Dialogues of the Buddha, Part II — trans. T. W. and C. A. F. Rhys Davids (1910)

1 Brahma, the first cause, the highest result of Indian theological speculation, the one God of the Indian Pantheists, is represented as using expressions full of deep allusions to the most characteristic Buddhist doctrines. The Samussaya is the result of the temporary collocation of the 'aggregations' (khandha) of mental and material qualities which give to each being (bhuto, that is, man, animal, god, ghost, fairy, or what not) its outward and visible shape, its individuality. Loka is here not the world in our sense, but the ' locality ' in the Buddhist universe which such an individual occupies until it is dissolved. (Comp. Chap. II, §§ 12, 26.) Brahma appears therefore as a veritable Doctor in theology, and I have been obliged to expand the translation to bring out all the meaning in the text.

p. 176

They are produced, they are dissolved again :
To bring them all into subjection — that is bliss V

When the Exalted One died, the venerable Anuruddha, at the moment of his passing away from existence, uttered these stanzas : —

' When he who from all craving want was free,
Who to Nirvana's tranquil state had reached,
When the great sage finished his span of life,
No gasping struggle vexed that steadfast heart !

All resolute, and with unshaken mind,
He calmly triumphed o'er the pain of death.
E'en as a bright flame dies away, so was
The last emancipation of his heart.'

1 On this celebrated verse see below the Introduction to Maha- Sudassana-Suttanta. It must be the original of the first verse in the Chinese work, Fa Kheu Pi Hu (Beal, Dhammapada, p. 32), though it is there so changed that every clause has lost its point.

' Whatever exists is without endurance,
And hence the terms ' flourishing ' and 'decaying.'
A man is born, and then he dies.
Oh, the happiness of escaping from this condition ! '

The very meaning which is here the most essential connotation of sahkhara is lost in the phrase 'whatever exists.' By a misapprehension of the, no doubt, difficult word D ham ma, which, however, never means ' term,' the second clause has lost its point. And by a grammatical blunder the third clause in the Chinese confines the doctrine, erroneously, to man. In a Chinese tale, called Ngan shih niu, translated by Mr. Beal, in the ' Indian Antiquary ' for May, 1880, the following verses occur; and they are possibly another reflection of this stanza : —

'All things that exist are transitory,
They must of necessity perish and disappear ;
Though joined together, there must be separation ;
Where there is life there must be death.'

Compare the constantly repeated phrase : — ' Whatsoever hath an origin in that is inherent the necessity of dissolution.' The perception of this is emphatically called the Eye for the Truth ; and the doctrine is referred to in the next section.

D. ii. 158. THE BOOK OF THE GREAT DECEASE. 1 77

When the Exalted One died, the venerable Ananda, at the moment of his passing away from existence, uttered this stanza : —

1 Then was there terror !
Then stood the hair on end!
When he endowed with every grace —
The supreme Buddha— died ! * '

2 When the Exalted One died, of those of the brethren who were not yet free from the passions, some stretched out their arms and wept, and some fell headlong on the ground, rolling to and fro in anguish at the thought : — [158] ' Too soon has the Exalted One died! Too soon has the Happy One passed away! Too soon has the Light gone out in the world ! '

But those of the brethren who were free from the passions [the Arahants] bore their grief collected and composed at the thought : — ' Impermanent are all component things ! How is it possible that [they should not be dissolved] ? '

11. Then the venerable Anuruddha exhorted the brethren, and said : — ' Enough, my brethren ! Weep not, neither lament ! Has not the Exalted One formerly declared this to us, that it is in the very nature of all things near and dear unto us, that we must divide ourselves from them, leave them, sever ourselves from them ? How then, brethren, can this be possible — that whereas anything whatever born, brought into being, and organized, contains within itself the inherent necessity of dissolution — how then can this be possible that such a being should not be dissolved ? No such