SuttaCentral
Exactly, same kind of thing. I mean the very fact that this is so is historically problematic, but that doesn’t mean that it’s incorrect.
They did, although bhikkhunis were mentioned: one of the points for which Ananda was scolded by Mahakassapa in the Council was for his support of bhikkhuni ordination.
Why he scolded Ananda?
He would have scolded Buddha, isn’t it?
I thought I read somewhere that the Bhikkhuni Vinaya was recited at the first council. (sorry, I don’t recall the source, I will have to search). Could this happen without Bhikkhunis present?
Keyword “allegedly.” I’m not sure it’s likely that 500 (male) arhats even existed at the time of the first council. In SN 16.13, Mahākassapa complained to the Buddha that the number of Arhats was on the decline. In the Vinaya’s Chapter of explusion, the Buddha addresses a group of 500 monks and suggests that the order of monks is still pure and devoid of immorality…yet he stops short of saying they are all Arhats, just that they are at least stream winners:
Sāriputta, the Order of monks is devoid of immorality, devoid of danger, stainless, pure, established in the essence. Even the least developed of these five hundred monks is a stream-enterer, not subject to rebirth in the lower world, fixed in destiny, bound for awakening.
Now, this was during a time when the Sangha was pure, uncorrupted and not yet in need of a formal vinaya. And yet we are supposed to believe that after the Buddha’s demise — after the Sangha had indeed been corrupted — Mahakassapa could find 500 male Arhats (not merely stream winners) willing to partake in his project? Even though this same Mahakassapa complained to the Buddha that there were so FEW Arhats left anymore? This is all very suspicious.
I also agree that it seems unlikely that the 500 most qualified Arhats were all male — that just adds another level of implausibility to the whole story, imho.
It’s somewhat frustrating that a spiritual movement that is so keen on precision, truthful observation, not-lying, not telling gossip etc. when it came to historical narration had little hesitation to produce and transmit texts that have a legendary value.
It’s easy to say “Well, that’s how they spoke at that time, ‘500’ only meant ‘many’”. Are we not to have higher standards to those who dedicated themselves to absolute truthfulness? Is this not a sign of how the part of the sangha that was responsible for collecting, editing and codifying the texts were in spiritual decay?
Where does the text say anything about choosing the 500 foremost arahants? Any 500 arahants should do as they are all equally fully awakened. Therefore, if arahant takes primary importance and maleness secondary importance, then there is no reason for there to be bhikkhunis, no matter how foremost they are, as long as there are 500 male arahants.
The foremost qualification is an addition to your original logic. All I’m doing is showing that your question to Ven Sujato doesn’t do the rhetorical work you wanted from it. You would need to ask something more like:
Do you think it would make sense for the Sangha to do anything other than choose the 500 foremost arahants and if not then don’t you think there should have been some bhikkhunis present?
This is a minor quibble that I’m getting at and not particularly substantive regarding the OP, just FYI.
As for possible reasons for there not being bhikkhunis, perhaps there travel was already restricted by the vinaya and it was inefficient to find a means of escorting them to the meeting spot. Basically, bhikkhus were just so much more mobile it was easier to have an all male council.
Then the venerable Kassapa the Great selected five hundred perfected ones, less one. - Pañcasata
I guess the answer is that there were no bhikkhunis, and there were no bhikkhunis because Maha-Kassapa did the selecting and he had a preference for choosing among the bhikkhus and not the bhikkhunis.
The purpose of the meeting was in my understanding not to congratulate each other for one’s awakening, and as the texts repeatedly told us certain monastics had certain talents - Ananda for memorizing, Moggalana for meditation and supernatural powers etc. So regarding their talents - if we follow the texts - arahants are not the same.
Come, let us, your reverences, chant dhamma and discipline before what is not dhamma shines out and dhamma is withheld, before what is not discipline shines out and discipline is withheld, before those who speak what is not-dhamma become strong and those who speak dhamma become feeble, before those who speak what is not discipline become strong and those who speak discipline become feeble. Kd 21.1.1
Ānanda, although he is still a learner … has mastered much dhamma and discipline under the Lord… Let the elder select the venerable Ānanda as well. Kd 21.1.2
I don’t understand how there can be doubt that the purpose of the council was to consolidate and agree on dhamma-vinaya? Am I missing something in the text? His memorizing talent was the only reason Ananda was chosen even though he was no arahant. If all arahants are the same why bother and bring in Ananda?
Later in Kd 21.1.7 Upali is explicitly mentioned as the one who is questioned on the Vinaya - the same Upali who in AN 1.228 mentioned as “the foremost among the upholders of the discipline is Upāli” - exactly the same wording as in AN 1.238 with sister Upacara.
Again, I don’t understand how there can be doubt that the best for the job was asked, it’s right there in the text.
Like you I haven’t been there, who knows if it was even remotely as in the text. But the text doesn’t mention any restriction for anyone, it’s just silent about it. It is not silent about the foremost monk in Vinaya questioned about the Vinaya.
The plan for the council was done in Kusinara (Kd 21.1.1) which is about 300 km away from Rajagaha where it took place eventually. It doesn’t look like travel and efficiency was a big issue. This was not a plan executed over night.
Here’s the quote
" B. The Vinaya in Five Divisions (Pañcavarga-vinaya).–When the five hundred Bhikshus were assembled in Râjagriha, Mahâkâçyapa inquired of Upâli in due formulary of the four Principal Precepts (Pârâjika) as to the place where they were occasioned, as to the individual with whom they were concerned, and as to the matter with which they dealt. All the Vinaya, for the Bhikshus as well as for the Bhikshunis, was compiled in this way."
@Gabriel " I don’t understand how there can be doubt that the best for the job was asked, it’s right there in the text. "
Before the ashes were cool, arguments over Buddha’s relics arose. The Council was considerably after this, neh? {Edit: “considerably after” is misleading, i learn from more reading. Though time seems relative, may be is relative, the first council cannot, i now think, cannot be really characterized as “considerably after”, just as “after”.} And if no Bhikkhuni were present yet the vinaya for Bhikkhunis was complied, this seems a breach of vinaya itself, to this lay non scholar. And if scolding Ananda for supporting bhikkhuni ordination made it into the records… it suggests what the Buddha established was not entirely supported by the Council.
So… It seems a problem to some, at least.