Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 9 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Tags:

Seperate each tag by a comma
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: apk, doc, docx, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, xls, 3gpp, mp2, mp3, wav, odt, ods, html, mp4, amr, apk, m4a, jpeg, aac
Restrictions: 50 per post, maximum total size 150000KB, maximum individual size 150000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Anti-spam: complete the task

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: February 16, 2023, 06:38:57 AM »

Aramika   *

Ein oder mehrer Beiträge wurden hier im Thema abgeschnitten und damit in neues Thema "Welcome {removed name}... " eröffnet, dem angehäng.
One or more posts have been cut out of this topic here. A new topic, based on it, has been created as "Welcome {removed name}... " or attached there.

"with no option to go anywhere"

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

...The First Visible Fruit of the Contemplative Life

“So, lord, I ask the Blessed One as well: There are these common craftsmen: elephant-trainers, horse-trainers, charioteers, archers, standard bearers, camp marshals, supply corps officers, high royal officers, commandos, military heroes, armor-clad warriors, leather-clad warriors, domestic slaves, confectioners, barbers, bath attendants, cooks, garland-makers, laundrymen, weavers, basket-makers, potters, calculators, accountants, and any other common craftsmen of a similar sort. They live off the fruits of their crafts, visible in the here and now. They give pleasure and refreshment to themselves, to their parents, wives, and children, to their friends and colleagues. They put in place an excellent presentation of offerings to brahmans and contemplatives, leading to heaven, resulting in happiness, conducive to a heavenly rebirth. Is it possible, lord, to point out a similar fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?”

“Yes, it is, great king. But first, with regard to that, I will ask you a counter-question. Answer however you please. Suppose there were a man of yours: your slave, your workman, rising in the morning before you, going to bed in the evening only after you, doing whatever you order, always acting to please you, speaking politely to you, always watching for the look on your face. The thought would occur to him: 'Isn't it amazing? Isn't it astounding? — the destination, the results, of meritorious deeds. For this King Ajatasattu is a human being, and I, too, am a human being, yet King Ajatasattu enjoys himself supplied and replete with the five strings of sensuality — like a deva, as it were — while I am his slave, his workman… always watching for the look on his face. I, too, should do meritorious deeds. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'

“So after some time he shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness. Having thus gone forth he lives restrained in body, speech, and mind, content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude. Then suppose one of your men were to inform you: 'You should know, your majesty, that that man of yours — your slave, your workman… always watching for the look on your face… has gone forth from the household life into homelessness… content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude.' Would you, thus informed, say, 'Bring that man back to me. Make him again be my slave, my workman… always watching for the look on my face!'?”

“Not at all, lord. Rather, I am the one who should bow down to him, rise up out of respect for him, invite him to a seat, invite him to accept gifts of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites for the sick. And I would provide him with righteous safety, defense, and protection.”

“So what do you think, great king. With that being the case, is there a visible fruit of the contemplative life, or is there not?”

“Yes, lord. With that being the case, there certainly is a visible fruit of the contemplative life.”

“This, great king, is the first fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now, that I point out to you.”

The Second Visible Fruit of the Contemplative Life

“But is it possible, lord, to point out yet another fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?”

“Yes, it is, great king. But first, with regard to that, I will ask you a counter-question. Answer however you please. Suppose there were a man of yours: a farmer, a householder, a taxpayer swelling the royal treasury. The thought would occur to him: 'Isn't it amazing? Isn't it astounding? — the destination, the results, of meritorious deeds! For this King Ajatasattu is a human being, and I, too, am a human being, yet King Ajatasattu enjoys himself supplied and replete with the five strings of sensuality — like a deva, as it were — while I am a farmer, a householder, a taxpayer swelling the royal treasury. I, too, should do meritorious deeds. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'

“So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small; leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness. Having thus gone forth he lives restrained in body, speech, and mind, content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude. Then suppose one of your men were to inform you: 'You should know, your majesty, that that man of yours — the farmer, the householder, the taxpayer swelling the royal treasury… has gone forth from the household life into homelessness… content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude.' Would you, thus informed, say, 'Bring that man back to me. Make him again be a farmer, a householder, a taxpayer swelling the royal treasury!'?”

“Not at all, lord. Rather, I am the one who should bow down to him, rise up out of respect for him, invite him to a seat, invite him to accept gifts of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites for the sick. And I would provide him with righteous safety, defense, and protection.”

“So what do you think, great king. With that being the case, is there a visible fruit of the contemplative life, or is there not?”

“Yes, lord. With that being the case, there certainly is a visible fruit of the contemplative life.”

“This, great king, is the second fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now, that I point out to you.”

Higher Fruits of the Contemplative Life

“But is it possible, lord, to point out yet another fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?”

“Yes, it is, great king. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.

“There is the case, great king, where a Tathagata appears in the world, worthy and rightly self-awakened. He teaches the Dhamma admirable in its beginning, admirable in its middle, admirable in its end. He proclaims the holy life both in its particulars and in its essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.

“A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'

“So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small; leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness.

“When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness and alertness, and is content. ...

It's of course impossible, can not a happen, that there appear Samanas, or even the Sangha, where grave wrong view rules, for they would have no opinion there to presist, would either decay bodily or in regard of their qualities, when required to go into trades in the common world.
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: February 11, 2023, 12:23:14 PM »

Those hypocritical "we don't use money - yet living like Kings - ordering" professional householder traditions are the most powerful cheaters everywhere, even more powerful and political then common householder traditions. Those monks are actually total slaves to their servant, and if not doing like the householder like, they, since they live in their dependency, will be systematically abound. So they run their theaters, shows, together, not seldom monks carry lay teacher on high chairs.

It's a total stupidy, missguiding and giant cheating, when meeting "homeless with citizenships", travel around and enjoy king-like living. One must be really total corrup or total stupid if able to approve such under the Gems, since it's the very base, the basic of the holy life, which isn't that of no-selfs with passports and accounts, but that of those no more holding on control, living of what's given this very day, neither wishing for the next, nor wishing for no next: secure with only the Gems as Refuge.

