Dear Timothy,

>> But given their unorthodox manner of carrying out
>> sanghakammas, even to class them as naanaasa.mvaasa is
>> arguably being a little over-generous.

> And besides, then we'd be stuck with finding a label for
> this overly generous behaviour. I suppose calling it
> "Buddhist" would only add to the confusion...

I don't know what confusion you are referring to, but
behaviour characterized by misplaced generosity or
generosity in excess of what is appropriate is hardly a
Buddhist virtue.

The question is whether Mahaayaana bhikkhus are to be viewed
as sa.mvaasa ('in communion', meaning bhikkhus with whom a
Theravaadin bhikkhu might carry out sanghakamma), or
naanaasa.mvaasa ('of a different communion', meaning that
they are technically bhikkhus, but not in sufficiently good
standing to carry out sanghakamma with), or asa.mvaasa ('not
in communion', meaning not in fact bhikkhus at all).

If a bhikkhu were naanaasa.mvaasa or asa.mvaasa, then
treating him as sa.mvaasa would be over-generous, that is to
say, it would be generous in excess of what is proper.

For example, if one knew that some bhikkhu had committed a
defeating offence, and yet concealed that knowledge and
continued to treat that 'bhikkhu' as if he were still
sa.mvaasa, one would be doing no favour to the sangha, nor
to him, nor to oneself. Similarly, if a bhikkhu of some
paravaadii sect were asa.mvaasa according to the criteria of
Pali Vinaya, one would be doing him no favour by treating
him as if he were sa.mvaasa or naanaasa.mvaasa, irrespective
of what the proponents of ecumenical fudge might think.

Best wishes,

Dhammanando

channa.m ativassati,
viva.ta.m n'aativassati.
tasmaa channa.m vivaretha,
eva.m ta.m n'aativassatii ti.
(Vin. ii. 240)