Aaa

I have attempted to construct a new typology for pilgrim¬ ages, which 1 believe is more relevant to the inherent structures of .Sinhalese religion. Rather than basing this typology upon historical origins, as Turner has done in his own work, I have concluded that a typology based upon types of religious exper¬ iences and religious 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 dimensions of their own spirituality through a recog¬ nizable modality of religious expression that is culturally ubi- quitious.

NOTES

1. Nancy Falk uses this phrase lo designate the tradition "in which the Buddha is said lo have authorized Unit the familiar pilgrims* visits to the great sites associated with Ins life and the practices associated with his relics and stupus." See Nancy Falk, “To (laze on the Sacred Traces,” Hisioty of Religions 10 (May, 1977), p. 285, n. 15; for the canonical version of the origins ol relic veneration, sec A/ ahdpannibhdna Suttduta in Dfgha Nikdya (Dialogues of 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, “The Several Bodies of Buddha: Reflections on a Neglected Aspect of Thera* vada Tradition.” History of Religions 10 (May, 1977): pp. 374-89.

3. Even before the arrival of the tooth relic in the 4thxentury C. E., relics assumed major imjK>i lance in the ritual life and symbolism of Sinhalese roy¬ alty. For a summary, see Tilak Hctliarachy, History of Kingship in Ceylon up to thehturth Century A. 1 ). (Colombo: Lakchousc Investments, 1972), pp. 25-29 /Kissim; for another excellent study of the prominence of relics in relation to royal imagery, see Alice Greenwald, “The Relic on the Spear: Historiography and the Saga ol Duuhagamanl,” in Bardwel! Smith, ed., Religion and the Legiti-

motion of Rower in Sri Lanka (Chaiubcrsburg, PA: Auiina Books, 1978), pp. 1-3-35.—

4. A detailed summary of the legend may be found in G. P. Mulalase- kera, The Pali Literature of Ceylon (Colombo: M. D, Gunasena and Co., 1928), pp. 65-68; and A. M. Hocart, The Temple of the Tooth in Kandy , Memoirs of the 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 was located in Kalinga. Cf. A Histoty of Buddhism in Ceylon (Colombo: M. D. Gunasena, 1956), p. 97. He further cites Percey Brown’s Indian Architecture , 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, 1964; originally publisned in I9l2),'pp. 89-96. flic Uaihawmsa account was no doubt intended to establish the same degree of authenticity for the da(ndd as the AT aluivatiisa account had done for the Alms-Bowl Relic.

7. The language of “righteousness” consistently applied to ritual and ethical acts of the king is rooted ifi conceptions of Buddhist kingship mod¬ elled after the ideal cakravartin (“turner or the wheel” of righteousness). For scriptural accounts of the cakravArtin 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: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 32-72; B. Smith, “The Ideal Social Order as Puli rayed in the Chronicles of Ceylon,” in Smith, ed., The Two Wheels of Dlwmma (ChamlxM'sburg, PA: 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 Asian Politics,” 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¬ 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 Kingdoms, trails, by James Legge (Lon¬ don: Oxford University Press, 1886; reprint ed., New York: Dover Publica¬ tions, 1965), pp. 104-07.

10. Malalasekera, p. 66; cf. G. C. Mcndis, The Early Histoty of Ceylon (Calcutta: YMCA Publishing House, 1954), pp. 58-59; Howard Wriggins, Ceylon: Dilemmas of a New Notion (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, i960), p. 180 n. 18, compares it to the crown of Si. Stephen in Hungary. Other scholars have compared it to Constantine's Labarum and Thailand’s Holy Emerald Buddha.

11. Bard well Smith, “Polonnaruva as a Ceremonial Complex: Sinhalese Cultural Identity and the Dilemmas of Pluralism,” in A. K. Narain, ed.. Studies

in Hi\hn of buddhism (New Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corporation, 19HU), p. 310.

12. Tuinbiah. World Conqueror, p. 90, cites a lentil century inscription which reads: "The king is a Bodhisatlva on whom the Sang ha bestows king-' ship..."

13. Uardwell Smith, "The Ideal Social Order,” p. 50.

14. On the manner in which Kirti Sri strengthened his reign in the eyes of the Kandyan aristocracy by means of the numerous reforms he intro¬ duced, see L. S. Dewaraja, The Kandyan Kingdom of Ceylon % 1707-1760 (Co¬ lombo; Like House Investments, 1972, esp. pp. 94-118.

15. Sir Richard Alumhare, The Kandy Esala Perahara (Colombo: Ceylon Daily News, 1952), p. 2.

I (i. Kitsiri NI alalgoda, li uddhism in Sinhalese Society 1750 - I 900 , (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970), p. 04.

17. H. L. Seucviratnc, Rituals of the Kandyan State (Cambridge, UK: Cam¬ bridge University Press, 1978), pp. 71-72 writes that the kapa symbolize the sacred center or axis muitdi of the kingdom.

