When did the gods become literate? Was: Are the gods literate

[nanda chandran]

Stephen Hodges writes :

>No, not so.  Hinayana was called Southern Buddhism and Mahayana the
>Northern as a polite euphemism by early C20th Westerners are mainly
>reflects the late post-Muslim geographical regions of Buddhism.
>Mahayana and indeed Tantric Buddhism flourished for a while in Sri
>Lanka and was only expelled by royal decree at a late date.  Mahayana
>was also very active in the present-day area of Indonesia.   There
>were many Hinayana adherents in north India, Central Asia and China.
>Indeed the label "Hinayana" fairly specifically refers to Kashmiri
>Sarvaastivaada in Mahayana polemics.

Think about this : VaibhAsikas are from Kashmir. MahAyAna polemics on
HinayAna is predominantly directed towards the SarvAstivAdins - ie by
HinayAna, the MahAyAnists only understood it as SarvAstivAdins (to a
great extent the VaibhAsikas). There's very little reference in
MahAyAna literature to the Abhidhamma thought as developed in the
PAli works - Buddhagosha, Aniruddha etc. And vice versa too - the
Southern PAli authors too seem to make little or no reference to
MahAyAna thought.

So if MahAyAna had infact flourished in Southern India - 1. It would
have included the PAli Abhidhamma thought in its polemics against
HinayAna. 2. The PAli HinayAnists would have referred often to the
MahAyAnists in their works and 3. How could the MahAyAnists been so
familiar with the VaibhAsika thought, which was from the Northern most
part of India - so familiar that they considered it to be the most
important representative of HinayAna?

And it's also to be noted that Southern India was not so exposed to
invasions as Northern India was. So if JainAs remain in today's Southern
India, wouldn't the Buddhists too? Also the long history of Southern Indian
Kings, who regularly raided Lanka and devastated its Buddhist culture - not
a strong indication of any favorable disposition towards Buddhism - infact
the evidence seems to support rank animosity. The local cultures too show
none of the Buddhist traits - vegetarianism for example. So, I'm not very
convinced that Buddhism 'flourished' in Southern India.

Maybe a few great AchAryas with their small following existed and probably
had a good deal of influence in intellectual and royal circles, but whether
it was really widespread, I doubt it.

>The fact is many Mahayana suutras were ritten in southern and eastern
>India.

Please enlighten me with the facts which support such a conclusion.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com