that since thatness or suchness has been described as being without characteristics, it is now a contradiction to speak of it as embracing all merits, but it is held, that in spite of its embracing all merits, it is free in its nature from all forms of distinction, because all objects in the world are of one and the same taste; and being of one reality they have nothing to do with the modes of particularization or of dualistic character.  “Though all things in their (metaphysical) origin come from the soul alone and in truth are free from particularization, yet on account of non-enlightenment there originates a subjective mind (alayavijnana) that becomes conscious of an external world.”  This is called ignorance or avidya.  Nevertheless the pure essence of the mind is perfectly pure and there is no awakening of ignorance in it.  Hence we assign to suchness this quality, the effulgence of great wisdom.  It is called universal illumination, because there is nothing for it to illumine.  This perfuming of suchness therefore continues for ever, though the stage of the perfuming of avidya comes to an end with the Buddhas when they attain to nirva@na.  All Buddhas while at

138

the stage of discipline feel a deep compassion (mahakaru@na) for all beings, practise all virtues (paramitas) and many other meritorious deeds, treat others as their own selves, and wish to work out a universal salvation of mankind in ages to come, through limitless numbers of kalpas, recognize truthfully and adequately the principle of equality (samata)among people; and do not cling to the individual existence of a sentient being.  This is what is meant by the activity of tathata.  The main idea of this tathata philosophy seems to be this, that this transcendent “thatness” is at once the quintessence of all thought and activity; as avidya veils it or perfumes it, the world-appearance springs forth, but as the pure thatness also perfumes the avidya there is a striving for the good as well.  As the stage of avidya is passed its luminous character shines forth, for it is the ultimate truth which only illusorily appeared as the many of the world.

This doctrine seems to be more in agreement with the view of an absolute unchangeable reality as the ultimate truth than that of the nihilistic idealism of La@nkavatara.  Considering the fact that As’vagho@sa was a learned Brahmin scholar in his early life, it is easy to guess that there was much Upani@sad influence in this interpretation of Buddhism, which compares so favourably with the Vedanta as interpreted by S’a@nkara.  The La@nkavatara admitted a reality only as a make-believe to attract the Tairthikas (heretics) who had a prejudice in favour of an unchangeable self (atman).  But As’vagho@sa plainly admitted an unspeakable reality as the ultimate truth.  Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika doctrines which eclipsed the profound philosophy of As’vagho@sa seem to be more faithful to the traditional Buddhist creed and to the Vijnanavada creed of Buddhism as explained in the La@nkavatara [Footnote ref 1].