18. The phrase belongs to Clifford Geertz, who defines it as "the theory that the court-and-capital is at once a microcosm of the supernatural order— an image of the universe on a smaller scale—and the material cmlxKliment of the 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 rule with the dominion of rule is more than an accidental 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 social order. What it is reflective of, the priests declare, is a supernatural order, ‘the timeless Indian world* of the gods upon which men should, in strict proportion for their 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 medieval Thai polity in World Conqueror , p. 123; Smith—citing ' Paul Wheatley's Pivot of the Four Quarters (Chicago: Aldine Press, 1971), Rob¬ ert Red field’s and M ilton Singer's "The Cultural Role of Cities,” Economic Developm* nt and Cultural Change 3 (1954): 53—72) and Robert Heine-GeldemV classic "Conceptions of Stale and Kingship in Southeast Asia," Data Papen Number 18, Southeast Asia Program (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1956), pp. 1-3—applies the model to ritual life in Polounaruva, in "Sinhalese Cul¬ tural 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: "We have this day obtained the surest proof of the confidence of the Kandyan nation and their acquiescence in the Dominion of British Government.”

20. Culture of Ceylon in Medieval Times, Heinz Bcchcrt, cd„ (Wiesbaden: Otto Marrassowiu. I960), p. 215.

21. Scncviratnc, pp. 137-46.

22. Ibid., p. 1?7.

23. Ibid., pp. 112-14; cf., Nur Yalman, Under the Bo Tree: Studies in Caste , Kinship and Marriage in the interior of Ceylon (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), p. 58.

24. For an excellent assessment of Buddhism’s political participation in recent Sinhalese politics, see Wriggins, Dilemmas, pp. 169-210; for a study of modern Buddhist political thought in Sri Lanka, see Bruce Matthews, "The Sinhalese Buddhist Altitude Toward Parliamentary Democracy,” Ceylon Jour¬ nal of Historical and Social Studies 6 (July-Dee., 1976), pp. 34-47; and Urmila Phadnis, Religion and Politics in Sri Lunka (New Delhi: Munohar Book Service, 1976).

25. Kdyena vded ciltena Pamddena tnayd katam Accnyaqi kluima me hhante Bhuripaiiha Tathdgata.

Uevo vax\atu kale no Sassusam patthiheiu ca;

PUo bhavalu loko ca; *

Raja bluwatu diuunmiko .

Akasa({hd c<ubhumma((lui Dcvd juigd MahidJhikd Punmn law anumodilvd Ciraqi rakkluintu lokasa.sunow.

Cited in^Hocart, p. 27.

20. Seneviratnc', p. 120.

27. Victor Turner, "The Center out there: Pilgrim's Coal,” History of Religions 12 (February, 1973), 213-15.

28. Ibid., p. 193. Passim. -

29. R. A. L. I I. Gunawardana, Robe and Plough: Monastirism and Economic Interest in Early Medieval Sri Lanka (Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1979; Association for Asian Studies Monograph Scries. No. XXXV), pp. 260-62.

30. Reynolds, "The Two Wheels of Dliamtna: A Study of Lilly Bud¬ dhism," in Smith, Two Wheels , pp. 6-30.

31. For descriptions of cubic life at Kataragama, see Paul Wirz. Katara- gama: The Holiest Place in Ceylon , translated from the German by Dons B. 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 Sinhalese Buddhism "Journal of Asian Studies 37 (February, 1978). pp. 221- 32.

33. Scncvir.itnc, p. 1*17.

3*1. Turner. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture (New ^ ork: Colum¬ bia University Pi css, 11178), pp. 17-19.

35. Malatgoda. p. 255.

’ 36. Sec (lie ireatmctil of public symbols and civil religion in Ronald ('.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- Madhyamika Confrontation over the Svatantrika and Prasangika Methods of Refutation

by Shohei Ichimura

There is good reason to believe that the Vigrahavyavartaui (Vi- graha. hereafter), one of the definitive works of NSgStjuna, was 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 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 previously): “Indeed, has the Buddha prescribed somewhere a parajika with regard to a penny ( masaka) or even less than a penny?” The answer to this question is of course “no”: apatti thullaccayassa ... atirekamasako va unapancamasako vJ, Vin III 54, 22, cf. Ill 47, 3 “it is a grave 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

The first section in the book of Buddhist monastic discipline (Vinaya- j

pitaka) is known as parajika. The significance of these rules is ernpha- j

sized by the fact that out of the list of 220 prescriptions which arc .1

recited fortnightly ( patimokkha) only these four rules are announced to '1

a newly ordained monk immediately alter full ordination (upasampaiia\

Vin I 96.20-97.18) 2 . The transgression of one of the parajika rules leads to the monk's or nun’s permanent and irreversible loss of status as a fully ordained member of the order. , ; j

Buddhist law as specified in the Vinayapitaka is generally based on the >

concept that an offence is established only after the offender pleads guilty. 3 Consequently, if an offender is 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 status of a person guilty of such a 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 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 kindly sent me material on the term nasana which he had collected, and provided very helpful suggestions. Additionally, I wish to draw the reader’s attention to an 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 an extremely useful systematic collection of the material on nasana in the Pali and Sanskrit sources.