Ohh, and there are those worry about health, food... the great yogies in living rooms and on temporary free or paid organiced retreats... (by the means of money use orgainised by "kings" in robes and their servants...)

Jains and Brahmans without metta, Sila.
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: February 11, 2023, 11:50:28 AM »

Robes are allowable, almsfood is allowable, simple dwellings are allowable, medicine for the sick is allowable?

And how are those four requirements obtained? Not by asking, not by trade, not by contracts, not by bride, not by favors, but simply generouslygiven by those wise eyes.

It's impossible to live remorseless if holding rights and obligations. It's impossible to ask, let others ask or approve of holding rights and obligations.

Therefore it's not only not given to monks to accept citizenship andcommon right, not to hold such, not to even let others or oneself ask for rights and union outside the homeless life.

Today there are fools, saying they don't use money, yet do efforts to gain even citizenship papers where they appear as "Bhikkhu American Monk", and their offspring raise money for land grabbing and deforestration.

There you are, and certain even pride to be in Union with total stupidity and so bond to the "security" of Mara to go after killing and destroying the Noble Ones and Arahats...

My person doesn't think that any donor or monk servant can or will take over any legal responsibility.

It will not take long, and fools in robes and their follower will demonstrate for legal right, monk rights, ... forest-dweller rights...

Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: January 10, 2023, 12:38:57 PM »

It has it's rules to give going forth, by the heirs of this Sasana, but isn't directly related to rules or demands of other societies to let such go on. This is a matter of individual highest Mangala, and a matter whether heirs are perceived, met, or not. Yet going forth generally, can be as well not considered unrighteous at all, even if "western Brahmans", modern people, disregard it, find it annoying, fearing such.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

"Verbeugung vor ihm, dem Erhabenen, Würdigen,
völlig aus sich selbst Erleuchteten.[235] (3x)

"Namo tassa Bhagavato, Arahato,
sammā Sambuddhassa.
(3x)

1. Mit Verlaub, Ehrwürdiger Herr, bitte ich um das Fortziehen. Zum zweiten Male, Ehrwürdiger Herr, ... Zum dritten Male, Ehrwürdiger Herr, bitte ich um das Fortziehen.    

1. Okāsa, ahaŋ, bhante, pabbajjaŋ yācāmi. Dutiyampi, ahaŋ, bhante, pabbajjaŋ yācāmi. Tatiyampi, ahaŋ, bhante, pabbajjaŋ yācāmi.

2. Ehrwürdiger Herr! Bitte nehmen Sie dieses Gewand [236] entgegen und lassen Sie mich, aus Mitleid bewogen, zur Überwindung allen Leidens und zur Verwirklichung des Nibbānas, aus [dem Hausleben in die Hauslosigkeit] ziehen.

2. Sabba-dukkha-nissaraṇa-nibbāna-sacchikaraṇatthāya imaŋ kāsāvaŋ gahetvā pabbājetha maŋ, bhante, anukampaŋ upādāya.

Zum zweiten Male, Ehrwürdiger Herr! ... ziehen.
Zum dritten Male, ... ziehen."    

Dutiyampi, sabba-dukkha ... upādāya.
Tatiyampi, sabba-dukkha ... upādāya."
Posted by: អរិយវង្ស
« on: January 10, 2023, 08:03:18 AM »

 _/\_ _/\_ _/\_

កូណាមិនបានអានច្រើន ឬចប់
តែកូណាមានគំនិតថា អ្នកបួសពិតប្រាកដ
មិនរស់នៅក្រោមច្បាប់ ជាអ្នកសេរីភាពលើអ្វី
ដែលមនុស្សធម្មតាធ្វើ។ អ្នកបួសគោរព ធម៌វិន័យ។
Ex: ដូចជាស្តេច... មិនចាំបាច់មានប័ណ្ណបើកបរ
តែអាចបើកបានលើផ្លូវដែលមានសុត្ថិភាព។
ស្តេចប្រើច្បាប់របស់ស្តេច...
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: January 10, 2023, 07:48:27 AM »

Aren't there million, who yet not out of Noble Reason, gone into homelessness? And aren't there such, for example, religious refugees?

If that way would be laid out by common legal certainty, or the homeless life, the Noble status, obtained by certificates by other then what's just Dhamma, would it be then neither a relay on home? Isn't it reasonable fearfully if harmless beggars would carry rights and relay on worldly authorities?

Whould it, for a Noble beggar, proper to request stay? If nations and Kings do no more welcome and support Arahats and those wishing to follow them, then, naturally this tradition extinguishes.

When one wanders, it's never sure where to arrive, rest. It's never sure whether welcome or even beaten away, never sure if invited to rest, or even to stay, and even such as monasteries welcoming those gone forth are rare.

One might also be clear that it would be improper, althought there are todays monks who even run administrative issues, that monks "help slaves to escape".

Seeing this matter, Atma even often reached out for the benefit of Noble Ones, in this matter, or at least hinted "it would be good to make aware".

My person is still convinced that one with a pure heart will just meet Devas opening the doors and support form devoted in lands of wonders, yet fools with wrong view (thinking in terms of rights) could easily close up all for many.

Aside of teaching right views, right resolve, right conduct till right livelihood, my person wouldn't be able to support much aside of requisites he took care of for the Sangha and introduce, if seeing one is willing to give up what ever else relay.

My person could not easy imagine many western/modern people worthy of risking the honor of the Gems and has gained much understanding why those in charge are very careful in regard of excepting.

At least, one should not forget that the ways of putting Cuckoo eggs into other nests are common ways in the east, which additionally makes it risky if not either family or really given up old families or even all.

As for Nyom {removed name}1 , given his past doings and ways of thinking, my person thinks it would be hardly possible to let such out into the wild before not good tamed in strong "prison".

At least, especially modern/western, have not put any effort into doing merits, build up relations, but for most often nurished from what's not really given, often even raised by "enemies" and people expelled for the tradition.

Not that the patient isn't unimaginable, or that ways could not open once one has changed his ways, but there is certain grave kamma, and that danger is broadly underestimated, that would simply close doors. Yet the whole western/moder public "buddhist sceen" has pretty closed the doors, often to an extent that bowls are turned over.

