CHAPTER V NOTES.

[42] Cf. _The Udâna_, chapter VI.

[43]

Svabhâvam parabhâvanca, bhâvancâbhâvameva ca, Ye paçyanti, na paçyante tatvam hi buddhaçâsane.

[44]

Astîti çâçvatagrâho, nâstîtyucchedadarçanam: Tasmâdastitvanâstitve nâçriyeta vicaksanah

[45]

Astîti nâstîti ubhe ‘pi antâ Çuddhî açuddhîti ime ‘pi antâ; Tasmâdubhe anta vivarjayitvâ Madhye ‘pi syânam na karoti paṇditah.

[46] This is the famous phrase in the _Brhadaranyaka Upanisad_ occurring in several places (II, 3, 6; III, 9, 26; IV, 2, 4; IV, 4, 22; IV, 5, 5). The Atman or Brahman, it says, “is to be described by No, No! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail. Him (who knows), these two do not overcome, whether he says that for some reason he has done evil, or for some reason he has done good--he overcomes both, and neither what he has done, nor what he has omitted to do, affects him.”

[47] _The Awakening of Faith_, p. 59. Cf. this with the utterances of Dionysius the Areopagite, as quoted by Prof. W. James in his _Varieties of Religious Experience_, pp. 416-417: “The cause of all things is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion, or reason, or intelligence; nor is it spoken or thought. It is neither number, nor order, nor magnitude, nor littleness, nor equality, nor inequality, nor similarity, nor dissimilarity. It neither stands, nor moves, nor rests.... It is neither essence, nor eternity, nor time. Even intellectual contact does not belong to it. It is neither science nor truth. It is not even royalty nor wisdom; not one; not unity; not divinity or goodness; nor even spirit as we know it.”.... _ad libitum_.

[48]

Anirodham anutpâdam anucchedam açâçvatam, Anekârtham anânârtham anâgamam anirgamam. (_Mâdhyamika Çâstra_, first stanza.)

[49]

Param nirodhâdbhagavân bhavatîtyeva nohyate, Na bhavatyubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti nohyate: Atiṣṭhamâno ‘pi bhagavân bhavatîtyeva nohyate, Na bhavatyubhayam ceti nobhayam ceti nohyate. (_Mâdhyamika_, p. 199).

[50] He was the third son of king of Kâçi (?) in southern India. He came to China A.D. 527 and after a vain attempt to convert Emperor Wu to his own view, he retired to a monastery, where, it is reported, he spent all day in gazing at the wall without making any further venture to propagate his mysticism. But finally he found a most devoted disciple in the person of Shen Kuang, who was once a Confucian, and through whom the Dhyâna school became one of the most powerful Mahâyâna sect in China as well as in Japan. Dharma died in the year 535. Besides the one here mentioned, he had another audience with the Emperor. At that time, the Emperor said to Dharma: “I have dedicated so many monasteries, copied so many sacred books, and converted so many bhiksus and bhiksunis: what do you think my merits are or ought to be?” To this, however, Dharma replied curtly, “No merit whatever.”

[51] Another interesting utterance by a Chinese Buddhist, who, earnestly pondering over the absoluteness of Suchness for several years, understood it one day all of a sudden, is: “The very instant you say it is something (or a nothing), you miss the mark.”

[52] _The Vimalakîrti Sûtra_, Kumârajîva’s translation, Part II,