ABSTRACT
There was a time in Buddhist history when the difference between the Arhat and the Bodhisattva ideals was so great that the later or Mahayana School was actually known as the Bodhisattva-yana, as if this change of emphasis expressed the scope and purpose of what, geographically, came to be the Northern School of Buddhism. Yet my own researches into Eastern Buddhism and Western psychology lead me to believe that the actual difference is no more than complementary emphasis, as in the sex of humanity. If this be so, then a study of the difference, its origin and psychological significance, is of value to all who tread the Way. If Professor Jung is right, our minds are so constructed that in certain complementary powers and functions we must needs be more of one than the other. Balance is an abstract ideal, but the man who was truly and permanently balanced would have to stay still, for the act of walking, and therefore of walking on, is itself a rapid alternation between left and right, and all progress is in fact an increasing approach of the 'opposites'.
