|
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
− | I have attempted [[to construct]] a new [[typology]] for [[pilgrim]]¬
| + | In this way, the question whether the [[interpretation]] of T.1425, of the |
− | ages, which 1 believe is more relevant to the [[inherent]] structures
| + | Bhiksunivibhahga of the Mahasamghika-Lokottaravada School,* and of |
− | of .[[Sinhalese]] [[religion]]. Rather than basing this [[typology]] upon | + | T.1443 also applies to the other yinayas remains. The answer to this |
− | historical origins, as Turner has done in his [[own]] work, I have
| + | question cannot be found in the [[Vinayas]] themselves. More [[information]] |
− | concluded that a [[typology]] based upon types of [[religious]] exper¬
| + | is to be found in some commentaries: |
− | iences and [[religious]] {{Wiki|behavior}} is more fitting. [[Pilgrimages]] in [[Sri Lanka]] reflect the three-fold orientation of [[Sinhalese]] [[religion]]:
| |
− | the paradigmatic [[spirituality]] of the [[Buddha]], the civil [[religion]] of
| |
− | the [[Sinhalese]] [[people]], and, as Obeyesekere has recently charac¬ | |
− | terized it, “the [[rising]] tide of [[bhakti]] religiosity in [[Buddhist]] [[Sri Lanka]]." 37 By [[understanding]] the significance of [[pilgrimage]]
| |
− | within these three orientations, we can gain a more accurate
| |
− | [[awareness]] of how a [[people]] of central importance to the history
| |
− | and maintenance of the [[Buddhist tradition]] have articulated the
| |
− | various {{Wiki|dimensions}} of their [[own]] [[spirituality]] through a recog¬
| |
− | nizable modality of [[religious]] expression that is culturally ubi-
| |
− | quitious.
| |
| | | |
| + | In T. 1804*^2, p. 155a5-7, Tao-hsiian (596-667 AD) seems to indicate |
| + | that, in T.1428, the real ag: of the [[married]] woman is to be understood* |
| | | |
− | NOTES
| + | i.c. “In the |
| | | |
− | 1. Nancy Falk uses this [[phrase]] lo designate the [[tradition]] "in which the
| + | [[Vinaya in Four Parts]], a young girl, aged eighteen, ought to study the |
− | [[Buddha]] is said lo have authorized Unit the familiar [[pilgrims]]* visits to the
| + | [[precepts]] for two years [i.e. the [[siksamana]] period]. It further says that a |
− | great sites associated with Ins [[life]] and the practices associated with his [[relics]]
| + | young [[married]] woman, aged ten, [ought] to be given the [[six rules]] [to be |
− | and stupus." See Nancy Falk, “To (laze on the [[Sacred]] Traces,” Hisioty of
| + | particularly taken into account by a [[siksamana]] ]”. Since the text calls the |
− | [[Religions]] 10 (May, 1977), p. 285, n. 15; for the [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] version of the origins | + | [[married]] woman, a young (/]'*£) [[married]] woman, we opt for the inter¬ |
− | ol [[relic]] veneration, sec A/ ahdpannibhdna Suttduta in Dfgha Nikdya (Dialogues of
| + | pretation ’a young marrfed woman, aged ten’. |
− | the Uuddha), n ans, and ed. by [[T. W. Rhys Davids]] in [[Sacred Books]] of the Bud¬
| |
− | dhists, Vol, 3 ([[London]]: [[Pali Text Society]], 1977; first published in ill 10): pp.
| |
− | 154-57 and pp. 185-91.
| |
| | | |
− | 2. See further [[discussion]] and relevant [[bibliography]] in Frank Reynolds,
| + | Also [[Buddhaghosa’s]] (fifth century AD) commentary on the [[Pali Vinaya]] says that, after having given a [[married]] girl of ten the agreement |
− | “The Several [[Bodies]] of [[Buddha]]: Reflections on a Neglected Aspect of [[Thera]]*
| + | to study, the [[ordination]] may be conferred to her when she has completed |
− | [[vada]] [[Tradition]].” History of [[Religions]] 10 (May, 1977): pp. 374-89. | + | twelve years of age (TAKAKUSU, J. and NAGAI, M., Samaniapasddikd, |
| + | Vol. IV, p. 941: Chatthe, dasavassaya giliigataya sikkhasammutim datvd |
| + | paripunnadvddasavassam upasampadetunt vattati). Since the text does |
| + | not inform us that "paripunnadvddasavassam" has to be related to the |
| + | duration of the [[marriage]], we opt for the [[interpretation]] ‘when she has |
| + | completed twelve years of age". |
| | | |
− | 3. Even before the arrival of the [[tooth relic]] in the 4thxentury C. E., [[relics]]
| + | Finally, the commentary written by [[Gunaprabha]] 13 -’ related to the |
− | assumed major imjK>i lance in the [[ritual]] [[life]] and [[symbolism]] of [[Sinhalese]] roy¬
| + | [[Mulasarvastivada tradition]] 134 , clearly indicates that the real age of the |
− | alty. For a summary, see [[Tilak]] Hctliarachy, History of [[Kingship]] in [[Ceylon]] up to
| + | [[married]] woman is to be understood: BAPAT, P.V. and GOKHALE, V.V., |
− | thehturth Century A. 1 ). ({{Wiki|Colombo}}: Lakchousc Investments, 1972), pp. 25-29
| + | [[Vinayasutra]], p.52 (the transcription is based on NOLOT, E., 1991 |
− | /Kissim; for another {{Wiki|excellent}} study of the prominence of [[relics]] in [[relation]] to
| + | p.393): |
− | {{Wiki|royal}} [[imagery]], see Alice Greenwald, “The [[Relic]] on the {{Wiki|Spear}}: Historiography
| |
− | and the [[Saga]] ol Duuhagamanl,” in Bardwel! Smith, ed., [[Religion]] and the Legiti-
| |
| | | |
− | {{Wiki|motion}} of Rower in [[Sri Lanka]] (Chaiubcrsburg, PA: Auiina [[Books]], 1978), pp.
| + | upasampat-kalasyddih \ sa dvi[vi]dho 'sydh \ kumdrikaydh vimsali-varsatvaip |
− | 1-3-35.—
| + | grhositdydh dvadasa-varsatvam ...; grantho 'Ira bhiksunivibhaiige yd grhositd |
| + | dasa-varsa kumarikd-bhutd va astddasa-varsa | tasydh dve varfe siksdsamvrtir |
| + | deyd ti | |
| | | |
− | 4. A detailed summary of the legend may be found in G. P. Mulalase-
| |
− | kera, The [[Pali Literature]] of [[Ceylon]] ({{Wiki|Colombo}}: M. D, Gunasena and Co., 1928),
| |
− | pp. 65-68; and A. M. Hocart, The [[Temple of the Tooth]] in [[Kandy]] , Memoirs of the
| |
− | {{Wiki|Archeological}} Survey of [[Ceylon]], Vol, IV ([[London]]: Luzac and Co., 1931), pp.
| |
− | 1-5.
| |
| | | |
− | 5. [[Walpola Rahula]] notes that according to the Da(hawn{isa, Dauiapura
| + | 132. T.1804 is a commentary written by Tao-hsiian (596-667 AD). It focuses on |
− | was located in [[Kalinga]]. Cf. A Histoty of [[Buddhism]] in [[Ceylon]] ({{Wiki|Colombo}}: M. D.
| + | T.1428, but also gives commentary on the other {{Wiki|Chinese}} Pinayas(T 1421 |
− | Gunasena, 1956), p. 97. He further cites Percey Brown’s [[Indian]] [[Architecture]] ,
| + | T.1425, and T.1435). |
− | wherein Brown identifies [[Dantapura]] with [[Puri]] or [[Bhubaneswar]]. Brown be¬
| |
− | lieves that the Jagganath [[Temple]] “occupies the site of sonic still more [[ancient]]
| |
− | monument, not improbably the [[shrine]] of the [[Buddha's]] tooth at [[Dantapura]].”
| |
| | | |
− | 6. Mahdvajjisa , [[Wilhelm Geiger]], ed. and trails. ([[London]]: Luzac and Co,
| + | 133. According to [[Nakamura]], H., 1980, p. 147, [[king]] [[Harsa]] adored [[Gunaprabha]] as |
− | 1964; originally publisned in I9l2),'pp. 89-96. flic Uaihawmsa account was
| + | [[a spiritual teacher]]. The reign of [[king]] [[Harsa]] can be situated in the beginning of the |
− | no [[doubt]] intended to establish the same [[degree]] of authenticity for the da(ndd
| + | seventh century (Renou, L. ct Filuozat, J„ 1985, Tome Premier, p. 266). |
− | as the AT aluivatiisa account had done for the Alms-Bowl [[Relic]].
| |
| | | |
− | 7. The [[language]] of “[[righteousness]]” consistently applied to [[ritual]] and
| + | 134. Cf. BAPAT, p. V. and GOK.ll ALE, V.V., 1982. p.xvii. |
− | [[ethical]] acts of the [[king]] is rooted ifi conceptions of [[Buddhist]] [[kingship]] mod¬
| |
− | elled after the {{Wiki|ideal}} [[cakravartin]] (“turner or the [[wheel]]” of [[righteousness]]). For
| |
− | [[scriptural]] accounts of the cakravArtin {{Wiki|ideal}} in the Therav&da [[canon]], see the
| |
− | Cakkavatti’Sihandda and Aggailha [[suttas]] in the Dlglu i Nikdya 4,59-76 and 77-
| |
− | 94, For detailed interpretations see S. J. Tanibiah, [[World]] Coiujuewr, [[World]]
| |
− | Retwuncer ([[Cambridge]], UK: {{Wiki|Cambridge University Press}}, 1976), pp. 32-72;
| |
− | B. Smith, “The {{Wiki|Ideal}} {{Wiki|Social}} Order as Puli rayed in the Chronicles of [[Ceylon]],”
| |
− | in Smith, ed., The Two [[Wheels]] of Dlwmma (ChamlxM'sburg, PA: {{Wiki|American Academy of Religion}}, 1972), pp. 31-57; B. G. Gokhale, “Early [[Buddhist]]
| |
− | [[Kingship]],” Journal of [[Asian Studies]] 26 (1966), pp. 15-22; and especially E.
| |
− | Sarkisyanz, [[Buddhist]] Back-gtoutuls of the Bume.se Hexmlution fllie Hague: Mar-
| |
− | linus Nijholf, 1965), pp. 10-97; Joseph Kitagawa’s brief article “[[Buddhism]]
| |
− | and {{Wiki|Asian}} Politics,” {{Wiki|Asian}} Suwey 2 (1962), contains a brief overview of the
| |
− | theme.
| |
| | | |
− | 8. This [[belief]], set forth in the oj>cnmg pages of the Maluiwunsa, is exam¬
| + | Translated in NOLOT, E. op. cit., p.393: |
− | ined in detail by Regina Clifford, “The Dhammadlpa [[Tradition]] or [[Sri Lanka]]:
| |
− | Three Models within the [[Sinhalese]] Chronicles,” in Smith, ed., [[Religion]] and
| |
− | Legiliuutlion , pp. 36-47.
| |
| | | |
− | 9. F4-Hien, A Record of [[Buddhistic]] {{Wiki|Kingdoms}}, trails, by {{Wiki|James Legge}} (Lon¬
| + | Terminus a quo pour Tordination - il cst de deux sortes pour une [femme]: pour |
− | don: [[Oxford University Press]], 1886; reprint ed., [[New York]]: Dover Publica¬
| + | unc jcune ftllc, il consistc a avoir vingt ans; pour une femme mariee, il consiste a |
− | tions, 1965), pp. 104-07.
| + | avoir douzc ans1c libel 1c s*cn trouve dans le Bh°: “Quand une femme marine a |
| + | dix ans, ou quand unc jcune fillc a dix-huit ans, on peut lui donner l’agrement |
| + | pour I’instruction durant deux ans”. |
| | | |
− | 10. [[Malalasekera]], p. 66; cf. G. C. Mcndis, The Early Histoty of [[Ceylon]]
| + | Wc can thus conclude that the three above mentioned commentaries all |
− | ([[Calcutta]]: {{Wiki|YMCA}} Publishing House, 1954), pp. 58-59; Howard Wriggins,
| + | seem to indicate that the real age of the candidate is to be understood, |
− | [[Ceylon]]: Dilemmas of a New Notion ([[Princeton]], N. J.: [[Princeton University Press]],
| + | and not the duration of the [[marriage]]. \ |
− | i960), p. 180 n. 18, compares it to the {{Wiki|crown}} of Si. Stephen in {{Wiki|Hungary}}.
| |
− | Other [[scholars]] have compared it to Constantine's Labarum and [[Thailand’s]]
| |
− | {{Wiki|Holy}} [[Emerald Buddha]].
| |
| | | |
− | 11. Bard well Smith, “Polonnaruva as a {{Wiki|Ceremonial}} Complex: [[Sinhalese]]
| + | As wc have said before, T. 1443 states that the siksatndna period can be |
− | {{Wiki|Cultural}} {{Wiki|Identity}} and the Dilemmas of {{Wiki|Pluralism}},” in A. K. Narain, ed.. Studies
| + | conferred to a [[married]] woman aged twelve, while the commentary of |
| + | [[Gunaprabha]] says that a [[married]] woman can become a [[siksamana]] at the |
| + | age of ten, and can be [[ordained]] when she is twelve years old. This [[latter]] |
| + | statement coincides with the other [[Vinayas]] (providing we accept that all |
| + | the [[Vinayas]] indicate the real age of the [[married]] candidate). |
| | | |
| + | On the other hand, some modem authors defend the {{Wiki|theory}} that a |
| + | [[married]] woman should be [[married]] for twelve years before she can |
| + | receive the [[ordination]]. Among the most important defenders of this |
| + | {{Wiki|theory}} arc WALDSCMMIDT, E., 1926, p. 138, ROTH, G., 1970, p.245, |
| + | note 3, and HORNER, I.B., BD y Vol.HI, pp.Ui*”. G. ROTH gives no |
| + | arguments for his statement. E. WALDSCHMIDT bases his statement on a |
| + | sentence in a [[Sanskrit]] fragment of a [[Buddhist ordination]] cc/emony |
| + | discovered and edited by C. BENDALL 136 . C. BENDABL regards the text |
| + | as probably earlier than the [[Christian]] {{Wiki|era}}, and [[attributes]] it to the [[Mula]]- |
| + | [[sarvastivada]] School. On the [[ordination]] of a [[married]] woman, the text |
| + | says: stri clvadasavarsagrJiayuktd , “a woman must be [[married]] for twelve |
| + | years”. However, C. BENDALL himself considers the [[yukta]] in this |
| + | sentence as being a [[doubtful]] reading, and, later, NOLOT, E., 1991, |
| + | p.392, notes that it probably has to be vustd instead of [[yukta]]. Conse¬ |
| + | quently, this sentence cannot be used to support the {{Wiki|theory}} that a [[married]] |
| + | woman only can receive the [[ordination]] after twelve years of [[marriage]]. |
| + | Finally, I.B. HORNER, refers to the above mentioned WALDSCHMIDT, |
| + | E., 1926, p. 138 for her statement. She further states that since a girl is |
| + | often [[married]] at eight, she attains the age of twenty after twelve years of |
| + | [[marriage]], which is the usual age to receive the [[ordination]]. Only at this |
| | | |
− | in Hi\hn of [[buddhism]] ({{Wiki|New Delhi}}: B. R. Publishing Corporation, 19HU), p.
| + | 135. In an earlier work, however, I.B. HORNER stated that the real age of the woman |
− | 310.
| + | is to be understood, and that, consequently, a [[married]] woman can receive the |
| + | [[ordination]] at twelve (HORNER, I.B., 1930, p. 27). |
| | | |
− | 12. Tuinbiah. [[World]] Conqueror, p. 90, cites a lentil century inscription
| + | 136. BENDALL. C. 1903, pp. 373-376. |
− | which reads: "The [[king]] is a Bodhisatlva on whom the [[Sang]] ha bestows [[king]]-'
| |
− | ship..."
| |
| | | |
− | 13. Uardwell Smith, "The {{Wiki|Ideal}} {{Wiki|Social}} Order,” p. 50.
| + | age, women are able to endure the hard [[life]] of the [[nuns]]. This calculation |
| + | is certainly true. However, a girl can also be [[married]] at a different age, |
| + | which, after twelve years of [[marriage]], consequently would lead to a |
| + | different and unusual age for the [[ordination]]. Moreover, if she is [[married]] |
| + | at an age later than eight, she would, after twelve years of [[marriage]], bd |
| + | older than twenty, but she still would haVc to wait till she has been |
| + | [[married]] for twelve years to be able to become a [[nun]]. This seems very |
| + | . [[illogical]]. A [[married]] woman, older than twenty, certainly is as able to |
| + | endure {{Wiki|hardships}} as other women of twenty. It thus seems more [[logical]] |
| + | to say that a [[married]] woman, because of her [[married]] [[life]], is able to |
| + | endure {{Wiki|hardships}} at an earlier age than a single woman, who has not the |
| + | same duties to fulfill. |
| | | |
− | 14. On the manner in which [[Kirti]] Sri strengthened his reign in the [[eyes]]
| + | We thus have to conclude that, since the introductory stories to this |
− | of the [[Kandyan]] {{Wiki|aristocracy}} by means of the numerous reforms he intro¬ | + | [[precept]] in T.1425, in the Bhik?unlvibhanga of the [[Mahasamghika]]- |
− | duced, see L. S. Dewaraja, The [[Kandyan]] {{Wiki|Kingdom}} of [[Ceylon]] % 1707-1760 (Co¬
| + | [[Lokottaravada]] School and in T.1443 clearly indicate that in the above |
− | lombo; Like House Investments, 1972, esp. pp. 94-118.
| + | mentioned [[precept]] concerning the [[married]] woman candidate, the real |
| + | age of the candidate, i.c. twelve years, has to be understood and not the |
| + | duration of the [[marriage]], and since, moreover, three important |
| + | commentaries, i.c. the commentaries by [[Tao-hsuan]], [[Buddhaghosa]] and |
| + | [[Gunaprabha]], all appear to understand the [[precept]] in this way, and since, |
| + | finally, as far as our [[knowledge]] goes, no text contradicts this statement - |
| + | whereas this is the case for the inverse statement - , an exception is |
| + | allowed for the age on which a [[married]] woman can receive the |
| + | [[ordination]]: while a single woman has to be twenty years old to receive |
| + | the [[ordination]], a [[married]] woman can receive it at the age of twelve. |
| | | |
− | 15. Sir Richard Alumhare, The [[Kandy]] Esala Perahara ({{Wiki|Colombo}}: [[Ceylon]]
| + | f T.1428, Bhiksunivibhaiiga, Pac. 127 (pp.759c7-760a7, particularly |
− | Daily News, 1952), p. 2.
| + | p.759c26-27) 137 ; |
| | | |
− | I (i. Kitsiri NI alalgoda, li uddhism in [[Sinhalese]] [[Society]] 1750 - I 900 , ([[Berkeley]]
| |
− | and [[Los Angeles]]: {{Wiki|University of California Press}}, 1970), p. 04.
| |
| | | |
− | 17. H. L. Seucviratnc, [[Rituals]] of the [[Kandyan]] [[State]] ([[Cambridge]], UK: Cam¬
| + | 137. T.1421, pp.9Ic28-92a5, Pac. 112; T.1443, p. 1014 a8-20, Pac. 160. |
− | bridge {{Wiki|University}} Press, 1978), pp. 71-72 writes that the kapa [[symbolize]] the
| |
− | [[sacred]] center or axis muitdi of the {{Wiki|kingdom}}.
| |
| | | |
− | 18. The [[phrase]] belongs to Clifford Geertz, who defines it as "the {{Wiki|theory}}
| + | T. 1435, p^328bl 1-26, has a somehow different [[precept]] It says that if a bhik$uni |
− | that the court-and-capital is at once a [[microcosm]] of the [[supernatural]] order—
| + | admits a [[prostitute]] into the prdcr, she should withdraw her to a distance of five |
− | an image of the [[universe]] on a smaller scale—and the material cmlxKliment of
| + | or six [[yojanas]]* (Pac. 115). |
− | the {{Wiki|political}} order. It is not just the nucleus or the engine, or the pivot of the
| |
− | [[state]], it is the [[state]]. The equation of the seat of {{Wiki|rule}} with the dominion of {{Wiki|rule}}
| |
− | is more than an accidental {{Wiki|metaphor}}; it is a settlement of a controlling politi¬
| |
− | cal idea—namely, that by the mere act of providing a model, a paragon, a
| |
− | faultless image of civilized [[existence]], the court shapes the [[world]] around it into
| |
− | at least a rough approximation of its [[own]] [[excellence]]. The [[ritual]] [[life]] of the
| |
− | court, and in fact, the [[life]] of the court generally, is thus paradigmatic, not
| |
− | merely reflective, of {{Wiki|social}} order. What it is reflective of, the {{Wiki|priests}} declare, is
| |
− | a [[supernatural]] order, ‘the timeless [[Indian]] [[world]]* of the [[gods]] upon which men
| |
− | should, in strict proportion for their {{Wiki|status}}, seek to pattern their [[lives]].” In | |
− | Negara: The Theatre-State in Nineteenth Century [[Pali]] ([[Princeton]], NJ: [[Princeton University Press]], 1981), p. 13. Tambiah applies the "[[doctrine]] ol [[die]] exempla¬
| |
− | ry center” to {{Wiki|medieval}} [[Thai]] polity in [[World]] Conqueror , p. 123; Smith—citing '
| |
− | Paul Wheatley's Pivot of the Four Quarters ({{Wiki|Chicago}}: Aldine Press, 1971), Rob¬
| |
− | ert [[Red]] field’s and M ilton Singer's "The {{Wiki|Cultural}} Role of Cities,” Economic
| |
− | Developm* nt and {{Wiki|Cultural}} Change 3 (1954): 53—72) and Robert Heine-GeldemV
| |
− | classic "Conceptions of Stale and [[Kingship]] in {{Wiki|Southeast Asia}}," {{Wiki|Data}} Papen
| |
− | Number 18, {{Wiki|Southeast Asia}} Program ([[Ithaca]], NY: [[Cornell University]], 1956),
| |
− | pp. 1-3—applies the model to [[ritual]] [[life]] in Polounaruva, in "[[Sinhalese]] Cul¬
| |
− | tural {{Wiki|Identity}},” pp. 295 and 308-10. Its application to [[Kandy]] is [[self]] evident.
| |
| | | |
− | 19. Malalgoda, pp. 118. quotes a [[British]] official upon the relic’s seizure:
| + | * MONIER-WlLLlAMS, M., SED f p. 858: “esp. a partic. measure of distance, |
− | "We have this day obtained the surest [[proof]] of the [[confidence]] of the [[Kandyan]]
| + | sometimes regarded as {{Wiki|equal}} to 4 or 5 English {{Wiki|miles}}, but more correctly « 4 |
− | {{Wiki|nation}} and their acquiescence in the Dominion of [[British]] Government.” | + | KroSas or about 9 {{Wiki|miles}}; according to other calculations = 256 English {{Wiki|miles}}, and |
| + | according to some * 8 KroSas.” |
| | | |
− | 20. {{Wiki|Culture}} of [[Ceylon]] in {{Wiki|Medieval}} Times, Heinz Bcchcrt, cd„ ([[Wiesbaden]]:
| |
− | Otto Marrassowiu. I960), p. 215.
| |
| | | |
− | 21. Scncviratnc, pp. 137-46.
| + | “If a [[bhiksuni]] [[knows]] that she is such a [[person]] [= [[prostitute]] 138 ], and she |
| + | confers her the [[ordination]] 139 , then it is a paciltika.” |
| | | |
− | 22. Ibid., p. 1?7.
| |
| | | |
− | 23. Ibid., pp. 112-14; cf., Nur Yalman, Under the [[Bo Tree]]: Studies in [[Caste]] ,
| + | 19^/7 |
− | Kinship and [[Marriage]] in the interior of [[Ceylon]] ([[Berkeley]]: {{Wiki|University of California Press}}, 1971), p. 58.
| |
| | | |
− | 24. For an {{Wiki|excellent}} assessment of [[Buddhism’s]] {{Wiki|political}} participation in
| + | * "If a [[bhiksuni]] [[knows]] that a woman is a {{Wiki|hermaphrodite}} and she confers |
− | recent [[Sinhalese]] {{Wiki|politics}}, see Wriggins, Dilemmas, pp. 169-210; for a study of
| + | her the [[ordination]] 143 , then it is a paciltika." |
− | {{Wiki|modern}} [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|political}} [[thought]] in [[Sri Lanka]], see [[Bruce Matthews]], "The
| |
− | [[Sinhalese]] [[Buddhist]] Altitude Toward Parliamentary {{Wiki|Democracy}},” [[Ceylon]] Jour¬
| |
− | nal of Historical and {{Wiki|Social}} Studies 6 (July-Dee., 1976), pp. 34-47; and Urmila
| |
− | Phadnis, [[Religion]] and Politics in Sri Lunka ({{Wiki|New Delhi}}: Munohar [[Book]] Service,
| |
− | 1976).
| |
| | | |
− | 25. Kdyena vded ciltena
| + | j. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac.167 (p. 774a 18-b 16, particularly |
− | Pamddena tnayd katam
| + | p. 774b I-2) 144 : |
− | Accnyaqi kluima me hhante
| |
− | Bhuripaiiha Tathdgata.
| |
| | | |
− | Uevo vax\atu kale no
| + | “If a [[bhiksuni]] confers the [[ordination]] to someone whose two tracts arc |
− | Sassusam patthiheiu ca;
| + | united 145 , then it is a paciltika." |
| | | |
− | PUo bhavalu loko ca; *
| |
| | | |
− | [[Raja]] bluwatu diuunmiko . | + | g. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac. 135 (pp.762cl7-763a26, particularly, |
| + | p.763al3-I5)' 4 ®: |
| | | |
− | [[Akasa]]({hd c<ubhumma((lui | + | "If a [[bhiksuni]] [[knows]] that a woman makes [[love]] to a boy or to a man |
− | Dcvd juigd MahidJhikd
| + | and that she is a [[sad]] and [[angry]] woman, and she admits her into the |
− | Punmn law anumodilvd
| + | order, lets her go forth and confers her the [[ordination]] 141 , then it is a |
− | Ciraqi rakkluintu lokasa.sunow.
| + | paciltika.” |
| | | |
− | Cited in^Hocart, p. 27.
| + | h. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac. 165 (p.773b20-c20, particularly, |
| + | p.773cl 1-12): |
| | | |
− | 20. Seneviratnc', p. 120.
| + | “If a [[bhiksuni]] [[knows]] that a woman cannot hold up {{Wiki|urine}} and |
| + | '{{Wiki|excrements}} and that mucus and saliva often run out, and she admits her |
| + | into the order and confers her the [[ordination]], then it is a paciltika.” |
| | | |
− | 27. Victor Turner, "The Center out there: Pilgrim's Coal,” History of
| + | i. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac. 166 (pp.773c21-774al7, particularly, |
− | Religions 12 (February, 1973), 213-15.
| + | p. 774a8-9) 142 : |
| | | |
− | 28. Ibid., p. 193. Passim. -
| |
| | | |
− | 29. R. A. L. I I. Gunawardana, Robe and Plough: Monastirism and Economic
| + | 138. Both in the introductory stoty to the [[precept]] (p. 759c8 IT.) and in the commentary |
− | Interest in Early Medieval Sri Lanka (Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1979;
| + | on the [[precept]] (p. 759c27), ‘such a [[person]]’ is explained as ’a [[prostitute]]’. |
− | Association for Asian Studies Monograph Scries. No. XXXV), pp. 260-62.
| |
| | | |
− | 30. Reynolds, "The Two Wheels of Dliamtna: A Study of Lilly Bud¬
| + | 139. This coincides with T.1421. In the [[precept]] itself, the [[Vinaya]] only says that a |
− | dhism," in Smith, Two Wheels , pp. 6-30.
| + | [[bhiksuni]] admits (Iff) a [[prostitute]]. From the commentary to the [[precept]], however, |
| + | it is dear that also the [[ordination]] has to be understood. T.1443 says that a |
| + | [[bhiksuni]] lets a [[prostitute]] go forth. |
| | | |
− | 31. For descriptions of cubic life at Kataragama, see Paul Wirz. Katara-
| + | 140. This [[precept]] only coincides with a [[precept]] in the [[Pali Vinaya]]: [[Oldenberg]], H., |
− | gama: The Holiest Place in Ceylon , translated from the German by Dons B.
| + | [[Vinaya]] Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp. 333-334, Pac. 79. |
− | Pralle (Colombo: Lake House, 1966); Gauanath Obeyesekere, "The Fire
| |
− | Walkers of Kataragama: The Rise of Bhakti Religiosity in Buddhist’Sri
| |
− | Lanka, "Journal of Asian Studies 37 (May, 1978), pp. 457-78; and Bryan Pfaf-
| |
− | fenberger, "The Kataragama Pilgrimage: Hindu-Buddhist Interaction and
| |
− | its Significance in Sri Lanka’s Polyethnic Social System,” Journal of Asian
| |
− | Studies 38 (February, 1979), pp. 253-70.
| |
| | | |
− | 32. Cf. John Halverson, “Religion and Psycho-social Development in
| + | Other [[Vinayas]] have closely connected [[precepts]]: |
− | Sinhalese Buddhism "Journal of Asian Studies 37 (February, 1978). pp. 221-
| |
− | 32.
| |
| | | |
| + | T.I425 and the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L SchopI say that a bhikfuifi may |
| + | not ordain a probationer who stays with a man (T. 1425, p.534al2-b2, Pac.95; |
| + | Bhiksutfivibhaiiga of the M.-L, School, ROTH, G., 1970, p.237, §209, P2c.95). |
| | | |
− | 33. Scncvir.itnc, p. 1*17.
| + | Both T.1435 and T.1443 contain two [[precepts]] that refer to the [[character]] of the |
| + | candidate: T.1435, pp. 328c28-329aI4, Pic. 118, says that a [[nun]] may not admit |
| + | into the order a woman who is [[mourning]]; T.1435, p.329b3-15, |
| | | |
− | 3*1. Turner. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture (New ^ ork: Colum¬
| + | Pac. 120 s„ys that a [[nun]] may not admit into the order (th& 5K) a woman who |
− | bia University Pi css, 11178), pp. 17-19.
| + | has a bad [[character]]. T.1443, pp..l006c21-1007al4, Pac.117, says that a [[nun]] may |
| + | not confer the going forth and the [[ordination]] to a woman who has a bad |
| + | [[character]], T.1443, p. !007al5-29, Pac. 118, says that a [[nun]] may not confer the |
| + | going forth to a [[sad]] and [[mourning]] woman. |
| | | |
− | 35. Malatgoda. p. 255.
| + | 141. This coincides with the [[Pali Vinaya]]. See also note 140. |
| | | |
− | ’ 36. Sec (lie ireatmctil of public symbols and civil religion in Ronald
| + | 142. T.142l.p.97c 1-7, Pac. 176. |
− | ('.rimes. Symbol and Conquest: Public and Ritual Drama in Santa Fe. New Mexico
| |
− | (lihaca, NY; Cornell University Press, 1976).
| |
| | | |
− | 37. Olieyesekerc, “Fire-Walkers,*’ p. <157.
| |
| | | |
− | A New Approach to the InLra-
| + | k. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac. 168 (p.774bl7-c20, particularly |
− | Madhyamika Confrontation over the
| + | p.774c9-10) 146 : |
− | Svatantrika and Prasangika
| |
− | Methods of Refutation
| |
| | | |
| + | “If a [[bhiksuni]] [[knows]] that someone has difficulties because of debts, or |
| + | difficulties because of an {{Wiki|illness}}, and she confers her the [[ordination]], then |
| + | it is a paciltika.” |
| | | |
− | by Shohei Ichimura
| + | 2) The upadhyayini < ’ |
| | | |
− | There is good reason to believe that the Vigrahavyavartaui (Vi-
| + | a. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 131 (p.761 b 11 -cl2, particularly |
− | graha. hereafter), one of the definitive works of NSgStjuna, was
| + | p.761c4-6) l i 7 ; |
− | not only the starting point of controversy between Naiy&yika
| |
− | logicians and Madhyamika dialecticians, but also the fountain¬
| |
− | head of the intra-Buddhist controversy which divided the
| |
− | Madhyamika into two camps: the Svatantrika and the PrSsah-
| |
− | gika schools. While the intensity of Hindu-Buddhist confronta¬
| |
− | tion exhibited in classical and medieval India is understandable
| |
− | in view of their doctrinal differences, the intensity of the intra-
| |
− | Madhyamika confrontation is somewhat surprising, as the two
| |
− | camps held the same doctrine, i.e., universal emptiness (Sunya-
| |
− | td), differing only in their methods of demonstrating it. The
| |
− | Svatantrika and the Prasangika, respectively, relied on the syl¬
| |
− | logistic and dialectic 1 forms of argument, both of which, in fact,
| |
− | were given by Nagarjuna in the Vigraha. The intra-Madhya-
| |
− | mika dispute, though no doubt contributing to the cause of
| |
− | methodological refinement, seems at times to have lost sight of
| |
− | the middle course. In this respect, 1 am inclined to think that
| |
− | the two methods should i>e given {{Wiki|equal}} analysis, for the [[sake]] of
| |
− | a clearer [[understanding]] of their common [[doctrinal]] [[insight]] and
| |
− | method of demonstration. The pur pose of this paper is to open
| |
− | the way to a more balanced analysis of the contesting [[methods]]
| |
− | in terms of the [[logical]] [[principle]] of anvaya-vyalireka .*
| |
| | | |
| | | |
− | eventually decides the ease, asks (and not states, as translated
| + | 143. In the precept ofT.142I, it is said that if a nun admits (IS) a hermaphrodite, her |
− | previously): “Indeed, has the [[Buddha]] prescribed somewhere a [[parajika]]
| + | act constitutes a Pic. offense. From the commentary to the precept, it is clear that |
− | with regard to a penny ( masaka) or even less than a penny?” The answer
| + | ’to admit’ should be understood as ’to be her upadhyayini', and that the |
− | to this question is of course “no”: apatti thullaccayassa ... atirekamasako
| + | bhiksuni, as an upadhydyint, commits a paciltika offense when she confers the |
− | va unapancamasako vJ, Vin III 54, 22, cf. Ill 47, 3 “it is a grave
| + | ordination. |
− | offence (but no [[parajika]] ), [if the stolen goods arc worth} more than a
| |
− | masaka or less than five masaka .” Thus [[Godha]] reverts the earlier verdict
| |
− | that there had bc^n a theft, and rightly so.
| |
| | | |
− | The Application of the [[Vinaya]] Term nasana 1
| + | 144. T. 1421, p. 97c8-12, Pic. 177. |
| | | |
− | The first section in the [[book]] of [[Buddhist]] [[monastic discipline]] ([[Vinaya]]- j | + | 145. In tile precept of T.1421, it is said that if a nun admits (IS) a woman whose two |
| + | tracts arc united, her act constitutes a Pac. offense. The commentary to this |
| + | precept refers to the commentary to the preceding precepts, which means that ‘to |
| + | admit* should be understood as ‘to be her upadhyayini' (see note 143). T’.c |
| + | commentary to the parallel precept in T.1428 (p.774b7) explains that ‘the two |
| + | tracts arc united* means that the tracts of urine and excrements arc not separated. |
| | | |
− | [[pitaka]]) is known as [[parajika]]. The significance of these {{Wiki|rules}} is ernpha- j
| + | 146. T.1421 contains two precepts that arc closely connected with this precept of |
| + | T.1428; Pac. 125 (p.93a6-I I) says that if a nun admits a woman who has been |
| + | ill for a long lime, her act constitutes a Pac. offense; Pac. 127 (p. 93a 17-21) says |
| + | that if a nun admits a woman who has debts, her act constitutes a Pac. offense. |
| + | The commentaries on the precepts refer to the commentary on preceding |
| + | precepts, from the latter we know that ‘to admit* should be understood as ‘to be |
| + | her upadhydyint (see note 143). |
| | | |
− | sized by the fact that out of the list of 220 prescriptions which arc .1
| + | 147. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam , Vol.lV, p. 329, Pac.74; T. 1421, p. 90c 1-18, |
| + | Pac. 102; T.1425, p. 533a20-b20, Pac.92; Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. |
| + | School, ROTH, G.* 1970, pp.232-233, §206, Pac.92; T.1435, p.325b2-!6, |
| + | Pac. 106; T.1443, p. 1004a 10-21,.Pac. 106. |
| | | |
− | recited fortnightly ( [[patimokkha]]) only these four {{Wiki|rules}} are announced to '1
| |
| | | |
− | a [[newly ordained monk]] immediately alter [[full ordination]] (upasampaiia\ | + | “If a bh ksunt who has no* been [a bhiksunt] for fully twelve years yet, |
| + | confers someone the ordination 1 * 48 , then it is a pacittika" . |
| | | |
− | Vin I 96.20-97.18) 2 . The {{Wiki|transgression}} of one of the [[parajika]] {{Wiki|rules}}
| + | b. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhahga , Pac.133 (p.762al5-b20, particularly, |
− | leads to the [[monk's]] or [[nun’s]] [[permanent]] and irreversible loss of {{Wiki|status}} as
| + | p.762b7-9) 149 : |
− | a [[fully ordained]] member of the order. , ; j
| |
| | | |
− | [[Buddhist law]] as specified in the [[Vinayapitaka]] is generally based on the >
| + | “If a bhiksunt , not having been given the permission by the order to |
| + | confer someone the ordination 150 , says: ‘The santgha has desire, has |
| + | hatred, has fear and has foolishness 151 . What it wants to agree to, it |
| + | agrees to. What it docs not want to agree to, it does not agree to.’, then |
| + | it is a pacittika |
| | | |
− | {{Wiki|concept}} that an offence is established only after the offender pleads
| |
− | guilty. 3 Consequently, if an offender is {{Wiki|aware}} of his [[parajika]] offence
| |
− | and leaves the order on his [[own]] initiative, the [[Vinaya]] describes no
| |
− | concrete act of Expulsion by the [[Samgha]]. Rather the' actual {{Wiki|status}} of a
| |
− | [[person]] guilty of such a {{Wiki|transgression}} is rendered by the words ayam pi
| |
− | parajiko hoti asatfivaco, “This one has committed a [[parajika]] and (there¬
| |
− | fore) is without (any) communion” (c.g. Vin 111 46.20**; cf. Vin IV
| |
− | 213.37**-38**) 4 .
| |
| | | |
− | There are, however, a few instances in the [[Vinayapitaka]] where another
| + | 148. This coincides with the Pali Vi nay a and T.1443. |
− | term is applied to express that a [[person]] has to leave the order, namely
| |
− | nasana, naseti etc. This [[state]] of affairs led Isalinc Blew HORNUK in her
| |
− | English translation of the [[Vinayapitaka]] to the conclusion that the verb
| |
| | | |
− | 1. I wish herewith to express my [[gratitude]] to Prof. Osxar von HinOber. who
| + | In T. 1421, it is said that a bhiksunt who has not been a bhiksunt for fully twelve |
− | kindly sent me material on the term nasana which he had collected, and provided
| + | years yet, may not accept disciples. The commentary to this precept adds that ‘to ** |
− | very helpful suggestions. Additionally, I wish to draw the reader’s [[attention]] to an
| + | accept disciples* should be understood as ‘to be their upadhydyinV (see note |
− | article written by 6dith NOLOT, which is published in the [[Journal of the Pali Text Society]] XXIII (“Studies in [[Vinaya]] Technical Terms VI"). There NOLOT provides
| + | 143). This coincides with T.1425 and with the Bhiksunmbhahga of the M.-L. |
− | an extremely useful systematic collection of the material on nasana in the [[Pali]] and
| + | School. ' • ' ' . |
− | [[Sanskrit]] sources.
