nlightenment or Pari-Nirvana.

The San-ron Shu, as the Three-Shastra sect calls itself, is the sect of
the Teachings of Buddha's whole life.[13] Other sects are founded upon
single sutras, a fact which makes the student liable to narrowness of
opinion. The San-ron gives greater breadth of view and catholicity of
opinion. The doctrines of the Greater Vehicle are the principal
teachings of Gautama, and these are thoroughly explained in the three
shastras used by this sect, which, it is claimed, contain Buddha's own
words. The meanings of the titles of the three favorite sutras, are, The
Middle Book, The Hundred, and The Book of Twelve Gates. Other books of
the canon are also studied and valued by this sect, but all of them are
apt to be perused from a particular point of view; i.e., that of
Pyrronism or infinite negation.

There are two lines of the transmission of this doctrine, both of them
through China, though, the introduction to Japan was made from Korea, in
625 A.D. Not to dwell upon the detail of history, the burden of this
sect's teaching, is, infinite negation or absolute nihilism. Truth is
the inconceivable state, or, in the words of the Japanese writer: "The
truth is nothing but the state where thoughts come to an end; the right
meditation is to perceive this truth. He who has obtained this
meditation is called Buddha. This is this doctrine of the San-ron sect."

This sect, by its teachings of the Middle Path, seems to furnish a
bridge from the Hinayana or Southern school, to the Mah[=a]yan[=a] or
Northern school of Buddhism. Part of its work, as set forth by the Rev.
K[=o]-ch[=o] Ogurasu, of the Shin sect, is to defend the authenticity,
genuineness and canonicity of the books which form the Northern body of
scriptures.

In these two sects Hos-s[=o] and San-ron, called those of Middle Path,
and much alike in principle and teaching, the whole end and aim of
mental discipline, is nihilism--in the one case subjective, and in the
other absolute, the end and goal being nothing--this view into the
nature of things being considered the right one.

Is it any wonder that such teachings could in the long run satisfy
neither the trained intellects nor the unthinking common people of
Japan? Is it far from the truth to suspect that, even when accepted by
the Japanese courtiers and nobles, they were received, only too often,
in a Platonic, not to say a Pickwickian, sense? The Japanese is too
polite to say "no" if he ca