Buddhist Nuns Through the Eyes of Leading Early Tang Masters

Abstract

The first Chinese Buddhist nuns were ordained in the monks' community only, despite disciplinary guidelines stating that nuns should be ordained both in the nuns' community (bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha) and in the monks' community (bhikṣusaṃgha). As can be seen from the Biqiuni zhuan 比丘尼傳, which is a collection of biographies of Chinese nuns compiled in the early sixth century, this situation gave rise to discussions on the legal status of the Chinese bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha. In c. 433, a so-called second ordination became possible with the arrival of a group of Sinhalese nuns who could legally act as nun witnesses, thus making it possible that, for the first time in history, a dual ordination, in both communities, could be held in China. It confirmed the full status of Chinese nuns in monastic institutions. Nevertheless, the status of women still raised questions and even doubt, with male dominance remaining standard. This male standard is particularly underscored in the writings of influential vinaya (disciplinary) masters, such as Daoxuan 道 宣 (596–667), Daoshi 道 世 (?–683), and others. In this article, their views will be analyzed and compared, against the background of the nuns' institutional role.

Keywords:

• Buddhist nuns
• Chinese Buddhist monasticism
• gender

Notes

 1 For a translation into English, see Kathryn Ann Tsai, Lives of the Nuns, Biographies of Chinese Buddhist Nuns from the Fourth to the Sixth Centuries (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1994).

 2 For examples, see, among others, Valentina Georgieva, “Representation of Buddhist Nuns in Chinese Edifying Miracle Tales during the Six Dynasties and the Tang,” Journal of Chinese Religions, vol. 24 (1996), 53–55.

 3 See, for instance, Li Yuzhen, Tangdai de biqiuni (Nuns of the Tang Dynasty) (Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju, 1989); Bernard Faure, “Voices of Dissent: Women in Early Chan and Tiantai,” Zenbunka kenkyūsho kiyō, vol. 24 (1998); Hao Chunwen, Tang houqi Wudai Songchu Dunhuang sengni de shehui shenghuo (Social life of Dunhuang monks and nuns in the Late Tang, Five Dynasties and Early Song period) (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1998), 76–88; Valentina, Georgieva, “Buddhist Nuns in China, from the Six Dynasties to the Tang” (Ph.D. Leiden University, 2000); Jinhua Chen, “Family Ties and Buddhist Nuns in Tang China: Two Studies,” Asia Major, 15, no. 2 (2002); Yao Ping, Tangdai funü de shengming licheng (Life of women of the Tang Dynasty) (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2004); Wendi Adamek, “A Niche of Their Own: the Power of Convention in Two Inscriptions for Medieval Chinese Buddhist Nuns,” History of Religions, 49, no. 1 (2009) and “The Literary Lives of Nuns: Poems Inscribed on a Memorial Niche for the Tang Nun Benxing,” T'ang Studies, vol. 27 (2009).

 4 For a discussion, see, among others, Elise Anne DeVido, Taiwan's Buddhist Nuns (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010), 105–10.

 5 Adamek, “A Niche of Their Own,” 5; Bernard Faure, The Red Thread (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).

 6 See, among others, Tōru Funayama, “The Acceptance of Buddhist Precepts by the Chinese in the Fifth Century,” Journal of Asian History, 38, no. 2 (2004), 97–101; Ann Heirman, “Vinaya from India to China,” in Ann Heirman and Stephan-Peter Bumbacher, eds., The Spread of Buddhism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 169–74.

 7 For details, see, among others, Funayama, “The Acceptance of Buddhist Precepts,” 101–04; Heirman, “Vinaya from India to China,” 175–177.

 8 Of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, a Tibetan translation as well as large parts of the Sanskrit text are extant (see Akira Yuyama, A Systematic Survey of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, Erster Teil: Vinaya-Text (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1979), 12–33).

 9 See Tang Yongtong, Han Wei Liang-Jin Nanbeichao Fojiaoshi (History of Buddhism of the period of Han, Wei, Two Jin and the Southern and Northern Dynasties) (Banqiao: Luotuo Chubanshe, 1996 (first edition 1938)), vol. 2, 828–29; Ann Heirman, “Can we Trace the Early Dharmaguptakas?” T'oung Pao, vol. lxxxviii (2002), 419–23. On the predominance of the Dharmaguptakavinaya, see also Funayama, “The Acceptance of Buddhist Precepts,” 113–15.

