[6] Beal stated in his preface to the _Kin-Kong-King_, that “it was translated first into the Chinese by Kumara-Jiva (A.D. 405), who was brought into China from Thibet.” [7] Other translations, worthy of recognition, are those attributed respectively to Bodhiruki (A.D. 509), Paramartha (A.D. 562), Dharmagupa, of the Sui dynasty (A.D. 589–618), and I-Tsing (A.D. 703). (Compare the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_.) [8] This information may be found in Max Müller’s _Vagrakkhedika_, and represented, doubtless, at the period when it was written, a considerable part of the knowledge available on the subject. [9] By Max Müller. [10] The Chinese Ma-Ming. [11] Compare the Chinese text of the Chi-Sin-Pien—_The Awakening of Faith_. [12] In the preface to _The Vagrakkhedika_. [13] “Supreme spiritual wisdom.” In Beal’s _Kin-Kong-King_, “The unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart.” (Sanscrit, “_Annuttara Samyak Sambodhi Hridaya_.”) [14] According to the text of _The Diamond Sutra_, the intellect of Sakyamuni Buddha sank so profoundly into the past, that he was enabled to speak confidently of his experiences in previous incarnations. (Compare pp. 56, 57.) [15] From the text adopted by Mr H. Oelsner, M.A., Ph.D., for _The Temple Classics_. [16] Dr Edkins, in his scholarly work _Chinese Buddhism_, seems to have regarded “the Law or body of doctrine” as an accurate definition of Dharma. Dr Eitel, in his _Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_, explained Dharma by “Fah”—“Law”; and observed that it is “a general term for religious objects, especially for the Buddhistic Canon.” Mr Vincent A. Smith, in _Asoka, Buddhist Emperor of India_, suggested that the Chinese _Hsiao_ (piety), and the Latin Pietas, coincide with the Sanscrit term Dharma. [17] The Chinese phrase is “Fah-sing-chen-ru-hai.” [18] _See_ the _Tao-Teh-Ching_. Compare, also, the statement attributed to Confucius—“Nature and Truth cannot be adequately expressed.” [19] Or Dharma. [20] Compare _The Light of Asia_. Perhaps this aspect of the “Law” of Buddha may be conceived of as harmonising with Shakespeare’s idea of a “Divinity.”