Talk:Diamond Sutra

Repetition

The 1st graf is repeated. Makes it hard to read. Of course it's also redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.141.191 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Form of the book

In what form does the DS comes? Scroll, codex or what? And on which writing material? Gun Powder Ma 04:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

- 16 ft scroll- now in article. Presumably paper but i'm not sure Johnbod 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In Thai, this sutra is called วชิรสูตร "Vachira sutra" published in Tripitaka book 20, lines 3244-3268, pages 140-141. - Tsunami999 00:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Hey, about "cuts like a thunderbolt" part. Wouldn't it be more consistent to say "cuts like a diamond", since the title of the article is "Diamond Sutra"? Also, where's the source for this thing about the British Museum DS not being the oldest block printing? The way we describe it now is confusing. - Nat Krause 03:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea about the date thing. But "Diamond" is actually a pretty egregious mistranslation that, nonetheless, has enough age behind it that I'm not going to try to challenge it. However, the correct translation of the Sanskrit title is indeed "cuts like a thunderbolt." (Diamaonds are supposed to be "as hard as" thunderbolts, but diamonds weren't used for cutting things in ancient India.) I guess we could spell out the whole naming issue, but I thought that might be too anal for people.कुक्कुरोवाच 19:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article states that the sutra can be read in 40 minutes, and that it can be chanted in 40 minutes -- the same amount of time. Don't many people read faster than they speak? I'd suspect at least there'd be a significant difference. - Furrykef 01:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just thought about it and realize that the article probably meant "could be read aloud in forty minutes". That would make it consistent, but redundant. - Furrykef 01:39, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the obvious thing would be for you to try reading it and then try chanting it and see how long it takes you. - Nat Krause 02:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obvious, perhaps, but inaccurate. The language clearly implies a statistical average (though perhaps one that is very approximate and has not been carefully calculated), but I would need more than my own reading and chanting abilities to determine an average. - Furrykef 13:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Um...isn't it pointless to try to get a hard number when the Sutra is chanted in lots of different languages? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 16:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, we could qualify that with "in English"...but I guess it isn't really a point worth too much thought. The article needs a little cleaning up as it is. - Furrykef 19:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pic

I thought it might be interesting to have an image from the British Library copy. I'm not sure it aesthetically fits the page well, though. Feel free to fix it up, I can't seem to figure out how to make it look right. methelfilms 07:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

older print books were found in korea and japan

Dianmond Sutra is not world earliest printed book. In fact, it is a earliest printed book which has a printed date. Japanese has the Sutra printed in AD 770. In 1971, Koreans found a printed book from a stone monument constructed in AD 751. But there is no record of exact printed date in these books.

You've got it incomplete. The article states that it was "the earliest complete survival of a dated printed book". And who are you anyways, you who forgot to sign your post?! Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan?

This sutra seems much less prominent in the Tibetan tradition. Is it even present therein? Sylvain1972 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so, as I glean from here: http://www.lamayeshe.com/otherteachers/buddha/diamond/vajra_cutter.shtml. Sylvain1972 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Same stuff twice

The same content about the Diamond Sutra is repeated two times in the article. Once in the form of a "reference" and later as a separate paragraph. The "reference" is not the real reference ie. not a source for the claim that the Sutra is the oldest printed scroll. A real reference should cite a modern scientific study as a proof, not details about the style, kolophon etc. Long, factual footnotes are not recommended in the stylistic guidelines of wikipedia, because this stuff belongs to the main article. Footnotes are only used as citations of sources. I would like to ask the user who put it back the deleted "reference" to remove the surplus paragraph. Zello (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's repeated. My mistake. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Several (different?) translations

• [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Please see section Important quote on the Chakravartin wikipedia site.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.193.107 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Section 18

• Section XVIII. All Modes of mind are Really Only Mind human eye, divine eye, gnostic eye, eye of transcendent wisdom, Buddha-eye of omniscience
• 18. flesh-eye, heavenly-eye, wisdom-eye, Dharma-eye, Buddha-eye
• CONTEMPLATING THE ONENESS OF EVERYTHING, EIGHTEEN Flesh Eye, Heavenly Eye, Wisdom Eye, Dharma Eye, Buddha Eye
• 18. IDENTICAL VIEWS OF THE WHOLE
• Section XVIII. All Modes of mind are Really Only Mind
• [7]
• Chapter 18 - Does the Buddha have human eyes?
• What does the tathagata see? physical eye, divine eye of enlightenment, eye of transcendental wisdom, dharma eye, Buddha-eye of universal compassion
• (18)
• Chapter 18 One Substance Regarded as Identical