And it's broadly a western/modern undertaking to go for culture thief, which more and more infiltrates also into the traditional countries and it's reasonable understand-able that such will, if not already that far, lead to very strict closing and just leaving it open for the sake of "spiritual tourism", meaning let them pay, as they don't understand the old cultur of giving first and without demand.
Posted by: Moritz
« on: January 10, 2023, 03:53:32 AM »

I just woke up remembering Upasaka {removed name} had written here something, which I think was quite reasonable.
From the point of view of someone who would like to go forth but sees the matters discussed here as hindrances, what should he do, knowing that if he follows certain examples he would go against worldly law, could get into trouble?
He would simply have to follow the more conventional ways, requiring certain legal assistance to follow the normal bureaucratic ways, which are of course also never for sure, subject to change, potentially subject to corruption, maybe sometimes impossible to follow in straightforward ways with clear conscience, where it can seem sometimes normal and expected to just pay certain "bribes" to get the paperwork done.
Then to live as a monk, not handling money and such things, it seems reasonable to give these into the hands of caring laypeople, if having such fortune, and being able to say then: "I have abandoned these things. These matters are not in my hands anymore, and I will not concern myself with them if not prompted, asked for, demanded by others." That is then part of one's refuge, having relinquished these legal belongings, and all associated worries around.
But probably unlikely that this would go smooth and without worries for most cases. It requires certain contacts and trusted support to handle such in the first place. Or simply trust, confidence, conviction that having done one's best effort until here is enough to not require further involvement.
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: January 08, 2023, 02:32:02 PM »

And no, it's not something one has such as a right to, can't be administrated by "Algorithms", or is an universal "human right", but is like all a individual matter on Nissaya, conditions, adopted paramis at even this very time, requires the fullfillment of the six paramis , right when going forth. Going forth means "the paramis complete", at least the first and second and third, and strive with faith for the other three to be complete where not complete yet.

It's therfore that "dwelling on proper places " is the fourth great blessing, conditioned by the three first.

Once the globe is total taken over by ideologies and the wrong view of "western Brahmans" and "Atheist Marxism", "democrazy" reigns and rules and leader and ruler are gone (since becoming such is caused by huge merits, and no more done, how could certain "casts" still exist), not even Paccecabuddhas will be met, but disappear silently.

"Peace" by wealth... till all had been eaten, brought off, what ever heritage (old merits).
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: January 08, 2023, 10:20:43 AM »

One who has not laid down all trades, contracts, dependencies and refuge with what ever society or community in the world, one has not gone for Refuge into the Gems, not gone forth under and only under the Sublime Gems, who ever makes use of rights and services dedicated not for the Gems explicit, such a person has neither reached the level of Pabbajito nor could be rightly, without fault, be even a member of the Bhikkhu Sangha.

One who relays on what ever common creativity, relays on what ever General Public, one who uses off heritage of others, or both, one who's firm refuge is impure and not complete, might be called a monk, Samanera, Samana, Bhikkhu, in regard of conventions in common societies, but in regard of Vinaya, and as a support of the Path, hasn't left home, and can be understood "just" as trainee, like a calf, even if already big, running around part-timely, has started to seek food itself, up and on, has not abound, is still strong attached and return to the mothers udder.

It's improper, not honest, and open to all kind of bad, if one bears the name of "beggar" "one who has left home" "one who fears, sees the dangers (of dependency) in the world", yet lifes in trade, in terms of services, and what ever objectivity in the world and their societies, even it would be that of common Brahmas, in this Dhamma-Vinaya. Yet the last, one who abounds the house-life, abstains from trading and give into sensual pleasures, may it be for the sake of gaining merits and better future stands, or for the sake of heavens, can still expect to gain the first Samaññaphala , The Fruits of the Contemplative Life. Yet it's because Path and Fruits beyond the first can be gained, that the wise of this Dhamma-Vinaya's heritage, did, would, will, praise the going forth, renouncing and eclusively living on alms given for that, in faith of that, or knowing that giving toward such Samanas and Brahmas, excels all other sacrifices of common intent.

May many be able to trace the last in this Dhamma-Vinaya heritage, and possible not only serve their own liberation by it, but keep the antique path, into the antique Nāgarā open, for many who might once come upon the surface, so that it can be seen, traced and followed, safeguarded by the Nagas, Yakkhas, Garudas, Devas and Brahmas.

Yet, it should be not overseen, not at all disregarded, or belittled, that many just served to keep an outwardly tradition alive, sometimes without much understanding, serve, or will serve, steady bearing in mind "oh, may those who are more advanced in terms of Noble Qualities, good monks, come and teach us what not seen, known yet". It's because of this, being nevertheless young relatives, Putta, that aside of the eight Persons, worthy of gift, off-springs are the ninth field of merits, worthy for sacrifice, yet no more, if they had abond the seek for staying in relation of the first eight and abound to work for higher that objectives in the world, if having become just message runner for worldly purposes and this or that gains, fames, wins: just common Bürge in sociaties not recognizing Sublime, Heavens and beyond, "marxist Atheists", salves of desires in the material world.
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: January 03, 2017, 10:25:34 PM »

The confusion (that a "slave" or Bürge is something more free than a bound person, with rights there are duties) seems to be historical trace able, when we look at the word "vogelfrei" which is actually a synonym for being really free outwardly.

Ursprünglich bedeutete das Wort „vogelfrei“ lediglich „frei wie ein Vogel, ungebunden“. So wird das Wort in den älteren Quellen verwendet.[1] Auch Luther und Zwingli verwendeten das Wort noch in seiner ursprünglichen Bedeutung.

Viel später kam es zu der Verknüpfung mit der Ächtung. Sie ergab sich aus den Formeln:

„als du mit urteil u. recht zu der mordacht erteilt worden bist, also nim ich dein leib u. gut aus dem fride und thu sie in den unfrid und künde dich erlös u. rechtlos und künde dich den vögeln frei in den lüften und den tieren in dem wald und den vischen in dem waßer und solt auf keiner straßen noch in keiner mundtat, die keiser oder künig gefreiet haben, nindert fride noch geleit haben; …“

– Artikel 241 der Bamberger Halsgerichtsordnung, zitiert nach Jacob Grimm, Bd. I, S. 58.
und

„Frei soll er sein, wie die Tiere im Wald, die Vögel und die Fische,[2] den vischen im waßer, so daß niemand gegen ihn einen frevel begehen kann, dessen er büßen dürfe“

– Wigand, Das femgericht Westphalens. Hamm 1825. S. 436 zitiert bei Grimm S. 59.

