VAISHNAVISM
AND
SAIVISM
93
To go back to the Indian
village: if one
divides the
southern
half of the pradakshin^
path,
which followed
the
movementofthe sunin theday,
fromthe
northernhalf,
which
represented
its night'sjourney, and
assumed thatthe
villagers
ofthe
southernquarters belongedtoone
schoolof
philosophy
and
those of the northernquarters to
another
;
and, further,
thatthesoutherners maintained
the supremacy
of the cosmic
powerswhich causedthesun
torisetoits
zenith at noon and
broughthappiness
in thispresent life
;
while the northerners
held
to the ascetic ideal and looked
forward to future bliss
through beingmerged in the
supreme Spiritwhich
rules the
universe, we shall have a sufficiently
clear conception
of the
broaddistinctionsbetween
Vaishnavismand
Saivism.
There
must
have
been, of course, in India
—as atother
timesandin
otherplaces—manythinkers
whoheldthemiddle
course
between the two extremes.
The Buddha was one of
thosewho succeededinworking
outa philosophicalformulary
so generallyacceptable that
for atimehis followingabsorbed
thegreatmajorityof
both extreme schools of thought.
The
architecture
of Buddhism, therefore, for several
centuries re-
presentedthe architecture of India, notbecauseit
created any
newarchitecturalstandards orideals,but
becausetheinfluence
of Buddhismwas supreme in
the State. Buddhist architec-
ture, like Buddhist
philosophy, absorbed the traditions of
VedicIndia, butdid not obliteratethem.
After several centuries Buddhism itself split into
two
camps: the Hinay^na—the Little Vehicle
—which was the
orthodoxagnosticschool,andtheMahayana—theGreatVehicle
—which accepted, amongotherthings, the doctrine of Yoga.
Then gradually
the
Brahmans,who under thepeacefulsway
of Buddhism hadsuperseded the Kshatriya, orwarrior class,
as spiritual leaders of the people, succeeded in establishing,
upon the
basis of so much of
the Buddha'steachingas
they