THE
                            DIAMOND SUTRA

                         (CHIN-KANG-CHING)

                                 OR

                          PRAJNA-PARAMITA

                     TRANSLATED FROM THE CHINESE
                    WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

                                 BY

                          WILLIAM GEMMELL


                               金剛經


                               LONDON
                 KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÜBNER & CO., LTD.
                BROADWAY HOUSE, 68–74 CARTER LANE, E.C.
                                1912




                            THIS VOLUME
                     IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED TO
                              MY FRIEND
                         WILLIAM NIVEN, Esq.,
                                 BY
                            THE AUTHOR.




                              PREFACE


This English version of _The Diamond Sutra_,[1] translated from the
Chinese text of Kumarajiva, owes its inception to successive
conversations with a friend, profoundly interested in the
interpretation of oriental systems of philosophy. During those
conversations renderings into English were made of numerous passages
from the works of Confucius, Mencius, and Lao-Tsz.

Having surveyed briefly those fertile fields of thought, we passed, by
a natural transition, into the delectable Buddhist realm. Some
passages from the _Chinese Sutras_, comprising texts and annotations,
were consecutively examined, and variously considered. Eventually it
was suggested that _The Diamond Sutra_, perhaps one of the most
metaphysical of the works ascribed to Buddha, be conveniently rendered
into the English language.

In order that the rather unfamiliar text might assume due
intelligibility, parallel passages and numerous annotations were
subjoined, as the pleasant work of translating proceeded. The idea of
printing and publishing the text seemed to follow as a natural sequence.

Already there exist in the English language, renderings of _The Diamond
Sutra_ from the Sanscrit by Max Müller, and from the Chinese by Beal.
This new version does not seek to enter into rivalry with those
erudite works; and a possible apology which might readily be offered
for the publication of this modest volume is, that the scholarly
productions of Müller and Beal, in their present forms, are perhaps
slightly inaccessible to the general English reader.

It would appear that the peculiar charm of the Buddhist philosophy,
and the remarkable purity of the Buddhist faith, are becoming more
generally appreciated in Europe. Should this imperfect rendering of
_The Diamond Sutra_, even in the faintest degree, confirm this just
sense of appreciation, or prove a gentle incentive to further enquiry,
then its unexpected publication may prove to be not entirely
unjustified.

In recording our many obligations to those scholars whose works were
frequently consulted, we also give expression to a hope that nothing
of importance is omitted which ought to be gratefully acknowledged.

It may also be permissible to express admiration of the piety, and
appreciation of the friendship, of those learned monks in Central
China, to whom we are everlastingly indebted for even a slight
initiation into those inexhaustible truths, which are alike the
heritage, and the glory, of the disciples of Buddha. Amongst those we
should like to specify are Chang-Ming, the chief monk (Seng-Kwan) of
Chen-Chou prefecture, Hu-Nan, and the aged and affectionate Chioh-Hsien.

                                          WM. GEMMELL.

  POLLOKSHIELDS, GLASGOW,
     _6th September_ 1912.


[1] A learned Chinese commentator thus explained the rather striking
title: “As the diamond exceeds all other precious gems in brilliance
and indestructibility; so, also, does the wisdom of _The Diamond Sutra_
transcend, and shall outlive, all other knowledge known to philosophy.”




                            INTRODUCTION


_The Diamond Sutra_ is one of the most valued and widely read
philosophical works in Buddhist literature. It is very popular amongst
ardent Buddhists in China, and excepting the _Lotus of the Good Law_,
and the _Leng-Yen-Ching_,[1] perhaps no other Sutra ascribed to Buddha
is regarded by the Chinese with so great esteem.

In Japan, _The Diamond Sutra_ appears to be perused extensively by
what Max Müller[2] termed the Shin-Gon sect, founded by Ko-Bo, a
disciple of the renowned pilgrim Hiuen-Tsang, about the year 816 A.D.

_The Diamond Sutra_ was written originally in Sanscrit, and in process
of time translated into the Tibetan, Chinese, Mongol, and Manchu
languages. It represents the Mahayana school of Buddhist thought, a
school founded by Nagarjuna,[3] which flourished primarily at
Tchakuka, and thereafter influenced appreciably a considerable part of
the Buddhist Church.

In the year 1836, Csomo Körösi published an account of the Tibetan
translation, which interesting document may be consulted in Vol. XX.
of the _Asiatic Researches_. _The Diamond Sutra_ is therein designated
“The Sutra of Wonderful Effects,” a treatise by means of which
Sakyamuni Buddha instructs Subhuti, one of his conspicuous disciples,
in _The Prajna-Paramita_ of transcendent wisdom.[4]

To Kumarajiva,[5] a native of Kashmir, who gained distinction as a
monk of the later Chin dynasty[6] (A.D. 384–417), is conceded the
honour of having first translated _The Diamond Sutra_ into the Chinese
language. Of subsequent Chinese translations, perhaps the most
noteworthy is the text ascribed to the scholarly _Hiuen-Tsang_, and
completed about the middle of the seventh century.[7]

A rendering into English of Kumarajiva’s Chinese translation was
accomplished by the Rev. S. Beal, and published in The _Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society_, 1864–65. The text and German translation of
the Tibetan version were published in 1873 by M. Schmidt, in _The
Mémoires de l’Académie St Pétersbourg_. The Mongolian translation was
presented by the Baron de Constadt to the library of the Institut de
France. The Manchu translation is in the possession of M. de Harlez,
who, with the aid of the Tibetan, Manchu, and Chinese versions,
published a French translation of the Sanscrit text of _The Diamond
Sutra_ in the _Journal Asiatique_, 1892.[8] It has been observed[9]
that “at first sight it may seem as if this metaphysical treatise
hardly deserved the world-wide reputation which it has attained.”
Regarding this descriptive “world-wide reputation,” devout Buddhists
might suggest in extenuation, that throughout many centuries, the
“spiritual wisdom” of _The Diamond Sutra_ produced in countless minds
a “conscious blessedness of perfect peace.” This “spiritual wisdom”
also appeared to be a “strong incentive to holiness,” and a grateful
inspiration to those who had entered “the path which leads to
Nirvana.” In a few renowned monasteries of Central China, our Buddhist
friends frequently affirmed that, by contemplating the “spiritual
wisdom” of _The Diamond Sutra_, the mind would inevitably become
“transfused with the mellow light of imperishable truth.”

In the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_, Max Müller made a critical
observation regarding certain peculiarities of “‘style’ adopted in
this treatise by the Buddhist philosophers who wished to convince
their hearers of the truth of their philosophy.” From the Sanscrit
text, perhaps it is difficult to realise fully what Asvaghocha[10]
described as the “persuasiveness of Buddha’s eloquence”;[11] yet we may
quite appreciate the academic instinct of Kumarajiva, whose work on
_The Diamond Sutra_ bears evidence of a laudable endeavour to produce
a classic, which in the Chinese language is almost entirely beyond
reproach.

In all our aspirations to translate or to interpret Buddhist texts,
perhaps it might prove advantageous to bear in mind the significant
words incorporated in the _Light of Asia_:—

  “And time hath blurred their script and ancient sense,
   Which once was new and mighty, moving all.”

Max Müller stated[12] that _The Diamond Sutra_ represents a treatise on
“metaphysical agnosticism,” and he excused its “endless repetition of
the same process of reasoning” on the assumption, that the
subject-matter of the _Sutra_ was probably “perfectly familiar to
children and ignorant persons.”

By referring to our Chinese text, we are led to suppose that _The
Diamond Sutra_ was “delivered expressly for those who had entered the
Path which leads to Nirvana,” and for those who are “attaining to the
ultimate plane of Buddhic thought.” Our Chinese annotators also appear
to be unanimous in suggesting, that the “spiritual wisdom” of _The
Diamond Sutra_ is understood only in its rudimentary forms, by those
of immature or uninitiated mind.

Concerning what has been termed the “agnosticism” of _The Diamond
Sutra_, Sakyamuni Buddha, when he admissibly delivered the text,
indicated clearly that there is a sense in which the “highest perfect
knowledge”[13] may be referred to as “unknown.” Dante appears to have
had a similar difficulty regarding “knowledge” and “power” wherewith
to express the higher forms of spiritual experience; and the following
lines, constituting the opening stanzas of _The Paradiso_, may serve
to elucidate the Buddhist position, and make it perhaps more
intelligible to those who are as yet unfamiliar with its peculiar
modes of thought:—

  _“La gloria di colui che tutto move
    Per l’universo penetra, e risplende
    In una parte più, e meno altrove.”_

   _“Nel ciel che più della sua luce prende
    Fu’io; e vidi cose che ridire
    Nè sa nè può qual di lassù discende;”_

   _“Perchè, appressando sè al suo disire,
    Nostro intelletto[14] si profonda tanto,
    Che retro la memoria non può ire.”_[15]

In order to appreciate fully the philosophy of _The Diamond Sutra_,
doubtless it is necessary to interpret aright the meaning of the
Buddhist terminology. In this connection, the Sanscrit Dharma—usually
rendered into Chinese by “Fah,” and into English by “Law”—appears to
merit our immediate attention.

Max Müller, with his ample knowledge, stated that Dharma, “in the
ordinary Buddhist phraseology, may be correctly rendered by Law; and
thus the whole teaching of Buddha is named _Saddharma_—‘The Good Law.’
What _The Diamond Sutra_ wishes to teach is that all objects,
differing one from the other by their Dharmas, are illusive, or as we
should say, phenomenal and subjective, that they are, in fact, of our
own making, the products of our own mind.” With those noteworthy
observations, there is embodied in the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_,
the following interesting suggestion, that the Greek εῖδος—whatever is
seen, form, shape, figure—appears to be the equivalent of the Sanscrit
Dharma.

Spence Hardy, a distinguished writer on Buddhism, made a suggestion of
perhaps equal importance, with reference to the correct interpretation
of Dharma. In his well-known volume _Eastern Monachism_, there occurs
the following relevant passage: “The second of the three great
treasures is called Dhammo, or in Singhalese Dharmma. This word has
various meanings, but is here to be understood in the sense of _truth_.”

Rhys Davids in his useful volume _Buddhism_, indicated that “Dharma
(Pali Dhamma) is not law, but that which underlies and includes the
law—a word often most difficult to translate, but best rendered here
by Truth and Righteousness.”[16]

Perhaps it may be opportune to remark, that had Kumarajiva regarded
“form,” “truth,” or “righteousness,” as expressing adequately the
Sanscrit Dharma, these familiar terms being obviously at his command,
might have been utilised at pleasure. Like the cultured Asvaghocha,
Kumarajiva may have regarded the “nature” of the Law as “co-extensive
with the illimitable ocean of being”;[17] and within that ample
compass, perhaps he thought there might synthetically be included
those beautifully-defined concepts “form,” “truth,” and “righteousness.”

Chinese annotators of _The Diamond Sutra_ seldom criticise adversely
its classic terminology, or suggest many inapplicable alternative
renderings. They appear to have surveyed the realm of “spiritual
wisdom” enunciated by Sakyamuni Buddha, and thereafter to have become
greatly impressed by the thought that, in its _Essence_, it might
possibly be inexhaustible. This may in part explain their motive for
incorporating in the commentary a familiar passage from _Lao-Tsz_,
“Infinite truth is inexpressible”[18]—which in a measure illustrates
the appreciable difficulty of stating, in exact terms of philosophy,
the equivalent of the Buddhic “Law.”

In our intercourse with Buddhist monks, we heard the rather engaging
suggestion, that the familiar Christian phrase, “the law of the spirit
of life,” contains a spiritual concept which appears to approximate
closely to the idea of the “Law” of Buddha. Those monks seemed to
believe that the “Law”[19] enters quietly and operates imperceptibly
within every natural and spiritual sphere; and that they have at least
a semblance of reason for their belief, the following exquisite lines
clearly indicate:—

  _“This is its touch upon the blossomed rose,
    The fashion of its hand shaped lotus-leaves.”_

   _“That is its painting on the glorious clouds,
    And these its emeralds on the peacock’s train.”_

   _“Out of the dark it wrought the heart of man,
    Out of dull shells the pheasant’s pencilled neck.”_

   _“It spreadeth forth for flight the eagle’s wings
    What time she beareth home her prey.”_

   _“This is its work upon the things ye see
    The unseen things are more; men’s hearts and minds,
    The thoughts of peoples and their ways and wills,
    Those, too, the great Law binds.”_[20]

As we consider the manifold operations of this “Law which moves to
righteousness,” perhaps we may gradually appreciate the dignified mind
of Sakyamuni, when he addressed Subhuti, saying: “What is usually
referred to as the ‘Law’ of Buddha, is not in reality a ‘Law’
attributive to Buddha, it is merely termed the ‘Law’ of Buddha.”[21]

The Sanscrit term Samgna,[22] usually rendered into Chinese by “Ming”
and into English by “Name,” seems to deserve our further attention.
Like the term Dharma, a clear knowledge of “Samgna” is indispensable
for a correct understanding of our text.

In one of the opening passages of _The Diamond Sutra_, we find that
Sakyamuni Buddha, in reply to an enquiry by Subhuti, suggests that by
means of this “wisdom,” enlightened disciples shall be enabled to
bring into subjection every inordinate desire.

“_Every species of life, whether hatched in the egg, formed in the
womb, evolved from spawn, produced by metamorphosis, with or without
form or intelligence, possessing or devoid of natural instinct—from
these changeful conditions of being I command you to seek deliverance
in the transcendental concept of Nirvana. Thus you shall obtain
deliverance from the idea of an immeasurable, innumerable, and
illimitable world of sentient life; but, in reality there is no idea
of a world of sentient life from which to obtain deliverance. And why?
Because, in the mind of an enlightened disciple, there have ceased to
exist such arbitrary ideas of phenomena as an entity, a being, a
living being, or a personality._”

A similar process of reasoning appears to permeate the whole of _The
Diamond Sutra_, and whether appertaining to a living being,[23] a
virtue,[24] a condition of mind,[25] a Buddhist kingdom,[26] or a
personal Buddha,[27] there is implied in each concept a spiritual
essence, only imperfectly described, if not entirely overlooked, in
the ordinary use of each particular name. Shakespeare enquired,
“What’s in a name?” and in a thought inspired by the rose and its
delicious fragrance, suggested with Buddha, that there is little, or
nothing, in a name which explains the real nature of an object. Even a
“particle of dust” seems, to the Buddhist mind, to embody in its
composition a subtle spiritual element, entirely “inscrutable,” and
quite “incomprehensible.”

According to the Mahayana School of Buddhist thought, objects and
their respective names are alike unreal and illusory. Objects and
names, in the abstract, represent merely the products of untutored and
unenlightened minds. Nothing is real, in the sense that it is
permanent. Everything appears to be subject to irrevocable Laws of
change and decay. As the things which we see are temporal, it is
essential for our intellectual development, that we focus our thoughts
upon the things which are Unseen and Eternal. Many minds are
susceptible of deception by the fleeting phenomena of life; but behind
these phenomena there is an essential element, entirely spiritual,[28]
uninfluenced by arbitrary ideas or changeful conditions, which
“pervades all things,” and is “pure” and “unchanging.”

Perhaps it might prove of interest to quote the following outline of
Mahayana doctrine[29] prepared by Mr S. Kuroda, which was approved by
several influential Buddhist communions in Japan, “and published with
authority at Tokyo in 1893”:—

“All things that are produced by causes and conditions are inevitably
destined to extinction. There is nothing that has any reality; when
conditions come things begin to appear, when conditions cease these
things likewise cease to exist. Like the foam of the water, like the
lightning flash,[30] and like the floating, swiftly vanishing clouds,
they are only of momentary duration. As all things have no constant
nature of their own, so there is no actuality in pure and impure,
rough and fine, large and small, far and near, knowable and
unknowable, etc. On this account it is sometimes said that all things
are nothing. The apparent phenomena around us are, however, produced
by mental operations within us, and thus distinctions are
established....”

“All things are included under subject and object. The subject is an
entity in which mental operations are awakened whenever there are
objects, while the object consists of all things, visible and
invisible, knowable and unknowable, etc. The subject is not something
that occupies some space in the body alone, nor does the object exist
outside of the subject....”[31]

“The various phenomena which appear as subjects and objects are
divided into two kinds:—the perceptible and knowable, the
imperceptible and unknowable.... Now, what are the imperceptible and
unknowable phenomena?”

“Through the influence of habitual delusions, boundless worlds,
innumerable varieties of things spring up in the mind. This boundless
universe and these subtle ideas are not perceptible and knowable;[32]
only Bodhisattvas[33] believe, understand, and become perfectly
convinced of these through the contemplation of Vidyamatara[34] (all
things are nothing but phenomena in mind); hence they are called
imperceptible and unknowable. What are the perceptible and knowable
phenomena?”

“Not knowing that these imperceptible and unknowable phenomena are the
productions of their own minds, men from their habitual delusions
invest them with an existence outside of mind, as perceptible mental
phenomena, as things visible, audible, etc. These phenomena are called
perceptible and knowable.”

“Though there are thus two kinds, perceptible and imperceptible
phenomena, they occur upon the same things, and are inseparably bound
together even in the smallest particle. Their difference in appearance
is caused only by differences, both in mental phenomena and in the
depth of conviction. Those who know only the perceptible things,
without knowing the imperceptible, are called the unenlightened by
Buddha....”

“In contradistinction to the fallacious phenomena, there is the true
Essence of Mind. Underlying the phenomena of mind, there is an
unchanging principle which we call essence of mind.... The essence of
mind is the entity without ideas and without phenomena, and is always
the same. It pervades all things, and is pure and unchanging.... The
essence and the phenomena of mind are inseparable; and as the former
is all-pervading and ever-existing, so the phenomena occur everywhere
and continually, wherever suitable conditions accompany it. Thus the
perceptible and imperceptible phenomena are manifestations of the
essence of mind that, according to the number and nature of
conditions, develop without restraint. All things in the universe,
therefore, are mind itself.”

“By this we do not mean that all things combine into a mental unity
called mind, nor that all things are emanations from it, but that,
without changing their places or appearance, they are mind itself
everywhere. Buddha saw this truth and said that the whole universe was
his own. Hence it is clear that where the essence of mind is found,
and the necessary conditions accompany it, the phenomena of mind never
fail to appear.... Though there is a distinction between the essence
and the phenomena of mind, yet they are nothing but one and the same
substance, that is, _mind_. So we say that there exists nothing but
mind. Though both the world of the pure and impure, and the generation
of all things, are very wide and deep, yet they owe their existence to
our mind.”

Perhaps we might appropriately indicate that however interesting, or
even fascinating, may be the nice distinction between _mind_ and
_essence of mind_, in relation to phenomena, so far as we are aware,
the distinction may be implied, but is never precisely stated, in the
text of _The Diamond Sutra_. Nevertheless, we may readily appreciate
the subtle intellectual movement, which endeavours to distinguish
clearly between the phenomena of mind, and an unchanging principle
underlying it, capable of being defined as Essence of Mind. Yet we
have a notion that our Japanese Buddhist friends intuitively find in
their beautiful concept, infinitely more of a purely spiritual nature,
than they attempt to express by the mere metaphysical term. Doubtless
they have frequently applied to it the incisive logic of Sakyamuni
Buddha, and found simultaneously, that what is ordinarily referred to
as “essence of mind,” is not in reality “essence of mind,” it is
merely termed “essence of mind.”[35]

The term Buddha, as defined in _The Diamond Sutra_, seems to merit a
brief consideration. In fulfilment of our present purpose, it seems
almost unnecessary to enter into questions regarding the historical
Buddha, or to the authenticity of Sutras ascribed to his genius.
Therefore, without indicating any particular reservation, we meantime
accept the traditional statements that the Buddha of _The Diamond
Sutra_ was the son of Suddhodana, the husband of Yasodhara, and the
father of Rahula. But, incorporated with the text, there is embodied
in the familiar term Buddha, a lofty spiritual concept, which seems to
place it in a category where fresh interest is imparted to the
question of its interpretation.