| |
| | | |
− | 2. [[Nuns]] have to observe eight [[parajika]] {{Wiki|rules}} which arc announced to them a lie [[full ordination]] (Vin II274.23-24).
| + | T.1435 only says that the bhiksunt who has not been a bhiksunt for fully |
| + | twelve years yet, may not admit someone into the order (1*®). |
| | | |
− | 3. Cf. VON HinOber, “[[Buddhist Law]]”, p. 11.
| + | 149. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam , Vol.IV, p.331, Pac.76; T.1421, p.9ic4-12, |
| + | Pac. 109; T.1425, p. 537b8-24, Pac. 109; Bhiksuntvibhohga of the M.-L. School, |
| + | ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 254-255, §223, Pac. 109. |
| | | |
− | 4. In the casuistries the expression is upattim tvam [[bhikkhu]] apanno parujikam ,
| + | All the above mentioned precepts have in common that the order does not give |
| + | the permission to a nun (either the permission to confer the ordination or the |
| + | permission to take on disciples), after which the nun criticizes this decision. |
| | | |
− | “You, [[monk]], have committed a [[parajika]] offence” (c.g. Vin HI 57.14-15).
| + | T.1435 contains a somehow different precept saying that, if a bhiksunt, |
| + | although the order told her to stop [to admit someone into the order], admits |
| + | someone into the order (iS3gR), she commits a Pac. offense (p.326al2-b3, |
| + | Pac. 110). This latter precept is closely connected with a precept in T.1443, |
| + | saying that, if a bhiksunt accepts a lot of disciples although the order did not give |
| + | her the permission to accept as many disciples as she wanted, she commits a |
| + | Pac. offense (p. I005bl0-c24, Pac. 110). From the commentary to this precept, it |
| + | is clear that To accept disciples* is to be understood as ‘to confer them the going |
| + | forth and the ordination*. |
| | | |
| + | 150. This coincides with the Pali Vinaya. |
| | | |
− | ndscti in the Suttavibhahga generally refers to the expulsion of members
| + | 151 . These reproaches arc also to be foynd in the commentary on the precepts of the |
− | of ti e order who have committed a [[parajika]] offence (BD I, p. xxvii). | + | Pali Vinaya and of T. 1421. |
− | This statement will be qualified in this paper.
| |
| | | |
− | In the eldest stratum of the [[Vinaya]] , the [[Patimokkha]] , ndsand with
| + | 3) The ordination procedure |
− | [[respect]] to [[monks]] or [[nuns]] is used in only one instance, that is [[Parajika]] 2
| |
− | of the Bhikkhunivibhaiiga (Vin IV 216.31**-217.3**). 5 This {{Wiki|rule}}
| |
− | forbids [[nuns]] to keep quiet about the [[parajika]] offence of a fellow [[nun]]. 6
| |
− | “Has been expelled'* (ndsita) in this {{Wiki|rule}} is listed in a series of verbs
| |
− | expressing that the [[nun]] guilty of a [[parajika]] offence has not left the order
| |
− | in the usual wry, but rather that she kept quiet about her misdeed for a
| |
− | certain period before finally leaving the order for another [[reason]].
| |
− | Indeed, both the forced and the voluntary leaving of the order are
| |
− | clearly contrasted here by the use of the terms ndsita and avasaia (Vin
| |
− | IV 216.33**-34** and 217.13-15). Thus [[Parajika]] 2 of the BhikkhunU
| |
− | [[vibhanga]] indicates that the expulsion ndsand of [[nuns]] (and [[monks]]) comes
| |
− | about when they, after committing a [[parajika]] , keep their [[deed]] quiet and
| |
− | as a result fail to leave the order on their [[own]] initiative. In this case the
| |
− | [[Samgha]] is apparently forced to take an active role in the expulsion of
| |
− | the offender. The procedure of expulsion, however, is nof dcscribccUn
| |
− | the [[Vinaya]].
| |
| | | |
− | Another reference in the [[Vinaya]] also uses ndsand inxonnpction with a
| + | a . T.1428 , Bhiksunmbhahga , Pac. 122 (p. 756a 16-b 17, particularly, |
− | [[parajika]] offence (Vin 1 173.20-22): A [[monk]], whp is accused of a
| + | p.756b7-9) and b. T.1428 t Bhiksunmbhahga f Pac. 123 (p.756bl8-c25, |
− | [[parajika]] offence during the pavdrana {{Wiki|ceremony}} at the end of the rainy
| + | particularly, p.756c8-9) 152 : . |
| | | |
− | 5. In another passage of the pdfimokkha , ndsand docs not refer to [[fully ordained]]
| + | “If a bhiksunt , when a girl is eighteen, does not give her the two-year |
− | {{Wiki|individuals}} but to novices (ja/mwenz) (see below, p.99).
| + | instruction in the precepts, but, when she is fully twenty years old |
| + | confers her the ordination, then it is a pacittika." |
| | | |
− | 6. The text of this {{Wiki|rule}} in OLDENBERG’s edition (Vin IV 216.31 -217.3) is not
| + | This precept clearly states that a woman cannot be ordained without a |
| + | two-year probation period. |
| | | |
− | correct. The text of the [[Burmese]], [[Sinhalese]], and [[Thai]] editions is: yd pana
| + | “If a bhiksunt , when a girl is eighteen, gives her the two-year instruc¬ |
− | [[bhikkhuni]] jdnam pdrdjikam dhanimarji ajjhapannant bhikkhunirjt n' ev' attand
| + | tion in the precepts, but does not give her the six rules, and, when die is |
| + | fully twenty [years] old, she then confers her the ordination, then it is a |
| + | pacittika .” |
| | | |
− | paiicodcyya na ganassa droceyya yadd ca sd fhita vd ossa cuta vd ndsita vd
| |
− | avasatd vd sd pacchd evaq i vadeyya : pubbevaharp [[ayye]] anndsirp etam [[bhikkhu]]-
| |
− | nim evarupa ca evarupa ca sd bhaginiti, no ca kJ>o attand palicodessup na
| |
| | | |
− | ganassa drocessan [Vin: pajicodcyyam na ganassa drocceyyan) ti, ayam pi
| + | 152. To T.1428, Bhiksunmbhahga, Pac. 122 correspond: OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya |
− | [[parajika]] Itoti asamvdsa vajjapcticchadikd 'ti. HORNER’s translation of this {{Wiki|rule}}
| + | Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp. 327-328, Pac.72; T.1425, pp.534cl2-535al6, PSc.97; |
− | (B D 111, p. 166) has to be corrected accordingly: “Whatever [[nun]], [[knowing]] that a
| + | Bhiksunmbhahga of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 240*242, §211, |
− | [[nun]] has fallen into a {{Wiki|matter}} involving defeat, should neither herself reprove her,
| + | Pac.97; T.1435, p.329bI6-c4, Pac. 121 (T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the |
− | nor speak to a group, but when she may be remaining or deceased or expelled or
| + | bhiksunt ordains the woman, but only states that the bhiksunt admits her into the |
− | withdrawn, should afterwards speak thus: ‘Ladies, before I knew this [[nun]], she
| + | order (^&SR)); T.1443, p. 1006cl 1-20, Pac. 116. |
− | was a sister like this and like that, (but 1 [[thought]]:) ‘I will neither myself
| |
− | reprove her nor speak to a group [BD III, p, 166: and should neither herself
| |
− | reprove her nor should speak to a group]’, she also becomes one who is
| |
− | defeated, she is not in communion, she is one who conceals a fault”
| |
| | | |
− | season 7 * , admits to having committed it. The Saipgha then performs •
| + | The Pali Vinaya, T.1435, and T.1443 specify that, during this two-year |
− | pavdrana only after having expelled him ( nasetva ). In this particular
| + | probation period, the woman probationer has to study the rules that die |
− | case the expulsion of the offender may be necessitated by the Samgha’s
| + | particularly has to take into account (see note 71): |
− | [[desire]] to perform an {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act, the validity, of which requires the
| |
− | order to be both “complete" ([[samagga]]) and “[[pure]]” (jpousuddha), that is,
| |
− | without offence at that very [[moment]]. When one of the participants is*
| |
− | found to be not “[[pure]]" the {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act loses validity, thus a [[monk]]
| |
− | guilty of a [[parajika]] offence has to be removed perhaps even {{Wiki|physically}}*
| |
− | by the [[Samgha]]. He must remain outside the spatial boundary (simS)
| |
− | stipulated for this {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act within which only “[[pure]]” [[monks]] can
| |
− | be {{Wiki|present}}. Thus in this particular case the [[reason]] for the use of the term
| |
− | ndsand might once again be the necessity for an active role of the
| |
− | Saipgha in the expulsion. This supposition seems more likely if onie
| |
− | remembers that'the offender evidently failed to confess his offence
| |
− | immediately after having committed it but rather only after having been
| |
− | placed under [[investigation]] during the {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act of pavaranid:
| |
| | | |
− | In other passages of the Suttavibhafiga the term ndsand instead of
| + | To T.1428, Bhiksunmbhahga, Pac. 123 correspond: OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya |
− | [[parajika]] is used. Some of these references are to be found in the
| + | Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp.318-320, Pac.63; T.1421, p.92a!8-23, Pac. 115; T.1435, |
− | casuistry of [[Parajika]] l of the Dhikkhuvibhaiiga, that is, the {{Wiki|rule}}
| + | pp. 326b5-327c21, Pac. 111 (T.1435 does not explicitly say that the bhiksunt |
− | prescribing [[celibacy]]. There the following eases arc mentioned (Vin III
| + | ordains the woman, but only states that the bhiksunt admits her into the order |
− | 33.24-28): A [[monk]], who is guilty of having raped a [[sleeping]] co-monk
| + | T.1443, p. 1007bl-12, Pac. 119. |
− | or {{Wiki|novice}}, should be expelled ( ndsetabbo ). In the event that the victim
| |
− | wakes up and consents to the {{Wiki|behaviour}} of the [[monk]], both participants
| |
− | have to be expelled ( ndsetabbd ). The same {{Wiki|rule}} applies in the ease of a
| |
− | {{Wiki|novice}} raping a [[sleeping]] [[monk]] or fellow-novice (Vin 111 33.28-31), and
| |
− | in the ease of a [[monk]] who is forced to rape a [[nun]], a {{Wiki|female}} probationer'
| |
− | (sikkliainana), or a [[female novice]] (Vin 111 39.37-40.6): Both partic¬
| |
− | ipants arc found not guilty if they do not consent, but otherwise have to
| |
− | be expelled ( ndsetabbd ). The same goes for a [[monk]] who is forced to
| |
− | rape a lay-woman, a [[homosexual]] 9 , or another [[monk]] (Vin 111 40.5-13).
| |
| | | |
− | 7. On this {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act see Jin-11 CHUNG, Pravdrandvastu im [[Vinayavastu]] dcr
| + | There is, however, a small difference between the precept in T.1428 and the |
− | Mulasdrtdstivadin , Gottingen, 1997 (SWTF, Beiheft 7) (in press).
| + | precepts in the other Vinayas . Whereas the precept in T.1428 says that the |
| + | bhiksunt did not give the six rules to the candidate, the precepts ( n the other |
| + | Vinayas say that the candidate herself docs not study the rules she has to Mow. |
| | | |
− | 8. There is at least one instance of a [[physical]] expulsion of a [[monk]] found to be not
| + | Closely connected to the latter precept, T.1421, T.1425, and the Bhikfurf- |
− | “[[pure]]” (Vin 11 237.8-10: atha kho Mahamoggalldno tarft puggalam bdhayam
| + | vibhanga of the M.-L. School have another precept saying \3xfL if a bhiksunt |
− | gahetvd [[bahi]] dvdrakotthakd nikkhdmctva sucighatikaqi datvd .„).
| + | ordains a siksamand who has not completed the two-year instruction in the |
| + | precepts, she commits a Pac. offense: T.1421, p.92a6-U, Pac. 113; T.1425, |
| + | p. 535al7-b8, Pac.98; Bhiksunmbhahga of the M.-L. School, ROFii, G., 1970, |
| + | pp. 242-243, §212, Pac.98. The latter two Vinayas explain that ‘not to have |
| + | completed the probationary period* means that the siksamand did not study the |
| + | rules she particularly has to take into account This links the precept in these two |
| + | Vinayas to the above mentioned Pac. 123 of T.1428. |
| | | |
− | 9. For an [[interpretation]] of the term [[pandaka]] see Leonard ZWILLING, “Homo¬
| |
− | {{Wiki|sexuality}} as Seen in [[Indian Buddhist]] Texts”, [[Buddhism ]], {{Wiki|Sexuality}}, and [[Gender]] ,
| |
− | ed. Jos6 Ignacio CabezGn, [[Albany]], 1992 ([[Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica]] Series,
| |
− | 113), pp. 203-214.
| |
| | | |
− | In all these eases the term pdrajika is not applied even though the
| + | This precept states that a woman candidate, even when she has done a |
− | respective offenders arc apparently guilty of a pdrajika offence. It may
| + | two-year probation period, cannot be ordained if, during this probation |
− | be that in the [[Vinaya]] for these instances the term ndsetabba is used | + | period, she did not study the six rules (/\j£) 153 . |
− | instead of pdrajika , once again because an expulsion performed by the
| |
− | [[Samgha]] is [[thought]] necessary. 10
| |
| | | |
− | Another instance of rape is mentioned in the introductory story of the
| + | c. T. 1428/ Bhiksimivibhanga, Pac. 124 (pp.756c26-758c28, particularly/ |
− | {{Wiki|rule}} [[Samghadisesa]] 8 in the Bhikkhuvibhahga: Two [[monks]] [[feel]] that they ,
| + | p. 758c 18-20)»54; •* ' |
− | have been treated unfairly by Xhc [[monk]] [[Dabba]]. Therefore, they persuade
| |
− | the [[nun]] Mctliya to accuse [[Dabba]] of having raped her in order to have
| |
− | [[Dabba]] expelled (ndsdpcyya; Vin III 162.14-27). 11 Thus this passage also
| |
− | pertains to the instances of the casuistry of Pdrajika 1 mentioned above.
| |
| | | |
− | It is quite possible that the two malicious [[monks]] aimed to have [[Dabba]]
| + | “If a bhiksuni , when a girl is eighteen, gives her the two-year instruc¬ |
− | expelled by the [[Samgha]], as implied by the application of the verb
| + | tion in the precepts and gives her the six rules, and, when she is fully |
− | ndsdpcyya . However, according to the story, the [[Buddha]] asked [[Dabba]]
| + | twenty [years] old, she then confers her the ordination without the per¬ |
− | # whether the [[nun’s]] accusations were true (Vin III 162.30-31), and the
| + | mission of the samgha , then it is a pacittika." |
− | putimokkha {{Wiki|rule}} [[views]] the ease as an example of a [[consciously]] false
| |
− | accusation of a pdrajika offence (Vin III 163.22**). i2 Since [[Dabba]]
| |
− | pleaded innocent to having raped Mettiya, the [[Buddha]] ordered Mettiya
| |
− | to be expelled (Vin III 16238-163.1: tena hi bhikkhavc Mettiyam
| |
− | bhikkhunim ndsethu).^ This procedure, however, is not based on any
| |
− | fixed {{Wiki|rule}} of the [[Vinaya]], since until then there existed no regulation
| |
− | prohibiting [[monks]] or [[nuns]] from accusing another of having committed a
| |
− | pdrajika offence. In the [[Vinaya]] a [[person]] having [[caused]] the formulation
| |
| | | |
− | 10. This Could be the casc.bccausc a rape is viewed as a very grave {{Wiki|transgression}} ol
| + | ci T.1428, Bhiksunivibhaiiga, Pac.126 (p.759b3-c6, particularly, |
− | both [[Buddhist]] [[monastic]] and [[Brahmanical]] taw. Rape in the [[Vinaya]] , particularly the
| + | p.759b 25-27) 155 : |
− | rape of a [[nun]], is frequently mentioned as one of the most serious infringements
| |
− | of [[Buddhist]] [[monastic]] law (cf.Vin 1 85.24; 89.2-3 and 11-12; 121.7; 135.3;
| |
| | | |
− | / 168.10; 320.13 etc.); for some examples in the [[Brahmanical]] law see Ganganatha
| + | “If a bhiksuni admits a young married woman and gives her the two- |
| + | year instruction in the precepts, and, when she is fully twelve years old |
| + | she then confers her the ordination without the permission of the |
| + | samgha , then it is a pacittika ” |
| | | |
− | JUA, [[Hindu]] Law in its Sources , Vol. 1, [[Allahabad]], 1930, pp. 481-484.
| |
| | | |
− | 11. In the [[Cullavagga]] (Vin 11 74.24 - 79.37) the introductory story of [[Samghadisesa]]
| + | 153. See note 71. |
− | 8 is repeated almost [[word]] for [[word]]. Here Mettiya is also expelled, and the story
| |
− | introduces the {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act of the giving of a sativinaya , “a verdict of
| |
− | innocence” (Vin II 79.37-80*31). By means of this {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act it is
| |
− | officially agreed that the [[Samgha]] trusts the accused [[person]] (cf. NOLOT, SVTT 11,
| |
| | | |
− | ► pp.99, 109).
| + | 154. OLDENBERG, IL, Vi nay a Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp.320-321, Pac.64 and pp.328- |
| + | 329, Piic.73. These two precepts arc closely connected: in Pac.64, it is said that, ■ |
| + | without the permission of the order, a nun may not ordain a probationer who has |
| + | studied the precepts for two years, while in Pac.73, it is said that without the |
| + | permission of the order, a nun may not ordain a twenty-year old girl, who has |
| + | studied the precepts for two years. |
| | | |
− | 12. However, the focus of this {{Wiki|rule}} is not on the {{Wiki|behaviour}} of the [[nun]] Mettiya but on | + | T.1421, p.92a 12-17, Pac.114. T.1425, p.535b9-c!0, Pac.99. Bhiksuni- |
− | the {{Wiki|behaviour}} of the [[monks]] who [[caused]] Mettiya to utter the wrong accusation. | + | vibhanga of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G„ 1970, pp. 243-245, §213, Pac. 99. |
| + | T.1435, pp.327c22-328a9, Pac.112, p.328cl2*27, Pac.l 17, and p.329c5-22, |
| + | Pac. 122. These three precepts are closely connected: in Pac. 112, it is said that |
| + | without the permission of the order, a nun may not admit a disciple who has |
| + | studied the precepts for two years into the order; in Pac. 117, it is said that, |
| + | without the permission of the order, a nun may not admit a twenty-year old girl |
| + | into the order; in Pac. 122, it is said that, without the permission of the order, a |
| + | nun may not admit a twenty-year old girl who has studied the precepts for two |
| + | years into thc.ordcr. |
| | | |
− | 13. Vin 111 162.38-163.3. After that the malicious [[monks]] were remorseful and
| + | 155. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pijakam , Vol.IV, pp.323-324, Pac.67; T.1421, |
− | begged the other [[monks]] not to expel Mettiya for she had not committed any
| + | p. 9la22-b5, Pac. 105; T.1425, p. 536a29-b8, Pac. 103; Bhiksunivibhaiiga of the |
− | offence (Vin III 163.3-6).
| + | M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp.247-248, §217, Pac. 103; T.1435, |
| + | pp.325c25-326al 1, Pac. 109 (T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the bhiksuni |
| + | ordains the woman, but only states that the bhiksuni admits her into the order |
| | | |
| + | e. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 130 (pp.760c20-761bl0, particular! |
| + | p.761b2-3) ,s6 : |
| | | |
− | of a pdtimokkha {{Wiki|rule}} is exempted from any {{Wiki|punishment}}, since [[Buddhist]]
| + | “If a bhiksuni confers someone the ordination's? without the pc |
− | [[monastic]] law is a case-law following the [[principle]] nulla poena [[sine]]
| + | mission of the samgha, then it is a pacittika." |
− | lege. 1 * In any case, even if Mettiya had been found guilty of an offence,
| |
− | she would have had to undergo the {{Wiki|punishment}} for a [[samghadisesa offence]], that is a 14 days probation ( mdnatta )'*, rather than an expulsion
| |
− | from the order, as was the case according to the introductory story of
| |
− | [[Samghadisesa]] 8. Until this point in the text the only [[cause]] for the appli¬
| |
− | cation of nasana mentioned in the [[Vinaya]] is rape or the [[concealment]] of
| |
− | a pdrajika offence. However in this ease, Mettiya neither concealed a
| |
− | pdrajika offence nor did she rape anybody, but rather accused another of
| |
− | having raped her. Therefore, her expulsion must be regarded as an
| |
− | exception, made possible through the personal intervention of the
| |
− | [[Buddha]]. 1 * In addition, it is worth noting that according to’ the introduc¬
| |
− | tory story and the patimokklia {{Wiki|rule}} it was not Mettiya’s {{Wiki|behaviour}} which
| |
− | gave rise to the formulation of the {{Wiki|rule}} but rather the {{Wiki|behaviour}} of the
| |
− | two [[monks]] who [[caused]] Mettiya to make the unfounded accusation. 17 In
| |
− | any ease, in this passage the term ndsaitd is not used as a technical term
| |
− | of Budtjhist. [[monastic]] law. The same holds true for. one passage of the
| |
− | [[Suttapitaka]], namely an account in the Kdraiulavasutta of the Mettd-
| |
− | vugga in the Ahguttaranikdya. Here a [[monk]] accused of having com-
| |
− | mitted an offence changes the [[subject]] and talks about other things (AN
| |
− | IV 168.24-27). This leads the [[Buddha]] himself to demand his expulsion
| |
− | (AN IV 169.1-2: dhumatlt' ... niddhamath' .... AN IV I69.I0-: tarn
| |
− | aiam ... bahiddhd nasenti). This procedure is not based on any fixed
| |
− | {{Wiki|rule}} of the [[Vinaya]] but, on the contrary, contradicts the regulations of
| |
− | [[Buddhist]] [[monastic]] law: According to Pdcittiya 12 of the [[Bhikkhu]]-
| |
− | vibhaiiga the evasion of an accusation is a pdcittiya offence, the consc-
| |
| | | |
| + | f. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhaiiga, Pac. 132 (pp. 761 c 13-762a 14, particularly |
| + | p.762a7-8)'5«: |
| | | |
− | 14. Cf. VON HlNCiBER, “[[Buddhist Law]]”, p.7; cf. Hcllmuth HECKER, “Allgcmcinc
| + | “If a bhiksuni, who has been [a bhiksuni] for fully twelve years |
− | Rcchtsgrundsatzc in dcr buddhistischcn Ordensverfassung (VinayaY.
| + | confers someone the ordination'^ without the permission of the saniglu. |
− | Verfassung und Recltt in Obersee 10/1, cd. Herbert KROGER (1977), pp. 89-115;
| + | then it is a pacittika.” |
− | p. 96.
| |
| | | |
− | 15. For [[manatta]] see NOLOT, SVTT 111, pp. 117-122.
| |
| | | |
− | 16. Thus this reference docs [[hot]] confirm C. S. UPASAK’s opinion that nasana
| + | 156. T.1443, p. 10O4a22-b27, Pac. 107. |
− | generally is applied as a term for the expulsion of [[nuns]] ({{Wiki|Dictionary}} of Early
| |
− | [[Buddhist]] [[Monastic]] Terms [Based on [[Pali Literature]]], [[Varanasi]] 1975; s.v.
| |
− | Nasana).
| |
| | | |
− | 17. This issue is extensively discussed in lh$ commentary „nd is dealt with again here
| + | 157. The precept in T.1443 says that, without the permission ofthe order, a nun ma> |
− | below (p. 103).
| + | not accept someone as a [[disciple]]. The commentary to this [[precept]] furthci |
| + | explains that ‘to accept someone as a [[disciple]]’ should be understood as ‘to givi |
| | | |
| + | . , the going forth and the [[ordination]]’. |
| | | |
− | qucncc of which is {{Wiki|confession}} but not expulsion. 18 Thus it is possible
| + | 158. OLDENBERG, H„ VinayiP Pitakaip, Vol.IV, pp. 330-331, Pac.75; T 1421 |
− | that the introductory story of Samghddiscsa 8 and the just mentioned
| + | pp.90c!9-91al4, Pac. 103; T.1435, p. 325bl7-cl0, Pac. 107. |
− | account in the [[Suttapitaka]] belong to the eldest stratum of the [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]]
| |
− | texts, being formulated before the term nasana was used with a “juridi¬
| |
− | cal” meaning.
| |
| | | |
− | In another passage of the [[Mahavagga]] the term nasana is applied for
| + | . T.1425 and the Bhiksunivibhaiiga of the M.-L. School contain two [[precepts]] that |
− | the expulsion of [[fully ordained]] members of the order (Vin I 85.27- | + | are closely connected to the Pacittikas 130,131 (see p.33) and 132 of T.1428: |
− | 90.9). There it is stated that certain {{Wiki|individuals}} are not entitled to [[full ordination]] (upasampudd) and, if [[ordination]] already has been bestowed
| + | Pac.93 (T.1425, p.533b2l-c8; Bhiksunivibhaiiga ofthe M.-L. School, ROTH. |
− | on them, they have to be expelled ( nasrtabbo ). The eleven types of indi¬
| + | G., 1970, pp. 234-235, §207) says that a bhikfuifi who has been in the order for |
− | viduals concerned apparently did not receive upasampadd legitimately,
| + | fully twelve rainy seasons but who has not fulfilled lire ten requirements cannot |
− | having committed a grave offence in the time of household-life, or
| + | take on [[disciples]], while PSc.94 (T.1425, pp. 533c9-534al 1; Bhiksunivibluniga of |
− | simply because they were considered {{Wiki|physically}} unfit for full member¬
| + | the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 235-236, §208) says dial a 'bhikfuni who |
− | ship in the order. 19 The {{Wiki|individuals}} concerned include homosexuals
| + | has fulfilled the ten requirements cannot take on [[disciples]] without t ic permission |
− | ([[pandaka]]\ Vin I 86;7-9) 20 , fake [[monks]], persons converted to another
| + | ofthe order. |
| | | |
| + | These ten requirements refer to the requirements that a [[bhiksuni]] has to fulfill in |
| + | order to become a [[teacher]]: she has to uphold the [[precepts]] (I), she has to be |
| + | learned in [[Abhidharma]] (2) and in [[Vinaya]] (3), she must study [[morality]] (4). |
| + | [[meditation]] (5) and [[wisdom]] (6), she must be able to .{{Wiki|purify}} herself of Iter offenses |
| + | and to help others to {{Wiki|purify}} themselves of their offenses as well (7), she must be |
| + | able to remove a [[disciple]] who is being pressed by her relatives to quit her |
| + | [[spiritual training]] to another place, or to have someone else remove such [[person]] |
| + | to another place (8), she must be able to nurse her [[disciple]] when the [[latter]] is sick |
| + | or to have someone else nurse the [[latter]] (9), she must have been in the order for |
| + | fully twelve rainy seasons or more (10). |
| | | |
− | 18. On the other hand, this account in the Ahguttaranikaya may well have served as a
| + | 159. This coincides with the [[Pali Vinaya]]. In T. 1421, it is said that a bhikstuii who has |
− | bas s for [[Pacittiya]] 12 of the Bhikkhuvibhanga (Vin IV 36.37**). According to v
| + | been a bhikfuni for fully twelve years may not accept [[disciples]] without the |
− | the introductory story of this {{Wiki|rule}} a [[monk]] also evaded an accusation (Vin IV
| + | permission of the order. The commentary to this [[precept]] refers to the commen¬ |
− | 35.26-29). Since the [[Manorathapurani]] (Mp IV 74.11-13), the commentary on
| + | tary to the preceding [[precept]] (= Pac.102), according to which ‘to accept |
− | the Angutiaranikaya, links the [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] passage commcntfcckupdn with an
| + | [[disciples]]’ should be understood as ‘to be her upadhyayint, and that the b hikfu ni, |
− | {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act introduced and described in the [[Cullavagga]] (Vin II 101.4-
| + | as an upadhyayint, commits a pacittika offense when she confers the nnlinMi^ ’ |
− | 102.10: tassapdpiyyasikdkamma) by rendering “he evades” (ahhen' annum | |
− | paticarati) with “he conceals (his offence)'* ( paticchddeti ), this passage of the
| |
− | [[Cullavagga]] may also have been inspired by the above-mentioned passage of the
| |
− | Ahgutturwukdya . For some more examples of passages of the [[Suttapitaka]] which
| |
− | contain rather old [[Vinaya]] material, of. VON HlNOBER, Handbook §§ 67, 74, 80;
| |
− | cf. the references given in VON HlNOBER, “[[Buddhist Law]]", note 5.
| |
| | | |
− | 19. One passage in the Parivdra (Vin V 140.14-15) refers to this passage in the
| |
− | [[Mahavagga]] without adding anything new. According to the Samantapdsddikd
| |
− | (Sp 1391.26-27) in another passage of the Parivdra (Vin V 216.32) the term
| |
− | ndsita refers to the eleven types of {{Wiki|individuals}} mentioned above as well.
| |
| | | |
− | 20. The \'ujirabuddhifikd (Vjb 114.24-115.31) provides several additional
| |
− | explanations of the casuistry of Pdrdjika 1 of the Bhikkhuvibhanga . In the
| |
− | [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] text a [[monk]] or a [[nun]] changes {{Wiki|sex}}. The Vajirabuddhitikd has a
| |
− | [[discussion]] about what age the {{Wiki|individuals}} received [[full ordination]], since [[married]]
| |
− | women arc allowed to enter the order at the age of twelve, whereas men can only
| |
− | receive [[full ordination]] at the age of twenty. It is explicitly stated in this passage of
| |
− | the subcommcntarics that during the {{Wiki|sex}} change process the {{Wiki|individuals}} arc not
| |
− | considered to be jxindakas (in this case [[pandaka]] probably means “without outer
| |
− | [[signs]] of {{Wiki|sex}}") and thus do not have to be expelled because of Vin I 85.27 - 86.9
| |
− | (Vjb 115, 10-12; cf.Sp-t III 256.19-22).
| |
| | | |
− | [[religion]] (theyyosamvdsaka, tittiiiyapukkantaka; Vin l 86.31-35)21,
| + | g. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac.134 (p.762b21-cl6, particularly, |
− | [[animals]] (tiracchanagata; Vin I 88.1-3), matricides {matughataka; Vin I | + | p.762c7-9) 160 : |
− | 88.20-21), patricides ( pitughdtaka ; Vin 1 88.24-26), those who have
| |
− | killed an [[Arhat]] {arahantaghdtaka\ Vin 1 89.4-6), raped a [[nun]], or [[caused]]
| |
− | a split within the order, as well as persons who have [[caused]] bloodshed
| |
− | 0 bhikkhunidusaka , samghabhedaka , lohiiuppadaka ; Vin I 89.11-16)22,
| |
− | and {{Wiki|hermaphrodites}} (, ubhalovjaiijanaka ; Vin 1 89.19-21). Although these
| |
− | persons committed no offence during [[monkhood]], the expulsion n&sand
| |
− | has to be performed by the [[Samgha]], since it was the [[Samgha]] which
| |
− | acted improperly (though unknowingly) by bestowing [[ordination]] in
| |
− | these eases. Therefore the [[Samgha]] is forced to restore a lawful [[state]] by
| |
− | explicitly cancelling the {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act of [[ordination]]. In the Parivdra
| |
− | one additional piece of [[information]] referring to the expulsion of these
| |
− | eleven pcirsons is provided: The {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act of [[ordination]] in these
| |
− | eases is referred to as vatthuvipatti , i.e. “defect in material” (Vin V
| |
− | 222.6-14: ... vatthuvipannam adhammakammam ...). This is confirmed
| |
− | by the commentary upon the Pdtimokkha , the Kahkhavitaranl , stating
| |
− | that these eleven eases arc avatthukd , meaning that they arc “not
| |
− | potential material” for an [[ordination]] procedure (Kkh 17.27-29 and 19.3-
| |
− | 5). Therefore, if the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} ( upasampaddkamma ) has
| |
− | indeed been performed not withstanding the avatthuka {{Wiki|status}} of these
| |
− | persons, then the {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act itself is considered invalid and has to
| |
− | be openly annulled by the [[Samgha]].
| |
| | | |
− | Unlike the [[monks]] novices arc not [[subject]] to [[Buddhist]] [[monastic discipline]], but have to observe ten specified {{Wiki|rules}}. The expulsion of
| + | “If a [[bhiksuni]] confers the [[ordination]] 161 without the permission of the |
− | novices is also called nasana in the [[Vinaya]] . According to [[Pacittiya]] 70 of*
| + | [[parents]] and the husband 162 , then it is a pdcittika .” |
− | the Bhikkhuvibhanga (Vin IV 139.18**-34**) a {{Wiki|novice}} (samanuddesa) | |
− | wh6 upholds a view specified as false about the utterances of the [[Buddha]]
| |
− | has to be expelled (Vin IV 139.32**:... [[tatha]] nasitam samanuddesam).
| |
− | This is the only passage describing the actual procedure of ndsandxn the
| |
− | [[Vinaya]] .23 if a {{Wiki|novice}} ignores one admonition he is to be sent away with
| |
| | | |
− | 21. According to the Samantapdsddikd (Sp 1017.10-12) a thcyyaswfivdsaka may not
| + | T.1435 only says that the [[bhiksuni]] who has been a [[bhiksuni]] for fully twelve |
− | obtain even a lower [[ordination]] (pabbajjd).
| + | years may not admit someone into the order (iSXR) without the permission of the |
− | | |
− | 22. With regard to the {{Wiki|individuals}} who have [[caused]] a split within the order and the
| |
− | ones who have converted to another [[religion]], the refusal to ordain clearly refers to
| |
− | their second [[ordination]], since they have both previously been members of the
| |
| order. | | order. |
| | | |
− | 23. This procedure is described in the introductory story, in the {{Wiki|rule}}, and in the
| + | 160. OLDENBERG, II., [[Vinaya]] Pitakam , Vol.IV, pp.334-335, Pac.80; T.1421, |
− | [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] commentary (padabhajaniya) of [[Pacittiya]] 70 (Vin IV 13832 -139.4).
| + | p. 93a 12-16, Pac. 126; T.1425, p. 5l9b2-c6, Samghatise?a 7; [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] |
− | | + | of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G.. 1970. pp. 135-137, §§158-159, Samghatisesa 7; |
− | the following words: "From this day onwards, dear [[friend]] Samanuddesa,
| + | T.1435, p.330b3-cl, Pac. 124;T.1443,p. I007b29-cl9, Pac. 121. |
− | this Lord is not to be viewed as your [[teacher]] anymore; the privileges
| |
− | given to other Samanuddesas, namely [[sleeping]] two or three nights in one
| |
− | room with the [[monks]], these arc not (given) to you anymore; go, leave!”
| |
− | This suggests that the expulsion of novices is not an {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act but
| |
− | rather an informal - though to some extent formalized -.request made to
| |
− | the {{Wiki|novice}}. In addition we know from the anapaiti [[formula]] that this
| |
− | expulsion can later be amended (Vin IV 140.30-31). 24 According to the
| |
− | rule’s introductory story, the {{Wiki|novice}} [[Kantaka]] advocated the [[false view]]
| |
− | given in the {{Wiki|rule}} itself (Vin IV 138.20-24). There his {{Wiki|misconduct}} is
| |
− | referred to as “[[slandering]]” of the Lord ( ma bhagavantam abbhacikkhi,
| |
− | na hi sddliu bhagavaio abbhakkhananv, cf. Vin IV 134.14-15).
| |
− | According to the [[Cullavagga]] (Vin II 25.10-27.18) similar {{Wiki|behaviour}} by
| |
− | a [[monk]] leads to his [[suspension]] ( ukkhepana ) 25 , whereas in the ease of a
| |
− | {{Wiki|novice}} expulsion (ndsana) is called for. This mutual proximity of
| |
− | [[suspension]] ( ukkhepana) of a [[fully ordained]] member of the order and
| |
− | expulsion (ndsand) of a {{Wiki|novice}} is implied in one passage of the Parivdra
| |
− | as well (Vin V 115.23-24).
| |
− | | |
− | The misbehaviour of the {{Wiki|novice}} [[Kantaka]], however, is one of the ten
| |
− | general [[reasons]] for ndsand for novices. These ten [[reasons]] arc listed in
| |
− | the [[Mahavagga]] (Vin 1 85.19-26): 26
| |
− | | |
− | I prescribe, [[monks]], the expelling of a {{Wiki|novice}} possessing the following ten
| |
− | [[characteristics]]: If he destroys [[living beings]], takes things not given, adheres to an
| |
− | impure [[moral]] code! if he lies, drinks alcoholic drinks, speaks ill of the [[Buddha]],
| |
− | | |
− | ' speaks ill of the [[Samgha]], speaks ill of the [[Dhamma]], holds [[false views]], or is a
| |
− | rapist of [[nuns]].
| |
− | | |
− | Five of these ten [[characteristics]] arc in {{Wiki|violation}} of the first five of the
| |
− | [[ten training rules]] set forth for novices 27 and the remaining five arc other
| |
− | | |
− | 24. The. focus of the {{Wiki|rule}} [[Pacittiya]] 70 is, of course, on the {{Wiki|behaviour}} of the [[monks]],
| |
− | who arc not allowed to keep regular [[contact]] with a Samanuddesa expelled in this
| |
− | manner.
| |
− | | |
− | 25. In [[Pacittiya]] 68 Of the Bhikkhttvibhanga the same {{Wiki|behaviour}} as Kantaka's is
| |
− | attributed to the [[monk]] [[Arittha]]. There it results in a [[pacittiya]] offence. However,
| |
− | the introductory story of [[Pacittiya]] 68 (Vin IV 133.32-135.5) is repeated [[word]]
| |
− | for [[word]] in the [[Cullavagga]] (Vin ll 25.10-26.33). There the [[suspension]]
| |
− | (ukkhepana) of the [[monk]] [[Arittha]] who did not give up his [[false view]] is described.
| |
− | | |
− | 26. [[Parivara]] VI. 10 (Vin V 138.16-17) refers to this passage without making any
| |
− | additions.
| |
− | | |
− | 27. Consequently it is slated in the Samantapasadikd that the {{Wiki|violation}} of the first
| |
− | five [[training rules]] is punished by ndsana . To complement the content ol the
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | examples of incorrect {{Wiki|behaviour}}. The expulsion of the {{Wiki|novice}} Kanjaka in
| |
− | [[Pacittiya]] 70 fits into either the sixth or the ninth of these ten situations.
| |
− | [[Kantaka]] either “speaks ill of the [[Buddha]]” ( buddhassa avannam bhasati)
| |
− | or could be said to “hold a [[false view]]” (micchaditthiko), as can be seen
| |
− | from the introductory story of [[Pacittiya]] 70 (see above). Additionally,
| |
− | one can conjecture from the anapatti-formufa of [[Pacittiya]] 70 that the
| |
− | expulsion of novices in any of these eases can later be amended.
