Um näher zu wissen, das Kusaladhamma hier teilen wollte und um sich selbst ein Bild zu machen, ob dieses dann auch in der Deutsche Version ist, oder tatsächlich keine Antwort, auf die Kritik, sondern vielleicht Ausgang (Sie mögen die Erkenntnisse der Tatsachen, teilen oder nicht, wie Sie es für gut halten) hier ein paar Ausschnitte aus dem Cullavaga:
The Cullavagga on Bhikkhunī Ordination
Bhikkhu Anālayo[1]
Abstract
With this paper I examine the narrative that in the Cullavagga of the Theravāda Vinaya forms the background to the different rules on bhikkhunī ordination, alternating between translations of the respective portions from the original Pāli and discussions of their implications. An appendix to the paper briefly discusses the term paṇḍaka.
Introduction
In what follows I continue exploring the legal situation of bhikkhunī ordination, a topic already broached in two previous publications. In “The Legality of Bhikkhunī Ordination” I concentrated in particular on the legal dimension of the ordinations carried out in Bodhgayā in 1998.[2] Based on an appreciation of basic Theravāda legal principles, I discussed the nature of the garudhammas and the need for a probationary training as a sikkhamānā, showing that this is preferable but not indispensable for a successful bhikkhunī ordination. I concluded that combining a dual ordination, such as that done at Bodhgayā through the cooperation of bhikkhunīs from the Dharmaguptaka tradition, with a subsequent ordination by Theravāda bhikkhus on their own, results in a valid ordination procedure.
In the second study, entitled “On the Bhikkhunī Ordination Controversy,” I replied to the objections voiced by two eminent bhikkhus regarding the legality of implementing the Buddha’s allowance in Cullavagga X 2.1 that bhikkhus alone can give ordination to bhikkhunīs.[3] I explained that the validity of this regulation, compared to the subsequent regulation that ordination requires the cooperation of both communities, could be compared to two different speed limits. As long as these refer to different roads, they can be valid simultaneously and the later promulgated speed limit does not invalidate the earlier one. In the same article I examined the desirability of having an order of bhikkhunīs in the light of relevant canonical passages. I came to the conclusion that for the flourishing of the Buddha’s dispensation, the sāsana, it is an indispensable requirement to have all four assemblies of disciples, one of which is an order of bhikkhunīs.[4]
In the present article I study in detail the narratives on rules concerning bhikkhunī ordination in the way these have been recorded in the Cullavagga of the Theravāda Vinaya, followed by a brief look at the description in the Dīpavaṃsa of the transmission of bhikkhunī ordination to Sri Lanka and its possible bearing on how the rules on bhikkhunī ordination in the Cullavagga would have been interpreted in the past. The topics I will cover are:
1 Ordination by acceptance of the eight garudhammas.
2 Ordination by bhikkhus only.
3 Ordination by both communities.
4 Ordination by messenger.
5 Transmission to Sri Lanka.
My intention is to follow the Vinaya narrative closely in order to determine what kind of narrative background it presents for the four procedures in question. Instead of attempting a historical reconstruction of what actually happened, which anyway is a doubtful undertaking in view of the fact that we only have textual records at our disposal, my interest is purely in the legal implications of the Theravāda Vinaya narrative as it is. In order to keep this basic approach clear, I relegate any comment from a comparative or historical-critical perspective to footnotes. Any suggestion I make in the main text about how the Buddha acted or what he intended is therefore not part of an attempted historical reconstruction, but rather part of the construction of a coherent narrative based on the indications found in the Theravāda Vinaya, serving as a background for a legal reading of this particular monastic code and its bearing on the living Theravāda tradition(s). For legal purposes affecting present-day Theravāda monastics, the Pāli Vinaya in the form it has been handed down is the central frame of reference, not whatever we believe really happened in ancient India two and a half millennia ago.[5]
In my previous paper “On the Bhikkhunī Ordination Controversy” I briefly discussed the difference between a legal reading and a historical-critical reading of the Theravāda Vinaya as two distinct modes of approaching the same text. Here I would like to reiterate that both modes of reading have their proper place and value; to engage in one of these two does not imply a value statement on the other. It does imply, however, different purposes. If the purpose is to explore legal implications, as in my present paper, a historical-critical reading of the type done regularly by myself in other papers based on a comparative study of different extant versions of a particular text is not relevant.
An example to illustrate this point is the finding by Schlingloff that at times, instead of the rule being formulated in response to a certain event, the narrative event appears to have been formulated in response to the rule. That is, a particular expression in the rule, on being misunderstood, seems to have provided the starting point for the creation of the narrative plot that now introduces the rule in the Pāli Vinaya.
