n the sense of
being simpler, for parts of its teaching were exceedingly abstruse,
but in the sense of striving to invent or include doctrines agreeable
to the masses. It was less monastic than the older Buddhism, and more
emotional; warmer in charity, more personal in devotion, more ornate
in art, literature and ritual, more disposed to evolution and
development, whereas the Hinayana was conservative and rigid, secluded
in its cloisters and open to the plausible if unjust accusation of
selfishness. The two sections are sometimes described as northern and
southern Buddhism, but except as a rough description of their
distribution at the present day, this distinction is not accurate, for
the Mahayana penetrated to Java, while the Hinayana reached Central
Asia and China. But it is true that the development of the Mahayana
was due to influences prevalent in northern India and not equally
prevalent in the South. The terms Pali and Sanskrit Buddhism are
convenient and as accurate as can be expected of any nomenclature
covering so large a field.

Though European writers usually talk of _two_ Yanas or Vehicles--the
great and the little--and though this is clearly the important
distinction for historical purposes, yet Indian and Chinese Buddhists
frequently enumerate _three_. These are the _Sravakayana_, the
vehicle of the ordinary Bhikshu who hopes to become an Arhat, the
_Pratyekabuddhayana_ for the rare beings who are able to become
Buddhas but do not preach the law to others, and in contrast to both
of these the _Mahayana_ or vehicle of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. As a
rule these three Vehicles are not regarded as hostile or even
incompatible. Thus the _Lotus sutra_,[3] maintains that there is
really but one vehicle though by a wise concession to human weakness
the Buddha lets it appear that there are three to suit divers tastes.
And the Mahayana is not a single vehicle but rather a train comprising
many carriages of different classes. It has an unfortunate but
distinct later phase known in Sanskrit as Mantrayana and Vajrayana but
generally described by Europeans as Tantrism. This phase took some of
the worst features in Hinduism, such as spells, charms, and the
worship of goddesses, and with misplaced ingenuity fitted them into
Buddhism. I shall treat of it in a subsequent chapter, for it is
chronologically late. The silence of Hsuean Chuang and I-Ching implies
that in the seventh century it was not a noticeable aspect of In