Dear friends,
As you may have noticed from previously published essays, I am currently writing detailed introductions to each volume of the new Vinaya Piṭaka translation. So far I have completed drafts of the introductions to the first three volumes, which comprise the entire Suttavibhaṅga, “The Analysis of the Pātimokkha”. The previously published introductions to the monks’ rules can be found here. The brand new draft of the introduction to the nuns rules is found below.
Please keep in mind that this essay should be read in conjunction with the general introduction to the Vinaya Piṭaka, which is available here. It gives the basic background that is necessary to properly understand the current essay.
Anyone interested is most welcome to comment. All constructive criticism is welcome, including the pointing out of spelling mistakes, unclear formulations, and outright mistakes. And anything else for that matter! And I might as well thank you in advance for your kind suggestions. Thank you!
Updated on 28 August 2024, based on the generous feedback and corrections received.
Updated on 25 September 2024, based on the generous feedback and corrections received.
Updated with edits on 20 October 2024.
Updated with edits on 14 November 2024.
The Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga: the Nuns’ Pātimokkha rules and their analysis
The present volume is the third of six, the total of which constitutes a complete translation of the Vinaya Piṭaka, the Monastic Law. This volume consists of the Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga, the Nuns’ Pātimokkha rules and their analysis, which I will call the Nuns’ Analysis for short. In the present introduction, I will survey the contents of volume 3, and also make observations of points of particular interest. For a general introduction to the Monastic Law, see volume 1.
The existence of the Nuns’ Analysis is a result of the bhikkhunīs having a separate Pātimokkha, that is, they have different rules from the monks. Because they have different rules, they have to recite the Pātimokkha separately, which in turn means that the legal procedures of the two Sanghas were also done apart. And so, given that the Buddha laid different rules for the nuns, he must have envisaged an autonomous nuns’ Sangha from the beginning. This is the basis for the nuns being largely independent of the monks. I will return to this important point just below.
The structure of the Nuns’ Analysis is the same as for the Monks’ Analysis, the Bhikkhu-vibhaṅga, for which see the introduction to volume 1. The classes of rules are the same, with the exception of the aniyatas, the “indeterminate offenses”, which do not occur in the Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga. The sequence of the classes is also the same. Altogether the Bhikkhunī-pātimokkha consists of 311 rules around which the Nuns’ Analysis is structured. This means that the bhikkhunīs have 84 more Pātimokkha rules than the bhikkhus. The bhikkhunī rules are distributed as follows over the various classes of offenses:
- 8 offenses entailing expulsion, pārājikas (Pj)
- 17 offenses entailing suspension, saṅghādisesas (Ss)
- 30 offenses entailing relinquishment and confession, nissaggiya pācittiyas (Np)
- 166 offenses entailing confession, pācittiyas (Pc)
- 8 offenses entailing acknowledgment, pāṭidesanīyas (Pd)
- 75 rules of training, sekhiyas (Sk)
- 7 principles for settling legal issues, adhikaraṇasamathadhammas, or just adhikaraṇasamathas (As).
These rules can be divided into those that are in common with the monks and those that are unique to the nuns. As to the rules held in common, the nuns are to practice them in the same way as the monks (Kd 20:4.1.3). This means that there is a separate vibhaṅga, “analysis”, only for the rules that are unique to the nuns. The distribution of shared and unique rules is as follows:
| Pj | Ss | Np | Pc | Pd | Sk | As | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shared with monks | 4 | 7 | 18 | 70 | 0 | 75 | 7 | 181 |
| Unique to nuns | 4 | 10 | 12 | 96 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 130 |
| Total | 8 | 17 | 30 | 166 | 8 | 75 | 7 | 311 |
We see here that the sekhiyas and the adhikaraṇasamathas are exactly the same for the monks and the nuns. That the sekhiyas are the same may be because the social etiquette of monks and nuns was determined by their status as monastics rather than the gender differences as found in society at large.
More interesting are the adhikaraṇasamathas. As I discussed briefly in the introduction to volume 1, these are the overarching rules that govern the execution of Sangha business. That they are the same for monks and nuns suggests that the overall framework for the governance of the two Sanghas is the same. Given, as we have seen above, that the two Sanghas operate independently of each other, this means that the nuns have internal autonomy in their decision making, with no possibility for the monks to interfere. Thus, the Bhikkhunī-sangha may well be the world’s first attested large-scale institution governed by women. There are a few exceptions to this autonomy, which I will return to in the introduction to volume 5.
Differences between the Nuns’ Analysis and the Monks’ Analysis
Beyond the similarities sketched out above, there are some important differences between the two sets of rules. The first, as noted above, is the absence in the nuns’ rules of the class called aniyata, of which the monks have two rules. As I have argued in the introduction to volume 1, these rules were laid down to give lay women a voice when monks acted in sexually inappropriate ways. Because of the imbalance in power between the genders in ancient India, there was presumably no need to have equivalent rules for the nuns.
The second obvious difference is in the number of rules, with the nuns having 84 more rules than the monks. One might expect this to be the result of discrimination against women in a patriarchal culture. Although this is likely to be part of the explanation, the reality is more complex.
The main reason why the nuns have more rules is simply that they inherited most of their rules from the monks, in total 181 out of 311, whereas there is no evidence that the monks inherited anything from the nuns. There is no discussion in the Canonical texts of how or by whom these rules were selected, but it seems reasonable to think that it was done to create a foundation for the nuns’ training. The chosen rules were presumably the ones considered most relevant.
A second reason is that the nuns’ rules were added to for a considerable period after the monks’ rules were fixed. This can be seen by comparing the rules across the various schools for which we still have a nuns’ Pātimokkha.[1] Whereas the monks’ rules, with the exception of the sekhiyas, are very similar across the different schools,[2] the nuns’ rules vary significantly, especially among the pācittiyas.[3] It may be that the monks’ position as teachers and instructors of the nuns disposed them to lay down new rules into the sectarian period, decades and even centuries after the Buddha had passed away.
There are further reasons why the nuns have more rules. To enable a proper discussion of this, however, I will first have to discuss the rules. I will then return to this question toward the end of this introduction. Before turning to the rules, there are a few more general issues worthy of attention.
Although the Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga has the same basic structure as the Monks’ Analysis, it is much shorter and simpler. For instance, the four pārājikas that are common to the two Sanghas cover a total of 109 pages in the PTS edition, whereas the four pārājikas unique to the nuns cover just 11 pages. Although the difference is especially pronounced for the pārājika rules, it is symptomatic of the Vibhaṅga as a whole.
