Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1yad4-yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati, Bharata, abhyutthénam adharmasya tad4tmanam srigimy aham. paritrazdya sadhOnam vindsdya 4a dushk7tam, dharmasamsth4panarthaya sambhavami yuge-yuge. 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.
2But 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.
3Bhagavad-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 source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1yad4-yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati, Bharata, abhyutthénam adharmasya tad4tmanam srigimy aham. paritrazdya sadhOnam vindsdya 4a dushk7tam, dharmasamsth4panarthaya sambhavami yuge-yuge. 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.
2But 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.
3Bhagavad-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 source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.