4 Mahasanghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksuni Vinaya THE INTERSECTION OF WOMANLY VIRTUE AND BUDDHIST ASCETICISM Amy Paris Langenberg THE MAHASANGHIKA-LOKOTTARAVADA Bhiksunt Vinaya is one of two complete nuns’ vinayas surviving in an Indic language, the other being the Pali vinaya, the subject of the preceding chapter in this volume.’ In the 1930s, Rahul Sankrtyayana photographed a manuscript of this text, which he dates to the 12th century, at Zhalu monastery in Tibet. After returning to India, he deposited the negatives at the Bihar Research Society in Patna. Gustav Roth (1970) is responsible for producing an excellent edition of this valuable document. It includes an account of the eight grave duties, the nuns’ pratimoksa with commentary, the miscellaneous rules for nuns, and an abbreviated list of the miscellaneous rules for monks, all in the Prakrit-cum-Sanskrit that is characteristic of Mahasanghika-Lokottarvada texts (Roth 1980, 78-135 and 1972, 211-18). 1. I would like to sincerely thank Bhikkhu An&layo and Alice Collett for their help with this essay. In addition to detailed and patient editing, Professor Collett contributed a number of substantive clarifications at key places in the text. Any mistakes are, of course, my own. 2. For a complete French translation, see Nolot 1991. Akira Hirakawa (1982) has translated the entire Chinese nuns’ Vinaya of the Mahasanghika school into English. There are many differences in detail between this text and that of the Mahasanighika-Lokottaravadin school, but structurally, the two are very similar. See also J. W. de Jong (1974, 63-70), Husken (1997b, 202-37), von Hintiber (1994, 109-22).Mahasanghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksunt Vinaya 81 Although their family resemblance is strong, the various Buddhist vinaya traditions also display unique features. The Mahasanghika- Lokottaravada Bhiksuni Vinaya is remarkable in that it appears to have been edited in order to provide a comprehensive set of rules, principles, and procedures for nuns, easily detachable from the monks’ vinaya (Roth 1970, xxix-xxxii and Htisken 1997, 202-4). In it, the story of the founding of the nuns’ Order along with an account of the eight grave duties (gurud- harmas) are supplied at the beginning of the text as an introduction, just before the nuns’ pratimoksa (the list of vows taken at higher ordination). In the Pali and Malasarvastivada Vinayas, by contrast, these appear much later with the miscellaneous (khandaka) rules. Ute Hiisken brings to our attention the eight gurudharmas’ priority and contiguity to the pratimoksa proper in this text, a unique organizational feature that she finds both logical and compelling. She points out that, after all, the eight grave duties are supposed to be “the very first rules formulated for nuns” and are de- clared “never to be transgressed” (19976, 203). In the Mahasanghika- Lokottarvada Bhiksunt Vinaya, moreover, the relevant karmavacanas (formal monastic procedures) are handily collected under each gurud- harma. Furthermore, unlike the Pali Bhikkhuntvibhanga (the canonical exposition of the nuns’ pdtimokkha) that only lists nuns’ rules not shared by the monks, the Mahasanghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksuni Vinaya includes the shared rules, though in an extremely abbreviated form.+ Overall, the text exhibits a tendency to rearrange, reconcile, and, as Ute Htsken ob- serves, “rationalize the material” so as to create a smooth, coherent, logi- cally organized document ideal for recitation and study by nuns (Hiisken 1997b, 228). Perhaps a nun-centered editing program explains another noteworthy feature of the text: its foregrounding of the figure of Mahaprajapati Gautam. Here, after her acceptance of the eight grave duties for nuns, she is invested before her band of nuns with the titles of community eldress (sangha-sthaviri), community eminence (sangha-mahattari), and commu- nity leader (sangha-parinayika) (parajika dharma 1, Roth 1970, §u11, 75, and sooxix-xli). When the nuns encounter a difficulty in the Pali Vinaya, they 3- For instance: ayam gautami bhiksuninam caturtho guru-dharmo yo bhiksunthi yavajjivam satkartavyo yavad an ati-kramaniyo veld-m-iva mahasamudrena. Gurudharma 4 (Roth 1970, $92, 62). 4. See the previous chapter for a discussion of the structure of the Pali Vinaya.82 WOMEN IN EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM typically report to the monks, who bring the matter to the attention of the Buddha. Although meetings between the Lord Buddha (bhagavan) and Mahaprajapati Gautami do occur in the Malasarvastivada Vinaya, the monks often play an intermediary role’ In the Mahasanghika- Lokottaravada Bhiksuni Vinaya, on the other hand, Mahaprajapatl main- tains her right of access to the Lord, bringing almost all matters of discipline to his attention personally (Roth 1970, xl). This vinaya text differs from others in another significant way: it con- tains one gurudharma for nuns that does not appear elsewhere, except in the Chinese Mahasanghika Bhiksunt Vinaya (Nolot 1991, 534-35, Roth 1970, worxxi, Hirakawa 1982, 83-85). By combining the gurudharma that nuns may not admonish monks with another that states that nuns may not rebuke monks, the Lokottaravadins have made room for the new gurudharma while still keeping the total number at eight. The additional dharma forbids nuns from accepting donations of food, clothing, and shelter