The difference in the extent of the two vibhaṅgas is most obvious in two areas: the permutation series and the case studies. Whereas the monks’ rules often have long permutation series attached to them, this is only the case for the nuns’ fifth pārājika rule. As to the case studies, there is none in the Nuns’ Analysis. It is interesting, however, that as part of the case studies pertaining to the monks’ rules, there are a few cases that actually concern nuns, including two in pārājika 1, three in pārājika 2, and one in pārājika 3.[4] These stories may originally have been part of a larger Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga or perhaps it was considered expedient from the start to consolidate all the case studies in one place. Lastly, apart from the permutation series and the case studies, the 130 rules that are unique to the nuns are rarely amended, thus reducing the overall length of the origin stories. The nuns only have four amended unique rules as compared to a total of 39 for the monks.[5]
There are probably a number of reasons for these differences between the two Vibhaṅgas. An obvious one is that the nuns’ rules were generally laid down later than those of the monks. They would have had less time to evolve, especially during the Buddha’s lifetime. A second reason is that we have grounds to believe that the monks were the chief maintainers of the Vinaya. Both the first and the second Councils, saṅgītis, were only attended by monks. Moreover, the nuns are repeatedly depicted, especially in the Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka, as depending on the monks for their understanding of the Vinaya.[6] Third, the monks are likely to have had the most experts on the Monastic Law. They had better access to the Buddha, they started earlier, and there were more of them. The final reason is the patriarchal culture that would have regarded it as more important to analyze the monks’ rules. This would have been especially so after the Buddha passed away, which is when most of the vibhaṅga material was laid down.
The personalities of the Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga
In the introduction to the Bhikkhu-vibhaṅga in volume 1, we looked at some of the characters that feature in the origin stories. As it happens, the nuns too have their fair share of notorious personalities. To start with, we find a group of six nuns, who seem to be modeled on the group of six monks.[7] Sometimes the group of six nuns commit exactly the same misconduct as the group of six monks. They accumulate bowls and refuse to return bowls relinquished by others (Bi Np 1:1.2 and Bi Np 1:3.1), which is exactly what the group of six monks do (Bu Np 21). Then we have the fact that the group of six nuns use oversize bathing robes (Bi Pc 22), as do the group six monks (Bu Pc 91), and that the group of six nuns ask for fine foods (Bi Pd 1–8), just like their monastic brothers (Bu Pc 39). There are a number of further similarities that I will leave out in the name of brevity. Yet most telling of all is that the group of six nuns are said to be the originators of all, or virtually all, of the sekhiya offenses for nuns,[8] just as the group of six monks are the originators of the same offenses for monks. These origin stories make little sense because the sekhiyas are clearly a common set of rules that do not require separate origin stories for the nuns. So it seems as if the group of six nuns, as in the case of the group of six monks, often function as a convenient group upon which offenses were projected, especially in cases where the original perpetrators had been forgotten.
The group of six does not exhaust the rogues’ gallery of notorious nuns. The two most infamous nuns in the Vinaya Piṭaka are Thullanandā and, to a lesser extent, her unruly disciple Caṇḍakāḷī. Thullanandā is the original offender for a large number of the rules that are unique to the nuns: two out of four pārājikas, four of ten saṅghādisesas, seven of twelve nissaggiya pācittiyas, and lastly twenty-four of ninety-six pācittiyas. Thullanandā’s student Caṇḍakāḷī is the originator of a further two saṅghādisesas, as well as four pācittiyas.
Where Thullanandā is not the originator of a rule, she is often involved in other ways. It seems Thullanandā was one of four sisters, all of whom became nuns (Bi Pj 5:1.6). One of her sisters, Sundarīnandā, was the originator of Bi Pj 5, which is concerned with lustful bodily contact. The origin story to the following rule, Bi Pj 6, carries on from the previous one, with Thullanandā hiding the pārājika offense of the same sister, who has now become pregnant by her lover. In this way Thullanandā herself becomes the originator of a pārājika offense. At Bi Ss 12 it is Thullanandā’s students who behave badly and then hide each other’s offenses. In the following rule, Bi Ss 13, Thullanandā disregards the Sangha’s admonishment and encourages her students to carry on as before. And so, two saṅghādisesa offenses come into being.
Thullanandā was well disposed toward some of the most notorious monks of the time. She praises Devadatta and his followers, comparing them favorably to some of the Buddha’s greatest disciples, including Sāriputta and Mahāmoggallāna (Bu Pc 29:1.9). At another time, she dismisses a number of senior monks so that she can ordain a trainee nun with the help of Devadatta and his friends (Bi Pc 81). She is also connected to other disreputable monks, such as Ariṭṭha who was ejected from the Bhikkhu-sangha for his wrong views (Kd 11:32.3.25). When she takes his side, she becomes the offender giving rise to Bi Pj 7. With such bad friends, it is hardly surprising Thullanandā would be a difficult character herself, in turn also affecting her own students, particularly Caṇḍakāḷī.
Indeed, Thullanandā comes across as troublesome and difficult, rarely accepting the authority of the Sanghas. As we have seen, Thullanandā disregards the Sangha’s admonishment (Bi Ss 13:1.2). Elsewhere, she readmits Caṇḍakāḷī without consultation after the latter had been ejected by the Sangha, thus giving rise to a saṅghādisesa offense (At Bi Ss 4:1.16 ). She also reviles the community of nuns out of anger (Bi Pc 53).
In a significant number of pācittiya rules Thullanandā is portrayed as selfish and inconsiderate toward other nuns, including her own students (Bi Pc 33–35, 45, 47–48, 68, 70, and 77–78). She was immoderate and greedy, often trying to get extra cloth at the expense of other nuns (Bi Np 2, Bi Pc 26–27, and 29–30). She would often engage in trading, e.g. at Bi Np 3–5 and 10–12, and she curried favors with householders (Bi Pc 28 and 46). We even have a Jātaka tale where we witness Thullanandā’s greed also in a past life, in this case highlighting the negative consequences of excessive desires (Bi Pc 1).
Yet, as has been pointed out,[9] Thullanandā is a more complex character than she might appear at first sight. According to the origin stories to several rules, especially [Bi Np 10][pli-tv-bi-vb-np10:1.2], [11][pli-tv-bi-vb-np11:1.2], and [12][pli-tv-bi-vb-np12:1.2], she is a learned, confident, and gifted teacher of the Dhamma, with many people visiting her and making offerings. At Bi Np 11 and 12, she inspires King Pasenadi with a Dhamma talk to the point where he makes her the generous offer to ask for anything she wants. The background story to Bi Ss 4 suggests she was an expert on the Monastic Law. According to Bu Pc 29, she was invited to receive regular meals from householders, showing that she was well respected. The origin story to Bi Ss 1 shows her standing up for the rights of bhikkhunīs, hinting, perhaps, that she was an early feminist. The origin story to Bi Ss 2 might be read in a similar light.[10]
We are left with the portrait of a complex character. This, of course, is exactly what we would expect of a real person, for human beings are rarely one-dimensional. In fact, the number and nature of the details we have from Thullanandā’s life suggest she is a historical figure. In addition to what we have seen already, these details include her involvement in plots that carry on over several rules and her association with monks who are well attested in the Pali tradition, such as Ānanda and Mahākassapa. Significantly, she is encountered with similar frequency also in the other schools of Buddhism.[11]
Given these details of Thullanandā’s character, it is perhaps not surprising that she is involved, directly and indirectly, in so many offenses. This is probably what we should expect from a strong, fiery, and sometimes problematic personality. Nevertheless, it seems likely that she was at times a convenient scapegoat, especially in the many cases where the true origin story had been forgotten. In the bhikkhunī nissaggiya pācittiyas, for instance, a total of nine very similar rules are attributed to Thullanandā’s misbehavior. It is hard not to suspect that her name was sometimes copied and pasted from one rule to the next.
