Practice · DānaVolume TwoPart V · Non-Abiding GivingPaper 15 of 31

Diamond Sutra Giving Treatise

中文主題：金剛般若波羅蜜經施論

Author: Shi Huijing 釋慧鏡

Date: Spring 2026

Version: 1.0

ID: DANA-P15

Abstract

This paper examines the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā (T0235, Kumārajīva's Diamond Sūtra) on the reconfiguration of dāna-pāramitā through the paradox of "non-abiding giving" (無住施) and "empty merit" (福德性空). Using CBETA XML as ground truth and systematic vault searches across prajñāpāramitā, Yogācāra, and madhyamaka corpora -- with parallel comparison against Xuanzang's Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (T0220c), Vasubandhu's Vajracchedikā-śāstra (T1511), and six Chinese translations -- I argue that T0235's "non-abiding giving" is not a negative negation of giving but the epistemic condition of giving itself. The merit paradox ("because merit is empty, the Tathāgata says great merit is gained") employs a truncated X is-not X triad (missing the third step "is named") to prevent grasping at emptiness itself. A philological finding: T0235 contains zero instances of the term "three wheels empty" (三輪體空) -- a later scholastic summary -- so the text's own vocabulary is "non-grasping at marks" (不住相). The core finding: non-abiding giving is not a utilitarian merit-accumulation strategy but the genuine expression of dharma-empty; when the giver grasps at no marks, merit shifts from limited saṃvṛti-causality to unlimited nirvāṇa-oriented causality.

I. From the Nine Characteristics of Giving to Non-abiding: The Prajñā Twist on the Doctrine of Giving

P14, drawing on chapter 39 of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, constructed a Yogācāra analysis of dāna in terms of its "nine characteristics" (नवधातु दान / 九種相施). The nine characteristics progress from "material giving" to "the bodhisattva's altruistic mind" at the apex -- a philosophical cartography mapping the full topography of giving. These nine categories are not arbitrary; they ascend from the humblest act of material generosity to the highest expression of bodhisattvic giving: the refusal to abide in nirvāṇa, endlessly bestowing benefit upon all beings.

But if the Yogācāra tradition has so exhaustively depicted giving's structure through these nine characteristics, what does the Prajñāpāramitā tradition's "non-abiding giving" (無住施) add?

The answer is not the addition of a new category, but the suspension of the "characteristic" framework itself.

The core instruction of the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra -- "The bodhisattva should practice giving without abiding in anything" -- is not a gloss on the map of nine characteristics. Rather, it represents a shift in the way the fundamental question "what makes giving giving?" is answered. The Yogācāra answer is: First perceive the nine characteristics of giving, then gradually perfect them. The Prajñāpāramitā answer is: Do not perceive characteristics; do not abide.

The gap between these two answers is precisely the tension that P15 addresses.

P13, drawing on the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, established the "threefold unobtainability" -- the giver, the recipient, and the object of giving are all unobtainable in the ultimate sense. Nāgārjuna's answer is analytic: layer by layer, it dismantles the giver's sense of self-identity, the recipient's objectivity, and the object's inherent nature, arriving at "all three are empty." This is a deconstruction from the outside in.

P14, with the nine characteristics of giving from the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, answered the question "So what after deconstruction?" -- Not that we cease to give, but that we give with ever-clearer characteristics. This is the Yogācāra path from deconstruction to reconstruction.

P15 asks: Between deconstruction and reconstruction, is there yet another possibility? Not deconstruct then reconstruct, nor reconstruct then deconstruct, but the very present moment as neither deconstruction nor reconstruction -- because "non-abiding" is itself already the complete form of giving, requiring no prior philosophical analysis as its precondition.

This is the core contribution of the Diamond Sūtra to the doctrine of giving: it neither negates the Yogācāra's nine-characteristics map nor Nāgārjuna's threefold analysis, but posits a more fundamental condition -- before giving, during giving, and after giving, no philosophical analysis is needed. The giver may practice directly in the mode of "non-abiding," because "non-abiding" itself is a direct entry into reality, achieved through no analytical step.

This sounds like negative denial, but the paradox of the Diamond Sūtra is that it is precisely this "directness," independent of analysis, that produces the most complete form of giving.

At the end of P14, Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya already hinted at this: the highest of the nine characteristics -- "giving to the utmost" and "giving without end" -- are defined precisely as "not abiding in nirvāṇa." In other words, the apex of the nine-characteristics map is its own dissolution: the most complete giving is precisely "not clenching to the completeness of giving."

The Diamond Sūtra turned this hint into explicit doctrine. It is not that nine characteristics exist first and are then transcended; rather, non-abiding itself is the complete form of giving.

II. Textual Structure of the Diamond Sūtra's Doctrine of Giving

The Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra comprises approximately 9,600 characters, unfolding in a dialogue between the Buddha and Subhūti. The doctrine of giving is not an independent section but a current running through the entire text -- from the command of non-abiding giving in section four, to the paradox of merit in section eight, to the paradox of adorning the Buddha-lands in section seventeen, and finally closing with the thirty-first section's "arise the mind without abiding."

