Lineage and Transmission:
Integrating the Chinese and Tibetan Orders of Buddhist Nuns

Summary

There are four-fold assembly of disciples in Buddhism: bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī, (fully ordained men and women) upāsaka and upāsikā (lay men and women). In Tibetan Buddhism the assembly of bhikṣuṇī is non-existent. As Tibetan Buddhism becomes more and more popular in the world, it faces more and more criticism of its non-existence of a bhikṣuṇī order, as it indicates more or less a sex discrimination.

Recently two seminars on the bhikṣuṇī ordination and the possible establishment of a Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī lineage were held in Taiwan and Dharamsala. In response to this movement, this paper deals with the issues concerning the bhikṣuṇī ordination in different vinaya traditions, the Chinese Bhikṣuṇī ordination and how a Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī lineage can be established. Specifically, the paper includes three parts.

The first part compares bhikṣuṇī ordination in different vinaya traditions, including Dharmagupta, Mūlarsarvāstivāda, Theravāda, Mahāsāṅghīka, etc.

The second part discusses as how the Chinese Bhikṣuṇī order was established, the procedures of the ordination and the validity of the Chinese Bhikṣuṇī lineage.

The last part deals with the issues concerning the establishment of a Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī order, including the difference of the prātimokṣa between Dharmagupta and Mūlasarvāstivāda, the single

p. 504

and dual ordinations, the possibility of the combination of two different vinaya lineages. Finally, the ways for the establishment of a Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī saṅgha are suggested.

關鍵詞：1.Bhikṣuṇī 　2.Full Ordination　3.Tibetan Buddhism　4.Dharmagupta Vinaya　5.Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya　6.Buddhist Women

I. Procedures of Bhikṣunī Ordination

It is a well-known fact that the first Buddhist nun was Mahāprajāpatī, the aunt and stepmother of the Buddha.[2] It was

p. 507

recorded that one time when the Buddha was staying at Kapilavastu, Mahāprajāpatī together with five hundred Śākya women came to ask for the Buddha's permission to renounce the world and “go forth from home into homelessness in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder.”[3] They were refused three times by the Buddha. Finally, on behalf of the women, Āananda asked the Buddha if a woman, having left the household and taken ordination, could realize the fruit of arhatship. The Buddha responded positively to the question, but he also made a condition that women follow the “eight chief rules” (gurudharmas) before allowing them to be ordained.

The eight chief rules vary slightly in different vinaya texts. According to the Dharmagupta Vinaya, the eight rules are:

(1) A bhikṣuṇī, even if she has been ordained for one hundred years, should bow down before even a newly ordained bhikṣu.

(2) A bhikṣuṇī is not to revile or abuse a bhikṣu.

(3) A bhikṣuṇī should not admonish a bhikṣu whereas a bhikṣu can admonish a bhikṣuṇī.

(4) A bhikṣuṇī should receive the upasaṃpadā ordination from both bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī saṅghas after two years of studying the precepts.

(5) A bhikṣuṇī who has committed a serious offence should undergo the mānatta discipline[4] towards both bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī saṅghas.

(6) Every half month the bhikṣuṇīs should ask the bhikṣu saṅgha to give exhortation.

(7) A bhikṣuṇī should not spend the rainy season in a district where there is no bhikṣu.

(8) After keeping the rainy season, the bhikṣuṇīs should hold the p. 508 ceremony of repentance of their offences (pravāraṇā) before the bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī saṅghas.[5]

The practice of these eight rules thus became a necessary condition for any woman wishing to become a Buddhist nun and guidelines of governing the relationship between the bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī saṅghas.[6] The fourth rule specifies that the upasaṃpadā (full bhikṣhuṇī ordination) has to be confirmed by the bhikṣu saṅgha. Although it appears that the final authority of the full ordination lies on the bhikṣu saṅgha, the supervision of the whole process of a woman's ordination, beginning with the pravrajya ordination, leading to the śikṣamāṇika ordination (for two years' study of the six dharmas) and culminating in the upasaṃpadā ordination (except the final step), lies with the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha. In order words, the Buddha gave the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha the right and full responsibility to train its novices. The following are the steps and procedures in becoming a bhikṣuṇī.

Any woman who resolves to become a bhikṣuṇī needs to go through three ordinations, namely, śrāmaṇerikā, śikṣamāṇā and bhikṣuṇī (including two separated ordinations from the bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī saṅgha──this is usually called “dual ordination” ).

p. 509



p. 514

II. The Establishment of the Chinese Bhikṣunī Lineage

According to the Ta-sung Seng-shih Lueh (The Brief History of Buddhism in the Sung Dynasty), the first Chinese woman to become a Buddhist nun was named A-pan. No record of the date or details about her life can be found. Strictly speaking, she cannot be called a bhikṣuṇī because she only took refuge with the Triple Jewels and did not take any other precepts, simply because the Vinaya was not available at the time. The earliest translation of the Vinaya was completed by the Vinaya Master Dharmakāla of Central Asia during the Chen-pin period (249~253 A.D.) in Luo-yang. He translated the Seng-chih chieh-hsin, the Essentials of the Mahāsaṅghika Vinaya. In 254 A.D. another Vinaya master Dharmasatya translated the Dharmagupta Karman. This marked the beginning of the bhikṣuṇī ordination strictly following the procedures of the Vinaya. However, the first full ordination of bhikṣuṇīs did not take place until almost two centuries later in 434 A.D.

