145 The eight good qualities of water are limpidity and purity,
refreshing coolness, sweetness, softness, fertilizing qualities,
calmness, power of preventing famine, productiveness. See Beal,
_Catena_, p. 379.
146 Kâkâpeya. One text reads Kâkapeya, the other Kâkâpeya. It is
difficult to choose. The more usual word is kâkapeya, which is
explained by Pâ_n_ini, ii. 1, 33. It is uncertain, however, whether
kâkapeya is meant as a laudatory or as a depreciatory term.
Boehtlingk takes it in the latter sense, and translates nadî
kâkapeyâ, by a shallow river that could be drunk up by a crow.
Târânâtha takes it in the former sense, and translates nadî
kâkapeyâ, as a river so full of water that a crow can drink it
without bending its neck (kâkair anatakandharai_h_ pîyate;
pûr_n_odakatvena pra_s_asye kâkai_h_ peye nadyâdau). In our passage
kâkapeya must be a term of praise, and we therefore could only
render it by “ponds so full of water that crows could drink from
them.” But why should so well known a word as kâkapeya have been
spelt kâkâpeya, unless it was done intentionally? And if
intentionally, what was it intended for? We must remember that
Pâ_n_ini, ii. 1, 42 schol., teaches us how to form the word
tîrthakâka, a crow at a tîrtha, which means a person in a wrong
place. It would seem, therefore, that crows were considered out of
place at a tîrtha or bathing-place, either because they were birds
of ill omen, or because they defiled the water. From that point of
view, kâkâpeya would mean a pond not visited by crows, free from
crows. Professor Pischel has called my attention to Mahâparinibbâna
Sutta (_J. R. A. S._ 1875, p. 67, p. 21), where kâkapeyâ clearly
refers to a full river. Samatiṭṭḥika, if this is the right reading,
occurs in the same place as an epithet of a river, by the side of
kâkapeya, and I think it most likely that it means rising to a level
with the tîrthas, the fords or bathing-places. Mr. Rhys Davids
informs me that the commentary explains the two words by samatittikâ
ti samaharitâ, kâkapeyyâ ti yatthatattha_k_i tîre _th_itena kâkena
sakkâ patum ti.
147 Purobhaktena. The text is difficult to read, but it can hardly be
doubtful that purobhaktena corresponds to Pâli purebhatta_m_ (_i.
e._ before the morning meal), opposed to pa_kkh_âbhatta_m_, after
the noonday meal (_i. e._ in the afternoon). See Childers, _s. v._
Pûrvabhaktikâ would be the first repast, as Professor Cowell informs
me.
148 Divâ vihârâya, for the noonday rest, the _siesta_. See Childers, _s.
v._ vihâra.
149 Krau_ñk_â_h_. Snipe, curlew. Is it meant for Kuravîka, or Karavîka,
a fine-voiced bird (according to Kern, the Sk. karâyikâ), or for
Kalaviṅka-Pâli Kalavîka? See Childers, _s. v._ opapâtiko; Burnouf,
_Lotus_, p. 566. I see, however, the same birds mentioned together
elsewhere, as ha_m_sakrau_ñk_amayûra_s_uka_s_âlikakokila, etc. On
mayûra see Mahâv. Introd. p. xxxix.; Rv. I. 191, 14.
150 Indriyabalabodhyaṅgasabda. These are technical terms, but their
meaning is not quite clear. Spence Hardy, in his _Manual_, p. 498,
enumerates the five indrayas, viz. (1) sardhâwa, purity (probably
_s_raddhâ, faith), (2) wiraya, persevering exertion (vîrya), (3)
sati or smirti, the ascertainment of truth (sm_ri_ti), (4) samâdhi,
tranquillity, (5) pragnâwa, wisdom (pra_gñ_â).
The five balayas (bala), he adds, are the same as the five indrayas.
The seven bowdyânga (bodhyaṅga) are, according to him: (1) sihi or
smirti, the ascertainment of the truth by mental application, (2)
dharmmawicha, the investigation of causes. (3) wîraya, persevering
exertion, (4) prîti, joy, (5) passadhi, or prasrabdhi, tranquillity,
(6) samâdhi, tranquillity in a higher degree, including freedom from
all that disturbs either body or mind, (7) upekshâ, equanimity.
It will be seen from this that some of these qualities or
excellences occur both as indriyas and bodhyaṅgas, while balas are
throughout identical with indriyas.
Burnouf, however, in his _Lotus_, gives a list of five balas (from
the _Vocabulaire Pentaglotte_) which correspond with the five
indriyas of Spence Hardy: viz. _s_raddhâ-bala, power of faith,
vîrya-bala, power of vigor, sm_ri_ti-bala, power of memory,
samâdhi-bala, power of meditation, pra_gñ_â-bala, power of
knowledge. They precede the seven bodhyaṅgas both in the _Lotus_,
the _Vocabulaire Pentaglotte_, and the Lalita-Vistara.
To these seven bodhyaṅgas Burnouf has assigned a special treatise
(Appendix xii. p. 796). They occur both in Sanskrit and Pâli.
151 Niraya, the hells, also called Naraka. Yamaloka, the realm of Yama,
the judge of the dead, is explained as the four Apâyas—_i. e._
Naraka, hell, Tiryagyoni, birth as animals, Pretaloka, realm of the
dead, Asuraloka, realm of evil spirits. The three terms which are
here used together occur likewise in a passage translated by
Burnouf, _Introduction_, p. 544.
152 Iti sankhyâ_m_ ga_kkh_anti, they are called; _cf._ Childers, _s. v._
sankhyâ. Asankhyeya, even more than aprameya, is the recognized term
for infinity. Burnouf, _Lotus_, p. 852.
