The Diamond Sutra: VII

SECTION VII

Note the specific meaning of

得阿耨多羅三藐三菩

  "a nòu​ duō​ luó​ sān​ miǎo sān​ Pútí "

sound equivalent of  the Sanskrit

"an-uttara  sam-ya sam-bodhi"

"an" (nothing)- "ut" (more,utmost) - "tara" (passing over)

"san" (oneness, unity) - yakkha" (quick ray of light, spirit, Shen)

"san" (oneness, unity)  - Puti (Bodhi. awakening)

The greatest passing over to Shen unity and the one Awakening

“须菩提！于意云何？如来得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提耶 ？如来有所说法耶 ?”

Subhuti ! Out of thought say ? What (did) the Tathagata’s  "an-uttara sam-ya sam-bodhi"  aquire ? and (did) the Tathagata have that which is Dharma teaching

须菩提言：“如我解佛所说义，无有定法名阿耨多罗三藐三菩提，

亦无有定法，如来可说。

Subhuti said: such as I understand that which is spoken (by) the Buddha there is no fixed so named Dharma teaching  "an-uttara sam-ya sam-bodhi"  and also no fixed Dharma teaching, (that) the Tathagata is able to expound.

何以故？如来所说法，皆不可取、不可说、非法、非非法。

What reason ? That which the Tathagata expounds as Dharma teachings, in all cases should not be taken hold of and cannot be spoken of, they are not Dharma teachings and are not not-Dharma teachings.

所以者何？一切贤圣，皆以无为法而有差别。

All virtuous sages in all cases use the Daoist doctrine of no-action and the Dharma teachings and so there is diversity (in use).

Translated by E.B. Cowell, F. Max Mulller, and J. Takakusu

   And again Bhagavat spoke thus to the venerable Subhûti: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, is there anything (dharma) that was known by the Tathâgata under the name of the highest perfect knowledge, or anything that was taught by the Tathâgata?'

   After these words, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to Bhagavat: 'As I, O Bhagavat, understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, there is nothing that was known by the Tathâgata under the name of the highest perfect knowledge, nor is there anything that is taught by the Tathâgata.

And why? Because that thing which was known or taught by the Tathâgata is incomprehensible and inexpressible. It is neither a thing nor no-thing. And why? Because the holy persons are of imperfect power.

Transltion of Lobsang Chunzin & Michael Roach

And the Conqueror said these words as well to the junior monk Subhuti:

Subhuti, what do you think? Is there any such thing as an

enlightenment where Those Gone Thus reach some

incomparable, perfect, and total Buddhahood? And does the

One Thus Gone ever teach any Dharma at all?

.

Then the junior monk Subhuti replied to the Conqueror, in the following

words:

O Conqueror, as far as I can catch the thrust of what the

Conqueror has spoken thus far, then I would have to say that

it is impossible for there to be any such thing as an

enlightenment where Those Gone Thus could ever reach some

incomparable, perfect, and total enlightenment. And it is

impossible as well for there to be any such thing as a Dharma

that the One Thus Gone could ever teach.

And why is this the case? Because it is impossible for there to

be any such thing as an enlightenment which the One Thus

Gone has reached, or a Dharma which he has taught, which

could ever be held. It is impossible for there to be any such

thing that could ever be described. And this is because it is

neither true that these things exist, nor that it is impossible for

them to exist.

And why is that? Because these persons who are realized

beings distinguish all these things, perfectly, through that

which is unproduced.

Translation of Shan jian

Subhuti ! Out of thought say ? What (did) the Tathagata’s  "an-uttara sam-ya sam-bodhi"  aquire ? and (did) the Tathagata have that which is Dharma teaching

Subhuti said: such as I understand that which is spoken (by) the Buddha there is no fixed so named Dharma teaching  "an-uttara sam-ya sam-bodhi"  and also no fixed Dharma teaching, (that) the Tathagata is able to expound.

What reason ? That which the Tathagata expounds as Dharma teachings, in all cases should not be taken hold of and cannot be spoken of, they are not Dharma teachings and are not not-Dharma teachings.

All virtuous sages in all cases use the Daoist doctrine of no-action and the Dharma teachings and so there is diversity (in use).

Note:

 In the last line the characters 贤圣 mean virtuos sages and the characters

无为 means Non action but is also defined in Chinese as the Daoist doctrine of no-action.

COMMENTARY

Let us look at the different variations presented by different translators in that last line. You will see incredible differences. In terms of the overall message it matters little, but the  ideas presented are quite different.

Look at these translations below.

And why is that? Because these persons who are realized

beings distinguish all these things, perfectly, through that

which is unproduced.

Lobsang Chunzin & Michael Roach

And why? Because the holy persons are of imperfect power.

E.B. Cowell, F. Max Mulller, and J. Takakusu

Why is that so? All Worthy Ones and Sages are different because of Unconditioned Dharmas."

B.T.T.S.

And why is that? All of the Sages make discriminations from the

unconditioned Dharma

Charles Patton

Thus it is that this unformulated Principle is the foundation of the different systems of all the sages.

A.F.Price

Why? Because the noble teachers are only distinguished from others in terms of the unconditioned."

Plum Village and SUNY Stony Brook BSPG

Unconditioned Dharmas distinguish worthy sages.

Buddhist Text Translation Society

Why is this? All Bhadras (the blessed) and Aryas (those of noble birth and character) differ on account of the Eternal Asamskrta Dharma.'

In the translation of Charles Luk :

The Eternal Asamskrta Dharma In Pali Buddhism is Nirvana is called "asankhata-dhatu", the unconditioned element (or principle) it is uncompounded; unconditioned; not being produced by co-operating causes, eternal, absolute.

All virtuous sages in all cases use the Daoist doctrine of no-action and the Dharma teachings and so there is diversity (in use).

Shan jian transltion

From the point of view of Chan Dharma this is the most illustrative of the idea in which it is shown that the (no action) Wu Wei of Daoism and the (no action) Wu Wei of Chan prove the diversity of the concept being allegedly presented by Buddha.

 Both, with the Wu Wei expression are speaking of the non-word-activity of the mind, leaving the natural system the leeway to operate without the presence of cognitive intellect.

The section shows that there can be no Dharma teachings when they are perceived of as Dharma teachings, for one is not liberated from words and the I is present. Similarly, there is no " greatest passing over to Shen unity and the one Awakening", while the mind still grasps the concept.  One in both cases must reach beyond the ultimate conceptualization to reach the essential experiences.

Shan jian

As a personal preference the term "out of thought say" is prefered from the Chan point of view rather than  "what do you think ?"