So you would disagree with WIJAYARATNA’s interpretation of the habits of the early Sangha?
Maybe these were just teething troubles for the fledgling bhikkhuni order?
It is my impression that the bhikkhuni lineage died out in Sri Lanka, for similar reasons: during the Pollonnaruva era the elder monks and the king (assisting them) were interested in recovering the Sri Lankan ordination lineage for bhikkhus (which was available from South India), but regarding the bhikkhunis no effort was made at that time.
Why? After the the northern kingdom based on Anuradhapura had perished Buddhist society in Sri Lanka had become so degraded, the social standing of females had become so weak even in lay society, that it never crossed the the thoughts and aspirations of the reformers to attempt the revival of bhikkhunis.
At that time there were bhikkhunis in Pagan/Bagan, and there was religious contact between the two kingdoms. But the Theravaada Bhikkhunis of Pagan/Bagan were not of the ordination lineage of Sanghamitta (the first bhikkhuni of Sri Lanka) and therefore rejected by the Sri Lankans.
I think this is a good advice for everybody. Surprisingly I found this instruction is given in Dale Carnegie’s book “how to win and influence people” .
I don’t know the basis for this claim, but the only witnesses we have for the early period are the EBTs. And I don’t see how this can be extracted from the EBTs, at least the Pali ones.
I think it is likelier that things got more difficult for the bhikkhunīs as time went by. As you have pointed out already, a number of the bhikkhunī rules seem to have laid down after the time of the Buddha, in some cases even in the sectarian period. As the Sangha grew larger, it is hard to imagine it would be able to withstand pressures from Indian society to accept typical Indian gender norms. So I think our job is more like reclaiming the Buddha’s original intention as far as bhikkhunīs is concerned.
And this suggestion ties in nicely with what you have to say about the extinction of the bhikkhunī lineage in Sri Lanka.
It is not enough to simply “like” such statements. I must express the following joyfulness and gratitude for the expression of such wisdom, clarity, compassion and logic!
I have brought up that some suggest that he is an eternalist with Ajahn Thanissaro in-person and he laughed and said that was a huge misunderstanding.
With respect Bhante, since you have stated that you haven’t read his articles in-depth for several decades - I think if you do it will be quite clear that he does not have anything close to such a view.
The Dhamma has to be totally, completely, and correctly understood by us before making our own thoughts, analyses, and explanations being published. “Paccattaṃ veditabbo”. Must completely, and fully understood by self-experience of dhammā through one’s nāma-rūpa dhammā.
With regard to Bhikkhuni Sasana The Spreme Teacher has declared following:
(Please note I did not quote anything from Vinaya, which is the foremost requirement in the continuation of the Dhamma-Vinaya. Whenever, wherever the Vinaya was diluted, the Sangha drifts away from nibbāna)
The first occation quoted is from Anguttara Nikaya of Sutta Pitaka.
“If, Ānanda, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī accepts eight principles of respect, let that itself be her full ordination. (AN - aṭṭhakanipāta, dutiyapaṇṇāsakaṃ, gotamīvaggo, gotamīsuttaṃ)
The second is from Dhammapada of Khuddaka Nikaya of Sutta Pitaka.
“… So, the Buddha complied, with the proviso that Mahapajapati abides by eight special conditions (garudhammas). Mahapajapati undertook to observe the garudhammas as required, and the Buddha admitted her into the Order. Thus, Mahapajapati was the first to be admitted to the Order of the bhikkhunis.”
“The other women were admitted to the Order after her by the bhikkhus as instructed by the Buddha.”
“In course of time, it came to the minds of some bhikkhunis that Mahapajapati Gotami had not been properly admitted as a bhikkhuni because she did not have a preceptor; therefore. Mahapajapati Gotami was not a true bhikkhuni. With this thought in their mind, they stopped doing uposatha ceremonies and vassa (pavarana) ceremonies with her. They went to the Buddha and posed the problem of Mahapajapati Gotami not having been properly admitted to the Order of bhikkhunis as she had no preceptor.”