153 Avaramâtraka. This is the Pâli oramattako, “belonging merely to the
present life,” and the intention of the writer seems to be to
inculcate the doctrine of the Mahâyâna, that salvation can be
obtained by mere repetitions of the name of Amitâbha, in direct
opposition to the original doctrine of Buddha, that as a man soweth,
so he reapeth. Buddha would have taught that the ku_s_alamûla, the
root or the stock of good works performed in this world
(avaramâtraka), will bear fruit in the next, while here “vain
repetitions” seems all that is enjoined. The Chinese translators
take a different view of this passage, and I am not myself quite
certain that I have understood it rightly. But from the end of this
section, where we read kulaputre_n_a vâ kuladuhitrâ vâ tatra
buddhakshetre _k_ittaprâ_n_idhâna_m_ kartavyam, it seems clear that
the locative (buddhakshetre) forms the object of the pra_n_idhâna,
the fervent prayer or longing. The Satpurushas already in the
Buddhakshetra would be the innumerable men (manushyâs) and
Boddhisattvas mentioned before.
154 Arthavasa, lit. the power of the thing; _cf._ Dhammapada, p. 388,
_v._ 289.
155 I am not quite certain as to the meaning of this passage, but if we
enter into the bold metaphor of the text, viz., that the Buddhas
cover the Buddha-countries with the organ of their tongue and then
unroll it, what is intended can hardly be anything but that they
first try to find words for the excellences of those countries, and
then reveal or proclaim them. Burnouf, however (_Lotus_, p. 417),
takes the expression in a literal sense, though he is shocked by its
grotesqueness. On these Buddhas and their countries, see Burnouf,
_Lotus_, p. 113.
156 It should be remarked that the Tathâgatas here assigned to the ten
quarters differ entirely from those assigned to them in the
Lalita-vistara, book xx. Not even Amitâbha is mentioned there.
157 Pratîyatha. The texts give again and again pattîyatha, evidently the
Pâli form, instead of pratîyata. I have left tha, the Pâli
termination of the 2 p. pl. in the imperative, instead of ta,
because that form was clearly intended, while pa for pra may be an
accident. Yet I have little doubt that patîyatha was in the original
text. That it is meant for the imperative, we see from
_s_raddadhâdhvam, etc., farther on. Other traces of the influence of
Pâli or Prakrit on the Sanskrit of our Sûtra appear in arhantai_h_,
the various reading for arhadbhi_h_, which I preferred; sambahula
for bahula; dh_ri_yate yâpayati; purobhaktena; anyatra; saṅkhyâm
ga_kkh_anti; avaramâtraka; ve_th_ana instead of vesh_t_ana, in
nirve_th_ana; dharmaparyâya (_Corp. Inscript._ plate XV.), etc.
158 The Sukhavatîvyûha, even in its shortest text, is called a
Mahâyâna-sûtra, nor is there any reason why a Mahâyâna-sûtra should
not be short. The meaning of Mahâyâna-sûtra is simply a Sûtra
belonging to the Mahâyâna school, the school of the Great Boat. It
was Burnouf who, in his _Introduction to the History of Buddhism_,
tried very hard to establish a distinction between the Vaipulya or
developed Sûtras, and what he calls the simple Sûtras. Now, the
Vaipulya Sûtras may all belong to the Mahâyâna school, but that
would not prove that all the Sûtras of the Mahâyâna school are
Vaipulya or developed Sûtras. The name of simple Sûtra, in
opposition to the Vaipulya or developed Sûtras, is not recognized by
the Buddhists themselves; it is really an invention of Burnouf’s. No
doubt there is a great difference between a Vaipulya Sûtra, such as
the Lotus of the Good Law, translated by Burnouf, and the Sûtras
which Burnouf translated from the Divyâvadâna. But what Burnouf
considers as the distinguishing mark of a Vaipulya Sûtra, viz. the
occurrence of Bodhisattvas, as followers of the Buddha _S_âkyamuni,
would no longer seem to be tenable (“Les présence des Bodhisattûvas
ou leur absence intéresse done le fonds même des livres où on la
remarque, et il est bien évident que ce seul point trace une ligno
de démarcation profonde entre les Sûtras ordinaires et les Sûtras
développés.” Burnouf. _Introduction_, p. 112.), unless we classed
our short Sukhavatî-vyûha as a Vaipulya or developed Sûtra. For this
there is no authority. Our Sûtra is called a Mahâyâna Sutra, never a
Vaipulya Sûtra, and yet among the followers of Buddha, the
Bodhisattvas constitute a very considerable portion. But more than
that, Amitâbha, the Buddha of Sukhavatî, another personage whom
Burnouf looks upon as peculiar to the Vaipulya Sûtras, who is, in
fact, one of the Dhyâni-buddhas, though not called by that name in
our Sûtra, forms the chief object of its teaching, and is
represented as coeval with Buddha _S_âkyamuni. (“L’idée d’un ou de
plusieurs Buddhas surhumains, celle de Bodhisattvas créés par eux,
sont des conceptions aussi étrangères á ces livres (les Sûtras
simples) que celle d’un Adibuddha ou d’un Dieu.”—Burnouf,
_Introduction_, p. 120.) The larger text of the Sukhavatîvyûha would
certainly, according to Burnouf’s definition, seem to fall into the
category of the Vaipulya Sûtras. But it is not so called in the MSS.
which I have seen, and Burnouf himself gives an analysis of that
Sûtra (_Introduction_, p. 99) as a specimen of a Mahâyâna, but not
of a Vaipulya Sûtra.