INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . ix Carter 1. Introductory . . . . : . I » 2. Skilfulness . +... . . . . . 30 ” 3. A Parable . . . . . . . 60 » 4. Disposition . . . . . . . 98 ” 5. On Plants . . . . . 118 » 6. Announcement of Future Destiny . . . 142 » 7% Ancient Devotion . 153 ” 8. Announcement of the Future Destiny of the ' Five Hundred Monks. . . . Igt
» 9. Announcement of the Future Destiny of Ananda, R4hula, and the Two Thousand
Monks . . . . . . . 205 » 10. The Preacher. . . . . . 213 » 11. Apparition of a StQpa . . . . . 224 » 12 Exertion . . . . . . . 255 » 13. Peaceful Life . . 262 » 14. Issuing of Bodhisattvas from the Caps of the Earth . . . . 281 » 15. Duration of Life of the Tathagata | . . 298 » 16. Of Piety. . Zul » 17. Indication of the Meritoriousness of Joyful Acceptance . . . 328 » 18. The Advantages of a Religious Preacher - 336 », 19. Sadaparibhfita . . . 354 » 20. Conception of the Transcendent Pow er of the Tathagatas . . Lot - 363 » 21. Spells . . . . 370
» 22. Ancient Devotion of Bhaishagyaraga . . 376
Vili CONTENTS. PAGE CuapTeR 23. Gadgadasvara 393 » 24. The All-sided One 406 » 25. Ancient Devotion . . 41g » 26. Encouragement of Samantabhadra 431 » 27. The Period 440 InpEx 443 Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East 451
INTRODUCTION.
THE Saddharma-puzdarika is one of the nine Dharmas which are known by the titles of—1. Ash¢asahasrika Pragnaparamita ; 2. Ganda-vyhha; 3. Dasabhimisvara; 4. Samadhi-raga; 5. Lankavatéra; .6. Saddharma-puzdartka ; ¥. Tathagata-guhyaka ; 8. Lalita-vistara; 9. Suvarva-prabhasa.
THE Saddharma-puzdarika is one of the nine Dharmas which are known by the titles of—1. Ash¢asahasrika Pragnaparamita ; 2. Ganda-vyhha; 3. Dasabhimisvara; 4. Samadhi-raga; 5. Lankavatéra; .6. Saddharma-puzdartka ; ¥. Tathagata-guhyaka ; 8. Lalita-vistara; 9. Suvarva-prabhasa.
These nine works, to which divine worship is offered, embrace (to use the words of the first investigator of Nepalese Buddhism’) ‘in the first, an abstract of the philosophy of Buddhism?; ‘in the seventh, a treatise on the esoteric doctrines; and in the seven remaining ones, a full illustration of every point of the ordinary doctrine and discipline, taught in the easy and effective way of example and anecdote, interspersed with occasional instances of dogmatic instruction. With the exception of the first, these works are therefore of a narrative kind; but interwoven with much occasional speculative matter.’
As to the form, it would seem that all the Dharmas may rank as narrative works, which, however, does not exclude in some of them a total difference in style of composition and character. The Lalita-vistara e.g. has the movement of a real epic, the Saddharma-puzdarika has not. The latter bears the character of a dramatic performance, an undeveloped mystery play, in which the chief interlocutor, not the only
' B. H. Hodgson, Essays on the Language, Literature, and Religion of Nepal and Tibet, p. 13; cf. p. 49.
3 As the Perfect Pragia is she who has produced all Tathagatas, the mother of all Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Disciples (see Cowell and Eggeling, Catalogue of Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series, VIII, p. 3), we must infer that the work is chiefly intended to set forth the principia rerum. It begins with chaos (pradh4na or prag#4) ; and hence its place at the commencement of the list. We may, perhaps, best designate it as an abstract of mystic-natural or materialistic philosophy.
x SADDHARMA-PUNDARI{KA.
one, is SAkyamuni, the Lord. It consists of a series of dialogues, brightened by the magic effects of a would-be supernatural scenery. The phantasmagorical parts of the whole are as clearly intended to impress us with the idea of the might and glory of the Buddha, as his speeches are to set forth his all-surpassing wisdom. Some affinity of its technical arrangement with that of the regular Indian drama is visible in the prologue or Nidana, where Mafgusrtf at the end prepares the spectators and auditors—both are the same—for the beginning of the grand drama, by telling them that the Lord is about to awake from his mystic slumber and to display his infinite wisdom and power.
In the book itself we find it termed a Sdtra or Sftranta of the class called Mah4vaipulya. In a highly instructive discussion on the peculiar characteristics and comparative age of the different kinds of Sdtras, Burnouf arrives at the conclusion that the Mahdvaipulya Sdtras are posterior to the simple Satras in general’. As there are two categories of simple Sftras, 1. those in which the events narrated are placed contemporary with the Buddha, 2. those which refer to persons living a considerable time after his reputed period, e.g. Asoka’, it follows that the composition of the Mahavaipulya Sftras must be held to fall in a later time than the production of even the second category of simple Sfdtras. Now in one of the latter, the Asoka-Avadana, we read of Asoka using the word din4ra3, which leads us to the conclusion that the said Avadana was composed, not only after the introduction of dindra from the West, in the first century of our era or later, but at a still more modern time, when people had forgotten the foreign origin of the coin in question.
The results arrived at by Burnouf may be right so far as any Mahavaipulya Sdtra, as a whole, is concerned; they cannot be applied to all the component parts of such a work. Not to go further than the Saddharma-puvdarika
' Introduction & histoire du Buddhisme indien, pp. 103-128.
* Burnouf, Introd. p. 218 seq.
> Burnouf, Introd. p. 423; cf. p. 431, where Pushyamitra is made to speak of Dinaras ; Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. p 245.
INTRODUCTION. xi
and the Lalita-vistara, it can hardly be questioned that these works contain parts of very different dates, and derived from various sources. The material discrepancies between the version in prose and that in verse are occasionally too great to allow us to suppose them to have been made simultaneously or even by different authors conjointly at work!, Further it can be shown that the Mahavaipulya Sdtras are partially made up of such materials as must be referred to the oldest period of Buddhism. Let me adduce some examples to render more clear what I mean.
If we compare Lalita-vistara (Calc. ed.), p. 513, 13-p. 514, 2, with Mah4vagga (ed. Dr. Oldenberg) I, 5, 2, we perceive that the passages are to a great extent literally identical, and that the variations amount to little more than a varietas lectionis.
The passage adduced is in prose; now let us take some stanzas. In Mahavagga I, 5, 3, the Lord utters the following slokas:
kikkhena me adhigatam halam dani pakdsitum, ragadosaparetehi ndyam dhammo susambudho. padisotagami nipuzam gambhiram duddasam anum ragaratta na dakkhanti tamokhandhena 4vuta.
