Nè sa nè può qual di lassù discende;
“Perchè, appressando sè al suo disire,
Nostro intelletto[14] si profonda tanto,
Che retro la memoria non può ire.”[15]
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.”
Rhys Davids in his useful volume Buddhism, indicated that “Dharma (Pali Dhamma) is not law, but that which underlies and includes the law—a word often most difficult to translate, but best rendered here by Truth and Righteousness.”[16]
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.”