2.1 The Core Declaration of Non-abiding Giving

The starting point of the doctrine of giving is in the fourth section of the sūtra:

"Furthermore, Subhūti! The bodhisattva should practice giving without abiding in anything, without abiding in forms, without abiding in sounds, odors, flavors, tactile sensations, or dharmas. Subhūti! The bodhisattva should practice giving in this way, without abiding in marks. Why? If a bodhisattva practices giving without abiding in marks, his merit is immeasurable."

"Subhūti! What do you think? Could the eastern space be measured?" "No, World-Honored One!" "Subhūti! Could the southern, western, northern directions, the four corners and the overhead and the netherworld -- could this space be measured?" "No, World-Honored One!" "Subhūti! The merit of a bodhisattva's non-abiding-giving is likewise immeasurable. Subhūti! The bodhisattva should abide only as instructed."

-- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0749a12–a20¹

This passage contains three layers of argumentative structure:

The first layer is the command -- "should practice giving without abiding in anything." The subject of this command is the "bodhisattva," its object is "dharmas" (all possible objects of cognition), and its mode is "without abiding." Here, "abiding" is not neutral "residing" but grasping, clinging. The bodhisattva's giving is not the negative injunction of "do not cling," but the positive practice of "taking non-abiding as the method."

The second layer is the concrete unfolding -- "without abiding in forms, without abiding in sounds, odors, flavors, tactile sensations, or dharmas." Kumārajīva compressed the enumeration of the six sense objects into two clauses: the first clause uses "forms" to encompass visual objects (the rūpa-dhātu), the second lists the remaining five sense objects. In total, these are the six realms -- the six sense fields opposed to the six sense faculties. This is not two categories, but one general and one particular structure, encompassing all possible objects and fields of giving.

This contrasts with the "four-clause version" in Xuanzang's Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, chapter 075:

"When a bodhisattva mahāsattva practices giving, the three spheres are pure: first, not grasping 'I' as the giver; second, not grasping 'that one' as the recipient; third, not clinging to giving and its fruits. This is the purity of the three spheres when a bodhisattva mahāsattva practices giving." -- T0220c, T07p0087a11+²

T0220c's definition of "purity of the three spheres" is presented in positive vocabulary: not grasping 'I', not grasping 'that one', not clinging to giving and its fruits. This is fully equivalent to T0235's "not abiding in marks," but the tone shifts from negation (not abiding) to affirmation (purity). This is precisely the lexical shift from "apophatic" to "cataphatic" within the Prajñāpāramitā tradition itself.

The third layer is the immeasurability of merit -- illustrated with the metaphor of xūkōng (虛空, empty space) across the ten directions. Xūkōng is not a metaphor for "very large," but for "immeasurable." Merit is immeasurable not because its quantity transcends human measurement capacity, but because "immeasurable" itself is a philosophical proposition: when the giver does not abide in marks, the standards of measuring merit collapse.

2.2 The Metaphor of Light and Darkness: Abiding Giving vs. Non-abiding Giving

Later in the text, another contrasting pair further clarifies the superiority of non-abiding giving:

"Subhūti! If a bodhisattva's mind abides in dharmas while practicing giving, it is like a person entering darkness and seeing nothing; if a bodhisattva's mind does not abide in dharmas while practicing giving, it is like a person with eyes, illuminated by the sun's light, seeing all manner of colors." -- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0750c01–c02³

This pair of metaphors has two subtleties.

The first is that the "darkness" of "entering darkness" is not external darkness, but the cognitive obstruction produced by the mind's abiding in dharmas. If the bodhisattva clings to "I am giving," "that one is the recipient," "this is what I give," this triple clinging itself constitutes an invisible darkness -- not inflicted by the Buddha, but the structural blind spot of clinging itself.

The second is that the "sun" in "illuminated by the sun's light" is not an external light source, but the illumination produced by non-abiding itself. When the giver does not cling to any mark, he does not become numb or ignorant, but gains clearer perception of the objects of experience -- "seeing all manner of colors," not just a single color. Non-abiding is not blind blindness, but the richest vision.

This metaphor reveals the fundamental difference between non-abiding giving and abiding giving: it is not "whether to give," but "how to give" -- the same behavior, different epistemic foundations, producing giving of entirely different quality.

2.3 The Cluster of Merit Paradoxes: From Emptiness to Reversal

Beginning in the eighth section, the text unfolds the merit paradox in four layers of comparison:

Layer One (Seven Jewels Filling the Trichiliocosm):

"Subhūti! What do you think? If a person were to fill a trichiliocosm -- the world of a thousand million worlds -- with the seven jewels and practice giving, would the merit gained by this person be great?" Subhūti replied: "Very great, World-Honored One! Why? Because this merit is not, in its nature, merit; therefore the Tathāgata says merit is great." -- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0749b18–b21⁴

"A trichiliocosm filled with the seven jewels" is the most classic image of material giving in Buddhism -- using the treasures of an entire cosmos as the object of giving. Subhūti's answer contains an "is-not" construction: "this merit is not, in its nature, merit, therefore the Tathāgata says merit is great."

There is an important textual detail here: this "is-not" construction is truncated -- there is only "is not, in its nature, merit" but no third step "is named merit." Kumārajīva deliberately omitted the affirmative return, intending to prevent the giver from turning to cling to "I have realized the emptiness of merit" -- this is precisely P15's core insight: even "emptiness" must not be abided in.

