On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v1.c8.s7.9

v1.c8.s7.9

Then we have mention of another famous division in the Buddhist Church, viz. the Great and Small Vehicles. Yuan-chuang tells us that "the tenets (or practises) of the Great and the Small Vehicles differ widely". Ta-hsiao-êrh-shêng-chü-chih-ch'ü-pie (大小二乘居止區別). Julien translates—"Les partisans du *grand* et du *petit* Vehicle forment deux classes à part", but this does not seem to give the author's meaning. The term *chü-chih* lit. resting or sojourning denotes here tenets, or outward observances or practises, and *ch'ü-pie* means very unlike or generically different. Yuan-chuang does not state that the adherents of the two systems formed two classes apart: he knew that in some places they even lived together in one monastery. But he tells us that the tenets of the two Systems, their ways of belief and conduct were far apart. It is a pity that the word Vehicle has come to be generally used as the rendering for the Sanskrit Yāna in the words Mahāyāna and Hinayāna. We should often substitute for it some term like Creed or System, and Hinayāna should be the Primitive and Mahāyāna the Developed System. As is well known, it was the adherents of the latter who gave the name "Small Vehicle" to the creed from which their own grew. Their doctrines and religious observances came to differ very widely from those of the early system. The Mahāyānists had a more expansive Creed, a different standard of religious perfection, and a more elaborate cult than the Hinayānists. As to particular tenets, they differed very much from the early Buddhists in such matters as opinions about arhats and Bodhisattvas, their views of the relation of the Buddha to mankind, of the efficacy of prayer and worship, and of the elasticity of the Canon. Our author illustrates his statement as to differences in the Great and Little Systems by one or two examples, at least such is the general opinion as to the passage which follows. In the rendering here given its reads—'They have sitting in silent reverie, the walking to and fro, and the standing still: Samādhi and Prajñā are far apart, and many are the noisy discussions'. Julien's translation, which seems to be the result of a serious misconstruction of the passage is—"Les uns méditent en silence, et, soit en marchant, soit en repos, tiennent leur esprit immobile et font abstraction du monde; les autres diffèrent tout à fait de ceux-ci par leurs disputes orageuses".¹ The text, given below, plainly does not admit of this rendering which does great violence to meaning and construction. In this passage ting, or "absorbed meditation" (Samādhi), seems to be declared to be far apart from prajñā, hui or "transcendental wisdom". But samādhi, although known to early Buddhism, is characteristic of Mahāyānism, and is often found, as here, with hui, which is strictly Mahāyānist. We read of a great controversy which was carried on between two Hinayāna Schools as to the relative merits of samādhi and prajñā. But we should perhaps understand our author here as stating that the Hinayānist practices of quiet thought, walking up and down, and standing still were far removed from the Samādhi and Prajñā of the Mahayānists.