^{page 441 note 1} Warren, Henry Clark, Buddhism in Translation (Harvard Oriental Series), 1947, p. 209Google Scholar; see also Renou, Louis, Hinduism, New York, 1962, pp. 43–44Google Scholar; cf. Suzuki, D. T., Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, London, 1907, pp. 181 ff.; 140.Google ScholarArvon, Henry (Buddhism, New York, 1962, p. 17) writesGoogle Scholar, ‘The doctrine of Karma is the indispensable complement to Samsara.’ On the fore-elements of the Karma theory, see Gupta, S. Das, History of Indian Philosophy, Cambridge, 1951, Vol. I, pp. 21–22; 71–74Google Scholar; James, E. O., Comparative Religion, New York, 1961, p. 149, nn. 2, 3.Google ScholarTakakusu, Junjiro (The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, Honolulu, 1947, p. 35) notes that ‘Often Samsara (“constant flow”) is translated as ‘transmigration of soul’, but that is a very misleading translation, for the idea is not that a soul lives after the death of the body and moves into another body. Samsara means the creation of a new life by the influence of the actions of the former living being.’Google Scholar

^{page 441 note 2} Cf. Arvon, , op. cit., p. 13Google Scholar; Gupta, Das, op. cit., pp. 80; 164–165.Google Scholar

^{page 441 note 3} E.g., see ‘The Questions of King Milinda’, S.B.E. XXXV, II, I, 1 and 6.

^{page 441 note 4} Murti, T. R. V., The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, London, 1955, p. 4. (italics added).Google Scholar

^{page 442 note 1} I.e., ‘the individual (as opposed to a group) person, man; soul.’ See Tedesco, P., ‘Sanskrit pudgala– “Body; Soul”’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 67 (1947), pp. 172–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 442 note 2} Cf. Murti, , op. cit., pp. 10–11Google Scholar; see also Zimmer, Heinrich, Philosophies of India, Cleveland, 1964, PP– 515 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 442 note 3} See Sogen, Yamakami, Systems of Buddhistic Thought, Calcutta, 1912, pp. 289–292Google Scholar; Aung, S. Z. and Davids, Rhys, Points of Controversy or Subjects of Discourse, trans. of the Kathavatthus from the Abhidhammapithaka, London, 1915Google Scholar; Kimura, R., The Original and Developed Doctrines of Indian Buddhism, Calcutta, 1920.Google Scholar

^{page 443 note 1} Ward, C. H. S., Buddhism, Vol. I, London, 1947, pp. 90–91.Google Scholar

^{page 443 note 2} Stcherbatsky, Th., Buddhist Logic, I, The Hague, 1958, p. 108.Google Scholar See Gupta, Das, op. cit., pp. 115 f.Google Scholar; cf. Ibid., ‘Buddhism did not at any time believe anything to be permanent.’ Of the emergent schools, ‘The fundamental propositions about which they all agreed were: (1) All is momentary (sarvam ksanikam), (2) All is without self (sarvam anâtman), (3) All is suffering (sarvam duhkham)’; see N.Dutt, Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist Schools, London, 1925, p. 198; cf. Suzuki, (op.cit., p.140), including “Mahâyâna,” ‘(2) All is empty (sarvaṁ çûnyam) …(4) All is such as it is (sarvaṁ tathâtvam).'

^{page 444 note 1} Stcherbatsky, , op.cit., p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 2} Cf. Ibid., pp. 119–120; Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism, Calcutta, 1956, pp. 26–27; Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought in India, London, 1962, pp. 134–137; cf. J. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science, New York, 1957, pp. 38, 70, 146.

^{page 444 note 3} Cf. Stcherbatsky, Central Conception (loc. cit.): ‘…causation in the animate world, where the operation of moral causation (vipāka–hetu) is superimposed upon the natural’.

^{page 444 note 4} For this Nidānic process, see Govinda, L. A., The Psychological Attitude of Early Buddhist Thought, London, 1961, pp. 55–56.Google Scholar Cf. Keith, A. B., Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon, Oxford, 1923, pp. 105 ff.Google Scholar For theoretical cyclical–process variations, see Kern, H., Manual of Indian Buddhism, Straβburg, 1896, pp. 47 ff.Google Scholar; esp. Wayman, A., ‘Buddhist Dependent Origination’, History of Religions, Vol. 10, No.3 (February 1971), pp. 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the priority of ‘ignorance,’ see (Visuddhi–Magga, XVII), Warren, op.cit., p. 17 ff.; and Aśvaghoşa's ‘Buddha–Carita’, Pt. I. S.B.E., Vol.XLIX, Bk. XVI, 35–43.

