These are South-east Asian Buddhism, which is found in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand, as well as in
Cambodia and Laos; Sino-Japanese Buddhism, which exists not only in China and Japan but also in Korea
and Vietnam; and Tibetan Buddhism, which from the Land of Snows spreads into Mongolia, Sikkim,
Bhutan, and Ladakh. In terms of the three yanas South-east Asian Buddhism belongs to the Hinayana.
Sino-Japanese Buddhism to the combined Hinayana and Mahayana, with the latter predominating,
especially in Japan, while Tibetan Buddhism belongs equally to the Hinayana, the Mahayana, and the
Vajrayana, with each succeeding yana providing the orientation for the preceding one.32

The Unity of Buddhism Page 9
Extracted from Sangharakshita: A New Voice in the Buddhist Tradition by Dharmachari Subhuti


THE YANAS AS POLEMICAL TERMS

The historical usage of the term yana is quite value-neutral. It merely identifies three broad trendsunfolding in Buddhist history. However, Mahayanists originally evolved the terms ‘Hinayana’ and‘Mahayana’ with a definite evaluative significance. The ‘Great Path’ was certainly better than the‘Lesser’ one. Sangharakshita considers that this polemical usage of the yanas must be carefully separated
from the historical.

It must not, of course, be forgotten that the Theravadins do not accept the label Hinayana at all. To be fair,
it might be more accurate to call the Hinayana a purely literary phenomenon, because the likelihood of
meeting an actual Hinayanist [in the polemical sense] in the flesh is slight indeed. The term Hinayana is
simply useful for the purpose of referring to the early schools, and even later schools like the Sarvastivadin
and Sautrantika, from which the Mahayana schools evidently differed. Used in this way, it should not be
understood in any pejorative sense whatsoever.33

It is not, however, that Sangharakshita does not think that there was some considerable truth in thehistorical Mahayana’s criticisms of the historical Hinayana. In A Survey of Buddhism he argues, perhapsa little sweepingly, that, at the time that the Mahayana was arising, the Hinayana schools had becomeconservative and literal-minded, scholastic, one-sidedly negative in their conception of nirvana and the
Way, over-attached to the merely formal aspects of monasticism, and spiritually individualistic in thesense of being unconcerned with the spiritual welfare of others.34 However, these are not characteristics
of the Hinayana as such but of Hinayana schools at a particular stage of development - or perhaps decay.
The same criticisms can also be levelled at various Mahayanists or Vajrayanists in certain periods of theirhistory. For instance,

It isn’t only the Hinayana that developed a scholasticism. The Mahayana developed a scholasticism. The
Vajrayana, too, strange and paradoxical though it may seem, developed a scholasticism of its own. For
instance, some at least of the books on the Vajrayana that emanate from Tibetan sources today are highly
scholastic. They don’t, therefore, give a very adequate feeling for the spirit of the Vajrayana.35

The fact that all three historical yanas can be seen to degenerate, in certain respects at certain periods,
reveals an important dynamic within the historical phenomenon, Buddhism. What commences as genuineand creative spiritual vision gradually ossifies during its transmission through the ages. Sangharakshitadistinguishes, in this connection, between ‘the Dharma’ and ‘Buddhism’.

What tends to happen is that the Dharma as a purely spiritual phenomenon crystallizes, with the appearance
in the world of a Buddha, into a system of methods and teachings which we call ‘Buddhism’.36

This crystallisation is, of course, essential if the Dharma is to be communicated to others. The processof crystallisation can be seen in three distinct phases in the evolution of each Buddhist school. First thereis the direct and spontaneous affirmation of the Dharma. Then there is a phase of ‘tidying up’ throughphilosophical systematisation. Finally, scholasticism ensues.

Each stage, while in one sense a development of the preceding stage, is in another sense a descent from it.
While in the first stage the standpoint is intuitive and transcendental, in the second it is philosophic, and
in the third merely rational and logical.37

The process of crystallisation extends beyond this evolution of the conceptual expressions of theDharma. Around the teachings there gradually accumulate patterns of behaviour, institutions, artisticexpressions - eventually, a whole culture, influencing perhaps large numbers of people. Howevernecessary and helpful this crystallisation is, in the end it will probably become a limitation.

The fact that Buddhism has crystallized in one way - adequate for a certain time and for certain people tends
to prevent a different kind of crystallization in the future. It is as though the options are limited by