NOUS AND NIRVANA: CONVERSATIONS WITH ˙ PLOTINUS AN ESSAY IN BUDDHIST COSMOLOGY

NOUS AND NIRVANA: CONVERSATIONS WITH PLOTINUS—AN ESSAY IN BUDDHIST COSMOLOGY

W. Randolph Kloetzli

Intellect is certainly beautiful, and the most beautiful of all; its place is in pure light and pure radiance ... (this) fullness.1

Preface

In the Classical world the language of cosmology was a means for framing philosophical concerns, and among these were issues of time, motion, and soul; concepts of the limited and the unlimited; and the nature and basis of number. Among the Greeks, philosophical cosmology was central to the pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, among others. This is no less true of Indian thought—Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Ajivika—where the prestige of the cosmological idiom for organizing philosophical and theological thought cannot be overstated. There is reason to believe that these two traditions shared a broad continuum of concerns, ideas, and images of expression. This essay focuses on the structural similarities in the thought of Plotinus and Buddhist cosmological/philosophical speculation. While it necessarily presupposes substantial channels of communication between these two cultures, it leaves their documentation to others.

Overview

This essay is a work of serendipity that grows out of having read the Enneads of Plotinus2 some twenty years after completing research on the Buddha-field (buddhaksetra), a concept central to Buddhist cosmological speculation.3 That research noted the contradiction within Buddhism between a caution against speculation as˙ to whether the universe (or the number of universes) is limited or unlimited and the fact that just such speculation occupies much of Buddhist cosmology. It identified two discrete numerologies that dominate this speculation: the thousands of worlds (sa¯hasralokadha¯tu) comprising the field of a single Buddha (buddhaksetra) characteristic of the Hı¯naya¯na and the innumerable or incalculable (asamkhyeya)˙ Buddhafields filling the ten regions of space characteristic of the Maha¯˙ya¯na. While these structures remain useful for organizing the confusing variety of Buddhist cosmologies, there is much for which they do not account.

If the asamkhyeya is characteristic of the cosmologies of the Maha¯ya¯na, what is the meaning of the˙ asamkhyeya-kalpas in the Hı¯naya¯na materials? And, while the Buddhist texts make it clear that this number, termed an incalculable, does in fact˙ have a value, what considerations provide the underpinning for this formula?

Philosophy East & West Volume 57, Number 2 April 2007 140–177 > 2007 by University of Hawai‘i Press

Why is omniscience a component of this cosmology; is there a relationship between the incalculable and omniscience? What is the significance of the fact that the asamkhyeya-kalpas arise and fall away? How do multiple thousands of worlds exist simultaneously in a Buddha-field, and what logic determines that a spe-˙ cific number (one billion) are simultaneously present? Is it possible that these two numerologies in fact frame and define the Buddha-field? While answers to these questions are not readily apparent from the Buddhist texts, considerations concerning the limited and the unlimited are integral to the Enneads, most strikingly in describing Intellect (nous) as a kind of limited infinity. Is it possible that the issues of infinite number and essential number taken up by Plotinus in Enneads VI.6 and V.5.4–5 are related to and can inform an understanding of these Indian and Buddhist concerns?

Is there a relationship between these simultaneously existing worlds and the equally precise numerologies associated with the worlds that unfold sequentially in the lifetime of Brahma outlined in the Hindu cosmologies of the Pura¯nas and the Epic? Why do the Buddhists limit the existence of days and nights to a single realm?˙ Is there an association between days and nights and the numerologies of these cosmologies?

Beyond these issues with number, there is a need to better understand the significance of the three major realms into which the Buddhist cosmos is divided: the Formless Realm (a¯ru¯pyadha¯tu), the Realm of Form (ru¯padha¯tu), and the Realm of Desire (ka¯madha¯tu). According to Kirfel, the designations of these three realms were originally derived from the division of the states of being (bhava) into sensible (ka¯ma), corporeal (ru¯pa), and incorporeal (aru¯pabhava) and later projected onto the cosmos.4 There are multiple mappings onto this threefold structure including those of the astrological sciences, various techniques of meditation, numerological considerations, and the bundles (skandhas), awarenesses (a¯yatanas), and elements (dha¯tus) into which the dharmas of Buddhist philosophy (abhidharma) are grouped.5 Many other mappings are outlined in the abhidharma.6 A clear rationale for many of these mappings remains elusive, and it will be some time before scholarship breathes life into the dust of this analysis. It is as if the threefold division had a primacy and authority that other speculation acknowledged and to which it adapted. Plotinus, too, is grounded in a threefold division of the One, Intellect, and Soul, one which he traces back to Parmenides, or at least to the Parmenides of Plato:

But Parmenides in Plato speaks more accurately, and distinguishes from each other the first One, which is more properly called One, and the second which he calls ‘‘OneMany’’ and the third, ‘‘One and Many.’’ In this way he too agrees with the doctrine of the three natures.

There are many unanswered questions concerning this threefold division within Buddhism. What is the Formless Realm? What is behind the statement that there are two ‘places’ where nirva¯na can be achieved—one belonging to the Realm of Form and one to the Formless Realm? What do the texts intend when they state that there˙ are no abodes above the Fourth Meditation; where is the Formless Realm if not above the Fourth Meditation? What is the nature of the desire referenced in the Realm of Desire? Why are lifetimes measured in years in the Realm of Desire while those in the Realm of Form are measured in kalpas? How is the lifetime of humans infinite on the one hand, but measured in years on the other? What does it mean that Buddhas appear or are born in the Realm of Desire? What does it mean that the Fourth Meditation Realm represents a goal of nirva¯na for the Hı¯naya¯na, while being the starting point for the activities of the Buddha for the Maha˙ ¯ya¯na? What is intended by the names of the various heavens?

I first read the Enneads unaware of any scholarly debate over the Indian influences on Plotinus,8 but personally convinced of important continuities between Greek philosophy and Indian thought. This encounter with the Enneads has both reinforced this conviction and significantly sharpened its focus. On first reading, the Enneads seemed to discuss in a reasoned and discursive manner issues that had the potential to illuminate many of the cryptic, coded, and formulaic statements integral to the cosmological system of Hı¯naya¯na Buddhism. The classic formulation of this cosmology is contained largely in chapter 3 of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakos´abha¯syam—the commentary (bha¯sya) on the compendium (kos´a) of Buddhist philosophy˙(abhidharma)—hereinafter referred to simply as˙ Kos´a.9 Continued reading of these texts has only strengthened this initial impression. The Enneads of Plotinus date from the third century A.D. but build on Greek thought going back to Parmenides (fifth century B.C.), while the Kos´a dates from the fifth century A.D. and reflects cosmological speculation from the earliest periods of Buddhist and Upanisadic thought. This essay does not argue that the Enneads are the basis for the Kos´a.˙ Nor does it argue that there is a common source upon which both draw. It does argue that the Enneads provide an important window onto issues of Greek philosophy and that an understanding of issues associated with the One, Intellect, and Soul at the heart of Plotinus’ thought can illuminate many of the seemingly intractable difficulties inherent in Buddhist cosmological speculation. As a corollary, it also must assume a broad shared continuum of Greek and Indian thought supported by ongoing channels of communication.10

The One, Intellect, and Soul are manifestations or instances of being or reality, manners by which reality presents itself and is known. They are separate and independent, though paradoxically sharing through a principle of participation. The One is infinite, wholly simplex and beyond knowing or measure. It is at one with the Good and is characterized by ‘undiminished giving.’ Intellect is the intelligible realm, Being, a limited infinity since what can be known requires limit and measure, with the simplex nature of the One broken up into forms or ideas (eidos), a one-inmany. And, drawing on Parmenides, ‘‘thinking and being are the same.’’11 Intellect is the realm of eternity. Soul is an amphibian. It is aware of the eternal intelligible realm, but its motion has generated time, the sensible, and the desire for futurity and knowledge. Though ‘fallen’ into time and the sensible, it strives to emulate and return to the intelligible and to the eternity of Intellect. This essay is intended to broadly outline perceived points of convergence, especially where a reading of Plotinus appears to illuminate the meaning of the Kos´a. The intent is not to claim an identity of position between the Enneads and the Kos´a. Nor is it to precisely situate the Kos´a within the ocean of points of view of Antiquity. Rather, it is intended to point, with a sense of considerable wonder, to the Enneads, a seemingly remote resource, as a lens through which to view in a fresh way a broad range of difficult issues associated with Buddhist cosmology, including the questions raised above. It will do this in three general areas. First, it will ask whether Plotinus’ understanding of Intellect and his treatment of infinite and essential number afford an understanding of the innumerables and thousands central to the concept of the Buddha-field. Second, it will suggest analogies between the One, Intellect, and Soul of Plotinus and the three Buddhist Realms—Formless, Form, and Desire. Finally, it will explore the possibility that an understanding of the Enneads can provide a model for relating the cosmologies of the Hı¯naya¯na and the Maha¯ya¯na.

The Realm of Desire: Sensibility, Futurity, and Knowledge

The Realm of Desire (ka¯madha¯tu) is the lowest of the Buddhist realms. There are reasons for seeing it as the realm of the sensible, with the Realm of Form being that of the intelligible. The Realm of Desire is crowned by the heaven of Indra (tra¯yastrims´a) atop Mt. Meru, Indra being mythologically the god of the senses (indriya). The realms˙ above the Realm of Desire belong to the ‘world of Brahma¯’ (brahmaloka), with Brahma¯ mythologically representing intelligibility. A common phrase capturing this association refers to ‘the mind-born sons of Brahma¯.’ Plotinus, too, draws on mythology, using the gods Zeus and Kronos to allegorically represent the sensible and intelligible realms, respectively.1

The Realm of Desire is where beings master the Buddhist truths and begin their ascent or path, through practices of meditation, to the higher Realm of Form, to include the realization of nirva¯na—an ascent analogous to that of the soul for Plotinus. In the Enneads, ‘‘the soul is an ‘amphibian’ belonging to both the sensible and intel-˙ ligible worlds.’’13 The soul ‘falls,’ in that it declines from identity with Intellect, through a desire for self-identity, and this striving actually generates time.

The nature of the ‘desire’ that characterizes this Buddhist realm is not readily apparent. We must assume that it is related to the ‘thirst’ or ‘craving’ (trsna¯) that is the cause of the ‘suffering’ or ‘impermanence’ (duhkha) of the second Buddhist truth.˙˙˙ 14 Possibly, as the sensible realm, it is also where the senses are attached to their˙ objects. And while the Kos´a is emphatic that the ‘‘the soul (a¯tman) does not exist,’’15 we may speculate that the Realm of Desire is, at least in part, where beings cling to notions of soul prior to mastering the Buddhist truths.

Because the nature of the desire of this realm is ambiguous, it is worth considering whether Plotinus provides an avenue for a more complete understanding through his discussion of the desire of Soul for futurity and knowledge. The most prominent characteristic of Soul in the Enneads is that it is the generator of time, ‘perpetual futurity,’ in contrast to the Eternity of Intellect:

But one must not conceive time as outside Soul any more than eternity There as outside real being. It is not an accompaniment of Soul nor something that comes after (any more than eternity There) but something which is seen along with it and exists in it and with it, as eternity does There [with real being].16 This is why it is said that time came into existence simultaneously with this universe, because soul generated it along with this universe. For it is in activity of this kind that the universe has come into being; and the activity is time and the universe is in time.1

For Plotinus, time is the ‘life of the soul.’ Indeed, time is ‘‘the life of the soul in a movement of passage from one way of life to another.’’18 More importantly, for Plotinus the generation of time by the soul is closely linked to ‘desire’—the desire for futurity and the desire for knowledge. With regard to time as characterized by the desire for futurity, Plotinus states:

Now with things which have come to be, if you take away the ‘‘will be’’ what happens is that they immediately cease to exist, as they are continuously acquiring being....19

But since there was a restlessly active nature which wanted to control itself and be on its own, and choose to seek for more than its present state, this moved, and time moved with it; and so, always moving on to the ‘‘next’’ and the ‘‘after,’’ and what is not the same, but one thing after another, we made a long stretch of our journey and constructed time as an image of eternity.

