{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75283/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75283","id":"gutenberg_75283","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75283","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Mahayana Buddhism -- Doctrines"],"text":"OUTLINES\n OF\n MAHAYANA BUDDHISM\n\n BY\n DAISETZ TEITARO SUZUKI\n\n\n\n\n CHICAGO\n THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY\n 1908\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\n{v}\n\nThe object of this book is twofold: (1) To refute the many wrong\nopinions which are entertained by Western critics concerning the\nfundamental teachings of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism; (2) To awake interest\namong scholars of comparative religion in the development of the\nreligious sentiment and faith as exemplified by the growth of one of\nthe most powerful spiritual forces in the world. The book is therefore\nat once popular and scholarly. It is popular in the sense that it\ntries to expose the fallacy of the general attitude assumed by other\nreligionists towards Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism. It aims to be scholarly, on the\nother hand, when it endeavors to expound some of the most salient\nfeatures of the doctrine, historically and systematically.\n\nIn attempting the accomplishment of this latter object, however, the\nauthor makes no great claim, because it is impossible to present\nwithin this prescribed space all the data that are available for a\ncomprehensive and systematic elucidation of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism,\nwhose history began in the sixth century before the Christian era and\nran through a period of more than two thousand years before it assumed\nthe form in which it is at present taught in the Orient. During this\nlong period, the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na {vi} doctrine was elaborated by the best\nminds that India, Tibet, China, and Japan ever produced. It is no\nwonder then that so many diverse and apparently contradictory\nteachings are all comprised under the general name of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nBuddhism. To expound all these theories even tentatively would be\naltogether outside the scope of such a work as this. All that I could\nor hoped to do was to discuss a few of the most general and most\nessential topics of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, making this a sort of introduction\nto a more detailed exposition of the system as a whole as well as in\nparticular.\n\nTo attain the first object, I have gone occasionally outside the\nsphere within which I had properly to confine the work. But this\ndeviation seemed imperative for the reason that some critics are so\nprejudiced that even seemingly self-evident truths are not comprehended\nby them. I may be prejudiced in my own way, but very frequently I have\nwondered how completely and how wretchedly some people can be made the\nprey of self-delusion.\n\nThe doctrinal history of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism is very little known to\nOccidental scholars. This is mainly due to the inaccessibility of\nmaterial which is largely written in the Chinese tongue, one of the\nmost difficult of languages for foreigners to master. In this age of\nliberal culture, it is a great pity that so few of the precious stones\ncontained in the religion of Buddha are obtainable by Western people.\nHuman nature is essentially the same the world over, and {vii}\nwhenever and wherever conditions mature we see the same spiritual\nphenomena; and this fact ever strengthens our faith in the universality\nof truth and in the ultimate reign of lovingkindness. It is my sincere\ndesire that in so far as my intellectual attainment permits I shall be\nallowed to pursue my study and to share my findings with my\nfellow-beings.\n\nIn concluding this prelude, the author wishes to say that this little\nbook is presented to the public with a full knowledge of its many\ndefects, to revise which he will not fail to make use of every\nopportunity offered him.\n\n                                        /Daisetz T. Suzuki/.\n\n{viii}\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n{ix}\n\nPreface\n\nIntroduction\n\n(1) _The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na and H\u00eenay\u00e2na Buddhism._ Why the Two Doctrines?--The\nOriginal Meaning of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na.--An Older Classification of\nBuddhists.--Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism defined.\n\n(2) _Is the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism the genuine teaching of Buddha?_ No Life\nWithout Growth.--Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism a Living Religion.\n\n(3) _Some Misstatements about the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism._ Why Injustice Done to\nBuddhism.--Examples of Injustice.--Monier\nMonier-Williams.--Beal.--Waddell.\n\n(4) _The Significance of Religion._ No Revealed Religion.--The\nMystery.--Intellect and Imagination.--The Contents of Faith vary.\n\nChapter I. A General Characterisation of Buddhism.\n\nNo God and No Soul.--Karma.--Avidy\u00e2.--Non-\u00e2tman.--The Non-\u00e2tmanness of\nThings.--Dharmak\u00e2ya.--Nirv\u00e2na.--Intellectual Tendency of Buddhism.\n\nChapter II. Historical Characterisation of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\nSthiramati\u2019s Conception of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.--Seven Principal Features of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.--Ten Essential Features of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\n{x}\n\nSpeculative Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\nChapter III. Practice and Speculation.\n\nRelation of Feeling and Intellect.--Buddhism and Speculation.--Religion\nand Metaphysics.\n\nChapter IV. Classification of Knowledge.\n\nThree Forms of Knowledge.--Illusion.--Relative Knowledge.--Absolute\nKnowledge.--World-Views founded on the three Forms of\nKnowledge.--Two Forms of Knowledge.--Transcendental Truth and Relative\nUnderstanding.\n\nChapter V. Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2 (Suchness).\n\nIndefinability.--The \u201cThundrous Silence.\u201d--Suchness\nConditioned.--Questions Defying Solution.--The Theory of\nIgnorance.--Dualism and Moral Evil.\n\nChapter VI. The Tath\u00e2gata-Garbha and the \u00c2laya-vijn\u00e2na.\n\nThe Garbha and Ignorance.--The \u00c2laya-vij\u00f1\u00e2na and its Evolution.--The\nManas.--The S\u00e2mkhya Philosophy and Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\nChapter VII. The Theory of Non-\u00e2tman or Non-ego.\n\n\u00c2tman.--Buddha\u2019s First Line of Inquiry.--The Skandha.--King Milinda\nand N\u00e2gasena.--Ananda\u2019s Attempts to Locate the Soul.--\u00c2tman and the\n\u201cOld Man.\u201d--The Ved\u00e2ntic Conception.--N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna on the\nSoul.--Non-\u00e2tman-ness of Things.--Svabh\u00e2va.--The Real Significance of\nEmptiness.\n\nChapter VIII. Karma.\n\nDefinition.--The Working of Karma.--Karma and Social injustice.--An\nIndividualistic View of Karma.--Karma and Determinism.--The Maturing\nof Good Stock and the Accumulation of Good Merits.--Immortality.\n\n{xi}\n\nPractical Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\nChapter IX. The Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\nGod.--Dharmak\u00e2ya.--Dharmak\u00e2ya as Religious Object.--More Detailed\nCharacterisation.--The Dharmak\u00e2ya and Individual Beings.--The\nDharmak\u00e2ya as Love.--Later Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists\u2019 View of the Dharmak\u00e2ya.--The\nFreedom of the Dharmak\u00e2ya.--The Will of the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\nChapter X. The Doctrine of Trik\u00e2ya.\n\nThe Human and the Super-human Buddha.--An Historical View.--Who was\nBuddha?--The Trik\u00e2ya as Explained in the _Suvarna-Prabh\u00e2_.--Revelation\nin All Stages of Culture.--The Sambhogak\u00e2ya.--A Mere Subjective\nExistence.--Attitude of Modern Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists.--Recapitulation.\n\nChapter XI. The Bodhisattva.\n\nThe Three Y\u00e2nas.--Strict Individualism.--The Doctrine of\nParivarta.--Bodhisattva in \u201cPrimitive\u201d Buddhism.--We are all\nBodhisattvas.--The Buddha\u2019s Life.--The Bodhisattva and Love.--The\nMeaning of Bodhi and Bodhicitta.--Love and Karun\u00e2.--N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and\nSthiramati on Bodhicitta.--The Awakening of the Bodhicitta.--The\nBodhisattva\u2019s Pranidh\u00e2na.\n\nChapter XII. Ten Stages of Bodhisattvahood.\n\nGradation in our Spiritual Life.--Pramudit\u00e2.--Vimal\u00e2.--Prabh\u00e2kar\u00ee.\n--Arcismat\u00ee.--Sudurjan\u00e2.--Abhimukh\u00ee.--D\u00fbrangam\u00e2.--Acal\u00e2.--S\u00e2dhumat\u00ee.\n--Dharmamegh\u00e2.\n\n{xii}\n\nChapter XIII. Nirv\u00e2na.\n\nNihilistic Nirv\u00e2na not the First Object.--Nirv\u00e2na is Positive.--The\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic Conception of Nirv\u00e2na.--Nirv\u00e2na as the\nDharmak\u00e2ya.--Nirv\u00e2na in its Fourth Sense.--Nirv\u00e2na and Sams\u00e2ra are\nOne.--The Middle Course.--How to Realise Nirv\u00e2na.--Love Awakens\nIntelligence.--Conclusion.\n\nAppendix, Hymns of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Faith.\n\nIndex.\n\nEndnotes.\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION.\n\n{1}\n\n\n 1. THE MAH\u00c2Y\u00c2NA AND THE H\u00ceNAY\u00c2NA\n BUDDHISM.\n\n/The/ terms \u201cMah\u00e2y\u00e2na\u201d and \u201cH\u00eenay\u00e2na\u201d may sound unfamiliar to most of\nour readers, perhaps even to those who have devoted some time to the\nstudy of Buddhism. They have hitherto been induced to believe that\nthere is but one form of Buddhism, and that there exists no such\ndistinction as Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and H\u00eenay\u00e2nism. But, as a matter of fact,\nthere are diverse schools in Buddhism just as in other religious\nsystems. It is said that, within a few hundred years after the demise\nof Buddha, there were more than twenty different schools,[1] all\nclaiming {2} to be the orthodox teaching of their master. These,\nhowever, seem to have vanished into insignificance one after another,\nwhen there arose a new school quite different in its general\nconstitution from its predecessors, but far more important in its\nsignificance as a religious movement. This new school or rather system\nmade itself so prominent in the meantime as to stand distinctly alone\nfrom all the other schools, which later became a class by itself.\nEssentially, it taught everything that was considered to be Buddhistic,\nbut it was very comprehensive in its principle and method and scope.\nAnd, by reason of this, Buddhism was now split into two great systems,\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and H\u00eenay\u00e2nism, the latter indiscriminately including all\nthe minor schools which preceded Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism in their formal\nestablishment.\n\nBroadly speaking, the difference between Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and H\u00eenay\u00e2nism is\nthis: Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is more liberal and progressive, but in many respects\ntoo metaphysical and full of speculative thoughts that frequently reach\na dazzling eminence: H\u00eenay\u00e2nism, on the other hand, is somewhat\nconservative and may be considered in many points to be a rationalistic\nethical system simply.\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na literally means \u201cgreat vehicle\u201d and H\u00eenay\u00e2na \u201csmall or\ninferior vehicle,\u201d that is, of salvation. This distinction is\nrecognised only by the followers of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, because it was by\nthem that the unwelcome title of H\u00eenay\u00e2nism was given to their rival\nbrethren,--thinking that they were more progressive {3} and had a more\nassimilating energy than the latter. The adherents of H\u00eenay\u00e2nism, as\na matter of course, refused to sanction the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist doctrine as\nthe genuine teaching of Buddha, and insisted that there could not be\nany other Buddhism than their own, to them naturally the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nsystem was a sort of heresy.\n\nGeographically, the progressive school of Buddhism found its\nsupporters in Nepal, Tibet, China, Corea, and Japan, while the\nconservative school established itself in Ceylon,[2] Siam, and Burma.\nHence the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na and the H\u00eenay\u00e2na are also known respectively\nNorthern and Southern Buddhism.\n\n_En passant_, let me remark that this distinction, however, is not\nquite correct, for we have some {4} schools in China and Japan, whose\nequivalent or counterpart cannot be found in the so-called Northern\nBuddhism, that is, Buddhism flourishing in Northern India. For\ninstance, we do not have in Nepal or in Tibet anything like the\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee sects of Japan or China. Of course, the general essential\nideas of the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee philosophy are found in the s\u00fbtra literature\nas well as in the writings of such authors as A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, Asanga, and\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna. But those ideas were not developed and made into a new sect\nas they were in the East. Therefore, it may be more proper to divide\nBuddhism into three, instead of two, geographical sections: Southern,\nNorthern, and Eastern.\n\n\n _Why the two Doctrines?_\n\nIn spite of this distinction, the two schools, H\u00eenay\u00e2nism and\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, are no more than two main issues of one original source,\nwhich was first discovered by \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni; and, as a matter of course,\nwe find many common traits which are essential to both of them. The\nspirit that animated the innermost heart of Buddha is perceptible in\nSouthern as well as in Northern Buddhism. The difference between them\nis not radical or qualitative as imagined by some. It is due, on the\none hand, to a general unfolding of the religious consciousness and a\nconstant broadening of the intellectual horizon, and, on the other\nhand, to the conservative efforts to literally preserve the monastic\nrules and traditions. Both schools started with the same spirit,\npursuing the {5} same course. But after a while one did not feel any\nnecessity for broadening the spirit of the master and adhered to his\nwords as literally as possible; whilst the other, actuated by a liberal\nand comprehensive spirit, has drawn nourishments from all available\nsources, in order to unfold the germs in the original system that were\nvigorous and generative. These diverse inclinations among primitive\nBuddhists naturally led to the dissension of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and H\u00eenay\u00e2nism.\n\nWe cannot here enter into any detailed accounts as to what external\nand internal forces were acting in the body of Buddhism to produce the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na system, or as to how gradually it unfolded itself so as to\nabsorb and assimilate all the discordant thoughts that came in contact\nwith it. Suffice it to state and answer in general terms the question\nwhich is frequently asked by the uninitiated: \u201cWhy did one Buddhism\never allow itself to be differentiated into two systems, which are\napparently in contradiction in more than one point with each other?\u201d\nIn other words, \u201cHow can there be two Buddhisms equally representing\nthe true doctrine of the founder?\u201d\n\nThe reason is plain enough. The teachings of a great religious founder\nare as a rule very general, comprehensive, and many-sided: and,\ntherefore, there are great possibilities in them to allow various\nliberal interpretations by his disciples. And it is on this very\naccount of comprehensiveness that enables followers of diverse needs,\ncharacters, and trainings to {6} satisfy their spiritual appetite\nuniversally and severally with the teachings of their master. This\ncomprehensiveness, however, is not due to the intentional use by the\nleader of ambiguous terms, nor is it due to the obscurity and\nconfusion of his own conceptions. The initiator of a movement,\nspiritual as well as intellectual, has no time to think out all its\npossible details and consequences. When the principle of the movement\nis understood by the contemporaries and the foundation of it is\nsolidly laid down, his own part as initiator is accomplished; and the\nremainder can safely be left over to his successors. The latter will\ntake up the work and carry it out in all its particulars, while making\nall necessary alterations and ameliorations according to circumstances.\nTherefore, the r\u00f4le to be played by the originator is necessarily\nindefinite and comprehensive.\n\nKant, for instance, as promoter of German philosophy, has become the\nfather of such diverse philosophical systems as Jacobi\u2019s, Fichte\u2019s,\nHegel\u2019s, Schopenhauer\u2019s, etc., while each of them endeavored to\ndevelop some points indefinitely or covertly or indirectly stated by\nKant himself. Jesus of Nazareth, as instigator of a revolutionary\nmovement against Judaism, did not have any stereotyped theological\ndoctrines, such as were established later by Christian doctors. The\nindefiniteness of his views was so apparent that it caused even among\nhis personal disciples a sort of dissension, while a majority of his\ndisciples cherished a visionary hope for the advent {7} of a divine\nkingdom on earth. But those externalities which are doomed to pass, do\nnot prevent the spirit of the movement once awakened by a great leader\nfrom growing more powerful and noble.\n\nThe same thing can be said of the teachings of the Buddha. What he\ninspired in his followers was the spirit of that religious system\nwhich is now known as Buddhism. Guided by this spirit, his followers\nseverally developed his teachings as required by their special needs\nand circumstances, finally giving birth to the distinction of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and H\u00eenay\u00e2nism.\n\n\n _The Original Meaning of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na._\n\nThe term Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na was first used to designate the highest principle,\nor being, or knowledge, of which the universe with all its sentient\nand non-sentient beings is a manifestation, and through which only\nthey can attain final salvation (_mok\u1e63a_ or _nirv\u00e2na_). Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na was\nnot the name given to any religious doctrine, nor had it anything to\ndo with doctrinal controversy, though later it was so utilised by the\nprogressive party.\n\nA\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, the first Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na expounder known to us,--living about the\ntime of Christ,--used the term in his religio-philosophical book\ncalled _Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na_[3] as\nsynonymous with Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2, or Dharmak\u00e2y\u00e2,[4] the {8} highest\nprinciple of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism. He likened the recognition of, and faith in,\nthis highest being and principle into a conveyance which will carry us\nsafely across the tempestuous ocean of birth and death (_sams\u00e2ra_) to\nthe eternal shore of Nirv\u00e2na.\n\nSoon after him, however, the controversy between the two schools of\nBuddhism, conservatives and progressionists as we might call them,\nbecame more and more pronounced; and when it reached its climax which\nwas most probably in the times of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and \u00c2ryadeva, i.e., a\nfew centuries after A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, the progressive party ingeniously\ninvented the term H\u00eenay\u00e2na in contrast to Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na, the latter\nhaving been adopted by them as the watchword of their own school. The\nH\u00eenay\u00e2nists and the T\u00eerthakas[5] then were sweepingly condemned by\nthe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists as inadequate to achieve a universal salvation of\nsentient beings.\n\n\n _An Older Classification of Buddhists._\n\nBefore the distinction of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists and H\u00eenay\u00e2nists became definite,\nthat is to say, at the time of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna or even before it, those\nBuddhists who held a more progressive and broader view tried to\ndistinguish three y\u00e2nas among the followers of the Buddha, viz.,\nBodhisattva-y\u00e2na, Pratyekabuddha-y\u00e2na, and \u00c7r\u00e2vaka-y\u00e2na; y\u00e2na being\nanother name for class.\n\n{9}\n\nThe Bodhisattva is that class of Buddhists who, believing in the Bodhi\n(intelligence or wisdom), which is a reflection of the Dharmak\u00e2ya in\nthe human soul, direct all their spiritual energy toward realising and\ndeveloping it for the sake of their fellow-creatures.\n\nThe Pratyekabuddha is a \u201csolitary thinker\u201d or a philosopher, who,\nretiring into solitude and calmly contemplating on the evanescence of\nworldly pleasures, endeavors to attain his own salvation, but remains\nunconcerned with the sufferings of his fellow-beings. Religiously\nconsidered, a Pratyekabuddha is cold, impassive, egotistic, and lacks\nlove for all mankind.\n\nThe \u00c7r\u00e2vaka which means \u201chearer\u201d is inferior in the estimate of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nists even to the Pratyekabuddha, for he does not possess any\nintellect that enables him to think independently and to find out by\nhimself the way to final salvation. Being endowed, however, with a\npious heart, he is willing to listen to the instructions of the Buddha,\nto believe in him, to observe faithfully all the moral precepts given\nby him, and rests fully contented within the narrow horizon of his\nmediocre intellect.\n\nTo a further elucidation of Bodhisattvahood and its important bearings\nin the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism, we devote a special chapter below. For\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is no more than the Buddhism of Bodhisattvas, while the\nPratyekabuddhas and the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas are considered by Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists to be\nadherents of H\u00eenay\u00e2nism.\n\n{10}\n\n\n _The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism Defined._\n\nWe can now form a somewhat definite notion as to what the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nBuddhism is. It is the Buddhism which, inspired by a progressive\nspirit, broadened its original scope, so far as it did not contradict\nthe inner significance of the teachings of the Buddha, and which\nassimilated other religio-philosophical beliefs within itself,\nwhenever it felt that, by so doing, people of more widely different\ncharacters and intellectual endowments could be saved. Let us be\nsatisfied at present with this statement, until we enter into a more\ndetailed exposition of its doctrinal peculiarities in the pages that\nfollow.\n\nIt may not be out of place, while passing, to remark that the term\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is used in this work merely in contradistinction to that\nform of Buddhism, which is flourishing in Ceylon and Burma and other\ncentral Asiatic nations, and whose literature is principally written\nin the language called P\u00e2li, which comes from the same stock as\nSanskrit. The term \u201cMah\u00e2y\u00e2na\u201d does not imply, as it is used here, any\nsense of superiority over the H\u00eenay\u00e2na. When the historical aspect of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is treated, it may naturally develop that its over-zealous\nand one-sided devotees unnecessarily emphasised its controversial and\ndogmatical phase at the sacrifice of its true spirit; but the reader\nmust not think that this work has anything to do with those\ncomplications. In fact, Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism professes to be a boundless ocean\nin which all form {11} of thought and faith can find its congenial and\nwelcome home; why then should we make it militate against its own\nfellow-doctrine, H\u00eenay\u00e2nism?\n\n\n\n\n 2. IS THE MAH\u00c2Y\u00c2NA BUDDHISM THE GENUINE\n TEACHING OF THE BUDDHA?\n\nWhat is generally known to the Western nations by the name of Buddhism\nis H\u00eenay\u00e2nism, whose scriptures as above stated are written in P\u00e2li\nand studied mostly in Ceylon, Burma, and Siam. It was through this\nlanguage that the first knowledge of Buddhism was acquired by\nOrientalists; and naturally they came to regard H\u00eenay\u00e2nism or Southern\nBuddhism as the only genuine teachings of the Buddha. They insisted,\nand some of them still insist, that to have an adequate and thorough\nknowledge of Buddhism, they must confine themselves solely to the\nstudy of the P\u00e2li, that whatever may be learned from other sources,\ni.e., from the Sanskrit, Tibetan, or Chinese documents should be\nconsidered as throwing only a side-light on the reliable information\nobtained from the P\u00e2li, and further that the knowledge derived from\nthe former should in certain cases be discarded as accounts of a\ndegenerated form of Buddhism. Owing to these unfortunate hypotheses,\nthe significance of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism as a living religion has been entirely\nignored; and even those who are regarded as best authorities on the\nsubject appear greatly misinformed and, what is worse, altogether\nprejudiced.\n\n{12}\n\n\n _No Life Without Growth._\n\nThis is very unfair on the part of the critics, because what religion\nis there in the whole history of mankind that has not made any\ndevelopment whatever, that has remained the same, like the granite,\nthroughout its entire course? Let us ask whether there is any religion\nwhich has shown some signs of vitality and yet retained its primitive\nform intact and unmodified in every respect. Is not changeableness,\nthat is, susceptibility to irritation the most essential sign of\nvitality? Every organism grows, which means a change in some way or\nother. There is no form of life to be found anywhere on earth, that\ndoes not grow or change, or that has not any inherent power of\nadjusting itself to the surrounding conditions.\n\nTake, for example, Christianity. Is Protestantism the genuine teaching\nof Jesus of Nazareth? or does Catholicism represent his true spirit?\nJesus himself did not have any definite notion of Trinity doctrine,\nnor did he propose any suggestion for ritualism. According to the\nSynoptics, he appears to have cherished a rather immature conception\nof the kingdom of God than a purely ideal one as conceived by Paul,\nand his personal disciples who were just as illiterate philosophically\nas the master himself were anxiously waiting in all probability for\nits mundane realisation. But what Christians, Catholics or Protestants,\nin these days of enlightenment, would dare {13} give a literal\nexplanation to this material conception of the coming kingdom?\n\nAgain, think of Jesus\u2019s view on marriage and social life. Is it not an\nestablished fact that he highly advocated celibacy and in the case of\nmarried people strict continence, and also that he greatly favored\npious poverty and asceticism in general? In these respects, the monks\nof the Medieval Ages and the Catholic priests of the present day\n(though I cannot say they are ascetic and poor in their living) must\nbe said to be in more accord with the teaching of the master than\ntheir Protestant brethren. But what Protestants would seriously\nventure to defend all those views of Jesus, in spite of their avowed\ndeclaration that they are sincerely following in the steps of their\nLord? Taking all in all, these contradictions do not prevent them,\nProtestants as well as Catholics, from calling themselves Christians\nand even good, pious, devoted Christians, as long as they are\nconsciously or unconsciously animated by the same spirit, that was\nburning in the son of the carpenter of Nazareth, an obscure village of\nGalilee, about two thousand years ago.\n\nThe same mode of reasoning holds good in the case of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, and\nit would be absurd to insist on the genuineness of H\u00eenay\u00e2nism at the\nexpense of the former. Take for granted that the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na school of\nBuddhism contains some elements absorbed from other Indian\nreligio-philosophical systems; but what of it? Is not Christianity\nalso an amalgamation, {14} so to speak, of Jewish, Greek, Roman,\nBabylonian, Egyptian, and other pagan thoughts? In fact every healthy\nand energetic religion is historical, in the sense that, in the course\nof its development, it has adapted itself to the ever-changing\nenvironment, and has assimilated within itself various elements which\nappeared at first even threatening its own existence. In Christianity,\nthis process of assimilation, adaptation, and modification has been\ngoing on from its very beginning. As the result, we see in the\nChristianity of to-day its original type so metamorphosed, so far as\nits outward appearance is concerned, that nobody would now take it for\na faithful copy of the prototype.\n\n\n _Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism a Living Faith._\n\nSo with Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism. Whatever changes it has made during its historical\nevolution, its spirit and central ideas are all those of its founder.\nThe question whether or not it is genuine, entirely depends on our\ninterpretation of the term \u201cgenuine.\u201d If we take it to mean the\nlifeless preservation of the original, we should say that Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism\nis not the genuine teaching of the Buddha, and we may add that\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nists would be proud of the fact, because being a living\nreligious force it would never condescend to be the corpse of a\nby-gone faith. The fossils, however faithfully preserved, are nothing\nbut rigid inorganic substances from which life is forever departed.\n{15} Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is far from this; it is an ever-growing faith and\nready in all times to cast off its old garments as soon as they are\nworn out. But its spirit originally inspired by the \u201cTeacher of Men\nand Gods\u201d (_\u00e7\u00e2stadevamanu\u1e63y\u00e2nam_) is most jealously guarded against\npollution and degeneration. Therefore, as far as its spirit is\nconcerned, there is no room left to doubt its genuineness; and those\nwho desire to have a complete survey of Buddhism cannot ignore the\nsignificance of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\nIt is naught but an idle talk to question the historical value of an\norganism, which is now full of vitality and active in all its\nfunctions, and to treat it like an archeological object, dug out from\nthe depths of the earth, or like a piece of bric-\u00e0-brac, discovered\nin the ruins of an ancient royal palace. Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is not an object\nof historical curiosity. Its vitality and activity concern us in our\ndaily life. It is a great spiritual organism; its moral and religious\nforces are still exercising an enormous power over millions of souls;\nand its further development is sure to be a very valuable contribution\nto the world-progress of the religious consciousness. What does it\nmatter, then, whether or not Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is the genuine teaching of the\nBuddha?\n\nHere is an instance of most flagrant contradictions present in our\nminds, but of which we are not conscious on account of our preconceived\nideas. Christian critics vigorously insist on the genuineness of their\nown religion, which is no more than a {16} hybrid, at least outwardly;\nbut they want to condemn their rival religion as degenerated, because\nit went through various stages of development like theirs. It is of no\npractical use to trouble with this nonsensical question,--the question\nof the genuineness of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, which by the way is frequently\nraised by outsiders as well as by some unenlightened Buddhists\nthemselves.\n\n\n\n\n 3. SOME MISSTATEMENTS ABOUT THE\n MAH\u00c2Y\u00c2NA DOCTRINES.\n\nBefore entering fully into the subject proper of this work, let us\nglance over some erroneous opinions about the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrines,\nwhich are held by some Western scholars, and naturally by all\nuninitiated readers, who are like the blind led by the blind. It may\nnot be altogether a superfluous work to give them a passing review in\nthis chapter and to show broadly what Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is not.\n\n\n _Why Injustice is done to Buddhism._\n\nThe people who have had their thoughts and sentiments habitually\ntrained by one particular set of religious dogmas, frequently misjudge\nthe value of those thoughts that are strange and unfamiliar to them.\nWe may call this class of people bigots or religious enthusiasts. They\nmay have fine religious and moral sentiments as far as their own\nreligious training goes; but, when examined from a broader point of\nview, they are to a great extent vitiated {17} with prejudices,\nsuperstitions, and fanatical beliefs, which, since childhood, have\nbeen pumped into their receptive minds, before they were sufficiently\ndeveloped and could form independent judgments. This fact so miserably\nspoils their purity of sentiment and obscures their transparency of\nintellect, that they are disqualified to perceive and appreciate\nwhatever is good and true and beautiful in the so-called heathen\nreligions. This is the main reason why those Christian missionaries\nare incapable of rightly understanding the spirit of religion\ngenerally--I mean, those missionaries who come to the East to\nsubstitute one set of superstitions for another.\n\nThis strong general indictment against the Christian missionaries,\nhowever, is by no means prompted by any partisan spirit. My desire, on\nthe contrary, is to do justice to those thoughts and sentiments that\nhave been working consciously or unconsciously in the human mind from\ntime immemorial and shall work on till the day of the last judgment,\nif there ever be such a day. To see what these thoughts and sentiments\nare, which, by the way, constitute the kernel of every religion, we\nmust without any reluctance throw off all the prejudices we are liable\nto cherish, though quite unknowingly; and keeping always in view what\nis most essential in the religious consciousness, we must not confound\nit with its accessories, which are doomed to die in the course of\ntime.\n\n{18}\n\n\n _Examples of Injustice._\n\nAs specimen of injustice done to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism by Christian\ncritics, we quote the following passages from Monier-William\u2019s\n_Buddhism_, Waddell\u2019s _Buddhism in Tibet_, and Samuel Beal\u2019s _Buddhism\nin China_, all of which are representative works each in its own field.\n\n\n _Monier Monier-Williams._\n\nMonier Monier-Williams is a well-known authority on Sanskrit\nliterature, and his works in this department will long remain as a\nvaluable contribution to human knowledge. But, unfortunately, as soon\nas he attempts to enter the domain of religious controversy, his\nintellect becomes piteously obscured by his preconceived ideas. He\nthinks, for instance, that the principal feature of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism consists\nmerely in amplifying the number of Bodhisattvas, who are contented,\naccording to his view, with their \u201cperpetual residence in the heavens,\nand quite willing to put off all desires for Buddhahood and\nParinirvana.\u201d (P. 190.)\n\nThis remark is so absurd that it will at once be rejected by any one\nwho has a first-hand knowledge of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na system, as even unworthy\nof refutation, but Monier-Williams takes special pains to give to his\ncharacterisation of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrine a show of rational\nexplanation. \u201cOf course,\u201d says he, \u201cmen instinctively recoiled from\nutter self-annihilation, {19} and so the Buddha\u2019s followers ended in\nchanging the true idea of Nirvana and converting it from a condition\nof non-existence into a state of lazy beatitude in celestial regions\n(!), while they encouraged all men--whether monks or laymen--to make a\nsense of dreamy bliss in Heaven (!), and not total extinction of life,\nthe end of all their efforts.\u201d (P. 156.)\n\nThis view of the Buddhist heaven as interpreted by Monier-Williams is\nnothing but the conception of the Christian heaven colored with\npaganism. Nothing is more foreign to Buddhists than this distinguished\nSankritist\u2019s interpretation of celestial existence. The life of devas\n(celestial beings) is just as much subject to the law of birth and\ndeath as that of men on earth. What consolation would there be for the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nists striving after the highest principle of existence, only\nto find themselves transmigrated to a celestial abode, that is also\nfull of sorrows and sufferings? Always working for the welfare of\ntheir fellow-creatures, the Bodhisattvas never desire any earthly or\nheavenly happiness for themselves. Whatever merits, according to the\nlaw of karma, there be stored up for their good work, they do not have\nany wish to enjoy them by themselves, but they will have all these\nmerits turned over (_parivarta_) to the interests of their\nfellow-beings. This is the ideal of Bodhisattvas, i.e., of the\nfollowers of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\n{20}\n\n\n _Beal._\n\nSamuel Beal who is considered by Western scholars to be an authority\non Chinese Buddhism, referring to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na conception of\nDharmak\u00e2ya,[6] says in his _Buddhism in China_ (p. 156): \u201cWe can\nhave little doubt, then, that from early days worship was offered by\nBuddhists at several spots, consecrated by the presence of the Teacher,\nto an invisible presence. This presence was formulated by the later\nBuddhists under the phrase, \u2018the Body of the Law\u2019, Dharmak\u00e2ya.\u201d\n\nThen, alluding to Buddha\u2019s instruction that says after his Parinirvana\nthe Law given by him should be regarded as himself, Beal proceeds to\nsay: \u201cHere was the germ from which proceeded the idea or formula of an\ninvisible presence: teaching and power of the Law (_Dharma_)\nrepresented the Dharmak\u00e2ya or Law-Body of Buddha, present with the\norder, and fit for reverence.\u201d\n\nTo interpret Dharmak\u00e2ya as the Body of the Law is quite inadequate\nand misleading. To the H\u00eenay\u00e2nists, there is nothing beside the\nTripitaka as the object of reverence, and, therefore, the notion of\nthe Body of the Law has no meaning to them. The idea {21} is distinctly\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic, but Beal is not well informed about its real significance\nas understood by the Buddhists. The chief reason of his\nmisinterpretation, as I judge, lies in his rendering _dharma_ by \u201claw\u201d,\nwhile _dharma_ here means \u201cthat which subsists,\u201d or \u201cthat which\nmaintains itself even when all the transient modes disappear,\u201d in\nshort, \u201cbeing,\u201d or \u201csubstance.\u201d Dharmak\u00e2ya, therefore, would be a sort\nof the Absolute, or Essence-Body of all things. This notion plays such\nan important r\u00f4le in Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism that an adequate knowledge of it is\nindispensable to understand the constitution of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism as a\nreligious system.\n\n\n _Waddell._\n\nLet us state one more case of misrepresentation by Western scholars of\nthe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism. Waddell, author of _Buddhism in Tibet_,\nreferring to the point of divergence between the so-called Northern\nBuddhism and the Southern, says (pp. 10-11): \u201cIt was the theistic\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrine which substituted, for the agnostic idealism and\nsimple morality of Buddha, a speculative theistic system with a\nmysticism of sophistic nihilism in the background.\u201d\n\nAnd again: \u201cThis Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na [meaning N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\u2019s M\u00e2dhyamika school] was\nessentially a sophistic nihilism, or rather Parinirvana, while ceasing\nto be extinction of life, was converted a mystic state which admitted\nof no definition.\u201d\n\n{22}\n\nIt may not be wrong to call Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism a speculative theistic system\nin a wide sense, but it must be asked on what ground Waddell thinks\nthat it has in its background \u201ca mysticism of sophistic nihilism\u201d.\nCould a religious system be called sophistry when it makes a close\ninquiry into the science of dialectics, in order to show how futile it\nis to seek salvation through the intellect alone? Could a religious\nsystem be called a nihilism when it endeavors to reach the highest\nreality which transcends the phenomenality of concrete individual\nexistences? Could a doctrine be called nihilistic when it defines the\nabsolute as neither void (_\u00e7\u00fbnya_) nor not-void (_a\u00e7\u00fbnya_)?\n\nI could cull some more passages from other Buddhist scholars of the\nWest and show how far Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism has been made by them a subject of\nmisrepresentation. But since this work is not a polemic, but devoted\nto a positive exposition of its basic doctrines, I refrain from so\ndoing. Suffice it to state that one of the main causes of the injustice\ndone to Buddhism by the Christian critics comes from their\npreconceptions, of which they may not be aware, but which all the more\nvitiate their \u201cimpartial\u201d judgments.\n\n\n\n\n 4. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGION.\n\nThose misconceptions about Buddhism as above stated induce me to\ndigress in this introductory part and to say a few words concerning\nthe distinction {23} between the form and the spirit of religion. A\nclear knowledge of this distinction will greatly facilitate the\nformation of a correct notion about Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and will also help us\nduly to appreciate its significance as a living religious faith.\n\nBy the spirit of religion I mean that element in religion which remains\nunchanged throughout its successive stages of development and\ntransformation: while the form of it is the external shell which is\nsubject to any modification required by circumstances.\n\n\n _No Revealed Religion._\n\nIt admits of no doubt that religion, as everything else under the sun,\nis subject to the laws of evolution, and that, therefore, there is no\nsuch thing as a revealed religion, whose teachings are supposed to\nhave been delivered to us direct from the hands of an anthropomorphic\nor anthropopsychic supernatural being, and which, like an inorganic\nsubstance, remains forever the same, without changing, without growing,\nwithout modifying itself in accord with the surrounding conditions.\nUnless people are so blinded by a belief in this kind of religion as\nto insist that its dogmas have suffered absolutely no change whatever\nsince its \u201crevelation,\u201d they must recognise like every clear-headed\nperson the fact that there are some ephemeral elements in every\nreligion, which must carefully be distinguished from its quintessence\nwhich remains eternally the same.\n\nWhen this discrimination is not observed, prejudice {24} will at once\nassert itself, inducing them to imagine that the religion in which\nthey were brought up with all its truths and superstitions is the only\northodox religion in the world, and all the other religions are\nnothing else than heathenism, idolatry, atheism, apostasy, and the\nlike. This attitude of such religionists, however, serves only to\nbetray their own narrowness of mind and dimness of spiritual insight.\nNo one who desires to penetrate into the innermost recesses of the\nhuman heart and who longs to feel the fullest meaning of life, should\nfoster in himself in the least degree a disposition of bigotry.\n\n\n _The Mystery._\n\nReligion is the inmost voice of the human heart that under the yoke of\na seemingly finite existence groans and travails in pain. Mankind,\nfrom their first appearance on earth, have never been satisfied with\nthe finiteness and impermanency of life. They have always been\nyearning after something that will liberate them from the slavery of\nthis mortal coil, or from the cursed bondage of metempsychosis, as\nHindu thinkers express it. This something, however, on account of its\ntranscending all the principles of separation and individuation, which\ncharacterise the phenomena of this mundane existence, has always\nremained as something indefinite, inadequate, chaotic, and full of\nmystery. And, according to different degrees of intellectual\ndevelopment in different ages and nations, people have endeavored to\ninvest this {25} mysterious something with all sorts of human feelings\nand intelligence. Most of modern scientists are now content with the\nhypothesis that the mystery is unfathomable by the human mind, which\nis conditioned by the law of relativity, and that our business here,\nmoral as well as intellectual, can be executed without troubling\nourselves with this ever-haunting problem of mystery;--this doctrine\nis called agnosticism.\n\nBut this hypothesis can in no wise be considered the final sentence\npassed on the mystery. From the scientific point of view, the maxim of\nagnosticism is excellent, as science does not pretend to venture into\nthe realm of non-relativity. Dissatisfaction, however, presents itself,\nwhen we attempt to silence by this hypothesis the last demand of the\nhuman heart.\n\n\n _Intellect and Imagination._\n\nThe human heart is not an intellectual crystal. When the intellect\ndisplays itself in its full glory, the heart still aches and struggles\nto get hold of something beyond. The intellect may sometimes declare\nthat it has at last laid its hand on what is demanded by the heart.\nTime passes on, and the mystery is examined from the other points that\nescaped consideration before, and, to the great disappointment of the\nheart, the supposed solution is found to be wanting. The intellect is\nbaffled. But the human heart never gets tired of its yearnings and\ndemands a satisfaction ever more pressingly. Should they be considered\na mere nightmare of imagination? Surely {26} not, for herein lies the\nfield where religion claims supreme authority, and its claim is\nperfectly right.\n\nBut religion cannot fabricate whatever it pleases; it must work in\nperfect accord with the intellect. As the essential nature of man does\nnot consist solely in intellect, or will, or feeling, but in the\nco\u00f6rdination of these psychical elements, religion must guard herself\nagainst the unrestrained flight of imagination. Most of the\nsuperstitions fondly cherished by a pious heart are due to the\ndisregard of the intellectual element in religion.\n\nThe imagination creates: the intellect discriminates. Creation without\ndiscrimination is wild: discrimination without creation is barren.\nReligion and science, when they do not work with mutual understanding,\nare sure to be one-sided. The soul makes an abnormal growth at one\npoint, loses its balance, and is finally given up to a collapse of the\nentire system. Those pious religious enthusiasts who see a natural\nenemy in science and denounce it with all their energy, are, in my\nopinion, as purblind and distorted in their view, as those men of\nscience who think that science alone must claim the whole field of\nsoul-activities as well as those of nature. I am not in sympathy with\neither of them: for one is just as arrogant in its claim as the other.\nWithout a careful examination of both sides of a shield, we are not\ncompetent to give a correct opinion upon it.\n\nBut the imagination is not the exclusive possession of religion, nor\nis discrimination or ratiocination the {27} monopoly of science. They\nare reciprocal and complementary: one cannot do anything without the\nother. The difference between science and religion is not that between\ncertitude and probability. The difference is rather in their respective\nfields of activity. Science is solely concerned with things\nconditional, relative, and finite. When it explains a given phenomenon\nby some fixed laws which are in turn nothing but a generalisation of\nparticular facts, the task of science is done, and any further attempt\nto go beyond this, i.e., to make an inquiry into the whence, whither,\nand why of things, is beyond its realm. But the human soul does not\nremain satisfied here, it asks for the ultimate principle underlying\nall so-called scientific laws and hypotheses. Science is indifferent\nto the teleology of things: a mechanical explanation of them appeases\nits intellectual curiosity. But in religion teleology is of paramount\nimportance, it is one of the most fundamental problems, and a system\nwhich does not give any definite conception on this point is no\nreligion. Science, again, does not care if there is something beyond\nor outside its manifold laws and theories; but a religion which does\nnot possess a God or anything corresponding to it, ceases to be so,\nfor it fails to give consolation to the human heart.\n\n\n _The Contents of Faith vary._\n\nThe solution of religious problems, as far as they fall within the\nsphere of relative experience, is largely {28} a matter of personal\nconviction, determined by one\u2019s intellectual development, external\ncircumstances, education, disposition, etc. The conceptions of faith\nthus formulated are naturally infinitely diversified; even among the\nfollowers of a certain definite set of dogmas, each will understand\nthem in his own way, owing to individual peculiarities. If we could\nsubject their conceptions of faith to a strict analysis as a chemist\ndoes his materials, we should detect in them all the possible forms of\ndifferentiation. But all these things belong to the exterior of\nreligion and have nothing to do with the essentials which underlie\nthem.\n\nThe abiding elements of religion come from within, and consist mainly\nin the mysterious sentiment that lies hidden in the deepest depths of\nthe human heart, and that, when awakened, shakes the whole structure\nof personality and brings about a great spiritual revolution, which\nresults in a complete change of one\u2019s world-conception. When this\nmysterious sentiment finds expression and formulates its conceptions\nin the terms of intellect, it becomes a definite system of beliefs,\nwhich is popularly called religion, but which should properly be\ntermed dogmatism, that is, an intellectualised form of religion. On\nthe other hand, the outward forms of religion consist of those\nchanging elements that are mainly determined by the intellectual and\nmoral development of the times as well as by individual esthetical\nfeelings.\n\nTrue Christians and enlightened Buddhists may, therefore, find their\npoint of agreement in the recognition {29} of the inmost religious\nsentiment that constitutes the basis of our being, though this\nagreement does by no means prevent them from retaining their\nindividuality in the conceptions and expressions of faith. My\nconviction is: If the Buddha and the Christ changed their accidental\nplaces of birth, Gautama might have been a Christ rising against the\nJewish traditionalism, and Jesus a Buddha, perhaps propounding the\ndoctrine of non-ego and Nirv\u00e2na and Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\nHowever great a man may be, he cannot but be an echo of the spirit of\nthe times. He never stands, as is supposed by some, so aloof and\ntowering above the masses as to be practically by himself. On the\ncontrary, \u201che,\u201d as Emerson says, \u201cfinds himself in the river of the\nthoughts and events, forced onward by the ideas and necessities of his\ncontemporaries.\u201d So it was with the Buddha, and so with the Christ.\nThey were nothing but the concrete representatives of the ideas and\nfeelings that were struggling in those times against the established\ninstitutions, which were degenerating fast and menaced the progress of\nhumanity. But at the same time those ideas and sentiments were the\noutburst of the Eternal Soul, which occasionally makes a solemn\nannouncement of its will, through great historical figures or through\ngreat world-events.\n\n * * *\n\nBelieving that a bit of religio-philosophical exposition as above\nindulged will prepare the minds of {30} my Christian readers sincerely\nto take up the study of a religious system other than their own, I now\nproceed to a systematical elucidation of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism, as it\nis believed at present in the Far East.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n A GENERAL CHARACTERISATION OF BUDDHISM.\n\n{31}\n\n\n _No God and no Soul._\n\n/Buddhism/ is considered by some to be a religion without a God and\nwithout a soul. The statement is true and untrue according to what\nmeaning we give to those terms.\n\nBuddhism does not recognise the existence of a being, who stands aloof\nfrom his \u201ccreations,\u201d and who meddles occasionally with human affairs\nwhen his capricious will pleases him. This conception of a supreme\nbeing is very offensive to Buddhists. They are unable to perceive any\ntruth in the hypotheses, that a being like ourselves created the\nuniverse out of nothing and first peopled it with a pair of sentient\nbeings; that, owing to a crime committed by them, which, however,\ncould have been avoided if the creator so desired, they were condemned\nby him to eternal damnation; that the creator in the meantime feeling\npity for the cursed, or suffering the bite of remorse for his somewhat\nrash deed, despatched his only beloved son to the earth for the\npurpose of rescuing mankind from universal misery, etc., etc. If\nBuddhism is called atheism on account of its {32} refusal to take\npoetry for actual fact, its followers would have no objection to the\ndesignation.\n\nNext, if we understand by soul \u00e2tman, which, secretly hiding itself\nbehind all mental activities, direct them after the fashion of an\norganist striking different notes as he pleases, Buddhists outspokenly\ndeny the existence of such a fabulous being. To postulate an\nindependent \u00e2tman outside a combination of the five Skandhas[7], of\nwhich an individual being is supposed by Buddhists to consist, is to\nunreservedly welcome egoism with all its pernicious corollaries. And\nwhat distinguishes Buddhism most characteristically and emphatically\nfrom all other religions is the doctrine of non-\u00e2tman or non-ego,\nexactly opposite to the postulate of a soul-substance which is\ncherished by most of religious enthusiasts. In this sense, Buddhism is\nundoubtedly a religion without the soul.\n\nTo make these points clearer in a general way, let us briefly treat in\nthis chapter of such principal tenets of Buddhism as Karma, \u00c2tman,\nAvidy\u00e2, Nirv\u00e2na, Dharmak\u00e2ya, etc. Some of these doctrines being the\ncommon property of the two schools of Buddhism, H\u00eenay\u00e2nism and\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, their brief, comprehensive exposition here will furnish\nour readers with a general notion about the constitution of Buddhism,\nand will also prepare them to pursue a further specific exposition of\nthe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrine which follows.\n\n{33}\n\n\n _Karma._\n\nOne of the most fundamental doctrines established by Buddha is that\nnothing in this world comes from a single cause, that the existence of\na universe is the result of a combination of several causes (_hetu_)\nand conditions (_pratyaya_), and is at the same time an active force\ncontributing to the production of an effect in the future. As far as\nphenomenal existences are concerned, this law of cause and effect\nholds universally valid. Nothing, even God, can interfere with the\ncourse of things thus regulated, materially as well as morally. If a\nGod really exists and has some concern about our worldly affairs, he\nmust first conform himself to the law of causation. Because the\nprinciple of karma, which is the Buddhist term for causation morally\nconceived, holds supreme everywhere and all the time.\n\nThe conception of karma plays the most important r\u00f4le in Buddhist\nethics. Karma is the formative principle of the universe. It determines\nthe course of events and the destiny of our existence. The reason why\nwe cannot change our present state of things as we may will, is that\nit has already been determined by the karma that was performed in our\nprevious lives, not only individually but collectively. But, for this\nsame reason, we shall be able to work out our destiny in the future,\nwhich is nothing but the resultant of several factors that are working\nand that are being worked by ourselves in this life.\n\n{34}\n\nTherefore, says Buddha:\n\n\n \u201cBy self alone is evil done,\n By self is one disgraced;\n By self is evil left undone,\n By self alone is he purified;\n Purity and impurity belong to self:\n No one can purify another.\u201d[8]\n\n\nAgain,\n\n\n \u201cNot in the sky\n Nor in the midst of the sea,\n Nor entering a cleft of the mountains,\n Is found that realm on earth\n Where one may stand and be\n From an evil deed absolved.\u201d[9]\n\n\nThis doctrine of karma may be regarded as an application in our\nethical realm of the theory of the conservation of energy. Everything\ndone is done once for all; its footprints on the sand of our moral and\nsocial evolution are forever left; nay, more than left, they are\ngenerative, good or evil, and waiting for further development under\nfavorable conditions. In the physical world, even the slightest\npossible movement of our limbs cannot but affect the general cosmic\nmotion of the earth, however infinitesimal it be; and if we had a\nproper instrument, we could surely measure its precise extent of\neffect. So is it even with our deeds. A deed once performed, together\nwith its subjective motives, can never vanish without leaving some\nimpressions either on the individual {35} consciousness or on the\nsupra-individual, i.e., social consciousness.\n\nWe need not further state that the conception of karma in its general\naspect is scientifically verified. In our moral and material life,\nwhere the law of relativity rules supreme, the doctrine of karma must\nbe considered thoroughly valid. And as long as its validity is\nadmitted in this field, we can live our phenomenal life without\nresorting to the hypothesis of a personal God, as declared by Lamarck\nwhen his significant work on evolution was presented to Emperor\nNapoleon.\n\nBut it will do injustice to Buddhism if we designate it agnosticism or\nnaturalism, denying or ignoring the existence of the ultimate,\nunifying principle, in which all contradictions are obliterated.\nDharmak\u00e2ya is the name given by Buddhists to this highest principle,\nviewed not only from the philosophical but also from the religious\nstandpoint. In the Dharmak\u00e2ya, Buddhists find the ultimate\nsignificance of life, which, when seen from its phenomenal aspect,\ncannot escape the bondage of karma and its irrefragable laws.\n\n\n _Avidy\u00e2._\n\nWhat claims our attention next, is the problem of nescience, which is\none of the most essential features of Buddhism. Buddhists think,\nnescience (in Sanskrit _avidy\u00e2_) is the subjective aspect of karma,\ninvolving us in a series of rebirths. Rebirth, considered by itself,\nis no moral evil, but rather a necessary {36} condition of progress\ntoward perfection, if perfection ever be attainable here. It is an\nevil only when it is the outcome of ignorance,--ignorance as to the\ntrue meaning of our earthly existence.\n\nIgnorant are they who do not recognise the evanescence of worldly\nthings and who tenaciously cleave to them as final realities; who\nmadly struggle to shun the misery brought about by their own folly;\nwho savagely cling to the self against the will of God, as Christians\nwould say; who take particulars as final existences and ignore One\npervading reality which underlies them all; who build up an adamantine\nwall between the mine and thine: in a word, ignorant are those who do\nnot understand that there is no such thing as an ego-soul, and that\nall individual existences are unified in the system of Dharmak\u00e2ya.\nBuddhism, therefore, most emphatically maintains that to attain the\nbliss of Nirvana we must radically dispel this illusion, this\nignorance, this root of all evil and suffering in this life.\n\nThe doctrine of nescience or ignorance is technically expressed in the\nfollowing formula, which is commonly called the Twelve Nid\u00e2nas or\nPratyayasamutpada, that is to say Chains of Dependence:\n\n(1) There is Ignorance (_avidy\u00e2_) in the beginning; (2) from Ignorance\nAction (_sansk\u00e2ra_) comes forth; (3) from Action Consciousness\n(_vij\u00f1\u00e2na_) comes forth; (4) from Consciousness Name-and-Form\n(_n\u00e2mar\u00fbpa_) comes forth; (5) from Name-and-Form the Six Organs\n(_\u1e63ad\u00e2y\u00e2tana_) come forth; (6) from the Six Organs {37} Touch\n(_spar\u00e7a_) comes forth; (7) from Touch Sensation (_vedan\u00e2_) comes\nforth; (8) from Sensation Desire (_t\u1e5b\u1e63n\u00e2_) comes forth; (9) from Desire\nClinging (_up\u00e2d\u00e2na_) comes forth; (10) from Clinging Being (_bh\u00e2va_)\ncomes forth; (11) from Being Birth (_jati_) comes forth; and (12) from\nBirth Pain (_du\u1e25kha_) comes forth.\n\nAccording to Vasubandhu\u2019s _Abhidharmako\u00e7a_, the formula is explained\nas follows: Being ignorant in our previous life as to the significance\nof our existence, we let loose our desires and act wantonly. Owing to\nthis karma, we are destined in the present life to be endowed with\nconsciousness (_vij\u00f1\u00e2na_), name-and-form (_n\u00e2mar\u00fbpa_), the six organs\nof sense (_\u1e63ad\u00e2y\u00e2tana_), and sensation (_vedan\u00e2_). By the exercise of\nthese faculties, we now desire for, hanker after, cling to, these\nillusive existences which have no ultimate reality whatever. In\nconsequence of this \u201cWill to Live\u201d we potentially accumulate or make\nup the karma that will lead us to further metempsychosis of birth and\ndeath.\n\nThe formula is by no means logical, nor is it exhaustive, but the\nfundamental notion that life started in ignorance or blind will\nremains veritable.\n\n\n _Non-Atman._\n\nThe problem of nescience naturally leads to the doctrine usually known\nas that of non-Atman, i.e., non-ego, to which allusion was made at the\nbeginning {38} of this chapter. This doctrine of Buddhism is one of\nthe subjects that have caused much criticism by Christian scholars.\nIts thesis runs: There is no such thing as ego-soul, which, according\nto the vulgar interpretation, is the agent of our mental activities.\nAnd this is the reason why Buddhism is sometimes called a religion\nwithout the soul, as aforesaid.\n\nThis Buddhist negation of the ego-soul is perhaps startling to the\npeople, who, having no speculative power, blindly accept the\ntraditional, materialistic view of the soul. They think, they are very\nspiritual in endorsing the dualism of soul and flesh, and in making\nthe soul something like a corporeal entity, though far more ethereal\nthan an ordinary object of the senses. They think of the soul as being\nmore in the form of an angel, when they teach that it ascends to\nheaven immediately after its release from the material imprisonment.\n\nThey further imagine that the soul, because of its imprisonment in the\nbody, groans in pain for its liberty, not being able to bear its\nmundane limitations. The immortality of the soul is a continuation\nafter the dismemberment of material elements of this ethereal, astral,\nghost-like entity,--very much resembling the Samkhyan _Lingham_ or the\nVedantic _s\u00fbk\u1e63ama-\u00e7\u00e2r\u00eera_. Self-consciousness will not a whit suffer\nin its continued activity, as it is the essential function of the\nsoul. Brothers and sisters, parents and sons and daughters, wives and\nhusbands, all transfigured and sublimated, will meet again in the {39}\ncelestial abode, and perpetuate their home life much after the manner\nof their earthly one. People who take this view of the soul and its\nimmortality must feel a great disappointment or even resentment, when\nthey are asked to recognise the Buddhist theory of non-\u00e2tman.\n\nThe absurdity of ascribing to the soul a sort of astral existence\ntaught by some theosophists is due to the confusion of the name and\nthe object corresponding to it. The soul, or what is tantamount\naccording to the vulgar notion, the ego, is a name given to a certain\nco\u00f6rdination of mental activities. Abstract names are invented by us\nto economise our intellectual labors, and of course have no\ncorresponding realities as particular presences in the concrete\nobjective world. Vulgar minds have forgotten the history of the\nformation of abstract names. Being accustomed always to find certain\nobjective realities or concrete individuals answering to certain\nnames, they--those na\u00efve realists--imagine that all names, irrespective\nof their nature, must have their concrete individual equivalents in\nthe sensual world. Their idealism or spiritualism, so called, is in\nfact a gross form of materialism, in spite of their unfounded fear for\nthe latter as atheistic and even immoral;--curse of ignorance!\n\nThe non-\u00e2tman theory does not deny that there is a co\u00f6rdination or\nunification of various mental operations. Buddhism calls this system\nof co\u00f6rdination vij\u00f1\u00e2na, not \u00e2tman. Vij\u00f1\u00e2na is consciousness, while\n{40} \u00e2tman is the ego conceived as a concrete entity,--a hypostatic\nagent which, abiding in the deepest recess of the mind, directs all\nsubjective activities according to its own discretion. This view is\nradically rejected by Buddhism.\n\nA familiar analogy illustrating the doctrine of non-\u00e2tman is the\nnotion of a wheel or that of a house. Wheel is the name given to a\ncombination in a fixed form of the spokes, axle, tire, hub, rim, etc.;\nhouse is that given to a combination of roofs, pillars, windows,\nfloors, walls, etc., after a certain model and for a certain purpose.\nNow, take all these parts independently, and where is the house or the\nwheel to be found? House or wheel is merely the name designating a\ncertain form in which parts are systematically and definitely disposed.\nWhat an absurdity, then, it must be to insist on the independent\nexistence of the wheel or of the house as an agent behind the\ncombination of certain parts thus definitely arranged!\n\nIt is wonderful that Buddhism clearly anticipated the outcome of\nmodern psychological researches at the time when all other religious\nand philosophical systems were eagerly cherishing dogmatic\nsuperstitions concerning the nature of the ego. The refusal of modern\npsychology to have soul mean anything more than the sum-total of all\nmental experiences, such as sensations, ideas, feelings, decisions,\netc., is precisely a rehearsal of the Buddhist doctrine of non-\u00e2tman.\nIt does not deny that there is a unity of consciousness, {41} for to\ndeny this is to doubt our everyday experiences, but it refuses to\nassert that this unity is absolute, unconditioned, and independent.\nEverything in this phenomenal phase of existence, is a combination of\ncertain causes (_hetu_) and conditions (_pratyaya_) brought together\naccording to the principle of karma; and everything that is compound\nis finite and subject to dissolution, and, therefore, always limited\nby something else. Even the soul-life, as far as its phenomenality\ngoes, is no exception to this universal law. To maintain the existence\nof a soul-substance which is supposed to lie hidden behind the\nphenomena of consciousness, is not only misleading, but harmful and\nproductive of some morally dangerous conclusions. The supposition that\nthere is something where there is really nothing, makes us cling to\nthis chimerical form, with no other result than subjecting ourselves\nto an eternal series of sufferings. So we read in the _Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra\nS\u00fbtra_, III:\n\n\n \u201cA flower in the air, or a hare with horns,\n Or a pregnant maid of stone:\n To take what is not for what is,\n \u2019Tis called a judgment false.\n\n \u201cIn a combination of causes,\n The vulgar seek the reality of self.\n As truth they understand not,\n From birth to birth they transmigrate.\u201d\n\n\n\n _The Non-Atman-ness of Things._\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism has gone a step further than H\u00eenay\u00e2nism in the development\nof the doctrine of non-\u00e2tman, for it expressly disavows, besides the\ndenial {42} of the existence of the ego-substance, a noumenal\nconception of things, i.e., the conception of particulars as having\nsomething absolute in them. H\u00eenay\u00e2nism, indeed, also disfavors this\nconception of thinginess, but it does so only implicitly. It is\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism that definitely insists on the non-existence of a personal\n(_pudgala_) as well as a thingish (_dharma_) ego.\n\nAccording to the vulgar view, particular existences are real, they\nhave permanent substantial entities, remaining forever as such. They\nthink, therefore, that organic matter remains forever organic just as\nmuch as inorganic matter remains inorganic; that, as they are\nessentially different, there is no mutual transformation between them.\nThe human soul is different from that of the lower animals and sentient\nbeings from non-sentient beings; the difference being well-defined and\npermanent, there is no bridge over which one can cross to the other.\nWe may call this view naturalistic egoism.\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, against this egoistic conception of the world, extends\nits theory of non-\u00e2tman to the realm lying outside us. It maintains\nthat there is no irreducible reality in particular existences, so long\nas they are combinations of several causes and conditions brought\ntogether by the principle of karma. Things are here because they are\nsustained by karma. As soon as its force is exhausted, the conditions\nthat made their existence possible lose efficience and dissolve, and\nin their places will follow other conditions and existences. Therefore,\nwhat is organic {43} to-day, may be inorganic to-morrow, and _vice\nversa_. Carbon, for instance, which is stored within the earth appears\nin the form of coal or graphite or diamond; but that which exists on\nits surface is found sometimes combined with other elements in the\nform of an animal or a vegetable, sometimes in its free elementary\nstate. It is the same carbon everywhere; it becomes inorganic or\norganic, according to its karma, it has no \u00e2tman in itself which\ndirects its transformation by its own self-determining will. Mutual\ntransformation is everywhere observable; there is a constant shifting\nof forces, an eternal transmigration of the elements,--all of which\ntend to show the transitoriness and non-\u00e2tman-ness of individual\nexistences. The universe is moving like a whirl-wind, nothing in it\nproving to be stationary, nothing in it rigidly adhering to its own\nform of existence.\n\nSuppose, on the other hand, there were an \u00e2tman behind every\nparticular being; suppose, too, it were absolute and permanent and\nself-acting; and this phenomenal world would then come to a\nstandstill, and life be forever gone. For is not changeability the\nmost essential feature and condition of life, and also the strongest\nevidence for the non-existence of individual things as realities? The\nphysical sciences recognise this universal fact of mutual\ntransformation in its positive aspect and call it the law of the\nconservation of energy and of matter. Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, recognising its\nnegative side, proposes the doctrine of the non-\u00e2tman-ness of things,\nthat is to say, the {44} impermanency of all particular existences.\nTherefore, it is said, \u201c_Sarvam anityam, sarvam \u00e7\u00fbnyam, sarvam\nan\u00e2tman_.\u201d (All is transitory, all is void, all is without ego.)\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nists condemn the vulgar view that denies the consubstantiality\nand reciprocal transformation of all beings, not only because it is\nscientifically untenable, but mainly because, ethically and religiously\nconsidered, it is fraught with extremely dangerous ideas,--ideas which\nfinally may lead a \u201cbrother to deliver up the brother to death and the\nfather the child,\u201d and, again, it may constrain \u201cthe children to rise\nup against their parents and cause them to be put to death.\u201d Why?\nBecause this view, born of egoism, would dry up the well of human love\nand sympathy, and transform us into creatures of bestial selfishness;\nbecause this view is not capable of inspiring us with the sense of\nmutuality and commiseration and of making us disinterestedly feel for\nour fellow-beings. Then, all fine religious and humane sentiments\nwould depart from our hearts, and we should be nothing less than rigid,\nlifeless corpses, no pulse beating, no blood running. And how many\nvictims are offered every day on this altar of egoism! They are not\nnecessarily immoral by nature, but blindly led by the false conception\nof life and the world, they have been rendered incapable of seeing\ntheir own spiritual doubles in their neighbors. Being ever controlled\nby their sensual impulses, they sin against humanity, against nature,\nand against themselves.\n\n{45}\n\nWe read in the _Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-abhisamaya S\u00fbtra_ (Nanjo, no. 196):\n\n\n \u201cEmpty and calm and devoid of ego\n Is the nature of all things:\n There is no individual being\n That in reality exists.\n\n \u201cNor end nor beginning having\n Nor any middle course,\n All is a sham, here\u2019s no reality whatever:\n It is like unto a vision and a dream.\n\n \u201cIt is like unto clouds and lightning,\n It is like unto gossamer or bubbles floating\n It is like unto fiery revolving wheel,\n It is like unto water-splashing.\n\n \u201cBecause of causes and conditions things are here:\n In them there\u2019s no self-nature [i.e., \u00e2tman]:\n All things that move and work,\n Know them as such.\n\n \u201cIgnorance and thirsty desire,\n The source of birth and death they are:\n Right contemplation and discipline by heart,\n Desire and ignorance obliterate.\n\n \u201cAll beings in the world,\n Beyond words they are and expressions:\n Their ultimate nature, pure and true,\n Is like unto vacuity of space.\u201d[10]\n\n\n _The Dharmak\u00e2ya._\n\nThe Dharmak\u00e2ya, which literally means \u201cbody or system of being,\u201d is,\naccording to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists, {46} the ultimate reality that underlies\nall particular phenomena; it is that which makes the existence of\nindividuals possible; it is the _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ of the universe; it is\nthe norm of being, which regulates the course of events and thoughts.\nThe conception of Dharmak\u00e2ya is peculiarly Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic, for the\nH\u00eenay\u00e2na school did not go so far as to formulate the ultimate\nprinciple of the universe; its adherents stopped short at a\npositivistic interpretation of Buddhism. The Dharmak\u00e2ya remained for\nthem to be the Body of the Law, or the Buddha\u2019s personality as embodied\nin the truth taught by him.\n\nThe Dharmak\u00e2ya may be compared in one sense to the God of Christianity\nand in another sense to the Brahman or Param\u00e2tman of Vedantism. It is\ndifferent, however, from the former in that it does not stand\ntranscendentally above the universe, which, according to the Christian\nview, was created by God, but which is, according to Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, a\nmanifestation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya himself. It is also different from\nBrahman in that it is not absolutely impersonal, nor is it a mere\nbeing. The Dharmak\u00e2ya, on the contrary, is capable of willing and\nreflecting, or, to use Buddhist phraseology, it is _Karun\u00e2_ (love) and\n_Bodhi_ (intelligence), and not the mere state of being.\n\nThis pantheistic and at the same time entheistic Dharmak\u00e2ya is working\nin every sentient being, for sentient beings are nothing but a\nself-manifestation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya. Individuals are not isolated\nexistences, as imagined by most people. If isolated, {47} they are\nnothing, they are so many soap-bubbles which vanish one after another\nin the vacuity of space. All particular existences acquire their\nmeaning only when they are thought of in their oneness in the\nDharmak\u00e2ya. The veil of M\u00e2ya, i.e., subjective ignorance may temporally\nthrow an obstacle to our perceiving the universal light of Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nin which we are all one. But when our Bodhi or intellect, which is by\nthe way a reflection of the Dharmak\u00e2ya in the human mind, is so fully\nenlightened, we no more build the artificial barrier of egoism before\nour spiritual eye; the distinction between the _meum_ and _teum_ is\nobliterated, no dualism throws the nets of entanglement over us; I\nrecognise myself in you and you recognise yourself in me; _tat tvam\nasi_. Or,\n\n\n \u201cWhat is here, that is there;\n What is there, that is here:\n Who sees duality here,\n From death to death goes he.\u201d[11]\n\n\nThis state of enlightenment may be called the spiritual expansion of\nthe ego, or, negatively, the ideal annihilation of the ego. A\nnever-drying stream of sympathy and love which is the life of religion\nwill now spontaneously flow out of the fountainhead of Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\nThe doctrine of non-ego teaches us that there is no reality in\nindividual existences, that we do not have any transcendental entity\ncalled ego-substance. {48} The doctrine of Dharmak\u00e2ya, to supplement\nthis, teaches us that we all are one in the System of Being and only\nas such are immortal. The one shows us the folly of clinging to\nindividual existences and of coveting the immortality of the ego-soul;\nthe other convinces us of the truth that we are saved by living into\nthe unity of Dharmak\u00e2ya. The doctrine of non-\u00e2tman liberates us from\nthe shackle of unfounded egoism; but as mere liberation does not mean\nanything positive and may perchance lead us to asceticism, we apply\nthe energy thus released to the execution of the will of Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\nThe questions: \u201cWhy have we to love our neighbors as ourselves? Why\nhave we to do to others all things whatsoever we would that they\nshould do to us?\u201d are answered thus by Buddhists: \u201cIt is because we\nare all one in the Dharmak\u00e2ya, because when the clouds of ignorance\nand egoism are totally dispersed, the light of universal love and\nintelligence cannot help but shine in all its glory. And, enveloped in\nthis glory, we do not see any enemy, nor neighbor, we are not even\nconscious of whether we are one in the Dharmak\u00e2ya. There is no \u2018my\nwill\u2019 here, but only \u2018thy will,\u2019 the will of Dharmak\u00e2ya, in which we\nlive and move and have our being.\u201d\n\nThe Apostle Paul says: \u201cFor as in Adam all die, even so in Christ\nshall all be made alive.\u201d Why? Buddhists would answer, \u201cbecause Adam\nasserted his egoism in giving himself up to ignorance, (the tree of\nknowledge is in truth the tree of ignorance, {49} for from it comes\nthe duality of me and thee); while Christ on the contrary surrendered\nhis egoistic assertion to the intelligence of the universal Dharmak\u00e2ya.\nThat is why we die in the former and are made alive in the latter.\u201d\n\n\n _Nirv\u00e2na._\n\nThe meaning of Nirv\u00e2na has been variously interpreted by non-Buddhist\nstudents from the philological and the historical standpoint; but it\nmatters little what conclusions they have reached, as we are not going\nto recapitulate them here; nor do they at all affect our presentation\nof the Buddhists\u2019 own view as below. For it is the latter that concerns\nus here most and constitutes the all-important part of the problem. We\nhave had too much of non-Buddhist speculation on the question at issue.\nThe majority of the critics, while claiming to be fair and impartial,\nhave, by some preconceived ideas, been led to a conclusion, which is\nnot at all acceptable to intelligent Buddhists. Further, the fact has\nescaped their notice that P\u00e2li literature from which they chiefly\nderive their information on the subject represents the views of one of\nthe many sects that arose soon after the demise of the Master and were\nconstantly branching off at and after the time of King A\u00e7oka. The\nprobability is, that Buddha himself did not have any stereotyped\nconception of Nirvana, and, as most great minds do, expressed his ideas\noutright as formed under various circumstances; though of course they\ncould not be {50} in contradiction with his central beliefs, which must\nhave remained the same throughout the course of his religious life.\nTherefore, to understand a problem in all its apparently contradictory\naspects, it is very necessary to grasp at the start the spirit of the\nauthor of the problem, and when this is done the rest will be\nunderstood comparatively much easier. Non-Buddhist critics lack in\nthis most important qualification; therefore, it is no wonder that\nBuddhists themselves are always reluctant to accede to their\ninterpretations.\n\nEnough for apology. Nirv\u00e2na, according to Buddhists, does not signify\nan annihilation of consciousness nor a temporal or permanent\nsuppression of mentation[12], as imagined by some; but it is the {51}\nannihilation of the notion of ego-substance and of all the desires\nthat arise from this erroneous conception. But this represents the\nnegative side of the doctrine, and its positive side consists in\nuniversal love or sympathy (_karun\u00e2_) for all beings.\n\nThese two aspects of Nirv\u00e2na, i.e., negatively, the destruction of\nevil passions, and, positively, the practice of sympathy, are\ncomplementary to each other; and when we have one we have the other.\nBecause, as soon as the heart is freed from the cangue of egoism, the\nsame heart, hitherto so cold and hard, undergoes a complete change,\nshows animation, and, joyously escaping from self-imprisonment, finds\nits freedom in the bosom of Dharmak\u00e2ya. In this latter sense, Nirv\u00e2na\nis the \u201chumanisation\u201d of Dharmak\u00e2ya, that is to say, \u201cGod\u2019s will done\nin earth as it is in heaven.\u201d If we make use of the {52} terms,\nsubjective and objective. Nirv\u00e2na is the former, and the Dharmak\u00e2ya is\nthe latter, phase of one and the same principle. Again,\npsychologically, Nirv\u00e2na is enlightenment, the actualisation of the\nBodhicitta[13] (Heart of Intelligence).\n\nThe gospel of love and the doctrine of Nirv\u00e2na may appear to some to\ncontradict each other, for they think that the former is the source of\nenergy and activity, while the latter is a lifeless, inhuman, ascetic\nquietism. But the truth is, love is the emotional aspect and Nirv\u00e2na\nthe intellectual aspect of the inmost religious consciousness which\nconstitutes the essence of the Buddhist life.