There is a Mahayana sutra called the Vimalakirti Sutra. The Venerable Vimalakirti was considered such a villager who was also a tantric master or yogi.  Vamalakirti was a practitioner of the Prajnaparamita Sutras. But prajnaparamita is a actually a component of the Buddha's enlightenment aka the Lotus Sutra.  According to the masters of East Asian Buddhism, Tien Tai, Dengyo and Nichiren only in the Lotus Sutra do we find a correct understanding of the equality of the four kinds of believers whether, monk, nun, layman or laywoman.  This is because of the distinct nature of the revelations disclosed by the Buddha as they were recorded through the Lotus Sutra alone.

The significance of the Vimalarkirti sutra points to the profound issues and contraversies which were debated in the centuries after the Buddha's passing on the true meaning of the Buddha's teaching and practice. The essential point of the Vimalakirti sutra is to point out the fact that when seen through the eyes of the Buddha there is no distinction between priest, nun, layman and lay woman. Each have an equal capacity to awaken the Buddha's wisdom in their lives.

The historical trajectory of the Mahayana Buddhist principles served to bring a deeper meaning of equality within Asian societies and provided the catalyst for social evolution within these societies. The effects of these value principles were increasingly reflected in the philosophical discourses, practices, principles and even social policies in the later periods of Chinese and Japanese society. It is no wonder that the most successful laymans universal Buddhist social movement in the history of Buddhism is the SGI or Soka Gakkai International of Japan. (sgi.org)

For example, there are many Buddhist from various societies outside the trajectory of Chinese and Japanese Mahayana heurmenutics that criticize the fact that the Japanese Buddhist clergy are allowed to marry and obtain spouses.  But there is a truly profound history to this issue that is so profound that not even the poster / debators at E-Sangha were able to explain the history behind this Buddhist societal development.  Only the truly dedicated students who study the most profound and radical teachings of Chinese and Japanese mahayana Buddhism understand the root philosophical principles which underlay this social development within Japanese Buddhist society.  Buddhism is actually a radical philosophy when applied within the world itself.

As a general rule, the quality of insight and knowledge concerning the deep meanings of the Mahayana sutras are practically lost to the followers of the outer schools of Buddhism today. I observe many intone the rather extreme principles and practices of mythological bodhisattvas without a care as to whether they actually make sense in the practical world. They express them with a tone of esoteric mystery and satisfy themselves merely for havcing stated them outwardly to another listener and simply leave it there, leaving it to the listener to work to unscrabble the inscrutable. Little wonder the world never actually improves for such people.  

With regard to the notion that the Mahayana philosophy derives its roots from Hinduism rather than Buddhism and the view that such a hermaneutic development derives from the convergence of Buddhist and non-Buddhist philosophies under one roof at Nalanda monastary is a distortion of the facts.  Nor is there any support in the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism for such a view.  Jam Yang Shay Bahs books on Tibetan Buddhism clearly follow a consistent theme of progressive views from those of the six non-Buddhist schools (the outer Hindu schools as they are referred in his books) and to those of the four main category progressive inner Buddhist schools of tenents; two for hinayana known as the "Hearer Vehicle" and two for Mahayana known as the "Great Vehicle". Within these four main distinctions of Buddhist philosophy known as 1) "Great Exposition or abhidharma sects, 2) Sautrantika or the sutra sects, 3) the Consciousness Only sect and the 4) Middleway School, there are various sub schools of thought. The disciplines which classify all schools of Buddhism consist of the three types of learning; vinaya, sutra and treatises on wisdom  These three types of learning derive from the principle of the Noble Eightfold Path.  

If one wishes to reach a (relatively)  objective understanding of the developments of classifications within Buddhist philosophy they should engage in a comparative study of the schools which unfolded during the earliest era of post mortem Buddhism such as the division of the first 18 Nikaya sects, the division between Theravada and Mahasamghika, the northern expansion and the southern expansion. The roots of the Mahayana philosophy can be found within the teachings of the first 18 schools of Buddhism, the connections between Mahasamghika, Sarvastivada, Mula-sarvastivada, Yogacharra and Madhyamaka and prajna-paramita philosophies. 

The development of firm classifications occurred hundreds of years after the advent of Buddhism and by the time of the advent of Nalanda Monastery there is much written material within the corpus of Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese Buddhism that illustrates the various distinctions in views and teachings within Buddhist philosophy.  There is also a certain consistency that can be gleaned from the variety of histories within the various countries which show patterns of thought consistent with the various well known categories such as Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana.  

The most extensive well constructed classification schemes within Buddhist philosophy occurred in the development of Chinese Buddhism known as P'an Jiao or systemization of the sets of discourses of the Buddha. Among these the most respected and authoritative among scholars today is the system developed by the Grand Master Chih Cheh of Mount Tien Tai better known as the Great Teacher Tien Tai.  Tien Tai's legacy also came to be known as the Buddhist Tendai school of Japan.

The Tien Tai or Tendai system of Buddhist classification are known as the the five periods of preaching, four teachings of doctrine and four teachings of method. This scheme places all the doctrines of Buddhism into what are known as the hinayana, mahayana, provisional mahayana, true mahayana, exoteric mahayana and esoteric mahayana.

People may read this and assume that the issues and principles which bring about these distinctions and classifications are vast, complex and voluminous.  But in the final analysis, the fundamental point that is being debated bringing about the distinctions between Buddhist and non-Buddhist views and between the different schools of Buddhist concerns the question on "what is the true aspect of all dharmas or phenomena?". All of the issues turn on the question of the manifestation of objects both, sentient and insentient, their interdependence, causes, conditions and effects. 

Buddhism itself is an analytical school of philosophy. Therefore analysing objects both living and non-living into their component parts and determining the original qualities and characteristics of the most minute substances, dharmas or elements are the qualia of Buddhism. In this respect it is no different in its approach to investigation than western philosophy and modern science.  Where it differs is in the understanding of the nature of the objects which are being analysed.  As we study these respecxtive disciplines we find that the most subtle discoveries of modern science and the principles of Buddhism are now coverging in this modern age. 

Jun 25, 2011 -- 6:00PM, Bhakta_glenn wrote:

Etoro:

Bhakta_glenn

Whilst this view of the relationship between The Theravada and the Mahayana is denied in Theravada Buddhism, it does show some historical synthesis of these two Schools along with what is now known as 'Hinduism', mainly through Nalanda University.

Etoro

With regard to the notion that the Mahayana philosophy derives its roots from Hinduism rather than Buddhism and the view that such a hermaneutic development derives from the convergence of Buddhist and non-Buddhist philosophies under one roof at Nalanda monastary is a distortion of the facts.  Nor is there any support in the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism for such a view.

My statement makes no such claim that Mahayana Philosophy derives its roots from Hinduism. what I have written is that there has been 'some historical synthesis' between the Theravada and the Mahayana and 'what is now known as Hinduism' [formerly known as Brahmanism, which is of Vedic origin].

Yes, in your statement here I would also have to agree. 

 

 

Christine, the development and expansion of the Buddhist community is a well documented aspect of Indian, East Asian and Tibetan history. In this respect your question seems kind of odd. What exactly is your issue?