This come together with the creation, on idea, of citizenship and laws in the 19. Century, akku...
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: November 17, 2016, 06:32:31 PM »

Quote from: Ven. Ñāṇadassana
Ven. Ñāṇadassana     
06/05/2016     

Dear Johann,

As far as I understand from your email titled “citizenship and hopefully not reasonable sorrows”, you mean that Bhujisso’si? has to do with “giving up citizenship and leaving the rights as well as the duties in regard of [sic] the Nation behind”, and by not doing so “Samanera ... fears that such ordinations are actually invalid”; and “Samanera needs to come to the conclusion that the Sangha will be extincted [sic] within this very generation”.
_/\_
Yes and no Ven. Bhante Nyanadassana , for his person he does not fear anything, he lives good an confortable with the 3 Gems as the one an only refuge an without any sign of an householder. Its possible and its not an expression of "just" faith.
Actually Samana fears that it is good possible, that it is already gone, since where ever he goes he sees "householders" giving ordination to householders (even if they where robes, they have not even outwartly left (Vinaya) nor to estimate inwardly.
Its not possible to go forth not leaving this signs behind, not to speak about wrong view of such as rights an personaly view. no chance to even catch Sotpanna, the Stream.
If how could a Buerger, someone who buergs vor the Staat, has duties in the world, be seen as a babajita?
Quote

I don’t know how you got these doom and gloom ideas, but there isn’t a single passage in the Pāḷi canon and its commentaries to support them. Bhujisso, which is usually translated as “a freeman or freier Mann”, has a very specific meaning in Pāḷi, that is: a slave (dāso) who is freed, or a person who is not a serf or a slave. Please see the PTS Pali-English Dictionary under bhujissa and English Dictionaries under freeman = not a slave.

Now, in relation to Vinaya, a slave (dāsa) should not be ordained and it is a dukkaṭa offence for any bhikkhu who ordains him, for it is said, “Na, bhikkhave, dāso pabbājetabbo. Yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti.” (Vin i.72, 76, Mahā-vagga). Conversely, bhujisso means, according to the Sāratthadīpanī subcommentary, a non-slave (adāso), who is allowed to be ordained, because he is not the property of another person (para-pariggahit’ābhā-vato).

In contrast, a slave (dāso) is a person who is the property of another, is owned by him, bought and sold accordingly, has no citizen rights (keine Bürgerrechte) whatsoever, and whose labour and also whose life often is subject to the owner’s volition; who is legally obliged by prior contract (oral or written) to work for another, with contractually limited rights to bargain; who is forced against his/her will to peform, for another person or other persons, acts or services on a regular or continuing basis. Should he flee or try to escape, he risks a severe punishment, or even death.

A freeman, on the other hand, is a full citizen (Vollbürger), legally recognized as a member of a state (Staatsbürger), with civil rights (Bürgerrechte) to exercise his own volition in choosing his profession, occupation, labour, employer, political or religious leader, lifestyle, religion, etc. This includes fundamental freedoms and privileges, and legal, social and economic rights. He is thus not dependent on a master for his life, nor does he live depending on another’s choice without using his own discretion. An example for his economic freedom, at the least, can be gathered from the Suttanipāta Commentary where a man called Dhaniyo expressed his freemanship (bhujissa-bhāva) thus: “I am self-reliant on my earnings and maintenance” (atta-vetana-bhato hamasmi).

Now, in the Pāḷi texts the very antithesis between a slave (dāso) and a freeman (bhujisso) is described thus:

Quote
72. ‘Just as a man might be a slave (dāso), not self-dependent, not his own master (an’attādhīno), dependent on another (parādhīno), unable to go where he liked (na yenakāmaṅgamo), and after some time he might be freed from slavery (dāsabyā mucceyya), be self-dependent (attādhīno), be not dependent on another (aparādhīno), be a freeman (bhujisso) and able to go where he liked (yenakāmaṅgamo), might think: “Before this I was a slave (dāso), ... now ... I am a freeman (bhujisso) ...” And he would rejoice and be glad about that.’

(e.g. DN Sāmaññaphala Sutta)

A similar antithesis is described between slavery (dāsabyaŋ) and freemanship (bhujissaŋ):
Quote
74. ‘As long, as a bhikkhu does not perceive the disappearance of the five hindrances in himself, he feels as if in debt (iṇa), in sickness (roga), in jail (bandhan’āgāra), in slavery (dāsabyaŋ), and on a long desert route (kantār’addhāna-magga). But when he perceives the disappearance of the five
hindrances in himself, it is as if he were free of debt (āṇaṇya), in good health (ārogya), in freedom from jail (bandhanāmokkha), in freemanship (bhujissaŋ), and on a safe ground (khemanta-bhūmi).

ibid.

It is worth noting here that a candidate for higher ordination should also be debtless (aṇaṇo), healthy in respect to serious sicknesses or afflictions (roga or ābādha, such as leprosy, boils, epilepsy, etc.), not condemned in jail or prison (kārā in Vin i. 75), and not be a slave (dāso) but a freeman (bhujissa). Moreover, in Vin i. 76, 77 the prohibitions of ordaining a candidate in debt (iṇāyiko) and a slave (dāso) occur together, one after the other, i.e. § 96, “Na, bhikkhave, iṇāyiko pabbājetabbo”, and § 97, “Na, bhikkhave, dāso pabbājetabbo.” Similarly, the allowance of ordaining a candidate who is a freeman (bhujisso) and free of debt (aṇaṇo) occur together in the questionnaire of the higher ordination when teachers ask: “Are you a freeman? (bhujisso’si?); are you free of debt (aṇaṇo’si?) Thus, all these correlations shows that bhujisso means the opposite of a slave (dāso), and has nothing to do with given up citizenship.

