Dear Venerable Sujato,
I continue:
Venerable Sujato:
It seems likely, as indicated by Heirmann, that the ordination
procedure followed was that of the Dharmaguptaka. (the Chinese
originally used either Sarvastivada or Dharmaguptaka Vinayas, but
later standardized to the Dharmaguptaka: it seems that, although the
Sarvastivada was more doctrinally influential, the issue was decided
because the ordination lineages were originaly Dharmaguptaka).
It should be borne in mind that the Dharmaguptaka is one of the
closest schools to the Theravada. It is difficult to find any
significant doctrinal difference between them.
--------------------------------------
Robert: Take the case of the Abhayagiri sect (whose beliefs and
practices
> would be much closer to Theravada than Dhammagupta: in fact
> Abhayagirai even considered themselves Theravadan)
=========
Venerable Sujato: This is incorrect. The doctrines of the Abhayagiri
school are
largely unknown; all we know about them is the reports by their
enemies. Since these reports are often of a less than gentlemanly
and scientific nature, we might suspect how reliable they are.
Be that as it may, it seems likely that the Abhayagirivasins were to
some extent influenced by 'Mahayana' ideas. If such was the case,
they would be further from the Theravadins than the Dharmaguptakas,
since i know of no source that suggests the Dharmaguptakas were ever
influenced by the Mahayana..
===================================
Robert:
Well we do have the Vimmutimagga(in chinese and English) which was
believed written by Upatissa of Abhyagiri sect. And although it
has departures from the Theravada it has many similarities.
========
I know very little about Dharmagupta. However they did have a
different Abhidhamma, the 'Sariputrabhidharmasastra'. Note their
scriptures were originally in Sanskrit, not pali whcih indicates
they had close links to the highly schismatic sects after the 3rd
council.
================
Venerable Sujato: As i mentioned above, the difference between the
Theravada and the
Dharmaguptaka probably arose merely because of Vinaya, not through
any doctrinal cause; whereas the schism from the Abhayagirivasins
was clearly due to matters of doctrine and practice.
=========
Robert: They have a different Abhidhamma text for starters, isn't
that an indication of doctrinal differences.
====================
Venerable Sujato:@... any case, the question we were considering was
one of ordination
lineage, not degree of conformity to Theravada doctrines and
practices. The success or otherwise of a sanghakamma does not depend
on either the doctrinal views, or the adherence to rules of the
bhikkhus participating. As long as the bhikkhus are not parajika,
they may be counted towards completing the quorum.
==========
Robert:
In the time of Asoka the king wanted to unite the order- whcih was
being split along doctrinal lines and rules. The good monks refused
to participate in any sangha acts with the bad monks (which would
include all sanghakamma). He told his minister to make them conform
(thinking it was good act to unite the sangha). The good monks
simply refused and the minister cut off the heads of a number until
he saw the prince was next in line and stopped. The monks of those
days valued the purity of the sanghkamma more than life itself.
===============
Robert> The mahavamsa notes (p267 -268)p264 that a King helped to
purify
the
> sasana by
> suppression of a heresy.
================
This is an interesting episode in Theravada history, and frankly i
don't think anyone comes out of it well. The Abhayagirivasins were
accused of being kuladusaka. This is a serious accusation, and if it
is correct it justifies the Theravadin position. But it does not
justify acting in the same way towards monks/nuns of other
traditions.
====
robert: Why does it not justify that, and why do the Theravadins not
come out it well?
================
Robert:>
> Another case:
> At the
> Second Council the Vajjiputtaka reformists(
> had the backing of the
> householders of Vesali. When they walked into the town people would
> praise
> them for being so friendly and jolly, and for helping teh
> townspeople. But when venerable Yasa and his fellow conservative
> monks (Theravada monks)
=================
Venerable Sujato: It is anachronistic to claim that Yasa and his
friends were
Theravadin. After all, the second council and subsequent schism had
not yet occured, so the Theravada school did not exist. All that
existed then was the unified followers of early, pre-sectarian
Buddhism. This is why, according to the Theravadin account, the
Vinaya disputes at that council were able to be resolved by
reference to the Vinaya itself, since the Vinaya was held in common
by all participants, even though they differed in practice and
interpretation.
Even after the first schism, the ancestor of the Theravada group of
schools (for which there is no convenient name) took some time to
split further. One might as well say that Yasa was a 'Sarvastivadin'
(as no doubt the Sarvastivadins asserted). The split in the ancient
Vibhajjavada, resulting in the Theravada and Dharmaguptaka, etc.,
happened many years later.
=============
You seem concerned to prove that Theravada has no more claim to
being the descendants of the Buddha than any other sect. Do you
concur with Stephen Hodges' letter to you, where he suggests that it
was in fact the Vajjiputtaka who were the correct party and thus the
present Theravada are actually schismatics?
RobertK