[33] The ten moral precepts of the Buddha are: (1) Kill no living being; (2) Take nothing that is not given; (3) Keep matrimonial sanctity; (4) Do not lie; (5) Do not slander; (6) Do not insult; (7) Do not chatter; (8) Be not greedy; (9) Bear no malice; (10) Harbor no scepticism. ([return])
[34] Mahâyânism recognises two “entrances” through which a comprehensive knowledge of the universe is obtained. One is called the “entrance of sameness” (samatâ) and the other the “entrance of diversity” (nânâtva). The first entrance introduces us to the universality of things and suggests a pantheistic interpretation of existence. The second leads us to the particularity of things culminating in monotheism or polytheism, as it is viewed from different standpoints. The Buddhists declare that neither entrance alone can lead us to the sanctum sanctorum of existence; and in order to obtain a sound, well-balanced knowledge of things in general, we must go through both the entrances of universality and particularity. ([return])
[35] The doctrine of Trikâya will be given further elucidation in the chapter bearing the same title. ([return])
CHAPTER III NOTES.
[36] No efforts have yet been made systematically to trace the history of the development of the Mahâyâna thoughts in India as well as in China and Japan. We have enough material at least to follow the general course it has taken, as far as the Chinese and Tibetan collections of Tripitaka are concerned. When a thorough comparison by impartial, unprejudiced scholars of these documents has been made with the Pali and Sanskrit literature, then we shall be able to write a comprehensive history of the human thoughts that have governed the Oriental people during the last two thousand years. When this is done, the result can further be compared with the history of other religious systems, thus throwing much light on the general evolution of humanity. ([return])
[37] Prajñâ, bodhi, buddhi, vidyâ and jñâ or jñâna are all synonymous and in many cases interchangeable. But they allow a finer discrimination. Speaking in a general way, prajñâ is reason, bodhi wisdom or intelligence, buddhi enlightenment, vidyâ ideality or knowledge, and jñâ or jñâna intellect. Of these five terms, prajñâ and bodhi are essentially Buddhistic and have acquired technical meaning, In this work both prajñâ and bodhi are mostly translated by intelligence, for their extent of meaning closely overlaps each other. But this is rather vague, and wherever I thought the term intelligence alone to be misleading, I either left the originals untranslated, or inserted them in parentheses. To be more exact, prajñâ in many cases can safely be rendered by faith, not a belief in revealed truths, but a sort of immediate knowledge gained by intuitive intelligence. Prajñâ corresponds in some respects to wisdom, meaning the foundation of all reasonings and experiences. It may also be considered an equivalent for Greek sophia. Bodhi, on the other hand, has a decidedly religious and moral significance. Besides being prajñâ itself, it is also love (karunâ): for, according to Buddhism, these two, prajñâ and karunâ, constitute the essence of Bodhi. May Bodhi be considered in some respects synonymous with the divine wisdom as understood by Christian dogmatists? But there is something in the Buddhist notion of Bodhi that cannot properly be expressed by wisdom or intelligence. This seems to be due to the difference of philosophical interpretation by Buddhists and Christians of the conception of God. It will become clearer as we proceed farther. ([return])
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])