Dear Thomas,

>
> Could you give some more details about the first Chinese Bhikkhuni
> ordination originally stemmed from Sri Lanka? In Chinese Buddhist
> community it seems no Chinese Bhikkhuni mentions about this

historical

> event.
>

I first learnt of this through a little edition of the Patimokkha
Pali & translation by Nanamoli that was published some time ago in
Bankok by the then Ven Khantipalo. This contained a note referring
to the research of Arthur Waley, who claimed that the first
Bhikkhunis arrived in China on a Sinhalese trading vessel. The
ship's owner and other details were recorded. I don't have this to
hand right now, but i have seen the events referred to elsewhere.

For example, Ann Heirmann in her monumental 'Rules for nuns
according to the Dharmaguptakavinaya', pg 19, 20, says that the
first nuns in China were ordained only in front of the bhikkhus, mid
4th century. Doubts about the validity of this persisted.

'This is clear from the biography of the nun Seng-kuo (408-?AD) that
contains the story of more than 300 nuns who, ca. 433 AD are re-
ordained, this time in the presence of an order of nuns (represented
by nuns of Sri Lanka). The permission for this ordination was given
by the monk Gunavarman.' (T.2063, pp. 939c12-24; Tsai, K.A. "The
Buddhist Monastic Order for Women: The First Two Centuries",
Historical reflections 8, No 3, pp1-201981; p 7 The Lives of the
Nuns, University of Hawaii Press 1994, pp.53-55)

There is no doubt of the interchange between Sri Lanka and China, as
proven, for example, by the presence of a Sinhalese Vinaya
commentary in Chinese translation. This has long been supposed to be
the Samantapasadika, but Ananda Guruge has recently shown that it in
fact differs substantially form the Samantapasadika. It may be one
of the 'lost' commentaries that Buddhaghosa used; or it may be a
work of the Abhayagiri school. Either way, it is of great historical
interest.

There does seem to be some suggestion that the Sinhalese
missionaries to the East were from the Abhayagiri school rather than
the Theravada, although i don't have any references to hand. In that
case, it could be that the bhikkhunis were from the Abhayagiri sect.
This would not make any difference to the question of ordination
lineage, since the Abhayagiri seceded from the Theravada and was
later re-absorbed into it.

It seems likely, as indicated by Heirmann, that the ordination
procedure followed was that of the Dharmaguptaka. (the Chinese
originally used either Sarvastivada or Dharmaguptaka Vinayas, but
later standardized to the Dharmaguptaka: it seems that, although the
Sarvastivada was more doctrinally influential, the issue was decided
because the ordination lineages were originaly Dharmaguptaka).

It should be borne in mind that the Dharmaguptaka is one of the
closest schools to the Theravada. It is difficult to find any
significant doctrinal difference between them. Both are known as
the 'Vibajjhavada', and it seems likely that the split between them
was more a result of geography than doctrine.

I hope that's of some help. If anyone else comes up with some
information on this i'd be interested.

in Dhamma

bhante Sujato