\n\nThat Nirv\u00e2na is the destruction of selfish desires is plainly shown in\nthis stanza:\n\n\n \u201cTo the giver merit is increased;\n When the senses are controlled anger arises not,\n The wise forsake evil,\n By the destruction of desire, sin, and infatuation,\n A man attains to Nirv\u00e2na.\u201d[14]\n\n\nThe following which was breathed forth by Buddha against a certain\nclass of monks, testifies that when Nirv\u00e2na is understood in the sense\nof quietism or pessimism, he vigorously repudiated it:\n\n\n \u201cFearing an endless chain of birth and death,\n And the misery of transmigration,\n Their heart is filled with worry,\n But they desire their safety only.\n\n{53}\n\n \u201cQuietly sitting and reckoning the breaths,\n They\u2019re bent on the An\u00e2p\u00e2nam.[15]\n They contemplate on the filthiness of the body,--\n Thinking how impure it is!\n\n \u201cThey shun the dust of the triple world,\n And in ascetic practise their safety they seek:\n Incapable of love and sympathy are they,\n For on Nirv\u00e2na abides their thought.\u201d[16]\n\n\nAgainst this ascetic practise of some monks, the Buddha sets forth\nwhat might be called the ideal of the Buddhist life:\n\n\n \u201cArouse thy will, supreme and great,\n Practise love and sympathy, give joy and protection;\n Thy love like unto space,\n Be it without discrimination, without limitation.\n\n \u201cMerits establish, not for thy own sake,\n But for charity universal;\n Save and deliver all beings,\n Let them attain the wisdom of the Great Way.\u201d\n\n\nIt is apparent that the ethical application of the doctrine of Nirv\u00e2na\nis naught else than the Golden {54} Rule,[17] so called. The Golden\nRule, however, does not give any reason why we should so act, it is a\nmere command whose authority is ascribed to a certain superhuman being.\nThis does not satisfy an intellectually disposed mind, which refuses\nto accept anything on mere authority, for it wants to go to the bottom\nof things and see on what ground they are standing. Buddhism has solved\nthis problem by finding the oneness of things in Dharmak\u00e2ya, from which\nflows the eternal stream of love and sympathy. As we have seen before,\nwhen the cursed barrier of egoism is broken down, there remains nothing\nthat can prevent us from loving others as ourselves.\n\nThose who wish to see nothing but an utter barrenness of heart after\nthe annihilation of egoism, are much mistaken in their estimation of\nhuman nature. For they think its animation comes from selfishness, and\nthat all forms of activity in our life are propelled simply by the\ndesire to preserve self and the race. They, therefore, naturally\nshrink from the doctrine that teaches that all things worldly are\nempty, and that there is no such thing as ego-substance whose {55}\nimmortality is so much coveted by most people. But the truth is, the\nspring of love does not lie in the idea of self, but in its removal.\nFor the human heart, being a reflection of the Dharmak\u00e2ya which is\nlove and intelligence, recovers its intrinsic power and goodness, only\nwhen the veil of ignorance and egoism is cast aside. The animation,\nenergy, strenuousness, which were shown by a self-centered will, and\nwhich therefore were utterly despicable, will not surely die out with\nthe removal of their odious atmosphere in which egoism had enveloped\nthem. But they will gain an ever nobler interpretation, ever more\nelevating and satisfying significance; for they have gone through a\nbaptism of fire, by which the last trace of egoism has been thoroughly\nconsumed. The old evil master is eternally buried, but the willing\nservants are still here and ever ready to do their service, now more\nefficiently, for their new legitimate and more authoritative lord.\n\nDestruction is in common parlance closely associated with nothingness,\nhence Nirv\u00e2na, the destruction of egoism, is ordinarily understood as\na synonym of nihilism. But the removal of darkness does not bring\ndesolation, but means enlightenment and order and peace. It is the\nsame chamber, all the furniture is left there as it was before. In\ndarkness chaos reigned, goblins walked wild; in enlightenment\neverything is in its proper place. And did we not state plainly that\nNirv\u00e2na was enlightenment?\n\n{56}\n\n\n _The Intellectual Tendency of Buddhism._\n\nOne thing which in this connection I wish to refer to, is what makes\nBuddhism appear somehow cold and impassive. By this I mean its\nintellectuality.\n\nThe fact is that anything coming from India greatly savors of\nphilosophy. In ancient India everybody of the higher castes seems to\nhave indulged in intellectual and speculative exercises. Being rich in\nnatural resources and thus the struggle for existence being reduced to\na minimum, the Brahmans and the K\u1e63atriyas gathered themselves under\nmost luxuriously growing trees, or retired to the mountain-grottoes\nundisturbed by the hurly-burly of the world, and there they devoted\nall their leisure hours to metaphysical speculations and discussions.\nBuddhism, as a product of these people, is naturally deeply imbued\nwith intellectualism.\n\nFurther, in India there was no distinction between religion and\nphilosophy. Every philosophical system was at the same time a religion,\nand _vice versa_. Philosophy with the Hindus was not an idle display\nof logical subtlety which generally ends in entangling itself in the\nmeshes of sophistry. Their aim of philosophising was to have an\nintellectual insight into the significance of existence and the\ndestiny of humanity. They did not believe in anything blindly nor\naccept anything on mere tradition. Buddha most characteristically\nechoes this sentiment when he says, \u201cFollow my teachings not as taught\nby a Buddha, but as {57} being in accord with truth.\u201d This spirit of\nself-reliance and self-salvation later became singularly Buddhistic.\nEven when Buddha was still merely an enthusiastic aspirant for Nirv\u00e2na,\nhe seems to have been strongly possessed of this spirit, for he most\nemphatically declared the following famous passage, in response to the\npathetic persuasion of his father\u2019s ministers, who wanted him to come\nhome with them: \u201cThe doubt whether there exists anything or not, is\nnot to be settled for me by another\u2019s words. Arriving at the truth\neither by mortification or by tranquilisation, I will grasp myself\nwhatever is ascertainable about it. It is not mine to receive a view\nwhich is full of conflicts, uncertainties, and contradictions. What\nenlightened men would go by other\u2019s faith? The multitudes are like the\nblind led in the darkness by the blind.\u201d[18]\n\nTo say simply, \u201cLove your enemy,\u201d was not satisfactory to the Hindu\nmind, it wanted to see the reason why. And as soon as the people were\nconvinced intellectually, they went even so far as to defend the faith\nwith their lives. It was not an uncommon event that before a party of\nHindu philosophers entered into a discussion they made an agreement\nthat the penalty of defeats should be the sacrifice of the life. They\nwere, above all, a people of intellect, though of course not lacking\nin religious sentiment.\n\nIt is no wonder, then, that Buddha did not make the first proclamation\nof his message by \u201cRepent, for {58} the kingdom of heaven is at hand,\u201d\nbut by the establishment of the Four Noble Truths.[19] One appeals to\nthe feeling, and the other to the intellect. That which appeals to the\nintellect naturally seems to be less passionate, but the truth is,\nfeeling without the support of intellect leads to fanaticism and is\nalways ready to yield itself to bigotry and superstition.\n\nThe doctrine of Nirv\u00e2na is doubtless more intellectual than the\nChristian gospel of love. It first recognises the wretchedness of\nhuman life as is proved by our daily experiences; it then finds its\ncause in our subjective ignorance as to the true meaning of existence,\nand in our egocentric desires which, obscuring our spiritual insight,\nmake us tenaciously cling to things chimerical; it then proposes the\ncomplete annihilation of egoism, the root of all evil, by which,\nsubjectively, tranquillity of heart is restored, and, objectively, the\nrealisation of universal love becomes possible. Buddhism, thus,\nproceeds most logically in the development of its doctrine of Nirv\u00e2na\nand universal love.\n\nSays Victor Hugo (_Les Mis\u00e9rables_, vol. II): \u201cThe reduction of the\nuniverse to a single being, the expansion of a single being even to\nGod, this is love.\u201d When a man clings to the self and does not want\n{59} to identify himself with other fellow-selves, he cannot expand\nhis being to God. When he shuts himself in the narrow shell of ego and\nkeeps all the world outside, he cannot reduce the universe to his\ninnermost self. To love, therefore, one must first enter Nirv\u00e2na.\n\nThe truth is everywhere the same and is attained through the removal\nof ignorance. But as individual disposition differs according to the\nprevious karma, some are more prone to intellectualism, while the\nothers to sentimentality (in its psychological sense). Let us then\nfollow our own inclination conscientiously and not speak evil of\nothers. This is called the Doctrine of Middle Path.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n HISTORICAL CHARACTERISATION OF\n MAH\u00c2Y\u00c2NISM.\n\n{60}\n\n/We/ are now in a position to enter into a specific exposition of the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrine. But, before doing so, it will be well for us first\nto consider the views that were held by the Hindu Buddhist thinkers\nconcerning its characteristic features; in other words, to make an\nhistorical survey of its peculiarities.\n\nAs stated in the Introduction, the term Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na was invented in the\ntimes of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and \u00c2ryadeva (about the third or fourth century\nafter Christ), when doctrinal struggles between the \u00c7r\u00e2vaka and the\nBodhisattva classes reached a climax. The progressive Hindu Buddhists,\ndesiring to announce the essential features of their doctrine, did so\nnaturally at the expense of their rival and by pointing out why theirs\nwas greater than, or superior to, H\u00eenay\u00e2nism. Their views were thus\nnecessarily vitiated by a partisan spirit, and instead of impartially\nand critically enumerating the principal characteristics of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism,\nthey placed rather too much stress upon those points that do not in\nthese latter days appear to be very essential, but that were then\nconsidered by them to be of paramount importance. These points,\nnevertheless, {61} throw some light on the nature of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism\nas historically distinguished from its consanguineous rival and\nfellow-doctrine.\n\n\n _Sthiramati\u2019s Conception of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism._\n\nSthiramati[20] in his _Introduction to Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism_ states that\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is a special doctrine for the Bodhisattvas, who are to be\ndistinguished from the other two classes, viz, the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas and the\nPratyekabuddhas. The essential difference of the doctrine consists in\nthe belief that objects of the senses are merely phenomenal and have\nno absolute reality, that the indestructible Dharmak\u00e2ya which is\nall-pervading constitutes the norm of existence, that all\nBodhisattvas[21] are incarnations of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, who not by\ntheir evil karma previously accumulated, but by their boundless love\nfor all mankind, assume {62} corporeal existences, and that persons\nwho thus appear in the flesh, as avatars of the Buddha supreme,\nassociate themselves with the masses in all possible social relations,\nin order that they might thus lead them to a state of enlightenment.\n\nWhile this is a very summary statement of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrine, a\nmore elaborate and extended enumeration of its peculiar features in\ncontradistinction to those of H\u00eenay\u00e2nism, is made in the _Miscellanea\non Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Metaphysics_,[22] _The Spiritual Stages of the\nYog\u00e2c\u00e2ra_,[23] _An Exposition of the Holy Doctrine_,[24] _A\nComprehensive Treatise on Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism_,[25] and others. Let us first\nexplain the \u201cSeven General Characteristics\u201d as described in the first\nthree works here mentioned.\n\n\n _Seven Principal Features of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism._\n\nAccording to Asanga, who lived a little later than N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, that\nis, at the time when Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism was further divided into the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2rya\nand the M\u00e2dhyamika school, the seven features peculiar to Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism\nas distinguished from H\u00eenay\u00e2nism, are as follows:\n\n(1) _Its Comprehensiveness._ Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism does not confine itself to\nthe teachings of one Buddha alone; {63} but wherever and whenever\ntruth is found, even under the disguise of most absurd superstitions,\nit makes no hesitation to winnow the grain from the husk and\nassimilate it in its own system. Innumerable good laws taught by\nBuddhas[26] of all ages and localities are all taken up in the\ncoherent body of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\n(2) _Universal love for All Sentient Beings._ H\u00eenay\u00e2nism confines\nitself to the salvation of individuals only; it does not extend its\nbliss universally, as each person must achieve his own deliverance.\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, on the other hand, aims at general salvation; it\nendeavors to save us not only individually, but universally. All the\nmotives, efforts, and actions of the Bodhisattvas pivot on the\nfurtherance of universal welfare.\n\n(3) _Its Greatness in Intellectual Comprehension._ Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism\nmaintains the theory of non-\u00e2tman not only in regard to sentient\nbeings but in regard to things in general. While it denies the\nhypothesis of a metaphysical agent directing our mental operations, it\nalso rejects the view that insists on the noumenal or thingish reality\nof existences as they appear to our senses.\n\n(4) _Its Marvelous Spiritual Energy._ The Bodhisattvas never become\ntired of working for universal salvation, {64} nor do they despair\nbecause of the long time required to accomplish this momentous object.\nTo try to attain enlightenment in the shortest possible period and to\nbe self-sufficient without paying any attention to the welfare of the\nmasses, is not the teaching of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\n(5) _Its Greatness in the Exercise of the Up\u00e2ya._ The term _up\u00e2ya_\nliterally means expediency. The great fatherly sympathetic heart of\nthe Bodhisattva has inexhaustible resources at his command in order\nthat he might lead the masses to final enlightenment, each according\nto his disposition and environment. Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism does not ask its\nfollowers to escape the metempsychosis of birth and death for the sake\nof entering into the lethargic tranquillity of Nirv\u00e2na; for\nmetempsychosis in itself is no evil, and Nirv\u00e2na in its coma is not\nproductive of any good. And as long as there are souls groaning in\npain, the Bodhisattva cannot rest in Nirv\u00e2na; there is no rest for\nhis unselfish heart, so full of love and sympathy, until he leads all\nhis fellow-beings to the eternal bliss of Buddhahood. To reach this\nend he employs innumerable means (_up\u00e2ya_) suggested by his\ndisinterested lovingkindness.\n\n(6) _Its Higher Spiritual Attainment._ In H\u00eenay\u00e2nism the highest bliss\nattainable does not go beyond Arhatship which is ascetic saintliness.\nBut the followers of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism attain even to Buddhahood with all its\nspiritual powers.\n\n(7) _Its Greater Activity._ When the Bodhisattva {65} reaches the\nstage of Buddhahood, he is able to manifest himself everywhere in the\nten quarters of the universe[27] and to minister to the spiritual\nneeds of all sentient beings.\n\nThese seven peculiarities are enumerated to be the reasons why the\ndoctrine defended by the progressive Buddhists is to be called\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, or the doctrine of great vehicle, in contradistinction to\nH\u00eenay\u00e2nism, the doctrine of small vehicle. In each case, therefore,\nAsanga takes pains to draw the line of demarcation distinctly between\nthe two schools of Buddhism and not between Buddhism and all other\nreligious doctrines which existed at his time.\n\n\n _The Ten Essential Features of Buddhism._\n\nThe following statement of the ten essential features of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism as\npresented in the _Comprehensive Treatise on Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism_, is made from\na different standpoint from the preceding one, for it is the\npronunciamento of the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school of Asanga {66} and Vasubandhu\nrather than that of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism generally. This school together with\nthe M\u00e2dhyamika school of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna constitute the two divisions of\nHindu Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.[28]\n\nThe points enumerated by Asanga and Vasubandhu as most essential in\ntheir system are ten.\n\n(1) It teaches an immanent existence of all things in the\n_\u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na_ or All-Conserving Soul. The conception of an\nAll-Conserving Soul, it is claimed, was suggested by Buddha in the\nso-called H\u00eenay\u00e2na s\u00fbtras; but on account of its deep meaning and\nof the liability of its being confounded with the ego-soul conception,\nhe did not disclose its full significance in their s\u00fbtras; but made\nit known only in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na s\u00fbtras.\n\nAccording to the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school, the \u00c2laya is not an universal, but\nan individual mind or soul, whatever we may term it, in which the\n\u201cgerms\u201d of all things exist in their ideality.[29] The objective\nworld in reality does not exist, but by dint of subjective {67}\nillusion that is created by ignorance, we project all these \u201cgerms\u201d in\nthe \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na to the outside world, and imagine that they are\nthere really as they are; while the Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na (ego-consciousness)\nwhich is too a product of illusion, tenaciously clinging to the\n\u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na as the real self, never abandons its egoism. The\n\u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na, however, is indifferent to, and irresponsible for, all\nthese errors on the part of the Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na.[30]\n\n(2) The Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school distinguishes three kinds of knowledge: 1.\nIllusion (_parikalpita_), 2. Discriminative or Relative Knowledge\n(_paratantra_), and 3. Perfect Knowledge (_parini\u1e63panna_).\n\nThe distinction may best be illustrated by the well-known analogy of a\nrope and a snake. Deceived by a similarity in appearance, men\nfrequently take a rope lying on the ground for a poisonous snake and\n{68} are terribly shocked on that account. But when they approach and\ncarefully examine it, they become at once convinced of the\ngroundlessness of this apprehension, which was the natural sequence of\nillusion. This may be considered to correspond to what Kant calls\n_Schein_.\n\nMost people, however, do not go any further in their inquiry. They are\ncontented with the sensual, empirical knowledge of an object with\nwhich they come in contact. When they understand that the thing they\nmistook for a snake was really nothing but a yard of innocent rope,\nthey think their knowledge of the object is complete, and do not\ntrouble themselves with a philosophical investigation as to whether\nthe rope which to them is just what it appears to be, has any real\nexistence in itself. They do not stop a moment to reflect that their\nknowledge is merely relative, for it does not go beyond the phenomenal\nsignificance of the things they perceive.\n\nBut is an object in reality such as it appears to be to our senses?\nAre particular phenomena as such really actual? What is the value of\nour knowledge concerning those so-called realities? When we make an\ninvestigation into such problems as these, the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school says,\nwe find that their existence is only relative and has no absolute\nvalue whatever independent of the perceiving subject. They are the\n\u201cejection\u201d of our ideas into the outside world, which are centred and\nconserved in our \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na and which are awakened into activity by\nsubjective {69} ignorance. This clear insight into the nature of\nthings, i.e., into their non-realness as \u00e2tman, constitutes perfect\nknowledge.\n\n(3) When we attain to the perfect knowledge, we recognise the ideality\nof the universe. There is no such thing as an objective world, which\nis really an illusive manifestation of the mind called \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na.\nBut even this supposedly real existence of the \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na is a\nproduct of particularisation called forth by the ignorant Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na.\nThe Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na, or empirical ego, as it might be called, having no\nadequate knowledge as to the true nature of the \u00c2laya, takes the latter\nfor a metaphysical agent, that like the master of a puppet-show manages\nall mental operations according to its humour. As the silkworm\nimprisons itself in the cocoon created by itself, the Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na,\nentangling itself in ignorance and confusion, takes its own illusory\ncreations for real realities.\n\n(4) For the regulation of moral life, the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra with the other\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na schools, proposes the practising of the six P\u00e2ramit\u00e2s (virtues\nof perfection), which are: 1. _Dana_ (giving), 2. _\u00c7\u00eela_ (moral\nprecept), 3. _K\u1e63\u00e2nti_ (meekness), 4. _V\u00eerya_ (energy), 5. _Dhy\u00e2na_\n(meditation), 6. _Praj\u00f1\u00e2_ (knowledge or wisdom). In way of explanation,\nsays Asanga: \u201cBy not clinging to wealth or pleasures (1), by not\ncherishing any thoughts to violate the precepts (2), by not feeling\ndejected in the face of evils (3), by not awakening any thought of\nindolence while practising goodness (4), {70} by maintaining serenity\nof mind in the midst of disturbance and confusion of this world (5),\nand finally by always practising _ekacitta_[31] and by truthfully\ncomprehending the nature of things (6), the Bodhisattvas recognise the\ntruth of _vij\u00f1\u00e2nam\u00e2tra_,--the truth that there is nothing that is not\nof ideal or subjective creation.\u201d\n\n(5) Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism teaches that there are ten spiritual stages of\nBodhisattvahood, viz., 1. Pramudit\u00e2, 2. Vimal\u00e2, 3 Prabh\u00e2kar\u00ee, 4.\nArcismat\u00ee, 5. Sudurjay\u00e2, 6. Abhimukh\u00ee, 7. D\u00fbrangam\u00e2, 8. Acal\u00e2, 9.\nS\u00e2dhumat\u00ee, 10. Dharmamegh\u00e2[32]. By passing through all these stages\none after another, we are believed to reach the oneness of Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\n(6) The Yog\u00e2c\u00e2rists claim that the precepts that are practised by the\nfollowers of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism are far superior to those of H\u00eenay\u00e2nists. The\nlatter tend to externalism and formalism, and do not go deep into our\nspiritual, subjective motives. Now, there are physical, verbal, and\nspiritual precepts observed by the Buddha. The H\u00eenay\u00e2nists observe the\nfirst two neglecting the last which is by far more important than the\nrest. For instance, the \u00c7r\u00e2vaka\u2019s interpretation of the ten \u00c7ik\u1e63as[33]\nis literal and not spiritual; {71} further, they follow these precepts\nbecause they wish to attain Nirv\u00e2na for their own sake, and not for\nothers\u2019. The Bodhisattva, on the other hand, does not wish to be bound\nwithin the narrow circle of moral restriction. Aiming at an universal\nemancipation of mankind, he ventures even violating the ten \u00e7ik\u1e63as, if\nnecessary. The first \u00e7ik\u1e63a, for instance, forbids the killing of any\nliving being; but the Bodhisattva does not hesitate to go to war, in\ncase the cause he espouses is right and beneficient to humanity at\nlarge.\n\n(7) As Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism insists on the purification of the inner life, its\nteaching applies not to things outward, its principles are not of the\nascetic and exclusive kind. The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists do not shun to commingle\nthemselves with the \u201cdust of worldliness\u201d; they aim at the realisation\nof the Bodhi; they are not afraid of being thrown into the whirlpool\nof metempsychosis; they endeavor to impart spiritual benefits to all\nsentient beings without regard to their attitude, whether hostile or\nfriendly, towards themselves; having immovable faith in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na,\nthey never become contaminated by vanity and worldly pleasures with\nwhich they may constantly be in touch; they have a clear insight into\nthe doctrine of non-\u00e2tman; being free from all spiritual faults, they\nlive in perfect accord with the laws of Suchness and discharge their\nduties without the {72} least conceit or self-assertion: in a word,\ntheir inner life is a realisation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\n(8) The intellectual superiority of the Bodhisattva is shown by his\npossession of knowledge of non-particularisation (_an\u00e2n\u00e2rtha_).[34]\nThis knowledge, philosophically considered, is the knowledge of the\nabsolute, or the knowledge of the universal. The Bodhisattva\u2019s mind is\nfree from the dualism of sams\u00e2ra (birth-and-death) and nirv\u00e2na, of\npositivism and negativism, of being and non-being, of object and\nsubject, of ego and non-ego. His knowledge, in short, transcends the\nlimits of final realities, soaring high to the realm of the absolute\nand the abode of non-particularity.\n\n(9) In consequence of this intellectual elevation, the Bodhisattva\nperceives the working of birth and death in nirv\u00e2na, and nirv\u00e2na in\nthe transmigration of birth and death. He sees the \u201cever-changing\nmany\u201d in the \u201cnever-changing one,\u201d and the \u201cnever-changing {73} one\u201d\nin the \u201cever-changing many.\u201d His inward life is in accord at once with\nthe laws of transitory phenomena and with those of transcendental\nSuchness. According to the former, he does not recoil as ascetics do\nwhen he comes in contact with the world of the senses; he is not\nafraid of suffering the ills that the flesh is heir to; but, according\nto the latter, he never clings to things evanescent, his inmost\nconsciousness forever dwells in the serenity of eternal Suchness.\n\n(10) The final characteristic to be mentioned as distinctly\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic is the doctrine of Trik\u00e2ya. There is, it is asserted,\nthe highest being which is the ultimate cause of the universe and in\nwhich all existences find their essential origin and significance.\nThis is called by the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists Dharmak\u00e2ya. The Dharmak\u00e2ya, however,\ndoes not remain in its absoluteness, it reveals itself in the realm of\ncause and effect. It then takes a particular form. It becomes a devil,\nor a god, or a deva, or a human being, or an animal of lower grade,\nadapting itself to the degrees of the intellectual development of the\npeople. For it is the people\u2019s inner needs which necessitate the\nspecial forms of manifestation. This is called Nirm\u00e2nak\u00e2ya, that is,\nthe body of transformation. The Buddha who manifested himself in the\nperson of Gautama, the son of King of \u00c7uddhod\u00e2na about two thousand\nfive hundred years ago on the Ganges, is a form of Nirm\u00e2nak\u00e2ya. The\nthird one is called Sambhogak\u00e2ya, or body of bliss. This is the\nspiritual {74} body of a Buddha, invested with all possible grandeur\nin form and in possession of all imaginable psychic powers. The\nconception of Sambhogak\u00e2ya is full of wild imaginations which are not\neasy of comprehension by modern minds.[35]\n\nThese characteristics enumerated at seven or ten as peculiarly\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic are what the Hindu Buddhist philosophers of the first\ncentury down to the fifth or sixth century of the Christian era\nthought to be the most essential points of their faith and what they\nthought entitled it to be called the \u201cGreat Vehicle\u201d (_Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na_) of\nsalvation, in contradistinction to the faith embraced by their\nconservative brethren. But, as we view them now, the points here\nspecified are to a great extent saturated with a partisan spirit, and\nbesides they are more or less scattered and unconnected statements of\nthe so-called salient features of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism. Nor do they furnish much\ninformation concerning the nature of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism as a coherent system\nof religious teachings. They give but a general and somewhat obscure\ndelineation of it, and that in opposition to H\u00eenay\u00e2nism. In point of\nfact, Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is a school of Buddhism and has many characteristics\nin common with H\u00eenay\u00e2nism. Indeed, the spirit of the former is also\nthat of the latter, and as far as the general trend of Buddhism is\nconcerned there is no need of emphasising {75} the significance of one\nschool over the other. On the following pages I shall try to present a\nmore comprehensive and impartial exposition of the Buddhism, which has\nbeen persistently designated by its followers as Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\n\n\n\n SPECULATIVE MAH\u00c2Y\u00c2NISM.\n\n{76}\n\n CHAPTER III.\n PRACTISE AND SPECULATION.\n\n/Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism/ perhaps can best be treated in two main divisions, as it\nhas distinctly two principal features in its doctrinal development. I\nmay call one the speculative phase of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and the other\npractical. The first part is essentially a sort of Buddhist\nmetaphysics, where the mind is engaged solely in ratiocination and\nabstraction. Here the intellect plays a very prominent part, and some\nof the most abstruse problems of philosophy are freely discussed.\nSpeculative followers of Buddhism have taken great interest in the\ndiscussion of them and have written many volumes on various\nsubjects.[36] {77} The second or practical phase of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism\ndeals with such religious beliefs that constitute the life and essence\nof the system. Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists might have reasoned wrongfully to explain\ntheir practical faith, but the faith itself is the outburst of the\nreligious sentiment which is inherent in human nature. This practical\npart, therefore, is by far more important, and in fact it can be said\nthat the speculative part is merely a preparatory step toward it.\nInasmuch as Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is a religion and not a philosophical system,\nit must be practical, that is, it must directly appeal to the inmost\nlife of the human heart.\n\n\n _Relation of Feeling and Intellect in Religion._\n\nSo much has been said about the relation between philosophy and\nreligion; and there are many scholars who so firmly believe in the\nidentity of religion either with superstitions or with supernatural\nrevelation, that the denial of this assertion is considered by them\npractically to be the disavowal of all religions. For, according to\nthem, there is no midway in religion. A religion which is rational and\nyet practical is no religion. Now, Buddhism is neither a vagary of\nimagination nor a revelation from above, and on this account it has\nbeen declared by some to be a philosophy. The title \u201cSpeculative\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism\u201d thus, is apt to {78} be taken as a confirmation of such\nopinion. To remove all the misconceptions, therefore, which might be\nentertained concerning the religious nature of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and its\nattitude toward intellectualism, I have deemed it wise here to say a\nfew words about the relation between feeling and intellect in religion.\n\nThere is no doubt that religion is essentially practical; it does not\nnecessarily require theorisation. The latter, properly speaking, is\nthe business of philosophy. If religion was a product of the intellect\nsolely, it could not give satisfaction to the needs of man\u2019s whole\nbeing. Reason constitutes but a part of the organised totality of an\nindividual being. Abstraction however high, and speculation however\ndeep, do not as such satisfy the inmost yearnings of the human heart.\nBut this they can do when they enter into one\u2019s inner life and\nconstitution; that is, when abstraction becomes a concrete fact and\nspeculation a living principle in one\u2019s existence; in short, when\nphilosophy becomes religion.\n\nPhilosophy as such, therefore, is generally distinguished from\nreligion. But we must not suppose that religion as the deepest\nexpression of a human being can eliminate altogether from it the\nintellectual element. The most predominant r\u00f4le in religion may be\nplayed by the imagination and feeling, but ratiocination must not fail\nto assert its legitimate right in the co-ordination of beliefs. When\nthis right is denied, religion becomes fanaticism, superstition, fata\nmorgana, and even a menace to the progress of humanity.\n\n{79}\n\nThe intellect is critical, objective, and always tries to stand apart\nfrom the things that are taken up for examination. This alienation or\nkeeping itself aloof from concrete facts on the part of the intellect,\nconstantly tends to disregard the real significance of life, of which\nit is also a manifestation. Therefore, the conflict between feeling\nand reason, religion and science, instinct and knowledge, has been\ngoing on since the awakening of consciousness.\n\nSeeing this fact, intellectual people are generally prone to condemn\nreligion as barring the freedom and obstructing the progress of\nscientific investigations. It is true that religion went frequently to\nthe other extreme and tried to suppress the just claim of reason; it\nis true that this was especially the case with Christianity, whose\nhistory abounds with regretable incidents resulting from its violent\nencroachments upon the domain of reason. It is also true that the\nfeeling and the intellect are sometimes at variance, that what the\nfeeling esteems as the most valuable treasure is at times relentlessly\ncrushed by the reason, while the feeling looks with utmost contempt at\nthe results that have been reached by the intellect after much\nlucubration. But this fatal conflict is no better than the fight which\ntakes place between the head and the tail of a hydra when it is cut in\ntwain; it always results in self-destruction.\n\nWe cannot live under such a miserable condition forever; when we know\nthat it is altogether due to a myopia on the part of our understanding.\nThe {80} truth is that feeling and reason \u201ccannot do without one\nanother, and must work together inseparably in the process of human\ndevelopment, since reason without feeling could have nothing to act\nfor and would be impotent to act, while feeling without reason would\nact tyrannically and blindly--that is to say, if either could exist\nand act at all without the other; for in the end it is not feeling nor\nreason, which acts, but it is the man who acts according as he feels\nand reasons\u201d. (H. Maudsley\u2019s _Natural Causes and Supernatural\nSeemings_, p. vii). If it is thus admitted that feeling and reason\nmust co-ordinate and co-operate in the realisation of human ideals,\nreligion, though essentially a phenomenon of the emotional life,\ncannot be indifferent to the significance of the intellect. Indeed,\nreligion, as much as philosophy, has ever been speculating on the\nproblems that are of the most vital importance to human life. In\nChristianity speculation has been carried on under the name of\ntheology, though it claims to be fundamentally a religion of faith. In\nIndia, however, as mentioned elsewhere, there was no dividing line\nbetween philosophy and religion; and every teaching, every system, and\nevery doctrine, however abstract and speculative it might appear to\nthe Western mind, was at bottom religious and always aimed at the\ndeliverance of the soul. There was no philosophical system that did\nnot have some practical purpose.\n\nIndian thinkers could not separate religion from {81} philosophy,\npractice from theory. Their philosophy flowed out of the very spring\nof the human heart and was not a mere display of fine intellectuation.\nIf their thinking were not in the right direction and led to a fallacy\nwhich made life more miserable, they were ever ready to surrender\nthemselves to a superior doctrine as soon as it was discovered. But\nwhen they thought they were in the right track, they did not hesitate\nto sacrifice their life for it. Their philosophy had as much fire as\nreligion.\n\n\n _Buddhism and Speculation._\n\nOwing to this fact, Buddhism as much as Hinduism is full of abstract\nspeculations and philosophical reflections so much so that some\nChristian critics are inclined to deny the religiosity of Buddhism.\nBut no student of the science of comparative religion would indorse\nsuch a view nowadays. Buddhism, in spite of its predominant\nintellectualism, is really a religious system. There is no doubt that\nit emphasises the rational element of religion more than any other\nreligious teachings, but on that account we cannot say that it\naltogether disregards the importance of the part to be played by the\nfeeling. Its speculative, philosophical phase is really a preparation\nfor fully appreciating the subjective significance of religion, for\nreligion is ultimately subjective, that is to say, the essence of\nreligion is love and faith, or, to use Buddhist phraseology, it is the\nexpression of the Bodhi which {82} consists in _praj\u00f1\u00e2_[37]\n(intelligence or wisdom) and _karun\u00e2_ (love or compassion). Mere\nknowledge (not _praj\u00f1\u00e2_) has very little value in human life. When\nnot guided by love and faith, it readily turns out to be the most\nobedient servant of egoism and sensualism. What Tennyson says in the\nfollowing verses is perfectly true with Buddhism:\n\n\n \u201cWho loves not knowledge? Who shall rail\n  Against her beauty? May she mix\n  With men and prosper! Who shall fix\n Her pillars? Let her work prevail.\n\n \u201cBut on her forehead sits a fire;\n  She sets her forward countenance\n  And leaps into the future chance,\n Submitting all things to desire.\n\n \u201cHalf grown as yet, a child, and vain--\n  She cannot fight the fear of death.\n  What is she, cut from love and faith,\n But some wild Pallas from the brain\n\n \u201cOf demons? fiery-hot to burst\n  All barriers in her onward race\n  For power. Let her know her place;\n She is the second, not the first.\n\n \u201cA higher hand must make her mild,\n  If all be not in vain, and guide\n  Her footsteps, moving side by side\n With Wisdom, like the younger child.\u201d\n\n\n{83}\n\nBut it must be remembered that Buddhism never ignores the part which\nis played by the intellect in the purification of faith. For it is by\nthe judicious exercise of the intellect, that all religious\nsuperstitions and prejudices are finally destroyed.\n\nThe intellect is so far of great consequence, and we must respect it\nas the thunderbolt of Vajrapani, which crushes everything that is mere\nsham and false. But at the same time we must also remember that the\nquintessence of religion like the house built on the solid rock never\nsuffers on account of this destruction. Its foundation lies too deeply\nburied in human {84} heart to be damaged by knowledge or science. So\nlong as there is a human heart warm with blood and burning with the\nfire of life, the intellect however powerful will never be able to\ntrample it under foot. Indeed, the more severely the religious\nsentiment is tested in the crucible of the intellect, the more\nglorious and illuminating becomes its intrinsic virtue. The true\nreligion is, therefore, never reluctant to appear before the tribunal\nof scientific investigation. In fact by ignoring the ultimate\nsignificance of the religious consciousness, science is digging its\nown grave. For what purpose has science other than the unravelling of\nthe mysteries of nature and reading into the meaning of existence? And\nis this not what constitutes the foundation of religion? Science\ncannot be final, it must find its reason in religion; as a mere\nintellectual exercise it is not worthy of our serious consideration.\n\n\n _Religion and Metaphysics._\n\nThe French sociologist, M. Guyau, says in his _Irreligion of the\nFuture_ (English translation p. 10):\n\n\u201cEvery positive and historical religion presents three distinctive and\nessential elements: (1) An attempt at a mythical and non-scientific\nexplanation of natural phenomena (divine intervention, miracles,\nefficacious prayers, etc.), or of historical facts (incarnation of\nJesus Christ or of Buddha, revelation, and so forth); (2) A system of\ndogmas, that is to say, of symbolic ideas, of imaginative beliefs,\nforcibly {85} imposed upon one\u2019s faith as absolute verities, even\nthough they are susceptible of no scientific demonstration or\nphilosophical justification; (3) A cult and a system of rites, that is\nto say, of more or less immutable practices regarded as possessing a\nmarvelous efficacy upon the course of things, a propitiatory virtue. A\nreligion without myth, without dogma, without cult, without rite, is\nno more than that somewhat bastard product, \u2018natural religion,\u2019 which\nis resolvable to a system of metaphysical hypotheses.\u201d\n\nM. Guyau seems to think that what will be left in religion, when\nsevered from its superstitions and imaginary beliefs and mysterious\nrites, is a system of metaphysical speculations, and that, therefore,\nit is not a religion. But in my opinion the French sociologist shares\nthe error that is very prevalent among the scientific men of to-day.\nHe is perfectly right in trying to strip religion of all its ephemeral\nelements and external integuments, but he is entirely wrong when he\ndoes this at the expense of its very essence, which consists of the\ninmost yearnings of the human heart. And this essence has no affinity\nwith the superstitions which grow round it like excrescences as the\nresults of insufficient or abnormal nourishment. Nor does it concern\nitself with mere philosophising and constructing hypotheses about\nmetaphysical problems. Far from it. Religion is a cry from the abysmal\ndepths of the human heart, that can never be silenced, until it finds\nthat something and identifies itself with it, which reveals the\nteleological {86} significance of life and the universe. But this\nsomething has a subjective value only, as Goethe makes Faust exclaim,\n\u201cFeeling is all in all, name for it I have none.\u201d Why? Because it\ncannot objectively or intellectually be demonstrated, as in the case\nwith those laws which govern phenomenal existences,--the proper\nobjects of the discursive human understanding. And this subjectivity\nof religion is what makes \u201call righteousnesses as filthy garments.\u201d If\nreligion deprived of its dogmas and cults is to be considered, as M.\nGuyau thinks, nothing but a system of metaphysics, we utterly lose\nsight of its subjective significance or its emotional element, which\nindeed constitutes its _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_.\n\n * * *\n\nHaving this in view we proceed to see first on what metaphysical\nhypothesis speculative Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism is built up; but the reader\nmust remember that this phase of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is merely a preliminary\nto its more essential part, which we expound later under the heading\nof \u201cPractical Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism,\u201d in contradistinction to \u201cSpeculative\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n CLASSIFICATION OF KNOWLEDGE.\n\n{87}\n\n\n _Three Forms of Knowledge._\n\n/Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism/ generally distinguishes two or three forms of knowledge.\nThis classification is a sort of epistemology, inasmuch as it proposes\nto ascertain the extent and nature of human knowledge, from a\nreligious point of view. Its object is to see what kind of human\nknowledge is most reliable and valuable for the annihilation of\nignorance and the attainment of enlightenment. The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na school\nwhich has given most attention to this division of Buddhist philosophy\nis the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra of Asanga and Vasubandhu. The _Lank\u00e2vatar\u00e2_ and the\n_Sandhinirmocana_ and some other S\u00fbtras, on which the school claims to\nhave its doctrinal foundation, teach three forms of knowledge. The\ns\u00fbtra literature, however, as a rule does not enter into any detailed\nexposition of the subject; it merely classifies knowledge and points\nout what form of knowledge is most desirable by the Buddhists. To\nobtain a fuller and more discursive elucidation, we must come to the\nAbhidharma Pitaka of that school. Of the text books most generally\nstudied of the {88} Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra, we may mention Vasubandhu\u2019s\n_Vij\u00f1\u00e2nam\u00e2tra_ with its commentaries and Asanga\u2019s _Comprehensive\nTreatise on Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism_. The following statements are abstracted\nmainly from these documents.\n\nThe three forms of knowledge as classified by the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra are: (1)\nIllusion (_parikalpita_), (2) Relative Knowledge (_paratantra_), and\n(3) Absolute Knowledge (_parini\u1e63panna_).\n\n\n _Illusion._\n\nIllusion (_parikalpita_), to use Kantian phraseology, is a\nsense-perception not co-ordinated by the categories of the\nunderstanding; that is to say, it is a purely subjective elaboration,\nnot verified by objective reality and critical judgment. So long as we\nmake no practical application of it, it will harbor no danger; there\nis no evil in it, at least religiously. Perceptual illusion is a\npsychical fact, and as such it is justified. A straight rod in water\nappears crooked on account of the refraction of light; a sensation is\noften felt in the limb after it has been amputated, for the nervous\nsystem has not yet adjusted itself to the new condition. They are all\nillusions, however. They are doubtless the correct interpretation of\nthe sense-impressions in question, but they are not confirmed by other\nsense-impressions whose co\u00f6rdination is necessary to establish an\nobjective reality. The moral involved in this is: all sound inferences\nand correct behavior must be based on critical knowledge and not on\nillusory premises.\n\n{89}\n\nReasoning in this wise, the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists declare that the egoism\nfostered by vulgar minds belongs to this class of knowledge, though of\na different order, and that those who tenaciously cling to egoism as\ntheir final stronghold are believers in an intellectual fata morgana,\nand are like the thirsty deer that madly after the visionary water in\nthe desert, or like the crafty monkey that tries to catch the lunar\nreflection in the water. Because the belief in the existence of a\nmetaphysical agent behind our mental phenomena is not confirmed by\nexperience and sound judgment, it being merely a product of\nunenlightened subjectivity.\n\nBesides this ethical and philosophical egoism, all forms of\nworld-conception which is founded on the sandy basis of subjective\nillusion, such as fetichism, idolatry, anthropomorphism,\nanthropopsychism, and the like, must be classed under the\n_parikalpita-lak\u1e63ana_ as doctrines having illusionary premises.\n\n\n _Relative Knowledge._\n\nNext comes the _paratantra-lak\u1e63ana_, a _welt-anschauung_ based upon\nrelative knowledge, or better, upon the knowledge of the law of\nrelativity. According to this view, everything in the world has a\nrelative and conditional existence, and nothing can claim an absolute\nreality free from all limitations. This closely corresponds to the\ntheory advanced by most of modern scientists, whose agnosticism denies\nour intellectual capability of transcending the law of relativity.\n\n{90}\n\nThe _paratantra-lak\u1e63ana_, therefore, consists in the knowledge\nderived from our daily intercourse with the outward world. It deals\nwith the highest abstractions we can make out of our sensuous\nexperiences. It is positivistic in its strictest sense. It says: The\nuniverse has only a relative existence, and our knowledge is\nnecessarily limited. Even the highest generalisation cannot go beyond\nthe law of relativity. It is impossible for us to know the first cause\nand the ultimate end of existence; nor have we any need to go thus\nbeyond the sphere of existence, which would inevitably involve us in\nthe maze of mystic imagination.\n\nThe _paratantra-lak\u1e63ana_, therefore, is a positivism, agnosticism, or\nempiricism in its spirit. Though the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra Buddhists do not use all\nthese modern philosophical terms, the interpretation here given is\nreally what they intended to mean by the second form of knowledge. A\nworld-conception based on this view, it is declared by the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nists, is sound as far as our perceptual knowledge is concerned;\nbut it does not exhaust the entire field of human experience, for it\ndoes not take into account our spiritual life and our inmost\nconsciousness. There is something in the human heart that refuses to\nbe satisfied with merely systematising under the so-called laws of\nnature those multitudinous impressions which we receive from the\noutside world. There is a singular feeling, or sentiment, or yearning,\nwhatever we may call it, in our inmost heart, which defies any plainer\n{91} description than a mere suggestion or an indirect statement. This\nsomewhat mystic consciousness seems despite its obscureness to contain\nthe meaning of our existence as well as that of the universe. The\nintellect may try to persuade us with all its subtle reasonings to\nsubdue this disquieting feeling and to remain contented with the\nsystematising of natural laws, so called. But it is deceiving itself\nby so doing; because the intellect is but a servant to the heart, and\nso far as it is not forced to self-contradiction, it must accommodate\nitself to the needs of the heart. That is to say, we must transcend\nthe narrow limits of conditionality and see what indispensable\npostulates are underlying our life and experiences. The recognition\nof these indispensable postulates of life constitutes the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra\u2019s\nthird form of knowledge called _parini\u1e63panna-lak\u1e63ana_.\n\n\n _Absolute Knowledge._\n\n_Parini\u1e63panna-lak\u1e63ana_ literally means the world-view founded on the\nmost perfect knowledge. According to this view, the universe is a\nmonistico-pantheistic system. While phenomenal existences are\nregulated by natural laws characterised by conditionality and\nindividuation, they by no means exhaust all our experiences which are\nstored in our inmost consciousness. There must be something,--this is\nthe absolute demand of humanity, the ultimate postulate of\nexperience,--be it Will, or Intelligence, which, underlying and\nanimating all existences, forms {92} the basis of cosmic, ethical, and\nreligious life. This highest Will, or Intelligence, or both may be\ntermed God, but the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists call it religiously Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nontologically Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2, and psychologically Bodhi or Sambodhi.\nAnd they think it must be immanent in the universe manifesting itself\nin all places and times; it must be the cause of perpetual creation;\nit must be the principle of morality. This being so, how do we come to\nthe recognition of its presence? The Buddhists say that when our minds\nare clear of illusions, prejudices, and egotistic assumptions, they\nbecome transparent and reflect the truth like a dust-free mirror. The\nillumination thus gained in our consciousness constitutes the\nso-called _parini\u1e63panna_, the most perfect knowledge, that leads to\nNirv\u00e2na, final salvation, and eternal bliss.\n\n\n _World-views Founded on the Three\n Forms of Knowledge._\n\nThe reason will be obvious to the reader why the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school\ndistinguishes three classes of world-conception founded on the three\nkinds of knowledge. The _parikalpita-lak\u1e63ana_ is most primitive and\nmost puerile. However, in these days of enlightenment, what is\nbelieved by the masses is naught else than a _parikalpita_ conception\nof the world. The material existence as it appears to our senses is to\nthem all in all. They seem to be unable to shake off the yoke of\negoistic illusion and na\u00efve realism. Their God must be transcendent\nand anthropopathic, {93} and always willing to meddle with worldly\naffairs as his whim pleases. How different the world is, in which the\nmultitudes of unreflecting minds are living, from that which is\nconceived by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas! Hartmann, a German thinker, is\nright, when he says that the masses are at least a century behind in\ntheir intellectual culture. But the most strange thing in the world is\nthat, in spite of all their ignorance and superstitious beliefs, the\nwaves of universal transformation are ever carrying them onward to a\ndestination, of which, perhaps, they have not the slightest suspicion.\n\nThe _paratantra-lak\u1e63ana_ advances a step further, but the fundamental\nerror involved in it is its persistent self-contradictory disregard\nfor what our inmost consciousness is constantly revealing to us. The\nintellect alone can by no means unravel the mystery of our entire\nexistence. In order to reach the highest truth, we must boldly plunge\nwith our whole being into a region where absolute darkness defying the\nlight of intellect is supposed to prevail. This region which is no\nmore nor less than the field of religious consciousness is shunned by\nmost of the intellectual people on the plea that the intellect by its\nvery nature is unable to fathom it. But the only way that leads us to\nthe final pacification of the heart-yearnings is to go beyond the\nhorizons of limiting reason and to resort to the faith that has been\nplanted in the heart as the _sine qua non_ of its own existence and\nvitality. And by faith I mean _Praj\u00f1\u00e2_ (wisdom), transcendental {94}\nknowledge, that comes direct from the intelligence-essence of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya. A mind, so tired in vainly searching after truth and bliss\nin the verbiage of philosophy and the nonsense of ritualism, finds\nitself here completely rested bathing in the rays of divine\neffulgence,--whence this is, it does not question, being so filled\nwith supramundane blessings which alone are felt. Buddhism calls this\nexalted spiritual state Nirv\u00e2na or Mok\u1e63a; and _parini\u1e63panna-lak\u1e63ana_\nis a world-conception which naturally follows from this subjective,\nideal enlightenment.[38]\n\n\n _Two Forms of Knowledge._\n\nThe other Hindu Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, the M\u00e2dhyamika school of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna,\ndistinguishes two, instead of three, orders of knowledge, but\npractically the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra and the M\u00e2dhyamika come to the same\nconclusion.[39]\n\n{95}\n\nThe two kinds of knowledge or truth distinguished by the M\u00e2dhyamika\nphilosophy are _Samv\u1e5btti-satya_ and _Param\u00e2rtha-satya_, that is,\nconditional truth and transcendental truth. We read in N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\u2019s\n_M\u00e2dhyamika \u00c7\u00e2stra_ (Buddhist Text Society edition, pp. 180, 181):\n\n\n \u201cOn two truths is founded\n The holy doctrine of Buddhas:\n Truth conditional,\n And truth transcendental.\n\n \u201cThose who verily know not\n The distinction of the two truths.\n Know not the essence\n Of Buddhism which is meaningful.\u201d[40]\n\n\nThe conditional truth includes illusion and relative knowledge of the\nYog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school, while the transcendental truth corresponds to the\nabsolute knowledge.\n\nIn explaining these two truths, the M\u00e2dhyamika philosophers have made\na constant use of the terms, _\u00e7\u00fbnya_ and _a\u00e7\u00fbnya_, void and not-void,\nwhich unfortunately became a cause of the misunderstanding by Christian\nscholars of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\u2019s transcendental philosophy. Absolute truth is\nvoid in its ultimate nature, for it contains nothing concrete or real\nor individual that makes it an object of particularisation. But this\nmust not be understood, as is done by some superficial critics, in the\nsense of absolute {96} nothingness. The M\u00e2dhyamika philosophers make\nthe _satya_ (transcendental truth) empty when contrasted with the\nrealness of phenomenal existences. Because it is not real in the sense\na particular being is real; but it is empty since it transcends the\nprinciple of individuation. When considered absolutely, it can neither\nbe empty nor not-empty, neither _\u00e7\u00fbnya_ nor _a\u00e7\u00fbnya_, neither _asti_\nnor _n\u00e2sti_, neither _abh\u00e2va_ nor _bh\u00e2va_, neither real nor unreal.\nAll these terms imply relation and contrast, while the _Param\u00e2rtha_\nSatya is above them, or better, it unifies all contrasts and antitheses\nin its absolute oneness. Therefore, even to designate it at all may\nlead to the misunderstanding of the true nature of the _Satya_, for\nnaming is particularising. It is not, as such, an object of\nintellectuation or of demonstrative knowledge. It underlies everything\nconditional and phenomenal, and does not permit itself to be a\nparticular object of discrimination.\n\n\n _Transcendental Truth and Relative\n Understanding._\n\nOne may say: If transcendental truth is of such an abstract nature,\nbeyond the reach of the understanding, how can we ever hope to attain\nit and enjoy its blessings? But N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna says that it is not\nabsolutely out of the ken of the understanding; it is, on the\ncontrary, through the understanding that we become acquainted with the\nquarter towards which our spiritual efforts should be directed, only\n{97} let us not cling to the means by which we grasp the final\nreality. A finger is needed to point at the moon, but when we have\nrecognised the moon, let us no more trouble ourselves with the finger.\nThe fisherman carries a basket to take the fish home, but what need\nhas he to worry about the basket when the contents are safely on the\ntable? Only so long as we are not yet aware of the way to\nenlightenment, let us not ignore the value of relative knowledge or\nconditional truth or _lokasamv\u1e5bttisatya_ as N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna terms it.\n\n\n \u201cIf not by worldly knowledge,\n The truth is not understood;\n When the truth is not approached,\n Nirv\u00e2na is not attained.\u201d[41]\n\n\nFrom this, it is to be inferred that Buddhism never discourages the\nscientific, critical investigation of religious beliefs. For it is one\nof the functions of science that it should purify the contents of a\nbelief and that it should point out in which direction our final\nspiritual truth and consolation have to be sought. Science alone which\nis built on relative knowledge is not able to satisfy all our religious\ncravings, but it is certainly able to direct us to the path of\nenlightenment. When this path is at last revealed, we shall know how\nto avail ourselves of the discovery, as then Praj\u00f1\u00e2 (or Sambodhi, or\nWisdom) becomes the {98} guide of life. Here we enter into the region\nof the unknowable. The spiritual facts we experience are not\ndemonstrable, for they are so direct and immediate that the uninitiated\nare altogether at a loss to get a glimpse of them.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n BH\u00dbTATATH\u00c2T\u00c2 (SUCHNESS).\n\n{99}\n\n/From/ the ontological point of view, Param\u00e2rtha-satya or Parini\u1e63panna\n(transcendental truth) is called Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2, which literally means\n\u201csuchness of existence.\u201d As Buddhism does not separate being from\nthought nor thought from being, what is suchness in the objective\nworld, is transcendental truth in the subjective world, and _vice\nversa_ Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2, then, is the Godhead of Buddhism, and it marks\nthe consummation of all our mental efforts to reach the highest\nprinciple, which unifies all possible contradictions and spontaneously\ndirects the course of world-events. In short, it is the ultimate\npostulate of existence. Like Param\u00e2rtha-satya, as above stated, it\ndoes not belong to the domain of demonstrative knowledge or sensuous\nexperience; it is unknowable by the ordinary processes of\nintellectuation, which the natural sciences use in the formulation of\ngeneral laws; and it is grasped, declare the Buddhists, only by the\nminds that are capable of exercising what might be called religious\nintuition.\n\nA\u00e7vagho\u1e63a argues, in his _Awakening of Faith_ for the indefinability\nof this first principle. When we say it is \u00e7\u00fbnya or empty, on account\nof its being independent {100} of all the thinkable qualities, which\nwe attribute to things relative and conditional, people would take it\nfor the nothingness of absolute void. But when we define it as a real\nreality, as it stands above the evanescence of phenomena, they would\nimagine that there is something individual and existing outside the\npale of this universe, which, though as concrete as we ourselves are,\nlives an eternal life. It is like describing to the blind what an\nelephant looks like; each one of them gets but a very indistinct and\nimperfect conception of the huge creature, yet every one of them\nthinks he has a true and most comprehensive idea of it.[42]\nA\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, thus, wishes to eschew all definite statements concerning\nthe ultimate nature of being, but as language is the only mode with\nwhich we mortals can express our ideas and communicate them to others,\nhe thinks the best expression that can be given to it is Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2,\ni.e., \u201csuchness of existence,\u201d or simply, \u201csuchness.\u201d\n\nBh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2 (suchness), thus absolutely viewed, does not fall under\nthe category of being and non-being; and minds which are kept within\nthe narrow circle of contrasts, must be said to be incapable of\ngrasping it as it truly is. Says N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna in his \u00c7\u00e2stra (Ch. XV.):\n\n\n \u201cBetween thisness (_svabh\u00e2va_) and thatness (_parabh\u00e2va_),\n Between being and non-being,\n Who discriminates,\n The truth of Buddhism he perceives not.\u201d[43]\n\n\n{101}\n\nOr,\n\n\n \u201cTo think \u2018it is\u2019, is eternalism,\n To think \u2018it is not\u2019, is nihilism:\n Being and non-being,\n The wise cling not to either.\u201d[44]\n\n\nAgain,\n\n\n \u201cThe dualism of \u2018to be\u2019 and \u2018not to be,\u2019\n The dualism of pure and not-pure:\n Such dualism having abandoned,\n The wise stand not even in the middle.\u201d[45]\n\n\nTo quote, again, from the _Awakening of Faith_ (pp. 58-59): \u201cIn its\nmetaphysical origin, Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2 has nothing to do with things\ndefiled, i.e., conditional: it is free from all signs of\nindividualisation, such as exist in phenomenal objects: it is\nindependent of an unreal, particularising consciousness.\u201d\n\n\n _Indefinability._\n\nAbsolute Suchness from its very nature thus defies all definitions. We\ncannot even say that it is, for everything that is presupposes that\nwhich is not: existence and non-existence are relative terms as much\nas subject and object, mind and matter, this and that, one and other:\none cannot be conceived {102} without the other. \u201cIt is not so (_na\niti_)[46],\u201d therefore, may be the only way our imperfect human tongue\ncan express it. So the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists generally designate absolute\nSuchness as \u00c7\u00fbnyat\u00e2 or void.\n\nBut when this most significant word, \u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2, is to be more fully\ninterpreted, we would say with A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a that \u201cSuchness is neither\nthat which is existence nor that which is non-existence; neither that\nwhich is at once existence and non-existence, nor that which is not at\nonce existence and non-existence; it is neither that which is unity\nnor that which is plurality; neither that which is at once unity and\nplurality, nor that which is not at once unity and plurality.\u201d[47]\n\n{103}\n\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\u2019s famous doctrine of \u201cThe Middle Path of Eight No\u2019s\u201d\nbreathes the same spirit, which declares:\n\n\n \u201cThere is no death, no birth, no destruction, no persistence,\n No oneness, no manyness, no coming, no departing,\u201d[48]\n\n\nElsewhere, he expresses the same idea in a somewhat paradoxical\nmanner, making the historical Buddha a real concrete manifestation of\nSuchness:\n\n\n \u201cAfter his passing, deem not thus:\n \u2018The Buddha still is here,\u2019\n He is above all contrasts,\n To be and not to be.\n\n \u201cWhile living, deem not thus:\n \u2018The Buddha is now here.\u2019\n He is above all contrasts,\n To be and not to be.\u201d[49]\n\n\nThis view of Suchness as no-ness abounds in the literature of the\nDhy\u00e2na school of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism. To cite one instance: When\nBodhi-Dharma[50], the founder {104} of the Dhy\u00e2na sect, saw Emperor\nWu of Liang dynasty (A.D. 502-556), he was asked what the first\nprinciple of the Holy Doctrine was, he did not give any lengthy,\nperiphrastic statement after the manner of a philosopher, but\nlaconically replied, \u201cVast emptiness and nothing holy.\u201d The Emperor\nwas bewildered and did not know how to take the words of his holy\nadviser. Naturally, he did not expect such an abrupt answer, and,\nbeing greatly disappointed, ventured another question: \u201cWho is he,\nthen, that stands before me?\u201d By this he meant to repudiate the\ndoctrine of absolute Suchness. His line of argument being this: If\nthere is nothing in the ultimate nature of things that distinguishes\nbetween holiness and sinfulness, why this world of contrasts, where\nsome are revered as holy, for instance, Bodhi-Dharma who is at this\nvery moment standing in front of him with the mission of propagating\nthe holy teachings of Buddha? Bodhi-Dharma, however, was a mystic and\nwas fully convinced of the insufficiency of the human tongue to\nexpress the highest truth which is revealed only {105} intuitively to\nthe religious consciousness. His conclusive answer was, \u201cI do not\nknow\u201d.[51]\n\nThis \u201cI do not know\u201d is not to be understood in the spirit of\nagnosticism, but in the sense of \u201cGod when understood is no God,\u201d for\n_in se est et per se conceptur_. This way of describing Suchness by\nnegative terms only, excluding all differences of name and form\n(_n\u00e2mar\u00fbpa_) to reach a higher kind of affirmation, seems to be the\nmost appropriate one, inasmuch as the human understanding is limited\nin so many respects; but, nevertheless, it has caused much\nmisinterpretation even among Buddhists themselves, not to mention\nthose Christian Buddhist scholars of to-day, who sometimes appear\nalmost wilfully to misconstrue the significance of the \u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2\nphilosophy. It was to avoid these unfortunate misinterpretations that\nthe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists frequently made the paradoxical assertion that\nabsolute Suchness is empty and not empty, \u00e7\u00fbnya and a\u00e7unya, being\nand non-being, sat and asat, one and many, this and that.\n\n\n _The \u201cThundrous Silence.\u201d_\n\nThere yet remains another mode of explaining absolute Suchness, which\nthough most practical and most effective for the religiously disposed\nminds, may prove very inadequate to a sceptical intellect. {106} It is\nthe \u201cthundrous silence\u201d of Vimalak\u00eerti in response to an inquiry\nconcerning the nature of Suchness or the \u201cDharma of Non-duality,\u201d as\nit is termed in the S\u00fbtra.[52]\n\nBodhisattva Vimalak\u00eerti once asked a host of Bodhisattvas led by\nMa\u00f1ju\u00e7ri, who came to visit him, to express their views as to how to\nenter into the Dharma of Non-duality. Some replied, \u201cBirth and death\nare two, but the Dharma itself was never born and will never die.\nThose who understand this are said to enter into the Dharma of\nNon-duality.\u201d Some said, \u201c\u2018I\u2019 and \u2018mine\u2019 are two. Because I think \u2018I\nam\u2019 there are things called \u2018mine.\u2019 But as there is no \u2018I am\u2019 where\nshall we look for things \u2018mine\u2019? By thus reflecting we enter into the\nDharma of Non-duality.\u201d Some replied, \u201cSams\u00e2ra and Nirv\u00e2na are two.\nBut when we understand the ultimate nature of Sams\u00e2ra, Sams\u00e2ra\nvanishes from our consciousness, and there is neither bondage nor\nrelease, neither birth nor death. By thus reflecting we enter into the\nDharma of Non-duality\u201d. Others said, \u201cIgnorance and enlightenment are\ntwo. No ignorance, no enlightenment, and there is no dualism. Why?\nBecause those who have entered a meditation in which there is no\nsense-impression, no cogitation, are free from ignorance as well as\nfrom enlightenment. This holds true with all the other dualistic\ncategories. Those who enter thus into the thought of sameness are\n{107} said to enter into the Dharma of Non-duality.\u201d Still others\nanswered, \u201cTo long for Nirv\u00e2na and to shun worldliness are of dualism.\nLong not for Nirv\u00e2na, shun not worldliness, and we are free from\ndualism. Why? Because bondage and release are relative terms, and when\nthere is no bondage from the beginning, who wishes to be released? No\nbondage, no release, and therefore no longing, no shunning: this is\ncalled the entering into the Dharma of Non-duality.\u201d\n\nMany more answers of similar nature came forth from all the\nBodhisattvas in the assembly except the leader Ma\u00f1ju\u00e7ri. Vimalak\u00eerti\nnow requested him to give his own view, and to this Ma\u00f1ju\u00e7ri\nresponded, \u201cWhat I think may be stated thus: That which is in all\nbeings wordless, speechless, shows no signs, is not possible of\ncognisance, and is above all questionings and answerings,--to know\nthis is said to enter into the Dharma of Non-duality.\u201d\n\nFinally, the host Vimalak\u00eerti himself was demanded by Ma\u00f1ju\u00e7ri to\nexpress his idea of Non-duality, but he kept completely silent and\nuttered not a word. Thereupon, Ma\u00f1ju\u00e7ri admiringly exclaimed, \u201cWell\ndone, well done! The Dharma of Non-duality is truly above letters and\nwords!\u201d[53]\n\n{108}\n\nNow, of this Suchness, the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists distinguish two aspects, as\nit is comprehended by our consciousness, which are conditional and\nnon-conditional, or the phenomenal world of causality and the\ntranscendental realm of absolute freedom. This distinction corresponds\nto that, in the field of knowledge, of relative truth and\ntranscendental truth.[54]\n\n{109}\n\n\n _Suchness Conditioned._\n\nAbsolute transcendental Suchness defying all means of characterisation\ndoes not, as long as it so remains, have any direct significance in\nthe phenomenal world and human life. When it does, it must become\nconditional Suchness as _Gesetzm\u00e4ssigkeit_ in nature and as ethical\norder in our practical life. Suchness as absolute is too remote, too\nabstract, and may have only a metaphysical value. Its existence or\nnon-existence seems not to affect us in our daily social life,\ninasmuch as it is transcendental. In order to enter into our limited\nconsciousness, to become the norm of our conscious activities, to\nregulate the course of the evolutionary tide in nature, Suchness must\nsurrender its \u201csplendid isolation,\u201d must abandon its absoluteness.\n\nWhen Suchness thus comes down from its sovereign-seat in the realm of\nunthinkability, we have this universe unfolded before our eyes in all\nits diversity and magnificence. Twinkling stars inlaid in the vaulted\nsky; the planet elaborately decorated with verdant meadows, towering\nmountains, and rolling waves; the birds cheerfully singing in the\nwoods; the beasts wildly running through the thickets; the summer\nheavens ornamented with white fleecy clouds and on {110} earth all\nbranches and leaves growing in abundant luxury; the winter prairie\ndestitute of all animation, only with naked trees here and there\ntrembling in the dreary north winds; all these manifestations, not\nvarying a hair\u2019s breadth of deviation from their mathematical,\nastronomical, physical, chemical, and biological laws, are naught else\nthan the work of conditional Suchness in nature.\n\nWhen we turn to human life and history, we have the work of\nconditional Suchness manifested in all forms of activity as passions,\naspirations, imaginations, intellectual efforts, etc. It makes us\ndesire to eat when hungry, and to drink when thirsty; it makes the man\nlong for the woman, and the woman for the man; it keeps children in\nmerriment and frolic; it braces men and women bravely to carry the\nburden of life. When we are oppressed, it causes us to cry, \u201cLet us\nhave liberty or die\u201d; when we are treated with injustice, it leads us\neven to murder and fire and revolution; when our noble sentiments are\naroused to the highest pitch, it makes us ready to sacrifice all that\nis most dear to us. In brief, all the kaleidoscopic changes of this\nphenomenal world, subjective as well as objective, come from the\nplaying hands of conditional Suchness It not only constitutes the\ngoodness and blessings of life, but the sins, crimes, and misery which\nthe flesh is heir to.[55]\n\n{111}\n\nA\u00e7vagho\u1e63a in his _Awakening of Faith_ speaks of the Heart (_h\u1e5bdaya_)\nof Suchness and of the Heart of Birth-and-Death. By the Heart of\nSuchness he means the absolute and by the Heart of Birth-and-Death a\nmanifestation of the absolute in this world of particulars. \u201cThey are\nnot separate,\u201d however, says he, but they are one, for the Heart of\n{112} Suchness is the Heart of Birth-and-Death. It is on account of\nour limited senses and finite mind that we have a world of particulars,\nwhich, as it is, is no more than a fragment of the absolute\nBh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2. And yet it is through this fragmentary manifestation\nthat we are finally enabled to reach the fundamental nature of being\nin its entirety. Says A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, \u201cDepending on the Tath\u00e2gata-garbha,\nthere evolves the Heart of Birth-and-Death. What is immortal and what\nis mortal are harmoniously blended, for they are not one, nor are they\nseparate..... Herein all things are organised. Hereby all things are\ncreated.\u201d\n\nThe above is from the ontological standpoint. When viewed\npsychologically, the Heart of Suchness is enlightenment, for Buddhism\nmakes no distinction between being and thought, world and mind. The\nultimate nature of the two is considered to be absolutely one. Now,\nspeaking of the nature of enlightenment, A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a says: \u201cIt is like\nthe emptiness of space and the brightness of the mirror in that it is\ntrue, and real, and great. It completes and perfects all things. It is\nfree from the condition of destructibility. In it is reflected every\nphase of life and activity in the world. Nothing goes out of it,\nnothing enters into it, nothing is annihilated, nothing is destroyed.\nIt is one eternal soul, no forms of defilement can defile it. It is\nthe essence of intelligence. By reason of its numerous immaculate\nvirtues which inhere in it, it perfumes the hearts of all beings.\u201d\nThus, the Heart of Suchness, which is enlightenment and {113} the\nessence of intelligence, constantly works in and through the hearts of\nall human beings, that is, in and through our finite minds. In this\nsense, Buddhism declares that truth is not to be sought in highly\nabstract philosophical formul\u00e6, but in the phenomena of our everyday\nlife such as eating, dressing, walking, sleeping, etc. The Heart of\nSuchness acts and does not abstract; it synthesises and does not\n\u201cdissect to murder.\u201d\n\n\n _Questions Defying Solution._\n\nSpeaking of the world as a manifestation of Suchness, we are here\nbeset with the most puzzling questions that have baffled the best\nminds ever since the dawn of intellect. They are: Why did Suchness\never leave its abode in the mysterious realm of transcendentality and\ndescend on earth where every form of misery greets us on all sides?\nWhat inherent necessity was there for it to mingle in the dust of\nworldliness while it could enjoy the unspeakable bliss of its own\nabsoluteness? In other words, why did absolute Suchness ever become\nconditional Suchness? To dispose of these questions as not concerning\nhuman interests is the creed of agnosticism and positivism; but the\nfact is, they are not questions whimsically framed by the human mind\nwhen it was in the mood of playing with itself. They are queries of\nthe most vital importance ever put to us, and the significance of life\nentirely hangs on our interpretation of them.\n\n{114}\n\nBuddhism confesses that the mystery is unsolvable purely by the human\nmind, for it is absolutely beyond the region of finite intellect and\nthe power of a logical demonstrability. The mystery can only be solved\nin a practical way when we attain the highest spiritual enlightenment\nof Buddhahood, in which the Bodhi with its unimpeded supernatural\nlight directly looks into the very abyss of Suchness. The Bodhi or\nIntelligence which constitutes the kernel of our being, is a partial\nrealisation in us of Suchness. When this intelligence is merged and\nexpands in the Body of Suchness, as the water in a vessel poured into\nthe waters of the boundless ocean, it at once perceives and realises\nits nature, its destiny, and its significance in life.\n\nBuddhism is a religion and leaves many topics of metaphysics unsolved,\nat least logically. Though it is more intellectual and philosophical\nthan any other religion, it does not pretend to build a complete\nsystem of speculation. As far as theorisation is concerned, Buddhism\nis dogmatic and assumes many propositions without revealing their\ndialectical processes. But they are all necessary and fundamental\nhypotheses of the religious consciousness; they are the ultimate\ndemands of the human soul. Religion has no positive obligation to\nprove its propositions after the fashion of the natural sciences. It\nis enough for religion to state the facts as they are, and the\nintellect, though hampered by limitations inherent in it, has to try\nher best to put them together in a coherent system.\n\n{115}\n\nThe solution, then, by Buddhism of those queries stated above cannot\nbe said to be very logical and free from serious difficulties, but\npractically it serves all required purposes and is conducive to\nreligious discipline. By this I mean the Buddhist theory of Nescience\nor Ignorance (_avidy\u00e2_).\n\n\n _Theory of Ignorance._\n\nThe theory of nescience or ignorance (_avidy\u00e2_) is an attempt by\nBuddhists to solve the relation between the one and the many, between\nabsolute Suchness and conditional Suchness, between Dharmak\u00e2ya and\nSarvasattva, between wisdom (_bodhi_) and sin (_kle\u00e7a_), between\nNirv\u00e2na and Sams\u00e2ra. But Buddhism does not give us any systematic\nexposition of the doctrine. What it says is categorical and dogmatic.\n\u201cThis universe is really the Dharmadh\u00e2tu;[56] it is characterised by\nsameness (_samat\u00e2_); there is no differentiation (_visama_) in it; it\nis even emptiness itself (_\u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2_); all things have no _pudgala_\n(self). But, because of nescience, there are four or six _mah\u00e2bh\u00fbta_\n(elements), five _skandha_ (aggregates), six (or eight) _vij\u00f1\u00e2na_\n(senses), and twelve _nid\u00e2na_ (chains of causation). All these names\nand forms (_n\u00e2mar\u00fbpa_) are of nescience or ignorance.\u201d Or, according\nto A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, \u201cThe Heart of Suchness is the vast All of one\nDharmadh\u00e2tu; it is the essence of all doctrines. The ultimate nature\ndoes not perish, nor does it {116} decay. All particular objects exist\nbecause of confused subjectivity (_sm\u1e5bti_).[57] Independent of\nconfused subjectivity, there is no outside world to be perceived and\ndiscriminated.\u201d \u201cEverything that is subject to the law of birth and\ndeath exists only because of ignorance and karma.\u201d Such statements as\nthese are found almost everywhere in the Buddhist literature; but as\nto the question how and why this negative principle of ignorance came\nto assert itself in the body of Suchness, we are at a loss where to\nfind an authoritative and definite answer to it.\n\nOne thing, however, is certain, which is this: Ignorance (_avidy\u00e2_)\nis principium individium, that creates the multitudinousness of\nphenomena in the absolute oneness of being, that tosses up the roaring\nbillows of existence in the eternal ocean of Suchness, that breaks the\nsilence of Nirv\u00e2na and starts the wheel of metempsychosis perpetually\nrolling, that, veiling the transpicuous mirror of Bodhi, affects the\nreflection of Suchness therein, that transforms the sameness (_samat\u00e2_)\nof Suchness to the duality of thisness and thatness and leads many\nconfused minds to egoism with all its pernicious corollaries.