CHAPTER VI NOTES.
[59] Cf. the Bhagavadgîtâ (S. B. E. Vol. VIII, chap. XIV, p. 107): “The Brahman is a womb for me, in which I cast the seed. From that, O descendant of Bharata! is the birth of all things. Of the bodies, O son of Kunti! which are born from all wombs, the main womb is the great Brahman, and I am the father, the giver of the seed.” ([return])
[60] This is translated from the Chinese of Çikṣananda; the Sanskrit reads as follows:
“Tarangâ hi udadher yadvat pavanapratyaya îritâ,
Nṛtyamânâh pravartante vyucchedaç ca na vidhyate:
Âlayodhyas tathâ nityam viṣayapavana îritaḥ,
Cittâis tarangavijñânâir nṛtyamânâḥ pravartate.”
([return])
[61] From the Chinese. The Sanskrit reads as follows:
“Nîle rakte ‘tha lavaṇe çankhe kṣîre ca çârkare,
Kaṣayâiḥ phalapuṣpâdyâih kiraṇâ yatha bhâskare:
No ‘nyena ca nânanyena tarangâ hi udadher matâ;
Vijñânâni tathâ sapta, cittena saha samyuktâ.
Udadheḥ pariṇâmo ‘sâu tarangânâm vicitratâ,
Âlayam hi tathâ cittam vijñânâkhyam pravartate;
Cittam manaç ca vijñânam lakṣaṇârtham prakalpyate;
Âbhinna lakṣanâ hi aṣtâu na lakṣyâ na ca lakṣaṇâ.
Udadheç ca tarangânâm yathâ nâsti viçeṣanâ.
Vijñânânam tathâ citte pariṇâmo na labhyate.
Cittena cîyate karmaḥ, manasâ ca vicîyate,
Vijñânena vijânâti, dṛçyam kalpeti pañcabhiḥ.”
([return])
[62] A little digression here. It has frequently been affirmed of the ethics of Mahâyânism that as it has a nihilistic tendency its morality turns towards asceticism ignoring the significance of the sentiment and instinct. It is true that Mahâyânism perfectly agrees with Vedantism when the latter declares: “If the killer thinks that he kills, if the killed thinks that he is killed, they do not understand; for this one does not kill, nor is that one killed.” (The Katopanishad, II 19.) This belief in non-action (Laotzean Wu Wei) apparently denies the existence of a world of relativity, but he will be a superficial critic who will stop short at this absolute aspect of Mahâyâna philosophy and refuses to consider its practical side. As we have seen above, Buddhists do not conceive the evolution of the Manovijñâna as a fault on the part of the cosmic mind, nor do they think the assertion of Ignorance altogether wrong and morally evil. Therefore, Mahâyânism does not deny the claim of reality to the world of the senses, though of course relatively, and not absolutely.
Again, “Tat tvam asi” (thou art it) or “I am the Buddha”—this assertion, though arrogant it may seem to some, is perfectly justifiable in the realm of absolute identity, where the serene light of Suchness alone pervades. But when we descend on earth and commingle in the hurly-burly of our practical, dualistic life, we cannot help suffering from its mundane limitations. We hunger, we thirst, we grieve at the loss of the dearest, we feel remorse over errors committed. Mahâyânism does not teach the annihilation of those human passions and feelings.
There was once a recluse-philosopher, who was considered by the villagers to have completely vanquished all natural desires and human ambitions. They almost worshipped him and thought him to be superhuman. One day early in Winter, a devotee approached him and reverentially inquired after his health. The sage at once responded in verse:
“A hermit truly I am, world-renounced;
Yet when the ground is white with snow,
A chill goes through me and I shiver.”
A false conception of religious saintliness as cherished by so many pious-hearted, but withal ignorant, minds, has led them into some of the grossest superstitions, whose curse is still lingering even among us. Our earthly life has so many limitations and tribulations. The ills that the flesh is heir to must be relieved by some material, scientific methods. ([return])
[63] That the Buddhist Ignorance corresponds to the Sâmkhya Prakṛti can be seen also from the fact that some Samkhya commentators give to Prakṛti as its synonyms such terms as çâkti (energy) which reminds of karma or sankâra, tamas (darkness), mâyâ, and even the very word avidyâ (ignorance) ([return])
[64] This view of the oneness of the Âlaya or Citta (mind) may not be acceptable to some Mahâyânists, particularly to those who advocate the Yogâcâra philosophy; but the present author is here trying to expound a more orthodox and more typical and therefore more widely-recognised doctrine of Mahâyânism, i.e., that of Açvaghoṣa. ([return])