In addition, time and futurity are linked to the desire of the soul for knowledge in an effort to perfect itself: Also, knowledge is a kind of longing for the absent, and like the discovery made by a seeker.21

The statements of the Kos´a explicitly indicating that the Realm of Desire has many of the attributes of a realm of time are tangled and formulaic. A full discussion of issues of time in the Kos´a is beyond the scope of this essay but they revolve around the following statement: Time (ka¯la) is not an eternal substance (pada¯rtha), as some believe. The word ‘‘time’’ is an expression by which the samska¯ras are designated as past, present and future.22 ˙ Our focus will be limited to issues associated with the duration of life (a¯yus), the importance of days and nights, and the difference between years and kalpas. They are touched on in characterizing the Realm of Desire and dealt with more fully in understanding the Realm of Form. The duration of life (a¯yus) is fixed for all beings other than humans, for whom it varies. Not only does it vary, but it is understood at one point to have been infinite. For now, it is sufficient to mention that it is in the Realm of Desire that a¯yus devolves from infinite into years. How is life infinite on the one hand and measured in years on the other?23 Where does this transition occur? Isn’t this characterization of a¯yus analogous to the transition from eternity as the ‘life of the Intellect’ to time as the ‘life of the soul’ described by Plotinus?

The Kos´a, in a discussion of the Pra¯timoksa discipline, adds another curiously opaque formula with regard to time: ˙ [T]here are two limits of time, the period of a lifetime, and the period of a day and a night. As for the fortnight and the other durations of time, they consist in additions of day and night periods.24

To the extent that this statement applies to the broader cosmology, it should be noted that periods of a lifetime characterize all the Buddhist realms including the bhava¯gra, where it is said to be eighty thousand kalpas. But we have argued that time is somehow unique to the Realm of Desire since it is here alone that the duration of life is expressed in years. It is likely that the year belongs to ‘the fortnight and the other durations of time (that) consist in additions of day and night periods.’ Conceivably such a formulation represents an effort to distinguish between the nature of time in the sensible realm (Realm of Desire) grounded in days and nights from that in the intelligible realm (Realm of Form). The significance of terminology associated with days and nights and sensibility will take on additional significance in the discussion of ‘essential number’ and the Realm of Form.

Finally, there is reason to believe that the devolution of a¯yus into years in the Realm of Desire is linked to the awakening of faith and the beginning of the desire for enlightenment, the desire to rise to the level of Intellect. Such a conclusion is supported by the appearance or birth of Buddhas in the Realm of Desire (specifically in the island of Jambudvı¯pa) as a¯yus declines from eighty thousand to one hundred years. Indeed, the Realm of Desire can probably be equated with the birth domain of the Buddha (ja¯nma-ksetra or ja¯ti-khetta) referenced by Buddhaghosa.

Though beyond the scope of this discussion, it is worth suggesting that an under-˙ standing of the relationship between astrology and the Buddhist cosmograph is also likely to support the identification of the Realm of Desire with issues of time associated with ‘duration of life’ (a¯yus). Expressed most simply, the highest goal of the astrological and horoscopic sciences involves predictions concerning the duration of life. By contrast, important aspects of Indian cosmology begin with the duration of life as the basis for predicting spiritual destiny and destiny in future lives.

The Realm of Form and the Intellect (Nous)

Plotinus’ concept of form and especially number as the intelligibles (eidos) of the Intellect (nous) provides an approach to understanding the Buddhist Realm of Form (ru¯padha¯tu) in ways not otherwise readily evident.27 The multiple correlations between the Intellect and intelligibles of Plotinus and the complex numerological formulas of the Kos´a serve to provide significant insights into the Realm of Form of the Kos´a. Among them:

1. The language of the infinite and the limited—so challenging in the Buddhistmaterials—is explicit in Plotinus. The One is infinite and unknowable; Intellect is infinite, but infinite in such a way that it is limited and therefore is knowable (or is the realm of the intelligible). It is further an infinity in parts, concepts that correspond closely to the ‘divisions of innumerables’ (asamkhyeya-kalpas) that frame the cosmology of the Kos´a.

˙ 2. The numerology of thousands belonging to the Realm of Form and thedefinition of a ‘buddha-field’ (buddhaksetra) as a ‘triple chiliocosm’ (trisa¯hasramaha¯sa¯hasra-lokadha¯tu) take on a significantly enhanced clarity when understood˙ as related to Plotinus’ concept of ‘essential number’ belonging to Intellect. To the extent that the ‘thousands of worlds’ of the ‘buddha-field’ are seen as shaped by the concept of essential number, sharp and increasingly nuanced distinctions can be drawn between the cosmology of the Kos´a and the Pura¯nic cosmologies framed by the life of the Demiurge Brahma¯. ˙

3. Arguments about eternity in the Kos´a associate it with the Realm of Form in ways similar to the arguments of Plotinus with regard to Intellect. These include statements about the ‘infinite’ duration of human life at the beginning of the division known as an intermediate kalpa (antarakalpa), and, less clearly, discussions regarding the eternal character of the highest meditation realm (the Fourth Dhya¯na) of the Realm of Form. Limited Infinity and Infinite Number

For Plotinus, Intellect is infinite, but in a way that is different from the One. It is One, but a One-in-Many, comprising all the forms as well as infinite and essential number. It is infinite but in a way that is limited by what can be known: ‘‘for a substance must be one particular thing, something, that is, defined and limited; but it is impossible to apprehend the One as a particular thing.’’28 And ‘‘Thinking and Being are the same’’ and not among the things perceived by the senses.29 This understanding of Knowing and Being may well shed light on concepts such as the omniscience (sarvajn˜a) of the Buddha.30 Plotinus’ understanding of the limited infinity of Intellect is perhaps best shown in his discussion of infinite number—number, like form, belonging to Intellect. The problem is taken up in the sixth Ennead, ‘‘On Number’’ (VI.6.1–3, 17–18):

What then, about what is called the number of the infinite? But first, how is it a number, if it is infinite? ... Is then the number not simply infinite ...? No, the generation of the number is not in the power of the numberer, but is already limited and stands fast. Or, in the intelligible, just as the real beings are limited so is the number limited to as many as the real beings.3

But how can this infinite really exist as infinite? For what really exists and is, is already determined by number.... But how about infinity? For if it exists in the real beings it has already been limited, or if it has not been limited, it is not in the real beings.... Now even if it is limited, it is by this very fact infinite [or unlimited]; for it is not limit but the unlimited which is limited [or bounded]—for there is certainly nothing else between limit and unlimited which receives the nature of boundary.32

Plotinus’ discussion has a direct parallel in the Kos´a’s discussion of the number called an ‘innumerable’ (asamkhyeya), which, despite being innumerable, has a limit. In this regard, the Kos´a asks:˙

The quality of Buddhahood results from three of these [[[asamkhyeya-kalpas]]].... But the

˙ word asamkhya (asamkhyeya) signifies ‘‘incalculable;’’ how can one speak of three ˙ ˙ ‘‘incalculables?’’ ... An asamkhyeya [[[kalpa]]] does not receive its name from the fact that it is incalculable.33 ˙ La Valle´e Poussin concludes that ‘‘Asamkhyeya, ‘incalculable,’ is a set number, calculable, but enormous, the value of which varies according to the mode of˙ computation....’’

Plotinus makes no such specific calculation. Indeed, he is critical of attempts to assign a value to infinite number, recognizing that any value can be doubled or otherwise increased:

While we can think of a number greater than the greatest number here, there (in the Intellect) it is impossible to add to the number given, because the addition is already there, since all number is.... So number too is infinite in a special way, namely in that it cannot be measured by something external.35 However, as we have just seen, he does imply that the number of beings can be calculated or known in advance by means of reasoning related to the question of infinite number, an infinity that is necessarily limited.

Returning to the question of omniscience, there is at least one striking parallel between the Enneads and Buddhist texts, though not the Kos´a, in their mythologized expression of omniscience involving a limited infinity. The relevant argument of the Prajn˜a¯pa¯ramita¯ texts may be summarized as follows. To say either that the world is finite or that the world is infinite would be false. If the universes were infinite in number, the Buddha would not be omniscient, because omniscience is a universal knowledge that nothing escapes; if the universes were infinite, certain things would escape that knowledge. On the other hand, if the universes were finite in number, the totality of beings would eventually be exhausted as they achieve nirva¯na or are made to achieve nirva¯na by the power of the Buddhas. If there were not always new˙ beings, their number would be exhausted.˙ 3

And Plotinus depicts a similar dilemma in a discussion of the memory of Zeus:

Even this matter of Zeus’ memory of the cosmic periods is difficult; it is a question of their being unnumbered, and of his knowledge of their number. A determined number would mean that the All had a beginning in time (which is not so); if the periods are unlimited, Zeus cannot know the number of his works.37 Buddhist speculation concerning the incalculable is not limited to assigning a value to the asamkhyeya. Indeed, the cosmology of the Kos´a relies on a system of four asamkhyeya-kalpa˙ s to frame the generation and dissolution of all the realms of cosmos below the Fourth Meditation Realm, including the ‘thousands of worlds’˙ within the Realm of Form.38 These four asamkhyeya-kalpas include (1) a kalpa of creation or arising (vivartakalpa), (2) a kalpa˙of the duration of the creation (vivartastha¯yikalpa), (3) a kalpa of dissolution (samvartakalpa), and (4) a kalpa during which the world remains dissolved (samvartastha˙ ¯yikalpa). Collectively, the four asamkhyeya-kalpas are referred to as a maha˙ ¯kalpa. The maha¯kalpa appears analogous to a single moment that arises and falls away.˙ As noted, the arising and falling away of the four asamkhyeya-kalpas frame the cosmology of the Kos´a within the Realm of Form. Yet, if we take a cue from the˙ Enneads, this frame points to a second drama not readily apparent from the testimony of the Kos´a:

If they come into being and perish, they will have their being from outside themselves, and it will not any more be they, but that being which will be reality.

Following this line of reasoning in trying to understand the Kos´a, the asamkhyeyas would arise from the Formless Realm (a¯ru¯pyadha¯tu), which, we will argue, corre-˙ sponds in many ways to the One of Plotinus. The direct testimony of the Kos´a in this regard is meager and confusing and suggests that the focus of the Kos´a is limited to the movement of beings from the attachments of the Realm of Desire to the attainment of nirva¯na in the Fourth Meditation Realm of the Realm of Form, thereby realizing an identity with the Intellect/Buddha. In so doing, it leaves speculation con-˙ cerning the One to be given life and definition elsewhere.

Essential Number and the Buddha-field

Beyond the ‘limited infinity’ of the asamkhyeya, a second numerology, that of the thousands, is prominent in the Kos´a’s definition of the field of a Buddha˙ (buddhak˙one billion simultaneously present worlds belonging to a Buddha-field are termed a setra), said to be comprised of 1,000 1,000 1,000 worlds (cakrava¯la). These trisa¯hasra-maha¯sa¯hasra-lokadha¯tu, often translated as ‘triple chiliocosm’ or ‘threethousandth-great-thousandth world system.’ Based on the conviction that this cosmology was built around a ‘metaphysics of measurement,’ I have suggested ‘evermeasuring world system’40 as conveying the sense of this term in contrast to these more strictly literal translations. In my view, a rendering along these lines receives support from the fact that Intellect is the realm of measure and number. Perhaps the ‘field or realm of measure and number’ would serve as well. These thousands of worlds belong to the Realm of Form and we may wonder if the Buddha, whose field they constitute, does not correspond to the Intellect.

Viewing these Buddhist speculations through the lens of the Enneads, it is necessary to consider whether these thousands may be related to the concept of ‘essential number’ dealt with in Enneads VI.6, 4–14. Briefly stated, ‘essential number’ is similar to form. Number and numbers exist in the Intellect (Realm of Form) independent of any actual quantity or objects.41 We do not just add units to designate larger quantities. Rather, values such as 1,000 both participate in the One and exist in the Intellect from Eternity:

[A]s the triad is one, and all the beings are one, not like the one of the number one, but as the ten thousand or any other number is one.42 And certainly the beings were not numbered at the time when they came to be; but it was [already clear] how many there had to be. Is not Being, then, unified number, and the beings number unfolded, and Intellect number moving in itself, and the Living Being inclusive number? Since, because Being came into existence from the One, as that One was one, Being must also in this way be number....

For the Kos´a as for Plotinus, this elaborate numerology of thousands, the definition of the Buddha-field, is characterized equally by its unity. The Kos´a is emphatic that ‘there is but a single Buddha in a trisa¯hasra-maha¯sa¯hasra-lokadha¯tu’:

It is impossible in the present, or in the future, for two Tatha¯gatas, Arhats, perfect Buddhas to appear in the world without one preceding and the other following. It is impossible. It is the rule that there is only one.44

The discussion understands the ‘world’ to mean a Buddha-field as described above.