\n\nPerhaps, the best way to attack the problem of ignorance is to\nunderstand that Buddhism is a thoroughly idealistic doctrine as every\ntrue religion should be, and that psychologically, and not\nontologically, {117} should Suchness be conceived, and further, that\nnescience is inherent in Suchness, though only hypothetically,\nillusively, apparently, and not really in any sense.\n\nAccording to Brahmanism, there was in the beginning only one being;\nand this being willed to be two; which naturally resulted in the\ndifferentiation of subject and object, mind and nature. In Buddhism,\nhowever, Suchness is not explicitly stated as having had any desire to\nbe other than itself, at least when it is purely metaphysically\nconceived. But as Buddhism interprets this world of particularisation\nas a manifestation of Suchness conditioned by the principle of\nignorance, ignorance must be considered, however illusory in its\nultimate nature, to have potentially or rather negatively existed in\nthe being of Suchness; and when Suchness, by its transcendental\nfreedom of will, affirmed itself, it did so by negating itself, that\nis, by permitting itself to be conditioned by the principle of\nignorance or individuation. The latter, as is expressly stated\neverywhere in Buddhist s\u00fbtras and \u00e7\u00e2stras, is no more than an illusion\nand a negative quantity, it is merely the veil of M\u00e2ya. This chimerical\nnature of ignorance preserves the essential absoluteness of the first\nprinciple and makes the monism of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrine thoroughly\nconsistent. What is to be noted here, however, is this: Buddhism does\nnot necessarily regard this world of particulars as altogether\nevanescent and dream-like. When ignorance alone is taken notice {118}\nof and the presence of Suchness in all this multitudinousness of\nthings is denied, this existence is positively declared to be void.\nBut when an enlightened mind perceives Suchness even in the midst of\nthe utter darkness of ignorance, this life assumes an entirely new\naspect, and we come to realise the illusiveness of all evils.\n\nTo return to the subject, ignorance or nescience is defined by\nA\u00e7vagho\u1e63a as a spark of consciousness[58] that spontaneously flashes\nfrom the unfathomable depths of Suchness. According to this, ignorance\nand consciousness are interchangeable terms, though with different\nshades of meaning. Ignorance is, so to speak, the _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ of\nconsciousness, is that which makes the appearance of the latter\npossible, while ignorance itself is in turn an illusive emanation of\nSuchness. It is then evident that the awakening of consciousness marks\nthe first step toward the rising of this universe from the abyss of\nthe self-identity of Suchness. For the unfolding of consciousness\nimplies the separation of the perceiving and the perceived, the\n_vi\u1e63ayin_ and the _vi\u1e63aya_, of subject and object, mind and nature.\n\nThe eternal abyss of Suchness, so called, is the point where\nsubjectivity and objectivity are merged in absolute oneness. It is the\ntime, though strictly {119} speaking chronology does not apply here,\nwhen all \u201cthe ten thousand things\u201d of the world have not yet been\ndifferentiated and even when the God who \u201ccreated the heaven and\nearth\u201d has not yet made his debut. To use psychological terms, it is\na state of transcendental or transmarginal consciousness, where all\nsense-perceptions and conceptual images vanish, and where we are in a\nstate of absolute unconsciousness. This sounds mystical; but it is an\nestablished fact that in the field of our mental activities there is\nan abyss where consciousness sometimes suddenly disappears. This\nregion beyond the threshold of awaredness, though often a trysting\nplace for psychical abnormalities, has a great religious significance,\nwhich cannot be ignored by superficial scientific arguments. Here is\nthe region where the consciousness of subject and object is completely\nannihilated, but here we do not have the silence and darkness of a\ngrave, nor is it a state of absolute nothingness. The self is here\nlost in the presence of something indescribable, or better, it expands\nso as to embrace the world-all within itself, and is not conscious of\nany egoistic elation or arrogance; but it merely feels the fulness of\nreality and a touch of celestial joy that cannot be imparted to others\nby anything human. The most convincing spiritual insight into the\nnature of being comes from this source. Enlightenment is the name\ngiven by Buddhists to the actual gaining of this insight. Bodhi or\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2 or intelligence is the term for the {120} spiritual power that\nbrings about this enlightenment.\n\nWhen the mind emerges from this state of sameness, consciousness\nspontaneously comes back as it vanished before, retaining the memory\nof the experience so unique and now confronting the world of contrasts\nand mutual dependence, in which our empirical ego moves. The transition\nfrom one state to the other is like a flash of lightning scintilating\nfrom behind the clouds; though the two, the subliminal and the\nsuperficial consciousness, seem to be one continuous form of activity,\npermitting no hiatus between them. At any rate, this awakening of\nsubjectivity and the leaving behind of transmarginal consciousness\nmarks the start of ignorance. Therefore, psychologically speaking,\nignorance must be considered synonymous with the awakening of\nconsciousness in a sentient being.\n\nHere we have the most mysterious fact that baffles all our\nintellectual efforts to unravel, which is: How and why has ignorance,\nor what is tantamount, consciousness, ever been awakened from the\nabsolute calmness (_\u00e7\u0101nti_) of being? How and why have the waves of\nmentation ever been stirred up in the ocean of eternal tranquillity?\nA\u00e7vagho\u1e63a simply says, \u201cspontaneously.\u201d This by no means explains\nanything, or at least it is not in the line with our so-called\nscientific interpretations, nor does it give us any reason why.\nNevertheless, religiously and practically viewed, \u201cspontaneous\u201d is the\nmost graphic and vigorous term there is for describing the actual\nstate of things {121} as they pass before our mental eye. In fact,\nthere is always something vague and indefinite in all our psychological\nexperiences. With whatever scientific accuracy, with whatever\nobjective precision we may describe the phenomena that take place in\nthe mind, there is always something that eludes our scrutiny, is too\nslippery, as it were, to take hold of; so that after all our strenuous\nintellectual efforts to be exact and perspicuous in our expositions,\nwe are still compelled to leave much to the imagination of the reader.\nIn case he happens to be lacking in the experience which we have\nendeavored to describe we shall vainly hope to awaken in him the said\nimpression with the same degree of intensity and realness.\n\nIt is for this reason that A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a and other Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists declare\nthat the rising of consciousness out of the abysmal depths of Suchness\nis _felt_ by Buddhas and other enlightened minds only that have\nactually gone through the experience. The why of ignorance nobody can\nexplain as much as the why of Suchness. But when we personally\nexperience this spiritual fact, we no more feel the need of harboring\nany doubt about how or why. Everything becomes transparent, and the\nrays of supernatural enlightenment shine like a halo round our\nspiritual personality. We move as dictated by the behest of Suchness,\ni.e., by the Dharmak\u00e2ya, and in which we feel infinite bliss and\nsatisfaction. This religious experience is the most unique phenomenon\nin the life of a sentient being.\n\n{122}\n\n\n _Dualism and Moral Evil._\n\nAs we cannot think that the essence of the external world to be other\nthan that of our own mind, that is to say, as we cannot think subject\nand object to be different in their ultimate nature, our conclusion\nnaturally is that the same principle of Ignorance which gathers the\nclouds of subjectivity, calls up the multitudinousness of phenomena in\nthe world-mind of Suchness. The universe in its entirety is an\ninfinite mind, and our limited mind with its transmarginal\nconsciousness is a microcosm. What the finite mind feels in its inmost\nself, must also be what the cosmic mind feels; nay, we can go one step\nfurther, and say that when the human mind enters the region lying\nbeyond the border of subjectivity and objectivity, it is in communion\nwith the heart of the universe, whose secrets are revealed here\nwithout reserve. Therefore, Buddhism does not make any distinction\nbetween knowing and being, enlightenment and Suchness. When the mind\nis free from ignorance and no more clings to things particular, it is\nsaid to be in harmony and even one with Suchness.\n\nWe must, however, remember that ignorance as the principle of\nindividuation and a spontaneous expression of Suchness, is no moral\nevil. The awakening of subjectivity or the dawn of consciousness forms\npart of the necessary cosmic process. The separation of subject and\nobject, or the appearance of a phenomenal world, is nothing but a\nrealisation {123} of the cosmic mind (Dharmak\u00e2ya). As such Ignorance\nperforms an essential function in the evolution of the world-totality.\nIgnorance is inherent in Buddhas as well as in all sentient beings.\nEvery one of us cannot help perceiving an external world (_vi\u1e63aya_)\nand forming conceptions and reasoning and feeling and willing. We do\nnot see any moral fault here. If there is really anything morally\nwrong, then we cannot do anything with it, we are utterly helpless\nbefore it, for it is not our fault, but that of the cosmic soul from\nwhich and in which we have our being.\n\nIgnorance has produced everywhere a state of relativity and reciprocal\ndependence. Birth is inseparably linked with death, congregation with\nsegregation, evolution with involution, attraction with repulsion, the\ncentripetal with the centrifugal force, the spring with the fall, the\ntide with the ebb, joy with sorrow, God with Satan, Adam with Eve,\nBuddha with Devadatta, etc., etc., _ad infinitum_. These are necessary\nconditions of existence; and if existence is an evil, they must be\nabolished, and with their abolition the very reason of existence is\nabolished, which means absolute nothingness, an impossibility as long\nas we exist. The work of ignorance in the world of conditional\nSuchness is quite innocent, and Buddhists do not recognise any fault\nin its existence, if not contaminated by confused subjectivity. Those\nwho speak of the curse of existence, or those who conceive Nirv\u00e2na to\nbe the abode of non-existence {124} and the happiness of absolute\nannihilation, are considered by Buddhists to be unable to understand\nthe significance of Ignorance.\n\nIs there then no fault to be found with Ignorance? Not in Ignorance\nitself, but in our defiled attachment to it, that is, when we are\nignorant of Ignorance. It is wrong to cling to the dualism of subject\nand object as final and act accordingly. It is wrong to take the work\nof ignorance as ultimate and to forget the foundation on which it\nstands. It is wrong, thinking that the awakening of consciousness\nreveals the whole world, to ignore the existence of unseen realities.\nIn short, evils quickly follow our steps when we try to realise the\nconclusions of ignorance without knowing its true relation to Suchness.\nEgoism is the most fundamental of all errors and evils.\n\nWhen we speak of ignorance as hindering the light of intelligence from\npenetrating to the bottom of reality, we usually understand the term\nignorance not in the philosophical sense of principium individuum, but\nin the sense of confused subjectivity, which conceives the work of\nIgnorance as the final reality culminating in egoism. So, we might say\nthat while the principle of Ignorance is philosophically justified,\nits unenlightened actualisation in our practical life is altogether\nunwarranted and brings on us a series of dire calamities.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n THE TATH\u00c2GATA-GARBHA AND THE\n \u00c2LAYA-VIJ\u00d1\u00c2NA.\n\n{125}\n\n/Suchness/ (_Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2_), the ultimate principle of existence, is\nknown by so many different names, as it is viewed in so many different\nphases of its manifestation. Suchness is the Essence of Buddhas, as it\nconstitutes the reason of Buddhahood; it is the Dharma, when it is\nconsidered the norm of existence; it is the Bodhi when it is the\nsource of intelligence; Nirvana, when it brings eternal peace to a\nheart troubled with egoism and its vile passions; Praj\u00f1\u00e2 (wisdom),\nwhen it intelligently directs the course of nature; the Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nwhen it is religiously considered as the fountain-head of love and\nwisdom; the Bodhicitta (intelligence-heart), when it is the awakener\nof religious consciousness; \u00c7\u00fbnyat\u00e2 (vacuity), when viewed as\ntranscending all particular forms; the summum bonum (_ku\u00e7alam_), when\nits ethical phase is emphasised; the Highest Truth (_param\u00e2rtha_),\nwhen its epistemological feature is put forward; the Middle Path\n(_m\u00e2dhyam\u00e2rga_), when it is considered above the onesidedness and\nlimitation of individual existences; the Essence of Being\n(_bh\u00fbtakoti_), when its ontological aspect is taken into {126}\naccount; the Tath\u00e2gata-garbha (the Womb of Tath\u00e2gata), when it is\nthought of in analogy to mother earth, where all the germs of life are\nstored, and where all precious stones and metals are concealed under\nthe cover of filth. And it is of this last aspect of Suchness that I\nhere propose to consider at some length.\n\n\n _The Tath\u00e2gata-Garbha and Ignorance._\n\nTath\u00e2gata-Garbha literally means Tath\u00e2gata\u2019s womb[59] or treasure or\nstore, in which the essence of Tath\u00e2gatahood remains concealed under\nthe veil of Ignorance. It may rightly be called the womb of universe,\nfrom which issues forth the multitudinousness of things, mental as\nwell as physical.\n\nThe Tath\u00e2gata-Garbha, therefore, may be explained ontologically as a\nstate of Suchness quickened by Ignorance and ready to be realised in\nthe world of particulars, that is, when it is about to transform\nitself to the duality of subject and object, though there is yet no\nperceptible manifestation of motility in any form. Psychologically, it\nis the transcendental soul of man just coming under the bondage of the\nlaw of karmaic causation. Though pure and free in its nature as the\nexpression of Suchness in man, the transcendental {127} soul or pure\nintelligence is now influenced by the principle of birth-and-death and\nsubjects itself to organic determinations. As it is, it is yet devoid\nof differentiation and limitation, save that there is a bare\npossibility of them. It will, however, as soon as it is actualised in\na special form, unfold all its particularities subject to their own\nlaws; it will hunger, desire, strive, and even be annoyed by its\nmaterial bonds, and then, beginning to long for liberation, will\nstruggle inwardly. Here is then no more of the absolute freedom of\nSuchness, as long as its phenomenal phase alone is considered, since\nthe Garbha works under the constraint of particularisation. The\nessence of Tath\u00e2gatahood, however, is here preserved intact, and,\nwhenever it is possible, our finite minds are able to feel its\npresence and power. Hypothetically, therefore, the Garbha is always in\nassociation with passions and desires that are of Ignorance.\n\nWe read in the _\u00c7rim\u00e2l\u00e2-S\u00fbtra_: \u201cWith the storage of passions attached\nwe find the Tath\u00e2gata-Garbha,\u201d or, \u201cThe Dharmak\u00e2ya of the Tath\u00e2gata\nnot detached from the storage of passions is called Tath\u00e2gata-Garbha.\u201d\nIn Buddhism, passion or desire or sin (_kle\u00e7a_) is generally used in\ncontrast to intelligence or Bodhi or Nirv\u00e2na. As the latter,\nreligiously considered, represents a particular manifestation in the\nhuman mind of the Dharmak\u00e2ya or Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2, so the former is a\nreflection of universal Ignorance in the microcosm. Therefore, the\nhuman soul in which, according to Buddhism, intelligence and desire\nare merged, should {128} be regarded as an individuation of the\nTath\u00e2gata-Garbha. And it is in this capacity that the Garbha is called\n_\u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na_.\n\n\n _The \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na and its Evolution._\n\nAs we have seen, the \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na or All-Conserving Soul is a\nparticularised expression in the human mind of the Tath\u00e2gata-Garbha.\nIt is an individual, ideal reflex of the cosmic Garbha. It is this\n\u201cpsychic germ,\u201d as the \u00c2laya is often designated, that stores all the\nmental possibilities, which are set in motion by the impetus of an\nexternal world, which works on the \u00c2laya through the six senses\n(_vij\u00f1\u00e2na_).\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is essentially idealistic and does not make a radical,\nqualitative distinction between subject and object, thought and being,\nmind and nature, consciousness and energy. Therefore, the being and\nactivity of the \u00c2laya are essentially those of the Garbha; and again,\nas the Garbha is the joint creation of universal Ignorance and\nSuchness, so is the \u00c2laya the product of desire (_kle\u00e7a_) and wisdom\n(_bodhi_). The Garbha and the \u00c2laya, however, are each in itself\ninnocent and absolutely irresponsible for the existing state of\naffairs. And let it be remarked here that Buddhism does not condemn\nthis life and universe for their wickedness as was done by some\nreligious teachers and philosophers. The so-called wickedness is not\nradical in nature and life. It is merely superficial. It is the work\nof ignorance and desire, and when they are converted to do service for\nthe {129} Bodhi, they cease to be wicked or sinful or evil. Buddhists,\ntherefore, strongly insist on the innate and intrinsic goodness of the\n\u00c2laya and the Garbha.\n\nSays A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a in his _Awakening of Faith_ (p. 75): \u201cIn the\nAll-Conserving Soul (_\u00c2laya_) Ignorance obtains, and from\nnon-enlightenment [thus produced] starts that which sees, that which\nrepresents, that which apprehends an objective world, and that which\nconstantly particularises.\u201d Here we have the evolution of the Garbha\nin its psychological manifestation; in other words, we have here the\nevolution of the \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na. When the Garbha or \u00c2laya comes under\nthe influence of birth-and-death (_sams\u00e2ra_), it no longer retains its\nprimeval indifference or sameness (_samat\u00e2_); but there come to exist\nthat which sees (_vi\u1e63ayin_) and that which is seen (_vi\u1e63aya_), a mind\nand an objective world. From the interaction of these two forms of\nexistence, we have now before our eyes the entire panorama of the\nuniverse swiftly and noiselessly moving with its never-tiring steps.\nA most favorite simile with Buddhists to illustrate these incessant\nactivities of the phenomenal world, is to compare them to the waves\nthat are seen forever rolling in a boundless ocean, while the body of\nwaters which make up the ocean is compared to Suchness, and the wind\nthat stirs up the waves to the principle of birth-and-death or\nignorance which is the same thing. So we read in the _Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra\nS\u00fbtra_:\n\n{130}\n\n\n \u201cLike unto the ocean-waves,\n Which by a raging storm maddened\n Against the rugged precipice strike\n Without interruption;\n Even so in the Alaya-sea\n Stirred by the objectivity-wind\n All kinds of mentation-waves\n Arise a-dancing, a-rolling.\u201d[60]\n\n\nBut all the psychical activities thus brought into full view, should\nnot be conceived as different from the Mind (_citta_) itself. It is\nmerely in the nature of our understanding that we think of attributes\napart from their substance, the latter being imagined to be in\npossession and control of the former. There is, however, in fact no\nsubstance _per se_, independent of its attributes, and no attributes\ndetached from that which unites them. And this is one of the\nfundamental conceptions of Buddhism, that there is no soul-in-itself\nconsidered apart from its various manifestations such as imagination,\nsensation, intellectuation, etc. The innumerable ripples and waves and\nbillows of mentation that are stirred in the depths of the\nTath\u00e2gata-Garbha, are not things foreign or external to it, but they\nare all particular expressions of the same essence, they are working\nout its immanent destiny. So continues the _Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra S\u00fbtra_:\n\n{131}\n\n\n \u201cThe saline crystal and its red-bluishness,\n The milky sap and its sweetness,\n Various flowers and their fruits,\n The sun and the moon and their luminosity:\n These are neither separable nor inseparable.\n As waves are stirred in the water,\n Even so the seven modes of mentation\n Are awakened in the Mind and united with it.\n When the waters are troubled in the ocean,\n We have waves that roll each in its own way:\n So with the Mind All-Conserving.\n When stirred, therein diverse mentations arise:\n Citta, Manas, and Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na.\n These we distinguish as attributes,\n In substance they differ not from each other;\n For they are neither attributing nor attributed.\n The sea-water and the waves,\n One varies not from the other:\n It is even so with the Mind and its activities;\n Between them difference nowhere obtains.\n Citta is karma-accumulating,\n Manas reflects an objective world,\n Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na is the faculty of judgment,\n The five Vij\u00f1\u00e2nas are the differentiating senses.\u201d[61]\n\n\n{132}\n\n\n _The Manas._\n\nThe \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na which is sometimes, as in the preceding quotations,\nsimply called _citta_ (mind), is, as such, no more than a state of\nSuchness, allowing itself to be influenced by the principle of\nbirth-and-death, i.e., by Ignorance; and there has in it taken place\nas yet no \u201cawakening\u201d or \u201cstirring up\u201d (_v\u1e5btti_), from which results a\nconsciousness. When the Manas is evolved, however, we have a sign of\nmentality thereby set in motion, for the Manas, according to the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nists, marks the dawn of consciousness in the universe.\n\nThe Manas, deriving its reason of consciousness from the Citta or\n\u00c2laya, reflects on it as well as on an external world, and becomes\nconscious of the distinction between me and not-me. But since this\nnot-I or external world is nothing but an unfoldment of the \u00c2laya\nitself, the Manas must be said really to be self-reflecting, when it\ndiscriminates between subject and object. If the \u00c2laya is not yet\nconscious of itself, the Manas is, as the latter comes to realise the\nstate of self-awareness. The \u00c2laya is perhaps to be compared in a\nsense to the Kantian \u201cego of transcendental apperception\u201d; while the\nManas is the actual center of self-consciousness. But the Manas and\nthe \u00c2laya (or Citta) are not two different things in the sense that\none emanates from the other or that one is created by the other. It is\nbetter to understand {133} the Manas as a state or condition of the\nCitta in its evolution.\n\nNow, the Manas is not only contemplative, but capable of volition. It\nawakens the desire to cling to the state of individuation, it harbors\negoism, passion, and prejudice; it wills and creates: for Ignorance,\nthe principle of birth-and-death, is there in its full force, and the\nabsolute identity of Suchness is here forever departed. Therefore, the\nManas really marks the beginning of concrete, particularising\nconsciousness-waves in the eternal ocean of the All-Conserving Mind.\nThe mind which was hitherto indifferent and neutral here acquires a\nfull consciousness; discriminates between ego and non-ego; feels pain\nand pleasure; clings to that which is agreeable and shrinks from that\nwhich is disagreeable; urges activities according to judgments, false\nor truthful; memorises what has been experienced, and stores it\nall:--in short, all the modes of mentation come into play with the\nawakening of the Manas.\n\nAccording to A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, with the evolution of the Manas there arise\nfive important psychical activities which characterise the human mind.\nThey are: (1) motility, that is the capability of creating karma; (2)\nthe power to perceive; (3) the power to respond; (4) the power to\ndiscriminate; and (5) individuality. Through the exercise of these\nfive functions, the Manas is able to create according to its will, to\nbe a perceiving subject, to respond to the stimuli of an external\nworld, to deliver judgments {134} over what it likes and what it\ndislikes, and finally to retain all its own \u201ckarma-seeds\u201d in the past\nand to mature them for the future, according to circumstances.\n\nWith the advent of the Manas, the evolution of the Citta is complete.\nPractically, it is the consummation of mentality, for\nself-consciousness is ripe now. The will can affirm its ego-centric,\ndualistic activities, and the intellect can exercise its\ndiscriminating, reasoning, and image-retaining faculties. The Manas\nnow becomes the center of psychic co\u00f6rdination. It receives messages\nfrom the six senses and pronounces over the impressions whatever\njudgments, intellectual or volitional, which are needed at the time\nfor its own conservation. It also reflects on its own sanctum, and,\nperceiving there the presence of the \u00c2laya, wrongfully jumps to the\nconclusion that herein lies the real, ultimate ego-soul, from which it\nderives the notions of authority, unity, and permanency.\n\nAs is evident, the Manas is a double-edged sword. It may destroy\nitself by clinging to the error of ego-conception, or it may, by a\njudicious exercise of its reasoning faculty, destroy all the\nmisconceptions that arise from a wrong interpretation of the principle\nof Ignorance. The Manas destroys itself by being overwhelmed by the\ndualism of _ego_ and _alter_, by taking them for final, irreducible\nrealities, and by thus fostering absolute ego-centric thoughts and\ndesires, and by making itself a willing prey of an indomitable egoism,\nreligiously and morally. On the other hand, when it {135} sees an\nerror in the conception of the absolute reality of individuals, when\nit perceives a play of Ignorance in the dualism of me and not-me, when\nit recognises the _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ of existence in the essence of\nTath\u00e2gatahood, i.e., in Suchness, when it realises that the \u00c2laya\nwhich is mistaken for the ego is no more than an innocent and\nirreproachable reflection of the cosmic Garbha, it at once transcends\nthe sphere of particularity and becomes the very harbinger of eternal\nenlightenment.\n\nBuddhists, therefore, do not see any error or evil in the evolution of\nthe Mind (_\u00e2laya_). There is nothing faulty in the awakening of\nconsciousness, in the dualism of subject and object, in the\nindividualising operation of birth-and-death (_sams\u00e2ra_), only so\nlong as our Manas keeps aloof from the contamination of false egoism.\nThe gravest error, however, permeates every fiber of our mind with all\nits wickedness and irrationality, as soon as the nature of the\nevolution of the \u00c2laya is wrongfully interpreted by the abuse of the\nfunctions of the Manas.[62]\n\n{136}\n\nThough Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism most emphatically denies the existence of a personal\nego which is imagined to be lodging within the body and to be the\nspiritual master of it, it does not necessarily follow that it denies\nthe unity of consciousness or personality or individuality. In fact,\nthe assumption of Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na by Buddhists most conclusively proves\nthat they have an ego in a sense, the denial of whose empirical\nexistence is tantamount to the denial of the most concrete facts of\nour daily experiences. What is most persistently negated by them is\nnot the existence of ego, but its final, ultimate reality. But to\ndiscuss this subject more fully we have a special chapter below\ndevoted to \u201c\u00c2tman.\u201d\n\n\n _The S\u00e2mkhya Philosophy and Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism._\n\nIf we draw a comparison between the S\u00e2mkhya philosophy and Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism,\nthe \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na may {137} be considered an unification of Soul\n(_puru\u1e63a_) and Nature (_prak\u1e5bt\u00ee_), and the Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na a combination\nof Buddhi (intellect) or Mahat (great element) with Ahank\u00e2ra (ego).\nAccording to the _S\u00e2mkhyak\u00e2rika_ (11), the essential nature of Prak\u1e5bt\u00ee\nis the power of creation, or, to use Buddhist phraseology, it is blind\nactivity; while that of Puru\u1e63a is witnessing (_sak\u1e63itv\u00e2_) and\nperceiving (_drast\u1e5btv\u00e2_). (_The K\u00e2rika_, 19.) A modern philosopher\nwould say, Puru\u1e63a is intelligence and Prak\u1e5bt\u00ee the will; and when they\nare combined and blended in one, they make Hartmann\u2019s _Unbewusste\nGeist_ (unconscious spirit). The All-Conserving Mind (_\u00c2laya_) in a\ncertain sense resembles the Unconscious, as it is the manifestation of\nSuchness, the principle of enlightenment, in its evolutionary aspect\nas conditioned by Ignorance; and Ignorance apparently {138} corresponds\nto the will as the principle of blind activity. The S\u00e2mkhya philosophy\nis an avowed dualism and permits the existence of two principles\nindependent of each other. Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is fundamentally monistic and\nmakes Ignorance merely a condition necessary to the unfolding of\nSuchness.[63] Therefore, what the S\u00e2mkhya splits into two, Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism\nputs together in one.\n\nSo is the parallelism between the Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na, and Buddhi and Ahank\u00e2ra.\nBuddhi, intellect, is defined as _adhyavas\u00e2ya_ (_K\u00e2rika_, 23), while\nAhank\u00e2ra is interpreted as _abhimanas_ (_K\u00e2rika_, 24), which is\nevidently self-consciousness. As to the exact meaning of _adhyavas\u00e2ya_,\nthere is a divergence of opinion: \u201cascertainment,\u201d \u201cjudgment,\u201d\n\u201cdetermination,\u201d \u201capprehension\u201d are some of the English equivalents\nchosen for it. But the inner signification of Buddhi is clear enough;\nit indicates the awakening of knowledge, the dawn of rationality, the\nfirst shedding of light on the dark recesses of unconsciousness; so\nthe commentators give as the synonyms _mati_ (understanding), _khy\u00e2ti_\n(cognition), _j\u00f1\u00e2nam_, _praj\u00f1\u00e2_, etc., the last two of these, which\nmean knowledge or intelligence, being also technical terms of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism. And, as we have seen above, these senses are what the\nBuddhists give to their Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na, save that the {139} latter in\naddition has the faculty of discriminating between _teum_ and _meum_,\nwhile in the S\u00e2mkhya this is reserved for Ahank\u00e2ra. Thus, here, too,\nin place of the S\u00e2mkhya dualism, we have the Buddhist unity.\n\nAnother point we have to take notice here in comparing the two great\nHindu religio-philosophical systems, is that the S\u00e2mkhya philosophy\npluralises the Soul (_puru\u1e63a_, _K\u00e2rika_, 18), while Buddhism\npostulates one universal Citta or \u00c2laya. According to the followers\nof Kapila, therefore, there must be as many souls as there are\nindividuals, and at every departure or advent of an individual there\nmust be assumed a corresponding soul passing away or coming into\nexistence, though we do not know its whence and whither. Buddhism, on\nthe other hand, denies the existence of any individual mind apart from\nthe All-Conserving Mind (_\u00c2laya_) which is universal. Individuality\nfirst appears at the awakening of the Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na. The quintessence\nof the Mind is Suchness and is not subject to the limitations of time\nand space as well as the law of causation. But as soon as it asserts\nitself in the world of particularisation, it negates itself thereby,\nand, becoming specialised, gives rise to individual souls.[64]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n THE THEORY OF NON-ATMAN OR NON-EGO.\n\n{140}\n\n/If/ I am requested to formulate the ground-principles of the\nphilosophy of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism, and, indeed, of all the schools of\nBuddhism, I would suggest the following:\n\n\n(1) All is momentary (_sarvam k\u1e63anikam_).\n\n(2) All is empty (_sarvam \u00e7\u00fbnyam_).\n\n(3) All is without self (_sarvam an\u00e2tmam_).\n\n(4) All is such as it is (_sarvam tath\u00e2tvam_).\n\n\nThese four tenets, as it were, are so closely interrelated that, stand\nor fall, they all inevitably share one and the same fate together.\nWhatever different views the various schools of Buddhism may hold on\npoints of minor importance, they all concur at least on these four\nprincipal propositions.\n\nOf these four propositions, the first, the second, and the fourth have\nbeen elucidated above, more or less explicitly. If the existence of a\nrelative world is the work of ignorance and as such has no final\nreality, it must be considered illusory and empty; though it does not\nnecessarily follow that on this account our life is not worth living.\nWe must not {141} confuse the moral value of existence with the\nontological problem of its phenomenality. It all depends on our\nsubjective attitude whether or not our world and life become full of\nsignificance. When the illusiveness or phenomenality of individual\nexistences is granted and we use the world accordingly, that is, \u201cas\nnot abusing it,\u201d we escape the error and curse of egoism and take\nthings as they are presented to us, as reflecting the Dharma of\nSuchness. We no more cling to forms of particularity as something\nultimate and absolutely real and as that in which lies the essence of\nour life. We take them for such as they are, and recognise their\nreality only in so far as they are considered a partial realisation of\nSuchness, and do not go any further. Suchness, indeed, lies not hidden\n_behind_ them, but exists immanently _in_ them. Things are empty and\nillusory so long as they are particular things and are not thought of\nin reference to the All that is Suchness and Reality.\n\nFrom this, it logically follows that in this world of relativity all\nis momentary, that nothing is permanent, so far as isolated, particular\nexistences are concerned. Even independently of the statement made\nabove, the doctrine of universal impermanency is an almost self-evident\ntruth experienced everywhere, and does not require any special\ndemonstration to prove its validity. The desire for immortality which\nis so conspicuous and persistent in all the stages of development of\nthe religious consciousness that the very desire has been thought to\nbe the essence of all {142} religious systems, is the most conclusive\nproof that things on this earth are in a constant flux of becoming,\nand that there is nothing permanent or stationary in our individual\nexistences; if otherwise, people would never have sought for\nimmortality.\n\nIf this be granted as a fact of our everyday experience, we naturally\nask: \u201cWhy are things so changeable? Why is life so fleeting? What is\nit that makes things so mutable and transitory?\u201d To this, the\nBuddhist\u2019s answer is: Because the universe is a resultant product of\nmany efficient forces that are acting according to different\nkarmas;--the destiny of those forces being that no one force or no one\nset of forces can constantly be predominant over all the others, but\nthat when one has exhausted its potential karma, it is replaced by\nanother that has been steadily coming forward in the meantime. Hence\nthe universal cadence of birth and death, of the spring and the fall,\nof the tide and the ebb, of integration and disintegration. Where\nthere is attraction, there is repulsion; where there is the\ncentripetal force, there is the centrifugal force. Because it is the\nlaw of karma that at the very moment of birth the arms of death are\naround the neck of life. The universe is nothing but a grand rhythmic\nmanifestation of certain forces working in conformity to their\npredetermined laws; or, to use Buddhist terminology, this _lokadh\u00e2tu_\n(material world) consists in a concatenation of _hetus_ (causes) and\n_pratyayas_ (conditions) regulated by their karma. {143} If this were\nnot so, there would be either a certain fixed state of things in which\nperfect equilibrium would be maintained, or an inexpressible confusion\nof things of which no knowledge or experience would be possible. In\nthe former case, we should have universal stagnation and eternal\ndeath; in the latter case, there would be no universe, no life,\nnothing but absolute chaos. Therefore, so long as we have the world\nbefore us, in which all the possible varieties of particularisation\nare manifested it cannot be otherwise than in a state of constant\nvicissitudes and therefore of universal transitoriness.\n\nNow, the Buddhist argument for the theory of non-ego is this: If\nindividual existences are due to relations obtaining between diverse\nforces, which act sometimes in unison with and sometimes in opposition\nto one another as predetermined by their karma, they cannot be said to\nhave any transcendental agency behind them, which is a permanent unity\nand absolute dictator. In other words, there is no \u00e2tman or ego-soul\nbehind our mental activities, and no thing-in-itself (_svabh\u00e2va_), so\nto speak, behind each particular form of existence. This is called the\nBuddhist theory of non-\u00e2tman or non-ego.\n\n\n _\u00c2tman._\n\nBuddhists use the term \u201c\u00e2tman\u201d in two senses: first, in the sense of\npersonal ego,[65] and secondly, in {144} that of thing-in-itself,\nperhaps, with a slight modification of its commonly accepted meaning.\nLet us use the term \u201c\u00e2tman\u201d here in its first sense as equivalent to\n_bh\u00fbt\u00e2tman_, for we are going first to treat of the doctrine of\nnon-ego, and later of that of no-thing-in-itself.\n\n\u00c2tman is usually translated \u201clife,\u201d \u201cego,\u201d or \u201csoul,\u201d[66] and is a\ntechnical term used both by Vedanta philosophers and Buddhists. But we\nhave to note at the beginning that they do not use the term in the\nsame sense. When the Vedanta philosophy, especially the later one,\nspeaks of \u00e2tman as our inmost self which is identical with the\nuniversal Brahma, it is used in its most abstract metaphysical sense\nand does not mean the soul whatever, as the latter is {145} commonly\nunderstood by vulgar minds. On the other hand, Buddhists understand by\n\u00e2tman this vulgar, materialistic conception of the soul (_bh\u00fbt\u00e2tman_)\nand positively denies its existence as such. If we, for convenience\u2019\nsake, distinguish between phenomenal and noumenal in our notion of ego\nor soul, the \u00e2tman of Buddhism is the phenomenal ego, namely, a\nconcrete agent that is supposed to do the acting, thinking, and\nfeeling; while the \u00e2tman of Vedantists is the noumenal ego as the\n_raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ of our psychical life. The one is in fact material,\nhowever ethereal it might be conceived. The other is a highly\nmetaphysical conception transcending the reach of human discursive\nknowledge. The latter may be identified with Param\u00e2tman and the former\nwith J\u00eev\u00e2tman. Param\u00e2tman is a universal soul from which, according to\nVedantism, emanates this world of phenomena, and in a certain sense it\nmay be said to correspond to the Tath\u00e2gata-garbha of Buddhism.\nJ\u00eev\u00e2tman is the ego-soul as it is conceived by ignorant people as an\nindependent entity directing all the mental activities. It is this\nlatter \u00e2tman that was found to be void by Buddha when he arose from\nhis long meditation, declaring:\n\n\n \u201cMany a life to transmigrate,\n Long quest, no rest, hath been my fate,\n Tent-designer[67] inquisitive for:\n Painful birth from state to state.\n\n{146}\n\n \u201cTent-designer! I know thee now;\n Never again to build art thou:\n Quite out are all thy joyful fires,\n Rafter broken and roof-tree gone,\n Gain eternity--dead desires.\u201d[68]\n\n\n _Buddha\u2019s First Line of Inquiry._\n\nBuddhism finds the source of all evils and sufferings in the vulgar\nmaterial conception of the ego-soul, and concentrates its entire\nethical force upon the destruction of the ego-centric notions and\ndesires. The Buddha seems, since the beginning of his wandering life,\nto have conceived the idea that the way of salvation must lie somehow\nin the removal of this egoistic prejudice, for so long as we are not\nliberated from its curse we are liable to become the prey of the three\nvenomous passions: covetousness, infatuation, and anger, and to suffer\nthe misery of birth and death and disease and old age. Thus, when he\nreceived his first instructions from the S\u00e2mkhya philosopher, Arada,\nhe was not satisfied, because he did not teach how to abandon this\nego-soul itself. The Buddha argued: \u201cI consider that the embodied\nego-soul, though freed from the evolvent-evolutes,[69] {147} is still\nsubject to the condition of birth and has the condition of a seed. The\nseed may remain dormant so long as it is deprived of the opportunity\nof coming into contact with the requisite conditions of quickening and\nbeing quickened, but since its germinating power has not been\ndestroyed, it will surely develop all its potentialities as soon as it\nis brought into that necessary contact. Even though the ego-soul free\nfrom entanglement [i.e. from the bondage of Prak\u1e5bti] is declared to\nbe liberated, yet, so long as the ego-soul remains, there can be no\nabsolute abandonment of it, there can be no real abandonment of\negoism.\u201d[70]\n\nThe Buddha then proceeds to indicate the path through which he reached\nhis final conclusion and declares: \u201cThere is no real separation of the\nqualities and their subject; for fire cannot be conceived apart from\nits heat and form.\u201d When this argument is logically carried out, it\nleads nowhere but to the Buddhist doctrine of non-\u00e2tman, that says:\nThe existence of an ego-soul cannot be conceived apart from sensation,\nperception, imagination, intelligence, volition, etc., and, therefore,\nit is absurd to think that there is an independent individual\nsoul-agent which makes our consciousness its workshop.\n\nTo imagine that an object can be abstracted from its qualities, not\nonly logically but in reality, that there is some unknown quantity\nthat is in {148} possession of such and such characteristic marks\n(_lak\u1e63ana_) whereby it makes itself perceivable by our senses, says\nBuddhism, is wrong and unwarranted by reason. Fire cannot be conceived\napart from its form and heat; waves cannot be conceived apart from the\nwater and its commotion; the wheel cannot exist outside of its rim,\nspokes, axle, etc. All things, thus, are made of _hetus_ and\n_pratyayas_, of causes and conditions, of qualities and attributes;\nand it is impossible for our pudgala or \u00e2tman or ego or soul to be\nany exception to this universal condition of things.\n\nLet me in this connection state an interesting incident in the history\nof Chinese Buddhism. Hui-K\u2019e, the second patriarch of the Dhy\u00e2na sect\nin China, was troubled with this ego-problem before his conversion. He\nwas at first a faithful Confucian, but Confucianism did not satisfy\nall his spiritual wants. His soul was wavering between agnosticism and\nscepticism, and consequently he felt an unspeakable anguish in his\ninmost heart. When he learned of the arrival of Bodhidharma in his\ncountry, he hastened to his monastery and implored him to give him\nsome spiritual advice. But Bodhidharma did not utter a word, being\nseemingly absorbed in his deep meditation. Hui-K\u2019e, however, was\ndetermined to obtain from him some religious instructions at all\nhazards. So it is reported that he was standing at the same spot seven\ndays and nights, when he at last cut off his left arm with the sword\nhe was carrying (being {149} a military officer) and placed it before\nDharma, saying: \u201cThis arm is a token of my sincere desire to be\ninstructed in the Holy Doctrine. My soul is troubled and annoyed; pray\nlet your grace show me the way to pacify it.\u201d Dharma quietly arose\nfrom his meditation and said: \u201cWhere is your soul? Bring it here and I\nwill have it pacified.\u201d Hui-K\u2019e replied: \u201cI have been searching for it\nall these years, but I have never succeeded in laying a hand on it.\u201d\nDharma then exclaimed: \u201cThere, I have your soul pacified!\u201d At this, it\nis said, a flash of spiritual enlightenment went across the mind of\nHui-K\u2019e, and his \u201csoul\u201d was pacified once for all.\n\n\n _The Skandhas._\n\nWhen the five skandhas are combined according to their previous karma\nand present a temporal existence in the form of a sentient being,\nvulgar minds imagine that they have here an individual entity\nsustained by an immortal ego-substratum. In fact, the material body\n(_r\u00fbpak\u00e2ya_) alone is not what makes the ego-soul, nor the sensation\n(_vedan\u00e2_), nor the deeds (_sansk\u00e2ra_), nor the consciousness\n(_vij\u00f1\u00e2na_), nor the conception (_samj\u00f1\u00e2_); but only when they are\nall combined in a certain form they make a sentient being. Yet this\ncombination is not the work of a certain independent entity, which,\naccording to its own will, combines the five skandhas in one form and\nthen hides itself in it. The combination of the constituent {150}\nelements, Buddhism declares, is achieved by themselves after their\nkarma. When a certain number of atoms of hydrogen and of oxygen are\nbrought together, they attract each other on their own accord or owing\nto their own karma, and the result is water. The ego of water, so to\nspeak, did not will to bring the two elements and make itself out of\nthem. Even so is it with the existence of a sentient being, and there\nis no need of hypostasising a fabulous ego-monster behind the\ncombination of the five skandhas.\n\nSkandha (_khanda_ in P\u00e2li) literally means \u201caggregate\u201d or\n\u201cagglomeration\u201d, and, according to the Chinese exegetists, it is\ncalled so, because our personal existence is an aggregate of the five\nconstituent elements of being, because it comes to take a definite\nindividual form when the skandhas are brought together according to\ntheir previous karma. The first of the five aggregates is matter\n(_r\u00fbpa_), whose essential quality is thought to consist in resistance.\nThe material part of our existence in the five sense-organs called\n_indryas_: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and the body. The second skandha\nis called sensation or sense-impression (_vedan\u00e2_), which results from\nthe contact of the six vij\u00f1\u00e2nas (senses) with the vi\u1e63aya (external\nworld). The third is called _samj\u00f1\u00e2_ which corresponds to our\nconception. It is the psychic power by which we are enabled to form\nthe abstract images of particular objects. The fourth is _sansk\u00e2ra_\nwhich may be rendered action or deed. Our intelligent consciousness,\n{151} responding to impressions received which are either agreeable or\ndisagreeable or indifferent, acts accordingly; and these acts bear\nfruit in the coming generations.\n\nSansk\u00e2ra, the fourth constituent of being, comprises two categories,\nmental (_caitta_) and non-mental (_cittaviprayukta_). And the mental\nis subdivided into six: fundamental (_mah\u00e2bh\u00fbmi_), good (_ku\u00e7ala_),\ntormenting (_kle\u00e7a_), evil (_aku\u00e7ala_), tormenting minor (_upakle\u00e7a_),\nand indefinite (_aniyata_). It may be interesting to enumerate what\nall these sank\u00e2ras are, as they shed light on the practical ethics of\nBuddhism.\n\nThere are ten fundamental sansk\u00e2ras belonging to the category of\nmental or psychic activities: 1. cetan\u00e2 (mentation), 2. spar\u00e7a\n(contact), 3. chanda (desire), 4. mati (understanding), 5. sm\u1e5bti\n(recollection), 6. manaskara (concentration), 7. adhimok\u1e63a (unfettered\nintelligence), 8. sam\u00e2dhi (meditation). The ten good sansk\u00e2ras are: 1.\n\u00e7raddh\u00e2 (faith), 2. v\u00eerya (energy), 3. upek\u1e63a (complacency), 4. hr\u00ee\n(modesty), 5. apatrap\u00e2 (shame), 6 alobha (non-covetousness), 7. adve\u1e63a\n(freedom from hatred), 8. ahimsa (gentleness of heart), 9. pra\u00e7radbhi\n(mental repose), 10. apram\u00e2da (attentiveness).\n\nThe six tormenting sansk\u00e2ras are as follows: 1. moha (folly), 2.\npram\u00e2da (wantonness), 3. k\u00e2usidya (indolence), 4. a\u00e7r\u00e2ddhya\n(scepticism), 5. sty\u0101na (slothfulness), 6. \u00e2uddhatpa (unsteadiness).\n\nThe two minor evil sansk\u00e2ras are: 1. ahr\u00eekat\u00e2, state of not being\nmodest, or arrogance, or self-assertiveness, {152} and 2. anapatrapa,\nbeing lost to shame, or to be without conscience.\n\nThe ten minor tormenting sansk\u00e2ras are: 1. krodha (anger), 2. mrak\u1e63a\n(secretiveness), 3. m\u00e2tsarya (niggardliness), 4. \u00eer\u1e63ya (envy). 5.\nprad\u00e2\u00e7a (uneasiness), 6. vihims\u00e2 (noxiousness), 7. upan\u00e2ha (malignity),\n8. m\u00e2y\u00e2 (trickiness), 9. \u00e7\u00e2thya (dishonesty), 10. mada (arrogance).\n\nThe eight indefinite sansk\u00e2ras are: 1. k\u00e2uk\u1e5btya (repentance), 2.\nmiddha (sleep), 3. vitarka (inquiry), 4. vic\u00e2ra (investigation), 5.\nr\u00e2ga (excitement), 6. pratigha (wrath), 7. m\u00e2na (self-reliance), 8.\nvicikits\u00e2 (doubting).\n\nThe second grand category of sansk\u00e2ra which is not included under\n\u201cmental\u201d or \u201cpsychic,\u201d comprises fourteen items as follows: 1. pr\u00e2pti\n(attainment), 2. apr\u00e2pti (non-attainment), 3. sabh\u00e2gat\u00e2 (grouping),\n4 asanj\u00f1ika (unconsciousness), 5. asanj\u00f1isam\u00e2patti (unconscious\nabsorption in religious meditation), 6. nirodhasam\u00e2patti\n(annihilation-trance of a heretic), 7. j\u00eevita (vitality), 8. j\u00e2ti\n(birth), 9. sthiti (existing), 10. jar\u00e2 (decadence), 11. anityat\u00e2\n(transitoriness), 12. n\u00e2mak\u00e2ya (name), 13. padak\u00e2ya (phrase), 14.\nvya\u00f1janak\u00e2ya (sentence).\n\nNow, to return to the main problem. The fifth skandha is called\n_vij\u00f1\u00e2na_, commonly rendered consciousness, which, however, is not\nquite correct. The vij\u00f1\u00e2na is intelligence or mentality, it is the\npsychic power of discrimination, and in many cases it can be\ntranslated by sense. There are, according to H\u00eenay\u00e2nists, six\nvij\u00f1\u00e2nas or senses: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactual,\nand cogitative; according {153} to Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism there are eight\nvij\u00f1\u00e2nas: the manovij\u00f1\u00e2na and the \u00e2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na, being added to the\nabove six. This psychological phase of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na philosophy is\nprincipally worked out by the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school, whose leading thinkers\nare Asanga and Vasubandhu.\n\n\n _King Milinda and N\u00e2gasena._\n\nBuddhist literature, Northern as well as Southern, abounds with\nexpositions of the doctrine of non-ego, as it is one of the most\nimportant foundation-stones on which the magnificent temple of\nBuddhism is built. The dialogue[71] between King Milinda and\nN\u00e2gasena, among many others, is very interesting for various reasons\nand full of suggestive thoughts, and we have the following discussion\nof theirs concerning the problem of ego abstracted from the Dialogue.\n\nAt their first meeting the King asks N\u00e2gasena, \u201cHow is your Reverence\nknown, and what is your name?\u201d\n\nTo this the monk-philosopher replies: \u201cI am known as N\u00e2gasena, and it\nis by that name that my brethren in the faith address me. But although\nparents give such a name as N\u00e2gasena, or S\u00fbrasena, V\u00eerasena, or\nS\u00eehasena, yet this N\u00e2gasena and so on--is only a generally understood\nterm, a designation in common use. For there is no permanent self\ninvolved in the matter.\u201d\n\nBeing greatly surprised by this answer, the King {154} volleys upon\nN\u00e2gasena a series of questions as follows:\n\n\u201cIf there be no permanent self involved in the matter, who is it, pray,\nwho gives to you members of the Order your robes and food and lodging\nand necessaries for the sick? Who is it who enjoys such things when\ngiven? Who is it who lives a life of righteousness? Who is it who\ndevotes himself to meditation? Who is it who attains to the goal of\nthe Excellent Way, to the Nirv\u00e2na of Arhatship? And who is it who\ndestroys living creatures? who is it who takes what is not his own?\nwho is it who lives an evil life of worldly lusts, who speaks lies,\nwho drinks strong drink, who in a word commits any one of the five\nsins which work out their bitter fruit even in this life? If that be\nso, there is neither merit nor demerit; there is neither doer nor\ncause of good or evil deeds; there is neither fruit nor result of good\nor evil karma. If we are to think that were a man to kill you there\nwould be no murder,[72] then it follows that there are no real\nmasters or teachers in your Order, that your ordinations are void. You\ntell me that your brethren in the Order are in the habit of addressing\nyou as N\u00e2gasena. Now, what is that N\u00e2gasena? Do you mean to say that\nthe hair is N\u00e2gasena?\u201d\n\nThis last query being denied by the Buddhist sage, the King asks: \u201cOr\nis it the nails, the skin, the flesh, the nerves, the bones, the\nmarrow, the kidneys, {155} the heart, the liver, the abdomen, the\nspleen, the lungs, the larger intestines, the smaller intestines, the\nfaeces, the bile, the phlegm, the pus, the blood, the sweat, the fat,\nthe tears, the serum, the saliva, the mucus, the oil that lubricates\nthe joints, the urine, or the brain or any or all of these, that is\nN\u00e2gasena?\n\n\u201cIs it the material form that is N\u00e2gasena, or the sensations, or the\nideas, or the confections (deeds), or the consciousness, that is\nN\u00e2gasena?\u201d\n\nTo all these questions, the King, having received a uniform denial,\nexclaims in excitement: \u201cThen, thus, ask as I may, I can discover no\nN\u00e2gasena. N\u00e2gasena is a mere empty sound. Who then is the N\u00e2gasena\nthat we see before us?[73] It is a falsehood that your Reverence has\nspoken, an untruth?\u201d\n\nN\u00e2gasena does not give any direct answer, but quietly proposes some\ncounter-questions to the King. Ascertaining that he came in a carriage\nto the Buddhist philosopher, he asks: \u201cIs it the wheel, or the\nframework, or the ropes, or the spokes of the wheels, or the goad,\nthat are the chariot?\u201d\n\nTo this, the king says, \u201cNo,\u201d and continues: \u201cIt is on account of its\nhaving all these things that it {156} comes under the generally\nunderstood term, the designation in common use, of \u2018chariot.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cVery good,\u201d says N\u00e2gasena, \u201cYour Majesty has rightly grasped the\nmeaning of \u2018chariot.\u2019 And just even so it is on account of all these\nthings you questioned me about the thirty-two kinds of organic matter\nin a human body, and the five skandhas (constituent elements of being)\nthat I come under the generally-understood term, the designation in\ncommon use, of \u2018N\u00e2gasena.\u2019\u201d\n\nThen, the sage quotes in way of confirmation a passage from the\n_Samyutta Nik\u00e2ya_: \u201cJust as it is by the condition precedent of the\nco-existence of its various parts that the word \u2018chariot\u2019 is used,\njust so it is that when the skandhas are there we talk of a \u2018being.\u2019\u201d\n\n * * *\n\nTo further illustrate the theory of non-\u00e2tman from earlier Buddhist\nliterature, let me quote the following from the _J\u00e2taka Tales_ (No.\n244):\n\nThe Bodhisattva said to a pilgrim. \u201cWill you have a drink of\nGanges-water fragrant with the scent of the forest?\u201d\n\nThe pilgrim tried to catch him in his words: \u201cWhat is the Ganges? Is\nthe sand the Ganges? Is the water the Ganges? Is the hither bank the\nGanges? Is the further bank the Ganges?\u201d\n\nBut the Bodhisattva retorted, \u201cIf you except the {157} water, the\nsand, the hither bank, and the further bank, where can you find any\nGanges?\u201d\n\nFollowing this argument we might say, \u201cWhere is the ego-soul, except\nimagination, volition, intellection, desire, aspiration, etc.?\u201d\n\n\n _Ananda\u2019s Attempts to Locate the Soul._\n\nIn the _Surangama Sutra_[74], Buddha exposes the absurdity of the\nhypothesis of an individual concrete soul-substance by subverting\n\u00c2ndanda\u2019s seven successive attempts to determine its whereabouts.\nMost people who firmly believe in personal immortality, will see how\nvague and chimerical and logically untenable is their notion of the\nsoul, when it is critically examined as in the following case. \u00c2nanda\u2019s\nconception of the soul is somewhat puerile, but I doubt whether even\nin our enlightened age the belief {158} entertained by the multitude\nis any better than his.\n\nWhen questioned by the Buddha as to the locality of the soul, \u00c2nanda\nasserts that it resides within the body. Thereupon, the Buddha says:\n\u201cIf your intelligent soul resides within your corporeal body, how is\nit that it does not see your inside first? To illustrate, what we see\nfirst in this lecture hall is the interior and it is only when the\nwindows are thrown open that we are able to see the outside garden and\nwoods. It is impossible for us who are sitting in the hall to see the\noutside only and not to see the inside. Reasoning in a similar way,\nwhy does not the soul that is considered to be within the body see the\ninternal organs first such as the stomach, heart, veins etc.? If\nhowever it does not see the inside, surely it cannot be said to reside\nwithin the body.\u201d\n\n\u00c2nanda now proposes to solve the problem by locating the soul outside\nthe body. He says that the soul is like a candle-light placed without\nthis hall. Where the light shines everything is visible, but within\nthe room there are no candles burning, and therefore here prevails\nnothing but darkness. This explains the incapacity of the soul to see\nthe inside of the body. But the Buddha argues that \u201cit is impossible\nfor the soul to be outside. If so, what the soul feels may not be felt\nby the body, and what the body feels may not be felt by the soul, as\nthere is no relationship between the two. The fact, however, is that\nwhen you, \u00c2nanda, see my hand thus stretched, you are conscious that\nyou have the perception of {159} it. As far as there is a\ncorrespondence between the soul and the body, the soul cannot be said\nto be residing outside the body.\u201d\n\nThe third hypothesis assumed by \u00c2nanda is that the soul hides itself\njust behind the sense-organs. Suppose a man put a pair of lenses over\nhis eyes. Cannot he see the outside world through them? The reason why\nit cannot see the inside is that it resides within the sense-organs.\n\nBut says the Buddha: \u201cWhen we have a lens over an eye, we perceive\nthis lens as well as the outside world. If the soul is hidden behind\nthe sense-organ, why does it not see the sense-organ itself? As it\ndoes not in fact, it cannot be residing in the place you mention.\u201d\n\nAnanda proposes another theory. \u201cWithin, we have the stomach, liver,\nheart, etc.: without, we have so many orifices. Where the internal\norgans are, there is darkness; but where we have openings, there is\nlight. Close the eyes and the soul sees the darkness inside. Open the\neyes and it sees the brightness outside. What do you say to this\ntheory?\u201d\n\nThe Buddha says: \u201cIf you take the darkness you see when the eyes are\nclosed for your inside, do you consider this darkness as something\nconfronting your soul, or not? In the first case, wherever there\nprevails a darkness, that must be thought to be your interior organs.\nIn the latter case, seeing is impossible, for seeing presupposes the\nexistence of subject and object. Besides this, there is another\ndifficulty. Granting {160} your supposition that the eye could turn\nitself inward or outward and see the darkness of the interior or the\nbrightness of the external world, it could also see your own face when\nthe eye is opened. If it could not do so, it must be said to be\nincapable of turning the sight inward.\u201d\n\nThe fifth assumption as made by \u00c2nanda is that the soul is the essence\nof understanding or intelligence, which is not within, nor without,\nnor in the middle, but which comes into actual existence as soon as it\nconfronts the objective world, for it is taught by the Buddha that the\nworld exists on account of the mind and the mind on account of the\nworld.\n\nTo this the Buddha replies: \u201cAccording to your argument, the soul must\nbe said to exist before it comes in contact with the world; otherwise,\nthe contact cannot have any sense. The soul, then, exists as an\nindividual presence, not after nor at the time of a contact with the\nexternal world, but assuredly before the contact. Granting this, we\ncome back again to the old difficulties: Does the soul come out of\nyour inside, or does it come in from the outside? In case of the first\nalternative, the soul must be able to see its own face.\u201d\n\n\u00c2nanda interrupts: \u201cSeeing is done by the eyes, and the soul has\nnothing to do with it.\u201d\n\nThe Buddha objects: \u201cIf so, a dead man has eyes just as perfect as a\nliving man.[75] He must be able {161} to see things, but if he sees\nat all, he cannot be dead. Well, if your intelligent soul has a\nconcrete existence, should it be thought simple or compound? Should it\nbe thought of as filling the body or being present only in a particular\nspot? If it is a simple unit, when one of your limbs is touched, all\nthe four will at once be conscious of the touch, which really means no\ntouch. If the soul is a compound body, how can it distinguish itself\nfrom another soul? If it is filling the body all over, there will be\nno localisation of sensation, as must be the case according to the\nfirst supposition of a simple soul-unit. Finally, if it occupies only\na particular part of the body, you may experience certain feelings on\nthat spot only, and all the other parts will remain perfectly\nanesthetic. All these hypotheses are against the actual facts of our\nexperience and cannot be logically maintained.\u201d\n\nFor the sixth time, \u00c2nanda ventures to untie the Gordian knot of the\nsoul-problem. \u201cAs the soul cannot be located neither within nor\nwithout, it must be somewhere in the middle.\u201d But the Buddha again\nrefutes this, saying: \u201cThis \u2018middle\u2019 is extremely indefinite. Should\nit be located as a point in space or somewhere on the body? If it is\non the surface of the body, {162} it is not the middle; if it is in\nthe body, it is then within. If it is said to occupy a point in space,\nhow should that point be indicated? Without an indication, a point is\nno point; and if an indication is needed, it can be fixed anywhere\narbitrarily, and then there will be no end of confusion.\u201d\n\n\u00c2nanda interposes and says that he does not mean this kind of \u201cmiddle.\u201d\nThe eye and the color conditioning each other, there comes to exist\nvisual perception. The eye has the faculty to discriminate, and the\ncolor-world has no sensibility; but the perception takes place in\ntheir \u201cmiddle,\u201d that is, in their interaction; and then it is said that\nthere exists a soul.\n\nSays the Buddha: \u201cIf the soul, as you say, exists in the relation\nbetween the sense-organs (_ind\u1e5bya_) and their respective sense-objects\n(_vi\u1e63aya_), should we consider the soul as uniting and partaking the\nnatures of these two incongruous things, vi\u1e63aya and ind\u1e5bya? If the\nsoul partakes something of each, it has no characteristics of its own.\nIf it unites the two natures, the distinction between subject and\nobject exists no more. \u2018In the middle\u2019 is an empty word; that is to\nsay, to conceive the soul as the relation between the indryas and the\nvi\u1e63ayas is to make it an airy nothing.\u201d\n\nThe seventh and final hypothesis offered by \u00c2nanda is that the soul\nis the state of non-attachment, and that, therefore, it has no\nparticular locality in which it abides. But this is also mercilessly\nattacked by the Buddha who declares: \u201cAttachment presupposes the\nexistence of beings to which a mind-may be attached. {163} Now, should\nwe consider these things (_dharmas_) such as the world, space, land,\nwater, birds, beasts, etc. as existing or not existing? If the\nexternal world does not exist, we cannot speak about non-attachment,\nas there is nothing to attach from the first. If the external world\nreally is, how can we manage not to come in contact with it? When we\nsay that things are devoid of all characteristic marks, it amounts to\nthe declaration that they are non-existent. But they are not\nnon-existent, they must have certain characteristics that distinguish\nthemselves. Now, the external world has certainly some marks\n(_lak\u1e63ana_) and it must by all means be considered as existing. There\nthen is no room for your theory of non-attachment.\u201d\n\nAt this, \u00c2nanda surrenders and the Buddha discloses his theory of\nDharmak\u00e2ya, which we shall expound at some length in the chapter\nspecially devoted to it.\n\n * * *\n\nBy way of a summary of the above, let me remark that the Buddhists do\nnot deny the existence of the so-called empirical ego in\ncontradistinction to the noumenal ego, which latter can be considered\nto correspond to the Buddhist \u00e2tman. Vasubandhu in his treatise on\nthe Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra\u2019s idealistic philosophy declares that the existence of\n\u00e2tman and dharma is only hypothetical, provisional, apparent, and not\nin any sense real and ultimate. To express this in modern terms, the\nsoul and the world, or subject and object, have only relative\nexistence, and no absolute reality can {164} be ascribed to them.\nPsychologically speaking, every one of us has an ego or soul which\nmeans the unity of consciousness; and physically, this world of\nphenomena is real either as a manifestation of one energy or as a\ncomposite of atoms or electrons, as is considered by physicists.\n\nTo confine ourselves to the psychological question, what Buddhism most\nemphatically insists on is the non-existence of a concrete,\nindividual, irreducible soul-substance, whose immortality is so much\ncoveted by most unenlightened people. Individuation is only relative\nand not absolute. Buddhism knows how far the principle could safely\nand consistently be carried out, and its followers will not forget\nwhere to stop and destroy the wall, almost adamantine to some\nreligionists, of individualism. Absolute individualism, as the\nBuddhists understand it, incapacitates us to follow the natural flow\nof sympathy; to bathe in the eternal sunshine of divinity which not\nonly surrounds but penetrates us; to escape the curse of individual\nimmortality which is strangely so much sought after by some people; to\ntrace this mundane life to its fountainhead of which it drinks so\nfreely, yet quite unknowingly; to rise rejuvenated from the consuming\nfire of K\u00e2la (Chronos). To think that there is a mysterious something\nbehind the empirical ego and that this something comes out triumphantly\nafter the fashion of the immortal ph\u0153nix from the funeral pyre of\ncorporeality, is not Buddhistic.\n\nWhat I would remark here in connection with this {165} problem of the\nsoul, is its relation to that of \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na, of which it is said\nthat the Buddha was very reluctant to talk, on account of its being\neasily confounded with the notion of the ego. The \u00c2laya, as was\nexplained, is a sort of universal soul from which our individual\nempirical souls are considered to have evolved. The Manas which is the\nfirst offspring of the \u00c2laya is endowed with the faculty of\ndiscrimination, and from the wrongful use of this faculty there arises\nin the Manas the conception of the \u00c2laya as the ego,--the real\nconcrete soul-substratum.\n\nThe \u00c2laya, however, is not a particular phenomenon, for it is a state\nof Suchness in its evolutionary disposition and has nothing in it yet\nto suggest its concrete individuality. When the Manas finds out its\nerror and lifts the veil of Ignorance from the body of the \u00c2laya, it\nsoon becomes convinced of the ultimate nature of the soul, so called.\nFor the soul is not individual, but supra-individual.\n\n\n _\u00c2tman and the \u201cOld Man.\u201d_\n\nWhen the Buddhists exclaim: \u201cPut away your egoism, for the ego is an\nempty notion, a mere word without reality,\u201d some of our Christian\nreaders may think that if there is no ego, what will become of our\npersonality or individuality? Though this point will become clearer as\nwe proceed, let us remark here that what Buddhism understands by ego\nor \u00e2tman may be considered to correspond in many respects to the\nChristian notion of \u201cflesh\u201d or the {166} \u201cold man,\u201d which is the\nsource of all our sinful acts. Says Paul: \u201cI am crucified with Christ;\nnevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life\nwhich I live now in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,\nwho loved me and gave himself for me.\u201d (Gal. ii, 20.) When this\npassage is interpreted by the Buddhists, the \u201cI\u201d that was annihilated\nthrough crucifixion, is our false notion of an ego-soul (_\u00e2tman_);\nand the \u201cI\u201d that is living through the grace of God is the Bodhi, a\nreflex in us of the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\nWhen Christians put the spirit and the flesh in contrast and advise us\nto \u201cwalk in the spirit\u201d and not to \u201cfulfil the lust of the flesh,\u201d it\nmust be said that they understand by the flesh our concrete, material\nexistence whose characteristic is predominantly individual, and by the\nspirit, that which transcends particularity and egoism; for \u201clove,\njoy, peace, long-suffering, faith, meekness, temperance,\u201d and suchlike\nvirtues are possible only when our egocentric, \u00e2tman-made desires are\nutterly abnegated. Buddhism is more intellectual than Christianity or\nJudaism and prefers philosophical terms which are better understood\nthan popular language which leads often to confusion. Compared with\nthe Buddhists\u2019 conception of \u00e2tman, the \u201cflesh\u201d lacks in perspicuity\nand exactitude, not to speak of its dualistic tendency which is\nextremely offensive to the Buddhists.\n\n{167}\n\n\n _The Vedantic Conception._\n\nThough the doctrine of non-\u00e2tman is pre-eminently Buddhistic, other\nHindu philosophers did not neglect to acknowledge its importance in\nour religious life. Having grown in the same soil under similar\ncircumstances, the following passage which is taken from the\n_Yogav\u00e2sistha_ (which is supposed to be a Vedantic work, Upa\u00e7ama P.,\nch. LII, 31, 44) sounds almost like Buddhistic:\n\n\u201cI am absolute, I am the light of intelligence, I am free from the\ndefilement of egoism. O thou that art unreal! I am not bound by thee,\nthe seed of egoism.\u201d[76]\n\nThe author then argues: Where shall we consider the ego-soul, so\ncalled, to be residing in this body of flesh and bones? and what does\nit look like? We move our limbs, but the movement is due to the vital\nairs (_v\u00e2ta_). We think, but consciousness is a manifestation of the\ngreat mind (_mah\u00e2citta_). We cease to exist, but extinction belongs\nto the body (_k\u00e2ya_). Now, take apart what we imagine to constitute\nour personal existence. The flesh is one thing, the blood is another,\nand so on with mentation (_bodha_) and vitality (_spanda_). The ear\nhears, the tongue tastes, the eye sees, the mind {168} thinks, but\nwhat and where is that which we call \u201cego\u201d?\n\nThen comes the conclusion: \u201cIn reality, there is no such thing as the\nego-soul, nor is there any mine and thine, nor imagination. All this\nis nothing but the manifestation of the universal soul which is the\nlight of pure intelligence.\u201d[77]\n\n\n _N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna on the Soul._\n\nIn conclusion, let me quote some passage bearing on the subject from\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\u2019s _Discourse on the Middle Path_ (chapter 9):[78] \u201cSome\nsay that there are seeing, hearing, feeling, etc., because there is\nsomething which exists even prior to those [manifestations]. For how\ncould seeing, etc. come from that which does not exist? Therefore, it\nmust be admitted that that being [i.e. soul] existed prior to those\n[manifestations].\n\n\u201cBut [this hypothesis of the prior (_p\u00fbrva_) or independent existence\nof the soul is wrong, because] how could that being be known if it\nexisted prior to seeing, feeling, etc.? If that being could exist\nwithout seeing, etc., the latter too could surely exist without that\nbeing. But how could a thing which could not be known by any sign\nexist before it is known? How could _this_ exist without _that_, and\nhow could {169} _that_ exist without _this_? [Are not all things\nrelative and conditioning one another?]\n\n\u201cIf that being called soul could not exist prior to all manifestations\nsuch as seeing, etc., how could it exist prior to each of them taken\nindividually?\n\n\u201cIf it is the same soul that sees, hears, feels, etc., it must be\nassumed that the soul exists prior to each of these manifestations.\nThis, however, is not warranted by facts. [Because in that case one\nmust be able to hear with the eyes, see with the ears, as one soul is\nconsidered to direct all these diverse faculties at its will.]\n\n\u201cIf, on the other hand, the hearer is one, and the seer is another,\nthe feeler must be still another. Then, there will be hearing, seeing,\netc. simultaneously,--which leads to the assumption of a plurality of\nsouls.[79] [This too is against experience.]\n\n\u201cFurther, the soul does not exist in the element (_bh\u00fbta_) on which\nseeing, hearing, feeling, etc. depend. [To use modern expression, the\nsoul does not exist in the nerves which respond to the external\nstimuli.]\n\n\u201cIf seeing, hearing, feeling, etc. have no soul that exists prior to\nthem, they too have no existence as such. For how could _that_ exist\nwithout _this_, and _this_ without _that_? Subject and object are\nmutually conditioned. The soul as it is has no independent, individual\nreality whatever. Therefore, the hypothesis that contends for the\nexistence of an ego-soul prior {170} to simultaneous with, or posterior\nto, seeing, etc., is to be abandoned as fruitless, for the ego-soul\nexisteth not.\u201d\n\n\n _Non-\u00e2tman-ness of Things._\n\nThe word \u201c\u00e2tman\u201d is used by the Buddhists not only psychologically in\nthe sense of soul, self, or ego, but also ontologically in the sense\nof substance or thing-in-itself or thinginess; and its existence in\nthis capacity is also strongly denied by them. For the same reason\nthat the existence of an individual ego-soul is untenable, they reject\nthe hypothesis of the permanent existence of an individual object as\nsuch. As there is no transcendent agent in our soul-life, so there is\nno real, eternal existence of individuals as individuals, but a system\nof different attributes, which, when the force of karma is exhausted,\nceases to subsist. Individual existences cannot be real by their\ninherent nature, but they are illusory, and will never remain permanent\nas such; for they are constantly becoming, and have no selfhood though\nthey may so appear to our particularising senses on account of our\nsubjective ignorance. They are in reality c\u00fbnya and an\u00e2tman, they are\nempty and void of \u00e2tman.\n\n\n _Svabh\u00e2va._\n\nThe term \u201csvabh\u00e2va\u201d (self-essence or noumenon) is sometimes used by\nthe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists in place of \u00e2tman, and they would say that all dharmas\nhave no self-essence, {171} _sarvam dharmam ni\u1e25svabh\u00e2vam_, which is to\nsay, that all things in their phenomenal aspect are devoid of\nindividual selves, that it is only due to our ignorance that we believe\nin the thinginess of things, whereas there is no such thing as svabh\u00e2va\nor \u00e2tman or noumenon which resides in them. Svabh\u00e2va and \u00e2tman are thus\nhabitually used by Buddhists as quite synonymous.\n\nWhat do they exactly understand by \u201csvabh\u00e2va\u201d whose existence is\ndenied in a particular object as perceived by our senses? This has\nnever been explicitly defined by the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists, but they seem to\nunderstand by svabh\u00e2va something concrete, individual, yet independent,\nunconditional, and not subject to the law of causation\n(_pratyayasamutp\u00e2da_). It, therefore, stands in opposition to\n\u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2, emptiness, as well as to conditionality. Inasmuch as all\nbeings are transient and empty in their inherent being, they cannot\nlogically be said to be in possession of self-essence which defies the\nlaw of causation. All things are mutually conditioning and limiting,\nand apart from their relativity they are non-existent and cannot be\nknown by us. Therefore, says N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, \u201cIf substance be different\nfrom attribute, it is then beyond comprehension.\u201d[80] For \u201ca jag is\nnot to be known independent of matter et cetera, and matter in turn is\nnot to be known independent of ether et cetera.\u201d[81] {172} As there\nis no subject without object, so there is no substance without\nattribute; for one is the condition for the other. Does self-essence\nthen exist in causation? No, \u201cwhatever is subject to conditionality,\nis by its very nature tranquil and empty.\u201d (_Prat\u00eetya yad yad bhavati,\ntat tac \u00e7\u00e2ntam svabh\u00e2vata\u1e25._) Whatever owes its existence to a\ncombination of causes and conditions is without self-essence, and\ntherefore it is tranquil (_\u00e7\u00e2nta_), it is empty, it is unreal (_asat_),\nand the ultimate nature of this universal emptiness is not within the\nsphere of intellectual demonstrability, for the human understanding is\nnot capable of transcending its inherent limitations.\n\nSays Pingalaka, a commentator of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna: \u201cThe cloth exists on\naccount of the thread; the matting is possible on account of the\nrattan. If the thread had its own fixed, unchangeable self-essence, it\ncould not be made out of the flax. If the cloth had its own fixed,\nunchangeable self-essence, it could not be made from the thread. But\nas in point of fact the cloth comes from the thread and the thread\nfrom the flax, it must be said that the thread as well as the cloth\nhad no fixed, unchangeable self-essence. It is just like the relation\nthat obtains between the burning and the burned. They are brought\ntogether under certain conditions, and thus there takes place a\nphenomenon called burning. The burning and the burned, each has no\nreality of its own. For when one is absent the other is put out of\nexistence. It is so with all things in this world, they are all empty,\n{173} without self, without absolute existence, they are like the\nwill-o\u2019-the-wisp.\u201d[82]\n\n\n _The Real Significance of Emptiness._\n\nFrom these statements it will be apparent that the emptiness of things\n(_\u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2_) does not mean nothingness, as is sometimes interpreted\nby some critics, but it simply means conditionality or transitoriness\nof all phenomenal existences, it is a synonym for aniyata or prat\u00eetya.\nTherefore, emptiness, according to the Buddhists, signifies,\nnegatively, the absence of particularity, the non-existence of\nindividuals as such, and positively, the ever-changing state of the\nphenomenal world, a constant flux of becoming, an eternal series of\ncauses and effects. It must never be understood in the sense of\nannihilation or absolute nothingness, for nihilism is as much\ncondemned by Buddhism as na\u00efve realism. \u201cThe Buddha proclaimed\nemptiness as a remedy for all doctrinal controversies, but those who\nin turn cling to emptiness are beyond treatment.\u201d A medicine is\nindispensable as long as there is a disease to heal, but it turns\npoisonous when applied after the restoration of perfect health. To\nmake this point completely clear, let me quote the following from\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\u2019s _M\u00e2dhyamika \u00c7\u00e2stra_ (Chap. XXIV). \u201c[Some one may object to\nthe Buddhist doctrine of emptiness, declaring:] If all is void\n(_\u00e7\u00fbnya_) and {174} there is neither creation nor destruction, then it\nmust be concluded that even the Fourfold Noble Truth does not exist.\nIf the Fourfold Noble Truth does not exist, the recognition of\nSuffering, the stoppage of Accumulation, the attainment of Cessation,\nand the advancement of Discipline,--all must be said to be\nunrealisable. If they are altogether unrealisable, there cannot be any\nof the four states of saintliness; and without these states there\ncannot be anybody who will aspire for them. If there are no wise men,\nthe Sangha is then impossible. Further, as there is no Fourfold Noble\nTruth, there is no Good Law (_saddharma_); and as there is neither\nGood Law nor Sangha, the existence of Buddha himself must be an\nimpossibility. Those who talk of emptiness, therefore, must be said to\nnegate the Triple Treasure (_triratna_) altogether. Emptiness not only\ndestroys the law of causation and the general principle of retribution\n(_phalasadbh\u00e2vam_), but utterly annihilates the possibility of a\nphenomenal world.\u201d\n\n\u201c[To this it is to be remarked that]\n\n\u201cOnly he is annoyed over such scepticism who understands not the true\nsignificance and interpretation of emptiness (_\u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2_).\n\n\u201cThe Buddha\u2019s teaching rests on the discrimination of two kinds of\ntruth (_satya_): absolute and relative. Those who do not have any\nadequate knowledge of them are unable to grasp the deep and subtle\nmeaning of Buddhism. [The essence of being, dharmata, is beyond verbal\ndefinition or intellectual comprehension, {175} for there is neither\nbirth nor death in it, and it is even like unto Nirv\u00e2na. The nature\nof Suchness, tattva, is fundamentally free from conditionality, it is\ntranquil, it distances all phenomenal frivolities, it discriminates\nnot, nor is it particularised].[83]\n\n\u201cBut if not for relative truth, absolute truth is unattainable, and\nwhen absolute truth is not attained, Nirv\u00e2na is not to be gained.\n\n\u201cThe dull-headed who do not perceive the truth rightfully go to\nself-destruction, for they are like an awkward magician whose trick\nentangles himself, or like an unskilled snake-catcher who gets himself\nhurt. The World-honored One knew well the abstruseness of the Doctrine\nwhich is beyond the mental capacity of the multitudes and was inclined\nnot to disclose it before them.