2. Nuns have to observe eight parajika rules which arc announced to them a lie full ordination (Vin II274.23-24).

3. Cf. VON HinOber, “Buddhist Law”, p. 11.

4. In the casuistries the expression is upattim tvam bhikkhu apanno parujikam ,

“You, monk, have committed a parajika offence” (c.g. Vin HI 57.14-15).

ndscti in the Suttavibhahga generally refers to the expulsion of members of ti e order who have committed a parajika offence (BD I, p. xxvii). This statement will be qualified in this paper.

In the eldest stratum of the Vinaya , the Patimokkha , ndsand with 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 rule forbids nuns to keep quiet about the parajika offence of a fellow nun. 6 “Has been expelled'* (ndsita) in this 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 parajika offence (Vin 1 173.20-22): A monk, whp is accused of a parajika offence during the pavdrana ceremony at the end of the rainy

5. In another passage of the pdfimokkha , ndsand docs not refer to fully ordained individuals but to novices (ja/mwenz) (see below, p.99).

6. The text of this rule in OLDENBERG’s edition (Vin IV 216.31 -217.3) is not

correct. The text of the Burmese, Sinhalese, and Thai editions is: yd pana bhikkhuni jdnam pdrdjikam dhanimarji ajjhapannant bhikkhunirjt n' ev' attand

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 parajika Itoti asamvdsa vajjapcticchadikd 'ti. HORNER’s translation of this rule (B D 111, p. 166) has to be corrected accordingly: “Whatever nun, knowing that a nun has fallen into a matter involving defeat, should neither herself reprove her, nor speak to a group, but when she may be remaining or deceased or expelled or withdrawn, should afterwards speak thus: ‘Ladies, before I knew this nun, she 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 • pavdrana only after having expelled him ( nasetva ). In this particular case the expulsion of the offender may be necessitated by the Samgha’s desire to perform an 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 ecclesiastical act loses validity, thus a monk guilty of a parajika offence has to be removed perhaps even physically* by the Samgha. He must remain outside the spatial boundary (simS) stipulated for this ecclesiastical act within which only “pure” monks can be 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 ecclesiastical act of pavaranid:

In other passages of the Suttavibhafiga the term ndsand instead of parajika is used. Some of these references are to be found in the casuistry of Parajika l of the Dhikkhuvibhaiiga, that is, the rule prescribing celibacy. There the following eases arc mentioned (Vin III 33.24-28): A monk, who is guilty of having raped a sleeping co-monk or novice, should be expelled ( ndsetabbo ). In the event that the victim wakes up and consents to the behaviour of the monk, both participants have to be expelled ( ndsetabbd ). The same rule applies in the ease of a 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 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 ecclesiastical act see Jin-11 CHUNG, Pravdrandvastu im Vinayavastu dcr Mulasdrtdstivadin , Gottingen, 1997 (SWTF, Beiheft 7) (in press).

8. There is at least one instance of a physical expulsion of a monk found to be not “pure” (Vin 11 237.8-10: atha kho Mahamoggalldno tarft puggalam bdhayam gahetvd bahi dvdrakotthakd nikkhdmctva sucighatikaqi datvd .„).

9. For an interpretation of the term pandaka see Leonard ZWILLING, “Homo¬ sexuality as Seen in Indian Buddhist Texts”, Buddhism , 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 respective offenders arc apparently guilty of a pdrajika offence. It may be that in the Vinaya for these instances the term ndsetabba is used 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 rule Samghadisesa 8 in the Bhikkhuvibhahga: Two monks feel that they , 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 expelled by the Samgha, as implied by the application of the verb ndsdpcyya . However, according to the story, the Buddha asked Dabba

1. whether the nun’s accusations were true (Vin III 162.30-31), and the

putimokkha 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 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 transgression ol both Buddhist monastic and Brahmanical taw. Rape in the Vinaya , particularly the 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

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 8 is repeated almost word for word. Here Mettiya is also expelled, and the story introduces the ecclesiastical act of the giving of a sativinaya , “a verdict of innocence” (Vin II 79.37-80*31). By means of this ecclesiastical act it is officially agreed that the Samgha trusts the accused person (cf. NOLOT, SVTT 11,

► pp.99, 109).

12. However, the focus of this rule is not on the behaviour of the nun Mettiya but on the behaviour of the monks who caused Mettiya to utter the wrong accusation.

13. Vin 111 162.38-163.3. After that the malicious monks were remorseful and begged the other monks not to expel Mettiya for she had not committed any offence (Vin III 163.3-6).

of a pdtimokkha rule is exempted from any punishment, since Buddhist monastic law is a case-law following the principle nulla poena sine lege. 1 * In any case, even if Mettiya had been found guilty of an offence, she would have had to undergo the 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 rule it was not Mettiya’s behaviour which gave rise to the formulation of the rule but rather the 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 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-

14. Cf. VON HlNCiBER, “Buddhist Law”, p.7; cf. Hcllmuth HECKER, “Allgcmcinc Rcchtsgrundsatzc in dcr buddhistischcn Ordensverfassung (VinayaY. Verfassung und Recltt in Obersee 10/1, cd. Herbert KROGER (1977), pp. 89-115; 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 generally is applied as a term for the expulsion of nuns (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 below (p. 103).

