CHAPTER IV NOTES.
[38] For detailed exposition of the three forms of knowledge, the reader is requested to peruse Asanga’s Comprehensive Treatise on Mahâyânism (Nanjo’s Catalogue, No. 1183), Vasubandhu’s work on Mahâyâna idealism (Vijnânamâtra Çâstra, Nanjo, No. 1215), the Sûtra on the Mystery of Deliverance (Sandhinirmocana-sûtra, Nanjo. Nos. 246 and 247), etc. ([return])
[39] When the eminent representatives of both parties, such as Dharmapala and Bhavaviveka, were at the height of their literary activity in India about the fifth or sixth century after Christ, their partisan spirit incited them bitterly to denounce each other, forgetting the common ground on which their principles were laid down. Their disagreement in fact on which they put an undue emphasis was of a very trifling nature. It was merely a quarrel over phraseology, for one insisted on using certain words just in the sense which the other negated. ([return])
“Dve satye samupâçritya buddhânâm dhardeçanâ
Lokasamvṛttisatyañ ca satyañ ca paramârthataḥ.
Ye ca anayor na jânanti vibhâgam satyayor dvayoḥ,
Te tatvam na vijânanti gambhîrabuddhaçâsane.”
([return])
Vyavahâram anâçritya paramârtho na deçyate,
Paramârtham anâgamya nirvâṇam na adhigamyata.
The Mâdhyamika, p. 181.
([return])