| |
− | | |
− | in the [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] references discussed above three concents of the use
| |
− | of the term ndsand can be {{Wiki|distinguished}}. Firstly, Mettiya and the [[monk]]
| |
− | in the Aitguttaranikdya arc expelled not because of any {{Wiki|violation}} of a
| |
− | pdtimokkha {{Wiki|rule}} but because of the personal intervention of the [[Buddha]].
| |
− | Secondly, as a technical term of [[Buddhist]] [[monastic]] law as laid down in
| |
− | the [[Vinayapitaka]], ndsand stands for the expulsion of a member of the
| |
− | order performed by the [[Samgha]]. This expulsion seems to be irreversible,
| |
− | siiicc with regard to mdnks and [[nuns]] it is frequently applied in the ease
| |
− | of a pdrajika offence. 28 In these cases ndsand is used either because the
| |
− | committed oTfcncc is considered to be a very grave one (rape), or
| |
− | because the respective [[person]] did not admit to his offence immediately
| |
− | after having committed it, but rather only after a certain period of
| |
− | [[concealment]], as illustrated by Pdrajika 2 of the Bhikklumivibhanga and
| |
− | by the expulsion of a [[monk]] during the {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act of pavarand™
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] text the same commentary informs us that the {{Wiki|violation}} of {{Wiki|rules}} b-10 of
| |
− | the [[Samaneras]]’ is to be punished by a dandakamma (Sp 1012.32 -1013 1 and
| |
− | 1015.2-4; cf. Sp-| III 255.8-9).
| |
− | | |
− | 28. On the other hand, one passage found in the [[Parivara]] fails to conform the
| |
− | supposition that ndsand in the [[Vinaya]] generally refers to the Samgha’s expulsion
| |
− | of a [[monk]] or [[nun]] who has committed a pdrajika offence. In Vin V 137.5-7
| |
− | ndsand is used only with regard to the eighth pdrajika {{Wiki|rule}} for [[nuns]], but not with
| |
− | regard to any of the other seven [[parajikas]]. It is unclear why the term ndsand is
| |
− | employed in only this instance.
| |
− | | |
− | 29. In addition to the [[information]] [[gathered]] from the [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] text, the commentaries
| |
− | Samantapasadikd and Sumangalavitdsint also mention ndsand in [[connection]]
| |
− | with a previous [[concealment]] of a jrirdjika offence, while commenting upon the
| |
− | potential ways of settling the four kinds of “legal matters’* (adhikarana). In the
| |
− | [[Cullavagga]] (Vin II 101.4-102.10) a [[monk]] is accused of having committed a
| |
− | weighty offence, that is to say, a pdrajika or another, “similar offence” (Vin H
| |
− | 101.8-11; according to Samantapasadikd [Sp 1199.1-3] this means a [[dukkata]] or
| |
− | [[thullaccaya]] y according to the Papancasudant [Ps IV 48.3-10] pdrajika -
| |
− | sdmantam here is a “heavy offence”, that is a Sainghadisesa), The accused [[monk]]
| |
− | pretends for a while not to recall the particular incident referred to, after which he
| |
− | then admits to having committed another, less significant offence ( dppamattikam
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | Additionally, in the Vinayupitaka ndsand is applied for the expulsion pi
| |
− | persons who should not have received [[full ordination]] at all. In this ease
| |
− | it was the Samgha’s mistake to bestow [[ordination]] on the unsuitable
| |
− | {{Wiki|individuals}}. For this [[reason]] the [[Samgha]] is forced to act by revoking the
| |
− | {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act by the expulsion ndsand . Thirdly, ndsand is applied to
| |
− | the expulsion af novices, which may become necessary because ol the
| |
− | ten [[reasons]] listed in the Mahdvagga. One of these [[reasons]] is referred to
| |
− | in a pdtitnokkha {{Wiki|rule}} ( Pdcittiya 70). This specific expulsion of novices
| |
− | evidently corresponds to the temporary [[suspension]] ( ukkhepand ) of
| |
− | [[monks]] and may be cancelled.
| |
− | | |
− | The only [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] trace of a more explicit {{Wiki|classification}} of the
| |
− | application of the term ndsand is to be found in the [[Parivara]] , the most
| |
− | recent section of the Vinayupitaka. There “three expelled (persons)”
| |
− | (ndsitakd tayo\ Vin V 211.13-17) arc mentioned. This specific tripar¬
| |
− | tition marks the transition to the much more elaborate [[definition]] as
| |
− | formulated in the commentaries. The commentary Samantapdsddikd ,
| |
− | which was compiled more than half a millcnium after the completion of
| |
− | the Vinayupitaka , comments upon this passage of the [[Parivara]] (Sp
| |
− | 1383.36-1384.4). There a short explanation is given, and a more
| |
− | detailed [[definition]] in an earlier- passage of the same comYncntary i^
| |
− | referred to. There (Sp 582.19-26), in the commentary on the intro¬
| |
− | ductory story of Samghddisesa 8 mentioned above, the tripartition of
| |
− | ndsand is explained in detail:
| |
− | | |
− | There arc three (kinds of) ndsand: lingandsana , samvdsandsand and [[danda]] -
| |
− | kammandsand. Of these *A rapist has to be expelled* is a lifigandsand . If
| |
− | | |
− | dpattim), before finally pleading guilty to the offence he is actually accused of. In
| |
− | such a ease the {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act known as tassapdpiyyasikd-kamma is applied,
| |
− | whereby the accused [[monk]] is deprived of some of his rights until his
| |
− | rehabilitation (see NCLOT, SVTTII, p. 110). In the commentary on this passage
| |
− | of the [[Cullavagga]] in the Samantapdsddikd the term ndsand is used: The accused
| |
− | [[monk]] evades the accusation because he {{Wiki|fears}} expulsion (»iasaiia) once having
| |
− | admitted to [[die]] offence (Sp 1199.6-7). Similar explanations arc to be found in the
| |
− | Sutnangalavildsini , in the commentary on the Sahgitisutta in the Dighanikdya
| |
− | ( )N 111 254.10-18). The [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] text commented upon briefly mentions the
| |
− | same situation as described in the [[Cullavagga]] . According to the [[Sumangala]] -
| |
− | vitas ini s the accused [[monk]] will be expelled if he has committed z pdrdjika offence
| |
− | {ayam cv * assa ndsand bhavissatt ti ). If he has committed a less serious offence,
| |
− | the so-called tassapdpiyyasikdkamma is performed and he can, after a period of
| |
− | good {{Wiki|behaviour}}, regain his {{Wiki|status}} as a regular [[monk]] (Sv 111 1042.20-24).
| |
− | Evidently the expulsion following the [[concealment]] of a pdrdjika offence in these
| |
− | cases is referred to by the term ndsand.
| |
− | | |
− | ([[monks]]) perform an {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act of [[suspension]] (ukkhcpaniyakamma)
| |
− | because of the non-recognition of or the not making amends for an offence or
| |
− | because of the not giving up of a [[wrong view]], it is a samvasanasand. If ([[monks]])
| |
− | perform an {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act of {{Wiki|punishment}} (dandakamma) (by saying): ‘Go,
| |
− | leave!', that is a dundakammandsand. In this ease, however, with reference to
| |
− | lingandsana^ the wording is: ‘Expel the.nun Meuiya!*’
| |
− | | |
− | Following this [[definition]] a [[controversy]] between the Abhayagirivasins*
| |
− | and the [[Mahaviharavasins]] is reported in the Samantapdsddikd . 30 This
| |
− | [[controversy]] evidently is the result of the Samantapdsddikd* $ inter¬
| |
− | pretation of an earlier passage in the [[Vinaya]] containing the term ndsand.
| |
− | | |
− | In the commentary on the casuistry of Pdrdjika 1, which demands
| |
− | expulsion (ndsand) for a rapist (dusaka) (see above, p.95), the [[Samanta]]¬
| |
− | pdsddikd seems to be in need of an explanation as to why in this case the
| |
− | culprit is expelled by ndsand . The commentary thus claims that no
| |
− | {{Wiki|evidence}} from the side of the culprit is necessary in case of rape. A
| |
− | rapist (dusaka) is thus expelled without having given his [[own]] view (Sp
| |
− | 269.9-12): 31
| |
− | | |
− | 'Doth have to be expelled’ is: both have to be expelled by a linganasana. In this
| |
− | case no {{Wiki|evidence}} from the rapist is required. The victim has to be expelled if he -
| |
− | after having been asked - gave {{Wiki|evidence}} (that he consented to the rape). If he did
| |
− | not consent, (the victim) docs not have to be expelled. Tire same goes for a
| |
− | [[Samanera]]. 32
| |
− | | |
− | The [[controversy]] between Abhayagirivasins and [[Mahaviharavasins]] now
| |
− | focuses on the question of what the actual [[reason]] was for the expulsion
| |
− | of Mettiya. Oskar VON HINGBER (“[[Buddhist Law]]”, p. 37) states “in the
| |
− | commentary the problem is discussed at some length, whether the [[nun]]
| |
− | | |
− | 30. Oskar VON HinOber (“[[Buddhist Law]]”, pp. 37f.) emphazises the importance of
| |
− | this passage, since this is the only instance in the Vinayapifaka where two
| |
− | [[existing]] versions of the [[Vinaya]] arc given.
| |
− | | |
− | 31. This is in {{Wiki|contradiction}} with the statement of the Samantapdsddikd as to why the
| |
− | [[Buddha]] asked [[Dabba]], whether the [[nun]] Mettiya's accusation was true (Sp
| |
− | 581.15-19): “[The [[Buddha]] said to [[Dabba]]:] ‘If it is done by you, (say) ‘It is done*
| |
− | means: what does he show by this ([[word]])? He shows that (the accused [[person]])
| |
− | has to speak out himself whether or not he has done it, since it is not possible
| |
− | using the ([[monks]]') assembly’s authority or favouritism to find a [[person]], who is
| |
− | in fact innocent, to be guilty or [[vice versa]].’” Cf. also Sp 582.16-19: “‘For this
| |
− | [[reason]], [[monks]], expel the [[nun]] Mettiya!* means: the words of [[Dabba]] and (the
| |
− | words of) the ([[nun]]) do not conform. Therefore it is said: ‘Expel the [[nun]]
| |
− | Mettiya!’”
| |
− | | |
− | 32. This last statement probably refers to the tenth of the ten [[reasons]] for ndsand of a
| |
− | {{Wiki|novice}}, which arc listed in the Mahdvagga (see above, p. 100).
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | was expelled with the consent ( patinnaya ) of [[Dabba Mallaputta]] or not”.
| |
− | According to the SaratthadipanP* patinnaya apparently does not mean
| |
− | “having consented” but rather “having given her view”, which refers to
| |
− | Mettiya. Thus the [[discussion]] of the two factions in the [[Samantapasadika]]
| |
− | is about whether the expulsion of Mettiya was because of her (false)
| |
− | statement ([[Abhayagiri]] view) or for another [[reason]] ([[Mahavihara]] view). 34
| |
− | The [[Samantapasadika]] enlightens us that an expert then intervened who
| |
− | decided that the [[Mahaviharavasins]] were right (Sp 583.14-15) 35 . How¬
| |
− | ever, even then it remained unclear which offence Mettiya was accused
| |
− | of. This question is extensively discussed in the subsequent passage of
| |
− | the [[Samantapasadika]]. There it is stated that Mettiya did not commit a
| |
− | [[samghadisesa offence]] since the {{Wiki|rule}} [[Samghadisesa]] 8 of the [[Bhikkhu]]-
| |
− | [[vibhahga]] applies only to [[nuns]] with [[respect]] to other [[nuns]] or to [[monks]]
| |
− | with [[respect]] to other [[monks]], but not to nur.s with [[respect]] to [[monks]] (Sp
| |
− | 583.15-17 and 28; Sp 5S4.3-5). 36 This suggests that Mettiya had com-
| |
− | | |
− | 33. Sp-t II 346.8-11: ayyenamlii dasitati patinndtatta taya patinnaya [[yadi]] nasita
| |
− | [[thero]] karako lioti saddoso ti attho. akarako hotiti tdya katapatiiihant anapekklti -
| |
− | ivdyadi bliagavatd pakatidussilabhdvam yeva sandhaya sa nasita [[thero]] akarako
| |
− | hotiti adlii/'iHiyo.
| |
− | | |
− | 34. It is not doubted at all that she had made this statement: Vin IU 162.21-22 and
| |
− | 27: ayycna 'mlii Dabbena Mallaputtcna dusita 'ti. In the above-mentioned
| |
− | commentary in the [[Samantapasadika]] and the subcommcntaiy on this passage it is
| |
− | not clear what [[person]] tliero stands for, and what [[action]] is referred to by karako.
| |
− | If [[thera]] refers to [[Dabba]], then kdraka means that he was [[thought]] to actually have
| |
− | raped Mettiya. This is not true, as we know from the introductory story of
| |
− | [[Samghadisesa]] 8. Additionally, if [[Dabba]] was a rapist - why should Mettiya have
| |
− | been expelled because of her accusation? Therefore it is quite probable that
| |
− | karako them stands for the [[monk]] who performed the expulsion of [[nun]] Mettiya.
| |
− | If he did so because Mettiya had made her (false) statement, then he evidently
| |
− | doubted the [[truthfulness]] of her {{Wiki|evidence}}. However, a rape is believed to have ac¬
| |
− | tually happened as soon as a [[person]] claims to have been raped (Vmv 1282.1-2).
| |
− | Therefore, if the [[monk]] in spite of Mcttiya’s {{Wiki|evidence}} performed her expulsion,
| |
− | then he is a karako them and is said to be “with fault" ( sadosa ). If, on the other
| |
− | hand, the [[monk]] entrusted with Mcttiya’s expulsion expelled her for another
| |
− | [[reason]], then he is [[thought]] to be not instrumental in the performance of the wrong
| |
− | | |
− | {{Wiki|punishment}} (akarako [[thero]]) and is consequently “without fault” ( niddosa).
| |
− | | |
− | 35. Cf. Sp 584.5-9; cf.-Vmv 1282.9-10; cf. Sp-t II 346.8-13.
| |
− | | |
− | 36. See also Sp-t II 346.21 and Sp-t II 347.2-3. Additionally, according to the
| |
− | [[Cullavagga]] (Vin II 276.9-18) a [[monk]] may not be accused by ,a [[nun]]. For the
| |
− | difficulty of applying to [[nuns]] the {{Wiki|rules}} given only in the Bltikkhuvibhahga , see
| |
− | Utc IIOSKEN, [[Die]] Rcgeln fur [[die]] buddhistische Nonnengemeinde im [[Vinaya]]-
| |
− | | |
− | milted either a [[dukkata]] or a [[pacittiya]]. However, the outcome of both
| |
− | offences is not the expulsion of the culprit but a simple {{Wiki|confession}} (Sp
| |
− | 584.S-7). 37 The commentator solves this discrepancy by stating that
| |
− | Mettiya herself was {{Wiki|aware}} of her bad conduct and was because of this
| |
− | expelled by the [[Buddha]] (Sp 584.7-9). However, we have to remember
| |
− | the fact that there is no hint of Mcttiya’s [[self-awareness]] in the kinaya.
| |
− | This explanation thus seems to be a'provisional {{Wiki|solution}} by the author of
| |
− | the [[Samantapasadika]], who otherwise Wbuld have had to admit that the
| |
− | [[Buddha]] ordered the [[monks]] to act against the kindya.
| |
− | | |
− | The dusaka in Parujika 1 (Bltikkhuvibhahga ) and Mettiya arc expelled
| |
− | by a lihganasana according to the passages of the [[Samantapasadika]]
| |
− | discussed above. The same source provides the additional [[information]]
| |
− | that the actual ixpulsion of the [[nun]] Mettiya involves her [[disrobing]] (Sp
| |
− | 584 1 1-13) 38 . [[Disrobing]] is therefore called liiigandsand. Since the
| |
− | expulsion of [[fully ordained]] persons is called linganasana also in the
| |
− | eases of the [[monk]] admitting during pavdrand to having committed a
| |
− | [[parajika]] offence (sec above, p.94; Sp 1078.9), and in the ease of the
| |
− | erroneously [[ordained]] eleven kinds of {{Wiki|individuals}} in the [[Mahavagga]] (see
| |
− | above, p.98; Sp 1016.15-16), it is probably, in each of these eases, also
| |
− | performed by [[disrobing]] the guilty parly. In all these instances the
| |
− | cxpulsioh seems to be irreversible.
| |
− | | |
− | Once again, as in the commentary on [[Samghadisesa]] 8, in the
| |
− | commentary on the passage of the [[patimokkha]] about the expulsion of the
| |
− | {{Wiki|novice}} [[Kanaka]] ( [[Pacittiya]] 70, see above, p.99) the “three kinds of
| |
− | nasand" arc listed in the [[Samantapasadika]] (Sp 870.34 - 871,6): 39
| |
− | | |
− | “Expel him” means: here we arc faced with a threefold nasand: saipvasandsand,
| |
− | liiigandsand and dandakammandsand. Thus the [[suspension]] because of the
| |
− | refusal to see an offence etc. is called saiiivbsanasand. “A rapist has to be
| |
− | expelled” (and) “Expel [[nun]] Mettiya!” is called liiigandsand. “From this day on.
| |
− | [[Venerable]] Samanuddesa, this Lord is not to be [[perceived]] as your, [[teacher]]
| |
− | anymore!”, this is dandakammandsand: this is valid here. Therefore he said:
| |
− | “And thus, [[monks]], he should be expelled: ’... leave!’”
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | [[Pitaka]] der Theravddin (Monographicn zur Indischen Archaologic, Kunst und
| |
− | Philologie, 11X in press, §1.1.1.
| |
− | | |
− | 37. Cf. Sp-t II 347.11-13 and Vjb 196.15-17.
| |
− | | |
− | 38. See also Sp 591.26; 592.1; and Sp-t II 345.27: “’Expel her’ means: give her
| |
− | white [[clothes]] and reduce her to lay {{Wiki|status}}.”
| |
− | | |
− | 39. Cf.Kkh 127.39-128.6.
| |
− | | |
− | it follows, according to this [[interpretation]], that the expulsion of [[Kantaka]]
| |
− | in [[Pacittiya]] 70 is a dandakammandsana . According to the [[information]]
| |
− | of the [[Wikipedia:canonical|canonical]] text (see above, p.99) the {{Wiki|novice}} is sent 4way and is
| |
− | thus excluded from membership in the order, since he may no longer
| |
− | view the [[Buddha]] as his [[teacher]]. However, he may later regain his {{Wiki|status}}
| |
− | as a {{Wiki|novice}}.
| |
− | | |
− | Contrary to the Samantapdsddikd, in the [[Vinaya]] the term [[danda]] -
| |
− | kammandsand is unknown, but dandakamma and ndsana arc treated in
| |
− | different [[sections]] of Mahdvagga and [[Cullavagga]]. An {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act
| |
− | of {{Wiki|punishment}} ( dandakamma) can be performed by [[monks]] or [[nuns]]. The
| |
− | [[Vinaya]] gives accounts of dandakammas being performed by [[monks]]
| |
− | regarding novices or [[nuns]], and by [[nuns]] regarding [[monks]], but not by
| |
− | [[monks]] regarding [[monks]] or by [[nuns]] regarding [[nuns]]. In [[die]] Mahdvagga
| |
− | (Vin I 84.11-15) five particular situations are enumerated which result
| |
− | in the performance of a dandakamma by [[monks]] with [[respect]] co novices.
| |
− | The result of this dandakamma is not preordained. The severity of the
| |
− | {{Wiki|punishment}} is, to a large extent, determined by the particular [[monks]]
| |
− | performing the dandakamma . However, according to the Mahdvagga
| |
− | (Vin I 84.22-25) the {{Wiki|punishment}} may not include prohibiting^entry into
| |
− | the whole area of an Arama (Vin I 84.15-25). 40
| |
− | | |
− | The outcome of ndsana for novices is not defined in the [[Vinaya]] , but is
| |
− | discussed in the Samantapdsddikd (Sp 1014.8-12; cf. Sp-J^ll 25S.6-7).
| |
− | There the expulsion of a {{Wiki|novice}} due to any of the tern [[characteristics]]
| |
− | listed in Vin I 85.19-26 is called lihganasand . That means that his
| |
− | “taking of [[refuge]]”, his choice of a [[preceptor]] ( upajjhdya ), and his right
| |
− | to occupy a lodging no longer has any relevance for him. For the time
| |
− | being only “the outer sign” (lihga) is retained by him. If in {{Wiki|future}} he
| |
− | docs not conform to correct conduct he should then definitely be
| |
− | excluded (Sp 1014.16-19; cf. Sp-t III 256.3-5). If, however, he recog¬
| |
− | nizes his mistake, the offence is not within the scope of lihganasand and
| |
− | the guilty {{Wiki|novice}} can reestablish {{Wiki|integration}} within the order (Sp
| |
− | 1014.19-30). At the same time, it is certain that the [[conscious]] trans¬
| |
− | gression of any one of the first five of the {{Wiki|rules}} of Samancras is
| |
− | tantamount to a pdrdjika for the [[monks]] (Sp 1014.30-1015.2). In the
| |
− | Samantapdsddikd a passage of the Kurundi is cited. This source informs
| |
− | | |
− | 40. The introductory sentences [[state]] that Samancras, who were prohibited Irom
| |
− | entering an Arama, departed, left the order, and converted to other [[religious]]
| |
− | groups (Vin I 84.19-21).
| |
− | | |
− | us that if a {{Wiki|novice}} transgresses the {{Wiki|rules}} 6-9 mentioned in the ndsana
| |
− | [[chapter]] of the Mahdvagga , he will be expelled “in the same way as
| |
− | [[Kantaka]]” in [[Pacittiya]] 70, that is, by means of a dandakammandsana (Sp
| |
− | 1015.7-15), 41 only after he is admonished up to three times. On the
| |
− | other hand, according to the Mahd-atthakatha and the Samantapdsddikd ,
| |
− | even a successful admonition and the subsequent admission of the
| |
− | offence fail to [[release]] the {{Wiki|novice}} from a dandakamma. At the same time,
| |
− | an unsuccessful admonition definitely results in a lihganasand (Sp
| |
− | 1015.15-20), 42 whereas a {{Wiki|novice}} who has raped a [[nun]] can never receive
| |
− | lower [[ordination]] ( [[pabbajja]] ) again, even if he should promise to refrain
| |
− | from such {{Wiki|behaviour}} in {{Wiki|future}} (Sp 1015.23-29).
| |
− | | |
− | Thus, although dandakamma and ndsana in the [[Vinaya]] itself differ
| |
− | considerably, the author of the Samantapdsddikd links both terms by
| |
− | distinguishing between different kinds of ndsana to be applied to
| |
− | novices. Moreover, in the Samantapdsddikd it is staled that on occasion
| |
− | [[monks]] performed dandakammas with regard to novices with a view to
| |
− | preventing them from being expelled or from leaving the order (Sp
| |
− | 1013.23-27). These explanations arc evidently an attempt to differen¬
| |
− | tiate the general term ndsana. The variation between dandakamma-
| |
− | ndsand and lihganasand in the ease of novices may have become
| |
− | necessary once the ten [[reasons]] for ndsana listed in Vin 185.19-26 were
| |
− | seen to have various degrees of seriousness. Despite the fact that each
| |
− | ease concerns ndsana, only an infringement of the first five [[training rules]] of the [[Samaneras]], which is not later regretted, leads to the expul¬
| |
− | sion known as lihganasand, the result of which appears irreversible.
| |
− | However, only after three unsuccessful admonitions docs the {{Wiki|violation}} of
| |
− | {{Wiki|rules}} 6-9 lead to the expulsion of a {{Wiki|novice}} known as dandakamma-
| |
− | ndsand, which can be cancelled, as noted above. 43
| |
− | | |
− | 41. It is [[interesting]] that in the [[Vinaya]] only one admonition of [[Kantaka]] is mentioned,
| |
− | although the procedure of a threefold admonition is well kno.vn in the
| |
− | palimokkha, as we can see from the yavatatiyaka sanighadiscsa {{Wiki|rules}}. •
| |
− | | |
− | 42. A similar description is given in the Kankhdvitaraniporanafikd (Kkh-pt 100.16-
| |
− | 101.2; see also Sp-t II345.30 - 346.1).
| |
− | | |
− | 43. Both execution and reversal of dandakammanusuna are described at length in Uie
| |
− | Samantapdsddikd. However, there the expulsion is known as nissdratfd (Sp
| |
− | 1402.22-28; cf. Kkh 131.31-33), although the wording of the [[formula]] suggests
| |
− | that [[Pacittiya]] 70 and Vin I 85.19-26 ([[reasons]] 6-9) arc being referred to (Sp
| |
− | 1402.28-35). The reversal of the measure is known as osdrand (Sp i403)3-13;
| |
− | cf. Kkh 131.33-34). According to the same text expulsion as well as revocation
| |
− | are {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} acts (apalokanakamma\ Sp 1402.22-28 and 1403.3-13).
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | The last of the three types of nasand frequently mentioned in the
| |
− | Samantapdsddikd is the samvdsandsana^ which is not described in the
| |
− | Vi nay a, Samvdsa in the [[Vinaya]] is a general term encompassing all the
| |
− | rights and duties of a [[monk]] or [[nun]] within their respective {{Wiki|community}}. 44
| |
− | The term is consistently defined in the [[Vinaya]] as ekakammam ekuddeso
| |
− | samasikkhutd , "one common {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act, a common {{Wiki|recitation}}, and ;
| |
− | one and the same {{Wiki|training}}" (c.g. Vin IV 214.31-33). 45 Even in the
| |
− | [[Vinaya]] the term samvdsa is qualified more specifically: asantvdsa means
| |
− | "without (any) communion”, samdnasamvdsaka means "belonging to the
| |
− | same communion”, and ndndsamvdsaka means "belonging to a different
| |
− | communion”. As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, the term
| |
− | "without (any) communion” (asamvdsa) refers to a [[monk]] or [[nun]] who
| |
− | has transgressed one of the pdrdjika {{Wiki|rules}}. The offender has lost his
| |
− | ' {{Wiki|status}} as member of the [[Buddhist order]] and may never be [[ordained]]
| |
− | again. According to the Mahdvagga (Vin I 339.6-340.38) a suspended
| |
− | [[monk]] (ukkhitta [[bhikkhu]]) is not excluded from membership in the
| |
− | [[Buddhist order]] as a whole, but no longer belongs to the same commu¬
| |
− | nion (samdnasamvdsaka) as the suspending [[monks]] (ukkhepakd [[bhikkhu]] ).
| |
− | He is not prevented from founding or attaching himself to another
| |
− | communion. Therefore he is called "belonging to another communion”
| |
− | | |
− | ( ndndsamvdsaka ).
| |
− | | |
− | In the Samantapdsddikd, samvdsandsana is defined concisely as the
| |
− | [[suspension]] of a [[monk]] due to the refusal to see or for not making amends
| |
− | for an offence, or because of the refusal to give up a [[false view]] (Sp
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | VAJIRA1SIANAVARORASA [[views]] the expulsion of novices in a different way.
| |
− | According to him it is stated in the Anhakathas that a novice’s rights and
| |
− | privileges arc lost completely, leaving only the {{Wiki|status}} (Entrance III, p.243).
| |
− | However, he docs not tell us to what extent and in what [[respect]] the {{Wiki|status}} is
| |
− | retained. In his opinion the nasand mentioned with regard to the Samancra
| |
− | [[Kantaka]] implies that the {{Wiki|status}} is not in fact relinquished but instead that the
| |
− | culprit is simply excluded from the dvdsa . Because of this, he renames this
| |
− | particular expulsion samhhoga-ndsand , “depriving of sharing”, a term not to be
| |
− | found in the [[Vinaya]] or even in the commentaries.
| |
− | | |
− | 44. This [[definition]] only touches on the relationship between [[monks]] and [[monks]] or
| |
− | between [[nuns]] and [[nuns]]. Consequently, novices in this legal [[sense]] arc not in
| |
− | communion” with anyone.
| |
− | | |
− | 45. Samvdsandsana in the Sdratthadipani is explicitly defined with reference to this
| |
− | [[definition]] in the [[Vinaya]] (Sp-t 11 345.29-30).
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 582.21-23; Sp-870.36-87l.l). 4 6 This [[definition]] implies that samvdsa-
| |
− | nasand generally means “expulsion from the (same) communion”
| |
− | (*samdnasamvdsandsana). However, as noted above, nasand may refer
| |
− | to [[monks]] who have broken a pdrdjika {{Wiki|rule}}, who have concealed the
| |
− | offence, but who in the end have admitted to the {{Wiki|transgression}}. In eases
| |
− | of samvdsandsana one could therefore think of a [[monk]] who has broken
| |
− | a pdrdjika {{Wiki|rule}} but who docs not wish to [[recognize]] his offence and,
| |
− | consequently, who docs not wish to leave the order. The only means of
| |
− | getting rid of such a [[monk]] mentioned in the [[Vinaya]] to my [[knowledge]] is
| |
− | the performance of the {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act of [[suspension]] ( ukkhepaniya -
| |
− | [[kamma]]). It is quite possible that this particular ease is called sanivdsa-
| |
− | ndsaiia, too. Samvdsandsana may thus implicitly include the [[suspension]]
| |
− | of a member of the order who has committed a pdrdjika but docs not
| |
− | wish to admit to his wrongdoing. Thus two types of [[suspension]], which
| |
− | arc similar in procedure but different in effect are called samvasa-
| |
− | nasana\ A [[monk]], who has committed either a sajnghddiscsa or a lesser
| |
− | offence, qan be restored once he submits to the [[decision]] of the [[Samgha]]
| |
− | regarding his offence. However, a [[suspension]] due to the non-acknowl¬
| |
− | edgement of a pdrdjika offence docs not include the possibility of
| |
− | restoration. 47
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 46. However, despite the fact that the commentary on two passages in the Parham
| |
− | (Vin V 115.23-24 and 211.14-17) mentions only Mettiya, the dusaka, and the
| |
− | {{Wiki|novice}} Kan (aka, all three kinds of nasand arc listed (Sp 1320.31-34 and Sp
| |
− | 1383.36-1384.4). The common [[connection]] of samvdsa-ndsand and [[suspension]]
| |
− | is thus missing ir. these instances. These two passages may be considered [[as evidence]] of multiple authorship of the Samantapdsddikd , as suggested by VON
| |
− | IIINOUOR, Handbook, § 220.
| |
− | | |
− | 47. Prompted by the fact that the restitution of a suspended ( ukkhitta) [[monk]] is
| |
− | generally possible, VajiranANAVARORASA states that samvasa-naxand is an
| |
− | inaccurate term used in the Atthakathas (Entrance III, pp. 243.245). On the other
| |
− | hand, he claims that a [[monk]] who commits a pdrdjika (antimavatthu) and who
| |
− | docs not leave the order, is then excluded by samvdsa-ndsand-. “the [[Samgha]]
| |
− | prohibits samvdsa absolutely and docs not receive him again.” According to him,
| |
− | there is no example to be found in the texts even though this is the way such
| |
− | eases arc dealt with on a {{Wiki|practical}} level up to the {{Wiki|present}} day. Me apparently
| |
− | overlooked the link of the above-mentioned particular {{Wiki|ecclesiastical}} act of
| |
− | [[suspension]] ( ukkhcpaniyakamma) because of the non-admission of a pdrdjika
| |
− | offence with the “[[absolute]] prohibition ot samvdsa”.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | In conclusion, it is possible to summarize the application of the term
| |
− | nasana and to trace the [[development]] of the use of this term and its
| |
− | derivations in the [[Vinaya]] and in the {{Wiki|commentarial}} {{Wiki|literature}}. The
| |
− | combined texts referred to above suggest the following historical devel¬
| |
− | opment. In the Kdrandavasutta in the Angullaranikaya and in the intro¬
| |
− | ductory story of Samghddisesa 8 the teem nasana is a very general term
| |
− | for “expulsion” As the juridical {{Wiki|terminology}} in the [[Vinaya]] developed, a
| |
− | {{Wiki|distinction}} between pdrdjika and nasana was made, nasana then desig¬
| |
− | nated the expulsion to be performed by the [[Samgha]]. The circumstances
| |
− | under which such an expulsion was [[thought]] to be necessary vary
| |
− | considerably: For example due to an invalid [[ordination]], initial conceal¬
| |
− | ment of a pdrdjika , or committing a serious offence such as rape.
| |
− | Additionally, the expulsion of novices is also called nasana,
| |
− | | |
− | The Parivdra contains the first indication of a {{Wiki|classification}} into three
| |
− | different types of nasana. This categorization, however, is elaborate
| |
− | only in the commentaries, which were compiled more than a half
| |
− | millcnium later. 48 There we find the terminological {{Wiki|distinction}} of three
| |
− | kinds of nasana. Lingandsand here is the [[name]] for the irreversible
| |
− | expulsion of [[monk]], [[nun]], or {{Wiki|novice}}. Dandakammandsand entaiis a less
| |
− | harsh type of expulsion of novices since it can later be revoked. This
| |
− | expulsion equates to sa/nvdsandsand for [[monks]], since samvdsandsand
| |
− | determines the [[suspension]] of {{Wiki|individuals}} who until their restoration arc
| |
− | not allowed to live in the same communion ( samdnasamvasa ) with the
| |
− | suspending [[monks]]. Additionally, samvdsandsand probably designates the
| |
− | special ease of the [[suspension]] of a [[monk]] due to non-recognition of his
| |
− | pdrdjika offence. In this ease no restoration is possible.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 48. Similar observations could be made by Oskar VON HinOber regarding the
| |
− | treatment of the samutthdnas of the different offences of the Pdtimokkha ("The
| |
− | [[arising]] of an offence: dpattisamutthdna. A note on the {{Wiki|structure}} and history of
| |
− | the Thcravada-Vinaya", [[Journal of the Pali Text Society]] 16 [1992], pp: 55-69;
| |
− | pp. 5Sf., 61,68).
