It seems S. Dhammika, having handled money, doesn't like the strictness of Theravada Vinaya, where he can't behave whatever the lax way he want.A Review of Shravasti Dhammika's book The Broken Buddha.
Having been a meditator in a Theravada-associated tradition for many years, an enthusiastic reader of books by Theravada monks and teachers, and an infrequent visitor to Southeast Asia for Dhamma purposes, I have long seen this religion as the most faithful representative of the Buddha’s teachings.
...
The book is the work of Shravasti Dhammika, an Australia-born man who ordained as a Theravada monk in 1976. It was published in 2008, though as he states in the preface, most of it was written several years earlier and he only decided to publish after an “unauthorized draft” appeared online. I am unsure how much the official version differs from this draft, but the text retains a rough feel. At less than 80 pages, it is somewhere between long essay and short book, and is at turns angry, funny, cutting, astounding, and, unfortunately, sometimes poorly researched. For some, Bhante Dhammika’s casual relationship with facts and tendency toward generalization may limit their ability to take the thrust of his arguments seriously.
...
He gives many examples from his long years in robes to illustrate these tendencies. Many of the most absurd and humorous of these involve the Vinaya. For instance, “handling money” (in Pali, ‘gold and silver’) is often the focus of criticism.
...
The author is not critical of monks who handle money, indeed he admits to having done so himself in certain circumstances, his point being that a balanced approach is needed, one that avoids unnecessary anxiety over running afoul of extreme interpretations but is also intellectually honest enough to admit when the spirit of the law is being broken.
...
The first category—the slavish adherence to or disregard for Vinaya—may be the easiest to dismiss as having nothing to do with “true” Theravada. Indeed, there is so much variation among Theravada monks it is difficult to make a unified critique.
...
The second category—wasteful giving—is something I believe many Western Buddhists struggle with when encountering Theravada in its native setting. .. The most nuanced answer, which simultaneously disarms the critic and paints the practice in a positive light, is that lay Theravadins give out of a desire to support the Sangha and perform wholesome deeds, thus making merit that will help them karmically in the current life and lives to come. .. It seemed to cover all the bases—one couldn’t blame the lay people because their desire to give was pure and founded in solid Buddhist logic, and one couldn’t blame the monks because they are simply vessels for the lay public’s generosity—and remaining critical made me feel somewhat culturally insensitive. .. Theravadins are not stupid—when presented with such clear cost-benefit figures, who would want to waste their dana on the poor and needy when there are monks around? .. The generosity of Southeast Asian Buddhists is often described in glowing terms, in many ways rightly so.
...
The third category—self-centeredness—was something I had not thought of before and caused a dramatic shift in my understanding of how well Theravada puts the Buddha’s teachings into practice. The typical explanation of the difference between Theravada and Mahayana goes that the former sticks only to what was taught by Gotama the Buddha, while the latter adds teachings from other “buddhas” and spiritual figures. To the faithful, this lends Theravada an air of purity, which by implication means Mahayana teachings are somehow “polluted.” Leave it to Bhante Dhammika to burst this bubble. His fascinating contention is that Theravada has a pronounced negative and selfish tendency that ignores many things the Buddha taught.
...
But wait, one might ask, weren’t you just criticizing Theravada for an excess of giving? Even if wasteful, isn’t this the opposite of a “negative and selfish tendency”?
Just as the typical lax monk would say, he says the Visuddhimagga is negative.
Apart from the above observations, we can find an immature attempt of S. Dhammika to despise the Visuddhimagga as follows and got refused by many other scholars.
What other scholars have said (including an ancient king):"The Broken Buddha by S. Dhammika:
“Even Buddhaghosa did not really believe that Theravada practice could lead to Nirvana. His Visuddhimagga is supposed to be a detailed, step by step guide to enlightenment. And yet in the postscript […] he says he hopes that the merit he has earned by writing the Vishuddhimagga will allow him to be reborn in heaven, abide there until Metteyya (Maitreya) appears, hear his teaching and then attain enlightenment.”
The monks below have not read the King's note I think, nevertheless they have noticed that S. Dhammika's observation is immature."Visuddhimárga-mahásannaya" by King Parakramabahu (1234 - 1269 CE):
"The postscript of Visuddhimagga wass written by Venerable Buddhamitta who was an student of Venerable Buddhagosa."
[Visuddhimárga-mahásannaya of King Parakramabahu-II of Kingdom of Dambadeniya is a Sinhala glossary (Sannaya) to Visuddhimagga written within 1234 to 1269CE and also called Parákramabáhu-sannaya.]
Ven. Dhammanado:
Ven. Dhammika is making the common mistake of confusing Buddhaghosa’s colophon with that of the scribal copyist. The former dedicates the the merit of composing the Visuddhimagga to the happiness of all beings. It’s the scribe, not Buddhaghosa, who wants to go to heaven and later meet Metteyya.
Ven. Sujato:
In any case, the passage that expresses a wish to be reborn with Metteyya has multiple indications that it is a later addition, probably a scribal remark by a copyist.
It is only found in Sinhalese manuscripts
It doesn’t identify Buddhaghosa at all, merely saying “through the merit I have gained by this”.
It appears after the rather elaborate praise of Buddhaghosa, which itself appears to be a later addition (it’s not good form to praise oneself in this way).
It is right at the end, exactly where a copyist’s scribal mark would be added
This belief is implicitly rejected in the text itself (Vism 1.135)
Colophons of Visuddhimagga - Not By Buddhaghosa TheraVen. Panditha of Burma:
Those colophons have not come from Acariya Buddhaghosa’s hands.
Acariya Buddhaghosa wanted to have all the credit transferred to the Mahāvihāra community.
Those introductions, epilogues, and colophons still have certain aspects not yet sufficiently examined.
Traditional scholars hardly believe that those colophons are written by Acariya Buddhaghosa.
All the works of Acariya Buddhaghosa were anonymous at the beginning.
This anonymity is the reason for someone in posterity to add such colophons in order to save the author’s name.
The reason for anonymity was to get the works endorsed by the prestige and authority of Mahāvihāra, expecting the longevity of books. If only a less number of people were interested in manually copying his book, it would remain “unpublished".
In this way, Acariya Buddhaghosa could successfully publish his works inland and internationally.
This circumstance of Acariya Buddhaghosa can be compared to presidential speech-writers. Although writer’s name is not a secret, no president would acknowledge the writer in the speech itself.