These formulations are difficult at best and still in need of a more complete interpretation. Toward this end, it is worth considering whether the thousands of worlds belonging to the field of a single Buddha may not represent a Buddhist expression of ‘essential number.’ These associations are strengthened when we understand that ‘essential number’ is central to Plotinus’ discussion of Plato’s Demiurge and that the Kos´a has as a central theme a critique of the Pura¯nic Demiurge

Brahma¯.45

˙ According to Plotinus, Plato seems to say two things regarding number. On the one hand, the Demiurge generates number by creating day and night in the sensible realm. On the other, Plato recognizes what is termed ‘true number’ belonging to the intelligible:

Now Plato says that men came to the idea of number by the alternation of day and night, attributing the concept to the difference of the objects; perhaps he is saying that the things numbered are prior and make number by their difference, and that it is coming into existence in the transition of soul as it goes on from one thing to another, and comes into existence when the soul numbers; that is when it goes over things and says in itself ‘‘this is one thing and that is another,’’ as, for instance, as long as it thinks something the same and does not think another thing after it, it says ‘‘one.’’ But then when Plato says ‘‘in the true number,’’ and speaks of the number in substance he will, on the other hand be saying that number has an existence in the numbering soul but the soul arouses in itself from the difference in sensible things the idea of number.

Again,

[T]he god made day and night, by means of which, in virtue of their difference, it was possible to grasp the idea of two, and from this[,] Plato says, came the concept of number.

Plotinus rejects the notion that number is grounded in observation of the sensible and created by the numberer: [C]an number exist by itself, or must the two be observed in two things, and the three likewise? And, indeed, also the one which is among the numbers? For if it could exist by itself without things numbered, it could exist before beings.

Using what appears to be related logic, the Kos´a uses the framework of the threefold division, and especially that of the Realm of Form, as a platform from which to deconstruct or substantially modify much of what we associate with Pura¯nic theology and cosmology. The centerpiece of this deconstruction is that ‘‘Brahma˙ ¯ is not the creator,’’ and those who believe that he is are relegated to the Maha¯brahma heaven in the lowest of the Meditation Realms, the First Dhya¯na:

This is the lowest brahma-heaven (Maha¯brahma) and is reserved for those who believe Brahma¯ is the creator: ... an a¯ryan is never reborn among Maha¯brahmas, because this is the place of heresy: one considers Maha¯brahma as the creator there....

In the Maha¯brahma heaven, the duration of life is one kalpa, apparently consistent with the Pura¯nic notion that the world exists for a kalpa prior to the destruction of the lower realms (literally˙ naimittika-pralaya or ‘intermediate dissolution’), a duration that is one day in the life of Brahma¯.50 In addition, given the link between Plato’s Demiurge and the creation of day and night as the basis for number, and given the elaborate structures involving days and nights in the lifetime of Brahma¯, we must consider the possibility that the Kos´a’s denial of the existence of days and nights in the Realm of Form is integral to its critique of the Demiurge Brahma¯:

There is no day and night for the gods of the Ru¯padha¯tu; their lifespans are calculated in kalpas whose number is fixed by the dimensions of their bodies.51 In an effort to decipher this compact and dense formula, it is necessary to compare the structures of the Buddhist Realm of Form (also designated the ‘world of Brahma¯’ or brahmaloka) with the structures of what is certainly a companion cosmology, the lifetime of Brahma¯ in the Hindu epics and Pura¯nas. The lifetime of Brahma¯ is embedded throughout with a language of days and nights vastly more elaborate˙ than that of Plato’s Demiurge, a fact that further highlights the significance of their exclusion in the critical transformations evidenced in the Buddhist Realm of Form.52 In brief, we will argue that the thousands of years of Pura¯nic chronometry are transformed into the thousands of worlds of the Buddhist Realm of Form and˙ that the kalpas that are the days and nights of Brahma¯ are transformed into measures of the duration of life of the beings of the Realm of Form. We will also consider the likelihood that these transformations are grounded in concerns related to essential number belonging to the Realm of Intellect/Form rather than number as grounded in the observation of the sensible and created by the numberer.

The argument is tangled, at best, and suggestive rather than conclusive. To begin with, it is necessary to recall the divisions of time, organized around an elaborate system of days and nights (ahora¯tra), which constitute the lifetime of Brahma¯. Brahma¯, according to the Hindu Pura¯nas, emerges from the navel of Visnu, the Preserver, connected by what amounts to an umbilical cord, the lotus giving birth to the˙ ˙˙ world. His lifetime amounts to a formulaic statement about the nature of number and its relationship to time.

Fifteen twinklings of the eye (nimesa) make a ka¯stha¯; thirty ka¯stha¯s one kala¯; and thirty kala¯s one muhu¯rta. Thirty muhu˙¯rtas constitute˙˙ a day and night (ahora˙˙ ¯tra) of mortals; thirty such days make a month, consisting of two fortnights; six months form an ayana (the period of the sun’s progress north or south through the signs of the zodiac); and two ayanas compose a year. The southern ayana is a night (ra¯trı¯), and a northern a day (ahas), of the gods. Twelve thousand divine years, each composed of 360 days equal to one year of humans, constitute the period of four yugas, or ages, known as krta, treta¯, dva¯para, and kali. The krta age consists of four thousand divine years; the˙ treta¯ three thousand; the dva¯para two thousand;˙ and the kali age one thousand (a total of ten thousand divine years). The period that precedes a yuga is called a dawn (sandhya¯), and it is of as many hundred years as there are thousands in the yuga; and the period of twilight (sandhya¯ms´a) that follows a yuga is of similar duration, resulting in a total of two thousand divine years in dawns and twilights.˙ The four yugas constitute a caturyuga, a thousand of which constitute one kalpa, which is a day (ahas) of Brahma¯. The night (ra¯trı¯) of Brahma¯, when the world experiences the intermittent or occasional dissolution, destroying the world and turning it into a vast ocean, is of equal duration. At the end of the night, Visnu, unborn, having awakened, takes the form of Brahma¯ in order to create anew. Of 360 such days and nights is a year of Brahma˙˙ composed, and a hundred such years constitute his whole life, at the end of which the world undergoes the elemental dissolution, linked mythologically to the ta¯ndava dance of S´iva.53

˙ ˙ To summarize, the lifetime of Brahma¯ involves four groupings of days and nights: (a) the days and nights of mortals;

(b) days and nights of the year (the northern and southern ayana), corresponding to a day and a night of the gods, 360 of which equal one year of the gods;

(c) the dawns and twilights associated with the yugas, which make them appear as days without nights since a twilight is followed immediately by a dawn; and

(d) the days and nights of Brahma¯.

As we have seen, the Kos´a specifies that there are no days and nights above the Realm of Desire, which is, inter alia, the sensible realm. Eliminating days and nights from the intelligible realm, as the Kos´a would have us do, is to eliminate the years/ worlds embedded in the 360 days and nights of a year in the life of Brahma¯, as well as the twilights and dawns totaling two thousand years, which make up the sandhyas of the yuga system (12,000 2,000 ¼ 10,000). It is also to eliminate the days and nights of the two ayanas of the human year.

That done, we are left with three groupings of years, excluding the human years, which belong to the sensible realm, the Realm of Desire:

(a) small years: ten thousand divine years of the fourfold yuga or caturyuga, years that no longer have as their basis the day and the night of the two ayanas of the human year;

(b) intermediate years: one thousand caturyugas, which then are no longer the basis for the days and nights that constitute the kalpa or duration of one world creation, the period of a naimittika-pralaya or intermediate dissolution of the world; and

(c) great years: one hundred years of the lifetim

e of Brahma¯, the period of a pra¯krta-pralaya or the elemental dissolution of the world, which no longer have as their basis the days and nights of Brahma.˙ Days and nights, months, and years remain in the sensible (human) realm, the Realm of Desire, but at least three changes of significance are evident. First, the link between human and divine years central to the concept of the yuga no longer exists. Second, the link between years and kalpas has similarly disappeared. Finally, we may speculate that the days and nights of the sensible realm are no longer the basis for number since there is no longer a link between them and the intelligible realm. The change in the understanding of number is clearly associated with changes in the understanding of time.54 Since the Kos´a does not recognize years other than those associated with the duration of life of humans, it is important to ask what has become of the three types of years belonging to the lifetime of Brahma¯ that collectively constitute a total of one billion small or divine years (10,000 1,000 100 ¼ 1,000,000,000 divine years). Remarkably, this number is identical to the number of worlds belonging to the Realm of Form of the Buddhist cosmos that collectively constitute a single Buddha-field.

Given the arguments of Plotinus as background, we must wonder whether the numerology of thousands in the Buddhist Realm of Form/Intellect does not represent a deconstruction of the theology of Brahma¯ grounded in considerations of essential number and its relationship to the days and nights of the Demiurge. In considering this possibility, there are several transformations to be noted.

1. The Kos´a transposes the three types of Pura¯nic years (caturyuga, kalpa, and years of Brahma¯) to the three types of thousand-world systems (small, intermediate,˙ and great). The thousands of worlds thereby become a statement not only about number but about form, the forms from which the worlds are generated. It is worth considering whether this transposition is facilitated by the logic of astrology whereby a world and a duration of life are determined by the configurations of the planets and the ascendant (lagna) within the zodiac, the twelve signs and the 360 degrees of the zodiac being the year. This involves a logic predating Buddhism in the figure of Praja¯pati, who is at once the Year and the Lord of beings, that is, beings generated by the forms of the zodiac and predicated on or known by the science of astrology.

2. By virtue of this transposition, the Kos´a moves number from the sensible to the Realm of Form/Intellect. Consequently, the formula of the thousands of worlds that constitute the field of a single Buddha is tantamount to the forms and essential number, the objects of the Intellect for Plotinus. While the expanse of time conveyed by the large numbers of the lifetime of Brahma¯ is certainly cosmic in scale, we must reflect on whether grandeur is their most significant message or whether it is not rather a statement about the nature of number. It may instead be that, as with the Demiurge of Plato, number is grounded in the observation of the sensible and based on the duality of day and night created by the Demiurge.

To the extent that we can follow Plotinus in understanding this controversy: forms, ideas, and here especially ‘essential number’ reside in the Intellect and the Realm of Form separate from the One, and do not arise from the days and nights of the sensible realm created by the Demiurge. And the compact formulas of the Kos´a appear to reflect reasoning that is similar, if not identical, to that of Plotinus in this regard. Based on these parallels, we must take seriously the likelihood that the Kos´a’s use of thousands is an affirmation of reasoning related to issues of essential number and a movement of the basis for number from the sensible realm to the Realm of Form, the field of a single Buddha/Intellect (buddhaksetra).

3. The Kos´a creates distinctions in the nature of time similar to those of Ploti-˙ nus. In the chronometry associated with Brahma¯, beginning (and ending) with days and nights, we can calculate that a caturyuga lasts 4,320,000 human years (360 12,000), and a Kaliyuga one-tenth that amount. The kalpa, in turn, equaling a thousand caturyugas, consists of 4,320 million human years. Brahma¯’s days alternate with nights of equal duration, and when Brahma¯ has lived a life of a hundred years of 360 such days and nights, the universe has gone through 311,040 billion human years. Thus, there is a uniformity to the Pura¯nic scale of time (ka¯la) evidenced by the fact that the duration of the life of Brahma¯, and ultimately Vis˙ nu, can be expressed in human years. One could say that this results from the view that the Demiurge˙˙ Brahma¯ resides within the One, thinking the thoughts of the One, and that thought and measurement apply equally to the sensible, the intelligible, and the One. Distinctions made by Plotinus between time generated by the soul, the eternity of Intellect, and the absence of all measurement or limitation to the One do not exist:

It [the One] does not even belong to the category of essential number,...

Therefore you must not even add thinking, in order that you may not add something other than it and make two, intellect and good.56 By contrast the Kos´a seems to indicate that the duration of human life is eternal in the Realm of Form, but devolves to years in the Realm of Desire (see below). And, as we have just seen, the kalpas of the Buddhist Realm of Form cannot be expressed in terms of years. Instead, as we saw in the discussion of infinite number, they are linked most closely with the incalculable (asamkhyeya). So the understanding of years and kalpas is intimately tied to the understanding of number. The Formless˙ Realm is characterized by many negativities, to be discussed below. Many questions remain, not least the insubstantiality of time for the Kos´a as well as its relationship to momentariness, but these are well beyond the scope of this essay.

Questions of Eternity and the Ru¯padha¯tu

1. The Human (form) and the Intermediate Kalpa. Plotinus regards the human as one of the forms of which individuals constitute the particulars. Indeed, Plotinus even considers that there are forms for the individual.57 The idea of human form in the Intellect means that the human, as with all forms and essential number, is eternal:

[B]ut he exists for ever; and so he is all complete. But the man who has come to be is generated.