Regarding textual criticism, the base text reads "復福," which CBETA emended to "福德" based on the Lizhou edition, the correct reading.

Layer Two (A Ganges Sand Number of Trichiliocosms Filled with Seven Jewels):

"Subhūti! I now truly tell you: if there are good men or good women who fill as many trichiliocosms as there are grains of sand in the Ganges River with the seven jewels and practice giving, would their merit be great?" Subhūti said: "Very great, World-Honored One!" The Buddha told Subhūti: "If good men or good women receive and uphold even four lines of this sūtra for themselves and teach them to others, their merit surpasses the former merit." -- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0749c29–0750a05⁵

The quantity escalates from "a trichiliocosm" to "a Ganges-sand number of trichiliocosms" -- from the treasures of a single universe to the treasures of infinitely many universes.

Yet even so, the teaching-giving (receiving and upholding four lines for oneself and teaching others to others) surpasses this infinitesimally great material giving. This comparison is not to belittle material giving, but to reveal a deeper principle: when the quantity of material giving approaches infinity, the transcendence of teaching-giving is no longer a comparison of quantities, but a qualitative difference.

Layer Three (A Ganges-Sand Number of Lives and Bodies in Giving):

"Subhūti! If there are good men or good women who offer bodies and lives as many as the grains of sand in the Ganges River; and if another person receives and upholds even four lines of this sūtra for themselves and teaches them to others, their merit is far greater." -- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0750a23–a26⁶

From seven jewels (material giving) to bodies and lives (self-offering). Body and life giving is the highest form of material giving -- not external objects, but the self itself. Yet teaching-giving still surpasses the infinitesimally great body-lives giving.

Layer Four (Triple Ganges-Sand Body-Giving):

"Subhūti! If there are good men or good women who offer bodies as many as the grains of sand in the Ganges River in the first part of the day, offer bodies as many as the grains of sand in the Ganges River in the middle part of the day, and offer bodies as many as the grains of sand in the Ganges River in the last part of the day, thus giving bodies for countless hundreds of thousands of millions of kotis of kalpas; and if another person hears this sūtra and their faith does not recoil, their merit surpasses the latter. How much more if they write it down, receive and uphold it, read it, and explain it to others?" -- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0750c07–c12⁷

Triple body-giving -- the first part of the day, the middle part, and the last part, each time offering bodies as many as the grains of sand in the Ganges River, sustained for "countless hundreds of thousands of millions of kotis of kalpas." This is the dual infinity of time and quantity. The transcendence of teaching-giving reaches its apex here.

But the merit paradox in section eight is not yet over. A more crucial passage appears in section five:

"Subhūti! If merit were truly existent, the Tathāgata would not say that merit is gained; because merit is not, the Tathāgata says that merit is gained." -- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0751b29–c04⁸

This is the apex sentence of the entire sūtra's merit paradox. Its logic is reversal:

Merit is great precisely because merit lacks inherent nature. If merit had inherent nature ("if merit were truly existent"), then merit would be a finite quantity -- having inherent nature means having boundaries, fixed characteristics, insurmountable limits. Because merit lacks inherent nature ("because merit is not"), merit becomes infinite -- not quantity-wise, but by transcending the concept of "great" or "little" itself.

The subtlety of this argument lies in this: it does not explain "great" by increasing the quantity of merit, but by dissolving the ontological status of merit (lacking inherent nature). Lack of inherent nature is not negative destruction; it opens infinite possibility.

2.4 The Paradox of Adorning Buddha-Lands

The section on adorning Buddha-lands has a deep connection to the doctrine of giving:

"Subhūti! If a bodhisattva says 'I shall adorn Buddha-lands,' that person is not a bodhisattva. Why? What the Tathāgata calls adorning Buddha-lands is not adorning; it is named adorning. Subhūti! If a bodhisattva comprehends the non-self and non-dharma, the Tathāgata calls that person truly a bodhisattva." -- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0751b09–b12⁹

"Adorning Buddha-lands" in the Buddhist context encompasses the vow and practice of extensively bestowing offerings to purify pure lands. But the Buddha here says: if a bodhisattva thinks "I shall adorn Buddha-lands," then they are "not a bodhisattva" -- not "not a good bodhisattva," but fundamentally "not a bodhisattva."

Why? Because "adorning" itself requires the is-not structure: "What the Tathāgata calls adorning Buddha-lands is not adorning; it is named adorning." True adorning is not the pursuit of the "characteristic of adorning," but the natural expression after comprehending non-self and non-dharma.

This paradox shares the same logical structure as the merit paradox: both use the is-not triad to dissolve clinging to the "fruit of giving," while preserving the practice of giving itself.

2.5 Non-reception of Merit: Non-clinging to Merit After Giving

The final merit passage in the sūtra:

"Subhūti! If a bodhisattva offers the seven jewels of a Ganges-sand number of worlds to practice giving; and if another person comprehends that all dharmas are non-self and attains the patience of realization, this bodhisattva's merit surpasses the former merit of that bodhisattva. Subhūti! Because bodhisattvas do not receive merit." Subhūti asked the Buddha: "World-Honored One! How do bodhisattvas not receive merit?" "Subhūti! The merit that bodhisattvas produce should not be clung to; therefore it is said that they do not receive merit." -- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0752a25–b01¹⁰

"Non-reception of merit" does not mean "not obtaining merit," but "not clinging to merit." This is the attitude after giving in non-abiding giving: merit still arises, but the giver does not grasp it. This forms a complete circuit with the earlier "because merit is not, the Tathāgata says merit is great" -- because merit lacks inherent nature, it is not worth clinging to; because it is not worth clinging to, it can be obtained non-abidingly.

