absorption in the Absolute, in which no individual existences are
distinguishable. He always leaves the “Will to live” unhurt, as it
were, so that he could come in this world of particulars ever and
anon. What he has destroyed is the egoistic assertion of the Will, for
the aim of Buddhism is not to remove the eternal principle of life,
but to manifest it in its true significance. The wishes of the
Bodhisattva, therefore, are never egocentric; he knows that
transmigration and rebirth are painful, but as it is by rebirth alone
that he could mingle himself in the world of sin and save the
suffering creatures therein, he never shuns the misery of life. His
work of revelation is constant and eternal.
[a19] _The Mahâyâna-mûlajâti-hrdayabhûmi-dhyâna Sûtra_, fas. IV.
{408}
[a20] The two prejudices or obstacles that lie in our way to
enlightenment are: 1 that which arises from intellectual
shortsightedness; 2. that which arises from impurity of heart.
[a21] _Sûtra on Mahâkâṣyapa’s Question Concerning the Absolute._
[a22] _Suvarna-Prabhâ Sûtra._
[a23] _Suvarna-Prabhâ Sûtra_, Chap. 26
[a24] _Padmapani Sûtra_, Fas. 8.
[a25] _The Avatamsaka Sutra._
[a26] This means that the heart of the Bodhisattva which is pure and
eternal in its essential nature has nothing added externally to it by
studying the Dharma; for the Dharma is nothing else than the
expression of his own heart.
[a27] The _Avatamsaka_, fas. IX, p. 48. This pantheistic thought of
the One-All is generally considered to be Buddhistic; but the truth is
that every genuine religious sentiment inevitably leads us to this
final conviction. Even in the so-called transcendental monotheistic
Christianity, we find the pantheistic thought boldly proclaimed and
put in contrast to the idea of “our Father which art in Heaven.” For
instance, read the following passage from Thomas à Kempis: “He to whom
all things are one, he who reduceth all things to one, and seeth all
things in one, may enjoy a quiet mind, and remain at peace in God.”
(Chap. III.) The passage in the Gospel of John declaring that “the
Father is in me and I in him,” when logically carried out, comes to
echo the same sentiment entertained by Buddhists, who recognise a
manifestation of the Dharmakâya in all beings, animate as well as
inanimate. The Christianity of to-day is that of Paul as expounded in
his letters, but the future one will advance a few steps more and will
be that of John.
[a28] From the _Avatamsaka Sutra_.
[a29] From the _Avatamsaka Sutra_.
INDEX.
{409}
Abhimukî (sixth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 318.
Acalâ (eighth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 322.
Açoka, King, 49.
Açrava (evil), explained, 249 ft.
Açûnya, 22, 95.
Açvaghosha, 4, 8, 61 ft., 65 ft., 111, 115; on Âlaya, 66 ft., 129, 139
ft.; _Awakening of Faith_, 7; on Suchness, 99; on Ignorance, 118; and
Dionysius, 102 ft.; _Buddhacarita_, quoted, 147; on Mahâyânism, 246;
on the Sambhogakâya, 258, 333.
Agnosticism, 25.
Âlaya (or Âlaya-vijñâna), All-conserving Soul, 66; as depository of
“germs”, 66; creator of the universe, 68; and the Garbha, 125 et seq.;
its evolution, 128; and the soul, 165; and the twelve nidânas, 183.
Amitâbha, 207, 219, 269.
Anânârtha (non-particularisation), 72.
Ânanda attempts to locate the soul, 157.
Ânâpânam, exercise in breathing, 53 ft.
Arada, 146.
Arcismatî (fourth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 316.
Arhatship and Mahâyânism, 288.
Âryadeva, 3 ft., 8, 60.
Asanga (and Vasubandhu), 4, 62, 65, 69, 87, 88, 153, 231, 234, 263,
354.
{410}
Asceticism repudiated, 52, 53.
Atman, and Samkhyan Lingham, 38; and the Vedantic çarîra, 38; and
Vijñâna, 39; and unity of consciousness, 40; and karma, 41; and
impermanency, 43; and egoism, 44; and the “old man”, 165. (_See also_
“ego” and “soul”.)
Atonement, vicarious, 291 ft.
_Avatamsaka Sûtra_, The, on Bodhisattva’s reflections, 369 et seq.
Avenikas (unique features), 327 ft.
Avidyâ (ignorance), 35 et seq., 115.
Balas, the ten, of the Buddha, 327.
Beal, Samuel, refuted, 20 et seq. _Catena of Buddhist Scriptures_,
quoted, 157 ft.; _Romantic History of Buddha_, quoted, on Buddha’s
enlightenment, 337.
_Bhagavadgîta_, quoted, 126 ft.
Bhûtatathâtâ (Suchness), 99 et seq; and Mahâyâna, 7; and perfect
knowledge, 92.
Bodhi (wisdom), 46; and Prajñâ etc., defined, 82 ft.; as perfect
knowledge, 92; its meaning explained, 294; by Nâgârjuna, 297; as a
reflex of Dharmakâya, 299; how awakened in human heart, 302.
Bodhicitta (Intelligence-heart), 52. (_See also_ “Bodhi.”)
Bodhi-Dharma, of Dhyâna sect, 103, 149, 155.
Bodhipakshikas, the seven, 316 et seq.
Bodhisattva, above samsara and nirvana, 72; in the three yânas, 277;
the conception of, in primitive Buddhism, 286; we are, 290; and love,
292; his ten pranidhanas, 308; his reflections, 369.
Bodhisattvahood, ten stages of, 70, 311 et seq.
Bodhisattva-yâna, 9.
_Brahdaranyaka Upanishad_, quoted, 102 ft.
{411}
Buddha, and his self-relying spirit, 57; culmination of good karma,
215; in the Mahâyâna texts, 243; the idealisation of, historically
treated, 249 et seq.; in the Trikâya, 252; the human, and the
spiritual Dharmakâya, 255; his 32 major and 80 minor marks of
greatness, 271; in the process of idealisation, 289; in the
Mahâyânism, 291; and Mâra, 334; on the ego-soul in the beginning of
his religious career, 337.
_Buddhacarita_, quoted, 57.
Buddhadharma, 355.
_Buddha-Essence, Discourse on_, 357 ft.
Buddha-intelligence, 364.
Buddhism(s), geographically divided, 3, 4; two, 4 et seq.; and
atheism, 31; and the soul problem, 31 et seq.; and agnosticism, 35;
and modern psychology, 40; intellectual, 56 et seq.; liberal, 56 et
seq.; and speculation, 81 et seq.; and science, 97.
Buddhist(s) classified, 8 et seq.; life and love, 52; ideal, 53;
aspiration, 368; rule of conduct, 368.
Çâkyamuni contrasted to Devadatta, 200.
Carlyle’s _Hero-Worship_, quoted, 325 ft.
Causation, universal, and emptiness, 176.
Christ and Buddha, compared, 57, 58.
Christian conception of the ego-soul, 166.
Christianity, the growth of, compared with Mahâyânism, 12 et seq.; and
its founder, 13; not intellectual, 79.
Çikshas (moral rules), ten, 70 ft.
Confucius, 63 ft.
Consciousness, subliminal, 201.
Conservation of energy, and karma, 34.
Convictions, the four, of the Buddha, 327.
{412}
Çrâvaka, 277.
Çrâvaka-yâna, 9.
_Çrimâla Sûtra_, quoted, 127.
Çûnyatâ, (or çûnya), 22, 95; and Christian critics, 105; explained,
173; and universal causation, 176.
Daçabhûmi, (_see_ “ten stages of Bodhisattvahood”), 311, 329.
Deussen, P., quoted, 107.
Devala, 361, 364.
Dharma, its meaning, 21, 221.
Dharmadhatu, 115 ft., 193.
Dharmakâya, Mahâyâna, 7; briefly explained, 20, 45 et seq.; the
highest principle, 35; and Brahman, 46; and Paramâtman, 46; and God of
Christians, 46; as love and wisdom, 46, 54, 55; and non-ego, 47; and
the Golden Rule, 48; and Bodhisattvas, 61; its universal incarnation,
63 ft.; in the Trikâya, 73, 257; as perfect knowledge, 92; and prajñâ,
94; as a cosmic mind, 123; a unity, 193; and Suchness, 217; as God,
219; as religious object, 222; in the _Avatamsaka Sutra_, 223; its
detailed characterisation, 224; in the phenomenal world, 231; as love,
232; as a loving heart in the _Avatamsaka_, 233; its seven
characteristics, 234; by Asanga and Vasubandhu, 234; its five modes of
operation, 235; its freedom, 236; its pûrvanidhânabala, 237; as
rational will, 238; as father, 239; and its perpetual revelation, 259;
the evolution of its conception, 272; all beings are one in, 290; and
the Bodhi, 295.
_Dharmapada_, The, quoted, 34, 145, 336, 368.
Dharmamegha (tenth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 326.
Dharmapala, the Anâgarika, 3 ft.
_Discourse on Buddha-Essence_, The, by Vasubandhu, 357.
Dûrangama (seventh stage of Bodhisattvahood), 319.
{413}
Ego, not the source of energy, 55; noumenal, 145, 163; phenomenal,
145; empirical, 163.
Egoism and the evolution of Manas, 134.
Ego-soul, and its attributes, 147; and the five skandhas, 149; located
by Ananda, 157; and the Christian flesh, 166; and the Vedantic
conception, 167 et seq.; and Nâgârjuna, 168; and svabhava, 171; and
Christians, 212; as conceived by Buddha when he started on his
religious career, 337. (_See also_ “Ego”, “âtman” and “soul”).
Ekacitta, (one mind or thought), 70 ft.
Elders, the School of, 248 et seq.
Elephant and the blind, 100.
Emerson, quoted, 29.
Enlightenment, 55, 119; and manas, 134; two obstacles to, 344 ft.
Faith, its contents vary, 27 et seq.
Fatalism, 196.
Gautama and Christ, 29. (_See also_ “Buddha”).
God, the Buddhist, 219. (_See also_ “Dharmakâya”).
Goethe’s Faust, quoted, 181.
Golden Rule, the, universal, 54.
Great Council School, the, 248 et seq.
Guyau, French sociologist, 50 ft., 84.
Hartmann’s Unbewusste, 137.
Hetus and Pratyayas, 33, 41, 142, 148.
Hînayânism, 1, 60, 63, 280.
Hugo, Victor, quoted, 58.
Hui-K’e, second patriarch of Zen sect, 148.
{414}
Iccantika (incapable of salvation), 311.
Ignorance, 35 et seq.; and evolution, 115; and consciousness, 120; no
evil, 122; when evil? 124; and Tathâgata-Garbha, 126; and Manas, 133;
and Prakrit, 138 ft.
_Imitation of Christ_, 364 fn.
Immortality, 38; and Dharmakâya, 54; karmaic and not individual, 214.
Injustice, social, and karma, 186
Intelligence, awakened by love, 362.
_Jâtaka Tales_, the, quoted, 156.
Jesus, 6.
Jîvâtman, 145.
Kant, 6; _Critique of Pure Reason_, quoted, 324.