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | Abbreviations:
| |
− | | |
− | AN =* Ariguttaranikaya, cd. R. MORRIS, E. HARDY, 5 Vols., [[London]], 1885-1900 ([[Pali Text Society]]); Vol. 6 (Indexes, by M. Hunt and C. A. F. RHYS Davids),
| |
− | [[London]], 1910 ([[Pali Text Society]]).
| |
− | | |
− | BD = Isalinc Blew HORNER, The [[Book of the Discipline]] ([[Vinaya]] Pi taka), 6 Vols.,
| |
− | [[London]], 1938-1966 ([[Sacred Books]] of the [[Buddhists]] Series, 10,11,13,14,20.
| |
− | 25).
| |
− | | |
− | DN * [[Dighanikaya]] , ed. T. W. RHYS Davids, J. E. CARPENTER, 3 Vols., [[London]],
| |
− | 1890-1911 ([[Pali]] Tcitl [[Society]]).
| |
− | | |
− | von MinOber, "[[Buddhist Law]]" = Oskar VON HinOber, "[[Buddhist Law]] according to
| |
− | the Thcravada-Vinaya. A Survey of {{Wiki|Theory}} and Practice", Journal of the
| |
− | [[International Association of Buddhist Studies]] 18.1 (1995), pp. 7-45.
| |
− | | |
− | VON HINOBER, Handbook = Oskar VON HINOBER % A Handbook of [[Pali Literature]] ,
| |
− | [[Berlin]] 1996 ([[Indian]] {{Wiki|Philology}} and [[Wikipedia:South Asia|South Asian]] Studies, 2).
| |
− | | |
− | Kkh « [[Buddhaghosa]], Kahkhavitarani ndma Matikatfhakathu, cd. DOROTHY
| |
− | MASKELL, [[London]], 1956 ([[Pali Text Society]]).
| |
− | | |
− | Kkh-pl *= Buddhanaga, Kahkhavitaraniporanatika, Challhasangayana edition, publ.
| |
− | [[Buddha Sasana]] Council, Rankun, 1965.
| |
− | | |
− | Mp » [[Buddhaghosa]], Man a ruth apurun /. Ahguttarahikdya-affhakathu , cd. M.
| |
− | Walleser, U. Kopp, 5 Vols., [[London]], 1924-1956 ([[Pali Text Society]]).
| |
− | | |
− | NOLOT, SVTT11 * fedith NOLOT, "Studies in [[Vinaya]] Technical Terms, I-Hl”, [[Journal of the Pali Text Society]] XKW (1996), 73-150.
| |
− | | |
− | Ps « [[Buddhaghosa]], Papaheasudani , Vol. 1 (1922) and 11 (1928) cd. by J. WOODS and
| |
− | D. KOSAMBI; Vol. Ill (1933), Vol. IV (1937) and Vol. V (1938) cd. by L B.
| |
− | HORNER; I^ondon ([[Pali Text Society]]).
| |
− | | |
− | Sp = [[Buddhaghosa]] (?), Samantapdsddikd , Vinaya-aUhakatha, cd. J. TAKAKUSU, M.'
| |
− | NAGAI (and K. MlZUNO Vols. 5 and 7), 7 Vols., [[London]], 1924-1947 ([[Pali Text Society]]), [index Vol. by H. KOPP, [[London]], 1977 ([[Pali Text Society]])].
| |
− | | |
− | Sp-l = Saripulta, Sdratthadipani , Challhasangayana edition, publ. [[Buddha Sasana]]
| |
− | Council, Rankun, 3 Vols.; Vol. i: 1961, Vol. II: I960, Vol. Ill: 1960.
| |
− | | |
− | Sv ~ [[Buddhaghosa]], Sumahgalavilasini , Digit a n ikaya-atthaka tha f ed. [[T. W. Rhys Davids]], J. E. Carpenter, W. Stede, 3 Vols., [[London]], 1886-1932 ([[Pali Text Society]]).
| |
− | | |
− | VaJIRANANAVARORASA, Entrance - SOMDETCH PHRA MAHA SAMANA ClIAO
| |
− | KROM PHRAYA VAJIRANANAVARORASA, The Entrance to the [[Vinaya]], [[Vinaya]] -
| |
− | muldia, 3 Vols., [[Bangkok]]; 1969, 1973,1983.
| |
− | | |
− | Vin = [[Vinayapitaka]] , cd. Hermann OLDENBERG, 5 Vols., [[London]], 1879-1883.
| |
− | | |
− | Vjb = Vajirabuddhitika, Challhasangayana edition, publ. [[Buddha Sasana]] Council,
| |
− | Rankun, 1962.
| |
− | | |
− | Vmv = Vimativinodanitika , 2 Vols., Challhasangayana edition, publ. [[Buddha Sasana]]
| |
− | Council, Rankun, 1960.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | number of cxtrinsically motivated applicants for membership which led
| |
− | to a need to withdraw and cultivate the [[purity]] of the [[Samgha]].
| |
− | | |
− | This {{Wiki|mechanism}} presupposes an [[Indian]] setting where the {{Wiki|status}} of the
| |
− | rcnounccr is high and where there is a general [[belief]] in [[rebirth]] and
| |
− | [[karma]] and a need for merit-making among [[common people]]. I have
| |
− | shown that this process is expressed in the early [[Buddhist literature]].
| |
− | However, the dynamic is not restricted to [[ancient]] times. In the intro¬
| |
− | duction 1 referred to similar features in {{Wiki|medieval}} and modem Sn [[Lanka]]
| |
− | and modem [[Burma]] reflected in the research of M. CARRITHERS, M.
| |
− | | |
− | SPIRO and R.A.L.H. GUNAWARDENA. ' . .
| |
− | | |
− | t have suggested an explanation of the relationship between the
| |
− | . [[Buddhist]] [[Samgha]] and the laity which emphasizes the unintended conse¬
| |
− | quences of the {{Wiki|behaviour}} of the members of the [[Samgha]] Extrinsic moti¬
| |
− | vation among the members and potential members of the [[Samgha]] tends
| |
− | to introversionism. lntroversionism leads to more support from the ai y.
| |
− | Support from the laity leads to extrinsic [[motivation]]. Thus, we have a
| |
− | self-enforcing {{Wiki|mechanism}}. It is a good circle, and in the historical
| |
− | periods when the [[Samgha]] has been able to maintain the [[balance]], it has
| |
− | led to a certain [[degree]] of stability in [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|societies}}. The {{Wiki|structure}} of
| |
− | Thcravada [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|societies}} arc the best example of this built-in co -
| |
− | servatism. The crucial point in the circle is the teMte
| |
− | [[constant]] need to bar out the wrong [[people]] and to {{Wiki|purify}} the Sarpgha y
| |
− | getting rid of lax and [[greedy]] [[monks]]. When the [[Samgha]] fails on this
| |
− | point, the {{Wiki|mechanism}} turns around, and we end up with a “ ' cv ‘., CI ”L C ‘
| |
− | The [[Samgha]] is seen as impure and lax, support from the laity fails,
| |
− | the [[Samgha]] becomes less able to restore its [[purity]]. 54
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 54. This {{Wiki|mechanism}} has been mentioned in R. GOMBRICH, op. at.
| |
− | | |
− | Some Remarks on the Rise of the bhiksunisamgha and
| |
− | on the [[Ordination]] {{Wiki|Ceremony}} for bkiksunis according to
| |
− | the [[Dharmaguptaka Vinaya]]
| |
− | | |
− | ^P[« cnt artialc is bascd on the [[Dharmaguptaka]] [[vinaya]] or Caturvargavinaya
| |
− | (ESttw), one of the five [[Vinayas]] that survived in its {{Wiki|Chinese}} translation ([[Taisho]]
| |
− | Shinslw Dcizdkyo, Vol.22, No.1428, translated by BuddhayaSas in [[die]] beginning of
| |
− | the fifth century AD) 1 , and the most widely spread and most influential [[Vinaya]] in
| |
− | [[China]]. T.1428 consists of three parts: (1) a twofold detailed explanation of the roles of
| |
− | the Pratlmokfa* (Bhiksuvibhahga and Bhiksunivibhaiiga), (2) twenty [[skandhakas]]
| |
− | ([[chapter]], section) that regulate the [[monastic life]] in detail, and (3) some appendices
| |
− | [[including]] historic [[information]]. Throughout the article, the findings of T.1428 have been
| |
− | compared With the other Chinee [[Vinayas]], with the [[Pali Vinaya]], and with the [[Bhiksu]] ni-
| |
− | [[vibhanga]] of the MahasSrpghika-Lokottaravada School. ’ '
| |
− | | |
− | Although it is evident from the {{Wiki|present}} studies ofthc [[Vinaya]] {{Wiki|literature}}, that the orders
| |
− | of [[monks and nuns]] ( [[bhiksu]] - and bhiksunisamgha) arc highly structuralizcd commu¬
| |
− | nities, possessing many {{Wiki|rules}} to be kept and formal acts to be performed; and that these
| |
− | organizations gradually came into being (first the bhiksusatpglm, and later the bhikfuni-
| |
− | | |
− | 1. The other [[Vinayas]] arc: Mahisasakavinaya T.1421, Mahasamghikavinaya
| |
− | | |
− | T. 1425, Sarvastivddavmaya T. 1435, Mulasarvastivadavinaya T.1442 up to and
| |
− | including-T. 1459 (because of its size, the Mulasarvaslivadavinaya was not edited
| |
− | into one work, but consists of a number of diflcrcnl works). Ofthc [[latter]] Vinava
| |
− | also a [[Tibetan translation]] [[exists]]. *
| |
− | | |
− | Closely related to the Mahasatpghikavinaya, is the Bhikfunlvibhahga of the
| |
− | Mahasaipghika-Lokottaravada School*, a text written in a transitional [[language]]
| |
− | between {{Wiki|Prakrit}} and [[Sanskrit]] (ROTll, G.. 1970, pp. Iv-lvi). Apart from these texut
| |
− | the [[Vinaya]] transmitted by the [[Theravada School]] survived in thO original [[Pali language]]. Finally, many [[Sanskrit]] fragments have been found. An {{Wiki|excellent}}
| |
− | survey of the [[Vinaya]] {{Wiki|literature}} is given by YUYAMA, A., 1979.
| |
− | | |
− | * Hereafter M.-L.
| |
− | | |
− | 2. The [[pratimoksa]] is a list of offenses against the prescriptions ofthc order with an
| |
− | indication of ihc {{Wiki|punishment}} to be meted out to those who commit them. There is
| |
− | a list of prescriptions for [[monks]] and one for [[nuns]]. For the [[Dharmaguptaka School]], the [[pratimoksa]] for [[monks]] is to be found in T. 1429 (a compilation from
| |
− | T.1428 by Huai-su (634-707 AD))** and in T.1430 (a translation of a [[Sanskrit]]
| |
− | original by BuddhayaSas, to be dated in the beginning ofthc fifth century AD)**;
| |
− | the [[pratimoksa]] for [[nuns]] is to be found in T.I43I (compiled from T 1428 by
| |
− | Huai-su (634-707 AD))**.
| |
− | | |
− | ** Cf. YUYAMA, A., 1979, pp. 33-34.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | samghal ; careful reading of L.1428, compared with the other extant Vi nay as -
| |
− | {{Wiki|Chinese}}, [[Pali]] and [[Sanskrit]] 3 4 - has revealed the exact ‘{{Wiki|theoretical}}* career of a [[nun]], and
| |
− | lias given us {{Wiki|evidence}} concerning the exact position of a {{Wiki|novice}} ( srdmanerl ), a
| |
− | probationer (sihiamdnd) and a [[nun]] ([[bhiksuni]]) in the bhiksumsbtpglia , concerning the
| |
− | origin of the [[siksamana]] period, and concerning the age of a [[married]] woman to become
| |
− | a probationer and a [[nun]], and has also enabled us to add some new [[elements]] in solving
| |
− | the problems of the five [[robes]] of a [[nun]], the mdnatva period for [[bhiksunis]] , and the
| |
− | [[interpretation]] of the {{Wiki|Chinese}} term in the [[sense]] of‘to admit*.
| |
− | | |
− | /. The rise of the order of [[bhiksunis]] and the [[organization]] of the ordi¬
| |
− | {{Wiki|nation}} {{Wiki|ceremony}}
| |
− | | |
− | The [[chapter]] concerning the [[bhiksunis]] (Bhiksuniskandhaka) in T. 1428** informs us how
| |
− | the order of [[bhiksunis]] came into being, and how an [[ordination]] into the new order has to
| |
− | be organized (the “[[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}}").
| |
− | | |
− | 1) The eight rides that may not be transgressed
| |
− | | |
− | The Bhiksuniskandhaka** starts with the well-known story of [[Maha]]-
| |
− | [[prajapati]] [[Gautami]], [[Buddha’s]] stepmother, who, together with five
| |
− | hundred §akya women asks the [[Buddha]] for permission to go forth into
| |
− | the [[homeless]] [[state]] and to follow the law proclaimed by the [[Buddha]]. At
| |
− | first, [[Buddha]] refuses, because the presence of women threatens to
| |
− | destroy the law. Later, [[Mahaprajapati]], her [[hair]] cut off and wearing the
| |
− | kasdya [[clothes]] 5 , goes, to see the [[Buddha]] again, and, together with five
| |
− | hundred [[Sakya]] women, she weeps outside the [[monastery]] where [[Buddha]]
| |
− | remains. When the [[disciple]] [[Ananda]] sees them, he decides to help them
| |
− | to convince [[Buddha]]. At [[first Buddha]] refuses again. However, when
| |
− | [[Ananda]] asks whether women have the capacities to become an [[arhat]], He
| |
− | answers in the affirmative and, after [[Ananda]] again asked Him to let the
| |
− | women go forth, He finally accepts them to become [[nuns]], provided that
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 3. We use ‘[[Sanskrit]]* to refer to the transitional [[language]] used in the &hik$uni-
| |
− | vibhengu of the M.-L. School: cf. ROTH, G., 1970, pp.lv-lvi.
| |
− | | |
− | 4. T.1428, pp.922c6-930c5: bhikfiiniskandha(ka) (cf. NAKAMURA,
| |
− | | |
− | H„ BGD, p. 327: ftlJJE, chicn-tu, and chien-tu, as a phonetic rendering of
| |
− | the Skt. [[skandha]]{ka ), [[chapter]]).
| |
− | | |
− | 5. Kasdya (MONlER-WILLIAMS, M., SED , p.265: “[[red]], dull [[red]], yellowish [[red]]*’)
| |
− | | |
− | refers to the {{Wiki|color}} of the garments of a [[monk]] or a [[nun]]. Hence it also was used to
| |
− | | |
− | indicate the garments themselves. Concerning the {{Wiki|color}} of the garments, see
| |
− | IIUIRMAN, A., 1995: 11-13.
| |
− | | |
− | they accept [[eight rules]] 6 that will make the bhiksunisamglta [[dependent upon]] the [[monks]]. These [[eight rules]] that may never be transgressed 7 are:
| |
− | | |
− | (1) Even though a [[bhiksuni]] has been [[ordained]] for one hundred years,
| |
− | she has to rise when she meets a bhik.su who has been newly [[ordained]],
| |
− | site has to pay obeisance to him and has to offer him a place to sit.®
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 6. [[Pali]] [[garudhamma]] (OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pitakant, Vol.ll, p. 256ff.); Bh iksu-
| |
− | nivibhanga of the M.-L. School: [[gurudharma]] (ROTH, G., 1970. p. 16, §12).
| |
− | | |
− | 7. See T.1428, p. 923a27: “AsMJEJSfT'Pn®j£”, [[eight rules]] that may not be trans¬
| |
− | gressed during the whole [[lifetime]]. They arc explained from p. 923a28 un to and
| |
− | [[including]] p.923bl 8.
| |
− | | |
− | These [[eight rules]] differ slightly from [[Vinaya]] to [[Vinaya]]. The most
| |
− | differences with T.l$28 (D) arc: OLDENUERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pifakam, Vol.II,
| |
− | p. 255: the [[eight rules]] coincide with the {{Wiki|rules}} in D\ the only different is that*
| |
− | accordiug to the [[Pali Vinaya]], the [[nuns]] should not only ask the mAntr, f or
| |
− | instruction every half mondi, but should also ask for the date of the [[uposatha]]
| |
− | {{Wiki|ceremony}} (see D, {{Wiki|rule}} 6): T.1421, p. 185c20*29: the [[eight rules]] coincide with the
| |
− | {{Wiki|rules}} in D; the only difference is that, according to T.142I, a [[nun]] who has
| |
− | committed a saipghavasesa offense, not only has to undergo the m S n atva
| |
− | [[discipline]] in the tv> > orders (bhiksusaijigha and bluksunisciinghu), but also has to
| |
− | be rehabilitated in the two orders (see A {{Wiki|rule}} 5); T.1425, pp.47lbl-476bll: the
| |
− | third {{Wiki|rule}} of D is not to be found; the [[Vinaya]] has another {{Wiki|rule}}, that is only to be
| |
− | found in the BhtkfWfivibhaiiga of the M.-L. School, and not in any other [[Vinaya]]',
| |
− | a [[nun]] should not receive {{Wiki|donations}} before these {{Wiki|donations}} have been presented to
| |
− | a [[monk]]; the other {{Wiki|rules}} [[essentially]] coincide with the {{Wiki|rules}} in £>, the only
| |
− | differences are that, according to T.1425, a [[nun]] not only has to undergo the
| |
− | mdnatva penance after having committed a saipglMsosa offense, but also after
| |
− | having transgressed a [[gurudharma]] (see D, {{Wiki|rule}} 5), and Dial the [[nuns]] should not
| |
− | only ask the [[monks]] for instruction eveiy half month, but should also ask for the
| |
− | date of the pofodha {{Wiki|ceremony}} (see D, {{Wiki|rule}} 6); [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L.
| |
− | School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 16-72, §§12-110: the third {{Wiki|rule}} of D is not to be
| |
− | found; the [[Vinaya]] has another {{Wiki|rule}} that is only to be found in T.1425, and not in
| |
− | any other [[Vinaya]]: a [[nun]] should not receive {{Wiki|donations}}, before these
| |
− | have been presented to a [[monk]]; the other {{Wiki|rules}} [[essentially]] coincide with the {{Wiki|rules}}
| |
− | in D\ T.1435, p.345c8-18: the third {{Wiki|rule}} of D is not to be found; the [[Vinaya]] has
| |
− | ' another tule: the [[nuns]] must ask the [[monks]] for instruction in the [[Sutra]], [[Vinaya]]
| |
− | and [[Abhidharma]]; the other {{Wiki|rules}} coincide with the {{Wiki|rules}} in D. It is to be noted,
| |
− | however, that the sixth {{Wiki|rule}} in T.1435 explicitly says that the [[nuns]] have to ask for
| |
− | instruction in the [[eight gurudharmas]]. The [[latter]] coincides with the sixth {{Wiki|rule}} in
| |
− | D\ T.1451, p.3Slal-25: the [[eight rules]] coincide with the {{Wiki|rules}} in D\ the only
| |
− | difference is that, according to T.1451, the [[nuns]] not only have to perform the
| |
− | [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} in both the orders, but also the {{Wiki|ceremony}} of the going forth
| |
− | has to be performed in both [[die]] orders (see D, {{Wiki|rule}} 4).
| |
− | | |
− | 8. Sec T.1428, p.923a28-b2;
| |
− | | |
− | (2) A [[bhiksuni]] may not scold or [[slander]] a [[bhiksu]] by saying that he has
| |
− | broken the [[precepts]] (if/a), the [[right views]] {[[drsti]]), or the right {{Wiki|behavior}}
| |
− | | |
− | (dedra). 9 . . ,
| |
− | | |
− | (3) A [[bhiksuni]] may not punish a [[bhiksu]] , nor prevent him to join m the
| |
− | {{Wiki|ceremonies}} of the order (such as the [[posadha]] *° or th<; pravarana '). A
| |
− | bhiksuni may not admonish a bhiksu, whereas a bhiksu may admonish
| |
− | | |
− | bhiksuni. n
| |
− | | |
− | (4) After having been trained in the six rules'* for ^o years as a
| |
− | probationer {siksamdnd"), the ordination ceremony of a bhiksuni has to
| |
− | be carried out in both samghas (i.e. first in the bhiksumsamgha and then
| |
− | in the bhiksusamgha ). 15
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | O See T 1428.0.92362-4.
| |
− | | |
− | any. whether seen, or heard or suspected. See also HORNER i.b. ;
| |
− | committed any offences.
| |
− | | |
− | 13 mle a?e 8 ;he 9 six rnles that have to be panicularly taken into account by a
| |
− | probationer (siksamdnd). Sec further pp. 45-47 iiksam dna-
| |
− | | |
− | 14. Ishih-ch’a-mo-nal, a ^^S <aimanepa da, training one-
| |
− | | |
− | nUlxy oC »i»M in » »— *
| |
− | | |
− | 15. See T. 1428, p. 923b8-10.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | (5) When a bhiksuni commits a samghavasesa offense 16 , she has to
| |
− | undergo the manatva' 2 in both orders (i.e. bhiksusamgha and bhiksuni-
| |
− | samgha) during half a month.'*
| |
− | | |
− | Concerning this rule, the chapter concerning the ordination'’ informs us
| |
− | that when a monk commits a santghdvascsa offense, there arc four
| |
− | formal acts ( karman ) which can, each time by means of a jnapticatur-
| |
− | thakarman 20 , be performed by the samgha 2 ': (a) a parivdsa penance**,
| |
− | | |
− | 16. Skt. samghavasesa, Pali saqighadisesa, M.-L. School: samghatisefa, ‘remainder
| |
− | in the order’. These offenses lead to a temporary exclusion from the order. They
| |
− | include such offenses as acting as a go-between, slandering, conferring the
| |
− | ordination to a thief, remaining without the company of other bhikfunis, staying
| |
− | together with a man^sreating disputes, and so on.
| |
− | | |
− | 17. This is a kind of penance: EDGERTON, F., BHSD, p.429: "...; it thus appears
| |
− | | |
− | that, according to both northern and southern tradition, this penance consisted in,
| |
− | or at least involved, some kind of ceremonial homage paid by the eulprit to the
| |
− | general-community of monks. This can be interpreted as supporting the apparent
| |
− | ctym., mdna-tva, condition of (paying) respect.” In T.I428 the manatva penance
| |
− | is ext laincd on pp. 896b25-906a8. For references concerning the other kinayas
| |
− | SCC.FRAUWALLNER, E., 1956, pp.I09-.il 1. ’
| |
− | | |
− | 18. SeeT.1428, p.923bl0-12.
| |
− | | |
− | 19. T.1428,pp.779a6-816c4(;gJfc«K).
| |
− | | |
− | 20. This is a formal act in which the motion is fourfold (cf. Lamottb, fc, 1988,
| |
− | | |
− | p. 56). It is one of the formal acts that can be performed by the samgha in miri ng
| |
− | decisions. These acts can be a jdaptikarman, a jnaptidvitiyakamum. or ajiumti-
| |
− | caturtliakarman : EDGERTON, F., BHSD, p. 244, s.v. >;«/«»': there are three
| |
− | | |
− | [[forms]] in which the {{Wiki|motion}} may be made, (I) isolated, simple {{Wiki|motion}}, not
| |
− | followed by a separate question as to whether the [[monks]] (or [[nuns]]) {{Wiki|present}}
| |
− | approve, (2) accompanied (followed) by a single such formal question, called
| |
− | jhapti-dvitiyam, (3) accompanied by three such questions, called jhapti-caturtha."
| |
− | | |
− | 21. see t. 1428, P .8oia4-7: B feSfUl* B
| |
− | | |
− | ttSNJIlilMttMIlWUiNiUlltNtiill: if one has to give Uk parivdsa
| |
− | | |
− | [po-li-p’o-sha], see note 22), then one ought to give the parivdsa. If
| |
− | one has to give ‘the correcting from the beginning’ (# □ Hi. [[Pali]] muldya
| |
− | patikassana, see note 23), then one ought to give ‘the correcting from the
| |
− | beginning’. If one has to give the mSnatva [mo-na-to], sec note 17),
| |
− | | |
− | then one ought to give [[die]] manatva. If one has to give the rehabilitation (tllUg,'
| |
− | dbarhana, see note 24), then one ought to give the rehabilitation.
| |
− | | |
− | 22. EDGERTON, F., BHSD, p. 329: “(Skt., period of residence; [[Pali]] [[id]]. in technical
| |
− | [[sense]]) period of probation to which certain [[monks]] are subjected, as a disciplinary
| |
− | measure, for [[concealment]] of a [[samghavasesa]] oifcnsc.” In T. 1428 the parivdsa i s
| |
− | explained on pp. 896b25-906a8. For references concerning the other [[Vinayas]] see
| |
− | FRAUWALLNER, E., 1956, pp. 109-111.
| |
− | | |
− | (b) *a correcting from the beginning’ 23 , (c) a manatva penance 17 *, (d) a
| |
− | taking away the offense* (= rehabilitation) 24 . Further [[information]] on
| |
− | these barmans is found in two chapters of T. 1428: the [[chapter]] con-
| |
− | • ceming persons 23 and the [[chapter]] concerning probation 26 . In case of a
| |
− | [[parivasa]] penance (a), a [[bhiksu]] has to ask the bhiksusamgha three times
| |
− | to impose upon him this penance, which is then given to him by the
| |
− | bhiksusamgha, by means of a jiiapticaturthakarman , 27 The period of the
| |
− | [[parivasa]] penance corresponds to the period during which the [[bhiksu]]
| |
− | concealed the samghdvasesa offense. During this period, many restric¬
| |
− | tions arc imposed upon the [[monk]]. The most important of these arc*, he
| |
− | cannot participate in the formal acts leading to [[parivasa]] , manatva or
| |
− | rehabilitation; he cannot confer the [[ordination]] or give guidance to a
| |
− | [[newly ordained monk]]; he cannot take [[care]] of a {{Wiki|novice}}; he cannot give
| |
− | instruction to the [[bhiksunis]]\ he cannot punish [[bhiksus]]\ and he may not be
| |
− | honored by the other [[bhiksus]]. Every half-month, a [[bhiksu]] who under¬
| |
− | goes a [[parivasa]] penance, has to remind the bhiksusamgha that he is in
| |
− | such a [[condition]]. 28 If, during the [[parivasa]] period, the [[bhiksu]] commits
| |
− | another * amghavasesa offense, he has to be told to start again from the
| |
− | beginning of the [[parivasa]] period. In ease of such ‘a correcting [[Trom]] the
| |
− | beginning’ (b), the [[bhiksu]] has, again, to ask the bhiksusamgha three
| |
− | times to impose upon him this penance, which is then given to him by
| |
− | the bhiksusamgha , by means of a jhapticaturthakarmqn? 19 When a
| |
− | [[bhiksu]] has completed the [[parivasa]] period, the [[samgha]] imposes upon him
| |
− | the manatva period (c), which lasts for six nights. Again, this penance is
| |
− | | |
− | 23. [[Pali]]: tnulaya patikassatur, RHYS DAVIDS, T.W. and STEDE, W. t PED t p.392,
| |
− | s.v, patikassana : “drawing back, in [[phrase]] mulaya p. “throwing back to the
| |
− | beginning, causing to begin over & over again”.*’
| |
− | | |
− | 24. Cf. [[Nakamura]], H. # BGD , p.672: dill, the rehabilitation of a bhikfu , [[Pali]]
| |
− | abbhana; WOGUIARA, U., BW % p. 199: abarhana [[[Pali]] abbhana J, with as
| |
− | {{Wiki|Chinese}} rendering: di ft.
| |
− | | |
− | 25. T.1428, pp. 896b25-903cl9 (ASlffi): this [[chapter]] entirely concerns the
| |
− | regulations concerning the four formal acts that can be performed when a bhik$u
| |
− | commits a samghdvasesa offense.
| |
− | | |
− | 26. T.1428. pp. 904a6-906a8 (SStSiffi): this [[chapter]] concerns the restrictions
| |
− | imposed upon a [[bhiksu]] who is undergoing the [[parivasa]] or the manatva
| |
− | penances.
| |
− | | |
− | 27. See T.1428, p.896b26-c!7.
| |
− | | |
− | 28. See T.1428, pp. 904a7-906al.
| |
− | | |
− | 29. See T.1428, pp. 896cl7-897al4.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | given to him by means of a jiiapticaturthakarman, after the [[bhiksu]] a <fr<»d
| |
− | it three times to the samgha * 0 The restrictions imposed upon the bhiiqu
| |
− | during this manatva period arc the same as those during the parivasa
| |
− | period. The only difference is that the bhiksu now daily lias to inform
| |
− | the bhiksusamgha that he-is undergoing the manatva penance.* 1 Finally,
| |
− | the order can readmit the bhiksu by a rehabilitation. This rehabilitation
| |
− | (d) is conferred to him by means of a jiiapticaturthakarman, itftcrlhc
| |
− | bhiksu asked for this three times. 32
| |
− | | |
− | In case a bhiksu did not conceal the samghdvasesa offense, he docs not
| |
− | have to undergo a parivasa period, but the manatva penance is imme¬
| |
− | diately imposed upon him. When he commits another santghavasefa
| |
− | offense during this manatva period, he has to start again from the
| |
− | beginning. After this period, the samgha can rehabilitate the bhiksu**
| |
− | | |
− | In these chapters ^concerning persons and concerning probation, no
| |
− | indications are given whether or not this also applies to bliilqunis. It is
| |
− | only from the fifth rule (gurudharma) for bhiksunis, mentioned in the
| |
− | Bhiksuniskandhaka** of T.1428, that we can deduce that a bhiksuni has
| |
− | to undergo the manatva penance in both the santghas during half a
| |
− | month, and not during six nights as this is the ease for the bhiksus. The
| |
− | karmavacand 34 for diiksunis of the Dharmaguptaka School, T. 1434,
| |
− | pp. 1068b 14-1069aI, however, clearly mentions this period of half a
| |
− | month, and gives further details concerning this point: the latter text
| |
− | adds that a bhiksuni has to undergo this penance even after having con¬
| |
− | cealed the saittghavasesa offense, and that she has to present herself
| |
− | daily before both the samghas.
| |
− | | |
− | Also, since the parivasa penance is closely related to the manatva
| |
− | penance, it is striking that in the eight rules for bhiksunis in T.1428,
| |
− | there is no mentioning of this parivasa penance, while there is a special
| |
− | rule for the manatva penance. This is also the ease in the other
| |
− | Vinayas.**
| |
− | | |
− | 30. See T.1428, p. 897a 14-b 16.
| |
− | | |
− | 31. See T.1428, p.?06a2-8.
| |
− | | |
− | 32. See T. 1428, p. 897b 16-c24.
| |
− | | |
− | 33. See T.1428, pp. 897c25-898c7.
| |
− | | |
− | 34. Karmavacand is the name of a text containing a list of acts and ceremonies to be
| |
− | pcrfoimed in the order.
| |
− | | |
− | 35. OLDENBERG, H„ Vinaya Pitakam, Vol.lI, p.255, rule 5; Sanskrit* Bhiksuni-
| |
− | vibhanga of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, p.63, §93. rule 5 (apart (torn
| |
− | mentioning manatva, it is further said that a bhiksuni has to ask for rehabilitation
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | la the Pali Vinaya, information concerning the manatva penance is to
| |
− | be found in two different chapters. 1) In the chapter concerning the
| |
− | nuns 16 , the eight rules (P. garudhamma) to be followed by the nuns are
| |
− | enumerated. The fifth of these garudhammas says that a nun who has
| |
− | committed a samghddisesa» offense, has to undergo a manatta™
| |
− | penance lasting for a fortnight in both the orders. 2) In the chapter
| |
− | concerning the samghddisesa offenses for nuns 1 ’, the technical term
| |
− | samghddisesa is explained as follows: “the Order inflicts the manatta
| |
− | discipline on account of her offence, it sends back to the beginning, it
| |
− | rehabilitates; ...” 40 . In the chapter concerning the samghddisesa offenses
| |
− | for monks, however, the same technical term is explained as follows:
| |
− | | |
− | ' “the Order places him on probation [= pari'vdsa] on account of the
| |
− | offence, it sends him back to the beginning, it inflicts the manatta disci¬
| |
− | pline, it rehabilitates; ... .” 41 Moreover, the Pali Vinaya concludes the
| |
− | chapter on the samghddisesa offenses for nuns 41 by saying that a nun
| |
− | who has committed a samghddisesa offense, has to undergo a manatta
| |
− | penance lasting for a fortnight in both the orders, after which she can be
| |
− | rehabilitated. Thus, in both the above mentioned chapters of the Pali
| |
− | Vinaya, there is no mentioning of a parivdsa period imposed upon a
| |
− | nun. From this, UPASAK, C.S., DEBMT , p. 183, concludes that there is
| |
− | no parivdsa penance for nuns.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | i„ Mfe «*nkCite Vinayav. T.H2I. P- > <»?;J~ » *^
| |
− | | |
− | that a bfuksimi has to ask for rehabilitation m both the orders), T. 12 , p.
| |
− | | |
− | 13, rule 5 (here it is said that a bhiksuni who transgresses a S^ a rma has to
| |
− | undergo the manatva in both the ^amghas)-, T.1435, p.345cl0-12, ru e ,
| |
− | T.t 451, p. 351 a20-22, rule 7.
| |
− | | |
− | • See note 3.
| |
− | | |
− | 36. OLDENBERG, H.. Vinaya Pitakam, Vol.H, Cullavagga X, pp. 25J-28J.
| |
− | | |
− | 37. This is the Pali for the Ski. sumghuvasesa. See also NOLOT. E., 1991. pp.401-
| |
− | | |
− | 405. •
| |
− | | |
− | 38. This is the Pah for the Skt. wanorvo.
| |
− | | |
− | 39 OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pilakam, Vol.1V, BhikkhunMbhaAga, pp. •
| |
− | | |
− | 40. OLDENBERG. 11.. Vinaya Pilakam, Vol.IV. p. 225. translated by HORNER, I.B.,
| |
− | | |
− | so, vault, p. iso.
| |
− | | |
− | 41 . OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam, Vol.lll. p. U2. translated by HORNER, I.B..
| |
− | BD, Vol.l, p. 196.
| |
− | | |
− | 42. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pilakam, Vol.1V, p.242.
| |
− | | |
− | Taking into consideration the indications given in other Vinaya texts
| |
− | and in T.1434, it seems safe to state that UPASAK’s conclusion concern¬
| |
− | ing the Pali Vinaya, is equally valid for the other Vinaya texts.
| |
− | | |
− | (6) Every fortnight, the bhiksunis have to ask the hhiksus for instmc-
| |
− | tion ( avavdda 43 ). 44
| |
− | | |
− | Concerning this rule, pacittika” 141 <6 ofthc BhiksunMbhanga
| |
− | informs us how a bhiksuni, by means of ttjnaptidvitiyakarntan 20 * has to
| |
− | be appointed to go to the bhiksusanxgha to as.k for instruction, -or her
| |
− | safety, she must take two or three bhiksunis with her. After her arrival in
| |
− | the bhiksusamgha, she should ask the bhiksus three times for instruction
| |
− | Since she has to ask for instruction the same day the posadha
| |
− | ceremony 16 * is held by the bhiksusamgha, it might be too long to wait
| |
− | till the end of the recitation, and that is why Buddha permits her to ask
| |
− | only one important bhiksu for instruction, after which demand, she may
| |
− | leave. Afterwards, the bhiksusamgha has to appoint a bhiksu to go to the
| |
− | bluksunisamgha to give instruction. •
| |
− | | |
− | It is ih pacittika 21 4 ’ of the Bhiksuvibhahga, that we read how the
| |
− | bhiksu who is to give the instruction to the bhiksunis has to be appointed
| |
− | by means of a jiiapiidviiiyakarman”, after which lie lias to go to the
| |
− | bluksunisamgha. The instruction he has to give concerns the eight rules
| |
− | imposed upon bhiksunis , 4 ’
| |
− | | |
− | (7) The bhiksunis cannot spend the rainy season in a residence where
| |
− | there are no bhiksus. S0
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 43. WOOIHARA, U„ BW, p. 145.
| |
− | | |
− | 44. See T.1428, p.923bl2-14.
| |
− | | |
− | 45 ‘ ™ Skt. palayantika, payantika, Dharmaguptaka School' pa ci ttika
| |
− | | |
− | Waldschmidt, E. <cd.), 1965, pp. 297-298, No.656). M.-L. School: pacattika
| |
− | (for alternative fonns see Edgerton, F„ BHSD, p. 340)*. The original form and
| |
− | meaning of the word cannot be confidently reconstructed. According to IIlRA-
| |
− | KAWA, A.. 1982, p. 191, note 1. it probably means ‘expiation’. The pddttika rules
| |
− | arc a class of precepts concerning minor offenses. Committing such an offense
| |
− | requires a confession.
| |
− | | |
− | * Hereafter all Pac.
| |
− | | |
− | 46. See T.1428, p.765all-c!3.
| |
− | | |
− | 47. See T. 1428, pp. 647b9-649c3.
| |
− | | |
− | 48. See T. 1428, p. 648b20-27.
| |
− | | |
− | 49. See T.1428, p, 649al-2.
| |
− | | |
− | 50. See T.1428, p.923bl4-15.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | (8) At the end of the rainy season, the bhiksunis have to perform the
| |
− | pravarana ceremony' 1 * in the bhiksusamgha . 5I
| |
− | | |
− | In respect to this rule, the chapter concerning the pravarana 52 , informs
| |
− | is how, at the pravarana ceremony, a monk asks the order three times to
| |
− | ell him whether he has been seen or heard or is suspected to have
| |
− | ommitted any offenses so that he can make amends for it. 53 It has to be
| |
− | lotcd, however, that any offense committed by any monk has to be
| |
− | vanished before the start of the pravarana ceremony, and that no such
| |
− | crcmony can start before discussions on any offense have been settled.
| |
− | This means that, in practice, no new offense could be brought out during
| |
− | he pravarana ceremony. 54
| |
− | | |
− | In pdcittika 142 55 of the Bhiksunivibhanga , it is said that the
| |
− | ihiksunis , by means of a jhaptidvitiyakarman™* , have to delegate a
| |
− | diiksuni to go to the bhiksusamgha in order to perform the pravarana . 56
| |
− | >he has to ask whether the bhiksusamgha has any remarks concerning an
| |
− | >ffcnsc that a [[bhiksuni]] is seen or heard or is suspected to have
| |
− | ommitted. For her safety, this bhiksum must take two or three other
| |
− | diiksunis with her. It is further said that the [[bhiksus]] have to perform the
| |
− | n [[avarana]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} the fourteenth day of the month, whereas the
| |
− | > hiksunis have to go to the bhiksusamgha on the fifteenth day. 57
| |
− | | |
− | The [[exposition]] of these [[eight rules]] for [[bhiksunis]] in the BhiktunJ-
| |
− | kandhaka is followed by the statement that for [[Mahaprajapati]] GautamI
| |
− | uid the fi ve hundred [[Sakya]] women, accepting these {{Wiki|rules}} is of the same
| |
− | aluc as an [[ordination]]. 58 [[Mahaprajapati Gautami]] and the five hundred
| |
− | i a Icy a women thus became [[fully ordained nuns]] by accepting these {{Wiki|rules}}.
| |
− | \lso from T.1428, it is thus clear that, although [[Mahaprajapati Gautami]]
| |
− | uid the five hundred [[Sakya]] women accepted the [[eight rules]], these {{Wiki|rules}}
| |
− | :annot have been applied to the first [[Buddhist nuns]], since they are not
| |
− | >rdaincd before both orders, ,nor did they have to go through a proba-
| |
− | | |
− | 51. See T.1428, p. 923b 15-17.
| |
− | | |
− | 52. T.1428, pp.837cJ9-S43bl0 (ft &&«£).
| |
− | | |
− | 53. S # 'c T. 1428, p. 837a4-7.
| |
− | | |
− | 54. See T. 1428, pp. 839a 15-840a 19.
| |
− | | |
− | 55. See T.1428, pp. 765c 14-766b9.
| |
− | | |
− | 56. See T.1428, p.766a6-18.
| |
− | | |
− | 57. See T.1428, p.766a24-25.
| |
− | | |
− | 58. See T.1428, p.923b21.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | S tionary period of two years as a sikjamdnd"* ({{Wiki|rule}} 4). This is due to the
| |
− | simple fact that there was no bhiksunisamgha at that [[moment]] yet. 59 The
| |
− | [[eight rules]] were to become operative only after the rise of this new order
| |
− | of [[bhiksunis]]. Although [[Buddha]] agreed to the creation of this [[bhiksuni]] -
| |
− | sanigha , he was not [[happy]] with it and predicts that, because of this, the
| |
− | law will only last for five hundred years. 60
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | I 2) The [[ordination]] of a new [[bhiksuni]]
| |
− | | |
− | i- In order to become a [[fully ordained nun]], one has to pass through three
| |
− | | |
− | t stages: (a) the going forth [[pravrajya]]), (b) a probationary period
| |
− | | |
− | I of two years as a [[siksamana]] 14 *, and (c) the [[full ordination]] 61,
| |
− | | |
− | | [[upasampada]]).
| |
− | | |
− | ,, a. the going forth
| |
− | | |
− | | In the Bhiksuniskandhakafi, T.1428 explains how this {{Wiki|ceremony}} is to be
| |
− | | |
− | ! carried out 62 :
| |
− | | |
− | First, 'he bhiksunlsanxgha has to be asked, by means of a jnapti-
| |
− | [[karman]] 20 *, for permission to cut the [[hair]] ( mundayati «) of the [[candi]]-
| |
− | date 64 , after which the [[hair]] is cut. Next, the bhiksunisanigha has to be
| |
− | asked, by mean, of a jhaptikarman, for permission to hold the {{Wiki|ceremony}}
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 59. See also Horner, I.L)., BD, Vol.V, p.354, note 3: “... She would not therefore
| |
− | have to pass two years as a probationer, and this praetiee will no [[doubt]] have been
| |
− | introduced later, after an [[order of nuns]] had been in being for some time.”
| |
− | | |
− | 60. See T.1428, p.923cl0-ll.
| |
− | | |
− | In his Les montales bouddhistes, pp. 28-32, M. WijayaRATNA tries to explain
| |
− | this statement of the [[Buddha]]. According to M. Wijayaratna, the 0 f
| |
− | | |
− | [[Buddha]] has to be seen in the historical context of the creation of the [[order of nuns]]. This creation was socially very difficult, since women were expected to
| |
− | serve men and not to organize themselves in an {{Wiki|independent}} order. Since [[Buddha]]
| |
− | agrees that women can become [[arhats]]. He accepts the creation of an order for
| |
− | [[bhiksunis]], not, however, without waiting for the bhiksusamgha to be sufficiently
| |
− | established and not without warning the [[Buddhist community]] of the [[risks]] in¬
| |
− | volved. In order not to let the law socially degrade by the presence of women. He
| |
− | proclaims the [[eight rules]] for bhikfuitis.
| |
− | | |
− | 61. Many other {{Wiki|Chinese}} terms arc used in the [[Vinayas]]: cf WoGlHARA, U BW
| |
− | | |
− | p. 274. ' ’
| |
− | | |
− | 62. See T.1428, pp.923cl6-924al6. A similar [[exposition]] is found in the [[Bhiksuni]] -
| |
− | [[vibhanga]], Pac. 121, p. 755b4-c5,
| |
− | | |
− | 63. WOGtHARA, U.,BIV, p. 1049.
| |
− | | |
− | 64. See T.1428, p.923c!8-20.
| |
− |
| |
− | | |
− | to confer the going forth ( pravrajyd ) to the candidate 65 , after which the
| |
− | [[pravrajya]] is conferred.
| |
− | | |
− | The actual [[pravrajya]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} has to be organized in the following
| |
− | way:
| |
− | | |
− | The candidate, her [[hair]] cut off and wearing the [[kasaya]] [[clothes]] 5 *, has
| |
− | to inform the bhiksunisamgha that she is [[taking refuge]] in the [[Buddha]],;
| |
− | that she is [[taking refuge]] in the law, and that she is [[taking refuge]] in the
| |
− | order. At this occasion, she has to ask the [[samgha]] for permission to go
| |
− | forth, guided by her [[teacher]] (t upddhydyini J 66 . Thus she has to speak three
| |
− | times. By subsequently informing the bhiksunisamgha that she has taken
| |
− | [[refuge]] in the [[Buddha]], in the law, and in the order, and that she has gone
| |
− | forth guided by her upddhydyini , she becomes a {{Wiki|novice}} ([[sramaneri]]).
| |
− | The bhiksunisamgha then confers the [[ten precepts]] (+*& [[dasa]] siksa -
| |
− | p'adani) that particularly have to be taken into account by novices to the
| |
− | new [[sramaneri]]:
| |
− | | |
− | (1) she may not kill, (2) she may not steal, (3) she may not have an
| |
− | unchaste ( [[maithuna]]) {{Wiki|behavior}}, (4) she may not lie, (5) she may not
| |
− | drink [[alcohol]], (6) she may not wear [[flowers]], [[perfume]] or jewelry, (7) she
| |
− | may not sing, [[dance]], or make [[music]], or go to see singing, [[dancing]] and
| |
− | [[music]], (8) she may not use a high, large, and big bed, (9) she may not
| |
− | {{Wiki|cat}} at the wrong time, i.c. after noon, (10) she may not possess {{Wiki|gold}},
| |
− | {{Wiki|silver}}, or [[money]].
