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, bhagavatoti. 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
pabbajjaati. (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?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]