Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c7.s3.t11.1

c7.s3.t11.1

Prof. Stcherbatsky protests strongly against the view of Prof. Poussin that Nirvāṇa is a sort of ultimate conceivable existence—a view suggested by the expression Amatapadam,² often used to describe Nirvāṇa, and by the descriptions of the same found in the Milindapañha and the Nikāyas. Prof. Stcherbatsky does not examine the various passages of the Piṭakas and other works, which influenced Prof. Poussin's conclusions. It would appear from the Conception of Nirvāṇa as well as from his earlier work the *Central Conception of Buddhism* that Prof. Stcherbatsky bases his findings purely on the study of the *Abhidharmakośa* of Vasubandhu, and ignores the fact that the *Kośa* does not present us with the original doctrines which the Piṭakas are supposed to preserve. He also does not attach importance to the fact that the Theravādins and Sarvāstivādins do not agree as to the nature of disintegration of constituted elements (saṃskṛtavastus), which is clearly hinted at in the discussion in the *Kathāvatthu*¹ on the theory of the Sarvāstivādins that "all exists".² In his treatment of the discussion of this topic, however, he refers to the fact that the Vibhajyavādins (=Theravādins) did not always agree with the Sarvāstivādins.