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 65. See T.1428, p.923c22-24.
| |
− | | |
− | 66. This is a bliiksuni who, as a [[teacher]], guides and instructs new candidates. She
| |
− | ought to help these new candidates from the [[moment]] they ask for the [[pravrajya]]
| |
− | till two years after the [[ordination]] (see Bhikfunivbhaiiga, Pac. 128, p. 760a8-bl4).
| |
− | | |
− | 67. This is the version of the Bliiksuniskandhaka, pp. 923c25-924a2. In the Bluksuni-
| |
− | vibliahga , Pac. 121, p. 755bl2-19, the candidate first informs the bliiksunisaingha
| |
− | that she is [[taking refuge]] in the [[Buddha]], in the Law, and in the Order, and, at the
| |
− | same occasion, she asks for permission to go forth, guided by her ttpadhyayini.
| |
− | Next, she informs the [[samgha]] that she has taken rcftigc in the [[Buddha]], in the
| |
− | law, and in the order; and, at the same occasion, she again asks for the
| |
− | per'mission-to go forth, guided by her upadhyayini.
| |
− | | |
− | 68. See T.1428. p.924a2-16. . „
| |
− | | |
− | These [[ten precepts]] (for [[Buddhist]] novices, {{Wiki|male}} and fcma c) arc [[essentially]] the
| |
− | same in the other [[Vinayas]]: OLDENBERG, H„ [[Vinaya]] Pitakanj, Vol l.pp. 83-84
| |
− | T.1421, pp. I Kc26-l17a4; T.1435, P .150al9-b8; T.1453, p.456b25-28. In
| |
− | T.1425 and in the Dhiksunivibltanga of the M.-L. School, an [[exposition]] of the [[ten precepts]] lacks.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | b. the probationary period as a $ik$amana
| |
− | In the Bliiksuniskandhaka**, T. 1428 exDlainc hm„ „
| |
− | which one becomes a probationer WtamtyU*) is to berried o^
| |
− | When she is eighteen years old, the [[sramaneri]] three times hnmhi k
| |
− | to ask the bhiksunisamgha to let her study the [[precepts]] for two ^ ^
| |
− | probationer. For [[married]] women, nn e«cS1!* £“*
| |
− | age of eighteen yearn: a mamed CnTSn ZLTt ‘
| |
− | | |
− | S1 A d ft lh ' prCCCpls for ‘ wo *“*. wht " sbe is only ten years old » ” l °
| |
− | After the request to become a probationer, the [[sramaneri]] has to be led
| |
− | o a place front where she can see the Uihu^ ms l,a. but cannot,
| |
− | <t. A bhtksum who is capable of performing a formal act (karman) h «1
| |
− | be appointed by the This appointed M,lZ7Z te o
| |
− | | |
− | perform a fortmtl act in which the motion is fourfold ti e ?'n^ 0
| |
− | bntoWO.) 0 ,dc, to ask the bhO, m is whether tiy JccZZTr
| |
− | | |
− | to the sm»o, m a tratntng for two years in the precepts, under “T.”
| |
− | | |
− | ,n Case ,hl!y a8rce ’ lhc «*»* is iK'cby settled
| |
− | Subsequently, one has to explain the six rules (7^)71 particular’v m
| |
− | | |
− | be taken into account by a siksamand to this newly accepted siksamdna.
| |
− | | |
− | 69. Sep T.1428, p.924al6-c4. A similar exposition (with the execution of ih<»
| |
− | | |
− | explanation on the six rules to be particularly taken into acrnum k P ... 1 of . lh . c
| |
− | is found in the Bhiksunivibliaiiga, Pac. 121, p. 755c5-24. y 3 sl ^ amS, - ,a )
| |
− | | |
− | 70. See T.1428, p. 924a 17-19.1 will discuss this further on pp. 62IT
| |
− | | |
− | 71. These six rules di (Ter from Vinaya to Vinaya:
| |
− | | |
− | The Pali Vinaya has the same rules as T.1428 (OLDt-Nitnu- it i/ „ ,
| |
− | | |
− | al. the bhiksunis and above all the sramanerikas (female novices) (2) Snnn'ih° W
| |
− | that is an offence for a siksamaaa (need) not to be an offence for a ( bhiksu^ai
| |
− | | |
− | UVAhlri th3t ‘ S a " 0nbnCC f ° r 3 bhik5uoi is also an offence for a siksamdnd
| |
− | A ^ U '- " Uy Sl3y W “ h 3 iik * ama, >“ ( in a cell) for three consecutive days
| |
− | (5) A stksamana may stay with a sramanerikd (in a cell) for three ennuv r
| |
− | days. (6) A sikpamana may give some [[food]] to a bhiksimi (7) a Hi* ? CC . Ut,vc
| |
− | be si.ee .„y few, b, , but me «.y S'S fcteSTS
| |
− | | |
− | rccc,vc f o , [[id]] \ s : i ? r and c ° ins - <*> ^ «*»**) sh 0u [[id]] L poim
| |
− | | |
− | out to a bhtksun, any of the bliiksuni 's offences from ihe pdrdjika down to the
| |
− | vinayatikrama. (9) (A stksamana) may not speak (to a bhiksunii cnnnw
| |
− | (matters oQ not committing {{Wiki|sexual}} intercourse, not [[stealing]], not kiiling. not {{Wiki|lying}} 6
| |
− | (10, 11) 0) (A stksamana may not attend the [[Posadha]] meeting of the bhiksimi
| |
− | | |
− | n °‘ i UICn th ° ,,rm ' 0r( "-‘ 0 mcc,in 8 lhc bhiksttnf Order). On the
| |
− | | |
− | [[Posadha]] day and on the pravaratta day, before the Order'smeeting, putting her
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | palms together Site (sic) should say ‘I am so-and-so, [[pure]] and unsullied. May the
| |
− | Order remember that 1 have followed (the eighteen {{Wiki|rules}} for a siksamuna).' She
| |
− | should repeat it three times, then go out. (12) If a siksamdnd has committed one
| |
− | of the last four of the eight pdrajikas , she must begin the sikfamana* s two year
| |
− | course over again, and ought to start {{Wiki|learning}} the disciplinary {{Wiki|rules}} again on that
| |
− | very day. (13) If the offence (that a siksamuna has committed) is one of the
| |
− | nineteen which constitute a samghdtisesa offence, or any other offence (down to
| |
− | the Vinayatikrama (sic)), she ought to make a [[duskrta]] {{Wiki|confession}} for each of the
| |
− | offences which she has committed. (14-18) If she violates (any of) the next [[five precepts]], then her time as a siksamuna will be extended for as many days as she
| |
− | has broken the [[precepts]]. What arc these five? They arc: (14) taking a meal at an
| |
− | improper time, (15) taking [[food]] which was lefi over from the previous days, (16)
| |
− | accepting {{Wiki|gold}}, {{Wiki|silver}} and [[money]], (17) drinking [[liquor]], and (18) decorating
| |
− | herself with wreaths of [[flowers]] or [[incense]].*’ The [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L.
| |
− | School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 26-28, §§26-27, gives eighteen {{Wiki|rules}} that agree to a
| |
− | large extent with the eighteen {{Wiki|rules}} given in T.1425: NOLOT, E., 1991, pp. 15-17:
| |
− | “Qucllcs sont scs obligations? [1] Vis-a-vis dc toutes les nonnes, clle cst
| |
− | nouvcllc; vis-a-vis dc toutes les novices, [[die]] cst ancicnnc; [[die]] doit sc contcntcr
| |
− | du siege infcricur. [2] Ellc doit sc contcntcr dc la nourriture infcricurc. [3] Elle
| |
− | doit sc contcntcr du gruau infcricur. [4] Les biens matcriels illicites pour ellc sont
| |
− | dcs biens matcriels licitcs pour les nonnes. [5] Les biens matcriels licitcs pour les
| |
− | nonnes sont dcs biens matcriels illicites pour [[die]]. [6] Les nonnes nc doivent pas
| |
− | dormir tournees dc son cote; [7] cllc-mcmc i*c doit pas donmir tournee du cote des
| |
− | novices. [8] Les nonnes peuvent la charger de rcccvoir [dcs dons], excepte
| |
− | V agnikalpa* , [9] 1’or ct 1’argcnt; [10] cllc-mcmc peut charger lcsTiovices de
| |
− | rcccvoir [dcs dons). [1*1) line convicntpas qu’clle assistc au [[Posadha]], [12] nia
| |
− | la Pravdranu. Mais, quand a lieu lc [[Posadha]] ou la Pravdrana , montant jusqu’au
| |
− | rang dcs ancicnnes puis accomplissant Yahjali debout devant [[dies]], elle doit dire:
| |
− | “Jc saluc. C [[Arya]], considcrez-moi commc [[pure]]” - ct une deuxiemc, une troisieme
| |
− | fois. Quand elle a dit trois fois “Jc saluc. 6 [[Arya]], considcrcz[-moi] comme [[pure]]”,
| |
− | [[die]] doit partir. [13] II nc convicnt pas dc lui fairc entendre lc Prdtimok$asutra.
| |
− | Au contrairc, il faut lui fairc apprendre tout cc qu’clle peut apprendre avec une
| |
− | padaphalakd **; il faut [lui] dire: [14] “II nc convicnt pas d’enfreindre la chastcte;
| |
− | [15] il nc convicni pas dc prendre cc qui n’est pas denne; [16] il .nc convicnt pas
| |
− | d’otcr la vie, dc sa propre main, a un ctre humain; [17] il ne convient pas de
| |
− | pretendre mcnsongcrcmcnt a un pouvoir sumaturcl” - ainsi doit-on lui faire
| |
− | apprendre tout cc qu’dlc peut apprendre avec une padaphalakd . [18] Les
| |
− | infractions aux cinq prcceptcs [sont]: manger hors du temps prcscrit; manger des
| |
− | aliments mis cn reserve; accepter Tor ct 1’argent; porter dcs parfums, des
| |
− | guirlandcs, dcs fards, boirc dcs liqueurs, dc 1’alcoo), des boissons fortes.”
| |
− | | |
− | • NOLOT, E., 1991, p. 16, note 34: “[...] Le compose signifie litt. “prepare au feu”
| |
− | ou “rendu licitc par lc feu”; [...]. Il n’est pas impossible {{Wiki|a priori}} qu 'agnikalpa
| |
− | ddsigne les cinq ccrcalcs bouitlics ou grillccs du regime monastique [...]. La
| |
− | proximitc dc jdtaruparajata [{{Wiki|gold}} and {{Wiki|silver}}) indique peut-etre qu’il s’agit d’une
| |
− | [[substance]] prccicusc.”
| |
− | | |
− | The first four of these [[six rules]] coincide with the first four pdrdjika
| |
− | offenses 72 : (1) {{Wiki|sexual}} intercourse, (2) [[stealing]] (anything with a value of'
| |
− | five coins 73 , or more), (3) taking [[Wikipedia:Human life|human life]] and (4) {{Wiki|lying}} about one's
| |
− | [[spiritual]] achievements. The other two {{Wiki|rules}} arc: (5) a siksamaqa may not
| |
− | {{Wiki|cat}} at the wrong time, i.c. after noon, and (6) she may noLdrink [[alcohol]].
| |
− | The disciplinary measures that are to be taken against a siksamdnd who
| |
− | transgresses one of these [[six rules]] arc explained in the Bhiksumvibhanga ,
| |
− | pdcittika 123 74 of T. 1428: the four pdrdjika offenses lead to a definitive
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | NOLOT, E., 1991, p. 17, note 36: “[...] lc sens apparent cst iplanchette, feuille
| |
− | ou ecorcc [...] [pour ccrirc dcs] mots ou phrasesM. Mais [...] le terme pourrait
| |
− | designer une nonne specialiscc dans 1’instruction dcs probationnaires ”
| |
− | | |
− | T, 1435, p.327a7-c2, gives [[six rules]]: (1) she may not have an unchaste {{Wiki|behavior}},
| |
− | (2) she may not steal, (3^shc may not kill, (4) she may not lie, (5) she may not let
| |
− | herself be touched by a man with impure [[thoughts]] from below her [[hair]] till her
| |
− | wrist and her knee, (6) she may not do eight wrong things together with a man
| |
− | with impure [[thoughts]] (to allow that the man touches her hand, that he touches her
| |
− | [[clothes]], that they stand together, speak together, make appointments, or go to a
| |
− | secret place, to wail for a man, and to offer her [[body]]).
| |
− | | |
− | T. 1443, p. !G05a3-19, gives [[six rules]] and six additional {{Wiki|rules}}. The [[six rules]] arc: | |
− | she may not (1) walk alone, (2) cross a [[river]] alone, (3) {{Wiki|touch}} a man on {{Wiki|purpose}},
| |
− | (4) spend a night together with a man, (5) act as a go-between, and (6) conceal a
| |
− | [[parajika]] offense of a bhiksum. The six additional {{Wiki|rules}} are: she may not (1) {{Wiki|touch}}
| |
− | {{Wiki|silver}} or {{Wiki|gold}}, (2) shave her pubic [[hair]], (3) dig in the ground, (4) cut grass or fell
| |
− | a [[tree]], (5) {{Wiki|cat}} [[food]] that has not been given, and (6) {{Wiki|cat}} [[food]] that has been left
| |
− | over.
| |
− | | |
− | As said by HlRAKAWA, A., 1982, p.54, note 17, the [[six rules]] of the [[Pali Vinaya]]
| |
− | and T. 1428 arc probably the oldest.
| |
− | | |
− | 72. A pdrdjika is an offense that leads to a [[permanent]], [[lifetime]] exclusion from the
| |
− | order. There are four offenses for [[monks]] and eight offenses for [[nuns]]: {{Wiki|sexual}}
| |
− | intercourse, [[stealing]], taking [[Wikipedia:Human life|human life]] and {{Wiki|lying}} about one’s [[spiritual]] achieve¬
| |
− | ments; and, only for [[nuns]]: having [[physical]] [[contact]] below the armpit and above
| |
− | the knee, being together with a man and doing eight wrong things (According to
| |
− | T. 1428, p. 716a24-27; [[touching]] the hand, [[touching]] the [[clothes]], going to a secret
| |
− | place together, being in a secret place, talking together, walking together, leaning
| |
− | against one another, and making appointments. The eight wrong things differ
| |
− | slightly from [[Vinaya]] to [[Vinaya]] ), concealing a grave offense of another bhikfuni
| |
− | (in all [[Vinayas]] stated to be * pdrdjika, and in T.1435, p. 304a28-29, also stated to
| |
− | be a [[samghavasesa]]), and persisting in accompanying a suspended bhikfu.
| |
− | | |
− | 73. mdsaka : see RHYS DAVIDS, T.W. and STEDE, W., PED % p.531, s.v. mdsaka:
| |
− | “lit. a small bean, used as a standard of {{Wiki|weight}} & value; hence a small coin of
| |
− | very low value. Of {{Wiki|copper}}, [[wood]] & lac.”
| |
− | | |
− | 74. See T.1428, p. 756bl8-c25.
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | expulsion from the order; the two other offenses and offenses closely
| |
− | linked to the four [[parajika]] offenses lead to an extension of the two-year
| |
− | {{Wiki|training}}.
| |
− | | |
− | T.1428 also mentions that, apart from these [[six rules]] particularly to be
| |
− | taken into account by a [[siksamana]], a [[siksamana]] also should study all the
| |
− | [[precepts]] for [[bhiksunis]], except for the [[precept]] on [[offering]] and accepting -
| |
− | [[food]] with one’s [[own]] hands 75 .
| |
− | | |
− | The [[latter]] regulation for the [[siksamana]] is difficult to understand, since
| |
− | no [[precept]] in the Prdtimoksa 2 * for [[bhiksunis]] concerning [[offering]] and
| |
− | accepting [[food]] with one’s [[own]] hands is to be found. The first [[prati]]¬
| |
− | desaniya 76 offense in the Bhiksuvibhahga 77 might give a clue to a solu¬
| |
− | tion. Here, z [[bhiksuni]] offers her [[own]] [[food]] to a [[bhiksu]]. However, when
| |
− | .she, because of this, becomes very weak and ill, [[Buddha]] says that a
| |
− | [[bhiksu]] may not, with his [[own]] hands, accept [[food]] of a [[bhiksuni]], except
| |
− | when he is ill or when the [[bhiksuni]] is related to him. If he does accept
| |
− | [[food]], he commits a pratidesaniya offense. T.W28 78 also says - by
| |
− | means of a standardized [[formula]] - that in ease a [[bhiksuni]] accepts [[food]],
| |
− | she commits a [[duskrta]] 7 ’, and that, in the same ease, also a [[siksamana]], a
| |
− | [[sramanera]], and a srdmaneri (i.c. a probationer, a {{Wiki|male}}, and a [[female novice]]) commit a [[duskrta]]. This implies that they too cannot accept [[food]]
| |
− | from a [[bhiksuni]].
| |
− | | |
− | In the [[Pali Vinaya]], Bhikkhuvibhahga, [[Patidesaniya]] l 80 , we find the
| |
− | [[interesting]] remark that, although a [[monk]] cannot accept [[food]] from a [[nun]]
| |
− | with his [[own]] hands, he may accept [[food]] from a sikkhamdnd or from a
| |
− | sdmaneri.
| |
− | | |
− | 75. See T.1428, Bhiksuniskandhaka, p. 924c2-4 (particularly, p.924c3-4:
| |
− | | |
− | ItixJiijSfi 6 exception made for giving [[food]] to a [[bhiksuni]] and
| |
− | | |
− | personally taking [[food]] to cal); Bhiksunivibhaitga, Pac.121, p.755c23-24
| |
− | (particularly: BfcS-flDtftlS&lBflL exception made for taking [[food]] with one’s
| |
− | [[own]] hands and [[offering]] [[food]] to someone else).
| |
− | | |
− | 76. These [[minor offenses]] [[concern]] the [[acceptance]] and the consumption of inappro¬
| |
− | priate [[food]]. These offenses have to be confessed.
| |
− | | |
− | 77. T.1428, pp.695cl7-696bl3. This offense is also found in the [[Pali]] and the other
| |
− | {{Wiki|Chinese}} [[Vinayas]]: OLDENBEKG, H„ [[Vinaya]] Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp. 175-177,
| |
− | [[patidesaniya]] 1; T.1421, pp.71c7-72b6, pratidesaniya l; T.1425, pp.397al4-
| |
− | 398al . pratidesanika 2; T.1435, p,131a6-bl8, pratidesaniya 1; T.1442,
| |
− | pp. 897a22-899b 18, pratidesaniya l.
| |
− | | |
− | 78. See T.1428, p.696b7-8.
| |
− | | |
− | 79. This literally means ‘a bad [[action]]’ and indicates a very {{Wiki|light}} offense.
| |
− | | |
− | 80. See note 77.
| |
− | | |
− | Furthermore, the ninth {{Wiki|rule}} for the siksamdnds in T. 1425 8 ' says that a
| |
− | [[siksamana]] can give some [[food]] to a [[bhiksuni]].
| |
| | | |
− | Considering the above mentioned facts, we can [[state]] that a [[bhiksu]] and,
| + | 161. This oincidcs with the [[Pali Vinaya]], In T.1421, it is said that a [[bhiksuni]] may not |
− | as mentioned in T.1428, a [[bhiksuni]], may not accept [[food]] from a
| + | accept a [[married]] woman who is [[subject]] to her husband into the order. The |
− | [[bhiksuni]] with their [[own]] hands. This also implies that a [[bhiksuni]] cannot | + | commentary to this [[precept]] says that ‘to admit into the order’ should be |
− | give [[food]] into the hands of a [[bhiksu]] or a [[bhiksuni]]. This might be the
| + | understood as ‘to confer the going forth and the [[ordination]]* (this corresponds to |
− | [[precept]] for [[bhiksunis]] referred to in the above mentioned passage concer¬
| + | Pac. 102, p. 90c 17-18). |
− | ning the [[precepts]] to be followed by a [[siksamana]].
| |
| | | |
− | In ease the [[latter]] [[precept]] is the [[precept]] for [[bhiksunis]] referred to in the | + | In T.1425, and in the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, it is said that the |
− | passage concerning the [[precepts]] to be followed by a [[siksamana]], then we
| + | [[bhiksuni]] may not accept a woman as a [[disciple]] without the permission of the |
− | are confronted with a {{Wiki|contradiction}} in T. 1428:
| + | woman’s [[masters]] ( j{&: see note 162). The commentaries on the [[precepts]] |
| + | explain that ‘to accept as a [[disciple]]* has to be understood as *to confer the v |
| + | [[ordination]]*. |
| | | |
− | I. On the one hand, in the Bhiksuniskandhaka of T.1428', it is said that
| + | T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the bhikfurf ordains the woman, but only |
− | a [[siksamana]] should follow all the [[precepts]] for [[bhiksunis]]. except for the
| + | states that the [[bhiksuni]] admits her into the order (iB-feSR)* 'N |
− | one [[precept]] on [[offering]] and accepting [[food]] with one’s [[own]] hands, a
| |
− | [[precept]] that we have identified as being {{Wiki|equivalent}} to the first pratidesa¬
| |
− | niya in the Bhiksuvibhahga. Unlike a [[bhiksuni]], z-siksamdnu can offer
| |
− | [[food]] to. a [[bhiksu]] or to a [[bhiksuni]] with her [[own]] hands, and can receive
| |
− | [[food]] from a [[bhiksuni]]. The above is congruous with the [[Pali Vinaya]],
| |
− | B.'tikkhuvibhahga, [[Patidesaniya]] l 8 ®*, where it is said that a [[monk]] can
| |
− | always accept [[food]] from a sikkhomdnd or from a sdmaneri, which
| |
− | implies that a sikkhamdnd or a sdmaneri also can give [[food]] to a [[monk]],
| |
− | and also coincides with the ninth {{Wiki|rule}} to be taken into account by a
| |
− | sik?amania of T. 142581*, according to which a [[siksamana]] may give [[food]]
| |
− | to a [[bhiksuni]].
| |
| | | |
− | II. On the other hand, in the Bhiksuvibhahga, Pratidesaniya 1 of
| + | Finally, in T. 1443. it is said that a [[bhiksuni]] may not confer the going forth to a |
− | T.1428, it is said that a [[bhiksu]] cannot receive [[food]] from a [[bhiksuni]] and | + | [[married]] woman without the permission of her husband. |
− | that this also applies to a [[bhiksuni]], a [[siksamana]], a [[sramanera]] and a
| |
− | srdmaneri. These, equally, cannot receive [[food]] from a [[bhiksuni]]. This is
| |
− | in direct conflict with the above mentioned (1.). A possible explanation
| |
− | for this {{Wiki|contradiction}} in T.1428 may be that, in the Bhiksuvibhahga,
| |
− | Pratidesaniya 1 , T.1428 uses a standardized [[formula]] 87 , to be found in
| |
− | many other [[precepts]], as a result of which, probably, no [[attention]] was
| |
− | paid to the particular position of the siksamdnd (and, possibly, as
| |
− | mentioned in the [[Pali Vinaya]], of the srdmaneri).
| |
| | | |
− | 81. See note 71.
| + | 162. It is not clear who exactly has to give the permission to* whom. Since the |
| + | candidate to be [[ordained]] is not qualified as a single girl (3£^C) or as a [[married]] |
| + | woman (tUMIX) (cf. p. 27), it could well be that both of them are equally to be |
| + | understood/ A single girl is to be given permission by her [[parents]], while a |
| + | [[married]] woman certainly is to be given permission-by her husband, but, maybe, |
| + | also the [[parents]]' opinion is decisive. |
| | | |
− | 82. T.1423 ,pratidesaniya l,p.696b7-8: jt;
| + | The [[precept]] in the [[Pali Vinaya]] is similar to the one in T.1428. |
| | | |
− | M, a [[bhiksuni]] is with a [[duskrta]]. A [[siksamana]] , a [[sramanera]] and a srdmaneri arc | + | A similar situation is to be found in the [[precepts]] of T.1425, of the Bhikfuni- |
− | with a [[duskrta]]
| + | [[vibhahga]] of the M.-L. School, and of T.1435, ail saying that a bhikfugi may not |
| + | erdain a woman without the permission of her [[masters]] (3E). The commentaries |
| + | on the [[precepts]] ^)f T.1425 and of the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School |
| + | distinguish two situations: a single girl has to have the permission of her [[parents]], |
| + | a [[married]] woman should have the permission of her husband, her mother-in-law, |
| + | her father-in-law and her husband’s younger brother. |
| | | |
| + | Explaining ‘[[masters]]*, the commentary on the [[precept]] of T.1435 distinguishes |
| + | tlircc situations: a single girl has to have the permission of her [[parents]], a marned |
| + | woman who has not gone to her husband's house yet has to have the permission |
| + | of both her [[parents]] and her husband, and, finally, a [[married]] woman who has |
| + | gone to her husband’s house, has to have the permission of her husband. |
| | | |
− | The difference between a [[sramaneri]] and a [[siksamana]] appears to be only
| + | h. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac. 136 (p. 763a27-b28, particularly |
− | forma!. As we can see from the above, the admission {{Wiki|ceremony}}, by
| + | p.763bl7-19) 163 : |
− | means of a jhapticaturthakarman , of a [[siksamana]], is a lot more elabo¬
| |
− | rated than the one of a [[sramaneri]], for whom no formal act has to be per¬
| |
− | formed. Except for this formal [[element]], of which it might be expected
| |
− | that it leads to a different {{Wiki|status}} of the two members, there appears to be
| |
− | no [[essential]] difference as to their role, or duties in the bhiksumsamgha .
| |
| | | |
− | In this way, having a closer look at the [[ten precepts]] (+Jj£) imposed
| + | “If a [[bhiksuni]] says to a [[siksamana]] : ‘Sister, drop this. Study this. I will |
− | upon a [[sramaneri]] and on the [[six rules]] (a\?£) to be particularly taken
| + | confer you the [[ordination]],’ but she does not take measures to confer her |
− | into account by a [[siksamana]] , we see that thc*six {{Wiki|rules}} of the [[siksamana]]
| + | the [[ordination]], then it is a pdciilika |
− | coincide with six of the [[ten precepts]] imposed on a [[sramaneri]] . This does
| |
− | not mean that a [[siksamana]] docs not have to follow, the other four
| |
− | [[precepts]], [[precepts]] saying that a [[sramaneri]] may not wear [[flowers]], | |
− | [[perfume]] or jewelry, that she may not sing, [[dance]], or make [[music]], or go
| |
− | to see singing, [[dancing]] and [[music]], that she may not use a high, large,
| |
− | and big bed, and that she may not possess {{Wiki|gold}}, {{Wiki|silver}}, or [[money]]. Since
| |
− | it is also said that a [[siksamana]] has to keep all the [[precepts]] that apply to | |
− | [[bhiksunis]], except for one (i.c. the [[precept]] on [[offering]] and accepting
| |
− | [[food]]), this implies that a [[siksamana]] necessarily also has to foljow the
| |
− | four remaining [[precepts]] for a [[sramaneri]] , these [[latter]] [[precepts]] belonging v
| |
− | to the set of [[precepts]] for [[bhiksunis]]**.
| |
| | | |
− | This could still lead to the wrong conclusion that a [[sramaneri]] has to
| + | i. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac. 137 (pp. 763b28-764a3, particularly |
− | follow [[ten precepts]] only, while a [[siksamana]] has to keep up all the
| + | p.763c21-23) 164 : |
− | [[precepts]] for [[bhiksunis]] , except for one, hereby particularly taking into
| |
− | account [[six rules]]. Since in these eases where the commentary on these
| |
− | [[precepts]] for [[bhiksunis]] (of the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] ) is also applicable to
| |
− | [[siksamanas]] and to [[sramaneris]] , there always is an indication of the
| |
− | offense committed by the [[latter]] two members of the {{Wiki|community}}, it is
| |
− | evident that also the [[latter]] two members of the {{Wiki|community}} have to keep
| |
− | up the [[precepts]] concerned, be it that - exception made for the case they
| |
− | commit one of the first four [[parajika]] offenses 84 - siksalnanas and
| |
− | [[sramaneris]] arc not punished in the same way as bhiksunr arc.
| |
| | | |
− | 83. A [[bhiksuni]] may not embellish herself (, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] , Pacittika 157). A
| + | “If a [[bhiksuni]] says to a [[siksamana]] : ‘Bring me a robe 163 .1 will confer |
− | [[bhiksuni]] may not go to see singing, [[dancing]] and [[music]] ( Pacittika 79). A [[bhiksuni]] | + | you the [[ordination]] 166 ,’but she docs not take measures to confer her the |
− | must follow strict {{Wiki|rules}} concerning the bedding she uses ( Pacittikas 68 and 69).
| + | [[ordination]] 166 *, then it is a pdcittika |
| | | |
− | A [[bhiksuni]] may not possess {{Wiki|gold}}, {{Wiki|silver}} or [[money]] (Nihsargikapacittika 9).
| + | finally, in T.1421 and in T.I443, it is said that a [[bhiksuni]] may not accept a |
| + | [[married]] woman wl vf is [[subject]] to her husband into the order. |
| | | |
− | 84. Of these four [[parajika]] offenses, the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] only mentions the essen¬
| + | 163. OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pifakam, Vol.IV, p.333, Pac.78; T.1425, p.537b25- |
− | tials. Exception made for some additional commentary on the first [[parajika]]
| + | cl7, Pac. 110; [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp.255- |
− | offense, the commentary is to be found in the Bhikfuvibhanga. In the com-
| + | 256, §224, Pac. 110; T.1435, p.330c2-27, Pac. 125 (T.1435 docs not explicitly |
| + | say that the [[bhiksuni]] ordains the woman, but only slates that the Mkfurf admits |
| + | her into the order (tgf)). |
| | | |
− | Hence, we have to conclude that for a [[siksamana]] or a [[sramaneri]], the
| + | T.1443 contains two [[precepts]] that arc closely connected with the above men¬ |
− | offenses that are mentioned and the measures that arc taken are the same.
| + | tioned [[precept]]: T.1443, p. I008a5«28, Pac. 123, stales that if a [[bhiksuni]] docs not |
| + | confer the going forth to a woman who has done some household work for her, |
| + | although she, i.e. the [[bhiksuni]], previously, had promised this woman to do so! |
| + | providing she did this household work, her act constitutes a P5c. offense! |
| + | T.1443, p. 1007b 13-28, Pac. 120, states that if a [[bhiksuni]]\ although she [[knows]] |
| + | that a woman finished the two-year study of the [[six rules]] and the six additional |
| + | {{Wiki|rules}}*, does not confer the [[ordination]] to this woman, her act constitutes a Pac. |
| + | offense. |
| | | |
− | Finally, it is [[interesting]] to note that all the formal acts and ail the cere¬
| + | * These {{Wiki|rules}} are the {{Wiki|rules}} that, according to T.1443, have to be taken into |
− | monies performed by the bhiksumsamgha can only be done by the
| + | particular account by the probationer. See note 71 . |
− | [[bhiksunis]] themselves, whereas both the [[sramaneris]] arid the [[siksamanas]]
| |
− | cannot participate in them.
| |
| | | |
− | We thus have to conclude that, since the [[precepts]] to be followed by
| + | T.1421 contains a [[precept]] that is closely connected to the [[latter]] [[precept]] of |
− | and the measures that can be taken against a [[sramaneri]] and a [[siksamana]]
| + | T.1443. It says that a [[bhiksuni]] who, although there are no problems, does not |
− | arc the same, and since both do not participate in the {{Wiki|ceremonies}} and the
| + | confer the [[ordination]] to a probationer who has finished the two-year instruction, |
− | formal acts in the [[bhiksunis]] am glia, there is no [[essential]] difference
| + | but, instead, says that the probationer should go on studying, commits a Pac |
− | between the position of a [[sramaneri]] and the one of a [[siksamana]], except
| + | offense (T.1421, p. 91cl9-27, Pac. 111). |
− | probably for the {{Wiki|social}} rank in the {{Wiki|community}}, given the importance
| |
− | [[attached]] to the admittance {{Wiki|ceremony}} of a [[siksamana]].
| |
| | | |
− | c. the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}}
| + | 164. OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pitakam , Vol.IV, p.332. Pac.77; T. 1421, p.91b24-c3, |
| + | Pac. [[108]]; T.1425, p. 526al6-b5, nihsargika-pacattika 18; the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] |
| + | of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 176-177. §179, nihsargika-pacattika |
| + | 18; T.1435, p. 330a6-b2, Pac. 123; T. 1443, pp. 1007c20-l008a4, P2c.l22. |
| | | |
− | When a [[siksamana]] has concluded the two-year {{Wiki|training}}, she is ready to
| + | 165. This coincides with the [[Pali Vinaya]] , T.1421, T.1425, the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of |
− | become a [[bhiksuni]], provided that she did not act against one of the [[six rules]] (/\$i) that she particularly has to take into account.
| + | the M.-L. School, and T.1443. In the [[precept]] of T.1435, the [[bhiksuni]] i$ said to |
| + | ask for an [[alms bowl]], a robe, a door-key, and {{Wiki|medicines}}. |
| | | |
− | in the Bliiksuuiskandhaka**, T.1428 explains how this {{Wiki|ceremony}} is to
| + | 166. This coincides with the [[Pali Vinaya]] , T.1425, (he [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. |
− | be carried out 85 :
| |
| | | |
− | Although the candidate to the [[ordination]], as a [[sramaneri]] and as a
| + | j. T.1428. [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac. 138 (p.764a4-bl2, particularly, |
− | [[siksamana]], has been guided by an upadliyayini w*. she now must offi¬ | + | p.764b2-3) 167 : |
− | cially ask a [[bhiksuni]] to become her upadliyayini. After this request, re¬
| |
− | peated three times, that [[bhiksuni]] consents to become her upadliyayini .w
| |
| | | |
− | Next, the candidate has to be led to a place from where she can see the
| + | “If a bhiksum, when one full year has not passed yet, confers someone |
− | bhiksunisamgha , hut cannot hear it. The [[karman]] [[master]] 87 then performs
| + | the [[ordination]], then it is a pdcittika ” |
| | | |
| + | k. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac.139 (p.764bl3-cl 1, particularly, |
| + | p.764b29-c2) 168 : |
| | | |
− | mentary on the first four [[parajika]] offenses, the Bhiksuvibhahga mentions that in
| + | School, and T. 1443. In the [[precepts]] ofT.1421 andT.1435, it is only said that the |
− | * case a srdmanera, a [[sramaneri]] or a [[siksamana]] commit such an offense, they
| + | [[bhiksuni]] promises a woman to admit her into the order (ffi). Although nothing is |
− | commit a [[duskrta]] and they have to be sent away definitively. Although a
| + | mentioned as to the exact meaning of the term IS, the introductory stories to this |
− | srdmanera, a [[sramaneri]] and a [[siksamana]] are not said to have committed the
| + | [[precept]] give some indication, informing us how the [[bhiksuni]] made the promise |
− | same offense as a [[bhiksu]] (or a [[bhiksuni]]), they arc punished in the same way.
| + | to admit (J&) her, after the woman had requested the going forth. |
| | | |
− | Ji5. See T.1428, pp. 924c4-926a26. A similar [[exposition]] is found in the [[Bhiksuni]] -
| + | 167. This [[precept]] is closely connected with Pac.83 in the [[Pali Vinaya]] , stating that a |
− | [[vibhahga]], Pac.424, pp.756c26-758c28. | + | ' [[nun]] may net ordain two persons within one year (OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] |
| + | Pitakam , Voi.lV, pp. 336-337). |
| | | |
− | 86. Sec T.1428, p.924c4-7.
| + | Moreover, all the Vi nay as contain another [[precept]] saying that a [[nun]] may not |
| + | ordain a [[person]] every year, [[precept]] which is closely connected with Pac. 138 of |
| + | T.1428: OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pitakam , VoUV, p.336, Pac.82; T.1421, |
| + | p.92b 13-19, Pac. 118; T.1425, p.536ct3-23, Pac. 106 (the [[precept]] says that a |
| + | [[nun]] may not take on [[disciples]] every year; the commentary to this [[precept]] adds |
| + | that ‘to take on [[disciples]]’ is to be understood as ‘to confer the [[ordination]]’); |
| + | [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 250-251, §220, |
| + | Pac. i 06 (the [[precept]] says that a [[nun]] may not take on [[disciples]] every year; the |
| + | commentary to this [[precept]] adds that ‘to take on [[disciples]]’ is to be understood as |
| + | before, i.c. as ‘to confer the [[ordination]]’); T.1435, pp.330c28-331a!5, Pac. 126 |
| + | (the [[precept]] only says that a [[nun]] may not accept [[disciples]] OUftrf-) every year); |
| + | T.1443, p. 1008a29-bl3, Pac. 124. |
| | | |
− | 87. [[karmakaraka]] (?) (f. karmakarikd): cf. WOGIHARA/U., BW % p.323, s.v.
| + | 168. OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pitakam , Vol.1V, pp.335-336, Pac.81; T.1421, |
| + | p. 92b20-27, Pac. 119; T.1425, pp.536c24-537a 16, Pac. 107; [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] |
| + | of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp.25l-253, §221, Pac. 107; T.1435, |
| + | pp.331al7- 334c29, Pac. 127. |
| | | |
− | [[karmakaraka]] : ftsf tM, EDGERTON, F., BHSD, | + | Common in all these [[precepts]], is the {{Wiki|rule}} that an [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} has to be |
| + | performed within one day. However, while all the introductory stories to this |
| + | [[precept]] indicate that the [[ordination]] in the [[nun’s]] order and the [[ordination]] in the |
| + | [[monk’s]] order should be held on the same day, not all [[precepts]] focus on the same |
| + | aspect. According to T.1421, an [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} may not be interrupted and |
| + | has to be held within one day. If not, the [[bhiksuni]] who confers the [[ordination]] |
| + | * commits a pdcittika. On the other hand, according to T.1428, T.1425, the |
| | | |
− | p. 170, s.v. [[karmakaraka]]." the presiding officer at an assembly of [[monks and nuns]] before which a jdapti, q.v., is presented; he or she presents the jhapti, and
| + | [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, and T.1435, if a [[bhiksuni]] lets a woman |
− | the following karmavdeand , q.v. (if any).*’ possibly also may render the | + | stay overnight after having [[ordained]] that woman in the [[nun’s]] order, but before |
| + | conferring her the [[ordination]] in the [[monk’s]] order, this bhiksuni's act constitutes |
| + | a Pac. offense. Finally, according to the [[Pali Vinaya]] % there may be no day |
| + | between the permission to ordain and the actual [[ordination]]. If not, the [[nun]] who ^ |
| + | confers the [[ordination]] commits a Pac. offense. |
| | | |
| | | |
− | a jnaptikarman 20 *, in order to appoint an instructress 88 in the [[bhiksuni]]- | + | “If a [[bhiksuni]], after having conferred the [[ordination]] to someone goes |
− | [[samgha]] , 89 Hereafter, that instructress goes to the candidate and asks her | + | to the bhiksusamgha to confer hcr'thc [[ordination]] only after one night has |
− | whether she possesses the five required [[robes]] (i.c. the [[antarvasa]] , the
| + | passed, then it is a pdcittika." |
− | [[uttarasanga]] , the samghdti , the samkaksika, and the robe that covers the
| |
− | shoulder 90 ) as well as the [[alms bowl]] ( [[patra]] ), after which the instructress >
| |
| | | |
− | Skt. term karmdedrya * (f. karmdedrya *): cf. NAKAMURA, H., BGD, p. 164, s.v.