The pārājikas (Pj)
The nuns have eight pārājika rules, consisting of the same four as the monks and an additional four that are unique to the bhikkhunīs. I have discussed the general aspects of the pārājikas in the introduction to volume 1. Here I will focus on the aspects that are peculiar to the nuns.
Of the four pārājikas that the nuns have in common with the monks, the first one is in fact slightly different.[12] First, the nuns’ version adds the word chandaso, “willingly”, and second, it omits the phrase sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā, “without first renouncing the training and revealing his/her weakness”. Both of these differences are worthy of a brief discussion.
The purpose of adding the word “willingly” is presumably to acknowledge the problem of rape in ancient India and to ensure that the nuns were not penalized for being the victims of violence. There is no origin story, however, that explains the circumstances in which this addition was made, as is normally the case for the Pātimokkha rules. It could be that this addition to the rule has its origin in the story of Uppalavaṇṇā, found among the case stories to bhikkhu pārājika 1 (Bu Pj 1:10.5.1). This might in fact be the reason for the presence of this story in the Bhikkhu-vibhaṅga. At some point the connection between this origin story and the reformulation of the rule was lost, probably because the rules that the nuns have in common with the monks were only preserved in the monks’ Pātimokkha.[13] What is indisputable, however, is that, according to the Vibhaṅga, a monk too would not commit a pārājika if he were the victim of rape.[14] This makes it likely that the addition to the nuns’ rule must have happened before this portion of the Vibhaṅga existed. Once again, we see that the Vibhaṅga material is likely to be later than the majority of Pātimokkha rules.
The reason for the absence of the phrase “without first renouncing the training and revealing her weakness” can be explained in two different ways. The straightforward explanation comes from a passage according to which the nuns, in contrast to the monks, are not allowed to disrobe by verbally rejecting the training (Kd 20:26.1.4).[15] There is, however, an alternative and more intriguing possibility. Once the word chandaso had been added to the nuns’ rule, it could no longer be considered as fully in common with the monks. A consequence of this might be that it became unnatural to update the nuns’ rule as a result of changes to the monks’ rule. It follows from this rather speculative premise that if “willingly” was added to the nuns’ rule before “without first renouncing the training and revealing his weakness” was added to the monks’ version, then the latter may never have made its way into the nuns’ version. My suggestion, then, is that the prohibition at Kd 20 against a nun verbally renouncing the training may have its origin in this phrase missing from the nuns’ version of pārājika 1, which in turn might be the result of an accident of history. If the Khandhakas are generally later than the Pātimokkha rules, as seems to be the case, this would at least be a possible unfolding of events.
Coming to the pārājika rules that are unique to the nuns, pārājika 5 concerns lustful physical contact. The question arises why this is a more serious offense for the nuns than for the monks, for whom this is a saṅghādisesa offense at Bu Ss 2. In fact, such disparity between the monks and the nuns in the consequences of performing the same action is not unique to this case. According to Bi Pj 6, concealing another nun’s pārājika offense is itself a pārājika, yet for the monks this is no more than a pācittiya offense at Bu Pc 64. According to Bi Pj 7, a nun who sides with an ejected monk again commits a pārājika offense, whereas for a monk the even graver action of siding with a schismatic results in a saṅghādisesa at Bu Ss 11. Then there are a number of pācittiya rules for the bhikkhunīs that for the monks are minor rules found outside the Pātimokkha.[16] These include the rule against eating garlic, respectively at Bi Pc 1 and Kd 15:34.1.15, the rule against entertainment at Bi Pc 10 and Kd 15:2.6.6, the rule against using luxurious furniture at Bi Pc 42 and Kd 5:10.5.2, and more.
Yet the disparity also goes the other way, with the monks sometimes being penalized more heavily for the same action. An obvious example is masturbation, which is a saṅghādisesa for monks at Bu Ss 1, whereas for the nuns it is a pācittiya at Bi Pc 3 and 4. Other important examples are several saṅghādisesa offenses for the monks, in particular the offenses for indecent speech and for building dwellings that are too large—at Bu Ss 3, 4, 6, and 7—which are not offenses at all for the nuns.[17] There is also the interesting case of homosexual sex being a pārājika for monks, but generally no more than a pācittiya for nuns. There are a number of other examples of lesser importance.
Why this disparity? A traditional explanation might be that the Buddha understood the psychological differences between men and women and so tailored the rules to each gender. Yet there is little evidence for this. What we do know, however, is that the Buddha often lays down rules because of complaints from lay people. Such complaints would have been colored by social expectations, causing gender differences in society to make their way into the monastic rules, at least partially. Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that the Buddha himself would have taken such societal expectations into account when laying down rules, whether intentionally or through default reaction. This might explain, for instance, why the nuns incur a pārājika offense for lustful physical contact, whereas the monks incur a saṅghādisesa offense. Unfair as this may seem from a contemporary point of view, society may well have judged it as coarser and more serious for a female to initiate such contact.
Another reason for the disparity is the difference in historical evolution of the two Pātimokkhas. As we have seen, the monks’ rules were closed to addition earlier than the nuns’ rules. The same inappropriate action may then have led to a new pācittiya rule for the nuns, while for the monks it may have led to the laying down of an act of wrong conduct in the Khandhakas. And indeed, we see a number of such cases.[18]
Finally, it may be the case that the Buddha occasionally did lay down rules based on what he perceived as psychological differences between the two genders. Clearly the Buddha had exceptional insight into human psychology, the Dhamma essentially being a manual of the path to psychological well-being. Still, we should not overestimate such a motivation in the absence of evidence. In the area of Monastic Law, the Buddha is generally depicted as a pragmatist who reacted to external demands, and rarely if ever as a visionary who worked from more fundamental principles.
Let’s briefly consider the remaining pārājikas. As we have seen, pārājika 6 concerns hiding another nun’s pārājika offense, whereas pārājika 7 is about siding with an ejected monk. Pārājika 8 again concerns inappropriate association with the opposite gender. This rule is unique in that it requires the offending nun to do a series of eight separate actions before the offense is committed.[19] The likelihood that someone would now commit exactly the same eight actions may seem small. At the same time, if one gets trapped in infatuation, it is surprising how unskillful actions can accumulate, eventually leading to the sort of scenario we see in this rule. This rule also presents us with some interesting interpretative challenges, for which see Appendix II: Technical Discussion of Individual Bhikkhunī Rules.
The saṅghādisesas (Ss)
The nuns have seventeen saṅghādisesa offenses, of which seven are in common with the monks. This means the nuns have ten unique saṅghādisesas, while the monks have six. Moreover, the nuns have a total of nine saṅghādisesas that are immediate offenses, whereas eight are offenses after the performance of a legal procedure of one motion and three announcements. In other words, the nuns must make greater use of saṅghakamma in the lead up to a saṅghādisesa offense than must the monks. As with the monks, this saṅghakamma functions, in effect, as an extended admonishment, giving the offender extra time to reconsider their actions.
