[Buddha-l] Monk/nun or lay person

[Bruce Burrill]

 >>One reference I found to layman and 
enlightenment is post-canonical (ironically). The Milindapanha.<<

You might need to look a little harder.

 >> Second century.<<

The suttas are earlier.

 >>Lay folks can become anagamins, but only 
monastics can become arhats, in the Theravada.<<

It seems to be the case, but that is debatable. 
The suttas do not seem to be absolute on that issue.

 >>You seem to take the term Hinayana ad hominem. 
It's not because you find it ugly that others should do the same.<<

Given that it is an insulting word, I should not see it that way?

 >>My point is that non-monastics becoming 
Enlightened is a late development in the Theravada.<<

And now I have no idea what you mean by “Theravada.”

 >>That lay folks becoming enlightened less 
conditionally with regard to monastic demands 
than in the (later-)Theravada is a prominent theme in early Mahayana.<<

But what does it mean in the Mahayana to become 
“enlightened.” The goal of the Mahayana is 
Buddhahood, so what is it that you are saying 
here? Again, I have no idea what you mean when you say Theravada.

 >>I use the term [hinayana] stoically. Greed, 
anger or delusion do not pop up when I say it.<<

And I suppose that a white man could say that 
about the use of the word “nigger.” Hinayana is 
an ugly doctrinal epithet that no school of 
Buddhism called itself. It carries baggage that 
is inappropriate to the Theravada, by which I mean the Theravada.

 >>Yeah right, monastics study (or maybe even 
write) texts featuring layfolks becoming 
enlightened, but don't do anything with it.<<

Well, Mahayana monastics wrote a lot of stuff that is rather absurd.

 >>I see a very clear attempt to proselytize:<<

 From me?

 >>if the monastery was so closed, restricted to a few good men<<

Well, that is the thrust of the Ugra, but then 
certainly the Mahayana shift even further as it 
redefined its terminology in trying to make sense of the bodhisattva ideal.

 >>as you say -, why bother inventing a Vimala if 
it's for inside study only!?<<

Why humiliate Shariputra? Why turn him into a 
whipping-boy, to borrow Conze’s expression of how the Mahayana portrayed him?

 >>Already in the Theravada we see in later texts 
a larger importance laid on householders looking 
for a piece of Enlightenment and transference of 
merit. Where are the bodhisatta-lay folks in the Canon, apart from Vipassin?<<

Again, I have no idea as to what you mean by Theravada.

 >>The Mahayanic Bodhisattva is as a term 
flexible enough to allow for anyone to become 
one, given certain minimal requirements.<<

It was not always that way, and quite frankly 
other than from an historical standpoint, who 
cares? The Theravada (and here I mean the 
Theravada) and Mainstream Buddhism does not need 
to define itself – or be defined -- in terms of 
the Mahayana, despite what the Mahayana says 
about itself. There is no objective basis for that.

 >>Bodhisattas do Nibbana for themselves (as it 
is said), bodhisattvas wait until everybody around is enlightened.<<

Huh? So a “bodhisatta,” striving for buddhahood 
is lesser than a bodhisattva, who strives for a 
perfectly meaningless goal. Sounds Zennish.

 >>A discrete way of saying that lay followers as 
Mahayanin bodhisattvas won't realize attain Nirvana even if they wanted to.<<

If one follows the Mahayana sutras, a bodhisattva 
has to be careful not to become a lowly arhat.

 >>What's the difference between becoming a 
Buddha and to achieve Buddhahood, anyway?<<

Damdifino. Not a distinction I would make, but 
then I am just a garbage truck riding Theravadin, it would seem.

 >>But to KEEP the people's support the 
monasteries had to do something, which was 
instrumentally producing texts that gave lay 
folks greater involvement in the Noble life.<<

Obviously they did not do a very good job of it, 
it would seem. The Hindus were much better at it 
than were the Buddhists. Also, given the ongoing 
minority status of the Mahayana in India 
indicates a bit of a failure in that regard.

 >>I ask you why, if the whole production of 
texts was so sangha-centered, lay folks popped up 
in the texts claiming enlightenment.<<

You mean like Dragon Girl?

 >>Yes, now explain to me then WHY these 
enlightened layfolks featured in those texts.<<

Let us see. And how many of these “lay folk” are there in how many texts?

 >>Suppose we compare the position of layfolks 
with regard to Nirvana between the Theravada and 
the (Early-)Mahayana: where do lay followers play a more claiming role?<<

Mahayana uber alles? Again, what is your point 
here? The superiority of the Mahayana over 
Mainstream Buddhism because the Mahayana 
concocted stories about lay folk in their 
scriptures? But show us that that translates into 
actual increase of lay involvement in the 
Mahayana. Schopen suggest that such a argument is not very well grounded.

 >>Would this be an early or a late commentary?<<

Likely quite early.