It is difficult to say precisely at what time Mahayanism took its rise. But there is reason to think that as the Mahasa@nghikas separated themselves from the Theravadins probably some time in 400 B.C. and split themselves up into eight different schools, those elements of thoughts and ideas which in later days came to be labelled as Mahayana were gradually on the way to taking their first inception. We hear in about 100 A.D. of a number of works which are regarded as various Mahayana sutras, some of which are probably as old as at least 100 B.C. (if not earlier) and others as late as 300 or 400 A.D.[Footnote ref 206]. These Mahayanasutras, also called the Vaipulyasutras, are generally all in the form of instructions given by the Buddha. Nothing is known about their authors or compilers, but they are all written in some form of Sanskrit and were probably written by those who seceded from the Theravada school.
The word Hinayana refers to the schools of Theravada, and as such it is contrasted with Mahayana. The words are generally translated as small vehicle (_hina_ = small, _yana_ = vehicle) and great vehicle (_maha_ = great, _yana_ = vehicle). But this translation by no means expresses what is meant by Mahayana and Hinayana [Footnote ref 207]. Asa@nga (480 A.D.) in his _Mahayanasutrala@mkara_ givesus the reason why one school was called Hinayana whereas the other, which he professed, was called Mahayana. He says that, considered from the point of view of the ultimate goal of religion, the instructions, attempts, realization, and time, the Hinayana occupies a lower and smaller place than the other called Maha (great) Yana, and hence it is branded as Hina (small, or low). This brings us to one of the fundamental points of distinction between Hinayana and Mahayana. The ultimate good of an adherent of the Hinayana is to attain his own nirva@na or salvation, whereas the ultimate goal of those who professed the Mahayana creed was not to seek their own salvation but to seek the salvation of all beings. So the Hinayana goal was lower, and in consequence of that the instructions that its followers received, the attempts they undertook, and the results they achieved were narrower than that of the Mahayana adherents. A Hinayana man had only a short business in attaining his own salvation, and this could be done in three lives, whereas a Mahayana adherent was prepared to work for infinite time in helping all beings to attain salvation. So the Hinayana adherents required only a short period of work and may from that point of view also be called _hina,_ or lower.
This point, though important from the point of view of the difference in the creed of the two schools, is not so from the point of view of philosophy. But there is another trait of the Mahayanists which distinguishes them from the Hinayanists from the philosophical point of view. The Mahayanists believed that all things were of a non-essential and indefinable character and void at bottom, whereas the Hinayanists only believed in the impermanence of all things, but did not proceed further than that.
It is sometimes erroneously thought that Nagarjuna first preached the doctrine of S'unyavada (essencelessness or voidness of all appearance), but in reality almost all the Mahayana sutras either definitely preach this doctrine or allude to it. Thus if we take some of those sutras which were in all probability earlier than Nagarjuna, we find that the doctrine which Nagarjuna expounded with all the rigour of his powerful dialectic was quietly accepted as an indisputable truth. Thus we find Subhuti saying to the Buddha that vedana (feeling), samjna (concepts) and the sa@mskaras (conformations) are all maya (illusion) [Footnote ref 208]. All the skandhas, dhaetus (elements) and ayatanas are void and absolute cessation. The highest knowledge of everything as pure void is not different from the skandhas, dhatus and ayatanas, and this absolute cessation of dharmas is regarded as the highest knowledge (_prajnaparamita_) [Footnote ref 209]. Everything being void there is in reality no process and no cessation. The truth is neither eternal (_s'as'vata_) nor non-eternal (_as'as'vata_) but pure void. It should be the object of a saint's endeavour to put himself in the "thatness"
(_tathata_) and consider all things as void. The saint (_bodhisattva_) has to establish himself in all the virtues (_paramita_), benevolence (_danaparamita_), the virtue of character (_s'ilaparamita_), the virtue of forbearance (_k@santiparamita_), the virtue of tenacity and strength (_viryyaparamita_) and the virtue of meditation (_dhyanaparamita_). The saint (_bodhisattva_) is firmly determined that he will help an infinite number of souls to attain nirva@na. In reality, however, there are no beings, there is no bondage, no salvation; and the saint knows it but too well, yet he is not afraid of this high truth, but proceeds on his career of attaining for all illusory beings illusory emancipation from illusory bondage. The saint is actuated with that feeling and proceeds in his work on the strength of his paramitas, though in reality there is no one who is to attain salvation in reality and no one who is to help him to attain it [Footnote ref 210]. The true prajnaparamita is the absolute cessation of all appearance (_ya@h anupalambha@h sarvadharma@nam sa prajnaparamita ityucyate_) [Footnote ref 211].