In regard to a slave, the Vinaya Commentary on Vin i. 77, § 97 says that if he is freed from slavery in line with the country’s customs and law, he may go forth or ordain. It explicitly employs the synonyms, “Adāsaŋ katvā ... bhujisse katvā pabbājetuŋ vaññati” (After making him non-slave ...after making him freeman it is fitting to ordain him).

Therefore, a slave (dāsa) has to become a freeman (bhujissa), a regular, free and full citizen (Vollbürger) before getting ordained. It is not the other way round you say that a freeman (bhujissa) has to “give up citizenship and leave the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind”.

Two other noteworthy points to be mentioned are:

1. The similarity between a slave and a government servant (rājabhaṭa) and their difference to a freeman

Just as there is the prohibition in Vinaya not to ordain a slave, so there is a prohibition not to ordain a government servant, such a soldier, police officer, or other uniformed professional. The latter is called rājabhaṭa in Pāḷi, which literally means “hired (bhaṭa) by the king, ruler or government (rāja)”, and he is thus bound to government or military services, not free to desert or flee at will. Should he desert, he can be severely punished or even killed. Thus, he is basically the property of the ruler, is owned by him, and his labour and also life often is subject to the ruler's volition. In a sense, he is a part-time paid slave, who for convenience is called “servant”, as long as in service. He should thus not be ordained, for it is said, “Na, bhikkhave, rājabhaṭo pabbājetabbo. Yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti.” (Vin i.74).

Now, in order to get ordained, he needs to be free from government service by getting official permission to relinquish his duties, and thus become a civilian, a free and full citizen (Vollbürger), or in a sense a freeman (bhujissa). Therefore both, a slave (dāsa) and a rājabhaṭa, have to become regular citizens and free civilians before getting ordained, and not the other way round that they have to “give up citizenship and leave the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind”.

2. Disqualifications and Invalid Ordinations

The other noteworthy point is about disqualifications, i.e. the factors that would bar an applicant from receiving ordination—either the going-forth (pabbajjā) or the higher ordination (upasampadā)—or make the ordination invalid if already received. These fall into three categories:

  • absolute disqualification baring him for life — even if the applicant receives ordination, the ordination is invalid and he does not count as ordained; and the bhikkhus who ordain him incur a dukkaṭa offence.
  • disqualification as an undesirable member of the Community — if he happens to be ordained, he counts as ordained, but the bhikkhus participating in the ordination incur a dukkaṭa; and
  • disqualification as being formally unprepared for higher ordination (for instance, he lacks robes and an alms-bowl)—usually classified as the same class as the undesirable, above.

These categories are to be understood as follows:

  • absolute disqualification—In Vinaya there are all-in-all thirteen persons who are absolutely disqualified (abhabba-puggalā), and even they receive ordination, it is totally invalid, they should be disrobed and expelled (nāsetabba), and the bhikkhus who ordain them incur a dukkaṭa offence.
    The thirteen persons are:
    • paṇḍako (a eunuch),
    • theyyasaŋvāsako (one taken affiliation by theft, i.e. putting on robes without the authorization of the Sangha, and/or claiming rights of samanerahood or bhikkhuhood, such as seniority, etc. without an ordination according to the Vinaya standards),
    • titthiyapakkantako (one gone over to another religion while still a bhikkhu),
    • tiracchānagato (an animal),
    • mātughātako (a matricide),
    • pitughātako (a patricide),
    • arahantaghātako (a killer of an arahant),
    • bhikkhunidūsako (a molester of a bhikkhunī),
    • saṅghabhedako (one successfully creating a schism in the Sangha),
    • lohituppādako (one maliciously injuring the Tathāgata to the point of drawing blood), and
    • ubhatobyañjanako (a hermaphrodite). — (Vin. i. 86)
    • pārājiko (one who committed a parājika offence while previously a bhikkhu and becomes thus asaŋvāso (no longer in communion)) —( Vin. iii. 23, Pārājika), and
    • 13. ūnavīsativasso puggalo (a person of less than twenty years of age in the case of higher ordination). —(Vin. iv. 130, Pācittiya 65)
  • disqualification as an undesirable member —An applicant, such as a slave (dāsa), a government servant (rājabhaṭa), a person in debt (iṇāyika), etc. should not be given the Going-forth (na pabbājetabbo). As Going-forth is the customary first step in higher ordination, this means that they should not receive higher ordination, either. Any bhikkhu who gives any of these applicants the Going-forth incurs a dukkaṭa (yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa). However, since these applicants do not have the absolute disqualification as a paṇḍaka, theyyasaŋvāsaka, etc. and since this prohibition does not include the clause “should be disrobed or expelled” (nāsetabbā), they do count as having properly gone forth if they get ordained. And if they receive the higher ordination, it is valid and they should not be expelled (na nāsetabbā). The bhikkhus who ordain them, however, incur a dukkaṭa offence. Hence scrupulous bhikkhus do not ordain them without making sure that they are freemen (bhujissa), not government servants (rājabhaṭa), not debtors (iṇāyika), etc. To do so especially nowadays, legal documents, such as certificates, identity cards, passports, andso on, which officially verify their civil status, etc. are necessary.
  • disqualification as being formally unprepared —As explained above, this category is usually classified under the second one and refers to applicants without an alms bowl or a full set of robes, with a borrowed alms bowl or a borrowed set of robes, and without a proper preceptor. Anyone who participates in ordaining them incurs a dukkaṭa. However, if they happen to receive ordination, their ordination is valid.
    (Please see also Ven. Thaṇissaro’s Buddhist Monastic Code II, CHAPTER 14 : Ordination , 2007–2011)

Here now, none of these categories mentions anything about ordinations becoming actually invalid by not giving up citizenship and leaving the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind, as you publicly state, and that the Sangha will be extinct within this very generation because of such “invalid ordinations”. Such statements are utterly untenable in Vinaya terms and look over exaggerated.

