I-Ching's description but they might not prove universally true of the
Mahayana nor entirely absent from the Hinayana, for however divergent
the two Vehicles may have become when separated geographically, for
instance in Ceylon and Japan, it is clear that when they were in
contact, as in India and China, the distinction was not always sharp.
But in general the Mahayana was more popular, not in the sense of
being simpler, for parts of its teaching were exceedingly abstruse,
but in the sense of striving to invent or include doctrines agreeable
to the masses. It was less monastic than the older Buddhism, and more
emotional; warmer in charity, more personal in devotion, more ornate
in art, literature and ritual, more disposed to evolution and
development, whereas the Hinayana was conservative and rigid, secluded
in its cloisters and open to the plausible if unjust accusation of
selfishness. The two sections are sometimes described as northern and
southern Buddhism, but except as a rough description of their
distribution at the present day, this distinction is not accurate, for
the Mahayana penetrated to Java, while the Hinayana reached Central
Asia and China. But it is true that the development of the Mahayana
was due to influences prevalent in northern India and not equally
prevalent in the South. The terms Pali and Sanskrit Buddhism are
convenient and as accurate as can be expected of any nomenclature
covering so large a field.

Though European writers usually talk of _two_ Yânas or Vehicles--the
great and the little--and though this is clearly the important
distinction for historical purposes, yet Indian and Chinese Buddhists
frequently enumerate _three_. These are the _Śrâvakayâna_, the
vehicle of the ordinary Bhikshu who hopes to become an Arhat, the
_Pratyekabuddhayâna_ for the rare beings who are able to become
Buddhas but do not preach the law to others, and in contrast to both