10 For an overview of vinaya masters, see Heirman, “Can we Trace the Early Dharmaguptakas?” 410–13 and Laszló Hankó, Der Ursprung der japanischen Vinaya-Schule Risshū 律宗 und die Entwicklung ihrer Lehre und Praxis (Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag, 2003), 10–16 and 356. There is, however, an intensive scholarly debate on the use of the term “School(s)” in the period before the Song dynasty (see, among others, Tang Yongtong, “Lun Zhongguo fojiao wu ‘shi zong’” (Discussion on why Chinese Buddhism does not have “Ten Schools”), Zhexue yanjiu, 3 (1962), 47–54 and “Zhongguo fojiao zongpai wenti bu lun” (Further discussions on Chinese Buddhist schools), Beijing Daxue xuebao, 5 (1963), 1–18; Stanley Weinstein, “Schools of Buddhism: Chinese Buddhism,” in Mircea Eliade, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 482–87. In this context, a recent study by Jinhua Chen (“Vinaya Texts and Transmission History: New Perspectives and Methods,” paper presented at the Research Center for Buddhist Texts and Arts, Peking University, August 2013) addresses the complex issue of early lineages of vinaya masters, as well as the essential role played in promoting the Dharmaguptakavinaya by the monks Daoyun 道雲 (sixth century, d.u.) and Zhishou 智首(567–635), Daoxuan's master. Although Daoxuan was certainly an inspiring master, it is not at all sure that he considered himself as the founder of a separate school. Still, in later centuries, he was recognized as such.

11 Daoxuan, T.2060, 620c2–3 and Sifen lü shanfan buque xingshi chao 四 分 律 刪 繁 補 闕 行 事 鈔, An Abridged and Explanatory Commentary on the Dharmaguptakavinaya, T.1804, 51c7–9.

12 For a detailed biographical account of master Zhishou, see, in particular, Jinhua Chen, “An Alternative View of the Meditation Tradition in China: Meditation in the Life and Works of Daoxuan (596–667),” T'oung Pao, vol. lxxxviii (2002), 375–84.

13 For details, see Robin B. Wagner, “Buddhism, Biography and Power: A Study of Daoxuan's ‘Continued Lives of Eminent Monks’” (Ph.D. Harvard University, 1995), 46–90; Yifa, The Origins of Buddhist Monastic Codes in China, An Annotated Translation and Study of the Chanyuan Qinggui (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2002), 23–28.

14 Daoxuan, T.1804, 2b19–20 and Sifen lü biqiuni chao 四 分 律 比 丘 尼 鈔, Commentary on the [Part for] Bhikṣuṇīs of the Dharmaguptakavinaya, W Vol. 64, 50b5–6. See also Zhihui Tan, “Daoxuan's Vision of Jetavana, Imagining a Utopian Monastery in Early Tang” (Ph.D. University of Arizona, 2002), 68–69.

15 For a biography, see Daoxuan, Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳, Further Biographies of Eminent Monks, T.2060, 615c4–29.

16 For a biography, see Zanning 贊寧, Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳, Song Biographies of Eminent Monks, T.2061, 792b25–793a10. There is discussion on the exact dates of Huaisu. Alternative dates are 625–98 and 634–707 (see Wang Jianguang, Zhongguo lüzong tongshi (General history of the Chinese Vinaya schools) (Nanjing: Fenghuang chubanshe, 2008), 311).

17 For details on these rules, see, among many others, Isaline Blew Horner, Women under Primitive Buddhism: Laywomen and Almswomen (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1930), 118–61; Ute Hüsken, Die Vorschriften für die buddhistische Nonnengemeinde im Vinaya-Piṭaka der Theravādin (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1997), 345–60; Ann Heirman and Tzu-Lung Chiu, “The Gurudharmas in Taiwanese Buddhist Nunneries,” Buddhist Studies Review, 29, no. 2 (2012), 276–80. Most vinayas contain very similar rules, although the order can be different (for an overview, see Jin-il Chung, “Gurudharma und Aṣṭau Gurudharmāḥ,” Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 42 (1999), 229.