Karma, and the law of causation, 33; briefly explained, 33 et seq.;
and non-atman, 42; and suchness, 181; defined, 181; the working of,
183; irrefragable, 184; and injustice, 186; and the moral laws, 189;
an individualistic view, 192; and the desire to communicate, 195; and
determinism, 196; not like a machine, 198; and immortality, 203; and
Walt Whitman (quoted), 203; how transmitted, 205; and Dharmakâya, 207;
and productions of art, 208; and invention, 210; and “seeds of
activity,” 212.
Karma-seeds, 134.
Karunâ (love), 46, 82, 238, 296; and Prajñâ, 360.
_Kathopanishad_, quoted, 47.
Knowledge (sambodhi), 3 ft.; three kinds of, 67, 87.
Kuçalamûla, 199.
_Lalita Vistara_, quoted, on Nirvana, 338 fn.
{415}
_Lankavatara Sutra_, quoted, 41, 130.
Laotze, 63 ft.
Laotzean _Wu wei_, 285.
Love, and ego, 55; and Nirvana, 362.
_Madhyâmika_, The, on Nirvana, 347.
Madhyâmika school, 21, 62, 66; and the Yogacarya, on truth, 95.
_Mahâpurusa, Discourse on the_, 361.
Mahâsangika, 1 ft.
Mahâyâna, 1 et seq; its original meaning, 7; and Bodhisattvas, 61; and
Hînayâna, 70; and spiritual life, 71; and Samkhya, 136.
_Mahâyâna-Abhisamaya Sutra_, quoted, 45.
_Mahâyâna-Sangraha Çâstra_, 354.
Mahâyânism, (Mahâyâna Buddhism), defined, 10 et seq.; is it genuine?
11 et seq.; as a living faith, 14 et seq.; and its Christian critics,
15; misunderstood, 16 et seq.; historically treated, 60 et seq.; and
Sthiramati, 61 et seq.; its seven features, 62 et seq.; and
metempsychosis, 64; ten essential features, 65 et seq.; in its two
phases, 76 et seq.; no nihilism, 135 ft.; the development of, 247; and
individualism, 282.
Maitreya, 272.
Manas (self-consciousness), 132.
Mañjuçri, 106.
Manovijñâna (ego-consciousness), 67, 69.
Masashige, Kusunoki, 213.
Maudsley, H., quoted, 80.
Max Mueller, quoted, 108 ft., 110 ft., 221.
Mâya, subjective ignorance, 47.
Merits, the accumulation of, 199.
{416}
Middle path, Doctrine of the, 59, 358; of Eight No’s, 103.
_Milinda-Panha_, quoted, 203.
Mitra, Rajendra, referred to, 329 ft.
Monier Monier-Williams, refuted, 18 et seq.
Nâgârjuna, 3 ft., 4, 8, 21, 60, 66, 95, 96, 100, 103, 168, 171, 173,
292, 297, 353.
Nâgasena and King Milinda, 153.
“Na iti,” 102.
Nânâtva, (difference), 72 ft.
Nidânas, the twelve, 36 et seq., 179, 182.
Nirmanakâya, (Body of Transformation), 73, 257, 268.
Nirvana, 19; and its non-Buddhist critics, 49; briefly explained, 49
et seq.; and the surrender of ego, 50; and Dharmakâya, 51; and love,
51, 58; and pessimism, 52; and ethics, 53; and Parinishpanna
(knowledge), 94; what is, 331 et seq.; not nihilistic, 332;
Mahâyânistic, 341; and Dharmakâya, 342; the Mahâyânistic conception
of, 342 et seq.; absolute, 343; four forms of, 343; upadhiçesa, 344;
Anupadhiçesa, 344, that has no abode, 345; and I Cor. 7, 30-31, 346;
as synonym of Dharmakâya, 346 by Chandra Kirti, 347; its four
attributes, 348; its religious phase, 349; and Emerson, 352; and
samsara are one, 352; and St. Paul, 352; and the Eight No’s of
Nâgârjuna, 358; the realisation of, 360; as the Middle Path, 362;
comprehensively treated, 367 et seq.
Non-âtman, 37 et seq.; in things, 41 et seq, 170; and impermanence of
things, 141, (_see also_ “non-ego”, “self”, “soul”, “ego”).
Non-duality, the Dharma of, 106.
Non-ego and Dharmakâya, 47; and the Ganges water, 156.
{417}
No’s, The Eight, of Nâgârjuna, 358.
“Old man” and Atman, 165.
Paramârtha-satya (absolute truth), 91 et seq.
Paramâtman, 145.
Pâramitâ, 3 ft.; six, 68; ten, 321.
Paratantra (relative knowledge), 67; explained, 89.
Parikalpita (illusion), 67; explained, 88.
Parinishpanna (perfect knowledge), 67; explained, 91.
Parivarta, (turning over), 19, 194; doctrine of, 283.
Paul, Apostle, quoted, 48, 166, 260, 262.
Pingalaka, Nâgârjuna’s commentator, quoted, 172.
Prabhâkarî (third stage of Bodhisattvahood), 315.
Prajñâ (and Bodhi), defined, 82 ft.; 82, 97, 119, 238, 360.
Prakṛti (Samkyan primordial matter), 66 ft.
Pramûditâ (first stage of Bodhisattvahood), 313.
Pranidhâna, a Bodhisattva’s, 307.
Pratisamvids, the four, 325.
Pratyâyasamutpâda, (Nidânas), 36 et seq.
Pratyekabuddha, 278.
Pratyekabuddha-yâna, 9.
Precepts, the ten moral, 70 ft.
Pudgala (ego), 42, 143 ft.
Punyaskandha, 199.
Pure Lands, 269.
Purusha (Samkyan soul), 66 ft.
Pûrvanidhânabala, 237.
Religion, its significance, 22 et seq.; not revealed, 23; and mystery,
24; its intellectual and emotional sides, 25 et seq.; and science, 26;
intellect and feeling in, 77; and philosophy, 78; subjective, 81 et
seq.; not a philosophical system, 85.
{418}
Rockhill’s _Life of the Buddha_, quoted, on Nirvana, 338 fn.
_Saddharma Pundarîka_, quoted, 260 ft., 274, 277.
Sadhumatî, (ninth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 325.
Samatâ (sameness), 72 ft.
Sambodhi, (_see_ “Bodhi”).
Sambhogakâya (Body of Bliss), 65 ft., 73, 257; in Açvaghosha, 258; its
six features, 264; a mere subjective existence, 266.
Samkhya philosophy, and Yogacarya school, 67 ft.; referred to, 146
ft.; on Nirvana, 340.
Samvrtti-satya (conditional truth), 95 et seq.
_Samyukta Nikaya_, quoted, 156, 185.
Sanskaras, enumerated, 151 et seq.
Schopenhauer, 181.
Skandhas, the five, 32 ft., 149.
Soul-substance, denied, 164.
Sthavira, 1 ft.
Sthiramati, on Mahâyânism, 61 et seq.; on Bodhicitta, 299.
Suchness, (_see also_ Bhûtatathâtâ), 3; the first principle of
Buddhism, 99 et seq.; indefinable, 101; conditioned, 109; in history,
110; in the world, 113; and the Bodhi, 114; and ignorance, 117; in its
various modes, 125; and Dharmakâya, 127; and karma, 181.
Sudurjayâ, (fifth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 318.
Sukhâvatî sect, the, 4, 240.
Sumedha, the story of, 280.
_Sûrangama Sutra_, quoted, 157.
_Suvarna Prabha Sutra_, 253 ft.
Svabhava, and non-ego, 170 et seq.; and emptiness, 175.
{419}
“Tat tvam asi,” 47, 135 ft.
Tathâgata-Garbha, 125, 145.
Teleology, 86.
Tennyson, quoted, 82.
Tîrthakas, 8.
Tolstoi, quoted, in connection with karma, 207 ft.
Trikâya, (trinity), 73, 242, 256, 275.
Truth (satya), conditional and transcendental, 95.
_Udâna_, quoted, 52, 338 ft., 341.
Universe, a mind, 122.
Upâya (expediency), 64, 260 ft.; its meaning explained, 298 ft.
Upâyajñâ, 320.
Vaiçaradyas (convictions), the four, 327 ft.
Vairocana, 219.
Vasubandhu, 87, 153; his _Abhidharmakoça_, referred to, 37; on
Mahâyâna, 66; _On the Completion of Karma_, quoted, 194; _The
Distinguishing of the Mean_, quoted, 195; on _Bodhicitta_, 303; on
Nirvana, 357, 359, 360.
Vasumitra, on _Various Schools of Buddhism_, 1 ft.
Vedanta philosophy, and the Mahâyânism, 108 ft.; on Nirvana, 340; on
Atman, 144.
_Vicesacinta-brahma-Pariprccha Sutra_, 353.
Victory, the hymn of, 336.
Vijñâna, and atman, 39.
Vijnânamâtra, (nothing but ideas), 70.
_Vijnânamâtra çâstra_, 265 ft., 343.
Vimala (second stage of Bodhisattvahood), 315.
Vimalakîrti, 106, 350, 366.
_Visuddhi Magga_, quoted, 339, 348 ft.
{420}
Waddell, refuted, 21 et seq.
Whitman, Walt, quoted, 155 ft., 197.
Wilson, Dr. G. R., quoted, 201.
Yoga philosophy, The, on Nirvana, 340.
Yogacarya school, 62, 65, 87, 92, 95.
_Yogavasistha_, a vedantic book, quoted, 167.
ENDNOTES.
INTRODUCTION NOTES.
[1] According to Vasumitra’s _Treatise on the Points of Contention
by the Different Schools of Buddhism_, of which there are three
Chinese translations, the earliest being one by Kumârajîva (who came
to China in A.D. 401), the first great schism seems to have broken out
about one hundred years after the Buddha. The leader of the dissenters
was Mahâdeva, and his school was known as the Mahâsangîka (Great
Council), while the orthodox was called the school of Sthaviras
(Elders). Since then the two schools subdivided themselves into a
number of minor sections, twenty of which are mentioned by Vasumitra.
The book is highly interesting as throwing light on the early pages of
the history of Buddhism in India.
((1))
[2] The Anagârika Dharmapala of Ceylon objects to this geographical
distinction. He does not see any reason why the Buddhism of Ceylon
should be regarded as Hînayânism, when it teaches a realisation of the
Highest Perfect Knowledge (_Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi_) and also of the
six Virtues of Perfection (_Pâramitâ_),--these two features, among
some others, being considered to be characteristic of Mahâyânism. It
is possible that when the so-called Mahâyânism gained great power all
over Central India in the times of Nâgârjuna and Âryadeva, it also
found its advocates in the Isle of Lion, or at least the followers of
Buddha there might have been influenced to such an extent as to modify
their conservative views. At the present stage of the study of
Buddhism, however, it is not yet perfectly clear to see how this took
place. When a thorough comparative review of Pâli, Singhalese,
Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Chinese Buddhist documents is effected, we
shall be able to understand the history and development of Buddhism to
its full extent.
[3] Translated into English by the author, 1900. The Open Court Pub.
Co. Chicago.
[4] These terms are explained elsewhere.
[5] Followers of any religious sects other than Buddhism. The term
is sometimes used in a contemptuous sense, like heathen by Christians.