^{page 444 note 5} Conze, , op.cit., pp. 122, 130–32; cf.p.123.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 1} Vallée–Poussin, L. dela, ‘Sāṁmitīyas’, E.R.E., XI, pp. 168, 169Google Scholar; Conze, , op.cit., p. 124; cf. p. 454 and n.12 (Thomas).Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 2} Vallée–Poussin, , op, cit., p. 169.Google Scholar Cf. Conte, , op. cit., pp. 125–27; 281Google Scholar; esp. Thomas, Edward J., The History of Buddhist Thought, London, 1971, p. 100 f.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 3} Cf. Zimmer, , op.cit., PP. 526–27.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 4} Conze, , op. cit., pp. 131, 129; see also p.128.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 1} Cf. Zimmer, , op. cit., p. 527Google Scholar; see Suzuki, , Studies in the Lankāvatāra Sūtra, London, 1930, pp. 242, 257, 258.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 2} Murti, , op.cit., p. 167.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 3} Cf. Ibid., pp. 168 ff., 170 ff.; cf. A.B. Keith, Indian Logic and Atomism, Oxford, 1921, pp. 198–204, esp. 202.

^{page 446 note 4} Stcherbatsky, , Buddhist Logic, pp. 343–4.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 5} Murti, , op. cit., p. 177Google Scholar; cf. loc. cit., 1: a restatement of the dilemma (Bradley), ‘causation must be continuous’; ‘causation cannot be continuous’.

^{page 447 note 1} Conze, , op. cit., p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 447 note 2} Candrakīrti, Prasannapadā XVIII (italics added); see Conze, Edward, ed., Buddhist Texts Through the Ages, London, p. 169Google Scholar; hereafter this source = B.T. Cf. supra, p. 444, note 3.

^{page 448 note 1} Stcherbatsky, , Buddhist Logic, p. 185.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 2} Cf. Zimmer, , op. cit., p. 532.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 3} Suzuki, , Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, pp. 181, 182.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 4} Sinha, Jadunath, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Calcutta, 1963, p. 92.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 5} Cf. Stcherbatsky, , The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana, Leningrad, 1927, p. 36Google Scholar; cf. Kitagawa, J. M., Religion in Japanese History, New York, 1966, p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 1} E.g., Stcherbatsky (Buddhist Logic, p. 133), ‘…the Buddhists were always obliged to defend themselves against the stricture that there is in their outlook no place [sic] neither for Bondage [sic] nor for Deliverance, since the Ego, the Agent who could be bound up and then delivered does not exist at all’; cf. Wayman (‘Buddhist Dependent Origination’, p. 198), ‘If the dharmas are not ours, then, whose are they? Or, if the dharmas do not come from us, then, whence do they come?’

^{page 449 note 2} Cf. Welton, G. R., The Buddhist Nirvāna and Its Western Interpreters, Chicago and London, 1968, pp. 79–89, 94–100, 252 ff.(Senart).Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 3} (Mrs) Davids, T. W. Rhys, Buddhism: A Study of the Buddhist Norm, London, 1928, p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 4} Altizer, T. J. J., Oriental Mysticism and Biblical Eschatology, Philadelphia, 1961, p. 149.Google Scholar Cf. Matsutani, Fumio, A Comparative Study of Buddhism and Christianity, Tokyo, 1957, pp. 163–174, esp. pp. 173–4.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 5} Cf. Murti, (op. cit., p. 17), ‘Denial of Satkāya (ātman or Substance) is the very pivot of the Buddhist metaphysics and doctrine of salvation’; Conze, Buddhism: Its Essence and Development, New York, 1929, p. 129 f.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 6} Kern, , op. cit., p. 50Google Scholar; cf. Murti, , op. cit., p. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 7} Stcherbatsky, , Buddhist Logic, p. 142Google Scholar; see (Sullivan), n. 11; Suriyabongs, L., Buddhism in the Light of Modern Science, n.d.Google Scholar Cf. Nanajivako, Bhikkhu, ‘Aniccam–The Buddhist Theory of Impermanence’, Main Currents in Modern Thought, Vol. 27, No.5 (May–June, 1971), pp. 139–146.Google Scholar A truly remarkable model of a unitary approach to fields of knowledge is still Johnson's, RaynorThe Imprisoned Splendour, New York, 1953 (paperback, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 1} Cf. Sthiramati's language in his sub–commentary on the relation between ‘emptiness’ and ‘cognition’!: ‘and why is Suchness called “cognizable”? Because it is the sphere of the cognition which consists in the purification from the covering of the cognizable’ (Madhyāntavibhāgatikā, pp. 49 ff.); see this and also Saddharmapundarika XV, 268–72; Siksāsamuccaya 256, 257, 259–61, 262 (Pitrputrasamāgama); Satasāhasrikā LIII, f. 279–83, in B.T., pp. 171, 141, 164–6, 174–5.