This does not materially differ from Lalita-vistara, p. 515, 16 seq.:
pratisrotag4miko margo gambhiro durdriso mama, na tam drakshya(n)ti? ragandha alam tasmat prakAsitum. anusrotam pravahyante kameshu patit4’ pragAk ; krikkhrena me’yam sampraptam(!) alam tasmat prakdsitum.
This does not materially differ from Lalita-vistara, p. 515, 16 seq.:
pratisrotag4miko margo gambhiro durdriso mama, na tam drakshya(n)ti? ragandha alam tasmat prakAsitum. anusrotam pravahyante kameshu patit4’ pragAk ; krikkhrena me’yam sampraptam(!) alam tasmat prakdsitum.
Though there is some difference in the wording and arrangement of the verses, it is of such a kind as to exclude all idea of the compiler of the Lalita-vistara having composed the distichs himself. Even the words ayam dhammo susambudho and nipuzam of the Pali text were known to him, as appears from the passage in prose immediately preceding the slokas quoted: gambhirak
1 See e.g. the foot-note, p. 413. ? An erroneous Sanskritisation of the present tense dakkhanti.
Xil SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
khalv ayam, Mahabrahman, maya dharmo ’bhisambuddha& sikshmo nipuzak. What follows, api Aa me, Brahman, ime gathe abhikshvzam pratibhasatah}, is but a slight, not very felicitous modification of what we read in the Mahavagga |.c.: api’ssu bhagavantam ima anakkhariya gathayo patibhamsu pubbe assutapubba.
Evidently from the same source are the verses in Trishtubh uttered by the god Brahma, Mahdvagga I, 5, 7, and those found in Lalita-vistara, p. 517, 3 seq. The former text has: paturahosi Magadhesu pubbe dhammo asuddho samalehi Aintito, ap4pur’ etasz amatassa dvaram suzantu dhammam vimalenanubuddham ?. The other runs thus: vado babhiva samalair vifintito dharmo hy® asuddho Magadheshu pfrvam ; amritam mune tad vivvizishva dvaram svinvanti* dharma vipulam® vimalena buddham.
On comparing the two texts we may infer that the Pali version is purer, that vado babhdva is a corruption of p4dad babhdva or something like it, answering to a Sanskrit pradur babhdva, but we cannot deny that the stanzas have the same origin.
In Mahavagga I, 5, 12, the Lord addresses the god Brahma with the following Trishfubh:
aparuta tesam amatassa dvara ye sotavanto, pamusi#antu® saddham.
' Obviously an unhappy attempt to Sanskritise a Pali or Prakrit patibhamsu; it ought to have been pratyabhdsish¢dm.
2 The text is corrupt; we have either to read vimalanubuddham, a Tatpurusha compound expressing the same as what the text exhibits, or vimalena buddham. .
3 Hi is meaningless, and only a clumsy device to satisfy the exigency of Sanskrit phonetical rules, which are not applicable to Prakrit.
* Read srinvantu.
5 Read dharmam vimalena. Vipula probably owes its origin to a dittography.
At the meeting of the Agivaka monk Upaka and the Buddha, the latter is represented as having pronounced the following slokas (Mahavagga I, 6, 8 and 9):
na me 4kariyo atthi, sadiso me na viggati, sadevakasmim lokasmim n’ atthi me pa/ipuggalo. aham hi arahA loke, aham satth4 anuttaro, eko ’mhi samm4sambuddho, sitibhfto ’smi nibbuto. madisa ve Gina honti ye patté dsavakkhayam, gita me papaké dhammd tasmaham Upaka® gino.
Materially the same slokas, albeit in somewhat different arrangement, occur Lalita-vistara, p. 526, 22 seq., as being spoken at the same meeting :
akaryo nahi me kasfit, sadriso me na vidyate, eko ’ham asmi sambuddhaZ, sitibhdto nirdsravah. aham evaham‘ loke s4sta hy aham anuttaraZ, sadevdsuragandharve ndsti me pratipudgalas °.
Read teshan, if not tesam, because a contraction of am and a following vowel into one syllable is a’ common as one of 4m is unheard of.
* These words do not suit the metre, and have undoubtedly been transposed from their original place, which they have kept in the Pali text.
® Rather Upaka, a common Prikrit form of the vocative case. See Sukhivatt-vy(iha, p. xi, in Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan Series, vol. i, part ii.
‘ Read aham evaraham (Sanskrit arhan).
5 The Calc. ed. has wrongly “dharvo and °puigalah.
XIV SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
Gina hi madvis4 gheya ye prapta Asravakshayam, gitaé me papak4 dharmas tenopa(ka) Gino [hy] aham.
The following verses, taken from Mahavagga and Lalitavistara l.c., have likewise the same origin, notwithstanding some variations :
An important passage on the divine sight of the Buddha in Lalita-vistara, p. 439 seq., almost literally occurs in the Samajifiaphala-Sutta, as has been pointed out by Burnouf 3.
An important passage on the divine sight of the Buddha in Lalita-vistara, p. 439 seq., almost literally occurs in the Samajifiaphala-Sutta, as has been pointed out by Burnouf 3.
These few examples I have chosen will suffice to prove that the material of a Mah4vaipulya Satra is partly as old as that of any other sacred book of the Buddhists. The language of the prose part of those Sdtras does not differ from that used in the simple Sdtras of the Northern canon. Should the Sanskrit text prove to be younger than the Pali text, then we may say that we do not possess the Northern tradition in its original shape. That result, however, affords no criterion for the distinction between the simple Sdtras and the Mahavaipulya Satras, for both are written in the very same Sanskrit, if we except the Gathds.
It would lead me too far, were I to enter into the heart of the question which of the three idioms, Sanskrit, PAli, and the so-called GAth4 dialect, was the oldest scriptural language of the Buddhists, and I will therefore confine myself to a few remarks. In the first place it will be granted
1 The reading aham sadrisim of the Calc. ed. is clearly a corrupt reading.
4 This word, which spoils the metre, has manifestly replaced an older expression, not unlikely 4ha#hi, or a similar form of the future tense of Ahan (Sansk. 4hanishye).
3 Lotus de la bonne Loi, p. 864.
INTRODUCTION. XV
ed. is clearly a corrupt reading.
4 This word, which spoils the metre, has manifestly replaced an older expression, not unlikely 4ha#hi, or a similar form of the future tense of Ahan (Sansk. 4hanishye).