[6] The conception of Dharmakâya constitutes the central point in
the system of Mahâyânism, and the right comprehension of it is of
vital importance. The Body of the Law, as it is commonly rendered in
English, is not exact and leads frequently to a misconception of the
entire system. The point is fully discussed below.
CHAPTER I NOTES.
[7] They are: (1) form or materiality (_rûpa_), (2) sensation
(_vedanâ_), (3) conception (_samjnâ_), (4) action or deeds (_samkâra_),
and (5) consciousness (_vijnâna_). These terms are explained
elsewhere.
[8] _The Dhammapada_, v. 165. Tr. by A. J. Edmunds.
[9] _The Dhammapada_, v. 127.
[10] This last passage should not be understood in the sense of a
total abnegation of existence. It means simply the transcendentality
of the highest principle.
[11] _The Kathopaniṣad_, IV. 10.
[12] Guyau, a French sociologist, refers to the Buddhist conception
of Nirvâna in his _Non-Religion of the Future_. I take his
interpretation as typical of those non-Buddhist critics who are very
little acquainted with the subject but pretend to know much. (English
translation, pp. 472-474.)
“Granted the wretchedness of life, the remedy that pessimists propose
is the new religious salvation that modern Buddhists are to make
fashionable... The conception is that of Nirvâna. To sever all the
ties which attach you to the external world; to prune away all the
young offshoots of desire, and recognise that to be rid of them is a
deliverance; to practise a sort of complete psychial circumcision; to
recoil upon yourself and to believe that by so doing you enter into
the society of the great totality of things (the mystic would say, of
God); to create an inner vacuum, and to feel dizzy in the void and,
nevertheless, to believe that the void is plenitude supreme, pleroma,
these have always constituted temptations to mankind. Mankind has been
tempted to meddle with them, as it has been tempted to creep up to the
verge of dizzy precipices and look over... Nirvâna leads, in fact, to
the annihilation of the individual and of the race, and to the logical
absurdity that the vanquished are the victors over the trials and
miseries of life.”
Then, the author recites the case of one of his acquaintances, who
made a practical experiment of Nirvâna, rejecting variety in his diet,
giving up meat, wine, every kind of ragout, every form of condiment,
and reducing to its lowest possible terms the desire that is most
fundamental in every living being--the desire of food, and substituting
a certain number of cups of pure milk. “Having thus blunted his sense
of taste and the grosser of his appetites, having abandoned all
physical activity, he thought to find a recompense in the pleasure of
abstract meditation and of esthetic contemplation. He entered to a
state which was not that of dreamland, but neither was it that of real
life, with its definite details.”
[13] For detailed explanation of this term see Chapter XI.
[14] _The Udâna_, Ch. VIII, p. 118. Translation by General Strong.
[15] This is a peculiarly Indian religious practice, which consists
in counting one’s exhaling and inhaling breaths. When a man is
intensely bent on the practise, he gradually passes to a state of
trance, forgetting everything that is going on around and within
himself. The practise may have the merit of alleviating nervousness
and giving to the mind the bliss of relaxation, but it oftentimes
leads the mind to a self-hypnotic state.
[16] Here Nirvâna is evidently understood to mean self-abnegation
or world-flight or quietism, which is not in accord with the true
Buddhist interpretation of the term.
[17] The sentiment of the Golden Rule is not the monopoly of
Christianity; it has been expressed by most of the leaders of thought,
thus, for instance: “Requite hatred with virtue” (Lao-tze). “Hate is
only appeased by love” (Buddha). “Do not do to others what ye would
not have done to you by others” (Confucius). “One must neither return
evil, nor do any evil to any one among men, not even if one has to
suffer from them” (Plato, _Crito_, 49).
[18] _The Buddhacarita_, Book IX, 63-64.
[19] According to one Northern Buddhist tradition, Buddha is
recorded to have exclaimed at the time of his supreme spiritual
beatitude: “Wonderful! All sentient beings are universally endowed
with the intelligence and virtue of the Tathâgata!”
CHAPTER II NOTES.
[20] His date is not known, but judging from the contents of his
works, of which we have at present two or three among the Chinese
Tripitaka, it seems that he lived later than Açvaghoṣa, but prior to,
or simultaneously with, Nâgârjuna. This little book occupies a very
important position in the development of Mahâyânism in India. Next to
Açvaghoṣa’s _Awakening of Faith_, the work must be carefully studied
by scholars who want to grasp every phase of the history of Mahâyâna
school as far as it can be learned through the Chinese documents.
[21] Be it remarked here that a Bodhisattva is not a particularly
favored man in the sense of chosen people or elect. We are all in a
way Bodhisattvas, that is, when we recognise the truth that we are
equally in possession of the Samyak-sambodhi, Highest True
Intelligence, and through which everybody without exception can attain
final enlightenment.
[22] _Mahâyâna-abhidharma-sangîti-çâstra_, by Asanga. Nanjo, No.
1199.
[23] _Yogâcârya-bhûmi-çâstra_, Nanjo, No. 1170. The work is supposed
to have been dictated to Asanga by a mythical Bodhisattva.
[24] By Asanga. Nanjo, 1177.
[25] _Mahâyâna-samparigraha-çâstra_, by Asanga. Nanjo, 1183.
[26] Perceiving an incarnation of the Dharmakâya in every spiritual
leader regardless of his nationality and professed creed, Mahâyânists
recognise a Buddha in Socrates, Mohammed, Jesus, Francis of Assisi,
Confucius, Laotze, and many others.
[27] Ancient Hindu Buddhists, with their fellow-philosophers,
believed in the existence of spiritually transfigured beings, who, not
hampered by the limitations of space and time, can manifest themselves
everywhere for the benefit of all sentient beings. We notice some
mysterious figures in almost all Mahâyâna sûtras, who are very often
described as shedding innumerable rays of light from the forehead and
illuminating all the three thousand worlds simultaneously. This may
merely be a poetic exaggeration. But this Sambhogakâya or Body of
Bliss (see Açvaghoṣa’s _Awakening of Faith_, p. 101) is very difficult
for us to comprehend as it is literally described. For a fuller
treatment see the chapter on “Trikâya.”
[28] Though I am very much tempted to digress and to enter into a
specific treatment concerning these two Hindu Mahâyâna doctrines, I
reluctantly refrain from so doing, as it requires a somewhat lengthy
treatment and does not entirely fall within the scope of the present
work.
[29] That Açvaghoṣa’s conception of the Âlaya varies with the view
here presented may be familiar to readers of his _Awakening of Faith_.
This is one of the most abstruse problems in the philosophy of Mahâyâna
Buddhism, and there are several divergent theories concerning its
nature, attributes, activities, etc. In a work like this, it is
impossible to give even a general statement of those controversies,
however interesting they may be to students of the history of
intellectual development in India.
The Âlayavijñâna, to use the phraseology of Samkhya philosophy, is a
composition, so to speak, of the Soul (_puruṣa_) and Primordial Matter
(_prakṛti_). It is the Soul, so far as it is neutral and indifferent
to all those phenomenal manifestations, that are going on within as
well as without us. It is Primordial Matter, inasmuch as it is the
reservoir of everything, whose lid being lifted by the hands of
Ignorance, there instantly springs up this universe of limitation and
relativity. Enlightenment or Nirvâna, therefore, consists in
recognising the error of Ignorance and not in clinging to the products
of imagination.
[30] For a more detailed explanation of the ideal philosophy of the
Yogâcâra, see my article on the subject in _Le Muséon_, 1905.
[31] “One mind” or “one heart” meaning the mental attitude which is
in harmony with the monistic view of nature in its broadest sense.
[32] These ten stages of spiritual development are somewhat minutely
explained below. See Chapter XII.
[33] The ten moral precepts of the Buddha are: (1) Kill no living
being; (2) Take nothing that is not given; (3) Keep matrimonial
sanctity; (4) Do not lie; (5) Do not slander; (6) Do not insult; (7)
Do not chatter; (8) Be not greedy; (9) Bear no malice; (10) Harbor no
scepticism.
[34] Mahâyânism recognises two “entrances” through which a
comprehensive knowledge of the universe is obtained. One is called the
“entrance of sameness” (_samatâ_) and the other the “entrance of
diversity” (_nânâtva_). The first entrance introduces us to the
universality of things and suggests a pantheistic interpretation of
existence. The second leads us to the particularity of things
culminating in monotheism or polytheism, as it is viewed from
different standpoints. The Buddhists declare that neither entrance
alone can lead us to the sanctum sanctorum of existence; and in order
to obtain a sound, well-balanced knowledge of things in general, we
must go through both the entrances of universality and particularity.
[35] The doctrine of Trikâya will be given further elucidation in
the chapter bearing the same title.
CHAPTER III NOTES.
[36] No efforts have yet been made systematically to trace the
history of the development of the Mahâyâna thoughts in India as well
as in China and Japan. We have enough material at least to follow the
general course it has taken, as far as the Chinese and Tibetan
collections of Tripitaka are concerned. When a thorough comparison by
impartial, unprejudiced scholars of these documents has been made with
the Pali and Sanskrit literature, then we shall be able to write a
comprehensive history of the human thoughts that have governed the
Oriental people during the last two thousand years. When this is done,
the result can further be compared with the history of other religious
systems, thus throwing much light on the general evolution of humanity.
[37] _Prajñâ_, _bodhi_, _buddhi_, _vidyâ_ and _jñâ_ or _jñâna_ are
all synonymous and in many cases interchangeable. But they allow a
finer discrimination. Speaking in a general way, _prajñâ_ is reason,
_bodhi_ wisdom or intelligence, _buddhi_ enlightenment, _vidyâ_
ideality or knowledge, and _jñâ_ or _jñâna_ intellect. Of these five
terms, _prajñâ_ and _bodhi_ are essentially Buddhistic and have
acquired technical meaning, In this work both _prajñâ_ and _bodhi_ are
mostly translated by intelligence, for their extent of meaning closely
overlaps each other. But this is rather vague, and wherever I thought
the term intelligence alone to be misleading, I either left the
originals untranslated, or inserted them in parentheses. To be more
exact, _prajñâ_ in many cases can safely be rendered by faith, not a
belief in revealed truths, but a sort of immediate knowledge gained by
intuitive intelligence. _Prajñâ_ corresponds in some respects to
wisdom, meaning the foundation of all reasonings and experiences. It
may also be considered an equivalent for Greek _sophia_. Bodhi, on the
other hand, has a decidedly religious and moral significance. Besides
being _prajñâ_ itself, it is also love (_karunâ_): for, according to
Buddhism, these two, _prajñâ_ and _karunâ_, constitute the essence of
Bodhi. May Bodhi be considered in some respects synonymous with the
divine wisdom as understood by Christian dogmatists? But there is
something in the Buddhist notion of Bodhi that cannot properly be
expressed by wisdom or intelligence. This seems to be due to the
difference of philosophical interpretation by Buddhists and Christians
of the conception of God. It will become clearer as we proceed farther.
CHAPTER IV NOTES.
