> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phra Noah Yuttadhammo [mailto:yuttadhammo@...]
> Sent: June 3, 2005 6:16 PM
> To: 'Kumaara Bhikkhu'
> Cc: Pali@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Commentaries {Re: Re-reading the Pali Canon {Re:
> [Pali] Re: Bhikkhuni ordination and the Vinaya}}
>
> Ven. Sir,
>
> > 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"?
>
> I don't see this as a sure proof that she is still a lay person.
>
> > So, it seems quite plain to me that in the sutta, Mahaapajaapatii
> > Gotamii is shown as a lay person. Hope this answers you question.
>
> Yes, it answers my question. But I still don't think it is
> proof that could allow you to say:
>
> >> According to the sutta, MahaPajapati Gotami, still a lay follower,
>
> But, I think I agree she was probably a lay woman still.
>
> For me, I think it is like this:
>
> 1) The Lord Buddha was staying at Nigrodharama at the time of
> offering the cloth.
> 2) The cloth is freshly spun.
> 3) As you say, I think spinning cloth is work for lay people.
> 4) The Lord Buddha left Nigrodharama for rajagaha before
> allowing Mahapajapati to ordain.
>
> So, unless she spun the cloth, carried it to Rajagaha,
> followed the Buddha right back to Nigrodharama after
> ordination (it doesn't say whether He went back right away,
> but it seems unlikely), and offered it in Nigrodharama, she
> probably was not ordained when she offered the robe.
> Otherwise, bhikkhunis can still spin robes? What are the
> rules on that?
>
> > >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.
>
> Here is the source:
>
> ----------------------
>
> DN 16: [note the word "pa.thamaabhisambuddho"]
>
> 175. “Ekamidaaha.m, aananda, samaya.m uruvelaaya.m viharaami
> najjaa nera~njaraaya tiire ajapaalanigrodhe
> *pa.thamaabhisambuddho*. atha kho, aananda, maaro paapimaa
> yenaaha.m tenupasa"nkami; upasa"nkamitvaa ekamanta.m
> a.t.thaasi. ekamanta.m .thito kho, aananda, maaro paapimaa
> ma.m etadavoca– ‘parinibbaatudaani, bhante, bhagavaa;
> parinibbaatu sugato, parinibbaanakaalodaani, bhante,
> bhagavato’ti. eva.m vutte aha.m, aananda, maara.m
> paapimanta.m etadavoca.m–
>
> “‘Na taavaaha.m, paapima, parinibbaayissaami, yaava me
> bhikkhuu na saavakaa bhavissanti viyattaa viniitaa visaaradaa
> bahussutaa dhammadharaa dhammaanudhammappa.tipannaa
> saamiicippa.tipannaa anudhammacaarino, saka.m aacariyaka.m
> uggahetvaa aacikkhissanti desessanti pa~n~napessanti
> pa.t.thapessanti vivarissanti vibhajissanti
> uttaaniikarissanti, uppanna.m parappavaada.m sahadhammena
> suniggahita.m niggahetvaa sappaa.tihaariya.m dhamma.m desessanti.
>
> [And here's the paragraph in question:]
>
> “‘Na taavaaha.m, paapima, parinibbaayissaami, yaava me
> bhikkhuniyo na saavikaa bhavissanti viyattaa viniitaa
> visaaradaa bahussutaa dhammadharaa
> dhammaanudhammappa.tipannaa saamiicippa.tipannaa
> anudhammacaariniyo, saka.m aacariyaka.m uggahetvaa
> aacikkhissanti desessanti pa~n~napessanti pa.t.thapessanti
> vivarissanti vibhajissanti uttaaniikarissanti, uppanna.m
> parappavaada.m sahadhammenasuniggahita.m niggahetvaa
> sappaa.tihaariya.m dhamma.m desessanti.
>
> [the rest concerns lay men and lay women]
>
> -------------------------------
>
> [Rhys Davids Translation:]
>
> 3.43. 'On one occasion, Ânanda, I was resting under the
> shepherd's Nigrodha tree on the bank of the river Nerañgarâ
> immediately after having reached the great enlightenment.