\n\n\u201cThe objection that Buddhism onesidedly adheres to emptiness and\nthereby exposes itself to grave errors, entirely misses the mark; for\nthere are no errors in emptiness. Why? Because it is on account of\nemptiness that all things are at all possible, and without emptiness\nall things will come to naught. Those who deny emptiness and find\nfault with it, are like a horseman who forgets that he is on\nhorseback.\n\n\u201cIf they think that things exist because of their self-essence\n(_svabh\u00e2va_), [and not because of their emptiness,] they thereby make\nthings come out of causelessness (_ahetupratyaya_), they destroy those\n{176} relations that exist between the acting and the act and the\nacted; and they also destroy the conditions that make up the law of\nbirth and death.\n\n\u201cAll is declared empty because there is nothing that is not a product\nof universal causation (_pratyayasamutp\u00e2da_). This law of causation,\nhowever, is merely provisional, though herein lies the middle path.\n\n\u201cAs thus there is not an object (_dharma_) which is not conditioned\n(_prat\u00eetya_), so there is nothing that is not empty.\n\n\u201cIf all is not empty, then there is no death nor birth, and withal\ndisappears the Fourfold Noble Truth.\n\n\u201cHow could there be Suffering, if not for the law of causation?\nImpermanence is suffering. But with self-essence there will be no\nimpermanence. [So long as impermanence is the condition of life,\nself-essence which is a causeless existence, is out of question.]\nSuppose Suffering is self-existent, then it could not come from\nAccumulation, which in turn becomes impossible when emptiness is not\nadmitted. Again, when Suffering is self-existent, then there could be\nno Cessation, for with the hypothesis of self-essence Cessation\nbecomes a meaningless term. Again, when Suffering is self-existent,\nthen there will be no Path. But as we can actually walk on the Path,\nthe hypothesis of self-essence is to be abandoned.\n\n\u201cIf there is neither Suffering nor Cessation, it must be said that the\nPath leading to the Cessation of Suffering is also non-existent.\n\n\u201cIf there is really self-essence, Suffering could not {177} be\nrecognised now, as it had not been recognised, for self-essence as\nsuch must remain forever the same. [That is to say, enlightened minds,\nthrough the teaching of Buddha, now recognise the existence of\nSuffering, though they did not recognise it when they were still\nuninitiated. If things were all in a fixed, self-determining state on\naccount of their self-essence, it would be impossible for those\nenlightened men to discover what they had never observed before. The\nrecognition of the Fourfold Noble Truth is only possible when this\nphenomenal world is in a state of constant becoming, that is, when it\nis empty as it really is.]\n\n\u201cAs it is with the recognition of Suffering, so it is with the\nstoppage of Accumulation, the attainment of Cessation, the realisation\nof Path as well as with the four states of saintliness.\n\n\u201cIf, on account of self-essence, the four states of saintliness were\nunattainable before, how could they be realised now, still upholding\nthe hypothesis of self-essence? [But we can attain to saintliness as a\nmatter of fact, for there are many holy men who through their\nspiritual discipline have emerged from their former life of ignorance\nand darkness. If everything had its own self-essence which makes it\nimpossible to transform from one state to another, how could a person\ndesire to ascend, if he ever so desire, higher and higher on the scale\nof existence?]\n\n\u201cIf there were no four states of saintliness (_catv\u00e2ri phal\u00e2ni_), then\nthere would be no aspirants for it. {178} And if there were no eight\nwise men (_puru\u1e63apu\u00f1gala_), there could exist no Sangha.\n\n\u201cAgain, when there could not be the Fourfold Noble Truth, the Law\nwould be impossible, and without the Sangha and the Law how could the\nBuddha exist? You might say: \u2018A Buddha does not exist on account of\nwisdom (_Bodhi_), nor does wisdom exist on account of the Buddha.\u2019 But\nif a man did not have Buddha-essence [that is, Bodhi] he could not\nhope to attain to Buddhahood, however strenuously he might exert\nhimself in the ways of Bodhisattva.\n\n\u201cFurther, if all is not empty but has self-essence, [i.e. if all is in\na fixed, unchangeable state of sameness], how could there be any\ndoing? How could there be good and evil? If you maintain that there is\nan effect (_phala_) which does not come from a cause good or evil,\n[which is the practical conclusion of the hypothesis of self-essence],\nthen it means that retribution is independent of our deed, good or\nevil. [But is this justified by our experience?]\n\n\u201cIf it must then be admitted that our deed good or evil becomes the\ncause of retribution, retribution must be said to come from our deed,\ngood or evil; then how could we say there is no emptiness?\n\n\u201cWhen you negate the doctrine of emptiness, the law of universal\ncausation, you negate the possibility of this phenomenal world. When\nthe doctrine of emptiness is negated, there remains nothing that ought\nto be done; and a thing is called done which is not yet accomplished;\nand he is said to be a doer who has {179} not done anything whatever.\nIf there were such a thing as self-essence, the multitudinousness of\nthings must be regarded as uncreated and imperishable and eternally\nexisting which is tantamount to eternal nothingness.\n\n\u201cIf there were no emptiness there would be no attainment of what has\nnot yet been attained, nor would there be the annihilation of pain,\nnor the extinction of all the passions (_sarvakle\u00e7a_).\n\n\u201cTherefore, it is taught by the Buddha that those who recognise the\nlaw of universal causation, recognise the Buddha as well as Suffering,\nAccumulation, Cessation, and the Path.\u201d\n\n * * *\n\nThe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic doctrines thus formulated and transmitted down to\nthe present days are: There is no such thing as the ego; mentation is\nproduced by the co-ordination of various vij\u00f1\u00e2nas or senses.\n\nIndividual existences have no selfhood or self-essence or reality, for\nthey are but an aggregate of certain qualities sustained by efficient\nkarma. The world of particulars is the work of Ignorance as declared\nby Buddha in his Formula of Dependence (Twelve Nid\u00e2nas). When this\nveil of M\u00e2ya is uplifted, the universal light of Dharmak\u00e2ya shines in\nall its magnificence. Individual existences then as such lose their\nsignificance and become sublimated and ennobled in the oneness of\nDharmak\u00e2ya. Egoistic prejudices are forever vanquished, and the aim of\nour lives is no more the {180} gratification of selfish cravings, but\nthe glorification of Dharma as it works its own way through the\nmultitudinousness of things. The self does not stand any more in a\nstate of isolation (which is an illusion), it is absorbed in the\nuniversal body of Dharma, it recognises itself in other selves animate\nas well as inanimate, and all things are in Nirv\u00e2na. When we reach\nthis state of ideal enlightenment, we are said to have realised the\nBuddhist life.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n KARMA.\n\n{181}\n\n\n _Definition._\n\n/Karma/, or Sansk\u00e2ra which is sometimes used as its synonym,--though\nthe latter gives a slightly different shade of meaning,--comes from\nthe Sanskrit root _k\u1e5b_, \u201cto do,\u201d \u201cto make,\u201d \u201cto perform,\u201d \u201cto effect,\u201d\n\u201cto produce,\u201d etc. Both terms mean activity in its concrete as well as\nin its abstract sense, and form an antithesis to intelligence,\ncontemplation, or ideation in general. When karma is used in its most\nabstract sense, it becomes an equivalent to \u201cbeginningless ignorance,\u201d\nwhich is universally inherent in nature, and corresponds to the Will\nor blind activity of Schopenhauer; for ignorance as we have seen above\nis a negative manifestation of Suchness (_Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2_) and marks the\nbeginning or unfolding of a phenomenal world, whose existence is\ncharacterised by incessant activities actuated by the principle of\nkarma. When Goethe says in Faust, \u201cIn Anfang war die That,\u201d he uses\nthe term \u201cThat\u201d in the sense of karma as it is here understood.\n\nWhen karma is used in its concrete sense, it is the {182} principle of\nactivity in the world of particulars or n\u00e2mar\u00fbpas: it becomes in the\nphysical world the principle of conservation of energy, in the\nbiological realm that of evolution and heredity etc., and in the moral\nworld that of immortality of deeds. Sanskara, when used as an\nequivalent of karma, corresponds to this concrete signification of it,\nas it is the case in the Twelve Chains of Dependence (_Nid\u00e2nas_, or\n_Praty\u00e2yasamutp\u00e2da_).[84] Here it follows ignorance (_avidy\u00e2_) and\nprecedes consciousness (_vij\u00f1\u00e2na_). Ignorance in this case means\nsimply privation of enlightenment, and does not imply any sense of\nactivity which is expressed in Sansk\u00e2ra. It is only when it is coupled\nwith the latter that it becomes the principle of activity, and creates\nas its first offspring consciousness or mentality. In fact, ignorance\nand blind activity are one, their logical difference being this: the\nformer emphasises the epistemological phase and the latter the\nethical; or, we might say, one is statical and the other dynamical. If\nwe are to draw a comparison between the first four of the Twelve\nNid\u00e2nas and the several processes of evolution that takes place in the\nTath\u00e2gata-garbha as described above, we can take Ignorance and the\nprinciple of blind activity, sansk\u00e2ra, {183} in the Twelve Chains as\ncorresponding to the All-conserving Soul (_\u00e2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na_), and the\nVij\u00f1\u00e2na, consciousness of the Twelve Chains, to the Manovij\u00f1\u00e2na, and\nthe N\u00e2m\u00e2r\u00fbpa to this visible world, _vi\u1e63aya_, in which the principle\nof karma works in its concrete form.\n\nAs we have a special chapter devoted to \u201cIgnorance\u201d as an equivalent\nof karma in its abstract sense, let us here treat of the Buddhist\nconception of karma in the realm of names and forms, i.e. of karma in\nits concrete sense. But we shall restrict ourselves to the activity of\nkarmaic causation in the moral world, as we are not concerned with\nphysics or biology.\n\n\n _The Working of Karma._\n\nThe Buddhist conception of karma briefly stated is this: Any act, good\nor evil, once committed and conceived, never vanishes like a bubble in\nwater, but lives, potentially or actively as the case may be, in the\nworld of minds and deeds. This mysterious moral energy, so to speak,\nis embodied in and emanates from every act and thought, for it does\nnot matter whether it is actually performed, or merely conceived in\nthe mind. When the time comes, it is sure to germinate and grow with\nall its vitality. Says Buddha:\n\n\n \u201cKarma even after the lapse of a hundred kalpas,\n Will not be lost nor destroyed;\n As soon as all the necessary conditions are ready,\n Its fruit is sure to ripe.\u201d[85]\n\n{184}\n\nAgain,\n\n\n \u201cWhatever a man does, the same he in himself will find,\n The good man, good: and evil he that evil has designed;\n And so our deeds are all like seeds, and bring forth fruit in kind.\u201d[86]\n\n\nA grain of wheat, it is said, which was accidentally preserved in good\ncondition in a tomb more than a thousand years old, did not lose its\ngerminating energy, and, when planted with proper care, it actually\nstarted to sprout. So with karma, it is endowed with an enormous\nvitality, nay, it is even immortal. However remote the time of their\ncommission might have been, the karma of our deeds never dies; it must\nwork out its own destiny at whatever cost, if not overcome by some\ncounteracting force. The law of karma is irrefragable.\n\nThe irrefragability of karma means that the law of causation is\nsupreme in our moral sphere just as much as in the physical, that life\nconsists in a concatenation of causes and effects regulated by the\nprinciple of karma, that nothing in the life of an individual or a\nnation or a race happens without due cause and sufficient reason, that\nis, without previous karma. The Buddhists, therefore, do not believe\nin any special act of grace or revelation in our religious realm and\nmoral life. The idea of deus ex machina is banned in Buddhism. Whatever\nis suffered or enjoyed morally in our present life is due to the karma,\naccumulated {185} since the beginning of life on earth. Nothing sown,\nnothing reaped.\n\nWhatever has been done leaves an ineffable mark in the individual\u2019s\nlife and even in that of the universe; and this mark will never be\nerased save by sheer exhaustion of the karma or by the interruption of\nan overwhelming counter-karma. In case the karma of an act is not\nactualised during one\u2019s own life-time, it will in that of one\u2019s\nsuccessors, who may be physical or spiritual. Not only \u201cthe evil that\nmen do lives after them,\u201d but also the good, for it will not be\n\u201cinterred with their bones,\u201d as vulgar minds imagine. We read in the\n_Samyukta Nik\u00e2ya_, III, 1-4:\n\n\n \u201cAssailed by death, in life\u2019s last throes,\n At quitting of this human state,\n What is it one can call his own?\n What with him take as he goes hence?\n What is it follows after him,\n And like a shadow ne\u2019er departs?\n\n \u201cHis good deeds and his wickedness,\n Whate\u2019er a mortal does while here;\n \u2019Tis this that he can call his own,\n This with him take as he goes hence.\n This is what follows after him,\n And like a shadow ne\u2019er departs.\n\n \u201cLet all, then, noble deeds perform,\n A treasure-store for future weal;\n For merit gained this life within,\n Will yield a blessing in the next.\u201d[87]\n\n\n{186}\n\nIn accordance with this karmaic preservation, Buddhists do not expect\nto have their sins expatiated by other innocent people so long as\ntheir own hearts remain unsoftened as ever. But when the all-embracing\nlove of Buddhas for all sentient beings kindles even the smallest\nspark of repentance and enlightenment in the heart of a sinner, and\nwhen this ever-vacillating light grows to its full magnitude under\npropitious conditions, the sinner gets fully awakened from the evil\nkarma of eons, and enters, free from all curses, into the eternity of\nNirv\u00e2na.\n\n\n _Karma and Social Injustice._\n\nThe doctrine of karma is very frequently utilised by some Buddhists to\nexplain a state of things which must be considered cases of social\ninjustice.\n\nThere are some people who are born rich and noble and destined to\nenjoy all forms of earthly happiness and all the advantages of social\nlife, though they have done nothing that justifies them in luxuriating\nin such a fashion any more than their poor neighbors. These people,\nhowever, are declared by some pseudo-Buddhists to be merely harvesting\nthe crops of good karma they had prepared in their former lives. On\nthe other hand, the poor, needy, and low that are struggling to eke\nout a mere existence in spite of their moral rectitude and honest\nindustry, are considered to be suffering the evil karma which had been\naccumulated during their previous lives. The law of moral retribution\nis never {187} suspended, as they reason, on account of the changes\nwhich may take place in a mortal being. An act, good or evil, once\nperformed, will not be lost in the eternal succession and interaction\nof incidents, but will certainly find the sufferer of its due\nconsequence, and it does not matter whether the actor has gone through\nthe vicissitudes of birth and death. For the Buddhist conception of\nindividual identity is not that of personal continuity, but of karmaic\nconservation. Whatever deeds we may commit, they invariably bear their\nlegitimate fruit and follow us even after death. Therefore, if the\nrich and noble neglect to do their duties or abandon themselves to the\nenjoyment of sensual pleasures, then they are sure in their future\nbirths, if not in their present life, to gather the crops they have\nthus unwittingly prepared for themselves. The poor, however hard their\nlot in this life, can claim their rightful rewards, if they do not get\ndespaired of their present sufferings and give themselves up to\ntemptations, but dutifully continue to do things good and meritorious.\nBecause as their present fate is the result of their former deeds, so\nwill be their future fortune the fruit of their present deeds.\n\nThis view as held by some pseudo-Buddhists gives us a wrong impression\nabout the practical working of the principle of karma in this world of\nn\u00e2mar\u00fbpas, for it tries to explain by karmaic theory the phenomena\nwhich lie outside of the sphere of its applicability. As I understand,\nwhat the theory of karma {188} proposes to explain is not cases of\nsocial injustice and economic inequality, but facts of moral causation.\n\nThe overbearing attitude of the rich and the noble, the unnecessary\nsufferings of the poor, the over-production of criminals, and suchlike\nsocial phenomena arise from the imperfection of our present social\norganisation, which is based upon the doctrine of absolute private\nownership. People are allowed to amass wealth unlimitedly for their\nown use and to bequeath it to the successors who do not deserve it in\nany way. And they do not pay regard to the injuries this system may\nincur upon the general welfare of the community to which they belong,\nand upon other members individually. The rich might have slaughtered\neconomically and consequently politically and morally millions of\ntheir brethren before they could reach places of social eminence they\nnow occupy and enjoy to its full extent. They might have sacrificed\nhundreds of thousands of victims on the altar of Mammon in order to\ncarry out their vast scheme of self-aggrandisement. And, what is\nworse, the wealth thus accumulated by an individual is allowed by the\nlaw to be handed down to his descendants, who are in a sense the\nparasitic members of the community. They are privileged to live upon\nthe sweat and blood of others, who know not where to lay their heads,\nand who are daily succumbing to the heavy burden, not of their free\nchoice, but forced upon them by society.\n\nLet us here closely see into the facts. There is one portion of\nsociety that does almost nothing toward {189} the promotion of the\ngeneral welfare, and there is another portion that, besides carrying\nthe burden not of its own, is heroically struggling for bare existence.\nThese sad phenomena which, owing to the imperfection of social\norganisation, we daily witness about us,--should we attribute them to\ndiversity of individual karma and make individuals responsible for\nwhat is really due to the faulty organisation of the community to which\nthey belong? No, the doctrine of karma certainly must not be understood\nto explain the cause of our social and economical imperfection.\n\nThe region where the law of karma is made to work supreme is our moral\nworld, and cannot be made to extend also over our economic field.\nPoverty is not necessarily the consequence of evil deeds, nor is\nplenitude that of good acts. Whether a person is affluent or needy is\nmostly determined by the principle of economy as far as our present\nsocial system is concerned. Morality and economy are two different\nrealms of human activity. Honesty and moral rectitude do not\nnecessarily guarantee well-being. Dishonesty and the violation of the\nmoral law, on the contrary, are very frequently utilised as handmaids\nof material prosperity. Do we not thus see many good, conscientious\npeople around us who are wretchedly poverty-stricken? Shall we take\nthem as suffering the curse of evil karma in their previous lives,\nwhen we can understand the fact perfectly well as a case of social\ninjustice? It is not necessary by any means, nay, it is even productive\nof evil, to establish a relation {190} between the two things that in\nthe nature of their being have no causal dependence. Karma ought not\nto be made accountable for economic inequality.\n\nA virtuous man is contented with his cleanliness of conscience and\npurity of heart. Obscure as is his present social position, and\nmiserable as are his present pecuniary conditions, he has no mind to\nlook backward and find the cause of his social insignificance there,\nnor is he anxious about his future earthly fortune which might be\nawaiting him when his karmaic energy appears in a new garment. His\nheart is altogether free from such vanities and anxieties. He is\nsufficient unto himself as he is here and now. And, as to his\naltruistic aspect of his moral deeds, he is well conscious that their\nkarma would spiritually benefit everybody that gets inspired by it,\nand also that it would largely contribute to the realisation of\ngoodness on this earth. Why, then, must we contrive such a poor theory\nof karma as is maintained by some, in order that they might give him a\nspiritual solace for his material misfortune?\n\nVulgar people are too eager to see everything and every act they\nperform working for the accumulation of earthly wealth and the\npromotion of material welfare. They would want to turn even moral\ndeeds which have no relation to the economic condition of life into\nthe opportunities to attain things mundane. They would desire to have\nthe law of karmaic causation applied to a realm, where prevails an\nentirely different set of laws. In point of fact, what proceeds from\n{191} meritorious deeds is spiritual bliss only,--contentment,\ntranquillity of mind, meekness of heart, and immovability of\nfaith,--all the heavenly treasures which could not be corrupted by\nmoth or rust. And what more can the karma of good deeds bring to us?\nAnd what more would a man of pious heart desire to gain from his being\ngood? \u201cTake no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye\nshall drink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the\nlife more than meat and the body more than raiment?\u201d Let us then do\naway with the worldly interpretation of karma, which is so contrary to\nthe spirit of Buddhism.\n\nAs long as we live under the present state of things, it is impossible\nto escape the curse of social injustice and economic inequality. Some\npeople must be born rich and noble and enjoying a superabundance of\nmaterial wealth, while others must be groaning under the unbearable\nburden imposed upon them by cruel society. Unless we make a radical\nchange in our present social organisation, we cannot expect every one\nof us to enjoy equal opportunity and fair chance. Unless we have a\ncertain form of socialism installed which is liberal and rational and\nsystematic, there must be some who are economically more favored than\nothers. But this state of affairs is a phenomenon of worldly\ninstitution and is doomed to die away sooner or later. The law of\nkarma, on the contrary, is an eternal ordinance of the will of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya as manifested in this world of {192} particulars. We must\nnot confuse a transient accident of human society with an absolute\ndecree issued from the world-authority.\n\n\n _An Individualistic View of Karma._\n\nThere is another popular misconception concerning the doctrine of\nkarma, which seriously mars the true interpretation of Buddhism. I\nmean by this an individualistic view of the doctrine. This view\nasserts that deeds, good or evil, committed by a person determine only\nhis own fate, no other\u2019s being affected thereby in any possible way,\nand that the reason why we should refrain from doing wrong is: for we,\nand not others, have to suffer its evil consequences. This conception\nof karma which I call individualistic, presupposes the absolute\nreality of an individual soul and its continuance as such in a new\ncorporeal existence which is made possible by its previous karma.\nBecause an individual soul is here understood as an independent unit,\nwhich stands in no relation to others, and which therefore neither\ndoes influence nor is influenced by them in any wise. All that is done\nby oneself is suffered by oneself only and no other people have\nanything to do with it, nor do they suffer a whit thereby.\n\nBuddhism, however, does not advocate this individualistic\ninterpretation of karmaic law, for it is not in accord with the theory\nof non-\u00e2tman, nor with that of Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\nAccording to the orthodox theory, karma simply means the conservation\nor immortality of the inner {193} force of deeds regardless of their\nauthor\u2019s physical identity. Deeds once committed, good or evil, leave\npermanent effects on the general system of sentient beings, of which\nthe actor is merely a component part; and it is not the actor himself\nonly, but everybody constituting a grand psychic community called\n\u201cDharmadh\u00e2tu\u201d (spiritual universe), that suffers or enjoys the outcome\nof a moral deed.\n\nBecause the universe is not a theatre for one particular soul only; on\nthe contrary, it belongs to all sentient beings, each forming a\npsychic unit; and these units are so intimately knitted together in\nblood and soul that the effects of even apparently trifling deeds\ncommitted by an individual are felt by others just as much and just as\nsurely as the doer himself. Throw an insignificant piece of stone into\na vast expanse of water, and it will certainly create an almost\nendless series of ripples, however imperceptible, that never stop till\nthey reach the furthest shore. The tremulation thus caused is felt by\nthe sinking stone as much as the water disturbed. The universe that\nmay seem to crude observers merely as a system of crass physical\nforces is in reality a great spiritual community, and every one of\nsentient beings forms its component part. This most complicated, most\nsubtle, most sensitive, and best organised mass of spiritual atoms\ntransmits its current of moral electricity from one particle to\nanother with utmost rapidity and surety. Because this community is at\nbottom an expression of one Dharmak\u00e2ya. However diversified {194} and\ndissimilar it may appear in its material individual aspect, it is\nafter all no more than an evolution of one pervading essence, in which\nthe multitudinousness of things finds its unity and identity.\nTherefore, it is for the interests of the community at large, and not\nfor their own welfare only, that sincere Buddhists refrain from\ntransgressing moral laws and are encouraged to promote goodness. Those\nwhose spiritual insight thus penetrates deep into the inner unity and\ninteraction of all human souls are called Bodhisattvas.\n\nIt is with this spirit, let me repeat, that pious Buddhists do not\nwish to keep for themselves any merits created by their acts of love\nand benevolence, but wish to turn them over (_parivarta_) to the\ndeliverance of all sentient creatures from the darkness of ignorance.\nThe most typical way of concluding any religious treatise by Buddhists,\ntherefore, runs generally in the following manner:\n\n\n \u201cThe deep significance of the three karmas as taught by Buddha,\n I have thus completed elucidating in accord with the Dharma and logic:\n By dint of this merit I pray to deliver all sentient beings\n And to make them soon attain to perfect enlightenment.\u201d[88]\n\n\nOr,\n\n\n \u201cAll the merits arising from this my exposition\n May abide and be universally distributed among all beings;\n And may they ascend in the scale of existence and increase in bliss\n  and wisdom,\n And soon attain to an enlightenment supreme, perfect, great, and\n  far-reaching.\u201d[89]\n\n{195}\n\nThe reason why a moral deed performed by one person would contribute\nto the attainment by others of supreme enlightenment, is that souls\nwhich are ordinarily supposed to be individual and independent of\nothers are not so in fact, but are very closely intermingled with one\nanother, so that a stir produced in one is sooner or later transmitted\nto another influencing it rightfully or wrongfully. The karmaic effect\nof my own deed determines not only my own future, but to a not little\nextent that of others; hence those invocations just quoted by pious\nBuddhists who desire to dedicate all the merits they can attain to the\ngeneral welfare of the masses.\n\nThe ever-increasing tendency of humanity to widen and facilitate\ncommunication in every possible way is a phenomenon illustrative of\nthe intrinsic oneness of human souls. Isolation kills, for it is\nanother name for death. Every soul that lives and grows desires to\nembrace others, to be in communion with them, to be supplemented by\nthem, and to expand infinitely so that all individual souls are\nbrought together and united in the one soul. Under this condition only\na man\u2019s karma is enabled to influence other people, and his merits can\nbe utilised for the promotion of general enlightenment.\n\n{196}\n\n\n _Karma and Determinism._\n\nIf the irrefragability of karma means the predetermination of our\nmoral life, some would reason, the doctrine is fatalism pure and\nsimple. It is quite true that our present life is the result of the\nkarma accumulated in our previous existences, and that as long as the\nkarma preserves its vitality there is no chance whatever to escape its\nconsequences, good or evil. It is also true that as the meanest\nsparrow shall not fall on the ground without the knowledge of God, and\nas the very hairs of our heads are all numbered by him, so even a\nsingle blade of grass does not quiver before the evening breeze\nwithout the force of karma. It is also true that if our intellect were\nnot near-sighted as it is, we could reduce a possible complexity of\nthe conditions under which our life exists into its simplest terms,\nand thus predict with mathematical precision the course of a life\nthrough which it is destined to pass. If we could record all our\nprevious karma from time immemorial and all its consequences both on\nourselves and on those who come in contact with us, there would be no\ndifficulty in determining our future life with utmost certainty. The\nhuman intellect, however, as it happens, is incapable of undertaking a\nwork of such an enormous magnitude, we cannot perceive the full\nsignificance of determinism; but, from the divine point of view,\ndeterminism seems to be perfectly justified, for there cannot be any\nshort-sightedness on the part of a world-soul as to the destiny of the\nuniverse, which {197} is nothing but its own expression. It is only\nfrom the human point of view that we feel uncertain about our final\ndisposition and endeavor to explain existence now from a mechanical,\nnow from a teleological standpoint, and yet, strange enough, at the\nbottom of our soul we feel that there is something mysterious here\nwhich makes us cry, either in despair or in trustful resignation, \u201cLet\nthy will be done.\u201d While this very confidence in \u201cthy will\u201d proves\nthat we have in our inmost consciousness and outside the pale of\nintellectual analysis a belief in the supreme order, which is\nabsolutely preordained and which at least is not controllable by our\nfinite, limited, fragmentary mind, yet the doctrine of karma must not\nbe understood in the strictest sense of fatalism.\n\nAs far as a general theory of determinism is concerned, Buddhism has\nno objection to it. Grant that there is a law of causation, that every\ndeed, actualised or thought of, leaves something behind, and that this\nsomething becomes a determining factor for our future life; then how\ncould we escape the conclusion that \u201ceach of us is inevitable\u201d as\nWhitman sings? Religious confidence in a divine will that is supposed\nto give us always the best of things, is in fact no more than a\ndeterminism. But if, in applying the doctrine to our practical life,\nwe forget to endeavor to unfold all the possibilities that might lie\nin us, but could be awakened only after strenuous efforts, there will\nbe no moral characters, no personal responsibility, no noble\naspirations; the mind will be nothing but a reflex nervous system and\nlife a sheer machinery.\n\n{198}\n\nIn fact karma is not a machine which is not incapable of regeneration\nand self-multiplication. Karma is a wonderful organic power; it grows,\nit expands, and even gives birth to a new karma. It is like unto a\ngrain of mustard, the least of all seeds, but, being full of vitality,\nit grows as soon as it comes in contact with the nourishing soil and\nbecometh a tree so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the\nbranches thereof. Its mystery is like that of sympathetic waves that\npass through all the hearts which feel the great deeds of a hero or\nlisten to the story of a self-sacrificing mother. Karma, good or evil,\nis contagious and sympathetic in its work. Even a most insignificant\nact of goodness reaps an unexpectedly rich crop. Even to the vilest\nrogue comes a chance for repentance by dint of a single good karma\never effected in his life, which has extended through many a kalpa.\nAnd the most wonderful thing in our spiritual world is that the karma\nthus bringing repentance and Nirv\u00e2na to the heart of the meanest\nawakens and rekindles a similar karma potentially slumbering in other\nhearts and leads them to the final abode of enlightenment.\n\nInasmuch as we confine ourselves to general, superficial view of the\ntheory of karma, it leads to a form of determinism, but in our\npractical life which is a product of extremely complicated factors,\nthe doctrine of karma allows in us all kinds of possibilities and all\nchances of development. We thus escape the mechanical conception of\nlife, we are saved from the despair of predetermination, though this\nis true to a great extent; {199} and we are assured of the\nactualisation of hopes, however remote it may be. Though the curse of\nevil karma may sometimes hang upon us very heavily, there is no reason\nto bury our aspirations altogether in the grave; on the contrary, let\nus bear it bravely and perform all the acts of goodness to destroy the\nlast remnant of evil and to mature the stock of good karma.\n\n\n _The Maturing of Good Stock (ku\u00e7alam\u00fbla) and the\n Accumulation of merits (punyaskandha)._\n\nOne of the most significant facts, which we cannot well afford to\nignore while treating of the doctrine of karma, is the Buddhist belief\nthat \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni reached his supreme Buddhahood only after a long\npractise of the six virtues of perfection (_p\u00e2ramit\u00e2s_) through many\na rebirth. This belief constitutes the very foundation of the ethics\nof Buddhism and has all-important bearings on the doctrine of karma.\n\nThe doctrine of karma ethically considered is this: Sentient beings\ncan attain to perfection not by an intervention from on high, but\nthrough long, steady, unflinching personal efforts towards the\nactualisation of ideals, or, in other words, towards the maturing of\ngood stock (_ku\u00e7alam\u00fbla_) and the accumulation of merits\n(_punyaskandha_). This can be accomplished only through the karma of\ngood deeds untiringly practised throughout many a generation. Each\nsingle act of goodness we perform to-day is recorded with {200} strict\naccuracy in the annals of human evolution and is so much the gain for\nthe cause of righteousness. On the contrary, every deed of ill-will,\nevery thought of self-aggrandisement, every word of impurity, every\nassertion of egoism, is a drawback to the perfection of humanity. To\nspeak concretely, the Buddha represents the crystalisation in the\nhistorical person of \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni of all the good karma that was\naccumulated in innumerable kalpas previous to his birth. And if\nDevadatta, as legend has him, was really the enemy of the Buddha, he\nsymbolises in him the evil karma that was being stored up with the\ngood deeds of all Buddhas. Later Buddhism has thus elaborated to\nrepresent in these two historical figures the concrete results of good\nand evil karma, and tries to show in what direction its followers\nshould exercise their spiritual energy.\n\nThe doctrine of karma is, therefore, really the theory of evolution\nand heredity as working in our moral field. As Walt Whitman fitly\nsings, in every one of us, \u201cconverging objects of the universe\u201d are\nperpetually flowing, through every one of us is \u201cafflatus surging and\nsurging--the current and index.\u201d And these converging objects and this\nafflatus are no more than our karma which is interwoven in our being\nand which is being matured from the very beginning of consciousness\nupon the earth. Each generation either retards or furthers the\nmaturing of karma and transmits to the succeeding one its stock either\nimpaired or augmented. Those who are blind enough not to {201} see the\nsignificance of life, those who take their ego for the sole reality,\nand those who ignore the spiritual inheritance accumulated from time\nimmemorial,--are the most worthless, most ungrateful, and most\nirresponsible people of the world. Buddhism calls them the children of\nM\u00e2ra engaged in the work of destruction.\n\nDr. G. R. Wilson of Scotland states a very pretty story about a royal\nrobe in his article on \u201cThe Sense of Danger\u201d (_The Monist_, 1903,\nApril), which graphically illustrates how potential karma stored from\ntime out of mind is saturated in every fibre of our subliminal\nconsciousness or in the \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na, as Buddhists might say. The\nstory runs as follows:\n\n\u201cAn Oriental robe it was, whose beginning was in a prehistoric dynasty\nof which the hieroglyphics are undecipherable. With that pertinacity\nand durability so characteristic of the East, this royal garment has\nbeen handed down, not through hundreds of years, but through hundreds\nof generations,--generations, some of them, unconsciously long and\nstale and dreary; others short and quick and merry. A garment of kings,\nthis, and of queens, a garment to which, as tradition prescribed, each\nmonarch added something of quality,--a jewel of price, a patch of\ngold, a hem of rich embroidery,--and with each contribution a legend,\nworked into the imperishable fibre, told the story of the giver. Did\nsomething of the personality of these kings and queens linger in the\nwork of their hands? If so, the robe was no dead thing, no mere\ncovering to be lightly assumed or lightly laid aside, but a living\n{202} power, royal influence, and the wearer, all unwitting, must have\ntaken on something of the character of the dead. It is a princess of\nthe royal blood, perhaps, sensitive and mystical, trembling on the\napprehensive verge of monarchy, who dons the robe, and as she dons it,\ntingles to its message. These great rubies that blaze upon its front\nare the souvenirs of bloody conquerors. As she fingers them idly, she\nis thrilled with an emotion she does not understand, for in her blood\nsomething answers to the fighting spirit they embody. Pearls are for\npeace. That rope has been strung by kings and queens who favored art\nand learning; and as the girl\u2019s fingers stray towards them the\ninspiration changes and her mind reverts to the purposes of the\ncivilised scholar. Here is a gaudy hem, the legacy of an unfaithful\nqueen, steeped in intrigue all her life until her murder ended it; and\nas the maiden lifts it to examine it more closely, she learns with\nshame and blushes, yet not knowing what has wrought this change in\nher, that, deep down in her character, are mischievous possibilities,\npossibilities of wickedness and disgrace that will dog the footsteps\nof her reign. Suchlike are the suggestions which the hidden parts of\nthe mind bring forth, and in such subtle manner are they born.\u201d\n\nThe doctrine of karma thus declares that an act of love and good-will\nyou are performing here is not for your selfish interests, but it\nsimply means the appreciation of the works of your worthy ancestors\nand the discharge of your duties towards {203} all humanity and your\ncontribution to the world-treasury of moral ideals. Mature good stock,\naccumulate merits, purify evil karma, remove the ego-hindrance, and\ncultivate love for all beings; and the heavenly gate of Nirv\u00e2na will\nbe opened not only to you, but to the entire world.\n\nWe can sing with Walt Whitman the immortality of karma and the eternal\nprogress of humanity, thus:\n\n\n \u201cDid you guess anything lived only its moment?\n The world does not so exist--no part palpable or impalpable so exist;\n No consummation exists without being from some long previous\n  consummation--and that from some other,\n Without the farthest conceivable one coming a bit nearer the beginning\n  than any.\u201d[90]\n\n\n _Immortality._\n\nWe read in the _Milinda-pa\u00f1ha_:\n\n\u201cYour Majesty, it is as if a man were to ascend to the story of a\nhouse with a light, and eat there; and the light in burning were to\nset fire to the thatch; and the thatch in burning were to set fire to\nthe house; and the house in burning were to set fire to the village;\nand the people of the village were to seize him, and say, \u2018Why, O man,\ndid you set fire to the village?\u2019 and he were to say, \u2018I did not set\nfire to the village. The fire of the lamp by whose light I ate was a\ndifferent one from the one which set fire to the village\u2019; {204} and\nthey, quarreling, were to come to you. Whose cause, Your Majesty,\nwould you sustain?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat of the people of the village, Reverend Sir,\u201d etc.\n\n\u201cAnd why?\u201d\n\n\u201cBecause, in spite of what the man might say, the latter fire sprang\nfrom the former.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn exactly the same way, Your Majesty, although the name and form\nwhich is born into the next existence is different from the name and\nform which is to end at death, nevertheless, it is sprung from it.\nTherefore is one not freed from one\u2019s evil deeds.\u201d\n\nThe above is the Buddhist notion of individual identity and its\nconservation, which denies the immortality of the ego-soul and upholds\nthat of karma.\n\nAnother good way, perhaps, of illustrating this doctrine is to follow\nthe growth and perpetuation of the seed. The seed is in fact a\nconcrete expression of karma. When a plant reaches a certain stage of\ndevelopment, it blooms and bears fruit. This fruit contains in it a\nlatent energy which under favorable conditions grows to a mature plant\nof its own kind. The new plant now repeats the processes which its\npredecessors went through, and an eternal perpetuation of the plant is\nattained. The life of an individual plant cannot be permanent\naccording to its inherent nature, it is destined to be cut short some\ntime in its course. But this is not the case with the current of an\never-lasting vitality that has been running in the plant ever since\nthe beginning of the world. Because this current is not individual in\nits nature and stands above the vicissitudes {205} which take place in\nthe life of particular plants. It may not be manifested in its kinetic\nform all the time, but potentially it is ever present in the being of\nthe seed. Changes are simply a matter of form, and do not interfere\nwith the current of life in the plant, which is preserved in the\nuniverse as the energy of vegetation.\n\nThis energy of vegetation is that which is manifested in a mature\nplant, that which makes it blossom in the springtime, that which goes\nto seed, that which lies apparently dormant in the seeds, and that\nwhich resuscitates them to sprout among favorable surroundings. This\nenergy of vegetation, this mysterious force, when stated in Buddhist\nphraseology, is nothing else than the vegetative expression of karma,\nwhich in the biological world constitutes the law of heredity, or the\ntransmission of acquired character, or some other laws which might be\ndiscovered by the biologist. And it is when this force manifests\nitself in the moral realm of human affairs that karma obtains its\nproper significance as the law of moral causation.\n\nNow, there are several forms of transmission, by means of which the\nkarma of a person or a people or a nation or a race is able to\nperpetuate itself to eternity. A few of them are described below.\n\nOne may be called genealogical, or, perhaps, biological. Suppose here\nare descendants of an illustrious family, some of whose ancestors\ndistinguished themselves by bravery, or benevolence, or intelligence,\nor by some other praiseworthy deeds or faculties. These {206} people\nare as a rule respected by their neighbors as if their ancestral\nspirits were transmitted through generations and still lingering among\ntheir consanguineous successors. Some of them in the line might have\neven been below the normal level in their intellect and morals, but\nthis fact does not altogether nullify the possibility and belief that\nothers of their family might some day develop the faculties possessed\nby the forefathers, dormant as they appear now, through the\ninspiration they could get from the noble examples of the past. The\nrespect they are enjoying and the possibility of inspiration they may\nhave are all the work of the karma generated by the ancestors. The\nauthor or authors of the noble karma are all gone now, their bones\nhave long returned to their elements, their ego-souls are no more,\ntheir concrete individual personalities are things of the past; but\ntheir karma is still here and as fresh as it was on the day of its\ngeneration and will so remain till the end of time. If some of them,\non the other hand, left a black record behind them, the evil karma\nwill tenaciously cling to the history of the family, and the\ndescendants will have to suffer the curse as long as its vitality is\nkept up, no matter how innocent they themselves are.\n\nHere one important thing I wish to note is the mysterious way in which\nevil karma works. Evil does not always generate evils only; it very\nfrequently turns out to be a condition, if not a cause, which will\ninduce a moral being to overcome it with his {207} utmost spiritual\nefforts. His being conscious of the very fact that his family history\nis somehow besmirched with dark spots, would rekindle in his heart a\nflickering light of goodness. His stock of good karma finally being\nbrought into maturity, his virtues would then eclipse the evils of the\npast and turn a new page before him, which is full of bliss and glory.\nEverything in this world, thus, seems to turn to be merely a means for\nthe final realisation of Good. Buddhists ascribe this spiritual\nphenomenon to the virtues of the up\u00e2ya (expediency) of the Dharmak\u00e2ya\nor Amit\u00e2bha Buddha.[91]\n\nTo return to the subject. It does not need any further illustration to\nshow that all these things which have been said about the family are\nalso true of the race, the tribe, clan, nation, or any other form of\ncommunity. History of mankind in all its manifold aspects of existence\nis nothing but a grand drama visualising the Buddhist doctrine of\nkarmaic immortality. It is like an immense ocean whose boundaries\nnobody knows and the waves of events now swelling and surging, now\nebbing, now whirling, now refluxing, in all times, day and night,\nillustrate how the laws {208} of karma are at work in this actual\nlife. One act provokes another and that a third and so on to eternity\nwithout ever losing the chain of karmaic causation.\n\nNext, we come to a form of karma which might be called historical. By\nthis I mean that a man\u2019s karma can be immortalised by some historical\nobjects, such as buildings, literary works, productions of art,\nimplements, or instruments. In fact, almost any object, human or\nnatural, which, however insignificant in itself, is associated with\nthe memory of a great man, bears his karma, and transmits it to\nposterity.\n\nEverybody is familiar with the facts that all literary work embodies\nin itself the author\u2019s soul and spirit, and that posterity can feel\nhis living presence in the thoughts and sentiments expressed there,\nand that whenever the reader draws his inspiration from the work and\nactualises it in action, the author and the reader, though corporeally\nseparate and living in different times, must be said spiritually\nfeeling the pulsation of one and the same heart. And the same thing is\ntrue of productions of art. When we enter a gallery decorated with the\nnoble works of Gr\u00e6cean or Roman artists, we feel as if we were\nbreathing right in the midst of these art-loving people and seem to\nreawaken in us the same impressions that were received by them. We\nforget, as they did, the reality of our particular existence, we are\nunconsciously raised above it, and our imagination is filled with\nthings not earthly. What a mysterious power it is!--the {209} power by\nwhich those inanimate objects carry us away to a world of ideals! What\na mysterious power it is that reawakens the spirits of by-gone artists\non a sheet of canvas or in a piece of marble! It was not indeed\nentirely without truth that primitive or ignorant people intuitively\nbelieved in the spiritual power of idols. What they failed to grasp\nwas the distinction between the subjective presence of a spirit and\nits objective reality. As far as their religious feeling, and not\ntheir critical intellect, was concerned, they were perfectly justified\nin believing in idolatry. Taking all in all, these facts unmistakably\ntestify the Buddhist doctrine of the immortality of karma. A chord of\nkarma touched by mortals of bygone ages still vibrates in their works,\nand the vibration with its full force is transmitted to the sympathetic\nsouls down to the present day.\n\nArchitectural creations bear out the doctrine of karma with no less\nforce than works of art and literature. As the uppermost bricks on an\nEgyptian pyramid would fall on the ground with the same amount of\nenergy that required to raise them up in the times of Pharaohs; as a\nburning piece of coal in the furnace that was dug out from the heart\nof the earth emits the same quantity of heat that it absorbed from the\nsun some hundred thousand years ago; even so every insignificant bit\nof rock or brick or cement we may find among the ruins of Babylonian\npalaces, Indian topes, Persian kiosks, Egyptian obelisks, or Roman\npantheons, is fraught with the same spirit and soul that actuated\n{210} the ancient peoples to construct those gigantic architectural\nwonders. The spirit is here, not in its individual form, but in its\nkarmaic presence. When we pick these insignificant, unseemly pieces,\nour souls become singularly responsive to inspirations coming from\nthose of the past, and our mental eyes vividly perceive the splendor\nof the gods, glory of the kings, peace of the nation, prosperity of\nthe peoples, etc., etc. Because our souls and theirs are linked with\nthe chain of karmaic causation through the medium of those visible\nremains of ancient days. Because the karma of those old peoples is\nstill breathing its immortality in those architectural productions and\nsending its sympathetic waves out to the beholders. When thus we come\nto be convinced of the truth of the immortality of karma, we can truly\nexclaim with Christians, \u201cO death, where is thy sting? O grave, where\nis thy victory?\u201d\n\nIt is hardly necessary to give any further illustration to establish\nthe doctrine of karma concerning its historical significance. All\nscientific apparatus and instruments are an undying eye-witness of the\ngenius of the inventors. All industrial machines and agricultural\nimplements most concretely testify the immortality of karma created by\nthe constructors, in exact proportion as they are beneficial to the\ngeneral welfare and progress of humanity. The instruments or machines\nor implements may be superseded by later and better ones, and possibly\naltogether forgotten by succeeding generations, but this does not\nannul the fact that the {211} improved ones were only possible through\nthe knowledge and experience which came from the use of the older\nones, in other words, that the ideas and thoughts of the former\ninventors are still surviving through those of their successors, just\nas much as in the case of genealogical karma-transmission. Whatever\ngarb the karma of a person may wear in its way down to posterity, it\nis ever there where its inspiration is felt. Even in an article of\nmost trivial significance, even in a piece of rag, or in a slip of\ntime-worn paper, only let there be an association with the memory of\nthe deceased; and an unutterable feeling imperceptibly creeps into the\nheart of the beholder; and if the deceased were known for his\nsaintliness or righteousness, this would be an opportunity for our\ninspiration and moral elevation according to how our own karma at that\nmoment is made up.\n\nWe now come to see more closely the spiritual purport of karmaic\nactivity. Any intelligent reader could infer from what has been said\nabove what important bearing the Buddhist doctrine of karma has on our\nmoral and spiritual life. The following remarks, however, will greatly\nhelp him to understand the full extent of the doctrine and to pass an\nimpartial judgment on its merits.\n\nHere, if not anywhere else, looms up most conspicuously the\ncharacteristic difference between Buddhism and Christianity as to\ntheir conception of soul-activity. Christianity, if I understand it\nrightly, conceives our soul-phenomena as the work of an {212}\nindividual ego-entity, which keeps itself mysteriously hidden\nsomewhere within the body. To Christians, the soul is a metaphysical\nbeing, and its incarnation in the flesh is imprisonment. It groans\nafter emancipation, it craves for the celestial abode, where, after\nbodily death, it can enjoy all the blessings due to its naked\nexistence. It finds the nectar of immortality up in Heaven and in the\npresence of God the father and Christ the son, and not in the\nperpetuation of karma in this universe. The soul of the wicked, on the\nother hand, is eternally damned, if it is conceded that they have any\nsoul. As soon as it is liberated from the bodily incarceration, it is\nhurled into the infernal fire, and is there consumed suffering\nunspeakable agony. Christianity, therefore, does not believe in the\ntransmigration or reincarnation of a soul. A soul once departed from\nthe flesh never returns to it; it is either living an eternal life in\nHeaven or suffering an instant annihilation in Hell. This is the\nnecessary conclusion from their premises of an individual concrete\nego-soul.\n\nBuddhism, however, does not teach the metaphysical existence of the\nsoul. All our mental and spiritual experiences, it declares, are due\nto the operations of karma which inherits its efficiency from its\nprevious \u201cseeds of activity\u201d (_karmab\u00eeja_), and which has brought the\nfive skandhas into the present state of co-ordination. The present\nkarma, while in its force, generates in turn the \u201cseeds of activity\u201d\nwhich under favorable conditions grow to maturity again. Therefore, as\nlong {213} as the force of karma is thus successively generated, there\nare the five skandhas constantly coming into existence and working\nco-ordinately as a person. Karma-reproduction, so to speak, effected\nin this manner, is the Buddhist conception of the transmigration of a\nsoul.\n\nA Japanese national hero, General Kusunoki Masashige, who was an\northodox Buddhist, is said to have uttered the following words when he\nfell in the battle-field: \u201cI will be reborn seven times yet and\ncomplete discharging my duties for the Imperial House.\u201d And he did not\nutter these words to no purpose. Because even to-day, after the lapse\nof more than seven hundred years, his spirit is still alive among his\ncountrymen, and indeed his bronze statue on horseback is solemnly\nguarding the Japanese Imperial palace. He was reborn more than seven\ntimes and will be reborn as long as the Japanese as a nation exist on\nearth. This constant rebirth or reincarnation means no more nor less\nthan the immortality of karma. Says Buddha: \u201cYe disciples, take after\nmy death those moral precepts and doctrines which were taught to you\nfor my own person, for I live in them.\u201d To live in karma, and not as\nan ego-entity, is the Buddhist conception of immortality. Therefore,\nthe Buddhists will perfectly agree with the sentiment expressed by a\nnoted modern poet in these lines:\n\n\n \u201cWe live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, not in breaths:\n In feelings, not in figures on a dial,\n We should count time by heart-throbs. He most lives\n Who thinks most, feels the noblest, acts the best.\u201d\n\n\n{214}\n\nSome may like to call this kind of immortality unsatisfactory, and\nimpetuously demand that the ego-soul, instead of mysterious force of\nkarma, should be made immortal, as it is more tangible and better\nappreciated by the masses. The Buddhist response to such a demand\nwould be; \u201cIf their intellectual and moral insight is not developed\nenough to see truth in the theory of karma, why, we shall let them\nadhere as long as they please to their crude, primitive faith and rest\ncontented with it.\u201d Even the Buddha could not make children find\npleasure in abstract metaphysical problems, whatever truth and genuine\nspiritual consolation there might be in them. What their hearts are\nafter are toys and fairy-tales and parables. Therefore, a motto of\nBuddhism is: \u201cMinister to the patients according to their wants and\nconditions.\u201d We cannot make a plant grow even an inch higher by\nartificially pulling its roots; we have but to wait till it is ready\nfor development. Unless a child becomes a man, we must not expect of\nhim to put away childish things.\n\nThe conclusion that could be drawn from the above is obvious. If we\ndesire immortality, let there be the maturing of good karma and the\ncleansing of the heart from the contamination of evils. In good karma\nwe are made to live eternally, but in evil one we are doomed, not only\nourselves but every one that follows our steps on the path of evils.\nKarma is always generative; therefore, good karma is infinite bliss,\nand evil one is eternal curse. It was for this reason that at the\nappearance of the Buddha in the Jambudv\u00eepa {215} heaven and earth\nresounded with the joyous acclamation of gods and men. It was a signal\ntriumph for the cause of goodness. The ideal of moral perfection found\na concrete example in the person of \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni. It showed how the\nstock of good karma accumulated and matured from the beginning of\nconsciousness on earth could be crystalised in one person and brought\nto an actuality even in this world of woes. The Buddha, therefore, was\nthe culmination of all the good karma previously stored up by his\nspiritual ancestors. And he was at the same time the starting point\nfor the fermentation of new karma, because his moral \u201cseeds of\nactivity\u201d which were generated during his lifetime have been scattered\nliberally wherever his virtues and teachings could be promulgated.\nThat is, his karma-seeds have been sown in the souls of all sentient\nbeings. Every one of these seeds which are infinite in number will\nbecome a new centre of moral activity. In proportion how strong it\ngrows and begins to bear fruit, it destroys the seeds of evil doers.\nGood karma is a combined shield and sword, while it protects itself it\ndestroys all that is against it. Therefore, good karma is not only\nstatically immortal, but it is dynamically so; that is to say, its\nimmortality is not a mere absence of birth and death, but a constant\npositive increase in its moral efficiency.\n\nPious Buddhists believe that every time Buddha\u2019s name is invoked with\na heart free from evil thoughts, he enters right into the soul and\nbecomes integral part of his being. This does not mean, however, that\n{216} Buddha\u2019s ego-substratum which might have been enjoying its\nimmortal spiritual bliss in the presence of an anthropomorphic God\ndescends on earth at the invocation of his name and renders in that\ncapacity whatever help the supplicant needs. It means, on the other\nhand, that the Buddhist awakens in his personal karma that which\nconstituted Buddhahood in the Buddha and nourishes it to maturity.\nThat which constitutes Buddhahood is not the personal ego of the\nBuddha, but his karma. Every chemical element, whenever occasioned to\nbefree itself from a combination, never fails to generate heat which\nit absorbed at the time of combination with other elements; and this\ntakes place no matter how remote the time of combination was. It is\neven so with the karma-seed of Buddha. It might have been in the\nbarren soil of a sinful heart, and, being deeply buried there for many\na year, might have been forgotten altogether by the owner. But, sooner\nor later, it will never fail to grow under favorable conditions and\ngenerate what it gained from the Buddha in the beginning of the world.\nAnd this regeneration will not be merely chemical, but predominantly\nbiological; for it is the law which conditions the immortality of\nkarma.\n\n\n\n\n PRACTICAL BUDDHISM.\n\n{217}\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n THE DHARMAK\u00c2YA.\n\n/We/ have considered the doctrine of Suchness (_Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2_) under\n\u201cSpeculative Buddhism,\u201d where it appeared altogether too abstract to\nbe of any practical use to our earthly life. The theory as such did\nnot seem to have any immediate bearings on our religious consciousness.\nThe fact is, it must pass through some practical modification before\nit fully satisfies our spiritual needs. As there is no concrete figure\nin this world that is a perfect type of mathematical exactitude,--since\neverything here must be perceived through our more or less distorted\nphysical organs; even so with pure reason: however perfect in itself,\nit must appear to us more or less modified while passing through our\naffective-intellectual objectives. This modification of pure reason,\nhowever, is necessary from the human point of view; because mere\nabstraction is contentless, lifeless, and has no value for our\npractical life, and again, because our religious cravings will not be\nsatisfied with empty concepts lacking vitality.\n\nWe may sometimes ignore the claims of reason {218} and rest satisfied,\nthough usually unconsciously, with assertions which are conflicting\nwhen critically examined, but we cannot disregard by any means those\nof the religious sentiment, which finds satisfaction only in the very\nfact of things. If it ever harbored some flagrant contradictions in\nthe name of faith, it was because its ever-pressing demands had to be\nmet with even at the expense of reason. The truth is: the religious\nconsciousness first of all demands fact, and when it attains that, it\nis not of much consequence to it whether or not its intellectual\ninterpretation is logically tenable. If on the other hand logic be\nall-important and demand the first consideration and the sentiment had\nto follow its trail without a murmuring, our life would surely lose\nits savory aspect, turn tasteless, our existence would become void,\nthe world would be a mere succession of meaningless events, and what\nremains would be nothing else than devastation, barrenness, and\nuniversal misery. The truth is, in this life the will predominates and\nthe intellect subserves; which explains the fact that while all\nexisting religions on the one hand display some logical inaccuracy and\non the other hand a mechanical explanation of the world is gaining\nground more and more, religion is still playing an important part\neverywhere in our practical life. Abstraction is good for the exercises\nof the intellect, but when it is the question of life and death we\nmust have something more substantial and of more vitality than\ntheorisation. It may not be a mathematically exact {219} and certain\nproposition, but it must be a working, living, real theory, that is,\nit must be a faith born of the inmost consciousness of our being.\n\nWhat practical transformations then has the doctrine of Suchness, in\norder to meet the religious demands, to suffer?\n\n\n _God._\n\nBuddhism does not use the word God. The word is rather offensive to\nmost of its followers, especially when it is intimately associated in\nvulgar minds with the idea of a creator who produced the world out of\nnothing, caused the downfall of mankind, and, touched by the pang of\nremorse, sent down his only son to save the depraved. But, on account\nof this, Buddhism must not be judged as an atheism which endorses an\nagnostic, materialistic interpretation of the universe. Far from it.\nBuddhism outspokenly acknowledges the presence in the world of a\nreality which transcends the limitations of phenomenality, but which\nis nevertheless immanent everywhere and manifests itself in its full\nglory, and in which we live and move and have our being.\n\nGod or the religious object of Buddhism is generally called\nDharmak\u00e2ya-Buddha and occasionally Vairocana-Buddha or\nVairocana-Dharmak\u00e2ya-Buddha; still another name for it is\nAmit\u00e2bha-Buddha or Amit\u00e2yur-Buddha,--the latter two being mostly\nused by the followers of the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee sect of Japan and China.\n{220} Again, very frequently we find \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni, the Buddha, and the\nTath\u00e2gata stripped of his historical personality and identified with\nthe highest truth and reality. These, however, by no means exhaust a\nlegion of names invented by the fertile imagination of Buddhists for\ntheir object of reverence as called forth by their various spiritual\nneeds.\n\n\n _Dharmak\u00e2ya._\n\nWestern scholars usually translate Dharmak\u00e2ya by \u201cBody of the Law\u201d\nmeaning by the Law the doctrine set forth by \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni the Buddha.\nIt is said that when Buddha was preparing himself to enter into\neternal Nirv\u00e2na, he commanded his disciples to revere the Dharma or\nreligion taught by him as his own person, because a man continues to\nlive in the work, deeds, and words left behind himself. So, Dharmak\u00e2ya\ncame to be understood by Western scholars as meaning the person of\nBuddha incarnated in his religion. This interpretation of the term is\nnot very accurate, however, and is productive of some very serious\nmisinterpretations concerning the fundamental doctrines of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\nHistorically, the Body of the Law as the Buddha incarnate might have\nbeen the sense of Dharmak\u00e2ya, as we can infer from the occasional use\nof the term in some H\u00eenay\u00e2na texts. But as it is used by Eastern\nBuddhists, it has acquired an entirely new significance, having\nnothing to do with the body of religious teachings established by the\nBuddha.\n\n{221}\n\nThis transformation in the conception of Dharmak\u00e2ya has been effected\nby the different interpretation the term Dharma came to receive from\nthe hand of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists. Dharma is a very pregnant word and\ncovers a wide range of meaning. It comes from the root _dh\u1e5b_, which\nmeans \u201cto hold,\u201d \u201cto carry\u201d, \u201cto bear,\u201d and the primitive sense of\ndharma was \u201cthat which carries or bears or supports,\u201d and then it came\nto signify \u201cthat which forms the norm, or regulates the course of\nthings,\u201d that is, \u201claw,\u201d \u201cinstitution,\u201d \u201crule,\u201d \u201cdoctrine,\u201d then,\n\u201cduty,\u201d \u201cjustice,\u201d \u201cvirtue,\u201d \u201cmoral merit,\u201d \u201ccharacter,\u201d \u201cattribute,\u201d\n\u201cessential quality,\u201d \u201csubstance,\u201d \u201cthat which exists,\u201d \u201creality,\u201d\n\u201cbeing,\u201d etc., etc. The English equivalent most frequently used for\ndharma by Oriental scholars is law or doctrine. This may be all right\nas far as the P\u00e2li texts go; but when we wish to apply this\ninterpretation to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na terms, such as Dharmadh\u00e2tu, Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nDharmalak\u1e63a, Dharmaloka, etc., we are placed in an awkward position\nand are at a loss how to get at the meaning of those terms. There are\npassages in Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na literature in which the whole significance of the\ntext depends upon how we understand the word dharma. And it may even\nbe said that one of the many reasons why Christian students of Buddhism\nso frequently fail to recognise the importance of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is due to\ntheir misinterpretation of dharma. Max Mueller, therefore, rightly\nremarks in his introduction to an English translation of the\n_Vajracched\u00eeka S\u00fbtra_, when he says: \u201cIf we {222} were always to\ntranslate dharma by law, it seems to me that the whole drift of our\ntreatise would become unintelligible.\u201d Not only that particular text\nof Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, but its entire literature would become utterly\nincomprehensible.\n\nIn Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism Dharma means in many cases \u201cthing,\u201d \u201csubstance,\u201d or\n\u201cbeing,\u201d or \u201creality,\u201d both in its particular and in its general\nsense, though it is also frequently used in the sense of law or\ndoctrine. K\u00e2ya may be rendered \u201cbody,\u201d not in the sense of personality,\nbut in that of system, unity, and organised form. Dharmak\u00e2ya, the\ncombination of dharma and k\u00e2ya, thus means the organised totality of\nthings or the principle of cosmic unity, though not as a purely\nphilosophical concept, but as an object of the religious consciousness.\nThroughout this work, however, the original Sanskrit form will be\nretained in preference to any English equivalents that have been used\nheretofore; for Dharmak\u00e2ya conveys to the minds of Eastern Buddhists a\npeculiar religious flavor, which, when translated by either God or the\nAll or some abstract philosophical terms, suffers considerably.\n\n\n _Dharmak\u00e2ya as Religious Object._\n\nAs aforesaid, the Dharmak\u00e2ya is not a product of philosophical\nreflection and is not exactly equivalent to Suchness; it has a\nreligious signification as the object of the religious consciousness.\nThe Dharmak\u00e2ya is a soul, a willing and knowing being, one that is\n{223} will and intelligence, thought and action. It is, as understood\nby the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists, not an abstract metaphysical principle like\nSuchness, but it is living spirit, that manifests itself in nature as\nwell as in thought. The universe as an expression of this spirit is\nnot a meaningless display of blind forces, nor is it an arena for the\nstruggle of diverse mechanical powers. Further, Buddhists ascribe to\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya innumerable merits and virtues and an absolute perfect\nintelligence, and makes it an inexhaustible fountain-head of love and\ncompassion; and it is in this that the Dharmak\u00e2ya finally assumes a\ntotally different aspect from a mere metaphysical principle, cold and\nlifeless.\n\nThe _Avatamsaka S\u00fbtra_ gives some comprehensive statements concerning\nthe nature of the Dharmak\u00e2ya as follows:\n\n\u201cThe Dharmak\u00e2ya, though manifesting itself in the triple world, is\nfree from impurities and desires. It unfolds itself here, there, and\neverywhere responding to the call of karma. It is not an individual\nreality, it is not a false existence, but is universal and pure. It\ncomes from nowhere, it goes to nowhere; it does not assert itself, nor\nis it subject to annihilation. It is forever serene and eternal. It is\nthe One, devoid of all determinations. This Body of Dharma has no\nboundary, no quarters, but is embodied in all bodies. Its freedom or\nspontaneity is incomprehensible, its spiritual presence in things\ncorporeal is incomprehensible. All forms of corporeality are involved\ntherein, it is able to create all things. Assuming any concrete {224}\nmaterial body as required by the nature and condition of karma, it\nilluminates all creations. Though it is the treasure of intelligence,\nit is void of particularity. There is no place in the universe where\nthis Body does not prevail. The universe becomes, but this Body\nforever remains. It is free from all opposites and contraries, yet it\nis working in all things to lead them to Nirv\u00e2na.\u201d\n\n\n _More Detailed Characterisation._\n\nThe above gives us a general, concise view as to what the Dharmak\u00e2ya\nis, but let me quote the following more detailed description of it, in\norder that we may more clearly and definitely see into the\ncharacteristically Buddhistic conception of the highest being.[92]\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! The Tath\u00e2gata[93] is not a particular dharma,\nnor a particular form of activity, nor has it a particular body, nor\ndoes it abide in a particular place, nor is its work of salvation\nconfined to one particular people. On the contrary, it involves in\nitself infinite dharmas, infinite activities, infinite bodies, infinite\nspaces, and universally works for the salvation of all things.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! It is like unto space. Space[94] contains in\nitself all material existences and all the vacuums that obtain between\nthem. Again, it establishes {225} itself in all possible quarters, and\nyet we cannot say of it that it is or it is not in this particular\nspot, for space has no palpable form. Even so with the Dharmak\u00e2ya of\nthe Tath\u00e2gata. It presents itself in all places, in all directions,\nin all dharmas, and in all beings; yet the Dharmak\u00e2ya itself has not\nbeen thereby particularised. Because the Body of the Tath\u00e2gata has no\nparticular body but manifests itself everywhere and anywhere in\nresponse to the nature and condition of things.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! It is like unto space. Space is boundless,\ncomprehends in itself all existence, and yet shows no trace of passion\n[partiality]. It is even so with the Dharmak\u00e2ya of the Tath\u00e2gata. It\nilluminates all good works worldly as well as religious, but it\nbetrays no passion or prejudice. Why? Because the Dharmak\u00e2ya is\nperfectly free from all passions and prejudices.[95]\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! It is like unto the Sun. The benefits conferred\nby the light of the sun upon all living beings on earth are\nincalculable: e.g. by dispelling darkness it gives nourishment to all\ntrees, herbs, grains, plants, and grass; it vanquishes humidity; it\nilluminates ether whereby benefitting all the {226} living beings in\nair; its rays penetrate into the waters whereby bringing forth the\nbeautiful lotus-flowers into full blossom; it impartially shines on\nall figures and forms and brings into completion all the works on\nearth. Why? Because from the sun emanate infinite rays of life-giving\nlight.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! It is even so with the Sun-Body of the\nTath\u00e2gata which in innumerable ways bestows benefits upon all beings.\nThat is, it benefits us by destroying evils, all good things thus\nbeing quickened to growth; it benefits us with its universal\nillumination which vanquishes the darkness of ignorance harbored in\nall beings; it benefits us through its great compassionate heart which\nsaves and protects all beings; it benefits us through its great loving\nheart which delivers all beings from the misery of birth and death; it\nbenefits us by the establishment of a good religion whereby we are all\nstrengthened in our moral activities; it benefits us by giving us a\nfirm belief in the truth which cleanses all our spiritual impurities;\nit benefits by helping us to understand the doctrine by virtue of\nwhich we are not led to disavow the law of causation; it benefits us\nwith a divine vision which enables us to observe the metempsychosis of\nall beings; it benefits us by avoiding injurious deeds which may\ndestroy the stock of merits accumulated by all beings; it benefits us\nwith an intellectual light which unfolds the mind-flowers of all\nbeings; it benefits us with an aspiration whereby we are enlivened to\npractice all that constitutes Buddhahood. Why? Because the Sun-Body\n{227} of the Tath\u00e2gata universally emits the rays of the Light of\nIntelligence.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! When the day breaks, the rising sun shines\nfirst on the peaks of all the higher mountains, then on those of high\nmountains, and finally all over the plains and fields; but the sunlight\nitself does not make this thought: I will shine first on all the\nhighest mountains and then gradually ascending higher and higher shine\non the plains and fields. The reason why one gets the sunlight earlier\nthan another is simply because there is a gradation of height on the\nsurface of the earth.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! It is even so with the Tath\u00e2gata who is in\npossession of innumerable and immeasurable suns of universal\nintelligence. The innumerable rays of the Light of Intelligence,\nemanating everlastingly from the spiritual Body of the Tath\u00e2gata,\nwill first fall on the Bodhisattvas and Mah\u00e2sattvas who are the\nhighest peaks among mankind, then on the Nid\u00e2nabuddhas, then on the\n\u00c7r\u00e2vakas, then on those beings who are endowed with definitely good\ncharacter, as they will each according to his own capacity\nunhesitatingly embrace the doctrine of deliverance, and finally on all\ncommon mortals whose character may be either indefinite or definitely\nbad, providing them with those conditions which will prove beneficial\nin their future births. But the Light of Intelligence emanating from\nthe Tath\u00e2gata does not make this thought: \u2018I will first shine on the\nBodhisattvas {228} and then gradually pass over to all common mortals,\netc.\u2019 The Light is universal and illuminates everything without any\nprejudice, yet on account of the diversity that obtains among sentient\nbeings as to their character, aspirations, etc., the Light of\nIntelligence is diversely perceived by them.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! When the sun rises above the horizon, those\npeople born blind, on account their defective sight, cannot see the\nlight at all, but they are nevertheless benefited by the sunlight, for\nit gives them just as much as to any other beings all that is\nnecessary for the maintenance of life: it dispels dampness and\ncoldness and makes them feel agreeable, it destroys all the injurious\ngerms that are produced on account of the absence of sunshine, and\nthus keeps the blind as well as the not-blind comfortable and healthy.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! It is even so with the Sun of Intelligence of\nthe Tath\u00e2gata. All those beings whose spiritual vision is blinded by\nfalse doctrine, or by the violation of Buddha\u2019s precepts, or by\nignorance, or by evil influences, never perceive the Light of\nIntelligence; because they are devoid of faith. But they are\nnevertheless benefited by the Light; for it disperses indiscriminately\nfor all beings the sufferings arising from the four elements, and\ngives them physical comforts; for it destroys the root of all passions,\nprejudices, and pains for unbelievers as well as for believers... By\nvirtue of this omnipresent Light of Intelligence, the Bodhisattvas\nwill attain perfect purity and the {229} knowledge of all things, the\nNid\u00e2nabuddhas and \u00c7ravakas will destroy all passions and desires;\nmortals poorly endowed and those born blind will rid of impurities,\ncontrol the senses, and believe in the four views;[96] and those\ncreatures living in the evil paths of existence such as hell, world of\nghosts, and the animal realm, will be freed from their evils and\ntorture and will, after death, be born in the human or celestial\nworld...\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! The Light of Dharmak\u00e2ya is like unto the full\nmoon which has four wondrous attributes: (1) It outdoes in its\nbrilliance all stars and satellites; (2) It shows in its size increase\nand decrease as observable in the Jambudv\u00eepa; (3) Its reflection is\nseen in every drop or body of clear water; (4) Whoever is endowed with\nperfect sight, perceives it vis-a-vis.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! Even so with the Dharmak\u00e2ya of the Tath\u00e2gata,\nthat has four wondrous attributes: (1) It eclipses the stars of the\nNid\u00e2nabuddhas, \u00c7r\u00e2vakas, etc.; (2) It shows in its earthly life a\ncertain variation which is due to the different natures of the beings\nto whom it manifests itself,[97] while the Dharmak\u00e2ya {230} itself\nis eternal and shows no increase or decrease in any way; (3) Its\nreflection is seen in the Bodhi (intelligence) of every pure-hearted\nsentient being; (4) All who understand the Dharma and obtain\ndeliverance, each according to his own mental calibre, think that they\nhave really recognised in their own way the Tath\u00e2gata face to face,\nwhile the Dharmak\u00e2ya itself is not a particular object of\nunderstanding, but universally brings all Buddha-works into\ncompletion.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! The Dharmak\u00e2ya is like unto the Great Brahmar\u00e2ja\nwho governs three thousand chiliocosms. The R\u00e2ja by a mysterious trick\nmakes himself seen universally by all living beings in his realm and\ncauses them to think that each of them has seen him face to face; but\nthe R\u00e2ja himself has never divided his own person nor is he in\npossession of diverse features.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! Even so with the Tath\u00e2gata; he has never\ndivided himself into many, nor has he ever assumed diverse features.\nBut all beings, each according to his understanding and strength of\nfaith, recognise the Body of the Tath\u00e2gata, while he has never made\nthis thought that he will show himself to such and such particular\npeople and not to others...\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! The Dharmak\u00e2ya is like unto the maniratna in\nthe waters, whose wondrous {231} light transforms everything that\ncomes in contact with it to its own color. The eyes that perceive it\nbecome purified. Wherever its illumination reaches, there is a\nmarvelous display of gems of every description, which gives pleasure\nto all beings to see.\n\n\u201cO ye, sons of Buddha! It is even so with the Dharmak\u00e2ya of the\nTath\u00e2gata, which may rightly be called the treasure of treasures, the\nthesaurus of all merits, and the mine of intelligence. Whoever comes\nin touch with this light, is all transformed into the same color as\nthat of the Buddha. Whoever sees this light, all obtains the purest\neye of Dharma. Whoever comes in touch with this light, rids of poverty\nand suffering, attains wealth and eminence, enjoys the bliss of the\nincomparable Bodhi\u201d......\n\n\n _Dharmak\u00e2ya and Individual Beings._\n\nFrom these statements it is evident that the Dharmak\u00e2ya or the Body\nof the Tath\u00e2gata, or the Body of Intelligence, whatever it may be\ndesignated, is not a mere philosophical abstraction, standing aloof\nfrom this world of birth and death, of joy and sorrow, calmly\ncontemplates on the folly of mankind; but that it is a spiritual\nexistence which is \u201cabsolutely one, is real and true, and forms the\nraison d\u2019\u00eatre of all beings, transcends all modes of up\u00e2ya, is free\nfrom desires and struggles [or compulsion], and stands outside the\npale of our finite understanding.