[Buddha-l] Monk/nun or lay person

[Stefan Detrez]

2006/3/2, L.S. Cousins <selwyn at ntlworld.com>:
>
> Well now, Stefan.
>
> >The idea of 'here and now'-nibbana is not found in the Theravada
> >tradition, it's a Mahayana understanding of Nirvana.  The
> >Mahasatipattana  Sutta mentions no 'here and now' Enlightenment,
>
> It mentions seven days, as I recall.


The shortest term turns out to be two weeks. It does start however with a
minimal 7 year period, Interesting why the minimal period is two weeks.

>  in fact, it follows the older conception of the /holy/ life of the
> >Canon, as exemplified in the suttas dealing with the necessity of
> >sustained striving and gradual development.
>
> A false dichotomy.


I stand corrected.


>Only in later texts in the Canon appears the idea of laymen attaining
> Nibbana,
>
> And is the evidence that these texts are later the fact that they
> mention laymen ?


Well, there are pretty stong assumptions to claim this. First, if we assume
that the Buddhism of that time started out as a monastic movement, it would
be quite self-defeating to allow for layman the possibility to attain
nibbana without having to go forth. It's to the advantage of the sangha that
people are allowed into the monastic life on condition that they forsake
their 'earthly' life ( neatly following the traditional 'ashrama'-way of
life). Remember the Buddha was also reluctant to admit women into the sangha
- as an illustration to make the point that the sangha must have been a
'closed' order, initially.
A second assumption is based on the literature of early mahayana
(Vimalakirti is a nice example, combining layfolks realizing nirvana and
anti-intellectualistic tendencies). The Lotus sutra, for that matter, has a
negative tone towards monks and nuns (where Shariputra features as a
scapegoat for anything wrong with the rigid Theravadin monastic life. So,
what we see here is an anti-intellectualistic tendency particularly aimed at
the scholasticism of the Theravada and a vulgarisation of the Dhamma,
meaning a larger involvement of lay people into the issue of the attainment
of nibbana. This vulgarisation is also apparent in the introduction of
paritta's and the person of Metteya which both serve the 'faith'-approach of
the Trisarana.
A third assumption is that most suttas aimed at lay folks deal primarily
with the ethical life (Spiro's Kammatic Buddhism - I see no problem is such
typification). This is interesting in such way that there was clearly a
difference in what lay folks got to hear and what monastics got to hear.
Combining this kammatic emphasis with that of having faith, leaving out the
scholastics (Abhidhammics, if you wish) we get a fairly mahayanic profile of
later Pali texts. In this sense, there is a certain continuity in the
themata of later Pali texts and early Mahayanist texts, so one should be
careful to seek for an all too distinct identity between some aspects of the
Theravada and the Early Mahayana.

>  interestingly, conceptually (and probably historically in its
> >formation) coinciding with the emergence of the Mahayana
> >understanding of laymen and the possibility of realizing Nirvana.
>
> If you apply a sceptical historical view to the development of
> Mahayana as well as to the Pali texts, there is no proof that any
> form of Mahayana is anywhere near as early as any canonical sutta.


Correct. I think I got that cleared out.

>  Regarding your belief, your are right when you observe that if it
> >doesn't take one to enter a monastery to realize Nibbana, one might
> >as well stay a lay person. However, this particular sutta is aimed
> >at monks (nuns were absent)
>
> The Chinese version refers to monks and nuns. Even in the Pali
> version, 'monks' is usually understood to refer to a wider body of
> people too.


Of course, the Dhamma has now become democratic. But the Canon gives me a
different picture: either you are in the club or you are not. If you are,
you get lots of extra stuff you don't get by just being a lay follower
(which could have been a motive of Angulimala to become a monk - escape
prosecution by becoming a monk, as religious folks were 'untouchable'). I
think a larger importance should be attached to where, when and to whom a
particular sutta is expressed. If one does that, you'll see a classic divide
in content for the 'church and state'. So, maintaing a certain scriptural
literalsim, I think it's fair to say that to some extent the Teachings where
esoteric (we've had this issue around here some years ago, if my memory
does'nt fail me).

>as an in depth instruction for monastics. If you check suttas
> >addressed to lay people you'll find an emphasis on doing good deeds
> >for merit. and a lot less technical terminology than as contained in
> >that sutta.
>
> In some cases, not all.


Not all, no, but still an impressive majority - and this means something..

>The issue has also been dealt with in terms of distinguishing
> >Kammatic  and Nibbanic Buddhism (a distinction introduced by Melford
> >Spiro).
>
> and famously discredited by Richard Gombrich in his review of the
> first edition of Spiro's book.




>Kammatic is the Buddhism of 'good deeds', leading to merit for its
> >actors (and by extension, for others), while Nibbanic Buddhism sees
> >the monastic life as conducive to Nibbana. In the /ideal/ life there
> >is a further distinction of emphasis put on either studying the
> >Dhamma (like Bhikkhu Bodhi with translational work), or meditation
> >(Goenka).
>
> Some people specialize or have limited interests. Others don't. 'Twas ever
> so.
>
> Lance Cousins
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>



--
Born, never asked.

- Laurie Anderson

--
Born, never asked.

- Laurie Anderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060305/133659be/attachment.html