Austerlitz -- 88.75.210.202 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Importance of Kamarajiva translatoin into Chinese

I think it is uncontroversial that the first translation of the Diamond Sutra from Sanskrit into Chinese was by Kamarajiva c. 400 AD, and that this translation was and is considered particulary authorative because of the esteem in which Kamarajiva is held. I'll add a line to the introduction and a reference to a web page of the British Museum. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I added the paragraph with one footnote reference to the British Museum confirming that Kumarajiva did the first and most important Chinese translation. It's sort of a dopy reference, I'll maybe get an actual book! In any case its a well known fact. I couldn't find any good online reference for the fact that it is Kamurajiva's translation that is on the 868 scroll. I'll look for one. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the oldest printed book

It's the printed book with the oldest date. See British Library I'll change it and see what peopie think. [User:OldMonkeyPuzzle|OldMonkeyPuzzle]] (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Glossary

• [8] see Five eyes: "Five Eyes: the human eye, deva eye, wisdom eye, dharma eye and Buddha eye."

Seems as if they are widely known.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.225 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I changed the list of Asian translations from paragraph form into list form. I think this makes a huge differnce in terms of readability. However I couldn't figure out how to control the white space above and below. Also I took out some English translations from this list. Not the place. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In "Chan and Zen Teaching First Series" (Shambala ISBN 0-87773-009-1), Lu K'uan Yu (Charles Luk) presents an English translates of the Sutra and Han Shan's commentary. 116.251.188.18 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC) edgeplay

Pinyin Rendering of Chinese Title?

Surely the pinyin for 金剛般若波羅蜜多經 is Jīngāng Bānruò-bōluómìduō(duó?) Jīng.
Copyeditor42 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Date

When was it actually written?andycjp (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons

1133 years before Creative Commons was founded.

That probably doesn't belong in the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Change title to: Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamond Sutra)

We all know "Diamond" is an inappropriate name for this sutra. It is misleading and not following the 5 "No-translation" principles. Although "Diamond Sutra" is already well known, we still should change it now to make it right - i.e., we should not let a mistake continue forever. I would suggest to change the title to Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamond Sutra). In this way, people searching for Diamond Sutra can still find it. After we agree on the title change, the text of this article will need to be updated, which can be easily done by the original author of this article. Dalauhu (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Vajracchedika Sutra is also not the proper name, since the full title is Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra. The material in WP:COMMONNAME would be useful for helping to establish guidelines. Tengu800 04:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of that. Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamond Sutra) that I proposed is the abbreviation for title in Wikipedia only. (On second thought, it would be better to call it Vajra Sutra.) In the text we can elaborate about Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra and others. What I am proposing now is to correct the misleading error. Wikipedia is the best starting point. Once we get it going, it may cascade forward. Dalauhu 71.251.34.184 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is important we make the correction from "Diamond Sutra" to "Vajra Sutra (Diamond Sutra)". I noticed under the title of Vajra in Wikipedia, the author wrote Vajra is diamond. This is incorrect, and probably influenced by "Diamond Sutra". We should make the correction so that the error will not propagate. Anybody agrees? Dalauhu (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Change title to: Vajra Sutra (Diamond Sutra)