18 The same idea (with a reference to the Mahīśāsakavinaya) is also highlighted by the monk Huaisu in his Sifen lü kaizong ji 四分律開宗記 (Introduction to the Teachings of the Dharmagupatakavinaya), W Vol.,67, 162b17–163a4. See also Anālayo (“Mahāpajāpatī's Going Forth in the Madhyama-āgama,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, vol. 18 (2011), 292), who, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the account of Mahāprajāpatī's going forth as related in the Madhyamāgama (a major sūtra text), suggests that “for the Buddha to tell Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī that she can live a semi-monastic life at home quite possibly constitutes an early piece of the narrative.”

19 Paul Demiéville, Hubert Durt, and Anna Seidel, Répertoire du canon bouddhique sino-japonais, édition de Taishō (Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō) (Paris: Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient; Tokyo: Maison Franco-Japonaise, 1978), 125; Yuyama, A Systematic Survey, 44. On the title, see Shayne Clarke, “Vinaya Mātṛkā — Mother of the Monastic Codes, or just Another Set of Lists? A Response to Frauwallner's Handling of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya,” Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 47 (2004), 87. The affiliation of the text is not yet established (for detailed references, see Anālayo, “Mahāpajāpatī's Going Forth,” 270–71, n. 11).

20 This passage is quite popular among vinaya masters, and is also referred to by Fali in his Sifen lü shu 四分律疏 (Commentary on the Dharmaguptakavinaya), W Vol. 65, 920b10–17 and in the Sifen lü shu shizong yi ji 四分律疏飾宗義記 (Embellished exposition on the commentary on the Dharmaguptakavinaya), a sub-commentary on Fali's text, written by the monk Dingbin 定賓 (beginning of eighth century), W Vol. 66, 563a14–b2. Also Huaisu refers to a similar passage in his Sifen lü kaizong ji, W Vol. 67, 164b1–15. On the same kind of reproaches uttered by the Buddha himself as mentioned in the Madhyamāgama, see Anālayo, “Mahāpajāpatī's Going Forth,” 285–87, 301–06, who sees them as outbursts of the community of monks who could have become increasingly nervous about the independent behavior of nuns and their close relationship with the laity.

21 In this context, it is interesting to note that when Daoxuan discusses the mother of his vinaya teacher Zhishou (who became a nun with the dharma name Fashi 法施), he explicitly mentions that she faithfully followed the eight important rules (Xu gaoseng zhuan, T.2060, 614a11–24). He further describes her as a distinguished and learned nun, who, however, failed to get her son ordained early, maybe because Zhishou's teacher did not fully acknowledge Fashi's judgment, considering Zhishou to not be mature enough (with many thanks to Jinhua Chen for pointing out this passage to me; see also Chen, “An Alternative View,” 375–76).

22 This refers to T.1462, 796c20–23. For more details on this text, see n. 72.

23 Demiéville et al., Répertoire du canon bouddhique sino-japonais, 48 and 243. The Moye jing is a sūtra on Māyā, the mother of Śākyamuni Buddha. According to tradition, Māyā passed away a week after having given birth. The Moye jing has two major parts: it first relates how the Buddha went to preach the dharma to his mother who was reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods. Second, it describes how Māyā, when she learned of the death of her son, descended from heaven to see his body for the last time. The sūtra further tells of those who will propagate the dharma in the 1500 years following the Buddha's death, and it predicts what will happen. On this text and its prediction, see, in particular, Jan Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time, Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991), 168–70.

24 For a translation and a detailed analysis of this account, which is probably related to the Sarvāstivāda tradition, see Anālayo, “Mahāpajāpatī's Going Forth.”

25 For a translation into English, see Akira Hirakawa (in collaboration with Zenno Ikuno and Paul Groner), Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns, An English Translation of the Chinese Text of the Mahāsāṃghika-Bhikṣuṇī-Vinaya (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1982), 49–50.

26 A bit further in his commentary (114b2–3), Daoxuan also refers to the third gurudharma mentioned by the Mahāsāṃghikavinaya (T.1425, 474c4–5): only if a monk is a close relative, a nun can softly admonish him, but she should never scold him (for a translation, see Hirakawa, Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns, 82). By selecting this passage, Daoxuan underlines that family ties remain important.

27 The latter statement is in fact part of the third (and not the first) gurudharma of the Mahāsāṃghikavinaya (T.1425, 474c3), and has been inserted here by Daoxuan. For a full translation, see Hirakawa, Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns, 83.