"To them the Buddha replied, "
“Why do you say so? I myself gave the eight garudhammas to Mahapajapati and she had learnt and practiced the garudhammas as required by me. I myself am her preceptor and it is quite wrong for you to say that she has no preceptor. You should harbor no doubt whatsoever about an arahant.” - (Dhammapada Aṭṭakathā, for verse 391)
“Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:”
. . . . Him who I call a brahmana who does no evil in deed or word or thought, who is restrained in these three respects. - (Dhammapada Verse 391)
The third is from mahavamsa, the ancient history book of Sri Lanka, when some Royal ladies wanted them to be admitted to the Order, Arhant Maha Mahinda Thero had declared, bhikkhus alone can not do the task and, hence, a delegation has been sent to India to invite Arahant Bhikkhuni Sanghamitta to grace her presence in Sri Lanka for the purpose of establishing Bhikkhuni Order in the country.
“… The queen Anula,who, with five hundred maidens and five hundred women of the royal harem had accepted the ten precepts did (meanwhile) pious as she was, (wearing) the yellow robe, waiting for the pabbajja, in discipline, looking for the coming of the theri, takeup her abode, leading a holy life, in the pleasant nunnery built by the king in a certain part of the city. Since the nunnery was inhabited by these lay- sisters it became known in Lanka by the name Upasikā- vihara. When the nephew Maharittha had delivered the king’s message to the king Dhammasoka he gave him (also) the thera’s message : { The spouse of the brother of thy friend, of the king (Devanampiya), O thou elephant among kings, lives, longing for the pabbajja, constantly in stern discipline. To be stow on her the pabbajja do thou send the bhikkhuni Samgha- mitta.” … - (The Mahavamsa OR The Great Chronicle OF Ceylon (Lanka) Translated into English by Wilhelm Geiger.)
from AN, in the story of the foundation of the bhikkhuni order (identical to the text of Cv X in the Vinayapi.taka)
from the COMMENTARY on the Dhammapada
from the Mahaava.msa, which is a chronicle of the history of Sri Lanka, written later than several Pali commentaries
Surely these passages are not the best evidence from the Suttas.
In fact Mahaava.msa is based on Diipava.msa here, which is somewhat earlier, but written long after the Paali canon was closed.
So I cannot quite catch the point You want to make.
Thanks a lot for your response.
The points are as follows:
The inauguration of the order of Bhikkhu as well as the order of Bhikkhuni can only done by a Sammasambuddha.
For the continuation of these two orders, there should be a, unbroken, lineage of properly qualified number of members in each order.
Once the lineage is broken, it is broken for good, it cannot be revived. For this important reason, Sri Lankans had to get the assistance of the bhikkhus of Thailand and Myanmar to re-establish their order of Bhikkhus. The Sangha of these two countries are continuing with the lineage of Mahavihara of Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, as established by Arahant Mahinda.
So, I wonder if the sangha of present day can establish a Bhikkhuni order without the assistance of bhikkhunis of a unbroken lineage.
The Chinese bhikkhunis (at present practising the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya) have an unbroken lineage derived from Sri Lanka. When this ordination lineage was brought to China from Anuradhapura it belonged most likely to the Theravada lineage established by bhikkhuni Sanghamitta, the sister of bhikkhu Mahinda. … Much later it was changed to Dharmaguptaka practice by imperial decree of the Chinese emperor. Such a decree cannot be valid from the view point of Vinaya, since the emperor has no authority to change the Vinaya proclaimed by Lord Buddha. So the ordination is still of a Sri Lankan lineage of Theravada even today, though it has developed an overgrowth of Mahayana practise. There no such thing as Mahayana Vinaya. All the six existing Vinaya schools belong to the Hinayana. The difference in the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha rules of Theravada and Dharmaguptaka is quite slight. The grave rules are the same, but the Dharmaguptaka Patimokkha includes many lesser rules on how to clean the pagoda, and the ordination hall, and put up lights there. Most of these are observed by Theravadins also, but they are not part of the Pali Bhikkhuni Patimokkha.
Thanks a lot for nice information. For the benefit of many, including me, I would really enjoy to read the historical references of these important and beautiful events.
Do you have verifiable evidence that the Bhikkhu order … rephrasing that- is it necessary for it to be evidenced and what is acceptable as appropriate evidence?
