Hello again Robert,
> 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.
Yes, this may be case, although it is not really sure. Perhaps the
Vimuttimagga was simply an earlier Theravadin treatise that happens
to record a few different opinions than those of Buddhaghosa.
> ========
> I know very little about Dharmagupta. However they did have a
> different Abhidhamma, the 'Sariputrabhidharmasastra'.
The main work on this available in English is Frauwallner, Studies
in Abhidharma literature. The matika given by him is as follows:
Chapter 1 : Saprasnaka
12 ayatanas
18 dhatus
5 khandha
4 ariyasacca
22 indriyas
7 bodhyangas
3 akusalamulas
3 kusalamulas
4 mahabhutas
upasaka training (5 sikkhapadas)
Chapter 2 : Aprasnaka
dhatu
kamma
puggala
nanas
paticcasamuppada
4 satipatthanas
4 sammapadhanas
4 iddhipadas
4 jhanas
magga
akusala dhammas
Chapter 3: Samgraha
(including khandha, ayatana, dhatu)
Chapter 4: Sampayoga
(similar)
Chapter 5: Patthana
10 paccayas
hetus
namarupa
10 samyojanas
kaya-, vaca-, mano- carita
phassa
citta
10 akusala kammapatha
10 kusala kammapatha
samadhi
Those of abhidhammic inclination are invited to feast themselves on
the array of paralels between this list and the Pali Abhidhamma.
The only noteworthy difference in this list is the shorter list of
10 paccayas, as oppsoed to the Theravada's 24. The Sarvastivada,
too, had fewer, and most modern scholars have interpreted this to
imply that the scheme of paccayas developed in the Pali patthana is
of a later date than those of these other schools. However, many of
the 24 paccayas are in fact synonyms and hence redundant, so the
true number of differences is small. (My own view is that the number
24 for the paccayas was arrived at as a doubling and hence expansion
of the original 12 nidanas of ps).
Note their
> scriptures were originally in Sanskrit, not pali whcih indicates
> they had close links to the highly schismatic sects after the 3rd
> council.
The existing early scriptures that are known to be Dharmaguptaka are
the Dirgha Agama, the Sariputrabhidharma, and their Vinaya. It is,
as far as i am aware, not known what Indic language these were in.
Some have argued that the Dirgha was in a Prakrit (similar to Pali).
But anyway, since the contents of these scriptures may be studied by
anyone with the inclination, there is no need to rely on tenuous
arguments about linguistic affiliations to decide such matters.
>
>
>
>
> ================
>
> 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.
I hope this question is answered above. Further details on the
special doctrines of the Dharmaguptakas from Dutt's 'Buddhist Sects
in India', pg 172.
Dutt mentions that Przyluski says that the Dharmaguptakas had their
center in the North-west of India (from where there was access to
China), and he identifies Dharmaguptaka with Yonaka Dhammarakkhita,
mentioned in the Sinhalese chronicles as the disciple sent by Asoka
to Aparantaka. Thus it seems that the Dharmaguptakas may not only
have been identical with the Theravadins, but they might have been
the first Western Sangha! (yona (= ionia), is the Pali word to refer
to 'Greeks', ie westerners)
The examples given from Vasumitra's Samayabhedoparacanacakra:
1. Gifts to a Buddha are more meritorious than those to a Sangha (in
fact, Dutt puts this the other way round, which i think is a
mistake. The Theravadin position, for those among you who are unsure
of whether you'll pass the 'right view' exams, is that offerings to
the Sangha are more meritorious than offerings to a Buddha , as
explained in the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta)
2. Gifts made to a stupa are meritorious (Theravada same)
3. Liberation of Savakas and Buddhas is the same, although their
paths may be different (Theravada same, although the suttas say that
the practice is the same for savakas and the Buddha)
4. Those outside Buddhism cannot gain the 5 lokiya abhinna
(Theravada differs on this point)
5. The body of an arahant is pure , anasrava (This is not entirely
clear; it would seem to differ from the Theravadin doctrine)
and from Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa:
1. Realization of the truths happens all at the same time
(ekabhisamaya) (Theravada same, as opposed to sarvastivadins and
others)
>
> ====================
>
> 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.
Such legends are a slander and a liable to the conduct of the gentle
king Asoka. One who banned the slaughter of animals for the royal
table would never condone killing humans, let alone monks. This is
further evidence for us to avoid relying exclusively on one-sided
sectarian polemics as if they were sober history.
If monks wish to join in Sanghakamma or not, that is their business
(not the kings!). I would not join in sanghakamma with monks who
were badly behaved and of wrong conduct and intentions. If monks
wish to avoid sitting in communion with those of another tradition,
there is nothing to compel them to do so. But let us not pretend
that this is based on a spurious Vinaya difference
between "Theravadin' and 'Mahayana' Bhikkhus and bhikkhunis.
>
> ===============
>
>
> 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,
Because the accusations were against certain forms of misconduct. If
they were true, then there is a case to answer. But we cannot assume
that, because some bhikkhus 2000 years ago in Sri Lanka were guilty
of a Vinaya offense, that all bhikkhus and bhikkhunis of all
traditions apart from the Theravada are guilty of the same thing.
Really, it is most outrageous and disrespectful to assume that monks
and nuns we might meet from another tradition are comparable to such
miscreants.
and why do the Theravadins not
> come out it well?
Because of the intensely political and sectarian tone of the whole
episode. This resulted in much ill will, even violence.
Unfortunatley, such legends have been used by modern Sinhalese to
justify more violence in the present day, but that's another story...
>
>
>
> 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?
No, and i don't think that was Stephen's primary intent. He was
trying to suggest that the real historical position was far more
complex than any one account can fully capture. The varying
perspectives he mentions do in fact reflect the kinds of different
opinions that people can have around such matters. I think it is
important to carefully consider the range of sources available
before drawing conclusions, and then we should be duly cautious
about the certainty of our results.
in Dhamma
Bhante Sujato