Although this class of offenses is common to the two Sanghas, there are some important differences in the practical application. Where the monks have a six-day trial period, mānatta, the nuns have half a month. On the other hand, the nuns have no probation period, parivāsa, for hiding their offenses. Most likely this difference is due to the fact that a bhikkhunī cannot live alone and thus requires another bhikkhunī to stay with her (Kd 20:25.3.1). If the nuns had to undergo a sometimes-lengthy parivāsa for hiding their offenses, this would require a designated chaperone for extended periods of time, which would be an unreasonable burden on other nuns. An additional possible explanation for the difference is that some of the monks’ saṅghādisesas may have been regarded as more embarrassing and thus more likely to be hidden. It is also the case that the period of penance sometimes made the process of emerging from a saṅghādisesa offense especially cumbersome, as can be seen from Kd 13. Penance may have been scrapped for the nuns because it sometimes made rehabilitation unnecessarily complicated.
Another point worthy of brief comment is the fact that the half-monthly trial period for nuns is laid down twice, both at the end of the nuns’ saṅghādisesa offenses and in the garudhammas.[20] This leads to the obvious question of which is prior. Without going into a detailed discussion, it seems to fit better at the end of the saṅghādisesas where it parallels the equivalent section for the monks. This is one among a number of cases where the garudhammas are at odds with other parts of the Vinaya Piṭaka, suggesting that they may not go back to the earliest period.
Each of the nuns’ saṅghādisesa offenses includes the qualifier nissāraṇīya, “entailing sending away”, not shared with the monks. This relates to the trial period, and is explained in the Vibhaṅga as sending away from the Sangha, which parallels a similar rule for monks at Kd 12:2.1.6. The problem with such sending away is that it seems to clash with Bi Ss 3, which says that a bhikkhunī cannot stay by herself. As we have seen, this is resolved by the Sangha appointing a companion to the nun observing the trial period (Kd 20:25.3.5). Alternatively, given that the Khandhakas are generally later than the Pātimokkha rules, we may wonder whether in the earliest period it was acceptable for nuns to live alone.
Returning to the comparison of the nuns’ rules with those of the monks, the monks’ six saṅghādisesa offenses not shared with the nuns are saṅghādisesas 1–4 and 6–7. Although these rules are not shared within the same class of rules, two of them have rough equivalents elsewhere in Bhikkhunī-pātimokkha. We have seen that Bu Ss 1 finds an approximate equivalent in Bi Pc 3 and 4, whereas Bu Ss 2 resembles Bi Pj 5. Of the remaining four rules—Bu Ss 3, 4, 6, and 7—there is no equivalent for the nuns.
Let’s now consider the saṅghādisesa offenses that are unique to the nuns. Some of these rules have understandably caused concern among modern bhikkhunīs. These rules were perhaps reasonable in ancient India, but not so much in the modern context. For instance, Bi Ss 1 prohibits a nun from taking legal action, which from a modern perspective hampers nuns in seeking redress for injustices and is therefore nothing short of discriminatory. Fortunately, the non-offense clause allows for legal action in cases where the nuns need protection. A broad understanding of this makes it possible to justify legal action whenever a nun or the nuns’ community has been treated unfairly, effectively restricting the rule to malicious legal action.
This leads us to the important question of how to interpret the rules, especially those for the nuns. Because the Vinaya Piṭaka rules were formulated to fit a society that in many ways is quite different from our own, especially when it comes to the discrimination against women, we need to look for principles of interpretation that make the Bhikkhunī-sangha sustainable. We have seen that the Pātimokkha rules are generally older than the Vibhaṅga material, which means we should give priority to the rules over the explanatory material. At the same time, we have just seen that for Bi Ss 1 the Vibhaṅga is more reasonable than the rule. It seems, therefore, that whenever the Vibhaṅga interprets a rule in a lenient fashion—and, importantly, this happened despite the conservatism of that society—we, that is, the bhikkhunīs, have the right to follow suit. What I am suggesting, then, is that it is acceptable with any particular rule to choose whether one wishes to follow the rule or the Vibhaṅga, and that there is no need for a consistent approach across the entire Pātimokkha.
Such a lenient interpretative framework—which still falls within the wording of either the rule or the Vibhaṅga—becomes especially important when we come to rules, such as Bi Ss 3, that seem particularly restrictive from a modern point of view. This rule, if interpreted strictly, makes it impossible for a bhikkhunī to travel or live independently. This may have been necessary to protect bhikkhunīs in ancient India, but is incompatible with modern sensibilities. With a degree of good will, however, it is possible to interpret this rule such that it is not unreasonably restrictive, even making it possible for a modern bhikkhunī to keep it.
The origin story to Bi Ss 2 is particularly shocking as to the level of sexism in ancient India. A man whose wife has been serially unfaithful goes to a meeting of his clan to get permission to kill her. They agree. The woman then runs away and finds refuge by ordaining as a bhikkhunī, setting the stage for a rule against ordaining criminals. The prohibition against ordaining a criminal who is seeking to escape justice is reasonable, and we do in fact have such rules elsewhere, but applicable to both monks and nuns (Kd 1:43.1.14). What is problematic is the treatment of women by society as essentially the property of men, who are then able to mete out punishment largely as they see fit. This goes to show that it is sensible, even necessary, to interpret the nuns’ rules leniently.
Of the remaining saṅghādisesa offenses that are unique to the nuns, three in particular stand out as different from anything that the monks have. Bi Ss 10 prohibits a nun from verbally rejecting the triple gem in a fit of anger. This rule gets its significance from the fact that nuns, as opposed to monks, cannot renounce the training verbally (Kd 20:26.1.4). Bi Ss 12 stops nuns from socializing too much, including bad behavior that results from such socializing, whereas Bi Ss 13 stops a nun from encouraging those who socialize inappropriately to continue their bad behavior. We do not know why only the nuns have these rules, but we can perhaps make some educated guesses. One obvious reason is that the nuns were not allowed to live in the wilderness (Kd 20:23.1.4), which would have compelled them to live close to general society. This in turn would have made inappropriate socializing more likely. It is also possible that gender stereotypes—whether based on real or imaginary differences—would have played a role.
The nissaggiya pācittiyas (Np)
The bhikkhunīs have the same number of nissaggiya pācittiya offenses as the monks, that is, a total of thirty, eighteen being in common and twelve unique to the nuns, which means there are also twelve nissaggiyas unique to the monks.
As with pārājika 1, there is in fact one shared offense that is not quite shared, namely Bu Np 2/Bi Np 14. This rule concerns staying apart from one’s robes for a period of more than 24 hours. Because the nuns have five robes, compared to three for the monks, we might expect this difference to be reflected in the rule. Nevertheless, in the Sixth Council edition of the Tipiṭaka we find only three robes mentioned both for the monks and the nuns.[21] According to Bhikkhu Ñāṇatusita’s Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha Pāḷi, however, there are several known Pali manuscripts that mention five robes.[22] Moreover, it seems that all the other schools for which we have a Bhikkhunī-pātimokkha mention five robes for bhikkhunīs in connection with this rule.[23] It seems likely, then, that five is the original number.
