“All things that are produced by causes and conditions are inevitably destined to extinction. There is nothing that has any reality; when conditions come things begin to appear, when conditions cease these things likewise cease to exist. Like the foam of the water, like the lightning flash,[30] and like the floating, swiftly vanishing clouds, they are only of momentary duration. As all things have no constant nature of their own, so there is no actuality in pure and impure, rough and fine, large and small, far and near, knowable and unknowable, etc. On this account it is sometimes said that all things are nothing. The apparent phenomena around us are, however, produced by mental operations within us, and thus distinctions are established....”
“All things are included under subject and object. The subject is an entity in which mental operations are awakened whenever there are objects, while the object consists of all things, visible and invisible, knowable and unknowable, etc. The subject is not something that occupies some space in the body alone, nor does the object exist outside of the subject....”[31]
“The various phenomena which appear as subjects and objects are divided into two kinds:—the perceptible and knowable, the imperceptible and unknowable.... Now, what are the imperceptible and unknowable phenomena?”
“Through the influence of habitual delusions, boundless worlds, innumerable varieties of things spring up in the mind. This boundless universe and these subtle ideas are not perceptible and knowable;[32] only Bodhisattvas[33] believe, understand, and become perfectly convinced of these through the contemplation of Vidyamatara[34] (all things are nothing but phenomena in mind); hence they are called imperceptible and unknowable. What are the perceptible and knowable phenomena?”
“Not knowing that these imperceptible and unknowable phenomena are the productions of their own minds, men from their habitual delusions invest them with an existence outside of mind, as perceptible mental phenomena, as things visible, audible, etc. These phenomena are called perceptible and knowable.”
“Though there are thus two kinds, perceptible and imperceptible phenomena, they occur upon the same things, and are inseparably bound together even in the smallest particle. Their difference in appearance is caused only by differences, both in mental phenomena and in the depth of conviction. Those who know only the perceptible things, without knowing the imperceptible, are called the unenlightened by Buddha....”
“In contradistinction to the fallacious phenomena, there is the true Essence of Mind. Underlying the phenomena of mind, there is an unchanging principle which we call essence of mind.... The essence of mind is the entity without ideas and without phenomena, and is always the same. It pervades all things, and is pure and unchanging.... The essence and the phenomena of mind are inseparable; and as the former is all-pervading and ever-existing, so the phenomena occur everywhere and continually, wherever suitable conditions accompany it. Thus the perceptible and imperceptible phenomena are manifestations of the essence of mind that, according to the number and nature of conditions, develop without restraint. All things in the universe, therefore, are mind itself.”
“By this we do not mean that all things combine into a mental unity called mind, nor that all things are emanations from it, but that, without changing their places or appearance, they are mind itself everywhere. Buddha saw this truth and said that the whole universe was his own. Hence it is clear that where the essence of mind is found, and the necessary conditions accompany it, the phenomena of mind never fail to appear.... Though there is a distinction between the essence and the phenomena of mind, yet they are nothing but one and the same substance, that is, mind. So we say that there exists nothing but mind. Though both the world of the pure and impure, and the generation of all things, are very wide and deep, yet they owe their existence to our mind.”
Perhaps we might appropriately indicate that however interesting, or even fascinating, may be the nice distinction between mind and essence of mind, in relation to phenomena, so far as we are aware, the distinction may be implied, but is never precisely stated, in the text of The Diamond Sutra. Nevertheless, we may readily appreciate the subtle intellectual movement, which endeavours to distinguish clearly between the phenomena of mind, and an unchanging principle underlying it, capable of being defined as Essence of Mind. Yet we have a notion that our Japanese Buddhist friends intuitively find in their beautiful concept, infinitely more of a purely spiritual nature, than they attempt to express by the mere metaphysical term. Doubtless they have frequently applied to it the incisive logic of Sakyamuni Buddha, and found simultaneously, that what is ordinarily referred to as “essence of mind,” is not in reality “essence of mind,” it is merely termed “essence of mind.”[35]
The term Buddha, as defined in The Diamond Sutra, seems to merit a brief consideration. In fulfilment of our present purpose, it seems almost unnecessary to enter into questions regarding the historical Buddha, or to the authenticity of Sutras ascribed to his genius. Therefore, without indicating any particular reservation, we meantime accept the traditional statements that the Buddha of The Diamond Sutra was the son of Suddhodana, the husband of Yasodhara, and the father of Rahula. But, incorporated with the text, there is embodied in the familiar term Buddha, a lofty spiritual concept, which seems to place it in a category where fresh interest is imparted to the question of its interpretation.