The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If an enlightened disciple were to speak in this wise, ‘I shall create numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ he could not be designated ‘fully enlightened.’ And why? Because, the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon ‘creating numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ did not affirm the idea of creating numerous ‘material’ Buddhist kingdoms, hence the ‘creation of numerous Buddhist kingdoms’ is merely a figure of speech. Subhuti, the Lord Buddha declared that a disciple may be regarded as ‘truly enlightened,’ whose mind is thoroughly imbued with the Law of non-individuality.”[10]
[1] “Let a man restraining all these remain in devotion.... For he, whose senses are under his control, possesses spiritual knowledge. Attachments to objects of sense arise in a man who meditates upon them; from attachment arises desire; from desire passion springs up; from passion comes bewilderment; from bewilderment, confusion of the memory; from confusion of the memory, destruction of the intellect; from destruction of the intellect, he perishes.”—Bhagavad-Gita. J. Cockburn Thomson.
[2] “He should thus frame his thought: all things must be delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirvana.... And why? Because, O Subhuti, there is no such thing as one who has entered on the path of the Bodhisattva.”—The Vagrakkhedika. Max Müller.
[3] “Such scenes as the following, illustrating the beliefs of the time and the locality, would not seldom occur. A wayfarer in the country of the Getæ (Jats) (Afghanistan) knocks at the door of a Brahman family. A young man within answers: ‘There is No One in this house.’ The traveller was too well taught in Buddhism not to know the meaning of this philosophical nihilism, and at once answered, ‘Who is No One?’ The young man, when he heard this, felt that he was understood. A kindred spirit was outside. Hurriedly he opened the door, and invited the stranger to enter. The visitor was the patriarch of the time (seventeenth), with staff and rice bowl, travelling to teach and make new disciples.”—Chinese Buddhism. Edkins.
[4] Most writers on the Buddhist faith and religion have occasion to refer to the series of events which culminated in the Lord Buddha obtaining “supreme enlightenment.” The founder of the Buddhist faith, dissatisfied with the practice of asceticism, and disappointed by his unfaithful disciples, walked meditatively towards the river Nairanjara, where Sujata, “the daughter of a neighbouring villager,” provided him with his morning meal. Seating himself under a sacred Bo-Tree, immediately he became engaged in the severest of mental conflicts. The Buddhist authors describe their Master as sitting “sublime,” “calm,” and “serene” throughout the sustained assault of a “visible” and wicked tempter, assisted by legions of evil spirits. So unrelenting was the fierce encounter, that the forces of nature shook and were convulsed under the dreadful onslaught. As the day advanced, the spiritual elements in Buddha’s nature gradually gained the ascendency; and when he became “fully enlightened,” there was revealed to him an antidote for human woe. The mind of the Lord Buddha thereafter assumed an aspect of perfect peace; “and in the power over the human heart of inward culture, and of love to others,” the great Teacher discovered a foundation of Truth, where, with assurance of faith, he could securely rest. As Milton regarded “Paradise” to be “regained” in the wilderness, and not on Calvary; in like manner the Buddhist poets indicate a belief that the experience of their Master under the Bo-Tree was the most eventful in his history. That is the reason they regard the Bo-Tree with a reverence resembling the Christian veneration of the Cross. (Compare Davids’ Buddhism.)
[5] Buddha said: “Right! Right! Subhuti, there is in truth no fixed Law (by which) Tathagata attained this condition. Subhuti, if there had been such a Law, then Dipankara Buddha would not have said in delivering the prediction concerning me: ‘you in after ages must attain to the state of Buddha, and your name shall be Sakyamuni,’ so that because there is indeed no fixed Law for attaining the condition of ‘the perfect heart,’ on that account it was Dipankara Buddha delivered his prediction in such words.”—Kin-Kong-King. Beal.
[6] “To the pious Buddhist it is a constant source of joy and gratitude that ‘the Buddha,’ not only then, but in many former births, when emancipation from all the cares and troubles of life was already within his reach, should again and again, in mere love for man, have condescended to enter the world, and live amidst the sorrows inseparable from finite existence.”—Buddhism. T. W. Rhys Davids.
[7] “And why, O Subhuti, the name of Tathagata? It expresses ‘true suchness.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses that ‘he had no origin.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses ‘the destruction of all qualities.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses ‘one who has no origin whatever.’ And why this? Because, O Subhuti, ‘no origin is the highest goal.’”—The Vagrakkhedika. Max Müller.
The familiar word Buddha, seems to convey to devout Buddhist minds, a meaning consonant with the ethical idea of Love, as understood generally by the followers of Christ. Within it are potential spiritual elements, which, according to their judgment, perfectly fulfil the Law. The Chinese text, Ju-Lai-che, chi-chu-fah-ru-i, may bear the following interpretation, Buddha is the One in whom all Laws become intelligible. With this particular definition before us, and bearing in mind the general substance of the Mahayana faith, we may perhaps appreciate the sense in which the distinguished missionary, Dr Richard of Shanghai, ventured to render the Chinese term Ju-Lai (Buddha), in a translation of Asvaghocha’s The Awakening of Faith, by the English synonym God. Few Christians would controvert the statement that God, is the One in whom all Laws become intelligible!
[8] “And if a Bodhisattva were to say: ‘I shall deliver all beings,’ he ought not to be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Is there anything, O Subhuti, that is called a Bodhisattva? Subhuti said: ‘Not indeed!’ Bhagavat said: ‘Those who were spoken of as beings, beings indeed, O Subhuti, they were spoken of as no beings by the Tathagata, and, therefore, they are called beings. Therefore Tathagata says: “All beings are without self, all beings are without life, without manhood, without personality.”’”—The Vagrakkhedika. Max Müller.