Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c6.s9.16.3

c6.s9.16.3

The two analogies cannot be applied with all their implications to Buddha, for the sun or the clouds remain unconcerned about the subjects of their benefactions, while Buddha always discriminates between them according to their lower, medium, or higher aspirations,¹ and degrees of religious merit and capabilities. Not only this. He, in fact, did not think it desirable to teach everybody the dharma which leads to sarvajña-jñāna (omniscience possessed by a Buddha), for it may not conduce to the welfare of disciples not yet fit to utilize same. The treatise, therefore, uses a parable to emphasize this point, viz., that of a potter. A potter turns out of the same clay earthen pots of various descriptions, such as, curd-jar, milk-jar, and so forth, just as the dharma of Buddha passing under three names has really the same substance. This refers to one yāna explained in three ways, the Buddhabodhi delivered in three forms (Buddhabodhim tridhā vibhāsye' ha prakāśayeyam).² The parable concludes by saying that Buddha cannot be regarded as having said that he would lead some of his disciples by Hīnayāna, for that would attribute to the Teacher niggardliness (mātsarya), envy (īrṣyā), whim (chandarāga) and ill-will (pāpacitta),—which is absurd. From all this it is apparent that according to the Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka, Hīnayānism was really a lower form of teaching, but it was only an upāyakauśalya adopted by the Teacher on account of the poverty of intellect of his early disciples.