\u201d[98] It is {232} also evident that\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya though itself free from ignorance (_avidy\u00e2_) and\npassion (_kle\u00e7a_) and desire (_t\u1e5b\u1e63n\u00e2_), is revealed in the finite and\nfragmental consciousness of human being, so that we can say in a sense\nthat \u201cthis body of mine is the Dharmak\u00e2ya\u201d--though not absolutely; and\nalso in a generalised form that \u201cthe body of all beings is the\nDharmak\u00e2ya, and the Dharmak\u00e2ya is the body of all beings,\u201d--though in\nthe latter only imperfectly and fractionally realised. As we thus\npartake something in ourselves of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, we all are ultimately\ndestined to attain Buddhahood when the human intelligence, Bodhi, is\nperfectly identified with, or absorbed in, that of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, and\nwhen our earthly life becomes the realisation of the will of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya.\n\n\n _The Dharmak\u00e2ya as Love._\n\nHere an important consideration forces itself upon us which is, that\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya is not only an intelligent mind but a loving heart,\nthat it is not only a god of rigorism who does not allow a hair\u2019s\nbreadth deviation from the law of karma, but also an incarnation of\nmercy that is constantly belaboring to develop the most insignificant\nmerit into a field yielding rich harvests. The Dharmak\u00e2ya relentlessly\npunishes the wrong and does not permit the exhaustion of their karma\nwithout sufficient reason; and yet its hands are always directing our\nlife toward the actualisation {233} of supreme goodness. \u201cPangs of\nnature, sins of will, defects of doubt, and stains of\nblood,\u201d--discouraging and gloomy indeed is the karma of evil-doers!\nBut the Dharmak\u00e2ya, infinite in love and goodness, is incessantly\nmanaging to bring this world-transaction to a happy terminus. Every\ngood we do is absorbed in the universal stock of merits which is no\nmore nor less than the Dharmak\u00e2ya. Every act of lovingkindness we\npractice is conceived in the womb of Tath\u00e2gata, and therein nourished\nand matured, is again brought out to this world of karma to bear its\nfruit. Therefore, no life walks on earth with aimless feet; no chaff\nis thrown into the fire unquenchable. Every existence, great or\ninsignificant, is a reflection of the glory of the Dharmak\u00e2ya and as\nsuch worthy of its all-embracing love.\n\nFor further corroboration of this view let us cite at random from a\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na sutra:[99]\n\n\n \u201cWith one great loving heart\n The thirsty desires of all beings he quencheth with coolness\n  refreshing;\n With compassion, of all doth he think,\n Which like space knows no bounds;\n Over the world\u2019s all creation\n With no thought of particularity he revieweth.\n\n \u201cWith a great heart compassionate and loving,\n All sentient beings by him are embraced;\n With means (_up\u00e2ya_) which are pure, free from stain, and all\n  excellent,\n He doth save and deliver all creatures innumerable.\n\n{234}\n\n \u201cWith unfathomable love and with compassion\n All creations caressed by him universally;\n Yet free from attachment his heart is.\n\n \u201cAs his compassion is great and is infinite,\n Bliss unearthly on every being he confereth,\n And himself showeth all over the universe;\n He\u2019ll not rest till all Buddhahood truly attains.\u201d\n\n\n _Later Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists\u2019 view of the Dharmak\u00e2ya._\n\nThe above has been quoted almost exclusively from the so-called s\u00fbtra\nliterature of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism, which is distinguished from the\nother religio-philosophical treatises of the school, because the\ns\u00fbtras are considered to be the accounts of Buddha himself as recorded\nby his immediate disciples.[100] Let us now see by way of further\nelucidation what views were held concerning the Dharmak\u00e2ya by such\nwriters as Asanga, Vasubandhu, etc.\n\nWe read in the _General Treatise on Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism_ by Asanga and\nVasubandhu the following statement:\n\n\u201cWhen the Bodhisattvas think of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, how have they to\npicture it to themselves?\n\n\u201cBriefly stated, they will think of the Dharmak\u00e2ya by picturing to\nthemselves its seven characteristics, which constitute the faultless\nvirtues and essential {235} functions of the K\u00e2ya. (1) Think of the\nfree, unrivaled, unimpeded activity of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, which is\nmanifested in all beings; (2) Think of the eternality of all perfect\nvirtues in the Dharmak\u00e2ya; (3) Think of its absolute freedom from all\nprejudice, intellectual and affective; (4) Think of those spontaneous\nactivities that uninterruptedly emanate from the will of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya; (5) Think of the inexhaustible wealth, spiritual and\nphysical, stored in the Body of the Dharma; (6) Think of its\nintellectual purity which has no stain of onesidedness; (7) Think of\nthe earthly works achieved for the salvation of all beings by the\nTath\u00e2gatas who are reflexes of the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\u201d\n\nAs regards the activity of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, which is shown in every\nBuddha\u2019s work of salvation, Asanga enumerates five forms of operation:\n(1) It is shown in his power of removing evils which may befall us in\nthe course of life, though the Buddha is unable to cure any physical\ndefects which we may have, such as blindness, deafness, mental\naberration, etc. (2) It is shown in his irresistible spiritual\ndomination over all evil-doers, who, base as they are, cannot help\ndoing some good if they ever come in the presence of the Buddha. (3)\nIt is shown in his power of destroying various unnatural and\nirrational methods of salvation which are practiced by followers of\nasceticism, hedonism, or Ishvaraism. (4) It is shown in his power of\ncuring those diseased minds that believe in the reality, permanency,\nand indivisibility of the ego-soul, that is, in the pudgalav\u00e2da. (5)\nIt is shown in his inspiring {236} influence over those Bodhisattvas\nwho have not yet attained to the stage of immovability as well as over\nthose \u00c7r\u00e2vakas whose faith and character are still in a state of\nvacillation.\n\n\n _The Freedom of the Dharmak\u00e2ya._\n\nThose spiritual influences over all beings of the Dharmak\u00e2ya through\nthe enlightened mind of a Buddha, which we have seen above as stated\nby Asanga, are fraught with religious significance. According to the\nBuddhist view, those spiritual powers everlastingly emanating from the\nBody of Dharma have no trace of human elaboration or constrained\neffort, but they are a spontaneous overflow from its immanent\nnecessity, or, as I take it, from its free will. The Dharmak\u00e2ya does\nnot make any conscious, struggling efforts to shower upon all sentient\ncreatures its innumerable merits, benefits, and blessings. If there\nwere in it any trace of elaboration, that would mean a struggle within\nitself of divers tendencies, one trying to gain ascendency over\nanother. And it is apparent that any struggle and its necessary ally,\ncompulsion, are incompatible with our conception of the highest\nreligious reality. Absolute spontaneity and perfect freedom is one of\nthose necessary attributes which our religious consciousness cannot\nhelp ascribing to its object of reverence. Buddhists therefore\nrepeatedly affirm that the activity of the Dharmak\u00e2ya is perfectly\nfree from all effort and coercion, external and internal. Its every\nact of creation or salvation {237} or love emanates from its own free\nwill, unhampered by any struggling exertion which characterises the\ndoings of mankind. This free will which is divine, standing in such a\nstriking contrast with our own \u201cfree will\u201d which is human and at best\nvery much limited, is called by the Buddhists the Dharmak\u00e2ya\u2019s\n\u201cPurvapranidh\u00e2nabala.\u201d[101]\n\nAs the Dharmak\u00e2ya works of its own accord it does not seek any\nrecompense for its deed; and it is evident that every act of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya is always for the best welfare of its creatures, for they\nare its manifestations and it must know what they need. We do not have\nto ask for our \u201cdaily bread,\u201d {238} nor have we to praise or eulogise\nits virtues to court its special grace, nor is there any necessity for\nus to offer prayer or supplication to the Dharmak\u00e2ya. Consider the\nlilies of the field which neither toil nor spin,--and I might\nadd,--which ask not for any favoritism from above; yet are they not\narrayed even better than Solomon in all his glory? The Dharmak\u00e2ya\nshines in its august magnificence everywhere there is life, nay, even\nwhere there is death. We are all living in the midst of it and yet,\nstrange to say, as \u201cthe fish knows not the presence of water about\nitself,\u201d and also as \u201cthe mountaineers recognise not the mountains\namong which they hunt,\u201d even so we know not whence that power comes\nwhose work is made manifest in us and whither it finally leadeth us.\nIn spite of this profound ignorance, we really feel that we are here,\nand thereby we rest supremely contented. For we believe that all this\nis wrought through the mysterious and miraculous will of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya, who does all excellent works and seeks no recompense\nwhatever.\n\n\n _The Will of the Dharmak\u00e2ya._\n\nSummarily speaking, the Dharmak\u00e2ya assumes three essential aspects as\nreflected in our religious consciousness: first, it is intelligence\n(_praj\u00f1\u00e2_); secondly, it is love (_karun\u00e2_); and thirdly, it is the\nwill (_pranidh\u00e2nabala_). We know that it is intelligence from the\ndeclaration that the Dharmak\u00e2ya directs the course of the universe,\nnot blindly but rationally; we know again that it is love because it\nembraces all {239} beings with fatherly tenderness;[102] and finally\nwe must assume that it is a will, because the Dharmak\u00e2ya has firmly\nset down its aim of activity in that good shall be the final goal of\nall evil in the universe. Without the will, love and intelligence will\nnot be realised; without love, the will and intelligence will lose\ntheir impulse; without intelligence, love and the will will be\nirrational. In fact, the three are co-ordinates and constitute the\noneness of the Dharmak\u00e2ya; and by oneness I mean the absolute, and\nnot the numerical, unity of all these three things in the being of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya, for intelligence and love and the will are differentiated\nas such only in our human, finite consciousness.\n\nSome Buddhists may not agree entirely with the view here expounded.\nThey may declare: \u201cWe conform to your view when you say the Dharmak\u00e2ya\nis intelligence and love, as this is expressly stated in the s\u00fbtras\nand \u00e7\u00e2stras; but we do not see how it could be made a will. Indeed,\nthe Scriptures say that the Dharmak\u00e2ya is in possession of the\nPranidh\u00e2nabala, but this bala or power is not necessarily the will, it\nis the power of prayers or intense vows. The Dharmak\u00e2ya actually made\nsolemn vows, and their spiritual energy abiding in the world of\nparticulars works out its original plan and makes possible the\nuniversal salvation of all creatures.\u201d\n\nIt is quite true that the word pranidh\u00e2nabala means {240} literally\n\u201cthe power of original prayers.\u201d But this literary rendering totally\nignores its inner significance without which the nature of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya would become unintelligible. We admit that the Dharmak\u00e2ya\nknows no higher existence by which it is conditioned, nor has it any\nfragmentary, limited consciousness like that of human being, nor has\nit any intrinsic want by which it is necessitated to appeal to\nsomething other than itself. It is, therefore, utterly nonsensical to\nspeak of its prayer, \u201coriginal\u201d or borrowed, as some Buddhists are\ninclined to think. On the other hand, we are perfectly justified in\nsaying that whatever is done by the Dharmak\u00e2ya is done by its own\nfree will independent of all the determinations that might affect it\nfrom outside.\n\nBut I can presume the reason why they speak of the prayers of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya instead of its will. Here we have an instance of emotional\noutburst. The fervency of the intense religious sentiment not\ninfrequently carries us beyond the limits of the intellect, landing us\nin a region full of mysteries and contradictions. It anthropomorphises\neverything beyond the proper measure of intellection and ascribes all\nearthly human feelings and passions to an object which the mind\nwell-balanced demands to be above all the forms of human helplessness.\nThe Buddhists, especially those of the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee sect,[103] recognise\nthe existence {241} of an all-powerful will, all-embracing love, and\nall-knowing intelligence in the Dharmak\u00e2ya, but they want to represent\nit more concretely and in a more humanly fashion before the mental\nvision of the less intellectual followers. The result thus is that the\nDharmak\u00e2ya in spite of its absoluteness made prayers to himself to\nemancipate all sentient beings from the sufferings of birth and death.\nBut are not these self-addressed prayers of the Dharmak\u00e2ya which\nsprang out of its inmost nature exactly what constitutes its will?\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n THE DOCTRINE OF TRIK\u00c2YA.\n\n{242}\n\n (/Buddhist Theory of Trinity/.)\n\n\n _The Human and the Super-human Buddha._\n\n/One/ of the most remarkable differences between the P\u00e2li and the\nSanskrit, that is, between the H\u00eenay\u00e2na and the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhist\nliterature, is in the manner of introducing the characters or persons\nwho take principal parts in the narratives. In the former, sermons are\ndelivered by the Buddha as a rule in such a natural and plain language\nas to make the reader feel the presence of the teacher,\nfatherly-hearted and philosophically serene; while in the latter\ngenerally we have a mysterious, transcendent figure, more celestial\nthan human, surrounded and worshipped by beings of all kinds, human,\ncelestial, and even demoniac, and this mystical central character\nperforming some supernatural feats which might well be narrated by an\nintensely poetical mind.\n\nIn the P\u00e2li scriptures, the texts as a rule open with the formula,\n\u201cThus it was heard by me\u201d (_Evam me sutam_), then relate the events,\nif any, which induced the Buddha to deliver them, and finally lead the\nreader to the main subjects which are generally written in {243} lucid\nstyle. Their opening or introductory matter is very simple, and we do\nnot notice anything extraordinary in its further development. But with\nthe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na texts it is quite different. Here we have, as soon as\nthe curtain rises with the stereotyped formula, \u201cEvam may\u00e2 \u00e7rutam,\u201d\na majestic prologue dramatically or rather grotesquely represented,\nwhich prepares the mind of the audience to the succeeding scenes, in\nwhich some of the boldest religio-philosophical proclamations are\nbrought forth. The perusal of this introductory part alone will\nstupefy the reader by its rather monstrous grandeur, and he may\nwithout much ado declare that what follows must be extraordinary and\nmay be even nonsensical.\n\nThe following is an illustration showing the typical manner of\nintroducing the characters in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na texts.[104]\n\n\u201cThus it was heard by me. Buddha was once staying at R\u00e2jagriha, on\nthe Gridhrakuta mountain. He was in the Hall of Ratnachandra in the\nDouble Tower of Chandana. Ten years passed since his attainment of\nBuddhahood. He was surrounded by a hundred thousand Bhik\u1e63us and\nBodhisattvas and Mah\u00e2sattvas numbering sixty times as many as the\nsands of the Ganges. All of them were in possession of the greatest\nspiritual energy; they had paid homage to thousands of hundred\nmillions {244} of niyutas[105] of Buddhas; they were able to set\nrolling the never-sliding-back Wheel of Dharma; and whoever heard\ntheir names could establish themselves firmly in the Highest Perfect\nKnowledge. Their names were.... [Here about fifty Bodhisattvas are\nmentioned.]\n\n\u201cAll these Bodhisattvas numbering sixty times as many as the sands of\nthe Ganges coming from innumerable Buddha-countries were accompanied\nby numberless Devas, N\u00e2gas, Yak\u1e63as, Gandharvas, A\u00e7uras, Garudas,\nKinnaras, and Mahoragas.[106] This great assembly all joined in\nrevering, honoring, paying homage to the Bhagavat, the World-honored\nOne.\n\n\u201cAt this time the Bhagavat in the Double Tower of Chandana seated\nhimself in the assigned seat, entered upon a sam\u00e2dhi, and displayed a\nmarvelous phenomenon. There appeared innumerable lotus-flowers with\nthousand-fold petals and each flower as large as a carriage-wheel.\nThey had perfectly beautiful color and fragrant odour, but their\npetals containing celestial beings in them were not yet unfolded. They\nall were raised now by themselves high up in the heavens and hung over\nthe earth like a canopy of pearls. Each one of these lotus-flowers\nemitted innumerable rays of light and simultaneously grew in size with\nwonderful vitality. But through the divine power of Buddha they all of\n{245} a sudden changed color and withered. All the celestial Buddhas\nsitting cross-legged within the flowers now came into full view, shone\nwith innumerable hundred thousand-fold rays of light. At this moment\nthe transcendent glory of the spot was beyond description.\u201d...\n\nAs is here thus clearly shown, the Buddha in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na scriptures\nis not an ordinary human being walking in a sensuous world; he is\naltogether dissimilar to that son of Suddhodana, who resigned the\nroyal life, wandered in the wilderness, and after six years\u2019 profound\nmeditation and penance discovered the Fourfold Noble Truth and the\nTwelve Chains of Dependence; and we cannot but think that the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nBuddha is the fictitious creation of an intensely poetic mind. Let it\nbe so. But the question which engages us now is, \u201cHow did the\nBuddhists come to relegate the human Buddha to oblivion, as it were,\nand assign a mysterious being in his place invested with all possible\nor sometimes impossible majesty and supernaturality?\u201d This question,\nwhich marks the rise of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism, brings us to the doctrine\nof Trik\u00e2ya,--which in a sense corresponds to the Christian theory of\ntrinity.\n\nAccording to this doctrine, the Buddhists presume a triple existence\nof the Tath\u00e2gata, that is, the Tath\u00e2gata is conceived by them as\nmanifesting himself in three different forms of existence: the Body of\nTransformation, the Body of Bliss, and the Body of Dharma. Though they\nare conceived as three, they are in fact all the manifestations of one\nDharmak\u00e2ya,--the Dharmak\u00e2ya that revealed itself in the historical\n\u00c7\u00e2kyamuni {246} Buddha as a Body of Transformation, and in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nBuddha as a Body of Bliss. However differently they may appear from\nthe human point of view, they are nothing but the expression of one\neternal truth, in which all things have their _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_.\n\n\n _An Historical View._\n\nAt present we are not in possession of any historical documents that\nwill throw light on the question as to how early this doctrine of\nTrik\u00e2ya or Buddhist trinity conception came to be firmly established\namong Northern Buddhists and found its way in an already-finished form\nas such into the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na scriptures. As far as we know, it was\nA\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, the first Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na philosopher, who incorporated this\nconception in his _Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na_\nas early as the first century before Christ. This work, as the author\ndeclares, is a sort of synopsis of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na teachings, elucidating\ntheir principal features as taught by the Buddha in his various s\u00fbtras.\nIt is not an original work which expounds the individual views of\nA\u00e7vagho\u1e63a concerning Buddhism. He wrote the book in a concise and\ncomprehensive form, in order that the later generations who remote\nfrom the Buddha could not have the privilege of being inspired by his\naugust presence, might peruse it with concentration of mind and\nsynthetically grasp the whole significance of many lengthy and\nvoluminous s\u00fbtras. Therefore, in the _Awakening of Faith_, we are\nsupposed {247} not to find any Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrines that were not\nalready taught by the Buddha and incorporated in the s\u00fbtras.\nEverything A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a treats in his work must be considered merely a\nrecapitulation of the doctrines which were not only formulated but\nfirmly established as the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na faith long before him. His is\nsimply the work of a recorder. He carefully scanned all the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nscriptures that had existed prior to his time and faithfully collected\nall the principal teachings of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism here and there scatteringly\ntold in them. His merit lies in compilation and systematisation.\n\nThis being the case, we must assume that all the doctrines that are\nfound in A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a and distinct from those usually held to be\nH\u00eenay\u00e2nistic are the teachings elaborated by Buddhists from the time\nof Buddha\u2019s death down to the time of A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a. But as the latter\napparently believes all these doctrines as Buddha\u2019s own and raises no\ndoubt concerning their later origin, even if they were so, we must\nassume again that these doctrines were in a state of completion long\nbefore A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a\u2019s time. If our calculation is correct that he lived\nin the first century before Christ, the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na faith must be said to\nhave been formulated at least two hundred years prior to his\nage,--taking this presumably as the time that is required for the\nformulation and dogmatical establishment of a doctrine. This\ncalculation places the development of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na faith during the\nfirst century after the Buddha, and, we know, it was during this time\nthat so many schools and divisions,--among {248} which we must also\nfind the so-called \u201cprimitive\u201d Buddhism of Ceylon, arose among the\nBuddhists,--each claiming to be the only authentic transmission of the\nBuddha\u2019s teaching. Did Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism come out of this turmoil of\ncontention? Did it boldly raise itself from this chaos and claim to\nhave solved all the questions and doubts that agitated the minds of\nBuddhists after the Nirv\u00e2na? For certain we do not know anything\nconcerning the chronology of the development of Buddhist philosophy\nand dogmas in India, at least before A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a; but, as far as our\nChinese Buddhist literature records, we must conclude that this was\nmost probably the case.\n\nTo give our readers a glimpse of the state of things that were taking\nplace in those early days of Buddhism in India, I will quote some\npassages from Vasumitra\u2019s _Discourse on the Points of Controversy by\nthe Different Schools of Buddhism_,--the work once referred to in the\nbeginning of this book. The two principal schools that arose soon\nafter the Nirv\u00e2na of the Buddha were, as is well known, the Elders\nand the Great Council, and though they were further divided into a\nnumber of smaller sections and their views became so complex and\nintermixed that some of the Elders shared similar views with the Great\nCouncil School and vice versa, yet we can fairly distinguish one from\nthe other and describe the essential peculiarities of each school.\nThese points of difference, generally speaking, are as follows,\nconfining ourselves to their conceptions about the Buddha:\n\n{249}\n\n(1) According to the School of the Great Council, the Buddha\u2019s\npersonality is transcendental (_lokottara_), and all the Tath\u00e2gatas\nare free from the defilements that might come from the material\nexistence (_bh\u00e2va-\u00e2\u00e7rava_).[107] For in the Buddha all evil passions\nhereditary and acquired were eternally uprooted, and his presence on\nearth was absolutely spotless. (_The Vibha\u1e63a_, CLXXIII.) Contending\nthis view, the Elders held that the Buddha\u2019s personality was not free\nfrom Bh\u00e2v\u00e2\u00e7rava, though his mind was fully enlightened. His corporeal\nexistence was the product of blind love veiled with ignorance and\ntangled with attachment. If this were not so, the Buddha\u2019s feature\nwould not have awakened an impure affection in the heart of a maiden,\nan ill-will in the heart of a highwayman, stupidity in the mind of an\nascetic, and arrogance in that of a haughty Brahman. These incidents\nwhich {250} happened during the life of the Buddha evince that his\ncorporeal presence was apt to agitate others\u2019 hearts, and to that\nextent it was contaminated by Bh\u00e2v\u00e2\u00e7rava.\n\n(2) The Great Council School insists that every word uttered by a\nTath\u00e2gata has a religious, spiritual meaning and purports to the\nedification of his fellow-beings; that his one utterance is variously\ninterpreted by his audience each according to his own disposition, but\nall to his spiritual welfare; that every instruction given out by the\nBuddha is rational and perfect. Against these views the Elders think\nthat the Buddha occasionally uttered things which had nothing to do\nwith the enlightenment of others; that even with the Buddha something\nwas out of his attainment, for instance, he could not make every one\nof his hearers perfectly understand his preachings; that though the\nBuddha never taught anything irrational and heretical, yet all his\nspeeches were not perfect, he said some things which had no concern\nwith rationality or orthodoxy.\n\n(3) The corporeal body (_r\u00fbpak\u00e2ya_) of the Buddha has no limits\n(_ko\u1e6di_); his majestic power has no limits; every Buddha\u2019s life is\nunlimited; a Buddha knows no fatigue, knows not when to rest, always\noccupying himself with the enlightenment of all sentient beings and\nwith the awakening in their hearts of pure faith. Against these\ntendencies of the Great Council School to deify the historical Buddha,\nthe Elders generally insist on the humanity of Buddhahood. Though the\n{251} Elders agree with the Great Council in that the body assumed by\nthe Buddha as the result of his untiring accumulation of good karma\nthrough eons of his successive existences possesses a wonderful power,\nspiritual and material, they do not conceive it to be beyond all\nlimitations.\n\n(4) The Great Council School says that with the Buddha sleep is not\nnecessary and he has no dreams. The Elders admit that the Buddha never\ndreams, but denies that he does not need any sleep.\n\n(5) As the Buddha is always in the state of a deep, exalted spiritual\nmeditation, it is not necessary for him to think what to say when\nrequested to answer certain questions. Though he might appear to the\ninquirers as if he thoroughly cogitates over the problems presented to\nhim for solution, the Buddha\u2019s response is in fact immediate and\nwithout any efforts. The Elders, on the other hand, presume the\nBuddha\u2019s mental calculation as to how to express his ideas as best\nsuited to the understanding of the audience. Indeed, he does not\ncogitate over the problem itself, for with him everything is\ntransparent, but he thinks over the best method of presenting his\nideas before his pupils.[108]\n\n{252}\n\nNow to return to the doctrine of Dharmak\u00e2ya and Trik\u00e2ya. When we\nconsider these controversies as above stated, it is apparent that\namong many other questions which arose soon after the demise of the\nBuddha \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni, there was one, which in all probability most\nagitated the minds of his disciples. I mean the question of the\npersonality of Buddha. Was he merely a human being like ourselves?\nThen, how could he reach such a height of moral perfection? Or was he\na divine being? But Buddha himself did not communicate anything to his\ndisciples concerning his divinity, nor did he tell them to accept the\nDharma on account of his divine personality, but solely for the sake\nof truth. But for all that how could the disciples ever eradicate from\ntheir hearts the feeling of sacred reverence for their teacher, which\nwas so indelibly engraved there? Whenever they recalled the sermons,\nanecdotes, or g\u00e2th\u00e2s of their master, the truth and spirit embodied\nin them and the author must have become so closely associated that\nthey could not but ask themselves: \u201cWhat in the Buddha caused him to\nperceive and declare these solemn profound truths? What was it that\nformed in him such a noble majestic character? What was there in the\nmind of Buddha that raised him to such a perfection of intellectual\nand religious life? How was it possible that, possessed of such\nexalted moral and spiritual virtues, Buddha too had to succumb to the\nlaw of birth and death that is the lot of common mortals?\u201d Some such\nquestions must have been repeatedly asked before they {253} could\nanswer them by the doctrines of Dharmak\u00e2ya and Trik\u00e2ya.\n\n\n _Who was the Buddha?_\n\nThe evidence that these questions were constantly disturbing the minds\nof the disciples ever since the Master\u2019s entrance into Parinirv\u00e2na,\nis scatteringly revealed throughout the Buddhist texts both Southern\nand Northern. The regret of the immediate followers that they did not\nask the Buddha to prolong his earthly life, while the Buddha told them\nthat he could do so if he wished, and their lamentation over the\nremains of the Blessed One, \u201cHow soon the Light of the World has\npassed away!\u201d[109]--these utterances may be considered the first\ndrops foreboding the showers of doubt and speculation as to his\npersonality.\n\nAccording to the _Suvarna Prabh\u00e2 S\u00fbtra_,[110] a Bodhisattva, by the\nname of Ruciraketu, was greatly annoyed by the doubt why \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni\nTath\u00e2gata had such a short life terminating only at eighty. He {254}\ntaught the disciples that those who did not injure any living beings,\nand those who generously practised charity, in their former lives,\ncould enjoy a considerably long life on earth; why then was the life\nof the Blessed One himself cut so short, who practised those virtues\nfrom time immemorial? The s\u00fbtra now records that this doubt was\ndispelled by the declaration of four Tath\u00e2gatas who mysteriously\nappeared to the sceptic and told him that \u201cEvery drop of water in the\nvast ocean can be counted, but the age of \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni none can\nmeasure. Crush the mount Sumeru into particles as fine as mustard\nseeds and we can count them, but the age of \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni none can\nmeasure..... the Buddha never entered into Parinirvana; the Good\nDharma will never perish. He showed an earthly death merely for the\nbenefits of sentient beings.\u201d.....\n\nHere we have the conception of a spiritual Dharmak\u00e2ya germinating out\nof the corporeal death of \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni.[111] Here we have the bridge\nthat spans {255} the wide gap between the human \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni Buddha and\nthe spiritual existence of the Dharmak\u00e2ya. The Buddha did not die\nafter he partook of the food offered by Chunda. His age was not\neighty. His life did not pass to an airy nothingness when his cinerary\nurns were divided among kings and Brahmans. His virtues and merits\nwhich were accumulated throughout innumerable kalpas, could not come\nto naught so abruptly. What constituted the essence of his life--and\nthat of ours too--could not perish with the vicissitudes of the\ncorporeal existence. The Buddha as a particular individual being was\ncertainly subject to transformation--so is every mortal, but his truth\nmust abide forever. His Dharmak\u00e2ya is above birth and death and even\nabove Nirv\u00e2na; but his Body of Transformation comes out of the womb\nof Tath\u00e2gata as destined by karma and vanishes into it when the karma\nexhausts its force. The Buddha who is still seated at the summit of\nthe Gridhrakuta, delivering to all beings the message of joy and\nbliss, and who among other precious teachings bequeathed to us {256}\nsuch s\u00fbtras as the _Avatamsaka_, the _Pundar\u00eeka_, etc., is no more\nnor less than an expression of the eternal spirit. Thus came the\ndoctrine of Dharmak\u00e2ya to be formulated by the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists, and\nfrom this the transition to that of Trik\u00e2ya was but a natural sequence.\nBecause one without the other could not give an adequate solution of\nthe problems above cited.\n\n\n _The Trik\u00e2ya as Explained in the Suvarna Prabh\u00e2._\n\nWhat then is the Trik\u00e2ya or triple body of the Tath\u00e2gata? It is (1)\nNirm\u00e2na K\u00e2ya, the Body of Transformation; (2): Sambhoga K\u00e2ya, the Body\nof Bliss; and (3) Dharma K\u00e2ya, the Body of Dharma. If we draw a\nparallelism between the Buddhist and the Christian trinity, the Body\nof Transformation may be considered to correspond to Christ in the\nflesh, the Body of Bliss either to Christ in glory or to Holy Ghost,\nand Dharmak\u00e2ya to Godhead.\n\nLet us again quote from the _Suvarna Prabh\u00e2_, in which (I-tsing\u2019s\ntranslation, chap. III.) we find the following statements concerning\nthe doctrine of Trik\u00e2ya.\n\n\u201cThe Tath\u00e2gata, when he was yet at the stage of discipline, practised\ndivers deeds of morality for the sake of sentient beings. The practise\nfinally attained perfection, reached maturity, and by virtue of its\nmerits he acquired a wonderful spiritual power. The power enabled him\nto respond to the thoughts, deeds, and livings of sentient beings. He\nthoroughly understood them and never missed the right opportunity\n{257} [to respond to their needs]. He revealed himself in the right\nplace and in the right moment; he acted rightly, assuming various\nbodily forms [in response to the needs of mortal souls]. These bodily\nforms are called the Nirm\u00e2nak\u00e2ya of the Tath\u00e2gata.\n\n\u201cBut when the Tath\u00e2gatas, in order to make the Bodhisattvas thoroughly\nconversant with the Dharma, to instruct them in the highest reality,\nto let them understand that birth-and-death (_sams\u00e2ra_) and Nirv\u00e2na\nare of one taste, to destroy the thoughts of the ego, individuality,\nand the fear [of transmigration], and to promote happiness, to lay\nfoundation for innumerable Buddha-dharmas, to be truly in accord with\nSuchness, the knowledge of Suchness, and the Spontaneous Will,\nmanifest themselves to the Bodhisattvas in a form which is perfect\nwith the thirty-two major and eighty minor features of excellence and\nshining with the halo around the head and the back, the Tath\u00e2gatas are\nsaid to have assumed the Body of Bliss or Sambhogak\u00e2ya.[112]\n\n\u201cWhen all possible obstacles arising from sins [material, intellectual,\nand emotional] are perfectly removed, and when all possible good\ndharmas are preserved, there would remain nothing but Suchness and the\nknowledge of Suchness,--this is the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\n\u201cThe first two forms of the Tath\u00e2gata are provisional [and temporal]\nexistences; but the last one is a reality, wherein the former two find\nthe reason of {258} their existence. Why? Because when deprived of the\nDharma of Suchness and of knowledge of non-particularity, no\nBuddha-dharma can ever exist; because it is Suchness and Knowledge of\nSuchness that absorbs within itself all possible forms of\nBuddha-wisdom and renders possible a complete extinction of all\npassions and sins [arising from particularity].\u201d\n\nAccording to the above, the Dharmak\u00e2ya which is tantamount to Suchness\nor Knowledge of Suchness is absolute; but like the moon whose image is\nreflected in a drop of water as well as in the boundless expanse of\nthe waves, the Dharmak\u00e2ya assumes on itself all possible aspects from\nthe grossest material form to the subtlest spiritual existence. When\nit responds to the needs of the Bodhisattvas whose spiritual life is\non a much higher plane than that of ordinary mortals, it takes on\nitself the Body of Bliss or Sambhogak\u00e2ya. This Body is a supernatural\nexistence, and almost all the Buddhas in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na scriptures\nbelong to this class of being. A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a (p. 101) says: \u201cThe Body has\ninfinite forms. The form has infinite attributes. The attribute has\ninfinite excellences. And the accompanying fruition, that is, the\nregion where they are destined to be born [by their previous karma],\nalso has infinite merits and ornamentations. Manifesting itself\neverywhere, the Body of Bliss is infinite, boundless, limitless,\nunintermittent [in its activity] which comes directly from the Mind\n[Dharmak\u00e2ya].\u201d\n\nBut the Buddhas revealed to the eyes of common {259} mortals are not\nof this kind. They are common mortals themselves, and the earthly\n\u00c7\u00e2kyamuni who came out of the womb of M\u00e2y\u00e2dev\u00ee and passed away under\nthe s\u00e2la trees at the age of eighty years was one of them. He was\nessentially a manifestation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, and as such we ordinary\npeople also partake something of him. But the masses, unless favored\nby good karma accumulated in the past, are generally under the spell\nof ignorance. They do not see the glory of Dharmak\u00e2ya in its perfect\npurity shining in the lilies of the field and sung by the fowls of the\nair. They are blindly groping in the dark wilderness, they are vainly\nseeking, they are wildly knocking. To the needs of these people the\nDharmak\u00e2ya responds by assuming an earthly form as a human Buddha.\n\n\n _Revelation in All Stages of Culture._\n\n_En passant_, let us remark that it is in this sense that Christ is\nconceived by Buddhists also as a manifestation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya in a\nhuman form. He is a Buddha and as such not essentially different from\n\u00c7\u00e2kyamuni. The Dharmak\u00e2ya revealed itself as \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni to the Indian\nmind, because that was in harmony with its needs. The Dharmak\u00e2ya\nappeared in the person of Christ on the Semitic stage, because it\nsuited their taste best in this way. The doctrine of Trik\u00e2ya, however,\ngoes even further and declares that demons, animal gods,\nancestor-worship, nature-worship, and what not, are all due to the\nactivity and revelation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya responding to the spiritual\nneeds of barbarous {260} and half-cultured people. The Buddhists think\nthat the Dharmak\u00e2ya never does things that are against the spiritual\nwelfare of its creatures, and that whatever is done by it is for their\nbest interests at that moment of revelation, no matter how they\ncomprehend the nature of the Dharmak\u00e2ya. The Great Lord of Dharma\nnever throws a pearl before the swine, for he knows the animal\u2019s needs\nare for things more substantial. He does not reveal himself in an\nexalted spiritual form to the people whose hearts are not yet capable\nof grasping anything beyond the grossly material. As they understand\nanimal gods better than a metaphysical or highly abstracted being, let\nthem have them and derive all possible blessings and benefits through\ntheir worshiping. But as soon as they become dissatisfied with the\nanimal or human-fashioned gods, there must not be a moment\u2019s hesitation\nto let them have exactly what their enlightened understanding can\ncomprehend.[113] {261} They are thus all the while being led, though\nunconsciously on their part, to the higher and higher region of\nmystery, till they come fully to grasp the true and real meaning of\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya in its absolute purity, or, to use Christian\nterminology, till \u201cwe all, with open face beholding as in a glass the\nglory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory, even as\nby the Spirit of the Lord.\u201d (2 Cor III. 18.)\n\nThe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists now argue that the reason why \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni entered into\nParinirvana when his worldly career was thought by him to be over is\nthat by this his resignation to the law of birth and death, he wished\nto exemplify in him the impermanency of worldly life and the folly of\nclinging to it as final reality. As for his Dharmak\u00e2ya, it has an\neternal life, it was never born, and it would never perish; and when\ncalled by the spiritual needs of the Bodhisattvas, it will cast off\nthe garb of absoluteness and preach in the form of a Sambhogak\u00e2ya\n\u201cnever-ceasing sermons which run like a stream for ever and aye.\u201d It\nwill be evident from this that Buddhists are ready to consider all\nreligious or moral leaders of mankind, whatever their nationality, as\nthe Body of Transformation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya. Translated into Christian\nthoughts, God reveals himself in every being that is worthy of him. He\nreveals himself not only at a certain {262} period in history, but\neverywhere and all the time. His glory is perceived throughout all the\nstages of human culture. This manifestation, from the very nature of\nGod, cannot be intermittent and sporadic as is imagined by some\n\u201corthodox Christians.\u201d The following from St. Paul\u2019s first Epistle to\nthe Corinthians (Chap. XIII), when read in this connection, sounds\nalmost like a Buddhist philosopher\u2019s utterance: \u201cNow there are\ndiversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities\nof administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of\noperations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the\nmanifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.\nFor to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the\nword of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same\nSpirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another\nthe working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another divers kinds\nof tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues; but all these\nworketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man\nseverally as he will. For as the body is one and hath many members,\nand all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so\nalso is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body,\nwhether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have\nbeen all made to drink into one Spirit.\u201d\n\n{263}\n\n\n _The Sambhogak\u00e2ya._\n\nOne peculiar point in the doctrine of Trik\u00e2ya, which modern minds find\nrather difficult to comprehend, is the conception of the Sambhogak\u00e2ya,\nor the Body of Bliss. We can understand the relation between the\nDharmak\u00e2ya and Nirm\u00e2nak\u00e2ya, the latter being similar to the notion of\nGod incarnate or to that of Avatara. Inasmuch as the Dharmak\u00e2ya does\nnot exist outside the triple world but in it as the raison d\u2019\u00eatre of\nits existence, all beings must be considered a partial manifestation\nof it; and in this sense Buddhists sometimes call themselves\nBodhisattvas, that is, beings of intelligence, because intelligence\n(_Bodhi_) is the psychological aspect of the Dharmak\u00e2ya as realised in\nsentient beings. But the conception of Sambhogak\u00e2ya is altogether too\nmysterious to be fathomed by a limited consciousness. The fact becomes\nmore apparent when we are told that the Sambhogak\u00e2ya, Body of Bliss,\nis a corporeal existence and at the same time filling the universe and\nthat there are two forms of the Body of Bliss, one for self-enjoyment\nand the other as a sort of religious object for the Bodhisattvas.\n\nThat the Body of Bliss is corporeal and yet infinite has already been\nshown by the quotations from the _Suvarna Prabh\u00e2_ and A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a on\nthe preceding pages. For further confirmation of this point no less\nauthority than Asanga and Vasubandhu will be here referred to.\n\nIn _A Comprehensive Treatise on the Mah\u00e2yana_ and {264} in its\ncommentary, the author Asanga and the commentator Vasubandhu endeavor\nto prove why the Body of Bliss cannot be the raison d\u2019\u00eatre of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya, instead of vice versa; and in this connection they argue\nthat (1) the Body of Bliss consists of the five Skandhas, that is, of\nmaterial form (_r\u00fbpa_), sensation (_vedan\u00e2_), ideas (_samj\u00f1\u00e2_), deeds\n(_sansk\u00e2ra_), and consciousness (_vij\u00f1\u00e2na_); (2) it is subject to\nparticularisation; (3) it reveals different virtues and characters\naccording to the desires of Bodhisattvas; (4) even to the same\nindividual it appears differently at different times; (5) when it\nmanifests itself simultaneously before an assemblage of Bodhisattvas\nof divers characters and qualifications, it at once assumes divers\nforms, in order to satisfy their infinitely diversified inclinations;\n(6) it is a creation of the \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na, All-conserving Mind.\n\nThese six peculiarities of the Body of Bliss as enumerated by Asanga\nand Vasubandhu make it indeed entirely dependent on the Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nbut they do not place us in any better position to penetrate into the\ndeep mystery of its nature. Its supernatural incomprehensibility\nremains the same forever. In a certain sense, however, the Body of\nBliss may be considered to be corresponding to the Christian idea of\nan angel. Supernaturalness and luminosity are the two characters\npossessed by both, but angels are merely messengers of God\ncommunicating the latter\u2019s will to human beings. When they reveal\nthemselves to a specially favored person, it is not of their own {265}\naccount. When they speak to him at all, it is by the name of the being\nwho sent them. They do not represent him, they do not act his own will\nby themselves. On the contrary, the Body of Bliss is the master of its\nown. It is an expression of the Dharmak\u00e2ya. It instructs and benefits\nall the creatures who come to it. It acts according to its own will\nand judgment. In these respects the Body of Bliss is altogether\ndifferent from the Christian conception of angels. But will it be more\nappropriately compared to Christ in glory?\n\nLet us make another quotation from later authorities than Asanga and\nhis brother Vasubandhu, and let us see more convincingly what\ncomplicated notions are involved in the idea of the Body of Bliss.\nAccording to the commentators on Vasubandhu\u2019s _Vij\u00f1\u00e2nam\u00e2tra \u00c7\u00e2stra_\n(a treatise on the Yoga philosophy),[114] the Body of Bliss has two\ndistinct aspects: (1) The body obtained by the Tath\u00e2gata for his\nself-enjoyment, by dint of his religious discipline through eons; (2)\nThe body which the Tath\u00e2gata manifests to the {266} Bodhisattvas in\nPure Land (_sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee_). This last body is in possession of wonderful\nspiritual powers, reveals the Wheel of Dharma, resolves all the\nreligious doubts raised by the Bodhisattvas, and lets them enjoy the\nbliss of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Dharma.\n\n\n _A Mere Subjective Existence._\n\nJudging from all these characterisations, the most plausible\nconclusion that suggests itself to modern sceptical minds is that the\nSambhogak\u00e2ya must be a mere creation of an intelligent, finite mind,\nwhich is intently bent on reaching the highest reality, but, not being\nable, on account of its limitations, to grasp the object in its\nabsoluteness, the finite mind fabricates all its ideals after its own\nfashion into a spiritual-material being, which is logically a\ncontradiction, but religiously an object deserving veneration and\nworship. And this being is no more than the Body of Bliss.[115] It\nlies half way between the pure being of Dharmak\u00e2ya and the earthly\nform of Nirm\u00e2nak\u00e2ya, the Body of Transformation. It does not belong\nto either, but partakes something of both. It is in a sense spiritual\n{267} like the Dharmak\u00e2ya, and yet it cannot go beyond material\nlimitations, for it has a form, definite and determinate. When the\nhuman soul is thirsty after a pure being or an absolute which cannot\nbe comprehended in a palpable form, it creates a hybrid, an imitation,\nor a reflection, and tries to be satisfied with it, just as a little\ngirl has her innate and not yet fully developed maternity satisfied by\ntenderly embracing and nursing the doll, an inanimate imitation of a\nreal living baby. And the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists seem to have made most of this\nchildish humanness. They produced as many s\u00fbtras as their spiritual\nyearnings demanded, quite regardless of historical facts, and made the\nBody of Bliss of the Tath\u00e2gata the author of all these works. For if\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya of the Tath\u00e2gata never entered into Parinirv\u00e2na, why\nthen could he not deliver sermons and cite g\u00e2th\u00e2s as often as beings\nof intelligence (Bodhisattvas) felt their needs? The _Suvarna Prabh\u00e2_\n(fas. 2, chap. 3) again echoes this sentiment as follows:\n\n\u201cTo illustrate by analogy, the sun or the moon does not make any\nconscious discrimination, nor does the water-mirror, nor the light\n[conceived separate from the body from which it emanates]. But when\nall these three are brought together, there is produced an image [of\nthe sun or the moon in the water]. So it is with Suchness and\nKnowledge of Suchness. It is not possessed of any particular\nconsciousness, but by virtue of the Spontaneous Will [inherent in the\nnature of Suchness, or what is the same thing, in the {268}\nDharmak\u00e2ya], the Body of Transformation or of Bliss [as a shadow of\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya] reveals itself in response to the spiritual needs of\nsentient beings.\n\n\u201cAnd, again, as the water-mirror boundlessly expanding reflects in all\ndifferent ways the images of \u00e2k\u00e2sa (void space) through the medium\nof light, while space itself is void of all particular marks, so the\nDharmak\u00e2ya reflects its images severally in the receiving minds of\nbelievers, and this by virtue of Spontaneous Will. The Will creates\nthe Body of Transformation as well as the Body of Bliss in all their\npossible aspects, while the original, the Dharmak\u00e2ya, does not suffer\none whit a change on this account.\u201d\n\nAccording to this, it is evident that whenever our spiritual needs\nbecome sufficiently intense there is a response from the Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nand that this response is not always uniform as the recipient minds\nshow different degrees of development, intellectually and spiritually.\nIf we call this communion between sentient souls and the Dharmak\u00e2ya\nan inspiration, all the phenomena that flow out of fulness of heart\nand reflect purity of soul should be called \u201cworks of inspiration\u201d;\nand in this sense the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists consider their scriptures as\nemanating directly from the fountainhead of the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\n\n _Attitude of Modern Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists._\n\nModern Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists in full accordance with this interpretation of\nthe Doctrine of Trik\u00e2ya do not place {269} much importance on the\nobjective aspects of the Body of Bliss (_Sambhogak\u00e2ya_). They consider\nthem at best the fictitious products of an imaginative mind; they\nnever tarry a moment to think that all these mysterious Tath\u00e2gatas or\nBodhisattvas who are sometimes too extravagantly and generally too\ntediously described in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na texts are objective realities,\nthat the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ees or Pure Lands[116] are decorated with such\nworldly stuff as gold, silver, emerald, cat\u2019s eye, pearl, and other\nprecious stones, that pious Buddhists would be transferred after their\ndeath to these ostentatiously ornamented heavens, be seated on the\npedestals of lotus-flowers, surrounded by innumerable Bodhisattvas and\nBuddhas, and would enjoy all the spiritual enjoyments that human mind\ncan conceive. On the contrary, modern Buddhists look with disdain on\nthese egotistic materialistic conceptions of religious life. For, to a\nfully enlightened soul, of what use could those worldly treasures {270}\nbe? What happiness, earthly or heavenly, does such a soul dream of,\noutside the bliss of embracing the will of the Dharmak\u00e2ya as his own?\n\n\n _Recapitulation._\n\nTo sum up, the Buddha in the P\u00e2li scriptures was a human being, though\noccasionally he is credited to have achieved things supernatural and\nsuperhuman. His historical career began with the abandonment of a\nroyal life, then the wandering in the wilderness, and a long earnest\nmeditation on the great problems of birth-and-death, and his final\nenlightenment under the Bodhi tree, then his fifty years\u2019 religious\nperegrination along the valleys of the Ganges, and the establishment\nof a religious system known as Buddhism, and finally his eternal\nentrance into the \u201cParinirv\u00e2na that leaves nothing behind\u201d\n(_anupadhi\u00e7e\u1e63anirv\u00e2na_). And as far as plain historical facts are\nconcerned, these seem to exhaust the life of \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni on earth. But\nthe deep reverence which was felt by his disciples could not be\nsatisfied with this prosaic humanness of their master and made him\nsomething more than a mortal soul. So even the P\u00e2li tradition gives\nhim a supramundane life besides the earthly one. He is supposed to\nhave been a Bodhisattva in the Tu\u1e63ita heaven before his entrance into\nthe womb of M\u00e2y\u00e2dev\u00ee. The honor of Bodhisattvahood was acceded to him\non account of his deeds of self-sacrifice which were praised throughout\nhis innumerable past incarnations. While he was walking {271} among us\nin the flesh, he was glorified with the thirty-two major and eighty\nminor excellent characteristics of a great man.[117] But he was not\nthe first Buddha that walked on earth to teach the Dharma, for there\nwere already seven Buddhas before him, nor was he the last one that\nwould appear among us, for {272} a Bodhisattva by the name of Maitreya\nis now in heaven and making preparations for the attainment of\nBuddhahood in time to come. But here stopped the P\u00e2li writers, they\ndid not venture to make any further speculation on the nature of\nBuddhahood. Their religious yearnings did not spur them to a higher\nflight of the imagination. They recited simple s\u00fbtras or g\u00e2th\u00e2s,\nobserved the \u00e7ilas (moral precepts) as strictly and literally as they\ncould, and thought the spirit of their Master still alive in these\ninstructions;--let alone the personality of the Tath\u00e2gata.\n\nBut there was at the same time another group of the disciples of the\nBuddha, whose religious and intellectual inclinations were not of the\nsame type as their fellow-believers; and on that account a simple\nfaith in the Buddha as present in his teachings did not quite satisfy\nthem. They perhaps reasoned in this fashion: \u201cIf there were seven\nBuddhas before the advent of the Great Muni of \u00c7akya and there would\nbe one more who is to come, where, let us ask, did they derive their\nauthority and knowledge to preach? How is it that there cannot be any\nmore Buddhas, that they do not come to us much oftener? If they were\nhuman beings like ourselves, why not we ourselves be Buddhas?\u201d These\nquestions, when logically carried out, naturally led them to the\ntheory of Dharmak\u00e2ya, that all the past Buddhas, and those to come,\nand even we ordinary mortals made of clay and doomed to die soon, owe\nthe raison d\u2019\u00eatre of their existence to the Dharmak\u00e2ya, which alone\nis immortal in us {273} as well as in Buddhas. The first religious\neffort we have to make is, therefore, to recognise this archetype of\nall Buddhas and all beings. But the Dharmak\u00e2ya as such is too abstract\nfor the average mind to become the object of its religious\nconsciousness; so they personified or rather materialised it. In other\nwords, they idealised \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni, endowed him not only with the\nphysical signs (_lak\u1e63as_) of greatness as in the P\u00e2li scriptures,\nbut with those of celestial transfiguration, and called him a Body of\nBliss of the Tath\u00e2gata; while the historical human Buddha was called\na Body of Transformation and all sentient beings Bodhisattvas, that\nis, beings of intelligence destined to become Buddhas.\n\nThis idealised Buddha, or, what is the same thing, a personified\nDharmak\u00e2ya, according to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhists, not only revealed\nhimself in the particular person of Siddh\u00e2rtha Gautama in Central\nAsia a few thousand years ago, but is revealing himself in all times\nand all places. There is no specially favored spot on the earth where\nonly the Buddha makes his appearance; from the zenith of Akani\u1e63ta\nheaven down to the bottom of N\u00e2raka, he is manifesting uninterruptedly\nand unintermittently and is working out his ideas, of which, however,\nour limited understanding is unable to have an adequate knowledge. The\n_Avatamsaka S\u00fbtra_ (Buddhabhadra\u2019s translation, fas. 45, chap. 34)\ndescribes how the Buddha works out his scheme of salvation in all\npossible ways. (See also the _Saddharma_ {274} _pundar\u00eeka_, Kern\u2019s\ntranslation, chap. 2, p. 30 et seq., and also pp. 413-411.).\n\n\u201cIn this wise the Buddha teaches and delivers all sentient beings\nthrough his religious teachings whose number is innumerable as atoms.\nHe may reveal sometimes in the world of devas, sometimes in that of\nN\u00e2gas, Yak\u1e63as, Gandharvas, Asuras, Garudas, Kinnaras, Mahoragas, etc.,\nsometimes in the world of Brahmans, sometimes in the world of human\nbeings, sometimes in the palace of Y\u00e2mar\u00e2ja (king of death), sometimes\nin the underworld of damned spirits, ghosts, and beasts. His\nall-swaying compassion, intelligence, and will would not rest until\nall beings had been brought under his shelter through all possible\nmeans of salvation. He may achieve his work of redemption sometimes by\nmeans of his name, sometimes by means of memory, sometimes of voice,\nsometimes of perfect illumination, sometimes of the net of\nillumination. Whenever and wherever conditions are ripe for his\nappearance, he would never fail to present himself before sentient\nbeings and also to manifest views of grandeur and splendor.\n\n\u201cThe Buddha does not depart from his own region, he does not depart\nfrom his seat in the tower; yet he reveals himself in all the ten\nquarters of the globe. He would sometimes emanate from his own body\nthe clouds of Nirm\u00e2nak\u00e2yas, or sometimes reveal himself in an\nundivided personality, and itinerating in all quarters would teach and\ndeliver all sentient beings. He may assume sometimes the form of a\n\u00c7r\u00e2vaka, sometimes that of a Brahmadeva, sometimes that of {275} an\nascetic, sometimes that of a good physician, sometimes that of a\ntradesman, sometimes that of a Bhik\u1e63u [or honest worker], sometimes\nthat of an artist, sometimes that of a deva. Again, he may reveal\nhimself sometimes in all the forms of art and industry, sometimes in\nall the places of congregation, such as towns, cities, villages, etc.\nAnd whatever his subjects for salvation may be, and whatever his\nsurroundings, he will accommodate himself to all possible conditions\nand achieve his work of enlightenment and salvation\u201d[118]....\n\nThe practical sequence of this doctrine of Trik\u00e2ya is apparent; it\nhas ever more broadened the spirit of tolerance in Buddhists. As the\nDharmak\u00e2ya universally responds to the spiritual needs of all sentient\nbeings in all times and in all places and at any stage of their\nspiritual development, Buddhists consider all spiritual leaders,\nwhatever their nationality and personality, as the expressions of the\none omnipotent Dharmak\u00e2ya. And as the Dharmak\u00e2ya always manifests\nitself for the best interests of sentient creatures, even those\ndoctrines and their authors that are apparently against the teachings\nof Buddhism are tolerated through the conviction that they are all\nmoving according to the Spontaneous Will that pervades everywhere and\nworks all the time. Though, superficially, they may appear as evils,\ntheir central and final aim is goodness and harmony which are destined\nby the Will of the Dharmak\u00e2ya to overcome this world of tribulations\nand {276} contradictions. The general intellectual tendency of\nBuddhism has done a great deal towards cultivating a tolerant spirit\nin its believers, and we must say that the doctrine of Trinity which\nappears sometimes too radical in its pantheistic spirit has\ncontributed much to this cause.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n THE BODHISATTVA.\n\n{277}\n\n/Next/ to the conception of Buddha, what is important in Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nBuddhism is that of Bodhisattva (intelligence-being) and of that which\nconstitutes its essence, Bodhicitta, intelligence-heart. As stated\nabove, the followers of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism do not call themselves \u00c7r\u00e2vakas\nor Pratyekabuddhas or Arhats as do those of H\u00eenay\u00e2nism; but they\ndistinguish themselves by the title of Bodhisattva. What this means\nwill be the subject-matter of this chapter.\n\nLet us begin with a quotation from the _Saddharma-pundar\u00eeka S\u00fbtra_,\nin which a well-defined distinction between the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas and the\nPratyekabuddhas and the Bodhisattvas is given.[119]\n\n\n _The Three Y\u00e2nas._\n\n\u201cNow, \u00c7\u00e2riputra, the beings who have become wise, have faith in the\nTath\u00e2gata, the father of the world, and consequently apply themselves\nto his commandments.\n\n\u201cAmongst them there are some who, wishing to follow the dictate of an\nauthoritative voice, apply themselves to the commandment of the\nTath\u00e2gata to {278} acquire the knowledge of the Four Great Truths,\nfor the sake of their own complete Nirvana. These, one may say, to be\nthose who, seeking the vehicle of the \u00c7r\u00e2vaka, fly from the triple\nworld.....\n\n\u201cOther beings desirous of the unconditioned knowledge, of\nself-restraint and tranquillity, apply themselves to the commandment\nof the Tath\u00e2gata to learn to understand the Twelve Chains of\nDependence, for the sake of their own complete Nirvana. These, one may\nsay, to be those who, seeking the vehicle of the Pratyekabuddha, fly\nfrom the triple world.....\n\n\u201cOther beings again desirous of omniscience, Buddha-knowledge,\nabsolute knowledge, unconditioned knowledge, apply themselves to the\ncommandment of the Tath\u00e2gata and to learn to understand the knowledge,\npowers, and conviction of the Tath\u00e2gata, for the sake of the common\nweal and happiness, out of compassion to the world, for the benefit,\nweal and happiness of the world at large, of both gods and men, for\nthe sake of the complete Nirvana of all beings. These, one may say,\nto be those who seeking the Great Vehicle (_Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na_) fly from the\ntriple world. Therefore, they are called Bodhisattva-mah\u00e2sattvas.\u201d.....\n\nThis characterisation of the Bodhisattvas as distinct from the\n\u00c7r\u00e2vakas and Pratyekabuddhas constitutes one of the most significant\nfeatures of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism. Here the Bodhisattva does not exert\nhimself in religious discipline for the sake of his own weal, but for\nthe sake of the spiritual benefit of all his fellow-creatures. If he\nwill, he could, {279} like the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas and Pratyekabuddhas, enter\ninto eternal Nirvana that never slides back; he could enjoy the\ncelestial bliss of undisturbed tranquillity in which all our worldly\ntribulations are forever buried; he could seclude himself from the\nhurly-burly of the world, and, sitting cross-legged in a lonely cave,\nquietly contemplate on the evanescence of human interests and the\nfrivolity of earthly affairs, and then self-contentedly await the time\nof final absorption into the absolute All, as streams and rivers\nfinally run into one great ocean and become of one taste. But, in\nspite of all these self-sufficient blessings, the Bodhisattva would\nnot seek his own ease, but he would mingle himself in the turmoil of\nworldly life and devote all his energy to the salvation of the masses\nof people, who, on account of their ignorance and infatuation, are\nforever transmigrating in the triple world, without making any\nprogress towards the final goal of humanity.\n\nAlong this Bodhisattvaic devotion, however, there was another current\nof religious thought and practice running among the followers of\nBuddha. By this I mean the attitude of the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas and the\nPratyekabuddhas. Both of them sought peace of mind in asceticism and\ncold philosophical speculation. Both of them were intently inclined to\ngain Nirvana which may be likened unto an extinguished fire. It was\nnot theirs to think of the common weal of all beings, and, therefore,\nwhen they attained their own redemption from earthly sins and\npassions, their religious discipline was completed, and no further\nattempt was {280} made by them to extend the bliss of their personal\nenlightenment to their fellow-creatures.[120] They recoiled from\nmingling themselves among vulgar people lest their holy life should\nget contaminated. They did not have confidence enough in their own\npower to help the masses to break the iron yoke of ignorance and\nmisery. Moreover, everybody was supposed to exert himself for his own\nemancipation, however unbearable his pain was for others could not do\nanything to alleviate it. Sympathy was of no avail; because the reward\nof his own karma good or evil could be suffered by himself alone, nor\ncould it be avoidable even by the doer himself. Things done were done\n{281} once for all, and their karma made an indelible mark on the\npages of his destiny. Even Buddha who was supposed to have attained\nthat exalted position by practising innumerable pious deeds in all his\nformer lives, could not escape the fruit of evil karma which was quite\nunwittingly committed by him. This iron arm of karma seizes everybody\nin person and does not allow any substitute whatever. Those who wish\nto give a halt to the working of karma could do so only by applying a\ncounter-force to it, and this with no other hand than his own. The\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nist conception of Bodhisattvahood may be considered an effort\nsomewhat to mitigate this ruthless mechanical rigidity of the law of\nkarma.\n\n{282}\n\n\n _Strict Individualism._\n\nThe Buddhism of the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas and the Pratyekabuddhas is the most\nunscrupulous application to our ethico-religious life of the\nindividualistic theory of karma. All things done are done by oneself;\nall things left undone are left undone by oneself. They would say:\n\u201cYour salvation is exclusively your own business, and whatever\nsympathy I may have is of no avail. All that I can do toward helping\nyou is to let you see intellectually the way to emancipation. If you\ndo not follow it, you have but to suffer the fruition of your folly. I\nam helpless with all my enlightenment, even with my Nirvana, to\nemancipate you from the misery of perpetual metempsychosis.\u201d But with\nthe Buddhism of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Bodhisattvas the case is entirely\ndifferent. It is all-sympathy, it is all-compassion, it is all-love. A\nBodhisattva would not seclude himself into the absolute tranquillity\nof Nirvana, simply because he wishes to emancipate his\nfellow-creatures also from the bondage of ignorance and infatuation.\nWhatever rewards he may get for his self-enjoyment as the karma of his\nvirtuous deeds, he would turn them over (_parivarta_) towards the\nuplifting of the suffering masses. And this self-sacrifice, this\nunselfish devotion to the welfare of his fellow-beings constitutes the\nessence of Bodhisattvahood. The ideal Bodhisattva, therefore, is\nthought to be no more than an incarnation of Intelligence and Love, of\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2 and Karun\u00e2.\n\nThe irrefragability of karma seems to be satisfactory {283} from the\nintellectual and individualistic standpoint, for the intellect demands\na thorough application of logic, and individualism does not allow the\ntransferring of responsibility from one person to another. From this\nviewpoint, therefore, a rigorous enforcement as demanded by H\u00eenay\u00e2nism\nof the principle of self-emancipation does not show any logical fault;\ndivine grace must be suspended as the curse of karma produced by\nignorance tenaciously clings to our soul. But when viewed from the\nreligious side of the question, this inflexibility of karma is more\nthan poor mortals can endure. They want something more elastic and\npliable that yields to the supplication of the feeling. When\nindividuals are considered nothing but isolated, disconnected atoms,\nbetween which there is no unifying bond which is the feeling, they are\ntoo weak to resist and overcome the ever-threatening force of evil,\nwhose reality as long as a world of particulars exists cannot be\ncontradicted. This religious necessity felt in our inmost\nconsciousness may explain the reason why Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism proposed\nthe doctrine of parivarta (turning over) founded on the oneness of\nDharmak\u00e2y\u00e2.\n\n\n _The Doctrine of Parivarta._\n\nThe doctrine of turning over (_parivarta_) of one\u2019s own merits to\nothers is a great departure from that which seems to have been the\nteaching of \u201cprimitive Buddhism.\u201d In fact, it is more than a departure,\nit {284} is even in opposition to the latter in some measure. Because\nwhile individualism is a predominant feature in the religious practice\nof the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas and the Pratyekabuddhas, universalism or\nsupra-individualism, if I am allowed to use these terms, is the\nprinciple advocated by the Bodhisattvas. The latter believe that all\nbeings, being a manifestation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, are in their essence\nof one nature; that individual existences are real so far as\nsubjective ignorance is concerned; and that virtues and merits issuing\ndirectly from the Dharmak\u00e2ya which is intelligence and love, cannot\nfail to produce universal benefit and to effect final emancipation of\nall beings. Thus, the religion of the Bodhisattvas proposes to achieve\nwhat was thought impossible by the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas and the Pratyekabuddhas,\nthat is, the turning over of one\u2019s own merits to the service of others.\n\nIt is in this spirit that the Bodhisattvas conceive the seriousness of\nthe significance of life; it is in this spirit that, pondering over\nthe reason of their existence on earth, they come to the following\nview of life:\n\n\u201cAll ignorant beings are daily and nightly performing evil deeds in\ninnumerable ways; and, on this account, their suffering beggars\ndescription. They do not recognise the Tath\u00e2gata, do not listen to\nhis teachings, do not pay homage to the congregation of holy men. And\nthis evil karma will surely bring them a heavy crop of misery. This\nreflection fills the heart of a Bodhisattva with gloomy feelings,\nwhich in turn {285} gives rise to the immovable resolution, that he\nhimself will carry all the burdens for ignorant beings and help them\nto reach the final goal of Nirvana. Inestimably heavy as these burdens\nare, he will not swerve nor yield under their weight. He will not rest\nuntil all ignorant beings are freed from the entangling meshes of\ndesire and sin, until they are uplifted above the darkening veil of\nignorance and infatuation; and this his marvelous spiritual energy\ndefies the narrow limitations of time and space, and will extend even\nto eternity when the whole system of worlds comes to a conclusion.\nTherefore, all the innumerable meritorious deeds practised by the\nBodhisattvas are dedicated to the emancipation of ignorant beings.\n\n\u201cThe Bodhisattvas do not feel, however, that they are being compelled\nby any external force to devote their lives to the edification and\nuplifting of the masses. They do not recognise any outward authority,\nthe violation of which may react upon them in the form of a punishment.\nThey have already passed beyond this stage of world-conception which\nimplies a dualism; they are on the contrary moving in a much wider and\nhigher sphere of thought. All that is done by them springs from their\nspontaneous will, from the free activity of the Bodhicitta, which\nconstitutes their reason of existence; and thus there is nothing\ncompulsory in their thoughts and movements. [To use Laotzean\nterminology, they are practising non-action, _wu wei_, and whatever\nmay appear to the ignorant and unenlightened as a strenuous and\nrestless life, is merely a natural {286} overflow from the\ninexhaustible fount of energy called Bodhicitta, heart of\nintelligence].\u201d[121]\n\n\n _Bodhisattva in \u201cPrimitive\u201d Buddhism._\n\nThe notion of Bodhisattva was not entirely absent in \u201cprimitive\u201d\nBuddhism, only it did not have such a wide signification. All Buddhas\nwere Bodhisattvas in their former lives. The J\u00e2taka stories minutely\ndescribe what self-sacrificing deeds were done by them and how by the\nkarma of these merits they finally attained Buddhahood. \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni\nwas not the only Buddha, but there had already been seven or\ntwenty-four Buddhas prior to him, and the coming Buddha to be known as\nMaitreya is believed to be disciplining himself in the Tu\u1e63ita heaven\nand going through the stages of Bodhisattvahood. The one who is thus\ndestined to be the future Buddha must be extraordinarily gifted in\nspiritual energy. He must pass through eons of self-discipline, must\npractise deeds of non-atman with unflinching courage and fortitude\nthrough innumerable existences.\n\nThe following quotation from the J\u00e2taka tales will be sufficient to\nsee what ponderous and exacting conditions were conceived by the\nso-called H\u00eenay\u00e2nists to be necessary for a human being to become a\nfully qualified Buddha.[122]\n\n{287}\n\n\u201cOf men it is he, and only he, who is in a fit condition by the\nattainment of saintship in that same existence, that can successfully\nmake a wish to be a Buddha. Of those in a fit condition it is only he\nwho makes the wish in the presence of a living Buddha that succeeds in\nhis wish; after the death of a Buddha a wish made at a relic shrine,\nor at the foot of a Bo-tree, will not be successful. Of those who make\nthe wish in the presence of a Buddha it is he and only he who has\nretired from the world that can successfully make the wish, and not\none who is a layman. Of those who have retired from the world it is\nonly he who is possessed of the Five High Powers and is master of the\nEight Attainments that can successfully make the wish, and no one can\ndo so who is lacking in these excellences. Of those, even, who possess\nthese excellences, it is he, and only he, who has such firm resolve\nthat he is ready to sacrifice his life for the Buddhas that can\nsuccessfully make the wish, but no other. Of those who possess this\nresolve it is he, and only he, who has great zeal, determination,\nstrenuousness, and endeavor in striving for the qualities that make a\nBuddha that is successful. The following comparisons will show the\nintensity of the zeal. If he is such a one as to think: \u2018The man who,\nif all within the rim of the world were to become water, would be\nready to swim across it with his own arms and get further shore,--he\nis the one to attain the Buddhaship: or, in case all within the rim of\nthe world were to become a {288} jungle of bamboo, would be ready to\nelbow and trample his way through it and get to the further side,--he\nis the one to attain the Buddhaship; or, in case all within the rim of\nthe world were to become a _terra firma_ of thick-set javelins, would\nbe ready to tread on them and go afoot to the further side,--he is the\none to attain the Buddhaship; or, in case all within the rim of the\nworld were to become live coals, would be ready to tread on them and\nso get to the further side,--he is the one to attain the\nBuddhaship,\u2019--if he deems not even one of these feats too hard for\nhimself but has such great zeal, determination, strenuousness, and\npower of endeavor that he would perform these feats in order to attain\nthe Buddhaship, then, but not otherwise, will his wish succeed.\u201d\n\nFrom this it is apparent that everybody could not become a Buddha in\n\u201cprimitive\u201d Buddhism; the highest aspiration that could be cherished\nby him was to believe in the teachings of Buddha, to follow the\nprecepts laid down by him, and to attain at most to Arhatship. The\nidea of Arhatship, however, was considered by Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists cold,\nimpassionate, and hard-hearted, for the saint calmly reviews the sight\nof the suffering masses; and therefore Arhatship was altogether\nunsatisfactory to be the object for the Bodhisattvas of their high\nreligious aspirations.\n\nThe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists wanted to go even beyond the attainment of Arhatship,\nhowever exalted its spirituality may be. They wanted to make every\nhumble soul {289} a being like \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni, they wanted lavishly to\ndistribute the bliss of enlightenment; they wanted to remove all the\nbarriers that were supposed to lie between Buddhahood and the common\nhumanity. But how could they do this when the iron hands of karma held\ntight the fate of each individual! How was it possible for him to\nidentify his being with the ideal of mankind? Perhaps this serious\nproblem could not very well be solved by Buddhists, when their memory\nof the majestic personality of \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni was still vivid before their\nmental eyes. It was probably no easy task for them to overcome the\nfeeling of awe and reverence which was so deeply engraved in their\nhearts, and to raise themselves to such a height as reached by their\nMaster, even ideally. This was certainly an act of sacrilege. But, as\ntime advances, the personal recollection of the Master would naturally\nwane and would not play so much influence as their own religious\nconsciousness which is ever fresh and active. Generally speaking, all\ngreat historical characters that command the reverence and awe of\nposterity do so only when their words or acts or both unravel the\ndeepest secrets of the human heart. And this feeling of awe and\nreverence and even of worship is not due so much to the great\ncharacters themselves as to the worshiper\u2019s own religious\nconsciousness. History passes, but the heart persists. An individual\ncalled \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni may be forgotten in the course of time, but the\nsacred chord in the inmost heart struck by him reverberates through\neternity. So with the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhists, {290} the religious sentiment\nat last asserted itself in spite of the personal recollection and\nreverential feeling for the Master. And perhaps in the following way\nwas the reasoning then advanced by them relative to the great problem\nof Buddhahood.\n\n\n _We are all Bodhisattvas._\n\nAs \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni was a Bodhisattva in his former lives destined to become\na Buddha, so we are all Bodhisattvas and even Buddhas in a certain\nsense, when we understand that all sentient beings, the Buddha not\nexcepted, are one in the Dharmak\u00e2ya. The Dharmak\u00e2ya manifests in us as\nBodhi which is the essence of Buddhas as well as of Bodhisattvas. This\nBodhi can suffer no change whatever in quantity even when the\nBodhisattva attains finally to the highest human perfection as\n\u00c7\u00e2kyamuni Buddha. In this spirit, therefore, the Buddha exclaimed when\nhe obtained enlightenment, \u201cIt is marvelous indeed that all beings\nanimate and inanimate universally partake of the nature of\nTath\u00e2gatahood.\u201d The only difference between a Buddha and the ignorant\nmasses is that the latter do not make manifest in them the glory of\nBodhi.\n\nThey only are not Bodhisattvas who, enveloped in the divine rays of\nlight in a celestial abode, philosophically review the world of\ntribulations. Even we mortals made of dust are Bodhisattvas,\nincarnates of the Bodhi, capable of being united in the all-embracing\nlove of the Dharmak\u00e2ya and also of obliterating the {291} individual\ncurse of karma in the eternal and absolute intelligence of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya. As soon as we come to live in this love and intelligence,\nindividual existences are no hindrance to the turning over\n(_parivarta_) of one\u2019s spiritual merits (_punya_) to the service of\nothers. Let us only have an insight into the spirituality of our\nexistence and we are all Bodhisattvas and Buddhas. Let us abandon the\nselfish thought of entering into Nirvana that is conceived to\nextinguish the fire of heart and leave only the cold ashes of\nintellect. Let us have sympathy for all suffering beings and turn over\nall our merits, however small, to their benefit and happiness. For in\nthis way we are all made the Bodhisattvas.[123]\n\n\n _The Buddha\u2019s Life._\n\nThis spirit of universal love prevails in all Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na literature,\nand the Bodhisattvas are everywhere represented as exercising it with\nutmost energy. The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists, therefore, could not rest satisfied\nwith a simple, prosaic, and earthly account of \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni, {292} they\nwanted to make it as ideal and poetic as possible, illustrating the\ngospel of love, as was conceived by them, in every phase of the life\nof the Buddha.