Part 6

[1] Literally, for the _ta-cheng-che_—those of the great vehicle, _i.e._, the Mahayana faith. “They taught (the Mahayana school) that there were two methods of salvation, or, so to speak, two ways or two vehicles—the great and the little (Maha-Yana and Hina-Yana)—and indeed two Bodhis or forms of true knowledge which these vehicles had to convey (there was also a middle way). The former was for ordinary persons, the latter for beings of larger talents and higher spiritual powers.”—_Buddhism_. Sir Monier Williams.

“Therefore let one always be thoughtful, and avoid (gross) pleasures; having abandoned them, let him cross the stream, after baling out the ship, and go to the other shore (Nirvana).”—_Dhammapada_. Max Müller.

[2] “All these beings will equally remember the _Bodhi_ (the highest Buddhic knowledge), will receive it and understand it.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“All men being one with _ho-tan_ (Gautama?) Tathagata, arrive at the state of the unsurpassed, just, and enlightened (heart).”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

The Chinese phrase “_ho-tan-Ju-Lai_,” may mean to bear upon the person evidences of the Lord Buddha. Compare the statement of the apostle Paul, “I bear in my body evidences of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

[3] Those disciples associated with the _Siao-Fah_ (little Law, the Hinayana school of Buddhist thought), are rather ungraciously referred to by a Chinese commentator as “rootless stems”; by which we are reminded of the Hindoo aphorism, “from the absence of a root within the root, all things are rootless.”

[4] When the Lord Buddha delivered the Sutra known as the _Lotus of the Good Law_, it is recorded that five thousand followers forsook him, owing to what they regarded as a grave difficulty in complying with its intensely abstruse doctrines.

[5] “In these two places also Topes (where relics of Buddha are deposited and safeguarded) have been built, both adorned with layers of all the previous substances (gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal). The kings, ministers, and peoples of the kingdoms vie with one another in making offerings at them. The trains of those who come to scatter flowers and light lamps at them never cease.”—_The Travels of Fa-Hien_. Legge.

This descriptive scene concerning the endless trains of pilgrims who lit their lamps at the sacred shrine, may recall to our minds the beautifully expressed line in Sophocles’ _Œdipus Coloneus_, thus rendered by Professor Jebb, _The torch-lit strand_ of Eleusis.

[6] “Then the king, with his assembled ministers and all the priests belonging to the capital (of Kashmir), advanced to the preaching hall (_Dharmasala_) and escorted him (the Master of the Law) onwards, being altogether something like a thousand men, with standards and parasols, with incense and flowers filling the roads. When they met (the Master of the Law) they all performed a humble salutation, and spread before him countless flowers as religious offerings.”—_The Life of Hiuen-Tsang_. Beal.

[Chapter 16]

The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good disciple, whether man or woman, devoted to the observance and study of this Scripture, is thereby despised, or lightly esteemed,[1] it is because that in a previous life there had been committed some grievous transgression, followed now by inexorable retribution.[2] But, although in this life despised or lightly esteemed, the compensating merit thus acquired will cause the transgression of a former life to be fully expiated, and the disciple adequately recompensed by the attainment of supreme spiritual wisdom.”

“Furthermore, Subhuti, numberless ages ago, I recollect that before the advent of Dipankara Buddha, there were myriad Buddhas before whom I served and received religious instruction, my conduct being entirely blameless and without reproach. But, in the ages to come, if a disciple be enabled to rigorously observe and to study the text of this Scripture, the merit thus acquired will so far exceed the measure of my merit in the service of those myriad Buddhas, that it cannot be stated in terms of proportion, nor comprehended by means of any ‘analogy.’”

“Again, Subhuti, in future ages, if a good disciple, whether man or woman, be enabled to rigorously observe and to study consecutively the texts of this Scripture, were I to elaborate either the nature or extent of this merit, those who heard it might become delirious, or entirely doubt its credibility.[3] Subhuti, it is necessary to realise, that as the meaning of this Scripture is beyond ordinary comprehension, the scope of its fruitful rewards is equally incomprehensible.”[4]

[1] “Whoever reviles Buddha or his disciple, be he a wandering mendicant, or a householder, let one know him as an outcast.”—_Sutta-Nipata_. V. Fausböll.

[2] “Whatever evil deeds these beings have done in a former birth, deeds that must lead to suffering, those deeds these beings, owing to their being overcome, after they have seen the Law, will destroy, and they will obtain the knowledge of Buddha.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“According to the Buddha ... all men must suffer in their own persons either in the present life, or in future lives, the consequences of their own acts.... The penalty of sin could not be transferred to another—it could only be borne by the sinner himself, just as the reward of virtue could only be enjoyed by the virtuous man himself.”—_Hinduism_. Sir Monier Williams.

