes,
tactile things
or mind-objects.


The enlightened being,
after he has got rid of all perceptions,
should raise his thought to the utmost clarity.

He should produce a thought which is not supported by forms,
sounds,
smells,
tastes,
tactile things
,
or mind-objects –
unsupported by dharma,
unsupported by no-dharma,
unsupported by anything,
unsupported by nothing.

And why? All supports have actually no support.

 

Someone who has set out on the path to perfect enlightenment should produce a thought in this manner:
'All beings I must lead to clarity,
into the space of perfect understanding which leaves nothing behind;

and yet,
after beings have thus been led to this space,
no being at all has been led to this space.'

And why?
If in an enlightened being the notion of a 'being' should take place,
he could not be called an 'enlightened-being'.

And likewise if the notion of a soul, or a person should take place.

 
Also, self-identical is that dharma,
and nothing is therein at variance.
Therefore is it called 'utmost, right and perfect enlightenment'.

Self-identical through the absence of a self,
a being,
a soul,
or a person,
the utmost, right and perfect enlightenment is fully known
as the totality of all the right dharmas.

 
Whosoever says that the enlightened ones go or come,
stand, sit or lie down,
does not understand the meaning of my teaching.

And why?

 
'Gone beyond one' is called one who has not gone anywhere,
nor come from anywhere.
Therefore is he called 'a gone-beyond one, a clear one, a fully enlightened one'.

As stars...as a mirage...as a flickering lamp...as a cinema-show...
As dew drops in the morning grass...as a soap bubble...as a dream...
A flash of lightning in the sky...a passing cloud:
So one should regard all conditioned phenomena, including the so-called "self."

 

texts -> contents -> home