[Buddha-l] Buddhist Saints in India
dhmahabodhi at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 10 19:27:33 MST 2012
As far as I understand it, his main thesis is that there have always been three types of buddhist practitioner, not two, which is obvious if you forget about theories and just look at Buddhist history
Jan Nattier ('A Few Good Men') argues against it, though I wouldn't say she refutes the thesis above, only some less important points he makes
> From: leigh at deneb.org
> To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:40:25 -0800
> Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist Saints in India
> Regarding Reginald Ray's _Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations_.
> Is there any scholarly consensus or schools of thought on the validity of his thesis, which as I understood it is that the Mahayana form is not a later development but possibly represents a tradition that was prior to the monastic one expressed in the Pali suttas?
> What is thought of the degree to which monastic institutions and rules post-date the Buddha rather than being the original form of Buddhist practice, and the status of forest saints or practitioners during Buddha's lifetime?
> Have refutations of his arguments been published?
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
More information about the buddha-l