^{page 450 note 2} Hudson, H. (‘Buddhist Teaching About Illusion’, Religious Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1971, pp. 147, 148) reminds us that, apart from the elusiveness of the Buddhist dialectic, ‘we are not concerned with a species of metaphysical theology but with a kind of psycho–therapeutical theology’; here, however, not only are we less concerned about our use of the word ‘metaphysics’ than the term ‘theology’, but we are most doubtful about the feasibility of the Buddhist logicians’ attempt to harmonise both a basic ‘theory of elements’ and a ‘psycho–therapeutical’ process which includes an almost universally traditional, personal experience (= com–pathos) into a coherent religious philosophy. Whether those logicians accept it or not, even a view of transpersonal consciousness that purports to use a dialectical mirage in order to explode the traditional reasoning–categories of other religious systems as a precondition for Nirvāna, ultimately subjects itself to the ‘burden’ of an implicit, however non-traditional (world-) view (i.e., a Buddhist darśana).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 450 note 3} Cf. Kern, , op.cit., pp. 69, 70.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 4} Ch'en, Kenneth, Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey, Princeton, New Jersey, 1972, p. 12.Google Scholar On Mahāyāna-Hinayāna differences-similarities, cf. Sinha, , op. cit., pp. 103–4Google Scholar; Coomaraswamy, A., Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism, New York, 1916, pp. 227 ff.Google Scholar; also Dutt, N., Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and Its Relation to Hinayana, London, 1930, pp. 198–204.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 1} Cf. Suzuki, , op.cit., pp. 296 f.Google Scholar See also, Kitagawa, J. M., ‘Other Religions’, in Raughley, Ralph C. Jr., ed., New Frontiers of Christianity, New York, 1962, pp. 166–8.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 2} Altizer, , op.cit., p. 149.Google Scholar Cf. King, Winston, Buddhism and Christianity: Some Bridges of Understanding, Philadelphia, 1962, pp. 200–201.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 3} Williams, Cyril G., ‘Selflessness in the Pattern of Salvation’, Religious Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2 (June, 1971), p. 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See, e.g., Śatapañcāśatkastotra VI, 60; Śiksāsamuccaya, 280–1 (Vajradhvaja Sūtra), in B.T., pp.192; 131–2.

^{page 451 note 4} Weiler, Royal W., ‘The Buddhist Act of Compassion’, in Bender, Ernest, ed., Studies in Honour of W. Norman Brown (American Oriental Series, Vol. 47), New Haven, 1962, p. 246.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 5} Cf. Gard, R. A., ed., Buddhism, New York, 1962, pp. 117–9.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 6} Cf. Smart, Ninian, Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy, London, 1964, pp. 43, 45, 51, 55, 56.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 1} See Nāgārjuna on the Bodhicitta, in Suzuki, , Outlines, p. 292, 292n, 1 ff.Google Scholar; nonetheless, cf ‘pranidhāna’ in Suzuki, , ed., On Indian Mahayana Buddhism, New York, 1968, pp. 248 f.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 2} Arvon, , op.cit., pp. 81, 82Google Scholar; Wayman, , cit., p. 198Google Scholar; Kern, , op. cit., pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 3} Cf. Ch'en, , op. cit., pp. 11–6.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 4} Cf. Fox, Douglass A., Buddhism, Christianity, and the Future of Man, Philadelphia, 1972, pp. 62–3; 183.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 5} Conze, , Buddhism: Its Essence and Development, p. 105; Buddhist Thought, p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 6} Or, in the Mahayana dialectical sense, ‘to not have one's cake and eat it too(?)’; cf.e.g., Aṣṭasāhasrikā XXII, 402–4, esp., ‘…he radiates great friendliness and compassion overall those beings, and gives his attention to them … But he does not make either this or anything else, into a sign with which he becomes intimate.’ See, Conze, , The Prajñāpāramitā Literature, The Hague, 1960, p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 7} Vallée–Poussin, , Bouddhisme, opinions sur l'histoire de la dogmatique, Paris, 1909, p. 310.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 1} Vallée–Poussin, , Bauddhisme, opinions sur l'histoire de la dogmatique, Paris, 1909, loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 2} Cf. Aṣṭasāhasrikā III, 58, in B.T., p. 144Google Scholar; Suzuki, , On Indian Mahayana Buddhism, p. 203, n. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 3} Cf. Gard, , op.cit., pp. 40 f.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 4} Cf. Chang, G. C. C., The Buddhist Teaching of Totality, University Park and London, 1971, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 5} Stcherbatsky, , Buddhist Logic, p. 113Google Scholar; Conze, , Thiry Years of Buddhist Studies, Columbia, South Carolina, 1968, p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 6} Cf. Zaehner, R. C., Concordant Discord: The Interdependence of Faiths, Oxford, 1970, pp. 172 (bottom)–175.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 1} Vallée–Poussin, , ‘Sāṁmitīyas’, p. 169.Google Scholar Cf. Thomas, E. J. (op. cit., p. 39), ‘… pudgalavada, the theory that the individual is something more than the sum of the constituents of which he is composed’.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 2} Doniger, Simon, ed., The Nature of Man: In Theological and Psychological Perspective, New York, 1962, p. 214 (bottom).Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 3} Wach, Joachim, Types of Religious Experience: Christian and Non-Christian, London, 1951, p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 4} Sharma, Chandradhar, Indian Philosophy: A Critical Survey, New York, 1962, p. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 5} Conze, , Buddhism: Its Essence and Development, p. 152.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 1} Vallée–Poussin, , Bouddhisme, p. 310.Google Scholar