Concluding the twenty-sixth chapter of _The Diamond Sutra_, wherein
“the spiritual[36] body is entirely differentiated from external
phenomena” Sakyamuni, in reply to an enquiry regarding the possibility
of perceiving “Buddha” by means of his bodily distinctions, delivered
the following remarkable Gatha[37]:—

  _I am not to be perceived by means of any visible form,
   Nor sought after by means of any audible sound;
   Whosoever walks in the way of iniquity,
   Cannot perceive the blessedness of the Lord Buddha._[38]

In the twenty-ninth chapter of _The Diamond Sutra_, wherein is
expounded “the majesty of the absolute,” Sakyamuni declared that a
disciple who affirms that “Buddha” comes or goes, obviously has not
understood the meaning of his instruction. Because, as we learn from
our text, the idea “Buddha” implies neither coming from anywhere, nor
going to anywhere. This purely spiritual concept of Buddha seems to
have seized the imagination, and inspired the writer of the
_Yuen-Chioh Sutra_,[39] to whom are ascribed the following significant
lines:—

“_Like drifting clouds, like the waning moon, like ships that sail the
ocean, like shores that are washed away—these are symbolic of endless
change. But the blessed Buddha, in his essential, absolute nature, is
changeless and everlasting._”

Again, in the seventeenth chapter of _The Diamond Sutra_, it is
declared that in the word “Buddha,” every Law is intelligibly
comprehended.[40] To Western minds, it might become necessary to resist
a natural inclination to ascribe to those elements of thought, an
influence which had its inception in a nation other than the
Indian.[41] But, lest we should appear to detract from the native glory
of Sakyamuni Buddha, perhaps it might prove opportune to remark, that
there is sufficient evidence in the ancient Vedic hymns, Upanishads,
etc., to indicate clearly the probable starting-points in the
evolution of his thought. It seems to be to the everlasting honour of
some early Indian philosophers, that they endeavoured carefully to
combine in an abstract spiritual unity, all the essential elements
usually comprehended under the term “Divinity.”[42] This may in a
manner explain why the devout Buddhist, possessing a natural mental
tendency—induced by persistent Hindoo influence—is enabled to regard
“Buddha”[43] in a purely spiritual sense, as the One[44] in whom all
Laws are comprehended and become perfectly intelligible.

In _The Diamond Sutra_ it may be observed that incidental reference is
made by Sakyamuni Buddha to the doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation.
It seems to be an old truth to which expression is given in the
_Epistle to the Galatians_: “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he
also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap
life everlasting.”[45]

To the Buddhist mind, Karma is indissolubly associated with “the Law
which moves to Righteousness.” Thus it is accustomed to view the
traditional Christian idea of “justification by Faith,” rather as a
devoutly-conceived theory, than as a reasonably-constructed truth.

Occasionally we have heard a gentle affirmation, that the Western mind
seems unwittingly inclined to confound the doctrine of Karma with a
concept which is almost suggestive of Fatalism. If Karma contains even
a germ of thought which corresponds to “blind fatalism,” the idea is
perhaps quite felicitously expressed in the following sentences,
culled from a valued letter written by an aged Chinese monk: “Karma is
a universal Law which gently binds us to the rhythmic cycle of
evolving life. It operates so quietly and imperceptibly that we
scarcely are conscious of its presence. The absolute truth of Karma
greatly attracts our minds, which approve naturally of its consummate
justice and perfect righteousness.”

Those ideas of “consummate justice” and “perfect righteousness,” seem
to be faithfully portrayed in the following quotation, gleaned from
_The Light of Asia_:—

  “_What hath been bringeth what shall be, and is,
    Worse—better—last for first and first for last:
    The Angels in the Heavens of Gladness reap
    Fruits of a holy past._”

It would therefore appear that Karma may be regarded generally, as
comprising the constituent moral elements derived consecutively from
the thoughts, words, and actions of an interminable life’s cycle.
Perhaps it is in this connection that Chinese Buddhists frequently
assume Karma to resemble “a moral fibre, indissolubly entwined in
sentient life.” It may be believed to recede far into the past, and to
extend indefinitely into the future.

Although realising the significance of Karma,[46] the devout Buddhist
mind is not usually disturbed by fearful forebodings. Ostensibly, it
has evolved to a condition of holiness, wherein “the dross of sin” is
entirely consumed in the “white flames” of Sakyamuni’s “transcendent
wisdom” and “boundless love.”

Within the realm of Buddhist philosophy, the doctrine of
reincarnation is conspicuous by reason of its peculiarly attractive
charms. On first acquaintance, the European mind may be somewhat
“startled” to discover, that a satisfactory explanation of the
interminable evolution of life, is sought for by the earnest Buddhist
in the theory of reincarnation.

In the text of _The Diamond Sutra_, it may be observed that Sakyamuni
Buddha, in discoursing to Subhuti, referred incidentally to personal
reminiscences, one of which belonged to a distant period of five
hundred incarnations.

According to the text of _The Light of Asia_, the spiritual
consciousness of Sakyamuni Buddha extended to a period even more
remote, as may be judged by these remarkable lines:—

  “_I now remember, myriad rains ago,
    What time I roamed Himâla’s hanging woods._”

In considering briefly the doctrine of reincarnation, perhaps it might
readily be conceded to our Buddhist friends, that there were
exemplified in the Founder of their faith, a wonderful potency of
intellect, and a marvellous degree of spiritual intuition. Quite
agreeable, also, may be the suggestion, that this potency of intellect
might become intensified, and probably “rendered subjective,” by
“ascetic exercises,” abstract contemplation, and “determined effort.”

Spence Hardy indicated in _Eastern Monachism_ that the Buddhist mind
conceives of “spiritual powers” arising from the aforementioned
“potency of intellect” and “spiritual intuition,” which in other
systems of religion are usually regarded as partaking of the nature of
“Divinity.” If it be admitted that those potential “powers” are
probably susceptible of affiliation with the Divine Spirit, then the
way of approach to an understanding of the Buddhist theory of
intuition becomes, perhaps, tolerably clear. Concrete knowledge
acquired by intuition, appears to assure our Buddhist friends of the
_fact_ of reincarnation. But they invariably refrain from a vain
attempt to _prove_ the “fact,” by an authorised—and consequently
stereotyped—process of reasoning.

The unknown Hindoo author of The _Bhagavad-Gita_ revealed in simple
phraseology the native idea of reincarnation; and suggested, happily,
an instructive theory concerning the advent of great Teachers and
Saviours in every age. To Krishna are ascribed the following sayings;—

  “_Manifold the renewals of my birth
    Have been.... When Righteousness
    Declines, O Bharata, when Wickedness
    Is strong, I rise, from age to age, and take
    Visible shape, and move a man with men,
    Succouring the good, thrusting the evil back,
    And setting Virtue on her seat again._”

Rhys Davids justly observed that “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.”[47] Perhaps in a
more general sense the idea of reincarnation appealed strongly to the
imagination of Wordsworth, when he was inspired to write these
familiar, yet exquisite, lines:—

  “_Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;
    The soul that rises with us, our life’s star,
    Hath had elsewhere its setting
    And cometh from afar._”

Regarding the doctrines of Individuality and non-Individuality, which
characterise the text of _The Diamond Sutra_, wherein are found to
occur frequently Chinese equivalents for the ordinary concepts of an
entity, a being, a living being and a personality, the following
passage from _The Bhagavad-Gita_, suggestive almost of complete
harmony with the Buddhist doctrine, may serve to make even a cursory
consideration of the subject perhaps more illuminating. The passage,
rendered by Sir Edwin Arnold, is as follows:—

  “_There is ‘true’ Knowledge, Learn it thou in this:
    To see one changeless Life in all the Lives,
    And in the Separate, One Inseparable.
    There is imperfect Knowledge: that which sees
    The separate existences apart,
    And, being separated, holds them real._”

As Nirvana is only referred to casually in _The Diamond Sutra_, that
familiar Buddhist term hardly calls for any present detailed
explanation. Within a brief compass probably no better explanation may
be forthcoming than what is already given in this concise exposition
gathered from _The Light of Asia_:—

  “_If any teach Nirvana is to cease,
    Say unto such they lie.
    If any teach Nirvana is to live,
    Say unto such they err; not knowing this,
    Nor what light shines beyond their broken lamps,
    Nor lifeless, timeless bliss._”

In concluding, it might be opportune to observe, that the
_Werthurtheile_,[48] known amongst modern theologians as characterising
the teaching of Albrecht Ritschl—sounds, upon intimate acquaintance,
merely as a faint echo of the logic of Sakyamuni Buddha. Ritschl might
apply his _Werthurtheile_ to the presumed interpretation of a
“miracle,” etc. Buddha suggested by his “method,” that what is
ordinarily referred to as a “miracle,” is not in _reality_ a “miracle,”
therefore it is merely _defined_ as a “miracle.” So, also, with the
various dogmas which distinguish every religious creed. By many
Chinese it is regarded as an evidence of Divinity, that in the mind of
Sakyamuni Buddha there was conceived this incisive logical method; and
amongst the learned monks, profound homage is rendered, and much
wonder expressed, because the Lord Buddha[49] did not hesitate to apply
its principles to every doctrine synonymous with his own accredited
“Law.”

  [1] “The Sutra of firm establishment in all doctrine, describing
  clearly the secret merit and attainments in the religious life of
  Tathagata.” (Compare Edkins’ _Chinese Buddhism_.)

  [2] See the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.

  [3] “A native of Western India who lived as a hermit under an
  Arguna tree, whence he derived his name. Converted by Kapimala,
  he laboured in Southern India as the fourteenth patriarch....
  He is the chief representative, if not originator, of the
  Mahayana school, the greatest philosopher of the Buddhists,
  and as such styled ‘one of the four suns which illuminate the
  world.’ His own peculiar tenets have been perpetuated by a
  distinct metaphysical school called Madhyamika (_Lit_. Juste
  Milieu), the characteristics of which are a sophistic nihilism
  which dissolves every proposition into a thesis and its
  antithesis, and denies both. ‘The soul,’ said Nagarjuna,
  ‘has neither existence nor non-existence, it is neither eternal
  nor non-eternal, neither annihilated by death nor
  non-annihilated.’ The tenets of this school are condensed in
  Nagardjuna’s commentary on the Mahaprajna Paramita S’astra. He
  spent the later part of his life in a monastery at Kosala ...
  (correct date probably A.D. 194). After his death he received
  the title Bodhisattva. He is the author of many S’atras.”
  (Compare Eitel’s _Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_.)

  [4] _See_ the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.

  [5] Kumarajiva was referred to as “one of the four suns of
  Buddhism” (Tchatvara Suryas). He laboured in China as a most
  active and judicious translator, and is credited with having
  introduced a new alphabet. One of Kumarajiva’s Chinese
  designations—Tung-Sheo—meant that, although young in years, he
  was ripe in the wisdom and virtues of old age. (Compare Eitel’s
  _Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_.)

  [6] Beal stated in his preface to the _Kin-Kong-King_, that “it
  was translated first into the Chinese by Kumara-Jiva (A.D. 405),
  who was brought into China from Thibet.”

  [7] Other translations, worthy of recognition, are those
  attributed respectively to Bodhiruki (A.D. 509), Paramartha (A.D.
  562), Dharmagupa, of the Sui dynasty (A.D. 589–618), and I-Tsing
  (A.D. 703). (Compare the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.)

  [8] This information may be found in Max Müller’s
  _Vagrakkhedika_, and represented, doubtless, at the period when
  it was written, a considerable part of the knowledge available on
  the subject.

  [9] By Max Müller.

  [10] The Chinese Ma-Ming.

  [11] Compare the Chinese text of the Chi-Sin-Pien—_The
  Awakening of Faith_.

  [12] In the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.

  [13] “Supreme spiritual wisdom.” In Beal’s _Kin-Kong-King_,
  “The unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart.”
  (Sanscrit, “_Annuttara Samyak Sambodhi Hridaya_.”)

  [14] According to the text of _The Diamond Sutra_, the intellect
  of Sakyamuni Buddha sank so profoundly into the past, that he was
  enabled to speak confidently of his experiences in previous
  incarnations. (Compare pp. 56, 57.)

  [15] From the text adopted by Mr H. Oelsner, M.A., Ph.D., for
  _The Temple Classics_.

  [16] Dr Edkins, in his scholarly work _Chinese Buddhism_, seems
  to have regarded “the Law or body of doctrine” as an accurate
  definition of Dharma.

  Dr Eitel, in his _Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_, explained Dharma
  by “Fah”—“Law”; and observed that it is “a general term for
  religious objects, especially for the Buddhistic Canon.”

  Mr Vincent A. Smith, in _Asoka, Buddhist Emperor of India_,
  suggested that the Chinese _Hsiao_ (piety), and the Latin Pietas,
  coincide with the Sanscrit term Dharma.

  [17] The Chinese phrase is “Fah-sing-chen-ru-hai.”

  [18] _See_ the _Tao-Teh-Ching_. Compare, also, the statement
  attributed to Confucius—“Nature and Truth cannot be adequately
  expressed.”

  [19] Or Dharma.

  [20] Compare _The Light of Asia_. Perhaps this aspect of the “Law”
  of Buddha may be conceived of as harmonising with Shakespeare’s
  idea of a “Divinity.”

  [21] It may be interesting to observe that, according to our
  Chinese text, Sakyamuni Buddha evidently disclaimed any desire to
  formulate, or to perpetuate, a stereotyped system of “Law” or
  “doctrine.” Sakyamuni Buddha also made it plain, that the “Law”
  which he enunciated, was presented before the minds of his
  disciples in the simile of a “raft”—a thing to be abandoned when
  the mind “touched the further shore” of everlasting truth. It
  seems to be in this tentative sense that intellectual Buddhists
  regard all ecclesiastical institutions, priesthoods, dogmas,
  ordinances, etc.; and we have met monks who would classify
  belief in the “efficacy” of religious rites or ceremonies, with
  obnoxious forms of “heresy” and “immorality.” (Compare Rhys
  Davids’ _Buddhism_.) With regard to the Buddhist objection
  concerning the “efficacy” of religious “rites,” compare the noble
  sentiments expressed in the following lines, delightfully
  rendered by Sir Edwin Arnold from the _Bhagavad-Gita_ (_The Song
  Celestial_):—

    “Serenity of soul, benignity,
     Sway of the silent spirit, constant stress
     To sanctify the nature,—these things make
     Good rite, and true religiousness of mind.”

  [22] Max Müller suggests that Samgna and Dharma “correspond in many
  respects to the Vedantic Namarupe”—in Chinese Ming-Seh—name,
  form, or characteristic.

  [23] Compare p. 86.

  [24] Compare p. 55.

  [25] Compare p. 80.

  [26] Compare p. 76.

  [27] Compare p. 95.

  [28] Some modern Japanese Buddhists appear to regard this purely
  spiritual element as “essence of mind.”

  [29] From the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.

  [30] Compare p. 110.

  [31] Compare the interesting dialogue entitled _The Enlightenment
  of Ananda_, in which Sakyamuni instructs his distinguished
  disciple in ideas concerning the subjective and objective
  phenomena of mind.

  [32] Compare pp. 102, 103.

  [33] Bodhisattvas—greatly enlightened disciples.

  [34] _Vidya Matra Siddhi_, a philosophical work by Vasubandhu, a
  native of Radjagriha, and disciple of Nagarjuna, founder of the
  Mahayana school. (Compare Eitel’s _Handbook of Chinese
  Buddhism_.)

  [35] Compare the process of reasoning which permeates the entire
  _Diamond Sutra_. We hope no injustice is done to our Japanese
  friends, by applying to their beautiful concept “essence of
  mind,” this familiar logical method of Sakyamuni Buddha.

  [36] Fah-Shen—the Law, or spiritual body. Compare Shen-Shen, the
  term usually employed in the Chinese rendering of the New
  Testament Scriptures to denote the spiritual body.

  [37] Gatha—usually a Scripture verse comprising four lines.

  [38] Compare the following lines from _The Song Celestial_.—

    “I am not known
     To evil-doers, ... nor to those
     Whose mind is cheated by the show of things.”

  [39] In Buddhist phraseology, Yuen-Chioh means the study, by means
  of contemplation, of primary spiritual causes.

  [40] Compare Beal’s rendering in the Kin-Kong-King, “Tathagata is
  the explanation as it were of all systems of Law.” See also _The
  Book of the Manifesting of the One and Manifold_ in _The Song
  Celestial_, the verse commencing:—

    “Thou, of all souls the Soul!
     The comprehending whole!”

  In conversation with Chinese monks regarding the meaning of this
  impressive passage, we found that they invariably approved of a
  suggested rendering, that “Buddha is the _One_ in whom all Laws
  become intelligible.”

  [41] Compare the observations made by Sir Edwin Arnold in his
  preface to _The Song Celestial_, regarding the date when that
  famous Brahmanic poem was composed; and the gentle indication
  that in its teaching may be found “echoes of the lessons of
  Galilee, and of the Syrian incarnation.”

  [42] An instructive exposition of this subject by J. Muir, Esq.,
  entitled _The Progress of the Vedic Religion towards Abstract
  Conceptions of the Deity_, may be consulted in the _Jour.
  R.A.S.,_ 1864–65.

  [43] In colloquial Chinese there is a noteworthy saying, that
  “Buddha is simply a condition of mind.” This “condition of mind”
  is beautifully expressed by a “classic” couplet, which, rendered
  into English, means “as pure as the image of the moon in a
  river,” and “as lovely as the bloom of a flower in a mirror”
  (Shui-Li-Chï-Yüeh, Ching-Li-Chï-Wha).

  [44] Compare the beautifully expressed sentiment of Akhnaton,
  Pharaoh of Egypt, concerning “the One in whom all Laws are
  intelligibly comprehended.” “There is no poverty for him who hath
  Thee in his heart.” (See _Life and Times of Akhnaton_.)

  [45] Rhys Davids, when he expounded the doctrine of Karma in
  _Buddhism_, clearly indicated the Buddhist position, “that
  whatever a man reaps, that he must also have sown.” Chinese
  Buddhists appear to be assured, “that if a man reaps sorrow,
  disappointment, pain, he himself, and no other, must at some time
  have sown folly, error, sin; and if not in this life, then in
  some former birth. Where then, in the latter case, is the
  identity between him who sows and him who reaps? _In that which
  alone remains_ when a man dies, and the constituent parts of the
  sentient being are dissolved; in the result, namely, of his
  action, speech, and thought, in his good or evil _Karma_
  (literally his ‘doing’) which _does not_ die.”

  [46] In the concept Karma, Sakyamuni Buddha suggested the
  revealing of a _moral cause_ which explained the otherwise
  insoluble riddle of the evident inequalities, and consequent
  sufferings of life.

  [47] Compare _Buddhism_.

  [48] “The much-canvassed Ritschlian doctrine of the _Worth_—or
  ‘value-judgments,’ in which the peculiarity of religious
  knowledge is supposed to lie.” For the introduction of the term
  into theology we are indebted to Herrmann, _Die Religion, etc._,
  and Kaftan, _Das Wesen_. _See_ Orr’s, _The Ritschlian Theology and
  The Evangelical Faith_.

  [49] It may be observed in this English version of _The Diamond
  Sutra_, that the Chinese term _Fuh_, in deference to our Oriental
  friends, is invariably rendered “Lord Buddha”—a designation
  consonant with _their_ concepts of devotion and piety.




                         THE DIAMOND SUTRA

[Chapter 1]


Thus have I heard[1] concerning our Lord Buddha:—

Upon a memorable occasion, the Lord Buddha[2] sojourned in the kingdom
of Shravasti,[3] lodging in the grove of Jeta,[4] a park within the
imperial domain, which Jeta, the heir-apparent, bestowed upon
Sutana,[5] a benevolent Minister of State, renowned for his charities
and benefactions.

With the Lord Buddha, there were assembled together twelve hundred and
fifty mendicant disciples,[6] all of whom had attained to eminent
degrees of spiritual wisdom.

As it approached the hour for the morning meal, Lord Buddha, Honoured
of the Worlds,[7] attired himself in a mendicant’s robe,[8] and
bearing an alms-bowl in his hands, walked towards the great city of
Shravasti, which he entered to beg for food.[9] Within the city he
proceeded from door to door,[10] and received such donations as the
good people severally bestowed.[11] Concluding this religious
exercise, the Lord Buddha returned to the grove of Jeta, and partook
of the frugal meal[12] received as alms. Thereafter he divested
himself of his mendicant’s robe, laid aside the venerated
alms-bowl,[13] bathed his sacred feet, and accepted the honoured seat
reserved for him by his disciples.