It is this argument from form that I believe can be employed to explain the statement of the Kos´a that human life varies from infinite down to ten years. According to the Kos´a, the receptacle world (bha¯janaloka) is created in the first of twenty intermediate or small kalpas (antarakalpa) of the asamkhyeya-kalpa of the creation while beings appear in the remaining nineteen. During this interval, the duration of human life is˙ infinite. The diminution of the duration of life occurs in the first of twenty intermediate or small kalpas, which comprise the second asamkhyeya-kalpa, that of the duration of the creation. Thereafter, there are increases of life span from ten to eighty˙ thousand years and subsequent declines to ten years in each of the remaining intermediate or small kalpas:

[L]ifespan in Jambudvı¯pa is incalculable at the beginning of an age: one cannot measure it by counting in thousands.

Again,

[The first small kalpa of the period of creation is used for the creation of the physical world....] During the nineteen small kalpas that complete this period, until the appearance of the beings in hell, the lifespan of humans is infinite in length.60 And finally, in recapitulating the Aggan˜n˜a Sutta (On knowledge of beginnings) of the Dı¯gha Nika¯ya, the so-called ‘‘Buddhist Genesis,’’ the Kos´a underscores a direct link between an infinite duration of life and the Realm of Form:

Humans at the beginning of the cosmic age were similar to the beings of the Ru¯padha¯tu. The Sutra says ‘‘These are visible beings (ru¯pin), born of the mind, having all their members, with complete and intact organs, of fine figure (s´ubha), of beautiful color, shining by themselves, travelling through the air, having joy for their food, and living for a long time’’

(tatha¯ dı¯rgha¯yuso dı¯rgham adhva¯nam tistantistti).61 ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ It is the attachment to or desire for time and futurity that results in the decline from the Realm of Form/Intellect and the shortening of life span. For Plotinus, this is accomplished by the soul, generating time and descending into the sensible realm. For Buddhism, this is the result of a transmigrating entity or conditions resulting in rebirth, which devolve from the eternity of the Realm of Form to the years of the Realm of Desire: Humans, at the end of the period of creation, have an infinitely long lifespan; their lifespan diminishes when creation is achieved until it is no more than ten years in length.

2. Eternity and the Fourth Meditation Realm (Dhya¯na). The question of whether eternity characterizes the Buddhist Realm of Form, as is the case for the Intellect of Plotinus, is complicated by the cycle of sixty-four destructions that occur within this system.63 But these destructions do not affect the highest of the Meditation Realms of the Realm of Form, the Fourth Dhya¯na. The Fourth Dhya¯na includes the five heavens designated as ‘abodes of the pure ones’ (s´uddhava¯sika), the highest of which, the Akanistha heaven, is understood to be the ‘place of nirva¯na.’ Nevertheless, the language of the˙˙ Kos´a is difficult on this point: ˙

The Fourth Dhya¯na is not subject to destruction, because it is free from agitation. The Buddha said in fact that this Dhya¯na, being free from internal vices, is non-movable (a¯nejya).... According to another opinion, the non-destruction of the Fourth Dhya¯na is explained by the force of the S´uddhava¯saka¯yika gods (gods of the pure abodes) whose abode it is. These gods are incapable of entering into A¯ru¯pyadha¯tu, and are also incapable of going elsewhere [to a lower sphere].

But this apparent affirmation of eternity as belonging to the Fourth Dhya¯na is followed by this: The receptacle world of the Fourth Dhya¯na is not eternal ...; like the stars, it is divided into diverse residences; these different mansions, the abodes of beings, arise and perish with these beings.

Maha¯ya¯na texts add another perspective. It is from the Fourth Dhya¯na that the single Buddha/Intellect of the Buddha-field embarks on the so-called ‘great meditations.’ Here, the ‘non-destruction’ of the Fourth Dhya¯na serves as the starting point for a new drama rather than its terminus.66 At a minimum we must conclude that Buddhist texts associate issues of eternity with the Fourth Dhya¯na, despite their commitment to a teaching of impermanence.67 At the top of the Fourth Dhyana is the Akanistha heaven, which is the ‘place of nirva¯na.’ It is possible to obtain nirva¯na elsewhere, that is, at the˙˙ bhava¯gra, the highest of the˙ a¯ru¯pyas.68 However, we are told that ‘the˙ a¯ru¯pyadha¯tu is not a place,’69 and also that there are no residences above the Akanistha.

As we shall soon see, these cryptic and isolated references denying residence˙˙ and place to the Formless Realm may also be valuable links associating the Formless Realm of the Buddhist cosmos with the One of Plotinus/Parmenides. The reference to two nirva¯nas—one of which occurs in a place, the other in a ‘no-place’—may also be viewed as pointing to a second drama barely apparent in the˙ Kos´a. The Formless Realm and the One

The One of Parmenides is described by Plotinus as being without form, infinite, partless, outside measure and number and beyond knowing. With regard to the One or the First, Plotinus states:

[T]he One must be without form. But if it is without form it is not a substance; for a substance must be some one particular thing, something defined and limited; but it is impossible to apprehend the One as a particular thing: for then it would not be the principle, but only the particular thing you said it was.... [I]t is beyond being.71

And this has infinity by not being more than one, and because there is nothing in which anything belonging to it will find its limit: for by being one it is not measured and does not come within range of number. It is therefore not limited in relation to itself or to anything else: since if it was it would be two. It has no shape, then, because it has no parts, and no form.72

Four ‘awarenesses’ (a¯yatanas) known collectively as the Formless Realm or the Realm of Non-form (a¯ru¯pyadha¯tu) are generally represented as being above the Realm of Form, though the Kos´a raises significant questions about location of any kind for this realm. They include the ‘awareness of the infinity of space’ (aka¯s´a¯nantya¯yatana), the ‘awareness of the infinity of intellect or consciousness’ (vijn˜a¯na¯nantya¯yatana), the ‘awareness of nothingness’ (a¯kin˜canya¯yatana), and the ‘awareness of neither consciousness nor not-consciousness’ or ‘awareness of neither ideas nor not-ideas’ (naivasan˜jn˜a¯n¯san˜jna¯yatana). These four awarenesses appear to be in addition to and apart from the twelve awarenesses (a¯yatanas) associated with the Kos´a’s analysis of the seventy-two conditioned dharmas and appear to represent a second set of awarenesses.73

The Formless Realm and the One of Plotinus appear to share the attribute of infinity. Moreover, one can reason that, as with the One, it is an infinity without the limits of the Realm of Form/Intellect, since the limited infinity of the asamkhyeyakalpas does not appear to apply to the Formless Realm, but only to the Realm of˙ Form. As we have seen, the limited infinity of the Intellect corresponds to the incalculables, which nevertheless have a value (asamkhyeya). This limited infinity of the knowable and the likely basis for the attribution of omniscience to the Intellect/˙ Buddha characterizes the Realm of Form and frames the cosmology of the Kos´a. And, as already suggested, the universe of the asamkhyeya-kalpas requires something from which to arise, and the Formless Realm should certainly be considered˙ in this regard.

The fact that the spatial measurement of yojanas apparently terminates at the Akanistha and does not extend to the Formless Realm tends to support a characterization of this realm as outside measure and number, like the One of Plotinus, as˙˙ does the statement that ‘the a¯ru¯pyadha¯tu is not a place.’ And again, there are no residences in the Formless Realm:

Above the Akanistha there are no more residences (stha¯na). This is because this residence is higher than the others; no residence is superior to it, and so it is called Akanistha.74

That the Formless Realm is partless, like the One of Plotinus, is compromised by the fact that there are four ‘awarenesses’ within the Formless Realm. Possibly an exploration of the later Neoplatonists, who tended to multiply the divisions, may provide some insights into this formulation.75 Perhaps a more complete understanding of the technologies of meditation associated with the Formless Realm and the successive negations implied therein will clarify this issue. In any event, the Kos´a provides the following, which may be taken in support of the partless nature of the Formless Realm:

It is fourfold through its mode of existence. [The four a¯yatanas] constitute the a¯ru¯pyadha¯tu which is thus of four types. ‘‘Existence’’ means the appearance of skandhas in a new existence by reason of action: it is not through one and the same action that one obtains these different a¯yatanas that are superior to one another. But this superiority does not imply difference of stage.76

To conclude this discussion of the Formless Realm and the One, it is important to note that each implies a second drama and that each locates this drama in a nowhere and a no-place. In many ways, the Formless Realm appears to require a discrete technology of meditation, unrelated to that of the Four Dhya¯nas.77 Indeed, the Kos´a makes reference, however brief, to a second technology by stating that it is possible to obtain nirva¯na elsewhere than the Akanistha, that is, at the bhava¯gra, the highest of the a¯ru¯pyas. In fact, the˙ Kos´a informs us that the saint who obtains˙˙ nirva¯na at the bhava¯gra is dedicated to absorption; the saint who obtains it at the Akanis˙ tha to insight or vision.78 For now, we can only wonder at the significance of this second˙˙ nirva¯na. I suggest that the difficulty in understanding the significance of this second˙ nirva¯na is due to the fact that the Kos´a, and the Hı¯naya¯na as a whole, is focused on the drama or path of purification, raising the ‘amphibian’ soul to the level of the˙ Intellect/Buddha, where the notion of soul (or the lower soul or the soul attributes, most notably futurity, or time) is extinguished. Plotinus, too, describes the movement from the soul to the Intellect as a process of purification: ‘‘take away everything.’’ The Kos´a is not concerned with any drama or movement from Intellect to the One. Nevertheless the Kos´a recognizes the structure of the threefold division and retains the One in the Formless Realm. The culmination of the movement from Soul to Intellect occurs with the attainment of nirva¯na, and the ‘place of nirva¯na’ is the Akanistha at the top of the Realm of Form and the highest of the residences.˙ ˙

It is possible that the relationship of the Fourth Dhya¯na and the Formless Realm can be illuminated by Plotinus’ understanding of the relationship between the One and the Intellect. If there is a correspondence between the Formless Realm and the One, then nous and the place of nirva¯na could be described in relationship to the

One as follows: ˙

Observe the universe also, that, since there is no universe before it, it is not itself in a universe, nor again in a place: for what place could there be before a universe existed? But its parts are dependent on it and in it. But Soul is not in the universe, but the universe is in it: for body is not the soul’s place, but Soul is in Intellect and body in Soul, and Intellect in something else; but there is nothing other than this for it to be in: it is not, then, in anything; in this way therefore, it is nowhere. Where then are the other things? In it.79

The Akanistha, the ‘place of nirva¯na,’ and the ‘non-movable’ (a¯nejya) Fourth Dhya¯na are somewhere—and where but in the First, the Formless Realm? Perhaps the char-˙˙ ˙ acterization of the Formless Realm as ‘not a place’ and not a residence (stha¯na) is more significant than it first appeared. Perhaps the reference to two nirva¯nas, one of which is a ‘place’ and a ‘somewhere’ and the second of which is a ‘no-place’˙ and a ‘nowhere,’ is not so obscure after all. Perhaps these negative attributes serve as a reminder of a heritage shared by both the Formless Realm and the ‘nowhere’ of the One. The Vision of the Maha¯ya¯na: Intellect Illuminating the Life of the One

We have argued that the Formless Realm corresponds to the characterization of the One as infinite and without form. In addition, we have speculated that, in the Kos´a and in the Hı¯naya¯na as a whole, its role is unclear because the real drama of the movement from Intellect to the One is the province of the Maha¯ya¯na. It is with the Maha¯ya¯na that we find the One identified with the Good and with the perfections or the virtues that are the focus of the Prajn˜a¯pa¯ramita¯ tradition.

In addition to being infinite and formless, Plotinus regards the One as unknowable, beyond Intellect. Plotinus further equates the One, the ‘wholly simplex’ or ‘absolutely simple,’80 with the Good:

[W]henever we say ‘‘the One’’ and whenever we say ‘‘the Good,’’ we must think that the nature we are speaking of is the same nature....81 The primary expression of the virtue or the Good of the One is that of ‘undiminished giving’: For think of a spring which has no other origin, but gives the whole of itself to rivers, and is not used up by the rivers but remains itself at rest ...82 ... for the real being alone can exist of and by itself. How could anyone take being from it, or anything else of all the things which exist by being’s activity and come from itself?