qucncc of which is confession but not expulsion. 18 Thus it is possible that the introductory story of Samghddiscsa 8 and the just mentioned account in the Suttapitaka belong to the eldest stratum of the 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 the expulsion of fully ordained members of the order (Vin I 85.27- 90.9). There it is stated that certain individuals are not entitled to full ordination (upasampudd) and, if ordination already has been bestowed on them, they have to be expelled ( nasrtabbo ). The eleven types of indi¬ viduals concerned apparently did not receive upasampadd legitimately, having committed a grave offence in the time of household-life, or simply because they were considered physically unfit for full member¬ ship in the order. 19 The individuals concerned include homosexuals (pandaka\ Vin I 86;7-9) 20 , fake monks, persons converted to another

18. On the other hand, this account in the Ahguttaranikaya may well have served as a bas s for Pacittiya 12 of the Bhikkhuvibhanga (Vin IV 36.37**). According to v the introductory story of this rule a monk also evaded an accusation (Vin IV 35.26-29). Since the Manorathapurani (Mp IV 74.11-13), the commentary on the Angutiaranikaya, links the canonical passage commcntfcckupdn with an ecclesiastical act introduced and described in the Cullavagga (Vin II 101.4- 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 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 canonical text a monk or a nun changes sex. The Vajirabuddhitikd has a discussion about what age the 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 sex change process the individuals arc not considered to be jxindakas (in this case pandaka probably means “without outer signs of 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, animals (tiracchanagata; Vin I 88.1-3), matricides {matughataka; Vin I 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 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 ecclesiastical act of ordination. In the Parivdra one additional piece of information referring to the expulsion of these eleven pcirsons is provided: The 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 ceremony ( upasampaddkamma ) has indeed been performed not withstanding the avatthuka status of these persons, then the 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 rules. The expulsion of novices is also called nasana in the Vinaya . According to Pacittiya 70 of* the Bhikkhuvibhanga (Vin IV 139.18**-34**) a 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 novice ignores one admonition he is to be sent away with

21. According to the Samantapdsddikd (Sp 1017.10-12) a thcyyaswfivdsaka may not obtain even a lower ordination (pabbajjd).

22. With regard to the 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.

23. This procedure is described in the introductory story, in the rule, and in the canonical commentary (padabhajaniya) of Pacittiya 70 (Vin IV 13832 -139.4).

the following words: "From this day onwards, dear friend Samanuddesa, 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 ecclesiastical act but rather an informal - though to some extent formalized -.request made to the 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 novice Kantaka advocated the false view given in the rule itself (Vin IV 138.20-24). There his 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 behaviour by a monk leads to his suspension ( ukkhepana ) 25 , whereas in the ease of a 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 novice is implied in one passage of the Parivdra as well (Vin V 115.23-24).

The misbehaviour of the 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 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 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 rule Pacittiya 70 is, of course, on the 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 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 violation of the first five training rules is punished by ndsana . To complement the content ol the

examples of incorrect behaviour. The expulsion of the 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 canonical references discussed above three concents of the use of the term ndsand can be distinguished. Firstly, Mettiya and the monk in the Aitguttaranikdya arc expelled not because of any violation of a pdtimokkha 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 ecclesiastical act of pavarand™

canonical text the same commentary informs us that the violation of 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 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 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 individuals. For this reason the Samgha is forced to act by revoking the 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 rule ( Pdcittiya 70). This specific expulsion of novices evidently corresponds to the temporary suspension ( ukkhepand ) of monks and may be cancelled.

The only canonical trace of a more explicit 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 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 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 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 behaviour, regain his 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 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 ecclesiastical act of 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 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 evidence from the rapist is required. The victim has to be expelled if he - after having been asked - gave 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 confession (Sp 584.S-7). 37 The commentator solves this discrepancy by stating that Mettiya herself was 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 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 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 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 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 canonical text (see above, p.99) the 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 status as a 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 ecclesiastical act of 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 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 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 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 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 novice can reestablish 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 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 novice transgresses the 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 novice from a dandakamma. At the same time, an unsuccessful admonition definitely results in a lihganasand (Sp 1015.15-20), 42 whereas a novice who has raped a nun can never receive lower ordination ( pabbajja ) again, even if he should promise to refrain from such behaviour in 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 violation of rules 6-9 lead to the expulsion of a 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 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 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 community. 44 The term is consistently defined in the Vinaya as ekakammam ekuddeso samasikkhutd , "one common ecclesiastical act, a common recitation, and ; one and the same 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 rules. The offender has lost his ' 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 status (Entrance III, p.243). However, he docs not tell us to what extent and in what respect the status is retained. In his opinion the nasand mentioned with regard to the Samancra Kantaka implies that the 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 rule, who have concealed the offence, but who in the end have admitted to the transgression. In eases of samvdsandsana one could therefore think of a monk who has broken a pdrdjika 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 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 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 practical level up to the present day. Me apparently overlooked the link of the above-mentioned particular 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 commentarial 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 terminology in the Vinaya developed, a 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 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 distinction of three kinds of nasana. Lingandsand here is the name for the irreversible expulsion of monk, nun, or 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 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 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 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 Philology and 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 mechanism presupposes an Indian setting where the 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 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 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 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 societies. The structure of Thcravada Buddhist 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 purify the Sarpgha y getting rid of lax and greedy monks. When the Samgha fails on this point, the 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 mechanism has been mentioned in R. GOMBRICH, op. at.