Regarding the Sutta-piṭaka, there is the Pahārāda Sutta in Aïguttara Nikāya that refers to members of the four main classes (vaṇṇas) of Indian society who, after going forth in the Tathāgata's Dhamma Vinaya, `give up their former names and clans' (jahanti purimāni nāma-gottāni), and are simply designated as “ascetics following the Sakyan son” (“samaṇā sakyaputtiyā” tveva saṅkhaṃ gacchanti); that is, they follow the Buddha, they are designated as Buddhists. But even here there is no mention about giving up citizenship and leaving the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind, but only about being called Buddha’s followers. Besides, it is probably due to the Pahārāda Sutta and other places in the canon which repeat the same passage, that there is the tradition in Buddhist communities to change one’s lay name after going forth and adopt a Buddhist or Pāḷi name (Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, etc.) as a designation that one is no more a layman, a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. But again, this is done as an outward religious designation and has nothing to do about giving up citizenship, and the rest.

As I will not have time to further discuss this or other topic, I hope that you will investigate the Pāḷi texts, reconsider your position and come to a reasonable conclusion.

With Mettā and best wishes in Dhamma Vinaya,

Ñāṇadassana.
The rest seems all be founded on the interbetration that a Buerge is free and of depts, and if, like people often know their right but not their buergerplichten, at the duties of even buddhist countries, so you may find that it is good so that one even has duties that will break basic precepts.

Of course it would be a transgression to sugges somebody to give up, so nowone should understand that a monk told you to do!

As for Ven. Bhantes kind, care and great information, simply Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu. Its more a urgency for those how might have ways to keep the Sangha going on, as there could be Elders yet not ordinated unter wrong view an without leaving home and house.
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: November 16, 2016, 06:28:42 PM »

 _/\_  _/\_  _/\_

Sadhu! Sadhu Sadhu! Samanera just had the chance to bekomm aware of your compassion, but will not be able to read ready for now, please do not see it as respectless and short cuted, Ven. Bhante Nyanadassana.

Upasaka Moritz , Administration , Bhante schould have all rights  possibilities hier in Open Vihara an its good to help when wishes accure. Its a matter only Laipeople can solve, so its well placed as well on proper place reseived and answered.

No detail knowlege about the answer yet.

Mudita and deep respect anyhow in adwanced, need to use the given time to share a latter here. Sadhu for your Umsichtigkeit.
Posted by: Administration
« on: May 10, 2016, 05:10:34 AM »

Venerable Nyanadassana,

welcome here and I hope you are not feeling too troubled by the technical complications and restrictions.

You can attach pdf and other files to a message if you are logged in with your user account instead of posting as a guest.

It seems that Venerable Johann had already prepared one for you. The user name is "Nyanadassana". If you don't know your password you can set a new one by following the procedure on this page .

(I have now assigned your posting to your user account.)

There is also a thread in the monstic social area on the topic as Bhante Johann mentioned, for the case that it is better suited there and not appropriate for interested laypeople.

You could also send it as an email to forumadmin@sangham.net and I could take care of it according to your wishes.

With metta and best wishes

_/\_

Moritz (now logged in as admin)
Posted by: Nyanadassana
« on: May 09, 2016, 03:37:18 PM »

Dear Johann,

I prepared the answer to your email “citizenship and hopefully not reasonable sorrows” in a pdf file of 4 pages. Since there is no application here to include attachments for pdf, etc. you may let me know how to do so.     

With Metta and best wishes,

Nyanadassana.


Moritz in function as admin   *

Edit (May 25): PDF file attached after correspondence with Ven. Nyanadassana

Edit (May 27): content of attached PDF file pasted in text format below with kind permission from Ven. Nyanadassana




Ven. Ñāṇadassana     
06/05/2016     

Dear Johann,

As far as I understand from your email titled “citizenship and hopefully not reasonable sorrows”, you mean that Bhujisso’si? has to do with “giving up citizenship and leaving the rights as well as the duties in regard of [sic] the Nation behind”, and by not doing so “Samanera ... fears that such ordinations are actually invalid”; and “Samanera needs to come to the conclusion that the Sangha will be extincted [sic] within this very generation”.

I don’t know how you got these doom and gloom ideas, but there isn’t a single passage in the Pāḷi canon and its commentaries to support them. Bhujisso, which is usually translated as “a freeman or freier Mann”, has a very specific meaning in Pāḷi, that is: a slave (dāso) who is freed, or a person who is not a serf or a slave. Please see the PTS Pali-English Dictionary under bhujissa and English Dictionaries under freeman = not a slave.

Now, in relation to Vinaya, a slave (dāsa) should not be ordained and it is a dukkaṭa offence for any bhikkhu who ordains him, for it is said, “Na, bhikkhave, dāso pabbājetabbo. Yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti.” (Vin i.72, 76, Mahā-vagga). Conversely, bhujisso means, according to the Sāratthadīpanī subcommentary, a non-slave (adāso), who is allowed to be ordained, because he is not the property of another person (para-pariggahit’ābhā-vato).

In contrast, a slave (dāso) is a person who is the property of another, is owned by him, bought and sold accordingly, has no citizen rights (keine Bürgerrechte) whatsoever, and whose labour and also whose life often is subject to the owner’s volition; who is legally obliged by prior contract (oral or written) to work for another, with contractually limited rights to bargain; who is forced against his/her will to peform, for another person or other persons, acts or services on a regular or continuing basis. Should he flee or try to escape, he risks a severe punishment, or even death.

A freeman, on the other hand, is a full citizen (Vollbürger), legally recognized as a member of a state (Staatsbürger), with civil rights (Bürgerrechte) to exercise his own volition in choosing his profession, occupation, labour, employer, political or religious leader, lifestyle, religion, etc. This includes fundamental freedoms and privileges, and legal, social and economic rights. He is thus not dependent on a master for his life, nor does he live depending on another’s choice without using his own discretion. An example for his economic freedom, at the least, can be gathered from the Suttanipāta Commentary where a man called Dhaniyo expressed his freemanship (bhujissa-bhāva) thus: “I am self-reliant on my earnings and maintenance” (atta-vetana-bhato hamasmi).