[3] Literally, “become as doubtful as a fox.”

[4] “For as the method and entire meaning of this Sutra is not to be described or entirely conceived, so the merit and happy consequences of accepting it cannot be conceived or described.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[Chapter 17]

Upon that occasion, the venerable Subhuti addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! if a good disciple, whether man or woman, having desired to attain to supreme spiritual wisdom, what immutable Law shall support the mind of that disciple, and bring into subjection every inordinate desire?”[1]

The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “A good disciple, whether man or woman, ought thus to habituate his mind:[2] ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life; and having become oblivious to every idea of sentient life, there is _no one_ to whom the idea of sentient life has become oblivious.’[3] And why? Because, Subhuti, if an enlightened disciple retains within his mind such arbitrary ideas of sentient life as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality, he has not attained to supreme spiritual wisdom. And why? Because, Subhuti, there is no Law by means of which a disciple may be defined as one having obtained supreme spiritual wisdom.”[4]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? When the Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, was there bequeathed to him any Law whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! inasmuch as I am able to comprehend the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse, when the Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, there was no Law bequeathed to him whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom.”

The Lord Buddha endorsed these words, saying:[5] “Truly there is no Law by means of which the Lord Buddha obtained supreme spiritual wisdom. Subhuti, if there existed a Law by means of which the Lord Buddha obtained supreme spiritual wisdom, Dipankara Buddha would not have foretold at my initiation, ‘In future ages[6] thou shalt become Sakyamuni Buddha.’ But, in reality, there is no Law by means of which supreme spiritual wisdom can be obtained. Therefore, at my initiation, Dipankara Buddha foretold concerning me, ‘In future ages, thou shalt become Sakyamuni Buddha.’ And why? Because, in the word _Buddha_.[7] every Law is summarily and intelligibly comprehended.” “If a disciple affirmed that the Lord Buddha attained to supreme spiritual wisdom, it is necessary to state that there is no Law whereby this condition of mind can be realised. The supreme spiritual wisdom to which the Lord Buddha attained, cannot, in its essence, be defined as real or unreal. Thus, the Lord Buddha declared that the ordinarily accepted term, ‘the Buddhic Law,’ is synonymous with every moral and spiritual Law. Subhuti, what are ordinarily declared to be ‘systems of Law,’ are not in reality ‘systems of Law,’ they are merely termed ‘systems of Law.’”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “Can you imagine a man having a great physical body?” Subhuti replied, saying: “The Lord Buddha, discoursing upon the proportions of a physical body, did not maintain for these any _real_ greatness, therefore it is merely termed ‘a great body.”’

The Lord Buddha, thereupon, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Thus it is with an enlightened disciple: if he were to expatiate after this manner, ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life,’[8] he could not be described as fully enlightened. And why? Because, there is no Law whereby a disciple can be approved as ‘fully enlightened.’[9] Therefore, the Lord Buddha declared that within the realm of spiritual Law, there is neither an entity, a being, a living being, nor a personality.”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If an enlightened disciple were to speak in this wise, ‘I shall create numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ he could not be designated ‘fully enlightened.’ And why? Because, the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon ‘creating numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ did not affirm the idea of creating numerous ‘material’ Buddhist kingdoms, hence the ‘creation of numerous Buddhist kingdoms’ is merely a figure of speech. Subhuti, the Lord Buddha declared that a disciple may be regarded as ‘truly enlightened,’ whose mind is thoroughly imbued with the Law of non-individuality.”[10]

[1] “Let a man restraining all these remain in devotion.... For he, whose senses are under his control, possesses spiritual knowledge. Attachments to objects of sense arise in a man who meditates upon them; from attachment arises desire; from desire passion springs up; from passion comes bewilderment; from bewilderment, confusion of the memory; from confusion of the memory, destruction of the intellect; from destruction of the intellect, he perishes.”—_Bhagavad-Gita_. J. Cockburn Thomson.

[2] “He should thus frame his thought: all things must be delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirvana.... And why? Because, O Subhuti, there is no such thing as one who has entered on the path of the Bodhisattva.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

[3] “Such scenes as the following, illustrating the beliefs of the time and the locality, would not seldom occur. A wayfarer in the country of the Getæ (Jats) (Afghanistan) knocks at the door of a Brahman family. A young man within answers: ‘There is No One in this house.’ The traveller was too well taught in Buddhism not to know the meaning of this philosophical nihilism, and at once answered, ‘Who is No One?’ The young man, when he heard this, felt that he was understood. A kindred spirit was outside. Hurriedly he opened the door, and invited the stranger to enter. The visitor was the patriarch of the time (seventeenth), with staff and rice bowl, travelling to teach and make new disciples.”—_Chinese Buddhism_. Edkins.

