--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Bhante Sujato" <sujato@...> wrote:
==============
> Robert:. You cannot say that someone who
> ordains
> > as a Tibetan Monk or a Dhamagupta is a Bhikkhu by Theravada
> > standards.
>===========================
Bhante Sujato: Why not? That is, in fact, exactly what i do say.
>
> I have been recently forming an Australian Sangha Association, and
> in my work for this i have had the pleasure of meeting many
> monastics from all traditions. They all agree on the fundamental
> meaning of Sangha - a community of celibate Buddhist monastics
> ordained in an authentic lineage. Not one has suggested that
> monastics from other traditions should not be regarded as properly
> ordained. I am aware that this is the view, sadly, that prevails
in some theravadin countries, but that clearly is changing.
==================================

The only reason it could be changing is because a few well-meaning,
but (IMHO) misguided souls are actively ignoring millenia of
tradition.
There is no example anywhere in the scriptures, of monks from
outside sects being considered as Theravada and invited to
participate in sanghakamma. You are ignoring this and trying to go
on a radically new path.
Have you considered the dangers in this and how it was because of
the strict conservatism of Theravada that the Dhamma has been
preserved until now.


=====================================

>> As far as i can see, the term 'Theravada' does not occur in the
Pali
> Culavagga account of the Second Council, although the bhikkhus
from
> Pava are referred to as 'theras'. But the proceedings of that
> Council took place entirely on the basis of what was Dhamma and
> Vinaya, not on the basis of who pledges allegiance to a certain
> sectarian grouping.
>
> I mentioned in an earlier message that many other schools, such as
> the Sarvastivadins, might just as well claim the 'orthodox'
bhikkhus
> as their forbears.

================
And this is the root of your ideas. You do not recognize the
Theravada as being the genuine heirs of the Buddha's teaching, and
with this disbelief why should you not find all sects equally
qualified.

==========================

> In any case, the chief issue was handling money. Since we see
today
> that the vast majority of bhikkhus, whether Theravadins or
> otherwise, use money, in violation of the precepts and of the
> findings of the second council, in what sense can they be regarded
> as the 'keepers of the flame'? Surely we should, rather, encourage
> and support any bhikkhus or bhikkhunis who has the courage to keep
> the rules and renounce money, regardless of what tradition they
hail
> from.
==================

Surely it is outrageous that some Theravada Bhikkhus now handle
money, but this is a different matter. As far as I know none of
these bhikkus are suggesting the vinaya be changed to suit their
foul behaviour.

I now quote from the Katthavathuppakarana-Atthakatha (by Buddhoghosa)
(p3 of Points of contoversy, PTS)
I am an exceedingly slow typist so I only put in the most relevant
sections.

It talks about after the second council (about 100 years after
Buddha parinibbana)

"Ten thousand of the of the Vajjiputtaka bhikkhus[after spliting
from the good monks] seeking adherents among themselves, formed a
school called the Mahasanghika [these then split several times] Thus
from the school of the Mahasanghikas, in the second century only two
schools seceded from the Theravada[note that the rightful monks are
called Theravada by Buddhaghosa]-Mahimsinsasakas and Vajjiputtakas...
[it lists more that split later]..Thus from the Theravada arose
these eleven secding bodies making 12 in all. And these 12 together
the six schools of the Mahasanghikas constitute the 18 schools which
arose in the second century. Of the eighteen, 17 are to be
understood as schismatics, the Thearvadan only being non-
schismatic."""

The commentary continues and cites the Dipavamsa
The Bhikkhus [of the schismatic sects] "settled a doctrine contray
[to the true faith] Altering the original redaction, they made
another. they transposed suttas which belonged in one coleection to
another place;they destroyed the true meaning and the faith in the
vinyaa and in the five collections. Those bhikkus who understood
neither what had been taught in long expositons...settled a false
meaning in connection with spourious speeches of the Buddha. These
bhikkhus destroyed a great deal of meaning under the colour of the
letter. Rejecting the other texts- that is to say the Pavara, the
six sections of the Abhidhamma, the Patisambhidhida, the niddessa
and some portions of the Jataka they composed new ones. They changed
their appearance, ..forsaking what was original..."

There is more along the same lines. Thus we see how fragile the
Dhamma is - and open to abuse by foolish monks changing and
rejecting sections of the Tipitaka at their whim. It is only becuase
of the steadfastness of the Theravada that we have the Dhamma
preserved until today.

Robertk

>