  [1] It is generally supposed that the familiar introductory
  phrase, “Thus have I heard,” was adopted by the writers or
  editors of Buddhist Sutras in order that their scriptures might
  assume the same high degree of authority as the Brahmanas and the
  Mantras, “as forming the ‘S’ruti’ or sacred revelation of the
  followers of the Vedas.” (Compare Max Müller’s _History of
  Sanscrit Literature_ and the valuable note in Beal’s
  _Kin-Kong-King_)

  [2] “The term (Buddha) means ‘every intelligent being who has
  thrown off the bondage of sense perception and self, knows the
  utter unreality of all phenomena, and is ready to enter
  Nirvana.’”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  [3] Shravasti is variously described as the city (or kingdom) of
  philosophy, of good doctrine, of abundant virtue, and as the
  abode of immortals. It was situated on the north bank of the
  Ganges, about 200 miles above Benares. Much interesting
  information regarding the sacred city Shravasti, is fortunately
  preserved in the instructive records of the distinguished Chinese
  pilgrims, _Fa-Hien_ and _Hiuen-Tsang_.

  [4] “Prasenajit, the king of Shravasti, was very favourable to
  the Buddhist religion. It was his minister who bought the garden
  of Jeta from the prince of that name, and erected in it a
  residence for Buddha (_see_ Julien’s _Memoirs sur les Contrées
  Occidentales_). Many of the Sutras attributed to Buddha are said
  to have been delivered here. _Hiuen-Tsang_ observed the remains
  of the monastery formerly standing on the site of the garden of
  Jeta, 2 miles below the city.”—_Chinese Buddhism_. Edkins.

  [5] “A person of extraordinary piety and goodness. One of the
  former Djatakas of Sakyamuni when he was a prince, and forfeited
  the throne by liberality in almsgiving.”—_Handbook of Chinese
  Buddhism_. Eitel.

  [6] The Chinese text is _ta-pi-k’u_—greater disciples. Our Chinese
  editor of _The Diamond Sutra_ suggests that there are different
  grades of discipleship. The “lesser disciples” are those who have
  abandoned every form of vice, and are striving after virtue. The
  “greater disciples” are those to whom virtue has become
  spontaneous, and who have ceased to strive after its attainment.

  [7] A title conferred by Chinese Buddhists upon the founder of
  their faith, believing him to be a Teacher and Saviour whose
  merit is acclaimed in worlds beyond our own.

  [8] Having taken vows of poverty, a robe is one of the following
  eight articles which Buddhist monks are permitted to possess:
  three garments of different descriptions, a girdle for the loins,
  an alms-bowl, a razor, a needle, and a water-strainer.

  [9] Buddha has said, “the wise priest never asks for anything; he
  disdains to beg; it is a proper thing for which he carries the
  alms-bowl; and this is his only mode of solicitation. But when he
  is sick, he is permitted to ask for any medicine that he may
  require, without being guilty of any transgression.”—_Eastern
  Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  [10] Concerning the manner of begging an alms: “As a bee,
  injuring not the flower, or its colour, or its scent, flies away,
  taking the nectar, so let a sage go through the
  village.”—_Questions of King Milinda_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

  [11] “By many of the Buddhists it is considered to be an act of
  great merit to make a vow never to partake of food without giving
  a portion to the priests.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  [12] “The fifth of the twelve sacred observances of the Chinese
  is called in Sanscrit Khaloupas’ Waddhaktinka, and is said to
  enjoin that the food obtained by the mendicant is to be divided
  into three portions: one to be given to any person whom he sees
  to be suffering from hunger, and a second to be carried to some
  quiet place in the forest, and placed upon a stone for the birds
  and beasts. If he does not meet with any one who is in want, he
  is not to eat the whole of the food that he has received, but
  two-thirds only. By this means his body will be lighter and more
  active.... He will be able readily to enter upon the practice of
  all good works. When any one eats too greedily ... nothing is
  more harmful to the development of reason.” (Quotation from
  Remusat’s _Relation des Royaumes Buddhiques_, in Spence Hardy’s
  _Eastern Monachism_.)

  [13] “The alms-bowl which Sakyamuni used is considered a sacred
  relic, and to be used by each of the hundred Buddhas of the
  present kalpa. It was first preserved in Vais’ali, whence its
  emigrations began to Gandhara, to Persia, to China, to Ceylon, to
  Madhyades’a, up into the heaven Tuchita, and down to the bottom
  of the ocean, where it is to await (in the palace of Sagara) the
  advent of Meitreya Buddha.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.




[Chapter 2]

Upon that occasion, the venerable Subhuti[1] occupied a place in the
midst of the assembly. Rising from his seat, with cloak arranged in
such manner that his right shoulder was disclosed, Subhuti knelt upon
his right knee, then pressing together the palms of his hands, he
respectfully raised them towards Lord Buddha, saying: “Thou art of
transcendent wisdom, Honoured of the Worlds! With wonderful
solicitude, Thou dost preserve in the faith, and instruct in the Law,
this illustrious assembly of enlightened disciples.[2] Honoured of the
Worlds! if a good disciple, whether man or woman,[3] seeks to obtain
supreme spiritual wisdom,[4] what immutable Law shall sustain the mind
of that disciple, and bring into subjection every inordinate desire?”[5]

The Lord Buddha replied to Subhuti, saying: “Truly a most excellent
theme! As you affirmed, I preserve in the faith, and instruct in the
Law, this illustrious assembly of enlightened disciples. Attend
diligently unto me, and I shall enunciate a Law whereby the mind of a
good disciple, whether man or woman, seeking to obtain supreme
spiritual wisdom,[6] shall be adequately sustained, and enabled to
bring into subjection[7] every inordinate desire.” Subhuti was
gratified, and signified glad consent. Thereupon, the Lord Buddha,
with majesty of person,[8] and perfect articulation, proceeded to
deliver the text of this Scripture,[9] saying:—

  [1] “A famous dialectician noted for the subtilty of his
  intellect. He was a native of Shravasti, a contemporary of
  Sakyamuni, and figures as the principal interlocutor in the
  _Prajna-Paramita_.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  [2] “_Pu-Sa_ or Bodhisattva, literally he whose essence (Sattva)
  has become intelligence (Bodhi). A being that has only once more
  to pass through human existence before it attains to Buddhaship.
  The third class of Buddhistic saints comprehending all who are
  candidates for Buddhaship as well as those Buddhas who are not yet
  perfected by entrance into Nirvana. They are also styled
  Mahasattvas (_Mo-Ho-Sa_). The state of a Bodhisattva is considered
  as one of the three means of conveyance to Nirvana.”—_Handbook of
  Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  [3] “Women began to ask and received permission to take the
  vows. They were called in India Bikshuni.... Ni is the Sanscrit
  feminine termination of Bikshu. These female mendicants were
  subject to the same code of regulations as the males.”—_Chinese
  Buddhism_. Edkins.

  [4] “_ho-ru-to-lo-san-mao-san-pu-ti_ (Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi),
  literally unexcelled perfect intelligence. Another more
  painstaking but arbitrary explanation is untarnished and
  unparalleled (Nuttara) correct view (Sam) and complete wisdom
  (Myak) with complete possession of the highest sentiments
  (Sambodhi). This term, one of the sacred phrases of most frequent
  occurrence, signifies the characteristics which every Buddha
  possesses.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  “The unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart.”—_Kin-Kong-King_.
  Beal.

  [5] “When a man’s heart is disposed in accordance with his roaming
  senses, it snatches away his spiritual knowledge as the wind does
  a ship on the waves.”—_Bhagavad-Gita_. J. Cockburn Thomson.

  [6] Chinese commentators are careful to explain that the title of
  this Sutra, _Po-ro-po-lo-mi_ (_Prajna-Paramita_), means Wisdom, by
  which we are enabled to reach the other shore (Nirvana).

  [7] “Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of
  Christ.”—The Apostle Paul.

  [8] Compare the Chinese text of the famous Buddhist tract entitled
  _Awakening of Faith_, written by _Ma-Ming_ (Asvaghocha), “who
  flourished A.D. 50, under the Indo-Scythic king, Gondophares.”

  [9] “This work contains the germ of the larger compilation
  _Prajna-Paramita_ in one hundred and twenty volumes. The
  abstractions of Buddhist philosophy, which were afterwards
  ramified to such a formidable extent as these numbers indicate,
  are here found in their primary form, probably as they were taught
  by Sakyamuni himself.”—_Chinese Buddhism_. Edkins.




[Chapter 3 and 4]

 “By this wisdom shall enlightened disciples be enabled to bring into
subjection every inordinate desire! Every species of life, whether
hatched in the egg, formed in the womb, evolved from spawn, produced
by metamorphosis, with or without form or intelligence, possessing or
devoid of natural instinct—from these changeful[1] conditions of
being, I command you to seek deliverance,[2] in the transcendental
concept of Nirvana.[3] Thus, you shall be delivered from an
immeasurable, innumerable, and illimitable world of sentient life;
but, in reality, there is no world of sentient life from which to
seek deliverance. And why? Because, in the minds[4] of enlightened
disciples there have ceased to exist such arbitrary concepts of
phenomena as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality.”[5]

“Moreover, Subhuti, an enlightened disciple ought to act spontaneously
in the exercise of charity,[6] uninfluenced by sensuous phenomena[7]
such as sound, odour, taste, touch, or Law.[8] Subhuti, it is
imperative that an enlightened disciple, in the exercise of charity,
should act independently of phenomena. And why? Because, acting
without regard to illusive forms of phenomena, he will realise in the
exercise of charity, a merit inestimable and immeasurable.”

“Subhuti, what think you? Is it possible to estimate the distance
comprising the illimitable universe of space?”[9] Subhuti replied,
saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! It is impossible to estimate the
distance comprising the illimitable universe of space.” The Lord
Buddha thereupon discoursed, saying: “It is equally impossible to
estimate the merit[10] of an enlightened disciple, who discharges the
exercise of charity, unperturbed by the seductive influences of
phenomena. Subhuti, the mind of an enlightened disciple ought thus to
be indoctrinated.”[11]

  [1] “The first of six Paramita—charity, morality, endurance,
  energy, contemplation, wisdom—cardinal virtues, or means of
  progressing towards Nirvana. The virtue of religious charity,
  implying all kinds of self-denying acts, almsgiving, sacrifice,
  etc.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  [2] “The kind of craving excitement, which follows on sensation,
  and causes the delusion of self and the lust of life—creating
  either delight in the objects that present themselves, or an eager
  desire to supply a felt want—this eager yearning thirst growing
  into sensuality, desire of future life, or love of the present
  world, is the origin of all suffering. Sorrow and suffering will
  be overcome, extinguished, if this ‘thirst’ be quenched, this lust
  of life destroyed. ‘He who overcomes this contemptible thirst,
  sufferings fall off from him like water drops from a lotus
  leaf.’”—_Buddhism_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

  [3] _Fah_, the Chinese equivalent of Dharma—Law, appears to be a
  generic term for all religious doctrines incidental to Buddhism.
  The Buddhas are invariably referred to as _Fah-Wang_—Princes of
  the Law. The Sutras are frequently alluded to as _Fah-Pao_—Jewels
  of the Law. The monks are usually designated _Fah-Men_—Disciples
  of the Law. The interminable process of transmigration is depicted
  by _Fah-Luen_—Wheel of the Law. The dissemination of Buddhistic
  tenets is typified by _Chuan-Fah-Luen_—Revolving Wheel of the Law.
  Religious designations consonant with the idea of Law, are held in
  high esteem amongst the Buddhist ecclesiastical orders. Of such
  are _Fah-Ai_—Lover of the Law; _Fah-Lien_—Approved in the Law;
  _Fah-Ming_—Brightness of the Law (compare Eitel’s _Handbook of
  Chinese Buddhism_.

  [4] “Subhuti, can the western, or southern, or northern regions of
  space be measured? or the four midway regions of space (_i.e._,
  N.E., S.E., S.W., N.W.), or the upper and lower regions: can
  either of these be accurately measured or defined?”—
  _Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  [5] “Of all the modes of acquiring merit, that of almsgiving is
  the principal; it is the chief of the virtues that are requisite
  for the attainment of the Buddhaship; it is the first of the four
  great virtues, _viz_.: almsgiving, affability, promoting the
  prosperity of others, and loving others as ourselves; it is
  superior to the observance of the precepts—the path that all the
  Buddhas have trod—a lineage to which they have all belonged....
  The giving of alms softens the mind, and brings it into
  subjection, by which the ascetic is prepared for the exercise of
  the rites he is afterwards to practise.... The faithful are
  required to give in alms of that which they have honestly earned
  by their own personal exertions.... There must be a willing mind
  respecting that which they offer, from the time that the intention
  of making the offering is formed to the time when it is presented,
  as well as after it has been made.... When the gift, the giver,
  and the receiver are all pure, the reward is proportionately
  great.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  [6] “Let his livelihood be kindliness,
       His conduct righteousness,
       Then in the fulness of gladness
       He will make an end of grief.”—_Buddhism_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

  [1] Discoursing upon illusory ideas concerning the world of
  sentient life, the Lord Buddha stated that these were already
  eliminated from the minds of his enlightened disciples. The
  reference in the text is to disciples in process of instruction,
  and these the Lord Buddha commanded to relegate to oblivion the
  deceptive idea of the reality of sentient life, to dissolve within
  their minds its nauseous dregs, to put away its horrid stain, and
  cause it to vanish like snow in a glowing furnace.—_Chinese
  Annotation_.

  “The very nature of phenomena demonstrates that they must have had
  a beginning, and that they must have an end.”—_Lay Sermons_.
  Huxley.

  [2] By adopting the term _Mieh-Tu_, Chinese Buddhists appear well
  prepared to refute a prevalent notion that their concept of
  deliverance is equivalent to annihilation. _Mieh_ usually means
  annihilation, but _Tu_—to cross over in safety, is the antithesis
  of annihilation. After due consideration of the significance of
  the terminology, perhaps it will be generally conceded that
  English renderings of _Mieh-Tu_ as Deliverance or Salvation, are
  not without some degree of justification.

  “All these I command and exhort to enter on the state of the
  unsurpassed Nirvana (Pari Nirvana), and for ever to free
  themselves from the conditions of being to which they severally
  belong.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  [3] “The dewdrop slips into the shining sea.”—_Light of Asia_.
  Sir Edwin Arnold.

  “The dewdrop re-becomes the shining sea.”—_Chioh-Hsien_ (a
  Chinese monk).

  “The popular exoteric systems agree in defining Nirvana negatively
  as a state of absolute exemption from the circle of transmigration
  as a state of entire freedom from all forms of materiality, from
  all passion and exertion, mentally and emotionally, a state of
  indifference therefore alike to joy and pain. Positively they
  define Nirvana as the highest stage of spiritual liberty and
  bliss, as absolute immortality through absorption of the soul into
  itself. Individuality is preserved, and Buddhas who have entered
  Nirvana occasionally reappear again to intervene on behalf of the
  faithful.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  [4] The able commentator _Ti-Ching_ observes that many people,
  like Ananda—a favourite disciple of Buddha—are in error when they
  suppose their minds to be located within their material bodies.
  This interesting aspect of Buddhist psychology is made tolerably
  clear in the familiar narrative known generally as _The
  Enlightenment of Ananda_. Therein the Lord Buddha endeavours to
  prove that as objects within ourselves are invisible, the
  illuminating mind cannot be asserted to inhabit exclusively our
  material bodies. He also indicates that it cannot be affirmed to
  occupy any appointed sphere outside ourselves, it being usually
  understood that we observe only those objects by which we are
  environed. The Lord Buddha also controverts the theory, enunciated
  by Ananda, that the mind is secreted somewhere within the organs
  of sense; which assumption is based upon a notion that the seeing
  eye, and differentiating mind, are mysteriously correlated.

  [5] “This belief in self is regarded so distinctly as a heresy
  that two well-known words in Buddhist terminology have been coined
  on purpose to stigmatise it. The first of these is Sakkayaditthi,
  ‘the heresy of individuality,’ the name given to this belief as
  one of the three primary delusions (the others being doubt, and
  belief in the efficacy of rites or ceremonies) which must be
  abandoned at the very first stage of the Buddhist path of
  holiness. The other is Attavada, ‘the doctrine of soul or self,’
  which is the name given to it as a part of the chain of causes
  which lead to the origin of evil. It is there classed—with
  sensuality, heresy (as to eternity and annihilation), and belief
  in the efficacy of rites and ceremonies—as one of the four
  Upadanas, which are the immediate cause of birth, decay, death,
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair.”—_Buddhism_. T. W.
  Rhys Davids.




[Chapter 5]

The Lord Buddha interrogated Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Is it
possible that by means of his physical body,[1] the Lord Buddha may be
clearly perceived?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the
Worlds! It is impossible that by means of his physical body, the Lord
Buddha may be clearly perceived. And why? Because, what the Lord
Buddha referred to as a physical body, is in reality not merely a
physical body.” Thereupon the Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying:
“Every form or quality of phenomena is transient and illusive. When
the mind realises that the phenomena of life are not real phenomena,
the Lord Buddha may then be clearly perceived.”[2]

  [1] “Primitive Buddhism distinguished a material, visible, and
  perishable body (_Seh-Shen_—_lit_., the Body of Form) and an
  immaterial, invisible, immortal body (_Fah-Shen_—_lit_., the Body
  of Law) as the constituents of every personality. This
  dichotomism, taught, as it seems by Sakyamuni himself, was ever
  afterwards retained as regards the nature of ordinary mortals. But
  in later ages, when the combined influence of Sivaism, which
  ascribed to Siva a threefold body (called _Dharmakaya_—essence,
  _Sambhogakaya_—reflex intelligence, and _Nirmanakaya_—practical
  issue of his intelligence), and that of Brahmanism with its
  Trimurti, gave rise to the Buddhist dogma of a Triratna
  (_San-Pao_—the precious Buddha, the precious Law, and the precious
  Priesthood), trichotomism was taught with regard to the nature of
  all Buddhas. Again they ascribed to every Buddha a triple form of
  existence, viewing him: [1] as having entered Nirvana; [2] as
  existing in reflex in the world of form; [3] as existing or having
  existed on earth.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  [2] The spiritual Buddha must be realised within the mind,
  otherwise there can be no true perception of the Lord
  Buddha.—_Chinese Annotation_.




[Chapter 6]

Subhuti enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds!
In future ages, when this scripture is proclaimed, amongst those
beings destined to hear, shall any conceive within their minds a
sincere, unmingled faith?”[1]

The Lord Buddha replied to Subhuti, saying: “Have no such apprehensive
thought! Even at the remote period of five centuries subsequent to the
Nirvana of the Lord Buddha,[3] there will be many disciples observing
the monastic vows,[3] and assiduously devoted to good works.[4] These,
hearing this scripture proclaimed, will believe in its immutability,
and similarly conceive within their minds a pure, unmingled faith.
Besides, it is important to realise that faith[5] thus conceived, is
not exclusively in virtue of the insular thought of any particular
Buddha, but because of its affiliation with the concrete[6] thoughts
of myriad Buddhas, throughout infinite ages. Therefore, amongst the
beings destined to hear this Scripture proclaimed, many, by momentary
reflection, will intuitively[7] conceive a pure and holy faith.”

“Subhuti, the Lord Buddha by his prescience,[8] is perfectly cognisant
of all such potential disciples, and for these also there is reserved
an immeasurable merit. And why? Because, the minds of these disciples
will not revert to such arbitrary concepts of phenomena as an entity,
a being, a living being, a personality, qualities or ideas coincident
with Law, or existing apart from the idea of Law. And why? Because,
assuming the permanency and reality of phenomena, the minds of these
disciples would be involved in such distinctive ideas as an entity, a
being, a living being, and a personality. Affirming the permanency and
reality of qualities or ideas coincident with Law, their minds would
inevitably be involved in resolving these same definitions.
Postulating the inviolate nature of qualities or ideas which have an
existence apart from the Law, there yet remain to be explained these
abstruse distinctions—an entity, a being, a living being, and a
personality. Therefore, enlightened disciples ought not to affirm the
permanency or reality of qualities or ideas coincident with Law, nor
postulate as being of an inviolate nature, qualities or ideas having
an existence apart from the concept of Law.”