The Biographies of Bhikṣuṇīs (Pi-ch'iu-ni-chuan) records the

p. 519

biography of the first Chinese Bhikṣuṇī.[37] Her name was Ching-chien and she was born as the daughter of a magistrate in 291 A.D. She was diligent in learning in her childhood and became widowed at an early age. She taught music, writing and reading to the children of the wealthy and nobility. Although she took delight in learning Buddhism, she found no teacher to give her instruction. At last she met the monk Fa-shih, who was versed in Buddhist scriptures, and studied Buddhist teaching under his guidance. One day she said to Fa-shih, “Since the scriptures mention that there are bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs, I wish to be ordained as a bhikṣuṇī.” [38] Fa-shih told her that although there were bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs in the Western Land (India), in China the precepts were incomplete.[39] Ching-chien asked, “What is the difference between the precepts of bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs?” Fa-shih replied, “The foreign monk said that there are five hundred precepts for bhikṣuṇī.” Fa-shih agreed to make inquiries about the bhikṣuṇī precepts and ordination for her. He asked the Monk Jñānagira from the kingdom of Kashmir, who explained, “The precepts for bhikṣuṇīs are basically the same as those for the bhikṣus with only minor differences. But without the proper procedures, nobody can confer the precepts. The nuns can take the ten precepts from the bhikṣu saṅgha, however, they will have no bhikṣuṇī preceptors to depend on for their studies.”[40] Nevertheless, Ching-chien, together with twenty-four other women

p. 520

was ordained by Jñānagira and took the ten precepts of a śrāmaṇerikā.

During the Hsien-kang period (335~342 A.D.) of the Chin Dynasty, the monk Seng-chien brought back from the Central Asian kingdom of Yueh-chih the Mahāsaṅghika Bhikṣuṇī Karman and the Bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣā. In the first year of Sheng-ping (357 A.D.), the Indian monk Dharmagupta was invited to Luo-yang to setup a precept platform to confer bhikṣuṇī ordination, but the Chinese Monk Tao-ch'ang objected on the basis of the Chieh-yin-yuan-ching (Sūtra of the origin of the Rules).[41] The reason for his objection was probably that aside from the bhikṣus, there were no bhikṣuṇīs in China to confer the ordination. The ordination ceremony went ahead despite his objections and was performed on a ship in the middle of a river. Ching-chien together with three other women became the first bhikṣuṇī in China. More precisely speaking, Ching-chien was the first Chinese bhikṣuṇī to take the upasaṃpadā only from the bhikṣu saṅgha.However, as all Vinaya systems specify, the upasaṃpadā should not be given by bhikṣus alone, but by both bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī saṅghas. This “incomplete ordination” was not remedied until more than half a century later.

The earliest records of the dual ordination of bhikṣuṇīs can be found in the biographies of Guṇavarman and Saṅghavarman, and the Biographies of Bhikṣuṇīs (Pi-ch'iu-ni chuan). Guṇavarman, a Vinaya master from Kashmir, came to Yang-chou in 430 A.D. and translated many Vinaya texts.[42] Saṅghavarnam, a Vinaya Master from India, came to Yang-chou four years later in 434. Both of their biographies found in the Kao-seng Chuan (Biographies of

p. 521

Eminent Monks) mention their involvement in the dual ordination of the Chinese bhikṣuṇīs.[43] Nevertheless, the most thorough account of the dual ordination is found in the biography of the nun Seng-kuo from the Pi-ch'iu-ni Chuan, one of the first group of Chinese nuns to be fully ordained by both saṅghas.

Seng-kuo had unusually strong faith and devotion, as she had presumably established affinity with the Dharma in her former lives. It was said that “even as a baby at breast, she did not transgress the monastic rule of not eating after mid-day.” She did not get permission to leave the household life until she was twenty-seven. Seng-kuo diligently pursued Buddhist practice and strictly observed the precepts. Her meditation practice was at such a high level that she could meditate from dusk to dawn and “stretching in spirit to the pure realm of the divine, her body stayed behind looking as lifeless as dry wood.”[44] Her biography continues to record how she was involved in the first dual ordination in China.

In the sixth year of the Yuan-chia (429 A.D.), a foreign boat captain named Nan-t'i brought eight Buddhist bhikṣuṇī from Sri Lanka to the capital of the Sung dynasty. The Sri Laṅkān nuns stayed at Ching-fu Ssu (Luminous Blessings Monastery). Not long after, they asked Seng-kuo, “Have foreign nuns ever been here before us?” [45] Seng-kuo answered that there have been none. The

p. 522

Sri Lankan bhikṣuṇīs then asked if that was the case, how had Chinese nuns taken full ordination from both bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī saṅghas? Seng-kuo replied,

They took the ordination from the bhikṣu saṅgha only. Those women who went through the ritual of entering the monastic life began the reception of monastic obligations. This reception was an expedient to cause people to have great respect for the monastic life. Our eminent model for this expedient is the Buddha's own step-mother, Mahāprajāpatī, who was deemed to have accepted the full monastic obligation by taking on herself, and therefore for all women for all the time, the eight special prohibitions incumbent on women wanting to lead the monastic life. [These she accepted from the Buddha only.] The five hundred women of the Buddha's clan who also left the household life at the same time as Mahāprajāpatī considered her as their instructor.[46]