Some Remarks on the Rise of the bhiksunisamgha and on the Ordination 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 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 present studies ofthc Vinaya literature, that the orders of monks and nuns ( bhiksu - and bhiksunisamgha) arc highly structuralizcd commu¬ nities, possessing many 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 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 excellent survey of the Vinaya 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 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 - Chinese, Pali and Sanskrit 3 4 - has revealed the exact ‘theoretical* career of a nun, and lias given us evidence concerning the exact position of a 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 Chinese term in the sense of‘to admit*.

/. The rise of the order of bhiksunis and the organization of the ordi¬ nation 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 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 color of the garments of a monk or a nun. Hence it also was used to

indicate the garments themselves. Concerning the 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 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 ceremony (see D, rule 6): T.1421, p. 185c20*29: the eight rules coincide with the 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 rule 5); T.1425, pp.47lbl-476bll: the third rule of D is not to be found; the Vinaya has another 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 donations before these donations have been presented to a monk; the other rules essentially coincide with the 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, 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 ceremony (see D, rule 6); Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School, ROTH, G., 1970, pp. 16-72, §§12-110: the third rule of D is not to be found; the Vinaya has another rule that is only to be found in T.1425, and not in any other Vinaya: a nun should not receive donations, before these have been presented to a monk; the other rules essentially coincide with the rules in D\ T.1435, p.345c8-18: the third 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 rules coincide with the rules in D. It is to be noted, however, that the sixth rule in T.1435 explicitly says that the nuns have to ask for instruction in the eight gurudharmas. The latter coincides with the sixth rule in D\ T.1451, p.3Slal-25: the eight rules coincide with the rules in D\ the only difference is that, according to T.1451, the nuns not only have to perform the ordination ceremony in both the orders, but also the ceremony of the going forth has to be performed in both die orders (see D, 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 behavior

(dedra). 9 . . ,

(3) A bhiksuni may not punish a bhiksu , nor prevent him to join m the 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 motion may be made, (I) isolated, simple motion, not followed by a separate question as to whether the monks (or nuns) 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 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 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 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 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 rules. \lso from T.1428, it is thus clear that, although Mahaprajapati Gautami uid the five hundred Sakya women accepted the eight rules, these 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"* (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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 cat at the wrong time, i.c. after noon, (10) she may not possess gold, 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, 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 sexual intercourse, not stealing, not kiiling. not 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 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 learning the disciplinary 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 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 gold, 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 rules that agree to a large extent with the eighteen 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 a priori qu 'agnikalpa ddsigne les cinq ccrcalcs bouitlics ou grillccs du regime monastique [...]. La proximitc dc jdtaruparajata [[[Wikipedia:gold|gold]] and 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) sexual intercourse, (2) stealing (anything with a value of' five coins 73 , or more), (3) taking human life and (4) lying about one's spiritual achievements. The other two rules arc: (5) a siksamaqa may not 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 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 rules. The six rules arc: she may not (1) walk alone, (2) cross a river alone, (3) touch a man on 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 rules are: she may not (1) touch silver or gold, (2) shave her pubic hair, (3) dig in the ground, (4) cut grass or fell a tree, (5) cat food that has not been given, and (6) 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: sexual intercourse, stealing, taking human life and 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 weight & value; hence a small coin of very low value. Of 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 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 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 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 light offense.

80. See note 77.

Furthermore, the ninth 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, as mentioned in T.1428, a bhiksuni, may not accept food from a bhiksuni with their own hands. This also implies that a bhiksuni cannot give food into the hands of a bhiksu or a bhiksuni. This might be the precept for bhiksunis referred to in the above mentioned passage concer¬ ning the precepts to be followed by a siksamana.

In ease the latter precept is the precept for bhiksunis referred to in the passage concerning the precepts to be followed by a siksamana, then we are confronted with a contradiction in T. 1428:

I. On the one hand, in the Bhiksuniskandhaka of T.1428', it is said that a siksamana should follow all the precepts for bhiksunis. except for the one precept on offering and accepting food with one’s own hands, a precept that we have identified as being 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 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 T.1428, it is said that a bhiksu cannot receive food from a bhiksuni and 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 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.

82. T.1423 ,pratidesaniya l,p.696b7-8: jt;

M, a bhiksuni is with a duskrta. A siksamana , a sramanera and a srdmaneri arc with a duskrta

The difference between a sramaneri and a siksamana appears to be only forma!. As we can see from the above, the admission ceremony, by 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 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 upon a sramaneri and on the six rules (a\?£) to be particularly taken into account by a siksamana , we see that thc*six rules of the siksamana 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 gold, 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 follow ten precepts only, while a siksamana has to keep up all the 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 community, it is evident that also the latter two members of the 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 bhiksuni may not go to see singing, dancing and music ( Pacittika 79). A bhiksuni must follow strict rules concerning the bedding she uses ( Pacittikas 68 and 69).

A bhiksuni may not possess gold, silver or money (Nihsargikapacittika 9).

84. Of these four parajika offenses, the Bhiksunivibhanga only mentions the essen¬ tials. Exception made for some additional commentary on the first parajika offense, the commentary is to be found in the Bhikfuvibhanga. In the com-

Hence, we have to conclude that for a siksamana or a sramaneri, the offenses that are mentioned and the measures that arc taken are the same.

Finally, it is interesting to note that all the formal acts and ail the cere¬ monies performed by the bhiksumsamgha can only be done by the 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 and the measures that can be taken against a sramaneri and a siksamana arc the same, and since both do not participate in the ceremonies and the formal acts in the bhiksunis am glia, there is no essential difference between the position of a sramaneri and the one of a siksamana, except probably for the social rank in the community, given the importance attached to the admittance ceremony of a siksamana.

c. the ordination ceremony

When a siksamana has concluded the two-year training, she is ready to become a bhiksuni, provided that she did not act against one of the six rules (/\$i) that she particularly has to take into account.

in the Bliiksuuiskandhaka**, T.1428 explains how this ceremony is to be carried out 85 :

Although the candidate to the ordination, as a sramaneri and as a siksamana, has been guided by an upadliyayini w*. she now must offi¬ 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 bhiksunisamgha , hut cannot hear it. The karman master 87 then performs

mentary on the first four parajika offenses, the Bhiksuvibhahga mentions that in

• case a srdmanera, a sramaneri or a siksamana commit such an offense, they

commit a duskrta and they have to be sent away definitively. Although a srdmanera, a sramaneri and a siksamana are not said to have committed the same offense as a bhiksu (or a bhiksuni), they arc punished in the same way.

Ji5. See T.1428, pp. 924c4-926a26. A similar exposition is found in the Bhiksuni - vibhahga, Pac.424, pp.756c26-758c28.

86. Sec T.1428, p.924c4-7.

87. karmakaraka (?) (f. karmakarikd): cf. WOGIHARA/U., BW % p.323, s.v.

karmakaraka : ftsf tM, EDGERTON, F., BHSD,

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 the following karmavdeand , q.v. (if any).*’ possibly also may render the

a jnaptikarman 20 *, in order to appoint an instructress 88 in the bhiksuni- samgha , 89 Hereafter, that instructress goes to the candidate and asks her whether she possesses the five required robes (i.c. the antarvasa , the 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. fifcliili: Pali kamma-dcariya.

88. if, anusdsikd: cf. WOGiHARA, U., BW, p. 68, s.v. anusdsaka : Apart

from the upddhydyini and the karmakdrika , the anusdsikd is the third person to be present during an ordination ceremony. In addition to these three,’ seven witnesses arc required (cf. T.I428, p. 886a22-28, in the chapter concerning an intervention of Buddha in Campa, where he explains, among other things, which kind of assemblies have to carry out community proceedings).

89. SecT.1428,p.924cl0-l2.

90. Sec T.1428, p. 924cl3-14.

These arc the five robes that are to be possessed by a bhiksuni. The first three correspond to the three robes of a monk: an antarvasa , i.c. an inner robe, an 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

the Skt. samkaksika) and 1213#, a robe that covers the shoulder.

By comparing several texts and dictionaries, VON HINOBER, 0., 1975, pp. 133- 139, concluded that a samkaksika is a small band worn to support the breasts, so 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 Chinese term SB# in the Bhiksunivibhahga of the Chinese Vinaya of the Mahasamghika School (T.1425, p.546b28). This makes it clear that the 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. In passages where the five robes arc enumerated in the Vinayas, wc find the following two additional robes:

OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pifakani. Vol.II, p.272: (1) samkacchika, (2) 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: a bathing-cloth. Apart from this, in the Bhiksunivibhahga , Pac. 181, p. 98a 11 -17, it is said that a bhiksuni should wear a samkaksika (fiS ftYi' (seng-ch’i-chihl) T.1425, p.472b2I-22 and p.521a25-26: (I) ?2B#: a robe that covers* the 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¬ mation: ROTH, G., 1970, p. 146, §165: (I) kanthapraticchadana * *: a robe that 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 -

c chad ana.

T.1428, p.924cl3-!4: (I) samkaksika , (2) 5213#: a robe that covers

the shoulder. Apart from this, in the Bhiksunivibhahga , Pac. 102, p. 749al9-bI6, a bathing-cloth (iff #) to be worn by a bhiksuni is mentioned. T.I435,p.335b28:(l) 5213#: a robe that covers the shoulder, (2) (U|£Sg [chu- hsiu-Io]: this is a phonetic rendering of the Skt. kusulaka . There arc different opinions about what exactly a kusulaka is: according to NAKAMURA, p.269, it is an undergarment, also called (bamboo basket), because of its 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 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 well have the same use as a samkaksika in T.1428, i.c. a garment to support the breasts, worn under another garment that hides the rounding of the breasts and 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 Skt. term samkaksika. What, in this Vinaya , exactly is meant by a kusulaka or by a samkaksika, and what the difference between these two is, is impossible to say. 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.

questions her in order to find out if there are any stumbling blocks (antardya) to her ordination. 91 She asks after her name and her upd- dhyayini. She then asks whether she is twenty years old, whether she has 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 diseases as leprosy, boils, eczema, tuberculosis, epilepsy, bisexuality, or the disease that the two tracts come together 91 , and asks her whether she is able to hold up urine, excrements, mucus and saliva.

