CHAPTER XI NOTES.
[119] Kern’s English translation (S. B. E. Vol. XXI), Chap. III, p. 80. ([return])
[120] It should be noted here that the idea of universal salvation was lacking altogether in the followers of Hînayânism. But what distinguished it so markedly from Mahâyânism is that the former did not extend the idea wide enough, but confined it to Buddhahood only. Buddha attained omniscience in order that he might deliver the world, but we, ordinary mortals, are too ignorant and too helpless to aspire for Buddhahood; let us be contented with paying homage to Buddha and faithfully observing his precepts as laid down by him for our spiritual edification. Our knowledge and energy are too limited to cope with such a gigantic task as to achieve a universal salvation of mankind; let a Buddha or Bodhisattva attempt it while we may rest with a profound confidence in him and in his work. Thoughts somewhat like these must have been going about in the minds of the Hînayânists, when their Mahâyâna brethren were making bold to strive after Buddhahood themselves. The difference between the two schools of Buddhism, when most concisely expressed, is this: While one has a most submissive confidence in the Buddha, the other endeavors to follow his example by placing himself in his position. The following quotation (“the Story of Sumedha,” a Jâtaka tale, from Warren’s Buddhism, p. 14) in which Sumedha, one of the Buddha’s former incarnations, expresses his resolve to be a Buddha, may just as well be considered as that of a Mahâyânist himself, while the Hînayânists would not dare to make this wish their own:
“Or why should I, valorous man,
The ocean seek to cross alone?
Omniscience first will I achieve,
And men and gods convey across.“Since now I make this earnest wish,
In presence of this Best of Men,
Omniscience sometime I’ll achieve,
And multitude convey across.“I’ll rebirth’ circling stream arrest,
Destroy existence’s three modes;
I’ll climb the sides of Doctrine’s ship,
And men and gods convey across.”
([return])
[121] This is a very rough summary of the doctrine that is known as Parivarta and expounded in the Avatamsaka Sûtra, fas. 21-22 where ten forms of Parivarta are distinguished and explained at length. ([return])
[122] Warren’s Buddhism in Translations, the “Story of Sumedha,” pp. 14-15. ([return])
[123] It may be interesting to Christian readers to note in this connection that modern Buddhists do not reject altogether the idea of vicarious atonement, for their religious conviction as seen here admits the parivarta of a Bodhisattva’s merits to the spiritual welfare of his fellow-creatures. But they will object to the Christian interpretation that Jesus was sent down on earth by his heavenly father for the special mission to atone for the original sin through the shedding of his innocent blood, for this is altogether too puerile and materialistic. ([return])
[124] The full title of the work is A Treatise on the Transcendentality of Bodhicitta (Nanjo, No. 1304). It is a little book consisting of seven or eight sheets in big Chinese type. It was translated into Chinese by Dânapâla (Shih Hu) during the tenth century of the Christian Era. ([return])
[125] Upaya, meaning “expedient,” “stratagem,” “device,” or “craft,” has a technical sense in Buddhism. It is used in contrast to intelligence (prajñâ) and is synonymous with love (karunâ). So, Vimalakîrti says in the sûtra bearing his name (chap. 8, verses 1-4): “Prajñâ is the mother of the Bodhisattva and Upaya his father; there is no leader of humanity who is not born of them.” Intelligence (prajñâ) is the one, the universal, representing the principle of sameness (samatâ), while Upaya is the many, being the principle of manifoldness (nânâtvâ). From the standpoint of pure intelligence, the Bodhisattvas do not see any particular suffering existences, for there is nothing that is not of the Dharmakâya: but when they see the universe from the standpoint of their love-essence, they recognise everywhere the conditions of misery and sin that arise from clinging to the forms of particularity. To remove these, they devise all possible means that are directed towards the attainment of the final aim of existence. There is only one religion, religion of truth, but there are many ways, many means, many upayas, all issuing from the all-embracing love of the Dharmakâya and equally efficient to lead the masses to supreme enlightenment and universal good. Therefore, ontologically speaking, this universe, the Buddhists would say, is nothing but a grand display of Upayas by the Dharmakâya that desires thereby to lead all sentient beings to the ultimate realisation of Buddhahood. In many cases, thus, it is extremely difficult to render upaya by any of its English equivalents and yet to retain its original technical sense unsuffered. This is also the case with many other Buddhist terms, among which we may mention Bodhi, Dharmakâya, Prajñâ, Citta, Parivarta, etc. The Chinese translators have fang p’ien for upaya which means “means-accommodation.” ([return])
[126] Its full title is A Discourse on the Non-duality of the Mahâyâna-Dharmadhâtu. It consists of less than a dozen pages in ordinary Chinese large print. It was translated by Deva-prajñâ and others in the year 691 A.D. ([return])
[127] This work was translated by Kumârajîva into Chinese at the beginning of the fifth century A.D. It is divided into two fascicles, each consisting of about one score of Chinese pages. ([return])
[128] The above is a liberal rendering of the first part of the Chapter III, in Vasubandhu’s Bodhicitta. ([return])