This is an exchange I had with him maybe 18 years back- it gives an indication of his position. I guess he still holds them to this day based on that book you linked to.
In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "rjk wrote:
— In Pali@yahoogroups.com, “Bhante Sujato…” <suj…@g…> wrote:==============
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. They all agree on the fundamental meaning of Sangha - a community of celibate Buddhist monastics ordained in an authentic lineage. Not one has suggested that monastics from other traditions should not be regarded as properly ordained. I am aware that this is the view, sadly, that prevails in some theravadin countries, but that clearly is changing.
==================================
Robert: The only reason it could be changing is because a few well-meaning, but (IMHO) misguided souls are actively ignoring millenia of tradition. There is no example anywhere in the scriptures, of monks from outside sects being considered as Theravada and invited to participate in sanghakamma. Have you considered the dangers in this and how it was because of the strict conservatism of Theravada that the Dhamma has been preserved until now.
=====================================
*Sujato As far as i can see, the term ‘Theravada’ does not occur in the Pali Culavagga account of the Second Council, although the bhikkhus from Pava are referred to as ‘theras’. 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
In any case, the chief issue was handling money. Since we see today that the vast majority of bhikkhus, whether Theravadins or otherwise, use money, in violation of the precepts and of the findings of the second council, in what sense can they be regarded as the ‘keepers of the flame’? Surely we should, rather, encourage and support any bhikkhus or bhikkhunis who has the courage to keep the rules and renounce money, regardless of what tradition they hail from…
==================
Robert: Surely it is outrageous that some Theravada Bhikkhus now handle money, but this is a different matter. As far as I know none of these bhikkus are suggesting the vinaya be changed to suit their behaviour.
I now quote from the Katthavathuppakarana-Atthakatha (by Buddhoghosa) (p3 of Points of contoversy, PTS) I am an exceedingly slow typist so I only put in the most relevant sections.
It talks about after the second council (about 100 years after Buddha parinibbana)
“Ten thousand of the of the Vajjiputtaka bhikkhus[after spliting from the good monks] seeking adherents among themselves, formed a school called the Mahasanghika [these then split several times] Thus from the school of the Mahasanghikas, in the second century only two schools seceded from the Theravada[note that the rightful monks are called Theravada by Buddhaghosa]-Mahimsinsasakas and Vajjiputtakas… [it lists more that split later]…Thus from the Theravada arose these eleven seceding bodies making 12 in all. And these 12 together the six schools of the Mahasanghikas constitute the 18 schools which arose in the second century. Of the eighteen, 17 are to be understood as schismatics, the Theravadan only being non- schismatic.”“”
The commentary continues and cites the Dipavamsa.
The Bhikkhus [of the schismatic sects] "
settled a doctrine contrary [to the true faith] Altering the original redaction, they made another. they transposed suttas which belonged in one collection to another place;they destroyed the true meaning and the faith in the vinyaa and in the five collections. Those bhikkus who understood neither what had been taught in long expositons…settled a false meaning in connection with spourious speeches of the Buddha. These bhikkhus destroyed a great deal of meaning under the colour of the letter. 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…"Robert: There is more along the same lines. Thus we see how fragile the Dhamma is - and open to abuse by foolish monks changing and rejecting sections of the Tipitaka at their whim. It is only because of the steadfastness of the Theravada that we have the Dhamma preserved until today.