| + | 4) The period following the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} |
− | fifcliili: [[Pali]] kamma-dcariya.
| |
| | | |
− | 88. if, anusdsikd: cf. WOGiHARA, U., BW, p. 68, s.v. anusdsaka : Apart
| + | p.760b7-8) P5C ' 128 (p - 760a8 - b14 ’ Particularly, |
| | | |
− | from the upddhydyini and the karmakdrika , the anusdsikd is the third [[person]] to
| + | “If a.bhiksuni admits many [[disciples]], but docs not tell them to study |
− | be {{Wiki|present}} during an [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}}. In addition to these three,’ seven
| + | the [[precepts]] for two years 1 ™ and docs not give them support in two |
− | witnesses arc required (cf. T.I428, p. 886a22-28, in the [[chapter]] concerning an
| + | things 171 , then it is a pdcittika. 112 '* |
− | intervention of [[Buddha]] in [[Campa]], where he explains, among other things, which
| |
− | kind of assemblies have to carry out {{Wiki|community}} proceedings).
| |
| | | |
− | 89. SecT.1428,p.924cl0-l2.
| + | 169. OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp.324-325, Pac.68' T 1421 |
| | | |
− | 90. Sec T.1428, p. 924cl3-14.
| + | p.92c6-ri, P a c.l21 : T.1425, p.536b9-25, Pac. 104; [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the |
| + | M.-L. School, ROTH, G„ 19?0, pp. 248-249, §218, Pac. 104; T.1435 o 328a23- |
| + | bl °* P5c ; 1 14 (T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the [[bhiksuni]] ordains the |
| + | woman, but only states that the bhiksutti admits her into the order (SfAShv |
| + | T.1443, p. 1006a6-19, Pac. 112 and p. 1006a20-b3, Pac. 113. ’ |
| | | |
− | These arc the five [[robes]] that are to be possessed by a [[bhiksuni]]. The first three
| + | 170. This coincides with the [[Pali Vinaya]], T.1425, the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M -L |
− | correspond to the [[three robes]] of a [[monk]]: an [[antarvasa]] , i.c. an [[inner robe]], an
| + | School, and T.1435. According to T.1421, the support has to last for six years’ |
− | [[uttarasanga]] , i.c. a upper robe, and a samghdti , i.c. an outer cloak: sec HORNER,
| |
− | I.B., BD, Vol.ll, p. 1, note 2: “The [[antaravasaka]] is put on at the waist, and hangs
| |
− | down to just above the ankles, being tied with the kdyabandhana , a strip of cloth .
| |
− | made into a belt or girdle [... ]. The [[uttarasanga]] is the upper robe worn when a
| |
− | [[monk]] is in residence. It covers him from neck to ankle, leaving one shoulder bare
| |
− | [... J. The [[sanghati]] is put on over this when *he [[monk]] goes out. It may be exactly
| |
− | the same size as the [[uttarasanga]] , but it consists of double cloth, since to make it
| |
− | two [[robes]] arc woven together. [... ] All these [[three robes]] arc made in the patch- _
| |
− | work fashion.”
| |
| | | |
− | The two additional [[robes]] arc ((scng-chich-chih), a phonetic rendering of
| + | while in T.1443, no duration oftlic support is mentioned. |
| | | |
− | the Skt. samkaksika) and 1213#, a robe that covers the shoulder. | + | 171. After the [[ordination]], an upadhyayini has to help her [[disciples]] for another two |
| | | |
− | By comparing several texts and dictionaries, VON HINOBER, 0., 1975, pp. 133-
| + | years and has to support them regarding two things: (1) in the law (2) in |
− | 139, concluded that a samkaksika is a small band worn to support the breasts, so
| + | clothing and [[food]]. ' v |
− | that they do not catch the [[eye]]. This is also the [[reason]] why according to T.1428,
| |
− | Bhiksunivibhahga, Pac. 160, a samkaksika should be worn by a [[bhiksuni]]. Still
| |
− | according to O. VON HINOBER, another garment should be worn over the
| |
− | samkaksika: a gandapraticchadana ([[pata]]), lit. a robe to hide the rounding (of the
| |
− | breasts). This [[latter]] statement is based upon [[information]] given in the [[Bhiksuni]] -
| |
− | [[vibhanga]] of the M.-L. School (ROTH, G., 1970, bhiksuniprakirnaka (miscella¬
| |
− | neous matters), p. 313, §277). The Skt. term gandapraticchadana ( [[pata]] )
| |
− | corresponds to the {{Wiki|Chinese}} term SB# in the Bhiksunivibhahga of the {{Wiki|Chinese}}
| |
− | [[Vinaya]] of the [[Mahasamghika School]] (T.1425, p.546b28). This makes it clear | |
− | that the {{Wiki|purpose}} of wearing 52)3 £ is to cover the rounding of the breasts.
| |
− | Probably this robe also covered the shoulder left bare by the [[uttarasanga]] .
| |
| | | |
− | These two additional [[robes]] of the [[bhiksunis]] arc not the same in all the [[Vinayas]].
| + | This coincides with T.1435. In the [[Pali Vinaya]], in T.1421, in T.1425 and in |
− | In passages where the five [[robes]] arc enumerated in the [[Vinayas]], wc find the
| + | the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, the [[teacher]] only has to help her |
− | following two additional [[robes]]:
| + | [[disciples]] regarding the law. T.1443 has two [[precepts]]: in Pac. 112, it is said that a |
| + | [[teacher]] ought to help her [[disciples]] regarding the [[precepts]], while in Pac. 113, it is |
| + | said that a [[teacher]] ought to support and {{Wiki|protect}} her [[disciples]]. |
| | | |
| + | 172. The [[Pali Vinaya]] and T.1421 add the possibility that a [[teacher]] has her [[disciples]] |
| | | |
− | OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pifakani. Vol.II, p.272: (1) [[samkacchika]], (2)
| + | helped by someone else. s |
− | udakaffitika, i.e. a [[bathing-cloth]]. This [[Vinaya]] docs not mention a cloth worn over
| |
− | the [[samkacchika]].
| |
| | | |
− | T. 1421, p. 187cl9-20: (I) 52J3# : a robe that covers the shoulder, (2) itfciSJC:
| + | 173. 0LUENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pitakam , Vol.IV, pp. 325-326, Pac.69; T.1421 |
− | a [[bathing-cloth]]. Apart from this, in the Bhiksunivibhahga , Pac. 181, p. 98a 11 -17,
| + | p. 92b28-c5, Pac. 120; T.1425, p. 536b26-cl2, Pac. 105; [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the |
− | it is said that a [[bhiksuni]] should wear a samkaksika (fiS ftYi' (seng-ch’i-chihl)
| + | M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 249-250, §219, Pac. 105; T.1435. p. 328al0- |
− | T.1425, p.472b2I-22 and p.521a25-26: (I) ?2B#: a robe that covers* the | + | 22, Pac. 113. |
− | shoulder, (2) Hi# (p.472b22) MY6H (p. 521a26): a [[bathing-cloth]]. Apart from
| |
− | this, in the Bhiksunivibhahga, prakirnaka 23, p.546b25-c2, it is said that a
| |
− | [[bhiksuni]] should wear a 5213# over the samkaksika & [scng-chT-chih]).
| |
| | | |
− | In the Skt.* Bhiksunivibhahga of the M.-L. School, wc find the same infor¬
| + | “If a [[bhiksuni]] docs not follow 174 her upddhydyini for two years 175 , |
− | mation: ROTH, G., 1970, p. 146, §165: (I) kanthapraticchadana * *: a robe that
| + | then it is a pacillika. 116 " |
− | covers the rounding (of the breasts), (2) udakasutika: a [[bathing-cloth]]. Apart from
| |
− | this, in the Bhiksunivibhahga,prakirnaka 24, p.313, §277, it is said that a
| |
− | bfvksuni should wear ^gandapraticchadana ([[pata]]) over the samkaksika .
| |
| | | |
− | * Sec note 3.
| |
| | | |
− | ** According to NOLOT, E.,1991, p. 136, note 174, this should be gandiaprati -
| + | HI. Conclusion |
− | c chad ana.
| |
| | | |
− | T.1428, p.924cl3-!4: (I) samkaksika , (2) 5213#: a robe that covers
| + | The admission {{Wiki|rules}}, admission {{Wiki|ceremonies}} and offenses against these |
| + | {{Wiki|rules}} and {{Wiki|ceremonies}} as they arc described above, display the exact |
| + | ‘{{Wiki|theoretical}}’ career of a [[nun]] in the [[Buddhist community]]. In this commu¬ |
| + | nity, two orders can be {{Wiki|distinguished}}, a [[monk’s]] order (bhiksusanigha) |
| + | and a [[nun’s]] order ( bliiksunisamgha ), the [[latter]] being dependent on the |
| + | former. These orders gradua'ly came into being, first the bhiksusanigha |
| + | and then the bhiksunisunigha, and, as the number of [[monks and nuns]] |
| + | continuously grew, the need was felt to have more regulations in order |
| + | to organize this growing {{Wiki|community}}. |
| | | |
− | the shoulder. Apart from this, in the Bhiksunivibhahga , Pac. 102, p. 749al9-bI6,
| + | In this [[organization]], the admission into the order is a fundamental |
− | a [[bathing-cloth]] (iff #) to be worn by a [[bhiksuni]] is mentioned.
| + | institution This admission has been established for the [[monk’s]] order |
− | T.I435,p.335b28:(l) 5213#: a robe that covers the shoulder, (2) (U|£Sg [chu-
| + | first. The way these admission procedures developed and in which cere¬ |
− | hsiu-Io]: this is a phonetic rendering of the Skt. kusulaka . There arc different
| + | monies they finally resulted, is described in the several [[Vinayas]] . ,77 A |
− | opinions about what exactly a kusulaka is: according to NAKAMURA,
| + | survey has been given by FRAUWALLNER, E„ 1956, pp. 70-78. Apply¬ |
− | p.269, it is an [[undergarment]], also called ({{Wiki|bamboo}} basket), because of its
| + | ing this survey to T. 1428, we come to the following outline: |
− | resemblance with such a basket. According to EDGERTON, I\, IS USD, p. 189, s.v.
| |
− | kusulaka , there arc two different garments called kusulaka : a) “a woman’s {{Wiki|breast}}¬
| |
− | covering” (= kusulaka ); b) “a man’s garment”. The first [[interpretation]] is based on
| |
− | the Mahdvyutpatti , No,9000 (!?2?t?)”). To our opinion, since in T.1435
| |
| | | |
− | a kusulaka is mentioned together with a ‘robe that covers the shoulder*, it could
| + | First, [[Buddha]] himself performs the [[ordination]], i.e. by calling the first |
− | well have the same use as a samkaksika in T.1428, i.c. a garment to support the
| + | [[disciples]] to join the order by means of the [[formula]]: “Welcome,.monk.” |
− | breasts, worn under another garment that hides the rounding of the breasts and
| + | (&$ktkSx). This [[formula]] simultaneously covered admission and ordi- |
− | covers the shoulder. Edgerton’s second [[interpretation]], a man’s garment, is also
| |
− | to be found in T.1435, p.347b!4-17: what man’s garment, in this passage, a
| |
− | kusulaka exactly is, is difficult to know. It is likely to be an [[undergarment]]. The
| |
− | term samkaksika ({$#;& [scng-ch’i-chih]) is mentioned only once in the
| |
− | [[Vinaya]] , namely as part of a series of [[robes]] that can be used by a [[monk]] | |
− | (p. 466a23). It is clear that the original [[sense]] of samkaksika has been lost here.
| |
− | Besides this, in the Bhiksunivibhahga, Pac. 128, p. 335a 1-25, a [[bathing-cloth]]
| |
− | (tS#) to be worn by a [[bhiksuni]] is mentioned. | |
| | | |
− | T.1443, p.944b8-9: (I) [chu-su-lo-chia]: kusulaka, (2) (SfUllQ
| |
| | | |
− | (scng-chiao-ch’i], which according to our opinion, is a phonetic rendering of the
| + | 174. Wh : ’.c according to T.1428, the new [[bhiksuni]], above all, has to listen to her |
− | Skt. term samkaksika. What, in this [[Vinaya]] , exactly is meant by a kusulaka or by
| + | icaciicr, the [[Pali]] I'inaya, T.I421, T.1425, the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. |
− | a samkaksika, and what the difference between these two is, is impossible to say.
| + | School, and T.1435 all {{Wiki|emphasize}} that the new [[nun]] has to serve her [[teacher]]. |
− | Apart from ther-abovc two [[clothes]], T.I443, Bhiksunivibhahga, Pac. 139,
| |
− | p. 101 Ia3-9, mentions a [[bathing-cloth]] (iftfif ) to be worn by a [[bhiksuni]].
| |
| | | |
| + | 175. After having been [[ordained]], the new [[bhiksuni]] has to follow her [[teacher]] for |
| + | another two years and listen to her teachings. |
| | | |
− | questions her in order to find out if there are any stumbling blocks
| + | This coincides with the [[Pali]] I'inaya, T.1425, the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.- |
− | (antardya) to her [[ordination]]. 91 She asks after her [[name]] and her upd-
| + | L. School, and T.1435. According to T.1421, the new [[nun]] has to serve her |
− | dhyayini. She then asks whether she is twenty years old, whether she has
| + | [[teacher]] for six years. |
− | all the [[robes]] and the [[alms bowl]], whether she has the permission of her
| |
− | [[parents]] and the permission of her husband, whether she has any debts, | |
− | whether she is not a slave, and whether she is a woman. Finally, the in¬
| |
− | structress questions the candidate concerning such {{Wiki|diseases}} as {{Wiki|leprosy}},
| |
− | boils, [[eczema]], tuberculosis, {{Wiki|epilepsy}}, bisexuality, or the {{Wiki|disease}} that the
| |
− | two tracts come together 91 , and asks her whether she is able to hold up
| |
− | {{Wiki|urine}}, {{Wiki|excrements}}, mucus and saliva.
| |
| | | |
− | In ease the answer is satisfactory, the instructress brings the candidate
| + | 176. T. 1421 adds the possibility that the new [[nun]] has her [[teacher]] helped by someone |
− | back to the other [[bhiksunis]] and positions her within her reach. Hereafter,
| + | else. |
− | the instructress performs a jnaptikarman in order to ask the [[bhiksuni]]-
| |
− | [[samgha]] for permission to let the candidate return among the [[bhiksunis]].
| |
− | In ease the bhiksunisamgha consents, the instructress tells the candidate
| |
− | to come nearer. 93 The instructress then has to hold the [[robes]] and the
| |
− | [[alms bowl]] of the candidate and has to instruct her to humbly ask the
| |
− | bhiksunisamgha three times to confer her the [[ordination]]. 94
| |
| | | |
− | After this request, the kannan [[master]] performs a jnaptikarman to ask
| + | 177. OLDENUERG, IT., ^inava Pitakam, Vol.l, [[Mahavagga]] 1, pp. 1-100; T.1421, |
− | permission to interrogate the candidate in order to find out whether there
| |
− | arc any stumbling blocks to the [[ordination]]." The [[karman]] [[master]] then
| |
− | asks the same questions as the instmetress. This time, hosyever, the
| |
− | interrogation is public. 90 In case the answer is satisfactory, the ordina¬
| |
− | tion is finally carried out by means of a jiiapiicaturthakarman . 91
| |
| | | |
| + | £J0«£- ([[Chapter]] on [[Ordination]]), pp. 101al2-121a25; T.1425, several passages |
| + | in 3Tj if It ili ([[Chapter]] on Miscellaneous Items), pp.412b24-499al6;T.1428, |
| | | |
− | We can conclude that the [[three robes]] common for [[monks and nuns]] ([[antarvasa]],
| + | 'jcTKIilfE ([[Chapter]] on [[Ordination]]), pp.779a6-816c4; T.1435, |
− | [[uttarasanga]], and samghuti) are always the same. Furthermore, exception made | |
− | for tltc [[Pali]] I'inayti. every [[Vinaya]] mentions a [[bathing-cloth]] and two garments to
| |
− | cover the breasts to be worn by a [[bhiksuni]]. Of these [[three robes]], two arc added to
| |
− | the three common [[robes]], in this way making a scries of five [[robes]] that should
| |
− | always be possessed by a [[bhiksuni]], and that a iikfamana should possess at her
| |
− | [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}}.
| |
| | | |
− | 91. See T. 1428, p. 924c 15-21.
| + | ([[Chapter]] on [[ordination]]), pp. 148a5-157c27; T.1444, tKTfcJft - WTlSlUfiSS |
| | | |
− | 92. This is further explained in the Bhiksunivibhaiiga, p.774b7: it means that the
| + | ([[Chapter]] on Going Forth of the Mulasarvaslivadavinaya), pp. 1020b |
− | tracts of {{Wiki|urine}} and {{Wiki|excrements}} arc not separated.
| + | 23-104la20. |
| | | |
− | 93. See T.1428,p.924c22-27.
| |
| | | |
− | 94. See T.1428, pp. 924c27-925a3.
| + | {{Wiki|nation}}. 178 Later, He permits the [[monks]] to perform the [[ordination]] by |
| + | having the candidate recite the [[formula]] of the [[triple refuge]] ([[refuge]] in |
| + | [[Buddha]], in the law and in the order). 179 Also this [[formula]] covered both |
| + | the admission and the [[ordination]]. Finally, He lays’down that the ordi¬ |
| + | {{Wiki|nation}} should take place by means of a formal act in which the {{Wiki|motion}} is « |
| + | fourfold (a jhapticaiunhakarman 1 ^*)} 80 Hereby, a clear diffe ren ce was |
| + | made between the going forth ( [[pravrajya]] ) and the [[full ordination]] (upa- |
| + | sampada). Hence two stages became necessary to acquire the full . |
| + | of a [[monk]] (and a full member of the {{Wiki|community}}) and to enjoy all the |
| + | rights and privileges attributed to these members. In the first stage, one |
| + | becomes a {{Wiki|novice}} ( srdmanera ) whose [[standing]], rights and duties are |
| + | different from those of a [[monk]] who has received the [[full ordination]]! |
| | | |
− | 95. See T.l 428, p. 925a3-6.
| + | Bad {{Wiki|behavior}} of young [[monks]] further induces [[Buddha]] to determine |
| + | the minimum age fof [[ordination]] as twenty years 181 , while the minimum |
| + | - age for the {{Wiki|novice}} is fixed at twelve 182 , In ease candidate novices are at |
| + | least as grown that they can scare away the [[crows]], the age may be less |
| + | than twelve. 183 Many {{Wiki|rules}} are further added to regulate who can be a |
| + | candidate and who not, and who can accept [[disciples]] and who not. |
| | | |
− | 96. See T.1428, p.925a6-13.
| + | \ At the [[moment]] [[Mahaprajapati Gautami]] was allowed to become a [[nun]], • |
| | | |
− | 97. See T.1428, p.925al3-25
| + | \ # the [[monk’s]] order (bhiksusamgha) was already well organized. This |
| | | |
− | After the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} in the bhiksunisamgha, the candidate
| + | t explains why she can go to a [[monk’s]] [[monastery]] in or^ier to ask for the |
− | has to be led to the bhiksusamgha. She humbly asks the bhiksusatpgha
| |
− | three times to confer her the [[ordination]]. 98 After this triple request, the
| |
− | kannan [[master]] of the [[bhiksus]] interrogates her on possible stumbling
| |
− | blocks, as this had been done before in the bhiksunisanigha. The [[karman]]
| |
− | [[master]] further asks the candidate whether she has studied the [[precepts]]
| |
− | and whether she is [[pure]] 99 . In ease her answer is satisfactory, he asks the
| |
− | other [[bhiksunis]] whether the candidate has studied the [[precepts]] and
| |
− | whether she is [[pure]]. In ease the answer, again, is satisfactory, the
| |
− | [[ordination]] is conferred to'her by means of a jiiapticaturthakarman .too
| |
| | | |
− | Before the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} is finally concluded, two important
| + | permission to go forth. Most likely, in the beginning, the order of mm« |
− | instructions arc given to the newly [[ordained]] [[bhiksuni]]. One first explains
| + | (bliiksunisamgha) took over the organizational pattern of the [[monk’s]] |
− | the eight [[parajika]] offenses which would exclude her definitively .from | + | {{Wiki|community}}, and both orders further developed in the same general |
− | the order of [[bhiksunis]]: i.e. {{Wiki|sexual}} intercourse, [[stealing]], taking [[Wikipedia:Human life|human life]] | + | [[direction]]. , |
− | and {{Wiki|lying}} about one’s [[spiritual]] achievements, having [[physical]] [[contact]]
| |
− | below the armpit and above the knee, being together with a man and
| |
− | doing eight wrong things (according to T.1428, Bhikfunivibhadga,
| |
− | p.716a24-27: [[touching]] the hand, [[touching]] the [[clothes]], going to a secret
| |
− | place together, being in .a secret place, talking together, walking
| |
− | together, leaning against one another, and making appointments),
| |
− | concealing a grave offense (i.e. a [[parajika]]) of another [[bhiksuni]], and
| |
− | persisting in accompanying a suspended bhikfu. The newly [[ordained]]
| |
− | [[bhiksuni]] has to profess that she is able to take on these interdictions. 101
| |
− | Secondly, four supports {[[nisraya]]) are [[taught]] to her. These four supports
| |
− | arc: (1) she should dress in refuse rags 102 , (2) she should only rely on
| |
− | [[alms food]] 103 , (3) she should dwell at the [[root]] of a [[tree]] 104 , and (4) she
| |
− | has to use [[medicine]] made of putrid [[elements]] 103 . These supports are the
| |
| | | |
| + | However, the bhiksunisamgha is not completely {{Wiki|independent}} and relies; |
| + | on tjie bhiksusamgha in severe 1 ways. This [[dependency]] is laid down in |
| + | the [[eight rules]] to be followed by the [[nuns]] in their [[relation]] with the |
| + | [[monks]]. The fact that a woman can only become a [[nun]] if she is [[ordained]] |
| + | by both the bhiksunisamgha and the bhiksusanigha is [[essential]] in they’ |
| + | {{Wiki|rules}}. This fact implies a control over the membership of the order by |
| + | the [[monks]]. |
| | | |
− | 98. See T.1428, p.925a25-bl.
| |
| | | |
− | 99. [[parisuddha]], without stumbling blocks.
| + | 178. T.1428, p.799bl-3. |
| | | |
− | ' 100. See T.1428, p.925bl-17.
| + | 179. T.1428, p.793al3-21. |
| | | |
− | 101. See T.1428, pp.925bl7-926a5.
| + | 180. T.1428, p.799cl2-29. . |
| | | |
− | 102. paipsukula (WOGIHARA, U., BW, p. 770; EOGERTON, F., BHSD, p.307).
| + | 181. T.1428,p.808b25-26. |
| | | |
− | 103. [[pindapata]] (WOGIHARA, U., BW, p.784; EOGERTON, F., BHSD, p. 307).
| + | 182. T. 1428, p. 810c22-23. |
| | | |
− | 104. vrksamula (WOGIHARA, U., BW, p. 1265; EOGERTON, F„ BHSD, p.307).
| + | 183. T.1428,pp.810c24-811a3. |
| | | |
− | 105. [[medicine]] made of putrid [[elements]]: putimuktabhaisajya (WOGIHARA,
| + | In addition, the bhiksunisamgha possesses some regulations, different |
− | U„ BW, p.802; EDGERTON, F., BHSD, p.307). See [[Wikipedia:Thomas William Rhys Davids|Rhys Davids]], T.W. and
| + | from the ones of the bhiksusamgha. For the bhiksunisamgha, a stage |
− | STEDE, W., PED, p. 470, s.v. putimutta, ‘‘strong-smelling {{Wiki|urine}}, usually wine of
| + | between the going forth ([[pravrajya]]) anti the [[ordination]] ( [[upasampada]] ) is |
| + | added. This is a probationary period that lasts two years, during which |
| + | the woman candidate, as a probationer ( [[siksamana]] ), has to prove that she |
| + | is fit to become a [[nun]]. Furthermore, some {{Wiki|rules}} specific to women and |
| + | [[nuns]] arc added to the {{Wiki|rules}} for [[monks]], e.g., the {{Wiki|rules}} relating to [[married]] |
| + | women. |
| | | |
− | minimum requirements for a [[life]] as a [[bhiksu]] or as a bliiksuni', it is, how¬
| + | As it was the ease for the bhiksusamgha , also the formation of the |
− | ever, allowed to receive more and better than what is stipulated in these
| + | bhiksunisamgha was not accomplished in one day. As suggested by I.B. |
− | four supports, provided one docs not ask for it. Because the candidate
| + | HORNER 184 , the probation period for a woman candidate was the result |
− | may not be able to endure such an [[austere]] [[life]], these supports are
| + | of a [[gradual]] [[development]]: it is only when the need w o .s felt, that an |
− | explained to her before the conclusion of the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}}, and
| + | additional stage between the going forth and the [[ordination]] was intro¬ |
− | the candidate is asked whether she will obey them. 106
| + | duced. This additional stage rapidly became a necessary [[condition]] to |
− | Ultimately, the. [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} is officially concluded. 107
| + | become a [[nun]]. In T.1428, this necessity is evident from the [[ordination]] |
− | As we have said before, [[Mahaprajapati Gautami]] and the five hundred
| + | proceedings as they arc described in the Bhiksuniskandhaka 4 *: three |
− | [[Sakya]] women did not receive this official [[ordination]]: they became
| + | compulsory steps leading to full membership of the {{Wiki|community}}: 1) the |
− | bliiksunis by accepting the [[eight rules]] (gttrudliarinas) for bliiksunis.
| + | going forth, 2) the two-year probation period and 3) the [[ordination]]. |
− | When some bliiksunis suggested that the [[ordination]] of [[Mahaprajapati Gautami]] and the five hundred [[Sakya]] women was not valid, [[Buddha]]
| + | Also the Bhiksunivibhaitga, pdciltika 121 draws [[attention]] to the |
− | again said that both [[ordinations]] have the same value, and that [[Maha]]¬
| + | necessity of these three steps, while the pacitlikas 122 and 123 |
− | [[prajapati]] [[Gautami]] and the five hundred [[Sakya]] women received the | + | {{Wiki|emphasize}} that a [[nun]] may not confer the [[ordination]] to a woman |
− | [[precepts]] too. [[108]] | + | candidate who has not done the two-year probation period. Furthermore, |
| + | also [[the fourth]] [[gurudharma]] 6 * states that this period must precede the |
| + | [[ordination]]. |
| | | |
− | The Bhiksuniskandhaka of T. 1428 then adds some special [[conditions]]-
| + | It is, however, to be noticed that some [[precepts]] do not take the proba¬ |
− | that can occ jr during the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}}. The most important
| + | tion period into account: the introductory story to the fifth samghava- |
− | addition is that, after having been [[ordained]] in the bhiksunisaingha ,a .
| + | [[sesa]] [[precept]] relates how a woman thief rapidly goes forth and receives |
− | candidate can receive the [[ordination]] in the bliiksusamgha by a proxy, in
| + | the [[ordination]], so that her persecutors arc confronted with a ‘fait |
− | ease it is too [[dangerous]] for her to go to the [[monastery]] of the [[bhiksus]].
| + | accompli’ and cannot arrest her anymore. In the pacitlikas 119 and 120, |
− | This proxy has to be appointed by means of a jhaptidvitiyakarman. For
| + | respectively a {{Wiki|pregnant}} woman and a breast-feeding-woman arc accepted |
− | her safety* the proxy must take two or three bhiksunls with her.
| + | into the order and immediately receive the [[ordination]]. We thus have to |
| + | conclude that, at the time these [[latter]] [[three precepts]] were issued, the |
| + | probation period did not [[exist]] or was not taken into account. This can |
| + | only be understood if we consider the probation period as a practice that |
| + | has been introduced after the [[order of nuns]] had existed for some time: |
| | | |
− | It is thus to be seen that the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} is a well organized,
| + | 184. HORNER, I.B.. BD, Vol.V, p. 354, note 3:"... this practice [the probation period] |
− | highly formalized {{Wiki|ceremony}}, focusing on the control exercised by the
| + | will no [[doubt]] have been introduced later, after an [[Order of nuns]] had been in |
− | full members of the {{Wiki|community}} in order to prevent a newcomer to
| + | being for some time." |
− | damage this {{Wiki|community}}. After [[ordination]], the newly [[ordained]] bhiksum
| |
− | becomes a full member of the bhiksunisaingha. This allows her to take
| |
| | | |
− | cattle used as [[medicine]] by the Wi/M/iu”; [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] or the M.-L. School,
| + | since the [[organization]] of the bhiksunisamgha is founded on that of the |
− | ' ROTII G., 1970, p.40, §51: “putimuiram". According to NaKAMURA, H.,
| + | bhiksusamgha, the [[nuns]] arc likely to have taken over the going forth and |
− | BGD, p.969, the Skt. term refers to {{Wiki|urine}} and {{Wiki|excrements}} of cows used as
| + | the [[ordination]] from the [[monk’s]] {{Wiki|community}}, and later introduced a third |
− | [[medicine]]. On this. EDGERTON, F.. BHSD, p. 350, s.v. putimukta, says: ( [...] -
| + | step in between these two. At the very beginning, this third step might |
− | putmuna. interpreted even by [[Pali]] comms. as containing mutta - Skt. mutra,
| + | not have been compulsory. Since the [[Vinaya]] texts do not mention that a |
− | {{Wiki|urine}}; this is prob. a late and secondary [[interpretation]], suggested by pun [...]), a | + | woman candidate could freely decide whether or not to pass two years as |
− | {{Wiki|medicinal}} decoction”
| + | a probationer - while frequently mentioning the three obligatory steps |
| + | leading to full membership of the {{Wiki|community}} - it seems safe to say that |
| + | when the probation period was introduced, it rapidly, if not immedi¬ |
| + | ately, became compulsory, and that, consequently, there never has been |
| + | a choice whether or not to become a probationer. |
| | | |
− | 106. SccT.1428, p.926a5-19.
| + | We have to conclude that to become a full member of the {{Wiki|community}}, |
| + | a woman first has to go forth and to become a {{Wiki|novice}} (srdmaneri). |
| + | Secondly, she has to pass two years as a probationer ( [[siksamana]] ), and, |
| + | finally, she receives the [[ordination]] and becomes a [[nun]] ( [[bhiksuni]] ). The |
| + | minimum age at which sfic can become a [[nun]], enjoying all rights and |
| + | privileges attributed to full members of the {{Wiki|community}}, depends 6n her |
| + | being singlc'or. [[married]]. Neither a srdmaneri nor a [[siksamana]] can partic¬ |
| + | ipate in the formal acts and in the {{Wiki|ceremonies}} performed by the order. |
| + | „Thcrc is no [[essential]] difference between the position of a srdmaneri and |
| + | the one of a [[siksamana]], except for the {{Wiki|social}} rank in the {{Wiki|community}}, a |
| + | [[siksamana]] holding a higher position than a srdmaneri. |
| | | |
− | 107. SccT.1428. p.926al9-26.
| |
| | | |
− | [[108]]. See T. 142S, p. 926a27-b3.
| + | HEIRMAN |
| | | |
| | | |
− | part in all the formal acts and the {{Wiki|ceremonies}} that arc performed by the
| + | \BS 20.2 82 |
− | bhiksunisaingha. On the other hand, all the^precepts for bliiksunis and
| |
− | the measures they include, now all apply to her. Many offenses against
| |
− | the rulc$ of this [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}} can be committed.
| |
| | | |
− | II. Offenses against the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|rules}} according to the Dharnta-
| + | u of technical terms |
− | guptaka [[Vinaya]]
| |
| | | |
− | Bdow all offenses against the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|rules}} appearing in the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of
| + | ill first [[appearance]] and reference to explanatory note) |
− | T.1428 arc enumerated, and each of them is compared with the [[corresponding]] offenses
| |
− | in the other [[Vinayas]]. In this comparison, we restrict ourselves to the [[essentials]].
| |
| | | |
− | In all the yinayas 109 , all the offenses committed against the rulcs.of the
| + | isampadd (P. [[upasampada]] ): [[ordination]], p.43 |
− | [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}}, are found among the pdcittika offenses 4 **, except | + | tdhydyinl (P. upajjha ): [[teacher]], p. 44, note 66 |
− | for one offense that, in all the* [[Vinayas]], is classified as a [[samghavasesa]]
| + | man (P. [[kamma]] ): formal act, p. 37 |
− | offense! 6 *, and two offenses that only in T.1425 and in the [[Bhiksuni]]-
| + | udharma (P. garudhanwia) : severe {{Wiki|rule}}, p. 35; note 6 |
− | vibhaiiga of the Mahasamghika-Lokottaravada School arc classified in a
| + | ptikarman (P. nattikamma ): formal act consisting of a {{Wiki|motion}}, p. 37, note 20 |
− | different category!^ 0 '
| + | pticaturthakarman (P. iiutticatutthakanima ): formal act in which the {{Wiki|motion}} is |
| + | fourfold, p. 37, note 20 |
| | | |
− | All offenses focus either on the candidate, or on the upadhydyinB **,
| + | ptidvitiyakarman (P. iiattidutiyakannan ): formal act in which the {{Wiki|motion}} is twofold, |
− | or on the [[ordination]] procedure. Moreover, T.1428 adds two offenses
| + | p.37, note 20 |
− | that [[concern]] the period immediately following the [[ordination]] {{Wiki|ceremony}}.
| |
| | | |
− | 1) The candidate
| + | ikria (P. [[dukkata]] ): bad [[action]] (a very {{Wiki|light}} offense), p. 48, note 79 |
| + | i\ dsa (P. [[parivasa]]): ncriod of residence (a kind of penance), p. 37, note 22 |
| + | 'ittika (P. [[pacittiya]] ): expiation? (ominor offense),p. 41, note 45 |
| + | ajika : an offense that leads to a [[permanent]], [[lifetime]] exclusion from the order, p.47, |
| + | note 72 |
| | | |
− | a. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], [[Samghavasesa]] 5 (pp.719b7-720a5 oarti-
| + | uidha (or uposadha) (P. {u)posatha ): [[observance]] (a {{Wiki|ceremony}}), p. 36, note 10 |
− | cularly, p.719cl5-18) llt : ’ F
| + | Kidesatuya (P. pdtidesamya ): requiring {{Wiki|confession}} (a minor offense), p.48, note 76 |
| + | tvarana (or pro varan a) (P .[[pavarana]]) *. invitation (a {{Wiki|ceremony}}), p.36, note 11 |
| + | ivrajya (P. pabbajjd ): the going forth, p.43 |
| | | |
− | “If a bhiksum [[knows]] in advance that a woman thief" 2 has to be put to
| + | 'ksu (P. [[bhikkhu]] ): [[monk]], p. 35 v |
| | | |
− | 109. See note 1.
| + | iksunt (P. bhikkhunt ): [[nun]], p, 33 |
| | | |
− | i 10. T.1428, Pac. 134 5 T.1425, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, Samzhati-
| + | tksunisamgha (P. bhikkhunisamgha ): [[order of nuns]], p. 33 |
− | [[sesa]] 7. *
| |
| | | |
− | T.1428, Pac. 137 5 T.1425, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, nihsarzika -
| + | iksusamgha (P. [[bhikkhusamgha]]) : [[order of monks]], p. 33 |
− | pacaltika 18. *
| |
| | | |
− | 111. [[Oldenberg]], IT., [[Vinaya]] Pitakani, Vol.IV, pp.225-227, Saipghadisesa 2-
| + | natva (P. mdnatta ): i.c. a kind of penance ([[doubtful]] {{Wiki|etymology}}), p.37, note 17 |
− | T.1421, p. 79b6-c24, [[Samghavasesa]] 4; T.1425, pp.519c6-520bl4, [[Samghati]]-
| |
− | [[sesa]] 8; [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 138-141
| |
− | §§160-162, Samghatisesa 8; T.1435, pp.309c 14-310b 18, [[Samghavasesa]] 8-
| |
− | T.1443, pp.935cl l-936b2, [[Samghavasesa]] 10.
| |
| | | |
− | 112. This coincides with the [[precepts]] in the [[Pali Vinaya]] and in T. 1435. In the [[precepts]]
| + | [[sapada]] (P. [[sikkhapada]] ): [[precept]], p.44 |
− | of T.1421, of T.1425, and of the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, it is a
| |
− | woman who committed a [[crime]] (in T. 1421, this is explained as [[adultery]] or theft);
| |
− | in the [[precept]] of T.1443, it is a woman who betrayed her husband (this is also
| |
| | | |
| + | samdna (P. sikkhamand) \ probationer,p.36,note 14 |
| | | |
− | [[death]] 113 and that [[people]] know this 114 , and yet, without asking the [[king]]
| + | Imancra (P. sdmanera ): ({{Wiki|male}}) {{Wiki|novice}}, p. 48 |
− | or the ministers, and without asking the {{Wiki|clan}} 115 , admits 116 her into the
| |
| | | |
| + | imatieri (P. [[samaneri]] ): ({{Wiki|female}}) {{Wiki|novice}}, p.45 |
| | | |
− | mentioned in the introductory stories in the [[Pali Vinaya]] , in T. 1421, in T.1425, in
| + | mgha (P. [[samgha]] ): order (of [[monks]] or [[nuns]]), p. 36 |
− | the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, and in T.1435).
| |
| | | |
− | 113. In T. 1421, in T.I425, and in T.1443, this is said in the introductory story to the
| + | mghavasesa (P. [[samghadisesa]]) : remainder in the order (an offense leading to a |
− | [[precept]] and not in the [[precept]] itself. | + | temporary exclusion from the order), p. 37, note 16 |
| | | |
− | 114. This is not found in the [[Pali Vinaya]] , in T. 1421, in T.1425, and in the Bhiksuqi*
| + | List of consulted works |
− | [[vibhanga]] of the M.-L. School.
| |
| | | |
− | 115. [[Pali Vinaya]] : without asking the [[king]], the [[order of nuns]], a group* or a guild* * or
| + | Taishd [[Shinshu]] Daizokyo , [[Takakusu]], J. and Watanabe, K. (eds ) |
− | a company** •; T.1421: without asking her husband (who, as it is said in the
| |
− | introductory story to the [[precept]], is supported by the laws laid down by the
| |
− | [[king]]); this is not found in T.1425 and in the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L.
| |
− | School; T.1435: without asking the [[king]] or the k$atriyas\ T.1443: without the
| |
− | permission of her husband and the [[king]].
| |
| | | |
− | * See HORNER, I.B., BD, Vol.III, p. 183, note 7: “ Va . 910 [[[Takakusu]], J.,
| + | [[Tokyo]], 1924-35 |
− | Nagai, M., Samantapdsadikd, Vol.IV, p. 910J| makes out that this means a
| |
− | group of wrestlers and so on. But, preceded by [[samgha]], it might have the usual
| |
− | Vin. meaning of ? group (of two to four [[monks]] or [[nuns]]). On the other hand, it is
| |
− | followed by two words that have no [[religious]] significance, and which denote
| |
− | associations of [[people]] ‘in the [[world]]'.”
