comparatively in its pure and primitive form. To realize the perfect type of Buddhism, the threefold treasure, Triratna, must be equally developed; the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha must stand side by side imbued with the same spirit as when they were first established, whatever outward transformation they might have undergone according to varying circumstances. If the Hinayâna is said to have the Sangha in its model form, the Mahâyâna may be considered to have fully developed the Dharma, that is, the religio-philosophical significance of Buddhism; while both schools claim the Buddha as their common founder. The problem that faces faithful Buddhists at present is how best to effect a complete reconciliation of the moral discipline of Hînayâna with the speculations of Mahâyâna.
Now let us see how Mahâyâna Buddhism has developed its speculative course as compared to the Hînayâna, and I will first discuss the doctrine of anâtman, or non-ego. This is considered one of the most important and characteristic features of Buddhism, and justly so, because both the Hînayâna and the Mahâyâna uphold this as essential to their raison d'être. However, the Hinayâna school seems to have remained almost too faithful, as it were, to the doctrine; it has not gone beyond its negative statement; it has not carried out its logical consequence to the utmost limits. On the other hand the Mahâyâna has not only extended the theory from its subjective significance to the objective world, but has also boldly developed the positive conclusion implied in it. I do not mean that the Hînayâna has none of these tendencies as shown by the Mahâyâna; in fact, it seems to contain everything Mahâyânistic in germinal form. What most eminently distinguishes the Mahâyâna school in this connection is that it makes the most explicit, manifest, unequivocal, and fearless assertions on these religio-philosophical questions which deeply concern the human heart.
