Hinduism and Buddhism, Volume 2 | Page 2

India about the beginning of our era besides achieving enduring
triumphs in the Far East. The word[1] signifies Great Vehicle or Carriage, that is a means
of conveyance to salvation, and is contrasted with Hinayana, the Little Vehicle, a name
bestowed on the more conservative party though not willingly accepted by them. The
simplest description of the two Vehicles is that given by the Chinese traveller I-Ching
(635-713 A.D.) who saw them both as living realities in India. He says[2] "Those who
worship Bodhisattvas and read Mahayana Sutras are called Mahayanists, while those who
do not do this are called Hinayanists." In other words, the Mahayanists have scriptures of
their own, not included in the Hinayanist Canon and adore superhuman beings in the
stage of existence immediately below Buddhahood and practically differing little from

Indian deities. Many characteristics could be added to I-Ching's description but they
might not prove universally true of the Mahayana nor entirely absent from the Hinayana,
for however divergent the two Vehicles may have become when separated geographically,
for instance in Ceylon and Japan, it is clear that when they were in contact, as in India
and China, the distinction was not always sharp. But in general the Mahayana was more
popular, not in the sense of being simpler, for parts of its teaching were exceedingly
abstruse, but in the sense of striving to invent or include doctrines agreeable to the masses.
It was less monastic than the older Buddhism, and more emotional; warmer in charity,
more personal in devotion, more ornate in art, literature and ritual, more disposed to
evolution and development, whereas the Hinayana was conservative and rigid, secluded
in its cloisters and open to the plausible if unjust accusation of selfishness. The two
sections are sometimes described as northern and southern Buddhism, but except as a
rough description of their distribution at the present day, this distinction is not accurate,
for the Mahayana penetrated to Java, while the Hinayana reached Central Asia and China.
But it is true that the development of the Mahayana was due to influences prevalent in
northern India and not equally prevalent in the South. The terms Pali and Sanskrit
Buddhism are convenient and as accurate as can be expected of any nomenclature
covering so large a field.
Though European writers usually talk of two Yânas or Vehicles--the great and the
little--and though this is clearly the important distinction for historical purposes, yet
Indian and Chinese Buddhists frequently enumerate three. These are the _Srâvakayâna_,
the vehicle of the ordinary Bhikshu who hopes to become an Arhat, the
_Pratyekabuddhayâna_ for the rare beings who are able to become Buddhas but do not
preach the law to others, and in contrast to both of these the Mahayana or vehicle of
Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. As a rule these three Vehicles are not regarded as hostile or
even incompatible. Thus the Lotus sutra,[3] maintains that there is really but one vehicle
though by a wise concession to human weakness the Buddha lets it appear that there are
three to suit divers tastes. And the Mahayana is not a single vehicle but rather a train
comprising many carriages of different classes. It has an unfortunate but distinct later
phase known in Sanskrit as Mantrayâna and Vajrayâna but generally described by
Europeans as Tantrism. This phase took some of the worst features in Hinduism, such as
spells, charms, and the worship of goddesses, and with misplaced ingenuity fitted them
into Buddhism. I shall treat of it in a subsequent chapter, for it is chronologically late.
The silence of Hsüan Chuang and I-Ching implies that in the seventh century it was not a
noticeable aspect of Indian Buddhism.
Although the record of the Mahayana in literature and art is clear and even brilliant, it is
not easy either to trace its rise or connect its development with other events in India. Its
annals are an interminable list of names and doctrines, but bring before us few living
personalities and hence are dull. They are like a record of the Christian Church's fight
against Arians, Monophysites and Nestorians with all the great figures of Byzantine
history omitted or called in question. Hence I fear that my readers (if I have any) may
find these chapters repellent, a mist of hypotheses and a catalogue of ancient paradoxes. I
can only urge that if the history of the Mahayana is uncertain, its teaching fanciful and its
scriptures tedious, yet it has been a force of the first magnitude in the secular history and
art of China, Japan and Tibet and even to-day the most metaphysical of its sacred books,

the Diamond Cutter, has probably more readers than Kant and Hegel.
Since the early history of the Mahayana is a matter for argument rather than precise
statement, it will perhaps be best