3 Lotus de la bonne Loi, p. 864.
INTRODUCTION. XV
that the same person cannot have uttered any speech or stanza in two languages at the same time, and, further, that he is not likely to have spoken Sanskrit, when expressing himself in prose, and to have had recourse to a mere dialect, when speaking in poetry. One need not suppose that the common and every-day language of the god Brahma and the Buddha was P4li or Prakrit, in order to call it an absurdity that those persons would have spoken prose in Sanskrit and poetry in the Gath dialect, such as we find in some passages already quoted and in many others. Nor is it absurd, even if we do not believe that Pali is the original language of scripture, to contend that the Sanskrit text of the canonical works is at any rate a translation from some dialect. If the Sanskrit text of the Northern Satras, in general, were the original one, it would be impossible to account for occasional mistranslations and for the fact that the most palpable dialect forms have been left untouched, whenever the passage by being Sanskritised would have been spoilt. A striking instance is afforded in Lalita-vistara, p.145. There we read that the pronouncing of the letter ¢#a of the Indian alphabet is to be brought in connection with the word ¢Aapantyaprasna, i.e. a question that should be avoided, set aside, Pali ¢kapaniyapavho. Here the context absolutely opposed itself to the Pali or Prakrit ¢hapaniya being rendered by the Sanskrit sthapaniya, because the initial syllable of this form could not be made to agree with the letter ¢#a. On the same page of the Lalista-vistara we also meet with a word airapatha!, the initial syllable of which must needs harmonise with the diphthong ai, so that airapatha did not admit of being Sanskritised into 4ryapatha. From the occurrence of this airapatha I infer that the original text was composed in some kind of Prakrit, and not in regular Pali, because the latter has lost both the primary and secondary diphthong ai, though it may be asked whether forms such as kayira (Sansk. karya), payirupdsati
1 Written dirapatha, for the Vriddhi vowel denotes the sound of @i in Sanskrit, at least originally; from the same diphthong being used in the Asoka edicts in thaira (Sansk. sthavira), we must infer that the diphthong was, in the then Prakrit, sounded ai, not Ai.
xvi . SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
(Sansk. paryup4sati), and the like are anything else but instances of inaccurate spelling’. This much is certain that thaira occurs in the inscriptions of Asoka, and in these the diphthong cannot but have the value of a short a followed by i.
xvi . SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
(Sansk. paryup4sati), and the like are anything else but instances of inaccurate spelling’. This much is certain that thaira occurs in the inscriptions of Asoka, and in these the diphthong cannot but have the value of a short a followed by i.
If we eliminate the Sanskrit, there remain two dialects, P4li and the Gatha idiom. Which of the two can lay claim to being the original language of the Buddhist scriptures or is the nearest approach to it? P4li is intelligible in its phonetics, the Gathd4s are not. Under ordinary circumstances the comparatively greater regularity of Pali would tend to favour its claims; the case before us is, however, so peculiar that it is not safe to draw inferences from the state in which the Gathas have come to us. It seems to me that the verses in the Northern books in general, as well as the prose of the Mahavastu 2, have been Sanskritised to a large extent, so that they ought to be restored, as much as possible, to a more primitive form, before a comparison with Pali can lead to satisfactory results. When we come across such words as hesh¢#4d (Sansk. adhast4d), guzebhiZ£, &c., we easily perceive that these forms are more primitive than Palihe?¢/4, guzehi; but what warrant have we of such forms being really in use at the time when the Gath4s were composed, if we observe that in a verse, Lalita-vistara 53, the syllable bhiz is reckoned as a short one in the words gumebhiz pratipdrza? In short, in their present state the Gathds afford no conclusive evidence that the language in which they were composed is older than Pali.
Whatever may have been the phonetic aspect of the oldest standard dialect of the Buddhists, its vocabulary is unmistakably closely related to that of the Satapathabrahmava. The coincidences are so striking that the
1 That is, kayira was probably pronounced kaira, which cannot be exactly expressed by az because those who were acquainted with the rules of Sanskrit grammar would pronounce this and similar words with the sound of ai.
2 The able editor of this work, M. Senart, makes the following remarks on its language (p. xii): ‘Nous sommes ici en présence d’une langue irréguliére et instable, mélange singulier de formes diverses d’age et d’origine.’
INTRODUCTION. XVii
2 The able editor of this work, M. Senart, makes the following remarks on its language (p. xii): ‘Nous sommes ici en présence d’une langue irréguliére et instable, mélange singulier de formes diverses d’age et d’origine.’
INTRODUCTION. XVii
interval separating the younger parts of the Satapatha and the beginnings of Buddhist literature can hardly be supposed to have been very great. Among those coincidences I cite sarvavat, a word which as yet has not been discovered in the whole range of Sanskrit literature except Satap. XIV, 7, 1,10, and in Northern Buddhist writings, as well as in Pali (sabbAv4). The maf Acyduevov ekoti Satap. XII, 2, 2, 4 recurs in ekoti-bh4va, Lalita-vistara, p- 147, 81; p. 439,6; Pali ekodi-bhava*. The expression samirita in the sense of ‘equipped, furnished with’ occurs in Satapatha thrice 5, in Atharva-veda once, in Saddharma-puvdarika several times, e.g. in paftfaghaztasamirita, chap. xxii. We may add the Prakritism irg in samifgayati, Brzhad-4razyaka VI, 4, 23, the usual form in Buddhist works in Sanskrit, Gatha dialect, and Pali; further manku, Satap. V, 5, 4,11; mazda in the compound naumazda, Satap. II. 3, 3,15; cf. bodhi-mazda. An archaic trait in the stanzas is the expletive use of the particle u, e.g. in teno, yeno, tasyo, adyo, for tena, yena, tasya,adya. Both in prose and poetry * we meet with no, sometimes in the sense of Sansk. no, which etymologically of course is identical with it, at other times in that of Sansk. na. An analogous case is Sansk. atho, almost imperceptibly differing from atha. Perhaps the most curious of similar forms in the Gathds is £0, in meaning exactly coinciding with a; this 0 I take to be the older form of the M4gadhi £u in the Asoka edicts.
From the occurrence of peculiar old words and forms we may draw inferences as to the age of certain compositions in ordinary cases ; but it is not safe to apply the same test, if there is sufficient reason to suppose that the work, the date
' Ekabhibh4va of the Calc. text is a clerical blunder.
3 See Childers’ Pali Dict. p. 134, where the Thero Subhiti’s etymology eko udeti proves that he does not know the origin of the word; nor is it likely that the writer of the Pali passage cited by Childers knew more, for had he recognised the word, he would have written ekoti, because a Prakrit d between two vowels, if answering to a Sanskrit t, usually requires a t in Pali.
p. 31
Also in the inscriptions of Asoka.
(21] b
XVili SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
of which we wish to determine, has been carefully moulded upon time-honoured models. In such a case new words prove a good deal!, old ones next to nothing. Therefore it would be an abuse of the argument ex silentio to infer from the total absence of such new words in our Saddharma-puvdarika that the bulk of the Sdtra must date from the earlier period of Buddhism.