[4] Most writers on the Buddhist faith and religion have occasion to refer to the series of events which culminated in the Lord Buddha obtaining “supreme enlightenment.” The founder of the Buddhist faith, dissatisfied with the practice of asceticism, and disappointed by his unfaithful disciples, walked meditatively towards the river Nairanjara, where Sujata, “the daughter of a neighbouring villager,” provided him with his morning meal. Seating himself under a sacred Bo-Tree, immediately he became engaged in the severest of mental conflicts. The Buddhist authors describe their Master as sitting “sublime,” “calm,” and “serene” throughout the sustained assault of a “visible” and wicked tempter, assisted by legions of evil spirits. So unrelenting was the fierce encounter, that the forces of nature shook and were convulsed under the dreadful onslaught. As the day advanced, the spiritual elements in Buddha’s nature gradually gained the ascendency; and when he became “fully enlightened,” there was revealed to him an antidote for human woe. The mind of the Lord Buddha thereafter assumed an aspect of perfect peace; “and in _the power over the human heart of inward culture, and of love to others_,” the great Teacher discovered a foundation of Truth, where, with assurance of faith, he could securely rest. As Milton regarded “Paradise” to be “regained” in the wilderness, and not on Calvary; in like manner the Buddhist poets indicate a belief that the experience of their Master under the Bo-Tree was the most eventful in his history. That is the reason they regard the Bo-Tree with a reverence resembling the Christian veneration of the Cross. (Compare Davids’ _Buddhism_.)

[5] Buddha said: “Right! Right! Subhuti, there is in truth no fixed Law (by which) Tathagata attained this condition. Subhuti, if there had been such a Law, then Dipankara Buddha would not have said in delivering the prediction concerning me: ‘you in after ages must attain to the state of Buddha, and your name shall be Sakyamuni,’ so that because there is indeed no fixed Law for attaining the condition of ‘the perfect heart,’ on that account it was Dipankara Buddha delivered his prediction in such words.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[6] “To the pious Buddhist it is a constant source of joy and gratitude that ‘the Buddha,’ not only then, but in many former births, when emancipation from all the cares and troubles of life was already within his reach, should again and again, in mere love for man, have condescended to enter the world, and live amidst the sorrows inseparable from finite existence.”—_Buddhism_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

[7] “And why, O Subhuti, the name of Tathagata? It expresses ‘true suchness.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses that ‘he had no origin.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses ‘the destruction of all qualities.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses ‘one who has no origin whatever.’ And why this? Because, O Subhuti, ‘no origin is the highest goal.’”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

The familiar word Buddha, seems to convey to devout Buddhist minds, a meaning consonant with the ethical idea of Love, as understood generally by the followers of Christ. Within it are potential spiritual elements, which, according to their judgment, perfectly fulfil the Law. The Chinese text, _Ju-Lai-che, chi-chu-fah-ru-i_, may bear the following interpretation, _Buddha is the One in whom all Laws become intelligible_. With this particular definition before us, and bearing in mind the general substance of the Mahayana faith, we may perhaps appreciate the sense in which the distinguished missionary, Dr Richard of Shanghai, ventured to render the Chinese term _Ju-Lai_ (Buddha), in a translation of Asvaghocha’s _The Awakening of Faith_, by the English synonym God. Few Christians would controvert the statement _that God, is the One in whom all Laws become intelligible!_

[8] “And if a Bodhisattva were to say: ‘I shall deliver all beings,’ he ought not to be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Is there anything, O Subhuti, that is called a Bodhisattva? Subhuti said: ‘Not indeed!’ Bhagavat said: ‘Those who were spoken of as beings, beings indeed, O Subhuti, they were spoken of as no beings by the Tathagata, and, therefore, they are called beings. Therefore Tathagata says: “All beings are without self, all beings are without life, without manhood, without personality.”’”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“Subhuti, so it is with the Bodhisatwa, if he should say: ‘I ought to destroy all recollection of the countless kinds of creatures,’ this Bodhisatwa would not be really one, but only a nominal one.... Hence Buddha says that all things ought to be without any individual distinction.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[9] “The fountain of knowledge is the pure, bright, self-enlightening mind.”—_Twan-Tsi-Sin-Yao_ (_Tang Dynasty_). Compare Edkins’ _Chinese Buddhism_.

[10] “A Bodhisattva, O Subhuti, who believes that all things are without self, he has faith, he is called a noble-minded Bodhisattva by the holy and fully enlightened Tathagata.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

In the _Mo-Wei-Sutra_, the ordinary concepts of an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality, are referred to as _blots_ or _stains_ upon the mind.