first from lay people who have not yet donated anything to the monks. According to the exposi- tion of the rule, the issue at stake is not the overall amount donated to the monks’ versus the nuns’ community, but simply the order of giving. Thus, the Lord assures Mahaprajapati that “If the assembly of nuns causes even as much as one bowl of rice to be offered to the assembly of monks, then, should it accept even hundred-flavor food, this does not constitute a fault.” Similarly, if the nuns cause so much as a bamboo platform or cow-dung hut to be donated to the monks, then should they accept even a bed of white sandalwood or a seven-story monastic building, there is no fault. A. Gurudharma 4 (Roth 1970, §89-92, 61-62) 89. Now how is it, Gautami, that the nuns’ community must not avail themselves of first-time offerings of food, beds and seats, and housing before the assembly of monks do? Someone who makes a food offering to the nun’s community should be told, “You must do it following the most excellent proce- dure.” Then if he says, “There is no faith in that for me, no grace,” 5. According to Analayo, the other vinayas resemble the Miilasarvastivada Vinaya in the number of reported meetings between Mahaprajapati and the Buddha (Analayo 2008, 6-17 n. 39). 6. Nolot (7991, 534-35) points out that this is done by attaching the commentary usually as- sociated with the gurudharma forbidding nuns to abuse monks (akrostum) to the gurud- harma forbidding nuns to admonish monks (vacanapatho).Mahds@rghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksunt Vinaya he is to be told, “As for us, we do not accept [this offering].” Now he says, “My mother, my father, a member of my men’s organization, a professional associate, one of my friends, have all previously given [a food offering] to them but I [myself] have never previously made an offering to the noble ones. Let the noble ones receive [a food of- fering].” If [in this way] the assembly of nuns causes even as much as one bowl of rice to be offered to the assembly of monks, then, should it accept even one-hundred-flavor food, this does not consti- tute a fault. 90. Now what about a first offering of beds and seats? Someone who gives bedding and seating to the assembly of nuns should be told, “You must give it following the most excellent procedure.” Then if he says, “There is no faith in that for me, no grace,” he is to be told, “As for us, we do not accept it.” Now he will say, “My mother, my father, a member of my men’s organization, a professional as- sociate, one of my friends, have all previously given [bedding and seating] to them. Let the noble ones receive [bedding and seating].” If {in this way] the assembly of nuns causes even so much as a cot or bamboo platform’ to be given to the assembly of monks then, should it accept beds and seats of white sandalwood, this does not constitute a fault. 91. What about the first offering of a monastic dwelling? Some- one who establishes a monastic dwelling for the nun’s assembly should be told, “Establish it following the most excellent proce- dure.” Then if he says, “There is no faith in that for me, no grace,” he is to be told, “As for us, we do not accept it.” Now he says, “Noble ladies, my mother, my father, a member of my men’s organization, a professional associate, one of my friends, have all previously caused monastic dwellings to be made for them. May the noble ones accept this monastic dwelling.” If {in this way] the assembly of nuns causes even so much as a hut made of cow dung or a pile of rubble to be given to the assembly of monks then, should it accept even a monastic building of seven stories, this does not constitute a fault. 92. If a particular nun having disrespected [the monks] with in- sults like “dirty monk” or “ignorant monk” or “mean stupid old 7. Roth (1970), {90 antamasato khayu/2)kd mamcam. Em. antamasato khatva manwcam. 8384 WOMEN IN EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM man” avails herself of the first-time offerings of food, bedding and seating, and housing before the monks do, she transgresses a grave duty. So, Gautami, the nuns are to avail themselves of a first-time offering of food, bedding and seating, and monastic dwellings after the monk's community does so. This, Gautam, is the fourth grave duty of the nuns, which, for as long as they live, the nuns must faithfully and solemnly execute, honor, respect, and refuse to trans- gress, just as the great ocean respects the shore. Gurudharma 4 is interesting for reasons beyond its singularity. It is one of many passages in the Mahasanghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksunt Vinaya that does not obviously fulfill one of the “ten purposes” (dasarthavasa) for vinaya listed in the introduction to the Bhiksu Pratimoksa Sutra of the Lokottaravadins.