28 Referring (114a18-b2) to the Dharmaguptakavinaya (T.1428, 929c17–21), Daoxuan also states that, if bhikṣuṇīs (nuns), śikṣamāṇās (probationers) or śrāmaṇerīs (novices) offend bhikṣus (monks), one should make it stop. If they do not change their attitude and do not repent, one should perform a formal act (jiemo 羯磨, karman) against those nuns who are their teachers to prohibit them from further teaching any disciples.

29 Although the Da'aidao biqiuni jing presents itself as a translation, Akira Hirakawa (Ritsuzō no kenkyū 律蔵の研究 (A study of the Vinaya-Piṭaka) (Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1970), 273–74) does not exclude that the text is a Chinese compilation. As I have shown elsewhere (“Chinese Nuns and Their Ordination in Fifth Century China,” Journal of the International Association of Chinese Studies, 24, no. 2 (2001), 284–89), the Da'aidao biqiuni jing contains many misogynic ideas, while significantly changing the account of the eight gurudharmas to the detriment of nuns.

30 In a similar vein, also Daoxuan's ordination master, the monk Zhishou, reminds us in his Sifen lü shu 四分律疏 (Commentary on the Dharmaguptakavinaya), W Vol. 66, 657b16–18, of male superiority in the monastic institutions: when discussing the bi-monthly instruction that nuns receive from monks (in accordance with the eight important rules), the text explains that nuns are people of the weaker sex (ni shi nü ruo zhi ren 尼是女弱之人), and therefore in need of protection. Similarly, the monk Huaisu speaks of the weak will of women when he explains why the Buddha did at first not allow them to enter the Buddhist community (Sifen lü kaizong ji, W Vol. 67, 163a18–b1).

31 Cf. Demiéville et al., Répertoire du canon bouddhique sino-japonais, 128 and Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism, The Doctrinal Foundations (London: Routledge, 1989), 74–75.

32 See, for instance, Dharmaguptakavinaya, T.1428, 923a28–b1: “Even when a nun has been ordained for one hundred years, she must rise up from her seat when seeing a newly ordained monk, and she must pay obeisance and offer him a place to sit.” The traditional story relates how Mahāprajāpatī protested against this and asked to be allowed to pay obeisance according to seniority. This request is denied (for details, see Heirman, “Chinese Nuns and Their Ordination in Fifth Century China,” 278-84). Mahāprajāpatī's latter request and the subsequent denial are equally highlighted by Fali in his Sifen lü shu, W Vol. 65, 920a16–b10, with a reference to the Mahīśāsakavinaya, T.1421, 186a7–25.

33 On the bad influence of women as perceived by Daoxuan in a context different from vinaya, see Bernard Faure, The Power of Denial (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 55.

34 The Sapoduo pini piposha has probably been translated into Chinese after the translation of the Sarvāstivādavinaya and before 431 (see Yuyama, A Systematic Survey, 8–9). In “Ursprung und Wandel der Aufnahme von Frauen in den buddhistischen Orden nach der kanonischen Überlieferung – eine Randbemerkung,” Annual of the Sanko Research Institute of the Studies of Buddhism, vol. 37 (2006), 12–14, Jin-il Chung argues that it is not impossible that there was once a stage in early Buddhism when nuns, just as monks, could indeed be personally invited by the Buddha to become full members of the Buddhist monastic community.

35 This probably refers to the three methods for ordination as given by the Sapoduo bu pini modelejia 薩婆多部毘尼摩得勒伽 *Sarvāstivādavinayamātṛkā (T.1441, 594b1–2): 比丘尼受具足戒有三種受。一受八敬法。二遣使。三二部僧。現前白四羯磨。 “There are three kinds of full ordination for bhikṣuṇīs: 1) an ordination through the eight important rules (as was the case for Mahāprajāpatī); 2) an ordination through a messenger (in case it is too dangerous for a woman to go out of the nunnery to get her ordination at the monks’ monastery, see Sarvāstivādavinaya, T.1435, 295b13–296a22); 3) an ordination through a jñapticaturthakarman ceremony in both communities (the standard procedure; for details, see Ann Heirman, The Discipline in Four Parts, Rules for Nuns According to the Dharmaguptakavinaya (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2002), part I, 75–78).” These ordination methods are further explained by the Sapoduo pini piposha (T.1440, 512a25–b2) mentioned above by Fali.