The text closes with "not grasping marks, thus and so immovable" (T0235 0752b27) -- this is the practical suspension point of non-abiding giving. Not grasping marks is the method; thus and so immovable is the state.

III. Core Arguments

3.1 Arise Without Abiding: Non-abiding as the Condition of Giving

"The bodhisattva should practice giving without abiding in anything" -- the core of this proposition is the "should" (應). It is not a suggestion, not a description, but a command. Why must giving have non-abiding as its condition?

Vasubandhu's commentary in T1511 gives the earliest systematic analysis:

"Not abiding in matters means not clinging to oneself. Not abiding means not clinging to repaying kindness. ...Not abiding in forms and so forth means not clinging to the fruit of giving." -- T25n1511, p.0782b¹¹

Vasubandhu analyzes "non-abiding" in three layers:

The first layer is "not clinging to oneself" -- the giver themself must not be grasped. This does not mean the giver does not exist, but that the giver, as a dependently originated provisional name, has no independent inherent nature; therefore grasping "I am giving" is a misrecognition.

The second layer is "not clinging to repaying kindness" -- the recipient's repayment must not be grasped. "Repaying kindness" includes not only material repayment, but also social recognition, moral superiority, psychological satisfaction -- all the "repayments" the giver might obtain from the recipient. Vasubandhu uses this term to cover all the collateral expectations the giver might have of the act of giving.

The third layer is "not clinging to the fruit of giving" -- the fruit of giving itself must not be grasped. This is the deepest layer: even if one does not cling to the recipient's repayment, the giver may still cling to "I will thereby gain merit" -- this clinging to merit itself is also abiding.

The three-layer analysis corresponds precisely to the later structure of "emptiness of the three spheres" (giver, recipient, object of giving), but Vasubandhu uses "not clinging" rather than "emptiness" -- an important lexical difference.

"Not clinging" is the language of epistemology: the giver can still "perceive" the giver, but does not grasp. "Emptiness" is the language of ontology: the giver is fundamentally unobtainable. Vasubandhu chose the former, preserving the practical foundation of giving -- the giver does not grasp the giver-mark, but still gives.

This distinction is crucial for P15. The Diamond Sūtra's non-abiding is not nāgārjunian emptiness -- it is not grasping any mark in the process of giving, but giving itself is not abolished. T1512 explicitly responds to this:

"Not generating grasping within these three matters is called non-abiding, not that one practices giving without a mind of true suchness, equal knowledge, and wise understanding. This clarifies that it is a mind-giving, not a mindless-giving." -- T1512, chapter 002¹²

"Non-abiding" does not equal "mindless." The one practicing non-abiding giving is not numb, empty, devoid of cognitive capacity -- rather, they possess "a mind of true suchness, equal knowledge, and wise understanding," the clearest cognition of reality. But this cognition does not generate grasping.

T0235 itself confirms this with the metaphor of light: the one practicing non-abiding giving is "like a person with eyes, illuminated by the sun's light, seeing all manner of colors" -- not "not seeing," but "seeing all manner of colors," and seeing more clearly than the abiding giver.

3.2 The Paradox of Empty Merit: The Main Argument

The merit paradox is the core argument of P15, and the most paradoxical passage in the entire sūtra. Its structure can be restated as follows:

Premise One: If merit has inherent nature (if merit is truly existent, fixed, bounded), then merit is a finite quantity.

Premise Two: A finite quantity means it is unsurpassable -- it has a ceiling.

Conclusion: Therefore the Tathāgata does not say "great merit is gained" -- because a finite quantity is not worth saying "great."

Reverse argument:

Premise One: Merit lacks inherent nature (merit is not truly existent, has no fixed nature, has no boundaries).

Premise Two: Precisely because it lacks inherent nature, merit is not constrained by any finite quantity.

Conclusion: Therefore the Tathāgata says "great merit is gained" -- not because the quantity of merit is great, but because merit itself transcends the contrast-framework of "great" and "little."

The core insight of this argument is: emptiness is not negative destruction, but the opening of infinite possibility. When merit no longer has inherent nature, it is no longer constrained by any quantification framework -- hence "immeasurable."

T1512 further explains why non-mark merit is greater than mark-grasping merit:

"If one practices giving with grasping marks, it is a defiled cause, producing only the fruit of the threefold existence within the three realms; its merit is finite and hence small. One who practices giving without perceiving the three matters, not grasping marks, produces an undefiled cause, ultimately attracting Buddhahood and not producing the fruit of the three existences; therefore non-mark merit is vastly greater and immeasurable." -- T1512, chapter 002¹³

This passage establishes a crucial contrast:

Merit with defilement (mark-grasping giving): the fruit within the three realms, therefore finite -- finite means small. Undefiled merit (non-mark giving): ultimately attracting Buddhahood, not producing the fruit of the three existences -- therefore immeasurable.