\n\nThe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists first placed the Buddha in the Tu\u1e63ita heaven before\nhis birth, (as was done by the H\u00eenay\u00e2nists), made him feel pity for\nthe distressed world below, made him resolve to deliver it from \u201cthe\nocean of misery which throws up sickness as its foam, tossing with the\nwaves of old age, and rushing with the dreadful onflow of death,\u201d and\nafter his Parinirvana, they made him abide forever on the peak of the\nMount Vulture delivering the sermon of immortality to a great\nassemblage of spiritual beings. In this wise, they explained the\nsignificance of the appearance of \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni on earth, which was\nnothing but a practical demonstration of the \u201cGreat Loving Heart\u201d\n(_mah\u00e2karun\u00e2citta_).\n\n\n _The Bodhisattva and Love._\n\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna in his work on the _Bodhicitta_[124] elucidates the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nist notion of Bodhisattvahood as follows:\n\n\u201cThus the essential nature of all Bodhisattvas is a great loving heart\n(_mah\u00e2karun\u00e2citta_), and all sentient beings constitute the object\nof its love. Therefore, all the Bodhisattvas do not cling to the\nblissful taste {293} that is produced by the divers modes of mental\ntranquilisation (_dhy\u00e2na_), do not covet the fruit of their\nmeritorious deeds, which may heighten their own happiness.\n\n\u201cTheir spiritual state is higher than that of the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas, for they\ndo not leave all sentient beings behind them [as the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas do].\nThey practise altruism, they seek the fruit of Buddha-knowledge\n[instead of \u00c7r\u00e2vaka-knowledge].\n\n\u201cWith a great loving heart they look upon the sufferings of all\nbeings, who are diversely tortured in Avici Hell in consequence of\ntheir sins--a hell whose limits are infinite and where an endless\nround of misery is made possible on account of all sorts of karma\n[committed by sentient creatures]. The Bodhisattvas filled with pity\nand love desire to suffer themselves for the sake of those miserable\nbeings.\n\n\u201cBut they are well acquainted with the truth that all those diverse\nsufferings causing diverse states of misery are in one sense\napparitional and unreal, while in another sense they are not so. They\nknow also that those who have an intellectual insight into the\nemptiness (_\u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2_) of all existences, thoroughly understand why\nthose rewards of karma are brought forth in such and such ways\n[through ignorance and infatuation].\n\n\u201cTherefore, all Bodhisattvas, in order to emancipate sentient beings\nfrom misery, are inspired with great spiritual energy and mingle\nthemselves in the filth of birth and death. Though thus they make\nthemselves {294} subject to the laws of birth and death, their hearts\nare free from sins and attachments. They are like unto those\nimmaculate, undefiled lotus-flowers which grow out of mire, yet are\nnot contaminated by it.\n\n\u201cTheir great hearts of sympathy which constitute the essence of their\nbeing never leave suffering creatures behind [in their journey towards\nenlightenment]. Their spiritual insight is in the emptiness\n(_\u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2_) of things, but [their work of salvation] is never outside\nthe world of sins and sufferings.\u201d\n\n\n _The Meaning of Bodhi and Bodhicitta._\n\nWhat is the meaning of the word \u201cBodhisattva\u201d? It is a Sanskrit term\nconsisting of two words, \u201cBodhi,\u201d and \u201csattva.\u201d _Bodhi_ which comes\nfrom the root _budh_ meaning \u201cto wake,\u201d is generally rendered\n\u201cknowledge\u201d or \u201cintelligence.\u201d _Sattva_ (_sat-tva_) literally means\n\u201cstate of being\u201d; thus \u201cexistence,\u201d \u201ccreature,\u201d or \u201cthat which is,\u201d\nbeing its English equivalent. \u201cBodhisattva\u201d as one word means \u201ca being\nof intelligence,\u201d or \u201ca being whose essence is intelligence.\u201d Why the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nists came to adopt this word in contradistinction to \u00c7r\u00e2vaka is\neasily understood, when we see what special significance they attached\nto the conception of Bodhi in their philosophy. When Bodhi was used by\nthe \u00c7r\u00e2vakas in the simple sense of knowledge, it did not bear any\nparticular import. But as soon as it came to express some metaphysical\nrelation to the conception of Dharmak\u00e2ya, it ceased to be used in its\ngenerally accepted sense.\n\n{295}\n\nBodhi, according to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists, is an expression of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya in the human consciousness. Philosophically speaking,\nSuchness or Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2 is an ontological term, and Dharmak\u00e2ya or\nTath\u00e2gata or Buddha bears a religious significance; while all these\nthree, Bodhi, Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2, and Dharmak\u00e2ya, and their synonyms are\nnothing but different aspects of one and the same reality refracting\nthrough the several defective lenses of a finite intellect.\n\nBodhi, though essentially an epistemological term, assumes a\npsychological sense when it is used in conjunction with citta, i.e.\nheart or soul. Bodhicitta, or Bodhih\u1e5bdaya which means the same thing,\nis more generally used than Bodhi singly in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na texts,\nespecially when its religious import is emphasised above its\nintellectual one. Bodhicitta, viz. intelligence-heart is a reflex in\nthe human heart of its religious archetype, the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\nBodhicitta when further amplified is called\nanuttara-samyak-sambodhicitta, that is, \u201cintelligence-heart that is\nsupreme and most perfect.\u201d\n\nIt will be easily understood now that what constitutes the essence of\nthe Bodhicitta is the very same thing that makes up the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\nFor the former is nothing but an expression of the latter, though\nfinitely, fragmentarily, imperfectly realised in us. The citta is an\nimage and the Dharmak\u00e2ya the prototype, yet one is just as real as\nthe other, only the two must not be conceived dualistically. There is\na Dharmak\u00e2ya, there is a human heart, and the former reflects itself\n{296} in the latter much after the fashion of the lunar reflection in\nthe water:--to think in this wise is not perfectly correct; because\nthe fundamental teaching of Buddhism is to view all these three\nconceptions, the Dharmak\u00e2ya, human heart, and the reflections of the\nformer in the latter, as different forms of one and the same activity.\n\n\n _Love and Karun\u00e2._\n\nThe Bodhicitta or Intelligence-heart, therefore, like the Dharmak\u00e2ya\nis essentially love and intelligence, or, to use Sanskrit terms,\n_karun\u00e2_ and _praj\u00f1\u00e2_. Here some may object to the use of the term\n\u201clove\u201d for karun\u00e2, perhaps on the ground that karun\u00e2 does not exactly\ncorrespond to the Christian notion of love, as it savors more of the\nsense of commiseration. But if we understand by love a sacrifice of\nthe self for the sake of others (and it cannot be more than that),\nthen karun\u00e2 can correctly be rendered love, even in the Christian\nsense. Is not the Bodhisattva willing to abandon his own Nirvanic\npeace for the interests of suffering creatures? Is he not willing to\ndedicate the karma of his meritorious deeds performed in his\nsuccessive existences to the general welfare of his fellow-beings? Is\nnot his one fundamental motive that governs all his activities in life\ndirected towards a universal emancipation of all sentient beings? Is\nhe not perfectly willing to forsake all the thoughts and passions that\narise from egoism and to embrace the will of the Dharmak\u00e2ya? If this\nbe the case, then there is {297} no reason why karun\u00e2 should not\nbe rendered by love.\n\nChristians say that without love we are become sounding brass or a\ntinkling cymbal; and Buddhists would declare that without karun\u00e2 we\nare like unto a dead vine hanging over a frozen boulder, or like unto\nthe cold ashes left after a blazing fire.\n\nSome may say, however, that the Buddhist sympathy or commiseration\nsomewhat betrays a sense of passive contemplation on evils. When\nChristians say that God loves his creatures, the love implies activity\nand shows God\u2019s willingness to do whatever for the actual benefits of\nhis subject-beings. Quite true. Yet when the Buddha is stated to have\ndeclared that all sentient beings in the triple world are his own\nchildren or that he will not enter into his final Nirvana unless all\nbeings in the three thousand great chiliocosms, not a single soul\nexcepted, are emancipated from the misery of birth and death, his\nself-sacrificing love must be considered to be all-comprehensive and\nat the same time full of energy and activity. Whatever objections\nthere may be, we do not see any sufficient reason against speaking of\nthe love-essence of the Dharmak\u00e2ya and the Bodhicitta.\n\n\n _N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and Sthiramati on the Bodhicitta._\n\nSays N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna in his _Discourse on the Transcendentality of the\nBodhicitta_: \u201cThe Bodhicitta is free from all determinations, that is,\nit is not included in the categories of the five skandhas, the twelve\n\u00e2yatanas, and the eighteen dh\u00e2tus. It is not a particular {298}\nexistence which is palpable. It is non-atmanic, universal. It is\nuncreated and its self-essence is void [_\u00e7\u00fbnya_, immaterial, or\ntranscendental].\n\n\u201cOne who understands the nature of the Bodhicitta sees everything with\na loving heart, for love is the essence of the Bodhicitta.\n\n\u201cThe Bodhicitta is the highest essence.\n\n\u201cTherefore, all Bodhisattvas find their raison d\u2019\u00eatre of existence in\nthis great loving heart.\n\n\u201cThe Bodhicitta, abiding in the heart of sameness (_samat\u00e2_) creates\nindividual means of salvation (_upaya_).[125] {299} One who\nunderstands this heart becomes emancipated from the dualistic view of\nbirth and death and performs such acts as are beneficial both to\noneself and to others.\u201d\n\nSthiramati advocates in his _Discourse on the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na-Dharmadh\u00e2tu_[126] the same view as N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\u2019s on the\nnature of the Bodhicitta, which I summarise here: \u201cNirv\u00e2na, Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nTath\u00e2gata, Tath\u00e2gata-garbha, Param\u00e2rtha, Buddha, Bodhicitta, or\nBh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2,--all these terms signify merely so many different\naspects of one and the same reality; and Bodhicitta is the name given\nto a form of the Dharmak\u00e2ya or Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2 as it manifests itself in\nthe human heart, and its perfection, or negatively its liberation from\nall egoistic impurities, constitutes the state of Nirvana.\u201d\n\nBeing a reflex of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, the Bodhicitta is practically the\nsame as the original in all its characteristics; so continues\nSthiramati: \u201cIt is free from compulsive activities; it has no\nbeginning, it has no end; it cannot be defiled by impurities, it\ncannot be obscured by egoistic individualistic prejudices; it is\nincorporeal, it is the spiritual essence of Buddhas, {300} it is the\nsource of all virtues earthly as well as transcendental; it is\nconstantly becoming, yet its original purity is never lost.\n\n\u201cIt may be likened unto the ever-shining sunlight which may\ntemporarily be hidden behind the clouds. All the modes of passion and\nsin arising from egoism may sometimes darken the light of the\nBodhicitta, but the Citta itself forever remains free from these\nexternal impurities. It may again be likened unto all-comprehending\nspace which remains eternally identical, whatever happenings and\nchanges may occur in things enveloped therein. When the Bodhicitta\nmanifests itself in a relative world, it looks as if being subject to\nconstant becoming, but in reality it transcends all determinations, it\nis above the reach of birth and death (_sams\u00e2ra_).\n\n\u201cSo long as it remains buried under innumerable sins arising from\nignorance and egoism, it is productive of no earthly or heavenly\nbenefit. Like the lotus-flower whose petals are yet unfolded, like the\ngold that is deeply entombed under the d\u00e9bris of dung and dirt, or\nlike the light of the full moon eclipsed by A\u00e7ura; the Bodhicitta,\nwhen blindfolded by the clouds of passion, avarice, ignorance, and\nfolly, does not reveal its intrinsic spiritual worth.\n\n\u201cDestroy at once with your might and main all those entanglements;\nthen like the full-bloomed lotus-flower, like genuine gold purified\nfrom dirt and dust, like the moon in a cloudless sky, like the sun in\nits full glory, like mother earth producing all kinds of {301}\ncereals, like the ocean containing innumerable treasures, the eternal\nbliss of the Bodhicitta will be upon all sentient beings. All sentient\nbeings are then emancipated from the misery of ignorance and folly,\ntheir hearts are filled with love and sympathy and free from the\nclinging to things worthless.\n\n\u201cHowever defiled and obscured the Bodhicitta may find itself in\nprofane hearts, it is essentially the same as that in all Buddhas.\nTherefore, says the Muni of \u00c7akya: \u2018O \u00c7\u00e2riputra, the world of sentient\nbeings is not different from the Dharmak\u00e2ya; the Dharmak\u00e2ya is not\ndifferent from the world of sentient beings. What constitutes the\nDharmak\u00e2ya is the world of sentient beings; and what constitutes the\nworld of sentient beings is the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\u2019\n\n\u201cAs far as the Dharmak\u00e2ya or the Bodhicitta is concerned, there is no\nradical distinction to be made between profane hearts and the Buddha\u2019s\nheart; yet when observed from the human standpoint [that is, from the\nphenomenal side of existence] the following general classification can\nbe made:\n\n\u201c(1) The heart hopelessly distorted by numberless egoistic sins and\ncondemned to an eternal transmigration of birth and death which began\nin the timeless past, is said to be in the state of profanity.\n\n\u201c(2) The heart that, loathing the misery of wandering in birth and\ndeath and taking leave of all sinful and depraved conditions, seeks\nthe Bodhi in the ten virtues of perfection (_p\u00e2ramit\u00e2_) and 84,000\nBuddha-dharmas and disciplines itself in all meritorious deeds, {302}\nis said to be the [spiritual] state of a Bodhisattva.\n\n\u201c(3) The state in which the heart is emancipated from the obscuration\nof all passions, has distanced all sufferings, has eternally effaced\nthe stain of all sins and corruptions, is pure, purer, and purest,\nabides in the essence of Dharma, has reached the height from which the\nstates of all sentient beings are surveyed, has attained the\nconsummation of all knowledges, has realised the highest type of\nmanhood, has gained the power of spiritual spontaneity which frees one\nfrom attachment and hesitation,--this spiritual state is that of the\nfully, perfectly, enlightened Tath\u00e2gata\u201d.\n\n\n _The Awakening of the Bodhicitta._\n\nThe Bodhicitta is present in the hearts of all sentient beings. Only\nin Buddhas it is fully awakened and active with its immaculate\nvirility, while in ordinary mortals it is dormant and miserably\ncrippled by its unenlightened intercourse with the world of\nsensuality. One of the most favorite parables told by the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists\nto illustrate this point is to compare the Bodhicitta to the moonlight\nin the heavens. When the moon shines with her silvery light in the\nclear, cloudless skies, she is reflected in every drop and in every\nmass of water on the earth. The crystal dews on the quivering leaves\nreflect her like so many pearls hung on the branches. Every little\nwater-pool, probably formed temporarily by heavy showers in the\ndaytime, reflects her like so many stars descended {303} on earth.\nPerhaps some of the pools are muddy and others even filthy, but the\nmoonlight does not refuse to reflect her immaculate image in them. The\nimage is just as perfect there as in a clear, undisturbed, transparent\nlake, where cows quench their thirst and swans bathe their taintless\nfeathers. Wherever there is the least trace of water, there is seen a\nheavenly image of the goddess of night. Even so with the Bodhicitta:\nwhere there exists a little warmth of the heart, there it unfailingly\nglorifies itself in its best as circumstances permit.\n\nNow, the question is: How should this dormant Bodhicitta in our hearts\nbe awakened to its full sense? This is answered more or less\ndefinitely in almost all the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na writings, and we may here\nrecite the words of Vasubandhu from his _Discourse on the Awakening of\nthe Bodhicitta_,[127] for they give us a somewhat systematic\nstatement of those conditions which tend to awaken the Bodhicitta from\nits lethargic inactivity. (Chap. II.)\n\nThe Bodhicitta or Intelligence-heart is awakened in us (1) by thinking\nof the Buddhas, (2) by reflecting on the faults of material existence,\n(3) by observing the deplorable state in which sentient beings are\nliving, and finally (4) by aspiring after those virtues which are\nacquired by a Tath\u00e2gata in the highest enlightenment.\n\n{304}\n\nTo describe these conditions more definitely:\n\n(1) _By thinking of the Buddhas._ \u201cAll Buddhas in the ten quarters, of\nthe past, of the future, and of the present, when first started on\ntheir way to enlightenment, were not quite free from passions and sins\n(_kle\u00e7a_) any more than we are at present; but they finally succeeded\nin attaining the highest enlightenment and became the noblest beings.\n\n\u201cAll the Buddhas, by strength of their inflexible spiritual energy,\nwere capable of attaining perfect enlightenment. If enlightenment is\nattainable at all, why should we not attain it?\n\n\u201cAll the Buddhas, erecting high the torch of wisdom through the\ndarkness of ignorance and keeping awake an excellent heart, submitted\nthemselves to penance and mortification, and finally emancipated\nthemselves from the bondage of the triple world. Following their\nsteps, we, too, could emancipate ourselves.\n\n\u201cAll the Buddhas, the noblest type of mankind, successfully crossed\nthe great ocean of birth and death and of passions and sins; why,\nthen, we, being creatures of intelligence, could also cross the sea of\ntransmigration.\n\n\u201cAll the Buddhas manifesting great spiritual power sacrificed the\npossessions, body, and life, for the attainment of omniscience\n(_sarvaj\u00f1\u00e2_); and we, too, could follow their noble examples.\u201d\n\n(2) _The faults of the material existence._ \u201cThis our bodily existence\nconsisting of the five skandhas and the four mahats (elements) is a\nperpetuator of innumerable {305} evil deeds; and therefore it should\nbe cast aside. This our bodily existence constantly secretes from its\nnine orifices filths and impurities which are truly loathsome; and\ntherefore it should be cast aside. This our bodily existence,\nharboring within itself anger, avarice, and infatuation, and other\ninnumerable evil passions, consumes a good heart; and therefore it\nshould be destroyed. This our bodily existence is like a bubble, like\na spatter, and is decaying every minute. It is an undesirable\npossession and should be abandoned. This our bodily existence engulfed\nin ignorance is creating evil karma all the time, which throws us into\nthe whirlpool of transmigration through the six gatis.\u201d\n\n(3) _The miserable conditions of sentient beings which arouse the\nsympathy of the Bodhisattvas._ \u201cAll sentient beings are under the\nbondage of ignorance. Spell-bound by folly and infatuation, they are\nsuffering the severest pain. Not believing in the law of karma, they\nare accumulating evils; going astray from the path of righteousness,\nthey are following false doctrines; sinking deeper in the whirlpool of\npassions, they are being drowned in the four waters of sin.\n\n\u201cThey are being tortured with all sorts of pain. They are needlessly\nhaunted by the fear of birth and death and old age, and do not seek\nthe path of emancipation. Mortified with grief, anxiety, tribulation,\nthey do not refrain from committing further foul deeds. Clinging to\ntheir beloved ones and being always afraid of separation, they do not\nunderstand that there {306} is no individual reality, that individual\nexistences are not worth clinging to. Trying to shun enmity, hatred,\npain, they cherish more hatred.\u201d........\n\n(4) _The virtues of the Tath\u00e2gata._ \u201cAll the Tath\u00e2gatas, by virtue\nof their discipline, have acquired a noble, dignified mien which\naspires every beholder with the thought that dispels pain and woe. The\nDharmak\u00e2ya of all the Tath\u00e2gatas is immortal and pure and free from\nevil attachments. All the Tath\u00e2gatas are possessed of moral\ndiscipline, tranquillity, intelligence, and emancipation. They are not\nhampered by intellectual prejudices and have become the sanctuary of\nimmaculate virtues. They have the ten b\u00e2las (powers), four abhayas\n(fearlessness), great compassion, and the three sm\u1e5btyupasth\u00e2nas\n(contemplations). They are omniscient, and their love for suffering\nbeings knows no bounds and brings all creatures back to the path of\nrighteousness, who have gone astray on account of ignorance.\u201d\n\n * * *\n\nIn short, the Intelligence-heart or Bodhicitta is awakened in us\neither when love for suffering creatures (which is innate in us) is\ncalled forth, or when our intellect aspires after the highest\nenlightenment, or when these two psychical activities are set astir\nunder some favorable circumstances. As the Bodhicitta is a\nmanifestation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya in our limited conscious mind, it\nconstantly longs for a unification with {307} its archetype, in spite\nof the curse of ignorance heavily weighing upon it. When this\nunification is not effected for any reason, the heart (_citta_) shows\nits dissatisfaction in some way or other. The dissatisfaction may take\nsometimes a morbid course, and may result in pessimism, or misanthropy,\nor suicide, or asceticism, or some other kindred eccentric practices.\nBut if properly guided and naturally developed, the more intense the\ndissatisfaction, the more energetic will be the spiritual activity of\na Bodhisattva.\n\n\n _The Bodhisattva\u2019s Pranidh\u00e2na._\n\nHaving awakened his Bodhicitta from its unconscious slumber, a\nBodhisattva will now proceed to make his vows.\n\nLet me remark here, however, that \u201cvow\u201d is not a very appropriate term\nto express the meaning of the Sanskrit _pranidh\u00e2na_. Pranidh\u00e2na is a\nstrong wish, aspiration, prayer, or an inflexible determination to\ncarry out one\u2019s will even through an infinite series of rebirths.\nBuddhists have such a supreme belief in the power of will or spirit\nthat, whatever material limitations, the will is sure to triumph over\nthem and gain its final aim. So, every Bodhisattva is considered to\nhave his own particular pranidh\u00e2nas in order to perform his share in\nthe work of universal salvation. His corporeal shadow may vanish as\nits karma is exhausted, but his pranidh\u00e2na survives and takes on a\nnew garment, which procedure being necessary to {308} keep it ever\neffective. All that is needed for a Bodhisattva to do this is to make\nhimself a perfect incarnation of his own aspirations, putting\neverything external and foreign under their controlling spiritual\npower. Buddhists are so thoroughly idealistic and their faith in ideas\nand ideals is so unshakable that they firmly believe that whatever\nthey aspire to will come out finally as real fact; and, therefore, the\nmore intense and permanent and born of the inmost needs of humanity,\nthe more certain are our yearnings to be satisfied. (This belief, by\nthe way, will help to explain the popular belief among the Buddhists\nthat any strong passion possessed by a man will survive him and take a\nform, animate or inanimate, which will best achieve its end.)\n\nAccording to Vasubandhu whom we have quoted several times, the\nBodhisattvas generally are supposed to make the following ten\npranidh\u00e2nas, which naturally spring from a great loving heart now\nawakened in them:[128]\n\n(1) \u201cWould that all the merits I have accumulated in the past as well\nas in the present be distributed among all sentient beings and make\nthem all aspire after supreme knowledge, and also that this my\npranidh\u00e2na be constantly growing in strength and sustain me\nthroughout my rebirths.\n\n(2) \u201cWould that, through the merits of my work, {309} I may, wherever\nI am born, come in the presence of all Buddhas and pay them homage.\n\n(3) \u201cWould that I be allowed all the time to be near Buddhas like\nshadow following object, and never to be away from them.\n\n(4) \u201cWould that all Buddhas instruct me in religious truths as best\nsuited to my intelligence and let me finally attain the five spiritual\npowers of the Bodhisattva.\n\n(5) \u201cWould that I be thoroughly conversant with scientific knowledge\nas well as the first principle of religion and gain an insight into\nthe truth of the Good Law.\n\n(6) \u201cWould that I be able to preach untiringly the truth to all\nbeings, and gladden them, and benefit them, and make them intelligent.\n\n(7) \u201cWould that, through the divine power of the Buddha, I be allowed\nto travel all over the ten quarters of the world, pay respect to all\nthe Buddhas, listen to their instructions in the Doctrine, and\nuniversally benefit all sentient beings.\n\n(8) \u201cWould that, by causing the wheel of immaculate Dharma to revolve,\nall sentient beings in the ten quarters of the universe who may listen\nto my teachings or hear my name, be freed from all passions and awaken\nin them the Bodhicitta.\n\n(9) \u201cWould that I all the time accompany and protect all sentient\nbeings and remove for them things which are not beneficial to them and\ngive them innumerable blessings, and also that through the sacrifice\n{310} of my body, life, and possessions I embrace all creatures and\nthereby practise the Right Doctrine.\n\n(10) \u201cWould that, though practising the Doctrine in person, my heart\nbe free from the consciousness of compulsion and unnaturalness, as all\nthe Bodhisattvas practise the Doctrine in such a way as not practising\nit yet leaving nothing unpractised; for they have made their\npranidh\u00e2nas for the sake of all sentient beings.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n TEN STAGES OF BODHISATTVAHOOD.\n\n{311}\n\n\n _Gradation in our Spiritual Life._\n\n/Theoretically/ speaking, as we have seen above, the Bodhi or\nBodhicitta is in every sentient being, and in this sense he is a\nBodhisattva. In profane hearts it may be found enveloped in ignorance\nand egoism, but it can never be altogether annulled. For the Bodhi,\nwhen viewed from its absolute aspect, transcends the realm of birth\nand death (_sams\u00e2ra_), is beyond the world of toil and trouble and is\nnot subject to any form of defilement. But when it assumes a relative\nexistence and is only partially manifested under the cover of\nignorance, there appear various stages of actualisation or of\nperfection. In some beings it may attain a more meaningful expression\nthan in others, while there may be even those who apparently fail on\naccount of their accursed karma to show the evidence of its presence.\nThis latter class is usually called \u201cIcchantika,\u201d that is, people who\nare completely overwhelmed by the passions. They are morally and\nreligiously a mere corpse which even a great spiritual physician finds\nit almost impossible to resuscitate. But, philosophically considered,\nthe glory of the Bodhi must be admitted {312} to be shining even in\nthese dark, ignorant souls. Such souls, perhaps, will have to go round\nmany a cycle of transmigration, before their karma loses its poignancy\nand becomes susceptible to a moral influence with which they may come\nin contact.\n\nThis accursed force of karma is not the same in all beings, it admits\nof all possible degrees of strength, and causes some to suffer more\nintensely than others. But there is no human heart or soul that is\nabsolutely free from the shackle of karma and ignorance, because this\nvery existence of a phenomenal world is a product of ignorance, though\nthis fact does not prove that this life is evil. The only heart that\ntranscends the influence of karma and ignorance and is all-purity,\nall-love, and all-intelligence, is the Dharmak\u00e2ya or the absolute\nBodhi itself. The life of a Bodhisattva and indeed the end of our\nreligious aspiration is to unfold, realise, and identify ourselves\nwith the love and intelligence of that ideal and yet real Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\nThe awakening of the Bodhicitta (or intelligence-heart) marks the\nfirst step towards the highest good of human life. This awakening must\npass through several stages of religious discipline before it attains\nperfection. These stages are generally estimated by the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists\nat ten. They appear, however, to our modern sceptical minds to be of\nno significant consequence, nor can we detect any very practical and\nwell-defined distinction between successive stages. We fail to\nunderstand what religious necessity impelled the Hindu Buddhists to\nestablish such apparently unimportant {313} stages one after another\nin our religious life. We can see, however, that the first awakening\nof the Bodhicitta does not transform us all at once to Buddhahood; we\nhave yet to overcome with strenuous efforts the baneful influence of\nkarma and ignorance which asserts itself too readily in our practical\nlife. But the marking of stages as in the gradation of the Da\u00e7abh\u00fbm\u00ee\nin our spiritual progress seems to be altogether too artificial.\nNevertheless I here take pains as an historical survey to enumerate\nthe ten stages and to give some features supposed to be most\ncharacteristic of each Bh\u00fbm\u00ee (stage) as expounded in the _Avatamsaka\nSutra_. Probably they will help us to understand what moral\nconceptions and what religious aspirations were working in the\nestablishment of the doctrine of Da\u00e7abh\u00fbm\u00ee, for it elaborately\ndescribes what was considered by the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists to be the essential\nconstituents of Bodhisattvahood, and also shows what spiritual routine\na Buddhist was expected to pursue.\n\nThe ten stages are: (1) Pramudit\u00e2, (2) Vimal\u00e2, (3) Prabh\u00e2kar\u00ee, (4)\nArcismat\u00ee, (5) Sudurjay\u00e2, (6) Abhimukh\u00ee, (7) D\u00fbrangam\u00e2, (8) Acal\u00e2, (9)\nS\u00e2dhumat\u00ee, (10) Dharmamegh\u00e2.\n\n\n (1) _The Pramudit\u00e2._\n\nPramudit\u00e2 means \u201cdelight\u201d or \u201cjoy\u201d and marks the first stage of\nBodhisattvahood, at which the Buddhists emerge from a cold,\nself-sufficing, and almost nihilistic contemplation of Nirv\u00e2na as\nfostered by the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas {314} and Pratyekabuddhas. This spiritual\nemergence and emancipation is psychologically accompanied by an\nintense feeling of joy, as that which is experienced by a person when\nhe unexpectedly recognises the most familiar face in a faraway land of\nstrangers. For this reason the first stage is called \u201cjoy.\u201d\n\nEven in the midst of perfect tranquillity of Nirv\u00e2na in which all\npassions are alleged to have died away as declared by ascetics or\nsolitary philosophers, the inmost voice in the heart of the\nBodhisattva moans in a sort of dissatisfaction or uneasiness, which,\nthough undefined and seemingly of no significance, yet refuses to be\neternally buried in the silent grave of annihilation. He vainly gropes\nin the darkness; he vainly seeks consolation in the sam\u00e2dhi of\nnon-resistance or non-activity; he vainly finds eternal peace in the\ngospel of self-negation; his soul is still troubled, not exactly\nknowing the reason why. But as soon as the Bodhicitta\n(intelligence-heart) is awakened from its somnolence, as soon as the\nwarmth of love (_mah\u00e2karun\u00e2_) penetrates into the coldest cell of\nasceticism, as soon as the light of supreme enlightenment\n(_mah\u00e2praj\u00f1\u00e2_) dawns upon the darkest recesses of ignorance, the\nBodhisattva sees at once that the world is not made for self-seclusion\nnor for self-negation, that the Dharmak\u00e2ya is the source of \u201cuniversal\neffulgence,\u201d that Nirv\u00e2na if relatively viewed in contrast to\nbirth-and-death is nothing but sham and just as unreal as any worldly\nexistence; and these insights finally lead him to feel that he cannot\nrest quiet until all sentient beings are {315} emancipated from the\nsnarl of ignorance and elevated to the same position as now occupied\nby himself.\n\n\n (2) _The Vimal\u00e2._\n\nVimal\u00e2 means \u201cfreedom from defilement,\u201d or, affirmatively, \u201cpurity.\u201d\nWhen the Bodhisattva attains, through the spiritual insight gained at\nthe first stage, to rectitude and purity of heart, he reaches the\nsecond stage. His heart is now thoroughly spotless, it is filled with\ntenderness, he fosters no anger, no malice. He is free from all the\nthoughts of killing any animate beings. Being contented with what\nbelongs to himself, he casts no covetous eyes on things not his own.\nFaithful to his own betrothed, he does not harbor any evil thoughts on\nothers. His words are always true, faithful, kind, and considerate. He\nlikes truth, honesty, and never flatters.\n\n\n (3) _The Prabh\u00e2kar\u00ee._\n\nPrabh\u00e2kar\u00ee means \u201cbrightness,\u201d that is, of the intellect. This\npredominantly characterises the spiritual condition of the Bodhisattva\nat this stage. Here he gains the most penetrating insight into the\nnature of things. He recognises that all things that are created are\nnot permanent, are conducive to misery, have no abiding selfhood\n(_\u00e2tman_), are destitute of purity, and subject to final decay. He\nrecognises also that the real nature of things, however, is neither\ncreated nor subject to destruction, it is eternally abiding in the\nselfsame essence, and transcends the limits of time {316} and space.\nIgnorant beings not seeing this truth are always worrying over things\ntransient and worthless, and constantly consuming their spiritual\nenergy with the fire of avarice, anger, and infatuation, which in turn\naccumulates for their future existences the ashes of misery and\nsuffering. This wretched condition of sentient beings further\nstimulates the loving heart of the Bodhisattva to seek the highest\nintelligence of Buddha, which, giving him great spiritual energy,\nenables him to prosecute the gigantic task of universal emancipation.\nHis desire for the Buddha-intelligence and his faith in it are of such\nimmense strength that he would not falter even for a moment, if he is\nonly assured of the attainment of the priceless treasure, to plunge\nhimself into the smeltering fire of a volcano.\n\n\n (4) _The Arci\u1e63mat\u00ee._\n\nArci\u1e63mat\u00ee, meaning \u201cinflammation,\u201d is the name given to the fourth\nstage, at which the Bodhisattva consumes all the sediments of\nignorance and evil passions in the fiery crucible of the purifying\nBodhi. He practises here most strenuously the thirty-seven virtues\ncalled Bodhip\u00e2k\u1e63ikas which are conducive to the perfection of the\nBodhi. These virtues consist of seven categories:\n\n(I) Four Contemplations (_sm\u1e5btyusth\u00e2na_): 1. On the impurity of the\nbody; 2. On the evils of sensuality; 3. On the evanescence of the\nworldly interests; 4. On the non-existence of \u00e2tman in things\ncomposite.\n\n(II) Four Righteous Efforts (_samyakprah\u00e2na_): 1. To {317} prevent\nevils from arising; 2. To suppress evils already existing; 3. To\nproduce good not yet in existence; 4. To preserve good already in\nexistence.\n\n(III) Four Forces of the Will (_\u1e5bddhip\u00e2da_): 1. The determination\nto accomplish what is willed; 2. The energy to concentrate the mind on\nthe object in view; 3. The power of retaining the object in memory; 4.\nThe intelligence that perceives the way to Nirv\u00e2na.\n\n(IV) Five Powers (_indrya_), from which all moral good is produced: 1.\nFaith; 2. Energy; 3. Circumspection; 4. Equilibrium, or tranquillity\nof mind; 5 Intelligence.\n\n(V) Five Functions (_bala_): Same as the above.[129]\n\n(VI) Seven Constituents of the Bodhi (_bodhyanga_): 1. The retentive\npower; 2. Discrimination; 3. Energy; 4. Contentment; 5. Modesty; 6.\nThe balanced mind; 7. Large-heartedness.\n\n(VII) The Eightfold Noble Path (_\u00e2ryam\u00e2rga_): 1. Right view; 2. Right\nresolve; 3. Right speech; 4. Right conduct; 5. Right livelihood; 6.\nRight recollection; 8. Right tranquilisation, or contemplation.\n\n{318}\n\n\n (5) _The Sudurjay\u00e2._\n\nSudurjay\u00e2 means \u201cvery difficult to conquer.\u201d The Bodhisattva reaches\nthis stage when he, completely armed with the thirty-seven\nBodhip\u00e2k\u1e63ikas and guided by the beacon-light of Bodhi, undauntedly\nbreaks through the column of evil passions. Provided with the two\nspiritual provisions, love and wisdom, and being benefitted by the\nspirits of all the Buddhas of the past, present, and future, the\nBodhisattva has developed an intellectual power to penetrate deep into\nthe system of existence. He perceives the Fourfold Noble Truth in its\ntrue light; he perceives the highest reality in the Tath\u00e2gata; he\nalso perceives that the highest reality, though absolutely one in its\nessence, manifests itself in a world of particulars, that relative\nknowledge (_samvrtti_) and absolute knowledge (_param\u00e2rtha_) are two\naspects of one and the same truth, that when subjectivity is disturbed\nthere appears particularity, and that when it is not disturbed there\nshines only the eternal light of Tath\u00e2gataj\u00f1\u00e2 (Tath\u00e2gata-knowledge).\n\n\n (6) _The Abhimukh\u00ee._\n\nAbhimukh\u00ee means \u201cshowing one\u2019s face,\u201d that is, the presentation of\nintelligence (_praj\u00f1\u00e2_) before the Bodhisattva at this stage.\n\nThe Bodhisattva enters upon this stage by reflecting on the essence of\nall dharmas which are throughout of one nature. When he perceives the\ntruth, his heart is filled with great love, he serenely contemplates\non {319} the life of ignorant beings who are constantly going astray\nyielding themselves to evil temptations, clinging to the false\nconception of egoism, and thus making themselves the prey of eternal\ndamnation. He then proceeds to contemplate the development of evils\ngenerally. There is ignorance, there is karma; and in this fertile\nsoil of blind activity the seeds of consciousness are sown; the\nmoisture of desire thoroughly soaks them, to which the water of egoism\nor individuation is poured on. The bed for all forms of particularity\nis well prepared, and the buds of n\u00e2mar\u00fbpas (name-and-form) most\nvigorously thrive here. From these we have the flowers of sense-organs,\nand which come in contact with other existences and produce\nimpressions, feel agreeable sensations, and tenaciously cling to them.\nFrom this clinging or the will to live as the principle of\nindividuation or as the principle of bh\u00e2va as is called in the Twelve\nNid\u00e2nas, another body consisting of the five skandhas comes into\nexistence, and, passing through all the phases of transformation,\ndissolves and disappears. All sentient beings are thus kept in a\nperpetual oscillation of combination and separation, of pleasure and\npain, birth and death. But the insight of the Bodhisattva has gone\ndeeply into the inmost essence of things, which forever remains the\nsame and in which there is no production and dissolution.\n\n\n (7) _The D\u00fbrangam\u00e2._\n\nD\u00fbrangam\u00e2 means \u201cgoing far away.\u201d The Bodhisattva enters upon this\nstage by attaining the so-called {320} Up\u00e2yaj\u00f1\u00e2, i.e. the knowledge\nthat enables him to produce any means or expediency suitable for his\nwork of salvation. He himself abides in the principles of _\u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2_\n(transcendentality), _animitta_ (non-individuality), and _apranihita_\n(desirelessness), but his lovingkindness keeps him busily engaged\namong sentient beings. He knows that Buddhas are not creatures\nradically and essentially different from himself, but he does not stop\ntendering them due homage. He is always contemplating on the nature of\nthe Absolute, but he does not abandon the practice of accumulating\nmerits. He is no more encumbered with worldly thoughts, yet he does\nnot disdain managing secular affairs. He keeps himself perfectly aloof\nfrom the consuming fire of passion, but he plans all possible means\nfor the sake of sentient beings to quench the enraging flames of\navarice (_lobha_), anger (_dve\u1e63a_), and infatuation (_moha_). He\nknows that all individual existences are like dream, mirage, or the\nreflection of the moon in the water, but he works and toils in the\nworld of particulars and submits himself to the domination of karma.\nHe is well aware of the transcendental nature of Pure Land\n(_sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee_), but he describes it with material colors for the sake\nof unenlightened masses. He knows that the Dharmak\u00e2ya of all the\nBuddhas is not a material existence, but he does not refuse to dignify\nhimself with the thirty-two major and eighty minor excellent features\nof a great man or god (_mah\u00e2puru\u1e63a_). He knows that the language of\nall the Buddhas does not fall within the ken of human comprehension,\nbut {321} he endeavors with all contrivances (_up\u00e2ya_) to make it\nintelligible enough to the understanding of people. He knows that all\nthe Buddhas perceive the past, present, and future in the twinkling of\nan eye, but he adapts himself to divers conditions of the material\nworld and endeavors to help sentient beings to understand the\nsignificance of the Bodhi according to their destinies and\ndispositions. In short, the Bodhisattva himself lives on a higher\nplane of spirituality far removed from the defilements of worldliness;\nbut he does not withdraw himself to this serene, unmolested\nsubjectivity; he boldly sets out in the world of particulars and\nsenses; and, placing himself on the level of ignorant beings, he works\nlike them, he toils like them, and suffers like them; and he never\nfails all these times to practise the gospel of lovingkindness and to\nturn over (_parivarta_) all his merits towards the emancipation and\nspiritual edification of the masses, that is, he never gets tired of\npractising the ten virtues of perfection (_p\u00e2ramit\u00e2_).\n\nThat is to say, (1) the Bodhisattva practises the virtue of charity\n(_d\u00e2na_) by freely giving away to all sentient creatures all the\nmerits that he has acquired by following the path of Buddhas. (2) He\npractises the virtue of good conduct (_\u00e7\u00eela_) by destroying all the\nevil passions that disturb serenity of mind. (3) He practises the\nvirtue of patience (_k\u1e63\u00e2nti_), for he never gets irritated or excited\nover what is done to him by ignorant beings. (4) He practises the\nvirtue of strenuousness (_vriya_), for he never gets tired of {322}\naccumulating merits and of promoting good-will among his\nfellow-creatures. (5) He practises the virtue of calmness (_dhy\u00e2na_),\nfor his mind is never distracted in steadily pursuing his way to\nsupreme knowledge. (6) He practises the virtue of intelligence\n(_praj\u00f1\u00e2_), for he always restrains his thoughts from wandering away\nfrom the path of absolute truth. (7) He practises the virtue of\ntactfulness (_up\u00e2ya_), for he has an inexhaustible mine of\nexpediencies ready at his command for the work of universal salvation.\n(8) He practises the virtue of will-to-do (_pranidh\u00e2na_) by\ndeterminedly following the dictates of the highest intelligence. (9)\nHe practises the virtue of strength (_bala_), for no evil influences,\nno heretical thoughts can ever frustrate or slacken his efforts for\nthe general welfare of people. (10) Finally, he practises the virtue\nof knowledge, (_j\u00f1\u00e2na_), by truthfully comprehending and expounding\nthe ultimate nature of beings.\n\n\n (8) _The Acal\u00e2._\n\nAcal\u00e2, \u201cimmovable,\u201d is the name for the eighth stage of\nBodhisattvahood. When a Bodhisattva, transcending all forms of\ndiscursive or deliberate knowledge, acquires the highest, perfect\nknowledge called _anutpattikadharmak\u1e63\u00e2nti_, he is said to have gone\nbeyond the seventh stage. Anutpattikadharmak\u1e63\u00e2nti literally means\n\u201cnot-created-being-forbearance\u201d; and the Buddhists use the term in the\nsense of keeping one\u2019s thoughts in conformity to the views that\nnothing in this world {323} has ever been created, that things are\nsuch as they are, i.e. they are Suchness itself. This knowledge is\nalso called non-conscious or non-deliberate knowledge in\ncontradistinction to relative knowledge that constitutes all our\nlogical and demonstrative knowledge. Strictly speaking, this so-called\nknowledge is not knowledge in its ordinary signification, it is a sort\nof unconscious or subconscious intelligence, or immediate knowledge as\nsome call it, in which not only willing and acting, but also knowing\nand willing are one single, undivided exhibition of activity, all\nlogical or natural transition from one to the other being altogether\nabsent. Here indeed knowledge is will and will is action; \u201cLet there\nbe light,\u201d and there is light, and the light is good; it is the state\nof a divine mind.\n\nAt this stage of perfection, the Bodhisattva\u2019s spiritual condition is\ncompared to that of a person who, attempting when in a dreamy state to\ncross deep waters, musters all his energy, plans all schemes, and,\nwhile at last at the point of starting on the journey, suddenly wakes\nup and finds all his elaborate preparations to no purpose. The\nBodhisattva hitherto showed untiring spiritual efforts to attain the\nhighest knowledge, steadily practised all virtues tending to the\nacquirement of Nirv\u00e2na, and heroically endeavored to exterminate all\nevil passions, and at the culmination of all these exercises, he\nenters all of a sudden upon the stage of Acal\u00e2 and finds the previous\nelaboration mysteriously vanished from his conscious mind. He\ncherishes {324} now no desire for Buddhahood, Nirv\u00e2na, or Bodhicitta,\nmuch less after worldliness, egoism, or the satisfaction of evil\npassions. The conscious striving that distinguished all his former\ncourse has now given way to a state of spontaneous activity, of\nsaintly innocence, and of divine playfulness. He wills and it is done.\nHe aspires and it is actualised. He is nature herself, for there is no\ntrace in his activity that betrays any artificial lucubration, any\nvoluntary or compulsory restraint. This state of perfect ideal freedom\nmay be called esthetical, which characterises the work of a genius.\nThere is here no trace of consciously following some prescribed laws,\nno pains of elaborately conforming to the formula. To put this\npoetically, the inner life of the Bodhisattva at this stage is like\nthe lilies of the field whose glory is greater than that of Solomon in\nall his human magnificence.\n\nKant\u2019s remarks on this point are very suggestive, and I will quote the\nfollowing from his _Kritik der Urteilskraft_ (Reclam edition, p. 173):\n\n\u201cAlso muss die Zweckm\u00e4ssigkeit im Produkte der sch\u00f6nen Kunst, ob sie\nzwar absichtlich ist, doch nicht absichtlich scheinen: d.i., sch\u00f6ne\nKunst muss als Natur anzusehen sein, ob man sich ihrer zwar als Kunst\nbewusst ist. Als Natur aber erscheint ein Produkt der Kunst dadurch,\ndass zwar alle P\u00fcnktlichkeit in der Uebereinkunst mit Regeln, nach\ndenen allein das Produkt das werden kann, was es soll sein,\nangetroffen wird, aber ohne Peinlichkeit, d.i., ohne eine Spur zu\nzeigen, dass die Regel dem K\u00fcnstler vor Augen {325} geschwebt und\nseinen Gem\u00fcthskr\u00e4ften Fesseln angelegt haben.\u201d[130]\n\n\n (9) _The S\u00e2dhumat\u00ee._\n\nS\u00e2dhumat\u00ee, meaning \u201cgood intelligence,\u201d is the name given to the\nninth stage of Bodhisattvahood. All the Bodhisattvas are said to have\nreached here, when sentient beings are benefitted by the Bodhisattva\u2019s\nattainment of the highest perfect knowledge, which is unfathomable by\nthe ordinary human intelligence. The knowledge leads them to the\nDharma of the deepest mystery, to the Sam\u00e2dhi of perfect spirituality,\nto the Dh\u00e2ran\u00ee of divine spontaneity, to Love of absolute purity, to\nthe Will of utmost freedom.\n\nThe Bodhisattva will acquire at this stage the four Pratisamvids\n(comprehensive knowledge), which are (1) Dharmapratisamvid, (2)\nArthapratisamvid, (3) Niruktipratisamvid, (4) Pratibhanapratisamvid.\nBy the Dharmapratisamvid, the Bodhisattvas understand the {326}\nself-essence (_svabh\u00e2va_) of all beings; by the Arthapratisamvid,\ntheir individual attributes; by the Niruktipratisamvid, their\nindestructibility; by the Pratibhanapratisamvid, their eternal order.\nAgain, by the first intelligence they understand that all individual\ndharmas have no absolute reality; by the second, that they are all\nsubject to the law of constant becoming; by the third, that they are\nno more than mere names; by the fourth, that even mere names as such\nare of some value. Again, by the first intelligence, they comprehend\nthat all dharmas are of one reality which is indestructible; by the\nsecond, that this one reality differentiating itself becomes subject\nto the law of causation; by the third, that by virtue of a superior\nunderstanding all Buddhas become the object of admiration and the\nhaven of all sentient beings; by the fourth, that in the one body of\ntruth all Buddhas preach infinite lights of the Dharma.\n\n\n (10) _The Dharmamegh\u00e2._\n\nDharmamegh\u00e2, \u201cclouds of dharma,\u201d is the name of the tenth and final\nstage of Bodhisattvahood. The Bodhisattvas have now practised all\nvirtues of purity, accumulated all the constituents of Bodhi, are\nfortified with great power and intelligence, universally practise the\nprinciple of great love and sympathy, have deeply penetrated into the\nmystery of individual existences, fathomed the inmost depths of\nsentiency, followed step by step the walk of all the Tath\u00e2gatas. Every\nthought cherished by the Bodhisattva now dwells in {327} all the\nTath\u00e2gatas\u2019 abode of eternal tranquillity, and every deed practised\nby him is directed towards the ten balas (power),[131] four\nvai\u00e7\u00e2radyas (conviction),[132] and eighteen avenikas (unique\ncharacteristics),[133] of the Buddha. By these virtues the Bodhisattva\nhas now acquired the knowledge of all things (_sarvaj\u00f1\u00e2_), is dwelling\nin the sanctum sanctorum of all dh\u00e2ra\u1e47\u00ees and sam\u00e2dhis, have arrived at\nthe summit of all activities.\n\n{328}\n\nThe Bodhisattva at this stage is a personification of love and\nsympathy, which freely issue from the fount of his inner will. He\ngathers the clouds of virtue and wisdom, in which he manifests himself\nin manifold figures; he produces the lightnings of Buddhi, Vidy\u00e2s,\nand Vai\u00e7\u00e2radyas; and shaking the whole world with the thunder of\nDharma he crushes all the evil ones; and pouring forth the showers of\nGood Law he quenches the burning flames of ignorance {329} and passion\nin which all sentient creatures are being consumed.\n\n * * *\n\nThe above presentation of the Da\u00e7abh\u00fbm\u00ee[134] of Bodhisattvahood\nallows us to see what ideal life is held out by the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists\nbefore their own eyes and in what respect it differs from that of the\n\u00c7r\u00e2vakas and Pratyekabuddhas as well as from that of other religious\nfollowers. Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is not contented to make us mere transmitters\nor \u201chearers\u201d of the teachings of the Buddha, it wants to inspire with\nall the religious and ethical motives that stirred the noblest heart\nof \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni to its inmost depths. It fully recognises the intrinsic\nworth of the human soul; and, holding up its high ideals and noble\naspirations, it endeavors to develop all the possibilities of our\nsoul-life, which by our strenuous efforts and all-defying courage will\none day be realised even on this earth of impermanence. We as\nindividual existences are nothing but shadows which will vanish as\nsoon as the conditions disappear that make them possible; we as mortal\nbeings are no more than the {330} thousands of dusty particles that\nare haphazardly and powerlessly scattered about before the cyclone of\nkarma; but when we are united in the love and intelligence of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya in which we have our being, we are Bodhisattvas, and we\ncan immovably stand against the tempest of birth and death, against\nthe overwhelming blast of ignorance. Then even an apparently\ninsignificant act of lovingkindness will lead finally to the eternal\nabode of bliss, not the actor alone, but the whole community to which\nhe belongs. Because a stream of love spontaneously flows from the lake\nof Intelligence-heart (_Bodhicitta_) which is fed by the inexhaustible\nspring of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, while ignorance leads only to egoism,\nhatred, avarice, disturbance, and universal misery.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n NIRV\u00c2NA.\n\n{331}\n\n/Nirv\u00e2na/, according to Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism, is not understood in its\nnihilistic sense. Even with the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas or H\u00eenay\u00e2nists, Nirv\u00e2na in\nthis sense is not so much the object of their religious life as the\nrecognition of the Fourfold Noble Truth, or the practise of the\nEightfold Path, or emancipation from the yoke of egoism. It is mostly\ndue, as far as I can see, to non-Buddhist critics that the conception\nof Nirv\u00e2na has been selected among others as one of the most\nfundamental teachings of Buddha, declaring it at the same time to\nconsist in the annihilation of all human passions and aspirations,\nnoble as well as worthless.\n\nIn fact, Nirv\u00e2na literally means \u201cextinction\u201d or \u201cdissolution\u201d of the\nfive skandhas, and therefore it may be said that the entering into\nNirv\u00e2na is tantamount to the annihilation of the material existence\nand of all the passions. Catholic Buddhists, however, do not understand\nNirv\u00e2na in the sense of emptiness, for they say that Buddhism is not a\nreligion of death nor for the dead, but that it teaches how to attain\neternal life, how to gain an insight into the real nature of things,\nand how to regulate our conduct {332} in accordance with the highest\ntruth. Therefore, Buddhism, when rightly understood in the spirit of\nits founder, is something quite different from what it is commonly\nsupposed to be by the general public.\n\nI will endeavor in the following pages to point out that Nirv\u00e2na in\nthe sense of a total annihilation of human activities, is by no means\nthe primary and sole object of Buddhists, and then proceed to\nelucidate in what signification it is understood in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nBuddhism and see what relative position Nirv\u00e2na in its Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic\nsense occupies in the body of Buddhism.\n\n\n _Nihilistic Nirv\u00e2na not the First Object._\n\nIn order to see the true signification of Nirv\u00e2na, it is necessary\nfirst to observe in what direction Buddha himself ploughed the waves\nin his religious cruise and upon what shore he finally debarked. This\nwill show us whether or not Nirv\u00e2na as nihilistic nothingness is the\nprimary and sole object of Buddhism, to which every spiritual effort\nof its devotees is directed.\n\nIf the attainment of negativistic Nirv\u00e2na were the sole aim of\nBuddhism, we should naturally expect Buddha\u2019s farewell address to be\nchiefly dealing with that subject. In his last sermon, however, Buddha\ndid not teach his disciples to concentrate all their moral efforts on\nthe attainment of Nirv\u00e2nic quietude disregarding all the forms of\nactivity that exhibit themselves in life. Far from it. He told them,\naccording to the _Mah\u00e2nibb\u00e2na sutta_ (the Book of the Great {333}\ndecease, _S. B. E._ Vol. XI. p. 114) that \u201cDecay is inherent in all\ncomponent things! Work out your salvation with diligence!\u201d This\nexhortation of the strenuous life is quite in harmony with the last\nwords of Buddha as recorded in A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a\u2019s _Buddhacarita_ (Chinese\ntranslation, Chap. XXVI). They were:\n\n\n \u201cEven if I lived a kalpa longer,\n Separation would be an inevitable end.\n A body composed of various aggregates,\n Its nature is not to abide forever.\n\n \u201cHaving finished benefiting oneself and others,\n Why live I longer to no purpose?\n Of gods and men that should be saved,\n Each and all had been delivered.\n\n \u201cO ye, my disciples!\n Without interruption transmit the Good Dharma!\n Know ye that things are destined to decay!\n Never again abandon yourselves to grief!\n\n \u201cBut pursue the Way with diligence,\n And arrive at the Home of No-separation!\n I have lit the Lamp of Intelligence,\n That shining dispels the darkness of the world.\n\n \u201cKnow ye that the world endureth not!\n As ye should feel happy [when ye see]\n The parents suffering a mortal disease\n Are released by a treatment from pain;\n\n \u201cSo with me, I now give up the vessel of misery,\n Transcend[135] the current of birth and death,\n And am eternally released from all pain and suffering.\n This too must be deemed blest.\n\n{334}\n\n \u201cYe should well guard yourselves!\n Never give yourselves up to indulgence!\n All that exists finally comes to an end!\n I now enter into Nirv\u00e2na.\u201d[136]\n\n\nIn this we find Buddha\u2019s characteristic admonition to his disciples\nnot to waste time but to work out their salvation with diligence and\nrigor, but we fail to find the gospel of annihilation, the supposedly\nfundamental teaching of Buddhism.\n\nDid then Buddha start in his religious discipline to attain the\nabsolute annihilation of all human aspirations and after a long\nmeditation reach the conclusion that contradicted his premises? Far\nfrom it. His first and last ambition was nothing else than the\nemancipation of all beings from ignorance, misery, and suffering\nthrough enlightenment, knowledge, and truth. When M\u00e2ra the evil one\nwas exhausting all his evil powers upon the destruction of the Buddha\nin the beginning of his career, the good gods in the heavens exclaimed\nto the evil one:[137]\n\n\u201cTake not on thyself, O M\u00e2ra, this vain fatigue,--throw aside thy\nmalevolence and retire to thy home. This sage cannot be shaken by thee\nany more than the mighty mountain Meru by the wind.\n\n{335}\n\n\u201cEven fire might lose its hot nature, water its fluidity, earth its\nsteadiness, but never will he abandon his resolution, who has acquired\nhis merit by a long course of actions through unnumbered eons.\n\n\u201cSuch is the purpose of his, that heroic effort, that glorious\nstrength, that compassion for all beings,--until he attains the\nhighest wisdom [or suchness, _tattva_], he will never rise from his\nseat, just as the sun does not rise without dispelling the darkness.\n\n\u201cPitying the world lying distressed amidst diseases and passions, he,\nthe great physician, ought not to be hindered, who undergoes all his\nlabors for the sake of the remedy-knowledge.\n\n\u201cHe, who, when he beholds the world drowned in the great flood of\nexistence and unable to reach the further shore, strives to bring them\nsafely across,--would any right-minded soul offer him wrong?\n\n\u201cThe tree of knowledge, whose roots go deep in firmness, and whose\nfibres are patience,--whose flowers are moral actions and whose\nbranches are memory and thought,--and which gives out the Dharma as\nits fruit,--surely when it is growing it should not be cut down.\u201d\n\nThese words of the good gods in the heavens truthfully echo the motive\nthat stirred \u00c7\u00e2kyamuni to take up his gigantic task of universal\nsalvation, and we are unable here as before to perceive a particle of\nthe nihilistic speculation which is supposed to characterise Nirv\u00e2na.\nThe Buddha from the very first of his religious course searched after\nthe light that will illuminate {336} the whole universe and dispel the\ndarkness of nescience.\n\nWhat enlightenment, then, did the Buddha, pursuing his first object,\nfinally gain? What truth was it that he is said to have discovered\nunder the Bodhi tree after six years\u2019 penance and deep meditation? As\nis universally recognised, it was no more than the Fourfold Noble\nTruth and the Twelve Chains of Dependence, which are acknowledged by\nthe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists as well as by the H\u00eenay\u00e2nists as the essentially\noriginal teachings of the Buddha. What then was his subjective state\nwhen he discovered these truths? How did he feel in his inmost being\nafter this intellectual triumph over egoistic thoughts and passions?\nAccording to the Southern tradition, the famous Hymn of Victory is\nsaid to be his utterance on this occasion. It reads (The _Dharmapada_,\n153):\n\n\n \u201cMany a life to transmigrate,\n Long quest, no rest, hath been my fate,\n Tent-designer inquisitive for;\n Painful birth from state to state.\n\n \u201cTent-designer, I know thee now;\n Never again to build art thou;\n Quite out are all thy joyful fires,\n Rafter broken and roof-tree gone;\n Into the vast my heart goes on,\n Gains Eternity--dead desires.\u201d[138]\n\n\nIn this Hymn of Victory, the \u201ctent-designer\u201d means {337} the ego that\nis supposed to be a subtle existence behind our mental experiences. As\nwas pointed out elsewhere the negative phase of Buddhism consists in\nthe eradication of this ego-substratum or the \u201cdesigner\u201d of eternal\ntransmigration. The Buddha now finds out that this ego-soul is a\nfantasmagoria and has no final existence; and with this insight his\nego-centric desires that troubled him so long are eternally dead; he\nfeels the breaking up of their limitations; he is absorbed in the\nEternal Vast, in which we all live and move and have our being. No\nshadow is perceptible here that suggests anything of an absolute\nnothingness supposed to be the attribute of Nirv\u00e2na.\n\nBefore proceeding further, let us see what the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na tradition\nsays concerning this point. The tradition varies in this case as in\nmany others. According to Beal\u2019s _Romantic History of Buddha_, which\nis a translation of a Chinese version of the _Buddhacarita_ (_Fo pen\nhing ching_),[139] Buddha is reported to have exclaimed this:\n\n\n \u201cThrough ages past have I acquired continual merit,\n That which my heart desired have I now attained,\n How quickly have I arrived at the ever-constant condition,\n And landed on the very shore of Nirv\u00e2na.\n The sorrows and opposition of the world,\n The Lord of the K\u00e2malokas, M\u00e2ra Pisuna,\n These are unable now to affect, they are wholly destroyed;\n By the power of religious merit and of wisdom are they cast away.\n Let a man but persevere with unflinching resolution,\n And seek Supreme Wisdom, it will not be hard to acquire it;\n When once obtained, then farewell to all sorrows,\n All sin and guilt are forever done away.\u201d[140]\n\n{338}\n\nViewing the significance of Buddhism in this light, it is evident that\nBuddha did not emphasise so much the doctrine of Nirv\u00e2na in the sense\nof a total abnegation of human aspirations as the abandonment of\negoism and the practical regulation of our daily life in accordance\nwith this view. Nirv\u00e2na in which all the passions noble and base are\nsupposed to have been \u201cblown out like a lamp\u201d was not the most coveted\nobject of Buddhist life. On the contrary, Buddhism advises all its\nfollowers to exercise most strenuously all their spiritual energy to\nattain perfect freedom from the bondage of ignorance and egoism;\nbecause that is the only way in which we can conquer the vanity of\nworldliness and enjoy the bliss of eternal life. The following verse\nfrom the _Visuddhi Magga_ (XXI) practically {339} sums up the teaching\nof Buddhism as far as its negative and individual phase is concerned:\n\n\n \u201cBehold how empty is the world,\n Moghar\u00e2ja! In thoughtfulness\n Let one remove belief in self,\n And pass beyond the realm of death.\n The king of death will never find\n The man who thus the world beholds.\u201d[141]\n\n\n _Nirv\u00e2na is Positive._\n\nIt is not my intention here to investigate the historical side of this\nquestion; we are not concerned with the problem of how the followers\nof Buddha gradually developed the positive aspect of Nirv\u00e2na in\nconnection with the practical application of his moral and religious\n{340} teachings; nor are we engaged in tracing the process of\nevolution through which Buddha\u2019s noble resolution to save all sentient\nbeings from ignorance and misery was brought out most conspicuously by\nhis later devotees. What I wish to state here about the positive\nconception of Nirv\u00e2na and its development is this: The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nBuddhism was the first religious teaching in India that contradicted\nthe doctrine of Nirv\u00e2na as conceived by other Hindu thinkers who saw\nin it a complete annihilation of being, for they thought that\nexistence is evil, and evil is misery, and the only way to escape\nmisery is to destroy the root of existence, which is nothing less than\nthe total cessation of human desires and activities in Nirv\u00e2nic\nunconsciousness. The Yoga taught self-forgetfulness in deep\nmeditation; the Samkhya, the absolute separation of Puru\u1e63a from\nPrak\u1e5bti, which means undisturbed self-contemplation; the Ved\u00e2nta,\nabsorption in the Brahma, which is the total suppression of all\nparticulars; and thus all of them considered emancipation from human\ndesires and aspirations a heavenly bliss, that is, Nirv\u00e2na.\nMetaphysically speaking, they might have been correct each in its own\nway, but, ethically considered, their views had little significance in\nour practical life and showed a sad deficiency in dealing with\nproblems of morality.\n\nThe Buddha was keenly aware of this flaw in their doctrines. He\ntaught, therefore, that Nirv\u00e2na does not consist in the complete\nstoppage of existence, but in the practise of the Eightfold Path. This\nmoral {341} practise leads to the unalloyed joy of Nirv\u00e2na, not as\nthe tranquillisation of human aspirations, but as the fulfilment or\nunfolding of human life. The word Nirv\u00e2na in the sense of annihilation\nwas in existence prior to Buddha, but it was he who gave a new\nsignificance to it and made it worthy of attainment by men of moral\ncharacter. All the doctrinal aspects of Nirv\u00e2na are later additions or\nrather development made by Buddhist scholars, according to whom their\narguments are solidly based on some canonical passages. Whatever the\ncase may be, my conviction is that those who developed the positive\nsignificance of Nirv\u00e2na are more consistent with the spirit of the\nfounder than those who emphasised another aspect of it. In the _Ud\u00e2na_\nwe read (IV., 9):\n\n\n \u201cHe whom life torments not,\n Who sorrows not at the approach of death,\n If such a one is resolute and has seen Nirv\u00e2na,\n In the midst of grief, he is griefless.\n The tranquil-minded Bhikkhu, who has uprooted the thirst for\n  existence,\n By him the succession of births is ended,\n He is born no more.\u201d[142]\n\n\nAccording to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic conception Nirv\u00e2na is not the\nannihilation of the world and the putting an end to life; but it is to\nlive in the whirlpool of birth and death and yet to be above it. It is\naffirmation and fulfilment, and this is done not blindly and\negoistically, for Nirv\u00e2na is enlightenment. Let us see how this is.\n\n{342}\n\n\n _The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic Conception of Nirv\u00e2na._\n\nWhile the conception of Nirv\u00e2na seems to have remained indefinite and\nconfused as far as H\u00eenay\u00e2nism goes, the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhists have\nattached several definite shades of meaning to Nirv\u00e2na and tried to\ngive each of them some special, distinctive character. When it is used\nin its most comprehensive metaphysical sense, it becomes synonymous\nwith Suchness (_tattva_) or with the Dharmak\u00e2ya. When we speak of\nBuddha\u2019s entrance into Nirv\u00e2na, it means the end of material\nexistence, i.e., death. When it is used in contrast to birth and death\n(_sams\u00e2ra_) or to passion and sin (_kle\u00e7a_), it signifies in the\nformer case an eternal life or a state of immortality, and in the\nlatter case a state of consciousness that follows from the recognition\nof the presence of the Dharmak\u00e2ya in individual existences. Nirv\u00e2na\nhas thus become a very comprehensive term, and this fact adds much to\nthe confusion and misunderstanding with which it has been treated ever\nsince Buddhism became known to the Occident. The so-called \u201cprimitive\nBuddhism\u201d is not altogether unfamiliar with all these meanings given\nto Nirv\u00e2na, though in some cases they might have been but faintly\nforeshadowed. Most of European missionaries and scholars have ignored\nthis fact and wanted to see in Nirv\u00e2na but one definite, stereotyped\nsense which will loosen or untie all the difficult knots connected\nwith its use. One scholar would select a certain passage in a certain\ns\u00fbtra, where the meaning {343} is tolerably distinct, and taking this\nas the key endeavor to solve all the rest; while another scholar would\ndo the same thing with another passage from the scriptures and refute\nother fellow-workers. The majority of them, however, have found for\nmissionary purposes to be advantageous to hold one meaning prominently\nabove all the others that may be considered possibly the meaning of\nNirv\u00e2na. This one meaning that has been made specially conspicuous is\nits negativistic interpretation.\n\nAccording to the _Vij\u00f1\u00e2nam\u00e2tra \u00e7\u00e2stra_ (Chinese version Vol. X.), the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhists distinguish four forms of Nirv\u00e2na. They are:\n\n(1) _Absolute Nirv\u00e2na_, as a synonym of the Dharmak\u00e2ya. It is\neternally immaculate in its essence and constitutes the truth and\nreality of all existences. Though it manifests itself in the world of\ndefilement and relativity, its essence forever remains undefiled.\nWhile it embraces in itself innumerable incomprehensible spiritual\nvirtues, it is absolutely simple and immortal; its perfect\ntranquillity may be likened unto space in which every conceivable\nmotion is possible, but which remains in itself the same. It is\nuniversally present in all beings whether animate or inanimate[143]\nand makes their existence real. In one respect it can be identified\nwith them, that is, it can be pantheistically viewed; but in the other\nrespect it is transcendental, {344} for every being as it is is not\nNirv\u00e2na. This spiritual significance is, however, beyond the ken of\nordinary human understanding and can be grasped only by the highest\nintelligence of Buddha.\n\n(2) _Upadhi\u00e7e\u1e63a Nirv\u00e2na_, or Nirv\u00e2na that has some residue. This is a\nstate of enlightenment which can be attained by Buddhists in their\nlifetime. The Dharmak\u00e2ya which was dormant in them is now awakened and\nfreed from the \u201caffective obstacles,\u201d[144] but they are yet under the\nbondage of birth and death; and thus they are not yet absolutely free\nfrom the misery of life: something still remains in them that makes\nthem suffer pain.\n\n(3) _Anupadhi\u00e7e\u1e63a Nirv\u00e2na_, or Nirv\u00e2na that has no residue. This is\nattained when the Tath\u00e2gata-essence (the Dharmak\u00e2ya) is released from\nthe pain of birth and death as well as from the curse of passion and\nsin. This form of Nirv\u00e2na seems to be what is generally understood by\nOccidental missionary-scholars as the Nirv\u00e2na of Buddhists. While in\nlifetime, they have been emancipated from the egoistic conception of\nthe soul, they have practised the Eightfold Path, and they {345} have\ndestroyed all the roots of karma that makes possible their\nmetempsychosis in the world of birth and death (_sams\u00e2ra_), though as\nthe inevitable sequence of their previous karma they have yet to\nsuffer all the evils inherent in the material existence. But at last\nthey have had even this mortal coil dissolved away, and have returned\nto the original Absolute from which by virtue of ignorance they had\ncome out and gone through a cycle of births and deaths. This state of\nsupramundane bliss in the realm of the Absolute is Anupadi\u00e7e\u1e63a\nNirv\u00e2na, that is, Nirv\u00e2na that has no residue.\n\n(4) _The Nirv\u00e2na that has no abode._ In this, the Buddha-essence has\nnot only been freed from the curse of passion and sin (_kle\u00e7a_), but\nfrom the intellectual prejudice, which most tenaciously clings to the\nmind. The Buddha-essence or the Dharmak\u00e2ya is revealed here in its\nperfect purity. All-embracing love and all-knowing intelligence\nilluminate the path. He who has attained to this state of subjective\nenlightenment is said to have no abode, no dwelling place, that is to\nsay, he is no more subject to the transmigration of birth and death\n(_sams\u00e2ra_), nor does he cling to Nirv\u00e2na as the abode of complete\nrest; in short, he is above Sams\u00e2ra and Nirv\u00e2na. His sole object in\nlife is to benefit all sentient beings to the end of time; but this he\nproposes to do not by his human conscious elaboration and striving.\nSimply actuated by his all-embracing love which is of the Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nhe wishes to deliver all his fellow-creatures from misery, he does\n{346} not seek his own emancipation from the turmoil of life. He is\nfully aware of the transitoriness of worldly interests, but on this\naccount he desires not to shun them. With his all-knowing intelligence\nhe gains a spiritual insight into the ultimate nature of things and\nthe final course of existence. He is one of those religious men \u201cthat\nweep, as though they wept not; that rejoice as though they rejoiced\nnot; that buy, as though they possessed not; that use this world, as\nnot abusing it; for the fashion of this world passes away.\u201d Nay, he is\nin one sense more than this; his life is full of positive activity,\nbecause his heart and soul are devoted to the leading of all beings to\nfinal emancipation and supreme bliss. When a man attains to this stage\nof spiritual life, he is said to be in the Nirv\u00e2na that has no abode.\n\nA commentator on the _Vij\u00f1\u00e2nam\u00e2tra \u00c7\u00e2stra_ adds that of these four\nforms of Nirv\u00e2na the first is possessed by every sentient being,\nwhether it is actualised in its human perfection or lying dormant _in\nposse_ and miserably obscured by ignorance; that the second and third\nare attained by all the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas and Pratyekabuddhas, while it is a\nBuddha alone that is in possession of all the four forms of Nirv\u00e2na.\n\n\n _Nirv\u00e2na as the Dharmak\u00e2ya._\n\nIt is manifest from the above statement that in Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism Nirv\u00e2na\nhas acquired several shades of meaning psychological and ontological.\nThis apparent confusion, however, is due to the purely idealistic\n{347} tendency of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, which ignores the distinction usually\nmade between being and thought, object and subject, the perceived and\nthe perceiving. Nirv\u00e2na is not only a subjective state of\nenlightenment but an objective power through whose operation this\nbeatific state becomes attainable. It does not simply mean a total\nabsorption in the Absolute or of emancipation from earthly desires in\nlifetime as exemplified in the life of the Arhat. Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists perceive\nin Nirv\u00e2na not only this, but also its identity with the Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nor Suchness, and recognise its universal spiritual presence in all\nsentient beings.\n\nWhen N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna says in his _M\u00e2dhyamika \u00c7\u00e2stra_[145] that: \u201cThat is\ncalled Nirv\u00e2na which is not wanting, is not acquired, is not\nintermittent, is not non-intermittent, is not subject to destruction,\nand is not created;\u201d he evidently speaks of Nirv\u00e2na as a synonym of\nDharmak\u00e2ya, that is, in its first sense as above described. Chandra\nK\u00eerti, therefore, rightly comments that Nirv\u00e2na is\n_sarva-kalpan\u00e2-k\u1e63aya-r\u00fbpam_,[146] i.e., that which transcends all\nthe forms of determination. {348} Nirv\u00e2na is an absolute, it is above\nthe relativity of existence (_bh\u00e2va_) and non-existence\n(_abh\u00e2va_).[147]\n\nNirv\u00e2na is sometimes spoken of as possessing four attributes; (1)\neternal (_nitya_), (2) blissful (_sukha_), (3) self-acting (_\u00e2tman_),\nand (4) pure (_\u00e7u\u00e7i_). Judging from these qualities thus ascribed to\nNirv\u00e2na as its essential features, Nirv\u00e2na is here again identified\nwith the highest reality of Buddhism, that is, with the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\nIt is eternal because it is immaterial; it is blissful because it is\nabove all sufferings; it is self-acting because it knows no\ncompulsion; it is pure because it is not defiled by passion and\nerror.[148]\n\n{349}\n\n\n _Nirv\u00e2na in its Fourth Sense._\n\nNo further elucidation is needed for the first signification of\nNirv\u00e2na, for we have treated it already when explaining the nature of\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya. Nor is it necessary for us to dwell upon the second\nand the third phases of it. The Occidental missionary-scholars and\nOrientalists, however one-sided and often biased, have almost\nexhaustively investigated these points from the P\u00e2li sources. What\nremains for us now is to analyse the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic conception of\nNirv\u00e2na which was stated above as its fourth signification.\n\nNirv\u00e2na, briefly speaking, is a realisation in this life of the\nall-embracing love and all-knowing intelligence of Dharmak\u00e2ya. It is\nthe unfolding of the reason of existence, which in the ordinary human\nlife remains more or less eclipsed by the shadow of ignorance and\negoism. It does not consist in the mere observance of the moral\nprecepts laid down by Buddha, nor in the blind following of the\nEightfold Path, nor in retirement from the world and absorption in\nabstract meditation. The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic Nirv\u00e2na is full of energy and\nactivity which issues from the all-embracing love of the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\nThere is no passivity in it, nor a keeping aloof from the hurly-burly\nof worldliness. {350} He who is in this Nirv\u00e2na does not seek a rest\nin the annihilation of human aspirations, does not flinch in the face\nof endless transmigration. On the contrary, he plunges himself into\nthe ever-rushing current of Sams\u00e2ra and sacrifices himself to save\nhis fellow-creatures from being eternally drowned in it.\n\nThough thus the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Nirv\u00e2na is realised only in the mire of\npassions and errors, it is never contaminated by the filth of\nignorance. Therefore, he that is abiding in Nirv\u00e2na, even in the\nwhirlpool of egoism and in the darkness of sin, does not lose his\nall-seeing insight that penetrates deep into the ultimate nature of\nbeing. He is aware of the transitoriness of things. He knows that this\nlife is a mere passing moment in the eternal manifestation of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya, whose work can be realised only in boundless space and\nendless time. As he is fully awake to this knowledge, he never gets\nengrossed in the world of sin. He lives in the world like unto the\nlotus-flower, the emblem of immaculacy, which grows out of the mire\nand yet shares not its defilement. He is also like unto a bird flying\nin the air that does not leave any trace behind it. He may again be\nlikened unto the clouds that spontaneously gather around the mountain\npeak, and, soaring high as the wind blows, vanish away to the region\nwhere nobody knows. In short, he is living in, and yet beyond, the\nrealm of Sams\u00e2ra and Nirv\u00e2na.\n\nWe read in the _Vimalakirti S\u00fbtra_ (chap. VIII.):\n\n\u201cVimalakirti asks Ma\u00f1ju\u00e7ri: \u2018How is it that you {351} declare all\n[human] passions and errors are the seeds of Buddhahood?\u2019\n\n\u201cMa\u00f1ju\u00e7ri replies: \u2018O son of good family! Those who cling to the view\nof non-activity [_asamskrita_] and dwell in a state of eternal\nannihilation do not awaken in them supremely perfect knowledge\n[_anuttara-samyak-sambodhi_]. Only the Bodhisattvas, who dwell in the\nmidst of passions and errors, and who, passing through the [ten]\nstages, rightly contemplate the ultimate nature of things, are able to\nawaken and attain intelligence [_praj\u00f1\u00e2_].\n\n\u201c\u2018Just as the lotus-flowers do not grow in the dry land, but in the\ndark-colored, waterly mire, O son of good family, it is even so [with\nintelligence (_praj\u00f1\u00e2_ or _bodhi_)] In non-activity and eternal\nannihilation which are cherished by the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas and the\nPratyekabuddhas, there is no opportunity for the seeds and sprouts of\nBuddhahood to grow. Intelligence can grow only in the mire and dirt of\npassion and sin. It is by virtue of passion and sin that the seeds and\nsprouts of Buddhahood are able to grow.\n\n\u201c\u2018O son of good family! Just as no seeds can grow in the air, but in\nthe filthy, muddy soil,--and there even luxuriously,--O son of good\nfamily, it is even so [with the Bodhi]. It does not grow out of\nnon-activity and eternal annihilation. It is only out of the\nmountainous masses of egoistic, selfish thoughts that Intelligence is\nawakened and grows to the incomprehensible wisdom of Buddha-seeds.\n\n\u201c\u2018O son of good family! Just as we cannot obtain {352} priceless\npearls unless we dive into the depths of the four great oceans, O son\nof good family, it is even so [with Intelligence]. If we do not dive\ndeep into the mighty ocean of passion and sin, how could we get hold\nof the precious gem of Buddha-essence? Let it therefore be understood\nthat the primordial seeds of Intelligence draw their vitality from the\nmidst of passion and sin.\u2019\u201d In a Pauline epistle we read, \u201cFrom the\nfoulness of the soil, the beauty of new life grows.\u201d And Emerson\nsings:\n\n\n \u201cLet me go where\u2019er I will,\n I hear a sky-born music still.\n \u2019Tis not in the high stars alone,\n  Nor in the cup of budding flowers,\n Nor in the redbreast\u2019s mellow tone,\n  Nor in the bow that smiles in showers,\n But in the mud and scum of things.\n There always, always, something sings.\u201d\n\n\nDo we not see here a most explicit statement of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic\nsentiment?