Although Edward Conze (1904-1979) was an interesting eccentric (check bio in Google), he was also unquestionably a great scholar of Buddhism. Still, readers may wonder why I give this book a 5-star rating. Although its explanations can be very clear, they can also be very dense; and no pictures - what would Alice think of that?
Conze had a cranky disposition, often reflected in his writing. Sometimes it seems that he deliberately chooses the abrasive word -- "trance" for samadhi (J., sanmai, jo), or "self-extinction" for anatman (J., muga) -- when a more palatable alternative would suffice. In today's sound-bite world the appearance of such words only confirm the misapprehension of Buddhism as some kind of nihilistic "mysticism" which denies "the individual."
I stumbled on this book a half-century ago and pencilled comments throughout my copy testify to the impact it made on me. (Fortunately, this was before the advent of the awful-yellow-ink-felt-pen, so the pencilling can easily be removed.) In particular, it introduced me to the concept of the Mahayana Bodhisattva as a being defined by the CONTRADICTORY virtues of wisdom and compassion, and then to the prevalent use of METAPHOR in Buddhist religious language, which led to T.R.V. Murti's Central Philosophy of Buddhism, the Chinese "Ten Oxherding Pictures," and The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch [of Ch'an, Zen], Hui Neng (Eno, 638-713)]. ". . . Since Buddha is made by your own nature, do not look for him outside your own body. If you are deluded in your own nature, Buddha is then a sentient being; if you are awakened in your own nature, sentient beings are then Buddhas. Compassion is Avalokitesvara [Kannon]; joyfully giving is Mahasthamaprapta [Seishi]. . . ". Yampolsky, p. 158. It all fits together.
Conze: "(The Diamond Sutra states:) "Here. O Subhuti, a Bodhisattva should think thus : "As many beings as there are in the universe of beings. . .as far as any conceivable universe of beings is conceived; all these should be led by me into Nirvana, into that realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind. And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana. And why? If in a Bodhisattva the perception of a `being' should take place, he would not be called an `enlightenment being' (=bodhi sattva)."
"A Bodhisattva is a being compounded of the two contradictory forces of wisdom and compassion. In his wisdom, he sees no persons; in his compassion he is resolved to save them. His ability to combine these contradictory attitudes is the source of his greatness, and his ability to save himself and others." (p. 130)
The Buddhism of Faith conceived of Bodhisattvas, embodiments of the virtues of windom and compassion, as concrete individuals, and furnished them with names, legends, and a definite tangible individuality. "Akshobhya and Amitabha [Amida], Avalokitesvara (Kuan-yin, Kannon] and Manjusri [Monju], all the celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of this school are, however, obviously productions of the mind, and without historical or factual basis. It is not easy to understand that the Mahayanists could admit this, as they did, and yet deny that these new saviours were mere creatures, nay figments, of the imagination, subjective and arbitrary inventions. It is impossible to explain their attitude by the absence of an historical sense generally found among Hindus, since we know that the Indian Buddhists of the Hinayana used to argue that they could not believe in the celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the Mahayana because there was no evidence of their actual existence.
". . . in religion, one type of mind requires an actual historical fact to base its belief on, while another regards the productions of the creative mythological imagination as in no way inferior to the products of human history. . . The mythological school regards the mythological concept as the essential thing. Whether it is embodied, or not, in a person in history appears as a quite incidental and trivial detail. The names of Amitabha, etc., may be invented, but the reality behind them, the Absolute, is there all the time." (pp.150-151)
". . . The Tantrists agree, however, with the metaphysical assumptions of the Prajnaparamita, according to which only the reality of emptiness is fully real, whereas any kind of multiplicity would be ultimately unreal, and the fictitious product of our diseased imagination. The multiplicity of Gods would be really nothing but a fiction of the imagination, and not one of those deities would be really there. Our free thinking modern mind would whole heartedly agree with that postulate. There is, however, the important difference that, according to our modern assumptions, the multiplicity of things around us is real and the deities a less real fabrication due to the disappointments of our instinctual life when confronted with the hard facts of everyday `reality'. According to the Tantra, things and Gods alike are equally unreal compared with the one vast emptiness, but on the whole the data of mythology represent a kind of fiction far more worthwhile than the data of our everyday practical experience, and when properly handled, can greatly assist us in winning emancipation from the fetters of existence." (pp. 184 185).
Does this speak to you? If so, maybe Conze is worth a second look.
The book covers many significant aspects of buddhism, its core teachings and development. It is concise, yet sufficiently informative in breadth. A good beginner's book.