The difference between "finite" and "immeasurable" is not the quantity of merit, but the quality of merit: the fruit of the three existences is bounded (cycling through the realm of humans, gods, and good paths), while Buddhahood is unbounded (transcending the three realms to liberation).

Thus "non-abiding giving gains great merit" is not a utilitarian slogan urging giving -- it is a rigorous philosophical proposition: when the giver does not grasp any mark, merit shifts from limited世俗 causality to unlimited liberation causality.

Another subtlety of this argument lies in the character "性" (nature) of "is-not, in its nature, merit." Among the six Chinese translations, only Kumārajīva's T0235 renders it as "是福德性即非" (is merit nature is-not), while the other five translations render it as "福德聚" (merit collection).

"Merit nature" → svabhāva / dharmatā (inherent nature / dharma-nature): negates merit's ontological status
"Merit collection" → skandha (heap/aggregate): negates merit's quantification structure

T0235's "性" character elevates the paradox to the ontological level: it is not that merit as a "thing" does not exist, but that the inherent nature of the concept "merit" itself is unobtainable. This is one layer deeper than negating "merit collection" -- it does not deny merit's phenomenological existence, but negates its ontological foundation.

P15's argument reaches its climax here: the emptiness of merit's nature is not a negative proposition, but a positive one -- precisely because merit lacks inherent nature, merit can become infinite.

3.3 The Paradox of Adorning Buddha-Lands: The Sub-argument

The paradox of adorning Buddha-lands shares the same is-not structure as the merit paradox, but has a different function.

The merit paradox dissolves the giver's clinging to the "fruit of giving" (the quantity of merit). The adorning paradox dissolves the giver's clinging to the "purpose of giving" (adorning Buddha-lands).

Read together, they form a complete framework for the doctrine of giving: not only is giving non-abiding in the moment, the purpose of giving is also non-abiding. Not only do we not grasp the fruit of giving, even "I shall adorn Buddha-lands" -- the highest bodhisattvic vow -- also requires the dissolution of the is-not structure.

This is not to negatively abandon the adorning of Buddha-lands -- "it is named adorning" preserves the functionality of conventional designation. Adorning can still proceed, but not within the framework of "I adorn," but as the natural expression after comprehending non-self and non-dharma.

Vasubandhu's commentary in T1511 on "arise the mind without abiding" provides a Yogācāra interpretation:

"The Buddhas have no matter of adorning a land. Only the Tathāgatas' genuine wisdom's habitual knowledge has comprehensive penetration; therefore that land is not graspable. If someone grasps the form-image of that land, thinking 'I have achieved a pure Buddha-land,' they speak falsely." -- T25.1511, p.0786a¹⁴

Vasubandhu's Yogācāra interpretation points out: a pure land is not an external spatial object, but the penetration of wisdom's habitual knowledge. Grasping-marks to adorn is false, because it misrecognizes "internal wisdom" as "external space."

This interpretation provides a crucial supplement to P15: non-abiding giving not only does not grasp the self, not grasp the fruit, but does not grasp the spatial-mark of "adorning Buddha-lands" -- the adorning of Buddha-lands is the Yogācāra manifestation of the mind's purity, not an external construction project.

IV. Cross-Textual Convergence

P15's doctrine of giving is not merely argument within the sūtra itself; it must also be positioned within a broader philosophical context. This chapter introduces three scholars as interlocutors.

4.1 Siderits: Empty Merit within the Framework of Two Truths

Siderits' interpretation of Madhyamaka centers on the two-truths doctrine. In his view, emptiness is a tool of conventional truth, not a negative cancellation of it -- in the ultimate truth, merit lacks inherent nature; in the conventional truth, causality remains valid.

This framework's value to P15 lies in providing the philosophical context for "emptiness does not abolish causality." P15's merit paradox is precisely the practical application of the two-truths doctrine: merit lacks inherent nature in the ultimate truth (empty), but still produces effects in the conventional truth (existent). The two do not conflict.

However, Siderits' framework has a potential problem: he tends to reduce the emptiness question to an "epistemic standpoint" -- emptiness is merely a way of seeing things, not a property of things themselves. P15 needs to push back: T0235's "is-not, in its nature, merit" does not merely negate a way of seeing merit; it simultaneously negates merit's ontological foundation.

More crucially, Siderits' two-truths framework does not adequately address "non-abiding" as a dimension of soteric epistemology. P15's core argument is not about the ontological status of emptiness, but about how to give -- "not grasping marks" is not a philosophical proposition but a practical command. Only through the practice of non-abiding does the paradox of empty merit become an experienced fact, not merely a theory.

4.2 Lamotte: The Diamond Sūtra's Historical Positioning

Lamotte's school of historical-critical scholarship positions the Diamond Sūtra as a key text at the transition from "early Prajñāpāramitā" to "middle Prajñāpāramitā." He considers the is-not triad to be a later linguistic innovation in historical development -- not the Buddha's own words, but the gradual linguistic evolution of the Prajñāpāramitā tradition.

Simultaneously, Lamotte points out that Kumārajīva's translation is an "interpretive translation," not word-for-word equivalence. This means T0235's "is-not" may not be a direct reflection of the Sanskrit original, but rather Kumārajīva's interpretive choice.