Although Seng-kuo justified the validity of the single-ordination observed by the Chinese bhikṣuṇīs, taking the case of Mahāprajāpatī as a good example and precedent, she herself still had some doubts. So she consulted with Vinaya Master Guṇavarman about whether it was permissible to retake the ordination. Guṇavarman replied,

[The Buddhist threefold action of] morality, meditation, and wisdom progresses from the subtle to the obvious. Therefore, receiving the monastic obligations a second time is of greater benefit than receiving them only once.[47]

p. 523

Answering the question of the validity of the single-ordination taken by the Chinese bhikṣuṇīs, Guṇavarman said,

As the bhikṣuṇī ordination is finalized by the bhikṣu sanghga, even if the “basic dharma” (i.e. the ordination taken from the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha) is not conferred, the bhikṣuṇī ordination still results in pure vows, just as in the case of Mahāprajāpatī.[48]

Responding to Seng-kuo's question of the possibility of re-ordination, Guṇavarman replied,

Very good! If you wish to increase your wisdom [by retaking the ordination], I will certainly offer my help with joy. However, since the Sri Lankan bhikṣuṇīs [who are in China] have not reached their “precept age,”[49] and their number is less than ten,[50] they should first start learning the Chinese language.[51]

Four years later in the tenth year of Yuanchia (433 A.D.), the ship captain, Nan-t'i, brought back eleven more bhikṣuṇīs from Sri Lanka, including one named Tessara. By this time those bhikṣuṇīs who had arrived earlier had become fluent in Chinese, and Guṇavarman had passed away. Thus, Seng-kuo and the other Chinese bhikṣuṇīs requested the Indian Vinaya Master Saṅghavarman to preside over the dual ordination at the ceremonial platform in Nan-lin Monastery. Altogether more than three hundred women were ordained by both saṅghas. This marked the beginning of the proper transmission of dual ordination for women in China, that is, of receiving the precepts from both bhikṣu and

p. 524

bhikṣuṇī saṅghas.[52]

According to the brief history of the dual ordination in China related above, two things are clear:

(1) The single-ordination conferred since Ching-chien in 357 A.D. was valid and pure. As Tao-hsuan (596~667 A.D.), the Patriarch of the Chinese Dharmagupta Vinaya School, stated in the Ssu-fen-lu Che-mo Shu Chi-yen Chi: Even if a bhikṣuṇī ordination is transmitted directly from a bhikṣu saṅgha without first conferring the “basic dharma,” it is still valid, as nowhere in the Vinaya indicates otherwise. However, the precept masters commit an offence.[53] All the Vinayas of the different Buddhist schools specify the requirement of dual ordination. Although it is true that, strictly speaking, a single-ordination from either the bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī saṅgha alone is not in accord with the Vinaya, still nowhere does the Vinaya indicate that single-ordination is invalid. Tao-hsuan did not explain why the precept masters commit an offence, but it presumably had to do with not following the procedures strictly. When asked the same question,[54] Guṇavarman answered, p. 525 “Wherever bhikṣuṇīs are available, if a bhikṣu preceptor confers a bhikṣuṇī ordination to a woman without having first trained her in the precepts for two years, he commits an offence.”[55] This means that a bhikṣu commits an offence if he knowingly gives bhikṣuṇī ordination to a woman who has not gone through all the necessary stages (śrāmaṇerikā, śikṣamāṇā, and bhikṣuṇī ordination) from a bhikṣuṇī saṅgha. As discussed previously, before a bhikṣu gives the bhikṣuṇī ordination, he has to ask the woman whether she has been trained in the śikṣamāṇā vows for two years, and whether she has already received ordination from the bhikṣuṇī saṅghas. If he does not ask these questions or knowingly ordains a woman without śikṣamāṇā or “basic-dharma bhikṣuṇī” status, he, not the woman, commits an offense. The general rule for the outcome of this improper conferring of the ordination is that “the precept receiver obtains the precepts, whereas the precept giver commits an offense.” Here the main issue is not what offense a bhikṣu commits for giving the upasaṃpadā to a woman who has not received ordination from the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha first. The important point is that an ordination by the bhikṣu saṅgha only, even technically flawed with respect to prescribed procedures, is still valid and a woman taking such an ordination obtains “uncorrupted” and pure vows.