Of the twelve nissaggiyas that are unique to the monks, three concern monks’ inappropriate dealings with nuns.[24] These rules do not exist for nuns, suggesting that the monks were more likely to treat the nuns unfairly than the other way around. Five of the twelve concern blankets, the so-called santhatas.[25] The fact that these rules were not inherited by the nuns may mean either that the santhata was either not considered an important requisite or, perhaps, that its use was discontinued after the earliest period. In the present day, the santhata is all but unknown. Of the four remaining rules, Bu Np 24 and 29 concern situations that are specific to the monks; one, Bu Np 16, is about the rather particular case of carrying unspun wool over long distances; and the final one, Bu Np 21, is similar to Bi Np 1.
There is little new in the nissaggiya offenses that are unique to the nuns. As mentioned, Bi Np 1 is essentially the same as Bu Np 21. Bi Np 3, which prohibits giving a robe and then taking it back, is similar to Bu Np 25. Bi Np 4–12 are in reality little more than special cases of Bu Np 20 = Bi Np 23. That leaves only one nissaggiya offense that is properly unique to the nuns, namely Bi Np 2, which concerns inappropriately distributing robe-cloth to one’s own monastic followers.
The pācittiyas (Pc)
The bhikkhunīs have a total of 166 pācittiya offenses, of which seventy are in common with the monks. This means the nuns have 96 unique pācittiyas, whereas the monks have 22.
As mentioned above, there is substantial variation in the number of pācittiya rules for the nuns among the various schools. This contrasts with the other rules, which are largely the same in number. In her comparative study of the Bhikkhunī-pātimokkha,[26] Kabilsingh shows that the number of pācittiya rules varies from 141 to 210, which is comparable to the variation among the sekhiya rules. This means that rules were added to the nuns’ pācittiyas after the various schools started to form, probably within the first couple of centuries after the Buddha’s passing. We thus see an interesting difference between the monks and the nuns: the pācittiyas of the former were kept largely unaltered from the earliest period, whereas the nuns’ pācittiyas were added to. What might be the reason for this?
We see in the Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka at Kd 20:6.1.1–8.1.13 that the monks were entrusted with teaching the nuns in matters related to the Vinaya. It could be the case, then, that the monks considered themselves authorized to lay down new rules for the nuns, especially in the category of minor rules, that is, the pācittiyas.[27] The fact that all the early schools seem to have laid down such rules supports this thesis. Moreover, this is parallel to what happened to the sekhiya rules, which were also added to in the sectarian period. Although the sekhiyas are binding on both Sanghas, they were probably added to the Bhikkhu-pātimokkha, with the nuns then inheriting the rules. As such, they were primarily considered rules for the monks. My suggestion, then, is that when rules were added to the Pātimokkhas after the Buddha’ s passing, they were added to the sekhiyas for the monks, but to the pācittiyas for the nuns. In this way, there was a parallel development between the two Sanghas.
Of the 22 pācittiyas that are unique to the monks, ten govern the proper relationship between monks and nuns. The first four of these, Bu Pc 21–24, concern the ovāda, the monks’ fortnightly instruction to the nuns. Obviously, the nuns do not have these rules. The next two, Bu Pc 25–26, prohibit monks from giving robes to the nuns. It is not immediately clear why the nuns did not inherit these, that is, nuns being prohibited from giving robes to the monks, but it could be that they were redundant because of the nuns’ difficulties in obtaining requisites. Bu Pc 29 concerns nuns ordering lay people to give food to their favorite monks. It is unsurprising that such a specific rule was not inherited by the nuns. The last three rules, Bu Pc 27, 28, and 30, relate to monks and nuns associating inappropriately with each other. The fact that the nuns do not have these could be because of the strict requirements of Bi Ss 3, which may have been regarded as sufficient to cover such situations.
A further five rules are not relevant to the nuns because they have other rules covering approximately the same areas.[28] Then there are Bu Pc 33, 35, and 36, all concerned with eating meals in succession, the combined effect of which is no more than a slight expansion of Bi Pc 54. That the nuns do not have an equivalent of Bu Pc 67, which concerns monks traveling by arrangement with women, is, again, probably because of Bi Ss 3, which compels a nun always to travel in the company of another nun. Next, because bhikkhunīs do not live in the wilderness, they have neither the equivalent of Bu Pc 85, which concerns forest monks entering an inhabited area at the wrong time, nor Bu Pc 89, which sets limits on the size of the sitting mat, a requisite that was used mostly in the wilderness. Moreover, given that monks are allowed to be without the sitting mat for up to four months (Kd 15:18.1.3), it would not have been regarded as a particularly important requisite. As to the final rule that the nuns do not share with the monks, that is Bu Pc 83, which concerns entering a royal compound without being announced, it is less clear why the nuns do not have it. Perhaps the reason is simply that nuns were not considered as potential competitors to the king for the attention of his wives.
The overall impression is that there are sufficiently good reasons why the nuns did not inherit certain of the monks’ pācittiya rules. It is not always equally clear-cut, however, why the nuns were given ninety-six additional pācittiyas. Let’s have a closer look at them.
In many cases the unique rules for the nuns are found elsewhere for the monks, sometimes with a different wording or belonging to a different class of offense. Without getting distracted by the details and bearing in mind that the boundaries are often blurry, I count 22 such rules for the nuns, some of which are significant, including rules concerned with sexuality (Bi Pc 3, 4, and 5), entertainment (Bi Pc 10), and the invitation ceremony (Bi Pc 57).[29] On top of these, I count an additional 14 rules that are effectively just minor expansions of the monks’ rules.[30] This leaves a total of 60 pācittiyas that are genuinely unique to the nuns and worthy of special attention.[31]
Especially noteworthy among these latter rules are the large number concerned with ordination and related issues, in total 18, compared to only one such pācittiya rule for the monks.[32] Some of these rules concern special circumstances for women, such as Bi Pc 61 and 62 that prohibit the ordination of women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Other rules concern the more complicated leadup to the ordination of women, with rules mandating a period of two years as a trainee nun, a sikkhamānā, and rules requiring a special legal procedure to approve a trainee nun for ordination. This is further complicated by the fact that there are three classes of women who may seek ordination: a general class of trainee nuns (sikkhamānā), a class of married girls (gihigata), and a class of unmarried women (kumāribhūta), which leads to a total of eight rules.[33] It is peculiar that we first find two general rules for trainee nuns and then two subclasses, one for married and one for unmarried women, each with three rules. There is an obvious redundancy here since either the two general rules or the six more specific rules would have been sufficient on their own. One is left with the impression that the general rules were laid down first, possibly by the Buddha, and that the more specific rules were added at a later stage after the Buddha had passed away. We may speculate that the redundancy was caused by a conservative Sangha not being willing to update or abolish rules they regarded as coming from the Master himself.
The existence of different ordination rules for married and unmarried women is interesting. Unmarried women are treated much in the same way as men, with a minimum ordination age of twenty (Bi Pc 71). For married girls, however, the minimum ordination age is set at twelve (Bi Pc 65). This shows, first of all, that the custom of child brides is ancient. The reason why they were allowed to ordain at such a young age seems to be that they were regarded as adults once married. The origin stories to the rules that deal with the minimum age for ordination all have to do with the ability of the ordinand to deal with the hardships of monasticism. In other words, it was probably assumed that the nature of married life was such that it forced you to grow up quickly, enabling you to deal with the difficult realities of life. Since most countries now have a minimum marriage age of eighteen, these rules are largely redundant.
