[Buddha-l] Anomalous doctrines

[Stephen Hodge]

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> For whom is this theory standard?
I was thinking about versions of Akira Hirosawa's theory which seem quite 
prevalent in poplarizing books on Budhism.  I know that you never sully your 
fair hands with such nonsense so I suppose that is why you raised the point.

> Most of what I have read on the subject suggests that Mahayana
> (insofar as there ever was such a thing in reality)
Indeed.  What many people still need to get into their heads that one should 
speak of Mahayanas -- with quite disparate origins, some monastic and some 
not.   The probability that Mahayana adherents were always in the minority 
in India should also be recognized -- the audiences of some Mahayana 
panditas must have been miniscule.  My dealings with the MPNS suggest the 
way in which one form of Mahayana evolved from wandering dharmabhanikas who 
avoided monasteries as far as possible to a slightly later phase when they 
did move into the monasteries, ostensibly to reform the laxity of monastic 
behaviour but also to import their version of the Dharma.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge