The Diamond Sutra: VIIII (IX)
SECTION IX
At this point in reading the Sutra normally the intelligent person will have captured a basic idea which will in his or her mind be confirmed in ensuing sections. They would unfortunately be in error.
While the previous chapter has indeed made clear that the enemy is the conscious conceptualization of an I, a person, a living being and one who is living the Sutra actually passes here onto another level completely.
Not only is that personalization as Identity seen to be in error, but also the conceptualiztion that that Identity can be doing anything. You will see that there is not just no enterer, but also no entering. Not only is there no once returner, but there is neither a coming returning, nor a going returning. Not only is there a no returner nor not a no-returner, but ther is no keeping or returning either. Simarlarly in the case of an Arahat in his or her seclsion as a walker, there is no walking or not walking at all, for all isi n the mind.
This progresses us from the conscious concept of 'being' to the conscious concept of 'doing' in this section, both of which are mind illusions which can trap one in the circles of stained Samsara..
“须菩提！于意云何？须陀洹能作是念：‘我得须陀洹果。’不？”
须菩提言：“不也，世尊！何以故？须陀洹名为入流，
而无所入，不入色、声、香、味、触、法，是名须陀洹。”
Subhui ! Out of thought say? why (one) entering the stream (得须陀洹) is able to rise up and not be thinking of ‘I have obtained the fruit of entering the stream. No ?’
Subbhuti said:(he will) not also, World Honored One ! What is the reason ?
The sroto apanna is named as entering the flow of the stream of water but there is not actually entering, nor not-entering into appearance, sound, fragrance, taste and touching (therefore by) Dharma teaching (it) is named entering the stream.
须菩提！于意云何？斯陀含能作是念：‘我得斯陀含果。’不？
须菩提言：“不也，世尊！何以故？
斯陀含名一往来，而实无往来，是名斯陀含。
Subhui ! Out of thought say why? a Once returner ( 'this declivity contained' 陀含) is able to rise up and not be thinking ‘I have obtained this 'once return' fruit. No?
Subbhuti said:(he will) not also, World Honored One ! What is the reason ?
The Sakrogamin is named as 'once going back and forth' but there is not actually a going back and forth (therefore) this is named 'going back and forth'.
“须菩提！于意云何？阿那含能作是念：‘我得阿那含果。’不？”
Subhui ! Out of thought say why? Are 'those kept' able to raise up the thought : 'I have attained the 'those kept fruit. No ?'
须菩提言：“不也，世尊！何以故？
阿那含名为不来，而实无来，是故名阿那含。
Subhuti said: (He) not also, World Honored One ! What is the reason ?
'Those kept', are named 'not coming round' but there is not actually a 'not coming round' and that is the reason for the name ' those kept'.
(阿那含, ā nà han, in which ā is a kinship term and nà hán, those kept, is also an equivalent phoneticlly of Anagamin)
“须菩提！于意云何？阿罗汉能作是念：‘我得阿罗汉道。’不？”
Subhui ! Out of thought say why ? is an Lohan (Arahat) able to raise up the thought 'I have attained the Lohan truth, No ?'
须菩提言：“不也，世尊！何以故？实无有法名阿罗汉。
Subhuti said: No World Honored One ! What is the reason ?
(There) really does not exist a buddhist teaching named Lohan.
世尊！若阿罗汉作是念：‘我得阿罗汉道。’即为着我、人、众生、寿者。
World honored one if a Lohan having raised up the thought I have obtained the Lohan truth (he) is to be considered coming into contact with an I, a person, a living being, and living person.
世尊！佛说我得无诤三昧， 人中最为第一，是第一离欲阿罗汉。
我不作是念：‘我是离欲阿罗汉。
’世尊！我若作是念：‘我得阿罗汉道。
’世尊则不说须菩提是乐阿兰那行者！以须菩提实无 所行，而名须菩提是乐阿兰那行。”
World Honored One ! the Buda (has) said (that) I have obtained the unadmonished Samadhi, the person hitting (the mark) most as number one.
Number one is being an Arahat away from desire.
I do not raise the thought: 'I am an Arahat without desire.'
World honored one ! if the thought had been raised ‘ I have attained the Arahat truth (then) ’the World-honored One, would have not said “Subhuti is contented (by) forest walking.
Because Subuti actually does not do that which is 'walking', so Subhuti is named (as) being contented walking.
But as we stated in the introduction both walking and the walker are false conceptulization which must be let go..
BEING CONTENTED
It is important also to observe here the word 'contented' used in the description of the walking, for the meaning of 'content' is 'having desire limited by present enjoyment.' In Chan/Dao enjoyment is the equivalent of 'piti' (pali), which is the set of awe, ecstacy, bliss and well being , all component of 'zeal', which in turn permit the natural non-cognitive 'setting aside' of Identity symptoms that allow contact with the masculine expression of the feminine principle.