The above ordination rules do not place any restrictions on nuns that are fundamentally different from those of the monks. If anything, the rules are slightly more liberal for the nuns, such as the lower ordination age and the duty to follow your preceptor for only two years, as compared to five years for monks.[34] The nuns do, however, have at least two rules that restrict them quite severely in matters of ordination. The first, Bi Pc 82, prohibits a nun from performing ordinations in consecutive years, whereas the other, Bi Pc 83, prohibits her from ordaining more than one person per year. The combined effect of these two rules is to dramatically reduce the growth potential of the Bhikkhunī-sangha. This is particularly problematic at a time when the Sangha of nuns has only recently been reestablished in Theravada Buddhism.
Still, the situation is not quite as dire as it may seem. Looking closer at these rules, it becomes clear that only the first of them has any real claim to authenticity. From the comparative information on SuttaCentral,[35] we see that the first rule is found in all six schools, whereas the second one is only found in the Pali tradition. This means that Bi Pc 83 almost certainly originated in the sectarian period. Nonetheless, depending on how it is interpreted, even Bi Pc 82 may severely constrain the growth of the Bhikkhunī-sangha.
Besides the rules on ordination, there are a number of small groups of affiliated rules that are unique to the nuns. One such group concerns protecting nuns from falling back into the worldly ways of a householder. The Vinaya has several examples of monks, and possibly even lay people, pressuring nuns to do what might be considered domestic chores, including Bu Np 4 and Bu Np 17. Such pressure was no doubt more likely put on the nuns than on the monks. In other rules it is not clear whether the nuns were pressured or themselves chose to do such tasks. For instance, Bi Pc 6 prohibits a nun from doing certain services for a monk while he is eating, and Bi Pc 43 prohibits a nun from spinning yarn, whereas Bi Pc 44 stops her from doing chores for householders. Finally, Bi Pc 36 bans a nun from improper socializing with men.
Another group of related rules forbids nuns from being verbally abusive. Bi Pc 19 bars a nun from cursing herself or others. Bi Pc 52 and 53 stop a bhikkhunī from abusing a monk and a community of nuns respectively. The first two of these are variations of Bu Pc 2/Bi Pc 98, whereas the last one, which according to the Vibhaṅga concerns sanghakamma, is essentially an elaboration on Bu Pc 79/Bi Pc 157 and Bu Pc 81/Bi Pc 159, which forbid criticizing a properly performed sanghakamma. It is interesting that the first of the three, Bi Pc 19, also prohibits self-harm, a prohibition taken further in Bi Pc 20, which prohibits a nun from beating herself and then crying. Self-harm may have been a significant issue in a society where women often experienced discrimination and violence.
Yet another group of rules was laid down to protect nuns from harm, including Bi Pc 21, which prohibits a nun from bathing naked, and Bi Pc 37 and 38, which prohibit traveling in dangerous places without company. The protection of nuns from harm is a recurring theme in the nuns’ rules, including in Bi Ss 3 and in several minor rules in the Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka.
Then there is a group of eight rules concerned with the proper conduct in relation to robes.[36] These rules focus on two main issues, treating one’s fellow nuns considerately and the proper looking after of one’s requisites. An important consideration in many of these is no doubt, once again, the difficulty nuns had in obtaining material support.
There is also a group of seven bhikkhunī pācittiyas concerned broadly with etiquette.[37] Among these, Bi Pc 15–17 concern rude behavior toward householders and Bi Pc 94–95 are about inappropriate behavior toward monks. These latter two rules, together with Bi Pc 52 discussed above, are a reminder of the gender hierarchy that existed in ancient India. Still, among the six schools mentioned earlier, Bi Pc 94 is only found in the Pali and the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya,[38] whereas Bi Pc 52 is found neither in the Mahiśāsaka nor the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, suggesting that both of these rules are sectarian in origin, thus arguably not binding on bhikkhunīs. Moreover, the ruling at Bi Pc 95 that nuns must ask for permission before asking a question, which happens to be shared with four other schools,[39] partly overlaps with a similar rule for the monks at Kd 2:15.6.3.
The remaining two rules in this group, Bi Pc 8 and 9, are concerned with the disposal of waste products. The origin story to the first of these is particularly entertaining. Early one morning a nun empties a chamber pot by throwing the contents over a wall, all of it landing on the head of a brahmin who happens to be on his way to work. In a fury, the brahmin decides to burn down the nuns’ residence. Just as he is about to enter the building with a firebrand, a lay supporter sees him. The brahmin tells him what has happened, upon which the lay supporter tells him how lucky he is to receive such a blessing from the nuns! The brahmin cools down and departs. Too good to be true, you say? Not when you know of the many bizarre things still happening in the Buddhist world. Finally, the last rule in this group, Bi Pc 9, concerns spoiling a field with waste products. This rule is effectively no more than a slight expansion of Bu Sk 74.
Moving on to the next group, the nuns have three unique rules against excessive indulgence, that is, Bi Pc 41, 88, and 89, the first of which concerns the visiting of pleasure houses and parks, whereas the last two are about bathing in scented water. The problem of indulgence is an important theme throughout the Vinaya Piṭaka, and especially so in the Khandhakas.
There are a further four rules that regulate the important relationship between the nuns and the Bhikkhu-sangha: Bi Pc 51, 56, 58, and 59. Bi Pc 58 and 59 require bhikkhunīs to ask for and take part in the half-monthly instruction, the ovāda, whereas Bi Pc 56 is a practical consequence of this, thus prohibiting a bhikkhunī from spending the rainy season in a monastery without monks. In the early years of the Sangha, the bhikkhunīs were the junior partners, both in terms of seniority and numbers, and it was therefore natural for the monks to support them with teachings. In the present day this is no longer always the case, as a result of which these rules may seem discriminatory. In practice, however, the nuns are often grateful for such teachings, especially if they come from a senior and well-respected member of the Bhikkhu-sangha.
Finally, there are eight remaining miscellaneous rules,[40] the majority of which concern inconsiderate conduct toward fellow nuns. Then there is Bi Pc 40, which requires the nuns to go wandering after the rainy season residence. The purpose of this rule, according to the origin story, is to ensure the nuns go out to meet lay supporters, a part of which would have been teaching engagements. It seems, then, that the nuns were encouraged from the very beginning to take an active part in inspiring faith and teaching the Dhamma. The last of the eight, Bi Pc 96, requires a nun to wear a “chest wrap”, a saṅkaccikā, when entering an inhabited area. This cloth is a special robe worn only by bhikkhunīs. Its purpose is to protect a nun’s modesty, especially among lay people.
Once again, why do the nuns have more rules than the monks?
