English
Let us examine into the matter, In the first place/Gautama dd not deny the existence of Brahman, but simply refused to speculate regarding Its nature, character and being, holding that the concern of man was with the phenomenal world and the escape there- from —and that speculation upon Srahman was useless and a waste of time— ‘enough to know that THAT zs’” was his idea. He denied the existence of Jvara, the Personal God, of the Hindus, and thus brought upon himself the reproach of Atheism, which had also been visited upon the heads of Xagira and other philosophical teachers. But Gautama did not deny the existence of THAT —he merely took wt for granted without argument as a funda- mental axiomic truth. Nay, more, in his system he clearly indicated the existence of a Fara-Brahm, or Sup- reme Brahman, that is a Brahman in the aspect of Non- Being, or Non-Manifestation, Gautama has been described as postulating a “Nothing” from which the phenomenal universe emerged, and into which it would return. Now, any one at all familiar with the fundamental conceptions of the Hindu philosophical thought knows that the one positive position from which the Hindu mind refuses to budge, is the idea that ‘something never can come from nothing— nor can something be resolved into nothing’’; or, as it is often expressed - “from no- thing, nothing comes.” And, Moreover, to suppose that 54 BUDDHISM IN ENGLISH the Mirtana, or Soul Freedom, of Gautama was a state of “nothingness” or annihilation, shows a profound ig- norance Of the fundamental conceptions of the Buddhist philosophy, .as well as of the general Hindu, or even the general Oriental, thought, through all of which the thread of an Ultimate Universal Consciousness runs unbroken. And yet you will find the majority of Western Writers on Buddhism assuring you that Mrvana, the goal of the Buddhist, is a “state of nothingness” or “a state of an- nihilaticn.” rzGina is “the annihilation of qa” —a “blowing-out of Avidya, or Ignorance’’—and a state of Unive:sai Inner Consciousness, rather than an extinction of coviscicusness. And if these Western writers fail to grasp even this important point of the Buddhist teachings, how can you expect them to grasp the subtle minor points of doctrine? As we have said, Gautama refused to speculate upon The Absolute, THAT, Brahman, or the Noumenal. But instead of denying its existence, he merely treated it as an existent Unknowable, a position very similar to that of Herbert Spencer, the great English philosopher, whom men mistakenly call a “ materialist,” although he clearly and positively postulates an ‘‘ Unknowable” upon which the entire phenomenal universe or “‘The Knowable” de- pends and is sustained. Ga@tama admits this Unknowable, and although he treats it as a No-Thing, he does not claim it is Nothing —it is simply that which is entirely “ Differrent from and Antecedent to Things.” So subtle ‘NO-THING’ BUT NOT ‘NOTHING’ 5d is G@tama’s conception and analysis that it is no wonder that his meaning escapes the observation of the Western examiners of his teachings. For not only does he con- sider the Absolute-in-Action, or THAT Manifesting, as the Unknowable; but he also perceives to exist a Para- Brahm —that is THAT in its aspect of Rest and Not- Activity—Brahman divested even of A4@ya and the Illu- sory Universe. To use Western terms Gduama’s highest and ultimate conception was that of “The Thing-in-Itself” with all of its manifestations vanished — the Absolute as Non-Being, as distinguished from The Absolute as Being. But as all advanced Western students of philosophy know full well, ‘‘Non-Being’”’ does not mean “nothing,” but is the term used to designate Reality in Pure Essence, as distinguished from Reality manifesting Relativity. And, so we state positively that a careful study of the original teachings of Gautama will reveal the fact that he did not teach the doctrine of Ultimate Nothingness or Nihilism; but, that his “No-Thing”’ was identical with the Western conception of Non-Being, which is really the highest conception of Reality “Beyond-Being”; and that he recognized THAT in its purest essence as the funda- mental reality underlying all that is in appearance. With- out this basic conception, the entire phisolophy of Gaulama would fall to the ground --would be meganingless—would be a doctrine of Something proceeding from Nothing, _ and to Nothing returning in order to gain Freedom —a palpable absurdity lacking all sanity, and opposed to 56 BUDDHISM IN ENGLISH every principle and instinct of Hindu thought. Gdutama indeed taught the Nothingness of the phenomenal life, or Sams@ra, even surpassing the Advaitist Vedandists in his conception of the nature of 1/@a, which he denounced as the purest Ignorance lacking even a shadow of Truth or Reality ; a Lie in the mind of The Absolute. But upon THAT he founded