The Tibetan Book of the Dead — ed. W. Y. Evans-Wentz

And there is no heterogeneity in all those Buddha-dharmas which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, can be neither identical (ekartha) nor not-identical (nanartha) [with the essence of suchness}, and which therefore are out of the range of our comprehension.’

This description of the Absolute is also a description of the Dharma-Kaya, for the two terms are synonymous. A modern student. of Buddhism, Mr. P. Lakshmi Narasu, in Zhe Essence of Buddhism (Madras, 1912), pp. 352-3; describes the Summum Bonum thus: ‘Buddhism denies an Ishvara [i.e. a Supreme Deity, for even the Primordial Buddha is not such, but merely the lama’s hypothetical First Buddha] ; and the latter cannot, therefore, be its goal and resting-point. The Buddhist’s goal is Buddhahood, and the essence of Buddhahood is Dharmakaya, the totality of all those laws which pervade the facts of life, and whose living recognition constitutes enlightenment. Dharmakaya is the most comprehensive name by which the Buddhist sums up his understanding and also his feeling about the universe, Dharmaké@ya signifies that the universe does not appear to the Buddhist as a mere mechanism, but as pulsating with life. Further, it means that the most striking fact about the universe is its intellectual aspect and its ethical order, especially in its higher reaches. Nay more, it implies that the universe is one in essence, and nowhere chaotic or dualistic. ... Dharmakaya is no pitiable abstraction, but that aspect of existence which makes the world intelligible, which shows itself in cause and effect. ... Dharmakaya is that ideal tendency in things which reveals itself most completely in man’s rational will and moral aspirations... . It is the impersonated inspiring type of every perfected rational mind. Without Diarmakaya there would be nothing that constitutes personality, no reason, no science, no moral aspiration, no ideal, no aim and purpose in man’s life... . Dkarmakaya is the norm of all existence, the standard of truth, the measure of righteousness, the good law; it is that in the constitution of things which makes certain modes of conduct beneficial and certain other modes detrimental.’

2 Richard’s trans. (p. 27). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (p. 11a): ‘Be it clearly understood that the essence of the five skandhas is uncreate, there is no annihilation of them; that, since there is no annihilation of them, they are in their [metaphysical] origin Nirvana itself.’

8 Richard’s trans. (p. 31). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (p. rat): ‘.... all things (sarvadharma) from the beginning are in their nature Nirvana itself.’

p. 233

Thus does Ashvaghosha bear witness to the soundness of the supreme philosophy of the Mahayana School underlying the Bardo Thodol; and, as an independent commentator, confirms our own interpretations.

VI. NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BUDDHISM
AND CHRISTIANITY

VI. NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BUDDHISM
AND CHRISTIANITY

Very much matter might also be incorporated herein to show the differences which exist between the two great Schools of Buddhism, the Northern and the Southern School, sometimes known as the A/ahayana (meaning the ‘ Greater Path’) and the Hinayana (meaning the ‘Lesser Path’—a rather belittling name never used by Southern Buddhists of themselves)."

Northern Buddhism is chiefly distinguished by its hierarchical and more highly organized priesthood, its emphasis upon rituals, its elaborate doctrinc of divine emanations, its Christian-like worships and masses, its Tantricism, its Dhyani Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and extensive pantheon, its belief in a Primordial Buddha, its greater insistence on Yoga, its subtle philosophy, and its transcendental teachings concerning the Tri-K ya.

In Southern Buddhism, on the contrary, there is a very loosely organized priesthood with no recognized heads like the Dalai Lama, who is the God-King, and the Tashi Lama, who is the Higher Spiritual Head of Lamaism. There are no recognized rituals comparable to the rituals of the Northern School, little or nothing clearly Tantric, and no worship of Dhyani Buddhas or of a Primordial Buddha, but a limited belief in devas and demons. The only Bodhisattva appealed to and imaged in temples is the coming Buddha, Maitreya. Although theoretically Yoga is insisted upon, it appears to have been but little practised among Southern Buddhists since the times of Buddhagosa and his immediate suc-

1 Here Sj. Atal Behari Ghosh has contributed the following note: ‘ Mahayana may, and possibly does, mean the “‘ Greater ”’ or ‘‘ Higher Path”? (or ‘‘ Voyage’’), and Hinayana the ‘‘ Lesser”? or ‘‘ Lower Path” (or ‘‘ Voyage”). Ya (of Yana) means ‘‘to go”, and Yama “that by which one goes”. Western Orientalists have adopted “Vehicle” as an equivalent of Yaua, as that is the common meaning given in school-books, but ‘‘ Path” is preferable.’

p. 233

cessors, when Buddhist Ceylon is said to have been famous— as Buddhist Tibet is now—for its great saints, or yogis. That there exists a transcendental Buddhism, based chiefly upon Tantric teachings and applied Yoga, such as the lamas claim to possess through oral transmission direct from the time of the Buddha, Southern Buddhism denies, for it holds that the Buddha taught no higher or other doctrines than those recorded in the 7ri-Pitaka or Pali Canon. Similarly, the doctrine of the Esoteric Trinity, or 77i-Kaya, Southern Buddhism does not propound, although there are clear references to the Dkarma-Kaya in the Aggaiia Sittanta of the Digha Nikaya, wherein the Buddha speaks of the Dharma-Kaya to a Brahmin priest named Vasctta (Skt. Vashishtha) ; and the Sinhalese work known as the Dharma- Pradipika contains elaborated expositions of Ripa-Kaya and Dharma-K aya.

Vashishtha) ; and the Sinhalese work known as the Dharma- Pradipika contains elaborated expositions of Ripa-Kaya and Dharma-K aya.

The hypothesis of Christian apologists that Northern Buddhism in its differentiation from Southern Buddhism was primarily affected by early Christian missionaries scems to be disproved—in so far as really fundamental doctrines are concerned—by the far-reaching fact (but recently made known to Western scholars through the recovery of some of the writings of the greatest of the Fathers of the Northern Buddhist Church, namely, the Patriarch Ashvagosha) that Northern Buddhism was fundamentally the same in the first century A. D. as it is now and was prior to the Christian era. If there were Christian influences, as claimed, brought in by the Nestorians, or St. Thomas, or later missionaries, it appears that they could only have been superficial at most.?. In our own view—which is, of

1 Cf. P. Lakshmi Narasu, The Essence of Buddhism (Madras, 1912), p. 352n.

2 Huc, in his Zravels in Tartavy (Hazlett’s trans, ii. 84), notes that Tson Khapa, the founder of the Gelugpa, or Established Reformed Church of Tibet, was acquainted with Christianity through Roman priests who seem to have had a mission near the place of his birth, in the Province of Amdo, China. But Tsoh Khapa having been born during the latter half of the fourteenth century and having founded the Gelugpa during the early fifteenth, such probable Christian influence would be of no importance in relation to the primitive unreformed Ningmapa Church founded by Padma Sambhava in the eighth century, whence our Manuscript had its origin. Thescmi-reformed Kargyutpa Sect, too, antedates the Gelugpa, having been founded in the last half of the eleventh

3069 Hh

p. 234