CHAPTER VII NOTES.
[65] Pudgala or pudgalasamjña is sometimes used by Mahâyânists as a synonym of âtman. The Buddhist âtman in the sense of ego-substratum may be considered to correspond to the Vedantist Jîvâtman, which is used in contradistinction to Paramâtman, the supreme being or Brahma. ([return])
[66] Mahâyâna Buddhists generally understand the essential characteristic of âtman to consist in freedom, and by freedom they mean eternality, absolute unity, and supreme authority. A being that is transitory is not free, as it is conditioned by other beings, and therefore it has no âtman. A being that is an aggregate of elemental matter or forms of energy is not absolute, for it is a state of mutual relationship, and therefore it has no âtman. Again, a being that has no authoritative command over itself and other beings, is not free, for it will be subjected to a power other than itself, and therefore it has no âtman. Now, take anything that we come across in this world of particulars; and does it not possess one or all of these three qualities: transitoriness, compositeness, and helplessness or dependence? Therefore, all concrete individual existences not excepting human beings have no âtman, have no ego, that is eternal, absolute, and supreme. ([return])
[67] Tent-designer is a figurative term for the ego-soul. Following the prevalent error, the Buddha at first made an earnest search after the ego that was supposed to be snugly sitting behind our mental experiences, and the result was this utterance. ([return])
[68] The Dharmapada, vs. 153-154. Tr. by A. J. Edmunds. ([return])
[69] Prakṛtivikṛtayas. This is a technical term of Sâmkhya philosophy and means the modes of Prakrti, as evolved from it and as further evolving on. See Satis Chandra Banarji, Samkhya-Philosophy, p. XXXIII et seq. ([return])
[70] The passages quoted here as well as one in the next paragraph are taken from Açvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita. ([return])
[71] The Questions of King Milinda, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XXXV. ([return])
[72] This reminds us of the passage quoted elsewhere from the Katha-Upanishad; cf. the footnote to it. ([return])
[73] As cited elsewhere, Bodhi-Dharma of the Dhyâna sect, when questioned in a similar way, replied, “I do not know.” Walt Whitman echoes the same sentiment in the following lines:
“A child said, what is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is, any more than he.”
([return])
[74] There seem to be two Chinese translations of this Sûtra, one by Kumârajîva and the other by Paramârtha, but apparently they are different texts bearing the same title. Besides these two, there is another text entirely in Chinese transliteration. Owing to insufficiency of material at my disposal here, I cannot say anything definite about the identity or diversity of these documents. The following discussion that is reported to have taken place between the Buddha and Ananda is an abstract prepared from the first and the second fasciculi of Paramârtha’s (?) translation. Beal gives in his Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese (pp. 286-369) an English translation of the first four fasc. of the Surangama. Though this translation is not quite satisfactory in many points the reader may find there a detailed account of the discussion which is here only partially and roughly recapitulated. ([return])
[75] Cf. the following which is extracted from the Questions of King Milinda (Sacred Books of the East, vol. XXXV, 133): “If there be a soul [distinct from the body] which does all this, then if the door of the eye were thrown down [if the eye were plucked out] could it stretch out its head, as it were, through the larger aperture and [with greater range] see forms much more clearly than before? Could one hear sounds better if the ears were cut off, or taste better if the tongue were pulled out, or feel touch better if the body were destroyed?” ([return])
Nirvikalpo ‘smi ciddipo nirahankaravasanaḥ
Tvaya ahankarabijena na sambaddho ‘smi asanmaya (31)
([return])
Yathâ bhûtatayâ na ahammano na tvam na vâsanâ
Atmâ çuddhacidabhasaḥ kevalo yam vijṛbhate. (44)
([return])
[78] The following is a somewhat free translation of the original Chinese of Kumârajîva, which pretty closely agrees with the Sanskrit text published by the Buddhist Text Society of India. ([return])
[79] The Sanskrit text does not give this passage. ([return])
Lakṣyâl lakṣaṇam anyac cet syât tal lakṣyam alakṣanam.
([return])
Rûpâdi vyatirekena yathâ kumbho na vidyate,
Vâhyâdi vyatireṇa tathâ rûpam na vidyate.
([return])
[82] Abstracted from Pingalaka’s Commentary on the Mâdhyamika Çâstra, Chapter VII. The Chinese translation is by Kumârajîva. ([return])
[83] The passage in parentheses is taken from Chandrakîrti’s Commentary on Nâgârjuna, pp. 180-181. ([return])