| |
| | | |
− | ** See Horner, LB.. BD, Voi.HI, p. 183, note 8: “puga - dhammapuga, “a
| + | — Vol.22, |
− | guild under [[dhamma]]” (?). VA. 910 [TAKAKUSU. J. and NAGAI, M., [[Samanta]]-
| |
− | pasddikd , Vol.IV, p.910]. Probably a guild governed by some {{Wiki|rule}} or law.”
| |
− | *** See Horner, I.B., BD % Vol.III, p. 183, note 9: “se/ri, a % corporation,
| |
− | company or guild of artisans or traders following the same business or dealing in
| |
− | the same articles.”
| |
| | | |
− | 116. All the {{Wiki|Chinese}} [[Vinayas]] use the term Iff, which originally meant “to bring (her)
| + | No. 1421 : Mi-sha-sai Pu Ho-hsi Wu-fen Lu (Mahi&asaka |
− | into the order (= the first steps into the order)” (NAKAMURA, H., BGD t p. 997,
| |
− | s.v. Iff O). As we can see in some {{Wiki|Chinese}} [[Vinayas]] , later the meaning “to confer
| |
− | the [[ordination]]” was added to this original meaning. In this [[precept]] of T. 1428,
| |
− | however,Iff is used in the original meaning, i.e. the first of three [[actions]] (1) to
| |
− | admit her (UE), (2) to let her go forth, and (3) to confer her the [[ordination]]. In the
| |
− | [[precept]] of T.1421, only the term Iff appears; from the commentary on the
| |
− | [[precept]], however, it is clear that also the third of the above three [[actions]] (i.e. to
| |
− | confer her the [[ordination]]) is understood. Also in the [[precept]] of T.1425, only the
| |
− | term iff appears; from the commentary on the [[precept]], it is, again, clear that the
| |
− | [[ordination]] is to be understood, while to let her go forth and to let her become a
| |
− | siksamdna constitute [[minor offenses]]. In the [[precept]] of T.1435, the term
| |
− | /ff to admit her as a [[disciple]], appears. From the introductory story to this
| |
| | | |
− | [[precept]], we know that the [[bhiksuni]] lets a woman go forth; the [[ordination]], | + | [[vinaya]]) |
− | however, is not mentioned. In the [[precept]] of T.1443, the term Iff appears,
| |
− | followed by the term the [[ordination]] is not mentioned. Here iff has its
| |
| | | |
− | original meaning.
| + | No. 1423 : Wu-fen Pi-ch’iu-ni Chieh-pen (Pratimokfa for [[bhiksu]]- ' |
| | | |
− | The [[Pali Vinaya]] uses the verb vutthahati, in the [[causative]] vutthdpeti. On this
| + | fits of the Mahl&asaka School) |
− | term Horner, I.B., BD, Vol.III, p. xlvii says: “To “receive” or to “accept” into
| |
| | | |
− | order, lets her go forth and confers her the [[ordination]], then this [[bhiksuni]]
| + | No. 1425 : Mo%>-seng-ch’i LQ (Mahasaipghikavinaya) |
− | commits an immediate 117 [[samghavasesa]] that has to be given up 118 .*
| |
| | | |
− | Since this offense is found among the [[samghavasesa]] offenses, it is
| + | No. 1428: Szu-fen Lu(Dliarmaguplakavinaya) |
− | clear that it is a major {{Wiki|transgression}} of the {{Wiki|rules}}. Not only is the [[crime]],
| |
− | committed by the admitted woman, considered as a serious crimp, the
| |
− | avoidance of the {{Wiki|punishment}}, moreover, leads to friction between the
| |
− | order and the [[king]] and his ministers, whose support is [[essential]] to the
| |
− | [[Buddhist order]]. The [[precepts]] in the other [[Vinayas]] mention equally
| |
− | serious problems 119 , and except for T.1425 and for the Bhikfuni-
| |
− | [[vibhahga]] of the Mahasamghika-Lokottaravada School, the other [[Vinayas]]
| |
− | all say that, without the pennission of the [[king]] to admit the woman into
| |
− | the order, a major {{Wiki|transgression}}, i.e. a [[samghavasesa]] is committed, 120
| |
− | We thus can say that it arc the seriousness of the [[crime]] committed by
| |
− | the admitted woman anefthe problems that arise from this admission that
| |
− | justify the {{Wiki|classification}} of this offense ampng the [[samghavasesa]]
| |
− | offenses.
| |
| | | |
− | Comparing this [[samghavasesa]] [[precept]] with the [[corresponding]] [[precepts]]
| + | No. 1429 . m ft Szu-fen Lu Pi-ch’iu Chieh-pen, Pratimokfa for [[bhiksus]] |
− | in the other [[Vinayas]] , it is to be noticed that no [[Vinaya]] , except for
| + | ofthe [[Dharmaguptaka School]]) |
− | T.1425 and for the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the Mahasarp?,hika-Lokottara-
| |
| | | |
| + | No. 1430 . Szu-fen Seng Chieh-pen ( Pratimokfa for [[bhiksus]] of the |
| | | |
− | ar order is perhaps [[die]] nearest rendering for which there is any {{Wiki|justification}}
| + | [[Dharmaguptaka School]]) |
− | I n the introductory story to this [[precept]] in the [[Pali Vinaya]], the [[nun]] [[Thullananda]]
| |
− | lets the woman thief go forth. The [[ordination]] is mentioned in the commentary on
| |
− | the [[precept]].
| |
| | | |
− | In the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School, the verb upa-dstha (in the
| + | No- 1431 : Szu-fen Pi-ch'iu-ni Chieh-pen Pratimokfa for bhikfu- |
− | [[causative]]) appears. It is explained in the commentary on the [[precept]] as ‘to let go
| |
− | forth’ and ‘to confer the [[ordination]]’. To let her go forth and to let her become a
| |
− | siksamdna constitute [[minor offenses]].
| |
| | | |
− | 117. The [[samghavasesa]] offenses are divided in two categories: 1) the immediate
| + | nis of the [[Dharmaguptaka School]]) |
− | ([[prathama]]) offenses; 2) the offenses on the third (admonition) ( ydvattrtiyakd ).
| |
− | Whereas, in the first category, the [[bhiksuni]] immediately commits a
| |
− | [[samghavasesa]] offense, in the second category, she first is admonished three
| |
− | times. Only if she docs not give up her bad {{Wiki|behavior}}, she commits a
| |
− | [[samghavasesa]] offense.
| |
| | | |
− | * 118. T.1421, T.1425? and the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the M.-L. School mention the
| + | No. 1434 . Szu-fen Pi-ch*iu-ni Chieh-mo-fa ([[Karmavacana]] for |
| | | |
− | following exception: the [[bhiksuni]] commits no offense when the woman she
| + | [[bhiksunis]] of the [[Dharmaguptaka School]]) |
− | admits has already gone forth in a [[non-Buddhist]] {{Wiki|community}}. The [[Pali Vinaya]]
| |
− | says that there is no offense if the woman has already gone forth in a non-
| |
− | [[Buddhist community]] or if other [[nuns]] have already conferred her the [[ordination]].
| |
| | | |
| + | — Vol.23, |
| | | |
| + | No. 1435 : Shih-sung Lu ([[Sarvastivadavinaya]]) |
| | | |
− | [[vada]] School 121 , mentions the siksamdnd period in [[respect]] to this offense.
| + | No. 1442: SJWuRHstS® Kcn-pcn-shuo-i-ch’ieh-yu Pu P*i-nai-y© |
− | Moreover, the introductory story to this [[precept]] in T.1428, T.1421,
| |
− | T.1425 and in the Bhiksunivibhahga of the Mahasamghika-Lokottara-
| |
− | [[vada]] School, all relate the story of either a woman thief or a woman
| |
− | who has committed a [[crime]] and who has to be put to [[death]]. This
| |
− | {{Wiki|punishment}} will be executed by the [[king]] or by the woman’s [[family]]. The
| |
− | woman, however, escapes and is admitted in the order of the [[Buddhist]]
| |
− | bhiksums who confer her the [[ordination]]. When, later, the [[king]] or the
| |
− | woman’s [[family]] find out where the woman took [[refuge]], they can no
| |
− | longer punish her, because she now is a member of the bhiksunlsamgha .
| |
− | Since it is unlikely that the [[king]] or the [[family]] needed two years (i.c. the
| |
− | length of a siksamdnd period) to discover where the woman fled to,
| |
− | jhese stories seem to indicate a rapid [[ordination]] of the woman thief or of
| |
− | the woman who committed a [[crime]]. The other Vi nay as, i.c. the [[Pali Vinaya]] , T.1435 and T.1443, only tell how the woman took [[refuge]]
| |
− | among the [[nuns]], who let her go forth. The [[precepts]] mention no further
| |
− | steps, i.c. a siksamdnd period or an [[ordination]].
| |
| | | |
− | We thus have to conclude that this samghdvascsa [[precept]] indicates
| + | (Mulasarvastivadavinaya) |
− | that, at the time the [[precept]] was issued, the siksamdnd period did not
| |
− | [[exist]] or was not taken into account. As we will sec further, also other
| |
− | [[precepts]] lead to a similar conclusion.
| |
| | | |
− | b. T.1428 , Bhiksimivibhanga , Pac. 43 *l 19 (p.754b!2-cl5, particularly,
| + | No. 1443 : Kcn-pcn-shuo-i-clfich-yuPu Pi-ch’u- .. |
− | p. 754c2-3) 122 :
| |
| | | |
− | “If a [[bhiksuni]] [[knows]] that a woman is {{Wiki|pregnant}}, and she admits her and
| + | ni P’i-nai-ye (MulasarvasUvada-bhik$univinaya) |
− | confers her the [[ordination]] 123 , then it is a pdcittika."
| |
| | | |
| + | No. 1444 : 01ft® i£$ i® Ul Ik ^ Kcn-pcn-shuo-i-ch’ich-yu Pu P*i-nai- |
| | | |
− | 121. These [[Vinayas]] mention ihc siksamdnd period in the commentary on the [[precept]]:
| + | ye Ch* u-chia Shih (Mulasarvasti vadavinaya-praynijyavasiu) |
− | if a [[bhiksuni]] confers the two-year instruction of a siksamdnd to a woman who
| |
− | has committed a [[crime]], she docs not commit a samghdtiscsa offense, but a
| |
− | sthuldtyaya , a serious offense (tnis term is used to indicate an offense that is very
| |
− | close to a pdrdjika or a samghdxasesa offense).
| |
| | | |
− | 122. OLDEN BERG, 11., Vi nay a Pitakam , Vol.lV, pp. 317-318, Pac.61; T.1421,
| + | — Vol.24, |
− | p. 92a24-b6, Pac. 116*; T.1443, pp. 1005c25-1006a5. Pac. tit.
| |
| | | |
− | • As the {{Wiki|enumeration}} of the pdcittika offenses is unclear in the Bhiksimivibhanga
| + | No. 1451 : Ken-pen-shuo-j-ch*ieh-yu Pu P'i-nai-ye |
− | of T.1421, we follow the {{Wiki|enumeration}} of the bhiksuniprdtimoksa of the same
| |
− | school (T.1423).
| |
| | | |
− | 123. This coincides with the [[Pali]] Vi nay a and T.1421. T.1443 says that the [[bhiksuni]]
| + | Tsa-shih (Mulasarvastivadavinaya-k§udrakavastu) |
− | gives her the going, forth-.
| |
| | | |
− | In the introductory story to this [[precept]], it is said that a [[bhiksuni]]
| + | No. 1453 : Ken-pen-shuo-i-ch*ich-yu Pu Pai-i Chieh- |
− | admits a {{Wiki|pregnant}} woman who gives [[birth]] after she has been [[ordained]].
| |
− | In this [[precept]], there is no mention of the siksamdnd period.
| |
| | | |
− | Since T.1428 says that a [[bhiksuni]] admits )5 124 a {{Wiki|pregnant}} woman and
| + | mo(Mtilasaivastivada-eka&takarman) V |
− | confers her the [[ordination]], after which she gives [[birth]], this [[ordination]]
| |
− | was apparently given to her without a two-year instruction. The woman
| |
− | was {{Wiki|pregnant}} before she went forth, she received the [[ordination]] during
| |
− | her pregnancy, after which she gave [[birth]] to a child. A [[siksamana]] period
| |
− | would have avoided such a situation. The [[precepts]] of the [[Pali Vinaya]]
| |
− | and of T.1421 only say - without mentioning any earlier stage - that a
| |
− | [[nun]] may not ordain a {{Wiki|pregnant}} woman, while T.1443 only says that a
| |
− | [[bhiksuni]] may not let a {{Wiki|pregnant}} woman go forth.
| |
| | | |
− | Since no [[Vinaya]] mentions the important probation period, and since in
| + | — Vol.40, |
− | T.1428, a [[bhiksuni]] admits a {{Wiki|pregnant}} woman who gives [[birth]] after her
| |
− | [[ordination]], it is clear that, at lime this [[precept]] was issued, the [[siksamana]]
| |
− | period did not [[exist]] or wtfs not taken into account. .
| |
| | | |
− | c. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhahga, Pac. 120 (pp.754cl6-755al9, particularly
| + | ■No. 1804: Szu-fen LuShan-fan Pu-ch’uch Hsing-shih |
− | p.755a5-6) 12 *:
| |
| | | |
− | “If a [[bhiksuni]] [[knows]] that a woman is breast-feeding a child, and she
| |
− | confers her the [[ordination]], then it is a pdcittika."
| |
| | | |
− | Only three [[Vinayas]] mention this [[precept]] 12 **. In none of these three,
| + | JIA3S 20.2 84 |
− | there is any reference to the two-year probation period during which the
| |
− | woman, [[logically]], would have given [[birth]] to the child she is now {{Wiki|breast}}¬
| |
− | feeding. The introductory story to this [[precept]] in T.1428 says that a
| |
− | [[bhiksuni]] admitted (Ji!!) 124 * a woman who was breast-feeding a child.
| |
| | | |
− | Again, it seems safe to say that, at the time this [[precept]] was issued, the
| |
− | [[siksamana]] period did not [[exist]] or was not taken into account.
| |
| | | |
− | d. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhahga, Pac. 121 (pp.755a20-756al5. particularly,
| + | BAPAT, P.V. and GOKHALE, V.V., [[Vinaya-Sutra]], [[Patna]]: K.P. Jayaswai Research |
− | p. 756a4-5) 126 :
| + | Institute. 1982. |
| | | |
− | 124. Compare note 116;
| + | BENDALL, C., “Fragment of a [[Buddhist]] Ordination-Ritual in [[Sanskrit]]”. Album-Kern , |
| | | |
− | 125. OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pitakam, Vol.lV, p.318, Pac.62; T.1421, p.92b7-12
| + | , Opstellen geschrcven ter Eere van Dr, H. Kern, [[Leiden]]: E.J. Brill, |
| + | 1903. pp. 373-376. |
| | | |
− | Pac. 117. *
| + | [[Buddhaghosa]]. Samantapdsadika , [[Takakusu]], J. and Nagai, M. (cds.). Vol. IV, [[London]], |
| + | [[Pali Text Society]]. Luzac & Company. Ltd., 1967 2 . • - |
| | | |
− | T.1435 contains a somehow different [[precept]] that says that a [[nun]] may not admit
| + | EDGERTON, F., [[Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit]] {{Wiki|Grammar}} and {{Wiki|Dictionary}} , [[Delhi]]: Motilal |
− | into the order a woman whose children necessarily have to follow her into the
| + | Banar-sidass, 1985 5 ,2 Vols. (Vol.2: BHSD). |
− | order (because no-one else can take [[care]] of them) (p. 329a 15-b2, Pac. 119).
| |
| | | |
− | 126. OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pitakam, Vol.lV, p.327, Pac.7l; T.I425, p.534b2-
| + | FraUWALLNER, E., The Earliest [[Vinaya]] and the Beginnings of [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|Literature}} , |
− | cl l, Pac. 96; Bhiksimivibhanga of the M.-L. School. Rom, G., 1970. pp. ?3K-
| + | Roma: ls.M.E.O., 1956. |
| | | |
| + | Heirman, A., “Some Remarks on the [[Definition]] of a [[Monk]] and a [[Nun]] as Members of |
| + | a {{Wiki|Community}}, and the [[Definition]] of ‘Not to Live in {{Wiki|Community}}*”, |
| + | [[Indian]] Journal of [[Buddhist Studies]] , vol. 7,1995, pp. 1 -22. |
| | | |
− | “If a [[bhiksuni]] [[knows]] that she [i.c. the woman candidate] is not fully
| + | VON fitNOBER, 0. f “Kullurgcschichtlichcs aus dem Bhiksunt-Vinaya: [[die]] samkak$ika*\ |
− | twenty years old, and she confers her the [[ordination]], then it is a
| + | Zeitschrift der Deutschcn Morgcnldndischen Gesellschaft , No. 125, |
− | pacittika."
| + | 1975, pp.133- 139. |
| | | |
− | The introductory story to this [[precept]] in T.1428 gives a survey of the
| + | HIRAKAWA, A., [[Monastic Discipline]] for the [[Buddhist Nuns]] , [[Patna]]: K.P. Jayaswai |
− | stages that precede the [[ordination]], i.c. the going forth ( [[pravrajya]] ) and
| + | Research Institute, 1982. |
− | the probation (siksamdna) period.
| |
| | | |
− | c. T.1428, [[Bhiksunivibhanga]], Pac.125 (pp.758c29-759b2, particularly,
| + | HORNER, I.B., I Vomen under [[Primitive Buddhism]], [[New York]]: E.P. Dutton and |
− | p.759a22-24)i27 : ’
| + | Company, 1930. |
| | | |
− | “If a [[bhiksuni]] admits a [[married]] woman of ten, and she gives her the
| + | — 77ic [[Book of the Discipline]] (BD), [[London]]: [[Pali Text Society]], Luzac & |
− | two-year instruction in the [[precepts]], then she may confer her the ordi¬
| + | Company, Ltd., 1938*1966,6 Vols. |
− | {{Wiki|nation}} when she is fully twelve years old. If she confers her the ordi¬
| |
− | {{Wiki|nation}} 128 when she is younger than twelve, then it is a pacittika”
| |
| | | |
− | The above [[precept]] (a) and the [[corresponding]] [[precepts]] in the other
| + | LAMOTTE, £. History• of [[Indian Buddhism]] , Louvain-la-Ncuvc: Institut Oricntaliste dc |
− | [[Vinayas]] l27 * led to the [[discussion]] whether the [[ordination]] (T.1435: the
| + | rUniversite Catholiquc dc Louvain, 1988 (translated from the {{Wiki|French}}, |
− | admission into the {{Wiki|community}}; T.1443: the going forth) can [[be con]]¬
| |
− | ferred to a [[married]] woman aged twelve, or to a woman [[married]] for
| |
− | twelve years. This [[discussion]] is [[caused]] by the use, in the {{Wiki|Chinese}}
| |
− | [[Vinayas]], as well as in the [[Pali]] and the [[Sanskrit]] texts, of an {{Wiki|ambiguous}}
| |
− | {{Wiki|structure}} to indicate both the age and the duration (of the [[marriage]]).
| |
− | Moreover, the same {{Wiki|structure}} is used in another [[precept]] (b) that says that
| |
− | a bhiksum who [has been [[ordained]] for] less than twelve years, may not
| |
− | confer the [[ordination]]: [[Pali Vinaya]] , OLDENBERG, H., [[Vinaya]] Pitdkam ,
| |
− | Vol. IV, (a) p.322; Pac.65: unadvddasavassani; (b) p:329, Pac.74:
| |
− | unadvddasavassa\ T.1421, (a) p.91a!8-19, Pac. 104: —IS; (b)
| |
| | | |
| + | * .1958). |
| | | |
− | 240, §210, Piic.96: T.1435, p.328b27-cl I, Pac. 116 (T.1435 docs not explicitly
| + | MONIER-W1LL1AMS, M., A Sanskrit-English {{Wiki|Dictionary}} (SED\ [[Oxford]]: Clarendon |
− | say that the bhiksum ordains the woman, but only states that the [[bhiksuni]] admits
| + | Press, 1990 11 * |
− | her into the order T.1443, p. 1006b25-cI0, Pac. 115.
| |
| | | |
− | T. 1421 docs not contain this [[precept]], but a [[precept]] that is linked to it: Pac. 106:
| + | NAKAMURA, H., [[Indian Buddhism]] , a Survey with {{Wiki|Bibliographical}} Notes, 1 lirakata City |
− | “If a [[bhiksuni]] confers (he study of the [[precepts]] [i.c. the siksamdna period] to a
| + | ([[Osaka]] Pref.): Kufs Publication, 1980. |
− | girl who is less than eighteen years old, then it is a pacittika''
| |
| | | |
− | 127. OLDUNI3i : .kG, II.. [[Vinaya]] Pitakam , Yol.IV, pp.321-322, Pac.65; T.142I,
| + | — Bukhvgo Daijiten ( BGD), [[Tokyo]]: [[Tokyo]] Shoji Kabu- |
− | p.91al5-2l, Pac. 104; T.1425, pp. 535c 19-536al, Pac. 100; [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of
| |
− | the M.-L. School. ROTH, G., 1970, p.245, §214, Pac. 100; T.1435, p.325cll-
| |
− | 24, Pac. [[108]]; T.1443, pp. 1004b28-1005a29, Pac. [[108]].
| |
| | | |
− | 128. This coincides with the [[Pali Vinaya]], T.1421, T.1425, and the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]]
| + | shikikaisha, 19855 |
− | of the M.-L. School. T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the [[bhiksuni]] ordains the
| |
− | woman, but only stales that the [[bhiksuni]] admits her into the order (^rflFSO,
| |
− | while T.1443 slates that she gives her the going forth.
| |
| | | |
− | p.90cl5, Pac.l02:^S5+Z^; T.1425, (a) p.535c26, Pac. 100:
| + | NOLOT, £. Regies de [[discipline]] des nonnes bouddhisles, {{Wiki|Paris}}: {{Wiki|College}} dc {{Wiki|France}} |
| + | (Publications dc Hnstitut dc {{Wiki|civilisation}} indienne), 1991. |
| | | |
− | Wi\ (b) p.533a29-bl, Pac.92:M+~R5); [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the [[Maha]]-
| + | OLDENBERG, H. (cd.), [[Vinaya]] Pitakam , [[London]]: [[Pali Text Society]], Luzac & Company, |
− | samghika-Lokottaravada School, ROTH, G., 1970, (a) p.245, §214,
| + | Ltd., 19645,5 Vols. |
− | Pac. 100: una-dvddasa-varsdnt\ (b) p.232, §206, Pac.92: unadvddasa -
| |
− | [[varsa]]\ T.1428, (a) p.759a24, Pac.125: M+H; (b) p.761c5,Pac.l31: | |
− | ^jffi+Hg£;T.1435, (a) p.325c21, Pac.108: (b) p.325b
| |
| | | |
− | 12-13,Pac. 106: ft; T.1443, (a) p.l0C5a25, Pac.l08:*P?fc$+ #
| + | RENOU, L. ct FlLLlOZAT, J., Linde classique , manucl des etudes indiennes, {{Wiki|Paris}}, |
| + | Libruiric (TAmcrique ct d’Orient, 1985 (2 vols). |
| | | |
− | (b) p. 1004a 18, Pac. 106: *«H-:ij8). | + | RHYS Davids, T.W. and STEDE, \V„ [[The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary]] |
| + | (PED), [[Oxford]]: [[Pali Text Society]], 1992*. |
| | | |
− | As we can see, the above mentioned structures do not permit to decide
| + | ROTH, G. (cd.), Bhiksunt- [[Vinaya]], Manual of [[Discipline]] for [[Buddhist Nuns]], [[Patna]]: K.P. |
− | whether the age of the candidate or the years she has been [[married]] are
| + | Jayaswai Research Institute, 1970. |
− | indicated.
| |
| | | |
− | The usual age to receive the [[ordination]] is twenty. If a [[bhiksuni]] ordains
| |
− | a younger woman, she commits a pacittika Offense (i.e. Pac.121, see
| |
− | before). In the [[latter]] [[precept]], no difference between a single girl* or a
| |
− | [[married]] woman is mentioned. It is, however, [[interesting]] to note that in
| |
− | all the [[Vinayas]] 12 * two different terms to indicate the woman candidate
| |
− | appear: in the [[precept]] that says that a woman should be twenty years old
| |
− | to receive the [[ordination]], the terms used to indicate the woman are the
| |
− | {{Wiki|Chinese}} 25]£c (girl), the [[Pali]] kumdribhutd (girl), and the [[Sanskrit]] 3 *
| |
− | kumdribhutd (girl), while in the [[precept]] concerning the [[married]] woman
| |
− | candidate *hc terms to indicate the woman are the {{Wiki|Chinese}}
| |
− | (T.1428), m: (T.1421, T.1435, T.1443), M (T.1425), the [[Pali]] g/Ai-
| |
− | gatd, and the [[Sanskrit]] 3 * grhicaritu . Although the use of these different
| |
− | terms in the two [[precepts]] clearly indicate that a single girl and a [[married]]
| |
− | woman are to be {{Wiki|distinguished}} at the [[moment]] they want to become a
| |
− | member of the order, the question whether for the [[married]] woman the
| |
− | age of the candidate or the years she has been [[married]] arc indicated still'
| |
− | remains.
| |
| | | |
− | Some introductory stories to this [[precept]], however, clearly indicate
| + | HEIRMAN |
− | that the age of the candidate is to be understood: the introductory stories
| |
− | preceding the [[precept]] in T.1425 and in the [[Bhiksunivibhanga]] of the
| |
− | Mahasamghika-Lokottaravada School relate how the [[nuns]] notice that
| |
| | | |
− | 129. Except for T.442I, ail [[die]] [[Vinayas]] contain the [[precept]] concerning the minimum
| |
− | age of twenty of the woman candidate (see note 126), and all the [[Vinayas]] also
| |
− | contain the [[precept]] concerning the [[married]] woman candidate (see note 127).
| |
− | Although T. 1421 docs not contain the former [[precept]], it contains a [[precept]] that is
| |
− | linked to it: Pac. 106: “If a [[bhiksuni]] confers the study of (he [[precepts]] [i.e. the
| |
− | siksamdna period] to a girl who is less than eighteen years old, then it is a
| |
− | pacittika ”
| |
| | | |
| + | SAKAKI, R. (cd.), [[Mahavyutpatti]] Suzuki Gakujutsu Zaidan Tokvo |
| | | |
| + | 1973 5 ,2 Vols. ’ |
| | | |
− | [[married]] women, accepted into the order, arc able to endure hard work
| + | UPASAK, C.S., {{Wiki|Dictionary}} of Early [[Buddhist]] [[Monastic]] Terms (Based on [[Pali Literature]]) [DEBMT), [[Varanasi]]: [[Bharati]] Prakashan, 1975. |
− | and seem to be very smart. Therefore, the [[nuns]] ask if it is permissible to
| |
− | confer the [[ordination]] to [[married]] women who are less than twenty years
| |
− | old (i.c. the usual age for an [[ordination]]). 130 After [[Buddha]] has given the
| |
− | permission, the [[nuns]] confer the [[ordination]] to young [[married]] women
| |
− | who are only eight [[or nine]] years old. These women* however, arc too
| |
− | small and feeble to endure hard work. [[Buddha]] then says that the ordina¬
| |
− | tion cannot be conferred to a [[married]] woman who is less than twelve
| |
− | years old.
| |
| | | |
− | The introductory story to this [[precept]] in T.1443 131 clearly says that
| + | WALDSCHMIDT, E., Bruclistucie des Bhiksuni-Pratimoksa der [[Sarvastivadins]], |
− | [[married]] women of the age of twelve have the same capacities as single | + | Leipzig: Deutsche Morgcnlandischc Gesellschaft, 1926. |
− | women of the age of eighteen, and that the two-year instruction of the
| |
− | [[siksamana]] can be conferred to them.
| |
| | | |
− | The introductory stories to this [[precept]] in the three above mentioned
| + | — (cd.), Sanskrit-handschriften aus des Turfanfunden, Teil I |
− | Yinayas indicate, without any [[doubt]], that the real age of the [[married]]
| |
− | woman is to be understood in the [[precept]] they introduce, and’ not the
| |
− | duration of the [[marriage]]. The introductory stories to this [[precept]] in the
| |
− | other Yinaya s, however, give no [[information]] that enables us to decide
| |
− | between these two possibilities: the [[Pali]] Yinaya, T.1421, and T.1428
| |
− | only say that [[married]] women younger than twelve - or [[married]] for less
| |
− | than twelve years - do not possess the necessary capacities to become a
| |
− | [[nun]], whereas T.1435 gives no [[information]] at all.
| |
| | | |
− | 130. T.1425, p. 535e21-22: hi j; Wuksunivihhany % a of the M.-L. School, Ro m
| + | [[Wiesbaden]]: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH 1965. |
| | | |
− | Ci., 1970, p.245, §214: u/iu-vimsuti-vursam. The only way to interpret these _
| + | WlJAYARATNA, M„ Les moniales bouddhistes, naissance ct devchppemcnt du [[mona]]- |
− | structures is Mess than twenty years old’, the age of twenty years being the
| + | chismejeminin, {{Wiki|Paris}}: Les fiditions du Cerf, 1991. |
− | normal age to receive the [[ordination]]. Since [[married]] women appear to be very
| |
− | capable, the [[nuns]] ask to allow an exception for these women so that they can be
| |
− | [[ordained]] before they arc twenty years old.
| |
| | | |
− | Another, theoretic::!, [[interpretation]] of the request of the [[nuns]] would be: is it
| + | WOGIHARA, U., et alii, Bonwa Daijiten JJ4 (BIV), [[Tokyo]]: Kodansha, 1974. |
− | permissible to confer the [[ordination]] to a woman who has been [[married]] for less
| |
− | than twenty years? If this request is not granted, it would imply that [[married]]
| |
− | women necessarily have to be older than twenty years at the time of their ordi¬
| |
− | {{Wiki|nation}}, and that for some [[reason]] their [[ordination]] has to be postponed and cannot
| |
− | be conferred at the usual age of twenty years. Since the introductory story to the
| |
− | [[precept]] tells us how these [[married]] woman arc smart and capable to endure hard
| |
− | work - which rrtcans that they possess the capacities to become a [[nun]] - it is clear
| |
− | that this brings the [[nuns]] to the [[idea]] to ask for an exception for these [[married]]
| |
− | women so that they can confer them the [[ordination]] at an earlier (and not at a
| |
− | later) age titan the usual one.
| |
| | | |
− | Sec also NOLOT, E., 1991, pp. 392-393.
| + | YUYAMA, a., A Systematic Survey of [[Buddhist Sanskrit]] {{Wiki|Literature}}, Erster Teil, |
| | | |
− | 131. T.1443, p. I004cl-10.
| + | [[Vinaya]]- Texte, [[Wiesbaden]]: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1979 |
In this way, the question whether the interpretation of T.1425, of the
Bhiksunivibhahga of the Mahasamghika-Lokottaravada School,* and of
T.1443 also applies to the other yinayas remains. The answer to this
question cannot be found in the Vinayas themselves. More information
is to be found in some commentaries:
In T. 1804*^2, p. 155a5-7, Tao-hsiian (596-667 AD) seems to indicate
that, in T.1428, the real ag: of the married woman is to be understood*
i.c. “In the
Vinaya in Four Parts, a young girl, aged eighteen, ought to study the
precepts for two years [i.e. the siksamana period]. It further says that a
young married woman, aged ten, [ought] to be given the six rules [to be
particularly taken into account by a siksamana ]”. Since the text calls the
married woman, a young (/]'*£) married woman, we opt for the inter¬
pretation ’a young marrfed woman, aged ten’.
Also Buddhaghosa’s (fifth century AD) commentary on the Pali Vinaya says that, after having given a married girl of ten the agreement
to study, the ordination may be conferred to her when she has completed
twelve years of age (TAKAKUSU, J. and NAGAI, M., Samaniapasddikd,
Vol. IV, p. 941: Chatthe, dasavassaya giliigataya sikkhasammutim datvd
paripunnadvddasavassam upasampadetunt vattati). Since the text does
not inform us that "paripunnadvddasavassam" has to be related to the
duration of the marriage, we opt for the interpretation ‘when she has
completed twelve years of age".
Finally, the commentary written by Gunaprabha 13 -’ related to the
Mulasarvastivada tradition 134 , clearly indicates that the real age of the
married woman is to be understood: BAPAT, P.V. and GOKHALE, V.V.,
Vinayasutra, p.52 (the transcription is based on NOLOT, E., 1991
p.393):
upasampat-kalasyddih \ sa dvi[vi]dho 'sydh \ kumdrikaydh vimsali-varsatvaip
grhositdydh dvadasa-varsatvam ...; grantho 'Ira bhiksunivibhaiige yd grhositd
dasa-varsa kumarikd-bhutd va astddasa-varsa | tasydh dve varfe siksdsamvrtir
deyd ti |
132. T.1804 is a commentary written by Tao-hsiian (596-667 AD). It focuses on
T.1428, but also gives commentary on the other Chinese Pinayas(T 1421
T.1425, and T.1435).
133. According to Nakamura, H., 1980, p. 147, king Harsa adored Gunaprabha as
a spiritual teacher. The reign of king Harsa can be situated in the beginning of the
seventh century (Renou, L. ct Filuozat, J„ 1985, Tome Premier, p. 266).
134. Cf. BAPAT, p. V. and GOK.ll ALE, V.V., 1982. p.xvii.
Translated in NOLOT, E. op. cit., p.393:
Terminus a quo pour Tordination - il cst de deux sortes pour une [femme]: pour
unc jcune ftllc, il consistc a avoir vingt ans; pour une femme mariee, il consiste a
avoir douzc ans1c libel 1c s*cn trouve dans le Bh°: “Quand une femme marine a
dix ans, ou quand unc jcune fillc a dix-huit ans, on peut lui donner l’agrement
pour I’instruction durant deux ans”.
Wc can thus conclude that the three above mentioned commentaries all
seem to indicate that the real age of the candidate is to be understood,
and not the duration of the marriage. \
As wc have said before, T. 1443 states that the siksatndna period can be
conferred to a married woman aged twelve, while the commentary of
Gunaprabha says that a married woman can become a siksamana at the
age of ten, and can be ordained when she is twelve years old. This latter
statement coincides with the other Vinayas (providing we accept that all
the Vinayas indicate the real age of the married candidate).
On the other hand, some modem authors defend the theory that a
married woman should be married for twelve years before she can
receive the ordination. Among the most important defenders of this
theory arc WALDSCMMIDT, E., 1926, p. 138, ROTH, G., 1970, p.245,
note 3, and HORNER, I.B., BD y Vol.HI, pp.Ui*”. G. ROTH gives no
arguments for his statement. E. WALDSCHMIDT bases his statement on a
sentence in a Sanskrit fragment of a Buddhist ordination cc/emony
discovered and edited by C. BENDALL 136 . C. BENDABL regards the text
as probably earlier than the Christian era, and attributes it to the Mula-
sarvastivada School. On the ordination of a married woman, the text
says: stri clvadasavarsagrJiayuktd , “a woman must be married for twelve
years”. However, C. BENDALL himself considers the yukta in this
sentence as being a doubtful reading, and, later, NOLOT, E., 1991,
p.392, notes that it probably has to be vustd instead of yukta. Conse¬
quently, this sentence cannot be used to support the theory that a married
woman only can receive the ordination after twelve years of marriage.
Finally, I.B. HORNER, refers to the above mentioned WALDSCHMIDT,
E., 1926, p. 138 for her statement. She further states that since a girl is
often married at eight, she attains the age of twenty after twelve years of
marriage, which is the usual age to receive the ordination. Only at this
135. In an earlier work, however, I.B. HORNER stated that the real age of the woman
is to be understood, and that, consequently, a married woman can receive the
ordination at twelve (HORNER, I.B., 1930, p. 27).
136. BENDALL. C. 1903, pp. 373-376.
age, women are able to endure the hard life of the nuns. This calculation
is certainly true. However, a girl can also be married at a different age,
which, after twelve years of marriage, consequently would lead to a
different and unusual age for the ordination. Moreover, if she is married
at an age later than eight, she would, after twelve years of marriage, bd
older than twenty, but she still would haVc to wait till she has been
married for twelve years to be able to become a nun. This seems very
. illogical. A married woman, older than twenty, certainly is as able to
endure hardships as other women of twenty. It thus seems more logical
to say that a married woman, because of her married life, is able to
endure hardships at an earlier age than a single woman, who has not the
same duties to fulfill.
We thus have to conclude that, since the introductory stories to this
precept in T.1425, in the Bhik?unlvibhanga of the Mahasamghika-
Lokottaravada School and in T.1443 clearly indicate that in the above
mentioned precept concerning the married woman candidate, the real
age of the candidate, i.c. twelve years, has to be understood and not the
duration of the marriage, and since, moreover, three important
commentaries, i.c. the commentaries by Tao-hsuan, Buddhaghosa and
Gunaprabha, all appear to understand the precept in this way, and since,
finally, as far as our knowledge goes, no text contradicts this statement -
whereas this is the case for the inverse statement - , an exception is
allowed for the age on which a married woman can receive the
ordination: while a single woman has to be twenty years old to receive
the ordination, a married woman can receive it at the age of twelve.
f T.1428, Bhiksunivibhaiiga, Pac. 127 (pp.759c7-760a7, particularly
p.759c26-27) 137 ;
137. T.1421, pp.9Ic28-92a5, Pac. 112; T.1443, p. 1014 a8-20, Pac. 160.
T. 1435, p^328bl 1-26, has a somehow different precept It says that if a bhik$uni
admits a prostitute into the prdcr, she should withdraw her to a distance of five
or six yojanas* (Pac. 115).
- MONIER-WlLLlAMS, M., SED f p. 858: “esp. a partic. measure of distance,
sometimes regarded as equal to 4 or 5 English miles, but more correctly « 4
KroSas or about 9 miles; according to other calculations = 256 English miles, and
according to some * 8 KroSas.”
“If a bhiksuni knows that she is such a person [= prostitute 138 ], and she
confers her the ordination 139 , then it is a paciltika.”
19^/7
her the ordination 143 , then it is a paciltika."
j. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac.167 (p. 774a 18-b 16, particularly
p. 774b I-2) 144 :
“If a bhiksuni confers the ordination to someone whose two tracts arc
united 145 , then it is a paciltika."
g. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 135 (pp.762cl7-763a26, particularly,
p.763al3-I5)' 4 ®:
"If a bhiksuni knows that a woman makes love to a boy or to a man
and that she is a sad and angry woman, and she admits her into the
order, lets her go forth and confers her the ordination 141 , then it is a
paciltika.”
h. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 165 (p.773b20-c20, particularly,
p.773cl 1-12):
“If a bhiksuni knows that a woman cannot hold up urine and
'excrements and that mucus and saliva often run out, and she admits her
into the order and confers her the ordination, then it is a paciltika.”
i. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 166 (pp.773c21-774al7, particularly,
p. 774a8-9) 142 :
138. Both in the introductory stoty to the precept (p. 759c8 IT.) and in the commentary
on the precept (p. 759c27), ‘such a person’ is explained as ’a prostitute’.
139. This coincides with T.1421. In the precept itself, the Vinaya only says that a
bhiksuni admits (Iff) a prostitute. From the commentary to the precept, however,
it is dear that also the ordination has to be understood. T.1443 says that a
bhiksuni lets a prostitute go forth.
140. This precept only coincides with a precept in the Pali Vinaya: Oldenberg, H.,
Vinaya Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp. 333-334, Pac. 79.