36 Dharmaguptakavinaya, T.1428, 923b8–10. A probationer is a status between a novice and a nun, only applicable to women. The training typically starts at the age of eighteen. For a detailed discussion on the probationer, see, among others, Chung, “Ursprung und Wandel der Aufnahme von Frauen in den buddhistischen Orden” and Ann Heirman, “Where is the Probationer in the Chinese Buddhist Nunneries?” Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgenla¨ndischen Gesellschaft, 158, no. 1 (2008).

37 The number of witnesses is usually ten (for details, see Heirman, “Chinese Nuns and Their Ordination in Fifth Century China,” 294–95, nn. 88 and 89).

38 For details, see, among others, Heirman, “Chinese Nuns and Their Ordination in Fifth Century China,” 293–98; Ann Heirman, “Buddhist Nuns: Between Past and Present,” Numen, vol. 58 (2011), 609–25.

39 See Ann Heirman, “Fifth Century Chinese Nuns: An Exemplary Case,” Buddhist Studies Review, 27, no. 1 (2010), 65–66.

40 Compare Biqiuni zhuan, T.2063, 937b7–8: 又問就如律文戒師得罪何無異耶。 “(The nun Huiguo) further asked (Guṇavarman): ‘According to the vinaya texts, the teacher who administers the rules commits an offense. How can there be no difference (between our ordination and the ordination of Mahāprajāpatī)?’”

41 This last sentence is parallel to Huijiao 慧皎, Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳, Biographies of Eminent Monks, T.2059, 341b4–5. Instead of the character 相 (xiang, each other), T.2059 has 助 (zhu, to help), which makes more sense: “it will greatly help you to be joyful.”

42 On Dajue's arguments, see Heirman, “Fifth Century Chinese Nuns,” 66–69.

43 See, for instance, Gregory Schopen, 1997, “Filial Piety and the Monk in the Practice of Indian Buddhism, A Question of ‘Sinicization’ Viewed from the Other Side,” in Gregory Schopen, Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks, Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic in India (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2007; originally published in T'oung Pao, vol. 70 (1984)) and “The Buddhist Bhikṣu's Obligation to Support His Parents in Two Vinaya Traditions,” The Journal of the Pali Text Society, vol. xxix (2007), 112–32.

44 On this festival, see, in particular, the meticulous study by Stephen F. Teiser, The Ghost Festival in Medieval China (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996 [1988]).

45 Teiser, The Ghost Festival, 197.

46 In a brief remark in W Vol. 64, 72b12–16, Daoxuan equally links the Buddha's permission to ordain women to family ties between the Buddha and Mahāprajāpatī. When answering the question of why female monastic teachers (upādhyāyinī; heshang(ni) 和尚(尼)) are addressed with the term ayi 阿姨, he explains that Mahāprajāpatī was in fact the Buddha's maternal aunt (yimu 姨母), which, according to him, explains the use of the character 姨. It also explains why women could go forth. “A” (preceding 姨), he says, is an honorific title. In fact, the term 阿姨 is most probably a phonetic rendering of the Indian āryā (“honorable one”), and coincides with the term used in China to respectfully address, among others, one's aunt (cf. Ann Heirman, The Discipline in Four Parts, part II, 297, n. 135). In T.1804, 152a15–16, in a discussion on the full ordination of nuns, Daoxuan again refers to the term ayi 阿姨. He explains that the use of this term refers to Mahāprajāpatī and that in this way the tradition (of ordinations) remains unbroken.

47 For a detailed study on the Buddha's debt to his (step-)mother, see Reiko Ohnuma, “Debt to the Mother: A Neglected Aspect of the Founding of the Buddhist Nuns’ Order,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 74 (2006), n. 4.

48 The affiliation of this text is not yet established (see, among others, Fumio Enomoto, “On the Formation of the Original Texts of the Chinese Āgamas,” Buddhist Studies Review, 3, no. 1 (1986), 25; Akira Hirakawa, A History of Indian Buddhism, From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna, translated and edited by Paul Groner [Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990], 73), although some argue for a Dharmaguptaka, Mahāsāṃghika or a Sarvāstivāda connection (for references, see, among others, Anthony Kennedy Warder, Indian Buddhism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970 [1991]), 8–9; Egaku Mayeda, “Japanese Studies on the Schools of the Chinese Āgamas,” in Heinz Bechert, ed., Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der Hīnayāna-Literatur, Erster Teil (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 102–03; Thomas Oberlies, “Ein bibliographischer Überblick über die kanonischen Texte der Śrāvakayāna-Schulen des Buddhismus (ausgenommen der des Mahāvihāra-Theravāda),” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, vol. 47 (2003), 72).