(2) From the brief history of the dual ordination in China, it is clear that the first dual ordination which took place in 434 followed the proper procedures, and the bhikṣuṇī lineage thus established was pure and flawless. However, during the Conference held in Dharamsala in August, 1998, Dao-hai, a conservative vinaya master from Taiwan argued otherwise. For two reasons, he argued that the Chinese Bhikṣuṇī lineage could not be considered “perfect and flawless.” The first reason is that Seng-kuo and other nuns had previously received bhikṣuṇī ordination from bhikṣus alone and thus p. 526 “not a new one.” Dao-hai contends that such an ordination would invalidate subsequent ordinations, though there is nothing in the Vinaya to substantiate his claim. The second reason is that Hui-kuo and other nuns were not trained in the precepts for two years prior to their dual ordination, although there is no evidence to support this contention.[56]

As the history of the initial dual ordination indicates, after the arrival of the second group of Sri Lankan bhikṣuṇīs, which made up the necessary quorum of ten, Seng-kuo and many other nuns took the upasaṃpadā first from the Sri Lankan Bhikṣuṇī saṅgha and then from the bhikṣu saṅgha headed by Saṅghavarman as the Preceptor in the very first dual ordination in China. How can this first dual ordination be considered “not a new one,” and thus “incomplete” ? Even if it were a re-ordination, nowhere does the Vinaya indicate that re-ordination is invalid. On the contrary, re-ordination was considered a re-affirmation. This can be attested to by the affirmation given in the Sarvāstivāda Śāstra (Sa-po-lo Lun), which says, “To re-ordain enhances the quality of a previous ordination. One who is re-ordained does not lose one's previous precept age.[57]”[58] Therefore, Tao-hai's theory which dismisses the Chinese Bhikṣuṇī lineage on these grounds is not credible.

Dao-hai also strongly asserted that Seng-kuo and the other nuns had not taken the śikṣamāṇā ordination and thus had not trained in the precepts for two years, but he did not provide any textual proof for this claim. In fact it can be argued that the nuns had trained for two years. The first group of Sri Lankan bhikṣuṇīs

p. 527

stayed at Ching-fu-ssu, the monastery where Seng-kuo and other nuns lived, for four years before the arrival of the second group. During these four years, it is quite likely that the Sri Lankan bhikṣuṇīs conferred the śikṣamāṇā ordination on the Chinese nuns to prepare them for the dual ordination. They must have been very keen to make sure that complete and proper ordination procedures for the nuns' ordinations were observed; otherwise they would not have raised the question concerning the validity of the previous single-ordination. Even if the Chinese nuns did not formally train in the precepts for two years, their dual ordination was still valid and pure, because, as mentioned before, the fault for conferring the ordination improperly falls on the bhikṣu precept masters, not on the bhikṣuṇī precept candidates.

We can conclude that an authentic bhikṣuṇī lineage in China was properly established according to the Vinaya in the fifth century. This lineage continues without interruption up to the present day. There is no record that indicates otherwise.

　　　　　　　＊　　　　　　　＊　　　　　　　＊　　　　　　　＊　　　　　　　＊

The most detailed record of eminent bhikṣuṇīs is the Pi-ch'iu-ni chuan compiled by Pao-ch'ang in the early sixth century. From the sixty-five biographies included there, we get a picture of a bhikṣuṇī saṅghas with a remarkably high level of learning and spiritual attainment. Pao-ch'ang praised them,

For several hundred years' nuns of great virtue appeared in China one after the other. Of these nuns, Shan-miao and Ching-kuei achieved the epitome of the ascetic life; Fa-pien and Seng-kuo consummately excelled in meditation and contemplation. Individuals such as Seng-tuan and Seng-chi, who were steadfast in their resolution to maintain chastity, and Miao-hsing and Fa-chuan, who were teachers of great influence, appeared very frequently. Such virtue as theirs is like the deep ocean or the lofty peak──like the

p. 528

harmonious music of bronze and jade bells.[59]

It is evident from the biographies that the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha was very strong from the fourth to the sixth centuries. Although two persecutions of Buddhism took place in 446 and 574 C.E., they did not cause lasting destruction to Buddhism. Actually, Buddhism flourished during the Six Dynasties (265~589 A.D.), especially during the Northern Wei Dynasty (386~534 A.D.). According to the Fo-tsu t'ung-chi (A Chronicle on the Buddha and patriarchs), there were four million monks and nuns in the Northern Wei during the sixth Century. In the south Buddhism flourished and was influential as well, especially during the Liang Dynasty at which time Emperor Wu-ti was renowned for his earnest support of Buddhism.

Buddhism flourished even more during the Sui and T'ang Dynasties (581~907), a period referred to as the golden age of Buddhism in China.[60] The bhikṣuṇī saṅgha developed extensively throughout these periods. The bhikṣuṇīs came from all walks of life and social classes, and they included queens, princesses, court ladies, etc. Regrettably, after the Pi-ch'iu-ni chuan was compiled in the sixth century, no biographies of bhikṣuṇīs were again compiled.[61] Still scattered biographies of bhikṣuṇīs can be found in various historical records, such as dynastic histories, epitaphs, bronze and stone inscriptions, etc. Many of the bhikṣuṇīs were outstanding in teaching, meditation, and moral discipline. In the Ch'an School some bhikṣuṇīs also became teachers of Ch'an monks.[62]

p. 529

Although Buddhism suffered a great setback and lost much of its vitality due to T'ang Emperor Wu-tsung's persecution that lasted from 841 to 845 C.E., it survived intact.[63] In fact, the census taken during the reign of Emperor Cheng-tsung of the Sung Dynasty (997~1021 C.E.) reveals that there were more than 397,000 bhikṣus and 61,000 bhikṣuṇīs at the time.[64] As for the lineage of dual ordination, there is no record of any break. On the contrary, there are two records in the Ta-sung seng shih lueh that clearly indicate that dual ordination was conferred during the eighth and ninth centuries. This document records that in 765 C.E. Emperor Tai-tsung of T'ang decreed that an ordination platform be established in the capital city and that ten bhikṣus and ten bhikṣuṇīs of great virtue and well versed in the Vinaya be selected to confer the ordination. It also records that this “became the standard practice forever.”[65] The Ta-sung seng-shih lueh also documents that Emperor Yi-tsung of T'ang (859~873 C.E.) had an ordination platform built in the Hsien-tai Palace where the nuns of Fu-shou Nunnery received an ordination conferred by ten bhikṣus and ten bhikṣuṇīs.[66] This indicates that the dual ordination was a standard practice.