[38] For detailed exposition of the three forms of knowledge, the
reader is requested to peruse Asanga’s _Comprehensive Treatise on
Mahâyânism_ (Nanjo’s Catalogue, No. 1183), Vasubandhu’s work on
Mahâyâna idealism (_Vijnânamâtra Çâstra_, Nanjo, No. 1215), the _Sûtra
on the Mystery of Deliverance_ (_Sandhinirmocana-sûtra_, Nanjo. Nos.
246 and 247), etc.
[39] When the eminent representatives of both parties, such as
Dharmapala and Bhavaviveka, were at the height of their literary
activity in India about the fifth or sixth century after Christ, their
partisan spirit incited them bitterly to denounce each other,
forgetting the common ground on which their principles were laid down.
Their disagreement in fact on which they put an undue emphasis was of
a very trifling nature. It was merely a quarrel over phraseology, for
one insisted on using certain words just in the sense which the other
negated.
[40]
“Dve satye samupâçritya buddhânâm dhardeçanâ
Lokasamvṛttisatyañ ca satyañ ca paramârthataḥ.
Ye ca anayor na jânanti vibhâgam satyayor dvayoḥ,
Te tatvam na vijânanti gambhîrabuddhaçâsane.”
[41]
Vyavahâram anâçritya paramârtho na deçyate,
Paramârtham anâgamya nirvâṇam na adhigamyata.
_The Mâdhyamika_, p. 181.
CHAPTER V NOTES.
[42]
Cf. _The Udâna_, chapter VI.
[43]
Svabhâvam parabhâvanca, bhâvancâbhâvameva ca,
Ye paçyanti, na paçyante tatvam hi buddhaçâsane.
[44]
Astîti çâçvatagrâho, nâstîtyucchedadarçanam:
Tasmâdastitvanâstitve nâçriyeta vicaksanah
[45]
Astîti nâstîti ubhe ‘pi antâ
Çuddhî açuddhîti ime ‘pi antâ;
Tasmâdubhe anta vivarjayitvâ
Madhye ‘pi syânam na karoti paṇditah.
[46] This is the famous phrase in the _Brhadaranyaka Upanisad_
occurring in several places (II, 3, 6; III, 9, 26; IV, 2, 4; IV, 4,
22; IV, 5, 5). The Atman or Brahman, it says, “is to be described by
No, No! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is
imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not
attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail. Him
(who knows), these two do not overcome, whether he says that for some
reason he has done evil, or for some reason he has done good--he
overcomes both, and neither what he has done, nor what he has omitted
to do, affects him.”
[47] _The Awakening of Faith_, p. 59. Cf. this with the utterances
of Dionysius the Areopagite, as quoted by Prof. W. James in his
_Varieties of Religious Experience_, pp. 416-417: “The cause of all
things is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion,
or reason, or intelligence; nor is it spoken or thought. It is neither
number, nor order, nor magnitude, nor littleness, nor equality, nor
inequality, nor similarity, nor dissimilarity. It neither stands, nor
moves, nor rests.... It is neither essence, nor eternity, nor time.
Even intellectual contact does not belong to it. It is neither science
nor truth. It is not even royalty nor wisdom; not one; not unity; not
divinity or goodness; nor even spirit as we know it.”.... _ad libitum_.
[48]
Anirodham anutpâdam anucchedam açâçvatam,
Anekârtham anânârtham anâgamam anirgamam.
(_Mâdhyamika Çâstra_, first stanza.)
[49]
Param nirodhâdbhagavân bhavatîtyeva nohyate,
Na bhavatyubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti nohyate:
Atiṣṭhamâno ‘pi bhagavân bhavatîtyeva nohyate,
Na bhavatyubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti nohyate.
(_Mâdhyamika_, p. 199).
[50] He was the third son of king of Kâçi (?) in southern India. He
came to China A.D. 527 and after a vain attempt to convert Emperor Wu
to his own view, he retired to a monastery, where, it is reported, he
spent all day in gazing at the wall without making any further venture
to propagate his mysticism. But finally he found a most devoted
disciple in the person of Shen Kuang, who was once a Confucian, and
through whom the Dhyâna school became one of the most powerful Mahâyâna
sect in China as well as in Japan. Dharma died in the year 535. Besides
the one here mentioned, he had another audience with the Emperor. At
that time, the Emperor said to Dharma: “I have dedicated so many
monasteries, copied so many sacred books, and converted so many bhiksus
and bhiksunis: what do you think my merits are or ought to be?” To
this, however, Dharma replied curtly, “No merit whatever.”
[51] Another interesting utterance by a Chinese Buddhist, who,
earnestly pondering over the absoluteness of Suchness for several
years, understood it one day all of a sudden, is: “The very instant
you say it is something (or a nothing), you miss the mark.”
[52] _The Vimalakîrti Sûtra_, Kumârajîva’s translation, Part II,
Chapter 5.
[53]
Deussen relates, in his address delivered before the Bombay
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1893, a similar attitude
of a Vedantist mystic in regard to the highest Brahma. “The
Bhava, therefore, when asked by the king Vaksalin, to explain the
Brahman, kept silence. And when the king repeated his request
again and again, the rishi broke out into the answer: ‘I tell it you,
but you don’t understand it; _çânto ’yam âtmâ_, this âtmâ is silence!’”
[54] It is a well-known fact that the Vedanta philosophy, too,
makes a similar distinction between Brahman as sagunam (qualified) and
Brahman as nirgunam (unqualified). The former is relative, phenomenal,
and has characteristics of its own; but the latter is absolute, having
no qualification whatever to speak of, it is absolute Suchness. (See
Max Mueller’s _The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy_, p. 220 et seq.)
Here, a very interesting question suggests itself: Which is the
original and which is the copy, Mahâyânism or Vedantism? Most of
European Sanskrit scholars would fain wish to dispose of it at once by
declaring that Buddhism must be the borrower. But I am strongly
inclined to the opposite view, for there is reliable evidence in favor
of it. In a writing of Açvaghoṣa, who dates much earlier than Çankara
or Badarayana we notice this distinction of absolute Suchness and
relative Suchness. He writes in his _Awakening of Faith_ (p. 55 et
seq.) that though Suchness is free from all modes of limitation and
conditionality, and therefore it cannot be thought of by our finite
consciousness, yet on account of Avidyâ inherent in the human mind
absolute Suchness manifests itself in the phenomenal world, thereby
subjecting itself to the law of causality and relativity and proceeds
to say that there is a twofold aspect in Suchness from the point of
view of its explicability. The first aspect is trueness as negation
(_çûnyatâ_) in the sense that it is completely set apart from the
attributes of all things unreal, that it is a veritable reality. The
second aspect is trueness as affirmation (_açûnyatâ_), in the sense
that it contains infinite merits, that it is self-existent. Considering
the fact that Açvaghoṣa comes earlier than any Vedanta philosophers,
it stands to reason to say that the latter might have borrowed the
idea of distinguishing the two aspects of Brahma from their Buddhist
predecessors.
Çankara also makes a distinction between _saguna_ and _nirguna vidya_,
whose parallel we find in the Mahâyânist _samvṛtti_ and _paramârtha
satya_.
[55] While passing, I cannot help digressing and entering on a
polemic in this footnote. The fact is, Western Buddhist critics
stubbornly refuse to understand correctly what is insisted by Buddhists
themselves. Even scholars who are supposed to be well informed about
the subject, go astray and make false charges against Buddhism. Max
Mueller, for example, declares in his _Six Systems of Indian
Philosophy_ (p. 242) that “An important distinction between Buddhists
and Vedantists is that the former holds the world to have arisen from
what is not, the latter from what is, the Sat or Brahman.” The reader
who has carefully followed my exposition above will at once detect in
this Max Mueller’s conclusion an incorrect statement of Buddhist
doctrine. As I have repeatedly said, Suchness, though described in
negative terms, is not a state of nothingness, but the highest possible
synthesis that the human intellect can reach. The world did not come
from the void of Suchness, but from its fulness of reality. If it were
not so, to where does Buddhism want us to go after deliverance from
the evanescence and nothingness of the phenomenal world?
Max Mueller in another place (op. cit. p. 210) speaks of the
Vedantists’ assertion of the reality of the objective world for
practical purposes (_vyavahârârtham_) and of their antagonistic
attitude toward “the nihilism of the Buddhists.” “The Buddhists” this
seems to refer to the followers of the Mâdhyamika school, but a careful
perusal of their texts will reveal that what they denied was not the
realness of the world as a manifestation of conditional Suchness, but
its independent realness and our attachment to it as such. The
Mâdhyamika school was not in any sense a nihilistic system. True, its
advocates used many negative terms, but what they meant by them was
obvious enough to any careful reader.
[56] Dharmadhâtu is the world as seen by an enlightened mind, where
all forms of particularity do not contradict one another, but make one
harmonious whole.
[57] The word literally means recollection or memory. Açvaghoṣa
uses it as a synonym of ignorance, and so do many other Buddhist
philosophers.
[58] _Smṛti_ or _citta_ or _vijñâna_. They are all used by Açvaghoṣa
and other Buddhist authors as synonymous. _Smṛti_ literally means
memory; _citta_, thought or mentation; and _vijñâna_ is generally
rendered by consciousness, though not very accurately.
CHAPTER VI NOTES.
[59] Cf. the _Bhagavadgîtâ_ (_S. B. E._ Vol. VIII, chap. XIV, p.
107): “The Brahman is a womb for me, in which I cast the seed. From
that, O descendant of Bharata! is the birth of all things. Of the
bodies, O son of Kunti! which are born from all wombs, the main womb
is the great Brahman, and I am the father, the giver of the seed.”
[60] This is translated from the Chinese of Çikṣananda; the Sanskrit
reads as follows:
“Tarangâ hi udadher yadvat pavanapratyaya îritâ,
Nṛtyamânâh pravartante vyucchedaç ca na vidhyate:
Âlayodhyas tathâ nityam viṣayapavana îritaḥ,
Cittâis tarangavijñânâir nṛtyamânâḥ pravartate.”
[61]
From the Chinese. The Sanskrit reads as follows:
“Nîle rakte ‘tha lavaṇe çankhe kṣîre ca çârkare,
Kaṣayâiḥ phalapuṣpâdyâih kiraṇâ yatha bhâskare:
No ‘nyena ca nânanyena tarangâ hi udadher matâ;
Vijñânâni tathâ sapta, cittena saha samyuktâ.
Udadheḥ pariṇâmo ‘sâu tarangânâm vicitratâ,
Âlayam hi tathâ cittam vijñânâkhyam pravartate;
Cittam manaç ca vijñânam lakṣaṇârtham prakalpyate;
Âbhinna lakṣanâ hi aṣtâu na lakṣyâ na ca lakṣaṇâ.
Udadheç ca tarangânâm yathâ nâsti viçeṣanâ.
Vijñânânam tathâ citte pariṇâmo na labhyate.
Cittena cîyate karmaḥ, manasâ ca vicîyate,
Vijñânena vijânâti, dṛçyam kalpeti pañcabhiḥ.”