“Thus, we are enabled to appreciate the significance of those words
which the Lord Buddha invariably repeated to his followers: ‘You
disciples must realise that the Law which I enunciated, was presented
before your minds in the simile of a raft.[9] If the Law—having
fulfilled its function in bearing you to the other shore
(Nirvana)[10]—with its coincident qualities and ideas must inevitably
be abandoned,[11] how much more inevitable must be the abandonment of
qualities or ideas which have an existence apart from the Law?’”

  [1] Compare the question addressed by Jesus to His disciples,
  “When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?”

  [2] “In fulness of the times—it fell
       The Buddha died, the great Tathagata,
       Even as a man ’mongst men, fulfilling all:
       And how a thousand thousand lakhs since then
       Have trod the Path which leads whither he went
       Unto Nirvana, where the Silence lives.”—_The
       Light of Asia_. Sir Edwin Arnold.

  [3] When a novice seeks admission to a monastic order, an
  ordination service is conducted by a chapter of monks, at which
  the following vows are administered. “I take the vow not to
  destroy life. I take the vow not to steal. I take the vow to
  abstain from impurity. I take the vow not to lie. I take the vow
  to abstain from intoxicating drinks, which hinder progress and
  virtue. I take the vow not to eat at forbidden times. I take the
  vow to abstain from dancing, singing, music, and stage plays. I
  take the vow not to use garlands, scents, unguents, or ornaments.
  I take the vow not to use a high or broad bed. I take the vow not
  to receive gold or silver.” (Compare _Buddhism_. T. W. Rhys Davids.)

  [4] “The primary motive for doing good, and worshipping Buddha,
  according to these scriptures (the Buddha scriptures of Nipal), is
  the hope of obtaining absorption into the nature of the god, and
  being freed from transmigrations.”—_China_. Sir John Francis Davis.

  [5] “And is thy faith so much to give,
       Is it so hard a thing to see,
       That the Spirit of God, whate’er it be,
       The Law that abides and changes not, ages long,
       The Eternal and Nature-Born—these things be strong?”—_The
  Bacche_. Euripides (translated by Gilbert Murray).

  [6] “The elements of faith, like the flowers, appear to have their
  roots in eternity.”—_Chang-Ming_ (a Chinese monk).

  [7] “Were it possible for a Yogi and a Rahat from India, a Greek
  philosopher from one of the schools holding the power of
  intuition, an ascetic from the wilds of Syria or the mountains of
  Egypt, a heretic from the school at Alexandria, a monk from one of
  the monasteries of Europe, a schoolman of the Middle Ages, and a
  modern German metaphysician of the school of Schelling to meet
  together, and were it possible for them to forget their sectarian
  subtleties and nice distinctions, they would find that there was a
  vast mass of speculation about the main principles of which they
  were agreed. They would be of one mind relative to the four
  following propositions: [1] That there is an objective potency of
  intellect; [2] That this potency can be rendered subjective by
  concentrated thought, ascetic exercises, or determined effort; [3]
  That this potency can only be acquired by the initiated; [4] That
  the initiated may enlarge this potency to a limitless extent. As
  to the efficient cause of the potency, there would be a difference
  of opinion; some would ascribe it to intuition alone, while others
  would attribute it to an alliance with higher spirits or with God;
  but of its existence there would be no doubt.”—_Eastern
  Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  [8] “For now I know, by what within me stirs,
       That I shall teach compassion unto men
       And be a speechless world’s interpreter.”—_The Light of
  Asia_. Sir Edwin Arnold.

  [9] “(By me) is made a well-constructed raft,—so said Bhagavat—I
  have passed over (to Nibbana), I have reached the further bank,
  having overcome the torrent (of passions); there is no (further)
  use for a raft: therefore if thou like, rain, O
  sky!”—_Sutta-Nipata_. Fausböll.

  [10] Compare an idea expressed by the apostle Paul, “wherefore the
  law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” Note, also, the
  similarity of a metaphor employed in Christian anthology, “We
  shall meet on that beautiful ‘shore.’”

  [11] “Our little systems have their day,
         They have their day and cease to be;
         They are but broken lights of Thee,
       But thou, O Lord, art more than they.”—Tennyson.

  “Reposing on eternal truth ... when thy mind shall have worked
  through the snares of delusion, then wilt thou attain to
  indifference to the doctrines, which are either (already)
  received, or have yet to be received.”—_Bhagavad-Gita_. J.
  Cockburn Thomson.




[Chapter 7]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Has the
Lord Buddha really attained to supreme spiritual wisdom? Or has he a
system of doctrine which can be specifically formulated?”

Subhuti replied, saying: “As I understand the meaning of the Lord
Buddha’s discourse, he has no system of doctrine which can be
specifically formulated; nor can the Lord Buddha express, in explicit
terms, a form of knowledge which can be described as supreme spiritual
wisdom. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha adumbrated in terms of
the Law, is transcendental and inexpressible. Being a purely spiritual
concept, it is neither consonant with Law, nor synonymous with
anything apart from the Law. Thus[1] is exemplified the manner by
which wise disciples and holy Buddhas, regarding intuition[2] as the
Law of their minds, severally attained to different planes of
spiritual wisdom.”[3]

  [1] “So it appears that all the sages and wise men who have lived
  have all adopted this mode of diffusive doctrine [doctrine which
  admits of no particular distinction (_wou-wei)], and hence the
  differences which have occurred.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  [2] The Chinese text “_i-wu-wei-fah_,” is explained by a learned
  expositor as _tsz-ran-choih-sing_—the intuitive faculty.

  [3] “Because that thing which was known or taught by the Tathagata
  is incomprehensible and inexpressible. It is neither a thing nor
  no-thing. And why? Because the holy persons are of imperfect
  power.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.




[Chapter 8]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? If a
benevolent person bestowed as alms, an abundance of the seven
treasures[1] sufficient to fill the universe, would there accrue to
that person a considerable merit?”

Subhuti replied, saying:[2] “A very considerable merit, Honoured of
the Worlds! And why? Because, what is referred to does not partake of
the nature of ordinary merit, and in this sense the Lord Buddha made
mention of a ‘considerable’ merit.”

The Lord Buddha rejoined, saying: “If a disciple adhered with implicit
faith to a stanza[3] of this Scripture, and diligently explained it to
others, the intrinsic merit of that disciple would be relatively
greater. And why? Because, Subhuti, the holy Buddhas, and the Law[4]
by which they attained to supreme spiritual wisdom, severally owe
their inception to the truth[5] of this sacred Scripture. Subhuti,
what is ordinarily termed the Buddhic Law, is not really a Law
attributive to Buddha.”[6]

  [1] Gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal.

  [2] “Very considerable indeed, world-honoured one! But why so?
  This merit being in its very character of the nature of that which
  is no merit at all, so Tathagata speaks of it as being
  ‘much.’”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  “Subhuti said: Yes, O Sugata, that son or daughter of a good
  family would produce a large stock of merit. And why? Because, O
  Bhagavat, what was preached by the Tathagata as the stock of
  merit, is no stock of merit. Therefore, the Tathagata preaches: ‘a
  stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed!’”—_The Vagrakkhedika_.
  Max Müller.

  [3] “Gatha—hymns and chants, narratives containing moral
  expositions in metrical language. A Chinese text says, ‘32
  characters form one Gatha,’ which refers to a certain variety of
  Gatha called Aryagiti, a metre consisting of 32
  instants.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  [4] “The _Dharmma_ (Law) is perfect, having nothing redundant, and
  nothing wanting. But it requires attention, that the benefits it
  offers may be received. Though the teacher may attain great
  happiness, and enter Nirvana, it does not follow that the disciple
  will necessarily possess the same privileges; he may be like one
  who binds the crown upon the head of another. Therefore each one
  for himself must exercise meditation, and observe the ordinances,
  that he may attain wisdom.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  [5] “Faith is in the world the best property for a man; _Dhamma_
  (the Law), well observed, conveys happiness; truth, indeed, is the
  sweetest of things; and the life they call the best which is lived
  with understanding.”—_Sutta-Nipata_. Fausböll.

  [6] “What then, Subhuti? All the Buddhas, and all the perfect laws
  of the Buddhas, have sprung from (the principles of) this one
  Sutra; but, Subhuti, that which is spoken of as the Law of Buddha,
  is after all not such a Law (or, is a Law of no
  Buddha).”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  “Because, O Subhuti, the highest perfect knowledge of the holy and
  enlightened Tathagatas is produced from it; the blessed Buddhas
  are produced from it. And why? Because, O Subhuti, when the
  Tathagata preached: ‘The qualities of Buddha, the qualities of
  Buddha indeed!’ They were preached by him as no-qualities of
  Buddha. Therefore they are called the qualities of Buddha.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  An erudite Chinese commentator suggests that the words
  _fei-fuh-fah_ are synonymous with _wu-wei-fah_—intuition, already
  observed in the preceding section. A familiar passage from
  _Lao-Tsz_, “Infinite truth is inexpressible,” is quoted by our
  commentator as serving to illustrate the difficulty of giving
  expression to an idea equivalent to the Law of Buddha.




[Chapter 9]

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? May a
Scrotapatti[1] (having entered the stream which bears on to Nirvana)
thus moralise within himself, ‘I have obtained the fruits[2]
commensurate with the merit of a Scrotapatti’?” Subhuti replied,
saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! And why? Because, Scrotapatti is
simply a descriptive term signifying ‘having entered the stream.’ A
disciple who avoids the seductive phenomena of form, sound, odour,
taste, touch, and Law,[3] is named a Scrotapatti.”

The Lord Buddha again enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you?
May a Sakridagami[4] (who is subject only to one more reincarnation)
thus muse within himself, ‘I have obtained the fruits consonant with
the merit of a Sakridagami’?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured
of the Worlds! And why? Because, Sakridagami is merely a descriptive
title denoting ‘only one more reincarnation’;[5] but in reality there
is no such condition as ‘only one more reincarnation,’ hence
Sakridagami is merely a descriptive title.”

The Lord Buddha once again enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think
you? May an Anagami[6] (having entire immunity from reincarnation)
thus reflect within himself, ‘I have obtained the fruits which accord
with the merit of an Anagami?’” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured
of the Worlds! And why? Because, Anagami is merely a designation
meaning ‘immunity from reincarnation’; but in reality there is no such
condition as ‘immunity from reincarnation,’ hence Anagami is merely a
convenient designation.”

The Lord Buddha yet again enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think
you? May an Arhat[7] (having attained to absolute quiescence of mind)
thus meditate within himself, ‘I have obtained the condition of an
Arhat’?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! And
why? Because, there is not in reality a condition synonymous with the
term Arhat. Honoured of the Worlds! if an Arhat thus meditates within
himself, ‘I have obtained the condition of an Arhat,’ there would be
obvious recurrence of such arbitrary concepts as an entity, a being, a
living being, and a personality. Honoured of the Worlds! When the Lord
Buddha declared that in absolute quiescence[8] of mind, perfect
observance of the Law,[9] and true spiritual perception, I was
pre-eminent amongst the disciples, I did not cogitate thus within
myself, ‘I am an Arhat, freed[10] from desire!’ Had I thus cogitated,
‘I have obtained the condition of an Arhat,’[11] the ‘Honoured of the
Worlds’ would not have declared concerning me, ‘Subhuti delights in
the austerities practised by the Aranyaka’;[12] but, in reality,
Subhuti was perfectly quiescent and oblivious to phenomena;[13] hence
the allusion, ‘Subhuti delights in the austerities practised by the
Aranyaka.’”

  [1] “One who has entered (Apatti) the stream (Srota), the latter
  being defined as the stream of holy conduct (which bears on to
  Nirvana).”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  [2] “Men walking in the path, and standing in the fruits thereof,
  those who have attained some fruits thereof but are yet
  learners ... whose hope is directed to the utmost goal.”—_Questions
  of King Milinda_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

  “Enter the path! There spring the healing streams
   Quenching all thirst! there bloom th’ immortal flowers
   Carpeting all the way with joy! there throng
   Swiftest and sweetest hours.”—_The Light of Asia_.
   Sir Edwin Arnold.

  [3] Perhaps in the sense that a Scrotapatti clearly perceives and
  understands the tentative nature of the Law, his mind being
  trained to regard it as “a well-constructed raft,” designed to
  bear him safely across the stream of spiritual consciousness upon
  which he has entered. It also appears that the Scrotapatti
  discerns in the _idea_ of the Law, something as unreal and
  ephemeral as the phenomena of form, sound, odour, taste, or touch.
  In seeking “Nirvana’s blest abode,” the Scrotapatti endeavours to
  “rise by daily sojourn with these phantasies—to lovelier verities.”

  [4] “The path Sakradagami is so called because he who enters it
  will receive one more birth. He may enter this path in the world
  of men, and afterwards be born in a Dewa-Loka (a heavenly
  mansion—in Chinese _Tien-Kong_); or he may enter it in a
  Dewa-Loka, and afterwards be born in the world of men.”—_Eastern
  Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  [5] “Because he is not an individual being (Dharma), who has
  obtained the state of a Sakridagami.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max
  Müller.

  [6] “Not returning, or not being reborn in the world of desire.
  The third degree of Buddhistic saintship, the third class of
  Aryas, embracing all those who are no more liable to be reborn as
  men, though they are to be born once more as Devas, when they will
  forthwith become Arhats and enter Nirvana.”—_Handbook of Chinese
  Buddhism_. Eitel.

  “Men devoid of passion, and of malice, and of dulness, men in whom
  the great evils (lust, becoming, delusion, and ignorance) are not,
  men who have neither craving thirst, nor grasping
  desires.”—_Questions of King Milinda_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

  [7] “Explained by _Fuh-Ko_—the Fruit of Buddha (Buddhaphalam). The
  original meaning of Arhat (deserving, worthy) is overlooked by
  most Chinese commentators, who explained the term as if it were
  written _Ari-Hat_—Destroyer of the Enemy. The following two
  explanations are given, _Shah-Tseh_—Destroying the Enemy, and
  _Puh-Seng_—not to be reborn, _i.e._, except from transmigration.
  There is, however, a third explanation which is based on the
  original meaning of Arhat, namely _Ying-Kong_—deserving worship.
  The Arhat is the perfected Arya (one who has mastered the four
  spiritual truths—_Sz-Ti_—and thereby entered the path to Nirvana
  called Arya-Marga), and the state of Arhat can accordingly be
  attained only by passing through the different degrees of
  saintship. Arhatship implies possession of supernatural powers,
  and is to be succeeded either by Buddhaship or by immediate
  entrance into Nirvana.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  “Those who have entered the stream, and those who, free from
  stains, will only be reborn once more on earth, those who will
  never again return, and Arhats—these are they who dwell in the
  ‘city of Righteousness.’”—_Questions of King Milinda_. T. W. Rhys
  Davids.

  In the moral philosophy of Mencius there is inculcated a principle
  of having few desires (_Kwa-Yuh_), and Chinese Buddhists
  frequently institute comparisons between those “few desires” and
  “no desires” of the Arhats.

  [8] A Chinese annotator suggests it is almost self-evident that
  “absolute quiescence” is the condition of mind in which knowledge
  is acquired by intuition.

  [9] “More is the treasure of the Law than gems;
       Sweeter than comb its sweetness; its delights
       Delightful past compare.”—_The Light of Asia_.
  Sir Edwin Arnold.

  [10] “The man for whom there is nothing upon which he depends, who
  is independent, having understood the _Dhamma_ (Law), for whom
  there is no desire for coming into existence or having
  existence—him I call calm.... He has overcome
  desire.”—_Dhammapada_. Max Müller.

  “This devotion should be practised with that determination by
  which thought becomes indifferent (to every worldly object). He
  who has abandoned all desires which spring from imagination, and
  has, by means of his heart, kept back the whole collection of the
  senses from every direction (in which they would go), should
  gradually become passive by his mind’s acquiring firmness, and, by
  having caused his heart to remain within himself, should not place
  his thoughts on anything at all.”—_Bhagavad-Gita_.—J. Cockburn
  Thomson.

  [11] “There are some persons who obtain the Rahatship
  instantaneously, while others can only obtain it by a slow
  process; they must give aims, make offerings, study the _Bana_
  (Law), and exercise the necessary discipline.”—_Eastern
  Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  [12] “Explained by ‘living in retirement,’ ‘a hermit,’ ‘a
  recluse.’ The term signifies ascetics who live in strict
  seclusion. There are three classes to be distinguished. The first
  is called _Dharma Aranyaka_—‘Hermits of the Law,’ their favourite
  tenet being the doctrine that the principles (_Dharma_)
  constituting human nature are originally calm, still, and passive.
  Their favourite tree is the Bodhi tree (tree of intelligence). The
  second class is called _Matanga Aranyaka_. Its members reside
  constantly in cemeteries, and are prohibited to approach a village
  within hearing distance of the lowing of a cow. They are probably
  called after the Hindoo caste _Matanga_. The third class, or the
  _Danataka Aranyaka_, is formed by hermits living on the sea beach
  or on half-tide rocks.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  “Men whose home is the forest, men who have taken on themselves
  the extra vows, men full of joy, men who are wearing rough
  garments, men rejoicing in solitude.”—_Questions of King Milinda_.
  T. W. Rhys Davids.

  [13] “The _Sramana_ (Buddhist monk) who sets himself to overcome
  the evils of existence, retires from all intercourse with the
  world, and either practises meditation, simply, or joins with it
  the practice of Kasina (an ascetic exercise to free the mind from
  all agitation), by which he is enabled to attain to _Nimitta_
  (inward illumination), which is represented as being a mental
  illumination that brings with it, in various degrees of
  perfection, the state of mind called _Samadhi_ (absolute
  self-abstraction). This result of profound meditation includes
  undisturbed tranquillity, and equanimity the most entire, and in
  its superior degree it produces unconsciousness.”—_Eastern
  Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  “The world-honoured one would not then have said: ‘Subhuti, what
  is this but the name of the one who delights in the mortification
  of an _Aranyaka_ (forest devotee),’ regarding ‘Subhuti’ as in
  truth not acting at all, but as a mere name, then (in such
  forgetfulness of self) ‘he is one who delights in
  self-mortification.’”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.




[Chapter 10]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? When the
Lord Buddha, in a previous life, was a disciple of Dipankara
Buddha,[1] was there communicated to him any prescribed Law, or system
of doctrine, whereby he eventually became a Buddha?” Subhuti replied,
saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! When the Lord Buddha was a
disciple of Dipankara Buddha, neither prescribed Law nor system of
doctrine was communicated to him, whereby he eventually became a
Buddha.”[2]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? may an
enlightened disciple thus ponder within himself, ‘I shall create
numerous Buddhist Kingdoms’?”[3] Subhuti replied, saying: “No!
Honoured of the Worlds! And why? Because, kingdoms thus created would
not in reality be Buddhist kingdoms,[4] therefore ‘the creation of
numerous Buddhist kingdoms’ is merely a figure of speech.”

The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Enlightened
disciples ought therefore to engender within themselves a pure and
holy mind; they ought not to depend on the phenomena of form, sound,
odour, taste, touch, or Law; they ought to sedulously cultivate a mind
independent of every material aid.”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “Supposing a man with a
body as pretentious as Sumeru,[5] prince among mountains, would you
esteem such a body as being great?” Subhuti replied, saying:
“Exceedingly great, Honoured of the Worlds! And why? Because, the Lord
Buddha referred not to a physical body,[6] but to mental and spiritual
concepts of bodies, in which sense a body may be regarded as really
Great.”

  [1] “_Ran-Teng-Fuh_—the Buddha who illuminates brightly,
  _Ting-Kwang-Fuh_—the Buddha of fixed light. The twenty-fourth
  predecessor of Sakyamuni, from whom the latter received the
  assurance of his being destined for Buddhaship.”—_Handbook of
  Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  It is recorded in _The Diamond Sutra_ that the Lord Buddha, in
  previous incarnations, assiduously performed religious vows, and
  deferentially honoured all contemporary Buddhas. An image of a
  former master, Dipankara Buddha, may frequently be observed in
  Chinese Buddhist temples, immediately behind the more conspicuous
  figure of Sakyamuni Buddha. Amongst Chinese Buddhist anniversaries
  may be found the birthday of “the ancient Buddha, _Ran-Teng_”
  (Dipankara), and the period allocated for its observance is the
  22nd day of the 8th month. (Compare Edkins’ _Chinese Buddhism_.)