* It is difficult to see how the sort of ritualized assertion of male priority found in this rule, which is subsequently defanged by casu- istry, would engender any of the enumerated benefits. How might it, in reality, unify or increase the merit of the community, chastise the sinful or encourage the virtuous, generate faith in the unfaithful and faithful alike, remove karmic stains and prevent the accumulation of karmic residues in the future, or preserve and propagate the well-explained dharma?? The issues at stake in gurudharma 4 seem not to be moral, nor what one might term “spiritual,” but rather sociopolitical. While ensuring that they need not actually give up material comforts to monks, this proscription requires nuns to perform a publicly visible ritual act of gift-giving that underlines the higher status of the male community. Nuns are also warned against openly giving vent to any resentments that might arise with respect to the monks’ community. Contemporary scholarship offers additional explanatory frameworks for assessing the meaning and purpose of the vinaya rules for monks and nuns. Rupert Gethin (1998, 91-94) proposes that vinaya is concerned 8. See Tatia (1976, 5.26-6.4), Roth (1979, 321), Prebish (1996b, 48). This list is not unique to the Mahasanghika Lokottaravadin tradition. According to Analayo, the different vinayas “agree fairly closely on a listing of ten benefits to be expected from the rules” (Personal com- munication, 3/8/2012). For the ten reasons in the Pali Vinaya, see page 72 in the previous chapter of this volume. 9. Staying very close to this traditional interpretation, Karma Lekshe Tsomo (1996, 4, 8) suggests that vinaya recitation was for the purpose of “maintain[ing} the standards of behav- ior and ethical integrity of the order” and also comments on the primacy of tla as the basis of concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (prajna).Mahasanghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksuni Vinaya 85 with realizing four aims, two of which (promoting the unity of the com- munity and cultivating the spiritual life) concur with the traditional explanation mentioned above. The third and fourth aims he mentions, managing lay-monastic interactions and safe-guarding the community's reputation, offer more possibilities for interpreting vinaya rules like gu- rudharma 4, Still, up to this point, many scholarly discussions of lay-monastic interactions, including the one Gethin offers, have focused on the need for Buddhist monks and nuns to be clean and neatly dressed, conduct themselves with dignity, and refrain from offending the laity. Here, I would like to suggest that, important as they are, something beyond unity, spiritual cultivation, etiquette, dignity, and hygiene are at play in certain nuns’ rules. The Lokottaravadin Bhiksunt Vinaya demon- strates an additional concern that is unique to the female monastic community: their occupation of a social location at the intersection of womanly virtue and Buddhist asceticism. Technically, what makes a nun different than an ordinary laywoman can be clearly defined in terms of Buddhist monastic ritual. The glosses for many nuns’ rules inform us that “‘Nun’ means an ordained woman.”° While fully adequate to the social organization of the ordained community itself, Buddhist ordination may not always have carried monastic women safely past the rocky shoals of public scrutiny. Mari Jyvasjarvi has recently completed an excellent study of rhetoric about female asceticism in the medieval Buddhist commentarial tradition of Gunaprabha, as compared with a Jain monastic commentary and Brahmanical dharmasastra and lit- erary traditions. Jyvasjarvi argues that female ascetics were viewed gener- ally as women of “fragile virtue,” in need of protection, chastening, and oversight. The male community saw themselves as obligated to step in as their guardians." Though we address different layers of the textual tradi- tion and somewhat different historical periods, I see the present study as complementing Jyvasjarvi’s insights by suggesting that the social vulnerability of Buddhist nuns (perceived and actual) derived not simply from their public image as unguarded females of questionable virtue, but also more generally from the fact that they were attempting to occupy a frontier position at the intersection of two well-established social identi- ties, those of “virtuous woman” and “Buddhist ascetic.” By all available To. See, for instance, pacattika dharmas 79 and 84, below. 11, Unpublished thesis, Jyvasjarvi 2orr.86 WOMEN IN EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM accounts, virtuous householder women in ancient India were supposed to be submissive to and under the guardianship of male authority. In matu- rity, virtuous householder women were also, however, required to be fertile and therefore capable of bringing forth sons. The Dharmasastra lit- erature indicates that brahmin lawgivers understood female submission to male authority largely in terms of the need to corral and bring to fruition what was perceived as a powerful female sexuality through marriage. Buddhist ascetics were, by contrast, celibate and nonreproducing by defi- nition. If a woman of virtue was thus to be conceived generally as both fertile and under the guardianship of their male relatives; if, indeed, wom- anly virtue was commonly defined in terms of wifehood; how then was a nun to display both full womanly virtue and celibacy? Buddhist nuns’ oc- cupation of this underarticulated, even paradoxical, social position at the crossroads of female virtue and Buddhist asceticism made them difficult for the laity to understand or accept and challenging for monastic lawyers to legislate. Feminist legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw describes this type of social “jntersectionality,” one also experienced by North American women of color (who are both female and non-white) as “a location that resists telling” (1991, 1241). In other words, because Buddhist nuns were social hybrids, they were continuously in danger of disappearing