The Diamond Sutra was one of the first dharma texts I read. It made me laugh and I thought it was epic. It’s often considered weird or paradoxical with its logic, but it’s perfectly consistent.
it talks about the bodhisattva vow (which is commonly misinterpreted) to “save all beings” but one does that by not giving birth to a notion of a being, a life or a soul… that is - the sort of ignorance of creating an object of someone - to objectify them. “saving all sentient beings even though there is not such a single thing as a being to be liberated”
It clarifies how the 4 stage of awakening path model fits into mahayana (e.g. it says regarding stream entry one who has attained it has not found a dharma of a self who has been liberated, so there is no such dharma as “having entered the stream” thus they are said to be a stream enterer (paraphrased)- so how these designations are relative, not ultimate)
I think someone here on this forum once wrote about how the diamond sutra might be like “buddhist fan fic” that aimed to clarify some common misinterpretations of early texts, but that article or post escapes me right now.
To my ears “liberating all sentient beings by not creating a notion of a being” sounds similar to not creating “notions of existence or non existence” with regard to the world (a la SN 12.15). So maybe it’s clarifying a certain kind of identity-view.
To me, Diamond sutra is just a tool to let go of the Dhamma. As letting the Dhamam raft is near the end or after stepping on the other shore, it’s not a beginner friendly text. It shouldn’t be read in conventional truth level or else it leads to denial of morality and the path. The Buddha would still acknowledge who’s a streamwinner and who’s not.
there is dhamma in everything for one who looks and sees - dhamma in the weather, in stock market curves, in a tree growing from soil. mahayana is just like that - there is dhamma there, and it is more pronounced than other philosophies because it is based on the words of the buddha.
however, i think we should be clear that the parts of mahayana that cause the greatest disagreement are due to to the additions that mahayana imposes over the buddha’s teachings in the pali suttas.
that’s not the teaching that individuals can aspire to be buddhas - that is there in the pali suttas for one who cares to look
rather, the issue that mahayana sutras raise is the process to enlightenment.
with regard to the bodhisattva path, the path described in the pali canon is both more straightforward, but more arduous than what is suggested by mahayana sutras.
likewise, with regard to the truth of the path of the arahant, the insistence that arahants do not attain complete enlightenment undermines the value of mahayana as a source of truth and turns it into a source of misinformation.
in what it borrows and repeats from the suttas, mahayana is productive. however, i think in both of the cases of the path to enlightenment (for both buddha and arahant) mahayana undermines the essence of the buddha’s teaching in the suttas, and pushes people away from enlightenment, rather than pulling them towards it.
i understand this isn’t the kind of answer you were asking for here, but given this site is devoted to preservation of the message of the pali suttas, it is important that this be said clearly in regard to a question such as yours.
Piling on to what I shared in @Dogen’s related (but different) post about the brahmavihārās as dukkha…
The energy it takes to square this logic argument you’re making – everyone under the sun who tries to substantiate this logic – is sufficient for sustaining the aspirations to help 10,000 people cross over. (Or however many.) So many people who have no insight into the Buddha’s liberation program…it is my heart’s response to the suffering I see in the world.
There is a very curious theme if you look at extant Mayahana circles where there is a vow one makes in Bodhisattva path to not teach emptiness to those who are not ready to hear it. Some Tibetan monks take this quite seriously!
There is a danger in teaching emptiness to someone who is not ready as @NgXinZhao points out in that they may mistake the teaching for the idea that nothing matters and plunge into nihilism.
OTOH, it is often a read between the lines thing where in some ways it is taken as a given that if you come across emptiness text or teaching then in some sense “you are ready” for the teaching. Doesn’t mean it won’t be harmful if you mishandle the snake, but at the same time coming across the dharma medicine will eventually - maybe many many lifetimes away - in experiencing its healing effects.
As someone born in a Chinese-speaking country and an avid reader, I have delved into numerous “Buddhist sutras”. These texts are predominantly written in classical Chinese, and I found many passages within them deeply moving. However, it wasn’t until I read the Nikaya that I realized many of the parts in Mahayana Buddhism that had touched me were actually borrowed from the Nikaya passages.
Looking at Mahayana scriptures from a positive perspective, they serve a valuable purpose in comforting people’s minds and reducing fears associated with death, calamities, and illnesses. Examples of this can be found in the Three Pure Land Sutras and the Medicine Buddha Sutra. However, for those living in a Mahayana culture who seek spiritual growth, they must invest significantly more effort compared to Westerners to discover practical methods within Buddhism.
