Dear Ven Kumara and all,


Thanks for the notes on this interesting and important discussion: i
think there are definitely some lessons to be learned in this
history.

> I've the impression that in places where Buddhism has been around

for a long time, the laity tend to think that only monks should do
the teaching. This is probably partly due to the emphasis given by
monks themselves to the laity that their work is to support the
monks' material needs, thereby marginalise their engagement in other
higher practices, learning and teaching. In a place where this has
become accepted by the majority, when the sangha goes, Buddhism goes.

>
> I wonder why this was not the case for Jainism?

I think it's for a very simple reason: there's not a huge amount of
people who want to rip their hair out by the roots, go naked, not
bathe for the rest of their lives, and end up starving themselves to
death. So the Jaina monastic Sangha will always be a much smaller
proportion of the Jaina population, and there is a corresponding
need for a more moderate lay-monastic intermediary
(sramanaopasakas), and greater involvement of the laity in teaching
and other functions.

in Dhamma

Bhante Sujato