from the social map, their special role and status misunderstood, mistrusted, and over- looked. Many passages in the nuns’ Vinaya assimilate the category of “nun” to, or differentiate it from, specific and identifiable female behav- iors or occupations in response to this problem. By legally constructing nunhood out of a patchwork of already familiar social roles for women, the authors of the Bhiksunt Vinaya were able to shore up and more clearly articulate the nebulous social position that Buddhist nuns’ occupied. The selections translated and discussed below are a sampling of the vinaya passages that perform this sort of quilting work. In these examples, we can find evidence of attempts to negotiate a social and public, as well as a “private,” identity for Indian Buddhist nuns, engendered by the need for them to appear as women of virtue at all times while simultaneously uphold- ing and maintaining their renouncer status. In the first example, pacattika dharma 79, it is stated that “Any nun who stands by a monk with fan and water while he eats commits a fault requiring expiation.” While not immedi- ately obvious, this rule and the introductory story related to it reveal a need to enable (former) husbands and wives (or any pairing of monk and nun that might be construed in spousal terms) to conduct themselves appropriatelyMahasarighika-Lokottaravada Bhiksunt Vinaya 87 in relation to one another. Interestingly, the story is not about sexual tempta- tion. Rather it concerns an old married couple who have together committed themselves formally to the spiritual life. At mealtime, the woman stands by her former husband, fanning him and pouring his water. They squabble and, angered, she overturns the water pot onto his head, beats him with her fan, and abuses him verbally. This scenario leads to the rule. B. Pacattika Dharma 79 (Roth 1970, {193, 216-17) 193. The Lord was staying at Sravasti. Gartodara (“Hollow-belly”), Gartodara’s mother, and Gartodara’s father wandered forth from householdership into homelessness. Gartodara’s father and mother wandered forth with the Sakyas, Gartodara among the heterodox groups. Gartodara’s father was eating. Fanning him, Gartodara’s mother stood opposite and held his water pot. He prattled on about various events of the past that were unpleasant to her. She jammed the water pot onto his head, then she hit him about the head with the fan handle. “You ignorant useless spiteful old man!” she said. “You are speaking of things that should not be mentioned!” She was seen by the nuns. They told her, “Don’t do that, noble lady! A member of the superior assembly is not meant to act thus.” She replied, “But just now, this ignorant, unhappy wretch was prattling on about things that shouldn't be mentioned.” The nuns briefed Mahaprajapati Gautamt on the matter. (Mahaprajapati Gautami told the Lord.J* The Lord said, “You have done ill, mother of Gartodara. This is not the teaching (dharma), this is not the discipline (vinaya). You stand by this monk with water and fan while he eats. It is not suitable to stand by with fan and water in this way.” The Lord pronounced [the rule] as follows: “Should any nun stand by a monk with fan and water while he eats, she commits a fault requiring expiation.” “Nun” means: an ordained woman. And so forth.’ 12. I have supplied this phrase, which has precedence in this vinaya, in order to clarify the transition. 13. This text uses the terms peyalam and pe to indicate ellipses. It is typical of vinaya texts to abbreviate in this way. In this case, the reader is to supply the following phrase: sipasampanna traivacikena karmand jlapti-caturthena andghdta-paficamena samagrena sanghena ubhayatah sanghena iyam bhiksunt (parajika dharma 1, Roth 1970, §114, 76). This translates as, “One who is well ordained by the entire monastic community, by the twofold monastic commu- nity by means of the threefold speech with a formal monastic resolution as the fourth, [and] not struck down as the fifth, this is a nun.”88 WOMEN IN EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM “Monk” means: an ordained man. And so forth. “Eating” means: five courses, or five things mixed, or the like, or any hard or soft food. “Should she stand by with fan and water” means: should she hold his water pot or give air with a fan, it is a fault requiring expiation. Thus the statute is declared. A nun who holds the water pot but does not fan transgresses the monastic discipline. The one who fans but does not hold the water pot transgresses the monastic discipline. One who does both com- mits a fault requiring expiation. For one who does neither, there is no fault. One nun [attending to] one monk constitutes a fault. If there are many monks, it is not a fault. If she fans any monk who is father or brother to her, it is not a fault. Thus, the Lord said: “Should any nun stand by a monk with fan and water while he eats, she commits a fault requiring expiation.” The commentary informs us that the rule does not apply if a nun wishes to fan and serve her father or brother, or a group of monks collectively. Despite the introductory narrative, it seems likely that a former husband and wife reverting to their customary relationship at mealtime is viewed as a problem for reasons beyond the potential for disagreement and abuse. In any case, nuns’ abusing and scolding monks is proscribed by Guru- dharma 3 in the Lokottaravadin Bhiksunt Vinaya. The casuistry associated with this rule also makes it clear that a nun fanning and serving water to monks is not itself the problem since she may legally fan or serve her father, brother, or a group of monks. Sexual tension also is not implicated The problem seems to come, rather, when the nun behaves in the tradi- tional manner of a wife at mealtime, fanning and pouring water for her actual husband, or a solitary monk who might be “husband material.” This is a problem for nuns and their lawyers because, while nuns should display female virtue, their virtue should not resemble that of a wife.'