Now, in the Pāḷi texts the very antithesis between a slave (dāso) and a freeman (bhujisso) is described thus:

Quote
72. ‘Just as a man might be a slave (dāso), not self-dependent, not his own master (an’attādhīno), dependent on another (parādhīno), unable to go where he liked (na yenakāmaṅgamo), and after some time he might be freed from slavery (dāsabyā mucceyya), be self-dependent (attādhīno), be not dependent on another (aparādhīno), be a freeman (bhujisso) and able to go where he liked (yenakāmaṅgamo), might think: “Before this I was a slave (dāso), ... now ... I am a freeman (bhujisso) ...” And he would rejoice and be glad about that.’

(e.g. DN Sāmaññaphala Sutta)

A similar antithesis is described between slavery (dāsabyaŋ) and freemanship (bhujissaŋ):
Quote
74. ‘As long, as a bhikkhu does not perceive the disappearance of the five hindrances in himself, he feels as if in debt (iṇa), in sickness (roga), in jail (bandhan’āgāra), in slavery (dāsabyaŋ), and on a long desert route (kantār’addhāna-magga). But when he perceives the disappearance of the five
hindrances in himself, it is as if he were free of debt (āṇaṇya), in good health (ārogya), in freedom from jail (bandhanāmokkha), in freemanship (bhujissaŋ), and on a safe ground (khemanta-bhūmi).

ibid.

It is worth noting here that a candidate for higher ordination should also be debtless (aṇaṇo), healthy in respect to serious sicknesses or afflictions (roga or ābādha, such as leprosy, boils, epilepsy, etc.), not condemned in jail or prison (kārā in Vin i. 75), and not be a slave (dāso) but a freeman (bhujissa). Moreover, in Vin i. 76, 77 the prohibitions of ordaining a candidate in debt (iṇāyiko) and a slave (dāso) occur together, one after the other, i.e. § 96, “Na, bhikkhave, iṇāyiko pabbājetabbo”, and § 97, “Na, bhikkhave, dāso pabbājetabbo.” Similarly, the allowance of ordaining a candidate who is a freeman (bhujisso) and free of debt (aṇaṇo) occur together in the questionnaire of the higher ordination when teachers ask: “Are you a freeman? (bhujisso’si?); are you free of debt (aṇaṇo’si?) Thus, all these correlations shows that bhujisso means the opposite of a slave (dāso), and has nothing to do with given up citizenship.

In regard to a slave, the Vinaya Commentary on Vin i. 77, § 97 says that if he is freed from slavery in line with the country’s customs and law, he may go forth or ordain. It explicitly employs the synonyms, “Adāsaŋ katvā ... bhujisse katvā pabbājetuŋ vaññati” (After making him non-slave ...after making him freeman it is fitting to ordain him).

Therefore, a slave (dāsa) has to become a freeman (bhujissa), a regular, free and full citizen (Vollbürger) before getting ordained. It is not the other way round you say that a freeman (bhujissa) has to “give up citizenship and leave the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind”.

Two other noteworthy points to be mentioned are:

1. The similarity between a slave and a government servant (rājabhaṭa) and their difference to a freeman

Just as there is the prohibition in Vinaya not to ordain a slave, so there is a prohibition not to ordain a government servant, such a soldier, police officer, or other uniformed professional. The latter is called rājabhaṭa in Pāḷi, which literally means “hired (bhaṭa) by the king, ruler or government (rāja)”, and he is thus bound to government or military services, not free to desert or flee at will. Should he desert, he can be severely punished or even killed. Thus, he is basically the property of the ruler, is owned by him, and his labour and also life often is subject to the ruler's volition. In a sense, he is a part-time paid slave, who for convenience is called “servant”, as long as in service. He should thus not be ordained, for it is said, “Na, bhikkhave, rājabhaṭo pabbājetabbo. Yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti.” (Vin i.74).

Now, in order to get ordained, he needs to be free from government service by getting official permission to relinquish his duties, and thus become a civilian, a free and full citizen (Vollbürger), or in a sense a freeman (bhujissa). Therefore both, a slave (dāsa) and a rājabhaṭa, have to become regular citizens and free civilians before getting ordained, and not the other way round that they have to “give up citizenship and leave the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind”.

2. Disqualifications and Invalid Ordinations

The other noteworthy point is about disqualifications, i.e. the factors that would bar an applicant from receiving ordination—either the going-forth (pabbajjā) or the higher ordination (upasampadā)—or make the ordination invalid if already received. These fall into three categories:

  • absolute disqualification baring him for life — even if the applicant receives ordination, the ordination is invalid and he does not count as ordained; and the bhikkhus who ordain him incur a dukkaṭa offence.
  • disqualification as an undesirable member of the Community — if he happens to be ordained, he counts as ordained, but the bhikkhus participating in the ordination incur a dukkaṭa; and
  • disqualification as being formally unprepared for higher ordination (for instance, he lacks robes and an alms-bowl)—usually classified as the same class as the undesirable, above.

These categories are to be understood as follows:

