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

[Benito Carral]

On Friday, June 9, 2006, Vicente Gonzalez wrote:

>> 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?

> Translation of Sutras were the main vehicle to spread
> the  new  teaching,  and  we don't know if these were
> composed by lay people, monks, or both.

   We  know  indeed.  Do  you  know  who were the great
Chinese or Tibetan translators?


>> 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.

> people  like Marpa were source for Buddhist lineages.
> Shin  Buddhism becomes a complete lay school. Then it
> is not a simple myth.

   As I wrote (see my quoted paragraph), "there is some
lay  evidence,"  but  it's  just  anecdotal in Buddhist
history.  We  need  some  lay  people here and there in
order  to preserve the myth, as we need some people who
win the lottery in order to keep that myth alive.

   Shin Buddhism is a latter development and, remember,
they consider themselves stupid people who are not able
of  better  practice  than  relying in Amida's salvific
power.

> Also, Buddha becomes a woman.... I think little doubt
> that this Sutra arises from a woman.

   First  of  all,  I  have not studied that particular
sutra,  so I can't tell. Anyway, it was not necessarily
written by a woman. How will a Osho-minded teacher gain
women's  favor?  A  good  idea would be to write such a
sutra  as  the  one  depicted by you. But it's the same
with  the  _Vimalakirti  sutra._ They help to reinforce
the myth. Maybe they were written by some nonconformist
women  and  some  nonconformist  lay people, maybe they
were  just  self-critics  made by monks. We don't know,
but we know how they affected Buddhist traditions along
history  (almost nothing). Theory is one thing and real
life is another thing.

> Just  I  point  the  possibility that Mahayana arises
> because  doctrinal  differences  involving  a  gender
> problem.

   The  problem  is  that, as it's well known, Mahayana
was  a  monks's  endeavour,  even they lived along with
"Hinayana" monks for some time.

   Best wishes,

--
   Benito Carral
     Asturias, Sepharad (Spain)