For as long as it exists, it gives of its store of being; but it exists forever, so they do also.83 It is common to regard the vastly different cosmologies of the Hı¯naya¯na and the Maha¯ya¯na as competing traditions articulating a common goal via different paths— the gradualism of the Hı¯na¯yana on the one hand, the sudden enlightenment of the Maha¯ya¯na on the other. Plotinus, however, articulates two discrete, yet inextricably related goals that may serve as another model for understanding the relationship of these two traditions. The first involves movement from the ‘lower’ soul and its desire for time, futurity, and knowledge to the eternity of Intellect and the forms, the unity of Knower and known.84 Beyond this, Plotinus describes the movement from Intellect to the One/Good.85 Indeed, Porphyry speaks of Plotinus as having attained mystical union with the One four times ‘‘while I was with him.’’86

We have argued that Plotinus’ movement from the Soul to the Intellect corresponds closely to, and even informs our understanding of, the path of purification leading to the nirva¯na of Hı¯naya¯na Buddhism. The soul rises to the level of Intellect through the process of purification. Plotinus urges us to ‘‘never stop working on your˙ statue’’87 and to ‘‘take away everything’’88—a process seemingly analogous to the process of purification based on the removal of the defilements (kles´as) outlined in the Kos´a.

We will now suggest that the movement described by Plotinus from Intellect to the perfections or virtues of the One/Good is a different path or movement that corresponds closely to, and can inform our understanding of, the perfections or virtues articulated in Maha¯ya¯na Buddhist texts, particularly within the Prajn˜a¯pa¯ramita¯ tradition.89 The Prajn˜a¯pa¯ramita¯ texts focus on a drama wherein the Buddha/Intellect in the Fourth Dhya¯na enters into a ‘concentration which is the king of concentrations’ (sama¯dhira¯jasama¯dhi). Copious rays of light are emitted from his body, illuminating the activities of ‘buddhas numerous as the sands of the Ganges,’ that is, innumerable Buddhas throughout the ten regions of space making offerings one to another, perfecting the virtue of the gift (da¯na-pa¯ramita¯):90

Thereupon the Lord, seated on this very Lion Throne, smiled once again. Through the illumination from that smile ... innumerable world systems in the ten directions, were lit up. And all the beings in this [[[buddha-field]], known as Saha¯] saw the Buddhas ... and their assemblies of disciples in countless [[[buddha-fields]]] in the East. And conversely, all the beings in countless [[[buddha-fields]]] in the East saw this Saha¯ world ..., and S´a¯kyamuni....

Samantaras´mi replied: ‘‘I will go to that Saha¯ world ..., to see, salute, and honour ...

S´a¯kyamuni....’’

Thereupon ... Ratna¯kara gave to the Bodhisattva Samantaras´mi lotuses made of manifold jewels, shining like gold, each with thousands of petals....

Thereupon the Bodhisattva Samantaras´mi took ... those lotuses.... He was surrounded

and accompanied by many hundreds of thousands of niyutas of kotis of Bodhisattvas.... ˙ And before they left they honoured, worshipped, and revered the Buddhas and Lords in the [[[buddha-fields]]] in the East. With the flowers, etc., he reached the Saha¯ world ..., approached ... S´a¯kyamuni, saluted the Lord’s feet with his head, and stood to one side.... Thereupon ... S´a¯kyamuni ... took up these lotuses, and threw them in the Eastern direction into countless [[[buddha-fields]]] which were lit up by these lotuses.... And the beings who heard the dharma became fixed on the utmost, right and perfect enlightenment.... From all the ten directions Bodhisattvas came to ... S´a¯kyamuni. The same scene took place....

Other texts elaborate the nature of this giving between Buddhas, and how it is the basis for a ‘supreme field of merit’ (paramapunyaksetra).92 Viewed through the lens of the Enneads, it is impossible not to see in this exchange of thousand-petaled˙ ˙ lotuses and related discussion of the virtue of the gift a richly mythologized and cosmologized representation of the ‘undiminished giving’ at the heart of the life of the One for Plotinus. It is equally of interest to read that the Bodhisattva practices the perfections, and most notably that of the gift, by means of the discipline of ‘non-residence’ or ‘non-residing’ (astha¯nayogena),93 a discipline that resonates with the ‘nowhere’ of the One.

It is worth returning to the fact that the ability to view the One, the Good, and its ‘undiminished giving’ occurs as the result of the emission of rays of light from the body of the Buddha/Intellect. It would be of great interest to examine the parallels between this and Plotinus’ discussion of the Intellect viewing the objects of the One as requiring the inner light of Intellect to illuminate the One:

This then, is what the seeing of the Intellect is like; this also sees by another light the things illuminated by that first nature, and sees the light in them; when it turns its attention to the nature of the things illuminated, it sees the light less; but if it abandons the things it sees and looks at the medium by which it sees them, it looks at light and the sources of light. But since the Intellect must not see this light as external ... this will itself sometimes know a light which is not the external, alien light, but it momentarily sees before the external light a light of its own, a brighter one....94 Texts such as the Saddharma-pundarı¯ka (Lotus of the True or Good Law)95 tighten the parallels between the drama of the Maha˙ ˙ ¯ya¯na and the movement from

Intellect to the One/Good of Plotinus. The Lotus underscores the fact that the nirva¯na of the Hı¯naya¯na is the starting point for this Maha¯ya¯na vision of the One/Good rather˙ than being the goal, as represented by the Kos´a and the Hı¯naya¯na in general. It is worth noting that the referenced nirva¯na would seem to be the single nirva¯na of the Fourth Dhya¯na (Akanistha) and not the double˙ nirva¯na of the Kos´a (Akanis˙tha and bhava¯gra). The Lotus describes the individual˙˙ nirva¯na˙as a ‘skillful device,’ whereby˙˙ we fancy an individual nirva¯na (pratya¯tmika¯m nirvr˙ ti).96 We are motivated by this skillful device to leave this triple world and only then to become aware of the˙ ˙ ˙ possibility of Buddha-knowledge (buddhajn˜a¯na)97 or supreme perfect enlightenment (anuttara samyak sambodhi).98 Nirva¯na is described as a temporary repose, no final rest (vis´a¯ra¯mo ‘yam na nirvr˙ tih),99 a ‘magic city’˙ (rddhimayam nagaram),100 something less than and short of ‘complete˙ ˙ nirva¯na’ (eta¯tvata˙¯ nirvrti),101˙what would appear to be a second nirva¯na, a second drama, not unlike the movement from Intellect to the One.˙ ˙

The Lotus Su˙ ¯tra and other Maha¯ya¯na texts also provide a variety of formulaic descriptions of the threefold ages of the law or periodizations of the teaching. These include a ‘period of the True or Good dharma,’ a ‘period of the counterfeit dharma,’ and a ‘period of the decline of the dharma.’ We must consider whether these threefold schemes do not, in fact, constitute a ‘temporalization’ of the three principles of Plotinus—the One, Intellect, and Soul—which is to say the Formless Realm/One, the Realm of Form (a copy or counterfeit of the One), the One-in-Many of Intellect and the forms, and the Realm of Desire, the One-and-Many of Soul devolved into the desire for time/futurity and knowledge.

The Kos´a, too, recognizes a period of the Good law (saddharma), which it regards as lasting one thousand years.102 In the Japanese Maha¯ya¯na schools of the Kamakura period (Nichiren, Pure Land, and Zen), the three ages of the law/dharma are said to have the following durations:

1. a correct/True doctrine (saddharma/sho¯bo¯), with a duration of five hundred years;

2. a counterfeit doctrine (pratiru¯pakadharma/zo¯bo¯), with a duration of one thousand years; and

3. the latter days of the law or decline of the law (pas´cimadharma/mappo¯), with a duration of ten thousand years.103

This formulation is all the more remarkable when we recall the near identity between these years of the dharma and the three types of years of the lifetime of Brahma¯. Consistent with what we have seen in the Buddhist tradition, these years make no reference to days or nights. However, if we are suggesting that the True doctrine (saddharma) corresponds to the One, we cannot also argue that these years correspond to the ‘essential number’ of Intellect. So we are left with only suggestive parallels and no firm conclusion except that a full understanding of these issues will require scholarship deep into the logic of Indian onto-numerology, which goes back at least to the Rg Veda Hymns to the One (tad ekam, RV X.129) and to the Self (purusa su¯kta, RV X.90), the latter of which abounds with a numerology of˙thousands.˙

Summary Observations

The figure of Plotinus and the text of the Enneads are only one expression, however pivotal, of a broad spectrum of speculation on the One, on form and the intelligible, on number, and on soul, beginning with Parmenides (fifth century B.C.) and continuing on through Plato, Aristotle, the Pythagoreans, and the Stoics. Still, the Enneads articulate structures of reality that, if applied to the Kos´a, appear to provide meaningful insights into understanding its cosmology. Similarly, the Kos´a is a compendium of a broad spectrum of Buddhist philosophical speculation, compiled by the Vaibha¯sika sect of Kashmir at the beginning of our era, but drawing on the earliest Su¯tras (third century˙ B.C.), and commented upon by Vasubandhu around the fifth century A.D.104

While the continuities between many of the concerns of Greek philosophy and those of Buddhist cosmological speculation are apparent, it is beyond the scope of this essay to identify the interactions likely behind them. Still, the possibility of using the Enneads to illuminate crucial aspects of the cosmology of the Kos´a, and even to provide a framework for relating the cosmologies of the Maha¯ya¯na to those of the Hı¯naya¯na, suggests that the influences or interactions were extensive and protracted. And there are reasons to include interactions with later Neoplatonism as well. At least one scholar has suggested parallels between the system of pseudo-Dionysius and the meditation realms of Buddhist cosmology.105 And Damascius speculates about ‘primary time’ or ‘intellectual time,’ which he compares to ‘‘the extension of a river from source to mouth conceived as being at rest at a certain moment, or to the appearance of the whole of a river if we could halt its flow.’’ Such formulations certainly suggest possibilities for a deeper understanding of Maha¯ya¯na speculations on ‘buddhas numerous as the sands of the Ganges.’

One issue worth mentioning, but not developed in this essay, derives from the fact that the three separate principles of Plotinus are, paradoxically, the basis for a principle of participation. This principle appears to parallel the Kos´a’s rejection of Brahma¯ as the creator in favor of the conclusion that all things are compound:

But each of necessity must give of its own to something else as well, or the Good will not be the Good, or Intellect Intellect, or the soul this that it is, unless with the primal living some secondary life as long as the primal exists. Of necessity, then, all things must exist for ever in ordered dependence upon each other: those other than the First have come into being in the sense that they are derived from other, higher, principles.107 The three principles participate one with another; thus the One gives to the Intellect and is its basis:

Nous is said to generate the multiplicity of Ideas from the One. The multiplicity ‘‘comes to it from the One.’’ It is unable to keep the power it acquires from the One in its original state and so breaks it up....

In this regard, Plotinus tends toward emanationism, contrary to the overall approach to seeing the three principles as discrete. One important implication of the principle of participation is that things do not derive from a single principle (or creator) but are composite:

We certainly see that all the things that are said to exist are compounds, and not a single one of them is simple....

This theme appears to have important parallels in the Kos´a:

That things are produced by a single cause, by God, Maha¯deva or Va¯sudeva, is inadmissible for many reasons....1

Reasoning analogous to this principle of participation could provide a basis for understanding the ‘apparitional Buddhas’ that appear in the Realm of Desire (participation of the Realm of Form in the Realm of Desire) as well as what we may regard as the ‘apparitional nirva¯na,’ which appears as an artificial city, a temporary repose, et cetera (participation of the One in the Realm of Form).˙

One last point will bring us full circle to the excerpted passages from Ennead III.8.11 used to introduce this essay. The Intellectual Principle is characterized as ‘‘the most beautiful of all; its place is in pure light and pure radiance ... (this) fullness.’’111 It remains only to point out that the Buddhist heavens of the Realm of Form are characterized by similar attributes as they lead up to the abodes of the pure ones. Once one passes the three Brahma¯ heavens of the First Dhya¯na (the realms of heresy), the next three, belonging to the Second Dhya¯na, are the heavens of radiance or splendor (a¯bha¯); the next three, belonging to the Third Dhya¯na, the heavens of beauty (s´ubha); and the third heaven of the Fourth Dhya¯na, immediately below the realms of the pure ones, is the heaven of ‘abundant fruit’ (brhatphala). The place of radiance, beauty, and abundance or fullness in these traditions remains for˙ another time.

