It was pointed out by Oskar von Hinuber, The Foundation of the Bhikkhuni Sangha, pp. 17–19, that several of the terms and ideas unique to bhikkhuni Vinaya are shared with the Jains.
pavattinī: used for “preceptor”, “mentor” rather than upajjhāya
vuṭṭhāpana: used for “ordination” instead of upasampadā.
the period of training for the sikkhamāna or “trainee nun”.
In my Bhikkhuni Vinaya Studies I proposed that such influence was due to the prominence in the early Sangha of nuns converted from the pre-existing Jain community. This would parallel the conversion of the first five monks in the early conversion narrative of the first Khandhaka. A prominent example of such conversion is Bhadda Kundalakesa, who, I have argued, may well be the actual first bhikkhuni.
While annotating SN 1.42 and SN 1.47 I came across what seems to be the only occurrence of the word upassaya in Buddhism to refer to monastic quarters in general. Normally this word is restricted solely to the bhikkhuni quarters.
Now, formerly I had assumed that the upa- here suggested that such quarters were adjacent to the monks’ monastery. But this was mistaken, as it turns out it is a regular term for monastic quarters for both monks and nuns in Jainism.
You can see from the examples below that basically all the textual sources for the Sanskrit term upaśraya in the sense “monastic quarters” are Jain. Incidentally, passages such as this one that reference cutting grass inside the upaśraya show that it must mean “compound” rather than “hut”.
As to why the nuns’ community used Jain terms while the monks moved away from them, perhaps the answer is also given in the early conversion narrative. After ordaining the five (Jain or Jainish) ascetics, the Buddha swiftly ordained a thousand Brahmanical ascetics. We don’t have to take all the details of this narrative as literally historical in order to acknowledge that the presence of large numbers of formerly Brahmanical ascetics would influence the community’s language.
Now, clearly all the renunciate orders of ancient India were related and influenced each other. But if it is true that the bhikkhunis were more influenced by the Jains, and the bhikkhus were more influenced by the Brahmins, then this might be a fruitful lens through which to reflect on the different approaches to Vinaya in the two Sanghas.
Thanks so much for this. The idea that bhikkhunī-upassaya may mean “the nuns’ compound” is certainly interesting. I may have to change my rendering of upassaya.
Yes, this would certainly account for the origin of these words. This still leaves out the question of why they would have preferred this vocabulary over the established vocabulary used for bhikkhus. I am wondering if the Buddha wanted the bhikkhunī-saṅgha to be seen as a clearly separate institution from the bhikkhu-saṅgha. Using the same vocab might have led to confusion as to the distinct identities of the two Saṅghas. In others, the use of separate vocabulary may be another indication that the Buddha wanted to make the bhikkhunīs as independent as possible.
Maybe, but it is far from clear. It seems ascetic practices were considered a critical element of the spiritual path in large parts of ancient Indian society. I mean, the Buddha-to-be obviously thought so, but was he therefore a Jain? I don’t think so. But then again, I suppose you are not making any strong claim, since you use the term Jainish.
Maybe. Are you thinking of any specific rules? Until now, I have tended to think of the patriarchal flavour of many rules to emanate from the brahmanical values of society at large, which may have been more influential in the time after the Buddha.
Maybe, tho I doubt it was so intentional. My sense is that these are just words for the thing that acquired technical senses over time (like, say dukkaṭa). I.e. the nuns just happened to call their ordination vutthapana because it was what they were used to.
His ascetic practices sounds a lot like Jains, down to his professed ideology that “pleasure is not gained through pleasure, pleasure is gained through pain”. Then of course there is even today a Jain temple at the Deer Park. And the Jains say the Buddha was once a Jain. That’s four points of connection, which is not nothing.
But the -ish is because I’m not sure how distinct Jainism itself was at the time. The Jains had a splittish relationship with Ajivakas, and I’m guessing there was not necessarily a full clarity over who exactly adhered to what.
Well, I have detailed some of the connections between the ordination procedure and the Upanayana, specifically of the Satapatha Brahmana:
Yes, retrospectively it is too easy to read intention into everything. Yet I think this is overestimating the Buddha’s involvement. He would have inherited much from society without much or any deliberation.
So you are saying that the Buddha-to-be was essentially a Jain for a period, just as he was brahmanical under his two earlier teachers, I suppose. I guess one could quibble about whether this was about taking on certain practices or identifying with a particular religion. I mean, the boundary between the two is obviously blurred. Nevertheless, it is an interesting lens through which to view the this.
