No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
I am not referring to the simile (and its fate) of the Jetawood and the faggots. That at least I have not overlooked, nor have others. Charles Eliot once wrote to us, that it seemed to imply the existence of a self that was other and more than body and mind (as the wood was there, and other, and more than the faggots). I remarked, Was it not a curious way of teaching the existence of a something (about which there might be a doubt), merely by implication ? I was then blind to two things: the tremendous emphasis on the immanence of Deity as ‘Self’ current in the lifetime of the ‘Buddha’ (rendering any assertion of It unnecessary); the decline in that emphasis by the time the Suttas came to be finally worded and canonized. To very few was awareness of this earlier and later constantly present. ‘Was?’ It is still true of most.
page 259 note 1 Saṃyutta, iii, 333 (the reference in my Sakya is misprinted).
page 259 note 2 John v, 22.
page 260 note 1 Sakya, or Buddhist Origins, p. 325.
page 261 note 1 JRAS. 1935, p. 358.
page 262 note 1 The Comm. reads rūp'attā, bodily self, etc., and so on. This curious compound is, I believe, unknown, while rūpatta … viññāṇatta occur in the Khandha discussion, ‘Sīha,’ Saṃyutta, iii, 86f. Lord Chalmers follows the Comm.; I confess I cannot make sense of this reading.
page 262 note 2 We do not find in Pāli literature any judge except the king, nor, I believe, any word for one.
page 264 note 1 Sakkāyaḍiṭṭhi. Mr. Woodward renders sakkāya “person-pack”. Kindred Sayings, iii, 134.