Bhante,

Ven. Sujato:

> To clarify one point: in an earlier message i raised the
> question whether there was a connection between Sambhuta
> Sanavasi, one of the Theras of the Paveyyakas in the Second
> council, and the famous Sanakavasin, preceptor of the
> Sarvastivadin patriarch Upagupta. I have since checked up in
> Nalinaksha Dutt's work on the sects, and can confirm that
> they are indeed the same.

Dutt and Lamotte, if I remember right, do not themselves
venture any opinion on whether this thera was a
Sabbatthivaadii, but merely report that this is what was
claimed by Taaranaatha and Bu-ston. However, since this
claim is incompatible with what is said about this thera in
Pali sources, it is only in a very qualified sense that we
can say they are "the same". They are the same only in the
sense that the Buddha of the Lotus Sutra is "the same" as
the Buddha of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, or that the
first Zen patriarch Mahaakasyapa is "the same" as the
Mahaakassapa who presided over the Council of Raajagaha.

In other words, though it is true that both parties intend
the names to denote the same persons, since there is
negligible agreement as to what those persons did, and since
one party completely rejects the historicity of the other's
claims, in effect they are talking about two different
persons. From a Theravaadii's point of view, the Buddha of
the Lotus Sutra and the Mahaakasyapa who was the first Zen
patriarch are both fictional characters. And the same goes
for the Sanakavaasii whom the Sabbatthivaadiis claim
ordained their patriarch. You will not find any Pali text
identifying him as a Sabbatthivaadii or any other kind of
paravaadii.


Ven. Sujato:

> He was supposed to have been ordained by Ananda himself, and
> is mentioned in many if not all the accounts of the Second
> Council, including the Theravada. He, and probably others of
> the Theras, were of the party that were to emerge as the
> Sarvastivada. Thus the Sarvastivadin ancestors were on the
> same 'side' as the Theravadins at that Council. This is the
> ordination tradition from which the Tibetan lineage
> ultimately derives. In fact, the Tibetans are
> Mulasarvastivada, and that sub- sect is said by some to
> center around Mathura, which was Sanavasin's home town. The
> Theravadins still accord that great Sarvastivadin elder a
> position of respect within their own Vinaya.

All of which is quite beside the point. Indeed it would be
quite beside the point even if the Tibetan and Chinese monks
had received their paramparaa straight from the
Mahaavihaara, for their manner of observance has departed so
far from that of the Theravaada that at best they could only
be viewed as being "of a different communion"
(naanaasa.mvaasa), hence ineligible to carry out
sanghakammas with. But given their unorthodox manner of
carrying out sanghakammas, even to class them as
naanaasa.mvaasa is arguably being a little over-generous.

Best wishes,

Dhammanando