* This point is somewhat obscured by the way the scene is played for laughs (and it often is in Buddhist vinaya literature) (see Schopen 2007 and Clarke 2009b). Gartodara’s mother does not suffer fools gladly. Though she 14. Several rules for monks also may be aimed at dispelling any marital overtones in monk- nun interactions. One of the four pratinidesantya dharmas (faults to be confessed) found in the Pali, Mahasanghika-Lokottaravadin, and Malasarvastivada Bhiksu-Pratimoksas says that monks should gently admonish nuns if they attempt to direct the feeding of monks at lay- people's houses. Another of the pratinidesantya dharmas forbids monks to accept, eat, and enjoy food frorn the hands of a nun who has begged alms and who is not related to him (Prebish 1996b, 94-95; Oldenberg and Rhys Davids, tr, [1882] 1991. 37).Mahasanghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksunt Vinaya 89 performs the ritual functions of a devoted wife, the sincerity of her devotion is clearly (and appropriately—she is a nun, after all) in doubt. She neither defers nor submits nor reveres. In short, she is not feeling like a devoted wife, merely nominally acting like one. This distinction, subtly emphasized by the addition of a bit of rather unsubtle schtick, underlines my point: nuns must not engage in what might be interpreted by fellow nuns, monks, or passing townspeople as wifely behavior. The role of “wife” has no place in their social portfolio. While their subjective states are also of concern, as will eventually be made clear when we turn to an analysis of bhiksunt prakirnaka 31, subjectivity is not what is at issue in pacattika dharma 79. The introductory story to pacattika dharma 84 describes a group of nuns who, invited for a meal by the devout laywoman Visakha, return the favor by cleaning, carding, and spinning her raw cotton. Visakha scolds them, expressing her preference that they behave as specialized religious rather than ordinary women. This scenario leads to the rule: “Should a nun perform work for a householder, it is a transgression requiring expiation.” C. Pacattika Dharma 84 (Roth 1970, §198, 222-23) 84. The Lord was staying at Sravasti. Visakha, mother of Mrgara, invited both communities for a meal. Some nuns, going there early in the morning, said, “Pious lady, since you have invited both com- munities for a meal, can we perform a service for the pious lady (in return)?” She replied, “What service should the noble ones per- form? You explain. You recite. You think deeply. In that way you do mea service.” “But we will also perform this service. After some go to the roof to get the cotton, others will treat it. Some others will tear it off (the husk]. Others will clean it. Some others will separate it. Others will spin it. Then taking the ball of thread, they will ap- proach the pious lady, [saying] ‘Pious lady, a service has been ren- dered.” She replied. “That the noble ones would clean or roll or rend or spin cotton is not a service to me. Rather I benefit if you noble ones, having eaten my food, explain and recite [the siitras] so that you are established in the teachings of the Buddhas.” Now the nuns heard about the concerns of that pious laywoman. The nuns briefed Mahaprajapati Gautamt on the matter. [Mahaprajapati Gautami told the Lord.] The Lord said, “That is badly done, nuns. 15, peyalam.9° WOMEN IN EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM It is not appropriate to do household services. Therefore: Any nun who performs work for a householder, commits a fault requiring expiation.” “Nun” means: an ordained woman. “Householder” means: someone who lives in a house. “Work” means: if she should spin or clean {cotton} etc., or thresh or grind or cook or sew or perform work of any kind for a house- holder she commits a fault requiring expiation. Thus the statute is declared. It is not suitable for a nun to perform household work. “But what of the offering of garlands and the wafting of scent?” one said. “That is to be performed jointly by the noble ones.'¢ If some- one causes scent to be ground or jasmine to be bound, it is not a fault. A monk who performs work for a householder also trans- gresses the monastic discipline.” The Lord spoke in this way. Thus, should a nun perform work for a householder, it is a trans- gression requiring expiation. In pacattika dharma 79 and pacattika dharma 84 nuns are forbidden to play the parts of wife and domestic worker.” Elsewhere, they are also forbidden from acting or appearing to act as costumers (bhiksuni prakirnaka 6), thread-sellers (bhiksunt prakirnaka 30), garland-makers (bhiksunt prakirnaka 28), beauticians (bhiksunt prakirnaka 25), herbalists (pacattika dharma 82), midwives (bhiksunt prakirnaka 32), and brothel madams (bhiksunt prakirnaka 7)."