Hello again Venerable,

>
> 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?

This would seem to be clear, but perhaps is not. Pg 76 of Horners
trans: ' Now at that time monks ordained through a group of two or
three monks...(the Buddha said): Monks, you should not ordain
through a group of less than ten monks. [later, of course, modified
to 5 outside the Middle Country] Whoever should so ordain, there is
an offense of dukkata...'

So ordaining with just 2 or 3 is clearly wrong procedure, but would
seem to not actually invalidate the ordination, otherwise the Buddha
would have said 'naasetabbo'. But here he says 'upasampadeyya', thus
admitting that the ordination does in fact take place (even though
with bad procedure)

>
> 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...
>

I'm not quite sure of the distinction you are making here.

>
> 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?

Presumably they could not ordain in the first place, since they had
not gone for refuge. If they converted after ordaining, it seems
that, as long as they have not been formally suspended, they could
still take part in ordinations (though i think all would agree this
would hardly be appropriate).

>

It clearly accords with the

> Pali that mundane samatha jhanas are not necessary to reach
> arahantship.

Ahh, well, i beg to differ, but does that mean we cannot sit
sanghakamma together? I don't think so, though i agree discarding
kamma and rebirth is much more serious.

> > 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...

It is one of the debated points, i think mentioned in the
Kathavatthu. The Theravada position, if i remember rightly, is that
akasa is conditioned, and this would seem to agree with the suttas,
which speak of, say, the akasa within a house being 'paticca' by the
walls, etc (or something of the sort). This also, incidentally,
agrees with physics, which says that before the Big Bang, space
didn't exist. The Sarvastivada and others hold that space is
unconditioned, thus partaking in a line of metaphor harking back to
the Upanishads that compare the Ultimate to akasa. I believe that
the Milinda says space is one of the two asankhatadhatus (thus
disagreeing with the Kathavatthu, but i haven't checked this
recently). As Warder notes, this issue seems hopelessly abstract,
but in fact reveals quite differing attitudes of the relationship
between Nibbana and the 'world'.

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?

Well, we do have to share a planet together...

in Dhamma

Bhante Sujato