In such a case new words prove a good deal!, old ones next to nothing. Therefore it would be an abuse of the argument ex silentio to infer from the total absence of such new words in our Saddharma-puvdarika that the bulk of the Sdtra must date from the earlier period of Buddhism.
Ihad already occasion to notice that the two versions, the prose and the metrical one, in our Sdtra show here and there material discrepancies. The question arises to which of the two we must award the palm of priority. Repeatedly, both in prose and poetry, the Sdtra is spoken of as consisting of stanzas; e.g. chap. vii, st. 82; chapters x and xxii in the prose portion, several times. As the term of stanza (g4th4), for aught I know, is never used to denote a certain number of syllables, there is a strong presumption that the ancient text consisted of verses, with an admixture of short prose passages serving as introduction or to connect the more solemn poetical pieces. The idea to expand such passages into a regular prose version would especially recommend itself at a period when the poetical dialect began to become obsolete and obscure. Without being a formal commentary, the prose version would yet tend to elucidate the older holy text.
It will not be objected that, because not all chapters in the Saddharma-puzdarika have a poetical version added, the original cannot have been a poem. For the chapters containing but one version, viz. xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxv, and xxvi, show decided traces of being later additions; and as to the final chapter, it may be held to be a moderate amplification of a short prose epilogue.
In contending that the original text of our Sdtra was probably, in the main, a work in metrical form, I do not mean to say that the poetical version in all the chapters must be
' As e.g. the word dinra in the Asoka Avadana ; the passage on the Greeks YonAs, in Assalfyana Sutta (ed. Pischel), p. 10; cf. the editor's remark, p. 6; the word karama for kalama, calamus to write with, in K4randa-vyiha (Calc. ed.), p. 69.
a 7 ~.
INTRODUCTION. (us Mista 3)
considered to be prior to the prose’, The China ofthe «Sad-
Pischel), p. 10; cf. the editor's remark, p. 6; the word karama for kalama, calamus to write with, in K4randa-vyiha (Calc. ed.), p. 69.
a 7 ~.
INTRODUCTION. (us Mista 3)
considered to be prior to the prose’, The China ofthe «Saddharma-puvdarika are nowhere very brilliant, but in some chapters they are so excessively clumsy and mechanically put together that involuntarily we are led to the assumption of their having been made by persons to whom the old dialect was no longer familiar. The stanzas, e.g. in chapters xi and xiv, are abominable in form, and unusually silly; those in chap. xxiv are a pattern of mechanical verse-making, and give the impression as if they were intended rather to stultify than to edify the credulous reader. Now it is a curious fact that in a Chinese preface to the translation of our Sitra by Gfanagupta and Dharmagupta, A.D. 6017, we meet with the following notice: ‘The omission of the GAath4s in No. 134, chaps. 12 and 25%, have since been filled in by some wise men, whose example I wish to follow *.’ Here we have a direct proof that the Gath4s of some chapters have been added in later times. Had we similar notices concerning all the chapters in which the Gath4s are of a comparatively modern date, and could we prove that the prose of such chapters belongs to a later period, then the supposition of the ancient text of the Saddharma-puadarika ‘having been in the main a metrical one would seem to lose in strength. For, reasoning by analogy, one might say that just as some later chapters have notoriously been enriched with a metrical version in later times, so the ancient parts also will have gradually received their Gathas. Still the fact remains that those chapters in which the metrical portion is wanting clearly belong to a later period, so that it is questionable whether their case is entirely analogous to that of the more ancient part of the whole work.
1 Isolated stanzas, as in chapters xxii, xxv, and elsewhere, are wholly left out of question.
‘7 Catalogue of the Tripitaka (Oxford), by Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio; Sfitra Pitaka, Col. 45.
3 In the English translation chapters xi and xxiv.
* Another notice in the above-mentioned Catalogue, col. 44, runs thus: ‘The portion of prose’ (of chap. xxiv) ‘ was translated by Kumaragtva, of the latter Tshin dynasty, A.D. 384-417; and that of G&thds by Gidnagupta, of the Northern Keu dynasty, 4.0. 557-589.’ So it seems that the Gathas have been added, and, not unlikely, been composed, between 417 and 557 A.D, b2
XX SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
xxiv) ‘ was translated by Kumaragtva, of the latter Tshin dynasty, A.D. 384-417; and that of G&thds by Gidnagupta, of the Northern Keu dynasty, 4.0. 557-589.’ So it seems that the Gathas have been added, and, not unlikely, been composed, between 417 and 557 A.D, b2
XX SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
At present we are far from the ultimate end which critical research has to reach; we are not able to assign to each part of our Sfitra its proper place in the development of Buddhist literature. We may feel that compositions from different times have been collected into a not very harmonious whole; we may even be able to prove that some passages are as decidedly ancient as others are modern, but any attempt to analyse the compound and lay bare its component parts would seem to be premature. Under these circumstances the inquiry after the date of the work resolves itself into the question at what time the book received its present shape.
There exist, as it is well known, various Chinese translations of the Saddharma-puzdarika, or parts of it, the dates of which are well ascertained. The above-mentioned Catalogue by Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio affords some valuable information about the subject, from which I borrow the following particulars?:
The oldest Chinese translation, known by the title of Kan-fa-hw4-éin, is from Ku Fa-hu (Dharmaraksha), of the Western Tsin dynasty, A.D. 265-316; in 28 chapters?.
Equally old is an incomplete translation entitled S4-thanfan-tho-li-#in, of an unknown author.
Next in time comes the Mido-fa-lien-hw4-2in, by Kum4ragiva, of the latter Tshin dynasty, A.D. 384-417°%. It agrees with the Tibetan version, and contains 28 chapters. Of one chapter (xxiv in the Nepalese MSS. and the English translation) Kumaragiva translated the prose only; the Gath4s were rendered by Giidnagupta, of the Northern Keu dynasty, A.D. 557-589.
The last translation in order of time, entitled Thien-phinmido-fa-lien-hw4-Ain, is from Gfanagupta and Dharmagupta, A.D. 601, of the Sui dynasty ; in 27 chapters.
We see that the older translations—and, consequently, their originals—counted one chapter more than our MSS.
1 Stra Piraka, col. 44 seqq.
2 In S. Beal, The Buddhist Tripitaka, p. 14, the name of the author Ku F4hu (Chu-fa-hu) is identified with Dharmagupta.
* Cf. Beal, Buddhist Tripisaka, p. 15.
INTRODUCTION. Xxl
1 Stra Piraka, col. 44 seqq.
2 In S. Beal, The Buddhist Tripitaka, p. 14, the name of the author Ku F4hu (Chu-fa-hu) is identified with Dharmagupta.
* Cf. Beal, Buddhist Tripisaka, p. 15.
