Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Greetings all,

Attached are two articles recently made available by their author, U Pandita (not the Mahasi meditation teacher of this name, but another Burmese scholar monk). The articles are a critique of two contentions in Dr. Juo-Hsüeh Shih's article, Controversies over Buddhist Nuns, namely, her claim that Buddhaghosa misinterprets the term 'anupasampanno' in his commentary to the the Vinaya's duṭṭhullārocana training rule, and the claim (made also by Gombrich) that there once existed bhikkhunīs ordained by the "ehi bhikkhunī" method.

Thank you Ajahn!
metta

Ben

Thank-you bhante, I will have a read of these later

had a read and the second was very interesting more so than the first for me at least

Attached is another article by U Pandita: Was the Buddha Obliged to Observe Vinaya Rules?
From the introduction:

• Juo-Hsüeh Shih makes an interesting assumption in her work Controversies over Buddhist Nuns when she discusses the historicity of ñatticatutthakamma ordination form in Vinaya:
  
  Moreover, evidence in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta of the DN suggests that the Buddha himself may have used this formula [i. e., the ehibhikkhu formula]1 all his life. (352) So why did the Buddha not follow the procedure [i. e., the ñatticatutthakamma procedure]2 he had himself prescribed? (355) It is more plausible to suggest that the last stage in the evolution of the ordination process, the ñatticatutthakammaupasampadā, began after the Buddha’s death . . . (356)
  
  Her argument can be schematized as follows:
  
  1. If the Buddha really prescribed the ñatticatutthakamma ordination during his lifetime, he must have adopted it in giving ordination to his followers.
  2. But he used the older ehibhikkhu formula all his life.
  3. Therefore:
  a) Either he failed to observe his own rule,
  b) Or the ñatticatutthakamma ordination is a later development that has materialized only after his passing away.
  4. But the Buddha could not have failed to observe his own rules.
  5. Therefore, only the conclusion (3b) is plausible.
  
  As seen above, her argument is based on the assumption that the Buddha was obliged to observe Vinaya rules like his followers. “No one is above the law”, she seems to say, not even the Buddha himself.
  
  However, I find it difficult to take her assumption at face value because it contradicts the orthodox Theravādin view...

Not read it yet, but down loaded and will read today!
Thank-you Bhante!

EDIT - The download was broken for me? anyone else have any joy downloading it?

I've uploaded it again.It downloads okay onto my computer.

Downloaded fine that Time Thanks!

Very interesting I managed to read the whole thing instead of 5 pages at a time