  [2] “It is maintained by the Buddhists that the founder of their
  faith was entirely _αὐτοδιδακτος_. The wisdom that he manifested
  was the outbeaming of a self-enkindled flame, not an inspiration
  from any exterior source, nor was it the result of any process of
  thought or reason. To whatever object he directed his intellectual
  vision, whether it was near or remote, whether past, present, or
  future, he saw it in a moment, intuitively, and yet in a manner
  the most absolutely perfect.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  [3] “Bhagavat said: If Subhuti, a Bodhisattva, should say, ‘I
  shall create numbers of worlds,’ he would say what is untrue. And
  why? Because, O Subhuti, when Tathagata preached numbers of
  worlds, numbers of worlds indeed! they were preached by him as no
  numbers. Therefore they are called numbers of worlds.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “Subhuti, what think you? are the various lands and territories of
  the Buddhas completely perfected by the Bodhisatwas who occupy
  them? No! World-honoured one! for this complete perfection of
  which we speak is after all no perfection at all, it is only an
  empty name.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  “The wise man is always thinking: How can I and these beings
  become Buddhas? I will preach this true Law, upon which the
  happiness of all beings depends, for the benefit of the
  world.”—_Saddharma-Pundarika_. H. Kern.

  The words _Chuang-Yen_, in a Buddhist sense, usually refer to the
  erection or adornment of temples and pagodas, almsgiving, or other
  work of merit. Used in conjunction with _Fuh-Tu_—Buddhist
  kingdoms, as exemplified by our text, _Chuang-Yen_ appears to
  convey a much wider meaning. Perhaps it refers to a spiritual
  creation and adornment by charity and virtue, of kingdoms owning
  allegiance to the Lord Buddha.

  “In twelve years from the commencement of his public teaching,
  Buddha’s doctrines had spread over sixteen Indian
  kingdoms.”—_Chinese Buddhism_. Edkins.

  [4] A Buddhist kingdom has no outward manifestation; it is a pure
  and holy condition of mind.—_Chinese Annotation_.

  Compare the statement attributed to Christ, “The kingdom of heaven
  is _within_ you.”

  [5] “Sumeru is probably Elburz, an isolated mountain of the
  Caucasus range, 18,000 feet in height, and surrounded by low
  ground.”—_Chinese Buddhism_. Edkins.

  “But when they brought the painted palanquin
   To fetch him home, the bearers of the poles
   Were the four Regents of the Earth, come down
   From Mount Sumeru.”—_The Light of Asia_. Sir Edwin Arnold.

  [6] “The modification which Buddhism introduced into the idea of
  transmigration was necessitated by the early Buddhist theories of
  the nature of sentient beings; according to which, man consists of
  an assemblage of different properties or qualities ... these are
  Material qualities, Sensations, abstract Ideas, Tendencies of
  mind, and mental Powers.... The first group, Material Qualities,
  are like a mass of foam, that gradually forms, and then vanishes.
  The second group, the Sensations, are like a bubble dancing on the
  face of the water. The third group, the Ideas, are like the
  uncertain mirage that appears in the sunshine. The fourth group,
  the mental and moral Predispositions, are like the plantain stalk,
  without firmness or solidity. And the last group, the Thoughts,
  are like a spectre or magical illusion. The body itself is
  constantly changing, ... man is never the same for two consecutive
  moments.” (Compare Rhys Davids’ _Buddhism_, and Spence Hardy’s
  _Manual_.

  “For instance, Subhuti, a man might have a body and a large body,
  so that his size should be as large as the king, of mountains,
  Sumeru. Do you think then, O Subhuti, that his selfhood would be
  large? Subhuti said, Yes! his selfhood would be large. And why?
  Because, when the Tathagata preached ‘selfhood,’ selfhood indeed!
  it was preached by him as no selfhood. Therefore it is called
  selfhood.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.




[Chapter 11]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If there were rivers
Ganges as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, would the aggregate
grains of sand[1] be of considerable number?” Subhuti replied, saying:
“Of very considerable number, Honoured of the Worlds! The rivers
Ganges alone would be innumerable, and much more innumerable would be
the grains of sand.”

The Lord Buddha thereupon addressed Subhuti, saying: “I have a truth
to declare unto you! If a good disciple, whether man or woman, were to
bestow in the exercise of charity, an abundance of the seven
treasures,[2] sufficient to fill as many boundless universes as there
would be grains of sand in these innumerable rivers, would the
cumulative merit of such a disciple be considerable?” Subhuti replied,
saying: “Very considerable, Honoured of the Worlds!”

The Lord Buddha then declared unto Subhuti, “If a good disciple,
whether man or woman, were with implicit faith to adhere to a stanza
of this Scripture, and diligently explain it to others, the consequent
merit would be relatively greater than the other.”

  [1] “Sarvanikchepa, by which you deal
       With all the sands of Gunga, till we come
       To Antah-Kalpas, where the unit is
       The sands of ten crore Gungas.”—_The
  Light of Asia_. Sir Edwin Arnold.

  [2] Gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal.

  “As much of the seven precious substances as would fill as many
  great chiliocosms as there are sands in all the rivers above
  described.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.




[Chapter 12]

The Lord Buddha, continuing, said unto Subhuti: “Wherever this
Scripture is proclaimed, even though it were but a stanza comprising
four lines, you should realise that that place would be sanctified by
the presence of the whole realm of gods, men, and terrestrial
spirits,[1] who ought unitedly to worship, as if before a sacred
shrine of Buddha.[2] But what encomium shall express the merit of a
disciple who rigorously observes, and diligently studies,[3] the text
of this Scripture? Subhuti, you should realise that such a disciple
will be endowed[4] with spiritual powers commensurate with initiation
in the supreme, incomparable, and most wonderful Law.[5] Whatever
place constitutes a repository for this sacred Scripture, there also
the Lord Buddha may be found, together with disciples worthy of
reverence and honour.”

  [1] Adopting Max Müller’s rendering. In the Chinese text are
  _Tien_, _Ren_, and _O-Siu-Lo_—heaven, or gods—men, and _Asurus_;
  the latter defined as _fei-tien_—not celestial spirits.

  [2] “Whatever spirits have come together here, either belonging to
  the earth or living in the air, let us worship the perfect Buddha,
  revered by gods and men.”

  “Whatever spirits have come together here, either belonging to the
  earth or living in the air, let us worship the perfect _Dhamma_
  (Law), revered by gods and men.”

  “Whatever spirits have come together here, either belonging to the
  earth or living in the air, let us worship the perfect _Sangha_
  (community of monks), revered by gods and men.”—_Dhammapada_. Max
  Müller.

  [3] “Earnestness is the path of immortality (Nirvana),
  thoughtlessness the path of death. Those who are in earnest do not
  die, those who are thoughtless are as if dead
  already.”—_Dhammapada_. Max Müller.

  [4] “They, O Subhuti, will be endowed with the highest wonder
  (with what excites the highest wonder). And in that place, O
  Subhuti, there dwells the teacher (Sasa, often the name of
  Buddha), or one after another holding the place of the wise
  preceptor. (This may refer to a succession of teachers banding
  down the tradition one to another.)”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max
  Müller.

  “Subhuti, know that this man has acquired knowledge of the most
  excellent and desirable of all Laws; and if the place where this
  Sutra is recited be worthy of all honour as the place of Buddha
  himself, so also is this disciple honourable and worthy of the
  highest respect.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  [5] “The praises of the _Bana_ (Law) are a favourite subject with
  the native authors.... The discourses of Buddha are as a divine
  charm to cure the poison of evil desire; a divine medicine to heal
  the disease of anger; a lamp in the midst of the darkness of
  ignorance; a fire, like that which burns at the end of a Kalpa, to
  destroy the evils of repeated existence; a meridian sun to dry up
  the mud of covetousness; a great rain to quench the flame of
  sensuality; a thicket to block up the road that leads to the
  _Narakas_ (place of the wicked); a ship in which to sail to the
  opposite shore of the ocean of existence; a collyrium for taking
  away the eye-film of heresy; a moon to bring out the night-blowing
  lotus of merit; a succession of trees bearing immortal fruit,
  placed here and there, by which the traveller may be enabled to
  cross the desert of existence; ... a straight highway by which to
  pass to the incomparable wisdom; a door of entrance to the eternal
  city of Nirvana; ... a treasury of the best things it is possible to
  obtain; and a power by which may be appeased the sorrow of every
  sentient being.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence Hardy.




[Chapter 13]

Upon that occasion, Subhuti enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying:
“Honoured of the Worlds! by what name shall this Scripture be known,
that we may regard it with reverence?” The Lord Buddha replied,
saying: “Subhuti, this Scripture shall be known as _The Diamond
Sutra_,[1] ‘The Transcendent Wisdom,’ by means of which we reach ‘The
Other Shore.’ By this name you shall reverently regard it! And why?
Subhuti, what the Lord Buddha declared as ‘transcendent wisdom’ by
means of which we reach ‘the other shore,’ is not essentially
‘transcendent wisdom’—in its essence it transcends all wisdom.”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying:[2] “What think you? Did the
Lord Buddha formulate a precise system of Law or doctrine?” Subhuti
replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! The Lord Buddha did not
formulate a precise system of Law or doctrine.”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? within the
myriad worlds which comprise this universe, are the atoms of dust
numerous?”[3] Subhuti replied, saying: “Very numerous, Honoured of the
Worlds!”

The Lord Buddha continuing his discourse, said: “Subhuti, the Lord
Buddha declares that all these ‘atoms of dust’ are not essentially
‘atoms of dust,’ they are merely termed ‘atoms of dust.’ The Lord
Buddha also declares that those ‘myriad worlds’ are not really ‘myriad
worlds,’ they are merely designated ‘myriad worlds.’”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the
Lord Buddha be perceived by means of his thirty-two bodily
distinctions?”[4] Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the
Worlds! the Lord Buddha cannot be perceived by means of his thirty-two
bodily distinctions. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred
to as his ‘thirty-two bodily distinctions,’ are not in reality ‘bodily
distinctions,’ they are merely defined as ‘bodily distinctions.’”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good disciple,
whether man or woman, day by day sacrificed lives innumerable as the
sands of the Ganges;[5] and if another disciple adhered with implicit
faith to a stanza of this Scripture, and diligently explained it to
others, the intrinsic merit of such a disciple would be relatively
greater than the other.”[6]

  [1] A Chinese annotator observes, that as the “diamond” excels all
  other precious gems in brilliance and indestructibility, so also
  the “wisdom” of this Sutra transcends and shall outlive all
  other knowledge known to philosophy.

  [2] “Then what do you think, O Subhuti, is there anything that was
  preached by the Tathagata? Subhuti said: Not indeed, O Bhagavat,
  there is nothing that was preached by the Tathagata.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  It appears to be one of the distinctive features of primitive
  Buddhism, that its founder made provision for the utmost
  development of the human intellect, within the spheres of religion
  and philosophy. According to the text of _The Diamond Sutra_, the
  Lord Buddha evidently disclaims any suggestion on his part to
  formulate a “precise system of Law or doctrine” corresponding to
  the idea of a _creed_.

  [3] “Matter is infinitely divisible.”—_The World as Idea and
  Will_. Schopenhauer.

  “After me repeat
  Your numeration....
  By Pundarikas unto Padumas,
  Which last is how you count the utmost grains
  Of Hastagiri ground to finest dust.”—_The Light of Asia_. Sir
  Edwin Arnold.

  “If the Buddha was not a materialist, in the sense of believing in
  the eternal existence of material atoms, neither could he in any
  sense be called a ‘spiritualist,’ or believer in the external
  existence of abstract spirit. With him creation did not proceed
  from an omnipotent spirit or mind evolving phenomena out of itself
  by the exercise of will, nor from an eternal self-existing,
  self-evolving germ of any kind. As to the existence in the
  universe of any spiritual substance which was not matter and was
  imperceptible to the senses, it could not be proved.”—_Buddhism_.
  Sir Monier Williams.

  “Subhuti, all these countless particles of dust Tathagata declares
  are no real particles; it is but an empty name by which they are
  known. Tathagata declares that all these systems of worlds
  composing the great chiliocosm are no real worlds; they are but
  empty names.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  [4] “Characteristic physiological marks by which every Buddha may
  be recognised.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  “Can Tathagata be known by the thirty-two signs (of a hero)?”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “The King saluted, and Queen Maya made
   To lay her babe before such holy feet;
   But when he saw the prince the old man cried
   ‘Ah, Queen not so!’ and thereupon he touched
   Eight times the dust, laid his waste visage there,
   Saying, ‘O Babe! I worship! Thou art He!
   I see the rosy light, the foot-sole marks,
   The soft curled tendrils of the Swastika,
   The sacred primal signs thirty-and-two,
   The eighty lesser tokens. Thou art Buddh,
   And thou wilt preach the Law and save all flesh
   Who learn the Law.’”—_The Light of Asia_.
   Sir Edwin Arnold.

  “Bright were the divine lineaments of his face, and as the Master
  (of the Law) gazed in awe and holy reverence, he knew not how to
  compare the spectacle; the body of Buddha and his Kashaya robe
  were of a yellowish red colour, and from his knees upward the
  distinguishing marks of his person were exceedingly glorious.”—_The
  Life of Hiuen-Tsang_. Beal.

  [5] The Chinese expression _Shen-Ming_—life, invariably refers to
  life in an ordinary material sense, and which may be offered in
  sacrifice. But in Buddhist philosophy there is a spiritual
  _Atman_, which can be disposed of only by knowledge.

  [6] “Were any one to fill the bowl of Buddha with the choicest
  food, or to present oil, sugar, honey, medicaments in the greatest
  abundance, or to build thousands of _Wiharas_ (monasteries or
  temples) splendid as those of Anuradhapura (an ancient city in
  Ceylon, the Anurogrammum of Ptolemy), or to present an offering to
  Buddha like that of Anepidu (a rich merchant of Sewet), the
  hearing or reading of one stanza of the _Bana_ (Law) would be more
  meritorious than all.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence Hardy.




[Chapter 14]

Upon that occasion, the venerable Subhuti, hearing the text of this
scripture proclaimed, and profoundly realising its meaning, was moved
to tears. Addressing the Lord Buddha, he said: “Thou art of
transcendent wisdom, Honoured of the Worlds! The Lord Buddha in
expounding this supreme canon of Scripture, surpassed in perspicuity
every exposition previously heard by me, since my eyes[1] were
privileged to perceive this most excellent wisdom. Honoured of the
Worlds! In years to come, if disciples hearing this scripture
proclaimed, and having within their minds a pure and holy faith,
engender true concepts of the ephemeral nature of phenomena—we ought
to realise that the cumulative merit of such disciples will be
intrinsic and wonderful. Honoured of the Worlds! The true concept of
phenomena is, that these are not essentially phenomena, and hence the
Lord Buddha declared that they are merely termed phenomena.”

“Honoured of the Worlds! having heard this unprecedented Scripture,
faith, clear understanding, and firm resolve to observe its precepts,
follow as a natural sequence. If, in future ages, disciples destined
to hear this Scripture, likewise believe, understand, and observe its
precepts, their merit will incite the highest wonder and praise.[2]
And why? Because, the minds of those disciples[3] will have outgrown
such arbitrary ideas of phenomena as an entity, a being, a living
being, or a personality. And why? Because, the entity is in reality
non-entity; and a being, a living being, or a personality, are ideas
equally nebulous and hypothetical.[4] Wherefore, discarding every
arbitrary idea of phenomena, the wise and wholly enlightened were
severally designated Buddha.”[5]

The Lord Buddha, assenting, said unto Subhuti: “If, in future ages,
disciples destined to hear this Scripture, neither become perturbed by
its extreme modes of thought,[6] nor alarmed by its lofty
sentiments,[7] nor apprehensive about realising its high
ideals[8]—these disciples also, by their intrinsic merit, will incite
superlative wonder and praise.”

“Subhuti, what the Lord Buddha referred to as the first _Paramita_[9]
(charity), is not in reality the first _Paramita_, it is merely termed
the first _Paramita_”

“Subhuti, regarding the third _Paramita_ (endurance), it is not in
reality a _Paramita_, it is merely termed a _Paramita_. And why?
Because, in a previous life, when the Prince of Kalinga[10]
(‘Kaliradja’) severed the flesh from my limbs and body, at that time I
was oblivious to such arbitrary ideas of phenomena as an entity, a
being, a living being, or a personality. And why? Because, upon that
occasion, when my limbs and body were rent asunder, had I not been
oblivious to such arbitrary ideas as an entity, a being, a living
being, or a personality, there would have originated within my mind,
feelings of anger and resentment.”

“Subhuti, five hundred incarnations ago,[11] I recollect that as a
recluse practising the ordinances of the Kshanti-Paramita,[12] even
then I had no such arbitrary ideas as an entity, a being, a living
being, or a personality. Therefore, Subhuti, an enlightened disciple
ought to discard as being unreal and illusive, every conceivable form
of phenomena.[13] In aspiring to supreme spiritual wisdom, the mind
ought to be insensible to every sensuous influence, and independent of
everything pertaining to sound, odour, taste, touch, or Law. There
ought to be cultivated a condition of complete independence of mind;
because, if the mind is depending upon any external aid, it is
obviously deluded—there is in reality nothing external to depend
upon.[14] Therefore, the Lord Buddha declared that in the exercise of
charity, the mind of an enlightened disciple ought not to depend upon
any form of phenomena. Subhuti, an enlightened disciple desirous to
confer benefits upon the whole realm of being, ought thus to be
animated in the exercise of charity.”[15]

The Lord Buddha, in declaring the “unreality of phenomena,” also
affirmed “that the whole realm of sentient life is ephemeral and
illusory.”[16]

“Subhuti, the sayings of the Lord Buddha are true, credible, and
immutable. His utterances are neither extravagant nor chimerical.
Subhuti, the plane[17] of thought to which the Lord Buddha attained,
cannot be explained in terms synonymous with reality or non-reality.”

“Subhuti, in the exercise of charity, if the mind of an enlightened
disciple is not independent of every Law, he is like unto a person
having entered impenetrable darkness, and to whom every object is
invisible. But an enlightened disciple, discharging the exercise of
charity with a mind independent of every Law, is like unto a person
having the power of vision, in the meridian glory of the sunlight, and
to whom every object is visible.”

“Subhuti, in future ages, if a good disciple, whether man or woman,
rigorously studies and observes the text of this Scripture; the Lord
Buddha, by means of his Buddhic wisdom,[18] entirely knows and
perceives that for such a disciple there is reserved a cumulative
merit, immeasurable and illimitable.”

  [1] “As one raises what has been overthrown, or reveals what has
  been hidden, or tells the way to him who has gone astray, or holds
  out an oil lamp in the dark that those who have eyes may see the
  objects, even so by the venerable Gotama in manifold ways the
  _Dhamma_ (Law) has been illustrated.”—_Dhammapada_. Max Müller.

  [2] “The chief of the priests of that establishment (the Jayendra
  convent) was a man of high moral character. He observed with the
  greatest strictness the religious rules and ordinances. He was
  possessed of the highest intelligence, and acquainted with all the
  points of a true disciple. His talents were eminent; his spiritual
  powers exalted; and his disposition affectionate.”—_The Life of
  Hiuen-Tsang_. Beal.

  [3] “They had within themselves the possession of a power by which
  all objective truth could be presented to their intellectual
  vision. They, therefore, partook of what in other systems would be
  regarded as divinity.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence Hardy.

  [4] “They have been divided into existing and non-existing, real
  and unreal, by those who had wrong notions; other laws also, of
  permanency, of being produced, of birth from something already
  produced, are wrongly assumed.”—_Saddharma-Pundarika_. H. Kern.

  [5] “But, O Bhagavat, there will not arise in them any idea of a
  self, of a being, of a living being, of a person, nor does there
  exist for them any idea of no-idea. And why? Because, the idea of
  a self is no-idea, the idea of a being is no-idea, the idea of a
  living being is no-idea, the idea of a person is no-idea. And why?
  Because, the blessed Buddhas are freed from all ideas.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  [6] ... “For birth and death
      End hence for me and those who learn my Law.”—_The
      Light of Asia_. Sir Edwin Arnold.

  [7] “As the Buddhist strove to reach a state of quietism or holy
  meditation in this world, namely the state of the perfect disciple
  or Arhat; so he looked forward to an eternal calm in the world to
  come, Nirvana. Buddha taught that this end could only be attained
  by the practice of virtue.”—_The Indian Empire_. Sir William Hunter.