[62] A little digression here. It has frequently been affirmed of
the ethics of Mahâyânism that as it has a nihilistic tendency its
morality turns towards asceticism ignoring the significance of the
sentiment and instinct. It is true that Mahâyânism perfectly agrees
with Vedantism when the latter declares: “If the killer thinks that he
kills, if the killed thinks that he is killed, they do not understand;
for this one does not kill, nor is that one killed.” (_The
Katopanishad_, II 19.) This belief in non-action (Laotzean _Wu Wei_)
apparently denies the existence of a world of relativity, but he will
be a superficial critic who will stop short at this absolute aspect of
Mahâyâna philosophy and refuses to consider its practical side. As we
have seen above, Buddhists do not conceive the evolution of the
Manovijñâna as a fault on the part of the cosmic mind, nor do they
think the assertion of Ignorance altogether wrong and morally evil.
Therefore, Mahâyânism does not deny the claim of reality to the world
of the senses, though of course relatively, and not absolutely.
Again, “Tat tvam asi” (thou art it) or “I am the Buddha”--this
assertion, though arrogant it may seem to some, is perfectly
justifiable in the realm of absolute identity, where the serene light
of Suchness alone pervades. But when we descend on earth and commingle
in the hurly-burly of our practical, dualistic life, we cannot help
suffering from its mundane limitations. We hunger, we thirst, we
grieve at the loss of the dearest, we feel remorse over errors
committed. Mahâyânism does not teach the annihilation of those human
passions and feelings.
There was once a recluse-philosopher, who was considered by the
villagers to have completely vanquished all natural desires and human
ambitions. They almost worshipped him and thought him to be superhuman.
One day early in Winter, a devotee approached him and reverentially
inquired after his health. The sage at once responded in verse:
“A hermit truly I am, world-renounced;
Yet when the ground is white with snow,
A chill goes through me and I shiver.”
A false conception of religious saintliness as cherished by so many
pious-hearted, but withal ignorant, minds, has led them into some of
the grossest superstitions, whose curse is still lingering even among
us. Our earthly life has so many limitations and tribulations. The
ills that the flesh is heir to must be relieved by some material,
scientific methods.
[63] That the Buddhist Ignorance corresponds to the Sâmkhya
Prakṛti can be seen also from the fact that some Samkhya commentators
give to Prakṛti as its synonyms such terms as _çâkti_ (energy) which
reminds of karma or sankâra, _tamas_ (darkness), _mâyâ_, and even the
very word _avidyâ_ (ignorance)
[64] This view of the oneness of the Âlaya or Citta (mind) may not
be acceptable to some Mahâyânists, particularly to those who advocate
the Yogâcâra philosophy; but the present author is here trying to
expound a more orthodox and more typical and therefore more
widely-recognised doctrine of Mahâyânism, i.e., that of Açvaghoṣa.
CHAPTER VII NOTES.
[65] _Pudgala_ or _pudgalasamjña_ is sometimes used by Mahâyânists
as a synonym of âtman. The Buddhist âtman in the sense of
ego-substratum may be considered to correspond to the Vedantist
Jîvâtman, which is used in contradistinction to Paramâtman, the
supreme being or Brahma.
[66] Mahâyâna Buddhists generally understand the essential
characteristic of âtman to consist in freedom, and by freedom they
mean eternality, absolute unity, and supreme authority. A being that
is transitory is not free, as it is conditioned by other beings, and
therefore it has no âtman. A being that is an aggregate of elemental
matter or forms of energy is not absolute, for it is a state of mutual
relationship, and therefore it has no âtman. Again, a being that has
no authoritative command over itself and other beings, is not free,
for it will be subjected to a power other than itself, and therefore
it has no âtman. Now, take anything that we come across in this world
of particulars; and does it not possess one or all of these three
qualities: transitoriness, compositeness, and helplessness or
dependence? Therefore, all concrete individual existences not
excepting human beings have no âtman, have no ego, that is eternal,
absolute, and supreme.
[67] Tent-designer is a figurative term for the ego-soul. Following
the prevalent error, the Buddha at first made an earnest search after
the ego that was supposed to be snugly sitting behind our mental
experiences, and the result was this utterance.
[68] _The Dharmapada_, vs. 153-154. Tr. by A. J. Edmunds.
[69] _Prakṛtivikṛtayas._ This is a technical term of Sâmkhya
philosophy and means the modes of Prakrti, as evolved from it and as
further evolving on. See Satis Chandra Banarji, _Samkhya-Philosophy_,
p. XXXIII et seq.
[70] The passages quoted here as well as one in the next paragraph
are taken from Açvaghoṣa’s _Buddhacarita_.
[71] _The Questions of King Milinda, Sacred Books of the East_,
Vol. XXXV.
[72] This reminds us of the passage quoted elsewhere from the
_Katha-Upanishad_; cf. the footnote to it.
[73] As cited elsewhere, Bodhi-Dharma of the Dhyâna sect, when
questioned in a similar way, replied, “I do not know.” Walt Whitman
echoes the same sentiment in the following lines:
“A child said, what is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is, any more than
he.”
[74] There seem to be two Chinese translations of this Sûtra, one
by Kumârajîva and the other by Paramârtha, but apparently they are
different texts bearing the same title. Besides these two, there is
another text entirely in Chinese transliteration. Owing to
insufficiency of material at my disposal here, I cannot say anything
definite about the identity or diversity of these documents. The
following discussion that is reported to have taken place between the
Buddha and Ananda is an abstract prepared from the first and the
second fasciculi of Paramârtha’s (?) translation. Beal gives in his
_Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese_ (pp. 286-369) an
English translation of the first four fasc. of the _Surangama_. Though
this translation is not quite satisfactory in many points the reader
may find there a detailed account of the discussion which is here only
partially and roughly recapitulated.
[75] Cf. the following which is extracted from the _Questions of
King Milinda_ (Sacred Books of the East, vol. XXXV, 133): “If there be
a soul [distinct from the body] which does all this, then if the door
of the eye were thrown down [if the eye were plucked out] could it
stretch out its head, as it were, through the larger aperture and
[with greater range] see forms much more clearly than before? Could
one hear sounds better if the ears were cut off, or taste better if
the tongue were pulled out, or feel touch better if the body were
destroyed?”
[76]
Nirvikalpo ‘smi ciddipo nirahankaravasanaḥ
Tvaya ahankarabijena na sambaddho ‘smi asanmaya (31)
[77]
Yathâ bhûtatayâ na ahammano na tvam na vâsanâ
Atmâ çuddhacidabhasaḥ kevalo yam vijṛbhate. (44)
[78] The following is a somewhat free translation of the original
Chinese of Kumârajîva, which pretty closely agrees with the Sanskrit
text published by the Buddhist Text Society of India.
[79] The Sanskrit text does not give this passage.
[80]
Lakṣyâl lakṣaṇam anyac cet syât tal lakṣyam alakṣanam.
[81]
Rûpâdi vyatirekena yathâ kumbho na vidyate,
Vâhyâdi vyatireṇa tathâ rûpam na vidyate.
[82] Abstracted from Pingalaka’s _Commentary on the Mâdhyamika
Çâstra_, Chapter VII. The Chinese translation is by Kumârajîva.
[83] The passage in parentheses is taken from Chandrakîrti’s
_Commentary on Nâgârjuna_, pp. 180-181.
CHAPTER VIII NOTES.
[84] The Twelve Nidânas are: (1) Ignorance (_avidyâ_), (2) action
(_sanskâra_), (3) Consciousness (_vijñâna_), (4) Name-and-form
(_nâmarûpa_), (5) Six Sense-organs (_âyatana_), (6) Contact (_sparça_),
(7) Sensation (_vedanâ_), (8) Desire (_trṣnâ_), (9) Attachment
(_upâdâna_), (10) Procreation (_bhâva_), (11) birth (_jati_), (12) Old
Age, Death, etc. (_jarâ_, _marana_, _çoka_, etc.).
[85] From a Chinese Mahâyâna sutra.
[86] The Pâli Jâtaka, no. 222. Translation by W. H. Rouse.
[87] Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_, p. 214.
[88] _On the Completion of Karma_, by Vasubandhu. Nanjo, No. 1222.
[89] _The Distinguishing of the Mean_, by Vasubandhu. Nanjo, 1248.
[90] “Manhattan’s Streets I Saunter’d, Pondering.” I might have
quoted the whole poem, if not for limitation of space.
[91] If we understand the following words of Tolstoi in the light
which we gain from the Buddhist doctrine of karmaic immortality, we
shall perhaps find more meaning in them than the author himself wished
to impart: “My brother who is dead acts upon me now more strongly than
he did in life; he even penetrates my being and lifts me up towards
him.”
CHAPTER IX NOTES.
[92] The _Avatamsaka Sûtra_, Chinese translation by Buddhabhadra,
fas. XXXIV.
[93] That is the Dharmakâya personified.
[94] In Hindu philosophy space is always conceived as an objective
entity in which all things exist.
[95] This should be understood in the sense that “God maketh his
sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just
and on the unjust.” The Dharmakâya is universal in its love, as space
is in its comprehensiveness. Because it is absolutely free from human
desires and passions that are the product of egoism and therefore tend
always to be discriminative and exclusive.
[96] The four views are: That the physical body is productive of
impurities; that sensuality causes pain; that the individual soul is
not permanent; and that all things are devoid of the Atman.
[97] That is to say: The Dharmakâya, that assumes all forms of
existence according to what class of being it is manifesting itself,
is sometimes conceived by the believers to be a short-lived god,
sometimes an immortal spirit, sometimes a celestial being of one
hundred kalpas, and sometimes an existence of only a moment. As there
are so many different dispositions, characters, karmas, intellectual
attainments, moral environments, etc., so there are as many Dharmakâyas
as subjectively represented in the minds of sentient beings, though
the Dharmakâya, objectively considered, is absolutely one.
[98] Asanga’s _General Treatise on Mahâyânism_. (_Mahâyâna
samparigraha_).
[99] The _Avatamsaka Sûtra_, chap. 13, “On Merit.”
[100] This is by no means the case, for some of the Mahâyâna sûtras
are undoubtedly productions of much later writers than the immediate
followers of the Buddha, though of course it is very likely that some
of the most important Mahâyâna canonical books were compiled within a
few hundred years after the Nirvana of the Master.
[101] “Purvapranidhânabala” is frequently translated “the power of
original (or primitive) prayer.” Literally, pûrva means “former” or
“original” or “primitive”; and pranidhâna, “desire” or “vow” or
“prayer”; and bala, “power.” So far as literary rendering is concerned,
“power of original prayer” seems to be the sense of the original
Sanskrit. But when we speak of primitive prayers of the Dharmakâya or
Tathâgata, how shall we understand it? Has prayer any sense in this
connection? The Dharmakâya can by its own free will manifest in any
form of existence and finish its work in whatever way it deems best.
There is no need for it to utter any prayer in the agony of struggle
to accomplish. There is in the universe no force whatever which is
working against it so powerfully as to make it cry for help; and there
cannot be any struggle or agony in the activity of the Dharmakâya. The
term prayer therefore is altogether misleading and inaccurate and
implicates us in a grave error which tends to contradict the general
Buddhist conception of Dharmakâya. We must dispense with the term
entirely in order to be in perfect harmony with the fundamental
doctrine of Buddhism. This point will receive further consideration
later.
