TheDhamma wrote:The Mahasamghikas and Sarvastivadins no longer exist. We only have the Theravada from the early Buddhist schools. You are taking one snippet of their beliefs and assuming that everything else is also in agreement.
Hi, sure, these schools are gone, but as it seems evident, the view(s) they put forward so long ago keep popping up. Isn’t it the same with Brahmajala sutta for example? We might call ourselves this or that, but in the end, it goes down to the views that we hold at the moment, and Buddhism, and Theravada in particular have set very clear standards on what views are right (i.e. leading to release in their experience) and which views are not. If I recall correctly, one of the reasons kathavatthu was kept open for three councils was so that all the possible heretical views could be collected and refuted for the benefit of the future generations.
TheDhamma wrote:And you want the Kathavatthu to be read, understood, and accepted by all?
Well, it’s not an issue of what I want, but of each person being honest to himself first. I don’t see how one can honestly criticise “classical theravda” without first becoming an expert in it, and that would require understanding kathavatthu and at least the major atthakathas I guess.
I’m sorry if I’m coming across as personal – it’s just that I consider you, retro, Ben, Peter, cooran, robertk and Ven.Dhammanando the most learned people in Theravada that I’ve come accorss on E-sangha and Dhammawheel. I mean, I look up to you guys, as I'm sure many others here do as well, so when one of you says something that seems to be at odds with Theravada, it seems important.