49 How the Buddha paid respect to his deceased father is related in detail in the Jingfan wang banniepan jing 淨飯王般涅槃經, Śuddhodanarājaparinirvāṇasūtra (T.512), translated into Chinese in the fifth century.

50 On filial piety in Chinese Buddhism, see Kenneth K. S. Ch'en, “Filial piety in Chinese Buddhism,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 28 (1968), 81–97, who in his pioneering article underlines its importance in Chinese society. Partly in response to Ch'en, many others have analyzed filial piety in a Buddhist context, often showing how the concept was equally important in Indian Buddhism, while acquiring a particular status in the Confucian environment of China. For an overview, see Guang Xing, “Filial Piety in Early Buddhism,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, vol. 12 (2005), 82–106, who equally points out several similarities between Indian and Chinese Buddhism on the concept of filial piety. See also Alan Cole, Mothers and Sons in Chinese Buddhism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 41–55, who analyzes how Indian aspects were made relevant to Chinese concerns.

51 Daoshi's arguments, in fact, rely fully on some discussions recorded in the Da zhidu lun 大智度論, Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra (T.1509, 128c25–129a21, and 132a6–17).

52 Cf. Demiéville et al., Répertoire du canon bouddhique sino-japonais, 27 and 245.

53 T.2122, 1000a12–14; T.2123, 179b27-29; T.145, 870b17-21.

54 As mentioned in the Zeng yi ahan jing, T.125, 823a21.

55 Daoshi hereby refers to the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經, Saṃyuktāgama (usually attributed to the (Mūla)-Sarvāstivāda tradition, and translated into Chinese in the middle of fifth century), T.99, 277a11, where the monk Nanda is indeed presented as the biological son of the Buddha's stepmother. On the Za ahan jing's school attribution, see Warder, Indian Buddhism, 8; Mayeda, “Japanese Studies on the Schools,” 99; Enomoto, “On the Formation of the Original Texts,” 23; Hirakawa, A History of Indian Buddhism, 71.

56 In the Zeng yi ahan jing (T.125, 823a9), it is in fact the Buddha's disciple Śāriputra who says this.

57 The same passage is also referred to by Huaisu in his Sifen lü kaizong ji, W Vol. 67, 164b15–165a3. For a translation, see Purushottam Vishvanath Bapat and Akira Hirakawa, 善見毘婆沙 Shan-Chien-P'i-P'o-Sha, A Chinese version by Saṅghabhadra of Samantapāsādikā (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1970), 534–35.The Samantapāsādikā is traditionally attributed to the monk Buddhaghosa (on this attribution and the doubts it raises, see Oskar von Hinüber, A Handbook of Pāli Literature (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 103–04). The Chinese Shanjian lü piposha (T.1462) is often seen as a translation (completed in 488–89) of the Samantapāsādikā, attributed to the monk Saṃghabhadra. Its relation to the Pāli text, however, is not that straightforward, and has been the topic of many debates. For details on this text, and a discussion on its relationship to the Pāli Samantapāsādikā, see a recent study by Gudrun Pinte, “Lost in Translation: A Case Study of Sanghabhadra's Shanjian lü piposha” (Ph.D. Ghent University, 2011).

58 Daoshi (T.2122, 563a13–28) also tells his readers how the Buddha, after his passing away, calls all monks to the Sumeru mountain, and warns them of the dangers for the Buddhist law. One of these dangers are wicked nuns who do not abide by the eight important rules.

59 On this inability of self-control, see also Wendi Adamek, “A Niche of Their Own,” 20.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ann Heirman

Ann Heirman, Ph.D. (1998) in Oriental Languages and Cultures, is Professor at Ghent University (Belgium), where she is teaching Classical and Buddhist Chinese. She has published extensively on Chinese Buddhist monasticism and the development of disciplinary rules, including Rules for Nuns according to the Dharmaguptakavinaya (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2002), The Spread of Buddhism (edited volume with Stephan Peter Bumbacher [Leiden: Brill, 2007]) and A Pure Mind in a Clean Body, Bodily Care in the Buddhist Monasteries of Ancient India and China (Ghent: Academia Press, 2012), with Mathieu Torck. At Ghent University, she is president of the Ghent Centre for Buddhist Studies, an international research center that focuses on India and China.