[120] It should be noted here that the idea of universal salvation was lacking altogether in the followers of Hînayânism. But what distinguished it so markedly from Mahâyânism is that the former did not extend the idea wide enough, but confined it to Buddhahood only. Buddha attained omniscience in order that he might deliver the world, but we, ordinary mortals, are too ignorant and too helpless to aspire for Buddhahood; let us be contented with paying homage to Buddha and faithfully observing his precepts as laid down by him for our spiritual edification. Our knowledge and energy are too limited to cope with such a gigantic task as to achieve a universal salvation of mankind; let a Buddha or Bodhisattva attempt it while we may rest with a profound confidence in him and in his work. Thoughts somewhat like these must have been going about in the minds of the Hînayânists, when their Mahâyâna brethren were making bold to strive after Buddhahood themselves. The difference between the two schools of Buddhism, when most concisely expressed, is this: While one has a most submissive confidence in the Buddha, the other endeavors to follow his example by placing himself in his position. The following quotation (“the Story of Sumedha,” a Jâtaka tale, from Warren’s _Buddhism_, p. 14) in which Sumedha, one of the Buddha’s former incarnations, expresses his resolve to be a Buddha, may just as well be considered as that of a Mahâyânist himself, while the Hînayânists would not dare to make this wish their own: “Or why should I, valorous man, The ocean seek to cross alone? Omniscience first will I achieve, And men and gods convey across. “Since now I make this earnest wish, In presence of this Best of Men, Omniscience sometime I’ll achieve, And multitude convey across. “I’ll rebirth’ circling stream arrest, Destroy existence’s three modes; I’ll climb the sides of Doctrine’s ship, And men and gods convey across.” [121] This is a very rough summary of the doctrine that is known as Parivarta and expounded in the _Avatamsaka Sûtra_, fas. 21-22 where ten forms of Parivarta are distinguished and explained at length. [122] Warren’s _Buddhism in Translations_, the “Story of Sumedha,” pp. 14-15. [123] It may be interesting to Christian readers to note in this connection that modern Buddhists do not reject altogether the idea of vicarious atonement, for their religious conviction as seen here admits the parivarta of a Bodhisattva’s merits to the spiritual welfare of his fellow-creatures. But they will object to the Christian interpretation that Jesus was sent down on earth by his heavenly father for the special mission to atone for the original sin through the shedding of his innocent blood, for this is altogether too puerile and materialistic.