A note on “hearers” and oral culture by Richard K. Payne in response to my original post.
Although the rise of a literate society, that is, one employing writing, does not in itself explain the rise of Mahayana, I think there is an important correlation. That correlation is made evident by the disparagement of śrāvakas in some of the (later) Mahayana literature, such as the Lotus.
It looks to me as if there is a transitional period following the death of Śākyamuni in which, for example, some Mahayana texts propose the simultaneous existence of many buddhas, which is important because of the value of being reborn in a world where one can hear the teachings directly from a buddha. Indeed, it is understandable in an aural/oral culture that hearing directly is important, much better than hearing second or third-hand.
It seems as if redefining śrāvakas in terms of an inferior aspiration was part of a rhetoric validating the use of written texts as sources of authority—a claim very much with us today, as for example, in the academic study of religions, where textually based religions are given primacy, while oral traditions are given second class status, and largely relegated to the field of anthropology.
Leave a Reply