[102] “I am the father of all beings, and they are my children.”
(The _Avatamsaka_, the _Pundarîka_, etc.)
[103] To get more fully acquainted with the significance of the
Sukhâvatî doctrine, the reader is advised to look up the Sukhâvatî
sûtras in the _Sacred Books of the East_, Vol. XLIX.
CHAPTER X NOTES.
[104] What follows is selected from a short sûtra called _The
Mahâvaipulya-Tathâgatagarbha Sûtra_, translated into Chinese by
Buddhabhadra of the Eastern Tsin dynasty (A.D. 371-420). Nanjo, No.
384.
[105] _Niyuta_ is an exceedingly large number, but generally
considered to be equal to one billion.
[106] All these are unhuman forms of existence, including demons,
dragon-kings, winged beasts, etc.
[107] Âçrava literally means “oozing,” or “flowing out,” and the
Chinese translators rendered it by _lou_, dripping, or leaking. Roughly
speaking, it is a general name for evils, principally material and
sensuous. According to an Indian Buddhist scholar, Âçrava has threefold
sense: (1) “keeping,” for it retains all sentient beings in the
whirlpool of birth and death; (2) “flowing,” for it makes all sentient
beings run in the stream of birth and death; (3) “leaking,” or
“oozing,” for it lets such evils as avarice, anger, lust, etc., ooze
out from the six sense-organs after the fashion of an ulcer, which
lets out blood and filthy substance. The cause of Âçrava is a blind
will, and its result is birth and death. Specifically, Bhâvâçrava is
one of the three Âçravas, which are (1) kâmâçrava, (2) vidyâçrava, and
(3) bhâvâçrava. The first is egotistic desires, the second is
ignorance, and the third is the material existence which we have to
suffer on account of our previous karma.
[108] Our thoughtful readers must have noticed here that the
conceptions of the Buddha as entertained by the Mahâsangika School
(Great Council) closely resemble those of the Mahâyâna Buddhism.
Though we are still unable to trace step by step the development of
Mahâyânism in India, the hypothesis assumed by most of Japanese
Buddhist scholars is that the Mahâsangika was Mahâyânistic in tendency.
[109] The _Mahâparinibbâna sutta_.
[110] There are three Chinese translations of this sûtra: the first,
by Dharmarakṣa during the first two decades of the fifth century A.D.;
the second, by Paramârtha of the Liang dynasty, who came to China A.D.
546 and died A.D. 569; and the third, by I-tsing of the Tang dynasty
who came back from his Indian pilgrimage in the year 695 and translated
this sûtra A.D. 703. The last is the only complete Chinese translation
of the _Suvarnâ Prabhâ_. A part of the original Sanskrit text recovered
in Nepal was published by the Buddhist Text Society of India in 1898.
Nanjo, Nos. 126, 127, 130.
[111] The notion that great men never die seems to be universal.
Spiritually they would never perish, because the ideas that moved them
and made them prominent in the history of humanity are born of truth.
And in this sense every person who is possessed of worthy thoughts is
immortal, while souls that are made of trumpery are certainly doomed
to annihilation. But the masses are not satisfied with this kind of
immortality. They must have something more tangible, more sensual, and
more individual. The notion of bodily resurrection of Christ is a fine
illustration of this truth. When the followers of Christ opened the
master’s grave, they did not find his body, so says legend, and they
at once conceived the idea of resurrection, for they reasoned that
such a great man as Jesus could not suffer the same fate that befalls
common mortals only. The story of his corporeal resurrection now
took wing and went wild; some heard him speak to them, some saw him
break bread, and others even touched his wounds. What a grossly
materialistic conception early Christians (and alas, even some of the
twentieth century) cherished about resurrection and immortality! It is
no wonder, therefore, that primitive Buddhists raised a serious
question about the personality of Buddha which culminated in the
conception of the Sambhogakâya, Body of Bliss, by Mahâyânists.
[112] Compare this to the transfigured Christ.
[113] Cf. I Cor. XIII, II. “When I was a child, I spake as a child,
I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a
man, I put away childish things.” This point of our ever-ascending
spiritual progress is well illustrated in the _Saddharma-pundarîka
Sûtra_. See Chapters II, III, IV, V, and XI. The following passage
quoted from chap. II, p. 49 (Kern’s translation) will give a tolerably
adequate view concerning diversity of means and unity of purpose as
here expounded: “Those highest of men have, all of them, revealed most
holy laws by means of illustrations, reasons and arguments, with many
hundred proofs of skillfulness (_upâyakauçalya_). And all of them have
manifested but one vehicle and introduced but one on earth; by one
vehicle have they led to full ripeness inconceivably many thousands of
kotis of beings.” As was elsewhere noted, this doctrine is sometimes
known as the theory of Upâya. Upâya is very difficult term to translate
into English; it literally means “way,” “method,” or “strategy.” For
fuller interpretation see p. 298, footnote.
[114] This is one of the most important philosophical works of the
Yogacâra school. Vasubandhu wrote the text (Nanjo, No. 1215) which
consists only of thirty verses, but there appeared many commentators
after the death of the author, who naturally entertained widely
different views among themselves on the subject-matter, as it is too
tersely treated in the text. Hsüen Tsang made selections out of the
ten noted Hindu exegetists in A.D. 659 and translated them into the
Chinese language. The compilation consists of ten fascicles and is
known as _Discourse on the Ideality of the Universe_ (a free rendering
of the Chinese title _Chang wei shi lun_, Nanjo, No. 1197).
[115] May I venture to say that the conception of God as entertained
by most Christians is a Body of Bliss rather than the Dharmakâya
itself? In some respects their God is quite spiritual, but in others
he is thought of as a concrete material being like ourselves. It seems
to me that the human soul is ever struggling to free itself from this
paradox, though without any apparent success, while the masses are not
so intellectual and reflective enough as to become aware of this
eternal contradiction which is too deeply buried in their minds.
[116] The reader must not think that there is but one Pure Land
which is elaborately described in the _Sukhâvatî Vyûha Sûtra_ as the
abode of the Tathâgata Amitâbha, situated innumerable leagues away in
the West. On the contrary, the Mahâyâna texts admit the existence of
as innumerable pure lands as there are Tathâgatas and Bodhisattvas,
and every single one of these holy regions has no boundary and is
coexistent with the universe, and, therefore, their spheres necessarily
intercrossing and overlapping one another. It would look to every
intelligent mind that those innumerable Buddha-countries existing in
such a mysterious and incomprehensible manner cannot be anything else
than our own subjective creation.
[117] For a description of these marks see the _Dharmasangraha_, pp.
53 ff. A process of mystifying or deifying the person of Buddha seems
to have been going on immediately after the death of the Master; and
the Mahâyânistic conception of Nirmânakâya and Sambhogakâya is merely
the consummation of this process. Southern Buddhists who are sometimes
supposed to represent a more “primitive” form of Buddhism describe
just as much as Mahâyânism the thirty-two major and eighty minor
excellent physical marks of a great man as having been possessed by
Çâkyamuni, (for instance, see the _Milindapañha_, _S. B. E._ Vol. XXXV.
p. 116). But any person with common sense will at once see the
absurdity of representing any human being with those physical
peculiarities. And this seems to have inspired more rational
Mahâyânists to abandon the traditional way of portraying the human
Buddha with those mysterious signs. They transferred them through the
doctrine of Trikâya to the characterisation of the Sambhogakâya
Buddha, that is, to the Buddha enjoying in a celestial abode the fruit
of his virtuous earthly life. The Buddha who walked in the flesh as
the son of King Suddhodana was, however, no more than an ordinary
human being like ourselves, because he appeared to us in a form of
Nirmânakâya, i.e. as a Body of Transformation, devoid of any such
physical peculiarities known as thirty-two or eighty lakṣanas.
Southern Buddhists, so called, seem, however, to have overlooked the
ridiculousness of attributing these fantastic signs to the human
Buddha; and this fact explains that as soon as the memory of the
personal disciples of Buddha about his person vanished among the later
followers, intense speculation and resourceful imagination were
constantly exercised until the divers schools settled the question
each in its own way.
[118] Cf. I Cor. XI. 19 et seq.
CHAPTER XI NOTES.
[119]
Kern’s English translation (_S. B. E._ Vol. XXI), Chap. III, p. 80.
[120] It should be noted here that the idea of universal salvation
was lacking altogether in the followers of Hînayânism. But what
distinguished it so markedly from Mahâyânism is that the former did
not extend the idea wide enough, but confined it to Buddhahood only.
Buddha attained omniscience in order that he might deliver the world,
but we, ordinary mortals, are too ignorant and too helpless to aspire
for Buddhahood; let us be contented with paying homage to Buddha and
faithfully observing his precepts as laid down by him for our spiritual
edification. Our knowledge and energy are too limited to cope with
such a gigantic task as to achieve a universal salvation of mankind;
let a Buddha or Bodhisattva attempt it while we may rest with a
profound confidence in him and in his work. Thoughts somewhat like
these must have been going about in the minds of the Hînayânists, when
their Mahâyâna brethren were making bold to strive after Buddhahood
themselves. The difference between the two schools of Buddhism, when
most concisely expressed, is this: While one has a most submissive
confidence in the Buddha, the other endeavors to follow his example by
placing himself in his position. The following quotation (“the Story
of Sumedha,” a Jâtaka tale, from Warren’s _Buddhism_, p. 14) in which
Sumedha, one of the Buddha’s former incarnations, expresses his
resolve to be a Buddha, may just as well be considered as that of a
Mahâyânist himself, while the Hînayânists would not dare to make this
wish their own:
“Or why should I, valorous man,
The ocean seek to cross alone?
Omniscience first will I achieve,
And men and gods convey across.
“Since now I make this earnest wish,
In presence of this Best of Men,
Omniscience sometime I’ll achieve,
And multitude convey across.
“I’ll rebirth’ circling stream arrest,
Destroy existence’s three modes;
I’ll climb the sides of Doctrine’s ship,
And men and gods convey across.”
[121] This is a very rough summary of the doctrine that is known as
Parivarta and expounded in the _Avatamsaka Sûtra_, fas. 21-22 where
ten forms of Parivarta are distinguished and explained at length.
[122] Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_, the “Story of Sumedha,”
pp. 14-15.
[123] It may be interesting to Christian readers to note in this
connection that modern Buddhists do not reject altogether the idea of
vicarious atonement, for their religious conviction as seen here
admits the parivarta of a Bodhisattva’s merits to the spiritual
welfare of his fellow-creatures. But they will object to the Christian
interpretation that Jesus was sent down on earth by his heavenly
father for the special mission to atone for the original sin through
the shedding of his innocent blood, for this is altogether too puerile
and materialistic.
[124] The full title of the work is _A Treatise on the
Transcendentality of Bodhicitta_ (Nanjo, No. 1304). It is a little
book consisting of seven or eight sheets in big Chinese type. It was
translated into Chinese by Dânapâla (Shih Hu) during the tenth century
of the Christian Era.