> Then Mâra, the Evil One, came, Ânanda, to the place where I
> was, and standing beside me he addressed me in the words:
> "Pass away now, Lord, from existence! Let the Blessed One now
> die! Now is the time for the Blessed One to pass away!"
>
> 44. 'And when he had thus spoken, Ânanda, I addressed Mâra,
> the Evil One, and said: "I shall not die, O Evil One! until
> not only the brethren and sisters of the order, but also the
> lay-disciples of either sex shall have become true hearers,
> wise and well-trained, ready and learned, versed in the
> Scriptures, fulfilling all the greater and the lesser duties,
> correct in life, walking according to the precepts--until
> they, having thus themselves learned the doctrine, shall be
> able to tell others of it, preach it, make it known,
> establish it, open it, minutely explain it and make it
> clear--until they, when others start vain doctrine, shall be
> able by the truth to vanquish and refute it, and so to spread
> the wonder-working truth abroad!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> >
> > > 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".
>
> No, it still seems reasonable enough to me. You said this:
>
> >Then, the Buddha supposedly mentioned the BhikkhuniSangha as if it
> >already
> existed.
>
> Am I hearing you right to conclude that:
>
> "Mentioning gifts given at the time of the Bhikkhuni Sangha
> means that it already existed at the time of mentioning."
>
> If so, I could extrapolate and say that:
>
> "Mentioning gifts given at the time after the Buddha's
> parinibbaana means that it already happened at the time of
> mentioning."
>
> Is that really unreasonable to extrapolate? Anyway, I think
> the Mahaa-parinibbaana Sutta quoted above shows it to be an
> invalid supposition to say "as if it already existed". The
> Lord Buddha knew many things about the future, both about the
> Bhikkhuni Sangha and his Parinibbana. But it seems logical
> they were both in the future in this sutta.
>
> I'm sorry, but it seems funny that you think to have caught
> in a few years a mistake that 2000 years of studying,
> memorising, and editing by the Theravadin Buddhist elders
> couldn't catch.
>
> >
> > >If anything, we might take this to be an instigation for
> > Mahapajapati
> > >to request to become the first bhikkhuni.
> >
> > ... and then repeatedly reject her?
>
> Again, the sutta quoted shows that indeed, the Lord Buddha
> not only forsaw the establishment of the Bhikkhuni Sangha,
> but refused to pass into Parinibbaana until it was well established.
>
> Are you asking why the Lord Buddha said: “Ala.m, gotami, maa
> te rucci maatugaamassa tathaagatappavedite
> dhammavinayeagaarasmaa anagaariya.m pabbajjaa”ti. (Cv x)?
>
> The Lord Buddha gives the answer Himself:
>
> yasmi.m dhammavinaye labhati maatugaamoagaarasmaa
> anagaariya.m pabbajja.m, na ta.m brahmacariya.m cira.t.thitika.m hoti.
>
> This is why He required the 8 rules for bhikkhunis. If I
> remember right, the Theravadin commentary here is quite interesting.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sorry, I really am dense. And I have a cold too. I wrote
> this to Stephen as to why I have left the Pali group:
>
> "I don't think the Pali group is that helpful after all, as
> my contributions seem to be only fending off attacks on my
> own view of the Dhamma. This is surely not what a new monk
> should be engaged in! Maybe in a couple of years, when I've
> studied Pali intensively, I will find the Pali group more
> useful. For now, please consider me off the list, for want
> of time do devote to such an eclectic discussion group.
> There are only 24 hours in a day :)"
>
> Again, I am cc'ing this to the Pali group, but you'll have to
> send me your replies directly if you want me to respond,
> otherwise I won't get them.
>
> > May all grow joyfully in loving-kindness and wisdom.
>
> As long as that includes me and you too, I'm with you.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Yuttadhammo
>
> PS: I was pleasantly surprised to read your other post that
> says good things about Theravada Buddhism. I won't reply to
> it in a seperate e-mail, but here's my reply to your question:
>
> >Suppose someone gives you a fruit to eat. You're hungry and
> it suits you.
> But before eating it, you find that it is partly bad. What
> would you do?
>
> I still can't find the bad part you keep talking about. Have
> you ever stepped on a rope and thought it was a snake?
>
>
>