502 Remarks on Rcmusat's Review of Buddhism. 



parfait et intelligent, de celui qu' il nomme Adi Buddha." Now, I must 

 crave leave to say that I never admitted anything of the sort ; but, on 

 the contrary, carefully pointed out that the ' systeme entier' consists of 

 four systems, all sufficiently different, and two of them, radically so — 

 viz. the Swabhavika and the Aiswarika. It is most apparent to me 

 that Remusat has made a melange out of the doctrines of all the four 

 schools ; and there are verv sufficient indications in the course of this 

 essay that his principal authority was of the Swabhavika sect. 



In speaking of the two bodies of Buddha he remarks, that " le veri- 

 table corps est identifie avec la science et la loi. Sa substance raeme 

 est la science (Prajna)." He had previously made the same observation, 

 " Le loi raeme est son principe et sa nature." Now those who are 

 aware that Prajna (most idly translated law, science, and so forth,) is 

 the name of the great material cause*, can have no difficulty in reaching 

 the conviction that the Buddhist authority from whence this assertion 

 was borrowed, — ' of Prajna being the very essence ; nature, and prin- 

 ciple of Buddha,' — belonged to the Swabhavika school, and would have 

 laughed at the co-ordinate doctrine of his translator, that Buddha is the 

 sovereign and sole cause, of whom Nature (Prajna) is an effect. 



The Swabhavika Buddhas, who derive their capacity of identifying 

 themselves with the first cause from nature, which is that cause, are as 

 all-accomplished as the Buddhas of the Aiswarikas, who derive the 

 same capacity from Adi Buddha, who is that cause. 



In this express character of sovereign cause only, is the Adi Buddha 

 of the Aiswarikas distinguishable, amid the crowd of Buddhas of all 

 sorts ; and such are the interminable subtleties of the ' systeme entier' 

 that he who shall not carefully mark this cardinal point of primary 

 causation, will find all others unavailing to guide him unconfusedly 

 through the various labyrinths of the several schools. 



Did Remusat never meet with passages like the following ? 



" And as all other things and beings proceeded from Swabhava or 

 nature, so did Vajra, Satwa, Buddha, thence called the self -existent ," 



* PraJcriteswari iti Prajnd ,• and again, Dh&ranatmika iti Dharma. Dharma is 

 a synonyme of Prajnd. Prajnd means Supreme Wisdom. Whose ? Nature's — and 

 Nature's, as the sole, or only as the plastic, cause. 



So, again, Dharma means morality in the abstract, or the moral religious code 

 of these religionists, or material cause, in either of the two senses hinted at above; 

 or, lastly, material effects, viz. versatile worlds. These are points to be settled by 

 the context, and by the known tenets of the writer who uses the one or other 

 ■word : and when it is known that the very texts of the Swabhavikas, differently 

 interpreted, have served for the basis of the Aiswarika doctrine, I presume no fur- 

 ther caveto can be required. 



