[Buddha-l] Monk/nun or lay person

[Bruce Burrill]

 >>But if it was the first, this might say something about the social 
context of the small group of people who compiled it.<<

Let us see. You treat me badly, so I'll call you a bad name. Goodness.

 >>True.  You might have a look at Joseph Walser stimulating recent 
book "Nagarjuna in Context" (Colombia 2005) for some ideas about how 
(and why) the early Mahayanists operated.<<

I read it in manuscript a couple of years ago. It does not change 
what I have said here.

 >>I was just making the general point that the supposed depth of LS 
hostility to those it describes as Hinayanists seems a bit 
exaggerated.  Other parts of it seem to exhort quite conciliatory and 
non-confrontational attitudes.<,

There is no question about the depth of hostility the LS takes. When 
I first read Kern's translation in the late 60's I was shocked that 
Buddhists would act so badly as to write something so nasty, but then 
I was naive to think that Buddhists, unlike any other groups of 
people, would not act in such blatant sectarian ways. As for 
"conciliatory," it is not unlike the Baha'is who preach what looks 
like a fluffy-bunny oneness of religions, but when looked at means a 
total redefining of everything in their terms, which is exactly what 
the LS does at its most conciliatory. Subsequent rereading of the LS 
in different translations have not altered my perception that it is 
an unpleasant concession to the baser religious impulse.

 >>I wondered what the social context was.  I'm asking you to do 
a  bit of thinking.  Why might they have used the term ?  Who were 
they writing for ?  Who were their specific targets ?  Initially the 
proponents of the LS would have comprised a very small handful of 
people --  perhaps even based at just one or two viharas.    And do 
you, for example, think there is any historical basis to the accounts 
in the LS and certain other Mahayana sutras of Mahayanists being 
physically attacked, beaten up and even killed by other monks 
?  Might incidents such as these affected their rhetoric ?<<

I know of no evidence to suggest that physical violence was used by 
the Mainstream Buddhists against the Mahayanists in general, and 
certainly if such were the case and if it were common, it would been 
reflected in more than petulant name calling and curse making. And if 
the authors of the Lotus Sutra did get beat up, it likely was not for 
a lack of being royal pains in the collective ass, as the is not 
uncommon of those who imagine they have the truth and who must feel 
compelled to let everyone know that if they don't believe the way 
they do these benighted unbelievers will get bad breath and their 
heads will break into seven pieces. History suggests, as does Walser, 
that for the most part the Mahayanists were ignored by the Mainstream 
Buddhists.

 >>but curiously the LS group also seems to have been in conflict 
with other Mahayana groups and is critical of them too.<,

No doubt, and that the LS was a marginal text in Mahayana India is 
also evident. In the Sikshasammuccaya Shantideva quotes the LS five 
time, and none of the quotes have a thing to do with the LS's 
signature doctrines. By contrast he quotes the Ugra some 20+ times.

 >>taking the MPNS<<

In terms of the Ugra it is "late." Certainly late enough not to be 
reflecting the actual time of the Buddha, but then none of the 
Mahayana sutras do.

 >>There are hints that there were other Mahayana groups, but they 
have not left substantial literary or artistic traces.  Going back to 
the LS, there are also hints there that its earliest proponents were 
not vihara-based either -- read the Dharmakathika chapter carefully.<<

Hints. Provocative to be sure.