[Buddha-l] Monk/nun or lay person

[Stefan Detrez]

2006/3/7, Bruce Burrill <brburl at mailbag.com>:
>
> >>One reference I found to layman and
> enlightenment is post-canonical (ironically). The Milindapanha.<<
>
> You might need to look a little harder.


Actually, it's up to you to give me some evidence that the early portions of
the Canon contain lay followers attaining Nibbana without having been
monk/nun.

>>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.

Let's debate that, then. In my knowledge, no lay follower has become an
arhat without having been a monk/nun in the earlier strata.

>>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?

It's not directed at you - but at some schools 2000 years ago.

>>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."

All Pali texts.


>>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.

I guess we'll have to put the H word on the taboo list, then. Is that what
you want?

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

>From me?

>From those monastics.

>>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?

Because he serves as a metaphor for things misunderstood or badly understood
before.

>>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.

I suggest you look it up, then. Or do I get the impression that you deny the
existence of Theravada and Pali texts.

>>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.

There is from a comparative point of view.

>>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.

Ria Kloppenburg found no substantial difference between them. I take the
Mahayanic point of view of bodhisatta, just like you do in your own reply to
my next statement.

>>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.

See up.

>>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.

It would be interesting to know what has caused the downfall of Indian
Buddhism for that matter and link it to our discussion of proselytizing
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.

To what extent there was an actual increase is hard to find out. But my
impression is that a greater involvement was what those texts were after.

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

Likely quite early.

If it's likely, then I guess you have a point... Commentaries were not given
by the Buddha, but by monastics.

Stefan

_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l




--
Born, never asked.

- Laurie Anderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060307/ebfe637a/attachment.html