In ease the answer is satisfactory, the instructress brings the candidate back to the other bhiksunis and positions her within her reach. Hereafter, 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 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

We can conclude that the three robes common for monks and nuns (antarvasa, 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 ceremony.

91. See T. 1428, p. 924c 15-21.

92. This is further explained in the Bhiksunivibhaiiga, p.774b7: it means that the tracts of urine and excrements arc not separated.

93. See T.1428,p.924c22-27.

94. See T.1428, pp. 924c27-925a3.

95. See T.l 428, p. 925a3-6.

96. See T.1428, p.925a6-13.

97. See T.1428, p.925al3-25

After the ordination ceremony in the bhiksunisamgha, the candidate 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 ceremony is finally concluded, two important instructions arc given to the newly ordained bhiksuni. One first explains the eight parajika offenses which would exclude her definitively .from the order of bhiksunis: i.e. sexual intercourse, stealing, taking human life and 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

98. See T.1428, p.925a25-bl.

99. parisuddha, without stumbling blocks.

' 100. See T.1428, p.925bl-17.

101. See T.1428, pp.925bl7-926a5.

102. paipsukula (WOGIHARA, U., BW, p. 770; EOGERTON, F., BHSD, p.307).

103. pindapata (WOGIHARA, U., BW, p.784; EOGERTON, F., BHSD, p. 307).

104. vrksamula (WOGIHARA, U., BW, p. 1265; EOGERTON, F„ BHSD, p.307).

105. medicine made of putrid elements: putimuktabhaisajya (WOGIHARA, U„ BW, p.802; EDGERTON, F., BHSD, p.307). See Rhys Davids, T.W. and STEDE, W., PED, p. 470, s.v. putimutta, ‘‘strong-smelling urine, usually wine of

minimum requirements for a life as a bhiksu or as a bliiksuni', it is, how¬ ever, allowed to receive more and better than what is stipulated in these four supports, provided one docs not ask for it. Because the candidate may not be able to endure such an austere life, these supports are explained to her before the conclusion of the ordination ceremony, and the candidate is asked whether she will obey them. 106 Ultimately, the. ordination ceremony is officially concluded. 107 As we have said before, Mahaprajapati Gautami and the five hundred Sakya women did not receive this official ordination: they became bliiksunis by accepting the eight rules (gttrudliarinas) for bliiksunis. When some bliiksunis suggested that the ordination of Mahaprajapati Gautami and the five hundred Sakya women was not valid, Buddha again said that both ordinations have the same value, and that Maha¬ prajapati Gautami and the five hundred Sakya women received the precepts too. 108

The Bhiksuniskandhaka of T. 1428 then adds some special conditions- that can occ jr during the ordination ceremony. The most important addition is that, after having been ordained in the bhiksunisaingha ,a . candidate can receive the ordination in the bliiksusamgha by a proxy, in ease it is too dangerous for her to go to the monastery of the bhiksus. This proxy has to be appointed by means of a jhaptidvitiyakarman. For her safety* the proxy must take two or three bhiksunls with her.

It is thus to be seen that the ordination ceremony is a well organized, highly formalized ceremony, focusing on the control exercised by the full members of the community in order to prevent a newcomer to damage this 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, ' ROTII G., 1970, p.40, §51: “putimuiram". According to NaKAMURA, H., BGD, p.969, the Skt. term refers to urine and excrements of cows used as medicine. On this. EDGERTON, F.. BHSD, p. 350, s.v. putimukta, says: ( [...] - putmuna. interpreted even by Pali comms. as containing mutta - Skt. mutra, urine; this is prob. a late and secondary interpretation, suggested by pun [...]), a medicinal decoction”

106. SccT.1428, p.926a5-19.

107. SccT.1428. p.926al9-26.

108. See T. 142S, p. 926a27-b3.

part in all the formal acts and the ceremonies that arc performed by the 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 ceremony can be committed.

II. Offenses against the ordination rules according to the Dharnta- guptaka Vinaya

Bdow all offenses against the ordination rules appearing in the Bhiksunivibhanga of 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 ordination ceremony, are found among the pdcittika offenses 4 **, except for one offense that, in all the* Vinayas, is classified as a samghavasesa offense! 6 *, and two offenses that only in T.1425 and in the Bhiksuni- vibhaiiga of the Mahasamghika-Lokottaravada School arc classified in a different category!^ 0 '

All offenses focus either on the candidate, or on the upadhydyinB **, or on the ordination procedure. Moreover, T.1428 adds two offenses that concern the period immediately following the ordination ceremony.

1) The candidate

a. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Samghavasesa 5 (pp.719b7-720a5 oarti- cularly, p.719cl5-18) llt : ’ F

“If a bhiksum knows in advance that a woman thief" 2 has to be put to

109. See note 1.

i 10. T.1428, Pac. 134 5 T.1425, Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School, Samzhati- sesa 7. *

T.1428, Pac. 137 5 T.1425, Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School, nihsarzika - pacaltika 18. *

111. Oldenberg, IT., Vinaya Pitakani, Vol.IV, pp.225-227, Saipghadisesa 2- 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 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

death 113 and that people know this 114 , and yet, without asking the king or the ministers, and without asking the clan 115 , admits 116 her into the

mentioned in the introductory stories in the Pali Vinaya , in T. 1421, in T.1425, in 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 precept and not in the precept itself.

