Hi dzt,
No.
May I suggest that you learn a bit about Vinaya first before making demands on how others should keep it. You seem to know very little, but have unrealistic expectations about some “pure form of vinaya”.
In fact, it is very clear to everyone who knows even a little about vinaya what the chronology of the rules is. To simplify: Patimokkhas first, plus a little bit of the Khandhakas, then Vibhangas, then Khandhakas, then Parivara, then various commentaries, then subcommentaries, then modern works… Virtually thousands of rules.
There is nobody here disputing that the rules
Garudhammas don’t fall into that category at all, and neither do any of the things I suggested in the part that you quoted from me.
If you would like to get even a glimpse of what is involved when studying vinaya I suggest Bhante Sujato’s “Bhikkhuni vinaya studies”. It will give you some ideas about a few issues with a small portion of the bhikkhuni rules, which are only a tiny fraction of overall vinaya.
As people have pointed out quite a few times already (including myself), the rules have always been flexible. There is no black and white, almost all the rules are subject to interpretation and depend on context. Even in the Buddha’s day, people kept all sorts of vinaya. The sangha was spread out over the Ganges plain, rules were constantly laid down, modified, rescinded, adapted, etc., and there were no mobile phones to keep up with new developments. I have pointed this thread out to you before that collects passages from the earliest texts on how senior monastics didn’t keep patimokkha rules. Straight after the Buddha’s passing, when the first council recited the rules they considered authoritative, other monks rejected them and said they prefered to keep following what they themselves considered to be “more original.” And these discussions have been ongoing ever since.
Nobody lives like in the Buddha’s time anymore. It is illegal nowadays to live in forests, and you can’t go on alms round every day in the West, “with senses guarded, eyes downcast, standing silently in front of houses.” You simply will not get any food. So we adapt our lifestyle, and reinterpret the rules, as they always have been reinterpreted in new contexts. It’s got nothing to do with them being “difficult”, or people not being willing to train in the rules, it’s about them not making sense in a new context.
Now with regards to the garudhammas, there is a reciprocal relationship between monks and nuns. Monks have a duty to teach nuns and support them with advice and formal sangha acts. This happens only sporadically nowadays, with many monks ditching their responsibilities prescribed in their patimokkha, and instead doing whatever they can to create obstacles for nuns. Since they severely damage this reciprocal relationship, nuns don’t need to keep their side of the bargain either.
The same goes for laypeople and monastics. Monastics can only keep their rules if they have adequate lay support. May I ask you, since you advocate so strongly for keeping the vinaya “purely”, do you give the necessary support to your sangha? Do you offer your services with financial transactions, so that they don’t need to handle money? Do you drive them around, so they don’t need to drive themselves? Do you regularly offer food, so they don’t need to cook? etc…? If you do, good on you. But if laypeople don’t do their bit, they can’t expect monastics to be able to keep the rules.