I saw the old discussion about Pali Account in Sujato Ven blog but it’s old I think I still replied. But it don’t mention Mahavastu.But there seems a point in history that it became a important sutta and had another transmission in the Mahavastu. Why I think Mahavastu like scholars say that it was the first influence of the Bodhisattva ideal. And Mahavastu might have been a Forest tradition because the focus to favorite this account. That means they see Maha Kassapa going forth as the more Ideal Way to go Forth. Took as an example. They talk about self ordained monks. In early Mahayana we see them as a Forest tradition in The inquiry of Ugra
“The bodhisattva who has left the world must reflect that dwelling in the forest [ araṇyavāsa ] was ordained by the Buddha, and therefore he must live in the forest; for thus there is fulfillment of the dharma.”
I have noticed that In Mahavastu is sure on the side of Maha Kassapa and Pali Canon seems be on Ananda side. To me it seems Forest tradition vs Monastery tradition
So the transmission like the Pali. Says about Ananda saying Foolish woman.In Mahavastu I think was a typo by editors. But it’s not Ananda here that say foolish it’s the nun itself. Asking for forgiveness.
So check it out and let me know what you think.
Also to notice it’s that in Mahavastu Maha Kassapa is the one saying why Buddha made the rule. He mentions two rules. While Pali mentions Ananda as if the expert and answering with 3 reasons.
I noticed in Pali it’s the 3th rule with the intention. As if the other 2 was more original in the beginning but Vinaya has also all 3 .maybe to compliment Or Mahavastu Omitted one.
But it’s still interesting that the is another view to what happened. And it seems to show like Ven Sujato said after the council . Imagine Maha Kassapa having his group and Ananda having his group. So maybe there was two schools in the beginning each representing these two Masters.
I can’t quote but read the Mahavastu version here of the same story.
Let me know