[125] Upaya, meaning “expedient,” “stratagem,” “device,” or “craft,”
has a technical sense in Buddhism. It is used in contrast to
intelligence (_prajñâ_) and is synonymous with love (_karunâ_). So,
Vimalakîrti says in the sûtra bearing his name (chap. 8, verses 1-4):
“Prajñâ is the mother of the Bodhisattva and Upaya his father; there
is no leader of humanity who is not born of them.” Intelligence
(_prajñâ_) is the one, the universal, representing the principle of
sameness (_samatâ_), while Upaya is the many, being the principle of
manifoldness (_nânâtvâ_). From the standpoint of pure intelligence,
the Bodhisattvas do not see any particular suffering existences, for
there is nothing that is not of the Dharmakâya: but when they see the
universe from the standpoint of their love-essence, they recognise
everywhere the conditions of misery and sin that arise from clinging
to the forms of particularity. To remove these, they devise all
possible means that are directed towards the attainment of the final
aim of existence. There is only one religion, religion of truth, but
there are many ways, many means, many upayas, all issuing from the
all-embracing love of the Dharmakâya and equally efficient to lead the
masses to supreme enlightenment and universal good. Therefore,
ontologically speaking, this universe, the Buddhists would say, is
nothing but a grand display of Upayas by the Dharmakâya that desires
thereby to lead all sentient beings to the ultimate realisation of
Buddhahood. In many cases, thus, it is extremely difficult to render
upaya by any of its English equivalents and yet to retain its original
technical sense unsuffered. This is also the case with many other
Buddhist terms, among which we may mention Bodhi, Dharmakâya, Prajñâ,
Citta, Parivarta, etc. The Chinese translators have _fang p’ien_ for
upaya which means “means-accommodation.”
[126] Its full title is _A Discourse on the Non-duality of the
Mahâyâna-Dharmadhâtu_. It consists of less than a dozen pages in
ordinary Chinese large print. It was translated by Deva-prajñâ and
others in the year 691 A.D.
[127] This work was translated by Kumârajîva into Chinese at the
beginning of the fifth century A.D. It is divided into two fascicles,
each consisting of about one score of Chinese pages.
[128] The above is a liberal rendering of the first part of the
Chapter III, in Vasubandhu’s _Bodhicitta_.
CHAPTER XII NOTES.
[129] The distinction between the five indriyas and the five balas
seems to be rather redundant. But the Hindu philosophers usually
distinguish actor from action, agent from function or operation. Thus
the sense-organs are distinguished from sensations or
sense-consciousnesses, and the manovijñâna (mind) from its functions
such as thinking, attention, memory, etc. The âtman has thus come to
be considered the central agent that controls all the sensuous and
intellectual activities. Though the Buddhists do not recognise this
differentiation of actor and action in reality, they sometimes loosely
follow the popular usage.
[130] In this connection it is very interesting also to note that
Carlyle expresses the same sentiment about the greatness of Shakespeare
in his _Hero Worship_. “If I say that Shakspeare is the greatest of
Intellects, I have said all concerning him. But there is more in
Shakspeare’s intellect than we have yet seen It is what I call an
unconscious intellect; there is more virtue in it that he himself is
aware of. Novalis beautifully remarks of him, that those dramas of his
are Products of Nature too, as deep as Nature herself. I find a great
truth in this saying, Shakspeare’s Art is not Artifice; the noblest
worth of it is not there by plan or precontrivance. It grows from the
deeps of Nature, through this noble sincere soul, who is a voice of
Nature.”
[131] The ten powers of the Buddha are: (1) The mental power which
discriminates between right and wrong, (2) The knowledge of the
retribution of karma, (3) The knowledge of all the different stages of
creation, (4) The knowledge of all the different forms of deliverance,
(5) The knowledge of all the different dispositions of sentient
beings, (6) The knowledge of the final destination of all deeds, (7)
The knowledge of all the different practices of meditation,
deliverance, and tranquilisation, (8) The knowledge of former
existences, (9) The unlimited power of divination, (10) The knowledge
of the complete subjection of evil desires (_âçrava_).
[132] The four convictions (_vaiçâradyas_) of the Buddha are: (1)
That he has attained the highest enlightenment, (2) That he has
destroyed all evil desires, (3) That he has rightly described the
obstacles that lie in the way to a life of righteousness, (4) That he
has truthfully taught the way of salvation.
[133] The eighteen unique characteristics which distinguish the
Buddha from the rest of mankind are: (1) He commits no errors. Since
time out of mind, he has disciplined himself in morality, meditation,
intelligence, and lovingkindness, and as the result his present life
is without faults and free from all evil thoughts. (2) He is faultless
in his speeches. Whatever he speaks comes from his transcendental
eloquence and leads the audience to a higher conception of life. (3)
His mind is faultless. As he has trained himself in samâdhi, he is
always calm, serene, and contented. (4) He retains his sameness of
heart (_samâhitacitta_), that is, his love for sentient beings is
universal and not discriminative. (5) His mind is free from thoughts
of particularity (_nânâtvasamjñâ_), that is, it is abiding in truth
transcendental, his thoughts are not distracted by objects of the
senses. (6) Resignation (_upekṣâ_). The Buddha knows everything, yet
he is calmly resigned. (7) His aspiration is unfathomable, that is,
his desire to save all beings from the sufferings of ignorance knows
no bounds. (8) His energy is inexhaustible, which he applies with
utmost vigor to the salvation of benighted souls. (9) His mentation
(_smṛti_) is inexhaustible, that is, he is ever conscious of all the
good doctrines taught by all the Buddhas of the past, present, and
future. (10) His intelligence (_prajñâ_) is inexhaustible, that is,
being in possession of all-intelligence which knows no limits, he
preaches for the benefits of all beings. (11) His deliverance
(_vimukti_) is permanent, that is, he has eternally distanced all evil
passions and sinful attachments. (12) His knowledge of deliverance
(_vimuktijñâna_) is perfect, that is, his intellectual insight into
all states of deliverance is without a flaw. (13) He possesses a
wisdom which directs all his bodily movements towards the benefit and
enlightenment of sentient beings. (14) He possesses a wisdom which
directs all his speeches toward the edification and conversion of his
fellow-creatures. (15) He possesses a wisdom which reflects in his
clear mind all the turbulent states of ignorant souls, from which he
removes the dark veil of nescience and folly. (16) He knows all the
past. (17) He knows all the future. (18) He knows all the present.
[134] For an elaborate exposition of the Daçabhûmî, see the
_Avatamsaka_ (sixty volume edition, fas. 24-27), the _Çûrangama_,
Vasubandhu’s Commentary on Asanga’s _Comprehensive Treatise on
Mahâyanism_ (fas. 10-11), the _Vijnânamâtra Çâstra_ (fas. 9), etc.,
and for a special treatment of the subject consult the sûtra bearing
the name, which by the way exists in a Sanskrit version and whose
brief sketch is given by Rajendra Mitra in his _Nepalese Buddhist
Literature_, p. 81 et seq.
CHAPTER XIII NOTES.
[135] Literally, “to advance against.”
[136] Cf. Beal’s translation in the _S. B. E._ Vol XIX. pp. 306-307,
vs. 2095-2101. Beal utterly misunderstands the Chinese original.
[137] The _Buddhacarita_, Cowell’s translation in the _S. B. E._
Vol. XLIX. p. 145.
[138] From A. J. Edmunds’s translation of _Dhammapada_.
[139] P. 225. Beal’s translation is not always reliable, and I
would have my own if the Chinese original were at all accessible.
[140] The gâthâs supposed to be the first utterance of the Buddha
after his enlightenment, according to Rockhill’s _Life of the Buddha_
(p. 33) compiled from Tibetan sources, give an inkling of nihilism,
though I am inclined to think that the original Tibetan will allow a
different interpretation when examined by some one who is better
acquainted with the spirit of Buddhism than Rockhill. Rockhill betrays
in not a few cases his insufficient knowledge of the subject he treats.
His translation of the gâthâs is as follows:
“All the pleasures of the worldly joys,
All which are known among the gods,
Compared with the joy of ending existence,
Are not as its sixteenth part.
“Sorry is he whose burden is heavy,
And happy he who has cast it down;
When once he has cast off his burden,
He will seek to be burthened no more.
“When all existences are put away,
When all notions are at an end,
When all things are perfectly known,
Then no more will craving come back.”
In the _Udâna_, II., 2, we have a stanza corresponding to the first
gâthâ here cited, but the _Udâna_ does not say “the joy of ending
existence,” but “the destruction of desire.”
According to the _Lalita Vistara_, the Buddha’s utterance of victory
is (Râjendra Mitra’s Edition p. 448):
“Cinna vartmopaçânta rajâh çuṣkâ âçravâ na punaḥ çravanti.
Chinne vartmani varttate duḥkhasyaiṣonta ucyate.”
[141] Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_, p. 376.
[142] General D. M. Strong’s translation, p. 64.
[143] The text does not expressly say “animate or inanimate”, but
this is the author’s own interpretation according to the general
spirit of Mahâyânism.
[144] There are two obstacles to final emancipation: (1) affective,
and (2) intellectual. The former is our unenlightened affective or
emotional or subjective life and the latter our intellectual prejudice.
Buddhists should not only be pure in heart but be perfect in
intelligence. Pious men are of course saved from transmigration, but
to attain perfect Buddhahood they must have a clear, penetrating
intellectual insight into the significance of life and existence and
the destiny of the universe. This emphasising of the rational element
in religion is one of the most characteristic points of Buddhism.
[145] This is one of the most important philosophical texts of
Mahâyânism. Its original Sanskrit with the commentary of Chandra Kîrti
has been edited by Satis Chandra Acharya and published by the Buddhist
Text Society of India. The original lines run as follows (p. 193):
“Aprahînam, asamprâptam, anucchinnam, açâçvatam,
Aniruddham, anutpannam, evam nirvânam ucyate.”
[146] Literally, that which is characterised by the absence of all
characterisation.
[147] Cf. the following from the _Mâdhyamika_:
“Bhaved abbâvo bhâvaç ca nirvânam ubhayam katham:
Asamskṛtam ca nirvânam bhâvâbhavâi ca samskṛtam.”
Or, “Tasmânna bhâvo nâbhâvo nirvânamiti yujyate.”
[148] In the _Visuddhi-Magga_ XXI. (Warren’s translation, p. 376 et
seq.), we read that there are three starting points of deliverance
arising from the consideration of the three predominant qualities of
the constituents of being: 1. The consideration of their beginnings
and ends leads the thoughts to the unconditioned; 2. The insight into
their miserableness agitates the mind and leads the thoughts to the
desireless; 3. The consideration of the constituents of being as not
having an ego leads the thoughts to the empty. And these three, we are
told, constitute the three aspects of Nirvâna as unconditioned,
desireless, and empty. Here we have an instance in the so-called
Southern “primitive” Buddhism of viewing Nirvâna in the Mahâyânistic
light which I have here explained at length.
_En passant_, let us remark that as Buddha did not leave any document
himself embodying his whole system, there sprang up soon after his
departure several schools explaining the Master’s view in divers ways,
each claiming the legitimate interpretation; that in view of this fact
it is illogical to conclude that Southern Buddhism is the authoritative
representation par excellence of original Buddhism, while the Eastern
or the Northern is a mere degeneration.