The value of this historical positioning lies in keeping P15's discussion of T0235 from脱离 historical context. But P15 can concede Lamotte's linguistic observation (Kumārajīva's "is-not" is indeed an interpretive innovation) while insisting: P15 concerns the doctrinal structure of giving, and "is-not" is the medium of expression, not affecting the core thesis of "non-abiding giving → emptiness of nature → says great merit is gained."

In other words, even if "is-not" is a later linguistic form, the doctrine of giving structure it carries (non-abiding → emptiness of nature → says great merit is gained) is already complete and self-consistent in the Diamond Sūtra.

4.3 Sharf: The Practical Paradox of Emptiness and Causality

Sharf's religious studies perspective provides the most direct challenge to P15:

What does "empty merit" mean in actual practice? If all dharmas are empty, why practice giving at all? Why does giving have "great" and "little" distinctions?

Sharf's challenge forces P15 to not remain in purely metaphysical discussion. If P15 only discusses merit's emptiness in the ultimate truth, it cannot answer the practical question "why give at all?"

The built-in answer to P15 is in section five of T0235:

"Subhūti! For the benefit of all beings, the bodhisattva should practice giving in this way." -- T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0750b24¹⁵

This seemingly inconsequential interjection -- "for the benefit of all beings" -- is the motivational foundation of non-abiding giving. Non-abiding giving is not "because all dharmas are empty, therefore do nothing," but "having seen emptiness, the only response is unconditioned benefit of others."

Emptiness is not a reason not to give; it is the condition for unconditioned giving.

When the giver has seen the emptiness of merit's inherent nature, they no longer contaminate their motivation with self-identity ("I am giving"), no longer contaminate it with expectation of return ("I will gain merit"), no longer contaminate it with clinging to the object of giving ("this is my giving"). Stripped of all these collaterals, what remains is the purest altruism -- the unconditioned giving "for the benefit of all beings."

Thus Sharf's challenge does not weaken P15's argument at all; rather, it reveals the deepest practical implication of non-abiding giving: emptiness is not the end of giving, but the purification of giving.

V. Madhyamaka Correction

P15's argument is prone to several misreadings, requiring explicit correction:

❌ "Non-abiding giving means not giving"

Source of the misreading: Conflating "not grasping marks" with "not giving."

Correction: T0235 says "for the benefit of all beings, the bodhisattva should practice giving in this way" -- non-abiding giving is not non-giving, but rather more thorough giving. Not grasping marks is the condition of giving, not the negation of giving. T1512 explicitly states: "not without a mind of true suchness, equal knowledge, and wise understanding, while practicing giving" -- the non-abiding giver is not devoid of cognitive capacity, but possesses the clearest cognition.

❌ "Chan's 'no-thought' is the Diamond Sūtra's 'non-abiding'"

Source of the misreading: Later Chan/Zen Buddhism interpreted non-abiding as "no-thought as the principle," reducing it to a psychological state.

Correction: T0235's "non-abiding" is a soteric epistemology -- not grasping marks, not "no-thought" or "empty mind." T1512's "not without a mind of true suchness, equal knowledge, and wise understanding" directly negates the misreading that non-abiding equals no-mind. Non-abiding is non-grasping of marks, not a negative state of cognition itself.

❌ "Emptiness of the Three Spheres is the Diamond Sūtra's Original Terminology"

Source of the misreading: Later scholarship used "emptiness of the three spheres" to summarize the Diamond Sūtra's doctrine of giving.

Correction: T0235 contains not a single character of "three wheels." Kumārajīva's translation uses "not grasping marks" and "without abiding," never "emptiness of the three spheres." "Emptiness of the three spheres" is a term from later commentary -- it appears in Tiantai Zhiyi's Mohe Zhiguan, the Huayan Mahāyāna Dharma-Characteristics Chapter, and Chan/Zen colloquies.

P15's body must use the original text's vocabulary when citing T0235: "non-grasping-giving" or "without abiding," not "emptiness of the three spheres." If "emptiness of the three spheres" is used as a summary term, it must be annotated as a later commentary term.

⚠️ "The Diamond Sūtra only teaches emptiness, does not value causality"

Correction: The comparison of merit (seven-jewels giving vs. teaching-giving, body-life giving vs. teaching-giving) runs through the entire sūtra. The causality framework is the argumentative support of "emptiness does not abolish causality," not a contradiction. The Diamond Sūtra's emptiness argument is not to negatively deny causality, but to establish a deeper causality -- undefiled causes produce immeasurable fruits.

⚠️ "Non-abiding giving yields greater merit than abiding giving, therefore it is worth practicing"

Correction: This is close to a utilitarian argument, violating the spirit of T0235's "bodhisattvas do not receive merit." Non-abiding giving is not for more merit -- non-abiding giving is the genuine expression of emptiness. The "greatness" of merit is a byproduct of non-abiding, not the motivation for practice. P15's merit paradox demonstrates the qualitative shift of non-abiding giving, not providing a smarter method of accumulating merit.

VI. Conclusion -- Three-Layer Summary and Open Questions

P15's argument can be summarized in three layers:

The first layer is the condition of giving: non-abiding is a necessary condition of giving, not a sufficient one. Abiding giving can still exist, but it produces defiled, finite merit. Only giving with non-abiding as its condition produces undefiled, immeasurable merit.

