Dear Yutta,

You've left the group before I could answer your questions. Hope you don't mind me sending you a personal mail. FYI, I'm also bccing this to the group, at least for the knowledge of the group members instead of leaving the matter hanging there.


At 12:39 PM 01-06-05, Yuttadhammo wrote:

>> According to the sutta, MahaPajapati Gotami, still a lay
>> follower, wished to offer robe cloth to the Buddha, who then
>> asked her to give it to the Sangha instead. Then, the Buddha
>> supposedly mentioned the BhikkhuniSangha as if it already
>> existed. Since it is exceedingly plain in the Mahavagga of
>> the Vinaya Pitaka that MahaPajapati Gotami was the first
>> bhikkhuni, how can we reconcile this?
>
>Dear Bhante,
>
>First, I don't yet understand from where you (and Bhikkhu Bodhi) draw the
>conclusion that Mahapajapati is still a lay person (please explain more).

First of all, it is odd that the first bhikkhuni should spend her time spinning and weaving cloths to be offered to the Buddha. It seems more like a lay person's work.

Anyway, more convincing than that is that, according to the sutta, in Ven Ananda's process to entreat the Buddha to accept the cloths, he mentioned that "It is owing to the Blessed One that Mahaapajaapatii Gotamii has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha." This is equivalent of saying that she is an upasika. [See Mahanama Sutta (AN VIII 25)]. Even more convincing than that is that he also said she observed the 5 precepts, which is the practice of a virtuous lay person. [Again, see Mahanama Sutta].

If she was already a bhikkhuni, why would Ven Ananda speak of lay attributes, instead saying something like "It is owing to the Blessed One that Mahaapajaapatii Gotamii has gone forth from home to homelessness"?

So, it seems quite plain to me that in the sutta, Mahaapajaapatii Gotamii is shown as a lay person. Hope this answers you question.

>Second, I don't see the problem if she still is. I am willing to accept a
>real discrepancy,

Ah, I'm very happy for you. :-)

>but the Lord Buddha is said to have talked about the
>Bhikkhuni Sangha shortly after His Enlightenment as well. What does that
>mean?

Perhaps I can answer that question if you can show me the source for this.

> In MN 142, the Lord Buddha also makes a mention of a gift to the
>Sangha after his passing away (Ven. Kumara: "as if it already had
>happened"). Does that mean that this discourse was given after His
>Parinibbaana? God Buddha lives...

I hope that you are now reasonable enough to see that you were being unreasonable when you said the above. Btw, I said "as if it already existed".

>If anything, we might take this to be an instigation for Mahapajapati to
>request to become the first bhikkhuni.

... and then repeatedly reject her?


Btw, while I can't be absolutely sure why you left the group, I think it was a good move. I believe you would understand what I mean here. I think I've over-stayed as well, and shall leave as soon as I tie up some loose ends.


May all grow joyfully in loving-kindness and wisdom.

sincerely,
kb