INTRODUCTION. Xxl
The difference, however, does not affect the contents of the whole, because the matter divided over chapters 11 and 12 of the older translations is contained in chap. xi of our texts and the latest Chinese version. The order of the chapters is the same in all the texts, both original and translated, up to chap. xx (=21 older division); the discrepancies first begin at chap. xxi, on Dharazis. The subjoined comparative table, to begin with the chapter on Dharazis, exhibits the order of the last seven chapters in the various texts. The first column refers to the Nepalese MSS. and the Chinese translation by Gfanagupta and Dharmagupta; the second to the oldest Chinese translation ; the third to that of Kumfragiva.
A glance at this table will suffice to convince us that chapters xxi-xxvi (1-6) are of later growth, if we bear in mind that the order of the chapters down to the Dharamis is the same in all sources. This result is quite in harmony with what we would have guessed upon internal grounds. The last chapter, entitled Dharmapary4ya, must, from its very nature, have been the close, the epilogue of the whole. In the Chinese translation of Kuméragiva it occurs, as the table shows, immediately after chap. xx, by itself a clear indication that xxi-xxvi are later additions. It is somewhat strange that in the older translation of Ku Fa-hu the Dharmapary4ya has already taken its place after the additional matter, but this may be explained on the supposition that Kumaragiva, though living in a later time, made use of ancient manuscripts'. However that
' The preface to the Chinese translation of Gaanagupta and Dharmagupta says: ‘ The translations of Ku Fa-hu and Kumfragtva are most probably made from two different texts,’
XXii SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
may be, I think that the following facts may be held to be established, both from internal and external evidence: 1, The more ancient text of the Saddharma-puvdarika contained 21 chapters and an epilogue, i.e. the matter of chaps. i-xx and of chap. xxvii; 2. The later additions, excepting probably some verses, had been connected with the work, in the way of Parisishfas or Addenda, about 250 A.D. or earlier. As the book, along with the Parisishéas, already existed some time before 250 A.D., we may safely conclude that the more ancient text in 21 chapters, the epilogue included, dates some centuries earlier. Greater precision is for the present impossible.
or earlier. As the book, along with the Parisishéas, already existed some time before 250 A.D., we may safely conclude that the more ancient text in 21 chapters, the epilogue included, dates some centuries earlier. Greater precision is for the present impossible.
We know that a commentary on the Saddharma-puzdarika was composed by Vasubandhu!. The date of that work, not yet recovered, it seems, must fall between 550 and 600 A.D., or at least not much earlier, for Vasubandhu’s pupil Guzaprabha became the Guru of the famous Sri- Harsha, alias Sifladitya, king of Kanauj, the friend of Hiouen Thsang*. The latter often mentions Vasubandhu and some of that great doctor’s writings, as well as Guzaprabha?. As both worthies at the time of Hiouen Thsang’s visiting India had already departed this life, and Vasubandhu must have been at least one generation older than Gumaprabha, we cannot be far amiss in assigning to Vasubandhu’s commentary the date above specified.
It appears from the above-mentioned preface to the Chinese translation of A.D. 601, that the text-differences in the MSS. current in those days were more important than such as we observe in the Nepalese MSS. from 1000 A.D. downward, with which the Tibetan closely agree. The Chinese preface is so interesting that it is worth while to
1 Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 322. This was written before the publication of my Cambridge Lectures, ‘ India, what can it teach us?’ and affords valuable, because independent, confirmation of the chronological system contained in Note G, ‘Renaissance of Sanskrit Literature,’ pp. 281-366.>-The Editor,
? Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 78; cf. pp. 64 and 219; Taranatha, Geschichte des Buddhismus (transl. Schiefner), p. 126.
* See especially Histoire de la vie de Hiouen Thsang, pp. 83, 93, 97,114; 106.
INTRODUCTION. XXili
copy a passage from it as quoted in the Catalogue of the Tripizaka!:
Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 78; cf. pp. 64 and 219; Taranatha, Geschichte des Buddhismus (transl. Schiefner), p. 126.
* See especially Histoire de la vie de Hiouen Thsang, pp. 83, 93, 97,114; 106.
INTRODUCTION. XXili
copy a passage from it as quoted in the Catalogue of the Tripizaka!:
‘The translations of Ku Fa-hu, No. 138, and Kumaraiva, No. 134, are most probably made from two different texts. In the repository of the Canon, I (the author of the preface) have seen two texts (or copies of the text, of the Saddharma-pudarika) ; one is written on the palm leaves, and the other in the letters of Kwei-tsz’, or Kharagar, Kumiragiva’s maternal country. The former text exactly agrees with No. 138, and the latter with No. 134. No. 138 omits only the Gathas of the Samantamukha-parivarta, chap. 24. But No. 134 omits half of the Oshadhiparivarta, chap. 5, the beginning of the Pa#abhikshusatavy4karava-parivarta, chap. 8, and that of the Saddharmabhavaka-parivarta, chap. 10, and the Géth4s of the Devadatta-parivarta, chap. 123, and those of the Samantamukha-parivarta, chap. 25. Moreover, No. 134 puts the Dharmapary4ya-parivarta (the last chapter of the Stra) before the Bhaishagyaraga-parivarta, chap. 23. Nos. 138 and 134 both place the Dharazi-parivarta next to the Samantamukha-parivarta, chaps. 24 and 25 respectively. Beside these, there are minor differences between the text and translation. The omission of the Gath4s in No. 134, chaps. 12 and 25, have since been filled in by some wise men, whose example I wish to follow. In the first year of the Zan-sheu period, A.D. 601, I, together with Gianagupta and Dharmagupta, have examined the palm-leaf text, at the request of a Sramaza, Sh4n-hhin, and found that the beginning of two chapters, 8th and roth, are also wanting in the text (though No. 138 contains them). Nevertheless we have increased a half of the 5th chapter, and put the 12th chapter into the 11th, and restored the Dharamiparivarta and Dharmaparydaya-parivarta to their proper order, as chaps. 21 and 27. There are also some words and passages which have been altered (while the greater
1 Stra Pitaka, col. 45. ® In the Nepalese MSS. and the European translations the latter part of
XXIV SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
part of No. 134 is retained). The reader is requested not to have any suspicion about these differences.’
According to the opinion of an eminent Chinese scholar, the late Stanislas Julien, the translation of Kuméragiva widely differs from Burnouf’s. He gives utterance to that opinion in a letter dated June 12, 1866, and addressed to Professor Max Miiller, to whose obliging kindness it is due that I am able to publish a specimen of Kuméragiva’s version rendered into French by Stanislas Julien. The fragment answers to the stanzas 1-22 of chap. iii, As it is too long to be inserted here, I give it hereafter on page xl.
