[Buddha-l] Anomalous doctrines

[F.K. Lehman (F.K.L. Chit Hlaing)]

>Richard Hayes has just written:
>
>For whom is this theory standard? Most of what I have read on the
>subject suggests that Mahayana (insofar as there ever was such a thing
>in reality) was a sort of supererogatory practice for monks. The
>bodhisattva, it has always seemed to me, was a kind of supermonk, or, as
>we might say in this country, a monastic with attitude. This is the
>impression one gets from the PrajñÇ-pÇramitÇ literature.
>

I want to add my 'two-cents-worth' to his. I have 
never found much literature claiming Mahayana (or 
even its putative precursor, Mahasanghika) was a 
lay movement. Rather, it seems to have been 
addressed TO, inter alia, lay-people's 
aspirations to somehow be included, both in the 
'church', so to say, and more directly, at least, 
within the institutional and individual 
possibility of 'salvation' (nibbana or whatever). 
this can only be understood as part of a sort of 
'populist' movement in Hinduism as well as 
Buddhism at this time, and, as Richard Hayes 
suggests, put forward by monks - no doubt in the 
context of the India-wide competition for lay 
adherents, supporters, followers.
-- 
F. K. L. Chit Hlaing
Professor
Department of Anthropology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050324/8789f4b7/attachment-0001.htm