an ists ▁were ▁primarily ▁in ▁philosoph ical ▁dialect ic ▁with ▁the ▁Va ib h ā ṣ ika ▁school ▁of ▁Sar v ā st iv ā da , ▁which ▁had ▁by ▁far ▁the ▁most ▁" com pre h ensive ▁ed ifice ▁of ▁do ctr inal ▁system at ics " ▁of ▁the ▁n ik ā ya ▁schools . ▁With ▁this ▁in ▁mind ▁it ▁is ▁sometimes ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁Ther av ada ▁would ▁not ▁have ▁been ▁considered ▁a ▁" H in ay ana " ▁school ▁by ▁Mah ay an ists ▁because , ▁unlike ▁the ▁now - ext inct ▁Sar v ast iv ada ▁school , ▁the ▁primary ▁object ▁of ▁Mah ay ana ▁criticism , ▁the ▁Ther av ada ▁school ▁does ▁not ▁claim ▁the ▁existence ▁of ▁independent ▁d harm as ; ▁in ▁this ▁it ▁maintain s ▁the ▁attitude ▁of ▁early ▁Buddh ism . ▁Additionally , ▁the ▁concept ▁of ▁the ▁bod his att va ▁as ▁one ▁who ▁puts ▁off ▁en light en ment ▁rather ▁than ▁reaching ▁aw ak ening ▁as ▁soon ▁as ▁possible , ▁has ▁no ▁roots ▁in ▁Ther av ada ▁text ual ▁or ▁cultural ▁context s , ▁current ▁or ▁historical . ▁As ide ▁from ▁the ▁Ther av ada ▁schools ▁being ▁ge ograph ically ▁distant ▁from ▁the ▁Mah ay ana , ▁the ▁Hin ay ana ▁distinction ▁is ▁used ▁in ▁reference ▁to ▁certain ▁views ▁and ▁practices ▁that ▁had ▁become ▁found ▁within ▁the ▁Mah ay ana ▁tradition ▁itself . ▁Ther av ada , ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁Mah ay ana ▁schools ▁stress ▁the ▁ur gency ▁of ▁one ' s ▁own ▁aw