But, I do not consider it as an attempt to avoid the question on the board.
To answer your query I humbly suggest you to read, “Buddhism in Sri Lanka, A Short History” by H.R. Perera. This is a ‘Wheel Publication’, also available in ATI web site.
I am very grateful to all of those who made at least a little contribution towards protecting the dhamma and the order.
The Chapter 30 gives a very good historical narrative of how our elders in Asian Buddhist Countries made all efforts to protect the Order in its pristine purity, so that we have the Dhamma to work towards our own benefit, happiness, and liberation.
Reading this thread over a period of several days; it got me thinking about the impact of all that on actual bhikkhunis! It’s not all abstract and academic isn’t it? I mean there are women who have already gone forth! How is someone supposed to practice in peace with all this going on around them?! And you don’t know what to say! Nearly every opinion or advice one could voice will involve some unpleasant consequence or another, on the part of Bhikkhunis! Are they to get involved and fight on the expense of their tranquility? Do they ignore it all and persevere in their practice on the expense of protecting and developing their sangha? You don’t know what to say!
It is a very “non-Buddhist” situation, very unfortunate, and to witness all the nonchalance and perfunctory opinionatedness of how some others engage with it! You will agree that this is so unfair, when you juxtapose this situation with how everyone readily celebrates and is proud of the ordination of a new bhikkhu, and seek to offer their immediate support! And having written those lines just now, I hesitate to post them not knowing whether they will give consolation to those bhikkhunis who might read them, or rather do nothing other than stir dissatisfaction or frustration in their hearts. But they must persevere! It is a really difficult situation, and I am appreciative to the general input of Venerable @sujato and Venerable @Brahmali in this debate (being well known bhikkhus and all!). It is a fortunate thing for us to have access to you on this forum!
The real purpose of going forth is to grow in one’s practice and make progress toward one’s goal, that will always be the case. So all I could say is that I just hope that, those bhikkhunis gone forth in faith, will not be so negatively effected in their practice, despite of all this ambient and unpleasant cacophony that surrounds them, and despite of their involvement in it.
And about Vinaya, particularly regarding some of the concerns that Ayya @vimalanyani had raised early on in the thread:
Who today tells another what to do about vinaya?! Even if you have to follow the ways of this or that sect because you live dependent on their support and have to comply with their ways, privately, who can “with authority” tell you what to do if you were not convinced? Inwardly and privately, you will always be on your own!
Venerable Mahakassapa had done his duty, the Dhamma and Vinaya are declared, and ever since the departure of the Buddha, practitioners have gone their own separate ways!! Since then it has become the responsibility of each practitioner, of “you”, to develop the best possible understanding and appreciation of Dhammavinaya. How else can we explain all the sects and varying vinaya standards within Theravada in South East Asia, even within the same country, even within the same monastery?! The text is there for us as a reference, and it is obligatory for us to study it, as much closely as possible. The vinaya is easy, it is not rocket science! It is good also to listen attentively to what the teachers of today have to say. But having done your duty, you are on your own, and you will never find two practitioners following vinaya in the same way, with the same appreciation, and for the same purpose. Even since the time of the Buddha, in practice there has never been “one right vinaya”, there simply cannot possibly be such a thing in practice, even amongst those strict and constipated practitioners who grasp hold of the vinaya as a starving lioness of its prey!
Friends, we do not leave the lay life and become mendicants in order to live in fear, uncertainty, hesitation, and self-mistrust! We leave the lay life and become mendicants to rid of precisely these strange ghosts within our hearts! So go forth and be free and enjoy the incomparable freedom of pabbajja!
It requires one lots of courage to acknowledge these ghosts rule our lives since we acquired (again) the sketchy sense of self lay lives are mostly built upon.
It requires even greater courage to give a real try to Buddha’s call to action and, through the proper embracing of the path, leave behind the fragile masks and titles lay life is all about, taking on the robes and seeking for a way to make peace with not only the ghosts living in the house but the tireless workers who keep building up new houses here and there, lifetime after lifetime, life stage after life stage, for old and new ghosts to take shelter…
May the bhikkhu and bhikkhuni sanghas last for much long more!