Understanding that the nature of contentment is quiet and peaceful, the character of an Arahat is quiet and peaceful, however Identity has not been destoyed, as only the symptoms have been set aside. The Arahat state then is one of being in possession of the peaceful mand serene 'Mind of Buddha' but not the Awakening which is the state of 'Uncarved wood', nor is it the 'Mind of Buddha Nature' which is the 'Universal mind of quietness and peace".
Thus the Arahat is not free from a future falling under the pressure of Identity into a renewal of desire.
THE FOREST WALKER
It is certain that Subhuti was a forest walker since that was coincedent with the natural necessity of his aversive base which had been let go and replaced by natural intelligence.
WALKING IN RETIRED PLACES (三處阿蘭若)
There are three classes of 阿蘭若of 'alanna' (āraṇyakāḥ in sanskrit)s distinguished by their three kinds of dwelling and walking in retired places, as in forests; among tombs; in deserts.
The characters 阿蘭若 ālanna are phonetic equivalents of araṇya, meaning 'forest' and the characters 阿蘭若迦, āraṇyaka, is a term for those who live there. It is without sound of discord, 閑靜; shut in and quiet 遠離, and far removed, with the place being, 空 寂, uninhabited and still.
Such places are lonely abodes 500 bow-lengths from any village. . Three kinds are given: They are 達磨阿蘭若迦 dharma-āraṇyaka; 摩祭阿蘭若迦 mātaṅga-āraṇyaka, and 檀陀阿蘭若迦 daṇḍaka-āraṇyaka.
達磨阿蘭若迦 dharma-āraṇyaka, meditators on the principle of inactivity, or letting Nature have its course; that is the principle mode of Sariaputi.
摩祭阿蘭若迦 mātaṅga-āraṇyaka, those who dwell among the dead, away from human voices.
檀陀阿蘭若迦 daṇḍaka-āraṇyaka, those who dwell in sandy deserts and among rocks (as in the ancient Deccan) .
The abode of potential and present arahats depended upon their Identity base as aversive (forest walking), acquistive (cemetary walking) and confused (desert walking) and naturally for all three dwelling in those places, though not an abiding in that dwelling state of mind.
HISTORICAL NOTE ON REBIRTH
Neither reincarnation or rebirth is a teaching found in the Tao-te Ching (6th century BC), so we must assume that there was no concensus on the matter. The question then is how Kamarajiva and his team handled the new idea presented, or even if they considered it a valid idea in an of itself.
We must remember that the Chuang Tzu (about 4th century BC) states:
Birth is not a beginning; death is not an end. There is existence without limitation; there is continuity without a starting point. Existence without limitation is space. Continuity without a starting point is time. There is birth, there is death, there is issuing forth, there is entering in. That through which one passes in and out without seeing its form, that is the Portal of God (Chuang Tzu 23).
The conclusion: There is space and time and a passing in and out.
Let us review the Chinese renditions of Buddha Dharmae concepts of the stream enterer, the once returner and no returner
The characters 得须陀洹 may be translated as " must have (attained the) declivity of the Huan " and is indeed thus entering the stream (srota-apanna).
The Huan is probably used as it is the second longest in China with difficult access.
The characters 陀含 may be translated as 'declivity contained', which suggests the difficulty of emerging.
The characters 阿那含may be translated as 'those kept', thus indeed a 'no returner' .
We must remember also that the Budha darma idea is not that of re incarnation. The Budha Dharm belief is one of re-birth or re-becoming.
While it is true there is great varability in religious budhism with regard to the meaning of "rebirth" we can look to the Chiggala SuttaSamyutta Nikaya 35,63), in which Buddha declared: :
Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north.
And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years.
Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?
It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole.
It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy and rightly self-awakened, arises in the world.
If one tried to calculate the probability of obtaining the human state according to this text, and consider the surface of "this great earth" as being just the surface of India, the odds would be once in a timespan of 5 x 1016 years (5 followed by 16 zeros). This is 5 million times the age of the universe.
The conclusion must be:
It a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state.
In examinig future sections we will assume that you have gathered an idea of the differences in the translations. Three alternatives have are presented to explain these rather extreme differences, none of which change the basic concepts of the text.
The first is that that there was a common Diamond sutra, now lost, which was examined by different translators according to their particular beliefs, each adding or alternatively subtracting what they assumed non- essential. This is probably can be discounted as the Chinese transltion discipline was very strict and critically overseen.
An alternative is that there were more than one versions of the Diamond sutra. This too appeares unlikely.
What it has been suggested by some investigators as more probable, in the light of other original document losses, is that the Sanskrit is a the back translation from the chinese of the textual material later found in Dunhuang. This permitted the liberty of Indian back transalators to restore what they asumed to be most natural and correct. This text in turn may have been translated in Tibet and the particualr Tibetan religious nuances added.
In the following sections we will only present further alternative translations if there is a specific point to be made and leave all else to the discretion of the readers.