° They are encouraged, however, to play certain other roles, some shared by all respectable women, others particu- lar to their status as nun. Gurudharma 4 and pacattika dharma 84 encour- age nuns, for instance, to behave as hierarchically subordinate females and learned siitra reciters respectively. Thus they should in some respects resemble the general populace of womankind in this sociohistorical 16. Roth (1970), §z98, 222 dryamisrakahi, so obviously just the female noble ones, ie., the nuns. 17. Pacattika dharma 8q also forbids monks to perform work for a householder, although if a monk does so, this constitutes a minor offense, not a fault requiring expiation. 18. Gregory Schopen notes a Milasarvastivada Vinaya rule prohibiting nuns from standing in the door of the nunnery, as this behavior was apparently associated with prostitution. It is at Ksudrakavastu, Derge ‘dul ba Da 151a.5 (Schopen 2008, 237 n.14). See also Jyvasjarvi (2011, 2g). Schopen also notes a series of scenarios in the same vinaya in which the nun Sthilanandi sets herself up in business as a tavern keeper, brothel madam, and, pimp, re- sulting in rules regulating such behaviors (Schopen 2009, 259-380).Mahasanghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksunit Vinaya 91 milieu, but also behave as learned, erudite, and accomplished practitio- ners of their tradition. Rules concerning menstruation provide a particularly clear case of the way the architects of Buddhist nunhood employed commonly accepted ritual categories and practices for women in order to carve out a recogniz- able and respectable social niche for nuns. As celibate women, nuns would have menstruated more frequently than laywomen engaged in the business of pregnancy and lactation. As women who ventured outside of the domicile daily, it would have been more difficult for nuns to retreat to their rooms wearing stained garments as respectable women did during their periods of menstruation.'2 Bhiksunt prakirnaka 15-18 of the Lokottaravadin Bhiksunt Vinaya prescribe a special toiletry item called an Gnicolaka, literally, “a garment [like] an axle-pin” at times of monthly bleed- ing and legislate the washing of this garment.”° In permitting the use of the anicolaka, bhiksunt prakirnaka 15 provides a hygienic and practical so- lution to the problem of menstrual mess. It also, by prescribing how far the nuns may insert the item, explicitly guards against nuns’ satisfying their sexual desires.” D. Bhiksunt Praktrnaka 15-18 (Roth 1970, §268-71, 309-10) Pra. 15. 268. The Lord was staying at Sravasti. The nuns got their menstrual periods month after month. The blood ruined the bed- ding and seating. Mahaprajapati Gautamt briefed the Lord about this matter. “Is it suitable, lord, to wear a cloth shaped like an axle pin (anicolaka) for the purpose of protecting the bedding and seat- ing?” The Lord replied, “A cloth shaped like an axle pin is suitable. The one whose period has come and whose blood flows is to wear a cloth shaped like an axle pin, that is, a bundle of scraps. Pushing it in too shallowly is not suitable but neither is pushing it in too deeply in order to dispel the passion of desire. On the contrary, it should be 19. See, for instance, Baudhdyanagrhyasiitra 1.7.22.1-3. 20. In the Mallasarvastivada Vinaya, transgression of the rule prescribing a menstrual gar- ment (Tib. sme gab; Skt. rajascoda) for nuns is a fault requiring expiation (Derge ‘dul ba Ta 20a,5). The rule takes a different form in the Pali Bhikkhunt Patimokkha, Here, ‘A nun who uses the household cloth (avasathactvara) without relinquishing it is an offense requiring expiation” (pdcittiya 47). 21. Though, realistically, I suspect one would be hard pressed to locate a woman, ancient or modern, who finds feminine hygiene articles erotic.92 WOMEN IN EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM pushed into the wound entrance* loosely. Whichever nun inserts it too deeply, or too shallowly, in that way slaking her lust, commits a gross sin.” This is said regarding the matter of the cloth shaped like an axle pin. Indian Buddhist menstrual rules also exist within a broader cultural con- text that ascribes ritual significance to female blood. This broader context is apparent in bhiksunt prakirnaka rules 16-18, which proscribe the wash- ing of nuns’ dnicolakas at public washing and bathing areas (tirthas). Pra, 16. 269. The Lord was staying at Sravasti. At that time, the nuns were washing their menstrual cloths in the bathing place for women. The women looked upon them with contempt, [saying], “This entire place has been made impure by [their] blood.” [The nuns briefed Mahaprajapati Gautami] on the matter. [Mahaprajapati Gautami told the Lord.} The Lord said, “Therefore, it is not suit- able to wash menstrual clothes in the women’s washing place. Re- garding women’s washing places, a nun who washes her menstrual cloth in the women’s washing place transgresses against monastic discipline.” This is said regarding the women’s washing place. Pra. 17. 270. The Lord was staying at Sravasti. The Lord pre- scribed a moral precept. At that time, the nuns were washing their menstrual cloths in the washing place for men. And so forth.+ A nun who washes her menstrual cloth in the men’s washing place transgresses against monastic discipline. ‘his is said regarding the men’s washing place. Pra. 18, 271. The Lord was staying at Sravastt. [The nuns were to wash their menstrual cloths] at the launderer’s washing place {and so forth}.