Hsuan-Tsang, the most renowned Tripitaka Master in Tang Dynasty, established 5 "No-translation" principles. Among them are "Not to be translated if it contains multiple meaning" and "Not to be translated if it is less impressive when translated". In my opinion, by translating "Vajra Sutra" (this is the commonly used abbreviation) into "Diamond Sutra" it conflicts these 2 principles. (1) Vajra, according to Wikipedia, contains 2 meanings - thunderbolt and diamond. By using diamond as the translation, it lost the powerful meaning of thunderbolt. Therefore, Vajra should not be translated as diamond. (2) Diamond is commonly worn by women as a jewelry. By translating into a jewelry it becomes less impressive. Therefore, Vajra should not be translated as diamond. Further, in my opinion, Vajra meant diamond in olden days because it can cut anything but not be cut. It was correct by that time. However, the scientists to date have discovered 2 materials harder than diamond, and the list could increase later. Therefore, to use diamond as the name has lost its meaning. Also, in the earlier time, there was no nuclear bombs. Vajra is supposed to mean something indestructible by anything, not even by a nuclear bomb. But we know diamond can be destroyed. Therefore, we should use Vajra as the abbreviated name for this Sutra. Since the name of "Diamond Sutra" is well known, we can retain it in the parenthesis so that people can find it.Dalauhu (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia does not follow 7th century Chinese translation principles. Instead, Wikipedia:Article titles is the first thing to be considered. Like the title Vajracchedika Sutra, the title Vajra Sutra is also inaccurate to the original name of the sutra. No extant versions in Sanskrit are called Vajra Sutra or anything similar. Since Diamond Sutra is the most common name for this text, it seems like the most obvious choice. However, if someone were claiming that this is inaccurate, then the next logical choice would be the most accurate: Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Tengu800 16:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Vajra Sutra is a convenient abbreviation corresponding to "Diamond Sutra". So we have an agreement to change the title to Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Diamond Sutra)?Dalauhu (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia standards for article naming do not allow use of parentheses for alternate names. Personally I have no problems with Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, but that is just my own view. Any proposed name change should conform to the criteria described in Wikipedia:Article titles. Please take time to read this and consider these standard practices. Tengu800 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It will be important for any name change to follow the principles such as: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Tengu800 22:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia：Article titles. According to the Wikipedia standards, the title change for this article is not encouraged. I think the best approach is to edit the first paragraph of this article so that the public may eventually use "Vajra Sutra" more often than "Diamond Sutra" - with the understanding it may take many decades. By that time, it may be possible to change the title.Dalauhu (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand why the title Vajra Sutra would be used. No extant manuscripts use such a title, and the preference for Vajra Sutra seems like original research. Tengu800 02:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of the article, we can somehow explain so that the readers understand the following: "Diamond" was part of the meaning for Vajra because it was indestructible and able to cut others in the olden days; "Diamond" does not capture the whole meaning of Vajra because diamond is not mighty powerful like thunderbolt; "Diamond Sutra" is kept as the title in Wikipedia because it is commonly known today, i.e., "no extant manuscripts use Vajra as the title"; when people get to understand "Diamond Sutra" is not a suitable title for this sutra, they will gradually switch to using "Vajra Sutra". After many decades, "Vajra Sutra" becomes a common name, then Wikipedia will naturally switch over. Dalauhu (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article already mentions the most accurate title — Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra — in the first paragraph, and several times following this. Tengu800 01:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, we may make minor changes to "The title properly translated is the Diamond Cutter of Perfect Wisdom although it is usually just called the Diamond Sūtra." It is not "properly translated" as we had discussed previously regarding the controversial "Diamond". We also should infuse the correct version so that the readers know the alternative correct version exists and may gradually switch over. Would you agree to this minor change: "The title can be translated as the Diamond (Vajra) Cutter of Perfect Wisdom although it is usually just called the Diamond Sūtra or Vajra Sūtra."? This would encourage readers to call it Vajra Sutra when they realize "Diamond" is not a suitable translation. Dalauhu (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diamond Sutra. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/diamondsutra.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

″Printed″ is correct, but only technically

   (I intend, only in that section heading, to be mildly ironic; don't hesitate to ignore that.)
   Yes, first printed, but using technology that has, since Gutenberg's (higher-volume) movable-type printed book, been relegated to creative-arts purposes. I'm not going to muck with the article while it's fresh from being featured, but there's a reason (besides cultural imperialism) for the technology of the block-printed DS being so much more obscure than that of JG's ″competing″ blockbuster.
   So in the long run we should reflect that fact, with wording like in the following indented material: (For talk purposes only, i distinguish new wording with italics.)

... (This was is approximately 587 years nearly six centuries before the Gutenberg Bible was became the first book printed with movable type.)

--Jerzy•t 21:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Indecipherable sentence

"However, Diamond Sūtra do not preached until the training method of it."

