MISCELLANY--Nirvana

                                p. 347

                                Nirvana

            I  find  that  some   of  my  views   have   been
        misconceived  in some quarters.  An instance  of this
        will be met with in connection with the references to
        my views in the review of Stcherbatsky's  Nirvana  by
        Kaccayana  (IHQ., III, no.  4,p.871).  To remove such
        misconception  of my views already clearly  expressed
        in my works  I want  to make my position  clearer  by
        this opportunity.

            Nirvana,   from   the   beginning,   is   perfect
        happiness, the summum  bonum, much  better  than  any
        paradise, not  a paradise  (of  course)  without  any
        conceivable relations with any form of existence. The
        canonic  literature  sates clearly that the happiness
        of Nirvana, end of suffering, is blissful  because it
        is not vedita.  Later, in the  Buddhabhumisastra, the
        philosopher  understands  that Buddhahood (id est the
        possession  of apratisthitanirrvana)  is better  than
        the properly so called Nirvana: for Nirvana is sukha,
        but is not sukhasamvedana.

            I have said that "Le yoga est essentiellement  un
        ensemble  de pratiques  en honneur des les plus vieux
        ages de l'Inde aryenne  ou autochtone, pratiques  des
        sorciers  et des thaumaturges, et dent il semble  que
        la recherche  des  etats  hypnotiques  soit  le motif
        dominant: immobilite  prolongee  du corps............
        c'est une technique  etrangere  en soi a toute morale
        comme a toute vue religieuse  ou philosophique.  Mais
        de  cette  technique  peuvent  se  degager,  a  cette
        technique   peuvent   s'ajouter   morale,  theologie,
        devotion  et,  comme  on  dit, theosophie"  (Nirvana,
        p.13).  In Stcherbatsky's Nirvana (quoted in IHQ., p.
        872) this definition is summarized  as follows: "Yoga
        is nothing  but vulgar magic and thaumaturgy  coupled
        with  hypnotic   practices."--But   "essentiellement"
        cannot be translated by "nothing but."--"Fakirism" or
        "yogism"  (there is, I believe, a line in the Rg-veda
        on    half-mad    saints)    is    originally     and
        "essentiellement"   supernatural   devices  to  which
        magical  forces  are  attributed.  But, from  a  very
        remote   past--men   are  reasonable   and  religious
        beings--from  these  practices  have  emerged, or  to
        these practices have been added, mystical, religious,
        metaphysical  theories: It is by means  of trance  or
        ecstasy, dhyana, samadhi, etc.  that  a  man  obtains
        supernatural faculties, divine eye etc.  It is by the
        same methods that man enters into relations  with the
        gods,

                                p. 348

        identifies   himself   for  a  time   with   Brahman,
        contemplates the amata dhatu or Nirvana.  In the same
        way,  prayer,  sacrifices,  rites   of  every   sort,
        brahmacarya, and so on, take a magical or a religious
        garb.  I do not believe  that prayer or sacrifice  is
        "essentially"  and from the very first, magical;  but
        is it not "vraisemblable" that brrahmacarya was first
        practised without any speculation on the religious or
        moral  merit of chastity, that the Yoga practices  of
        fixing   the  eyes   on  the  nose,  etc.,  are,  in
        themselves, hypnotic  contrivances  and  that  tapas,
        diksa etc., are the rude materials on which have been
        built intricate and beautiful ideologies?

            But  my  point  is  that, to  the  end,  Buddhism
        remains  faithful   to  its  Yoga-orgins.   Buddhists
        believe   that  the  true  and  exact  jnana  is  the
        avikalpakajnana, a certain  knowledge, to be obtained
        in dhyana, which is beyond  words and concepts, which
        is free from any duality, subject and object. In this
        jnana, there is neither  a grahaka  nor a grahya.  In
        the canon, it is said  that an ascetic  sees Nirvana,
        or rather  "touches  Nirvana  with its body," when he
        has entered  into  the samjnavedita-nirodhasamapatti.
        --  Here we have what may be called a "metaphysic  of
        ecstasy."  I thought  that I could make such  remarks
        without  any  risk  of being  accused  of considering
        Sakyamuni  as a sorcerer.  But because  I have denied
        that Nirvana is annihilation, Stcherbatsky  concludes
        that I identify Nirvana and Svarga!

            European  scholars  can read French  books, and I
        did not think  it useful  to answer  my critic, for I
        hate controversies, as long as his inexact renderings
        were unknown abroad.  But it is of importance  for me
        that  the learned  Kaccayana  and the readers  of the
        IHQ.  should be better  acquainted  with my opinions.
        These opinions may be inexact, are certainly inexact,
        but they are not thoroughly absurd.