  [8] “The heart of it is love, the end of it
       Is peace and consummation sweet.”—_The
       Light of Asia_. Sir Edwin Arnold.

  [9] The first of six _Paramita_—charity, morality, endurance,
  energy, contemplation, wisdom—or means of attaining to Nirvana.

  “What the Tathagata preaches as the _Prajna-Paramita_, that was
  preached also by innumerable Blessed Buddhas. Therefore it is
  called the _Prajna-Paramita_,”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  [10] “An ancient kingdom S.E. of Kos’ala, a nursery of heretical
  sects, the present Calingapatah, a town in the northern Circars
  (Lat. 18° 15 N., Long. 85° 11 E.).”—_Handbook of Chinese
  Buddhism_. Eitel.

  It is recorded that the Lord Buddha, in a previous incarnation,
  was living in a mountainous region, strictly observing the
  monastic vows. The Prince of Kalinga, a cruel and dissolute ruler,
  having organised a hunting expedition, visited the secluded
  region, accompanied by numerous ladies of his harem. Fatigued by
  the excitement of the chase, the prince fell into a deep siesta.
  Meantime, the ladies resolved upon a short excursion along a
  mountain path. Unexpectedly meeting the Lord Buddha, they were
  greatly astonished at his dignified bearing and edifying
  conversation. When the prince awoke from his siesta, he was
  irritated to find that his ladies had disappeared. Instituting an
  immediate search, he became filled with implacable rage upon
  discovering them in the society of a hermit. The incident, as
  narrated in the Chinese text, proved to be a distressing sequel to
  the modest ladies’ innocent adventure. (Compare _Chinese
  Annotations_, etc.)

  [11] “Various forms of pre-existence to the number of 500 or 550
  are recorded, in the course of which he (Buddha) marked his way up
  through as many different stages of transmigration from the lowest
  spheres of life to the highest, practising all kinds of
  asceticism, and exhibiting in every form the utmost unselfishness
  and charity.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  “I and thou, O Arjuna! have passed through many transmigrations. I
  know all these.... Even though I am unborn, of changeless essence,
  and the lord also of all which exist, yet, in presiding over
  nature (Prakrita), which is mine, I am born by my own mystic power
  (Maya). For whenever there is a relaxation of duty, ... and an
  increase of impiety, I then reproduce myself for the protection of
  the good.... I am produced in every age.”—_Bhagavad-Gita_. J.
  Cockburn Thomson.

  [12] “Explained by patient endurance of insult. The virtue of
  patience, implying constant equanimity under persecution, and
  excluding hatred and revenge.”—_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_.
  Eitel.

  “Because, O Subhuti, I remember the past five hundred births, when
  I was the _Rishi-Kshantivadin_ (preacher of endurance).”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  [13] “Let (the Bodhisattva) be concentrated in mind, attentive,
  ever firm as the peak of Mount Sumeru, and in such a state (of
  mind) look upon all laws (and things) as having the nature of
  space (as being void), permanently equal to space, without
  essence, immovable, without substantiality. These, indeed, are the
  Laws, all and for ever.”—_Saddharma-Pundarika_. H. Kern.

  [14] “Because what is believed is not believed (not to be depended
  on).”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  [15] “Hence Buddha declares that the mind of a Bodhisatwa ought
  not to rely on any formal act of charity. Subhuti, the Bodhisatwa
  ought to distribute his almsgiving for the purpose of benefiting
  the whole mass of sentient creatures, and yet Tathagata declares
  that as all dependencies are after all no real subjects of
  dependence, so also he says that all sentient creatures are not in
  reality what they are called.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  [16] Literally, “Every form of phenomena is really _not_ phenomena;
  every form of sentient life is in reality _not_ sentient life.”

  [17] The Buddhist term, _Fah_ (Law).

  [18] “The omniscience of Buddha is not the knowledge of all
  things, but the power of knowing whatever he wishes to know. In
  opposition to other teachers, who deduce their doctrines from
  certain previously assumed principles, and who may err either in
  the data, or in the deductions from them. Buddha affirms of
  himself that the complete field of truth is before him, that the
  eye of wisdom to perceive it was obtained by him when he became a
  Buddha; and whatever he desires to know he perceives perfectly,
  and at one glance, without any reasoning process.”—(Rev. D. J.
  Gogerly, in the _Ceylon Friend_. Quoted by R. Spence Hardy, in
  _Eastern Monachism_).




[Chapter 15]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good disciple,
whether man or woman, in the morning, at noonday, and at eventide,
sacrificed lives innumerable as the sands of the Ganges, and thus
without intermission throughout infinite ages; and if another
disciple, hearing this Scripture proclaimed, steadfastly believed it,
his felicity would be appreciably greater than the other. But how much
greater must be the felicity of a disciple who transcribes the sacred
text, observes its precepts, studies its Laws, and repeats the
Scripture that others may be edified thereby?”

“Subhuti, the relative importance of this Scripture may thus be
summarily stated: its truth is infinite; its worth incomparable; and
its merit interminable.”

“The Lord Buddha delivered this Scripture specifically for those who
are entered upon the path which leads to Nirvana, and for those who
are attaining to the ultimate plane of Buddhic thought.[1] If a
disciple rigorously observes, studies, and widely disseminates the
knowledge of this Scripture, the Lord Buddha entirely knows and
perceives that for such an one there will be a cumulative merit,
immeasurable, incomparable, illimitable, and inconceivable. All such
disciples will be endowed with transcendent Buddhic wisdom and
enlightenment.[2] And why? Because, Subhuti, if a disciple takes
pleasure in a narrow or exclusive form of the Law,[3] he cannot
receive with gratification[4] the instruction of this Scripture, or
delight in its study, or fervently explain it to others. Subhuti, in
whatever place there is a repository for this Scripture, the whole
realm of spiritual beings ought to adore it; and reverencing it as a
sacred shrine,[5] ceremoniously surround it, scattering profusely
sweet-scented flowers, and pure odours of fragrant incense.”[6]

  [1] Literally, for the _ta-cheng-che_—those of the great vehicle,
_i.e._, the Mahayana faith. “They taught (the Mahayana school)
that there were two methods of salvation, or, so to speak, two
ways or two vehicles—the great and the little (Maha-Yana and
Hina-Yana)—and indeed two Bodhis or forms of true knowledge which
these vehicles had to convey (there was also a middle way). The
former was for ordinary persons, the latter for beings of larger
talents and higher spiritual powers.”—_Buddhism_. Sir Monier
Williams.

  “Therefore let one always be thoughtful, and avoid (gross)
  pleasures; having abandoned them, let him cross the stream, after
  baling out the ship, and go to the other shore
  (Nirvana).”—_Dhammapada_. Max Müller.

  [2] “All these beings will equally remember the _Bodhi_ (the
  highest Buddhic knowledge), will receive it and understand
  it.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “All men being one with _ho-tan_ (Gautama?) Tathagata, arrive at
  the state of the unsurpassed, just, and enlightened
  (heart).”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  The Chinese phrase “_ho-tan-Ju-Lai_,” may mean to bear upon the
  person evidences of the Lord Buddha. Compare the statement of the
  apostle Paul, “I bear in my body evidences of the Lord Jesus
  Christ.”

  [3] Those disciples associated with the _Siao-Fah_ (little Law,
  the Hinayana school of Buddhist thought), are rather ungraciously
  referred to by a Chinese commentator as “rootless stems”; by which
  we are reminded of the Hindoo aphorism, “from the absence of a
  root within the root, all things are rootless.”

  [4] When the Lord Buddha delivered the Sutra known as the _Lotus
  of the Good Law_, it is recorded that five thousand followers
  forsook him, owing to what they regarded as a grave difficulty in
  complying with its intensely abstruse doctrines.

  [5] “In these two places also Topes (where relics of Buddha are
  deposited and safeguarded) have been built, both adorned with
  layers of all the previous substances (gold, silver, pearls,
  coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal). The kings, ministers, and
  peoples of the kingdoms vie with one another in making offerings
  at them. The trains of those who come to scatter flowers and light
  lamps at them never cease.”—_The Travels of Fa-Hien_. Legge.

  This descriptive scene concerning the endless trains of pilgrims
  who lit their lamps at the sacred shrine, may recall to our minds
  the beautifully expressed line in Sophocles’ _Œdipus Coloneus_,
  thus rendered by Professor Jebb, _The torch-lit strand_ of Eleusis.

  [6] “Then the king, with his assembled ministers and all the
  priests belonging to the capital (of Kashmir), advanced to the
  preaching hall (_Dharmasala_) and escorted him (the Master of the
  Law) onwards, being altogether something like a thousand men, with
  standards and parasols, with incense and flowers filling the
  roads. When they met (the Master of the Law) they all performed a
  humble salutation, and spread before him countless flowers as
  religious offerings.”—_The Life of Hiuen-Tsang_. Beal.




[Chapter 16]

The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good
disciple, whether man or woman, devoted to the observance and study of
this Scripture, is thereby despised, or lightly esteemed,[1] it is
because that in a previous life there had been committed some grievous
transgression, followed now by inexorable retribution.[2] But,
although in this life despised or lightly esteemed, the compensating
merit thus acquired will cause the transgression of a former life to
be fully expiated, and the disciple adequately recompensed by the
attainment of supreme spiritual wisdom.”

“Furthermore, Subhuti, numberless ages ago, I recollect that before
the advent of Dipankara Buddha, there were myriad Buddhas before whom
I served and received religious instruction, my conduct being entirely
blameless and without reproach. But, in the ages to come, if a
disciple be enabled to rigorously observe and to study the text of
this Scripture, the merit thus acquired will so far exceed the measure
of my merit in the service of those myriad Buddhas, that it cannot be
stated in terms of proportion, nor comprehended by means of any
‘analogy.’”

“Again, Subhuti, in future ages, if a good disciple, whether man or
woman, be enabled to rigorously observe and to study consecutively the
texts of this Scripture, were I to elaborate either the nature or
extent of this merit, those who heard it might become delirious, or
entirely doubt its credibility.[3] Subhuti, it is necessary to
realise, that as the meaning of this Scripture is beyond ordinary
comprehension, the scope of its fruitful rewards is equally
incomprehensible.”[4]

  [1] “Whoever reviles Buddha or his disciple, be he a wandering
  mendicant, or a householder, let one know him as an
  outcast.”—_Sutta-Nipata_. V. Fausböll.

  [2] “Whatever evil deeds these beings have done in a former birth,
  deeds that must lead to suffering, those deeds these beings, owing
  to their being overcome, after they have seen the Law, will
  destroy, and they will obtain the knowledge of Buddha.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “According to the Buddha ... all men must suffer in their own
  persons either in the present life, or in future lives, the
  consequences of their own acts.... The penalty of sin could not be
  transferred to another—it could only be borne by the sinner
  himself, just as the reward of virtue could only be enjoyed by the
  virtuous man himself.”—_Hinduism_. Sir Monier Williams.

  [3] Literally, “become as doubtful as a fox.”

  [4] “For as the method and entire meaning of this Sutra is not to
  be described or entirely conceived, so the merit and happy
  consequences of accepting it cannot be conceived or
  described.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.




[Chapter 17]

Upon that occasion, the venerable Subhuti addressed the Lord Buddha,
saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! if a good disciple, whether man or
woman, having desired to attain to supreme spiritual wisdom, what
immutable Law shall support the mind of that disciple, and bring into
subjection every inordinate desire?”[1]

The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “A good disciple, whether man or
woman, ought thus to habituate his mind:[2] ‘I must become oblivious
to every idea of sentient life; and having become oblivious to every
idea of sentient life, there is _no one_ to whom the idea of sentient
life has become oblivious.’[3] And why? Because, Subhuti, if an
enlightened disciple retains within his mind such arbitrary ideas of
sentient life as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality,
he has not attained to supreme spiritual wisdom. And why? Because,
Subhuti, there is no Law by means of which a disciple may be defined
as one having obtained supreme spiritual wisdom.”[4]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? When the
Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, was there bequeathed
to him any Law whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom?”
Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! inasmuch as I am
able to comprehend the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse, when
the Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, there was no Law
bequeathed to him whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom.”

The Lord Buddha endorsed these words, saying:[5] “Truly there is no
Law by means of which the Lord Buddha obtained supreme spiritual
wisdom. Subhuti, if there existed a Law by means of which the Lord
Buddha obtained supreme spiritual wisdom, Dipankara Buddha would not
have foretold at my initiation, ‘In future ages[6] thou shalt become
Sakyamuni Buddha.’ But, in reality, there is no Law by means of which
supreme spiritual wisdom can be obtained. Therefore, at my initiation,
Dipankara Buddha foretold concerning me, ‘In future ages, thou shalt
become Sakyamuni Buddha.’ And why? Because, in the word _Buddha_.[7]
every Law is summarily and intelligibly comprehended.” “If a disciple
affirmed that the Lord Buddha attained to supreme spiritual wisdom, it
is necessary to state that there is no Law whereby this condition of
mind can be realised. The supreme spiritual wisdom to which the Lord
Buddha attained, cannot, in its essence, be defined as real or unreal.
Thus, the Lord Buddha declared that the ordinarily accepted term, ‘the
Buddhic Law,’ is synonymous with every moral and spiritual Law.
Subhuti, what are ordinarily declared to be ‘systems of Law,’ are not
in reality ‘systems of Law,’ they are merely termed ‘systems of Law.’”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “Can you imagine a man
having a great physical body?” Subhuti replied, saying: “The Lord
Buddha, discoursing upon the proportions of a physical body, did not
maintain for these any _real_ greatness, therefore it is merely termed
‘a great body.”’

The Lord Buddha, thereupon, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Thus it is
with an enlightened disciple: if he were to expatiate after this
manner, ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life,’[8]
he could not be described as fully enlightened. And why? Because,
there is no Law whereby a disciple can be approved as ‘fully
enlightened.’[9] Therefore, the Lord Buddha declared that within the
realm of spiritual Law, there is neither an entity, a being, a living
being, nor a personality.”

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.

  “Subhuti, so it is with the Bodhisatwa, if he should say: ‘I ought
  to destroy all recollection of the countless kinds of creatures,’
  this Bodhisatwa would not be really one, but only a nominal
  one.... Hence Buddha says that all things ought to be without any
  individual distinction.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  [9] “The fountain of knowledge is the pure, bright,
  self-enlightening mind.”—_Twan-Tsi-Sin-Yao_ (_Tang Dynasty_).
  Compare Edkins’ _Chinese Buddhism_.

  [10] “A Bodhisattva, O Subhuti, who believes that all things are
  without self, he has faith, he is called a noble-minded
  Bodhisattva by the holy and fully enlightened Tathagata.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  In the _Mo-Wei-Sutra_, the ordinary concepts of an entity, a
  being, a living being, or a personality, are referred to as
  _blots_ or _stains_ upon the mind.




[Chapter 18]

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the
Lord Buddha possess the physical eye?” Subhuti assented, saying:
“Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the physical
eye.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the
Lord Buddha possess the divine or spiritual eye?” Subhuti assented,
saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the
divine or spiritual eye.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the
Lord Buddha possess the eye of wisdom?” Subhuti assented, saying:
“Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the eye of
wisdom.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the
Lord Buddha possess the eye of truth?”[1] Subhuti assented, saying:
“Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the eye of
truth.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the
Lord Buddha possess the Buddhic eye?” Subhuti assented, saying:
“Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the Buddhic
eye.”[2]

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you?
Concerning the sands of the Ganges, did the Lord Buddha declare that
these were grains of sand?” Subhuti assenting, said: “Honoured of the
Worlds! the Lord Buddha declared that these were grains of sand.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? If there
were as many rivers Ganges as there are grains of sand in the Ganges,
and if there were as many Buddhist worlds as the grains of sand in
those innumerable rivers, would these Buddhist worlds be numerous?”
Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! these Buddhist
worlds would be very numerous.”

The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Within these
innumerable worlds, every form of sentient life, with their various
mental dispositions, are entirely known to the Lord Buddha.[3] And
why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as their ‘various
mental dispositions,’ are not in reality their ‘various mental
dispositions,’ these are merely termed their ‘various mental
dispositions.’ And why? Because, Subhuti, dispositions of mind, or
modes of thought, whether relating to the past, the present, or the
future, are alike unreal and illusory.”

  [1] The Chinese _Fah-Yen_—literally, Eye of the Law.

  “The second of the three great treasures is called _Dhamma_, or in
  Singhalese, _Dharmma_. This word has various meanings, but is here
  to be understood in the sense of Truth. It is not unfrequently
  translated ‘the Law,’ but this interpretation gives an idea
  contrary to the entire genius of Buddhism. The _Dharmma_ is
  therefore emphatically the Truth.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence
  Hardy.

  [2] “Supernatural talents, which the founder of Buddhism,
  Sakyamuni, is believed to have acquired in the night before he
  became Buddha, and which every Arhat takes possession of by means
  of the fourth degree of _Dhyana_ (abstract contemplation). Most
  Chinese texts reckon six such talents, while the Singhalese know
  only five. Sometimes, however, only five are mentioned.”—_Handbook
  of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

  The physical eye has an ordinary local function. The divine or
  spiritual eye has a universal function. The eye of wisdom is
  affiliated with the Law, and attests its immutability. The eye of
  truth is exegetical and synthetical. The Buddhic eye is the
  instrument of salvation.—_Chinese Annotation_.

  [3] “Bhagavat said, as many beings as there would be in all those
  worlds, I know the manifold trains of thought of them all. And
  why? Because, what was preached as the trains of thought, the
  trains of thought indeed, O Subhuti, that was preached by
  Tathagata as no train of thoughts, and therefore it is called the
  train of thoughts. And why? Because, O Subhuti, a past thought is
  not perceived, a future thought is not perceived,, and the present
  thought is not perceived.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “Gautama himself was very early regarded as omniscient, and
  absolutely sinless. His perfect wisdom is declared by the ancient
  epithet of Samma-Sambuddha, ‘the completely enlightened one,’
  found at the commencement of every Pali text; and at the present
  day in Ceylon, the usual way in which Gautama is styled is
  _Sarwajnan-Wahanse_, ‘the venerable omniscient one.’ From his
  perfect wisdom, according to Buddhist belief, his sinlessness
  would follow as a matter of course.”—_Buddhism_. T. W. Rhys Davids.




[Chapter 19]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? If a
disciple, having obtained all the treasures of this universe,[1] were
to bestow these in the exercise of charity, would such a disciple
consequently enjoy a considerable merit?” Subhuti assenting, said:
“Honoured of the Worlds! such a disciple would consequently enjoy a
very considerable merit.”[2]

The Lord Buddha thereupon addressed Subhuti, saying: “If there were
any real or permanent quality in merit, the Lord Buddha would not have
spoken of such merit as ‘considerable.’ It is because there is neither
a tangible nor material quality in merit, that the Lord Buddha
referred to the merit of that disciple as ‘considerable.’”

  [1] The seven treasures—gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian,
  glass, and crystal.

  [2] “Because, what was preached as a stock of merit, a stock of
  merit indeed, O Subhuti, that was preached as no stock of merit by
  the Tathagata, and therefore it is called a stock of merit. If, O
  Subhuti, there existed a stock of merit, Tathagata would not have
  preached a stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed!”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  Within the meaning of the Buddhic Law, charity is purely a
  spiritual concept; and merit consequent upon fulfilling the Law of
  charity, must have a purely spiritual realisation. This is the
  sense in which the Lord Buddha referred to merit as
  “considerable.”—_Chinese Annotation_.




[Chapter 20]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the
Lord Buddha be perceived by means of his perfect material body?”[1]
Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! it is improbable
that the Lord Buddha can be perceived by means of his perfect material
body. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as a ‘perfect
material body,’ is not in reality a ‘perfect material body,’ it is
merely termed a ‘perfect material body.’”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the
Lord Buddha be perceived by means of any physical phenomena?”[2]
Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! it is improbable
that the Lord Buddha can be perceived by means of any physical
phenomena. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as
‘physical phenomena,’ are not in reality ‘physical phenomena,’ these
are merely termed ‘physical phenomena.’”

  [1] “The first of the Buddha’s bodies is the _Dharma-Kaya_ (body
  of the Law), supposed to be a kind of ethereal essence of a highly
  sublimated nature and co-extensive with space. This essence was
  believed to be eternal, and after the Buddha’s death, was
  represented by the Law or doctrine (_Dharma_) he taught.”