*5 The Lord said, “Therefore, it is not suitable to wash [your menstrual cloths] at the launderer’s washing place. Rather, having fetched water, they should be washed together in a basin, a pot, an 22, Skt. vranamukha, This term refers to the mouth the vagina. 23, peldyam. 24, pelayam. Here, the reader is to fill in the complaints of the bathers, and the chain of com- munication reaching up to the Buddha. 25, Here the reader is supplied with even less information, but the scenario is easily inferred from preceding passages.Mahasanghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksunt Vinaya 93 earthen bowl, or a water bucket. There, {all the blood] should be exhausted. If there is an outside water source, [menstrual cloths] should be washed at the place where the water drains. After those scraps are dried, they are to be relinquished until the monthly period comes again. A nun who washes a menstrual cloth in the launderer’s washing place transgresses against monastic disci- pline.” This is what is said regarding the launderer’s washing place. The rule against washing menstrual cloths in the women’s, men’s, or washermen’s tirthas is ordained after laypeople complain that the “entire place has been made impure by blood.” Since the relatively small amount of blood involved would not redden an entire stretch of river, this com- plaint must concern the perceived power of even a small amount of female blood to ritually pollute a body of water. The further rule requiring nuns to wash menstrual cloths at home in basins and pots provides a solution. Thus, by prescribing for nuns protections against menstrual mess that still allow them to circulate normally through the town, and by requiring that nuns respect customs and beliefs surrounding blood pollution when they use public bathing areas, Bhiksuni prakirnaka 15-18 ensure that Bud- dhist nuns can pass in the community as properly observant and respon- sible menstruators.*® Here, the problem of particular types of female bodily fluids, made worse by ascetic practice, is occluded from public view. In this way, a location for nuns’ virtue is established whereby the monastic female body remains, to all appearances, ritually clean. Bhiksuni prakirnaka 31 further demonstrates how the authors and prac- titioners of Buddhist discipline adapted themselves in complicated ways to the mores surrounding female virtue, modesty, and sexuality in the ancient Indian milieu, taking up and discarding appearances according to a specific vinaya logic. Roth tells us that the beginning of this rule is miss- ing from the manuscript. We can fill in the first few lines from the Chi- nese Mahasanghika Bhiksunt Vinaya, which records that, after the layman Sudinna® died, his wife Sudinna entered the religious life. Unfortunately, 26, Other vinaya rules about menstruation were apparently influenced by brahmana custom. See, for instance, Ute Husken's study (2001) of pacittiya 47 from the Pali Vinaya. I discuss vinaya menstrual rules more fully in forthcoming works. 27. In other vinayas, Sudinna is the well-known monk whose sexual lapse occasioned the establishment of the first parajika rule for monks. In the Mahasanghika tradition, he is known as Yagas (email communication with Analayo, 3/8/2012).94 WOMEN IN EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM Sudinna’s brother claims levirate rights to her and pursues her through the streets. At the beginning of the passage, she has taken refuge in the home of a wealthy laywoman (Hirakawa 1982, 403).”8 E. Bhiksunit Prakirnaka 31 (Roth 1970, §283, 316) “I think I will be forced to abandon my state of purity (brah- macarya),” [Sudinna] said. “By whom?” [the lady] asked. “My hus- band’s brother is harassing me. He wishes to marry me,” she answered. “Come inside, Mother. We will protect you.” She replied “I will go to the Arya. The Arya will protect me.” They attached an- klets, affixed earrings, put on bracelets, ornamented her, draped her with red garments, concealed her {under a veil], and surrounded her by four or five female attendants. That man, standing in the doorway, watched them [thinking], “When she comes out, I will grab her.” When he saw her coming out [he thought], “She must be a housewife surrounded by servants. That one is no nun.” Now, when that nun reached [her] place of refuge, she was seen by the {other] nuns. They said, “Arya, that Sudinna has run away from [the nunnery].” [Sudinna] said, “I have not run away. It is just that my husband's brother wishes to take me away. Fearful of him and de- siring protection, I [dressed] in this way.” [Mahaprajapati Gautami briefed the Lord about this matter]? The Lord asked about everything. She complied. The Lord said, “You have violated at least the letter of the code of deportment. It is not appropriate to violate the code of deportment. The nun who violates the code of deportment with a mind abandoned and free, becomes not-a-nun. The one who, wishing for protection, violates the code of deport- ment transgresses the monastic discipline but does not become not-a-nun. A monk who violates the code of deportment with a mind neither abandoned nor free also does not commit a fault.” This was explained regarding violating the code of deportment. The kind woman dresses and adorns Sudinna as if she were an affluent housewife and surrounds her with servants. In this disguise, she is able to 28. Hirakawa identifies the man in question as Sudinna’s uncle, but the Zhalu text clearly indicates that he is her husband's brother or devaro (Skt. devr). 