Other Vinayas have closely connected precepts:
T.I425 and the Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L SchopI say that a bhikfuifi may
not ordain a probationer who stays with a man (T. 1425, p.534al2-b2, Pac.95;
Bhiksutfivibhaiiga of the M.-L, School, ROTH, G., 1970, p.237, §209, P2c.95).
Both T.1435 and T.1443 contain two precepts that refer to the character of the
candidate: T.1435, pp. 328c28-329aI4, Pic. 118, says that a nun may not admit
into the order a woman who is mourning; T.1435, p.329b3-15,
Pac. 120 s„ys that a nun may not admit into the order (th& 5K) a woman who
has a bad character. T.1443, pp..l006c21-1007al4, Pac.117, says that a nun may
not confer the going forth and the ordination to a woman who has a bad
character, T.1443, p. !007al5-29, Pac. 118, says that a nun may not confer the
going forth to a sad and mourning woman.
141. This coincides with the Pali Vinaya. See also note 140.
142. T.142l.p.97c 1-7, Pac. 176.
k. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 168 (p.774bl7-c20, particularly
p.774c9-10) 146 :
“If a bhiksuni knows that someone has difficulties because of debts, or
difficulties because of an illness, and she confers her the ordination, then
it is a paciltika.”
2) The upadhyayini < ’
a. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 131 (p.761 b 11 -cl2, particularly
p.761c4-6) l i 7 ;
143. In the precept ofT.142I, it is said that if a nun admits (IS) a hermaphrodite, her
act constitutes a Pic. offense. From the commentary to the precept, it is clear that
’to admit’ should be understood as ’to be her upadhyayini', and that the
bhiksuni, as an upadhydyint, commits a paciltika offense when she confers the
ordination.
144. T. 1421, p. 97c8-12, Pic. 177.
145. In tile precept of T.1421, it is said that if a nun admits (IS) a woman whose two
tracts arc united, her act constitutes a Pac. offense. The commentary to this
precept refers to the commentary to the preceding precepts, which means that ‘to
admit* should be understood as ‘to be her upadhyayini' (see note 143). T’.c
commentary to the parallel precept in T.1428 (p.774b7) explains that ‘the two
tracts arc united* means that the tracts of urine and excrements arc not separated.
146. T.1421 contains two precepts that arc closely connected with this precept of
T.1428; Pac. 125 (p.93a6-I I) says that if a nun admits a woman who has been
ill for a long lime, her act constitutes a Pac. offense; Pac. 127 (p. 93a 17-21) says
that if a nun admits a woman who has debts, her act constitutes a Pac. offense.
The commentaries on the precepts refer to the commentary on preceding
precepts, from the latter we know that ‘to admit* should be understood as ‘to be
her upadhydyint (see note 143).
147. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam , Vol.lV, p. 329, Pac.74; T. 1421, p. 90c 1-18,
Pac. 102; T.1425, p. 533a20-b20, Pac.92; Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L.
School, ROTH, G.* 1970, pp.232-233, §206, Pac.92; T.1435, p.325b2-!6,
Pac. 106; T.1443, p. 1004a 10-21,.Pac. 106.
“If a bh ksunt who has no* been [a bhiksunt] for fully twelve years yet,
confers someone the ordination 1 * 48 , then it is a pacittika" .
b. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhahga , Pac.133 (p.762al5-b20, particularly,
p.762b7-9) 149 :
“If a bhiksunt , not having been given the permission by the order to
confer someone the ordination 150 , says: ‘The santgha has desire, has
hatred, has fear and has foolishness 151 . What it wants to agree to, it
agrees to. What it docs not want to agree to, it does not agree to.’, then
it is a pacittika
148. This coincides with the Pali Vi nay a and T.1443.
In T. 1421, it is said that a bhiksunt who has not been a bhiksunt for fully twelve
years yet, may not accept disciples. The commentary to this precept adds that ‘to **
accept disciples* should be understood as ‘to be their upadhydyinV (see note
143). This coincides with T.1425 and with the Bhiksunmbhahga of the M.-L.
School. ' • ' ' .
T.1435 only says that the bhiksunt who has not been a bhiksunt for fully
twelve years yet, may not admit someone into the order (1*®).
149. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam , Vol.IV, p.331, Pac.76; T.1421, p.9ic4-12,
Pac. 109; T.1425, p. 537b8-24, Pac. 109; Bhiksuntvibhohga of the M.-L. School,
ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 254-255, §223, Pac. 109.
All the above mentioned precepts have in common that the order does not give
the permission to a nun (either the permission to confer the ordination or the
permission to take on disciples), after which the nun criticizes this decision.
T.1435 contains a somehow different precept saying that, if a bhiksunt,
although the order told her to stop [to admit someone into the order], admits
someone into the order (iS3gR), she commits a Pac. offense (p.326al2-b3,
Pac. 110). This latter precept is closely connected with a precept in T.1443,
saying that, if a bhiksunt accepts a lot of disciples although the order did not give
her the permission to accept as many disciples as she wanted, she commits a
Pac. offense (p. I005bl0-c24, Pac. 110). From the commentary to this precept, it
is clear that To accept disciples* is to be understood as ‘to confer them the going
forth and the ordination*.
150. This coincides with the Pali Vinaya.
151 . These reproaches arc also to be foynd in the commentary on the precepts of the
Pali Vinaya and of T. 1421.
3) The ordination procedure
a . T.1428 , Bhiksunmbhahga , Pac. 122 (p. 756a 16-b 17, particularly,
p.756b7-9) and b. T.1428 t Bhiksunmbhahga f Pac. 123 (p.756bl8-c25,
particularly, p.756c8-9) 152 : .
“If a bhiksunt , when a girl is eighteen, does not give her the two-year
instruction in the precepts, but, when she is fully twenty years old
confers her the ordination, then it is a pacittika."
This precept clearly states that a woman cannot be ordained without a
two-year probation period.
“If a bhiksunt , when a girl is eighteen, gives her the two-year instruc¬
tion in the precepts, but does not give her the six rules, and, when die is
fully twenty [years] old, she then confers her the ordination, then it is a
pacittika .”
152. To T.1428, Bhiksunmbhahga, Pac. 122 correspond: OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya
Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp. 327-328, Pac.72; T.1425, pp.534cl2-535al6, PSc.97;
Bhiksunmbhahga of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 240*242, §211,
Pac.97; T.1435, p.329bI6-c4, Pac. 121 (T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the
bhiksunt ordains the woman, but only states that the bhiksunt admits her into the
order (^&SR)); T.1443, p. 1006cl 1-20, Pac. 116.
The Pali Vinaya, T.1435, and T.1443 specify that, during this two-year
probation period, the woman probationer has to study the rules that die
particularly has to take into account (see note 71):
To T.1428, Bhiksunmbhahga, Pac. 123 correspond: OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya
Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp.318-320, Pac.63; T.1421, p.92a!8-23, Pac. 115; T.1435,
pp. 326b5-327c21, Pac. 111 (T.1435 does not explicitly say that the bhiksunt
ordains the woman, but only states that the bhiksunt admits her into the order
T.1443, p. 1007bl-12, Pac. 119.
There is, however, a small difference between the precept in T.1428 and the
precepts in the other Vinayas . Whereas the precept in T.1428 says that the
bhiksunt did not give the six rules to the candidate, the precepts ( n the other
Vinayas say that the candidate herself docs not study the rules she has to Mow.
Closely connected to the latter precept, T.1421, T.1425, and the Bhikfurf-
vibhanga of the M.-L. School have another precept saying \3xfL if a bhiksunt
ordains a siksamand who has not completed the two-year instruction in the
precepts, she commits a Pac. offense: T.1421, p.92a6-U, Pac. 113; T.1425,
p. 535al7-b8, Pac.98; Bhiksunmbhahga of the M.-L. School, ROFii, G., 1970,
pp. 242-243, §212, Pac.98. The latter two Vinayas explain that ‘not to have
completed the probationary period* means that the siksamand did not study the
rules she particularly has to take into account This links the precept in these two
Vinayas to the above mentioned Pac. 123 of T.1428.
This precept states that a woman candidate, even when she has done a
two-year probation period, cannot be ordained if, during this probation
period, she did not study the six rules (/\j£) 153 .
c. T. 1428/ Bhiksimivibhanga, Pac. 124 (pp.756c26-758c28, particularly/
p. 758c 18-20)»54; •* '
“If a bhiksuni , when a girl is eighteen, gives her the two-year instruc¬
tion in the precepts and gives her the six rules, and, when she is fully
twenty [years] old, she then confers her the ordination without the per¬
mission of the samgha , then it is a pacittika."
ci T.1428, Bhiksunivibhaiiga, Pac.126 (p.759b3-c6, particularly,
p.759b 25-27) 155 :
“If a bhiksuni admits a young married woman and gives her the two-
year instruction in the precepts, and, when she is fully twelve years old
she then confers her the ordination without the permission of the
samgha , then it is a pacittika ”
153. See note 71.
154. OLDENBERG, IL, Vi nay a Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp.320-321, Pac.64 and pp.328-
329, Piic.73. These two precepts arc closely connected: in Pac.64, it is said that, ■
without the permission of the order, a nun may not ordain a probationer who has
studied the precepts for two years, while in Pac.73, it is said that without the
permission of the order, a nun may not ordain a twenty-year old girl, who has
studied the precepts for two years.
T.1421, p.92a 12-17, Pac.114. T.1425, p.535b9-c!0, Pac.99. Bhiksuni-
vibhanga of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G„ 1970, pp. 243-245, §213, Pac. 99.
T.1435, pp.327c22-328a9, Pac.112, p.328cl2*27, Pac.l 17, and p.329c5-22,
Pac. 122. These three precepts are closely connected: in Pac. 112, it is said that
without the permission of the order, a nun may not admit a disciple who has
studied the precepts for two years into the order; in Pac. 117, it is said that,
without the permission of the order, a nun may not admit a twenty-year old girl
into the order; in Pac. 122, it is said that, without the permission of the order, a
nun may not admit a twenty-year old girl who has studied the precepts for two
years into thc.ordcr.
155. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pijakam , Vol.IV, pp.323-324, Pac.67; T.1421,
p. 9la22-b5, Pac. 105; T.1425, p. 536a29-b8, Pac. 103; Bhiksunivibhaiiga of the
M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp.247-248, §217, Pac. 103; T.1435,
pp.325c25-326al 1, Pac. 109 (T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the bhiksuni
ordains the woman, but only states that the bhiksuni admits her into the order
e. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 130 (pp.760c20-761bl0, particular!
p.761b2-3) ,s6 :
“If a bhiksuni confers someone the ordination's? without the pc
mission of the samgha, then it is a pacittika."
f. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhaiiga, Pac. 132 (pp. 761 c 13-762a 14, particularly
p.762a7-8)'5«:
“If a bhiksuni, who has been [a bhiksuni] for fully twelve years
confers someone the ordination'^ without the permission of the saniglu.
then it is a pacittika.”
156. T.1443, p. 10O4a22-b27, Pac. 107.
157. The precept in T.1443 says that, without the permission ofthe order, a nun ma>
not accept someone as a disciple. The commentary to this precept furthci
explains that ‘to accept someone as a disciple’ should be understood as ‘to givi
. , the going forth and the ordination’.
158. OLDENBERG, H„ VinayiP Pitakaip, Vol.IV, pp. 330-331, Pac.75; T 1421
pp.90c!9-91al4, Pac. 103; T.1435, p. 325bl7-cl0, Pac. 107.
. T.1425 and the Bhiksunivibhaiiga of the M.-L. School contain two precepts that
are closely connected to the Pacittikas 130,131 (see p.33) and 132 of T.1428:
Pac.93 (T.1425, p.533b2l-c8; Bhiksunivibhaiiga ofthe M.-L. School, ROTH.
G., 1970, pp. 234-235, §207) says that a bhikfuifi who has been in the order for
fully twelve rainy seasons but who has not fulfilled lire ten requirements cannot
take on disciples, while PSc.94 (T.1425, pp. 533c9-534al 1; Bhiksunivibluniga of
the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 235-236, §208) says dial a 'bhikfuni who
has fulfilled the ten requirements cannot take on disciples without t ic permission
ofthe order.
These ten requirements refer to the requirements that a bhiksuni has to fulfill in
order to become a teacher: she has to uphold the precepts (I), she has to be
learned in Abhidharma (2) and in Vinaya (3), she must study morality (4).
meditation (5) and wisdom (6), she must be able to .purify herself of Iter offenses
and to help others to purify themselves of their offenses as well (7), she must be
able to remove a disciple who is being pressed by her relatives to quit her
spiritual training to another place, or to have someone else remove such person
to another place (8), she must be able to nurse her disciple when the latter is sick
or to have someone else nurse the latter (9), she must have been in the order for
fully twelve rainy seasons or more (10).
159. This coincides with the Pali Vinaya. In T. 1421, it is said that a bhikstuii who has
been a bhikfuni for fully twelve years may not accept disciples without the
permission of the order. The commentary to this precept refers to the commen¬
tary to the preceding precept (= Pac.102), according to which ‘to accept
disciples’ should be understood as ‘to be her upadhyayint, and that the b hikfu ni,
as an upadhyayint, commits a pacittika offense when she confers the nnlinMi^ ’
g. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac.134 (p.762b21-cl6, particularly,
p.762c7-9) 160 :
“If a bhiksuni confers the ordination 161 without the permission of the
parents and the husband 162 , then it is a pdcittika .”
T.1435 only says that the bhiksuni who has been a bhiksuni for fully twelve
years may not admit someone into the order (iSXR) without the permission of the
order.
160. OLDENBERG, II., Vinaya Pitakam , Vol.IV, pp.334-335, Pac.80; T.1421,
p. 93a 12-16, Pac. 126; T.1425, p. 5l9b2-c6, Samghatise?a 7; Bhiksunivibhanga
of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G.. 1970. pp. 135-137, §§158-159, Samghatisesa 7;
T.1435, p.330b3-cl, Pac. 124;T.1443,p. I007b29-cl9, Pac. 121.
161. This oincidcs with the Pali Vinaya, In T.1421, it is said that a bhiksuni may not
accept a married woman who is subject to her husband into the order. The
commentary to this precept says that ‘to admit into the order’ should be
understood as ‘to confer the going forth and the ordination* (this corresponds to
Pac. 102, p. 90c 17-18).
In T.1425, and in the Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School, it is said that the
bhiksuni may not accept a woman as a disciple without the permission of the
woman’s masters ( j{&: see note 162). The commentaries on the precepts
explain that ‘to accept as a disciple* has to be understood as *to confer the v
ordination*.
T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the bhikfurf ordains the woman, but only
states that the bhiksuni admits her into the order (iB-feSR)* 'N
Finally, in T. 1443. it is said that a bhiksuni may not confer the going forth to a
married woman without the permission of her husband.
162. It is not clear who exactly has to give the permission to* whom. Since the
candidate to be ordained is not qualified as a single girl (3£^C) or as a married
woman (tUMIX) (cf. p. 27), it could well be that both of them are equally to be
understood/ A single girl is to be given permission by her parents, while a
married woman certainly is to be given permission-by her husband, but, maybe,
also the parents' opinion is decisive.
The precept in the Pali Vinaya is similar to the one in T.1428.
A similar situation is to be found in the precepts of T.1425, of the Bhikfuni-
vibhahga of the M.-L. School, and of T.1435, ail saying that a bhikfugi may not
erdain a woman without the permission of her masters (3E). The commentaries
on the precepts ^)f T.1425 and of the Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School
distinguish two situations: a single girl has to have the permission of her parents,
a married woman should have the permission of her husband, her mother-in-law,
her father-in-law and her husband’s younger brother.
Explaining ‘masters*, the commentary on the precept of T.1435 distinguishes
tlircc situations: a single girl has to have the permission of her parents, a marned
woman who has not gone to her husband's house yet has to have the permission
of both her parents and her husband, and, finally, a married woman who has
gone to her husband’s house, has to have the permission of her husband.
h. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 136 (p. 763a27-b28, particularly
p.763bl7-19) 163 :
“If a bhiksuni says to a siksamana : ‘Sister, drop this. Study this. I will
confer you the ordination,’ but she does not take measures to confer her
the ordination, then it is a pdciilika
i. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 137 (pp. 763b28-764a3, particularly
p.763c21-23) 164 :
“If a bhiksuni says to a siksamana : ‘Bring me a robe 163 .1 will confer
you the ordination 166 ,’but she docs not take measures to confer her the
ordination 166 *, then it is a pdcittika
finally, in T.1421 and in T.I443, it is said that a bhiksuni may not accept a
married woman wl vf is subject to her husband into the order.
163. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pifakam, Vol.IV, p.333, Pac.78; T.1425, p.537b25-
cl7, Pac. 110; Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp.255-
256, §224, Pac. 110; T.1435, p.330c2-27, Pac. 125 (T.1435 docs not explicitly
say that the bhiksuni ordains the woman, but only slates that the Mkfurf admits
her into the order (tgf)).
T.1443 contains two precepts that arc closely connected with the above men¬
tioned precept: T.1443, p. I008a5«28, Pac. 123, stales that if a bhiksuni docs not
confer the going forth to a woman who has done some household work for her,
although she, i.e. the bhiksuni, previously, had promised this woman to do so!
providing she did this household work, her act constitutes a P5c. offense!
T.1443, p. 1007b 13-28, Pac. 120, states that if a bhiksuni\ although she knows
that a woman finished the two-year study of the six rules and the six additional
rules*, does not confer the ordination to this woman, her act constitutes a Pac.
offense.
- These rules are the rules that, according to T.1443, have to be taken into
particular account by the probationer. See note 71 .
T.1421 contains a precept that is closely connected to the latter precept of
T.1443. It says that a bhiksuni who, although there are no problems, does not
confer the ordination to a probationer who has finished the two-year instruction,
but, instead, says that the probationer should go on studying, commits a Pac
offense (T.1421, p. 91cl9-27, Pac. 111).
164. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam , Vol.IV, p.332. Pac.77; T. 1421, p.91b24-c3,
Pac. 108; T.1425, p. 526al6-b5, nihsargika-pacattika 18; the Bhiksunivibhanga
of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 176-177. §179, nihsargika-pacattika
18; T.1435, p. 330a6-b2, Pac. 123; T. 1443, pp. 1007c20-l008a4, P2c.l22.
165. This coincides with the Pali Vinaya , T.1421, T.1425, the Bhiksunivibhanga of
the M.-L. School, and T.1443. In the precept of T.1435, the bhiksuni i$ said to
ask for an alms bowl, a robe, a door-key, and medicines.
166. This coincides with the Pali Vinaya , T.1425, (he Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L.
j. T.1428. Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac. 138 (p.764a4-bl2, particularly,
p.764b2-3) 167 :
“If a bhiksum, when one full year has not passed yet, confers someone
the ordination, then it is a pdcittika ”
k. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac.139 (p.764bl3-cl 1, particularly,
p.764b29-c2) 168 :
School, and T. 1443. In the precepts ofT.1421 andT.1435, it is only said that the
bhiksuni promises a woman to admit her into the order (ffi). Although nothing is
mentioned as to the exact meaning of the term IS, the introductory stories to this
precept give some indication, informing us how the bhiksuni made the promise
to admit (J&) her, after the woman had requested the going forth.
167. This precept is closely connected with Pac.83 in the Pali Vinaya , stating that a
' nun may net ordain two persons within one year (OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya
Pitakam , Voi.lV, pp. 336-337).
Moreover, all the Vi nay as contain another precept saying that a nun may not
ordain a person every year, precept which is closely connected with Pac. 138 of
T.1428: OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam , VoUV, p.336, Pac.82; T.1421,
p.92b 13-19, Pac. 118; T.1425, p.536ct3-23, Pac. 106 (the precept says that a
nun may not take on disciples every year; the commentary to this precept adds
that ‘to take on disciples’ is to be understood as ‘to confer the ordination’);
Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 250-251, §220,
Pac. i 06 (the precept says that a nun may not take on disciples every year; the
commentary to this precept adds that ‘to take on disciples’ is to be understood as
before, i.c. as ‘to confer the ordination’); T.1435, pp.330c28-331a!5, Pac. 126
(the precept only says that a nun may not accept disciples OUftrf-) every year);
T.1443, p. 1008a29-bl3, Pac. 124.
168. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam , Vol.1V, pp.335-336, Pac.81; T.1421,
p. 92b20-27, Pac. 119; T.1425, pp.536c24-537a 16, Pac. 107; Bhiksunivibhanga
of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp.25l-253, §221, Pac. 107; T.1435,
pp.331al7- 334c29, Pac. 127.
Common in all these precepts, is the rule that an ordination ceremony has to be
performed within one day. However, while all the introductory stories to this
precept indicate that the ordination in the nun’s order and the ordination in the
monk’s order should be held on the same day, not all precepts focus on the same
aspect. According to T.1421, an ordination ceremony may not be interrupted and
has to be held within one day. If not, the bhiksuni who confers the ordination
- commits a pdcittika. On the other hand, according to T.1428, T.1425, the
Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School, and T.1435, if a bhiksuni lets a woman
stay overnight after having ordained that woman in the nun’s order, but before
conferring her the ordination in the monk’s order, this bhiksuni's act constitutes
a Pac. offense. Finally, according to the Pali Vinaya % there may be no day
between the permission to ordain and the actual ordination. If not, the nun who ^
confers the ordination commits a Pac. offense.
“If a bhiksuni, after having conferred the ordination to someone goes
to the bhiksusamgha to confer hcr'thc ordination only after one night has
passed, then it is a pdcittika."
4) The period following the ordination ceremony
p.760b7-8) P5C ' 128 (p - 760a8 - b14 ’ Particularly,
“If a.bhiksuni admits many disciples, but docs not tell them to study
the precepts for two years 1 ™ and docs not give them support in two
things 171 , then it is a pdcittika. 112 '*
169. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam, Vol.IV, pp.324-325, Pac.68' T 1421
p.92c6-ri, P a c.l21 : T.1425, p.536b9-25, Pac. 104; Bhiksunivibhanga of the
M.-L. School, ROTH, G„ 19?0, pp. 248-249, §218, Pac. 104; T.1435 o 328a23-
bl °* P5c ; 1 14 (T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the bhiksuni ordains the
woman, but only states that the bhiksutti admits her into the order (SfAShv
T.1443, p. 1006a6-19, Pac. 112 and p. 1006a20-b3, Pac. 113. ’
170. This coincides with the Pali Vinaya, T.1425, the Bhiksunivibhanga of the M -L
School, and T.1435. According to T.1421, the support has to last for six years’
while in T.1443, no duration oftlic support is mentioned.
171. After the ordination, an upadhyayini has to help her disciples for another two
years and has to support them regarding two things: (1) in the law (2) in
clothing and food. ' v
This coincides with T.1435. In the Pali Vinaya, in T.1421, in T.1425 and in
the Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School, the teacher only has to help her
disciples regarding the law. T.1443 has two precepts: in Pac. 112, it is said that a
teacher ought to help her disciples regarding the precepts, while in Pac. 113, it is
said that a teacher ought to support and protect her disciples.
172. The Pali Vinaya and T.1421 add the possibility that a teacher has her disciples
helped by someone else. s
173. 0LUENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam , Vol.IV, pp. 325-326, Pac.69; T.1421
p. 92b28-c5, Pac. 120; T.1425, p. 536b26-cl2, Pac. 105; Bhiksunivibhanga of the
M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 249-250, §219, Pac. 105; T.1435. p. 328al0-
22, Pac. 113.
“If a bhiksuni docs not follow 174 her upddhydyini for two years 175 ,
then it is a pacillika. 116 "
HI. Conclusion
The admission rules, admission ceremonies and offenses against these
rules and ceremonies as they arc described above, display the exact
‘theoretical’ career of a nun in the Buddhist community. In this commu¬
nity, two orders can be distinguished, a monk’s order (bhiksusanigha)
and a nun’s order ( bliiksunisamgha ), the latter being dependent on the
former. These orders gradua'ly came into being, first the bhiksusanigha
and then the bhiksunisunigha, and, as the number of monks and nuns
continuously grew, the need was felt to have more regulations in order
to organize this growing community.
In this organization, the admission into the order is a fundamental
institution This admission has been established for the monk’s order
first. The way these admission procedures developed and in which cere¬
monies they finally resulted, is described in the several Vinayas . ,77 A
survey has been given by FRAUWALLNER, E„ 1956, pp. 70-78. Apply¬
ing this survey to T. 1428, we come to the following outline:
First, Buddha himself performs the ordination, i.e. by calling the first
disciples to join the order by means of the formula: “Welcome,.monk.”
(&$ktkSx). This formula simultaneously covered admission and ordi-
174. Wh : ’.c according to T.1428, the new bhiksuni, above all, has to listen to her
icaciicr, the Pali I'inaya, T.I421, T.1425, the Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L.
School, and T.1435 all emphasize that the new nun has to serve her teacher.
175. After having been ordained, the new bhiksuni has to follow her teacher for
another two years and listen to her teachings.
This coincides with the Pali I'inaya, T.1425, the Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-
L. School, and T.1435. According to T.1421, the new nun has to serve her
teacher for six years.
176. T. 1421 adds the possibility that the new nun has her teacher helped by someone
else.
177. OLDENUERG, IT., ^inava Pitakam, Vol.l, Mahavagga 1, pp. 1-100; T.1421,
£J0«£- (Chapter on Ordination), pp. 101al2-121a25; T.1425, several passages
in 3Tj if It ili (Chapter on Miscellaneous Items), pp.412b24-499al6;T.1428,
'jcTKIilfE (Chapter on Ordination), pp.779a6-816c4; T.1435,
(Chapter on ordination), pp. 148a5-157c27; T.1444, tKTfcJft - WTlSlUfiSS
(Chapter on Going Forth of the Mulasarvaslivadavinaya), pp. 1020b
23-104la20.
nation. 178 Later, He permits the monks to perform the ordination by
having the candidate recite the formula of the triple refuge (refuge in
Buddha, in the law and in the order). 179 Also this formula covered both
the admission and the ordination. Finally, He lays’down that the ordi¬
nation should take place by means of a formal act in which the motion is «
fourfold (a jhapticaiunhakarman 1 ^*)} 80 Hereby, a clear diffe ren ce was
made between the going forth ( pravrajya ) and the full ordination (upa-
sampada). Hence two stages became necessary to acquire the full .
of a monk (and a full member of the community) and to enjoy all the
rights and privileges attributed to these members. In the first stage, one
becomes a novice ( srdmanera ) whose standing, rights and duties are
different from those of a monk who has received the full ordination!
Bad behavior of young monks further induces Buddha to determine
the minimum age fof ordination as twenty years 181 , while the minimum
- age for the novice is fixed at twelve 182 , In ease candidate novices are at
least as grown that they can scare away the crows, the age may be less
than twelve. 183 Many rules are further added to regulate who can be a
candidate and who not, and who can accept disciples and who not.
\ At the moment Mahaprajapati Gautami was allowed to become a nun, •
\ # the monk’s order (bhiksusamgha) was already well organized. This
t explains why she can go to a monk’s monastery in or^ier to ask for the
permission to go forth. Most likely, in the beginning, the order of mm«
(bliiksunisamgha) took over the organizational pattern of the monk’s
community, and both orders further developed in the same general
direction. ,
However, the bhiksunisamgha is not completely independent and relies;
on tjie bhiksusamgha in severe 1 ways. This dependency is laid down in
the eight rules to be followed by the nuns in their relation with the
monks. The fact that a woman can only become a nun if she is ordained
by both the bhiksunisamgha and the bhiksusanigha is essential in they’
rules. This fact implies a control over the membership of the order by
the monks.
178. T.1428, p.799bl-3.
179. T.1428, p.793al3-21.
180. T.1428, p.799cl2-29. .
181. T.1428,p.808b25-26.
182. T. 1428, p. 810c22-23.
183. T.1428,pp.810c24-811a3.
In addition, the bhiksunisamgha possesses some regulations, different
from the ones of the bhiksusamgha. For the bhiksunisamgha, a stage
between the going forth (pravrajya) anti the ordination ( upasampada ) is
added. This is a probationary period that lasts two years, during which
the woman candidate, as a probationer ( siksamana ), has to prove that she
is fit to become a nun. Furthermore, some rules specific to women and
nuns arc added to the rules for monks, e.g., the rules relating to married
women.
As it was the ease for the bhiksusamgha , also the formation of the
bhiksunisamgha was not accomplished in one day. As suggested by I.B.
HORNER 184 , the probation period for a woman candidate was the result
of a gradual development: it is only when the need w o .s felt, that an
additional stage between the going forth and the ordination was intro¬
duced. This additional stage rapidly became a necessary condition to
become a nun. In T.1428, this necessity is evident from the ordination
proceedings as they arc described in the Bhiksuniskandhaka 4 *: three
compulsory steps leading to full membership of the community: 1) the
going forth, 2) the two-year probation period and 3) the ordination.
Also the Bhiksunivibhaitga, pdciltika 121 draws attention to the
necessity of these three steps, while the pacitlikas 122 and 123
emphasize that a nun may not confer the ordination to a woman
candidate who has not done the two-year probation period. Furthermore,
also the fourth gurudharma 6 * states that this period must precede the
ordination.
It is, however, to be noticed that some precepts do not take the proba¬
tion period into account: the introductory story to the fifth samghava-
sesa precept relates how a woman thief rapidly goes forth and receives
the ordination, so that her persecutors arc confronted with a ‘fait
accompli’ and cannot arrest her anymore. In the pacitlikas 119 and 120,
respectively a pregnant woman and a breast-feeding-woman arc accepted
into the order and immediately receive the ordination. We thus have to
conclude that, at the time these latter three precepts were issued, the
probation period did not exist or was not taken into account. This can
only be understood if we consider the probation period as a practice that
has been introduced after the order of nuns had existed for some time:
184. HORNER, I.B.. BD, Vol.V, p. 354, note 3:"... this practice [the probation period]
will no doubt have been introduced later, after an Order of nuns had been in
being for some time."
since the organization of the bhiksunisamgha is founded on that of the
bhiksusamgha, the nuns arc likely to have taken over the going forth and
the ordination from the monk’s community, and later introduced a third
step in between these two. At the very beginning, this third step might
not have been compulsory. Since the Vinaya texts do not mention that a
woman candidate could freely decide whether or not to pass two years as
a probationer - while frequently mentioning the three obligatory steps
leading to full membership of the community - it seems safe to say that
when the probation period was introduced, it rapidly, if not immedi¬
ately, became compulsory, and that, consequently, there never has been
a choice whether or not to become a probationer.
We have to conclude that to become a full member of the community,
a woman first has to go forth and to become a novice (srdmaneri).
Secondly, she has to pass two years as a probationer ( siksamana ), and,
finally, she receives the ordination and becomes a nun ( bhiksuni ). The
minimum age at which sfic can become a nun, enjoying all rights and
privileges attributed to full members of the community, depends 6n her
being singlc'or. married. Neither a srdmaneri nor a siksamana can partic¬
ipate in the formal acts and in the ceremonies performed by the order.
„Thcrc is no essential difference between the position of a srdmaneri and
the one of a siksamana, except for the social rank in the community, a
siksamana holding a higher position than a srdmaneri.
HEIRMAN
\BS 20.2 82
u of technical terms
ill first appearance and reference to explanatory note)
isampadd (P. upasampada ): ordination, p.43
tdhydyinl (P. upajjha ): teacher, p. 44, note 66
man (P. kamma ): formal act, p. 37
udharma (P. garudhanwia) : severe rule, p. 35; note 6
ptikarman (P. nattikamma ): formal act consisting of a motion, p. 37, note 20
pticaturthakarman (P. iiutticatutthakanima ): formal act in which the motion is
fourfold, p. 37, note 20
ptidvitiyakarman (P. iiattidutiyakannan ): formal act in which the motion is twofold,
p.37, note 20
ikria (P. dukkata ): bad action (a very light offense), p. 48, note 79
i\ dsa (P. parivasa): ncriod of residence (a kind of penance), p. 37, note 22
'ittika (P. pacittiya ): expiation? (ominor offense),p. 41, note 45
ajika : an offense that leads to a permanent, lifetime exclusion from the order, p.47,
note 72
uidha (or uposadha) (P. {u)posatha ): observance (a ceremony), p. 36, note 10
Kidesatuya (P. pdtidesamya ): requiring confession (a minor offense), p.48, note 76
tvarana (or pro varan a) (P .pavarana) *. invitation (a ceremony), p.36, note 11
ivrajya (P. pabbajjd ): the going forth, p.43
'ksu (P. bhikkhu ): monk, p. 35 v
iksunt (P. bhikkhunt ): nun, p, 33
tksunisamgha (P. bhikkhunisamgha ): order of nuns, p. 33
iksusamgha (P. bhikkhusamgha) : order of monks, p. 33
natva (P. mdnatta ): i.c. a kind of penance (doubtful etymology), p.37, note 17
sapada (P. sikkhapada ): precept, p.44
samdna (P. sikkhamand) \ probationer,p.36,note 14
Imancra (P. sdmanera ): (male) novice, p. 48
imatieri (P. samaneri ): (female) novice, p.45
mgha (P. samgha ): order (of monks or nuns), p. 36
mghavasesa (P. samghadisesa) : remainder in the order (an offense leading to a
temporary exclusion from the order), p. 37, note 16
List of consulted works
Taishd Shinshu Daizokyo , Takakusu, J. and Watanabe, K. (eds )
Tokyo, 1924-35
— Vol.22,
No. 1421 : Mi-sha-sai Pu Ho-hsi Wu-fen Lu (Mahi&asaka
vinaya)
No. 1423 : Wu-fen Pi-ch’iu-ni Chieh-pen (Pratimokfa for bhiksu- '
fits of the Mahl&asaka School)
No. 1425 : Mo%>-seng-ch’i LQ (Mahasaipghikavinaya)
No. 1428: Szu-fen Lu(Dliarmaguplakavinaya)
No. 1429 . m ft Szu-fen Lu Pi-ch’iu Chieh-pen, Pratimokfa for bhiksus
ofthe Dharmaguptaka School)
No. 1430 . Szu-fen Seng Chieh-pen ( Pratimokfa for bhiksus of the
Dharmaguptaka School)
No- 1431 : Szu-fen Pi-ch'iu-ni Chieh-pen Pratimokfa for bhikfu-
nis of the Dharmaguptaka School)
No. 1434 . Szu-fen Pi-ch*iu-ni Chieh-mo-fa (Karmavacana for
bhiksunis of the Dharmaguptaka School)
— Vol.23,
No. 1435 : Shih-sung Lu (Sarvastivadavinaya)
No. 1442: SJWuRHstS® Kcn-pcn-shuo-i-ch’ieh-yu Pu P*i-nai-y©
(Mulasarvastivadavinaya)
No. 1443 : Kcn-pcn-shuo-i-clfich-yuPu Pi-ch’u- ..
ni P’i-nai-ye (MulasarvasUvada-bhik$univinaya)
No. 1444 : 01ft® i£$ i® Ul Ik ^ Kcn-pcn-shuo-i-ch’ich-yu Pu P*i-nai-
ye Ch* u-chia Shih (Mulasarvasti vadavinaya-praynijyavasiu)
— Vol.24,
No. 1451 : Ken-pen-shuo-j-ch*ieh-yu Pu P'i-nai-ye
Tsa-shih (Mulasarvastivadavinaya-k§udrakavastu)
No. 1453 : Ken-pen-shuo-i-ch*ich-yu Pu Pai-i Chieh-
mo(Mtilasaivastivada-eka&takarman) V
— Vol.40,
■No. 1804: Szu-fen LuShan-fan Pu-ch’uch Hsing-shih
JIA3S 20.2 84
BAPAT, P.V. and GOKHALE, V.V., Vinaya-Sutra, Patna: K.P. Jayaswai Research
Institute. 1982.
BENDALL, C., “Fragment of a Buddhist Ordination-Ritual in Sanskrit”. Album-Kern ,
, Opstellen geschrcven ter Eere van Dr, H. Kern, Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1903. pp. 373-376.
Buddhaghosa. Samantapdsadika , Takakusu, J. and Nagai, M. (cds.). Vol. IV, London,
Pali Text Society. Luzac & Company. Ltd., 1967 2 . • -
EDGERTON, F., Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary , Delhi: Motilal
Banar-sidass, 1985 5 ,2 Vols. (Vol.2: BHSD).
FraUWALLNER, E., The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature ,
Roma: ls.M.E.O., 1956.
Heirman, A., “Some Remarks on the Definition of a Monk and a Nun as Members of
a Community, and the Definition of ‘Not to Live in Community*”,
Indian Journal of Buddhist Studies , vol. 7,1995, pp. 1 -22.
VON fitNOBER, 0. f “Kullurgcschichtlichcs aus dem Bhiksunt-Vinaya: die samkak$ika*\
Zeitschrift der Deutschcn Morgcnldndischen Gesellschaft , No. 125,
1975, pp.133- 139.
HIRAKAWA, A., Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns , Patna: K.P. Jayaswai
Research Institute, 1982.
HORNER, I.B., I Vomen under Primitive Buddhism, New York: E.P. Dutton and
Company, 1930.
— 77ic Book of the Discipline (BD), London: Pali Text Society, Luzac &
Company, Ltd., 1938*1966,6 Vols.
LAMOTTE, £. History• of Indian Buddhism , Louvain-la-Ncuvc: Institut Oricntaliste dc
rUniversite Catholiquc dc Louvain, 1988 (translated from the French,
MONIER-W1LL1AMS, M., A Sanskrit-English Dictionary (SED\ Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1990 11 *
NAKAMURA, H., Indian Buddhism , a Survey with Bibliographical Notes, 1 lirakata City
(Osaka Pref.): Kufs Publication, 1980.
— Bukhvgo Daijiten ( BGD), Tokyo: Tokyo Shoji Kabu-
shikikaisha, 19855
NOLOT, £. Regies de discipline des nonnes bouddhisles, Paris: College dc France
(Publications dc Hnstitut dc civilisation indienne), 1991.
OLDENBERG, H. (cd.), Vinaya Pitakam , London: Pali Text Society, Luzac & Company,
Ltd., 19645,5 Vols.
RENOU, L. ct FlLLlOZAT, J., Linde classique , manucl des etudes indiennes, Paris,
Libruiric (TAmcrique ct d’Orient, 1985 (2 vols).
RHYS Davids, T.W. and STEDE, \V„ The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary
(PED), Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1992*.
ROTH, G. (cd.), Bhiksunt- Vinaya, Manual of Discipline for Buddhist Nuns, Patna: K.P.
Jayaswai Research Institute, 1970.
HEIRMAN
SAKAKI, R. (cd.), Mahavyutpatti Suzuki Gakujutsu Zaidan Tokvo
1973 5 ,2 Vols. ’
UPASAK, C.S., Dictionary of Early Buddhist Monastic Terms (Based on Pali Literature) [DEBMT), Varanasi: Bharati Prakashan, 1975.
WALDSCHMIDT, E., Bruclistucie des Bhiksuni-Pratimoksa der Sarvastivadins,
Leipzig: Deutsche Morgcnlandischc Gesellschaft, 1926.
— (cd.), Sanskrit-handschriften aus des Turfanfunden, Teil I
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH 1965.
WlJAYARATNA, M„ Les moniales bouddhistes, naissance ct devchppemcnt du mona-
chismejeminin, Paris: Les fiditions du Cerf, 1991.
WOGIHARA, U., et alii, Bonwa Daijiten JJ4 (BIV), Tokyo: Kodansha, 1974.
YUYAMA, a., A Systematic Survey of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, Erster Teil,
Vinaya- Texte, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1979