Hello Venerable,

Oops, i missed a detail in my last post.


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.

. I quote Prebish:

>
> 'Should the monk obtain that robe standing silently in this spot
> four five or six times at most this is good. If he should not obtain
> the robe and asks in excess of that...'
>
> It looks to me as if the 'asks' refers back to the standing
> silently. It might be interpreted as being restricted to just the
> verbal reminder, but this is not explicit.

The phrase, in all versions, says the monk may stand in silence 'six
times at most'. So even if the next sentence using 'asks' does not
explicitly include standing, it is anyway ruled out by the phrasing of
the rule. The spirit of the rule is clearly to indicate that these two
means - verbal reminders and silent standing - are the appropriate
ways of reminding a lax steward. Since further verbal requests are
ruled out by 'asks' and further standing silently is ruled out by the
rule itself, there is not too much the monk can do that is actually
authorized by the rule.

So the substantive content that you have demonstrated in the
difference between the Theravada and Mahasanghika Vinayas is, at most,
that the Mahasanghika is less explicit in limiting the means by which
a dishonest steward may be reminded of his duties, out of concern for
the donor. The emotional response is to compare such monks with
Orwell's 'pigs'. This disproportionate kind of language is what
justifies the continuing usage of 'sectarian' in such contexts.

in Dhamma-Vinaya

Bhante Sujato