I don't know what this sentence from the opening paragraphs of the article is supposed to be saying. Garyvp71 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sérgio Itigo seems to have introduced the change in an edit but I'm not sure what they were going for. I've reverted to something closer to the old lede until some better language is available. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sérgio Itigo, your changes to the lede appear to be incomprehensible. Your edit summary [9] is not convincing ["Either way, Mahāyāna sutras themselves preach that it will be difficult to understand for and is incredible teachings (for especially to Hinayana buddhism)"]. Please explain your edits. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It is mad to demonstrate leadership without knowing that the place to arrive at is an entrance of hells (such as Yama-deva). We lost a man there on 2009 in Thailand, and Big John Paul, he couldn't do a thing.[10] Mahāyāna Buddhism named such mad leaders and believers as Hinayana. Diamond Sutra is a scripture to understand for it. Even in Zen, Huineng introduced what is Diamond Sutra to his disciples only after showing those conditions. That is, the current description is incorrect perfectly. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sérgio Itigo, like your edits, your comment above ("Mahāyāna Buddhism named such mad leaders and believers as Hinayana.") appears to show a dislike for Hinayana Buddhism/Buddhists. However, Wikipdia follows a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV policy in article space. I see no consensus for your enigmatic version of the lede. It has been reverted by two editors. Garyvp71, Spasemunki, Joshua Jonathan, Farang Rak Tham and everyone else, your opinion concerning these edits [11], [12] would be appreciated. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC) supplemented JimRenge (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course Mahayana Buddhism did not use the word "mad". It made a very diverse name, for example Gaki and Chikushō (beast), depending on each stage of Hinayana. but is basically same as the religion that was influenced by Greek-Roman myth.[13][14] I may not be faithful, but I am neutral.--Sérgio Itigo (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  Most Mahāyāna sutras did not preach the process of intentionally reaching Vajrayana or Śrāvakayāna, meaning "Mount Vajra-śekhara (Diamond-head)" and "Mount Bhumi (the first stage of bhumis)", so that the Diamond Sūtra is a very rare literature in terms of describing it. However, the Diamond Sutra ends with the wording that it is good not to take phases in leading to the place (where may be severed by thunderbolts unless being impregnable like a diamond).

Sérgio Itigo - Can you explain what these two sentences mean, and provide a reference for where this interpretation originates? We are primarily reverting your edits because your sentences are too hard to understand and remove context for the article. For instance, what does 'it' in the first sentence refer to? The process, one of the two vehicles mentioned, or one of the metaphorical mountains? Is this 'the place' in the second sentence too? 'Reaching Vajrayana or Sravakayana' does not make sense in the way that these terms are conventionally used. The quotation that you cite also doesn't appear to refer directly to what you are saying regarding a warning against 'phases'. You appear to be offering an interpretation of the sutra without a clear reference to where that interpretation is coming from. Wikipedia is not the right place to offer novel interpretations of primary sources. --Spasemunki (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

All right. Temporarily exclude "Mount Bhumi"; this is one of the sutras that connects Mahayana Buddhism and Esoteric Buddhism, so until a suitable source is found. Other descriptions are like describing the title and subtitle of the Diamond Sutra as it is, so there is no problem at all.

The Diamond Sutra is a very delicate content, so it was the most carefully handled sutra, but was not one of the most influential in East Asia and Mahayana Buddhism.--Sérgio Itigo (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

History

I rewrote the first paragraph of the history section. In addition to some unclear comments about cosmology, it referenced a Japanese research report as giving a specific date of composition in the 3rd Century. I looked at the referenced source in translation but found no mention of this date, or any mention that it was composed as an anti-Hinayana text. I've re-written it with info from a standard English-language source- maybe someone can provide a specific paper that deals with more recent research from Japan. --Spasemunki (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

In recent years of Japanese Buddhism, the word "Hinayana" is no longer used as a discriminatory term. The source has been described about depraved Buddhism (by Hinayana). It is only a topic that the convincing hypothesis existing before was proved by literature research. About buddhist cosmology, is there a link for that. so here is also no problem at all. The present "history" description is as if it is the "history of translation".--Sérgio Itigo (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Text

Texts that have been around for many centuries tend to fall into one of two groups: either being transmitted in a number of variants (such as Homer, & Lao Tzu), or in one carefully-cultivated version (such as the Koran, & the Judeo-Christian Bible). This article fails to indicate which group the Diamond Sutra falls into. And considering that texts transmitted by copying tend to pick up errors & corrections in the process, I would not assume the Diamond Sutra has come down in only one recension -- although it is possible. Any serious study of this document would provide enough details to answer this question. -- llywrch (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kumarajiva at Kizil Caves, Kuqa.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

sutra 2 dna project

might be worth adding some info about this interesting project involving encoding the text of the diamond sutra into dna :

https://mbingenheimer.net/sutra2DNA/ 98.253.30.105 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)