It is well documented that the dual ordination was carried out from the fifth to the ten centuries. However, in the fifth year of the Kai-pao year (972 C.E.) the Northern Sung Emperor T'ai-tsu issued a decree that bhikṣuṇīs be prohibited from going to bhikṣu

p. 530

monasteries for ordination.[67] This means that nuns would have to take the upasaṃpadā from the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha only. Vinaya master Dao-hai from Taiwan, drawing on this record, concludes:

In a word, the lineage of bhikṣuṇī ordination in China has clearly been broken (to receive base rules from a saṅgha consisting of bhikṣuṇīs only, not to mention receiving one-group ordination from bhikṣus) during Sung Dynasty (around C.E. 972). Following the resolution of the prohibition, most of the ordinations were one-group from a saṅgha of bhikṣu. There is no historical documentation that proved that the lineage of two-group ordination were pure and complete.[68]

This speculative and incorrect conclusion is drawn without any textual proof. Actually, there are textual references that indicate otherwise. The earliest record of prohibition is found in the Ta-sung seng-shih lueh written by Tsan-ning:

After the years of Chien-wu (335~348 C.E.), the nuns had been going to the monasteries of monks to take ordination without interruption throughout all the previous dynasties. Recently Emperor T'ai-tsu (972 C.E.) issued an edict forbidding nuns from going to the monasteries of monks to take ordination. After that, the nuns obtained the “basic dharma” from the saṅgha of bhikṣuṇīs alone. The ordination was not complete.Now the present Emperor [T'ai-tsung, the successor of T'ai-tsu] is sagacious and makes intelligent decisions. Those who are protective to the Dharma should make a request to the Emperor to restore the old practice [of dual ordination] lest the Dharma should perish.[69]

Four years after the decree of prohibition issued in 976,

p. 531

Emperor T'ai-tsu died and his son T'ai-tsung succeeded him. In the same year Tsan-ling compiled the Ta-sung seng-shih lueh (The Brief History of the Buddhist Saṅgha in the Great Sung) by order of Emperor T'ai-tsung. Taking into consideration that Tsan-ling was an eminent and learned monk respected and trusted by Emperor T'ai-tsung, and was ordered by him to compile the history of the saṅgha and biographies of eminent monks, and also considering that Tsan-ling was very concerned with the effect that the edict might have upon Buddhism, it is possible that he himself made the request to the Emperor to abolish the edict.There is also evidence indicating that the edict lasted for only a few years, certainly not long enough to disrupt the bhikṣuṇī lineage.

The first evidence that the edict was short-lived is Emperor Chen-tsung's (997~1021 A.D.) edict of 1010 C.E., which states:

The edict ordered that in the T'ai-pien Hsing-kuo Monastery in the imperial city, the official Kan-lu Precept-platform be established [to give ordination] and the other official precept-platforms be established all over the country, totally seventy-two.[70]

The precept platforms were built by the court and thus naturally regarded as official. That means that all monks and nuns went to the official precept platforms to take ordination; therefore nuns were able to get dual ordination as usual. Since only thirty-eight years elapsed between the edict of prohibition and the edict of re-establishing the official precept platforms, this would not be long enough for the lineage to totally die out, even in the worst case scenario.

The second source of evidence comes from Chih-p'an's Fo-tsu T'ung-chi (compiled between 1258~1269).[71] Chih-p'an comments

p. 532

on the edict of prohibition:

The intention [of the edict] was to keep distance between monks and nuns [not to forbid nuns from taking ordination]. However, [Emperor T'ai-tsu] did not know that nuns must take the final ordination from the Bhikṣu saṅgha. There is no rule [in the Vinaya] that allows nuns to take ordination from their own saṅgha only. This [edict] was only a temporary remedy for impropriety and should not be taken as a normal practice. Nowadays the edict is no longer in effect.[72]

It is obvious that by the time of Chih-p'an, the prohibition had already been lifted and the dual ordination was restored. This passage lends credence to the theory that dual ordination was the norm during this period.

There are not many historical documents that indicate how the dual ordination was implemented after the thirteenth century, however, it is clear that the lineage of dual ordination for bhikṣuṇīs continued, for at least two historical records of the practice can be found. The first is from Hung-tsan's Pi-ch'iu-ni Shou-chieh Lu (The Record of the bhikṣuṇī Ordination) and the second is from Shu-yu's Erh-pu-seng Shou-chieh Yi-shih (The Ritual for the Dual Ordination).