The Mahayana doctrine has developed on two lines, viz. that of S'unyavada or the Madhyamika doctrine and Vijnanavada. The difference between S'unyavada and Vijnanavada (the theory that there is only the appearance of phenomena of consciousness) is not fundamental, but is rather one of method. Both of them agree in holding that there is no truth in anything, everything is only passing appearance akin to dream or magic. But while the S'unyavadins were more busy in showing this indefinableness of all phenomena, the Vijnanavadins, tacitly acceptingthe truth preached by the S'unyavadins, interested themselves in explaining the phenomena of consciousness by their theory of beginningless illusory root-ideas or instincts of the mind (_vasana_).
As'vagho@sa (100 A.D.) seems to have been the greatest teacher of a new type of idealism (_vijnanavada_) known as the Tathata philosophy. Trusting in Suzuki's identification of a quotation in As'vagho@sa's _S'raddhotpadas'astra_ as being made from _La@nkavatarasutra_, we should think of the _La@nkavatarasutra_ as being one of the early works of the Vijnanavadins [Footnote ref 212]. The greatest later writer of the Vijnanavada school was Asa@nga (400 A.D.), to whom are attributed the _Saptadas'abhumi sutra, Mahayana sutra, Upades'a, Mahayanasamparigraha s'astra, Yogacarabhumi s'astra_ and _Mahayanasutrala@mkara_. None of these works excepting the last one is available to readers who have no access to the Chinese and Tibetan manuscripts, as the Sanskrit originals are in all probability lost. The Vijnanavada school is known to Hindu writers by another name also, viz. Yogacara, and it does not seem an improbable supposition that Asa@nga's _Yogacarabhumi s'astra_ was responsible for the new name. Vasubandhu, a younger brother of Asa@nga, was, as Paramartha (499-569) tells us, at first a liberal Sarvastivadin, but was converted to Vijnanavada, late in his life, by Asa@nga. Thus Vasubandhu, who wrote in his early life the great standard work of the Sarvastivadins, _Abhidharmakos'a_, devoted himself in his later life to Vijnanavada [Footnote ref 213]. He is said to have commented upon a number of Mahayana sutras, such as _Avata@msaka, Nirva@na, Saddharmapu@n@darika, Prajnaparamita, Vimalakirtti_ and _S'rimalasi@mhanada_, and compiled some Mahayana sutras, such as _Vijnanamatrasiddhi, Ratnatraya_, etc. The school of Vijnanavada continued for at least a century or two after Vasubandhu, but we are not in possession of any work of great fame of this school after him.
We have already noticed that the S'unyavada formed the fundamental principle of all schools of Mahayana. The most powerful exponent of this doctrine was Nagarjuna (1OO A.D.), a brief account of whose system will be given in its proper place. Nagarjuna's karikas (verses) were commented upon by Aryyadeva, a disciple of his, Kumarajiva (383 A.D.). Buddhapalita and Candrakirtti (550 A.D.). Aryyadeva in addition to this commentary wrote atleast three other books, viz. _Catu@hs'ataka, Hastabalaprakara@nav@rtti_ and _Cittavis`uddhiprakara@na_ [Footnote ref 214]. In the small work called _Hastabalaprakara@nav@rtti_ Aryyadeva says that whatever depends for its existence on anything else may be proved to be illusory; all our notions of external objects depend on space perceptions and notions of part and whole and should therefore be regarded as mere appearance. Knowing therefore that all that is dependent on others for establishing itself is illusory, no wise man should feel attachment or antipathy towards these mere phenomenal appearances. In his _Cittavis'uddhiprakara@na_ he says that just as a crystal appears to be coloured, catching the reflection of a coloured object, even so the mind though in itself colourless appears to show diverse colours by coloration of imagination (_vikalpa_). In reality the mind (_citta_) without a touch of imagination (_kalpana_) in it is the pure reality.
It does not seem however that the S'unyavadins could produce any great writers after Candrakirtti. References to S'unyavada show that it was a living philosophy amongst the Hindu writers until the time of the great Mima@msa authority Kumarila who flourished in the eighth century; but in later times the S'unyavadins were no longer occupying the position of strong and active disputants.