  “The second body is the _Sambhoga-Kaya_, ‘body of conscious
  bliss,’ which is of a less ethereal and more material nature than
  the last. Its Brahmanical analogue appears to be the intermediate
  body (belonging to departed spirits) called _Bhoga-Deha_, which is
  of an ethereal character, though composed of sufficiently gross
  (Sthula) material particles to be capable of experiencing
  happiness or misery.”

  “The third body is the _Nirmana-Kaya_, ‘body of visible shapes and
  transformations,’ that is to say, those various concrete material
  forms in which every Buddha who exists as an invisible and eternal
  essence, is manifested on the earth or elsewhere for the
  propagation of the true doctrine.”—_Buddhism_. Sir Monier Williams.

  [2] “What think you then, O Subhuti, is a Tathagata to be seen
  (known) by the shape of his visible body? Subhuti said, not
  indeed, a Tathagata is not to be seen (known) by the shape of his
  visible body. And why? Because, what was preached as the shape of
  the visible body, the shape of the visible body indeed, that was
  preached by Tathagata as no-shape of the visible body, and
  therefore it is called the shape of the visible body.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  Herein is exemplification of the surpassing excellence of
  spiritual phenomena: although outwardly possessed of the
  thirty-two primal signs of a Buddha, there were also the essential
  evidences of those marvellous spiritual perfections which
  constitute the _real_ Buddha.—_Chinese Annotation_.




[Chapter 21]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “Do not affirm that the
Lord Buddha thinks thus within himself, ‘I ought to promulgate a
system of Law or doctrine.’ Have no such irrelevant thought! And why?
Because, if a disciple affirmed that the Lord Buddha promulgated a
system of Law or doctrine, he would defame the Lord Buddha, being
manifestly unable to understand the purport of my instruction.
Subhuti, regarding the promulgation of a ‘system of Law or doctrine,’
there is in reality no ‘system of Law or doctrine’ to promulgate, it
is merely termed a ‘system of Law or doctrine.’”[1]

Upon that occasion, the virtuous and venerable Subhuti enquired of the
Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! in ages to come, will
sentient beings destined to hear this Law,[2] engender within their
minds the essential elements of faith?” The Lord Buddha replied,
saying: “Subhuti, it cannot be asserted that these are sentient
beings, or that these are not sentient beings. And why? Because,
Subhuti, regarding ‘sentient beings,’ the Lord Buddha declared that in
reality these are not ‘sentient beings,’ they are merely termed
‘sentient beings.’” [3]

  [1] “Bhagavat said: What do you think, O Subhuti, does Tathagata
  think in this wise: the Law has been taught by me? Subhuti said:
  Not indeed, O Bhagavat, does the Tathagata think in this wise: the
  Law has been taught by me. Bhagavat said: If a man should say that
  the Law has been taught by the Tathagata, he would say what is not
  true; he would slander me with untruth which he has learned. And
  why? Because, O Subhuti, it is said the teaching of the Law, the
  teaching of the Law indeed, O Subhuti, there is nothing that can
  be perceived by the name of the teaching of the Law.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  Eminent wisdom possesses the natural beauty of a pellucid stream,
  flowing swiftly between rugged mountain crags; but a mind at rest
  from ‘systems of Law or doctrine,’ is reminiscent of the
  loveliness of a waterfall, frozen into shining icicles, and
  resplendent in the light of the moon.—_Chinese Annotation_.

  [2] “He is the best of all guides of men, no other being is like
  unto him; he is like a jewel, of imperishable glory, who hears
  this Law with a pure heart.”—_The Buddha-Karita_. E. B. Cowell.

  [3] “Bhagavat said: These, O Subhuti, are neither beings nor
  no-beings. And why? Because, O Subhuti, those who were preached as
  beings, beings indeed, they were preached as no-beings by the
  Tathagata, and therefore they are called beings.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  Although these are ordinarily referred to as sentient beings,
  there are spiritual elements in their real natures, which place
  them in a category only imperfectly described by the term
  “sentient beings”; but possessing also evident material qualities,
  it might be an error to assert that these are not “sentient
  beings”; hence the declaration of the Lord Buddha, “they are
  merely termed sentient beings.”—_Chinese Annotation_.




[Chapter 22]

Subhuti enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds!
did the Lord Buddha, in attaining to supreme spiritual wisdom, obtain
nothing of a real or tangible nature?” The Lord Buddha replied,
saying: “In attaining to supreme spiritual wisdom, not a vestige of
Law or doctrine was obtained,[1] and therefore it is termed ‘supreme
spiritual wisdom.’”

  [1]“To affirm the existence of anything real or tangible in the
  nature of the Law, would be tantamount to being firmly bound by
  the Law; but to affirm that ‘not even the vestige of Law or
  doctrine was obtained,’ is the equivalent of being absolutely free
  from the Law.”—_Yen-Ping_ (a Chinese monk).

  “Buddha said: ‘True, true, Subhuti! I, as possessed of this heart,
  have come into the condition above described. This term the
  unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart, is but a mere
  name.’”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.




[Chapter 23]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “This Law is coherent and
indivisible,[1] it is neither ‘above’ nor ‘below,’[2] therefore it is
termed ‘supreme spiritual wisdom.’ It excludes such arbitrary ideas as
an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality; but includes
every Law pertaining to the cultivation of goodness.[3] Subhuti, what
were referred to as ‘Laws pertaining to goodness,’ these the Lord
Buddha declared are not in reality ‘Laws pertaining to goodness,’ they
are merely termed ‘Laws pertaining to goodness.’”[4]

[1] The Abbé Dubois in his valuable book, _Hindu Manners, Customs,
and Ceremonies_, carefully observes that amongst the attributes
which the Jains ascribe to the Supreme Being, the first is that He
is “one” and “indivisible”; and this observation of the learned
Abbé becomes quite illuminating, when we remember the intimate
relationship which has existed between the Jains and the Law of
Buddha.

  [2] “Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,
       Which nothing with existence links, as sages searching find.
       The cord, transversely stretched, that spanned this universal
         frame,
       Was it beneath? was it above? can any sage proclaim?”

  “Progress of the Vedic religion towards abstract conceptions of
  the Deity.” J. Muir (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_).

  [3] “Free from self, free from life, free from personality, that
  highest perfect knowledge is always the same, and thus known with
  all good things. And why? Because, what was preached as good
  things, good things, indeed, O Subhuti, they were preached by the
  Tathagata as no-things, and therefore are they called good
  things.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “This condition which is named the unsurpassed, just, and
  enlightened (heart), consists in nothing more than the exclusion
  of all individual distinctions. A man who practices all the rules
  of virtuous conduct will forthwith attain this condition. But,
  Subhuti, when we speak of rules of virtuous conduct, Tathagata
  declares that these rules are after all no real and lasting rules;
  the term is but a mere name,”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  [4] The six Paramita—charity, morality, endurance, energy,
  contemplation, wisdom, comprehended under the term “Laws
  pertaining to goodness,” merely constitute an open door by means
  of which disciples are ushered into the presence of
  truth.—_Chinese Annotation_.




[Chapter 24]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If within this universe of
universes, the seven treasures[1] were heaped together, forming as
many great elevations as there are Sumerus, prince of mountains, and
these treasures bestowed entirely in the exercise of charity; and if a
disciple were to select a stanza of this Scripture, rigorously observe
it, and diligently explain it to others, the merit[2] thus obtained
would so far exceed the former excellence, that it cannot be stated in
terms of proportion, nor comprehended by any analogy.”[3]

  [1] Gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal.

  [2] “And whosoever in days when the good Law is abolished, abandons
  love for his own body and life, and proclaims day and night these
  good words—pre-eminent is his merit from this.”

  “He obtains a glorious and endless splendour who teaches even one
  word thereof; he will not miss one consonant nor the meaning who
  gives this Sutra to others.”

  “Therefore let those who are endowed with lofty ambitions, always
  hear this Law which causes transcendent merit; let them hear it
  and gladly welcome it and lay it up in their minds and continually
  worship the three jewels (the Buddha, the Law, and the assembly of
  monks) with faith.”—_Buddha-Karita_. E. B. Cowell.

  [3] “I declare that his happiness and consequent merit would be
  incomparably greater than that of the other, so much so, that no
  number could express the excess of one over the
  other.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.




[Chapter 25]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? You
disciples, do not affirm that the Lord Buddha reflects thus within
himself, ‘I bring salvation to every living being.’ Subhuti, entertain
no such delusive thought! And why? Because, in reality there are no
living beings to whom the Lord Buddha can bring salvation.[1] If there
were living beings to whom the Lord Buddha could bring salvation, the
Lord Buddha would necessarily assume the reality of such arbitrary
concepts as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality.
Subhuti, what the Lord Buddha adverted to as an entity, is not in
reality an entity; it is only understood to be an entity, and believed
in as such, by the common, uneducated people. Subhuti, what are
ordinarily referred to as the ‘common, uneducated people,’ these the
Lord Buddha declared to be not merely ‘common, uneducated people.’”[2]

  [1] As the primordial human mind is void and quiescent, so also is
  the wisdom of this Sutra full and overflowing. Therefore, hearing
  the text of this Sutra expounded, and meditating upon its truth,
  there are formed spontaneously within the minds of those living
  beings, all the essential elements of salvation. As these mature
  and develop into a Law of spiritual liberty, the Lord Buddha
  obviously relinquishes every duty consonant with the idea of a
  delegated Saviour.—_Chinese Annotation_.

  “What do you think then, O Subhuti, does a Tathagata think in this
  wise: beings have been delivered by me? You should not think so.
  And why? Because, there is no being that has been delivered by the
  Tathagata. And if there were a being, O Subhuti, that had been
  delivered by the Tathagata, then Tathagata would believe in a
  self, a being, a living being, and a person. And what is called a
  belief in self, O Subhuti, that is preached as a no-belief by the
  Tathagata. And this is learned by children and ignorant persons,
  and they who were preached as children and ignorant persons, O
  Subhuti, were preached as no-persons by the Tathagata, and
  therefore they are called children and ignorant persons.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  [2] “Difference there is in beings endowed with bodies, but
  amongst men this is not the case, the difference amongst men is
  nominal only.”—_Dhammapada_. Max Müller.

  “Worldly profit is fleeting and perishable, religious (holy) profit
  is eternal and inexhaustible; a man though a king is full of
  trouble, a common man who is holy, has everlasting
  rest.”—_Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King_. Beal.




[Chapter 26]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “Can the Lord Buddha be
perceived by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions?”[1] Subhuti
replied, saying: “Even so,[2] the Lord Buddha can be perceived by
means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions.”

The Lord Buddha, continuing, said unto Subhuti: “If by means of his
thirty-two bodily distinctions it were possible to perceive the Lord
Buddha, then the Lord Buddha would merely resemble one of the great
wheel-turning kings.”[3]

Subhuti thereupon addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the
Worlds! According as I am able to interpret the Lord Buddha’s
instruction, it is improbable that the Lord Buddha may be perceived by
means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions.”

Thereafter, the “Honoured of the Worlds” delivered this sublime Gatha:

  “I am not to be perceived by means of any visible form,
   Nor sought after by means of any audible sound;
   Whosoever walks in the way of iniquity,
   Cannot perceive the blessedness of the Lord Buddha.”[4]

  [1] “This probably refers to the auspicious signs discovered in
  Sakyamuni at his birth, which left it open whether he would become
  a king or a Buddha.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  [2] Subhuti failed to apprehend the idea
  as expressed by the Lord Buddha, and
  inadvertently replied, saying: “Even so, Even
  so.”—_Chinese Annotation_.

  [3] “The portends troubled, till his dream readers
       Augured a prince of earthly dominance,
       A Chakravartin, such as rise to rule
       Once in a thousand years.”—_The
       Light of Asia_. Sir Edwin Arnold.

  “A king who rules the world, and causes the wheel of doctrine
  everywhere to revolve. The great Asoka (King of Central India, who
  reigned near Patna, about 150–200 years after the demise of
  Buddha) was a ‘wheel king.’ The word is Chakravarti in Sanscrit,
  from Chakra ‘wheel,’ the symbol of activity, whether of Buddha in
  preaching, or of kings like Asoka in ruling.”—_Chinese Buddhism_.
  Edkins.

  “Those of the Bikkhus who carry in their hearts the words of
  excellent knowledge that is immeasurable, who are free from bonds,
  whose fame and power and glory no man can weigh, who (in imitation
  of their master) keep the royal chariot wheel of the kingdom of
  righteousness rolling on, who have reached perfection in
  knowledge.”—_Questions of King Milinda_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

  [4] The following Gatha, translated by Max Müller, and concluding
  the twenty-sixth section of _The Vagrakkhedika_, is not
  incorporated in the Chinese text.

  “A Buddha is to be seen (known) from the Law;
   For the Lords (Buddha) have the Law-Body;
   And the nature of the Law cannot be understood,
   Nor can it be made to be understood.”




[Chapter 27]

The Lord Buddha said unto Subhuti: “If you think thus within yourself
‘The Lord Buddha did not, by means of his perfect bodily distinctions,
obtain supreme spiritual wisdom,’ Subhuti, have no such deceptive
thought! Or if you think thus within yourself, ‘In obtaining supreme
spiritual wisdom, the Lord Buddha declared the abrogation of every
Law,’ Subhuti, have no such delusive thought! And why? Because, those
disciples who obtain supreme spiritual wisdom, neither affirm the
abrogation of any Law, nor the destruction of any distinctive quality
of phenomena.”[1]


  [1] “What do you think then, O Subhuti, has the highest perfect
  knowledge been known by the Tathagata by the possession of signs?
  You should not think so, O Subhuti. And why? Because, the highest
  perfect knowledge will not be known by the Tathagata through the
  possession of signs. Nor should anybody, O Subhuti, say to you
  that the destruction or annihilation of anything is proclaimed by
  those who have entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “Subhuti, if you should think thus, ‘Tathagata, by means of his
  personal distinctions has attained to the unsurpassable
  condition,’ you would be wrong.... But, Subhuti, do not come to
  such an opinion as this, viz., ‘that what is called the
  unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart is nothing more than the
  mere neglect and destruction of all rules and conditions.’ Think
  not so, for why? the exhibition of this perfect and unsurpassed
  heart is not the consequence of having disregarded and destroyed
  all rules, in the active discharge of duty.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  Concerning the phenomena of Law, if these were abrogated and
  entirely discarded, where would the mind receive its guiding
  light, or the human spirit its power of discernment? To attempt a
  process of reasoning apart from such necessary postulates as the
  distinctive qualities of Law and phenomena, would prove to be as
  futile as an effort to cross a river without a raft, and would
  inevitably end in oblivion.—_Chinese Annotation_.




[Chapter 28]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If an enlightened
disciple, in the exercise of charity, bestowed as considerable an
amount of the seven treasures as might fill worlds numerous as the
sands of the Ganges; and if a disciple, realising that within the
meaning and purport of the Law, there is no abstract individual
existence,[1] perfects himself in the virtue of endurance, this latter
disciple will have a cumulative merit, relatively greater than the
other. And why? Because, enlightened disciples are entirely unaffected
by considerations of ‘reward or merit.’”

Subhuti thereupon enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of
the Worlds! in what respect are enlightened disciples unaffected by
considerations of ‘reward or merit’?” The Lord Buddha replied, saying:
“Enlightened disciples do not aspire, in a spirit of covetousness, to
rewards commensurate with their merit; therefore, I declare that they
are entirely unaffected by considerations of ‘reward or merit.’”[2]

  [1] “And if a Bodhisattva acquired endurance in selfless and
  uncreated things, then he would enjoy a larger stock of merit,
  immeasurable and innumerable.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

    “Nothing in this world is single,
     All things by a law divine
     In one another’s being mingle.”—Shelley.

  [2] “Subhuti asked Buddha: World-honoured One! what is this you
  say, that Bodhisatwas cannot be said to appreciate reward?
  ‘Subhuti, the reward which a Bodhisatwa enjoys ought to be
  connected with no covetous desire; this is what I mean by
  non-appreciation of reward.’”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  This passage, concluding the twenty-eighth section of _The Diamond
  Sutra_, not being incorporated in the translation of _The
  Vagrakkhedika_ by Max Müller, may be suggestive of a noteworthy
  interpolation in the Chinese text, or is it a probable lacuna in
  the Sanscrit MSS.?




[Chapter 29]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple asserts that
the Lord Buddha comes or goes, sits or reclines, obviously he has not
understood the meaning of my discourse. And why? Because, the idea
‘Buddha’ implies neither coming from anywhere, nor going to anywhere,
and hence the synonym ‘Buddha!’”[1]

  [1] “And why? Because the word Tathagata means one who does not go
  to anywhere, and does not come from anywhere, and therefore he is
  called the Tathagata (truly come), holy and fully
  enlightened.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “That which is Tathagata has no where whence to come, and no where
  whither he can go, and is therefore named
  Tathagata.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  In the heavens above, we cannot discern a place whence he came,
  nor whither he may return. In his holy, immaculate, and
  marvellously endowed body, were manifested plenary spiritual
  powers.—_Hua-Yen-Sutra_.

  Like drifting clouds, like the waning moon, like ships that sail
  the ocean, like shores that are washed away—these are symbolic of
  endless change. But the blessed Buddha, in his essential, absolute
  nature, is changeless and everlasting.—_Yuen-Chioh-Sutra_.

  “If the pool be of pure water, the shining moon is reflected upon
  its limpid surface; and yet we cannot affirm that the moon really
  came from anywhere, or that it is actually in the pool. If the
  pool be disturbed and the dense mud raised, immediately the bright
  reflection becomes obscured; and yet we dare not affirm that the
  moon has really gone to anywhere, or that it has actually departed
  from the pool. It is entirely a question of the purity or impurity
  of the water, and has no reasonable affinity with theories
  concerning the existence or non-existence of the moon. So, also,
  with the true concept of Buddha; only those whose minds are
  immaculate in their pristine purity, can ever realise his
  transcendent blessedness.”—_Chang-Shui_ (a Chinese monk).




[Chapter 30]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good disciple,
whether man or woman, were to take infinite worlds and ‘reduce’ them
to minute particles of dust; what think you, would the aggregate of
all those particles of dust be great?” Subhuti replied, saying:
“Honoured of the Worlds! the aggregate of all those particles of dust
would be exceedingly great. And why? Because, if all those were in
reality ‘minute particles of dust,’ the Lord Buddha would not have
declared them to be ‘minute particles of dust.’ And why? Because, the
Lord Buddha, discoursing upon ‘minute particles of dust,’ declared
that in reality those are not ‘minute particles of dust,’ they are
merely termed ‘minute particles of dust.’”[1]

Subhuti continuing, addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of
the Worlds! what the Lord Buddha discoursed upon as ‘infinite worlds,’
these are not in reality ‘infinite worlds,’ they are merely termed
‘infinite worlds.’ And why? Because, if these were in reality
‘infinite worlds,’ there would of necessity be unity and eternity of
matter. But the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon the ‘unity and eternity
of matter,’ declared that there is neither ‘unity’ nor ‘eternity of
matter,’ therefore it is merely termed ‘unity and eternity of matter.’”

The Lord Buddha thereupon declared unto Subhuti, “Belief in the unity
or eternity of matter is incomprehensible;[2] and only common,
worldly-minded people, for purely materialistic reasons, covet this
hypothesis.”

  [1] These minute particles of dust, like the great worlds which
  are composed of them, are deceptive forms of natural phenomena,
  equally unreal and evanescent. The minute particles which we
  observe floating in space, are carried hither and thither by
  atmospheric currents, and eventually pass into regions beyond our
  cognisance. So, also, with the immense worlds revolving in space;
  their ever-recurring phenomena of light and darkness, heat and
  cold, changing seasons, transient scenes of mountain and valley,
  river and plain. These things indicate that all are ephemeral, and
  entirely subject to irrevocable laws of change and decay.—_Chinese
  Annotation_.

  “Because, what was preached as a mass of many atoms by the
  Tathagata, that was preached as no-mass of atoms by the Tathagata,
  and therefore it is called ‘a mass of many atoms.’”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “What then, if Buddha speaks of all these particles, then they are
  not really what they are called, it is but a mere name,
  World-Honoured One!”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  [2] “Bhagavat said, and a belief in matter itself, O Subhuti, is
  inestimable and inexpressible; it is neither a thing nor a
  no-thing, and this is known by children and ignorant
  persons.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “Annihilation of matter is inconceivable, but annihilation of all
  its forms and qualities is conceivable.” _The World as Idea and
  Will_. Schopenhauer.

