In today’s reading of the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings I was struck by the description of the crowd listening to the sermon. In addition to the expected mahāsattva bodhisattvas, heavenly beings, nāgas, yakṣas, gandharvas, asuras, garuḍas, kiṃnaras, and mahoragas and the various monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen, this sutra adds another component:

Spontaneously gathered around them—each with retinues that were hundreds of thousands of myriads in number—were leaders of empires great and small: rulers of gold-wheel, silver-wheel, and lesser-wheel domains; kings, princes, and officials of state; and citizens who were noblemen, noble-women, or people of great means.

Later when the benefits of the sutra are detailed “the leaders of empires great and small—rulers of silver-wheel, iron-wheel, and lesser-wheel domains, kings, princes, officials of state, and citizens who were noblemen, noblewomen, or people of great means” are recognized again.

Why, in this sutra, are government officials and wealthy people prominently singled out?

The Sutra of Contemplation of the Dharma Practice of Universal Sage Bodhisattva, which I recited yesterday, we have just Ānanda, Mahākāśyapa and Maitreya singled out in the audience even though this sutra includes instruction specifically designed for “kings, ministers of state, spiritual leaders, people of privilege, wealthy persons, civic leaders, and others of this kind.” In the Lotus Sutra, we have just King Ajatasatru, who was the son of Vaidehi, and no other references to kings and government officials in the audience.

Why are there no shopkeepers or farmers or townspeople, let alone day-laborers or the poor and destitute in the audience?

While I recognize that sutras need to be considered in the context of Indian cultural attitudes, the disregard for those who are not wealthy or powerful just struck me as strange today.