Dear Venerable Sujato,
thank you for continuing this discussion.


In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Bhante Sujato" <sujato@...> wrote:

>
>
> > ========

Robert: I know very little about Dharmagupta. However they did have
a

> > different Abhidhamma, the 'Sariputrabhidharmasastra'.
> ---------------------------------

Bhante Sujato: 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
> > Chapter 2 : Aprasnaka
> dhatu
> kamma
> puggala
> > Chapter 3: Samgraha
> (including khandha, ayatana, dhatu)
>
> Chapter 4: Sampayoga
> (similar)
>
> Chapter 5: Patthana
>
>
>
> 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 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.

=======
Thank you for these details.
=========================

> >
> > 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.

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

>

Bhante Sujato: 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.

==================
Robert: I do not think it slander and calling it one-sided sectarian
polemics is possibly an indication of your own bias.

The Katthavathuppakarana-Atthakatha p6 (PTS)
"therupon the Order would not with such as these [bad monks] hold
festival or confession. For seven years the fortnightly feats was
suspended in the Asoka park. The King [asoka] strove by a degree to
bring it to pass[that the monks erfrom sanghakamma togther], but
could not. NAY, he was filed with remorse when through teh
misundersatnding of a studpid delegate [teh minister in the story
above] some bhikkhus were slain.""

What happened was that the King instructed one of his Ministers to
be firm with the monks in making them come togther. But the mnister
was over-enthusiastic, and not realising that good bhikkhus would
never compromise, he beheaded one , expecting the others to then
fold. All of them refused so he lopped off many more . King Asoka
was absolutely shocked when he found out.
I continue now from the Mahavamsa(p46-47 PTS):


When the great king, the famed Dhammasoka, was aware of this, he
sent a minister to the splendid Asokarama, laying on him this
command: 'Go, settle this matter and let the uposatha-festival be
carried out by the community of bhikkhus in my arama.' This fool
went thither, and when he had called the community of bhikkhus
together he announced the king's command: 'Carry out the uposatha-
festival.'

'We hold not the uposatha-festival with heretics,' the community of
bhikkhus replied to that misguided minister. The minister struck off
the head of several theras, one by one, with his sword, saying, 'I
will force you to hold the uposathafestival.' When the king's
brother, Tissa, saw that crime he came speedily and sat on the seat
nearest to the minister. When the minister saw the thera he went to
the king and told him (the whole matter).

When the monarch heard it he was troubled and went with all speed
and asked the community of bhikkhus, greatly disturbed in
mind: 'Who, in truth, is guilty of this deed that has been done?'

And certain of them answered in their ignorance: 'The guilt is
thine,' and others said: 'Both of you are guilty'; but those who
were wise answered: 'Thou art not guilty.'

When the king heard this be said: 'Is there a bhikkhu who is able to
set my doubts to rest and to befriend religion?' 'There is the thera
Tissa, the son of Moggali, O king,' answered the brethren to the
king. Then was the king filled with zeal.

Then the monarch asked the thera whether or not he himself shared
the guilt of the murder of the bhikkhus by the minister. The Thera
taught the king: 'There is no resulting guilt without evil intent,'
and he recited the Tittira-jataka.""


Thus King Asoka was blameless in the killing of the Bhikkhus.



You might be interested in some recent history. In the 1990's a
group of Thai monks got friendly with a Korean sect. Some of the
Thai monks went to Korea and ordained about 10 of these Korean
monks. Everone was happy and the Korean monks were by all accounts
quite pleased with the cut of their new robes. All was well until a
Korean newspaper reporter got hold of a Thai newspaper where the
Thai monks had proclaimed that they had founded Theravada in
Korea. .
Now this was news to the Korean monks, they had kind of realised
that they were 'dual-citzenship' as it were, but they certainly
didn't consider themselves Theravada in the sense that they were
more Thervada thna their original sect.. So to make this clear to a
curious public they invited TV and media to watch while they ripped
off their Theravada robes. stomped on them and, if I remember
correctly, performed other indignities including burning them. They
then put their original grey robes back on and that was that.

I can imagine someone 500 years from now digging up a remnant of
this story and then claming that all monks in Korea are actually
Theravadan.
And it shows how very, very careful Bhikhus should be before
ordaining anyone. To ordain such unsuitable candiates causes strife
in the Sangha. It would have been even worse if they had remained as
Theravada monks as they were just as Mahayana (or whatever sect) as
before.
RobertK