  If the worlds were real and permanent, they would always retain
  their original forms and primordial natures, and be subject
  neither to the influence of time nor the Law of change.—_Chinese
  Annotation_.

  “Subhuti, this characteristic of the one ‘harmonious principle,’
  is a thing which cannot be spoken of in words; it is only the vain
  philosophy of the world, which has grasped the idea of explaining
  this.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

  This noteworthy statement seems to militate against some opinions
  expressed in Europe regarding the Buddhist theory of “matter.”
  According to our Chinese text, it does not appear that Sakyamuni
  Buddha categorically denied the “presence” or “existence” of
  matter in the universe, but endeavoured rather to indicate the
  diversified and evanescent nature of its “forms” and “qualities.”
  Many devout Buddhists regard even the smallest particle of dust as
  containing a mysterious and elusive element—probably what we are
  disposed to term “a spiritual element,” or “principle of life”—and
  these are not unreasonably regarded as being altogether
  inscrutable, and therefore “incomprehensible.”




[Chapter 31]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple affirmed
that the Lord Buddha enunciated a belief[1] that the mind can
comprehend the idea of an entity, a being, a living being, or a
personality; what think you, Subhuti, would that disciple be
interpreting aright the meaning of my discourse?” Subhuti replied,
saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! that disciple would not be
interpreting aright the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse. And
why? Because, Honoured of the Worlds! discoursing upon comprehending
such ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality,
it was declared that these are entirely unreal and illusive, and
therefore they are merely termed an entity, a being, a living being,
and a personality.”

The Lord Buddha thereafter addressed Subhuti, saying:[2] “Those who
aspire to the attainment of supreme spiritual wisdom ought thus to
know, believe in, and interpret phenomena. They ought to eliminate
from their minds every tangible evidence of every visible object.
Subhuti, concerning ‘visible objects,’ the Lord Buddha declared that
these are not really ‘visible objects’ they are merely termed ‘visible
objects.’”

  [1] “Because, O Subhuti, if a man were to say that belief in self,
  belief in a being, belief in life, belief in personality, had been
  preached by the Tathagata, would he be speaking truly? Subhuti
  said, not indeed, Bhagavat, he would not be speaking truly. And
  why? Because, what was preached by the Tathagata as a belief in
  self, that was preached as no-belief, therefore it is called
  belief in self.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  In these words are exemplified another profound aspect of Buddhist
  doctrine. Apart from interesting questions concerning the
  existence of an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality,
  another problem seems to arise regarding our ability to entirely
  perceive or “comprehend” those admitted abstract ideas. If we
  interpret aright the Buddhist doctrine, there are variously
  compounded within those abstract ideas, so many elusive spiritual
  elements, that the human mind is incapable of resolving them by
  any process of reasoning. In short—an entity, a being, a living
  being, or a personality, represents to the Buddhist mind, much
  more than it attempts to express in terms of philosophy.

  [2] “Thus then, O Subhuti, are all things to be perceived, to be
  looked upon, and to be believed by one who has entered upon the
  path of the Bodhisattvas. And in this wise are they to be
  perceived, to be looked upon, and to be believed, neither in the
  idea of a thing, nor in the idea of a no-thing? And why? Because
  by saying: the idea of a thing, the idea of a thing indeed, it has
  been preached by the Tathagata as the no-idea of a thing.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  “Subhuti, the persons who aspire to the perfectly enlightened
  heart, ought to know accordingly that this is true with respect to
  all things, and thus prevent the exhibition of any characteristics
  on any point whatever. Subhuti, these very characteristics of
  which we speak are after all no characteristics, but a mere
  name.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.




[Chapter 32]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple, having
immeasurable spheres filled with the seven treasures,[1] bestowed
these in the exercise of charity; and if a disciple, whether man or
woman, having aspired to supreme spiritual wisdom, selected from this
Scripture a stanza comprising four lines, then rigorously observed it,
studied it, and diligently explained it to others; the cumulative
merit of such a disciple would be relatively greater than the other.”

“In what attitude of mind should it be diligently explained to
others?[2] Not assuming the permanency or the reality of earthly
phenomena, but in the conscious blessedness of a mind at perfect
rest.[3] And why? Because, the phenomena of life may be likened unto a
dream, a phantasm, a bubble,[4] a shadow, the glistening dew, or
lightning flash, and thus they ought to be contemplated.”

When the Lord Buddha concluded his enunciation of this Scripture,[5]
the venerable Subhuti, the monks,[6] nuns, lay-brethren and sisters,
all mortals, and the whole realm of spiritual beings, rejoiced
exceedingly, and consecrated to its practice, they received it and
departed.

  [1] Gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal.

  [2] “The wise man, the preacher, who wishes to expound this Sutra,
  must absolutely renounce falsehood, pride, calumny, and envy....
  He is always sincere, mild, forbearing; ... he must feel affection
  for all beings who are striving for enlightenment ... they are
  greatly perverted in their minds, those beings who do not hear,
  nor perceive ... the mystery of the Tathagata. Nevertheless will I,
  who have attained this supreme, perfect knowledge, powerfully bend
  to it the mind of every one (Burnouf, _par la force de mes
  facultés surnaturelles_), whatever may be the position he
  occupies, and bring about that he accepts, understands, and
  arrives at full ripeness.”—_Saddharma-Pundarika_. H. Kern.

  [3] “By contemplation are obtained those conditions through which
  is eventually gained that supreme calm, undecaying, immortal
  state, which is so hard to be reached.”—_Buddha-Karita_. E. B.
  Cowell.

  “And in what way can the disciple ‘proclaim them generally?’
  Simply by relying on no conditions or distinctions whatever; thus
  he will act without agitation or excitement. Wherefore the
  conclusion is this—that all things which admit of definition are
  as a dream, a phantom, a bubble, a shadow, as the dew and
  lightning flash. They ought to be regarded thus.”—_Kin-Kong-King_.
  Beal.

  “And how should he explain it? As in the sky: stars, darkness, a
  lamp, a phantom, dew, a bubble, a dream, a flash of lightning, and
  a cloud—thus should we look upon the world (all that was
  made).”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  [4] “_Fa-Hien_ stayed at the dragon Vihara till after the summer
  retreat, and then, travelling to the south-east for seven Yojanas,
  he arrived at the city of Kanyakubja, lying along the Ganges....
  At a distance from the city of six or seven _Le_, on the west, on
  the northern bank of the Ganges, is a place where Buddha preached
  the Law to his disciples. It has been handed down that his
  subjects of discourse were such as ‘The bitterness and vanity (of
  life), as impermanent and uncertain,’ and that ‘The body is as a
  “bubble” or foam on the water.’”—_Travels of Fa-Hien_. Legge.

  [5] “Thus spake the Bhagavat enraptured; the elder Subhuti, and
  the friars, nuns, the faithful lay men and women, and the
  Bodhisattvas also, and the whole world of gods, men, evil spirits
  and fairies, praised the preaching of the Bhagavat.”—_The
  Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

  [6] “The vow of ‘obedience’ was never taken by the Buddhist monks
  and nuns, and in this it may be noticed a fundamental difference
  between them and monastic orders in the West: mental culture, not
  mental death, was the aim set before the Buddhist ascetic by the
  founder of his faith.”—_Buddhism_. T. W. Rhys Davids.


  “_As when men, travelling, feel a glorious perfume sweet
   Pervading all the country side, and gladdening them, infer at once,
  ‘Surely ’tis giant forest trees are flowering now!’
   So, conscious of this perfume sweet of righteousness
   That now pervades the earth and heavens, they may infer:
  ‘A Buddha, infinitely great, must once have lived!’_”




                               INDEX


  Alexandria, 20

  Alms-bowl, 3, 5

  Almsgiving, 2

  Anagami, 31, 32

  Ananda, 11, 12

  Anepidu, 51

  Anniversaries, 37

  Anta-Kalpas, 42

  Anuradhapura, 51

  Anurogrammum, 51

  Apatti, 28

  Aranyaka, 35, 36, 37

  Arhat, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 55, 78

  Ari-Hat, 32

  Arjuna, 57

  Arnold (Sir Edwin), 11, 18, 21, 29, 40, 42, 48, 50, 55, 94

  Arya, 31, 32

  Aryagiti, 26

  Arya-Marga, 32

  Ascetic, 21

  Asiatic, 89

  Asoka, 94, 95

  Asurus, 44

  Asvaghocha, 9, 74

  Atman, 51

  Atoms, 48

  Attavada, 12

  _αὐτοδιδακτος_, 38

  _Awakening of Faith_, 9, 74


  _Bacche (The)_, 20

  Bana, 35, 45, 51

  Beal, 7, 10, 15, 24, 26, 28, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49, 50, etc.

  Benares, 2

  Benefactions, 3

  _Bhagavad-Gita_, 8, 23, 34, 58, 68

  Bhagavat, 23, 26, 38, 47, 54, 80, 85, 87, 103, 105, 110

  Bhoga-Deha, 83

  Bikkhus, 95

  Bikshu, 7

  Bikshuni, 7

  Bodhi, 6, 35, 62, 63

  Bodhisattva, 6, 38, 39, 58, 59, 69, 75, 76, 97, 98, 99, 106, 110

  Bo-Tree, 70, 71

  Brahman, 69

  Brahmanas, 1

  Brahmanical, 83

  Brahmanism, 17

  Buddha, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, etc.

  _Buddha-Karita_, 86, 91, 109

  Buddhaphalam, 32

  Buddhas, 7, 11, 25, 28

  Buddhaship, 6, 15, 32

  Buddhic, 27

  Buddhism, 13, 14, 16, 19, 41, 49, 63, 72, 80, 83, 110

  Burnouf, 108


  Calingapatah, 56

  Calvary, 71

  Ceylon, 80

  _Ceylon Friend_, 61

  Chakra, 95

  Chakravartin, 94, 95

  Chang-Ming, 20

  Chang-Shui, 101

  Chiliocosms, 43, 49

  China, 5, 19

  _Chinese Buddhism_, 2, 7, 9, 37, 39, 40, 69

  Chioh-Hsien, 11

  Christ, 8, 23, 40, 63, 73

  Christians, 74

  Chuan-Fah-Luen, 14

  Chuang-Yen, 39

  Circars, 56

  Coral, 25, 43, 64, 81, 107

  Cornelian, 25, 43, 64, 81, 107

  Cowell, E. B., 86, 91, 109

  Creed, 47

  Cross, 71

  Crystal, 25, 43, 64, 81, 107


  Danataka Aranyaka, 35

  Davids, T. W. Rhys, 13, 29, 31, 80, 95, 110

  Davis, Sir John Francis, 19

  Dewa-Loka, 30

  Devas, 31

  Dhamma, 27, 34, 44, 52

  _Dhammapada_, 34, 44, 52, 63, 93

  Dhammo, 78

  Dharma, 30, 35, 83

  Dharma Aranyaka, 35

  Dharma-Kaya, 17, 82

  Dharmasala, 65

  Dharmma, 27

  _Diamond Sutra, The_, 37, 47

  Dipankara Buddha, 37, 38, 67, 71, 72, 73

  Djatakas, 2

  Dubois (the Abbé), 88


  _Eastern Monachism_, 4, 5, 16, 21, 27, 30, 35, 36, 38, 46, 51, 53,
      61, 78

  Edkins, 2, 7, 9, 39, 40, 69

  Egypt, 20

  Eitel, 1, 2, 6, 11, 13, 26, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 49, 56, 57, 58, 79

  Elburz, 40

  Eleusis, 65

  _Enlightenment of Ananda_, 12

  Euripides, 20

  Europe, 20, 104


  Fa-Hien, 2, 65, 109

  Fah, 14, 60

  Fah-Ai, 14

  Fah-Lien, 14

  Fah-Luen, 14

  Fah-Men, 14

  Fah-Ming, 14

  Fah-Pao, 14

  Fah-Shen, 16

  Fah-Wang, 14

  Fah-Yen, 78

  Fairies, 110

  Faith, 3, 27

  Fausböll, 23, 27

  Fei-Fuh-Fah, 28

  _Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King_, 93

  Fox, 67

  Fuh-Ko, 32

  Fuh-Tu, 39


  Gandhara, 5

  Ganges, 2, 42, 51, 61, 79, 98, 109

  Gatha, 26, 95

  Gautama, 63, 80

  German, 20

  Getæ, 69

  Girdle, 3

  Glass, 25, 43, 64, 81, 107

  God, 21, 74

  Gods, 110

  Gogerly, Rev. D. J., 61

  Gold, 25, 43, 64, 81, 107

  Gondophares, 9

  Gotama, 52

  Greek, 20

  Gunga, 42

  Hardy, Spence, 4, 16, 21, 27, 30, 35, 36, 38, 46, 51, 53, 61, 78

  Hastagiri, 48

  Hero, 50

  Hinayana, 64

  Hindoo, 64

  _Hindu Manners, Customs, and Ceremonies_, 88

  _Hinduism_, 66

  Hiuen-Tsang, 2, 50, 53, 65

  Ho-Ru-To-Lo-San-Mao-San-Pu-Ti, 7

  Ho-Tan-Ju-Lai, 63

  _Hua-Yen-Sutra_, 100

  Hunter, Sir William, 55

  Huxley, 10


  Icicles, 86

  _Idea and Will, The World as_, 48, 103

  Immortality, 44

  Immortals, 2

  India, 7, 20

  _Indian Empire, The_, 55

  Indo-Scythic, 9

  I-Wu-Wei-Fah, 25


  Jains, 88

  Jayendra, 53

  Jesus, 18

  Jeta, 2, 4

  Jewels, 91


  Kalinga, 56

  Kaliradja, 56

  Kalpa, 45

  Kanyakubja, 109

  Kashaya, 50

  Kashmir, 65

  Kasina, 36

  Kern, H., 39, 58, 108

  Khaloupas’ Waddhaktinka, 4

  Kin-Kong-King, 7, 10, 15, 24, 26, 28, 36, 39, 45, 49, 59, etc.

  Kingdoms, 38, 40, 76

  Kos’ala, 56

  Kshanti, 58

  Kshantivadin, 58

  Kwa-Yuh, 33


  Lao-Tsz, 28

  _Lay Sermons_, 10

  Le, 109

  Legge, 65, 109

  _Light of Asia (The)_, 11, 18, 21, 29, 34, 40, 42, 48, 50, 55, 94,
      etc.

  _Lotus of the Good Law_, 64

  Love, 73


  Ma-Ming, 9

  Madhyades’a, 5

  Mahasattvas, 7

  Mahayana, 62

  Mantras, 1

  Matanga, 35

  Materialist, 48

  Maya, 50, 58

  Meitreya (Buddha), 5

  _Memoirs sur les Contrées Occidentales_, 2

  Mencius, 33

  Mendicant, 4

  Metamorphosis, 9

  Mieh-Tu, 10

  Milinda, 4, 29, 31, 33, 36, 95

  Milton, 71

  Mo-Ho-Sa, 7

  _Mo-Wei-Sutra_, 77

  Muir (J.), 89

  Müller (Max), 1, 25, 26, 30, 34, 39, 42, 44, 47, 52, 54, etc.

  Murray (Gilbert), 20

  Myak, 7


  Nairanjara, 70

  Narakas, 46

  Needle, 3

  Nibbana, 23

  Nihilism, 69

  Nimitta, 36

  Nirmanakaya, 17, 83

  Nirvana, 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 44, 46, 55,
      62, 63, 69

  Non-individuality, 76

  Nuttara, 7


  _Œdipus Coloneus_, 65

  O-siu-lo, 44


  Padumas, 48

  Pali, 80

  Paramita, 13, 55, 56, 90

  Patna, 94

  Path, 18

  Paul (The Apostle), 8, 23

  Pearls, 25, 43, 64, 81, 108

  Persia, 5

  Pilgrims, 2

  Po-Ro-Po-Lo-Mi, 8

  Prajna-Paramita, 9

  Prakrita, 57

  Prasenajit, 2

  Priests, 4

  Ptolemy, 51

  Puh-Seng, 32

  Pundarikas, 48

  Pu-sa, 6


  _Questions of King Milinda_, 4, 29, 31 33, 36, 95


  Raft, 23

  Rahat, 20

  Rahatship, 35

  Ran-Teng-Fuh, 37

  Razor, 3

  Regents, 40

  Reincarnation, 30, 31

  _Relation des Royaumes Buddhiques_, 5

  Remusat, 5

  Ren, 44

  Richard (Dr), 74

  Righteousness, 33

  Rishi, 58

  Robe, 3, 50

  _Saddharma-Pundarika_, 39, 54, 58, 108

  Sagara, 5

  Sakkayaditthi, 12

  Sakridagami, 30, 31

  Sakyamuni, 2, 5, 9, 37, 72, 73, 78, 94, 104

  Salvation, 10, 92, 93

  Samadhi, 36

  Sambhoga-Kaya, 83

  Sambodhi, 7

  Samma-Sambuddha, 80

  Sangha, 44

  San-Pao, 17

  Sanscrit, 1, 7, 95, 99

  Sarvanikchepa, 42

  Sarwajnan-Wahanse, 80

  Sasa, 45

  Sattva, 6

  Saviour, 92

  Schelling, 20

  Schopenhauer, 48, 103

  Scripture, 9, 18, 19, 20, 26, 43, 45, etc.

  Scrotapatti, 28, 29

  Seh-Shen, 16

  Selfhood, 42

  Sewet, 51

  Shah-Tseh, 32

  Shanghai, 74

  Shelley, 98

  Shen-Ming, 51

  Shore, 23, 47

  Shravasti, 2, 4, 6

  Siao-Fah, 64

  Signs, 50

  Silver, 25, 43, 64, 107

  Singhalese, 78

  Siva, 17

  Sivaism, 17

  Sophocles, 65

  Spawn, 9

  Spirits, 44, 110

  Spiritualist, 48

  Sramana, 36

  Srota, 28

  S’ruti, 1

  Sthula, 83

  Subhuti, 6, 8, 13, etc.

  Sugata, 26

  Sujata, 70

  Sumeru, 40, 42, 58

  Sutana, 2

  Sutra, 1, 8, 27, 45, 47, 68, 77, 91, 92, 108

  _Sutta-Nipata_, 23, 27, 66

  Swastika, 50

  Syria, 20

  Sz-ti, 32


  Ta-Cheng-Che, 62

  Talents, 78

  Tang (dynasty), 76

  Ta-Pi-Ku, 3

  Tathagata, 25, 26, 38, 47, 49, 59, 63, 72, etc.

  Teacher, 3

  Temples, 39

  Tennyson, 23

  Thomson (J. Cockburn), 8, 23, 34, 58, 68

  Ti-Ching, 11

  Tien, 44

  Tien-Kong, 30

  Ting-Kwang-Fuh, 37

  Topes, 64

  Treasures, 25, 43, 64, 81, 90, 107

  Trimurti, 17

  Triratna, 17

  Truth, 27, 78, 79

  Tsz-Ran-Choih-Sing, 25

  Tuchita, 5

  _Twan-Tsi-Sin-Yao_, 76


  Upadanas, 13


  _Vagrakkhedika (The)_, 25, 26, 28, 30, 39, 42, 45, 47, etc.

  Vais’ali, 5

  Vedas, 1

  Vedic, 89

  Vice, 3

  Vihara, 109

  Virtue, 3

  Vows, 19


  Waddhaktinka, 4

  Waterfall, 86

  Water-strainer, 3

  West, 110

  Wiharas, 51

  Williams (Sir Monier), 49, 63, 66, 83

  Wisdom, 3, 7, 8, 47

  Wou-Wei, 24

  Wu-Wei, Fah, 28


  Yen-Ping, 88

  Yogi, 20

  Yojanas, 109

  _Yuen-Chioh-Sutra_, 100




                        TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES.


This is an English translation of the Chinese version available
at: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.319510013625058.

The original printed text scans can be found
at: https://archive.org/details/cu31924022914588.

Textual notes:

  1. Chapter labels have been added in braces (e.g. [Chapter 1]).

  2. Footnotes have been moved to the end of each chapter.

  3. Text contained within underscores is italicised.

  4. Word spellings have been standardized. Words within direct
     quotations by other authors have been left unchanged.

  5. Some page numbers in the index were corrected.