Hung-tsan (1611~1685), a Vinaya Master of the Ch'ing Dynasty (1644~1912), mentions in his Pi-ch'iu-ni Shou-chieh Lu in 1657 C.E., when he was in Kuang-chou, many nuns coming from different counties asked him to give them the upasaṃpadā ordination. Hung-tsan thus got together ten bhikṣus and ten bhikṣuṇīs to confer the dual ordination.[73] Shu-yu (1645~1721 C.E.) was also a Vinaya Master. In the preface of his Erh-pu-seng Shou-chieh Yi-shih, he recorded a dual ordination:

In the spring of 1667 C.E., the Venerable Bhikṣunī Mi-chau from

p. 533

Kun-shan and Madame Hsu came to our monastery to make offerings. The accompanying śikṣamāṇās made a request to my late Master to give a dual ordination. They stayed at the monastery to study for half a month and were able to know the proper deportments. My late master then asked Bhikṣunī Mi-chau to be the Upādhyāyinī, Bhikṣunī Chau-tseng from Yang-chou to be the Karma Master, and bhikṣuṇī Yuan-cheng from Chen-chou to be the Instructor Master. He also chose seven other virtuous bhikṣuṇīs as Witness Masters to preside over the ordination.[74]

From the above two records, it is very clear that during the seventeenth century the dual ordination was still being carefully implemented, and the proper procedures were being observed. However, Hung-tsan also says that “the dual ordination had been long lost.”[75] Probably what he meant was that the nuns only took the ordination from the bhikṣu saṅgha alone. However, so far no historical record can be found to verify his statement. Even if Hung-tsan was right, the ordination from bhikṣu saṅgha only, as discussed early in this paper, is still valid, although the precept master conferring it commits an offense.

There is another record that indicates the dual ordination had been discontinued. In his Essence of the Vinaya, Vinaya Master Hung-yi (1880~1942) wrote,

According to the rules set by the Buddha, bhikṣuṇīs must take their ordination twice. First, they take the “basic dharma” from the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha, and then the vows are taken formally from the bhikṣu saṅgha. The ordination actually takes effect during the ceremony with the bhikṣu saṅgha. However, the dual ordination rule has not been implemented since the Southern Sung Dynasty (1128~1276).[76]

p. 534

Although Hung-yi was a respectable Vinaya master, his statement is obviously incorrect. This can be proved by the fact that dual ordinations were given to nuns during the seventeenth century, as Hung-tsan and Shu-yu's writings show.

After Hung-tsan and Shu-yu, the tradition of bhikṣuṇī ordination continued until today. Although it is true that in some cases the dual ordination procedure has not been strictly observed,[77] still the bhikṣuṇī ordination and the lineage of Chinese Bhikṣuṇīs continue. In other words, in the historical records there is no evidence indicating that there is any time in Chinese Buddhist history when there were no bhikṣuṇīs.

III. A Comparison of the Dharmagupta and the Mūlasarvāstivādin Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa Sūtras

Aside from a concern for the validity of the Chinese Bhikṣuṇī lineage, Tibetan Buddhist scholars have also been very concerned with the differences between the Dharmagupta Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa Sūtra followed by the Chinese Bhikṣu and Bhikṣuṇī saṅghas and the Mūlasarvāstivāda followed by the Tibetan Bhikṣu saṅgha. The Dharmagupta Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa Sūtra was translated into Chinese in the Later Chin Dynasty (383~418 C.E.) by Buddhayaśas.This text has been exclusively followed by the Chinese bhikṣuṇī since the T'ang Dynasty when the Dharmagupta Vinaya School was established. There are two Chinese translations of the Mulasarvastivadin Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣā and Vinaya: one is the Ken-pen Shou-yi-ch'ieh-you-pu Pi-ch'iu-ni Chieh-ching (T.24, no.1455) and the other Ken-pen Shou-yi-chieh-you-pu Pi-chi'iu-ni Pi-na-yeh. (T.23, no.1443) Both of these texts were translated by Yi-ching during the T'ang Dynasty. There are also two Tibetan translations of the

p. 535

Mulasarvativadin Bhikṣuṇī Vinaya: the Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣā Sūtra (Dge slon mahi so sor thar pahi mdo) and the Bhikṣuṇī Vinaya-vibhaṅga (Dge slon mahi hdul ba rnam par hbyed pa), although the texts exist, no Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī lineage has ever been established based on these texts.

Much important research on Bhikṣuṇī Vinaya and Prātimokṣā Sūtras translated from Sanskrit have been done by scholars. For example, Akira Hirakawa's Ritsuzo no Kenkyo (Studies on the Vinaya Scriptures) has a section on the Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣā Sūtra from various vinaya traditions, Karma Lekshe Tsomo's Sisters in Solitude contains English translations of the Chinese Dharmagupta and the Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa as well as a comparative study on these two traditions, and Chatsumarn Kabilsingh's A comparative Study of Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha. This section of the paper is based on their research.

