Buddha apparently taught a well-balanced practice of sīla, dhyâna, and prajñā, his followers became one-sided as has been also generally the case with other religious systems, and emphasized one aspect at the expense of the others. The Mahâyâna in one sense can be said to have gone too far in its speculative flight, almost to the point of forgetting its ethical side, while the Hînayâna adherents have been so extremely conservative as to refuse to adapt themselves to an ever-changing environment. However this may be, a practical reformer of Buddhism today would do well if he endeavored to restore the three forms of discipline each in its proper bearings and thereby to manifest more perfectly the original spirit of the founder of Buddhism.
This one-sided tendency and the development of the two schools of Buddhism can also be seen in their respective history. In Ceylon, there has been practically but one school ever since the introduction of Buddhism there. The Sinhalese Buddhists have had one code of morality, the Vinaya, which is recorded in detail in their scriptures, and which, being so very explicit in its enunciation that even the uncultured could comprehend it readily, does not allow of very widely divergent interpretations. Accordingly there were few chances for dissension. The Vinaya as it is practised today in Ceylon has not changed even in its details since the day of its first promulgation there. In this respect we can say that Hînayâna Buddhism faithfully preserves the practical form of Buddhist moral culture as it developed during the time that elapsed after the decease of the Buddha down to the despatch of the Asoka missionaries to this district. I emphasize this latter point; for it is quite reasonable to suppose, and the supposition is justified by the records in our possession, that Buddhism began to grow in its diverse aspects soon after the death of the Buddha.