Having surveyed the content of the Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga, we are now in a position to return to this unavoidable question. As we have seen, the main reason for the discrepancy is that the nuns inherited a large number of rules from the monks, but not vice versa. This continued into the sectarian period, with the nuns inheriting all the sekhiyas that were laid down at this time. (See introduction to volume 1.) Altogether they inherited 181 rules, leaving only 46 unique rules for the monks, compared to 130 for the nuns. In addition, the nuns’ pācittiya rules were added to long after the monks’ pācittiyas were fixed. These two reasons probably account for most of the difference in the number of rules, perhaps even all of it. Still, we are now in a position to look more closely at other contributing factors.
To begin with, the nuns sometimes have several rules where the monks only have one. For instance, the nuns have eight pāṭidesanīya rules, [Bi Pd 1][pli-tv-bi-vb-pd1:2.9.1]–8, which together correspond to a single rule for the monks, that is, Bu Pc 39. Similarly, the nuns have nine nissaggiya pācittiya rules, Bi Np 4–12, that are effectively reducible to the shared rule on bartering, Bu Np 20/Bi Np 23.[41] This means that the nuns have 17 rules that are collectively covered by two rules in the Bhikkhu-pātimokkha. And so, none of these is truly unique.
Second, we have seen above that 36 of the nuns’ unique pācittiya rules are also rules for the monks, but elsewhere in the Vinaya Piṭaka, often in the Khandhakas. There are another three such rules among the nuns’ saṅghādisesas and nissaggiya pācittiyas, adding up to 39.[42] In fact, it is hard to give a precise number of such rules because sometimes the equivalence is not exact. Arguably there are even more such rules. Nonetheless, adding the 17 rules from above, we have 56 unique nuns’ rules that turn out not to be truly unique after all. Instead of 130 unique rules for the nuns we are down to 74. On top of this, it is reasonable to regard some of the large number of nuns’ rules concerned with ordination as an elaboration on Bu Pc 65,[43] which brings us down to perhaps 66 rules for the nuns that are unique in a meaningful sense.
These findings substantially change our picture of the difference in the number of rules between the two Sanghas. Given that the monks effectively have 39 unique rules and the nuns 66,[44] the difference is down from 84 to 27. Suddenly the difference seems less of a problem, amounting as it does to less than 10% of the nuns’ overall number of Pātimokkha rules. Such a relatively small difference might just be a result of the contingencies of history. It does not define the nuns’ Pātimokkha as fundamentally different from that of the monks.
Yet, even this is not the complete picture. We need to return to the fact that many of the nuns’ pācittiya rules evidently were laid down in the sectarian period, which means they are arguably not binding on the nuns.[45] Using the comparative tables provided by SuttaCentral,[46] we find that a large number of pācittiya rules are not shared by all the six schools. If we take the standard that any rule not shared by all schools is sectarian, that is, not stemming from the earliest period of Buddhism, we discover that this is so for 31 of the 66 remaining rules.[47] This means that only 35 unique nuns’ rules may reasonably be considered as non-sectarian, compared to 39 for the monks.[48] We have arrived at virtual parity.
Although this is a remarkable result, we need to keep in mind that this is no more than a rough estimate. The uncertainties are especially pronounced in the number of rules that are likely to be sectarian. Nevertheless, this is a much more plausible picture than any direct comparison between the number of rules in the Pātimokkhas of the two Sanghas.
We arrive at a rather unexpected and welcome conclusion. When we exclude any rules that we can infer were not laid down by the Buddha, the number of rules that is truly mandatory for the bhikkhunīs is essentially the same as for the monks.[49]
Kabilsingh, C. 1998. ↩︎
Pachow, W. 2000. ↩︎
Kabilsingh, C. 1984. ↩︎
Respectively at Bu Pj 1:10.5.1, Bu Pj 1:10.6.6, Bu Pj 2:7.6.20, Bu Pj 2:7.45.1, Bu Pj 2:7.45.12, and Bu Pj 3:5.33.10. ↩︎
This is not counting the eight pāṭidesanīyas for bhikkhunīs. Although these are normally included in the count of 130 unique rules for the nuns, for all practical purposes they are shared with Bu Pc 39. The four amended rules are Bi Ss 3, Bi Pc 51, Bi Pc 84, and Bi Pc 85. For the monks the equivalent is 39 out of 227. I include all the monks’ rules, not just the unique ones, because they all originated with the monks. In effect, we are comparing the vibhaṅga of the rules that originated with the nuns to the vibhaṅga of the rules that originated with the monks. ↩︎
See Kd 20:6.1.1–8.1.13. ↩︎
Alternatively, they can be understood as the nuns belonging to the group of six, that is, they were affiliated with the group of six monks. ↩︎
The sekhiya section for nuns is contracted, and so it is not obvious whether all the origin stories feature the group of six nuns, or whether they just feature in the same rules as do the group of six monks, that is, 72 out of 75. ↩︎
Ohnuma, Reiko. 2013. Bad Nun: Thullanandā in Pāli Canonical and Commentarial Sources. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, volume 20, pp. 18–66. ↩︎
See Ohnuma, pp. 53–56. ↩︎
For instance, in the Mahāsaṅghika Vinaya, where she is the originator of a large number of rules, including, Bi Ss 4, 9, 15, and 18; and Bi Np 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 29. ↩︎
In other schools of Buddhism, such as the Mahāsaṅghikas, the rules are identical. See the translation by Bhikkhunī Vimalañāṇī at https://vimalanyani.github.io/vinaya-lzh/mg/pm/. ↩︎
In the Pali tradition, the full nuns’ Pātimokkha is now only found in the Dvemātikāpāḷi, a subcommentary. ↩︎
The non-offense clause of bhikkhu pārājika 1, at Bu Pj 1:9.7.25, shows that a monk can only commit a pārājika if he consents. ↩︎
The referenced passage from the Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka says that a nun disrobes by removing her robes and putting on lay clothes. ↩︎
Whether this is a true disparity depends on how one regards such non-pātimokkha rules. If they are regarded as confessable offenses, they are for all practical purposes the same as the pācittiyas. ↩︎
It might be objected that the nuns too have a large number of rules that the monks do not have. We will return to this question at the end of this introduction. ↩︎
The equivalents are listed in the long footnote in the last section of this introduction. ↩︎
According to the Vibhaṅga, each of these actions is a thullaccaya, “a serious offense”, in its own right. ↩︎
The garudhammas are a set of rules that, according to the tradition were laid down when the Buddha’s foster mother Mahāpajāpati Gotamī was ordained as the first bhikkhunī (Kd 20:1.4.1). The status of these rules, including whether they are binding on bhikkhunīs, is controversial. See discussion in BVS pp. 51-81. ↩︎
This reading is found in the Chaṭṭhasaṅgāyana version of the subcommentary Dvemātikāpāli, which preserves both Pātimokkhas. ↩︎
Nyanatusita, Bhikkhu, ed. 2010. Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha Pāḷi. Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy. ↩︎
Private communication from Ven. Vimalañāṇī. ↩︎
Kabilsingh, Chatsumarn. 1991. ↩︎
The pācittiyas are called minor, khuddaka, at the end of the relevant section both in the Bhikkhu- and Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅgas. ↩︎
Bu Pc 39 is the same as Bi Pd 1–8; Bu Pc 41 is similar to Bi Pc 46; Bu Pc 64 has roughly the same scope as Bi Pj 6 and Bi Ss 12; Bu Pc 65 is covered by Bi Pc 65 and 71; and Bu Pc 91 is the same as Bi Pc 22. ↩︎
Other rules I count as belonging to this category are as follows: Bi Pc 1–2, 22, 31–33, 35, 39, 42, 49–50, 54, 68–69, 74, and 84–85. ↩︎
Bi Pc 7, 11–14, 46, 76, 80, 86–87, and 90–93. ↩︎
Bi Pc 6, 8–9, 15–21, 23–30, 34, 36–38, 40–41, 43–45, 47–48, 51–53, 55–56, 58–67, 70–73, 75, 77–79, 81–83, 88–89, and 94–96. ↩︎
Bi Pc 61–83, that is, 23 rules in all. Five of these, Bi Pc 68, 69, 74, 76, and 80 are included in the rules already mentioned, thus a total of 18 of the remaining 60 rules. The single such rule for monks is Bu Pc 65. ↩︎
Bi Pc 63–64, 65–67, and 71–73. ↩︎
The nuns also have to live as sikkhamānas for two years, effectively increasing the number of years of dependence on one’s preceptor to four. Thus the nuns’ rules are only slightly more liberal. ↩︎
See Bi Pc 82 ↩︎
Bi Pc 23–29 and 47. ↩︎
Bi Pc 8–9, 15–17, and 94–95. ↩︎
Sarvāstivāda bhikkhunī pācittiya 104. ↩︎
The four are Mahiśāsaka bhikkhunī pācittiya 186, Dharmaguptaka bhikkhunī pācittiya 172, Mūlasarvāstivāda bhikkhunī pācittiya 169, and Sarvāstivāda bhikkhunī pācittiya 158. ↩︎
Bi Pc 18, 34, 40, 45, 48, 55, 60, and 96. ↩︎
It is not clear to me why the nuns have these extra rules when they seem to be covered by Bu Np 20/Bi Np 23. ↩︎
For reference, here are all 39 equivalents:
Bi Ss 2 ≈ Kd 1:43.1.14, which prohibit ordaining a criminal.