Despite minor variation in the number of the precepts, the categories of precepts cited in the Dharmagupta and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa Sūtras are identical, namely, the pārājika-dharma, saṅghāvaśeṣa-d, niḥsargika-d, pāyantika-d, pratideśanīya-d, śaikṣa-d, and adhikaraṇa-śamatha-d. The number of precepts in each category is given as follows:[78]

	Dharmagupta (Chinese)	Mūlasarvāstivāda (Tibetan)
Pārājika Saṅghāvaśesa Niḥsargika- pāyantika Pāyantika Pratideśanīya Śaikṣa Adhikaraṇa-śamatha	8 17 30 178 8 100 7	8 20 33 180 11 113 7
	348	372

The eight pārājika offenses for bhikṣuṇīs are basically the same

p. 536

not only in the Dharmagupta and Mūlasarvāstivāda versions, but in all extant versions of Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣā. The eight pārājikas include prohibitions against (1) sexual conduct, (2) stealing, (3) taking life, (4) falsely claiming the attainment of supernatural powers, (5) touching a male's body or being touched with desire, (6) touching a man's clothes or entering a covered place with a man, (7) concealing the wrongdoing of a bhikṣuṇī guilty of a serious offence, and (8) persistently following a suspended monk, after the third admonishment. They are identical in the two versions however, the Mūlasarvāstivādin Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣā includes the prohibition against taking the life of a human fetus (in other words, abortion), while the Chinese Dharmagupta text makes no mention of a fetus.

The category of saṅghāvaśesa has 17 precepts in the Dharmagupta and 20 in the Mūlasarvāstivāda. Of the seventeen saṅghāvaśesa in the Dharmagupta, only one has no equivalent among those in the Mūlasarvāstivāda, namely, accusing a layperson before a government official. The Mūlasarvāstivāda has one saṅghāvaśesa which has no equivalent in the Dharmagupta, namely, pursuing the wealth of the deceased. The reason that there is a difference in the number of saṅghāvaśesas between the two versions, 17 versus 20, is because the seventh saṅghāvaśesa of the Dharmagupta combines the four 'alone precepts,' into one, while the Mūlasarvāstivāda takes them separately. These precepts include crossing water alone, entering a village alone, staying overnight in a village alone, and staying behind the group alone.

According to Karma Lekshe Tsomo, only two out of the seventeen saṅghāvaśesas in the Chinese version have no equivalent among the saṅghāvaśesas in the Tibetan translation: accusing a lay-person before a government official and ordaining a woman known to be a thief. On the other hand, six saṅghāvaśesas in the Tibetan translation have no equivalent in the Chinese, though some occur elsewhere: (1) ordaining a woman without permission from her guardian, (2) pursuing the wealth of the deceased, (3) forsaking the

p. 537

Dharma, (4) digging up faults of bhikṣuṇīs, (5) misbehaving with women, (6) and enjoining bhikṣuṇīs who are misbehaving together not to live separately.[79]

In the category of the niḥsargika-pāyantika, all Vinayas list thirty precepts, except the Mūlasarvāstivāda, which has thirty-three precepts. Among the thirty, sixteen precepts concern robes and the proper time and manner to obtain them; two concern the begging bowl; one concern medication; eight concerning business exchange; and three concern gold and silver.[80] There is one niḥsargika- pāyāntika in the Dharmagupta that has no equivalent in the Mūlasarvāstivāda: accepting a robe in an emergency and keeping it beyond the proper time. There are four rules in the Mūlasarvāstivāda that have no equivalent in the Dharmagupta: washing clothes and cooking for an unrelated bhikṣu, taking a robe from an unrelated bhikṣu, having one's upper robe blessed on a new moon, and openly begging for oneself.

In the category of the pāyantika, the Dharmagupta has 178 precepts, while the Mūlasarvāstivāda has 180. Among these precepts, there are three which occur only in the Dharmagupta, while there are thirty precepts that occur only in the Mūlasarvāstivāda.[81]

A number of pāyantikas deal with offenses related to ordination. For example, there are twelve precepts common to both the Dharmagupta and Mūlasarvāstivāda, including ordaining (1) a pregnant woman, (2) a śrāmaṇerikā not trained for two years in the six rules, (3) a married girl less than 12 years, (4) a married girl of 12 years but not agreed upon by the saṅgha, (5) a prostitute, (6) a woman with a husband, (7) a woman less than twenty years old, and (8) an emotionally disturbed woman; the other precepts

p. 538

include: (9) after giving ordination, not taking care of one's trainee; (10) not ordaining a well-qualified śikṣamāṇā; (11) not going before the bhikṣu saṅgha on the same day as the ordination with the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha; (12) giving full ordination before one has been a bhikṣuṇī for twelve years.[82]

There are several pāyantika precepts that are not found in the Mūlasarvāstivāda, namely, ordaining a woman with both male and female organs, ordaining a woman who discharges urine and excrement from one's orifice, and ordaining a woman who is nursing. The rule that a bhikṣuṇī cannot give ordination every year (that is, a bhikṣuṇī can only ordain disciples every other year) is found only in the Mūlasarvāstivāda. It is worth mentioning that although the eight gurudharmas specify that a woman should take full ordination from both saṅghas, among all the Vinaya traditions, only the Mahīśasaka Vinaya contains a precept against ordaining a woman by one saṅgha only.