Meanings of Rupa: Form, Matter, Visibility

While this essay has emphasized parallels between form or idea (eidos) in Plotinus and form (ru¯pa) in Buddhist cosmology, these are based on perceived structural similarities, as argued above. And while at least one scholar of Plotinus interested in Indian influences uses them interchangeably,112 it is only with considerable effort that these terms can be understood to have a related meaning. Ru¯pa, in fact, is translated as ‘matter’ as often as ‘form,’ and there is no clear consensus among scholars in this regard. La Valle´e Poussin uses form and non-form for ru¯pa and aru¯pa in his short English article, reflected in the chart below,113 but in his French translation of the Kos´a he uses ‘matie`re.’ Pruden’s English translation of La Valle´e Poussin uses ‘realm of physical matter’ to translate ru¯padha¯tu,114 so that we have the material realm (ru¯padha¯tu) and the immaterial realm (a¯ru¯pyadha¯tu).

To regard the ru¯padha¯tu as the realm of ‘physical matter’ and situated above the Realm of Desire is not especially convincing, particularly with the circles of the great elements (earth, water, wind, and fire) explicitly at the base of the Realm of Desire, not above. Nor do the designations of the heavens that make up the Realm of Form—radiance, beauty, and fullness or great abundance—suggest ‘physical matter.’ Nor is an understanding of the meditations, providing access to the Realm of Form and nirva¯na, at the pinnacle of the Realm of Form, facilitated by such a rendering, though some argue that the objects of meditation associated with the Realm of˙ Form are material in nature while those associated with the Formless Realm are immaterial, that is, philosophical in nature.115 We have already seen, of course, that the Kos´a does offer an understanding of the Akanistha as agha-nistha, the limit of ‘assembled matter.’ According to the Kos´a, all five skandha˙˙ s are present in the Realm˙˙ of Form, but there is no ‘physical matter’ (ru¯pa) in the Formless Realm;116 therefore, only four skandhas are present in the Formless Realm.117 At the same time, the Kos´a considers positions that there is subtle matter present in the Formless Realm118 as well as the possibility that matter arises from mind.

E´tienne Lamotte translates ru¯pa as matter or corporeality, consisting of two kinds: the four great elements (maha¯bha¯ta)—earth, water, fire, and wind—and matter derived (upa¯da¯yaru¯pa) from the great elements, the ‘matie`re subtile’ (ru¯paprasa¯da), which form the organs of sense (indriya). From the sense organs and the objects of sense arise consciousness (vijn˜a¯na).120 According to the Kos´a, ru¯pa is understood as ‘matter’ in the context of the five skandhas or ‘aggregates,’ that is, ru¯pa, corporeality or matter or form; vedana¯, sensation; samjn˜a¯, notion; samska¯ra, will or volition or latent disposition; and vijn˜a¯na, awareness or consciousness or discrimina-˙ ˙ tion. Specifically, ru¯pa is the five senses (indriya) and the five objects (visaya) of the senses;121 we might say it is the sensible awareness of matter or sense attachment to˙ matter. This gives rise to consciousness (vijn˜a¯na) ‘at the moment of conception.’122 Based on these considerations, Lamotte translates ru¯padha¯tu as ‘monde de la matie`re subtile.’123 Apparently following Lamotte, Frank E. Reynolds and Mani B. Reynolds render it as ‘world with only a remnant of material factors’ and ‘world without material factors’ for ru¯pa- and a¯ru¯pyadha¯tu,124 while Winston L. King renders ru¯pa-loka

as ‘realm of form, fine material sphere,’ and aru¯pa-loka as ‘immaterial sphere, realm of formlessness.’

Ru¯pa is considered one of the five ‘subtle elements’ (tanma¯tras) of Sa¯mkhya philosophy: sound, contact, form, taste, and smell. These tanma¯tras are generated˙ ˙ by the ego and in turn generate the gross elements (maha¯bhu¯ta). The tanma¯tras stand between mind and the senses on the one hand and the gross elements on the other. In this capacity, they presumably mediate both sensibility and intelligibility. The tanma¯tras belong to the ‘subtle body’ (lin˙gas´arı¯ra or su¯ksmas´arı¯ra), which transmigrates (tattvas 3–20); the gross elements do not.126 The five˙ skandhas, twelve bases or organs of consciousness (a¯yatana), and the eighteen elements (dha¯tus) of Buddhist philosophy represent structures similar to those of Sa¯mkhya philosophy for perception and knowing, including self-knowledge. ˙

The term na¯maru¯pa, generally ‘name and form,’ is prominent as the fourth cause in the Buddhist twelvefold chain of causation. The term vis´varu¯pa is prominent in various epiphanies wherein deities reveal their ‘All-form’ or perhaps simply ‘all their forms,’ notably Krsna in Gı¯ta¯ XI. Plotinus introduces some distinctions that may provide an approach to the dis-˙˙˙ cussion of form and matter. He refers to the two types of matter: physical matter as commonly understood and forms and Ideas, which are the matter of the Intellect.127 In this manner, forms or Ideas may be regarded as intelligible matter. Plotinus even appears to equate form and matter in certain contexts:

Then matter, too, is a sort of ultimate form; so this universe is all form, and all things in it are forms; for its archetype is form; the making is done without noise and fuss, since that which makes is all real being and form.

In addition to the two types of matter, Plotinus employs analogies involving vision to illustrate the relationship between the sensible and the intelligible as well as that between Intellect and the One. Vision implies duality: the seer and the seen, the knower and the known. But, as we have seen, Intellect needs to illuminate the One. In this regard, it is worth noting that ru¯pa is the tanma¯tra associated with the sense of sight and the gross element of fire, associations that may be more significant than is initially apparent. In a discussion of the power of the yogin to become invisible through samyama, the last three stages of yoga, namely concentration (dha¯rana), meditation properly speaking˙ (dhya¯na), and stasis (sama¯dhi), Eliade provides the fol-˙ lowing discussion of ru¯pa from Va¯caspatimis´ra:

The body is formed from five essences [[[tattva]]]. It becomes an object perceptible to the eye by virtue of the fact that it possesses a form [ru¯pa, which also means color]. It is through this ru¯pa that the body and its form become objects of perception. When the yogin practices samyama on the form of the body, he destroys the perceptibility ˙ of the color [ru¯pa] that is the cause of perception of the body. Thus, when the possibility of perception is suspended, the yogin becomes invisible. The light engendered in the eye of another person no longer comes into contact with the body that has disappeared.129 In this context, it is noteworthy that a link between the Realm of Form and visibility is articulated in the ‘Buddhist Genesis’ mentioned above with regard to the discussion of the duration of human life: Humans at the beginning of the cosmic age were similar to the beings of the Ru¯padha¯tu. The Sutra says ‘‘These are visible beings (ru¯pin), born of the mind,...’’ (italics added)

If we accept this association, then, when the Kos´a states that the Formless Realm receives its name from the fact that ru¯pa does not exist there, we may infer that visibility is not an attribute of the Formless Realm. This in turn implies a need for this realm to be illuminated. And this may lead us back to Plotinus’ discussion of Intellect illuminating the One and the rays of light issued from the body of the Buddha illuminating the undiminished giving that may be regarded as the life of the One.130 If this essay is correct in characterizing the Buddhist Realm of Form as the realm of infinite and essential number, eternity, beauty, radiance, and omniscience integral to the Buddha/Intellect, the Realm of Form (ru¯padha¯tu) must be understood in ways that correspond much more closely to the use of the realm of an Intellect whose objects are ‘forms,’ ‘ideas,’ or numbers as understood by Plotinus rather than matter, corporeality, or even ‘subtle matter’ in any common usage.131

Notes

1 – Ennead III.8.11, in A. H. Armstrong, trans., Plotinus, 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966–1988).
2 – The Enneads are available in two English translations: Armstrong, Plotinus, and Stephen MacKenna, trans., The Enneads (Boston: C. T. Branford Co., 1949). The latter is also available in an abridged edition with an Introduction and Notes by John Dillon (London: Penguin Books, 1991). Unless otherwise indicated, this essay relies on the Armstrong translation except for Ennead IV, where MacKenna has been cited since Armstrong was unavailable to me.
3 – W. Randolph Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology: Science and Theology in the Images of Motion and Light (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983).
4 – Willibald Kirfel, Die Kosmographie der Inder (Bonn: K. Schroeder, 1920),
p. 207.

5 – A clear and concise discussion of the dharmas and their groupings into skandhas, a¯yatanas, and dha¯tus can be found in Tadeusz Skorupski, ‘‘Buddhist Dharma and Dharmas,’’ Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1987), vol. 4, pp. 332–338, as well as in E´tienne Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme indien (Louvain: Institut orientaliste, 1958, 1967), pp. 657–671. The classic discussion is Theodor Stcherpatsky, The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word ‘Dharma’ (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1923). The centerpiece of this discussion is the analysis of the Sarva¯stiva¯din school, found in the Abhidharmakos´abyha¯syam of Vasubandhu (see note 9 below).
˙
6 – Sukomal Chaudhuri, Analytical Study of the Abhidharmakos´a, Research Series 4 (Calcutta: Calcutta Sanskrit College, 1976).

7 – Ennead V.1.8., in Armstrong, Plotinus.

8 – An excellent summary of contemporary scholarship on this topic can be found in Albert M. Wolters, ‘‘A Survey of Modern Scholarly Opinion on Plotinus and Indian Thought,’’ in R. Baine Harris, ed., Neoplatonism and Indian Thought (Norfolk: International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, 1982), pp. 293–308. An excellent bibliography of contemporary scholarship on Plotinus and Neoplatonism is available in R. T. Wallis, Neoplatonism, 2nd ed., Forward and Bibliography by Lloyd P. Gerson (London: Gerald Duckworth, and Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1995), pp. 185–197, together with a brief treatment of the ‘‘vexed question of oriental influence’’ on Plotinus, on pp. 13–15. A useful summary of historical contacts and interactions is available in C. L. Tripathi, ‘‘Influences of Indian Philosophy on Neoplatonism,’’ in Harris, Neoplatonism and Indian Thought, pp. 284–292. A recent title unavailable to me is Paulos Mar Gregorios, ed., Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001). Among the first to treat this issue systematically was J. F. Staal, Advaita and Neoplatonism (Madras: University of Madras, 1961); see esp. pp. 235–255.

9 – Leo M. Pruden, trans., Abhidharmakos´abyha¯syam, 4 vols. (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1988–1990)—hereafter cited as ‘‘˙ Kos´a, in Pruden’’—an English translation from the French of Louis de La Valle´e Poussin, trans. and annot., L’Abhidharmakos´a de Vasubandhu, 7 vols. (1923–1931; Brussels: Me´langes chinois et bouddhiques, 1971). Pruden has added an informative introduction: ‘‘The Abhidharma: The Origins, Growth and Development of a Literary Tradition,’’ pp. xxx–lxvii, as well as a ‘‘Brief Biography of Louis de La Valle´e Poussin,’’ pp. xv–xx. See also Subhadra Jha, trans., The Abhidharmakos´a of Vasubandhu: With the Commentary, annotated and rendered into French from the Chinese by Louis de La Valle´e Poussin, and Sanskrit text edited by Prahlad Pradhan, both translated into English (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1983–).

10 – Most recently, Thomas McEvilley’s ambitious comparative study of Greek and Indian philosophies has devoted two complete chapters to exploring these channels of communication—pre- and post-Alexander. See Thomas McEvilley, The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies (New York: Allworth Press: School of Visual Arts, 2002).

11 – Ennead III.8.8 and V.1.8, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
12 – Ennead V.8.10–13. ‘‘In the last two chapters, i.e. V.8.12–13, the myths of Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus are explained as symbolically referring to the three Hypostases, the One, Intellect and Soul. Plotinus does not often indulge in this sort of allegorization, and when he does it is somewhat tortured and he finds it difficult to be consistent’’ (Ennead V., in Armstrong, Plotinus, p. 267 n.; see also Ennead III.5.2).

13 – Ennead IV.8.4., cited in Wallis, Neoplatonism, p. 84.
14 – With regard to this thirst or desire, there are three kinds: (1) the desire of pleasure (kamatrsna¯), a desire which arises from and has its roots in agreeable things and pleasant ideas; (2) the desire for existence˙˙˙ (bhavatrsna¯), a desire associated with the belief in the perpetual duration of existence; and (3) the˙˙˙ desire of extinction (vibhavatrsna¯), a desire associated with the belief that everything ends with death (Lamotte,˙˙˙ Histoire du bouddhisme indien, p. 38). The Kos´a offers the following explanation: ‘‘What is ka¯ma? Concupiscence, the desire to eat by mouthfuls and sexual desire’’ (Kos´a iii.3c–d, in Pruden, pp. 368–369).

15 – Kos´a iii.18a, in Pruden, p. 399.

