CHAPTER IV NOTES.

[38] For detailed exposition of the three forms of knowledge, the reader is requested to peruse Asanga’s _Comprehensive Treatise on Mahâyânism_ (Nanjo’s Catalogue, No. 1183), Vasubandhu’s work on Mahâyâna idealism (_Vijnânamâtra Çâstra_, Nanjo, No. 1215), the _Sûtra on the Mystery of Deliverance_ (_Sandhinirmocana-sûtra_, Nanjo. Nos. 246 and 247), etc.

[39] When the eminent representatives of both parties, such as Dharmapala and Bhavaviveka, were at the height of their literary activity in India about the fifth or sixth century after Christ, their partisan spirit incited them bitterly to denounce each other, forgetting the common ground on which their principles were laid down. Their disagreement in fact on which they put an undue emphasis was of a very trifling nature. It was merely a quarrel over phraseology, for one insisted on using certain words just in the sense which the other negated.

[40]

“Dve satye samupâçritya buddhânâm dhardeçanâ Lokasamvṛttisatyañ ca satyañ ca paramârthataḥ. Ye ca anayor na jânanti vibhâgam satyayor dvayoḥ, Te tatvam na vijânanti gambhîrabuddhaçâsane.”

[41]

Vyavahâram anâçritya paramârtho na deçyate, Paramârtham anâgamya nirvâṇam na adhigamyata. _The Mâdhyamika_, p. 181.