Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c24.s6.4

c24.s6.4

But it does not seem that the Mahāyāna was content to rest in this position, though there is no formal abandonment of it.¹ We find, however, the chain of causation styled incomprehensible (acintya); compassion produces the knowledge of the true reality, despite the utter disparity of cause and effect; consciousness perceives an external object simultaneously.² Moreover, the problem of release is insoluble also; it appears that the thought of enlightenment contends with the sins of man,³ and that ultimately an innate tendency of the mind, without any effort being required, causes the balance to incline to the desired result. Is it not, then, possible that the mind whose resolves can mould nature should be able to affect other minds by the power of its will or desire? The formal application of one’s merit in the formula of truth (satya-vacana) avails to reanimate the dead; can it not equally create a good thought in the mind of another? Avalokita, we know, has consecrated his name for the comfort of all who invoke it,⁴ and, as Çāntideva tells us, ‘the Omniscient alone knoweth the incomprehensible path of action, in that he doth lead to release men even when they have abandoned thought of enlightenment.’⁵ There is room here for solidarity as well as liberty, but the Mahāyāna is too immeshed in its own negations to lead us to any effective development.