The fragment answers to the stanzas 1-22 of chap. iii, As it is too long to be inserted here, I give it hereafter on page xl.
On comparing the fragment with the corresponding passages in Burnouf’s French translation and the English version in this volume, the reader cannot fail to perceive that the discrepancies between the two European versions are fewer and of less consequence than between each of them and Kuméragiva’s work. It is hardly to be supposed that the text used by Kumaragiva can have differed so much from ours, and it seems far more probable that he has taken the liberty, for clearness sake, to modify the construction of the verses, a literal rendering whereof, it must be owned, is impossible in any language. It is a pity that Stanislas Julien has chosen for his specimen a fragment exclusively consisting of Gath4s. A page in prose would have been far more useful as a test of the accuracy of the Chinese version.
Proceeding to treat of the contents of our Sitra, I begin by quoting the passage where Burnouf, in his usual masterly way, describes the general character of the book and the prominent features of the central figure in it. The illustrious French scholar writes?:
‘La, comme dans les Satras simples, c’est Cakya qui est le plus important, le premier des étres; et quoique l’imagination du compilateur l’ait doué de toutes les perfections de science et de vertu admises chez les Buddhistes; quoique Cakya revéte déja un caractére mythologique, quand il
* Igtroduction, p. 119.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
déclare qu'il y a longtemps qu'il remplit les devoirs d’un Buddha, et qu’il doit les remplir longtemps encore, malgré sa mort prochaine, laquelle ne détruit pas son éternité ; quoiqu’enfin on le représente créant de son corps des Buddhas qui sont comme les images et les reproductions idéales de sa personne mortelle, nulle part Cakyamuni n’est nommé Dieu; nulle part il ne recoit le titre d’Adibuddha.’
To this I have nothing to object, only something to add. It is perfectly true that Sakya does not receive the simple title of Deva; why? Because that title is far too poor for so exalted a personage who is the Devatideva, the paramount god of gods. So he is called in the Lotus, chap. vii, st. 311, and innumerable times in the whole range of Buddhist literature, both in Pali and Sanskrit?. It is further undeniable that the title of Adibuddha does not occur in the Lotus, but it is intimated that SAkya is identical with Adibuddha in the words : ‘From the very beginning (Adita eva)haveI roused, brought to maturity, fully developed them (the innumerable Bodhisattvas) to be fit for their Bodhisattva position?” It is only by accommodation that he is called Adibuddha, he properly being an4di, i.e. existing from eternity, having no beginning. The Buddha most solemnly declares (chap. xv) that he reached Bodhi an immense time ago, not as people fancy, first at Gaya. From the whole manner in which Sakya speaks of his existence in former times, it is perfectly clear that the author wished to convey the meaning that the Lord had existed from eternity, or, what comes to the same, from the very beginning, from time immemorial, &c.
Sakya has not only lived an infinite number of AZons in the past, he is to live for ever. Common people fancy that he enters Nirvaza, but in reality he only makes a show of Nirvaaa out of regard for the weakness of men. He, the
1 Bumonf’s rendering is ‘ Déva supérieur aux Dévas.’
2 Less frequent than devatideva is the synonymous devadhideva, e.g. Lalita-vistara, p. 131; essentially the same is the term sarvadevottama, the highest of all gods, ib. p. 144.
> See chap. xiv, p. 295.
Xxvi SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
Father of the world?, the Self-born One, the Chief and Saviour? of creatures, produces a semblance of Nirvana, whenever he sees them given to error and folly®. In reality his being is not subject to complete Nirvaza; it is only by a skilful device that he makes a show of it ; and repeatedly he appears in the world of the living, though his real abode is on the summit of the Gridhrakfaa‘. All this is, in other words, the teaching of Narayama in Bhagavad-gita IV, 6 seqq.: °
Ago ’pi sann avyayatma bhitAndm isvaro ’pi san, prakritim svim adhish¢#4ya sambhavamy 4tmamayaya.
The Buddha is anthropomorphic, of course; what god is not? The Lotus, far from giving prominence to the unavoidable human traits, endeavours as much as possible to represent the Lord and his audience as superhuman beings. In chap. xiv there is a great pause, as in a drama, of no less than fifty intermediate kalpas, during which Sakyamuni and all his hearers keep silence ®. A second pause of 1000, or according to a various reading, 100,000 years is held in chap. xx. Now it is difficult to conceive that any author, wilfully and ostentatiously, would mention such traits if he wished to impress the reader with the notion that the narrative refers to human beings.
It will not be necessary to multiply examples. There is, to my comprehension, not the slightest doubt that the
‘ Cf. Krishna declaring of himself in Bhagavad-gita IX,17: Pitéham gagato mata dhata‘pitamahahk. Cf. XI, 43. The significant title of Pitamaha is given to Buddha in an inscription found at Dooriya (Bithé); Cunningham, Archzol. Survey, vol. iii, pl. xviii; cf. p. 48.
® Like Narayana in Bhagavad-gita XII, 7: Teshm aham samuddhartamrityusamsarasagarat,
3 Chap. xv, st. 21. * Chap. xv, st. 6, 10.
5 One intermediate kalpa is, in the system, equal to 8 yugas. As 4 yugas number 4,320,000 years, it follows that the pause lasted 432 millions of years. Esoterically, kalpa has certainly denoted a short interval of time, but even if we take the ‘ intermediate kalpa’ to mean, in reality, a lapse of time equal to a few hours, the pause would not refer to an historical event.
INTRODUCTION. XXVii
Saddharma-puadarika intends to represent Sakya as the supreme being, as the god of gods, almighty and all-wise. But what have we to understand by the words ‘god’ and ‘god of gods?’ that is the question. To find the answer let us recall to memory the theosophic notions prevailing in ancient India at certain periods.
But what have we to understand by the words ‘god’ and ‘god of gods?’ that is the question. To find the answer let us recall to memory the theosophic notions prevailing in ancient India at certain periods.