16 – Ennead III.7.11, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

17 – Ennead III.7.12, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

18 – Ennead III.7.11, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

19 – Ennead III.7.4, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

20 – Ennead III.7.11, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

21 – Ennead V.3.10, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

2 – Kos´a iv.27a–b, in Pruden, p. 593.

23 – We will have more than one occasion to wonder what exactly the Kos´a intends by ‘year.’ See notes 25 and 62 below.

24 – Kos´a iv.27a–b, in Pruden, p. 593. Elsewhere it is stated that ‘‘the limit of time

(advan) is an instant (ksana)’’ (Kos´a iii.85b–c, in Pruden, p. 484).
˙
25 – Visuddhimagga sec. 414. See Bhikku Na¯namoli, trans., The Path of Purification (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1975), pp. 455–456. The ten thou˙ sand worlds appear to constitute a transformation of the Pura¯nic caturyuga of ten thousand divine years based on considerations of ‘essential number’ in-˙ herent in the Realm of Form (ru¯padha¯tu).
26 – ‘‘On the future of the soul after the native’s death Greek astrology generally had little to say ... [but] [t]he idea of predicting future, as well as past, incarnations from the horoscope of the native’s current nativity did indeed prove appealing to Indian scholars’’ (The Yavanaja¯taka of Sphujidhvaja, ed., trans., and commented upon by David Pingree, 2 vols. [[[Cambridge]], MA: Harvard University Press, 1978], p. 352).
27 – ‘‘[T]he Forms and Numbers: that is Intellect’’ (Ennead V.4.2, in Armstrong,
Plotinus).


28 – Ennead V.5.6, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

29 – Ennead V.1.8, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

30 – References to the omniscience of the Buddha can be found in Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme indien, p. 49. See also the Maha¯prajn˜a¯pa¯ramita¯s´a¯stra —hereafter cited as ‘‘Mpps´, in Lamotte’’—, in E´tienne Lamotte, trans. and annot., Le traite´ de la grande vertu de sagesse de Na¯ga¯rjuna, vols. 1–2 (Louvain: Bibliothe`que du Muse´on, vol. 18 [1949]); vols. 3–4 (Publications de l’Institut de Louvain, vol. 2 [1970] and vol. 12 [1976]), pp. 436–437, 529–530. The Kos´a touches on issues concerning the omniscience of the Buddha in several places including chapter ix, ‘‘Refutation of the Pudgala,’’ wherein it is stated that the Va¯tsı¯putrı¯yas maintain that ‘‘omniscience can only belong to a soul, a pudgala’’ (Kos´a ix, in Pruden, p. 1328). And, ‘‘All the types of causes which produce a peacock feather—no one can know them except the Omniscient Ones; this is the power of Omniscience (to know a thing completely)’’ (Kos´a ix, in Pruden, p. 1345). Elsewhere, ‘‘the Buddha is always in full consciousness’’ (Kos´a iii.17, in Pruden, p. 398; see also Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology, p. 2 n. 1).

31 – Ennead VI.6.2, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
32 – Ennead VI.6.3, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
33 – Kos´a iii.93d–94a, in Pruden, p. 410.
34 – Kos´a iv, in Pruden, p. 755 n. 491. Efforts to ascertain the exact value designated by asamkhyeya are summarized in Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology, pp. 113–131. ˙

35 – H. J. Blumenthal, Plotinus’ Psychology: His Doctrine of the Embodied Soul (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971), p. 119. See Ennead VI.6.18.1ff.
36 – Mpps´ xv, acte ix, in Lamotte, pp. 529–530. 37 – Ennead IV.4.9, in MacKenna, The Enneads.
38 – Kos´a iii.90a–93c, in Pruden, pp. 475–479.
39 – Ennead V.9.5, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

40 – Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology, pp. 51–72.
41 – ‘‘L’eˆtre et les eˆtres, les formes, les nombres constituent donc la deuxieme hypostase plotinienne, l’intellect’’ (J. Bertier et al., Plotin: Traite´ sur les nombres [[[Wikipedia:Paris|Paris]]: J. Vrin, 1980], p. 20; Ennead VI.6). And again: ‘‘[L]e nombre est la loi du developpement de l’eˆtre dans les eˆtres’’ (ibid., p. 25; Ennead VI.6.9).

42 – Ennead VI.6.10, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
43 – Ennead VI.6.9, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
44 – Kos´a iii.95–96, in Pruden, pp. 484–487; Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology, pp. 64–72; 86–89.
45 – For a discussion of the concept of the Demiurge drawn exclusively from Greek materials, see Ugo Bianchi, ‘‘Demiurge,’’ in Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1987), vol. 3, pp. 279–282. The term refers to one who works (ergon) for the people (de¯mos) and has a governmental reference to a magistrate as well as a cosmological reference to ‘‘an ordainer or arranger, someone who fashions the world out of preexisting matter in accord with a preexisting model.’’ The Pura¯nic Brahma¯ is generally regarded as a Demiurge, though I am unaware of any scholarship that systematically˙ addresses this designation. The association is fluid at best, as can be seen in the following: ‘‘In the cosmogonic myths where Brahma¯ is the grandfather (pita¯maha), it is usual for him to emit from himself mind-born sons (ma¯nasaputra), who are called ‘Lords of creation’ (praja¯patis). From them creatures are born and the rest of creation is produced.... (These mind-born sons are) ‘demiurges’ and it is they who actively complete the process of creation’’ (Greg Bailey, The Mythology of Brahma¯ [[[Delhi]]: Oxford University Press, 1981], pp. 61–62). Brahma¯ is regarded as acting ‘for the benefit of beings,’ and it is Brahma¯ who encourages the Buddha to propagate the teaching ‘for the benefit of beings’ rather than pass into the extinction of nirva¯na. This essay regards Brahma¯ as conforming to the characteristics of a Demiurge for the fol-˙ lowing reasons: (1) Brahma¯ is regarded as within the One (Visnu) by virtue of the umbilical-like lotus connecting them, an Intellect within and not separate˙˙ from the One, thinking the thoughts of the One—a contradiction, according to Plotinus; (2) Brahma¯ is closely linked to issues of day and night as is the Demiurge of the Timaeus; and (3) number appears to have its basis in the days and nights associated with the lifetime of Brahma¯, a basis in the sensible of which Plotinus is critical, seeing instead ‘essential number’ in the Intellect as the basis for number. The Kos´a appears to echo concerns similar to those of Plotinus in this regard. Nevertheless, the Pura¯nic Brahma¯ appears significantly more complex than the Demiurge of the Timaeus,˙ with days and nights on the level of both the sensible and the intelligible.


46 – Ennead VI.6.4, commenting on Plato Timaeus 39b–c and 47a, in Armstrong, Plotinus. Resources for understanding the significance of number for Plotinus include A. H. Armstrong, The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus (1940; Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1967), pp. 11–17, 27; Bertier, Plotin: Traite´; Christoph Horn, Plotin u¨ber Sein, Zahl und Einheit: Eine Studie zu den systemischen Grundlagen der Enneaden (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1995); Blumenthal, Plotinus’ Psychology, pp. 115–119; and Wallis, Neoplatonism, p. 77, 94.
47 – Ennead III.7.12, in Armstrong, Plotinus.

48 – Ennead VI.6.9, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
49 – Kos´a vi.38a–b, in Pruden, p. 968.

50 – The fabric of the various destructions or dissolutions (pralaya) integral to Pura¯nic and Epic mythology is comprehensively treated in Madeleine Biardeau, ‘‘E˙ ´tudes de mythologie hindoue: Cosmogonies pura¯niques,’’ pts. 1–3, Bulletin de l’E´cole Franc¸aise d’Extreˆme-Orient 54 (1968): 19–45, [˙ vol.] 55 (1969): 59–105, [vol.] 58 (1971): 17–89; ‘‘Bhakti et avata¯ra,’’ pt. 4, Bulletin de l’E´cole Franc¸aise d’Extreˆme-Orient 63 (1976): 111–263. The various destructions include the ‘intermediate destruction’ at the end of a day of Brahma¯, the ‘elemental dissolution’ at the end of the life of Brahma¯, and physical death and spiritual death or release (moksa, nirva¯na, etc.). An extremely accessible synopsis of Biardeau’s work with these materials is available in˙ ˙ Alf Hiltebeitel, ‘‘Maha¯bha¯rata and Hindu Eschatology,’’ History of Religions Journal 12 (1972): 95–135.

51 – Kos´a iii.80b–81d, in Pruden, p. 471. Strictly speaking, the Kos´a recognizes three distinctions with regard to day and night: (1) the days and nights, which depend on the sun and the moon up to the height of Yugandhara mountain or half the height of Mount Meru, (2) the days and nights of the gods of desire (ka¯madeva), and (3) no days and nights in the ru¯padha¯tu; see Kos´a iii.79a– 80b, in Pruden, p. 470: ‘‘but there is no sun or moon above Yugandhara; how is a day of the gods determined? Like flowers which open or close, birds which sing or are silent, sleep which ends or begins.’’
52 – One wonders whether a history of Indian cosmology could not be organized around themes of days and nights. Compare with Brhada¯ranyaka Upanisad

6.2.14–15:
˙ ˙ ˙
Those who know this ... pass into the flame [of the cremation fire]; from the flame, into the day; from the day, into the half month of the waxing moon (the day of fortnights); from the half month of the waxing moon, into the six months during which the sun moves northward (the day of ayanas); from these months into the world of the gods (deva-loka); from the world of the gods into the lightning-fire. A person
(purusa) consisting of mind (ma¯nasa) goes to those regions of lightning and conducts
˙
them to the Brahma-worlds. In these Brahma-worlds they dwell for long extents. Of these there is no return. But they who by sacrificial offering, charity, and austerity conquer the worlds, pass into the smoke [of the cremation fire]; from the smoke, into the night; from the night, into the half month of the waning moon (the night of fortnights); from the half month of the waning moon into the six months during which the sun moves southward (the night of ayanas); from these months, into the world of the fathers; from the world of the fathers into the moon. (Robert Ernest Hume, The Thirteen Principal Upanishads, 2nd ed. rev. [[[London]]: Oxford University Press, 1921, 1979], p. 163)
Nearly identical language with regard to days and the destiny of the soul is found in Cha¯ndogya Upanisad 4.15.5, while no mention is made of nights, though both are referenced in Cha˙ ¯ndogya Upanisad 5.10.1–3. We have noted that the sandhyas associated with the four yuga˙ s make them appear as days without nights since the twilights are followed immediately by dawns. By contrast, the designation ‘Pan˜cara¯trin’ appears to mean either the school of the ‘five nights’ or the ‘night of the five [[[elements]]].’
53 – H. H. Wilson, trans., The Vishnu Pura¯na III (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1972), pp. 20–23; Cornelia Dimmitt and J.A.B. van Buitenen, eds. and trans.,˙ Classical Hindu Mythology: A Reader in the Sanskrit Pura¯nas (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978), pp. 36–44. ˙
54 – The Kos´a’s divisions of time begin with the instant (ksana) (Kos´a iii.85b–c, in Pruden, pp. 474–475) and are as follows: one hundred and twenty (˙ ˙
ksanas) make one tatksana; sixteen tatksanas make one lava; thirty lavas make a˙ ˙ muhu¯rta; thirty˙muhu˙ ¯rtas make an˙ ˙ahora¯tra or a day and a night; thirty days and nights make a ma¯sa or month; twelve months make a year or samvatsara (Kos´a iii.88b–89c, in Pruden, p. 475). Then there are three types of˙ kalpas: small or intermediate kalpas (antarakalpa); the kalpas of innumerables (asamkhyeya-kalpa), consisting of twenty intermediate kalpas; and the great kalpa (maha˙ ¯kalpa), which is the name given to the sequence of four kalpas of innumerables, that is, creation, duration of creation, dissolution, and duration of the dissolution. It is not possible to relate kalpas to years, though the intermediate kalpas that devolve into years may be regarded as being intermediate between kalpas and years. In addition, it is tempting to see in the maha¯kalpa what amounts to a cosmic instant (Kos´a iii.88d–102, in Pruden, pp. 475–495).


55 – Ennead V.5.4, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
56 – Ennead III.8.11, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
57 – Plotinus argues (V.7) that Socrates may represent a form.
58 – Ennead VI.7.2, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
59 – Kos´a iii.78, in Pruden, p. 470.
60 – Kos´a iii.90c–d, in Pruden, p. 478.