\n\n\n _Nirv\u00e2na and Sams\u00e2ra are One._\n\nThe most remarkable feature in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic conception of Nirv\u00e2na\nis expressed in this formula: \u201cYas kle\u00e7as so bodhi, yas sams\u00e2ras tat\nnirv\u00e2nam.\u201d What is sin or passion, that is Intelligence, what is birth\nand death (or transmigration), that is Nirv\u00e2na. This is a rather bold\nand revolutionising proposition in the dogmatic history of Buddhism.\nBut it is no more than the natural development of the spirit that was\nbreathed by its founder.\n\n{353}\n\nIn the _Vi\u00e7e\u1e63acinta-brahma-parip\u1e5bccha S\u00fbtra_,[149] it is said that\n(chap. II):\n\n\u201cSams\u00e2ra is Nirv\u00e2na, because there is, when viewed from the ultimate\nnature of the Dharmak\u00e2ya, nothing going out of, nor coming into,\nexistence, [sams\u00e2ra being only apparent]: Nirv\u00e2na is sams\u00e2ra, when it\nis coveted and adhered to.\u201d\n\nIn another place (_op. cit._) the idea is expressed in much plainer\nterms: \u201cThe essence of all things is in truth free from attachment,\nattributes, and desires; therefore, they are pure, and, as they are\npure, we know that what is the essence of birth and death that is the\nessence of Nirv\u00e2na, and that what is the essence of Nirv\u00e2na that is\nthe essence of birth and death (_sams\u00e2ra_). In other words, Nirv\u00e2na\nis not to be sought outside of this world, which, though transient, is\nin reality no more than Nirv\u00e2na itself. Because it is contrary to our\nreason to imagine that there is Nirv\u00e2na and there is birth and death\n(_sams\u00e2ra_), and that the one lies outside the pale of the other,\nand, therefore, that we can attain Nirv\u00e2na only after we have\nannihilated or escaped the world of birth and death. If we are not\nhampered by our confused subjectivity, this our worldly life is an\nactivity of Nirv\u00e2na itself.\u201d\n\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna repeats the same sentiment in his _M\u00e2dhyamika \u00c7\u00e2stra_, when\nhe says:\n\n{354}\n\n\n \u201cSams\u00e2ra is in no way to be distinguished from Nirv\u00e2na:\n Nirv\u00e2na is in no way to be distinguished from Sams\u00e2ra.\u201d[150]\n\n\nOr,\n\n\n \u201cThe sphere of Nirv\u00e2na is the sphere of Sams\u00e2ra:\n Not the slightest distinction exists between them.\u201d[151]\n\n\nAsanga goes a step further and boldly declares that all the\nBuddha-dharmas, of which Nirv\u00e2na or Dharmak\u00e2ya forms the foundation,\nare characterised with the passions, errors, and sins of vulgar minds.\nHe says in _Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-Sangraha \u00c7\u00e2stra_ (the Chinese Tripitaka, Japanese\nedition of 1881, _wang_ VIII., p. 84):\n\n\u201c(1) All Buddha-dharmas are characterised with eternality, for the\nDharmak\u00e2ya is eternal.\n\n\u201c(2) All Buddha-dharmas are characterised with an extinguishing power,\nfor they extinguish all the obstacles for final emancipation.\n\n\u201c(3) All Buddha-dharmas are characterised with regeneration, for the\nNirm\u00e2nak\u00e2ya [Body of Transformation] constantly regenerates.\n\n\u201c(4) All Buddha-dharmas are characterised with the power of\nattainment, for by the attainment [of truth] they subjugate\ninnumerable evil passions as cherished by ignorant beings.\n\n\u201c(5) All Buddha-dharmas are characterised with the desire to gain, ill\nhumor, folly, and all the other {355} passions of vulgar minds, for it\nis through the Buddha\u2019s love that those depraved souls are saved.\n\n\u201c(6) All Buddha-dharmas are characterised with non-attachment and\nnon-defilement, for Suchness which is made perfect by these virtues\ncannot be defiled by any evil powers.\n\n\u201c(7) All Buddha-dharmas are above attachment and defilement, for\nthough all Buddhas reveal themselves in the world, worldliness cannot\ndefile them.\u201d[152]\n\nBuddha-dharma means any thing, or any virtue, or any faculty, that\nbelongs to Buddhahood. Non-attachment is a Buddha-dharma, love is a\nBuddha-dharma, wisdom is a Buddha-dharma. and in fact anything is a\nBuddha-dharma which is an attribute of the Perfect One, not to mention\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya or Nirv\u00e2na which constitutes the very essence of\nBuddhahood. Therefore, the conclusion which is to be drawn from those\nseven propositions of Asanga as above quoted is this: Not only is this\nworld of constant transformation as a whole Nirv\u00e2na, but its apparent\nerrors and sins and evils are also the various phases of the\nmanifestation of Nirv\u00e2na.\n\nThe above being the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic view of Nirv\u00e2na, it is evident that\nNirv\u00e2na is not something transcendental or that which stands above\nthis world of birth {356} and death, joy and sorrow, love and hate,\npeace and struggle. Nirv\u00e2na is not to be sought in the heavens nor\nafter a departure from this earthly life nor in the annihilation of\nhuman passions and aspirations. On the contrary, it must be sought in\nthe midst of worldliness, as life with all its thrills of pain and\npleasure is no more than Nirv\u00e2na itself. Extinguish your life and\nseek Nirv\u00e2na in anchoretism, and your Nirv\u00e2na is forever lost. Consign\nyour aspirations, hopes, pleasures, and woes, and everything that\nmakes up a life to the eternal silence of the grave, and you bury\nNirv\u00e2na never to be recovered. In asceticism, or in meditation, or in\nritualism, or even in metaphysics, the more impetuously you pursue\nNirv\u00e2na, the further away it flies from you. It was the most serious\nmistake ever committed by any religious thinkers to imagine that\nNirv\u00e2na which is the complete satisfaction of our religious feeling\ncould be gained by laying aside all human desires, ambitions, hopes,\npains, and pleasures. Have your own Bodhi (intelligence) thoroughly\nenlightened through love and knowledge, and everything that was\nthought sinful and filthy turns out to be of divine purity. It is the\nsame human heart, formerly the fount of ignorance and egoism, now the\nabode of eternal beatitude--Nirv\u00e2na shining in its intrinsic\nmagnificence.\n\nSuppose a torch light is taken into a dark cell, which people had\nhitherto imagined to be the abode of hideous, uncanny goblins, and\nwhich on that account they wanted to have completely destroyed to the\n{357} ground. The bright light now ushered in at once disperses the\ndarkness, and every nook and corner therein is perfectly illumined.\nEverything in it now assumes its proper aspect. And to their surprise\npeople find that those figures which they formerly considered to be\nuncanny and horrible are nothing but huge precious stones, and they\nfurther learn that every one of those stones can be used in some way\nfor the great benefit of their fellow-creatures. The dark cell is the\nhuman heart before the enlightenment of Nirv\u00e2na, the torch light is\nlove and intelligence. When love warms and intelligence brightens, the\nheart finds every passion and sinful desire that was the cause of\nunbearable anguish now turned into a divine aspiration. The heart\nitself, however, remains the same just as much as the cell, whose\nidentity was never affected either by darkness or by brightness. This\nparable nicely illustrates the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic doctrine of the identity\nof Nirv\u00e2na and Sams\u00e2ra, and of the Bodhi and Kle\u00e7a, that is, of\nintelligence and passion.\n\nTherefore, it is said:\n\n\n \u201cAll sins transformed into the constituents of enlightenment!\n The vicissitudes of Sams\u00e2ra transformed into the beatitude of Nirv\u00e2na!\n All these come from the exercise of the great religious discipline\n  (_up\u00e2ya_);\n Beyond our understanding, indeed, is the mystery of all Buddhas.\u201d[153]\n\n\n{358}\n\n\n _The Middle Course._\n\nIn one sense the Buddha always showed an eclectic, conciliatory,\nsynthetic spirit in his teachings. He refused to listen to any extreme\ndoctrine which elevates one end too high at the expense of the other\nand culminates in the collapse of the whole edifice. When the Buddha\nleft his seat of enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, he made it his\nmission to avoid both extremes, asceticism and hedonism. He proved\nthroughout his life to be a calm, dignified, thoughtful,\nwell-disciplined person, and at no time irritable in character,--in\nthis latter respect being so different from the sage of Nazareth, who\nin anger cast out all the tradesmen in the temple and overthrew the\ntables of the money-changers, and who cursed the fig tree on which he\ncould not find any fruit but leaves unfit to appease his hunger. The\ndoctrine of the Middle Path (_M\u00e2dhyam\u00e2rga_), whatever it may mean\nmorally and intellectually, always characterised the life and doctrine\nof Buddha as well as the later development of his teachings. His\nfollowers, however different in their individual views, professed as a\nrule to pursue steadily the Middle Path as paved by the Master. Even\nwhen N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna proclaimed his celebrated doctrine of Eight No\u2019s which\nseems to superficial critics nothing but an absolute nihilism, he said\nthat the Middle Path could be found only in those eight no\u2019s.[154]\n\n{359}\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism has certainly applied this synthetic method of Buddha to\nits theory of Nirv\u00e2na and ennobled it by fully developing its immanent\nsignification. In the _Discourse on Buddha-essence_, Vasubandhu quotes\nthe following passage from the _\u00c7rimala S\u00fbtra_, which plainly shows\nthe path along which the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists traveled before they reached\ntheir final conclusion: \u201cThose who see only the transitoriness of\nexistence are called nihilists, and those who see only the eternality\nof Nirv\u00e2na are called eternalists. Both views are incorrect.\u201d\nVasubandhu then proceeds to say: \u201cTherefore, the Dharmak\u00e2ya of the\nTath\u00e2gata is free from both extremes, and on that account it is called\nthe Great Eternal Perfection. When viewed from this absolute standpoint\nof Suchness, the logical distinction between Nirv\u00e2na and Sams\u00e2ra cannot\nin reality be maintained, and hereby we enter upon the realm of\nnon-duality.\u201d And this realm of non-duality is the Middle Path of\nNirv\u00e2na, not in its nihilistic, but in its Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic, significance.\n\n\n _How to Realise Nirv\u00e2na._\n\nHow can we attain the Middle Path of Nirv\u00e2na? How can we realise a\nlife that is neither pessimistic asceticism nor materialistic\nhedonism? How can we steer through the whirlpools of Sams\u00e2ra without\nbeing {360} swallowed up and yet braving their turbulent gyration? The\nanswer to this can readily be given, when we understand, as repeatedly\nstated above, that this life is the manifestation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya,\nand that the ideal of human existence is to realise within the\npossibilities of his mind and body all that he can conceive of the\nDharmak\u00e2ya. And this we have found to be all-embracing love and\nall-seeing intelligence. Destroy then your ignorance at one blow and\nbe done with your egoism, and there springs forth an eternal stream of\nlove and wisdom.\n\nSays Vasubandhu: \u201cBy virtue of Praj\u00f1\u00e2 [intelligence or wisdom], our\negoistic thoughts are destroyed: by virtue of Karu\u1e47\u00e2 [love],\naltruistic thoughts are cherished. By virtue of Praj\u00f1\u00e2, the\n[affective] attachment inherent in vulgar minds is abolished; by\nvirtue of Karu\u1e47\u00e2, the [intellectual] attachment as possessed by the\n\u00c7r\u00e2vakas and Pratyekabuddhas is abolished. By virtue of Praj\u00f1\u00e2,\nNirv\u00e2na [in its transcendental sense] is not rejected; by virtue of\nKaru\u1e47\u00e2, Sams\u00e2ra [with its changes and transmigrations] is not rejected.\nBy virtue of Praj\u00f1\u00e2 the truth of Buddhism is attained; by virtue of\nKaru\u1e47\u00e2, all sentient beings are matured [for salvation].\u201d\n\nThe practical life of a Buddhist runs in two opposite, though not\nantagonistic, directions, one upward and the other downward, and the\ntwo are synthesised in the Middle Path of Nirv\u00e2na. The upward\ndirection points to the intellectual comprehension of the truth, while\nthe downward one to a realisation of all-embracing {361} love among\nhis fellow-creatures. One is complemented by the other. When the\nintellectual side is too much emphasised at the expense of the\nemotional, we have a Pratyekabuddha, a solitary thinker, whose\nfountain of tears is dry and does not flow over the sufferings of his\nfellow-beings. When the emotional side alone is asserted to the\nextreme, love acquires the egoistic tint that colors everything coming\nin contact with it. Because it does not discriminate and takes\nsensuality for spirituality. If it does not turn out sentimentalism,\nit will assume a hedonistic form. How many superstitious, or foul, or\neven atrocious deeds in the history of religion have been committed\nunder the beautiful name of religion, or love of God and mankind! It\nmakes the blood run cold when we think how religious fanatics burned\nalive their rivals or opponents at the stake, cruelly butchered\nthousands of human lives within a day, brought desolation and ruin\nthroughout the land of their enemies,--and all these works of the\nDevil executed for sheer love of God! Therefore, says Devala, the\nauthor of the _Discourse on the Mah\u00e2puru\u1e63a_ (Great Man): \u201cThe wise\ndo not approve lovingkindness without intelligence, nor do they\napprove intelligence without lovingkindness; because one without the\nother prevents us from reaching the highest path.\u201d Knowledge is the\neye, love is the limb. Directed by the eye, the limb knows how to\nmove; furnished with the limb, the eye can attain what it perceives.\nLove alone is blind, knowledge alone is lame. It is only when one is\nsupplemented {362} by the other that we have a perfect, complete man.\n\nIn Buddha as the ideal human being we recognise the perfection of love\nand intelligence; for it was in him that the Dharmak\u00e2ya found its\nperfect realisation in the flesh. But as far as the Bodhisattvas are\nconcerned, their natural endowments are so diversified and their\ntemperament is so uneven that in some the intellectual elements are\nmore predominant while in others the emotional side is more pronounced,\nthat while some are more prone to practicality others preferably look\ntoward intellectualism. Thus, as a matter of course, some Bodhisattvas\nwill be more of philosophers than of religious seers. They may tend in\nsome cases to emphasise the intellectual side of religion more than\nits emotional side and uphold the importance of praj\u00f1\u00e2 (intelligence)\nabove that of karu\u1e47\u00e2 (love). But the Middle Path of Nirv\u00e2na lies in\nthe true harmonisation of praj\u00f1\u00e2 and karu\u1e47\u00e2, of bodhi and up\u00e2ya, of\nknowledge and love, of intellect and feeling.\n\n\n _Love Awakens Intelligence._\n\nBut if we have to choose between the two, let us first have\nall-embracing love, the Buddhists would say; for it is love that\nawakens in us an intense desire to find the way of emancipating the\nmasses from perpetual sufferings and eternal transmigration. The\nintellect will now endeavor to realise its highest possibilities; the\nBodhi will exhibit its fullest strength. When it is found out that\nthis life is an expression of the Dharmak\u00e2ya which is one and eternal,\nthat {363} individual existences have no selfhood (_\u00e2tman_ or\n_svabh\u00e2va_) as far as they are due to the particularisation of\nsubjective ignorance, and, therefore, that we are true and real only\nwhen we are conceived as one in the absolute Dharmak\u00e2ya, the\nBodhisattva\u2019s love which caused him to search after the highest truth\nwill now unfold its fullest significance.\n\nThis love, or faith in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na, as it is sometimes called, is\nfelt rather vaguely at the first awakening of the religious\nconsciousness, and agitates the mind of the aspirant, whose life has\nhitherto been engrossed in every form of egocentric thought and\ndesire. He no more finds an unalloyed satisfaction, as the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas\nor the Pratyekabuddhas do, in his individual emancipation from the\ncurse of Sams\u00e2ra. However sweet the taste of release from the bond of\nignorance, it is lacking something that makes the freedom perfectly\nagreeable to the Bodhisattva who thinks more of others than of\nhimself; to be sweet as well as acceptable, it must be highly savored\nwith lovingkindness which embraces all his fellow-beings as his own\nchildren. The emancipation of the \u00c7r\u00e2vaka or of the Pratyekabuddha\nis like a delicious food which is wanting in saline taste, for it is\nno more than a dry, formal philosophical emancipation. Love is that\nwhich stimulates a man to go beyond his own interests. It is the\nmother of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. The sacred motive that induces\nthem to renounce a life of Nirv\u00e2nic self-complacency, is nothing but\ntheir boundless love for all beings. They do {364} not wish to rest in\ntheir individual emancipation, they want to have all sentient creatures\nwithout a single exception emancipated and blest in paradisiacal\nhappiness. Love, therefore, bestows on us two spiritual benefits: (1)\nIt saves all beings from misery and (2) awakens in us the\nBuddha-intelligence.\n\nThe following passages quoted at random from Devala\u2019s _Mah\u00e2puru\u1e63a_\nwill help our readers to understand the true signification of Nirv\u00e2na\nand the value of love (_karu\u1e47\u00e2_) as estimated by the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists.\n\n\u201cThose who are afraid of transmigration and seek their own benefits\nand happiness in final emancipation, are not at all comparable to\nthose Bodhisattvas, who rejoice when they come to assume a material\nexistence once again, for it affords them another opportunity to\nbenefit others. Those who are only capable of feeling their own\nselfish sufferings may enter into Nirv\u00e2na [and not trouble themselves\nwith the sufferings of other creatures like themselves]; but the\nBodhisattva who feels in himself all the sufferings of his\nfellow-beings as his own, how can he bear the thought of leaving\nothers behind while he is on his way to final emancipation, and when\nhe himself is resting in Nirv\u00e2nic quietude?..... Nirv\u00e2na in truth\nconsists in rejoicing at other\u2019s being made happy, and Sams\u00e2ra in not\nso feeling. He who feels a universal love for his fellow-creatures\nwill rejoice in distributing blessings among them and find his Nirv\u00e2na\nin so doing.[155]\n\n{365}\n\n\u201cSuffering really consists in pursuing one\u2019s egotistic happiness,\nwhile Nirv\u00e2na is found in sacrificing one\u2019s welfare for the sake of\nothers. People generally think that it is an emancipation when they\nare released from their own pain, but a man with loving heart finds it\nin rescuing others from misery.\n\n\u201cWith people who are not kindhearted, there is no sin that will not be\ncommitted by them. They are called the most wicked whose hearts are\nnot softened at the sight of others\u2019 misfortune and suffering.\n\n\u201cWhen all beings are tortured by avarice, passion, ill humor,\ninfatuation, and folly, and are constantly threatened by the misery of\nbirth and death, disease and decay..... how can the Bodhisattva live\namong them and not feel pity for them?\n\n\u201cOf all good virtues, lovingkindness stands foremost.... It is the\nsource of all merit.... It is the {366} mother of all Buddhas.... It\ninduces others to take refuge in the incomparable Bodhi.\n\n\u201cThe loving heart of a Bodhisattva is annoyed by one thing, that all\nbeings are constantly tortured and threatened by all sorts of pain.\u201d\n\nLet us quote another interesting passage from a Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na s\u00fbtra.\n\nWhen Vimalakirti was asked why he did not feel well, he made the\nfollowing reply, which is full of religious significance: \u201cFrom\nignorance there arises desire and that is the cause of my illness. As\nall sentient beings are ill, so am I ill. When all sentient beings are\nhealed of their illness, I shall be healed of my illness, too. Why?\nThe Bodhisattva suffers birth and death because of sentient beings. As\nthere is birth and death, so there is illness. When sentient beings\nare delivered from illness, the Bodhisattvas will suffer no more\nillness. When an only son in a good family is sick, the parents feel\nsick too: when he is recovered they are well again. So it is with the\nBodhisattva. He loves all sentient beings as his own children. When\nthey are sick, he is sick too. When they are recovered, he is well\nagain. Do you wish to know whence this [sympathetic] illness is? The\nillness of the Bodhisattva comes from his all-embracing love\n(_mah\u00e2karun\u00e2_).\u201d\n\nThis gospel of universal love is the consummation of all religious\nemotions whatever their origin. Without this, there is no\nreligion--that is, no religion that is animated with life and spirit.\nFor it is in the fact {367} and nature of things that we are not moved\nby mere contemplation or mere philosophising. Every religion may have\nits own way of intellectually interpreting this fact, but the\npractical result remains the same everywhere, viz. that it cannot\nsurvive without the animating energy of love. Whatever sound and fine\nreasoning there may be in the doctrine of the \u00c7r\u00e2vaka and the\nPratyekabuddha, the force that is destined to conquer the world and to\ndeliver us from misery is not intellection, but the will, i.e. the\np\u00fbrvapranidh\u00e2na of the Dharmak\u00e2ya.\n\n\n _Conclusion._\n\nWe now conclude. What is most evident from what we have seen above is\nthat the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Nirv\u00e2na is not the annihilation of life but its\nenlightenment, that it is not the nullification of human passions and\naspirations but their purification and ennoblement. This world of\neternal transmigration is not a place which should be shunned as the\nplayground of evils, but should be regarded as the place of\never-present opportunities given to us for the purpose of unfolding\nall our spiritual possibilities and powers for the sake of the\nuniversal welfare. There is no need for us to shrink, like the snail\ninto his cozy shelter, before the duties and burdens of life. The\nBodhisattva, on the contrary, finds Nirv\u00e2na in a concatenation of\nbirths and deaths and boldly faces the problem of evil and solves it\nby purifying the Bodhi from subjective ignorance.\n\n{368}\n\nHis rule of conduct is:\n\n\n \u201cSabba p\u00e2passa akaranam,\n Kusalassa upasampada,\n Sacitta pariyodapanam;\n Etam buddh\u00e2nu s\u00e2sanam.\u201d[156]\n\n\nHis aspirations are solemnly expressed in this, which we hear daily\nrecited in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhist temples and monasteries and\nseminaries:\n\n\n \u201cSentient beings, however innumerable, I take vow to save;\n Evil passions, however inextinguishable, I take vow to destroy;\n The avenues of truth, however numberless, I take vow to study;\n The way of the Enlightened, however unsurpassable, I take vow to\n  attain.\u201d\n\n\nAnd an indefatigable pursuit of these noble aims will finally lead to\nthe heaven of the Buddhists, Nirv\u00e2na, which is not a state of eternal\nquietude, but the source of energy and intelligence.\n\nBy way of summary, and to avoid all misconceptions, let me repeat once\nmore that Nirv\u00e2na is thus no negation of life, nor is it an idle\ncontemplation on the misery of existence. The life of a Buddhist\nconsists by no means in the monotonous repetition of reciting the\ns\u00fbtras and going his rounds for meals. Far from that. He enters into\nall the forms of life-activity, for he does not believe that universal\nemancipation {369} is achieved by imprisoning himself in the cloister.\n\nTheoretically speaking, Nirv\u00e2na is the dispersion of the clouds of\nignorance hovering around the light of Bodhi. Morally, it is the\nsuppression of egoism and the awakening of love (_karun\u00e2_).\nReligiously, it is the absolute surrender of the self to the will of\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya. When the clouds of ignorance are dispersing, our\nintellectual horizon gets clearer and wider; we perceive that our\nindividual existences are like bubbles and lightnings, but that they\nobtain reality in their oneness with the Body of Dharma. This\nconviction compels us to eternally abandon our old egoistic conception\nof life. The ego finds its significance only when it is conceived in\nrelation to the not-ego, that is, to the _alter_; in other words,\nself-love has no meaning whatever unless it is purified by love for\nothers. But this love for others must not remain blind and\nunenlightened, it must be in harmony with the will of the Dharmak\u00e2ya\nwhich is the norm of existence and the reason of being. The mission of\nlove is ennobled and fulfilled in its true sense when we come to the\nfaith that says \u201cthy will be done.\u201d Love without this resignation to\nthe divine ordinance is merely another form of egoism: the root is\nalready rotten, how can its trunk, stems, leaves, and flowers make a\nveritable growth?\n\nLet us then conclude with the following reflections of the Bodhisattva,\nin which we read the whole signification of Buddhism.\n\n{370}\n\n\u201cHaving practised all the six virtues of perfection (_p\u00e2ramit\u00e2_) and\ninnumerable other meritorious deeds, the Bodhisattva reflects in this\nwise:\n\n\u201c\u2018All the good deeds practised by me are for the benefit of all\nsentient beings, for their ultimate purification [from sin]. By the\nmerit of these good deeds I pray that all sentient beings be released\nfrom the innumerable sufferings suffered by them in their various\nabodes of existence. By the turning over (_parivarta_) of these deeds\nI would be a haven for all beings and deliver them from their\nmiserable existences; I would be a great beacon-light to all beings\nand dispel the darkness of ignorance and make the light of intelligence\nshine.\u2019\n\n\u201cHe reflects again in this wise:\n\n\u201c\u2018All sentient beings are creating evil karma in innumerable ways, and\nby reason of this karma they suffer innumerable sufferings. They do\nnot recognise the Tath\u00e2gata, do not listen to the Good Law, do not\npay homage to the congregation of holy men. All these beings carry an\ninnumerable amount of great evil karma and are destined to suffer in\ninnumerable ways. For their sake I will in the midst of the three evil\ncreations suffer all their sufferings and deliver every one of them.\nPainful as these sufferings are, I will not retreat, I will not be\nfrightened, I will not be negligent, I will not forsake my\nfellow-beings. Why? Because it is the will [of the Dharmak\u00e2ya] that\nall sentient beings should be universally emancipated.\u2019\n\n{371}\n\n\u201cHe reflects again in this wise:\n\n\u201c\u2018My conduct will be like the sun-god who with his universal\nillumination seeks not any reward, who ceases not on account of one\nunrighteous person to make a great display of his magnificent glory,\nwho on account of one unrighteous person abandons not the salvation of\nall beings. Through the dedication (_parivarta_) of all my merits I\nwould make every one of my fellow-creatures happy and joyous.\u2019\u201d (The\n_Avatamsaka S\u00fbtra_, fas XIV).\n\n{372}\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n{373}\n\n{374}\n\n{375}\n\n HYMNS OF MAH\u00c2Y\u00c2NA FAITH.\n\n DHARMAK\u00c2YA (TATH\u00c2GATA).[a01]\n\n In all beings there abideth the Dharmak\u00e2ya;\n With all virtues dissolved in it, it liveth in eternal calmness.\n It knoweth nor birth nor death, coming nor going;\n Not one, not two; not being, not becoming;\n Yet present everywhere in worlds of beings:\n This is what is perceived by all Tath\u00e2gatas.\n All virtues, material and immaterial,\n Dependent on the Dharmak\u00e2ya, are eternally pure in it.\n\n Like unto the sky is the ultimate nature of the Dharmak\u00e2ya;\n Far away from the six dusts, it is defilement-free.\n Of no form and devoid of all attributes is the Dharmak\u00e2ya,\n In which are void both actor and action:\n The Dharmak\u00e2ya of all Buddhas, thus beyond comprehension,\n Quells all the struggles of sophistry and dialectics,\n Distances all the efforts of intellection,\n Thoughts all are dead in it, and suchness alone abideth.\n\n ---\n\n{376}\n\n THE DHARMAK\u00c2YA OF TATH\u00c2GATA.[a02]\n\n In all the worlds over the ten quarters,\n O ye, sentient creatures living there,\n Behold the most venerable of men and gods,\n Whose spiritual Dharma-body is immaculate and pure.\n\n As through the power of one mind,\n A host of thoughts is evolved:\n So from one Dharma-body of Tath\u00e2gata,\n Are produced all the Buddha-bodies.\n\n In Bodhi nothing dual there existeth,\n Nor is any thought of self present:\n The Dharma-body, undefiled and non-dual,\n In its full splendor manifesteth itself everywhere.\n\n Its ultimate reality is like unto the vastness of space;\n Its manifested forms are like unto magic shows;\n Its virtues excellent are inexhaustible,\n This, indeed, the spiritual state of Buddhas only.\n\n All the Buddhas of the present, past, and future,\n Each one of them is an issue of the Dharma-body immaculate and pure;\n Responding to the needs of sentient creatures,\n They manifest themselves everywhere, assuming corporeality which is\n  beautiful.\n\n They never made the premeditation\n That they would manifest in such and such forms.\n Separated are they from all desire and anxiety,\n And free and self-acting are their responses.\n\n{377}\n\n They do not negate the phenomenality of dharmas,\n Nor do they affirm the world of individuals:\n But manifesting themselves in all forms,\n They teach and convert all sentient creatures.\n\n The Dharma-body is not changeable,\n Neither is it unchangeable;\n All dharmas [in essence] are without change,\n But manifestations are changeable.\n\n The Sambodhi knoweth no bounds,\n Extending as far as the limits of the Dharmaloka itself;\n Its depths are bottomless, and its extent limitless;\n Words and speeches are powerless to describe it.\n\n Of all the ways that lead to Enlightenment\n The Tath\u00e2gata knoweth the true significance;\n Wandering freely all over the worlds,\n Obstacles he encountereth nowhere.\n\n ---\n\n THE TATH\u00c2GATA. (1)[a03]\n\n The Tath\u00e2gata appeared not on earth,\n Nor did he enter into Nirvana;\n By the supreme power of his inmost will,\n He reveals himself freely as he wills.[a04]\n\n This fact is beyond comprehension,\n Belongs not to the sphere of a limited consciousness,\n Only an intelligence perfect and gone beyond\n Is able to have an insight into the realm of Buddhas.\n\n{378}\n\n The material body is not the Tath\u00e2gata,\n Nor is the voice, nor the sound:\n Yet he is not beyond the visible and the audible:\n The Buddha has indeed a power miraculous.\n\n People of little faith are unable to know\n The inmost adytum of Buddhahood.\n It is by the perfecting of primordial karma-intelligence\n That the realm of all Buddhas is revealed.\n\n All Buddhas come from nowhere,\n And depart for nowhere:\n The Body of Dharma that is pure, immaculate, and incomprehensible,\n Is invested with a power miraculously free.\n\n In infinity of worlds,\n Revealing itself in the body of Tath\u00e2gata,\n It universally preaches the Law supremely excellent,\n And in its heart no attachment lingers.\n\n An intellect that knows no limits or bounds\n Perceives no obstacles in all dharmas,\n And penetrates into the depths of the Dharmaloka,\n Revealing itself with a power miraculously divine.\n\n All sentient beings and all creatures,\n It understandeth thoroughly without difficulty:\n Its Bodies of Transformation are innumerable,\n And universally revealed in all the worlds.\n\n Those who seek after All-knowledge\n May in course of time attain perfect enlightenment;\n Let them above all purify the heart\n And complete their discipline in Bodhisattvahood.\n\n{379}\n\n And then they will see the Tath\u00e2gata\u2019s\n Immeasurable power that comes from his free will;\n Devoid of all doubts they are, and accompanied\n With sages whose virtue is unsurpassable.\n\n ---\n\n THE TATH\u00c2GATA (2).[a05]\n\n The Tath\u00e2gata, in pure golden color,\n And in person resplendent and majestic,\n In innumerable ages past,\n All merits hath accumulated.\n\n With bliss and wisdom all in perfection,\n And the highest enlightenment attaining.\n And with great loving heart animated,\n He now appeareth in this world of endurance.\n\n Men and devas and the eight hosts of demons,\n All pay him homage most reverent,\n Who, from his inmost self-being,\n Preacheth the deepest spiritual Dharma.\n\n Which is so unfathomably deep,\n That Buddha alone can understand it:\n Multitudes of beings, ignorant and blind,\n Listening to it, are unable to comprehend.\n\n The Tath\u00e2gata is the great leader of beings;\n With skill that is excellent and marvellous,\n Guiding all those ignorant souls,\n By degrees bringeth them to Enlightenment.\n\n{380}\n\n The heart of all beings is miraculously bright,\n And eternally calm in its being.\n Pure and immaculate and defilement-free,\n It is replenished with all merits.\n\n Its essence is like unto the sky:\n Devoid of all limitations,\n Knoweth neither birth nor death,\n And there is neither coming nor departing.\n\n Eternally abiding in the Dharma-essence,\n It is immovable as the Mount Sumeru;\n The oneness in it of all beings\n Is indeed beyond finite knowledge.\n\n Vulgar minds from time immemorial,\n Blindly clinging to all passions,\n Are thrown deep into the ocean of pain,\n And know not how to escape.\n\n The most profound doctrine of Tath\u00e2gata,\n Full of meaning, spiritual and transcendental,\n With recipient intellects in all degrees,\n In harmony unfoldeth he the Law.\n\n A shower of one taste from above\n Covering all the ten quarters,\n Grasses and trees, woods and forests,\n Roots and trunks, large and small,\n\n Of all growing on this vast earth,\n Nothing is there that thereby itself benefiteth not.\n The Law delivered by the Tath\u00e2gata\n May even be likened unto it.\n\n{381}\n\n With one voice which is wondrous,\n He giveth utterance to thoughts innumerable,\n That are received by audience of all sort,\n Each understanding them in his own way.\n\n In this wise among the assemblage,\n None is there but that enters upon Buddha-knowledge\n Such is Buddha\u2019s miraculous power,\n Truly called \u201cIncomprehensible.\u201d\n\n ---\n\n REPENTANCE.[a06]\n\n Those who repent as prescribed by the Dharma,\n Altogether their earthly sins uproot;\n As fire on doomsday the world will consume,\n With its mountain peaks and infinite seas.\n\n Repentance burns up of earthly desires the fuel;\n Repentance to heaven the sinners is leading;\n Repentance the bliss of the four Dhy\u00e2nas imparteth;\n Repentance brings showers of jewels and gems;\n\n Repentance a holy life renders firm as a diamond;\n Repentance transports to the palace of bliss everlasting;\n Repentance from the triple world\u2019s prison releases;\n Repentance makes blossom the bloom of the Bodhi.\n\n ---\n\n{382}\n\n ALL BEINGS ARE MOTHERS AND FATHERS.\n\n All sentient beings in transmigration travel through the six gatis,\n Like unto a wheel revolving without beginning and end,\n Becoming in turn fathers and mothers, men and women:\n Generations and generations, each owes something to others.\n\n Ye should then regard all beings as fathers and mothers;\n Though this truth is too hidden to be recognised without the aid of\n  Holy Knowledge,\n All men are your fathers,\n All women are your mothers.\n\n While not yet requiting their love received in your prior lives,\n Why should ye, thinking otherwise, harbor enmity?\n Ever thinking of love, endeavor ye to benefit one another;\n And provoke ye not hostility, quarreling and insulting.\n\n ---\n\n THE TEN PAR\u00c2MIT\u00c2S.\n\n O ye, sons of Buddha, in the Holy Way trained,\n With the Heart of Highest Intelligence awakened,\n And living in seclusion at the Aranyaka,\n Should practice the ten p\u00e2ramit\u00e2s.\n\n At daily meal think ye first of almsgiving,\n And also distribute among beings the Treasure of Law;\n When the three rings[a07] are pure, it is called true charity;\n Through this practice perfected are the merits of discipline.\n\n{383}\n\n Would ye understand the merits of almsgiving?\n Know ye that it comes from the heart pure, and not from the wealth\n  given;\n A precious treasure with a heart unclean,\n Is surpassed by a mite with a heart clean.\n\n Wealth giving is a d\u00e2na-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2,\n And there are other d\u00e2na-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2s:\n To give away one\u2019s life, wife, or children,\n This is called blood-giving.\n\n Should a man of good family come and ask for the Law\n Let him have all the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na s\u00fbtras explained,\n And awaken in him the Heart of Highest Intelligence;\n This is called a true p\u00e2ramit\u00e2.\n\n With sympathy and pure faith and conscience,\n Embrace ye all beings and befree them from greed,\n That they might attain to the highest intelligence of the Tath\u00e2gata:\n The giving of wealth and of the Law is the first p\u00e2ramit\u00e2.\n\n Firmly observing the three sets of the Bodhisattva-\u00e7\u00eelas,[a08]\n O ye, evolve the Bodhi, distance birth-and-death,\n Guard the Law of Buddha and make it long live in the world,\n Repent the violation of the \u00e7\u00eelas, and be always mindful of the true\n  ones.\n\n Subdue ye anger and hate and cultivate in your heart love and\n  sympathy;\n Mindful of the karma past, harbor ye not evil thoughts against\n  offenders;\n Be not reluctant for the sake of all beings to sacrifice life:\n This is called the p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 of meekness.\n\n In practicing what is hard to practice, hesitate ye not awhile;\n With ever-increasing energy through three asankheya kalpas,\n Defile not yourselves, but always discipline the heart;\n And for the sake of all creatures seek ye salvation.\n\n{384}\n\n Entering into and rising from the Sam\u00e2dhi, spiritual freedom is\n  obtained:\n Transforming yourselves and travelling in all the ten quarters,\n Have for all beings the cause of evil desire removed,\n And let them seek deliverance in the doctrine of Sam\u00e2dhi.\n\n Would ye desire to attain to True Intelligence?\n Friendly approach Bodhisattvas and Tath\u00e2gatas;\n Gladly listening to the doctrine transcendental and sublime,\n Attain ye the three disciplines[a09] and remove the two\n  obstacles[a10].\n\n Recognising difference in the disposition of beings,\n Apply the medicine proper for each disease:\n Love and sympathy, skill and expediency, each fitting the case,\n Try the proper means for the benefit of the multitudes.\n\n Would ye know the true meaning of existence?\n The middle path lies in non-attachment, neither \u201cyea\u201d nor \u201cnay\u201d;\n Intelligence pure is unfathomable and unites in Suchness;\n Identify mine with thine, embracing the whole.\n\n By the force of intellect, grasping the nature of beings,\n Teach the masses each in accord with his capacity;\n The force of intellect penetrating through the heart of all beings,\n Destroys the root of transmigration in birth and death.\n\n Intelligently judging between black and white,\n Conscientiously take hold of one and put the other aside, and let\n  each rest in its place;\n Sams\u00e2ra and Nirv\u00e2na are but one in their essence;\n Fulfilling the meaning of existence, cherish ye not self-conceit.\n\n These ten deeds of excellence\n Comprise all eighty-four thousand virtues;\n Each in its class excels all the others,\n And is called the P\u00e2ramit\u00e2 of Bodhisattva.\n\n{385}\n\n Eighty-four thousand sam\u00e2dhis\n Becalm the disturbant mind of all beings;\n Eighty-four thousand dh\u00e2ran\u00ees\n Keep away all the prejudices and evil influences.\n\n The Great Sage, King of Dharma, with marvellous skill,\n Teacheth the Law in three ways and converteth all beings;\n Casting the net of the Doctrine in the ocean of birth and death,\n He draweth out men and gods to the abode of bliss.\n\n ---\n\n THE BODHI.[a11]\n\n All things are of the Bodhi,\n The Bodhi is in all things;\n The Bodhi and all things are one:\n Who knoweth this is called the World-honored.\n\n ---\n\n NIRVANA AND THE THREE EVILS.\n\n Greed is Nirvana;\n So is hate, and folly;\n In these three passions\n There dwells a Buddha-dharma inexpressible.\n\n Who severalises, thinking,\n There\u2019s greed, and hate, and folly,\n He is as far from Buddha,\n As heaven from earth.\n\n The Bodhi and greed,\n They\u2019re one, not two:\n Out of one Dharma-gate cometh all;\n Here\u2019s sameness, no diversity.\n\n{386}\n\n This hearing, the vulgar stand aghast;\n Far from the Buddha-path are they.\n The heart, when innocent of greed,[a12]\n Is never troubled.\n\n In whose mind self is lurking still,\n And who imagines that something he has,\n Greedy is this man called,\n And he is bound for hell.\n\n What is the true nature of greed,\n That is the nature of Buddha-dharma;\n What is the nature of Buddha-dharma,\n That is the nature of greed.[a13]\n\n These two are of one nature;\n That is, of no-nature;\n Who knoweth this truth,\n Would be the world-leader.\n\n ---\n\n NON-ATMAN AND PREJUDICE.[a14]\n\n There once was an ignorant man;\n So afraid of the sky was he\n That piteously crying he wandered away.\n Of its sudden collapse he was fearful.\n But the sky has no boundary,\n And to nobody \u2019t will be harmful.\n It was due to his ignorance\n That he trembled so fitfully.\n With the Bhikshus and Brahmans\n It is even so, who are prejudiced.\n Learning that empty is the world,\n Alarmed are they at heart;\n And wrongly imagine that if empty were the nature of \u00c2tman\n Nothingness would be the end of all work.\n\n ---\n\n{387}\n\n NON-ACTION.\n\n As the vacuity of sky,\n Being so clear and free of cloud and fog,\n Upon the earth below,\n Betrays no signs a shower to give:\n So the enlightened\n Betray no learning, no intelligence:\n And we, sentient beings,\n Can trace no efforts in their deliverance of the Law.[a15]\n\n ---\n\n SELF-DELUSION.\n\n There lived once a painter,\n Who such a monstrous Yaksha painted\n That he himself was terrified\n And losing all his senses on the ground he fell:\n \u2019Tis even so with vulgar minds;\n Infatuated, self-deluded by the senses,\n Of their own error they are unaware,\n And go from birth to birth without an end.\n\n ---\n\n ALL IN ONE.\n\n As all the waters in the valley\n Are emptied in the ocean\n Which is of one and the same taste:\n So the enlightened,\n Whatever is\n Good and beneficial,\n Turn over to the Bodhi\n And to that Reality\n In which all things become of one and the same taste.\n\n ---\n\n{388}\n\n NIHILISM.\n\n The vast vacuity of space,\n How limitless and measureless!\n But in the midst of the void\n How could a farmer sow his seeds?\n \u2019Tis even so with Nihilism:\n The past is gone forever,\n The future\u2019s not here yet,\n And in the present no Buddha-seeds have they.\n\n ---\n\n THE NIHILIST.\n\n A man who suffers from a disease incurable,\n However excellent his treatment be,\n Impossible he will find his health to gain,\n For his defies all means of remedy.\n \u2019Tis even so with them who walk in the way of emptiness;\n No matter whereso\u2019er they be,\n How blindly they are clinging unto it!\n Such I declare to be incurable.\n\n ---\n\n THE BUDDHA\u2019S DHARMA (1)\n\n As in its oneness the element earth\n Embraces diversities of objects,\n And discriminates not this or that;\n Even so is it with all the Buddha\u2019s Dharma.\n\n As in its oneness the element fire\n Burns everything on earth,\n And discriminates not in its nature;\n Even so is it with all the Buddha\u2019s Dharma.\n\n{389}\n\n As waters in the vast ocean,\n Absorbing hundreds of streams,\n Are of the same taste forever;\n Even so is it with all the Buddha\u2019s Dharma.\n\n As the dragon-god with thunder and lightning\n Brings showers on the earth all over,\n And the rain-drops discriminate not;\n Even so is it with all the Buddha\u2019s Dharma.\n\n ---\n\n THE BUDDHA\u2019S DHARMA. (2)\n\n As in her oneness mother earth\n Creates diversities of seeds\n And in her inmost no discrimination knows;\n E\u2019en so is it with all the Buddha\u2019s Dharma.\n\n As in the cloudless sky the sun\n O\u2019er the ten quarters all illuminates,\n And in its brightness shows no difference;\n E\u2019en so is it with all the Buddha\u2019s Dharma.\n\n As high up in the heavens is the moon\n Beheld by all beings on earth,\n And there\u2019s nowhere her glory reaches not;\n E\u2019en so is it with all the Buddha\u2019s Dharma.\n\n The Brahma-r\u00e2ja great\n In thousands of worlds himself all manifests\n And knows in his being no diversities;\n E\u2019en so is it with all the Buddha\u2019s Dharma.\n\n ---\n\n{390}\n\n THE PASSIONS AND WISDOM.\n\n Only in the filthiness of soil,\n Could the seed be sown and grow;\n Even so in the mire of passion\n Cherished by all sentient beings\n All over the world,\n If by the sons of Buddha well attended to,\n There will grow the seed of Buddha-dharma.\n\n Just as in filth and mud\n The lotus grows and blooms,\n Even so in a heart defiled with evil karma\n The seeds of Buddha-dharma are growing.\n\n ---\n\n IGNORANCE AND ENLIGHTENMENT. (1)\n\n A mansion there was once which was a hundred thousand years of age;\n No occupant was there, nor doors nor windows;\n Devas and men, all of a sudden,\n There came and burned a lamp;\n And the darkness that dwelt so long\n Departed instantly without a word.\n The inky darkness that the mansion filled\n Resisted not, \u201cI\u2019ve lived here for ages,\n And I\u2019ll never be removed from here.\u201d\n Even with karma-consciousness and the horde of passions in the heart,\n The analogy holds true.\n Though there abiding many hundred thousand kalpas,\n Their ultimate nature is not true nor real.\n When a traveler, day or night,\n Enters upon the truthful path,\n The lamp of wisdom burns in its full splendor;\n And the horde of evil passions\n Cannot tarry there, even for a moment.\n\n ---\n\n{391}\n\n IGNORANCE AND ENLIGHTENMENT. (2)\n\n Bright shines the lamp,\n And the inky night is gone.\n But with the darkness\n The quarters vanish not;\n Yet this illuminating lamp,\n If not in the dark, nowhere doth shine:\n For light and dark depend upon each other;\n No selfhood having,[a16] they\u2019re empty.\n \u2019Tis even so with enlightenment.\n In comes enlightenment,\n And out goes ignorance of its own accord.\n But both are like unto the flowers in the air,\n For neither by itself exists;\n Impossible is one alone, either to keep or to forego.\n\n ---\n\n THE BODHISATTVA AND ALL BEINGS[a17]\n\n Great Mother Earth\n All creatures\n Provides and nourishes,\n But from none of them\n She seeks a favor special, nor is she to any partial:\n So is the Bodhisattva.\n Since his awakening of the Heart,\n Until he gains the depths of the Law\n And realises the highest knowledge,\n He toils to save all creatures,\n Himself no favor seeking, nor to others granting any;\n Regardless of friend and enemy,\n Embracing all with single heart,\n He fashions one and all for Bodhi.\n\n * * *\n\n{392}\n\n The element Water\n All permeating\n Makes herbs and trees\n In luxury grow,\n Yet any favor special it nor shows nor seeks;\n So is the Bodhisattva;\n With a pure heart of love\n All sentient beings equally embraces he;\n All permeating gradually, universally,\n The seeds immaculate he nourishes,\n Which, breaking down all evils powerful,\n Obtain the fruit of Buddha-knowledge.\n\n * * *\n\n The element Fire\n Matures and ripens all\n The tender shoots of the cereals;\n Yet the element fire\n From those young plants\n No favor seeks, nor any shows to them;\n So is the Bodhisattva:\n With knowledge-fire\n Matures he all\n The tender shoots of creatures;\n Yet he from them\n No favor special seeks, nor shows he any.\n\n * * *\n\n The element Air,\n By reason of its virtue,\n Pervades all over Buddha-lands;\n With the Bodhisattva\n \u2019Tis even so,\n Who with consummate skill\n To Buddha\u2019s children\n Preaches the Doctrine Holy.\n\n ---\n\n{393}\n\n THE BODHISATTVA.\n\n /His Firmness/.\n\n As M\u00e2ra, the evil one,\n Commanding his four armies,\n Even by the devas in the K\u00e2maloka,\n Cannot be overwhelmed;\n So is the Bodhisattva,\n Whose heart, pure and clean,\n By all the hosts of Evil,\n Cannot be tempted, nor confused.\n\n /His Progress/.\n\n As the new moon,\n In size increasing gradually,\n Becomes perfect and full in the end;\n Even so the Bodhisattva,\n With a heart defilement-free,\n All the good dharmas seeking and performing,\n In virtue gradually progresses,\n And finally obtains the Law of Purity, perfect and full.\n\n /His Enlightenment/.\n\n The rising sun,\n All illumining,\n All forms and images in the world\n In glory are revealed;\n So is the Bodhisattva:\n The light of knowledge emitting,\n And sentient beings illumining,\n Bringeth he all to wisdom.\n\n{394}\n\n /His Fearlessness/.\n\n Lion, the king of beasts,\n Majestic, overpowering,\n And in the forest wandering,\n Knows he no fear, no terror;\n So is the Bodhisattva:\n Calmly abiding in Learning,\n Intelligence, and Morality,\n Throughout the universe,\n Wherever he wanders about,\n Knows he no fear, no doubt.\n\n /His Energy/.\n\n The giant elephant,\n With energy wondrous,\n A burden heavy carrying,\n Shows not the least fatigue;\n So is the Bodhisattva:\n Bearing, for the sake of the masses,\n The misery of the flesh,\n He shows not the least apathy.\n\n /His Purity/.\n\n The lotus-flower,\n Though growing in the marshy land,\n By dirt, or mire, or filth\n Is not defiled;\n So is the Bodhisattva:\n Though living in this world,\n No form of passion\n Ever touches him.\n\n{395}\n\n /His Self-sacrifice/.\n\n There lived once a man\n Who craftily and skillfully\n Felled the trunks of trees,\n But left the roots untouched,\n That after due time\n They might once more be growing;\n \u2019Tis even so with the Bodhisattva:\n With the up\u00e2ya that is excellent,\n Desires and passions down he fells,\n But leaves their seed unscathed\n By reason of his all-embracing love,\n And thereby ever and anon comes he on earth.[a18]\n\n ---\n\n THE BODHISATTVA\u2019S HOMELESS LIFE.[a19]\n\n The homeless Bodhisat regards the home life [or the world at large]\n As a hurricane that abates not awhile,\n Or as the moon\u2019s illusive image in water cast,\n Which the imagination takes deliberately for the real.\n\n The water in itself contains no lunar image [real];\n The real moon, dependent on water clear, a shadow casts;\n So are all beings unreal; only conditionally they exist;\n Yet \u2019tis imagined by the vulgar that an Atman they have.\n\n The Atman is the product of conditions, and real it is not;\n But for a reality the imagination it takes.\n Have the two prejudices[a20] removed,\n And we perceive Intelligence most high and peerless.\n\n{396}\n\n Our confused imagination is like unto a black storm,\n Blowing over the woods of birth and death, stirs up the leaves of\n  consciousness:\n By the four winds of fallacy \u2019tis haunted all the time,\n And five damnation-causes it produces,\n Entwining are indeed the roots of evil, which are three,\n Through birth and death doth transmigration ever onward move.\n\n Who to the Sutras listen and in them devoutly believe,\n The right view they acquire, removing all the thoughts which are\n  fallacious,\n And every instant growing are Seeds of Intelligence,\n And the Sam\u00e2dhi of knowledge great and of spirituality is awakened.\n\n When well disciplined in speculation deep and subtle,\n In the dark no more we grope, nor do we reap the crop of pain;\n Perceiving Suchness in the ultimate nature of things,\n Subject and object both gone, and vanished are all sins.\n\n Female and male, they\u2019re attributes, and they are void essentially:\n The ignorant imagine and create the two which only relatively exist.\n The Buddha has destroyed permanently the cause of ignorance,\n And in the ultimate reality nothing particular sees he, male or\n  female.\n\n The excellent fruit of wisdom, if ever attained, remains the same for\n  aye;\n The vulgar nathless imagine wrongly and see therein a thing concrete\n  and definite.\n The Buddha\u2019s features thirty-two are after all no-features;\n Who sees no-features in the features, the feature true he understands.\n\n{397}\n\n To wander homeless, and immaculate deeds to practise,\n Over the heart to watch, in solitude quietly to sit:\n This is the rightful way the Bodhisattva cleanses his heart;\n Erelong will he attain the fruit of enlightenment.\n\n ---\n\n THE BUDDHIST.[a21]\n\n Encourage not, for your self-interests,\n Heterodoxy and false doctrines;\n A merciful heart for all have ye;\n Remove stupidity and untruth from your minds;\n Be ye Tath\u00e2gata\u2019s most faithful servants;\n And teach the masses who are ignorant,\n To them the Bodhi impart, on yourselves it practising;\n And thereby make the Buddha\u2019s name resound on earth;\n Deliver the multitudes from sin and initiate them\n To the perfect enlightenment of the Buddha:\n Ye by these virtues firmly stand,\n And your Intelligence-heart doth never fail.\n\n ---\n\n HYMN TO THE BODHISATTVA.[a22]\n\n With lovingkindness, a Great Being who saves and protects,\n Regards all beings impartially as his only child;\n Energetically, cheerfully, and without stint,\n His life he sacrifices, uprooting pain, and bringing bliss\n  unspeakable.\n\n Surely he will attain the height of truth and beauty,\n Forever be freed from the entanglement of birth and death.\n And erelong will he the fruit of enlightenment obtain,\n Eternally peaceful, and in the Uncreate joy finding.\n\n ---\n\n{398}\n\n A VOW OF THE BODHISATTVA.[a23]\n\n For the sake of all sentient beings on earth,\n I aspire for the abode of enlightenment which is most high;\n In all-embracing love awakened, and with a heart steadily firm,\n Even my life I will sacrifice, dear as it is.\n\n In enlightenment no sorrows are found, no burning desires;\n \u2019Tis enjoyed by all men who are wise.\n All sentient creatures from the turbulent waters of the triple world,\n I\u2019ll release, and to eternal peace them I\u2019ll lead.\n\n ---\n\n THE TRUE HOMELESS ONE.[a24]\n\n Though not wearing the yellow robe,\n Whose heart is free from defilement,\n In the doctrine of Buddhas,\n He is the true homeless one.\n\n Though not devoid of showy ornaments,\n Who has cut off all entanglements,\n And in whose heart exists neither knottiness nor looseness,\n He is the true homeless one.\n\n Though not initiated by the Rules,\n Whose heart is clean of all evil thoughts,\n And open only to tranquillity, intelligence, and virtuous deeds,\n He is the true homeless one.\n\n Though not instructed in the Law,\n Whose insight goes deep into the ultimate,\n And is no more deluded by sham appearances,\n He is the true homeless one.\n\n{399}\n\n The mind that takes no thought of the ego,\n That goes beyond the illusory phenomena,\n Yet sinks not into stupidity\n Truly awakened to Intelligence it is.\n\n Whose mind, awakened to Intelligence,\n Sees no substantiality in the ego,\n And, not seeing, yet remains firm,\n This man cannot be injured.\n\n ---\n\n THE BODHISATTVA\u2019S SPIRITUAL LIFE.[a25]\n\n Like unto the vast ocean that receives\n All the waters, and yet overflows not;\n Even so is the Bodhisattva,\n Who knoweth no fatigue in seeking the merits of the Dharma.\n\n Again, like unto the vast ocean that absorbs\n All the streams, and yet shows no increase;\n Even so is the Bodhisattva,\n Who, receiving the deepest Dharma, nothing gaineth.[a26]\n\n Again, like unto the vast ocean that refuses to take filth,\n And wherein when absorbed doth foulness change to purity;\n Even so is the Bodhisattva,\n Whom all the filth of passion cannot tarnish.\n\n Again, like unto the vast ocean whose bottom is unfathomable;\n Even so is the Bodhisattva,\n Whose virtues and wisdom are so immeasurable\n That none ever knows their limits.\n\n{400}\n\n Again, like unto the vast ocean in which there\u2019s no diversity,\n All the waters and streams pouring thereinto become of one taste\n  alone;\n Even so is the Bodhisattva,\n Who listeneth to one note of Dharma.\n\n Again, like unto the vast ocean that existeth not\n For the interests of one individual;\n Even so is the Bodhisattva,\n Whose aspirations are for the benefit of all.\n\n Again, like unto the vast ocean that embosoms the jewel called\n  \u201call-jewel.\u201d\n Of which all jewels are produced;\n Even so is the jewel-treasure of the Bodhisattva,\n For it is through this that all the other jewels shine.\n\n Again, like unto the vast ocean that produces the three kinds of\n  jewel,\n And yet discriminates not between them;\n Even so is the teaching of the Bodhisattva,\n Who, equally delivering the three y\u00e2nas, maketh not any distinction.\n\n Again, like unto the vast ocean that by degrees becomes deeper;\n Even so is the Bodhisattva,\n Who, practising virtues for the sake of all,\n Forever aspireth after the deepest omniscience.\n\n Again, like unto the vast ocean that harbors not a corpse;\n Even so is the Bodhisattva,\n Who, with the heart of purity and the vow of Bodhi,\n Harboreth not a passion, nor the thought of the \u00c7r\u00e2vaka.\n\n ---\n\n{401}\n\n THE BODHISATTVA\u2019S FAITH. (1)[a27]\n\n Perceiving all in one,\n And one in all,\n The Bodhisattva diligent in his work\n Is never given up to indolence.\n\n Pain he shunneth not, to pleasure he clingeth not,\n As he is ever bent on the deliverance of all beings;\n To him all Buddhas will themselves reveal,\n And of their presence he is never weary.\n\n He is in the deepest depths of the Dharma,\n Where is found the inexhaustible ocean of merit.\n All sentient beings in the fivefold path of existence,\n He loveth as his own child;\n Removing things unclean and filthy,\n Supplying them with dharmas pure and immaculate.\n\n ---\n\n THE BODHISATTVA\u2019S FAITH. (2)[a28]\n\n While to the doctrine most high listening,\n The Light of Pure Intelligence within me glows,\n That shining over all the universe\n All the enlightened ones to me reveals.\n\n Who think there are individuals\n They put themselves in the position most difficult;\n Dharmas have no ego-master which is real,\n For they are merely names and expressions.\n\n The vulgar and ignorant know not\n That within themselves they have a reality true and real,\n That the Tath\u00e2gata is not of any particular form;\n Therefore the Tath\u00e2gata they see not.\n\n{402}\n\n Dirt and dust obscuring their intelligence-eye,\n Enlightenment perfect and true they see not;\n And throughout kalpas immeasurable and innumerable,\n In the stream of birth and death they go a-rolling.\n\n Wandering and rolling is Sams\u00e2ra,\n No-more-a-rolling is Nirv\u00e2na;\n Yet Sams\u00e2ra and Nirv\u00e2na,\n Absolutely, exists neither of them.\n\n To believer in falsehood and sophistry,\n Sams\u00e2ra is here and Nirv\u00e2na there;\n Clearly they grasp not the Dharma of ancient sages,\n Nor understand the Path Incomparable.\n\n Those who thus cling to forms individual,\n Of Buddha\u2019s universal enlightenment, though they hear,\n Themselves negate, and away they wander from the right course of\n  thought;\n Therefore, they cannot see the Buddha.\n\n Who the Dharma of Truth perceive,\n Serene they are for aye, and abide in Suchness;\n Enlightenment most truthful they understand,\n Transcending words and all the modes of speech.\n\n Illusory are all forms individual;\n No such thing as dharma here exists:\n No enlightened ones\n Seek Truth in things particular.\n\n Whose insight to the past extends,\n To the future and over the present,\n And who fore\u2019er abides in serenity of Suchness,\n He\u2019s said to be a Tath\u00e2gata.\n\n ---\n\n{403}\n\n THE BODHISATTVA\u2019S FAITH. (3)[a29]\n\n I would rather suffer sufferings innumerable\n That I might listen to the voices of Buddhas,\n Than enjoy all sorts of pleasure\n And not hear Buddhas\u2019 names.\n\n The reason why since ages out of mind\n We suffer sufferings countless\n And transmigrate through birth and death,\n Is that we have not heard Buddhas\u2019 names.\n\n A reality that exists in things unreal,\n A perfect Intellect synthetising truth and falsehood,\n And that which transcends all the modes of relativity,\n This is called the Bodhi.\n\n Buddhas of the present are not products of composite conditions,\n Nor are those of the past, nor those of the future.\n What is formless in all forms,\n That is the true essence of Buddhas.\n\n Who thus perceives\n The deepest significance of all existences,\n In innumerable Buddhas, he will see\n The truth and reality of the Dharma-body.\n\n The Dharma-body knows truth as true,\n And falsehood as false,\n And well understands the realm of reality;\n Therefore, it is called perfect intellect.\n\n The enlightened has nothing enlightened,\n Which is the true spirituality of all Buddhas:\n And in this wise they behave,\n Neither to be one nor to be two.\n\n{404}\n\n They see the one in the many,\n They see the many in the one\n The Dharma has nothing to depend upon;\n How could it be a product of combination?\n\n The actor and the action,\n Neither really subsists:\n Who can understand this,\n Seeks not reality in either of them.\n\n And here where reality is unseekable,\n Buddhas find there the resting abode\n The Dharma has nothing to depend upon;\n And the enlightened have nothing to cling to.\n\n{405}\n\n\n\n\n NOTES\n TO THE APPENDIX.\n\n[a01] This and the following are translations from some Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na texts\nin the Buddhist Tripitaka, which were rendered into the Chinese\nlanguage at various times from Sanskrit mostly through the co-operation\nof the Hindu missionaries and Chinese scholars. A detailed analysis of\nthese texts is most urgently needed, as they contain many informations\nof great importance not only concerning the history of Buddhism in\nIndia but also concerning early Hindu culture generally. A rather\nincomplete idea as to their contents and material and general character\nwill be attained by the perusal of Rev. Nanjo\u2019s _Catalogue of the\nChinese Tripitaka_, Oxford, 1883.\n\n_Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-m\u00fblaj\u00e2ta-h\u1e5bdayabh\u00fbmi-dhy\u00e2na S\u00fbtra_, (Nanjo, no. 955,) fas.\niii.\n\n[a02] The _Avatamsaka_, fas. xiv., p. 73.\n\n[a03] _The Avatamsaka_, (Buddhabhadra\u2019s translation), fas. xiv, p. 72.\n\n[a04] To conceive the Tath\u00e2gata as a personal being who appeared on\nearth for a certain limited time and then eternally disappeared is not\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic. He reveals himself constantly and of his own will in\nthis world of particulars.\n\n[a05] _Sarvadharma-prav\u1e5btti-nirde\u00e7a S\u00fbtra_ (Nanjo, no. 1012).\n\n[a06] _Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-m\u00fblaj\u00e2ta-hrdavabh\u00fbmi-dhy\u00e2na S\u00fbtra_ (Nanjo 955), fas.\niii, p. 75.\n\n[a07] The three rings are: 1. the giver, 2. the receiver, and 3. the\nthing given, material or immaterial.\n\n[a08] Precepts. The three sets are: 1. one relating to good behavior,\n2. to the accumulation of merit, and 3. to lovingkindness toward all\nbeings.\n\n{406}\n\n[a09] The mental (subjective), physical (objective), and oral.\n\n[a10] The intellectual and the affective.\n\n[a11] _Sarvadharma-prav\u1e5btti-nirde\u00e7a S\u00fbtra._\n\n[a12] Literally, \u201cwhen greed is neither born nor dead.\u201d This means, to\nlive in the world as not living in it. This subjective divine\ninnocence is thought by Buddhists the essence of the religious life.\nThe consciousness of one\u2019s worth, or self-conceit, is a great obstacle\nin the path of perfect virtue. As in the case of mechanical work or\nphysical exercise, we attain perfect skillfulness only when the work\nis involuntarily done, i.e., without any conscious effort on the part\nof the performer; so in our moral and spiritual life we attain the\nheight of virtuousness or saintliness when we identify ourselves with\nthe reason of our being. This is Laotze\u2019s doctrine of non-action or\nnon-resistance, and also the teaching of the _Bhagavadg\u00eeta_. As\nremarked elsewhere, when a man reaches this stage of religious life,\nhe ceases to be human, but divine, in the sense that he transcends the\nworld of good and evil and eternally abides in the realm of the\nbeautiful.\n\n[a13] This is a very radical statement and is enough to frighten timid\nmoralists and \u201cGod-fearing\u201d pietists. Therefore, it is said that \u201cGive\nnot that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before\nswine.\u201d But think not that this is expounding antinomianism.\n\n[a14] This and all the following are taken from the _K\u00e2\u1e63yapa-Parivarta_\n(Nanjo, 805).\n\n[a15] This g\u00e2th\u00e2 may not be very intelligible to our readers. The\nsense is: Whatever is done by a Buddha or Bodhisattva does not come\nfrom logical calculation or deliberate premeditation, but immediately\nfrom his inmost heart, which, in most natural and freest manner,\nresponds to the needs of the suffering. This response is altogether\nfree from all human elaboration, for the Buddha shows no painful and\nstruggling efforts in so doing. Everything he does is like the work of\nnature herself. His life is above the narrow sphere of human morality\nwhich is marked with a desperate struggle between good and evil. His\nis in the realm of the divinely beautiful.\n\n{407}\n\n[a16] \u201cHaving no selfhood\u201d (_svabh\u00e2va_), means that things have no\nindependent existence, no self-nature which will eternally preserve\ntheir thingish identity. This theory has been explained in the chapter\ndealing with the doctrine of non-atman. To state summarily, darkness\nand light are conditioned by each other; apart from darkness there is\nno light, and conversely, without light darkness has no meaning. Even\nso with enlightenment and ignorance: one independent of the other,\nthey have no existence, they cannot be conceived. They are like\nimaginary flowers in the air projected there by a confused\nsubjectivity. They are nothing but our ideal fabrication. To cling to\nGod only, forgetting that we are living in the world below, in the\nworld of relativity, is just as much one-sided as to lose ourselves in\nthe whirlpool of earthly pleasures without the thought of God. Life,\nhowever, is not antithetic, but synthetic. Truth is never one-sided,\nit is always in the middle. Therefore, seek enlightenment in ignorance\nand truth in error. A dualistic interpretation of the world and life\nis not approved by Buddhists. Compare the sentiment expressed herein\nwith Emerson\u2019s poem as elsewhere quoted, in which these lines occur:\n\n\n \u201cBut in the mud and scum of things,\n There always, always, something sings.\u201d\n\n\n[a17] _The K\u00e2\u1e63yapaharivarta S\u00fbtra_ (Nanjo, 805.).\n\n[a18] The sense is: The Bodhisattva never desires a complete\nabsorption in the Absolute, in which no individual existences are\ndistinguishable. He always leaves the \u201cWill to live\u201d unhurt, as it\nwere, so that he could come in this world of particulars ever and\nanon. What he has destroyed is the egoistic assertion of the Will, for\nthe aim of Buddhism is not to remove the eternal principle of life,\nbut to manifest it in its true significance. The wishes of the\nBodhisattva, therefore, are never egocentric; he knows that\ntransmigration and rebirth are painful, but as it is by rebirth alone\nthat he could mingle himself in the world of sin and save the\nsuffering creatures therein, he never shuns the misery of life. His\nwork of revelation is constant and eternal.\n\n[a19] _The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-m\u00fblaj\u00e2ti-hrdayabh\u00fbmi-dhy\u00e2na S\u00fbtra_, fas. IV.\n\n{408}\n\n[a20] The two prejudices or obstacles that lie in our way to\nenlightenment are: 1 that which arises from intellectual\nshortsightedness; 2. that which arises from impurity of heart.\n\n[a21] _S\u00fbtra on Mah\u00e2k\u00e2\u1e63yapa\u2019s Question Concerning the Absolute._\n\n[a22] _Suvarna-Prabh\u00e2 S\u00fbtra._\n\n[a23] _Suvarna-Prabh\u00e2 S\u00fbtra_, Chap. 26\n\n[a24] _Padmapani S\u00fbtra_, Fas. 8.\n\n[a25] _The Avatamsaka Sutra._\n\n[a26] This means that the heart of the Bodhisattva which is pure and\neternal in its essential nature has nothing added externally to it by\nstudying the Dharma; for the Dharma is nothing else than the\nexpression of his own heart.\n\n[a27] The _Avatamsaka_, fas. IX, p. 48. This pantheistic thought of\nthe One-All is generally considered to be Buddhistic; but the truth is\nthat every genuine religious sentiment inevitably leads us to this\nfinal conviction. Even in the so-called transcendental monotheistic\nChristianity, we find the pantheistic thought boldly proclaimed and\nput in contrast to the idea of \u201cour Father which art in Heaven.\u201d For\ninstance, read the following passage from Thomas \u00e0 Kempis: \u201cHe to whom\nall things are one, he who reduceth all things to one, and seeth all\nthings in one, may enjoy a quiet mind, and remain at peace in God.\u201d\n(Chap. III.) The passage in the Gospel of John declaring that \u201cthe\nFather is in me and I in him,\u201d when logically carried out, comes to\necho the same sentiment entertained by Buddhists, who recognise a\nmanifestation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya in all beings, animate as well as\ninanimate. The Christianity of to-day is that of Paul as expounded in\nhis letters, but the future one will advance a few steps more and will\nbe that of John.\n\n[a28] From the _Avatamsaka Sutra_.\n\n[a29] From the _Avatamsaka Sutra_.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX.\n\n{409}\n\nAbhimuk\u00ee (sixth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 318.\n\nAcal\u00e2 (eighth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 322.\n\nA\u00e7oka, King, 49.\n\nA\u00e7rava (evil), explained, 249 ft.\n\nA\u00e7\u00fbnya, 22, 95.\n\nA\u00e7vaghosha, 4, 8, 61 ft., 65 ft., 111, 115; on \u00c2laya, 66 ft., 129, 139\nft.; _Awakening of Faith_, 7; on Suchness, 99; on Ignorance, 118; and\nDionysius, 102 ft.; _Buddhacarita_, quoted, 147; on Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, 246;\non the Sambhogak\u00e2ya, 258, 333.\n\nAgnosticism, 25.\n\n\u00c2laya (or \u00c2laya-vij\u00f1\u00e2na), All-conserving Soul, 66; as depository of\n\u201cgerms\u201d, 66; creator of the universe, 68; and the Garbha, 125 et seq.;\nits evolution, 128; and the soul, 165; and the twelve nid\u00e2nas, 183.\n\nAmit\u00e2bha, 207, 219, 269.\n\nAn\u00e2n\u00e2rtha (non-particularisation), 72.\n\n\u00c2nanda attempts to locate the soul, 157.\n\n\u00c2n\u00e2p\u00e2nam, exercise in breathing, 53 ft.\n\nArada, 146.\n\nArcismat\u00ee (fourth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 316.\n\nArhatship and Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, 288.\n\n\u00c2ryadeva, 3 ft., 8, 60.\n\nAsanga (and Vasubandhu), 4, 62, 65, 69, 87, 88, 153, 231, 234, 263,\n354.\n\n{410}\n\nAsceticism repudiated, 52, 53.\n\nAtman, and Samkhyan Lingham, 38; and the Vedantic \u00e7ar\u00eera, 38; and\nVij\u00f1\u00e2na, 39; and unity of consciousness, 40; and karma, 41; and\nimpermanency, 43; and egoism, 44; and the \u201cold man\u201d, 165. (_See also_\n\u201cego\u201d and \u201csoul\u201d.)\n\nAtonement, vicarious, 291 ft.\n\n_Avatamsaka S\u00fbtra_, The, on Bodhisattva\u2019s reflections, 369 et seq.\n\nAvenikas (unique features), 327 ft.\n\nAvidy\u00e2 (ignorance), 35 et seq., 115.\n\n\nBalas, the ten, of the Buddha, 327.\n\nBeal, Samuel, refuted, 20 et seq. _Catena of Buddhist Scriptures_,\nquoted, 157 ft.; _Romantic History of Buddha_, quoted, on Buddha\u2019s\nenlightenment, 337.\n\n_Bhagavadg\u00eeta_, quoted, 126 ft.\n\nBh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2 (Suchness), 99 et seq; and Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na, 7; and perfect\nknowledge, 92.\n\nBodhi (wisdom), 46; and Praj\u00f1\u00e2 etc., defined, 82 ft.; as perfect\nknowledge, 92; its meaning explained, 294; by N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, 297; as a\nreflex of Dharmak\u00e2ya, 299; how awakened in human heart, 302.\n\nBodhicitta (Intelligence-heart), 52. (_See also_ \u201cBodhi.\u201d)\n\nBodhi-Dharma, of Dhy\u00e2na sect, 103, 149, 155.\n\nBodhipakshikas, the seven, 316 et seq.\n\nBodhisattva, above samsara and nirvana, 72; in the three y\u00e2nas, 277;\nthe conception of, in primitive Buddhism, 286; we are, 290; and love,\n292; his ten pranidhanas, 308; his reflections, 369.\n\nBodhisattvahood, ten stages of, 70, 311 et seq.\n\nBodhisattva-y\u00e2na, 9.\n\n_Brahdaranyaka Upanishad_, quoted, 102 ft.\n\n{411}\n\nBuddha, and his self-relying spirit, 57; culmination of good karma,\n215; in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na texts, 243; the idealisation of, historically\ntreated, 249 et seq.; in the Trik\u00e2ya, 252; the human, and the\nspiritual Dharmak\u00e2ya, 255; his 32 major and 80 minor marks of\ngreatness, 271; in the process of idealisation, 289; in the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, 291; and M\u00e2ra, 334; on the ego-soul in the beginning of\nhis religious career, 337.\n\n_Buddhacarita_, quoted, 57.\n\nBuddhadharma, 355.\n\n_Buddha-Essence, Discourse on_, 357 ft.\n\nBuddha-intelligence, 364.\n\nBuddhism(s), geographically divided, 3, 4; two, 4 et seq.; and\natheism, 31; and the soul problem, 31 et seq.; and agnosticism, 35;\nand modern psychology, 40; intellectual, 56 et seq.; liberal, 56 et\nseq.; and speculation, 81 et seq.; and science, 97.\n\nBuddhist(s) classified, 8 et seq.; life and love, 52; ideal, 53;\naspiration, 368; rule of conduct, 368.\n\n\n\u00c7\u00e2kyamuni contrasted to Devadatta, 200.\n\nCarlyle\u2019s _Hero-Worship_, quoted, 325 ft.\n\nCausation, universal, and emptiness, 176.\n\nChrist and Buddha, compared, 57, 58.\n\nChristian conception of the ego-soul, 166.\n\nChristianity, the growth of, compared with Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, 12 et seq.; and\nits founder, 13; not intellectual, 79.\n\n\u00c7ikshas (moral rules), ten, 70 ft.\n\nConfucius, 63 ft.\n\nConsciousness, subliminal, 201.\n\nConservation of energy, and karma, 34.\n\nConvictions, the four, of the Buddha, 327.\n\n{412}\n\n\u00c7r\u00e2vaka, 277.\n\n\u00c7r\u00e2vaka-y\u00e2na, 9.\n\n_\u00c7rim\u00e2la S\u00fbtra_, quoted, 127.\n\n\u00c7\u00fbnyat\u00e2, (or \u00e7\u00fbnya), 22, 95; and Christian critics, 105; explained,\n173; and universal causation, 176.\n\n\nDa\u00e7abh\u00fbmi, (_see_ \u201cten stages of Bodhisattvahood\u201d), 311, 329.\n\nDeussen, P., quoted, 107.\n\nDevala, 361, 364.\n\nDharma, its meaning, 21, 221.\n\nDharmadhatu, 115 ft., 193.\n\nDharmak\u00e2ya, Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na, 7; briefly explained, 20, 45 et seq.; the\nhighest principle, 35; and Brahman, 46; and Param\u00e2tman, 46; and God of\nChristians, 46; as love and wisdom, 46, 54, 55; and non-ego, 47; and\nthe Golden Rule, 48; and Bodhisattvas, 61; its universal incarnation,\n63 ft.; in the Trik\u00e2ya, 73, 257; as perfect knowledge, 92; and praj\u00f1\u00e2,\n94; as a cosmic mind, 123; a unity, 193; and Suchness, 217; as God,\n219; as religious object, 222; in the _Avatamsaka Sutra_, 223; its\ndetailed characterisation, 224; in the phenomenal world, 231; as love,\n232; as a loving heart in the _Avatamsaka_, 233; its seven\ncharacteristics, 234; by Asanga and Vasubandhu, 234; its five modes of\noperation, 235; its freedom, 236; its p\u00fbrvanidh\u00e2nabala, 237; as\nrational will, 238; as father, 239; and its perpetual revelation, 259;\nthe evolution of its conception, 272; all beings are one in, 290; and\nthe Bodhi, 295.\n\n_Dharmapada_, The, quoted, 34, 145, 336, 368.\n\nDharmamegha (tenth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 326.\n\nDharmapala, the An\u00e2garika, 3 ft.\n\n_Discourse on Buddha-Essence_, The, by Vasubandhu, 357.\n\nD\u00fbrangama (seventh stage of Bodhisattvahood), 319.\n\n{413}\n\n\nEgo, not the source of energy, 55; noumenal, 145, 163; phenomenal,\n145; empirical, 163.\n\nEgoism and the evolution of Manas, 134.\n\nEgo-soul, and its attributes, 147; and the five skandhas, 149; located\nby Ananda, 157; and the Christian flesh, 166; and the Vedantic\nconception, 167 et seq.; and N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, 168; and svabhava, 171; and\nChristians, 212; as conceived by Buddha when he started on his\nreligious career, 337. (_See also_ \u201cEgo\u201d, \u201c\u00e2tman\u201d and \u201csoul\u201d).\n\nEkacitta, (one mind or thought), 70 ft.\n\nElders, the School of, 248 et seq.\n\nElephant and the blind, 100.\n\nEmerson, quoted, 29.\n\nEnlightenment, 55, 119; and manas, 134; two obstacles to, 344 ft.\n\n\nFaith, its contents vary, 27 et seq.\n\nFatalism, 196.\n\n\nGautama and Christ, 29. (_See also_ \u201cBuddha\u201d).\n\nGod, the Buddhist, 219. (_See also_ \u201cDharmak\u00e2ya\u201d).\n\nGoethe\u2019s Faust, quoted, 181.\n\nGolden Rule, the, universal, 54.\n\nGreat Council School, the, 248 et seq.\n\nGuyau, French sociologist, 50 ft., 84.\n\n\nHartmann\u2019s Unbewusste, 137.\n\nHetus and Pratyayas, 33, 41, 142, 148.\n\nH\u00eenay\u00e2nism, 1, 60, 63, 280.\n\nHugo, Victor, quoted, 58.\n\nHui-K\u2019e, second patriarch of Zen sect, 148.\n\n{414}\n\n\nIccantika (incapable of salvation), 311.\n\nIgnorance, 35 et seq.; and evolution, 115; and consciousness, 120; no\nevil, 122; when evil? 124; and Tath\u00e2gata-Garbha, 126; and Manas, 133;\nand Prakrit, 138 ft.\n\n_Imitation of Christ_, 364 fn.\n\nImmortality, 38; and Dharmak\u00e2ya, 54; karmaic and not individual, 214.\n\nInjustice, social, and karma, 186\n\nIntelligence, awakened by love, 362.\n\n\n_J\u00e2taka Tales_, the, quoted, 156.\n\nJesus, 6.\n\nJ\u00eev\u00e2tman, 145.\n\n\nKant, 6; _Critique of Pure Reason_, quoted, 324.\n\nKarma, and the law of causation, 33; briefly explained, 33 et seq.;\nand non-atman, 42; and suchness, 181; defined, 181; the working of,\n183; irrefragable, 184; and injustice, 186; and the moral laws, 189;\nan individualistic view, 192; and the desire to communicate, 195; and\ndeterminism, 196; not like a machine, 198; and immortality, 203; and\nWalt Whitman (quoted), 203; how transmitted, 205; and Dharmak\u00e2ya, 207;\nand productions of art, 208; and invention, 210; and \u201cseeds of\nactivity,\u201d 212.\n\nKarma-seeds, 134.\n\nKarun\u00e2 (love), 46, 82, 238, 296; and Praj\u00f1\u00e2, 360.\n\n_Kathopanishad_, quoted, 47.\n\nKnowledge (sambodhi), 3 ft.; three kinds of, 67, 87.\n\nKu\u00e7alam\u00fbla, 199.\n\n\n_Lalita Vistara_, quoted, on Nirvana, 338 fn.\n\n{415}\n\n_Lankavatara Sutra_, quoted, 41, 130.\n\nLaotze, 63 ft.\n\nLaotzean _Wu wei_, 285.\n\nLove, and ego, 55; and Nirvana, 362.\n\n\n_Madhy\u00e2mika_, The, on Nirvana, 347.\n\nMadhy\u00e2mika school, 21, 62, 66; and the Yogacarya, on truth, 95.\n\n_Mah\u00e2purusa, Discourse on the_, 361.\n\nMah\u00e2sangika, 1 ft.\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na, 1 et seq; its original meaning, 7; and Bodhisattvas, 61; and\nH\u00eenay\u00e2na, 70; and spiritual life, 71; and Samkhya, 136.\n\n_Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-Abhisamaya Sutra_, quoted, 45.\n\n_Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-Sangraha \u00c7\u00e2stra_, 354.\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, (Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism), defined, 10 et seq.; is it genuine?\n11 et seq.; as a living faith, 14 et seq.; and its Christian critics,\n15; misunderstood, 16 et seq.; historically treated, 60 et seq.; and\nSthiramati, 61 et seq.; its seven features, 62 et seq.; and\nmetempsychosis, 64; ten essential features, 65 et seq.; in its two\nphases, 76 et seq.; no nihilism, 135 ft.; the development of, 247; and\nindividualism, 282.\n\nMaitreya, 272.\n\nManas (self-consciousness), 132.\n\nMa\u00f1ju\u00e7ri, 106.\n\nManovij\u00f1\u00e2na (ego-consciousness), 67, 69.\n\nMasashige, Kusunoki, 213.\n\nMaudsley, H., quoted, 80.\n\nMax Mueller, quoted, 108 ft., 110 ft., 221.\n\nM\u00e2ya, subjective ignorance, 47.\n\nMerits, the accumulation of, 199.\n\n{416}\n\nMiddle path, Doctrine of the, 59, 358; of Eight No\u2019s, 103.\n\n_Milinda-Panha_, quoted, 203.\n\nMitra, Rajendra, referred to, 329 ft.\n\nMonier Monier-Williams, refuted, 18 et seq.\n\n\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, 3 ft., 4, 8, 21, 60, 66, 95, 96, 100, 103, 168, 171, 173,\n292, 297, 353.\n\nN\u00e2gasena and King Milinda, 153.\n\n\u201cNa iti,\u201d 102.\n\nN\u00e2n\u00e2tva, (difference), 72 ft.\n\nNid\u00e2nas, the twelve, 36 et seq., 179, 182.\n\nNirmanak\u00e2ya, (Body of Transformation), 73, 257, 268.\n\nNirvana, 19; and its non-Buddhist critics, 49; briefly explained, 49\net seq.; and the surrender of ego, 50; and Dharmak\u00e2ya, 51; and love,\n51, 58; and pessimism, 52; and ethics, 53; and Parinishpanna\n(knowledge), 94; what is, 331 et seq.; not nihilistic, 332;\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic, 341; and Dharmak\u00e2ya, 342; the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic conception\nof, 342 et seq.; absolute, 343; four forms of, 343; upadhi\u00e7esa, 344;\nAnupadhi\u00e7esa, 344, that has no abode, 345; and I Cor. 7, 30-31, 346;\nas synonym of Dharmak\u00e2ya, 346 by Chandra Kirti, 347; its four\nattributes, 348; its religious phase, 349; and Emerson, 352; and\nsamsara are one, 352; and St. Paul, 352; and the Eight No\u2019s of\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, 358; the realisation of, 360; as the Middle Path, 362;\ncomprehensively treated, 367 et seq.\n\nNon-\u00e2tman, 37 et seq.; in things, 41 et seq, 170; and impermanence of\nthings, 141, (_see also_ \u201cnon-ego\u201d, \u201cself\u201d, \u201csoul\u201d, \u201cego\u201d).\n\nNon-duality, the Dharma of, 106.\n\nNon-ego and Dharmak\u00e2ya, 47; and the Ganges water, 156.\n\n{417}\n\nNo\u2019s, The Eight, of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, 358.\n\n\n\u201cOld man\u201d and Atman, 165.\n\n\nParam\u00e2rtha-satya (absolute truth), 91 et seq.\n\nParam\u00e2tman, 145.\n\nP\u00e2ramit\u00e2, 3 ft.; six, 68; ten, 321.\n\nParatantra (relative knowledge), 67; explained, 89.\n\nParikalpita (illusion), 67; explained, 88.\n\nParinishpanna (perfect knowledge), 67; explained, 91.\n\nParivarta, (turning over), 19, 194; doctrine of, 283.\n\nPaul, Apostle, quoted, 48, 166, 260, 262.\n\nPingalaka, N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\u2019s commentator, quoted, 172.\n\nPrabh\u00e2kar\u00ee (third stage of Bodhisattvahood), 315.\n\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2 (and Bodhi), defined, 82 ft.; 82, 97, 119, 238, 360.\n\nPrak\u1e5bti (Samkyan primordial matter), 66 ft.\n\nPram\u00fbdit\u00e2 (first stage of Bodhisattvahood), 313.\n\nPranidh\u00e2na, a Bodhisattva\u2019s, 307.\n\nPratisamvids, the four, 325.\n\nPraty\u00e2yasamutp\u00e2da, (Nid\u00e2nas), 36 et seq.\n\nPratyekabuddha, 278.\n\nPratyekabuddha-y\u00e2na, 9.\n\nPrecepts, the ten moral, 70 ft.\n\nPudgala (ego), 42, 143 ft.\n\nPunyaskandha, 199.\n\nPure Lands, 269.\n\nPurusha (Samkyan soul), 66 ft.\n\nP\u00fbrvanidh\u00e2nabala, 237.\n\n\nReligion, its significance, 22 et seq.; not revealed, 23; and mystery,\n24; its intellectual and emotional sides, 25 et seq.; and science, 26;\nintellect and feeling in, 77; and philosophy, 78; subjective, 81 et\nseq.; not a philosophical system, 85.\n\n{418}\n\nRockhill\u2019s _Life of the Buddha_, quoted, on Nirvana, 338 fn.\n\n\n_Saddharma Pundar\u00eeka_, quoted, 260 ft., 274, 277.\n\nSadhumat\u00ee, (ninth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 325.\n\nSamat\u00e2 (sameness), 72 ft.\n\nSambodhi, (_see_ \u201cBodhi\u201d).\n\nSambhogak\u00e2ya (Body of Bliss), 65 ft., 73, 257; in A\u00e7vaghosha, 258; its\nsix features, 264; a mere subjective existence, 266.