[149] There are three Chinese translations of this Mahâyâna text, by
Dharmarakṣa, Kumârajîva, and Bodhiruci, between 265 and 517 A.D.
[150]
Samsârasya ca nirvânât kincid asti viçeṣaṇam:
Na nirvâṇasya samsârât kincid asti viçesaṇam.
[151]
Nirvâṇasya ca yâ kotiḥ kotiḥ samsârasya ca,
Vidyâdanantaraṃ kincit susukṣnaṃ vidyate.
[152] Concerning the similarity in meaning of this statement to the
one just preceding, a commentator says that the sixth is the statical
view of Suchness (or Dharmakâya) and the seventh its dynamical view.
One explains what the highest reality of Buddhism is and the other
what it does or works.
[153] _The Discourse on Buddha-essence_ by Vasubandhu. The Japanese
Tripitaka edition of 1881, fas. II., p. 84, where the stanza is quoted
from the _Sûtra on the Incomprehensible_.
[154] This is expressed in the first verse of the _Mâdhyamika
Çâstra_, which runs as follows:
“Anirodham anutpâdam anucchedam açâçvatam
Anekârtham anânârtham anâgamam anirgamam.”
Literally translated these lines read:
“No annihilation, no production, no destruction, no persistence,
No unity, no plurality, no coming in, no going out.”
[155] Compare this Buddhist sentiment of universal love with that of
the Christian religion and we shall see the truth that all religions
are one at the bottom. We read in Thomas à Kempis’s _Imitation of
Christ_ (ch. XIII): “My son, I descended from heaven for thy salvation;
I took upon me thy sorrows, not necessity but love drawing me thereto;
that thou thyself mightest learn patience and bear temporal sufferings
without repining. For from the hour of my birth, even until my death
on the cross, I was not without suffering of grief.” This is exactly
the sentiment that stimulates the Bodhisattvas to their gigantic task
of universal salvation. Those who are free from sectarian biases will
admit without hesitation that there is but one true religion which may
assume various forms according to circumstances. “Many are the roads
to the summit, but when reached there we have but one universal
moonlight.”
[156] The _Dharmapada_, XIV. 5. Mr. A. J. Edmunds’s translation is,
“Ceasing to do all wrong,
Initiation into goodness,
Cleansing the heart:
This the religion of the Buddhas.”
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES.
Page numbers are given in {curly brackets}.
The following have been left as-printed:
Archaic and inconsistent spellings (_e.g._, Corea, Nirvâna/Nirvana,
coördination/co-ordination, efficience/efficiency,
Âlaya-vijñâna/Âlayavijñâna, etc.).
Ellipses of varying lengths.
(p. 317) The Eightfold Noble Path is listed omitting the seventh step
(Right mindfulness). Also, the sixth step is usually given as “Right
effort,” not “Right recollection.”
The usage of both “fn.” and “ft.” to denote “footnote” in the Index.
Lastly, some syntactical errors with possible corrections given in
square brackets:
(p. 83) “Its foundation lies too deeply buried in [the] human heart to
be damaged by knowledge or science.”
(p. 104) “When Bodhi-Dharma... saw Emperor Wu of [the] Liang dynasty
(A.D. 502-556), he was asked...”
(p. 214) “In good karma we are made to live eternally, but in [an]
evil one we are doomed...”
(p. 215) “Pious Buddhists believe that... he enters right into the
soul and becomes [an] integral part of his being.”
Alterations to the text:
Abandon the use of drop-caps.
Convert footnotes to endnotes and add a corresponding entry in the
TOC.
Punctuation corrections: several missing/invisible periods and a few
commas, some quotation mark pairings/nestings, etc.
[TOC]
Add missing “Two Forms of Knowledge” subsection under Chapter IV.
Under Chapter XII, change “Bhimukhî” to “Abhimukhî”.
[Introduction]
Change “the other schools, which _latter_ became a class by itself” to
_later_.
“led to the dissension _af_ Mahâyânism and Hînayânism” to _of_.
“Kant, for instance, as _promotor_ of German philosophy” to _promoter_.
“a few _centnries_ after Açvaghoṣa, the progressive party” to
_centuries_.
“while the _Prayekabuddhas_ and the Çrâvakas are considered” to
_Pratyekabuddhas_.
“Buddhism cannot ignore the _significane_ of Mahâyânism” to
_significance_.
“their rival religion as _denegerated_, because it went” to
_degenerated_.
“This fact so miserably spoils their _purityof_ sentiment” to _purity
of_.
“his intellect becomes _pitiously_ obscured by his” to _piteously_.
“_refering_ to the Mahâyâna conception of Dharmakâya” to _referring_.
[Chapter I]
“that, owing to a crime _commited_ by them” to _committed_.
“do not recognise the evanescence of _wordly_ things” to _worldly_.
“The _dotrine_ of nescience or ignorance is technically” to _doctrine_.
“sons and daughters, wives _aud_ husbands, all transfigured” to _and_.
“and which therefore were utterly _desplicable_” to _despicable_.
“in response to the pathetic _persuation_ of his father’s” to
_persuasion_.
[Chapter II]
“Sthiramati in his _Indroduction_ to Mahâyânism” to _Introduction_.
“As the silkworm imprisons itself in the _cacoon_ created” to _cocoon_.
“realm of the absolute and the abode of _non-particurality_” to
_non-particularity_.
[Chapter III]
“satisfy the inmost _yearings_ of the human heart” to _yearnings_.
“which consists of the inmost _yearings_ of the human heart” to
_yearnings_.
[Chapter IV]
“World-views Founded on the Three _Froms_ of Knowledge” to _Forms_.
(p. 94, fn. 1) “Nanjo. Nos. 246 _aud_ 247), etc.” to _and_.
“From this, it is to be _infered_ that Buddhism never” to _inferred_.
[Chapter V]
(_Nâgârjana’s_ famous doctrine of “The Middle Path) to _Nâgârjuna’s_.
“is no more than a fragment of the _absoulte_ Bhûtatathâtâ” to
_absolute_.
“to be very logical and free from serious _dufficulties_” to
_difficulties_.
“Adam with Eve, Buddha with Devadatta, etc., _ect_.,” to _etc_.
[Chapter VI]
“and _Buddi_ and Ahankâra. Buddhi, intellect, is defined” to _Buddhi_.
(p.139, fn. 1) “doctrine of Mahâyânism, i.e.. that of” change third
period to a comma.
[Chapter VII]
“fixed state of things in which perfect _equillibrium_” to
_equilibrium_.
“the noumenal ego as the raison _d’ être_ of our” to _d’être_.
(literally means “aggregate” or “_aglomeration_”) to _agglomeration_.
(saying: “_This‘middle’_ is extremely indefinite) to _This ‘middle’_.
“the hypothesis of the _permament_ existence of an” to _permanent_.
(The term “_sabhâva_” (self-essence or noumenon) is) to _svabhâva_.
“they are like the _will-‘o-the-wisp_” to _will-o’-the-wisp_.
“If the Fourfold Noble Truth _dœs_ not exist” to _does_.
“The _Buddha ’s_ teaching rests on the discrimination” to _Buddha’s_.
[Chapter VIII]
“He is _sufficent_ unto himself as he is here and now” to _sufficient_.
“and the accumulation of of merits (_punyaskandha_)” delete one _of_.
“Every one of these seeds which are _infinte_ in number” to _infinite_.
[Chapter IX]
“than devastation, _barreness_, and universal misery” to _barrenness_.
“Even so with the _Dharkâya_ of the Tathâgata” to _Dharmakâya_.
“Even so with the Dharmakâya of _theT athâgata_” to _the Tathâgata_.
“such as blindness, deafness, mental _abberration_, etc.” to
_aberration_.
“It _anthroposises_ everything beyond the proper measure” to
_anthropomorphises_.
[Chapter X]
(p. 243, fn. 1) “the Eastern Tsin dynasty (A.D, 371-420)” change the
comma to a period.
“the work once _refered_ to in the beginning of this book” to
_referred_.
“describe the the essential peculiarities of each school” delete one
_the_.
(p. 253, fn. 2) “A part of the _orginal_ Sanskrit text” to _original_.
“Asanga and Vasubandhu will be here _refered_ to” to _referred_.
“pious Buddhists would be _transfered_ after their death” to
_transferred_.
(p. 271, fn. 1) “eighty minor _exellent_ physical marks of a great” to
_excellent_.
(_same_) “They _transfered_ them through the doctrine of Trikâya” to
_transferred_.
[Chapter XI]
“which was quite unwittingly _commited_ by him” to _committed_.
“does not allow the _transfering_ of responsibility” to _transferring_.
“It is _uncreate_ and its self-essence is void” to _uncreated_.
[Chapter XII]
“On the evanescence of the _wordly_ interests” to _worldly_.
“3. Circumspection; 4. _Equillibrium_, or tranquillity” to
_Equilibrium_.
“aloof from the consuming fire of _passsion_” to _passion_.
“He practises the virtue of _strenuousuess_ (_vriya_)” to
_strenuousness_.
[Chapter XIII]
“And am eternally released from all pain and _suffe ring_” to
_suffering_.
(p. 334, fn. 2) “Cowell’s translation in the S. B. E. Vol. _ILIX_. p.
145” to _XLIX_.
“When we speak of _Buddha ’s_ entrance into Nirvâna” to _Buddha’s_.
“love is a Buddha-dharma, wisdom is a _Buddha dharma_” to
_Buddha-dharma_.
“emancipation of the Çrâvaka or of the _Prayekabuddha_” to
_Pratyekabuddha_.
“hearts are not softened at the sight of others, misfortune and
suffering” change the comma to a (possessive) apostrophe.
“he does not believe that universal _emanciipation_” to _emancipation_.
“but that _thay_ obtain reality in their oneness with” to _they_.
“do not pay homage to the _congregration_ of holy men” to
_congregation_.
[Appendix]
“Devoid of all _liminations_” to _limitations_.
“None is there but that enters upon _Buddh a-knowledge_” to
_Buddha-knowledge_.
“All _senient_ beings in transmigration travel through” to _sentient_.
“I’ll release, and to eternal _pease_ them I’ll lead” to _peace_.
“In the stream of birth and death they go _arolling_” to _a-rolling_.
“No-more-_arolling_ is Nirvâna” to _a-rolling_.
Change two incidents of _Nonjo_ to _Nanjo_.
“The Avatamsaka _Sutru_” to _Sutra_.
[Index]
(_Imitation of Christ_, _365_ fn.) to _364_.
(_Lalita Vistara_, quoted, on Nirvana, _339_ fn.) to _338_.
(Max Mueller, quoted, 108 ft., _111_ ft., 221.) to _110_.
(Prajñâ (and Bodhi), defined, _62_ ft.; 82, 97, 119, 238, 360.) to
_82_.
(Prakṛti (Samkyan primordial matter), _67_ ft.) to _66_.
(Purusha (Samkyan soul), _67_ ft.) to _66_.
(“Tat tvam asi,” 47, _136_ ft.) to _135_.
(_Udâna_, quoted, 52, _339_ ft., 341.) to _338_.
(Upâya (expediency), 64, _261_ ft.; its meaning) to _260_.
[End of text]