change karuzically dependent upon the false concept that phenomena, or phenomenal appearances, or phenomenal states and beings, are real. In other words, Buddhism holds that individualized mind or consciousness cannot realize Reality.
The essence of the Bardo Thidol teachings is, likewise, that so long as the mind is human, so long as it is individualized, so long as it regards itself as separate and apart from all other minds, it is but the plaything of Ward, of Ignorance, which causes it to look upon the hallucinatory panorama of existences within the Sanugsara as real, and thence leads it to lose itself in the Quagmire of Phenomena.
Followers of the Semitic Faiths are hereditarily so completely dominated by the theory of soul and of personal immortality after death, in a phenomenal paradise or hell, that in their view there can be no alternative; and to them the Buddhist denial of the theory erroneously appears to imply a doctrine of the absolute negation of being.
The realization of Reality, according to the Bardo Thodol, is wholly dependent upon expurgating from the mind all error, all false belief, and arriving at a state in which Mara no longer controls. Once the mind becomes freed from all karmic obscurations, from the supreme heresy that phenomenal appearances—in heavens, hells, or worlds—are real, then there dawns Right Knowledge; all forms merge into that which is non-form, all phenomena into that which is beyond phenomena, all Ignorance is dissipated by the Light of Truth, personality ceases, individualized being and sorrow are at an end, mind and matter are known to be identical, the mundane conscious- ness becomes the supramundane, and, one with the Darma- Kaya, the pilgrim reaches the Goal.
The great Patriarch Ashvaghosha, who set down in writing
during the first century A.D.! the essential teachings of
Mahayana Buddhism as at first handed down orally by
1 The exact date of Ashvaghosha (or A¢vaghosha) is uncertain. According to Suzuki, who has investigated the question with great care, Ashvaghosha ‘lived at the time extending from the latter half of the first century before Christ to about 50 or 80 a.p.... At the very most, his time cannot be placed later than the first century of the Christian era’ (T. Suzuki, The Awakening of Faith, Chicago, 1900, p. 17).
3069 G¢g
226 Tibetan Book of the Dead: Addenda
initiates direct from the time of the Buddha, has other-
wise stated the doctrines touching Reality as follows, in
his remarkable treatise called The Awakening of Faith :*
Of Ignorance: ‘The True Reality is originally only one, but the degrees of ignorance are infinite ; therefore the natures of men differ in character accordingly. There are unruly thoughts more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, some arising from ignorant conceptions and others arising from ignorance of senses and desires. Thus all kinds of wild thoughts arisc from ignorance and have first and last infinite differences which Ju Lai [i.e. the Tathagata] alone knows.’ ?
‘As from the True Reality man knows that there is no objective world, then the various means of following and obeying this True Reality arise spontaneously [i.e. without thought and without action], and, when influenced by this power for a long time, ignorance disappears. As ignorance disappears, then false ideas cease to arise. As these false ideas do not arise, the former objective world also ends. As the forces cease to exist, then the false powers of the finite mind cease to exist, and this is called Mirvaua, when the natural forces of the True Reality alone work.’ ®
1 There are two English translations of The Awakening of Iaith, from the Chinese, one by a Christian missionary to China, the late Rev. Timothy Richard, made in 1894 and published, in Shanghai, in 1907, the other by the learned Japanese Buddhist Mr. Teitaro Suzuki, published in rgoo, in Chicago. We give herein, in parallel, extracts from both. There are, likewise, two Chinese versions, each based upon the original Sanskrit version, which is now lost: one made in a,D. 554, by Paramartha (otherwise called Kulanatha), an Indian Buddhist missionary, who reached China in a. p. 546 and died in a. p. 569, at the age of 71 years; the other was begun in a. D. 7oo by Cikshananda, also an
Indian Buddhist missionary, who died in China, in a.p. 710, at the age of 59. Richard’s translation is from Paramartha’s version, and Suzuki’s from Cik- shananda’s.
* Richard’s trans. (p. 18), Cf. Suzuki’s trans, (p. 89): ‘Though all beings are uniformly in possession of suchness, the intensity [of the influence] of ignorance, the principle of individuation, that works from all eternity, varies in such manifold grades as to outnumber the sands of the Ganges. And it is even so with such entangling prejudices (Aleca or a¢rava) as the ego-conception, intellectual and affectional prejudices, &c. [whose perfuming efficiency varics according to the karma previously accumulated by each individual],—all these things being comprehended only by the Tathagata. Hence such immeasurable degrees of difference as regards belief, &c.’
8 Richard’s trans. (p. 17). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (pp. 86-7): ‘On account of this perfuming influence [i.e, through suchness perfuming ignorance] we are
Reality 207
Of Phenomena: ‘ All phenomena are originally in the mind and have really no outward form; therefore, as there is no form, it is an error to think that anything is there. All phenomena merely arise from false notions in the mind. If the mind is independent of these false ideas, then all phenomena disappear... .’}
‘Therefore the phenomena of the three worlds [of desire, of form, and of non-form] are mind-made. Without mind, then, there is practically no objective existence. Thus all existence arises from imperfect notions in our mind. All differences are differences of the mind. But the mind cannot see itself, for it has no form. We should know that all phenomena are created by the imperfect notions in the finite mind; therefore all existence is like a reflection in a mirror, without substance, only a phantom of the mind. When the finite mind acts, then all kinds of things arise; when the finite mind ceases to act, then all kinds of things cease.’ ?
enabled to believe that we are in possession within ourselves of suchness whose essential nature is pure and immaculate; and we also recognize that all pheno- mena in the world are nothing but the illusory manifestation of the mind (alaya- vuyzidna) and have no reality of their own. Since we thus rightly understand the truth, we can practise the means of liberation, can perform those actions which are in accordance (with the Dharma]. Neither do we particularize, nor cling to. By virtue of this discipline and habituation during the lapse of innumerable asamkhyeyakalpas (lit. countless ages], we have ignorance anni- hilated. As ignorance is thus annihilated, the mind [i.e. dlaya-vytdana] is no more disturbed so as to be subject to individuation. As the mind is no more disturbed, the particularization of the surrounding world is annihilated. When in this wise the principle and the condition of defilement, their products, and the mental disturbances are all annihilated, it is said that we attain to Nirva@na and that various spontaneous displays of activity are accomplished.’