114. This is not found in the Pali Vinaya , in T. 1421, in T.1425, and in the Bhiksuqi* vibhanga of the M.-L. School.

115. Pali Vinaya : without asking the king, the order of nuns, a group* or a guild* * or 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.,

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

guild under dhamma” (?). VA. 910 [TAKAKUSU. J. and NAGAI, M., Samanta- pasddikd , Vol.IV, p.910]. Probably a guild governed by some 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 Chinese Vinayas use the term Iff, which originally meant “to bring (her) 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 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, 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.

The Pali Vinaya uses the verb vutthahati, in the causative vutthdpeti. On this 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 commits an immediate 117 samghavasesa that has to be given up 118 .*

Since this offense is found among the samghavasesa offenses, it is clear that it is a major transgression of the rules. Not only is the crime, committed by the admitted woman, considered as a serious crimp, the avoidance of the 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 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 classification of this offense ampng the samghavasesa offenses.

Comparing this samghavasesa precept with the corresponding precepts in the other Vinayas , it is to be noticed that no Vinaya , except for T.1425 and for the Bhiksunivibhanga of the Mahasarp?,hika-Lokottara-

ar order is perhaps die nearest rendering for which there is any justification 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 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 (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 behavior, she commits a samghavasesa offense.

• 118. T.1421, T.1425? and the Bhiksunivibhanga of the M.-L. School mention the

following exception: the bhiksuni commits no offense when the woman she admits has already gone forth in a non-Buddhist 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.

vada School 121 , mentions the siksamdnd period in respect to this offense. 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 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 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, p. 754c2-3) 122 :

“If a bhiksuni knows that a woman is pregnant, and she admits her and confers her the ordination 123 , then it is a pdcittika."

121. These Vinayas mention ihc siksamdnd period in the commentary on the precept: 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, p. 92a24-b6, Pac. 116*; T.1443, pp. 1005c25-1006a5. Pac. tit.

• As the enumeration of the pdcittika offenses is unclear in the Bhiksimivibhanga of T.1421, we follow the 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 gives her the going, forth-.

In the introductory story to this precept, it is said that a bhiksuni admits a 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 pregnant woman and confers her the ordination, after which she gives birth, this ordination was apparently given to her without a two-year instruction. The woman was 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 pregnant woman, while T.1443 only says that a bhiksuni may not let a pregnant woman go forth.

Since no Vinaya mentions the important probation period, and since in T.1428, a bhiksuni admits a 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 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, 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 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, p. 756a4-5) 126 :

124. Compare note 116;

125. OLDENBERG, H., Vinaya Pitakam, Vol.lV, p.318, Pac.62; T.1421, p.92b7-12

Pac. 117. *

T.1435 contains a somehow different precept that says that a nun may not admit into the order a woman whose children necessarily have to follow her into the 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- cl l, Pac. 96; Bhiksimivibhanga of the M.-L. School. Rom, G., 1970. pp. ?3K-

“If a bhiksuni knows that she [i.c. the woman candidate] is not fully twenty years old, and she confers her the ordination, then it is a pacittika."

The introductory story to this precept in T.1428 gives a survey of the stages that precede the ordination, i.c. the going forth ( pravrajya ) and the probation (siksamdna) period.

c. T.1428, Bhiksunivibhanga, Pac.125 (pp.758c29-759b2, particularly, p.759a22-24)i27 : ’

“If a bhiksuni admits a married woman of ten, and she gives her the two-year instruction in the precepts, then she may confer her the ordi¬ nation when she is fully twelve years old. If she confers her the ordi¬ nation 128 when she is younger than twelve, then it is a pacittika”

The above precept (a) and the corresponding precepts in the other Vinayas l27 * led to the discussion whether the ordination (T.1435: the admission into the 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 Chinese Vinayas, as well as in the Pali and the Sanskrit texts, of an ambiguous structure to indicate both the age and the duration (of the marriage). Moreover, the same 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)

240, §210, Piic.96: T.1435, p.328b27-cl I, Pac. 116 (T.1435 docs not explicitly say that the bhiksum ordains the woman, but only states that the bhiksuni admits 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: “If a bhiksuni confers (he study of the precepts [i.c. the siksamdna period] to a 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, 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 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:

Wi\ (b) p.533a29-bl, Pac.92:M+~R5); Bhiksunivibhanga of the Maha- samghika-Lokottaravada School, ROTH, G., 1970, (a) p.245, §214, 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$+ #

(b) p. 1004a 18, Pac. 106: *«H-:ij8).

As we can see, the above mentioned structures do not permit to decide whether the age of the candidate or the years she has been married are 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 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 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 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 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 ”

married women, accepted into the order, arc able to endure hard work 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 married women of the age of twelve have the same capacities as single 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 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

Ci., 1970, p.245, §214: u/iu-vimsuti-vursam. The only way to interpret these _ structures is Mess than twenty years old’, the age of twenty years being the 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 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¬ 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.

131. T.1443, p. I004cl-10.