  • absolute disqualification—In Vinaya there are all-in-all thirteen persons who are absolutely disqualified (abhabba-puggalā), and even they receive ordination, it is totally invalid, they should be disrobed and expelled (nāsetabba), and the bhikkhus who ordain them incur a dukkaṭa offence.
    The thirteen persons are:
    • paṇḍako (a eunuch),
    • theyyasaŋvāsako (one taken affiliation by theft, i.e. putting on robes without the authorization of the Sangha, and/or claiming rights of samanerahood or bhikkhuhood, such as seniority, etc. without an ordination according to the Vinaya standards),
    • titthiyapakkantako (one gone over to another religion while still a bhikkhu),
    • tiracchānagato (an animal),
    • mātughātako (a matricide),
    • pitughātako (a patricide),
    • arahantaghātako (a killer of an arahant),
    • bhikkhunidūsako (a molester of a bhikkhunī),
    • saṅghabhedako (one successfully creating a schism in the Sangha),
    • lohituppādako (one maliciously injuring the Tathāgata to the point of drawing blood), and
    • ubhatobyañjanako (a hermaphrodite). — (Vin. i. 86)
    • pārājiko (one who committed a parājika offence while previously a bhikkhu and becomes thus asaŋvāso (no longer in communion)) —( Vin. iii. 23, Pārājika), and
    • 13. ūnavīsativasso puggalo (a person of less than twenty years of age in the case of higher ordination). —(Vin. iv. 130, Pācittiya 65)
  • disqualification as an undesirable member —An applicant, such as a slave (dāsa), a government servant (rājabhaṭa), a person in debt (iṇāyika), etc. should not be given the Going-forth (na pabbājetabbo). As Going-forth is the customary first step in higher ordination, this means that they should not receive higher ordination, either. Any bhikkhu who gives any of these applicants the Going-forth incurs a dukkaṭa (yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa). However, since these applicants do not have the absolute disqualification as a paṇḍaka, theyyasaŋvāsaka, etc. and since this prohibition does not include the clause “should be disrobed or expelled” (nāsetabbā), they do count as having properly gone forth if they get ordained. And if they receive the higher ordination, it is valid and they should not be expelled (na nāsetabbā). The bhikkhus who ordain them, however, incur a dukkaṭa offence. Hence scrupulous bhikkhus do not ordain them without making sure that they are freemen (bhujissa), not government servants (rājabhaṭa), not debtors (iṇāyika), etc. To do so especially nowadays, legal documents, such as certificates, identity cards, passports, andso on, which officially verify their civil status, etc. are necessary.
  • disqualification as being formally unprepared —As explained above, this category is usually classified under the second one and refers to applicants without an alms bowl or a full set of robes, with a borrowed alms bowl or a borrowed set of robes, and without a proper preceptor. Anyone who participates in ordaining them incurs a dukkaṭa. However, if they happen to receive ordination, their ordination is valid.
    (Please see also Ven. Thaṇissaro’s Buddhist Monastic Code II, CHAPTER 14 : Ordination , 2007–2011)

Here now, none of these categories mentions anything about ordinations becoming actually invalid by not giving up citizenship and leaving the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind, as you publicly state, and that the Sangha will be extinct within this very generation because of such “invalid ordinations”. Such statements are utterly untenable in Vinaya terms and look over exaggerated.

Regarding the Sutta-piṭaka, there is the Pahārāda Sutta in Aïguttara Nikāya that refers to members of the four main classes (vaṇṇas) of Indian society who, after going forth in the Tathāgata's Dhamma Vinaya, `give up their former names and clans' (jahanti purimāni nāma-gottāni), and are simply designated as “ascetics following the Sakyan son” (“samaṇā sakyaputtiyā” tveva saṅkhaṃ gacchanti); that is, they follow the Buddha, they are designated as Buddhists. But even here there is no mention about giving up citizenship and leaving the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind, but only about being called Buddha’s followers. Besides, it is probably due to the Pahārāda Sutta and other places in the canon which repeat the same passage, that there is the tradition in Buddhist communities to change one’s lay name after going forth and adopt a Buddhist or Pāḷi name (Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, etc.) as a designation that one is no more a layman, a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. But again, this is done as an outward religious designation and has nothing to do about giving up citizenship, and the rest.

As I will not have time to further discuss this or other topic, I hope that you will investigate the Pāḷi texts, reconsider your position and come to a reasonable conclusion.

With Mettā and best wishes in Dhamma Vinaya,

Ñāṇadassana.
Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: March 06, 2016, 12:44:46 PM »

Diese ist eine Frage, denen speziell Mönche, wenn man Sie genauer fragt ausweichen. In gewisser Weise verständlich, aber was bringt es sich etwas vorzugaukeln oder zusammenzudenken.

Also soweit Atma blicken kann und gesehen hat, scheint das Einweihen als Mönch entsprechend der Vinaya, im Hinblick auf Staatsbürgerschaft, damit verbudnenen Rechte und Pflichten technisch gar nicht mehr möglich zu sein, zumindest in den Ländern, wo Atma etwas über deren Gesetze Bescheid weis.

Auch wenn Atma so weiter denkt, könnte es durchaus sein, daß damit die Lineage, aufgrund der vielleicht ungültigen Ordiantionen der heutigen Generation an Mönche, die ja soweit Atma das sieht, alle samt mit Staatsburgerschaft oder heute entwickelter Mönchsbürgerschaft im Rahmen der Staatsbürgerschaft Bhujiso'si? mit "Āma, bhante." beantwortet haben, auch der männlichen der Sangha bereits unterbrochen ist.

Sollte da noch eine Lücke sein, oder sollten da noch Mönche der Alten Generation sein, die vielleicht an Orten, unter zusagen des Landesherrschers ihr Land und Plichten vor der Ordination aufgegeben haben und sozusagen rechtens Ordiniert sind, wäre es gut von denen und den äußeren Umständen zu wissen sodaß meine Befürchtung nicht ganz so zu fürchten ist.

Auch wenn dieses Thema der Ehrw. Sangha und deren Mitglieder vielleicht nicht behagen mag, wäre es verantwortungsvoller sich den Tatsachen zu stellen und nach möglichen Lösungen zu suchen. Bloßes Verneinen eines "Problems" macht es ja nicht ungeschehen, im Gegenteil, schlittert man nur tiefer hinein.

Technisch gesehen, man mag es vielleicht spitzfindig nennen, ist es eigentlich nicht möglich, heute ohne Staatsbürgerschaft oder Pass, andere Länder über Grenzabfertigungen zu betreten. Würde man eine Staatsbürgerschaft vorweisen, würde man wohl seine Bhikkhu-schaft damit betrügen auch wenn es normalen Leuten kein Problem darstellen wurde.

Atma denkt, daß es soetwas wie die Möglichkeit des "Vogelfreiseins" vielleicht gar nicht mehr gibt, oder nur mehr an sehr wenigen Plätzen, die die moderen Welt ja mit riesen Schritten in sich hinein zieht. Solche Plätze, wo noch Könige und Herrscher Regieren und die Macht haben der Sangha oder Noblen Bettlern Freiheiten einzuräumen und sie von den Pflichten den allgemeinen Volkes befreit.

Dieses die Fragen eines Flüchtlings, einer Person die sich keine andere Zuflucht als die Drei Juwelen genommen hat und daran ohne jeglichen Zweifel hält.