61 – Kos´a iii.98, in Pruden, p. 487. See also Rupert Gethin, ‘‘Cosmology and Meditation: From the Aggan˜n˜a-Sutta to the Maha¯ya¯na,’’ History of Religions 36 (1997): 183–217. It is beyond the scope of this essay to speculate on any relationship between these complete beings and the ‘complete living being’ of Timaeus 30c and referenced in Ennead VI.6.7.
62 – Kos´a iii.91a–b, in Pruden, p. 478. Kos´a iii.85a (Pruden, p. 474) adds this: ‘‘We have explained the residences and the bodies by measuring them in terms of yojanas and the life spans by measuring them in terms of years; but we have not explained yojanas and years. These can be explained only through the means of words (na¯man); and one must say that it is the limit (paryanta) of words, etc.’’ The discussion that follows is extremely challenging but may imply an equivalence between yojanas and years. Is there a relationship between Mt. Meru, whose height is eighty thousand yojanas, and the appearance of Buddhas, which begin when the duration of human lifetime has devolved to eighty thousand years? Does this cosmology intend a correspondence between a microcosm with a maximum duration of life of eighty thousand years and a macrocosm with a maximum duration of life of eighty thousand kalpas?
63 – Kos´a iii.100c–102, in Pruden, pp. 494–495; Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology, pp. 73–76.
64 – Kos´a iii.100c–101d, in Pruden, p. 495. Elsewhere, the Formless Realm is characterized as the Imperturbable (anejja). See David F. T. Rodier, ‘‘Meditative States in the Abhidharma and Pseudo-Dionysius,’’ in R. Baine Harris, ed., Neoplatonism and Indian Thought (Norfolk: International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, 1982), pp. 130–131, esp. p. 126, citing Anguttara-nika¯ ya IV.xix.190.
65 – Kos´a iii.100c–101d, in Pruden, p. 495.
66 – The Mpps´ is emphatic concerning the non-destruction of the Fourth Dhya¯na, emphasizing its role as the place from which the buddha enters into the sama¯dhira¯jasama¯dhi, the central drama of Maha¯ya¯na cosmology (see Mpps´, in Lamotte, pp. 434–435).
67 – Eternity is limited to the three unconditioned dharmas, that is, two types of nirva¯na: extinction due to knowledge (pratisamkhya¯nirodha) and extinction not due to knowledge˙ (apratisamkhya¯nirodha)˙and space (Kos´a i.5c, in Pruden, p. 59). Unconditioned things are eternal because they do not go from˙ one time period to another (Kos´a i.5c, in Pruden, p. 150 n. 198). One could paraphrase to say that unconditioned things are lacking in or have extinguished the desire for futurity.
68 – Kos´a vi.37c–d, 38, in Pruden, pp. 967–969.
69 – Kos´a iii.3a, in Pruden, p. 366.
70 – Kos´a iii.72a–b, in Pruden, p. 467.
71 – Ennead V.5.6, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
72 – Ennead V.5.11, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
73 – See note 5 above.
74 – See note 70 above.
75 – Iamblichus at the beginning of the fourth century and, after him, Proclus at the beginning of the fifth century rejected the concept of time as the life of the soul in contradistinction to eternity as the state of life in the intelligible world. Instead, they gave to both the status of substantialized entities within a system of hypostases, which was much more complex and ramified than that of Plotinus. The need for a further multiplication of hypostases probably arose from
the endeavors of Iamblichus and his School to correlate their ontology with the diversified syncretistic theology of their day, and to include in their system the sacred entities and divinities of Oriental religions (S. Sambursky and S. Pines, The Concept of Time in Late Neo-Platonism [[[Jerusalem]]: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971], pp. 12–13).
76 – Kos´a iii.3b, in Pruden, p. 366.
77 – After reviewing a range of explanations concerning the four awarenesses of the Formless Realm, Rodier expresses a degree of frustration causing him to look for explanations outside the Buddhist tradition: ‘‘We may sum up by saying that not only do the traditional accounts provide no solid reason for the inclusion of the formless states in the Buddhist meditation scheme but they even disagree radically as to their structure’’ (Rodier, ‘‘Meditative States,’’ pp. 130–131).
78 – See note 68 above.
79 – Ennead V.5.9, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
80 – Ennead III.8.9, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
81 – Ennead II.9.1, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
82 – Ennead III.8.10, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
83 – Ennead VI.6.18, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
84 – It is worth recalling that the term ‘buddha-field’ (buddhaksetra) may be crafted from the distinction made in Sa¯mkhya philosophy between the field˙ (ksetra) of the twenty-four evolutes or tattva˙ s, on the one hand, and the soul ˙(purusa), understood as the field-knower (ksetra-jn˜a¯), on the other (Gerald James Larson˙ and Ram Shankar Bhattacharya, eds.,˙ Sa¯mkhya: A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies [[[Princeton]]: Princeton Uni-˙ versity Press, 1987], pp. 6, 119, 192).
85 – The movement from Intellect to the One is addressed by Plotinus in Enneads V.8 and V.5. In Ennead V.5.3, Plotinus likens the Intellect to the retinue of the King—‘‘as in the procession before a great king the lesser ranks go first’’—as well as to the pedestal for the statue of the One (Ennead V.5.3, in Armstrong, Plotinus; see also vol. 5, p. 164 n. 1). The image of the pedestal proves problematic since it implies that the One could not exist without the support of the Intellect, whereas, in truth, the reverse is the case.
86 – Armstrong, Intelligible Universe, pp. 44–45.
87 – Ennead I.6.9, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
88 – Ennead V.3.17, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
89 – See Edward Conze, The Prajn˜a¯pa¯ramita¯ Literature, 2nd ed. rev. and enl. (’s-Gravenhage: Mouton, 1978).
90 – See, for example, the Pan˜cavims´atisa¯hasrika-Prajn˜a¯pa¯ramita¯, in Edward Conze, trans., The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom, With the Divisions of the˙ Abhisamaya¯lan˙ka¯ra (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975). See also the encyclopedic commentary on the Pan˜cavims´ati in Mpps´, in Lamotte. In addition to devoting pp. 431–616 to the gifts offered by the buddhas of the˙ ten regions one to another, the Mpps´ devotes pp. 650–770 to an analysis of the significance of the gift (da¯na-pa¯ramita¯), including that it is the basis for all the perfections: giving, morality, patience, energy, meditation, and wisdom (pp. 750–769).
91 – Conze, The Large Sutra, pp. 41–43.
92 – Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology, pp. 42, 96–98, 128.
93 – Mpps´, in Lamotte, pp. 656–657. We recall, of course, that the Kos´a affirms no residences (stha¯na) above the Akanistha, and Plotinus characterizes the One
as a ‘nowhere.’ ˙˙
94 – Ennead V.5.7, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
95 – Hendrik Kern trans., The Lotus of the True Law (Saddharmapundarı¯ka), Sacred Books of the East, vol. 21 (1884; New York: Dover, 1963). Other translations˙ ˙ include Eugene Burnouf (1852) and Leon Hurvitz (1976).
96 – Kern, The Lotus of the True Law, p. 113.
97 – Ibid., p. 78.
98 – Ibid., p. 98.
99 – Ibid., p. 140.
100 – Ibid., p. 181.
101 – Ibid., p. 189.
102 – Kos´a viii.39c–d, in Pruden, p. 1281.
103 – Taitetsu Unno, ‘‘Mappo¯,’’ in Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1987), vol. 9, pp. 182–185; Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology, p. 159.
104 – La Valle´e Poussin, Kos´a, ‘‘Preface,’’ and Kos´a viii.40, in Pruden, p. 1282.
105 – Rodier, in a short but carefully reasoned article exploring the relationship between the four meditations of the Realm of Form and the four Formless Realms, suggests that ‘‘some problems in the Buddhist Abhidhamma tradition can be illuminated, if not solved, by a comparison with the account of meditative states in the Neoplatonic mysticism of Pseudo Dionysius.’’ Following the model of the Mystical Theology, the four meditations are understood to involve increasing unity, which then leads to the succession of formless states. The infinity of space corresponds to the darkness of the soul prior to attaining the level of the nous, that is, the infinity of the Intellect. The awareness of nothingness corresponds to the darkness of Intellect prior to the final mystical
vision of the One, that is, the awareness of neither consciousness nor notconsciousness. Rodier’s instinct is to see this cosmology as the integration of two dramas: the movement of the soul to the Intellect and the subsequent movement from Intellect to the One. Though using different reasoning and citing different materials, this essay, too, seeks to understand the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm as the basis for two dramas that are nevertheless integrally related: the first explicit, the second largely hidden. And it is the language of Neoplatonism that has again proven suggestive in illuminating, if not solving these problems. See Rodier, ‘‘Meditative States,’’ pp. 121–136, esp. p. 134.
106 – S. Sambursky and S. Pines, Concept of Time, pp. 19–20; Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology, pp. 113–131.
107 – Ennead II.9.3, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
108 – Armstrong, citing Ennead VI.7.15, in Intelligible Universe, p. 69.
109 – Ennead V.9.3, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
110 – Kos´a ii.64d, in Pruden trans., pp. 306–308.
111 – See note 1 above; ‘‘... and let him see pure Intellect presiding over them, and immense wisdom, and the true life of Kronos, a god who is fulness and intellect’’ (Ennead V.1.4, in Armstrong, Plotinus). The quaint etymology of Plato Cratylus 396b6–7 is in Plotinus’ mind here: ‘‘For Plotinus, (Kronos) is applied to Intellect or Soul in its two meanings of ‘satiety’ (signifying the plenitude of intelligible being) and ‘boy’ (the son of the Father, the One)’’ (Ennead V, in Armstrong, Plotinus, p. 23 n. 1; more on Kronos in III.5.2, III.8.1, V.1.7, and V.8.12–13).
112 – Richard T. Wallis, ‘‘Nous as Experience,’’ in R. Baine Harris, The Significance of Neoplatonism (Norfolk: International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, Old Dominion University, 1976), pp. 136–140.
113 – La Valle´e Poussin, ‘‘Cosmogony and Cosmology (Buddhist),’’ in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 2, pp. 129–138.
114 – Kos´a iii.1, in Pruden, p. 365.
115 – See Winston L. King, Therava¯da Meditation: The Buddhist Transformation of Yoga (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980), and ‘‘Meditation: Buddhist Meditation,’’ in Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1987), vol. 9, pp. 331–336.
116 – Kos´a viii.3c, in Pruden, p. 1220.
117 – Kos´a viii.2c, in Pruden, p. 1219.
118 – Kos´a viii.3a–b, in Pruden, p. 1220. Various arguments relating to primary and secondary matter can also be found in Kos´a I.35a–35c, in Pruden, pp. 99– 101.
119 – Kos´a viii.3d, in Pruden, p. 1221.
120 – Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme indien, pp. 30, 32, 33.

121 – The Kos´a includes an eleventh component under ru¯pa, namely avijn˜apti or ‘non-informative action’ (Kos´a i.9a–d, 10d, 13d–15d, in Pruden, pp. 63, 67– 68, 71–74, passim). For a discussion, see Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme indien, p. 662, and James P. McDermott, ‘‘Karma and Rebirth in Early Buddhism,’’ in Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), pp. 182–185.
122 – Kos´a iii.21c, in Pruden, p. 402.
123 – Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme indien, pp. 34, 680–682.
124 – Frank E. Reynolds and Mani B. Reynolds, trans., Three Worlds According to King Ruang: A Thai Buddhist Cosmology, Berkeley Buddhist Studies 4 (Berkeley: Distributed by Asian Humanities Press/Motilal Banarsidass, 1982), passim.
125 – King, Therava¯da Meditation, p. 85.
126 – Larson and Bhattacharya, Sa¯mkhya, pp. 52ff.
˙
127 – See Ennead II.4.1–5.
128 – Ennead V.8.7, in Armstrong, Plotinus.
129 – Mircea Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, trans. from the French by Willard R. Trask (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958, 1969), pp. 69– 70, 87.

130 – ‘‘This then is what the seeing of the Intellect is like; this also sees by another light the things illuminated by that first nature.... Just so Intellect, veiling itself from other things and drawing itself inward, when it is not looking at anything will see a light, not a distinct light in something different from itself, but suddenly appearing, alone by itself in independent purity, so that Intellect is at a loss to know whence it has appeared, whether it has come from outside or from within, and after it has gone away will say ‘It was within and yet it was not within’’’ (Ennead V.5.7, in Armstrong, Plotinus).
131 – For additional relevant considerations, see C.A.F. Rhys Davids ‘Editorial Note’ in Maung Tin trans., The Expositor (Attha¯salinı¯): Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Dhammasanganı¯, 2 vols (London: Oxford University Press, 1920–21), vol. 1, pp. vii–xi.