In general it may be said that the Upanishads recognise two supreme beings, which in a mystical way are somehow identified ; one is the great illuminator of the macrocosm, and is sometimes called the Sun, at other times Ether ; the other, the enlightener of the microcosm, is Mind or Reason !. As soon as the Sun ceased to be considered an animate being or to be represented as such, he might continue, for worship'’s sake, honoris causa, to be called the highest god; the really remaining deity was Reason, poetically termed the inward light. This idea is expressed by Nila-. kantha in his commentary on Bhagavad-gita V, 14, in the following terms: Prabhus Aid4tm4 sdrya ivasmadadinam prakasakaé&, the Lord (is) the intelligent Self that like a sun is the illuminator of ourselves and others?. Now the same author, in his notes on Bhagavad-gita VI, 30, distinctly states that our inward consciousness, or as he puts it, the pratyagat man, the individual Self, otherwise called fiva, is Narayama, i.e. the supreme being. At IX, 28 he paraphrases Nérdyava by sarvesham pratyagatman, the individual consciousness of all (sentient beings); at. XII, 14 he identifies Narayaza with nirguzam brahma. Just as here and there Narayana is represented as clad in all the glory and majesty of a sovereign, as the illuminator, the vivifier of the world, in one word as the sun, so we find SAakyamuni invested with all the grandeur and all the resources of a ruler of nature. Philosophically, both Narayaa and his counterpart Sdkyamuni are purushottama, paramatman, the highest brahman, Mind. Sakyamuni
1 See e.g. Kk&ndogya-upanishad III, 18 and 19; cf. Bhagavad-gtta XV, 12.
? Cf. Bhagavad-gita XIII, 33: yatha prakasayaty ekak kritsnam lokam imam ravik, kshetram kshetrt tatha kritsnam prak4sayati, Bharata. The kshetra here is the body, the kshetrin is Mind, Reason, 4tman. Cf. Sankara on Kkandogya-upanishad, 1. c.
XXVili SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
Bhagavad-gtta XV, 12.
? Cf. Bhagavad-gita XIII, 33: yatha prakasayaty ekak kritsnam lokam imam ravik, kshetram kshetrt tatha kritsnam prak4sayati, Bharata. The kshetra here is the body, the kshetrin is Mind, Reason, 4tman. Cf. Sankara on Kkandogya-upanishad, 1. c.
XXVili SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
is, esoterically, the very same muni, the beholder of good and evil, the puzyapApekshit4 muni that is spoken of in Manu VIII, 91. It is acknowledged in Bhagavad-gita IX, 14 seqq. that the supreme being may be conceived and respected in different ways according to the degree of intelligence of creatures. Some pay their worship by leading a virtuous life, others by pious devotion, others by contemplation, others by confessing a strictly monistic philosophy’, others by acknowledging a personal god?. The Lord in the Saddharma-pumdarika admits of being viewed in all these various aspects. Whether the Buddha-theory, such as we find it developed in the Sdtra, not in plain words, indeed, but by circumlocutions and ambiguities, should be called atheistic or not, is a matter of comparatively slight importance, about which opinions may differ. This much, however, may be asserted, that the Lotus and the Bhagavadgitd are, in this respect, exactly on a par.
The conclusion arrived at is that the Sakyamuni of the Lotus is an ideal, a personification, and not a person. Traits borrowed, or rather surviving, from an older cosmological mythology, and traces of ancient nature-worship abound both in the Lotus and the Bhagavad-gita, but in the highest sense of the word, paramarthatas, the Purushottama in both is the centre of mental life. It is just possible that the ancient doctors of the Mahayana have believed that such an ideal once walked in the flesh here on earth, but the impression left by the spirit and the letter of the whole work does not favour that supposition. In later times fervent adherents of the Mahayana really held that belief, as we know from the example of the pious Hiouen Thsang, who was evidently as earnest in his belief that the Lord once trod the soil of India as he was convinced ‘of Majigusri, Maitreya, and Avalokitesvara existing as animated beings. Whether the system of the Lotus can be said to agree with what is supposed to be ‘genuine’ Bud-
? The followers of the Upanishads, Aupanishadas, who say,‘ Myself am God,’ or as Nilakantha puts it, ‘Myself am the Lord Vasudeva.’
? According to Nilakantha the common people, who think, ‘He, the Lord, is my Master.’
| INTRODUCTION. Xxix dhism, it is not here the place to discuss. So far as the Northern Church is concerned, the book must be acknowledged as the very cream of orthodoxy; it is the last, the supreme, the most sublime of the Satras exposed by the Lord; it is, so to say, the siromazi, the crown jewel, of all Sdtras!.
The contents of the separate chapters into which the Stra is divided may be described, summarily, as follows:
1. Prologue.
The contents of the separate chapters into which the Stra is divided may be described, summarily, as follows:
1. Prologue.
2. Awakening of the Lord from his mystic trance; display of his transcendent skilfulness, proved by the apparent trinity of vehicles, whereas in reality there is but one vehicle.
3. Prophecy of the Lord regarding the future destiny of Sériputra, his eldest son. Second turn of the wheel of the law on that occasion, with incidental commemoration of the first turn near Benares, Parable of the burning house, to exemplify the skill of the good father in saving his children from the burning pains of mundane existence.
4. Another parable, exemplifying the skill of the wise father in leading a child that has gone astray and lost all self-respect back to a feeling of his innate nobility and to happiness.
5. Parable of the plants and the rain, to exemplify the impartiality and equal care of the Lord for all creatures *. Parable of the blind man, to intimate that the phenomena have but an apparent reality, and that the ultimate goal of all endeavours must be to reach all-knowingness, which in fact is identical with complete nescience.
6. Sundry predictions as proofs of the power of the Sugata to look into the future.
4. He has an equal knowledge of the remotest past; his remembrance of the turning of the wheel by the Tathagata Mahabhighagnanabhibhi. Edifying history of the sixteen sons of the said Tathagata.
1 Chap. xiii, st. 53 seq.
* Cf. Bhagavad-gita IX, 29, where Narayana declares: ‘I am equal towards all creatures, none is hateful to me, none beloved ;’ samo "ham sarvabhiteshu, na me dveshyo ’sti na priyas,
XXX SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
8. Prophecy regarding five hundred Arhats.
9. Prophecy concerning Ananda, Rahula, and the two thousand monks.
10. The Lord teaches how pious preachers of the law, who will come in after-times, ought to be duly honoured, and promises that he will always protect the ministers of religion.
11. Display of the miraculous power of Sakyamuni shown in the appearance of a Stipa, which, being opened by him, discloses to sight the frame of the expired Tathagata Prabhataratna, who is desirous of hearing the exposition of the Lotus of the True Law. How SAkyamuni in a former birth strove to acquire the Lotus. His great obligations to Devadatta. Episode of the wise daughter of the Ocean and her change of sex.
12. Prediction to Gautami, Yasodhard, and the nuns in their train. Promise of the host of disciples and Bodhisattvas to take up the difficult task of preaching the holy word in days to come, after the Lord’s Nirvaza.
13. Vocation of the ministers of religion, and practical rules for their conduct in and out of society. Parable of the king who rewards his valiant warriors; in the same manner the Buddha will reward those who struggle for his sake, by bestowing upon them all kinds of favours, at last the most valuable of his boons—eternal rest.
Parable of the king who rewards his valiant warriors; in the same manner the Buddha will reward those who struggle for his sake, by bestowing upon them all kinds of favours, at last the most valuable of his boons—eternal rest.
