"Stephen Hodge" <s.hodge@...> wrote:

> One should also note that there are a number of accounts in early

Mahayana

> sutras relating that monks who were followers of Mahayana AND

zealous

> observers of the Vinaya were physically attacked, beaten up or even

murdered

> by non-Mahayana monks. There seems to be a consistent pattern in

these

> accounts which leads one to think that they describe actual events.
> Regarding the slur that Mahayana monks were more lax, it seems that

they

> were attacked precisely because they were strict in their

observance of the

> Vinaya and this earned them the wrath of their erstwhile co-

religionists.

>

This is really interesting. Could you give some more textual
information (such as in what early Mahayana sutras) records about the
physically attacked, beaten up or even murdered by non-Mahayana monks?

> > There are different schools in Tibetan Buddhism. Some schools do

not

> > follow the Vinaya rules.

> No, this not true. All monks in the Tibetan tradition follow the

Vinaya.

> In fact, the often maligned Nyingmapas are stricter in their

observance of

> the Vinaya than the reformist Gelukpas. The confusion arise

because people

> don't realize that Tibetans recognize a separate category of

religious

> "professionals" -- the yogins and mantrins. All Tibetans know that

these

> people are not monks, even though they wear distinctive robes that

may

> superfically look like mionastic robes to the uninformed but they

are not.

>

I think they actually function as monks in the sense that they, as
religious "priests", operate their temples, rituals, and traditions.
Just like Japanese monks, they do not follow the Vinaya; they can
have sex, drink, long hair, etc, but they are officially and
traditionally regarded as monks, working in their Buddhist temples
and traditions.

Regards,

Thomas Law