1 Richard’s trans. (p. 26), Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (p. 107): ‘In a word, all modes of relative existence, our phenomenal world as a whole, are created simply by the particularization of the confused mind. If we become dissociated from the latteé, then all modes of relative existence vanish away by themselves.’
2 Richard’s trans. (p. 12). Cf. Suzuki's trans. (pp. 77-8): ‘Therefore the, three domains {or viloka, i.e. domain of feeling (Aamaloka), domain of bodily existence (rapaloka), domain of incorporeality (avi#paloka)] are nothing but the self-manifestation of the mind [i. e. dlaya-vij#ana, which is practically identical with suchness, bhitatathata@|. Separated from the mind, there would be no such things as the six objects of sense. Why? Since all things, owing the principle of their existence to the mind (dlaya-vijiidna), are produced by subjectivity (siti), all the modes of particularization are the self-particulariza- tion of the mind, The mind in itself being, however, free from all attributes, is
228 Tibetan Book of the Dead: Addenda
Of Space: ‘Men are to understand that space is nothing. It has no existence and is not a reality. It is a term in opposition to reality. We only say this or that is visible in order that we might distinguish between things.’ ?
Of Mind and Matter: ‘Mind and matter are eternally the same. As the essence of matter is wisdom, the essence of matter is without form and is called the embodiment of wisdom. As the manifested essence of wisdom is matter, it is called the all-pervading embodiment of wisdom. The unmanifested matter is without magnitude; according to the will it can show itself throughout all the universe as the immeasurable Pusas [i.e. intelligent devout men, or Bodhisattvas], im- measurable inspired spirits, immeasurable glories, all different without magnitude and without interference with one another. This is what ordinary senses cannot comprehend, as it is the work of Absolute Reality... .’?
‘According to the Absolute Reality there is no distinction between mind and matter; it is on account of the defilement
not differentiated. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that all things and conditions in the phenomenal world, hypostatized and established only through ignorance (avidya) and subjectivity (swrt/) on the part of all beings, have no more reality than the images in a mirror. They evolve simply from the ideality of a particularizing mind. When the mind is disturbed, the multiplicity of things is produced; but when the mind is quieted, the multiplicity of things disappcars.’
1 Richard’s trans. (pp. 25-6). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (p. 107) : ‘ Beit clearly under- stood that space is nothing but a mode of particularization and that it has no real existence of its own. Where there is a perception of space, there is side by side a perception of a variety of things, in contradistinction to which space is spoken of as if existing independently. Space therefore exists only in relation to our particularizing consciousness.’
* Richard’s trans. (pp. 24-5). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (pp. 103-4): ‘ Matter (rapa) and mind (ci#/a) from the very beginning are nota duality. So we speak of [the universe as] a system of rationality (prajfakdya), seeing that the real nature of matter just constitutes the norm of mind. Again we speak of [the universe as] a system of materiality (dharmakaya), seeing that the true nature of mind just constitutes the norm of matter. Now depending on the Dharmakdya, all Tathagatas manifest themselves in bodily forms and are incessantly present at all points of space. And Bodhisattvas in the ten quarters, according to their capabilitics and wishes, are able to manifest infinite Bodics of Bliss and infinite lands of ornamentation, each one of which, though stamped with the marks of individuality, does not hinder the others from being fused into it, and this {mutual fusion] has no interruption. But the manifestation of the Dharmakaya in [infinite] bodily forms is not comprchensible to the thought and understanding of common people ; because it is the free and subtlest activity of suchness,’
Ned ve bel Me 229
of the finite in the round of life and death that these dis- tinctions appear... .’1
‘As to the defilements of the world, they are all false; they have no reality behind them... .’?
‘Finally, to leave false concepts, one should know that purity and defilement are both relative terms, and have no independent existence. Although all things from eternity are neither mind nor matter, neither infinite wisdom nor finite knowledge, neither existing nor non-existing, but are after all inexpressible, we nevertheless use words, yet should know that the Buddha’s skilful use of words to lead men aright lay in this—to get men to cease conjecturing and to return to the Absolute Reality, for the best human thought of all things is only temporary and is not Truth Absolute.*
Of the Nature of the Primordial Mind: ‘The mind from the beginning is of a pure nature, but since there is the finite aspect of it which is sullied by finite views, there is the sullied aspect of it. Although there is this defilement, yet the original pure nature is eternally unchanged. This mystery the En- lightened One alone understands.’ 4
1 Richard’s trans, (p. 26). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (pp. 108-9): ‘Be it clearly understood that suchness (bhitatathala@) has nothing to do with any form of distinction produced by defilement, and that even in case we speak of its possessing innumerable meritorious characteristics they are free from the traces of defilement.’
? Richard’s trans. (p. 27). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (p. 109): ‘. . . defiled ob- jects ... are nothing but non-entity, have from the first no self-existence (svabhava), ...’