There is a very important principle behind all these rules concerning bhikṣuṇī ordination. That is, no offense is incurred by women who receive ordination in violation of these rules; instead, an offence is entailed on the part of bhikṣus or bhikṣuṇīs who gave ordination (i.e., precept masters). For example, during the Buddha's time, it happened that a woman was ordained and found herself pregnant later. Although such a physical condition would be a hindrance to her religious life, the Buddha did not invalidate her ordination. Instead, he allowed her to give birth to her child and raised it among the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha.[83] Therefore, ordaining a pregnant woman was prohibited, but in case of an infraction of this precept, rather than on the woman herself, the fault is on the bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī who knowingly gives ordination to a pregnant woman. The principle that the precept masters take the blame in

p. 539

case of a violation against the ordination rules applies similarly to the dual ordination. That is to say, if bhikṣu precept masters give full ordination to women who have not taken full ordination from the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha first, the women commit no offence; rather, the bhikṣu precept masters commit an offense. The rationale for this principle is that the precept masters should know the rules better than the precept receivers; therefore, the fault falls on them rather than the precept receivers should any violation of the ordination rules occur. As a result, even if such an infraction should occur, the bhikṣuṇīs who receive ordination from bhikṣu saṅgha alone still obtain a pure and flawless ordination.

In the pratideśanīya category, all Vinaya traditions have eight rules, except the Mūlasarvāstivāda that has eleven. In the Dharmagupta , the eight rules are asking for the following foods when a bhikṣuṇī is not sick: cheese, oil, honey, sugar, milk, cream, fish, and meat. In the Mūlasarvāstivāda we find milk, yogurt, butter, ghee, oil, honey, sugar, fish, meat, dried meat, and partaking of food in a learner's house without being invited.

Finally, in the śaikṣa category, the Dharmagupta has 100 rules while the Mūlasarvāstivāda has 99, however, the contents of the rules differ considerably.[84] Here is a list of the number of rules in different śaikṣa categories:[85]

Different sections	Dharmagupta	Mūlasarvāstivāda
l. Manner of wearing robes	2	12
2. Manners of entering a devotees house	25	26
3. Manners of accepting and eating food	23	35
4. Manners of exhortation	20	22
p. 540
5. Manner of urinating and passing excrement	3	3
6. Climbing a tree higher than the height of a human being	1	1
7. Behavior related to cetiya	26	0
	100	99

The most apparent difference between the two renditions is that the Dharmagupta has 26 rules related to cetiya. This difference reflects the great importance the Dharmagupta School places on the worship of cetiya.

The last category of bhikṣuṇī precepts includes the seven adhikaraṇa-śamatha rules which are the same in both Vinaya traditions. These rules deal with legal questions regarding to the settling of disputes about the Dharma and the Vinaya.

The above brief comparison shows how the precepts in the Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣā Sūtras of these two Vinaya traditions agree and differ from each other. They do not differ much regarding the more important precepts in the pārājika, saṅghāvaśesa and niḥsargika-pāyantika categories. Most of the differences are found in the śaikṣa rules: the manner of accepting and eating food, behavior related to cetiyas, etc. These rules are basically the guidelines for daily conduct and decorum for the bhikṣuṇīs, and do not have much to do with fundamental ethics and morality. Inasmuch as they do not come under any penal section, there is no punishment for violating any of them; a transgression is not considered a criminal act, but simply bad manners.[86] Some of the rules seem unrealistic and archaic and can therefore be considered “lesser and minor precepts” that can legitimately be abolished.[87] For example, one śaikṣa rule

p. 541

requires a bhikṣuṇī “not to give teachings while standing to one who is sitting, unless the person is sick.” Obviously this reflects modes of behavior current at the time, but the application of this rule is somewhat irrelevant in the present day.

In sum, if Tibetan Buddhism were to establish a bhikṣuṇī lineage based on both the Dharmagupta and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas, it would not cause any serious problem in terms of keeping precepts, because even though there are differences between the Dharmagupta and Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣās, the differences are minor and their essence is the same.

IV. The Possible Establishment of a Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī Lineage

In light of the discussion above, there are two possible ways to establish a Tibetan Bhikṣuṇī saṅgha. One is through dual ordination by both bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī saṅghas, and the other is through single ordination from the bhikṣu saṅgha only. Ordination by bhikṣuṇīs alone can be ruled out because it is specifically prohibited in the eight gurudharmas, the Bhikṣuṇī karman, and the commentaries of all Vinaya traditions.

傳統與繼承──中國與西藏比丘尼傳承之薪火相傳

釋恆清
臺灣大學哲學系教授

提要

自佛陀在世時，佛教僧團制度中，即有比丘、比丘尼二部僧團的設立，但是西藏佛教自古至今未曾成立比丘尼僧團。當藏傳佛教在西方漸漸弘傳之際，此情形常被批評為性別歧視。

近年來，提倡建立西藏比丘尼僧團的聲浪日益高漲。最近有二次研討會分別於臺北與達蘭沙拉（Dharamsala）舉行，專門探討戒律、比丘尼制度、如何建立藏傳比丘尼僧團等問題。

本文即是深入探討這些問題，文中分成四大部份：第一部份探討戒律中有關女眾自出家至成為比丘尼的規定，和傳授比丘尼戒的過程。第二部討論有關中國比丘尼僧團成立的經過，以及其相關的爭議性問題。第三部份比較《四分律》和《根本說一切有部律》中比丘尼戒之異同。第四部仍依據前三部份的研究結果，提出建立西藏佛教比丘尼僧團的可行性和方法。

關鍵詞：1.比丘尼　2.具足戒　3.受戒　4.西藏佛教　5.《四分律》　6.《根本說一切有部律》