Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c6.s13.1

c6.s13.1

It is now evident that the Mahāyānists hold the same view of the Hinayāna as the Hinayānists did of the religious and philosophical beliefs of the preceding Brahmavādins or Śāśvatavādins. In the Brahmajāla sutta it is stated that some people became Brahmavādins or Śāśvatavādins not on account of any particular views but on account of their incapacity to think of anything higher than the Brahmaloka or seeing beyond a few thousands of births. It was Buddha who crossed this limit, and found out their shortcomings.³ It is apparent that there has been a continuous development of thought, and the neo-thinkers, the Mahāyānists, read all the statements attributed to Buddha in a new light. Once a higher plane of thought is reached, every statement naturally comes to be interpreted from that higher plane. The Mahāyānists pity the Hinayānists for their misconceptions in the same way as the latter have pitied the Brahmavādins or Śāśvatavādins. According to the Hinayānists, Nirvāṇa marked a state superior to that of Brahma⁴ while according to the Mahāyānists, Nirvāṇa is only a temporary test, and the real Nirvāṇa is much higher than the state conceived by the Hinayānists. So the Hinayānists have come now to be looked upon with commiseration by the Mahāyānists for their poor conceptions and ideals. From the latter's standpoint they are like so many young boys playing with toys, not possessing the capacity to understand the reality. The *Kāśyapa Parivarta*¹ says that just as the sons of the chief queen by a poor man are not recognised as princes, while the sons of the king whether by the chief queen or a maid are recognised as such, so the Hīnayānists may be an outcome of the same *dharmadhātu*² as the Mahāyānists, but cannot therefore be recognised as the sons of Buddha, just as the chief queen's sons by a poor man are not recognised as princes. The *Prajñāpāramitās* harp on the theme that the *prajñā* (knowledge) of one who has perfected himself in the *prajñāpāramitā* cannot bear comparison with the *prajñā* of the best *Śrāvakas*. The *Lalitavistara*,³ the *Kāśyapa Parivarta*,⁴ and other works are emphatic in their declaration that the bodhisattva must develop *asprhā* (non-desire) for Hīnayāna. The *Bodhicaryāvatāra*⁵ thinks that all the merits of *Śrāvakas* and Pratyekabuddhas cannot equal the merits of a bodhisattva who has developed *bodhicitta*, while the *Śikṣāsamuccaya*⁶ considers it a *mūlāpatti* (serious offence) for a bodhisattva either to associate with a *Śrāvaka*, for this would make him dull of intellect, or to preach Mahāyāna to one whose *kuśalamūlas* are not enough to make him take to Mahāyāna teaching,⁷ and it would be a deadly sin for the bodhisattva to develop a *citta* for *Śrāvaka*- or Pratyekabuddha-*bhūmi*.⁸ The *Gaṇḍavyūha*⁹ gives a long list of their imperfections as compared with a bodhisattva, and shows the former's inability to visualize actions (vikurvita) of Buddha at Jetavana. The reasons adduced are that the knowledge of Buddha is beyond the reach of Śrāvakas, their jñānacakṣu (eye of knowledge) is not so powerful as to see the actions of Buddha, and so forth. The *Prajñāpāramitās*¹ and the *Śikṣāsamuccaya*² regard the Śrāvakas as pāpamitras (evil friends) as opposed to kalyāṇamitras (true friends) of the bodhisattvas, for the former persuade the latter to leave the Mahāyāna path of salvation as very arduous, impracticable, requiring too long a time, and to take to their path of salvation as practical, better, and requiring a much shorter period. The *Puṇḍarīka*³ calls the Hinayānists abhimānikas (conceited) because they do not believe its statements.