Hinduism and Buddhism, Volume 2 | Page 4

both these trains of thought are natural
developments of the older ideas and soon made themselves prominent. It is a
characteristic doctrine of Mahayanism that men can try and should try to become
Bodhisattvas.
In the Pali Canon we hear of Arhats, Pacceka Buddhas, and perfect Buddhas. For all three
the ultimate goal is the same, namely Nirvana, but a Pacceka Buddha is greater than an
Arhat, because he has greater intellectual powers though he is not omniscient, and a
perfect Buddha is greater still, partly because he is omniscient and partly because he
saves others. But if we admit that the career of the Buddha is better and nobler, and also
that it is, as the Introduction to the Jâtaka recounts, simply the result of an earnest
resolution to school himself and help others, kept firmly through the long chain of

existences, there is nothing illogical or presumptuous in making our goal not the quest of
personal salvation, but the attainment of Bodhisattvaship, that is the state of those who
may aspire to become Buddhas. In fact the Arhat, engrossed in his own salvation, is
excused only by his humility and is open to the charge of selfish desire, since the passion
for Nirvana is an ambition like any other and the quest for salvation can be best followed
by devoting oneself entirely to others. But though my object here is to render intelligible
the Mahayanist point of view including its objections to Hinayanism, I must defend the
latter from the accusation of selfishness. The vigorous and authoritative character of
Gotama led him to regard all mankind as patients requiring treatment and to emphasize
the truth that they could cure themselves if they would try. But the Buddhism of the Pali
Canon does not ignore the duties of loving and instructing others;[7] it merely insists on
man's power to save himself if properly instructed and bids him do it at once: "sell all that
thou hast and follow me." And the Mahayana, if less self-centred, has also less
self-reliance, and self-discipline. It is more human and charitable, but also more
easygoing: it teaches the believer to lean on external supports which if well chosen may
be a help, but if trusted without discrimination become paralyzing abuses. And if we look
at the abuses of both systems the fossilized monk of the Hinayana will compare
favourably with the tantric adept. It was to the corruptions of the Mahayana rather than of
the Hinayana that the decay of Buddhism in India was due.
The career of the Bodhisattva was early divided into stages (bhûmi) each marked by the
acquisition of some virtue in his triumphant course. The stages are variously reckoned as
five, seven and ten. The Mahâvastu,[8] which is the earliest work where the progress is
described, enumerates ten without distinguishing them very clearly. Later writers
commonly look at the Bodhisattva's task from the humbler point of view of the beginner
who wishes to learn the initiatory stages. For them the Bodhisattva is primarily not a
supernatural being or even a saint but simply a religious person who wishes to perform
the duties and enjoy the privileges of the Church to the full, much like a communicant in
the language of contemporary Christianity. We have a manual for those who would
follow this path, in the Bodhicaryâvatâra of Sântideva, which in its humility, sweetness
and fervent piety has been rightly compared with the De Imitatione Christi. In many
respects the virtues of the Bodhisattva are those of the Arhat. His will must be strenuous
and concentrated; he must cultivate the strictest morality, patience, energy, meditation
and knowledge. But he is also a devotee, a _bhakta_: he adores all the Buddhas of the
past, present and future as well as sundry superhuman Bodhisattvas, and he confesses his
sins, not after the fashion of the Pâtimokkha, but by accusing himself before these
heavenly Protectors and vowing to sin no more.
Sântideva lived in the seventh century[9] but tells us that he follows the scriptures and
has nothing new to say. This seems to be true for, though his book being a manual of
devotion presents its subject-matter in a dogmatic form, its main ideas are stated and even
elaborated in the Lotus. Not only are eminent figures in the Church, such as Sâriputra and
Ânanda, there designated as future Buddhas, but the same dignity is predicted wholesale
for five hundred and again for two thousand monks while in Chapter X is sketched the
course to be followed by "young men or young ladies of good family" who wish to
become Bodhisattvas.[10] The chief difference is that the Bodhicaryâvatâra portrays a
more spiritual life, it speaks more of devotion, less of the million shapes that compose the

heavenly host: more of love and wisdom, less