\n\nSamkhya philosophy, and Yogacarya school, 67 ft.; referred to, 146\nft.; on Nirvana, 340.\n\nSamvrtti-satya (conditional truth), 95 et seq.\n\n_Samyukta Nikaya_, quoted, 156, 185.\n\nSanskaras, enumerated, 151 et seq.\n\nSchopenhauer, 181.\n\nSkandhas, the five, 32 ft., 149.\n\nSoul-substance, denied, 164.\n\nSthavira, 1 ft.\n\nSthiramati, on Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, 61 et seq.; on Bodhicitta, 299.\n\nSuchness, (_see also_ Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2), 3; the first principle of\nBuddhism, 99 et seq.; indefinable, 101; conditioned, 109; in history,\n110; in the world, 113; and the Bodhi, 114; and ignorance, 117; in its\nvarious modes, 125; and Dharmak\u00e2ya, 127; and karma, 181.\n\nSudurjay\u00e2, (fifth stage of Bodhisattvahood), 318.\n\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee sect, the, 4, 240.\n\nSumedha, the story of, 280.\n\n_S\u00fbrangama Sutra_, quoted, 157.\n\n_Suvarna Prabha Sutra_, 253 ft.\n\nSvabhava, and non-ego, 170 et seq.; and emptiness, 175.\n\n{419}\n\n\n\u201cTat tvam asi,\u201d 47, 135 ft.\n\nTath\u00e2gata-Garbha, 125, 145.\n\nTeleology, 86.\n\nTennyson, quoted, 82.\n\nT\u00eerthakas, 8.\n\nTolstoi, quoted, in connection with karma, 207 ft.\n\nTrik\u00e2ya, (trinity), 73, 242, 256, 275.\n\nTruth (satya), conditional and transcendental, 95.\n\n\n_Ud\u00e2na_, quoted, 52, 338 ft., 341.\n\nUniverse, a mind, 122.\n\nUp\u00e2ya (expediency), 64, 260 ft.; its meaning explained, 298 ft.\n\nUp\u00e2yaj\u00f1\u00e2, 320.\n\n\nVai\u00e7aradyas (convictions), the four, 327 ft.\n\nVairocana, 219.\n\nVasubandhu, 87, 153; his _Abhidharmako\u00e7a_, referred to, 37; on\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na, 66; _On the Completion of Karma_, quoted, 194; _The\nDistinguishing of the Mean_, quoted, 195; on _Bodhicitta_, 303; on\nNirvana, 357, 359, 360.\n\nVasumitra, on _Various Schools of Buddhism_, 1 ft.\n\nVedanta philosophy, and the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, 108 ft.; on Nirvana, 340; on\nAtman, 144.\n\n_Vicesacinta-brahma-Pariprccha Sutra_, 353.\n\nVictory, the hymn of, 336.\n\nVij\u00f1\u00e2na, and atman, 39.\n\nVijn\u00e2nam\u00e2tra, (nothing but ideas), 70.\n\n_Vijn\u00e2nam\u00e2tra \u00e7\u00e2stra_, 265 ft., 343.\n\nVimala (second stage of Bodhisattvahood), 315.\n\nVimalak\u00eerti, 106, 350, 366.\n\n_Visuddhi Magga_, quoted, 339, 348 ft.\n\n{420}\n\n\nWaddell, refuted, 21 et seq.\n\nWhitman, Walt, quoted, 155 ft., 197.\n\nWilson, Dr. G. R., quoted, 201.\n\n\nYoga philosophy, The, on Nirvana, 340.\n\nYogacarya school, 62, 65, 87, 92, 95.\n\n_Yogavasistha_, a vedantic book, quoted, 167.\n\n\n\n\n ENDNOTES.\n\n INTRODUCTION NOTES.\n\n[1] According to Vasumitra\u2019s _Treatise on the Points of Contention\nby the Different Schools of Buddhism_, of which there are three\nChinese translations, the earliest being one by Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva (who came\nto China in A.D. 401), the first great schism seems to have broken out\nabout one hundred years after the Buddha. The leader of the dissenters\nwas Mah\u00e2deva, and his school was known as the Mah\u00e2sang\u00eeka (Great\nCouncil), while the orthodox was called the school of Sthaviras\n(Elders). Since then the two schools subdivided themselves into a\nnumber of minor sections, twenty of which are mentioned by Vasumitra.\nThe book is highly interesting as throwing light on the early pages of\nthe history of Buddhism in India.\n((1))\n\n[2] The Anag\u00e2rika Dharmapala of Ceylon objects to this geographical\ndistinction. He does not see any reason why the Buddhism of Ceylon\nshould be regarded as H\u00eenay\u00e2nism, when it teaches a realisation of the\nHighest Perfect Knowledge (_Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi_) and also of the\nsix Virtues of Perfection (_P\u00e2ramit\u00e2_),--these two features, among\nsome others, being considered to be characteristic of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism. It\nis possible that when the so-called Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism gained great power all\nover Central India in the times of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and \u00c2ryadeva, it also\nfound its advocates in the Isle of Lion, or at least the followers of\nBuddha there might have been influenced to such an extent as to modify\ntheir conservative views. At the present stage of the study of\nBuddhism, however, it is not yet perfectly clear to see how this took\nplace. When a thorough comparative review of P\u00e2li, Singhalese,\nTibetan, Sanskrit, and Chinese Buddhist documents is effected, we\nshall be able to understand the history and development of Buddhism to\nits full extent.\n\n[3] Translated into English by the author, 1900. The Open Court Pub.\nCo. Chicago.\n\n[4] These terms are explained elsewhere.\n\n[5] Followers of any religious sects other than Buddhism. The term\nis sometimes used in a contemptuous sense, like heathen by Christians.\n\n[6] The conception of Dharmak\u00e2ya constitutes the central point in\nthe system of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, and the right comprehension of it is of\nvital importance. The Body of the Law, as it is commonly rendered in\nEnglish, is not exact and leads frequently to a misconception of the\nentire system. The point is fully discussed below.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I NOTES.\n\n[7] They are: (1) form or materiality (_r\u00fbpa_), (2) sensation\n(_vedan\u00e2_), (3) conception (_samjn\u00e2_), (4) action or deeds (_samk\u00e2ra_),\nand (5) consciousness (_vijn\u00e2na_). These terms are explained\nelsewhere.\n\n[8] _The Dhammapada_, v. 165. Tr. by A. J. Edmunds.\n\n[9] _The Dhammapada_, v. 127.\n\n[10] This last passage should not be understood in the sense of a\ntotal abnegation of existence. It means simply the transcendentality\nof the highest principle.\n\n[11] _The Kathopani\u1e63ad_, IV. 10.\n\n[12] Guyau, a French sociologist, refers to the Buddhist conception\nof Nirv\u00e2na in his _Non-Religion of the Future_. I take his\ninterpretation as typical of those non-Buddhist critics who are very\nlittle acquainted with the subject but pretend to know much. (English\ntranslation, pp. 472-474.)\n\n\u201cGranted the wretchedness of life, the remedy that pessimists propose\nis the new religious salvation that modern Buddhists are to make\nfashionable... The conception is that of Nirv\u00e2na. To sever all the\nties which attach you to the external world; to prune away all the\nyoung offshoots of desire, and recognise that to be rid of them is a\ndeliverance; to practise a sort of complete psychial circumcision; to\nrecoil upon yourself and to believe that by so doing you enter into\nthe society of the great totality of things (the mystic would say, of\nGod); to create an inner vacuum, and to feel dizzy in the void and,\nnevertheless, to believe that the void is plenitude supreme, pleroma,\nthese have always constituted temptations to mankind. Mankind has been\ntempted to meddle with them, as it has been tempted to creep up to the\nverge of dizzy precipices and look over... Nirv\u00e2na leads, in fact, to\nthe annihilation of the individual and of the race, and to the logical\nabsurdity that the vanquished are the victors over the trials and\nmiseries of life.\u201d\n\nThen, the author recites the case of one of his acquaintances, who\nmade a practical experiment of Nirv\u00e2na, rejecting variety in his diet,\ngiving up meat, wine, every kind of ragout, every form of condiment,\nand reducing to its lowest possible terms the desire that is most\nfundamental in every living being--the desire of food, and substituting\na certain number of cups of pure milk. \u201cHaving thus blunted his sense\nof taste and the grosser of his appetites, having abandoned all\nphysical activity, he thought to find a recompense in the pleasure of\nabstract meditation and of esthetic contemplation. He entered to a\nstate which was not that of dreamland, but neither was it that of real\nlife, with its definite details.\u201d\n\n[13] For detailed explanation of this term see Chapter XI.\n\n[14] _The Ud\u00e2na_, Ch. VIII, p. 118. Translation by General Strong.\n\n[15] This is a peculiarly Indian religious practice, which consists\nin counting one\u2019s exhaling and inhaling breaths. When a man is\nintensely bent on the practise, he gradually passes to a state of\ntrance, forgetting everything that is going on around and within\nhimself. The practise may have the merit of alleviating nervousness\nand giving to the mind the bliss of relaxation, but it oftentimes\nleads the mind to a self-hypnotic state.\n\n[16] Here Nirv\u00e2na is evidently understood to mean self-abnegation\nor world-flight or quietism, which is not in accord with the true\nBuddhist interpretation of the term.\n\n[17] The sentiment of the Golden Rule is not the monopoly of\nChristianity; it has been expressed by most of the leaders of thought,\nthus, for instance: \u201cRequite hatred with virtue\u201d (Lao-tze). \u201cHate is\nonly appeased by love\u201d (Buddha). \u201cDo not do to others what ye would\nnot have done to you by others\u201d (Confucius). \u201cOne must neither return\nevil, nor do any evil to any one among men, not even if one has to\nsuffer from them\u201d (Plato, _Crito_, 49).\n\n[18] _The Buddhacarita_, Book IX, 63-64.\n\n[19] According to one Northern Buddhist tradition, Buddha is\nrecorded to have exclaimed at the time of his supreme spiritual\nbeatitude: \u201cWonderful! All sentient beings are universally endowed\nwith the intelligence and virtue of the Tath\u00e2gata!\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II NOTES.\n\n[20] His date is not known, but judging from the contents of his\nworks, of which we have at present two or three among the Chinese\nTripitaka, it seems that he lived later than A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, but prior to,\nor simultaneously with, N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna. This little book occupies a very\nimportant position in the development of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism in India. Next to\nA\u00e7vagho\u1e63a\u2019s _Awakening of Faith_, the work must be carefully studied\nby scholars who want to grasp every phase of the history of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nschool as far as it can be learned through the Chinese documents.\n\n[21] Be it remarked here that a Bodhisattva is not a particularly\nfavored man in the sense of chosen people or elect. We are all in a\nway Bodhisattvas, that is, when we recognise the truth that we are\nequally in possession of the Samyak-sambodhi, Highest True\nIntelligence, and through which everybody without exception can attain\nfinal enlightenment.\n\n[22] _Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-abhidharma-sang\u00eeti-\u00e7\u00e2stra_, by Asanga. Nanjo, No.\n1199.\n\n[23] _Yog\u00e2c\u00e2rya-bh\u00fbmi-\u00e7\u00e2stra_, Nanjo, No. 1170. The work is supposed\nto have been dictated to Asanga by a mythical Bodhisattva.\n\n[24] By Asanga. Nanjo, 1177.\n\n[25] _Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-samparigraha-\u00e7\u00e2stra_, by Asanga. Nanjo, 1183.\n\n[26] Perceiving an incarnation of the Dharmak\u00e2ya in every spiritual\nleader regardless of his nationality and professed creed, Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists\nrecognise a Buddha in Socrates, Mohammed, Jesus, Francis of Assisi,\nConfucius, Laotze, and many others.\n\n[27] Ancient Hindu Buddhists, with their fellow-philosophers,\nbelieved in the existence of spiritually transfigured beings, who, not\nhampered by the limitations of space and time, can manifest themselves\neverywhere for the benefit of all sentient beings. We notice some\nmysterious figures in almost all Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na s\u00fbtras, who are very often\ndescribed as shedding innumerable rays of light from the forehead and\nilluminating all the three thousand worlds simultaneously. This may\nmerely be a poetic exaggeration. But this Sambhogak\u00e2ya or Body of\nBliss (see A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a\u2019s _Awakening of Faith_, p. 101) is very difficult\nfor us to comprehend as it is literally described. For a fuller\ntreatment see the chapter on \u201cTrik\u00e2ya.\u201d\n\n[28] Though I am very much tempted to digress and to enter into a\nspecific treatment concerning these two Hindu Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrines, I\nreluctantly refrain from so doing, as it requires a somewhat lengthy\ntreatment and does not entirely fall within the scope of the present\nwork.\n\n[29] That A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a\u2019s conception of the \u00c2laya varies with the view\nhere presented may be familiar to readers of his _Awakening of Faith_.\nThis is one of the most abstruse problems in the philosophy of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nBuddhism, and there are several divergent theories concerning its\nnature, attributes, activities, etc. In a work like this, it is\nimpossible to give even a general statement of those controversies,\nhowever interesting they may be to students of the history of\nintellectual development in India.\n\nThe \u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na, to use the phraseology of Samkhya philosophy, is a\ncomposition, so to speak, of the Soul (_puru\u1e63a_) and Primordial Matter\n(_prak\u1e5bti_). It is the Soul, so far as it is neutral and indifferent\nto all those phenomenal manifestations, that are going on within as\nwell as without us. It is Primordial Matter, inasmuch as it is the\nreservoir of everything, whose lid being lifted by the hands of\nIgnorance, there instantly springs up this universe of limitation and\nrelativity. Enlightenment or Nirv\u00e2na, therefore, consists in\nrecognising the error of Ignorance and not in clinging to the products\nof imagination.\n\n[30] For a more detailed explanation of the ideal philosophy of the\nYog\u00e2c\u00e2ra, see my article on the subject in _Le Mus\u00e9on_, 1905.\n\n[31] \u201cOne mind\u201d or \u201cone heart\u201d meaning the mental attitude which is\nin harmony with the monistic view of nature in its broadest sense.\n\n[32] These ten stages of spiritual development are somewhat minutely\nexplained below. See Chapter XII.\n\n[33] The ten moral precepts of the Buddha are: (1) Kill no living\nbeing; (2) Take nothing that is not given; (3) Keep matrimonial\nsanctity; (4) Do not lie; (5) Do not slander; (6) Do not insult; (7)\nDo not chatter; (8) Be not greedy; (9) Bear no malice; (10) Harbor no\nscepticism.\n\n[34] Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism recognises two \u201centrances\u201d through which a\ncomprehensive knowledge of the universe is obtained. One is called the\n\u201centrance of sameness\u201d (_samat\u00e2_) and the other the \u201centrance of\ndiversity\u201d (_n\u00e2n\u00e2tva_). The first entrance introduces us to the\nuniversality of things and suggests a pantheistic interpretation of\nexistence. The second leads us to the particularity of things\nculminating in monotheism or polytheism, as it is viewed from\ndifferent standpoints. The Buddhists declare that neither entrance\nalone can lead us to the sanctum sanctorum of existence; and in order\nto obtain a sound, well-balanced knowledge of things in general, we\nmust go through both the entrances of universality and particularity.\n\n[35] The doctrine of Trik\u00e2ya will be given further elucidation in\nthe chapter bearing the same title.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III NOTES.\n\n[36] No efforts have yet been made systematically to trace the\nhistory of the development of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na thoughts in India as well\nas in China and Japan. We have enough material at least to follow the\ngeneral course it has taken, as far as the Chinese and Tibetan\ncollections of Tripitaka are concerned. When a thorough comparison by\nimpartial, unprejudiced scholars of these documents has been made with\nthe Pali and Sanskrit literature, then we shall be able to write a\ncomprehensive history of the human thoughts that have governed the\nOriental people during the last two thousand years. When this is done,\nthe result can further be compared with the history of other religious\nsystems, thus throwing much light on the general evolution of humanity.\n\n[37] _Praj\u00f1\u00e2_, _bodhi_, _buddhi_, _vidy\u00e2_ and _j\u00f1\u00e2_ or _j\u00f1\u00e2na_ are\nall synonymous and in many cases interchangeable. But they allow a\nfiner discrimination. Speaking in a general way, _praj\u00f1\u00e2_ is reason,\n_bodhi_ wisdom or intelligence, _buddhi_ enlightenment, _vidy\u00e2_\nideality or knowledge, and _j\u00f1\u00e2_ or _j\u00f1\u00e2na_ intellect. Of these five\nterms, _praj\u00f1\u00e2_ and _bodhi_ are essentially Buddhistic and have\nacquired technical meaning, In this work both _praj\u00f1\u00e2_ and _bodhi_ are\nmostly translated by intelligence, for their extent of meaning closely\noverlaps each other. But this is rather vague, and wherever I thought\nthe term intelligence alone to be misleading, I either left the\noriginals untranslated, or inserted them in parentheses. To be more\nexact, _praj\u00f1\u00e2_ in many cases can safely be rendered by faith, not a\nbelief in revealed truths, but a sort of immediate knowledge gained by\nintuitive intelligence. _Praj\u00f1\u00e2_ corresponds in some respects to\nwisdom, meaning the foundation of all reasonings and experiences. It\nmay also be considered an equivalent for Greek _sophia_. Bodhi, on the\nother hand, has a decidedly religious and moral significance. Besides\nbeing _praj\u00f1\u00e2_ itself, it is also love (_karun\u00e2_): for, according to\nBuddhism, these two, _praj\u00f1\u00e2_ and _karun\u00e2_, constitute the essence of\nBodhi. May Bodhi be considered in some respects synonymous with the\ndivine wisdom as understood by Christian dogmatists? But there is\nsomething in the Buddhist notion of Bodhi that cannot properly be\nexpressed by wisdom or intelligence. This seems to be due to the\ndifference of philosophical interpretation by Buddhists and Christians\nof the conception of God. It will become clearer as we proceed farther.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV NOTES.\n\n[38] For detailed exposition of the three forms of knowledge, the\nreader is requested to peruse Asanga\u2019s _Comprehensive Treatise on\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism_ (Nanjo\u2019s Catalogue, No. 1183), Vasubandhu\u2019s work on\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na idealism (_Vijn\u00e2nam\u00e2tra \u00c7\u00e2stra_, Nanjo, No. 1215), the _S\u00fbtra\non the Mystery of Deliverance_ (_Sandhinirmocana-s\u00fbtra_, Nanjo. Nos.\n246 and 247), etc.\n\n[39] When the eminent representatives of both parties, such as\nDharmapala and Bhavaviveka, were at the height of their literary\nactivity in India about the fifth or sixth century after Christ, their\npartisan spirit incited them bitterly to denounce each other,\nforgetting the common ground on which their principles were laid down.\nTheir disagreement in fact on which they put an undue emphasis was of\na very trifling nature. It was merely a quarrel over phraseology, for\none insisted on using certain words just in the sense which the other\nnegated.\n\n[40]\n\n \u201cDve satye samup\u00e2\u00e7ritya buddh\u00e2n\u00e2m dharde\u00e7an\u00e2\n Lokasamv\u1e5bttisatya\u00f1 ca satya\u00f1 ca param\u00e2rthata\u1e25.\n Ye ca anayor na j\u00e2nanti vibh\u00e2gam satyayor dvayo\u1e25,\n Te tatvam na vij\u00e2nanti gambh\u00eerabuddha\u00e7\u00e2sane.\u201d\n\n\n[41]\n\n Vyavah\u00e2ram an\u00e2\u00e7ritya param\u00e2rtho na de\u00e7yate,\n Param\u00e2rtham an\u00e2gamya nirv\u00e2\u1e47am na adhigamyata.\n                    _The M\u00e2dhyamika_, p. 181.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V NOTES.\n\n[42]\nCf. _The Ud\u00e2na_, chapter VI.\n\n[43]\n\n Svabh\u00e2vam parabh\u00e2vanca, bh\u00e2vanc\u00e2bh\u00e2vameva ca,\n Ye pa\u00e7yanti, na pa\u00e7yante tatvam hi buddha\u00e7\u00e2sane.\n\n\n[44]\n\n Ast\u00eeti \u00e7\u00e2\u00e7vatagr\u00e2ho, n\u00e2st\u00eetyucchedadar\u00e7anam:\n Tasm\u00e2dastitvan\u00e2stitve n\u00e2\u00e7riyeta vicaksanah\n\n\n[45]\n\n Ast\u00eeti n\u00e2st\u00eeti ubhe \u2018pi ant\u00e2\n \u00c7uddh\u00ee a\u00e7uddh\u00eeti ime \u2018pi ant\u00e2;\n Tasm\u00e2dubhe anta vivarjayitv\u00e2\n Madhye \u2018pi sy\u00e2nam na karoti pa\u1e47ditah.\n\n\n[46] This is the famous phrase in the _Brhadaranyaka Upanisad_\noccurring in several places (II, 3, 6; III, 9, 26; IV, 2, 4; IV, 4,\n22; IV, 5, 5). The Atman or Brahman, it says, \u201cis to be described by\nNo, No! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is\nimperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not\nattach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail. Him\n(who knows), these two do not overcome, whether he says that for some\nreason he has done evil, or for some reason he has done good--he\novercomes both, and neither what he has done, nor what he has omitted\nto do, affects him.\u201d\n\n[47] _The Awakening of Faith_, p. 59. Cf. this with the utterances\nof Dionysius the Areopagite, as quoted by Prof. W. James in his\n_Varieties of Religious Experience_, pp. 416-417: \u201cThe cause of all\nthings is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion,\nor reason, or intelligence; nor is it spoken or thought. It is neither\nnumber, nor order, nor magnitude, nor littleness, nor equality, nor\ninequality, nor similarity, nor dissimilarity. It neither stands, nor\nmoves, nor rests.... It is neither essence, nor eternity, nor time.\nEven intellectual contact does not belong to it. It is neither science\nnor truth. It is not even royalty nor wisdom; not one; not unity; not\ndivinity or goodness; nor even spirit as we know it.\u201d.... _ad libitum_.\n\n[48]\n\n Anirodham anutp\u00e2dam anucchedam a\u00e7\u00e2\u00e7vatam,\n Anek\u00e2rtham an\u00e2n\u00e2rtham an\u00e2gamam anirgamam.\n      (_M\u00e2dhyamika \u00c7\u00e2stra_, first stanza.)\n\n\n[49]\n\n Param nirodh\u00e2dbhagav\u00e2n bhavat\u00eetyeva nohyate,\n Na bhavatyubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti nohyate:\n Ati\u1e63\u1e6dham\u00e2no \u2018pi bhagav\u00e2n bhavat\u00eetyeva nohyate,\n Na bhavatyubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti nohyate.\n                         (_M\u00e2dhyamika_, p. 199).\n\n\n[50] He was the third son of king of K\u00e2\u00e7i (?) in southern India. He\ncame to China A.D. 527 and after a vain attempt to convert Emperor Wu\nto his own view, he retired to a monastery, where, it is reported, he\nspent all day in gazing at the wall without making any further venture\nto propagate his mysticism. But finally he found a most devoted\ndisciple in the person of Shen Kuang, who was once a Confucian, and\nthrough whom the Dhy\u00e2na school became one of the most powerful Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nsect in China as well as in Japan. Dharma died in the year 535. Besides\nthe one here mentioned, he had another audience with the Emperor. At\nthat time, the Emperor said to Dharma: \u201cI have dedicated so many\nmonasteries, copied so many sacred books, and converted so many bhiksus\nand bhiksunis: what do you think my merits are or ought to be?\u201d To\nthis, however, Dharma replied curtly, \u201cNo merit whatever.\u201d\n\n[51] Another interesting utterance by a Chinese Buddhist, who,\nearnestly pondering over the absoluteness of Suchness for several\nyears, understood it one day all of a sudden, is: \u201cThe very instant\nyou say it is something (or a nothing), you miss the mark.\u201d\n\n[52] _The Vimalak\u00eerti S\u00fbtra_, Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva\u2019s translation, Part II,\nChapter 5.\n\n[53]\nDeussen relates, in his address delivered before the Bombay\nBranch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1893, a similar attitude\nof a Vedantist mystic in regard to the highest Brahma. \u201cThe\nBhava, therefore, when asked by the king Vaksalin, to explain the\nBrahman, kept silence. And when the king repeated his request\nagain and again, the rishi broke out into the answer: \u2018I tell it you,\nbut you don\u2019t understand it; _\u00e7\u00e2nto \u2019yam \u00e2tm\u00e2_, this \u00e2tm\u00e2 is silence!\u2019\u201d\n\n[54] It is a well-known fact that the Vedanta philosophy, too,\nmakes a similar distinction between Brahman as sagunam (qualified) and\nBrahman as nirgunam (unqualified). The former is relative, phenomenal,\nand has characteristics of its own; but the latter is absolute, having\nno qualification whatever to speak of, it is absolute Suchness. (See\nMax Mueller\u2019s _The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy_, p. 220 et seq.)\n\nHere, a very interesting question suggests itself: Which is the\noriginal and which is the copy, Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism or Vedantism? Most of\nEuropean Sanskrit scholars would fain wish to dispose of it at once by\ndeclaring that Buddhism must be the borrower. But I am strongly\ninclined to the opposite view, for there is reliable evidence in favor\nof it. In a writing of A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, who dates much earlier than \u00c7ankara\nor Badarayana we notice this distinction of absolute Suchness and\nrelative Suchness. He writes in his _Awakening of Faith_ (p. 55 et\nseq.) that though Suchness is free from all modes of limitation and\nconditionality, and therefore it cannot be thought of by our finite\nconsciousness, yet on account of Avidy\u00e2 inherent in the human mind\nabsolute Suchness manifests itself in the phenomenal world, thereby\nsubjecting itself to the law of causality and relativity and proceeds\nto say that there is a twofold aspect in Suchness from the point of\nview of its explicability. The first aspect is trueness as negation\n(_\u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2_) in the sense that it is completely set apart from the\nattributes of all things unreal, that it is a veritable reality. The\nsecond aspect is trueness as affirmation (_a\u00e7\u00fbnyat\u00e2_), in the sense\nthat it contains infinite merits, that it is self-existent. Considering\nthe fact that A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a comes earlier than any Vedanta philosophers,\nit stands to reason to say that the latter might have borrowed the\nidea of distinguishing the two aspects of Brahma from their Buddhist\npredecessors.\n\n\u00c7ankara also makes a distinction between _saguna_ and _nirguna vidya_,\nwhose parallel we find in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist _samv\u1e5btti_ and _param\u00e2rtha\nsatya_.\n\n[55] While passing, I cannot help digressing and entering on a\npolemic in this footnote. The fact is, Western Buddhist critics\nstubbornly refuse to understand correctly what is insisted by Buddhists\nthemselves. Even scholars who are supposed to be well informed about\nthe subject, go astray and make false charges against Buddhism. Max\nMueller, for example, declares in his _Six Systems of Indian\nPhilosophy_ (p. 242) that \u201cAn important distinction between Buddhists\nand Vedantists is that the former holds the world to have arisen from\nwhat is not, the latter from what is, the Sat or Brahman.\u201d The reader\nwho has carefully followed my exposition above will at once detect in\nthis Max Mueller\u2019s conclusion an incorrect statement of Buddhist\ndoctrine. As I have repeatedly said, Suchness, though described in\nnegative terms, is not a state of nothingness, but the highest possible\nsynthesis that the human intellect can reach. The world did not come\nfrom the void of Suchness, but from its fulness of reality. If it were\nnot so, to where does Buddhism want us to go after deliverance from\nthe evanescence and nothingness of the phenomenal world?\n\nMax Mueller in another place (op. cit. p. 210) speaks of the\nVedantists\u2019 assertion of the reality of the objective world for\npractical purposes (_vyavah\u00e2r\u00e2rtham_) and of their antagonistic\nattitude toward \u201cthe nihilism of the Buddhists.\u201d \u201cThe Buddhists\u201d this\nseems to refer to the followers of the M\u00e2dhyamika school, but a careful\nperusal of their texts will reveal that what they denied was not the\nrealness of the world as a manifestation of conditional Suchness, but\nits independent realness and our attachment to it as such. The\nM\u00e2dhyamika school was not in any sense a nihilistic system. True, its\nadvocates used many negative terms, but what they meant by them was\nobvious enough to any careful reader.\n\n[56] Dharmadh\u00e2tu is the world as seen by an enlightened mind, where\nall forms of particularity do not contradict one another, but make one\nharmonious whole.\n\n[57] The word literally means recollection or memory. A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a\nuses it as a synonym of ignorance, and so do many other Buddhist\nphilosophers.\n\n[58] _Sm\u1e5bti_ or _citta_ or _vij\u00f1\u00e2na_. They are all used by A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a\nand other Buddhist authors as synonymous. _Sm\u1e5bti_ literally means\nmemory; _citta_, thought or mentation; and _vij\u00f1\u00e2na_ is generally\nrendered by consciousness, though not very accurately.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI NOTES.\n\n[59] Cf. the _Bhagavadg\u00eet\u00e2_ (_S. B. E._ Vol. VIII, chap. XIV, p.\n107): \u201cThe Brahman is a womb for me, in which I cast the seed. From\nthat, O descendant of Bharata! is the birth of all things. Of the\nbodies, O son of Kunti! which are born from all wombs, the main womb\nis the great Brahman, and I am the father, the giver of the seed.\u201d\n\n[60] This is translated from the Chinese of \u00c7ik\u1e63ananda; the Sanskrit\nreads as follows:\n\n\n \u201cTarang\u00e2 hi udadher yadvat pavanapratyaya \u00eerit\u00e2,\n N\u1e5btyam\u00e2n\u00e2h pravartante vyuccheda\u00e7 ca na vidhyate:\n \u00c2layodhyas tath\u00e2 nityam vi\u1e63ayapavana \u00eerita\u1e25,\n Citt\u00e2is tarangavij\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2ir n\u1e5btyam\u00e2n\u00e2\u1e25 pravartate.\u201d\n\n\n[61]\nFrom the Chinese. The Sanskrit reads as follows:\n\n\n \u201cN\u00eele rakte \u2018tha lava\u1e47e \u00e7ankhe k\u1e63\u00eere ca \u00e7\u00e2rkare,\n Ka\u1e63ay\u00e2i\u1e25 phalapu\u1e63p\u00e2dy\u00e2ih kira\u1e47\u00e2 yatha bh\u00e2skare:\n No \u2018nyena ca n\u00e2nanyena tarang\u00e2 hi udadher mat\u00e2;\n Vij\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2ni tath\u00e2 sapta, cittena saha samyukt\u00e2.\n Udadhe\u1e25 pari\u1e47\u00e2mo \u2018s\u00e2u tarang\u00e2n\u00e2m vicitrat\u00e2,\n \u00c2layam hi tath\u00e2 cittam vij\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2khyam pravartate;\n Cittam mana\u00e7 ca vij\u00f1\u00e2nam lak\u1e63a\u1e47\u00e2rtham prakalpyate;\n \u00c2bhinna lak\u1e63an\u00e2 hi a\u1e63t\u00e2u na lak\u1e63y\u00e2 na ca lak\u1e63a\u1e47\u00e2.\n Udadhe\u00e7 ca tarang\u00e2n\u00e2m yath\u00e2 n\u00e2sti vi\u00e7e\u1e63an\u00e2.\n Vij\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2nam tath\u00e2 citte pari\u1e47\u00e2mo na labhyate.\n Cittena c\u00eeyate karma\u1e25, manas\u00e2 ca vic\u00eeyate,\n Vij\u00f1\u00e2nena vij\u00e2n\u00e2ti, d\u1e5b\u00e7yam kalpeti pa\u00f1cabhi\u1e25.\u201d\n\n\n[62] A little digression here. It has frequently been affirmed of\nthe ethics of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism that as it has a nihilistic tendency its\nmorality turns towards asceticism ignoring the significance of the\nsentiment and instinct. It is true that Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism perfectly agrees\nwith Vedantism when the latter declares: \u201cIf the killer thinks that he\nkills, if the killed thinks that he is killed, they do not understand;\nfor this one does not kill, nor is that one killed.\u201d (_The\nKatopanishad_, II 19.) This belief in non-action (Laotzean _Wu Wei_)\napparently denies the existence of a world of relativity, but he will\nbe a superficial critic who will stop short at this absolute aspect of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na philosophy and refuses to consider its practical side. As we\nhave seen above, Buddhists do not conceive the evolution of the\nManovij\u00f1\u00e2na as a fault on the part of the cosmic mind, nor do they\nthink the assertion of Ignorance altogether wrong and morally evil.\nTherefore, Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism does not deny the claim of reality to the world\nof the senses, though of course relatively, and not absolutely.\n\nAgain, \u201cTat tvam asi\u201d (thou art it) or \u201cI am the Buddha\u201d--this\nassertion, though arrogant it may seem to some, is perfectly\njustifiable in the realm of absolute identity, where the serene light\nof Suchness alone pervades. But when we descend on earth and commingle\nin the hurly-burly of our practical, dualistic life, we cannot help\nsuffering from its mundane limitations. We hunger, we thirst, we\ngrieve at the loss of the dearest, we feel remorse over errors\ncommitted. Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism does not teach the annihilation of those human\npassions and feelings.\n\nThere was once a recluse-philosopher, who was considered by the\nvillagers to have completely vanquished all natural desires and human\nambitions. They almost worshipped him and thought him to be superhuman.\nOne day early in Winter, a devotee approached him and reverentially\ninquired after his health. The sage at once responded in verse:\n\n\n \u201cA hermit truly I am, world-renounced;\n Yet when the ground is white with snow,\n A chill goes through me and I shiver.\u201d\n\n\nA false conception of religious saintliness as cherished by so many\npious-hearted, but withal ignorant, minds, has led them into some of\nthe grossest superstitions, whose curse is still lingering even among\nus. Our earthly life has so many limitations and tribulations. The\nills that the flesh is heir to must be relieved by some material,\nscientific methods.\n\n[63] That the Buddhist Ignorance corresponds to the S\u00e2mkhya\nPrak\u1e5bti can be seen also from the fact that some Samkhya commentators\ngive to Prak\u1e5bti as its synonyms such terms as _\u00e7\u00e2kti_ (energy) which\nreminds of karma or sank\u00e2ra, _tamas_ (darkness), _m\u00e2y\u00e2_, and even the\nvery word _avidy\u00e2_ (ignorance)\n\n[64] This view of the oneness of the \u00c2laya or Citta (mind) may not\nbe acceptable to some Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists, particularly to those who advocate\nthe Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra philosophy; but the present author is here trying to\nexpound a more orthodox and more typical and therefore more\nwidely-recognised doctrine of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, i.e., that of A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII NOTES.\n\n[65] _Pudgala_ or _pudgalasamj\u00f1a_ is sometimes used by Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists\nas a synonym of \u00e2tman. The Buddhist \u00e2tman in the sense of\nego-substratum may be considered to correspond to the Vedantist\nJ\u00eev\u00e2tman, which is used in contradistinction to Param\u00e2tman, the\nsupreme being or Brahma.\n\n[66] Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhists generally understand the essential\ncharacteristic of \u00e2tman to consist in freedom, and by freedom they\nmean eternality, absolute unity, and supreme authority. A being that\nis transitory is not free, as it is conditioned by other beings, and\ntherefore it has no \u00e2tman. A being that is an aggregate of elemental\nmatter or forms of energy is not absolute, for it is a state of mutual\nrelationship, and therefore it has no \u00e2tman. Again, a being that has\nno authoritative command over itself and other beings, is not free,\nfor it will be subjected to a power other than itself, and therefore\nit has no \u00e2tman. Now, take anything that we come across in this world\nof particulars; and does it not possess one or all of these three\nqualities: transitoriness, compositeness, and helplessness or\ndependence? Therefore, all concrete individual existences not\nexcepting human beings have no \u00e2tman, have no ego, that is eternal,\nabsolute, and supreme.\n\n[67] Tent-designer is a figurative term for the ego-soul. Following\nthe prevalent error, the Buddha at first made an earnest search after\nthe ego that was supposed to be snugly sitting behind our mental\nexperiences, and the result was this utterance.\n\n[68] _The Dharmapada_, vs. 153-154. Tr. by A. J. Edmunds.\n\n[69] _Prak\u1e5btivik\u1e5btayas._ This is a technical term of S\u00e2mkhya\nphilosophy and means the modes of Prakrti, as evolved from it and as\nfurther evolving on. See Satis Chandra Banarji, _Samkhya-Philosophy_,\np. XXXIII et seq.\n\n[70] The passages quoted here as well as one in the next paragraph\nare taken from A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a\u2019s _Buddhacarita_.\n\n[71] _The Questions of King Milinda, Sacred Books of the East_,\nVol. XXXV.\n\n[72] This reminds us of the passage quoted elsewhere from the\n_Katha-Upanishad_; cf. the footnote to it.\n\n[73] As cited elsewhere, Bodhi-Dharma of the Dhy\u00e2na sect, when\nquestioned in a similar way, replied, \u201cI do not know.\u201d Walt Whitman\nechoes the same sentiment in the following lines:\n\n\n \u201cA child said, what is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;\n How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is, any more than\n  he.\u201d\n\n\n[74] There seem to be two Chinese translations of this S\u00fbtra, one\nby Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva and the other by Param\u00e2rtha, but apparently they are\ndifferent texts bearing the same title. Besides these two, there is\nanother text entirely in Chinese transliteration. Owing to\ninsufficiency of material at my disposal here, I cannot say anything\ndefinite about the identity or diversity of these documents. The\nfollowing discussion that is reported to have taken place between the\nBuddha and Ananda is an abstract prepared from the first and the\nsecond fasciculi of Param\u00e2rtha\u2019s (?) translation. Beal gives in his\n_Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese_ (pp. 286-369) an\nEnglish translation of the first four fasc. of the _Surangama_. Though\nthis translation is not quite satisfactory in many points the reader\nmay find there a detailed account of the discussion which is here only\npartially and roughly recapitulated.\n\n[75] Cf. the following which is extracted from the _Questions of\nKing Milinda_ (Sacred Books of the East, vol. XXXV, 133): \u201cIf there be\na soul [distinct from the body] which does all this, then if the door\nof the eye were thrown down [if the eye were plucked out] could it\nstretch out its head, as it were, through the larger aperture and\n[with greater range] see forms much more clearly than before? Could\none hear sounds better if the ears were cut off, or taste better if\nthe tongue were pulled out, or feel touch better if the body were\ndestroyed?\u201d\n\n[76]\n\n Nirvikalpo \u2018smi ciddipo nirahankaravasana\u1e25\n Tvaya ahankarabijena na sambaddho \u2018smi asanmaya (31)\n\n\n[77]\n\n Yath\u00e2 bh\u00fbtatay\u00e2 na ahammano na tvam na v\u00e2san\u00e2\n Atm\u00e2 \u00e7uddhacidabhasa\u1e25 kevalo yam vij\u1e5bbhate. (44)\n\n\n[78] The following is a somewhat free translation of the original\nChinese of Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva, which pretty closely agrees with the Sanskrit\ntext published by the Buddhist Text Society of India.\n\n[79] The Sanskrit text does not give this passage.\n\n[80]\n\n Lak\u1e63y\u00e2l lak\u1e63a\u1e47am anyac cet sy\u00e2t tal lak\u1e63yam alak\u1e63anam.\n\n\n[81]\n\n R\u00fbp\u00e2di vyatirekena yath\u00e2 kumbho na vidyate,\n V\u00e2hy\u00e2di vyatire\u1e47a tath\u00e2 r\u00fbpam na vidyate.\n\n\n[82] Abstracted from Pingalaka\u2019s _Commentary on the M\u00e2dhyamika\n\u00c7\u00e2stra_, Chapter VII. The Chinese translation is by Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva.\n\n[83] The passage in parentheses is taken from Chandrak\u00eerti\u2019s\n_Commentary on N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna_, pp. 180-181.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII NOTES.\n\n[84] The Twelve Nid\u00e2nas are: (1) Ignorance (_avidy\u00e2_), (2) action\n(_sansk\u00e2ra_), (3) Consciousness (_vij\u00f1\u00e2na_), (4) Name-and-form\n(_n\u00e2mar\u00fbpa_), (5) Six Sense-organs (_\u00e2yatana_), (6) Contact (_spar\u00e7a_),\n(7) Sensation (_vedan\u00e2_), (8) Desire (_tr\u1e63n\u00e2_), (9) Attachment\n(_up\u00e2d\u00e2na_), (10) Procreation (_bh\u00e2va_), (11) birth (_jati_), (12) Old\nAge, Death, etc. (_jar\u00e2_, _marana_, _\u00e7oka_, etc.).\n\n[85] From a Chinese Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na sutra.\n\n[86] The P\u00e2li J\u00e2taka, no. 222. Translation by W. H. Rouse.\n\n[87] Warren\u2019s _Buddhism in Translations_, p. 214.\n\n[88] _On the Completion of Karma_, by Vasubandhu. Nanjo, No. 1222.\n\n[89] _The Distinguishing of the Mean_, by Vasubandhu. Nanjo, 1248.\n\n[90] \u201cManhattan\u2019s Streets I Saunter\u2019d, Pondering.\u201d I might have\nquoted the whole poem, if not for limitation of space.\n\n[91] If we understand the following words of Tolstoi in the light\nwhich we gain from the Buddhist doctrine of karmaic immortality, we\nshall perhaps find more meaning in them than the author himself wished\nto impart: \u201cMy brother who is dead acts upon me now more strongly than\nhe did in life; he even penetrates my being and lifts me up towards\nhim.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX NOTES.\n\n[92] The _Avatamsaka S\u00fbtra_, Chinese translation by Buddhabhadra,\nfas. XXXIV.\n\n[93] That is the Dharmak\u00e2ya personified.\n\n[94] In Hindu philosophy space is always conceived as an objective\nentity in which all things exist.\n\n[95] This should be understood in the sense that \u201cGod maketh his\nsun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just\nand on the unjust.\u201d The Dharmak\u00e2ya is universal in its love, as space\nis in its comprehensiveness. Because it is absolutely free from human\ndesires and passions that are the product of egoism and therefore tend\nalways to be discriminative and exclusive.\n\n[96] The four views are: That the physical body is productive of\nimpurities; that sensuality causes pain; that the individual soul is\nnot permanent; and that all things are devoid of the Atman.\n\n[97] That is to say: The Dharmak\u00e2ya, that assumes all forms of\nexistence according to what class of being it is manifesting itself,\nis sometimes conceived by the believers to be a short-lived god,\nsometimes an immortal spirit, sometimes a celestial being of one\nhundred kalpas, and sometimes an existence of only a moment. As there\nare so many different dispositions, characters, karmas, intellectual\nattainments, moral environments, etc., so there are as many Dharmak\u00e2yas\nas subjectively represented in the minds of sentient beings, though\nthe Dharmak\u00e2ya, objectively considered, is absolutely one.\n\n[98] Asanga\u2019s _General Treatise on Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism_. (_Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nsamparigraha_).\n\n[99] The _Avatamsaka S\u00fbtra_, chap. 13, \u201cOn Merit.\u201d\n\n[100] This is by no means the case, for some of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na s\u00fbtras\nare undoubtedly productions of much later writers than the immediate\nfollowers of the Buddha, though of course it is very likely that some\nof the most important Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na canonical books were compiled within a\nfew hundred years after the Nirvana of the Master.\n\n[101] \u201cPurvapranidh\u00e2nabala\u201d is frequently translated \u201cthe power of\noriginal (or primitive) prayer.\u201d Literally, p\u00fbrva means \u201cformer\u201d or\n\u201coriginal\u201d or \u201cprimitive\u201d; and pranidh\u00e2na, \u201cdesire\u201d or \u201cvow\u201d or\n\u201cprayer\u201d; and bala, \u201cpower.\u201d So far as literary rendering is concerned,\n\u201cpower of original prayer\u201d seems to be the sense of the original\nSanskrit. But when we speak of primitive prayers of the Dharmak\u00e2ya or\nTath\u00e2gata, how shall we understand it? Has prayer any sense in this\nconnection? The Dharmak\u00e2ya can by its own free will manifest in any\nform of existence and finish its work in whatever way it deems best.\nThere is no need for it to utter any prayer in the agony of struggle\nto accomplish. There is in the universe no force whatever which is\nworking against it so powerfully as to make it cry for help; and there\ncannot be any struggle or agony in the activity of the Dharmak\u00e2ya. The\nterm prayer therefore is altogether misleading and inaccurate and\nimplicates us in a grave error which tends to contradict the general\nBuddhist conception of Dharmak\u00e2ya. We must dispense with the term\nentirely in order to be in perfect harmony with the fundamental\ndoctrine of Buddhism. This point will receive further consideration\nlater.\n\n[102] \u201cI am the father of all beings, and they are my children.\u201d\n(The _Avatamsaka_, the _Pundar\u00eeka_, etc.)\n\n[103] To get more fully acquainted with the significance of the\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee doctrine, the reader is advised to look up the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee\ns\u00fbtras in the _Sacred Books of the East_, Vol. XLIX.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X NOTES.\n\n[104] What follows is selected from a short s\u00fbtra called _The\nMah\u00e2vaipulya-Tath\u00e2gatagarbha S\u00fbtra_, translated into Chinese by\nBuddhabhadra of the Eastern Tsin dynasty (A.D. 371-420). Nanjo, No.\n384.\n\n[105] _Niyuta_ is an exceedingly large number, but generally\nconsidered to be equal to one billion.\n\n[106] All these are unhuman forms of existence, including demons,\ndragon-kings, winged beasts, etc.\n\n[107] \u00c2\u00e7rava literally means \u201coozing,\u201d or \u201cflowing out,\u201d and the\nChinese translators rendered it by _lou_, dripping, or leaking. Roughly\nspeaking, it is a general name for evils, principally material and\nsensuous. According to an Indian Buddhist scholar, \u00c2\u00e7rava has threefold\nsense: (1) \u201ckeeping,\u201d for it retains all sentient beings in the\nwhirlpool of birth and death; (2) \u201cflowing,\u201d for it makes all sentient\nbeings run in the stream of birth and death; (3) \u201cleaking,\u201d or\n\u201coozing,\u201d for it lets such evils as avarice, anger, lust, etc., ooze\nout from the six sense-organs after the fashion of an ulcer, which\nlets out blood and filthy substance. The cause of \u00c2\u00e7rava is a blind\nwill, and its result is birth and death. Specifically, Bh\u00e2v\u00e2\u00e7rava is\none of the three \u00c2\u00e7ravas, which are (1) k\u00e2m\u00e2\u00e7rava, (2) vidy\u00e2\u00e7rava, and\n(3) bh\u00e2v\u00e2\u00e7rava. The first is egotistic desires, the second is\nignorance, and the third is the material existence which we have to\nsuffer on account of our previous karma.\n\n[108] Our thoughtful readers must have noticed here that the\nconceptions of the Buddha as entertained by the Mah\u00e2sangika School\n(Great Council) closely resemble those of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism.\nThough we are still unable to trace step by step the development of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism in India, the hypothesis assumed by most of Japanese\nBuddhist scholars is that the Mah\u00e2sangika was Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic in tendency.\n\n[109] The _Mah\u00e2parinibb\u00e2na sutta_.\n\n[110] There are three Chinese translations of this s\u00fbtra: the first,\nby Dharmarak\u1e63a during the first two decades of the fifth century A.D.;\nthe second, by Param\u00e2rtha of the Liang dynasty, who came to China A.D.\n546 and died A.D. 569; and the third, by I-tsing of the Tang dynasty\nwho came back from his Indian pilgrimage in the year 695 and translated\nthis s\u00fbtra A.D. 703. The last is the only complete Chinese translation\nof the _Suvarn\u00e2 Prabh\u00e2_. A part of the original Sanskrit text recovered\nin Nepal was published by the Buddhist Text Society of India in 1898.\nNanjo, Nos. 126, 127, 130.\n\n[111] The notion that great men never die seems to be universal.\nSpiritually they would never perish, because the ideas that moved them\nand made them prominent in the history of humanity are born of truth.\nAnd in this sense every person who is possessed of worthy thoughts is\nimmortal, while souls that are made of trumpery are certainly doomed\nto annihilation. But the masses are not satisfied with this kind of\nimmortality. They must have something more tangible, more sensual, and\nmore individual. The notion of bodily resurrection of Christ is a fine\nillustration of this truth. When the followers of Christ opened the\nmaster\u2019s grave, they did not find his body, so says legend, and they\nat once conceived the idea of resurrection, for they reasoned that\nsuch a great man as Jesus could not suffer the same fate that befalls\ncommon mortals only. The story of his corporeal resurrection now\ntook wing and went wild; some heard him speak to them, some saw him\nbreak bread, and others even touched his wounds. What a grossly\nmaterialistic conception early Christians (and alas, even some of the\ntwentieth century) cherished about resurrection and immortality! It is\nno wonder, therefore, that primitive Buddhists raised a serious\nquestion about the personality of Buddha which culminated in the\nconception of the Sambhogak\u00e2ya, Body of Bliss, by Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nists.\n\n[112] Compare this to the transfigured Christ.\n\n[113] Cf. I Cor. XIII, II. \u201cWhen I was a child, I spake as a child,\nI understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a\nman, I put away childish things.\u201d This point of our ever-ascending\nspiritual progress is well illustrated in the _Saddharma-pundar\u00eeka\nS\u00fbtra_. See Chapters II, III, IV, V, and XI. The following passage\nquoted from chap. II, p. 49 (Kern\u2019s translation) will give a tolerably\nadequate view concerning diversity of means and unity of purpose as\nhere expounded: \u201cThose highest of men have, all of them, revealed most\nholy laws by means of illustrations, reasons and arguments, with many\nhundred proofs of skillfulness (_up\u00e2yakau\u00e7alya_). And all of them have\nmanifested but one vehicle and introduced but one on earth; by one\nvehicle have they led to full ripeness inconceivably many thousands of\nkotis of beings.\u201d As was elsewhere noted, this doctrine is sometimes\nknown as the theory of Up\u00e2ya. Up\u00e2ya is very difficult term to translate\ninto English; it literally means \u201cway,\u201d \u201cmethod,\u201d or \u201cstrategy.\u201d For\nfuller interpretation see p. 298, footnote.\n\n[114] This is one of the most important philosophical works of the\nYogac\u00e2ra school. Vasubandhu wrote the text (Nanjo, No. 1215) which\nconsists only of thirty verses, but there appeared many commentators\nafter the death of the author, who naturally entertained widely\ndifferent views among themselves on the subject-matter, as it is too\ntersely treated in the text. Hs\u00fcen Tsang made selections out of the\nten noted Hindu exegetists in A.D. 659 and translated them into the\nChinese language. The compilation consists of ten fascicles and is\nknown as _Discourse on the Ideality of the Universe_ (a free rendering\nof the Chinese title _Chang wei shi lun_, Nanjo, No. 1197).\n\n[115] May I venture to say that the conception of God as entertained\nby most Christians is a Body of Bliss rather than the Dharmak\u00e2ya\nitself? In some respects their God is quite spiritual, but in others\nhe is thought of as a concrete material being like ourselves. It seems\nto me that the human soul is ever struggling to free itself from this\nparadox, though without any apparent success, while the masses are not\nso intellectual and reflective enough as to become aware of this\neternal contradiction which is too deeply buried in their minds.\n\n[116] The reader must not think that there is but one Pure Land\nwhich is elaborately described in the _Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee Vy\u00fbha S\u00fbtra_ as the\nabode of the Tath\u00e2gata Amit\u00e2bha, situated innumerable leagues away in\nthe West. On the contrary, the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na texts admit the existence of\nas innumerable pure lands as there are Tath\u00e2gatas and Bodhisattvas,\nand every single one of these holy regions has no boundary and is\ncoexistent with the universe, and, therefore, their spheres necessarily\nintercrossing and overlapping one another. It would look to every\nintelligent mind that those innumerable Buddha-countries existing in\nsuch a mysterious and incomprehensible manner cannot be anything else\nthan our own subjective creation.\n\n[117] For a description of these marks see the _Dharmasangraha_, pp.\n53 ff. A process of mystifying or deifying the person of Buddha seems\nto have been going on immediately after the death of the Master; and\nthe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic conception of Nirm\u00e2nak\u00e2ya and Sambhogak\u00e2ya is merely\nthe consummation of this process. Southern Buddhists who are sometimes\nsupposed to represent a more \u201cprimitive\u201d form of Buddhism describe\njust as much as Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism the thirty-two major and eighty minor\nexcellent physical marks of a great man as having been possessed by\n\u00c7\u00e2kyamuni, (for instance, see the _Milindapa\u00f1ha_, _S. B. E._ Vol. XXXV.\np. 116). But any person with common sense will at once see the\nabsurdity of representing any human being with those physical\npeculiarities. And this seems to have inspired more rational\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nists to abandon the traditional way of portraying the human\nBuddha with those mysterious signs. They transferred them through the\ndoctrine of Trik\u00e2ya to the characterisation of the Sambhogak\u00e2ya\nBuddha, that is, to the Buddha enjoying in a celestial abode the fruit\nof his virtuous earthly life. The Buddha who walked in the flesh as\nthe son of King Suddhodana was, however, no more than an ordinary\nhuman being like ourselves, because he appeared to us in a form of\nNirm\u00e2nak\u00e2ya, i.e. as a Body of Transformation, devoid of any such\nphysical peculiarities known as thirty-two or eighty lak\u1e63anas.\nSouthern Buddhists, so called, seem, however, to have overlooked the\nridiculousness of attributing these fantastic signs to the human\nBuddha; and this fact explains that as soon as the memory of the\npersonal disciples of Buddha about his person vanished among the later\nfollowers, intense speculation and resourceful imagination were\nconstantly exercised until the divers schools settled the question\neach in its own way.\n\n[118] Cf. I Cor. XI. 19 et seq.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI NOTES.\n\n[119]\nKern\u2019s English translation (_S. B. E._ Vol. XXI), Chap. III, p. 80.\n\n[120] It should be noted here that the idea of universal salvation\nwas lacking altogether in the followers of H\u00eenay\u00e2nism. But what\ndistinguished it so markedly from Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism is that the former did\nnot extend the idea wide enough, but confined it to Buddhahood only.\nBuddha attained omniscience in order that he might deliver the world,\nbut we, ordinary mortals, are too ignorant and too helpless to aspire\nfor Buddhahood; let us be contented with paying homage to Buddha and\nfaithfully observing his precepts as laid down by him for our spiritual\nedification. Our knowledge and energy are too limited to cope with\nsuch a gigantic task as to achieve a universal salvation of mankind;\nlet a Buddha or Bodhisattva attempt it while we may rest with a\nprofound confidence in him and in his work. Thoughts somewhat like\nthese must have been going about in the minds of the H\u00eenay\u00e2nists, when\ntheir Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na brethren were making bold to strive after Buddhahood\nthemselves. The difference between the two schools of Buddhism, when\nmost concisely expressed, is this: While one has a most submissive\nconfidence in the Buddha, the other endeavors to follow his example by\nplacing himself in his position. The following quotation (\u201cthe Story\nof Sumedha,\u201d a J\u00e2taka tale, from Warren\u2019s _Buddhism_, p. 14) in which\nSumedha, one of the Buddha\u2019s former incarnations, expresses his\nresolve to be a Buddha, may just as well be considered as that of a\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nist himself, while the H\u00eenay\u00e2nists would not dare to make this\nwish their own:\n\n\n \u201cOr why should I, valorous man,\n The ocean seek to cross alone?\n Omniscience first will I achieve,\n And men and gods convey across.\n\n \u201cSince now I make this earnest wish,\n In presence of this Best of Men,\n Omniscience sometime I\u2019ll achieve,\n And multitude convey across.\n\n \u201cI\u2019ll rebirth\u2019 circling stream arrest,\n Destroy existence\u2019s three modes;\n I\u2019ll climb the sides of Doctrine\u2019s ship,\n And men and gods convey across.\u201d\n\n\n[121] This is a very rough summary of the doctrine that is known as\nParivarta and expounded in the _Avatamsaka S\u00fbtra_, fas. 21-22 where\nten forms of Parivarta are distinguished and explained at length.\n\n[122] Warren\u2019s _Buddhism in Translations_, the \u201cStory of Sumedha,\u201d\npp. 14-15.\n\n[123] It may be interesting to Christian readers to note in this\nconnection that modern Buddhists do not reject altogether the idea of\nvicarious atonement, for their religious conviction as seen here\nadmits the parivarta of a Bodhisattva\u2019s merits to the spiritual\nwelfare of his fellow-creatures. But they will object to the Christian\ninterpretation that Jesus was sent down on earth by his heavenly\nfather for the special mission to atone for the original sin through\nthe shedding of his innocent blood, for this is altogether too puerile\nand materialistic.\n\n[124] The full title of the work is _A Treatise on the\nTranscendentality of Bodhicitta_ (Nanjo, No. 1304). It is a little\nbook consisting of seven or eight sheets in big Chinese type. It was\ntranslated into Chinese by D\u00e2nap\u00e2la (Shih Hu) during the tenth century\nof the Christian Era.\n\n[125] Upaya, meaning \u201cexpedient,\u201d \u201cstratagem,\u201d \u201cdevice,\u201d or \u201ccraft,\u201d\nhas a technical sense in Buddhism. It is used in contrast to\nintelligence (_praj\u00f1\u00e2_) and is synonymous with love (_karun\u00e2_). So,\nVimalak\u00eerti says in the s\u00fbtra bearing his name (chap. 8, verses 1-4):\n\u201cPraj\u00f1\u00e2 is the mother of the Bodhisattva and Upaya his father; there\nis no leader of humanity who is not born of them.\u201d Intelligence\n(_praj\u00f1\u00e2_) is the one, the universal, representing the principle of\nsameness (_samat\u00e2_), while Upaya is the many, being the principle of\nmanifoldness (_n\u00e2n\u00e2tv\u00e2_). From the standpoint of pure intelligence,\nthe Bodhisattvas do not see any particular suffering existences, for\nthere is nothing that is not of the Dharmak\u00e2ya: but when they see the\nuniverse from the standpoint of their love-essence, they recognise\neverywhere the conditions of misery and sin that arise from clinging\nto the forms of particularity. To remove these, they devise all\npossible means that are directed towards the attainment of the final\naim of existence. There is only one religion, religion of truth, but\nthere are many ways, many means, many upayas, all issuing from the\nall-embracing love of the Dharmak\u00e2ya and equally efficient to lead the\nmasses to supreme enlightenment and universal good. Therefore,\nontologically speaking, this universe, the Buddhists would say, is\nnothing but a grand display of Upayas by the Dharmak\u00e2ya that desires\nthereby to lead all sentient beings to the ultimate realisation of\nBuddhahood. In many cases, thus, it is extremely difficult to render\nupaya by any of its English equivalents and yet to retain its original\ntechnical sense unsuffered. This is also the case with many other\nBuddhist terms, among which we may mention Bodhi, Dharmak\u00e2ya, Praj\u00f1\u00e2,\nCitta, Parivarta, etc. The Chinese translators have _fang p\u2019ien_ for\nupaya which means \u201cmeans-accommodation.\u201d\n\n[126] Its full title is _A Discourse on the Non-duality of the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na-Dharmadh\u00e2tu_. It consists of less than a dozen pages in\nordinary Chinese large print. It was translated by Deva-praj\u00f1\u00e2 and\nothers in the year 691 A.D.\n\n[127] This work was translated by Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva into Chinese at the\nbeginning of the fifth century A.D. It is divided into two fascicles,\neach consisting of about one score of Chinese pages.\n\n[128] The above is a liberal rendering of the first part of the\nChapter III, in Vasubandhu\u2019s _Bodhicitta_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII NOTES.\n\n[129] The distinction between the five indriyas and the five balas\nseems to be rather redundant. But the Hindu philosophers usually\ndistinguish actor from action, agent from function or operation. Thus\nthe sense-organs are distinguished from sensations or\nsense-consciousnesses, and the manovij\u00f1\u00e2na (mind) from its functions\nsuch as thinking, attention, memory, etc. The \u00e2tman has thus come to\nbe considered the central agent that controls all the sensuous and\nintellectual activities. Though the Buddhists do not recognise this\ndifferentiation of actor and action in reality, they sometimes loosely\nfollow the popular usage.\n\n[130] In this connection it is very interesting also to note that\nCarlyle expresses the same sentiment about the greatness of Shakespeare\nin his _Hero Worship_. \u201cIf I say that Shakspeare is the greatest of\nIntellects, I have said all concerning him. But there is more in\nShakspeare\u2019s intellect than we have yet seen It is what I call an\nunconscious intellect; there is more virtue in it that he himself is\naware of. Novalis beautifully remarks of him, that those dramas of his\nare Products of Nature too, as deep as Nature herself. I find a great\ntruth in this saying, Shakspeare\u2019s Art is not Artifice; the noblest\nworth of it is not there by plan or precontrivance. It grows from the\ndeeps of Nature, through this noble sincere soul, who is a voice of\nNature.\u201d\n\n[131] The ten powers of the Buddha are: (1) The mental power which\ndiscriminates between right and wrong, (2) The knowledge of the\nretribution of karma, (3) The knowledge of all the different stages of\ncreation, (4) The knowledge of all the different forms of deliverance,\n(5) The knowledge of all the different dispositions of sentient\nbeings, (6) The knowledge of the final destination of all deeds, (7)\nThe knowledge of all the different practices of meditation,\ndeliverance, and tranquilisation, (8) The knowledge of former\nexistences, (9) The unlimited power of divination, (10) The knowledge\nof the complete subjection of evil desires (_\u00e2\u00e7rava_).\n\n[132] The four convictions (_vai\u00e7\u00e2radyas_) of the Buddha are: (1)\nThat he has attained the highest enlightenment, (2) That he has\ndestroyed all evil desires, (3) That he has rightly described the\nobstacles that lie in the way to a life of righteousness, (4) That he\nhas truthfully taught the way of salvation.\n\n[133] The eighteen unique characteristics which distinguish the\nBuddha from the rest of mankind are: (1) He commits no errors. Since\ntime out of mind, he has disciplined himself in morality, meditation,\nintelligence, and lovingkindness, and as the result his present life\nis without faults and free from all evil thoughts. (2) He is faultless\nin his speeches. Whatever he speaks comes from his transcendental\neloquence and leads the audience to a higher conception of life. (3)\nHis mind is faultless. As he has trained himself in sam\u00e2dhi, he is\nalways calm, serene, and contented. (4) He retains his sameness of\nheart (_sam\u00e2hitacitta_), that is, his love for sentient beings is\nuniversal and not discriminative. (5) His mind is free from thoughts\nof particularity (_n\u00e2n\u00e2tvasamj\u00f1\u00e2_), that is, it is abiding in truth\ntranscendental, his thoughts are not distracted by objects of the\nsenses. (6) Resignation (_upek\u1e63\u00e2_). The Buddha knows everything, yet\nhe is calmly resigned. (7) His aspiration is unfathomable, that is,\nhis desire to save all beings from the sufferings of ignorance knows\nno bounds. (8) His energy is inexhaustible, which he applies with\nutmost vigor to the salvation of benighted souls. (9) His mentation\n(_sm\u1e5bti_) is inexhaustible, that is, he is ever conscious of all the\ngood doctrines taught by all the Buddhas of the past, present, and\nfuture. (10) His intelligence (_praj\u00f1\u00e2_) is inexhaustible, that is,\nbeing in possession of all-intelligence which knows no limits, he\npreaches for the benefits of all beings. (11) His deliverance\n(_vimukti_) is permanent, that is, he has eternally distanced all evil\npassions and sinful attachments. (12) His knowledge of deliverance\n(_vimuktij\u00f1\u00e2na_) is perfect, that is, his intellectual insight into\nall states of deliverance is without a flaw. (13) He possesses a\nwisdom which directs all his bodily movements towards the benefit and\nenlightenment of sentient beings. (14) He possesses a wisdom which\ndirects all his speeches toward the edification and conversion of his\nfellow-creatures. (15) He possesses a wisdom which reflects in his\nclear mind all the turbulent states of ignorant souls, from which he\nremoves the dark veil of nescience and folly. (16) He knows all the\npast. (17) He knows all the future. (18) He knows all the present.\n\n[134] For an elaborate exposition of the Da\u00e7abh\u00fbm\u00ee, see the\n_Avatamsaka_ (sixty volume edition, fas. 24-27), the _\u00c7\u00fbrangama_,\nVasubandhu\u2019s Commentary on Asanga\u2019s _Comprehensive Treatise on\nMah\u00e2yanism_ (fas. 10-11), the _Vijn\u00e2nam\u00e2tra \u00c7\u00e2stra_ (fas. 9), etc.,\nand for a special treatment of the subject consult the s\u00fbtra bearing\nthe name, which by the way exists in a Sanskrit version and whose\nbrief sketch is given by Rajendra Mitra in his _Nepalese Buddhist\nLiterature_, p. 81 et seq.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII NOTES.\n\n[135] Literally, \u201cto advance against.\u201d\n\n[136] Cf. Beal\u2019s translation in the _S. B. E._ Vol XIX. pp. 306-307,\nvs. 2095-2101. Beal utterly misunderstands the Chinese original.\n\n[137] The _Buddhacarita_, Cowell\u2019s translation in the _S. B. E._\nVol. XLIX. p. 145.\n\n[138] From A. J. Edmunds\u2019s translation of _Dhammapada_.\n\n[139] P. 225. Beal\u2019s translation is not always reliable, and I\nwould have my own if the Chinese original were at all accessible.\n\n[140] The g\u00e2th\u00e2s supposed to be the first utterance of the Buddha\nafter his enlightenment, according to Rockhill\u2019s _Life of the Buddha_\n(p. 33) compiled from Tibetan sources, give an inkling of nihilism,\nthough I am inclined to think that the original Tibetan will allow a\ndifferent interpretation when examined by some one who is better\nacquainted with the spirit of Buddhism than Rockhill. Rockhill betrays\nin not a few cases his insufficient knowledge of the subject he treats.\nHis translation of the g\u00e2th\u00e2s is as follows:\n\n\n \u201cAll the pleasures of the worldly joys,\n All which are known among the gods,\n Compared with the joy of ending existence,\n Are not as its sixteenth part.\n\n \u201cSorry is he whose burden is heavy,\n And happy he who has cast it down;\n When once he has cast off his burden,\n He will seek to be burthened no more.\n\n \u201cWhen all existences are put away,\n When all notions are at an end,\n When all things are perfectly known,\n Then no more will craving come back.\u201d\n\n\nIn the _Ud\u00e2na_, II., 2, we have a stanza corresponding to the first\ng\u00e2th\u00e2 here cited, but the _Ud\u00e2na_ does not say \u201cthe joy of ending\nexistence,\u201d but \u201cthe destruction of desire.\u201d\n\nAccording to the _Lalita Vistara_, the Buddha\u2019s utterance of victory\nis (R\u00e2jendra Mitra\u2019s Edition p. 448):\n\n\n \u201cCinna vartmopa\u00e7\u00e2nta raj\u00e2h \u00e7u\u1e63k\u00e2 \u00e2\u00e7rav\u00e2 na puna\u1e25 \u00e7ravanti.\n Chinne vartmani varttate du\u1e25khasyai\u1e63onta ucyate.\u201d\n\n\n[141] Warren\u2019s _Buddhism in Translations_, p. 376.\n\n[142] General D. M. Strong\u2019s translation, p. 64.\n\n[143] The text does not expressly say \u201canimate or inanimate\u201d, but\nthis is the author\u2019s own interpretation according to the general\nspirit of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism.\n\n[144] There are two obstacles to final emancipation: (1) affective,\nand (2) intellectual. The former is our unenlightened affective or\nemotional or subjective life and the latter our intellectual prejudice.\nBuddhists should not only be pure in heart but be perfect in\nintelligence. Pious men are of course saved from transmigration, but\nto attain perfect Buddhahood they must have a clear, penetrating\nintellectual insight into the significance of life and existence and\nthe destiny of the universe. This emphasising of the rational element\nin religion is one of the most characteristic points of Buddhism.\n\n[145] This is one of the most important philosophical texts of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism. Its original Sanskrit with the commentary of Chandra K\u00eerti\nhas been edited by Satis Chandra Acharya and published by the Buddhist\nText Society of India. The original lines run as follows (p. 193):\n\n\n \u201cAprah\u00eenam, asampr\u00e2ptam, anucchinnam, a\u00e7\u00e2\u00e7vatam,\n Aniruddham, anutpannam, evam nirv\u00e2nam ucyate.\u201d\n\n\n[146] Literally, that which is characterised by the absence of all\ncharacterisation.\n\n[147] Cf. the following from the _M\u00e2dhyamika_:\n\n \u201cBhaved abb\u00e2vo bh\u00e2va\u00e7 ca nirv\u00e2nam ubhayam katham:\n Asamsk\u1e5btam ca nirv\u00e2nam bh\u00e2v\u00e2bhav\u00e2i ca samsk\u1e5btam.\u201d\n Or, \u201cTasm\u00e2nna bh\u00e2vo n\u00e2bh\u00e2vo nirv\u00e2namiti yujyate.\u201d\n\n\n[148] In the _Visuddhi-Magga_ XXI. (Warren\u2019s translation, p. 376 et\nseq.), we read that there are three starting points of deliverance\narising from the consideration of the three predominant qualities of\nthe constituents of being: 1. The consideration of their beginnings\nand ends leads the thoughts to the unconditioned; 2. The insight into\ntheir miserableness agitates the mind and leads the thoughts to the\ndesireless; 3. The consideration of the constituents of being as not\nhaving an ego leads the thoughts to the empty. And these three, we are\ntold, constitute the three aspects of Nirv\u00e2na as unconditioned,\ndesireless, and empty. Here we have an instance in the so-called\nSouthern \u201cprimitive\u201d Buddhism of viewing Nirv\u00e2na in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nistic\nlight which I have here explained at length.\n\n_En passant_, let us remark that as Buddha did not leave any document\nhimself embodying his whole system, there sprang up soon after his\ndeparture several schools explaining the Master\u2019s view in divers ways,\neach claiming the legitimate interpretation; that in view of this fact\nit is illogical to conclude that Southern Buddhism is the authoritative\nrepresentation par excellence of original Buddhism, while the Eastern\nor the Northern is a mere degeneration.\n\n[149] There are three Chinese translations of this Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na text, by\nDharmarak\u1e63a, Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva, and Bodhiruci, between 265 and 517 A.D.\n\n[150]\n\n Sams\u00e2rasya ca nirv\u00e2n\u00e2t kincid asti vi\u00e7e\u1e63a\u1e47am:\n Na nirv\u00e2\u1e47asya sams\u00e2r\u00e2t kincid asti vi\u00e7esa\u1e47am.\n\n\n[151]\n\n Nirv\u00e2\u1e47asya ca y\u00e2 koti\u1e25 koti\u1e25 sams\u00e2rasya ca,\n Vidy\u00e2danantara\u1e43 kincit susuk\u1e63na\u1e43 vidyate.\n\n\n[152] Concerning the similarity in meaning of this statement to the\none just preceding, a commentator says that the sixth is the statical\nview of Suchness (or Dharmak\u00e2ya) and the seventh its dynamical view.\nOne explains what the highest reality of Buddhism is and the other\nwhat it does or works.\n\n[153] _The Discourse on Buddha-essence_ by Vasubandhu. The Japanese\nTripitaka edition of 1881, fas. II., p. 84, where the stanza is quoted\nfrom the _S\u00fbtra on the Incomprehensible_.\n\n[154] This is expressed in the first verse of the _M\u00e2dhyamika\n\u00c7\u00e2stra_, which runs as follows:\n\n \u201cAnirodham anutp\u00e2dam anucchedam a\u00e7\u00e2\u00e7vatam\n Anek\u00e2rtham an\u00e2n\u00e2rtham an\u00e2gamam anirgamam.\u201d\n\n\nLiterally translated these lines read:\n\n\n \u201cNo annihilation, no production, no destruction, no persistence,\n No unity, no plurality, no coming in, no going out.\u201d\n\n\n[155] Compare this Buddhist sentiment of universal love with that of\nthe Christian religion and we shall see the truth that all religions\nare one at the bottom. We read in Thomas \u00e0 Kempis\u2019s _Imitation of\nChrist_ (ch. XIII): \u201cMy son, I descended from heaven for thy salvation;\nI took upon me thy sorrows, not necessity but love drawing me thereto;\nthat thou thyself mightest learn patience and bear temporal sufferings\nwithout repining. For from the hour of my birth, even until my death\non the cross, I was not without suffering of grief.\u201d This is exactly\nthe sentiment that stimulates the Bodhisattvas to their gigantic task\nof universal salvation. Those who are free from sectarian biases will\nadmit without hesitation that there is but one true religion which may\nassume various forms according to circumstances. \u201cMany are the roads\nto the summit, but when reached there we have but one universal\nmoonlight.\u201d\n\n[156] The _Dharmapada_, XIV. 5. Mr. A. J. Edmunds\u2019s translation is,\n\n\n \u201cCeasing to do all wrong,\n Initiation into goodness,\n Cleansing the heart:\n This the religion of the Buddhas.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES.\n\nPage numbers are given in {curly brackets}.\n\nThe following have been left as-printed:\n\nArchaic and inconsistent spellings (_e.g._, Corea, Nirv\u00e2na/Nirvana,\nco\u00f6rdination/co-ordination, efficience/efficiency,\n\u00c2laya-vij\u00f1\u00e2na/\u00c2layavij\u00f1\u00e2na, etc.).\n\nEllipses of varying lengths.\n\n(p. 317) The Eightfold Noble Path is listed omitting the seventh step\n(Right mindfulness). Also, the sixth step is usually given as \u201cRight\neffort,\u201d not \u201cRight recollection.\u201d\n\nThe usage of both \u201cfn.\u201d and \u201cft.\u201d to denote \u201cfootnote\u201d in the Index.\n\nLastly, some syntactical errors with possible corrections given in\nsquare brackets:\n\n(p. 83) \u201cIts foundation lies too deeply buried in [the] human heart to\nbe damaged by knowledge or science.\u201d\n\n(p. 104) \u201cWhen Bodhi-Dharma... saw Emperor Wu of [the] Liang dynasty\n(A.D. 502-556), he was asked...\u201d\n\n(p. 214) \u201cIn good karma we are made to live eternally, but in [an]\nevil one we are doomed...\u201d\n\n(p. 215) \u201cPious Buddhists believe that... he enters right into the\nsoul and becomes [an] integral part of his being.\u201d\n\nAlterations to the text:\n\nAbandon the use of drop-caps.\n\nConvert footnotes to endnotes and add a corresponding entry in the\nTOC.\n\nPunctuation corrections: several missing/invisible periods and a few\ncommas, some quotation mark pairings/nestings, etc.\n\n[TOC]\n\nAdd missing \u201cTwo Forms of Knowledge\u201d subsection under Chapter IV.\n\nUnder Chapter XII, change \u201cBhimukh\u00ee\u201d to \u201cAbhimukh\u00ee\u201d.\n\n[Introduction]\n\nChange \u201cthe other schools, which _latter_ became a class by itself\u201d to\n_later_.\n\n\u201cled to the dissension _af_ Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and H\u00eenay\u00e2nism\u201d to _of_.\n\n\u201cKant, for instance, as _promotor_ of German philosophy\u201d to _promoter_.\n\n\u201ca few _centnries_ after A\u00e7vagho\u1e63a, the progressive party\u201d to\n_centuries_.\n\n\u201cwhile the _Prayekabuddhas_ and the \u00c7r\u00e2vakas are considered\u201d to\n_Pratyekabuddhas_.\n\n\u201cBuddhism cannot ignore the _significane_ of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism\u201d to\n_significance_.\n\n\u201ctheir rival religion as _denegerated_, because it went\u201d to\n_degenerated_.\n\n\u201cThis fact so miserably spoils their _purityof_ sentiment\u201d to _purity\nof_.\n\n\u201chis intellect becomes _pitiously_ obscured by his\u201d to _piteously_.\n\n\u201c_refering_ to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na conception of Dharmak\u00e2ya\u201d to _referring_.\n\n[Chapter I]\n\n\u201cthat, owing to a crime _commited_ by them\u201d to _committed_.\n\n\u201cdo not recognise the evanescence of _wordly_ things\u201d to _worldly_.\n\n\u201cThe _dotrine_ of nescience or ignorance is technically\u201d to _doctrine_.\n\n\u201csons and daughters, wives _aud_ husbands, all transfigured\u201d to _and_.\n\n\u201cand which therefore were utterly _desplicable_\u201d to _despicable_.\n\n\u201cin response to the pathetic _persuation_ of his father\u2019s\u201d to\n_persuasion_.\n\n[Chapter II]\n\n\u201cSthiramati in his _Indroduction_ to Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism\u201d to _Introduction_.\n\n\u201cAs the silkworm imprisons itself in the _cacoon_ created\u201d to _cocoon_.\n\n\u201crealm of the absolute and the abode of _non-particurality_\u201d to\n_non-particularity_.\n\n[Chapter III]\n\n\u201csatisfy the inmost _yearings_ of the human heart\u201d to _yearnings_.\n\n\u201cwhich consists of the inmost _yearings_ of the human heart\u201d to\n_yearnings_.\n\n[Chapter IV]\n\n\u201cWorld-views Founded on the Three _Froms_ of Knowledge\u201d to _Forms_.\n\n(p. 94, fn. 1) \u201cNanjo. Nos. 246 _aud_ 247), etc.\u201d to _and_.\n\n\u201cFrom this, it is to be _infered_ that Buddhism never\u201d to _inferred_.\n\n[Chapter V]\n\n(_N\u00e2g\u00e2rjana\u2019s_ famous doctrine of \u201cThe Middle Path) to _N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\u2019s_.\n\n\u201cis no more than a fragment of the _absoulte_ Bh\u00fbtatath\u00e2t\u00e2\u201d to\n_absolute_.\n\n\u201cto be very logical and free from serious _dufficulties_\u201d to\n_difficulties_.\n\n\u201cAdam with Eve, Buddha with Devadatta, etc., _ect_.,\u201d to _etc_.\n\n[Chapter VI]\n\n\u201cand _Buddi_ and Ahank\u00e2ra. Buddhi, intellect, is defined\u201d to _Buddhi_.\n\n(p.139, fn. 1) \u201cdoctrine of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, i.e.. that of\u201d change third\nperiod to a comma.\n\n[Chapter VII]\n\n\u201cfixed state of things in which perfect _equillibrium_\u201d to\n_equilibrium_.\n\n\u201cthe noumenal ego as the raison _d\u2019 \u00eatre_ of our\u201d to _d\u2019\u00eatre_.\n\n(literally means \u201caggregate\u201d or \u201c_aglomeration_\u201d) to _agglomeration_.\n\n(saying: \u201c_This\u2018middle\u2019_ is extremely indefinite) to _This \u2018middle\u2019_.\n\n\u201cthe hypothesis of the _permament_ existence of an\u201d to _permanent_.\n\n(The term \u201c_sabh\u00e2va_\u201d (self-essence or noumenon) is) to _svabh\u00e2va_.\n\n\u201cthey are like the _will-\u2018o-the-wisp_\u201d to _will-o\u2019-the-wisp_.\n\n\u201cIf the Fourfold Noble Truth _d\u0153s_ not exist\u201d to _does_.\n\n\u201cThe _Buddha \u2019s_ teaching rests on the discrimination\u201d to _Buddha\u2019s_.\n\n[Chapter VIII]\n\n\u201cHe is _sufficent_ unto himself as he is here and now\u201d to _sufficient_.\n\n\u201cand the accumulation of of merits (_punyaskandha_)\u201d delete one _of_.\n\n\u201cEvery one of these seeds which are _infinte_ in number\u201d to _infinite_.\n\n[Chapter IX]\n\n\u201cthan devastation, _barreness_, and universal misery\u201d to _barrenness_.\n\n\u201cEven so with the _Dhark\u00e2ya_ of the Tath\u00e2gata\u201d to _Dharmak\u00e2ya_.\n\n\u201cEven so with the Dharmak\u00e2ya of _theT ath\u00e2gata_\u201d to _the Tath\u00e2gata_.\n\n\u201csuch as blindness, deafness, mental _abberration_, etc.\u201d to\n_aberration_.\n\n\u201cIt _anthroposises_ everything beyond the proper measure\u201d to\n_anthropomorphises_.\n\n[Chapter X]\n\n(p. 243, fn. 1) \u201cthe Eastern Tsin dynasty (A.D, 371-420)\u201d change the\ncomma to a period.\n\n\u201cthe work once _refered_ to in the beginning of this book\u201d to\n_referred_.\n\n\u201cdescribe the the essential peculiarities of each school\u201d delete one\n_the_.\n\n(p. 253, fn. 2) \u201cA part of the _orginal_ Sanskrit text\u201d to _original_.\n\n\u201cAsanga and Vasubandhu will be here _refered_ to\u201d to _referred_.\n\n\u201cpious Buddhists would be _transfered_ after their death\u201d to\n_transferred_.\n\n(p. 271, fn. 1) \u201ceighty minor _exellent_ physical marks of a great\u201d to\n_excellent_.\n\n(_same_) \u201cThey _transfered_ them through the doctrine of Trik\u00e2ya\u201d to\n_transferred_.\n\n[Chapter XI]\n\n\u201cwhich was quite unwittingly _commited_ by him\u201d to _committed_.\n\n\u201cdoes not allow the _transfering_ of responsibility\u201d to _transferring_.\n\n\u201cIt is _uncreate_ and its self-essence is void\u201d to _uncreated_.\n\n[Chapter XII]\n\n\u201cOn the evanescence of the _wordly_ interests\u201d to _worldly_.\n\n\u201c3. Circumspection; 4. _Equillibrium_, or tranquillity\u201d to\n_Equilibrium_.\n\n\u201caloof from the consuming fire of _passsion_\u201d to _passion_.\n\n\u201cHe practises the virtue of _strenuousuess_ (_vriya_)\u201d to\n_strenuousness_.\n\n[Chapter XIII]\n\n\u201cAnd am eternally released from all pain and _suffe ring_\u201d to\n_suffering_.\n\n(p. 334, fn. 2) \u201cCowell\u2019s translation in the S. B. E. Vol. _ILIX_. p.\n145\u201d to _XLIX_.\n\n\u201cWhen we speak of _Buddha \u2019s_ entrance into Nirv\u00e2na\u201d to _Buddha\u2019s_.\n\n\u201clove is a Buddha-dharma, wisdom is a _Buddha dharma_\u201d to\n_Buddha-dharma_.\n\n\u201cemancipation of the \u00c7r\u00e2vaka or of the _Prayekabuddha_\u201d to\n_Pratyekabuddha_.\n\n\u201chearts are not softened at the sight of others, misfortune and\nsuffering\u201d change the comma to a (possessive) apostrophe.\n\n\u201che does not believe that universal _emanciipation_\u201d to _emancipation_.\n\n\u201cbut that _thay_ obtain reality in their oneness with\u201d to _they_.\n\n\u201cdo not pay homage to the _congregration_ of holy men\u201d to\n_congregation_.\n\n[Appendix]\n\n\u201cDevoid of all _liminations_\u201d to _limitations_.\n\n\u201cNone is there but that enters upon _Buddh a-knowledge_\u201d to\n_Buddha-knowledge_.\n\n\u201cAll _senient_ beings in transmigration travel through\u201d to _sentient_.\n\n\u201cI\u2019ll release, and to eternal _pease_ them I\u2019ll lead\u201d to _peace_.\n\n\u201cIn the stream of birth and death they go _arolling_\u201d to _a-rolling_.\n\n\u201cNo-more-_arolling_ is Nirv\u00e2na\u201d to _a-rolling_.\n\nChange two incidents of _Nonjo_ to _Nanjo_.\n\n\u201cThe Avatamsaka _Sutru_\u201d to _Sutra_.\n\n[Index]\n\n(_Imitation of Christ_, _365_ fn.) to _364_.\n\n(_Lalita Vistara_, quoted, on Nirvana, _339_ fn.) to _338_.\n\n(Max Mueller, quoted, 108 ft., _111_ ft., 221.) to _110_.\n\n(Praj\u00f1\u00e2 (and Bodhi), defined, _62_ ft.; 82, 97, 119, 238, 360.) to\n_82_.\n\n(Prak\u1e5bti (Samkyan primordial matter), _67_ ft.) to _66_.\n\n(Purusha (Samkyan soul), _67_ ft.) to _66_.\n\n(\u201cTat tvam asi,\u201d 47, _136_ ft.) to _135_.\n\n(_Ud\u00e2na_, quoted, 52, _339_ ft., 341.) to _338_.\n\n(Up\u00e2ya (expediency), 64, _261_ ft.; its meaning) to _260_.\n\n [End of text]","title":"Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":100464}