In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Bhante Sujato" <sujato@...> wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
>
> I hope you and all who read this are enjoying this little debate
as
> much as i am!
==============
Dear Venerable Sujato,
Yes indeed, it is an opportunity that conditions kusala, helping to
explain why we should follow the ancients and not our own whims and
modern ideas.
>
>
Robert: The only reason it could be changing is because a few well-
> meaning,
> > but (IMHO) misguided souls are actively ignoring millenia of
> > tradition.
> =======================================
> And this, obviously, includes the senior Theras and Theris of the
> Thai, Sri Lankan, Burmese, Vietnamese, Korean, Taiwanese, Laotian,
> Cambodian, and Tibetan traditions in Australia.
==========
By this you mean that the senior Thai and Burmese Monks in Australia
have accepted your beliefs? I repeat them below:

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.
========
Please provide a statement from the Burmese and Thai Mahatheras
showing that they accept the ordination of monks from other
traditions as being Theravada monks. I doubt you can. What is
probably happening is that these monks have joined your association
unaware of its motives. It is like me going to a talk by the Dalai
lama (as I did last month) and someone inferring from that that I
accept Mahayana Buddhism as being the same as Theravada (which I
most decidely do not).
=============
> 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.
> >
=========

Yes, you make it abundantly clear that you see no reason to believe
the account of these matters in the Pali texts. Even the name
Theravada is anathema to your aims- you think it some sectarian
lable.
============
Ven. Sujnato: . I don't agree that the
> Theravadins can be regarded as the ONLY genuine heirs of the
Buddha.
> I regard anyone who practices and lives in accordance with the
> teachings as a genuine heir of the Buddha, regardless of what
label
> they may go by.

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

> > I now quote from the Katthavathuppakarana-Atthakatha (by
> Buddhoghosa)
> > (p3 of Points of contoversy, PTS)
>===========
Ven. Sujato: I don't feel the need to add anything to what Stephen
has said re
> the above Kathavatthu atthakatha quote.
==========
Meaning your reject it? Your distaste for Theravada scripture is
matched only by your enthusiasm for any supposed discrepancy that
might cast doubt on the smallest point.


>
> > 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;
>
> This has definitely happened in the Theravada. Even in recent
times
> (the last 200 years), The Burmese
> have also added several later books to the canon, which are
excluded
> by the Sri Lankans and Thais.
========
I assume you are referring to the Nettipparana and another book
being given cannonical status at the sixth council in 1958. This was
presumably on the basis that it being authored by Mahakaccana (one
of the leading dsicples of the Buddha) that it deserved higher
status than that of commentary. The Thai and Sri Lanka sangha hold
this book in very high esteem but as you say do not include it in
the canon- it is given a special grouping of is own.
This is a debateable matter in recent Theravada history but the
fact that you compare it with the changes wrought by the schismatic
sects - as if Theravada are equally corrupt- is reprehensible.
============================

>
>
> they destroyed the true meaning and the faith in the
> > vinyaa
> ========
Ven. Sujato: Again, please, i beg you, do not simply accept such
polemics on face
> value as absolute truth. We can see what
> these people said in their own scriptures, and it proves
Buddhaghosa
> utterly wrong.
========
You never miss a chance to slight the Theravada tradition.
Buddhaghosa (and the ancient texts he edited)is 'utterly wrong'
because a section of a history book says so.


>
> 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..."

================
>
Ven. Sujato: That's interesting that it says the 'six sections of
the
> Abhidhamma'. Since there are now seven books, if your translation
is
> accurate, it would seem that even at the late date of the
Dipavamsa
> the Abhidhamma Pitaka was not yet settled.
===========

The Dipavamsa was referring to the time before the Third Council
where the Katthavathu had not being added to the Abhidhamma. There
were only 6 sections of the Abhidhamma then- thus it shows the
accuracy of the account not detracts from it.

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



>
> This shows that, contrary to the opinions of some, the question
of
> historical authenticity was an important issue to the ancient
> Indians, and it also confirms our confidence in the methods of
> historical criticism.
=======
No, it does not confirm our confidence in 'methods of historical
criticism'. What it shows is that you take any chance to discredit
the Theravada account (a few posts ago you were calling the story of
Asoka slanderous, based on your bias.) As I said above the Theravada
account was accurate.

Venerable. I urge you to reconsider.
No good Theravada bhikkhus will agree to sanghakamma or accept the
upasampada of non-Theravadan monks. The best you can hope for is
that you succeed in gaining a section of foolish Monks- and no doubt
a considerable number of confused laypeople- to follow you into a
new schism.
Robertk
>