Were there any Bhikkhunis in the first Buddhist council?

Would you consider that the Arahants still has biased ?! That they are not that perfect ?! That we praised highly of their attainment ie liberation , but , we don’t take into account that the factor of mentality , behavior , knowledge , background and particular interest they had which led to such situations ?

Sure, that’s possible. I just wanted to stay within the framework of traditional Buddhism.

You mean they are perfect in every aspect ?

Kind of - no greed, hatred, delusion

2 Likes

I can recall reading that all Arahants are same in mind and only differ in their bodies.

Like most texts, the canonical accounts of the Councils do not mention the presence of bhikkhunis, and only monks are said to be present. However one might doubt this, since there are multiple places in the suttas where only monks are mentioned, yet it appears bhikkhunis were actually present.

However, the situation is different. In all the canonical accounts, the Councils are presented as Vinaya procedures. They are included in the Vinaya, take the form of Vinaya acts, and include disciplinary measures.

In the Vinaya, with the exception of certain specialized acts such as bhikkhuni ordination, monks and nuns do not participate in the same acts.

This finds additional support in the detail that the suttas—in places such as the Sangiti Sutta and elsewhere—speak of all 4 assemblies reciting the Dhamma. This was clearly the default position in the suttas, and probably reflects the Buddha’s own wishes. Thus the Vinaya accounts, by standing against the Sutta accounts, are more likely to represent a genuine situation, rather than simply “following the crowd” so to speak. (This is similar to the principle Lectio difficilior potior)

Thus the evidence we have for the Councils strongly supports the conclusion that there were no bhikkhunis present.

8 Likes

Wow, I did not know this.
It remind me of USA moon landing project was a military mission. (I may be wrong)

Interesting. So did the 1st Council refrain from legislating anything for bhikkhunis, also?

The first council was certainly an extraordinary event without precedence. Does it make sense to you personally that the qualification of arahants took second place to anatomical features?

2 Likes

One could imagine arahant status taking first place and anatomical features second place with the result that all the arahants at the council were male.

I’m not arguing that this happened just pointing out that your question doesn’t serve the rhetorical purpose that you seem to intend for it.

1 Like

I’m not exactly sure what you mean, but as I mentioned above we have suttas where the Buddha named bhikkhunis with special qualifications

“The foremost of my nun disciples in seniority is Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī. … with great wisdom is Khemā. … with psychic power is Uppalavaṇṇā. … who has memorized the Vinaya is Paṭācārā. … who speak on the teaching is Dhammadinnā. … who practice absorption is Nandā. … who are energetic is Soṇā. … with clairvoyance is Sakulā. … with swift insight is Bhaddā Kuṇḍalakesā. … who recollect past lives is Bhaddā Kāpilānī. … who have attained great insight is Bhaddakaccānā. … who wear coarse robes is Kisāgotamī. … who are strong in faith is Siṅgālakamātā.” (AN 1.235-247)

If this is authentic then I don’t think the Buddha was handing out consolation prices, meaning that Patacara was actually only the 600th foremost arahant in Vinaya, but just the best among women.

Sure, it’s possible, just would seem very odd to me.

Could you give me the source?

The source is AN 1.238 that she was the best bhikkhuni. As I understood @Polarbear he meant (theoretically) ‘maybe she was the best bhikkuni, but not among the best arahants’.

The first council allegedly had 500 arahants. If the main purpose was to agree on dhamma and vinaya, and the best arahants for that purpose were invited, and she was not invited to speak - then it would mean she was in total at best the 501st foremost arahant to speak on the matter, because 500 male arahants were better qualified to talk about dhamma-vinaya.

I would just find it strange that the Buddha would have praised her then at all. I simply understand that if she was praiseworthy then she was outstanding in general, not just ‘she’s good - for a woman’.

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?

1 Like

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.

2 Likes

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?

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.