Bhante,

> > If a monk were banished, say through the thirteenth Sanghadisesa
> or
> > the 68/69th paccitiya, would they still be able to fit a quorom
> for
> > ordaining monks or not? It is said that they should not, but if
> > they do, is the ordination invalid?
>
> Again, as far as my understanding goes (and i am very far from

being

> a Vinaya expert), they could not make up the quorum. But if they

sat

> in the assembly this would not invalidate the kamma, as long as
> there were 5 'regular' bhikkhus.

Okay, then I have another question to ask. If the assembly has
fewer than five regular bhikkhus, does the sanghakamma fail? What
if there are only four?

The point I'm getting out of all of this is that merely by the
vinaya pitaka alone we cannot distinguish easily who is and who
isn't a real bhikkhu or bhikkhuni... is that fair to say? So, we
have a vinaya bhikkhu and a sutta bhikkhu. The sutta bhikkhu is a
whole different story...

>
> >
> > Apart from this, is there any basis beyond parajika or
> > parivasa/manatta to invalidate a bhikkhu's fitting the quorum of
> an
> > ordination?
>
> Not as far as i know. (there are other things stopping one
> participating, such as being a patricide, etc., but these stop one
> from being a bhikkhu at all so don't affect the question directly)

Ah, now here's something else... could five monks, all of whom are
schismatics or who have embraced non-Buddhist (e.g. Hindu, Vedanta,
etc.) teachers be qualified to ordain monks in the Theravada? Would
the ordination stand?

> And here the grey areas become challenging. What about monks who
> deny kamma and rebirth?

This is enough, I think, to make them considered "sectarian" (i.e.
having taken up the views of another sect).

> Or dispute over the necessity for jhana?
> (this involves our understanding of the eightfold path itself)

If you mean mundane samatha jhana, then it clearly is not, as it has
been said that any concentration that has the power to surpress the
five hindrances is right concentration. It clearly accords with the
Pali that mundane samatha jhanas are not necessary to reach
arahantship. You could read the debate at
http://www.mahasi.org.mm/discourse/E24/E24cont.htm , it is quite
interesting.

> Or one-lifetime PS?

I don't see anything wrong with PS in one lifetime, as it surely
functions in this way as well. As long as one doesn't deny the fact
of rebirth.

>What about the antarabhava?

I doubt it would make much difference either way. As I personally
posted earlier, IMHO, an antarabhava is just another bhava. I see
no difference.

> Presumably we would not
> want to be schismatic on the question whether space is
> unconditioned - or would we? It affects our understanding of
> Nibbana, the third noble truth.

Never heard this one... Space is derived from the four great
elements, is it not? How could it be unconditioned? Perhaps it is
because it is a sammuti, not a paramattha? If it is a sammuti, like
time, then yes, I think it might be unconditioned, because it
doesn't really exist...

> I really don't know. But i do believe that a friendly, harmonious
> environment is the most conducive for us to understand why we al
> believe such different things.

Again, what end would that serve? If we want to understand such
things, we should become Buddhas, because otherwise all we can hope
for is the mere destruction of our own defilements (and of course
there are other sects that deny us even this).

> This is more than enough reason for me to bury my
> > head in the sand and say "My tradition is the best" and not

share

> > communion (or even tea) with monks who hold what is in my

opinion

> > adhamma, whether they be real monks or not. I would humbly
> > encourage other traditions to do the same :)
>
> Of course, it is up to each monk to decide whether they want to
> participate in Sanghakamma, and no-one in this discussion has
> proposed or supported a promiscuous mixing of traditions willy-
> nilly.

Good. I'd hate to see any promiscuity among the Sangha, whether it
be Willy or Nilly.

> The Australian Sangha Association takes as a basic principle that

we

> respect each tradition and are not about trying to force or impose
> views or practices on anyone. Despite the dark fantasies that have
> been woven around my personal agendas, i was asked (repeatedly) by
> the senior Theras and Theris to do the job of secretary, and my
> function is to facilitate what they, and the rest of the Sangha,
> want. The subject of performing Sanghakamma together has never
> arisen.

Okay. I personally have no quibble with secretaries, nor any dark
fantasies about them. I suppose I look at it from the other side.
Even sanghakamma with my own sect is a big job (skip a week of
rehearsing the patimokkha and it disappears). I wouldn't go out of
my way to be much more communal than that (or this list, of course)

I think of the Buddha's words:

"Idhaavuso, bhikkhu na kammaaraamo hoti na kammarato na
kammaaraamata.m anuyutto, na bhassaaraamo hoti na bhassarato na
bhassaaraamata.m anuyutto, na niddaaraamo hoti na niddaarato
niddaaraamata.m anuyutto, na sa"nga.nikaaraamo hoti na
sa"nga.nikarato na sa"nga.nikaaraamata.m anuyutto, na
sa.msaggaaraamo hoti na sa.msaggarato na sa.msaggaaraamata.m
anuyutto, na papa~ncaaraamo hoti na papa~ncarato na
papa~ncaaraamata.m anuyutto. Eva.m kho, aavuso, bhikkhu tathaa
tathaa vihaara.m kappeti yathaa yathaassa vihaara.m kappayato
bhaddaka.m mara.na.m hoti, bhaddikaa kaalakiriyaa. Aya.mvuccataavuso–
`bhikkhu nibbaanaabhirato pajahaasi sakkaaya.m sammaa dukkhassa
antakiriyaayaa'"ti.

> and also with you

Thank you. Namasakara,

Yuttadhammo