Bi Np 1 = Bu Np 21, which prohibit having more than one almsbowl.
Bi Np 3 ≈ Bu Np 25/Bi Np 26, which prohibit taking back a robe.
Bi Pc 1 = Kd 15:34.1.15, which prohibit the eating of garlic.
Bi Pc 2 = Kd 15:27.4.19, which prohibit the removal of pubic hair.
Bi Pc 3–5 ≈ Bu Ss 1, which prohibit masturbation.
Bi Pc 7 ≈ Kd 6:17.4.1, which prohibit cooking.
Bi Pc 10 = Kd 15:2.6.6, which prohibit entertainment.
Bi Pc 11–14 ≈ Bu Pc 44/Bi Pc 125 and Bu Pc 45/Bi Pc 126, which prohibit being alone with a person of the opposite gender.
Bi Pc 22 = Bu Pc 91:1.14.1, which prohibit an oversize bathing cloth.
Bi Pc 31–32 = Kd 15:19.2.6–19.2.12, which prohibit sleeping together.
Bi Pc 33 ≈ Bu Pc 77/Bi Pc 155, which prohibit making a monastic feel ill at ease.
Bi Pc 35 = Bu Pc 17/Bi Pc 113, which prohibit evicting a monastic from a dwelling.
Bi Pc 39 = Kd 3:3.2.7, which prohibit traveling during the rainy season residence.
Bi Pc 42 = Kd 5:10.5.1, which prohibit luxurious furniture.
Bi Pc 46 ≈ Bu Pc 41, which prohibit giving food to a non-monastic.
Bi Pc 49 = Kd 15:33.2.22, which prohibit studying worldly subjects.
Bi Pc 50 = Kd 15:33.2.28, which prohibit teaching worldly subjects.
Bi Pc 54 ≈ Bu Pc 35, which prohibit eating another meal after an invitation.
Bi Pc 57 ≈ Kd 4:1.13.5, which require doing the invitation ceremony.
Bi Pc 68 ≈ Kd 1:26.1.1, which require supporting a student.
Bi Pc 69 ≈ Kd 1:53.4.7, which require staying with one’s preceptor for a given length of time.
Bi Pc 74 ≈ Kd 1:31.5.14, which prohibit inexperienced preceptors.
Bi Pc 76 ≈ Bu Pc 79/Bi Pc 157 + Bu Pc 81/Bi Pc 159, which prohibit criticizing a valid legal procedure.
Bi Pc 80 ≈ Kd 1:54.6.4, which prohibit ordination without permission of interested parties.
Bi Pc 84 = Kd 15:23.2.19 and Kd 5:12.1.5, which respectively prohibit sunshades and sandals.
Bi Pc 85 = Kd 5:9.4.0, which prohibit traveling in a vehicle.
Bi Pc 86–87 ≈ Kd 15:2.1.18–2.1.26, which prohibit ornaments.
Bi Pc 90–93 ≈ Kd 15:1.4.5, which prohibit massage. ↩︎Especially Bi Pc 63–67 and Bi Pc 71–73, altogether eight rules being roughly equivalent to the monks’ Bu Pc 65. ↩︎
I have reduced the number of unique monks’ rules from the 46 given earlier to 39, because seven of them are mentioned in the footnote on the 39 equivalents as being effective equivalents to certain bhikkhunī rules. These are Bu Ss 1, Bu Np 21, Bu Pc 35, Bu Pc 39, Bu Pc 41, Bu Pc 65 and Bu Pc 91. ↩︎
This is, in fact, also true of the bhikkhunī nissaggiya pācittiya rules. There are considerable variations between the different schools in the rules that correspond to the Theravādin Bi Np 4–10. However, I have already discounted these rules as roughly equivalent to Bu Np 20/Bi Np 23. I cannot discount the same rules a second time. ↩︎
See Bi Pc, and click the parallels button for each rule. ↩︎
Taking the Pali Vinaya as a baseline and using the Theravada numbering system, the 31 unique pācittiya rules that are missing from one or more of the other schools are as follows: Bi Pc 15, 21, 23–27, 29–30, 34, 36, 41, 43, 45, 47–48, 51–53, 56, 61–62, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 89, 94–96. ↩︎
The 35 are the following: Bi Pj 5–8; Bi Ss 1, 3–6, and 10–13; Bi Np 2; Bi Pc 6, 8–9, 16–20, 28, 37–38, 40, 44, 55, 58–60, 70, 78, 82, and 88. ↩︎
As to the related question of whether the nuns’ rules are generally more stringent than those of the monks, see the discussion in the section on the bhikkhunī pārājika offenses above. ↩︎
Thanks for these valuable comments! You have been a good help throughout, which is much appreciated!
It’s really hard for me to keep up with proof-reading because there’s always so much going on and proof-reading is boring, but if people are using my resource, I’ll be more motivated to keep going!
, and there are only a few minor mistakes with the parallels.
I know I’m commenting whilst not completely understanding what I’ve read and before I’ve gone over again to try to figure it out.) I’m guessing actual reference means footnote of equivalents, but discussion is the “Once again,…” section?