Bhante,

Thank you for your response. We seem to be turning into a
Vinaya list. I just hope this isn't too boring for those who
joined with the aim of learning Pali.

> That's an important point: the 'victors' are not necessarily
> the majority, but those on the side of Dhamma-Vinaya.
> Leaving aside qualms about how this event has been used to
> justify sectarianism,

It might also be a good idea to leave aside this rather
loaded word "sectarian," or at least restrict it to the sort
of mental attitude conveyed by the words, "My sect is right
because it's my sect." The word ceases to be of much value
if one simply applies it to anyone who uncompromisingly
adheres to what he believes to be sound doctrine and
practice, or to a tradition that he believes embodies this.

The Buddha instituted procedures for varying degrees of
ostracism and banishment to be applied to monks who were
holders of wrong view or indulgers in various sorts of wrong
conduct. Although the aim of these was to apply pressure to
these monks to mend their ways, inevitably there would be
situations where the banished monks were convinced that they
were in the right and rather than seeking to be reconciled
would instead turn the tables and banish their banishers.
Assuming that the original act of banishment was
well-founded according to Dhamma and Vinaya, the scrupulous
monks' refusal to associate with the banished monks was
simply the sangha taking the necessary steps to preserve its
integrity. That it might appear to some as "sectarian" or
"bigotted" or "sanctimonious" is just too bad.

> it really is an excellent example for us on how to solve
> disputes in the Sangha, alas, one that is all too rarely
> followed.

Yes.

>> Do you mean that the Vajjiputtakas' ten theses are not
>> explicitly stated in the Mahasa`nghika *paatimokkha*? If so,
>> then this would not be surprising, for most of the ten have
>> to do with how the training rules are interpreted, not with
>> how they are stated, and not all of them even pertain to
>> Paatimokkha rules.

> This is clearly not the case with the money rules, which are
> stated quite clearly and explicitly in the Vinaya (and
> Sutta).

I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I was drawing a
distinction between the Paatimokkha training rules and the
Vinaya as a whole. My point was that from bare statements
like...

"yo pana bhikkhu vikaale khaadaniiya.m vaa ...."

and...

"yo pana bhikkhu jaataruuparajata.m ugga.nheyya vaa ...."

one cannot draw any particular conclusion about what time is
"wrong" for eating, or how wide is the scope of "gold and
silver". The solution to these questions needs to be sought
elsewhere in the texts. Therefore the fact that the
Mahaasanghika version of the Paatimokkha may phrase the
relevant rules the same way as the Pali offers no evidence
as to what view they took on the ten Vajjiputtaka theses.

For example, a Mahaasanghika might have phrased NP 18 the
same as in the Pali, but then glossed "gold and silver" as
"large quantities of bullion to be used in land transactions
or for the purchase of elephants" (or whatever).

So what I was asking Stephen was whether he was drawing his
conclusion merely from the Mahaasanghikas' Paatimokkha or
from their Vinaya exegeses.

> As per my previous message, contra Stephen, the Mahasanghika
> Vinaya maintains an identical attitude to the Theravada over
> money. How far this reflects actual practice is of course a
> different matter.
>
> So far, no-one has tried to answer my question: since there
> are monks and nuns of all schools today who handle money;
> and other monks and nuns of all schools who do not handle
> money, should we not regard the ones who do not handle money
> as the true heirs of the ancient Theriyas, regardless of
> which school they belong to?

No, not on that account alone.

Proper Vinaya observance is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition to make a monk a true heir of the
ancient theras.

According to one Chinese pilgrim the monasteries of one of
the Puggalavaadin schools (I think it was the Sammitiyas)
had the strictest Vinaya observance in the whole of India.
Should we on that account consider the Puggalavaadins to
have been the "true heirs of the ancient Theriyas" ?

I trust that you will answer no and agree that a monk's view
is also of some relevance here. So, there is Vinaya, and
there is right view. A third condition, I would suggest, is a
Theravaadin upasampadaa, but this is a view based upon the
Pali Atthakathaas, so I suppose there is little likelihood
of our agreeing on this point.