[Chapter 18]

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the physical eye?” Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the physical eye.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the divine or spiritual eye?” Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the divine or spiritual eye.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the eye of wisdom?” Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the eye of wisdom.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the eye of truth?”[1] Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the eye of truth.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the Buddhic eye?” Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the Buddhic eye.”[2]

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Concerning the sands of the Ganges, did the Lord Buddha declare that these were grains of sand?” Subhuti assenting, said: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha declared that these were grains of sand.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? If there were as many rivers Ganges as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, and if there were as many Buddhist worlds as the grains of sand in those innumerable rivers, would these Buddhist worlds be numerous?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! these Buddhist worlds would be very numerous.”

The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Within these innumerable worlds, every form of sentient life, with their various mental dispositions, are entirely known to the Lord Buddha.[3] And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as their ‘various mental dispositions,’ are not in reality their ‘various mental dispositions,’ these are merely termed their ‘various mental dispositions.’ And why? Because, Subhuti, dispositions of mind, or modes of thought, whether relating to the past, the present, or the future, are alike unreal and illusory.”

[1] The Chinese _Fah-Yen_—literally, Eye of the Law.

“The second of the three great treasures is called _Dhamma_, or in Singhalese, _Dharmma_. This word has various meanings, but is here to be understood in the sense of Truth. It is not unfrequently translated ‘the Law,’ but this interpretation gives an idea contrary to the entire genius of Buddhism. The _Dharmma_ is therefore emphatically the Truth.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

[2] “Supernatural talents, which the founder of Buddhism, Sakyamuni, is believed to have acquired in the night before he became Buddha, and which every Arhat takes possession of by means of the fourth degree of _Dhyana_ (abstract contemplation). Most Chinese texts reckon six such talents, while the Singhalese know only five. Sometimes, however, only five are mentioned.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

The physical eye has an ordinary local function. The divine or spiritual eye has a universal function. The eye of wisdom is affiliated with the Law, and attests its immutability. The eye of truth is exegetical and synthetical. The Buddhic eye is the instrument of salvation.—_Chinese Annotation_.

[3] “Bhagavat said, as many beings as there would be in all those worlds, I know the manifold trains of thought of them all. And why? Because, what was preached as the trains of thought, the trains of thought indeed, O Subhuti, that was preached by Tathagata as no train of thoughts, and therefore it is called the train of thoughts. And why? Because, O Subhuti, a past thought is not perceived, a future thought is not perceived,, and the present thought is not perceived.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“Gautama himself was very early regarded as omniscient, and absolutely sinless. His perfect wisdom is declared by the ancient epithet of Samma-Sambuddha, ‘the completely enlightened one,’ found at the commencement of every Pali text; and at the present day in Ceylon, the usual way in which Gautama is styled is _Sarwajnan-Wahanse_, ‘the venerable omniscient one.’ From his perfect wisdom, according to Buddhist belief, his sinlessness would follow as a matter of course.”—_Buddhism_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

[Chapter 19]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? If a disciple, having obtained all the treasures of this universe,[1] were to bestow these in the exercise of charity, would such a disciple consequently enjoy a considerable merit?” Subhuti assenting, said: “Honoured of the Worlds! such a disciple would consequently enjoy a very considerable merit.”[2]

The Lord Buddha thereupon addressed Subhuti, saying: “If there were any real or permanent quality in merit, the Lord Buddha would not have spoken of such merit as ‘considerable.’ It is because there is neither a tangible nor material quality in merit, that the Lord Buddha referred to the merit of that disciple as ‘considerable.’”

[1] The seven treasures—gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal.

[2] “Because, what was preached as a stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed, O Subhuti, that was preached as no stock of merit by the Tathagata, and therefore it is called a stock of merit. If, O Subhuti, there existed a stock of merit, Tathagata would not have preached a stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed!”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

Within the meaning of the Buddhic Law, charity is purely a spiritual concept; and merit consequent upon fulfilling the Law of charity, must have a purely spiritual realisation. This is the sense in which the Lord Buddha referred to merit as “considerable.”—_Chinese Annotation_.

[Chapter 20]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the Lord Buddha be perceived by means of his perfect material body?”[1] Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! it is improbable that the Lord Buddha can be perceived by means of his perfect material body. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as a ‘perfect material body,’ is not in reality a ‘perfect material body,’ it is merely termed a ‘perfect material body.’”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the Lord Buddha be perceived by means of any physical phenomena?”[2] Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! it is improbable that the Lord Buddha can be perceived by means of any physical phenomena. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as ‘physical phenomena,’ are not in reality ‘physical phenomena,’ these are merely termed ‘physical phenomena.’”