[Buddha-l] Re: To whom should teachings be given

[Benito Carral]

On Thursday, June 8, 2006, Vicente Gonzalez wrote:

> And later we check as laicism will be a main trend of
> Mahayana.

   I  wonder  if  this  has  ever  been  true or just a
monastic  myth  in  order  to keep the supporting laity
happy.

   As  far  as  I can see, laity in Mahayana traditions
has the same status than in Theravada, i.e., supporting
monks's  practice  (if  I  were  in  a  good  mood), or
supporting  monks's  lives (if I were in a mild one)--I
prefer  not to share what would be the bad mood related
expression.

> This enormous change becomes very difficult to digest
> starting from nothing.

   But where is that supposed radical change? Where are
the scholastic works written by lay students? Where are
the lineages held by lay students? Were are the records
of  the  great  lay masters? Mahayana has mostly been a
monastic endeavour, as Buddhism has always been. Surely
there is some lay evidence, just the necessary in order
to  preserve  the  myth. Mahayana monks wrote some nice
sutras  where lay people were depicted holding g power,
but  it was just fiction (a similar function to current
media tales, sorry, I wanted to say "news").

> So  the point was the possibility of Mahayana arising
> as  a  Buddhist  revisionism,  as a way to maintain a
> teaching of a "positive" emptiness; which is a female
> notion of the truth.

   If   you  can  help  me  to  understand  Nagarjuna's
feminine  side, specially in relationship with the MMK,
I will be most thankful.

> And here, the logical suspicion are the roots in some
> women Buddhist masters.

   As  I  have  already  explained, Mahayana has been a
monastic  endeavor,  and the monastic power was held by
men, as today, as always has been.

> Some thoughts?

   A  couple of them, see above. You can also read some
well-known  passages  from  the  _Lotus Sutra,_ just in
order to appreciate better the Mahayana feminine side.

> A second Buddha?

   It's   quite   easy  to  understand,  but  far  more
difficult  to admit (for some people). We can't project
our  egalitarian  (individualistic)  philosophy  to the
early  Buddhist traditions. For early Buddhists, if you
were  born  as  a  woman,  that was because of your bad
karma,  and  if  you  were  lucky  enough, you would be
reborn  as a man (hopefully a monk one) in some distant
future.

   Best wishes,

--
   Benito Carral
      Asturias, Sepharad (Spain)