The second layer is the paradox of merit: merit is great precisely because merit lacks inherent nature. Emptiness is not negative destruction, but the opening of infinite possibility. The core of this paradox lies not in quantity but in quality -- from bounded世俗 causality to unbounded liberation causality.

The third layer is the continuity of the doctrine of giving: from P13's "threefold unobtainability" to P14's "nine characteristics of giving," to P15's "non-abiding giving," this is not jumping from one system to another, but the gradual deepening of the same thread -- from analytical deconstruction (P13), to reconstruction of characteristics (P14), to the present-moment non-abiding (P15). P15's answer is the most concise, but also the most difficult to practice: no need to first perform the three-fold analysis, no need to first draw the nine-characteristics map, practice giving directly through non-abiding.

T0235 closes with "not grasping marks, thus and so immovable" -- this is the condition of giving, and the suspension point of practice. But another core text of the Prajñāpāramitā tradition, the Heart Sūtra, does not mention giving at all -- what does this silence mean? P16 enters the field.

References

I. Primary Buddhist Sources

Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, translated in the Later Qin period by Kumārajīva, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 8, No. 0235.
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, translated in the Yuan Wei period by Bodhiruci A, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 8, No. 0236a.
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, translated in the Yuan Wei period by Bodhiruci B, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 8, No. 0236b.
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, translated by Paramārtha in the Chen period, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 8, No. 0237.
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, translated by Jñānagupta in the Sui period, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 8, No. 0238.
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, translated by Yìjìng in the Tang period, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 8, No. 0239.
Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (First Division), translated in the Tang period by Xuanzang, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 7, No. 0220a.
Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Sixth Division), translated in the Tang period by Xuanzang, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 7, No. 0220h.
Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, by the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, translated by Kumārajīva, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 25, No. 1509.
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra, by the Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, translated by Bodhiruci, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 25, No. 1511.
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra, by the Asaṅga school, translated by Dharma-rakṣita, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 25, No. 1512.
Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, commentary by Vasubandhu, translated by Xuanzang, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 31, No. 1597.
Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya, by Vasubandhu, translated by Xuanzang, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 31, No. 1595.
Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, translated by Xuanzang, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 30, No. 1579.
Mahāyānāntaravibhāga, by Vasubandhu, translated by Paramārtha, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 31, No. 1594.
Mahāyānasaṃgraha, by Asaṅga, translated by Paramārtha, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 31, No. 1592.
Avataṃsaka-sūtra, translated by Śikṣānanda, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 10, No. 0279.

II. Modern Scholarship

Siderits, Mark. Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction. Indian University: Hackett Publishing, 2003.
Siderits, Mark and Thomason, Rick. Classical Indian Philosophy: Primary Readings with Supplementary Essays. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Lamotte, Étienne. Le traité de la grande vertu de sagesse, vol. 1. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1944.
Lamotte, Étienne. History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Saka Era. Trans. William Sobers. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1988.
Sharf, Robert H. Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatise. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002.
Sharf, Robert H. "Is Mindfulness Buddhist?" Psychotherapy and Politics International 14, no. 3 (2016): 199–212.

III. Sūtra & Śāstra Index

Short Name	Full Name	Taishō Number	Author / Translator	Purpose
T0235	Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra	T08, No. 0235	Later Qin Kumārajīva trans.	P15 main text
T0236a	Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Version A)	T08, No. 0236a	Yuan Wei Bodhiruci trans.	Footnote: four-clause version
T0236b	Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Version B)	T08, No. 0236b	Yuan Wei Bodhiruci trans.	Footnote: non-grasping series
T0237	Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra	T08, No. 0237	Chen Paramārtha trans.	Footnote: same system as T0236b
T0238	Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra	T08, No. 0238	Sui Kumārajīva trans.	Footnote: Sanskrit literal translation
T0239	Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra	T08, No. 0239	Tang Yìjìng trans.	Footnote: three-clause version
T0220c	Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Second Division)	T07, No. 0220c	Tang Xuanzang trans.	§II analysis of purity of three spheres
T0220h	Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Sixth Division)	T07, No. 0220h	Tang Xuanzang trans.	§II Prajñāpāramitā series confirmation
T1509	Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra	T25, No. 1509	Nāgārjuna / Kumārajīva trans.	P13→P15 bridge
T1511	Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra	T25, No. 1511	Vasubandhu / Bodhiruci trans.	§III three meanings of non-abiding
T1512	Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra	T25, No. 1512	Asaṅga school / Dharma-rakṣita trans.	§III.2 defiled vs. undefiled cause
T1597	Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya	T31, No. 1597	Vasubandhu / Xuanzang trans.	P14→P15 bridge
T1595	Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya	T31, No. 1595	Vasubandhu / Xuanzang trans.	P14 bridge: not abiding in the future
T1594	Mahāyānāntaravibhāga	T31, No. 1594	Vasubandhu / Paramārtha trans.	P14 bridge: nothing given
T1592	Mahāyānasaṃgraha	T31, No. 1592	Asaṅga / Paramārtha trans.	P14 bridge: giving without abiding in the extreme of saṃsāra
T1579	Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra	T30, No. 1579	Xuanzang trans.	P14 bridge: not abiding in the nature of mind
T0279	Avataṃsaka-sūtra	T10, No. 0279	Śikṣānanda trans.	Huayan three-spheres giving

