of view including its objections to Hinayanism, I must defend the latter from the accusation of selfishness.  The vigorous and authoritative character of Gotama led him to regard all mankind as patients requiring treatment and to emphasize the truth that they could cure themselves if they would try.  But the Buddhism of the Pali Canon does not ignore the duties of loving and instructing others;[7] it merely insists on man’s power to save himself if properly instructed and bids him do it at once:  “sell all that thou hast and follow me.”  And the Mahayana, if less self-centred, has also less self-reliance, and self-discipline.  It is more human and charitable, but also more easygoing:  it teaches the believer to lean on external supports which if well chosen may be a help, but if trusted without discrimination become paralyzing abuses.  And if we look at the abuses of both systems the fossilized monk of the Hinayana will compare favourably with the tantric adept.  It was to the corruptions of the Mahayana rather than of the Hinayana that the decay of Buddhism in India was due.

The career of the Bodhisattva was early divided into stages (bhumi) each marked by the acquisition of some virtue in his triumphant course.  The stages are variously reckoned as five, seven and ten.  The Mahavastu,[8] which is the earliest work where the progress is described, enumerates ten without distinguishing them very clearly.  Later writers commonly look at the Bodhisattva’s task from the humbler point of view of the beginner who wishes to learn the initiatory stages.  For them the Bodhisattva is primarily not a supernatural being or even a saint but simply a religious person who wishes to perform the duties and enjoy the privileges of the Church to the full, much like a communicant in the language of contemporary Christianity.  We have a manual for those who would follow this path, in the Bodhicaryavatara of Santideva, which in its humility, sweetness and fervent piety has been rightly compared with the De Imitatione Christi.  In many respects the virtues of the Bodhisattva are those of the Arhat.  His will must be strenuous and concentrated; he must cultivate the strictest morality, patience, energy, meditation and knowledge.  But he is also a devotee, a bhakta:  he adores all the Buddhas of the past, present and future as well as sundry superhuman Bodhisattvas, and he confesses his sins, not after the fashion of the Patimokkha, but by accusing himself before these heavenly Protectors and vowing to sin no more.

Santideva lived in the seventh century[9] but tells us that he follows the scriptures and has nothing new to say.  This seems to be true for, though his book being a manual of devotion presents its subject-matter in a dogmatic form, its main ideas are stated and even elaborated in the Lotus.  Not only are eminent figures in the Church, such as Sariputra and Ananda, there designated as future Buddhas, but the same dignity is predicted wholesale for five hundred and again for