14. Splendid phantasmagory of innumerable Bodhisattvas evoked by the creative power of the Lord. Long pause, during which the Tathagata and the four classes of hearers are silent. Perplexity of Maitreya on hearing that the innumerable Bodhisattvas have all been the pupils of the Lord.
15. The Buddha explains the fact by revealing the immense duration of his lifetime, in the past and the future.
16, Meritoriousness of the belief in the immense duration of the Tathagatas and all those who have once become Buddhas.
17. The Lord details the great merit attending a ready acceptance of the preaching of the law.
INTRODUCTION. XXxi
18. Exposition of the advantages, worldly and spiritual, enjoyed by the ministers of religion.
19. Story of Sadaparibhita, exemplifying the superiority of simple-mindedness and pure-heartedness to worldly wisdom and scepticism.
20. Grand show exhibited by the two Tathagatas Sakyamuni and Prabhitaratna conjointly.. Pause after the performance. After the pause a great stir amongst gods, celestial and infernal beings, men, &c.? The Tathagata extols the Stra of the Lotus in which ‘all Buddha-laws are succinctly taught,’ as well as the keepers of this most eminent of Satras.
Immediately after this chapter may have followed, in the oldest version, the epilogue entitled ‘Period of the Law ;’ the reasons for this opinion have been already stated above. The supposed additional chapters contain the following topics, briefly indicated :
21. Efficacy of talismanic spells (Dh4ramis).
22. Self-sacrifice of the Bodhisattva Sarvasattvapriyadarsana, otherwise called Bhaishagyara4ga. Glorification of the Lotus as the most eminent of Sitras.
23. Visit of.the Bodhisattva Gadgadasvara to the Sahaworld. Extraordinary qualities and achievements of this worthy, incidentally narrated by the Tathagata. Return of the Bodhisattva to whence he came.
24. Grandeur and ubiquitousness of Avalokitesvara.
25. Wonderful and edifying story of the conversion of the king Subhavydha through the instrumentality of his two sons Vimalagarbha and Vimalanetra, al. Bhaishagyaraga and Bhaishagyasamudgata.
26. The Bodhisattva Samantabhadra charges himself with the task of being a protector to the preachers of religion in after-times after the Lord’s Nirvaza'.
1! Both stretch their flaming tongues as far as the Brahma-world. In the Bhagavad-gita XI, 30 it is said of Narayana, when at the request of Arguna he shows himself in his full grandeur: lelihyase grasamdnah samantal lokan samagrén vadanair gvaladbhik, tegobhir apirya gagat samagram bhasas tavograk prapatanti, Vishzo !
? Cf. Bhagavad-gita XI, 15.
’ There is some incongruity between this chapter and chapter x, because
=,
XXXii SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
? Cf. Bhagavad-gita XI, 15.
’ There is some incongruity between this chapter and chapter x, because
=,
XXXii SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
This summary, however meagre, will be sufficient to show that there is no lack of variety in our Sdtra. We may, indeed, be satisfied that the compilers of it intended giving an exposition of the principal truths of their religion in general, and of the peculiar tenets of their own system? in particular, the whole with anxious care arranged in such a form that the Satra admitted of an exoterical and esoterical interpretation. It contains a revelation of the state of things in the present, as well as in the past and the future, a revelation derived from a virtually eternal source, so that the doctrine taught in it must be deemed valid not only for a certain spiritual brotherhood or church, but for the human race at large. The highest authority to whom the doctrine is referred, is not a certain individual having lived a short span of time somewhere in India, but the sublime being who has his constant abode on the Gridhrakiia, i.e. he who isy the terminology of other Indian creeds is called Kdzastha.
As a general rule it may be said that in such works of ancient Indian literature as are anonymous, we must distinguish between the authority and the author. In the Lotus we meet after the invocation in some MSS. the following distich :
Vaipulyasitraragam param4rthanaydvataranirdesam |
Saddharmapuzdarikam sattvaya mahApatham vakshye 1
T.e. ‘I shall proclaim the king of the Vaipulya-sftras, that teacheth how one arrives at the (right) method of attaining the highest truth ; the Saddharma-pudarika, the great road (leading) to substantiality (being in abstracto).’ The person here speaking is not the Buddha, who is neither the author nor the writer of the work. Have we then to ascribe the distich to one of the ancient copyists? Burnouf? decidedly thinks so, and his opinion is corroborated by the fact that the verses do not occur in all MSS. I must conin the latter it is the Lord himself who promises to be in future the protector of the preachers.
1 Le. of the Mahay&na, which according to TAranftha, Geschichte des Buddhismus, p. 274, stands above the division of the Bauddhas into various schools.
3 Lotus, p. 285.
INTRODUCTION. XXXili
1 Le. of the Mahay&na, which according to TAranftha, Geschichte des Buddhismus, p. 274, stands above the division of the Bauddhas into various schools.
3 Lotus, p. 285.
INTRODUCTION. XXXili
fess that I am not so sure of it. As the Satra, like other compositions of the kind, begins with the solemn ‘Thus have I heard, &c.,’ it is at least possible that the distich belongs to the compiler. I am not aware that the scribes were in the habit of using such expressions as va& or synonymous terms instead of likh, to write; and as we find in the Mahavastu similar futures as vakshye, viz. udirayishyam and upavarmayishy4mi', where they can hardly be imputed to the scribe, it is safer to leave the question, whether the opening distich of the Lotus is the work of a compiler or of a copyist, undecided, the more so because the parallel phrase athadto—vyakhy4syadmaf, frequently found immediately after the invocation, in non-Buddhistic writings, must be held to refer to the author or authors, compilers.
The Lotus being one of the standard works of the Mahayana, the study of it cannot but be useful for the right | appreciation of that remarkable system. A perusal of the book will convince the reader that a statement of Professor Wassiljew’s? can only be accepted with some restrictions, when this scholar, so profoundly versed in the history and development of Northern Buddhism, says that the Buddha ‘Of the Mahayana is ‘neither the creator nor the ruler of the world; he remains the same cold, indifferent egoist, absorbed in Nothingness. The Tathagata of the Lotus is passionless, indeed, but that does not involve his being an egoist. In general it may be said that the spirit of the Mahdyana is more universal, its ideal less monastical than the Hinaydna’s. According to Professor Rhys Davids we must not seek the superior vital power which enabled the Great Vehicle to outlive the earlier teaching in certain metaphysical subtleties, but in the idea of a desire to save all living creatures; ‘the idea,’ to quote his own words’, ‘as summarised in the theory of Bodisatship, is the key-note of the later school, just as Arahatship is the key-note of
} Mahavastu (ed. Senart), p. 1, with the remarks of the editor, and p.g. 2 In his Buddhismus, p. 126. * In Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, p. 254.