[Buddha-l] Monk/nun or lay person

[Bruce Burrill]

 >>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.<<

Possibly, but the real advantage of the Sangha is 
the preservation of the Dhamma by those who can 
devote their entire lives to it. Awakening was 
not limited to the monastic Sangha. We see in the 
Pali a suttas a shift in that, which is what make 
the suttas so very interesting.

 >>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.  <<

Well, given that by our standards women at that 
time were not much more than chattel, the 
admission of women was a radical move.

 >>A second assumption is based on the literature 
of early mahayana (Vimalakirti is a nice example, 
combining layfolks realizing nirvana and anti-intellectualistic tendencies).<<

Comparing this “early” sutra to a genuinely early 
Mahayana sutra, such as the Ugra, we get a very 
different view. There is a reason Jan Nattier 
titled her study of the Ugra  A FEW GOOD MEN. The 
"Mahayana" -- as we see in the earliest Mahayana 
texts -- was a way of practice for the few 
monastic men who were willing to do the practice.

In the Pali we see in the commentary to the 
Satipatthana Sutta that “monks” is glossed by 
monks, nuns, laywomen and laymen. This way of 
practice was open to all who were willing to apply it to their lives.

 >>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.<<

The LS has nothing to do with the Theravada, and 
“Theravada” is not a substitute word for that bit 
of rank ugliness introduced by the LS, the 
word/concept hinayana. The reality is that the 
Mahayana was, in India, always a primarily -- if 
not exclusively -- a monastic endeavor. And let 
us not forget that the Mahayanist monastics 
followed the Vinayas of the Mainstream schools. 
It is highly unlikely that many laity that would 
be able to have access to the teachings that 
would make something such as the Vimala an accessible sutra to understood.

 >>So, what we see here is an 
anti-intellectualistic tendency particularly 
aimed at the scholasticism of the Theravada and a vulgarisation of the Dhamma<<

Again with the inappropriate use of Theravada. As 
for the vulgarization of the Dhamma, the pretty much sums up the Lotus Sutra.

 >>meaning a larger involvement of lay people 
into the issue of the attainment of nibbana. <<

That is not necessarily so.

 >>A third assumption is that most suttas aimed 
at lay folks deal primarily with the ethical life<<

But, again, that is not the whole picture.

 >>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<<

The Mahayana was a result of a “Buddha-ology” 
that arose after the death of the Buddha. What is 
interesting is that it derived from an already in 
place bodhisatta concept that was developed after 
the death of the Buddha by the Mainstream 
schools. We see in such genuinely early Mahayana 
texts as the Ugra a continuity with that, but to 
make the bodhisattva doctrine work, the emergent 
Mahayanists had to, as they did over a period, 
redefine virtually every central concept of the 
Buddhism – Buddha, arhat, nirvana, bodhi.

 >>so one should be careful to seek for an all 
too distinct identity between some aspects of the 
Theravada and the Early Mahayana.<<

How early are you going to go, and do you really 
mean Theravada? The Theravada, early or late, 
does not need to define itself in terms of the Mahayana.

 >>which could have been a motive of Angulimala 
to become a monk - escape prosecution by becoming a monk<<

Gee. So much for Angulimala, and never mind that 
even after his ordination he suffered great 
bodily injury. The Mahayana was not, and is not, 
some great bastion of lay practice. It is, and 
always has been, a primarily monastic movement.