Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/143

 v] Mahi'iyiina Philosophy 12 7 with all the rigour of his powerful dialectic was quietly accepted as an indisputable truth. Thus we find Subhiiti saying to the Buddha that vedana (feeling), sarp jfta (concepts) and the sarpskaras (conformations) are all maya (illusion)1. All the skandhas, dhatus (elements) and ayatanas are void and absolute cessation. The highest knowledge of everything as pure void is not different from the skandhas, dhatus and ayatanas, and this absolute cessation of dharmas is regarded as the highest know- ledge (prajiiiiPiiramitii)2. Everything being void there is in reality no process and no cessation. The truth is neither eternal (Siiivata) nor non-eternal (aitiivata) but pure void. It should be the object of a saint's endeavour to put himself in the" thatness" (tathatii) and consider all things as void. The saint (bodhisattva) has to estab- lish himself in all the virtues (ptiramitii), benevolence (diilla- piiramitti), the virtue of character (Silapiiramitti), the virtue of forbearance (kfiilltipiiramitii), the virtue of tenacity and strength (vlryyaPiiramitti) and the virtue of meditation (dltyiinaptira- mita). The saint (bodltisattva) is firmly determined that he will help an infinite number of souls to attain nirval)a. In reality, however, there are no beings, there is no bondage, no salva- tion; and the saint knows it but too well, yet he is not afraid of this high truth, but proceeds on his career of attaining for all illusory beings illusory emancipation from illusory bondage. The saint is actuated with that feeling and proceeds in his work on the strength of his paramitas, though in reality there is no one who is to attain salvation in reality and no one who is to help him to attain it3. The true prajflaparamita is the absolute cessation of all appearance (ya(t a1lltpalambha(t sarva- dharmti1.fii11l sa praj1ziiptiramitii ityucyate).t. The Mahayana doctrine has developed on two lines, viz. that of Siinyavada or the Madhyamika doctrine and Vijflanavada. The difference between Siinyavada and Vijfianavada (the theory that there is only the appearance of phenomena of consciousness) is not fundamental, but is rather one of method. Both of them agree in holding that there is no truth in anything, everything is only passing appearance akin to dream or magic. But while the Siinyavadins were more busy in showing this indefin- ableness of all phenomena, the Vijflanavadins, tacitly accepting 1 A!!asiihasriktlpraji"it'ipiira11littl, p. 16. 3 Ibid. p. 2 I. 2 Ibid. p. 177. fo Ibid. p. 177.