This finding does not affect the legal validity of the rule in question or the legal relevance of the narrative within which it is embedded. The putting into practice of this rule by a Theravāda monastic will still have to be guided by the narrative context within which the rule is now found in the Theravāda Vinaya.[6]
The same principle applies to my discussion in the remainder of this article, which is concerned with the Theravāda Vinaya as a legal code and the bearing of its narratives on the legal implications of its regulations concerning bhikkhunī ordination for Theravāda monastics.
I begin by translating the narrative found in the Cullavagga on how Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī became a bhikkhunī by accepting eight “principles to be respected,” the garudhammas.7 Here and subsequently, my presentation alternates between translations of the relevant passages and attempts to draw out their implications based on a legal reading of the respective narratives. ...
Now, in the Cullavagga narrative translated earlier, the Buddha is on record for promulgating garudhamma 6, together with the other principles to be respected, in reply to Ānanda’s request to create an opportunity for women to go forth in the Buddha’s dispensation. In this way the Theravāda Vinaya presents the Buddha as asking Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī to accept a stipulation that she will not be able to carry out. Even though by accepting the whole set of eight garudhammas she could become a bhikkhunī, she would not be able to form the quorum required for carrying out the preparation for and conferring of the higher ordination of her following of Sakyan women who also wanted higher ordination. From the outset it was clear that she would be unable to act according to garudhamma 6 in the way this is now found in the Theravāda Vinaya.[7]
Den Verlauf, manges Datum und wirklicher Referenzen, wird dann jeder wohl selbst recherchieren müssen, gesetzt, daß dies ein Ausschnitt aus dem Geschenk an die Bhikkhunis zur Eingeflogenen Bhikkhunieinweihung (wegen Gefahren am Weg wahrscheinlich) im Juni 2015 ist (modifiziert oder nicht, im Sept. auf der Engaged Buddistseite veröffentlicht) und die Kritik von Thanissaro vom 5.9.2015 und Ausgabe des Cullavagaartikel mit Kritik an Thanissaro, auf
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/2015/09/10/the-cullavagga-on-bhikkhuni-ordination/ 10.9.2015.
Laßt sie sich die Übersetzungen gefilter zukommen lassen, so wie Laien und ihre Nahestehenden klösterlichen, um nicht zu sagen Klösterliche und ihre nahestehenden Laien, es dann für Ihre Zwecke weiter geben wollen.
Die "Antwort" findet sind, wenn es dann überhaupt eine ist, in den Fußnoten (die, Atma hat versucht sie etwas zu orden, etwas durcheinander sind und im Original andere Nummern haben)
Und noch mal zurm Wiederholen des Heldenfeiergrundes zum Provozieren der Thailändischen Sangha:
Dieses Buch präsentiert die deutsche Übersetzungen von drei Artikeln, die die Legalität der Bhikkhunī-Ordination untersuchen. Der Zweck der Untersuchungen ist es aufzuzeigen, dass unter voller Berücksichtigung des Theravāda Vinaya die Wiederbelebung des Bhikkhunī-Ordens legal möglich ist. Somit können die Bhikkhunīs volle Anerkennung als Mitglieder der Theravāda Tradition beanspruchen und ihre Ordination ist kein Grund für einen Schisma.
Einfach Dumm!
Und wenn man jetzt auch noch dazu zählt, das die werte Einweiserin die Übersetzungen auf der WIX-Seite von Thanissaro nutz und eine Laienperson, Übersetzter in Verbindung mit dem Ehrw. Thanissaro steht, und auf Korrekturen abwartet, dann können Sie sich ausmalen, was mit "In Eurer Haut möchte ich nicht stecken" gemeint ist.
Das ist das Spiel des Hinterschweigens und der Taktik. Einfach:
"Pajapati akzeptierte diese Regeln, obwohl sie die Nonnen gegenüber den Mönchen benachteiligten, weil ihr Ziel die Begründung eines Nonnenordens um jeden Preis war."
Klären Sie auf, wenn da Missverständnisse sind oder wenn da irgendwo etwas unrichtes steht. Das Dhamma holen Sie sich vom Ehrw. Thanissaro und die Vinaya vom Bhikkhu Gestetzmäßigen und spielen sich dann mit dem was hilft, machen die Laien zum Spielball. Zum Schämen und wenn Sie Frauen im Kloster kenne, dann fallen höfliche Worte schnell... haben sie Absicht.
Damit hat sich meiner Ansicht nach, Deutschland das Entstehen einer Sangha in ihrer Gier und dem Weg der Forderung abgschoßen und die Damensangha damit, auf einer Hand voll Bhikkhus abhängig gemacht auch.
Gratuliere zu der klugen Investition, Kaufen auf Pump ist nicht im Rahmen der Praxis.