his teachings—upon THAT which is ever present in all Hindu thought—THAT which if re- moved would bring all Hindu thought tumbling in shattered bits beyond possibility of repair or restoration. Gdutama was considered as an iconoclast—an infidel—an “atheist” even, in the eyes of the orthodox church of India —but he was not a Fool, claiming a NOTHING as a basis for All-Things. Surely the “interpreters” of Buddha have inverted his pyramid of thought. — Yogi Ramacharaka, “Philosophies and feeligions of India” — CHAPTER VX DOCTRINE OF TRINITY The doctrine of the Trikaya, three bodies, or the three aspects of the Buddha, is one of the most fascina- ting features of Mahayana, and the relationship that exists between it and the Trimirti of Hinduism, and the Trinity DOCTRINE OF TRINITY 57 of Christianity, etc,, is of especial interest to students of comparative religions. Certain scholars have supposed that the triune doctrine, certainly as found in the West, is the result of the ideali- zation of the human family of Father (e.g., the Egyptian Osiris ), Mother (e.g., Isis), and Son (e.g,, Horus). Certainly as far as Buddhism is concerned, this supposi- tion proves fallacious, for the present doctrine of the Trikaya is the result of a long and intricate line of doc- trinal evolution. Needless to say, in Hinayana the doctrine is entirely extraneous, though, as with other points, careful study shews that it contains the rudiments of each of the Kaya or bodies individually, though naturally in an entirely un- developed form. The Trikaya are: — 1. Dharmakoya, or the Body of the Law, practically synonymous with the Bhitatathata. 2. Sambhegaldya, or Body of Compensation. The symbol of the Buddha ideal. 3. LVirmdnakaya, or Body of Transformation, the Uni- versal Manifested in the World. 1. Mrmdnakdya The Nirmanakaya is of course, Cakyamuni, and the other human Buddhas, having all the qualities of mortals, subject to disease, old age, and death. (Hence the name Transformation). Being, however, the voice of the 58 BUDDHISM IN ENGLISH Universal Buddha they are one with it. The Nirmanakaya might be more freely rendered as the Body of Incar- nation. Gradually, if we trace the history of the evolution of the Buddha legend, the human Buddhas came to be glo- rified and elevated far beyond the possibilities of corporal persons. They are possessed of the thirty-two major and eighty minor physical marks of excellence. They are. endowed with the supermundane powers of clairvoyance, clairaudience, increase and decrease of stature, etc. They have power over the whole universe, and over all senti- ent beings. They are the quintessence of holiness, wisdom, purity, mercy, and all other ideal qualities, This process is visible in Hinayadna, as well as in Maha- yana, but it is not carried to the same extreme. Further- more, the Hinayanists have tried to keep more or less within the bounds of possibility, and all the marvels re- corded refer to the human Buddha. In Mahayana, how- ever, tie limits of a single personality were transcended, and believers soon began to expend lavish poetical adorn- ment upon the ideal of the Buddha. He is attended by myriads of Devas and Bodhisattvas, He sits for long kalpas in meditation. His death is only an illusion, an ujdya, ana in reality he is ever alive helping on the progress of the world. 2. Sambhogakdya The Buddha of the Mahayana Sitras, then, is an DOCTRINE OF TRINITY 59 idealized Buddha, and has the same relation to the histo- rical Buddha as the Christ, or the Logos to the historical Jesus, or perhaps to the glorified Christ of the resurrection. It is this aspect of the Buddha which is known as the Sambhogakdya. Strangely enough, the Occidental idea which comes nearest to the Buddhist doctrine of the Sambhogakaya, is Mr. Wells’s theory of God the Invisible King. Wells contrasts the God behind the Veil, the God of Abstract Justice, with the conception of God as the Ideal, as the object of devotion, as the symbol of the Christ spirit. The God behind the Veil is the Bhitatathata, or the Dharma- kaya, and the Invisible King is the Sambhogakaya, the Body of Glory, the Buddha Spirit behind all human Buddhas. The Buddha of most of the Mahayana Siitras is this Sambhogakaya, who merely uses the Nirmanakaya as his mouth-piece, and though he is one with all the Buddhas, and not merely Cakyamuni, he is often called by this name. Thus for example, the Saddharma Pundarika Stitra speaks of the Buddha as being the loving father who rescues his children (all sentient beings) from the burning house of the three worlds. For this reason do the innumerable Bodhisattvas appear to testify to the fact that all through eternity the Buddhas have at various times appeared to teach all mankind the Law. “Every drop of water in the vast ocean can be counted, but the age of Cakyamuni none can measure: crush Mt.