_________________________

In another post you wrote:

> In the rule against using money, (Pali Nissagiya Pacittiya
> 18) Pachow pg 104 for Mahasanghika Vinaya does not note any
> relevant difference. He merely notes the Chinese translation
> 'sheng she shih she' for 'jaataruuparajata'. He also adds
> 'or has attachment for it', which presumably stands for the
> Pali 'saadiyeyya'. In other words, apart from translation
> issues, the rule seems to be identical.

I have not read the Mahaasanghika recension of the
Paatimokkha in any original language, so I'm dependent on
Charles Prebish's translation of it (together with the
Muulasarvaastivaada version) in his _Buddhist Monastic
Discipline_. If his translation is accurate, then it seems
to me that its differences from the Pali version are more
substantial than you and Dr. Pachow suggest.

Overall the impression I get is that the
Muulasarvaastivaadins weren't much different to us in their
Vinaya, but the Mahaasanghikas come across as a downright
sleazy bunch. They remind me of the pigs in Orwell's _Animal
Farm_, who kept altering the rules to make life more
comfortable for themselves ("No animal shall sleep in a bed
... with sheets."). At first sight their rules don't seem
much different to ours, but examine each one closely with a
lawyer's attention to detail and you will often find that
some tiny addition, or subtraction, or just the alteration
of a single word has changed the training rule entirely,
either to make it easier to observe or in some cases almost
impossible to transgress.

Let's take a look at three of the examples in your post...

> The other rules involving money are NP 19 (trading precious
> things) and NP 20 (buying and selling), and in both of these
> the other schools, including Mahasanghika, add no variations
> of interest.

No variations of interest!? Good gracious, in Prebish's
translation of NP 20 the Mahaasanghikas have inserted a
loophole as wide as the Mersey Tunnel:

"Whatever monk should undertake activity in various sorts of
sales *in gold and silver*, that is a ni.hsargika-paacattika."

The Pali says nothing about gold and silver. If the
Mahaasanghika version means using gold and silver as the
means of exchange, then it would permit activities like
bartering that are prohibited in the Pali. If it means only
that a bhikkhu may not sell gold and silver, then it would
permit almost everything that is prohibited in the Pali !
If the latter is the case, then just by the insertion of one
compound word the Mahaasanghikas have whittled down the
obligation to almost nothing.

> Nor is NP 10, about how to appoint a kappiya for receiving
> funds, significantly different.

I disagree. In this case too the Mahaasanghikas' phrasing
completely undermines the rule. In all recensions of the
Vinaya the last part of NP 10 begins in essentially the same
way, with the monk asking the sangha steward for a robe up
to three times and if that fails then hinting by standing in
silence up to six times. The Pali version then continues:

tato ce uttari.m vaayamamaano ta.m ciivara.m
abhinipphaadeyya, nissaggiya.m paacittiya.m

...then, [having stood silently up to six times],
if upon exerting himself further that robe is
obtained [by the monk], it entails expiation with
forfeiture.

So in this version (and in that of the Muulasarvaastivaada)
the monk, having stood silently up to six times, is
prohibited from making *any further effort* to obtain the
robe. But the Mahaasanghika version only prohibits him from
*asking* further. There is nothing to stop him from exerting
himself by other means, such as the various forms of
hinting. The Mahaasanghika monk can carry on pestering the
sangha steward till the end of the kalpa and he still won't
have broken any rule.

> Finally Pacittiya 84, the ratanapaacittiya (about picking up
> valuable items) is also substantially identical, except the
> Mula- sarv, evidently by mistake, adds an exception for when
> in the house of a householder (whereas the exception should
> be when in a monastery only).

The Mahaasanghika version seems to have a much more serious
flaw: it leaves out the word "nikkhipitabba" from the final
clause. So, it would appear that if a lady were to mislay her
diamond tiara in a Mahaasanghika monastery, a resident
monk might pick it up and give it to his mother as a
Christmas present without breaking any rule. He is only
obliged to pick up the tiara, not to look after it for the owner
as a Theravaadin bhikkhu must.

> in Dhamma
>
> Bhante Sujato

in Vinaya (and no small measure of contrarian cussedness!),

Dhammanando