29. Here the text reads peyalam yavat etad eva,Mahasanghika-Lokottaravada Bhiksuni Vinaya 95 escape from her brother-in-law and make her way safely back to the nun- nery. There, she is seen and criticized for abandoning the deportment of a nun. As a result, the Lord issues a rule that a nun who abandons the proper deportment and dress of a nun out of ethical wantonness becomes “not-a-nun” (abhiksunt bhavati). Those who do so only out of a wish for protection do not commit a fault. Here, a nun is permitted to assume a social position that is specifically forbidden for nuns, that of adorned and well-dressed housewife.° She is allowed to do so, however, only because it is a temporary disguise donned for expedient purposes and not reflective of any unhealthy subjective state. This is not an uncommon situation with regard to vinaya rules. Other roles enjoined upon nuns by the vinaya are likewise essentially surface disguises, designed to safeguard nuns’ public standing, that need not re- flect an inner state of being. Examples of such roles include, as seen above, observant menstruator and submissive woman. A nun might, for exam- ple, follow aspects of dharmasastric menstrual custom, or at least give the appearance of doing so, without subscribing to brahmana understandings of female blood, female sexuality, and ritual cleanness. Likewise, she might outwardly submit to monks, as was required by both the monks’ community and the greater social environment, without relinquishing her own aspirations to ungendered spiritual perfection. Here we can see the negotiation between public and “private” identity for Buddhist nuns. Be- cause nuns’ public identities are patched together using social behaviors chosen in some situations from those appropriate to women of virtue, and in others from those appropriate to Buddhist renunciates, their outward behavior may not always strictly align with their ascetic goals or values. Other roles recommended for nuns, on the other hand, positively re- flect rather than run counter to what we might reasonably assume is a nun’s preferred subjective state. A nun might recite satras in the home of a lay supporter, for instance, with all the piety, sincerity, and clarity of pur- pose appropriate to an aspirant on the Buddhist path. Other roles for nuns are disapproved of in the vinaya though they seem unlikely to reflect or produce subjective states in conflict with the religious life. Examples of these include the roles of herbalist healer or thread spinner. These are censured, | would argue, because, for a variety of complex and historically 30. Bhiksunt prakinaka 4 and 5 (Roth 1970, Ja58, §259, 303-4). Pacattika dharma 112 forbids nuns to carry umbrellas and wear leather sandals since to be so nicely outfitted might draw criticism from the townspeople (Roth 1970, §226, 257-58).96 WOMEN IN EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM specific reasons, the public display of such skills was deemed unbecoming or weakening to the social fabric of an always vulnerable Buddhist nun- hood.* Still other roles proscribed for nuns both contravene commonly held notions of female virtue and are unlikely to produce spiritually ben- eficial subjective states. Examples of these include the roles of business tycoon and brothel madam. In conclusion, the cultivation of properly virtuous subjective states was obviously just one of several factors deter- mining which behaviors were to be forbidden to nuns and which permitted. Other factors included, of course, the unity of the sangha and the dignity, safety, and health of its members. A further factor, the one brought to light here, involved the need within Buddhist communities to create a public identity for nuns that was readily recognizable and likely to be accepted. In order to do so, nuns and monastic lawyers carefully se- lected from the behaviors and roles appropriate for virtuous women, excluding those that were deemed unmonastic. In this way, the Buddhist community sought to embolden the outlines of a shadowy social identity, that of Buddhist female ascetic. Indian Buddhist nuns occupied a social position at the crossroads of womanly virtue and female asceticism that, in the words of legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, “resist[ed] telling.” Here, the Mahasanghika Lokottaravadin Bhiksunt Vinaya is read as a record of Buddhist monks and nuns selecting from the roles and functions available to respectable women in order to piece together a public identity for nuns that neither resisted telling nor repelled the donations and good opinion of the laity. Such an analysis allows us to appreciate the vast social intelligence at work in this nun-centered vinaya. It also allows us to recognize its potential usefulness as a guide for Mahasanghika-Lokottaravadin nuns in their ne- gotiation of a complex and sometimes hostile social environment. 31. All of the major vinayas include prohibitions against nuns and monks practicing and teaching various healing or magical arts, especially for payment. See, for instance, Derge Kangyur ‘dul wa Ta 302b.1-303a.6. See also Pali Bhikkhunt Vibhavga pacittiya 49-50 and Cullavagga V.33.2. The Brahmajala Suita from the Pali Digha-nikaya also provides a list of money-making occupations practiced by ascetics and brahmins but forbidden to Buddhist monks. These include various sorts of divination and healing, as well as match-making, Digha-nikaya 1.1.21-28.