8 Richard’s trans. (pp. 27-8). Cf. Suzuki’s trans, (pp. 112-13): ‘If one be absolutely freed from particularization and attachment, one will understand that all things both pure and defiled have only relative existence. Be it therefore known that all things in the world from the beginning are neither matter (7#fa), nor mind (c7#éa), nor intelligence (prajfa), nor consciousness (vijizaua), nor non- being (abhdva), nor being (bhava) ; they are after all inexplicable, The reason why the Tathagata nevertheless endeavours to instruct by means of words and definitions is through his good and excellent skilfulness [or expediency, upaya- kaucalya}. He only provisionally makes use of words and definitions to lead all beings, while his real object is to make them abandon symbolism and directly enter into the real reality (¢atitva). Because if they indulge themselves in reasonings, attach themselves to sophistry, and thus foster their subjective particularization, how could they have the true wisdom (fattvajidna) and attain Nirvaza??
4 Richard’s trans. (p. 13). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (pp. 79-80) : ‘ While the essence of the mind is eternally clean and pure, the influence of ignorance makes
230 Tibetan Book of the Dead: Addenda
‘If there were no True Real Nature of the mind, then all existence would not exist ; there would be nothing to show it. If the True Real Nature of the mind remains, then finite mind continues. Only when the madness of finite mind ceases will the finite mind cease. It is not the wisdom of the True Reality that ceases.’ }
‘Just as a man having lost his way calls the east west, although the east and west have not really changed, so is mankind lost in ignorance, calling the mind of the universe his thoughts! But the Mind is what it ever was, all unchanged by men’s thought. When men consider and realize that the Absolute Mind has no need of thoughts like men’s, they will be following the right way to reach the Boundless.’ ?
Of the Nature of the Absolute: ‘It is neither that which had an origin some time, nor that which will end at some time; it is really eternal. In its nature it is always full of all possibilities, and is described as of great light and wisdom, giving light to all things, real and knowing. Its true nature is that of a pure mind, eternally joyful, the true being of things, pure, quiet, unchanged; therefore free, with fullness of virtues and Bodhic attributes more numerous than
possible the existence of a defiled mind. But in spite of the defiled mind the mind [itself] is eternal, clear, pure, and not subject to transformation. Further, as its original nature is free from particularization, it knows in itself no change whatever, though it produces everywhere the various modes of existence. When the oneness of the totality of things (dharmadhdiu) is not recognized, then ignorance as well as particularization arises, and all phases of the defiled mind are thus developed. But the significance of this doctrine is so extremely deep and unfathomable that it can be fully comprehended by Buddhas and by no others.’
1 Richard’s trans, (p. 15). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (p. 84): ‘Let ignorance be , annihilated, and the symptom of disturbance [in the mind] will also be annihi- lated, while the essence of the mind (i.e, suchness] remains the same. Only if the mind itself were annihilated, then all beings would cease to exist, because there would be nothing there by which they could manifest themselves. But so long as the mind be not annihilated its disturbance may continue.’
* Richard’s trans. (p. 25). Cf. Suzuki’s trans, (pp. 105-6): ‘As a lost man who takes the east for the west, while the quarter is not changed on account of his confusion, so all beings, because of their misleading ignorance, imagine that the mind is being disturbed, while in reality it is not. But when they under- stand that the disturbance of the mind [i. e. birth-and-death] is [at the same time] immortality [viz. suchness] they would then enter into the gate of suchness.’
Reality 231
the sands of the Ganges, divine, unending, unchanged and unspeakable.’ !
‘As the nature behind all experience has no beginning, so it has no end—this is the true MVirvana....??
‘Behind all existence there is naturally the Supreme Virvana [or Supreme Rest].’®
1 Richard’s trans. (p. 21). Cf. Suzuki’s trans. (pp. 95-6): ‘It was not created in the past, nor is it to be annihilated in the future; it is eternal, permanent, absolute ; and from all eternity it sufficingly embraces in its essence all possible merits (punya). That is to say, suchness has such characteristics as follows: the effulgence of great wisdom; the universal illumination of the dharmadhatu [universe]; the true and adequate knowledge ; the mind pure and clean in its self-nature; the eternal, the blessed, the self-regulating, and the pure; the tranquil, the immutable, and the free. 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. Dharma- kaya 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 under- stood 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 [meta- physical] 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.’
233 Tibetan Book of the Dead: Addenda
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, con-
firms our own interpretations.
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 hier- archical 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.’
Buddhism and Christianity 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.
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 con- cerned—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 in- fluences, 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