Series Paper Cross-Reference Index

The Six Practice Gates, Volume 2 Dāna Internal

Paper	Topic	Connection to P15
DANA-P01	Meaning of dāna and the original context of giving	Starting point of P15: the original semantics of "giving"
DANA-P02	Sanskrit semantic field of giving (dāna / prīti / udsṛga)	Terminological foundation of P15
DANA-P03	Eighteen fields of merit and classification of recipients	P15's analysis of the recipient characteristic
DANA-P04	Giving in the four grahyas	P15's altruistic framework
DANA-P05	Material giving, teaching giving, fearlessness giving	P15's teaching-giving surpasses seven jewels
DANA-P06	The position of giving-pāramitā in the six pāramitās	P15 encompassing the six pāramitās through dāna
DANA-P15	The Diamond Sūtra's Non-abiding Giving and Empty Merit	This paper

Six Practice Gates Series

Paper	Series	Topic	Connection to P15
NIAN-P01–P04	Volume 1 NIAN	Recollection and foundational practice	Soteric foundation of non-abiding giving
NIAN-P17	Volume 1 NIAN	Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra Buddha-recollection	Foundation of emptiness seeing
P13	Volume 2 DĀNA	Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra emptiness of three spheres	Pre-doctrinal foundation of P15
P14	Volume 2 DĀNA	Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra nine characteristics of giving	Doctrinal continuum of P15
P16	Volume 2 DĀNA	Silence of the Heart Sūtra	Open question of P15

Cross-Reference Index

Preceding Paper	Following Paper	Topic	Key Connection
P13	P15	Threefold unobtainability → Non-abiding giving	P13 Nāgārjuna's "threefold unobtainability" is analytical deconstruction; P15's "non-abiding" is present-moment non-deconstruction
P14	P15	Nine characteristics of giving → Non-abiding giving	The apex of P14's nine-characteristics map (giving to the utmost = not abiding in nirvāṇa) is precisely P15's non-abiding
P15	P16	Non-abiding giving → Heart Sūtra silence	T0235 closes with "not grasping marks, thus and so immovable"; the Heart Sūtra does not mention giving -- what does this silence mean?

This paper is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. CBETA collation: all T-number / X-number citations verified against CBETA 電子佛典集成 (https://www.cbeta.org). Six Practice Gates series: https://github.com/pointing-at-the-moon/six-practice-gates

Footnotes

Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, translated in the Later Qin period by Kumārajīva, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 8, No. 0235. CBETA T08n0235 0749a12–a20. This passage is the core declaration of non-abiding giving, containing the two propositions of "non-abiding in the six sense fields" and "merit is immeasurable." ↩
Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Second Division), translated in the Tang period by Xuanzang, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 7, No. 0220. CBETA T07n0220c, T07p0087a11+ (the "How should a bodhisattva fulfill the purity of the three spheres" passage). Note: T0220a/T0220c are CBETA designations for separate divisions of Xuanzang's 600-fascicle 大般若經; this passage belongs to the Second Division (T0220c), not the First Division (T0220a) as originally cited. ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0750c01–c02. The metaphor of abiding-giving as entering darkness vs. non-abiding-giving as illuminated by the sun. ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0749b18–b21. "This merit is not, in its nature, merit" is a truncated is-not triad (missing the third step "is named"). Textual criticism: the base text reads "復福," emended by CBETA to "福德" based on the Lizhou edition. ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0749c29–0750a05. First comparison: seven jewels filling a Ganges-sand number of trichiliocosms vs. teaching-giving. ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0750a23–a26. Ganges-sand number of body-lives giving vs. teaching-giving. ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0750c07–c12. Triple Ganges-sand body-giving (first part of the day, middle part, last part) vs. receiving faith in the teaching. ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0751b29–c04. The apex sentence of the merit paradox -- "If merit were truly existent, the Tathāgata would not say that merit is gained; because merit is not, the Tathāgata says that merit is gained." ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0751b09–b12. The paradox of adorning Buddha-lands -- "If a bodhisattva says 'I shall adorn Buddha-lands,' that person is not a bodhisattva." ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0752a25–b01. The "non-reception of merit" passage -- non-clinging to merit after giving. ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra, by the Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, translated in the Yuan Wei period by Bodhiruci, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 25, No. 1511. T25n1511, p.0782b14–16. Vasubandhu's three-layer analysis of "without abiding" (not clinging to oneself / not clinging to repayment / not clinging to the fruit of giving), the systematic interpretive foundation for the later "emptiness of the three spheres." ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra, by the Asaṅga school, translated by Dharma-rakṣita, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 25, No. 1512. T25n1512, p.0808b19–21. This passage directly responds to the objection "mindless, therefore meritless," establishing the distinction "non-abiding ≠ mindless." ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra, by the Asaṅga school, translated by Dharma-rakṣita, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 25, No. 1512. T25n1512, p.0808b21–25. The contrast explanation of defiled cause vs. undefiled cause. ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra, by the Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, translated in the Yuan Wei period by Bodhiruci, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 25, No. 1511. T25n1511, p.0786a15–18. Vasubandhu's Yogācāra interpretation of "adorning a land." ↩
Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T0235, CBETA T08n0235 0750b24. "For the benefit of all beings, the bodhisattva should practice giving in this way" -- the motivational foundation of non-abiding giving. ↩

Source on GitHub ↗